Ireland, and that as at present framed, it would operate most unjustly. If any thing could be done with it in committee, he had no objection to its going to that stage; but he was confident that no one clause at present in the Bill could be al lowed to remain a part of it. The Earl of Liverpool suggested the necessity of appointing a distant day for the committee, in order that accurate information might in the mean time be obtained respecting the extensive and important interests which would be affected by such a measure, and proposed this day two months. Earl Stanhope suggested one month, which was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed for this day month. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 24. PETITION FROM GLASGOW RESPECTING THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord A. Hamilton presented a Petition from several merchants and manufacturers in Glasgow, setting forth, "That in Glasgow, as well as in other commercial and manufacturing towns and cities of the empire, the late stagnation of trade has been attended with the most calamitous effects; that the number of bankruptcies has been unprecedented, the demand for manufactures limited, and the distresses of the workmen most afflicting; and that, although the sufferings of the petitioners, and the distresses of the people, might not perhaps have been altogether prevented, it appears to the petitioners that they would have been greatly mitigated by adhering to the established laws of neutral commerce, the loss of the American market for our manufactures would not then have been added to that of the greater part of Europe, and our commodities might more easily have reached even the ports of our enemies through circuitous channels; and that the petitioners beg leave, with all humility, to represent to the House, that the rights of neutrals, as recognized by the practice of Europe, are of the most essential advantage to commercial nations when unfortunately engaged in war; and, in the present circumstances of Britain, excluded as she has been from many of her accustomed and most extensive markets, the recognition of those rights would be more beneficial to her than even to those by whom the trade might be carried on; and that the petitioners, reasoning on these general views of commercial policy, could not approve of the attempt, by retaliatory measures affecting neutrals, to force the enemy to relinquish his unjust attack upon our manufacturing and colonial interests: but, while there was any prospect of this object being accomplished, they did not presume to oppose their opinion to what seemed to be considered as the general policy of the state; now, however, that the trial has been made, and has failed; now that experience has shewn that neither the ruin of his merchants can prevail upon our enemy to relax his anti-commercial system, nor the scarcity on the continent of commodities believed to be indispensable, can induce the enthralled nations to throw off the yoke, the petitioners apprehend that measures proved to be detrimental to our own interests, and inefficient against the enemy, should at length be abandoned; and praying the House to take such steps, as to them may seem best, for procuring the recall of those Orders in Council, by which the usual commerce of neutral states has been impeded, and for reverting to the enlightened policy of former times." Ordered to lie upon the table. MR. GRATTAN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS-ADJOURNED Debate.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Catholic Petitions. The order being read at the table, Sir William Scott rose and said :—Sir, before I proceed to the few observations which I think it necessary to offer upon the subject now before you, I feel it right, in the first place, to take notice of some observations which fell in the course of last night's debate, from an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, touching a Petition which I had the ho nour to present from the University of Oxford, against the claims of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. But however brilliant the talents displayed by that hon. gentleman in the sarcasms which he was pleased to cast upon the proceedings of that University on this occasion, it must be confessed that in those sarcasms he has not displayed much of filial affection for the place of his education. The attack was most undeserved, and I beg leave to say, Sir, that no body of men in this country has ever demonstrated a stronger at tachment to the constitution of their country. In former times, when at a memorable period of our history, that constitution was in danger of being destroyed by the usurpations of a popular branch of it, they rallied round their monarch, beset with perils. They evinced the most unshaken fidelity to the throne, and supported that cause which was no less the cause of their country, than of their king. In the latter part of the same century, when the popular branch of that constitution was in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by the arbitrary proceedings of the crown, where was the first effectual resistance made to this encroachment? Where was the regal tyranny more firmly opposed, or the cause of liberty and truth more zealously supported than in that University of Oxford-that same college-that very grove, which has been the object of the hon. gentleman's sarcasms. The members of that very University in that arduous crisis not only sought for the truth, but they found it, and acted upon it; they set an example which was followed by their country, with so much advantage to the British dominions-advantages which, I hope, will be maintained to the remotest posterity. That college has ever stood forward in defence of civil liberty