The Sun. — London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

leg that respect from the people of Ireland which in his con science he believed to be her due. It was curious to hear the objections now made to the evidence of the Catholics them selves as to the nature of their religion. Formerly, when Gen tlemen in that House asserted that the doctrines of the Ca tholic Church were not what they previously had been, it was said, " Oh, your Protestants deny these doctrines, but let us hear theM disclaimed by the Catholics themselves." Now they were disclaimed by a Catholic Bishop, and the same parties rejected his authority. His Right Honourable Friend complained too that the Protestant succession to the throne was not secure, because the Catholics limited it to the present reigning family. Why, was it possible that he could have been thinking of the extent of that illustrious fa. roily ? Did he forget all the relations of the Duke of Bruns wick ? Did he forget the House of Denmark, and the House of Brandenburglt, and the King of Prussia, several of whose sons and daughters were married, and had families ? In fact, if he had looked through Germany, he would have seen a whole regiment of these royal and illustrious personages to have quieted his alarms upon that point.—(A laugh.)—Another ob jection of his Right Hon. Friend was, that the Roman Catholic Church was called the Church of Ireland in the Bill, instead of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Now all he had to do was to move in the Committee that the word " of" be struck eut, and the word " in" substituted in its place, and then the whole would be remedied. He understood, indeed, what ever was to be the fate of the Catholic Question, something was to be done with the present Oaths, for it was not very agreeable to tell Gentlemen that they were idolaters, particu larly when it was not true.—(Hear, hear !)—His Right Ho nourable Friend (Mr. Goulburn) and the Honourable Mem ber for Derry (Mr. Dawson), had referred to the letters of Of J. K. L. He (Lord B.) was not an' apologist for these letters. On the contrary, he Was extremely sorry that Dr. Doyle had allowed himself, in an angry moment, to write them—but this he must say, that in the letters of J. K. L. there was not one word attacking the Established Church, and the charge of gross inconsistency between that Prelate's writings and evidence he therefore denied.—(Hear, hear!)— Dr. Doyle merely says, that a Church, with the temporalities of the Establishment in Ireland, ought not to exist in a poor country devoted to tillage and agriculture. So far from being hostile to the Church, he uniformly spoke of it with respect, as one " hewn out of the solid rock," and with that, what he said before the Cornmitteee perfectly agreed, nor could he believe a man, such as Dr. Doyle, capable of wilfully lying or perjuring himself. He held the same opinion of every . Priest who had been examined, and he joined his Hon. Friend, the Member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) in giving implicit credit to their tes timony. He (Lord Binning) would say a word or two on the auxiliary measures proposed to accompany the present Bill. The Noble Lord proceeded to argue, that the abolition of 40s. freeholders could not be properly called a disfranchisement in the actual state of Ireland ; and that as the Catholics were wil ling to surrender that part of the Elective Franchise for Eman cipation, with a view to the settlement of the country, he should ' support the measure. The payment of the Catholic Clergy had been objected to, both as tending to create a new establishment and saddling the country with a heavy expence. But he (Lord B.) should not stop on the question of expence, whether it were 100,000/. or 2 or 300,000/. a-year, and he would ask those who talked of imposing such a burden on the Protestants and Presbyterians, to reflect upon the burdens now imposed on the Catholics for the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)—ln conclusion, he congratulated the House and the Country tipon the progress of the Question before Parliament, and he trusted the House would not only send up this Bill to the other Heuse, but many others relative to Ireland dictated by equal wisdom, policy, and justice.—(Hear, hear!) Mr. WALLACE, who was for the most part inaudible in the gallery, observed that he did not rise in, the hope of throw ing Tight upon the subject under consideration, but, upon an occasion like the present; he thought a distinct avowal of the Prounds on which he should vote against the Bill was due to arliament and the country. No man was more, anxious.than himself to see 'the objects attained which this Bill professed to aim at, and if he thought it 'would effect those objects even at florae sacrifice of the Constitution, he should give kills vote with fiore gratification than he now expressed his reluctant opposi tion to the measure. The passing of the Bill would, in his opinion, give as much dissatisfaction to one party as it would Rive satisfaction to another, and could not thereby tranquillize the country. It therefore appeared, to him the least evil of the t. 1 _ , 0 to brave existing dangers than to create new ones. Looking t 9 the evidence before the Committee he found that much, hide- Itadent of this measure, might be done for Ireland, and he last, prefer introducing other changes first, and leaving tbis if it were thus deemed necessary. This he also consi dered an unfit time to pass 'such an Act. At another period the Catholics might come forward with respectful solicita tions, but Parliament ought to bear in mind, that with what ever moderation their petition was worded, and in whatever terms of conciliation the Hon. Baronet introduced the Ques tion to the House, still the petition emanated from the Catho lic Association —a body which the Legislature was so recently _ compelled to put down by a special law. It might hereafter be conceded without compromising the dignity of the House ; but now it would be considered a sacrifice and peace offering to the Catholic Association. No individual in Parliament would probably assent to that conclusion, but they were to weigh well What might b e f e lt ou t s id e o f i ts doors. They ought to look to the feelings with which the Catholics would receive the mea sure. T wo li g h ts i n w hi c h t hi s qust i on m i g h t b e v i ew ed were, as a measure to give satisfaction, and as one to put an end to eel's which now prevailed. Some persons had' said that there was no danger in these concessions, but he (Mr. 