HL Deb 29 July 1807 vol 9 cc989-96
Lord Hawkesbury

moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. He felt it to be a measure of great importance, and it was natural to expect he should adduce some reasons for its adoption. Measure of a similar nature had often been resorted to by the parliament of Ireland, the necessity of which had grown out of the French revolution, and the principles which the authors of it had attempted to disseminate throughout every country. Associations had at different times been entered into in that part of the empire, in which oaths wet administered, and engagements entered in to, for the worst of purposes. To counteract these practices, a bill of the nature of the present was first introduced. If such practices were dangerous then, how much more so must they be in the present state of Europe and of the empire, and when fate of Ireland was more closely linked than ever with the fate of this country; and Of the continent? He could not, under such circumstances, foresee that any material objections would be made to the bill not only because it was brought forward a milder shape than that in which the parliament of Ireland had passed it, but be- cause it was known to have been in the contemplation of the late administration to bring forward a measure, little different from that which was now proposed, and with which, of course, the noble lords on the other side would not be much disposed to quarrel. In that hope, he should move that the bill be now read a second time.

Lord Holland rose ,

not to oppose the principle of the bill, or perhaps even its provisions, though there were some of them which he wished to see amended, but to give it an assent, which, however, was wrung from him with sorrow, and only by he gripe of an extreme and lamentable necessity. He felt it to be a necessity not only painful to his feelings, but degrading to his character as a member of that house. How long was the imperial parliament to continue to legislate for Ireland in the spirit of this measure, that is, in defiance of the best principles of the constitution, in the blessings of which we cannot allow that unfortunate country to participate? Were these the promises—are these the fruits of the union? But, if he was compelled to submit to the humiliation and the hardship of assenting to such a measure, the causes at least should be enquired into, which produced the dire necessity upon which alone it was attempted to be justified. These causes chiefly appeared to be, the disabilities that hung upon the Catholics in that distracted country, the pressure of the tithes, and the efforts that were systematically made to keep alive religious animosities between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland. On each of these causes, the noble lord descanted. He was well acquainted with the character of Irishmen, and no character did he ever see more conspicuously marked by benevolence, generosity, and courage: what, then, was it that created in that country those inextinguishable discontents which called so often for the enactment of measures like the present? It must be something of a nature the most imperious, when it urged men to forego the blessings of civilized society itself, and the advantages of a constitution such as this country boasted of and was blessed with. That was the source of the evil which we were bound to explore; and,if it was duly explored, the remedy must soon be discovered. The fact was, the great majority of the people of Ireland were deprived of the full enjoyment of the constitution, and they felt themselves injured and degraded by the suspicions which gave rise to that deprivation. Englishmen loved and admired the constitution, because they enjoyed all its benefits; could it then be fairly expected that the people of Ireland should equally love and admire that constitution, from the full enjoyment of the benefits of which they were debarred? No, it was not in the nature of things; it was not in the composition of the human heart indulge them in that fair enjoyment, and their murmurs would be appeased and silenced. As to the tithes, he was happy to think that ministers meditated some measure of relief; and it so, they so far should have his most cordial support. Would that they might also be brought to discountenance the means by which religious animosities were fomented in Ireland, where, by the principles instilled by the catechisms taught in the charter schools, the infant mind of the Protestant was poisoned with prejudices against the Catholic. Yet those who encourage that system of education, accuse the Catholic of uncharitableness and intolerance#x2014;the early vices which they themselves must be conscious they are indulging against those very persons to whom they impute. But was not that the height of uncharitableness? Was it not refinement of tyranny, a tyranny that fell short of that which characterized that most accomplished of tyrants, Tiberius? In all that he had said, however, with respect to the exclusion of the Catholics from what he considered their rights, let him not be misunderstood to suppose, that it ought to be a motive on their part for disaffection much less for forming a connection with another country. He could not blame them, under that exclusion, for loving the constitution a little less than the people of this country; but although their right might be diminished, they would assuredly obtain no rights whatever, by connecting themselves with another country; they would obtain nothing but a government by the sword.

