Star.
London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

however determined they were not to abandon their
jugclaims, jet they were also determined to wait,
with confidence in the wisdom- and justice of Parlia-
ment, the effects of that wisdom and justice, which
would ultimately afford them a full and cordial re-
dress of all their grievances. That there did not
exist an anxious desire upon this cfuestion amongst
the Roman Catholics, he should be ashamed to deny ;
that they felt much diWtment, impatience, ank
" the sickness of hope d," which required to be
administered to, he would not deny, and that time
gounded discontents and uneasinesses might at last
become dangerous, he would not attempt to disguise.
But independently of this, he would not be so vain
and foolish as to assert that any measure he could pro-
pose would have the effect of allaying discontent and
Agitation. Neither this measure, nor any one that
the House could propose would have the effect of a
charm upon the public mind. It was not tb be sup-
posed that the waves would cease to roll immediately)
after the tempest had subsided; but such agitation
could not be of long continuance if it was not founded
upon injustice. But abstracted from all these circum-
stances, it was the duty of the House to consider
broadly if injustice had been done to any portion of
the Empire, and if so, to apply a remedy ; to con-
sider if grievances existed, and if so, to remove them;
and to consider if a state of law was in operation ad-
verse to the happiness and improvement of a great'
and a deserving body of the Empire, and if so, to
obliterate it. If this state of things excited no un-
easiness and discontent, the more their shame for al-
lowing it to exist. They ought to look upon this ,
question narrowly and fully, and if any institution of
legislative birth was found to press heavily on a par-
ticular
portion of the Empire, the more deeply were
they called upon to seek out a remedy. But if, how-
ever, they found that the pressure of this institution
was not confined to particular bodies, but that its in-
jurious effects were dispersed throughout the coinmu-
munity, poisoning their happiness, and retarding their
prosperity, then the necessity of a remedy became so
imperative, that no time should be lost in applying it.
Before he proceeded to the main argument upon
which he rested the proposition, he would draw the
attention of that House to one or two preliminary
points. It had been asserted from time to time, that
the plans proposed to carry into effect propositions
for the relief of Roman Catholics were imperfect :
that the advocates of the measure were divided as to
the measures that should be adopted—that some, for
instance, would not open certain offices to the Roman
Catholics, which others asserted to be chiefly neces-
sary to their substantial relief. That some were for
retaining certain oaths which others would aboli,lr ;
that some would assume conditions wholly objection-
able in the opinion of others ; that some were at va-
riance about the nature of the securities to be required
from Roman Catholics, and that others did not deem
securities of any consequence at all. He would take
leave to say, that this was not a very manly, can-
did, or decorous way of meeting the question. The
point was this: was the measure fit to be entertained
or not, which justice and feeling required at their
hands, and which the Constitution called for? If it
was not so—if it was not a just, a politic, a Con-
stitutional question, he would yield it at once.—
But if he were to be answered by such objections as
these, aimed only at the details of the measure, he
did not think it a fair, or candid, or manly way of
meeting the question. This was a most important
question, and could not be an indifferent one as to
its consequences; if it was not attended with public
mischief it must be by great good. Therefore, to
whomsoever opposed this measure because its friends
were not agreed upon the details, he would say,
Whereis your ground for maintaining this neutrality?
