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

rid of other objections which he entertained, and which rested on
principle, he would not stay to dispute upon the question of se-
curity. My Right Hon. Friend comes forward on a totally dif-
ferent ground ; he feels none of these difficulties—he is ready to

grant every thing if he could but overcome the obstacle of securi-
ties. He has talked a great deal about these securities, and I own
I sat in anxious expectation of hearing something from him of the
danger against xvhich security is to be provided.—(Hear.)—Be-
cause security is to be measured by danger—the meaning of
security is protection against a certain danger, and I do not think
he can fairly ask me for my security unless he first shows me what
is his danger.—(Hear, hear.)--4 appeal to the House whether it
has yet heard what is that danger ? From what does it arise, and
what does it menace? These are the questions which ought to be
answered. Does it threaten the State or the Protestant Esta-

blishment ? I believe for the last alarm is principally felt. Then
let me ask what is the danger which my Right Hon. Friend
fears to the Protestant Establishment from the :notion of the Hon.
Baronet (Sir F. Burdett), or from the Bill to be founded upon
it, supposing it to be similar to the measure of 1825, to Which
his arguments have applied ? I will take it that my Right Hon.
Friend principally alludes to the Protestant Establishment of Ire-
land, and in what does the insecurity consist? If in any thing, it
consists in this—that the established religion is the religion of
only a small proportion of the population, and that, therefore,
it may be apprehended that a discontented people, and an am-
bitious Roman Catholic Church (for I will take it so for the sake
of the argument), will overturn the fabric of the Protestant Hier-
archy. But let me ask whether the Bill of 1825 produced this
danger ? Did it make the Roman Catholics in Ireland an over-
whelming majority? If these be dangers, they are not created by
the Bill, but arise from moral causes, over which the Bill has no
controul, except for the purposes of lessening them—(Hear, hear !)
—Now what are my Right Hon. Friend's views as to the Esta-
blished Church, and what are mine ? I take the liberty of ob-
serving, that he is the distinguished representative of a Protes-
tant University, which has not done leas honour to itself than
to him in its choice. I am also the representative of a Pro-
testant University, and, with reference to the present question,
they are both in the same rituaticu—from neither has any pe-
tition been presented—(Cheers.)—As the representative of that
University, I will not yield to him, nor to any man who
hears me, in zeal for the Protestant Establishment. I consider
a religious establishment in itself most essential to the cause of
virtue and morality. I believe that if we had not a respectable
hierarchy, holding valuable possessions in the state, in times
like these religion itself would sink into contempt. It is a
most powerful instrument, which ought to be connected with
the state, and if not connected it may be wielded against the
state. Religion derives safety, and the State repose, from the dignity
of the establishment. I say, also, that the Protestant establishment id
Ireland is a great and firm link of connection with this country,
and if it were overturned there would be infinite danger of shaking
that connection.—(Hear.)—l say, besides, that the establish-
ment in both countries has existed now for more than 300 years,
and that it has become interwoven with our most valuable insti-
tutions. If it were overthrown, property itself would receive a
shock, and the existence of the State itself put in imminent
peril. That is my view. But, how is it proposed to protect the
establishment against existing danger? My Right Hon. Friend
does not propose any protection; but what do the friends of the
establishment say ? They say, that if the Catholic Question is
carried, the Protestant Establishment must fall. Now what is
the cezverse of that proposition ? This : that so long as the Pro-
testant Establishment subsists, the great body of the Roman Ca-
tholics shall not be admitted to their Constitutional rights. Is
that a State proposition which any man who venerates the Esta-
blishment would think it prudent to lay down.—(Hear.) If it
were true, that either the great body of the Irish people must be
kept in a state of exclusion, or that the Establishment and other
Institutions must fall, it would place the Protestant hierarchy in
what Mr. Burke, in one of his admirable speeches, calls "an
ugly alternative"—(Hear, hear.) Birt the point is gratuitously
and arbitrarily assumed. If the Protestant Establishment volun-
teers unnecessarily to place itself in the breach, and ~ay to the Ro-
man Catholics, you shall have no restitution of rights, is it safety—
is it justice—is it wisdon—is it anything but madness—(Con-
tinned cheering ?)—lf the proposition of the Hon. Baronet is fol-
lowed up, what do you do with respect to the Established Chureh ?
At present the population of Ireland is discontented, because it
suffers under the burthen of a double establishment. What do
we propose ? That the people shall be relieved from that provo-
cative and their own Clergy be paid by the State. Is that no
protection ?—(Hear, hear. )—Therefore I assert that such a mea-
sure would be.a solid support, a firm buttress to the Established
Church. You will see the Catholic Clergy accepting a common
title and receiving a common protection from the State. Is that
danger?—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l will give an instance:—
Some fifty years ago, the Protestant Church of Ireland was much
alarmed about the Presbyterians—they were considered all
deadly enemies. What was done? The laws which imposed
tests on the Presbyterians, by the wisdom of the Legis-
lature, were repealed, and a provision was made for the Pres-
byterian Clergy. What was the consequence ? Have the Pro-
testant Clergy of Ireland any better friends than the Presby-
terians ? None ; we hear of no points of contention be-
tween them. In many parts of the North of Ireland the peo-
ple do not care to which Church they go—it depends upon
which has the best preacher, and they live in the most perfect
harmony together.—(Hear, hear, hear.)-_I take this fact, not
merely as a proof that the establishment of a sectarian religion
and the repeal of disabilities may be a source of strength instead
of weakness; but there is another circumstance which deserves
attention. It was predicted that this liberal and wise course
would overthrow the Establishment ; even Swift, long ago, de-
clared that it would be the prelude to its downfall. It has not
fallen—it stands more firmly than ever ; and this instance, there-
fore, shows that the cry of danger to the establishment may be
very loud but very senseless. Does any man living doubt that
the Act passed two sessions ago regarding tithes has been a source
of great protection to the Church of Ireland ? Has it not al-
layed all heart-burnings, composed all dissension, and reconciled
the great body of Catholics to the payment of tithes ? Yet an
outcry was raised on the part of the national establishment, that
it was an inroad upon its property, and a source of insecurity.__
Some of the highest dignitaries exclaimed as loudly against that
measure as they have done against present question. Has
it not turned out an important bulwark—a valuable security,
notwithstanding the vehement and unmeaning cry of " the

