The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

tempt to describe the feelings of his heart, nor to mingle with the present question, any notice . 'of the public sorrow which followed his death. He followed through life as one whose do:n was not to be attained. and whose example was the brightest attraction. His eulogium had teenOnounced within the walls of that House by the eloquent of all parties.—(Hear, hear!)—' rind although he would not weaken the force of that eulogium—althoughhe would not disturbhis obsequies—vet he was desirous of saying some thing upon his efforts upon the particular ques tion which formed the: subject of the petition. question obtained an early and entire pos tesSion of his mind, and kept it up to his last moments, He would willingly have consented that his last scene sholti have been employed in advocating the cause, and that his life should be laid down -in that House while asserting it. He felt that there would be no real safety for the coun tu until his object was achieved. He was ever alive to that fame which attended upon virtuous ac lions, and lie clung to it whilst on earth. But. he never sacrificed to the treacherous popularity which_ was within his reach, by obtaining only a part : of the object which be had in view. He felt that the questiOn never could be carried with ad iranta7e to the country, unless the principles witlch7 he laid down - were fully acted on. In the bu0..!),1e distance at which it would be his (Mr. Frunkett's) lot to follow his ,departed friend, he trusted that the same sentiments would actuate aud_direct his conduct. He moved that the Re: titioa be brought up. Mr. D. BROWNE seconded the motion. The Petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. PLITNKETT presented a Petition to the same effect from the parishes of - St. Andrew, St. Mark, St,. Anne, and St. Peter, Dublin ; and from the Ronian Catholics of the County and City otWaterford.—Ordered to be printed. CATHOLIC ENIANUIP.VTION. Mr. PLUNKETT said, that as one of the highest a►r.l most distinguished honours had devolved upon him, it remained for hisn to discharge his . , duty as a Member of that House, by bringing under its consideration the laws relating to the Catholics of the United Kingdoms. On behalf of Protestants, :as well as Catholics, he called upon the House, as those laws were equally dan gerous to the-one party. as to the, other. His ob ject was to attain the end of_ public good, by an .aat of justice ; .and if . such was =his object, it would be sure to la v -the foundation of concord ; because concord,. Was the consequence of justice. , . It would also pr4dutte those feelinzs which re sulted from the warmth of . gratitude. And the last inference was a matter of consideration, though by no means equal to the other important benefits to be expected. Much discontent upnn general subjects would be allayed ; but the ques tiOn was not agitated with that view. To believe that it was brought forward for the purpose of al lying discontent, or .any irritated feelings which might prevail, was to undervalue the'rno-, tives of the parties interested in its success. The Roman Catholics of Ireland were determined then, as :at all times, never to .abandon their clainis,upon the justice and wisdom of Parliament. They.were equally determined to wait patiently for the exercise of : that judgment and of that wis dom,- because. they knew, that it would operate . sooner or later. That a most anxious desire of liPcoming partakei.s of British freedom, did exist ,on their parts, he should be ashamed to deny ; neither would he say that there was not amongst them a degree of feverish sickness, created by a " hope deferrtd," which had been the cause of great and long-coutinued -uneasiness. And it could not be expected that any measure which he, .or any one else, proposed, should operate upon it - as a charm. It was not when the wind of the tempest first ceased to - blow that the waves would. cease. to roll. But whether any discontent existed -or notwas not .the question -which claimed their : attention, ft was their duty to consider whether -an injustice to alarge portion of the peoplehad not been done, and - if so, to atone for it. Whether ,1,4?,y -were Ilot . stifrerina a. cryiuggriev,ance, and if so, to . remove . it. Whether laws injurious to them did not.exist, and if so, to obliterate them. .This WAS what.he called upon the, House. to look at, and if they found these burthens pressing Ilea. , and :unnecessarily upon any, the: smallest . ..portion:of the: people, it was their duty to take wastires . for: their relief. But .if they found them weighing upon a riot, important and exten sive branch pf .the population, they ought not to .lose