Page images
PDF
EPUB

now heaped upon them by their adversaries. the state in matters of religion was dangerThe bishop of OSSORY was surprised to ous and impolitic: whether he intended to hear the authority of Locke quoted by the impute any improper interposition to the learned prelate in support of the opinion late lord-lieutenant of Ireland was not he had delivered on this question. If he quite clear; but he (the bishop of Ossory) had any distinct recollection of the sen- could bear the testimony to the contrary; timents of Mr. Locke on this subject, it was and however he might differ in political this-that that great writer had laid it sentiment from two of them, he felt called down as a principle, that Roman catholics upon to declare, that in this respect their ought to be excluded from political power. conduct was above reproach. He contendThe noble earl who moved the question un- ed, that so far from foreign influence being der consideration had spoken with some de- denied or abolished, it had been recently gree of acrimony of the conduct of orange recognized and referred to in a letter signed societies in Ireland; and had described the by six titular bishops of Ireland, a passage pastoral letters of the reverend prelates of from which he read to the house. If the the Roman catholic church, as uniformly catholics once refused to be actuated by filled with recommendations of loyalty and foreign influence, they ceased to be Roman, peace. He was confident, however, that although they might still be Irish cathothat character could not be attributed to lics. In truth, they were often both the one pastoral letter of the Romish archbish- one and the other, as suited the political op of Dublin, and also one of Dr. Lanigan purpose immediately in view. The right who was titular bishop either of Ossory or reverend prelate referred to the proceedof Waterford. He had heard the other ings at Rome during the pendency of the night a sentiment expressed by a noble earl bill of 1813; and particularly to the opinow present, which accorded better with nions of the authorities there, on the subhis ideas of loyalty. That noble earl (lord | ject of the oath prescribed in it; arguing, Grey,) in one of the most learned and elo- that it was impossible to suppose that the quent legal arguments that ever was de- sovereign pontiff would concede what was livered in any assembly, had observed, that required regarding the veto. It had ever when a law is enacted, he considered it his been avowed by the Irish catholics themduty to obey it as long as it existed; how-selves, that, without the crime of schism, ever bad he might conceive it to be. This was loyal and constitutional doctrine; but how different was the tendency of that contained in the pastoral letter of the Roman catholic bishop of Dublin? It was said, that the present disposition of the catholics was to do their utmost to concili ate, and a most wonderful discovery they had made by which it was to be accomplished-domestic nomination: a great blessing certainly it might be; but, in truth, it was only what the protestants had long enjoyed. Without putting any unfair or forced construction upon the actions or writings of any man, he should take the Jiberty of reading several extracts from the works of Roman catholics themselves, to prove that, supposing their present tenets to be ever so favourable to concession (which he by no means admitted), it was impossible to argue upon them, or to treat them as opinions they would long retain; for the quotations he should proceed to make would convince the house that they had no fixed principles, and that what they said to-day they would unsay to-morrow. This may appear a bold assertion, but he was prepared to prove it. The right reverend prelate then proceeded to read soine extracts from a work, the title of which was not audible below the bar; it was understood that they referred to the proceed ings of the council of Trent. The noble earl had contended that any interference of

they could not comply with the terms re-
quired by abandoning their aflegiance to
the pope.
He contrasted these tenets with
others previously and subsequently ex-
pressed; and gave it as his opinion, that
with a body so vacillating it was impossible
to treat with any hope of a beneficial re-
sult. He noticed the proceedings of the
catholic clergy of the arch-diocese of Dub.
lin, at a meeting on the letter of Quaran.
totti, and insisted that the true reason why
the catholics refused the last, and would
reject any new measure, would be because
it might put an end to their machinations
against the church of England. He fol-
lowed up his remarks by reading a para-
graph from what he termed the catholic
official paper of Dublin, Noble lords
might flatter themselves with the hope of
satisfying the unreasonable demands of the
Roman catholics of Ireland, but they would
be deceived; and as one of the protestant
bishops of that island, he felt called upon
to assert, that the foundations of the estab
lishments would be shaken if once a door
were opened to its enemies. The terms of
the oath proposed in the bill of 1813, were
certainly strong; but how was it possible
for a man who was a true Roman catholic
to take it? The clergy had positively
déclared against it; and he brought for-
ward a passage from a pamphlet, written
by a right honourable person, for whom
he entertained the highest respect, to show

