The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-06 00:00:00

laughter. )—My Lords, I have heard a great deal of English common law, and I have heard that the law against the Association was not rightly executed ; that if the law against the Association was not sufficient, other laws ought to hive been neide. With that opinion I perfectly agree. I hope no one will attribute to me, air arty Noble Lord, that for the purpose of keeping we wen: actuated by unworthy inotives.-eallear.)— taertain!y there Wi`i no one who could tat see to what these things woeld lead. Bet it was hoped that better 'timea neiehl name, anal ws 'were afraid of bring-inn tan ;lie C iris. The crisis did come, and whet nets the result? ' The appointment of Mr. Canniran, and the adoption of those measures by the. Government which have brought Ireland and England into that state in which, I agree with the Noble Entko, it is necessary there sheuhi now be a settlement of die question. My Lords while speattitne, on thin aubject, I hed almost forannen his Maje.ety's 'i"it to Ireland. Who were. the persons Who Were present then? - Wh o , but those who are now the Catholic Bishops, who in theie paraphernalia anade an address to his Mt ionty. Was that no symptom? Could not tit it teed then to exrert something, and, lent of all, the letnn e hat was written on the subject. All these things must Piave led men to expect what wart to come to rase. • should have been ashamed, after the statement which : had been made by the Noble Lord, to have Oeen:hied the Honey at length, but I cannot forbear mentioning a story of Erasmns. - -(llear, hear, hear, and laughter.)--I mean a dialogue between Charms and an evil spirit, in which th e latter told him that he must have a larger beet, fur there were so many souls coming over the riVet Styx in conseqnonce of religious disturbances, that: his present hark would be unable to carry there over. I think that ear! , is peculiarly applicable to the present !ante of the nountry, for the father is now agaitest the son, the brother • against the brother,and the landlord divided from the tenant, and hardly any thing anae now wanting for tlum to curse to blows. Such is the division of opinion amongst all daises of persons, that I repeat the words, the landlord is divided from the tenant, and even the fain sen--n(langhter) e.lee part in broils. Every body is trying to do this for the sake cf humanity towards. the poor Irish, Who are roncerued in this question as much as the people of Mogul. I should think that the sooner this matter is brought to the Content tins better, but it must be clearly seen that the mischief is with ourselves, and the Roman Ca- thelicrn of Ireland have Mr disposition to act harshly towards us if we only do them justice. —(Hear, hear. ) It is true we have had a Pill to put down the Catholic Association, hat is there :toy one man who supposes that he can execute t'artt law,—(hear, hear,)—for I assert that all Linn, strong as they are, are carried by public opinion. I recollect that I put down the volunteers who had for manc years domineered over then Gauntry with a Pimple proclamation. We then put down a more dan gerous association ) but then we had the Protestants of Ireland and the petaple of England to support us unani mously. Now, however, you have a part of the Protestants cf Ireland, and nearly the ti - hole of the 'landed proprietors, assenting to this mea snre, because they think it will improve their estates. Von have also a large matority of the House of Commons in favour of it.--(Hear, hear.)—l will now ask if, under these circumstances, there is any Noble Lord who veil take upon his Herculean shoulders the danger and responsibility of refusing this concession. —(Hear, hear.) I think no an has a right to resist this measure, unless he is prepared to meet that danger and difficulty. lam not only one of those who approve of this measure on account of the policy of it, but from what ought most ta operate on the consideration of all, the nresent benefits to Ireland that will result from in. Whatever the next grievance may be, for there will lie some one, it will be long before so largo a ma jority of people of all ranks will be enlisted in their cause. I 4abeerve that one of the points in opposition to this measure would have !teen that of a temporary remedy, but I believe, that if such had been tried, it would have been a useless attempt; and if we bad made up our minds to emancipate Ireland, it never could have been done at a better period than the present; for If the Catholics can command the Government, the Minister, and the landlord, I must think it better to have a certain number of avowed Roman Catholics in Parliament than to have a great number of secret sup porters of Catholicism, whom you would not know how to appreciate, as they were acting under Catholic in firience.—(Hear, hear.)—:'mother part of the objection is that by this measure we destroy the English Church. Now, I think it is the only way to protect it. lam satisfied that when this measure has passed, those Noble Lords who have uniformly supported it wilt stand up to protect the Protestant interest, and the Church Establishment. I must now offer a few observations on the coronation oath, and I think the (nes tiort alone stands in this way, whether the words, of the coronation oath are technical or constructional, In the first place, what are we to do supposing them to be technical. The oath is a great law necessary for the ad mission into office; and from the time of Elizabeth I find that oaths for public offices have at all times been subject to continual alteration. Such was the case in the reigns of Charles the Second, of King William, and of Queen Anne ; and with regard to those oaths, it is very curious that in both the Unions with this country, it is specifically stated that they shall continue - as they are ; how long? Why till they are altered.- - (Hear, hear.)-;-We Will now come to the construction of 'them. A persein may act as he pleases on the construction of them. His Majesty:if he thought it right to rob the Church of any one gain, or any established property, in this country, might do so. I contend, however, by this measure you weaken Catholic power, for, instead of having 100 Members in the Bnitish House of Commons, or, as lately proved, above 200, the Catholics would not have 20. On this construction of the present measure no Protestant could complain that it affected his rights in this country, and I believe that going apart in such case would he nothing like a breach of the oath; if it would, there is unfortunately many honourable men would be guilty of this offence? There are two classes to which these oaths are applicable, the civil and the military, and I should like to -know which of the oaths of these two offices it is allowable to alter. In 1793 the Attorney-General authorised me to admit officers into the army with an alteration of the oath, and within these two years the others have been uttered. We are told that this measure is hostile to the opinions of the people of England, and I am certain that if such be the case that it will not have the beneficial • effect anticipated. That question, however, can only be decided by a reference to the petitions presented, and we are told that there are 2,000 on the one side and 500 on the other. That, at all events, only shows that there is a great variety of opinion, and, I think, if they werefairly looked into it would be found that oneahalf at least would be in sup port of this measure. lam certain that we lessen the power of the Catholics by this Bill, and also, that we give additional power to the people of England, and secu rity to their church. The Noble Lord then continued : The wav in which these differences had been accounted for was of the most extraordinary nature. It was said, when Pitt and Fox differed, that one of them was right and that the other was wrong—that- whenever they happened to agree why both of them were wrong.