Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1

abilities, in Canada-they who actually had aided the papal power in its struggle against tyranny they who were now fighting side by side with catholic allies, in one common cause, for the deliverance of the peninsula, refused to put an end to religious dissension in their own country. He trusted, on the contrary, that this night would be laid the solid foundation of internal and external harmony, by which the strength of the nation, the full exertion of which was now so much required, would be doubly aug. mented. He then moved for leave to bring up the petition.

Mr. Yorke expressed his surprise that the right honourable gentleman should think it necessary to enter into so many topics that might occasion debate, merely on presenting a petition. It was not his intention now to reply to the remarks just offered; but he rose merely to state, that before the house entered regularly upon the discussion of the catholic claims, he should move that another document, besides that produced at the request of the right honourable gentleman, should be read, and as often as the subject should be debated he should submit the same motion it would be, that the 9th, 10th, and 11th sect. of the act 1 Will. and Mary, ch. 2, commonly called the Bill of Rights, be read.

After a single remark from Mr. Elliot, as to his object in addressing the house, the petition was brought up and read at length by the clerk, together with the principal

names attached to it.

Mr. Yorke moved that the 9th, 10th, and 11th sections of the act of 1 Will. and Mary, chap. 2, be read;-after which

Mr. Grattan, in a speech distinguished for its eloquence, urged

the justice and policy of admitting the catholics to a participation of the same rights and privileges as protestants, upon proper securities being given for the maintenance of the constitution in church and state. He read the oath of the 33d of the king, by which people of that persuasion abjure the doctrine that it is lawful to injure or kill a heretic; that the pope can absolve a subject from his allegiance; or that he has even any temporal power in these realms. Our opponents, says he, maintain that the catholics thirst only for political power. It never struck me that the desire of political power, supposing it to exist, was criminal. I do not think that it amounts to high treason; nor is it an offence for which a man should be sentenced to the loss of all his civil rights. But the catholics do not seek political power, they seek for political protection, and no further for power than as it is inseparable from protection. A catholic desires, for instance, that he may not be bound without consent; he desires that he may not be taxed without consent; he claims, that having given pledges for his allegiance, he may have all the benefits of a British subject; he desires that he may not be tried by persons exclusively partisans, summoned by the sheriffs, by persons not only partisans but actually covenanted against his claims. If I am asked, "What then do they wish for?" I will tell them-their rights: what did they require from king John? their rights. They do not ask this or that office, but for civil qualifications. If this be ambition, it was ambition that gained for us, Magna Charta; it was ambition that dictated and secured for us the Declaration of Rights. If such

be

be ambition, who would not be ambitious? The proper term for what the catholics seek, is protection, not power: the truth is this: The protestants struggle for power, the catholics ask only protectionthe protestants struggle for the ascendancy of a sect-the catholics ask for the ascendancy of the law. The great advantage resulting from concession upon this head is, that a county that hitherto has been compelled to elect a protestant will return a catholic-the catholics only wish the capacity of serving to be extended-on the other hand, the object of the protestants is to keep all the power and patronage of the country. They require an ascendancy over what?-not merely an ascendancy for the preservation of the constitution, but to govern the other sect. Their strife is, that one sect may be allowed to govern another: the claim of the catholics is, that they may be governed not by a sect, but by the law. Our opponents further insist, that the catholics not only seek power, but also a right to bind and make law for the protestant church. To which it is answered, that it is not true: they only ask that they may not be bound without their consent, may not be taxed without consent, and may not be tried exclusively by partisans, or by juries assembled by partisans. In praying for this, and only for this, they do not require that protestants shall be governed by catholics. Suppose the right of serving in parliament conceded, the protestants know that the majority of the house must always be of their religion. How then can the catholics govern the church, when the majority would enact the laws for its regulation? On the other hand, those who have petitioned against us have desired,

what? Not only that they shall make the law for their own, but for the catholic church exclusively

