The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-18 00:00:00

'land, in passing the Bill now before their Lord.:
ships, had proved that ther,,upon mature reflec-
tion, were satisfied hot only that no danger was to
be apprehended from conceding the advantages
now proposed to he given to the Catholics, but to
admit them to -Parliament,. and to the situation.
from which they had heretofore been excluded,
would give additional security to the Constitu-
tion, maintain the Throne, and afford the strongest
support to the Constitution. It was now for
their Lordships, in like Manner,• to apply them-
selves to the consideration of this important
question. Their Lordships had to consider
Whether they were to continue to impose on a
large class •of their fellow-subjects a degrading,
insulting, and penal 'deprivation of a. right, to
Which they had, if not an older, at least as old as
the Protestants, and not a weaker claim than
-that of any. man who sat there. The conduct of
the Catholics, however, had hot been such as to
deserve reproach, or to justify the suspicions
entertained. of them. He would instance the
Conduct of the Seven Catholic Apostolic Vicars,
and ask if any of their Lordships could point out
a,ny thing in the character of any one of them
that did not favour the presumption, that they
might honourably, safely, and beneficially to the
),C°lz4trY be permitted to resume their just and
71,."'editary rights. The rights now claimed for
-",e111, were their just and_ hereditary rights,
•which no man ought to he deprived, un-
ess he• had proved himself unworthy to en-
Joy them, or unless it was shown that some
imminent danger would attend his continuing to
Possess them. He then described the persecu-
tions to which the Catholics had been subjected
by ACts passed in the reign of Charle's—
, b)" the delusions of Titus Oates, and unjust and
absurd accnsations of guilt, supported by the
most perjured witnesses that had ever ventured
before a public tribunal. It was_ on convictions
of impossible guilt that the Catholics had been
disqualified and disfranchised, and was it for
the Parliament of the present day to continue
tlose unjust laws in force against the in-
• Tincent posterity of those who had been
bordered in other times ? Was it fit that
se whose innocence was known, and who had
been the- defenders and the supporters of the
• Constitution in times of difficulty and danger,
should still. suffer under laws so unjustly enacted
44gainst their ancestors ? While they contern-
. ',Plated with. horror the murder of Lord" Stafford,
Would they continue to punish his descendants
for a crime 0! which they could not by possibility
have been guilty ? But it was common, in cases
where ghilt was manifest, after a considerable
tame had elipsed,.to restore the successors of the
ter.son convicted to 'the enjoyment of the for-
feited honours of his family. But here was a
• vaSe 1 which a body of men had been deprived
of their, ancient rights by the worst decision ever
Pronounced, founded on the evidence of the most
Perjured and infamous witnesses that were ever
e,xatnined, and they were now called upon to
netermise whether or not they would continue
against the innocent posterity of the sufferers
that plhishment which had been so unjustly
4'del. He could not entertain that dread
the consequences of admitting Catholics
Parliament which many professed to feel.
.t.1.174ie could not persuade himself that the mo-
isite.tlt the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of
JewsbUry took their seats in that House,- the
11:*tY of the State would be shaken, the pillars of
eConstitution destroyed, the Church Establish..
itit;:c Overturned, and the whole country thrown
• lips a state of confusion and ruin. The Catho.:
we) he considered,' were entitled on the princi
itie of eternal justice to be admitted to Portia-
-4t.; bat if this were not the case—if he were
Arogtfleog on the question of expediency and policy
b, "l still should he contend that they ought to
„t.ou.
„4 rieistored to their rights; unless imminent danger
be shewn to be the probable result of such
• eoLl -IN-sure. But was such the case ? No. lie
h(4l. not Tersuade himself that one of those who
• Nil • nal entertained the opinion that any im-
tiat: N danger was to be feared,. and instead of
shi„ger, he thought it must be obvious to their Lord-
-14,
Ntio thatnonour to themselves and benefit to the
9141 Were likely to be the immediate conse-
Ow lees of their admission to' Parliament, and in
8 tip Participation in those councils Whin they had
tnitiitht to share. He hoped it would- be borne in
NO that the object of the framers'of this. Bill
site conciliation. Any thing that bad "an oppo7
dikitt:ndency he disclaimed.; and he especially
'The ~.,41111ed all wish to
.create disunion between
ilue„`"atbolic Clergy and the Laity. The hi.
