THE ANTI-CATHOLIC ORATORS. THE PRESS.'
STANDARD.—Ill despair of adding by our recommendation any thing to the intense interest possessed by the speeches of our glorious Protestant advo- cates in the House of Commons, let us exult in the manifestation of im- mensely preponderating talent on the side of all that is dear to Englishmen. Where are now the Whig and Popish sneers at the incompetency of the Pro. testant party ? where now the boast of " all the talent" being on the side of liberality ? But let us de justice to one Whie-° and pro-Papist, Lord Plunkett. That noble lord sat under the gallery 'of the House Of Commons during the debate of Tuesday night ; and being observed to bestow the most anxious attention upon the magnificent speech of Mr. Sadler, was asked his opininn of it by Mr. Doherty, or some other "argumentator of that scale and order," and replied with unwonted and unconscious candour, " This is a first-rate man—he has not had his like in this house for twenty-five years." Lord Plunkett is a man of experience, and a good judge of oratory ; and we leave him to answer any Whigling or Papist uneallss who may now attempt to de. preciate the talent of the Protestant side of the House of Commons. But with Mr. Sadler's magnificent, and for a first speech unequalled, effort still ringing in their ears, we doubt not that our readers will exult with us in the splendid dis- play last night of his Majesty's Attorney-General. The chastisement inflicted by that admirable man upon the leadera the apostate host was the tnost power- ful and impressive invective ever administered within the walls of parliament. To understand its full force the reader must remember that Mr. Peel sat next to the seat from which the Attorney.General rose, and sat within less than a yard of him, crouching under.every infliction of the scourge. The effect upon the House when Sir Charles Wetherell exclaimed in the bold tone of hones indignation, " I have no speech to eat, I have no base apostacy to palliate," looking at the same time full in the face done:who had, was perfectly un- precedented. Protestants, Whigs, pro.papists, radicals, all gave expression to their feeling in one acclaim of -rapturous approbation. If we bold fortlt these examples, do we with to place them before theiteillustrious supporters p Far from it. . We do not, because we.cannot pretend to award the palm of superiority among such men as compose " the firm of Chandos, Wetherell, Inglis, Rnatchbull, Moore, Maxwell, Sadler, and company." We cite the ex- amples of the Attorney-General and of Mr. Sadler, to show that as the tried man amid the untried Man inay be equally unknown, theProtestants of England are still ignorant of the intellectual power- arrayed in their support. Great occasions sdo not make great men, according to the proverb ; but great oc- casions call great men forth. We have seen what Protestant men the agitated Popish question 'has brought . forward in parliament ; and we trust in the soundness and vigour of the English r,ece to see corresponding spirits coming
forward through the country. _ .
• Gisoes.s...The last night of the debate *as remarkable, on the part of the opponents of the bill, chiellk for the 'speech -of 'the Aitorney-General (for
such, it seems he yet is), Sir C. Wetherell, who was to have been leader of the House of Commons under the Administration which:was to have displaced that of the Duke of Wellington. If there is any thing we regret in the failure of the project to form the new Ministry, it is the loss of the atnusernent which Sir Charles Wetherell must have afforded as leader. The speech of last night, being laboured, was rather a better specimen than usual of the farcical and the outrageous. From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step, but it is the happy privilege of the Attorney-General never to transgress the bounds which divide the one from the other ; but, with all the admixture of buffoonery, there is in earnestness, and, occasionally, co- gency of argument which really would have made him as good a leader as his party could have found, and certainly an amusing one. Like the other
reasoners against the bill, the Attorney-General is apt to contradict his general positions by his special objections to its contents. The office of Lord Chancellor is excepted in the bill—it cannot be held by a Catholic; whereupon the Attorney-General remarks, with great triumph, what is there to prevent a Protestant from being as mischievous as a Catholic ? What is there tu prevent a Protestant Chancellor heseafter from acting as the Pro- testant Jeffreys did of old ?. But may we not, in reply, ask, if there were no other securities for the proper administration of public affairs than the perse- cuting laws which are now to he repealed, what safeguard would there be in the Protestantism or indifference to religion of any Ministers. If the Catholics gained influence by their wealth or by other accidents, and were disposed to use this influence to the prejudice of the community, is it not absurd to sup- pose that they could not act as mischievously through men of no religion, as through bigots to their own ? This argument of the Attorney-General does, in truth, admit that, the security, then, of the State is not in these rotten parchment bonds, but in the disposition of the mass of the people—it is iii the Protestantism, not of Ministers' but of those under the influence of whore. Ministers must be chosen. * * * Mr. Sadler, who made, on the first night of the debate, one of the best speeches (which is not saying much) that has been delivered on the same side of the question, opposes emancipation, be- cause he has some theories of his own for the cure of the evils of Ireland— the chief of which is to spread Christian instruction among the Irish people in spite of the priests. This is indeed putting an end to all difficulties, but we are left as much in the dark as ever as to the means. To spread the Protestant religion in Ireland, in spite of the priests, would be no doubt, the best cure for its present divisions. But svhi le Mr. Sadler is engaged in this task, why not go to the root of the evil—instead of converting the poor Irish _peasantry,
why not convert the Pope himself? In fact, like hundreds of half-litters . •I self-opinionated fanatics who have ranted before him on the same subject, Mr. Sadler takes the will for the deed—he confounds what lie desires with what he can effect. Mr. Sadler's recipe has been tried, and it has been found impossible to spread the Protestant religion in Ireland, while that religion approaches the people in a disneputable alliance with penalties and disabili- ties; and, if therejto any chance of extirpating the Catholic religion, it must be, as Dr. Cheasfrs, in his admirable and truly Protestant speech, so ele- quently recommended, when it is combated with the weapons of charity and truth—not by force and injustice.
Previous page