a moment. in taking' steps-which would re lease them from their situation. It had been ob jected • from:,tio - Je.. to, time that these individuals were notagreed as to the extent,or'nature of the measure to, be proposed or required for their re- He. would take the liberty of saying, that -this was neither a fair nor . a Candid, nor a manly .w.ly of meeting {he question. Was it or was it not a measure which the : House* ought to.enter tain ? Was it dangerous ? WaS it unconstitu tional ? met on these grounds,_ he could un !derstand opposition to the measure he should -,propose. If any. one should meet him with the, . unmanly olijections to-which he had alluded,- he . w - ould ask,'" why did you not come to Inc, and assist Me in framing a measure snore consonant to your wishes. you have that within you which would perfect my proposition, and render it un exceptionable, why .do you wrap yourself op in .neutrality, and then object to the little differ ences Wiiich. may - exist. between the parties who .• .seek relief." The question was,entitled to a more ••, .manly and dcandid. reception. How did.the Catho -•, • • lics.-,corue forward? Not to.attack th . c . >Constitution. ...Ttley„came onder.the'Constitution itself. "They, as_loyal subjects. of the - K ing, with their humbly prayiog. that they should ex ! -- . excise. the rights and . privileges of their anees ,T bey ...came upon all . the known and tried,,and proved principles of the Constitution. Under loch' circumStances, attY measure proposed • ougilt not, to be met in its detail,. bUt upon its' trued .p.o&general.merits. What he Meant to • ..prel49,se was,that the 1-louse should :go into a, Committee, to consider the _ details of the laws affecting...the:Catholic snhjects of the realoi. It .w is hi.s. own most confident ex . pecta.ion, that -the }louse. would consent to his propOsition . - that confidence -was not a little increased, • when • be remembered that not-more thau two yearS ago, a majority of that House consented to the ap pointment of a similar Committee. At another period, numbers nearly amounting to a majority, agreed to measures recommended in that Come' mittee e and if there had not. leeen gross impro priety of conduct en the part of some who Called themselves friends of Caiholic emancipation, these measures would then have been carried. — This took place at a time When the country was reeling to its very centre in the heayieet storms ; and he would not. believe that any one who had given their suffrage for those measures in the hour of danger, would be disposed to refuse them at the present time. He was sure. it could not be forgotten by the general mind, that - proud as the exertions of the people had been in bringing the late mighty contest too e a conclusion, none had more distinguished themselves than the Roman Catholics.--(Hear, hear !)—He was sure he should have nothing of hostility_to encounter in the opposition he should meet ;—certainly no thing of rancour, and he hoped nothing of illibe rality. Prejudice, he believed, he had to con tend with. But if any Gentlemen Isere preju diced, he was aware that their prejudices arose from the most honourable motives. -Motives gfowing out of ethe recollections of all that was connected with the struggles of their ancestors, for the rights and liberties of the people. He believed that even amongst - these who would op pose him, the greatest... anxiety was entertained for granting the claims of the Catholics. The 'general feeling, both in and out of that House, upon which all opposition was grounded, was an idea of the danger which Might attend such a course. Therefore, with the greatest confidence, and not expecting to be encountered .by any thing but that sense of danger, he would proceed to state. his views upon the question._ He would di vide it into three distinct propositions—namely, Its bearings upon Religion, upon the Constitu tion, and upon. the policy of the country. lie feared he should have to call too largely upon the patience of the House.—(Hear,•hear!)