The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-02 00:00:00

PEEL'S SPEECIL

Mr. PEEL said, it was unnecessary for him
to ' assure the Right Honourable -Gentleman
(Mr.: Plunkett) that nothing but the direct,
and rather unusual reference made to hims,
could have induced him to incur the charge
of presumption, by attempting to answer the
Right Honourable Gentleman's argument-S.-a--
..Linder any circumstances,. the Right lion. Gen--
,
tan would have had an immense advantage
over him, but the Right lion. Gentleman's speech
being a reply to one delivered four years back,
whichh he had then an opportunity of answering
with the extraordinary faculty of reasoning the
Right
.Hon. Gentleman possessed, under what
apprehension must he now rise to attempt an
answer. Before proacediug, be would be leave
trst to allude to the subject with which he pre-
:aced his speech, in tribute to the memory of a
departed friend, under whose auspices this ques-
tion was so often brought forward. 1 o every
wovd of the Right Hon. Gentleman's eulogium
on Mr. Grattan he fhily and most cordially sub-
scribed. It might seem' arrogant on his part to
.assume the right of praising that distinguished
•iudividual, for he did not know him in early life.
They were never embarked together in the same
veli:icel pursuits ; there did not exist between
-them that nece;:siludo- sort's, which was described;
by a great orator as the strongest link that could
'hind men together. If he did subscribe to the
:enlogiurn of thei Right Hon. Gentleman, it was
*ith'this viessesethatit might convince those who
bad not the same. opportunity as he (Mr. P.) had
had of being acquainted with Mr. Grattan, and
of witnessing his extraordinary powers, that
the Right Honourable Gentleman had not
been sedhced by his partiality for the cause advo-
Cated by. Mr. Grattan, or by private friendship,
to over-rate the merits of that Gentleman. There
was not a man among the companions of that
Centleman's public or private life, who admired
OsOre than he (who 'had been, he was going to
:say, the opponent, hut who had had the,misfor-
- One of differing with him upon this question)
the unquestioned and unquestionable in-
tegrity ;
.or, to quote his own words, the despe-
-rate fidelity with which he had adhered to this
Gnestion ; and of all the characteristics of that
entleman, none deserved more approbation than
• that readiness to submit to temporary' obloquy,
• nay,. that readiness to give up even this idol,
when he (Mr. Grattan) had thought it interfered
with .his public duty. At the same time that the
cause had suffered a great loss by the death of
Grattan, it had, in the Right Honourable
Gentleman, a worthy and equally able advocate.
Having stated so much, he should now
.proceed
to notice the arguments of .the Right Hon. Gent.
and• if any person in that House supposed that
try rose to state his unqualified satisfaction with
the present state of the laws respecting Roman
Catholics; and if any man supposed that he rose
foie the purpose of taking any advantage by ap-
pealing to the prejudice which existed, and by
that,means, and not by argument, to e'gain a single
vote,. he begged distinctly to be understood as
not expressing that unqualified satisfaction ; and
that the Gentlemen (if any there were) who
thought him actuated by the motives to which he
had just alluded, he could assure . that Gentles
man that he laboured under a mistake. He re-1
tained the,. opinions now which he had always
held, and seeing that there was a choice of evils,
though he was not satisfiedhvith the' alternative,
he had proposed to 'the Honse •measure which
had grown out of the anomalous state of society ;
and finding this pre-existent state- of things, he
had selected a measure.," which he could not ad--
snit to •be satisfactory. He had never thought
this system of exclusion a good one, and he only
thought it- defensible upon the ground that it
was a refuge from a greater evil. This was not
a new opinion ; • this was the opinion whiCh he
had held upon the last occasion, and he wistild,
in the'same spirit and grounded- upoil' the -same
motives, state his reasons why he dissented with
the present motion. When the Right Hon. Gen.
tlerhan said that he (Mr. P.) was pleased with
the arrangement of 1793, did the Right Hon..
