The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

to the petition, evidently written by the same band. This be considered highly objectionable. Mr. H. BIiIC;'HT was satisfied this question could never be set completely at test, unless the House conceded all the Ca tholics ►eqoired, or resolutely took their stand where they now acre. He therefore strongly recommended that they should take t!atir stand where they now were. All who ;ap proved the Catholic Claims, were either directly, or by infe rence, accused of tr u lie would, however. say. that there was !attic rea-on t• suppose, that t hr Catholics, if their prayer were granted, woteld not return to their former op rressive and intolerant doctrines. Let the Protestant Ms. , " seater be first raised to his proper rank iis the State; and then it would hr time enough to consider what ought to be trone for the Catholic Dissenter. If the Protestant Dissenter sr:lsnot tote attended tn. why was the Catholic to be relieved from the test laws? It was necessary that the Honseshould consider ibis bafore they went further. The Bill passed, they could not t hen pause—that on which they decided, must repain for re-cr. Sir-JAMES MACKINTOSH contended, that the Petition did-not speak the sentiments of the great body of Catho lics of Staffordshire. It was destribed as coming from the catholic Clergy and Laity of that country. But whb were the great names comprehended in that body? He would ask whet hyr nu consideration was to be niade for the absence •of the name of the Earl of Shrewsbury ? Vas Lord Tor ton'c name worthy of no consideration? Where were the Cliffords—theJernyngbanis—the Blunts, the Fitzberberts ? He would. ask whither they were not to consider their excep tions as decisive against unanimity? These were the natural leaders of the Catholics, and'-:th.ev did not join in the objec tions mare by the Petitiouers. He.understood that, besides the Clergy, there was not the name of any one Catholic of distinction affixed to the Petition. It bad only been the work of Dr. Milder, the im•concileable enemy to all'union. No wonder . , bring an enemy to union and concord, that his pre sent exertion should be. hailed by Protestants who were in eneoc.ed by the same motives and dispositions. It was im possible to expect that any arrangement could be made to Kive satisfaction to Dr. Milner, or to the Hon. Member for s:quer+et, who stated his regret that the penal laws against the Catholics should have been repealed. Sir T. LETHURIDGE said, that if he had uted the expres sions attributed to hint by the Hon. Member, he had dune so unintentionally, hut to the test of hit recollection be did,not use them —(!fear, hear!) Mr. ELLIS (of Driblin).after what had been said respect ing Dr. Milner, wished to call the attention of the House to some Resolutions agreed to by the Irish Carbolic Bishops at Dublin, in the year IStO. The Resolutions expressed their thanks to the Rev. Doctor for his exertions in the Catholic cause as their avowed agent. Nit-. WYNNE s rid that the Boman Catholics of Ireland were not to be held responsible for the altered opinions of Dr. Milner. . . _ ..... Mr. ELLIS said that the Resolutions had been repeated cffcct,• twice since the year 1810, particularly in the year _ _ _ Mr. W.AII.RE wi,lied that when the Hon. Member told of what bad been done and said by Doctor Milner in 1810 and 5813, Ihat he would also state what he said in 1800. At that period Mr. Polisoulty read a letter in that House from Dr. Milner, consenting to similar arrangements which were then yraposed. Mr. WII.IIEIIFORCE explained in'so low a tone of voice as to be inan'ible in the Gallery. Mr. PEEL rose °tithe present occasion, because bethought it sight that the House should know the real facts of this part of the case. He thought that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis) had been misunderstood as to his object in reading the Re solutions of the Irish Prelates. He did not wish to involve the Homan Catholics of this emptily in any opinions held by Dr. Milner in 1810, but that afterwar ds that individual act ing as the agent of the Irish Prelates, objected to a former enactment, and with their decided acquiescence. But let them go at once to the fountain head for the opinion of the Prelates themselves, without examining whether they agreed to those of Dr. Milner or not. On the 19th of May, 1813, ilk,' came to a resolution that the provisions of the Act then introduced into Parliament could not be agreed to, be eaNse they would create schism in the Roman Cat holic Church. Be had said this much, because lie thought it right that the House should know what