Sayfadaki görseller

some office were conferred upon him; but the oath being generalised, it would now, by law, be necessary for every Roman Catholic in the United Kingdom to take it. They had, therefore, added to the present oath the obligation of disclosing treason, and of not recommending any clergyman whose loyalty was not well known. They had also extended the obligation of the oath. The former oath was only required to be taken on the acceptance of some office; the present oath, however, was proposed to be extended generally to the clergy, as well as to the laity. These, then, were the securities. Whether the House would consider them to be sufficient, he knew not. But great securities they unquestionably were.

A right honourable gentleman, he begged leave to call him his right honourable friend (Mr. Canning), had suggested some additional clauses. He proposed the appointment, by Parliament, of Protestant commissioners, with power to withhold their assent to the nomination of those bishops and apostolic vicars, of whose loyalty they entertained any doubt; and also with power to inspect the papers and books connected with those nominations, with a proviso that they should be bound not to betray the secrets of the Catholic church. These clauses would amount to a complete security for domèstic nomination. His right honourable friend had touched the subject with a delicate hand. Those appointed to frame the bill had not introduced the clauses into the bill, not because they disapproved of them, but because they did not know how far the Catholic body might approve of their introduction. For his own part, he thought they were liberal in their nature, and that they ought to be received.

He would now say a very few words on the general merits of the bill now before the House. It would, no doubt, undergo some alterations here; but such as it was, it amounted to a plan of perfect domestic security and liberality a plan, for the accomplishment of which, the greatest statesman of this country had struggled in vain — a plan that, he trusted, at no distant period would be completed. If, however, the motion of the honourable Baronet were acquiesced in, and this committee should be appointed, he should not dare to hope to witness the fulfilment, not only of his wishes, not only of the wishes of the majority of this House, but of the wishes of the majority of the nation. This was a bill of Catholic cmancipation, in which were provided three main securities for the Protestants. The first and greatest, was incorporation; the second, a positive bar against domestic Catholic influence; and the third, an effectual provision against foreign Catholic interference. This measure, they submitted, ought to receive the sanction of the legislature; Parliament had already pledged itself to concede it. It has already declared, that it was expedient to repeal the laws which deprive a great portion of their countrymen of privileges they ought to enjoy, for the sake of producing general harmony, security, and happiness. Let Parliament, then, fulfil the pledge it had given to the nation, without being diverted from its obvious duty, by motions like that to night proposed. The bill was before it; nor could any solid objections be urged, unless by those who are enemies to Catholic privilege and Protestant security. He then moved the other orders of the day.

The original motion was supported by Mr. Ryder, Mr. Bragge Bathurst, and Lord Desart. It was opposed by Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh. The former, in a very humourous speech, replied to Sir John Hippisley. He observed, that the object of his motion was to make a circuit of the world, and to gather from: every foreign power, and every foreign nation, whatever information they possessed upon the subject. He called upon the House to pause before they came to a final decision upon the subject; to pause until they collected information from Africa; to pause until they collected information from Canada, until some dexterous ambassador had inveigled foreign bishops into a confession of all they knew ; to pause until the honourable Baronet himself had emptied the stores of his own mind, and the bursting contents of the box. After all those recommendations, after all the honourable baronet had said upon the subject, and after all the matter to which his motion was directed, he still saw upon the order-book, that Sir J. C. Hippisley proposed to move for sundry other papers. He was not altogether so deeply read in the theologians as the honourable baronet; but he reminded him of one of that class, who wrote a book bearing the title Tractatus de Omnibus Rebus, with this postscript et de quibusdam aliis. The House was not to be deluded into the idea that the contents of the box was all they had to travel through. They must go at least through one hundred and twenty volumes in folio, before they could collect the necessary information even for a single question. He took the trouble to look through some of these volumes. There was, first, St. Austin's Works, 11 volumes in folio. If they read him, they must also read at least eleven volumes more of commentary. There was Thomas Aquinas, who was called the Dr. Angelicus. He only wrote three volumes in folio; of the two latter, it was said Animam Augustini transmigrasse in Thomam ; and he had some doubt, whether it may not, with justice, be said, that the soul also of Thomas Aquinas had transmigrated into the honourable baronet. Scotus, the Doctor subtilissimus theologium, was also to be read. He and Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, were opposed to each other, tooth and nail; but he doubted whether they were more opposed to each other, than the honourable baronet was to himself. Scotus wrote twelve volumes folio. He would now come to Bellarmin. This gentleman wrote four volumes in folio. It was upon him, that Dr. Milner chiefly relied ; and if Dr. Milner was to be examined before the select committee, how would they possibly make up their minds upon

the Dr.'s evidence, without reading the works of Bellarmin ? If all this was to be read before they came to a decision, what an interminable horizon were the Catholics to look to before the difficulties could be removed which the honourable baronet, partly from reading, and partly from inspiration, had discovered?

At half-past two in the morning, the House divided on Mr. Grattan's amendment, “ that the order of the day for the second reading of the Roman Catholic relief bill be now read," Ayes 235, Noes 187 ; Majority 48. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Greenhill.