Gentleman shppoSe him •(Mr. P.) so delighted
with it as to giVe it his entire concurrence ? Did
the Right Non. Gentleman think that he (Mr. P.)
contemplated that arrangement with' unqualified
satisfaction- ? Could newish yearly to _hear this
question discussed ? Could he wislhto hear 'the
hams whiCh the at, Hon, Gentleman had =rairged
insupport of this cause ? lie would adinit that
he could not, if he were-arguing .for the sake of'
victory and not of truth, and if a.base Sordid in-
terest, and not the honest hotivictionS-of his mind
had influenced' his conduct. When he saw the
Rthlion. Gentleman and many other HOn.Mem-
bers of- that House, for whose opinions he had .a
great respect, rising in that House, and adding to'
their own sentiments the authority of great names,l
he 'should aShame& to look the House in the!
filer, If he could for a moment think himself,
chargeable; wish interested views.—(Hear, hear !)
—Pin't streat authorities which had been
hiottsdile.n.qs•est upon the House the necessity of
examiningaed re-examining the grounds oitheir
opinion,
.anihnf ascertaining to their satisfation
that no danger could exist-in the admission to
places of trust and profit so large nt -portion of
• their fellow-citizisres. If, after that examination,
•the House ~should feel convinced that
..danger
writtld exist, he trusted to the liberality dithe itt.
Hon. Gent. to declare, after-ssichan exercise of
judgment and shell a conviction,-the House would-
be justified in.doubting the infallibility of these
great authorities, and. dehlaring•that:thei saw no
alternative but to persist ii. the pre4ent. system.
of exclusion, or to entail upon the country a
greater evil. The Right Huh. Gentleinan ha&
said that he conceived every subject to have an un-
soillified right to office,and that it was inconsistent
with the Constitution to exclude, and that they
were bound to stew some pressing and paramount
d finger to justify that exclusion. On that point
he was at'isue with the Right Hon. Gentleman.
He denied that position ; and when he did so,
lie meant to state, that it was not the right of any
stiliject to enjoy every office ; and In support of
that assertion hi' hoped he should satisfy the
House that he had appealed to authorities equal-

ly as high ausl.as, deserving of consideration as
those quoted-by the Right Hon. Gentleman. If.
he were wrong in his opinion upon this point, .be
was wrong with men Whose judgment was
worthy of serious consideration. When the pro-
position before the liouse was the removal
eof the civil disabilities under which Roman
Catholics laboured, he' thought the Right lion.
Gentle Man would concede to him (Mr. P.) the
right of considering to what extent the principle
would pass : he thought the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would admit if it were right to admit Ro-
man Catholics to office, it was equally right to
admit Protestants dissenting from the Establish-
ed Church. lie thought it impossible to main-
tain, Under any circumstances, if a permanent ca-
pacity to till places of trust were given to Roman
'Catholics,- that an equal boon could be refused
to Dissenters. That being granted, •the repeal
of.the _Test anti corporation Acts must follow.
There must be a final and unequivocal repeal of
these Acts. The authority of Mr. Pitt, Mr.
Burke, and he belieVed Mr. Windham, would
desert the ,13.igtft. Hon. Gent. upon that point. In
the year 1791., when a proposition to repeal those
Acts was made, Mr. Pitt called them the bulwarks
of the Church of England.. Mr. Piet denied, in
contradiction to the opinion of Mr. Fox, the per-
manent right of the subject to office. Mr.
Burke also denied the principle, but not upon the
Same
.grounda. Mr. Burke said, that on two for-
mer occasions he had staid away from the discus-
sion, because he could not make up his mind upon
the subject, but that under existing circumstances.
he must vote decidedly against it. Mr. Burke.
thought he saw something in the conduct of the
Protestant Dissenters which disqualified them
from a permanent right to office. Another autho-
rity had been to-night and on various other occa-
sions, to his astonishment, quoted in favour of
motion
the present ; he meant the authority of
Mr. Justice Blackstone. The Noble Lord who..
.had quoted that authority for a complete admis-
sion of the Roman Catholics, and whO had called
in law and religion to his aid, ought to have gone.
further, and read the passage in which Mr. Jus-
tice Blackstone treated of these disabilities.—.