were the opinions of the Catholics themselves. Mr. N. CALVERT said a few words as to the hand-writing in which the signatures to the petition hppeared. Sir H. PARNELL wished to state to the House what had beett i the differences that occasioned the resolutions of the Prelates which hail been referred to. When they stated that they should be guilty of schism if they agreed to thr enact ments proposed in Isl 3, they meant by those words, that those enactments interfered with the discipline and nut the faith of the tti n iisii Catholic Church. Because if they agreed to those alterations without communicating with the see of Rome, they would base committed a breach of discipline. Therefore. the resolutions bad nothing to do with the present . perial.. Since the time when they were passed. the Prelates had been in eonnutioicistion with, the See of Rome, and they were now at Idierty to agree to the propositions. He thought, however, that the opinion of the Irish Prelates was not alto!retleer binding upon the Catholics of thiA Coun try, let it be "' sfliich way it. would. Witco the Bill of 1813 was communicated to tilt' See of Rome, the_ most per feet acilni escrice was expressed in its provisions. Therefore when the Right Hon. gentletrian endeavoured to bring forward the resolutions as conveying the opinions of the Irish Pre lates, it mist he with the view of impressing the House with the belief that they were opposed to ffesent The unfortunate differences which operated to prevent the passing of the last, ought DA to be excited upon the present occasion. lie had that morning received a letter from Ire land, which stated that tin re was already symptoms of that improved temper among the Catholic body which was so es sential to the great nit-cure now in contemplation. It was impossible to conceive what satisfaction the late decision of the House of Commons had given to all parties; and the final ad:sr:lion of the measure was looked forward to with the most anxious !lope, Mr. PEEL appealed to the House, whether the imputations cast upon hint by the Honourable Baronet were deserved.— (Hear, hear l;—The Honouralile Baronet said that it was unfair to refer to the opinions iif the Prelates before they held communication with the See of Rome. Now be livid in his hand at that moment a paper signed by the Roman Catholic Bishops, after having communicated with the See of Rome.— (Cries of Spoke :")—He would appeal to Honourable Gentlemen whet her he was not to state a simple fact upon the point which, was before the Ifou.-.e. lie meant to found no argument upon it. He 'hew no inference from it. And he should have thought that the came-which Honourable Mem bers supported, Was too good to depend upon mire forms in order to prevent the statement °fa plain tact to the House— (Cheers).—The resolution to which be alluded was agreed to in 1/U4, after receiving the acquiescence of the See of Borne to the Catholic Bill.. It expressed their hope that Mr. Cratt-ts would support the Bill in Pasliament, but that lie would endeavour to exclude ceitain clauses which it contained. Dr. PH ILLINIORE did think it a most tunfair thing to press fors, ard opinions held in 181.1, and which the parties - now re nounced. He contended that the petition did not express the sentiments of the most important Onsses of the Catholic Liddy in the counties from which it came. Sir H. PARNELI, explained. Mr. DAWSON made an inquiry of the Hon. Baronet (sir IL Rand!) as to the fetter which he had read to the liou , e. He wished to know whether it was frJuf any of the Public Authorities in Ireland ? Sir H. PAIINILLL said, that the letter was private, but it certainly came hour a source likely to be well informed upon the subject. Sir ACKINTOSrI.was utterly astonished at what bad .fallen fi at the 1(lulit Hun. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel). I le. lii-earrirelytittawarr- , -and it is-as - a mat terpf I he most vital importance to the statement he had made, but be seemed to be wholly unaware of the reieipts of Monseigneur Ctiarentolli, and of Cardinal Litt a of Genoa, made in the year 1815, conveying a qualified negative to the nomination of. Cat hulic Bishops in _England. The Bight Honourable Gentleman did nut appear to know that Pope Pius the 7th, in 181.5, addressed a letter to the Bishops, in explanation of this qualified negative to these propositions, after the resolutions which he had read. Or if he did, how came he to state that the determination of the Prelates had been come to before they had received the sanction at the See of Rothe.