The Sun. — London, England, 1827-03-07 00:00:00

state of Ireland. Sir, is it not a little strange that this provision, so necessary to the well-being of the State, and which forms the most important and vital part of the oath of 1793, should in 1825 ; .be wholly-omitted ?—(Cheers.)—lt -appears to me strange that the remarkable words which I shall presently more particularly ad vert to, and which •• must be well known to every body who Imows the history.of Ireland, or is. acquainted with the inquiries (and evidenced the result of these inquiries) made in Parliament as to the state of that country—it does appear to me singular that such words should, in the year before last, have been omitted.— The words were to this effect—" I do solemnly swear, that I will defend the settlement of property as in this realm now establish ed by law." If that were a necessary clause and provision in the oath of 1793, why is it now. omitted? Again, I say, will not the House be astonished to learn that, in the bill of 1825, the whole of this provision is completely omitted ?_(Loud cheering.)—Was the omission made-advisedly and deliberately? Sir, I think there is no manner of doubt that it was. If so, I ask, where is the power, Or the wish,, on the part of the Roman Catholics, to give ehe additional security to ,which we are entitled. I will now advert to another circumstance, and direct the attention of the House to a different part of the oath—by which it was provided that the person accepting office should swear as follows :—" I will not use the power or privilege with which I am invested, to dieturb and weaken the Protestant Establishment." Imme diqtely after this oath was published and circulated, a Roman Catholic commentary upon it was also published and circu lated. By this commentary it wire endeavoured to chew that the oath would not be violated, if both the conditions were net ' broken. So that, according to this interpretation, you must not " weaken" by mans of disturbing, but you may weaken by any other means in your power. By this Jesuitical interpreta tion it was meant to convey to the Roman Catholics, that ex cept they disturbed, as well as weakened, the Protestant Esta blishment, they did not break their oath ; and it was added, if this is not the meaning of the provision, the stipulation cermet be admitted. What will the House think, when Inform it, that, in the oath proposed in 1825, its framers taking, no dcubt, the hint contained in the ingenious commentary of 1793, had en tirely omitted the word " weaken ?"—( Great cleters.)---Am I to be told that it was cat of deference to the feelings and prejudices of the Rorean Ca.Oeelics, that they omitted a stipulation so essen tial for our security as that?--(Hear, hear, hear !)—flevine called the attention of the House to this material omission, : 1 / shell pass over other less important omissions. This was the - `bath. What additional security was it proposed to afford the Establiehment in Che t. and State? Something was : 1 2s4d teitkrespeet to the Roman ee'-t lie Bishops. and a certificate 'ofiovalty, lA/ this was after the _don. Sir, is there any human " 5116 " "e/h" a o dOes not feel the entire ridicule of such a proposition, or can ; 14. rr an be found to say it affords a sufficient security to us Protestants against the justly dreaded dangers of foreign interference? What farther security had been proposed ? None whatever. except that the correspondence between Ireland and the Papal See should undergo the supervision of the Roman Catholic Bishops. These were the securities proposed to be afforded us by the Bill of 1825. It may be said, it is unfair for me to enter now into a discussiee of the merits or demerits of that Bill. Sir, I have no such in tentione and am not doing so. But I feel lam entitled to say, that that Bill, which had received the utmost care and considera tion of the Roman Catholics and their advocates, may be con sidered as containing all the security in their power to offer. What, then, shall we say, when we find this to be their ultimatum ? Am I not authorised in declaring, that they have it not in their power, to give us Protestants any adequate security for the coeces sions sought to be obtained ? is it necessary to go into a laboured sec' lengthened detail on this subject? I think not. The Roman Catholics now avow the position in which they stand, and the concessions which they require.—They call for a simple rei eel of the disciealifications ueder which they labour, and an unqualified a.dniission to the full rights and privileges of the Constitution. At ..." . erst they aliproacla us with a modest and temperate demand ; but, at iaoe they appear before us in their full grown strength, and, eetting us, at defiance, require that as a right which they had pre viously soughtas a favour. This they do, Sir, without offering 1 1 . 3 any adequate security for the boon. I repeat , when we enter into a careful examination of what they demand, it will be found to ,be neither more.nor less than an unqualified and simple concession on our part, without any sufficient security on theirs. Their doctrine and principle is this e—" We, on ,our side, require from you a full participation in all the privileges of the Constitution, while we are unwilling to concede any thing to you in the shape of security." Can the splendid authority of those celebrated persons, who have advocated the Roman. Catholic cause, be used against me? I contend not ; for, ,when we sift and examine the question, we shall find sufficient secu rities were always required by the warmest and most effective of those advocates. lam perfectly ready to concede to the Roman Catholics the enjoyment of every privilege they require, and re lief from every disability of which they complain, on the same principle as those celebrated men to whom I have alluded, have ,always cautiously stated, namely, the principle of satisfactory and Aide/Vete security.—(Hear.) It will be said by my opponents, a3k,the_Roman Catholic to do that which is completely incon . existent with his duty ; and you require from him concessions and .eecurities which he cannot, without undermining the principles of his religion, grant. By persons who use this argument, it will be urged that the Roman Catholics could not accede to the etipula lions provided by the Bill of 1813, without violating their reli gion. Sir, it is a most extraordinary circumstance, that, in the year 1814, aftelethe, decision of this House had been declared upon the Bill of 1813, the person then at the head of the See of Rome —the individual under whose jurisdiction and spiritual controul Ireland.was at that moment placed, when applied to on the sub ject, distinctly said, that there was nothing in the Veto, or in the Bill. of !313, inconsistent with the principles and exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion.