The Sun. — London, England, 1828-05-09 00:00:00

Malort )CIET I. LY-) e reen lately the er'" exhibited e then pt's If the 9 ' secretaries' religiou he scho° l " th with h' . kv close 0 ' nts. T he f progress trials, av, ;ion wool" .ieeretarie , mation. inently rJ littee, an e been la d creased to ipts of Of returned ?at, having ,1e Society .ks to tit 6 hair. on; it lvw 1 the mt' to vio hich ho° third pr ion, :they 11 five cj i admitte a bur, artside (/` •aution .ved wit h o Preven t , corou sl : 6 book i° sions th a e On; an. y and lines I ne! I t, this and .ts as et v his inn? . d gings )1 le of otir !S ler dreg r his Wife' ip romiied' o the Scr Eli les frog' rrt is a clog !hid' Le, into bps , present suites dor nripted kir in h e he migl it r protested the Mod It, he hag ulltudedlo dilly would :atitins, had in press . to ance th ig h t dor"v for publi ruitless, as ;lion to the anded, the d e scription would End er his P°' ieve, mach - in lgoultrit', p o rbY"' ;ue, of Alb' rown Lower JO" ord Dugdile' in Biron , th e Arigl e ' "- / : daughter 0 )tain Edwi r id b r other-ir t es 7 y otiogo of Tipper's/'' Esq. bar- T of Tho u :: a niece of t"- Alexan d `:: of Ale:can't' wicksh ise b)? Bright 1,„1 " 9 ' thorp o° , ui b e ; ,ughter t rk countY I short illoes, .r Bart. P r i e : n. East if'uli' ~r Tenertue, 11r9. Heo rirtt adier-Geneig cr. ncis Sban ig ; India by °h of the r0e 0164 4 Fraucoi " d five 0 10 1, Great Ros e 1' Sea, aged 6 4, 11 Woes', vi ii rd-row, deep Me, the Ole° age, Beol 3ll th. )ton's, ifant dingo cdonald, fijj:' Cor/‘' r 0 )r d-row, 0 Royal e te e ov° of , o 5 few sur f ' BUN 91. 2-/*.t d/ INIPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY S. CATHOLIC QUESTION. Lori JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from the in ,_archants an d others of Bristol in favour of the Catholic cLauttas Retook th a t o pp or t un it y o f as ki ng t h e Ri g h t H on. '''''kt• opposite (Mr. I:terriers) whether the Royal - Assent • eras to he given to a Bill which had passed in both Houses for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. " _ s lrs MERRIES said t h at h e coul d g i ve no answer to le Noble Lord. S ir FRANCIS BURDETT—Sir, before I proceed to en t — r ° 4l )k the H ouse w i t h any o b servat i ons, I s h a ll b eg l eave s aY a few words respecting the postponement of my bee n from a former day, and which I understand has j ' a en Producti ve o f i nconven i ence to many H on. M em b ers. Si r , I assure those Honourable Gentlemen that it must al s „ W ays be matter o f g reat r e gr e t t o me t o run th e augatest risk of putting them to any inconvenience, but I sh all not now trespass unnecessarily upon the time °the House by pointing out those reasons which influenced r la,,,Y cond uc t, an d w hi c h I a b sta i ne d from s•. •g - • Bones when called upon by a Noble Lord on a former the reasons whi c h must b e obvious to 4 e House, and among them I shall mention c ' a , 4 e, namely, that I did not th en thi n k i t f a i r towar d s t h e ` l ncoinistratio n of the Country, to bring forward the 'Action at that time. But as that has nothing to do With the su bj ec t, I mere l y mean to express my regret t hat postponement has put Hon. Members to any material alc onaenience, and shall then proceed to state the grounds l 'Pon which I mean to call upon the House to accede to the motion which I intend to make. In doing so, however, I w t help feeling the very great difficulty in which . 4 44 : stand, a difficulty gr e ater than I have ever expe ''aileed on any former occasion, open many accounts, and . P a rticular/as on account of the subtraetion of those great ~,a 4(l' l3lenditi talents, the benefit of which I was accu s t ome d "' have i n su pp or t o f t h e prayer o f t h e pet i t i oners,— ! )a, ' that defalcation occasioned, first hy the removal by th of the Right Hon. Gentleman who held the prin -44 situation in his Majesty's Councils, and of a Learned and Hon. Gentleman who has been removed to another g l ee. I mu s t f ee l t h at w i t h out the assistance of those ta lents which were so conversant with the question, and Which were exercised in advocating it, I am placed under disasl vantsges of a p ecu li ar nature . Wi th respect to the i starasel Gentleman, he has been only removed to another Place, where I hope that this question will still receive the t"' less beneficial supp or t o f hi s talents, and where - Y will be exercised as much to the advantage of the Petitioners, as they ever were in this House. With respect !to the other Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) it is mat "• tome of unmitigated sorrow and regret, that by his loss I have b een deprived of the assistance of one who advocated t }a question as I do—as the advocate of religion. Ido ( „,"PIY reg re t t h e l oss o f that Right Hon. Gentleman. 1",. e ar, hear.) I n stat i ng t hi s, S i r, I have some cones).- a lt ? °, that th oug h po li t i cally oppose d to Mr. Canning fr utg tile greater part of my life time—though opposed Cequently to him upon topics of great interest and which at ",e likely to excite warns feelings, it is to me a satisfaction se4' moment that our political hostility was never debased a feeling of private enmity,—(Hear, hear),—that it was , e v i se deg ra d e d b y any envy of his talents, and that as far r a , . a PPeared to my understanding, I did justice to his sienna ti te and paid always to hi s t a l en t s th e h omage o f t h at It which they were calculated to exite.—(Hear. )_. t o t tl at also, Sir, be a consolation to those who are dearest 4 a at Right Hon. Gentl eman , h owever d eep l y we may 4e his l oss — a l oss no t on l y to t hi s country but to the £ e L civilized world, whi c h was d epr i ve d of the influence a * 'La great attainments at a moment when that el-se W as most severely felt, an d t h ere f ore t h e most s ! !ac t: Y . to be deplored ;—it mus t, I repeat, b e a conso la, t t to those nearest and dearest to him, that there was tai,:li,oent at which he cou ld h ave b een ta k en from this hti with more advantag e t o hi s own f ame and repu 41,°a, seeing that there was no mosnent when he could , 44 ,. e left behind him a name more connected with asso- C i°ll , ll anal expectations which produced regret through ta° a the civilized world. To Min may be applied t " Worst s of the great Roman to his father-in-law—nTu sa r L f eliz Agricola, non vitav tantum claritate sed etiam , ukii ta te mortis." Had the Right Honourable e a ,:etria n lived a thousand years, he could not have kip a moment to retreat from the stage of k inn "'t lif e with greater eclat than the moment when his 4'7, had ar r i ve d a t the utmost, wh e n it c o uld no t by poss -7,!Y be put out of the reach of fortune in time to come. s ,,Pear, hear.)—ln bringing forward thi s ques ti on , I am D l 4 tated by the same spirit and feeling which actuated that ," 4 "ght Hon. Gent., and I shall propose at the end of my ad ettt'ss, a resolution which having been enforced by him in si,: 4l * times and sanctioned by a l arge ma j or i ty o f t hi s st, ll ae, entitl e s m e t o ca ll upon t h e H ouse to adopt it for t: b s e a he of its own consistency, and not at this time Of tiv behi n d h and i n liberal feeling with the rest C 4 sib t 7 ea Civilized w or ld, w hi c h i s a d vanc i ng i n a career attioap. I tY and justice, that it i s our d uty to b e to t e t he, first to a d o pt. Si r , M r . C ann i ng was attac h ed th e e , t stablished Church of the country as I am— as,,tioNcit in which he brought forward the Catholic but t i t : Was a spirit not of hostility to that Church, hi t h e Mane spirit in which I now bring it forward, anel 'a spirit of a friend to the Established Church With • 4 41,1 i a view not to weaken . but to strengthen that kti ti... "hulent, and to place it ~upon grounds which must i kte,rYond the reach of all assailants. I may say there " y;, t hat Right Hon. Gentleman, "though h e be d ea d, t ile h . 