Association. It was hard that ministers, who thought that something must be done, and were willing to propose that some. thing on their own responsibility, should be turned round upon and stigmatised as apostates by those who admitted the necessity of having something done, but would themselves not propose any thing. They might argue this question for ten nights in succession, and endeavour to blink the real question as much as possible, but still that question would recur, "What was to be done with Ireland? -not merely for the Catholic population -but for the Protestant interests, and the safety of its Protestant Establishments? Of the 7,000,000 of the population of Ireland -there were 5,000,000 of Catholics, who had within a few years greatly increased in wealth and intelligence. They were all united in their claim on the legislature of the country for an equal participation with their fellow-subjects of the rights and privileges belonging to British subjects. How was their demand to be met? By a united Protestant people? No; but by a Protestant population, more than equally divided on the same question. The Protestant population, he meant the majority of them, in point of property and influence, seeing now a prospect of the settlement of the question, would be as much, or perhaps more, disappointed and irritated than even the Catholics themselves. But he had made the supposition only for the sake of argument. The government, which proposed the measures now before the house, would not fail. They would go on steadily and perseveringly, until they had secured the safe, final, and satisfactory settlement of the question. Under the excitement which existed at present, the Roman-Catholic aristocracy, the Roman-Catholic laity, and the Roman-Catholic clergy were banded together; and the power of that compact body was too strong for isolated Protestants to resist. They therefore preferred going in crowds to America, to living in the midst of so great and so violent an excitement. He knew that it would be said that matters would grow worse, but he hardly knew how they could be worse. He fully agreed in the sentiment that this is not a religious question-that is, not a question of conscience that there was no precept of the Protestant religion which forbade them from considering this great and important question. It was stated that we were forming an alliance with idolatry by discussing it. Now that position he positively denied. He found it stated in a paper by a very eminent gentleman of the name of Faber, that as we were obliged to make the declaration against transubstantiation on taking our seats, we were forming an union with idolatry in seeking to repeal it. But he claimed for statesmen that liberty of judgCHRIST. OBSERV. APP. ment which ecclesiastics now seemed inclined to monopolize to themselves. The Roman Catholics were never excluded because they were religionists-but for a supposed deficiency of civil worth; and the religious test was applied to them not to detect the worship of saints or any other tenet of their religion, but as a test to discover whether they were Roman Catholics. "But," says the honourable member for Newark, "this is the most unfit time of all others to consider this question:" but if we do not settle it now, every year will furnish accumulated obstacles. "But," says the honourable baronet, "the Constitution of 1688 forbids." If the bill be a breaking in upon the Constitution, we broke in upon it years ago, when we permitted Roman Catholics to have commands in the army and the navy. Lord Liverpool, I say, broke in upon it-nay, Lord Eldon himself, when he admitted Roman Catholics to hold offices in the collection of the revenue; for the Bill of Rights required that every officer who received the King's wages should make the declaration against transubstantiation. If they once broke in upon the exclusive system in Ireland, as was done in 1793, there was no intermediate system, at which they could stop, but you must go on and establish a perfect equality of civil rights. One honourable gentleman had said, "if there is one thing which I detest, it is yielding to considerations of expediency either in morals or in politics." Now, as to the impropriety of yielding to considerations of expediency, in regard to moral obligations, he would say, that he fully concurred with the honourable member; but if the honourable member meant to class political emergencies with moral obligations, and to exclude the consideration of expediency from the management of public affairs, all that he would say was this--that he hoped that the honourable gentleman, and those who thought with him, might never have any influence in the direction of the affairs of this country. To class political emergencies with moral obligations, and to exclude all considerations of expediency from the administration of a great country, is an absurdity. I have received in the speech of my noble friend (Lord Mountcharles) testimonies of approbation which are grateful to my soul; and they have been liberally awarded to me by gentlemen on the other side of the house in a manner which does honour to the forbearance of party among us. They have, however, awarded to me a credit which I do not deserve for settling this question. The credit, if it be a credit, belongs to others, and not to me. It belongs to Fox —to Grattan—to Plunkett-to