—( Loud laughter. ) Just so with the Government to that time, and so it is with the present Government,- M Lords, when it shall be known that this measure has been brought forward and sanctioned by his Majesty, and with the consent of his Majesty's Council, I think, I may venture es anticipate a concurrent opinion in the public mind, and that when this Bill shall have passed into a law, the country will reap from it tnose im portant benefits which in my judgment it is calculated to confer upon us. Lord SIDMOLITH.—My Lords, after the very extra ordinary speech of the Noble Lord who has just sit down, I must claim your Lordships' particular attention to some parrs of that speech, which I am honnd to notice. My Lords, it has sometimes happened that when a per son has changed his own opinions, he has found it necessary to resort to the expedient of incul pating others, for the express purpose of keeping up a show of consistency. Whether or not this applies to the Noble Lord it is not for me to say, but I confess that I was never more surprised than at hearing the speech of the Noble Lord—nor am 1 less surprised at the charges which he has nude. My Lords, it is just eight years since a respectable gentleman (Mr. Grant) was appointed to the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland, which at that time was in a very distracted state. I have already said that Mr. Grant was a most respectable gentleman, and with the utmost admiration for his talents, I am free to admit that the appointment had not my concur rence; but I yielded to it from the distressing exigency of the occasion. It is well known to the Noble Lord that the appointment had not my approbation. lam compelled to say thus much in reply to the chargeof the Noble Lord, and I feel that I am justified in breaking punctilios, in thus adverting to this circumstance. The animadversions in which the Noble Lord, has indulged on my conduct, were, I think, perfectly uncalled for. I will now, my Lords, call your attention to another charge upon which the Noble Lord laid the greatest stress. I mean the reception which was given by his Majesty to the Roman Catholic Bishops on presenting their address after his Majesty's return to this country ; a question had been put by a, NoWe Friend of mine whether there was ;NI o+CtiOn to his Majesty receiving Catholic Bishops in elm character of 13ishops. As it was a point worthy of H consideration, I thought it my duty to consult my revered friend, Lord Liverpool, upon it, and that lamented Nobleman was of opinion that it was impossible to refuse receiving anv address of the Catholic Bishops in that character. That, my Lord alas my own epinien. Every one tereo‘e, that they are as much Bishops at those of the Protestant Church. Every one knows that ordination has the same effect, in both eases, !low then wa' it possible to advi his Majesty not to receive theot rne character in which they presented themselves? They did not come as a titular Bishop of Limerick, or any other place, but simply ae Bishops. The Noble Lord has mitt that they came. in their full neraptanalia and were received eieith ail the re peet aoil deference due to Protestant Bishepleeee(lleal, hear.)—l alit not Vrry certain as to that fact, but I think it would he rather an awkward thing if, when they elained an audience of the King in the closet, a Se cretary of State, or any person in, i:teenii - eeee'e oh 26 Majesty, were to say, , you canN,";appear thus, you must go back and put off yoni td'ess. Allow me here, my Lords, to say that the Metithete; of the Convocations had presented addresses net only to the King in the closet, bet Cr. the Throne. The next charge of tlit , 'Noble Lord alluded to a change the system of his Majesty's Government, * :4s intimated in a letter to my Noble Friend opposite. But I do not find one word in that letter to justify such a charge. It has been said that the Government would be acting unfairly:, if, after the suppression of the Ca- Atekiation, this measure of relief was not passed. It should be recollected, hoWeVer, that in the Ring's speech the recommendation to Peeliatlint was to take into consideration the whole condition of Ireland. How, will ask, has an opportunity been afforded for such cr;nsideration? What assurance have your Lordships had that title measure will paette that country ? I confess, my Lords, that I, for one, would be sttrry td deCih on a qiies tion of such vital inaportanee, without feller and better inferniatien tithes that contained in the speech of the buke. My Lords, what enquiry has taken place? What do we know about the condition of Ireland? at least, what do we know of it from that au thentic source to which we are bound to look for infor mation? I should have thought before the introduction of any measure of relief, the recommendation of his Majesty in his speech te: Parliament should have been complied with, and that the condition of Ireland, the object to which the attention of Parliament was peculiarly directed, won'd have formed the subject of enquiry in a Committee of the whole House. Nothing of this sort, my Lords, has be en done, and am afraid that your Lordships will get no fur ther information upon the subject than that which has been given by the Noble Duke. The Noble Lord continued : he did not expect to be able to say any thing to induce some of their Lordships to depart from the course which they teamed determined to adopt, though he should sue ceed in convincing them that the course was fraught with difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers of all sorts to the Constitution. But what was the plea upon which they were called upon to pass this measure ? The influence of the Catholic Association was talked of—its terrors magni fied ! For his part, he should be disingenuous indeed, to withhold from Ministers the praise of sincerity. He had himself been a member of administration, but he never affixed distrust to the motives of his colleagues who differed in opinion from him.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was but fair to say, that lie believed no set of men could be influenced by greater regard for the Constitution of this country than his Majesty's present Ministers were.—(Hear.)—lt did not follow, however, that he was of necessity to take for granted that all their measures were of the most judici ens kind. Quite the contrary, respect was one thing, con fidence another—but a blind and indiscriminating re liance upon the infallibility of any set of men, was a de gree of self-denial to which he could not pretend. What then was his opinion of the present measure? Did he think that under the present conjuncture of affairs in Ire land nothing ought to be done? Certainly not. He agreed that that country was, and had ever been, in a condition to require the closest attention of the Members of Govern ment, and no man was less disposed than he to withhold a remedy, when a proper remedy was pointed out.— But whence came this organization—whence this dismem berment of the parts of the body social and politic ? Were its cause to be found in the misconduct of administrations, the errors of Government—the abuses of law? No, the evils of Ireland were a laxity of rule, a too great mode ration in authority—a connivance at the proceedings of agitaters and disturbers. The Catholic Association was the fruitful parent of all these evils—to that fertile source were all the grievances to be traced. He would ask, for it really was necessary to ask—whet was the Catholic Association.—what were its attributes—what its character? Was this the Association which had been already de nounced as the disturber of the public peace in Ireland—as the proscribed of the peaceful citizens of that country, of the King's Ministers, and of the two Houses of Parliament?