The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

(Hear, hear! acid appiause by clapping of hands
—cries of order !):—He did hot wish to speak of
the Catholics in the spirit of bigotry, but con-
sistently with themselves they must entertain
this opinion, and on such a question he felt it his
duty to speak out firmly and freely. If any one
conceived, as he did, that the principle of the
Bill aimed at the existence of the Protestant es-
tablishment, it was his duty to speak out, or he
Would, be guilty of treachery to the Constitution.
--(Hear, hear !)—lle attributed nothing to the
Church of Rome but whit she gloried in ; the
Principles with regard to their own Church, and
those who differed from them, were as strong as
ever. There was no communion, no salvation
out of their Church,they could have no intercourse
with any other Church ; it was as impossible, as
the Pope himself said,, as a communication be-
tw'een Christ and Belial—(Hear !)-Those Ca-
tholics, therefore, who were consistent with them-
selves,could have no other desire than that the Pro-
testant Establishment should remain.—(Hear !)
_Even those who supported this Bill, thought
there was some danger of this kind, or why did,
they propose securities at all.—(Hear, hear !)
lf the general principle was laid down so
broadly as it was in the Bill, why was any se-
curity proposed ? Why was the Catholic exclud-
ed from any office on account of any tenets, pro-
Nltied he were, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
t°r:ne,l it, a liege and loyal subject.—(Hear
~711 y were we to exclude the Sovereign on the
Throne from that freedom of conscience which
was claimed for all his subjects?—(Hear!)—Why,
but that having laid down a principle, they found
it so revolting that they were obliged to narrow it
by contradictory exceptions'—(Hear!)—lt was
not on the tenets of the Catholics that the friends
of the Bill relied. They wished to derive from
the impracticability of carrying the tenets into
execution, what he (Mr. B.) wished to derive from
some more certain source. Another source of se-
curity was said to be the small change which the
would effect in their political condition. It was
said, that there would be only 8 or 10 Catholic
Peers and Members of that House, who could
not exceed 100. He (lh. B.) said, that evenl
snch a number as. 100, or even a smaller number,
of Members of Parliament, leagued for any one
Purpose, could not be long without an opportu-
nity of accomplishing it. Divided as parties were
in that House, it had happened, and it always
would happen, that 100 men, acting in one body
and with one mind, could effect almost any ob-
ject, And when they knew under what circum-
stances elections took place, and what the wealth
and connections of the Catholics were, he ap-
pealed to the House whether, in a particular Par-
liament, the Catholics might not te an object
With them, to get a vastly greater number of
Members?-(Hear, hear I)—What was the se-
curity they had against the danger from such a
cuirtingency ? They had the declaration, that
the Protestantism of the Crown and of the
Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland,
"were permanently and inviolably established.
What was meant by permanent and inviolable ?
glow weak and powerless was such .a de-

elaration against all the changes of circum-
stances which time might roll on ! Who was
There so Weak as to legislate for futurity ? The
11otes which were to succeed us would legislate
Or themselves. Could • we rely on such mise-
rable securities as declarations of permanence and
? lle had heard the Right lion.
'ehtleman (Mr. Plunkett) say, that measure
4,.as to close the door on future agitation. Was
•,;"-Possible that his acute and logical . mind could
,-v°l4 seeing, that what had happened before
• 4111 st happen again ; that while any thing re-
• tllliainecl' they would grasp it; that in granting
Steps to
prayers, they were only building up
bePs to climb to ecclesiastical dominion ? The
"-ight Hon. Gentleman would allow him to ask,
Ether the body of the Catholics could feel a
interest as to admission to a few offices,
"hich one way or the other could scarcely affect
1
'reland, and yet be indifferent to what most men
were alive to, a tax upon their property ? The
tholics must consider it amaterial evil that they
• Should be taxed for the maintenance-of a Church
which they abhorred; or 'they must be made diffe-
eotly from other men,if that which pressed on them
nost affected them least. When, therefore, any
Political power was given into the hands- of this
.Bect, would they not set themselves to free them-
.selves from this burthen, and were there no other
°fli his Majesty's subjects who would aid them in
1143 undertaking ? (Hear he Catholics
1:(11d have thrown into their scale the whole
eight of the Protestant Dissenters, who, though
acAugrant to them, would co-operate with them
eost - a common grievance.—(hear, hear!)—
11:1 lion. Gent. (Mr: Croker) bad given notice,
I„4it. in the Committee he should move for a pro-
NZ for the Irish Clergy. The Hon. Gent.
