Star.
London, England, 1821-04-03 00:00:00

the Bill. After all the forms. through which it had
gone, its various commitments and recommitments,
the character of this Bill was not altered from what
it had been the first day it was brought into the House.
Formerly it diisatisfied only one party, now dissatis-
faction prevailed on all hands, as well amongst those.
who were adverse to_the Bill, as amongst those whir
were tc; be propitiated-(Hear).—lf the intelligence,
which he had received was not very falseahe strongest.
feeling prevailed in Ireland against the Bill—(Hear).l
Being calculated then not to give satisfaction in any
quarter, he was sure the Bill would turn out a bank-
rupt adventure—,(Hear, hear).—The difficulties were
increased since the Intercourse Bill was consolidated
'with the other- What said the Roman Catholic
Clergy ?—that oppression was to be their share,
whilst the laity alone were to reap benefit from this
Bill. This Was unjust; and it was impossible a mea-
sure founded on such a principle could give satisfac-
' tion. But he was not to he understood as opposing
indiscriminately every enactment of the Roman Ca-
tholic Bill ; for whilst there were some parts of it in
which he saw nothing exceptionable, there wereothers
'to -which his objections were great and insuperable.
'For instance, he would not oppose the sitting of the
Roman Catholic Peers in the other House, for he had
a high respect for them individdally ; neither was he
a believer in the slander that no faith woos be placed
in their faith—and fur this reason, that they had•
books which explained that faith, which were open
to the whole world, and which he (Sir Wm. Scott)
could, if he wished, peruse and judge for himself.—
He could not, however, shut hii eyes to the fact, that
in Ireland assemblies had been called of those per-
sons who were the best judges of the tenets of the
Roman Catholic religion, and that in these assem-*
blies the provisions of the present Bill were almost
unanimously condemned—(Hear, hear).— The House
had also heard a protest to the same effect from a
• Prelate in England, of whom he (Sir W. Scott) had
no knowledge personally,,,but whom he respected for
his zeal in standing by his religion. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then stated that the part of the Bill
which was most objectionable in his eyes, was that
wherein explanation was given of the Oath of Su-
premacy. In his opinion an explanation of an oath
ought to be coeval witlt the oath itself; and, as this
was the first oath to which Parliament had attached
any explanation at all, he hoped, for its honour,
that it would also be the latta—(Hear, hear, hear).
lie then quoted a passage from Doctor Burnett, to
shew with what jealousy the preservation of the oath
• of supremacy, untouched and entire, was looked
upon in his time as a safeguard against the innova-
tions of the Papists. He also quoted from Dodd's
and Charles Butler's histories of the English Catho-
lics; shewing that they had then so little objection in
Toro conscsentice to acknowledge Elizabeth's supre-
macy, that in the three or four first years of her
reign, they used to crowd in great numbers to the
Protestant Churches, in order to avoid the penalty
of twenty pounds to the Queen, and one shilling a
Sunday for every Sunday that they were absent.—
Looking at this part of the Bill, therefore, in every
• light, he thought it the most important of the whole.
If this explanation of the oath of supremacy was
passed into a law, the law which it affected to ex-
plain would be thereby virtually repealed, and yet it
was upon the principle of that oath that our Pro-
testant 'Constitution mainly rested, as it was fixed at
the Reformation and the Revolution—(llear, hear).—
The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to the opi-
nions of Selden, Locke, Lord Clarendon,_ and Black-
stone, stating, that so long as the oath of supremacy
was preserved, there was no danger to be appre-
hended from the Roman Catholics. The subject,
• therefore, ought to be well considered, before Par-
liament dispensed with this important oath. He came
next to the oath which it was proposed Roman Ca-
tholics should take. Ile contended that Roman Ca-
tholics never could conscientiously take the pre-
scribed oath. It was sophistry to be attempting to
draw a distincticn between the Pope's spiritual and
his temporal authority. There was no difference, in
'fact, between them. The Roman Catholic, there-
fore, when he admitted the Pope's spiritual jurisdic•
tion to any extent, admitted also his temporal autho-
rity, however he might by words disclaim such au-
thority. This oath was, therefore, a fraud upon the
Roman Catholic, and a fraud upon the Protestant.—
(Hear, hear).—lt called upon the one to assert that,
which at the same time he was to unsay; and it took
away from the other the only security which he had
for the existence•of the Church to which he belonged.
