Mr. Johnstone would not now enter into the discussion on the merits of the bill; but he took this early opportunity of protesting against its principle. It procceeded on no alleged case to warrant legislative interference; and nothing could be more mischievous than to legislate without due cause on so delicate a subject as the representation in parliament and the election of its members.-Leave was then given to bring in the bill. [ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the petitions of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, that vain is my appeal to your justice, or to your wisdom. Your hearts are hardened, your minds infatuated, as if it were decreed that you were to expiate the crimes of your ancestors, by the ruin of the Empire. The popery laws were in their commencement, unnecessary and unjust, in their progress, severe and merciless-in their duration, and to this hour, oppressive, insulting, impolitic. They were made in violation, of solemn compact of the great charter of the civil and religious liberties of theCatholics (the treaty of Limerick,) at different periods of profound peace; by an insolent faction; over a plundered, unoffending people. The reasons assigned for enacting this unparalleled code," the fruitful source of still increasing mischief," were, principally, the temporal powers of the pope, the attachment of the Catholics to hini, and to the Stuarts, and the state of Europe, which at different periods excited Mr. Hutchinson rose and said, Sir; It is a heartless task, to address you on an exhausted subject; the arguments in favour of the petitioners have been so often urged, are so abundant and unanswerable, the objections so illiberal and unjust, that it becomes wearisome to repeat demon-the jealousy, and alarmed the government stration, and useless to notice that which has been so often refuted. But whatever may be the private conviction of gentlemen, as to the wisdom and necessity of this measure, the prayer of the petitioners having been again, and again, rejected; it is incumbent on those who are friends to Catholic emancipation, however painful to themselves, or embarrassing to you, once more to urge the cause of millions. It was the opinion of a most enlightened statesman, that "no other christian country for so long time and without intermission, had been subject to such successive calamity, and insult, as Ireland," whose inhabitants, had been distracted and divided by a contrariety of interests frequently and artfully fomented, whose government had rarely been conducted on wise or honest principles, its favours even being so conferred as to preclude gratitude; favours but too often accompanied with contumely, and seldom yielded but in the moment of danger, and alarm-a country where there has been no violence of power, no artifice of fraud, omitted, to blast the character, and ruin the misfortunes of her people: a country with which gentlemen are as unacquainted as they are with Siberia, or the interior of Africa. Their scanty knowledge too is derived from the most polluted sources, from partial authors and hired libellers, for few persons have dared to write, or speak the truth. But you are sick to death of this subject; you are anxious to hear no more, being resolved not to afford relief, while I am conscious of this country. On these pretences, the Catholics were subjected to several new pains and penalties, inflicted at one moment for alledged offences, which they had not committed; at another, from an affected dread of possible misconduct, frequently from the visitings of a guilty conscience, haunted by the fears of merited retaliation, and often in consequence of the struggles, and to promote the views of political factions contending for the ministry. Read these statutes. Look to the periods when they were passed. Ireland perfectly quiet-the Catholic powerless and prostrate! Yet at every relaxation of this disinheriting, disqualifying, barbarous, and barbarizing code, however at first insignificant or progressively important the concession, the constant cry on the part of the intolerant was, that the church and state would thereby be greatly endangered, the country ruined! yet notwithstanding such prophecies, and affected fears, the prosperity of Ireland rapidly advanced with the improved state of the Catholics. Much of this code, it is true, has been repealed, but repealed as it were, in order to perpetuate what remains. The principle of conferring civil rights and political liberty on the Catholics as a body, has been fully and repeatedly admitted by the concessionswhich have been already granted, and which only could have been dangerous, as they conferred influence and consideration on the Catholic population, who even by the most uncandid, could alone be supposed they corroborate by the answers of the most eminent catholic universities of Europe to the doubts of your government, as to the principles of their religion, and the power of their spiritual chief. As to the declaration, they cannot sign against the tenets of their religion, nor admit that as Catholics they are idolaters, and therefore doomed to eternal punishment. But they have already by this same Duigenan's oath, given the state very rational security, for by it they swear to every thing that ought to satisfy you, except indeed to the infallibility of the Protestants, and to their vicegerency here on earth! Was that oath framed in the plenitude of malice, in the hope that it might be rendered so unpalatable, that the Catholics could not subscribe to it, and thus subject themselves to every imputation of disloyalty, or with the concealed intention of still treating them as dangerous and unsafe, even after they had