The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

. . *a§ said that' they were few 'in - ntirqber and in considerable- in point of consequence: They Were, he thou ht, tomposed of servile of the 'first 01 our Nobility and Gentry, qf ninny of the learn ed professions, and withcint , (heir assistance we governed inc o n ven ie n tly. They were .the-felv that led th e many, and" these Were, hi' sound liuy,.objects of the first consideration. Ile •should now address himself to question, as it regarded consistency; and on this part of the subject he felt confident in saying, that if a Committee were appointed to consider the presentlaws, it would he impossible to that Committee not to arrive at a conviction, that even for the sake of • consis tency alone, an 'alteration of the law Was•in dispensible. We allowed • Dissenters of every denomination to sit in Parliament ; and yet - the sole object of the present Bill /was to put the Ca tholics upon an equal footing •with Dissenters. The Dissenters were protected merely by the operation of the Annual Indemnity Act, and 'where could be - the danger when we could sus pend the Act ? It was remarkable,.too4 that we must necessarily admit every one who knew and acknowledged no religious distinction, but that 'Which arose out of what - they called the law of tature ; and heie he could not but observe that t he framers of the late Petition froM Colchester, declaiming against blasph'etny a:ld sedition, . 114 d forgotten that that Hods& was open to every rnan who might choose to take the' oaths, and . was yet, to use the language of the Poet,, • • • " True to no King; ' . to no Religion trite." But it was a l so urge d, t h at so long as papal dispensation ekisted, We Were unsafe in granting the concesstons of the,present Bill. This he never could admit ; for it was obvious that, at the Present moment, the refusal to swear was the strongest proof.. of, Catholic good faith.—(Cheers.!)—lle must once more be al -lowed to refer to the inconsistency of our present law. We trusted the'Catholics as witnesses and as jurors upon questions affecting the property, the liberty, nay, the life of the Pro - testant subject.—(Hear, hear, hear !)_We were at pains to educate the lower classes ; but the higher, the polished, • 'those who were placed above temptation, the hereditary aristocracy of • the country ; • all these, among Catholics, we excluded. Suppose'a Bill were brought_ in for embodying in one Act, the substance of all those inconsistent Laws. It 111 ,,, , i5t declare, th a t "Whereas a Catholic is regardless of the ° Q l igation of an oath ; therefore -he shall beregtured to take an Oath in the following terms."—(Continued heers•.)—ln this, Way must the inconsistency run thfoughout the Act •in gun tion. There Cour-d not, in his 'opinion, be any lion. Mem ber who would gravely say, that this was a code - which ought to continue ; for tt really . was an heresy against,tommon sense.— Wear, hear, hear !)—As to dangers to be guarded against by these Bills, we admit none • but if there be -- timid men, for , ) -eir fears we-gife this boon,. lest by chance, in the Midland - Lstrict, in a spot too Centr a l for light to have reached, in the vall,,ev of the shadow of Doctor Miner, there be found -any weaker Protestant brethren disturbed by the terrors of the Vicar Apostolic. That House was not- discussing whether this or • that *mold satisfy the 'Catholics ; it was `waxing a law.—. (E` lecrilig.)—Heshould as little thinl: of whifwould satisfy the . eatholit as, h e Should of what 'would saiisfy - his frolinesS the PPpe ; though' thi s 'h e sa id w i t h ou t m ean i n g any disrespect. . It was not to be considered what would please his-Holiness, but 'What would be just. He should conclude ley repeating the of 'an 'able* and respected.hiktorianL--" That if -n good Bill were, brought into Krliameiit, however- it rniglit'be op kosed. in its commencentent, it would' sooner or later be success ful:"—(The Hon.`Member sat down . amid loud' and -- Yea:Y ge 7 nerah cheering.) .. • , Sic 4'lN NiCHOLL, after 'referring:to toe • terms of the-oath of supremacy, observed, .that nothing 'could be clearer than the- language of t4t, oath.: - :Th e present Bill proposed. a great and Important 41 CerAtion in its substance, and was, tiler. 