jaro.'t save him-self the trouble, for if he put power
be the hands of the Catholic Church they would
atpabled to help themselves. 'That the Protest-
tua, ChOrch in Ireland could maintain its supre-
n
li) ascendancy, and _possessions, after the
• 44, Passed, would be as inconceivable as that
4ujti "own cause should. not produce its known
su COmmon effects. When it was proposed to
oePort the Catholic Clergy, would it escape
kservation that there was another Clergy sup-
r,ted on the tithes of that country ? Or would
b be strange that in a time of difficulty it might
4,el,proposed to make-an alteration in benefices
appointments ? The mode in which theitight
1.,"11. Gentleman brought forward this measure
~;as more objectionable than that in which Mr.
‘-iattan proposed it; for he (Mr, Grattan)
llited in the same Bill concession and security.
.w P
.eY were now in two distinct Bills. See, then,
ghat might happen. The Bill of Concession
Zght be passed, while the Bill of Security might
rejected. Or, supposing both of them
the Clergy might reject the securi-
-7 hey would then have put the laity in
1131;ssession of seats in Parliament, yet they would e had their securities rejected
as they were
-811.—(11ear !)—Was this'imprObable ? Did
-
leY not find in 1811, that the Catholics held in
execration the proposed securities ? The Lay
jCatholics then admitted into the possession
ul power might
they always hd
- . support
ne) their pastors) might a
ss
ay correspondenace

with the See of Rome i'v'as purely a religimiS
ter, and endeavour" to mOdiffit to their Measure.
It was said, however, that we were in a situa-
tion. in which we could not stand long ; that we
must do something. lie (Mr. B.) had no hesi-
tation in saying that the grant of the Elective
Franchise to the Catholics of Ireland was
dictated by an absurd policy—that they should
not have granted so much or should have given
more.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—He was not, how-
ever, a party to that decision of the Irish Go-
vernment; if it had come before him he did not
think he could have been so blind as to have grant-
ed it. But then it was said, why not repeal
what had been so improvidently conceded
We knew, however, that there were many things
which it was unwise to give, but when granted
could not be retracted ; and this was a main ob-
jection with him to the present Bill—that they
should not take, on so essential a question, a
doubtful step, which they could never retrace.
.For this reason also he 'objected to the Union.—
He thought that measure most imprudent, be-
cause, whatever burden Ireland might .be to us,
we could never be relieved from it. But he
would noi, bccaune too much had been yielded,
cease to defend what was left. Quod datum est
non volui, quod reliquum est non Bubo. If it was
intended to put the English on the same footing
as the Irish Catholics, he should not object to it;
but the friends of moderate concession must now
see, that unless the Catholics had all they asked,
they would not thank you, and especially if you
denied them seats in Parliament, they thought
every thing else nothing. -In 1814, when they
might have had the most material concessions,
those who managed the Bill had abandoned it
the moment that- seats in Parliament were ex-
cepted.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that to remain in the
present state was big with danger, and further
steps were imperiously demanded. It had been
held by the wisest politicans, that persecution
was not only the most wicked, but the most
foolish of 'all proceedings. Nothing could he so
absurd as to harmonize persecution with the British
Constitution. Ireland had at one time been
called the Mother of the Saints, and then posses-
sed more real piety than any other part of Europe.
Ireland had expended much of her best .blood in
the service of Britain-; but at one time the policy
was to separate parents from children, and chil-
dren from parasols. At last, as the age became
more enlightened, we became by degrees ashamed
of our conduct. Whether the time for the Union
had been properly chosen, or not, and whether the
claims of the Catholics should not have been pre-
viously settled, he
.should not then inquire.
