The Sun. — London, England, 1828-05-13 00:00:00

t4FP - .T7' cuticula"' v i k ° how C‘th!,l,ll', lion? It ',TT, proposed "":1 . there WA' 1 1. c the Ottlo i , ]perious f men, aoa disine • linAt' Iti t t g ea -- a , were given by the Government—would the great %minds on Which Catholic Emancipation rested be taken reoen under us ?—(Cheers.)--Would the great arguments for that Measure be in the slightest degree impaired ? The Hon. gember seems, is the whole course of his argument, to have labotered under a fallacy so gross that I should not be disposed to notice it, were it not as universal as gross. h it that of looking upon Catholic Emancipation as a od7tferring of power upon the Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) Graciod" God Dot lanotc." Sir, let us not so dive ourselves, let us, under so great a delusion If we narrow "ale of the Constitution, a power will an d contract th e a see(He.ar, hear)—which will not roW up beyond that pale' nowledge community with °we its exist en c e t o u s, or al l ' ° "-(Cheers.) It i s a p ower • the sCath?lies derive from their industry, their numbers, their wealth, , their passions, their unanimity.—(Cheers.) This, Sir, is the pc, `e'er t ale to deal with, a power which our wisdom may direct an d regulate, but which we have neither strength nor force destroy.—(Cheere.) At what lithe Hon. and Learned niereber alarmed ? He is alarmed at our admitting some t W, "Ay highly-horn, highly-educated, and highly.prin c'Pled Catholic Gentlemen into this Assembly; but he is ° ,' 4l alarmed at seeing a C a th o li c P ar li amen t o p en t o Ine low es t of the low, to unprincipled Carbonari, which 16 Executive can neither i n fl uence nor di s sol ve ._ - L lQleers.) He fears not th e p ower I h ave d escr ib e d "*iag cor.trolled by such an Assembly; but he fears to eke it our friend. It is the might of that body he ought ai dread—it is that he ought to seek to destroy. But let tut not mistake the mean of destroying it. I' is, al as ! the a Yinptom not the disease itself. The symptom shelve itself; but the diseas e is deeper in the habit. Let the disease be at lacked, and the symptom will disappear. We have tarn- Pared with it year after year, and if we take not good care Will noon be out of our ability to cure it. Our diecus ,afts, Seeeion after Session, strengthen the power we "° l tar beyond the pale of the Constitution. We can 14 1 trace the history of that power, work its epochs a nd the steps of its progress. There is not, I am eer 14in, an Irish Gentleman in this House who cannot re collect when the Roman Catholle Aristocracy of Ireland Proudly held themselves aloof from cennection with that Power; but where are they now? (Loud cheery.) Where are they now, I say ? They are the most prominent, the host active, the most faithful members of that powerful %federation to which I have alluded. (Cheers.) It is but the other day, but yesterday, when the Catholic Clergy iaterfered not in the slightest degree with the political rights of their flocks ; they were perfectly passive and con cerned themselves with nothing but their spiritual welfare. " - -What, Sir, is the case now ? The Catholic agitatora d. id not themselves know the use of their clergy. It lay their arsenal a rusted and neglected engine, which some t hought it possible to work. When all arms were sought this was drawn from its hiding-place, and put for- Ward in the combat. What were its achievements even in its first trial, which was, as I may say, merely an ex ia "'riment t o t r y it s f orce ? It sca tte re d d own t h e stan d ar d th e Protestant proprietor in his own counties, (re his "a estates, almost in his own house. It levelled him ith the dust, and enabled his own slaves—the 40s. free nolders to triumph over him.-..(Loud and continued cheer t.)—But, Sir, this was th e e ff ec t o f t h e fi rst tr i a l o f I ° 4 mighty engine. Can we, from what we have seen, how far its powers may not be extended ? The Ca olies themselves cannot estimate it ; they cannot measure the - power they possess, nor is there a man in this House sharp-sighted as to be able to s e e it s li m it s . Y et i t i s Aar, with this power we are to d ea l ; we k now i n some "tree its force, and yet are doing all we can to increase Without conciliating it. We give it in some degree the unction of time; we are habituating the people to its ex 'teise.—(Cheers.)—They look up to it, and obey it.— li nt, Sir, the evils of Ireland would he comparatively 'fling, scarcely, I may say, worth the interposition of 44 Rouse, if they rested here; but the refusal of these neessione have an effect of a much worse kind with the I P'est body of the people. In every country, Si r, I h ope 1 ° this, but certainly in every country where there is Well-regulated Government, political discussions, as as their heat and violence are concerned, are : ri neipally confined to the powerful and the rich, not „ -14 oding to the lowly and vulgar. But in Ireland poll. - cs foll ow th e h us b an d man t o th e pl oug h —the merchant '° his oilice---and the tradesman to his counter ; all grades 434 Classes of society think of nothing else but this one l, 4 atien.—(Hear, hear.)—There are political attornies, ritieal f armers , political shop-k e eper s ; ever y mau ' s fi r st ioiess is politics, his second business is his trade.— "C beers.)—No No man of sense can say that this is a whole -1,.°14ae st a t e of things or that it ought to be suffered to last. Lt do e s not of itself involve any principle of danger and tatifueion, but by it the people are agitated, and it seems ro them that we are practising an experiment on their feel ib!to, lion after Session, i n or d er t o see h ow f ar t h ey "eill bear with us. On a great practical question of this , Sir, I should disdain to descend into mere abstract ittntetions; and I shall therefore not dream of replying to 51 .1 4 t upon whirls au Hon. Gentleman, who has soken ite this debate, has thought prop er so lunch to enlarge. I. l r, the question is not—as I take it—it is not, as that °n• Gentleman has put it—what rights the Roman ilttholic Clergy, what rights the Roman Catholic Laity of 4 e teud possess : it i s ra th er w h a t r i g ht s t h e P rotestant ill l e'eeses—(Cheers)—what right s I p ossess i n common w ith Y Protestant fellow-subjects; and what the King himself. ss '(Cheer I conceive that his Majesty has a claim upon concurrent willing loyalty of all his subjects without dis etion of religion or party. I consider that we have a 'l l 4 to expect the common co-operation of our Roman Ve 11elm • • brethren in all these efforts to maintain the peace .11 t 4 improve the condition of our country, which are so es 4intial to the maintenance of her pro s p er ity.— ( H ear . )—lt i s ~,01 time that we should feel ourselves ice a situ a ti on t o re 'ye their willing, earnest, and active co-operation in these good works. It is high time that we should overthrow tat barrier which has too long interpos e d b e t ween th e otestant and the Catholic of Ireland, to prevent the one :In extending the hand of friendship and cordial assistance ,the other. I am quite aware, Sir, that I Lave already tled any limits which I could reasonably claim for the ' i l t l 'ervations that I have been induced to submit to the and that it would be presumption, indeed, in me, Were to propose to myself to trespass much longer on indulgence of this House.—( Hear. ) In truth, Sir, had Lat the commencement of this discussion, been actuated any such ambition, it must have been extinguished by k! speech which has been this evening delivered by the 4 tht lion. the President of the B oar d o f T ra d e —a s p eec h "01 I will take leave to say, w as i n e l oquence , i n tr ig tlm . ent and in feeline unsui passed by any ever herd ~,ttleue these walls. I ' have, however, thought it to a be duty, as an humble individual who have for many „,, 4 re resided in Ireland, and under circumstances that have t7 4l ed me to acquire a tolerably accurate knowledge of l ly wishes and their feelings upon flee mo men t ous k lect—t o submit to you, Sir, and to the House, a few t k /ticul ars i n re l at i on to t h ose matters, fairly and f ran kl y, 6 14 without being influenced in the slightest degre e by .' , onal feelings] of any kind. Before I sit down, Sir, let t e t _ observe upon one expression which fell from the Hen. \ ,7 l eibe r for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart), and to }„,, ll t i ch I find it impossible to subscrilme. The Hon. Mem_ A said, that the time had passed, and wee long gone by, at 4"'eh th e c o ncession of this mea sure wou ld be considered j t he Roman Catholics of Ireland as a measure of grace ~ favour.