Star.
London, England, 1825-03-02 00:00:00

abject.—
Dpic tir—
o kind' of
tebtiam
'Dishier
lesitatio4
bs•c
ROE COP.
able Bo-

sbsesved,
Sider the
r the
I am Far
rw•ar4.—
lend my
iich have
eless con-
that an
ng that it,
this MI-
A feeling
, is alto-
ar, hear),
the pre-
Ita of the.
dly
it. Ica
Iled upon)
may 11:1•••
look !or
securityt

'rights and privileges ?-.47toap, hear) The oars pro-
bandi lies on the other side; on the side of those-who
contend that they ought to be so excluded. Sir, it
pears to me that the state
describe.l by my ,Hon. Frynd, the Member for Air
(tor whom I am sure 'entertain thegreatest respeet)when
he declared that the present system was a century old.
At least that was a fact, not an argument. But,goodGon,
Sir, what is a century in religion ? lithe system be only a
century old, then what we propose to do is not a change
but a restoration. What I contend is this, that in the
present, beyond all ocher questions, to remain where.we
lire, is to alter ; to make a change, is to return to what
at were. By this simple statement, I exclude from op-
position to me all the enemies of innovation; I press
into my service all the topics which are familiar to them,
',miles' they can shew that the change, however originally
'necessary (and that original necessity I do not deny),
Vas become so inveteratez-that the continuation of its
',original necessity had fixed it so irrevocably, that we
tannest go back without the abdication of every principle
'which it is our duty to maintain. Sir, I feel myself much
ttoo weak to follow the speech of my Hon.Friend,but there
Vere'one two things In it which I cannot quite pass
beer. My Hon. Friend said than was nothing so hos-
tile to the peace of mankind as the alliance of religion
and politics. This was the subject which occupied the
first half of my Hon. Friend's speech ; but how did he
conclude? By a laboured eulogium on Church and
State—(Hear, hear). I cannot imagine how it is that
it never occurs to my Hon. Friend, on the many occa-
sions on which he is called to utter those mystic words,
at more convivial moments than the present, to ask
himself if Church and State is not a religious and poli-
tical alliance ?—(fear,•hear, and laughter) In one of
my Honourable Friend's opinions I certainly do agree
with him. I do think that all such alliances of religion
and politics as may lead 'to a divergence of senti-
ment, and a doubtfulness of allegiance, are eminently
objectionable. And here again I will look for an
illlustration of that opinion in my Honourable
Friend's own statement. My Honourable Friend tells
us, and tells us truly, that there never was a period of
the world in which the feelings of religious zeal were
60 paramount over feelings of political ambition, espe-
cially among the Governments of the Continent. In the
accuracy of that statement, I perfectly agree. But what is
my inference from it ? Mankind, Sir, are at present di-
vided into two classes, by distinct lines of demarcation:
the line between the Protestant and the Catholic Church,
and the line between British and Foreign influence. Let
us efface the line which, in this Empire. ieparates the
Protestant from the Catholic Church: and by so doing
let us strengthen the other line of division between
British and Foreign influence—(Loud cries of hear,
hear).—These, Sir, are the principles on which I
have always advocated the Catholic cause.; these
are the principles on which I will always continue
to advocate it. It must be quite unnecessary for me
to say anything to my Honourable Friend, and to
those Honourable Members who think with him, on the
subject of their fears for the security of the Protestant
establishment. I lately took occasion in my place in
chi, House to declare, and to give a solemn pledge, that
I would go as far as any man in support of that estab-
lishment. That declaration and pledge. I now repeat.
Nay, more: I am ready to declare, that, if my reason
were convince] that we must stand as we are, for that,
by proceeding, we should risk that establishment, which
is so interwoven with our happy Constitution, I would,
at the hazard of being charged with inconsistency,
contend against the Honourable Baronet's proposition.
But it is because my reason is convinced of the con-
trary, that the Honourable Baronet's proposition re-
ceives my most cordial concurrence. I would have
this count: y open its breast, and receive into its bosom
those who not only live in its allegiance, but support
its Government. To conclude, I give my cordial sup-
port to the motion, conceiving myself in no degree
pledged to the details• of any measure that may be
founded on it, but conceiving myself pledged not to
sacrifice to that object any point which in my conscience
I may believe not only hostile, but dangerous w the
Protestant Constitution.—The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman was much applauded at the conclusion of his
speech; shortly after which he left the House, appa-
rently overcome by indisposition.