'Wallace) thought it was most dangerous to trench upon a fundamental principle of the Constitution. It also appeared to him most dangerous to give additional power to a new party in the State. Our an cestors felt that a Protestant King was no security foi their liber ties, unless surrounded by a Protestant Council and supported .by a Protestant Legislature. What could be thought of the consistency of Gentlemen on the other side, when in one breath called the Catholics Slaves and Helots, and in the next repre !tented the existing danger to arise from 'the growing wealth, Prosperity, and power of that body ? Now, it certainly was true that they were advancing in all those respects, and he there fore contended that the present laws could not in operation, be so injurious as they were described. With respect to the conversion of some Honourable Members, he must ob :er've, that the opinions given in evidence, an d which they bad been influenced, were not new to him ; but he den k ed that in the offi c i a l acts or avowe d p retens i ons o f the See of Rome, there 'was, the least' change. The' Hon. Gentleman thed pro ceded to , di scuss t h e f orm o f oa th s pr es c r ibed in the present Bill. The first allowed the Catholics to subyert the Protestant Religion, prOvided they did not attack the Established Church ; and the other was equally vague and objectionable. The only security in his opinion, which could be proposed,.was a sub !tatitial interference by GOvernment in the appointment of the, Rnlish Bishops, nor was 'such an interference really incon sistent With the discipline or doctine of their religion.. It was !aid in the evidence last year , that the mass of the people of Ire 'Pill did not think' their interests identified with Catholic 'flaneipation, and to grant it could not therefore 'confer any advantage upon them. For these reasons he 'should vote against the Bill.—( Hear, hear !) Mr. PORTMAN declared himself a firm supporter of the stablisbed Church; but a friend of civil and religious tolera tl°ll. This Bill would secure the peace and content of Ireland; and with that conviction he should Note for xhe Question. The rn eaguie would, he thought, give 'fresh glory to Parliament, and' n e r. 'vigour. to the Constitution.' eiord VALLERTORT declared himself one of ,the many concerts to the present Bill, and he believed if all whose preju d .. season meant opinions derived from authority, and not from `veson and inquiry—were removed by the evidence before the e l e n tsti g Committees, were to declare themselves, the conver ti"lB *mid- be found more numerous than was .sypposed. obstinate might be delaYed, but every Mae, even its most "olate enemies, must be convinced. that sooner or later it could be carri e d.-(He ar , hear !)—He should give his hearty te In support of the Bill. Mr Secretary N • CANNING '(after 'a loud and repeated call all parts of the .11ouse rose and said—As . it has fallen to ye ! let to address the . Hous e on this oecasion,. I beg to assure Peculiar in noir trespassing upon your, attention, I do it with te - "oar difficulty, because - if I am naturally anxious to treat Ireeinfihjectat _some length; the lateness of the hour,. will pre ent,..TY doin g it justice. In travelling over the ground of thie te*tibn aethe present crisis, it . is impossible not to per- The l ' p something far different, betfat More cheering, thin any tip_yinl'ifotrih'aOtf Nee have heretofore known. Whether, .or , not, , the the 'country is so satisfactorily pronoUnced against i'luroboaurther concessions to the Catholics as it was' at one time ni ° Lnerd—and whether or not it may be inferred that opi. tniack's.still the same—l will not undertake to say ; but this b o : u te certain, that arnorig the petitions on the subject that dis t ,,, w etr presented to This House' (I desire to speiik without tid' era tfement of any), there has been manifested no incon- Rreater e degre e of ignorance as to the question, and a still y z i fick legree of . ignorance as to the state . of . the country to ist on " . Plat question refers. I feel, in stating what I _do f le the full weight of the undoubted right of everyman hi a "" a realm to come before this House, and to state fairly iec e a . ions. And I know that every petition should be eor is i4 u r by the House—and be not only received, . but be Jwith most respectful deliberation. But I know stet n '' after all, you ought to judge according to your own 13 Relecellt ts , If, out of the general mass of the coontry, ',were le t... ,, iett any particular class of men whose interests are more bead la telY concerned in, this measure, ,and who, ere moet ' Ry - 0 1 Connected with it, that class of men would be the,Cler ration:n,e Established Church ; anti I give them r o t, ogly .0.14 forw ard ' ) ." Praise, for the manner in which -they have wept tilent s . t o express fairly end honestly i and boldly, ifjeir Pon it. But even in their petitions, I have found liothe thing of that ignorance of the state of the laws, and of the state of the country, of which 1 complain—ignorance not affecting them in their sacred character, but ignorance of which so many other persons partake. I shall allude in particular to one petition 1 have selected out of the many similar petitions that have been presented; and it is immaterial to state from whence this petition has proceeded; but I think the contents of this petition will suffi ciently show that the , opposition to the measure has been founded upon that mistrust to which our natures are so lia ble. This petition prays that the House would not grant to the Catholics those concessions and those immunities which were denied to every other class of dissenters, -and it stated that it would be in the highest degree impolitic and unjust to allow the Catholics, who were comparatively under the dominion of a foreign court, a voice in the enactment of laws and in the administration of the laws, while the Protestarit Dissenters,who were under no such dominion, but who weremore liberal and better educated, were excluded from those privi leges. In answer to this petition, and to this declaration, I say that if it be declared that the objects of the Bill is to place, and merely to place, the excluded Dissenters, the Roman Catholic Dissenters, on a footing with other Dissenters, the objections against supporting this Bill must at once fall to the ground. I will not go so far as to say that it would be right to remove all disabilities on account of religion. I will pledge myself to no such doctrine. But I will not yield to it unless it can be shown that practical grievances will result from those disabilities, and with respect to the Catholics, will those practical grievances exist or will they not? If I can prove the fact that we discuss subjects in this House—that we sit in company with, and share our counsels with those who have still greater religious disabili ties than those Catholics, the argument on which the petition is built is not only weak but groundless. It has surprised me much that as a great portion of the debate on this subject has more than usually , touched upon theology, this subject has not been alluded to. But the petitioners sympathize with the Dissenters, while to me it is quite clear that the sympathy ought to be the other way. What, shall we object to sit round that table—shall we ob ject to take counsel with those who lie under the stigma of a belief in transubstantiation? God forbid that before this Assembly and within these walls I should go into such a subject with any other view than that of placing the matter in a true light ; but 1 ask, while we reject as unworthy to be our associates those who believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, shall we ad mit and accept those who do not believe in consubstantiation to be our associates in this House ? Let any man read what Luther has said on this subject, and perceive the lines he has