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

c %I n a, 1 to a b e li e f e ven o f t iansu b stant i on w n at, my L or d s, aro t h e arguments on the other side ? ' ":find the Catholic population united by a sense of emu.. ,7 104 injury for adv ancemen t o f a common i nterest . Y ou n ave heard the Noble Duke give a clear illustration of the state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)--lie told Yen that the present system controuled the magistracy in their duty, that it affected materially the administration bf iUstiee, that it deteriorated the value of property, and t hreatened the credit of the country. These are evils, Y Lords, the correction of which devolves upon thl this night.—.([Tear, hear.)—They are e v il s from e contemplation of which you will not shrink in the • Performance of your duty. We have had a long detail from the Nolde Viscount opposite of the measures he had in c ontemplation to improve Irelan.l. But I would ask how I % ltis law could impede the progress of those measures ? aYs more, I will ask your Lordships, can you attempt to measures unites this law be passed. Until you depart • "at the system you have so long pursued, and with such t n italiliy consequence s , un til you tranqu illi ze I re l an d , unt il hatgreat and paramount difficulty be removed, all your at tempts at improvement will be vain. If .1 were asked would ts measur e t ranqu illi ze Ireland, I certainly could net ! )1 ( into the womb of time ; and state what its effects leould be, but I tsbould say that it is our duty to provide 1 44 ch. tams Ira the, urgent necessity of the times dictat e s. t_" l°° ° l lUtan to say that it will h ave an i mme di a t e e ff ec t, 1 4 t 1 thi'ak it more likely than any other mode that can be 7°P cy. to effect th a t c h ange i n t h e con di t i on o f I re l and, ou I am sensible your Lordships are anxious to achieve. i nvits stated last night, by the Noble and Learned Lord on ".woolsack, that the condition of Ireland was every year • P m ' i ng worse and 'worse, and that assertion has been fully ,rnonstrated by circumstances which have recently come finder your Imrdship's cognizance. That alone is in my mind The reason f or th e a d opt i on o f a diff erent system . sue Noble Marquis who has recently had such abundant ;;Pprturilty of f orm i ng a correct op i n i on on the state of at country, has truly told you, that although the present sgaterremight be endured in peace, it could not in time of war. l e us look at the situation of Ireland exposed as she is to the of France of America upon the one band, and to the fleets d i k upon the ether. Such a situation was full of l an gers and more particularly so since a mistaken policy *lad allowed Spain to be sacrificed to France.—(Hear.)— ARetter opp or t un i ty m i g h t not occur when these tia uters could be obviated with less difficulty. Looking , !the question fairly, their Lordships should consider that 'would be. better to sustain certain losses in time of peace, than hazard the consequences of leaving Ireland in a state ° J, dis satisfaetion • and di sa ff ec ti on i n th e event o f a war. "hat rept obation would not a Statesman deserve if he did bri ng attempt i e a ti me o f t ranqu illi ty lik e t h e present to ' r ing forward some measure like the present for the pur- Pose of conciliating the iwople of Ireland, and avoid in that danger which they had for so long a time failed in meeting by means of force.—(Cheers.)—My Lords, the Nble Lord says, "why not enforce the laws which are at rent in exi s t ence ." M y L or d s , i t i s very easy to say t hi s, t though the Catholic Association was in existence for 1 . 41 4 a length of time, and with the danger hourly encreas g uPon them, still it was found impossible to relieve Ire nti fro m t h e danger which attended it.—(Hear.)—But 11 :Yi nay Lord s , if thi s b e c h arge d aga i nst t h e G overnment, !, °se wh o are d i sposed to bring forward such a charge souk' sake especial care "that the argum e nts they use w ill j, "° , t ad a e p r pY with double force against the Noble and Learned 1-°,14 ELDON made an observation in an under tone to tbeNoble. Earl which was inaudible. 4 . 1 GREY, in continuation—W e ll, then, th e y s h ou ld Sake care that their arguments will not fall upon the head 1i the Nobl e an d Learned and highly g i fred Lord, to whose Efforts and assistance they look forward with such ear- Side, to expectations. Th e N o bl e E ar l, w h o s p o k e ear l y She debate, said that the Government of Ireland was 4 1° Poeed to exert the whole of the force it possessed ° avert the danger, but that the Government at home, and i\itticularly the lawy ers connec t e d w ith t h a t Government,Were opposed to it. The Noble Lord, had opened a pretty : L e ge indiettnent, and he began with the Noble Lords on ~f i s aide the House, charging them with being the exciters Lth • Sis charge by continuaily urging this measure. My 17ai I, for one, plead guilty to this charge.—(Cheers.) talways urged this measure to the utmost of my ability. c at he b r i ngs t h e c h arge that we have advocated this topic prof pu ses po. Now, my Lords, coniderng that a tvreet portion his Majesty's Government, s and i those not thhe least distinguished by their transcendent talent, aed eir infl uence i n t h e country, h ave always advocated this ° *aeore, it is too much to charge us that we have urged 't merely for party purposes.—(Hear, hear.)—My Lords, ° ls This occasion I will support this Bill, for I will never t h ink from the performance of my duty, because it may tiy ebarged against me that I am actuated by factious mo- Iv , • My Lords, if I were disposed to retort upon those • "° hav e charged us with having used public laws as instro nlente of private ambition, I might find ample n 'aSter to enable me to do so. The Noble Earl himself le " one of thong who i n 1807 raised an out cr y aga i nst t h e ':,ery measure whi c h th e y themselves c arr i e d t h roug h ssarliament. The n ex t p er sons in the i n d i c t men t were hie Majetity' s Mi n i sters , and even the highest authority, his Majesty himself, has not escaped the general tieeens eure,—as if it were not sufficient that the Ministry' Wer not responsible for his acts. But I contend, my Lords, that giving political power to the Catholics ought sat to be viewed as dangerous to the Established Church, and I run sure the possession of such power as this Bill will give them would be infinitely less dangerous than the phy toc a power w hi c h t h ey now possess. __(Hear, h e a r . )—A s this effects of this measure, I confess that I am sanguine t hat it will produce all the beneficial consequences predicted °I it. It has been said that it will have the effect of de stroying the Established Church, but in reply to that I till refer your Lordships to the speech of a Right Rev. re late, who spoke last night upon this subject. 3ly 44 , I felt highly gratified with his declaration, that pen after the passing of this measure the Church of Ogland had nothing t o f e ar. I agree with him, my 'Ns, that the church of England has nothing to fear ex 'elst indeed from those impolitic laws which this Inca- E i re is intended to repeal. I say, my Lords, the s tablished Church has nothing to fear unless abandons that ground on which it is unas -lilable to ava il it se lf o f f or bidd en arms.—(Cheers. ) 4 Church of Ireland what f e ar s can b e enterta i ne d? Cis already in such a situation th a t d o w h at you w ill you anot exempt it from its present difficulty. It was the 'itch of a sma ll m i nor i ty, a minority' small to a degree, thatllill Could on l y b e t h e resu l t o f t h ose very laws which this pwould repeal. My Lords, I say it would take away a s I ft'ers. That church would in crease in magnitude s oh P r °?Perity. I d o no t mean , my L or d s , by means of -le4 ion for I think any injudicious attempts at con -I:°° Would only create injury ; but I mean by means s z i - "°Pcrior truth and reason, it will prevail to a greater titt' Moon as you have relieved it from th e i nv idi ous s f -a " ( in in which it now stands, by avoiding all means Novocation—( Hear, hear, bear, hear) as soon s eh .Y°° have taken away those pretended supports, Ish however only encumber its efforts.