He asked, was this fair towards either party, but
• especially towards the Protestant, who was now, it
seemed, to lose that 'vantage ground which, by two
centuries of suffering, he had been trying to obtain?
The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded with
an Amendment, " That this Bill be read a third time
this day six months." .
Sir GEORGE HILL seconded the Amendment.
lie regarded the measure as one of a revolutionary
nature, as it went to destroy those land-marks erected
by .the wisdom of our ancestors against the encroach-
ments of the See of Rome. For the first time in the
debates on the subject, he had heard it asserted, that
the Constitution of this kingdom was not fundamen-
'tally Protestant. The Right Hon. Baronet here
quoted the Bill of Rights, to prove that Catholics
could have no share in the Legislature. He should
not notice those details of the Bill which ended to
put our liberties in peril. By the provisions of the
Bill, Catholics could be Sheriffs, and possess all the
power attached to that office. He looked at the power
of Catholic Sher iffs at elections with horror and dismay.
A few Catholics sitting in that House would speak the
sense of the whole Catholic body, and, of course, would
possess far more influence than would attach tb the
same number of votes of any other individuals—
(Hear, hear).—No Protestant could now take the old
oath of supremacy, as he was bound to swear that
the See of Rome neither had, nor ought to have, any
authority in this realm. What evidence had we that
• • Catholics and Protestants could be united in amity ?
Nothing but the gratuitous assertions of the Honour-
able Gentleman, while the experience of the past af-
forded ample proof of the contrary. He was assured
that both the Clergy and Laity of Ireland reprobated
the Bill, and called it a Bill of Slavery. Last. week,
the titular Bishop of Dublin, -Dr. Troy, assembled
his Clergy, who came to an unanimous Resolution,
that they could trot assent to the Bill that went to re-
gulate the intercourse with the See of Rome, and the
interference of a Protestant Govertunentin the choice

of their Bishops. A similar Meeting took place of
the Clergy in Limerick, bdt 'the Resolutions were
couched in much stronger terms ; and one of them
expressly stated, that no conscientious Catholic could
assent to the proviMons,of Mr. Plunkett's Bills. That
was the sense of the whole Catholic Body in Ireland.
At the Meeting in Limerick, a Petition was agreed
'on to the House of Lords, on the provisions of the
Bill. Another Meeting also took place of the Catho-
lic Body of the City and County of Limerick, and
some strong Resolutions were adopted, though,some
of the. Laity protested
,against them, to the number
of thirty-six ; hut the Protest had been treated with
the utmost contempt. A Mr. Roach, a Gentleman
of the utmost loyalty, had been called to the Chair,
and upon any other occasion the Meeting would be
allowed to be a fair representation of the City and
County of Limerick. The Right Hon. Baronet
here read several of the Resolutions of the Meeting,
strongly reprobating the provisions of the Bill, on
the subject of the nomination of the Catholic Bi-
shops; and that the relaxation of the penal laws, ac-
companied by such conditions, could never produce
concord, but would lessen the security of the Throne
and the Empire. Similar Resolutions had been
adopted at ‘Vaterford. Like Meetings had been an-
nounced for Cork, Galway, and TURTII. At some of
the Meetings, reference had been made to the con-
duct of the Catholics at the period of the Bill 'of,
1813. The Honourable Member then read the opi-
nion of Dr. CoPpinger, the titular Bishop of Cork,
that taking the oaths of the Bill amounted to an ab-
juration of the Catholic faith. He was of opinion,
that the Protest of the Clergy would not be less un-
qualified than that of Dr. Milner; or of the Laity,
than that of Mr. O'Connell. He had no doubt that
the Church of Ireland was their main object; and it'
was also the object of many, though by no means of
all, to effect that object by *a separation from Great
Britain. He (Sir G. Hill) here read the opinion of
Dr. Drumgole, who had stated it. to be the duty of
a Catholic to extend his religion, which was the true
Church, founded on a rock, before which all here-
sies would speedily disappear. As he (Sir G. Hill)
objected to the measure, both in principle and detail,
he had taken the part he had. The Protestant Nobi-
lity and Gentry of Ireland possessed a much larger i
property than the Catholics, and proper security had!
not been given to that valuable body of men. Should
the Bill pass, he would do all in his power to render',
it a safe and beneficial measure.

