HC Deb 21 February 1825 vol 12 cc598-611

After several petitions had been presented to the House both for and against the passing of this bill, Mr. Goulbourn moved the order of the day for its second reading.

Lord Nugent

said, he should begin by stating, that he should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months. And, if he felt no other objections to this measure, he should have found sufficient reason for opposing it in every stage, in the singular and remarkable circumstance, that with respect to a bill which, from the commencement of the session to the present hour, had occupied more of the attention of the House than any measure perhaps ever did, hardly two of his majesty's ministers had been found to agree as to the state of the country to which it referred, the motives for proposing it to parliament, or the results which might be anticipated from it. If the right hon. Secretary, and the right hon. Attorney-general for Ireland, were right in the opinion which they entertained of the extensive influence exercised by the Catholic Association over the Catholic population, then the right hon. Secretary for foreign affairs must be wrong in the opinion which he expressed on the first day of the session, and which he had never since retracted or qualified. If, on the contrary, that right hon. gentleman was right in supposing that the Association represented neither the feelings nor the wishes of the Catholics, then, on the other hand, the two right hon. gentlemen first mentioned must be wrong in their view of the case; and yet, if they deferred to the opinion of their right hon. colleague, they must abandon their prime argument in support of the bill. The opinions of the right hon. gentlemen were directly opposed to each other. One objected to the Association because it did not represent the feeling and wishes of the Catholics, and the others because it did. Either might be right; but it was impossible that both could be so. The right hon. Secretary for the home department objected to the Association, because it kept Ireland in a state of disturbance, and the hon. member for Lowth (Mr. L. Foster) disliked it, because it had placed Ireland in that state which he considered most dangerous of all; namely, perfect repose. When the supporters of the measure differed thus as to the grounds on which they considered it necessary, what result could be anticipated from it in common? If, after the passing of the bill, Ireland should continue tranquil, and exhibit no signs of dissatisfaction or disaffection, the right hon. Secretary for foreign affairs would conceive his opinion of the small influence of the Association to have been substantiated. If, on the contrary, disaffection and an alienation of feeling on the part of the Catholic population should be the consequence of the measure, the right hon. Secretary and Attorney-general for Ireland, would then assert, that they had taken a correct view of the influence of the Association. For his own part, he would most strenuously oppose the bill; first, because not only had no case been made out in support of it, but that an offer to prove a case against it, by evidence, oral and documentary given at the bar, had been rejected. In the second place, he objected to the bill, because, even if a case had been made out for it, it was extremely bad, inasmuch as it was incapable of producing any other effect than irritation in the minds of those against whom it was directed. No case has been made out even against what the hon. members opposite looked upon as the great evil of the Association—the interference with courts of justice. He objected to the bill in the third place, because it was to be taken, if not as an indication that the part of the cabinet which had hitherto supported the Catholic question had at length deserted it, at least as being intended as a peace-offering to their less pliant Anti-Catholic associates. On the mere declaration of ministers that the measure was necessary, without any evidence being given in support of it, the House was called upon to pass a highly penal bill, which was certain to fail in its operation. The House was called upon to pass the bill, in the hope that those against whom it was directed would feel so much deference and respect for the declared will of parliament, that they would not attempt to evade it. In the name of common sense, what ground was there for expecting such deference on the part of the Catholic Association? Was it because ministers had been kind and considerate enough to introduce a penal law against a body, comprising amongst its members the first men of rank and talent in the country; or because they had been wise enough to frame the law, so that it would be utterly impossible that it should have any effect, without the consent and acquiescence of those against whom it was directed? The Attorney-general for Ireland had consoled himself with the idea, that the individuals who stood at the head of the Association, and whose names would confer distinction on any deliberative body—even on those two from which they were so unjustly excluded—would endeavour to