The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-29 00:00:00

people of Ireland that they were disposed to do as much for
Ireland as a Parliament sitting in College-green, they would
take away from agitation all its danger, and If om the a,,itators
all their animosity.—(Cheers.) They would leave to
the people of Ireland only this que-tin to consider,
whether a British Parliament could legislate for Ireland, when

it showed the disposition ; but if this coalition between the
highest of Churchmen and the lowest of Orangists were suc-
cessful, then indeed the agitation for repeal would be dan-
gerous.—(cheers.) If friends like those round him were
driven from the representation of populous places by this out-
cry, they would have to fear not the repeal of the Legislative
Union alone. hut a more fatal severance. The oil of
voluntaryism had been mixed up with the vinegar of "No
Popery." The Han. Member for Ashton had referred with
pride to the voluntary support given to religion by the
wealthy Dissenters of this country, and he had asked why
the poor Catholics of Ireland could not do the same.—( Hear,
hear.) It was an insult to common sense.—(Hear, hear.)
It reminded him of the noire observation of Marie Antoinette
when she was eating a bun, that she wondered how the people
could be starving when they might buy such nice cakes for
twopence.—( Great laughter.) He had given his vote for the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, because it was
just; but whatever means could be adopted for carrying out
this grant, he would support them. He admired the argument
of the Hon. Member for Stockport, that instead of looking
upon this measure as a violation of conscience it should be re-
garded as doing truly an act worthy of Christians, uniting to-
gether two people of different sects, who, whatever
their differences, maintained the most impqrtant parts
of that which all admitted as their common Christianity.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said,—Sir, already on three several
occasions I have had an opportunity of stating fully to the
House the motives of the Government in introducing this
Bill, and their general views, and of answering those ques-
tions which were put to me in the course of the debate, as to
our ulteiior objects. I think it therefore unnecessary on this
occasion, to trouble the House at any length, for I think
this motion the same precisely as on the second reading.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for the
University of Cambridge, avows that it is his object to defeat
the measure. I think the issue, therefore, on the present oc-
casion is the same with that for which we contended on the
second reading of the Bill, and that those who voted for the
second reading will feel themselves under an equal obligation
to vote against the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
That proposal was supported by the Hon. Member for
Ashton-under-Line, who, I understand, was the organ and re-
presentative of a great body of public opinion in this country
who are friendly to the voluntary system. Yet I was sur-
prised to hear, in the course of the speech of that Hon. Mem-
ber, this statement—that if the measure originally proposed
by me was an annual instead of being a permanent grant, or if
I would now consent, instead of making it a permanent to
make it an annual vote, he would be prepared to acquiesce in that
proposal, and grant the whole annual sum that I proposed of
26,5001.; on the other hand, if the grant was to be permanent,
the Hon. Gentleman said he would feel it his duty to contend
with the utmost vehemence against it. Now, I cannot recon-
cile his opinion on the voluntary system with his readiness to
support the annual vote ; and I cannot understand how I am
to gain the support of at least the great majority of those whose
petitions were presented to this House, were I merely to make
a change from permanent to annual.—(Hear, hear.) I
think there is little difference in point of principle as to raising
a vote of 26,5001. annually or permanently—it amounts to
almost as strong an engagement on our part, unless there
should be some strong conclusive reason for the withdrawal of
the annual vote—for though the vote of 26,5001, a year should
be annual, there would be, in point of fact, a virtual engage.-
ment for its continuance little less than permanent.—( Hear.)
But I cannot consent to purchase his consent by making that
change. In thefirst place, I believe I should purchase but little
support, and even though I could purchase much, I would not
make the alteration. I say I believe that such a concession
would quite alter the character of the measure in the eyes of
the people of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) I believe it would be
considered as an indication of distrust, and that the alteration