—(Hear.)--Sir, I hope he is mistaken—l be • , 4 11 e that he is mistaken—and I would go the length of tid i ng, for my own part, that if ever there was a time at more than at auother, this boon could beso consi teled as a measure of grace and favour—it is at the pre nit moment. There is something in the character of,:re h4lll ii=inolitical events—something in the present tone of t~ sal parties, which would make the concession of kn " claims, at this moment, in a most peculiar degree, a It 'lre of grace and of favour; something that would render II t g et th e mere momentary tr i ump h o f one party over ano 4, but a permanent triumph of truth and justice over pre. li et r e and error. Indeed this incest be so, from the eternal e s t!'ro of truth itself, and from the grateful acceptance to eh su c h a concession would assuredly find with those ee, W hour it has been so long denied, and by whom it has h eett so earnestly desired. In conclusion, 1 have only 1 ,4 trier s to entreat the pardon of the House for the tres- I have commttted, and for the ki n d i n d u l gence which et, been pleased to extend to use. adtniral EVANS—It has been said many times, pend t/sli4l 4 ; e : cireeion of this question—" Will you conc e d e ktillestion to the cathelics—to the Catholic Aristocracy?" ( A Good God, were there no Protestants in Ireland ? te heaiagh, and cries of bear. )--Were there no Protestants th e i r c onsidered? If those Hon. Gentlemen so zealous i n Arai s upport of the Roman Catholic claims, and their theme of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, were sincere in P r ofessions, let them embrace the Roman Catholic ne a t' at once—(A laugh.)—But, after all, what, in the claims Of iataey pf the staunchest advocates for tiles!. Why did the term ca Catholic Emancipation" amount te ? from t :', 4 'Y meant neither more nor less than 'c e xemption 1 that if (A laugh.)—For his own part, he believed Ir e i, 44 'arlia men t were to exempt all the Protestants of trot esta fr "lti tithes, half the Roman Catholics would turn laughter.)—The public and that Pri na re told that Catholic Emancipation would be a Was o , re, f or all the existing evils of Ireland. Now, as Le die affi l nr those who suffered from the evils which really br. „ w et that country, he should be exceedingly happy to 1 , if h e could have any faith in the panacea pro pod ; but he had it nat. A word or tsro aimut incon sistency. When he first had the honour of taking his seat in that House, he took at the table a most solemn oath ; and before he made any observations on this subject, he would be g to premise that, as far as his own feeling was concerned, he considered that an oath was rather binding on his conscieuce.—(Hear.)—ln this country, in moral England, he had heard the Hon. Baronet who opened the de bate declare, in effect, that the tenour of certain political oaths, which were required to be taken upon particular occasions was perfectly childish. The grey hairs which he (Admiral Evans) at that moment exhibited, would not allow him to he a very good judge of what was childish—(Cheers)— but be thought himself entitled to say, that the conduct of some Hon. Gentlemen was at least inconsistent. Many of them he understood to have pledged themselves to their constituents, to support the question of Catholic Emanci pation; y e t th e y had s worn with him, h o ldi ng t h e same bo :k, and standing at the same table, that the Catholic re ligion it e '4l was infamous and idolatrous (for that was the first thing th ee swore), and that no foreign Prince or e, pPotentatetem poral, within these ;e had a rigt to have any p ower, sp i r i tua l or tem aling.'"f he H on . an d G a ll an t Mem ber, after some ot her observatio ns on the inconsistency of the oaths so take n, conclud e d b y asking how such Member s could reconcile those oaths with that course of conduct in respect of such a question. Me. CAREW made some observations, the precise purport of which were inaudible in the gallery. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now rose, rather to discharge what he felt to be a public duty imposed upon him by the office which he had the honour to fill, than in the hope of offering any argument which should recom mend itself to the House, by its novelty. His opinions upon this question had been undoubtedly, very often declared. When Mr. Canning's Government was formed, and he found that the Prime Minister was disposed to give to these claims his powerful support, he (Sir C. Wetherell) anticipating that he might one day be called upon to sup port the same views, had thought proper, rather than do so, to resign office. It was unnecessary that he should say more to illustrate the opinions which he entertained upon the question. It might he expected from the professional capacity which he filled, that he should, on this occasion, enter into the whole legal history of a question so inter esting, in a constitutional point of view, as that which they were now called on to consider. He should not, however, commit any such trespass on the time of the House. He had undoubtedly been for many years decidedly opposed to what was called Catholic Emancipation; but he was opposed to it, he begged leave to say, on a plain and a broad prin ciple. He had no objection, at all, to concede the principle, that the Roman Catholic, tinder certain circum stances, might be admitted to come into Parliament, and to hold offices under the King ; but this must be under certain conditions. If this concession on our part was to he made, it must be a mutual concession, as regarded the ether—danzus, felisnusque vacisszna. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman went on to show, that the Hon. Baronet and those who, on the same side of the question, had succeeded him, had completely thrown overboard the long important questions of the Treaty of Limerick and the Union. He would now enter upon the Treaty of Limerick. —(Loud cries of, Oh, no.) Well, then, the Treaty ought not to be alluded to at all, if it was not to be tried by the test of Parliamentary investigation. He then remarked on total the silence of Pitt, Fox, G rattan, Lord Cornwallis, Mr. Dundas, and Lord Castlereagh—all advocates for Catholic Emancipation—upon any questions arising out of this Treaty, such as those upon which the advocates of Eman cipation were now attempting to depend ; although it was difficult to suppose, that if that Treaty could really have supplied such grounds for their case, those great and en lightened seers would have neglected to avail themselves of them. He had been at the labour of reading all the de bates on this question for many years, and he could under take to say, that, since 1800, till within a year or two ago, the Treaty of Limerick had never been adverted to, with any view to an argument, except incidentally. Lord Gren ville, Mr. Grattan, and all the persons whO formerly intro duced this measure to the attention of the House, said that the Catholics assented to the nomination of their Prelates in Ireland. On this basis the arguments proceeded.