But he well remembered what Mr. Pitt had
said at the time, that in the event of the Union,
the claims of the Catholics would be granted with
more safety, or refused with more justice. It
appeared that nothing was so • much adapted to
excite discontent, as to allow things to remain
in their present state. Did his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Bankes) thinissthings could remain in their present
state? The possession of political power could not
be refused- to those who had the means of acquir-
ing great landed property. Let the Roman Ca-
tholics come into the h ouse, for here we can deal
with them—( Loud and continued applause.)--The
Catholics had not known the British Constitution
in its dignified and liberating powers. If the
Priests were supposed to lusve too much power,
the best way to lessen. that was,by allowing Catho-
lics to have seats in that House; and the Catholic
religion, if it were as bad as some had described
it, would be improved by being incorporated
with the principles of the British Constitution.
He would suggest to his lion. Friend, that in
places where- Catholics had the majority, they
might choose Protestant Representatives, who
might be subservient to their wishes, and as much
danger might be apprehended in that way as by
Catholics themselves having seats in that House.
In the view he took of the case, he relied much
upon the progress of education, and the increas-
ing diffusion of light and knowledge. Many of
the Roman Catholics had been ornaments to their
age and country, and he might in particular cite
the name of the amiable and enlightened Fene-
Jon. The present state was not one of restric-
tion, but of degradation. It was wearing the
prison suit after the prisoner was at large. This
country was remarkable for all being aware that
they had the protection of the laws. But in
Ireland the- feeling was one of resistance to the
laws. But when Ireland came to enjoy the bless-
ings of the Constitution, her character would be
dulcified and liberalised. He was confident that
the .part he was advocating' was one of sound-
policy, and a proper return to that country, to
whose exertions Great Britain had been so deeply
indebted.—(Cheering:)
Mr. B. BATHURST then rose, but so much con-
fusion prevailed in the House, owing to the with-
drawing of several Members both from the gals
leries and the floor, that we were not fortunate
enough to collect, for some time, a single sentence
of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech. The
bustle rather increasing than subsiding—
Lord CASTLEREAGH entreated a fair hearing
for his Right Hon. Friend. It was very rarely
and with great relutance that he had ever found
himself under the necessity of making this sort of
request to Hon. Gentlemen ; but- surely in a
question of this •vital interest and magnitude it
was highly important that the people of England
should have the benefit of every lion. Gentle-
man's opinion, and highly becoming that House
to give every lion; Gentleman a patient- hear-
ing.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST resumed. His Hon.
Friend (Mr. Wilberforce, we imagin^) had con-
founded the question of civil and legislative
rights, when he had touched upon the blessings
of the British Constitution. The question, as he
had put it, relating to religious disqualifications,
was one of rather an ecclesiastical than a public
character; but as it regarded ,legislative non-
eligibility, he (Mr. Bathurst) considered it
to be of a public character, and. he would
therefore meet it on that ground. The Honour-
able. Gentlethan ought to have remembered that
they- all lived under a Constitution which was
Protestant, both in its stature and its substance.
Was it to he wondered at, or made matter of
objection; in the first place, if
thewexcluded from
,

the great CotincilS of 0.16 those tilfo
were-of a religion different from that- ithich Wits
established and acknowledged in and by the
state itself; and considering too; that the Head
of that State Was himself so boUnd and so situ-
ated, that lie could not absolve his own private
conscience from the observance of these duties
which'it imposed upon him ?—(The Right lion.