—,ffe should, however, only have . to occupy ,a short portion .of its time upon the first division of the question, merely as it affected Religion, because he was not callcdeen to , go into any great depth' upon that subject. It was not necessary for him to do so, because it involved in, itself no question affecting the _interests or safety of the State. . Great praise was_ Blue to a high per sonage for saying in another place, that he had no objection to the Claims of. Catholics being granted, on the score of religion. It was only upon political. grounds that danger might be 'ap prehended. Ishe - Se doctrines had been declared by the Right •Rev. Personage to whom he alluded before the Rev. Bendh whom lie addressed, with .no expressed dissent whatever on their' parts. He would make a few observations upon the Act of Charles I 1.. which required certain pledges from persons holding the. Roman Catholic faith, who entered into any office - of -State. To. say that this was provided with any reference to re ligion, or that for the sake of religion, any pledge whatever was required, appeared to him to be a course calculated in itself to.take away the very principles which constituted religion. It was merely resorted to as a State affair e and the pledge was consequently required when persons entered . upon the civil offices of State. If the interests of true religion required it, why .was it confined to this country ? Why was not an oath imposed upon all persons filling similar offices in other nations ; Why was it not resorted toin Catholic, in .Mahometan, Pagan countries ? No man could maintain that in principle, the interests...of religion called for any sucleaid or defence. If a contradiction to what he then-advanced should be attempted, why, he would ask, was not a positive declaration required? Why was it not necessary for a:person to declare that he believed in the existencesof a God ? Why not call upon him to ,acknowledge his conviction of the true Redeemer ? Why not expect him to declare that - he believed in a future state ? None of these things were required. The state acted:as are electrifying power upon religion, but it was all negative electricity and no positive.---(Much cheering.)lt- was all abhorrence of the body which religion presented.—(Cheers.)—And why, he would ask, were the - Roman Catholics to he selected as the .ouly - class to be denounced Why.did they not denounce the Mahometan, the Pagan, and the Jew ? A. man might worship Jupiter, • Osiris, a crocodile, the host of Heaven,. Or the creeping things of the earth, --and the only exclusion to be made was against Ro:nan Catho licsewhose faith merely contained shades of dif ference from that of the Protestant himself. 'These only Were shutout from the offices of State, end only because they believed-iomething more in their Religion than the Protestants did. They were charged with superstition and idolatry. on account of their service of the - Mass. Now he would-ask Gentlemen who made. these objections, what elie .aerviceof the Mass. was? and if all would engage to -.support his proposition who could - not answer that question, he was sure he should - carry it with an. overwhelming majbrit y.— (A. laugh.)—lle would make one or two observe tions.upon this suhject:as far as he understood it. The-Sacrament of the - Lord's Supper was in com memoration of his sacrifice for the salvation. of mankind, and was held • by certain persons to be : efficacious for their spiritual Welfare. As far as this - . went, he found tie difficulty. But then it was said that Roman Catholics believed in, the actual presence of the.body of Christ. If it were-true that they' believed this, it would be a proposition 'so diametrically opposed to all natural laws and principles, that he. for one should be ready to reject it. _ But the :Roman Catholics themselves siad they - believed in no such thing. They,.indee,d, declared that in one sense it was present. What this sense was, .he confessed he 'did not know. But this was neither idolatry nor . superstition. Such was net the conclusion of the great and ce lebrated Queen:Elizabeth, although she did not believe in it.. The wisdom .which she displayed. in the disposal of this 'question, might be traced . in the writings of Bishop Burnet, in his• History of :the Refoimation. He saidee-" It was the de sign of the Queen • to unite the nation in one faith. A great part of - the people continued to believe is the :presence, therefore did she allow it to remain :te speculative opinion, •upon which every man might' be allowed the ot ercise of his free opinion." But Queen Eliza zabeth had the: true art, or rather the genius, of governing her people for their general good. There fore it was, that although she did not believe in these opinions, she altered the Liturgy as it had been established by Edward the Sixth for the purpose, of accommodating the different faiths and interests of her subjects. This. was her ject, as .Bishop Burnet had said, and with sash views, the whole 'Reformation was established. if this belief was now to be charged on Roman Catholics as superstition and idolatry, it really becal,ile monstrous to consider what had been done. In - Ireland, Roman Catholics were ad mitted to be Grand Jurors and Magistrates.