the gentlemen opposite-and to an illustrious and right honourable friend of mine, now no more. The fate of this measure cannot 5 M 66 now be altered; if it succeed, the credit will redound to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon those with whom I have acted. I have met with the severest blow which it has ever been my lot to experience; but the time will come, though I may not live perhaps to see it, when justice will be done by men of all parties to the motives on which I have acted. They will then admit that the course which I have followed, is the only course which is necessary for the diminution of the undue, illegitimate, and dangerous power of the Roman Catholics, and for the maintenanee and security of the Protestant religion. The Attorney-General said, that the right honourable secretary had charged him with having betrayed the confidential communications of the cabinet. It is not true. I believe that no one out of the For the second reading ...... Majority. ...... 353 ..... 173 -180 March 23 and 24, the House went into a COMMITTEE ON THE BILL. Numerous amendments were proposed by the opponents of the bill, and negatived. At Mr. Peel's suggestion, an alteration was made, providing that in case of a Catholic holding office with church patronage attached, it should be vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury, instead of commissioners, as originally proposed. Mr. Peel also said, that it might be necessary to permit the occasional visits of members of religious orders to this country, in such cases as those of learned men wishing to consult its records, the establishment of rights in property and accidents by shipwreck and a clause was agreed to, empowering one of his Majesty's secretaries of state to grant a licence for such purposes, limiting the residence of the parties to six calendar months. A return of the number of such licences to be laid annually before Parliament. Upon the question that the bill with its amendments be engrossed, the house divided, when there appeared-for the motion, 233; against it, 106: majority, 127. March 30, Mr. Peel moved of the bill. THE THIRD READING The Marquis of Chandos said, that after ..all the arguments he had heard, he saw no reason whatever for the change which had so suddenly taken place in the views of gentlemen on this question. He felt great alarm at the meditated change; but still he hoped that the Catholics would receive the boon with gratitude: and if they did not so receive it, he hoped the Protestants would to a man demand its repeal. In taking leave of this question, he sincerely hoped that all angry feeling would subside. In acting as he had done, he was only discharging his duty; and in furtherance of that object, he would now move that this bill be read a third time this day six months. -Mr. G. O. Moore, in seconding the motion, called the attention of the house to the sentiments of Lord Chatham in 1774, on the Quebec bill. That great man then expressed his decided opinion that the oath of supremacy formed as fundamental and inviolable a portion of the Protestant constitution, as the great charter itself, or the Bill of Rights. The Protestantism of this country did not merely consist in the Protestantism of the crown, but in the Protestantism of parliament, the privy council, and in corporate and other offices, even as low as to the constables of the country. The bill went to destroy the Protestant establishments in church and state. He could not help naming it a dangerous and desperate experiment.-Mr. Hyde Villiers rejoiced that this great measure was at last so near its happy consummation.—General Gascoyne said, that nothing which had fallen from any honourable member-nothing in the bill itself, had succeeded in removing his fears or calming his apprehensions. If it were a demand for religious toleration, no man would be more disposed to concede it than himself: but what were they about to give? Not a measure of relief to the mass of the population of Ireland, but to sacrifice the feelings of the majority of the people of England, to carry a measure from which no substantial relief would be derived. It was often asked, "What other remedy have you to offer?" He would answer by referring to his Majesty's speech, which recommended an inquiry into the whole state of Ireland. He was desirous of calling the attention of the house to the proposition for introducing a properly modified system of poor laws into Ireland, a proposition which the member for Newark had so ably supported, and in which he trusted they should have the support of the government.-Mr. Campbell, without admitting the abstract right of the Catholics to all they claimed, could not refuse his assent to the bill, as laying the foundation of the tranquillity of Ireland.-Mr. Pearce thought a middle course might have been taken, which would have satisfied the Catholics, and fully secured the church and state.Mr. J. E. Denison rejoiced at the prospect of peace which was at length dawning upon Ireland. The numerous petitions from the people were a sufficient guarantee for the safety of the Protestant Constitution. Mr. H. Davis objected to the measure as an unnecessary interference with the constitution, and one which would be wholly ineffectual to remove the discords of Ireland, so long as the patronage of the Irish church was confined exclusively to Protestants.