seek out, and conform themselves to, the intentions of parliament. He must say, that for his own part he did not understand the intention of the bill. What a situation was parliament placed in, when it recommended a body of men not to invade an act passed expressly against themselves. This, too, after all the vapouring which he had heard about the dignity of parliament, and not being bullied into granting the Catholic claims! The language which had been made use of was neither more nor less than this "We, the parliament, have passed an act to send you, the Catholics, all to prison; but we know that if you have common shrewdness, you may evade the penalty, and we therefore beg that you will be good enough, both for your own sakes and for ours, to conform to our wishes." He had never before known, except in one instance, where a public decree of such a nature depended for its efficacy upon the indirect recommendation of its framers. The instance to which he alluded was this; when the late king of France was in exile in this country, a French emigrant nobleman, who had resided with his majesty, was charged with some supposed offence against the laws of France. The nobleman was cited to appear at the house of the exiled sovereign to answer the charge before a bed of justice. He refused to attend. He was found guilty in his absence, and the sentence of the court was communicated to him, ordering him just to consider himself as being confined for a given interval within the walls of the Conciergerie at Paris. So that, whilst the convicted nobleman was enjoying his liberty about the streets of the British metropolis, he was, in contemplation of French law, as well as in the opinion of every loyal subject of the exiled monarch, undergoing the rigorous sentence of imprisonment in a prison in Paris. However, he was at last released from his imaginary imprisonment by the hand of death. The supporters of the present measure told the House, that it was not likely that any attempt would be made to invade the provision of the bill. That the gentlemen against whom it provided, and who were of the highest and most respectable station in Ireland, would conduct themselves discreetly and advisedly, he had no doubt; but it could not be denied, that the persons over whom the act was to extend, were persons over whom they had no control but such as affection afforded; and that being destroyed, little could be expected from them. The alternate course of advising and threatening, put him in mind of the West Indian, story of, "If you flog, flog; if you preach, preach; but no flogging and preaching both at the same time!" So he would say; if you advise them, advise them as friends; if you proscribe them, proscribe them as enemies, but for Heaven's sake do not act both parts at the same time. As to the mere question of whether the Catholic Association was to be destroyed or not, he thought it one of no further importance—for it would be sure to make its appearance again in another shape except that it would tend to exasperate the Irish population. There were two ways of pacifying Ireland; one was by concession, the other by proscription. The former was the easiest, and the most complete mode. Why, he asked for the ninety-ninth time, should not emancipation he granted to the Catholics? The right hon. Secretary for the home department opposed emancipation, because he considered it to be incompatible with the security of the Protestant church establishment in Ireland. He believed the right hon. gentleman to be sincere in that opinion. But, why did those who had united themselves to the administration, and who always recommended emancipation as a panacea for all the ills of Ireland—why did they now, when the malady was raging, apply a blister which could only irritate? He would never consent to the passing of the bill until parliament was informed of the conditions which lord Wellesley had coupled with his recommendation of the measure. He could not believe that that distinguished individual could, at this time of day, be weak enough to change his opinions, or base enough to sacrifice them. Could it be, that one half of lord Wellesley's recommendation had been attended to, and the other half rejected—that the cabinet had been accessory to withholding half of the noble lord's despatch, in order to give an undisputed victory to the other part? It was the duty, not alone of the friends of the Catholics, but of every friend of liberty, to oppose the bill. He believed that the closest sympathy existed between the Association and the Catholic body in Ireland, and he knew that it was the case with respect to the Catholics of England. There had been very little communication of feeling between the English Catholics and the Irish Association, until this attack upon that body; but now every Catholic in England, from the earl-marshal, the Howards, the Talbots, and the Arundels, down to the meanest peasant, was pledged to link his fate with that of the Association. The right of free discussion was the only plank which was left to the despairing Catholics; and to that they would cling to the last moment.