— What then did they do, according to the pre vious doctrine ? Why, after making them take an oath that they were Catholics, and consequently idolators, they.left them to tax, and to dispose of the lives of Christians. To those Gentlemen.who professed religion—and no doubt felt its'zeal, he .would say.that its interest could . net' be better' served, or its character sooner relieved from dis ghee, than by not allowing such principles to be any longer recognized :upon .the Statutes. He next came to. the constitutional -bearing of the question. And what he meant . to contend was this, that admission to all offices of state was the right of any liege subject of the King. • For the establiShment of that right he should not touch upon the Reformation, nor upon the RevolutiOn. The causes 'of the exceptions made against the Catholics at the 'Revolution were only of a tem porary nature, and had long since ceased to ex ist. ,But they were not now to examine into such collateral matter—they were not to get rid of the question by side shifts—they were to look Its principles in the face, and either adopt or re-, ject them altogether. The first question then was, whether the Roman Catholics were not the liege subjects of the King.? He would ask ivhat shut them out? There could, be nothing but their! assertion of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. It was said that this was indifferent to the law, but that the Constitution shut them out upon- this account. Now let them examine-to what this in ference would lead. 1 f the law,.as it regarded the oath of Supremacy, could have this. interpretation, then there never was a liege subject in England before the reign of Henry VIII. because up. to that.period, this country had always • a.cknow ledeed the spiritual supremacy of . the Pope.— Then they mast determine that up to that tied England had been a nation of outlaws.— Magna Charta 'had been obtained by outlaws— ' and the .Revolution of 1688 had been accom plished'hy outlaws.—(Cheering.)—Accordiug to that doctrine, -there was not a Catholic nation in Europe whose Monarch rultrd over as much as one liege subject.—(Much cheering.)—What was this- supremacy ?. The Uoman Catholics.admitted, that in all the states of the realm—all the consti tuted authorities, all the civil and ecclesiastical Lestabliehrnents were without the jurisdiction of the Pope, and that it was only in spiritual -affairs that he was held supreme. Ile could not give a stronger illustration of the subject, titan by sup- I posing the case of a person who held conscienti ous doubts upon any part of-his conduct or ha bits of life. He would then consider that a re fe- Fence to the Pope was necessary, and his deci ' sion would regulate his mode of living. It was well known that we he!tl the rights of marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, which a- Roman Catholic would notceneider lawful. He would declare such persons to be living in,a state of sin. But he would not deny the rights of the children born in such a marriage,. nor any other lawful rights connected with it ; and if any one should interfere with those rights, a Roman Ca tholic Priest would feel bound in duty to visit such interference with- the spiritual censure.— ' But they did not claim the exercise of that spiri e tuel condemnation beyond their own sect. He must own, therefore, that it was with some de gree of regret that he heard the same Right Reverend pe,rson to whom he had before alluded, lay down the- principle -that -the oath of - supre macy affected the Constitutional rights,and - privi leges of the nation. He certainly aciinitted with candour, - that as to their religious opinions, they had no concern ..with ,those rights and privileges. , But he said that the Roman Ca tholic yielded that to the. Pope -which the Pro--' testant would yield to no person. Therefore -he deduced that a civil disqualification _exist ed. This was what . Locke had called " see ing a little, presuming a -great. deal, and then jumping - to a conclusion." It must appear .to every plain unsophisticated -mind, that • all such conclusions were founded in any thing but truth. It really would become those persons who made such .objections as those he - was then combatting to point out the law, and its exposi tion, to demonstrate that line ,of deniarcatioo which shut out. individuals from common pro tection of - their country,,on.account of their de grees of faith. It was seid, that theieficiency of the Scotch. Churcle-was : not sufficiently great s but that the deficiency of the Roman Catholics arrived-at that very exact degree which would -1 shut them out from the Constitution. In meta-' physics, this was entitled civil -worth. He did net know what was meant by this new (angled "phrae of civil worth, unless it was that all the grand - immaterial attributes of truth, justice, wisdom, were -to be excluded from the qualificatious- of the King's liege subjects. •Because all persons' how ever-eminent ly possessing them, if they held the doctrines of Supremacy, were to be shut out, while others, who held neither the former nor thelatter, were left to the enjoyment of the full benefits of the Constitution. 