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

and in the penalty, and in order to furnish yourselves with an ar gument against liberality, to refuse to concur in any remedy.— (Hear, hear.)—One main point has not sufficiently been brought under consideration—when we got possession of the French pro vince of Quebec, where there were a number of persons profess ing the Roman Catholic faith, one of the terms of the Treaty was that their rights and privileges should he secured to them as far as was consistent with the Law of England. A proclamation was issued, by which the Catholics, according to the spirit of the law of England, were required to take the oath of Supiemacy, and to subscribe the declaration. This was an act of gross injustice to those people, and an attack upon the very privileges which had been reserved. What was done upon the subject after mature reflec tion? An Act was passed in the year 1774 (11 Geo. 111. c. 83), which well deserves the attention of all who contend that the admission of Roman Catholics is in opposition to the King's Co ronation oath. It recites that the Proclamation of 1763 had been found, on experience, inapplicable to the state and circumstances of the province, where there were 65,000 persons professing the religion of the Church of Rome. It then withdraws the Pro clamation, and declares, that, for the more perfect security and ease of the inhabiLants of the province, the Roman Catholics may hold and enjoy the exercise of their religion, subject to the King's supremacy, as declared by the Act of the lst Elizabeth. For the purpose of securing the rights of the Catholics, what was enacted ? That no Catholic should be compelled to take the oath of the Ist Elizabeth, but the oath of allegiance only, and thereupon enjoy all their accustomed rights and usages. What had been the consequence? When the American Protestants re volted, and shook off the yoke of Great Britain, the Popish province of Canada remained true to its allegiance.—(Much che ering.) —I maintain with confidence that the Oath of Supre macy is not a necessary test of allegiance. Upon the legal topic, I will not longer occupy the attention of the House, except to in form my Right Honourable Friend, if he will allow me to sup- P os e him ignorant of the fact, that the Statute of the sth Elizabeth, which requires the Oath of Supremacy, was never enacted in Ireland ; the 30th of Charles 11., extend ing it, was never enacted in Ireland.—(The Master of the Rolls was understood to express his dissent.)—lt is true, the Ist Elizabeth was enacted in Ireland ; but the sth of Elizabeth, the Statute which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament, Was confined to this country. I use these facts for this purpose : To shew that, from the time of the Reformation to the Revolu tion, Roman Catholics were admitted into Parliament in Ireland, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, or subscribing the De claration. We know that in the reign of James 1., 101 Roman Catholics voted on the choice of a Speaker. It is impossible for any man to doubt the meaning of the articles of the Treaty of Limerick in 1691. The Roman Catholics were then, by the pe culiar law of Ireland, admissible to Parliament and to certain offices not excepted by the 14th Charles 11. and by the new rules. What was the stipulation of the Treaty? " That the Roman Ca tholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II." Now the pe culiar privileges of the Irish under Charley 11. were none other than I have mentioned—to sit and vote in Parliament. The Treaty did not refer to religious rights and privileges—and i f ray Right Honourable Friend can prove that I am wrong upon this point, I will give up the question. It has been said that the article applied only to persons in gar rison but what right had the parties who entered into the Treaty to touch the rights of any but those who were in arms against the Government? Those who resisted on that occasion were governed by a misguided loyalty, I admit ; but the King of England and the Legislature had no more right to take away the privileges of the rest of the people of Ireland, than to deprive me of nine, or any Hon. Member who hears me of his.—(Hear, hear .) —Therefore, this treaty establishes for the Roman Catholics at large their ancient rights by positive compact. Any Hon. Gentleman who attends to the events of history, will find the miserable state to which the country was reduced by the viola tion of this solemn engagement. It was determined to shut out the great body of the people of Ireland. Those who so determined were not fools--they did not, perhaps, shew great wisdom in some of their acts, but in this respect they were perfectly wise : they saw that it was impolitic to allow wealth and power to accu mulate among those who were shut out from any participation in the Government of the State; for it is as true as mathematical d emonstration, that the accumulation of property among those no were excluded from power might in time overturn the State itself. Hence they were employed for 70 years in the odious an d disgusting task of shutting the Roman Catholics out from the Requisiti on o f k now l e d ge and pi operty, or rather in stripping them °h. prop er ty th e y a l rea dy possessed, and reducing them to the lo west; state of d egra d a ti on an d m i ser y. At the end of that time hey began to find out that they could not proceed in such a course, and to dread the consequences of their own acts ; and the Irish e('r i People ou g h t to be thankful that, though late, their oppressors i nr t ed some wisdo m f rom exper i ence . Th ey were ra i se d f rom their former relief degrad a ti on an d m i sery, and muc h se b stant i a l an d ,as was aff or d e d. But that duty was left incomp l ete ; as been already well sa id , imperfect justice had' raised them to n a level from zhelnvhceicithey could behold all the blessings of the Constitution The Irish Catholics they were net permitted to participate. no longer submit, declare, declare, that to this state of things they will mag eme, of (Much cheering.) It is easy to talk of de am intemperance, and reclamation, and I " much an enemy to all such proceedings as any man who hears me ; but let the people of England consider what it is the people of Ireland demand. The claim no fanciful or supposed rights—they claim their just share i n th e Br i tish Constitution ; they d emand what for 700 years has been i n va i n d eman d e d_ that th e I r i sh shall be sharers in th e ad vantage s of English law. Let me ask of th e Protestant freemen of England, whom I respect as mu ch as any man in this House, and to whose good sense I ad dress myself, if they were deprived of their undoubted privileges, what would be their feelings, a n d h ow vehement would be their reclaniations ? I s therea man who hears me who would not freely lay down his life in such a cau se ? I k now h e wou ld scorn to prove hi mse l f so base a recreant from the spirit of his fore fa,hers•—(Continued cheeri ng .)