Page images
PDF
EPUB

they considered as tending to prevent that harmony, union, and friendly intercourse through life, which might be thus early cemented between the youth of different religious persuasions; the happy effects of which had been felt by the permission granted of having the Catholic youth educated in the university of Dublin.*

The 4th of May, 1795, brought on the important debate on the second reading of the Roman Catholic bill. It was opened by the solicitor general, probably upon the grounds, which it had been preconcerted, it was to be rejected by government. He made a long exordium, and went into an historical detail of oaths and tests. He called upon their attention to the most important subject, that was ever agitated in that country, a subject resolving itself into one single question, "Whether they would leave a trace "of that constitution established by what he would ever call the "glorious revolution?" What was the bold and prominent feature of that bill? It professed to give every Roman Catholic permission to sit in either house of parliament, and amounted to a dispensation from taking any of those oaths, or subscribing to that declaration, which they would find embodied in the bill of rights at the time of the sacred compact between king William and his parliament of Great Britain, which was soon afterwards recognized as extending the blessings of that glorious revolution to Ireland, had been acted upon ever since, and recognized by several statutes; by one so lately as the year 1782, when they then enacted the same oaths, was dignified by the name of that great man, and excellent lawyer, lord chief baron Yelverton, and which passed under his auspices in the memorable æra of the duke of Portland's administration.

He wished to put this question on a ground which had nothing to do with the principles on which the claims of the Roman Catholics had been hitherto decided. From the first relaxation in 1778, the history of that house had been a history of benevolence, kindness, good will, and affection from parliament to the Roman Catholics: but in that period, there appeared no trace of infringement upon the great boundaries of the constitution; and he 'relied on the wisdom of that house, not to intrench on these landmarks, which equally demarked the constitution of Great Britain and Ireland. He knew it had been industriously asserted, that the Roman Catholics were in a humiliating and degraded situation; he knew that factious and seditious men made use of that untrue and unfounded assertion to destroy the good order of the

15 P. D. p. 201. The act passed however with both these clauses in it. It is entitled, An act for the better education of persons professing the Popish 64 or Roman Catholic religion." 35 Geo. III. c. 21.

country; and he felt it necessary to undeceive the Roman Catho lics, as far as he was able, to bring them back to a sense and knowledge of the blessings of law, and the comforts of tranquillity. In 1778, property in chattel interests was conceded to them; in 1782, the inheritance of the land was opened to them; and down to 1793, scarcely a session passed without recognizing the same principles of kindness towards them; and at that day, they were under no more restraint as to property than Protestants were. The act of 1793, emanating from the crown, and passed under the auspices of a minister of as great consideration and worth as ever sat in the house, was not accordant with the sentiments of some of the most illustrious characters of the country; that act was declared to be an act of conciliation, it was declared from high authority to be intended as such, and from that period it was hoped that the question would be at rest, and the country in tranquillity. At that time certain gentlemen sought to extend the bill to the length of the present one; but the wisdom of parliament rejected the proposal by a great majority. Had any great circumstance occurred since to justify this important alteration in the legislative system? There were not in Ireland fifty Roman Catholic gentlemen who would seek to sit in parliament, or who had the remotest appetite for the bustle of public life: it was not by men like these, that the clamour was raised; they were too loyal, too decorous, too well affected to the constitution to raise such an outcry as had produced outrage in the remotest corners of Ireland, or to inflame the peasantry, who assembled in thousands, because of the mountebank abuse of the word emancipation, which they had accepted as a signal for commotion, and which they were taught to think meant the lowering the price of land. This subject had not originated with the opulent or respectable Roman Catholics, but with factious bodies of men, who under the cloak of sanctity and a zealous affectation in the cause of God, had no scruple to convulse their country, and send the constitution to destruction. He moved that the bill should be rejected.