'The security 'of the Constitution consisted in the power of the -Monarch to select tit* -who, were most worthy to fill the offices of the State, and to . exclude those who were unworthy. How then were so . large a portion of the commu nity as the Roman Catholics composed to be se parroted from the -body of the nation, and to be shut out from the choice of the Monarch, • in violation of these principles, which he affirmed to be-:the -principles of- the Constitution He spoke in the presence of spend Constitu tienal Lawyers, and-,men who . were thorooghlse, acquainted with the hiStory of the - Country, he was open to .contradiction. In our free.mo narchy every subject had the right of all the Franchises of the State. If not, we no longer lived under a free Monarchy. lie did not here apply the term franchise as it was generally ap. plied:by lawyers,_but iu-the sense in which Mr. Burke used .it; namely, as applying to the offices immediately connected with the Government and the Parliathent. These principles were independent of all law; inastiluch as, they were derived from what the law was also derived, namely, the sacred fountains of the British Constitution. The Right Hon. Member then read a long passage from the works of Lord "Bacon, which went to support his argument. These were the sound principles of, the ,Constitution. The principle of exclusion was alt upstart repub lican principle, of the same description as thoSe 116 had so much and so justly condemned in that House. There was no part of our history so vul garly abused as that which related to the Re formation. The Act of Admonition of Queen Elizabeth, was introduced for the purpose of se parating those who we're loyal from the unloyal and because that: Princess would not suffer the' subjects of her ancestors to be ruled ) by any fo reign Sovereign. The sth of Elizabeth was an ex planation of the Act of Supremacy-:—lt 'said that " whereas the Queen is always sufficiently assur ed of the loyalty of all her subjects who were Barons in Parliament, this -Act does not extend to them," Scc. This proved that the Act of Su premacy was not considered as a test of religion, but of loyalty, as the Act declared. Together with this legislative, exposition, he.wortld recom— mend to Gentlemen not acquainted' with it, also to look-at the writings of Walsinghatn, who de clared that the measures adopted, by the _Queen were not intended to interfere with the conscien tious oriniOns.of the people, -but to meet the exi gencies of the moment, arising Worn the machi nations of Baer foreign enemies, and other imme-1 diate.causes. They were the result of her Royal wisdom, and applicable to the changes which were then . taking place. He confidently hoped that our present Sovereign would exercise his Royal wisdom in the same manner. His Ma jesty was not called upon to alter any principles upon which he had hitherto acted, but to meet the changes and consequent necessities which had arisen with the course oltime. There was a re markable case in the reign of Charles - 11. of Sir S. S.vale, who was a 'Roman Catholic and was expelled from the Ilouse of Commons iii 1677. — Re was not expelled' for - being - Roman Catho lic, but for being a Papist recusant convict.— Therefore, down to that period, the Reformation had not excluded Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament. At - the-time when the - 13th of Charles the Second Was passed, he : wits - suspected of being a Romaii Catholic, • and his presumptive successor notoriously professed thaCfaith. 'Now, here there was danger, and therefore hid The Act been passed, not as a test,' hut for the purposes of exclusion. lie might be asked,why was it not af terwards repealed'? - He would answer, because a recurrence of danger was apprehended. 