The Sun. — London, England, 1821-04-18 00:00:00

'land, in passing the Bill now before their Lord.: ships, had proved that ther,,upon mature reflec tion, were satisfied hot only that no danger was to be apprehended from conceding the advantages now proposed to he given to the Catholics, but to admit them to -Parliament,. and to the situation. from which they had heretofore been excluded, would give additional security to the Constitu tion, maintain the Throne, and afford the strongest support to the Constitution. It was now for their Lordships, in like Manner,• to apply them selves to the consideration of this important question. Their Lordships had to consider Whether they were to continue to impose on a l arge class •of their fellow-subjects a degrading, insulting, and penal 'deprivation of a. right, to Which they had, if not an older, at l eas t as o ld as the Protestants, and not a weaker claim than -that of any. man who sat there. The conduct of the Catholics, however, had hot been such as to deserve reproach, or to justify the suspicions entertained. of them. He would instance the Conduct of the Seven Catholic Apostolic Vicars, and ask if any of their Lordships could point out a ,ny thing i n th e c h aracter o f any one of them that did not favour the presumption, that they might honourably, safely, and beneficially to the ), C°lz4 trY be permitted to resume their just and 7 1 ,."'edita r y rights. The rights now claimed for - ", e111 , were their just and_ hereditary rights, •which no man ought to he deprived, un ess h e • had proved himself unworthy to en- Joy them, or unless it was shown that some imminent danger would attend his continui ng t o Posses s them. He then described the persecu tions to which the Catholics had been subjected by ACts passed in the reign of Charle's— , b)" the delusions of Titus Oates, and unjust and absurd accnsations of guilt, supported by the most perjured witnesses that had ever ventured befor e a public tribunal. It was_ on convictions of impossible guilt that the Catholics had been di squalified and disfranchised, and was it for t he Parliament of the present day to continue tlose unjust laws in force against the in • Tincent posterity of those who had b een bordered in o th er ti mes ? W as i t f i t that se whose innocence was known, and who had b een the - defenders and the supporters of the • Constitution in times of difficulty and danger, should still. suffer under laws so unjustly enacted 44 gainst their ancestors ? While they contern . ',Plated with. horror the murder of Lord" Stafford, W ould they con ti nue to pun i sh his descendants for a crime 0 ! w hi c h th ey could not by possibility h ave been guilty ? But it was common, in cases wh ere ghilt w a s man if est, a f ter a considerable tame had elipsed,.to restore the successors of the t e r . son convicted to 'the enjoyment of the for feited honours of his family. But here was a • v aSe 1 which a body of men had been deprived of their, ancient rights by the worst decision ever Pro nounced, founded on the evidence of the most Perjured and infamous witnesses that were ever e , x atnined, a n d th ey were now called upon to netermise whether or not they would continue a gainst the innocent posterity of the sufferers that plhishment which had been so unjustly 4 'del. He could not entertain that dread the consequences of admitting Catholics Parliament which many professed to feel. . t . 1 . 1 74 ie c ou ld not persuade himself that the mo isite.tlt the Duke of Norfolk and th e E a rl o f J e wsbUry took their seats in that House, - the 11:*tY of the State would be shak e n, th e p ill ars o f e Constitution destroyed, th e Ch urc h E sta bli s h.. i tit ;: c O verturned, and the whole country thrown • li p s a state of confusion and ruin. The Catho. : w e ) he considered,' were entitled on the princi i tie of eternal j us ti ce t o b e a d m i tte d to Portia -4t.; bat if this were no t th e case —if h e were Arogtfleog on th e quest i on o f expediency and policy b, "l still should h e c on t en d t h at t h ey ought to „t.ou. „4 r i e i s tored to their r i g ht s ; unless imminent danger be shewn t o b e th e pro b a bl e result of such • e oLl -I N-sure. But was such the case ? No. lie h( 4l. not Tersuade himself th a t one o f t h ose who • N il • nal entertained the opinion that a n y im tiat: N danger was to be feared,. and instead of shi„ g er, he thought it must be ob v i ous t o th e i r Lord -14, N tio th atnono ur to themselves and benefit to the 9141 Were likely to be the immedi a t e conse - O w le es of their admission to' Parliament, and in 8 t i p Participation in those councils Whin they had tni tiit h t to share. He hoped it would- be borne in NO that the object of the framers'of this . Bill site conciliation. Any thing that bad "an oppo 7 di ki tt :ndency he disclaimed . ; and he especially 'Th e ~.,4 1111e d all wish to .create disunion between ilu e „`" a tbolic Clergy and the Laity. The hi. "',ce possessed by the former over the latter b e in the hands of- a prudent Government, to. In a a most powerful and useful engine prok,ntnote the genera l good.. He 'wished t o 4 4 2 1 °te the general - tranquillity • by uniting, 1,10i4 riot by dividing th e Catholics. He had yi_ t he smallest wi s h to conceal any of his b e. 7,! on this question. He considered it to e ssential imp or t ance, that all securities that to re ally r eally necessa r y shoUld be Ine tlt t e t any d anger which the adoption of B.measure might produce. When "they pass . - Bill of so much grace, con Cession, and toticihationreasonabl , he tho ug ht t h ey might not 1111.