Star.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

If the Bill were converted into a loan tot light, it
was a great satisfaction to him to know that the sun I
would rise upon those worthy people to-morrow, and
find them.in the same perfect good humour and hap-
piness in which they were to-day—(flear, hear, and
laughter).—He deprecated the idea of having said
anything which went to apply the .epithet bigotted
to a great body of the Protestant people of this coml.
try. Nothing could be more foreign to the feelings
of his heart than any such idea. And, indeed, he
could assure the Honourable Member who threw out
some insinuation of that sort, that if there was an in li
-
dividual in the House to whom such a charge might
be applicable, he Was the last person to whom it
could be justly ascribed. He always treated the opi-
nions of others with great respect, and not the less so
when they differed from his own. He felt that, in
his own opinions, such as they were, there might.he
many errors. If those errors were pointed out to him,
no one would be more ready to yield to the sugges-
tions. cl truth than himself. He begged to assure the
House, that in preparing the Resolutions upon which
these Bills were founded, he, and those able and re-
spectable .persons with whom he had co-operated,
proceeded with .an anxious regard fir Protestaut feel-
ing. They considered every real danger which ex-
isted, and even provided against every reasonable ap-
prehension. This was their principal object, to con-
sult the proper feelings of the Roman Catholics, to
protect the rights and interests of all their fellow-
subjects ; to steer, in a word, that course which would
have the effect of reconciling both—(!tear, hear).—
As, on the one hand, nothing was to be yielded of the
required security, so, on the other, nothing was to
be demanded which would be inconsistent with that
security—(Wear, hear). Proceeding on these grounds,
they hoped to attain the end desired ; and, se far as
they had yet advanced, they had succeeded. The
state of the public mind in Ireland was, in the .main,
favourable to the measure. Io England, an lion.
Member said, it was looked upon with apathy.—
Apathy !—No ; they were not inattentive to the mea-
sure ; but, in his opinion, their disposition was to
leave it entirely to the wisdom of Parliament—
( Cheers ).—They confided in theintegrity and good
' sense of their Representatives, confident that, if any
real danger menaced the Establishment, their Parlia-
ment would provide against it—(Hear, hear).-
Before he proceeded to sta:e the nature of the first
Bill, he would take leave to set himself right in the
opinion of the House as to a part of what he had
said on a former evening. He did then assert, that'
admission to the franchises and offices of the State
was the Constitutional right of every Roman Catholic
liege subject of the King. The . rights of all liege
subjects of the King were equal in the case of the
firstelements of the Constitution. That assertion he
would now re-assert. In the same sense in which
the Protestant was entitled to any franchise, privi-
lege, or right, the Roman Catholic was entitled to it.
But he never said, nor meant to say, that that right
was of such a nature that it was not to be controuled
by any particular exigency of the State. The Roman
' Catholic admitted this. If it could be shewn to the
Roman Catholic that there would be any real danger
in extending to him -the enjoyment of those rights
which the Constitution gave him, then he must yield
to that danger as over-ruling his claim. But be would
ask those who denied this doctrine, where did the
Protestant find his right to vote for Representatives
in Parliament? Where did he find his right to eli-
gibility to a seat himself *in Parliament? Where
was his title, according to law, to any one privilege
or franchise which he exercised? He did not know,
unless it was in the first elements and essential prin-
ciples and stamina of the British Constitution—
(Hear, hear, hear).—The Roman Catholics corn-'
plained that, by certain Acts of Charles 11. they were
excluded from certain offices in the State. Do they
deny the validity of those Acts? No: hut they said'
that those Acts had arisen out of temporary circum-
stances—that a danger existed to which a remedy
was applied, but that now the danger was gone, the
remedy was no longer necessary. They now, there-
fore, asked it as a matter of justice from the
House, that the restriction which was imposed upon
them by the exigency of the times, should cease, the,
exigency no longer existing. If anyone could chew
that that danger was not gone, it was competent to!
him, no doubt, to do so. But if he was to be told,
True, the danger is gone, but independently of that
danger, and beyond it, there is a principle in the Con-
stitution which prohibits the Roman Catholic the
enjoyment of those rights and privileges which the
Protestant possesses,"—he denied it. lie.challenged,
au y man who Was acquainted wish the Constitution of
this country to prove it, or to say that such a principle
was not at war with the first elements of that Constitu-1
tion. -He wished to set himself right with the House on'
this point, because it raised a question which turned
by its_ effect on the Protestant Dissenter. Nothing
could be. more unfair than that mode of argument
it mixed up the case of the Roman Catholic with
that of the Dissenter, when, as it appeared to him,
each case should be allowed to- stand upon its own
ground. If there was no reason for excluding the
Roman Catholic from his constitutional franchises,
he was entitled to be admitted to the enjoyment of
' them. If the claim of the Protestant Dissenter was
equally strong, and if no danger existed which pre-
vented him from being admitted to the enjoyment of
his constitutional rights, he had an equal claim to be
admitted. When the question of the Protestant Dis-
senter was brought before the- House, the House
would judge it upon its own grounds: He bad
formed an opinion upon that question, but as it was
not now within the compass of his argument, he did
not think it necessary to go into it. They were now
engaged, not upon a general abstract right, but on a
question of sound practical justice. The two ques-
tions of the Roman Catholic and the Dissenter were
quite distinct, and that they were intended to be left
so, at least by the Parliament of Ireland, he would
'spew in a few words, if the House would allow him
to state a case Which actually occurred in the Par-
liament of that country. It was not, perhaps, gene-
rally known to the. House, or to the Public in this
country, that the Protestant Dissenters in Ireland
were not subject to the Test Act,mor had they been
,so for the last forty years. In 1780, an Act was
passed in the Parliament of Ireland, releasing the
Protestant Dissenters from the operation of the. Test
Act. Since then, they grad admission to all the offices
in the State, from which the .operation of the Test
Act alone bad excluded them. But the Roman Ca-1
tholics were still excluded. Thus, ix was clear (Seidl