The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-19 00:00:00

men say that I avoid this discussion because I cannot meet
it. That is their argument. I do not concur with that
argument. I concur with the Hon. Member for Liverpool,
and I say, that his Majesty's speech (lid not order his Minis-
ters, at seven days' notice, to bring in this Bill. No such
thing. I say, Sir, that the King's speech ordered us to take
into consideration the whole state and condition of the people
of Ireland. Have we entered upon that consideration ?
Have we had any information upon it front the Noble Lord
the Member for Cambridge, or from others, upon the in-
ternal state of Ireland ? Yet the measure professes to pro-
ceed upon the necessity which the state of the country pre-
sents to his Majesty's Ministers. The wages of labour—
the pours' rates—the commerce—the manufactures— all that
relates to the internal state of the country, has been
often urged as the ground for this measure. I say, Sir, if
that is the principle, as it was stated to be in his Majesty's
speech, I must say that this is a sudden, an unadvised,
and a hasty measure of Catholic Emancipation; and that,
if the King's Mir.isters had followed, as they ought to have
done, the orders in his Majesty's speech, they would have
gone into a,Cemmittee on the state of Ireland, in order to
find out and report on the actual condition of that country,
before they brought in any measure to remedy, as they say,
the evils existing there. I know, Sir, I am right in what
I say, that there is no man who supports the question of
Catholic Emancipation that does not do it more on general
grounds, applying to Ireland, than on the single insulated
portion of the question which relates to this country. Yet,
Sir, without notice or inquiry, and after the lapse of seven
days front the time I first heard of the measure, was this
measure brought in, without taking into consideration,
either in the whole or in part, the state of Ireland. Why,
Sir, distressing as it is for me to take the liberty of dissent-
ing from those with whom I have formerly had the honour
to act, I must do so on the present occasion. At the same
time, however, I will say that I do not differ from- them
as an individual only; for if I did, I should instantly
make a genuflexion. I should plead guilty to the
charge of presumption, but I do not do so because I
have with me all the people of England. I do not merely
Say tjtat I, as an individual had no reason to suppose that
this measure was about to be introduced; but I declare
that no Member of the Cabinet, seven days before his Ma-
jesty's speech was delivered, had notice of the matter ; and
that the Members of this House—of the Protestant party
—not believing that they were to be deserted and betrayed,
did not believe that such a measure would be proposed,
and sail, they would never believe it until they heard you,
Sir, announce it from the Chair.—(Loud cheering.)—
The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent, has said, that
we were cast off. I agree with him ; we were turned out
of the ranks without cause, and without notice. I find
nothing in the Almanack history of this country that re-
sembles this—nothing aut simile, out sccundum. It
stands by itself—it has no parallel. There is nothing be-
fore, I trust there will be nothing after, that will resemble
it. I have lately been amusing myself with reading over
some of Skakspeare's plays, and in them there is a cele-
brated character, a leader of party, one Sir John Falstaff
who much resembles my Right Hon. Friend. On this
question my Right Honourable Friend has no doubt
said to himself, " On a former occasion this question
has been discussed in Parliament, and I have been left
in a minority—there were only four to form the ma-
jority certainly—ethe Protestant firm was strong enough ;
but there was a majority, which, though only four, was
yet a majority : the Protestant regiment was outnum-
bered, though, to be sure, it was only six short of the Ca-
tholics." This reflection ought to have consoled him ; but
" No," says this Protestant leader of party, like Falstaff
of old, " I'll not march through Coventry with such ra-
gamuffins."—(Loud and continued laughter and cheering.)
