security, to the Protestant establishment. | what object could be attained? The ComI am in the recollection of the House mittee of the whole House was only a prewhether I stated any such thing; what I liminary step, and it would be no incondid say was, and I now repeat it-that I siderable point gained, if the question had, a very considerable time ago, in which, according to his account, had oc1811, transmitted a Memorandum to my cupied the attention of parliament, session right hon. friend, in which I gave my opi- after session, were at last decided. A nion that the Catholic question could not select committee would of course afterremain as it was-that I pressed the ca- wards be named to examine into the debinet to take the subject into their most tails of the securities that ought to be reserious consideration, and to form upon it, quired. The opinions he entertained upon an arrangement, which should be final. this question were not taken up lightly or I did not presume to dictate what that ar- precipitately, but were the deliberate conrangement should be, but I expressed a viction of his judgment, after weighing all decided opinion that an arrangement must the arguments, uninfluenced by the petibe made, and I detailed the reasons which tions, with which the table had been on induced me to think so. It was of course both sides crowded. The Petitions of the for my right hon. friend to take such steps Protestants were of course entitled to upon the memorandum as he thought fit, weight; but if it were true that undue but I am certain, if he examines his means had been employed to procure papers he will find it, and I am surprised them-if publications of an inflammatory that he has forgotten it. nature had been industriously circulated, that weight would certainly be considerably diminished. He would not have attempted to revive religious animosities, over which the veil of oblivion had been gradually drawn by the hand of time. Of all persons, the present ministers were those who had most vehemently opposed popular opinion: they had declared, and wisely, that popular clamour should not influence their actions, and he hoped that the present would be an instance of the sincerity of such professions. Mr. Ryder said he had not seen the memorandum alluded to. Mr. Charles Marsh said, that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had talked much of the alarm he felt lest the laws established by the Roman Catholic clergy should interfere with those of government; but if due enquiry had been made, it would be found that they had rather a concurrent than an opponent jurisdiction. The fears expressed lest the Pope should recover his power were equally futile: for what authority could that man exert over others, who could not command himself? A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) had indulged in remarks unjustifiably severe upon the conduct of a right reverend prelate who had distinguished himself in favour of the Catholic cause: a man, the simplicity of whose manners, the integrity of whose heart, and the sagacity of whose understanding, were almost proverbial: a man, venerable from his age, estimable for his virtues, admirable for his learning, and who had ever distinguished himself as a friend to civil and religious liberty. Surely, because this distinguished, learned, and revered personage had not refused to accept an invitation to dine with individuals to whose opinions he was favourable, he was not to be stigmatized as one who countenanced the drunken orgies of a riotous mob; nor because he coincided in sentiment, was it to be said that he had decended from the elevated dignity that a prelate of the church of England ought to maintain. The last speaker had asked Mr. Peel observed, in explanation, that he by no means intended any disrespect to the right reverend prelate (bishop of Norwich), he merely expressed his regret at the union of his name with that of a person whose society could reflect no honour upon him. Mr. Whitbread rose and said: I am anxious, Sir, once more to express to the House my sentiments upon this momentous question: but I shall do so the more briefly, because the side of the question which I espouse has been already so ably supported by gentlemen whose arguments up to the present moment remain untouched. Glad I am, Sir, that the hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Marsh), provoked by unfounded insinuations and by daring assertions, felt himself called upon in the warmth of his resentment, to vindicate that distinguished and immaculate prelate, the bishop of Norwich, who had previously received a meed of praise (well bestowed on this, but little approvedby the other side of the House), in a speech delivered by a right hon. member, of whose approbation the most exalted might, indeed, be proud. This applause, doubtless, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) felt to be but little merited, and in the eulogium which he passed upon the talents of my right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Plunket), he thought proper to compliment the one at the expence of the sincerity of the other. The right hon. gent. confessed that the address delivered the other night by my right hon. and learned friend, was eloquent, argumentative, and sincere; but, added he, if he bad courted the sorry pre-eminence conferred upon another, he might have acted differently, and he would have been waited upon with addresses from deputations, accompanied by shouts and acclamations, and have received the same honours that were