Star.
London, England, 1829-03-06 00:00:00

sistencr, for kuoldr *Met fllerreklit of the 04111111 c
. battle. •• I 'Mb, guhlipsl,hs wit spiuion by the opiaion
Parliament." Whoa I resisted Owe claims I did so
'candidly, sod on public grounds Ind public authority.
linger was a party to the petting op of petitions in sup-
port of hay own opinions upon it. Never, snider any
circumstances, did I attempt to influence ptiblic opi-
nion hi that way, or to bring it over to my own views by
expedients. The Members of this Honourable House
We the fittest Judges, and will decide the important
issue of this question. Many Hon. Members have upon
it a strong feeling. I respect that feeling, and shall cot
auempt.unfairly to influence it. Therefore, when I said
that the opinion of the county of York should go fqr
nothing. 1 only meant that in the persons of its repre-
sentatives its opinion on this subject is balanced. The
next county, in point of extent and population, is Mid-
dlesex, the metropolitan county of England. It sends
two Members to Parliament, both of whom vote io fa-
veer of the Catholic Claims. Lancaster is the next
county in point of importance, and Lancaster, like
York, has expressed no opinion, for its Members vote
differently on this question. Devon follows the exam-
ple of Lancaster. Kent is in the same predicament.
Surrey, in the came manner, sends two Members, one
of whoni supports, the other opposes, the Catholic
Claims. Sonaersetshire is an exception to those I have
mentioned; both my Hon. Friends, the Representatives
of that county, and who, no doubt, honourably repre-
sent its sentiments, vote against the Catholic Claims.
Norfolk, on the other hand, pairs off with Somerset,
and sends two Members favourable to the question.
Stafford, my own native county, sends &o Members
who have uniformly supported the Catholic Claims.
Essex is in the same situation. In the case of Hamp-
shire the case is different ; both Members oppose the
question. Lincoln is neutralised. Warwick and Suffolk
are similarly circumstanced. Am I not, therefore, jus-
tified in saying that strong opinion against these Claims
does not exist, or, if it does exist, that it has not been
expressed, when I find the result of this account is, that
these 15 counties send 15 Members to this House against .
the Catholic Claims and 17 in favour of them—and that,
too, after the former House of Commons had twice
passed Bills of relief? Yet, after these, the public opi-
nion of these counties has been thus publicly expressed.
The twenty largest cities and towns have in the follow.
ing manner demonstrated their opinions: London sent
four Membets, two of whom support, and two oppose,
this question. Westminster sends two Members, both
Of wbom have been uniformly favourable to these
Claims. Southwark two, who vote similarly. Liverpool
sends two, one of whom is favourable, the other adverse,
'to this question. Bristol sends two, both of whom vote
against it. Norwich sends two, one in favour and the
other against the Catholic Claims. Nottingham sends
two, both of whom ate favourable to them. Newcastle-
upon-Tyne also sends two Members in favour of this
question. The Representatives for Leicester are divided.
The same is the case with respect to the Hon. Mam-
bas f rr Hull. The two Members sent by Exeter are
against the Catholic Claims. Coventry is neutralized.
B nth the Hon.Reptesentatives for Chester vote in favour
of 1.14 Catholic Claims. The two Hon.-Members for
Great Yarmouth support them, as do the Representa-
tives for Derby. The Members for Ipswich are divided.
• Worcester sends two Members, one of whom does not
vote.oa the question, the other is favourable to it. One
91 the Represeutatives for Aylesbury votes for. the
other against. these claims. Carlisle the same. Of the
two lipn.Membets for Colchester, one does not vote an
the question, the other opposes it. The result of these
facts is, that, of the Representatives of these twenty
large town, eighteen vote against concession, and
twenty-eight in favour of it—(Hear).' I must, there-
hire. say. that the expression of the deliberate voice of
England is in favour of the settlement of the Catholic
Claims. But, even were that not the case, Parliament
having for the last ten years been nearly equally divided
on the question, it is not fair to throw on me the re:pon-
sibklity of permanently opposing the settlement of it.
