The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

did not feel himself caned upon to say mech.
because if the question were merely. a matter of
religion, if it were no question bordering in any
way on the interests of the State, it naust be
very unjust to shut out tiny persons from offices
of State on the score of their religion. He felt
that great praise we. due to • Right Reverend
Prelate, who had recently written on the subject,
for admitting
,that so far as the exclusion of
Catholics related merely to religious opinion, there
ask' be a• pretence for saying that Catholics were
not eligible for piblic employments; but on ec.
count of political considerations alone did the
Right Reverend Prelate &nod his objections to
the claims of the Catholics. To this opinion
he believed there could be no .diseent. If this
question of religion merely referred to the reli-
gious opinions of
.Roman Catholics, they. had •
clear right to relief. To say that merely on
omit of religion any pledge should be required
from those who were to fill offices of state, such
pledge having no reference to edrairs of state, he
conceived to he that which no our who heard him
would undertake. It could not he said that
the interests of true religion required any de-
durations from those who were called to fill public
places. Every religion was true to itself; every
religiim in itself was orthodox. And if true reli-
gion required of itself declarations from such of its
professors as were to hold high offices in the State,
such declarations would he required by the into.
rests of religion in all countries, Mahometan or
Christian. That any one would maintain then that
there was in the truth of religion something which
demanded declarations of faith independent of the
interests of the State, was more than lie expected.
Put if so, why not exact positive declarer front
the members of a Suite? Why not require a devils-
ration of filth it- the existence of a God—iii a state
of future rewards and punishments—or in the
mortality of the soul ? They might disbelieve or
deny all these, and still take the oaths with safety.
All the asseverations were of a negative kind ; they
were all expressions of abhorrence. He who made
them might believe in any thing, and almost every
thing, except the doctrines and creed of the Church.
But if declarations were necessary on the score of
religion merely, why were the Roman Catholics
uloire to be excluded ?- Why not take care to ex-
clude also him who refused belief in the
il:vinity of our Lord ? Why not take rare to
exclude the Jew, the Illahometion, or the Pagan ?
Why exclude the Roman Catholic, merely
li-iclitse lie believes a little more than themselves,
si,d !cave the door open to worshippers of Jupiter
or Osiris, to all who were reedy to bow down either
things its heaven or creeping things upon the
'tell,; to a3y thing, in short, not immediately
contemplated by a statutable abhorrence of the
roes of a very considerable Christian Church ?
There was an (mill by which they were boom! to
declare that they held the doctrine of traasub,tan-
UrUou be superstitious mid idolatrous. There
coull be no doubt that this was all opinion very
devoutly entertained by many who took the oath.
!sot, if every Gentleman who heard him were to
Ica called on to mike a declaration as to whether l'e
understood the isiraniug of a moos, and each person
stasweriug to the truth upon his honour, bring
ulso hound to give him (%ir. l'lniikettl his rote
iw case of not knowing die impel of a mass, he
felt diet he should be quite sure of a great many
votes which perhaps would be very honestly op-
posed to.hint. As to the Supper of our Lord, it
skis generally held to he figurative of the sacrifice
hy which maws fedrmotinu was accomplished ; the
Catholics .held it to heir rite meat effectual to the
'shish 111 l of the communicant. But it was aeserted
she, that the Catholics held the be.fief of the real
tuck nee of the hotly of our Lord its the elenseute.
If they said this, it was so opposite to reason, so
monstrously absurd, so contrary tit ell the sleet..
rations of our Lord himself on the subject, that
the House nest reject it without ceremony.
But here their thffieulties were otily beginning.
The.Catholica denied silly such belief as the real .
presence. The Cituncil of Lateran had only gone
14y es to insist on the belief of the real presence
roily its s particular sense. This was not the query
ymit upon winch the church first divided, it the
example of Queen Elinbetli were to fir taken into
enuederation. She had sliesvit herself willing to
she in defence of her faith, aid yet had prohibited
her clergy from discoursing and explaining, on thin
subject. He would read a short extract frusta
U*101) Barnet's History of the Reformation on
the subject :—" The chief design of the Queen's
Council was to anitu the natio• in one faith; and
the greatest pert of the tuition at that time be-
lieved in the real preseace. Therefore it was
isdviseil that that article of faith should be so
expressed that every one might be at liberty to
expound it according to the construction of his
own mind." Thia was the wisdom of a great
mind, which lied suffered peril on account of
the very thing in question, and yet retained respect
fur the scruples of others. She was a Princess who
would not, as had been eloquently expressed by
one of her Ministers, make windows to look into
the hearts of the public ; and esootwillovanding the
mummy and good dangers to which her life and
reign were exposed', she prohibited her clergy
from expatiating on that topic at the very
time when she was in the fullest posaeasion of power
to enforce lice own opinions. Sloe had done mom
she had isc'eally attend the Liturgy of Edward VI.