paid to the bishop of Norwich. Now, if the sentiments were sincere for which my right hon. and learned friend did not receive this applause, it must be inferred that the right hon. gentleman means to assert that the reverend prelate was not sincere, whose conduct was marked by the approbation, so severely censured. The right hon. gentleman has been pleased to explain himself to the House, without such explanation, the inference was undeniable, and must have been universally drawn. as gentleman be consistent in voting against himself, it follows that I must be incon sistent in voting with myself. But let us see, Sir, what the hon. gentleman's reasons are for his singular change. He insists that the Catholics, since the decision of last year, have come to certain preposterous and violent resolutions. Last session he supported the resolution, merely an experiment. He thought that it would have the effect of tranquillizing and conciliating the Catholics. But in this expectation he was disappointed. According to the hon. gentleman, the most desperate proceedings have taken place. There have been meetings, conventions, delegates, and aggregate bodies, which have passed the most outrageous votes. I should like, Sir, to know whether all these delegates, meetings, and aggregate bodies did not in fact exist, and had not come to these very resolutions long before the hon. gentleman gave his former vote. Then, however, the hon. gentleman was all readiness to concede. He only wanted securities, and every thing would be arranged. Now, a few violent men frighten him out of his senses, and he turns about and runs away from the vote which he originally gave. (Hear, hear!)— Much to his credit, the hon. gentleman is at the head of a body of men who call themselves rational, moderate, economical reformists,-persons who wish to do all things, in order and by degrees. The hon. gent. sees, out of the House, men voting, what he terms, absurd, violent, and preposterous resolutions on the subject of public reform and economy, telling him that they are not satisfied with these puling half-measures that effect nothing; and that they will not listen for an instant to his indecisive policy. In this case, Sir, how does the hon. gentleman proceed? Does he immediately dismiss his Finance Committee? Does he shut up his books and walk home, and say that he will have nothing more to do with them? No such thing, Sir. The hon. gentleman goes on, and persists in what he conceives to be his line of duty. He proceeds in his regular, though slow, siege of public corruption and abuse, completely regardless of the noisy shouts of discontent that assail him without doors, and determined eventually to accomplish his purpose. I do not assert that the hon. gent. is not sincere: his courage and perseverance are to be attributed to his sincerity: he defies all the clamorous addresses, votes and resolutions The speech of my right hon. and learned friend-a speech, the excellence of which, with painful regret, calls to my recollection the golden days when this House contained within its walls a Burke, a Pitt, a Fox, a Sheridan, and a Windham-has left me little indeed to add to the unanswerable arguments which it contained. I feel it necessary, however, to say a few words for the purpose of shewing that I am consistent in the vote which I mean to give, because, according to an hon. gentleman who spoke from the floor (Mr. Bankes), it is impossible that I should be so. He main tains that, notwithstanding his vote this night will be directly adverse to that which he gave in the last session, his conduct will nevertheless be consistent. To me, Sir, this declaration appeared paradoxical, nor did the hon. gentleman satisfactorily explain it in the extraordinary arguments he employed. If aye and no to the same question from the mouth of the hon. gentleman imply no contradiction, aye and aye from my mouth must flatly contradict each other. If the hon. 1 of unauthorised intemperate men, and pro- gentleman's father (the bishop of Lincoln But never, Sir, was there a more unsuccessful attempt than that to deprive the Catholics of the sanction of Mr. Pitt's authority. When the right reverend prelate urged as a reason for doubting his favourable intentions towards them, that he had never confided any plan to my lord Eldon; he might as well have said, that he was also insincere in the opi I am not surprized, Sir, at the great importance which is endeavoured to be attached to the petitions which have been laid on your table against the claims of the Catholics. With me they do not carry that weight which from the numerous signatures, I should be inclined, on almost any other occasion, to attach to them. Inions he delivered in this House against know, Sir, and the country knows also, the Slave Trade, because he never comthe artful misrepresentations that have municated any specific plan for its abolibeen resorted to for the purpose of ob- tion. And yet, Sir, if any man were to taining them. I am aware of the inflam- ask me if I considered him insincere on matory publications that have been in- that account, I should at once say it was dustriously circulated: I have heard, and impossible for those who had felt the heard of inflammatory discourses and al- effects produced by his eloquence, to most threats that have been uttered from doubt his sincerity. I would also say, the pulpit. I have seen the Charges that that it was equally impossible for any have been written by right reverend pre-person to doubt the sincerity of his opilates, and written, I must