—(Hear, heat!) Either he was unaware of the existence of these doennionts, or else his assettion went to prove that the Irish Prelates acted independent of the See of Rome. If he was in the latter dilemma, then be must give up all his arguments against the present 13111 upon the ground of the dependeoce of Catholics upon a foreign Pat riareli.—(Cheers ) Mr. PEEL was quite aware of the existence of the docu ments to which the Han. and Learned :Member alluded, and he had directly alluded to that of Monseignenr Cuarentolii, When he spoke of the communications with tins See of Rome. He stated it at the time, and certainly could hare no object its concealing - the existence of these papers. There was only one way of putting an end to the argutnent upon this point, if he should jounit any argument upon the facts, and that was by prodticing fre s h resolutions of the Irish Prelates containing a disavowal of the sentiments contained in those he had ;cad to the House. After a few words from Sir J. NEWPORT, and an Hon. Member whose name could nut be ascertdined, the Petition %Its ordered to be printed. ' Mr. toKE - presetoed r Petition from the Archdeacon and (`ferrymen of the Established Church residing in the !No utasc ut Net wieb, stspport of the catly.dics' Bill. The Hon. Member stated his cordial concurrence with the prayer of the Petition. Mr. WODEBOUSE baring bad to present a Petition of a contrary nature fans' the some Diiierke, and signed by Clergymen, begged to state, that he could not agree with Ilk [lon. Colleague in the pre.erit one. He regret ted that the terra I.igut had been used 4y either party in the recent discussion. _ The,Petition was ordered to be printed. Lord PALNlERSTON'presented a Petition from the Uni versity of Cambridge against the Catholics' 11 11. The Peti tioners viewed with the greatest apprehension the admission of persons holding the Roman Catholic religion to power. They considered that it would he striking at the su premacy of the King, and consequently at the most ancient rights and prerogatives of the Crown. The Noble Lord stated his regret at ditieling with the setts intents of his constituents ; but as he saw no danger in irlieving the disqualifications of the Roman Catholics, it was his intention to support the Bill ; and if it passed, as he hoped it would, the day on which it received the Koval Assent would he a most auspicious one for the interests of the whole empire. It was fair to state that the petition had not lietuitmanimously agreed to,but that although it was opposed, it certainly expressed the opinions of the ma joi it y of the t !niverit V. Mr. SMITI I corroLorated what had fallen from his Noble Colleague relative to the division which existed in the Uni versity upon the merits of the present question. He trusted, that throughout the discussion of the measure; the different parties would act' Upon the principle of mutual forbearance; and that whatever decision the House might eventnally arrive at, it would be the result of calm deliberation.—The petition was ordered to be printed. Lord E. SOMERSET presented a Petition from the Clergy - of Stow, in Gloucestershire, against the Bill for removing- Ca tholic disabilities.—Ordered to be ',tinted.. Mr. C. GRANT Oesented a Petition from Roman Catholic merchants in the town of Galway in favour of the Bill for removing Roman Cat holic disabilities.—Ordered to be printed. Sir E. KNAT(IIIIIILL presented a Petition against the Bill from Tunbridge lVells.—Ordered to lie printed. Mr. M. FITZGERALD presented a Petition in favour of the Bill from the !lonian Catholics of Tratee. ROMAN CATHOLICS' BILL. Mx. PLUNKLTT intended to trespass upon the time of the House, but a very short time indeed. He had but too lately experienced a very ample portion of the kindness of the House, to engage much of its attention upon the present occasion. His object was merely to put the House in pos session of the outline, and not the detail of the Bill, which he had had the honour to introduce. When he first took the liberty of declaring his opinions to the House, he stated that he brought forward the measure with one primary object, that of doing a great public good. And although he then disavowed the influence of any motives regarding the irritation which prevailed in the country, yet he did express a hope, that if the measure was a just one, as he believed it to, be, that immediate satisfaction to the country would be the effect produced. He had the greatest pleasure in stating, that since the resolu tion which the House had come to on that occa sion, the' expectations in which he then ventured to indulge, had beef► more than realized. The effect of that resolution upon the country had far exceeded his most sanguine hope. But those would do him the greatest injustice• who thought that he harboured the chimerical idea of giving satisfaction to all parties. There were indeed some persons with whom he would not attempt such a thing, inasmuch as he knew that to be sa tisfied, was the greatest misery imaginable.