HC Deb 16 March 1821 vol 4 cc1265-9
Mr. Wilberforce

presented a petition from certain Roman Catholics of Staffordshire and Warwickshire, against the bills now in progress for the relief of the Catholics. He did not concur in the prayer of the petition; but as it had been forwarded to him, he had thought it his duty to present it.

Sir T. Lethbridge

said, that from the sentiments expressed by these petitioners, he would call upon the House to pause before they proceeded further with the bills now in the House, one of which went to give the Catholics what they wanted—the other to impose restraints upon them, to which they were not subjected at present. What reason could they have for thinking that these measures would satisfy the Catholics, when a petition like this was presented from them, with the name of Dr. Milner attached to it? If the bill, which the Catholics wished to pass into a law, were passed, the Protestants, he was sure, could not be satisfied, unless another bill were passed to impose such restrictions as could not be other than unpalatable to the Catholics. He could see no reason for two bills being brought in, unless he assumed that the one which the Catholics desired should be passed, was intended to be permanent, while the repeal of the other, at no distant period, was in contemplation. He had no doubt, that if these measures were passed, they would in a few years find the Catholics coming again to parliament to petition for the repeal of one of them. The loyalty and merit of the petitioners he would be the last man to deny. He had a great respect for the Catholics both of this country and of Ireland; but still he had ever thought it his duty to oppose their claims, and he would continue to do so. Granting all they desired would, in his opinion, be likely to subject the country to the same disasters which had unhappily been experienced at a former period of our history, and from which we had only relieved ourselves by means of laws—not like those now in force against the Roman Catholics, but by such as were in force fifty or sixty years ago. Of the repeal of those Taws which were no longer in force, be did not complain, but he hoped the House would not take a course that would be likely to reproduce the misery formerly experienced.

Mr. Plunkett

said, the hon. baronet had thought proper, in some degree, to anticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the House would shortly be directed, and he felt it necessary, therefore, to make one or two observations in reply to what had fallen from him. With respect to the signature of Dr. Milner, from which the hon. baronet appeared to derive so much satisfaction, he could not help saying that in that individual it was only an act of undeviating, consistent bigotry. If he had felt some exultation in his mind that a measure of the highest possible public good was now apparently on the point of attainment, it was with the deepest regret that lie witnessed an attempt to darken the prospect of happiness and security. The same evil spirit which in 1813 came forward to blast the hopes of the Catholics, was once more at work. The name of Dr. Milner was not at the head of this petition, but he was persuaded that he was the prime instigator of it—he was satisfied that he was at the bottom of a measure, the object of which was, to destroy once more the hopes of his Catholic fellow-subjects. He had a right to say, that the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of this country could not fairly be collected from this petition. The petition of the Roman Catholics of England, which was laid before the House a few nights ago, was signed by seven apostolic vicars. Now there were eight apostolic vicars in this country, and the eighth apostolic vicar, whose name was not annexed to that petition, who disavowed that spirit of conciliation which animated his brethren, was the same upon whose intervention the hon. baronet had that night thought proper to congratulate the House. That gentleman was the same person, who, in 1813, came forward on the eve of the adoption of a measure for the relief of the Catholics, and by whose interference that measure had been abandoned, he had been censured and disowned by the Catholic board; and the House would judge of the bigoted spirit of a man, who could publicly declare that the day on which Catholic emancipation was granted, would be a day of downfall of the Catholic religion in this country. What was the object of this man? What, but to prevent the possibility of Roman Catholic emancipation—to destroy all hopes of conciliation—to keep alive religious dissention—and render discord and dissatisfaction interminable, by perpetuating the distinctions between Protestants and Catholics. He had never expected a general concurrence; for it was visionary to expect the concurrence of bigotry. Bigotry was unchangeable; he cared not whether it was Roman Catholic bigotry or Protestant bigotry—its character was the same—its pursuits were the same—true to its aim, though besotted in its expectations—steady to its purpose, though blind to its interests, for bigotry time flowed in vain. It was abandoned by the tides of knowledge—it was left stranded by the waters of reason, and worshipped the figures imprinted on the sand, which were soon to be washed away. It was inaccessible to reason—it was irreclaimable by experience.

Mr. Bright

was satisfied that this question could never be set completely at rest, unless the House conceded all the Catholics required, or resolutely took their stand where they now were. All who approved the Catholic claims, were either directly, or by inference, accused of bigotry. Let the Protestant Dissenter be first raised to his proper rank in the state; and then it would be time enough to consider what ought to be done for the Catholic Dissenter.

Sir James Mackintosh

said, that the petition did not come before the House with that authority which might have been concluded from its title. There were in Staffordshire many ancient Catholic families, and yet none of those illustrious families, had put their names to the petition. He would ask, whether the omission of the names of the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Stourton, the Fitzherberts, the Cliffords, the Jerninghams, and others, who formed the ornament of the Catholic body, was no objection? He would have considered the authority of such names even superior to that of the right-reverend-vicar-apostolic. He would not apply the term bigotry to the Catholic, who on the one hand fanned the flame of dissention; or to the Protestant on the other, who laboured in the same unfortunate cause; but he was glad to find, that to a petition which was opposed to liberality, good sense, and the spirit of conciliation, there was not the name of a single Catholic gentleman of known respectability. The sole and undivided honour should be given to Dr. Milner, whom he believed to be the irreconcileable enemy of all union and mutual good-will between Protestant and Catholic, and it was not strange that such an enemy should be hailed by all Protestants, who, on the other side, held in alarm and detestation the union and sincere coalition of every class of his majesty's subjects.

After some further conversation, the Petition, together with several others, both for and against the claims of the Catholics, were ordered to lie on the table.