which hnaahly denied the doctrine of the real pre-
sence : so iliat there was nothing, left by her in the
eervires of the Church which could be well objected
its by good Cetholics. Was he then to be told,
that it was idolatry iii the Catholics to believe in the
-real presence. or that Queen Elizabeth was ready,
Hay GOOtotts. to admit idulateire to she annum.
~ion al the Church. and the privileges of the Con-
-161 ? He did Not believe that among those who
putted themselves so highly in their opposition to the
doctrines and follOwers of the Boman Church,
there was any one who would he bold enough to
tell Queen Elizabeth, were she then present, that
be was a better Protestant titan her Majesty. The
doctrines of Christianity required a benevolent cool-
'traction of the opinion, of others; and if so, was
be to tie referred to the Statute Book lor the inglo-
rious's in f*eper of o dental of common rights ?
Seth st consteactiou ne that of idolatry, implied the
defect .4 Utrieteseity, .ust the the blood of the
Sotriour had bees shed its reel. The ;ultimo'
of !layette were chicly idolatrous, if that coo-
stenc.nou of the belief of a particular doctrine

„ us ail qt.
his task by taking his oath that be was idolatrous !
To such inconsistencies were they forced by the
existing laws. By sine law, they made the Catho-
lics go to mass once on every Sunday to per-
form the ceremonies of • worship which, by so-
other law, was declared to be idolatrous ! They
contrived schools wherein this idolutory should
be taught to rising generations. In Canada
the idulatory was regularly legalized. In short,
they had formed a general junctiou with ido-
fitters. He strongly recommended these consider-
ation, to the reflectimi of those who most stre-
nuously opposed the claims. He next cause to the
eonstitutional pacifism. What he meant to sub.
mit to the House was this—that eligibility to all
face* and franchises of the State was the right of
eery liege subject of the King; that this was
the principle of the Constitution ; that the prin-
ciple livid not been touched or altered, either at
the Reformation or at the Revolution ; that the
regulations adopted at the Revolution were tempo-
rary modifications of the principle which were dim
supposed to be necessary ;„ that the circumstances
which were deemed to have made those regulations
necessary bad passed away, and that an acknow-
ledgment of their being no longer necessary had
been made on the part of the State itself; that it
was now necessary to examine how far alteration
would be beneficially rtfected; that Parliament
could not lo►ger turn aside its view from the sub-
ject, nor refuse to go back to the principle firm
which he set oat—the right of eligibility to the
offices and franchise► of the Slate in every liege sub.
jest of the King. By the principle just namedsthe
question became narrowed to this : Is the Roman
Catholic, or is he not, a liege subject of the King lb
The argument in support of the negative was, that
the Catholic acknowledged a spiritual suprem■
To what a monstrous consequence did this lead l
They would be reduced to this—that nut until the►
reign of Henry VIII. could there have been
soy thing like a liege subject of the King. At all
periods of the Constitution before that hall even
the temporal supremacy of the Pope been insisted
on, and had never been allowed. The spirituel
supremacy had always been admitted. If the doc-
trine before mentioned weoe true. all the inhabi-
tants of this country before Henry VIII. were
outlaws. Magna Chants hod been obtained by out-
laws. All the principles which lind been re-
established (not first asserted) at the Revolution
had been the work of outlaws. The gallant
Barons, who had been mentioned once already in
terms of proud commendation by his Noble
Friend who prevented the English Petition, were
outlaws, who were entitled to tight for and gain the
Charter, but were disabled nom opening it. If the
&conic were true, there was no Catholic in Europe
■ liege subject of his King, for they all owned the
spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The argument
was monstrous, or rather the assertion was mon-
struus, and bailed argument. What was there in
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, which invali-
dated loyalty The Catholics, in the Petitions on
the table, asserted their right to enjoy civil immuni-
ties and privileges, whether lie professed the creed
of his own or the national church. They claimed
the right of reserving the power of interfereace in
matters of conscience for the spiritual head of the
Church. In the article of marriage. there were degrees
of consanguinity allowed in the Protestant Church
which were forbidden by the Roman Church. The
Protestant Church held such marriages lawful ; the
Roman Catholics considered such parties living in
a state of deadly sin. But the Catholic never de-
nied the legality of the marriage, the right and no.
