« PreviousContinue »
1605. formity were passed ; and under the first many
Dissenters took the sacrament, to shew their disposition in favour of the Established Church, howe. ver they might not agree with parts of the liturgy: Thus then even taking the sacrament did not prové a man to be a supporter of the Church of England. Might not a man take the sacrament, and yet consider the liturgy of the Church of England, as the most consummate bigotry ? According to Sir Williain Scott's atgument, the exclusion of Catholies from Parliament, and the existence of the Test Acts were the constitutional support of the Church of England. What then was the state of ! the Church of England in the reigns of Elizabeth, of James I. and Charles L. ? Were not these princes heads of the Church, as effectually as his présent Majesty ? Did not Charles I. fall a martyr to the Church of England ? Did not the Book of Homilies absolutely condemn whatever took place at the time of the Revolution of 1658? Did not Sacheverell, upon the authority of those Homilies, attack and stigmatize that great proceeding as impious, and utterly destructive of the Church of England? Did not the university of Oxford pass a decree in 1683, against limiting the government, describing it as one of those things, which lead to Atheism ? To use a homely phrase, be warned those vot to throw stones, whose eyes were made of glass. He lastly noticed, that Mr. Percival had said : that if he were a Catholic in a country, where the Protestant Church was established, and he had the power, he would exercise it to weaken that es
tablishment. Mr. Fox had too good an opinion 1805. - of him to think he would. If every man were to
conceive himself at liberty, because he differed from the established religion of a country, to at
tempt to overturn it, the general tendency of suck - a principle would be to destroy all peace in the = world. He did not believe any good Catholic
would so act. He was sure no good subject, who loved his country, ought so to act.
At half past four in the morning, the ques- Division. ition upon Mr. Fox's original motion was negatived
by a majority of 212, there having been, on the division, Ayes, 124, Noes, 336,*
• Conceiving it to be a matter of no slight moment to the Irish nation, to know, who have stood forward in their interests we subjoin the following lists of the peers and Irish commoners who voted on the question :
LIST OF THE PEERS
Clifton, E. Darnley
1805.. The force of temperate reason and argument in · Renewed prosecution 'Tankerville
Rawdon, E. Moira
Butler, E. Ormond
LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS
AGAINST THE CATHOLIC QUESTIDN.
Acheson, Hon. A. Armagh co. Knox, Hon. George, Trinity
Sudley, Visc. Donegall county
the debates upon the Catholic question produced
Hill, Sir G. Londonderry eity Stewart, Hon. C. W. London-
LIST OF THE IRISH MEMBERS
IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHO VOTED IN THE MINORITY FOR
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.
Bagnell, W. Carlow county Hawthorne, C. S. Downpatrick
O'Brien, Sir E. Clare county
The Right Hon. D. Browne, Member for Mayo, was taken suddenly ill, and unable to attend the House.
Lord George Beresford, Member for Londonderry County ; and the Right Hon. John Beresford, Member for the County of Waterford both voted, but we have not been able to ascertain upon which side.
1805. so powerful an effect upon the public mind, even
in despite of the great majority of parliamentary votes against it, that the deputies returned to Ireland, under the gratifying conviction, that the numerical triumph of the minister had rather forwarded, than retarded the progress of their cause with the empire at large. The Parliament was still pressed with Irish matter. The Marquis of Abercorn 'was indefatigable in his persecution of Judge Fox. His Lordship's pride and resentment were stimulated by the ferocious and blind synıpathies of the interested tools of the system, which the integrity and firmness of the judge exposed and punished. It is difficult to say, whether the malice or rashness of the judge's persecutors were predominant. It was matter of notoriety, that the whole of Lord Abercorn's parliamentary interest had been devoted to Mr. Pitt, on the special condition of his being allowed the aid and countenance of the minister in crushing the upright judge, who had virtuously dared to make head against the system. As the minister had artfully avoided making it a government question, he assumed no responsibility for the irregularities and inconsistencies of the proceedings up to the present time. The more they were impartially considered, even by the most obsequious tools of the system, the more unconstitutional in principle, and unwarrantable in practice did they appear. Nearly' two years had now elapsed, since the original ground of the alleged offences had existed, aud after the great variety and rancorous nature of the proceedings in Parlia