-Mr. Cust regretted the political necessity which now separated him from the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel. The right honourable gentleman had made sacrifices of ambition, of friends, and connexions, which could only have been made for conscience sake. He could not see how religion was in this case to be separated from politics. The Roman-Catholic church was obliged to use its best endeavours to prevent the existence of any but its own creed, believ ing as it did, there was no salvation out of their church. The English Catholics had acquired a milder spirit, by being scattered over the community with which they mixed; but the Irish Catholics were numerous, ignorant, and attached to their religion. The great evil of Ireland was a superabundant population.-Sir C. Burrell spoke against the bill.-Mr. W. J. Bankes could scarcely assure himself that after discussing the question for so many years, the measure before them was the one they were now called upon to pass. He felt great pain at having occasion to oppose a measure which emanated from that great man who was at the head of his majesty's councils; but there he stood, a member of that house, and sworn to do his duty to the best of his power, and to support the Established Religion and the constitution of the country. He felt that he and those with whom he acted, had some grounds of complaint: they had been worse treated by their friends than by their enemies. On no one former occasion could they not have had better terms. On all former occasions there was some shew of substantial securities; they had nothing now proposed to them but a plain, absolute, unqualified surrender. They had been told that intimidation had no share in producing the measure then upon their table; but if he had never heard of the Catholic Association, even if the name of O'Connell had never sounded in his ears, still he should say that he could see, plainly and palpably, panic on the face of the measure. Let the House look to the bill, and see if it could find in its provisions any crumbs of comfort. A Roman Catholic might be the prime minister; but then as a security, it was provided that if he advised the king upon matters concerning the church, he was to be excluded from office, and subject to a penalty. Suppose, however, that a minister had recourse to a personal interview with his sovereign, how was the advice he gave to be made known? The Jesuits were to be permitted to follow their calling, to educate, and act as they thought proper, on condition of registering their names. But the time might come when there would be Jesuits in the state as well as in the church. Such a Jesuit might, in the character of a minister of state, come down to that House, and move the repeal of the restrictions proposed by the bill. Such a Jesuit minister, then, might exist, and, "Who would not laugh if such a man there be? Who would not weep if Atticus were he ?" He did not dissent from his majesty's ministers in their general policy, but in the present measure he had much to complain. They had introduced it craftily and cunningly. They had thrown a firebrand into the body of the church, which would soon give rise to a flame that would leave the edifice a blackened and desolated ruin. The Solicitor-General (Sir N. Tindal), felt extremely happy that the honourable gentleman who had just sat down had made direct reference to the bill and its provisions, as it afforded him (the SolicitorGeneral) an opportunity he had long desired of shewing its capability of ensuring the security of the Protestant Establishment. The honourable member had formed a very imperfect opinion of the Protestant church, when he said that the downfal of that church would follow the passing of the bill. No other course respecting the Roman Catholics could be pursued than that contemplated by the bill. By more distinct reference to the Church of Rome-by giving to the crown a veto in the appointment of Catholic bishops,-the existence of the Irish-Catholic church would be recognized, a result necessary to be avoided. No honourable member of that House had felt more anxious than himself. In the year 1678, when the laws now about to be repealed were enacted, the king on the throne was a concealed Catholic, and the heir presumptive an undisguised one. Now we had a monarch zealously attached to the Established Church, and determined to maintain it; and in the person of the heir presumptive a prince equally disposed to support our Protestant establishments. Then, also, of 120 peers who sat in the House of Peers, sixty were Catholics. Now the House of Lords consisted of three times the former number, all of whom were Protestants, and into which the present bill would only introduce seven or eight Catholics at most. What circumstances, he would ask, could be more dissimilar? The honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes), in expressing his fears for the safety of the Protestant faith, had taken an imperfect view of its purity and consequent strength. What had that church to fear from the admission of a few Catholics into parliament, which had made its way at a time when the king, parliament, and the majority of the people of this country, were Catholics. Then, with respect to our universities; was it not inscribed on their very portals, that no Roman Catholics should enter into them? The fears of the honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes) were chimerical, for never had there been a time when the Scriptures were so much read thoughout the country as at present; and, consequently, never was there less danger of the influence of Popery. If he could have thought that the present measure tended to weaken that Protestant faith in which he had been educated, and had lived, and would die, and in support of which one of his ancestors had suffered at the stake, he would be the last man to give his support to it; but as he was sure that unless the measure passed the Protestant Church of Ireland could not stand, and the Protestant Church of England would be endangered, for that reason he had supported and should continue to support the bill before the House. ing the oath, the Attorney-General had the keys of the Protestant Religion given him, and he was to sue for the penalties. Were the Attorney-General à Roman Catholic, would he sue for them? If the prime minister were a Catholic, he would understand he must not. The fact then was, that the miserable clauses of this piece of waste paper (the bill) were founded in rottenness, duplicity, treachery, and fiction. Sir C. Wetherell referred to the law of libel, as laid down by the last Catholic judge, Judge Allibon, in the reign of James II., to shew that the doctrine of the Catholic school was passive obedience, and complained of the restrictions placed by the Catholic clergy on their flocks, in regard to education. If they wanted an array of names, he would give them Lord Somers, Milton, and Locke, as at least equal to the Scottish metaphysicians of the present day. Sir Charles Wetherell said, that the oath taken by an Attorney-General was as comprehensive as the oath taken by aPrivy. Councillor. That being the case, could he forget the nature of his oath when he was called to frame such a bill as that before the House? Those who regarded the bill as calculated to benefit the church, and to uphold the constitution, might give it their support; but those who held as he did, that it was calculated to destroy the constitution, and to uproot the church, could not as Attorney-General draw the bill, or advise their sovereign to entertain it, without a breach of their solemn covenant. His late colleague had said he intended to explain the bill; but unfortunately he had sat down without doing any such thing. Indeed nobody had as yet performed that task. It was said that the oath contained in the bill was to be a panacea against all ills, and to protect the Established Church. His first objection to the oath was, that it did not shew whether the person taking it was of any religion or not. But supposing that a Roman Catholic was prime minister, how did the bill, with all its foolish garrulity about prohibitions, provide for his detection if he went contrary to the enactment? They had proposed to appoint a Protestant committee to watch over the interests of the church, and they began by throwing all into the hands of the archbishop. Was it not unconstitutional to take from the crown the power which belonged to it, for the purpose of vesting it in the archbishop? How was it that only three of the Protestant seminaries-Eton, Winchester, and Westminster-were by the bill shut against the Roman Catholics? There was one most extraordinary clause in the bill. In case a person accepted office without tak Mr. Secretary Peel said, they had thought it better to vest the preferment of the church in the hands of a Protestant archbishop than in a commission; but the archbishop would not by this means have the patronage of the Church of Scotland. The objection respecting the schools would be removed by an amendment. As to the objection that a Roman-Catholic attorney-general would not sue for penalties, he should not object to an amendment. He was happy to inform the house that the best spirit had already prevailed in Ireland. The well-meaning men of both sides of the question had taken the opportunity of retracting harsh expressions. This discussion had to him (Mr. Peel) been most painful; but he would not embark in the vessel of the state with that pilot who would never alter his course. Sir R. Inglis said, his objection to the bill was, that it went to increase a power already too great; and this not because the Catholics were less dangerous, but because they were more clamorous. If the evils of a divided cabinet were so great, would they be less so when Roman Catholics obtained a seat in the cabinet ? With respect to the state of Ireland, when Roman Catholics sat in the Irish parliament the country was not tranquil. Concession would have come from Mr. Canning as a debt due from a just man: from the right honourable gentleman it was a purse given to a footpad. sent concession was a premium upon agitation. If the spread of education rendered emancipation necessary, what degree of education, he should wish to know, would justify the abolition of tithes, or require that the heir apparent should possess a Protestant conscience. At pre Mr. Sadler thought that even in this stage the general principle ought to be discussed rather than the provisions of the measure. He still adhered to the opinion that it touched the moral title of the House of Brunswick to the throne-that it was subversive of the religion and of the constitution of England-that its tendency was to introduce