thotity of the husband, or the right of the children
to any possessions of property succeeding through
the relationship of such marriages. And if ally
Catholic were to attempt to interfere to pre-
vent the succession to any such property because
of the unauthorised degree of consanguinity be-
tween the hualutsid and wife, he %mull draw
upon himself the severest reprehension of the
church to which he beloged. In fact, there
was less demand of allegiance to the spiritual
supremacy of the Pope than ever. Before the
Reformation, the Pope held the nomination of
the Hierarchy : all the offices of the church were
bestowed under the direction of hint and those
under him. At present, the only claim made in
respect to his authority was, not any oliject
of practical jurisdiction, but the right of ap-
pealing to him in mere matters of conscience.—
He owned, therefore, that he had witnessed with
some regret the avowal of the Right Reverend and
very Learned Prelate. to whom be load before ad-
verted, that, as a merely religious opinion. he -did
not care about the exclu►ion of the Catholics ; but
that lie could never consent to admit them to the
privileges of the catietitution, while they persisted
in yielding to the Pope that superiority in the State
which the Prott slams of England yielded in the
King, but which the Sitiitch yielded to no! (((( ly ;
fu!' which the Reverend Prelate does, an infer-
voce of what he called a deficiency of civil worth.
—What was this deficiency of civil worth, whirl,
operated like the stigma of a reprobate caste, to
disqualify the sufferer from eujoying clad rights ?
This appeared to him to be whet Mr. Locke cal-
Ted ►eeing a little, assuming a great deal, and so
jumping to a it:undermost. The inference must be,
that this deficient• of civil earth was of the last
degree, and such as to entitle Itiot le nu considers.
ti to make hes reclusion imperative-. This
alone could satisfy a mathematical mind. He sir.
Rued ogviiist the ithsurdity of holding a profession
of faith upon a particular point, to be equally ol•e-
-rause with the on, st 01Ai.0., want of I prin-
ciple and 'clraraeter, lit excluding persons tioin the
enioymeod of civil right,. NOW it a mild tie bind-
ing on those 1,1110 lirsjobolled this opinion, or any
optaions from which this as sit itoference timid he
haply (basso, to 'emit oat the law and autherities
upon which it was Intended, and to cite the pros-
elyte of State nit wheels such • distiutnrni could lie
eistabliehed. As to the orthodox Dissenters of Scot-
land and the Dissenters of England, they were

by the trqglA ape. Prelate to Ire
new propertyi. of 11111* mirth in Mime dst
t not such as sewkostated to positive chi-
ihough their coodition was little baiter
soft of halm, from the curses of which '
rather difficult to escape. But he would
question as to the precise dessas of Med..

. 7

necessary to constitute a just Claim to civil
for as the doctrine of civil worth stood at
e it might be denied to those who were the
ighly gifted, whose lives were as lights fur
the guidance of Mankind in science and morals,
and it would be perfectly available by men
who were the reverse of these. Such would
be the effect of spplyiug this new-tangled doc-
trine of civil worth in its present shape and
state, that neither birth, nor rank, nor station,
nor truth, nor justice, nor honesty, would, in what.
ever degree conspicuous, avail the possessor against
its power. Such were the cositingesicies of pedantic
constitutions, framed without reference to existing
thing.. Political and moral constitutions must
always differ from practical osier. The latter
pended on circumstances., by which they were MO-
&fled and rendered available fur the purposes in-
tended by them. They could not be defined with
the same accuracy as the principles of matter :mil
motions. All that could bedone was to adapt them to
the necessity. But as to there sickly, new-fasliiened
definitions ofsupposed properties, they were at :iny
rate wholly inapplicable In the British Constitu-
tion. The principles of State, supposed a power
in the Crown to select those for its 'Atter* who were
worthy of trust. And also supposed an eligibility
in all the subjects of the realm to be selected to
fill such offices. These were the notions which
Mr. Pitt entertained when he declared the relict.
