Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

established church; the latter, however, in very few instances, objecting totally to the nature of these claims, provided sufficient securities were at the disposal of the state. Very few in England, Sir, very few in Ireland, very few in the empire, are hostile to this discussion. On the contrary, the great majority are favourable to the principle of emancipation; the qualifications of which (if any be deemed necessary) will be the matter to which I would call the attention of the Honse, should we go into a committee.

The right honourable gentleman, Sir, has expressed his displeasure at my remarks on the means which have been resorted to in this country, and, in many instances, by individuals professing our religion, to procure some petitions, which your clerk has read. I would not, Sir, indulge in any unconciliatory remarks upon the clergy of the country. But when the under-clergy of this country charge my countrymen with the crime of holding principles dangerous to the community, with the profession of tenets hostile to the existence of the state, I shall not withhold my astonishment at such a calumny; nor shall I silently submit to the propagation of such libels, without those severe animadversions against them which their conduct deserves. And here I most solemnly protest against the foulness of those proceedings. The honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke) has been so completely answered by the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning), that I have little to add upon the inconsistency of his vote. I shali merely confine myself to that part of his speech, in which he directed the bill of rights to be read, and pronounced any repeal of the penal laws to be at variance with the solemn enactments of that celebrated law. I am the more led to remark upon this passage, because it was afterwards enforced by the secretary for Ireland.* These official gentlemen contend, that the exclusion of Catholics from parliament forms a part of the bill of rights. In answer to the assertion, Sir, I shall produce the authority of parliament, and refer them to an act of Queen Anne. I shall therefore, Sir, upon their own document, refute their own principle. [Here the right honourable gentleman read some extracts from this act, at the time of the Union of Scotland, also from the Irish statutes, the tenor of which was, "that every person in Great Britain, until parliament should otherwise direct (the right honourable gentleman particularly called their attention to this reservation), should take the oath prescribed".] He concluded by contending, that any man of the plainest capacity, Leed only read the oath, to be fully satisfied that it was a conditional.

Mr., afterwards Sir Robert Peel.

not a fundamental provision. "I leave to this House to consider its construction; that which is plainly and obviously accompanied by a provisional reservation, can never be recorded as a fundamental enactment".

March 9, 1813.

MR. GRATTAN said, he had thought it unnecessary and inconvenient the other night, when the House showed the greatest anxiety to come to a decision on the question, to go at large into any reply to the arguments against his motion. He would now, however, remark upon several of them; and in doing so, he thought it righ, to observe, that he had made an alteration in the resolution, as it was originally proposed. It did not, however, at all alter the principle, but merely modified the terms in which it was expressed. The alteration, which he was sure could not meet with the disapprobation of the opponents of the measure, was to this effect: That the House would take measures for restoring to the Catholics the privileges of the constitution, subject, however, to certain exceptions, and under such regulations as might be deemed necessary to support the Protestant establishment in church and state. This was a suggestion proposed by a right honourable gentleman, with whom, in principle, he completely agreed: 'and he did most willingly comply with it, not as any dereliction of the principle, but as a modification of the terms in which it was conceived. With regard to the church of Scotland and the people of that communion, they seemed to be perfectly acquiescent in the wisdom of parliament on this question. It was of great importance to the motion, that he could say that the presbytery of Scotland were not hostile to the measure of concession and conciliation. The presbytery of Edinburgh was, indeed, against the Catholics, but that of Glasgow was favourable; and he might conclude from their not having petitioned, that the great body of the church of Scotland was friendly to the Catholic cause. Nor could it be maintained, that the church of England, generally speaking, was against the principle, though many of its members had been more active in opposing the measure than the Scottish clergy had been; and though it may be granted, that many of the clergy were not placable, yet it did not follow as a truth, that the people of England were in general hostile to the communication of their own privileges to the people of Ireland. The opposition to the Catholic claims was respectable; but at the same time they bad

received great and efficient support. Notwithstanding the opposition, to which he would not deny the name of respectable, how were we warranted to say, that the people of England were against the motion, when so few great bodies had expressed their opinion? If such was the case with the people of England, sure he was the great body of the Protestants in Ireland were still less unfavourable. The most respectable of the petitions from that part of the empire also, were not founded on the principle of opposition, but on the principle of security to existing establishments. He had no doubt, in short, that the weight of Ireland, both in point of property and respectability, was decidedly in favour of the Catholics.