—" No, I'll not march with these rascals—l will take
my own course ;" and the regiment, though it was not
disbanded, was left without a leader ; but the 160 in one
respect thought proper to imitate their leader's example—
they have taken their own course, and they do now follow
other leadsrs.—(Hear, hear.)—We have been told that on
this subject we ought not to be acrimonious, and I hope I
have not been so.—(Loud laughter.)—l can assure you,
Sir, that 1 have spoken as much as poseible without any
degree of acrimony. I unfortunately differ from my Right
Hon. Friend in political maxims, but es to the social prin..
ciple of good-nature I can and will obsequieu,ly fellow up
his example. So, Sir, in this House the old Protestant firm
—a very valuable firm—the firm of Pod and .t. is die-
solved.—(Laughter.)—They are broken up, though they
had 400 con .taut customers, and though the partners are
the same in respectability, in character, and in worth. In
all respects they are the equals of the rival bank, they
are short only six in number, but they are a disbanded
firm. But they have net deserted themselves—they have
formed into a new firm, though with new names at their
head. How their name will run in future I know not—
whether it will run in these words, " Chanting, Knatelibull,
Banker, and Co." it is impossible to say—l know not—l
care not. It matters little whether it has two or three
partners at its head, but with that firm, as a private and
Bumble individual, I mean to keep myself attached.—
(Cheers.)--I do not state this in what any body can call
morose language.—(Laughter.)—lf I had said any thing
ill-natured, I should regret it. here we are, dispersed and
disbanded as a body, without leaders; but though without
leaders, the persons who composed the body have, as indi-
viduals, resolved to maintain those propositions and those
principles which the leader of the firm forme, ly supported.
(Cheers.)—l have to thank the House for the indulgence
with which they have listened to ine. Perhaps they may
think me like the Catholics, and that if I sey I ask little, I
shall nevertheless take too much.—(Cheers, and cries of
" No, no.")—I have taken the liberty of discussing the
grave constitutional point with the Noble Lord, the
Member for Yorkshire, and having done so, and having
also discussed the question of consistency with other
Gentlemen, I shall now take the liberty of proceeding
with this Bill.—(Cheers.)--Many Gentlemen leave argued
on this question—men of eloquence and . speculation,
but not one among them has taken the trouble to refer
to the Bill itself. Sir, I have done that ; and I say that
it is a measure by which you concede to the Catholics the
power of going into Parliament, or into office, and, as
it is said, without prejudice to the rights and privileges
of the Church, of the King, of the people generally. Gen-
tlemen, I say, will not look into the Bill itself, and I have
been obliged to do so, and though I consider myself as not
the Attorney-General, yet I am compelled to perform the
office of the Attorney-General, and to do that which has
not hitherto been done on the part of the Ministers, to ex-
plain to the House the nature of the Bill before them. I
am here. nclens volens, to perform this duty. I say it is
a monstrous Bill, and able as are the Noble Lord, the
Member for Yorkshire, and the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, the eminent Historian—(cries of order, order,)
if I might, I would take the liberty of asking the Noble
Lord whether he understands the Bill; but if I did ask
him that question, I strongly suspect that hie answer would
chew he did not understand it. I will therefore attempt to
describe it. In the Bill is an oath. When the measure
was opened to this House, my Right Hon. Friend said that
it was right to have an oath which Catholics might take,
and accordingly be proposed one to Parliament to be sub-
stituted for the oaths of supremacy and abjuration. The
Bill, therefore, says, that when a Catholic comes into
office, he shall say, " I am a Catholic, and being a Cutho-
lie I claim to take that oath which this Bill has provided ;"
but, unfortunately, my Right Hon. Friend has struck out
the oath, and there is no oath for the Catholic to take. If
there is in the Bill an oath which any other man might take
by swearing he is a Catholic, lie is entitled to the privilege
which the Bill gives him, namely, that he is not compellod
to submit to those tests which the security of our religion
requires. The oaths in this Bill do not, however, require
him to say whether he is a Catholic or not, and any man may
take these oaths whether he is or is not a Catholic—(Cheers.)