ance of the Coustitutiun to limit its regard to the
exclusion of any clam of subject.. For curious
quirks and novel abstractions they might be inee-
Mous enough, but they were only fit fur the school
or the cloister, and must be denied all reference
to the real affairs of mankind. The King bud
a right to choose his own officers, or it could
be no monarchy ; the people bud a right
of eligibility, or it could
.be no free monar-
chy. There were rightv, such as that of eligi-
bility to serve or sitting in Parliament, which
were not derived from the Creme or the lees, but
from the source whence the Crown end the laws
themselves were derived, and which were to the
fell as essential parts of the Constitutitire [The
Right Hon. Gentletwao read an extract front Load
Bacon in commendation of the limits which the
law of England put to the distinctions of clusees,
and the power of the regal authority in select
from among them to fill offices of State.V The
monarchy had the power of selectilag, but the
people had the right of 'legibility. The principle
of seclusion was an upstart republican principle, a
principle befitting a lawless association fur purposes
of lawless exclusion. It tended to art unnatural
and unconstitutional monopoly of right.. He, oil
the other baud, had the original and fundanientel
principles of the constitution for the bests of this
motion. It might be said that these principles un-
derwent alteration at the time of the Reformation,
and if not then, at the period of the Revolution.
There was is. period of history more falsified than
this. There was no part of the proceedings of the
Reformation which tended toexcludeCatholics. The
Act of Supremacy was an Act of the reign of Eliza-
beth, to mark thy difference between those of her Ca-
tholic subjects who were loyal sod those who were
not loyal to her perm!' and throne. The ailmoiti-
Coo of Elizabeth declined iii express term., ill a
her object vies only to secure the acknowledgment
of the saute right to the privileges and prernoiives
of the crown as had been esijoyed by her ancestors,
and that on this scconnt she would not suffer any
of her subjects to hula io ohedieticea Foreign Power.
And if she were content to take the eatii in that
sense, they would in that sense willingly receive it.
The admonition was incorporated in the sili Eliza-
beth, and mode part of the law of the land.—
The Act had this remarkable recital, " Whereas,
the Queen is otherwise sufficiently assured 01 the
loyalty of all those of, or above the degree of
Heron, now sitting in Parliameht, this shall tint he
held to extend LO Olefin." Here was proof that
she oath of supreniucy contemplated ally thing but
exclusion. tier Majesty had been otherwise as-
stared of the loyalty of the persons exempted from
the necessity of taking the oath. lie would
rettommend a perusal of the letter of Walsing-
ham to Moutivieur P. on the subject. The
word. of the Premier were, that " her Majesty
had never intended to make use of the oath as a
window to look into the 01 the public." All
that was sought was a proper 1111.0114 of diatinguish.
tog between motives of faction and of conscience ;
and this appeared so much more reasonable, when
it waft recollected !liar her rei •n was v.;sted by the
plots of Spain and the mschitiatious of various
foreign enemies. Yet she never changed her
opinion., but as times and eirviiiiistanees changed.
she adopted measures suiteble to their changes;
and that was the course which he hoped and trusted
her illustrious BUCCVII:4O, would adopt—nut to
change Ills °pillions or principles, bat make their
applteatina suitable to the exigencies of the
perio.l. Fur the lirst eleven years of the reign of
Catholics and Protestants went to the
salve diuretic,. Many of the others of State were
filled by Catholics, as they were under Charles I.
xnd Jittirt4 I. It was two much then to say, that
the principle of exclusion Wes este blislird at the
Rsfurniation. For lir, years after the Reformation,
at least, he had proved that the new-faugled doe.
trine of defect.ye civil worth hail 110 exwence. Sir
S Swale 111441 beau expelled that Eloise in 1677; but
this wits not bociiina: of hit being a Rowels Ca-
tholic but that lie was "a Popish recusant convict."
He was disabled from coming near the King's per-
sons or serving the State, said hence the basis of
the Resulution by which the House expelled him.
Thais it was made 'dolt that at the time of
Charles fI. 'CiAtietieT of civil worth wits tin argu.
meta of exclusion unknown to the State. But
chow.. to the period of the Revolution, there were
nntraces of this principle. The title of the Act of
Churls. IL was, s' Au Act to disable R. 0111,611 Cu..
iIIOIICS 110111 sitting in tether House of Par-
liament." This brought down to the 30th Charles
the Second the woof that the principle of
exclusion was not ati a 'Milted principle of the
Consittution, otherwise there could have been no
tired of an Act fur disabling Raman Catholics to
sit in either House. At that time the King was

3•1..... ...