—(cri es of, Hear, hear.) Gentlemen might cry " Hear," but he repeated that it was stated by Lord Grey and others elsewhere, that the Government was to have the controul over the Catholic Prelacy of Ireland. Even with this assurance, however, the Bill was lost in both Houses of Parliament. The next attempt was in the year 1813, when the House not only went into a Committee, but a bill was brought in. Some of those young gentlemen who were complimented the other night night un their experience—gentlemen who had in theta the germs of talent and the buds of genius—(Hear and laughter)—rising genius should have its merit, but poor experience should not be discarded ; aid those young gen tlemen who were not then in the House, and who pro bably had not taken the trouble of reading the Journals, might be benefitted by knowing that in 1813, a Bill was introduced with a profusion of stipulations and oaths. This Bill contained :two clauses, which, like all its pro visions, were drawn up by a most eminent draftsman. The first of those clauses gave to the Crown the right of affirming or rejecting any person appointed to till the office of Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland; and another clause was introduced by which the communication was regulated between the See of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. This was the principle of Mr. Grattan's Bill. It secured the power of a direct affirmative or a virtual negative on persons filling the office of Bishop. This Bill was brought in by Mr. Grattan, but the Catholics, whilst it was pend ing, rejected it. Whilst the Bill was going forward under peculiarly favourable auspices, the Roman Catholics de clared their dissent to its provisions. This he asserted, and he remembered that Mr. Grattan in that Mouse seemed to feel very seriously discomfitted at the manner in which the Roman Catholics received his Bill. He did not sited tears, perhaps, but he seemed much afflicted. The Catholics rejected the Bill, and resolUtions were agreed to by the Prelates in Dublin, one of whom (Dr. Milner) stated " that the Roman Catholics would shed their blood out of their veies rather than submit to the nomination of of their Bishops by a Protestant King."----(Hear, hear. ) Such were the sentiments of Dr. :Milner and the Catholic Prelates in 1613 ; but in 1799, the Irish Prelates came to a resolution that it was proper that the King should have a controul over the Bishops. In 1822 Mr. Plunkett's Bill was introduced. In that Bill the intercqprse with the See of Rome was restricted, and the negative on the nomination of Bishops was given to the Crown. It was stated in the House that the Ro man Catholics would reject the Bill, and Mr. Plunkett said, that he did not care whether they rejected it or not ; if the House agreed to it he did not care whether the Roman Catholics rejected it or not.—(Hear.)—There had been three Committees on this subject, a circumstance which it was necessary that those Gentlemen of precocious experience, on whom so much eulogy was poured, should know. In the present Bill it eves material to observe that none of the securities were to be found which were intro duced into the former Bills. The country was not satisfied with those Bills ; nor was that House satisfied with the securities in Mr. Grattan's Bill nor in Mr. Plunkett's ; but the House was now called upon to be satisfied without any security at all. The Hon. Member for Knaresbocough (Sir James Meekintosli) stated, that all the young men, and all the eminent nausea were at his side on this question ; but lie (the Attorney General) thought they were all against it unleee there were securities. He admitted that there Was a galaxy of talent, but it was against those who sup ported the Hon. Baronet's motion. Mutual concessions and securities were the basis of all former Bills, but the present Bill had no such bases. He should wish to know what "as to be done when the Bill went into a Committee. Wa s it meant to renew the securities., or to introduce th e measure without any securities at all? If securities were given to the Protestants, those securities would not satisfy the Roman Catholics, and therefore it was proposed that the House should go into a Committee to do that which could not be done. It would be better to pass a resolution that it Wa.s expedient that absolute and unqua lified emancipation should be granted. According to the resolution proposed by the Hon. Baronet, the object of this measure was to effect concord and secure the Protestant e stablished religion. The earn e promise was held out in former Bills; but the expression was, " that the hearts of the Catholics should be knit and unit e d :" but the Catho lics said they would riot have their heart s knit and united. He would now advert to a point Which he thought h had by been passed over lightly gentlemen opposite. The question was, whether P roteetantism wa s not an e said theirrevo cable'n the Constitution. H principle Constitu tion was settled at t he Revolution in a permanent and irre vocable manner, and without any consideration as to the death of the Pretender. There was no change in the Con stitution with respect to Catholics. The principle of perpe tual Protestantism was established as eseeutial and irre vocable. It was secured in different ways. It was secured by a Protestant li n g—by a Protestant Parliament — by the exclusion from civil office of all but Protestants, and by the establishment of the Protestant Church. By as senting to this Bill two of these securities would be taken away, and Protestantism, as established at the Revolution, would depend on the circumstance that the King was a Protestant. If the King married a Papist, or held com munion with the see of Rome, he was pro facto dethroned, and this was the only security left to Protestants if this Bill should pass. lie (the Attorney-General) did not con eider this provision a sufficient security, and, therefore, he opposed the Measure. A part of his complaint Was, that the Church of Ireland was Materially affected by this mea sure. By this measure the people of Ireland would he as signed over to"that Catholic discipline which was so dis. cordant with the views of Protestants. Something bad been said of the temporality and spirituality, or spiritual powers of the Church. In the first place, the Church had the power of granting every spiritual rite. The rite of sepulture, divorce, and many other rites, were to be all left to those Prelates appointed by the See of Route. The question was, whether the Duke of Norfolk, and another person or two, should have places in another House and in this. Suppose the Prelates in this country had any power equal t o that exercised by the Irish Prelates, would any gentleman submit to their control ?—ln doing so they were giving up the people of Ireland to this power, which was held under a foreign auohority. But this was not all. The House svasstold on a former evening by a Noble Lord (Lord F. L. Gower) that the power of the Ce tholics in Ireland would be controlled by the liberty of the press. The language in which this was expressed was most forcible and classical, but the idea was that the liberty of the press would break d own th e power o f the Pr e l a t es of Ireland. In all prod uc ti ons f rom t h e pre ss, how ever , there were two compon en t parties—the person who wrote, and the reader, and though persons might he found to write, it would not be so easy to find persons to read. The Noble Lord thought that by Bibles and tracts the dark and dismal shade of Popish errors would be dissipated. Let them look at the Pope's opinions, however, as eXPreAS. ed in hie letter. He was not one of that respectable and sanctimonious class, who devoted themselves to the circu lation of the Bible and other works, for the purpose of in structing the human mind ; but he was aware that many of she Prelates and persons of great rank contributed to those societies ; it was notorious also that the priests pre vented the labours of this class from producing any good effect ; and the Pope called the contributors in his letter "strolling players," and men diffusing plague and pestilence. If the Noble Lord wrote a book or tract, and depended for its circulation on the people of Ireland, if it in any degree related to religion, the Priests would be sure to insert it in the index eapurgatorias, and any person who read it would be excommunicated. To what a state, then, would the Ca tholics of Ireland be exposed, if they were left to the controul of such a Priesthood. They now exercised a tyranny as perpetual as the Romish Church, but by this measure their power would be increased ; and he put it to the House, whether any Protestant would endure that Pro testant Bishops should dictate what polemical books he should read ? Then, if they would not dare to exercise such a controul in England, why should the Roman Ca tholics be given up to any controul of this kind in Ire land ? He begged leave to say that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman at the other side (Mr. Brougham) would do him the favour to accept a compliment for the very credit able manner in which he had conducted his inquiries into the law. But what would he—the former Rector of a University in Scotland, and now possessing, he believed, the power of a Rector in the London University—say to the rectorial power exercised in Ireland which would pre vent the King's subjects from reading the Bible, save in a language which they did not understand.