'The fear of Popish ascendancy was hangiug over the country for a considerable period, and operated, as Bishop Burnet 'said, to continue the restric tions upon .the -Roman Catholics.. There were one or two facts, not,' Its lea believed,,generally known, which Ile would take the liberty to read. in the '6th of Anne, ,an Act was paseettappoint ing certain Commissioners, in which a clause was I introduced, disabling them from giving their:-sup port to any measure for repealing the Act of Uniformity. It. was proposed also. to introduce into that Act a clause for disabling therm in like manner from consenting to ,a repeal of-the.l3tlaof Chas. 11, They. next cause down to the Union, at which time it was.'expressly agreed that that Act, together with the Test Act, should ,remain in force until the .Parliament of England should take the. subject into its. consideration. Subse quently, at the Irish Union, the same ,stipulaion was made ; and now he called uponthe,Holise to discharge its bounden duty, by coming to.that consideration. lie called upon it, upon all tise principles which had . been avowed by 'Pitt, by Fox, by Sheridan, by - Wyndham, and by all the great names whose spirits had buoyancy enough to_bear them down the stream of . tithe. He ap pealed to them whether lie had - not triumphantly rebtitted all the objections which had been hi therto thrown-out against the measures which he proposed. 'When - he said' triumphantly he could not hnply - any personal 'feelings of triumph, for lie could not look round him without thinking of - the liiends which lie had lost, since he last had the honour of delivering his sentiments upon the present question. There was Mr. Sel-Vhithread, the steady'centinel of the people's 'rights—the inn - natured splkdour which wass burstiog from the public -and private Virtues of SinS.Romilly— the lamented'Mr. Ponsonby, the friend alike of the Crown. and of the Peoples-ethe dawning ge niu's of - Mr. llorner—the sound, constitutional doctrines ofSir Arthur Pigott, mid that : . pattern of what 'aristocracy should be, .Mr.•.Elliotta— When he considered that .they were still as •if walking in : the funeral _procession of those great men, lie could not mingle any thing like feelings of triumph with the solemn discharge ot' his duty. He now Came to a part of the :sub ject which would leave the whole imperfect if it were not touched upon. There were ninny re spectable people, -who thought there were -mea sures dangerous to the Constitution likely to grow out of the present proposal. If -he, for'otie, were of that opinion, he-could only say, that dear to his:heart. as was, thesubjectnow before the House, he. would abandon it at once. Therefore it svas that he implored the House to•consider the pre sent question coolly and dispassionately. , When he recollected the opposition which he_was ~prep ared to meet:from the Rieht Hon; Member for Oxford—his talents, his weight .olargument, and the gentlemanly steadiness of his principles, :he .Was convinced that no person was more likely to he influential in the State than 'the Right. Hon. :Member. lie (Mr. Plunkett) expected, to be met by all those early prejudices . which had been imbibed by the Right Hon. Gentletnau. It might probably'be said the Church was,indanger a and realLy.if he were asked t 4 question, he ceuldelot conscientiously-say . the Church was not in datiger —( Hear, hear, hear !)—BUt thedanger lay in -.the ft:4ll4oms a its the narrowness of the basis. - :The people were not Connected with the State.--- (Cheers.)—lt might be asked, too, that admitting the danger, where was the protection to be af forded if they adopted this measure ? He would answer, that every safety would he ensured by its adoption, which would be uncertain by its re jection. He would confidently affirm that there was no danger, but such as he had stated. There were dangers, heeldmitted ; but some were un founded, and many were exaggerated. A. large majority N l / 4 f tht people of Ireland were of a reli gion ditTerent from the State, and - yet that majority contributed to the support of the Established Church. They were necessarily in communication with the Church of norneeand therefore were net connected .with the State. And yet, by an anomaly in the. Government, many of those persons were substantially admitted_ into power; they were admitted upon the secu rity of oaths imposed, by the Government. But the - Right Hon. Gentleman might argue, 'that-- if they were sincere in their religion, - they conld not keep their oaths ; but -if this were urged, it was asserting neither % more nor less than that those persons were corrupt and perjured. In fact, the . great maj'ori'ty were rejected, not so ritual by the voice of reason, as by the arm of power; while some of them were in the pos session of privileges held by oaths, which it was argued could not bind them. . Was this the bed of roses, was this the heap of Elysian flowers upon evhich • the Right Gentleman was contest to take his_ repose ? The Right Hon. Gentleman argued, that if those per sons were true to - their religaen, they would at tempt to subVert the present establishment, and probably they would attempt it. What then was the wisest course to be taken by the Legis lature -? They were boiled to prevent such a sub version, by granting a just concession ; and for this they were justified in precedent by the Scot tish Union. The Catholics-were urged' by their propensities and their feelings to attempt such subversion ; hut the Right Hon. Gentleman ict . answer had referred to the passive-state in which they had so long appeared. If he (Mr. Plunkett) could think with the . Right' Hon. Geotleman, he would abandon, the preseet subject ; he would 'retire with the - Right-Hon. Gentienian-:to ie-state, not of. repose, .but of inactivitye-enot of tor por, but of dissolution. if it was true that the 'Roman Catholic was bound to .aim-at the sabeer sion of the present Establisleneut, it was their defy to attempt the destractiou of his;religion.