§ The order of the day having been read, for taking into consideration the Petitions of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the said Petitions were read by the clerk at the table.
The Earl of Donoughmorethen rose. He said, that the subject on which he was about to address himself to their lordships was not to be considered as the commencement of a treaty between two independent communities, at the outset of which it might be necessary, as it had been the usage, to lay down certain principles, respecting which both parties were agreed, as a ground and basis of negotiation, on which they were to proceed to the discussion of their respective interests. It was a firm but legitimate appeal for the redress of grievances to that branch of the supreme power of the state, on the part of a large portion of its constituent body. There could exist, under such circumstances, no relations of equality; and therefore no previous stipulations could be admitted as preliminaries either on the one side or on the other. It was equally competent to the supreme power to give or to withhold; so did it depend exclusively on its discretion in what manner, and accompanied by what other measures, if any may be deemed necessary, it shall think fit to restore to the Petitioners those constitutional privileges, of which they complained that they had been deprived.
The object of the notion with which he should conclude, was not to press that House at once for any fresh concessions to 646 those whose cause he had undertaken to plead—and therefore he should exclude from the consideration of the present question, because they would be premature, all those learned disquisitions of which they had heard so much, respecting the Veto proposed to be given to the crown in the appointment of their Bishops, or the Domestic Arrangement, which had been suggested in its stead. He would not turn aside, to compare the Resolutions of the Catholic Prelates in 1799, (framed as an answer to a direct proposal from a friendly government, and in the expressed confidence of approval by the sovereign pontiff,) with the Resolutions and Address of the same persons in September 1808 and February 1810, when the violence of the common enemy had deprived them of every means of communication with the spiritual head of their church—whose sanction they had declared at all times to be an indispensible requisite to any arrangement on their part, and when they could have had no possible inducement to suggest facilities to a decidedly hostile administration.
He did not feel it to be any part of his present duty to examine, for the purpose of endeavouring to reconcile them, those, misapprehensions, which had unhappily prevailed between their avowed agent, of whom he could never speak but with much respect, and some of their most conspicuous parliamentary friends. Those differences of opinion, however greatly to be lamented, had not deprived the Catholic cause of any one of its former supporters, in either House of Parliament; and, whatever their ultimate amount and value should be found to be, they could not, on any just principle of reasoning, be erected into an insurmountable obstacle, in limine, to any consideration of the Petitioners' case.
Many and weighty objects would, of course, press themselves upon their lordships' attention, when they should have once engaged in the good work of national conciliation to which they were then invited. Whenever that moment, so devoutly to be wished for, should arrive, the advocates for Catholic privilege, the enemies of the still existing system of proscription, would be prepared to enter into all the necessary details—they would be prepared to shew, that they sought; nothing for the petitioners which was not consistent with the perfect security of the Protestant state. That the tests, by which the petitioners were already bound, afford assu- 647 rances the most complete for the protection of all our establishments, civil and Veligious. That with respect to those alleged dangers which had been so much relied upon, from the possibility of foreign appointments to the prelacy of the Catholic church, they entertained the best founded confidence in the declared and cordial disposition of that community, lay, as well as ecclesiastical, effectually to remove ail just grounds of apprehension: If, indeed their own experience of the past should not be considered as in itself sufficient security for the continuance of the same course of chaste and uninfluenced selection for the time to come.
On behalf of the Petitioners, he only-claimed the justice of being permitted to prove the merits of their case: The opportunity of rebutting those false and cruel Aspersions, by which their holy religion, and they, as the professors of it, had been unceasingly assailed; the opportunity of challenging their calumniators to come forth and shew in what manner they had tinned against their common country, by what transgressions of theirs they had de-served that condition of restraint and de-gradation, under which they still continued to suffer consistently with the unity of the Catholic church, under one and the same spiritual head, its great land-mark and distinguishing characteristic, and which they could never cease to uphold until they should have renounced the religion of their forefathers: there was no sacrifice which they were not prepared to make, to conciliate the esteem and the affections of their Protestant fellow subjects.
The sum and substance of his humble but earnest solicitation to their lordships, on behalf of his petitioning and aggrieved countrymen, was only this; that they would not pronounce against them the hard sentence of perpetual exclusion from a just and equal participation in all the rights and privileges of the constitution, as disaffected members of the state, without the decent formality of some previous investigation—that they would not dismiss them from their bar discredited—and condemned unheard.
There was one prominent feature by which that question stood distinguished from any other, which perhaps had never engaged the mention of any legislative assembly—a peculiar anomaly which has not had its parallel in the situation of any country on the face of the earth, either of ancient or of modern times. The religion 648 of a very small minority of the people is the religion of the state, as established by law; nine-tenths of the population professing religious opinions, essentially differing from those of the establishment; to the support and splendour of which all were, however, alike bound to contribute in equal proportions. What was the case with respect to the other members of the United Kingdom? Directly the reverse. Presbytery established in Scotland—and here, the Reformed Episcopal Church. In both cases, the establishment of the State Religion, controuled and governed by the religious opinions of the majority of the people.
When an attempt was made to force upon Scotland the establishment of Episcopacy, what a determined and disgraceful spirit of violence and outrage marked the resistance of the furious zealots of that day! That resistance however, was not unsuccessful; and in conformity to the feelings of the majority of the nation, Episcopacy was accordingly abolished, after a severe struggle, and Presbytery established, by king William himself, in 1689.