The motion was seconded by lord Kingsborough, who spoke very warmly against the bill: he aggravated the reports of the debate in Francis street chapel, and laid the whole ferment of the country to those incendiaries, the Committee men, and the United Irishmen. Sir Hercules Langrishe, in an eloquent and instructive speech supported the bill. He well knew, that some men more devoted to turbulence than toleration, had by a suspicious connexion, affected to make common cause with the Roman Catholics, in order to apply the authority of their numbers, and the justness of their cause to their own dangerous projects. Almost every gentleman, who had before spoken in par

liament, entered largely into the debate. Mr. Pelham spoke very fully against the bill. Mr. Arthur O'Connor made one of the most brilliant speeches ever heard in the Irish parliament in support of it.* Colonel Stewart urged, that if the bill should pass, the king would be obliged to come forward and demand a repeal of the coronation oath. This infringement of the coronation oath was also insisted upon by some other opposers of the bill, and formed the chief novelty of argumentt in the debate: every prejudice, abuse, or calumny, that had ever been launched against Popery in the most acrimonious days of religious bigotry were now again brought forward to shew the unfitness of Catholic subjects to be admitted to the participation of the rights and liberties of the constitution. The mildest reason alleged for their exclusion was their superiority in number. The supporters of the bill on the other side were not generally backward in branding the opposers of it with illiberality, prejudice and blindness. Both sides were heated, and more than usually bitter in their re

This speech first raised him into note: he was brought into parliament by his uncle, lord Longueville, who was a supporter of administration: he was so offended with the speech of his nephew, that the next morning he sent for him, and desired him to resign his seat, which accordingly he did.

The most irrefragable confutation of it is to be found in Mr. Burke's letter to sir Hercules Langrishe; and it seems that the honourable baronet availed himself of several of his correspondent's arguments in his speech in this debate.

་་

[ocr errors]

As the incompatibility of Catholic emancipation with the coronation oath was now for the first time made a subject of parliamentary discussion, it must be interesting to every one to know how Mr. Grattan, who never left any part of his subject unsifted, treated the matter. 15 P. D. p. 333. "But I find "that Catholic emancipation is held incompatible with our monarchy. What! "his majesty, the head of a Catholic league, the king of Corsica, the lord "of Canada, the great ally of the emperor, the grand confederate of the "king of Spain, the protector of the pope; the king of England, whose ar"mies are Catholic, whose European connexions are Catholic, are his Irish "subjects, the only Catholics in whom he won't confide? Has he found religion make the emperor false, or the Prussian faithful? Such were not the "sentiments of the speeches from the throne in 1793 and 1795, when his majesty called on all his subjects to defend their religion and their constitution. "What religion? A religion of disabilities. What constitution? A consti"tution of exclusion. Am I to understand that his majesty called forth his "Catholic subjects to fight for a constitution which was to be shut against "them, and for a religion which was dangerous to the king, and penal to the "Catholic? No, it was not the pope, nor yet the pretender, it was Paine, it was the French Republic, against which you called for the zeal of your people, and held out the blessings of the constitution. But now it seems it is "the anti-christ against whom you place your batteries, the virgin, and the "real presence: and in that strain of grave and solemn raving, a right honour"able gentleman proposes to take up arms against the grave of Popery, which "is shut, and to precipitate into the gulph of republicanism, which is open; "perfectly safe for the king, he and those who join him think it, to affront the "Catholic subjects, by gross suspicions; others have proceeded to the gross"est invective; perfectly safe they think it, to banish them from all places at court and seats in parliament; to tell Catholic virtue, Catholic talents, Ca

66

[ocr errors]

torts upon each other; although it were made a government ques tion, some of their usual (more independent) supporters left them on this occasion, and at half past ten o'clock in the morning of the 5th of May, the house divided, 155 for reject

.66

"tholic ambition, you must not serve the king, you may have property influ "ence, but you must not act in constituted assemblies, nor in any rank or "distinction for the crown. Perfectly safe they think it, to establish an in"compatibility between Popery and allegiance. Perfectly safe they think to insulate the throne, and reduce the king of Ireland, like the pope, to Pro"testant guards instead of a people; and then, it is proposed, that those Pro"testant guards should monopolize all the powers of government, and privileges of the constitution, as a reward for their disinterestedness. In sup"port of such policy, it has been advanced in a very idle publication, that "Roman Catholics, as long as they have the feeling of men, must resist the "natural propensities of the human heart, if they do not endeavour to sub"vert a Protestant king; but I pass that over with the scorn it deserves. It "has been also said that his majesty's oath is a bar. Oaths are serious things. "To make them political pretences is a high crime ; to make an obligation ta"ken for the assurance of liberty, a covenant against it; to impose on conscience a breach of a duty, to make the piety of the king the scourge of his people, "is an attempt atrocious in the extreme. Examine the argument, and you "find the oath was taken three years before the exclusion of the Irish Catho "lics; the oath is the first of William, the tests that exclude them the third; "so that his majesty must have sworn in the strain and spirit of prophecy. "Examine a little further, and you will find his majesty swears, not in his legislative but in his executive capacity, he swears to the laws he is to exccute, not against the laws which parliament may think proper to make. In "that supposition he would, by his oath, control not himself but parliament, " and swear not to execute laws but to prevent them. Examine a little fur"ther, and you will find the words of the oath cannot support the interpreta"tion :

