|

fit for the catholics to receive. The question was now, whether they were to adopt in Ireland a perfectly new system, and abandon the system on which it had been governed since 1793, and to substitute in its place an equality of political privileges between the catholics and protestants. It was impossible to come to a proper decision of this question, without reference to the situation of the country to which their enactments were to apply. It had been said the measure must be productive of good in Ireland, because it had been productive of good in Hungary-because they had estahlished this equality themselves in Canada. And he heard his right honourable friend (Mr. Canning) state, that in a department of France the most perfect equality sub

offered. The clergy of Ireland had already stated, that they could not, without incurring the heavy guilt of schism, accede to any proposition to diminish the influence of the church. But the diminution of foreign influence in the appointment of prelates, was pro tanto, a dimunition of the pope's authority, and must be viewed by the catholics in the light of schism. Was any one then ready to affirm that the pope was willing to accede to domestic nomination? It was stated that Mr. Hayes had addressed a letter from Rome to this country, on the 26th of September, 1816, on the subject of domestic nomination; and, as that letter was the only document on the subject with which he was acquainted, he wished to call the attention of the house to it. That gentleman stated, that❘sisted between the catholics and protestants among other questions he asked cardinal Litta, whether domestic nomination would be acceded to by the pope? The answer of cardinal Litta was very fair. "Finally, as to what is next-stated touching domestic nomination, I do not uuderstand what that term is meant to signify." In the document which had come to his knowledge, it did not appear that that definition was ever given, and consequently whether or not, the point was conceded by the pope. Hitherto he had been addressing himself to those who thought there was now a prospect of settling this question. It was with the deepest regret, he confessed that he was not included in that number. He might have adopted his opinions on the subject at first, without much examination, and in case of doubt, he might think the presumption was in favour of the existing order of things; but from the situation which he had for some time held in the Irish government, he should have considered himself culpable in no slight degree, had he not bestowed much attention to the examination of a question in which Ireland was so deeply concerned: and had he seen reason to change his opinions, he hoped he should have had manlibess enough to avow that change. But he avowed that he had not changed them. He did not wish to revive animosities-neither did he wish to impute any doctrines to the catholics which they were willing to dis claim; but he would ask, what would be the operation of the catholic doctrines, in a country situated like Ireland, and supposing the catholics actuated by the same motives as other men, and by the principles of their religion? He recollected, that, in the case of the bill formerly brought in, when a clause for excluding catholics from parlia❘ ment was carried, a right honourable gentle man opposite abandoned the bill altogether, stating, that without allowing catholics to sit in that house, the boon was one which it was unworthy for them to grant, and unORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. V.

with respect to political privileges. If Ireland was in the same situation with these states, or if it was like the Gironde, a small department under a catholic establishment, and where the protestant population was small, the case would be different; but he denied that because political equality had succeeded there it would necessarily succeed in Ireland. They must consider the circumstances of the country to which the measure applied. - In Ireland a vast majority of the population professed a religion which was not the favoured religion of the state-the religion had once been establihed which was not the favoured religion, and the temporalities were now attached to another religion, which was that of the small minority-within the last 20 years it had had a separate legislature, and it was still separated by a difference in its judicial institutions--it was separated too, from this island by nature. The religion of the minority was esta blished by the inviolable contract which held the two countries together With a country so situated they might adopt four different systems. They might proscribe the religion of the majority, and pass laws for the purpose of destroying that religion. That was the penal system which they had abandoned. They might establish the catholic religion, and equality of political privileges-but that they could not do, because, by an inviolable contract, the establishment of the protestant religion was to be upheld. They might tolerate the catholic religion, but exclude them from political power, as was the case at present

or they might open to them every politi cal and military situation, but exclude them from the government, and from the office of lord chancellor. It had been said, having already admitted the catholics to the elective franchise, it was in the nature of things that they could not be con tented without obtaining still more. But

