The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-14 00:00:00

of the Noble Who had just eat down, Would tape the liberty • signs on the part of the Catholics running through more
to observe that it was utterly incapable of being supported than half a century, that he had proved by evidence the
by argument. The Noble Earl, whose motion was under most indisputable, and evinced by acts and supported by
their Lordships' consideration, had indulged in strictures oaths which the Catholics held as sacred as the Noble Lord
on a measure which bad already passed, and on a measure or any Member of that House held any oath they might
which had not yet been introduced, on a measure which was take—that the imputations against them were wholly nn -
beyond their Lordships' reach, and on a measure which had founded. The Catholics had throughout that period
not yet been submitted to them ; and with reference to the evinced their loyalty and their affection to the Govern-
last, the Noble Earl had argued on the presumption that latent by oaths and by acts, which the undeviating probity
that measure was to be taken as subversive of the Pro- of their character declared to be founded in honour and in
testant Constitution. Was this proper ? Was :it defen- I sincerity. Ile trusted there was no Noble Lord in that
Bible thus to scatter firebrands among the vulgar, though ' /louse who considered that the Catholics were persons
honest, portion of the community ; and to tell them that destitute of honour or of character. lie did not for an in-
the measure recommended to Parliament by the Throne stant allow himself to believe that any Noble Lord in that
was a violation of the Constitution ? At first he (Lord P ) House could take up the opiniona occasionally to be met
bad felt alarmed when the Noble Earl spoke of his know- with among the ignorant and the vulgar—that Catholics
' ledge of his Majesty's opinions. The beginning tithe Noble were men totally destitute of probity and of honour, and
Earl's sentence, " that lie had the best means of knowing that they were not to be dealt with, because they must not
that his Majesty would never give his consent," was alarm- be considered as entitled to belief upon their oath.—(Hear,
ing; but the conclusion of the sentence, "to any melt- hear.)—He knew that no Noble Lord entertained such an
sure subversive of the Constitution, or of the Protestant opinion of the Catholic:.—(Hear, hear.)—He knew that
form of Government," was perfectly satisfactory. In that they looked upon the Catholics as they deserved to be con-
opinion he perfectly coincided. The Noble Lord who had sidered ; and if, therefore, they were men of honour and of
just sat down had declared that the Catholic Association high feeling, sad if they were to be believed upon their
had been suffered to exist because the Government of Ire- oath, he would ask the Noble and Learned Lord upon what
land had not done its duty. The Administration of his principle he or any other Noble Lord could contend that
Noble Friends behind and near him shared, with all the the Catholics were ever disposed to take oaths which
Governments in Ireland since the first settlement of the they knew or felt to be false?—(Hear, hear.)—To the re-
English in that country, in the condemnation of turn which the Noble Lord required, he conceived there
the Noble Lord. As far as his (Lord I'lunkett's) could be no objection; but if it was the intention of the
testimony went, he begged to rescue the Administration of Noble and Learned Lord, or of any other Peer of that
his Noble Friends, and the Admiuistration of their prede. House, to deduce any argument from the nature of
cessors, from the imputation attempted to be thrown upon that return, he thought they ought to be reminded
them by the Noble Lord. lie did not remember any that the operation of the Act was the same upon
period in which the laws had not been fairly administered the Protestant as the Catholic; and be should therefore
in Ireland. The vice was in the laws themselves. It was move for a similar return of the number of Protestants and
impossible that any Government could administer such Dissenters who had taken the same oath. That oath, he
laws so as to give satisfaction to the people. It had been believed, had never been taken by either Protestant or
said that in Ireland there was one law for the rich and Catholic, unless when about to assume an office or for
another for the poor. He denied that such was the case. avoiding a penalty. The Noble Lord will find from that
He had had ample opportunities for observation, and he return, that the Protestants and the Catholics have in
would declare that no charge could be more unjust or un- every instance taken the oath, in cases where they were
founded. With respect to the Catholic Association, it compelled to do so, upon accepting office, or where it be-
would have been impossible to put it down by the force of came necessary to do so in order to avoid a penalty. In no
any existing law. It could only be accomplished by arm- instances, indeed, was it otherwise, unless, he believed, in
ing the Government with a summary power. The con- the case of those persons who were admitted into the Ca-
duct of the Noble Lord with respect to the Bill for sup- tholic seminary at Maynooth. He should take another
pressing the Association had indeed been extraordinary. and a fitter opportunity to refute the heavy and unjusti-
If there should hereafter occur any disposition to fiable slanders which have been heaped upon that establish-
evade the provisions of the law, to the Noble Earl ment. For the present he should content himself by