say, apparentlynions in favour of the Catholics, who in total ignorance of the subject. Such ever heard him speak in this House on papers, Sir, have been spread abroad by the subject, and when they coupled with / persons calling themselves the "Society his opinions so delivered, the paper cirfor the Propagation of Christian Know-culated by my lord Cornwallis at the close ledge," and the people have been induced, by every artifice, and in some places even forced, to sign such petitions. The truth, I believe, in my couscience, is, that instead of the Protestants being more adverse than formerly, they are now by many degrees more fayourable to the concession of the claims of the Catholics. The son of a right reverend prélate (Mr. Tomline) who, from peculiar circumstances, may be supposed to speak from some information, has endeavoured to deprive us of the authority of Mr. Pitt in favour of the concession, and this attempt has been preceded by one not more successful on the part of the hon. of his administration. I must maintain, therefore, that we have the authority of Mr. Pitt. We have also the authority of Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Windham, and of one whom Ireland owns as one of the most illustrious of her sons, and whom I hope we shall soon see again in this House, Mr. Sheridan, a name of which his native land must always be proud. Like weeds in a rank soil, which are no sooner cut down than they spring up again, the arguments brought forward against the claims of the Catholics are no sooner refuted, than they are urged again, with increased pertinacity. So it was, Sir, in the question for the abolition of the Slave Trade, until, after a struggle of twenty years, the blessed day arrived when our opponents were at last driven out of the field, and that great measure was accomplished. One right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ryder) declared himself not averse to concession to the Catholics at some period or other, but disapproves of going into a committee at present. This, he contends, could not be construed by the Catholics into a refusal to take their claims into consideration. What, said the right hon. gentleman, have you not been gravely deliberating on this subject of their claims for these eight or ten years past, and if this committee should be refused, is not any member of the House at liberty to bring forward another motion on the subject to-morrow? But does he think that the speech of my right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan), regularly made every session, with an abortive attempt as regularly made to answer it in the grave and solemn manner of the right honourable gentleman-does he think that sufficient to satisfy the just expectations of Ireland? Does he think that Ireland will go on contentedly if nothing more definite is resolved on in her favour? A right hon. gentleman whom I have always believed to be most sincere in the opinions he delivers in this House (Mr. Yorke) has told us, that the Catholics of the present day continue to be imbued with all the old prejudices of that sect. The bishop of Lincoln, in his episcopal Charge, has thought proper to lay it down as a maxim to his clergy, not only to discourage the growth of Popery by all the means in their power, but also to take every opportunity of discouraging any opinions, which might have a tendency to diminish the fear of Popery, as opinions injurious to the establishment. A more injurious, a more illiberal mode of proceeding than this cannot possibly be devised, nor one which has a stronger tendency to revive the outrages which contending sects exercised upon each other in remoter ages. At one time I thought we were to have the right hon. gentleman in favour of going into the committee. For, said he, if you can shew me any securities which will be effectual for obviating the dangers to be apprehended from this innovation, I will consent to go into the Committee. No thing could be fairer than such a declaration, "But when at Heaven's gate St. Peter seemed To wait him with his keys— A violent cross wind from either coast Blew him transverse ten thousand leagues away Into the devious air: and there he saw Cowls, hoods, and habits with their wearersreliques, and beads, Indulgences, dispenses, pardons, bulls." We fairly lost him in Limbo. No sooner had the right hon. gentleman made this seeming advance, than he at once retreated into his former inflexibility. But yet the right hon. gentleman stated certain things, in the event of which he thought it might be safe to make concessions. The first of these events was the death of Buonaparté. I do not, Sir, impute to the right hon. gentleman any wish that the ruler of France should be taken off by unfair means; but I cannot help expressing my surprise and indignation at seeing in the public prints the most horrible doctrines again advanced on this subject, such as the necessity of marching to peace over the dead body of that man. I never can consent to the "deep damnation of his taking off" or of any man but by fair means; and if concession to the Catholics be contingent on the unfair death of Buonaparté, let their cause be hopeless. Another condition is, that the Catholics should give up the spiritual supremacy of the Pope: and last year the right hon. gentleman wanted an Irish Pope at Ballyshannon. Sir, if there is any thing peculiarly taunting-if there is any thing more likely to provoke sufferers to madness, it is stating terms which are ridiculous, and fixing upon them conditions which it is impossible