confusion, to bring on an indifference for the established church, and ultimately for the Christian religion itself. He wished to see industry encouraged in Ireland, cultivation extended, and the principle of sacred charity introduced, by a regulated system of poor laws. He wished to see her natural protectors return and reside on the soil. The civil war he recommended was not a war against the Protestant ascendancy, nor for the reduction of population, nor against religion and charity, but against poverty, oppression, and the domination now about to be established. He wished for a practical system that would improve and render more happy that oppressed and afflicted people, a moderate system of poor laws, the influence of which would descend upon them like angel mercy. The emancipation he sought was not a sentimental one extending to the great Catholic proprietors and peers-not a drawing-room emancipation, but a real practical one. The Solicitor-General had argued with great force that, the Protestant being the better and more pure religion, there was no ground for apprehension. It appeared to him, however, that the most effectual way of keeping down the Catholic religion was not to invest it with power and splendour, nor the most effectual way of supporting the Protestant to divest it of its privileges. If this bill passed, thousands and tens of thousands in Ireland would be ruined; they would not remain to get in the crops, for in the north of Ireland numbers were preparing to emigrate and leave the homes of their fathers; and what was the apology for this measure? an apology which ought to vitiate it-the Alpha and Omega of the modern schoolexpediency. Politics ought to be identified with the science of morals. No other policy could be durable; but expediency would justify the most oppressive tyranny, or the most base subserviency. What did expediency do for France in the late Revolution? It was expediency which sent the great Lord Strafford to the scaffold. When the Saviour himself was to be sacrificed, the cry was, "It is expedient." He must protest, therefore, now against having the Protestant establishment made the victim, expediency acting as the priest. Neither this parliament nor any other had a right to rob the people of their Protestant constitution. They were not called here by their king-they were not sent here by their constituents for any such purpose; and so said the great asserter of civil rights, Mr. Locke; so said Lord Chatham. One argument should never be neglected the voice of the people. Mr. Canning admitted the fact, that there was an inert mass of the people against concession. That mass was no longer inert-and he cautioned the government against legislating con trary to their decided and deliberate opinion. The bill might be carried up to the other house, but it would not be carried up by the people. He had now done, and had performed his duty; and if the forfeit of his life were called for as the sacrifice of his truth and principle, he would willingly render it on this occasion. Mr. V. Fitzgerald replied to some passages in Mr. Sadler's speech. Sir Joseph Yorke-I shall conclude this debate with a parliamentary toast" May the sister kingdoms be united, and ever after live like two brothers." For the amendment.........142 For the third reading ....320-178 Several verbal amendments were moved by Mr. Peel, and agreed to. The bill then passed. HOUSE OF LORDS. FIRST READING.-March 31. The Relief Bill was read a first time, and the Duke of Wellington moved that it be read a second time April 2. Lord Bexley opposed the motion on the ground of its precipitancy. The Duke of Wellington urged that the bill had been already abundantly discussed, and pleaded the public anxiety to know their lordships' decision. The Earl of Malmsbury followed on Lord Bexley's side; and Lord Holland replied. After a few remarks from two or three peers, the duke's motion was carried without a division. SECOND READING.-April 2. The Duke of Wellington moved the order of the day. His Grace deprecated the influence of private considerations, and declared that he had formed his judgment by opportunities in office which others did not possess. He then drew attention to the agitated condition of Ireland, where the people were organized for mischief; and cited the late events as proofs of the fact. In this state of things the king's prerogative was invaded, as his majesty could not with safety to the community incur the risk of the election that would follow the creation of a peer. The laws could not be carried into execution in Ireland. In another house the majority considered that the only remedy for these evils was the repeal of the civil disabilities affecting the Catholics. Putting down the Association would not do it. It was said, Let them go into a civil war. But the people would not resist the laws so as to justify a civil war, and the evils might go on unremoved to the decay and ruin of the country. His Grace had spent the greatest part of his life in war, yet he would sacrifice his existence to prevent a civil war. There was nothing which so completely rent asunder the bonds of society, and uprooted the prosperity of a nation. The constitution did not render exclusion permanent. The principle of the Revolution was, that the rule of exclusion should be relaxed as much as possible. The Protestantism of the Crown |