The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

opinions of my Honourable and Learned Friend is in-
creased, when I find that in 1'791 Sir John Scott was
Attorney-General, and bound to give counsel to the King
in his Courts of Record.—(Cheers and laughter.)—Now,
Sir, at does not appear to have entered the mind of that
very acute, and able, and conscientious, and Hon. Gentle-
man, that there was any thing in the concession of 1791
which militated against his oath, to counsel and advise the
King.—(Hear, be,r.)—Again, in 1793, when the elec-
tive franchise was granted to the Roman Catholics, I find
that Sir John Scott was Attorney-Geoeral, and that Sir
John ditford was Lord Chancellor of Ireland ; and yet, it
never appears to have entered the minds of these able law-
yers that there Was any thing in their oaths of office which
ought to prevent them from counselling and advising the
King to adopt such measures. I now come, and Ido so
with great satisfaction, to the real state of the question
before the House. And I beg to assure Hen. Members that
I have, throughout the debate, listened with the most anx-
ious attention, in order to hear whether any remedy short
of that proposed by Ministers was to be suggested as a re-
medy for the evils admitted on all hands to exist. But
when Hon. Members who opposed the Bill were called
upon to point out any such remedy, they were all silent as
death, not one of them have we seen coming forward to
-suggest a measure short of that introduced by his Ma-
jesty's Government. Ido not wish to use harsh expres-
sions; but I cannot help observing, that the Honourable
Member appears to entertain a puny and miserable opinion
of the Protestant Church, when he supposed that it could
in the present day, be overturned or infringed upon by the
Roman Catholic Religion. Why, Sir, one chief object in
framing this Bill was so to word it that there should not
be even a mention of the existence of the Roman Catholic
Religion in England ; pains had heen taken so to word it,
that not an individual could point a finger at any expres-
sion by which such an admission was made. It was held
that you could not call for a Veto, or propose a stipend
r the Catholic Clergy, without an admission of their
zeligion, and the existence of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact is, that by this Bill Roman Catholics are placed
on the same footing with Protestant Dissenters. They
are relieved from their disabilities, with certain exceptions;
but there is to be no ackowledgment of the existence of
their Church. There,is yet another ground upon which
I feel I ound to support the Bill. There is, it must be ob-
served, a vast difference between the Roman Catholic
Clergy and the Laity. The latter are, as I have already
said, placed on a footing with their Protestant brethren,
with restrictions, while the former are excluded from all
offices of place or power. This, indeed, was done by the
Art of Settlement. But, notwithstanding this, the Roman
Catholic Church of Ireland has gone on pari passu with
the Protestant Church in the appointment of its eccle-
siastical functionaries. Wherever a Protestant Bishop
has b. en appointed there has also been appointed a Catho-
lic Bishop ; where a Protestant Dean is stationed there is
also to he found a Catholic Dean, and so on. But it is to
be observed, that the Protestant Divines only are appointed
by the Crown, and have in law a right to that title. (The
Honourable and Learned Member here made some obser-
vations about the " Securities," but the noise in the
House was so great as to render him for a time inadible in
the gallery.) But I will ask what further securities are
required ? You have two Bills passing through Parlia-
ment with this measure of relief; I mean the Catholic As-
sociation Bill, and the Forty-Shilling Freeholders' Disfran
chisement Bill, both of which are moving, pari passe,
with it. Now, I will put it to the House whether such
measures as these could be carried, could be proposed, with-
out being accompanied with some measures of concession.
(Cheers, and cries of hear, hear, hear !) There is not
in this House any man more anxious than I am to conti-
nue exclusion, if I could see how it was to be done with
safety; but I cannot risk the peace of Ireland—l cannot
risk the s dety of the Irish Established Church, by any
longer withholditt a measure calculated to secure both
We are told we ought to consult the history of former
times. Let us see how that history stands. In 1678 we
had upon the throne a monarch who was a concealed Ro-
man Catholic, and the heir presumptive to the throne was
an avowed Roman Catholic. Now, I will ask, what simi-
larity there is between 1678 and the present period ?
(Cheers. )---Our present Sovereign is as firmly, as decidedly
attached to the Protestant Establishment in Church and
State as it is possible for man to be.—(Cheers.)—The Heir
Presumptive is as strongly imbued with the same feelings
and principles. Where, then, I ask, is the comparison be-
tween the two periods ? Besides, in 1678 there was a
House of Lords consisting of 120 Peers, of whom at least
60 were Roman Catholic. Now, you cannot, under the
proposed Bill, have more than eight or nine Roman Catholic
Peers in the House of Lords. And then with respect to
toe tao'tse of Lornmons, we may rest assured that the Po-n
has no longer any power, either to influence persons in this
country, or to hold sway in any other courts in Europe.
But after all, leaving the other parts of the question, I must
observe, that there is a difference between the Protestant
Establishment and the Protestant Faith. The Protestant
Establishment consists of the Bishops, Clergy, the form of
prayer—or, to use another word, the national establish-
ment, as it is generally 'understood. Let me ask, then,
upon what does the security of that Establishment rest ?
—why assuredly, the security of the property of that Esta-
blishment rests upon the law of the land, in the same way
that the property of the laity rests. Who, in the present
day, pretends to deny the right of the Clergyman to his
tithes? Who will venture to deny the right of the spiritual
Peer to hold his seat in Parliament upon the same right
that it is held by a temporal Peer ? The spiritual Pecr, if
questioned, would say, " I hold my seat as a Peer, upon
the same terms that you do yours. I sit here as Bishops
hefote me did, upon the same right that you follow your
father or grandfather created a Peer." Indeed this doctrine
was so well known and of such long standing as a part
of the common law, that when Henry the Eighth, cra the
suppression of the Monasteries, appointed the five new
Bishops, not a single word was said about their taking
their seats as spiritual Peers, that being understood as a
matter of course, in virtue of their office.—(Hear. )
I shall now, with the leave of the House, say a word or
two with respect to the Protestant faith ; and I must ob-
serve that the Hon. Gentleman opposite must entertain bu
a mean opinion of that faith, or else he would never ex