—(Loud cheers.) It was also singular, that the Irish Bishops, when that opinion was communicated to them, protested against the authority of that individual, which, in this instance, they contended, had been overstepped. Further, the Pope himself, in 1815, confirmed what, he had said in the preceding year. Among the documents now in my hand, I have the Pope's letter, and could easily refer to it, but that it were idle and unnecessary to do so. Let us go nne step farther, and look at the situation of Roman Catholics on the Continent of Europe, and, having done so, recur to the condition of the Protestants there. Who appoints the Bishop of Silesia ? Is it the Pope ? I answer no. In Russia, the one and only Catholic Bishop, possessing authority in the State, is ap pointed by the Sovereign, and, both in Prussia and Russia, the whole correspondence which passes between the Roman Catholics of these countries and the See of Rome, is under the supervision of Protestants. Don't tell me, then, that such concessions are incon sistent with the spirit, the principle, or the practice of the Roman .Catholic religion. True it is they may be inconsistent with the do minion whichit is the olajectof the Catholic Hierarchy to maintain ,ovcr the people, and subversive of the bondage, in which it is no Jess.tbs desire,of the lower orders of the priesthood to keep them. This influence.and sway, so great and 80 extensive, that •it has even excited the astouislunente of ,his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, than. whom no man is better acquainted with the facts of the case, may be considerably impaired by the concessions alluded to. For the purpose of maintaining, unbounded and unbroken the allegiance of the people to the Pope and the priest hood, they have refused, at last, all further concession, and left us in the situation in which we now stand. I shall be asked, no doubt, how I can dissent from, or undervalue, the sentiments of those great men, who have taken a course contrary to that which I fol low. To this I answer, that those great men, whom I have the honour to follow at an humble distance, have all, with one voice, declared, that securities were necessary.—(Hear.)—Sir, is there any thing in the state of Europe now, as contrasted with its con dition in 1810 and 1813, calculated to render that which was ne cessary then unnecessary now? I think not; more particularly at a period when the Catholic religion, and the influence of the Papal See, then comparatively dead, have been, to no small ex tent, revivified. If ever there was a period when we e might have been disposed to undervalue and despise securities, ft was then; yet, at those periods, Hon. Gentlemen thought them necessary. Since the year 1814, the Catholic religion and the Papal power have been stirring themselves into activity throughout every part of Europe. It is not in a state of such excitation and activity that we can despisesecurities. Sir, it is extraordinary, that while individuals, who entertain liberal principles in this country, busy themselves in advocating the cause of the Roman Catholics—it is extraordinary that those who advocate liberal principles on the Continent of Europe, show themselves apprehensive of the conse quences likely to result from the future extension and predominance of the Roman Catholic religion. fleet religion has been ever in tolerant, and will any man pre • to tell me that its character is now changed? Sir, I call upon the House to recollect what passed in the South of France; and the persecutions which took place there in 1814. I also entreat the House to observe what is now passing in France. The Hon. Member for Corfe Castle (Mr. Bankes) has well alluded to the restoration. of the Jesuits, and described them as already actively engaged in pushing their cause in every State on the Continent of Europe. Sir, when that Order was suppressed, little did I think that only a few years would pass away ere it should be again revived. It is unee cessary-for me to speak of the dangerous tendency of an Order, which requires, in every individual member of it, complete, blind, and implicit obedience to the.commanda of his superior, without any attempt on his part to question their justice. That Order is now spreading over every corner of Continental Eu ro p e , and ac ti n g in secrecy and in vigour, without any responsibility to the'Governments of the countries where its influence prevails. M Y argument, therefore, is, that if security were necessary for our Protestant Establishment in 1814, it is infinitely more so at the present moment. I know that at this moment the Jesuits are •mployed in conducting the education of youth throughout dif 4ent countries. This alone was sufficient to form a foundation of their future absolute power. Who could view the insidious, riminal, and daring conduct of the Jesuits in France, in order to e-establish their sway—who could contemplate the encourage•- aent given to them in that country, and say that the Protestant Church could dispense with her legitimate means of defence—the fight to demand securities from the Catholics ere any concessions vere made to them ? One of the great and good effects of the - - • • • - - French Revolution was, that the Inquisition in Europe was abo lished. That dreadful instrument of the power and tyranny of the Church of Rome, at the shrine of which so many unfortunate victims had been sacrificed ; that most guilty contrivance to extir- pate heresy had fallen before the French Revolution. But guilty is this tribunal. bad been in its practice, infamous as it was in its pretensions, and contrary as were its principles to every maxim of jurisprudence and dictate of justice, it had been re-established in full force throughout Spain and Italy. What absurdity was it, then, to talk of the Roman Catholic Church having kept pace with the general improvement of the age.—(Hear.)—l make use of this fact, not because I apprehend the establishment of such a tribunal in Ireland, but to show that, in every part of Europe, the principles of the Catholic religion are unchanged. The barbarous features of antiquity still distinguished it. It was in vain to attri bute this most detestable measure, the re-establishment of the In- quisition, to the Civil Government. It was authorised by the Head of the Roman Catholic Church. Could any man refer to any document, or give any proof whatever, that the head of that Church had made the slightest exertion to put down this great scourge upon humanity—this outrage upon the intellect and morals of civilised society.—(Hear.)—Now let us turn our view to Ire land. In 1810, and in 1815, Ireland was tranquil. She is now in a state of excitement and of agitation. There is a body domi- neering over that country which has been the cause of this disorder —(Cheers.)—What is it that the Roman Catholics of that country ask ? Indeed. they do not condescend to ask, they demand of us, in terms of menace, what they call their rights. I allude to the language of one of the chief Orators of the Association.