—(Hear, hear.) — He knew well the power and the benefits which flowed from education ; but what would be said if they were to leave to the Catholic priesthood the power of imposing upon Protestants this system of Catholic education ? He had heard it said that this was all idle alarm, but all those who read the evidence of Dr. Doyle and Dr. M`Hale must SW that they did not hiok upon the Irish Bishops appointed by the King in the light of legitimate, and that those only who were appointed by the See of Rome were to be consi dered true and legitimate Bishops. In a passage of one of his letters, J. K. L. tells Dr. Magee that he has no right to call himself Archbishop of Dublin ; and all the evidence before the House of Lords •showed that it was contended and claimed by the See of Rome, that the Protestant Bishops of these realms were only looked upon in the light of in truders. Would any one wish to see Protestant Bishops ap pointed by the King, and Catholic Bishops by the Pope ; or would any one contend that the Protestant Church could be in a state of security while there was this denial of the King's claim ? James the Second attempted some thing of the kind ; for, although lie did not go the entire length of those persons, yet he still allowed the Pope to divide the country into four districts, the Vicars Apostolic over which were to all intents and purposes Bishops in this country. He would ask what was the use of going into Committee on this question, for the Prelates would never submit to what they considered intrusion. Allu sions had been made by several Gentlemen to what was done on the Continent, by the King of Prussia, and in Belgium. But in Silesia and in Belgium both, the King had a Veto. In France, too, Gentlemen were not aware that the Government had the same controul over the Church of Rome as in England. A Nuncio could not enter without permission, nor without a stipulation rela tive to his departure. No rescript of the Pope could enter without the King's leave ; ecclesiastical judges were ap pealed from to judges appointed by the Crown; and it was high treason to carry an appeal to Rome; and, there fore, at least equal protection should he afforded to the Go vernment of this country, although to that it appeared the Irish Prelates would not consent. If what was called un qualified emancipation, then, were to be granted, it was what would not be allowed in any country, Protestant or Catholic in Europe. Would Gentlemen who were an xious for this, prove that what was dangerous to every country was not dangerous to England and Ireland, and that Great Britain should be an exception to every other State ? Some Gentlemen thought that the subject of the Catholic Question was exhausted, and that as the Treaty of Limerick was at an end, there was nothing new to be found. He, however, held in his hand a pamphlet, written by a very ingenious and Right Hon. Member of that House. (Cries of " Name, name.") He would hand the pamphlet to those who had a curiosity on the subject ; but be went on to say, that the Right lion. and ingenious Gentleman had found a way to end all danger which might arise from Catholics being admitted to seats in the Legis lature, namely, that when there was any subject which had for its object the Ecclesiastical affairs, these Members were to be dumb. They were to play the game of whist, tak ing the hand of dummy. , s-But what in this country was to be considered ecclesiastical and spiritual, and what was to be deemed merely civil and temporal, would puzzle even the acute heads of Dr. Doyle and Dr. M‘Sharee, or what ever his name might be. Ile did not know any thing which would be like these new kind of Members et the ingenious Member's creation, except what we heard on the Penryn and East Retford Committees, of half men and quarter men. He thanked the House for hearing him so far, although he might have availed himself of the oppor tunity to say much more—(Hear, and laughter)—but he would not adopt the language which he heard used on this debate for some days past, but which he heard with an in dignation to which he was inclined to yield, and which it was calculated to excite.. They were told that they were not to treat on terms of equality, but they were to give up every thing—that they were to yield to superiors, and it wax even said almost to them, do not attempt to treat, but— " Oremus pacem et dextras tendemus iuermes." They were told not to ask for peace for the Protestants, not to deal or to negotiate as. with equals, but to yield to their victors—to surrender, perhaps, even without the honours of war, the British Constitution and the Bill of Rights.— (Hear, hear.)—On these grounds, he would not go into the Committee, for they had ,beady done so on three Bills, one of which the Catholics would not accept, and he did not think there was any one absurd enough to sup pose that the Protestants of England were to be intimi dated to yield up without protection those securities ne cessary for the preservation of the Throne, the Church, and the Constitution.—(Loud cheers from all sides of the House.) Mr. Husgissox and Mr. WALLACE then rose, but the latter having caught the Speaker's eye, he was allowed pre cedence. Mr. 'WALLACE. then observed, that the Learned Attor ney-General's last observation be regretted. as nothing had been said which could induce a belief that any thing like intimidation was held out, and that it was only the watch word of a party, which had better, been omitted. The At torney-General bad treated the Treaty of Limerick in a ve ry summary way, which had not been put forward by the Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) a 9 the groundwork of his claim, but merely as auxiliary to the question.— Neither the Treaty of Limerick, nor the Union, were snore than collateral aids, but not on either or on both did the question rest.—(Hear, hear. )—The Attorney-General had, however, treated the Treat y of Limerick in a very unintel it forward, he (th e A ttorney-General ) threw i and leaped him se lf over a f ter i t.— The g N or b Attorney-General'sbringingoverboard, main topic, however, was securi ties, and he had given a kind of assurance that he would have agreed to them if offered at an earlier. period. Ile was glad of that concession, for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman much mistook if he thought that the Committee was not a plate in which to treat of securities to be put forward on the part of the people of Ireland—and the Hon. Baronet's application was for a Committee purposely in that way to secure the peace of Ireland. He himself thought that such a discussion was the very essence of a Committee, and that it would there he impossible to avoid settling those terms upon which, if they accepted them, the Catholics were to have a share of the Constitution, such as they might have on acceding to those terms, The Hon. Gentleman went on to say, that the House, whose dutiy' it was to suggest the nrcessary securities, !Mould, by refusing to do to, only lead to disastrous consequences. He dwelt upon the numerical force of the people, and the nobility, priesthood, gentry, and peasantry being united as one man upon the question. He asked would such a mode stifle their complaints, or that of the Catholic Associatio n and its leaders, under whose guidance the people were compelled to place them selves—for all which reasons it was the duty of the Legis lature themselves to interfere.