—(Cheers.) 0 4 t this p rospect also may fail, and a Catholic Association ' again be established, but I believe if any thing could 2went such a recurrence, it is the measure which is a',sfre before y our L or d ships. That is the only chance.— lear, hear.)—l• will suppose that this might happen t 4{l even then I co n t en d t h at Ireland might remain united tifilis country. I say, my Lords, that such might be the 44 W, the experience of all Europe proem I say that such aa currence might tak e pla ce with o ut d es t ruct i on to t h e t o -It ablished Church. This might be illustrated by referring p ti :::1 the different Governments of Europe. I will sup , Iny Lords, for a moment, that you were to go as , t s tofore, em b o d y i ng t h e di scontents o f t h e people, and Irs tl e tin ising the pressure of all the old evils which distracted tt; (4(l .--(llear, hear, hear, hear.)—l will suppose t o L t Y° ll were to do this, and then that y ou were 4, 4 a Inland embarked in another war. In the course of debat e , my L or d s, allus i on has b een made to Mr. Tone, 1,170111 ti strongly recommend to your Lordships to read his lie t ~` i trs• I would refer your Lordships to the ex lettlecl invasion of Ireland by General Hoche, which o ft , it tak en p l ace , no t w i t h stan di ng t h e super i or i ty 44 British navy, must have caused a separation between t v o countries. Such would have been the result had e 'ected a landing,—and that this country escaped on li ce c'ecasion teas almost miraculous. It was, indeed, UhLaL merciful interposition of Providence; and surely, • /14 , °r ibl, common sense would dict a t e th a t we s h ou ld d o e 7 r noet to avert the recurr e n ce o f suc h consequences. 4 i 0 :1" 1 3, I will put to you the case of Ireland invaded by •s e f e 'gn force—of her people joining with a foreign enemy t will Suppos e th e I r i s h p eop l e un i te d w i t h t h e intru -4°(.1 departed from our Government, what th en w ill ei p, " . a exte n t of their wishes ? will it be merely the eman tharlon from their civil disabilities, no, assu re dly no t, b u t Of (411,,ving their own church establish e d as th e c h urc h : asi i cw State ? The difficulty then is, not whether you (l,, t4 have the probable danger of a Catholic church and Yet,,,ll° ascendency—which y ou ma y aver t w hil e i t is in h e ' Power, h ut w h et h er yon w ill h ave t h ose w i t h a foreign i ip d subject to foreign domi n i ons — un it e d w ith, an d tkte'°'se alliance with it. I would a sk y ou , w h a t secur ity ?a V " , for th e Ch urc h o f E ng l an d an d I re l an d ? F or, Lords, if the establishment of the Roman Catholic ane h : t el l , and of Roman Catholic asc e nd anc y i n I re l an d, tnu t t he same sovereign with ourselves, be au evil, how greater will it be, when achieved by a people stparated from 0, and limier the ir,flueore of another and a strange Government. An , l, my Lorl., what consola tion would you have y , mr , elves—" Oh, we havc been at leAsi, e msl,;.,.nz—we have ion..!•ur maintain the 250. and :3 1 )th of `r!:.arics 11.—we have clung by those atat!'?O t airh prescribe then itbs of supre macy and proscribe the doctrine of tr,nsubstantiation, and the invocation of saints; we have laboured and succeeded in excluding from seats in the Legislature, and from ail high and influential offices, the Catholics of Ireland, and in so doing, have the most precious jewel of the Crown, and lopped off the right arm of the country. We have at least this consolation, that we have persevered, against all the warnings which have been given by the most sensible roe7i, against all the voices of the greatest man who have adorned the senate, against the conviction of the most eminent states men who have adorned either Houses of Parliament, and against the advice of the greatest generals who have adorned our arms; we have done all this, and we can at least con sole ourselves that we have done our duty— Fiat justitia, mat ceelum. _ _ This have we done, and we therefore set down, sedate, and satisfied with having thee our duty, though in the discharge of it we have hazarded our country, and abridged its honour." (Cheers.) My Lards, I have no* nearly done. I have already trespassed too loni upon yoiir indulgence; one topic more only, will I advert srto. Your Lordships have been told, that in the hands of inefficient administrations, the powers of the law were suffered to slumber. (Hear, hear, hear. ) The vigour of the common law had been paralyzed. They ask, why was not the law (for sufficient it was for the pur pose) put in force to suppress the spirit of disaffection which was said to reign in Ireland ? My Lords, my an swer to that is this. In the first place I should say that it is no easy matter to apply a coercive and highly penal law, when the parties against whom it is directed do not furnish any thing in their conduct tangible to its operation.— (Hear.)—But somebody has suggested that there was a possibility—a supposition, .that a series of provocations might be adopted in Ireland, which would have the effect of throwing that irascible people off their guard, and of outraging their powers of patience beyond further en durance.—(Hear, hear.)—By this means it was hoped that an opportunity would be afforded of applying force in the quelling of the disturbances with effect and cer tainty. But further, my Lords, it is imputed to the Noble Duke at the head of the Government, that he has been guilty of neglect in not applying those measures of coercion which were within his reach for the suppression of these dis turbances. My Lords, lam not disposed to quote here the splendid passage in the speech of tke:Noble Duke, which de scribed the horrors of civil war, and the sacrifices which be would make to arrest it; I should only weaken by re peating He of all men- could pronounce such a determination with peculiar grace and effect.—But of that speech, and the sentiments expressed in it, I shall say, that that which is imputed to the Noble Duke as a weakness, I consider as the strongest proof of his magnanimity—the best proof of that moderation and coolness upon which all real wisdom is based. Instead of reproaching I would applaud that Noble Duke for this conduct—l revere hint the more— and when I see this great soldier who has shared in the shock of a hundred battles, shrinking from the horrors of exposing his country to a civil war—when I see him depre eating domestic contests, and protesting against that blood which had covered him with immortal glory, shed in internal broils—l say, that he is an authority beyond which we ought not to go, and that he has contributed one step snore in securing the honour, prosperity, and happiness of this country.—(Cheers.)—But, suppose it should resolve on civil war, and that a standard is wanted by which to judge of the probable success of the experiment, where shall we find so good a criterion as the year 1798 ? Did the civil war of that period produce beneficial conse quences to Ireland—were the fires which were then lighted, yet extinguished, or would their desolating influence cease to be felt, till the whole frame of Irish society shall have an amendment? My Lords, I admit that you may by the sword suppress riots, extinguish open resistance, and restore apparent quiet ; but can you get rid of secret discontent—of that spirit, which, though it shews not itself, is working secretly and dangerously under the surface?—(Hear, hear.)