• call for securities on those points on ii`,l_7ll securities might be claimed even if no such _ee.sure were in existence. Bite the.rnore he re }t ac ed on the -subject, the mom thoroughly was usorodnvinced that the passing of. --. this . l3ill would s one of the greatest, if ;to( • the..greatest of 4,s'i_ree.CUTitieS to the present establishment: He h . ended no danger from: the bigotry of the atholics nor did he see any reason for suppos 41g t hat whatever their designs nijght be, there * as y cause for fear from the addition.al means 'hioh this Bill would give for carrying them the i nto effect. _they _iiiteiriPted to overthrow elxpting establishments of the . country, he blklhsuce_sider that they were enabled to ch . an attempt, kere privileges not by the Bill,, but Wouldpreviously- aske d what securitiesanted. lf he h e were necessary, the first of all secnritieS . would bestuutauted by that course 'being adopted which s t P ro ved tb e lit t h e . n care of the Government to con count terest s of the whole imputation of the % ut) , as this would . - "". GI their c witte all .classes in the co uld Constittitien.. Wa's sure that the best hulwarLs of the Church to which be belonged, were found in the sOundm;ss of its doctrine—the purity of its discipline—the lives of its Ministers—their labours in the cause of religion—their care and attention to their flocks—and above all, the character of their faith itself. So long as the English Government af forded the subject more complete protection than any other—so long as the Church Establishment remained the best that had ever been connected with any Christian Church, he was little afraid of either sustaining material injury from the prevalence of any abstract principle. Both would, in his opinion, gain additional securities, by uniting all classes in their support by one com mon tie of interest. He would, however, go further, and say that on the general principle, when it was seen and known what was the situation of the people of Ireland, and what was ' the situation in which the Catholic Bishops stood with respect to them, he saw no reason why the power of appointing Bishops should not be given to this State, which in all other countries, whether Catholic or not, was vested in the State. —(Hear!)—He could not conceive that there was any thing in the nature of the Constitution, Population, or Government of this country, that should make the Catholics object to allow that power to be exercised negatively here, which was exercised not in'that form, but in that - of direct nomination' in other countries. He Was of opi nion that the power of exclusion might be fairly lodged in the State. But then it was argued, that in exercising of this power, should all that might be nominated be excluded but one, no choice would be left to the Catholics, and thus in effect the right of nomination would be given to the Crown by exceeding the right of exclusion. No power, he would have remarked, could be lodged any where that might not be made to appear by an exaggerated view of the cases in which it might be exercised. It might l be said, that to give the Sovereign the power of par doning malefactors, would possibly lead to pardons being granted to all malefactors without exception ; or it might be contended, that it would possibly lead to pardoning one particular class of offenders, and no other; or to the grant ing of pardons to particular individuals under cir cumstances so peculiar in the:r nature that all mankind would feel disposed to call for punish ment. It was not possible to lodge power any where under a limited monarchy and a mixed Constitution like ours, where it might not be supposed that it might be so abused as to produce an effect the very opposite to that which was in tended. He, however, saw no danger of such use being made of the Veto as could not give the Catholics any reasonable alarm, and consequently it appeared to him that the power.of excluding an obnoxious individual might be claimed for the State, without putting a stigma on any one. He therefore, for one, was clearly of opinion, that if the present Bill passed such a provision ought to be made. He, how ever, could not but view this question now with a very different eye from that with which he bad regarded it when the situation of Europe was dif ferent, and when the power of appointing Bishops rested with the Pope, and the Pope himself un der the influence, and in the power of the public enemy of this country. With respect to the communications between the Roman Catholics of Ireland and the See of Rome, he did not think that any suspicion could attach to such securi ties being required by this state as were required in others, whether Protestant or Catholic. These, however, were, in his mind, extremely subordinate matters, and had the Bill been sent up from the Commons without any such provisions forming part of it, he had no he sitation in saying that he should .at once have acceded to it. The Bill would be better with such securities, but without them he should still be willing to let it pass. He was ready to try the measure at all events, and when danger should appear, he would be ready to call for such secu rities as the case might require. He, however, objected to fighting in the dark against imaginary evils. Some Noble Lords, however, had