Canning, in the light of an ultimatum. They considered them merely as a projét, to serve for the basis of future discussion. More honourable or more kind intentions towards the catholic body, no ministerial, no opposition member, ever entertained. However indisposed in his regard, in other respects, no member of parliament, who attended the debates, imputed sinister views on the subject to either. LXXXIX. 4. Observations on the nature and expediency of the proposed Securities. It has been asserted, that the securities introduced by lord Castlereagh into the bill, which is the subject of this chapter, were devised, and the clauses enacting them framed by the writer of these memoirs; and that the real design of them was to furnish government with the means of interfering hostily, in the spiritual concerns of the catholics, and rendering their clergy generally subservient to the politics of his majesty's ministers. This charge has been urged so often, and so vehemently, and such invidious conclusions have been attempted to be drawn from it against all whom it would implicate, as to render some notice of it in this place necessary. The writer most explicitly and unequivocally avers to his readers, that the charge is wholly unfounded. It was in his speech of 1808*, that lord Castlereagh gave the first intimation of the projected * Ante, ch. LXXXVI. securities. They were afterwards noticed by lord Grenville in his speech of 1810*. This was the first time that even the general nature of them came to the knowledge of the writer, and the first time that he heard of the communications between lord Castlereagh and the Irish prelates. The reader may recollect the letter which this part of lord Grenville's speech occasioned the writer to address to his lordship, and his lordship's answer, transcribed in a former page of this work t. Thus the project of securities became generally known, but the particulars of them were yet to be explained. The first explanation of these was given in lord Castlereagh's speech in 1813. From this, the general outline of the securities was sufficiently discernible; but the specific provisions for giving them effect were not detailed. Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Canning therefore requested that an interview might be had between his lordship and the principal parliamentary advocates of the bill. This was agreed to, and they met at Mr. Ponsonby's house. Lord Castlereagh there detailed his plan, and it was then, for the first time, committed to writing. Sir Arthur Piggott held the pen, and wrote the clauses as they were successively settled. The draft of them was immediately transmitted to the writer of these pages, to procure a fair transcription of them: this was made, and, on the same day, the clauses were presented to the house. No English catholic attended the meeting at * Ante, ch. LXXXVI. + Ibid. Mr. Ponsonby's, or had any intercourse, direct or indirect, with lord Castlereagh on the subject of them. Several months before these transactions, lord Castlereagh permitted the writer to put into his hands the sketch of a bill for the repeal of the penal laws against the catholics: it was contained on half a sheet of paper; placed the roman-catholics exactly on a footing with the protestant dissenters; contained neither oath, veto, or security of any kind. No catholic could desire a better bill. Such is the history of lord Castlereagh's clauses. On the general subject of securities, the impression of the writer is as follows: The first question evidently is, Are any securities necessary? those, who answer in the affirmative, are bound to state the specific dangers against which the securities are to be a guard:-Now, what are these dangers?-it is difficult to state them, even in the way of supposition: certainly no such danger has yet been pointed out. Admitting, however, that there are such dangers, or that such may exist, the law of the land, which furnishes ample means of punishing both public and private offenders, is no small security against them. But, for the sake of argument, let us imagine a case, against which such securities should be provided, and against which the law furnishes no provision. Let us suppose a person, really dangerous, to be proposed for a catholic prelacy in Ireland. It may be said that the episcopal dignity confers great influence; and that this influence would be used by such a prelate for the worst purposes, as sowing divisions, and even for strengthening the enemies of government, by inclining his flock to adhere to them, or to those habits which favour them. Should not government, it may be asked, have the means of excluding such an artificer of evil from the prelacy? The first answer to this question may be given, by asking, whether there be a real danger of such a person's finding his way into the catholic prelacy: or, at least, of his finding his way into it, so frequently, as to make a specific provision against such a possible evil either necessary or expedient?— Admitting, however, the necessity or expediency of such a provision, is not the British government abundantly furnished with it, in consequence of the terms of amity, which now subsist between them and the holy see? Can a person for a moment doubt, that the Roman see would peremptorily exclude from the English catholic prelacy, every person denounced to his holiness by the British government, as a disloyal or turbulent man? What further defence against the mischief apprehended can be wanted? On these grounds, the writer doubts of the real existence of any danger that calls for a legislative provision. On the other hand, he is not ignorant of the notions, still too generally entertained, of the enormous power and dangerous influence of the Roman pontiff. Then,-supposing that the persons, by whom these notions are entertained, would be inconsistent with the faith, the morality, or the discipline of the catholic church, as to make it the duty of the roman-catholics to refuse it, though, in consequence of its propitiatory effect, the acceding to it would be followed by complete catholic emancipation? Dr. Milner, in his "Letter to a Parish Priest," which we have more than once mentioned with praise, has invincibly demonstrated that catholics have no such duty. It is true that he has retracted this letter; this shows his own present opinion of his own arguments; but does not detract, in the slightest degree, from their inherent force and conclusiveness. To his powerful advocation, however, it is now needless to resort: Rome herself has spoken:-" She has ordered us to be at ease* The ministers, it is said, who patronise the veto, do it for the purpose of enslaving the catholic church, and interfering unduly in her concerns :For this charge, there is not the slightest ground. The writer has seen every thing respecting the veto; he has conversed upon it, with the ministers, with the leaders of opposition, and with the friends and followers of both; and he never yet found the slightest reason to suspect, that a wish to interfere, even in the remotest manner, in the ecclesiastical economy of the catholic church, entered into ministerial politics. He is also perfectly convinced that, if the government were in possession of the veto, the administration of it would be so slight, that the existence of it would seldom be perceived * In her reply to the Irish catholic board, ante, ch. LXXXVI. |