The SOJACITOR-GENERAL thought, that if con-
sistency of opinion was entitled to the attention of the
House, he had some claim on their indulgence; and if
there was any subject on which he could-give an im-
partial opinion, it was the present. He should, there-
fore, state briefly his reasons for giving a decided nega-
tive to the motion of the Honourable Baronet, *hich
were chiefly founded on constitutional principles. His
Honourable Friend (Mr. Foster) said, that the present
time was inconvenient to discuss the subject, but he
thought it was still more—it was improper. If the
House adopted the proposition of the Honourable Ba-
ronet, it would appear to yield to menace—(Hear).—
It would be said that through fear, on thevery Tuesday
after suppressing the Catholic Association, Catholic
Emancipation was granted. On that ground, as an in-
dependent Member of Parliament, he should oppose the
motion. An Honourable Gentleman on the other side
of the House (Mr. C. Hutchinson) bad expressly de-
ed, that, in a Parliamentary sense, he should terrify
the House into these concessions. After such argu-
ments, openly avowed, lie put it to Honourable Gentle-
men, whether, if Emancipation were carried, it would
not be considered the result of menace and intimida-
tion? He should now state more particularly why he
would not agree to the motion of the Hon. Baronet.—
He was told if these claims were granted the Catholics
would be satisfied ; but, on the contrary, he believed if
one.privilege were granted, it would only be made a
stepping-stone to the acquirement of further.' His Right
Honourable Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland,
had for some years laid it down that the Elective Fran-
chise nag political power, and that only an extension of
the principle was then required. This to him was the
difficulty; he saw no certain limits when concession
was to stop, and therefore there was no chance of ob-
taining that peace and harmony which seemed to be
the objects of those who supported the measure. Now
.leafs in that House, in the other House, and en the'
'llench, were sought, but by and bye. when those privi-
rieges were granted to the laity, the Church would put
rin its claim, and seek similar advancement in the State.
The Catholic Association had voted that a Petition re-
'spatting -Tithe should be entrusted to the Honourable
Member for Aberdeen ; and why ? Because, to use
-the • that- -- _ -
ha

the powei of the Priesthood- in Deland. Among the
last actopots. rola - Ow
4 MARY.. it APPetero that in
Kilkenny
• a Paints -Of ehallanse or Magee,toldtho peo-
ple, that 'if' P.Mifflitenqat down the iristeleietioes be
'should aditaiicel,W. rent Go lot
Should still.grasto..the 'teni t • that hitt liingregation
'altar as the roe Of
their redensesloak Anolbet reason why he Amid ob-
ject to go Name Committee *as, that on all for mer at;
casionaksertsfogod impossible, even by the friends Of
Emancipation, to propose
it on term's acceptable to the
Catholic Clergy. The Honourable Member here re-
ferred to the opposition which was given-t 6 the Veto,
and other dmilar provisions, at diffloint times. The
'Priests. in short, exercised not .a spirjtual, but a civil
power over the people. With the Catholic Laity he
(the Solicitor-General) could agree, because they had
, no interest separate from that of the State—('Hear,
hear)—but the Priests had an opposite interest. In this
country, Parliament, in the reign of Charles the First,
abolished the power even of the Protestant Clergy to
coerce the people, and confirmed the principle after-
wards in the reign of Charles the Second. But the
Catholic Clergy still retained that power, and that was
a main objection to. the granting of Emancipation. The
present measure, in short, would not place the Catholics
on an equality with the Protestants, bet on a superior
footing. His Right Honourable Friend, who, he re-
gretted to say, had been obliged to leave the House
(Mr. Secretary Canning), objected that any reference
should be made to the reign of William the Third
but they were obliged to go back to that period, to fotos a correct
judgment on experience. Upon these grounds be should give his
Arm opposition to the motion.
Ms. S. WORTLEY thought there could be no sub-
istantiai peace in the empire till the Catholics were ad-
mitted to all the privileges of the Constitution—(Heer).
—The present was precisely the time for making the
required concession. He wouldgo as far in favour of
the Catholics as of any other class of Dissenters. No
Government, since the death of Mr. Percival, could be
formed on the ground of exclu-sion of the Catholics;
and the question, though delayed, was virtually car tied.
The Protestant Church was more in danger from that
delay, than from any concessions to the Catholics.—.
There had been of late a great change of opinion in favour of the
Cktbulic clahns—(Hear, hear).