--Here my Lords is the mode of accomplishing that most desirable result, and of achieving that much to be wished-for con clusion. This Bill offers you the: surest means of restor ing tranquillity in Ireland, without: using means of coercion. It is not allowed to us to look into the womb of time, but judging of this evil by fair probabilities, I think I may say, that from the passing of this Bill, you may date not the re-establishment, but as had been more happily expressed, the regeneration of Ireland.--(Cheers.) --My Lords, I have now to apologize for having tres passed so long upon 'your time. It only remains for me to express my hearty concurrence in the measures of his Majesty's Ministers, and to say, that by this measure alone they have deserved my confidence, and that I shall in future give them my support, consistent with my duty in judging of the effect of their measures.—(Cheers.)—That I have little reason to corn plain of the course which the cause has taken, and the delay which has been given to its progress, perhaps some of your Lordships may feel. But, my Lords, I am thankful that justice has been at length done to foe principles which I have advocated, to the view which I took of this question—views which I learned from Fox, and which I uttered by the side' of Lord Grenville.— Their views were single and simple. I always contended that the Catholics had an unanswerable claim to a full participation in: the rights of the Constitution—and from these sentiments I never swerved, and I hope, never shall depart. It is, my Lords, therefore, 'no small gratification to me now to see justice done to those prin ciples and to those views which I so long entertained.— The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack has de scribed, in eloquent terms, the difficulties of a divided Ca binet. Against these evils I long ago protested; these were the objections which interposed themselves to my taking place, or making part, in the Councils of my Sovereign. I have not however, now, my Lord, any un pleasing recollections of these transactions. lam thank ful for the boon which is about to be given to my fellow subjects in Ireland ; it is a source of unmixed gratifica tion to me, that proof is thus given of the purity of those principles, and of the propriety of that conduct which I have pursued ; and that that confirmation is thus made of the soundness of principle , which actuated that great and immortal man, who, on the 18th of March, in the year 1779, (the same day on which this Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons) stated in his place there, in terms which will ever be remembered by pos terity, the necessity, the imperious necessity, of giving to the Catholics of Ireland that justice to which they were en titled. I, on behalf then, my Lords, of all those great men, whose names are associated with this measure, 1 re turn thanks for the justice which has been done to their memories. Ino longer regret the loss of tune which has taken place in its progress, and I am, as I said before, blind to the circumstances which attended the delay, though of a personal nature to myself when I look, as I do now, with confidence to its final accomplishment.— I receive with unqualified gratification the measure which the Noble Duke has proposed, and I shall sit down with stating my conviction, that the country will feel towards that noble individual the same gratitude for this Loon of peace, which they confess to have received at his hands as the triumph of war, and be as little churlish to admit the one, as they have been prodigal in testifying to the other. Lord TENTERDEN explained. Lord REDESDALE now rose to address the House, hut the cries of " Question" were so loud, and the confu sion so great, that he was obliged to sit down. The Earl of ELDON (amid much noise) then came to the table. My Lords, he said, I was strongly disposed to abstain altogether from offering myself to your notice, conscious that to those who concur in opinion with me I could have but little new to advance, and that to those wlio differed from me, this was a question upon which I could but little hope, by any reasoning of mine, to make any impression. My Lords, I am willing to give full credit to the No!ile Earl (Grey) who has addressed you, for the compliment which he was pleased to pay me, by erecting me into the situation of a leader of a party, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no one who more sensibly feels his incompetence to discharge the responsible office to which that Noble Lord has appointed me, than I do.—(Hear, hear, hear.) —My first remark upon this Bill, and the discussions to which it has led, is, my Lords, that of unmixed sa tisfaction, that in these debates, as far as they have gone, there has been almost a total absence of personal allusions amongst your Lordships. The proposition which the No ble Duke bas made to your Lordships is assuredly one which he would be bound to make one time or other, but that it is made now, is to me a matter of great sur prise. —(Hear, hear, hear.) I say, my Lords, that the bringing it forward at this critical moment was to me matter of great surprise, and I believe to the country also, which by some means or other was under the impression that it had been utterly abandoned.—(Cheers.)—Your Lordships have been told, that it is the duty of a Mini ster of the Crown not to disclose his intentions with re spect to any public measure, till he shall have obtained the approbation of his Sovereign to that particular measure. From that doctrine I do not dissent. Bnt I say this, my Lords, that if unintentionally, and by mistake, it was intimated abroad that no such proposition as this was to be made,—then, I insist that the people of the country have been taken by surprise, and that upon a measure, too, which i% detrer tl:eol than their hvog___. upon a measure which prov , :ity, fors iit Oye words of Lore. Scniel - .4; " the t,46 priipetty of the sobjeot."—(Cheers.)--This is the Measure in Which they were taken by surprise,--this the property which was attacked, the most valuable inheritance which they could leave to theit• children. I say, my Lords, that at the close of tie itist SessiOri the Noble Duke placed the people of this country in a situation to believe that this question was, for a time at least, to be left in a state of oblivion. I say that the Noble Duke, by a mis hap, if it was nothing else, furnished a Roman .CatholiC Bishop with the means of reliiiing to the World, in tht month of December last, that it was not his intention to bring forward a measure of this nature this Session, and that therefore the country was warranted in believing that no such measure was in contemplation ; and, I must say, that it has been to the people of this country a great mis fortune, that a general apathy was generated by the assuf a!ve that no stith thing was intended.—(Cheers.) To this effect contributed also not a little the conduct and de clarations of a Right Honourable Gentleman in the other House (Mr. Peel), of whom, as it occurs to me, to mention his name, I wish it to be tinder stood that lam not dueler the influence of any feeling of irritation towardslhim. I solemnly declare, and I wish to state it here in my vindication, that I have no unfriendly feeling towards that Right Hon. Gent. ; we have long acted together, we have always acted, I believe, in the strictest concert, and I have thought that the idern none, idein velle, was as safe a course as I could take with any colleague in politics.—(Hear, hear. )—For fifteen years we have acted together; I have always had the most perfect confidence in his councils, and now that we have parted company, and differed in opinion, it would be as un generous as unjust, in me to insinuate, that theadvice which he has given to his Sovereign, was not given with the sincerest wish of doing his duty,—(Cheers.)—Passing then from the Right Hon. Gentleman, I come to answer for myself. The late Lord Privy Seal (Lord Westmore land), whom I am sorry not to see in hie place, bas been pleased to arraign me at the bar of this House for my con duct while we were fellow servants of our ;Sovereign, I can only say that if the charge be made upon just grounds that Noble Lord is not free from impeachment for so long suffering me to sit with him in the King's Councils. 