The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-17 00:00:00

CATHOLIC QUESTION.

The Order of the Day for the second reading
of the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill
being read,
The Earl of DONOUGITMORE commenced. by
observing, that after a- system of intolerance
which, had existed for more than a century, and
was carried into execution with extreme severity
and injustice, the reign of the late King opened a
better prospect to his Majesty's Roman Catholic
subjects. Accordingly the Act of 1778 had
taken place, and a statute had been passed by
the Irish Parliament which had laid the ground
for whatever privileges the Roman Catholics had
become capable of possessing. The feeling of li-
berality, and the disposition to relieve the Ca-
tholics,seemed to have been more alive in the Irish
Parliamant than in that of England. In Ireland,
therefore, it made greater progress, as the Act of
1782 and that of 17 j 2 testified. But the most
important concessions were made-in the Act of
1793, which, by the restoration of the elective
franchise, and other important privileges, placed
the Irish Catholic in a situation so much above
that of the English Catholics, that it could not
be justified on any principles of right or justice.
In this anomalous st,te would the Catholics of
both countries have remained until now, had it
not been for the praiseworthy exertions of a friend
of his (Lord Donoughrnore!s) connected with a
department of Government, and sitting in the
other House, who, under the auspices of a Noble
ViScotint, had caused to be passed an act of
grace; opening the Army and the Navy to thv
Catholl6s.. Since 1793,. concession seemed to
have bi:en dead ; and though the Catholics had
-not entirely escaped the observation of Parlia-
ment, yet they had scarcely been able to procure
any consideration of the'ir claims. Except two
Solitary instances, and those two instances in the
other House, they had notsucceeded, during a
period of '2B years, in, obtaining any Parliamen-
tary notice of their grievances. At last, however,
a bill of grace and mercy had been sent up from
the:other House. But almost before it had pass-
ed their. Lordships' threshold, it had been met by
a denunciation of opposition from the Noble Earl
at the head of the Treasury, and the Noble Lord
on the Woolsack. Without any observation,
without hearing a word, on the subject, for or
against the Bill, or from the persons for whose
relief it was intended, those two Noble Lords
had given their decision against a measure which
had cost the other House long and serioulconsi-
deration. They had acted a part which was un-
usual, and he would add, informal and unprece-
dented. Never had such a mode been adopted
in .the intercourse of business between the two
Houses of Parliament. Were their Lordships
not to read even an iota of the Bill ? For the
first reading was merely a matter of form, and the
second was the only real and constitutional read-
ing. Would they give no reading at all to a mea-
sure that had passed the other House, not in the
fervour of enthusiasm,not after one night's debate,
but after going through the fiery ordeal of
five weeks' discussion, after every word, every
paragraph, bad been the object of long consi-
deration and of frequent divisions. Their
Lordships had certainly the right of refusing
as well as of granting their consent. But it was
new that a measure of such vital importance as

. .
the present, upon every
.part of which so many
persons of opposite opinions had deliberated
deeply, should be Proppsed to be rejected at once