—W ou ld h e not jo i n w ith all his ..low. -suffere rs in demanding the restoration of his privileges, and Ins right t o s h are in making and dispensing the laws of the land ? l If_ an attempt were here m a d e t o d e p r i ve him of his birth-right, it i s . not idle to say that lie and the countless numbers who felt with would indeed display the ira leonum vinela recusantium.— Hear, be ar.)—l have been led to dwell on this part of the case perhaps longer than I ought, and I may have expressed myself with a warmth th an b eco mes the place I occupy less than the cause I advocate. —(Hear, hear.)—lt has been far from my wish to give offencedtl eithe r i n or ut of this house ; but as I claim unrestrained f►ee" of speech for myself, so I am willing to pay all respect to the opinions, and to make all allowance for the feelings of others. Befor e I Sit down I wish to make a few remarks upon that which Purposely reserved to the lisst—the present state of Ireland.— the has been w h en we have been told, that thee e body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not dream of sharing in were not interpretation, and dispensation of the laws, if they not excit e d b y i n di screet h arangues o f i t i nerant orators, an d that d iffe Z e it was, they viewed the result with a degree of listless in to 0* I need not spend a great deal of time in endeavouring sH __ co nvince the house that this assertion is not exactly true.— ` n) 7r.)---Every man who allows himself the use of his senses, „... u ‘ t see that in Ireland at this moment there is a universal sym pathy in the whole body of the Irish Roman Catholics, with ow, Zion of order or degree, laity or clergy, young or j ute or wealthy.....-(Cheers.) —All press forward with an „ pee a i k a c t , Y of desire and a unity f determination to accomplish a particula:l7l7d, and well-understood object.—(Hear.)—What before, at a of actual renbrelrioerind of tiv e inspela them it is not for me to ask ; but never to oh' our history , excepting when in a state Purp oses __ n il , has there existed such a universality of Catholics of obtain a restitution of civil rights. The Roman an d " eontidetiti d never till now looked Parliament so directly that Wh ich hit f, the 6 ' e e , calling The feeling of tvlsi tn t. upon it at last to concede it has systematically denied.—(Cheers.) — or to those who w i l ls I speak is not confined to the higher ranks, Among the middli be most immediately benefited by a change. and any man ni b ng classes of Roman Catholics it is universal ; at the p so , 2eedings ° servation, who looks only at the newspapers, the Ag gregate Avieulh.he Catholics, net in the Association or in rishes, and vill ages, 1 4s, but in all the meetings in towns, pa- Capacity, and a reasonin that . they and and the Poorest an eloquence of passion, a breadth of shrewdness and intelligence which prove bee of their claims, as e know their rights and the jus now the honour to address,well as many of the illustrious body I have that with wealth knowlede h L as et the House not fail to observe, t ° say, that there is not , who has not all the also spread ; and I will venture Year s single Catholic in Ireland, of 1001. a rasi tie peon. Tsoaraecertain degr ene g this s d is em o b u a r rk s e a d feg o u n a t r h d is ; tes hinkfihnkis mind th e witer 'n eyste sensible of such blessings as they do enjoy wider s.ttineredulollll erna adopted during the last forty years, and lend by *editions, rto those who tell them they will be gainers Ring_revolution, or invasion. Ido not believe that the th ey a r t 7 n e :e_ S 121e.tter subjects than the class to which I allude, but --( much Z ... 7 .1 for good or ill, as you may know how to use it or f or „ n ; r l 9 .7 l ` t ' i n g.)---Theyar e either for peace or war—for battle Its the present o s l--sto live with you or to die for you—(cheers). * ery generally ; Ireland there are discontents prevailing Iville sssu a rgy be' her must be discontents, and the discontents the Irish -Catholic: greater in proportion as a great number of cOMfort.- ,, B ut, 4 _,_„lProre in wealth, respect a bility, an d i n wu‘ne tis impossible for such people not to feel and express their discontents, yet they are averse to disturbance and violence, and such proceedings as may endanger the secu rity of the Government. In all countries, every man who is prosperous and in comfortable circumstances is considered as a hostage to the State, and is -found: to be so. What is it, then, that makes the difference in Ireland? Every thing is done there that can be done by the executive Government, which has never been administered better than it has of late been by the very distinguished Nobleman at the head of it. Whence, then, does the mischief grow ? It grows from the vices of the system adopted by the Legislature with respect to the Catholics—vices which infuse their poisonous juices into the whole of the Adminis tration, and destroy the effects of the best provisions and blessings of Providence The way to cure these vices is to apply the re- medy which all the Catholics, and a great body of the Protes tants, now call for. Hitherto I have been talking of the mid- dling classes ; but there is certainly a population in - Ireland of a different description—l have no pleasure in stating it. My Hon. Friend says that there has been a gross misrepresentation as to their numbers but, however, I don't go into that; it is suffi cient for me to mention what is the fact, that the overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland are as anxious for the remo val of Catholic disabilities as the class to which I have before re ferred. All are interested in this question. There is not a cabin in which the subject is not regarded with the most intense anxiety, and in which the inmates do not keenly feel the degradation to which they are exposed, by being considered as outcasts, on account of their religion. We are told that demagogues take advantage of their situation, and urge them on to extreme, violent, and mischievous measures. True ; we,are all agreed upon that point: What the object of these demagogues may be, I know not ; but I do not think it is rebellion. Ido not think that their intention is completely to subvert the Constitution. Their only immediate object seems to be, to rouse the people to fury, that they may have it iu their power to apply the popular force to any purpose, right or wrong, as they may think fit. But, is this the state in which Ireland is to be left ? Are these demagogues to be still allowed to stand ready with the snatch in their hands, to produce whatever explosion they might think proper for their purpose ? The only way to put an end to this state of things, and to insure peace and good order to the country, is to remove the Catholic disabilities ; and I here repeat what I have said before that, at present the great security against outrage is found in the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland.—(Hear.)—The priesthood restrain the population, not only by their personal and natural influence, but by the highest sanctions of religion. This I had before stated, and had hoped that it Would have gone without contra diction. In this, however, I have been mistaken ; and I am sorry to say that my statement, as to the beneficial influence ex ercised over the people by the Catholic Priesthood, has been con tradicted, not only by the Member for Derry, but by another Hon. Friend (Mr. Moore, we believe), who has lent his autho rity to the allegations of the Member for Derry, respecting the Catholic clergy. But, after all, what is the amount of the accu sations against the Catholic Priests? They never encouraged the people to commit violence and outrage. The utmost that can be said against them is that they interfered in the late elections, and that one of them used very improper and unwarrantable language respecting the Protestant Church Establishment. As to the affi davits of the Hon. Member for Derry, if any one were to ask me whether I believe them to be true, I would say that I do not.— (A laugh). I say that, in my opinion, there must be at least be gross exaggeration. I wish to think higher of the great body of Irish land lords than to suppose them capable of depriving the poor peasants and their families of their , sattages, merely because they voted for such candidates as were favourable to their emancipation, Such things may have happened in some few instances, but they never can have been generally prevalent ; and I must therefore conclude that the statements on the other side have been greatly exag gerated, both as to the conduct of the Landholders and of the Ro man Catholic Clergy. But the Roman Catholic Clergy ought not to be blamed for making use of the liberty which the law al lowed, nor for interfering where not by law prohibited. For in stance, in these elections, a Catholic Priest might, without any breach of propriety or violation of the law, say to a Roman Ca tholic voter, " here is a man who wishes to get into Parliament, and who, when lie gets there,will vituperate you and your fellow- Catholics, and will characterise your religion as idolatrous and su perstitious. Do not vote for him, but vote for the man who is ready to lend his voice and assistance to the femoval of the civil and religi ous disabilities under which' you labour, and to restore you to that state of equality with your Protestant fellow-subjects in which you ought to stand." There is nothing in all this contrary to mo rality—nothing contrary to religion. It is no more than the natural expression resulting from a patriotic feeling ; and this is a sort oc Ifluence which, if confined within due limits, the Roman Catholic Clergy have a perfect right to use. I told you in 1825 what would be the case with those Forty Shilling Freeholders, and it is curious now to find, that those who opposed the arrange ment which I then suggested with respect to them, are now the loudest in accusing them. Their tone was remarkably different at that time. These Yeomen, as they were then called (a laugh), were not to be deprived of the Constitutional privileges which they enjoyed. It was touching the sacred rights of the Freeholders. But what is the language of these Gentlemen now? The Yeomen, whose sacred rights ought not then to be disturbed, are now the property of the landlords (a laugh), and the only doubt seems to be, whether the property is legal or equitable ; and at length it is softened down to this, that these freeholders are trustees for the landlords. (Hear, hear, hear.) I do not agree, how ever, with the Member for Derry, that there was any thing , contrary to morality or religion in the conduct of the Catho licin persuading these freeholders to vote according to their C l consciences, ergy ) u, and the i‘dioeinn'tbelii.kfeorhcisavaaffindauviiitls.—(A laugh- — s Honourable leovei I ex cuse me when I advert to his charge against the Catholic Priesthood, and the great body of the Catholics, on account of the language contained in a lette r addressed to Lord Farnham by a Roman Catholic Clergyman , Dr. Do y le. I certainly do not ap prove of the whole of that language, and I have only to regret that a man of so much learning and good sense as Dr. Doyle should have employed such language. But the electrical shock which resulted from the letter of Dr. Doyle seems to have been produced by the paasage in which he compares the Irish Pro testant Established Church to the Car of Juggernaut, and its prac tices with those of the superstitious votaries and worshippers of that idol. But whatever credit for invention and imagination may be due to Doctor Doyle, he has no title to the original invention of the language in question. Doctor Doyle found it in a newspaper, in the report of a speech said to have been delivered at a Meeting of Protestants in Ireland, where Lord Farnham presided, and in which speech the words were applied to the Catholic Church ; and it was moreover stated, that the Gentleman who made that speech was the Honourable Member for the County of Cavan— (a loud laugh.)—The Hon. Member for Cavan stated, or was reported to have stated, in that speech, that Popery and Slavery were twin sisters, and then went on to say, that it was because he wished to see his country free and happy, that he was so anxious to rescue it from a degree of thraldom worse than that of those who bowed down before the car of Juggernaut. This was spoken of the Roman Catholic religion, and it was stated that the expression was followed by loud cheers from the whole body assembled on that occasion. Here then is a specimen of the lan guage addressed to Ladies and Gentlemen, to Clergymen and Laymen, by those who profess, like Peter the Hermit, to be so anxious to spread the mild doctrines of Christianity among the Catholics of Ireland, and these are the means which they employ for that purpose. Now, I ask, is it possible for the Roman Catholic Clergy to hear and see their religion assailed in this way without attempting an answer and refutation? And yet the whole offence of the Letter of Doctor Doyle to Lord Farmham consists in the mere circumstance of retorting the phrase relative to the Jug gernaut idol.