for them to perform. The right hon. gentleman says, their exclusion is their own fault, they have but to conform. This, Sir, was the dreadful mode employed towards the unhappy victims, tortured by the rack of the Inquisition, in order to extort from them confessions of crimes of which they were innocent. To the holiest of the Martyrs it may have been said, "Only declare your disbelief of certain doctrines:" to Servetus, "Only say you believe in the Trinity;" and so to all other sufferers. "You are all foolish people, and your sufferings are all your OWD fault." The expiring man might say, "I may be released from my agonies, but exquisite as my torments are, I will not consent to be relieved from temporal misery, at the expence of eternal punishment." We say to the Catholic, "You your own bosoms. It was at the head of those brave men that he received the honourable distinction of his wound. may be a judge, a general, an admiral, a commander in chief. If you are not, the fault is your own. Why don't you renounce your creed?" The answer is ready: -"What shall a man give in exchange for his own soul? I shew you that I do give you security. My forefathers and my brethren have proved it by shedding their blood in your service. I myself am now marching to the perils of war to risk my life in your cause. You cannot be sincere in an offer coupled with such conditions ;-my refuge is despair!" The right hon. member who spoke last, introduced into his speech some of the topics insisted on by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke), on a former night. He talked of a strange power exercised by the Pope over property, the dissolution of marriage, the bastardizing of children, absolution of allegiance, and so forth. Now, Sir, I ask the right hon. gentleman when this took place? The supremacy of the Pope has been acknowledged in Ireland from the earliest periods of her conversion to Christianity. I ask, when were ever your soldiers absolved from their allegiance? When did ever the Catholic priests order your common soldiers and sailors to desert your standards? And if they issued such orders would they be obeyed? Let me endeavour to set right an error that sufficient pains have not been taken to refute. When we argue upon the subject, we speak as if we were erecting this hierarchy. We forget that the hierarchy has all along existed over a vast and discontented multitude. Whereas the passing of this just measure would continue it over a comparatively contented and happy population. Before I conclude, Sir, I wish to offer a few words in reference to the Petitions on the table of the House. A gallant of ficer lately presented a petition from a large number of inhabitants in Ireland, (whose very mutilated appearance bears testimony to his bravery and honour): I allude, Sir, to the Petition from the county of Fermanagh. If I had not known his sentiments upon this question, I should have been astonished how he could attach the importance he did to the multitude of signatures to that Petition. That gallant general had fought and bled in Egypt. He was told by another gallant officer near him, that the successes in Egypt were chiefly owing to the good conduct of Catholic soldiers, those men, whose weapons, it is said, the Pope can turn against But, Sir, there are other petitions at which, I own, I am still more astonished. There is one signed by a small number of men, whose forefathers were driven from France by religious persecution, and who obtained shelter and protection in this country, together with the free exercise of their religion, notwithstanding that religion was not, in many respects, conformable with our own. These persons have had the imprudence to interfere, and to obtrude themselves upon us, in the discussion of this great national question. Not observing the signs of the times-not consi dering how persecution applies to all religions-they have laid a petition on your table, in which they endeavour to persuade the House of Commons, not only, not to grant some of the claims of the Catholics, but to give up nothing to themto oppose all and every concession. For the honour of the petitioners, for the honour of human nature, this Petition ought not to have been presented. By religious persecution the nation, by whom they were driven out, was weakened and distracted-through the bigotry of Louis the 14th, seas of human blood were spilled. In the day of their distress the ancestors of the petitioners found a safe refuge in this land: they have hitherto, I believe, behaved quietly and inoffensively; but assuredly, it behoves them to refrain from sharpening the edge of religious animosities, in a country where they have found assistance and protection from religious persecution. Sir, there is still another Petition to which I cannot help briefly adverting. A worthy alderman (sir William Curtis) presented the other day, a petition from London of very considerable bulk. The child and the nurse were well proportioned to each other. The worthy alderman told us on that occasion that every person arrived at years of discretion had a right to express his opinion. Very true, Sir. But the hon. baronet might have remembered that there was a petition, of a still greater size than the present one, against the Catholics, which, in the recollection of many who hear me, set the four corners of London in flames. I ask the hon. baronet whether he thinks it would be prudent to hazard the recurrence of such a calamity? And I am induced to do so, because I have seen, every where, hand-bills in circula |