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

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1827.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Mancn 6.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Lords Suffield, Mansfield, and Willoughby de Broke, took the
oaths and their seats.

of Peterborough ; and from another place, by Mr. Cartwright;
from Albrighton, in the county of Salop, by Mr. Riekford ; from
the town of Wrexham, and from the borough of Holt, by Sir W.
W. Wynn ; from Carmarthen and another place. by Lord W.
Paget ; from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Diocese of Lon-
don, by Mr. Estcourt ; from throe parishes in the city of Exeter,
by Mr. Keckwich ; from the city of Exeter, by Mr. Burt ; from
the borough of Sudbury, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the
'city of Wells, and from two other places in the county of Somer-
set, by-Sir I'. Lethbridge.
Petitions were presented in favour of Catholic Emancipation
from the county of Monaghan, and several parishes in the same,
by Mr. J. Grattan; from ten places in different parts of Ireland,
by Mr. H. Grattan I from Sidmouth, by Lord Ebrington ; from
a great number of distinguished Catholic and Protestant Peers and
landed Proprietors, many of them being residents in Ireland, and
possessing property in that country to the amount of above a mil-
lion per annum, by Mr. S. Rice.
Mr. WODEHOUSE pre,atnte4 a petition from a
Gentleman, being a Roman Catholic, complaining of having to
pay a double lanitax.
Mr. LITTLETON expressed his hope that some-
thing would be done during the present Session to remove this in-
justice from the Roman Catholic subjects of the realm.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he would undertake to remedy this evil during the present
Session. He was aware that there would be difficulties of detail,
but where there was a will there was a way:—(Cheers.)

After a few words from Lord MILTON, the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL, Mr. ABERCROMBY, Mr. N. CALVERT, and Mr. WoDE-

110 USE, the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, supported by Mr.
WARD, presented a petition from from Sion College, against any
further concessions to the Catholics.

Mr. A. DAWTSON presented three petitions from
parishes in the County of Cork, in favor:: of Emancipation.
Sir H. PARNELL presented a similar petition
from a parish in the Queen's County.
Lord HARVEY presented a petition in favour of
Catholic Emancipation, from a place in the County of Carlow.
Mr. BROUGHAM presented similar petitions
from the province of Connaught, the County of Mayo, the County
of Dublin, the County of Meath, and three other places.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented petitions against
any further concessions to the Roman Catholics from the Clergy,
Boroughreeve, and Inhabitants of Bolton ; from the Protestant
Dissenters of Leicester ; from the Staffordshire Potteries ; from
the Inhabitants of Blackley in Kent ; from naldon ; from the
Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Ferns ; from Clare ; and
three from other places.
CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

---
Mr. SPRING RICE said, he had a number of
petitions to present from various parts of Ireland; they had been
signed by hundreds, he might say, by thousands, yet it was not
his wish to call the attention of the House to them ; but he had
a petition, which, from the importance of its character, was en-
titled to their attention. It was signed by the Duke of Norfolk,
and by a number of English and Irish Roman Catholic Peers. A
petition had been presented by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, which had produced 'a considerable excitement
in the House. It was stated to come from twenty-seven Irish re-
sident Peers, and it was brought forward as a proof of the increas-
ing disinclination of the Protestants of that country to allowing
any further concessions to the Catholics. He (Mr. Rice) denied
that any such feeling existed, and, in proof of this, adverted to the
declaration of the sixty-nine Peers.
The petitions alluded to by the Hon. Member were then laid
on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Petitions were presented by Mr. A Dawson, Sir Henry Par-
nell, and Mr. Brougham, in favour of the Catholic Claims, from
several parishes in Cork, from Maryborough, Carlow, the Catho-
lics of the province of Connaught, of Bristol and Clifton, the
county of Mayo, and several parishei in Dublin.
Petitions against the Catholic Claims were presented by Mr.
Secretary Peel from the corporation of Bolton in- Lancashire,
the Protestant Dissenters of Leicester, the Staffordshire Potteries,
Brackleigh, Maldon, from the clergy of the dioceses of Leighlin
and Ferns, Ossory and Dromore, and from the Presbyterians of
Clare, county of Armagh, and by Alderman Thompson from Sion
College. . . _

The petitions were all read, and ordered to be printed.
The Hon. T. LIDDELL moved for an account of
all sums of money paid out of the revenue to different corporations,
under the head of Light-houses, Harbour dues, &c.
After some observations from Mr. Broughain, the motion was
withdrawn.