.1 shall now refer to the state of public opinion with
reaprct to the mfetence drawn from the debates in
this House on the Catholic question. Upon whom,
I ask. has the' burthen of opposing these claims
been thrown ? I hold in my. hand a list of the
speakers in favour of the Catholic question, and
those against it. To name those individuals would be
invidious; but, when individuals have for ten years
suffered this question to be discussed without ever once
attempting to oven their mouths to express their seati-
ntents upon it—when the speakers on the other side
were as three to one, it is very hard that those who never
beard themselves speak should come forward now in
1829, and say that the weight of Protestant feeling was
against the settlement of this great and important ques-
tion; and I must say that the Hon. Member for Kent
would have evinced his zeal fur the Protestant Est.-
blishment better by supporting me in the Catholic Que-
stion than by summoning the people of Kent to meet on
Penenden Heath—(Hear). A snort important inference
may be drawn from these facts. How long is resistance
Lobe kept up? That is the question for Parliament, and
those who are responsible for the Government to consider.
Have the young Members of this House been enlisted
Spins' these Claims? Now, when it is sought to throw
the sesponsiblny of opposing th's question on me, I feel
bound to state that it is impossible not to see that almost
every yotng man who has entered this House within
the last ten years has come forward actively, zealously,
and eloquently to advocate the Catholic Claims--(Hear,
hear. hems). Ttle,e, I
say, are important het., which
ought not to be Irk on; of consideration—(leo). Tu
resome. This baying been for five and twenty years
the stay of the Government and the state of Parliament,
I come nest to thevonsideration of what has been. the
state of Ireiaud doing the same period. It is possilde
that the state of LeLsod may have depended upa a the
discussions in its goverosuesst; but I will not enter into
an argument upon ceases:rad effects. It is. however.
impossible to look at the sitnarioo of that cam-,
uy, under those cirtocostauceb without prophesying
what migtt be the effect of the changes I am
about to propose—(Hear bear). If every thing were
strut+. tory--if the orsdoery course of the laws were
sufficiem for the.goveransent of Ireland and for her
weitare—there on,ght be good grounds for objecting to
alseratioy ; but, dur..g the tints whoa Parliament was
divided an.l the Lioveremeni disenitesi on thisqeession.
what has been the state of kelsed ? That during the
lost 25 years Ministers were sciacely ever able to rely'
upon tie ordinary less for thegovet mat of them:mos
try. I am ready. es s poblic man. to take my abase of
this tesponsihiatj; but I say it is a chasge which falls in
proportion upon essey public men who participated i*
the odeieistration witbin the OW period. In 11300 mar.
vet law was rocLaioge. anci the I:kriteesCoPpecast was
64SPeli4C 10 iks way 69440011et1. I am told
1 4tl ferartiog dates Pith which every mask familiar.
somit We lam ltioS wait "No coiled liCesseete.
so which Lardirtarardr* was imerdered.
aIAR t D 0.4149 Tbesit a* Ware nosseems
',eq s: 14W1C7 ceatit.e44 1411106 the,
bad expiied; bur the counties in tbe s mils of Ireland
(that happened doting the &moon= of thopoke os

,Bs ford) ware in a sew approaching, to rebellion.; *pa
a special commissio6 amcordinly seat dews. In
1407 the In‘urrection Act was passed, which 'ens-
powered the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the -coreries
at his own discretion, and which rendered a man liable
to transportation for being fund out of his bonze
after the prescribed hour. In 1809 it was continued ; in
1810 it was suffered to expire. I may be asked. why 1
dicrnot put down the Calbsilic Association? But let
me remind the House of that which took place at the
time when the present Earl of Carlisle (then Lord Mor-
peth) brought forward in 1811 his motion concerning
Mr. Wellesley Pole's circular. TheCatbolic Board, which
consisted of Peers. Baronets. Bishops, Peers eldett SONS.