submitted to this most severe ordeal. But it is evident that you are resolved to doubt all their professions, however strong and solemn, yet can there be a more convincing proof of the conscientious delicacy of the Catholics, as to the nature and obligation of an oath, than their having for so long a time, permitted their temporal interests to be essentially prejudiced, pre capable of abusing them. But the disabilities which exclude the highest rank and fortune, which affect those who are the most distinguished for their professional talents, for their loyalty and patriotism, who are beloved and admired for their mental endowments and virtues, for their upright discharge of every social and public duty and ever renowned for their heroism and valour, those disabilities degrade and materially injure the humblest individual, who has in fact no security so Jong as those who profess his religion, are on that account, considered unworthy of holding places of confidence and emolument. While the principle is most injurious to the prosperity of Ireland, and of the Empire, for in every walk of life, it most powerfully tends to repress the impulse of ambition, and the exertion of talent, from the mortifying recollection, that all the avenues to high and honourable station are for ever closed against them, all the rewards of exalted virtue, and of the most brilliant mental endowment for ever denied them. Some opposers of this measure object to political power being granted to the Catholics, from an alledged apprehension that were they admitted to a part, they would usurp the whole. The Catholics by their oaths disclaim this disposition, declaring that they seek only to participate, not to monopolize, and including themselves from the state, from fact, they do not possess the power, even had they the inclination, for of the united empire, they do not constitute the physical strength; so that the Protestants would always retain in their hands, the means of effectual resistance. Other gentlemen consent to admit the Catholics, provided they take what are called the qualification oaths. Of the four so designated, the Catholics already take, or are willing to take three, those of allegiance, of abjuration and of qualification as to property. Of the oath of supremacy, they take a considerable, and the most material part, for they abjure the doctrines of excommunication, and deposition of princes, that of the absolution from oaths, that no faith is to be kept with heret:cs, or that any foThe member for Bedford has congratureign potentate has any temporal powerlated the House on the objection of the or jurisdiction within these realms and they only reject that part which calls upon them to renounce their spiritual communion with the see of Rome, that is, in other words, they refuse to abjure their religion; and what they swear in Duigenan's oath of there existing no danger to your Protestant state from them as Catholic subjects office, and situation, merely because they refused to qualify, and how can they believe you serious in calling upon them to take these oaths as a security, when notwithstanding the many pledges they have already given, such as few governments have ever exacted from subjects, you still treat them as disloyal and unsafe. Surely this their refusal to qualify from a religi ous scruple, ought to be considered as our best security for their strict adherence to the letter and spirit of those oaths, by which they are already bound, not to monopolize, but to protect the property and privileges of the Protestant community, not to overturn, but to defend the state. coronation oath, being no longer urged; but the noble viscount's (Castlereagh) forcible appeal, as to the deference due to the pious scruples, supposed to exist in the illustrious and exalted personage he alluded to, proves that the objection is still relied upon, for these scruples can only result from a certain construction put upon the and the 1st and 2nd of Anne, which incapacitated them. How then can the coronation oath be considered as pledging the king to continue disabilities which did not exist at the time of its formation? He has not sworn that in order to defend the church, he would resist every measure conducive to the happiness and benefit of his people. Besides on what a sandy perilous foundation would this argument rest the church establishment. Were this mode of reasoning admitted, it would follow that any concession obtained by the subject from the crown, or that any alteration of any kind, in the constitution since the revolution, were so many infringements of this oath, which does not militate against the liberties and privileges of the subject, but was framed by freemen to protect them against, not to establish tyranny. But should this construction be erroneous, let the oath be revised, and rendered more consistent with the true principles of the constitution, and the happi-. ness of a free people. We have lately heard of the existence of Jacobins and coronation oath. Let us look to the period when this oath in its present shape was framed. William the 3rd, who first took it, did not consider himself as thereby prevented from giving the royal assent to the act in favour of dissenters, as to the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, which had been deemed necessary for the security of the church; and which by being in existence at the time of the formation of this coronation oath, might have been considered as constituting an essential part of the revolution system. This example is conclusive for this part of the argument, as it proves the construction of the oath by those who framed it, and of the king who first subscribed to it. Many other examples