The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

what was the balance of dangers against which they were to provide under such circumstances. To make the in quiry satisfactory, they ought to adopt that course which was recommended in his Majesty's speech, and upon which he had solely given his assent to the Address of that House in reply to it; they ought to examine into the state of Ireland, and ascertain to what extent that power had been executed by the Government, which gave them the means of suppressing all illegal and dangerous Associations, and all meetings which were - calculated to inflame the public mind, and to disturb the public peace. By that examination, they would have an opportunity of satisfying the country of,the necessity of such a measure as was now before the House, and whether proper reme dies had been adopted to subdue existing excitements and remove existing evils.—(Hear, hear.)—All this ought to be done before the House was called upon to assent to a Bill so objectionable in principle and so defective in its de tails as that which was now about to he hurried through the House.—(Hear )—He believed there was not an indi vidual in that House who would not admit that there was an intense feeling of animosity in the people of this coun try against the Bill. It may be said that this animosity was caused by the attempts made to excite them. Now he wished that time may be allowed to allay this excitement. If it he tree that all the intellect of the country was to be found arrayed upon the side of those who advocated eman cipation, he asked that time may be allowed for this in tellect to produce an effect upon the great mass of the people, so that they may be made acquainted with the de tails of this measure, and reconciled by argument, and by reason, to the necessity of the changes which it content plates.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HYDE VILLIERS could not concur in the senti ments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore), and of the Noble Lord (Marquis of Chandos) who pre ceded him, as to the dangerous results that would ensue from the measure now before the House. On the con trary, he congratulated the House that this all-important measure had now arrived at the last stage of legislation in that House.—(Hear, hear.)—He thought there was ground of complaint against Hon. Members who opposed the remedy proposed by his Majesty's Government for the evils which were admitted on all sides to prevail. The, rejected the remedy proposed to them, and yet abstained from proposing a substitute for it.—(Hear, hear.) — The way in which the question came before the House this Session placed the Anti-Catholic party in a new position. The question came recommended from the Throne in a communication to the Legislature. To a re commendation so sanctioned and enforced, and in support of an address unanimously carried in answer to that com munication, the House stood pledged either to accept the measure brought forward pursuant to it, or at least, before they refused it, they should devise some legislative measure which they could pronounce to be a pref able one to that conveyed in the Royal recomme edation.—(Hear, hear. )—Some Hon. Members seemed to argue, that al though they assented to the Address, yet they did not as sent to this part of it. They contended that an in quiry into the state of Ireland should precede this measure; yet it was manifest that their anxiety fur an in quiry into the state of Ireland was only urged for the pur pose of evading the question of concession with which it wait to be accompanied.—(Hear, hear.)—That this was the object of those who wished to escape from the pledge which the House gave to the Throne in the Address, was manifeat from from the little stress which those who op pew the measure laid upon the state of Ireland. The late Attorney-General, in his speech, had disposed of the subject of Ireland in a parenthesis.—( Loud cries of Hear, hear. )—The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had not at all touched upon the subject of the state of Ireland. The Hon. Member concluded his speech, which, from the low fnne in which he occasionally spoke, was indistinctly hearth in the gallery, by urging the inconsistency of those oppo nents of concession who urged the necessity of inquiry into the state of Ireland, yet in their discusaiou of the ques tion dwelt little on the state of Ireland, and regarded it its by no means forming a prominent and primary topic in the consideration of the subject. General GASCOYNE begged to offer a few remarks to the House on the question. It was idle to talk of it as a measure beneficial to Ireland generally. It was a mere delusion to talk of it as one of real practical benefit to Ire land. What advantage could the people gain ? Would it be said that by this Bill Roman Catholics would obtain better Representatives in that Heuse by being permitted to elect Roman Catholics? He was sure they could not get better or more enlightened Representative; than the Gentletnen now returned to that House. Indeed, his ob jection to the Members from that country was that they eae _re tno national, and not sufficiently enlarged and com preuensive in their irglmisuii. aux ...ea: e,,,, 'poke Jut said that he believed this measure was regarded with great satisfaction throughout the country. He (Ge neral Gascoyne) was of quite a contrary opinion.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. and Gallant Officer proceeded to sup pose a case of contested election (and one evil of this Bill would be in his opinion, to increase the number of con teeted elections in Ireland) in the city of Limerick ; anti he anticipated that, iii that event, Mr. Sheil or Mr. O'Gorman might be proposed in opposition to the Hon. Member (Mr. S. Rice), who now represented that city. The humble class of Catholic voters of that place would press forwatd with natural anxiety to support the candidate Of their own religious persuasion; but these poor Catholic voters, on coming forward to give their voice in favour of their favourite candidate, would find that by this Bill their votes were taken away altogether.—(Much langhter.) —He complained that the recommendation from the Throne had not been properly followed, as the measure of con cession should he preceded by 4n inquiry into the whole state of Ireland, which had rot taken place. The worst feature of the whole proceefi'in ' , was, the de struction which it had occasioned of all confidence in pub ic men. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman imagine he would ever regain the confidence of the public ? Did he he even suppose he would continue to have the support in that House which was enabling him to carry the measure through it so triumphantly? Before the end of the present session, or he (General Gascoyne) was sure before the end of another session, the Right Hon. Gentleman would find himself in a very different situation. The support which he at present derived from a quarter in which no real cor diality could be entertained for him, arose from a wish to gain a particular object. Did the Right Hon. Gent. sup pose that no latent feeling of hostility existed in the breasts of those who had so long been his political oppenente? This measure being once accomplished, they would resume their ancient opposition. No matt more admired the Right Hon. Gentleman's qualities, or the excellence of his heart, than he did. But his political conduct was a dif ferent thing ; and there would come a time when those from whom he had separated would remember and visit his delinquencies.