•
stiFpected, the Heir Apt Were t more thin sillOrldtat t
Of being Papists in the insive sefise of the
low
word. The King himsel *big suspect ,E
eat in the mind of the mit -the appreheffialturof
the danger of flaying a Pots s Plirlininent chosen,
and all the functions of State replaced under
the yoke end -gwid iti '43opri direction....:
(knee the Text Act, which was merely a sub-
stitute for a Bill of Exclusion, which Bill of
Eselusiies would certainly have been bruised, if it
could have been done as easily se the 'hest Ace.
and then there would hive been no such thing as
the Test Act. But would any one pretend that
the Test Act ought to be considered as an inviola-
ble low, which could never with safety be repealed ?
Would it be claimed as one of the bulwarks of the
Constitution most essential to its preservation and de-
fence ? lie would demonstrate to thenouee that each
was not the case, and that it never was intended for
any part of it. design. lie might be asked, why ii
was passed at all, then, seeing that there was a Plll.
testent Prince upon the 1.1 I 1.1.1ie ? The auswer was
plain, from the dread of Ire-imill among a Popish
dynasty iroitig on. The law was built on the lie-
enemy of having some check ugaiiiet a King who
might nut lie l'i.(4estalit. But what was thine at
the Revolution ? Was this law then made a
principle of the Constitution ? No; the Ciiiisiitu-
lion left it altogether, and it was provided
that the King should he a l'iutestatit, or otherwise
lose the throne ; but not it hint was there as to any
need for preserving this law. OD far he hid
brought the proofs of the non-existesice of this
prioeiple down to the period of tile Revolution ; lie
would new state a few Cieho to confirm what
he hail advanced. Between the 4th and sth
Anne an Act hail passed, enabling certain Lords
Commissiosers io exercise the Royal buictions : a
eltuiie was added, which disabled these persons
from introducing into Parliament say Act tending
to the repeal of the Act of Uniformity. Why?
Because the Act of Uniformity heel become a
constitutional and inalienable law. In the pas-
sage of the Bill through Parliament, another
change was proposed, to disable the Comnsissiou-
ere from introducing any Act for the repeal
of the Teat Act, and the clam* was thrown out
by the House. Because the Test Act was con-
sidered as no essentiall past of the Consitutioo,
the 3011 i of Charles 11. was mentioned is the Act
of Union, end it was provided that the mob therein
immaturd should continue to be taken until Par-
' liarnent should provide otheraise--(Heor. hear)
—thus keeping the Constitution open on that
point to be governed by future circumstances.—
, Coming to the Union with Ireland, it .was pro-
vided then that the oaths should matinee to be
taken till the United Parlisoneot should otherwise
provide. Added to these parliamentary declare-
tissue, he had the reciorrkd opinions of Gannisig,
Pal, • Fos, Burke, Sheridau, and Wttallistu,
awl every name which had buoyancy enough
io float down the stream of time, to beck him
in arraigning the opinion, that the principle of
exclusion we, not contradictory to the essence of
the Constitution. Backed as he was by those great
nature, i •et 'when he looked round the (louse and
saw the chasm which had been made in the ranks
of the friends ,to the cause, he could not hut feel
the deepest 'egret. When lie remembered the in-
defatigable jadeite, and talent of Who bread ; the
golden dawning of excellence in Horner ; the
sic my and matured talents. of Sir Samuel Ro-
niilly, who took an interest in every thing which
reg.trded the interests of human nature; the
inte4rov of Ponsotiby ; his ever-to-be-lamented
friend Elliott; and, above all, that inestimable lose
which they lt.wl sustained in that tried patriot.
Gl:Mau—lie could not but feel mail walking before
the images of those illustrious men, as its a proces-
sion where evcry oilworthy feeling should be 111601.
lice(' on the altar of their country. He believed
there were now pieseut is the House many Meta-
hers who hail not given any opinions upon this sub-
ject—would they be answered by soy Hon. Mem-
ber t•iJt ti tig up and talking of the Reformation, or
the glotinan principles established et the Revolts.
lion? lied they not a eight to he met by facts in re-
ply to the hi•tirtical facts lie had quoted ? There
was a delicate past of the sulijeet to which lie would
strongly allude. There were a number of per-
sons usho felt that although there were no 4 ousti-
tutional difficulties Its the way, there were dangers
growing out of the measure to the Establiblimetit of
ilieClisech of Koglatid. Could lie think dist was the
case, dear as the claim of his country aus to him, lie
would immediately abandon it. lie would assert,
in contradietiOn to the Right lion. Member for
Oxford, that no such COliattpeaCe would follow.