Very different, indeed, were the effects of the Revolution with respect to his un happy country—the weak and wicked policy of the law; the whole weight of the government, applied to extinguish the religion of the people, and which would have been on that account, under any other political dispensations but their own, the religion of the State, and to crush its professors to the earth by a system of tyranny and persecution, unequalled in the history of civilized communities; and this in the very teeth of a solemn treaty which guaranteed to the Catholics, in terms the most explicit, the free exercise of their religion.
Fortified as it was by the exclusive pos-session of ecclesiastical power, dignities, and emoluments for more than a century; was it possible for them to consider that the continuance of the penal code could still be necessary to uphold the strong and consolidated fabrick of the national church? and could they forget, that by the remedial statute of 1793, its perpetual maintenance was made an inseparable concomitant of every right and privilege which had been restored to the petitioners by that act, and that to the support of the Protestant establishments, the Catholic was himself bound under the solemn obligation of an oath?
649 He trusted that the period had at length arrived for making just restitution to his oppressed countrymen—assuredly no man who did not wish to conjur up as arguments in debate, apprehensions which he could not feel, could entertain a doubt that those establishments were already placed beyond the reach of any possible danger, unless their lordships should unhappily succeed in convincing the Catholic, by the force of their own fatal arguments, that his interests are in direct hostility to those of the national church, the subversion of which would be in such a view of the subject, the only road by which he could hope to arrive at the possession of political confidence and political power, the avowed and legitimate object of his most strenuous pursuit.
In what he had said, he desired that he might not be misunderstood; in that House he was not afraid of being misrepresented. On the part of the Catholics, he did not urge it as a grievance from which they were weak or wicked enough to seek to be relieved, that the Protestant church was the established religion of the State. He claimed not on their part, and as their advocate, what they had themselves solemly renounced upon oath, a share in the honours or advantages of the established church. He did not mean to recommend "to the imitation of the petitioners, that system of violence in the pursuit of their object, which however successful in the case of Scotland, he had unequivocally condemned, and from the excesses of which humanity itself recoils with disgust. In making that statement, and in the parallel which he had drawn, his intention had been only this—to endeavour to awake the slumbering feelings of their lordships to a more kind and favourable consideration of the petitioner's case, from a just recollection of the peculiar grievances by which they had been oppressed; and of those circumstances of unexampled severity, under which it had been their misfortune to have suffered so long.
And here he must be permitted to express the particular satisfaction with which he had received the printed reports of their lordship's late proceedings on the Petition of the Protestant Dissenters; having been necessarily detained in the country for the recovery of his health, he was reluctantly prevented from being personally present. No man, however, more cordially approved the decision of the House on that very important discussion, 650 and the respectful deference to the conscientious scruples of other men, however essentially differing from the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church, which marked the whole course of that interesting debate.
No voice was raised against these petitioners, as avowed and formidable opponents to the principles and practice of our ecclesiastical establishments—no attempt was made to misrepresent their motives or themselves; when 500 petitions upon the same subject were heaped upon their lord-ship's table almost at the same moment, noble lords abstained from that line of argument which he had known resorted to on other similar occasions, when the numbers of the Catholic petitioners had been represented by their parliamentary advocates, as furnishing additional ground, at least, for due and respectful inquiry into the claims of so important a class of their fellow subjects.
He might then venture to remind that House, without the fear of being charged with an attempt at intimidation, that he stood before their lordships the unequal advocate of four millions of his country-men, and their fellow subjects—armed in support of the same establishments—in defence of the same gracious King—the joint inheritors with themselves of all the privileges and immunities of the British Constitution.
A salutary caution had suggested itself to him from this part of the argument. He addressed it to those, if any such were still to be found in that House, whose per severing hostility to the petition had not been satisfied by the perpetual rejection of every measure of kindness and conciliation which had been offered on their behalf; who appeared to have considered them selves bound, as it were, by a due regard to their own consistency, to a state of eternal warfare with his Majesty's Catholic subject, and who had been unable, in their mode of considering this question, to distinguish and separate its intrinsic nature and constitutional bearings from their own rooted prejudices, and those justly reprobated doctrines, which, however disclaimed again and again, under the most solemn sanctions, they are determined stilt to impute, with injustice the most relent less and persevering, to the religion of the great mass of the Christian world.
If there should happen to be in that House any noble lords whose rare good for-tune it had been, in administering the 651 Irish government, to have wanted the firmness of political constancy in what they have refused to the Catholics, and in what they have conceded to them, the dignity and the grace of voluntary conciliation—if there should happen to be found amongst them any noble lords who had ever descended from the high stations in which they may have been placed, to volunteer an unfounded testimony against the Catholic inhabitants of that country, to every individual of which, from former official habits and situation, such noble lords were called upon in an especial manner to render impartial justice, and to afford equal protection.—If, he said, there were any noble lords to be found in that House, such as he had described, he would only wish to recall to their recollection that decent forbearance and respect for the religious opinions of others, which distinguished their proceedings on the late occasion, as the rule by which to regulate their present conduct, in considering the alledged grievances of that great community of dissenters from the State Religion, whose Petitions were then upon their lordship's table.
Having alluded already to that memorable treaty concluded at Limerick with the Irish army in October 1691, and ratified under the great seal in April 1692, which gave to the British sovereign peace, and a second kingdom, and to the other contracting party the fruitful source of bitter disappointment and unheeded complaint for violated faith, he presented himself before their lordships, armed with this important instrument, to claim for the Petitioners at their hands, a just though tardy reparation.
