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

(Hear, hear! acid appiause by clapping of hands —cries of order !):—He did hot wish to speak of the Catholics in the spirit of bigotry, but con sistently with themselves they must entertain this opinion, and on such a question he felt it his duty to speak out firmly and freely. If any one conceived, as he did, that the principle of the Bill aimed at the existence of the Protestant es tablishment, it was his duty to speak out, or he Would, be guilty of treachery to the Constitution. - -(Hear, hear !)—lle attributed nothing to the Church of Rome but whit she gloried in ; the Principles with regard to their own Church, and those who differed from them, were as strong as ever. There was no communion, no salvation out of their Church,they could have no intercourse with any other Church ; it was as impossible, as the Pope himself said, , as a communication be tw'een Christ and Belial—(Hear !)-Those Ca tholics, therefore, who were consistent with them selves,could have no other desire than that the Pro testant Establishment should remain.—(Hear !) _Even those who supported this Bill, thought there was some danger of this kind, or why did, they propose securities at all.—(Hear, hear !) lf the general principle was laid down so broadly as it was in the Bill, why was any se curity proposed ? Why was the Catholic exclud ed from any office on account of any tenets, pro- Nltied he were, as the Right Hon. Gentleman t°r:ne,l it, a liege and loyal subject.—(Hear ~711 y were we to exclude the Sovereign on the Throne from that freedom of conscience which was claimed for all his subjects?—(Hear!)—Why, but that having laid down a principle, they found it so revolting that they were obliged to narrow it by contradictory exceptions'—(Hear!)—lt was not on the tenets of the Catholics that the friends of the Bill relied. They wished to derive from the impracticability of carrying the tenets into execution, what he (Mr. B.) wished to derive from some more certain source. Another source of se curity was said to be the small change which the would effect in their political condition. It was said, that there would be only 8 or 10 Catholic Peers and Members of that House, who could not exceed 100. He (lh. B.) said, that even l snch a number as. 100, or even a smaller number, of Members of Parliament, leagued for any one Purpose, could not be long without an opportu nity of accomplishing it. Divided as parties were in that House, it had happened, and it always would happen, that 100 men, acting in one body and with one mind, could effect almost any ob ject, And when they knew under what circum stances elections took place, and what the wealth and connections of the Catholics were, he ap pealed to the House whether, in a particular Par liament, the Catholics might not te an object With them, to get a vastly greater number of Members? -(Hear, hear I)—What was the se curity they had against the danger from such a cuirtingency ? They had the declaration, that the Protestantism of the Crown and of the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, "were permanently and inviolably established. What was meant by permanent and inviolable ? glow weak and powerless was such .a de- elaration against all the changes of circum stances which time might roll on ! Who was There so Weak as to legislate for futurity ? The 1 1 otes which were to succeed us would legislate O r themselves. Could • we rely on such mise rable securities as declarations of permanence and ? lle had heard the Right lion. ' e htleman (Mr. Plunkett) say, that measure 4 ,. a s to close the door on future agitation. Was • , ;"-Possible that his acute and logical . mind could , -v°l 4 seeing, that what had happened before • 4111 st happen again ; that while any thing re • t lll i ainecl' they would grasp it; that in granting St eps to prayers, they were only building up b ePs to climb to ecclesiastical dominion ? The "-ight Hon. Gentleman would allow him to ask, Ether the body of the Catholics could feel a interest as to admission to a few offices, "h ich one way o r th e o th e r could scarcely affect 1 'reland, and yet be indifferent to what most men w ere alive to, a tax upon their property ? The tholics must consider it amaterial evil that they • Should be taxed for the maintenance - of a Church w hich they abhorred; or 'they must be made diffe eotly fr om o th er men ,if th a t w hi c h presse d on t h em nost affected them least. When, therefore, any Political power was given into the hands- of this .Bect, would they not set themselves to free them .selves from this burthen, and were there no other °f li his Majesty's subjects who would aid them in 1 143 undertaking ? (Hear he Catholics 1 : ( 11d have th rown i n t o th e i r sca l e th e w h o l e e ight of the Protestant Dissenters, who, though acAugrant to them, would co-operate with them eost - a common grievance.—(hear, hear!)— 11: 1 lion. Gent. (M r : C ro k er ) b a d given noti ce , I„ 4 i t . in the Committee he should move for a pro- NZ for the Irish Clergy. The Hon. Gent. jar o . 't save him - self the trouble, for if he put power be the hands of the Catholic Church they would atpabled to help themselves. 