ob-
that disposition might be attributed ; for he had suf- serving, that no person could be a member of that college
fered the Bill to pass, and he now told the people of for even the space of three months without having taken
Ireland that it was a measure wholly ineffectual. Was these oaths to which the Noble Lord referred. The return
that the Noble Earl's duty as a Legislator? If he knew which he proposed to move for would have the number of
the law to be imperfect, why did he root tell their Lord- Protestants who had taken the oaths of allegiance, Belpre-
ships ? What legal authority was higher than that of the macy, and abjuration, and it would prove that no Pro-
Noble Earl ? But he allowed the Bill to pass, " with all testant or Dissenter load ever taken those oaths, unless they
its imperfections on its head," and then said to the people were forced upon him by situation. Was it possible, in-
of Ireland, "it is so imperfect a measure, that it will be deed, to imagine for a moment that any man, whether
easily in your power to evade it." It bad been asserted Protestant or Catholic, should come forward voluntarily
that there was a principle in the Common Law which and declare his strong inclination to take certain oaths
would have been sufficient for the purpose of putting down prescribed by Act of Parliament? If any man expressed
the Association. It would be a great satisfaction to him to such an inclination, he (Lord Plunkett) should be very
learn how. He would not say that a great part of the much inclined to suspect that such a person had some in-
proceedings of the Catholic Association was not contrary to direct object in that wish, by which ordinary men were
the spirit of the Common Law ; but he was nevertheless not likely to be affected.—(Hear).—ln order, therefore,
convinced thst any legal measure founded on its letter to show that no person had ever taken these oaths, unless
would have failed. It was a principle of the Common Law under such circumstances as he described, he should move
that the people of this country could be represented only in for a return of all Protestants and Dissenters who have
Parliament. These, therefore, who assumed to be the re- since the year 1813 taken the oaths of abjuration and
presentatives of the people were violating that principle of supremacy, as prescribed by the 23d of Geo. 111., and
the Common Law. But, if there was a law excluding afterwards adopted by the Irish Legislature in the Act
the people so represented from Parliament, how could of 1793.
those who endeavoured to remedy that grievance come The Earl of ELDON, so far from feeling any disincli-
within the operation of the Common Law ? With respect nation to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord,
to the petitions from the people of England on this sub-' should feel happy to second it. He thought, however,
ject, he willingly admitted that they manifested a most cor- that the Noble and Learned Lord had very much mistaken
dial attachment to the Constitution. But to argue, from the nature and object of the motion which he had submitted
the number or vehemence of these petitions, that the to their Lordships. The Noble Lord had indeed quite
measure proposed by his Majesty's Government misconceived the views upon which the information was
would be an infringement of that Constitution, was to required. Their Lordships had heard and knew that it was
argue erroneously. Was any measure proposed to take the intention of his Majesty's Government to admit the
from the Protestants any part of their privileges ? To Catholics to political power, and that in doing so they were
take from the Protestants for the purpose of giving to to take from them certain securities for the maintenance of
the Catholics, to take from A to give to B, would be a the inviolability of the Protestant Establishments. If,
robbery. But was it not evident that the present pro- however, they were to have securities at all, it was the object
ceeding bad no character of that description, but was of Parliament to take care that those securities should be as
founded on a high State necessity ? Isle would not say effectual as possible. He denied that he bad even con-
that at the time of tire Union the Catholics of Ireland templated, as the Noble Lord seemed to imagine, the failure

of the Protestant issue of the House of Brunswick. On
the contrary, he prayed most sincerely and fervently
for the continuance of that succession, and that God
might give them length of days in the land over which
they ruled in honour. He did not, however, think that
the Niible Lord had applied himself to the purpose of
the motion, when he went into a detail of the proceed-
ings previous to 1793. What was it to those who wished
information upon the subject of the taking of their oaths that
such and such things had taken place previous to that year?
He confessed himself indeed unable to comprehend the bearing
of some of the Noble Lord's observations. Neither did he un-
derstand what the Noble Lord on the Woolsack meant by
imputing to him an attempt to influence their Lordships by
insinuation. He would tell that Noble Lord that he could
not continue to call that man a friend who imputed to him
such an attempt ; and when the Noble Lord talked of insi-
nuations, he would remind him that he (Lord Eldon) had
been, at least, consistent in his political course with reference
to the question which now agitated the country. The
Noble Lord then proceeded to contend, in reply to another
observation of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, that the
Act for dissolving the Association was totally unnecessary.