— That person, in addressing an Irish Catholic Meeting, had said, " Ireland is a gigantic supplicant, thundering at the gates of the Constitution." Let me, amongst the language held in that coun try, refer to the conditions which were once required of us, even by our present friends, and contrast them with the terms used upon the same occasion at present. This is the secret of their proceedings. A leader in their cause had asked, "Is it our de cerous language which has placed us on this 'vantage ground, on which we assert our claims, and which enables us to triumph. If, indeed, any thing could be gained by following the course which our Government Councils recommend, we might follow it."—ln another speech this language was held to tl.e Catholie audience, in order to excite them to obtain Emancipation :—" The interests of your children are at stake. The time may come when your sons shall be slaughtered at your threshold."—To this language were the people of Ireland exposed. It sufficiently &hewed the temper and feelings which reigned on this subject in that country. Let me not be misunderstood in my argument. Ireland was in a state of order when we thought securities indispensibly necessary for the protection of the Established Church. Now, when Ire land is in a state in which I have described it, who will say that such securities can be dispensed with? If there was any doubt upon the subject, it must be set at rest by referring to what was assumed by a public authority of the Church of Rome. I allude to the tutelar Bishop of Kildare, and to the language which he used against the Protestants—(Hear, hear.)—lt is said that these Catholics are not the whole population of Ireland, and that what I complain of is merely the sins of a few. If I saw the rest of the Irish hierarchy renouncing these proceedings, and dissentin g from these opinions, I should say that my argu ment might be objected to. But if I find that this language is not only used by a Prelate amongst them, but that imme diately after his using it, he is cited as an oracle, and deno minated a modern Fenelon, and loaded with the most extraor dinary commendations; I say, that the Catholics do adopt his language, and render themselves responsible fcir his act; and I judge of the whole body by this circumstance.—(Loud and re peated cheers.)—My argument, then, I repeat, is most important in the consideration of this question. lam not to be misunder stood. lam not to be msidered intolerant, or a bigot. I have have acted not only on my own account, but on account of that liberal and illustrious body that I have the honour to represent.— (Loud laughter through all parts of the House.)—A greater or more illustrious body I say, cannot be found, and amongst them is included a class of men possessing more ex tensive and profound learning—(hear, hear !)—more liberal principles and opinions—(loud bursts of laughter)—than any persons in Europe. lam proud to be placed in the situation of a Representative of these gentlemen. The Hon. Member who cheered me (Mr. Scarlett) I have the honour to reckon among the number of my constituents. He has himself been a candidate for a similar honour—he has been distanced in the race, and now turns round to throw his sarcasms on those who have rejected him.—(Cheers and laughter.)—The view I take of the subject is consistent with that of the illustrious in dividuals to whom I have alluded. I have the means of show ing that no securities have been offered by the Catholics— nay, they have been refused, and those gentlemen who have adopted the principle of securities, ought to satisfy us that some respectable securities are granted as an equivalent for our concessions.— (Hear, hear !)—The concessions required of us are most important. In the first place, what are the subjects which we are assembled to discuss? What is the writ under which Parliament is convoked ? It is to consult together of things and matters relating to the Constitution, and safety of the Protestant Church. By the measure now proposed, we are required to admit into the Legislature of the country, assem bled to deliberate upon matters connected with the safety of the Church of England, a body of Roman Catholics, directly hostile to that Church—men, who, upon principle, must he hostile to it in every respect. Before admitting any such persons into Parliament, let us consider who they are, by what spirit they are actuated, and the circumstances in which they are to deliberate. After Parliament had passed the Bill which entitled the Forty Shilling Freeholders to vote, it was declared by a public authority in Ireland that the representa tion of that country was to all intents and purposes in the hands of the Irish Catholic Clergy. The same had been re cently asserted, and we have just had sufficient evidence that the assertion was perfectly true. In 1815, when it was proposed to disfranchise the forty shilling freeholders, it was opposed by the crafty hierarchy of Ireland, because it deprived them of their in fluence, and gave to those who opposed their authority too many of those privileges which enabled them to return Members to this House. It behoves us all to consider what are the feelings of that body with reference to that Church Establishment which it is our duty to defend. I cannot do better than refer to the sentiments and language of an individual to whom I have all eady alluded, as a specimen of the feelings entertained by the Catholic body—feelings against the Established Church of Ireland, which it is cur duty as Legislators to oppose. He says that the Established Church of Ireland was not the spouse of the Redeemer, but was to be received as the handmaid—her eyes were fixed upon her own interests, and she fails in nothing forbidden or unhallowed which serves to promote them. She occasionally revolts against a fellow servant who tells h ; r of her frauds and oppressions, and reminds her of her origin, and brands her with the profligacy of her mis-spent life." Such were the feelings entertained towards the Protestant Church of Ireland by a Bishop of the Roman Catholic persuasion.— On the other hand, Sir, how are we situated? We are required to admit into this House Hon. Members so influenced, and so returned, and possessed of feelings such as I have described, to wards the establishment of the Church of England. It has been often said, suppose that 20 or 30 Roman Catholic Members pos sessing those hostile feelings were returned to Parliament, would they possess the means of over'turning' the Protestant Establish ment of this country ? and the proposer of the question has always answered it in the negative; but, Sir. lam not satisfied upon this point. I am sorry to say that there are now in this House many lukewarm friends of the Protestant Establishment--(Hear, hear.)—l am sorry to say, and unfortunately daily experience but confirms the assertion, that there are even many with feel ings hostile to the Establishment—(Hear, hear.)