"',ce possessed by the former over the latter
be in the hands of- a prudent Government,
to. Ina
a most powerful and useful engine
prok,ntnote the general good.. He 'wished to
4421°te the general - tranquillity • by uniting,
1,10i4 riot by dividing the Catholics. He had
yi_the smallest wish to conceal any of his
be. 7,! on this question. He considered it to
essential importance, that all securities that
to really really necessary shoUld be
Inetlttet any danger which the adoption of
B.measure might produce. When "they pass.-
Bill of so much grace, con Cession, and
toticihationreasonabl , he thought they might not
1111.•
call for securities on those points on
ii`,l_7ll securities might be claimed even if no such
_ee.sure were in existence. Bite the.rnore he re-
}t aced on the -subject, the mom thoroughly was
usorodnvinced that the passing of.--.this.l3ill would
s one of the greatest, if ;to(• the..greatest of
4,s'i_ree.CUTitieS to the present establishment: He
h.ended no danger from: the bigotry of the
atholics nor did he see any reason for suppos-
41g that whatever their designs nijght be, there
*as y cause for fear from the addition.al means
'hioh this Bill would give for carrying them
the into effect.
_they
_iiiteiriPted to overthrow
elxpting establishments of the. country, he
blklhsuce_sider that they were enabled to
ch. an attempt,
kere privileges not by the Bill,, but
Wouldpreviously-
asked what securitiesanted. lf he
he were necessary,
the first of all secnritieS. would
bestuutauted by that course 'being adopted which
st Proved tbe lit the .n care of the Government to con-
count terests of the whole imputation of the
%ut), as this would . -
"".
GI their c witte all
.classes in the
could
Constittitien.. Wa's

sure that the best hulwarLs of the Church to
which be belonged, were found in the sOundm;ss
of its doctrine—the purity of its discipline—the
lives of its Ministers—their labours in the cause
of religion—their care and attention to their
flocks—and above all, the character of their faith
itself. So long as the English Government af-
forded the subject more complete protection than
any other—so long as the Church Establishment
remained the best that had ever been connected
with any Christian Church, he was little afraid
of either sustaining material injury from the
prevalence of any abstract principle. Both would,
in his opinion, gain additional securities, by
uniting all classes in their support by one com-
mon tie of interest. He would, however, go
further, and say that on the general principle,
when it was seen and known what was the
situation of the people of Ireland, and what was
' the situation in which the Catholic Bishops
stood with respect to them, he saw no reason why
the power of appointing Bishops should not be
given to this State, which in all other countries,
whether Catholic or not, was vested in the State.
