The National Register.
London, England, 1812-04-26 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

56

thc m, that it they did not sign ti.e Catholic peicion th y would lose
all their c ustoiners, ai.d this to the lower order of people was a very
serious thing. The petition of the Protestants of Dublin lay in a coffee-
house, where, if a person went in, he was asked if he would sign the
petition Z And the mode of signing was by writing his name on a piece
of paper, but to see the petition be was not allowed. He understood
that the names, so collected, were afterwards transcribed to the peti-
tion • this was a circuttistance which was most extraordinary and on-
precedentel. He condemned the urging the great power of Euo iaparte
as a reason for granting the liberties desired by Ireland; and he would
ask, were thirteen millions of the Protestants of England to sacrifice
their Constitution for the gratification of the ambition of 2,500,000 of
the lowest order of the community of another country P He hoped
that these arguments would have their full effect on the House
of After
recapitulating a few of his arguments briefly, for the purpose
ing 'he grounds of his opposition, he citicluded by opposing the motion.
The motion was afterwards opposed by Mr. W. J. Bankes' Mr.
Owen, and Mr. C. Adam; and supported by Sir J. C. Hippisley,
Lord
Binning, Mr. Vernon, Mr. Ma: ryatt, and Lord Milton.—At half-past
two o'clock the debate was adjourned till Friday.

FRIDAY, APRIL 24.
CATHOLIC QUESTION.
The Order of the Day fur i esuming the Adjourned Debate on the Ca-
tholic Question b ing read,
Sir Was SCOTT rose.—He bad heard, in the discussion of this sub
ject, a great variety of topics incidentally introduced, and among the
rest an abusion to the illustrious Seminary-which he had the honour of
represen . The Hon. Gelitleritan who had made such allusion
not evince that affection and respect far the place where he had received
les edi.catioo, weis-li might v. lure such recollections eXisted, have been
noturaliv enoit,.ll expected. Fur .11 a University, he would say, that no
common ty of men in the country had at all times manifested a more
shaken attachment to the Coos i-ution, or a more zealous support of
ev-ry thing that was valuable in the civil or ecc.esiastical relaticos of the
co:.ntry. Was it just then, when talkie; of such per: ors, and of their
petition, to say. that they were hut pour judge s upon a sul•ject. of this
kiitd, and that in place of being heard. when they expressed theirsenti-
rnents. they should be sent back to the privacy of their cortege. He
fool• 1 not but lament • that the occasion for speaking of it occurred so
frequently. He was sorry to perceive, that it seemed to be kept up,
merely as an object fur cootention. It: was by no means to be considered
as é subject of such a nature as the Slave Trade ; it was a matter affect-
ing rn 're powerfully than any thing els • could do, both domestic pas-
sloos and domestic' iota rests, .tad which in its frequent agitation, ran
very much the hazard of se•ting tire to the country., If there existed
any. probability of coming to au agreement upou it, if any disposition
appeared on the part of this country to consent to the claims of the Ca
thobcs, titers indeed those claimi might be discussed with some proba•
billy of success, and with less danger of oisturbance. But when he per-
Calved that year after year the sa•n_ demands had been refused, when
be recollected that but a few weeks had elapsed since this question had
been at least virtually disposed of, lie would ask, what •probability there
was now of success?—(Hear/)—every year • the danger of refusal was
re•eated, every year it was asserted that ruin would tollow, without the
co• !1:1;., measure eois rt presented as capable of prat uc
-t t'.ese eireful con:tope:noes did not toilow. It was ti ne that the eeti-
ti.:;e• a ,ainst ii. had not been very numerous, but this did not at he tr-oit
want of feeling upon the subject. Strong sensations were felt upon it,
though they were not expressed; snd toe country was not loud upon the
subject, because they a. ;cipa:ed• that it would be decided in the same
way 41 which it had hi en often before decided. It could not, he was
convinced, be gronted, without producing a convulsion which would
lead to very disastrous consequences. It was ome time ago looker upon
as • tundaniental principle, that the Civil and Eccl. siostical parts of the
Co' stitotion were united; but they were now given to understand, that
thi • d •et ine was not right, aild doe religious estabAshments stood upon
nu better ground than others, which must give way when the necessity
of sire emstances required it; and that even the protection of such esta-
blioirn.oits may he derived from eI:A-solos whose prineiples were hostile to
their exist en• e. 41. ch Fyr•ons svnold petsuade them, that a I)!utestant
Chancellor nd Protestant Prioy Couosellors, may be the faithful guar-
dian; aod o.l.visers of a Protestant Kiog. When he looked at the eenius
of he Roman C:: [hoist religion, when he looked at its principles, lie was
I convinced r. at the professors of that religion must have at heart the
extinction of the erotestatit worship. . When he considered, that they
admitted no sahrati• it out of tio: pale adieu. Church, he c, uld not con-
sider them as fit eeioutis tc have any share iu the protection of another
Church. His opinioti was, and all history fortified him in it, that ill. re
must be a ro..6iott in every State vested with superiority, and if-that su-
per:o:ity were not supported, they may talk as they pleased of the bene-
volence of mankind: hut religious parties would become political ones,
and lose nc opportanity of seizing on that superiority. He had fre-
quentay a ooed tt aisertsd front the other side, that if those concetsions
were rot niado, Ireland waa lost—that separation would inevitably be
the coosequooce. But wa.:, he to understaA, that, in consequence of
such refusai, the gentlemen of that country would desert their. duty ?
their all.:3ii.oce upon theni ? This supposition.. he be-
lieved, was tiDjUott • The Geutletueu opposite had trot brought this