Gentleman went on to answer the argument of
Mr. Wilberforce, as well as we could hear him,
in detail.)—The lion. Member had said he would
not contend for the abstract question of right, in
its full extent ; but his reasoning went to spew
the necessity of conceding such rights, in fact, to
an extent as large as that embraced by the Bill
of the• Rt. Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunkett).—
Now there was a' point at which the lion. Mem-
ber must stop, because the law itself would pause
there; and he (Mr. Bathurst) might instance
here the highest dignities of the law. Then came
the question, whether or no they would go Or,
ther than that point? Notwithstanding all the ri-
dicule that had been attached to the idea of
permanent legislation, yet as to the present
case, any regulation, so far as it might go,
must be permanent. The concession • itself
must be pertnanent; for, once conceded, it
could never be withdrawn as a part of concession;
the only alteration which could occur must be
on its increase, or its re-modelling, but it could
never be withdrawn. 'The Right Hon. Member
concluded a spreCl4.olSome length, the greater
part of which was inaudible in the gallery, by
moving as an amendment—" That the Bill be
read a second time this day six months."
Mr. WILBERFORCE explained.
_ _

Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH and Mr. METCALFE
rose at the same moment; but, in consequence of
the general cry of" new member," Sir J. Mac-
intOsh sat down.

Air. AIETcALFE then addressed the House, b ht
from the low tone in which the Hon.. _MITI-libel.
expressed himself, w•e were unable to catch any
of his observations. We understood him to sup-
port the Bill. _ _ _

Sir J. MACKINTOSH said it was not his inten-
tion to address the House in detail. lje rose
chiefly to answer the Right Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last but one, whose arguments were in op-
position to sound political doctrines made in that
House by the greatest and most eloquent men.
His object also was to call the attention of the
House to a new circumstance which had occurred
during the last four years, and which made it im-
possible not to support a measure like that be-
foie the House, unless they were resolved to vio-
late common sense, and pervert the best princi-
ples of civil government. The Catholics, by re-
cent Acts of Parliament, were allowed to hold
situations in the Army and Navy, but they could
fill no civil office. The Duke of Norfolk could
not sit in Parliament, yet the Catholics were al-
lowed to hold arms for the security, of Parlia-
ment. This was an anomaly in the policy of the
Constitution, the principles of which conferred civil
rights upon the soldier that he might be induced
to support the Civil Government. He could not
suppose any case more dangerous than that where
the military force of the country was entrusted
to persons excluded from political power. Men
thus alienated from liberty was asonualous in
the civil laws of mankind. It was a worse state
than that of James the Second, who ultimately
placed civil liberty in the hands of his Roman
Catholic subjects. The English Constitution had
attached the military with arms in their hands to
the Civil Constitution, by giving them rights
which sprang from the ancient Constitution
in existence before Titus Oates. All Catholic
countries had adopted that policy with res-
pect to Protestants. He eulogised the con-
duct of Mr. Pitt on the subject of conces-
sion to Catholics, and contended that the Mea-
sures of that Statesman in favour of the Catholics
was an enlightened act of civil policy. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman quoted
the 40 yearS war occasioned by religious preju-
dices in France, and read extracts from the Edict
of Nantes, stating, at the same time, that peace
and happiness in society was restored by admit-
ting Protestants and Catholics alike to civil offices.
His Honourable Friend who had brought forward
the cause of the Catholics had proved himself one
of the most illustrious men of the present age.
Mr. PEEL said it was not his intention to go at
length into any general detail ; but he did beg
the attention and indulgence of the House if he
should have occasion to trespass a little on their
patience in arguing on what might be considered
the unpopular side of the question ; and lie did
so the more earnestly because he was satisfied
that no decision which. the House might come to
would be considered satisfactory by the country,
unless it was the result of a patient investigation
of what was advanced on both sides. The lion.
and Learned Gentleman had attached great
weight to his first argument : he had stated that
the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from places
of civil trust and power, after having given them
rank in the armyand navy, would be an anomaly un-
paralleled in the civilized world, and in the history
of this country. Now he(Mr. Peel) thought he could
cite a parallel to such a case. The same arguments
used by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
been used to William 111. on the subject of his
exclusion of the Catholics from all civil offices in
the United Provinces, while at the same time
they were eligible to fill the highest rank in the
army. To those arguments answered
that he admitted the anomaly, but Olathe thought
it unfair to exclude them from offices in the army,
in which they had so honourably fought ; but
that no danger could accrue to the State from
thence while the Government was in the hands
of Protestants.—(Hear, hear.)—But it was said,
that by the concessions given in the Act of 1817,
grounds had been established for further claims.