C 2

that argument applied with greater force against the new system, than the system at present established. He admitted the grievous nature of any exclusion, but the question was whether such exclusion was justified by an adequate necessity? When it was proposed to concede the franchise to the catholics, there was not the slightest intimation of this argument, that it was impossible the catholics could rest satisfied without being also admitted into the re presentation; but Mr. Burke drew a wellfounded distinction between the one and | the other; he said, that, according to the British Constitution, a franchise belonged to a man as a subject; but that an office like that of a representative appertained to him as a member of the state. It was also to be observed, that the elective franchise in Ireland was taken away by what sis called a penal law, and not by the revolution of 1688, and though it might be politic to allow the elective franchise, it might be most impolitie to concede the representative privilege. Supposing, howLever, that the system recommended were given to Ireland, it was acting unfairly by the executive branch of the legislature, to trust so much to the caprice or mistakes of the lord lieutenant. In Ireland there were two hierarchies, catholic and protestant; and it was known that the clergy of the former exercised uncontrolled "influence over the great mass of the people. By the bill of 1813, (and it was fair to argue that the new measure would be very different,) it would be seen that while nothing was done for the benefit of the clergy, most important political privileges were to be given to the aristocracy; what then would be the inevitable consequence? Would not the house, if it agreed to this measure, be Imperiously required to impose some #estrictions upon those who dictated the opinions of the great proportion of the population of Ireland? This seemed to prove decisively that the proposed innovation would not tend at all to better the condition of the lower orders, or to render them less discontented. He did not for a moment impute to the aristocracy of kreland either disloyalty or disaffection; but if they were sincere professors of the Roman catholic faith; if they possessed the feelings and passions that actuated other men, they must be naturally desirous to see that religion re-established in the empire. It would be recollected also, that the reformation in Ireland was not produced as in England, by the growing hatred of the people to the artifices and machinations of the priests; and this circumstance formed an additional reason for refusing the boon new demanded. It was answer to these objections to reply, that

|

was

only a few Catholics would have seats in parliament; and that their efforts on that account need not be dreaded. Let them be limited if it were just and politic. but not because their influence would be trifling or insignificant. It was contended on the other side that the measure necessary for the purpose of removing anomalies; but if a bill like that of 1813 were passed, the inconsistencies and anomalies would be rendered more numerous, instead of being diminished. He denied the assertion contained in the bill of 1815, that it was possible to communicate to catholics the same interest in maintaining the constitution; nature forbade it: they must always have a distinct interest, directly opposite to the protestant religion, inviolably established at the revolution. The oath which catholics were to take on entering the house, denying the interference of the pope, it had been truly observed, was more like a bill of indictment against them for their previous conduct, or a sort of confession of early crimes; if it were fit that they should be admitted at all within the walls, how could it be shown that such an oath ought to be administered? The principle of the bill was religious and political equality: yet in carrying this principle into effect, it excluded catholics from the offices of lord lieutenant and lord chancellor; so that the measure directly contradicted the principle on which it was founded. Thas the principle being aban doned, it came merely to a question of degree, whether catholics should excluded from two or from twenty offices? The advocates for the mea sure supported it, because they said that this mortifying exclusion from office was a chain round the necks of the catholics, and while a link of it remained, that it would still be galling. But what did they do in their bill? Instead of remov ing this chain entirely, they only took away a number of its links; still leaving a part of it, the two offices he bad named, as a remnant and token of their subjection. It might even be argued, that this exclu sion from two of the highest situations of the state, was even more invidious than the exclusion from all; and where then would be the harmony and confidence so anxiously desired by all parties? The same objection of anomaly applied to the provision, that the servants of the crown might be catholics, but that the throne itself could only be filled by a protestant sovereigns. It seemed even more rational to render the throne tenable by a catholic, than to place them in situations of such high trust, to misuse the influence they must unavoidably enjoy. One arguments. not hitherto adverted to, appeared ex