The Earl of Limerick

was sorry to hear the language and the sentiments that fell from the noble lord, for they could be productive of no good. Why eternally introduce the claims of the Catholics? why insinuate that they had reason not to love the constitution, and that at a moment when they enjoyed almost every thing the constitution could bestow? If the noble lord wised to trace the cause of the discontents in Ireland, he perhaps might find them in this country, and trace them to such speeches as he himself had just made. He might also trace their object to the principles avowed by the leaders of the late rebellion in that country, who avowed themselves to have other objects in view than Catholic emancipation, or parliamentary reform. Against the operation of such principles it was that measures like the present must be adopted; and perhaps the more frequent enforcement of them might have prevented the spreading of disorder and the mischiefs that sprung from them. He admired much the personal character of the noble duke who was lately at the head of the Irish government; but had that noble person allowed the county of Mayo to be proclaimed during the excesses of the Threshers, the contagion would not have spread into the adjoining counties, and many persons would have escaped from the sword of justice, who, on account of that injudicious lemity, had fallen under it. So little was the real state of Ireland understood, and consequently so ill adapted the means employed to govern it!

The Duke of Bedford

felt himself called upon to answer so serious a charge as that which the noble earl had made against him, and which amounted to nothing less than that the blood of the unfortunate people who lost their lives in consequence of the late disturbances in Ireland must rest upon his head, In reply to this, he begged leave to state, that shortly after his arrival in Ireland, he received an application, not from the county of Mayo, but from the magistrates of the county of Sligo, to proclaim martial law there; but after every attention he could give to the subject, and after taking the best counsel he could procure, he thought so severe measure unnecessary, and therefore resisted the application. He was satisfied in his own conscience, that his intentions were good. He had acted according to the best of his judgment, and he left it to the country to decide upon his conduct.

The Earl of Limerick ,

in explanation, observed, that he had never Said that the blood of the people who had suffered was on the head of the noble Juke. He had only stated his opinion, that if this law had been applied on the first appearance of the disturbances, the extension of the insurrection would have been prevented.

Lord Kingston

contended, that the magistrates in the county of Sligo were the real promoters of the disturbances. The conduct of many of them was such, as to disgrace the magistracy; and some of them rather deserved to be hanged than to be made magistrates. Indeed, he knew one one of them, who had the halter round his neck, during the rebellion: and if such were the heads how could the people be brought to respect them?

The Earl of Hardwicke

was inimical to the practice of proclaiming districts where it could possibly be avoided. With respect to the bill, its necessity had been so forcibly Urged to him by persons possessing a competent knowledge of the state of Ireland, that he could not object to it.

Lord Carleton

deprecated the tendency of that line of argument which the noble lord on the opposite bench (lord Holland) had thought proper to pursue, because he, thought that argument calculated to justify the disturbances which had so long agitated Ireland. With regard to the statements of the noble lords who had lately presided over the government of Ireland, he could not admit that they should operate against this bill. For although those noble lords, in the circumstances which arose during their respective administrations, saw no necessity for acting on the law which this bill proposed to re-enact, it did not therefore follow that the bill was unnecessary.

The Earl of Hardwicke ,

in explanation, stated, that this bill was much more obnoxious to him than the existing law, because by this bill the responsibility of those who were to execute the law was in a great measure done away in consequence of the introduction of new clauses.