—Hon. Members may cheer that, but if they do, I tell them
that they are cheering the maxim of King James, who was
for admitting all men into the Privy Council, with full
liberty of conscience, saying of each, " I will not ask him
what he is." I tell them that they are not thee: ing me,
but cheering my Right Hen. Friend, and in him they are
cheering King James IL—they do not cheer me.—(Laugh-
ter and cheers.)—But I say it is so—l say that any man
may gain admission into any office without taking oaths
that secure the Church or Government of England. The
principle of the Rill is, that if any man will come forward
and swear he is a Catholic, he may take the oath there
provided. Without going into any other thing relating to
this part of the subject, I will merely take the liberty of
calling the attention of the House to the oath to be taken
by the Prime Minister. There is in the Bill a clause con-
ferring a general capacity fur office. To all offices, say
the Catholic Emancipatore, all men are fit to be admitted.
No, says the Bill, for all ecclesiastical patronage, and all
ecclesiastical appointments, are to be separated from offices
held by a Catholic. I apply that to a Prime Minister,
whose Church patronage is to be vested in Commissioners.
I have never heard that Catholics are unambitious persons;
that they are willing to exercise some of the
powers
of
office without enjoying all their patronage and privilege.
I have never heard that in this case they are unlike other
• men, and yet unlike they must he if they consent to receive
• admission to offices, from which a large portion of power
and patronage is to be taken off the moment they become
i possessed of them ; and welt must be the case with the
Prime Minister, if lie consents to have Commissioners
, earned to exercise and dispense the ecclesiastical patronage
that belongs to his office. if we have a Catholic Prune
t Minister, we are, however, to have a Protestant Lord
. Chancellor—Lord Lyndhurst, for instance.—(Hear, hear.)

—New, really, do Gentlemen mean to contend, that
with his eminent talents he is or would be likely so vi-
gorously to conduct himself in the defence of the Church
against the Catholics, as to acquire a title from the present
or intended Pope (for I don't know whether he is yet
elected. or whether he is to he Frenchman, Spaniard, or
It dian)—to acoeire, I say, from the Pope a title similar to
that which wee once cenferred on a Kies of these realms,
and to be c tiled the " Defender of the Protestant Faith ?"
We are, as I said before, to have a Catholic Prime Minis-
ter; but we are to have a Protestant Chancellor, who is
to name all the livings, emoluments, rank, and dignity of
the English Church. The Prime Minister is not to do
this, but the Lord Chancellor. Do but look at the Alma-
neck History of this country, and see how such a scheme
is likely to answer. Lord Shaftesbury and Jeffries have
both been Protestant Chancellors under such circum-
stances. Would any man trust a commission which such
a Chancellor should put his seal to? What did Jeffries
du? He issued his warrant to commit the seven Bishops
to the 'rower, and contributed all in his power to pro-
cure their conviction ; and though he was a Protestant
Chancellor, was as subservient to the introduction of
Catholicity into this country as almost any Catholic could
have been. I say, Sir, therefore, that it is an idle, a
ridiculous, a contemptible pretence, to say that the
Chancellor shall, under the Great Seal, appoint a Com-
mission which shall have the power of disposing of
the wealth, the dignity, the rank, the jurisdiction
of the Ministers of the Church of England. It will
he as ridiculous to rely on future Chancellors, as
it formerly was, in:the reign of Charles 11., to rely on
the Protestant Chancellor Shaftesbury, or, in the reign of
James 11., to rely on the Protestant Chancellor Jeffries.
But who are to be the Members of this Commission ? Of
course the First Lord of the Trtasury, whose powers they
will exercise, will not even know their names, or the
places in which they live ; he will be as ignorant of them
as if they resided in New Holland. Will he? Is not
this all trickery, as gross as that practised in the shop of
an advertising money lender? When a man urgently in
want of money applies to such a person to procure him
cash at any rate, he is answered, " I never do any thing
but in the regular line; there is, however, a Moses Moses,
who lives at No. 2, in some alley, in some court, and he
will be able to accommodate you." Just so is this Bill
with respect to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the
satellites that, in the shape of Commissioners, are to re-
volve round the Chancellor. The First Lord of the
Treasury will not know where they live—the Lord Chan-
cellor will, but then the Prime Minister may not have the
power of making the Lord Chancellor do what is not right,
he may not be able to compel him to do as he pleases, but,
Sir, we must guard against such a danger ; the times have
been, and the times are, when want of pliability has not
been among the faults of a Lord Chancellor.—(Cheering.)