and in all its details. He felt that the House had some
grounds of complaint. He was sorry, but he must com-
plain that they had been worse treated by their friends than
by their enemies.—(Hear, hear, and peals of laughter.)—
They had heard it argued that the, Bill had not been the
offspring of intimidation. If lie had never seen any thing
of what was passing around him—if he had never heard
one word of the Catholic Association—of their acts, of
their speeches, of their publications, and of there menaces
—if the name of Daniel O'Connell had never sounded in
his ears, he should vet have seen " Panic" written ou the
very face of this Bill. What were tire signs and symbols,
and the proposed effects of this Bill? Were they not to
give up all—to throw every thing aside—to run forward
heedlessly without looking to the right or to the left.
Were they not called upon for an abandonment—an ua-
conditional surrender of all for which they bad ever con-
tended? Was it not hard—was it not precipitate, that
time was not given even to name a new Law Officer of the
Crown ?—(Hear, hear, from Sir C. Wetherell, and a burst
of laughter from all sides of the House.)—One of the
strangest particulars of this unexampled Bill was, that
this being the greatest legislative measure, beyond all
comparison, that had passed for the last two hundred
Years, it had been introduced, not by any law officer—
.for on the contrary, it had been opposed by the highest
legal authority in the House—(hear, hear, from Sir Charles
Wetherell, and another burst of laughter)—it was now to
be carried through the House in its last striae, without any
Attorney-General being appointed. The Bill was passing
without the name of any legal adviser of the Crown to
give it authority.— (Laughter, and cries of heir, bear.)—
It was well to cry " hear, hear !" but there was no legal
adviser of the Crown in the House—any architect was
competent to pull down an edifice, any hand was sufficient
to conduct a work of this kind. It was merely to over-
throw a law, without substitutinr,b
the any other.—(Hear.)—
We have been told that e Catholic Association
was a dangerous body. That it was a dangerous body
during its existence—that it produced the greatest, the
most incalculable mischiefs to Ireland, no man will,
I believe, pretend to deny. Rut to whom are those
mischiefs to be attributed ? The evils of which we
now hear so much were pointed out some years ago. •
Measures were adopted by the Legislature to remedy those
evils, but with what effect? The proper authorities,
both in Ireland and in this country, allowed this two-
edged sword to slumber in its scabbard. The Catholic
Association was allowed to go on ; they were permitted to
continue their debates—to carry on their system of excite-
, ment, until they paralysed the authorities, and assumed
to themselves the Government ; arid then they come down
to Parliament, and give proofs of their apostacy.—(Cheers
from one side of the House, which were returned on the
other.)—Let us look for a moment to the provisions of
this great conciliatory measure, and see what crumbs of
comfort we may be enabled to pick out of it. —(Cheers and
laughter.)—l find that a King's Minister may be a Ro-
man Catholic ; but then we have the consolation of
knowing that that Minister is not to advise the King upon
matters connected with Church patronage, or Church pro-
perty. But, Sir, if a Roman Catholic Minister should
advise his Majesty upon matters touching Church pa-
tronage or Church property, who is to reveal tire fact
of Lis having done so ? Is the information to come from
the Minister, or is it to be expected from the King hint.
self? Really, I cannot help looking at these provisions as
worse than nugatory—as a mockery. We all know that
from every Catholic country in the world the Jesuits have
been expelled—hunted out; but this very conciliatory
Bill expresses not a word against the introduction of Je-

suits into these realms; and the only precaution we have
against their acts is, that their names are to be registered,
and placed in the possession of the Right Hon. Secretary
for the Home Deprrtment. There is, indeed, something
like a hint that the Right Honourable Secretary may,
once in six months, export a refractoly Jesuit, or, per
baps, import a few, at this period of free trade and un-
restricted commerce—but the time may come when no
such importation will be necessary. I now, of course,
speak prospectively; and I think the time may not be
distant when Jesuits will be found in the State as
well as in the Church—Jesuits, too, bound by no orders,
restrained by no vows, and subject to no religious re-
strictions or Ministerial registrations. I think we may
expect to see some such man coining down to this House
and s iying, " I have not altered my opinion upon a cer-
tain question, but I am determined to act contrary to tit:A
opinion ; I see danger in the measures I propose, but I
am determined to run you directly upon it; I see that we
have so security—l see that there is evil in the measures
I propose, but I am determined to do evil that good
may come of it."—(The delivery of this passage of the
spercu as I eve' veu cueers arm laugntet of a au/event
character from different sides of the House.)
" Who would not laugh if such a man there be?
Who would not weep if Atticus were he?"
—(Cheers and laughter.)—Sir, we have been told that we

have no right to complain of the conduct of his .Majesty's
Ministers. From this, as a general assertion, I do not
dis,ent ; but I must say, that we have in the present in-
stance reason to complain of them. I say that they have
stol,n upon us in the night—(cheers and laughter);—
they have thrown a firebrand into the body of the Church,
which will soon extend to its rafters and its roof; they
hive given rise to a flame which will soon leave the edifice
a blackened and desolated ruin.—(Cheers.)—l say, Sir,
that t-1”- have done this craftily and cunningly, because
they have done it advisedly.—(Cheers.)—They have raised
a flame which they may depend upon it will not long
smoulder, but will, at the first gust, extend itself to the
Church of Ireland. There the first blow will be struck,
but then the wedge will have entered, it will be easily
driven home.—(Cheers and laughter.)—llon. Members
may look upon this as matter of laughter and merriment,
but I consider it to be matter of sorrow and lamentation.
.--.(Cheers.)—There may he a difference between the
Church Establishment of England and that of Ireland;

but with respect to Church property and Church patro-
nage, there is not the slightest. He who assails the one
assails the other ; and we may depend upon it, if the
Church of Ireland be overturned, the Church of England
will not stand fer twenty years after it.—(Hear, hear.)--
sir, I beg pardon of the House—l fed much exhausted,
although the subject is by no means so, and I must con-
clude with giving my decided opposition to the motion.