he

|

called for. He could not, however, give a silent vote on this important question, without declaring what he had uniformly thought of it; and he was more anxious to do this after the speech of most consum mate ability, of the right honourable gentleman, which appeared to comprise every argument on that side of the question, in the strongest light, and in the most luminous point of view, in which the subject was capable of being treated. The result, however, of his reasonings appeared to be only this that we were in a state of extreme delicacy. The practical question for the house to decide was this whether, by going as far as we could consistently go, we could purchase the removal of those inconveniences which now existed, without hazard to our establishment ? If he thought that any danger were introduced, for which actual securities were not provid ed, he should agree with the right honourable gentleman, that we ought to pause where we are; but, being in his conscience satisfied, that to the extent now proposed we might go safely, he should certainly give his support to this proceeding. The bill of 1813 was rejected on the first point-namely, the admission of catholics to parliament: but he believed that the members of that body might be safely ad

tremely strong, England, a protestant state, was firmly united to Scotland, where the presbyterian persuasion was the religion of the country. Could it be shown that happiness had not been promoted by the union, notwithstanding this discordance; and what was to interfere with the harmony between protestants and catholics? He apologized to the house for detaining it at so much length, but before he resumed his seat, he entreated those who were disposed to favour the motion to pause before they took the first step towards such an alteration so radical and important. It was remarked by Hume, that when the spirit of religion united with the spirit of party, it produced effects less correspondent to their known causes than were to be noticed under any other circumstances. This, which was so observable in the reigns of James and bis successor, while it constituted an apology for such statesmen as had adopted a particular line of conduct, from which the happy consequences they had reasonably expected did not result, at the same time cast a grievous responsibility upon those who, presiding over a long settled form of government, under which, by the blessing of God, internal happiness aud external glory were enjoyed, were disposed to interfere and to make innovations in matters of such difficulty and deli-mitted, and he hoped as soon as opportunity cacy as those where religion and policy were involved.—The presumption was, therefore, against every projected alteration, and in favour of the established order of things, which he earnestly hoped the house would preserve unwarped by the visionary schemes of theoretical politicians. Lord Castlereagh rose to explain, but the cheers which followed the speech of the right honourable gentleman who had just sat down, rendered it impossible for us (says the reporter of the Courier) to recollect what the noble lord said.

Sir Henry Parnell then rose, but the continuance of the cheers, and cries of question, prevented us from hearing him.

offered, that they should see among them. professors of the roman catholic religion, Of those who must come among them as representatives of the people there would be persons of property; and what evil could result from the admission into that house of such persons, who were only excluded by that faith which none of us called on them to forego? There might be persons of ano ther character, who now seek to inflame the passions of the people merely for the mischief they could do; but to open the door of the house of commons would be to molify those mischiefs. If there be among the catholica talents and abilities, why should we deprive ourselves of such splendid advantages? The true extination of the mischiefs which the exercise of sach acquirements was now calculated to produce, would be found in their admission to that house: there they would be met by equal ability, and the friends of the constitution would be able to cope with them. If the fact really was (from what causes arising he would not discuss) that we had a perpe tual spring of contention in Ireland, there was every probability that the discontent would be allayed, by consenting to do whatever he could to satify their reasonable claims. He was not deterred by the Mr. CANNING said, it was not his inten-apprehension that we could not do all we tion to detain the house many minutes from that vote which was so loudly and generally

General Mathew rose, and, as soon as order was restored, he observed, that he felt himself more particularly called upon to present himself to the house in consequence of the cheers which had followed the question of the right honourable gentleman, whether any person there was authorized by the pope to say, that his boliness would consent to domestic nomipation? He (General M.) did not nean to state, that he was directly authorized by the pope to say this; but he had every reason to believe that there was a document in this country to that effect.