Mr. G. BANK ES said, that tyre absence of Petitions
against this. measure was owing to the shortness of the
time. That, howeser, he did 'not lament, as less irri-
tation.had beert'etrited:` He could not conceive how
the public opialioo;c0/eld hkvibeen changed in favour
of the Cadiolica.;.,his.fearrwere chiefly for. the Protest-
ant Church of ,Ireland. " The Catholics had distinctly
said, that they would not be contented with what was
termed Emancipation, and that they had ulterior ob-
jects. The Honourable Member here proceeded to
' read an extract from a speed; of Mr. O'Connell, which
melted, to a considerable degree, the risibility of the Heine, and
prodused loud calls to the Hon. 13vinknian to continue tli read.
He decidedly opposed the motion..
Mr. PLUNKETT was strongly disposed to give a
silent vote, and but for the peculiar circumstances in
which he wasplaced should have adopted that course.
When.last he had the honour of addressing the Honse
on this subject, he had also the honour of performing
a similar duty to that which now devolved on the
Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir F. Burdett). He
trusted, however, that neither the Hon. Barmier, nor
any one who heard him would suppose that his feelings
would be warped by the accidental circumstance al-
luded to. He was anxious. inde'ed, to bear testimony
to the temperate and discreet, as well as able manner
in which that Honourable Baronet bad introduced the
question that evening, and he should iu the few words
he had to offer endeavour to follow his example. With
respect to the time at which the measure was proposed,
-although he felt that on this point there would always
be difficulties to contend against, yet they did not
seise from tidings regarding himself but others. With
et deep and intense sense of the importance of the subject
i to his own country and to Europe,he should not consider
any time tooearly, nor any time such as not to call forth
his /host anxious support. His Hon. and Learned
Friend had, however, objected to the time, but he
should be glad to know at what time he would be dis-
posed to vote for the Catholic concessions ?—(Hear).
When the water was smooth—when the surface of
affairs was unruffled—non pieta weveri—or when
turbulence and rocking winds prevailed, he appre-
hended would seem equally unpropitious to his Hon.
and Learned Friend for admitting the Catholics to the
Constitution. He concurred with his Hon. and eloquent
Friend, the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Stuart Wortley),
that he thought there was a peculiar grace and fitness
in bringing forward the motion at the present time.
After having adopted a measure calculated to irritate
the feelings of the Catholics, their friends who joined
in that proceeding were naturally glad of an opportu-
nity to shew that their opinions on the general question
had, notwithstanding. undergone no change. He also
felt a degree of confidence on this occasion which he
had not before experienced—for during the last three
or four years he was never able to meet any person in
England w ld say that he believed Emancipation
would
ii,o(bercoe
one dayk.be carried. There were also those
who h d opposed the measure, and who, from the tem-
per, talent, and liberality which distinguished their op-
position, were its most alarming enemies, but who had
more than once declared, that if they believed it would
impart tranquillity to Ireland, they should support it.
Now, he did got think chat persons who spoke so felt
in their hearts that Catholic Emancipation was incon-
sistent with the Constitution—(Hear). To his own
heart the measure was as dear as it could be to any
one's. But, added he, o.so help me GOD, I would re-
sist it witb all the energy I possess, if I thought it por-
tended danger to the Protestant Establishments of the
United Kingdom." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to shew that in the Bill introduied by him
in 1821, as well as in those prepared by Mr. Grattan, the
permanent inviolability of the Protestant Church of
Ireland was a fundamental basis of legislation.—
This claim on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ire-
land was a claim to be members of a free representa-
tive. Government : to be admitted to those institutions
which belonged to every member of it. He _considered
them entitled to those natural rights, but admitted the
granting of those rights might be controuled. Neces-
sity, however, ought to be clearly proved for such con-
wool. It appeared to the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, that individuals in a free State had the
same degree of right to the privileges of the Constitu-
tion that they had to personal liberty. Both tights
'ible ' - . odd - ' - necessit- 111.edi-

of deposing the Monarch himself, and of releasing
his subjects from theft allegiance. The Legi,lature, by.
the Act of Unifortnity,,pomred tl a telision of the
State. All they dangers of that das -swig ati an end.