In

[ocr errors]

that all oaths so taken would be consider ed null and void. He begged to trouble the house with a few remarks upon the present head of the catholic church. the first place, it could not be forgotten that the present pope was the man who hastened to Paris for the purpose of placing the crown of France upon the head of Buonaparte; and in the next place, that to him Europe was indebted for the resuscitation of the order of Jesus. Some persons might fairly entertain high respect for the learning, the zeal, and the talents of that society; but how happened it that they were abolished by the unanimous voice of Europe, unless they were noxious to all classes, and unfit to be revived? Noble lords would also, he hoped, remember, that since the house of Brunswick had been seated on these realms, each sovereign, in succession, on assuming the crown, had professed his solemn resolution to maintain the establishment in church and state. George the First and Second had so promised, and so performed; and the present king had been no less zealous and successful in his endeavours to preserve the protestant church of England inviolable. To establish these statements the right reverend prelate read parts of the speeches delivered by each of the sovereigns named, to their first parliament. He was far from disputing the great power of parliament; no doubt it could enforce the laws it thought fit to pass; but was the house quite sure that the bill which would emanate from the committee now proposed to be appointed would not require the employment of some compulsion? Where noble lords quite certain that it would be received with gratitude, and that its purpose would not be entirely defeated by those who asked every thing, and would concede nothing? In all countries the catholic religion, and its professors, were the same, as was proved by a curious production, signed by the archbishop of Malines, and all the suffragan bishops, with the exception of only two, which was thrust under the doors of all catholic shop-keepers and others, and which had been distributed with the greatest industry; maintaining that a good Roman catholic could not take the oath of allegiance to a protestant king. Many copies of this document had been dispersed in various parts of Ireland; but he had been unable to procure a specimen of it for the information of the house, in consequence of the pains taken to conceal it.

The bishop of NORWICH, in a low voice, explained; he would yield to no man in his recollection of the part of Mr. Locke's works to which he had referred; and notwithstanding the contradiction he had

received, he insisted that that great writer laid it down as a principle, that no man ought to suffer for not being a member of the established church, unless it could be proved that he maintained opinions injuriHe entered into the same

ous to the state. writer's reasoning upon the subject, to show that he even carried it farther than was generally supposed.

The earl of HARROWBY was of opinion, that in the debate of that evening both sides of the house had argued the question on grounds that were untenable. Adverting to the speech of a right reverend prelate who had supported the motion, and for whose amiable and excellent qualities he had the highest respect, he observed, that if any thing could have induced him (the earl of Harrowby) to give a different vote from that which it was his intention to give, it was the concluding part of that right reverend prelate's speech, in which he had unadvisedly (if it were permitted to suppose that any thing unadvised could pro. ceed from such a quarter) thrown down a torch of discord; and had (unintentionally, every one must be persuaded) encouraged those who wished to find an excuse for sedition and rebellion. With respect to the right reverend prelate, who with so much ability had followed the noble mover of the proposition under their lordships' consider. ation, he (the earl of Harrowby) was happy to find that he disclaimed the opinion that difference of religious belief was a sufficient ground for the exclusion of the catholics from a participation in the civil privileges of their fellow-subjects. That right reverend prelate rested his opposition. to the catholic claims on the want of civil qualities and civil worth on the part of catholics. He had argued that the loyalty of the church of England-man was more to be depended on, because it was undivided. He (the earl of Harrowby) had no hesita tion in allowing that the allegiance of those who acknowledged it, with reference both to church and to state, must be more complete in its nature than the allegiance of those who acknowledged it only to state. The chain, however, which bound subjects to a government, was composed of a variety of links. It was certainly impossible, where one of those links was wanting, that the chain could be quite as strong as where no such deficiency existed. It was undoubtedly easy for one so accustomed to all the dexterities of logic as the right reverend prelate to prove that it was utterly impossible aRoman catholic could be faithful in his allegiance to the government of any country whatever. But what was the fact? Let their lordships refer to former periods. Let them revert to the times of queen Eli zabeth, of Charles the First, and they would