Sir E. Knatchbull

gave his hearty support to the bill. He thought that a body which possessed such power as the Catholic Association ought to be put down; for although, as it was said, they had only hitherto exercised it for good, they might exercise it for harm. He had always, from conscientious motives, opposed the Catholic question, and he would always continue to oppose it. He felt it due to his constituents to say thus much.

Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald

, the knight of Kerry, said, he would endeavour to avoid those topics which had already been touched upon in the course of the discussion which had taken place on the subject, and confine himself to suggesting some practical considerations which bore upon the question, and were, he thought, worthy of the attention of ministers. The ground on which it was proposed to pass the bill was, the danger of suffering such a body as the Catholic Association to exist. He had already acknowledged the danger of the existence of a body which had it in its power to wield the mass of the people. If he were to attempt to contradict that position, he should only be abusing the patience of the House. But, the question was, were ministers taking a proper course to correct such a state of things? It appeared to him, that ministers had taken the effect for the cause. The Association was not the cause of the present danger, but the state of things which threw the population into the hands of such a body; and that was the effect of the postponement of that justice to the people of Ireland which they had been looking to parliament for during twenty-five years. He attributed the present state of things in Ireland to Mr. Pitt's administration. That minister told the people of Ireland, that by consenting to a Union with England, they would open a door to a fair discussion of their claims. The hopes of the Catholics were raised, and they looked forward with confidence to the justice and wisdom of the United Parliament. They were disappointed; and from that period did he date the commencement of that unhappy state of things which at present prevailed in Ireland. What had gentlemen on his side of the House been telling ministers for the last twenty years but that dissatisfaction would increase in Ireland every year, until it would arrive at a pitch which would be fearful to contemplate? There was nothing in the character of the measure before the House to allay the danger of the slate of Ireland. The danger was not the Association in Dublin, but that the Catholics were united. The bill would not remove the danger, though it might drive it to other modes of expression. Was this bill to be the only measure of slate policy with regard to Ireland? Min- isters had declared that the country wa9 in a state of positive progressive prosperity. No doubt it was. But, in the present state of things, increasing prosperity was not a source of security; the growing strength of Ireland must be considered as a curse, and not a blessing to the empire. On that very circumstance a foreign enemy would ground his expectation of a successful invasion. Did ministers mean to say that they were themselves satisfied with the growing prosperity of Ireland? He would ask the House to consider what had been the history of Ireland since the Union. At the period of the Union, the Catholic aristocracy, and that most respectable body, the hierarchy, reposed boundless confidence in the government, and the mass of the people followed the example which they set them of zeal in support of the laws. That was a period when the ministry might have carried the Catholic question without a murmur, and without producing any effect, except that of placing Ireland in a state of permanent tranquillity and happiness. That would have healed the wound which former rebellions and that treacherous measure, the Union, had made. If since that period the Catholic body had undergone a complete change—if, instead of a nobility, and a hierarchy wielding the minds of the people—if, instead of the general subordination of ranks which then prevailed, the Catholic body had been drawn into a chaos, and thrown into the hands of men who would not, at any other time, have directed them, to what was it to be attributed but to their disappointed hopes; If a people were insulted, and degraded, and rendered desperate, it was not surprising that their direction should fall into the hands of the boldest and ablest men amongst them. The present measure indeed, as regarded even the views of its promoters, was a most extraordinary one? for it professed to rely less upon its own internal power, than upon the peaceful-ness, and reasonableness, and honour, and good feeling, of those against whom it was directed. Some honourable members went so far as actually to declare, not their belief that it might not be evaded, but their trust that it would be scrupulously acquisesced in. But, was there ever such an argument set up to justify a course of violence and coercion? "We do not imagine that we can make you obey us," said the advocates of the measure to the leaders of the Catholics, "but we rely on your characters, on your state in society, on your known love of your country, to make you do so." Why, if these were the qualities among the Catholics which ministers looked for, and depended upon, in the name of Heaven, would they not do better to treat with such qualities upon some footing of conciliation? This was the course by which ministers might dissolve the Catholic Association. By some pledge given to the Catholics of Ireland that their case should be fairly, actively, seriously discussed, and immediately. Let such a pledge as that come only from authority, and the Catholic Association, in spite of all the leaders in the world, was extinct. It would melt away of itself, dissolve, and no power on earth would either keep it together' or be able to reproduce it. Let the House be sure that the Catholics of Ireland would see their own interest too clearly not to attend to such a proposition. Honourable gentlemen talked of apprehending ulterior views; and one hon. baronet had thanked a right hon. gentleman for his assurance that, in every measure contemplated on behalf of the Catholics, the safety of the established Church would be amply provided for. Why the security of the established Church lay in the grant of the Catholic claims—its fullest, and almost its only security. The Catholics themselves wished to take that very view, and no other of the