Noes, Earl of Desart and Mr. Barry. It was then ordered, that the second reading of the bill should stand for Thursday the 13th of May,







May 24. 1813. ON the 13th of May, Mr. Grattan moved the order of the day, for

the second reading of the Roman Catholic Bill. It was opposed by Dr. Duigenan, who moved, that it should be read a second time on that day three months. : It was supported by Mr. Charles Grant, Sir Frederick Flood, Sir John Cox Hippisley, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Canning, and Lord Castlereagh; who was of opinion, that as far as oaths went, sufficient security was provided by the bill ; he conceived that the intercourse with the See of Rome should be regulated; and, as was proposed at the period of the Union, that an establishment should be provided for the Catholic clergy. It was opposed by Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Ryder, and Mr. Robert Peel.

On a division, the numbers were, for the second reading 245, against it 203; Majority in favour of the second reading 42.

On the 19th, Mr. Grattan moved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Catholic Relief Bill. He presented several additional clauses, as did also Mr. Canning. They were brought up, read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Plunket stated, that the clauses met with his approbation; and, after a few words from Mr. Ryder, Mr. Lockhart, and Lord Castlereagh, it was ordered, that the committee should sit again on the 24th; and, on this day, Mr. Grattan moved the order of the day for the House to go into a committee, when the Speaker rose, and entered at considerable length into the question. He stated, that the bill would not procure satisfaction; that the Catholic Board in Dublin had disapproved of the measure; and that neither the laity nor clergy were satisfied. He stated a variety of arguments which had been repeatedly used against the measure; and concluded by moving, “ That the first clause, permitting the Catholics to sit in both Houses of Parliament, be omitted." This amendment was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Vansittart), Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Manners Sutton, and Sir John Nicoll, who strenuously opposed the original motion, and contended, that the state was fundamentally and exclusively Protestant; that not only the church and the Crown were Protestant, but that the counsellors of the Crown, the two Houses of Parliament, the judicial system, the magistracy, and the chief branches of the military and naval establishments of the country, all were Protestant.

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Ponsonby, Sir John Hippisley, Mr. Tighe, Mr. William Fitzgerald, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Canning.

Mr. GRATTAN rose : 6. Sir, I rise to direct the attention of the House to the course of opposition which has this night been taken to the great measure now under discussion, and shall commence with the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke), who has last spoken in the debate. He has emphatically told you, how futile must be the success (if such should attend it) of this bill, when it is evident its provisions will never be complied with by the party for whose relief it has been framed. Now, Sir, I say that such a mode of reasoning goes too far, it proves too much, for what is the deduction ? why, that there will be no Catholic episcopacy; because, if the clergy do not comply with the provisions of this bill, there can be no episcopacy; it must, in such case, expire; and the very body which the right honourable gentleman holds in terrorem before your view, can no longer (upon his own argument) have existence; his fears are therefore, visionary, and his reasoning groundless. So far for the clerical argument. Now, Sir, towards the admission of Roman Catholics into Parliament: here again the argument of the right honourable gentleman is built upon pio foundation.. Can any man in his senses credit the assertion, that the ingress of the Catholics to this assembly can be productive of the effect described ? Is the right honourable gentlemen so ignorant of the constitution of this House, as for a moment to believe the principle he has himself laid down? I shall not pay him so poor a compliment as to think he does. Does he, Sir, take it for granted, that this is a Catholic House legislating for a Protestant people? or does he not know that this is a Protestant House legislating for a Catholic people ? a Protestant people, a Presbyterian people, a Dissenting people? A House, Sir, making laws for a whole and a divided community; not a particular body enacting for å particular sect. The admission of a few Catholics here left the constitution were it stood. It left it as it found it, á Protestant body. The principle of this bill is incorporation, uniting the jarring differences of many religions. Another argument equally defective, equally erroneous, has been sounded - sounded with acclamation this night; namely, that it is impossible to unite the Catholic with the Protestant; also, that the Catholic himself protests against this measure. This assertion I deny, - I repeat, Sir, this denial; let those who cheer, contradict me. I expect nothing from their moderation ; – I now challenge them to the proof.

What, Sir, constitutes this impassable abyss of separation between the Catholic and the Protestant ? Why, forsooth, the belief of transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, the worship of the Virgin Mary. Oh, limited view of human nature! Oh, preposterous conclusion! No, Sir, it is not those visions which have separated the community; the cause of this separation, such as it is, has arisen from the enactment of your civil penalties, continues only by their operation, and with them only can have extinction and oblivion. A right honourable gentleman (the Speaker), whose great authority in the House, I willingly admit, has told you that the representatives of Ireland will, if this clause should pass, be entirely Catholic, that the Catholics will engross the nomination of 100 members in this House. I deny this conclusion wholly ; 1 deny the right honourable gentleman's authority here. Why principally Catholic ? It is necessary for the Speaker to prove that the entire property of Ireland is in Catholic hands. The fact is not so, the great proportion of that property which would be represented, should this bill pass into a law; that great proportion, I assert, is in Protestant hands ; and the just conclusion, generally speaking, must be, that a Protestant representation would still emanate from it. Again, I am told, you are about to erect a Catholic ascendancy in Parliament. This, like the other arguments, proves, what? "the discomfiture of the supporters of exclusion and monopoly ; because, to give effect to this argument, you must make forty a greater effective number than six hundred; you must make seven or eight the majority of four hundred. I contend for it, forty Catholics would be the major number which this bill would

« ÖncekiDevam »