The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-11 00:00:00

from danger.--(Hear !)—They tore the people from their natu-
ral
leaders, and subjected them to the influence of the Clergy, •
which if tempered by other feelings would be wholesome, but
in its exclusive operation was pernicious. The system drove:
the Catholics to take a rude and wild justice upon the laws that,
oppressed them.—(Hear !)—How lamentable that a Nation so
capable of every generous and grateful sentiment should, by,.
legal compulsion, have .contrary feelings engrafted on their
nature. In the time of the Henrys and Edwards it was
said that the Irish were not fit to enjoy the English Con-
stitution, and the assertion had. worked out. its-own veri-
fication. Ireland was not in a situation to feel the quiet
operation of our Constitution—it acted,- if he might use the
expression, by paroxysms in that country—it moved by ef-
forts. Hence the frequent recurrence to Insurrection Acts
to preserve peace arid the enactment of a recent measure,
which no man in that House more regretted 'than he did.
Thhty: years_ago.all things were under a code of restriction in
Ireland—now all were free but the Catholics, and they, while
every thing else was melting and subsiding around them, re-
rnaM ed a monument of the injustice of the Laws.—(Hearf)—He
admitted that he found
.among the Catholics, as among .the
Professors of all Religions, varieties of characters, some of
them were severe and rigid, others were mild and imbued with
the purest charity, nor in mentioning the latter could he refrain
from alluding to an Irish Roman Catholic Prelate now no more,
Dr. Everard, the late Bishop of Cashel. No man, whether
Protestant or Catholic, was ever more worthy of the office of a
Christian Prelate than Dr. Everard, and so tar from being im-
bued with bigotry lie and the, Protestant Archbishop of the
same place lived through life in habits of fraternal amity.— -
They were besides both sincere and zealous in their respective
religions, and residing for the most part under the same root,
spent their time in brotherly affection, and a truly pastoral
attention to their flocks. He also hoped that many similar
instances would occur in Ireland if this- Bill passed into a law.
(Heow, hear !)—The varieties of character in the Catholics, to •
which he had alluded, was strongly exemplified throughout ,
Europe during the wars of Henry IV. The one party of '
them, severe in principle and atrocious in conduct, was head- •
ed by the Duke of Guise—but as if to show host- great a
discrepancy could obtain in persons of the same creed, the
opposite party who supported Henry, IVe a Protestant
Prince, were mild and benevolent both in . faith and prac-
tice. A Catholic Historian, too.e. in recording this fact,
ascribed it to the belief which the Catholics of France enter-
tained
that Henry was destined by Providence to reign over
them. What too said that Historian Thuanus in the Preface to
that history. With the permission of the House he would read
a short extract, which showed the liberal and tolerant spirit of
the writer. It proceeded—"- Tempe ad cmterke quihus hoc •
infestum virtuti sawolum scatet male, relieionis dissidium
accessit, good jam toto pa=ne sectilo orbem Xtianuin conthmis
moribus vexat et deinceps vexabit, nisi tempestiva remedia,
atque adeo alio quam (ut hactenus adhibita aunt, at) ins, quorum
prsecipue interest. adhibeantur. Nam experientil satis 'edocti
sumus, ferrum, flamnius, exilic, proscriptiones, irritlisse potius
quam samisse.morbtim mend inlimrentem : ad quern paoinde
curandum, non _iis gum in corpus. tantum penetrant, sell doe-
trines et sedulll institutione, qute in animum lenitur inatillata
descendit, opus esse." What .did he conclhde from these
facts, that indiscriminate charges against whole bodies of
people were false and absurd. Wherever good laws have pre-
vailed there Roman Catholics were found good subjects—(hear) •
—and his object was to surround them with such genial influ-
ence as would render. them good and loyal members of society.
He should not detain the House longer, hut to wake one obser-
vation. In expressing himself as he had done, he trusted it
would be believed that he was not indifferent to the religion he
belonged, or ignorant of the distinction between it and that of
the Catholic.—(Hear ! )—Were that the proper time and place
he hoped he should be able to convince Honourable Gentlemen
that the most sincere anti ardent. attachment to our creed was
compatible with the most charitable feelings towards all others.
He detested the sentiment that no man could be liberal on mat-
ters of belief who was indifferent.—(Hear, hear!)—ln conclu-
sion he had only to say, that although this measure might be
delayed for one, or perhaps two years, it must pass.—( Hear,
hear I)—He saw that event in the anxiety which the people of
England took in the , affairs of Ireland—in the improvements
which they were desirous to introduce into that courarT—in he
measures which Parliament had already adopted to serve Ire-
land; and in every stop of the liberal policy which iris Right
Hon. Friend had taken.— (Hear, I)—He put it then to those
who opposed the Question, whether it were not better to crown:
I
their work at once, when it Mielit now .be rendered both ac-
ceptable and delightful, as well as benefieial. He pitt it to
them whethertheir consistency would not be best preserved by,
generosity, and voluntarily advancing to do that which their
resistance might retard, but could not prevelt.—(Hear, hear I)
• The SOLICITORtGENERA L expressed his deterrnina.