—and I say, that if in addition to these lukewarm friends and open and avowed opponents, we admit into the House a mass of persons acting with one spirit and in one body, it will become a question whether we have duly consulted the interests of the Church, of which we are members, and which we are bound to support—(Cheers.)—l beard it remarked on a former occasion, by the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle (and the remark seems to me well deserving the set ions attention of the House), that even if we should be able in the end to oppose an effectual resistance to the hostile feelings or attempts of these parties, we should ask ourselves, whe ther it was nothing for us thus to expose the Church to their continual attacks—(Cheers.)—Let us pause for a moment upon this part of the subject, and let me suppose that there are re turned to this House some of those persons who exhibit in them selves specimens of some of those talents, which seem to be in digenous to Ireland—let me suppose some of the individuals of that body to be desirous of overturning the Protestant Esta blishment, and of rearing in its stead the Roman Catholic re ligion in Ireland—let me suppose these persons possessed of talents, resembling in their extent and power those of my Right Honourable Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, commanding and swaying the body they represent by their masterly eloquence and extraordinary powers, and directing iat eloquence and those powers to the object to which I have .eferred: I ask, is this a light danger, and are _we to treat it with contempt ? or, are we not on the other hand, to reserve in our own hands the most effectual means of defending ourselves from such a danger?—(Cheers.)-_I fear, Sir, I have trespassed too long upon the attention of the House. I confess, that pass ing the topics relating to this subject over in my mind with great rapidity, they connected themselves together in such a manner, that when I reviewed them, I had no expectation of having been so long in my address.—(Cheers.)—l must, however, still tres pass further on your attention. I here wish to ask the other side what it is they propose ? They tell us of other nations, and they talk much and loudly of the extraordinary liberality which prevails iu several nations of the continent of Europe, with re spect to religions which are not established in those states. As examples of this liberality, Austria and France have been referred t.o. In the former of theme I have understood it to be said, that in no country does a system of liberality more fully prevail. If we look into the circumstances of that country, we shall see that there is not one point in which she can be said to he in the same situation as England. It may be true that in that country there are no distinctions as to religion ; but every body must know that all the members of the church and of the hierarchy of Austria are appointed by the civil Government of the country.—(Hear.)— The same observation may be made with respect to France, and it will equally apply to all the other Catholic coun tries of Europe ; and, therefore, I say, that the argu ments founded upon their liberality are not to be pressed upon us, a;ace their situation is not analogous to our own.—(Cheers.)-- I come now, Sir, to another argument, much relied upon by the supporters of this resolution. lam told that some measure is ne cessary for tranquillising Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)—But that is not all ; for I am also told, that after having proceeded so far as we have already done, there is an absolute necessity for proceeding further. When I hear this, I naturally ask, will our prcuceding further risk the destruction of the Church Establishment.—(Hear, hear.) 7—Will it be certain to effect the tranquilliiation of Ireland ? —(Hear.)—lf my first question is not satisfactorily answered, then I say you must not press upon the argument as to tranquil lizing Ireland. I say this, Sir, not out of a feeling of disregard for the tranquillity of that country. I lament as much as any man the unfortunate situation of that country—l deplore her want of tranquillity; but it does not therefore follow, that I should suffer the introduction of a measure, which may destroy the Protestant Establishment, and which I am not quite satisfied will restore tranquillity to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) — The Roman Catholic Religion, Sir, is a religion of encroach ment; and those persons at the head of it in Ireland have given us reason by their own declarations to entertain this opinion. They seem to consider that when they supplanted (as they expect to do) the Protestant Establishment, they shall possess themselves of its property ; and the Protestants, therefore, feel it their duty to defend the interests of the Church, and to vindicate it in the hands of its enemies. ---(Hear, hear.—Sir, I should be glad to know if the Catholic Hierarchy which exercises so unbounded a sway over the minds of the Irish people,will be contented if it ob tain what it now seeks? I should be glad to know whether it will suffer its claims to rest at the point of Catholic Emancipation, or whether it will not put in claim after claim, till what is now called Catholic Emancipation has been converted into Catholic Supremacy.—(Loud cheers.)—l fear that this will be the case, and I think that he must take an ill measure of the spirit of the Roman Catholic Religion who dissents from this opinion.—(Hear, hear.)—The arguments on which I ground this opinion are founded on the experience of history, but not on that alone, nor even on that in conjunction with the acts of Catholics, which may be taken as proofs of their spirit, but on the very declarations of Catholic Bishops, who have spoken too openly to leave any doubt as to their intentions.—(Hear, hear hear !)—I refer, Sir, to the declarations contained in the letter of Dr. Doyle, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kildare, who tells us openly that Catholic Emancipation will do much, but that much more was to be accomplished.—(Loud cheering.)—l bring thus the Roman Catholic Religion into the discussion of the ques tion at isma before us, because I think that question is not merely whether Roman Catholics shall be admitted into this House; but that the great, the important, the ultimate, point to be determined is, whether the Protestant Establishment shall continue to exist in Ireland.—(Cheering.)—To that point I wish to press your attention, and I think you can entertain no doubt of the truth of my proposition. It seems to me that in jury to the Protestant Establishment will be the necessary con sequence of granting the measures now proposed; and I fear it was the anticipation of that consequence which caused this Reso lution to be received with such cheers. It is against such a con sequence that I wish to guard. I therefore warn lion. Gentle men, that they should not take it for granted, that in deciding this question they will pat an end to all dissension, and succeed in tranquillising Ireland. I believe that there are, in this House Members who would willingly take issue upon this question, but all do not feel the same upon that point ; and to these latter Gen tlemen I appeal, and I say, do not fancy, that by adopting these measures you will put an end to the storm that has so long dis tracted Ireland.