and personal independence, uniformly opposing themselves at the proper seasons to the undue encroachments of the crown on one hand, and to popular turbulence on the other; and I need hardly remind you, Sir, (Mr. Abbott, the Speaker,) of the liberal manner in which they have returned their representatives to this House. Sir, the representation which the hon. gentleman has made of the manner in which their Petition on this subject was carried, I must beg leave to say was extremely unjust. An assembly was convened highly respectable in the persons and numbers who composed it. The question was regularly and dispassionately discussed, and although there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the, propriety of preparing such a Petition, yet it was ultimately carried by a majority of the convocation of four to one in its favour. I beg, therefore, Sir, that I may not be told that this Petition is not a fair representation of the sentiments of that University, or that the result would have been different, if the whole body of its members had been present on the occasion, I am, therefore, Sir, warranted in saying, that the Petition is a fair statement of the sense of that University, as well as of the great body of the nation. The petitioners are men of the best education, of the greatest talents, and the most unblemished integrity. How, then, I would ask, can it be justly said, that they were but little capable of forming a correct judgment on a political question of great national importance? So much, Sir, I felt it my duty to say in reply to the illiberal reflections thus cast upon the University of Oxford. Upon the general question before you, Sir, I feel it necessary to trouble the House with only a few observations; having been so repeatedly called on upon former occasions to state my opinions upon the subject. That the question has been so repeatedly brought forward year after year, is to me a matter of serious regret. The perpetual agitation of it has roused the turbulent passions of opposite parties, and kept the public mind in a state of constant ferment. It is a question fraught with danger to the nation, and one which hazards the setting fire to the country. If I saw any thing like the probability of parties coming to an agreement, I should then see the propriety of pursuing this course; and I should hail it as a happy omen of the discontinuance of those conflicts; but although the question has come forward year after year, those differences of opinion still remain unaltered; and after the repeated determinations of this House upon the subject, and one of those determinations not many weeks old; how can it be expected that the decision of this night should be different from the former. The House has been repeatedly told every year that the thing must be done; that the feelings of the petitioners can no longer be trifled with; and that the danger of refusal is so great that it ought not to be encountered. The answer to this, however, is, that parliament has repeatedly said, "it shall not be done;" and what end, therefore, can be answered by repeatedly agitating this question, but to keep up a continual war, between the petitioners and the legislature? It has been admitted by those who are most competent to speak to the point, that neither in Ireland, nor in this country, is the public mind, as it is commonly, or rather vulgarly called, made up to the granting of these privileges to the Catholics; nor could they, I am satisfied, be granted without the imminent risk of exciting civil commotions. I venture to tlemen, as I do admit that there are many persons of the Catholic persuasion, who are men of great private worth, but I cannot withhold my own opinion, that if the Catholics are true to the principles of their faith, there is nothing which they can. have more at heart than the complete extinction of the Protestant religion, and when I look to the genius of the Catholic religion, the exclusive spirit which universally pervades it-when I look at its general doctrines, that salvation is not to be had out of the pale of its Church, I cannot contemplate, without alarm, the admission of the Roman Catholics as the guardians of a Protestant establishment. It may as well be asserted, that the Church would be as safe in the hands devoted to its destruction, as under the guardianship of those devoted to its protection. Seeing, therefore, Sir, no possibility of acceding to such a principle, I have the strongest objection to going into the proposed committee. refer it to any man's observation, whether he really thinks the public sentiment has, in any degree, altered upon this subject. I would ask, is there any alteration for the better in the question itself? If I seek for any alteration in the language of the petitioners, as a new ground for the anticipation of success, I find none; for so far from offering any security for the protection of the Established Church, they obstinately withhold even those securities which they were formerly ready to concede. I have heard of the necessity of securities guaranteed by the most enlightened advocate of this cause, and offered by the petitioners; but these they now retract. I have looked at this question, so important, in a view to our political and religious interests: I have observed the disposition of the parties urging these claims, and I own that I see nothing on their parts which appears like a disposition to afford proper securities to the Established Church. On the contrary, they seem to me to be anxious, not only for the unconditional attainment of civil privileges and power in the state, but also to gain for their religion a marked and public encouragement. What then is the duty of those who wish well to the established religion? Will it not be for them to consider