Mr. Justice Blackstone, in that passage, said,
" If the time ever should arrive when the Roman
Catholics should disclaim certain tenets, then .it
might be 'expedient and politic to remove the
penal Statutes." In this passage, Ur. juStice
Blackstone spoke of the penal Statutes as contra-'
distinguished from exclusion, and in the next
passage he said the Test and Corporation Acts
were enacted for the security of the Church
against the attempts of the Protestant Dissenters,
and under one of those Acts. were Roman
Catholics excluded: Ile well remembered the
note of the Commentator upon that passage
was that all these penal Acts were done away
by the 31st Geo. I 11. He objected to use penalty
instead of exclusion, and if- any deference-must
be paid to the opinion of Mr. JUstice Black-
stone, it must be paid to an opinion, inculcating
the maintenance of those laws. The Right Hon.
Gentleman proceeded to, trace the history of
these statutes, and-declared that it was alien to
the British Constitution to exclude any subject
from office. He confessed that the statutes be-
fore the reformation, when the Roman Catholic
was the religion of the land, had not much weight
with him. He now proceeded to consider the
state of the law since the completion of the refor:.'
!nation, and he must:say that statutes of exclusion
had been coeval with the reformation. An Act
passed in the lst.of Elizabeth
merely
every m
subject to take an oath, not erely that no
foreign State or Prince had any jurisdiction in
this realm, but that Queen -Elizabeth had ju-
risdiction, dominion, and authority,. in all
things spiritual, ecclesiastical, and temporal.—
Every Knight, Citizenfand Burgess was required
to take this oath. Would the Roman* Catholics
'of the present day take that oath ? • If they
would not take that oath, why, he would ask,
were they less objects of jealousy than the Ro-
man Catholic, of 'that day.? Did any one think',
that the object of that Statute was not to exclude
the persOns not taking that oath from power ? '
In the
.course of the debates upon the repeal of
the test against transubstantiation, it was argued
that no Roman Catholic had sat in • Parliament
from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to Charles I I.
because the oath of supremacy was'efrectual. 'lf
that were the reason of preventing any ;Roman
Catholic from sitting 'in Parliament, it would
be now rather too much to say thatthere was no
intention to exclude. He wouldliitss -Over the
reigns of Charles 11. and JameS 11. and• Come to
the Revolution. On the doetrineS professed and
acted upon at that period he 'Would rely, that no
such unqualified• right of the subject to office as
that contended for by the Right Hon. Gentle-
-Man had been recognised, Ile must beg pardon
of the House for repeating arguments and making
'statements which had nothing new, and he
felt that nothing could justify'him in repeating
those arguments, except that this was the first
time that this question had been brought under
the consideration of the present Parliament. He
relied upon the authority of the Revolution, that
a clear distinction had been made between toler-
ation and power, 'between liberty of conscience
and the imposition of penalties for any religious-1
belief, and that•the Parliament at that period did
not,think (to use the words of the. Right Hon.
Gentleman) that exclusion from office and Par-
liament branded a man with disgrace and infamy.;
they never thought that such exclusion rendered
a man unfit for civil society ; they never thought
that a remarkable distinction did not 'exist be-
tween. toleration arid the right of a subject to
admisSiOn to office and to Parliament ; they
never thought that there was no alternative
between t complete and unlimited 'admission to
.office and the extermination of the Roman Ca-
tholic religion. He left it to the House to
decide if he had not with success relied upon
these authorities, in contradiction to'
,the 'po-
sition of the Right Honourable Gentleman.