I repeat, Sir, that this security is ridiculous, insulting,
and contemptible.—(Cheers.)—Again, say the Catholic
emancipators, we insist on capacity for office, on the ab-
stract indefeasible right of all men to office. No, says the
Bill, that won't do ; all of you may be Officers of the Go-
vernment, but you must not exercise all the powers of your
offices. I say, that all this to me is strong in support of
my argument in this caw., because, while capacity is as-
serted in one clause, incapacity is insisted on in another.
The course I am pursuing is, therefore, the necessary duty,
and the language I use the language of an adherent to the
Protestant faith, and, above all, it ought to be the language
of all who are determined not to apostatise. Who, I ask,
is to select those Commissioners ? Will they be selected
by the honest Protestant; by the Protestant who lhas
apostatised; or by the Protestant who will not apostatise ?
—(Cheers.)—The Bill, Sir, confuses itself--its proposi-
tions are contradictions in terms—it asserts at the same
time capacity and incapacity. It acknowledges—nay
avows the existence of danger and provides no remedy.
Well, but this is to be the law. I would not condescend
to frame such a Bill. No Minister in this country—no
man in this realm, :should compel me so to stultify
myself. I refused to draw it—l would not be guilty
of such folly—such inconsistency—as that which must
accumulate upon the head of the man who drew it. I
said—you may turn me out of office, but I will
never consent to be the dirty tool to draw such a
Bill.—(Cheers and laughter.)—l would not soil my hands
with it ; I wculd not defile my pen—l would not waste my
p iper in committing such a gross dereliction of duty. I
would not, at the same time, forfeit the character of a than
of common tense, of common sincerity, and of common
truth, 1 therefore said at once, I'll have nothing to do
with it. Such an incongruous mass I've never seer.
We have been told fair months past, that some desideratum
has been discovered to reconcile Protestant security with the
grant of the Catholic claims; some course in medio, that
formed a good ground of confidence, that whatever was
conceded, there should he sufficient security for the inte-
rests of the church. Among the clauses of the Bill there
is one, that any man who advises the King to grant away
any ecclesiastical preferments for the benefit of Catholics
shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall hold office no
longer. This is said to be a security against any Catholie
Minister ; but may I be permitted to ask who can prove
this offence against a Catholic Minister? Certainly not
one of his colleagues, for they are bound by oath to keep
the secrets of office, so that the smile clause which creates
the offence goes far to create an absolute incapacity to con-
vict for that offence.—(Cheers.)—l look to the other
clauses which profess to protect the church, its doctrines,
discipline, and Government. My Right Hon. Friend
says, " I will not establish Catholic Bishops eo nonaine,
but I will arrange it through a money medium. I will
not allow Catholics to become Archbishops of Armagh or
Tuam, but if they do assume the title they shall pay 501.
penalty for the offence." And that is the proportion of
penalty which I observed throughout this Bill, the sum of
2001. being the heaviest penalty inflicted for any offence.
So that the whole protection afforded to the Church
of England consists in penalties of from 50/. to 2001.
I find in the Bill no power of Veto—no power of domestic
nomination—no controul—no approbation; only if a man
chuses to call himself Archdeacon of Dublin or Archbishop
of Troy—(laughter)—he shall be subject to a penalty of
501. We are directed by my Right Hon. Friend to discuss
this subject in a pleasant mood, and I hope I am not un-
pleasant ; but let us in our pleasantry recollect that there is
such a thing as Catholic Rent, which will pay all these pe-
nalties and more than ten times over—that will set at
nought all this penal protection—this Custom-house tariff
table of 50/., of 1001., and of 2001. imposts. There will
be constantly in hand a sum which will render all these
penalties almost as ridiculous and ineffectual as the Si., V.,
or Si. penalty upon a gentleman for killing a hare. As to
the Protestant Church, the Protestant Commonwealth, the
Protestant community of England, they are to be disre-
garded, or at least we are to exchange the principles esta-
blished at the Revolution, the conditions on which our
Illustrious Royee. Family hold the throne, for paltry penal-
ties and miserable mulcts, the whole of which the recovers
of the Catholic rent may lay down at once upon the table,
and laugh at those who demand them. I am sensible of the
indulgence the House has shown me. I thank it for that
indulgence, and I will therefore, trespass upon its pa-
tience but a few moments longer. I have examined, not
the facts of the case, but the topics of my Hon. Friend.—
There is, however, one topic which he has not introduced.