press his apprehensions that inroads would be made upon
it by the Roman Catholic religion. Any one who heard
the Hon. Member's speech would be led to suppose that
the moment this measure was passed the Roman Catholics
would upset the Church Establishment, and burn our
churches in one common conflagration.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Sir, I am almost tempted to say that such ap-
prehensions are ridiculous. I am inclined to rely more
upon the purity and morality of our Protestant faith, the
excellency of its doctrines, and the mildness and fo, bear-
ance with which they were inculcated, to dread for a mo-
ment any inroads on the part of Roman Catholics.—( Hear.)
It should be remembered that when we had a Protestant
Monarch, and when the great majority of the people were
Catholics, the Protestant Reformed Religion made its way;
it went on silently and gradually to be sure, but still it did
progress, and ultimately with the most complete success.
—(Cheers.) How then can any man, at the present
day, apps eliend that that religion will be destroyed, or
in any way invaded by the Roman Catholics, merely
because some few of them may sit in the one or the
other House of Parliament ? Are we to attach no
importance to the zeal, and piety, and purity of prin-
ciple of our Protestant Clergy ? Are we to place no
confidence in the earnestness with which they inculcate
the sacred doctrine handed down to them ?—(Hear.)—
Let us look to what was done by Ridley and Latimer, im-
mediately after the Reformation. But, above all, let us
look to Parker, Whitfield, and Bincroft, who were heads
of houses, and founders of those schools in the University
which he had the honour of representing. Can we, I say,
looking at the example set by these great men, fear that
the education of the greater portion of young men of tank,
particularly of Gentlemen who took seats in that House,
fear any inroads from the accession of a few Roman Catho-
lics to seats in either House ? But if any doubts prevail
on the subject, I beg to observe that there is an express
provision against Catholics being allowed to preside as
heads of schools.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l ant particularly
anxious to relieve the Hon. Member from that paroxysm
td alarm under which lar concluded his speech.—(A laugh.)
—The Hon. Alt:mber had conjured up so many grounds of
alarm that be appeared to apprehend their coming upon
him before he could make his escape front the House.—
(Laughter. )—llut there existed no grounds for such alarm;
the Scriptures are abroad ; the spread of knowledge is in-
creased, and, as upon Inquiry, truth must prevail against
falsehood, so must Protestantism prevail against the doc-
trines of thc Roman Catholic Church.—(filear.)—Of this
all men must be sensible, nor can they be less aware that
there is no danger to the Protestant interests from the ap •
Peient d;sun:tm of the Protestants themselves. 'ley do
not -differ as 'to the voluo of Protestant institutions; but
the difference between Protestants ;n this House and

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Sir, I am very glad
that the Hon. Member has taken the course be has thought
proper to adopt—that of taking the 13.11 in his hand, and
making a running commentary upon it. This is what I
!lava been all along most anxious to see done, as it affords
me an opportunity of sheaving that the Bill is calculated to
give every satisfaction and security to its most violent op-
ponents; indeed I undertake to make out this point to the
satisfaction of any intelligent man or set of men— (Hear,
hear.)—The Hon. Member was proceeding, but the cries
of " Hear," became so loud and incessant, that he was
rendered altogether inaudible in the gallery. Order having
been at length restored, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
prom eried). But before I proceed upon the question more
immediately before the House, let me thank the Hon.
Member (Mr. W. Bankes) for the hint he has given me,
of which I previously knew nothing, that we are likely to
meet again, and in another place.—(Loud cheering. )__l
beg to assure the Hon. 4leTnber that I shall, if opportu-
nity offer, meet him in that other place with the utmo,t
cordiality, feeling perfectly conscious of the rectitude of my
own intentions.—(Cheers.)—l have but one wowd to say
with respee2 to the opinions expressed by my Honourable
and Learned Prikr.,l, of whom I s.y, with great truth and

sincerity of feeling, that J. sincerely regret that he is no
longer thy colleague.—(Hear.)—it appears to me that
my Hon. and Learned Friend was surnewhat mistaken
when he stated that he was prevented by his path of office

from drawing the Bill now before the House. In my opi-
nion, that oath of office i 2 so wide of any such construc-
tion, that I cannot see how it can be tpride to have any
r4.iarence to the Bill in question.—(Hear, hear.)__
Let us exq.mine for a moment the worOs of that Oath.
It runs thus :—," I swear duly and truly to serve his

Majesty—(Hear, heat, from Sir C. Wetherell), and to
give him good counsel in his Courts of Record—(Cheers

and luThter)—both in Great lihitairt awl Ireland; and
that I will truly serve him in all his matters, when called
upon so to do."—(Cheers from the other side of the
House. )—Now, sir, let us leave out of our consideration
the few words which have no reference to the sublect

matter under discussion, and proceed to the second and

=TR important part of the Oath ; and I will wilt if (15-
does not best, counsel his King who discharges the duty

imposed upon hiai :,Iccording to his most conscientious
conviction ?—(lfear, hear.)—Poes he not best discharge
his duty who recommends and suppoxp a. measure which
in Ns conscience he believes heat calculated to serve the
Protestiani, rhurch of Ireland ?—(Cheers. )_But I am

at a loss to conceive how this opinion comes now, for the

first time to attach to uv Hon. and Learned Friend—an
opinicn contrary to the history Lf o:Ir own time. We

all know that in 1791 an Act was passed whi,di, to a
great extent, enfranchised the Roman Catholics ; it r;=-
moved many of the disabilities under which they laboured,
and laid the foundation of that power which they have
since attained.—( Hear, hear, hear.)—ht 1793, another
Act wa,i passed, which gave them still greater paver,
as it gave them the elective franchise ; and, Sir,
firmly believe that those two measures, not having been
followed up by one like that now before the House,
have caused all the disaffection and disturbance of
which there has been such cause of complaint.—
.