that they shall have authority to bind the person and property of a catholic without his interference; and while they usurp this unjust dominion, they require besides, that their church shall receive tithes from the industry and labour of the catholic, while he is excluded from every privilege of the constitution. This is the argument; and carried to its extent, it would not only exclude catholics from parliament, but every denomination of dissenters. Though the church be a part of the law of the land, yet the church is not to govern the nation: this is not a church, but a representative, government, it applies to every class of men of every denomination, and none are excluded but catholics. So far from excluding, it includes every dissenter but the catholic. This principle is not only erroneous, but it is fatal; you confine the blessings of the constitution to the limits of the church; whereas the principle ought to be that of spreading its advantages over all orders and all sects, at once securing your liberty and extending your empire. The anticatholic petitioners insist that the essence of the constitution is protestant; and having got a new principle, they imagine that they have discovered a new argument. The fact is not as they state it. The parliament is not protestant; the empire is not protestant. The people of Ireland are a portion of the third estate of the kingdom; they are a part of the commons. The representative in this house stands in the place of his constituents; but, in the contemplation of law, the third estate consists of the commons-the people. Thus

the

the electors of Ireland, the catholic electors, are part of the commonspart of the third estate. So that, instead of the constitution being in its essence protestant-instead of the house being protestant, the third estate is in no inconsiderable proportion catholic. Who, let me inquire, were the founders of this constitution? Catholics. And did they entertain principles incompatible with the work they accomplished? The fact is, that in the present state of affairs, when the great proportion of the people are protestants, they must have the ascendancy. There is another reason why this superiority must and will be maintained-the king, by law, can only be a protestant; this is true protestant ascendancy. In the two houses of parliament the principle is sacrificed, and the plurality is sufficient: this superiority the catholics, were they disposed, could not destroy; and by admitting them, you give liberty and happiness to a great portion of your fellow-citizens, you main tain your own natural ascendancy, and at the same time you strengthen, fortify, and secure your empire. The concession of privileges to the catholics would be the identification of the people-all ranks and sects are identified by participation, and the prosperity and safety of the empire would be much better preserved by the mutual harmony that would prevail, than by the monopoly of all patronage and power. The adversaries of the catholics apprehend the most dreadful consequences, if five or six individuals like lord Fingal are returned to parliament; but they can foresee no danger that can result from excluding five or six millions of people from privileges that they see others in the daily habit of enjoying.

If

Next, say the anti-catholics, the experiment has been tried, and has succeeded: the British nation has attained its present height of splendour and felicity, notwithstanding the existence of these pains and penalties. I most solemnly deny the assertion-I appeal to every man acquainted with the history of Ireland if it be true. The experiment, it is true, has been made, but will any Irishman say it has succeeded?-Did the misfortunes of 1699 show that the experiment had been successful?-Did the loss of the constitution in 1721 show that in lieland the experiment had been successful? How did she re gain it? Partly by repealing the penal laws, and entirely uniting with the catholics: the experiment was, indeed, too successful in destroying the trade and extinguish, ing the liberties of Ireland. there be any Irishman in the house, who believes this to have been a wholesome and useful experiment, he shows that his understanding has become a victim to that experiment, and that he has lost even the idea of that liberty which he refuses to support. It has been said that the catholics are enemies to the church of England. Give me leave to, tell those who make this assertion, that it is no light charge against any part of the king's subjects to say, that they are enemies to the state. Did any authority give weight to this accusation, it might create serious consequences; but at present it rests only on the declaration of a few bigoted and ignorant individuals. But why call them enemies to the church of England? If the church of England says that the catholics never shall be free, and that catholic liberty and church security are incompatible, the

catholics

catholics are not enemies to the church, but the church is the enemy of the catholics. But they say the catholics are also enemies to the state. When you return thanks to the catholics for the battles they have fought for their country, do you mean to say to them, "You have proved yourselves very good soldiers, but you are notwithstand. ing enemies to the state?" They say they are enemies to the state, and to the government; and to prove this, they produce the canons of the Lateran, and the councils of Constance and of Trent. But I will produce the thanks of parliament voted to the catholics for their allegiance and their practical loyalty, against this theoretical, this abominable accusation. They say the catholics are enemies of liberty. And what are their proofs? Is it Magna Charta? Were the authors of Magna Charta the enemies of liberty? Is it the Act of Settlement? I go to the Declaration of Rights, and I produce this as an unanswerable document of the catholics' love to liberty. This Declaration of Rights does not enact new laws, but declares old ones: it declares those laws which form the body of British liberty. And who were the authors of these laws? They were framed by those enemies of the state aud of liberty -the Roman catholics. This De claration of Rights proves to us, not only that our catholic ancestors were the friends and supporters of liberty, but also that they had established such securities and safeguards for it, as the wisdom of their descendants could not exceed. Magna Charta, therefore, and the Declaration of Rights, are the very strongest proofs in favour of the Roman catholic allegiance, and completely do away this charge