One of the Articles of the Bill of Rights was the title of the
people to petition. I beg to say that that right has, on
many recent occasions, been uncourteously, if not rudely
treated. Expressions of this sort have been used, al-
though I cannot state exactly where—" That to petition
and to remonstrate on this subject was faction." If it be
faction, it is faction in which the whole British people
partake.—(Hear, hear.)—lt is faction which they have
shown ever since King John's Charter declared that they
should have their rights, liberties, and property preserved
to them, for that is the very language.of the Great Char-
ter. But now we are told it is the exercise of a factious
right to pray for the protection of the Protestant religion.
I widely and irreconcilably, although I allow painfully,
differ from my Right Hon. Friend when he asserts that
this is not a question of religion. Is it a religious ques-
tion when Protestantism is secured to Scotland by the
articles of her Union ? is it a religious question when
Protestantism is secured to Ireland by the articles of her
Union? Is it a religious question when Protestantism
has been secured to England by all the laws since the
reign of Henry VIII ? The question is more religious
than political. I allow that it is mixed; but the decided
predominance
tbie,eflaacrit
uuasgefoorfi stiie•ee
people
a lilee,
Marquess
not political.
Lord-Lieutenant
then,
tliten2 it
adoptt
of Ireland. I know not why he was recalled, but ha told
the people of England in his letter, " Go on; legally and
constitutionally pursue your rights." I borrow that ex-
pression—l, too, say to the people of England, " Go on :
legally and constitutionally pursue your rights! Demand
your rights—be true to yourselves and to your prineiphs
—do not apostatise, but maintain your rights, your religion,
and your libel ties to the last." There are many individual
topics upon which I should wish to touch, fedi at this late
hour it is impossible to do sc. As I before said, I have
most reluctantly—against every wish and every feeling—
been compelled, driven to this course : without the dere-
liction of every principle, and the destruction of all sense
ofjustice, I could not maintain a different line of conduct
to that which I have hitherto pursued. As a private and
aninsulated individual, I have stated ney convictione ;
what they have been, what they are, and what they sviil
Ise : and never, from any temptation of office, or hope of
reward, will I abandon or seouliate thew. Therefore, as

an Attorney-General, I thought the measure tte death
warrant of the Church of England : I had no choice bu t
to refuse at once to draw such a Bill ; and in every stage
I will give it my hearty, though humble opposition.—(The
most vehement cheering continued for several minutes after
the Attorney-General had resumed his seat.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL rose in the midst of the confusion,
and stood waiting for a hearing. About three-fourths, he
said, of the debate upon the principle of this Bill—about
three-fourths of the defence of the sacred cause of the Pro-
testant Constitution, had turned upon personal charges and
imputations—( Hear, hear)—savouring much more of ran-
corous hostility than of an ardent attachment to the Pro-
testant Church.--(Hear, hear, from one side, answered by
cries of " No, no," from the other.)—What do these
personal charges and imputations infer ? What do they
prove? They prove that if this measure had been adopted
with a view to personal interests, that adoption would have
been the height of folly. They prove that if they were re-
commended for the purpose of strengthening party con-
nections, that recommendation could only have proceeded
from the merest infatuation by which man was ever af-
flicted. But if those r'ho brought them forward disre-
garded all imputations, and dissolved all party connections,
for the sake of removing Catholic disabilities and improv-
ing the condition of the people of Ireland, what does that
fact establish but that they acted from a paramount sense of
duty.—(Loud cries of hear, hear.)—What does it
establish but that the King's Ministers felt that the
time had arrived when all considerations of consistency, all
connections of personal and party attachments, must be
disregarded, rather than that they should constitute a bar-
rier to the introduction of measures which the responsible
advisers of the Crown thought indispensable for the secu-
rity of the kingdom ? Last in debate, though foremost in
those imputations, is the Hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-
General of the King.—(Hear, hear.)—l did not expect
sthelaftcaanllyedpeurpsoonn
to holdingdi disclose
stt
ehaconfi e situation w
n tial
communications.—
have
nl
iuni feltcatio
(Loud cheering.)— rhe time has not arrived when I can
state to this House all the difficulties that have obstructed
the progress of my Noble Friend ; but I can say of him,
with reference to those difficulties, as was said of