—[At this period the tumult became so excessive that scarcely a word uttered by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could be heard.]—He en tered into a history of the different circumstances and ap pellations under which tke Catholic Association ap peared, and contended, notwithstanding all that had been asserted respecting its illegallity, that if it were the illegal body which it was sought •to make it appear, the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Exe. cutive Government of Ireland, ought to be held respon sible for not having suppressed it long before now ; yet not a single step had been ,taken by them for that purpose.— All agreed it was a monstrous political anomaly, but he saw a simple and easy mode of getting rid of it; namely, by making the concessions now required at the hands of the Legislature. An Hon. Member had told them, and most truly, that at the Revolution an intimate union ex isted between the Established Church and the State in this country. There could be no doubt of the existence of that connexion, and his argument was, that concession to the Catholics had the direct tendency of dissolving that union ; his argument, or rather his metaphor, was, that it severed the link by which Church and State were united. Now lie (Mr. W.) would endeavour to answer that argu ment, carrying on metaphor a little further, and say, though it might remove a link it did no more than shorten the chain, it had no tendency to weaken it—it would be as strong as ever.—(Loud cries of "Question," and the utmost impatience manifested in every part of the House.) —He then went on to say, that if the penal laws were not founded in justice, reason, or sound policy, the Ca tholics had a right to call for their repeal. He intreated the House not to adopt proceedings affecting the body at large,, which could only be justified by reference to the conduct, speeches, and writings, of a few individuals...— (" Question, question.") Mr. BUTLER CLARKE came into his place in Parlia ment completely unshackled, and perfectly free from the imputation which an Hon. Member sought to cast upon some who had taken a part in the present debate, or were expected to vote in favour of the Hen. Baronet's motion— namely, that they had been sent by the Association to speak its sentiments, and forwardlits views. He, Mr. B. Clarke) was as free from any influence of that nature as any man could possibly be. He came then perfectly inde pendent, and would give a conscientious vote. He had heard it alleged that the Catholics were unwilling to pay their tithes ; but he thought that the proceedings under the Commutation Act completely falsified that assertion ; for there was no place in which the people could avail them selves of the provisions of that Act that they did not en deavour to do so. Mr. Secretary HUSKISSON rose amid loud cries of " Question —withdraw—go on—Chair, Chair—order." The Right Hon. Member remained some time standing before he succeeded in obtaining a hearing, and previous to order having been restored, an Hon. Member from one of the hack benches of the Opposition side, attempted to move the question of adjournment. The SPEAKER said, the Hon. Member is not aware that a Right Hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. Mr. Secretary HUSKISSON then proceeded to address the House, and after alluding to his reasons for not having risen at an earlier period of the debate, and compliment ing his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. C. Grant) on the able and eloquent speech with which he had opened the discus - sion on that evening, the Right Hon. Secretary spoke as follows :—Sir, in giving my vote upon this occasion, I wish to put on record in as brief and succinct a manner as possible, my view and feelings of the subject now so fre quently discussed in this House. Having had on many former occasions opportunities of expressing my sentiments on this great question, and having been now a member of this House during all the long and frequent discussions on the Catholic Claims, that have taken place since the period of the Union with Ireland, and not being one of those buds of genius, or those young germs of liberality, to whom the Right Hon. and Leerned Gentleman (the At torney-General) gave so pressing an invitation to retire from the debate, and go amuse themselves with a perusal of all the votes and journals of the House, I feel myself ra ther called upon to state my confirmed opinions on the subject. In applying myself generally to a consideration of the question—a question which lam free to say I coa sider entirely exhausted, I must admit the perfect impos sibility by any strength of argument, or force of illustra tion derived from the stores of history, or from the con temporaneous example of other states, to witness anything like novelty upon it. With respect to those topics which have been brought forward, and, as I think, unfortunately brought forward, by the supporters of the Catholic claims —I mean, Sir, the Treaty of Limerick, and the transac tions represented to have occurred about the period of the Union—with respect to these topics it is my intention to say little or nothing. In respect to the Treaty of Lime rick,' I almost entirely concur with what has fallen from the Hon. and Learned the Solicitor-General, and my Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) upon the subject. Dit- Pring entirely, as I do, from their general view of this question—anxious as I feel for the success of the motion brought forward by the Hon. Baronet, I still wish he had rested his chance of success upon more cogent arguments, and on higher grounds, than those afforded by what I must call, the forced construction of a long-gone-by, and, to the present case, inapplicable contract. This is all I have to offer upon this point, except that in reference to the Treaty itself the character of public men by whom it was framed, and the reputation of one of our greatest Moaarchs, I do beg and trust, that those who advocate the Catholic Claims may see the propriety of follow ing the example of my Honourable Friend, and pledge themselves never again to recur to it. Sir, lam sure I should not be the only one in this House who would view the Roman Catholic Question with cornparatiee indifference, if it were to be looked upon not in reference to the prosperity of the State, and the exigence of the case in Ireland, but solely with regard to this Treaty. In referring to the Le gislative Union between this country and Ireland, I think myself warranted in expressing my personal conviction and confidence, that the Catholics received no pledge, promise, or assurance, on the part of Mr. Pitt, with respect to the settlement of the question in which they are interested.— As the Right Hon. Member for Kerry truly stated, Mr. Pitt was in office at the time of these negociatione ; I, too, was then in office; it is true, in an inferior situation, but in a situation which brought the frequently in immediate .private and confidential communication with Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas. And here I shall refer to the Right Hon. Member for Kerry's explanation, made in consequence of an observation that fell from my Right Hon. Friend with regard to the Right Hon. Gentleman's continuance in office subsequent to the retirement of Mr. Pitt. In doing so, I am perfectly ready to declare, that although having taken a different course myself on that occasion, and relinquished ()Ice with Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas, I say, I willingly concur in the propriety of the Right Hon. Gentleman's coaduct, and can hear him out, if my testimony, be neces sary, respecting the wishes of Mr. Pitt and his friends, that those who were favourable to the Catholics and not in the Cabinet should continue in office. lam justified in doing this, because I myself was pressed to remain in office by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas, and was distinctly told by them, in like manner as the Right Hon. Gentleman, that I should best serve the Catholic Question by not retiring from office. It was represented that it was only necessary for the Cabinet Ministers to retire, but that those who held less promin e nt and responsible situations would beat con sult the final s uccess of that question by retaining office.