The Sun.
London, England, 1812-04-25 00:00:00

I-0;0es whifli ziffl.6 the Catholics of Ireland Are
we to act, in this momentous question, upon the
leport i a Sel..!,:t Committe-e,?

Mr. GRATTA roc to sta+e, that according to the
rules of the House it would be a Gituthittee of the
whole House.

Mr. Pairca.vAr----Well then, we are now told dig,-
tinetly, than it is .4 Committee of the whole House
. which is moved for; and I have no hesita:ion in
Saying that this is, in every respeCt, more desirable
than a SeleetCommittee: But, Sir, are we not to
krrow what we have to do when we gointo that Com-
mittee ?—iktre we not to he- told what duties we
shall have to perform ?—Are we to) examine wit-
nesses at our bar, to ascertain what are the opinions,
what 'the doctrines, and what ahe peculiar tenets -of
the Roman. Catholic religion ?' A Right Hon. Gent;
Who spoke in the debate, seemed ;write to think that
we were to have evidence. What,! call to your bar
witnesses to depose their own evidence about
the notions entertained by the Roman Catho-
lic Clergy and Laity. IS that the sort of thing
for which we are to go into a Committee ? Or, if
• that be not, what is it ? I really wish that any of
those Gentlemen who are so eager to vote for this
Committee, would tell me what will be its labours.
.1 am in the dark about them ; so I believe is the
whole, House ; and they who vote for the motion
will give a sort of blind vote, nor knowing the pre-
cise and definite obje& at which they are air-ling.—
This obscurity, indeed, will •have one good effect,
those votes will be in its favour which would proba-
bly 'be withheld it all were clear and distin6t. Ido not
mean to say that this is not good parliamentry ta6lics,
for it serves to catch votes thatiwould of her.wise be lest.
Now with regard to granting the prayer of the Ca-
tholics, the House is pretty well united in
.the feel-
ing, that their prayer cannot be granted without con
ditions, without guards,' and without securities of
some sort. The matter is to be considered either as
a question of religion, of right, or of expediency.
As to tel I would leave it altogether out. of my
view; and I deny Wrongly that it is a question pf
right, and , in this denial most of those who have
argtied upon the subjeal, either now or on former
nights, concur. That which is purely the creature
of society, thief which springs out of social institu-
tions, ,odice,, and emoluments, can never.be ,a mat-
ter of inherent right ; no man can have any orijoal
or primitive claim upon them. It remains these-
fore, to be considered as 'a measure of policy or
expediency ; and the'fair question is, whether there
be a :y rational ground of danger in conceding What-
the Catholic: derailed.' In•the first place, it may be
c nsisler d" very natural in those Who live under an
estab ishment which till now, has always been called,
and always 'thought a Protestant one, should feel a
little jealousy in removing 'those securities, all
those proterlions. which have been frame:l for the
_safety of that establishment. An Hon. Gentleman,
indeed has said, that it is not now a Protestant esta-
blishment, -for it ceased to be such when the con-
cessions were tnade to the Catholics in 1793 ; but
this is an arginnent, which I confess I am:Unable to
We are a •Pretestant House of• Parliament,
we have a Protestant Establishment, and a Pro-
testant King, and the' proposition now is, to
Ro-nair C.-itholie:4, contrary to law, con:-
till to those-securities which the wisdom of Our
ancest-r• provided, contrary_ to the spirit of the
Cons int- ion, into an equal participati-n of Civil
and political rights. Here, then, in my apprea
hensien, is the &intl. which the Gentlemen on
the opposite side call upon us to show, as attendant
neon tli. measure of Catholic Emancipation at the
plestrit motnent. That there is some danger, even
the avowed supporters of the measure .are ready to
• the party to which they belong espouse the
same opinions upon the subject as Lord Grenville,
and what. those 'opinions are we all know, for he
his published' them to the world. He declares,
in tl!e.iseek alluded to, that some guards, some se-
curities, are necessary ; and 1 do not meats to say
that the'Neh:e•Lord has altered his opinion, -for,
frem all that I can collect, -he still requites the same
conditions—the same terms. Why then do not they,
in ,idmitting the'necessity of securities, the ex-
istence of danger ! And why do theythen call upon
us to 'spew where the danger is ? lam very sure
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself would not ;xis!)
to yield to the prayer of the Roman Catholics, with-
out so ne terms and conditions being imposed : and
I t,,itik it but reasonable to ask what those terms
a,e ? What am I told; :however ? That it those
terms be ex twined, if those Securities -he investi-
gated, if those gnards• be deliberately viewed and
ascertained, the Roman Catholics will be offended.
Will, if then they are to be hurried through the
House without exatninxion, they had better be re-
Sr I ed secre=ly till the third reading of the Bill, and
then tacked to it by way of rider, 'to prevent those
unpleasant Veservations upon them. In fact, Sir,
no other conclusion can be drawn fro n the mys-
terious siltnee of Gewlemen respecting the nature
ars4 operation of these -securities,: but this--.-they
know they have nothing to propose that will eithigr
be aicepted by the Catholics, or endured by the Pro.
testants. It is 'because they mean nothing,. that
they will mcntiun nothing ; they hate no 'safe-

guards to propoSe, and therefore they are silent.—
Eut. a:e told bat we might have had safe_
gards, -1.130 we no: lost • the opportunity of estab.

fishing them. We might have had -the Veto,
Lord Grenville's long deliberated measure, bad
we not rej,tted it. We rejected it ! 'Why, surely

Gendtmen ,who assrrt that, must have Leard

only their. own ,pceches —Has not the Agent of the
Catholic Bisltops (Dr.-Milner) told you, in his•publi-

cation, that he would soonor suffer martyrdom than

consent to the,Veto ? Has he not told you, that it
is a measure hriteful to every Catholic ? Perhaps I
sb4l be answ-red, than Dr. Milner is no longer
w.,rthy of credit : but . I would beg to remind the

lionopriibk Gentleman, that he was thought by
them to be entitled to the highest credit only a
few ysears ago. Perhaps, Sir, it will be' said, he
(;:ed beyond t►he authority, and without the sanc-
tion of- those who employed him : but his con-

stiolents have publicly thanked him--those Bishops,
who sent hi.nt over as their agent, have thanked

Lim in a public letter for the zeal and judgment
ith which fie disclwrged his Office and surely,

-therefore, when they thank him- for what he has
clout', (Vier hi, renunciation of the Veto, it is the

Rthaan s;attiohcs who haft rejected it, and not We.