Protestants out of the House, and among each Other, is in
the balance of opinion on the question whether civil rights
can be ;;:: not safely communicated to their Roman Catho-
lic felloW-subjects. T!mse who think that such tights can
be safely communicated to the Roman ;_-_:;tholies are not op-
posed to the Protestant institutions of the country, but are as
much inclined as others to support them ; and when once
this Bill has paz.-,ed, nothing will prevent them making
common cause with their Protestant brethren, in the event
of any attempt against the safety of those Institutions.
This legislation declares to the Catholic, "so far *halt
thou go, and no farther ; and if you once attempt to tram-

(Cheers.)—But, Sir, my wonder, with respect to the

gre;s these bounds, you will find that we are all on one
side." I think this difference, the only one that exists
among the Protestants, is the real foundation of our secu-
rity, and that difference would totally cease the moment
there was any show of attempting an abuse of the power
we concede to the Catholics. If I believed that these con-
cessions would in the slightest degree weaken the Protes-
tant faith—in which I thank God I have been educated,
which in my manhood and maturer age has been my com-
fort, in which I hope I shall die, for which some of my
forefathers have suffered.—(Cheers.)—l should be the last
person to advocate the change.—(Cheers.)—lt is because
I feel well assured that without this measure the Irish
Church might fall, and that even the English Church was
in danger, that I gave my humble assistance in bringing
forward this measure. It was on these grounds that lat
first gave it my concurrence, and that I now continue to
support it.—(Cheers.)
Sir C. WETHERELL—A Noble Lord, the other night,
called on me to express my opinion on this Bill, because I
was Attorney General, and I am now called on by my
late Hon. Colleague—( A laugh)—to address the House be-
cause I am not Attorney-General. I answered that call
as well as I could, and I shall now make a similar attempt
to take up the somewhat discrepant challenge of my late
respectable and estimable Colleague.—(A laugh. )—The
Noble Lord on the other side of the House called on me,
under the designation of the First Law Authority of the
Crown, to maintain that the exclusion of Catholicity was
the foundation and most important part of the Constitution
of 1688. I entered the lists, and had the tilting match
with him, with what success I wilt not say—(a
and my late Hon. Colleague now invites me to another
tilting match with him, on the question whether I have
not too easily given way to a difficult construction of the
Oath which I had taken as Attorney-General. On that
question, I broke a lance with him on a former occasion;
and I now say that, before I determined whether I would
undertake the labour of preparing this Bill, I did read
over my Oath of Office ; I also read over that of the Lord
Chancellor,—(Cries of " Order !")—which, like mine, is,
in my mind, a most pungent oath,—(a laugh,)—and
ought to operate very severely on the conscience of the
man to whom it was administered. I know not whether
I am right in saying, as I have done, my " late Hon. Col-
lague," for Ido not know whether I am not now de jure
Attorney-General.—(Laughter.)—He complains that I
am not—he regrets it. I can assure him that the re-
gret is reciprocal—(Laughter.)—l feel an equivalent of re-
gret on this subject from the great esteem, the great
admiration I have of his talents. In parting from him
I feel that ;pain which one gentleman feels ou separating
himself from another—that pain which one man of talent
feels when lie says to another, " I cannot go along with
you now." Whether lam the late, or whether lam the
existing Attorney-General, I know not (I shall presently
take the liberty of asking the question) I will say that
have acted in perfect sincerity in the construction which I
have put upon my oath of office. In the construction of
that oath others may differ from me, but I must keep my
own opinion. Some persons may think that to attend the
King's business in the Exchequer, to take care of the pro-
perty of the Crown, and to watch the observance of the
laws, are the whole of the duties of an Attorney-General.
I say these are only part of these duties. His oath is as
large and as ample as that of a Privy Councillor, or of a
person to whom I shall not again allude, after the check
the House has already given me ; and when I was called
on to draw this Bill, I critically examined whether I could
do so consistently with my oath of office ; and whether, if
I did draw it, I should not be in effect destroying that
Protestant Establishment which I was bound by my oath
to advise the King not to assail, and uhich he was equally
bound by his oath to preserve. I addressed myself to that
strict and pungent question, and I answered it thus—" I
shall be putting my Sovereign in jeopardy if, in the capa-
city of first law officer of the Crown, I advise him to do an
act which I believe will be in effect a subversion of that
which he is bound by his oath to maintain."(Cheers.)___
Let me tell those who thus cheer me that I am only
speaking in answer to a challenge, and that I would
not have addressed the House, especially in my present
state of ill health, if I had not been called upon by others,
and especially by my Hon. and Learned Colleague—of
whom I will repeat that no person has, no person can, and
no person laugh)--experience more pain in sepa-
rating from him than I have experienced, since he is an as-
sociate whom I personally esteem, although I am now act-
ing towards him with everyspecies of political antipathy.
Whoever thinks that this Bill does not endanger the main-
tenance of the Protestant Church may, salvo conscientia,
be a strong supporter of it ; but whoever cannot entertain
that opinion must oppos, it, in order to nuppoi t the Con-
stitution of 1688, which the King and all his sworn ser-
vants are bound not only not to destroy, but with their
utmost power to support and maintain. So much with
respect to the question on which my Hon. and Learned
Friend has called me into the arena. The question between
us is one of consistency—it is whether I have put a right
construction on this oath ? I have already told you what
my construction of it is. As to the question of entering
into a tilting match with my late Hon. and Learned Col-