find that no persons adhered with greater fidelity to their allegiance to the crown than the Roman catholic clergy; who, at those periods, were totally unrestricted with respect to the enjoyment of civil privileges; and were treated with equality and indulgence. Subsequently they expe rienced much harder usage; for at the revolution a system of legislation was adopted with respect to the catholics, of which he was persuaded that there was no noble lord present, who would not say that as an Englishman he was ashamed. Repeatedly had it been proved that notwithstanding their spiritual allegiance to the pope, the catholics had maintained their temporal allegiance to the king. In spite of this foreign allegiance, they had been still denominated loyal and faithful subjects. The right reverend prelate had argued, that their principles were to be judged from the decrees of ancient councils, and yet he had also maintained that they were so varying that no dependence could be placed on them. How these two charges could pos. sibly be reconciled, he confessed he was at a loss to know, for if they were so unstable, so changeable as said to be, it was impossible their conduct could be judged of by ancient councils. The catholic religion had been branded as intolerant in its very nature and constitution, but for example he would ask, would their lordships think it fair to consider the church of Scotland as intolerant, merely because at the time of the union, they had published a declaration expressive of their determination to prevent episcopacy being introduced into that Country? Upon the very same principle might the church of Rome be accused.Every person who had argued the question, had agreed, that it was necessary every measure should be taken that could poɛsibly be done for conciliating the affection and soothing the minds of the Irish nation; and that such an object was of the greatest importance was obvious indeed. The greatest danger was apprehended to be from foreign allegiance, and here, though he differed most materially in his conclusions from the right reverend prelate who spoke last, he nevertheless had proved that they ceased to be Roman catholics the moment they ceased to acknowledge a foreign head. It had been argued by some that the moment the catholics were permitted to enter both houses of parliament, or into the army, navy, and law, that all these departments would of course become catholic.

He was totally ignorant of the slightest possibility of this ever being the case, and where the danger existed of their doing any harm to the church, he could not

see.

Thank God, church and state were so intimately connected, that whatever

[ocr errors]

tended to injure the one, must infallibly do so to the other, and if the one perished, the other also must. No man, he trusted. would ever live to see this the case in our happy country; but with respect to the catholics being returned to serve in parliament, he thought there was infinite more hazard in a protestant being returned by catholic electors than in a catholic being chosen at once, and at all events still a majority of parliament would be secured. But why should they be excluded from the army, and from reaping those honours due to their martial achievements ? They were allowed to attain the rank of lieutenant generals, but debarred from that of generals. Why, good God, was this the case? Was this then their reward for fighting our battles, and, returning from the field covered with blood and wounds, yet with true British glory? All persons admitted these individuals to be great and valuable warriors, and yet they were debarred from public honours, and unnecessarily stigmatised! If they were brave (and who could or would deny that they were so?) then why should they not be rewarded as such? With respect to the bar, he would say also, that in this point there was an invidious and unnecessary distinction kept up, and by the present system, their lordships were in fact telling the catholic, though possessed, as some might be of the most brilliant talents and splendid acquirements," Thus farshall ye go and no farther It was absurd to suppose that the very idea of a man being a catholic disqua lified him for being a fit person to execute the British laws, or preside over a British jury. Where, in the name of God, he would ask, where did the most distant connection exist between the religion a man professed and the line of life he followed? Would any man, or could any man in fact gravely say there existed the slightest rela➡ tion between theology and the dispensation of the law. It was insulting to the good sense of the country to hear this said, especially when their lordships considered that a judge, if disposed to act in this manner, was subject to the censure of an enlightened bar, and an equally enlightened public.→→→ It was also further known, that appeals laying from the bench to a higher tribunal, had thus obviated every danger, or ap pearances of danger. You keep them back enough to make them dangerous, by refusing that which would make them loyal, and nothing, therefore, could be obviously more impolitic. The question will undoubtedly often recur, and come every time that it does come, with additional energy to parliament, unless decided Was it then fit, was it proper, was it necessary, that year after year, their

now.