-r-He did not
.now argue that the, principles
sanctioned at the Revolution were irrevocable,
which made it impossible to admit Catholics to
office. He, conceived that the time which had
elapsed should not be a bar to their claims. Even
if the Bill' of Rights excluded Ttomati Catholics,
he would not admit that the Legislature of this

, a:ly, if they thought there was. at y injustice in
sueh.an exclusion, had not 'a right to review and
to repeal that Act ; but what he contended for
was, that those Acts which were perfectly open
to discussion, ought to be considered very
calmly, and decided upon their. intrinsic me-
rits.; and that the Bill of Rights, nay, even the
Act of succession should liot be considered an in-
superable bar. When he referred to the Bill of
Rights he did so'for the purpose of spewing that
it acted upon the principle of- exclusion, which
was recognised at the Revolution. He had-heard
in the last week from an Hon. Member op-
posite, a warm and just panegyric upon King
kVilliam, whom that Hon. Gentleman (we believe
Sir J. Mackintosh) had described as the Advo-
cate.of toleration and liberty. He had heard
that Hon. Gentleman ridicule the charge of illi-
berality made against King William ; to the jus-
tice of that eulogium he would subscribe ; but he
would beg leave to ask what were the opinions of
that King in 1687, when he was consulted upon
the Test and Corporation Acts. It was pro-
posed to him if he would consent to the repeal of
those Acts that King James would do all in his
power to secure to him the throne ; that his friends
would be put into power, but what was the opinion
of this person who was held out as the Advocate
of toleration and liberality ? Did he admit the
unqualified right of ,every subject to office ? Did
he think it necessary to exterminate the Religion,
or or that he fixed a badge of infamy upon Roman
Catholics becanse he :did not admit them to
power? Hear his own words, in the letter which
King William had written in the year 1657, be-
fore he came to the Throne, and before he Was
fettered by a party anxious for the exclusion of
Roman Catholics. The letter said, " if his Ma-
jesty' thought fit further to desire their High-
ness's concurrence in the repeal of the Pe-
nal Laws they were ready to give it, pro-
vided always • that the laws which shut out
Roman Catholics from Parliament, and all
places should remain in full vigour, but their
Highnesses could not agree to the repeal of
the Test Laws which were enacted for the seen-
rity,of the Protestant Religion against the at-
tacks of the Roman Catholics ; and in this they
did not think they could be said to carry any
severity against Roman Catholics as the qualifica-
tion for aMember of Parliament was a declara-
tion, before God and man, that he was for the
Protestant religions" Could any distinction
tween penalties for the profession of a religion
and exclusion from Parliament be more clearly
expressed ? lie hoped the House would not infer
from this, that he subscribed to all the doctrine
contained in that letter, as he only quoted it as
an authority in contradiction of the argument of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. King William fur-
ther stated, " that he would be glad to see some
good reason for repealing those laws, which were
enacted for no other purpose than that of pre-
venting the .Iteman Catholics from overturning
the State, as these laws inflitted neither fines
or punishment, and only excluded from power
those persons whom the experience of every
day sheaved it Would be dangerous to trust,
since all persons in public employments, more or
less, favaiared the advancement of the religion
which they proTessed." 'lie would ask nothing
more than the authority of King William for the
vote which he should give, provided he -saw
there were rational grounds for that opinion.— ,
There were other opinions on which he would
hilinitely -more rely, to shew that the principles
o: the lit. lion. Gentleman had not been recog-
nised by the British-Constitution, and that it was
riot admitted by those most competent to judge.
The Rt. lion. Gentleman said," DO you find in
the Bill of Rights any exclusion?" He would ask
the alt: lion. Gentleman do you find in the Bill
of Rights any. unqualified right to office ? Did not
the Rt. Hon. Gentleman find that in the three
first. articles of that Bill it was stated, that
James had arrogated to himself a. dispensing
power? He knew it '"WiS,,perfectly consistent
with the principles Of flit3e men to call into
question that dispensing power, even if it were ex-
ercised in dispensing withlied laws, and he did
not therefore draw any aigurnent from it. He only
wished to shew that in the recital of the Bill of
Rights the dispensation of the laws which excluded
Roman Catholics from power was noticed. lie
should now, even of the risk Or wearying the
House, call their attention to, the authority upon
which he mainly relied. Soon after the accession
'of King William an Act was passed, tolerating
the Protestant Dissenters, and this was sanc-
tioned by men whO entertained no extravagant
opinion of Louis XIV. or the power of the Pope.
An attempt had been then made, by introducing
an Act of occasional Conformity, to exclude those
Dissenters. The Test Act only required con-
formity at the time of entering into office, and it
was only necessary once to take the Sacrament in
order to comply with that Act, arid, after enter-
ing into office, the- petasen might go to a Meeting-1
house. This Act of occasional Conformity passed
the House of Commons in 170'2, but it met with',
great opposition in the House of Lords. A Con-
ference took -place, and Managers were appoint-
ed by the Lords and Commons to conduct that
Conference, the Lords opposing, on the ground
that it trenched upon Toleration. Ile would
beg leave to mention the names of those appoint-
ed by the Lords, he thought their authority would
have weight with that House .—LordsPeterborough
and Halifax, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Duke
of 'Devonshire, and John Lord Somers-, were ap-
pointed by the Lords ; and he should now beg.
the House to weigh well the arguments of these
men. Did 'they think the Church in danger ?