league, as Member for Cambridge, I will net enter upon that
question, because, as a great dramatist has said,'" that
would he personal ;" and therefore if the University of
Cambridge, now represented by my late Hon. and Learned
Colleague, should look out for another Member on the
other side—l will not say which of the two Members
would best represent the University ; but I will take the
liberty of saying, that if in the haste, the breathless haste,
the unbridled rapidity with which this Bill has been got
up and passed through this House, the fulcrum of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge was wanted in its support, Ido not
know why the opportunity of obtaining it has not been
afforded, or why that University has not been allowed to
accept what the University of Oxford has rejected, as a
Representative, an avowed supporter of this Bill. That
this opportunity has not been afforded is the fault of the
Ministers alone. I have only been drawn into this by
what fell from my Hun. and Learned Friend. I will not
say that any man who differs from me is wrong ; for I
repeat that whoever believes this Bill will not destroy the
Protestant Church, may conscientiously vote in its sup-
port. On the subject of the oath I will trouble the House
no more; but there is one other topic to which I must
call their attention. My Hon. and Learned Friend has
said that in 1791 and in 1793, Lords Eldon and Redes-
dale had not the same sickly conscience whirls I have now.
In the first place, I deny that I am bound to take any
man's feelings as the standard of my own; but i❑ the
next, I ask did those Noble Lords then concede every
thing to the Catholics? Did they open the Cabinet and
the Parliament to them ? Did they dal= wide the door
of the Constitution, to permit the entrance of Catholicity?
No, is my answer. The Noble Lords' Bill (lid not concede
political power; it only relieved the Catholics from the
penalties which had been introduced at the Reformation,
and which continued in force till the year 1793. If,
therefore, my Honourable and Learned Friend says that
Lords Rcdesdale and Eldon are, in 1829, acting in dis-
crepancy with Sir John Mitford and Sir John Scott of
1793, I tell him that he has not read this Bill. Having
thus got back to 1829, I will also tell him that he has not
yet explained the operation of this Bill; and I declare that
no man, looking at the whole Bill, or at any particular
clause in it, can say what the Bill really is. Ido not
know whether it is meant to proceed on the principle of
security or not. It was said that it was so framed that it
would produce universal satisfaction. Let us see, now,
what has been introduced into it by way of security. In
the first place it gives to the Catholics a full controul over
the Bishops and Clergy of the Irish Church, and in this
respect it is inferior to that which was introduced by a
Right Hon. Gentleman now no inure. The securities he
preserved in his Bill have been withdrawn, because, sty
the supporters of this measure, their continuance would
show a want of confidence in the Catholics. Let us see
what securities there are in it. As the Bill now stands
the Prime Minister may be a secret Papist, and the oath
gives no means of discovering him, for it does not require
him to declare himself. I will now put a case, to spew
the dangers of this Bill. The Honourable Member for
Aberdeen (not now in his place on account of a cold)
has said that the church property is a common chest or
fund into which the Government may freely dip their
hands ; and the Honourable Member for Colchester,
not less substantially, but more wittily, has told us
that he would relieve the country—that he would
disburthen it of tith(s. Now, I want any Gentleman
to answer me this question. It is said we may safely admit
Catholics into this House. Do they mean to say, that after
that admission, if one of those Hon. Members shall move
and the other second a vote to the effect I have stated, the
Catholic will violate his oath by supporting their motion
with his vote? May the Catholic vote for that which lie
must not originate? Can we admit Catholics to political
power, and then say to them_" You Must not exercise
that power in the same unlimited' manner as the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen, or the Hon. Member for Colchester
_Lthe one descended from the Scotch Covenanters, and the
other con fleeted with a certain sect of Protestant Dissenters."
Satisfy ins that you can do this, or that the Catholics will
not vote against the Constitution in Church and State, and
you ,-ill have done enough ; but von cannot satisfy me of
that. The Oath in this Bill furnishes no security. Who
can prove that a Catholic Privy Councillor has given illegal
advice to the King? Who can check a Catholic Prime
Alitiister in his attempts against the Church ? It is said
we may have the security of the Home Secretary. But my
fign. and Learner Friend, who was Senior Wrangler at