In proceeding to prove their case, he should then call the attention of that House to another document, not of equal antiquity, nor sanctioned by the same official symbol of authority, but, if the most explicit declarations of the ministers in both countries, during the progress of the important discussions on the measure of Legislative Union, were to avail aught, as proofs of their own views, respecting the nature, of those public objects, to which the accomplishment of that measure was expected to lead, was not the Irish Catholic taught to look forward, with the greatest confidence, to a prompt and just consideration of his own question, as the certain and immediate consequence of an United parliament? And, when he had been thus prevailed upon, from such prospects as 652 these, to become a party to the surrender of his own legislature, which confessedly could never have been accomplished without his aid, is it not too late to tell him, that with that legislature were extinguished all those flattering prospects, and that he had closed the door against himself for ever?
Sanctioned thus, as much by the acknowledged and avowed spirit of one important treaty, as by the express letter of another, he had still to produce to their lordships on the part of the petitioners, further titles—on each of which, taken by itself, he could almost venture to rest their cause. First, the solemn disclaimer by the six Catholic Universities, in 1789, of all those unchristian and abominable doctrines, the existence of which, as principles of his religion, could alone justify the exclusion of the Catholic from any one civil or political privilege. Secondly, the formal protest, by command of the sovereign Pontiff himself, in 1791, against those imputed doctrines, when, at the suggestion of the British government, the exceptionable words were omitted in the consecration oath of the Irish Catholic. Bishops. Thirdly, the testimony borne by our own Statute-book, in the preamble of the Act of 1778, to the character and conduct of his Catholic countrymen. Fourthly, the oaths of allegiance to the king and fidelity to the constitution, prescribed by the statutes of 1774 and 1793, and universally taken by all the Irish Catholics. And lastly, the strong and incontrovertible evidence, which every successive relaxation of the penal code has continued to furnish, of the conviction of the legislature, encreasing and confirmed, respecting the assured loyalty and perfect trustworthiness of the king's Irish Catholic subjects, as members of the Protestant state.
To the claims of the Petitioners, founded on such titles as these, to a full particiation with themselves in every constitutional privilege and capacity, what were the objections which he was to anticipate? If arguments were to be counted, and not weighed, the cause of the Catholics would indeed be hopeless; nothing had been left unsaid against them, which human ingenuity could suggest, or credulity itself affect to believe—imputations the most unfounded—charges, the most contradictory—idle doubts, and causeless apprehensions, have continued to mark the lingering retreat of prejudice and bigotry, and 653 the slow and impeded march of truth, wisdom, and philosophy.
Was it fitting that he should exhaust their lordships' patience by a repetition of all those calumnies which have issued forth, at the appointed seasons in the shape of arguments, in strong array, against the Petitioners? and which, though beaten down by evidence the most convincing and conclusive, they had seen return to the charge again and again.
Must he be prepared to demonstrate, by a regular chain of proofs, that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church do not enjoin or justify, in any possible case, the breach of that sacred obligation which binds man to man, and is the strongest cement of human society—that Catholics are not, of necessity, and from the very nature of the religious' opinions which they profess, faithless members in every Protestant community—that they are not bound to the subversion of that property, the present arrangement of which they feel to be their own best title and security; nor to the overthrow of those establishments which they had so solemnly sworn that they would never assail?
Could it be necessary that he should consume the time of the House, by pressing again upon their attention, those arguments by which he endeavoured to shew, and he trusted not without some effect, when he had before the honour of addressing their lordships on behalf of the Petitioners, that the so much relied upon Corporation and Test Acts which they had already repealed and modified, from time to time, in favour of Dissenters from the state religion, of every description, are not to beset up, at this day, as insurmountable obstacles against a continuance in the same course of legitimate concession?
And lastly, was he to expect to hear it still resounded in his ears, in the same solemn tones, that, because the settlement of 1688 established the principle of a protestant king, the principle of an exclusively Protestant parliament must, of necessity, be inferred as an inseparable consequence, when they had already recalled the Irish Catholic to his just share in the choice of that representative body, by giving him back the elective franchise; and whilst his constitutional capacity to hold every civil and military situation had been restored and recognised by the general repeal of all existing disabilities in 1793, what species of reasoning was it, which would give to the exceptions, created by 654 that act, the quality and character of fundamental exclusions, unchangeable and eternal?
But what, he would ask, were those apprehended dangers against which the penal code was to have afforded us its protection? If they were to be searched for in the fears of a disputed succession, and the claims of an exiled family, had they not long since entirely ceased to exist? The claimants and their titles sleep together in the peaceful grave—extinguished and forgotten. How long was that injurious system of restriction to survive those very dangers which it was devised to meet and obviate?
He was now arrived at the last and only remaining objection—the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy as head of the Catholic Church: and if on any just constitutional principles the direct and unqualified denial of that position was of necessity to be an indispensible preliminary to the full admission of the Petitioners into all the powers and privileges of the state, he must be content to leave there or ever, as they are excluded and shut out, for ceasing to maintain the unity of their Church; under the same spiritual head, they would desert an essential doctrine and distinguishing characteristic of the Catholic faith.