CATHOLIC QUESTION.--ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Sir J. NEWPORT moved the Order of the Day,
for the resumption of the Debate on the Catholic Question. He
made but a little effort, when he assured the House, that he still
entertained the opinions which he had formerly endeavoured to
impress upon them—ar
k—ear.)—During a constant residence in
Ireland, those opinions had daily strengthened ; and he had no
hesitation in declaring his conviction to the House, that, in no
other manner, and by no other means, could the peace of that
country be secured, nor was there any other basis on which it
could rest, but that of Catholic Emancipation.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord Elliott and Mr. H. Davis then
rose, and there were loud
cries for both ; the former, how, s-er, gave way, and
Mr. H. DAVIS said, that as he had addressed the
House too often on the subject then under their deliberation, it
would not be necessary to go into an extended argument, in stating
his objections to the motion before the House. It was his settled
opinion, that the Roman Catholics enjoyed as many privileges,
and as great toleration,
as was compatible with the securities of
our civil and religious liberties, under a Protestant Government,
and that any -further extension of political power to the Roman
Catholics would be most injurious to the State. Fortunately for
the Protestants, the Roman Catholics would never be satisfied
with half concessions. They had stated this in their writings,
and experience had ahewn that every new concession to them had
only engendered a new claim. He supposed, under any view of
conciliation, that some points would not be conceded. It would
not be disputed that the King of this country must be a Protestant
—the King's advisers must be Protestants—the Commander-iii-
Chief must be a Protestant—and the Judges of the land must be
Protestants. The wildest advocate for conciliation would hardly
surrender these exclusions. Let not the House deceive itself—
such was the temper of the Roman Catholics, that even these ex-
ceptions would render conciliation a mere nickname, made use of
only to deceive. What do the Roman Catholics complain of?
Not that they are unprotected in person or property. They can-
not complain that they do not enjoy toleration in its most liberal
form; but they do complain that they are shut out of a few high
offices, which the wisdom of our ancestors has settled shall only
be held by persons who profess the religion of the state. If there
he any hardehip in this exclusion, it arises, ex necessitate rei, for
the security of a Protestant Government. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by saying, that it gave him great pleasure to assure the
House, that his opinions, on the great question then under discus.
;ion, were in strict accordance with the sentiments of the great
majority of his numerous constituents.
Lord ELLIOTT said, that when this question had
last been under the consideration of the House, he had, from
a conscientious conviction, that further concessions to the Catho-
lics would be dangerous to the existence of the Constitution, voted
against the measure. Since that time, however, he had given it
his fullestopiniond_elib(eLroautidonch;etehr
je resultand
of that was, that he had changed
his
honourable to avow that change, than, by a pertinacious adherence
to for.-aer opinions and prejudices, persevere in a course that might
contribute to national difficulty and disturbance.
The MASTER of the ROLLS then rose, and
spoke nearly to the following effect give the Noble Lord full
credit for the candour, the manliness, and the generous feeling
which prompted him to make the avowal which has just fallen
from his lips. After mature deliberation and attention—whatever
might have been his preconceived notions—however strong his
early prejudices, and warm his attachment to principles previously
imbibed, no course could have been more manly and honourable,
than thus, in the face of the country, to make that avowal, the
value of which could only be enhanced by the manner in which
it came forward ; and that manner, he would take the liberty to
' 'say, did the Noble Lord quite as much credit as did the avowal
itself. Having offered this tribute to the merit of the Noble Lord,

