Star.
London, England, 1828-05-13 00:00:00

its opinions upon this question had been, undoubtedly,
am often declared. When Mr. Canning's Government
was formed, and he found that the Prime Minister was
disro,od to give to these claims his powerful support, he
(Sir C. ‘Vetherell),.anticipating that he might one day
Lbe ailed upon to support the same views, had thought
0o per, tattier than do so, to resign the high office which
he then had the honour to hold. It was unnecessary
that he should say more to illustrate the opinions which
he entertained upon the question. It might be expected
from the professional capacity which he Aged, that he
should, on this occasion, enter into the wHiale legal his-
tory of a question so interesting, in a constitutional point
of ,Kw, as that which they were now called on to con-
sider, lie should not, however, commit any such tres-
passon the time of the House. He had undoubtedly
hpea for many years decidedly opposed to what was called
caholii. Emancipation; but he was opposed to it, he
meted leave to say, on a plain and a broad principle.
ifs bad no objection at all to concede the principle,
that the Roman Catholic, under certain circumstances,
irght be admitted to come into Parliament, and to i
told offices under the King; but this must be under
Wain conditions. If this concession on our part was
to be made, it must be a mutual concession, as regarded
tat other—daraus,fefisnusque vicissim. The Right Hon.
rid Learned Gentleman went on to show, that the Hon.
Baronet and those who, on the same side of the ques-
tion, had succeeded him, had completely thrown over-
board the long important questions of the Treaty of
Limerick and the Union. He would now enter upon
the Treaty of Limerick—(Loud cries of, Oh, no). Well,
then, the Treaty ought not to be alluded to at all, if it
was not to be tried by the test of Parliamentary investi-
gation. He then remarked on the total silence of
put, F's, Grattan, Lord Cornwallis, Mr. Dundas, and
Ind Castlereagh—all advocates for Catholic Emanci-
pation—upon any questions arising out of this Treaty,
sea as those upon which the advocates for Eniancipa-
sins were now attempting to depend ; although it was
difficult to suppose, that if that Treaty could really have
supplied such grounds for their case, those great and
enlightened seeta would have neglected to avail them-
sties of them. He had been at the labour of reading
ail the debates on this question for many years, and he
could undertake to say, that since 1800, till within a
per or two ago, the Treaty orLimerick had never beep
whetted to, with any view to an argument, except inci-
rly. Lord Grenville, Mr. Grattan, and all the per-
s shoformeily introduced this measure to the emir-
n of the House, said that the Catholics assented maim
ciliation of their Prelates in Ireland. On this bcas
arguments proceeded.—(Hear). Gentlemen might
„hear, but he repeated that it was stated by Lord
Goland others elsewhere, that the Government was to
law the cantroul over the Catholic Prelacy of Ireland.
Pea with this assurance, however, the Bill was lost in
lath Houses of Parliament. The next attempt.was in
die year 1813, when the House not only went into a
trorarnittee, but a Bill was brought in. Some of those
Rung Gentlemen, who were complimented the other
Dighton their experience—Gentlemen who bad in them
One germs of talent and the buds of genius--(Hear, and
Iroghter)—rising genius should have its merit, but poor
apeneace should not be discarded; and those young
Wham who were not then in the House, and who'
tecitiatly had not taken the trouble of reading the
;serails, might be benefitted by knowing, that in 1813,
MI was introduced with a profusion of stipulattons
d oaths. This Bill contained two clauses, which,
arall its provisions, were drawn op by a most eminent
Iraftiman.The first of those clauses gave to the Crown the
right of affirming or rejecting any person appointed to fill
e ofice of Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church of Ire-
ad; and another clause was introduced by which the
oranuoicetion was regulated between the See of Rome
Ind tbeltoman Catholic Church. This was the principle
if Mr. Grattan 's Bill. It secured the power of a direct
iltautive or a virtual negative on persons filling the
dad Bishop. This Bill was brought in by Mr.
;mum, but the Catholics, whilst it was pending, re-
end it. Whilst the Bill was going forward under
totally favourable auspices, the Rbman Catholics
edited their dissent to its provisions. This he asserted,
sil he remembered that Mr. Grattan io that House
toed to feel very seriously discomfitted at the manner
tribicb the Roman Catholics received his Bill. He
id not she/..tears, perhaps, but he seemed much
Ina The Catholics rejected the Bill, and resolutions
me agreed to by the Prelates in Dublin, one of
'boar (Dr. Milner), stated, " that the Roman Ca-
hams would shed their blood cut of their veins
Aber than submit to the nomination of their Bishops
ir I.Proteitaiit King—(Hear, hear). Such were the
tuiments of Dr. Milner and the Catholic Prelates in'
1S1S; but in 1799, the Irish Prelates tame to a resole-
'-oa that it was proper that the King shouldhawe a con-
tool over the Bishops. In 1822 Mr. Plunkett's Bill was
itroduced. In that Bill, the intercourse with the See
(Rome was restricted, and the negative on the nomi-
nee of Bishops was given to the Clown. It was stated
Lathe House that the Roman Catholics would reject
BA and Mr. Plunkett said, if the House agreed to
he did not care whether the Roman catholic: rejected
not. There had been three Committees on this sub-
. a circunotance which it was necessary that those
tellemen of precocious experience on whom so much
iv was poured, should know. In the present Bill it
ascaterial to observe that none of the securities were to
=fund rind which were introduced into the former Bills.
le country was not satisfied with those Rills, nor was
%House satisfied with the securities in Mr. Grattan's
R 4 nor in Mr. Plunkett's ; but the HOW was now
paid Von to be satisfied without any security at all.
Honourable Member for Kaaresborough (Sir James
war) stated, that all the young meal -and all the
hid, -
hes., names, were at his side on this question; but
, ilinne. Attoroe-.
y General) thought they were all against
'L ken there were securities. He admitted that there
Al A galaxy of talent, but it was against those who
'Wed the Hon. Baronet's motion. Mutual =ces.
'Riled securities were the bases of all former Bills,
et the present 13111 had no such bate. He should wish
ems, what was to be done when the Bill went into a
%suttee. Was it meant to renew the securities, or to
adduce the measure without any securities at all?--
worities,were given to the Protestants, those seeuri-
lisiouid not satisfy the Roman Catholics, and there-
-6t was proposed that the House should go into a
Mitten to do that which could not be done. It
'ildire better to pass a resolution that it was Carp
A that absolute and unqualified emainipation
lid be granted. According to the resolution proposed
tie Hon. Baronets the object of the measure- was- to
k
liseteincord and Giettle the Protestant established
• The same *Mile was held out la former
but the express le was," chat the hearts of affect
"lira should be kart and ordtad;" but the Cady).
: said they would not have their hearts knit and
led• He would now advert to a point which he
11141 bad been paned over lightly by Gentlemen
10tite. The question was, whether Protestantism was
" irrevocable principle is the Constitution? lie
I ass
Coaltitutscon• was psalmist ilbs Revolation in
sad illevocOle imajaNii ea withput any