The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-10 00:00:00

LONDON, TUVBDAY .EVENING, JUNE 10, 1828.

'IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jura 9.
Lord ELDON presented petitions from Paisley, Staf-
ford, Croydon, Maldon, Sibthorpe, and from Woombridge,
Salop, against further concessions to the Catholics.
Lord CARNARVON requested that the latter petition
might be read at length, also some of the names of the
petitioners. There was a singularity in it worthy the no-
tice of the House. The petitioners, as he was informed,
expressed their dttertnination to support a religion settled
at the Revolution.
The petition was read, and Lord Eldon expressed his
confidence that before this night's debate was over, he
should be aisle to satisfy the House,that the original Eccle-
siastical Law of this country was restored and settled at
the Revolution.
The Noble Lord then presented a petition from Cavan,
Ireland, against further concessions to the Catholics.
The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a petition fur
the abolition of slavery throughout the Colonies; also a
petition on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, which
from some informality was withdrawn.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
froin the Royal Burgh of Down against further conces-
sions to the Catholics.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from
Abergethly, praying the House to take into consideration
the laws affecting the Catholics.
The Marquis of DOWNSIIIRE presented a petition
front a great number of parishes in the counties Cavan,
Down, and Antrim, praying for the repeal of the laws af-
fecting the Catholics.
The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from a
parish in Essex, against further concession to the Catholics.
Petitions were also presented by Lords EXMOUTH, Loa •
TON, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, and the Bishop of LLANDA FE,
against further concessions to the Catholics.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Newark, in favour• of the Catholic Claims.

Earl GREY presented a petition from the Unitarian
Chapel, Hanover-square, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to the
same effect.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition from
Worksop, praying fur assistance in building a Chapel.
Sir A. GRANT and others, brought up the Bill with the
amendments for improving the law of offences against the
person.
Upon the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE it
was ordered to be printed.
Lord CLIFDEN presented a petition from the Protes-
tants of Biston, Oxfordshire, in favour of the Catholic
Claims. The Noble Lord observed, that from this pe-
tition it would appear that light was now breaking i❑
on all quarters. He hoped their Lordships' House
would not be the last place on which it would strike, for
if it were, their Lordships would be highly discredited.—
(Great laughter.)
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition
praying fur a repeal of the Laws affecting the Catholics.

which a Right Rev. Prelate (a manner not easily to be for.
gotten) laid down the principle on which he felt that the
measure then before your Lordships (the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Acts) ought to be agreed to—that prin-
ciple was expediency alone, and, going farther, the Right
'Rev. Lord said, that seeing the expediency, it became the
duty of your Lordships to act upon it. ' These, therefore,
are the grounds upon which 1 am prepared to enter upon
the discussion of thisportant question. This question
is not a new questionaNensoch ac it has repeatedly, at
different times, engaged 44 attention of the Legislature,
not only in this, but in qruer Parliaments. It is not a new
question, inasmuch as it hay at various times engaged the
atteution, and excited the efforts, of almost every re-
markable and distinguished Statesman of this country,
who almost all came to the same conclusion respect-
ing it, at which I trust your Lordships will ar-
rise. Almost every one of those eminent persons
concurred in opinion, that the grounds for these restric-
tions had passed away. It has been also the dying ap-
pearance presented to them, when no longer influenced by
the zeal or views of party—when about to he withdrawn
from the active scenes of life—when, casting their looks
forward to the future state of their country, they saw only
the necessity and the certainty of those measures of con-
cession and security which, in their life-time, they had ad-
vocated. Su far, therefore, this is not a new question—
but it has attached to it particulars which make it new—
it is new from the circumstance that it comes before you
now, for the third time, recommended to your considera-
tion by the proceedings taken respecting it by the other
House of Parliament. My Lords, in the consideration of
this question at the present moment, it is my intention to
place out of view many of those important cousiderations
which have been heretofore connected with it—many, be-
cause they have been previously exhausted in the various
discussions upon the subject here and elsewhere—many,
because they are by some considered to he irrelevant—and
many, because they have been recently abaudened by the
adversaries of the measure of which I am now the advocate;
neither is it my intention to detain your Lordships with
entering into those historical details, which, although so
intrinsically mixed up with the question, may now be dis-
pensed with. It will be the purpose of my argument to-
night, to assume that which has been conceded by all the
opponents of the measure, namely, that during the whole
course of her existence, since the enactment of those laws
of which she has so long and so bitterly complained, the
hopes of Ireland have been kept alive—that she has anx-
iously looked for the arrival of that period when she should
be admitted to the participation of those advantages, to a
participation in which all free people ought to look; and
that by those hopes, by that dependence on a sense of
justice and of policy on the part of those from whom only
she could expect relief, her patriotism has been maintained,
and her exertions put forth in a manner equally important
to a Government and to a country. I am also disposed to
say but a few words upon another topic, because, some time
ago, much importance was attached to it ; and it promised
considerable impression not only on the minds of many
Noble Lords, bat ou the mind of the Noble Duke himself.