—(Hear, hear. )—I confess that I am alarmed at this system of proselytism which is so eagerly pursued by a certain class of Protestants with reference to the Irish Catholics. I am, at the same time, a sincere-friend to the progress of light and knowledge among the Catholics, and amongst persons of all de scriptions ; but my Honourable Friend seems to consider this spread of education among the Catholics, merely as an instrument of proselytism. These two points are, however, completely dis tinct. I believe that the Catholics are not enemies to education, either civil or religious. All the Gospels are read once a-year in their churches. They have no objection to have their flocks well educated in temporal learning, and well grounded in religious knowledge. What they object to is the systematic purpose of proselytism which certain classes of Protestants attempt to corn bine with the measures adopted for the education of the Irish Ca tholics. The Catholic Clergy are friendly to the spread of in struction and knowledge generally ; and if the measures which have been adopted for the promotion of education in Ireland should prove unavailing, the failure will not be owing to the Catholics. —The Honourable Member for Derry has rather unfairly, I thiuk, reproached me with having vituperated the Clergy of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, for having had re course to that sort of interference with elections which he now ascribes to the Catholic Clergy. I certainly never did so. I have stated to the House what is the condition of the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, particularly with reference to their Protestant fellow-subjects. But then, what is the state of a great part of the Protestants of Ireland attached to the Esta blished Church? A state of animosity and fury against the great body of the Catholics.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—And, indeed, considering the disorganised situation in which Catholics and Protestants are kept with reference to each other, it is natu ral that there should be fury and violence on both sides. The great body of the Catholics are anxious for their undoubted rights, and desirous to be placed upon a political and civil equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects; and all this they wish to accomplish without tuintllt or violence of any descrip tion. A great body of Irish Protestants wish that the Claims of the Catholics should be conceded, and their disabilities re moved; not only from a sense of the justice of these Claims, but also for the purpose of restoring that tranquillity to the country which it can never enjoy while these exclusive mea sures in favour of the Protestants are allowed to operate. The Catholics, as a body, are very far from being extravagant in their pretensions; and if the maasures which were proposed in 1825 had received the sancticn of the Legislature, you would not now have heard a word about the Catholic Question. But, Sir, this is not exclusively a Roman Catholic Question. It is also a Protestant Question—a question in which we are all in terested. It is a national—an imperial question; a question in which the whole country is most deeply concerned. I speak in this matter for the best interests of my country. and acknowledge no colours but those of freedom and justice.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—As to these agitators, it is the misfortune of the system that, while it prevails, we are continually subjected to their ma chinations.—(Hear, hear.)—But the only way to deal wth them is by the arm of the law, and, by legal means, to repress licen tious clamour, when it reaches a point at which it may seri ously endanger the tranquillity of the State. I do not say that the organs by which any body of men convey the know ladge of their grievances to the Government and the public are to be shut up ; but they must be kept within bounds, and the Act of Parliament which was passed for that purpose has _ _ certainly done much good. If they violate the law by the intem perance of their harangues, punish them; put an end to their excesses in the ordinary course of law; compel them to keep within due bounds, and inflict reace upon them, which is the worst and most galling grievance that can possibly befal them.— (Hear, hear, hear.)—We have again and again stated, on our side, what the real situation of Ireland is—a situation which can not, without the most 'serious danger to the country be suffered to continue—and we chew our remedy. They who oppose us admit the danger, which is, indeed, too obvious to be denied; and we call upon them for their remedy, but they have none. Some lion. Gentlemen talk of the danger to be apprehended from the foreign influence by which the Clergy and the great body of the Catholics are, as they say, liable to be misled from their allegiance to their Sovereign, and their duties to their country. Why, then, do they not propose to the Catholics to enter into a concordat with the Pope, for the purpose of securing them against the effects of fo reign influence ? Another remedy has, indeed, been suggested, and some appear to entertain sanguine views that it will be successful. That remedy consists in the Reformation and Conversion of the Catholics. But I say that those who have any hopes that the work of reformation and conversation can be prosecuted to any general and material result by means of meetings, r-7.4. making of speeches before ladies and gentlemen, and other such proceed ings, will find themselves most grievously disappointed. And I ask also whether, by such proceedings as these, the cause of reli gion and morality can be a gainer? There ;s still a further project connected with this point, and that is a plan by which this at tempt at reformation and conversion is to be backed by the powers of the Government, which, it is supposed, will give extraordinary effect to the logic and rhetoric which is to be employed in the work of conversion. This was the course adopted by Henry VIII. when he formed the resolution to convert his subjects from the errors of Popery.—(Hear.)—A great portion of his subjects did not quite agree with him in their views of the matter ; but where his logic and rhetoric were ineffectual, he ordered the refractory to be hung up ; and this formed a most potent and successful argu ment with those who happened to be within its reach—(Laughter. ) In fine, if we wish to promote the best interests of our country ge nerally, Ireland is to be conciliated, wooed, and wedded. For the sake of our internal and domestic tranquillity and pros perity—for the sake of our power and influence among the nations of Europe and of the world—especially at a time when the gene ral peace is in so much danger of being interrupted—we ought, above all things, to have the most valuable portion of the po pulation, of Ireland, and the great mass of that population, if possible, firmly attached to us—( Hear, hear !)