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

`land, in passing the Bill now before theit Lord;. • ships, had proved 'that theyoipon mature reflec tion, were satisfied not only that no danger was to be apprehended from conceding the advantages tiow proposed to be given to the Catholics„ but to ,admit them to Parliament,. and to . the situation_ - from w hi c h they had heretofore been excluded, would give additional security to the Constitu , - maintaintheThrone,and afford the strongest s uPPort to the Constitution. It was now fel 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, in sulting, and penal 'deprivation of a right, to which they had, if not an older, at least as old as the Protestants, and not a weaker claim than that of any. man who sat there. The_ conduct of the Catholics, however, had not been such as to deserve. reproach, or to jestify the suspicions e ntertained, of them. He would instance the conduct of the Seven Catholic Apostolic Vicars, and ask if any of their Lordships could point out ITY thing i n th e character of any one of th em that did not favour the presumption, that they might honourably, safely, and beneficially to the Coll utry be permitted to resume their just a n d thredite r y r i g hts. Th e r i g ht s now c l a i me d f or „ e ul, were their just and . heredita r y r i g ht s , 1 -1 r • I vhich no man ought to be . deprived, un ;ess h e h a d p rove d hi mse lf unwort h y to en ?Y them, or unless it was shown that some utuninent danger would attend his continuing to possess. them. He then described the persecu tions to which the Catholics had been subjected by Acts passed in the reign of Charle's— . °T the delusions of Titus Oates, and unjust and absurd accusations of guilt, supported by the most perjured witnesses that had ever ventured befo re a public tribunal. It was_ on convictions °f impossible guilt that the Catholics had been d isqualified and disfranchised, and was it for t he Parliament of the present day to continue } lose unjust laws in force against the in • nocent posterity of those who had been • r!nurdered in other times ? Was it fit that those whose innocence Was known, and who had been the defenders and the supporters of the • Constitution in times of difficulty and danger, should still suffer under laws so unjustly enacted 'against their ancestors ? While they content " 4iPlated with horror the murder of Lord' Stafford, would they continue to punish his descendants f or a crime which they could not by possibility have been guilty ? But it was common, in cases Where guilt was manifest, a ft er a cons id era bl e tit had elipsed,.to restore the successors of the Person convicted to 'the enjoyment of the for feited honours of his family. But here was a .c ase in which a body of men had been deprived of their, ancient rights by the worst decision ever . o.o4 nourkecl, founded on the evidence -of the most `Perjured and infamous witnesses that were ever ex amined, and th e y w e re now called upon . to de termine whether or not they would continue a gainst the innocent posterity of the sufferers that psnishment which had been so unjustly " , : w ardel. He could no t en t erta i n t h at dread • •of , tne consequences of admitting C a th o li cs tO ?ornament which many professed to feel. : 1 „ 1 - 4- le Could no t . persua d e hi mse lf t h at the' mo-. • shat the Dukeof Norfolk and the E a rl o f ur r ewalati r y took th e i r sea t s i n t h a t House,- the tY of the State would be shaken, the pillars of zn ee onstitution destroyed, the Church Establish-' • i o e t n t overturned, and th e w h o l e c ountry t h rown •1. n a state o f con f us i on an d ru i n. Th e Catho h p i e coniideredi were entitled on the princi.:: • r to t , °I eternal justice to be admitt e d t o Partin re 't ; but if this were no t the case—if he were s t f: n ing on the question of expediency and p o li c y . ..b, n e) still sh ou ld h e con t en d t h at they ought to .st.ou r i es tored to their rights; unless imminent danger a „ . (1 be shewn to be th e p ro b a bl e resu l t o f su ch' t N , sure. But was suc h th e case ? No. He IN r u not persuad e himself that one o f t h ose w h o t • th. o 4 him entertained the opini on th a t any im danetit danger was to be feared,. and instead of shi p g s fs he thought it must be obvious to their Lord nst:to - .that hon our t o th emse l ves and benefit to the ,„ ' . .en ts • wer e likely to be ihe immediate conse • i th e i p 'es of their ad m issi on t o ' P ar li ament, an d i n a ParticipatiOn in those councils which they had , ilin ght to share. He hoped it would- be borne in s sas ci ) that the object of the framers'Of this. Bill site co nciliatioo. Any thing that bad 'an Oppo 418,,itendency he disclaimed ; and he especially 11 1 , p ai rned all wish to .create .disunion. between lia,„ s ' a tholic Clergy and the Laity. The in roi "re Possessed by the former over the latter • t„ gi l t) in the hands of- a prudent Government, to ma de a most powerful and useful engine j ) , o Pr..ornote the genera l good. - wished to `acid the general tranquillity by uniting, h ot not by dividing the Catholics.... He had vi es smallest wish to conceal any of his L e ! on this ques ti on. H e considered