'worthy. th e grave Consideration of every Member . in the Il ouse. H e cou ld b y no means a g r e e w ith the Hon. Member --who spoke last, that: it was Incumbent on those - who oPpOsed 'the:Bill. from sense-of danger, -to -shew- its existence. That danger had beets proved by the- conduct of our, aucestors, and by• those Statutes - which were the. bulw ar k s of our. Constitution. In speaking of. those bulwarks, he could tiot be supposed to re-. l'Pr to those penarlaws which had too long dis graced our Statute:•book, -and- were now so judi ciousty y e ipe'ak.d. But the Acts• now in" force t vere,:;lke' contended, penal in no sense of the word: They. were merely• self-defensive; for 11 1(.y : -.merery 'excluded front powar. These 'awe were enacted to avoid the special clan ,ger. of. Cath o lics being-in possession of office= of trust; The Corporation Act, which was Passed immediately after: the Restoration, stated, that it was in order to preserve the public Peace of the Church. and. State. What said the test" A - 0., Which was passed in 167-2—a period When there- . was no foreign power to fear ? t declared, that it was enacted with a view to c ounteract . the danger of the Popish; religion. The _ F ill of Rights-was equally anxious to prevent' ° ffices of trust being possessed by any but Protes tants. The Acfo(Settlement . notonly restricted . the Crows) on this subject, but also restricted the e ttholics from holding offices of trust. Another . ~ l ci was paused the vearafter, enacting additional ;01 eel-ides, the lath of Williailt l cap. 6, in which all 't former laves were incorporatod. These Acts., 4 " cont en ded, forcee.d the constitutional law of • th 4 Coqntty - on this subject ; and he -must- beg the - House to remember that 'this .was not a ;t "‘ Oates Constitution. This was t he Consti lltio 11 . t hey had derived from the great- King 4 0 11 laili, from 'the reat Lord Somers, and- wi.ich p a ` r the - great Whigs . and the moderate- Tories . t h, Lleipated-in;forming. 'lt did not stop even at -s Period of our history ; for, throughout the rei 7l-l f, s of Queen Anne,- King George the First, and Second, the spirit of the Constitution was re quentl3( interpreted in favour of • Protestants i t u d Protestants only, holding offices of -trust.— 3 did:not deny that Acts - which were made by )3,Tliarnent, might be changed by .Parliarneut.—• what he - asked was—that they should look *." question fairly-in tile face. They were about ° 4lake a great and fearful change in the Consti ,ltion--th‘s whole of tile-laws he had enumerated - Were about to be repealed ; and all offices, with the t ZeePtion Of the ,Lord Chancellor's, and the Vice leY of Ireland, were about to, be opened to the te.tholics. Th e y w ere told that there was some thiog-superior to the Statutes in what was termed the spirit and principle of-the Constitution. . For Zits part, he knew not where they were to- look Tor th e spirit, the principle and-the analogy of this Constitution if not us the Laws themselves. r i hie . was not set up as a paper Constitution, otherwise they might with consistency treat as Waste paper all the great bulwarks of our rights . and privileges—Magna Charta ; all the Acts re strictive of the Pope's poWer, the Act of Corpo ration, the Test Act, the Unifcrmity Act—all •• might be treated as paper laws in favour of the spirit of e . 4 , laws ... themselve s .—( - 11 ear, hear!) — It was said also, that our Constitution was an unqualified - one, .admitting indiscriminately all subjects o f the realm to . an- equal participation of Office apd power. He thought, on the contrary, that the spirit of the ConStitution was, that it re quired qualification for every. .thing, from the . Cron-El down to the lowest Officer -in the State. These.qualifications were derived from property and religion, in :general, combilied., The major. part of the qualification was derived from ; and as far' as lie was. able to judge on the subject, he did not-think the House ought to be satisfied with the s.ecurities offered by the present measure on the score of religion. In the oaths proposed there was a degree of mental reserva tion and .supererogation, that opened a most dangerous prospect to :the eyes of those who sought to look into the page of futurity. In con clusion, he trusted the House would,' in its ‘wis.. dom, finally reject propositions which must be most unsatisfaCtory in their operation. . Mr. C. GRINT hegan by observing, that he did not, of . course, recollect of those former periods of Irish history which had been referred to, in which the penal code. had been made the subject of discussion ; but from what he -bad read, it appeared to him. that the sarnearguments had,been used on those 'occasions, although with less success, as-were made use of at present.' The same alarm was rung upon the demolition of the ancient bulwarks of the nation in the guiph of 'Popery. With reference to the remarks of the lion, Gentleman who spoke last, on the spirit of the constitution, he had .only to remark, that he did not think the lion. Gent. had exhibited that spirit in its. most favourable, point of view; for after . recounting various points of the past history of the country, carrying down ,Ireland from one point of degradation to another, lie told them that this • was the spirit, of the Constitution. At the sameltime.that the Hon. Gentleman spoke of the Revolution, he regretted to: hear the greatest names