—(Hear hear.) I am certain that, if we admit sixty or seventy Roman Catholic Members into this House,' the next measure demanded will be, the upsetting of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) In what situation shall we then be? If we object to the new proposals, we shall be again told that, as we have gone so far, we must go farther, and we shall be reminded of what we are now doing, and shall be told that we ought to have taken our stand before.—(Loud cheering.) Let us, Sir, prevent such a consequence.—(Hear, hear.) It is, Sir, in the most sober earnestness that I press these subjects upon the consideration of the House. How am I met in doing so ? lam asked, if I ob ject to the measures now proposed, what are those which I would substitute for them 7 Ido not know that I ought to be required to answer such a question. My answer, therefore, is, that lam not a Member of his Majesty's Government—(hear, hear, hear!); I am not one of the Ministers of the Crown ; I have no connexion with the Government ; I am not united to them otherwise than by the respect I owe to the individuals of which it is composed. It would'consequently be idle, and indeed mischievous, for me to pretend to say what is my opinion as to the measures that ought to be adopted--(hear, hear!).--When, therefore, I am asked what I propose, I answer that question by another, and I ask what are the securities which the Catholics propose to give us in return for the concessions they require us to make? If they ask for con cessions, which arc to L:- purchased at the price of securities, I ask what are the securities proposed? If they satisfy me that the se curities are adequate to the purpose required, I will agree to grant their demands. If their securities are sufficient, I say fairly and at once, I will concede the question ; but I must first know what those securities are—l must have time to deliberate on their sufficiency—l must satisfy myself with regard to them—and till I am fully satisfied I must do that which will preserve the peace of the Church. I beg pardon for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House (hear, hear) ; but. I was anxious that the manner in which I viewed this question should not be misunder stood, and that anxiety must stand as my excuse. (Hear, hear.) It is not improbable that I may be followed by my Right Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland. There is not any man that possesses greater powers, or that can use them more forcibly for the advantages of the cause which he espouses. I admire the heartiness with which he has entered into this question ; and while I pay this deserved tribute to his talent and his zeal, I trust that he will give me equal credit for the sincerity with which I enter tain the opinions I have expressed. (Hear, hear.) With that ob servation I shall sit down. The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat, amidst the most loud and continued cheering. When it had in some degree subsided, Mr. PLUNKETT rose to address the House. He spoke to the following effect : —lt may appear, Sir, not only presumptuous, but even rash and useless, for me to offer myself to the notice of the House immediately after the address which we have just heard. Ido so, however, Sir, not from any confi dent imagination of the extent of my own powers, or from any belief, that from being connected with his Majesty's Govern ment, I am entitled to offer my humble suggestions upon this matter, but simply because the subject of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down bears so directly upon the interests of the country in which I hold an official station, that I trust I may be excused for deeming it necessary to make a few observations upen it. Ido assure that Right Hun. Gentle man, that I am grateful to him for the kindness with which he has spoken of me. I have the highest respect for his great ta lents and extensive acquirements, and I sincerely hope, that in what I am about to say, I may not misrepresent him, either in the facts he has stated or the arguments he has employed. If I should do so, the misrepresentation will be entirely acciden tal, for I have listened to him with the deepest attention, and I will now endeavour fairly to re-state to the House those points of his Address which I deem it material to notice. Be fore, however, I touch upon any one particular point, I am bound to say—and I may say it consistently with every feeling of respect I entert a i n for him—that having listened to him with the deepest attention, I have in vain attempted to collect from his speech what are his specific objections to the present Reso lution.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—On a question th e mos t c ritical, the most alarming, and the most urgent that can be discussed re garding the interests of Ireland, the Right Hon. Gentleman has left us in doubt as to the reason on which his opposition to con cession is grounded.—(Hear, bear.)-1 confess that when he be gan, I felt some degree of surprise and alarm. The Right Hon. Gentleman has thought it right to go into the history of the Ca- tholic Religion anterior to the Reformation ; he has deemed it proper to go into the detail of the crimes of Popery, and of the dangers which arose from its machinations to the welfare of the state ; he has had recourse to arguments which have not been re sorted to before fbi 30 years, and to odious passages in history which ought to have been forgotten and rased out of the memory of man.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He did not indeed mention Guy Fawkes, or the table lantern, but from the general spirit and tone of his speech, I should hardly have been surprised to have seen him conjure up such imagery.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—He did indeed admit that the present times and the present Catholics were not like those times to which, and those men to whom he re ferred, and I then thought I had some chance with him, but I was deceived. He admitted . fairly enough that it was not on ancient laws, but on the question of expediency, that he resisted the pre sent Resolution. That expediency seemed too, with him, to de pend on the security which the Roman Catholics ought to give, and which, if they did give, he would be ready to admit Roman Catholics to every advansage which they demanded. I could hardly object to this..-it is natural for him to look after the security, and, of course, security is not to be had without looking after.—(Hear, and laugh.)