is completely at variance with the spirit in which we pro-
fessed to bring it forward. On that account, Sir, it is wholly
out of my power to consent to it. I shall do all in my power
to prevail on the House to pass the measure as a perma-
nent measure.—(Hear, hear_) I must hope that witnessing
the feeling which now prevails in this country, there will be
great advantages in avoiding the absolute necessity for an
annual grant. Ido firmly believe that the present excitement
will subside, and that the public feeling in Ireland
will be much improved, for we cannot deny that the feelings
of the Protestants of Ireland with respect to this vote is ma-
terially different from that of the people of Great Britain.—
( Hear, hear.) I believe that one of the great advantages of
the vote will be, that it will serve as a connecting link be-
tween Protestants and Roman Cstholics ; but happen what
may, I believe that, from the example set by the great por-
tion cf the Protestants of Ireland, by their wish—a wish
which I believe is cordially entertained by the great bulk of
the Protestant body—l believe I may say that the manifesta-
tion of that wish will have a tendency to abate religious ani-
mosities in that country. But certainly, whatever be the
issue of the present measure, I should contemplate with the
greatest pain and regret the prospects of that annual agitation
which must be the inevitable consequence of an annual vote.—
( Hear, hear.) I believe that a motion to repeal the Act,
if passed, may be brought forward in the next se-sion
of Parliament ; but I think that agitation will be of a totally
different character if the vote be made a permanent one. So
much with respect to the immediate question under considera-
tion. Before I notice the speech of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Perth, I will allude to that of the Right

Hon._ Gentleman oppolite (Mr. V. Smith). The Right Hon

Gentleman referred to the events which occurred in 1829, and
the course which I took with reference to the Roman Catholic

Relief Bill, and the Right Hon. Gentleman repeating what he
called the inconsistency of public men, referred to, as he had a
perfect light, the course which I pursued in 1829. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said, with reference to my own character and the
character of the class to which I belong, that he regretted I
did not on that occasion retire from office, at the same time
that I might give my cordial support to the measure. I
admit to the Right Honourable Gentleman, that there may be
many occasions on which it would be the duty of a public man
to relinquish office rather than propose measures—measures
which would be altogether contrary to the principles which
he had hitherto supported. But I think the propriety
of taking that course ought mainly to depend on the
effect which retirement would have on the success of a
public measure which he might believe to be necessarvfor
the public good.—( Hear.) I think it was perfectly fair and
just in my Right Hon. Friend, the late President of the Board
of Trade, to relinquish office. The Right Hon. Gentleman
thinks I ought to have pursued the same course in 1829. That
is precisely the course which I wish to pursue, and which I
intended to pursue. I did, until within a month of the pe-
riod when I c•insented to bring forward that measure for the
relief of the Roman Catholic disabilities.—l did contemplate
my retirement tfrom office—not because: I shrunk from the
responsibility of pressing the measure—not because I dreaded
the charge of inconsistency—not because I was not prepared
to make a sacrifice of private friendship and political con-
nexions, but because I honestly believed that my retirement
would promote the success of the measure which I then
thought necessary—that I might assist my Noble Friend in
carrying that measure were I to make a sacrifice of office, and
that I might give, as I intended, a cordial sup-
port, in my private capacity, to that measure.
But when did I change my opinion ? I changed
my opinion when it was demonstrated to me that it was
not necessary that I should make the sacrifice—when it was
shown to me that, however humble my abilities might be, yet,
considering the situation which I filled, that with my retire-
ment from office the carrying of the measure would have totally
failed—when it was proved to me that there was opposition to
it in the highest quarters, and that that opposition could not be
overcome unless I was prepared to make sacrifices of much that
was dear to me—when it was intimated to me by my Noble
Friend that it was the intention of the highest authority of the
Church of England to offer the mo.t determined opposition
to the measure—when my Noble Friend intimated
to me that he tho..ght that if I persevered in my intention to
retire, success was out of the question. It was then, and not
until then, that I said I will not expose others to obloquy or
suspicion from which I will myself shrink. 1 know all the con-
sequences of my coming forward to propose the measure of
relief of Roman Cetholic disabilities ; but the moment that I
was convinced that the obs'ruction to success would
be greatly increased by retirement, then I stated
that I will not sacrifice others, be the consequences what they
may to myself. I will propose the measure. Sir, these are
the facts of the case ; and I think I did act a more honourable
part in consenting to retain office, and in proposing that mea-
sure. I think I took the part more honourable to the charac-
ter of public men than if 1 had said to my Sovereign and my
colleagues, " You shall be exposed to the suspicion of propos-
ing this measure in order to retain office ; I think the measure