With all his respect for the character of that Right
Hon. Gentleman, end with the highest estimation
of his principle,. both as a Ststeamaii and a Gen-
tleman, hr must *Mien there was no meson whose
°plutons, fixed as they were Ull whin lie esteemed un-
founded prejudices, were more calculated to work se-
rioes injury. Did be think thee there wits liodanger
to the Established Church ? Yes, hr did think there
was danger, but it was danger which existed at the
present moment from the isairownies of the baiii.
The light lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) haul asked
what security there would be fur the Church if the
Howe adopted this measure? lie (Sir. Plunkett)
would aura er.evory security that you had at prestos,
and more. What was the danger, as represented by
the Right Hon. Gentleman, ? Nothing but what
Octudily exists st the present tuomtut. lie mid there
was a large pioportion of the people of Ireland
of a different religion from that of the State; that
majority contributed to the clrrgt of the Establish.
meat ; ,further, that majority cointuunicated with
the See of Rome. snug besides that. the clergy were
appointed by that lwrign Power ; and, Insley, that
majority were ejected and excluded, not by the
force of public opinion, as be contended was the
ease iii England, but by the strung hand of power.
Since that statement of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, those persona weir put in pieseenous of Name
portion of substininal power, and they were ou
admitted by virtue of with., which the Right
Hon. Gentleman says, if they were sincere in their
religion, cauoot bind them. According to him
they were admitted into the heed of the State
tainted with peljusy and hypocrisy (crimes which
ought to exclude them from society). and lied a
parucipation in the power of the State by oaths
which do. not bind twos. and they were excluded
Irons the remaining power of the State by oaths,
and by oaths only. Ile would ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and every Member interested in the '

-

security of the, Eststilisliment, if that was the way
in which themetter ought to be left ?—if that were
the bed of eoses, the heap of Elysisu flowers on
which he Would wish to repose ? The Right Ho.
*mumble Gentleman argued, that if the Roman
Catholics were true to their religion they ought
to aim at the sabeersion of theEstabhabasent ;
but he (Mr. Plunkett) hoped they were bound
by oaths equally strong to resist it.—The Right
Honourable Gentleman having thus left the two
portions of the empire in interarinible hosti-
lity, says, " Fur shame! don't come forward and
disturb this state of tranquillity."--441 laggh.)
—Had they • right to leave the country in that
state ? If it were necessary, he should 'retire tato
inactivity—not the inactivity tot' reprise, bet of tor-
ture. He berried the Right lion. Gentleman was
not aware of the censequences of his argument--.
that the Irish Catholic was bound. by the prin-
ciples of his nature, and by the dietafie of 111. rs-
ligion, to endeuvour the subversion 'of one
blishment. If it were tree, Orrin's° was doe
wisdom :it was folly—it wessuicitle; and all that had
been grunted ought to have been refused. If in.
deed there were a serpent under that ottani to
sting Ui to the heart, then we must pot down
those altars ; if there he in their Ptligies a
spark which, when blowii into a lame, was to
set tire to our Establishment, then we must
put dawn their reltgion. It was a great COl%.
Subll 101 l to him, that its resisting that argument, he
at the Sallie time Klieved the Romani •Catlielie
from the imputatiou cast upon him, and the
Protestant from the burden of intolerance. The
cii,e of the Church of Scotland was not at ail in
point ; the circumstances were entirely differeut,
and could not by any ingenuity be made to apply
to the present ease. The Roman Catholic feels
himself hound by his duties as a sum and a citi-
zen not to attempt the subversion of that Govern-
ment which gives him security for life and pro-
perty; and h, would ask the Right lion. Gentle.
man, by whit authority lie took upon himself, in
oppositioo to the declarations and actions of the
Romani Catholics, to east upon them such a stigma?