and others, was put down. Two prosecutions took place;
in one of them the party was acquitted, in the other
twhaesr es
suppressed,
aescs
eod b
o i et ot
nw:ais revived
ntil
agthethaenin.CalthnolliSc2anas and
other attempt at suppressing it was made. In 1828
that Act, which was a temporary one, expired; and
now, in 1829, we are again employed in passing an
Act for the suppression of dangerous Associations.—
In 1814 the Insurrection Act was renewed; in ISIS
it was continued ; in 1817 it expired. It was again
rencaed in 1822, and it continued through 1841 and
1824. In 1825 the Act against Illegal Associations was
pissed, which continued through 1826 and 1827, and,
as I have just stated, in 1828 it expired. Such were the
consequences to Ireland of a divided Parliament and a
disunited Government; and these convince me that
matters cannot remain as they are, but that some attem; t
must be made to settle the question. I now approach
that part of my address which is &tatted to what the
.proposed alterations are. The first step would be to
secure an undivided Parliament and an united Govern-
meat, who would be prepared to consider the possibis
lity of adjusting this question. Let us consider the
possibility of -this first part of the proposition, for
it appears to we that we hare arrived at that point
when we have to cbocse only between one or other
—namely, batmen a uniteJ Government prepared
to resist, or a united Gcvernment prepared to con-
cede. Can a Government be formed prepared to
offer permanent resistance o the Catholic cla'.rns? I
wish to discuss this question, because. if it cannot be
shown to me that such a Government can be formed—
that permanent resistance to these claims cannot be
made—then am I just,fiei in the proposition which
have undertaken to submit to the House. I next ask,
can a Government be formed on the principle of resist-
ing on permanent grounds the claims of the Roman
Catholics ? I may be answered, 64 We are prepared to
resist, and permanently;" but the question is, not what
is to be said, but, what is to be done? Before the
enactment of the law of 1825, the opinion of the Law
Officers of the Crown had been asked on the point,
whether the common law was sufficient for the sop
version of the Catholic Association? The answer
was, that the common law was sufficient. Why,
then, should the Government trammel and paralyze the.
common law by the enactment of a new statute? At
the end of the last. Session, when the Catholic Associa-
tion Act expired, the question was again put to my Hon.
and Learned Friends, the law officers of England and
Ireland, and that, too, at a time when the acts and lan-
guage of the Association had assumeJ an aspect of in.
creased violence—the question was again put, whether
the common law was sufficient to suppress the Associa-
tion? and the same answer was given again, that the
law was sufficient. It bad been asserted, and by a high
authority too, that the Act of 1825 bad been so framed
that a coach and four -could be driven through it ; as
it may be said of the measure l shall have the honour
to introduce this evening, that a horse and cast may
drive through it. If, then, the law and the divretionary
authority, as stated by a high legal authority, have
failed in producing the desired effect, what, I ask,
is the other remedy which the adversaries of Con-
cession can propose? Suppose, then, the existing
laws to be insufficient, and the introduction of new
laws to be insufficient—an opinion which again, I
say, has been given by the highest legal authority
does it not prove that there is in Ireland a spirit et re-
sistance so elastic as to evade any resit ictions which,
under present circumstances, could be fabricated? The
question then to be considered was.what was to be done
with the Catholic Association ? further restrictions ap-
peared to be inoperative, and as to ulterior measures of
coercion, the very suspicion of them would have ex-
cited into still greater violence those feelings of discos.
tent in Ireland which had already existed in an aggra-
vated form. What then was to be done? In the discus-
sion that took place on Ibis question last Session in this
House, the numbers were 272 in favour of Concession,
and 266 against. Can it be :oppose] possible then. foe
a moment, that a House of Comm ins so divided-
would have given any attention,l will not say support,
to any measures of coercion proposed by the Govern-
ment ? I have stroag doubts whether Government could
havecarried insuch a House ofeommons any measure of
coercion against the Catholic Association. But, sup-
posing such a coercive Rill to have passed, and t- e
Catholic Association suppressed, could you have stopped
there? If you had not been prepared to take into con-
sideration the removal of the disabilities affecting the
Roman Catholics, what could you have done with the
-lectire franchise as exercised by the Catholics of Ire-
land? It has been stated by the Hon. Member for the
University of Oxford that if the existing disabilitiei were
removed, twenty-three counties of Ireland would be
prepared to follow the example of the county of Clate:4
and send into this House Members favourable to the
Catholic Claims. Thus, according to this statement,
forty-six Representatives would come into this House
elected through the influence of the Catholic Priest-
hood, and under circumstances of aggravated excite-
ment. What. then, would be the remedy for such a
state of things? A dissolution of Parliament. But
eettld a Government adverse to concession (supposing
such a Government formed, and the Association sup-
pressed, the supplies voted), could such a Government
venture to dissolve Parliament under such circum.
stances? These are points which you must decide in
forming an opinion on the results of concession or non-
concession, and points, too, from which you cannot es-
cape; for I am notmore certain of any cirenntstaece than
I am of this—that, be the majority, under such a Go.