drawn between the two classes. He does not merely say that there is no difference between them, but he says that the one may be a good subject, and that the other must be a traitor to the State. But it is charged against the Catholics that their church is an exclusive church. Now I will only take 'the evi dence which was given before the Committee, to show that all churches are exclusive. All who read the Athanasian Creed, or hear it read upon certain holidays throughout the year, may see what a construction is there put upon the sublime doctrines of Christianity. I say then that is absurd to assert that the Ca tholic is the only exclusive church. Again, Sir, much stress has been laid, during the course of this debate, upon the doctrine of absolution, which, if taken in its literal sense, is undoubtedly grossly ridiculous; but it has been proved by evidence bfore the Committee that this absolution is only a means that follows reparation of injuries, and good •fellowship . with all men. If such be the case, then, I ask where is the great evil that accompanies this doctrine ? and I beg of those .who look upon it with so much horror, to compare it with a passage in our ritual service for the visitation of the sick,— (hear, hear !)—and to place this passage in comparison with that doctrine. What, then, is this doctrine of absolution suf ficient to warrant the grievances of which the Roman Catholics have to complain ? I will not say that there are not shades of difference between the Protestant and the Catholic Church suffi cient to nriake me rejoice, and I do heartily rejoice, that we have separated from the Church of Rome; but I say, that those shades of difference are not powerful enough to permit the Church of England to impute to others that which .she herself is not with out, or to make the breach so wide as that it can never be closed. Another question is, as to the doctrine which gives merit to good works, and attaches to them a vital importance. —Now, I know of no doctrine more dangerous to the State, or one that is more pregnant with mischief than the doctrine that good works , , are nothing, but that every thing depends upon faith, alone. We are not here to debate points of theology, or. even higher principles ; we are here talking of good subjects to a State, and I would far prefer the man who believed that he must answer in another world for his works In this, and be judged according to them, to him who believed that each man was fated to his lot. I say I would rather have such a man as a subject, and- would unquestionably consider him the safer companion of the two. These theological objections then are nothing. No man doubts that we have had, not only in this House, but in the highest of f ices of the State, men who have been Unitarians, or Socinians. I could prove such to be the fact by many examples, if it were at all necessary to bring them forward; but if it be admitted that any one such person hasbeen in those offices, it follows that the theological objection is not va lid. Then came the political objections. The Papists, it is said, ought not to be admitted to certain privileges,• because they cannot own allegiance to any but a Papist King. Why. not ? Has the case been at all made out ? Who was it brought a Mo narch of England to the block ? Who was it stript the Prelates of England of their gowns and of their power ? Such acts were not committed by the Papists. No. I will not now say by whom they were committed. I am far from advocating the doctrines of the Catholic Church, hut when it is broadly as serted that the Catholics are under the rule and dominion of a Foreign Potentate, I feel called upon to assert my belief, that such is not the case. The only and the whole question for the Legislature is this : —Has a doctrine been ever held and acted upon, or if'it has, is it held and acted upon now by the Roman Catholics, that can bring into jeopardy the Church and the Con stitution of this State? Dr. Doyle, an Irish Roman Catholic Bishop, has been examined touching this point before a Com mittee of the House. Yet it is asserted by some Honourable Members„. that he has held one language before this House and another in his own country. Now, I ask, is it possible that any man who has a character at stake, and a good name to lose, could have so done—that he could have pledged his word, put ting his oath -out of the question, for this might have been re. garded by some persons as nothing—to that which was utterly untrue ? Is it likely that a man, standing before this House, knowing that every word he uttered would be read, not only by his adversaries, but by his own flock, and aware that many of his brethren were remaining in the next room, ready to be examined on the same topics, and ready to confound him if his answers were incorrect, could have stated that which he knew to be untrue? Is it likely that Doctor Doyle would have given a false explanation of the doctrines he held? It is utterly impossible that he could so have done. But whe ther 'or not we credit the assertions of Dr. Doyle, there is ano ther man who believed as he did—and who held the same Opinions as that Rev. Gentleman professed to hold, when speak ing of the spiritual effect of obedience to the Pope. It is the doctrine not held by Dr. Doyle alone—for all enlightened and educated Catholics in all ages have been the same. I happened to fall on a passage in one of the letters of Mr. Pope, the poet, who, as it is well known, was a Catholic ; this letter was written soon after, by the death of his parents, he became his own master, and was written to his friend Bishop Atterbury, who had vainly endeavoured to convert him to Protestantism. In this letter Pope said—" I hope all Churches are liberal, as far as liberality can be rightly understood, but I leave those points for others to dispute upon. 1 am not a Papist, for I renounce the Papal Power, but I am a Catholic, a firm Ca tholic in every sense of the word." Thus the observation of Pope confirmed the truth of -the testimony, of Dr. Doyle+ mid Pope was . a man of a most enlightened mind, and of superior talents, who expressed this sentiment in confidence to his friend, a Prelate of the Established Church, without having any other objeet in view than that of declaring his real belief. I say this opinion, that was delivered by a man of education one hundred years ago, tallies with that which of late days was -given by -an Irish Prelate.