Why do you abstract yourself from engaging in an
interesting duty—come and assist me—give me the
benefit of your experience and wisdom in settling
these differences, in rounding the arrangements, and
supplying this, or removing that, which you think
ought to be supplied or removed? do you
, wra forsyurself up in neutrality ? What privilege have
' you standing aloof from the concerns of the Em-
pire? This question demanded something more than
meeting it merely in the details. He came forward
with no theoretic speculation—no innovation on the
Constitution—no untried experiment—no practical
embodying of a new and hitherto undiscovered ex-
cellence in the science of politics. Ile came forward
under the protection of the Constitution itself. 'He
stood forward in the behalf of millions of faithful
and attached subjects of the King, asking for the
enjoyment of those rights and privileges which were
possessed by their ancestors, and that they and their
posterity might be allowed to unite their energies
with the rest of their fellow-citizens in securing the
blessings of their unrivalled Constitution. This was
the application—let it be met fairly and candidly, and
let it not be evaded by an attack upon its details. He
had now to propose that the House should go into a
Committee to consider the best means of meeting
these difficulties, which presented themselves in the
adjustment of the detail. He did not suppose that
it would be maintained that night that no plan could
be proposed to surmount these difficulties—no man,
he was sure, would wish that they were insurmount-
able. If there was a man in that House who har-
boured such an unworthy sentiment, he would not
condescend to argue with him. He had a confident
expectation that there were not many, if any, in that
House, who believed that the difficulties were insur-
mountable ; and this opinion was principally derivea
from the recollection that a majority of them had,
on a former occasion, been so persuaded that the
difficulties might be surmounted, that they agreed to
go into a Committee to adjust these difficulties ; and
nearly a majority of the House had settled upon a
13111 in which they were so adjusted ; and had it not
been for the gross indiscretion of some individuals
that Bill would have been completely successful. It
had been brought about at a time when the country
was reeling to the centre under the heaviest storm that'
ever was weathered. He was sure that no man who
voted for measures of relief upon that occasion,
would refuse to vote on the same side at this period
of peace. He was sure it could not be forgotten,
that proud as he was of the part whieh the British
People took in that dreadful struggle, none was morel
distinguished in it than the Irish ; hey fought the
battles of England, and shed their blood in defence
of its liberties and Constitution, with a prodigality of
self-dcvotion which made them at least worthy to en-
joy those blessings. He was sure, therefore, he coidd
have no difficulty to encounter that night. Certainly

_...

-he wouldlutva no rancour arrayed against him : he
did, indeed, anticipate some little prejudices ; and
in speaking of prejudices, he begged not to be un-
derstood as using the word in an offensive sense ; bat
ththeeyessst•aebrelisphrmejeuiclaicoefs
our thatgre
liberties,
was sure could not be so inveterate as to resist the
sol:
w out
and ofo!
therefore
for
influence of argument and reason. It was impossi-
ble,Commons upon this question ; even those who would
indeed, to mistake the feelings of the House of
Lions to suffer it to pass, and he could only anticipate
oppose it, he was persuaded, felt strong disincline-
such objections—reasonable objections, as were
founded upon the necessity of guarding strictly the
rights of the Protestant part of the community. He
would now proceed to state the grounds upon which
he asked the assent of the House to his proposition.
The subject divided itself into three questions, viz.
of Religion, of the Constitution, and of policy.—
On the religious branch of the subject, he was of opi-
nion he should meet with no opposition. This had
been admitted by a Right Rev. Prelate in another
place, and was not objected to by the rest of that
Rightßeverend Beach. To say that any pledge should
be required on the score of a faithful adherence of a
person to a particular religious belief, was intolerant.