'That the Protest tua, ChOrch i n I re land could maintain its supre n li) ascendancy, and _possessions, after the • 44, Passed, would be as inconceivable as that 4 u j t i "own cause should. not produce its known s u C Ommon effects. When it was proposed to o ePort the Catholic Clergy, would it escape k se rvation th a t th ere was ano th er Cl ergy sup r,ted on the tith e s of that co un t r y ? O r wou ld b be strang e th a t i n a ti me o f diffi cu l ty i t m i g h t 4, e l ,prop osed to make - an alteration in benefices a ppointments ? The mode in which theitight 1 .," 11 . Ge n tl eman b rought forward this measure ~;as mor e o bj ect i ona b le than that in which Mr. ‘ -i attan prop ose d it ; f or h e (Mr, Grattan) ll i ted i n t h e same Bill concession and security. .w P .eY were now in two distinct Bills. Se e , then, g hat might happen. The Bill o f C oncess i on Zght be passed, while the Bill of Security might rejected. Or, supposing both of them the Clergy might reject the securi -7 hey would then have put the laity in 1131;ssession of s ea t s i n Parliament, yet they would e had th e i r securities rejected as they were -811.—(11ear !)—Was this'imprObable ? Did - leY not find in 1811, that the Catholics held in execration the proposed securities ? The Lay jCatholics then admitted into the possession ul power might they always hd - . s upport ne) their pastors) might a ss ay correspondenace with the See of Rome i'v'as purely a religimiS ter, and endeavour" to mOdiffit to their Measure. It was said, however, that we were in a situa tion. in which we could not stand long ; that we must do something. lie (Mr. B.) had no hesi tation in saying that the grant of the Elective Franchise to the Catholics of Ireland was dictated by an absurd policy—that they should not have granted so much or should have given more.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—He was not, how ever, a party to that decision of the Irish Go vernment; if it had come before him he did not think he could have been so blind as to have grant ed it. But then it was said, why not repeal what had been so improvidently conceded We knew, however, that there were many thin g s which it was unwise to give, but when granted could not be retracted ; and this was a main ob jection with him to the present Bill—that they should not take, on so essential a question, a doubtful step, which they could never retrace. .For this reason also he 'objected to the Union.— He thought that measure most imprudent, be cause, whatever burden Ireland might .be to us, we could never be relieved from it. But he would noi, bccaune too much had been yielded, cease to defend what was left. Quod datum est non volui, quod reliquum est non Bubo. If it was intended to put the English on the same footing as the Irish Catholics, he should not object to it; but the friends of moderate concession must now see, that unless the Catholics had all they asked, they would not thank you, and especially if you denied them seats in Parliament, they thought every thing else nothing. -In 1814, when they might have had the most material concessions, those who managed the Bill had abandoned it the moment that- seats in Parliament were ex cepted. Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that to remain in the present state was big with danger, and further steps were imperiously demanded. It had been held by the wisest politicans, that persecution was not only the most wicked, but the most foolish of 'all proceedings. Nothing could he so absurd as to harmonize persecution with the British Constitution. Ireland had at one time been called the Mother of the Saints, and then posses sed more real piety than any other part of Europe. Ireland had expended much of her best .blood in the service of Britain-; but at one time the policy was to separate parents from children, and chil dren from parasols. At last, as the age became more enlightened, we became by degrees ashamed of our conduct. Whether the time for the Union had been properly chosen, or not, and whether the claims of the Catholics should not have been pre viously settled, he .should not then inquire. But he well remembered what Mr. Pitt had said at the time, that in the event of the Union, the claims of the Catholics would be granted with more safety, or refused with more justice. It appeared that nothing was so • much adapted to excite discontent, as to allow things to remain in their present state. Did his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes) thinissthings could remain in their present state? The possession of political power could not be refused- to those who had the means of acquir ing great landed property. Let the Roman Ca- tholics come into the h ouse, for here we can deal with them—( Loud and continued applause.)--The Catholics had not known the British Constitution in its dignified and liberating powers. If the Priests were supposed to lusve too much power, the best way to lessen. that was,by allowing Catho lics to have seats in that House; and the Catholic religion, if it were as bad as some had described it, would be improved by being incorporated with the principles of the British Constitution. He would suggest to his lion. Friend, that in places where - Catholics had the majority, they might choose Protestant Representatives, who might be subservient to their wishes, and as much danger might be apprehended in that way as by Catholics themselves having seats in that House. In the view he took of the case, he relied much upon the progress of education, and the increas ing diffusion of light and knowledge. Many of the Roman Catholics had been ornaments to their age and country, and he might in particular cite the name of the amiable and enlightened Fene- Jon. The present state was not one of restric tion, but of degradation. It was wearing the prison suit after the prisoner was at large. This country was remarkable for all being aware that they had the protection of the laws. But in Ireland the - feeling was one of resistance to the laws. But when Ireland came to enjoy the bless ings of the Constitution, her character would be dulcified and liberalised. He was confident that the .part he was advocating' was one of sound policy, and a proper return to that country, to whose exertions Great Britain had been so deeply indebted.