I will now state one of my own claims to consideration ; repre-
senting, as I do, a moat distinguished body of constituents, Treat
my claim to attention upon their respectability and eminence--
and, sent into this House by such constituents, I trust I may be
permitted to state my opinion on this most important and vital
question. It is a subject that has often been deeply and eloquently
discussed, and I have not the slightest hope that any effort of
mine will throw light upon its difficulties, or add much to the
mass of information already extant ; but if I held back, and re-
mained silent at this crisis, I should, and, perhaps, with much
shew of reason, be accused of shrinking from the great duty
that my situation imposes, and of totally deserting my post. T.,
accusations like this should I subject myself, if I shrunk from the
present discussion—if I did not stand forward openly and fear-
lessly, to state the grounds of my opposition to the Hon. Baronet,
by whom the resolution now under the consideration of the House
has been moved. Previous to doing so, however, I will take
leave to congratulate the House upon the tone of moderation
which prevailed in this discussion, and that excellent tone I con-,
ceive to he in a great measure referable to the admirable example
which the Hon. Baronet, in his language and conduct, eet to all
who had followed him in the debate. Nothing could have been
more proper—nothing could have been more judicious—than the
spirit and temper in which he brought his resolution forward.
He showed, by the adoption and preservation of that spirit, how
highly he valued the tranquillity of the State. So much, so pre-
eminently, do I estimate that tone and spirit, that, I trust, we
shall come to every stage of this great question, with a strong
desire to inculcate the necessity and advantage of preserving the
same temper, if possible, through every vicissitude. Sir, we are,
at this moment, standing in a great crisis.—(Loud cheering.)—
The eyes of the whole country are most anxiously set upon our
proceedings—the great mass of the Protestants are looking most
anxiously to the result—the great mass of the Roman Catholics
are looking with the same anxiety, nay, with much greater
interest, with feelings more sensitive and excited. But, whatever
he the result, whether it be for good or for evil, I sincerely hope
that every feeling of asperity will be set aside, and that the dis..
cussion will be continued, as it has been commenced, in a spirit of
calm, candid, deliberation ; and if it be but coolly and impar-
tially considered, I trust it will be felt that our decision, whenever
it shall be come to, will be entitled to the acquiescence of the par-

ties concerned, and that it will fully receive that acquiescence in
every quarter. With respect to the shape in which the motion
has been introduced, I think it unnecessary to trouble the House
with any observations. From the whole course of the debate, it
is quite obvious that the intention of the Hon. Baronet was, by
his particular Resolution, to bring the whole subject under dis-
cussion. For more than twenty years the question of Catholic
Emancipation has agitated the empire. Abundant information
has been obtained on the subject. We now know the desires of
the Roman Catholics, and we now know upon what conditions
they are willing their claims should be entertained. They seek
to be admitted to seats in the Legislature—they seek to be ad-
mitted to all the high offices of State. Upon that basis we are
now to entertain the consideration of their claims. Upon that
basis rests the propriety of the question, which we are now called
upon to discuss. In one respect, we are placed in rather an ex-
traordinary position, and we have now one more evidence to
what extent the influence of party may close the mind against
evidence, and limit the extent of its vision. One fact is now be-
yond the possibility of question, that the Protestants now stand
on their defence—they have been reluctantly placed in that situ-
ation—they are the parties accused—they are charged with every
species of intolerance, bigotry, and oppression—the charge of
these crimes is preferred against them by the Roman Catholics
and their advocates ; and when Hon. Gentlemen stand up in this
House, as their advocates, and tell us of their laws—the oppres-
sive, the intolerant, laws, that have been enacted against the
Roman Catholic religion—it is well worthy of observation, that
those advocates most carefully keep out of sight the occasions on
which those laws were enacted. That course is, towards this