111111111111119 what it may, no majority will, under the
system adopted bp an exclusive Government, be able to
compete with the evils of Ireland. Now, Br,l ask, of these
the think that such a Government, after suppressing the
Association and getting the supplies, could safely dissolve
'the Parliament, I ask such Gentlemen, how could the
goveenment of Ireland be carried on in such circus-
stoats.? Let its first look to the constituent body of
Irelimd. This is antmportant point, and I beg the
auestism of Honourable Members to its consideration.
Of the number of Irish Members who voted in this
House on the lest occasion-when this question was de-
'pied, the total number of representatives was 61. Ot
'these 46 voted for concession, and 16 in favour of re-
agues. Of the amber of Members for large towns
aid botosighs, sizteea voted against the Catholic Claims
and seventeen in support of them. Thus, of the ltish
Members, 61 *fete is favour atconcgskat trod-ES-

against it. Of** Members for the city of DAS!' Ont
aas opposed to concession, and the other was friendlr
to it. The Members for the Univeraity of Debbie
voted in favour of concession; the Membtn for Cork
voted for conceslion; so did the Menthe's for Limerick,
and
thalew a, and the
Myembersl°rMe Member
Waterford,
sadiOghedthea Drogheda; and the
for
Member Deny voted against concession. Thus, of
theiepr fur
of Ireland. the clear majority, by One
half,willha
of have been
G
•foundto have given
willtheir supportree
to a measure
claim, this is a proof of the undue inflaeoce of the RI.
man Catholics. Sir, I admit the fact,. and 1 ask, whit
remedy haec you against fi? You have already a
large majority of the representation of Ireland ag ainstem
elusion. Taking it for granted. then, that 23 counties of
Inland are prepared to follow the example of Clare,
you will have to add Jo the present forces to Park'.
sent in favour of concession the additio.ta; Catholie
partisans whom the e). iterneut 0: a. general election
Will have given to thc Catholic cause; under tile violent
excitement that must follow such a dissolution of Par.
liament. Thus, Sir, you oil have to commence your
seclusive Government with the whole constituency and
the great majority of the representatives of Ireland
against you, and then be separated as England is from.
Island. I say there will exist in that country a local ill-
flamice. which must counteract all the power of any
amoral or political influence that can ptilcevai from this
gauntry. What Alternative, then, rem 'in- ! Will you
proceed to retract the privileges which you have already
granted to the-Ca.holics? Ido not :Wok such a measure
expedi 111. I believe that the commencenwnt of a Go-
verement, acting on the system ea recall of the yarding
privileges enjoyed by the Catholic., and on the princi-
ple of never conceding any further concesssions,woell
ptnduce in the minds of the people cf Ireland a e, -Action
which might,. ender aggravated rreasuies and excited
feelings, proceed to a struggle between religious parties
la Ireland, and which, if pushed to its legitimate issue,
would end in there-enactment of the penal law.. N.,w,
Sir, let me a,k, can the penal laws be revived ? Ciin
the penal laws be applied with any policy, or any seen.
City, to the present circumstance, of lielend? You
have given them the elective franchise. It has give*
them power. Can you take it away again? You have
removed the seal from the vessel. Can yon conjure back
again the great :pith into the nurser limits from which
you have released it ..?• Can you reduce the peasantry
of Ireland to the condition in viiiich they were wiser'.
they received the elective franchise e Having given to
the lass of the Catholics a privilege which, ender the
advanced influence of education 4nd increasing .pro.
petty, has given them formidable power in tht CeCtiorl
nfierelentatiVet. Can you, can a Government united
I against concession. venture to re-impose on them the
penal laws, and this', t.. 0, on a population labouring
cuder the 'eacitenient of alarmed feelings? Ant{.