—(Hear, and a laugh. )—Whatever diffe rences of opinion might exist in the House with respect to the measure now under consideration, he trusted they would unite to do that essential service to Ireland which the introduction of the Poor Laws into that country would occasion; fur he was convinced, that without some such measure Ireland would never be tranquillized. Mr. TOWNSHEND, while he admitted that the mea sure was not one to which he was very friendly, was nevertheless dispossd to risk the minor rather than to incur the greater danger. Mr. PEARSE expressed his persuasion not only that the great majority of the people of England were hostile to the present naeaaure (an opinion, indeed, which they had honestly stated). het that the great body of the influential people of the country were opposed to it. Mr. J. E. DENISON rejoiced in the triumph which was about to he achieved in the cause of good sense and and feeling : and at the happy prospect of seeing the dis sensions terminated by which Ireland bad been fur so many years convulsed. Mr. HART DAVIS vvonld have supported the 134 had he conceived it capable of producing good ; but view ing it as a measure fraught with unmixed evil, he felt it his duty to oppose it. The Hon. Mr. CUST felt himself compelled to say that he had as yet heard nothing to induce him to forego his repugnance to the measure. Sir CHARLES BURRELL opposed the measure, taking a retrospect of the religious history of the country, from, we believe, the reign of Charles the First to the present era. Mr. WILLIAM BANKES confessed that it was with very great regret, and even with feelings of pain, that he aine forward to oppose, and, as far in him lay, to ob. A t ru ct the measure recommended to the House by that great man now at the head of the Governmel..t. He _ . him a great man, not with reference to his office, .nor with reference to his power, but with respect to his achievements ; and, if ever a man deserved the appella- , . tion of great, he, in common with every Englishman, and in common with the whole civilized world, would apply :t to the Duke, iu admiration of the unexampled pro gress of success which had marked his career. He would yield to no man, either in this or in any .ether country, in the admiration and gratitude with which he was inspired, by the security and glory with which that great man had surrounded his country. As a private individual, ha (Mr. Bankes) had known that illustrious person in his retirement. To a certain degree he had been honoured with a small share of his kindness and friend%hip, but here he had a great public duty to -perform ; he was called upon by the country and by his religion to give his uncompromising, unhesitating opposi -11911 to the Bill, He dissented from it on its principle, opinions of my Honourable and Learned Friend is in creased, when I find that in 1'791 Sir John Scott was Attorney-General, and bound to give counsel to the King in his Courts of Record.—(Cheers and laughter.)—Now, Sir, at does not appear to have entered the mind of that very acute, and able, and conscientious, and Hon. Gentle man, that there was any thing in the concession of 1791 which militated against his oath, to counsel and advise the King.—(Hear, be,r.)—Again, in 1793, when the elec tive franchise was granted to the Roman Catholics, I find that Sir John Scott was Attorney-Geoeral, and that Sir John ditford was Lord Chancellor of Ireland ; and yet, it never appears to have entered the minds of these able law yers that there Was any thing in their oaths of office which ought to prevent them from counselling and advising the King to adopt such measures. I now come, and Ido so with great satisfaction, to the real state of the question before the House. And I beg to assure Hen. Members that I have, throughout the debate, listened with the most anx ious attention, in order to hear whether any remedy short of that proposed by Ministers was to be suggested as a re medy for the evils admitted on all hands to exist. But when Hon. Members who opposed the Bill were called upon to point out any such remedy, they were all silent as death, not one of them have we seen coming forward to -suggest a measure short of that introduced by his Ma jesty's Government. Ido not wish to use harsh expres sions; but I cannot help observing, that the Honourable Member appears to entertain a puny and miserable opinion of the Protestant Church, when he supposed that it could in the present day, be overturned or infringed upon by the Roman Catholic Religion. Why, Sir, one chief object in framing this Bill was so to word it that there should not be even a mention of the existence of the Roman Catholic Religion in England ; pains had heen taken so to word it, that not an individual could point a finger at any expres sion by which such an admission was made. It was held that you could not call for a Veto, or propose a stipend r the Catholic Clergy, without an admission of their zeligion, and the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact is, that by this Bill Roman Catholics are placed on the same footing with Protestant Dissenters. They are relieved from their disabilities, with certain exceptions; but there is to be no ackowledgment of the existence of their Church. There,is yet another ground upon which I feel I ound to support the Bill. There is, it must be ob served, a vast difference between the Roman Catholic Clergy and the Laity. The latter are, as I have already said, placed on a footing with their Protestant brethren, with restrictions, while the former are excluded from all offices of place or power. This, indeed, was done by the Art of Settlement. But, notwithstanding this, the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland has gone on pari passu with the Protestant Church in the appointment of its eccle siastical functionaries. Wherever a Protestant Bishop has b. en appointed there has also been appointed a Catho lic Bishop ; where a Protestant Dean is stationed there is also to he found a Catholic Dean, and so on. But it is to be observed, that the Protestant Divines only are appointed by the Crown, and have in law a right to that title. (The Honourable and Learned Member here made some obser vations about the " Securities," but the noise in the House was so great as to render him for a time inadible in the gallery.) But I will ask what further securities are required ? You have two Bills passing through Parlia ment with this measure of relief; I mean the Catholic As sociation Bill, and the Forty-Shilling Freeholders' Disfran chisement Bill, both of which are moving, pari passe, with it. Now, I will put it to the House whether such measures as these could be carried, could be proposed, with out being accompanied with some measures of concession. (Cheers, and cries of hear, hear, hear !) There is not in this House any man more anxious than I am to conti nue exclusion, if I could see how it was to be done with safety; but I cannot risk the peace of Ireland—l cannot risk the s dety of the Irish Established Church, by any longer withholditt a measure calculated to secure both We are told we ought to consult the history of former times. Let us see how that history stands. In 1678 we had upon the throne a monarch who was a concealed Ro man Catholic, and the heir presumptive to the throne was an avowed Roman Catholic. Now, I will ask, what simi larity there is between 1678 and the present period ? (Cheers. )---Our present Sovereign is as firmly, as decidedly attached to the Protestant Establishment in Church and State as it is possible for man to be.—(Cheers.)