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

tholic Religion anterior to the Reformation ; he has deemed it
proper to go into the detail of the crimes of Popery, and of the
dangers which arose from its machinations to the welfare of the
state ; he has had recourse to arguments which have not been re-
sorted to before fbi 30 years, and to odious passages in history
which ought to have been forgotten and rased out of the memory
of man.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He did not indeed mention Guy
Fawkes, or the table lantern, but from the general spirit and tone
of his speech, I should hardly have been surprised to have seen
him conjure up such imagery.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—He did
indeed admit that the present times and the present Catholics
were not like those times to which, and those men to whom he re-
ferred, and I then thought I had some chance with him, but I was

deceived. He admitted. fairly enough that it was not on ancient
laws, but on the question of expediency, that he resisted the pre-
sent Resolution. That expediency seemed too, with him, to de-
pend on the security which the Roman Catholics ought to give,
and which, if they did give, he would be ready to admit
Roman Catholics to every advansage which they demanded. I
could hardly object to this..-it is natural for him to look after the
security, and, of course, security is not to be had without looking
after.—(Hear, and laugh.)—When, therefore, he said he would
grant every thing upon proper security, I expected he would agree
to accede to the demands of the Catholics, and then that he would
set about the inquiry as to the security they offered. He was,
indeed, almost hound to do this by the terms of the Resolution ;
for what is it but a mere declaration, that this House is deeply im-
pressed with the necessity of inquiring into the state of the Roman
Catholic subjects of this kingdom ? The Right Hon. Gentleman
did not say he would not relieve them from their disabilities, but
that he would not do so unless they gave adequate security as the
price of his concessions. Now I thought that, to do this, it was
necessary first to adopt the Resolution, and then set about look-
ing after the security, and that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would pursue this course. I was not, however, left long to the
enjoyment of this fool's paradise (for such I would call it with re-
respect to myself, though not with regard to the House), for at the
conclusion of his speech, the Right Hon. Gent. entirely abandoned
his former declarations, and seemed disposed to refuse any
concession whatever. From the first part of his speech, I
thought that the Bills introduced in 1813 and 1821 would have
satisfied him on the points of security, but I found I was mis-
taken, since he concluded by declaring, that in his opinion,
the claims of the Roman Catholics, if conceded now, would
only lead to further demands ; and, in the language of the Catho-
lic Bishop of Kildare, though much would be gained, much more
would remain to be accomplished, and Catholics would go on to
the subversion of Protestantism. I ask him now by which of
these opinions he means to abide ? and what would he accede to
if the Bills to which I have referred should be again proposed to
the House ? If, through the attainment of their civil rights, it
was certain that the Catholics would proceed to the subversion of
the Protestant Establishment, I could then understand him, and

I should say, that his opinion was the opinion of every honest
man ; namely, that if such must be the consequence of the suc-
cess of the Catholics, they ought to be refused their demands.—
(Hear, hear.)—By the arguments he has adciuced, I am in this
painful situation, that I am reduced to place him (after giving
him every credit for his sincerity) in the extreme rank of those
who now, and for ever, would exclude Catholics from admission
to civil power.—(Hear.)—Not content with taking this course
himself, he armed himself with authority ; and it was with some
surprise I heard him name Mr. Pitt, as the head of that class of ,
persons who were decidedly inimical to the claims of the Roman
Catholics.—(Hear.)—Sir, if there ever was any part of the con-
du,:t of that Minister on which it was impossible to entertain a
doubt, as to his real opinions, it was upon the course which he
pursued with respect to the Roman Catholics. I know that
it has been the fashion, of late, to speak of him as of
one not friendly to their cause.—(Hear, hear.)—l know that a
set of individuals, styling themselves the Pitt Club, have assem-
bled to celebrate the principles of exclusion and illiberality, and to
claim Mr. Pitt as their suporter, when I have no hesitation in
saying that that claim is one of the most impudent and outrageous
forgeries of modern times.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lt is a wicked
attempt to rob that Minister of the well-deserved fame of having
been a friend to his oppressed fellow subjects.—(Hear, hear.)—
Sir, Mr. Pitt has been represented as the opponent of Catholic
Emancipation; and the Right Hon. Gentleman seems to imagine
that that Minister, like himself, deemed that the Catholics could
give no adequate security for the advantages they claimed. What !
does he wish to represent that Minister as so great a trifler, that
he arrived at a conclusion unfavourable to the Catholics, because
he thought they could never give sufficient securities against their
abuse of political privileges? If that is his iatention, he is cer-
tainly mistaken. That Minister did not deal so lightly with so
great a question : he must have turned in his mind the means by
which the great interests of the country could be secured. There
was no person who was ever a more decided friend to the Pro-
testant Establishment than Mr. Pitt ; and if he had not seen that
its safety could be reconciled with concessions to the Catholics,
was it likely, I ask, that he should have favoured their admission
to what they claimed ? I have heard it said that Mr. Pitt did
not state what were the securities that he required, and especially
that he did not make this statement to a Noble Lord who was op-
posed to the concessions.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—l should, in-
deed, have thought him no better than an idiot, a mere dolt ; if