Let, however, this formidable ground of objection be examined, and let it be seen in what it consisted. To give it weight, it must consist either in the refusal to the supreme magistrate of our own state, of something that is necessary to his own power, or that it is requisite for the benefit of the public, that he should possess, or it must consist in giving to the head of a foreign state some quality, power or pre-eminence, the exercise of which may be dangerous to our own. It had been urged by some persons, that he who denied the supremacy of the King as head of the church, was a traitor, but he could not discover where it was to be found that this supremacy was conferred, neither was this supremacy acknowledged by the Protestants themselves. In refusing, therefore, to affirm this supremacy, in a Protestant king, the Catholics did no more than the Protestant, and refused nothing which the Protestant affirmed. By what act was the Protestant called' upon to acknowledge in the King any ecclesiastical supremacy, or what single act was the king capable of doing in affirmance of such supremacy? What orders could he give in ecclesias- 655 tical matters? Could he alter the Liturgy of the church, or the form of prayer as established by law? The King might, it was true, order a fast, or a form of prayer upon such an occasion, but could he add to, or exclude, a single letter in the canons or articles of the church? In ecclesiastical appointments, undoubtedly, the King enjoyed a power, but only in common with other lay patrons, by whom ecclesiastical persons were presented to benefices; and even the high rank of bishop was, it was well known, disposable by the authority of a layman. What then of value, either to the splendour of the crown, or the good government of his people, did those take from the King who refused to assist his spiritual supremacy? The difference between appointment and ecclesiastical investitures, was well known to every one. It was well known that the appointment or presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, was not complete without the institution of the ordinary or bishop of the diocese, and no lay patron considered his rights infringed upon, or rendered less valuable from the necessity of having such a confirmation from the spiritual power. In refusing, therefore, to affirm spiritual supremacy in the King of the Protestant state, the Catholic took from him nothing of value. In the Catholic church the power of ecclesiastical institution or investiture, undoubtedly rested with the Pope, or the person representing the unity, which was essential to that church, but in acknowledging this, what of value was given to a foreign power? The institution or investiture, it was well known, could not be refused except for good canonical reasons. The power of appointment was undoubtedly not given, nor was this power ever acknowledged to belong to the sovereign pontiff as an avowed part of his spiritual power. It was indeed scarcely now claimed. It had, he acknowledged, been formerly repeatedly claimed with great warmth and vehemence, but the claim had been resisted with equal pertinacity, and with success. To prove this, they need only look at the well-known liberties of the Gallican church, and the decision of the council of Trent, which completely set the question at rest. In that council it was remarkable, that while the Italian bishops, those whose sees were adjacent to the territories of the see of Rome, supported this claim of the sovereign pontiff, the Spanish and Portuguese bishops, who were considered as the most 656 bigotted of the Catholic church, effectually resisted, and by the decision of the majority of that council the question was finally decided. The acknowledgment, therefore, of the supremacy of the sovereign pontiff, or the person who represented the unity of the Catholic church, did not give him the power of appointment. With respect to the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, they had hitherto been appointed upon a principle of election, or rather of selection, and these appointments had for a long series of years been strictly domestic. No body of men had ever acted with more propriety than the Catholic Prelates of Ireland; and he could' confidently appeal on this heal to those noble lords who had administered the government of Ireland, and who had always found the assistance and influence of those Prelate is a most valuable resource. He had no doubt, and upon this point, he could not hesitate to give a solemn pledge to the House, that if the Irish Catholic bishops were called upon by a proper au thority for that purpose, they would have no difficulty in proposing an arrangement to obviate any objection to the interposition of a foreign power. They had not, on a late occasion, thought it right to volunteer any proposal for an arrangement of this nature; but if now, or at a future period, their lordships should happily agree to enter into the consideration of the Catholic Petition, whenever the happy moment should arrive, that the prejudices against the Catholics should give way to the justice of their claims, then the Prelates, when called upon from authority, would be ready to propose an arrangement under which the appointments of the Catholic bishops should be effectually domestic, remaining of course for the spiritual investiture of the supreme head of the Catholic church. Such an arrangement would obviate ail objections, and he was convinced that if the legislature were disposed to concede the claims of the Catholic, there would be found in return, on the part of the Catholic bishops, every disposition in conciliation.
His lordship then alluded to the Militia Interchange Bill, in progress in the House, and observed, with regret, that the Catholic soldiers of the Irish militia had been refused an enactment for the free exercise of their religion. He was aware that an order was to be issued by the Commander in Chief for that purpose; but a similar order bad long existed in Ireland, and yet, 657 notwithstanding that order, a Catholic soldier, in the artillery, had been confined for refusing to attend the service of the Protestant church. Another order was then issued, but it was of little use issuing orders if they were not obeyed. A legislative enactment would have prevented the recurrence of any act of a similar nature. He did not mean to object to the Bill, it was a measure of strength, and he was disposed to support those measures, which gave strength to the government, but the refusal to make any legislative provision in it for the free exercise of their religious worship by the Catholic soldiers of the Irish militia, formed in his mind a strong objection to it. It was stated, that they were to enjoy the same privileges that they now did, but what provision Was there made for that enjoyment? The means were easy, if the government would use them, let them appoint Catholic chaplains, in order that the soldiers of that persuasion might have in truth the means of the free exercise of their religion.—The noble earl, after apologizing for taking up so much of their lordships time, concluded by moving to refer the said Petitions to a Committee of the whole House.