1 heard the proposition laid down last night, that it was the duty of any man who found himself a member of a divided Cabinet to withdraw from it. I must say that I have heard a different opinion from Mr. Pitt and Lord Liverpool, I might quote other great names in support of this opinion, but I think I have covered myself with au thority enough, and therefore, I say, that I could not feel it my duty to retire from a Cabinet which was divided unless an opportunity presented itself of forming a united Cabinet. The Noble Lord on the Woolsack will excuse me for stating that if he considered it his duty not to remain a member of a divided Cabinet, he must, I think have had extremely good luck to go through the Cabinet up to a certain period of his friend his Grace the Duke of Wellington—the Cabinet of his esteemed friend Viscount Goderich—and the Cabinet of his Hon. Friend Mr. Canning.—(Hear, and laughter.)—The Noble Lord on the Woolsack was pleased to say last night that he would not address me as his friend, in consequence of an observation which I made on a former occasion. What I then stated was, that I would not call him my friend who insinuated that I acted insidiously, or that I looked to expedients and mystification, and mentioned my opinions with respect to the Union with Scotland, in a manner which I could not but feel most disrespectful to my feelings.—(Hear, hear.)—He would tell the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, that those who had known him for many years, would, he hoped and trusted, say of him, that they knew not a man of a more kind heart in the world.--(Hear, hear, hear,)_ Upon the subject of the remarks which the Noble Lord on the Woolsack has thought proper to make with refer ence to me, all I shall say in reply is this—that there is a sort of indecorum in these personal allusions between a Chancellor on the Woolsack and an ex-Chaneellor—(a laugh )—and that disputes of such a nature had better i k be settled by quiet words elsewhere, and not by intruding them on tlae public business of this House.—( Hear, hear.) —lndeed, when the Noble and Learned Lord under. took what he called a defence of his own consistency, I thought it but natural to expect he would keep his word, and prove what he had stated to be his intention. What however was the result ? Not a vindication of his consis tency, but a long and deliberate attack upon mine. I should have preferred, I confess, to have been allowed to defend myself, and I should have then readily admitted what seemed to take the Noble Lord a good deal of time to establish, namely, that consistency in the business of a statesman is most certainly to be governed by the pressure of events and circumstances ; all this I most freely and readily admit. Now as the Noble and Learned Lord has challenged me to investigate his consistencies, I shall venture upon the task, for I have in my hand the speech of an Attorney-General, upon which I must take the liberty to comment. I do not mean his Majesty's late Attorney-General, Sir Charles Wetherell,—(laughter)— who is, by the bye, one of the most learned, and what is far better, one of the most honest and independent members of the profession to which I have myself the honor to belong.—(Hear, —I do not, I say, mean him, but I mean the Attorney-General who preceded him—l mean in fact the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool sack ; and I am alluding to a speech in this House so late as last June. He must excuse me if I feel a little diffidence in reconciling that speech and his late conduct. That very speech, I say, exactly defines my view of what was done in the settlement of the C ons titution, as established in 1688.—1 n fact, my doctrines upon this point I learned from him. I am too old, a b ru ptly to change opinions which I have long cherished.—l am now at that stage of life when I have the most indisputable authority for know ing, that what remains to me of life must probably be spent in infirmity and sorrow. I am in fact now verging nearly on fourscore, and I would fondly trust, that such has been my conduct through a long and arduous life, that I can look back upon it without being struck by the taint of any mark or stain affecting my character.—(Cheers.)—lf I have gone on so long without being compromised, I will not now expose myself to the agony of a change. Impu tations have been cast u p on me , however, which I feel I do not deserve, and I am emboldened to repel them in the presence of the parties who gave tkem.—(Hear, hear.)— The first of these attacks upon me seems to be that I was a willing party to the Act of Relief of 1791. Now, I was officially no party to this Act; it was introduced I know into the other House of Parliament by Lord Redesdale, and had that sort of support, I admit, from me, which my affection and respect for him dictated, and which has been maintained between us for half a century. In that Rill of 1791 I saw then and see now no alteration of the policy of our Constitution as cemented in 1688. I am also identified with the Act of 1793, which was in fact an Act passed by the Parliament of Ireland, with which I, of course, could have had nothing to (10. Then comes the Scotch Act of 1794, for which I am also to be rendered responsible. Now, my Lords, allow me to say, that though I was about that time a good deal employed at your Lordships' bar as Counsel in Scotch causes, I found myself so little proficient in Scottish law, and felt such a difficulty in being master of it without an intense and to me an inconvenient application, that I left all mat ters connected with that law to those who were mote competent to undertake them. Noble Lords should recol lect that there was then such a person in Parliament, the father of a Noble Lord whom I now see opposite. Lord MELVILLE, (across the table,) you mistake : my father was not then Lord Advocate for Scotland. Lord ELDON—So far, then, I am wrong; but I recollect that the Noble Lord's father was then a Member of his Majesty's Government, and that he always assisted the Lord Advocate of Scotland with his able and sionspetent advice upon matters connected with Scottish law, I had therefore little or no concern at that time with such mat ters ; but I am quite ready to say that I was an assenting and assisting party to that law. My mind at that time was not so touch taken up with politics as some Noble Lords appear to think ; my ambition was then directed to the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas to which my revered and dear sovereign promoted me. I was afterwards by the gracious condescension of my sovereign made Lei d Chancellor in 1804-5, where I remained, with the excep tion of a short interval, for 2.5 years. I know well that during that period few persons were more exposed to obloquy ban I was. I met that obloquy, however, by as careful! and attentive devotion of my time to the duties of my office as it was possible for me to give it, and though I know it is possible that it may be a pleasant thing in the House of Peers to catch an old Chancellor, it behoves him to have a share in the joke if he can.—(Laughter. )—And indeed if one could compare a serious case of public legis lation with a private and pers ona l t ransact i on, I coul d state' an anecdote, I think almost quite in point upon this busin . ess. I was many years ago at Buxton, with a vene rable and deceased friend of mine, Lord Thurlow, who had gone there for the benefit of th e waters. Whi lst sit ting with him one evening in a room at one of the inns, we were informed that there were six or eight persons who meant on the next morning to have at the bath what they called a splash at the E x -Ch ance ll or. —( M uc h laughter.)