done this, while they inquired'what securities could be given, which might arise, but which they them selves were at a loss to describe. He hoped the Bill would be carried, and at all events was con vinced that the present imperfect system would not long be upheld. He was convinced of the truth of what a Noble Friend of his had said, that there never was but one occasion so favour able as the present for carrying a measure like that now before the House. The first appropriate moment was that of the Union. Such an opportunity as that could return no more. But next to that the present period was the most favourable that could be imagined. What was the situation of things at present? Happily the conduct of Ireland had been such that the mea sure could not be viewed as exacted from tha fears of the Government, and it never could be conceded with more appearance of grace and fa vour than now". He hoped the effect of the mea sure would attach the whole mass of the people of Ireland to the Constitution. He pointed out the evil effects which would be produced, if now that the measure had proceeded so far, the cup of hope were to be dashed from the lips of the expectant Catholics by the decision of that House. He wished the Bill to pass, as if did not, the subject would not be set at rest. Believing that it would still continue to be agitated, and that the friends to the Catholics must ultimately pre vail, he could not but fear that if the present Bill were rejected, one of a similar character might be expected to pais into law at some less auspicious moment, and he therefore earnestly called on the House to permit the present Bill to be read a second time. Lord LTVERPoOL said, he rose with reluctance on the. present occasion, because he was aware he often urged every topic in support of his opi nions against this measure which he could now by. any possibility advance. He was ready to admit that the question now came to them in a new shape, it did not come to them on the recom mendation of any Member of their House, or upon that of any party in, the House; but it came before them as the opinion of the other House of Parliament. He was therefore anxious, from the very moment it passed the other House, that it shotild receive a full; a teMperate. and a candid discussion.. He was asked why, in this new view of the . subject, he did' . not agree that the - Bill should be read a Second time? And he would therefore state hiS sreasons . fairly why he 'did not. if he'- Crsuld 'bring himself to agree with the general -purview and object cf the Bill, - he Would think it his duty to agree to their proceeding', to a Com:. mittee. But 6ii a thorough consideration ; of the two important parts of the Bill, thOse of concession and security, he knew not how he could by any possibility assent to them. There might be many persons desirous Of miring certain anomalies ; many might think certain further concessions could be granted under the principle of the Bill of 1793; ,many might think the Eng. lish Roman Catholics should be put on an equal footing with the Irish : these Were, however, distinct questions from that before their Lord. ships; and having only such an object in view he could not certainly vote for the present Bill. He was sure the Noble Earl opposite (Donough more) was manly enough to agree in this, that the Bill he introduced meant all the civil disabi lities under which the Roman Catholics laboured, with certain exceptions, which were confined to three. If, after the best consideration he be stoWed on the subject, he could bring himself to think tha Catholics should have seats in Parlia ment, he would certainly vote for the Bill ; but his opinion was, without now meaning td- prejudge the question, that whether minor things might not be granted, it was now more manly to avow his opinions against the Bill, than hold out any expec tations of. going into a Committee upon it, when he should feel himself obliged to do all he could in order to defeat its Object. The Noble Baron (Grenville) commenced his able speech by refer ring to the Penal Bills passed against the Catho lics in the last century; but on that, as' well as on other matters connected with this subject, he was compelled to differ with him. lie differed with him as to the principle on which he consi dered all those laws to have existed. The Noble Baron seemed to consider the present disabilities as the remains of that penal code, but the fact he believed to. be widely different.—He (Lord L.) certainly looked to the precepts and example of our ancestors, but he regarded their prece,pts and respected their example only as they were con sistent with justice and sound policy. He could not estimate what his ancestors could, and he could not therefore give any decided opinion as to what ought to have been the principles they were called upon to legislate; but he still must pronounce that code as one of the most abomin able and oppressive that ever existed in any country in the world. He denied, however, that the present was any part of that. code ; ' a plain distinction could be drawn between, a distinction as plain as was ever drawn in any State of political legislation. The right to property, the right to personal liberty, the right to acquire and bequeath, the right to civil and religious liberty belonging to every subject ; but there was a plain distinction between such rights and those that gave political power. He admitted that, to a certain degree, they