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

porter or follower of a Protestant Master of the Rolls on •
one day, and of a Catholic Lord Chancellor on the other.
—(Cheers and laughter.)—S:r, I would rather remain as
I am, the humble Member for Plympton, than be guilty
of the apostacy, the conversi n—the miserable, disreputable
apostacy which has taken place upon this question—
(hear, and laughter. )—I ought not to make such grave and
serious statments as these without quoting some autho-
rity,
and that authority I have in tie speech of Sir John 1
S. Copeley, then Mieeer of the Rolls, made in the House
of Commons in 1827. [Here the lion. and Learned
Member read an extract from the speech alluded to, in
which it was stated, that the opening of Parliament to the
Roman Catholics would lead to Roman Catholic ascen-
dancy and the subversion of the Protestant Constitution.]
My Hon. and Learned Friend, now Lord Chancellor, went
on to state, that from the evidence of Doctor Doyle, given
before the Committee on Irish affairs, it was clear that the
admission of GO or 70 Roman Catholics into the House of
Commons would lead to the upsetting of the Protestant
Establishment in Ireland. The Hon. Member for Liver-
pool has told us that the proposed measure will cause a
struggle in.the country. This my Right Dion. Friend the
Secretary for the Home Department has not attempted to
deny ; but he has contented himself with assuring us that
if there be a struggle it will be in cur favour. Let no wan
then quarrel with the King's Attorney-General for net
having drawn up a Bill which was one day denounced by
the Master of the Rolls as subversive of the Constitution,
and at another advocated by the same gentleman, when
filling the office of Lord Chancellor and the first and most
confidential adviser of the Crown.—(lleac.)—lf they are
not called on to make a defence for apostatizing, I do not
know that I need make any defence for not apostatizing—
(cheers) ;—but if lam called on, I am ready to make my
defence. I have read over the Bill ; and not only have I
read over the Bill, but I have read almost everything con-
nected with the subject which has appeared upon it.—
During the long course of years in which it has been dis-
cussed, we have been dogmatized and doctrinated about the
satisfaction that was to be afforded us on the principle of
security. We have been told " You shall have the Bill
with securities—securities sufficient to satisfy Protestants;
and to protect the interests and privileges of the Church."
—We have been told this by the Hon. Member for West-
minster—we have been promised securities by Mr.
Plunkett; and we have all along discussed the matter on
the understanding of mutual concessions, in the spirit of
confidence on the one hand, and of just and exact faith on
the other. Looking now at these concessions, and at
these securities, how. I ask, has that confid:!nee been jus-
tified ? My Right Hon. Friend has said that the water is
flowing in upon us—my apprehension is, that the water
is flowing out of us.—(Loud and continued laughter,
mixed with cheering.)—l repeat, Sir, that the water is
flowing out of us.—(Laughter.)—My Right Honourable
Friend says lie has a sufficient apology for this measure.
—He says that he cannot keep the flood-gates shut
as closely as he should;; but surely, if you cannot keep
the flood-gates shut as closely as he should, surely that
was no reason why the whole of the gates should
be thrown open.—(Loud cheering.)—l say, that if
it be true, as I have been told here in the speech of my
Right Honourable Friend, that the flood-gates are partly
open, that is no reason why they should be entirely
thrown back. Yet here, Sir, I see that less is demanded
on the one hand than these concessions yield on the other.
I have been told, and I repeat it, that they are permitted
to take more than they ask, and, I will add, more than is
needed. 1 shall now, Sir, advert to one or two other
topics which my Hon. and Learned Friend has alluded to.
1n differing from him and from my Right Hon. Friend, I
do it with considerable pain—but differ I must, notwith-
standing my present situation. The situation I now hold
I do not owe to him—but even if I did, I should still differ
from him, but, as I do now, with great respect for him at
the same time. We have been asked only to make these
necessary and proper concessions, and then we are told we
may meet our opponents upon the vantage ground. My
Right Hon. Friend says, grant these concessions, and you
trill have with you the feelings and the kindness and the
sympathy of foreign countries. Gracious God, Sir, when
was the time that any question relating to the external or
to the internal interests of this country ever received aid
from foreign sympathy.—(Cheers.)—When did any ques-
tion arise not only with which our foreign neighbour was
connected, but with which she had no connection What-
ever, in which she aided us with her sympathy? Witness
the contest with America—what sympathy did she show
then? When James the Second was expelled from the
country, what sympathy did England receive from France?