4l ' * Peaketli," and I shall here endeavour to speak i n u ita,c feelin gs an d sent i ments, an d w i t h re f erence to the IN a te view s and objects of that Right Hen. Gentle- Lei; I trust that I shall be considered as standing CA N not with any feelings of hostility to the Established aua,L i q , , but as one of in, members; and as a man per aael;;OPon r eason an d pr i nc i p l e t h at i t i s t h e best Church, 'ir, ,", e :ch, if I h a d a c h o i ce , I s h ould b e inclined to adopt. , t aer ) ,l'm opinion I h ave u p on thi s su bj ect i s one arising not 'agliy he of public grounds, but also from private feel 41,as a I t has been my lot to find some of my earliest and 'A 1 ,,,val ed friends among the Ministers of the Established t 'aa tlt s c ," 4 , : L and now that I have touched upon this topic, I 'ietd - Zefuse myself the satisfaction of boasting of my il leta s TP with a distinguished ornament of the Establish- Nis, -an individual, who, however he may be hid in aderZpt, can never be concealed in obscurity--a man 'tad ,s 4 With the greatest talent and the highest virtues 4id : t er Was strong ability and deep learning, accompa- Ittis,j More perfect candour and sincerity in the investi -I°Wll,Ol truth, than i n th e case o f t h e esteemed person ~'; ' ftly- ' ,4 I have all u d e d, and whom I shall now ta k e t h e f . \ '-..1 `0 H ams—his name being indeed his best panegy ,-114414an Dr. South, the head of Magdalen College, ,i, 4 "ns, a • I know not, Sir, whether my mention of his T is tis a 7. t his public manner may not be offensive to this 0 . :, i :4;',,' 4 . ed and pub l ic ornament of his sacred pro.. sc)u.sit at the same time, I seized the opportunity o f • 4 s q , in Order to evince that I am far from standing ''' L lit ua a a4 ocate the claims of the Catholics, under the ea C-14 '1 1 (% ,of a. hostile feeling towards the Established t„) aktat.,'_ out, on the contrary, to prove that, on every ac f 'la 1 7, 4 grounds private as well as public—l am anxious .ad a (i e , I NC"Y thing in my power to strengthen instead D ,: v ol l ,P 1 the Establishment. Sir, I think that by ens "i" . "4l% ° g to p romote the success of Catholic Emanci -4,,%11141atti ta king the best course to secure the safety aa ", ta,"tch and State. Sir, what I shall endeavour to i ,„ t --' la s - 41 this House, as the case of the petititioners, will ,:at r'n different grounds; all and either of which, if e c , --4 tist to the satisfaction of this House, must be tie s in their favour. First of all, lam anxious / N h o nt to the conviction of this House, the kiss evilits; tl , ancient Treaty, the departure from which I te "IP looking upon as the origin of all the co se at ea , . a . te, Id , , which the Catholics labour at this day.b— taiLl the tilts Treaty of Limerick as the Bill of Rights es t leris a 7 '4 ) Plan Catholics of Ireland and the people of th at ;' ci '- b `''e 4 e, hear)—and since the Right Hon. Gen t h - b it ;},rca'ie (Mr. Peel) has given us to understand, Rocer'aes -at haa been done had violated the rights of Tt.tattlis ius ,.tholi cs , h e would be inclined now to make ti l ,, 4e Y 1 "'lt faith, an d to give us the advantage of that Pl ar4) ilah, 411 the snore anxious to convince him that a nd a t ' a Ntle: h ave been grossly violated. This the Right R i ve -mkt- that if a violation could be shewn he would 'to I h thi s ' :advantage of his vote on that occasion. caa t'% - ',.! i 'li I t v a dl maks, it necessary for me to endeavour ,lie bar ~ + 4t • • and a can show, as I think ~ t 1, 41 , q 0 11 Proposition ; arii i 4 With Oith that is now asked for by the petitioners at 1 Ball () i f , t his House was granted to them by the public fo t ave a a Ntntry in the Treaty of Limerick, I trust . I I t : t O t i 41 e enough to induce every Member in this 1,4 b eta ~Y , t llat the prayer they ask should be granted. ea ,, . 0 tll,. ~j,\ -.°) t o ' first proposition, then comes another not 1 411 -I, et a . r4 alae out—the Treaty of Union—(hear, e ',...''' ve„"n this country and Ireland, where solemn sTPIe of ,Riven by the people of this country to , 5 , Ve ; t /r eland, and where, had those pledges not !, ,, oul d i ''' measur e that was then carried into even *";lind , c 4 t have been adopted—(Hear, hear, 11 4 ,71 , tea, 'a that measure which was proposed had not , .r 3 ting i ti 'n ,'' if an independent Parliament had been 14... 4 ti lt s, itilat Country, I would put it to any Gentle e p "' et e i n ti t oeriae , rBl4 o tise to say, whether that independent this day have repudiated the petition of What Was a -- Ilear.)---Si r I shall g on to show Theo -( t - aaeed it was , becoming o inus to grant ; and if it was becoming to grant—if it had not been resting on common sense and sound justice it would still have to he considered as standing on the strong grounds of private faith and public security._(Hear.)—With respect to the first part of this question, I have said, Sir, that it will be necessary for me to refer to the Treaty of Limerick, but before I do that, I will take the trouble of reading to the Right Hon. Gentleman, a - atatement — he himself made in 1827. On that occasion he said—" I think it necessary for me to state, that I shall not shrink from what I said in the year 1825, and that if I could be satisfied that any of the advantages secured to the Roman Catholics of Ireland by the treaty of Limerick had been violated that would alter my vote ; but I feel that nothing has, been done to afford any ground for having their disabilities removed." Now, Sir, lam at issue with the Right Hon. Gentleman on this point, and would that this had been argued by a more com petent individual, and in a more satisfactory manner, and I should have perfect confidence in the result. I will now refer to the first article in the Treaty, which is a 9 follows : " 1. The Roman Catholics of this Kingdom shall en joy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles the Second ; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Par liament in this kingcthm, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security, in that parti cular, as may preserve them from any disturbances upon the account of their said religion." Now, Sir, in relation to this article, I have to observe, and I do so plainly, and without any nicety or refinement of special pleading, that there are evidently two distinct members or parts .in it ; the first relating to the present free exercise of the religious rights claimed by the Roman Catholics ; the second containing a promise of "further security in that particular," in order to preserve the parties "from any disturbances upon account of their religion." Now, Sir, I ask any candid and impartial man whether it is no "disturbance upon account of religion "to make your enjoyment of political rights and civil privileges de pend upon the abandonment of your religious faith ? (Hear, hear.) I ask whether there is no disturbance on account of religion in making religion itself the cause and means of disturbance and annoyance, and compelling individuals either to abandon their religious faith, or give up the enjoyment of their rights and privileges—thus (in the latter case) sacrificing their temporal advantage to their sense of moral rectitude : or (in the former) surrendering their consciences to their desire of secular profit. This, Sir, is the situation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; and I am prepared to assert, that it is impossible to con ceive a situation more distressing for any parties to be ob liged to occupy, or more unjust for one set of human beings to compel another to stand in. Sir, it is most cruel, unjust, and oppressive, to place persons in a situation in which the exercise and enjoyment of political rights and privileges de pend upon a compromise between the conscience and self interest, so that the suffering parties are forced to abandon either their religion or their liberty. This, I contend, is in direct violation of that stipulation contained