could be given at different periods of our history, to shew that this oath was not considered as preventing the king from granting civil advantages to his subjects of any description. In those reigns, during which much jealousy was harboured, and considerable severities exercised against the Catholics, when neither the monarch nor the parliament can be suspected of partiality, or of much li-levellers in this country, I should have no berality of sentiment, the coronation oath was not considered as a bar to relaxation of religious disabilities. In the reign of Anne, when Scotland was united to England, the queen was not considered as violating her Protestant coronation oath, when she swore to defend the presbyterian church of Scotland. And this after objection taken, and the point discussed. In the reign of the two first Georges, there were acts in favour of dissenters, quakers and Jews. Yet these princes had all taken this same coronation oath. On a parity of reasoning, there is nothing to prevent similar acts in favour of Catholics and to any extent. It is rather late to interpose this case of conscience, between our gracious sovereign and his people. His reign having been distinguished by tolerance and benevolence towards his Catholic subjects, not only of Ireland but of Canada. And should their prayer be now rejected, as contrary to the coronation oath, the violations have been already frequent and conspicuous. But are gentlemen ignorant, that at the period of the formation, or rather new modelling of the coronation oath, Roman Catholic peers had seats and voted. That Catholics were then eligible to the House of Commons, as also to civil and military offices. It was the statutes of the 3rd and 4th of William and Mary, hesitation in looking for such persons amongst those who urged the objection as to this oath; for the argument tends to excite jealousy between the king and the people, by holding out the chief executive magistrate as the only remaining bar, to the first hopes and expectations, of so great a portion of his subjects. I may be asked, whether I would have a Protestant king and a Catholic parliament? This is another phantom of the brain, for if all the Irish commoners, members of this House, were of that persuasion, there would still remain 558 Protestants against 100 Catholics. Gentlemen, however, well know, that a very small proportion of the Irish members would be of that religion As to the Peers, I admit, that there exists considerable difficulty indeed. The chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland, in his statement a few nights since, observed, that it was much the custom in this country to live on puddings: if I am correctly informed, it is no less that of Scot land to live on oatmeal, and we Irish certainly cannot deny the charge of the potatoe, the extraordinary qualities of which have been elaborately discussed by learned commentators, whose observations have been fully corroborated by the uncommon population of that country. It therefore would be hazarding much, to answer for the consequences, of the ad 1 mission of (I think they are seven,) of the treaty of Limerick, are at this hour seven sturdy potatoe fed Catholic peers, violated in the persons of the petitioners. antong 16 rawboned Scotch lairds, filled At the Union the governments of both with oatmeal, and 400 dainty pudding- countries, perhaps, with more of shameless crammed English barons! You are re effrontery, than candour, confessed that the peatedly informed that the Irish are dis- reiterated complaints of the Irish were fully contented. Can such a disposition exist justified, who were thus, after centuries of without a cause. Are not the people in misrule, promised redress from an imall countries what their governments make perial parliament. The most defective them? If they feel happy and content, it part of Irish policy, has ever been found is because the system observed towards to consist in the unnatural and unprecethem is liberal and kind. When they dented proscription of the people. The complain and resist, they have been ill noble viscount (Castlereagh) declares that treated and outraged *. Look to the it would be a happy circumstance, for Hugonots in France of your own religion, Ireland, and for the empire, that sectarian ever discontented; Why? because they interests did not so much prevail. Mr. felt themselves insulted, stigmatized, and Pitt, aware of these feuds, designed to inoppressed. Such were your ancestors, the fuse new health and vigour into the state, Britons, when they formed a plot to mur- by erasing from the statute book, the der their Danish tyrants. Such the principle of exclusion. The noble visSaxons, until they became amalgamated count would not say that something might with the Normans. Such the presbyte- not have passed at the Union, some exrians in Scotland, until they had com- traneous circumstances, calculated to expletely emancipated their religion. Such cite the expectations of the catholics; the people of England, previous to the but he is positive that no direct pledge death of the first Charles, and the revolu- had been given, and he admits that the tion. Such the Sicilians at the close of Irish government were glad to have the the 15th century. Such the Anglo Ame- concurrence of the Catholics on that ocearicans. So is man, so has he ever been sion. Might he not have added, that this in all countries! By the Revolution of measure could not have been effected, had 1688 in England, the people were pro- the Catholics been hostile, and will not tected in all their rights as citizens, and his lordship confess that they would have had a complete and equal interest in the been decidedly so, had they expected constitution, whereas the severe and jea- that the Union was to bar their just claims lous policy of the Irish Revolution dispos- and expectations. And does he not recolsessed of property, disqualified and out- lect that while lord Cornwallis in the most raged several millions of the inhabitants.