APRIL 26

question forward while in power, and he hoped their chants; of eituation
would produce no change in their sentiments.
Mr. ISeetoe supported the motion. .
Mr. YORKE rose. He would mute to the House some of the gr melt
on which he ventured to maintain that the tenets ot ail true t mitotic,
now were what they had been for ages. Soon aft, r he tnteree! Parlia-
ment he was led to applaud the Bat brought in by l .urd Rael‘edsle,
tor extending the privileges of . the Constitution to the Ensiish Roman
Catholics; but he altered his opinion of the measure, from what sulee-
quently occurred. By that Bill an oath was prescribed, and it was . g
to on the part of those who were to take it. So seem, however, as the
oath came to the knowledge of the Vicar Apostolic, he condemned
it, and enjoined all those for whom it was me ant, not to take it. T. is
Apostolic vicar denounced the oath, setting forth that it could not be
taken by the " faithful" either of the clergy or of the laity—that the
" faithful" could take no oath whatever. Now what wa the oath
proposed, and which was condemned by this Vicar Aperonsic ? Wit\ it
stated that it was thereby sworn that the Pope conte not ObiU/re their
allegiance from his Majesty." Such was the tetiour of the oa h yet such
an oath could not be tsks n, said the see of Rome. To show that the
tenets of the Catholics still continued what they: formerly were, he
(Mr. Yorke) did not consult ancient lore; he quoted the works of
moderns—of enlightened men.—ln passing, •be meld net but rematk,
that the Popish Church of Ireland had been more devoted to its [iced—
to the Pope, than that of any other country, aye, much more then the
Church of either France or Italy Danger there could not hut be ap.
.prehended from the Catholics it ail the privileges of the Coo- elution
were extended to them. If proof fur.her were wanting of toe com-
plete devotion of the Roman Catholic: laity to their C lergy—to the
See of Route, than what the Vicar Apostolic afforded, subsaquent
events had brought to his mind thorough eenviction cu the subject.
The veto arrangement afforded the ground of that conviction. Si he
Cathel.c laity consented to give the vsto—they never objeetsd to it ; but
their Bishops did not approve ot it, and Ito soener did trey specor
against the. veto, than it totally disappeared.--(Hear ! ) Why, could
there be a more decisive proof of the complete domnioit that the Clergy
still le,ld over their Catholic laity ? The laity were stia the same, they
still remained completely devoted to their Priests and - Popes Here
was a pretty good proof, too, that the oaths were of some consequence
in the estimation of the Pope. The Pope was now a prisoners but no
one bad ever heard the opinion of the Irish Catholic Clergy. in the
event of Budnaparteoppointing a successor. In the event of there being
another Poe ninated b our invetrate enemy Buonapatte, would
the Romanp Catholom yic Clergy still deem their allegiance due to that Pope ?
If such a nomination were to take place, would not the Pope be com-
pletely at the will of Buonaparte ? When such might be the case, he
(Mr. N'orke) had a right to guard against approaching danger. He
should not choose that Buonapartes should be the keeper of the con-
gaieties, of three-feeirtbs of the people of Ireland.—(Loud cries (11licar !
hear ) Locke and Blackstone both thought that the Roman Catholics
could not be with any Government except that of leoine ; that by hair
oaths they were " lifted up against other Governments," and could
not give full and uncontrolable allegiance to any Sovereigns. After all
that had passed—after the experience of the ages that Lad gone by, the
Catholics of Ireland still set forth a claim •to -all the privileges* of our
Constitution. They wished to be made eligible in the eyes of the law,
to be Commanders in Chief, or Menthe's of Pm bans( nt ; 'to caeit,
as they now are, we arc told, they coreader theet selves in a tale of
slavery—in a state of degrada•ion.e—(Hear, hairlj—But the advocates
of the Catholics said nothing about their slavery and degradation to
their Priests.—( Hear / f—The fact, however, could not Le hidden—so
far as the Priesthood was concerned, the Catholic Laity was in a state
of the most abject slavery and degradation. They might petition but
to the greater part of the petitioners the restrictions were merely ideal.
There hid always been danger from Irish Catholics, but the present
state of the Roman Catholie religion made that danger greater than
ever. But it seems that a new argument was now resorted to, welch
was nothioa less than an . argument of pure imimidation.—(Hrar,
hear, hear N-s-If emancipation were given the Catholics, could ail
perst, believe that they would be conciliated; no, the Priests must he
satisfied, or it was iu vain to do any thing. Let them have a Po; e
of their own, if they pleased—let them keep hie' in great splendour, i:
they please el—and let them station him at Ballyshnnann, or arty vaere
else they l leased.—(Laughter.)--But some proof they mu, t give, trot
therare entirely free from all foreign influence, before he cotud consent
to take into consideratien the claims ot the Irish Roman Catholics.
Mr. BROUGHMAN supported the motion.
Mr. LESLIE FOSTER supported the motion, as did Mr. SHAW, of
Dublin. •
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, from the time that he had become pas
'cased of a teat in the Parliament, he had always Silently voted in
favour of the Catholic claims, because he reverenced the minds of the
persons who maintained the propriety of conceding to our countryn's
i;
claims, and refrained from speaking. because h had neteine rerear
tos
able to enforce. But he had nuw. come fully preparso to display
opinions, and the motives which actuated him in the vote which be was
prepared to aive. lie did this, because he was conscious that no pets.!!
could bestow a vote favourable to the pre• tilt nttiest, but who would
have his conduct traduced in a most uncandid manner. He was ja"
hed in asserting this) from the scrutiny in the Morning Parrs) ilk

l'