The Earl of Selkirk

declared, that it was with the utmost reluctance he could give his assent to any such measure as that before the house; but being convinced of its necessity, he could not refuse to vote for the bill. He was convinced of the importance of conciliatory measures in Ireland, and he fully concurred in the opinion that nothing was more rare, than that a general spirit of disaffection should prevail in any country, except through the faults of the government. In Ireland, particularly, it was evident that the prevailing disaffection had proceeded from a long train of mismanagement: but this had been so long continued, and effects had become so inveterate, that it was impossible to remove the evil at once. Conciliatory measures might do much with the help of time, but their effect could only be gradual and pro- gressive. In the mean time, we knew that a violent spirit of disaffection was widely diffused, and against the immediate pressure of this danger it was absolutely necessary to guard. Where the people were affectionately disposed towards their rulers, the slightest exertion of authority might be sufficient to maintain the execution of the law: but if we should attempt to apply the same principles of conduct to a country, where so opposite a spirit prevailed as in Ireland, the most fatal effects might ensue. Experiencing, however, the excessive danger to which we were now exposed from the disaffection of Ireland, it was of the utmost importance not to rest satisfied with the measures of severity, to which we were compelled by the immediate pressure of danger, but to look forward, and take effectual measures for obtaining a radical and fundamental cure of the evil. The objections against the measure of Catholic emancipation he was convinced were groundless, and that the danger apprehended from putting power into the hands of the Catholics was imaginary. We now, indeed, saw the Catholics a formidable political party, closely combined among themselves; but if religious distinctions had never been made a ground of civil disabilities, that combination would never have existed. If civil disabilities were imposed on every man whose name began with a P, we should immediately force the P's to become a party, they would coalesce to obtain relief, and if violently opposed, they too would become violent and dangerous. If the Catholics were placed as to every civil privilege, on the same footing as other subjects, we should soon hear as little of the Catholics as a political party, as we hear of the faction of the P's. The only plausible argument to the contrary was founded on the ambition of the Romish clergy. Undoubtedly, it must be expected that they, like every other body of dissenting clergy, would cast a longing eye on the rich benefices of the established church. But there would be little to fear from the ambition of the Roman Catholic clergy, if the laity did not make a common cause with them. The true way, therefore, to disarm this danger, was to grant to the Roman Catholic laity all their separate objects. If the civil disabilities of the Catholics were repealed, there would be no longer any community of interest between their clergy and their understand the situation of Ireland, let us bring the case home to ourselves; let us suppose that the invasion of the enemy should be successful, that Our estates were to be parcelled out to French generals, that the property of every Englishman were to be abandoned as fair plunder to the French soldiery, that such of our gentry and yeomanry as should survive the ruin of their country, were forced to labour for their bread, beneath the contumelious taunts of a set of insolent foreigners, could any one believe that the people of England would soon be reconciled to their new masters, and would not eagerly grasp at any opportunity of throwing off the yoke? A long course of time might obliterate the memory of those galling circumstances, and, aided by a mild and conciliating policy, might blend the conquerors and the conquered into one people. But, if instead of a wise and conciliating policy, the intruders, giving way to their native insolence, should treat their subjects with contumely, abolish all their favourite institutions, insult their religion, and attempt to force an odious superstition upon them, seize every opportunity of marking contempt for their language and manners, and crown the whole by numerous instances of personal insult and oppression, would it be surprizing, if ages should elapse before the English nation were reconciled to their conquerors? And if such would be the feelings of Englishmen, could we wonder that the proscriptions of queen Elizabeth and James I., of Cromwell and of king William, should still excite indignation in the minds of the Irish? Among these causes of disaffection, religion had acquired an apparent Consequence which did not naturally belong to it, as it had become the badge of national distinction, and the bond of union among men, sympathizing in the same indignant feelings. But religious intolerance was so far from being the main and original cause of Irish disaffection, that, in the native dialect of the Irish, there was not a word to express the distinction of Protestant and Roman Catholic, except the national appellation of an Englishman and an Irishman. Till we were prepared to grant the demands of the Catholics, partial concessions, yielded to importunity, would only serve to keep up a spirit of restlessness, and fan the flame of discontent. The expectations which some have entertained from the measure which was brought forward by the late administration, seemed to be most extravagant. The catholics themselves disclaimed that measure, and yet we had heard noble lords speak as if it were at once to render the Irish a united people. With respect to the general question of Catholic Emancipation, the noble earl expressed his regret that the prevailing prejudices of this country were still so strong, that there was little probability that it could now be carried. These prejudices, however, were evidently on the decline. Notwithstanding all the attempts that had lately been made to raise a cry of No Popery, that cry had had but a very partial success; and when this was compared with the events of the year 1780, it afforded decisive proof of a progress in the public mind. That progress would assuredly go on, and the time might be anticipated, when it would be as little in the power of any minister to resist the measure of Catholic emancipation, as it would now be to carry it. The Roman Catholics might safely trust their cause to the effects of this progress in the public mind: and those could not be considered as their real friends, Who should force on any premature attempt to carry through the measure before circumstances were ripe for it.— The bill was then read a second time.