[ocr errors]

46

"I will support the true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reli"gion as by law established.' This is the oath I will perpetuate civil inca"pacities on Catholics, this is the comment. Such comment supposes the "true profession of the gospel to stand on pains and penalties, and the Pro"testant religion on civil proscription. Examine the oath a little further; "and if the comment be true, the oath has been broken, by his majesty's gra"cious recommendation in favour of the Catholics in 1793, broken by the

[ocr errors]

46

66

[ocr errors]

grant of the elective franchise, broken by the Canada bill, broken by the "Corsican constitution. Hear the speech of the viceroy of Corsica; his excel"lency having recommended to parliament the civil and military establishment, proceeds at last to the church, and advises them to settle that estab"lishment with his holiness the Pope. Very proper all this no doubt but if the "interpretation were true, what an outrageous breach all this of his majesty's coronation oath. I should ask, whether in the interpretation of the oath. "his majesty has consulted his Irish bishops and yet he could have found among them men perfectly competent. I will venture to say, that the head "of our clergy understands the Catholic question better than those consulted; "I will add, he does not, I believe, disapprove of their emancipation, nor approve of the argument against them. But it seems, in matters that relate to the Irish church, the Irish clergy are not to be consulted; an English episcopacy, like an English cabinet, is to determine the destiny of Ireland. I have great respect for the learned prelates of England, particularly for one, whose exemplary virtue and apostolic character, qualify him to preside over whatever is learned, pure, or holy; but in Irish affairs, in matters in which our civil as well as our religious interests are implicated, might I say, his majesty's counsellors should be his Irish parliament and his Irish bishops.

་་

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ing the bill, and 84 against it. Thus was an end put to the fond and confident expectation, with which the great bulk of the Irish nation had been encouraged to look to for their complete emancipation.

The ready adoption and support, which the majority in parliament had in the first days of lord Fitzwilliam's administration, given to his supposed system of measures, and their unsteadiness and instant tergiversation upon the change of men, filled the people of Ireland with mistrust and jealousies, that have never completely subsided to the present hour. They looked up no longer with any degree of confidence to the persons who were ready to barter their rights and interests to every set of men that could reward their ductility and subservience. This ignominious adaptation of principle to the most palpable contradictions was, in fact, little calculated to command the respect and affection of a nation now emphatically devoted to the attainment of constitutional freedom. Without attributing any peculiar sagacity to the mass of the community, there were two reasons (and every one now reasoned in Ireland) completely within their competency. Extravagancy and violence were pushed to such excess, that grave senators did not scruple to assert, that the peasantry was so brutal, as to mean and understand by Catholic emancipation, a total liberation from taxes and rent, and an agrarian division of property. The meanest labourer could and did understand that by emancipation the Catholic lord, esquire, merchant, mechanic or labourer, was to be put upon an exact level with the Protestant in those same degrees: and the versatility of the same men voting for and against the measure within the space of a month, was obviously to be traced to the true source by the most illiterate.*

"It seems highly prejudicial to the church and the monarchy, that the argu"ment which excludes the Catholic under pretence to strengthen both, should "be attended with circumstances that bespeak the Irish hierarchy a cypher, "the English hierarchy a nuisance, and represents the king a magistrate as "sworn against the privileges of his people. So far am I from agreeing to "such an argument, that I must here repeat what I advanced before, and say, "that I do not dissent, but I contradict. I do not say the Catholic emanci"pation is compatible with the present monarchical government in Ireland, "but that it is now become necessary to it, and that as for the preservation of "the connexion, you must make it compatible with the privileges of three fourths of your people, so, for the preservation of your monarchy, you "make monarchy also compatible with those privileges, you must make the "regal capacity of the king compatible with the civil capacity of the subject."

Some questions said in the before quoted memoir to have been put to Mr. Arthur O'Connor in his examination before the secret committee of the House of Commons on the 16th of August, 1798, and his answers to them, seem to throw a strong light upon this subject, (p. 55.)

"Committee. Why, what opinion have the lower classes of the people of "political subjects?

« PreviousContinue »