Star.
London, England, 1824-05-12 00:00:00

had remained under it during all the changes of admi-
nistration ever since. Others might lament it, and then
they would be bound to take some steps towards pro.
ducing an agreement. Not so with him. Be the opi-
nion correct or otherwise, wise or unwise, it appeared
to him that the question, not to speak of actually car-
rying it, was never likely to be carried under a govern-
ment united upon that point and at variance upon many
others: nay, more, that the question had a better chance
of being carried trader a divided Government, than
under a Government so united. Having always held
that opinion, having always proclaimed it, the Noble
Lord could have no right to call upon him to aban-
don it. The wisdom of -the opinion might be called
in question, but he could not now be called upon
to change it. To be plain, what the Noble Lord meant
was, that he was bound to proclaim to his colleagues
in office, that the period was now come in which they must
concur in one opinion, and that opinion must be his.—
The Noble L rrd was of opinion that the time was come,
and to induce him to act he held out a bait which must
be always tempting to men of talent and spirit—the
pre lominance of his own sentiments, supported by the
maj nity of that House. But to examine more strictly,
the Noble Lord said many civil things of him and of
his conduct in the Guyer nment. The Noble Lord must
know that he was not there by his own seeking, or from
any choice or wish of his own. Had he insisted upon
those conditions, in all probability he would have been
far away; and though it might have been better for
himself, it would not have helped to advance the ques-
tion. He believed that the Noble Lord calculated too
much upon its progress. He (Mt. Canning) believed
that the question would ultimately make its way.—
He believed that the Government was before the
Public with it, and there was a strong and pOwer-
fill feeling in the country against it. He believed
that it could not be carried until the opinions of
the country were more advanced in its favour.
Any measure must prejudice it, which went to urge its
consummation by force, against feeling. He beiieved
that it would succeed; but it could only be hoped for
as argument and reason were enlarged, as jealousy and
p ejudice were done away. The Noble Lord said, that
t le question was a great question, upon which all able
s atesmen ought to agree. Was it the only question of
t iat sort ? Suppose he were to break with his present
colleagues, to accept the co-operation and support of
his new suitors, was he sure that there was not another
wife or mistress as dear lo them, and that he might not
have the very same question of discrepancy in opinions
to struggle o ith? For instance, there were their opi-
nions upon Parliamentary Reform, to which they were
as strongly pledged as to the question of Catholic eman-
cipation—(Mumuts of discontent from the Opposi-
tion). Were they, or were they not, pledged to Par-
liamentary Reform ? The country believed so. It
was generally understood that they were bound not to
accept office without the condition of effecting Parlia-
mentary Iteform—( Cheers, mingled with cries of " No.")
Whether it were so or not, altered not his argument.
With what face did they challenge him with discre-
pancy of opinion upon the Catholic question, when they
themselves stood pledged to a question of infinitely
graver inipor tance—a question that went to the foun-
dations of the Constitution ? lle defied them to shew
that there could be any better agreement between him
and them, or between the nisei yes one with another, than
that which existed between him and his present col-
leagues upon the former question. Why, then, there
were two great questions, each of national importance.
Those who were prepared to agree upon both might be
in a suitable condition to stand together in the same
Government. Unfortunately for him, while he advo-
cated one, he considered the other as anomalous and re-.
bolting. He could be in no conditiun to accept the co-ope-
ration of the Gentlemen opposite. Their banners might
be mingled for atime, but soon they must stand on adverse
sides. lie hoped he bad satisfied the House—it would be
presumptuous to suppose he had satisfied the Noble Lord.
Ile challenged the detectibn of any inconsistency in his
opinions, the wisdom of which might be questioned,
but not the sincerity. He could not agree with the
Noble Lord, that that was a question which ought to be
carried by the mere influence of the executive. It; how-
ever, he chose to find fault with him for not now bring-
ing it forward, let him recollect what had been the late
of the measure proposed last year by his Right Hon.
Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland. All those
splendid talents and efforts which were offered to the
highest bidder, because they were not bought up at a
certain price, were withdrawn from him suddenly. The
owners took up their hats and retired, because the ques-
tion was not supported by the whole force of the Go-
v eTIIMeII t. He did not blame them for what they bad
done. But what hope did it leave to him or any other
individual to renew the labour ? If the question had
gone into abeyance, the fault lay with them who first
turned it to a partial purpog. It was likely to be carried
with the least shock to public feeling under a divided Go-
vernment. The moment it was turned into a party ques-
tion,and used as an instrument for displacing antagonists,
that moment the chances ofits success sunk a hundrialfold.
He could not say if there was any mode kit of restoring
it to its former situation; and he was reduced at present
to the mere hope that it would be so. As to the motion,
however, it was agreed that the Committee was no fit
place for the discussion of that question. It remained
to be considered which of all the several topics con-
nected with Ireland was likely to be benefited by that
mode of inquiry. With respect to associations of
Orangemen or Ribandmen, or those Catholic associa-
tions which he considered more anomalous than either,
he was of opinion, with his Honourable Friend near him,
that nothing was more to be avoided in such cases than
too precipitate an exertion of the powers of the
Executive, or too busy an application of those of
Parliament. There was a great difficulty in dealing
with institutions, even though run to dangerous folly
and abuse, which had grown up out of the freedom of
action. The chief duty of Government in those cases was
not to interfere, unless it were sien that the evils became
intolerable, and that they promised no change or diminu-
tion. As to the argument upon thech arch establishment, to
talk of it with any view to an abridgment of its wealth,
the House having already decided upon that subject,
the Noble Lord was deprived of all benefit in the argu-
ment. The Hon. Baronet distinguished between tithes
and the rent of an estate, and thought their assimila-
tion absurd in the extreme. A great part of the clergy
were paid with rent, and no less than one-third of the
tithes were held by the laity. Then it was said that the
portion paid the clergy was on condition of services.
This was an argument; but it lay the other way. Did
it not sound strange to say to the clergy, "You must
relinquish your tithes, because you do something for
them. You might keep them, if indeed you enjoyed
them in laudable indolence, as we, the lay proprietors