- Another charge that has been made against the Catholics is • of a kind partly religious and partly political, and asserts, that they have given themselves tip to the guidance of their Priests and their Leaders, instead of dependingupon the Constitution for protection. I will par tially admit the, charge, but I will lay the blame elsewhere. They may be idolaters in religion, but if they b e idolaters in politics we have made them so, b keeping from them those Privileges which they h ave a right, t y o enjoy. But I say admit them to an equal, share in th e C onst i tut i on, s h ow t h at Consti tution as we have it, call upon them' t o f a ll d own an d wo rship at our common shrine, and thiscrime of idolatry w ith w hich they are charged will be heard of no more. I am-p er f ect l y rea dy t o a dmit that I am not so fond of change a.s to wishfor it, unless it can be proved to be of unquestionable advantage, unexceptionable in every respect, and sufficiently recommended by the results that are likely to follow it.. Is not this change, to which I allude ne cessary as well as politic? Is it or is it not a grievous circumstance that the State should be deprived of the full use of many millions of its su bj ec t s ? Is -it or is, it not a grievous circumstance that the crowd should be limited in the choice of its subjects' Is it or is not a grievous circumstance that so many men should bear about them the badge of degradation, which poisons the , en joyment of, society, and- caats j a damp upon their , hopes and their aspirations of the rewards of industry and of honour ? I ask, is there any man who will not, call these real grievances ? I will not say they are- such. grievances as the Constitution must die before : 1, will mot even say th ey are such grievances as will say, nevertheless, that tb may not gr be overievances o r f u w le h d ic ; h b th ut I the country should take notice; and which the Legislature of that country, should endeavour to removg. .T, he *alba tor Derry air -Dawson) has said alit' there is bpt choice of difficulties, and th a t w h atever con ' cinsion the H ou se might come'to he could not feel -satisfied. I Ido not thinlovo are placed: in this painfukeituaticav; or if we are it is of our own making. At all events, we have this ad , but the cure is in our own oss far es those persons were justi pvanteagsseio;m werindhot not the knowd difficulties, Iti justi fied who first framed the system of degradation. But we have not now to legislate on the same matter ; we have not now to legislate under the same , circumstances, nor do we come to the consideration of the subject with the same feelings when, we write to revise the laws which they enacted. The difficulties which they had to contend with were not difficulties that were confined to the closet or the cloister. No ; they affected them politically, because the Constitution was disturbed, and there was no other way of putting down those disturbances but by putting down the religion that created them. They might be pardoned, be cause what they did was in the heat of the moment; they might be pardoned because they endeavoured to sustain a new esta blishment; they might be pardoned because they were smarting under the remembrances of recent suffering; they might be pardoned because they were elevated by recent victory —a victory that had been long and well contested for ;- and they might be pardoned because they retaliated on those who, when they had the power, exercised it over them. There is ano ther way, also, to do our ancestors justice ; they looked at the problem they had to solve, and they went the way to solve it. They saw no manner of rooting out the enmity between them and the Popish Jacobite, and determined that those they could not convert—for they did scruple a little as to extermination—they would deprive of every means of in crease and of power. I will do them the justice to say that a more admirable system could not have been devised than the one they adopted : the rack is a horrid instrument, but it is a fine piece of mechanism —and the penal code, though exquisite ly ingenious,was a code of horrors, for it set the father against the son, and the son against the father; it stopt the industry of some, and the energies of all ; it prevented the poor from look ing for protection from the rich ; it prevente d the rich from being safe from the poor, and it spetv.ily reduced a population of about a million to a few isolated individuals. But you have since changed your policy, or the enactments of 1798 were mischievous in the extreme. You repaired, you relaxed, and you then changed them ; you changed this long catalogue of penal enactments, which I often read with so much horror, The question then comes to this, are we to go back to the event ful scenes of our ancestors, or are we to, go forward, and make legislation progress with the intelligence of the age ? This is the question before you. I will admit that this question is sa tisfactorily answered, when any man tells me how it is possible we are to avoid the alternative ; but I have heard from no man how this was to be. We have an instance deciding how much the minds of men are becoming unprejudiced on this question. The truth is making its way in prejudiced, although honestly preju diced minds. It is impossible to have listened to this debate, and not to have seen this triumphant achievement over error : the honest and conscientious mind throwing, off its former un sound opinions, and acknowledging its conviction of the truth. It was impossible not to feel delighted at the open and manly declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brownlow) up on this question, and of his conviction of the essential im portance of it to the peace of Ireland. Considering the station in which he stands,and the situation which he holds in that coun tryt his conduct is most expressive of the force of truth over prejudice. It was not his speech but his individual presence m that state that spoke thunder-tongued. It was impossible not to feel the operation of this power in the speech of the Gallant Colonel (Bagwell), who was not heard perhaps so fully as his sentiments were strong ; it was impossible to have heard that speech and not to have marked the candour and manly sentiments which it delivered. These are the living illus trations of the truth, that the time is now come when this question must be brought to a triumphant conclusion. There is also the Honourable Gentleman who is so closely con nected with the Northern parts of Ireland (Mr. Brownlow), and whose name I had always heard coupled with measures wholly opposed to those liberal views which he now came forward to advocate ; it was impossible to have heard his honest and candid avowal of his sentiments, without feeling that he was become a convert to Catholic Emancipation, nor without feeling that there is a sentiment excited which is bringing men of every denomination, and of every party, to a fair and unbiassed contemplation of the question. Then, Sir, if these are indications of the state of opinion which r now prevail among many who have hitherto been opposed to all concessions, are there not other indications which affect this question? Are there not proofs that the measure will be met with a different temper from what it has hitherto been. What then is the consequence of the exclusion of the Ca tholics ? Why the first is, that it turns to evil every blessing of the country. You speak of the greatness of wealth, an in creased population, a growing intelligence, an increasing pros perity, as the sign of the times and the blessing of Ireland. But is it possible that either our growing wealth, increased intelli gence, or increased population, can avail those whose feelings cannot be satisfied while you withhold from them a fair partici pation of those blessings. Do you not feel that you lead them to war if you do not grant them, now that they are ripe for it,, the enjoyment of those privileges from which they have been so tang exluded, and which both policy and right decide they should enjoy ? If you deny them this, they will feel that you have lifted them up to an_eminence from which to view those bright objects they would fain attain, if permitted, only to dis. appoint their expectations and render more desperate their hopes. Better, perhaps, would it have been for them if they had remained in their primitive state of bondage and of ignorance, than that you should stimulate in them every prin ciple of action, and then deny them the capacity of enjoying the fruits of it Sir, what are the consequences which will flow from our granting the Roman Catholics emancipation ? My Hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) has said that one of them would be the overthrow of the Constitution—a very wide chain this between my Hon. Friend's premises and his conclusion, and I should like to see or be informed what are the links which form it ?