The fears of the Rdormationowere iet. at rest, When
./antes the Second came to the Moon,. he set the laws
at defiance; the Parliament mild the people then drove
from the throne and made the Chinch Govern-
client inviolably Protestant. The lx.t danger was the
claim of the Pretender, but that was sue mounted. In
1'798 they found the people of Ireland so sunk and
restricted, in consequence of their attachment to their
religious faith, thapit was necessary to resort to lenient
measures, which made the reign of his late Majesty
the brightest part of our history. A system of lenity
during forty years had raised the Roman Catholics to.
a situation in which they felt they ought to took up to
all the privileges of the Constitution. They were
good and loyal subjects, entitled to participate in the,
benefits of the Constitution. Six, or four millions of
his Majesty's subjects—he- would take either number,
came year after year to claim the privilege of sharing
in the benefits of the Constitution, and year after year
they were refused that boon. They had been thus dis-
appointed, and this country had to contend with
the danger which` might mite from their dis-
setisfaction. The Honout able Member for Louth
bad said they should not look at present danger, but
consider the danger which led to the restrictive laws.
He (Mr. Plunkett) was of opinion present danger only'
ought to be regarded. It was said they might admit
the Roman Catholics to civil rights, but it was another
thing to admit them to political power. Was the elective
franchise political power? Was the station of Magistrate
political power ? Thee might be civil rights ; and he
.might ask what part of the Constitution laid down a
line between civil rights and political power ? He knew
of no such thing. It was a mockery to say mob had
Constitutional rights whilst they were shut out from
the most valuable privileges of the Constitutioa? The
right of holding offices was considered by an Honour-
able Friend a mere bagatelle, and he would like to
hear from that Honourable Friend how he would
like to be in the situation of the Roman Catholics?
The llouse would have to decide whether any class
of men ought to be represented without their walls.
—lf shut out of Parliament, the Roman Catholics
must go to some illegal and unconstitutional remedy.
So long as these persons were denied the privileges of
the Constitution, much was to be feared. He should
take the liberty of stating what he thought ought to be
done. First, to take away all grounds of complaint, he
would 'put all parties, Clergy and Laity, on the same
footing. Secondly, he would make provision for the
Roman Catholic Clergy. He was inclined to think the
Hierarchy of Ireland was in danger of being pulled
down, but. not superseded. He hoped that would never
klippen; but if the Protestant Hierarchy were pulled
down, arid the Church property was offered to the Ca-
ah,,lic Clergy, they would not accept it—(Expressions
if doubt and dissent). The people of Ireland would
never consent to have the property of the country given
to Priests.. The Roman Catholics were tranquil and
loyal. They remained firm to the Constitution ; and
id the Government of France were to speculate upon
Ortivadiag Ireland sad receiving aid from the Roman Catholics, they
deceive themselves. If the time should ever come for
'evasion, they would rally round the State, and skew their
loyalty and affection for the House of Brunswick.
Mr. Secretary PEEL—.The Honourable Baronet has
introduced this question for discussion on its true
grounds, and rested his proposition upon three points:
1. Positive Treaty-2. Natural Rights--S. Prudence
and Policy. The Honourable BiVonet, and I believe
the Petition he presented, demand the fulfilment of a
treaty,. 'I have, on previous occasions, considered the
effect of the treaty to which they allude, and I beg
again to express my total dissent. lam prepared to
deny that the Roman Catholics can claim any privi-
lege on the foundation of the treaty of Limerick. tis
no doubt important for the House to consider whether,
in withholding what is now required at its hands, it is
violating the terms of a solemn treaty ; and I beg to
ask the Hon. Baronet whether he has referred to the
articles of that treaty, and whether he really thinks, not
that it has been infringed at any former period of our his-
tor y,but whether any privilege is refused in defiance of it?
The Hon. Baronet will find, that by the first article, the
Roman Catholics were entitled to be exempted from all
molestation on account of their religious tenets : by other
articles, certain persons might claim the privileges of
personal property on taking no other oath but that of
allegiance. Now, the Hon. Baronet extends this right
to a claim, that the Romati Catholics shall be entitled to
the enjoyment 6f civil office on taking the oath of alle-
giance only. That I beg leave to deny, and lam con-
tent to rest my denial upon the speech of Sir Theobald
Butler, who was employed by the Roman Catholics to
speak in the House of Lords against the passing of the
Bill against the growth of Popery. Sir T. Butler says,
and most justly, " that it is unfair to debar Roman Ca-
tholics the possession of their property, unless they take
the oath of supremacy, because it ikexpreesly provided,
by the treaty of Limerick, that they shall take the oath
of allegiance only e. but when he comes to speak more
particularly of the measure under consideration, he ob-
serves, " the six next clauses of the Bill relate to civil
office; as to attaching the oath of supremacy to the
taking of civil office, these clauses only affect the Roman
Catholics of Ireland in the same degree to which they
affect the Dissenters:" and the whole of his argument
goes to thew that these six clauses were an infraction of
the rights—not of the Roman Catholios, but of the Dis-
senters. He thus abandons all claims to civil office.