He would rusk the Right Hon. Gentlemen what they
bad done since the Revolotiou to warrant it ? But
the answer is, no mutter what you sly or do, he
forms his conclusions upon his knowledge of the
principles of human nature. He (tlr. Plunkett)
could not and in the volume of human nature
which he hid read, that a Roman Catholic should
subvert the Estebleihnsent, merely that his priest
might have uo rival. No man would imagine that
lus parish priest would perform his duty better- be-
cause his religion was made that of the State—
that 'could hewer be found in human nature ;
but this he could 6nd there, that if a man,
excluded from pitlitical privileges and laid undet
incapacities, should be told that neither lie nor 'kis
children, to the esid of time, should ever enjoy those
rights and privileges, but should remain as a de.
graded and 'stigmatised caste—he did read in the
history of human stature that such conduct would
engender hate and hostility.—(Hear.)—What then
was the difference betweeu the Right HUI. Gentle-
man and himself ? He should propose that the
communication between the Roman Cattolics and
the See of Rome should be under the inspection
of the State. %%list was the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's remedy ? to leave it as it was at present, un-
iiispected. He (Mr. Plunkett) proposed that the
Crown should have some means of being assured
of the loyalty of the Clergy. The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman proposed to leave it as it
was—lie seemed so attached to the child of his
affectious that he was blinded to its imperfections.
His (Mr. Plunkett's) object was so to incorporate
she Roman Catholics with the State, that their in-
terest should be our security—/year, hear, hear)
—to rivet the affections of Use Romani Catholic by
every motive which could be binding on his con-
science, aud every argument which could be ad-
deemed to his uaderstanding, and removing every
restraint and exclusion. Would the Right Hon.
Gentleman recommend that matters should remain
as they are fur ever ? Gracious God ! could it be
supposed that the Roman Catholic was to be left
in a situation where by the principles of his stature
ei,4l the dictates of his religion, lie must aim at the
subversion of the Estahlisised Religion ? He
(Mr. Plunkett) did nut pupate to strike the
shackles from his legs ; lie was already free;
but lie proposed to remove the mark from his fore-
head, and restore him to all those rights which were
the proudest boost of Buttons, as being the birth-
right of a free-born subject ; said he besought the
House to listeuto the proposit i on which lie shou Id have
the honour to submit to them, and not drive their
Roman Catholic brother from their bar, telling him
that he was stigmatised, and deserved to be so.
The power of the Catholics in the State arose from
the increase of their wealth and populatioe. These
were the foundations on which the gates of political
power were always erected, and knowledge KiM
the keys. The cry of the Catholics would, he
was eatisfied, 611 d uu echo within those walls, and
within the breast of every Englishman in the
empire. Experience had always ahewn that in all
disputed points that party ultimately succeeded
who had truth and justice on their side: change
places with the Catholic, then strip hen of his
wrougs, and yow strip liiiu of all his terrors. Did
the Right Hon. Gentleman mean to say that no
concession should ever be made—that Ireland
should remain a jungle fur wild beasts—a
moral waste, in which all the social virtues
would perish, aud every vice spring up ? No.
he could not contend for that, because lie Mad ail-
milted that restriction was au evil ; but he sat..
there has been concession, and there is a point at
which concession ought to stop, and he is so satis-
fied with the arrangement made in 1793—he is so
assured that the Irish Parliament bad attained the
exact line beyond which further concession becomes
improper, that he fixes himself there. But if that
lose bad been so correctly drawn by the Irish Par-
11.1ment. why not rowed the wieder" granted to
the Irish to the Catholics of Euglaud also ? they
were surely entitled to it from their long suffering
and palest forbearance..-s-(Heer I—He ihoogit
it would be extieneely difficult for a man, w!,O
thought the arrangement of 1793 was just what ,t
ought to be, to object to the House now goitig mt.
a Committee to give the honest, wise, and petieii;
English Catholic his reward. The Irish Ciitholic
cannot himself be • member of Parliament : lit
may have an estate which enables him to rettirti onr;
but lie must not exercise the right its his own per-

ros 'Weis .ticrOistible; b faith • construction Was •:...ssoloisitted I
nseastrins, twinkle she
,tiAech,iskitiaut -irhich. :of this (le
were elected from C a ijk,int oeisr.iese„, li, ‘ 'tor, but
1re1441 gismo Catholic* were admitted to the aility, th
functions of Grand Jurors and Magistmteit ; bet than a st
before entering on his office of Juror or Magis- it seemed
trate, the Catholic was obliged to swear that he put a (it
Was of the religion he professed. In other words he 1 worth nee
wits made to swear that he was an idolator! He, who i rights ; G
mfght be called on to judge of various points ao- I present, i
pertaining to religion, was first of all qualified for i most big

I I I I • eimm •