It was true that. Parliament had granted those
concessions, not foreseeing at the tune that such
grant would ever be made a ground for a charge
of inconsistency in not granting roores—L(Hear,
hear, hear.)—lle contended that there was
no such understanding at the time when Catholics
were made eligible to offices of high rank
in the army and navy ; no such principle was re-
cognised when that measure was first ...sought for-
ward in 1307 ; and this was the understanding
in which it was supported by Lord Howick, now

Earl Grey:. That Noble Lord then stated; that
he trusted the limited measurt± proposed might
be brotight forwitrd without the objections which
were made to the geheral questiOn ; and that; con.:
sidering whathad-bi.ien previously Said on the
.Sti.l)
ject by the Chancellor and Secretary for Ireland,.
we had a tight to paSs•such a measure; Now; if
the House had granted those privileges; as far. as
the army and navy were concerned; on groundS
wholly different from those WhiCh were urged in
support of the general question; vat it fair to urge
such concessions at- the present moment as a reason
why we should grant more ? td tiny argument.
founded on the opinions of the Irish Bishops, he
could assure the house that he meant to take no
unfair advantage of it ; but if it -were said that
they were silent for seven years on this subject,
he would observe that the Bill had not been
printed seven days, and that; therefore, they
could not • have had time to declare their senti-
ments on it.—(Hear,- hear!)—With respect to
what had been said of the principle Of exclusion
fixing a brand and stigma on the Catholics, he
would repeat what he- had formerly said, that
there was a grand distinction between-exclusion
and punishment ; and though the principle of ex-
clusion might be continued, it did not follow that
we meant to disbelieve the oaths of the Catho-
lics, or to fik a brand upon their brows. Ile
would go with the Right Honourable Gentleman
thus far, and would admit with him, that politi-
cal exclusion was in itself an evil. It was an
evil to be obliged to refuse the services of a great
portion of trre people, and to debar their
access to power ; and it was not. the .mere
posseSsiou of office—for if that - were to be con-
sidered,' the exclusion could extend - bUt to
very few ; but--it was the hope of possession,
and the laudable ambition to which that hope
gave rise, which were to be considered in the
question of exclusion. Nor would he admit, be-
cause our ancestors had - acted upon that prin-
ciple, that it was less an evil ; but what. he would
maintain was this, that it would be a greater evil
to do away the exclusion than to continue it.—
lie hoped that he had stated this:ground of argu-
ment fairly, as it applied to the question before
the llouse.=(llear !)—lle would not now go
into the question as it applied particularly to
England ; he thought himself bound to consider

rather its application to Ireland. In viewing the
question as it applied to that country, the Right
lion. Gentleman would not deny that an impor-
tant and essential ingredient in it was the main-
teiiance and support of the Protestant Church in
that' Country.—(lleari)—The Rt. Hon. Gent.