Agricola, naturali prudentid quarnvis inter togntos facile
justeque ageind.—(Hear, hear.)—But the time will arrive
when more justice will be done to him and to those who
acted with him. The time will come when those difficul-
ties will be appreciated, and when it will be known what
were the considerations which only enabled me to give the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman seven days' notice of the
speech which was intended to be delivered from the
Throne. In answer to the imputations upon myself, I re-
peat what I said on a former occasion—that up to a late
period, I did entertain a hope that my Noble Friend would
have enabled me to give him my support, that cordial
support which I would have given him, in a private capa-
city. , Instead of incurring the charge of apostacy, I was
ready, I was desirous to relinquish office; but having
been ready to pay that penalty, no man has a right to say
that in the advice I gave the King, I meant to conform to
the views of any party. I will tell the Honour able and
Learned Gentleman when it was I said to my Noble
Friend, "I will not abandon you—l will commit my
fortunes with yours; and be the consequences what they
may, I am ready to incur them, and to share them."—
This was at a period when even greater difficulties
appeared to obstruct our course than now I hope and
believe will impede it. It was upon the day when
it was intimated to my Noble Friend by the highest
authorities in the Church, that they could not countenance
and support his measure. I then said, " Happen what
may, I will not abandon my post—l will support you."—
(Much cheering.)—l was content to incur all the imputa-
tions which I then could easily foresee. Other circumstances
I cannot mention, and nothing but the charge brought for-
ward by one whom I thought a confidential friend should
have extorted even these premature admissions. I did see
the lion. and Learned Gentleman seven days before the
Meeting of Parliament, and that was the very first moment
at which I was at liberty to communica'e the decision of
Government as to the general course it meant to pursue.
That course was complicated, and it had occupied the at-
tention of the Cabinet for weeks before any decision could
be taken upon it. In that hit, real, it would have been un-
wise to have communicated to any man, beyond the Mem-
bers of the Cabinet, what measures were in contemplation ;
for the minds of those Members were net at that time
made
up upon the question. The first man out of the Cabinet
with whom I conversed on the subject was the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman; and that out of respect to his personal
character and public situation.—(Hear, hear.)—l told him
that the Catholic Association had assumed a formidable ap-
pearance; that it was necessary, for the peace of Ireland,
that it should be put down; and I felt it right, in common
candour and justice, to add, that that was not the only
measure intended by the King's Government. I said
to him, " We feel that we cannot succeed in carrying
the suppression of the Association into effect unless we
allow Parliament to take into consideration the whole con-
dition of Ireland ;" and I told him, moreover, that the full
measure of Catholic relief was contemplated—that it was
intended to disfranchise the forty-shilling freeholders ; and
I must observe, that if he really entertained the horror at
this atrocious proceeding which he has to-night expressed,
I never saw a man who possessed such controul over his
countenance.—(Cheers and laughter.)—lf the Hon. and
Learned Gent. thought that what was designed presented
such insuperable objections, and that the Coronation Oath
absolutely precluded even the consideration of the ques-
tion, would it not have been fair that he should have
warned rue, his friend, that such was his opinion ? Might
I not expect that he would say at once, " You are pursu-
ing a course replete with ruin, in which I, the Attorney-
General, cannot assist you, and from the sanction of which
his Majesty is precluded by the sacred obligation of an
oath?'' He will do me the justice to say, that not one
word of so fatal an objection did I hear from him when I
made the communication to which I have referred. When,
however, the measure for the suppression of the Cathoe
lic Association was passed through Parliament, not as a
compromise or compact for other Bills, but because it was
necessary for the peace of Ireland ; when his Majesty said,
" Having executed that work, then I recommend you to
proceed to the consideration of other measures, and, in
fact, to settle the Catholic Question," was it quite fair for
the Attorney -General to be a party to the suppression of
the Association, which was adopted in almost a unanimous
spirit, upon the implied condition that other measures were
to follow, and then, when those other measures were
brought forward, to find insuperable and preliminary ob-
jections to their preparation as well as to their adoption?
