CHAP. III.]

MR. RICHARD BURke.

57

custody!" He got off, however, and avoided the Sergeant-at-Arms; on which Mr. Toler humorously observed, "that he had read in the English papers of some foolish petitioners who had flocked to St. James's with a statement of their grievances, and that a most violent petition was presented to the House of Commons, but it luckily missed fire, and the villains made off."

Another circumstance connected with this petition was rather humorous:-Mr. Richard Burke had acted as agent to the Catholic committee during the year 1791 and to July 1792. For these services it was stated that he received upwards of 2,000 guineas from the Catholics. His father's name and advice, and the influence he had in England, were the son's best recommendations. He had been spoiled by Mr. Burke, who greatly overrated his abilities; for he was vain and conceited, and wanted temper and modesty. It was said that he governed his father most despotically, a singular circumstance, but which happens sometimes where men of talent are found to give way to feelings of relationship, and sacrifice to weaker understandings. He used to attend the meetings of the Opposition at Leinster House, and one evening, coming in late, and rather flushed after dinner, he gave the party a long string of resolutions, which he did not take the trouble of reading to the meeting, but in an authoritative manner desired, that they should be presented to the House; but he had only one request to make, which was that Mr. Egan might not be allowed to open his lips on the subject, or interfere at all in the business. Mr. Egan was present; he was a good natured, honest, warm-hearted man,-rough in manner and grotesque in appearance; a courageous character, very hot, and full of anger. His brains (so to speak) lay in his veins. He loved even the man.

58

PETITION IN FAVOUR

[CHAP. III. whom he attacked; and though he said coarse things, he did not in reality mean them, or intend either injury or insult: with him abuse had become a habit,-almost his dialect.

"If he call rogue or rascal from a garret,

He means you no more mischief than a parrot."

On this occasion he behaved exceedingly well, and very drolly. Incensed at Mr. Burke's conduct, he stepped forward opposite to him, and said, "Sir, with the highest reverence for your derivation, I entertain none whatever for the modesty of your vocation,' at the same time making him a very low bow. The party laughed heartily, and sided with Mr. Egan. It did not end, however, so well for Mr. Burke, who was so wedded to his resolutions, that he merely changed their form to that of an essay, making an argumentative and oratorical composition,-certainly clever, but by no means fit for a petition to Parliament; it accordingly met with the fate before mentioned, and was rejected by the House.*

On the 8th of February, (1792) the Right Hon. John O'Neil, member for Antrim, a Protestant county, he himself being of a high Protestant family, and one of the oldest in the country, presented a petition from 600 of the Protestant inhabitants of the town of Belfast, praying the House to repeal all the penal laws, and place Roman Catholics on the same footing as Protestants. This was received with only a single negative from Sir Boyle Roche, who stated that it ought to be "tossed over the bar, and kicked into the lobby.".

On the 18th another petition was presented by Mr. O'Neil from the Protestants of the county of Antrim, in favour of concession to the Roman Catholics, but not to grant the elective franchise.

The document will be found in the Appendix, No. III., it is long, but an able production; said to have been revised by Edmund Burke.

CHAP. III.] OF CATHOLICS REJECTED.

59

On the same day Mr. Egan presented a petition from the Roman Catholic committee, as well on their own behalf, as on that of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, praying for a relaxation of the penal laws, and a restoration of some share of the elective franchise, which they had enjoyed long after the revolution.* This petition was received, and Sir Hercules Langrishe's Bill was brought on; and here was the beginning of that religious war which the weakness and the folly of both parties has prolonged for upwards of forty years. The measure was supported by Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Denis Browne, Mr. Michael Smith, (afterwards Master of the Rolls,) Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Egan, Mr. George Knox, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Grattan: it was opposed by Mr. Ogle, Mr. Cuffe, Mr. Staples, Mr. Ruxton. The House then went into committee without a division, and on the 24th the Bill, with very few alterations, was passed.