—The Heir Presumptive is as strongly imbued with the same feelings and principles. Where, then, I ask, is the comparison be tween the two periods ? Besides, in 1678 there was a House of Lords consisting of 120 Peers, of whom at least 60 were Roman Catholic. Now, you cannot, under the proposed Bill, have more than eight or nine Roman Catholic Peers in the House of Lords. And then with respect to toe tao'tse of Lornmons, we may rest assured that the Po-n has no longer any power, either to influence persons in this country, or to hold sway in any other courts in Europe. But after all, leaving the other parts of the question, I must observe, that there is a difference between the Protestant Establishment and the Protestant Faith. The Protestant Establishment consists of the Bishops, Clergy, the form of prayer —or, to use another word, the national establish ment, as it is generally 'understood. Let me ask, then, upon what does the security of that Establishment rest ? —why assuredly, the security of the property of that Esta blishment rests upon the law of the land, in the same way that the property of the laity rests. Who, in the present day, pretends to deny the right of the Clergyman to his tithes? Who will venture to deny the right of the spiritual Peer to hold his seat in Parliament upon the same right that it is held by a temporal Peer ? The spiritual Pecr, if questioned, would say, " I hold my seat as a Peer, upon the same terms that you do yours. I sit here as Bishops hefote me did, upon the same right that you follow your father or grandfather created a Peer." Indeed this doctrine was so well known and of such long standing as a part of the common law, that when Henry the Eighth, cra the suppression of the Monasteries, appointed the five new Bishops, not a single word was said about their taking their seats as spiritual Peers, that being understood as a matter of course, in virtue of their office.—(Hear. ) I shall now, with the leave of the House, say a word or two with respect to the Protestant faith ; and I must ob serve that the Hon. Gentleman opposite must entertain bu a mean opinion of that faith, or else he would never ex and in all its details. He felt that the House had some grounds of complaint. He was sorry, but he must com plain that they had been worse treated by their friends than by their enemies. —(Hear, hear, and peals of laughter.)— They had heard it argued that the, Bill had not been the offspring of intimidation. If lie had never seen any thing of what was passing around him—if he had never heard one word of the Catholic Association—of their acts, of their speeches, of their publications, and of there menaces —if the name of Daniel O'Connell had never sounded in his ears, he should vet have seen " Panic" written ou the very face of this Bill. What were tire signs and symbols, and the proposed effects of this Bill? Were they not to give up all—to throw every thing aside—to run forward heedlessly without looking to the right or to the left. Were they not called upon for an abandonment—an ua conditional surrender of all for which they bad ever con tended? Was it not hard—was it not precipitate, that time was not given even to name a new Law Officer of the Crown ?—(Hear, hear, from Sir C. Wetherell, and a burst of laughter from all sides of the House.)—One of the strangest particulars of this unexampled Bill was, that this being the greatest legislative measure, beyond all comparison, that had passed for the last two hundred Years, it had been introduced, not by any law officer— .for on the contrary, it had been opposed by the highest legal authority in the House—(hear, hear, from Sir Charles Wetherell, and another burst of laughter)—it was now to be carried through the House in its last striae, without any Attorney-General being appointed. The Bill was passing without the name of any legal adviser of the Crown to give it authority.— (Laughter, and cries of heir, bear.) — It was well to cry " hear, hear !" but there was no legal adviser of the Crown in the House—any architect was competent to pull down an edifice, any hand was sufficient to conduct a work of this kind. It was merely to over throw a law, without substitutinr,b the any other.—(Hear.)— We have been told that e Catholic Association was a dangerous body. That it was a dangerous body during its existence—that it produced the greatest, the most incalculable mischiefs to Ireland, no man will, I believe, pretend to deny. Rut to whom are those mischiefs to be attributed ? The evils of which we now hear so much were pointed out some years ago. • Measures were adopted by the Legislature to remedy those evils, but with what effect? The proper authorities, both in Ireland and in this country, allowed this two edged sword to slumber in its scabbard. The Catholic Association was allowed to go on ; they were permitted to continue their debates—to carry on their system of excite , ment, until they paralysed the authorities, and assumed to themselves the Government ; arid then they come down to Parliament, and give proofs of their apostacy.—(Cheers from one side of the House, which were returned on the other.)—Let us look for a moment to the provisions of this great conciliatory measure, and see what crumbs of comfort we may be enabled to pick out of it. —(Cheers and laughter.)—l find that a King's Minister may be a Ro man Catholic ; but then we have the consolation of knowing that that Minister is not to advise the King upon matters connected with Church patronage, or Church pro perty. But, Sir, if a Roman Catholic Minister should advise his Majesty upon matters touching Church pa tronage or Church property, who is to reveal tire fact of Lis having done so ? Is the information to come from the Minister, or is it to be expected from the King hint. self? Really, I cannot help looking at these provisions as worse than nugatory—as a mockery. We all know that from every Catholic country in the world the Jesuits have been expelled—hunted out; but this very conciliatory Bill expresses not a word against the introduction of Je- suits into these realms; and the only precaution we have against their acts is, that their names are to be registered, and placed in the possession of the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Deprrtment. There is, indeed, something like a hint that the Right Honourable Secretary may, once in six months, export a refractoly Jesuit, or, per baps, import a few, at this period of free trade and un restricted commerce—but the time may come when no such importation will be necessary. I now, of course, speak prospectively; and I think the time may not be distant when Jesuits will be found in the State as well as in the Church—Jesuits, too, bound by no orders, restrained by no vows, and subject to no religious re strictions or Ministerial registrations. I think we may expect to see some such man coining down to this House and s iying, " I have not altered my opinion upon a cer tain question, but I am determined to act contrary to tit:A opinion ; I see danger in the measures I propose, but I am determined to run you directly upon it; I see that we have so security—l see that there is evil in the measures I propose, but I am determined to do evil that good may come of it."—(The delivery of this passage of the spercu as I eve' veu cueers arm laugntet of a au/event character from different sides of the House.) " Who would not laugh if such a man there be? Who would not weep if Atticus were he?" —(Cheers and laughter.)—Sir, we have been told that we have no right to complain of the conduct of his .Majesty's Ministers. From this, as a general assertion, I do not dis,ent ; but I must say, that we have in the present in stance reason to complain of them. I say that they have stol,n upon us in the night—(cheers and laughter);— they have thrown a firebrand into the body of the Church, which will soon extend to its rafters and its roof; they hive given rise to a flame which will soon leave the edifice a blackened and desolated ruin.—(Cheers.)—l say, Sir, that t - 1”- have done this craftily and cunningly, because they have done it advisedly.—(Cheers.)—They have raised a flame which they may depend upon it will not long smoulder, but will, at the first gust, extend itself to the Church of Ireland. There the first blow will be struck, but then the wedge will have entered, it will be easily driven home.—(Cheers and laughter.)—llon. Members may look upon this as matter of laughter and merriment, but I consider it to be matter of sorrow and lamentation. .--.(Cheers.)—There may he a difference between the Church Establishment of England and that of Ireland; but with respect to Church property and Church patro nage, there is not the slightest. He who assails the one assails the other ; and we may depend upon it, if the Church of Ireland be overturned, the Church of England will not stand fer twenty years after it.