The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-07 00:00:00

state of Ireland. Sir, is it not a little strange that this provision,
so necessary to the well-being of the State, and which forms the
most important and vital part of the oath of 1793, should in 1825
; .be wholly-omitted ?—(Cheers.)—lt -appears to me strange that the
remarkable words which I shall presently more particularly ad-
vert to, and which •• must be well known to every body who
Imows the history.of Ireland, or is. acquainted with the inquiries
(and evidenced the result of these inquiries) made in Parliament
as to the state of that country—it does appear to me singular that
such words should, in the year before last, have been omitted.—
The words were to this effect—" I do solemnly swear, that I will
defend the settlement of property as in this realm now establish-
ed by law." If that were a necessary clause and provision in the
oath of 1793, why is it now. omitted? Again, I say, will not the
House be astonished to learn that, in the bill of 1825, the whole
of this provision is completely omitted ?_(Loud cheering.)—Was
the omission made-advisedly and deliberately? Sir, I think there
is no manner of doubt that it was. If so, I ask, where is the
power, Or the wish,, on the part of the Roman Catholics, to give
ehe additional security to ,which we are entitled. I will now
advert to another circumstance, and direct the attention of the
House to a different part of the oath—by which it was provided
that the person accepting office should swear as follows :—" I
will not use the power or privilege with which I am invested,
to dieturb and weaken the Protestant Establishment." Imme-
diqtely after this oath was published and circulated, a Roman
Catholic commentary upon it was also published and circu-
lated. By this commentary it wire endeavoured to chew that
the oath would not be violated, if both the conditions were net
' broken. So that, according to this interpretation, you must
not " weaken" by mans of disturbing, but you may weaken by
any other means in your power. By this Jesuitical interpreta-
tion it was meant to convey to the Roman Catholics, that ex-
cept they disturbed, as well as weakened, the Protestant Esta-
blishment, they did not break their oath ; and it was added, if
this is not the meaning of the provision, the stipulation cermet
be admitted. What will the House think, when Inform it,
that, in the oath proposed in 1825, its framers taking, no dcubt,
the hint contained in the ingenious commentary of 1793, had en-
tirely omitted the word " weaken ?"—( Great cleters.)---Am I to
be told that it was cat of deference to the feelings and prejudices
of the Rorean Ca.Oeelics, that they omitted a stipulation so essen-
tial for our security as that?--(Hear, hear, hear !)—flevine
called the attention of the House to this material omission,
:1/ shell pass over other less important omissions. This was the
-`bath. What additional security was it proposed to afford the
Establiehment in Che t. and State? Something was
:12s4d teitkrespeet to the Roman ee'-t lie Bishops. and a certificate
'ofiovalty, lA/ this was after the _don. Sir, is there any human
"5116" "e/h"ao dOes not feel the entire ridicule of such a proposition, or can
;14. rr an be found to say it affords a sufficient security to us Protestants
against the justly dreaded dangers of foreign interference? What
farther security had been proposed ? None whatever. except that
the correspondence between Ireland and the Papal See should
undergo the supervision of the Roman Catholic Bishops. These
were the securities proposed to be afforded us by the Bill of 1825.
It may be said, it is unfair for me to enter now into a discussiee
of the merits or demerits of that Bill. Sir, I have no such in-
tentione and am not doing so. But I feel lam entitled to say,
that that Bill, which had received the utmost care and considera-
tion of the Roman Catholics and their advocates, may be con-
sidered as containing all the security in their power to offer.
What, then, shall we say, when we find this to be their ultimatum ?