Mr. O'GRADY stated, that the Gentry of the
County of Limerick had made no part of the Meet-
ing. It had been an importation by Mr. O'Connell.
He had a letter, stating that the Meeting had been
composed of the lowest class ; and the real Gentry
of Limerick knew nothing of the Resolutions till they
appeared in the Papers. A disclaimer had been pub-
lished by the Catholic Gentry of the County of Li-
merick, to the number of 39; and among them the
four Catholic Magistrates of that County. The Re-
solution of the real Gentry expressed much gratitude
for Mr. Plunkett's Bills.
Mr. FITZGIBBON confirmed the statement of
his Hon. Colleague.
Mr. S. RICE complained of the want of candour
'of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Hill), who had
made no statement as to the nature of the Protest at
the Meeting of Limerick. He thought securities
were unnecessary from the conduct of the Catholics,
and had no doubt that ultimately all parties would
be satisfied.

Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, that he was one of a
family who had at all times advocated the Catholic
Claims, on the grounds of justice and policy. He
would state what he formerly mentioned to the
House—that he had had no communication from his
Constituents on the subject of the Bill. But it was
not candid, on a subject of such importance, to im-
pute improper motives to contrary opinions. He
himself objected to some of the provisions of the Bill;
and he believed the bulk of the Catholic Clergy were
of the same sentiments. In that opinion he thought
they would be followed by the great majority of their
flocks. Though be would not vote for the Bill as it
then stood, be should not divide the House against it.
He admitted that the Protestants gave up much—
they gave up their prejudices, and he cordially
thanked them for the gift. He objected to the oath
that was to be taken by the Catholic Clergy; in what
situation would the House find itself should they con-
scientiously refuse to take the oaths? All the forcis
of the Empire could not keep Ireland quiet, should
it be attempted to enforce the enactments of the Bill
by the imprisonment of the Clergy. If the House
trusted to the oath to be taken by the Catholics, all
the machinery of the joint Board of Catholics and
Protestants, and for regulating the intercourse with
the See of Rome, was completely nugatory. He
hoped the House would throw out the machinery of
the Veto altogether.
Mr. ELLIS (the Irish Master in Chancery) pro-
tested against the Bill, because by a sort of infelicity
of legislation, the latter part of it destroyed the first.
He brought to this question as sincere a wish for the
intereits of every part of his countrymen of Ireland,
of every denomination of religious sects, as the Ho-
nourable Mover of the Bill. He denied that this
measure was approved of by the Protestants of Ire-
land. He had better opportunities than that Right
Honourable Gentleman's (Mr. Plunkett) retired ha-
bits and fastidious taste would allow him to possess,
as to the opinions of the Irish Protestants on this
measure—(Hear, hear).—The Irish Bar contained
many as bright stars as the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman, and they and other Protestants had peti-
tioned against this Bill—( Hear, hear).—This Bill con-
tained more of irritation than conciliation. This was ,
the opinion of a Gentleman of his profession, who
was chosen as the medium of communication be-
tween the Hierarchy of the Irish Nation and their
People; By the present Bill they seemed to be
determined to force the Protestant to neutrality, and
the Papist into gratitude. They would not allow
them to be happy in their own way. But he hoped
the House would rescue the Catholic from this kind-
ness, and the Protestant from this coercion. He ob-
jected to this Bill, not because it would give freedom
to their sock, but power to the Priests—(Hear).—
The Catholics, always rebellions, did not deserve this
boon. When they were called upon to admit the Ca-
tholics to a full participation in the benefits of the
Constitution, they must recollect the conduct of the
Catholics in former times. He quoted the words of
one of the leaders of the Irish Rebellion, who. de-
ldared, that they gave up their efforts when they
a

found that they were fighting, not for liberty, but for
the Catholic Religion and the despotism of France—
(Hear, hear).—Upon all systems of faith, the inter-
course between GOD and a man's conscience should '
be as free as air ; but they knew that the Catholic
religion was the most intolerant on the face of the
earth. He was astonished to hear the Hon. Member
for Waterford (Sir John Newport) propose a clause to
allow Catholics to vote for. Members of Parliament,
and not for Parish Officers. They would not allow
the Catholic to vote for the repair of the Parish
Church ; Ink he might employ himself in mending
the sacred fabric of the British Constitution. They
would allow a Catholic to sit on the Bench ; but not
to join in parish disputes! He was brought up in
the bosom of Popery ; and it was only from a con-
viction of its errors that he now expressed these
opinions—(Near, hear).