I allude to the argument that Ireland being a country in
which most of the property was held by confiscation, it
was requisite to deal with that country upon principles
different to those by which any other country was dealt
with. My Lords, I sus not surprised that this argument
has not been reverted to during the recent discussions
on the subject with which it is connected, because, since
the former discussions which took place here and elsewhere,
there have beets appointed Committees both of your Lord-
ships and of the other House of Parliament—Conuoitters
of Inquiry into the state of Ireland. Aud from the evidence
adduced before those Committees, with respect to confis-
cated property, there has been abundant proof to quiet all
alarm, to satisfy this country that there is the strongest die-
position on the part of all the great iuterests of Ireland—
Catholic as well as Protestant, and Protestant as well as
Catholic—with or without the interference of this or of
any other country, to permit no alteration of those changes
which time has wrought. You have found it 'stated in
evidence, and supported by that no possible danger
can be appreluended from this source. You have been in-
formed, and you have been satisfied, that not only great
capitalists, among the Catholics, but that Catholic Lawyers,
and Catholic Merchants, have entered the market to com-
pete for the purchase of such property wherever it wae of-
fered for sale, and that Catholic Lawyers and Catholic
Merchants have become the frequent purchasers of propel ty
so circumstanced—of property devoted, according to the
argument formerly used, to revert to those who were said
to be its original owners. So touch inure did such Catho-
lics fear the terrors of the Court of Chancery than the ter-
rors of the Vatican—so much more necessary did they con-
sider it to be to consult their lawyers than to take Counsel
of their confessor—that they took especial care to have
their purchased rights acknowledged in that way whirls
they knew could alone secure the possession of them. So
little did they look for the arrival of that fortunate period
when the ancient princes of Connaught and of Munster
should come down from their niountAius to claim that
church property which had been theirs in time of old, that
they readily came forward to be the purchasers of such
property, and to claim that security which they knew the
law could alone give them. With these few observations,
I dismiss this portion of the subject ; and I now ask your
Lordships' attention to the considaretion of that part of the
question which revectis the laws relating to Roman Catho-
lics in other countries, as well as to those which regard
their state in this. Do not, my Lords, let us entertain an
opinion so absurd as that there can be no means of govern-
ing Ireland, except by such laws as those which at present
exist. Do not, my Lords, let it be supposed, that be-
cause those laws have exiated for one hundred, or for
two hundred yeas, on your Statute Book, we are the
less able to apply a new theory to circumstances al-
together new. Do not let those, who hold opinions
adverse to those held by me, and such as argue with me,
flatter themselves that, because they are wedded to a
solitasy- spot in the Legislation of the country, the pro.
spect around that spot upuu which they stand is not al-
tegether different. The very ground upon which they stand
has been gradually giving way from beneath their feet, it
is narrowing around them, and must soon cease to exist.