On this subject Mr. Grattan was peculiarly circumstanced. His constituents were in a great degree opposed to the measure, and the Corporation of Dublin, in an address, had requested him. to oppose all relief to the Catholics, and to support Protestant ascendancy. Mr. Grattan replied that it was the ministers who had attacked the ascendancy, by their attempts to corrupt the Parliamentary constitution, and establish a ministerial ascendancy in its place. He added a statement, which was, unfortunately, disregarded. Roman Catholics, whom I love, and the Protestants, whom I prefer, are both, I hope, too enlightened to revive religious animosities. In the debate he describes the real meaning of Protestant ascendancy, and gives a most interesting view of the two sects. The remarks are sublime

*The Roman Catholics enjoyed this right till the year 1727.

66 The

60 MR. GRATTAN'S OPINION ON A UNION. [CHAP. III.

and eloquent:-one of them, it is to be hoped, will not prove prophetic:

"Protestant ascendancy I conceive to be two-fold :first, your superiority in relation to the Catholic ;-second, your strength in relation to other objects. To be the superior sect is a necessary part, but only a part of your situation. To be a Protestant state, proud and able to guard yourself and your island against those dangers to which all states are obnoxious, is another part of your situation. In the one point of view, I consider you as a victorious sect; in the other, as the head of a growing nation; and not the first sect in a distracted land, rendered by that division a province and not a nation;-it would be my wish to unite the two situations.

"There is another danger to which, or to the fear of which, your divisions may expose the Protestant ascendancy-I mean a Union. Let me suppose the minister, as he has often proposed corrupt terms to the Protestant, should propose crafty ones to the Catholic, and should say, 'You are three-fourths of the people excluded from the blessings of an Irish constitution; accept the advantages of an English Union.' Here is a proposal, probably supported by the people of England, and rendered plausible to at least three-fourths of the people of Ireland. I mention a Union, because I have heard it has been darkly suggested as a resort of Protestant desperation against Catholic pretensions. Never think of it. The Protestant would be the first victim;-there would be Catholic equality and Parliamentary extinction. It would be fatal to the Catholic also; he would not be raised, but you would be depressed, and his chance of liberty blasted for ever. It would be fatal to England, beginning with a false compromise, which they might call a Union, to end in eternal separation through the progress of two civil wars.

"I have stated three dangers to which your ascendancy is exposed; let me suggest a fourth-the intermediate state of political languor whenever the craft of the minister touches you in your religious divisions; the loss of nerve, the decay of fire, the oblivion of grievances, and the palsy of virtue; your harp unstrung of its best passions, and responsive only to notes of gratitude for injuries, and grace and thanksgiving for corruption. I conclude this part of the subject by saying, as broadly and unconditionally as words can import, that the progressive adoption of the

CHAP. III.]

VIOLENT OPPOSITION.

61

Roman Catholics does not surrender, but ascertains the Protestant ascendancy; or that it does not give the Catholic the power to shake the establishment of your constitution in Church or State, or property. Neither does it leave him the disposition; it gives him immunities, and it makes Catholic privileges Protestant power. I repeat the idea and never did any more decide my head or my heart, my sense of public justice, and of public utility-I repeat the idea, that the interdict makes you two sects, and its progressive repeal makes you one people; placing you at the head of that people for ever, instead of being a sect for ever without a people, equal perhaps to coerce the Catholic, but obnoxious, both you and the Catholic, to be coerced by any other power,-the minister, if he wishes to enslave, or the enemy, if he wishes to invade you; an illassured settlement, unprepared to withstand those great diseases which are inseparable from the condition of nations, and may finally consume you; and in the mean time, subject to those intermitting fevers and panics which shake by fits your public zeal, and enfeeble all your determinations. I sit down reasserting my sentiments, which are, that the removal of all disabilities is necessary to make the Catholic a freeman, and the Protestant a people."

On the 20th, the House of Commons, as if repenting what had been just done, acted under the influence of those feelings which have unfortunately guided all proceedings wherever the Catholics or the country were concerned a spirit of violence at one moment-of concession at another-praising one day-insulting the next. In this mistaken spirit, David Latouche, a privy councillor, a supporter of Government, a person commanding respect and veneration, but who belonged to a French refugee family, and seemed alive even then to the sufferings of the Huguenots, proposed that the Catholic petition, which had been received with only one dissentient voice, and the Belfast petition, that had lain on the table for near a fortnight, should now be rejected.

This produced a violent debate. The demand