— (A laugh.)—To those he did not wish to address himself, as he was aware that argument would never convince them. And if the measure he proposed were carried to-morrow, they would be as well pleased as if it were rejected altogether. —(A laugh.)—He deprecated what had been said by an Hon. Member, taxing him with hav ing applied the charge of bigotry to those who opposed the present measure., He never could have used the epithet for, than such a line of conduct or of argument, nothing was more fo reign 'from his heart. The party who opposed him, he considered to have an undoubted right to his utmost respect 4 and deference. The opinions which he himself cherished must be his errors ; and no man in the universe was more ready to yield them, if he could be convinced of their fallacy. For himself, and in behalf of his Friends, it was , necessary to declare that they had pro ceeded in all transactions connected with the measure, with the greatest deference to all Pro testant communications, giving free access to all argument which might be offered on the subject. They had recurred to the sufferings cif the Roman Catholics—they had recusred to the feelings of the Protestants; always keeping in mind that nothing should be yielsled which would con tinue the one, and nothing asked that might be inconsistent with the other. The state of the public mind in Ireland upon the progress which the measure had made was most gratifying.— The public mind in England, according to the Hon. Member for Somerset, was in a state of apathy. But that which he so called apathy, was what he (Mr. Plunkett) called a disposition to leave the case in the hands of Parliament as its most natural and its best judges, and not to disturb its deliberations by unnecessary clamour. He should now proceed to one of the exact pro visions of the Bill. Before doing so, however, he wished to set himself right in the opinion of the Douse upon what fell from him upon a pre vious occasion. He did assert that the franchises and offices of the State were the free right of every Roman Catholic liege subject of the realm. lie did state that they could not be excluded from those offices upon the just elements and principles of the Constitution. He now re-asserted, that in the same" sense as a Protestant claimed that eligi bility as a right, so also did the Roman Catholic claim it. But he said nothing was so absurd as that these rights were not liable to be restricted or controlled if any expediency or necessity of the State should call for it. If any just cause could be shewn why they ought not to enjoy those rights, then the Roman Catholic must yield. But he did say, and he would repeat, that the natural right existed as much in the one as in the other. He begged to ask, where the Protes tant founded his claim to the right of voting for a Member of Parliament, or of sitting in Parlia ment himself? Where was it written? He knew not where he would find it, except in the same source which also gave it to the Roman Catholic ; namely, the essence, the elements, the stamina of the Con stitution. All the difference between the two bodies was this :—the Roman Catholic, by the Act of Chas. 11. had been excluded from the en joyment of those rights. Aud did he deny the authority ? No ? he said that temporary circum stances of danger rendered it necessary. The Monarch upon the Throne was suspected of Ca tholicism, and the acts were necessary as a de fence. But these (hangers were now passed away. There was no snspectedMOnarch upon the Throne, The Protestant religion was firmly established ; and those restrictions ought in justice to cease. Now, if he was told that' the danger had not passed over, he must meet those who asserted it fairly upon the question, and that he•was always ready to do. But if any one should say that there was a spirit _of exclusion in the Act of Charles 11. extending in its operation beyond the circumstances which he had aescribed,, then he,. would challenge them to the best records of our Constitution for the proof. lie denied that this measure would involve the question of the Pro testant Dissenters. The two questions must al- Ways stand separately and upon their own merits. If the Roman Catholic clainas were strong, and he could spew that there was no danger in ad mitting them, then they ought to be granted, and it was upon these grounds