in the Treaty of Limerick, that the Roman Catholics " shall not he disturbed on account of their religion !" What is it but disturbing them on account of their religion, when their civil and political rights are, on that ground, and on that ground only, withheld ! The Treaty goes on, in the se cond article (by the way, I may here observe that the Right Hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, argued that the compact related only to private rights and privileges, the enjoyment of which it guaranteed.) The Treaty Pro ceeds, in the second article, distinctly to recognize and guarantee the continuance of the public rights of the Ro man Catholics, as they existed in the 'time of Charles the Second. However, before discussing more minutely the terms of this article, I may as well mention that the Right Hon. Gentleman stated, in the first instance, that the Treaty applied to the garrison of Limerick only, but after wards he corrected himself, and allowed that it had a more extensive application. But to come to the second article, it is one which I consider extremely material ; after stating that all parties included within the provisions of the Treaty who shall " return and submit to their Majesties' obe dience, shall hold, possess, and enjoy, all their estates of freehold and inheritance." After thus promising protec tion to their properties and private rights, it goes on to guarantee them the enjoyment of "all the rights, titles, and interests, privileges, and immunities,which they and every or any of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully entitled to, in the reign of King Charles the Second, or at any time since, by the laws and statutes that were in force iu the said reign of King Charles the Second." Now, Sir, I ask, what can be more distinct or decisive than this? For my part, Ido not see how it is possible for words more expressly or directly to stipulate for the en joymen, of all rights, public as well as private, by the parties to the treaty, " and their heirs," for these latter words are introduced in the earlier part of the clause. It cannot be said that, because the clause guarantees the full and peaceable enjoyment of private rights, it does not therefore comprehend public privileges, where the latter are expressly guaranteed. In fact, the second article stipulates for, sad extends to the unrestrained ex. individuals, the matter would not have been surprising, nor the argument to be deduced from the circumstance con clusive in any way. What, I ask, was so natural as that the great man and eminent lawyer whose name has been mentioned, should in those hazardous and dreadful times, advocate the cause of his clients without reference to the circumstances, and with all the habitual skill and pru dence of a professor of the law, take care, as the phrase is, not to travel out of the four corners of his brief. Sir, though the argument of Sir Toby Butler had related solely and exclusively to the private wrong and injury sustained by his clients, yet that circumstance would not have been conclusive, nor could it be taken as proving that public, as well as private injury, had not been inflicted by means of the infraction of the Treaty of Limerick. If Sir Toby Butler had contented himself (as perhaps he might) with arguing the immediate question then under the consideration of Parliament--namely the question of a private injury —it would not have afforded conclusive evidence or even fair presumption !that public, as well as private interests, were not involved in the non performance of the condition, of the solemn compact enter ed into between this country and the Irish Roman Catho lics at Limerick. But how dots the case stand.? Sir Toby Butler took the opportunity afforded him by a case of private damage, boldly to allude to one of public mis chief. He took the opportunity of his appearance before the bar of the House on hehelf of individuals, to plead the cause of the nation. He appealed --most indisputably ap pealed—to Parliament on the subject of the wrongs inflict ed on the public by the infraction of the Treaty of Lime rick. With equal ability and public spirit, he asserted and vindicated the integrity of the treaty, at die same time that Le denounced its violation. Sir, I will take the liberty to quote some of the principal points of Sir Toby Butler's argument upon this occasion. First, then, after urging the cruel infringement upon private rights in con sequence of the breach of the treaty in the particular case in question, he proceeds to argue, that by the compact en tered into at Limerick, the Roman Catholics were resto red to all the privileges to which:they were entitled equally, with all other classes of their fellow-subjects ; that such privileges were recognized by the laws of all nations, except in cases of particular forfeiture—that the Roman Catho lics of the Kingdom of Ireland had been guaranteed the enjoyment of all privileges which they possessed in the reign of Charles IL and that no law could deprive them of their birthright thus recognized, and to which they were entitled, equally with all other of his Majesty's sub jects. He then complained that the Roman Catholics by certain articles in a Bill before alluded to, were prohibited from a number of things, the deprivation of which was neither more nor less than a gross infringement upon pub lic liberty and equal justice—that for instance they were prohibited from visiting or residing in certain towns and places, without first finding such securities as were not required, nor could legally he demanded, by the law of the realm, as it had heretofore existed. Further, he com plained that the Roman Catholics were prohibited from voting for Members of Parliament, without taking certain oaths and declarations contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty of Limerick.—(Hear, hear.)—He also denounced the prac tice of taking away the right of advowsons and presenta tions from Roman Catholics; in fact, the system of de priving them of their property in this respect, except they' abjured their religion, contrary to the express provi sions and declarations contained in Magna Charta.— From all this it appears, the Right Honourable Gentle man is mistaken, when he imagines that Sir Toby Butler did not argue, against the breach of the Treaty of Lime rick, in a public as well as in a private point of view. Sir, there is another remarkable thing in the able anti public spirited speech of this celebrated lawyer. Sir Toby But ler, as is known to all persons, was an individual who held a high and important station in the country, and de voted his great abilities to the service of his countrymen. From his sentiments, those of the public mind iu his time may be collected ; and his speech affords an evidence of ge nerosity of feeling that perhaps may surprise Hon. Gentle men, at least such of them as have been in the habit of forming their notions and opinions of the Roman Catho lics from the misrepresentations, calumnies, and falsehoods studiously put forward by their enemies. —(Cheers.)