We have now, my Lords, to deal with a state of things, I
confidently affirm it, and I call upon any Noble Lord to
contradict my affirmation, if he can—a state of things
without example in the history of the civilized world—a
state of things which would render it impossible that the
Government of any conutry could be conducted with that
energy which is necessary to its well-being—l had almost
said to its very existence. My Lords, because there are
eeetain wise expounders of Catholic principles, who see
what Catholics will do in a state of things which is not,
and what Catholics will not do in a state of things that
exists--to such wise reasouers I earnestly recommend atten-
tion to a maxim which I have found inculcated in a very
learned and excellent work—the work of the celebrated
Dr. Milner—to which I refer with the greatest satiefac-
tint', because it is the work of an able man—a man im-
bued, of course, with particular principles, being within
the pale of the Church of England—that church of which
he was giving an account. That able and acute contro-
versialist and divine, when describing some of those contro-
versial absurdities of the Armenieu and Calvinistic contro-
v sums up the whole of his argument in these few
' but emphatic words—" to neither party will I ilopute that
which they themselves disavow." It; my Lords, he had
not adhered to this rule—if, my Lords, he had not laid
down this principle, as one from which he dared nut
depart—he would have been utterly unable to have per-
formed the duty of the historian—he would have to-
tally failed to have given weight to his argument, and
to have attached responsibility to his character. My
Lords, if this rule was important in a Protestant contra-
versy, of equal importance is it in any other. No justice
can be administered, no dependence on any statement can
be placed, if we do not strictly adhere to this rule—not
to impute to people that which they themselves di-avow.
I must, therefore, invite your Lordships to look to the
conduct of persona of the particular religious persuasion to
which I am referring, as you would to those of any other
religious persuasion in the world—and to try them by the
same test, the only test by which, upon any principle of
justice, you could try them. I will, therefore, now call
your attention, as briefly,as-possible, to the present condi-
tion of those persoussWho profess the Roman Catholic reli-
gion, iii other parts of the world ; and I will go first to
the United Stags of America. To the United Atates I
will first go, not forgetting that that country is a Republic,
and without any national Church Establishment, and bear-
ing in mind the two arguments that have been advanced
against bringing this country forward in support of my view
of the case, namely, that the Roman Catholics of that
eountoy can have no interest in overturning one establish-
ment to place is its steed aeothei of their own, and that

the Government cell apprehend no danger from Roman
Catholics leading in their Ccuncils, when they have no in-
terests of their own to serve. My Lords, it is because
of those very reasons that I conceive a Government might
be suspicious of danger; and I fix upon thie particular
country as one the most deserving of your attention, because
of these very facts. I ground toy argument upon the evi-
dence adduced by the Archbishop of Cashel, whose evi-
dence was heard by me and by other Members,when sitting
in Committee on the state of Ireland. A question was
put to him as to what shape lie considered the Roman Ca-
tholics, if admitted to power, would be likely to disturb
the tranquillity of a State, and his answers were con.