—(Hear.) Was it decent, then, to adduce the existence of such a body as an argument in the discus- ,ion of any great question? Their Lordships bad been solemnly told, in the Speech from the Throne, in a former Session, that this Association was dangerous to the public peace—that it was at variance with the Constitution. Was it not upon these grounds, and these only, that the Bill for its suppression was asked—that it was passed? The evils of Ireland were then traced to this cause, and the suggestion was, that by removing the cause you destroy the effect. Why not do the same now? In what respect had things altered in Ireland, that the same piescription for the malady, (which had not changed its character) ;night not be effectual ? But they were told that things had changed—that it was no longer safe to put down the Association, as an _ . integral measure. Nay, it was said, that so affectionate was the House of Commons become of this favourite body, that it would never consent to its suppression by law, unless some other measure, by way of indemni fication, was made congenial with that extinguish ment. What, then, were we come to that paAs, that conces- sion was the only bash; of our legislation? Were we in future to pass no law, without first throwing a sop to the people of Ireland, in order that they would be pleased to con descend to submit to our imperial legislation ? This was the language used by some of the supporters of this measure—others thought that it was not enough for the re turn, which they affected to say was paid for it—others, that require no terms. Ought the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland to be disfranchised ? To the first he should say, that he was unwilling to believe that the House of Com mons would so stultify itself, as having a few years ago passed a Bill for the suppression of the Catholic Associa tion, and thereby acknowledged the principle, it would now refuse to adopt the same measure. To the others, that this was in fact no price at all—because, looking at all the various circumstances under which the Catholic Government got the elective franchise, it would be seen that it was not contemplated by the Legisl Owe to give them that extent of political rights which they had since used and abused ; what a Noble Earl had said upon a former occasion in his place, was unhappily but too true, that the use which the Catholic freeholders had made of the boon of 1795, was a good sample of the manner in which they would hereafter pervert any further con cessions which might be made to them—namely, to the advancement of their political power, and the overthrow of the Church and Constitution. The predictions which haft been made of the effect of that measure, while it was under discussion in the Irish Parliament, was soon after fearfully realized by the result.—(Hear, hear, bear.)—lt was then said, however, that the effect of the measure would be to cause a splitting of freeholds —a minute subdivision of property by the landlords—an ultimate encouragement to early and improvident mar riages, and in fact to every thing which would tend to foster idleness and improvidence.—(Hear.)—Had these predictions been belied—had they not been fulfilled to the letter in the state of Ireland ? The most eminent men of that day—the Lord Clare—and the then Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, Mr. Foster, were amongst the great opponents of this measure. They deprecated in the strongest terms the power which had been given to theCatho lie freeholders. He was of opinion that the measure to which he confessed he brought his mind with reluctance to agree, was justified by the circumstances and by the evidence which was offered to Parliament some years ago. He . . . (Lord Sidmouth) should not therefore oppase the measure for the raising the Elective Franchise, as unconnected with the others,. and so far from throwing obstr.cles in its way he should give it his warmest support. But he must be understood as not including in that pledge of support the other measures by which that Bill was ac corcianied. What, then, was to be done? Were we to remain as we were, or make a change, cost what it might ? This question had been asked in the other House, but to this he had not received any satisfactory answer. What the (M - r. Hon Gent. (r. Peel) was unable to solve, he (Lord S.) would offer to explain. Better, far better, he should say, remain as we are, than make unworthy sacrifices. (Cheers. )—lf we had a chance of continuing to remain as we are, the way to accomplish that was not to recede, not to give fresh power to our enemies. But admitting that some thing must be done—did it follow that this was exactly the step which we ought to take? Was this a remedy fur the admitted evils of Ireland—was it not a confusion of terms to call it so? It had not a symptom of a remedial measure. The evils of Ireland were long admit ted to be poverty, ignorance, and bigotry.—(Hear.)— Which of these would Catholic emancipation remove ? Rid the people—the poor benighted people—of the tram mels of prieeteraft ; that wee the true •ad statisnaltulike •. humane emancipation. These evils were, it, was now allowed, of very long stanaing: thelangln.ge of an enlightened writer, theSe evils were pOvertn deproision, Want of education, the relaxation of industry, the want of encouragement—the want of proper protection for the poor, want of sympathy ,in the landlords— the distress er,isii-eT from the, necessity .of p4in4.,,t4116; • to tile k.:hurcii, whilst they ha 4 tneir own cier g y to support—rents out of proportion to their means— want of the necessaries of life, and above all, a distrust in the administration of justice.—(Cheers. )—Remove these grotind: of complaint then, make it the landlord's interest to attend . the wafts of hit teuentry, check rapine,,pre vent ~ i (Aen- t e, Mid rut an end td miss tilt , . These were the first duties of a wise, considerate, and beneficent Legislature. The next, to give the people edu cation.—(He tr.)—Much had been done hi thii way of late ells, ef.rkr the Administrations of Lords Liverpool and his Noble Friend—much had been done for the education of Ireland. The powers of the Grand Jury had been enlarged—beneficial changes bad been merle in th e C our t s of justice in ireland—constabulary force had been estahlished, and what was of no less im portance, justice was now in open courts in Ireland. Who could deny that the result of all this was not an in creased confidence in the people of that country in the ad ministratiori of justice?—(Hear.)—But this was not all, He might allude to other meastires,—the review of the whole state of the magistracy in that country—a better arrangement of tithes. This measure alone was sufficient to stamp a value upon an Administration which con . furred so great and so important a boon upon Ireland; other suggestions equally beneficial had been made by other administrations, though not unfortunately carried into effect. Ile alluded to the suggestion of appointing Lord Lieutenants of tha counties in Ireland as they were here; it could not be denied that there was wanting some such responsible officers who would he answerable for the recom mendation of Magistrates, and whose business it would be to punish any delinquency that took place in the due admi nistration of justice in that country. Looking then at the situation of things in Ireland, and judging by the rules that governed huMan nature in the abstract, he should say tbat the true benevolence of legislation was not in the granting of Catholic emancipation ; but in the carry ing into effect the unnecessary suggestions which had been made by former Administrations. Noble Lords might then with sincerity put their hands on their hearts, and congratulate themselves on the state of things which they had produced. They might then indeed realize the picture which they had drawn in their imaginations, .