The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-26 00:00:00

whick ppreilensionpnd earnest zeal.
•
Seri:4 .us, was brought forward, •,finti.4l any prnPb.:
sal whatsoever. Tht•se orootsc.'al,no,
much aqainq my inclination, to furnAl ootter of
triumph !o his ato4 .our common encititt-s.- The
Mo'rning Chronicle, the tatter end -oil t•it
certainly was:a letter from lir. he
acknowledged thlt the C entlemen op.
posit.': were warra-ited-in•the statemeni. o.hich they
bad made of tht:! disposition. ,''the Catholics, ivowed.
his share Of that warrantry, defended him'selt
strotil the charge
,of inconsistency. A that period;
Dr. Milner was Ungnestionably the: advoCate
the corre.`iness of, the Hcrt: 3n. Now'
the case ;stood clear to th,e L. ,s 'glad it
did, so. It would a a
.lesson however. It
would natt;tally inspire a j,ealoo :::: of sin i! e,-immu
nications, and a Suspicion of 'the accur.. y of the
j,:agmmt of the Hon. Gentlemen_ op; site, Wheti
they professed to anticipate. the feelings of the Ca
'tholics 'of Ireland. ' The Hon. gentleman had even
said, that he had retk=i4l a h•tter, horn one of thd
Catholic Bishop: ing his ex.,2e6,tion, that a
meeting of the 'll..,rnan Catholic 'Prelates would
-crinctir in the senCtnenti which! had been asserted
last Session bt:ing the general sentiments of the
Irish Catholics.

Mr...P.oNsoNuy, ;n explanatidn, observed, that
his state:rm-n't was merely that he Lad rec:ived a let-
ter troni' a Cativ,lic Bishop, expres,,bg his opinion,
that his (Mr. Pol)sonby's). speech deserved the
.thanks of allireland, and particulaily of the Ctlio-
lic Prelates...

The enAteceLtort of the EiCIUQUER• resumed:
This was evident, that there seemed the great est,diffi.•
culty in ascenaining with what the Catholics would •
really be satistied. What were the views of the Hon.
Gentleman ? Did they coincide with those of the:
Hon. Ntiver, or w,:,rethey peculiarly his own He
understood the Hon. Mover tor declare, that the
CatholieS would from him expect in vain the recom-
mendation of concession to them unless that eon.; -
cession wet c accompanied by a renunciation on their
part of foreign inflOnce;
,Now after all the attention
that he could Fay, to the Han.Gentlernae who had just
spoken,'-he was unable to coiled whether he agreed in
that, sentiment, ,or whether he differed from- it,
and thought that without condition ,or stipulail'on
every thing ought to _be conceded to the Catholicsl
on the trust of what they might afterwards be
posed to do. It was material to, know this. A great
variety of opinions .had been. uttered during the . '
bate. No one had been so,exphcit in the declara-
tion of his sentiments as the Hon. Mover ; but in
that declaration, he (the Ckancellor of the Excite-.
quer),had a right to take protc&ion against the re-
peated charge of intolerance,, since, by the opinion.
of the Hon. -Mover, he was justified on/the occa-
sions-in .which this-intolerant spirit
.was ascribed to .
him in resisting concessions, which according to that
opinion ought not to have been made withoin a -
correspondent provision. . 7 The Honourable Mover
argued that no concessions.' ought to be yielded,
,
to the Catholics, 'without securing, some concession.
on their part equivalent or analogous to the conces-
sion of the veto. What this analogrlus concession
was—what - arrangement- was to be subst tutted; :the
Hon. M6‘;er had not stated, and the Hon. Gentle.:
man who had last spoken had said, that for many
reasons it should . not be extorted from him (A cry
of Hear I hear ! hi which Sir J. Aewport's voice u,!as
peculiarly disqinguishable.) The Hon. Baronet
cheered this declaration of his Hon. Friend. He,
wito-lad himself said, that illhe House gave. the
Catholics ,what he called their rights; it ought to tell -
them- the grounds on which those rights were. given,
he pow Joined with his Honourable Friend in
his delaratiou, that the proposed arrangement
should not be explained, and the Honourable Ba-
ronet,
,he 'presumed, called this consisteney,! What _
were the House, to do if they Went into a Com-
mitteeon, the Petition ? The Honourable Gentletnan ,
opposite would not tell them; lest some ill-disposed
persons should infuse it into' the minds of the Irish,
whatever the arrangement might be, that it was im-
possible the Catholics could accede to it. But in the.
Committee it seemed that arrangement must 'be
stated., If not;,it would certainly be absurd to think
. of going into a Committee; Unless the concession to
the .Catholics,. and the grounds on 'which that con-`•
cession was to -be made, were to be the subjects
of discussion in the Committee, it would assuredly
be to no purpose to go into a Committee at all. As
well/as-the, Hon. Mover of the present question, a•
Noble Lord in the other House of 'Parliament had
declared it to beindispensable that some distinafpro-
viSion.should accompany any concession to be made
to the Catholics. Whatever expectations might be ,
en:ertained by others, certainly he (the Chancellor
I, of the .Exchequer), and- those. who thought with
him, never were of opinion that any such provision
would be-agreed to by the Catholics. Even-rhad the
veto been conceded by them; or any other equiva-
lent .arrangement, how could it hive .been
consi-
dered as a valid agreement ? In what way could
a geweal concurrence of the Cathohcs have
! been enforced.?,, If some qt that body had resisted
on the ground of religious scrnpleS, what could have
been done ? Having- once raised a general -ekpec.
tation it would have been impossible to dilappoim it.
The Pope, might have refused his 'sanction—the Ca:-
tholics might have changed their opinion—and in
either case it would have been impracticahle to
punish .or to interfere wiih the strong hand of
- power, without. incuiring , the just 'charge pf the
gieatest intolerance: Thus it a peered that -it was
mighty- Well for-Gentlemen to argue aboOt the veto,
or about this or that arrangement, but, who were
to be the final judges ?_ The Catholics. If -they
Said that they could not concur in the arrangement,
it would be just as intolerant to attempt to com-
pel them
,as it would be to require them to take the
oath of supremacy. Besides that concurrence might
be of no avail without the concordance of the, Pope.
His Holiness was not at present in a situation ot,in7
dependent action. -How could his consent be oh:-
tained Nay, if it were to be obtained-r-if Bunna-
.parte would induce the Pope•to give it, when he was
released from the subjpgation under .which he, at•
present lived, might •he not consider himself, as -not
bound by a sanction which he had given under
the influence of his confinement ? How wild and
chimerical to suppose that any arrangement. could
be produdive of a satisfadory issue with the Catho-
-1 lies of Ireland.! But he, by no means,' foundedlits
• objeaion to the allowance of the Catholic claiMs,
simply. on: the refusal of the Catholics' to sire 'Op 't he
'v4o any thing else in its stead. Nor did hiS