—(Hear, hear.)-- sir, I beg pardon of the House—l fed much exhausted, although the subject is by no means so, and I must con clude with giving my decided opposition to the motion. press his apprehensions that inroads would be made upon it by the Roman Catholic religion. Any one who heard the Hon. Member's speech would be led to suppose that the moment this measure was passed the Roman Catholics would upset the Church Establishment, and burn our churches in one common conflagration.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Sir, I am almost tempted to say that such ap prehensions are ridiculous. I am inclined to rely more upon the purity and morality of our Protestant faith, the excellency of its doctrines, and the mildness and fo, bear ance with which they were inculcated, to dread for a mo ment any inroads on the part of Roman Catholics.—( Hear.) It should be remembered that when we had a Protestant Monarch, and when the great majority of the people were Catholics, the Protestant Reformed Religion made its way; it went on silently and gradually to be sure, but still it did progress, and ultimately with the most complete success. —(Cheers.) How then can any man, at the present day, apps eliend that that religion will be destroyed, or in any way invaded by the Roman Catholics, merely because some few of them may sit in the one or the other House of Parliament ? Are we to attach no importance to the zeal, and piety, and purity of prin ciple of our Protestant Clergy ? Are we to place no confidence in the earnestness with which they inculcate the sacred doctrine handed down to them ?—(Hear.)— Let us look to what was done by Ridley and Latimer, im mediately after the Reformation. But, above all, let us look to Parker, Whitfield, and Bincroft, who were heads of houses, and founders of those schools in the University which he had the honour of representing. Can we, I say, looking at the example set by these great men, fear that the education of the greater portion of young men of tank, particularly of Gentlemen who took seats in that House, fear any inroads from the accession of a few Roman Catho lics to seats in either House ? But if any doubts prevail on the subject, I beg to observe that there is an express provision against Catholics being allowed to preside as heads of schools.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l ant particularly anxious to relieve the Hon. Member from that paroxysm td alarm under which lar concluded his speech.—(A laugh.) —The Hon. Al t :mber had conjured up so many grounds of alarm that be appeared to apprehend their coming upon him before he could make his escape front the House.— (Laughter. )—llut there existed no grounds for such alarm; the Scriptures are abroad ; the spread of knowledge is in creased, and, as upon Inquiry, truth must prevail against falsehood, so must Protestantism prevail against the doc trines of thc Roman Catholic Church.—(filear.)—Of this all men must be sensible, nor can they be less aware that there is no danger to the Protestant interests from the ap • Peient d;sun:tm of the Protestants themselves. 'ley do not -differ as 'to the voluo of Protestant institutions; but the difference between Protestants ;n this House and The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Sir, I am very glad that the Hon. Member has taken the course be has thought proper to adopt—that of taking the 13.11 in his hand, and making a running commentary upon it. This is what I !lava been all along most anxious to see done, as it affords me an opportunity of sheaving that the Bill is calculated to give every satisf a ction and security to its most violent op ponents; indeed I undertake to make out this point to the satisfaction of any intelligent man or set of men— (Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member was proceeding, but the cries of " Hear," became so loud and incessant, that he was rendered altogether inaudible in the gallery. Order having been at length restored, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman prom eried). But before I proceed upon the question more immediately before the House, let me thank the Hon. Member (Mr. W. Bankes) for the hint he has given me, of which I previously knew nothing, that we are likely to meet again, and in another place.—(Loud cheering. )__l beg to assure the Hon. 4leTnber that I shall, if opportu nity offer, meet him in that other place with the utmo,t cordiality, feeling perfectly conscious of the rectitude of my own intentions.—(Cheers.) —l have but one wowd to say with respee2 to the opinions expressed by my Honourable and Learned Prikr.,l, of whom I s.y, with great truth and sincerity of feeling, that J. sincerely regret that he is no longer thy colleague.—(Hear.)—it appears to me that my Hon. and Learned Friend was surnewhat mistaken when he stated that he was prevented by his path of office from drawing the Bill now before the House. In my opi nion, that oath of office i 2 so wide of any such construc tion, that I cannot see how it can be tpride to have any r4.iarence to the Bill in question.—(Hear, hear.)__ Let us exq.mine for a moment the worOs of that Oath. It runs thus :—," I swear duly and truly to serve his Majesty—(Hear, heat, from Sir C. Wetherell), and to give him good counsel in his Courts of Record—(Cheers and luThter)—both in Great lihitairt awl Ireland; and that I will truly serve him in all his matters, when called upon so to do."—(Cheers from the other side of the House. )—Now, sir, let us leave out of our consideration the few words which have no reference to the sublect matter under discussion, and proceed to the second and =TR important part of the Oath ; and I will wilt if (15- does not best, counsel his King who discharges the duty imposed upon hiai :,Iccording to his most conscientious conviction ?—(lfear, hear.)—Poes he not best discharge his duty who recommends and suppoxp a. measure which in Ns conscience he believes heat calculated to serve the Protestiani, rhurch of Ireland ?—(Cheers. )_But I am at a loss to conceive how this opinion comes now, for the first time to attach to uv Hon. and Learned Fri e nd—an opinicn contrary to the h istory Lf o:Ir own time. We all know that in 1791 an Act was passed whi , di, to a great extent, enfranchised the Roman Catholics ; it r ; =- moved many of the disabilities under which they laboured, and laid the foundation of that power which they have since attained.—( Hear, hear, hear.)—ht 1793, another Act wa,i passed, which gave them still greater paver, as it gave them the elective franchise ; and, Si r , firmly believe that those two measures, not having been followed up by one like that now before the House, have caused all the disaffection and disturbance of which there has been such cause of complaint.— . Protestants out of the House, and among each Other, is in the balance of opinion on the question whether civil rights can be ;;:: not safely communicated to their Roman Catho lic felloW-subjects. T!mse who think that such tights can be safely communicated to the Roman ;_ - _:;tholi e s are not op posed to the Protestant institutions of the country, but are as much inclined as others to support them ; and when once this Bill has paz.-,ed, nothing will prevent them making common cause with their Protestant brethren, in the event of any attempt against the safety of those Institutions. This legislation declares to the Catholic, "so far *halt thou go, and no farther ; and if you once attempt to tram- (Cheers.)—But, Sir, my wonder, with respect to the gre;s these bounds, you will find that we are all on one side." I think this difference, the only one that exists among the Protestants, is the real foundation of our secu rity, and that difference would totally cease the moment there was any show of attempting an abuse of the power we concede to the Catholics. If I believed that these con cessions would in the slightest degree weaken the Protes tant faith—in which I thank God I have been educated, which in my manhood and maturer age has been my com fort, in which I hope I shall die, for which some of my forefathers have suffered.