Church is in danger ?"—(Cheers.)-3 have followed the ex-
ample of my Right Hon. Friend (the Master of the Rolls) in
leaving to the last that point which he also touched at the conclu-
sion of his speech—lreland ; that unfortunate country, where the
present pleasure excites so strong and so general an interest. But
before I apply myself to the essence of the present consideration,
I must make one or two observations as to the time of the enact-
ment of those laws, the repeal of which my Right Hon. Friend so
strongly deprecates. I will take the liberty of rcmarking, that the
spiritual interference of the See of Rome, and the difficulty of sepa-
rating the spiritual authority of the Pope from hiitemporal power,
has at all times been considered a danger; but at no period of our
history has it been regarded as a danger affecting allegiance, nor as
proper to be punished on this account with disabilities. That is the
position I take. One periOd I may dispose of in a Word—that pre-
vious to the Reformation. At that period the spiritual authority of
the Pope, as far as respected the concerns of the Church, was
avowed and undisputed ; bin the tempoial power of the Pope was
then, as now, utterly denied and rejected. How did the Legislature
proceed ? Did it commence by outlawing the people ? No—but by
providing adequate remedies for the mischief. This was done
in the reigns of the Richards, the Henries, and the Edwards, who
were Popish Kings, with Popish Parliaments : they provided
against the interference of the See of Rome with the temporal
affairs of the State. So of necessity matters Continued till the
period of the Reformation. What was done then? The bath
of Supremacy was introduced for the purpose of marking those
who would deny the authority of the Pope to interfere in the con-
cerns of what then became the established church of the country ;
but not with any view to the interference of the Pope with that
Church, over which the Crown itself did not profess to exercise
any-authority. I am stating here exactly and truly the nature of
the provisions, and I will take the liberty of reading a passage
from the Statute of the sth Elizabeth. It was the Act which
first imposed the oath of Supremacy as a test, without which no
person could he admitted in England to the Lower House of Par-
liament.—[The Right. Hon. Gentleman then .read.tha recital of
the Statute of sth Elizabeth, c. 1., and then proceecled.]—Ac-
cordingly, Peers of Parliament refusing to take the oath, and_
giving other securities, did continue down to the reign of Charles
11. to perform the functions of their station. The 18th Geo. 111.
requires Roman Catholics to mem. " to be faithful, and bear' true
allegiance to his Majesty." First they must swear that they are
Roman Catholics, and then they are called upon to take the oath of
allegiance.--.[After. quoting the recital of the 31 at Geo. 111. c. 32.,
whereas certain penalties and disabilities imposed on persons in
communion with the See of Rome," &c. the Right Hon Gen-
tleman continued thus.]—Are these legislative lies, follies, and
impositions? Do they not show that the Oatb of Supremacy
is not a necessary test of the allegiance of the subject ? I admit
that we are now come to a new era. The interference of the Pope
with respect to the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, is, I think,
a dangerous thing. 11 think it requires a remedy_that a security
ought to be provided against it in any act to be submitted to Par-
liament. But I apprehend it is quite new to say that the dangers
are dangers which you will not remove, but in consequence of
I them proceed to outlaw the person. You rejoice in the danger