Mr. F. ROBINSON was sorry that the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman had not made his un-
warranted attack on the Right Hon. Gentleman who
moved this Bill, while he was present. He should
not take the ravings of Mr. O'Connell's mushrcom
eloquence, as it was called, as a proof of the opi-
nions of the Catholics of Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had
always been discontented, and perhaps always would
be; but he had no doubt that this measure would
be acceptable to the great body of the Catholics of
Ireland. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
had urged his opinions with all the zeal of a convect.
He was also a convect to this measure, having been
educated in the fullest admiration of the names, cha-
racters, and conduct of those who brought about
the Revolution, and who then established the Con-
stitution as purely Protestant. For the space of
the last hundred years, the character of the internal
wars of Europe had totally changed. In the reigns
of King William and Queen Anne, we were leagued
I with the Catholic House of Austria ; but .that was
purely a political war, and not a war for religion.—
In the seven years' war, we were united with the Ca-
tholic Empress Maria Theresa, against the Protestant
state of Prussia, in order to preserve to her her Ca-
tholic subjects of Silesia. Again, in 1756, we were
leagued with Protestant Prussia against Catholic
Austria-and France. All these were wars of poli-
tics, not of religion. The greatest blow that ever
the Pope received was from the Catholic Emperor,
Joseph 11. and he could not conceive how any man
could conjure up any fear from the influence of the
See of Rome. His Right Honourable Friend (Sir G.
Hill) had declared that the new oath of allegiance
could not be taken by any conscientious Protestant ;
because he could not deny that the Pope had no ju-
risdiction or influence in this country. Now, he (Mr.
Robinson) considered this oath as denying the tempo-
ral power of the Pope in this country. He had no
fear that the Protestant Aristocracy of Ireland would
leave their country if this Bill were to pass; on the'
contrary, he had no doubt that the Protestants would
meet in Parliament their Catholic fellow-subjects, con-
gratulating them on the success of this measure, and
anxiously combining for the good and prosperity of
their common country.
Mr. GOULBURN apprehended dangers from the
introduction of Catholics to unlimited political power.
Did they not restrict the Throne and both Houses of
Parliament to Protestantism ; and if they opened the
doors of the latter to Catholics, what hindered them
from having a Catholic King ?—(Hear.)--He could
not depend upon the securities proposed by this Bill.
The Catholic was altogether incapacitated by the
Constitution from holding the offices and duties which
this Bill was intended to open to him. His dread was,
that the Catholics should acquire that consolidation
and strength, which would enable them to carry their
ulterior object. We might have a King who would
be indifferent to any sort of religious opinions, and
then, if he had an ambitious point to carry, would
he not grant ail to the Catholics for their assistance
which they might think proper to require? In the
House of Peers, they had security in the small num-
ber of Catholic Peers who could sit in that House;
but that would not be the case with the Representa-
tion of the People in the other House of Parliament.
The Constitution of the land required that Catholics
ought not to be received into the State under any cir-
cumstances. It was for the framers of this Bill to
correct the errors of k. If the House were to profit
at all by experience, no hopes would be entertained
that the measure, if adopted, would give satisfaction.