whether this marked and public encouragement to the Catholics may not operate as a marked and public discouragement to the Established Church? It has been stated, that the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland are hostile to the established religion, and yet are admitted into the highest offices of the state; but yet, Sir, I think this argument has no bearing upon the question, nor is it any fair ground to shew that the Presbyterians may not safely be trusted, for there is a principle of union amongst the Protestant sects in all their varieties, which must be There was a time, Sir, and not many friendly to a Protestant establishment; years ago, when it was held in this coun- whereas the Roman Catholics, if they try to be a fundamental principle of civil hold the sentiments professed for them by polity, that where a religious establish- their own most approved authors, they ment is formed consistent with the gene- must be anxious for the destruction of the ral principles of the nation, such an es- Protestant establishment, and the erectablishment should be supported with the tion of their own upon its ruins. The utmost tenacity, as the basis, upon which question, then, comes to this, whether for rests the security of the state; but we are the purposes of civil government, one renow told that such notions are quite obso- ligion be not as good as another, or whelete that there should be no religious ther, if one be more proper than another, distinctions whatever, no peculiar protec- the protection of that one ought to be ention to the Established Church, while, at trusted to those who must be necessarily other times, though the propriety of a pe- anxious for its destruction, instead of those culiar protection was admitted, it was at who are most interested in its preservathe same time gravely contended, that this tion? Now, Sir, though I am unwilling to protection might very safely be entrusted say any thing that might have a tendency to persons of a very different faith. Now, to awaken religious animosity, I must obSir, I would ask gentlemen whether they serve, that I cannot consider this as a mere seriously think a Roman Catholic chan- political question, for it is a religious one cellor, Roman Catholic privy counsellors, also; and every man who so considers it, or Roman Catholic legislators, could be ought to look into his own mind, and considered as faithful guardians to the weigh gravely whether it would be right Protestant religion in this country? I do to relax the severities of the establishe not mean to put this question with any religion. But even in a political purpose of irritating the feelings of gen-historical reflection must reca events, the contemplation of which cannot be favourable to these claims of the Catholics. It may be easy to compose declamations upon shewy theoretical principles; but it is not quite so easy to give them a safe and practical operation. I would therefore advise every man to reflect on the history of the past, and then ask himself how far it can be prudent to give an accession of political power to the Catholics. It has been suggested, Sir, that this measure would reconcile all differences, and produce a cordial union amongst all parties. If I could view it in that light, I would be one of its warmest advocates, but I can see no hopes of its producing any such beneficial effects. On the contrary, Sir, I think the appointment of this committee would only tend to agitate and disturb the public mind, that it would open a new focus of inflammable matter, the more dangerous, because the lowest as well as the highest classes would be involved in the general ferment; and a source would be established for perpetual party differences. Sir, the House has been told, that if these claims are not granted, Ireland is lost. This is a prophecy, however, which I do not clearly understand, and affords an argument in my view which, though used in favour of your petitioners, should operate directly against them. What are we to understand from it? Do hon. gentlemen mean to say that the Irish Catholics would desert their duty, and refuse to defend their country against foreign invasion, if their claims are rejected? Do gentlemen mean to insinuate, that they would themselves feel less inclined to support in such case the interests of their country? Does the allegiance of the Catholics then sit so loose upon them? I, who may be considered their opponent, do not join in this opinion of their advocates, because I hope they have a deeper sense of their duty But if I still hear it asserted that Irela in such a case would be lost, I must that those whose allegiance sits se about them, are the very last wh be entrusted with any reat port” litical power. press my regre of this questi more for themselv peated) is extr shou Let the petitioners try the effect of time, and await the arrival of a period when perhaps parties may be brought nearer to a mutual acquiescence, and their case may be considered under circumstances more favourable to their hopes than they can now acquire by a restless importunity. I give great credit to the leading advocates of this measure on the other side of this question, who have refrained from urging this subject when they themselves were in administration; and I hope their good sense and reflection will teach them to discourage it henceforward, and thereby shew that their conduct has not changed merely with their situation, and that they will not attempt to make this subject a badge of political party and a means of getting into power. Right Hon. W. Elliot.