—(Cheers.)—l should be the last person to advocate the change.—(Cheers.)—lt is because I feel well assured that without this measure the Irish Church might fall, and that even the English Church was in danger, that I gave my humble assistance in bringing forward this measure. It was on these grounds that lat first gave it my concurrence, and that I now continue to support it.—(Cheers.) Sir C. WETHERELL—A Noble Lord, the other night, called on me to express my opinion on this Bill, because I was Attorney General, and I am now called on by my late Hon. Colleague—( A laugh)—to address the House be cause I am not Attorney-General. I answered that call as well as I could, and I shall now make a similar attempt to take up the somewhat discrepant challenge of my late respectable and estimable Colleague.—(A laugh. )—The Noble Lord on the other side of the House called on me, under the designation of the First Law Authority of the Crown, to maintain that the exclusion of Catholicity was the foundation and most important part of the Constitution of 1688. I entered the lists, and had the tilting match with him, with what success I wilt not say—(a and my late Hon. Colleague now invites me to another tilting match with him, on the question whether I have not too easily given way to a difficult construction of the Oath which I had taken as Attorney-General. On that question, I broke a lance with him on a former occasion; and I now say that, before I determined whether I would undertake the labour of preparing this Bill, I did read over my Oath of Office ; I also read over that of the Lord Chancellor,—(Cries of " Order !")—which, like mine, is, in my mind, a most pungent oath,—(a laugh,)—and ought to operate very severely on the conscience of the man to whom it was administered. I know not whether I am right in saying, as I have done, my " late Hon. Col lague," for Ido not know whether I am not now de jure Attorney-General.—(Laughter.)—He complains that I am not—he regrets it. I can assure him that the re gret is reciprocal—(Laughter.)—l feel an equivalent of re gret on this subject from the great esteem, the great admiration I have of his talents. In parting from him I feel that ;pain which one gentleman feels ou separating himself from another—that pain which one man of talent feels when lie says to another, " I cannot go along with you now." Whether lam the late, or whether lam the existing Attorney-General, I know not (I shall presently take the liberty of asking the question) I will say that have acted in perfect sincerity in the construction which I have put upon my oath of office. In the construction of that oath others may differ from me, but I must keep my own opinion. Some persons may think that to attend the King's business in the Exchequer, to take care of the pro perty of the Crown, and to watch the observance of the laws, are the whole of the duties of an Attorney-General. I say these are only part of these duties. His oath is as large and as ample as that of a Privy Councillor, or of a person to whom I shall not again allude, after the check the House has already given me ; and when I was called on to draw this Bill, I critically examined whether I could do so consistently with my oath of office ; and whether, if I did draw it, I should not be in effect destroying that Protestant Establishment which I was bound by my oath to advise the King not to assail, and uhich he was equally bound by his oath to preserve. I addressed myself to that strict and pungent question, and I answered it thus—" I shall be putting my Sovereign in jeopardy if, in the capa city of first law officer of the Crown, I advise him to do an act which I believe will be in effect a subversion of that which he is bound by his oath to maintain."(Cheers.)___ Let me tell those who thus cheer me that I am only speaking in answer to a challenge, and that I would not have addressed the House, especially in my present state of ill health, if I had not been called upon by others, and especially by my Hon. and Learned Colleague—of whom I will repeat that no person has, no person can, and no person laugh)--experience more pain in sepa rating from him than I have experienced, since he is an as sociate whom I personally esteem, although I am now act ing towards him with everyspecies of political antipathy. Whoever thinks that this Bill does not endanger the main tenance of the Protestant Church may, salvo conscientia, be a strong supporter of it ; but whoever cannot entertain that opinion must oppos, it, in order to nuppoi t the Con stitution of 1688, which the King and all his sworn ser vants are bound not only not to destroy, but with their utmost power to support and maintain. So much with respect to the question on which my Hon. and Learned Friend has called me into the arena. The question between us is one of consistency—it is whether I have put a right construction on this oath ? I have already told you what my construction of it is. As to the question of entering into a tilting match with my late Hon. and Learned Col- league, as Member for Cambridge, I will net enter upon that question, because, as a great dramatist has said,'" that would he personal ;" and therefore if the University of Cambridge, now represented by my late Hon. and Learned Colleague, should look out for another Member on the other side—l will not say which of the two Members would best represent the University ; but I will take the liberty of saying, that if in the haste, the breathless haste, the unbridled rapidity with which this Bill has been got up and passed through this House, the fulcrum of the Uni versity of Cambridge was wanted in its support, Ido not know why the opportunity of obtaining it has not been afforded, or why that University has not been allowed to accept what the University of Oxford has rejected, as a Representative, an avowed supporter of this Bill. That this opportunity has not been afforded is the fault of the Ministers alone. I have only been drawn into this by what fell from my Hun. and Learned Friend. I will not say that any man who differs from me is wrong ; for I repeat that whoever believes this Bill will not destroy the Protestant Church, may conscientiously vote in its sup port. On the subject of the oath I will trouble the House no more; but there is one other topic to which I must call their attention. My Hon. and Learned Friend has said that in 1791 and in 1793, Lords Eldon and Redes dale had not the same sickly conscience whirls I have now. In the first place, I deny that I am bound to take any man's feelings as the standard of my own; but i❑ the next, I ask did those Noble Lords then concede every thing to the Catholics? Did they open the Cabinet and the Parliament to them ? Did they dal= wide the door of the Constitution, to permit the entrance of Catholicity? No, is my answer. The Noble Lords' Bill (lid not concede political power; it only relieved the Catholics from the penalties which had been introduced at the Reformation, and which continued in force till the year 1793. If, therefore, my Honourable and Learned Friend says that Lords Rcdesdale and Eldon are, in 1829, acting in dis crepancy with Sir John Mitford and Sir John Scott of 1793, I tell him that he has not read this Bill. Having thus got back to 1829, I will also tell him that he has not yet explained the operation of this Bill; and I declare that no man, looking at the whole Bill, or at any particular clause in it, can say what the Bill really is. Ido not know whether it is meant to proceed on the principle of security or not. It was said that it was so framed that it would produce universal satisfaction. Let us see, now, what has been introduced into it by way of security. In the first place it gives to the Catholics a full controul over the Bishops and Clergy of the Irish Church, and in this