it to It_ot essential importance, that all securities that to v re really necessary: should be 'Obtained, thi_kleet any d anger which the adoption of '.rneasure might preduc e : Wh en -they pass'. tve. a . Bill of so much grace, c o nc ess i on, an d tea s diation, he th oug h t t h ey might not un ich onably call for securities on th ose po i nts on securities might be claimed even if no such e e a t sure were in existence. But the more he re- Convinced on the-subject, the more thoroughly was 47,,a•onvinced that the passing of:this Bill would . rd one of the greatest, if pot: the...greatest of a pprehended no to the present establishment: He • ttrided no danger from the bigotry of the Catholics, nor did he see any reason for suppos 41g that any whatever their designs rnspight be, there . caus e for fear from the additional means 7 1 i! h this Bill would give for carrying them Into effect. If .they ,ettemAited 'to overthrow should consider establishments of the . country, he consider that they were enabled to • make su • Cil an attempt, not by the Bill,. but caY e_ the privileges previously granted. If he re as ked wh- • • • - 4 securities Were necessary, he Woul d 4... 7 the first of all securities . would e obtained by best proved the that course being adopted which care of the Government to con 'll4 th, int interests of the . count, he population of the % uPpier;', f 4s „ th .is would unite Cl! classes` in the weir common Constittitieli.. He Wo's sure that the best bulwarlit of the Church to which he belonged, were found in the soundness 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 an y a b s t rac t pr i nc i p l e . 'Both would, in his opinion, gain a dditi ona l secur i t i es , b y 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 ; 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 their 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 had 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 Rom a n 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 eubordinate 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 the fears of the Government, and it never could be conceded with more appearance of grace and fa your 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. Ire wished the Bill to pass, as if'it did not, the subject would not beset 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 paSs 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 LIVERPOOL 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 'louse; 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 Hodse, that it should receive a fall, a temperate and a candid discussion.. Ile was asked why, in this new view of the subject, he did not agree that the Bill should be read a secant! time? And he would therefore state his 'reasons fairly why he did not. If he aeuld himself to agree with the general 'purview and object of the Bill, he - ivould think it his duty to agree to their proceeding to a Corn:: mittee. But oil 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 curing 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 : th ese w ere , h owever , 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 (Donotigh 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 the Catholics should have seats in Parlia ment, he would certainly vote for the Bill ; but his opinion was, without now meaning to 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. lie 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 pereons in that seat fully as useful and as conscientious as in any °fur. Indeed, he did not well know how he could express his feelings personally towards them ; but at the same time, their Lord s hip s should remember they were a ll 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 Scotland, 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 gium ; 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 brine their religion to be the established religion ? And if the duty of their L or d s hi ps was to - defend a Pro testant 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. peeiotl of the Revolution, as 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 ninny 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 alitend, 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 17,92 ; 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 Aect 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 declarations'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 other Church, Ought to pay its own Clergy and no other. Sir John Throomorton said, that in a few y ears a ft er the repeal of these Acts, he should not be surprised at hearing that the Irish 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 humb7e might be his situation, would not derive immediate benefit. What more immediate be nefit could the poor of Ireland have conferrpd upon them than a relief from the payment of tithes ? He would give full credit to the people 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, 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 ! He 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, after all religions should he put upon an 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 flow 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 neecl of argument. His Noble -Friend who spoke 4 last night thought proper to refer their Lordships to the history of former times, and he gave the his., tory of these Acts from the Reformation .to the period - of the Revolution: But he (Lord L) 'confeised, that .on - looking that history he could perfectly reconcile 'to hirnself the conclu. sien, that the Churai Stitte were consoli- dated. After the Reforrnation, the Legislature, in the new state of things, did not know the ground upon which they stood ; and be had no doubt that at that period many able anddistin s.,uistied Catholic's were in the service of - the' CroWn ;'that•the.resoltsof this admission of per::.