- Sir, no person who has not the ties of filial piety and attachment to it, can hold the University of Oxford in higher veneration than I do; nor can any one more readily subscribe to the opinions which my right hon. and learned friend has claimed for that great and ancient seminary, in its selection of its representatives. In one point of view, perhaps, the very Petition on the table may be considered as creditable to it, because it marks the gradual conquest which that learned body is making over its own prejudices. On former occasions it has been unanimous: in the present instance, by the acknowledgment of my right hon. and learned friend, it has been much divided in its opinion. It has also been very tardy with its Petition; and even with this delay, time has scarcely been given for the collection of the sentiments of the distant members of the University. All this is good. It shews the march and progress of truth and reason on this great cause. In the few observations with which I mean to trouble the House, on this most momentous topic, I must beg to be underd as disclaiming all notion of resting merit st m estion on any ground the term spiritual authority of the Pope, I mean to include his alleged power of dispensing with oaths, together with the tenet attributed to Roman Catholics of not keeping faith with heretics. These imputations, however, it is to be remembered, have been formally and solemnly denied by six of the most eminent Roman Catholic universities in Europe, as well as by the preambles of several statutes on the table, which not only recognize the Catholics as good and loyal subjects, and fit to be trusted with much civil and military power, but declare the restrictive laws to have been inefficacious for their purpose, and injurious to the welfare and prosperity of Ireland. I must remark too, that if there were any foundation for such odious fears, the precautions relied on do not appear to be either very efficient or very logical.-The danger asserted is, that Catholics cannot be believed when they swear. by conducing to general harmony, can | portending peril to our civil rights. In contribute to the public strength, then indubitably they ought to be rescinded. The policy of the measure being admitted, its justice can be no matter of dispute. The question, like every other question concerning human affairs, ought to depend on a comparative view of its advantages, or disadvantages, or rather, I should say, of its benefits and dangers. I lay a stress on the word dangers, because if the dangers can be shewn to be ill founded, or even if they can be much extenuated, the benefits stand out so much in the sight of all men, they rush in so irresistible a torrent upon our minds and understandings, that I should have to accuse myself of an almost wanton consumption of the time of the House, if I were much to enlarge on them. The arguments against further concessions to the Roman Catholics, seem to range themselves under three heads; 1st, the dangers to the state; 2dly, objections which are attempted to be drawn from the principles of the constitution; and, 3dly, a doubt which is entertained of the beneficial efficacy of the measure, in the event of its accomplishment. With regard to the dangers, it may not be improper to remark, that some of the arguments, which used to be derived from that source, and which in many discussions on the subject have beeen much insisted on, seem of late to be abandoned. They ought not, however, to be wholly lost sight of; because if positions which were once deemed so strong, are now relinquished, there is rational encouragement for hoping that those which remain may not be found so impregnable as the adversaries of this cause wish them to be thought. Others of these dangers have, from the change of the circumstances of the world, long since passed away in the judgments of all men. The recal of a Catholic to the throne, for instance, can no longer be a subject of fear. No one, I presume, apprehends that the king of Sardinia is likely to be taken from the remnant of his dominions and fixed upon the throne of these realms. The temporal power of the Pope also presents no formidable danger. On the contrary, it has been our wish and object to protect it, and in its defence both the blood and the treasures of this country have been, as I think, wisely and nobly, though unsuccessfully expended. But the spiritual authority of the Pope is still, it seems, an object of apprehension, as The security insisted upon is an oath. But it has been alleged by some gentlemen who admit the sincerity of the Catholics in the abjuration of such tenets, that it is in the nature of all religious sects to endeavour to promote the interests of their own faith; and that if the Roman Catholics were invested with political power, their aim would, of course, be directed to the advancement of their religion. If, however, this argument has any validity, it must equally apply to the Protestant Dissenters, many of whom deny the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown; and yet the disqualifying laws with regard to the latter description of persons, have in Ireland been long since repealed. The objection also, as urged against further concessions to the Catholics, comes too late; for we have already admitted them to a large share of political power ;-we have put arms into their hands;-we have capacitated them for many civil offices ;and, above all, we have given them the elective franchise. What we have reserved, therefore, though it is an efficacious instrument of discontent, is impotent for security. The danger to Protestant property used to be another of the perils apprehended. The revival of antiquated titles, the most absurd certainly of all the bugbears which have been employed to raise up terrors in the Protestant mind: but upon this topic it is not necessary to dwell, as the objection seems to be now abandoned, and indeed the Protestant petitions on the table are an irresistible refutation of it. |