Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

city of London, and which, if granted by that honourable House," will not only demand the gratitude of the petitioners, the second corporation of the empire, and yielding to none in loyalty and attachment for the laws, government, and constitution of these kingdoms, but will also be received as a grateful and flattering condescension by the inhabitants at large of the metropolis of Ireland; that city which had been for so many years the seat and residence of the Irish Parliament.

"I have the honour to remain, Sir, &c.
"ABRAHAM BRADLEY KING,

"To the right honourable Charles Abbot, Speaker of the House of Commons, &c."

"Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin.

Mr. GRATTAN said, that while he dissented from the opinions contained in the petition which had been alluded to, he conceived it to be his duty to support every proposition which had for its object the honour or interest of the city of Dublin, the capital of Ireland, and the second city of the empire. He should therefore move, "That the right honourable the Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin be admitted to present a petition of the Lord Mayor and corporation of the said city, at the bar of this House, according to the usages observed in like cases, regarding the sheriffs of the city of London."

Mr. Shaw seconded the motion. It was opposed by Mr. W. Wynne, who contended that there was no precedent for the motion, and that such a courtesy was granted to the sheriffs of London alone. Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. Tierney thought, that by acceding to the request, they admitted the right of the corporation of Dublin to present all petitions in a similar manner, and if it was confined to a single petition, it might be attributed to the nature of its contents, being a petition against the Catholics. Mr. Peel observed, that that objection was obviated, as the Lord Mayor was entrusted with another petition on the subject of the East India charter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Vansittart) observed, that no claim had been made, it was merely a privilege requested. The Speaker informed the House, that with respect to the corporation of London presenting petitions, it was always put to the question, and the mode of acting was wholly in the power of the House. It was then agreed that the word "petitions," be substituted for the word "petition." Lord Cochrane proposed, that the same indulgence be extended to the city of Edinburgh, and moved accordingly, that the words," and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh," be inserted after the words, "the corporation of Dublin." It was seconded by Lord Archibald Hamilton, but was negatived without a division; after which the original motion was put and carried, and the petitions were presented by the Lord Mayor at the bar of the House.

7

ROMAN CATHOLICS.

MR. GRATTAN MOVES FOR A COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE INTO THE LAWS AFFECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

February 25. 1813.

ON this day, besides the general petition presented by Mr. Grattan, from the Catholics of Ireland, and others from numerous counties and towns both in England and Ireland, there were several Protestant petitions presented to the House in favour of the Roman Catholics: from the city of Bristol, by Sir S. Romilly; from the county of Wicklow, by Mr. Tighe; from the county of Waterford, by Sir J. Newport; Queen's County, by Mr. Pole; city of Dublin, by Mr. Grattan; county of Cork, by Mr. Hutchinson. Petitions were also presented from the counties of Londonderry, Down, Tyrone, and corporation of Dublin, against the Catholic claims. Mr. Elliot, on presenting the English Roman Catholic petition, desired that the resolution passed in the last session should be read; it was as follows:

"That the House will, in the next session of Parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the laws affecting His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of His Majesty's subjects."

[ocr errors]

Sir Joseph Yorke desired, that the 9th, 10th, and 11th section of the 1st of William and Mary (the bill of rights), should be read. This having been done, at half-past seven in the evening Mr. Grattan rose, and spoke as follows:

Sir, I am very happy that the right honourable gentleman has caused those passages in the bill of rights to be read to the House, for I am distinctly of opinion, that the qualifications which it enumerates as the indispensable accompaniments of the sovereignty of this empire ought to form a part of the preamble of any bill that may be introduced into Parliament for the relief of the Roman Catholics. For, Sir, it is most necessary and most wise, that whenever we admit the Catholics to the privileges which they claim, we should insure to the Protestants the unendangered continuance of all the privileges which are founded on the act of settlement. The same measure which gives liberty to one, should give security to the other. I rise, Sir, to support the petition, which some time ago I had the honour to present from the Catholics of Ireland. I am sure that I may say, without fear of contradiction,

that this petition is generally from the Catholics of Ireland. That it is substantially true, and that it conveys the wishes of the whole body. The motion which I mean to make is, that the House will resolve itself into a committee, in pursuance of the resolution which, at the desire of my right honourable friend, has been read by the clerk at the table. Sir, I know very well, that a resolution of a former Parliament cannot bind its successor. At the same time, I do not conceive that I am guilty of any impropriety in referring to the resolution of a former Parliament. I have to lament, and it would be miserable affectation not to acknowledge it, that the petitions against the claims of the Catholics are very numerously and very respectably signed. I have to lament that there are still in my native country many individuals enlightened in other respects, but fallible on the subject of religious distinctions. I have also to lament and condemn the venomous manner in which some of these petitions denounce the Catholics. I will avoid the example; and, in the allusions which I may find it necessary to make to the Protestant petitions, I will speak of those, from whom they have proceeded, with the highest respect. I respect and love many of them. I dissent partially from their opinions; but I respect and love them personally. Nay, more; I will consider them not as present enemies, but as future friends to the Catholics. They live in the same country, they are embarked in the same cause, they have the same battles to fight against the common enemy, for the common interest. Never can it be my wish to widen the breach between great bodies of men. The particular object of the Catholic petition is general concord. Never can I think that any difference in religion must necessarily lead to civil discord. Never can I believe that revelation came down to us a firebrand, to justify Parliament in withholding from a part of the subjects of the realm their just rights.