—(Laughter.)—:Of course one of them must consist in their physical force. Physical force, I conceive, is much more likely to be employed when the door is shut than when the door is opened.—(Laughter.)—What is' proposed to be given to the Catholics by this bill is not power, but a possibility of possess ing power—not fruition,, but capacity to enjoy it. And while this country, guarded as it is by its Protestant prejudices, in the hest use of the word, retains those prejudices, they are quite sure to present at all times a barrier to any overweening ambition 'which the Honourable Member for Derry seems to attribute to the Catholics, whenever they should insist upon an undue portion of power with the Protestants. If you persist in excluding the descendants of 'the great men who helped to form that Constitution of which you are' so jealous, the consequence will ultimately be that the hand that toils, the un cultivated hind, the unlettered individual, will assert and as sume a' power much more fearful than any you are called'upon to confer. lt is, therefore, an irrational, impolitic, and dan gerous policy, to pursue this course, and I most fearfully look forward to the consequences. Suppose, - Sir, that the present Bill were to pass, what would ensue ? Why, in the next, per haps, we should have a new corner or two, who would at first' be -an object of curiosity (Laughter); but after that our feelings would subside, and we should sit down by his side as uncon sciously as we now do by the side of a Protestant. We never .ask whether any of the Honourable Gentlemen around us are good Protestants. We all seem to think, with Mr. Burke, " that he was the best Protestant who protested against every thingin the world." I say we should soon become as uncon scious of the presence of a Catholic as of a Proteitant; and I would risk my life - on this proposition, that no Catholic would ' ever venture to couch a speech, in thii House, in such strong and dangerous terms as what I have myself heard from a t Protestant, and that the Constitution wo u ld not be so much' in 'danger from Catholic Members as from some Protestant ones whom I have heard within these walls. I ask then, the person i who now opposes this measure to carry his imagination a little 'further beyond the present time, to a period when he is not , verylikely to haste much personal interest 'in the country, and let him answer me, on his honour, if he believes (if this Bill 'should not pass) that in ten years from this time, the Catholics will not be admitted to a seat in this House ? It must be so ; 'nothing can resist this inevitable result ; 'the nature of things, land the progress of mind, make it irresistible. Then, if 'the boon is to be given, and in so short a time, shall we not have the grace of giving it now ? Or, to )cut it in another m t i r h o i u li bi ty e o t tn r t e h f e u s i i n n t g e ri i m t atw e a t t a i i k ri e e upon whe n ourselvesever every t h i l l r g e way—sinc e t hi s must be effected at all events, and perhaps at much e o s u n p o c s hp conspires to make it an act both' of grace and or the best' and wisest policy ? Shall we venture to withhold from the Catholics a participation in the blessings of the Constitution,--a Constitution, mind, which we are holding up to the Catholics as that for which we are to bleed,—a Constitution which, when r property u d on es ly cri f b o e r d th in e tphriost il ec o ti u o s n e' it is ec h t e ei b ld ea s n Y ve a r ou and the boast of nut r lives, but for the privilege it b estows. But is it such to the Catholic !—No ; to him it i s rat h er the Constitution of exthe. o sion, and yet you call the Catholic to bow down and prostrate himself before it. I say it would be most absurd and preposte , rous to suppose that you could reason with sentient beings with such logic as that ? In proportion, then, as you are pro proportion as this country is great—in v, t • pro sperous—in r ropor ion and ' • as this country is richpowerful, unfolding its wealth and,capabilities' of which it is every day more and more dis playing—in proportion as we want not the aid and fear not . the frown of any other nation, -so inroportion are we able to grant • that bright dawn of ho that boon, and to realise pe, which has been so- long sought for, and entertained by the Catholics of Ireland. By the concurrence of the_ most extraordinary el:a:11111- to' have conspired to bra ' stances, which chance seems . out, we stand now in a situation in which we, never stood before, when the Catholic Question has' been discussed. We have discussed it'either in the meridian of a foreign war or in the midst of domestic differences and rimy who then opp ose d i t often did so on' the ground that the times were unsuited for such a question, and that they would wait for a calmer season be. fhre so &eta an act of legialiition 'should 'obtain their concur rence. The time is now come beyond our hopes or most san. guine expectations. Whoever looked forward to see this dm- ' try in the high and palmy and prosperous station in which she at present stands, and shall we not seek them and make it our own by some signal act of grace and of justice ? If, then our greatness may fade, our ,wealth diminish, our prosperity pass away—but we shall still have made this time our own-- "Qui non moderabitur Infectuin volet esse dolor quod snascrit et mens Dam penis olio per vim fz.stinat inulto." This is not the occasion when I should wish to offer any obser vations on the particulars of the Bill ; but an non. Member has alluded to the oath and the securities. With regard to the oath it is unfortunately framed. I agree in the opinion that it is more like a Bill of Indictment than a protestation. But it should be remembered that there is another place tbr the Bill to go up to, where much scruple and many surmises —(a laugh) —were likely to arise. To make the Bill palatable, therefore, to the other House, we have restored the long tale to the oath. Then comes my hon. Friend, and objects t'() this, and treats it as if it were a contrivance of the Catholics; and desires me to omit this part of the oath ; but I would much rather this omission should be his than mine. But it should be borne in mind 'that this obnoxious clause is as old as any Act of the House relating to the Roman Catholics. He always considered that it was to be measured by