—When, therefore, he said he would grant every thing upon proper security, I expected he would agree to accede to the demands of the Catholics, and then that he would set about the inquiry as to the security they offered. He was, indeed, almost hound to do this by the terms of the Resolution ; for what is it but a mere declaration, that this House is deeply im pressed with the necessity of inquiring into the state of the Roman Catholic subjects of this kingdom ? The Right Hon. Gentleman did not say he would not relieve them from their disabilities, but that he would not do so unless they gave adequate security as the price of his concessions. Now I thought that, to do this, it was necessary first to adopt the Resolution, and then set about look ing after the security, and that the Right Hon. Gentleman would pursue this course. I was not, however, left long to the enjoyment of this fool's paradise (for such I would call it with re respect to myself, though not with regard to the House), for at the conclusion of his speech, the Right Hon. Gent. entirely abandoned his former declarations, and seemed disposed to refuse any concession whatever. From the first part of his speech, I thought that the Bills introduced in 1813 and 1821 would have satisfied him on the points of security, but I found I was mis taken, since he concluded by declaring, that in his opinion, the claims of the Roman Catholics, if conceded now, would only lead to further demands ; and, in the language of the Catho lic Bishop of Kildare, though much would be gained, much more would remain to be accomplished, and Catholics would go on to the subversion of Protestantism. I ask him now by which of these opinions he means to abide ? and what would he accede to if the Bills to which I have referred should be again proposed to the House ? If, through the attainment of their civil rights, it was certain that the Catholics would proceed to the subversion of the Protestant Establishment, I could then understand him, and I should say, that his opinion was the opinion of every honest man ; namely, that if such must be the consequence of the suc cess of the Catholics, they ought to be refused their demands.— (Hear, hear.)—By the arguments he has adciuced, I am in this painful situation, that I am reduced to place him (after giving him every credit for his sincerity) in the extreme rank of those who now, and for ever, would exclude Catholics from admission to civil power.—(Hear.)—Not content with taking this course himself, he armed himself with authority ; and it was with some surprise I heard him name Mr. Pitt, as the head of that class of , persons who were decidedly inimical to the claims of the Roman Catholics.—(Hear.)—Sir, if there ever was any part of the con du,:t of that Minister on which it was impossible to entertain a doubt, as to his real opinions, it was upon the course which he pursued with respect to the Roman Catholics. I know that it has been the fashion, of late, to speak of him as of one not friendly to their cause.—(Hear, hear.)—l know that a set of individuals, styling themselves the Pitt Club, have assem bled to celebrate the principles of exclusion and illiberality, and to claim Mr. Pitt as their suporter, when I have no hesitation in saying that that claim is one of the most impudent and outrageous forgeries of modern times.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lt is a wicked attempt to rob that Minister of the well-deserved fame of having been a friend to his oppressed fellow subjects.—(Hear, hear.) — Sir, Mr. Pitt has been represented as the opponent of Catholic Emancipation; and the Right Hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that that Minister, like himself, deemed that the Catholics could give no adequate security for the advantages they claimed. What ! does he wish to represent that Minister as so great a trifler, that he arrived at a conclusion unfavourable to the Catholics, because he thought they could never give sufficient securities against their abuse of political privileges? If that is his iatention, he is cer tainly mistaken. That Minister did not deal so lightly with so great a question : he must have turned in his mind the means by which the great interests of the country could be secured. There was no person who was ever a more decided friend to the Pro testant Establishment than Mr. Pitt ; and if he had not seen that its safety could be reconciled with concessions to the Catholics, was it likely, I ask, that he should have favoured their admission to what they claimed ? I have heard it said that Mr. Pitt did not state what were the securities that he required, and especially that he did not make this statement to a Noble Lord who was op posed to the concessions. —(Hear, and a laugh.)—l should, in deed, have thought him no better than an idiot, a mere dolt ; if meaning to carry the question he had made any such communica tion to that Noble Lord, who, attentive, and of course rightfully attentive to the consequences, would have thrown every obstacle which his enlarged and ingenious mind could have suggested, in the way of the proposed plan. There is one point more to which I must allude before I quit the subject of Mr. Pitt's con duct. When that Minister proposed to the House the great mea sure of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, he did state to the House, and he held out to the people of Ireland the idea that the Union would have the effect of creating great facilities for the attainment of Catholic Emancipation. I will not say that he actually gave any distinct pledge upon this subject, but he said enough to create an impression in the minds of the people of Ireland that such would be the consequence; he gave them every well-grounded hope, that if the then existing ob stacles were not removed, at least no additional difficulties would be ereated--(Hear, hear !)--How then, Sir, are we placed at this moment? We are now arguing the question of the ad mission of Catholics in the English Parliament. If the matter was to be decided by the Irish Members, there would be a ma jority of two to one in favour of the proposition. What then is the obstacle we encounter ? What, hut the opposition of the Eng lish people, whose lips, but for the Uuion, would not have been open upon the matter—(Cheers ?)