• sons of different religions - were----that in the early. part of the - 17th - century 'the-Church:and CollS . ti:-- tution Were overturnecFby the Puritans, and in. the end of the 17th century the ThrOne and the. Church Were nearly overturned. by the Catilo lics ; but at the Revolutiowalmost all, the protec: tion of the - Civil COnstitution was giveit to the• ' Church .Establishment. It was after this latter period that it was - provided that the King should: be Protestant, and that the 'whole system of lawi• under which the country had, en j oye d Such. tto equalled prosperity for. the last 19.0 years had , been consolidated. .JameS" was l e x pell e d from' the. Throne ; whi c h clearly skewed that the principle: Of that day was not that persons dell 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 puhishthent inflicted by the nation tip'oll 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 kreatkr 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 whether - it 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 num bers 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 between re 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 a de 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 coun try. If tile Presumptive 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 God..ac cording to the dictates of his conscience You have the President of Council a Catln you have the Secretary of State a Roman Catholic, and the Judges of King's 'Bench Roman Catholics, and 1 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 th ose o f t h e same religion with the -11.eir, if a punishment were inflicted for tha_t belief What would be more dear to them than' the placing of such a sovereign on the Throne F This might possibly occur, and he would thenask their Lordships, with what safety ebuld the line of Sticcession be. altered as long as it was.:not a principle. in Government, that Protestantism 11113 the ground of admission to Office ? When it was declared by -this Act, that there was no inconsistency- in uniting. political power with the Roman Catholic religion, how could it be con- tended that. any bounds could 'be set to it?-- He did maintain that the Bill declared this, and he hoped their Lordships 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 a con2aCxion between the Church and State, and that *political power could be exercised onlyby those professing the EstabliShed Religion, but the new law ciould and must declare that :there was no necessary connection between.theEstablisbed Religion and political power, and it left the Establishetf..Re ligion to support itself, open to all risks. This would be a.complete change of the whole System of the country, and it was difficult to say how soon it would iced to the consequences which he had just stated. The Bills now - brought hi pro posed securities to satisfy the Protestants - , which were highly penal to .the Catholics.. He had examined- the provisions of this, Bill, and with regard to the •provisions of -the second Bill, he had no hesitation in saying, that he conceived some of them unjust, but almost all inapracti cable. He wished to' ask their Lordships if they meant; after passing these Bills, that: their provisions should be carried into eifecti and he would then ask what would be the : con- sequence of resistance ? He would ask, dick they not think that resistance would expose the State to all the dangers of religious persecution'? He would admit that there would be' no danger from the right minded, but there would be from the !wrong headed Roman Catholics,' and thew were some who would wish to become mailyrsi- r in such a cause. He did not me :n to say That persons of this thiscription were confined to . the Itomit 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, but a new law, which they were 'bound to see Car ried into effect: He held the pciwer of the -Vet . ° to the appointment of Bishops to be 'of no sealue and if he had the honohr of serving the Crownin Ireland, he thought he could do it moie.effec tunny, without that Veto than with was an obnoxious power which prevented the exercise of those means which might be laudably and beneficially exercised - ; and it set at variance the Government and the Roman Catholics. - 1 - feheiti that : th(ire were but two courses to be followed : one . was to leave, the Roman Catholic Church,to itself, not to legislate for it, but to grant the con cessions upon the taking such oaths as sbould be thciught , fit. The. other course was toproceed. upon sotttn principle Of,pa,ying th e.C2pro. /