—Well, Sir, said Lord Th ur l ow , l et t h em have a. splash at me if they like, but what is there to prevent me from having a splash in return.— I (Renewed laughter. )--Well then, th a t i s a ll I wan t on t h e present occasion. Now, With reference to what I have done at tie tino?s referred to, I always ac+ed under the ful , responsibility of whatever station I happened to 104, gave my hest and honeSt advice to my Sovereign of that day, always bearing in mind that he was not to he consi dered the Only man in his Itajesty'ti dvrrinions, who was not at liberty to express his own opinions upon a great public queStion.---(llear, , hear, hear.)—When N,,14 Lords allude to what I have done When a member of his Majesty's Cloterthnent, they will surely allow me to state what I know of their opinioni When acting with me. In 1817, when my Noble Friend opposite, if he will allow. me to call him so, when he was a getiriber Of his . .iiajesty's Goternriaent- The Duke of WELLINGTON—I was not. The Earl of ELDON—WeII, then, what I am about to explain is simply this—l was then influenced by what I now know to have been an erroneous opinion, that persons qualified to serve in the army in Ireland, being as all thilitary trieti are iindlr the orders of the Crown, could have been brought here without the specific intervention of any, new Act of Parliament? There were those, however, who thought that it was not safe to trust to the common law in the re moval of these soldiers from Ireland to England, and that it was safer to lave a specific Bill for tle purpOSC. I ask, what was there in that Act to conf e r a n ew political power upon the Catholic interests? My objection always has been upon this question to the admission of Catholics to political power to either House of Parliament, which would lead to their having that. power, or to any of the great offices of State, which are now, it seems to be thrown open to them ?—(Hear, hear.)—ln none of these Acts in which participations is ascribed to me, is there any inroad upon our Protestant Constitution. And here when we are arguing this question, let use at once say that I do not at all rely upon the construction which some persons have put upon his Majesty's Coronation Oath : the sole intent and meaning of which is—that his Majesty is bound to execute the law as the Legislature imposes upon him. I do Rot at all, I say, rely upon any dependence on the con struction of that oath—l rather prefer going at once into the spirit and principle of the Constitution as cemented in 1685.—(Hear, hear.)—The full and fair purpose of the settlement of the law as then constituted, was this and this only—that the Constitution should be essentially Pro testant : the Throne Protestant : the Parliament Protestant and the great officers of State Protestant. Mind, Ido not mean to contend that however essentially necessary at the time were these precautions, that they were never under any change of circumstances to be liable to modification or alteration. All I mean to show is, that such was the na ture of the Act of 13th Chas. IL and 25th and 30th, which were all directed to maintain an exclusively Protestant ascendancy. Exactly in the same spirit was the Act of Queen Anne for the Union of Scotland. There again was alike recognised the strong necessity that our Consti tution should be fundamentally Protestant. That was the clear and plain governing principle. I know enough of his tory to know, however, that laws so planted must abide the eventual modification of circumstances. But it must be upon a clear and palpable ground of necessity. The feelings of the people are identified with these laws. These feelings will necessarily be affected by any alteration of them. Where, then, is this necessity? Show it to me and I will endeavour to deal with it. At present I deny its existence. I see it not. I can therefore neither shape my course by it, nor grapple with it.—(Hear.) — My Lords, I think I may venture to say, that duty is felt by you as one of the moat prominent duties you have to ex ecute, to preserve in this Protestant kingdom the Protestant religion inviolate. My Lords, I contend, that if the safety of this Protestant kingdom is to be preserved, that it is to be preserved by a Protestant House of Peers and Protestant House of Commons. I have contended that you may make alterations which may subvert the system on which your Protestant Government exists, or make alterations, which may yet afford better securities for the Protestant Ascendancy of the country. That it was due to the people, and to the impulse of the mind of the great Duke, that no concession should be made until the Catholic As sociation should he put down, I most readily believe. If that Bill has,—l don't say it has,—but if it has by its provisions in any way affected the remedies at common law, either as it affects the Association or common indivi duals, it may be a very useful Bill, but it will not answer its intended effects. There is likewise another measure to follow this, I mean the Disfranchisement Bill. My Lords, Ido wish Noble Lords to consider the 'provisions of that Bill, ai it may operate in other places, and affect the Constitution. My Lords, if that Bill is built upon speculation of what has been, or has not been, it will not answer the purposes intended. Your Lordships are like wise to consider, that if you are to exercise the power now proposed, you may have inconvenience in electing Members for Parliament. You will leave many without the power of electing, and may leave the Legislature with out the return of those very Members which the measure is intended to secure. I confess, my Lords, the only dif ficulty I have, looking at the Bill, is that I cannot agree to another measure, to which, if it stood by itself, I should most gladly give my assent. My Lords, that ether Bill is the one which I do not recollect the Noble Duke mentioned on the night on which he introduced this question. Now with respect to that Bill, my humble opinion is, that it is a measure by which I can by no means agree to. My Lords, I shall not enter into the construc tion of the Acts of the Union of England and Scotland, and that of the Revolution, which has been gone into by my Noble Friend, the Lord Chief Justice. My Lords, the Noble Earl who has just sat down, whose talents and consistency must entitle him to great respect, seemed to take some of fence at the terms the Learned and Noble Lord made use of, that he was a friend to civil and religious liberty. I am sure, my Lords, the Noble and Learned Lord meant no such construction to be put upon the terms he made use of as that which the Noble Lord put upon it. My Lords, it was my painful duty to oppose last year the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.—(Hear, hear. )—I did so because I felt it was my duty, I have ever been of opinion that the established Church of England I say of England, and I cannot admit that the Church of Ireland is in danger without the Established Church of England being in danger also—it has ever been my opi nion that it was the duty of a Government to form the best and purest system of religion that the mind of man was capable of forming. I don't entertain a notion that the .Church is one separate body and the State another, and that the Church is to rest separate from the State, and the State from the Church. I look upon the Church and State as one. My Lords, I have lived with Lord Kenyon, of whom I never speak without stating the gratitude I feel ; I had also the happiness to hear the opinion of the late Lord Ellenborough delivered in this place upon the sub ject. One of that Noble Lord's sons has now given his opinion. My opinion is, that such is the connection be-1 tween the Church and State, that it is of very es sential necessity that the committal of offices of State should be as much as possible given to individuals who belong to the other part of the Union, and that it be longs to the most enlightened and liberal part of the com munity to fill it. We have the authority of great names; what right have they to say that Mr. Pitt stated upon his legs in the House of Commons, that he would oppose em a n cipation most manfully? What right had they to throw that at me as an argument why emancipation should be granted now ? Persons doing so entertained notions of religious liberty on principles I cannot understand. My Lords, there is another reason I must attend to, and that is the great danger of breaking in upon the established system. Destroy the Constitution of 1688, and you theu will have to take care that you don't annihilate the whole system of Legislation. My Lords, this Bill provides for the advice to be given to the Crown : and if the Mi nister at the head of Government who introduces the mea sure thinks he can bring Catholics to support the Protestant Constitution, he may be a Minister that will succeed, but I ens sot one who can agree in the expectation that he will and I think it not unfair - to suppose the Lord Chancellor, who supports the measure, may be in the part he t a k e s, supposed to be a little under the influence of that Prime Minister.