House, highly mischievous—it is false and deceptions. Are the
feelings of reverence, with which we regard the acts of those who
have gone before us, to be outraged, by our being told, at this
time of day, that our forefathers were oppressors, and had pro-
ceeded in those severe enactments without adequate cause? Are
we now, after twenty years discussion, to be told, that the most
ardent friends and champions of constitutional liberty, were in-
tolerant and bigotted oppressors. Without uttering one word,
calculated to excite bad feelings, • I will, with the permission of
the House, review some of the circumstances, 'Under which some
of those so much-complained-of enactments, became the law of the
land. In the days of Elizabeth, does any man suppose that the
laws against the Roman Catholic religion, which were then en-
acted, proceeded upon apprehensions merely speculative and con-
jectural ? Is it not, on the contrary, well known, that those laws
were enacted for the express purpose of keeping the Roman Ca-
tholics
i
tholics of that day in subjection ; a body who, f they were not
kept in subjection, and effectively controuled, would have over-
borne and oppressed the Protestants to an extent far beyond all
that can now, with any show of truth, be imputed to the Pro-
testants of the present times. In the short period of Mary's
reign, they had been actors and sufferers in the sanguinary scenes
of the period ; and what they had suffered, and what they had
seen, made it, in their apprehensions, a matter of paramount ne-
cessity to guard against the recurrence of similar evils. They
lived in an age when bigotry and intolerance were triumphant ;
they were spectators of the frightful scenes enacting in France ;
the horrible atrocities perpetrated there, and also in the Nether-
lands, were before their eyes, or fresh in their remembrance. The
power of the Roman Catholic religion at that period was seen in
the full force of its arbitrary and tyrannical character. If any
thing were required to be added to the grounds of alarm which
France and the Netherlands supplied, the Government of Spain
presented it in dangerous and fearful abundance. I will now, Sir,
pass to the period of James. The laws of that period were not
enacted for the purpose of wounding the feeling, or insulting the
honour, of Roman Catholics, but in consequence of an attempt
which I will not describe--an attempt of a character so atrocious
as to be almost incredible, were it not for the clear evidence on
which its truth was incontestibly established ; and yet, with ne-
cessities such as these, pressing upon the condition of our foie-
fathers, they are charged with intolerance and bigotry, when they
merely proceeded on principles of self-defence. From this period
and this country, I would pass to an earlier day and another land ;
I would refer you, Sir, to the scenes that passed in Ireland in the
reign of Charles I. in the year 1641, when the whole population
was, I may say, plunged in blood. It was not inconsistent with
an attachment to law and liberty, that the legislators of that pe-
riod—men of the most upright and honourable minds—should
have yielded to the calls of an urgent necessity, and agreed to enac-
ments that, in other circumstances, I will admit, might justly be
designated as severe. I will now, Sir, with the permission of the
House, revert to the period of the Revolution—a period when
James the Second's recent introduction of the Roman Catholic
religion Lad excited well-founded and extreme alarm in the
mind of every Protestant; it was then that our ancestors
made a noble stand for principles that we should never desert
nor disown. God forbid, that I should ascribe to the Roman
Catholics of the present day, sentiments such as those, which are
known to have been professed and acted upon by the Roman Ca-
tholics of the seventeenth century.—(Loud cheering.)—lt is
most material, Sir, that we should distinguish between what we
are called upon to do, and what we are not. We are not called
upon to repeal laws which proscribe the
.persons, confiscate the
properties, or controul the consciences of our fellow subjects.
We are called upon to confer political power on a class, whose
principles experience has taught us, are adverse to liberty and
Constitutional Government. The laws which, if existing in the
present day, might justly be esteemed severe and oppressive,against
persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, have every one of
them long since been abrogated. We are not, therefore, as has
been most incorrectly stated, called on to repeal penalties, and re-
'. move disabilities, but to consider a question, which I do confi-
' dently maintain is a question of mere policy and expedience; the
question is, shall we take that one further step which the Ho-
nourable Baronet advocate. ? Can we, in common prudence, ad-
mit into political power, persons professsing the Roman Catholic
religion ? It is replied that they are already in possession of po•
laical power, and that reply, I regret to say, is already too exten-
sively founded in truth. Then, the question is not whether we
shall admit them into any degree of political power, but whether we
' shall elevate them into legislators, and into the high and respon-
sible offices of the State ? I repeat, Sir, that it is entirely a clues-
! tion of policy and expedience I must freely and cordially ac-
, knowledge, that if Roman Catholics can be admitted into
the Legislature, and into the -Cabinet, with safety to civil
1 liberty, and security to the Protestant religion and establish-
ment, they are indisputably entitled to such admission. I dis-