what would satisfy Protestants—not what might come up to the idea of his Right Hon. Friend. The object was not so much to cure the mischief of which he was apprehensive, but to afford an adequate remedy for that which then existed, and pressed upon the country. My Right Honourable Friend. (Mr. Goulbtirn) had argued as if the communication with the Court of. Rome was then, for the first time, to be guarded against; but.l can inform. my Right Honourable Friend of what certainly is a matter of very general notoriety, that this communication goes on every day—that rescripts are continually passing—that every trivial event is made known—that marriages, and every other occurrence of private life, is communicated. This unques tionably is contrary to law ; but it is, nevertheless, indulged in, without reference to that limitation. It ir, as created by law, an offence on which the severest penalties might . be I visited ; but the penalties, from their extreme severity, are not inflicted. No one thought of carrying the provisions of. such laws into effect. I would say to my Right Honourable Friend, that as the fact was unquestionable, that such communi cation did exist, he, thinking it so dangerods, ought to 'intro duce a law that would reach it, for the existing enactments, as the fact proved, were totally insufficient for such a purpose. The severity of those laws which affected intercourse with the Court of Rome, came most particularly under my own consideration. A short time after I came into office the King had received a very kind letter from the Pope, and I though it not prudent to advise his Majesty to answer that letter until I had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject. Those learned persons agreed in thinking that the. Minister who should advise such a communication would be guilty of a prremunire; accordingly the letter from that time to the present had remained unanswered. These are not the de fects of the Bill ; they arise out of the present system, a system which it is now intended to alter. These are the three objects to which I have thought it necessary to direct the attention of the House. The suggestions which may be made on the sub ject I am ready to adopt, though I am unwilling to attach to the measure the limitation spoken of. I would now address myself more particularly to the two.bills which are understood to be auxiliary to the present measure. For my own part I am perfectly contented to support the ,present Bill, without regard to both or either of those auxiliary .measures. I ant willing to vote for it as it now stands, independently of any such extraneous support, and in doine so I ant not to be consi dered as pledged to the su pp or t a any other bill on a different subject, for I have much to learnbefore I can make up my mind to the conviction that these measures are in them selves unobjectionable ; but if by consenting to their ;enact ment, I could conciliate 'those who have scruples to overcome —if I could do . " a great right" by cons e nti ng t o " a little wrong" much might be yielded to expediency, that in a stricter spirit might be refused. I wish to have it distinctly borne in mind that freeholds in Ireland are very different from freeholds in England.,—(Hear, hear!)—Those, therefore, who might hesitate—those who might have difficulties with regard to the elective franchise, should remember that in this respect Ireland and England most, widely differ. To such it might be clearly explained, that in thus striking at the symbol, we do not vio late the essence of freedom. Of the blame which may attach to this measure—of the censure which may hereafter fall on it, I, for one, ant willing to take my share, if, at the expence of a trifling evil, we accomplish a great good. In this view of the subject, I confess that I look upon this auxiliary enact ment with great and increasing favour ; nor have I heard any argument which has shaken my opinions on this subject. As regards the second of these auxiliary measures, namely, that' which would go to make a provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy, it is urged that there would be a gross and manifest injustice in taxing the whole population of the empire at large, for the support of a clergy whose ministry was confin ed to only a portion of that population • but, in the warmth of urging this argument, do they forget the regium donum Do they not all contribute to the payment of this provision for. the Clergy of apart Of the population much fewer in number than the Roman Catholics? Is it not a. grievance deeply affecting the Roman Catholics, - that they are obliged to pay for the maintenance of - the Clergy of the Established Church, and is it proposed to remove that grievance ? Quite the contrary. —Do I intimate a willingness to agree. to any measure having for its object a diminution of the revenues of 'that Church, or an encroachment in any respect upon its. rights and proper ty ? The integrity of that Church I feel bound to main tain inviolate, as the connecting link between Great. Britain and Ireland. The Catholic is taxed for the maintenance of that Church, and the regium donum of the Presbyterians' is in principle a tax perfectly analagous, and consenting to the one is decidedly inconsistent with objecting to the other. I shall now trouble the House with but a few further observations.— (Loud cheering.)-1 would, point attention to the internal si tuation of the country, anti at the same time io the condition in Which the Catholics are placed. In the prosperity of the coun try at large it has outgrown all its former greatness ; and as it in human nature to look inviduously on the success of rivals— nations following the same rule as individuals—it is to' be pre sumed that the other countries of Europe regard with no fa vourable eye the increasing power and strength of the British Empire. In the painful feelings which this may be expected to excite, where do they look for consolation ? To Ireland, and there do they fasten, as if by inStinct, up . on the unfortunate circumstances of that country. They cherish -the persuasion thateihe is a rankling wound in the bosom of the State, which will work the destruction of its vital powers. Let is then dis appoint the hopes of those who look to this as the means of ac complishing their views against the interest of Great Britain._ Let us, by healing this wound, annihilate those hostile antici pations, and let the cure be so complete, and the healing so effectual, that not even the cicatrix shall remain. —(Loud cheer ing and applause.) Mr. Secretary PEEL.—I am sure the House will do me the justice to believe that it would have been infinitely more grate ful to my feelings to have been spared the necessity of address ing the House on a subject already so exhausted. My Right llon. Friendwill, I trust, also give me credit when I say that it would haVe been much more personally gratifying tome to agree with him than to differ-on this most important occasion; but if I see much evil in acceding to the deinands of the Roman Catho lics, and vastly less in adhering to the laws and constitution as at present established, I persuade myself that I shall not, in conse quence of that; forfeit his esteem and friendship-:.