Concession would now, as on former occasions, only
lead to new demands.

Lord BINNING arose amidst loud cries of " Ques-
tion !" It was with great pain that he now rose to
express his sentiments on this great subject, when he
considered that he differed from numbers of most re-1
spectable friends, with whom he was in the habit of
acting on political subjects.---The Noble Lord Oen,
amidst considerable confusion, proceeded to urge the
arguments so frequently repeated in the course of the
recent ample discussions on the measure, in support
of the Bill.

Mr. C. HUTCHINSON explained. He objected to
the oath more on account of that which it insinuated,
than that which it declared.—( Question 0
Mr. PEEL rose amidst loud cries of " Question !"
He was anxious to embrace the last opportunity he
should have to deliver his sentiments on this import-
ant measure. He had two great objections to it :
one was, that to adopt the present Bill, would be
to introduce a great change into the Constitution.—
It was impossible to think of any great event since
the Reformation, and not have the Roman Catholic
Religion immediately present to his mind. Previ.
ow to the Reformation, care was taken to exclude
foreign interference. After the Reformation, all was
given to the Protestant Church, and studious care
was adopted to exclude theßoman Catholics from
the State. Such had been the course adopted ever
since,• and now it was proposed to put an end to all
the securities which our ancestors had laid down.—
The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to com-
ment on the nature of the Catholic Religion, and of
the influence which the Priesthood had over the minds
of the laity. He mentioned an instance of a Gentle-
man at Cork, who was desirous of establishing a
school for the children on his estate, amounting to
43 families; of these 40 were Catholics, and to suit
his school to such, he directed that passages should
be selected from a Catholic Bible for the use of the
school. Several Catholics sent their Children; but
when that fact came to the knowledge of their Priests,
they refused to admit these poor persons to the Sa-
crament, till they had taken their children from the
Protestant school--(!fear).--.This was a striking. in-

stance of the extraordinary and undefin:d power a
the Clergy of the Catholic persuasion, and to which
strop
he objected. He was asked, was he afra'd of danger
from the Pope ? He would say no, not of the s foreign
power of the Pope, though the power of the Po
pe
was as great now as it was when these securities
were taken, at which time the French Ambassador
andthreatenedthe temtop
omtaalrcpho%troer Rome
of
tiie with 5400
wassoo
notm
en
enough to resist him. But it was not this tempo-
g;
ral power of the Pope against which Lord Somers
and King William took securities—(Hear, scar).—
No, it was against domestic danger that security was
taken ; and against domestic danger he wished now
to have this question considered—(Hear).—This Inca,
sure, it was said, was to still the demagogue forever.
How many topics of inflammation would rot be left
open to him, to leave alone those which he was even
now extracting from it?—(Hear, hear).--If the Pope
could assent to the securities demanded by the mea-
sure—if every Roman Catholic in Europe could as-
sent to them, and the Roman Catholic of Ireland
withheld theme he could not help feeling that there
was something in the policy of Ireland that was
much to be feared. The Right Hon. Gentleman
concluded by declaring, that as he could not think
that this Bill would have the effect of conciliating
those on whom it was intended to operate, and think.
ing that it could not contribute to the knitting toge.
ther of the hearts of his Majesty's subjects in bonds
of harmony, and of uniting them in one common
interest, nor indeed of effecting any of the benefits
stated to be its object, he could not consent to the
third reading of the Bill—( Loud cheering).