without the least couaideration. It was butetoo
often the case that the two Noble Lords to tai tom
he had alluded, decided, notgnly for themsekes,
but for the majority of .the House, -and in Ahia
cage he feared that they bad determined Ortetasot
one word of the Bill should be beard. 'Mere
was another reason which added to his surtiri-ie
at hearing so early an opposition denoutited
againat the Bill. In eParliamentary taCtieS,:oll-
- to a second reading was always uit4er-
stood to mean opposition to the principle of :the
Bill, as a measure altogether so bad, that it was
not even susceptible of improvement. Was that
the case, could it be the case with the present bill ?
Was that the. feeling with which the Noble Foul
opposite viewed the question ? Was it -for this
that he had divided the measure into two paet,
and expressed his disapprobation of both ? it vas
true.that the measure embodied tares principlaa.
and objects; the one the restoration of imitate:lea,:
and the other the price to be paid for that Ee-
'atoratioo. How could any. person object to ,the
first part, :unless he were prepared to say ihatlie
was perfectly satisfied- with the present sittuttiou
of the. Roman Catholics, that he thought it should
not be bettered, and wished the subject not to.be
,inquired into ? ff. this wasthe case ; if the Noble
Earl thought so lightly of the merits and claims
of the Catholics, why did he then refuse the ad-
ditional securities offered by the second part of
the measure ?
.On. what principle did he found his
opposition to one part as well as to the other ?
He (the Earl of Donoughmore) asked no greater
boon;in behalf of the Roman Catholics, than that
their Lordships would deign to'consider, is the
usual Parliamentary manner,. the Bill sent up to
thent .by the other . House. He did . not wish to
pledge their Lordships to the whole or to .any
part of that Bill. He only wished it to receive
due.consideration. He only .wished that a mc4l-
- which affected nearly one-tenth of the po-
pulation of England, and fOurafifths of that,of
Ireland, and the petitions of four millions of Irish
Catholics should not be sent away from the Bar
without being beard. Had they.never been heard
before ? Had no concessions, ever been made to
the Petitioners ? They had been heard, and coo-
cessions had. been made to them : but never hid
they received any thing until proof had been pre-
duced of their being worthy of the boon. Those
proofs had been given under the sanction of oath; :
and the Roman Catholics had .again and again
abjured on oath those doctrines which they had•
once been. charged with entertaining. They had
proved themselves completely worthy of. all thit
had hitherto been done for them. He could wish
to know whatany Noble Lord could statuagainst
the Catholics that went to disqualify them from
being good subjects. If any thing of this kind
could be stated, and the Catholics could not
disclaim what was imputed to them, he would
then say,' not only that no new concessions
ought to be made, but that those which they
had already received ought to be withdrawn.
In 1793, an ACt passed to, give the Catholics
the elective frinchisea When this had been eon-
ceded to them, 'he thought a full and complete
admission had been made by' his Majesty's Go- •
vernment that they were sufficiently trustworthy
to be allowed to participate in all the blesaiiags
of the Constitution. On one ground puly. could
.it be supposed that Ministers were justified' is
withholding the- right of sitting in Parliament
after the elective franchise had been already
conceded to them so• long back as 1793. .They
might have said, let us .give them the right, of
voting at elections, and then pause, tcasoe that
they do not abuse the privilege thus ,afferded ;
and having thus half opened the door of the Con-
stitution to thorn,' after obsetving their .conduct
for a sufficient period, we, may then allow theca •
to sit in 'either House.. The experiment had now
been. tried fot eight-and-twenty :years, and there
were no tx:IF-taints of the way in yhich Ole
Ca-
tholics had used•the elective franchise. - This, he
shou,ld be told, was a Protestant Constitution.
He admitted that it'was so, and God forbid that
any act of-his should tend to make. it other than
a Protestant 'Constitution : but that which he
would recommend would not alter its. charaCter,
as his'object 443110 C to give the Catholics ascend-
ancy, biit 'to do tawny the „jealousies and heart
burningi Which at' present prevailed, ,and to pro-
mote ihigeneral• gond by rendering equal justice
to all. These were his motives ,for . on
their Lordships to read the Bill.then befilre them
a second time: die would now say a few words
on the subject of the:Pope. He wpuld.tell theta
what that potentate was whom they considere4ao
very formidable that it was not safe to. let the
Catholics hold any communication with him what-
ever, -but through a particular channel, and. Who
was thought `so hostile to all Protestant Govere— • '
merits that they could not even pass an Act to •
relieve their fellow-subjects *without offering An
affront to him. He did not think the Pope that.
sort of creature which deserved the treatment he
had received at their Lordships' hustle. In every
instance he had been found ready to gca-half way
to meet their wishes, by affording all the se-
curities that , could reasonably he reqnired.
In proof of this he read, the altered oath by
the voluntary act of the• Pope, to be taken by
Catholic Vicars Apostolic in' England, and by ,
the Irish Bishops. That the dieposition. thus
manifested, was not newahe shewed, by referring
to an order of reference to .the Bishops, calling oft
them to report on the state of their dioceses or
districts extracted froth the records ofthe Propa-
gamin in 1744. This proved.that the Roman
Catholic Religion did notaccesiaraly lead its vo-
taries to oppose all Protestant aovernment, and
shewed that the head of the' Roman Church was
anxious to restrain all undsr him from interferenaea •
laith any but the Dileinbets of that. Church. I`.be •