The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-05-26 00:00:00

preserve from injury those individuals whose intes
rests might be endangered by the regulations of
the Court.
Colonel TAYLOR appealed to the candour and 1
good sense of the House, if it was likely he should
have made his motion had the statement of his
lion. Friend been made before. All he had ask-
ed, and all he wanted, was that the subject shrink)
be fairly taken into consideration, and proper
measures taken to remedy the evils of which he
complained. He had no objection, under such
Circumstances, to withdraw hit motion.; but he
wished it to be understood that he did not with:
draw it from an impression that that.which he had
urged was improper. On the contrary, feeling as,
he slid, that his arguments stood on firm grounds ;
that they were founded 4n.justice aiui in reason,
unless an efficient remedy were shortly applied, be
would certainly again bring the subject before the
House early in the 'ensuing Session..
The motion was then withdrawn,.:.,;,;
cATtimic ctutpts. 1
Mr. PARNELL moved that the Order or the
Day for resuming the debate on the Catholic Claims
should be read.
Sir W. SCOTT, .complying with ihe wishes of
his constituents, opposed the Petition. The
principle of which they complained had been act.
ed upon in the most -enlightened times, awl had
at the most prospereus periods been recognised
by our Constitution. The Right Hoe. Gentleman
had admitted iii his speech, that if a French army
should approach Ireland, the danger in conse.
quence of the Catholics not having conceded the
Veto might be tremendously great. The 'Went
on which we acted was therefore justified by pro.
dence. In another part of his speech the Right.
Honourable Gentleman had spoken loosely of She
religious contests which distinguished the' History
of Ireland. On this grounehe felt a reluctance
to tread, lest it should lead to an unpleasant dis-
cussion ; but he wished to ask if the Right Hon.
Gentleman was prepared to say, that all the cala.
mitie; which had fallen on tbetilLfated country
were the results of .Protestaint Aggression ? Both
sides of the question ought to be well considered ;
for it wac not fair that ail shuidd be. forgotten on
the one side, and all on.tbe other be- recorded in
marble anti in, •Orass.:!tiThis Petitions' presented
were copched in the eamm :unqualified terms a.:
formerly. There were no conditions proposed,-
no reserves, no -qualifications expressed. lie
thought the Rightlioo., Genslenian ought to have
stated to thg House what 'had so much illumined
him ou the inbject, as he, made qualifications to
which he. would not agree. before. The arguments
made use of were nearly the same as those ad.,
Iran* when the subject was brought forward
formerly. Theilifference between the present si-
tuation of, the Pope and that in which he stood at
that time was .this he ssas then But willing slave
of France. Now he is in, the. tyranre &utak—
. Under such circutostanres wore, they, to gocieto3
Committee onthe subjectrfitst,Assoniing,thpt Otis
prayer was to be Araiitedi, ,aed„.then to consider,
what securities, shouldobe-giatite.-.-The B.ll4l42lAcies
Gentleman had, in the coorau,alhis:Weech, jwuj
posed one specific securie -dtioacitic mmassatios‘
But where was .thwisocuri,ty, that tile Catholics
would agreelo give thiasecuaty2. The Potitions
• said nothing about it ; there waa.no,ellusion made
to it in the motion submitted ,to Um house; they
had nothing for it, except the ,cuniecture the
Right Honourable Gentleman had,thromoi opt- in
the course of his argument, -It did nut tallow
from that the Petitioners would consent to .its—
The Right honourable Gentleman bad, is the
same manner, thrown out the-notion of the Veto,
in the course of his argument, on a former occa.
sloe, and what had been the result of that ?• Why*
this—that the idea of a Veto had been rejected by
the Catholic Body with abhorrence and disgust,...
What better fate had this proposition to expect ?
It was, in truth, infinitely less probable that this
should be accepted than that the Yet° should he
accepted. He should be glad to know precisely
what was meant by this domestic nismination
Wasit an appointment by the Bishops, by the eclat,
or by the lay communion? if it was to be an ap.
pointment by the lay cioninuuiim, he would ask,
whether (his was not a clear departure from the
doctrines of the Church of Rome ? (l/ear,
hatr !) As to the rejection of the Veto, lie car. •
taitdy respected that proceeding as the result of a
conscientious regard to the- tenets of the Roman
Catholic Church. But when the Veto had been
rejected on that ground, o hat, possible reason
could there be to believe that this proposition
'would be accepted, which was a much wider de-
partere from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic.
Church ? The Veto merely vested a negative in
the hands of the King, leaving the chief part of
the power in the hands of the Pope ; but this-
would be shoving the Pontiff entirely out of the,
business. It was a complete siolatron of the Ca-
tholic Unity, and infinitely more inconsistent with
the' dogmas of ,the itomair Catholic. persuasion
than the Veto. That there might be persons
atnong.the Roman Catholics, ready. to agree, le,
these expedients, for Mesa-lie of conciliation, woe
very possible. There were, in all persuasioes
some who held their tenets so loosely, liberally,
he believed was the modern term, that it was 41p•
most iticoinprehensilile how they ouuld really ems
rider themselves as belonging to that persuasion to
which they professed to adhere. Many of thole
might be,very respectable people. But such men
could not be regarded as the guides and the lights
•of the Roman Catholic Church, and their exam.
ple would not be followed by others. This pro-
position was utterly inconsistent with the doctrines
of the Church, as he had found them stated- by
their lawyers and theologians. Ho their read :sonic
passages from Dr. Milnerl_to sheW, .that awn:
could be no reasonable,linpes that the propositions
would be accepted by thu great body of the (.4-
tholics, These passages represented theappoitile
ment of-Prelates by the Pope, *eau OSCAtiiiiiß4ei
of the celissiastieal Government of the, Hoist
Church ; that some persons seem to thi
th4t.soy other more expedient mode might
adopted ; but that they might as well oraca,
beam from the sun as du away may ecclesi-
astical right of the, Church. How then was it
possible fur the Roma Catholics to agree to this?