real ground of the question. If the motion contemplated nothing but some farther indulgences, or as complete a toleration as was compatible with the existence of a protestant government, the argument for a committee would be, unanswerable, nor should he be disposed to object to it: but the fact was, it was all or nothing that was asked for. A bill which went to this extent of granting every demand, was brought into the house of commons in the year 1813, and was read a first and second time. In the committee it was proposed by a very great authority (the Speaker), to omit that clause which enabled Roman catholics to sit in parliament. The clause was nega tived, and the authors of the bill considered

lordships should allow the attention of parliament or the country to be occupied with the question? If it was not proper, then why not at once consent to the consideration of their prayer, for to say that keeping up in this country a distinction which, though not essential to any other country, was essential to this, was ludicrous. He should decline going into the consideration of the domestic nomination, or the veto, and he should only say, that if the parliament of Great Britain should in its wisdom concede the prayer of the catholics under certain conditions, then one of two things must be done by the catholics, either they must accept of it under these conditions, or they may refuse it.He would ask their lordships, was it possi-that omission as a defeat of the whole meable that the present system could continue, and would they really still consider the law essential in all its parts? Many reasons urged him to give his vote for going into a committee, to see if even part of that prayer could be granted. By going into that committee, no noble lord was pledged to any measure, and he trusted their lordships would therefore agree to go into the committee, as the only means of ascertain ing what could or could not be granted on proper securities.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL had heard with no less satisfaction than the house, the speech of his noble friend, marked as it was, not more by that acuteness of mind and force of thought which always distinguished him, than by the most candid and unexagge rated statement: hut although he felt thankful to him for his clear exposition of his argument, he was sorry that he must differ from him in his conclusions. He wished, in the first place, to refer to what he considered was the true situation of the question. It was, undoubtedly, competent to his noble friend to say, in support of a motion for appointing a committee to examine this or any other subject, that it was not bound to come to any certain reso

lutions, or to recommend any specific

measures-but he must conténd, at the same time, that their lordships were entitled, before they assented to such a proposition, to look at the real intention with which it was brought forward. It was not pretended that the object was to redress any partial grievances, to make any partial concessions, or to remove any particular anomalies: it was not urged that some new modifications of the act of 1793 had become necessary in the present circumstances of the country; but the professed purpose was to place the Irish Roman catholics in every respect (some provisions with respect to the church alone excepted) on a footing of equal privileges with protestant subjects. This he apprehended, was the

For

sure. They exhibited no desire to obtain
additional advantages for the catholics in
the army, in the navy, or at the bar: but
because they could not carry all, refused
all; and the bill was thrown out, not by
those who were the most unfavourable to it,
but by its authors and promoters.-Having
said so much as to the light in which the
immediate question ought to be viewed, he
would wish to make a few observations on
the ecclesiastical branch of the subject.
He must, however, express at his outset
his desire to clear the discussion of this
point from all extraneous considerations
If concession was to be resolved on,
it was desirable, in his opinion, that it
should be made without any interference
in the doctrines or discipline of the Irish
catholic church. The case of those foreign
catholic churches, which existed under
protestant governments was essentially dif
ferent from that under consideration.
example, he might allude to the relation
between Prussia and Silesia, or Russia
and her Polish provinces these were ter-
ritories annexed to great states by treaty
or conquest, in which the population, the
property, the church, all were catholic;
and in which the Roman catholic was,
They
could not deny the temporalities to the
therefore, the established religion.
government; and we were equally entitled
to claim a jurisdiction over the civil es
tablishment of Ireland; but the catholic
was not the established religion of Ireland,
nor ought parliament therefore to assume
the authority of legislating on matters af
fecting the principles of its ecclesiastical
system. Much as had been said with re-
gard to the veto, and with regard to do-
mestic nomination, he attached no impor-
tance to regulations of that nature.
might be judicious restraints, if the object
of jealousy was the character of individu-
als; but he believed that no men could be
more respectable than the catholic pre
lates; and if there had been any exceptions
to this remark, they had not proceeded