strued to the effect, that, if at all, it must be as the
Representatives of such State, and as Members of its Go-
vernment—that the Roman Catholics, if admitted to power
could not by themselves produce any such effect, but that,
as in all Executive Governments, there were various par-
ties, or factions as they might be called ; they, by allying
themselves to some one or other of such parties, and making
certain conditions with such party in furtherance of their
own views, might lay the foundation of that ascendancy to
which, it was contended, it was the spirit of their religion
always to aspire. My Lords, having heard this attattuart
put forward, 1 availed myself of many opportunities to in-
quire relative to the situation of the United States with la -
ference to this particular point ; and I think, if the argu-
ment applies to any country, to this country it mustapply
in an especial degree, because here we have a republic—
here we have a state of things in which we can easily inia-
gine perpetual differences to arise; from the very nature of
their contests parties roust he more violent than elsewhere ;
and if, in such a State as this, Roman Catholics have been
admitted to power—that power which it is asserted they
are always endeavouring to increase—it is here we must
find the most abundant, the most unequivocal, proofs of the
mischief they have committed. With a view to ascertain
the extent of such mischief,. I sought every opportunity
of inquiry from eminent and enlightened men of that
country. My first question was, as to how many Roman
Catholic Members held high offices in the Government
and the answer I invariably received was, " We do
not know." The answer I received, my Lords, was, that
their number had never appeared, either from their
votes, their language, or their declared opinions. Now,
my Lords, there is no place more remarkable than America
for a great variety of sects, and all warmly devoted to the
particular objects of their particular religion. In that
country the clergy of all kinds are maintained by their re-
spective congregations—and, I believe, there are not less
than 8,000 different churches, with different congregations
throughout the country. When I inquired as to how
many Roman Catholic Members were returned as Repre-
sentatives from the various States, I was equally unable to
obtain information. Some said four or five; others, nine-
teen or twenty ; and others estimated the numbers as high
as 30. I asked then, how the Roman Catholics voted
upon certain great public questions, and the answer I re-
ceived was, "we do not know." Their professions mild
net he ascertained by their votes or by their language. I
then inquired how the Catholics had acted in the various
contests for the Presidency—had they given their support
to Adams, or to Jackson, or to what other—and the an-
swer was, "we do not know." I then carried my inquiry
'te the state of Maryland—a state, be it remembered,
founded by Roman Catholics, and which, to their eternal
honour be it mentioned, has always been the most free, the
most tolerant, of all the United American States, and I asked,
what number of Catholics were sent to Congress by the
State of Maryland ? My answer was, that there was no ap-
pearance of the number of Catholics being greater than the
number of Protestants. Now, my Lords, du you want bet-
ter proof that Catholic feeling merges into Constitutional
feeling—when Catholics are not the objects of ex-
clusive laws ? I have stated that 1 give the prefer-
ence to America as an example of the non-interference
of Catholics, from the circumstance of that country
being a republic, and having no national church to pre-
sent that sort of resistance which a national church
does to the inroads of any new fiith. But if there be any
persons who wish for proof of a different description—who
contend that there is a material difference in tkis-point of

view between a country that has a national established
church and one that has none—let them pass from America
to Europe, and permit me to draw their attention to the
state of that empire, in which an Established Church is,
and has lung been firmly rooted—let them pass with use
to Russia, where the Greek Church is the Established
Church of the Empire. I cannot be told that the affinity
of the Catholic Church to the Greek Church places the
Greek Church in a state of safety, because the nearer they
approximate, the greater is the temptation, and the greater
the danger. Lt Russia, as your Lordships know, the Ro-
man Catholic is admissable to every office of the State, yet
the Greek Church never felt apprehension, because of the
adiniasion to power either of the Roman Catholic, the Ar-
uteuian Catholic, or die United Greek Church. 1 beg
for a wotmo to call your Lordships' attention to the na-
ture of this united Greek Church, of which some of your
Lordships may probably not be aware. The United
Greek Church consists of persons who, whimsically
enough, retain the same religious doctrines as the Greek
Church,with this singular difference, that though they do not
entertain the same doctrines as the Catholic, choose, fur
reasons best known to themselves, to like the domination
of the Popes. They are, therefore, Papists, but Papists
holding nut the doctrines of the Roman Catholics but
those of the Greek Church. Danger was, consequently,
peculiarly to be apprehended from them, and it was pro-
posed to the Emperor Alexander, that as they were not enti-
tled to the same protection as the Roman Catholics, he elmould
impose certain restrictions on them. The Emperor Alex.
ander, however, would listen to nn such proposition, and
determined to maintain that system of religious equality in
which the best interests of his country consisted, and in
which also consisted, the best interests of the Greek Church.
At this moment, therefore, the members of the united
Greek Church, as well as the Armenian Catholics, and the
Roman Catholics, are admissible to any office of State in that
Empire. And now, my Lords, with respect to Prussia—
a country, be it observed, more exposed to danger of the
kind I am alluding to than any other country whatever,
• because so completely occupied by those who derive their
property in consequence of confiscations. Yet, here, from
the Rhine to Berlin, every Catholic is admissible to power.
