Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

it in that light. A most respectable modern writer of our own country, now living, (Dr. Paley) has stated, that the general right of Government is to do whatever may be necessary for the advantage of the people: but he, and every man of sense, will tell you, that although this is undoubtedly the general right, yet whenever it is exercised by restrictions with regard to one class of the people, such exercise becomes an abuse, or, in other words, the people have a right not to be restricted in any thing that is not adverse to the safety of the country. (Hear! Hear! repeated by many of the Members.) The people have a right to be exempted generally from unequal restriction; but when the safety of the country demands it, and history shows us that such instances are numerous, they are exceptions to the rule, and have always been so considered.

In the way in which different persons consider this subject, a difference of opinion has been produced, but the conclusion is the same. Some say they would give the Catholics what they require, as a matter of favour, and a matter of policy; but not as a matter of right. Now, I say, I would give it to them as a matter of right: but we, however, shall not differ, if the practical consequence of our reasoning come to the same thing. I would give it as a right, because it is the general right of the people, and because there is no exception which ought to operate against the Catholics of Ireland. Though Government has a right to impose restrictions; yet, if there be no necessity for them, then comes the right of the people to enjoy the benefit of every law, provided such enjoyment is not mischievous in its consequences to the country. It was therefore, Sir, I wished to say these few words, because it is so important a part of the subject, and one which, from the nature of it, cannot be a ques tion to-day, but might recur and become a question for future consideration. I should wish that all should understand

understand each other, and particularly that it should not be supposed there is any essential difference, when, in fact, it is a difference of words rather than of principles. Whatever difference exists with respect to the two theories, it is evident they lead to the same practical consequences. To apply this to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I do not lay down a principle too large, when I state that it is the general right of the Catholics, as well as of the Protestants, to be on an equal footing, to have equal laws, privileges, and immunities, in all cases where they are not prejudicial to the welfare of the State. The only differences that could arise would be with regard to the degree in which they should enjoy those rights. Cases might be put where persons might say nothing could justify a departure from the rule of right, but expediency. Some might say, political advantages, connected with external relations, would justify it; others would require such a degree of expediency as would amount to a necessity. They would require that not only the greatness of the country, but the security of the country, should be concerned. I flatter myself we shall not go on such near shades. The Roman Catholics of Ireland have undoubtedly a right to equal laws; but the Government has thought fit to curtail that right, and to put them on a footing disadvantageous to them.

To enter into the question, whether the laws for restraining the Catholics were originally politic, or, rather, whether they were just; that is to say, whether the policy which dictated them was of such a nature as to render that just which was not within the general rule of justice, would be a discussion exceedingly unnecessary at this moment. At the same time, it will be necessary to attend to the particular period of history in which these restrictions were principally imposed. I think I need not state what will be the argument in reply. No man's mind, I hope, is so framed as to imagine that the restrictions

can

can be justified on account of the length of time they have been allowed to continue. Such an opinion would be a solecism in political reasoning; it would do away the original principle on which such laws were founded, to contend, that though they might be unnecessary at the time they were adopted, yet that, by a long lapse of time, they have acquired aprescriptive right. If a restrictive law is made on account of peculiar circumstances of a political nature, the moment those circumstances cease, the restriction ceases to be politic, and consequently ceases to be just. I cannot conceive how any man can be justified in supposing that, where the circumstances on which a law is founded have ceased, the justice of continuing that law can be a matter for fair reasoning. It may so happen, though I think it has not so happened in this case, but it has nearly happened, that the fact of long restrictions may make it difficult afterwards to restore the objects of them to that situation in which they would have been if the restrictions had never been imposed. I think one may generally state, that all the restrictions of the Catholics were laid, not on their religious but their political opinions. At the time they were made, I have doubts whether many of those who concurred in them did not disapprove of the principle; and I have doubts also, whether others did not mix sentiments of persecution and rancour with those restrictions. I would not wish to go to antient times; but in the early period of the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I. no one can suppose it was any particular religious bigotry that led to the restrictions with re-. gard to the Catholics. As far as one can learn of the character of Queen Elizabeth, her faith was not so repugnant to the Catholic religion as that of many Protestant ministers, who were principally concerned in the restrictions. She managed the question with a degree of prudence which proved her one of the most consummate Princes of the age. She seemed to be

engage

engaged in a general war with several great Catholic Powers, and particularly with the King of Spain. From the connection which the King of Spain had with the Catholics by the league with France, she was necessarily involved in disputes with France, as well as other Powers of the Continent; therefore they were political circumstances which occasioned those harsh and severe laws against the Catholics which passed in her reign. Whatever other pretences might have been resorted to, it is plain the Catholics were not considered as the loyal subjects of Queen Elizabeth. But I am speaking of old times, and the circumstances of them do not relate to the present. Even in the reigns that followed, very few restrictions by penal law were enacted-very few restrictions of disabilities took place till a much later period. This may be accounted for from the circumstance that there was no suspicion of the Catholics; but afterwards, in the time of the Stuarts, and Charles I. and II., suspicions had taken possession of the minds of the people of this country, which made those restrictions necessary, many of which have been done away, and some are now under consideration. When we come to the Revolution, it is impossible not to see that all the laws of the Catholics were political laws. It was not a Catholic, but a Jacobite, you wished to restrain. When King James was driven from the country; when his enormous tyranny became so mixed with bigotry, that many persons professed to be able to unravel his conduct, and tell what to attribute to religion, what to bigotry, and what to tyranny, it was easy to suppose that the Catholics should be actuated by an attachment for a King who had lost his throne in consequence of his partiality for their faith. Ireland at this time was the seat of civil war. Undoubtedly it was natural, after that war was settled by conquest, to prevent the conquered from enjoying the privileges of the conquerors. It was not against the religious faith of

C

those

[ocr errors]

those who adored the Virgin Mary, or believed in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

King William was unquestionably a great man; I may say the greatest that ever filled the Throne of this or any other country; but whoever would wish to raise his character, by representing him as a persecutor of heresy and idolatry, materially mistake the character of that Prince. I am persuaded, that he most reluctantly consented to harsh measures against the Catholics of Ireland, and only did so, because it was represented to him by his ministers, that they were absolutely necessary. That King William would have acted wiser, if he had made those restrictions less harsh, it is not now our business to consider, King William, in conceding his own to the opinion of others, acquiesced, on the ground of the difference of opinion among the Roman Catholics as to the right of succession to the Crown, and in conformity to that advice which his ministers gave him. The years that followed the Revolution were most of them years of war; and those that were not years of war, were, with reference to the Catholics, years of a suspicious nature. Endeavours were made to bring about a religious war, in which it was impossible for the enemy not to have looked with confidence to the assistance of Ireland-therefore the Catholics were disarmedit might have been wise so to do. That there were bigoted motives actuating some I will not attempt to deny there were many persons in this, as well as that country, who were of opinion, that by these persecutions they should convert to the Protestants the property of the whole kingdom of Ireland: others there were, who thought that more lenient measures were likely to be more successful. The effect proved that the measures adopted not only failed, but they were of a nature which rendered their success absolutely impossible. They were laws which, though nominally against the Catholics, were substantially against the Jacobites. In the two next reigns the

samę

« ZurückWeiter »