—(Cheering:) Mr. B. BATHURST then rose, but so much con fusion prevailed in the House, owing to the with drawing of several Members both from the gal s leries and the floor, that we were not fortunate enough to collect, for some time, a single sentence of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech. The bustle rather increasing than subsiding— Lord CASTLEREAGH entreated a fair hearing for his Right Hon. Friend. It was very rarely and with great relutance that he had ever found himself under the necessity of making this sort of request to Hon. Gentlemen ; but - surely in a question of this •vital interest and magnitude it was highly important that the people of England should have the benefit of every lion. Gentle man's opinion, and highly becoming that House to give every lion; Gentleman a patient- hear ing.—(Cheers.) Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST resumed. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Wilberforce, we imagin^) had con founded the question of civil and legislative rights, when he had touched upon the blessings of the British Constitution. The question, as he had put it, relating to religious disqualifications, was one of rather an ecclesiastical than a public character; but as it regarded ,legislative non eligibility, he (Mr. Bathurst) considered it to be of a public character, and. he would therefore meet it on that ground. The Honour able. Gentlethan ought to have remembered that they- all lived under a Constitution which was Protestant, both in its stature and its substance. Was it to he wondered at, or made matter of objection ; in the first place, if thewexcluded from , the great CotincilS of 0 . 16 those tilfo were - of a religion different from that- ithich Wits established and acknowledged in and by the state itself; and considering too; that the Head of that State Was himself so boUnd and so situ ated, that lie could not absolve his own private conscience from the observance of these duties which'it imposed upon him ?—(The Right lion. Gentleman went on to answer the argument of Mr. Wilberforce, as well as we could hear him, in detail.)—The lion. Member had said he would not contend for the abstract question of right, in its full extent ; but his reasoning went to spew the necessity of conceding such rights, in fact, to an extent as large as that embraced by the Bill of the• Rt. Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunkett). — Now there was a' point at which the lion. Mem ber must stop, because the law itself would pause there; and he (Mr. Bathurst) might instance here the highest dignities of the law. Then came the question, whether or no they would go Or , ther than that point? Notwithstanding all the ri dicule that had been attached to the idea of permanent legislation, yet as to the present case, any regulation, so far as it might go, must be permanent. The concession • itself must be pertnanent; for, once conceded, it could never be withdrawn as a part of concession; the only alteration which could occur must be on its increase, or its re-modelling, but it could never be withdrawn. 'The Right Hon. Member concluded a spreCl4.olSome length, the greater part of which was inaudible in the gallery, by moving as an amendment—" That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." Mr. WILBERFORCE explained. _ _ Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH and Mr. METCALFE rose at the same moment; but, in consequence of the general cry of" new member," Sir J. Mac intOsh sat down. Air. AIETcALFE then addressed the House, b ht from the low tone in which the Hon.. _MITI - libel. expressed himself, w•e were unable to catch any of his observations. We understood him to sup port the Bill. _ _ _ Sir J. MACKINTOSH said it was not his inten tion to address the House in detail. lje rose chiefly to answer the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, whose arguments were in op position to sound political doctrines made in that House by the greatest and most eloquent men. His object also was to call the attention of the House to a new circumstance which had occurred during the last four years, and which made it im possible not to support a measure like that be foie the House, unless they were resolved to vio late common sense, and pervert the best princi ples of civil government. The Catholics, by re cent Acts of Parliament, were allowed to hold situations in the Army and Navy, but they could fill no civil office. The Duke of Norfolk could not sit in Parliament, yet the Catholics were al lowed to hold arms for the security, of Parlia ment. This was an anomaly in the policy of the Constitution, the principles of which conferred civil rights upon the soldier that he might be induced to support the Civil Government. He could not suppose any case more dangerous than that where the military force of the country was entrusted to persons excluded from political power. Men thus alienated from liberty was asonualous in the civil laws of mankind. It was a worse state than that of James the Second, who ultimately placed civil liberty in the hands of his Roman Catholic subjects. The English Constitution had attached the military with arms in their hands to the Civil Constitution, by giving them rights which sprang from the ancient Constitution in existence before Titus Oates. All Catholic countries had adopted that policy with res pect to Protestants. He eulogised the con duct of Mr. Pitt on the subject of conces sion to Catholics, and contended that the Mea sures of that Statesman in favour of the Catholics was an enlightened act of civil policy. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman quoted the 40 yearS war occasioned by religious preju dices in France, and read extracts from the Edict of Nantes, stating, at the same time, that peace and happiness in society was restored by admit ting Protestants and Catholics alike to civil offices. His Honourable Friend who had brought forward the cause of the Catholics had proved himself one of the most illustrious men of the present age. Mr. PEEL said it was not his intention to go at length into any general detail ; but he did beg the attention and indulgence of the House if he should have occasion to trespass a little on their patience in arguing on what might be considered the unpopular side of the question ; and lie did so the more earnestly because he was satisfied that no decision which. the House might come to would be considered satisfactory by the country, unless it was the result of a patient investigation of what was advanced on both sides. The lion. and Learned Gentleman had attached great weight to his first argument : he had stated that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from places of civil trust and power, after having given them rank in the armyand navy, would be an anomaly un paralleled in the civilized world, and in the history of this country. Now he(Mr. Peel) thought he could cite a parallel to such a case. The same arguments used by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman h a d been used to William 111. on the subject of his exclusion of the Catholics from all civil offices in the United Provinces, while at the same time they were eligible to fill the highest rank in the army. To those arguments answered that he admitted the anomaly, but Olathe thought it unfair to exclude them from offices in the army, in which they had so honourably fought ; but that no danger could accrue to the State from thence while the Government was in the hands of Protestants.—(Hear, hear.) —But it was said, that by the concessions given in the Act of 1817, grounds had been established for further claims. It was true that. Parliament had granted those concessions, not foreseeing at the tune that such grant would ever be made a ground for a charge of inconsistency in not granting roores—L(Hear, hear, hear.)—lle contended that there was no such understanding at the time when Catholics were made eligible to offices of high rank in the army and navy ; no such principle was re cognised when that measure was first ...sought for ward in 1307 ; and this was the understanding in which it was supported by Lord Howick, now Earl Grey:. That Noble Lord then stated; that he trusted the limited measurt± proposed might be brotight forwitrd without the objections which were made to the geheral questiOn ; and that; con.: sidering whathad-bi.ien previously Said on the .Sti . l) ject by the Chancellor and Secretary for Ireland,. we had a tight to paSs•such a measure; Now; if the House had granted those privileges; as far. as the army and navy were concerned; on groundS wholly different from those WhiCh were urged in support of the general question; vat it fair to urge such concessions at- the present moment as a reason why we should grant more ? td tiny argument. founded on the opinions of the Irish Bishops, he could assure the house that he meant to take no unfair advantage of it ; but if it - were said that they were silent for seven years on this subject, he would observe that the Bill had not been printed seven days, and that; therefore, they could not • have had time to declare their senti ments on it.—(Hear, - hear!)—With respect to what had been said of the principle Of exclusion fixing a brand and stigma on the Catholics, he would repeat what he - had formerly said, that there was a grand distinction between - exclusion and punishment ; and though the principle of ex clusion might be continued, it did not follow that we meant to disbelieve the oaths of the Catho lics, or to fik a brand upon their brows. Ile would go with the Right Honourable Gentleman thus far, and would admit with him, that politi cal exclusion was in itself an evil. It was an evil to be obliged to refuse the services of a great portion of trre people, and to debar their access to power ; and it was not. the .mere posseSsiou of office—for if that - were to be con sidered,' the exclusion could extend - bUt to very few ; but--it was the hope of possession, and the laudable ambition to which that hope gave rise, which were to be considered in the question of exclusion. Nor would he admit, be cause our ancestors had - acted upon that prin ciple, that it was less an evil ; but what. he would maintain was this, that it would be a greater evil to do away the exclusion than to continue it.