—(Hear!)—He could not conceive that there
was any thing in the nature of the Constitution,
Population, or Government of this country, that
should make the Catholics object to allow that
power to be exercised negatively here, which was
exercised not in'that form, but in that-of direct
nomination' in other countries. He Was of opi-
nion that the power of exclusion might be fairly
lodged in the State. But then it was argued,
that in exercising of this power, should all that
might be nominated be excluded but one, no
choice would be left to the Catholics, and
thus in effect the right of nomination would be
given to the Crown by exceeding the right of
exclusion. No power, he would have remarked,
could be lodged any where that might not be
made to appear by an exaggerated view of the
cases in which it might be exercised. It might lbe
said, that to give the Sovereign the power of par-
doning malefactors, would possibly lead to
pardons being granted to all malefactors without
exception ; or it might be contended, that it
would possibly lead to pardoning one particular
class of offenders, and no other; or to the grant-
ing of pardons to particular individuals under cir-
cumstances so peculiar in the:r nature that all
mankind would feel disposed to call for punish-
ment. It was not possible to lodge power any
where under a limited monarchy and a mixed
Constitution like ours, where it might not be
supposed that it might be so abused as to produce
an effect the very opposite to that which was in-
tended. He, however, saw no danger of such
use being made of the Veto as could not give the
Catholics any reasonable alarm, and consequently
it appeared to him that the power.of excluding
an obnoxious individual might be claimed
for the State, without putting a stigma
on any one. He therefore, for one, was
clearly of opinion, that if the present Bill passed
such a provision ought to be made. He, how-
ever, could not but view this question now with
a very different eye from that with which he bad
regarded it when the situation of Europe was dif-
ferent, and when the power of appointing Bishops
rested with the Pope, and the Pope himself un-
der the influence, and in the power of the public
enemy of this country. With respect to the
communications between the Roman Catholics of
Ireland and the See of Rome, he did not think
that any suspicion could attach to such securi-
ties being required by this state as were
required in others, whether Protestant or
Catholic. These, however, were, in his mind,
extremely subordinate matters, and had the Bill
been sent up from the Commons without any
such provisions forming part of it, he had no he-
sitation in saying that he should .at once have
acceded to it. The Bill would be better with
such securities, but without them he should still
be willing to let it pass. He was ready to try the
measure at all events, and when danger should
appear, he would be ready to call for such secu-
rities as the case might require. He, however,
objected to fighting in the dark against imaginary
evils. Some Noble Lords, however, had done
this, while they inquired'what securities could be
given, which might arise, but which they them-
selves were at a loss to describe. He hoped the
Bill would be carried, and at all events was con-
vinced that the present imperfect system would
not long be upheld. He was convinced of the
truth of what a Noble Friend of his had said,
that there never was but one occasion so favour-
able as the present for carrying a measure
like that now before the House. The first
appropriate moment was that of the Union.
Such an opportunity as that could return no more.
But next to that the present period was the most
favourable that could be imagined. What was
the situation of things at present? Happily the
conduct of Ireland had been such that the mea-
sure could not be viewed as exacted from tha
fears of the Government, and it never could be
conceded with more appearance of grace and fa-
vour than now". He hoped the effect of the mea-
sure would attach the whole mass of the people
of Ireland to the Constitution. He pointed out
the evil effects which would be produced, if now
that the measure had proceeded so far, the cup
of hope were to be dashed from the lips of the
expectant Catholics by the decision of that House.
He wished the Bill to pass, as if did not, the
subject would not be set at rest. Believing that
it would still continue to be agitated, and that
the friends to the Catholics must ultimately pre-
vail, he could not but fear that if the present
Bill were rejected, one of a similar character
might be expected to pais into law at some less
auspicious moment, and he therefore earnestly
called on the House to permit the present Bill to
be read a second time.

Lord LTVERPoOL said, he rose with reluctance
on the. present occasion, because he was aware
he often urged every topic in support of his opi-
nions against this measure which he could now
by. any possibility advance. He was ready to
admit that the question now came to them in a
new shape, it did not come to them on the recom-
mendation of any Member of their House, or
upon that of any party in, the House; but it
came before them as the opinion of the other
House of Parliament. He was therefore anxious,
from the very moment it passed the other House,

that it shotild receive a full; a teMperate. and a
candid discussion.. He was asked why, in this
new view of the. subject, he did' .not agree
that the- Bill should be read a Second time?
And he would therefore state hiS sreasons.
fairly why he 'did not. if he'- Crsuld 'bring
himself to agree with the general -purview
and object cf the Bill,- he Would think it his
duty to agree to their proceeding', to a Com:.
mittee. But 6ii a thorough consideration ;
of the two important parts of the Bill, thOse of
concession and security, he knew not how he
could by any possibility assent to them. There
might be many persons desirous Of miring certain
anomalies ; many might think certain further
concessions could be granted under the principle
of the Bill of 1793; ,many might think the Eng.
lish Roman Catholics should be put on an equal
footing with the Irish : these Were, however,
distinct questions from that before their Lord.
ships; and having only such an object in view
he could not certainly vote for the present Bill.