subject. He believed in his heart, that if the tithes of Ireland were offered to the Catholic clergy to-morrow, they would have too much good sense, too much knowledge of their own interest, to accept them; and in saying this, he only gave them credit for knowing their own interests better than to wish to stand in the shoes of a clergy who were maintained by such an unfortunate mode of provision. There were some other circumstances, than those which had yet been adverted to, which should induce the House to consider well at what time, as well as in what manner, they were acting. Feeling, as he did, much anxiety for the present political condition of Ireland, that anxiety was further increased by a reference to what was going on upon the continent. Perhaps there were some among the opponents of Catholic emancipation who would think he was now advancing an argument in their favour; but he did confess that he looked with great jealousy at the increasing religious zeal now visible in foreign Catholic countries. He thought he saw in the breast of the present Pope, an intention, which all despotic governments would be ready enough to assist, to revive, as far as possible, in the present day, that commanding influence which the Catholic Church had formerly exercised over the great mass of society. That there existed a disposition, and a strong one, in the Court of France to do this was undoubted; and it would not be very difficult to give that disposition an influence in Ireland. If the Catholic faith was to be denounced in England; if the Catholics of Ireland—for this was the doctrine of some gentlemen—were to be shut out for ever; if they could only be safely admitted to their rights, and this were plainly told them, by ceasing to be Catholics, was there nothing to be apprehended from the inflammatory paragraphs with which the papers of the continent were filled, characterising England peculiarly as the country of intolerance, and telling her to look at Ireland, when she talked of having given liberty to the world? The ultra newspapers of France spoke out—"England dares not go to war, for Ireland is a magazine of gunpowder, which a single spark would explode upon her bands." Was it supposed that these newspapers did not reach, or that they were not understood by the Irish Catholics? After all that this country had done to reestablish in France the throne of the Bourbons, he doubted whether that House would not be more ready to tamper with the population of Ireland than the government which we had overthrown. He believed that Napoleon Buonaparte would never have stirred up a religious war; but he was far from entertaining the same opinion with respect to the present reigning family. In fact, there stood the inflammatory declarations he alluded to: the French papers were full of them. It was by no means unlikely that an attempt might be made to organize an Irish brigade once more in France; for the courage and fidelity of the old force of that description, the House of Bourbon would not have forgotten. And, what was the remedy against all this? The remedy was clear—the declarations of Ireland herself plainly indicated it. The people of Ireland said to this country—"We value the franchise of your constitution beyond every other advantage. All we ask is to be included in it—to enjoy that which, under it you all enjoy yourselves." If, they thought otherwise than this, they needed not be long without getting rid of all necessity for urging the question of Catholic claims. And, if the measure before the House was carried, what practical advantage would be gained from it? He did not mean to enter into any justification of particular expressions: in opposing a bill like the present, he was not bound to do so; but he desired to correct an error which had been made with respect to his observation on a former evening—that, to understand some of the phrases charged against the Catholic Association properly, it was necessary that a man should be an Irishman. What he had meant, and still meant, to say, was this, with reference to the expression "By the hate you bear to Orangemen," it was hardly possible for a man, who was not a native of Ireland, to understand the state of parties in that country. Gentlemen did not know—they could not feel—the rooted hatred which the Catholics of Ireland bore to the Orange party, and the Orange party to the Catholics—for the aversion was mutual. This was the fact which became material, and by which he had intended to explain the word "hate," as contained in the address of the Association. There was no intention to awaken hatred in the expression—"By the hate you bear to Orangemen:" the allusion was to that hatred which every man who was to read the address knew already existed. This very feeling was breaking out in bloodshed whenever the population were left to themselves; and the charge was, "By the existence even of that feeling, we conjure you to avoid such acts of criminal violence." And, after all, if a little indiscreet language had been used, was not the same mistake frequently occurring in that very House? A late noble marquis (Londonderry) had said, in speaking of the Catholic question, that he would rather have a good Catholic, than a bad Protestant, as a member of the House. The bad Protestant meant a Protestant who thought, he (Mr. M. Fitzgerald) apprehended, as he had the honour to think himself; and certainly he was inclined to doubt himself if such Protestants did not argue questions like the present, more hotly, sometimes, than the Catholics would do themselves. If the language, all of it, were examined, which had been used in the course of the debate on the present measure, perhaps a good deal of it would be found even more in- flammatory than that employed by the Catholic Association; but still that fact would hardly justify a bill which was to limit the liberty of discussion. Once more he would ask, what was to be gained by the bill, supposing it to pass? If the House did cut oft' the head of one Association—"non deficit alter." The existing society might be put down; but what was gained if a variety of smaller ones immediately arose, having the same end and object precisely in view, and extending themselves through every county or parish throughout the country? There was much complaint as to the intemperate language used: but the bill would not prevent a set of Irish gentlemen from meeting at dinner, nor could the House think that their speeches would be more temperate after dinner than before it.