—Sir, it is only the other day that a most invidions, ironical, and satirical remark was made in relation to the feeling recently evinced by the Roman Catholics with regard to their Pro testant brethren the Dissenters ; and it was invidiously and bitterly observed, that the papers were nosy pretending a fellow-feeling on behalf of the Protestants, with a view to their own ultimate advantage. Sir, it is a singular cir cumstance, that so far from any thing like this being the cause, I say it is a singular circumstance, and one every way deserving allusion, that the more we look at the sub ject, and examine fairly into the character and conduct of our Roman Catholic brethren, the more pure and disinte rested do their proceedings appear. If we investigate the subject dispassionately, without giving way to unjust and unfounded prejudices. When we look to the facts of the case, we find in every new examination of them something to raise the Roman Catholics in the estimation of every honest man, and do away with the groundless calumnies and gross misrepresentations of which they have been made the subjects. On this occasion, Sir—l allude to the opinion of Sir T. Butler, before the Irish Parliament—we find a singular, but pertinent and satisfactory answer to the ap parently smart, though really ignorant remark to which I have adverted—l mean the remark as to the pretended cor diality, but actual perfidy evinced by the Roman (7atholics towards the Dissenters. Here, Sir, in the course and progress of this very cause before the Irish Parliament, when Sir T. Butler might have been only expected to exert himself against the oppression, cruelty, and injustice under which his Roman Catholic fellow -countrymen laboured— an oppression the more detestable because exercised under the form and semblance of law. At this very time, and on this occasion, while his friends and clients were smart ing under the acts of some of those persons, whose cause he yet undertakes to advocate, lie speaks thus of the Dissent ing Protestants of Ireland. He says, whatever the Irish Papists may be thought to meditate against the safety of the State, surely the Protestant Dissenters have not done any thing to render themselves liable to the same injustice with which their Roman Catholic brethren are visited, o r to give just cause and ground for their being worse treated in any particular than other Protestants. On the contrary, he 'proceeded to argue, if these Dissenters whom ye now oppress had not, by their timely interference, stopped the Irish army at Londonderry, the settlement of this country might not have been so easily accoinplished ; for, continues he, if that army had gotten to Scotland at a tim e when they had boats, barks, and all things ready thereto, and frieruis awaiting them bearing arms, it was easy to see the consequences thereof to the kingdom. But the, Dissenters were then entrusted with commissions civil and military, and the event was prevented. After all this (adds Sir T. Butler), to pass a Bill now to deprive the Dissenters of their birth-right for the good services they have done, is a most unkind return; for, surely, whatever the Papists may deserve, the Peotestant Dissenters are clear of all blame, and if this be all the return they are to receive for their good intents and actions, it will afford slender en couragement to others hereafter to pursue their example. Such are the sentiments expressed by Sir Toby Butler on this occasion in relation to the Protestant Dissenters of his time. I think, after this, it is hardly necessary to say that malignant feelings are not entertained by the Irish Catholics against any individuals on account of their religion. Sir, this is no new or extraordinary case of splendid and elevated generosity on the part of the Roman Catholics, but merely one most slighted and brilliant instance of that disinterested and generous quality so frequently evinced by' the Catholics of Ireland—that feeling of generosity under the influence liberality- passions as have r contra distinguished n b t e r e a ! a o sense of and of which it is consistent with the Irish c h aracter to for get injuries—to bury in oblivion animosities. When once all the m overspread by justicese selfish and distinguished from every other confli c ti ng motive, and re evil every inferior feeling. Not only in such cases do they withhold all expression of asperity and bitterness at in juries being endured, and wantonly inflicted, but all the powers of their hearts and minds become absorbed in one generous feeling of indignation at the wrongs and suffer ings of men who have been their bitterest, most decided, and most uncompromising enemies. Sir, I trust, the Right Hon. Gentleman will allosv, that the articles agreed upon in the Treaty of Limerick do not stipulate only for private rights, independently , of public privileges. In my opinion, the attempt formerly made by the Honourable Gentleman to prove th e correctness of his construction of the treaty in this respect, has not been successful, backed and supported as it was by a reference to a letter written on the subject by King William the Third. Sir, the interpretation which I put upon this treaty —this Treaty of Limerick—is the same which was put upon it by Bishop Burnet, the great historian of that time. Sir, ilishop Burnet distinctly states, that by the stipulations of ercise, both of political and private immunities by the Roman Catholics, as they enjoyed them in the reign of Charltrs 11. Sir, the question is—but I correct myself, for as it appears to me, there can be no doubt, and, therefore, nu question on the subject—the inquiry then resolves itself into this—what rights and privileges did the Roman Catholics enjoy in the time of Charles 11. That is the only point for consideration. I believe lam fully justified in stating, that at the time referred to, the Roman Catholics possessed and enjoyed all the rights, privileges, and immunities, which fell to the lot of their fellow-subjects. Sir, all such civil and political rights as they possessed at that period, they were entitled to under the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick ; and if they are now excluded from any part of those privileges, they are excluded in direct violation of the stipulations of that treaty. Sir, another part of the treaty is not a little remarkable— it shows that there existed in the minds of the Roman Ca tholics of the time not a feeling or presentiment of the " disturbance" to which they were likely to be exposed on " account of their religion," but also a prophetic feeling of the mode in which they were to be so disturbed. The 9th article expressly stipulates that the oath to be adminis tered to the Roman Catholics shall be the oath of allegiance, " and no other." I will read the words of the article to the House : " 9. The oath to be administered to such Roman Catho lics as submit to their Majesties' Government, shall be the oath above said, and no other." Sir, from the clause of the treaty, I should be almost disposed to infer that the Roman Catholics had the wisdom and foresight, or feeling and presentiment (call it what you will), to perceive the means by which they were likely to be disturbed in the exercise of their religion and enjoy ment of their civil privileges, and accordingly provided against the event of a special article. Sir, unhappily their fears, if they entertained them, were but too well verified; they were verified to the utmost extent by the penal en actment of the code. I trust there is no man now living who is prepared to justify the laws passed against the reign of M r . B ur k e w h en h e pro flounced them n n Of Queen Anne—laws whi c h fully Catholics justify in tthhe see" a system of inge n i ou s tyranny." Th e impolicy and odious nature of those laws is unprece dented, and I sincerely hope may never be imitated. No man, I should suppose, will deny that these Acts, now hap pily repealed, are direct infringements on the treaty of Li merick. lam s ure the Right Hon. Gent. opposite will not deny this, for he has himself declared h e is glad that syste m h as been departeelfromcde a from, odious, imp o li t i c, and oppressive In such a o as it was.that c omprised in the penal laws, I am satisfied the Right Hon. Gentleman never con on of the meaning of the T . that his constriction could have concurred. The Right Hon. Gentleman tended correct, on the ground that, in the famous of Limerick was Butler, at the bar of the Irish argument of House of Commons, the infraction .. of the treaty was con sidered not in the light o f a violation of political rights, privileges. The Right Hon. sirr.eoby but as an injury to private in that able, lawyer-like, Gentleman was of opinion that, eminent individual referred and public-spirited speech of the to, the inj ury to pr i vate r i g ht s , anti uot the public wr ong , inflicted by th e b reac h o f t h e com pact was referred to; an d on this grou n d t h e Right Hon. Gentleman concluded th a t who, be it in the opinion of Sir T o by B u tl e r himself, the re membered, was a p arty to t h e treaty in question,agree. any I beg leave ment extended only t o pr i vate r i g h ts , an d did not byto means apply to political p r i v il eges . N o w, say, the Right Hon. Gentl eman i s w h o lly mistaken as re garde that fact ; yet, had it b een o th erw i se , even if Sir Toby Vutler did not on the o ccas i on i n ques ti on insist upon the injustice done to public privileges, while he was pri n cipally engaged in condemniug an injury inflicted on private • , ' ' '-' •-._ . • - . . e 1„..,,,..1., : .