that he argued for their admission. But what had that to do with' the claims of the Dissenters ? If they had the same claims, and they could prove the same ab sence of danger in granting them, then let that question be brought forward. He had his opinion upon it, and when necessary he should be ready to declare it. But he was not to be seduced into any expression of that opinion upon the present occasion. Perhaps the House would permit him to explain the state of the Dissenters in Ireland. The Irish Dissenter was not at this moment sub ject to any Corporation or Test Act. In 17-1.3 an Act • was passed releasing him from their ope ration, and from that hour he had been admissi ble to all offices and situations ; whilst at the same time the rom an Catholic was excluded. So that if the admissibility of the Dissenter in Ire, land did not affect the admissibility of the Roman Catholic, neither would they by admitting the Roman Catholic in England, open the door to the Dissenter. In 1780 an Act was passed by which the Protestant Dissenter in Ireland was freed from taking the Sacramental Test. The words of that Act were as precise and explicit as they could. possibly be. It stated, "The Protestant Dissenter shall not .be subject to the Sacramental Test." In 1793, an Act was passed by which the Roman Catholic was declared subject to no other qualification than the Dissenter was liable to. The conse: quence, as. one would naturally suppose, then was, that•both• were relieved from the Sacramen tal Test. But then it was assumed that the Act of 1748 applied to the Protestant Dissenter, butnot to the Dissenter of the Established Church. An._ Act was then introduced into the Irish Parliament explaining the Act of 1780, and making the former Act embrace both classesof DisSenters. The Bill, however, .was finally re jected. lie should now proceed to the imme-, diate objects of the Bill.' •It comprised two dis tinct objects. That of the 'cirelf!Psta,”c which went against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that of the question of the Oath of Supre macy. Respecting the former, he need not take up much of the time of the House upon that subject. - Tie never yet heard of any person • who contended for the necessity of that de claration ; and he believed it was neither re quired for the purposes of Religion nor of Christianity. lie contended' also, that it was. latterly imperfect as a security. It was compe tent fors person to-morrow to truce the oaths which .sere intended to exclude him from Par liament, then enter the House, and declare that he was a Papist. He would then pass to that part of tht, Bill. Which related to the Oath of Su premacy. And he must own that lie had been struck with some surprise when a Right Re-v. Gentleman had taken upon himself. to say, that the oath, .as given in the Bill, was inconsistent with tho Roman Catholic Religion. lie was jus tified-in saying', that the laws excluding the See of Rome .from interference with English affairs, were previous to the Reformation ; and it there fore was absurd to imagine there was any thing in the catholic Religion incompatible, with the best security of the State. In support of this po sition, the Right lion. 'Member referred to the words of exception in the Statute of Philip andl Mary. The Act of Elizabeth followed', which ex pounded the oath required by the preceding Acts, and declared that " it meant nothing but what was of right due to her Majesty's Noble Father, King Henry the Eighth, and to King Edward the Sixth, her brother." This explanation was as obvious as possible. He had also the autho ill - rity of Bishop Burnet on this who, in speaking of this explanatory Act, had observed, " that the moderation of Government in this re spect was evident, for the object of these oaths was not to entrap men, but to make that which was required of. them" apparent to every under standing."• This authority of Burnet explained the policy of Elizabeth with respect to the oath in question. In further support of his position, the Right lion. Member referred to the 37th of the• Articles of the Established Church, ' which declared that the King's Majesty had the chief power, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within. the realm, and was not and ought not to be sub ject to any Foreign Power. These, the Right Hon. Member observed, were the terms of the Articles of our own Established Church, and it surely was too much at the present • day to put an interpretation upon thein - unraiourable to the Roman Catholics.. Having thus, as he trusted, satisfied the House of the propriety of the relaxa tion of the present laws, be would state