All religions were, in the eyes of the professors of
them, orthodox. If the religious bond were strictly
attended to, a man should be required to declare his
belief in GOD, in our SAVIOUR, and that he had
an immortal soul. But no such thing was required
before a Protestant was let into the State. Why select
the Roman Catholic, who only believed a little more
than we did ? Why let in the Jew, the Mahometan,
the Pagan into the State ; the adorer of Jupiter, of
Osiris, of an ape, or a crocodile ? the believers in the
creeping things of the earth, or of the Host of Hea-
ven? The Catholics said that they did not believe
in the actual presence in the bread and wine;
they ought to be the hest expounders of their own
faith. It it was a belief, lie did not understand it;
but he had no right to say it was superstitious, be-
cause he could not understand it. Queen Elizabeth,
who was a sincere Piote,tant, and the foundress of
that religion,ulteted the Liturgy so as to let in Ca-
tholics to the Commons with Protestants. It was an
outrage on Christianity to say that we should inter-
fere with another.sect, because we could not under-
stand the doctrines of it. In Ireland the Catholics
were to sit as Grand Jurors and Magistrates; and
before they could do so they were required to take
an oath that they were attenders of Mass; that was
—idolaters ; as those who took the oath as Members
of Parliament, declared the horrible superstition of
the Mass to be. He held that a participation in the
offices of the State was the right of every liege sub-
ject. This was not altered at the Reformation or at
the Revolution'. The only answer then to this could
be, that Catholics were not liege subjects ; but if that
was true, those who got its our freedom were out-
laws, because they admitted the supremacy of the
Pope. The Catholic admitted the power of the
Laws and Statutes of the Realm; and he never in-
terfered with the opinion of others. The Catholic
disclaimed all interference of the Pope in other than
spiritual matters, and not at all in matters of the
internal government of any State whatever. 'psis
belief excluded all who conscientiously believed in
this spiritual supremacy, and let all that was base
and unworthy into this Constitution, while it kept
out all that was honest and conscientious among the
Catholics. Our Constitution was not calcukted for
anything so mean and base. He spoke in the pre-
sence of sound Constitutional Lawyers; and lie feared
no contradiction, when he said that the British Con-
stitution was one that allowed all its subjects a per-
fect and entire participation in the rights of the State.
Our Constitution was a Monarchy ; but it could not
be so, if the King had not the power to call for the
services of every subject; and it could not be a free
Monarchy if the subject had not every right to a par-
ticipation in the privileges of the Constitution. lie
denied that the Reformatioalliad any view of ex-
cluding Catholics from the advantages of the State.
The Act of Supremacy, in the reign of Elizabeth,
was only meant to distinguish those Catholics who
would abjure the supremacy of a foreign Power from
those who would not do so. It was solely intended
as a test of loyalty. I ler Secretary (Walsingliam)
declared, in his letter to M. I'etoit, that it was not
the object of the Queen to meddle with conscience,
but only to put down faction. For the first eleven
years of her reign, her Catholic subjects attended the
Sacrament at Church as regularly as her Protestant
subjects. Down to the year 1677, Papists were not
prevented from sitting in Parliament. Sir J. Swaine
was expelled the House, not because he was a Ca-
tholic, but because he was a Popish Recusant Con-
vict. At the Revolution, there was not a hint for
continuing the law to prevent Catholics from sitting
in either House of Parliament; but the great states-
, man of that period. only said, that the King should be
a Protestant; and if he was not, he should lose his
Throne. If it had been a law, it was not an unalter-
able law ; for the Test Act, ancLthe Act of Unifor-
mity, were not made unalterable at the time of
either the Revolution or the Scotch or Irish Unions.
On the contrary, at all those periods these were mat-
ters to be left to the United Parliaments to alter as
they should find necessary ; and he now called on the
United Parliament to alter this unjust part of the
Constitution. He felt anything hut triumph when he
regretted the loss of Mr. SC hitbread, Mr. Horner,'
Sir Samuel Romilly, Sir Arthur Piggott, Mr. Elliott,
and Mr. Grattan ; but he spoke now to a new Parlia-
ment, and he hoped it would not be satisfied until the
historical facts he had stated were met by opposite
historical facts. If he could think there was any dan-
ger in admitting Catholics into the Constitution, he
would be the first to join in the ranks of opposition
to this measure, dearly as he had the interest of his
country at heart. He called on the Member for
Orford (Mr. Peel) to say,.what was the danger to the
Established Church which lie apprehended ? If any
danger could be apprehended, it existed now, in the
dispioportion between the population of Ireland of
the Catholic persuasion, and that of the Established
Church. The Catholics were admitted to command
our fleets, and armies, to which they were admitted
on oaths, which, according to the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, were not binding on them ; and yet they
were only admitted into power, on the sanction-and
authority of such oaths. Was this a situation of things
which should be allowed to exist? The Right Hon.
Gentleman admitted, that all jealciusies Were buried
oblivion, by the Union of bctit.lantf:uid England,