of that time identified with the laws that operated at, present to exclude the Catholics. It only showed how .prone people , were to mix up whatever was transient and fleeting ; with , the more prominent characteristics of any, great transaction. It was . the object of the Re volution to abridge abitrary Government ; and if in the heat of the chase to obtain possession of entire_ liberty the great principle of toleration was lost bight of, it was too natural, altheugh.too palpable an error to be handed down at, this time of day as an authoritative example. If any thing that bore the stamp of the Revolution was to be held sacred7theY would 'find themselves in a situation to advocate many things- that were held to be very unauthOrisable - atthe present day: They 'would find in that Revolution, that al though it was to destroy arbitrary Government, it introduced the government,,of the sword—al though it • was to - establish the freedom of opi nion, It overthrew, with' summary power, the discussion of the, multitude.; and although the purity of public faith was one of its objects, that period teemed with more flagrant breaches of it than almost. any -other period of our history, which went to tinge . the. re.; cords of the tithe with that indelible .. die.; grace which attached to a.country to the most, remote . ages. Was it at those periods Of:our hiStory; when the laws, exclusive saf the Catholics, were'passed, that svers.Foosit.reniark :able for deliberativ:e wisdoisi ? The tentoriding • parties were excited'against each Other to - a state '=of shameful Phrenzy ; both the - Nobles .and the People, as though - they ,seernett . desirous -rying the question more by acclamation.than„With :those Marks of delthenition Which ought to At.; tend all legislatiOn oil *sticli ithportant: subjectii:: The time of the first struggles for the establish- ment of our reformed Church produced Many • illustrious inen.--,many. .-who : had evinced their zeal in becOming martyrs for their - principles ; but none of them ever dreamt of the exclusion' . of Catholics from the Iloute.of .Conarnons.-as the' Palladium of • the Protestant Church They re lied- with justice,- upon the purity. of doctrine, and the couduct'of its preachers for the maiute nance.of their cause. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had referred to the Great Chapter, and .he (Me. Grant) was surprised that - when he adverted to. that _instrument, it had not occurred to him- who. those, wore, that had rescued from a Catholic and• the.domina.tion of a Catholic, Pontifkthat Great Charter. W heu a Noble Lord opposite (Lord Nugent) presented in an early part of the evening a Petition signed by 4 names Co eval with that Charter, -and who were descended from the great persons who had been instrumen , tat in obtaining it ; which of the Hon. l'ilernbers did not feel his-heart thrill with a sensation of admiration and respect towards those great per. sonages - who presented themselves at, that bar, which their ancestors had won for them,petition ing for those rights they had handed to_ them,but in wh!cli an ungrateful posterity refused them a participation. lle would not advert to all the topics of the Horioerable Gentleman's speech who he really. thought had' perplexed the ques tion in. a great .measure by the moltiplicity• of them. The simple questiou„ as it appeared to .him, was, whether if the Roman , Catholic took the oath prescribed to him by these' pro positions, that House and the country would have • a- sufficient- guarantee ? It was not whether this oath was supported by this or that docu ment, but merely whether they could say, .as far as human legislation went, was this binding or not ? The same argument that was urged against this Oath would serve against the Oath of Supremacy ; there was no more consistency in the one than in the other. With respect to the notion of the spiritual jurisdiction• of the Pope, it was needless to sly he did . not possess.it,- al though altogether misunderstood by the genera litv of those who reviewed the subject. It never was considered but as purely ecclesiastical, which was clearly sliewn in Lord Coke's description of the First of Queen Elizabeth: That Act he de nominated a declaratory Act, and said it gave no new power to the Crown, but Only restored its ancient jurisdiction. Before he sat down, he must entreat,the House, in directing their atten tion to thczi great question, before them, to come to the consideration of it deeply' impressed with its importance. As a qtiestion of legis, lation, and of the deep interest which the indi viduals concerned had in -the 'result of their deliberation. . Under these . points ,of view, he hoped" they would not allow 'themselves to be thwarted by any but great .and solemn objec tions.