cute thir great question on no narrow grounds, no ind..
vidual would go greater lengths, to remove the exclusion of
which they complain, than he who has now the honour of
addressing you. We are told, with infinite plausliliey—end,
indeed, I acknowledge, v. ith no small appearance of truth--that
men of the most mighty intellect—that men pomessing the moat
eminent and statesmanlike knowledge, have been advosatea
and supporters of the Roman Catholic Claims. I confess, Sir,
that, when I look at the history of the proceedings teelteetitif
this question, it strikes my apprehension, that the great &lithos
rities are every one ranged on my side. We are told that, in fae
sisting concessions to the Roman Catholics, we are opposing our-
selves to the doctrines and example of Mr. Pitt. 1 remember
reading a speech of that distinguished individual, in which one..
of the prominent topics was, that the great measure of emanet•
pation could more easily be carried into effect as a step imtne-!
diately consequent upon the Union with Ireland, than under any
previous condition of the two countries ; and for this reason, that
the proportion of Roman Catholics would be so much lees in the
United Parliament, than it could have been in that of Ireland pre-
vious to the Union ; besides, Sir, I trust it never will be lost
sight of, that the only terms upon whici Mr. Pitt ever agreed to
support the views of the Roman Catholics, *as, on the eitpfeet
understanding and condition, that such securities stetild be gited.
by them as would place beyond risk the Protestant reigion and
estal?lishment--that there should be security spinet titittiattid
efforts directed to its subversion—security against any specie.' 6t
foreign influence. This was the language held by Mr. Pitt, as A
and it in print, and as I find it confirmed by the authority ditty
Lord Grenville. That Noble Lord said, we must have security;
end what was the first of the various securities proposed ? The
Veto. Ido not say that was an insufficient security. Ido not
pronounce an opinion on its adequacy, or inadequacy, in any
form. lam now contending for a great principle, and 'me
mention this fact incidentally, to ehew,that lord Geeweille Seek
:111 stand upon the understood prineipkilitecurio • et4-Ittisttint-
!ass Parliament could be satisfied of the adequacy of thkt ses.
eurity, the Noble Lord was prepared to resist concession in every
form. There is another name that has been frequently alluded to,
an individual of unimpeached political integrity.=-of great enthti.,
siasin, and unbounded zeal ; I mean the late Mr. Grattan. Nows
Sir, I refer with confidence to the opinion of Mr. Grattan ; for
there exists not the shadow of a doubt, that, upon investigation,:
he will be found to profess the same doctrines as Mr. Pitt anti
Lord Grenville—namely, that adequate security was indispensable,
and that foreign influence should he scrupulously guarded against.
I have papers at hand, Sir, to which I will beg to refer, iit sup-
port of this statement. (The Right Hon. Gentleman them rt-
ferred to a report of one of Mr. Grattan's speeches, in which it
is stated as his opinion, that when the Catholics asked for
political power, the Protestants had a right to demand seen-
rity, and unless adequate security was given, the Roman Ca-
t polies could set up no just title to political immunities.) So
much, Sir, for the opinions of Mr. Grattan. The authority of
a Noble Lord, now no more—l mean the late Marquis of Lon-
donderry—has been frequently referred to, as hostile to the
views of those, who have felt it their duty to make a stand
against concession. The authority of that Noble Lord in this
House—the influence which he enjoyed and exercised—the per-
sonal regard with which he universally inspired his colleagues
and associates, will not readily be forgotten, still less is it likely
to be forgotten, that there never was an individual mote hearty
and zealous in support of Roman Catholic claims, than the late
Lord Londonderry. But what, Sir, was the language which he
uniformly held ? "We must have security, not the security of
oaths alone—we must have real power, real substantial security,
against foreign influence, and the peculiar tenets of the Roman
Catholic faith." I have now done, Sir, with deceased authori-
ties. Of all the use which I could have desired to make of them,
it has been fully in my power to avail myself. I now come to
our own times, and to the individuals alive and amongst us, who
have advocated Roman Catholic claims. I come to my Right
Hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom I am now most happy
to see again amongst us. That Right Hon. Gentleman has not
once, but frequently, I may say over and over again, stated the
same principles. I refer, with the fullest confidence, to the state-
ment of his opinions, secure that he will not contradict me. I
have his direct admission that we cannot give political power to
the Roman Catholics, unless the security against foreign influence
be most ample and satisfactory. From this great authority, I
pass to my Right Hon. Friend, who, on a recent occasion, so
splendidly distinguished himself; I refer to the authority of one
whose general talent, whose power of reasoning, whose energy,
eloquence, and sarcasm, are perfectly unrivalled ; I mean the At-
torney-General for Ireland. At what period of his political fifes
did be ever sanction concession to Catholics, -upon any other terms
than those contended for by the other great names to which I have
referred? Has he not uniformly called out for security? Hashe ever
ceased to maintain that the Protestant religion and establishment
should be protected ? Who, then, will question that these authorities
are of the greatest weight, and that the individuals now existing, who
have expressed the opinions that I have quoted, are for ever dis-
abled from dispensing with securities, without contradicting their
pledges.—(Loud and continued cheering.)—They are unavoid-
ably bound, if they be consistent, to take the same view.of the
subject that I have felt it my duty to present to the House, and

to resist to the utmost every claim of the Catholics, except upon
the principle of security. May I now be permitted to refer to
the history of these securities, or rather to the vain and delusive
offers of security with which the confidence of Catholic advocates
has from time to time been abused; and let us see whether they
are really sincere when they declare their readiness to give secu-
rity. Let us, from the year 1808, down to the present time,
fairly, impartially, and candidly, consider the subject of securities ;
and if we can lay our hands upon our hearts and say, that we
truly believe them disposed to meet the Protestants and give that
security, without which political power can never be safely con-
ferred on Roman Catholics. What are the facts ? In the year