= ,...:::: -7 7,: : •1 . .....: : v .: , .: . . . . , ~.... i0 .... 0 , •,, - • er.- . IA ~ 0 - --- A - . - .-A ' / - - --. --. , ' $.- ...‘ ' ' - -- 'V- • g . "-- 14 -• • -71 • • ' . '•• , 44 41, i ... . ~..., %... . . • . • .(,,,,, , •., , ".. i,, , ' f t , : ,-,„ 1,,, —,-.: - .• 4 \N. 7. ...4w.//,' '; , ......., .3 .. - - . • .• , e ___ _• . _ v s ~ . .. ... ,4_, _, . . .. , , , . ~,•- , 1,, , - g ..., - , ~., 1,,,,.. _____-- k , ,, -.i6 ,,, ...„ *,. e ..-9.tr , wi",- - 5.1.1- - , i;,!'",'r '. ~.•: :. : •!- -- ..441111111h" 11, ,,,:.: 7 ' . 1' , .. , • Ili'd•si) -I - ,• • ulumitaili 4 ,igkila. • -Ito ‘ 4, - - /' , t,gi' .- • • • — that treaty, all the Roman Catholics of that country were to be indemnified, and restored to all the rights and pri vileges which they enjoyed under the Government of Charles 11. Now, the Act which excluded Roman Ca.. tholies from Parliament, was confined to England, and did not extend to Ireland ; for long after the passing of that Act, the Catholics continued to sit in Parliament there—they continued to enjoy this privilege upon the faith which, it was then believed and acted upon, King William bad pledged to the people of tharland—and that country did for a period enjoy those benefits to which, ac cording to Bishop Burnet, all were admitted as British subjects, upon taking the oath of allegiance, while at the same time they were not called upon to take the oath of supremacy. Now, Sir, I think if there be any meaning in the words of that treaty—if any sense were conveyed by it—if ggod faith is to be relied upon—if promises freely given and implicitly relied upon are to have any weight— the people of Ireland are entitled, and have since that pe riod been entitled to all the advantages enjoyed by any other portion of the people of this realm. Whoever looks into the history of that time, will see and feel that such claims the people of Ireland have—that such claims are grounded fairly and justly upon the Treaty of Limerick, the treaty which we basely violated, and of the violation ofwhich we have since been so much ashamed, as to have granted— grudgingly indeed, and by degrees only, many of those rights theywere justified in demanding, of nearly the whole of whi c h they were deprived under the reign of Queen Anne. But I still Sir, although we hare granted much, there is still a long arrear of justice against us. Whoever looks into the history of that period, and attentively peruses that treaty, will see that at the moment every thing depended upon its conclusion ; and first of all, it may be argued, and this is perhaps a new way of considering the question, that the people of Ireland have not had justice done them, because at that period they were guilty of no crime—that England has no right to inflict pains and penalties upon the people of that country, because at that time, Ireland was but true to her allegianc e to her King—because, at that time, Ire land was struggling for her liberties—because, at that time, her people were true to their cause and to themselves, not as abject slaves, kissing the rod and worshipping at the foot-stool of Popery, but supporting and maintaining the interests of the family of the Stuarts—th e first and the greatest benefactors of Ireland, the first to give to that country the protection of equal laws, the first to admit her to the participation of equal rights. Like true and up right men they defended their benefactors—benefactors to whom they felt themselves allied by the ties of gratitude, no less than by those of allegiance. In the times of their dif ficulty and their distress, not in the height of their in fluence and their power, did they discharge their debt of gratitude, and, in discharging it, generously in volving themselves in the same ruin to which those whom they defended were devoted. The people of Ireland fought in the cause of their legitimate Monarch—a Monarch whom they were bound to defend no less by grateful feel ings than by the oaths they had sworn, and the duty which they owed to him as their Crowned King—they battled in his cause, they fought for him to the last, and it is more than doubtful that they ever would have been vanquished if their King had had the courage to defend them which they had to defend him—if he had been true to them as they were true to him, at the time when he most needed faithfulness, at the time when he was most in want of friends. But when their Monarch abandoned them2-when be deserted their cause and his cause—when he left them to fight their battle alone, then were the people of Ireland guilty of no wrong—then could the people of Ireland he charged with no crime ; they were still brave men with arms in their hands stipulating for their own rights—sti pulating for what ri g ht s ? For ri g ht s w hi c h i t wou ld . have been wisdom in us to grant—for th a t w hi c h i t wou l d have been equally good in us to grant as for them to have received. Stipulating to be what To be part of the same country—to enjoy equal rights ; rights which they had defended so bravely as to have justified us in thinking they were deserved—and having justified ns in considering that trust might safely be reposed in them under one King, because of the fidelity with which they had discharged their duty under a former. It is, Sir, a most singular thing that the very same feeling when considered as the at tribute of another part of the Kingdom—of Scotland— should have been looked upon and taken in a light so very different, although in that country the people had been excited to oppose the views and the liberties of this, a course in which they were not justified by good faith, but to which they were led by faith basely betrayed. Sir, their conduct to their King forms a striking and degrad ing contrast to that of the brave, the honest, and the faith ful people of Ireland. But though they owed allegiance, and though that allegiance was owned, to the Monarch of these Realms, you need not be referred to the Acts of 1715 and 1745, to remind you in what manner that allegianc e was kept. It is also strange, that although the Stuarts have been long banished front this land, in this land the Stuart principles are still favoured : yet, notwithstanding, a people who preserved such feelings without spot or ble mish, have no such influence in this country as that people, of whom so much cannot be said. It is, I say, singular that the people of Ireland, who can be reproached with no breach of faith, but who, on the contrary, must be con- ' sidered as objects of ad miration—objects deserving of those rewards which are called for by conduct swayed by no per sonal motives, but by a brave and generous determination of sacrifices in a cause which by them was deemed just and good—it is singular, I say, that they should be treated as national delinquents, while applauses have been showered ou a people who were supposed to have had the same feelings of blind attachment to the same cause, and who attempted much more, to injure the established Government and the liberties of this country. Sir, I say, and I am supported by the best authorities in saying, that at the One of the signing of the Treaty of Limerick, King William was so pressed upon all sides, and felt himself in so ticklish a situation, that be sent word to his General to make peace with