In the year 1705, he would quote the words of a
Resolution agreed to by these men. He quoted
it merely to shew that they had no apprehen-
, sions from the power of the Pope or of Louis the
XI Vtli The Church of England, as by law
established, which had been rescued by William
the Third, of glorious memory, was then in a
roost 'safe and flourishing state, and whoever in-
sinuated the contrary was declared an enemy to
the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom."—lle
'saw' no reason, why Dissenters should not be ad-
mitted if Roman Catholics were. Lord Somers
thought that the power of imposing any qualifi-
cations for admission to glaces.of power and trot
was lodged with the Legislature, and that they

could impose those qualifications stating
any reason, but 'that the imposition, of penalties
and punishments was of another nature. This be-
ing the opinion of such a man as Lord Smilers;
he thought any man who entertained a rational
apprehension of danger from an 'indiscriminate
admission of persons to office, would be just-
tied in voting against the. motion. lie would ask,
upon what ground could an oath be tendered to
those who had a religious scruple about taking
an oath, and whose 'affirmation was admitted as
an equivalent in civil cases ? The class was'ex-
, chided as effectually, by proposing an oath at all;
as Catholics were by the Test against transub-
stantiation. He did not now suppose a new case,
for a Quaker had been actually elected a Mem-
ber of that House, and was ready to subscribe
to the declaration, but the House could not ad-
mit him. There was just as great a stigmU cast
upon that sect, for their conscientious adherence
to a religious scruple. He would take this.op-
portunity of stating, that he had during his of•
ficial life in Ireland an opportunity of being
acquainted with many of that sect ; and to
their devotion and attachment to the •Constis.
tution, and their liberality •to contribute in
money, time, and labour, to the promotion of
every charitable institution, he must bear his
most unqualified testimony. If the, House
were once to admit the doctrine of the Right
Ironourable Gentleman, they must be just as
much against the administering of an oath to a
Quaker as against the exclusion of Roman Catho-
lics. If the House agreed to this, a most im-
portant change would be made in the British
Constitution; and this being the case, he thought
it too much to charge those with bigotry and in-
tolerance, and acting under the influence of pre-
judice, who thought they ought to consider se-
riously, and be satisfied that no danger could
arise, before they agreed to . this alteration.
He was asked, what danger did he appre-
hend to-day ? He would say, he did not make
a COnstitution for the present day. He did
not think, whatever the danger 'might be, that
a power for] reclaiming this Act would not be
preserved. He thought this Act irrevocable, and'
affecting" the Constitution ; and when it was
done for posterity, he would beg to ask, was he not
justified if he thought any of those dangers
which those laws had warded off, and which he
Would admit, it was unnecessary to guard against
at the present day.—(Hear, hear!)—He would
admit, for the sake oFargrunent, that dangers (lid
,not now exist which existed at, the enactment of
these laws ; and he must uow take into his con-
sideration the past, without any wish to indulge
in or to revive religious acerbity, or hostility, and
see whether the same dangers which had• existed
in the time of Elizabeth, might not hereafter exist.
In the reign of Charles L C. there was a persOn of u
different religion from the King, and next in suc-
cession, taking to his Councils the prOfessed friends
lof Roman Catholics. In the reign of James 11.,
there was a King of a religion different from

the established. -In the reign of William the
First, there Was a danger of another species ;
there was then no danger from the bigotry and
intolerance of the Pope, for such was the libe-
rality of the Pope in thepart which he took in a
dispute between the Jesuits and Jansenites; that
the Jesuits put up prayers for his conversion; in
fact, it.was supposed that the money given by
the Pope under the pretence of carrying on war
againSt the Turks, was applied to the deposition
of James. When he saw, at different periods of
the English history, different dangers which could
not be now contemplated, he asked whether he
could be justified if a possibility of danger were
in the lapse of ages likely AO„oCcur, in not in-
Attiring more minutely, and _considering with at-
tention, such a possibility. -He
,had been asked
what concern had the State with religion ? To that
his answer would be, none, if religion had nothing
to do with the State. Was he to be told that, from
a perusal of the pages of English, Irish, and Scotch
history, it could be gathered that among the mo-
tives which influenced a political man, the Religion
he professed'must not be' included ? What made
every Gentleman who rose in his place profess his
attachment to the Church of England, and qualify
his opinions upon this'question by a profesSion of
attachment ? What but because he believed. it to
he pure and
,holy, and established for the mainte-
nance of the Constitution ? Was he to be told
that it was not desirable to have men profess-
ing that-Religion - in places of trust. The Right
Honourable Gentleman had referred to his (Mr.