It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, although
the Noble Lord charged him with remaining silent, that he
had observed, more than once, when the subject was under
consideration, that the law in Ireland must be very different
from the law of England, or the powers provided at common
law for the suppression of such Associations were quite suf-
ficient without the assistance of the Legislature. He had
said snore than once, that the Noble and Learned Lord
(Lord Plunkett) must have been unable to procure evi-
dence of the seditious and treasonable proceedings of the
Association, or the common law would have been found
quite sufficient for the punishment of the offenders. The
law in England had been found quite sufficient for putting
down the affiliated societies who threatened a meeting at
York, and he had snore than once expressed his surprise
that the law which could be rendered so effectual in Eng-
land was wholly inapplicable to Ireland. After some fur-
ther observations upon the subject of the misapprehension
of his meaning, which he attributed to the Noble and
Learned Lord (Lard Plunkett), the Noble Earl concluded
by declaring, that be did not feel himself called upon to
answer the observations of the Noble Lord on the Wool-
sack when he was told by that Noble Lord that he (Lord
Eldon) evaded the honest expression of his opinions, and
attempted to convey his hostility by insinuations.—(blear,
hear.)—To the observations of that Noble Lord he would
not condescend to reply, but he would call upon him to
make his accusations consistent with the character which
he had held in that House for the space of near fifty years.
The Duke of 'WELLINGTON was induced to offer a
few remarks, principally with a view of prevailing upon
both his Noble Friends to withdraw their resolutions. If
instead of these resolutions an Act of Indemnity were in-
troduced for relieving Catholics who had omitted to take
an oath, for the not taking of which no blame could attach,
every reasonable object which Noble Lords could require
would be obtained. The oath was not one that it was
likely every Roman Catholic would he called upon to take ;
but (as we understood the Noble Duke) it was an oath
like that introduced into a Bill now in progress through
another House, which persons called upon to fill particular
offices may be required to take, but it was not one that
every Roman Catholic was called upon to take ; so that
the omission to qualify according to the Act could not be
the cause of any great blame, or for which there could be
any strong ground for refusing to indemnify for the
omission of it. (The Noble Duke was so indistinctly
heard in the new place allotted to the Reporters, that we
can only undertake, in the above passage of his speech, to
give an imperfect outline of what he was understood to
say.) I cannot forbear from availing myself, continued
the Noble Duke, of this opportunity to animadvert upon
the inconvenience that arises from the frequent allusion that
is mule to a Bill now in another place. It would he hr
more convenient to delay these and any similar remarks
upon the measure until (should the present Bill pasts
through another place) it came as a matured measure, fairly
submitted to the consideration of your Lordships. The
discussion upon this question has been anticipated here, not
quite regularly or fairly, by describing it as an attempt to
introduce arbitrary power—as an attempt to subvert the
ini in part it has
Constitution—to violate the Coronation Oath—and under-
mine the Established Religion of the Country. This has
keen
been a
conveyed„erted partly.
But,assertion, allow me to say (what I am prepared to prove)
byw insinuation,ete whether
conveyed
andb
by insinuation or
that it is unfounded. Meanwhile, I would suggest that it
would be better that these topics; should be left out of dis-
cussion until the subject to which such constant reference
is made comes regularly under your Lordships' notice.—
Until the question which will be brought forward pur-
suant to the gracious recommendation from the Throne
shall be submitted fairly to the House, such assertions
as I have adverted to should be laid aside. With re-
spect to the Law for the Suppression of the Associa-
tion that had been passed in 1825, it was true that
that Act was not effective, and it was found necessary to
amend the Act in this Session of Parliament. I would

were absolutely promised Emancipation; hut he would say
that they had been led strongly to expect it, although he
would not at that moment go into the evidence to prove it.