-for standing forward in the honest and candid expiession of my conviction. Before I notice the other points to which I deem it necessary to advert, 1 shall previously notice the conversion of some Hon. Members, en which so much stress has been laid. When my Hun. Friend the Member for Armagh announced that he' had changed his mind, I heard him with 'as perfect tt conviction . of his sincerity as could possibly be entertained ; and I trust that he will give me credit for equal sincerity in adhering to my origi nal opinions as I eve hint in his alteration of sentiment. The course'ofnlyoppoSition to thia Measure, will, I trust, be considered throughout as a moderate opposition, and free from any rancorous feeling wheteVer. I am far from*relying upon the petitions that have been presented against the claims of Roman Catholics, as presenting a beets the present measure. For my own part, I. have never said or done any thing to encourage the presentation Of these petitions; anti if they had been ten times ae numerous I would .till remain Of thee tine opinion. I certainly admit, with my Right lion. Friend, that these petitions *sliew nothing more than the general dissetisfaction which the passing of the, Bill would be likely to create. ,The conversion of his Right Hon. Friend clearly sheared that Ite,hitherto conceded to die Roman He had learned . from the evidence of Dr.. Doyle, Catholics on grounds quite different from those on which Thad Religion no longer teetehdeedlionnin Catholic held the doctrine, power to dispossess Monarchs of thrones, that Vaith was not to be kept with heretics, and that the See of Rome did' not exercise temporal authority in &her States.. All: this was well flown before answers to this effect had been given to 'to die ituetieS of Mr. Pitt, addressed to the Universities on this that the Popebad were, and that for that reason he would vote not go on as they subject. lint my Right lion. Friend had sa id , t h at things at the sonic time distinctly hisin fort *_ threaten ing that if the Bills for disfranathotic Clergy freeholders, and providing for, the Roman in, ergy should be thrown out; he would, by every means his power, . the oppose the. third Bill. He would thus take eve reading of the present , , vote for the present Bill, every oppor tunity that they t these; cannot rethain so. t conceive, thata ?. accompanong hills I act a much more Consistent part in opposing the.second tunity of keeping things as they are, though he , reedittg.orthe preSent Bill, than in any othee course. which • are. founded on petiiiims which have been presented , 'My 'Honourable Friend. says,, that. I could possibly take. that the Roman Catholici, are moos inipfe'ssibn, praying placed upon the saint favourable footing with the Dissenters, but such petitioners should be forgiven, if it appeared that by any means they could have access to the speech of his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who claimed for the Roman Catholics the abstract right of equality with . Protestants in political privileges. This, I confess, appears a sufficient vindication. I shall next notice the petitions from the Clergy of the Established Church. It was objected to. these, that they entered into theological disquisitions, and that they referred to the doctrine, discipline, and government of the Church of England: What do you find in those Articleti of the Church of England which the Clergy, whose petit ions are thus taken exception against, are required to subscriue to, but strong and lengthened protests against that .system of religion which the supporters of. the present Bill are will ing partially to establish in Ireland? The Articles pf the Church of England positively denounce image worship, con fession, transubstantiation, and various other doctrins of the Roman Catholic Church, as idolatrous, and not sanctioned by Scripture. They further declare that the Pope of Rome has no jurisdiction; and when you tell die Protestant clergymen of the Church of England, that in the preamble to this Bill for admitting the Romau Catholic into the full participation of all the privileges of the State, the doctrines of the Established Church are not injured or deteriorated, is there: not, • 1 a 4:, cause for their approaching this House with •a theological dis cussion, in the issue of which they are so nearly interested ? • Is it, not imperative on them to come forward and sliti:of their belief in those doctrines of their own Church, and the founded nature of those other doctrine's by maintaining the fal lacy of which they hold their own existence and place in our establishment.? lam equally surprised with my lion. Friend at two of the. clauses contained in the preamble to this Bill ; I mean those for the maintenance of the Protestant succession, and the support of the Protestant Church, as by law esta blished. 'Why, indeed, have those clauses been introduced, in the preamble, when, in the remaining part of the' Bill, there are embodied no enacting clauses corresponding witlt them ? In the Bill introduced into this House some years hack, by the late Mr. Grattan, for the admission of Unman Catholics to employments in the civil and military establish ment, such protecting clauses did exist in the preamble, and were followed up by other provisions and , positive enactments, bearing a strict relation to them in the body of the Bill.: You omit those clauses in the enactments of the present Bill, and wisely have you done so, because the provisions or clauses of that nature, however they might appear, could really tend to the maintenance of our Protestant Church, and succession to the Crown, as provided by the Bill of Rights. I say, Sir, this was well done ; but I recur to the clauses in the preamble, and I am prepared to say, that. the apparent anxiety to, support the Church and Crown, as established in these realms. that care and anxiety manifested . in the preamble of the Bill, but not supported or sustained by any positive enactment in the Bill itself; does excite a doubt that all is 'not sound, but that there existed even in the minds of the Honourable Members who framed it a suspicion for the safety of the Church and State. 1 repeat, Sir, this very care begets a lurking suspicion for the well-being and integrity of our present establishments. It is in all our recollections, Sir, that when Macbeth meets the as sembled peers of Scotland as his guests at the banquet at the very moment that he has been plotting his destruction, and has reason to believe his machinations have taken effect upon his victim—at that very time it is that the tyrant and murderer ex presses a great and overstrained anxiety for the presence of Banquo. His very solicitude on that. occasion would have struck a close observer as suspicious. Accordingly, it has been remarked by the commentators, that nothing can be more mas terly and powerful evidence of his guilt—nothing could show a greater consciousness of criminality than this over anxiety for Banquo's safe return. When die news arrived of the fatal death of the murdered thane, nothing could excite a greater or stronger suspicion than the previous actions of Macbeth. His conduct had at the moment roused fears for the safety of Bariquo. In like manner, Sir, I. would say, that this