He was sure the Noble Earl opposite (Donough-
more) was manly enough to agree in this, that
the Bill he introduced meant all the civil disabi-
lities under which the Roman Catholics laboured,
with certain exceptions, which were confined to
three. If, after the best consideration he be-
stoWed on the subject, he could bring himself to
think tha Catholics should have seats in Parlia-
ment, he would certainly vote for the Bill ; but
his opinion was, without now meaning td- prejudge
the question, that whether minor things might not
be granted, it was now more manly to avow his
opinions against the Bill, than hold out any expec-
tations of. going into a Committee upon it, when
he should feel himself obliged to do all he could
in order to defeat its Object. The Noble Baron
(Grenville) commenced his able speech by refer-
ring to the Penal Bills passed against the Catho-
lics in the last century; but on that, as' well as
on other matters connected with this subject, he
was compelled to differ with him. lie differed
with him as to the principle on which he consi-
dered all those laws to have existed. The Noble
Baron seemed to consider the present disabilities
as the remains of that penal code, but the fact he
believed to. be widely different.—He (Lord L.)
certainly looked to the precepts and example of
our ancestors, but he regarded their prece,pts and
respected their example only as they were con-
sistent with justice and sound policy. He could
not estimate what his ancestors could, and he
could not therefore give any decided opinion as
to what ought to have been the principles they
were called upon to legislate; but he still must
pronounce that code as one of the most abomin-
able and oppressive that ever existed in any
country in the world. He denied, however,
that the present was any part of that. code ;
' a plain distinction could be drawn between,
a distinction as plain as was ever drawn in
any State of political legislation. The right
to property, the right to personal liberty, the
right to acquire and bequeath, the right to civil
and religious liberty belonging to every subject ;
but there was a plain distinction between such
rights and those that gave political power. He
admitted that, to a certain degree, they might
run into each other; but the principles of them-
selves were totally distinct. No man but for
crime should be deprived of the right of property
and personal security ; and even where inflictions
had taken place on the survivors of those who
were actually convicted, as far as regarded him-
self he had never continued such inflictions be-
yond the absolute necessity of the case. But
that was a question totally differing from the
'grant of a new political power. The State alone
was to determine to whom political power should
be granted, and from whom it should be with-
held. Did he mean to say such a grant was not
to be desired, that its being withheld was no grie-
vance ? No! But the conferring political power
should be governed by a political necessity, or a
political convenience. The whole- of the state-
ment with respect to the Penal Code was inap-
plicable to the present question. With regard then
to the immediate question before the House, he
could assure their Lordships that he came to
its consideration with as few personal preju-
dices against the Catholics as any Noble Lord
whom he addressed. He had the honour, of
knowing many Roman Catholics; than whom he
knew no more estimable characters; and he
firmly believed there were per: lons in that seat
fully as useful and as conscientious as in any
ot.ter. Indeed, he did not well know how he
could express his feelings personally towards
them; but at the same time, their Lordships
should remember they were all equally bound to
support the Protestant Establishment in Church
and State by every tie of religion and good faith.