might run into each other; but the principles of them selves were totally distinct. No man but for crime should be deprived of the right of property and personal security ; and even where inflictions had taken place on the survivors of those who were actually convicted, as far as regarded him self he had never continued such inflictions be yond the absolute necessity of the case. But that was a question totally differing from the 'grant of a new political power. The State alone was to determine to whom political power should be granted, and from whom it should be with held. Did he mean to say such a grant was not to be desired, that its being withheld was no grie vance ? No! But the conferring political power should be governed by a political necessity, or a political convenience. The whole- of the state ment with respect to the Penal Code was inap plicable to the present question. With regard then to the immediate question before the House, he could assure their Lordships that he came to its consideration with as few personal preju dices against the Catholics as any Noble Lord whom he addressed. He had the honour, of knowing many Roman Catholics ; than whom he knew no more estimable characters; and he firmly believed there were per: lons in that seat fully as useful and as conscientious as in any ot . ter. Indeed, he did not well know how he could express his feelings personally towards them; but at the same time, their Lordships should remember they were all equally bound to support the Protestant Establishment in Church and State by every tie of religion and good faith. If it was the policy at the Revolution to con tinue the Catholic religion as the' established re ligion of Ireland; notwithstanding the foreign al legiance which they professed, his belief' was, they might be - employed: as equally good sup porters to the State as DissenterS of any other sect. The Presbyterian religion was certainly established.in Seotland, and he never disputed but thatdifferent religions Might with safety_ exist in different parts of the same kingdom; but there was no analogy between the state of Ireland and that of Scotland. Take then Prussia and Silesia, Russia and Poland, the Netherlands- and Bel , glum; in all these cases, Silesia, Poland, and Belgium, had church establishments, with all the privileges annexed to them. Ireland had no Ca tholic churCh establishment, and therefore no analogy could be made out bet Ween them and the case of Ireland. Catholicity was not the esta blished religion in Ireland ; and the same rea soning would equally apply to Presbyterians if they were in the same situation. If the Catholics had the power, would they not wish to bring their religion 'to be the established religion ? And if the duty of their Lordships was to defend a Pro testaut Church, were they not bound to - see whe ther that Church might not be endangered by granting those concessions which were now sought? Before discussing 'the Bill in its two important branches, he had called their attention to what he thought - should be the , foundation of all their: considerations and a departure from which would 'be the origin of all those difficulties now - likely to embarrass the question. He (Lord L.) referred to the..per-i4 of the Revolution, that which consummated what he thought essen tial to the peace of this country--he meant, the alliance of Church .and State.-.. There might be many persons attached to the civil and not to the religious establishments of the State. Many per:: sons might think other systems of religion as good as the Protestant ; and to persons who held thoSe views the principle of the present Bill might cer tainly appear right. But he maintained, if there ought to be an alliance between Church and State, which was an essential part of the Constitution, then the principle of this measure, as it would separate the Church from the State, would. as a necessary consequence, endanger that Church Which they were all religiously bound to pro tect. The very writs and summons by which every one of their Lordships were called on to attend, directed them to consult for the safety of the King, the Church and State; and he there fore asked, if the Church were not connected with every political function in the State.? The Noble Baron (Grenville) alluded to what Mr. Burke said of the Penal System in the Year 1792 ; but if their Lordships looked to that great man's letter to Sir Hercules Langrishes, they would find his doctrine amount to this—that granting con cession to a certain extent by no means pledged the Legislature to give more. The first question for consideration now was—if this Bill passed, could their Lordships stop here ? What security had he for that which this Bill did not touch ? In the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts ? —Then let their' Lordships see this Bill pass —these Acts repealed, and they came to that position which was any thing but an equality of all religions as to political power? If they were then arrived at that time--if these Acts were passed—if all persons were admitted to equal po litical -power--if Quakers, Jews, and all other non-conformists were to be on an equal footing with the Established Church—if the doors of Parliament were to be thrown open to all—if they should 'arrive even at that period, he asked what security was there that they would stop there ? What security was there that those who, whilst out of Parliament, expressed a wish that each sect should