of a large and untold proportion of a dissipated population into the military force of the kingdom: but, somehow or other, in the year 1818, an act was passed, by which every man in the army became capable of filling any situation which that army presented. Some hon. members last night assured us, that it had been quite settled, that no Roman Catholic could hold the office of commander-inchief. I do not agree with that hon. member. Nay, I am quite sure-whether it would be prudent or not, I am not called upon to give an opinion-there is a due regard to decency, to find words to express the contempt which I feel for such an accusation? It is the duty of every man to defend his own consistency, and I, therefore, may be excused, I trust, for some anxiety on the subject of mine. I think, Sir, we have a right to know the opinion from the lords, whether they ascribe any importance to the required securities or not. If they do, they are sincerely welcome to them; if they do not, it is too much to treat those securities with contempt themselves, while they hold out to the country that they are necessary. If it be true, that the secu-nothing in the law of this kingdom, as it rities are essential, why is the country suffered to remain in danger for the want of them; and, if it be true that they are worthless, what claims to candour have those individuals who lay such stress on their adoption? [hear, hear]. all at present stands, that can prevent him. And, what is whimsical enough, when this great change was making; that is, when Roman Catholics were rendered capable of being commanders-in-chief, and allowed the entire government of the Sir, an hon. member, who, I think, army, and entitled to lead the fleets of must be very new to this House, has this country, we heard nothing about those talked of the coronation oath as a barrier securities, of which we have this night against emancipation. Sir, I thought the heard so much. No member of this House day for that bug-bear had gone by, there- was then arraigned and stigmatized for fore I go to high places for high arguments abandoning them : no security was then on the subject; and quote an opinion which provided, or sought to be provided, against cannot fail to be respected; namely, that the dangers that might arise from the exof the earl of Liverpool. [The right hon. ercise of the highest privileges over sea gentleman then proceeded to quote from and land, although now, some hon. memthe speech of the earl of Liverpool, made bers think it necessary to protect this in the House of Lords, in 1825, in which country, by reserving a power to open the noble lord expressed his opinion, that letters, which give permission to a Roman the coronation oath afforded no obstacle Catholic to eat meat on a Friday! NÓ to the removal of the civil and religious letters, according to their system, granting disabilities under which the Roman Ca-permission to abstain from fish, can be tholics laboured]. This, at least, was one perused, without first meeting the watchbug-bear fairly disposed of; and no more, ful eye of the right hon. Secretary near he hoped, would be said of the coronation me. But the armies may be led to vicoath. What are the other dangers which tory--and the fleets may be steered to exist at this eleventh hour, I have yet to distant countries-without a single seculearn; but a singular fate has attended rity being asked or expected. Why, then, this question. The question is "Will all of a sudden, has this necessity sprung you do as we propose? or will you do no- up. In the year 1793, when the elective thing? or what will you do?" And second- franchise was granted to the Roman ly,What dangers do you apprehend?" Catholics, and granted, too, when the Now, to the question "Will you do government had the entire option to imas we propose, or will you do nothing, or pose what conditions it thought proper will you do something else?" the answer all the security that it required was an is clear enough: "We will not do as you oath--nothing more. Well, then, by the propose." But to the two remaining act of 1793, the Roman Catholic was adbranches of the question, no answer is mitted to the bar; and no distinction was given. And when we ask, "what dan-made between him and his Protestant gers do you apprehend from the passing brethren. They availed themselves of of a bill, similar to that of 1813," we are this permission, still they cannot have the also unable to get any answer. I remem-silk gown without the required security ber once to have heard, that great danger so that the moment a man acquired the was supposed to arise from the admission first business at the bar, he must obtain that security, and then all the secrets of distinct from the other. Mr. Pitturehis private life must be opened and ex-buked me, as perhaps, my rashness dehibited. In the year 1818, an officer served. He carried the