over regard for the safety and protection of the Protestant succession andChurch,not followed up by any protecting clause, seems to be something like the over anxiety of Macbeth for the safety of Banquo. It con veys to my mind the apprehensien that all is not right, and that there is some well-grounded reason for fear at the bottom. But, Sir, say my opponents, the succession to the throne is establish. ed permanently and inviolably, by provisions already made: Sir, I deny this, that.is ,if the Acts under which itsintegrity is se cured, are altered by the law now sought to be introduced. The Bill of Rights provides the oath of Supremacy to be taken by all persons previous to accepting offices in the State. That oath is for the maintenance of the succession, as established, and denies all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or temporal within the realm, other than that of the reigning Monarch. There is also, Sir, the declaration against transubstantiation ; but that stands upon different grounds. But, Sir, if the succession is established on a permanent and inviolate basis, and tb is House is prepared to alter the Acts and the Oaths necessary to qualify for the enjoyment of office under the Crown, what need exists for securies, and why notice the matter The friends of Emancipation are not disposed to deny (who is ?) the importance of maintaining the Protestant succes sion to the Crown. It is the only office, with the exception of two, which requires the holder to be a Protestant But, Sir, a case might arise where a Prince should take the declaration against transubstantiation, and be, at'the period of his accession, in communion with the Church of England. suppose, then, all the security of Protestant. advisers and councillors at an end, and what may not follow ? How did James 11. try to effect his purpose ? , What say. the Bill of Rights ? Was it not by divers evil councillors, ministers, and judges, that he attempted to subvert the religion, laws, and government of the realm ? Pass. this bill, anti you leave the Prince at liberty, to make his selection of advisers from the number of his. Roman Catholic subjects.. .What may.nothe . the effect of that ? Certainly 1 am disposed to allow great importance to the influence of the personal character of the King. The late King exercised • an influence of that kind.-,-(Hear !)—But if a •Prince were to fill the throne, who, after taking the oaths to maintain the Protest ant Church. as by law established among us, should find, or suppose he found, an error in hiii former belief, anti considering the ancient religion of his ancestors right, adhere to it, and throw oft' the yoke of the Protestant faith, what would we then say ? —lf. I advert to the liberal principles broached this night such as, that no man is responsible for his religious creed, and should not be disqualified for office on account of 'his belief, and should be permitted to change his religion as he thought fit, and on conviction, what is the deduction to be drawn from all this ? I say, Sir, it' the King and Queen of this country, after their accession:to the throne 'become converts to the 'Ro man Catholic .faith, the peace of the State rests upon the act' of two individuals. To expel the Prince from the throne, be , cause on .reconsidering his principles he 'had thought fit to change his :religious belief, would produce a convulsion in this country.--(Hear, hear !)—lt did not produce that 'effect in the, case of James H. and it led to the necessity of secu rities in the reign of Charles 11. I say, if 'you break down the barriers, which prevent the access of Roman Catholic advisers to the throne, you will render such an event infinitely more probable. • Let me not be told those are visionary views. I admit they are speculative, but when we are • about to pass laws subversive of the fundamental principles of the Constitu tion, we must speculate on the consequences. The Honourable and Learned ..Member for .Plympton (Mr. North) had said, We should not use a telescope to view the clouds, while we over t_ ooked the dangers at our feet. I agreeinthe sentiment, but maintain the necessity•of regarding prospective dangers. And. : Sir, should we even see a cloud no bigger than -our , hand, we are bound, if we act upon- the principles of sound policy amine cessary caution ; tci•provide against the coming storm, ere it rhas overshadowed 'the firmament and burst upon oar heads.' We tire bound to act in this -manner, and consider the ' poa.ibility of 'events. 111 y Right-Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) has traced-the progress of thealisqualifying laws enacted against the Catholics, and -dismissed the consideration of - the penal , code.' ;I draw a distinction between those -twos He contends', as -we;have , re pealed, the penal laws, no medium-should be • observed' inociov mode of dealing with the exclusive Ones. t Burthepresent triea- sore is a medium, and the Catholics are not • to be admitted to full and equal rights. They will still he subject to the skietartien. tat test, and the House knew in what terms' the Hrinourabis• 'Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brotigham),' had- eharaeterited that measure, and•the Indemnity Act: I deny thatinomedititn4 ts is said, exists between the-re-enactment-of • thevemiloode acid tho total repeal of thealisqualifyinglaws.—(Hear'!)-4:.do:nok wish, Sir, to enter into an examination of all the clauses. Ofithe Bill ;• but I•have been so frequently pressed •on the 'subject ot . my apprehensions, that I wish to say a few-ivordsupou'the.aub 4ect. The case now to be decided is entirely:different from What it would be under a new , government. -Whether or Itot there should. be a church establishment connected with thia ,, Stioe might • then be a question , to, , be' deeideth by the form of govermnent existing, bat .witlins there Canariseno question. . A -monarchical , government •required a ehureft in• connexion with the State ; +to Republican one - might dispense with it, as in the case of America. •We found the••Churelvof 'Rome once in a state of-power,- sind , argaing:thequestibri I should say •the• Members of that Church•=styles, - thetPra , : , testant Establishment with - natural jealousy laid in' Adah , a light as to render them unfit to legislate forita.interests.4 It is, Sir, in my- opinion, safer to exclude the:Catholio fronrposier and place than to call upon- him to take a long earth:-by Nira'rof security. It is on: thatprinciple:we have diaqualifled . RevatMO Officers and Clergymen from ranting , in thisr,House,:ibeeittito they were under ansuridue• influencer--tHretr )-1--Recolleatios of events and. history' must.'haVer their leffects - -ott , ',th e n 'b i b & and when see: such. Mem as ')1r: CbarlestßOalin - -ttoaino: ing,untitnopeejudices, I cannot ahinkit Safe to toldmit :thy Hos man•Vatholicsin to State 4stfiees. TlieTtameof:De. Ekoirtio:haa been connected ,with tbiscliscuasion, aritiTtionntt.totlleknotchwiti• to, reconcile- 44 evidence , beforb the , Conlmittee tostdsti.Snatetlf Ireland4ith pievieist writininn If.Pxotestatits'fabbilanised: by , the DOctor's ptiblicatiens, it cannot be a• matter of surpriso , that they utter sentiments of alarm. I am told, indeed, of re