Yet he was Solicitor to James IL—was employed in
drawing up the. Treaty of Limerick, and was engaged
by the Catholics against the Bill in the reign of Anne.
Next the Hon, Baronet, and my Right Hon. Friend, rest
this claim upon the
.ground of naturaltlgt ; and here
again I directly join issue with them : this is one
of the material points en which I have the misfortune
to differ from some of the friends with whom I am in
the habit of acting.: It involves a great constitutional
question, and my Right Hots. Friend goes even so far
as to argue that we have no more right to exclude
Roman Catholics from civil office, than to divest them.
-of their property : he _places the spoliation of property,
and the exclusion from civil office, on precisely the'
same footing ; but he admits that both may be sacrificed,
to paramount considerations of necessity ; but then that
'necessity must be established. I cannot allow that the
''ens of this country have any such claim as an ab-
lst, and I do not believe that the doctrine was

I

ent moment, that oath has been enforced, and has
operated to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics My
Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary for Fofeigir Affair's,
ssid that the taw of exclusion had its origin (all about
110 years ago, but I ,'eny the position; it h4d itsorigin
With the 6rs4 rise of dissent to matters of religion.-4a
What, let me inquire, has been the duct one maintained
by public men on the subject of civil office-? 1 have had
imeestsion before to refer to opinions entitled to the highest
respect, especially from those IL nourable Metribers
to whom lam particularly addle-sing myself. A
conference was held respecting the Bill of occa-
sional conformity, and the Lords who conducted
it, had objected to a measure which subjected to
the penalty of perpetual forfeiture of office those
who were guilty of the crime of occasional conformity.
At the conference they stated this important doctrine
The Lords look on the fixing s.,f the qualification for
'lace to be a thing so entirely lodged in tire ,
Wm that, without giving any reason for it, on any ap-
prehension of danger, however remote, every Govern-
ment may put such rules, restraints, and conditions on
all who serve in places of trust, as they shall see cattle
for; but penalties and punishments are of a different
nature." Can anything be more clearly laid down than
the distinction here taken between exclusion and penalty?
And who were the Lords that presided at the con-
fttrence?—the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Peter.
`borough, Bishop Burnett, Lord Halifax, and lastly,
tord Somers himself—(Hear, hear). Next let mt ask
my Right Honourable Friend what he says to that
article in the Scotch Act of Union, which perma-
nently excludes Roman Catholics from certain offices?
If there be this natural right, and if that-natural
right be correspondent with the right of property, is
it possible to suppose that the great men who adjusted
the articles of the Scotch Union would have allowed
this permanent exclusion of the Roman Catholics ?
But coming to periods nearer our own times, when the
dangers from Popery may be supposed to have had less
influence, I would call the.atteption of the House to the
debates of 1771 and 1774, on the subject of the Quebec
Act s let us look at the doctrine maintained by Lord
Chatham and Lord Camden regarding the Oath of Snpre.
misty. Both these distinguished men asserted that the
Oath of Supremacy was as sacred and as obligatory as
Magma Charta itself, and how can these opinions be
reconciled with the claim of natural right? I very
freely admit, that at the conference to which I have
referred, the Peers who managed it, allowed that ex-
clusion from office by law was a punishment of the se.
verest kind: but at a still more reßent period, 1790,
tubes the repeal of the Test Laws was -under con•idera-
tion, did Mr. Pitt admit the doctrine now Contended Lt.?
Certainly not. Mr. Burke's dissent at thit time was
on the score of danger from the Unitarians; but Mr.
Pitt, a warm supporter of the Roman Catholics, di-
rectly contradicted the position of the Honourable
Baronet, and my Right Hon.. .Friend. It should be
recollected that the Test Laws then under discussion,
were enacted with a view to the defence and preserva-
tion of the Constitution; and Mr. Pitt told the House
that "he hesitated not to say, that if distrust were
entertained of any one of the three branches of the
Constitution, it ought to be directed against the exe•
cadre power. The persons excluded by the Test Laws,
laboured under no kind of stigma; but it was the po-
licy of private life not to allow any man to manage
your affairs, whose principles you did not like; but the
exclusion of Dissenters could be looked upon as nos
punishment." I go further, and 1 maintain that if
the doctrine be correct, the exclusion from Parlia-
ment, and the refusal of the elective franchise, cannot
be justified. It seems to me that the power of sitting
here, or of voting for Members, is just as much a natural
right as that for which my Right Hon. Friend contends.