Can any man say, then, that Ireland is exposed to greater •
danger than Prussia ? Or can any man, either in this
House or in this country, affirm that if to-morrow a Ca-
tholic were to start up as the Elector of either of the Ger-
man States, it would give to Prussia one-tenth part of the
dismay which the name of a Catholic to he “thuitted to
power is said to give here ? But I will not tire your Lord-
ships by leading you through all the endless proofs in sup-
port of my pusition—l will nut dwell upon the present
state of Germany, so favourable to my view—or upon that
of Saxony, where a Protestant population exists uodera
Catholic Sovereign (this 1 admit, indeed, to lie a great
cause of apprehension)—or upon that of Holland, where a
Protestant Sovereign governs a Catholic people. In these
two countries, indeed, the continuance of ancient prejudices
might be pardoned ; for these two countries were the
cradles of the Reformation, where the earliest conflicts took
ry
whirlm
pnpt
oeloacacitineely(d7l io be tteo::l:gvtletelteviler4eetiu'rlieleiBl:4:lll.4ll:Yo'eofudir:. But it sl
in dyd'oesuiresradai a:ila.cetdael yintleitbdiisoe'snaiebaxioei
that country which is the last on my list—l need uut refer
you to the example of Hanover for proof of the good effects of
a system which we wish to see imitated here. In Austria,
in Bavaria, in France, it is considered consistent with the
satiety of the State to admit perauus of all religious per-
buasions to take their share in the Government, and to
participate in the advantages of the Constitution of the
country. If you look fur the best security against the in-
terference of the Pope, von will find it in those nations
which are governed by Roman Catholic Sovereigns. To
Austria and to Bavaria you will tuin for such proof. My
Lords, I hope most sincerely I shall not be told that there
is any peculiarity
i.niire
compared
with
in the E
ithi uliothsetrabal
pliront.d estCall:tut el
Establishments,cmf
as
which renders it unsafe for that Church that persons oh
all classes shall be admitted equally to those rights which
Protestants share in common. I am sure no person will
contend that that superstructure, so distinguished by its
purity, its excellent discipline, and the conduct of those by
whom it is upheld, stands upon ground which renders it
more liable to danger, and more exposed to injury, than
Protestant establishments elsewhere. My Lords, this is a
branch of argument into which I will not enter. But,
my Lords, I contend, that if time example of other coon.
tries did not warrant us in the conclusion to which I seri,
to lead your Lordships, the peculiar state of Ireland would.
That state, my Lords, is without precedent in the history
of any civilised country. Under the laws by which that
country it governed, we have tl ere a deanocrecy, actuaflj

aiding, and at the same time an aristocracy, robbed by
that democracy of all the means by which it rnaiutains its
influence and its power—we have there also a priesthood
so circumstanced, that all the influence they possess is op-
posed to the aristocracy, and to the beneficial objects which
the aristocracy would achieve. The general character,
therefore, of the state of society is monstrous—it is one,
I say, which cannot much longer exist--it is one which,
sooner or later, must demand the interference of the le-
gislature. It is not, my Lords, in this House, I shall be
called on to vindicate the aristocracy of this country—to
show that in the influence of the higher over the lower
classes of the people consists the chief good of a coun-
try. It is in this influence consists that which has
been the peculiar glory of Britain. In Ireland, my
Lords, you have seen an absence of that legitimate in
tinence, and in Ireland you have seen an illegitimate power
exerted in its stead—a power which to the legitimate
influence ought only to belong. My Lords, I feel the ef-
fect of,the influence exerted by the Roman Catholic Associa-
tion. '4O lamenting, as I do, the existence of that Associa-
tion, isiitat be allowed to express my conviction, that the
charter of the existence of that Association is the exclu-
sion law : so long as that law remains, it will bind itself,
as by a spell, on the affections of the country L-a spell
which all the efforts of the Government will be linable to
weaken. By one means alums can the Association be put
down ; •by' one method only can its power he got rid of—
not by defying it, not by seeking to destroy it by force
—but by another way—by a system of conciliation. If
you put down (Jae Association, another will rise up in
its place—if we destroy it here, you will give birth to it
there. Close up one of the channels, and the stream will
inevitably open a new. It is this and this only which
constitutes the great feature of danger. My Lords, before
I close my observations, I must observe there are two
(Locations which have been repeatedly put elsewhere, and
will doubtless be put here to-night. Many persons snake
up their minds to the conclusion that the present state of
things cannot last—many who so make up their minds, du
not hesitate to declare it—bat many who so make up their
minds do not say so. Persons who make up their minds
to such conclusion, and declare as much, ask of us two
questions—the first is, as to whether we are certain that
by the 'removal of those disabilities the tranquillity- of Ire-
land would be restored? And the second is, as to what
security, if consent to such removal were given, could be
offered and received? On both these questions, my Lords, I
am anxious to say a few word:. First, then, with respect to
the restoring the tranquillity of Ireland, by the removal of
civil disabilities, I hive ooly to state that at no time have t
contended, and never will contend, that the removal of thus
disabilities will at once place Ireland in a state of tranquil-
!ity ortine p prosperity.