—Our Consti tution is said to be the admiration of the world, and justly so. But it is of the last importance to Great Britain that foreign na tions should no longer be able to point out such a flaw in that Constitution as the existence of Ole civil disabilities imposed on the great mass of the Irish population ; nor to calculte upon the alienation that may be produced by a state of things so mischiev ous and impolitic. For the sake of our improvement and pro sperity in peace ; for the sake of our defence and our strength in war, all the other divisions of the Empire ought, in affections and interests, to be firmly united with Ireland—(Hear, hear !) Mr. PEEL then rose, and spoke to the following effect :—Nothing could have induced me, after all that has passed on this subject, to present myself to the notice of the House now, except an overpowering sense of public duty ; for it is most pain ful and nauseous to be obliged to tax one's ingenuity to find new arguments on a topic already exhausted. But I have no alterna tive. A Noble Lord (Elliot) who formerly thought with me on this subject, has seen good reason to change his sentiments, and to adopt the conclusions which have been formed on the other side. I admire and respect him, but still I shall not shrink from my public duty, whether I shall meet with the approbation of the majority or not. I had hoped to have been able to abstain from any thing of a personal nature as far as I am myself concerned ; but I think it necessary now to repeat what I stated in 1825, that the Roman Catholics have no right whatever to urge their Claims upon the ground of any thing contained in the Treaty of Limerick. The House, Sir, will not think, called on as I have been by o i t d ; thle shall conclusion athr the Hon. Baronet, that I tre s p ass on t h em, if I renew t h e dis cussion as to the Treaty of Li mer i c k , i n or d er to exp l a i n t h e sense in which advert, Sir, have Sir, t a h l e v r e e a f d o y re e , xp to ve t ss ho ed se , articles I found u o n and I shall not wish to escape from the dilemma of the Hon. Ba ronet, if I do not show that there are good grounds for that con clusion. There are various articles of the Treaty of Limerick; and the first undoubtedly refers to all the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It has been held, from its importance, to refer to grant ing the Catholics certain rights, which they, therefore, now claim, but which I deny that it gives to the Roman Catholics of Ire land. There are other articles in the Treaty which refer to the inhabitants of Limerick ; the second article refers to " all the in habitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in arms under any commission of King James, or those authorised by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo." Now, Sir, I contend that the first article of that Treaty confers no political privileges whatever ; and those who sig ne d th at treaty never contemplated conferring by it any political power or privileges whatever. The privileges supposed were the free exercise of their religion, the preservation of the Roman Catholics from any molestation on account of their religion, and that they should not suffer any disturbance on this account, nor be visited by any species of punishment ; but it did not imply an exclusion from office, and the free enjoyment of po litical power ; its only object was to secure to the Roman Catho lics of Ireland the free exercise of their religion, as they enjoyed it in the time of King Charles the Second. As to the first article, I beg leave to call the attention of the House to the meaning of the terms. It has been argued, I know, that this article does not refer to the free enjoyment by the Catholics of their religion undisturbed, but what it confers on their politica l p rivile g es and power. But I shall show the contrary, from the mea nin g assi g ned to similar terms—indeed, to the very same ter ms, b y the contem porary historians of the time—by Lord Clarendon, for example, by whom they are always held to mean the undisturbe d, unmolested exercise of religion, or, in one word , to mean toleration. willl first take the construction of these words from the highest authority— from that of King William himself. [The Right Hon. Gentleman here quoted some passages from a letter written by King Wil liam 111., in which, speaking of the English Catholics, he ex pressed himself willing to grant them the exclusive exercise of their religion, but he would not grant them any political power, nor allow them to have seats in Parliament], showing, (said the Right Hon. Gentleman), that his Majesty understood by privileges, not political power, but the exercise of their religion. His Majesty spoke the same sentiments with regard to the articles of the treaty. He said " Their Highnesses think that more should not he asked, and that the Roman Catholics should content themselves by en joying prosperity, and being secured in their persons and estates, and in the free enjoyment of their religion." He said, " that they were not to expect to be admitted to Parliament, nor into office, but to have the flee exercise of their religion." He says, first, " that the Roman Catholics ought to be satisfied with what they possessed, and, not to be discontented on account of not being allowed to sit in Parliament, because the law did not allow them, and because, if they were to sit in Parliament, they would be enabled to overturn the Parliament." He goes on to say, " that professing the Christian dispensation, they would not, therefore, on this account judge it lawful to disturb the quiet of the realin "—(Hear, hear, hear„)—These were King William's sentiments, Sir, and he plainly held that the Ca tholics should be excluded from Parliament, and that the privileges which he intended to confer, and which he conferred on the Catho lics by assenting to the Treaty, were only the undisturbed exercise of their religion. I beg the House tce remark, that the Treaty of Limerick was signed on October Scl, 1691, and on October 22d, 1691, an Act passed concerning the Roman Catholics, which con firmed to them the enjoinment of their religion as in the time of King Charles, but excluded them from political power. On the 22d of October th e. P a rliament met, only a few days after the signing of the Treaty, and then an Act was passed, applying the same oaths of allegiance and homage in Ireland as in England.-- There was no question in passing this Act of the rights of the Catholics, which were now claimed for them under the Treaty of Limerick. The Act was brought in by the parties to that Treaty, and no question was ever made as to their right to impose those oaths. The Act was frequently discussed—a conference took place between the Houses of Lords and Commons—no stipulations were then made in Parliament—and no attempt was made by those who were parties to that treaty, to confer political power, or political offices, on the Catholics. For one hundred years, Sir, this Act has been in force, and obeyed without exciting any remonstrances ; and who, I would ask, were the principal parties to that Act? Sir, lam defending the Whigs of that day. At that very time, Lord Somers was Solicitor-General. Treby was Attorney-General, and Lord Godolphin was Lord Treasurer.