respect it is inferior to that which was introduced by a Right Hon. Gentleman now no inure. The securities he preserved in his Bill have been withdrawn, because, sty the supporters of this measure, their continuance would show a want of confidence in the Catholics. Let us see what securities there are in it. As the Bill now stands the Prime Minister may be a secret Papist, and the oath gives no means of discovering him, for it does not require him to declare himself. I will now put a case, to spew the dangers of this Bill. The Honourable Member for Aberdeen (not now in his place on account of a cold) has said that the church property is a common chest or fund into which the Government may freely dip their hands ; and the Honourable Member for Colchester, not less substantially, but more wittily, has told us that he would relieve the country—that he would disburthen it of tith(s. Now, I want any Gentleman to answer me this question. It is said we may safely admit Catholics into this House. Do they mean to say, that after that admission, if one of those Hon. Members shall move and the other second a vot e to the effect I have stated, the Catholic will violate his oath by supporting their motion with his vote? May the Catholic vote for that which lie must not originate? Can we admit Catholics to political power, and then say to them_" You Must not exercise that power in the same unlimited' manner as the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, or the Hon. Member for Colchester _Lthe one descended from the Scotch Covenanters, and the other con fleeted with a certain sect of Protestant Dissenters." Satisfy ins that you can do this, or that the Catholics will not vote against the Constitution in Church and State, and you , -ill have done enough ; but von cannot satisfy me of that. The Oath in this Bill furnishes no security. Who can prove that a Catholic Privy Councillor has given illegal advice to the King? Who can check a Catholic Prime Alitiister in his attempts against the Church ? It is said we may have the security of the Home Secretary. But my fign. and Learner Friend, who was Senior Wrangler at - - • ' a c a se e s .se Cambridge, knows logic too well not to know that that is'a They admit to be true that the petitions of the people il l , petitioprincipii. I answer that asserti on w i t h thi s quest i on . num b const i tute a preponderance of ten to one ; be Quis custodet ipsos eustodes ? Wh o w ill k eep t h e k eepers ? they a that reason and justi ce i n t hi s i nstance are W it , Who will stand guard f o r the Chur c h, ar id say t h at no man the , and not with the m an y. Thi s top i c was ur ge' shall eat her bread wh o disputes h er d octr i nes an d b etrays i n ver tasty and flowery langua ge , an d i n a very cap tivn' her interests—(Ch ee r s )—th a t no ma n w h o wr i tes one d ay t i ng style by the Hon. Member who presented the petitionon one side and another day on anotber—(Cheers)—shall on Thursd a y. H e t o ld us t h at i t was s i gned by all the l.? receive her support, and that such tergiversating men shall greitest men in Scotland, where, according to him, the! not be allowed in the Church—that it is impossible to re- are all great men—by Sir Walter Scott, Dr. Chaltnert ceive them ? If the Prime Minister recommends an im- Mr. Solicitor-General Hope, anti many others, exhibits', proper appointment, it is said that the Home Secretary will before us in ostler and degree, all exalted in rank, and all refuse to countersign it. But suppose the Home Secretary of. first-rate intellectual powers, and most refined accole' is a Catholic, or, if he is not, suppose him to be a friend plishments. The argument, not indeed stated, but - i°' ' to the Premier, so that what one does the other will, sir - mated, is this—that the Protestant Church is to be COe; through sympathy, adopt—then, I say, you have no se • sidered and valued, not by the many, but by time few ; an“ curity, and all that pretends to be security in this Bill is that you are not to take into view what 100,000 respect' idle vapid declamation ; and those parts of the Bill may, able and well educated tradesmen of London and West' atcording to the recommendation of the poet, be disposed minster think upon the subject, but what are the opinion° of as waste paper— of Sir W. Scott and Dr. Chalmers, and a given number "In vicuna vendentem thus et odores." of the Professors of Edinburgh Universities. The value I It is only fit to wrap up cheese and butter, or to be used of petitions is not to depend upon the people at large, but ( in a green-grocer's shop. Ido not know whether the Hon. 1 upon the learned oligarchy of the North. I t a k e the li Member for Knaresborough is in th e House--(SirJ. Mack- b er t y o f asserting that I hold this doctrine to be an in' intosh bowed. )—I did not know it, and I am happy to see • vasion of the principle of the Bill of Rights, and an insult him ; for I put it to him what he would think of having .to common sense.—(Hear, h ear , h ear .)—l ma i n t a in, tke Archbishop of Canterbury regu l a t e a ll th e appointments that men of plain und ers t an di ngs , in tile lower ranks r! of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland?—(Hear, hear, I life, are just as capable of judging of the value rii from Sir J. Mackintosh.)--The Hon. Member says "hear, the Protestant Church, and of the effect of securities' hear." I say " hear, hear," also ; but I call upon him to ,as any man, if such a man there be, who can write tut do something more than cry "hear, hear." I call upon him well as Sir Walter Scott, or preach as well as D r . Cima!' to answer me—if he can. The Commission—that farce mere—(" No, no," from several quarters.)—Honourahlt too bad for Sadler's Wells, or the Minor of the Minories— Members may cry " No, no." It is just as easy as for tht is taken out of the Bill ; even the framers were ashamed of Right Hon. Gentleman to say, " produce me your alter it, and the power which was to have been given to that I native ;" but they will find it rather harder to contradict Commission is transferred to the Archbishop of Canter- me by argument than by assertion. The words of/Pi - apt.'s bury. Maintainer as lam of the Church, its defender, and Charta must be altered in future; and if such a doctrine the would-be preserver of it, in all its rights, I should is t o prevail, the opinions of the si reaSiSiSsi, the me P multitude, are to be dis regar d e d, and we are to adopt, 0 pause before I conferr e d e v en o n a P ro t es t an t Archbishop of Canterbury, such an extensive patronage when the infallible, the dogmas of a Caledonian College. The saint Prime Minister is a Roman Catholic. I p u t it t o any man• sort of argume n t w as a d o p te d w i t h re f erence to the l as t' wheth er these numerous powers ought to be concentred in election for the University of Oxford ; twenty fitst-cla'' any one individual.