If it was the policy at the Revolution to con-
tinue the Catholic religion as the' established re-
ligion of Ireland; notwithstanding the foreign al-
legiance which they professed, his belief' was,
they might be -employed: as equally good sup-
porters to the State as DissenterS of any other
sect. The Presbyterian religion was certainly
established.in Seotland, and he never disputed
but thatdifferent religions Might with safety_ exist
in different parts of the same kingdom; but there
was no analogy between the state of Ireland and
that of Scotland. Take then Prussia and Silesia,
Russia and Poland, the Netherlands- and Bel-
, glum; in all these cases, Silesia, Poland, and
Belgium, had church establishments, with all the
privileges annexed to them. Ireland had no Ca-
tholic churCh establishment, and therefore no
analogy could be made out bet Ween them and the
case of Ireland. Catholicity was not the esta-
blished religion in Ireland ; and the same rea-
soning would equally apply to Presbyterians if
they were in the same situation. If the Catholics
had the power, would they not wish to bring their
religion 'to be the established religion ? And if
the duty of their Lordships was to defend a Pro-
testaut Church, were they not bound to-see whe-
ther that Church might not be endangered by
granting those concessions which were now
sought? Before discussing 'the Bill in its two
important branches, he had called their attention
to what he thought - should be the, foundation of
all their: considerations and a departure from
which would 'be the origin of all those difficulties
now-likely to embarrass the question. He (Lord
L.) referred to the..per-i4 of the Revolution,

that which consummated what he thought essen-
tial to the peace of this country--he meant, the
alliance of Church .and State.-.. There might be
many persons attached to the civil and not to the
religious establishments of the State. Many per::
sons might think other systems of religion as good
as the Protestant ; and to persons who held thoSe
views the principle of the present Bill might cer-
tainly appear right. But he maintained, if there
ought to be an alliance between Church and State,
which was an essential part of the Constitution,
then the principle of this measure, as it would
separate the Church from the State, would.
as a necessary consequence, endanger that Church
Which they were all religiously bound to pro-
tect. The very writs and summons by which
every one of their Lordships were called on to
attend, directed them to consult for the safety
of the King, the Church and State; and he there-
fore asked, if the Church were not connected with
every political function in the State.? The Noble
Baron (Grenville) alluded to what Mr. Burke
said of the Penal System in the Year 1792 ; but
if their Lordships looked to that great man's
letter to Sir Hercules Langrishes, they would find
his doctrine amount to this—that granting con-
cession to a certain extent by no means pledged
the Legislature to give more. The first question
for consideration now was—if this Bill passed,
could their Lordships stop here ? What security
had he for that which this Bill did not touch ?
In the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts ?
—Then let their' Lordships see this Bill pass
—these Acts repealed, and they came to that
position which was any thing but an equality
of all religions as to political power? If they were
then arrived at that time--if these Acts were
passed—if all persons were admitted to equal po-
litical -power--if Quakers, Jews, and all other
non-conformists were to be on an equal footing
with the Established Church—if the doors of
Parliament were to be thrown open to all—if
they should 'arrive even at that period, he asked
what security was there that they would stop
there ? What security was there that those who,
whilst out of Parliament, expressed a wish that
each sect should support its own Ministers, would
when in Parliament abandon that wish? Dr.
Priestley in his works argued, that the repeal of
the Test and Corporation Acts would lead to ul-
terior- consequences, and that it would be impos-
sible for Parliament to stop at that repeal. That
this doctrine had been held by many Roman Ca-
tholics, he would refer their Lordships to the
declaratiots'of those who had taken a part in the
Rebellion of 98. Even Dr. Milner (of whose
conduct he did not entirely approve) declared
that the Roman-Catholic and every other Church,
Ought to pay its own Clergy and no other. Sir
John Throgmorton said, that in a few years after
the repeal o these Acts, he should not be surprised
at hearing that the I risit Bishops having made over a
portion of their income for the maintenance of
the Catholic religion, should make proposals simi-
lar to those of the Clergy of Germany for the
alternate enjoyment of their benefices. This was
not the language of Dr. Milner or of Dr. Priest-
ley, but of a highly respectable Roman Catholic.