- - • ' a case e s .se
Cambridge, knows logic too well not to know that that is'a They admit to be true that the petitions of the people ill,
petitioprincipii. I answer that assertion with this question. numb constitute a preponderance of ten to one ;be
Quis custodet ipsos eustodes ? Who will keep the keepers? they a that reason and justice in this instance are Wit,
Who will stand guard for the Church, arid say that no man the , and not with the many. This topic was urge'
shall eat her bread who disputes her doctrines and betrays in ver tasty and flowery language, and in a very captivn'
her interests—(Cheers)—that no man who writes one day ting style by the Hon. Member who presented the petitionon one side and another day on anotber—(Cheers)—shall on Thursday. He told us that it was signed by all thel.?
receive her support, and that such tergiversating men shall greitest men in Scotland, where, according to him, the!
not be allowed in the Church—that it is impossible to re- are all great men—by Sir Walter Scott, Dr. Chaltnert
ceive them ? If the Prime Minister recommends an im- Mr. Solicitor-General Hope, anti many others, exhibits',
proper appointment, it is said that the Home Secretary will before us in ostler and degree, all exalted in rank, and all
refuse to countersign it. But suppose the Home Secretary of. first-rate intellectual powers, and most refined accole'
is a Catholic, or, if he is not, suppose him to be a friend plishments. The argument, not indeed stated, but - i°' '
to the Premier, so that what one does the other will, sir-mated, is this—that the Protestant Church is to be COe;
through sympathy, adopt—then, I say, you have no se • sidered and valued, not by the many, but by time few ; an“
curity, and all that pretends to be security in this Bill is that you are not to take into view what 100,000 respect'
idle vapid declamation ; and those parts of the Bill may, able and well educated tradesmen of London and West'
atcording to the recommendation of the poet, be disposed minster think upon the subject, but what are the opinion°
of as waste paper— of Sir W. Scott and Dr. Chalmers, and a given number
"In vicuna vendentem thus et odores." of the Professors of Edinburgh Universities. The value I
It is only fit to wrap up cheese and butter, or to be used of petitions is not to depend upon the people at large, but(
in a green-grocer's shop. Ido not know whether the Hon. 1 upon the learned oligarchy of the North. I take the li
Member for Knaresborough is in the House--(SirJ. Mack- berty of asserting that I hold this doctrine to be an in'
intosh bowed. )—I did not know it, and I am happy to see • vasion of the principle of the Bill of Rights, and an insult
him ; for I put it to him what he would think of having .to common sense.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l maintain,
tke Archbishop of Canterbury regulate all the appointments that men of plain understandings, in tile lower ranks r!
of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland?—(Hear, hear, I life, are just as capable of judging of the value rii
from Sir J. Mackintosh.)--The Hon. Member says "hear, the Protestant Church, and of the effect of securities'
hear." I say " hear, hear," also ; but I call upon him to ,as any man, if such a man there be, who can write tut
do something more than cry "hear, hear." I call upon him well as Sir Walter Scott, or preach as well as Dr. Cima!'
to answer me—if he can. The Commission—that farce mere—(" No, no," from several quarters.)—Honourahlt
too bad for Sadler's Wells, or the Minor of the Minories— Members may cry " No, no." It is just as easy as for tht
is taken out of the Bill ; even the framers were ashamed of Right Hon. Gentleman to say, " produce me your alter
it, and the power which was to have been given to that I native ;" but they will find it rather harder to contradict
Commission is transferred to the Archbishop of Canter- me by argument than by assertion. The words of/Pi-apt.'s
bury. Maintainer as lam of the Church, its defender, and Charta must be altered in future; and if such a doctrine
the would-be preserver of it, in all its rights, I should is to prevail, the opinions of the si reaSiSiSsi, the me
P multitude, are to be disregarded, and we are to adopt, 0
pause before I conferred even on a Protestant Archbishop
of Canterbury, such an extensive patronage when the infallible, the dogmas of a Caledonian College. The saint
Prime Minister is a Roman Catholic. I put it to any man• sort of argument was adopted with reference to the last'
whether these numerous powers ought to be concentred in election for the University of Oxford ; twenty fitst-cla''
any one individual.—(Hear, hear, from SirJ.Mackintosh) 2 men were said to have voted on one side, and perhaps 0011
No doubt the Hon. Member for Knaresborough has a most ten on the other, as if the sentiments of all the common
pungent argument in petto ; we shall hear his answer by Masters of Arts were undeserving consideration, because,
and by ; my argument is what I have stated, and nteo forsooth, although they had spent ten or twenty years in'
periculo I give it, at the risk of all the cutting tip with the University, and had been raised to the most important
which he threatens lime. The effect of the Bill is, to in- duties in the Church, they had not in the onset of their
capacitate a Roman Catholic as to the patronage of the career gained the highest scholastic honours. What may
Church, and to capacitate him as to the whole govern- be the scale of the Cambridge senior wranglers and senior
ment of the country. The Bill says, that the preferments optimes we know not, and there certainly has been a great
to which a Catholic Prime Minister would have a right deal of shyness in endeavouring to ascertain it. Ilint
to nominate shall he vested in the Archbishop of Canter- I take the liberty of asserting, in opposition to
bury; but I contend, that the Prime Minister has no this doctrine, that the religion of the Church of Eng-
eight of nomination at all ; he can only recommend to the land is not the religion of the few, but of the
Crown, and I assert as a lawyer, whether in office or in any—not of the Ministers but of the people—nos
out of office, that this Bill would not prevent a Roman of men of intellectual attainments and of Scotch me'
Catholic Prime Minister from recommending the mode taphysicians, but of men of a sober, dispassionate, reflecting '
in which ecclesiastical appointments should be filled up, turn of mind—such are the people of England. It is well
because the nomination is not in the Prime Minister but to say that the most eminent Novelist of this, or of an}'
in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, in this respect, other time or country, is in favour of this novelty—tho
the measure is inoperative ; and while a Prime Minister is time most profound metaphysicians that ever graced our
incapable of being convicted of the high misdemeanour of schools see rto danger in this speculation ; but the question i
which it talks, and the penalty recovered, he may recome is, what do the people of England think of it ? And when
