The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-06 00:00:00

consideration, I thought it my duty to consult my revered
friend, Lord Liverpool, upon it, and that lamented
Nobleman was of opinion that it was impossible to refuse
receiving anv address of the Catholic Bishops in that
character. That, my Lord alas my own epinien.
Every one tereo‘e, that they are as much Bishops
at those of the Protestant Church. Every one knows
that ordination has the same effect, in both eases, !low
then wa' it possible to advi his Majesty not to receive
theot rne character in which they presented
themselves? They did not come as a titular Bishop
of Limerick, or any other place, but simply ae Bishops.
The Noble Lord has mitt that they came. in their
full neraptanalia and were received eieith ail the re-
peet aoil deference due to Protestant Bishepleeee(lleal,
hear.)—l alit not Vrry certain as to that fact, but
I think it would he rather an awkward thing if, when
they elained an audience of the King in the closet, a Se-
cretary of State, or any person in, i:teenii-eeee'e oh 26 Majesty,
were to say,,you canN,";appear thus, you must go back and
put off yoni td'ess. Allow me here, my Lords, to say that the
Metithete; of the Convocations had presented addresses net
only to the King in the closet, bet Cr. the Throne.
The next charge of tlit, 'Noble Lord alluded to
a change the system of his Majesty's Government,
*:4s intimated in a letter to my Noble Friend opposite. But
I do not find one word in that letter to justify such a
charge. It has been said that the Government would
be acting unfairly:, if, after the suppression of the Ca-
Atekiation, this measure of relief was not passed.
It should be recollected, hoWeVer, that in the Ring's
speech the recommendation to Peeliatlint was to take into
consideration the whole condition of Ireland. How,
will ask, has an opportunity been afforded for such
cr;nsideration? What assurance have your Lordships had that
title measure will paette that country ? I confess, my
Lords, that I, for one, would be sttrry td deCih on a qiies-
tion of such vital inaportanee, without feller and better
inferniatien tithes that contained in the speech of the
buke. My Lords, what enquiry has taken
place? What do we know about the condition of
Ireland? at least, what do we know of it from that au-
thentic source to which we are bound to look for infor-
mation? I should have thought before the introduction of
any measure of relief, the recommendation of his Majesty
in his speech te: Parliament should have been complied
with, and that the condition of Ireland, the object to which
the attention of Parliament was peculiarly directed, won'd
have formed the subject of enquiry in a Committee of the
whole House. Nothing of this sort, my Lords, has been
done, and am afraid that your Lordships will get no fur-
ther information upon the subject than that which has been
given by the Noble Duke. The Noble Lord continued :
he did not expect to be able to say any thing to induce
some of their Lordships to depart from the course which
they teamed determined to adopt, though he should sue-
ceed in convincing them that the course was fraught with
difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers of all sorts to
the Constitution. But what was the plea upon which they
were called upon to pass this measure ? The influence of
the Catholic Association was talked of—its terrors magni-
fied ! For his part, he should be disingenuous indeed,
to withhold from Ministers the praise of sincerity. He
had himself been a member of administration, but he never
affixed distrust to the motives of his colleagues who differed
in opinion from him.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was but fair to
say, that lie believed no set of men could be influenced
by greater regard for the Constitution of this country than
his Majesty's present Ministers were.—(Hear.)—lt did
not follow, however, that he was of necessity to take
for granted that all their measures were of the most judici
ens kind. Quite the contrary, respect was one thing, con-
fidence another—but a blind and indiscriminating re-
liance upon the infallibility of any set of men, was a de-
gree of self-denial to which he could not pretend. What
then was his opinion of the present measure? Did he
think that under the present conjuncture of affairs in Ire-
land nothing ought to be done? Certainly not. He agreed
that that country was, and had ever been, in a condition
to require the closest attention of the Members of Govern-
ment, and no man was less disposed than he to withhold
a remedy, when a proper remedy was pointed out.—
But whence came this organization—whence this dismem-
berment of the parts of the body social and politic ? Were
its cause to be found in the misconduct of administrations,
the errors of Government—the abuses of law? No, the
evils of Ireland were a laxity of rule, a too great mode-
ration in authority—a connivance at the proceedings of
agitaters and disturbers. The Catholic Association was
the fruitful parent of all these evils—to that fertile
source were all the grievances to be traced. He would ask,
for it really was necessary to ask—whet was the Catholic
Association.—what were its attributes—what its character?
Was this the Association which had been already de-
nounced as the disturber of the public peace in Ireland—as
the proscribed of the peaceful citizens of that country,
of the King's Ministers, and of the two Houses of
Parliament?—(Hear.) Was it decent, then, to adduce
the existence of such a body as an argument in the discus-