had asked what danger remained to the Protestant
Church ha Ireland ; and he had answered himself
by stating that all the danger which had existed
would still remain if this Bill were not carried;
but that by the passing of this Bill secur-
ities would be granted to the Established
Church. Now, the security which he offered
was the conferring on the Catholic equal power
with his fellow-subjrct. There were three sorts
of power which it was intended to confer on the
Roman Catholics—the first was that which the
common law annexed to the possession of pro-
petty, and from which certain acts had hitherto
debarred the Roman Catholics,• but hich
this Bill were to be_ restored to them: this was
the power of voting at parish vestries, the power
of voting for the ropair and building of churches,
the election of churchwardens, and the payment of
subordinate officers. Ile would ask them whether
in a country where there were five Roman Catholics
to one Protestant, this power ought to be given to
them ?illere, without imputing any opinions to
Roman Catholics which they would themselves be
ashamed to avow, he wouktask whether it was con-
sistent with the safety of the established (Lurch to
confer such a power? And upon whom was it to be
conferred I Upon persons who 'had to provide
also for the support of their own religious esta-
blishments. If this should pass into a law, the
executive would be bound to carry it bona fide
into effect. If then it was true that the Roman
Catholics were great in point of numbers and in
point of wealth, it followed that this Bill would
give them great power. The same reasoning ap-
'plied to their admission into Corporations and into
Prliatneht. There were admitted evils in the
present scstem, but these had been wisely con-
nected by the lion. Member for Bramber with
exploded evils, in order to visit on the pre-
sent laws the whole odium of the unnatural prac-
tices which had disgraced former times. There
were a hundred Members, for Ireland ; sixteen
ought, he allowed, to be returned by close
Boroughs ; twenty were returned by large
towns, and the other sixty-four by counties
where the elective franchise was more general
than in this country. Of the electors who re-
turned eighty-four members,t.-sth then were
Roman Catholics.• lie admitted the great power
of the Catholics, but did not regret that it had
been controlled. Why exclude Roman Catho-
lics from the office of ecclesiastical judge, and now
for the' first time, for that provision had not been
introduced in any former Bill ? This showed
that the feeling of,jealousy on his part was not
quite unaccountable.—(Cheers.)—Ills fears were
not chimerical. Catholic members of that House
would naturally be anxious to extend to the Ca-
tholic clergy the privileges which were now with-
held from them ; and he declared solemnly that
he believed, if this measure were to pass into a
law, the regulations would not remain in force
for five years. Irish members in that House
had a distinctiuterest. lie did not know if it was
constitutional, but it was human nature to combine
for the interest of the land of our birth. In ques-
tions aE.cting the Protestant Church in Ireland,
he did therefore expect combinations. He was
aware that it was a choice of difficulties; but in
his opinion the arguments for continuing the ex-
clusion overbalanced the other arguments. •If
once agreed on the principle, lie thought there
could be no valid objection founded on the de-
tails. Yet, he, saw objections to affixing an in-
terpretation to an oath, adverse to its plain and
obvious meaning. Why, again, did they not
relieve the crown from the declaration against
transubstantiation, if Members of that House
were to be relieved ? Protestantism was so in-
terwoven with the Constitution, that it would
meet them at every turn.—(l tear !)—Gover-
nors of Colonies) for instance; would find it made

penal to appenit id offices under them upon prim-
.tipleS Which were only consistent wit!i their,duty:
What proof Could 'they haft of 4ho wzo a Woman.
Catholic
.if, this measure passed ? Mr; ti rattan's
Bill had left the declaration against tratiStibstan=,
tiatibii which. this Bill removed: But NI, liatevet'
decisidn the lionse might cine, to, he world give
it his best tit'quiescence ; and if the nieasure
'should be carried, he would use his earnest
deavonrs to reconcile the Protestants to it.— (Irlbud.
i'l4 repeated cheers from both side's of the Mdse.)
Mr. CANNING rose amidst loud and general
cheering, which continued for -several minutes:
He said, he never rose to distlarge the duty
Which he had now to perform' with more anxiety
than he felt on the preSetit occasion ; that anxiety
arose from the conviction he felt of the great and.
growing expediency of the Measure. Many
the circumstances which contributed to the
feat of the measure, when it was formerly-
bet:night forward, had been. removed ; aft& it came
now attended uith facilities which had not be-
fore existed ; such was its introduction at the
Coinmentement of a new reign. It was the niag-
nitude of the issue, and net the difficulty of the
subject which pres4ed on hirri ; for he felt that
if it did not now succeed, as he trusted it
would,, the case must be involved in despair.,
for there could be hereafter no prospect of
its sticeess. It was not the actual state of
the law, it Was not the precise. enactment;
but the temper and spirit in 'is Jail it firigi-
nated, that gate it its bitterness. It was idle to
attempt to divest the subject of the-consideration.--
of the feelings out of Which it arose, and to refer
to the precise enactments as an argument for their
continuance. Their laws were founded in the
real or supposed existence of a foreign temporal
influence, connected with the acknoWledged
spiritual power ; and the declaration against tran;.