Am I not authorised in declaring, that they have it not in their
power, to give us Protestants any adequate security for the coeces-
sions sought to be obtained ? is it necessary to go into a laboured
sec' lengthened detail on this subject? I think not. The Roman
Catholics now avow the position in which they stand, and the
concessions which they require.—They call for a simple rei eel of
the disciealifications ueder which they labour, and an unqualified
a.dniission to the full rights and privileges of the Constitution. At
...".erst they aliproacla us with a modest and temperate demand ; but,
at iaoe they appear before us in their full grown strength, and,
eetting us, at defiance, require that as a right which they had pre-
viously soughtas a favour. This they do, Sir, without offering
11.3 any adequate security for the boon. I repeat, when we enter
into a careful examination of what they demand, it will be found to
,be neither more.nor less than an unqualified and simple concession
on our part, without any sufficient security on theirs. Their doctrine
and principle is this e—" We, on ,our side, require from you a full
participation in all the privileges of the Constitution, while we are
unwilling to concede any thing to you in the shape of security." Can
the splendid authority of those celebrated persons, who have advocated
the Roman. Catholic cause, be used against me? I contend not ; for,
,when we sift and examine the question, we shall find sufficient secu-
rities were always required by the warmest and most effective of
those advocates. lam perfectly ready to concede to the Roman
Catholics the enjoyment of every privilege they require, and re-
lief from every disability of which they complain, on the same
principle as those celebrated men to whom I have alluded, have
,always cautiously stated, namely, the principle of satisfactory and
Aide/Vete security.—(Hear.) It will be said by my opponents,
a3k,the_Roman Catholic to do that which is completely incon-
. existent with his duty ; and you require from him concessions and
.eecurities which he cannot, without undermining the principles of
his religion, grant. By persons who use this argument, it will be
urged that the Roman Catholics could not accede to the etipula-
lions provided by the Bill of 1813, without violating their reli-
gion. Sir, it is a most extraordinary circumstance, that, in the
year 1814, aftelethe, decision of this House had been declared upon
the Bill of 1813, the person then at the head of the See of Rome
—the individual under whose jurisdiction and spiritual controul
Ireland.was at that moment placed, when applied to on the sub-
ject, distinctly said, that there was nothing in the Veto, or in the
Bill. of !313, inconsistent with the principles and exercise of
the Roman Catholic Religion.—(Loud cheers.) It was also
singular, that the Irish Bishops, when that opinion was
communicated to them, protested against the authority of
that individual, which, in this instance, they contended, had
been overstepped. Further, the Pope himself, in 1815, confirmed
what, he had said in the preceding year. Among the documents
now in my hand, I have the Pope's letter, and could easily refer
to it, but that it were idle and unnecessary to do so. Let us go
nne step farther, and look at the situation of Roman Catholics
on the Continent of Europe, and, having done so, recur to the
condition of the Protestants there. Who appoints the Bishop of
Silesia ? Is it the Pope ? I answer no. In Russia, the one and
only Catholic Bishop, possessing authority in the State, is ap-
pointed by the Sovereign, and, both in Prussia and Russia, the
whole correspondence which passes between the Roman Catholics
of these countries and the See of Rome, is under the supervision of
Protestants. Don't tell me, then, that such concessions are incon-
sistent with the spirit, the principle, or the practice of the Roman
.Catholic religion. True it is they may be inconsistent with the do-
minion whichit is the olajectof the Catholic Hierarchy to maintain
,ovcr the people, and subversive of the bondage, in which it is no
Jess.tbs desire,of the lower orders of the priesthood to keep them.
This influence.and sway, so great and 80 extensive, that •it has
even excited the astouislunente of
,his Majesty's Attorney-General
for Ireland, than. whom no man is better acquainted with the
facts of the case, may be considerably impaired by the concessions
alluded to. For the purpose of maintaining, unbounded and
unbroken the allegiance of the people to the Pope and the priest-
hood, they have refused, at last, all further concession, and left us in
the situation in which we now stand. I shall be asked, no doubt,
how I can dissent from, or undervalue, the sentiments of those
great men, who have taken a course contrary to that which I fol-
low. To this I answer, that those great men, whom I have the
honour to follow at an humble distance, have all, with one voice,
declared, that securities were necessary.—(Hear.)—Sir, is there
any thing in the state of Europe now, as contrasted with its con-
dition in 1810 and 1813, calculated to render that which was ne-
cessary then unnecessary now? I think not; more particularly
at a period when the Catholic religion, and the influence of the
Papal See, then comparatively dead, have been, to no small ex-
tent, revivified. If ever there was a period when wee might have
been disposed to undervalue and despise securities, ft was then;
yet, at those periods, Hon. Gentlemen thought them necessary.
Since the year 1814, the Catholic religion and the Papal power
have been stirring themselves into activity throughout every part
of Europe. It is not in a state of such excitation and activity
that we can despisesecurities. Sir, it is extraordinary, that while
individuals, who entertain liberal principles in this country, busy
themselves in advocating the cause of the Roman Catholics—it is
extraordinary that those who advocate liberal principles on the
Continent of Europe, show themselves apprehensive of the conse-
quences likely to result from the future extension and predominance
of the Roman Catholic religion. fleet religion has been ever in-
tolerant, and will any man pre • to tell me that its character is
now changed? Sir, I call upon the House to recollect what
passed in the South of France; and the persecutions which took
place there in 1814. I also entreat the House to observe what
is now passing in France. The Hon. Member for Corfe Castle
(Mr. Bankes) has well alluded to the restoration. of the Jesuits,
and described them as already actively engaged in pushing their
cause in every State on the Continent of Europe. Sir, when
that Order was suppressed, little did I think that only a few years
would pass away ere it should be again revived. It is unee-
cessary-for me to speak of the dangerous tendency of an Order,
which requires, in every individual member of it, complete,
blind, and implicit obedience to the.commanda of his superior,
without any attempt on his part to question their justice. That
Order is now spreading over every corner of Continental Europe,
and acting in secrecy and in vigour, without any responsibility to
the'Governments of the countries where its influence prevails.
MY argument, therefore, is, that if security were necessary for our