Peel's) speech in 1817. He objected to the
motion in 1813, because he thought that if
the House had gone into a Committee, those re-
gulations which were said to provide for the con-
cord of the Irish people, would not be attended
with such a result. If he were asked what pages of
the Bill then introduced he would refer to, he an-
swered by an appeal to the Bill brought in by
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunkett), for
the improvement- of those Jaws by which Ca-
tholics were excluded from holding offices in the
Army and Navy, three-fourths of which Bill
was occupied in imposing restrictions and taking
securities. He appealed to the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and asked him, if that Bill which gave
power to the Roman Catholics, of which it was
said no honest Protestant need be afraid, and no
reasonable . Catholic could refuse—be appealed
to the Right Hon. Gentleman if even that Bill,
framed on 'the reasonable terms it was, could
have been executed with satisfaction. in Ireland ?
He asked, did this result from the conduct of
inimical Protestants, or. of Catholics conscien-
tiously believing they could not accede to it ?
The House was told that Bill could not be rea-
sonably objected to ; nay, they have been told to
suspend its operation, if passed into a law, until-the
Catholics agreed to it. That Bill, however, was
reprobated by the Roman Catholicsi securities
could not be acceded to by that Church ; there
was a general feeling of disapprobation manifested
owards it.by a great body of the laity, who de-,
dared they would, prefer the continuance of their
restrictions, to the- obtaining power under such
circumstances. Even with the authority of the
Pope, declaring they might safely accept such
regulations, they still refused acceding to tlwn
The Right. Hon. Gentleman had said that he ac-
cused the Roman Catholics of perjury and die-
loyalty; but he was sure he could only haNe

tteant that the result of his arguments might
lead td such a coptlosiOn.—(llear, bear !)
no had cautiously avoided all reference to
the intemperate, proceedings 'of some indivi;•
duals of that body ; the , conduct of 'a few
Should be no mokive with him for denouncing
the many. He deelared to GOd he cherished 'no
hostile feeling towards his Roman Catholic feh•
low-countrymen. Although, when in' -office, he
had opposed their Claims, he would not be
guilty of stfch ingratitude as to say he believed
they xvere either perjurers or disloyal ;' he pro-
fessed no such doctrines ; he maintained those
principles and doctrines which' Were held by the
great Lord .;joiners and those other authorities he
had before referred to. He wished all those p?e•
cautions to be taken that might tend to make the
Members of the Legislature attached .to the Re-
formed religion, which was the religion of the'
State. Ile did not now Charge,. foe newer did
charge, the Roman Catholics with llelngless
or less willing to discharge tire duties of good
citizens, the obligations cf social than, their
Protestant fellow-subjects ; but admitting thetil
to be actuated by the same feelings as Protestants
were likely to be, under similar circuMstances,.ke
could not help thinkiug they would indulge the
ambition of wishing to reinstate their own church
again.—(llear, hear !)—He felt some apprehen-
sions at the adoption of the Right lion.. Gentl-
eman's principles ; but so little • was he satisfied
with the present state of Ireland,. so. anxious was
he to remedy the evils that oppressed her, that,
without considering the present measure a parit-
cca, yet if he thought it would operate to,
promote the concord and happiness of the Irish
people, all his apprehensions would give way.-=--
(Hear, hear !)—lf he could remove ,the. pOlitical
an'moSities that now * distracted Ireland, if- he'
could believe that their internal improvement
would be the result of the measure new proposed.
by the Right lion. Gentleman—he, for one,.
would not oppose himself to the Motion. lie
admitted, with the Right Ilon. Gentleman, that
the state of Ireland was deeply to be lamented—
he regretted the existence 'of her religious
jealousies—he wished they were extinguiihed ;.