a good one and advise the Crown to consent to it, but allow
me to escape the responsibility of proposing it by retiring from
public life. Cheers.) And now, notwithstanding the taunts
thrown out against me, I rep-at that, believing this measure
to be of advantage to the public, foreseeing the opposition by
which it would be encountered—in spite of taunts and sar-
casms, I again say, I think it is more becoming in
me to propose this measure, and submit to the conse-
quences, rather than say I think it necessary, but I advise
you on the opposite side of the House to come forward and
expose yourselves to the obloquy of proposing it. This is the
principle on which I think public men should act with respect
to the retention of office; that if I believed now my retire-
ment from office would facilitate the carrying this measure, I
should infinitely prefer the course of relinquishing office, and
supporting it in a private station. And now with respect to
the reference made by the Right Hon. Gentleman to:an inter-
view which took place seven years since between myself and
a deputation from the Free Church of Scotland. Of that inter-
view so imperfect is ray recollection, that till my Hots. Friend
( Mr. Pringle) rose to speak and referred to it, I had not the
slightest conception that be was one of the deputation. The
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) says the interview
to ,k place seven years ago. I must say I wish that any
Learned Gentleman or Rev. Divine who left the meeting in-
tending to make a note of what passed had given me the op-
portunity at the time of saying whether my recollection coin-
cided with his or not.—( Loud cheers.) I should have liked
to have had this opportunity. I have not the least doubt
that I said that the Established Church in Scotland should, in
common with the Established Church in England,.enjoy the same
privileges ; and I have not the least doubt that I also stated
then my devotion to the principles which I had always pro-
fessed nn this subject. However, I have no recollection of it ;
yet I will say that from what had taken place in Prussia and
other parts of the continent, I was not willing that the same
struggle should take place in Ireland between the Catholics and
Protestants, and therefore I was anxious to avoid all religious
conflicts; but never did I hear it said that lat any time
uttered an opinion in depreciation of the Roman Catholics.—
( Hear.) I never heard it asserted, and the first I heard of it was
from what I saw in the public newspapers; and I must
say that all I have heard from all sides is very contradictory to
the language which I believe I used.—( Hear, hear.) Again,
I beg to say that I have no recollection of the part attributed
to me by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ; but this I will
say, that during the cry that was raised against the Roman
Catholics, I, for one, never joined in that cry. —( Hear, hear.)
And I must here be allowed to say that it does appear rather
strange that, if such was my language, and such my conduct
at that period, it is rather remarkable, I say, that I should sub-
sequently have supported this question as I have done.—
( Cheers.) Now, from the manner in which I spoke upon this
subject in the year 1841, the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
said, in quoting my words, " it would be better to follow my
advice on this question as delivered by me out of doors." Now, in
1841, when I was out of office, I did not shrink from avowing
my opinion in favour of this vote, for I said it was an honour-
able engagement, and that it would be impossible, without
wounding the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
to withdraw this vote; and therefore now I support it, par-
ticularly as I do not believe it to be at all injurious to the Pro-
testant religion.—( Hear, hear.) I now think it impossible
either to withhold this measure, or to advocate the case of
the Hon, Member for the University of Cambridge. 1 be-
lieve that in Ireland they would be very independent of this
measure; but still I must say, that if the Hon. Member
should persevere itt his motion, I certainly must declare it is
out of my power to be a party to such a vote.—( Cheers.) I
do put bring forward this measure under the impression; that
it will not be continued regularly with a view of re coin.. for
ever the College of Alaynooth from the position in which it
has hitherto beers placed, because I say it would be disgraceful
to yost to send forward any measure of this nature that could
be looked upon as a dissatiafaotory measure of legislation in
Ireland.—(Fear, hoe.) I will not say that I was not pre-
pared for the opposition which this measure has met with from
the Dissenters ; but I will say this, that much as I respect
the expression of ?Olio fsehrti ukon qat vabievts, so far front