--(Hear.)—My Lords, you have heard a great deal about the enactments relative to the Ca tholics—you have heard of the laws made in the reign of Elizabeth—nay, you may carry it back to a century before ; your Lordships have heard of Magna Charta ; but I say that Magna Charts was a recognition only of those liber ties established long anterior to the time at which Magna Charts was signed ; and it should he remembered that statute is neither more nor less than what was enacted at the Revolution on behalf of the Crown. If your Lord ships will look at Lord Hale's Pleas of the Crown, you will find that he speaks of the old oath, and I think no man will deny that the Oath of Allegiance is talcen by the Protestants alone, including the Oath of Supremacy. 0 construe the O a th i n his own way, had made such encroachments y Lords, Hale says onthrepowers of his that the Pope, wishing Aiaiestyinthis, kingduopmmre,tiot became necessary, to use his own expression, to unrivet those errors, and to let them know that they must take an additional oath of supremacy. In speaking of the Act of Mary, he states that those Acts were neither more ner less than revolutionary Acts. Well, then, my Lords, such being . the nature of things, I find it not easy to recon cile my e mind readily to accede to the proposition of admit ting persons into power, under an Act in which there is an express clause, declaring that they do not admit the supre- rnaey of his Maj es t y . M y L or d s , we are told that this measure is in truth a new bulwark in defence of the established Protestant Constitution, and in support of that fabric which I suppose in a measure rests upon the Act of Parliament which was passed in the tout se of last : ;r ev , All l can say, is, that if I theught so, I would he the first man who tlloold vtlte for this measure. But the first question is, whether the liers,ns wishes it is fritciPted to meet wAi be inclitiA to support tile estahlish , , , il ? Ir.ar, bear.) Hoe, they not by the abominable . proreotit g tWe toistiatien th e c i v il epresented scruple to tell, your Lordships that, if some Noble Lore; P in ° 6 3' s ' t e offensive e r that e L e Lever b s '' t d ed t . hur T c l i i l ee as de t n i 7t will read the let statute of Kertry VIII. they will learn what supremacy is, and wh it is the supremacy 01 the Pope in the ecclesiastical establishmente. I don't go bac;e . o aneieet times—for there is really no change pees. in the doctrines of the Clnerch of Rome froth what there was in ancient times. Those dectrnee Ido not enter into but I think they will in a great degree destroy the purity and morality of the doctrines of the Protestant Churcl:. Let those doctrines be what they may, it shall never be said thai I hat , ' been tits roan seho would sacrifice the su premacy of the Crown to then. Your Lordships have now been addressed by a great many Peers, and iii waiteel, as I must own, to this period of all the debate before I ad dressed you, because I was willing to hear all the argu ments which could be urged its favour of the measure. I have listened studiously to the speeches which have been delivered, and I expect e d to hear frtm the Noble Earl (Earl Grey), who has alluded to so many teipies, sothe new reasons for agreeing to this measure. But after lis tening to all the arguments which have been so fully stated in favour of this. measure, I must say, that the subject seems to me just where it was before:, and to need no fur ther answer. I give great credit to the statements which have been made, and I shall take care at a more favourable opportuity, to examine all the clauses when they cm be discussed in the Committee. In my opinion, it will be much better to listen to the arguments in favetir of the several clauses of the Bill in that stage, and to remove their conse quences ; and at present I shall let if stand till that stage of the proceedings. The Noble Lord has stated, that if their Lordships were in possession of all he knew, that they would not scruple to pass the Bill. I shall be always an enemy to going into Committee to inquire into reasons, unknown to others than the Ministers, the operation of which is to influence the Members of this House to pass any measure, when Parliament is not to know the reasons for introducing it. I have one thing more to say, my Lords—that I will never consent, because some of his Majesty's subjects are of a different religion from him, to point the finger of dissatisfaction against the Sovereign, but it is rather against the laws it should be directed. 1 have thought it my duty, in the course of these discussions, to pay great attention to the peti tions of the People ; and though I may lament the apathy of the people, I must still observe that there has been some display of public feeling. My Lords, with respect to the opinion of Mr. Pitt, at the time of the Union with Ireland, what I know of that great man's opinions is this, that he said he never would give his consent to any change without a full and sufficient security. I never could learn what the security was which he contemplated, but I know also, that that great man never would, if he found the people of this country uneasy, have consented to pass such a measure. The Noble Earl was partially cheered at the conclusion of his speech, and the calls for " Question" were immediately very loud and frequent. Lord PLUNKETT—My Lords, from the time at which I heard the Noble Lord who has just sat down state that the measure proposed was calculated to subvert the Protestant Constitution, I have thought it would be my duty to give my opinion on the subject. After the argument of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack and my Noble Friend (Lord Grey) I had, I confess, great anxiety to know what the ar gument would be that the Noble and Learned Lord who has just sat down would use in opposition to it, and I must say those expectations have been very much and agreeably disappointed, for ho has left the whole on his own au thority, unsustained either by statute or historical evidence. My Lords, it will be expected I should go into some par ticulars respecting the necessity of the present measure. I look upon it as one of expediency, but it has been said by Noble Lords that expediency was not sufficient to justify the House in passing a measure of this nature. A Right Rev. Prelate had asked, has any ground of justice been violated ? I will say, yes. Has it not been a vio lation to refuse an act of justice, by preventing millions of our fellow-subjects from enjoying those rights to which they are entitled. My Lords, arc not most Acts of Parliament passed on the ground of expediency ? It is expediency alone on which statesman must take their stand. It never could be contended that this Constitution was one of exclusion. If it were such, I, for one, will take my share of blame in assisting to pass a law conferring on our Roman Catholic Brethren their civil rights.