mend to the King any mode he thinks fit of filling up the they are blamed for listening to the information and advice
highest vacancies in our Protestant Church. On a for- of their pastors, I answer that on such points they are much
mer occasion, I asserted, anti I again assert, that the Bill, better able to instruct them than the possessors of the most
in its liberality of giving, and its stinginess of retaining— refined and curious genius. Among other innovations,
in its lavishness of confidence, and penury of security—has this Bill is to give us the benefit of Catholic Judges-
given away all ecclesiastical preferments with a few miser- Aliybone was a Judge and a Jesuit, the last that graced
able exceptions. Ido not mean to say that it does not our Bench, who wore the ermined exterior of a Judge,
secure the two Universities and the Schools of Eton, West- and scandalised and vilified the admini :tration of British
minster, and Winchester. No Catholic Minister shall law by his charge to the jury in the case of the Seven
directly pervert those to the put pese of advancing his faith Bishops. He gave us a sample of what may be expected i
and principles ; but let me ask any lawyer who hears me from a Papist, when elevated to that station, and when ts
what is the meaning of time words ecclesiastical establish- question is brought before him involving the interests of
ments? Ido not ask the framer of the Bill, for lam his faith. The Bishops, as is well-known, had refused to
afraid he could not answer me without violating the good read in their churches the di claration of King James, and
humour I wish to see preserved, and I will suppose that nothing could he more delicate or inoffensive than the terra'
it was put together, compounded, concocted, butt cer- of their memorial ; its characteristics were extreme cow-
tainly not digested, by some anonymous penman. What placency and mildness ; but it was called a libel, and it
ate ecclesiastical establishments? Does it mean that was submitted to the judgment of the Court whether it
schools founded by clergymen are such ? If so, nine- was or was not what it was called. Let us see then bocci'
tenths of the schools on the kingdom are not ecclesiastical a Roman Catholic Judge sums up the law of libel. fle
establishments; and how comes it, that in the list of pub- says, ~ I think, in time first place, that no man can tike
lie schools the Charter-house is not included, of which, upon him to write against the actual exercise of the Go'
by virtue of office, some of the Right Den. Gentleman's vernment unless lie have leave from time Goverument.-•-•
colleagues are Governors? Merchant Tailors is also a (Laughter.)—He makes a libel, be what he writes
lay foundation, and Harrow and Rugby are in the same true or false; for if once we come to impeach the Go'
Predicament : they are all left unprotected, anti into these vernment by way of argument, it is time argument that
Catholics may be poured in any numbers, to infuse their makes it the Government, and not the Government. So
principles into the Protestant part of their little comma- that I lay down that, in the first place, the Government
nits, afterwards to be transferred to Oxford and Cam- ought not to be impeached by argument, nor the exercise I
bridge. I have not yet arrived at that part of the Bill of the Government shaken by argument, because I can
which strikes nue, speaking in the capacity of Attorney- manage a proposition in itself doubtful with a better pen
General, as most extraordinary. Into it is introduced a than another man ; this I say is a libel."—This, the House
sham penal code,l
ap with pendenalties from
be enfso/. torce o 200/. will remember, is Catholic law laid down by a Jesuit
Many of these preh could d, but 1 Judge on what was then and will be in future, if this Bill
will suppose that they could. Time penalties are to be passes, a Catholicised Bench. Let us see how this learned
sued for at time will and pleasure of Mr. Attorney-Gene- Jesuit and Jurisconsult proceeds :—" Then I lay down
ral ; and will the explainers of this unexplained, the main- this for my next position, that no private man can take
tainers of this unmaintained Bill, condescend to show me upon him to write concerning the Government at all; for
what chance there is that they will ever be recovered ; the what has any private man to do with the Government, if
door, the very key of the di or to these penalties is in his interest be not stirred or shaken? It is the business of
the hands and arbitrium of Mr. Attorney-General only.
And who is this Mr. Attorney-General to be' Suppose hevtiemlemmGeonvtem; itm iesntthetobuisnianneassge mattersh
of subjects
should say one day to the Catholic Prime Minister, " There own properties and interests. If my interest is not shaker's
e ets relating
to mind to
onlyt he
their
is a member of your Cabinet who has not taken the oath, what have I to do with matters of Government 2 They
and lam minded to enforce the penalty. I will wsik
are not within my sphere. If the Government doer:
home to my chambers in Lincoln's Inn, and draw e
come to shake my particular interest, time law is open
the information." He dots walk to his chambers— for me, and I may redress myself by law; and wise°
be does draw the information, and he sends for the Clerk I intrude myself into other men's business that doe'
of the Crown Office in order that he may file it. The not concern my particular interest, lam a libeller.
Clerk of the Crown Office may laugh at him, and say, These I have laid down for plain propositions ; non',
" You Attorney-General !—you are not Attorney •General then, let us consider further, whether, if I will take
at all—the King has had no further occasions for your seta upon me to contradict the Government, any specious
vices."—(Much laughter,)—The fact being, that while pretence that I shall put upon it shall dress it up in
the Learned Gentleman was on his way from Downing- another form, and give it a better denomination?
street to his chambers, the Catholic Prime Minister hid And truly, I think it is the worse because it comes in us
seen reason to remove him for threatening to enforce the better dress; for by that rule, every man that can put on
penalty—his hand is paralysed—the pen drops with which a good vizerd, may be as mischievous as he will to the
he was on the point of signing the information—his cape- Government at the bottom ': so that whether it be in the
city is at an end, and he is found incapable.—(Hear, hear, form of a supplication, or an Address, or a Petition, if it
and laughter.)—Did any man ever before hear of securities be what it ought not to be, let us call it by its true name,
depending upon pecuniary penalties—those penalties pe- and give it its right denomination—it is a libel."--Very
nalties depending solely on the Attorney-General, and that likely I shall be told that our Law of Libel has been altered
Attorney-General depending merely upon the good-will since the time of Mr. Jesuit Justice Allybone ; but let uS