Mr. CANNING said, that if he could concur in
the concluding sentence of the Honourable Gentle-
man, he should become a convert to the greater part
of his doctrines. The Gentlemen who had taken that
side of the question which his Right Honourable
Friend had taken, and so ably illustrated that night,
said that they were placed in a situation difficult and
delicate. But he must beg leave to say, that those
who advocated the side which he did were in &situa-
tion equally difficult; for they were chargelacaa
labouring to introduce, unasked, fallacious ameliora•
tion; that they departed from established practice to
walk in new and untried paths. The only innora-
tion which the supporters of this Bill proposed to
make was in the state of the law—a law which car-
ried not only persecution, but death, to the cottan
of every Priest, and sanguinary persecution to trio
'dwelling of every superior Ecclesiastic in the Church
Establishment of the Catholics. Of all the perver-
sion of meaning lie ever heard of, the greatest was t'
that of attributing to the Bill the inflicting of woimils,
rather than the healing of old sores. Whilehis Right
Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel) feared from this mea-
sure the destruction of the Protestant Church the
Catholics at least did not apprehend in it any addi-
tional safeguard to their religion. Amongst the va-
. rious arguments that had been brought to bear upon
this question, he had been charged with having ex-
hibited the danger of a hundred Catholic Members
finding their way into the House, at the same time
that he was charged with raising arguments in
order to contend with thern—(Heor, hear, hear).—
• Now the fact was, that an Honourable Member on
the other side of the question had estimated the pro-
bable number of Catholic Members at 100—seventy
Irish, and thirty English ; and he (Mr. Canning), in !
order to refute the argument built upon it, admitted
that number, althoUgh he believed about half a doted
Irish and half a dozen English were all the Catholics
that were likely to form a part of the 658 Members
of that House. The Henourable Gentleman who had
introduced this Bill, with an eloquent precision that
would not have disgraced Tacitus, pointed out in his
speech, as in a funeral 'oration, the statues of those
great orators who had distinguished themselves id
this question. Among the names .he (Mr. Canning)
had missed one now no more, never second in the
zeal of his resistance, but whose place, had this Ses-
sion been- amply supplied by an Honourable and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. 'Ellis),: from the same
country; indeed so amply and efficiently, so muchie
the spirit and manner of the great original, that lit,
tle was left to be desired. As applied to that Hong
Substitute he might perhaps be allowed to parody
two well-known lines :
" The tdne and topics opening to the view,
" Methinks I see Dricevax here anew f'--(Loegher).
—The
a straßinigohft HvoenaotuhraubmleouGrenatnlemdwaint,tlen proceeded'tiocharatteo.
in t
the conduct of the Right Honourable Member
Oxford (Mr. Peel), who, when the House was
in
_lot
tmoaprocfh
theuid
serh
hill,
proposed
bannerstopose d
that
h ha
tt
theyi s B islili, and
di
turn
at
nt
round
upon the Churchwardens. Comparing this with the
_o.
lofty strain of declamation held by the Right
nourable Gentleman in a previous discussion on the
,
same subject, when he indulged in bolder flights..
imagery, and displayed to their terrified eyes the
t
prospect of those mighty phantoms of
danger
were to trouble the repose of the Constitution m fu-.
cure times, he could nut help applying to humus'
words of Horace :
" None Reges et tetrarchaa
Omnia magna loquens."
To which he would add—

" Nunc wares et Churchwardenset !"
( Much laughter).—The Bill would go down to pos.
terity with a halo of glory round it, composed 0.1 tke
names of all those who had been chiefly distingan
in ked.
framing it ; and he hoped the name. of his Bight
Hon. Friend would pass to future ages with all the
unsullied honour of having been the author of tite
Restrictions on the Churchwardens and Vestry 9E'
ei
cers,—( Leughter).—He contended that it was t(
to look with some consideration at the sentiments
the Catholic Clergy on the subject of the measure,
but they were also to bear in mind, that this was
so much a question between Priest and Layman, ble
as to the embodying of the Catholic and Protcos
with the Constitution. Let the House, in Moder el
what the Catholics were, put out of their minds 04
they had been iq times gone by, and take them
they now were. Let them not borrow the los
Smithfield to animate the debate, and he would rt•
frain from going to the times of Charles the Fre, tt
make up anything against any other Sect-4104'
Let them not take their Catholic from the pryl,l
of Acts of Parliament in the time of Elizabetht*--.
he was described ai a traitor to his Sovereign Is •
tue of his religion; but rather look for him in the 17,
Acts of the present day, wherein he was demr7
at a good and faithful subject to the King 1-4,/ke,
Ilear.)--The blood of the Protestant and ‘3141