These being the opinions of the most respectable
of the Roman Catholics, he would ask their
Lordships did they think, that by making these
concessions, the Roman Catholics would be sa-
tisfied ?—or was it not more likely that after these
concessions, they would look to the ulterior ob-
jects, in which the mass of the Catholic popula-
tion would have a greater interest than in the
present concessions, from which the mass of the
population could not derive any immediate
benefit? But when their Lordships came to
consider the ulterior object, it would be found
that not a single individual in Ireland, however
humb;c might be his situation, would not derive
immediate benefit. What more immediate be-
nefit could the poor of Ireland have conferred
upon them than a relief from the payment of
tithes ? He would give full credit to the yeople
of Ireland ; but he would say, that any indivi-
duals, circumstanced as they were, would, 'if they
were asked whether they wished for the subver-
sion of the Established Church and the re-esta-
blishment of their own, reply in the affirmative ;
and when he was asked by the Noble Lords op-
posite whether he really dreaded such conse-
quences, he would say that every zealous son of
the Church must feel it his duty to exert himself
to the utmost for its establishment. Dr. Mil,
nerd in observing upon the oath said, you ask
us to swear that we will not do that directly
or indirectly to which (the subversion of the
Established Church) all our proceedings lead
indirectly ! Ile did not state .this merely' as
the opinion of Dr. Milner, but as the opinion
of all Catholics. The argument made use of
by the advocates for the Bill was—that it
would satisfy the Catholics ; but he contend-
ed, and he hoped successfully, that if these
concessions were made; they must in the nature
of things lead to ulterior objects ; and the ques-
tion now was, whether or not their Lordships now
occupied a ground' on which they might more
safely make a stand, than on that which they
should occupy after these concessions. It was
his firm belief that their Lordships now stood on
better ground. After the Church Establishment
should be disconnected from the State, aner all
religions should he put upon nn equality, and after
all the Dissenters should be arrayed against the
Established Church, where would be the safety
that the doctrine of the other side of the Atlantic—,
that every man had a right to worship God ac-
cording to the dictates of his conscience, and that
no man had a right to pay for the maintenance of
that worship which he did not attend—would
not be speedily adopted ? This was the real
practical view' to be taken of the question ; and
'if, after taking this view., it should be asserted,
that their Lordships now' occupied a better
ground for making a stand than they should after
'these concessions, he conceived that assertion to
be so unanswerable as not to stand in need of
argument. His Noble -Friend who spoke last
night thought proper to refer their Lordships to
the history of former times, and be gave the his,
tory' of these Acts from the Reformation to the
period of the Revolution. But he (Lord L.)
confessed, that -on looking at that histoiy he
Could perfectly reconcile to himself the conclu-
sion, that the Church and StUte were consoli-

'dated. After the Reformation, the Legislature,
in the new state of things, did not know the
ground upon which they stood ; and he had no
doubt that at that'period wally able and:distin-
guished Catholics were in the service of 'the'
CroWn ;.that.the.re.snitsof, this admission of pe'r-'.•
sons of different religions ,were=-that in the early .
part of the-17th' century ihe.Church,and Consti
tution Were overturned by the Puritans, and ill.
the end of the 17th•century:the Throne and the.
Church Were nearly overturned. by the C4tho:=
lics, bk. at the Revolution almost all. the protec:
Lion of thetivil Constitution was given to the•
Church EstabliShment. It was after this latfer
period that it was provided that the King should
be Protestant, and that the 'whole system of IaWS•
under which the country had,enjoyed such ua
equalled prosperity for. the last 120 years had
been consolidated. JameS"wasiexpelled from the'
Throne ; which clearly chewed that the principle:
Of that day was not that persons of all religions ought. .
to -be admitted into office, because no man among,
the advocates of this Bill contended more for
that right than the Monarch whose expulsion
was the punishMent inflicted by the nation upon
the organ of those Sentiments. Their Lord.