tion to oppose the bill. He cootrasted the writings of Dr--
Doyle, on whose testimony so mucfi stress had been laid, with
his evidence on the same subject, and contended that, with
every respect for his station and talents,- such discrepancy did
not entitle him to confidence. It was impossible to argue the
present question without reference to the other,bills which were.
connected with it, and therefore must be considered as a part
of the same measure. .He agreed hr the opinion his Hon-
oorable and Learned Friend the Member' for Winchelea
had pronounced on the Disfranchisement Bill, and, lie be-,
lieved, that if carried into effect, the di.tra-chised freeholders
of Ireland would feel disposed to exercise that vague anti rude
justice on the severity of the law. to which-his Right. Honour-
able Friend (Mr. Grant) had alluded. What with its object
but to sacrifice a great class of the .community to • the ambition
of the few ? That Mr. O'Connell should sit in that House, have
a silk gown, or be elevated to the Betich—that the Doke of
Norfolk anti the Earl of Fingal should be summoned to Parlia-
ment, a great body of freeholders were to be disfranchised. The ,
rights of the many were to be sacrificed to saosty the ambition of
the Patrician and Equestrian order of the Cal 11011C3. laugh.)
He would ask the Hon. Baronet, the Member lot Westoiinster,
what would be the consequence, if it were proposed to disfran-
chise the tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, et Itoe genus Omnr,
of the city which that .Hon. Baronet had tire honour to repre-
sent? What did the Honourable Baronet suppose would be the
result, if it were attempted to disfranchise the ehininey-swoepers,
who, as the _Hon. Baronet well knew, lived in many of the
alleys of Westminster,while the shopkeepers and higher:
orders of the inhabitants were allowed to retain their rights?
It was said, that these forty-shilling freeholders io Ireland were
driven to the place of election to vote, at the discretion of those
by whom they were so treated; but in that respect they only
resembled the individuals in the well known case of the . Isle-
worth mill, who, possessing each a forty-shilling yearly inte-
rest in that mill, were driven to Brentford for the purpose of
giving each his vote in favour of the return of. the Hon. Baro-
net, fbr iddiesex. But then all this was for the purpose of
conciliating those who would otherwise not be disposed to sup-
port. the Catholic Relief Bill. The supporters of the Elective
Franchise Bill, did not wish the success of that measure, for
the purpose of putting an end to the fraud and perjury, the
existence of which they asserted, but for the political advan-
tages which the other Bill secured.. So indifferent were they
to the cause of religion and morals, that they were quite dia.
posed, if the Catholic Relief Bill were not agreed to, freely to
relinquish the Elective Franchise Bill. It was evident that the
present friends of what was called Catholic Emancipation, had
no objection whatever to rob one class of the Catholics for the
purpose of benefiting smother -class. Should the whole of the
proposed Bills receive the sanction of the Legislature, some cu-
rious dialogues might possibly take place in Ireland on the re-
turn of the gentlemen who had been delegated from the Catho-
lics of that country. For instance, he could imagine a meeting
between-Mr. O'Connell and one of the unfortunate disfranchised
40s. freeholders, in which the latter might say, " Well, Mr.
O'Connell, and what have you. got ?" " Oh," the answer
would be, " I have got a silk gown and a seatin Parliament.".
" ! that's very well indeed for you ; but what have we
Aot ?" " You ! why, while we have got well robed, you have
got well robbed !"—(A loud laugh.)—A robbery it unquestion-
ably was; and he had no hesitation in declaring it to be his
decided opion, that a more -unconstitutional measure than
this Elective Franchise Bill, had not been introduced
into Parliament since the grand forfeiture of the charters
under James 11. In the well known case of Nottingham, the
proceedings were founded upon evidence on oath. There was
not upon the Journals a single case of the disfranchisement of
a borough for corruption or mal-practices, except upon evidence
on oath. .Yet they were Pow about to disfranchise a large body
of the people without any evidence at all, and with the utmost
discrepancy of opinion as to the amount of qualification to
which the right of voting might advantageously be limited. He
would now proceed to the. other measure, .he. meant to the re-
solution which had been agreed to.on the motion .Of a Noble
Lord, which wens to the establishment in this country of a
Papal Church armed with full powers and right of jurisdiction.
He did not believe .that many Honourable Members were aware
of the, extensive, and intolerable nature of those powers, anti
of that jurisdiction. Did those who.agree to this hasty vote
know that the Papal Church had a right to interfere with
baptism, with marriage, with burial, with the sacrament, with
going into the church, with receiving charity, &c.? Permission
with respect to all these matters might be granted or withheld
according to the will of the Catholic Clergy., No such power
existeriitt the hands of our Clergy ; for since the Reformation
those rights which, until that period, had been spiritual, awre
converted to civil; but by the constitution 'of the Romish
Church they were spiritual rights. Under the Church of Eng-
land, those-subjects were brought before legal Courts;_ pre-
sided over by the King's Judges ; but by the vote to which he
had alluded, the Catholic Bishops in Ireland were invested
with the sole and entire jurisdiction over them a and had the
,power of coercing the whole Catholic population of that
country. Adverting to the form of the oath to be taken
by the Catholic Bishops, he expressed himself at a loss to un-
derstand why, as' the Catholic BiShopO' in Spain and in other