— Now, had King William and his Whig Counsellors done so base a thing as was implied in passing such an Act in defiance of the sti pulations of the Treaty, could any thing have been more dis honest? Is it to be believed, Sir, that King William came down to the Legislature to pass such an Act in the face of his own Treaty, and that Lords Godolphin and Somers acquiesced? After this Act had passed on February 24, 1692, King William ratified the articles of the Treaty, and in that ratification he speaks of con- firming to the city of Limerick, to the great satisfactionof the in- habitants, all their rights and privileges. And this took place on the 24th February, one month after he had given his consent to an Act of Parliament, which excluded the Roman Catholics from Parliament. Had he understood the Treaty in the sense attributed to it by the Hon. Baronet, could he have added this solemn mockery to his violation of a positive engagement? This was the interpreta tion of the Treaty by the Whigs of that period ; and what says the Whig Historian? Bishop Burnet says—" And thus ended the war of Ireland ; and with that our civil war came to a final end. The articles of cal...nlation were punctually executed, and some doubts thot arose out of some ambiguous words, were explained in favour of the Irish." I take, then, Sir, my meaning of the first article of the Treaty of Limerick from the interpretation put on it by King William—l take it from the interpretation put on it by the Whigs of that time—and I take it from the Whig Histo rian ; and by all of them it is held to mean, not political power or privileges, but freedom of religious worship. On this ground, then, I am entitled to withhold my assent to the Resolution pro posed by the Hon. Baronet, as far as he claimed that assent on the ground that the Treaty of Limerick conferred that power on the Catholics, it is the object of this Resolution to confer. As far, Sir, as my assent to his Resolution has been claimed on this ground, I think I have shown that the Treaty of Limerick does not justify the conclusion which the advocates of the Catholics have drawn from it. I come now, Sir, to consider the question on its own merits ; and I must confess that any apprehensions I before entertained from admitting the the Catholics into the pos session of political power—any unwillingness I before felt to lis ten to their claims—have not been diminished by the manner in which this Resolution was proposed to the House.—(Hear.) — On the contrary, Sir, I do say, that the manner in whi•-h the Hon. Baronet introduced the subject to the House has aggravated my apprehensions.—(Hear, hear.)—The Honourable Baronet, in claiming our assent to this Resolution, asserted that he saw no difference in principle between our present exclusion of the Catholics and burning a man at the faggot.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.")—And the Attorney-General for Ireland appealed to the House, as English Gentlemen, if they were oppressed in the manner of the Irish Catholics, if they would not ' rise in arms.—(Loud cheers.)—lf they would not rise in arms, and if they would not think themselves justified in rising in arms, .---(Cheers)--in rising in arms against such an oppression ; or, if they did not, if they would not think themselves unworthy of the name of Englishmen.—(Cheers.)—And those gentlemen who ad vanced those doctrines, which above all excites my apprehensions, do it, while they profess to act on the principles of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke, who would have been the first to oppose such monstrous, such abominable doctrines.—(Cheers.)—lt is at this moment, when the religious freedom enjoyed in England is greater than in any other part of the world, that the Hon. Baronet puts forth these sentiments—when the King's Attorney-General for Ireland appeals to the passions of the people--(Cheers)—and when the people of that country are already in a state of agitation.— (Cheers.)—lf the Hon. Baronet, who supports his arguments by the authority of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke, had ever read Mr. Pitt's and Mr. Burke's speech, in 1790, when Mr. Fox brought in his Bill for the repeal of the Test Act ; on that occasion Mr. Burke said he would withhold his assent from the Bill, and he vindi cated his conduct on the ground of the opinions put forth by Dr. Priestly and other Dissenters. Mr. Pitt also repudiated their doc trines in still stronger terms, and opposed the Bill by all the means in his power. When at a later period Mr. Pitt had supported the Catholic Claims, he supported them on very different grounds to those now stated by the Hon. Bart. and the Right Hon. the Attor ney-General for Ireland. What was the language used by Mr. Pitt in 1805 ? After he had come to that conclusion in favour of the Roman Catholics on which so much stress was now laid—a conclusion, I must think, come to unfortunately, but founded on very different grounds from those on which it is now proposed to admit the Catholics into political power.—ln 1805, Mr. Pitt, after declaring, "that he would not, under any circumstances, or under any possible situation of affairs, consent that it should be discussed or entertained as a question of right," went on to say, " I, Sir, have never been one of those who have ever held that the term Emancipation is in the smallest degree applicable to the repeal of the few remaining Penal Statutes to which the Ca tholics are liable." So that he not only took a very different view of the grounds on which he would proceed, but he discarded the name adopted by those who now quoted him as an authority.— " With regard," Mr. Pitt adds, " to the admission of the Catho lics to the elective 'franchise, or to any of those posts and . offices which have been alluded to, I view all those p oints as distinct.ous i t s o tboepgoisyseenss, them, f n, or bu th t the sake o for h e e sake the so o p f e t r he n and the individual e who benefit v they were created, and for whose advantage they are to be exer cised." Mr. Pitt also said, " That we are bound to consider not merely what is desired by a part, but what is advantageous for the whole." This, Sir, is, in some measnre, my opinion. I would not make the Catholic faith, or the religious opinions of any man, a ground of exclusion against him merely on their account ; nor am I prepared to say, that the exclusion now suffered by the Catholics is no evil ; but I am bound to consider not only what they may suffer, and what they may desire, but what will be good for the whole. The question is not a question for the Catholics ; it is a question for the whole kingdom. I beg to state, that I do not resist the proposition on any ground like popular clamour. Whatever clamour may exist, it has had no influence on me, and it ought not to have any weight over the decisions of the House. Whether those opinions from which the clamour arises be prejudices or not, the House is capable of form ing its own decision without attending to them, and is better able, I believe, to form a correct opinion on such subjects than the mass of the people—(Hear, hear !)----and when it has come to a decision, be it what it may, I have no doubt but that it will be respected and obeyed. It is the duty of the House to set an example of justice and liberality to the country, and not be forced forward in its measures by violence of any par ties. I. can say for myself—and my Right Hon. Friend has also given me credit for this—that I have never encouraged the presentation of one petiti on , or i n an y w a y i n d uce d p ersons to send up petitions. 