He should new take leave to say a few words upon the
motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. He did not
think that Noble and Learned Lord bad dealt quite fairly
with the people of Ireland in the course he had pursued
with reference to this question; and in his opinion, a
simple s►tatement of the facts which attended the passing of
the Acts to which the Noble Earl alluded, would be suffi-
cient to satisfy their Lordships that the fears, which
seemed to be the foundation of the motion, were wholly
unfounded. The first Act which contained the declara-
tion to which the Noble Earl referred, was the Act passed
in 1774, in the 13th and 14th years of the reign of the
late King. After that came the Act of 1778—commonly
called the 18th of Geo. 111., and it was not a little singular
that the Act of 1778 adopted the exact phraseology
of the Act of 1774. The Noble Earl seemed to look
upon that Act as if it had been invented for some
ulterior purpose by the Catholics themselves ; and it
was not a little extraordinary that the Act was not intro-
duced by any advocate of the Roman Catholics, or by any
of those who were considered even favourable to their
claims. That Act was introduced by two of the most
distinguished men known to the history of this country,
as well as the most devoted to the protection of the rights
and privileges of the Established Church. He alluded to
Sir George Saville, and Mr. Dunning. Of Sir George
Saville it was impossible for any man to speak without the
highest respect, and no man could hear the name of Dunning
without admitting him to have been one of the
most accomplished Lawyers and most eloquent Statesmen
who ever sat in either House of Parliament. The Aet
which contains that declaration to which the Noble Lord
referred, was introduced into the House of Commons by
Sir George Saville, and supported by Mr. Dunning ; and
it was still further remarkable, that it was taken up by
Lord Thurlow and supported by his authority in the House
of Lords. This Act, so introduced and so supported, was
now, it appeared, to be construed into a crime upon the
part of the Catholics, and as having been invented and
adopted by them for some purpose which after ages were
to bring to light, but of which they were in these days to see
the accomplishment. If the subject was not too serious, and
if the consequences of such opinions were not likely to be pro.
ductive of mischief, it really might be said there was some-
thing absolutely ludicrous in the arguments attempted to be
deduced from the passing of that Act. It was, iu fact, at.
tempted to be insinuated that the Act thus introduced by Mr.
Dunning and Sir George Saville, although avowedly pro
posing to secure allegiance to the House of Brunswick,
was so managed as to be intended to anticipate an altera-
tion in the succession when a Member of that House might
come to the Throne of this Kingdom who was not a Pro-
testant.—(Hear, hear.)—That in truth there was a con-
spiracy on the part of the Catholics of that day to provide
for some contingency which might take place during the
present period.---(Hear, hear. )—And still more, that it
was to the prosecution of that conspiracy all the efforts of
the Catholics were now directed. The Noble and Learned
Lord then proceeded to detail the history of the adoption of
the words of these Acts by Leland, and observed that when
the Irish Houses of Parliament found these Acts adopted by.
the English Parliament with reference to the English Ca-
tholics, they thought it right and proper to follow their
example. Even the Act of 1793, passed by the Irish Par-
liament, was, however, the Act of the Government of Ire-
land, and introduced by the then Secretary of the Lord
Lieutenant—a fact which he conceived went far to prove
that the Noble and Learned Lord was mistaken in the in-
ferences which he seemed disposed to draw from the passing
of these Acts. After observing that the Catholics had never
refused to take the oaths, the Noble Lord proceeded to say
that the conduct of the Catholics, if ether evidence was
wanting, formed an unanswerable argument against the opi-
nions of the Noble and Learned Lord ; what went farthest
in his opinion to shake the authority of the Noble Lord, was
the known fact, that when the Bill of 1813 was intro-
duced, no objection was even made to that oath which
formed the subject of the present discussion. That Bill
was canvassed and discussed and protested against by all
classes and all parties in Ireland; but among all the scru-
ples and doubts and objections to which it gave rise, not
one word was ever said upon the subject of that oath of
1791, to which the Nol•le Lord's motion refers.„,, From
what had taken, place, however, he thought himself bound
to give some explanation of the change introduced, with
reference to the oath, into the Bill of 1825, as compared
with the Bills of 1793 and 1815. In the Bill which he
had the honour to introduce in the House of Commons in
1825, the oath to which the motion of the Noble Lord
refers was not introduced, and for this reason, that it was
intended at that time to compel both Catholics and Pro-
testants to take an oath in common. The oath of alle-
giance was, therefore, substituted, and the oath of the Bill
of 1'793 emitted. In 1825, therefore, the Noble Lord
would see there was no such conspiracy as he seemed to
impute to the Catholics, although it would seem that as
far back an 1774 that conspiracy was concocted.—(Hear.)
He trusted, however, notwithstanding this evidence of de-