against them. It has been said, that the catholics have as yet stated no conditions on which they are willing to accept the boon they ask; but I say, you ought your selves to state the conditions on which you are willing to bestow it. The catholics say, they do not see any security. necessary from them. They do not say this because they are unwilling to accede to those terms you may think proper to impose on them; but because they conceive they have already given every security which it is in their power to give. They say, No spirit of conciliation was ever wanting on our part-every thing which they do not conceive to trench on the principles of their church, they are ready to grant. They are against no security you may think proper to exact of them, but the making their liberty a conditional grant. The rights of religion and liberty are perfectly consistent with your security; and it is the business of parliament to see that they are united. A number of the petitioners do not petition against the principle of extension to the catholics, but for a modification of their demands. So far from thinking that the people of England are generally unfavourable to the liberty of the Irish catholics, I have little fear to repose on the good sense and integrity of that people. I believe they are generally not enemies to, but advocates for, extending liberty to the catholics. The other part of the petitioners have told you that their object is not hostility to the catholics, but the security of the church; and the security of the church with them means exclusion from the constitution. I agree with them in the object they have in view; but I differ with them in the means of attaining it. In granting privileges

[ocr errors]

privileges to the professors of the catholic faith, the episcopal churches of England and Ireland, and the church of Scotland, should remain unaltered and sacred. So far I would go; but here I would stop. The petitioners demand, that the church should be preserved sacred from encroachment by the monopoly of power, and the monopoly of property. I would preserve it sacred by the identification of the people. They would do it by retaining to themselves all the patronage and all the political power; and I would do it by the union of the physical strength of the whole. I would say, Take care of your colleges and ecclesiastical courts; make every provision best calculated to effect that object, provided the securities you adopt for your own, do not go to affect the integrity of the religion and church of the catholics. In the preamble of the bill, I would state such a measure as necessary to the security of government. I would set forth also the necessity for putting an end to all animosity, whether it be national, or whether it be religious. The two islands are divided into two sects; and for centuries these sects have been in a state of hostility. I would endeavour to put an end to that hostility. Let the liberty of the press be unrestrained ' in every thing but one; let no men be allowed to abuse others on account of their religion. Let them take what side they please in politics; if they do not choose the part of ministers, they may choose that of the opposition; but never let them attack one another's religion. Your geographical situation makes you but one people, but the outcry of religion makes a different people of you; and you should put an end to the abominable contest.

I shall first, then, move a committee of the house; and if that be carried, I will read a resolution which I mean to propose in that committee, and which I mean to be the foundation of the bill I intend to bring in. The first resolution which I mean to move in the committee, I am willing now to read to the house, if it is the wish of the house that I should do so. [Here the right honourable gentleman proceeded to read a resolution, which bore in substance, that with a view to such an adjustment of the catholic claims as might be conducive to the peace and security of the united kingdoms, and the security of the established church, it would be highly advantageous to provide a remedy by the removal of those civil qualifications which his majesty's catholic subjects now laboured under, at the same time pre serving unaltered the laws relating to the settlement of the crown, and preserving inviolate the protestant churches of Great Britain and Ire land, in doctrine and discipline, as the same were by law established.] The right honourable gentleman concluded by moving, that the house do now form itself into a committee, in pursuance of the resolution of the last session of parliament.

The debate on this question continued by adjournment for four days: we shall notice only a few of the arguments of some of the leading speakers, without regard to the particular days on which they were made.

Mr. Bankes said, with regard to the resolution of the last house of commons, no one had voted for the adoption of that resolution more sincerely than he had done; because he conceived that it was calculated to produce beneficial re

sults,

« ZurückWeiter »