I here, whatever may be the number of persons
posed to i.e opposed to concession, it is impor ant
`to consider the amount of the population of Ire.
land interested in the success of the measure. Lst
es• look at it, then. with a view to consider its effects
on a Government United in a determination to withJraw
from the Catholics the privileges enjoyed by them at
present. The population of Ireland, according to the
last census, is 6,800.000 persons. Of these 1,963,000
are either Protestant Dissenters or members of the
Church of England. This calculation I take from the
returns made by my Hon. Friend, the Member lot
Louth, and made, I believe' with the greatest accuracy.
I err this point, inasmuch as it will be most necessary
fir a Government, formed oo the exclusive systems to
take into its consideration, in the details of the Govern-
ment of Ireland, the relative numbers and religious pro.
fessiun of the population. and that population sea state
of excited and irritated feeling. Thus, Sir, of the seven
millicas comprising the population of Ireland, five
millions may be taken to be Roman Catholics, and
the remaining two millions Protestants. Now, at first
sight, it may be supposed that the government of he*
land may be safely carried on by the help of the two
millions of Protestants; but look at the manner in which
they are dispersed and divided through the country.
True, ofthose two millions of Protestants twelve hers.
bed thousand reside in Ulster. So far the thing is well
enough. But consider it a little further. You have in
Leiouer, Connaught, and Munster, four millions and
two hundred and fifty thousand It•nnan Catholics, and
but 750,000 Protestants. Yet this population is still
more unequally distributed. In Antrim and Down
are parishes in which there are no Roman Cotholicas
while in the contiguous parishes of Clare you censor
find a resident Protestant. There are three parishes is
Munster in which there are no Proteratits,either of the
Chinch of England or of the dissenting creeds. In
Ulster there are four parishes, all the population of
which are Protestant. not one being Catholic; while in
Leinster, whose total population amounts to 166,000,
134,000 of whom ate Catholics, and but 24.000 Pro-
testants, In Munster there are 72 parish. s, in which
the number of Protestants are 12,900, of the Catholics
1644500, making as of Catholics, in relation to Pro-
testants, about thirteen to one. Of twenty-three other.
parishes, of Munster, comprising a total population
of 102,000 persons, the Catholic portion of lababi-
tatits amounts to 96,001, wl its the Protestant part
was but 4.000, making twenty Catholics to one. I ask
the House toconsider the condition oh that Population,
thus unequally distributed, and worked op. uider the
infinense of a Government adverse to concession, hoe
feelings of political dissension and religious animosity.
Can ray Gevernment, united io hostility to the Roma*
Catholic Claims, venture to repeal the existing privileges
of 4,015.000 Roman Catholics, sp•ead amo ig only
750,000 Protestants.? I ask. would it be for the interest
of the Protestants that such a measure should be ;de ted?
Is it possible that you can repeal the privileges of sash
a polo:dation so situated, that is, while you leans 10
diipm the trial by Jury ?I say you cannot. and still WWII
I say, and I am sasisfied it would not be conducive to
the security of the interest of the Protestants, that the
line of detnateatioo,whith is at present too clear, shook!
be drawn still snore distinct between them and thee
Catholic fellow countrymen, and that while the Catholics
would have, as they most continue. to have, sin* 1
powerful alliance in the majority of this House of Pere
liament. But Honourable Gentlemen have said that
this battle was to be (might by the Protestants epilog
die Catholics. Sir, that is not the real state of thecae.
Look at the declarations lately issued by certaia Prete,
is of Ireland. Having read the sentiments set kW
is that declaraties, you trill see that the battle (SO ll
tais
ea the term) is not to be fought by the Protestant •
against the Catholics 1 but by the Catholics ;sits'
against the Protestants divided. Fur this opinion I ap-
peal, Sir, to facts. I appeal to the declared's. w
which I have just alluded. That declaration was
signed by Protestants possessing the highest tanks pin' •
perty, and interest in the welfare of Ireland. Canal*.
Hon. Member doubt the sincerity of the °plain's abet
express? -Will any-man imagine, fir a moment, till
such a document srascgot up. for a .party Porsif •
No -wan. • To• that dochusinit; then, I appeal. at
proof incostroyeitiblet. *at: sbcfrottstaat mitNl a

.
.