Sir, I am the more induced to hope that the cause which I have undertaken humbly to advocate, will ultimately be successful, because I recollect that in the Irish Parliament of 1792, some general and strong resolutions were adopted against the claims then made by the Catholics: and that, in the next session, more was actually granted to the Catholics than they had claimed. The understanding of the Irish Parliament enlarged with the exigency of the state, I trust that this will be the case with us. With this view to the ultimate success of Catholic emancipation, I beg leave to make a few observations on the Anti-catholic petitions on your table; using that liberty with the arguments they contain, that my cause may require; but maintaining the greatest respect for the persons who have

signed them, and whom, I am persuaded, are sincere in that which I, nevertheless, consider to be a very mistaken view of this most important subject.

In the first place, I object to the manner in which, in many instances in this country, and more particularly in Ireland, these petitions have been obtained. In Ireland,

they have been the consequence of a requisition to the sheriffs of the respective counties, to call a meeting of the Protestant inhabitants. Now, it appears to me to be exceedingly objectionable for a public officer to call the people together in sects; and to give to a private and party meeting the authority of a public assembly. Again, it appears to me exceedingly objectionable, thus to separate religious sects, and to give the semblance of public authority to religious animosities. I object again to calling one part of His Majesty's subjects to petition against another; and still more do I object to their petitioning another country against the liberties of their own.

to en

Sir, I beg not to be understood as casting any reflections on the Irish Protestant petitioners; but their object has evidently been neither more nor less than this: treat the Parliament of this country not to grant civil liberty to the great body of the people of Ireland. They petition us to inflict on their countrymen, a sentence of perpetual incapacity; they petition us to announce to Ireland the destination of being for ever a divided colony; and to impress on the general sense, an acquiescence in the necessity of this being a divided empire. Sitting for a moment, they have given judgment for eternity. Let us consider a little their reasons for this judgment. One of the first observations which these petitions contain is, that the tone which the Catholics have assumed, renders it unwise to grant their claims. But that is not the question. We are not in the Parliament of the United Empire entering into an examination of the arguments that may have been urged in this or that body. We are not enquiring whether Mr. A. or Mr. B. may or may not have spoken too freely. What has the conduct of any particular assembly to do with the great body of the Catholics? The question is, Shall the great body of the Catholics of Ireland be emancipated? The opponents of the Catholic claims say, that they ought not to be emancipated, because Mr. Fitzpatrick published a libel. But this is not a question dependent on such circumstances. I do not say that there may not have been much warmth exhibited in discussions in Ireland; but I say that the question is, Can you, in any of their proceedings, charge the Catholics with want of allegiance? It is a question of allegiance. If it can be proved, that the

Catholics of Ireland have shown a disposition adverse to royalty, then my motion ought to be rejected. But if, on the contrary, there does not appear any disaffection in their proceedings, in their speeches, or in their general conduct, then the resolution of thanks to the Irish Catholics, which was involved in the resolution of thanks to the army, who gained the victory of Salamanca, should be followed up in its full and genuine spirit; and the Catholics of Ireland should be considered as entitled to the same civil liberties as the other loyal subjects of His Majesty's empire have a natural and legal right to possess. Having thus stated the question to be one of allegiance, let us proceed, Sir, to examine how the Anti-catholics have made out their case. They say that the Catholics desire political power. Why should they not? Why should they be sentenced to utter and hopeless exclusion from all political power? But, Sir, the Catholics have not applied for political power. They have applied for political protection; and no farther for political power than as political power is inseparable from political protection. The Catholics, having given pledges of their allegiance, desire not to be bound in fetters from which their fellow-subjects are free; they desire not to be taxed without their own consent; they desire not to be tried by persons who are exclusively partizans not only partizans, but who are actually covenanted against them. To the enquiry, "What is your wish?" they reply, "We wish for our liberties. We do not demand this or that office; but we desire to possess our just civil qualifications." Do you understand them? Is this ambition? If it is ambition, then was Magna Charta ambition - then was the Declaration of Rights ambition. Protection, not power, is the request of the Catholics. The Catholic petitioners ask for protection; it is the Protestants who ask for power. The Protestants ask for the ascendancy of their sect; the Catholics ask for the ascendancy of the law. Let me repeat, that I wish to treat the Protestants with all possible respect. It is natural that they should be tenacious of their peculiar privileges. But, unquestionably, they desire, by their petitions, to keep all the patronage of Ireland in their hands; to maintain a continued ascendancy; to govern the other sects in the country; while the Catholics only desire in their petitions, that the whole should be governed by an equal law. The Protestant petitioners assert, that the Catholics want power, in order to make laws for the Protestant church. No; they only desire, as I have before stated, not to be taxed without their own consent not to be tried by partisans, or juries called by partisans. Their prayer is, that the Protestant church should be governed, not by Catholics, but by Protestants; for the Catholics know, and the

« ÖncekiDevam »