and pleasure of a Catholic Prime Minister ? The Prime look at time law as summed up here, anti we may anticipate
Minister has nothing to do but to clap an extinguisher on what it will be when we again are blessed with such ornae
the Attorney-General, and there is an end at once of pe- ments of the profession. Let us not forget that this doc-
nalties and securities. —(Much cheering. )—The Right 1101 tGr ionveronf
innoenn-tr, eissi sot af ntchee,
lot
of
mpaenrms
ei tht,i)nogi
—n oi t
iargumenstrictlyt
heel
oa inngs.t
G .
treearittel,el Gentleman has recommended i
unineontte
ilrt, I
atnimda t
itehaellysuilnmjecat s
all
this
sultdhebree
is nothing to check our laughter but our pity. ing to the Catholic Church, and the privilege of imprinia-
It is tur, abandoned by our Common Law, is still adhered to,
easy by the language of an Act of Parliament, and preserved by the Church of Rome as a principle and
the vox et preterea nihil of a Statute—by naked enact- maxim. If, therefore, we have Catholic Judges, we
ments incapable of being carried into effect, to pre- shall have Jesuit Ailybones, and we shall be able to speak
tend to give securities; but to what do they amount in and write nothing against the Public Authorities with-.
the hands of a Protestant Attorney-General, and how less out the terrors of excommunication. A vast deal in
than nothing—how mere a mockery would these penalties these discussions has been said about names spci of
be, when their recovery is confided to a Roman Catholic time value of authority, and I think 1 can produce 4 •
Attorney-General. A troublesome, pertinacious Pro- list of at least as weighty names as those of the writers of
testant Attorney-General is easily disposed of—every body novels, however luxuriant may be the emanations of
knows, and has seen, how he may be got rid of—(hear, their genius, or of any lawyers of Scotland, however
hear)—but a Catholic Attorney-General will not feel him- great their learuing. Lord Somers, I apprehend, is a
self bound by the same conscience, and will not attempt lawyer wino may be pitted even against the Solicitor-
to incur the displeasure of his superiors by unwelcome General of Scotland. Milton and Locke are metaphysicians '
prosecutions. I have nosy travelled through these miser- of the olden time, at least equal to any metaphysicians of
able clauses—through this waste paper of a Bill, or, to our own. Hume is one among •quales viros Culedonict .
borrow a phrase employed elsewhere—this almanac old enzisit, and his authority is perhaps equal to that of any
and out of date before it is in esse_which has begun and modern, however palmy, magnificent, and efflorescent.
ended in rottenness, deception, duplicity, and treachery.— To these I may add Sydney and Harrington, and, amanU
(Cheers and laughter.)—On a former occasion, I was more modern lawyers, Sir William Blackstone.—(Hear,
called an Attorney-General in parenthesis; but now, hear. )—I will not trouble the House with a
among all my sins, numerous and heavy as they are, that longer catalogue of great men, the enemies of Popery ; ,
tlhaemmnman
TAbtattorcnreiym-eGeisnernaol
tinmipnaereiniotiwie:isanisd niottwoans n
e oof and it is the less necessary in these times, when the I
Si troi.,XOL are thrown overboard, and numbers are to go •
fault of mine that when I spoke last I did not go into
for nothing. If this question were to be decided by the
the subject of Ireland—l did touch upon it as far as
wof e ority of could p rodu ce
was necessary, and I disputed time position of the Right eight
a series notth easilyauth ceunterbgreat alanced; names, I
but I contend alai
Honourable Gentleman when he said, " If you do not
the wishes and fears of the people of England see teilkl
give me a measure of your own, you must take mine."
respected ; that their petitions are not So ix! receive with
What information had we before its on which to found
a measuie ? What right had the Secretary of State to sneers and contemptz ushil,-; those who thus treat them vio" ,
meet us at once and knock us down, as he fancied, with late the CarnatitutiOn and insult their undoubted opinions.
I will not stow trouble the House further ; 'ileis is the se-
his argument, " If you do not adopt my remedy, you have
cond
time time I ave bn lled' into eand third
no remedy of your owu to apply." That is a eery dex- Ime musthm been
eet myca adversariesth field
, I am ;readyif toa throw
terous and a very dapper way of treating the question ;it down my gauntlet, and I will not refuse the encounter. „l
was jumping at once to a conclusion without giving us a
Mr. Secretary PEEL—Sir, the speech of the Hon.
moment to consider, and many thought he was much too
short in his syllogism. On the first day of the session he Gentleman on this occasion is the least of of his two
conies down, and astonishes us with time proposal of Ca- former speeches ; and with the charges it makes against
tholic emancipation ; he who had all his life resisted it, at me, it contains a challenge, a challenge lam about to ace
once turns short round upon his friends, and galls upon cept, white I attempt to defend the Bill against the
them to turn with him; and those avho refused to do so, charges he has made. If that speech contains all the itn-
he instantly called upon to originate a measure of relief situations against the measure with which it can he visited,,
for Ireland, before a moment's time had been allowed for I must confess I have never heard, in the wleeLs course of
inquiry, or even for reflection. He, indeed, came down the debases—and I have listened throughout to the elo-
with his plan cut and dry ; but was it fair to expect those spent speeches made by the defenders of the Incas-area—bit;
who had never dreamt of such a project, to be prepared I have never heard any one with such complete Satisfaction
on a sudden, with an equivalent for his rejected proposal ? as I heard time speech .which the Hon. Member for plymp.
.fr'
He put an alternative, with which he well knew nobody ten male against`the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman has ate l'
could comply. I call upon the Cambridge Attorney--Gene tacked the policy of the Bill ; and why ? The lion. Gen-
ral, and upon the OxfOsd Logician, to vindicate this prepos- tleman, Sir, has hunted up some quotation, some opinion
terous mode of reasoning and confuting, for I profess myself of Mr, Justice Ail} bone, in order to prove the impolicy of
unable, even at 24 hours' notice, to bring forward any alter- edinitting Roman Catholics to seats on the Judgment
native. And now a few words, and very few, about time sense Bench ; and all I heard was only to prove, that because
of the people upon this question. Upon this point I have Mr. Justice Alb-bone held an absurd opinion, or made use
heard able arguments from able Scotchmen, Physicians and of an absurd argument, we must now expect the same
Metaphysicians too, Ediuburgh and Glasgow logic, but not doctrines from any Roman Catholic who should become a '
more 'convincing than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, Justice.--(Hear, near,)...—But how would the doctrines