— ' H ow ever, Sir, I retired from the situation which I held at that time, and I sincerely and solemnly declare that I w orld retire now and for ever from place, if by so doing I could hasten by one month the success of that great ques tion. Though, as I have already said, no pledge, promise, or a ssurance, was given by Mr. Pitt to the Catholics, I am aware impressions did go forth that the opinions aed ssuti ments of Mr. Pitt were favourable to their claims, /u making this observation, I particularly refer to the period short ly preceding the Union, and I believe that the great b o dy of persons of the most temperate and moderate views, not only among the Catholics but among the Pro testants---these persons, the most strongly attacleel to the connexion subsisting between the two countries, and most anxious for its integrity and maintenance— I believe, Sir, that these persons were impressed with a disposition to support the Union, in consequence of the feeling and impression relative to the s entiments of Mr. Pitt on this subject. Sir, these impressions bad more or l ess weight, I admit, with respect to all the parties who, in the political and moral struggle that arose in Ireland upon that question, sided with the English Government. I speak all this merely from recollection ; but I think I may repeat it with confidence, when I look at the state of Ireland, in the interval that elapsed between 1793 and 1799. Seeing that that period includes such events as the rebellion of 1798, and the concession of the elective f the Catholics in 179: 3 ; and that in the. inter vraalntche to o' is which I have alltuled, more than one hair-breadth e scape from foreign invasion occurred. Looking at all these considerations, the then state and possible future con dition of that country ; and foreseeing the consequences that, in the course of years, must ensue from the conces sion of the eleetive franchise to the Catholics--viewing all , them points as I best could view them, I do ?Mt thielt it improbable that Mr. Pitt did consider that the best chance for the safety and security of the establishments in Church and State in Ireland, consisted in the union and complete .incorporation and identification of the two countries. Act ing under this feeling, the two Churches of England and Ireland were united by Mr. Pitt, who thought that he thus best consulted the solidity, safety, and permanency of both establishments. On the other hand, Sir, I knew he thought one of the difficulties of granting to the Catholics the claims they preferred, consisted in the existence of a sepa rate Parliament in Ireland, which might fear the subver sion and overthrow of existing establishments by that e means; and M. Pitt was aware that if resisted there, the question would give rise to perpetual struggl ,strifes, and confusion in that country ; therefore, the conception of Mr. Pitt's large and s tatesmanlike mind was to frame a legislative incorporation in which that queStion could be safely conceded, and as I have no hesitation in saying, he thought safely conceded. I say, Sir, by these considera tions, no doubt many persons of weight and influe nce i n Ireland were induced to lend their assistance and support to the Union, and to forego that reluctance which the in habitants of an ancient and independent country may na turally be supposed to have felt at sacrificing their inde , pendence, and unitiag themselves with another state. They had been then recently visited with a rebellion of a very dangerous character, and there were fearful forebodings 551 the future. On these grounds they were therefore of an opinion, that the connection between this country and Ire land, and the safety and security of both, together with the maintenance of the rights of property and of our esta blishments civil and religious, could 1w best attained by a Legislative Union, which for these reasons they con sidered desirable. What was the result of this ? I answer, the result was—that to the one party, which had much to lose, and every thing to apprehend from a separate legislature, to it complete security was afforded, and all its ex pectations were realized—while, for the other party, with its sanguine views and hopes upon the subject of civil rights, nothing was provided but disappointment. How ever, be it so. Let all their expectations be disappointed, there still remains to them a strong hold—they are still in possession of the vantage ground given by the Act of 1793 (the enjoyment of the elective franchise), and in that posi tion, inexpungable in itself, but so flanked and turned by circumstances which followed the Union, they now are not able to push forward or advance themselves, but still re maining in their previous condition. Sir, this is the situ ation of the Roman Catholics at the present day—there has been no pledge, no promise, no assurance, but I admit a very confident expectation. There has been no breach of compact—but a great disappointment. Looking at that disappointment, and at what might have been the conse quence:if no Union had taken plaice, I always thought there was great force in the argument used by the Member for Waterford, and that the people of Ireland had a right of appeal, if not to the justice, yet to the generous interpre tation of the imperial legislature. After what I have said, it is unnecessary to state that the view I now take of this subject is the same as it has ever been since it was first discussed. On every one of these occasions, whe ther the event was successful or not, I have retired from the contest with an increased sense of the growing urgency of concession. With that sense I have approached the pre sent discussion of the Hon. Baronet's motion, and I shall retire from it, whatever may be the decision of this night, with increased confidence, that the advantages sought can not be much longer refused. During the quarter of a cen tury that this question has been before the House, it has occupied more time and elicited greater and more splendid efforts of talent than any similar discussion. Two great men, unfortunately, have passed away without reaping the fruits of their labours—yet not without planting good fruits, though they have not as yet arrived at maturity. Let public opinion in this country be directed aright with regard to the claims of the Catholics—let yet a little more progress be made in enlightening the minds of the people upon this subject—let us then, instead of being neutral, passive, or indifferent, be friendly, active, and zealous in its behalf, and then will the great difficulties that at present surround this question be removed. Sir, whatever may be the opinions of the less educated class of the Eng lish community on this subject, I do believe, or rather I slid believe, till something in the course of this dis 'euesion induced me to doubt the fact, that among wen of education and intelligence, there no longer existed any question that this subject was not one to be mixed up with considerations arising out of mere dif ferences of religious creeds. Sir, this is a question, in my mind, entirely of state policy. I shall not here stop to corn pare the purer doctrines of the Established Church with the errors of the Church of Rome. I am glad to see that the opinion of the Hen. Member for Louth (Mr. L. Foster) on this point has not been borne out