I then come to what, in fact, is the main point, and
which has reference to the circumstances of lteland ; and
I ask first, whether the power sought can safely
be granted ; and whether, if granted, it will conduce
to tranquillity ? I must own that if I were perfectly sa.
tisfied that concession would lead to the restoration
of peace and harmony ;if Ithought it would put an cad
to animosities 'the existence of which all lament, I for
one would not oppose the measure on a mere theory of
the Constitution, when consent would secure such im-
mense practical advantages. But because I doubt
whether the removal of disabilities on the condition
proposed, will pi omote tranquillity in Ir eland, or less re-
ligious animosities ; and because I think you cannot
safely remove the disabilities, I am dispoied to continue
the exclusion. Now let me ask, are these , civil tits,
abilities the cause of the disorders in Ireland?—(Near).
If you trace back these disorders as far as actual com-
motion is concerned, you will fins that they have no.
such origin. How. happens it otherwise that in the
Province of Ulster, where the number s of Catholics
and Protestants ate nearly balanced, the Insurrection
Act has sot been in a single instance ea -ot ced?—( hear).
.—.How happens it otherwise that the partial removal of
disabilities has not been attended with any beneficial
effect? In 1792, the Roman Catholics came forward,
and asked to be rendered capable of holding the office
of Magistrates, and of enjoying the elective franchi e.
They wanted, they said, notl.ing more, and those grossly
maligned them who said their wishes went fur then. The
elective franchise was conceded even more fully than •
they requested it, and Catholics were permitted to tetra
as well on Grand as on Petty Juries, Since these con-
cessions, has there been any diminution of party feeling
and factions animosity ?—(Hear).—Do tie Protestants
and Catholics live upon better terms than before 1793 ?,
—(Hear) —I think not ; but the answer of the sup.
potters of this proposition will be, 0. While you retails
anything—a hile you refuse to put both protass twos
an entire equality, the evil will continue; but as swot
as they are equal, it will cease." Admitting this, for
the sake of argument, for a moment, will the conces-
sion now claimed put them on an entire equality ?
What is claimed is a mere capacity or eligibility to
office, and after you have granted that, asaD you
be able to concede what the man Catholics oos.l I
consider a just distribution of ce ?—(Hear. hear).—
Would not the distinction s necessarily draws,
infinitely more galling and mortifying. since it would
be reduced to a mere personal exclusion ?—(Hea).--
When vacancies occurred, if a Protestant were pre.
Ilierred to a Catholic, would it not constantly expose the
Government to jealousy and reproach? Without re-
civing painful recollections of past rebellions, let us
'consider, after the removal of the disabilities, the very
anomalous situation of Ireland. It appears to me that
they always act unfairly who connect these disabilities
with Penal

opinions,
.the words of that bo-ly, the Honourable Gentleman had were liable to be defea;ed by the necessity or ezi.edi- sttyct tight, and I do not believe that the doctrine was tney always act vitality V. MP WINGIPUILICS
I cannot 'taken the Church under his especial care. But how ency of affording protection to the State. Tne Right tWiwed or maintained until recent times; I mean 1790. with the enal Laws whist the Catholics; no mast
[sire why 141 d he Liken it into his holy keeping? By moving Honourable and Learned Gentleman adverted to the I say that the last 900 years have afforded a practical holds in greater detestation than Ido those Penal Laws;
teig.o. all 'twenty or thirty—nos sit or teven—(4 leugh)—ltesolu. dangers which threatened Church and Side at the contradiction of the doctrine laid down by the supporters Ido not mean to inquire whether they Were necessary
her in 11W - • tions, the object of which wax it, slice, and slash, and Reformation. The Church of Rome had bhewo a of the claims of the lt•rman Catholics. At the time of by way of retaliation; but, as I before stated, I draw a
us kindly Aare the property of the Church, as if it wcre one 01 dibposition to interfere with and contronl the religion the Reformation, the Oath of Supremacy was adutiais• clear diatinction between disability and ponishmina.
of Chris.- the new ~a —dog- Co/oleic% Ile should next adiert to of the State. They laid claim to benefices, the right tered; and from the reign of Elisabeth up to the pre- But look at the anomalous state of Ireland in respect to
tof equal • • •
•
f'‘•
V -
(f. '