— lie hoped that he had stated this:ground of argu ment fairly, as it applied to the question before the llouse. = (llear !)—lle would not now go into the question as it applied particularly to England ; he thought himself bound to consider rather its application to Ireland. In viewing the question as it applied to that country, the Right lion. Gentleman would not deny that an impor tant and essential ingredient in it was the main teiiance and support of the Protestant Church in that' Country.—(lleari)—The Rt. Hon. Gent. had asked what danger remained to the Protestant Church ha Ireland ; and he had answered himself by stating that all the danger which had existed would still remain if this Bill were not carried; but that by the passing of this Bill secur ities would be granted to the Established Church. Now, the security which he offered was the conferring on the Catholic equal power with his fellow-subjrct. There were three sorts of power which it was intended to confer on the Roman Catholics—the first was that which the common law annexed to the possession of pro petty, and from which certain acts had hitherto debarred the Roman Catholics,• but hich this Bill were to be_ restored to them: this was the power of voting at parish vestries, the power of voting for the ropair and building of churches, the election of churchwardens, and the payment of subordinate officers. Ile would ask them whether in a country where there were five Roman Catholics to one Protestant, this power ought to be given to them ?illere, without imputing any opinions to Roman Catholics which they would themselves be ashamed to avow, he wouktask whether it was con sistent with the safety of the established (Lurch to confer such a power? And upon whom was it to be conferred I Upon persons who 'had to provide also for the support of their own religious esta blishments. If this should pass into a law, the executive would be bound to carry it bona fide into effect. If then it was true that the Roman Catholics were great in point of numbers and in point of wealth, it followed that this Bill would give them great power. The same reasoning ap 'plied to their admission into Corporations and into Prliatneht. There were admitted evils in the present scstem, but these had been wisely con nected by the lion. Member for Bramber with exploded evils, in order to visit on the pre sent laws the whole odium of the unnatural prac tices which had disgraced former times. There were a hundred Members, for Ireland ; sixteen ought, he allowed, to be returned by close Boroughs ; twenty were returned by large towns, and the other sixty-four by counties where the elective franchise was more general than in this country. Of the electors who re turned eighty-four members,t.-sth then were Roman Catholics.• lie admitted the great power of the Catholics, but did not regret that it had been controlled. Why exclude Roman Catho lics from the office of ecclesiastical judge, and now for the' first time, for that provision had not been introduced in any former Bill ? This showed that the feeling of,jealousy on his part was not quite unaccountable.—(Cheers.) —Ills fears were not chimerical. Catholic members of that House would naturally be anxious to extend to the Ca tholic clergy the privileges which were now with held from them ; and he declared solemnly that he believed, if this measure were to pass into a law, the regulations would not remain in force for five years. Irish members in that House had a distinctiuterest. lie did not know if it was constitutional, but it was human nature to combine for the interest of the land of our birth. In ques tions aE.cting the Protestant Church in Ireland, he did therefore expect combinations. He was aware that it was a choice of difficulties; but in his opinion the arguments for continuing the ex clusion overbalanced the other arguments. •If once agreed on the principle, lie thought there could be no valid objection founded on the de tails. Yet, he, saw objections to affixing an in terpretation to an oath, adverse to its plain and obvious meaning. Why, again, did they not relieve the crown from the declaration against transubstantiation, if Members of that House were to be relieved ? Protestantism was so in terwoven with the Constitution, that it would meet them at every turn.—(l tear !)—Gover nors of Colonies ) for instance ; would find it made penal to appenit id offices under them upon prim .tipleS Which were only consistent wit!i their,duty: What proof Could 'they haft of 4ho wzo a Woman. Catholic . if, this measure passed ? Mr; ti rattan's Bill had left the declaration against tratiStibstan=, tiatibii which . this Bill removed: But NI, liatevet' decisidn the lionse might cine, to, he world give it his best tit'quiescence ; and if the nieasure 'should be carried, he would use his earnest deavonrs to reconcile the Protestants to it.