The Earl of Long Fordwas of opinion that it would be better to postpone the consideration of the subject to another opportunity, when it would be less likely to create agitation and alarm amongst the majority of the people of the United Kingdom than at present. He was ready to acknowledge the respectability of many of the Irish Catholic bishops, but he could not consider the arrangement mentioned by the noble earl as at all adequate to the purpose for which it was proposed, as, if the Catholic bishops were to be placed within the patronage of government, their situations would become the object of ambitious contest, which would by no means tend to that harmony to which it was supposed the arrangement would lead. Great jealousy existed with regard to these claims. The noble lord said he did not wish to suppress the Catholic religion; but he wished to support the constitution. His lordship strongly objected to the proceeding at a Catholic meeting of addressing the Prince Regent to remove the lord lieutenant of Ireland, who was not the lord lieutenant of the Catholics, but of the country—and a country in which, though the majority of the population were Catholics, the greater part of the property and influence was in the 658 hands of Protestants. An objection to the mode of proceeding now sought to be adopted, which in his mind had considerable weight, was, that the powers of the constitution were not complete. Undoubtedly they were nearly so, but still a measure of such great importance ought not to be proceeded in, until the powers of the constitution were complete and in full activity. The noble lord concluded by declaring his dissent to the motion.
The marquis of Downshirerose and said: My Lords; agreeing, as I do most decidedly, with every part of my noble friend's most luminous and able speech, there remains little fur me to say that can add to the great body of information your lordships have gained on this subject this night. My anxiety, however, for the success of the cause, and the strong desire I feel to appear, as I hope I really am, an earnest supporter of the rights of my countrymen, will, I hope, plead my excuse for begging your lordships' indulgence for a short time. There cannot, I think, be adduced a stronger reason in favour of my noble friend's motion than the present contest on the peninsula; and as that contest is not likely soon to terminate, is it not an additional reason for conciliating and satisfying the minds of the people of a country, out of whose very vitals, I may say, are derived the means of carrying on the war. For, my Lords, a very large proportion of the army is composed of Irish Roman Catholic soldiers. These are the men whose bravery and noble conduct your lordships have already not long since extolled, and yet they are to be refused a participation in the rights and privileges of their country. Our gratitude demands of us to grant their request; and I am convinced, from my residence in Ireland, and the knowledge I have of the Irish as a people, that they are more susceptible of any kindness and attention than any other nation; and if they are so, as I can most truly say I have always found them in private transactions, what must they not feel towards this country, in return for their requests being granted, and their just rights being acknowledged? For these reasons, and for many others which I will not at present trouble your lordships with, I feel it my duty, as a peer of these kingdoms, to give my vote for my noble friend's motion.
The Marquis of Lunsdowneobserved, that after the speech of the noble lord on the other side, who spoke last but one, he 659 could not give a silent vote on the present occasion, especially as he had not delivered his sentiments when this question was last before their lordships. He differed widely from that noble lord when he Stated the jealousy that existed with respect to these, claims, as a reason why they should not be discussed. On the contrary, it was because there did exist such a jealousy—because the question had been made a repeated foundation of alarm, for which there was no real ground, that he was most anxious it should be discussed; for he was convinced that the more it was canvassed, and the better it was understood, the sooner would that alarm be extinguished, which on some occasions, from the best motives, on others from the worse, had frequently been excited. The noble lord had said, that he did not wish to suppress the Catholic religion, but to support the constitution. Catholic disabilities, however, formed no part of the constitution—the constitution did not rest upon a system of exclusion. It was true, that on grounds of expediency, the propriety of which he would not then discuss, the benefit of the constitution had been suspended as far as respected particular classes. But the spirit of the constitution required an equal enjoyment of all rights and privileges, provided the state was not endangered thereby. He considered it as immaterial whether those claims were put upon the foundation of right or expediency—for there could be no right, if the state should be endangered by acceding to them; if not, the right manifestly existed; but their lordships and the other branches of the legislature were the judges whether there really was any ground of apprehension. They were to consider where the danger was now to be found. He could not agree with the noble lord in considering the powers of the constitution as incomplete, when they had been established by an act of parliament; but, at any rate, there was nothing in the present circumstances that rendered it improper to discuss this subject. Their lordships had now to consider whether, when the reasons which bad given rise to these disabilities no longer existed, they were in these times not only to shut out the Catholics from their fair share of the privileges of the constitution, but to deprive themselves of the services of the most numerous class in a part of their dominions which produced as much genius and talents as ever distinguished any portion of the globe.
660 With regard to the dangers of granting these claims of the Catholics, he knew no way of judging, except by a reference to their opinions and conduct. As to the principles and opinions of the Catholics, he conjured his noble friend not to take them from any other mouths than their own; for he was aware that a meaning had been ascribed to certain Catholic tenets, which they themselves denied, and consequences were drawn from them which they abhorred. They had a right to be judged by the principles which they professed; and professed not merely with a view to the present question—not for the purpose of conciliating their lordships—but professed on all occasions, and in all countries for the last hundred years. The alarm arising from the sense which might have been affixed to some bulls of popes, and decrees of councils, had not been confined to protestant countries only. Even in Catholic countries an explanation and disavowal had been called for. In France, about 130 years ago, a disavowal had been made of those obnoxious doctrines which were now imputed to the Catholics. No pope, for the last 130 years had upheld them, and they had been disavowed by others, in every instance in which they came under consideration. Where, then, was the justice of going back to councils and remote times to impute to the Catholics the holding of tenets, which they no longer entertained, especially when their actions were in direct contradiction to such as would naturally result from such tenets? Why should such means be re-sorted to for the purpose of exciting a suspicion that the conduct of the Catholics would be different from what was their actual practice?