Union, but I will might rise to the highest situation upon the staff, and in the end become commander in chief of the forces of the kingdom; and yet no security be required. Well, then, if those who voted with me in 1813, think it now necessary to charge me with having abandoned the securities, I retort the charge upon them, for having given those important offices, and those powerful advantages, without asking for the slightest security from those who received them. Sir, we all know, and those who adopt this course of argument well know, that those securities are not necessary, although the old story of securities has now been trumped up, to cast an odium upon those who may have been expected to take a part in this debate to raise the cry of the country against them, and d to v weaken the influence, and injure their reputation. depose, and I am ready to depose before any tribunal, as to his intentions on that other measure. I do not know that be said it. I never heard him say it: but any one who had any knowledgeof Mr. Pitt, will believe that his opinion merely was, that the question ought not to be stirred during the life of the late king. This I firmly believe; but further I cannot go. In this opinion I am confirmed by a reference to the opinion of a person who knew Mr. Pitt well-I mean the late marquis of Londonderry, who once, in contradiction to Mr. Rose, gave the same testimony that I now give; namely, that Mr. Pitt's mind upon this subject, was un→ altered to his dying day. Let any one read the speech which he delivered in 1805, about five months before his death, and he must be convinced that it was a rapid change indeed, if any change had I have now, Sir, to refer to a topic taken place. I protest, therefore, Sir, which has been already handled by more against making use in any way of the than one hon. member, and if I touch on authority of Mr. Pitt in order to disit at all, I will at least do it briefly. I parage the cause which I profess to inherit agree with the right hon. and learned from that great man. gentleman, that nothing was, at any time, But, Sir, I have been drawn aside by the said or done by Mr. Pitt, tantamount to a name of Mr. Pitt from the line of argupledge, that, when the Union of Ireland ment which I had purposed to myself. and England was effected, the concessions Briefly, then, my impression is, that no to the Catholics would be yielded. But, promise was ever given by that illustrious I am also ready to admit, that various individual; but that indirect intentions were transactions connected with that period, held out to the Catholics to induce them and with that subject, being put together, to hope, that Catholic emancipation would calculated to excite, in the minds of the be granted, if the Union were agreed to Roman Catholics a hope, which has been and I do firmly believe, that many of the deferred until the heart is sickened. In Roman Catholics of Ireland pledged them addition to this, Sir, I cannot help think-selves to procure that Union, in the antiing, that, at the time of the Union, Mr. Pitt was careful to make no promises that could, in any way, be confounded with positive engagements: but to this I cannot shut my eyes that a powerful inducement to the Catholics to lend their aid to effect the Union of Ireland with England, was the impression that, in the united parliament, the question which so nearly concerned them would be more favourably received. I remember, Sir-as well as if it happened yesterday-Mr. Pitt's showing me a letter from earl Cornwallis, in which that noble lord said, he had sounded the ground, and could carry the Union, but not the Catholic question; and I also recollect my saying, "If I were you, I would reject the one measure, if cipation that that measure would be have some weight in the scale, when the judgment of the House is with them. And now, Sir, to another branch of the subject. The picture which has been drawn of the state of Ireland, by gentlemen espousing both sides of the question, is of a nature so appalling, that I think it becomes the duty of the English part of the House of Commons, judging from the statements that have been made by the members of the sister country, to consider well before they throw away any chance of improving her condition. My right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) has stated, that these troubles and these difficulties, should be met by firmness and decision. Firmness and decision, Sir, are admirable qualities; but they are virtues or vices according as they are used. I will not take them in the unfavourable sense in which they have been taken generally, by the ears which have heard them this night; for if I did, I should not envy the hand on which would devolve the task of carrying such a system into effect. But, Sir, let us hope, that the opposition to the motion of the hon. baronet, is merely an opposition