--I trust that a Right Hon. Gentleman, now opposed to the Catholics, is not one who will join in the popular cry. I expect to find in him an honourable, a liberal, and a candid adversary. Except on this question, there is none on which I do not fully agree with him ; and I hope that on this he will not suffer any party feelings to be in the 'slightest degree mixed up with the reasons on which his opposi tion is grounded. It would, indeed, be unjust if any person who joined in sentiment with Mr. Pitt, and had even indirectly al lowed him to hold cut the hope to which I have referred, should unite in the popular cry now raised in this country against the Catholics. Such a proceeding would indeed be dishonourable on the part of that Right Hon. Gentleman, Ido not mean to say that he will do so. I trust he will not ; but perhaps he may do that which I mean to say is unfair—namely, that the obstacle to the concessions now claimed is in the cry of the people of Eng laid. For myself, Ido not believe that any such ory exists: - I do not believe that the people of England are opposed to Eman cipation—on the contrary, Ido most firmly believe, that the cause of the Catholics is daily gaining ground in this country ; and that if the people of England were fairly dealt with—if they had not been as 'it were assaulted by the demagogues who affect to repre sent themselves as the leading advocates of the Catholic Claims— (Hear !)--they would even 'be more favourable, than they are at present to the concession of those Claims. The people of this country are, in fact, very reasonable in their wishes, and are more disposed to grant than withhold the concessions now required.— (Hear.)—This, Sir, I think, has been fully proved, in the re sult of those elections which occurred in places where the popular opinion on this matter could be fairly tried, and where, in every instance, the "No Popery" cry has signally failed.—(cheers). — The Right -Honourable Gentleman who last addressed the House, mentioned other individuals, besides 111 r. Pitt ; he, referred to Mr. Grattan, to Lord Grenville, and to Lord Londonderry._ Sir, he could not have referred to the names of men more op posed to his view of the question than those whom I have men tioned. Does he recollect what was the conduct of these three individuals, with respect to the Bills which were proposed to the Houses of Parliament, while they were in them —and especially with respect to that particular' Bill which passed through this House, but was rejected in the other ? Doer he recollect that the Bill 'proposed in 1821 met with the entire concurrence and approbation of Lord Londonderry -and of Lord Grenville? Let me ask what are the grounds on which he doubts the security 'that can be given by the Catholics? It is always in this man ner that we have been dealt with by our opponents. Past events have either been mis-stated or not referred to, a: id, in both instances, the advocates for Catholic Emancipation have been unfairly treat ed. When in the year 1825 the measure passed in this House, but was, unfortunately thrown out in the House of Lords ; what was the opposition it met with from a distinguished Statesman, whose temporary absence from Parliament, on account of indis position, we have so much reason to regret? And what were the grounds on which it was thrown out - in the House of Lords?— Certainly not the question of security. _ The distinguished States man to whom I have alluded then declared,, that if lie could get rid of other objections which he entertained, and which rested on principle, he would not stay to dispute upon the question of se curity. My Right Hon. Friend comes forward on a totally dif ferent ground ; he feels none of these difficulties—he is ready to grant every thing if he could but overcome the obstacle of securi ties. He has talked a great deal about these securities, and I own I sat in anxious expectation of hearing something from him of the danger against xvhich security is to be provided.—(Hear.)—Be cause security is to be measured by danger—the meaning of security is protection against a certain danger, and I do not think he can fairly ask me for my security unless he first shows me what is his danger.—(Hear, hear.)--4 appeal to the House whether it has yet heard what is that danger ? From what does it arise, and what does it menace? These are the questions which ought to be answered. Does it threaten the State or the Protestant Esta- blishment ? I believe for the last alarm is principally felt. Then let me ask what is the danger which my Right Hon. Friend fears to the Protestant Establishment from the :notion of the Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett), or from the Bill to be founded upon it, supposing it to be similar to the measure of 1825, to Which his arguments have applied ? I will take it that my Right Hon. Friend principally alludes to the Protestant Establishment of Ire land, and in what does the insecurity consist? If in any thing, it consists in this—that the established religion is the religion of only a small proportion of the population, and that, therefore, it may be apprehended that a discontented people, and an am bitious Roman Catholic Church (for I will take it so for the sake of the argument), will overturn the fabric of the Protestant Hier archy. But let me ask whether the Bill of 1825 produced this danger ? Did it make the Roman Catholics in Ireland an over whelming majority? If these be dangers, they are not created by the Bill, but arise from moral causes, over which the Bill has no controul, except for the purposes of lessening them—(Hear, hear !) —Now what are my Right Hon. Friend's views as to the Esta blished Church, and what are mine ? I take the liberty of ob serving, that he is the distinguished representative of a Protes tant University, which has not done leas honour to itself than to him in its choice. I am also the representative of a Pro testant University, and, with reference to the present question, they are both in the same rituaticu—from neither has any pe tition been presented—(Cheers.)—As the representative of that University, I will not yield to him, nor to any man who hears me, in zeal for the Protestant Establishment. I consider a religious establishment in itself most essential to the cause of virtue and morality. I believe that if we had not a respectable hierarchy, holding valuable possessions in the state, in times like these religion itself would sink into contempt. It is a most powerful instrument, which ought to be connected with the state, and if not connected it may be wielded against the state. Religion derives safety, and the State repose, from the dignity of the establishment. I say, also, that the Protestant establishment id Ireland is a great and firm link of connection with this country, and if it were overturned there would be infinite danger of shaking that connection.—(Hear.)—l say, besides, that the establish ment in both countries has existed now for more than 300 years, and that it has become interwoven with our most valuable insti tutions. If it were overthrown, property itself would receive a shock, and the existence of the State itself put in imminent peril. That is my view. But, how is it proposed to protect the establishment against existing danger? My Right Hon. Friend does not propose any protection; but what do the friends of the establishment say ? They say, that if the Catholic Question is carried, the Protestant Establishment must fall. Now what is the cezverse of that proposition ? This : that so long as the Pro testant Establishment subsists, the great body of the Roman Ca tholics shall not be admitted to their Constitutional rights. Is that a State proposition which any man who venerates the Esta blishment would think it prudent to lay down.