,ion of any great question? Their Lordships bad been
solemnly told, in the Speech from the Throne, in a former
Session, that this Association was dangerous to the public
peace—that it was at variance with the Constitution.
Was it not upon these grounds, and these only, that
the Bill for its suppression was asked—that it was
passed? The evils of Ireland were then traced to this
cause, and the suggestion was, that by removing the cause
you destroy the effect. Why not do the same now? In
what respect had things altered in Ireland, that
the same piescription for the malady, (which had
not changed its character) ;night not be effectual ?
But they were told that things had changed—that
it was no longer safe to put down the Association, as an

_ .
integral measure. Nay, it was said, that so affectionate
was the House of Commons become of this favourite
body, that it would never consent to its suppression by
law, unless some other measure, by way of indemni-
fication, was made congenial with that extinguish-
ment. What, then, were we come to that paAs, that conces-

sion was the only bash; of our legislation? Were we in future
to pass no law, without first throwing a sop to the people
of Ireland, in order that they would be pleased to con-
descend to submit to our imperial legislation? This was
the language used by some of the supporters of this
measure—others thought that it was not enough for the re-
turn, which they affected to say was paid for it—others,
that require no terms. Ought the forty-shilling freeholders
of Ireland to be disfranchised ? To the first he should say,
that he was unwilling to believe that the House of Com-
mons would so stultify itself, as having a few years ago
passed a Bill for the suppression of the Catholic Associa-
tion, and thereby acknowledged the principle, it would
now refuse to adopt the same measure. To the others,
that this was in fact no price at all—because, looking at
all the various circumstances under which the Catholic
Government got the elective franchise, it would be seen
that it was not contemplated by the Legisl Owe to give
them that extent of political rights which they had since
used and abused ; what a Noble Earl had said upon a
former occasion in his place, was unhappily but too true,
that the use which the Catholic freeholders had made of

the boon of 1795, was a good sample of the manner in
which they would hereafter pervert any further con-
cessions which might be made to them—namely, to the
advancement of their political power, and the overthrow
of the Church and Constitution. The predictions which
haft been made of the effect of that measure, while it
was under discussion in the Irish Parliament, was
soon after fearfully realized by the result.—(Hear,
hear, bear.)—lt was then said, however, that the effect
of the measure would be to cause a splitting of freeholds
—a minute subdivision of property by the landlords—an
ultimate encouragement to early and improvident mar-
riages, and in fact to every thing which would tend to
foster idleness and improvidence.—(Hear.)—Had these
predictions been belied—had they not been fulfilled to the
letter in the state of Ireland ? The most eminent men
of that day—the Lord Clare—and the then Speaker of
the Irish House of Commons, Mr. Foster, were amongst
the great opponents of this measure. They deprecated in the
strongest terms the power which had been given to theCatho-
lie freeholders. He was of opinion that the measure to which
he confessed he brought his mind with reluctance to agree,
was justified by the circumstances and by the evidence
which was offered to Parliament some years ago. He
.

. .
(Lord Sidmouth) should not therefore oppase the
measure for the raising the Elective Franchise, as
unconnected with the others,. and so far from throwing
obstr.cles in its way he should give it his warmest support.
But he must be understood as not including in that pledge
of support the other measures by which that Bill was ac

corcianied. What, then, was to be done? Were we to
remain as we were, or make a change, cost what it might ?
This question had been asked in the other House, but to this
he had not received any satisfactory answer. What the
(M-r. Hon Gent. (r. Peel) was unable to solve, he

(Lord S.) would offer to explain. Better, far better, he
should say, remain as we are, than make unworthy sacrifices.
(Cheers. )—lf we had a chance of continuing to remain as we
are, the way to accomplish that was not to recede, not to
give fresh power to our enemies. But admitting that some-
thing must be done—did it follow that this was exactly
the step which we ought to take? Was this a remedy fur

the admitted evils of Ireland—was it not a confusion
of terms to call it so? It had not a symptom of a
remedial measure. The evils of Ireland were long admit-
ted to be poverty, ignorance, and bigotry.—(Hear.)—
Which of these would Catholic emancipation remove ?
Rid the people—the poor benighted people—of the tram-
mels of prieeteraft ; that wee the true •ad statisnaltulike