Adverting to the alleged influence of the pope, the noble marquis observed that the Catholics considered that influence confined solely to spiritual matters. This they professed; and if their conduct had been of late in opposition to such professions, then the truth of them might be doubted. But, in the history of modern times, notwithstanding the pains that had been taken, the research that had been employed for the purposes of this question, had there been found a single instance of the production of a great political effect that could be ascribed entirely to this influence? In the great political changes, in the radical revolutions which had occurred in the last century, where was the mighty effect of the power of popes and 661 of councils. Had it prevented the dissolution of the Germanic body? Had it prevented the French Revolution, where the interests of the pope were so much concerned? Or had this dreaded power been inactive, and dead through all the storms which agitated the continent, to be revived and called into exertion in a remote corner of the world to affect the interests of England? The inefficacy of that power as to political matters did not, then, rest merely on the professions of the Catholics—it was proved by their own conduct, by indisputable facts. With every desire for the permanent security of the state and the church, connected as they were, he felt no dread of a power the effects of which were no where to be found.
But it would be injustice to the Irish Catholics to say, that their conduct had been of a negative description. He begged their lordships to consider what it had been during these last ten years, while this question had been in agitation. And here he must observe, that, though it had been said that this was the same question brought under discussion from year to year, it had been, in reality, a new question every year, for it always had come supported by fresh proofs of the loyalty of the Catholics, always by fresh services of a kind not only useful to the country but almost essential to its existence. Ten years ago a distinguished political character, the late Mr. Pitt, had retired from office because unable to do justice to the Catholics. Then followed the war attended with the dread of invasion; and that war was still raging. By whom was it to be carried on? Upon what foundation did the contest rest but on the exertions of a large proportion of the Catholics? And if it was important to defend the state and the chinch of England, it would be well to recollect by what arms they were defended. Their lord-ships would look at the peninsula, where, it was said, the contest was carried on for the salvation of the country, and mark how much was owing to the exertions of the Irish Catholics. Was it just or fair to be so suspicions of the loyalty and allegiance of the Catholics, or to doubt of their attachment to that country in defence of which they were shedding their best blood? Those who had perished in the cause had at least done this good, even if their merits had not been so conspicuous on other grounds, that they had increased—the feeling of confidence with which 662 their surviving brethren ought to be regarded.
Their lordships had full security that the oaths of the Catholics were held by themselves to be binding. In 1793 the Catholics had been admitted to various privileges upon the security of their oaths. Where was the mischief here from the influence of the pope? To deny that the Catholics were to be credited on oath, was to imitate the example of the metaphysicians who required as the ground of their reasoning, that their antagonists should disbelieve the evidence of their own senses. They had only to judge of the professions of the Catholics by their conduct. The noble lord had alluded to the difficulties that occurred with regard to the securities necessary for the preservation of the established church. For sufficient securities on that head, he should be as much disposed to contend as any noble lord present; but it was not surprising that there should be some jealousy as to the particular plan. The Catholics had, perhaps, seen Lord Lieutenants and other officers of government in Ireland, rendering even the Protestant church, the vehicle of political influence; and it was natural for them to imagine that the Catholic church would not be used for any better purpose. But their apprehensions, he was convinced, were confined to the undue exercise of political influence in their own church. The great body of the Catholics of property—he did not allude to any particular meeting of Catholics—but the great body he was convinced, felt as strongly inclined to oppose foreign influence in the nominations to their churches as their lordships. But the plan would be the subject of discussion in the Committee. There they might consider what securities were necessary; and without such securities, their lordships would certainly not grant this great boon. But that something should be done to restore to the Catholics the privileges of the constitution, there could be no doubt. Their honourable ambition to serve their country in the highest situations ought unquestionably to be gratified. This was essential to the completion of the measure of the Union. He had the authority of a distinguished statesman concerned in bringing about that Union, that its good effects depended upon the admission of the Catholics to all the benefits of the constitution; and he had illustrated that sentiment by the emphatic quotation from Virgil:
663
Non ego, nec Teucris Italos parere jubebo,Nec nova regna peto; paribus se legibus ambæInvictæ gentes æterna in fœdera mittant.*It was essential to the peace and security of all that the union should be thus completed. It was essential even for the security of the established church as well as the state, which depended in a great measure on the exertions of those who were the objects of this petition. When all their just claims were acceded to, they would be bound to the interests of the whole country
*The following is the passage in Mr. Pitt's speech of the 31st of January 1799, to which the noble marquis alluded:But, Sir, if, on the other hand, it should happen that there be a country which, against the greatest of all dangers that threaten its peace and security, has not adequate means of protecting itself without the aid of another nation; if that other be a neighbouring and kindred nation, speaking the same language, whose laws, whose customs and habits are the same in principle, but carried to a greater degree of perfection, with a more extensive commerce, and more abundant means of acquiring and diffusing national wealth; the stability of whose government—the excellence of whose constitution—is more than ever the admiration and envy of Europe, and of which the very country of which we are speaking can only boast an inadequate and imperfect resemblance;—under such circumstances, I would ask, what conduct would be prescribed by every rational principle of dignity, of honour, or of interest? I would ask", whether this is not a faithful description of the circumstances which ought to dispose Ireland to a Union. Whether Great Britain is not precisely the nation with which, on these principles, a country, situated as Ireland is, would desire to unite? Does a Union, under such circumstances, by free consent, and on just and equal terms, deserve to be branded as a proposal for subjecting Ireland to a foreign yoke. Is it not rather the free and voluntary association of two great countries, which join, for their common benefit, in one empire, where each will retain its proportional weight and importance, under the security of equal laws, reciprocal affection, and inseperable interests, and which want nothing but that indissoluble connection to Tender both invincible?Non ego nec Teucris, &c.664 by gratitude for the past, and confidence as to the future.