- • This 'questien Was • other than Whlit , was to be the principle •of the connection betwixt Ireland and this.'cotintry for the future. Ile (Mr.. Grant) did not stand there for one portion of the `kinpire. He claimed the Concessieeof these •rights-in behalf of the '. hole'l~rripire, for the peace and the tranquillity of the whole, for, the glory of the one part and the happiness of the other.—(Hear!)--dreland was placed in pe culiar circumstances With .7„respect - tO them . ; she was. not there to plead her own . 6ause, on the qUestion. This country had - given' up that sys tem of exclusion which it had. so long exercised in almost every other branch of legislation. That system which in politics was the spirit of domi nation ; in coanerce,. short-sighted policy ; in agriculture, cruel restriction ; and- which, in religion, was intolerant . bigotry•----'-had now been -reformed in all its Operations except in regard to religion. Surely they would not now stickle at that which ought to have been the first, but which was unfortunately the last. — It wanted but this act to place the - stamp of con fide-race between the two countries. If they viewed this cruel.system of -exclusion in another country, they would exclaim upon the conse quence" of their net possessing a Constitution like ours, - which left open to all equally the- same road. to honour and preferment. Let Ireland then be no longer the only exception to this spirit of the British Constitution. Let it be theirs to receive the gratitude which'had been accumulat ing for ages,.fo be rendered to those who should accomplish in one ,Session what had withstood the attacks of centuries—(Hear, heir !) . . 3str. BaOwNtOws felt himself wholly incompe tent to enter into the. contest of eloquence oa this great measure ;. but, as he was one of those who objected entirely to the principle of the Bills before the House, he could not 'refrain from stat ing one or two of the grounds -of his conviction. —No securities were in his judgment sallicient to give Roman Catholics elegibility to sit in Parliament ; and those no* offered on ix/twine tion were unreal and unsubstantial, and melted into nothing_when an attempt was made to grasp and grapple with them. Neither in his view would the measure, if passed, have the eiect of uniting all classes-. 'The clergy would be grossly offend ed-atan endeavour to legislate on matters merely _spiritual,; and were they likely to conciliate a nation almost exclusively Catholk If he were asked 'to point out the danger, 'he should assert that-the Roman. Catholics of Ireland had a long ing desire to restore• their church to its ancient splendour,. and this introduction to Parliament would be one step gained towards the accern pliihruent..of their wishes: 2rhe. first Motion of the Roman Catholic Members WOuldruatorally tie to provide. that they' should pay tithes only to their priests: Wlth'regard'to the number of mem bers of that faith who might be intreduced under this Bill, it was to lie recollected that the elettors werisin the ratio of about 4 . t0 1 ;but hektiew of no fairer data of judging upon the subject than by taking the proportion of tire members .who sup ported the Catholic claims: they would proba bly meet with the common reward of popular in , gratitude, - and be obliged to make way for more successful 'candidates of opposite - persuasion.— (Hear, hear.)-:-=He contended that - the Catholics had considerable 'property in Ireland, and that that propefty eaOl4, be represented : hitt if - it viefeeetherwise in this speculating, almost- gamble ing . eduntry, ivho would say that property Might not change even in ,the lapse of a few years, while the House was responsible to the . latest. posterity for the vote of - to:night Mr."'Wenteavet. said,' he was sorry that he was obliged to follow - the same line of opposition to this measure, whiCh he had felt it his duty to take on a former occasion when it'was proposed. The Same difficulties which he ,then felt, still existed. With respect to the 13111 theri before Oleic, it asserted i 4 the preamble that which, in his humble understanding, was unfounded in fact, and an outrage upon histOrical truth. It stat ed that there _was a time hi the history of this country, when the Catholics were able to take the Oath of Supremacy according to the ioter pretation annexed to it by Q. Elizabeth, by which meaning to demonstrate, that it was the object of the Bill to restore a part of the Constitutioa,aud not to add any thing new -to it. Ile (Mr. We therell) however denied that ...there ever was a time when the Catholics could take this. oath, and he challenged any of the supporters of the ,Bill to prove the truth of their assertioxi in the pregnable. , • • ". Sir J. MACKINTOSTI—I challenge the -Hon. and Learned Gentleman' in return to point out in the preamble of the Bill the allegation he speaks of.