Star.
London, England, 1805-05-11 00:00:00

1 I hope it •never will 'make any difference in our
hiendlhip. I trult I (bail not fo completely roil.-
take the objeel of the motion, as he and Airco-her
Noble Lord (Mulgrave) have done. It appears to
Fie, from the arguments of the Noble Lord, that the
!inure ought to go into a Committee, for the put-
pole of refcinding all thole horrible measures of con-
ceiGon which have been granted to the Catholics ;
but when I heard the Noble Vileount (Sidmouth )
on the time fide, talk of the tranquillity of Ireiarvf,
the effeet of thefe concellions, I did expeet he would
elvife going into a Committee for the porpofe of ex-
tending them. The arguments divithd theinfelves
into two kinds; al, whether it were proper to g-ant
any thing to the Roman Catholics? and, 2dly, whetht r
the preterit was a proper time ? Upon thefe two fpe-
cies of argument I (hall not occupy the Houle at any
great length. It is a ftrange ohjeftion to my Noble
Friend's motion to fay that he propofes an entire rt
peal of dll fecurities of our C,,illitution. The Noble
Lord ( Hawkelbnry) thinks that my Noble Fr ler,el
withes to repeal the Bill of Rrghtr, and the Al of
Settlement. Why. if a granger, unapprifed of the
nature oldie proceeding, were to comeinto this Horde,
he would conclude, from the fpeeches of the Noble
Lords, that the objeft of the Petition was to make
the Rornan Catholics the Kings of the Country. The
Noble Viscount lays, it is impcflible that thofe who
ohjeaed to the minor claim of the tell aft, coald pre
their anent to one of In much greater extent as the
prefent ; this is a flrange argument. The motion is
for a Committee, in which one man may vote frr
one indulgence, and another man may be for grain-
ing an indulgence of a different kind ; but to refute
the motion, you mull be prepared to fay, that the
laws refpeaing the Roman Catholics are complete,
and no farther concellion whatever mull be granted,
or that this is not the proper time for the application,
The Noble Secretary (Hawkefbury) has drawn a
diflinftion between civil rights and political power,
and he contends that no country would admit a fubjeft
to the enjoyment of the latter without a tell. This
argument, I think, cannot be continently urged.
—A Noble Lord rays, toleration to the Roman Ca.
tholics is now complete. Does he mean to fay,
that for the enjoyment of civil rights, perfons of that
perfuafion fhould be admitted to fit in both Houfes
of Parliament, but that they ought to be excluded,
left the indulgence fhould bring them into polref.
lion of political power? I fancy, however, that with-
out political power civil liberties are not very fecure.
I have bad lately an opportunity of knowing the
Rate of Ireland, and I do know that the (late of the

Roman Catholics, in their prefent exclulion, is hard
and galling. We boas of the Conllitution of Eng-
land. We call upon the people to fubmit to priva-
tions, to fecure to them the enjoyment of that Con-
ftitution. Now, does the Noble Lord think that it

mutt not diminilh the love of that Conititution,
and the temptation to fubmit to privations for its
tupport, if the full enjoyment be withheld ? If, at
the time cf the Union, you agreed to that mea-
fore, meaning, however, to refute thc full benefit
of the Conititution to the Catholics, I fay it was a
&lotion, and the Ira Catholics have not the ad-
_ _

vantage, which .they expetted from it. There is
another grievance which in the pretent (Late of the •
Irith Catholics is felt, particularly in the army, which
is deprived of the fervice of men of courage and
talents, who, but for the difabilities that now exift,
would fill its ranks. This grievance (hikes me
the more forcibly, as I have had lately an oppor.
tunity of feeing 'Tamen zealous in the fervice of
another country (hi: Lordfiiip it juji retnined front
Spain), who had left their own on account of the
obfiacles thrown in their way by their religion.--
The army is remarkable for a high fence of ho-
nour, and, as the grievance to which I allude comes
in con.= with it, the effect is the greater. A Re-
cruiling Serjeant may go into a country town in
Ireland to beat up for recruit!, and he may promife
them the free ezercife of their religion thould .they
enlitt with him. No inconvenience will be felt upon
that fubjea, while they remain in Ireland ; but fup.
pole the regiment thould be fent to Englan, what is
the cafe then? The Roman Catholic Soldier is or-

dered to go to church, and he has no opportunity of
going to mats to perform worthip according to the
form of his own perfnalion. Is not this a great
grievance ? and, as 4 Noble Friend fuggefts to me,
Catholic officers, when they come here, are fubjea to
the fame Inconvenience. The Noble Secretary of State
far, the Catholics do not careAbaut the queflion, and
for this he quotes the authority of Arthur O'Connor
and Dr. M'Neven; but I think, that however compe-
tent thefe twomen may be to fpeak for themfelves, they
are not competent to anfwer for the whole of the Ca-
tholic body. It is Orange that the Noble Lords fficarld
boat to much of the Revolution of i 688, holding the
arguments which they do. Does the Noble Secre-
tary mean to fay, that if James the Second had not
been a Papift, Englithmen would have fuhmitted to
his arbitrary ails ? If religion were any. thing but a
fecondary ohjea, if it had been merely the cafe, it
would greatly tarnith in my eyes the great and glo-
rious ara of t6BB. If Popery only WAS the ogneflion,
and King William had converted a Popilh to a Pro-
teftant Government, he would have deferved great
praife ; but 1 think that the revolution_of 1688 was
of a higher nature, and upon a broader hafts. I think
it was more againft arbitrary principles than the
cafual influence of the Catholics at that time. The
Noble Lords fay, that the Catholics do not care
about the indulgence which is fought, and yet the
Noble Vifcount adds, that the refult of the queftion,
if granted, would be to grant the hate itfelf. Now,
I think, my Noble Friend has proved irrefragably that
the Catholics, flippofing their claims to be allowed,
could never arrive at any great influence in this Houle.
The argument was a plaufible one, which urged
their probable afceodancy in the Parliament of Ire-
land; but the Union has completely taken away all
foundation for it. At the time of the Union wi.h
Set:island, the oppofers of that meafure foretold the
fame confequences which are now infifted upon by
thole who refill the Catholic Claims; but I do not
find that the event has juflified their Apprehenfioni.
Why, then, may not Iriffi Catholics conduit them.
felves with the fame fafety to the Conflitution, as the
Scots Members? We are Aced. wken we grant this,
how do we know what they will afk next, and where
their demands will flop ? This argument goes to all
. former conceffions. If we are not to grant any t;:ing„'
left fomething more may be demanded, it would 1-e
better to !hut the doors againll all Petitions. We arc
, told that the Catholics are not fatitfied with the tell. A