Colonel Trench

said, that instead of occupying the time of the House with any observations of his own, he would read a catalogue of what had been done for the improvement of Ireland within a few years; and on the other hand he would shew, by way of contrast, the conduct of the Association. He would then leave it to the gentlemen of England to decide whether this Association ought not to be put down. He would rather that they should decide the question than those who were, like himself, connected with Ireland. All that parliament could do had been done. The main evils of Ireland were not within the reach of legislation; but the legislature had sown the seeds of happiness, peace, and tranquillity, from which might be expected a harvest of comfort and contentment. But the baneful and counteracting influence employed was equally clear. The good would have been felt but for the blighting influence of the Association, led on by the ambitious views of individuals who would be sorry to see peace in Ireland. The first benefit, he had to point out was, the new organization and better establishment of the sheriffs in Ireland. The right administration of the law had been enforced. The next benefit was the improvement of the Customs and Excise. This had been felt in the remotest part of Ireland. Another benefit was the total repeal of the Assessed taxes. The Distillery laws had in the same way been modified and improved, by which smuggling was repressed, and young men who had lived in hostility to the government were rendered sober and industrious Manu- factures, too, had been introduced, and the education of the people promoted. He lamented that impediments were thrown in the way of education, by the injudicious zeal of those who would accompany it with their tenets and peculiar doctrines. If education merely, without any religious interference, were encouraged, it would produce the greatest blessings to that country. The tithe-commutation was another great benefit. Those who were against the peace of Ireland, were against a measure calculated to reconcile the Protestant clergy with the population. The reform of the magistracy was an important benefit, for local prejudices often rendered magistrates unable to fufil their several duties. The Catholic clergy, he was of opinion, ought to be paid by the government, and liberally paid. But there were some things of the utmost importance to Ireland, which the government could not effect; such as moderate rents, forbearance in exacting them, and decent habitations. Now, what had the Catholic Association done to counteract these advantages? They collected what they called Rent, and all who did not contribute to it were held up to the execration of the country. The Catholic Association had unbounded influence over the poorer classes. The great leader of the Association, one who knew well the disposition of the people, had characterized them as warm, enthusiastic, brave, generous, easily impressed, and easily excited. What must the House think of the effect upon such a people of vehement declamation on their insulted and degraded state? They might well be supposed to be rendered desirous of risking any thing for a change. With regard to the language which had been held at the meetings of the Association, and in its addresses, it was said that single passages were selected. It would not be difficult to point out, however, many others quite as objectionable as those which had already been read to the House. The hon. member then quoted several passages from the documents of the Catholic Association; and concluded by saying, that the question of Catholic claims ought, in his opinion, to be referred entirely to the country gentlemen of England; and that the eloquence with which those claims had been supported, ought not to deter them from that course which they esteemed to be their duty.

Mr. Sykes

expressed his astonishment at the favourable view which had just been taken of the condition of Ireland, especially when he recollected the very different opinion which had been given on the same subject no longer ago than last year. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to say, that the opinion of the great body of the people of England had become changed on the subject of the Catholic question. It was now generally admitted, that a man might be of a different religion from the great body, and yet be capable of enjoying all his civil rights. In the very populous town which he had the honour to represent, all feeling of illiberality on the score of religion had, in a very great degree, declined. He remembered a time when those who supported the Catholic question were not only unpopular in the town of Hull, but were in some personal danger; but now, he not only professed himself favourable to the Catholics of Ireland, but a decided advocate for their claims; and he was certain that at the next election he should not find one enemy on that ground. The fact was, the eyes of the people were opened. They were becoming every day more enlightened, and saw the absurdity and injustice of depriving any man of his civil privileges on account of his religious opinions. It was impossible to look at this measure in any other light, than as an attempt to put down the Catholic Association, without reference to any other society. Was there any one who atetmpted to argue it on any other ground? It was true, the Association might be put down; but would the bill have the effect of repressing the spirit of the Catholics of Ireland? Whatever might be its immediate effects, he was satisfied it would, in the result, do more harm than good. With respect to the Association itself, it must be considered as growing out of the state of the public mind in Ireland, on the subject of the Catholic question. As to the mode in which they should be treated, he would suggest— Be to their virtues very kind, Be to their faults a little blind. Coercion, such as this bill proposed, would be wholly ineffectual.