• which, as applied to this Bill, had no solid materials for its construction ; they might then figure to themselves the agitations now so - dangerous to autho. rity removed—(hear)—the condition of their tenants improved; the value of their rents enLauced, and more freely paid; confidence increased, or at least the terrors reduced in the tn'n I of the labourer that the fruits of his exertions would not be his own property. The grea, grievance of Ireland was distres., arising from the want of food.—(Hear, hear.)—The remedy for that was acknow ledged on all hands to he the influx of capital, but . - by a strange round-about mode of reasoning the mea sure of Catholic Emancipation, which after all must influence only remotely and circuitously the sources of capital, were said to be the means of curing those evils. Surely when public confidence in the administration of the law was increased, Noble Lords must admit that that was pro tent° a palliative for the evils of Ireland. In • crease that confidence then, give them an equal and im partial system of law ; educate the people, stimulate their industry; that was the true way to legislate for Ireland, and not the measure now under consideration.—(Cheers.)—He acknowledged being disappointed of securities in this 1311; he thought it would only tend to increase the dis sat,sfaction of the ii)rotestant population, and by no means give satisfaction to a portion of the Catholic community. He in his conscience Lelieved that the wiser course was now to resist encroachments when we were better able to do so than at a future time, when we would be in a worse condition to resist them. Generous minds must he grati fied at seeing one's fellow-subjects restored to the full enjoy ment of their rights, but there were higher interests which must be consulted before one yielded to the kindlier, and therefore, perhaps, weaker suggestions of one's mnlings. The Noble Lord concluded by reading a por tion of a letcer in which the author recom mended that the wise examples of our ancestors ought to be followed, who had never given up solid substances for theoretical speculations, and that like them we ought to endeavour to gain the confidence of our Mends, and the respect of our enemies, by manfully hazarding every thing . . _in &f-nee of that fabric of the Constitution which had been handed down to us sanctified by such high authority, and by such long experience.-.-(Cheers.) Lord WESTMORELAND rose to explain, I think 1 ' could mat soy more, observed the Noble Lordi to satisfy the Noble Lord who has just sat down, than that I considered myself as much concerned in these transactions as I consi dered him ; that whether the measures were right or wrong, I was equally right or equally wrong with himself; therefore it is quite impossible I could mean any reflection, and I beg to assure the Noble Lord that I most distinctly disavow it. Lord LIVERPOOL said—My Lords, I wish to make a few observations with respect to the motives that have actuated me on the present occasion. This is tendered the more incumbent upon me by the remarks of the Noble Lord who has just risen in explanation upon the administration of my late lamented brother. The Noble Lord in the course of his remarks has alluded to circumstances which have arisen, noomoitientarily, not from yesterday, but from a long course of events, which have been urging on the consideration of the great measure of to-day, and the things which have now been brought under our view bring to light circumstances that prove, if the Noble Duke will al lOw me to say so, that he possesses information at this time which at former periods he was deficient in. —(Hear, hoar, hear, hear.)—On these points I shall take the liberty of saying that for the twenty years I have bad the honour of a seat in the Lower House, I have uniformly been against admission to the Roman Catholics. But, my Lords, I do not see so distinctly as some enlightened Noble Lords do, the dangers which are likely to ensue from the admission of Roman Catholics into power. On the other hand I uniformly thought the carrying of this question would not so immediately produce that which its warmest supporters are anxious to attribute to it.—(Hear, hear. ) But, my Lords, at last I have thought, and thought rightly I believe, that that circumstance has been greatly produced by the carrying of this measure, for it will be followed by other measures producing still greater ad vantages. My Lords, what makes me more of this opinion is, that the circumstances which the Noble Lord mentioned, I mean particularly the circumstance of a divided Cabinet, I do not enter into the circumstances, but it plainly ap pears by what the Noble Lord said just now, that much difference prevailed in the appointment of the Secretary, lie having evidently made it appear how difficult it was to make an appointment that would produce entire satisfaction. My Lords, having been myself connected with public affairs I am sure that great and enormous must those diffi culties be in the time of a divided cabinet. What, my Lords, was the consequence? Almost always, when a question with respect to Ireland was agitated, something occurred to put a stop to its discussion. If Iliad arisen in the spirit with which the Noble Lord rose, perhaps I might have addressed the House inStliii . same feeling's of irritation. I believe that during the 11 years Lord Liverpool presided over the Administration he did all in his power that he considered would be beneficial to the empire, with,. out reference to any private feelings whatever, or to the opinions of those who did not accord with him. In saying this, my Lords, I think I have a right to assert that it is due to his memory, I had almost said to his great natne.—(Hear, hear.)—l am extremely glad to have had the opportunity given for explaining. Ido not mean to enter at large into the subject. This question has been discussed by many Learned Prelates with great force, and great learning, and with that I shall leave it to them, satisfied as I am, that there is no danger to the Clergy by the measure now to be propo se d. Wi t h respect to the Church of England, it stands on too great an eminence, it is guarded by too strong a bulwark ever to be affected by a mea sure of this kind. If I wanted any proof of this., I have only to look at the petitions that have been laid upon your Lordships' table, not taking into consideration the manner in which some of them have been got up, but looking to them for the purpose of teeing the disposition of the Protestant people of England. In them you view the resting place of the Church of England and the solidity of its foundation. Unless you see all these affections and feel ings broke down, it is impossible to consider the Church can be in danger. I wished, nay Lords, for an opportunity of explaining myself. If I have shown to your Lordships that Lord Liverpool's station during these periods was one. of great difficulty.