With reference again to the personal charges, nothing but
the absence of my Noble Friend, who cannot therefore de-
fend himself, should induce me to divert the attentien of
the House from subjects of such paramout and overwhelm-
ing importance. My impression was) that ray Noble
Friend (lid not profess himself adverse to all concession.
He was asked in 1827 that question to which I have yet
heard no satisfactory answer, " What will yon do with
Ireland ?" and his answer was, " I atn asked, if I object
to the measures now proposed, what are those which,
would submit instead of them ?" I well remember; thee
the Hon. and Learned Member for Winehelsea reigadrketk
upon this point, that my Noble Friend escape 4 from this
question with a degree of agility rather inmaoistent with
the dignity of his judicial, office.—(Laughte;.)—My Nol4
Friend in his speech then proCeeded to, reply to the quesein4
tbsidieerretrllieis.
he had stated : " My answer is, that 1 am not a Menabar
of the Government." At that period. he. toes, not, a Membee.
of the Government, but in what capacity does he stand ben, ?
an office which makes him responsible for the advice 1(s.
He is a Member of the Governmennt,c,aintdtahuek
gives the Sovereign for the safety of his throne and king.,
:no;
tLbeeagruneesdtioGnesintioletead hasr
es
dom. " If (he adds) securities are proposed to which
•
Catholics will accede, and with which Protestants will be
satisfied, I, for one, shall be ready to melee concession."_..
(blear, hear.)—He therefore did
we notuladl
los tneop stii toward,shor ;atbn,wo
hthasa
hishi which
mind, 4
t°
therel)re
any such insuperable bar in the Constitution or in the.
tiCoronationenecessinecessity
ft ht,haes
the sdmisocroevietreeadv,4ano(lnts'
pacification of Ireland, If, therefore, at any future. prte'nuf
s
apostacy in his being a party to measures which, under the
circumstances, were necessary.e—The Hon.. and Learned
Gentleman says, that there is one part of the subject to
I whirls he was deteemined not to allude—the state of Ire-
land.; and yet, let it be rernern.tered, that this is, in fact,
I the whole epzestion. It is almost the only topic to which
itit ronesimhportant to advert, and yet he entirely excluded
speech. He must know as well as any man
what is the sta.e of Ireland, and what the law as it affects
Roman Catholics,, By whom was the Bill of 1825 for thts.
Suppression of the Association prepared ? Who was con-
sulted on the various clauses it contains ? The Han, and
Learned Gentleman.—Why has it failed? Iles be ever
pressed upon, Government:idle necessity for
the enforcetuent
evils re-uft
of that law ? When we have talked of the •
-
ine feam this body,
. has he ever se,;(l, " There is my Bill
0f'1825, enforce that, and there is your
when that law expired, s?„y that the counuon law was sofa.
ficient for the purpose? No ;on ti I
e contrary, it was his
opinion, and that of all the great legal puthoritics cousulied
by the Government, that the common law wa, not a sof,
fieient remedy, anti that it 51 as not sate to risk the failaro
of prosecutions, ' 11:e present Session approached, and Oa
King's a :viters had to consider what was to be done with
Irelusel ; aud here let mite say, that it is very sKcJi, too
r vote individuate to say we will not atisWeX time (i•wsti.4"„." i it
t isvery well for the lion. Baronet, .4.tiegtott fur Arta,