They

from Irish nomination, but were to be traced to a very different cause. It was not about the form of the nomination that he entertained any scruples; the source of his objections and apprehensions was, that, however named, they were necessarily subject to foreign influence, the pastors of the Romish church, and bound to pay obedience to a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction.He agreed entirely, that if concession must take place, it ought not to be made in an ungracious manner, a manner which must excite painful feelings without affording any additional security. The only question with him was, were they prepared to make the concession? A right reverend prelate (the bishop of Landaff) had observed, that in point of abstract principle no description of persons could complain of unequal privileges, who voluntarily placed themselves in a situation which forfeited the equality of them. He should ask, not only as it affected the catholic, but every other body of dissenters from the established church, do they, when they require equal privileges, offer equal conditions? And if they do not, can it be contended that there is any injustice or inexpediency in distinguishing between them?Without pretending to decide positively, he certainly entertained great doubts whether any civil government could long go on without the aid and union of some form of ecclesiastical establishment. However that might be, he trusted this country would never make the experiment. At the pe riod of the revolution the connection between the state and the church, as such was solemnly recognised; it was a connection which pervaded all our institutions, and characterised every part of our system. It was then settled, that the king himself must communicate with the church of England. The same rule was applied, although since not unwisely relaxed, to the army and navy. The two houses of parliament were on some occasions parties to the performance of its rites and worship; and the judges of the land, if not by positive law, yet by immemorial custom, never opened their commissions without repairing to the established church. Thus deeply was the union he described impressed upon all the forms of the constitution. Upon what principle, he desired to know, if these concessions were allowed to the Romao catholics, could they be refused to every other class of dissenters? He admitted that all exclusion must sometimes operate harshly on individuals; and could only be justified, therefore, on adequate grounds of political expediency. The sect of dissenters called quakers is a very respectable body, who were excluded by an act of their own. Why was not concession to be extended to them, or why not

to the jews, who might also conscienti ously maintain their own peculiar opinions on theological subjects? Might he not, however here call upon their lordships to consider how far they were going? The result of equal and general concession must be to leave no difference between any description of dissenters and the established church in any respect beyond endowment. Parliament must immediately cease to be a protestant parliament.-He could not be supposed to mean that the majority of members would be no longer protestant; but the catholics whatever their numbers, would constitute an integral part of the legislature, which must thus cease to be exclusively protestant, This would at once effect an entire change in the system of the constitution, and must dissolve that intimate alliance between the church and state which had been established at the revolution, He wished their lordships to contemplate the consequences of adopting such a principle. How would it apply to the law which excluded every other than a protestant king? Would it be possible to maintain this part of the constitution, whilst every other obstruction was removed to all other offices, in favour of all other individuals ? It would be hard indeed, that one family alone should be excepted from the right of adhering conscientiously to their religious opinions, unless by the sacrifice of the crown. He was aware it had been proposed to except likewise the lord chancellor and the lord lieutenant of Ireland. He should only say that these were regulations quite unsatisfactory to his mind. This question, however, yet remained to be considered, with relation to the special and peculiar circumstances of Ireland.The proposed measure had been represented as one calculated to heal all past dissentions, to soothe and allay all animosities, and to create what had been termed a moral union throughout every portion of the empire. If he could really believe that these consequences would follow from its adoption, he should be extremely reluctant to withhold his support from it; but because he did not believe so, and thought it would produce an opposite effect, he felt his objections to it fortified and invincible. His noble friend had argued that things could not remain as they now are; he would rather ask, could they, if this measure should be carried, remain as they now are? In that case grievances, or what would appear to be so, and be so called, would remain behind. It then would be considered as a grievous bardship, that were the majority of the population was catholic, the establishment should be protestant. It was useless to compare the circumstances of Ireland with those of countries in which the population and es

« PreviousContinue »