1808, security was offered by the Roman Catholics. Mr. Grattan
came down to this House, and stated, that in consequence of
communications with the heads of their church, he was pre-
pared to offer, on their behalf, such securities as would take
from the concession of their demands all the danger
that the most timid could apprehend. A measure, founded
on that principle of security, was introduced; but a very short
time had elapsed before Mr. Grattan was compelled to state, in
his place in Parliament, that the authority with which the
Roman Catholic Prelates had invested him, to speak their
sentiments on their behalf, had been withdrawn, and Mr.
Grattan felt himself under the necessity of stating, that
when he had last the honour of addressing that House on
behalf of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he stated they were
willing to concede the security of the veto; that communication
he made in consequence of what had passed between him and the
Roman Catholic Bishops, and he was then sorry to say, that, not-
withstanding the pledge he had received from them, be was then
incapacitated from ratifying their undertaking. He declined to
mention the name of any individual; he would never defend him-
self at the expellee of one who had reposed confidence in him.—
Having detailed the particulars of their first retractation, I shall
now bring under the consideration of the House the next instance
in which the expectations of their friend' were disappointed. In
the year 1813, Mr. Grattan, in conjunction with a Right HR.
Friend whom Inow see
of security,
his place,
giving
einsaamneothveerto,Btihlle,
founded on the principle
same controul to the Crown and the Government. Again were
•I i
the same pledges given by the Roman Catholic Prelates, and again
did similar disappointments ensue. Mr. Grattan stated that the
veto was the only security they had to offer. Mr. Grattan thnught
that ample and sufficient. Through every stage of that Bill, did
the Roman Catholic Bishops permit Mr. Grattan to speak in
their name and in their behalf, and when the measure was on the
point of completion, they retracted, alleging, that the veto would
place them in a worse position than they were before. In conse-
quence of this second refusal the measure was lost in this House.
Having stated so much of the history of securities, I will come

from the year 1613 to 1825, and pass over the intermediate
period, when I think it will be most evident that the Roman
Catholics evinced a determination to give no security what-
ever.—(Much cheering.)—lt has been alleged that we are bi-
getted and intolerant, but I rebut the charge by the simple decla-
ration that the moment Roman Catholics can be admitted to poli-
tical power, without danger to the State, or detriment to the
Constitution, I, for one, shall not be ashamed to concur with all
the most illustrious men who have gone before me. But I will
ask, are we not bound to act with caution, when we find them
slipping out, one after another, from the pledges they bad given,
in the expectation, probably, that when the Legislature, and the
Government, were no longer able to resist them, all would be
granted without qualification, and their claims acceded to, on
their own terms. The discussion of 1825 must be fresh in the
recollection of all who hear me. It is now known that the secu-
rities then talked of, were perfectly delusive. New securities
were at different times, proposed, and alterations made in them,
as must be known to every gentleman having any thing like a
competent acquaintance with the subject. Why, Sir, without
adverting further to the alterations and omissions made in these
proposed securities, I will take the liberty to allude to one which
never could have been the result of accident, or inadvertence.--
I mean that most remarkable difference which occurs in the word-
ing of the oath proposed in the Bill of 1825, to be in future ad-
ministered to Roman Catholics ; that most remarkable omission,
as contrasted with the oath of 1793. In that oath, a clause
occurs, which makes every Roman Catholic swear, on accepting
place or office, that he will not do, or attempt to do, anything
calculated to alter, or interfere with, the established and existing

.. ~= _.
...e.- ii.s. • ti.:•
, ''.7..'lg
-
041-.,,, 47,
- ric
," , _../Pu--
zi4, '. . •
' ~5.r,,,4i.<,,,,;'.. 1;.0 ,:k ,' 2... . - ''s ' .."-- -..5. -',.:.- t.
i,1,-- - ---s,rllo`,.\\, 7.,....,144 j; 0. . :i.,• ~ o.'
t,,, ~.1-; 1• ' -.V.-*---"`,,,, .q',./07/1 5k,*;,,,i,',.... ,A4,i. •
' • liiq v. I ~ „ • ...,,,wmg, -,,witwiiiitilizi7.4 toil -40 , '4',',4-