meaning to carry the question he had made any such communica-
tion to that Noble Lord, who, attentive, and of course rightfully
attentive to the consequences, would have thrown every obstacle
which his enlarged and ingenious mind could have suggested, in
the way of the proposed plan. There is one point more to
which I must allude before I quit the subject of Mr. Pitt's con-
duct. When that Minister proposed to the House the great mea-
sure of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, he did state
to the House, and he held out to the people of Ireland the idea
that the Union would have the effect of creating great facilities
for the attainment of Catholic Emancipation. I will not say that
he actually gave any distinct pledge upon this subject, but he
said enough to create an impression in the minds of the
people of Ireland that such would be the consequence; he gave
them every well-grounded hope, that if the then existing ob-
stacles were not removed, at least no additional difficulties
would be ereated--(Hear, hear !)--How then, Sir, are we placed
at this moment? We are now arguing the question of the ad-
mission of Catholics in the English Parliament. If the matter
was to be decided by the Irish Members, there would be a ma-
jority of two to one in favour of the proposition. What then is
the obstacle we encounter ? What, hut the opposition of the Eng-
lish people, whose lips, but for the Uuion, would not have been
open upon the matter—(Cheers ?)--I trust that a Right Hon.
Gentleman, now opposed to the Catholics, is not one who will
join in the popular cry. I expect to find in him an honourable,
a liberal, and a candid adversary. Except on this question, there
is none on which I do not fully agree with him ; and I hope
that on this he will not suffer any party feelings to be in the
'slightest degree mixed up with the reasons on which his opposi-
tion is grounded. It would, indeed, be unjust if any person who
joined in sentiment with Mr. Pitt, and had even indirectly al-
lowed him to hold cut the hope to which I have referred, should
unite in the popular cry now raised in this country against the
Catholics. Such a proceeding would indeed be dishonourable on
the part of that Right Hon. Gentleman, Ido not mean to say
that he will do so. I trust he will not ; but perhaps he may do
that which I mean to say is unfair—namely, that the obstacle to
the concessions now claimed is in the cry of the people of Eng-
laid. For myself, Ido not believe that any such ory exists: - I
do not believe that the people of England are opposed to Eman-
cipation—on the contrary, Ido most firmly believe, that the cause
of the Catholics is daily gaining ground in this country ; and that
if the people of England were fairly dealt with—if they had not
been as 'it were assaulted by the demagogues who affect to repre-
sent themselves as the leading advocates of the Catholic Claims—
(Hear !)--they would even 'be more favourable, than they are at
present to the concession of those Claims. The people of this
country are, in fact, very reasonable in their wishes, and are more
disposed to grant than withhold the concessions now required.—
(Hear.)—This, Sir, I think, has been fully proved, in the re-
sult
of those elections which occurred in places where the popular
opinion on this matter could be fairly tried, and where, in every
instance, the "No Popery" cry has signally failed.—(cheers).—
The Right -Honourable Gentleman who last addressed the House,
mentioned other individuals, besides 111 r. Pitt ; he, referred to
Mr. Grattan, to Lord Grenville, and to Lord Londonderry._
Sir, he could not have referred to the names of men more op-
posed to his view of the question than those whom I have men-
tioned. Does he recollect what was the conduct of these three
individuals, with respect to the Bills which were proposed to the
Houses of Parliament, while they were in them—and especially
with respect to that particular' Bill which passed through this
House, but was rejected in the other ? Doer he recollect that
the Bill 'proposed in 1821 met with the entire concurrence and
approbation of Lord Londonderry -and of Lord Grenville? Let
me ask what are the grounds on which he doubts the security
'that can be given by the Catholics? It is always in this man-
ner that we have been dealt with by our opponents. Past events
have either been mis-stated or not referred to, a: id, in both instances,
the advocates for Catholic Emancipation have been unfairly treat-
ed. When in the year 1825 the measure passed in this House,
but was, unfortunately thrown out in the House of Lords ; what
was the opposition it met with from a distinguished Statesman,
whose temporary absence from Parliament, on account of indis-
position, we have so much reason to regret? And what were the
grounds on which it was thrown out- in the House of Lords?—
Certainly not the question of security. _ The distinguished States-
man to whom I have alluded then declared,, that if lie could get