- positive manner declared, that the prinIn England, the people triumphed over a ciple of exclusion did not form a part of faction; in Ireland a faction over the the measure of Union, the servants of his people. In England the religion establish- government, and his most active partied, was that of the people-in Ireland, zans were at the same moment occupied though the religion of the people (the Ca-in diffusing Mr. Pitt's speeches, which tholic) was by treaty solemnly sanctioned -that of the state was Protestant, and professed by the very few, while ultimately the Catholic religion became proscribed. The Revolution of Ireland, which did not take place till three years after that of England, namely, in October 1691, was the establishment of power of the smaller number, at the expense of the eivil liberties and properties of the far greater part, and of the political liberties of the whole. The fundamental principles of your Revolution, and the stipulations * In 1704 the Hugonots destroyed in the course of a few months in Languedoc 4,000 Catholics, 80 priests, and at the same time they burnt 200 chapels. were spread throughout Ireland, parti cularly in the most catholic counties, by means of post office expresses, on which speeches there could be but one construction by any jury, namely, that that minister was favourable to emancipation, and desirous to hold out the strongest expectations to the Catholics of the total repeal of the penal code after the Union. Therefore the Catholics may fairly be considered as deluded, and cajoled. They were induced not to oppose their national degradation in the hope of finishing that justice here, which the discussions at that period taught them to expect. But says the noble viscount, and another late secretary of state (Mr. Canning)" there has been no opportune moment, for consider the House*, but as from extensive informa- ing their claims since that event." No opportune moment! to appease the discontents, and to avail ourselves of the united energies of a brave and high spirited people? What! not when Buonaparté was over-running Holland, Switzerland, Italy! not when he had in one day annihilated the power of the house of Brandenburgh!-not when on the banks of the Niemen, he threatened the ruin of the Russian empire! Not when twice in possession of the Austrian capital! or now, when on the eve of being the undisputed master of Spain, Portugal, and the whole continent of Europe! Did none of these events following each other in rapid succession since the Union, and most of them during the administration of these gen. tlemen-did none of these afford in their judgment, an opportune moment for union and conciliation? What are the political resolutions they yet expect? or do they wait for the convulsions of nature? The right hon. ex-secretary (Mr. Canning) says he is not prepared to give the triumph to Catholic or Protestant-to grant the victory to either side." To talk of triumph, where batle is humiliating, and victory disgusting!--where liberty would mourn and despotism exult!-where the eleva-pressed the tale; convinced indeed that tion of France, and the subversion of the empire, would be the disastrous result of so unnatural a contest!!! "oblivion was patriotism, and concord salvation." The learned judge professes his willingness to forgive! ere he assumes the attributes of mercy and offers pardon, let him recollect who were the aggressors, and that forgiveness is the grand privilege of the injured! His allusion to those late events, which he reminded us were fresh in the memory of the youngest, must have referred to the Does he mean to disturbances in 1798. insinuate that they originated in religious animosities? His political divinity Mr. Pitt, declared positively that they did not. The Catholics may with the most perfecttruth be absolved from having created that rebellion. Many Catholics it is true, were concerned, for when any country is These discussions on the Catholic claims have been peculiarly remarkable for the variety of ways in which they have been resisted. Every species of argument has been successively urged and resisted, and every accusation, however illiberal, false, and ridiculous, repelled. Formerly the press teemed with libels, and even within the walls of parliament every unBut it generous invective was uttered. has of late appeared to be the wish of gentlemen to oppose this measure by their silent unexplained votes, rather than by courting discussion. Even the renowned champion of intolerance (the member for Armagh) has been shamed, or counselled to silence. We sometimes indeed hear of *This University makes but an ill rehis productions, but only to blush for and quital. She had some of her early founcondemn them. But the right honourable ders from Ireland-and if Nicholson, Usher, Ware and Bede be not fabulists, and learned member for Oxford has now entered the lists in a more formidable, be- the Irish not only hospitably received, cause a less tangible shape, for whilst he and educated the children of Britain, but refrains from stating charges which might assisted her to establish her own schools. be repelled, he insinuates every thing. and colleges-in return she destroyed It was doubtless his duty to have obeyed those of Ireland, and banished the Irish the wishes of his constituents, by sub-student; but such ingratitude is not new mitting their opinions on this question to in Irish story. |