support its own Ministers, would when in Parliament abandon that wish? Dr. Priestley in his works argued, that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would lead to ul terior- consequences, and that it would be impos sible for Parliament to stop at that repeal. That this doctrine had been held by many Roman Ca tholics, he would refer their Lordships to the declaratiots'of those who had taken a part in the Rebellion of 98. Even Dr. Milner (of whose conduct he did not entirely approve) declared that the Roman-Catholic and every oth er Ch urc h, Ought to pay its ow n Clergy and no other. Sir John Throgmorton said, that in a f ew years a f ter the repeal o these Acts, he should not be surprised at hearing that the I risit Bishops having made over a portion of their income for the maintenance of the Catholic religion, should make proposals simi lar to those of the Clergy of Germany for the alternate enjoyment of their benefices. This was not the language of Dr. Milner or of Dr. Priest ley, but of a highly respectable Roman Catholic. These being the opinions of the most respectable of the Roman Catholics, he would ask their Lordships did they think, that by making these concessions, the Roman Catholics would be sa tisfied ?—or was it not more likely that after these concessions, they would look to the ulterior ob jects, in which the mass of the Catholic popula tion would have a greater interest than in the present concessions, from which the mass of the population could not derive any immediate benefit? But when their Lordships came to consider the ulterior object, it would be found that not a single individual in Ireland, however humb;c might be his situation, would not derive immediate benefit. What more immediate be nefit could the poor of Ireland have conferred upon them than a relief from the payment of tithes ? He would give full credit to the yeople of Ireland ; but he would say, that any indivi duals, circumstanced as they were, would, 'if they were asked whether they wished for the subver sion of the Established Church and the re-esta blishment of their own, reply in the affirmative ; and when he was asked by the Noble Lords op posite whether he really dreaded such conse quences, he would say that every zealous son of the Church must feel it his duty to exert himself to the utmost for its establishment. Dr. Mil, ner d in observing upon the oath said, you ask us to swear that we will not do that directly or indirectly to which (the subversion of the Established Church) all our proceedings lead indirectly ! Ile did not state .this merely' as the opinion of Dr. Milner, but as the opinion of all Catholics. The argument made use of by the advocates for the Bill was—that it would satisfy the Catholics ; but he contend ed, and he hoped successfully, that if these concessions were made; they must in the nature of things lead to ulterior objects ; and the ques tion now was, whether or not their Lordships now occupied a ground' on which they might more safely make a stand, than on that which they should occupy after these concessions. It was his firm belief that their Lordships now stood on better ground. After the Church Establishment should be disconnected from the State, aner all religions should he put upon nn equality, and after all the Dissenters should be arrayed against the Established Church, where would be the safety that the doctrine of the other side of the Atlantic—, that every man had a right to worship God ac cording to the dictates of his conscience, and that no man had a right to pay for the maintenance of that worship which he did not attend—would not be speedily adopted ? This was the real practical view' to be taken of the question ; and 'if, after taking this view . , it should be asserted, that their Lordships now' occupied a better ground for making a stand than they should after 'these concessions, he conceived that assertion to be so unanswerable as not to stand in need of argument. His Noble -Friend who spoke last night thought proper to refer their Lordships to the history of former times, and be gave the his, tory' of these Acts from the Reformation to the period of the Revolution. But he (Lord L.) confessed, that -on looking at that histoiy he Could perfectly reconcile to himself the conclu sion, that the Church and StUte were consoli- 'dated. After the Reformation, the Legislature, in the new state of things, did not know the ground upon which they stood ; and he had no doubt that at that'period wally able and:distin guished Catholics were in the service of 'the' CroWn ;.that.the.re.snitsof, this admission of pe'r-'.• sons of different religions ,were=-that in the early . part of the - 17th' century ihe.Church,and Consti tution Were overturned by the Puritans, and ill. the end of the 17th • century : the Throne and the. Church Were nearly overturned. by the C4tho:= lics, bk. at the Revolution almost all. the protec: Lion of thetivil Constitution was given to the• Church EstabliShment. It was after this latfer period that it was provided that the King should be Protestant, and that the 'whole system of IaWS• under which the country had ,en j oye d such ua equalled prosperity for. the last 120 years had been consolidated. JameS"wasiexpelled from the' Throne ; which clearly chewed that the principle: Of that day was not that persons of all religions ought. . to -be admitted into office, because no man among , the advocates of this Bill contended more for that right than