But supposing the sense of the nation was divided on the subject, this furnished, in his mind, a decisive argument for finishing the controversy by the wisdom of parliament: if they found the country in a dispute, it was their duty to terminate it as soon as possible. The truth was, that too many at present of those who enjoyed the privi leges of the constitution, founded their arguments for exclusion ou topics which affronted and insulted those who were placed out of this constitution; the controversy, therefore, must proceed to mischief, unless the wisdom of parliament interfered. He was convinced that many people in England, who signed these anti-Catholic petitions, did not understand the ultimate object to which they led, but were influenced by misconceptions and prejudices. If, for instance, they were asked, in plain terms, whether they believe the Catholics were enemies to liberty, and disaffected to government, he had little doubt they would answer in the negative; but one opposition naturally begot another, and at length, by the mutual warmth of controversy, it might become a question, whether one-fifth of the population was well affected to the government or not. There was no saying where such disputes might end. He regretted that so many of the clergy had shown a disposition to place the security of the church on the principles of exclusion. By so doing, they did all that lay in their power to place it on principles which might be fatal to its existence. With respect to the enemies to the Catholic cause, what had they done? They had petitioned for a monopoly, and said that the concession of the claims would be dangerous. It as a subject fatal to the Protestant monopoly and the Protestant church. This party was for a perpetual division, and desired parliament to exclude a great portion of the people from the benefits of the constitution; and upon what grounds? upon an argument that tended ultimately to force them out of the empire.

He would again revert shortly to the arguments that were clothed

with the sacred name of the act of settlement. He allowed that it was a part of the act of settlement to exclude the Catholics, but it was by no means an essential part which could admit of no alteration. In the act of Union with Scotland, the oath was declared to be subject to future regulation; for it was declared, that it should remain as it then was, until otherwise provided for by parliament. This sufficiently manifested the power of parliament to interfere and when his opponents set forth the consecration of the act of settlement, as an insuperable barrier, he should reply to them with this provisional act of parliament, which declared that the oath was not fundamental, but subject to future regulation. At the time when the Union with Ireland was under consideration, it did not appear that it was deemed fundamental. Some of those who were concerned in that measure were still alive and in the House; and were they, now that they had attained their object in gaining the Union, prepared to say, that they looked upon that at this day to be fundamental which they then allowed to be provisionary?

But the argument upon which some honourable gentlemen mainly rested, was the incompatibility of all the plans that had been proposed. His answer was, that a diversity of opinion, as to the mode of effecting Catholic emancipation, was by no means fatal to unity of principle with regard to the object. All were agreed, that the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Church of Ireland, should be amply secured and maintained. Here, at least, was concord. If you are agreed that the Catholic religion was consistent with the welfare of the state, you might have different modes of conciliation, but you were agreed as to one essential point. His right honourable friend under the gallery (Sir J. C. Hippesley) and himself might think differently as to the particular limitations and exceptions; any plan indeed to be proposed, would of course be a subject of modification and matter of debate. When the House resolved to go into the committee, they, in fact, decided that Catholic emancipation, however a question of difficulty, was not a question of impossibility. The question, indeed, before the committee, might be comprehended under three heads: the first was, give full liberty to the Catholics; the second, establish the church by every requisite security; and the third, impose no conditions incompatible with the Catholic faith. These were the heads of what he should have to

propose.

It had been said, that Mr. Pitt had sunk under the difficulties which the subject presented; and as a proof of this it was added, that he never had communicated his plan. But it was certain that

Mr. Pitt went out of office in 1801, not because his plan was impracticable, but from other well-known obstacles. He did not think so in 1799, or in 1800, and from his communication through the late Marquess Cornwallis to the Catholics, it did not appear that he deemed the measure impracticable in the following year. That person, on that occasion, sent the letter he alluded to to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he told them, that, "by acting with moderation, and pursuing a loyal and dutiful line of conduct, they would afford additional grounds of argument to the growing number of their advocates in this country, till their object was ultimately attained". Such was the language of the letter which Mr. Pitt caused to be transmitted to Lord Fingall, Dr. Troy, and others. What, again, did the Marquess Cornwallis say on that very occasion? He gave his formal opinion, annexed to the same communication, that the measure of emancipation was necessary for securing the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland. Again, when the question was brought forward by Mr. Fox in 1805, there was nothing in the language of Mr. Pitt to show that he considered the measure impracticable. He said, there was a bar to its agitation, the nature of which was sufficiently understood, but never that it was impracticable. He differed as to the night, but not as to anything that concerned the question as a measure of regulation. He even alluded to the plan which he had entertained, as consisting of a variety of regulations. Nine months after this period Mr. Pitt died; so that we are now called upon to believe, that what he contemplated as practicable for six years, within these nine short months he found out to be impracticable. But what were the difficulties under which the mind of Mr. Pitt was supposed to sink? Why, they were the difficulties of promoting meritorious Catholic officers on the staff of the army; of admitting such men as Lord Fingall into the House of Peers, and as Sir E. Bellew into the House of Commons! These were the mighty difficulties under which his mind was supposed to have sunk he who had the ability to destroy seventy Irish boroughs! There was a difficulty started in the Irish parliament, at the time when it was proposed to grant the Catholics the right of voting at elections; it was then said, that an inundation of Popery would sweep away everything before it. But what were the effects of this restoration of Catholic rights? Ireland had evidently gained by it; the elections were more free and independent; they were now founded, nct on monopoly, but on property and respectability.

In addition to Mr. Pitt, he begged leave to name Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Wyndham, distinguished statesmen and philosophers,

« ÖncekiDevam »