Mr. Grenfell

wished to explain an observation which he made on this subject the other night, and which seemed to have been wholly misunderstood. He had said, after hearing the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that if this Association interfered with the administration of justice, it ought not to be suffered to exist, and he would give his vote for putting it down; but he did not pledge himself to give his support to the particular means by which that object was to be effected; and now, after having perused the bill, he was prepared to oppose its second reading. He should repeat what he had before stated, that for one million of Protestants to attempt to coerce six millions of Catholics was injustice—that to perpetuate that injustice was oppression—that if, thus injured and oppressed, the Catholics did resist, he prayed to the Almighty God that such resistance might be succesful [cheers].

Mr. Philips

denied that the existence of the Association had prevented Englishmen from embarking their capital in business in Ireland. The manufacturers of Lancashire were not at all afraid to send over their cotton-twist into that country, and that trade was extending every day. He believed that as long as tranquillity continued in Ireland, whether produced by the measures of government, or the influence of the Association, Englishmen would not object to send their capital to Ireland; but though the country was now tranquil, he was convinced that its tranquillity would not be permanent, unless it rested upon an amicable settlement of the Catholic question. That he could hardly hope for, so long as he saw the Cabinet divided upon this important question. He was almost ashamed of the name of Englishman, when he reflected on the degradation to which England was exposed throughout Europe, even in the eyes of the Holy Alliance, by her illiberally on the ground of religious differ-rence.

The House divided: For the second reading of the Bill, 253; For the Amendment 107; Majority, 146.

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J. Cavendish, lord G. A. H.
Althorp, visc.
Anson, hon. G. Cavendish, C.
Benyon, B. Coke, W. T. (Norfolk)
Benett, J.
Bentinck, lord W. Colborne, N. W. R.
Birch, J. Cradock, S.
Brougham, H. Crompton, S.
Browne, Dom. Davies, T. H.
Bury, visc. Denison, W. J.
Byng, G. Dundas, hon. T.
Calcraft, J. H. Ebrington, visc.
Calvert, C. Ellice, E.
Carew, R. S. Evans, W.
Carter, J. Fergusson, sir R.
Caulfield, hon. H. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Folkestone, visc. Palmer, C. F.
French, A. Parnell, sir H.
Glenorchy, visc. Phillips, G.
Graham, S. Phillips, G. R. jun.
Grattan, J. Power, R.
Grenfell, P. Price, R.
Guise, sir B. W. Pym, F.
Gurney, R. H. Ramsden, J. C.
Hamilton, lord A. Rice, T. S.
Heron, sir R. Ridley, sir M. W.
Hill, lord A. Robarts, A. W.
Hobhouse, J. C. Robarts, G. J.
Honywood, W. P. Robertson, A.
Hornby, E. Robinson, sir G.
Howard, H. G. Rowley, sir W.
Hume, J. Rumbold, C. E.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H. Scott, J.
Sefton, earl of
James, W. Smith, J.
Johnson, W. A. Smith, G.
Kingsborough, lord Somerville, sir M.
Knight, R. Stanley, lord
Lamb, hon. G. Stuart, lord P. J.
Lambton, J. G. Sykes, D.
Leader, W. Talbot, R. W.
Leycester, R. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Lushington, S. Townshend, lord C.
Maberly, J. Wall, C. B.
Maberly, W. L. Warre, J. A.
Macdonald, J. Webbe, E.
Mackintosh, sir J. Whitbread, S. C.
Mahon, hon. S. Whitbread, W. H.
Marjoribanks, S. White, S.
Martin, J. White, col.
Martin, R. Wilson, sir R.
Milton, visc. Wood, M.
Newport, sir J. Wyvill, M.
Normanby, visc.
O'Brien, sir E. TELLERS.
Ord, W. Nugent, lord
Osborne, lord F. G. Calcraft, J.