Ireland upon any terms. The historian tells us that the garrison of Limerick were in no way distressed, in no degree in want of provisions, while on the other side their cattle, and the means of bring ing the artillery to bear, were rapidly perishing; and the army without the slightest prospect, at the very moment that reinforcements from France were in the Shannon— reinforcements of which, before the final ratification of that Treaty ; the garrison of Limerick could have availed themselves. While the vessels of France were in the river —while the balance was still most doubtful—and while the tide of battle might have been turned by a single stroke, the good fifth of that garrison was manifested. If it had not been kept, who can say what would have been the con sequence ? Who can doubt, th a t if th e army o f R i me Wil liam h a d been obliged to retre a t f rom b e f ore Li mer i ck, Ireland would have been inevitably lost ? And that, rein forced as she would have been, by fresh troops and by armies from France, she would have been enabled to nuke her cause good against all the power tyllich England might have brought against her ? No one can say then whether it is not to the Treaty of Limerick that we owe the esta blishment and the success of the revolution in England. I say th en , that the garrison of Limerick had more to give you than you had to give theta ; they had the power of protecting you in your new establishment, while you bed to give them nothing. They asked nothing but to be recognised as a part of the country, and to be ad mitted to equal rights with th e p eople of any other part. Such, then, Sir, is the history of the Treaty of Limerick—suelt were the effect s o f t h at Treaty, and such werl contend, t h e people of Ireland are treaty oatpy‘uvitill'aifeoshrtlhna, ground e d upon the faith upon whide a n d rat i f i ed. Sir, after this c e eint t httieht entitled follows a dreary, and a doleful, and a disgraceful page in Ireland- pa ge over w hi c h I would wil itilutegiv history pass of pass, but upon which I f ee l i t my duty shorty to comment. Under a system of tyranny, which followed .. a I the violation of that treaty, the people of Ireland seemed de ' pressed i n spirit and b ro k en hearted—became so, to such an extent, that we Ourselves began to recoil from the scene to which we had given existence. Then men of enliglatened minds, of experience, and of information, spoke boldly out, of the oppression under which they laboured, and began to reflect on the means of lightening the heavy burthens which a severe and long course of injustice had heaped upon them. Then the Protestants of the country, too, manifested a spirit similar in views, and with similar ob jects—till the peopl e of that country, having arms in their hands, thought to raise themselves into that importance to which they conceived themselves entitled, and the Irish volunteers demanded a constitution for their country. The Catholics had by this time grown into prosperity, had ac cumulated wealth, and had consequently become powerful, and in 1793. when Lord Westmoreland was Viceroy, and Mr. Cooke the Secretary of State, they gained from this country a right of the highest character and consequence. Sir, when England gave to Ireland the elective franchise, she gave her that with which, if aye mew to withhold ." Each ni ~~ proroguing the first United Parlia.nient ; When his Majesty stated this to be a great measure with which his wishes went. Now, Sir, I contend that it is impossible to make oat a case mere complete in all its parts. As a claim, on the ground of ju s ti ce , the claim of th e R oman C at h o li cs has received the sanc ti on o f th e hi ghest authorities ; and I am prepared to show that, on other grounds;, it is equally defensible. It has, however, been denied that it is a claim of justice ; and other objections to granting it have been frequently urged. Something has heretofor e been said respecting the Coronation Oath, and it has been argued that, on this ground, the question of Catholic Emancipa tion cannot be carried. I suppose, Sir, that no man in this House will now proceed upon such an argument ; but if there be such, I will quote for him an authority which he will not be inclined to dispute—the authority of Lord Liverpool, who, in the year 1525, spoke upon this question in the other House of Parliament. Lord Liverpool said, he could not consider the Coronation Oath as any obstacle to the removal of the civil and political disabilities of the Catholics. The oath was an oath to protect the Established Church and Clergy of the realm. The removal of the disabilities might possibly affect that Church, but it could only do so consequently. Many wise and good men were of opinion that it would strengthen the Church ; and if Parliament presented a Bill to the K ing f or hi s acceptance, grounded upon this assumption, e did not see how the King could be advised to consider it as at variance with the obligation of the oath which he had taken. Now, Sir, in my opinion, if any one will take the troubl e to refer to the Coronation Oath, lie will agree with the Noble Lord ; but I am not called upon to argue this question—it is, I think, generally ad mitted, this argument is unfounded, and cannot be main tained. I hope, then, I have made out a case which will satisfy the House of the justice and the policy of granting the claims advanced by the Cathohcs. I hope I have clearly shown, first, that the people of Ireland are, by the Treaty of Limerick, entitled to a full participation in the. benefits of the British Constitution, to the full extent time, they were enjoyed by them under the reign of Clarice els e Second ; and also th'at by the Union of England and Ire land, the people of Ireland had every reason to - believe they were acting under pledges given to them by tiro Go vernment of that day, that they should be fully admitted to the benefit of the Constitution of the country. The Roman Catholics, I contend, only ask that from us which, in sound policy, we ought to give. Their claim, it is true, is founded in justice ; hut I say, that if Ireland has no right to make any claim—if she stood strictly in the situation of a conquered country—the conduct we have displayed towards her could be defended by re example, because it is the interest of the conqueror to try by every means to anialgantate the conquering with the conquered land, and to admit to equal rights those who are equally bound to the support of both. Such is the wise, the natural, and the just course—such is the course which the policy of all nations has taught them to adopt—such is the course which we ought long since to have adopted, with regard to Ireland—but as we have not done so, such is the plan we ought now to pursue. I say, if Ireland then, has never forfeited her claim, vet if in 1823 she cannot retract the declaration she was forced to snake in 1813—that " every thing is to be expected from our fear, and nothing from our love"—how greatly is that claim enhanced, hese doubly are we bound to grant that which she demands._._. But, Sir, what we are called upon to do, is what has beer done by the whole civilized world, which may be placed in a map before us, to be our guide. Examples are so nume rous and so familiar, that it is unnecessary for me to quote any. There are one or two other arguments more, which have been ad;anced against the Catholics, to which I feet myself hound to advert. There are, it is contended, othea difficulties in the way of this question, and though I arc persuaded the Right lion. Gentleman opposite would stop at no difficulties, if lie were once convinced tiles good faith in treaties called upon him to grant their demands, yet it is upon those difficelties that be rests his opposition to their cause. With respect then es these difficulties. What arc they? Do they not vanish before argument? Can they bear the test of inquiry? the speech of the Earl of Liverpool, in which he stated his opinion, that the