—(Cries of " Order.") Mr. Wenstnome said, he would accept the challenge of the Hon: and• Learned Gentleman,' and, as he'had thrown the glove, he • (Mr. We therell) would take it up. He understood that the statement toade.in the preamble of that 13111 was founded on the supposition that Roman Ca tholics were ready to' take the oaths as they were expounded by the adro'onition 'annexed to the in juuctions - of Elizabeth, which were published in the first of_her reign. On the death of Mary the Protestaot religion was' again - restored, and on the accession of Elizabeth some perions gave out some , ridiculois and idle tales, that Queen Elizabeth claimed the supremacy in a: sense dif ferent from teat in which . her predecessors, Henry the Eighth and Edwaid the Sixth, had, exercised it. Some stories were afloat, that she claimed the personal, exercise_ of the ministry of the Church, such as the imposition of hands, the conferring of orders, and churching of Avornen, &c. On occasion of theSe rumours, the admo nition. was issued,sand was titled !‘ An Admoni: tion to simple Men"—(A laugh.)---Land that ad monition was annexed to the injunctions. Their object was, that simple - men should not be duped. He (Mr. W.) was one - of those simple men, ..and he protested against any attempt to dupe him. Those• injunctions - ovegatived, in. terms-the, most clear, the most intelligible, the most direct, and the most.positiVe, the supremacy of the Pope. That Was the occasion of 'the' ad monition. ~Retnan Catholics had never taken-the oaths introtluca hif the:statute of 'Elizabeth.— Itlvas at the haZard of his character he. ventured to make the assertion, and he would repeat, that Catholics never : took it-; : and it was a fallacy to suppOSe that the Catholics wo,uldftake the oath in its ,aMended form. • The _preamble having im plied that it 'vas only : required to remove the Corruption of_the oath introduced by the Statute of Elizabeth, .he - would say that that preamble was. historically. untrue., Under semblance of . restoring the oath to its original Meaning, it was' a new oath the Bill was about to adopt. He would rather have a new oath than accede to. the proposition of giving to the old oath anew meaning which it never had. But it was not to the oath and preamble alone he objected : ,he was hostile to the. principle Of .the Bill. The Bill went to the. repeal of the. Test Act, and to open to the Ro man Catholics every civil office in the State,: except the placea of Lord High Chancellor of . Englandond Chief : Governor of Ireland; The effect of the Bill was to admit Roman Catholics to, all other ,sittiations. The practical questien Was, whether they would admit Catholics as mem- . . bens of the Legislature and Executive Govern ment. The supporters of the Bill desire Catho lics to be- admitted to the Legislature and the Executive. Nov, sup posing they be in every sense qualified for these offices, were they not' in. effect excluded from the execution by the Bill.it self, which says-they shall not advise the Crown in the, appointment or disposal of any ecclesiasti cal appointment 2 So far then that was. an incapa citating and an enabling Bill at the same lime. Suppose a Catholic became a Prime Minister, or a Member of the Privy Council, he could not by that Bill, advise the Crown respecting any Eecle -astioal appointment. How then could he take a Prime - Minister's oath ? They would , admit him Premier, but pulled down half the building when .they lopped "the chief branch of his power. He would_ not blame the Right Honourable - Gentleman who introduced that fill, and whose absence they all deplored nor would he blame the other Hon. Members who acted with him. The necessity of the thing required those contradictions :and monstrous absurdities. IX a Roman Catholic became. Premier, a counter Premier should be -chosen, and each would Have• only a mutilated office. But who were to name the Commissioners? Why, the Bill says the Crown. There again, the Roman Catholic Pre mier Would *be -called on to-advise the Crown -whom to appoint, but from that the Bill disqualifies him. He accepted the challenge of the Hon. Mem ber for Knareiborough. 'He (Mr. W.) had got with him a copy-of the Privy Counsellor oath, and he would say that oath should be repealed be fore the Bill would pass, which would make a Ro man `Catholic a Privy Counsellor. For the same reasons no Roman Catholic could be a Governor ',of any'of- the Colonies, hoWever gallant his con duct, howeier: glorious his exploits. He would not then discass how many Roman Catholics were 'likely to come. into that House, but he would say, that if the' Roman Catholics were honest men, they Would do- all in their power to - raise their o*n Church,- to the destruction of the .Established Church--4nd in saying that, he would -not be understood as arguing from their vices, but i: ' their virtues., T Right Hon. Gentleman k r : 1 : 1 11 1 1: a r the introduced the t1B)i were lent and eminent