by that of the special and legitimate guardians of the Church of England. It affords me pleasure to observe, that one of these (who is among the brightest and most distinguished ornaments of the Right Reverend Bench which he occupies) has stated that the question is to be looked at solely with deference to security. The Right Rev. person to whose opinions upon this subject I have referred, says, " If all can give equal security, let all be admitted"—and concludes by ex pressing his conviction that " If parties can be admitted to the enjoyment of State privileges without danger, clu sion becomes indefensible." Sir, I wish these words to go forth to the public—l wish them to be known and read by every man in the country. I trust every obstacle that is to be found in the public feeling of the country may be removed by, and give place to, the Statesmanlike, enlight ened, and liberal doctrine of that Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Chester)—this, the true doctrine. The case is one of abstract justice, and we have no right to exclude the petitioners, except a case of special danger can be made out against them. The question, being once made one of admission or exclusion, and being once considered with re ference to security only, becomes greatly simplified. Not withstanding all I have heard from the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, I am convinced, when the public comes to look at the question in this point of view they will per ceive that in the absence of the evils complained of, they will find the best security ; for the present system creates parties and perpetuates dangers far more formidable than are to be apprehended from the concession of these claims. Sir, let us only show that we appreciate in Ireland, ae - we have lately done here, the great value of religious peace. Let this be the foundation on which to rely for security, and then, I say, as in a recent instance, there will not be found much difficulty as to the point of obtaining an ade quate security, whether that object is to be accomplished lay a statutory enactment, or by a simple declaration, as the case may seem to require. My Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General called on " the buds of genius" to take care that they saw clearly that all the securities could be granted which were requisite, that might he considered adequate, before they proceeded a step further. To these young and inexperienced Members, whom my Hon. and Learned Friend addressed, I, as an old stager, and one well versed in the political world, say that it is amongst the itt stalest of all arguments for a call to be made for security by those who have already formed the r esolution never t o repeat, it concede what is demanded. Sir, should sly, in fairn ess , let my Hon. and Learned Friend , and th ose who thought ii pad will notbe t with him, begin by telling me that they are not decidedly is eadverseh th o en etn the e t o t principle. k of se measure, i t I an rea sonable to call upon me to provide guarantees before they have admitted the principle of concession ; and I also say, that before they ask me for security for -this, that, or the other, it is incumbent on them to shew the ezist ence of a specific danger—to lay before me its particular nature, and to prove how it is likely to work, where it will commence its attacks on the body politic—how it may be expected to sap and approach the vitals of the State. It is impossible, unless the dangers be apprehended, and the fears entertained, be made evident, for a common un derstanding to undertake to provide remedies fors the evil ; Sir, when we are talking of these securities arid safe. guards which, as I have already said, form so great a part of the speech of my Hon. and Leaned Friend, I do not know how to point them at;t, till I have a more distinct view of the difficulties and dangers in question. If my Hon. and Learned Friend will not tell us the precise na ture of the dangers and fears to which he hae alluded, at least let me be allowed to tell him what dangers are not to be apprehended. We have nee to fear the power of the sword, because already the Roman Catholic portion of the community is eligible to high command both in the army and navy, s ad is admissible to every situation of confidence) and authority in these formidelde branches, of the public service. I may be answered, that this is a measurewhic h was procured by stealth. I wish by an equal stealth the measure now before the House were concealed, and I ant sure as little danger can be apprehended from its conces sion as frosn the admission of Roman Catholics to places of trust anti confidence in the army and navy. The dan ger which my Hon. and Learned Friend apprehends , can not arise from the power of the Catholics over the revenue of the country, for 1 believe at the present moment Ca tholics are as eligible as Protestants to fill all situ a ti ons connected with the management of the public revenue. Here then, is the exercise of two great powers, with re spect to the administration of which a free and Protestant State might be justified in e ntertaining feelings of je a l omy. It appears we have equal confidence in Protestant s as Ca tholics, without requiring any pledge or security in the case of the former any more than in that of the latter. Is the danger which my lion. and Learned Friend appre hends discoverable in the inability under which we labour to prevent the intercourse supposed te exist between the Catholiee and the See of Rome? My Hen. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) dwelt at large upon this subject. Is it right that the State ought to claim a power of interference in the nomination of Catholic Bishops, and the appointment of the priesthood ? I think it is, and regret that we unfortunately possess no such pledge or security.as would be thus afforded ; but the Honourable and Learned Member knows that England is the only country in which such a power does not exist. Does he believe that if we remove the disabilities of the Roman Catholics, and thereby pacify Ireland, that the Pope will be backward to grant to Ireland what he has already granted to Russia, Baden, the Netherlands, and every other state in Europe, and what I am sure the Catholics would be desirous that he should concede? On the contrary, I am sure, when they see that the result is certain, that they will not be backward in complying with all that is reasonable and proper. In Prussia the Catholic Clergy are provided for by the State, which has the nomination of the Bishops, and holds the communication with Rome under its controul. Let us act towards the Catholics as Prussia has done, and the Pope will act towards us as he has done towards Prussia. This I know, that so long as we refuse to entertain the question of Catholic relief, so long will it be impossible fur my Hon. and Learned Friend, with all his learning and ingenuity, to controul the intercourse be tween the Catholic Church and the See of Rome, or to provide against the evils to be apprehended frosts it. I ant certainly not one of those who wish to be at all considered as an advocate for the Roman Catholics; for 1 view with no friendly eye auy thing leading to the spread of their re ligion. It may be prejudice, but I cannot desire to see their doctrines ascendant. In the dark and superstitious ages, devices and contrivances were resorted to, which, I believe, formed 110 part of the Catholic religion, but by means of which designing men succeeded in establishing a . most dangerous and wicked ascendancy. Against this ascend ancy I am anxious to guard Ireland, and the question is, will we, granting this question, theaisle eor ascendancy V 1 l we n of o t t h y e b Catholic priesthood in Ireland ? I admit that much benefit and happiness has accrued to the world from the progress if the Reformation; I wish I could also agree with my Right Honourable Friend, that the attempts made to put down Catholic ascendancy had been successful. I fully agree with my Noble Friend as to the great influence possessed and exercised by the press in the present day ; and in France, which is a Ca tholic country, we clearly perceive how much that mighty engine bus mitigated the character of the Catholic reli gion, and modified the temper of the existing Government. I say then, that what could not be helped in Frillier, under a Catholic King, a Catholic Court, a Government exclu sively Catholic, and notwithstanding the attachment of the people to their religion, may be effected in a Protestant country by persecution. I think it may be laid down as an incontrovertible rule that a principle such as that to which I have alluded cannot exist in a country influenced by a free press, unless that principle be fiwsvarded by per secution. Sir, it is this that renders Ireland subject to the influence of democracy and prieethood--it is this that poisons, that taints every boon we have conferred upon Ireland—it is this that checks the progress of education its that country, and that gives to the democracy and to Priesthood a power which I wish to see destroyed. 