—(Hear, hear, from SirJ.Mackintosh) 2 men were said to have voted on one side, and perhaps 00 1 1 No doubt the Hon. Member for Knaresborough has a most ten on the other, as if the sentiments of all the common pungent argument in petto ; we shall hear his answer by Masters of Arts were undeserving consideration, because , and by ; my argument i s w h a t I h ave s t a t e d, an d nteo forsooth, although they had spent ten or twenty years in' periculo I give it, at the risk of all the cutting tip with the University, and had been raised to the most important which he threatens lime. The effect of the Bill is, to in- duties in the Church, they had not in the onset of their capacitate a Roman Catholic as t o th e patronage of the career gained the highest scholastic honours. What may Church, and to capacitate him as to the whole govern- be the scale of the Cambridge senior wranglers and se nior ment of the country. The Bill says, that the preferments optimes we know not, and there certainly has been a great to which a Catholic Prime Minister would have a right deal of shyness in endeavouring to ascertain it. Ilint to nominate shall he vested in the Archbishop of Canter- I take the liberty of asserting, in opposition to bury; but I contend, that the Prime Minister has no this doctrine, that the religion of the Church of Eng eight of nomination at all ; he can only recommend to the land is not the religion of the few, but of the Crown, and I assert as a lawyer, whether in office or in any—not of the Ministers but of the people—nos out of office, that this Bill would not prevent a Roman of men of intellectual attainments and of Scotch me' Catholic Prime Minister from recommending the mode taphysicians, but of men of a sober, dispassionate, reflecting ' in which ecclesiastical appointments should be filled up, turn of mind—such are the people of England. It is well because the nomination is not in the Prime Minister but to say that the most eminent Novelist of this, or of an}' in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, in this respect, other tim e or country, is in favour of this novelty—tho the measure is inop e r a ti ve ; an d w hil e a Pri me Minister is time most profound metaphysicians that ever graced our incapable of being convi c t e d o f th e hi g h misdemeanour of schools see rto danger in this speculation ; but the question i which it talks, and the penalty recovered, he may recome is, what do the people of England think of it ? And when mend to the King any mode he thinks fit of filling up the they are blamed for listening to the information and advice highest vacancies in our Protestant Church. On a for- of their pastors, I answer that on such points they are m uch mer occasion, I asserted, anti I again assert, that the Bill, better able to instruct them than the possessors of the most in its liberality of giving, an d it s s ti ng i ness o f retaining— refined and curious genius. Among other innovations , in its lavishness of confid e nce, and p e nu r y of security—has this Bill is to give us the benefit of Catholic Judges given away all ecclesiastical p re f ermen t s with a f e w miser- Aliybone was a Judge and a Jesuit, the last that graced able exceptions. Id o no t mean to say t h a t i t d oes not our Bench, who wore the ermined exterior of a Judge, secure the two Universities an d th e Schools of Et on , West- and scandalised and vilified the admini :tration of British minster, and Winchester. No Catholic Minister shall law by his charge to the jury in the case of the Seven directly pervert those to the put pese of advancin g his faith Bishops. He gave us a sample of what m a y b e expec ted i and principl es ; b u t l e t me as k any l awyer who hears me from a Papist, when elevated to that station, and when ts what is the meaning of time words ecclesiastical establish- qu e sti on i s brought before him involving the interests of ments? Ido not ask th e fram e r of th e Bill, for lam his faith. The Bishops, as is well-known, had refused to afraid he could not answer me without violating the good read in their churches the di claration of King James, and humour I wish to see preserved, and I will suppose that nothing could he more delicate or inoffensive than the terra' it was put together, compounded, concocted, butt cer- of their memorial ; its characteristics were extreme cow tainly not digested, by some anonymous penman. What placency and mildness ; but it was called a libel, a nd it ate ecclesiastical establi s h men t s ? Does i t mean t h at was submitted to the judgment of the Court whether it schools f o u n d e d by c l ergymen are such ? If so, nine- was or was not what it was called. Let us see then bocci' tenths of the schools on the kingdom are not ecclesiastical a Roman Catholic Judge sums up the law of libel. fle establishments; and how comes it, that in the li s t of pub- sa y s , ~ I think, in time first place, that no man c a n tike li e schools the Charter-house is not included, of which, upon him to write against the actual exercise of the Go' by virtue of office, som e of the Ri g ht D e n. Gentleman's vernment unless lie have leave from time Goverument.-•-• colleagues are Governors? M e r c ha n t Tailors is also a (Laughter.)—He makes a libel, be what he writes lay foundation, and Harrow and Rugby are in the same true or false; for if once we come to impeach the Go' Predicament : they are all left unprotected, anti into these vernment by way of argument, it is time argument that Catholics may be poured in any numbers, to infuse their makes it the Government, and not the Government. So principl e s into the Protestant part of their little comma- th a t I lay down that, in the first place, the Government nits, afterwards to be transferred to Oxford and Cam- ought not to be impeached by argument, nor the exercise I brid g e. I hav e not yet arrived at that part of the Bill of the Governm e nt shaken by argument, because I can which strikes nue, speaking in the capacity of Attorney- manage a proposition in itself doubtful with a better pen General, as most extraordinary. Int o it i s introduced a than another man ; this I say is a libel."—Thi s , the House sham penal code,l ap with pendenalties from be enf so/. torce o 200/. will remember, is Cath o li c law l a id d own b y a J esu it Many of these pr e h cou ld d, but 1 Judge on what was then and will be in future, if this Bill will suppose that they could. Time penalties are to be passes, a Catholicised Bench. Let us see how this l e arned sued for at time will and pleasure of Mr. Attorney-Gene- Jesuit and Jurisconsult proceeds :—" Then I lay down ral ; and will the explainers of this unexplained, the main- this for my next position, that no private man can t a ke tainers of this unmaintained Bill, condescend to show me upon him to write concerning the Government at all; for what chance there is that they will ever be recovered ; the wh a t h as a n y privat e ma n to do with the Government, if door, the very key o f th e d i or to th ese penalties is in his interest be not stirred or shaken? It is the business of the hands and arbitrium of Mr. Attorney-General only. And who is this Mr. Attorney-General to be' Suppose hev ti e m l e mm G e o n v t em ; it m iesntthetobuisnianneassge mattersh of subjects sh o uld sa y one d ay to t h e C at h o li c P r i me Minister, " There own propert i es an d i nterests. I f my i nterest is not shaker's e ets relating to mind to onlyt he their is a member of your Cabinet who has not taken the oath, what have I to do with matters of Government 2 They and lam minded to enforce the penalty. I will wsik are not within my sphere. If th e G overnmen t doer: home to my chambers in Lincoln's Inn, and d raw e come to shake my particular interest, time law i s open the information." He dots walk to his chambers— for me, and I may redress myself by law; and wise° be does draw the information, and he sends for the Clerk I intrude myself into other men's business that doe' of the Crown Office in order that he may file it. The not concern my particular interest, lam a libeller. Clerk of the Crown Office may laugh a t hi m , an d say, These I have laid down for plain propositions ; non', " You Attorney-General !—you are not Attorney •General then, let us consider further, whether, if I will take at all—the King has had no further occasions for your s et a upon me to contradict the Government, any specious vices."—(Much laughter,)—The fact b e i ng , th a t while pretence that I shall put upon it shall dress it up in the Learned Gentleman was on his way from Downing- another form, and give it a better denomination? street to his chambers, the Catholic Prime Minister hid And truly, I think it is the worse because it comes in us seen reason to remove him for threatening to enforce the better dress; for by that rule, every man that can pu t on penalty—his hand is paralysed—the pen drops with which a good vizerd, may be as mischievous as he will to the he was on the point of signing the information—his cape- Government at the bottom ': so that whether it be in the city is at an end, and he is found incapable.