—that he was obliged to consider the cir cumstances and feelings of various men—l have satisfied myself on that point. The other point of declaring my self manfully and plainly a supporter of this measure, and its desirable effects likely to be produced from it, I have met with great pleasure. Lord TENTvIiDEN and Lord FARNUA3I rose at the same time. Lord TENTERDEN addressed the House. My Lords, it will not be expected from a person in my situation that I should express an opinion, without endeavouring to make. known the grounds upon which that opinion is founded; consistently with the law of the land. Some Noble per suns in the Meuse, and many why speak and write'Ou this j subject, I mean those who please to denominate themselves the'friends of religious liberty, if, by assuming that title they Mean to cCinvef that thoSe Who differ from them are not friendly to religious liberty,' they ?,re greatly mistaken. Every man may state his opinion—he may state the mo tives on which he acts—and I will yield to no one in ask ing and claiming to myself the right of being deemed a aiiend o trill aY(I I. was educated, my Lords, in the Church oi Enoirid have all my lite admired its principles, and I should be among the inns` ungrateful if I had not done so. My esteem for that church has grown stronger and stronger with my years, my esteem for that church is founded not merely upon the purity of its doctrines, not merely upon eonsiderstion of its religious views and duties l great and important as they are; hmt in the opinions I have entertained, and still entertain, that the Protestant church is store favoured with civil and religious establishments than prevail in any country whatever. My Lords, there is no chtircl► re moral at this. Can we then betray it my Lords? Others may betray it if they think proper, but I cannot, on looking at the present meaauie, think that there is that in it which iscalculated to overthrow the Protestant Church. My Lords, when I find the Clergy of the Catholic Church assuming the name and credit and► dignity of the diocese which is only known to the law, can I come to any other conclusion ? Is it right ? I will not say that the Popish hierarchy, should be suffered to (10 80 ? Or, is it likely that, I Will not say the Popish hierarchy, but any hierarchy under such circumstances wonld be content to leave others in the enjoyment of those rights and privileges to which they believe themselves fairly entitled ? Is it not natural that there should exist in their minds an anxious desire to obtain a restitution of those privileges; and where that desire exists, is it not natural that they should adopt such means as might in the end lead to such a result.—(The Noble Lord here became inaudible, when we again heard him, he proceeded.) My Lords, these are the points which have influenced me to oppose the present Bill. My Lords, it is contended by the Noble and Learned Lords who have addressed your Lordships, and for whose talents I have the highest respect, that those Acts which were passed at the revolution did not contemplate the perpetuity of the exclusion of the Citholics. Differing as I do in opinion with those Noble and Learned Lords, it is due to them and your Lordships chat I should explain the grounds on which I Lave formed my opinion. Aly Lords, your attention has been called to the Act passed at the Accession, and no allusion was made to oaths of an ulte►ior date. It was said that the exclusion of the Catholics was no older than Charles the Second, and that it was then brought on by the most wilful misrepresentation of the Roman Catholics, My Lords, this is not true ; it is true as far as regards the admission of Catholics to Parliament; but it is not true as regards their capability of holding official situations. By the Act of Elizabeth an oath was required to be taken by all classes of his Majesty's subjects. It was true that oath was abrogated atthe accession of William, but another substituted, and there was no very material difference between them. By that oath, the party taking it was required to swear, that no foreign Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, has or ought to have power, command, jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical, within these realms.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) I admit, my Lords, that notwithstanding this oath, many Catholics did take office, but what construction they put upon the oath, I know not?—(Hear, hear. ) By the sth Elizabeth a similar oath was required to be taken by all Members of the House of Commons, but not by Members of the House of Peers, it being expressly stated that her Majesty had sufficient confidence in the Members of that House to enable her to dispense with an oath. Thus matters stood until that oath was adopted containing the words I have quoted. That oath, as I have stated already, was evaded, but by what means I know not. But I rather think that some way was discovered to satidy the Cabo lice, and this suggestion was the more likely, for your Lordship must be aware that the Pope has been always fertile in expedients to relieve his flock from all obligations, except those which they owe to him and his church. An Act passed in the reign of William, ordaining an oath, entitled the oath of allegiance, and this in conjunction with that passed by the statute of 25 Charles 11. by all officers, civil and military, and by all Members of both Houses of Par liament. If your Lordships look to the Act of William, called a declaration of the rights and liberties of the people, you will not find it there laid down that these oaths are to be taken for ever ; and it is right that your Lord ships should find them in such a declaration. But that declaration was not to lie taken alone : it was to be considered in conjunction with all the other Acts passed by the same Parliament. In the time of the Convention, the two Houses deliberated on the 22d January, on the 80th-the Convention wept to the Prince of Orange, and on the 13th February that Convention became. a Par liament, and so continued till it was dissolved. It became so in fact after the declaration of rights was presented to King William. Their first Act was, that the new oath to which I have alluded should be taken, and the de claration. subscribed by all future Parliameuts. Their next Act was, that of regulating the Coronation oath, and they enacted, that that Oath should he taken by all the future Kings and Queens of England. I ask, my Lords, whether there is any difference between enact ing that every Member of either Honse shall take these oaths, and that they shall be taken by future Parliaments. —The question is, what was the 'intention of Parliament at the time. If we judge by the situation, it is clear there is no difference, but that the intention was that the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy also should be taken by the Members of all future Parliaments. The Noble Lord then alluded to the Act of Settlement, and argued that that also contemplated the perpetuity of the laws then made relative to Catholics.—My Lordet,i I will now draw your attention to another Act, called the Declara tion of Rights in Scotland. By that Act no Catholic can take 'a seat in either House, or, to use the words of the Act itself, " bear office therein."—( Hear, hear.) — The Nobfe Lord read a part of the provisions of the Act, and then continued—the resolution that is embodied in the Act of Parliament presented to the Prince and Prin cess of Orange, on the 13th of February, was made part of the Act itself. The Act then proceeds with its enact ments, and in its enactments it is true you do not find it stated tl;at these oaths shall he continued, hut you do find a provision—a provision for the placing of the Crown upon the head of King William, and with principles that shall be entertained by his descendants. Having resolved that the oaths shall be taken, and having resolved that Certain persons shall wear the Crown, and when you come to find that by former Acts it had been especially provided that these oaths should be taken, and that there had been no previous enactment that William and Mary should be King and Queen of this country, it seems to me that is conclusive. All that was necessary then to be done was done, and any thing else seems to have been omitted.—(dear, hear.)—lf your Lordships are to say that these laws are not to be regarded as having been established with a view to permanency, because you do not find them in the Bill of Rights, that is haying, that a man does not mean to do a thing because he did it once, and no notice was taken of it. I shall now trouble your Lordships with a few words on the Act of Union with Scotland. It was said with great triumph that it appears by the Act that the oaths shall be taken until Parliament shall otherwise direct. Now that certainly is part of the Act, but if your Lordships will read the whole of the Act that has been alludett in by a Noble Lord that has addressed you, you will find that after the articles of Union were agreed upon there was an Act for settling the manner in which Peers should be elected to leave in Parliament. (Hear, hear.)