What sympathy did she manifest—what consideration did
she show—what aid did she afford, except to the persons
who feught the battle of the Boyne?—(Cheers.)—ln 1715
when a Pretender appeared in this country, and in 1745,
when a rebellion was again raised, French sympathy aided,
and French fear condoled with the defeated rebels—(cheers)
and in a still later period when revolutionary principles
were afloat, and this country was discussing with herself
whether she should liberalize her Constitution, that sym-
pathy, though manifested by another kind of Govern-
ment in France, was not less truly fe t nor less
sincerely administered and applied.—(Loud cheering. )
I say, therefore, God grant, that among the claims aud con-
cessions—among the divisions and dissentions of this coun-
try, private and domestic, French sympathy may never
interfere; God grant that her feelings may never be ma-
fested to shed tears of condolence, or to administer to us
her kind, her sypmathetic assistance in our troubles.—
(Cheers.)—I own then, Sir, with that freedom, but at the
same time with that respect, which I feel for my Right
Hon. Friend (and no pain I ever felt is greater than that I
feel in being obliged to diffifr from him), that I am not
satisfied with his arguments ; and I say, that his argus
ments can be adopted on no side of this House, except by
those who have always been the advocates of Catholic
Emancipation. I say, too, that if these claims are granted
they should be granted on our own judgment; but whether
they are conceded or refused, that that concession or that
refusal ought not to be accelerated or retarded, whether
any or all the Powers of the Continent go along with us
or not.—(Loud and continued cheering.)—ln prosecuting
this subject farther, I will not fatigue the House, but I
will proceed to another part, and apply my recollection to
discover whether, in all the Bills, from that proposed by
Mr. Grattan to that introduced by my Right Hon. Friend,
any other proposition has been laid down except that of
the union and community of the Protestants and Catho-
lics. I have looked into all the Bills—labour nor pains
have I refused in the investigation—for the unwillingness
to labour is no fault of mine—toil mid drudgery of investi-
gation I have employed—for the want of either was never
among the defects imputed to me; and after every pains
bestowed in the search, all the Fills I find to begin with
asserting, that it is desirable to meet and unite to-
gether the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects; yet
this Bill alone is without such a preamble. Why
now, for the first time, undervalue this sort of indis-
soluble community—this sincere and heartfelt union—this
"feast of reason" and this "flow of soul" which is to
amalgamate and mix together, into one religious commu-
nity, the Catholic and the Protestant Associations ? These
are, indeed, the delicice of speculation—the nice things
of these framers of indissoluble unions. Mr. Grattan,
Lord Plunkett, the Hon. Baronet (the Member for West-
minster), are tolerably skilful composers, and they have
begun their preambles of concession in this form : I have
looked into this Bill, and there is nothing about this sort
of concession and conciliation :in it. And why? because
in all his Majesty's subjects there are at least 19 out of 20
against the measure.—(Hear.)—l recollect an eminent
person, the late Lord Ellenborough, who once alluded to
the preamble of a Bill which he thcught not to be true,
and of which he said, " that preamble—
" c Like some tall bully, lifts its head and lies.' "
Now, I will not say the same thing of this Act of Patna-
ment ; this Act does not lie ; but it would have been a
scandalous lie—it would have been an insult to the British
community—if it had followed the terms of its predeces-
sors, end had pretended to place this measure on the prin-
ciples of concession, and of community of feeling. Without
charging myself with the arithmetical calculation of
the difference of numbers, without undertaking to say
precisely whether the proportion is five, or ten, or
twenty to one against the question, putting the exact
arithmetical proportions out of the question, I will say
that in some parts of England the numbers against
concession are so great that it would be worse than
a gross insult—a scandalous outrage on the feelings, prin-
ciples, and religious sentiments of the people of the country,
to call this a measure adopted with their concurrence
and with a view to a community of feeling. I therefore
say that, in adopting this form, alluding to that line of
Pope, the framers of this Bill have avoided the scan-
dalous and untrue statement that this Bill would be pro-
ductive of concord and union among his Majesty's subjects.
• I say, Sir, that this Bill does not state this untruth; but
though the Bill does not, the practice of its advocates and
supporters does. I should be glad to know whether the
speech from the Throne declared any thing like this, that,
couie qui vitae, it would be right to satisfy the demands of
the Catholics. On the one h.!ind, it may he well said—by
the Catholics I mean—that if this Bill passes it will answer
our purposes; but, on the other, it may also well be de-
scribed as a subversion of the rights and privileges, and
character of the Established Church.—(Cheers.)—Sir, it
is foreign to my purpose to enter into a discussion of the
state of Ireland ; for many reasons I beg leave to avoid it.
•)—Sir, I will answer that
will rummer it. Gentle-
, c---iier.old(lcaoungthitneure,dacnidieecrhie:s.rs.)_,