§ Lord Redesdaleadverted to an accusation which had been thrown out against him of partiality in the administration of justice while in office in Ireland; an accusation which he said was most unfounded and unjust. He maintained that no man had ever administered justice more impartially, whether the parties were Catholics or Protestants, than himself. With regard to the general question, it had been brought forward merely for political purposes; and he was persuaded that the great body of the Catholics were not disposed to agitate a question where they could not hope to succeed. The noble lord who opened the debate had averted to the treaty of Limerick. That treaty was made subject to the confirmation of parliament, which had confirmed it merely as far as it had thought proper. But it had been infringed by the other side; for one great object was to keep the army in the country, and yet it went abroad and served the enemy. He denied that the minister could have given any pledge to the Catholics that these claims should be granted. No minister could pledge himself to procure the sanction of parliament. Indeed he heard that the very reverse had been stated; that a reverend gentleman had put the question while the measure of the Union was in agitation, Whether it was intended to remove the disabilities of the Catholics? and that the answer was, That there was no such intention; that lord Farnham had made a speech in the House of Lords in Ireland against the Union, arguing that if it was agreed to, the disabilities never would be removed, as the English would never accede to such a measure, and that the noble lord himself published this speech and circulated it all over Ireland. The great statesman who retired in 1801, did not assign to him (lord Redesdale) as the reason for that proceeding, the impossibility of fulfilling a pledge to the Catholics; and as to the plan of security, he had only to state that the person to whom he alluded had declared to him, a few months before his death, that he had no plan, and that he could conceive no plan whatever, by which a sufficient security could be provided for the established church, in the event of the Catholic claims being granted. The constitution was essentially Protestant; it could not bear a Catholic sovereign, and how much less a Catholic minister? He would not say that 665 the obnoxious doctrines were now held by the Catholics; but that they were once the tenets of the Catholic church, was proved by the evidence of all history. Let them give up the doctrine that no one could be saved out of the pale of their own church, and then, perhaps, they might have a chance of success; but till they did this, they could not safely be trusted with political power.
The Lord Chancellorbore testimony to the merits of the noble lord who spoke last, but he thought it but just to say, that that noble lord had misunderstood what had been said by the noble earl to whom he alluded.
The Bishop of Norwich(Dr. Henry Bathurst), rose and said; My Lords, if the noble and learned lord who spoke last had been content to state his own opinion, without asserting that the Catholic Petition was brought forward merely as a party question, and consequently, that those who support it, are actuated solely by party motives; I should very gladly have remained silent: Because, the expediency, the policy, the justice,—I had almost said the necessity—of conciliating the minds of the Catholics of Ireland; of gratifying their reasonable expectations; of acceding to their just demands, upon prudent and equitable conditions for the security of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Establishment, have been already repeatedly discussed in this House, and have also been, as it appears to me, unanswerably proved, by noble lords, far better qualified than I am to do justice to so important a subject:—and especially by he noble earl who opened this debate, in so copions, 30 clear, and so conclusive a manner, that it would be presumption in me to attempt to add any thing to what he has advanced.
But, my Lords, as it has been very much the fashion of late to represent the advocates of the cause of the Catholics as men who are not only actuated, principally, by party motives, but also, as men who either do not understand or do not value the interest of the established Church;—as a minister of that Church, not less anxious for its real interest than those who make the loudest professions of their zeal, I feel my self called upon to say a few words, in reply to so ill-founded, so injurious a charge:—a charge, however, to which I shall always very willingly expose myself, whenever a proper opportunity occurs of expressing my senti- 666 ments in favor of the claims, of so numerous, and so respectable a body of men, as the Catholics of Ireland: claims, which, if granted would, I conceive, give additional energy to the state, and, to the Established Church, additional safety, and duration: claims, which in many other countries, I might say, in most countries, would be readily admitted, without any of that narrow bigotry, that unreasonable distrust and jealousy, which they have excited in this united kingdom. I should be sorry, my lords, to have it thought that I am hardy enough to make an assertion like this, in such an assembly, without having, what appears to me, at least, sufficient authority for so doing. I could wish that those who entertain a contrary opinion, would turn their eyes towards the continent of America: I could wish them to recollect, that marshal Saxe was a Protestant, and that Neckar was a Protestant: I could wish them to call to mind, that the Austrian general, Alvinzi was a Protestant, and that general Wurmser was a Protestant: and it is not long since I read with great satisfaction, in a valuable compilation of documents by an hon. baronet, a member of the other House [Sir J. C. Hippesley] to whom I am greatly indebted for information on the present subject, an edict promulgated by the late emperor of Germany, Joseph the second; in which it is laid down as a maxim never to be departed from, that talents for the due discharge of the various duties of civil and military appointments, are the only qualifications for such appointments; and not the peculiar religious opinions of any sect of Christians whatsoever. When I read an English act of parliament, which breathes a portion of the same spirit, I shall be happy to retract my assertion.