'rake from them the influence which persecution gives, and you will deprive them of the most effective weapon they wield —and you will see that principle in a few years dwindle into insignificance—an insignificance, provided, remem ber, that it be not prevented by persecution, as total as that of witchcraft itself—a danger once considered so pro minent, a belief which had once so many votaries, but which yielded to the influence of a free press ; destroy the freedom of that press, and you will revive witchcraft or some other such dark opinions in as much strength as it ever possessed. In the name of Heaven, in the name of the Protestant Church, in the name of Protestant England, in the name of the people of England, who desire ttan-. quillity and peace, give to a free press, give to the energie, of a free country, the power of checking the danger you dread, and it will he checked so effectually, that within a very short period it will cease to exist. 1 own it has always created in my mind a most humiliating feeling ; it has always appeared to me to be a libel on the good sense of the country ; it has always seemed to me to be dis paraging the House of Commons to suppose, that a few individuals opposed to the Protestant Church could ever take us by surprise, so as to deprive us of the power s Ire possess. If they did take us by surprise, is there not the throne—is there not the House of Coma mons—is there not that sentry who never sleeps on his post—a free press—to put down and to annihilate the intention? lam ready to concede that the settlement the Constitution at the ° Revolution was Protestant and per manent. God forbid that it should not be so. But :f understand it rightly, - it was intended not only to be Pro - testant, but to be the Church of England, but am Ito be told it was never to be interfered with? How then comes it, that that which was intended to be permanent in 1668, because so materially changed as it was changed L the union with See tland. Sir, that change was effeeteg, for a great and a useful purpose, and with a view to remove from us a great public danger. We then admitted to this and to the other House of Parliament a number of irelivi duals who held doctrines very different to the Church et' England. if I refer to the Presbyterian ritual shall I toms find that there was then an essential inroad made upon episcopacy? It was, however, just anti wise to enact this measure, the union of Church and State not being le e , paired by it. Sir, the Honourable Member for Yorkehire said that his great objection to the granting of thie mea sure admitted of no alteration, and that it now was what it had always been. I think if he had looked at the declarations of their universities he would have seen that the noxious doctrines to which the Ho nourable Member referred have been disavowed by them --disavowed too by those who are hest. enabled to un derstand and define them. When the Honourable Member says that the Roman Catholic religion has beer, always the same as it now is, does he mean to say that it was the same when Louis the Fourteenth repealed the edict of Nante, and when that haqhty and unfeeling monarch ruled the destinies of France, as it now is, wheh an amiable and kind-hearted Monarch rules over that country? No, Sir; that religion has undergone the change to which all human things are liable—it has been improved, all human institutions must iu process of time be. It is in vain to argue at any further length upon a topic, which every Hon. Gentleman lutist see and be convinced, that there is nothing in the argument that the Roman Catholic religion remains unchanged and unchange able. Sir, I have always understood that in England it is one of the proudest feelings that an Englishman can pos sess, that whatever he his station, he inay, by possibility, attain to the highest offices of the State. Certainly it is not in time House of Comusous--certainly it is not from the bench upon which I now have a seat—certainly it is not I who can be suspected of underrating this important privilege. If holding, as I do, a high station in the coun try, however unworthily, I were to say to the Ca - tholic, whatever were his merit, however distin guished his talents, however exemplary his charae ter—" The privilege which placed me here is denied i n your defence to yon"—if I hold such language to time Catholic, auct to administer he inquire why that privilege is denied him, I am fa n ,bare, but you deny obliged to add this degrading expression—" Because' shit are considered unworthy of trust--because you are not to be believed upon your oath." When you call upon i the soldier to fight your battles, you administer to hum au —youoath, a p n e d rr a n •o it u i s ii uff m e t r o h sa im rve to u s p h o ed n h ju is ri b " lo . od o • that can tend ta progress in public the law in cases of life and death--in your service you admit hint to a to him the benefits which he merits ia return ; and why same interests attach him to the !realise' I think, Sir, Because he is not to be tr e u o s that 0 - 44 question has wade ::pinion in this countrys sa d such progress is still . t not forget that .11 tl • e there is going on—but we roust d th • • . 0 ee e elan m there is a progressive evil in progressive good '.• hie must Ireland—ate evil w g itably spread unless checked by a eene iha Go vernment in there. Sir, when heard, as I Lace heard this House, and with notch • such violent surprise, language as that proposed to meet by putting it t h e 'd ar ,gerdown by force, I am loth to un its meaning. tlerstand Let us recollect, that if we engage in a struggle we shall not only have to contend with the population of Ireland, but with half the influential feeling; o f this , country, and %vitt' that which I am sure every good mind would avoid ; but, Sir, it is the part of wisdom so mistrust our own views—it is the part of good sense "re inculcate justice, it is the part of prudence to yield in good tilde, and with a good grace, that which, happete what 'nay, cannot be long delayed.—(The Right Hon. Member then proceeded to state, that securities. might he suggested, if the measure went into Committee, where ample means might be afforded of pointing them out). t h ope, he continued, that, in thus laying down the view I have taken, the view I have always taken, of this great and important question, I have discussed it with that tempe r and discretion of which so admirable an example was set me by my Right Hon. Friend. It gives me pain to differ from him upon this only subject upon which we differ; but th„pg. Monti I entertain I have long kept ; and the longer I live the trusted a country Where the greater is my conviction of the fatal consequences, by the dife fealties in which it may be i n volved, if any such difficul ties should arise as those which occurred during the late ,var. We have already made ma ny concese ions to the R oman Catholics. Some of theM it was known h ave been made too much in the presence of a foreign Power: Some of them lam appeared too like parleying