ritriitey t
restoration (Ifis
dlmwtil
tranquillity,
content,
t i ti no
that
prosperity, can yon succeed, until you have made up your
winds to remove this most effectual barrier against boat..
I will appeal to those who have attended the Committee of
Inquiry into the state of Ireland, both of this- and the
other House of Parliament—Committees, be it rentein-
bered, established fur avoiding, not far pressing on the
Catholic Question—and I will ask of them whether they
have ever considered any single grievance under which that
country labours that did not merge into the introduction
of that question of Catholic Emancipation-Lwhether, as
all rivers find their way to the sea, they did nut ascertain
that every one of Ireland's grievances merged into the
question of granting the Roman Catholics that which they
claim—the removal of civil disabilities. -sly Lords,
I very well know that it is exceedingly easy to assign the
present unfortunate condition of Ireland to a variety of
causes—it is easy to say one of the principal grievances of
that country consists in want of capital, and an adequate
degree of encouragement to industry—another in the per •
valence of absenteeism—another, in what is indeed much
to be lamented, the imperfect administration of justice ;
but, my Lords, I maintain that every one of these minor
evils is neither snore nor less than a consequence of the
civil disunion of the inhabitants—the opposition of con-
flicting religious sects—and the exclusion of one class
front privileges to which others of their fellow-subjects
are eligible. lf, my Lords, by any diabolical and sinister
influence, four-fifths of the population were to ho
removed out of the pale of the constitution, and exposed to
disabilities and grievances front a participation iu which the
remainiug one-fifth were free, we should soon see a similar-
state of things here Ito that now felt and complaitied of in
the sister Island. The sane causes would be productive
of the same effects. We should soon observe the same want
of capital—the sante absenteeism— the same poverty and
discontent here as in Ireland. I sin aware, my Lord., that
all the evils which now subsist in that couutry, and to
which 1 have briefly alluded, cannot be at 012 Lvt got mid of
—their course cannot be at once dried up..-ner eau they
be:maile to:flow back in an opposite direction instantaneously,
or by a sudden Lurst, but after a lapse of tints and by it
stow and silent current. Let us now, by setting at rest
this great question, only snake an opening for that curt-eat,
and in time the stream of national prosperity will visit the
shores and flow through the plains of Ireland. We shalt
then have a return of capital—a demand for labohr—whieit
can only exist in a country not embittered and disturhe.t
by religious conflicts. So much for this lirancli of the as •
ginnent. There is another subject to which it may be ex
pected that I should call your Lordships' attention—l mean
the subject of security. With regard to this put of tie
question, I certainly am not prepared to propose way addi-
tional security whatever, until I hear the grotto'', on which
that security is required. In my- hutuble oinnion, it be-
longs to those who entertain appreliensicns of the admis-
sion of the Roman Catholics to a just. participation in civil
rights—l say it belongs to those individuals who appear
to feel and know the nature of the danger which thee
fear, better than I can he supposed to do, to state the
precise nature of their alarm, its foundation, and the secu-
rities which they think necessary. Be it for them, then,
to point out securities. However, I cannot conceal Ina
fixed and decided opinion, that if any security can, In-
pointed out to the Roman Catholics—any security con-
sistent with their
agnratinte,staanbdiisnhontlemntiliotiattinhg,
against the doctrine, ijciice
Roman Catholic Church--I say I cannot conceal my con-