must do what we could, not with a view to theoretical perfection, but to practical im

domestic nomination,

I positively deny provement. He knew not how we were before band to obtain the assurance, that that the sense of the catholics is such as to whatever we might do would be satisfacto-prevent them from submitting. What is

rily received; and as to expecting com
plete satisfaction, tell not him what the
catholics would accept; for whether it were
with more or less of gratitude, parliament
would grant the boon with its own condi-
tions, and it was not for any isolated per-
sons to object to it. We ought not to be
deterred, from a feeling of what might be
approved by a part of the people, which,
if it were good at all, was good for the
whole. Whether the roman catholic pre-
lates of Ireland would be nominated in one
way or other, could not be a matter of
previous negociation. He confessed, that
if he thought the great point of conciliation
ought to be accomplished, he cared not on
which side the advance began; whether it
were the submission of the catholics to
parliament in the first instance, or, the
benevolence of parliament which excited
the gratitude of the catholics: he cared not
from what point the circle began to be
drawn. Satisfied he was that, by adopting
the present proposition, much would be
done to quiet the irritation of the people
of Ireland, and to take away from those
who wished to do mischief, the means of
doing it. It was in this view, therefore,
that he was anxious they should go into
this committee. He was not, he repeated,
deterred by the objection that there might
be differences of opinion. True it was,
that in 1813, when the matter failed, it
was received with much discontent: but
it was only lost by a majority of 4, in
one of the fullest houses ever remembered.
He had then given way on a single point;
but he was not quite sure, after the expe-
rience of that failure, that if he could not
obtain all, it would be wise on another
occasion, to throw away all. But if this
failure had produced diseontent, it had
been also received with approbation; and
where was it received with discontent, and
where with approbation? With appro-
bation at Rome, and discontent in Ireland.
At Rome it was conceived as having pass-
ed; in Ireland it was thought to have
failed. The continuance of his belief was,
that, in spite of the impossibility of arriv-
ing at perfection, it was their duty to go as
far as they could; and, therefore, he hop-pope.
ed the house would go into a committee,
without being deterred by the apprehension
of not being able to devise any thing more
perfect.

Mr. GRATTAN then rose to reply
"Sir, with respect to the difficulty that is
supposed to arise from going unprepared
into the committee, I shall only observe,
that you can commaud your own securi-
ties you can command the security of

But there

for the good of the catholic, is for the good
of the whole. It is your duty to save the
country, and not to accommodate any par
An honourable gen-
ticular set of men.
tleman, who, I regret, was not more at-
tended to, observed in the course of his
speech, that this was a protestant consti-
tution. He may baptise the constitution
if he will, but originally it was catholic-
that is, it was founded by catholics,-All
the great laws to which the people owe
their liberty were the work of catholics,
At the time of the revolution our ances-
tors contented themselves with making
a declaration of right, because they could
not go farther than the catholics had gone,
The bill of rights was a declaratory law;
it was declaratory of the privileges obtain-
ed by our catholic ancestors. Those who
deny that the catholics have a right to de-
mand emancipation, found their arguments
on inference. But you cannot take away
prerogative by inference-you cannot take
away privilege by inference.
is this great error in their argument—they
found their inference on a misstatement of
facts. First, they say, that the catholics
are liable to pains and penalties, which do
not exist and from this they draw their
inference. An honourable member, on the
second bench, was pleased to say, that, at
the time of the revolution, the exclusion
of the catholics was a fundamental princi-
ple of the constitution. At the time a
danger threatened the religion of the coun-
try-but still you will observe, that the
disabilities which the catholics complained
of, and which were now increased, did not
take place till after the revolution. Some
of them were enacted in the latter part of
William's reign, and others took place in
the reign of Anne. Now, what sort of an
experiment was this? It was an experi-
ment to uphold one religion by inflicting
pains and penalties on the professors of
another. But, if you look a little farther,
you will find that the oath afterwards ad-
ministered, was not a penal oath against the
religion of the catholics-but an oath im-
posed on such persons as were then sup-
posed to obey the temporal power of the
And. in order to shew that I do
not mistate the fact, I will read to you the
preamble of the act of parliament, in
which the principle is laid down. [The
right honourable gentleman here read the
preamble of an act of queen Anne, which,
after reciting an act of William III. set
forth, that the aforesaid act was too severe
against persons professing the catholic re-
ligion; and then went on to state, that, to
admit the temporal superiority or power of