the mode in which the explanation of the oath was pro posed. He had upob reflection thought it better to alter the form of the Bill as it originally stood, and to substitute words which should recite the present oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and that the Roman Catholics were ready to take those. oaths, but that they felt scruples as to whether it might not be understood that those words denied the spiritual authority of the Pope. The clause should then go on't'o state the expla natory words. At present he proposed to go into the Committee, and if it it should be found that any better mode of expression could be adopted, he would be happy to support it ; but he entreated the House not to look at this ques tion with the eyes of metaphysicians ; of casuists, or of critics ; but to apply to it their good con stitutional comlnon sense.—(Hear!)----fn the hope that they would do so, lie should go into the Committee with a confidence that the object, which be trusted was desired by all, would be accomplished. He now came to the enacting part of the Bill. Originally he had introduced words declaring that the law proposed to be re laxed should be abrogated ; but he had cut out these words and inserted others, which he hoped would be found more conciliatory. The next clause stated that no other oath should be taken than the following ; and then went on to state the oath. He proposed to substitute another form, buLhe would just make a few observations upon tiN prNeut law, as it affectedsßoman Ca tholics, with respect to the inheritance of lauded property :—They were originally shut out under the term Papists; but even at the present time, the taking of any oath was not necessary to the acquiring of laud. lie would rather abolish all distinctions of oaths ; but at present he must be content with the explanation of the oath required. He was not prepared to say that every Roman Catholic would adopt the proposed explanation, for there were some who probably would not.— Then they might complain, that the present Bill, so far from being a relief, was comparatively, an additional difficulty ; but he had formed the clause so as to steer clear, if possible, from all objection, and he had framed it thus :—Every person desirous of taking the oath, should apprsar before the proper Officer of the Court of Justice in England, Ireland and Scotland, and then in open Court should take and subscribe the existing oaths ; and that it should be lawful for every person so taking the oath to require the officer to read the explanation proposed by the Bill, which explanation the officer should be required to read at the time of the taking of the oath, This clause be trusted would in all respects be satisfactory. The oath would be taken under the old law, and the explanation would be no part of the oath :—(llear!)—but the officer was required to give the explanation at the time. The clause then went on to say that no other oath should be re quired. The Rt. lion. Member then referred to the Oath of Allegiance takers in Ireland. lie thought there should be no separation of oaths; but if it were denied by the Protestant that the oath should be taken, the Catholics, he conceiv ed, would not object to take it, though it was conceived somewhat of an affront to desire it. On this subject also he would with pleasure re ceive the suggestion of any Honourable Member. Having explained the Oath of Supremacy, he arrived at the Clauses of Exception. The prin cipal was that which went to disable a Roman Catholic from holding the office of Lord High Chancekor, Lord Commissioner, or other great office mentioned in the Act. Be thought the Exception ought not to be carried any farther, because as all eminent offices were in the gift of the Crown, it was obvious that the Crown had the means of being satisfied of the loyalty and integrity, as well zs the ability of every Catholic, before giving him any appointment of trust. He was aware, however, that he should here be opposed by a Right Honoura ble Member, of whom he never could speak but in terms - of the most perfect respect. He understood that that Right honourable Person wished to carry the exception farther, and to pre vent Roman Catholics sitting on the Bench.— (Here Sir William Scott, to whom the Right Honourable Member appeared to address him self, bowed assent.)—He regretted it,' because ii these distinctions and jealousies were kept up, little or no real good would, he feared, result from the present measure. He now came to the second branch of the subject :—He alluded to the laws relating to the intercourse of English subjects with the See of Rome. This inter course had been carried on for spiritual pur poses' for many years, principally upon the appointment of Roman Catholic Bishops.