1 have thought it my duty to present pe titions when sent to me; but I have never promoted petitioning. Neither do I resist this resolution from any doubt I entertain of the Catholics from their conduct in former periods. It is said that the penal laws against the Catholics are barbarous and severe, and my Right Hon. Friend referred to the conduct of the Catho lics at former periods, to show that these measures were not adopted as measures of retaliation, but of safety. Meeting the Hon. Baronet, therefore, as he desires, I must own ;that I have, on constitutional grounds, a great distrust of the Roman Catho lics.—(Cheers.)—l do not find fault with the faith of any man. I have a high respect for many individual Catholics. They are quite as respectable, as honest, as honourable as any Protestants. I v d h o en no l t ha e v a e re m s o t much what s t o te i y ety b , elie l ve h , m a ,e s hnoowt made they act. n - Ty business to quarrel with a man because he believes in transubstan tiation, and I do not ; I quarrel with no man for his f a ith ; b u t when I see a particu lar faith united with a g r and scheme of hu man and of worldly policy, I have a right t o i nqu i re i n t o that scheme, and to ascertain, if I can, what is the nature of the in fluence it is likely to exercise over the mind of man and over so ciety, and what will be its final result. Can I doubt, Sir, that there is such a scheme engrafted on the Roman Catholic faith, and that it is more for the sake of this scheme than the doctrines that:the religion is so much favoured ? I cannot doubt, Sir, that it is the policy of the Catholics to engraft such a scheme on their faith; nor can I doubt that the object of that scheme is, that man may acquire influence over man. When I see the Bulls of the Pope_ the Hon. Gentleman laughs [some Member's smile, but whose we could not discover, here attracted the Right Honourable Gentle man's attention], but let him remember, that a Pope's Bull is of some importance among four millions of ignorant people, who have not had the advantages of an education such as he received. Over them the Pope's Bull has a practical effect ; and let me tell him, when I see this sort of influence exercised, I look with suspicion on the power which does it, and I trace in this act the still-living spirit of that power which has been said to be de funct and 'extinct. Am I to be told, when no longer ago than 1807, Pope Pius VII. sent a Bull to Ireland, proclaiming an in dulgence of 300 days to all those, who should repeat the three prayers of the Holy Virgin and Jesus Christ. [The Right Hon. Secretary here quoted three short prayers, the repetition of which was to secure the Irish Catholics 300 days indulgence. There was an indulgence of one hundred days, granted by the Bull to such as repeated certain ejaculatory prayer& proper to rescue the souls of the dead from purgatory.] I ask any Hon. Member, when I see such a mockery of all religion sent forth, can I doubt whether it_have any other object than the promo tion of that worldly polioy I have alluded to? Can I doubt that it is intended solely to add to the authority of man over man ; which, claiming a power to pardon him, grants the pardon on such ridiculous pretences, or withholds it if the command is not obeyed.—( Cheers. )—These and other things of the same kind are, perhaps, trifles ; but they are, as Lord Bacon says, " straws which are thrown up to see how the wind blows," and from them we may learn what is yet the spirit of Catholicism. My Right Hon. Friend has referred to the polemical disputes in Ireland, and has told us, that Dr. Doyle is to end them ; but I am afraid, if the time should come when Dr. Doyle is not satisfied with the &cure sions, that he will not be prepared to engage in them. I innet think, Sir, when I see that the spirit of this religion is altered iiti no degree, that there is great danger in admitting the Catholics to political power ; I repeat that I quarrel not with the faith of individuals, but I entertain a well-grounded constitutional jea lousy of granting them political rights. We were told a few years ago, that the influence of religion was fast dying away I and we were asked, with pity for our credulity, if we thought any nien would now occupy themselves with religion?' Re ligion, we were told, was even on the Continent, only a volcano burnt out that could never be rekindled. I re member, Sir, when Mr. Whitbread, in a speech fifteen years ago, ridiculed the apprehensions that were then expressed as to religious feelings ever again exercising any influence over mankind. " Look," he said, " at Paris : was there any fear that religion would be revived at Paris? Was it to be expected that Buonaparte would revive religion ? Could he excite any apprehensions ? Could the Pope excite any appre hensions? Why, he was Buonaparte's prisoner, and must remain subservient to him ! Was there any apprehensions of the Jesuits being restored ? He thought not. Atheism and indifference were the enemies they had to contend with." But what would that Hon. Gentleman say now ?---[The Right Hon. Secretary here referred to something which had occurred at Paris, but in so lot!' a tone that he was inaudible in the gallery, and concluded by say= ing]—that if Mr. Whitbread could see what had occurred iti Prance within fifteen years, and what had been done by the Bourbons, he would not assert that it was not a wild chimera to anticipate a ke , form in Ireland. I say, Sir, that it is not in the nature of man, nt4 to wish to see that religion predominant which he himself professes ; and if the Roman Catholics were admitted to share political power, they would, I think, exert it to exalt their religion ; nor do I think that the Catholics could he admitted to seats in Parliament, without sometimes allowing an undue influence to operate on their minds when legislating for the Protestant part of the commu nity. The destruction of the Protestant establishment would not be the only, nor even the worst evil. The conflict for ages, before that object could be accomplished, would give rise to [religious divi sions and asperities, that would constitute a greater evil than the overthrow of the Church establishment itself. But my Right Hose Friend tells me that the granting of these claims will be the final consummation of all the hopes and wishes of the Roman Catholics. I have read the Declaration, which, since the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics was discussed in this House, has been heeled by some of the most eminent and respectable members of their faith. But though that Declaration was intended to convince tee and other Protestants of the reasonableness of their objects, I have been unable to find in it that expression of entire satisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, which my Right Hon. Friend alleges was generally felt by the Roman Catholics. With this Declaration, which was published in 1826, an Address appeared " from the British Ro man Catholic, to their Protestant fellow-countrymen." This Ad dress is very temperately worded, and proper in every respect. It is calculated to conciliate those who are opposed to the Catholic' ; but it proves also, as I will presently shew, beyond a doubt, that the removal of their civil disabilities will not be the final end and consummation of their efforts, as my Right Hon. Friend contends. In this Address they say We intreat you to endeavour to divest your minds of preconceived impressions to our disadvan tage, and calmly to examine the situation in which we stand. In a country, boasting of peculiar liberality, we suffer severe prl• vations, because we differ from you in religions belief."