and as to a Government ruling a people on the
principle of dividing them, no man held such a
doctrine in greater abberrence: It was- only be-.
cause he doubted the efficacy of the propoied2
measure towards the securing theSe 'objects, that
he resisted it 'on the present occasion. _lle could
not loOk over the history of Irelandthe strug-.
gles of partiesthe confiscations 'Made by one,,
and: the losses endured '.by. the other—at the
growing conflicts between Catholic- and, Pro—
testant—without anxious fears as to their pro-
clueing a continuance of religibus animosity. But
still he hoped that the laPse. of time, -the pro-
gress of refinement, and improVed: civilization
would introduce adegr*e greater of harmonv;
than had hitherto prevailed in that country; It
might be asked, however, as there were other
causes existing there to'produce animosity, such
El 4 monopolies and commercial regulations of one
sort or other, why not agree to some measure
which might lessen it, might soften down.
political and religious .jealousy•? To this his an-
swer was, if he knew of any such measurq he
would adopt it, and it was beCause he thought
the mewoire now proposed inadequate to such tar
'end, that he felt ithis duty to: resist it. If, how-
ever, he felt it his duty to resist their claims, he
would use no intemperate language in So doing.
(Hear, hear !)—But after the House conferred
the capacity for power, he was satisfied power
could not be divided between Catholics and Pro-

testants with the same hope for concord and ge-•
neral good, as if it was divided between a peo-
ple who were all CatholicS or all' Protestants,-
In the-election of Representatives to Parliament,
he saw great danger of political and religious
animosity, from rival candidates being committed'
of different persuasions. Suppose-the duration of
Parliaments shortened,' and, of course, elections-
becoMing more-frequent, the Protestant support-
ed by Protestants, and the Catholi: by Catholics,.
he anticipated from such a competition the most
dangerous consequences to the domestic pewee of
the Country. He would not now' detain .the
House* much longer---(Hear, hear!)—and. -in
troth, he had so often offered his opinion; on this
Subject, that in now assigning his reaslons for'
opposing the Right Hon. Gentleman's •mo-
tiOn, he begged 'to assure him he had fully. and
fairly stated what they were. On this occasion
lie had no connexion witatseever with any in-
din
he Lad consulted with no'
oneida9ai i
stoltiihs‘; onotie ;
pitlisons ; and he was governed
in this, as in all other cases, by its int' insic me-
rits. lie cared not for the opinions eX•pressea
out of doors ; the peuplo of ail England
were roused aga!n3t claims itwould not
weigh in the least degrie
The de
tive wisdom of Parliament was safe be trnsted
this as on all -Other occasi.ms that any publiz
clamour, however it might be ha d
the consolation 61. retie cling, that his con&•itt vi
opinions on this subject had ben consistent. Al
had had the means of using influence on the
question, and he used- it, to prevent petitions
being brought forward against -their claims.
Ile told those persons lie • set no value on what
they said ; he knew the houses of ParliaMent
was the fittest place for their discussion. Ile hn-
plured the House .to consider maturely the step
they
,were now going to take. No .reSult of
this question could give him unqualified satis-
faction. If his opinions prevailed, his satisfaction
would be abated by the regret, that the claims
of so many of. hi fellow7subjects were rejected•
-(Hear,,hear !)-11 the Right lion. Gentlennzn's
motion should succeed, no man would more fer-
vently pray that his fears might prove visionary,
and that that concord and happiness which wern
expected froni it might be fully realised, for the
benefit of the Country.—(Loud cries of Hear
from both sides of the House followed the con-
clusion of the Ri4.tht lion. Gentleman's speech.)

It is a melanchu.y taat to, :not Lei of Ann Heytrey, Yl2°
173$ executed some months since,for the.murder of itrs. Dormer,.
(;f dic4 last week of a broken heart. Her son is'now icy
War Wick gaol, charged with the murrer of the law Mr. Hiron.

LONDON : Printed by J. B. CARSTA IRS, of No-2/, Great:
. Ormond-strzet, ',Queen-square ; and- published .by IV. A.
,ut No. 7, Moltun-street, at THE SU "C
OFFICE, No. 112, Strand .1. where Aly:E.Tist:miN'A's,,,
OW :FM; L,E'rzz`tr &c.