— Though the approbation of the Bishop lay with the Pope, he did not practically appoint . those Bishops ; and as the danger from the intercourse in question was merely theoretical, he cen ceived a theoretical remedy would be sufficient to meet it. lie would however say a few pre fatory words upon the mode of appointing the Bishops. There were three modes. The first was an appointment by the Bishops to fill up the vacancy. The second was by the Dean and Chapter ; and the third by the Parochial Clergy ; but all these modes were to the exclusion of the Pope, who exercised no substantial right on this subject. On this head he should provide an oath, declaring, that the person who took that oath, denied all right in any foreign power to over throw or endanger the policy of the Church of England. He should then go on to provide the mode of appointing the Bishops. This mode differed very little from that which was suggest ed in principle by the- Bill of 1813. By that Bill, it was necessary that all persons who were appointed by the. Crown to fill the va cancy should have taken the necessary oath be fore the occurrence of the vacancy; but by, the present Bill he proposed, that it should be sufficient if the Oath were taken before the appointment of the Crown. He thought this measure would be cheerfully agreed to by all. It was now proposed that the Commission issu ing from the Crown to fill up the vacancy, should contain an equal number of Lay PUMAS -with the Clergy ; notwithstanding an objection which it was understood that the latter had to the in terference of Lay Persons with these matters. Since that time the Pope had signified his assent to this arrangement, and there was every reason to suppose it would be generally approved of. fie remembered that on a former occasion, when the Roman Catholic Clergy refused to permit this interference, it was said, " give us the proof that what you desire will, be accepted, and then we will legislate." But was Parliament to go about inquiring what would be accepted by the Roman Catholic Clergy ?----(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear !)—Parliament would do what it con ceived to be just, and would feel no doubt in the acquiescence of the subject_ to the laws of the Constitution. He had one more observa. titan to make respecting the appointment of Bishops :—he should himself have preferred a domestic nomination, but on inquiry, he found the Roman Catholics had, no settled principle of nomination ; and he trusted that, on the whole, the present Bill would put tin end to the present great and important question. Having addressed himself to time points of relaxation, he came to consider those of security ; and these he had thooght better to.inteOdtice into a Separate Bill. lie trusted no one would suppose that any Mem , ber connected with the Bill would be so disin genuous as to yield the pOints of concession with out being careful of the proper security.----. (Hear.)—With respect to the benefits, they might by many be thought very acceptable, while others might not think them worth the accep.4 tan ce ; but „ he .had every reason to believe, that 7 the smallest conuession, even the permitting a Roman Catholic Otrritter to wear a silk gown,: would be accepted. Ile had formed the mea sures of concession on the one hand, and security on the other, into two Bills, because he thought that course the most conciliatory. rihere was but one topic more upon which he should touch. He alluded to the measure of which notice had been given by an Honourable Friend, respect.: • ing the support ofthe Roman Catholic Clergy.— He should not consent to the measure, - and 1w trusted that his Hon. Friend, cm reflection, would be induced not to press it. At a foture sealon„_ such a measure would be kindly received by :the Catholic Clergy, but at present It must be consi dered as premature. The Catholic Clergy could not enter into any stipulation of this description,. until the rights of their flocks Fad been gi'rea. them; lest they (the Clergy) should be exposed to unworthy imputations. No person he thoup,bt was competent to bring forward such a Inearare unless he were armed with di assent of Govere went ; but at a proper time, and with that asneW, • he had no doubt any such measure would be Ceived by the Roman Catholic Clergy w 7.111 thankfulness. Having now'gone through the va-. rious topiCs -which this subject suggested tt. him, he solemnly called upon the Legislattve to put an end to the present question. The laws in force against the