The National Register.
London, England, 1811-06-02 00:00:00

342

the Pope's supremacy. The Concordat made between Buona-
parte aid the Pope. and referred to the opinions givets by the
Roman Catho is Universities, from which he contended that
those (the Catholics) who now cried up toleration, were of all
s as the most intolerant; they were not impeded in the exer-
cise of their religion (hear, hear!); they had even more politi-
c :1 power than the most favoured nation on the face of the
globe (hear. hear!)—their property and their lives were pro-
aea.,,t-e (boot cries of hear, hear!) and even Buonaparte him-
self was not so despi tic a tyrant as this Romish Hierarchy. But
if they w, re permitti- ,! a share in the i.eislature, what would
be the cause quenc4 ? Buonap::rte would not allow such a peo-
ple in his dowinions, although he himself pretended to be a Ro-
man Catholic ; they were the inv tera' e enemies,of the English
Government, and mu n be so from the nature of their religion.
He denied the population of Roman Catholics in Ireland to be
so great as bad been represented-49 out of .50 of the landed
proprietors in Ir,Lnd were Protestants, and those who po-sessed
s:mal property were as 9 tie 10; if, therefore, the Ronan
Catholics were to be put upon an equality with the Prottstlets,
the consequeoce would he, that they were too poor to pay
taxes. He admitted, that ie Roman Catholic soldiers did be-
have very well, but it was not a spirit of arts stir and glory that
induced th- in to Lott r into that sec vice, hut they enlits‘d to get
the money they were only allowed by the pay. He was very
far from deprech.tiog the ii courage and integrity ; he only meant
to say, that more than half of the Irish army was composed of
Pi oteAants of ttie Church of England, and good Protestants
too. He denied :hat Cie Petition on the Table was signed by
an.. of the respectable Roman Catholics: be knew many re.these
re .pectuble Roman Catholics, and highly respected them; hut
who was this Petition signed by, and by whom framed ? I !tree
or tour Roman Catholic Barristers, who were not remarkable
for havi: g much ess, and many persons of the middle and
:wer classes. Bet who was the framer of this Petition ? One
Peter Pinnerty, who was originally a journeyman tailor. but on
coming to this country turned ()rater. On his return to Dubliu,
wh.re he hail Been mllored for sedition some years ago, he re-
lee ivied the thaek, oft he meeting, and this was the framer of this
petition ; all these petitions were the same, and. came from the
same source. Put he knew them well, their objt cts and their
principles; if the- House gave them what they asked they woukl
not be satisfied ; n hat they wailed WAS not emancipation, but a
total separanon front this country, and to establislna democratic
republic; and as to their (moy' aging., mutiny, that was a favutir-
ite doctrine among them, that was a part of their creed, and
they wenl.l nor relinquish it. (Great cries of no, no! hear,
hear, hear!) lie was then proceeding to cite several passages
from the speeches of the Roman Catholics in their several meet-
ings in proof of his positions, when the House became impatient,
and the la arced Doctor concluded by giving his decided nega-
tive to the motion.
General MaTiliEw explained.
Mr. PON SON ry warmly supported the motion.
Tliv CHANCELLOR of the Eat:neon:ex regretted the nature
of the discussion, and shrill(' only state briefly some reasons
which would influence his vote. HI: nose heard, after a long
interval; the elahr. of right revived. He would allow the fallest
claims of Toleration, but the idea of a claim to political power
was palpably absurd, and eminently so, as corning from the very
men who perperually talked of power 'as only a trust for the
people. If there was any fear hat any
body of men would use
their power improperly, it (meta not to he put into their hands.
This single proposition made the claim of right to pOwer absurd.
He had never put the question on the loyalty or eourage of the
Catholic, but simply on the probable abuse or use of the power
which he would have over the estahlishmehe. fie gave tbe
hiehest praise to the bravery-of Irish soldiers and sailors; but
those merits had an inferior connection with the question. The
tuguage of the lion. GAitletoan • (Mr. Grattan), who consider-
ed trims as -an oppresi.ion, and against the. canon of the Almighty,
shewed the spirit of the motion, and of. the Catholics. Wonlii
not this be pr eliminary to the abolition of tythes and the abollLion
of the establi,hment? Those G“ntlemvti who had spoken so'
much of the Irish were not iefaii:ble. Dr. Milner had been ttie
god of their idolatry. He soon became quite the contrary. The
same;hint haNiened in their declarations on the veto. The
Irish now woul.t allow it, and now they would not. All this
ought to generate some distrust of the it knowledge. He loved
Christian toleration, not the toleration of philo:iophy. The
French tolerating philosophers were atrocious persecutors, and
they overturned 211 establishments. He thought that the' more
any great sttcs w. re brought loan equality of hunou:s eels nearer
trey were to a struggle. They ought to'h:ive subordinationf to
have Peace. It was not to be supposed that the 'Catholic Petit
• lion was more agreeable to the nation, because the public ioiee
was less loud at_.:aimt it than formerly. The reason' was, the
public tear will lespi active. When .at a late period, dingernna
measures were ttrEed.by the I .egisloture, the cry of the nation
root 46:414 than.- i';u: o‘. that cry' was imputedlo his
•. • ...• •