--- If this subversive spark remained in his.bosom, it was their - duty to extinguish it ; for the present principle of intoleration rebounded upon our selves.. He could find no name for it but that of religious bigotry ; for, in fact, it was nothine else. lie wished for a Conetitetionewhich woeid relieve. the Roman Catholics, and at the steno time remove their supposed spirit of hostility.- - ` But he denied that they possessed any such spi rit.. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite nil ist know that the Scottish precedent was an -ae;tn merit in favour of the Catholic Claims ; for it was a fundamental principle of the laws of the Em- Ore. And in truth, the Roman Catholic no more -thought of disturbing those laws, than he th© neht .of depriving his neighbour of his property ; .aril h-e Wisely preferred Protestant ascendancy with security, to Catholic ascendancy with danger' would ask ,upon what- authority it wal tit"' this -stigm:t had been branded upon- teie,,Roieatx Catholic? -What had they said or written; ner . done, to warrant it ? But the Right Hon. Mem ber opposite .said he was bound to exclu le the •Roman'catholics,upon the principle of their •h.e# ing subject to all the feelings of human nature -He (Mr. Plunkett) could not find in ifo'r volume of human _nature any thing -Achitil . called -upon the - Rornan Catholic to surrende r his COIISTiE nee and his reason, merely:that his •Prest might gain a mitre. Indeed Ali ° Right .lion. Gentleman - very much mistook"- the nature of man in making such art assertion r for the Constitution was alevayi made more S e' cure by being made generally beneficial to thos e who lived under it. This, however, he read human nature. Be read that if a man were'ee eluded -from c onstitutional benefits, merely cause he entertained certain religious opiniooo if h e and his -childreti were to he considered g ° outcasts,; -then, indeed, he (Mr. Ploakett)-rea-d -there was- .a fearful principle. in .himienenature which- rendered that man's exclusion a' danger t° the State. - - But where was -ehe differene be; •t-weer the - Right -Hon. Gentleman.-hietielf • He .(111e. •Plunkett) would -propose e-CorninitWe -of - Inquiry.. Ills ultimate object would • be' t ° render the appointment of- Catholic Iliskoits . der the controul of the State ; a-nd thus at 0 9 ' 6 -relieve the grievance and t enser° • the lovall -of the Catholic. But the Right Hon. "Gen t. tleman -wanted to leave -the 'matter -as -it ems -He -was in love- with his danger. - Bat he (Mr. -would tell the Right. Honourable .man, that the -remedy was to incorporate In! Catholic with the State, and to render his pr,' vileee our own security. He -would have 1 - ,1 ' 5 , 1 .accomplished by e v er y thing- binding - 11 P', the conscience of the Catholic.; .by rerso every invidious distinction, without featherto his power. -Ile (Mr. Pueleett) say, " Connect the Roman Catholic with, t' d Establishment of the State, take away the 10 3 ', , from his forehead, and the shackles from his leg': and leave,, him in a situation the p reu dest.olyb' earth—that of a local English subject. (cheers.) - --Ile intreated the House trot reje c c this proposal—a proposal at once of. grace nd, ° justice. Ile intreated them not to send the La tholic from their Bar, and tell him that he not to be relieved. The Right Hon. Gentlein% had truly stated that the Roman Catholics advancing to a situation of eminence in the Sta' Their nembers, their wealthe their respectabillts; their situation in our fleets and armies, all show -b e t that they formed a considerable. portion ni r were justly called the sinews of political pow% Their demand was justice and the cry of t r ' e -would-e f r or ft i l us e t :- c e c r ' y , 1 - I n e- ran va ‘ s vi P t e h r in dhen7s anti would say o e i l f .P e ry wo h rd one n st e man if the Without pttkn -House was not exhausted.:( Loud and enn ti N' t e : cheers.)--,lt might be urged ;thee there, won .‘ -deneer in admittinz -the.principle- of eant e " -° " more if e tiWere'l. of .t 1,1-11edi