— My Lords, the Roman Catholics are entitled to seats in both Houses of Parliament according to the basis of. this Constitution—it never was intended permanently to ex clude them.—(Hear, hear.)--It is a great mistake, my Lords, to suppose that all the grievances under which Ireland labours have been upon the system of misgovernment. For the last fifty years Ireland has been encreasing in wealth and prosperity. She has raised her self to a situation in the scale of nations, but how lament able the fact, with this increased prosperity, she is at this moment in unexampled political danger, she is bordering on a state of civil war, and nothing but the measure proposed by the Noble Duke can afford a remedy. (Hear, hear. )—I agree, my Lords, with putting down the Catholic Association ; but that could not have been done but by following it up with this other great measure of relief. No one who has not witnessed the state of Ireland can entertain the least idea of the odious and vexatious exclusions under which the Roman Catholics have so long and so unjustly laboured. I can assure Noble Lords, from my own experience, that they have proved the greatest curse to that country. They have raised father against son, and family against family ; they have produced discord and confusion in every transaction of life; they have poisoned every enjoyment, made every one discontented, and created a jealousy that has shook the safety of the kingdom. My Lords, it is said that the petitions against the measure are sent from those who are afraid of the safety of the Pro testant establishment. A great many of those petitions have been presented from districts which as widely differ from the established religion of the country as the Roman Catholics. My Lords, the great mischief of the existing laws are, that they give an artificial superiority to those professing the Protestant religion. This was what had caused the great mischief. My Lords, nothing is more common in Ireland than to hear a Protestant Brunswicker say, " What ! have a Roman Catholic for a Judge ? Can I be safe if such an one administers the laws of the country? I never can submit to such a state of things," anti yet my I Lords, you tell the Catholics that they must submit to have exclusively Protestant Judges. You tell them that it is for their good that they should do so. But is it reasonable to suppose that they should always quietly submit to such a degradation.—(Hear, hear.)L- I have heard several Noble Lords say, that they are inti mately acquainted with many Catholics who they think are very good and very amiable men, but yet they are con vinced that there would be no safety in granting them their civil rights. What a paradox!—(Hear, hear,)-- All those who think with me that concessions ought no longer to be withheld, are charged directly with being either apostates or favourers of idolatry, and that we have no regard to the Protestant Constitution, but that we are raising up enemies. It is no such thing. It re quires no act to influence parties to unite together, their common griev ance i s sufficient. It had b een stated by a Noble and Learned Lord that the people cared nothing about emancipation, but I can assure him that they do care. They feel that au indignity is offered to some of their body, and if offered to one it affected the whole. The present system of exclusion is certainly an insult to the feelings of a loyal and a brave people, and the wrongs that they have so long suffered had made them too power ful for this country any longer to resist their just claims._. (Hear, hear.)—Are we, my Lords, to he frightened at a monster of our own creation ? Intolerance is that mon ster, and let us by passing this measure, annihilate it. Many persons trust to time and lenient measures for the removal of complaints. For the evils of Ireland time can bring no cure. Complaints must go on from day to day, until every unnatural distinction is removed. Until that removal every unjust distinction will be the root of danger. (Hear.)—The vices of our system have led to these evils. remedies may be proposed, and if by those remedies you make Ireland th ree ti mes as power f u l as she is, still she will be three times more dangerous, unless you change your position. You are now founding your Go vernment neither on the basis of power or public expediency. Y our pr i nc i p l es are a b andoned by every civilized nation in the world. I declare I cannot understand th e N o bl e an d L earned Lord, when he says well knownvofhi which alone al o evils. n discontent Government aa have l a d % icy Tuedh subdue sldsauatpdetplas adapted tine dtttehmmeeptnfhlotee:si fully itfa and s he d onlyf vu ei o ni p tneo l e talk oof l Ireland an n that th e common l aw prov i des a remedy for these ice are burnin g , an d t h e h uman frame wasting in the hectic s t y b s er te e m is of no ap plying the c ommon l aw o f the land as a remedy. The danger Government. o f a sudden rfli e e o x b p l e l o D s u ion.ke h T a s h e w isel t o h f e present policy y peopl e s aid,di d not wish to fight it out with the Government ; but there was much to be apprehended from the present state of that unfortunate country. Whether Government have complied with the wishes of the Catholics I can not say, but I will . say they have folloWed the recommenda tion of the speech frees the throne in doing the best t Ireland. Let me ask the lii Rev. Bh, who sui,s(eii . ,,t,H e aoyi. ealye s rotrnts:mlc, v yn i t. from me on the q uest i on , w h at are the dangers they appi es at ot manage that the wish nger. appears that the hii Lest cha:rartea is iven f tae . Prelys they are idolatrous, yet th.y say, a of the Roman Catholics is t o ga ' n th e P rotestant ascend )o. Th ay hostility must exist tutvauds t'ie Established Church, but l e t us see w h at are the grounds of this respectable man, but I cannot be. Nerve 5011 onha;y.eourbeteiantli.,:iol(elilt laatihingeglirc.y)a—tsipmCeleaii.n.isicesnyotetmtris:id,vet that the Roman Catholics have done any thing against the Protestant Church ?—I admit at public meet jttga, there by affgry Priests and angry Demagogues; but that was not ground to charge the whole Catholic Dods with improper feeliuge. I 'ft) not think it wise to lectors, hostile feelings f f3 e ti e l li e n e g t s . t T o h t e h li e elv4oitjeesntcain'tsaeystablishment. Why is it so? There must be an establishment; religion cannot gn without it. If the Roman Catholic laity adroit, a s they do admit, that there must IT a religious cstit bliAment, they will not decide against It is impossible to overturn the Protestant establishment without subverting the State itself. If you give Catholics their rights, they will respect the Protestant establishment, It is an abuse of good sense to talk of hostility against the Protestant Establishment; I believe from my Heart that the Roman Catholic Priests and Laity of Ireland, have no intention to niahe an attack on the Protestant Fe tablishment.—(Hear, hear.)—Do they forget, in the first thatth place,ethat Constitution the itself is essentially Protestant. That the King is bound by his Coronation Oath to corner-stone of the Constitution, exclude Roman Catholics from the State, I will not admit ; but I will maintain with all that the Constitution is unalterably Protestant. As to the ad mission of Catholics to this House there can be no danger of a Popish representative. If they look to the other House can they suppose the Catholics would send Members to Par liament for the purpose of overturning the Constitution.