substantiation was adopted as a means of detect-
ing the Papist, and excluding him from powe.,
not becauseit designated his creed, but beCatne
he was attached to a foreign influence. The argu-
ment for retaining the declarations when the
cause which gave rise to it had long teased
to exist, he could liken to nothing but the
conduct of an active Magistrate, who, seeing it
announced in The Gazette that a murder had been
committed by a man in spectacles who wore a
wig, although it was afterwards discovered that
no murder had been committed, should yet pe:.-
sist in apprehending a person who used spe.:-
tacles and wore a wig, as the murderer
"(Much laughter.)—lt was contended that it was
impossible the Roman Catholics, if admitted
to the full enjoyment of the Civil Constitu-
tion, should not endeavour to overturn the
Protestant Chcrch. He thought the attempt t)
sustain this position, by arguing from the fe
ings of the individual making the assertion,was by
no means fair. How was it borne out in his`o-
ry
? The Catholic was there to be found in c 'ii-
stant adherence to the civil Government, in :le-
spite of his exclusion, and even at the loss of his
property. A Bill which was brought into Par-
liament to prevent the Protestant Bishops frJrn
sitting in the House of Lords, was thrown out by
the votes and influence of the Catholic Peers.
It was assumed that the Roman Catholics, like
Brutus in history, -should for two 'centuries to-
gether have put on the semMance of patient in-
sensibility, and only waived for the passing of the
present Bill, to spring out, and revenge itself
on the Constitution of the country.' The Right
Hon. Gentleman then took a review of the state
of Ireland from the time of King
when came the laws which serarated the wife
from the husband, and-the son from the father ;
the time when authority was reversed, and the
laws of nature counteracted. Till the fourteenth
of George the Third the conforming son might
dispossess the unconforming father ; the treacher-
ous wife might in those clays ruin her husband ;
the orphan might be torn from its natural protee-
tors ; in short, there was then no faith in families,
no feeling of security, no domestic life. The Bill
of 1774 was hailed like the jocund spring,' which
gave the promise of glorious summer to come.—
That Bill gave leave to the Papist, totwithstand-
ing his belief in transubstantiation, to rent fifty
acres of bog. In 1793, the so much deprecated
Act passed, which gave them the elective franchis,
and-he agreed with what the Hon. Member (Mr.
Plunkett) had said, that then, whether it were
for good or for evil, then the present measure was
virtually granted.—(Hear, hear.)—For it never
could be conceived a proper mode to concilia e
,Ireland to associate with the population an.:l
spurn the gentry. He would ask what natural
impediments there were in the way of an intimate
union with Ireland ? It was very true, that for
two centuries they had been carefully erecting a
mound, which stood above the waters frowning'
defiance at all who should attempt to pass it... It
was as a narrow isthmus placed to divide two
kindred streams which in vain endeavoured to
unite. Should they then repair that broken
mound, or should they leave it to the operation of
that slow but certain destroyer,Time,who would ul-
timately crumble it into ruin, or rather, shoull
they not cut the isthmus and float on the mingling
waves the ark of our common safety ?—( L'iu
cheers.)—The argument was rather inconsistent
which expected that the Catholic, if admitted to
all the benefits of the Constitution, would endea-
vour to destroy it, and yet expected from him
unlimited affection and obedience, under a sys-
tem of exclusion. He thought it was desirable,
as they had been so long excluded, that the altera.
tion should be gradual, but they must be made
of very loving materials, indeed who could feel
affection for restrictions and deprivations—
Wh2n late I attempted your pity to move,
Why did you reject my fond prayers ?
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
But why did you kick me down stairs ?
He was not one of those who thought that the
State would be desecrated, would be rendered
unholy as well as insecure, if every sect of the
Christian faith were admitted to offer up their
prayers within the pale of that Constitution which
secured them such countless advantages. It
was urged that there would be dangei from
the admission of Catholics into that House ;
by their acting in concert, and by throw.
ing their weight first on one side, and then
on the other, they would extort the consent
-*''''3overninent for some favourite proposi-