Coronation Oath can in no way retartt the progress of the question, he places very great stress on the point that Catholics hold a divided allegiance. Upon this topic I will take leave to say, that the Catholics hold no divided allegiance. The argument was put many years ago, when the public mind was not quite so much en lightened as it at present is ; and a message was sent to the Catholic Universities, requesting to be informed upon this. point. Now, Sir, what was their answer—that they, fee Representatives of the University —were struck wits este nishment to learn, that in the 18th century such questions could be put. Their reply was, that no man, that no body of men whatever, had power to weaken the 'union between a Sovereign and his people, still less he is to absolve a people from their oath of allegiance. Such a declaration to the same effect was very recently made by the Roman Catholic. Bishops of Ireland ; hut, what is more singular, or, rather more striking and satisfactory, is the fact that the Pope hitre self, when addressed with respect to Mexico, in his Manifests, of Jan. 29, 1825, declines all interference between that State , and the mother country, and alleges that he can interfere is matter unconnected with the Church; and that he in to way interferes in civil matters. So that this alarm about di vided allegiance is altogether innocuous. The Douay Cot. lege was also questioned ; but as I do not believe the "elouse credits a single word relative to this divided allegiance, so I cannot consider it necessary to argue the point, that 111P11, virtuous and honourable men, as it will be admitted many of them are, are not to be believed upon their oaths. Sir, the history of this country proves that under all circum stances, and at all times, the Roman Catholic subjects of tine King have been faithful and loyal to the King, the Constitution, and the country. There is no one who wilt deny this assertion, and therefore it is unnecessary to sup port it by facts or by examples. I then, for one, Sir, and I trust and believe there are thousands who will join with me in the sentiment, cannot feel satisfied that they should continue to be deprived of their rights, any more than I car. b e satisfied to relinquish the advantages they have gained vantages we ha‘,e acquired for us. I cannot co ns id er myself justified in continuing to make an tag teshe x t l s , i h so ungrateful aret rn i for the thane c o important a t tl‘ h 0 . wisdom of their forefathers. Sir, what we ask is not filk• the Catholics only—l protest against this narrow• mode ot \ considering the question. It is trot a Catholic question merely, it is equally a Protestant question, and as :such it ought to be argued and considered. It is, Sir, a questions which involves the interests, the peace and the happiness of England, no less than it does that of Ireland, which forms so extensive and so important a portion of Great. Britain. It is strictly a question of eina:nce—a question, whether or not England shall be still further exhausted its her resources by forcing and continuing a system of injtise tice and oppression. In whatever way it shall be looked at with the microscopic eye, or with the extended view which takes in the whole political world—there is no great interest that not be affected by the decision to which you will come this night. At this particular period, the advocate of such a cause as that placed in my m bands, cannot re f ra i n fro reminding yo u , that there is nothing, so cheap as justice —nothing so costly as oppres' sion. Let 114 therefore, even with a mere economical vicu : of the que s ti on , rea d er j ust i ce—even tardy and reluctant: j ustice—unt u uur fellow-subj ec t s , w h o are as we ll entitled o to their right s un d er t h e E ngl i sh Constitution, as se' ,5 : nurselves; and in d o i ng so , we s h all achieve ii the way of economy— we shall effect a more r Excheque r , o rtant saviu~ former times the strong-holds . —preserve more scrupulously the funds in o is , than could be done by any system of rigid—than by the labours of soy F ina n ce. Committer, o f which have been the seats of reit:. this important gees however able..—(Hear, hear.) --On don I would recommend to the arouse to consider, an d , take advantage of the examples afforded by other ce entr i es. Let us look over those P of religious persecution—let.us oto Germany —let us Europe, which have been in look to France I let us look to th e , . . . groins warfare ; d +l king's uommious Hanover—to the King am of the ni etherlands, to Hollare, to Prussia ; an d haying looked over the whole of Europe, let us go to the other hetnisls h ere--anil so take in both the. old and the new worlds-e-wliat shall we find ? That wheees. that principle of everpeace, that great principle of Chris, tianiy—releiout freedomis established', unites's) piace and tranquillity have followed in theirsteps. (Cheers.) An e xpedient of sudt a nathre as this is worth our while to try—and above all, it is worth 'virile trying it in Ireland. Is would produce a great change there, unquestionably—but ,ny chantte in that unhappy be better. py country must tar the HaVilW however, the experience of other countries under our eyes—whether Republics, Aristocracies, Absolute Des_ Imtimils, or pure or mixed Monarchies—wherevur a great_ congregation of mankind has existed—wherever d itfei ence formerly —both Prevailed —the effect of such a change ;sill lie found invariably to be such as I ardently wish—sn e e as I ant perfectly convinced would flow from the application of a similar principle, irons a similar altera tion in Ireland.—(Continued cheers.)—And here let use (reverting to the reply given by the Right Hon. Gen tleman opposite, to the late lamented Mr. Canning, in a former debate upon this subject), state, that there is no pretence—ther e can be no pretext—advanced or invented, for continuing the present system in Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in his speech said, that the example o France with respect to religious toleration, did not apply but we are not reduced to depend solely upon the example of France, in support of our position. A very able pamphlet has lately been published beating upon this question, I portions of economy,t! ieP any other right, it was most absurd to entrust her-4 more short-sighted course than such a course was never adopted by any Ministry entrusted with a country's affairs. I ❑ giving, her such a power she gave her that which Arai. mides required, a point on which she might have moved the whole of this country; and have moved it in a manner, which, if she had not been speedily satisfied, might have led to the destruction of both. Sir, the Catholics have grown up to be men -_a dreadful struggle ensued—a scene of hor ror, of desolation, and of blood, which I earnestly wish could he for ever obliterated from the history of that coun try—the hind so gifted by nature, and so calculated to bless as well as to nourish all to whom it had given birth—was converted into a land of suffering and of misery, scarcely, if ever equalled, and not to be thought upon without a shudder— rew New wid ows h ow l ; new or crymorn ,new sorrows Strike Heaven on the face." Sir, the picture, created by the imagination of the Poet, is but a feeble picture of what Ireland at this period actually suffered. I will not dwell upon•this topic ; but I should not do justice to the cause 1 advocate, if I did not bring to your recollection that which has occurred, in order to make you think of that which might by possibility here after arise. I should not do my duty if I did not direct your attention to those times and to those scenes, when it was not saying too much to say, that only groans came from every town over which the Vicegerent swayed, when it was truly said that the King's Viceroy could not pass forth from his castle wall, without his horse's hoofs being bathed itt blood. The scene must fail of description—language is too weak to picture it—its