ships must now view this question in all its bear-
ings; and he would again beg leave to -remind
them that the only consideration at preient
whether a Stand could be made with greater
safety at the present than at a future time? Tie
was decidedly of opinion, that if any alteration
were now made their Lordships were only chang-
ing the ground of contest, and not changing it
for, the better; and he doubted much whetherit
would have the effect of harmonising the senti-
ments of those to whose relief it was more par-
ticularly directed. When toleration was first
extended to the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
49-50 parts of the land were in the hands of the
Protestants, though 4-sths of the population
were Catholics; but at present, though the nnat-
hers of Catholics were nearly in the same propor-
tion, yet the accession of property had greatly
increased, and, the question now to be considered
was, whether such property did not introduce
into Parliament such a number as would. be-ca-
pable cf creating such a contention betweenre-
ligions, of the result of which no man could en-
tertain an opinion. After the fullest consideration
of these Bills, he had no hesitation in declaring,
that he did not think them bottomed in sound
policy ; and that though they set out with atle-
claration to maintain the Established Church; and
the Protestant Succession, he was satisfied, if
they should pass, that the principle of Protestant
Succession could not be maintained in this atm-
try. If the Presumptive Heir to the Throne
should be of the Catholic Religion, might he not
Say, am I to be the only man in the kingdom,
with the exception of the Lord Chancellor, who
is to be prohibited from worshipping his Godsac-
cording to the dictates of his conscience ;Yon
have the President of *the Council a CathOic,
you have the Secretary of State a ltornan
Catholic, and the Judges of King's 'Bench
Roman Catholics, and I am not more -hos-
tile than they to the support of the
_Esta-
blished Church. What answer could be given,
and what, on'the other hand; would be the. 'feel-
ing of those of the same religion with the neir,
if a punishment were inflicted for that belief ?
What would be more dear to them than' the
placing of such a Sovereign .on the Throne ?
.This might possibly occur, and he would tberinsk.
their Lordships, with what safety could die line
of Succession be.. altered as long as it wr.s..not a
principle. in Government, that Protestantism was
the ground of admission to office ? Meets it
was declared by this Act, that there ,was no
inconsistency in uniting political power wrt-h the
Roman Catholic religion, how could it be con-
tended that. any bounds could le set to it?--
He did maintain that the Bill declared this
and he hoped their Lordships would "consider
what they were doing, -and not conceal:. from
themselves the state of the old law •and of
the new. The old law declared 4 connexion
between the Church and State, and that political
power could be exercised only.by those professing
the EstabliShed Religion, but the new law would
and must declare that
.there was no necessary
connection between theEstablisted Religion and
political power, and it left the Establishetf Re-
ligion to support itself, open to all risks. This
would be as..omplete change of the whole system
of the country, and it was difficult to sax. how
soon it would iead to the consequences which he
had just stated. The Bills now-brought in pro-
posed securities to satisfy the Protestants-, which
were highly penal to
.the Catholics. ,He. had
examined- the provision* of this, Bill, and with
regard to the -provisiongOf -the second Bill, he
had no hesitatiOn in saying, that he conceived
some of them unjust, but almost all impracti-
cable. He wished t 0... ask their Lordships if
they meant, after passing these Bills,' that: their
provisions should. be carried into effect and.
he would then ask what would be -the• con-
sequence of resistance? He would ask, did they
not think that resistance would expose the State
to all the dangers of religious persecutiok:? He
would admit that there would be danger.frorn
the right minded, but there would be :from the
wrong headed Roman Catholics,' and theie were
some who would wish to becotne mailyrs,:in such.
a cause. lie did not Mean to say that persons of
this description were confined to' the Roman Ca-
tholic religion, for he believed them to exist in
all religions. He begged their -Lordships:not to
..
consider the present law proposed as art& law
to remain on the Statute Book unenforced, b.tit
a new law, which they were •bound to 'see car-
ried into effect: He held the pOwer of the Veto
to the appointment of Bishops to be 'of no "Value ;
and if he had the honour of serving the Crown in
Irelend, he thought he could do it moreeeffec-
teallst without that Veto than with it.- 1.44 was
an obnoxious power which prevented the Otercise
of those means which might be laudably and.
beneficially exercised-, and it set at variance the
Government and the Roman Catholics. •-lte held.
that; there were but two courses to be followed :
out> 'was to leave the
.Roman Catholic Chnrch ,to
itself, not to legislate for it, but to grant ifie con- .
cessions upon the taking such oaths as shouldb be
though fit: The, othercourse was toproceed.
upon fife sound principle Of.paying the Clergy-
,