—That Act is set forth in the Act of William, and it is declared that Act shall be as valid as if it had been engrossed and made part of the Act of 'William.—(Hear.)—Then what does the Act contain? It contains this, that none shall be capable to elect or be elected for any of the said seats (Houses of Commons and Lords) but such as are 21 years of age complete, and Protestants, excluding all Papists, or such as being suspected of Popery, 4.c. Now, therefore, my Lords, it appears, that taking the whole of that Act to gether, it shows that it is to be considered those who by the Crown represent the three kingdoms shall lie Protestants. How incumbent is it then, before your Lordships proceed to overthrow an Aet, that you s i, ou ld know distinctly what it is. My Lords, the present measure proposes to repeal this Act for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and this country. Now if I could suppose that this measure would have that effect _ _ it should have my cordial support—(llear)—bnt I am by no means able to bring myself to take that view of the mea sure. Tbe danger of abrogatin g fermer laws, your Lordships, ought to be aware is always great, and before such a step is taken, a sufficient protection ought to be provided. I admit that there is a prospect before your Lordships cal culated to baffle the firmest mind and the stoutest heart— language which has already been made use of, and stronger than which I cannot use. The question is will this mea sure retard it ? My Lords, I have already alluded to the hierarchy and the Protestant Establishment of this country, which I feel bound to regard with the highest esteem. By what means Ireland has been brought into a state which in a very few months has brought a change in the minds of many individuals, Ido not know. I know not by what this change has taken place, or by whose neglect, or by what improper encouragement, this state of things has been brought about, or by what apathy it has been permitted to go on ; it is vain for me to enquire into it. If, as a lawyer, I were called upon to judge, I must say, that nothing I have heard has been - sufficient to satisfy my mind that groper steps have been taken ; speeches have been made day ' after' day, published and widely-stimulated, spat ing neither the orators, nor tlie J tiainiiii7oltheiiVlng. or the dead, deck ; ring that they will ; npt only.laa#e state in Parliament, but Wilr root out, before they have don 4 thaf, pestilent heresy they have fdund to exist opposed to their Hears) If ydur isordthipS could not prevent meetings, you could At least have prevented speechesS if you could not prevent speeches, you could at least have prettisted their publica tion. Therefore, whether the present measure will have tbt effect of putting an end to the aggravated state of things at present :ti the question. Whether it will satisfy the minds of all who haVe he! en an interest in the subject? My Lords, lam most decidedly cf opinion it will not, and therefore I must vote against the measure, which I shall do with great sorrow, considering it will be against the views of those whom I bare heard so learnedly and so powerfully argue the cause. My Lords, I take it to be the deity of all not to relieve ourselves from danger without the prospect of being able to better our condition, and by this measure I really cannot perceive that we shall have the slightest chance of so doing. If we pass this measure we shall be much less able to res'st the attempts of those who by the measure we are giving in the true sense of the word political power to,tend who have long been making attempts against our existing laws, than we are at present. I hope, my Lords, I may be mistaken in my views of the measure should it pass into a law, but in my opinion, should it pass, the time will soon come when your Lordships will find the sentiments I entertain of it will ha realized. Earl GREY—My Lords, in discussing a question so often discussed by persons more popular than myself, in which I have on repeated occasions found myself com ' pelled, in the course of my duty, to offer to you a state ment of the motives that influenced my conduct and feeling, on this occasion, however, I can add nothing to what I before stated—still less to what has been stated by others. I most certainly feel that an apology is due to you in bringing myself forward to your notice. In the next place, I must state to your Lordships that I rise with con siderable fear that something like presumption should be imputed to me, if I ventured to differ from a Noble Lord (the Lord Chief Justice of England), who has rested the greatest part of the arguments he has thus addressed to your Lordships, with statements of law with which he is necessarily more acquainted, which lie has studied more and with which he has a more perfect knowledge than I can possibly have—therefore it . . might be like presumption in me to offer a difference of opinion. A sense of duty, however, my Lords, induces me to state what my opinions are, and even unlearned as I am I will venture, against the judgment of the Noble and Learned Lord, to offer the views I have taken upon the subject. Indeed, I:am not sure that we came to a very different conclusion ; for the Noble Lord, after having gone through an historical tale of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance downwards from the time of Queen Elizabeth, in the Bill of Rights, and also in the Bill of Union, the Noble Lord C;)mcs` to the con elusion that he admits the power of Parliament _ to abrogate these Acts. Nay, he goes further—he says that if this individual measure can be proved to him likely to produce the objects its promoters rjpresent,itis lated to produce the peace and happiness of lreland,then that he himself will give it his support. My Lords, I feel my self therefore under the necessity of abstaining from enter ing into that debate which I have so often entered into on former occasions, namely, whether the Act of Union and the Act of the Revolution have been made so irrevocable, that notwithstanding any induce ment of policy or expediency, it is utterly impossible for us without a breach of the contract which exists between the King and the people to make the slightest alteration in those laws.—(Hear.)—The Noble Lord I trust does not maintain that proposition; to what then are we to address ourselves? Why my Lords, that in the days of Elizabeth it was thought necessary to guard against Popery. I admit that to the Noble Lord, but in the time of Charles the Second it was thought necessary, by circumstances of the country, under some apprehensions of danger, to enact other laws for the exclusion of the Papists and to guard the religion of this country. lam also ready to admit that, under the same impression, at the passing of the Bill of Rights and the Union with Scotland, Parliament did proceed to enact'civil provisions, That I am ready to admit. But the question we have to con sider this day is, whether, these enactments under these circumstances, and with these views, are, in the present state of circumstances under which we are to discuss them, so binding upon us, so precluded from apply- Aug the remedies, that we think them most likely to prevent the dangers with which we are threatened. Now I certainly have during my life uniformly supported the principles of civil and religious liberty. The Noble Lord might have spared what I did not expect to hear from him, a sort of reproach . to the members of this 'House of arrogating exclusively to themselves that prin ciple. My Lords, I arrogate nothing—l believe lam a true friend to religious liberty—l believe I have shown myself to be so for thirty years, and a friend to these measures, which at last are likely to be carried into effect. But I arrogate nothing to myself in that character. Ido not pretend there may not be others as truly friends of religious liberty as myself, but who, from some feelings, cannot bring themselves to agree to the proposition now brought forward. Now, I will subscribe to what the Noble Lord has said of the Church of England. lam a member of that Church, I believe in its superior doctrine and purity of its .princi plee—l believe the proposed measure will never have the effect of endangering the Church—and 1 believe it will be a measure that will be found in its effects considerably to strengthen and support it. I believe the true principles of that Church, if rightly acted upon, are favourable to religious liberty. Put, if the Noble Lord chooses to re flect on me as arrogating to myself the liberty of a friend in contradistinction to others, beg to assure him I would with him defend every attack on the church.