horrors can be conceived by none but those by whom they were witnessed—it was a scene which the great historian might have been depicting when he described those horrible calamities, which he considered to have been the very worst to which human nature had ever been rendered liable, but which, I do be lieve, the evils tinder which Ireland at this time laboured far surpassed : " Nobilitas opes, omissi, gestique honoree pro erimine, et ob Nittal. certissimum exitium. Nec minus prtnia de. later= invisa (ram scelera ; cum alii sacerdotia et con sulatus ut spolia adepti, procurationes alii et interiorem po tentiam, agerent. Odic et retTore corrupti in dominos servi, in patronos liberti ; et quibus deerat inimicus, per atnicos oppresai." Sir, let us get rid, if we can, of that shame and that opprobium which attaches to us for the manner in which Ireland has been treated forso long a period. Let us, al though it be somewhat late to set about it—let us try to make Ireland forget—and the Irish are prone to forget ; for if their feelings are quickly alive to injuries sustained, they have no less a lively sense of gratitude for benefits be stowed—let us try to make Ireland forget the miseries we have heaped upon her. Now, Sir, we come to another period —_a period at which, I think, strong as the pledge of good faith given at the treaty of Limerick to admit to equal rights and privileges the people of Ireland, a still stronger pledge was given. I allude, Sir, to the union of that country with this. (Hear, hear.) On this point no man will be disposed to question the authority of Mr. Pitt; and 1 call upon all those Hon. Gentlemen, who profess respect far the name of that individual, to bear me out in the statement, that to this very day that name is tarnished, not by any want of inclination in him to do that to which he knew himself pledged, but by his want of power to redeen, that pledge which he felt and knew he had given —a pledge which still stands unredeemed before both countries—before! Ireland and before England. It is true that it is but the limb, though a large limb, of the same body; but the United Empire sees still unredeemed that pledge which it saw given, and which it knows was given. It will be in the recollection of all who knew Mr. Pitt, that about the period to which I refer, he took an enlarged view of the state of the British Empire. He saw and lamented the afflictions under which Ireland suffered—he saw and knew that such a state was nut to be endured, and he wished, earnestly wished, to pre vent its continuance. He saw also, that the time was now come—a time for which not only he but thousands with him earnestly desired —when Ireland was to be made what in sound policy it ought to be, a component part of this Kiagdom, and to be incorporated with Eng land. He saw that the possibility of carrying this desir able and important measure was now within his reach— and I entreat the House of Commons to consider well be fore it defeats the measure it is now considering —a mea sure, but for the prospect, I had almost said the certainty of which, that other measure—the measure of the Union— might never have been. This one measure—.the measure I am now advocating —was not only considered, but dis tinctly held out by Mr. Pitt, as the great inducement to the adcption of the other—it was, Sir, a measure which was looked for and expected, and but for the expectation of which the heart of the Union would have been plucked out—Union would have been made disunion, and we should have seen the time one of unexampled difficulty and dan ger to the country. Seeing Ireland as it was, without any means of healing its wounds--and seeing in that country such a Parliament as it then had—Mr. Pitt saw it neces sary that that Parliament should, for once, do an act of justice, by committing an act of suicide —and in order that it might, with greater certainty, and with greater speed, be incorporated with England, he placed over that country a Government so vi ru l en t, as to render it certain • that in the state in which it then was, it could not long stand ; and shortly, even in spite of themselves, the Par liament of Ireland were obliged to yield, and to undertake the humiliating task of their own annihilation. Such be ing the state of Ireland, and such being the intention of Me. Pitt, a pamphlet was sent out by one of the Secre taries of State, Mr. Cooke—and after that, I believe, another pamphlet, by one of the bitterest foes of Ca tholic Emancipation, Dr. Duigenan—both of which stated, that "if Ireland were incorporated with Eng land, there would be on reason why Emancipation should be longer withheld." This Dr. Duigenan, Sir, is a witness beyond suspicion, because no more bit ter enemy had the Catholics at any time to encounter. Mr. Pitt then, having sent the manifests from the Castle by the hands of this Mr. Cooke, and feeling that the people of Ireland listened, as they always did listen, to the voice of conciliation, he pushed forward his great measure, and having given to that people the distinct intimation that the measure—the great and important measure—of Catholic Emancipation, was to follow that measure which was then, though not without great difficulty, about to take place; they, the people of Ireland, placed the most perfect reliance on the good faith of this country, and Mr. Pitt succeeded in hi s plans—plans which were of the utmost consequence and benefit to England; and well might they have confided in the good faiths of England —be lieving, as they did, in the super-eminent abilities of that great Statesman—knowing that he had been so long in power--having faith iu the influence of his great name— and participating in the general impression, that all be said anti did would be acknowledged and adopted acting from those feelings, and under such conviction, they sup. ported the proposition for a legislative union. I have no doubt, Sir, it will be contended that the people of Ireland were not swayed by promises held out to them at the time of the Union ; but, as I have naturally been looking over many documents, I have found one which I little expected to meet. It is, Sir, a letter front this Doctor Duigenan, to whom I have just referred, and whom A have justly cha racterised as the bitter enemy of the Roman Catholics. In this letter be says-a." if the proposal of Unioo of the British nation be adopted, the preponeleranco of Protest ants will then he so great, as to render it no longer neces sary to place any restraints on the Raman Catholics." In the pamphlet by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cooke), to which I have also alluded, written in the year 1798, occurs the passage--_" On the completion of the Union, no reason will longer exist for withholding the demands of the Roman Catholics; because that body, which is now so powerful, will be no longer st, whets amalgamated with the whole British population," And to this paragraph the representative of Mr. Pitt's Government in behind adds another, and states his opinion, that " the few re mainiig benefits may t h en sa f ely be added. " And now, Sir, hay: to refer to Mr. l'itt' s s p eec h, as d e li vere d b y him House of C ommons i n 1 801— " As to t h e ressonlis," in the ob- serves, " for my resigning, I am perfectly willing to sub mit them to the House. I and some of my colleagues felt Government that it our duty to p ro p ose a measure, without which the Union the. lmt I of this country w i t h I re l an d m ust of necessity be incom plete; when I fou n d it was impossible to carry that mea sure, I felt that I could not, consistently with my d uty and honour, remain any longer in the Government. Wh at opini ons ndrto o °d11) eb t 3 be u measure I should have brought forward, and have used all my exertions to carry it into effect." Ag a i n , si t, the understood, t rn i a f y l had remained entertain I not, doctrine, which I have laid down, was given in a speech from the Throne by his Majesty George the Third : when II