viction, that a proposal for securities of this nature will,
meet with a ready reception and a joyful acquieseentaa
My Lords, at the same tin* I ant a good deal surpvised
that the Roman Catholics should be called upon to suggest
what the securities are to be. It would be as reasoner
able to call on them to state the nature of the dangeas
which are to be apprehended from their admission to civil
rights. When the Ronson Catholiea recollected the waa
fortunate reception which all attempts on their part haus
hitherto met with, they cannot be much ancottra:Jal to
proceed to make prup,ositious of this nature. What
should advise the Roman Catholics to du would l* to wait
till they are told what species of security will be satisfac-
tory to his Mariay'a Government—to those persons who
possess the power and influence to forward their claims—
and to the couotry at large. Then, Ima sure, as far as may
be consistent with the integrity althaiv principles and the
safety of their religion, the Roman Catholics will be found
ready to concur in any securities which may be thought ne-
rLi
to: di::
cessary for the well-being of the Church and State ashy law
established. But when I say I think. the RumanCatholics will
and ought to be ready to meet any demands of this nature,
aisawl eena
i,
to fairly
o say and nld openly
think s
utile date douri
eo,,t e:to
eit:b:eroyrs.su psAepicoise dthat
with regard to oaths, you have all the security that you cap,
have, or can ex peal to have iu the shape of oaths. Notwith
standing, if your Lordships shall require
the shape of oaths and declarations, 1 find it utterly:tinpo.;;A
discovers jb Ie to
securitys ccuriintyt
this
tos wbac)a.,
tf anyhim suggest
it. it. My Lords, if you think any additional security is at •
by establishing relations between the Government
of the country and the Catholic Chttrah, let the circutn-•
stance be stated to them by those %;:no have the power to
carry such relations into effect, You will then be able
to
pected to meet With. I am that if the relations thus
soughte
to be establialsed shall nut be something worse thrift
ycacula propositioned tomu stern dhaeuge xi:-
un
ry--if t.tey are
it: Church and doctrines,
cejtniurpineiclrytegisesrwsiao) its of the Rotnalt
n:t.c•egdhaitrite:}oci
ill be cheerfully
eriry' and
necessary and unavoidable disconnection—to while on the subject of securities, I may be permitted to
attended to. But, my Lords,
say, the great and only effectual security is to teach the
Boman Catholics that hetweeu their temporal interests and
ththsoesse'enwsiiii:llaiornea t
hoe*.
above all,that (contrary to whet they may have had hot too
much reason to collect from the course of former discus-
ofuntles(e. t
iSotna_te
ttoheLea
tehxi exists
naci:
sione, and the spirit manifested in past debates in thi*
House), the Church of England is not the solitary obstacle,
words, to teach and iionceirtelc
now remaining in the way of their claims—or, in other
in
people, that between them and all the attempts and aspi-
aptaer xarloyr'
rations after wealth, honour, and freedom, Which are ins,
parable from all men,
subjects of a free State, the church establishment is not the
harrier—and that they need not to pass to the accomplish-
went of their wishes over the ruins of that church, which
it is equally my desire, and your Lordships' object, to pro-
tect. My Lords, 1 call upon your Lordships not to let
the only outlet to free spirits appear to be through a breach
in that citadel, which it is our bounden duty to maintain
and defend. So much, my Lords, on the subject of securi-
ties. Before, however, 1 leave this part of the subject
eatirely, let me observe, that when we are impressed with
that degree of seal, which, lam sure, we all feel for
t the protection of the Church Establishment, we shoidd re-
collect what the meaning, of the term is, because a different.