The Sun.
London, England, 1825-04-02 00:00:00

candour, too, in his statements, which serves]
powerfully to prepossess us in his favour. We
attended yesterday to a circumstance :tated
by Doctor Doyle, which was new to us,
namely, that the Pretender, as long as he
lived, had had the naming of the Bishops
of Ireland, who, in turn, had the naming
of all the Parish Priests, so that the whole
Irish Priesthood might be said to have been
named by the personage in question. A Corre-
spondent, who concludes his communication by
saying that " he could rot help thinking that an
advocate for Roman Catholic Emancipation might
as well not stir the question of the Pretender,"
contrasts the peaceful times of the Pretender's no-
mination with the times of disturbance which have
followed the concessions, with a view to prove
that penal severity was preferable to concession.
But we shall allow our Correspondent to speak
for himself :

" In commenting or. the evidence of Dr. Doyle, you bring
forward the fact that the Pretender virtually appointed to the
Roman Catholic Sees of Ireland to a very late date, and observe
that nothing can be a stronger proof of the absurdity of seeking
from a great population any other securities than those derived
from the interest they have in supporting the laws and the insti-
tutions of the country. Permit me to remark, that during the
time of this direct influence of the Pretender, there was no rebel-
lion in Ireland, no disturbance worth speaking of, although, if
we may judge by the clamour now raised against the small re-
maining fragments of the Penal Code, it was not likely to give
the people who were its objects any interests in supporting the
laws and institutions of the country. In 1715, Scotland and a
part of the North of England rose in favour of the exiled family.
In 1745, England was shaken to its very centre, by an attempt,
at first highly promising success, to put Charles Edward on the
throne—and yet Ireland did not stir. The Pretender's influ-
ence was totally gone at the accession of George 111., or con-
fined to swaying such idiots as cut a figure in Redgauntlet : and
from that time a system of gradually withdrawing the op-
pressive provisions of the Penal Laws commenced. Every con-
cession has been followed by insurrection. It is the fashion
with one class of historians to attribute the savage Barbarities
of 1798 to the Northern Presbyterians of Ireland—to the Orange-
men who derive their existence from the United Irishmen,
to which club they were established as antagonists—to Mr.
Pitt—to many other people—but he must wilfully close his
eyes who will not see that the sanguinary agents in it were the
newly emancipated Roman Catholics. If Jacobins or Reformers
instilled insurrectionary ideas they soon withdrew, and the war
from the moment that a gun was fired was one of what is called
religion.—You say-6 Can we have a more striking instance of
the folly of cutting off the great body of the people of a coun-
try from all connection with that of the State (than that of suf-
fering the nomination of so influential a body as the Popish
Priesthood to rest in a hostile Pretender to the Throne).' His-
tory will answer for me—That folly was never felt—we fought
Popish powers, and beat them in wars and campaigns without
any tumult in Ireland. to draw off our attention. This, when
the Pretender was in full activity, 6 creating the Catholic
Clergy.' Now, when he is gone, your own columns, Mr.
Editor, will bear me out in the assertion, that we are threatened
with the Bourbon influence on the Priests of Ireland in case of
war. Which generation is the more foolish ? The generation
which retained in its hands the power of demolishing Priestly
influence at a blow ; which laughed at it, and despised those
who grovelled before it, or the generation which has surrendered
that power, without any equivalent, and which is told to
tremble at the potency of those whom its own liberality has
called into political existence ?"

[MORNING HERALD.I
There is no leading article in this Paper to
day.

THE EMANCIPATION BILL.

The Bill for Catholic Emancipation, introduced
into the House of Commons by Sir FRANCIS
BURDETT, was, as a matter of course, read a first
time on Wednesday night. In this preliminary
stage of the business title occurred to enable us
to form a judgment of the degree of opposition
which the measure is destined to encounter in its
further progress; as will be seen by our Report,
inserted in another place. It *ill be observed,
however, that there are no grounds for the ab-
surd rumours which have been so industriously
circulated for some days past, with regard to the
probability of the powerful opposition of Mr.
PEEL being likely to be relaxed or rendered un-
availing. That gentleman, it will be seen, has
expressed his determination to oppose his whole
energies against the passing of an Act fraught
with such perilous consequences to the civil
and religious liberties of the British Empire.—
The change, too, which it has been as-
serted had taken place in the sentiments, of
Lord Lavettpoor, upon the subject of Emancipa-
tion, is a report. wholly void of" foundation.—
His Lordship, it is stated on the best authority,
is decidedly adverse to the granting of fur-
ther concessions to the Roman Catholics; and the
report of a relaxation in zeal for the Protestant
Establishment,in other high quarters, will, we have
no hesitation in saying, be found equally erro-
neous. The fact is, that the rumours referred to
were set afloat by the parties interested in the
success of the measure, for the purpose of stifling
the expression of Protestant feeling in the sister
country, by the obvious and clumsy trick of en-
deavouring to impress upon the public OA oppo-
sition was useless. The manoeuvre, however, has
failed ! The Protestant cause is not yet without
advocates, even in Parliament—strenuous and
zealous advocates too! The Association, and
its emissaries, have so far succeeded, that many
weak-minded people have been influenced by
their barefaced misrepresentations—many hu-
mane people have been induced to believe, from
the falsehoods that have been so unblushingly
promulgated, that Emancipation—Emancipation!
as it is termed in the slang of the day, was the
only " one thing needful" to place this unfortu-
nate country upon a level with its more fortunate
neighbours ! This same." Emancipation, never-
theless, is a mere humbug— a mere ignis fatuus,
put forth by selfish and interested individuals, to
lead the honest and well-intentioned astray. " The
alleged claims of the Roman Catholics wi4l, how-
ever, receive a discussion under Sir FRANcts's
Bill, which will set the matter at rest, we hope,
for ever ; and so far the Honourable, and for-
merly popular, Baronet is entitled to our best
thanks.—(Dublin Star.)