the Monarch whose expulsion was the punishMent inflicted by the nation upon the organ of those Sentiments. Their Lord. ships must now view this question in all its bear ings; and he would again beg leave to - remind them that the only consideration at preient whether a Stand could be made with greater safety at the present than at a future time? Tie was decidedly of opinion, that if any alteration were now made their Lordships were only chang ing the ground of contest, and not changing it for, the better; and he doubted much whetherit would have the effect of harmonising the senti ments of those to whose relief it was more par ticularly directed. When toleration was first extended to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 49-50 parts of the land were in the hands of the Protestants, though 4-sths of the population were Catholics; but at present, though the nnat hers of Catholics were nearly in the same propor tion, yet the accession of property had greatly increased, and, the question now to be considered was, whether such property did not introduce into Parliament such a number as would. be-ca pable cf creating such a contention betweenre ligions, of the result of which no man could en tertain an opinion. After the fullest consideration of these Bills, he had no hesitation in declaring, that he did not think them bottomed in sound policy ; and that though they set out with atle claration to maintain the Established Church; and the Protestant Succession, he was satisfied, if they should pass, that the principle of Protestant Succession could not be maintained in this atm try. If the Presumptiv e Heir to the Throne should be of the Catholic Religion, might he not Say, am I to be the only man in the kingdom, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor, who is to be prohibited from worshipping his Godsac cording to the dictates of his conscience ;Yon have the President of *the Council a CathOic, you have the Secretary of State a ltornan Catholic, and the Judges of King's 'Bench Roman Catholics, and I am not more -hos tile than they to the support of the _Esta blished Church. What answer could be given, and what, on'the other hand; would be the . 'feel ing of those of the same religion with the neir, if a punishment were inflicted for that belief ? What would be more dear to them than' the placing of such a Sovereign .on the Throne ? .This might possibly occur, and he would tberinsk. their Lordships, with what safety could die line of Succession be.. altered as long as it wr.s..not a principle. in Government, that Protestantism was the ground of admission to office ? Meets it was declared by this Act, that there ,was no inconsistency in uniting political power wrt-h the Roman Catholic religion, how could it be con tended that. any bounds could le set to it?-- He did maintain that the Bill declared this and he hoped th e i r L or d s hi ps would "consider what they were doing, -and not conceal:. from themselves the state of the old law •and of the new. The old law declared 4 connexion between the Church and State, and that political power could be exercised only.by those professing the EstabliShed Religion, but the new law would and must declare that .there was no necessary connection between theEstablisted Religion and political power, and it left the Establishetf Re ligion to support itself, open to all risks. This would be as..omplete change of the whole system of the country, and it was difficult to sax. how soon it would iead to the consequences which he had just stated. The Bills now - brought in pro- posed securities to satisfy the Protestants - , which were highly penal to .the Catholics. , He . had examined - the provi s i on * of this, Bill, and with regard to the -provisiongOf -the second Bill, he had no hesitatiOn in saying, that he conceived some of them unjust, but almost all impracti cable. He wished t 0. .. ask their Lordships if they meant, after passing these Bills,' that: their provisions should. be carried into effect and. he would then ask what would be -the• con sequence of resistance? He would ask, did they not think that resistance would expose the State to all the dangers of religious persecutiok : ? He would admit that there would be danger.frorn the right minded, but there would be : from the wrong headed Roman Catholics,' and theie were some who would wish to becotne mailyrs, : in such. a cause. lie did not Mean to say that persons of this description were confined to' the Roman Ca tholic religion, for he believed them to exist in all religions. He begged their - Lordships:not to .. consider the present law proposed as art& law to remain on the Statute Book unenforced, b.tit a new law, which they were • bound to 'see car ried into effect: He held the pOwer of the Veto to the appointment of Bishops to be 'of no "Value ; and if he had the honour of serving the Crown in Irelend, he thought he could do it moreeeffec teallst without that Veto than with it. - 1. 44 was an obnoxious power which prevented the Otercise of those means which might be laudably and. beneficially exercised - , and it set at variance the Government and the Roman Catholics. • - lte held. that ; there were but two courses to be followed : out> 'was to leave the .Roman Catholic Chn rc h ,t o itself, not to legislate for it, but to grant ifie con- . cessions upon the taking such oaths as should b be though fit: The, othercourse was toproceed. upon fife sound principle Of.paying the Clergy , I