—(Hear, hear, form of a supplication, or an Address, or a Petition, if it and laughter.)—Did any man ever before hear of securities be what it ought not to be, let us call it by its true name , depending upon pecuniary penalties—those penalties pe- and give it its right denomination—it is a libel."--Very nalties depending solely on the Attorney-General, and that likely I shall be told that our Law of Libel has been altered Attorney-General depending merely upon th e good-will since the time of Mr. Jesuit Justice Allybone ; but let uS and pleasure of a Catholic Prime Minister ? Th e Prime look at time law as summed up here, anti we may anticipate Minister has nothing to do but to clap an extinguish e r on what it will be when we again are blessed with such ornae the Attorney-General, and there is an end at once of pe- ments of the profession. Let us not forget that this doc nalties and securities. —(Much cheering. )—The Right 1101 t G r i o n v e r o n f i n n o e n n - t r , e i s s i s o t a f n t c h e e , l o t o f m p a e n rm s e i t h t , i ) n o g i — n o i t iargumenstrictlyt h e e l o a i n n g s . t G . tre e a ri t t e l , e l Gentleman has recommended i u n in e o n t te i l r t , I a t n im d a t i t e h a e lly su i l n mjec a t s all this s ul t d he b r e e is nothing to check our laughter but our pity. ing to the Catholic Church, and th e p r i v il ege o f i mpr i n ia- It is tur, abandoned by our Common Law, is still adhered to, easy by the language of an Act of Parliament, and preserved by the Church of Rome as a principle and the vox et preterea nihil of a Statute—by naked enact- maxim. If, therefore, we have Catholic Judges, we ments incapable of being carried into effect, to pre- shall have Jesuit Ailybones, and we shall be able to speak tend to give securities; but to what do they amount in and write nothing against the Public Authorities with- . the hands of a Protestant Attorney-G enera l, an d h ow l ess out the terrors of excommunication. A vast deal in than nothing—how mere a mockery would these penalties these discussions has been said about names spci of be, when their recovery is confided to a Roman Catholic time value of authority, and I think 1 can produce 4 • Attorney-General. A troublesome, pertinacious Pro- li s t of at least as weighty names as those of the writers of testant Attorney-General is easily disposed of—every body novels, however luxuriant may be the emanations of knows, and has seen, how he may be got rid of—(hear, their genius, or of any lawyers of Scotland, however hear)—but a Catholic Attorney-General will not feel him- great their learuing. Lord Somers, I apprehend, is a self bound by the same conscience, and will not attempt lawyer wino may be pitted even against the Solicitor to incur the displeasure of his superiors by unwelcome General of Scotland. Milton and Locke are metaphysicians ' prosecutions. I have nosy trav e lled th roug h th ese miser- of the olden time, at least equal to any metaphysicians of able clauses—through this waste paper of a Bill, or, to our own. Hume is one among •quales viros Culedonict . borrow a phrase employed elsewhere—this almanac old enzisit, and his authority is perhaps equal to that of any and out of date before it i s i n e ss e _whi c h has begun and modern, however palmy, magnificent, and efflorescent. ended in rottenness, d e c e ptio n , d u pli c it y , an d treachery.— To these I may add Sydney and Harrington, and, amanU (Cheers and laughter.)—On a f ormer occas io n , I was more modern lawyers, Sir William Blackstone.—(Hear, ca ll e d an Attorney-General in parenthesis; but now, he a r. )—I will not trouble the House with a among all my sins, numerous and heavy as they are, that longer catalogue of great men, the enemies of Popery ; , t l h a e m m n m an T A b t a t t or c n r e i y m - e Ge is ner n a o l t in mi p n a e re i n io ti w ie : is an is d niottwoans n e oof and it is the less n ecessar y i n th ese t i mes, w h en the I Si troi.,XOL are thrown overboard, and numbers are to go • fault of mine that when I spoke last I did not go into for nothing. If this question were to be decided by the the subject of Ireland—l did touch upon it as f ar as wof e ority of could p rodu ce was necessary, and I disputed time position of th e Right eight a series not th easily auth ceunterb great alanced; names, I but I contend alai Honourable Gentleman when he said, " If you do not the wishes and fears of the people of England see teilkl give me a measure of your own, you must t a k e m i ne ." respected ; that their petitions ar e no t S o ix! receive with What information had we before its on whi c h t o f oun d a measuie ? What right had the Secretary of State to sneers and contempt z ushil,-; those who thus treat them vio" , meet us at once and knock us down, as h e f anc i e d, with late the CarnatitutiOn and insult their undoubted opini on s. I will not stow trouble the H o u se further ; 'il e i s i s t h e se his argument, " If you do not adopt my rem e dy, y ou h ave cond time time I ave bn lled' into eand third no remedy of your owu to apply." Th a t i s a eer y d ex - Ime musthm been eet my ca adversaries th field , I am ; ready if to a throw terous and a very dapper way of treating the question ;it down my gauntlet, and I will not refuse the encounter. „ l was jumping at once to a conclusion without giving us a Mr. Secretary PEEL—Sir, the s p eec h o f t h e H on . moment to consider, and many thought h e was much too short in his syllogism. On the first day of the session he Gentleman on this occasion is the least of of his two conies down, and astonishes us with time proposal of Ca- former speeches ; and with the charges it makes against tholic emancipation ; he who had all his life resisted it, at me, it contains a challenge, a challenge lam about to ace once turns short round upon his friends, and galls upon cept, white I attempt to defend the Bill against the them to turn with him; and those avho refused to do so , c ha r g es h e h as ma d e . If t h at speec h conta i ns all t h e itn he instantly called upon to originate a measure of relief situations against the measure with which it can he visited, , for Ireland, before a moment's time had been allowed for I must confess I have never heard, in the wleeLs co u rse o f inquiry, or even f or re fl ec tion. H e , i n d ee d, came d own t h e d e b ases—and I have listened throughout to the elo with his plan cut and dry ; but was it fair to expect those spent speeches made by the defenders of the Incas - area—bit; who had never d re amt o f such a project, to be prepared I have never heard any one with such complete Satisfaction on a sudd e n, with an equivalent for his rejected proposal ? as I heard time speech .which the Hon. Member for plymp. .fr' He put an alternative, with which h e we ll k new no b ody ten ma l e against`the Bill. The Hon. G en tl eman h as ate l' could comply. I call upon the Cambridge Attorney - -Gene tacked the policy of the Bill ; and why ? The lion. Gen- ral, and up on th e OxfOsd Logician, to vindicate this prepos- tleman, Sir, has hunted up some quotation, some opinion terous mode o f r e asoning and confuting, for I profess myself of Mr, Justice Ail} bone, in order to prove the impolicy of unable, ev e n at 24 hours' notice, to bring forward any alter- edinitting Roman Catholics to seats on the Judgment native. And now a few words, and very few, about time sense Bench ; and all I heard was only to prove, that because of the people upon this question. Upon this point I have Mr. Justice Alb-bone held an absurd opinion, or made use heard able arguments from able Scotchmen, Physicians and of an a bsurd argument, we must now expect the same Metaphysicians too, Ediuburgh and Glasgow logic, but not doctrines from any Roman Catholic who should become a ' more 'convincing than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, Justice.--(Hear, near,)...—But how would the doctrines