Catholics admittad of some apology at the time of their enact ment, and various unfortunate - circumstances had prevented their repeal. Elizabeth was surrounded by powerful foreign enemies, and iii the subsequent reigns it generally happeneti• that when the Catholics were warmly attached to the Constitution the Sovereigns we re no t. Et was a hardship that Popery, the present disabili ty, had been introduced into Ireland by land ; for the conquest of the former necessarilr introduced the Religion of the. latter ; and Ito admitted that it had been sown in a most • flour- • iihing soil. The enjoyment of . Civil Liberty had enabled us to see the light, and when upon conviction we dislodged Popery from our own country, we attempted to dislodge it in I re land, without giving the Irish those rights wbielt had enabled us to discover the truth.--(ilear,• hear, hear !)—The Roman Catholics had gem rally been patient and tranquil under thuir suflerings..—(Cheers.)—He had a right to 51 Y . that they had generally been tranquil ; for it was notorious that the Rebellion of 1798 had been brought about by Protestants, and conduct ed by Protestant leaders. In conclusion, he trusted the House would not deprive themselves of the satisfaction, or the Throne the enjoyment, of receiving the brightest and most acceptable. tribute which could be given by the honest bog som—the gratitude of the Raman Catholics ; gratitude which would stimulate them tiy an 40 7 creased affection for their fellow F A bj v ets; an attachment to the Constituth-A, iii support 4", which they would sacrifice ;heir property ant their blood.—(Loud and continued cheers.) On theque,§tion being put from the Chair, Sir W.-SCOTT said, the Bill .which his Right Honourable Friend had introduced had bee° printed, and in circulation for a fortnight, s° that the minds of "%leathers must have been made up, and. they wer . :, sion upon •f r pared to co.alk; - 1.0 a `discus_.; . But now his Right Hon. Frio!! hf.... 1 Introduced a number of alterations, of suet. variety and extent, that he appealed to an)' Member who had heard the statement, whethe r he could fully u n d ers t an d th e b ear i ng o f it, and which at any rate they had had no opportunity of considering. He now appealed with confidenc e to the House on the question, whether they cou ld know in what state the Bill would he after tiles° alterations had been made ? He therefore sub mitted to his Right Hon. Friend's own candou r Ohether some method• should not be taken put the House la possession of The alteratiell: proposed before the discussion. The a lteratioa were of that magnit u d e that th e y a mounted to, ; declaration that the Bill in its present state coul d not be supported.—(Hear, hear !)--4n that case , what course was to be taken ?, Were they t° • proceed to the discussion of 'a Bill which I leol been abandoned. This would be to ,waste tho time of the House. He shoald therefore 01" b e • obliged to his 'Right. Honourable Friend - r . Plunkett) if h e wou ld su b m it an y course ". hict r could put them iu_posses s i on of the Bill :1.'"" be proposed. Mr. PLUNKETT said, he was not sensible tlutt he had proposed any alt era ti on • in . the princ- i P t ` 4 ' of the Bill.--(Hea4D—He might have reserved himself to the Committee to propose his amend ments, but he thought it fair and candid to ar prize the House of what he intended to do. lie was not aware that there was• any doinplexity his proposed amendment. The House W 35 , crowded, and his voice might not, have been dis" tinct ; but there certainly was, in the alterations of which he had given notice, no problem which presented a difficulty' so difficult, that a mind very inferior to his flight Hon. Friend's migh t. not solve.—(A laugh.) The question was put, 44 That this Bill be noz rr! RANK adaseEci said,o ndtrz" M was of the Bill which they were now called ur n 0 1* read a second time would carry many ev c “.• those who were willing - to Make some con, c i e r s ,,, - , - ly subjectv,suni versal rti;ht to the Catholics further than they would every n a o l o ffi g c u e s — toa afraid the priociPl:) go, as it asserted the right of admission of eve'? Ite (Mr. Bankes) stood on this ground, that no State t should admit into share of the Government persons who, to be consistent with themselves, must desire the destruction cif a considerable part of that Government. Nov the ,Roman Ca tholics,/of. whom individually and generally tic wished to speak with the greatest respect, must li ra n d iv i e c r a s l a t i lo s c u t ir ri r t; e g : f desire the destruction of a great part of the Go vernment; he meant the Protestant Church.— \