Statesmen, and" wished to carry their concessions to the Roman Catholic's As fer as possible. They' blame Lord .Sorneri and the great men Of his day for uotgoing farther for the Catholics: They might depend on it the Same would be said if that enabling, incapacitat ing Bill passed. . The Roman Catholics would not be Content with any thing short•of universal emancipation, , • : " Ni ul scrum reputant, thunquid kap9i7essit agendum." Concession; in part, would only create a demand for more. Emancipation would not be worth.a. drop of ink, unless it were counected with the hopes and expectations - of ultimately delivering ,the .Catholic from the payment of-tithes to the . support of the Established, Church.. `Any thing short of that final measure could not give satis faction to the• Cattilics: Who was there. on their part, eithir Bithop or Cardinal, who would warrant - their 'acceptance: or 'the freatY which the •ComMittee was now . making' with them He Would. appeal_ to the Noble . Lord'i (Lord Castlereagh's) experience in diplainmy, if ever he .knew any treaty orcOntract to be enter ed into witlx.fitt;,eme guaranteethat the high eon parties would abide by the treaty ? The supporters o( that Bill would be taunted„ as Lords Somers and Camien had been, for not going -so far as the abolition of tithe's. Neither Lucke, nor Hobbs, nor S y dneY, nor Harrington, nor' any other writers 'on government went farther than toleration.' They all agreed that the Non-Con foroliSt Ought flat to be admitted to any offices in State. The lion. Member for Knares boyough.could not find that Sydney, in his " Com monwealth," would admit a Roman Catholic Se cretary. In the ancient governments, in Rome; for example', all Non-Conformists were excluded from any -share in the Administration. There was one respectable writer; indeed„: Whose argu.: m ents seemed more favourable to the cause of the Roman - Catholics, he meant Archdeacon Paley, but no other respectable writer could be. pointed out who adopted . his doctrines: Neither Mr. Fox . nor Mr: Burke could he undeYstood as grant ing so much political:power•to Cathelics as were now demanded for them by..the' framers of that Bill. Great Authorities had been quoted, on the other side of the House, in - favour_ 'this ques tion. He belieied that he couid . rriention some authorities who coincided in his view of this ques tion-Tthe late Lord Itosslyn, Lord Auckland, and Lord Bolton; and, if the Hon.Mernhers oh:the other' side brought doe- n thenames of Whitbread and• Sir S.Romilly, and. Sir A.' Pigot—men undoubtedly. of high talents—still he might place against theni the names of Lords, Somers and Camden. They were told that the Gunpowder Plot, and the times of Titus Oates, were so far removed 'in the obscurity of past time, that they were.not now_to be mentioned. He would not !,.f6. so far back, nor needed he to do so ; far, no longer back than the year 1768, •the Pope had ekcommanicated the-Council . saf- the prince of Parma,..and -what was the consequence ? The Parliament of Paris took up th 6 matter,"and in' 1772 the King- of France made it High Treasciii for any of his sub-; jests,, to hold communication With the Se 6 of llorri.-(ilear,:heiti•:!)--N 01;i; *hat -were th.ek abOut to dO ili tarts Committee '? They , via.re: about to legiti!natethe•Coire§pondence of-British subjects with the See - . of Itorrillear, hear.)--•- They *ere about to- throW . 'away : that sthte. Su prenlacy—which: had hithertci heen held inviol-; able in these realms. .They might be told -that that decree in` France was the • result : of -narrow -illiberal vieivs of policy." -But the Nationat-As sambly could - not be supposed . to • be:actuated : b -y• any "views of that description, and that- detree was Confirmed by them in 1701. Could they -then. say there was no danger to be• apprehended in those countries from - the legitimation of sutli a corresiondence, seeing that it was- guarded against so - cautiously by one of the- most- power ful Monarchies of modern Europe(Hearillea!".) There was no. Government at this time that to- . aerated au . unrestrained communication of that: description. - Besides:this he had always umkr .stooJ upon this subject, that concession-and -se , curly were to' o hand in hand. But HOW they were granting the concessions, and- at the - •sanki. time throwing away that power, of security -which other States had preserved. - His opinion,-there fore, was, that this Bill eradicated from the Bri- tish Constitution a principle which, sooner or later, - would involve these countries in disturb= ante.—(hear, hear - !)—It was said, indeed, that becauSe the elective franchise was given: to. the Roman Catholics in Ireland, it naturally,follewad that they 'Ought to be themselves eligible. “This was exactly the species of argument which would be used hereafter if they passed 'this measure.; he did not say that it would produce evils anme diately, but it would produce them is its• cc pos teriority,"—(Lond laughter from. every part of the House.)