-- Could such a scandalous conspiracy he carried on in the face of the people of England? I say no! and if such an at tampt were made those who were hardy enough, and wicked enough to try the experiment would be swept off the face of the earth. But then it is said there is a pro bability of such an attempt. My Lords, I deny it. Such a scheme would fail, and it will not be attempted. The danger that I contemplate from a continuation of that system of exclusion is, that the English nation must neces sarily rest upon a disproportional minority fur support, How will you remedy this? How will you give effect to the engines of Government. You cannot make the Ca tholics Protestants, and there is the great difficulty with which you have to contend. This measure gives security to the Protestant Church which you can obtain no other way ! It is impossible that the Catholics can ever ceaseek.to see the attainment of those rights, so long as an exclusive eats blishment exists. Indeed, we are offered one alternative one which I trust will never be adopted. I support this measure, because I see in it those prospective benefits which I can look for through no other medium : because it will have the effect of affording protection to the Pro testants of that country—because it will give them a full and certain assurance of safety, anti also encourage the flow of property into that country. I regretted last night to hear the Right Rev. Prelate at the head of the Protestant Church in Ireland express his dissent from this measure ; But I was gratified at :11 events to hear that dissent given in such qualified terms, and I am convinced that nothing can tend so much to soften the exasperation that will befall the Protestants in Ireland, as the exercise of his power and the influence of his example. We have been told that the Roman Catholic religion remains unchanged, that in doc trine, in tenets, and in prince, it is virtually the same. I deny this assertion.--( Hear, hear, hear.) The Catholics of this day are no more like the Catholics of the time of Philip and Mary than light is like darkness. My Lords, at this late hour I sin unwilling to detain your Lordships by going more largely than I have done iota the consideration of the various topics which the subject em braces. It was my intention to have endeavoured to have explained the obligatory principle of the Coronation Oath, about which so much has been said, but perhaps it is now unnecessary, as the arguments on that point appear to me to be gives up in the course of the debate. I am, however, reminded by my lion. Friend on my right that the Hon. and Learned Lord who spoke last asked where is your security? I think, my Lords, it is impos sible to speak of any better security than that given by this Bill. It has been said that if this becomes a law we may have Popish Ministers, a Popish King and a Popish Par. liament, but is this a probability, or an improbability? Ifthe Roman Catholics possessed this power, no Act of Parlia ment can control them. I am unwilling to speak in allusion to anything that has fallen from the opponents to this measure, particularly when I consider the softened tone which the debate has assumed. In the course of that debate your Lordships have heard none of the denunciaa tions which rung in this House during the previous part of the Session. The Noble and Learned Lord had, in deed, taken care to vindicate the Protestant faith, and he gave your Lordships his solemn assurance that he would die in that faith. I trust it will be long ere he gives such proof of his attachment to his religion. The Noble and Learned Lord alluded to the Oath of Supremacy, and contended that unless that oath was abrogated Roman Catholics could net be admitted into civil power. Ido not conceive that oath was framed for any such purpose, or with any such view, its only object at that time, and that was a time of suspicion, was to ascertain who were loyal subjects and who were not. I believe Hume stated facts in which the Noble and Learned Lord would go along with me, because they are founded on their own statute books, on the evidence of history, and on the authority of Queen Elizabeth's Minister. At that time, be it remem bered Roman Catholics took part in the affairs of the state, and assisted in making the laws, and it was not till the conferacy of foreign states against the English Govern ment, that Catholics were debarred from interference in the concerns of government. I will admit that at the time of Charles the Second the Catholics were held so unworthy of trust, that they became suspected, but why? on account'of their attachment to the King. By the laws which were made against recusancy, Catholic recusants were not allowed to come within ten miles of London and Westminster. By this means they were dis abled from sitting in Parliament, and new writs were issued for the places represented. This proved that by the law as it stood, down to the time of Charles 11., there was nothing to prevent Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament. There was in the SOth of Charles 11. a clause against Popish recusants, which had the effect of excluding them.--(Hear, hear. )—There were two enactments which applied to them, the one declaring that they could not sit in Parliament, unless they signed the declaration, and the other, that unless they signed the declaration, they could not be admitted to the presence of the King, and must submit to being banished to a distance of ten miles from the metropolis. What became of those laws ? All the laws against Popish recusancy were struk off. All the laws banishing them from the presence of the King were struck off, so that nothing remained but the mutilated bust of Titus Oates.—(Loud cheers and laughter.)-- Now, my Lor&, so much for the law of Titus—(A laugh) —for such I must call it. But at that time there were reason for the enactment of that law, for the Catholics were then dangerous to the State. • What is the meaning of the Noble Lords, who state that these principles of ex clusion were consecrated at the revolution ? What had the revolution to do with that exclusive system ? Is it in corporated in the Bill of Rights ? Does that Bill contain any trumperies about transubstantiation, and the worship of the Saints? No ! they enacted those things which were stated by my Noble Friend, and did net trouble themselves with such trumperies as those. They enacted and declar ed the liberties of the people, so far as those liberties had been invaded by the Crown, and no further. —(Great cheering.)—They were no system-mongers, they were no grinders of theories.—(Hear.)—They were sober, practical Statesmen, and they set themselves to inquire into the grievances of the people in order to redress them.—( Hear, hear.)—There were thirteen particulars in which the Crown had violated the rights of the people, and they ac cordingly declared them to be violations, and they con fined themselves to those. There was no stronger proof than their declaration with regard to the right of the sub ject to petition the Throne, a right which bad been in vaded in the ease of the seven Bishops.—(Hear, hear. ) They inserted in the Bill of Rights that the people had a right to petition the Throne, and this proved that they confined themselves to the existing grievances of that time. I beg of your Lordships to observe the manner in which they carried into execution the law relating to the acces sion to the Throne. In the preample they say that " when ever it has been found by experience that in the Protestant kingdom the Crown ought also to be Protestant," and the Act then goes on to say that the King must be of the Pro testant religion, and if he marries a Catholic he forgets his right to the Throne. My Lords, this is a Protestant Kingdom, but does that imply that it is exclusively Pro testant? Have we not a Protestant Government and a Protestant Parliament? ,It, in fact, is, and must he so till the end of time, for there will be such a preponderance of Protestants in it, that at no time can it cease to be a Pro testant Parliament. Another word, my Lords, before I leave this subject. It is said that those acts which are cotemporary with the Bill of Rights, partake of the same nature with the Bill itself. There was one Act