Star.
London, England, 1828-05-09 00:00:00

-

same glorious effect under evet y foj.m of govaewasent
in the civilizes world. He hoped he Might b sat'llacd
that the Houselivould net tecedie bow * incised that
had formerly passed. lOW not. it Might beobsetved,
`aid liktrota about securities. In his opinion, no securities ,
were rich the consideration of' a statesman or a mao
of sent', but what were derived from a system of equal
laws and their impartial aditinistratiOn. He hoped
the people of Ireland might yet have reason to rejoice
at, and not to lament the r union with this country ;
and he called upon the House to pay the debt of justice
so long due, confident that it would be received with
gArnayt i two dc eu,r
iatny dnaofft or
er d p
utgh
ne
abnetstt securityothe p r i tno c
ipl
es both
o f
th
e countries.
re-
ligion they profess (the refusal to give which is the
greatest of all the securities we can have) they are will-
in, to give. Be thought none necessary; but he did
not, therefore, object to its being given, for those who
fancy the danger may think it a security. Let then any
security, with the limitation he had mentioned, be pro-
posed, and it will he given. Any Gentleman who thought.
security necessary would agree to the motion he was
about to make, as the only means of obtaining his object.
Whets they were in Committee, should by possibility
such a feeling of the necessity of a security arise in the
breast of any man, then would be the time for him to
propose it. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving—
" That the House resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the
State of the Laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects
in Ireland, with a view to such Conciliatory Amendments as may
be to the general satisfaction of all patties."
Mr. BROUGHAM seconded the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose at nearly the
same time with Mr. Perceval, for whom there were
loud calls, but that Gentleman yielded to the Solicitor-
General, who, after the noise of sheeting had subsided,
said—There is one very important point in this question
to which I expected the Honourable Baronet would
hat e more applied himself than he has done. When we
find, from the time of the Reformation downwards, it
has been the anxious eesign of this nation, by laws
passed. with the greatest consideration, to strengthen
and confirm that Reformation, I did expect to hear
some arguments offered in proof that some change had
taken place in the opinions and reasonings of those who
were tot rued), removed by those laws from the rank
which they held in the State. I expected some such
arguments, in order to have induced the House to ac•
cede to this motion. Thelionourable Baronets wish is
to have no securities or pledge; and from all that we
canittarn, the Catholics themselves are unwilling to give
any; yet we are called upon to grant them privileges
that will enable them to injure us. The Hon. Baronet's
proposition is to remove the sestraints imposed by law
for the protection of the Established Church, from
6 000,000 of people completely under the guidance of
their Priests and Bishops—(Cheers) ; and not only
that, but to allow them, if not to be through the Priest,
under the government of a foreign Power, at any rate,
much subject to its interposition and controul—(Hear).
I do say that, from the earliest period at which Eng-
land was a nation, there never has been such a state of
things as the measure the Hon. Baronet proposes would
introduce. I will endeavour to follow him through
the principal portions of his speech, and trust I shall
be able to convince the House that the claim he has
set up on the part of the Catholics has no ground
on which to stand. With respect, in the first place,
to the Treaty of Limerick, I think I shall show
that both its words and spirit, are in direct opposi-
tion to the conclusion he has come to. The Hon.
Baronet says that he should like it to be examined
in a Court of Justice as the title to any other
claim might be. I will deal with him more fairly
and liberally than he wishes, for in Courts of Justice we
construe all contracts to.the very letter, but in this I
will put the most ample cos-lit/Action the spirit of it
will allow. Even then I shall come to a very.different
conclusion from the Hon. Baronet. Now it appears
clear that throughout the Treatxtyro sets of persons are
contemplated. In the first artiaeoll Catholics in ge-*
neral seem to be included ;,but the second relates excln-
sively of those in the City of Limerick, or that were then
under the Controul of different officers in King James's
pay. lam sure, and I say it advisedly, that the Hon.
Baronet will agree with me, that.this must be the right
construction of the Treaty, if he will turn his attention
to the provisions of an Act passed soon sifter. The Act to
sshich I allude is the 7th King William, passed in 1695.
It was an Act passed for the general disarming of the Ca-
tholics; but he will find that the 4411 .section ot it exempts
from its operation all such persons as were included in
the Treaty of Limerick. What, can. this mean but that
no Catholics, except those actually in -Limerick, were
affected by the Treaty? If all Catholics were included
in it, the Act I have quoted would havebeen inopera-
tive. This, I think,' is a proposition which &isnot be
controverted with any appearance of reason. The first
article, as I have already stated, applies to all Catholici.;
but the question whether all Catholics are not merely
to be entitled to the free elm cise of their religion, which ,
that article provides, but whether no laws were there.
after to be passed to alter their condition in any man-
ner? Whether, for example, if circumstances were to
arise to call for such a measure, they were not to be
excluded from the two Houses of Parliament? It they
meant to have bargained for any such thing, they used
words as foreign to the purpose as it was possible for
them to have found out:— (Hear. hear, hear).—
Sir Toby Butler, whom the Hon. Baronet has justly
mentioned with great praise, was himself en Limerick
at tie time, and passed out with the test of the army
with all the honours of war. It cannot.be supposed that
a man of such ability, and so accomplished a scholar,
could have been concerned in, or have even known ot,
such an instrument, so worded to express a meaning so
different. With respect to the ninth article, which pro-
vides that the oath of allegiance shall be the only oath
the Catholics shall take?—that cannot be meant to apply
to all Catholics, but merely to those who were then about
to submit themselves—(Hear, hear!) Indeed. it was
impossible that it could apply to all Catholits,for already
they were obliged to take other oaths. All who held public
offices were obliged to take the Oath of Supremacy. The
2d of Elizabeth, and the 26th Charles 11. both imposed
oaths. Now, the treaty could never have meant to re-
lieve Catholics generally from taking these oaths, since,
even it any of the persons in Limerick had wanted to hold
an -office of State afterwards, it would have been neces-
sary for them to take the oath I have mentioned. Mine,
therefore, I contend, is the true construction of the Treaty.
But, besides, the argument is bad, for it proves too
much. If there is any thing in it at all, it implies that
King William bound himself, whatever circumstances
might arise hereafter, not to diminish the privileges
the Catholics then enjoyed; so that, in point of tact,
the Catholic would be better off than the Protestant,
for the latter, it cannot be denied, might have his situa-
tion altered by the Legislature in any manner circum.
stances might direct. If, for example, a Protestant was
disabled from obtaining a seat in that House, unless
he had an estate of SOU per annum in land, a Catholic
Would be liable to no such disability. Is it a states-
men-like view of the subject to go back to art old
Treaty made a hundred and thirty years ago, and to
fOund att wigwam now on the alleged breach of that