— (Irlbud. i'l4 repeated cheers from both side's of the Mdse.) Mr. CANNING rose amidst loud and general cheering, which continued for - several minutes: He said, he never rose to distlarge the duty Which he had now to perform' with more anxiety than he felt on the preSetit occasion ; that anxiety arose from the conviction he felt of the great and. growing expediency of the Measure. Many the circumstances which contributed to the feat of the measure, when it was formerly bet:night forward, had been . removed ; aft& it came now attended uith facilities which had not be fore existed ; such was its introduction at the Coinmentement of a new reign. It was the niag nitude of the issue, and net the difficulty of the subject which pres4ed on hirri ; for he felt that if it did not now succeed, as he trusted it would,, the case must be involved in despair., for there could be hereafter no prospect of its sticeess. It was not the actual state of the law, it Was not the precise. enactment; but the temper and spirit in 'is Jail it firigi nated, that gate it its bitterness. It was idle to attempt to divest the subject of the - consideration. - - of the feelings out of Which it arose, and to refer to the precise enactments as an argument for their continuance. Their laws were founded in the real or supposed existence of a foreign temporal influence, connected with the acknoWledged spiritual power ; and the declaration against tran;. substantiation was adopted as a means of detect ing the Papist, and excluding him from powe., not becauseit designated his creed, but beCatne he was attached to a foreign influence. The argu ment for retaining the declarations when the cause which gave rise to it had long teased to exist, he could liken to nothing but the conduct of an active Magistrate, who, seeing it announced in The Gazette that a murder had been committed by a man in spectacles who wore a wig, although it was afterwards discovered that no murder had been committed, should yet pe:.- sist in apprehending a person who used spe.:- tacles and wore a wig, as the murderer "(Much laughter.)—lt was contended that it was impossible the Roman Catholics, if admitted to the full enjoyment of the Civil Constitu tion, should not endeavour to overturn the Protestant Chcrch. He thought the attempt t) sustain this position, by arguing from the fe ings of the individual making the assertion,was by no means fair. How was it borne out in his`o ry ? The Catholic was there to be found in c 'ii stant adherence to the civil Government, in :le spite of his exclusion, and even at the loss of his property. A Bill which was brought into Par liament to prevent the Protestant Bishops frJrn sitting in the House of Lords, was thrown out by the votes and influence of the Catholic Peers. It was assumed that the Roman Catholics, like Brutus in history, -should for two 'centuries to gether have put on the semMance of patient in sensibility, and only waived for the passing of the present Bill, to spring out, and revenge itself on the Constitution of the country.' The Right Hon. Gentleman then took a review of the state of Ireland from the time of King when came the laws which serarated the wife from the husband, and-the son from the father ; the time when authority was reversed, and the laws of nature counteracted. Till the fourteenth of George the Third the conforming son might dispossess the unconforming father ; the treacher ous wife might in those clays ruin her husband ; the orphan might be torn from its natural protee tors ; in short, there was then no faith in families, no feeling of security, no domestic life. The Bill of 1774 was hailed like the jocund spring,' which gave the promise of glorious summer to come.— That Bill gave leave to the Papist, totwithstand ing his belief in transubstantiation, to rent fifty acres of bog. In 1793, the so much deprecated Act passed, which gave them the elective franchis, and - he agreed with what the Hon. Member (Mr. Plunkett) had said, that then, whether it were for good or for evil, then the present measure was virtually granted.—(Hear, hear.)—For it never could be conceived a proper mode to concilia e ,Ireland to associate with the population an.:l spurn the gentry. He would ask what natural impediments there were in the way of an intimate union with Ireland ? It was very true, that for two centuries they had been carefully erecting a mound, which stood above the waters frowning' defiance at all who should attempt to pass it... It was as a narrow isthmus placed to divide two kindred streams which in vain endeavoured to unite. Should they then repair that broken mound, or should they leave it to the operation of that slow but certain destroyer,Time,who would ul timately crumble it into ruin, or rather, shoull they not cut the isthmus and float on the mingling waves the ark of our common safety ?—( L'iu cheers.)—The argument was rather inconsistent which expected that the Catholic, if admitted to all the benefits of the Constitution, would endea vour to destroy it, and yet expected from him unlimited affection and obedience, under a sys tem of exclusion. He thought it was desirable, as they had been so long excluded, that the altera. tion should be gradual, but they must be made of very loving materials, indeed who could feel affection for restrictions and deprivations— Wh2n late I attempted your pity to move, Why did you reject my fond p ra y ers ? Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But why did you kick me down stairs ? He was not one of those who thought that the State would be desecrated, would be rendered unholy as well as insecure, if every sect of the Christian faith were admitted to offer up their prayers within the pale of that Constitution which secured them such countless advantages. It was urged that there would be dangei from the admission of Catholics into that House ; by their acting in concert, and by throw. ing their weight first on one side, and then on the other, they would extort the consent - *''''3overninent for some favourite proposi F I