— It then recites the disqualifications to which- Roman Catholics are subject :—" A Peer, for example, cannot sit and vote in the House of Peers ; a Catholic Commoner cannot sit and vote in the House of Commons ; a Catholic Freeholder may be prevented from voting at elections." It goes on to complain that a Catho lic " cannot hold any office in any of the Corporations ; he cannot graduate at either of the two Universities, much less enjoy any of the numerous beneficial offices connected with them, although both those seats of learning were founded by Catholice"—(Hear, hear.) It further complains, that " he cannot present to a living in the Church, though both of these rights appertain to the enjoyment of property, and may actually be exercised by infidels"—(Hear,hear.) Now these grievances, of which the Catholics complained in this Address, were proposed to be continued by the Bill of which my Right Hon. Friend was the advocate. In that Bill, if I remember aright, there were special reservations with su spect to the officers in the Universities, and as to the appoint ments to livings—(Hear, hear.)---It is a natural and just object of the reasonable ambition of every gentleman, to obtain a seat in this House. Many Catholics, if eligible, would, in the or dinary course of things, find their way into it; but if any greater purpose were in view, could, or ought we to complain if they confederated for its acquisition ? Hon. Gentlemen ipeek of the fewness of their numbers with contempt; but I have had experience enough in this House to convince me, that a very small party may, by dexterous management, posing itself of great influence over the House—(Cheers.)—When anymeasure might affect the Roman Catholics, why should not they unite as the East or West Indians did, to get a duty imposed upon or re moved from their sugars. By this adroitness in trimming the balance between rival parties, they might succeed, though their number should be comparatively trifling, in establishing a consi derable power in the House. I firmly believe that it was against this influence that our ancestors intended to guard at -the time of the Revolution.—When I consider that it has been determined that the Crown shall descend only to Protestant hands, I do not think the security for the establishment would be complete, un less the great Officers of State, and the Members of' Parliament, are Protestant also. Suppose the two Houses partly filled with Catholics, and that the Sovereign himself should say he was con vinced by the debates that there was no serious distinction betimes the doctrines of the Church of Rome and those of the Chutch of England, the tranquillity of the country might depend onthe de cision of a single man.—(Cheers. )_I am now approaching the most painful and most important part of what I have to say with reference to the propriety of admitting Roman Catholics to Parliament, and to high public offices. -I do not hesitate to declare, that if I was satisfied that the removal of .their-civil die abilities would be attended with the effects anticipated.hyuome Honourable Members; if I thought it would producer peace:-end tranquillity in Ireland, I would, to gain an object of such im- Baronet (Sir F. Burdiefitut)lhtiold.s belie ved , one moment to do, if I thought such vast benefits were Within effect m e n s e on advantage, a h n e ta e British sacrifice all m Constitution. y hich as the Honourable our reach, by following the course w , would lead us directly to the aP Th Pre ie hen l i"ns• avould not for its ultimate liesitate p u o s verful and emphatic language , as my Right Honourable oncord of Ireland could for ever be main eeces;anctlry-iod,bredt,chat as an Hon. Member has observed, no one t d E mtFhr l aa l nnte s en i dtsadhhnlo ha s up F lpe i j e Fields hereafter inquire of another what are his religious opinions. But I have no hope, that any end so desirable can be obtained, if we intend to retain what we profess to uphold. The Hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Browulow) says, that " we are on the edge of a hill ; we cannot remain," he says, " where we are." " Why," he asks, " should we not then ascend to the top, as it is admitted on all hands we cannot attempt to descend ?" If I was quite sure that that was the top which the Hon. Member now points out to me, I should perhaps agree with him. Bat how do I know, when I have aseer.ded with him, that a greater altitude may not yet rise above me, and leave me apparently fur• ther than ever from the eminence I sought to reach ?—(Cheers.) —We still propose to retain in Ireland the Protestant Esta blishment, for a small minority of the population, and the cases of Scotland and Canada are quoted to prove the practicabi lity of this arrangement. But I confess Inm not convinced -that the same consequences will follow such an attempt in Ireland. The cases quoted too are by no means in point. If the pro position be, that the Established Religion should agree with the majority of the people, there would be an end to she Protestant Church as the Establishment of the State, and sa the bond of connection between the island.—(Cheers.).....But when the Roman Catholic and the Protestant shall be - made equal in the eye of the law, as to political rights, do you mean that they shall be fairly admitted to the actual enjoy ment of those tights? Do you hope to see the Protestant and the Roman Catholic quietly together, administering the affairs of this Protestant State, and the Roman Catholic proving eq ually an efficient servant of the Crown with the Protestant ? If the ad vocates of the Catholic Question do not mean this, if they merely meant to remove the exclusion of the law, and withhold all prac tical benefit of the apparent concession, the Roman Catholics would be subject to restrictions more galling than before,• because they would now appear to rest on personal grounds, whereas, previously they were those of the law. There would be as much mastics. and no more satisfaction. But I ask, will the friends of the