rather than the desire to substitute, in place of the measures which he proposes, measures of a far different nature. Let us hope it is so; God grant us time to consider this question; for I will not conceal my belief, that the distaste in this country to this measure is stronger than it formerly was. I avow this impression honestly and fairly; but I have no doubt that to argument and to discussion, that distaste will give way, and that that which is in itself right, and just, and equitable, and humane, will not be long ere it find an echo in the bosom of the British legislature. Sir, it is, I think, impossible to hear the speeches of hon. members from Ireland, and conceive the practicability of that country going on in the way in which it has lately done. As many affidavits and documents of every description have been read in support of various opinions, I will beg leave to detain the House, by reading one of these affidavits, as a specimen of the absurdities that have been put forward on the subject. The affidavit to which I refer, runs as follows: "And this deponent saith, that the said (A. B.) swore that he would kick the damned soul of the said deponent so that it should fly round Hell like a blue bottle round a treacle barrel; and which the said deponent verily believes the said A. B. would have done, had he not been prevented [alaugh]" Sir, the system pursued by this country towards the Roman Catholics may be sustained a little longer, and a little longerfrom year to year-but speaking of the age of a country, the time of the duration of that system must be short indeed. should despise the character of the Catholic priesthood as much as my right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) if I thought them guilty of all that has been imputed to them, but I have learnt, even from the debates upon the subject in this House, not to trust to extravagant accusations. The Roman Catholic priests have been accused by my right hon. friend, of garbling the Cate chism of the Church of England, on a point which went to convict them of idola try; but I hold in my hand a work of great circulation in the Roman Catholic schools of Ireland, in which the second commandment is fully set forth. Sir, I conjure the House to reflect, that the motion of the hon. baronet is merely a declaration on the part of the House, that the state of Ireland and of the Roman Catholic population, is such as to demand the consideration of the House. To this proposition, it is intended to oppose a direct negative, importing that the House does not think the state of Ireland, or the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, deserves consideration. That is the issue upon which the House is now going to divide. The resolution goes no further than that the House should adopt the opinion of its predecessors, who sent three bills up to the House of Lords, of relief to the Roman Catholics. By voting with the hon. baronet, I do no more than sanction this proposition; reserving to myself the power of acting, or of not acting, upon it. On the other hand, if this resolution should be negatived-the House of Commons should decide, that the consideration of the state of Ireland is not worthy to be entered upon-then is the House of Commons changed indeed; and it would be more easy to imagine, than it would be safe for me to express, the consequence that may ensue from such a change [loud cheers]. Sir Charles Forbes rose amidst loud cries of" question." After several minutes had elapsed the hon. baronet said, his object in rising was to explain the reason why he had voted against the Catholic question two years ago. He had then, ne thought that the time was not a fit one. List of the Majority, and Minority. The Dick, Quintin Gordon, John Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Graham, G. E. Graves, lord Mundy, G. bun 2200 Musgrave, sir P. Owen, sir J. Owen, Hugh Pallmer, C. Nagyo Paget, lord W.oqorq Palk, sir L. Peachey, Wot out! Peel, rt. hon. R. 301 Peel, J. Yux audi Calvert, John Det !! Alexander, H. Campbell, John Campbell, A. Antrobus, G. of the Arbuthnot, hon. H. Capel, John Archdall, M. as to Cartwright, W. Powell, W. Bell, M. Kekewich, S. T. Corry, visct. Benson, R. Kemp, T. Corbett, Panton Beresford, sir J. P. King, hon. R. Cuffe, James Beresford, M. King, hon. H. Curtis, E. J. Blackburne, J. Knatchbull, sir E. Curzon, hon. R. Blair, J. King, sir J. Cust, hon. P. Blandford, marquis of Cust, hon. Wm. Bonham, H. Legh, T. Duff, hon. A. Borradaile, R. Dalrymple, A. J. Bond, John Davidson, D. Bright, H. Davis, Hart Brogden, J. Dawkins, H. Brudenell, lord Dawson, G. R. Brydges, sir J. Domville, sir C. Buck, L. W. Dottin, A. Barrell, sir C. Byron, Thos.sty Dowdeswell, J. E. Duncombe, hon. W. Dundas, John Downes, lord Langston, James Legh Keck, G. A. Lethbridge, sir T. Lott, II. Lowther, visct. Lushington, S. R. Lygon, hon. I. |