—(Hear.) If it were true, that either the great body of the Irish people must be kept in a state of exclusion, or that the Establishment and other Institutions must fall, it would place the Protestant hierarchy in what Mr. Burke, in one of his admirable speeches, calls "an ugly alternative"—(Hear, hear.) Birt the point is gratuitously and arbitrarily assumed. If the Protestant Establishment volun teers unnecessarily to place itself in the breach, and ~ ay to the Ro man Catholics, you shall have no restitution of rights, is it safety— is it justice—is it wisdon—is it anything but madness—(Con tinned cheering ?)—lf the proposition of the Hon. Baronet is fol lowed up, what do you do with respect to the Established Chureh ? At present the population of Ireland is discontented, because it suffers under the burthen of a double establishment. What do we propose ? That the people shall be relieved from that provo cative and their own Clergy be paid by the State. Is that no protection ?—(Hear, hear. )—Therefore I assert that such a mea sure would be . a solid support, a firm buttress to the Established Church. You will see the Catholic Clergy accepting a common title and receiving a common protection from the State. Is that danger?—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l will give an instance:— Some fifty years ago, the Protestant Church of Ireland was much alarmed about the Presbyterians—they were considered all deadly enemies. What was done? The laws which imposed tests on the Presbyterians, by the wisdom of the Legis lature, were repealed, and a provision was made for the Pres byterian Clergy. What was the consequence ? Have the Pro testant Clergy of Ireland any better friends than the Presby terians ? None ; we hear of no points of contention be tween them. In many parts of the North of Ireland the peo ple do not care to which Church they go—it depends upon which has the best preacher, and they live in the most perfect harmony together.—(Hear, hear, hear.)-_I take this fact, not merely as a proof that the establishment of a sectarian religion and the repeal of disabilities may be a source of strength instead of weakness; but there is another circumstance which deserves attention. It was predicted that this liberal and wise course would overthrow the Establishment ; even Swift, long ago, de clared that it would be the prelude to its downfall. It has not fallen—it stands more firmly than ever ; and this instance, there fore, shows that the cry of danger to the establishment may be very loud but very senseless. Does any man living doubt that the Act passed two sessions ago regarding tithes has been a source of great protection to the Church of Ireland ? Has it not al layed all heart-burnings, composed all dissension, and reconciled the great body of Catholics to the payment of tithes ? Yet an outcry was raised on the part of the national establishment, that it was an inroad upon its property, and a source of insecurity.__ Some of the highest dignitaries exclaimed as loudly against that measure as they have done against present question. Has it not turned out an important bulwark—a valuable security, notwithstanding the vehement and unmeaning cry of " the Church is in danger ?"—(Cheers.)-3 have followed the ex ample of my Right Hon. Friend (the Master of the Rolls) in leaving to the last that point which he also touched at the conclu sion of his speech—lreland ; that unfortunate country, where the present pleasure excites so strong and so general an interest. But before I apply myself to the essence of the present consideration, I must make one or two observations as to the time of the enact ment of those laws, the repeal of which my Right Hon. Friend so strongly deprecates. I will take the liberty of rcmarking, that the spiritual interference of the See of Rome, and the difficulty of sepa rating the spiritual authority of the Pope from hiitemporal power, has at all times been considered a danger; but at no period of our history has it been regarded as a danger affecting allegiance, nor as proper to be punished on this account with disabilities. That is the position I take. One periOd I may dispose of in a Word—that pre vious to the Reformation. At that period the spiritual authority of the Pope, as far as respected the concerns of the Church, was avowed and undisputed ; bin the tempoial power of the Pope was then, as now, utterly denied and rejected. How did the Legislature proceed ? Did it commence by outlawing the people ? No—but by providing adequate remedies for the mischief. This was done in the reigns of the Richards, the Henries, and the Edwards, who were Popish Kings, with Popish Parliaments : they provided against the interference of the See of Rome with the temporal affairs of the State. So of necessity matters Continued till the period of the Reformation. What was done then? The bath of Supremacy was introduced for the purpose of marking those who would deny the authority of the Pope to interfere in the con cerns of what then became the established church of the country ; but not with any view to the interference of the Pope with that Church, over which the Crown itself did not profess to exercise any-authority. I am stating here exactly and truly the nature of the provisions, and I will take the liberty of reading a passage from the Statute of the sth Elizabeth. It was the Act which first imposed the oath of Supremacy as a test, without which no person could he admitted in England to the Lower House of Par liament.—[The Right . Hon. Gentleman then .read.tha recital of the Statute of sth Elizabeth, c. 1., and then proceecled.]—Ac cordingly, Peers of Parliament refusing to take the oath, and_ giving other securities, did continue down to the reign of Charles 11. to perform the functions of their station. The 18th Geo. 111. requires Roman Catholics to mem. " to be faithful, and bear' true allegiance to his Majesty." First they must swear that they are Roman Catholics, and then they are called upon to take the oath of allegiance.--.[After. quoting the recital of the 31 at Geo. 111. c. 32., whereas certain penalties and disabilities imposed on persons in communion with the See of Rome," &c. the Right Hon Gen tleman continued thus.] —Are these legislative lies, follies, and impositions? Do they not show that the Oatb of Supremacy is not a necessary test of the allegiance of the subj ec t ? I a d m i t that we are now come to a new era. The interference of the Pope with respect to the Roman Catholic Clergy of Irel an d, i s , I think, a dangerous thing. 11 t hi n k it requires a remedy_that a security ought to be provided against it in any act to be submitted to Par liament. But I apprehend it is quite new to say that the dangers are dangers which you w il l not remove, but in consequence of I them proceed to outlaw the person. You rejoice in the danger