—He begged pardon if he had in the fer - vor of argument used an improper expression, what he meant to say was, that. in its coUse queßces.this measure would' not produce a state of " finality," but would be the parent Of fur ther demands—(hear, hear.) • Sir J. MACKINTOSH complained of the devia tions from the question which had occurred; and called the attention of the Committee to till con sideration of the clause immediately before them. This clause did not go to admit Catholics into Parliafnent, or to throvr open to them offices which at, present they could not fill. Agreeing, .to this clause they - pledged themselves to nothing - of the kind, but rejecting they closed the door against conciliation. ,He then commented on '-various parts of the preceding speech. His Hon. Friend had mentioned Mr. Hobbes as a liberal.: ma.u. . who had been opposed to the Catholici. Mr. Hobbes . was certainly a man of great talents, but be was not very liberal in his iileas, as it was known that he had redtued. f:des-c potism to a, system, and slavery to a philoso phical creed. His . principles.were most despotic, as in his Leviathan he proposed to treat. every deviation from the religion of the Sovereign as a capital crime. lie' had, however, to remark, that Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Sir G. Saville, Mr. BuTke, Mr. Wyndham, and a Noble' Lord who was .no visionary, but who had this .cause nticit'at -heart, Lord Melville; and' every Statesman of -the first class - who had lived within the last fifty years, had faveiired the views of the Catholics,..--and to these his. Hon. and Loarne& Friend could only oppose a body of theoretical politicianS:. And who was the person who had-said that Catholic Emancipation for. itself Was not Worth the drop 1-of ink that - wrote- it ? Would the -Ilonse...be lieve it that this was no other than a Dr: lan, the head of a proposed Direetdry Jaii intended Irish . 13.4Mb1ic.; This was the •Gen-, tleman who had made the remark at a iiirriewLen a rebellion was preparing; and he, With. Mr. Hobbes and the practical Harrington, 'well , op posed to all the Statesmen Qf - the la4—class 'that could - be named, as.. being within' the last years. .Que nixie had been mentioned - Which attracted' mere notice than all the rest---4Aord Bolton. He supposed he might be- a celebrated politician, but it was. the first time. he had heard of his existence, and all around him h e ad been inquiring, who this .unknown celebrated , ' man could be. Ile denied that the preamble . ?if the Bill embodied,. an ,historical falsehood, r,s bad been.. stated by Wl'S' Hon. and Learned Friend. lie contended that no inconvenience was 'to be apprehended 'from . the situation in Whi.7ll . l_,ord ChamberlaihS, Premiers, and GOvero s ks icoittl be,placed by_this .What had been Said on the subject of the. Privy Council was brit is re petition of What had, beets said : over and over again, to throw a cloud over this impbrtaut measure. For the inconsistencies ttiatlt was contended were in these Bills,' he thOught this argument came with but an . inditrerent grace ,from those that supported a" jumble of the most anoMalous contradictions tlia't the most . whimsical legislation . could prodnce.----- The Bills went to • remove 10,000 aninxialies, and leave a few, and on these few they . were at tacked by the adVocates for. the . -I9,000: It was said the situation in which the . Catholicsould. be placed by the present_ - Bill would be .more grating than that in Which they - ii6od at this mornent. He would take the w'Oril of be Duke of Norfolk in preference to thelton: anabearned Gentleman, who said. he would 'rather be ad mitted to Parliament and torQflice undef the pro posed restrictions, than not at.all. It:Was said a Cotifederation •of twenty-five Catholics . ' might produce a most important effect in tha.t'llouSe, but 'lt seemed to be forgotten tha . t theSe would immediately be oppos . ed by 9 . '25 Protes tants, the moment it' was seen the ¶2l,GiCtholics wished to form a Papist's establiShme'ilt: The question was, whether the oath -propfTiej, to be tendered - Was that which‘gave as much security as an oath could afford, and the Civil f; overt,- ment ought to require. Ile contended, that t t e Catholics swearing to obey thelaW of thi; land gave all the security that 'Ought to be dethanded. Mr. °MILBURN thought dangt-s.i'..of ad initting Roman Catholics - I'6 a The legis lation, was that'against which the ought always to guard. Ile thought th-r . ..g . w4, , ,s a great inconsistency in this nwasUre,' inas . mni:'h as it went to reptire from the Catholic, of mars th.e State 'might : be-jealous a less bitiding'bath than that *.hich was imposed. en the Prpteste,kit, who 6' ~~« i.