— The Noble and Learned Lord had strived hard historically to explain the duties of allegiance and supremacy, and to make us acquainted that they were passed in the time of Elizabeth, for the purpose of guarding against the danger of Popery. No doubt, my Lords, the events of those times fully justified the passing of those Acts. It was not wonderful that they should wish to have seme test and security for the Protestant Religion. But, my Lords, it should be recol lected that the oath of supremacy was not levelled at the Papists. It would be a reflection on Noble Lords to remind them that this Act was not intended exclusively to censure those professing the Roman Catholic religion; that could not be the case, for in those times it was ge nerally supposed that the Roman Catholics had liberty:from the Pope to upset any oath imposed upon them by persons differing from them is religion. The Noble and Learned Lord had talked much of the danger of Roman Catholics being admitted into offices of the state. I thought 4,hese antiquated notions had long ago been excluded.— (Hear, hear, hear.)—The late Lord Liverpool himself, in all his apposition to the Roman Catholic claims, never imFuted to them disloyalty. Now, my Lords, can there be any better security than the security of the oath pro posed for the Roman Catholics to take—that oath was a sufficient safeguard to the Protestant religion ; and, my Lords, we all know the regard the Catholics entertain for the obligation of an oath ; it was because they would not take the testing oath that excluded them from offices of this nature ; that oath imposed sa crifices which they never would submit to. Could it then be said that they ought not to be trusted ? In the time of Queen Elizabeth, to which allusion had so often been made in the course of the debate, it should be recollected that the Catholics were trusted and appointed to highoffices, andthat;Monarch possessed their confidence. Who was it that destroyed the Spanish Armada ? Who was the Admiral who commanded the fleets of England against that powerful force which was directed against our country, and if success failed, would have destroyed our liberty. It was a Roman Catholic, Lord Howard of Effingham,whose statue now adorned a neighbouring edifice. Perhaps he might have obtained a license from the Pope —(great laughter) to fight the battles of a sovereign who had been excommunicated by the See of Rome, and which power had absolved his subjects from their allegiance. Yes, my Lords, under these circumstances, was a Roman Catholic appointed by a Protestant Queen, to oppose the most powerful force ever directed against this country-- and that too acting under the banners of Popery.—( Hear, hear.)—Why, my Lords, what more is necessary to show the confidence that can be reposed in Roman Catho. lies. Perhaps, my Lords, it is unnecessary for me to go into the legal arguments of the Learned Lord who has just sat down. It was acknowledged that this was a question of political expediency. whether granting the Roman Catholics their civil rights would or would not endanger the safety of the Established Church.— (Hear, (rear.)—My Lords, the Acts imposing these disabilities, were passed under a strong sense of necessity, and I am therefore free to admit that they are entitled to the greatest regard and attention, but I never can agree with those Noble Lords who wish to make an impression that these laws were intended to . be per manent, and that it was not in our power to alter them. This fallacy has been again and again ex posed, and never more satisfactorily than by the Noble Lord who spoke from the Woolsack last evening. That Noble Lord clearly proved that it was competent for Par liament to enquire into the nature of those restrictions. I have advocated the seine cause--I have before combatted the subject with the Noble and Learned Lord sitting at the table before me, and who; I perceive, is very 'busy taking notes,--(Great laughter. May 'avid been XN rong in the views I bare taken of the eubjecte but il wrong, I have no doubt we shall soon hear it from tiro Noble and Learned Lord, to whom I shall listen wits that attention and respect to which his great talents en' title him. I say, my Lords, we are called upon to make an alteration—it never was intended when those lel Were passed but that when circumstances changed they should be repealed, and in doing this we and_ doing no more than what it is our duty to do, and I malt Feld, as a matter of reproach, that it was not done earlier% These laws were passed at the time of the Revolatioei and I fearlessly say, that it was the intention of the Legislature, they left it to their successors to snake those changes which circumstances might in after ages require , and if they could now legislate no doubt they would bring forward the same measure as we are now' doing. These is nothing that can be Construed into permanent exclusion* The Catholics had asserted their rights, and it was tints they had them granted. Noble Lords had heard that the Bill of Rights made it illegal to collect rent in the shape de tax without the authority of Parliament. That it WO also illegal for them to carry arms. But would they for el moment contend that Parliament had not the power te alter those enactments? In the Act of Settlement, it r ie° directed that all Privy Counsellors, on entering offices should sign, and subscribe to, certain declarations , and that no subordinate officer of the Crown should have a seat in the House of Commons. But those parts Weve,, repealed. If it wa s s oun d p o li c y t o ma k e th a t c h a nge s I will say, that it would be equally so to make a furthest change. My Lords, you will also recollect that there was an Act passed, making it imperative on all per' sons previous to entering the army or navy to take the oath of supremacy. This Act had also been repealed, and that during the administration of the Noble and Learned Lord near me (Eldon) almost without opposition.. Idi Lords, it will be recollected in 1807 I held the office of nee II"' of his Majesty's S ec r e t ar i es o f St a t e . At th a t p er i o d a was brought in to give a partial relief to his MaissetY i e Roman Catholic subjects. It gave them the right tn hob] commissions in the army and navy, and I am sure many Noble Lords who now hear me will remember the agitation it caused, and the means that were made use of, (something similar to what they had been on the present owe' sien) an endeavour to impress upon the public that if that Bill passed into a law, all the liberty of the subject was gone, and the safety cf the Crown itself in danger. It was said, what, will you put the sword into the hand.; of the Catholics? If yon do, revolution meet fellow. It was argued that his Majesty could not, consistently with his coronation oath, give his assent to such a measure. If he did, assuredly destruction to liberty and religion must immediately follow. Such was the agitation that this mea sure produced from one end of the country to the other, and such the circumstances of the times, before it could be passed , the Ministry of which he formed a part were out of offices and another administration was formed determined to op- . pose such a measure, and it was said the country might then remain safe, as the Popish Administration was dile solved.—(Hear.)-13ut my Lords, what did this new ad ministration, of se hich the Noble and Learned Lord formed a part, do almost immediately after getting into office? Why they came down to Perliament with exactly such anoe thee Bill, opening all offices in the Army and Navy to the Roman Catholics—(Hear, hear, hear,)—and this, ml Lords, you will recollect was proposed by the very Minis' tern who shortly before had sounded the alarm of dangers This Bill was then carried almost without a dissenting voice, and my Lords, it is not a little curious to witness the result ;—no danger ensued, and none of the fears that were so much dreaded were realized.—(Hear, hear Then again, my Lords, in reference to the Act of Unions about which your Lordships have heard so much, I stete distinctly that I do not think that that Act is one which cannot be changed.—(Hear, hear.)—This doctrine we e laid down in so clear a manner by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack last night, who, not satisfied with his own knowledge, has quoted my Lord Halt wicke's sentiments on that Act, both. of which have been corroborative of my own, that I a m See' ashamed to say one word more on the subject ; thus inlieFs however, I must say, upon what *subject can we legislateif not upon the Act of Union? We. c ould not h a ve, tattr a single step in 'the Corn Laws without infringing upon one of the articles of that act ; a prohibitory law wnsr" joined in reference to the importation of corn, and Yet 1• 11 r Lordships legislated on that question ; 'there Were,_ other points also in which changes had taken place; the strongest article of all in the Act of Union is that which refers to the limitation of the land-tax in Scotland. NO* what has happened in relation to this? A new law sne enacted, changing the old tax into property-tax, in tekieh i _ no doubt in some degree a land-tax was concerned, but sb spirit there was an alteration; a power is also undoubtedly given to Parliament in the 19th Article, to make what ever alterations it might think proper. Then, Amy Lord'' , again as regards the Coronation Oath, it can be chews from the moat incontrovertable evidence, that no infringe' went can possibly be made upon it by the adoption of conciliatory measures ; it would indeed be strange and unaccountable if the framers of that oath trusted to the ' Sovereign's power alone. It cannot be beliered, Oil Lords, that they by that oath intended to trust for safety to the Crown alone ; a proviso is introduce* in that article, the spirit of which is nniveriallY admitted ; that proviso was withdrawn, showing death , that it was not the intention of the Legislature to phol l ia exclusive reliance on the Crown. I cannot eel ciently deprecate a practice . that has been' adopted! s ll from which the greatest possible evil is to be apprehentien; . I mean of giving circulation in the country to the kite that by the introduction of these measures the Coronado' Oath will be infringed upon most wickedly ; in some cal has this opinion been circulated. Now, any tordes"' would allude to the position of the Roman Catholic s by the Treaty of Limerick. That Treaty was made With respect to Ireland, and it expressly provided that Borba" Catholic subjects should enjoy all the privileges. Thie was in the time of Charles the Second ; and it was stip ti. latci that they were to enjoy these privileges merely if Ike?' took the oath of allegiance.—(Cries of " Hear.")- 1181/1 treaty, my Lords was subsequently ratified by ICI William, under the great seal of the Kingdom. I Wl' l read to your Lordship an extract of a letter fre e rg Sir John Tw ee d a l e , in which he d e cl ares that te e , ' laws affecting the Roman Catholics w ere no t i n tendea to be permanent, but suited to the exigency of the time.; and subject always to what might be found necessary be te : after. My Lords, I should like to say one word regerd ee i p e the political power alleged to be the aim of the Romen . ,_":, tholics in this measure. We have been told in phrases se v e "" which there can be but little or no mistake that the ii 4:, tholics wished to establish political power at the expenee e ' another. I do not, my Lords, deny that the Catholics wish to obtain political power, but it is a legitimate power which the subjects of every free nation ought to desit! ' and possess ; that political power is tile natural offspring of every free Government.—(Great cheers.) ;- " It has been objected by the opponents of this measure that concessione would be dangerous, in consequence o f the physical power of the Roman Catholics. That, in 14 apprehension, is one argument why those coneessien e should be made. The very ardour they - display is sufficie et reason for not refusing their claims. Let us loci, Oil Lords, to the power which they at preient posses e s and A let us them see how that power has been ensployed.el' s. .;! Eligibility to office, and to seats in Parliament, 4;1,1, :1 admit, political power, but I admit that they are alio 11,17 - 1 ' rights, and the Roman Catholics aim at nothing rtior6 l -s'y i ; I trust my Lords that I have vindicated the Rointit Catholics from the imputation cast on them by Nabi ll. / ./ e. Lords, that they were undeserving of confid ence . ...le .' have said, let us look at the way in which 00 employ their present power. They poscess t''' , eligibility to certain offices—the Army and the DrevY - 3,, are open to them. They enjoy the elective franchisee and since the abrogation of the penal laws they have .the. power to purchase and acquire property, and are covet' quently in the possession of that power which is derivabl e from wealth.—( Hear, hear. )—But there is no pro f that they have abused that power, unless it be contended that the assertion of what they conceive to be right can be construed into such abuse. Possessing all those privilitee they still consider themselves unjustly treated, a nd Oil .. labouring under a grievance which they feel ought not to be . imposed upon them, they naturally exert the power the, they possess in the assertion of rights too long withheld , and this is the only way in which it can be said that the 61 tholics exert the power they possess against the GOiernmente I do not mean to say that that power is not great, that the priesthood have an extraordinary influence over the minds of the people, end, if mis-directed, that influence w o uld be dangerous. But by this measure you Will unite all part* in a powerful union for the maintenance of social irate' rests, and the security of the State. What, I ask, 0 6 the evils we anticipate from this measure ? It woad have the effect of introducing five or six Peers into this Hotises and a large number of Members would be tenants' to 'AI other House. Catholics would also beCome eligii le to civil offices, with few exceptions, and under thii law the fetVer , the better. What then is to be the nonsequeneel l i is then argued that all at once the King id to h e. influenced by some Catholic charnn--eome light:4o I e spell, which would work on his mind a miracle of ion' version, and that he was to aband'on the' Onisi ciples of the House of Brunswick. ' ' It . was sl ,O argued that the people whit bad been se' aleritadd . , at the very prospect of this law Would beeinne esS einie I . moored of the Catholic faith, that their' opposition .e - tel s .it would ...a.; To - believe this" tronld'' Initthialir