But, my Lords; what is our conduct towards the Catholics of Ireland? Not content with turning a deaf ear, year after year, to the reasonable prayer of the Petitioners; there are many who censure them, and severely too, for expressing those feelings of disappointment and resentment, which they cannot but have, in a language, (as it is said,) not sufficiently temperate; and they have been particularly blamed, for applying the terms Intolerant,' and Penal' to those restrictive statutes, which still continue in force against them, and of which they have, in my opinion, just cause to complain as harsh, oppressive, unnecessary, 667 and unmerited. I do not, however, wish to aggravate their wrongs, by a vague and angry declamation against intolerance: still less do I wish to weary your lordship's attention, by a tedious common place disquisition, upon so trite, and so revolting a subject. With respect to the term penal', it appears to me a mere mockery, a downright quibble, an insult to the common sense and feelings of a man, to tell him that it is no penalty to be debarred from the privileges of sitting in this House, and from many other objects of a fair and honourable ambition, winch men of ardent minds, and great abilities, naturally aspire to in every state; and to which, in every free state, they have, I conceive, aright to aspire, (whatever denomination of Christians they may belong to) provided, I mean, that they give to the government under which they live, an adequate security for their conduct as subjects.
Having said thus much, I request leave of your lordships to advert, for a few minutes, to two or three topics, which though, in some respects, of a personal nature, are, notwithstanding, very intimately connected with the subject now under consideration. It has been repeatedly and publicly objected to me, and sometimes with a degree of coarseness and asperity entirely unprovoked on my part, that I have inconsiderately and rashly ventured to differ in opinion not only from those with whom I have the honour of silting upon the same bench, but also from the two Universities, and the great body of the established clergy. That I diner from those immediately around me, is certainly true; and it is equally true, that I do so with sincere regret. No affectation of singularity, no love of contradiction, can induce any man of common sense to dissent willingly from wise and good men of his own profession. There is neither pleasure nor profit attached to such a line of conduct; conviction therefore, can alone account for it. It is however some consolation to me, that if I dissent from them, I agree with many of those exalted characters and eminent writers, to whom they, as well as myself, are in the habit of looking up with respect, and with veneration, and under whose authority I shall be happy to shelter myself, if your lord-ships will pardon the apparent pedantry into which I may be led by so doing. I lay, my Lords, no claim whatever to originality; not an argument have I ever urged, either in writing or in speaking; 668 hardly an expression have I made use of, which is not to be met with in the writings of Hoadly and of Locke: in The Liberty of Prophesying, by Jeremy Taylor; in the "lrenicum" of Stillingfleet, and in almost every page of that great man Grotius, particularly in his Votum pro-Pace Ecclesiasticâ and in a more striking manner perhaps than any where, in a very curious and interesting correspondence, which took place between a pious and learned prelate of the Church of England, and the ecclesiastical historian Du Pin, respecting a projected Union of the Gallican Church with the Church of England. The prelate, to whom I allude, is archbishop Wake, whose attachment to the Church of England was never called in question; and yet, in his last letter to his celebrated correspondent, speaking of the religious tenets of the Catholics, he has the following remarkable expressions; which, with your lordships permission, I will give you in his own words: "In Dogmatibus" (says this able friend to our ecclesiastical establishment), "prout â te candidâ proponuntur non admodum dissentimus; in regimine Ecclesiasticâ, "minus; in fundamentalibus sive doctrinam, sive disciplinam spectes, vix "omnino." This is, perhaps, going a great way, but be that as it may, your lordships will, lam confident, agree with me in thinking that the candour, the moderation, the conciliatory disposition, shewn by this very eminent Prelate, are widely different from those acrimonious invectives of which we hear a great deal too much in our days from heated advocates on both sides,—but that they are also far better calculated, if not to make proselytes, at least to promote mutual forbearance, love, and esteem; which, are, on all hands, allowed to be objects of primary importance, as they most unquestionably are virtues peculiarly Christian.
Still, however, it may be argued, and to a certain degree fairly argued, that whatever may have been the opinion of archbishop Wake, or of any other divine so many years since, the two Universities, and the present clergy of the established Church, are decidedly hostile to the Petition on your lordships table. That some very respectable members of our two Universities, and some equally respectable among the Parochial Clergy, come under this description, is unquestionably true; but is it not also true, that there are many, very many exceptions to 669 the truth of this assertion? Be the assertion, however, admitted, for the sake of argument, and admitted in its fullest extent, still, if it be brought forward as a reason against the claims of the Catholics, it appears to me by no means entitled to the stress that has been laid upon it; considering the nature of the question, and how very little competent, generally speaking men, of studious, recluse habits are to form a right judgment of great, complicate and comprehensive political topics: I say political topics, my Lords, because the question now before your lordships is not a point of theology; not a difficult passage in either of the learned languages, but a great question of state: a question therefore, not to be settled by divines, or by theorists in their studies; however pious, or learned, or well intentioned; but by enlightened, practical statesmen, such as many are whom I see on both sides of this House.
But, that I may not be thought to flatter the living, I appeal to the dead; and I will venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that the judgment of four such men as Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Windham carries far more weight with it, upon a question like this, than the judgment of both the Universities, and indeed of all the divines who ever sat in convocation, under the dome of St. Pauls, or in the Jerusalem Chamber, from the Reformation to the present hour.
There is, my Lords, no man breathing, who loves and respects his clerical brethren more than I do; nor is there a "ingle bishop on the bench who has cultivated a more general acquaintance, or closer intimacies, with men of his own profession; indeed, the far greater part of my life has been passed among them, and happily passed; but with ail my partiality far them, I never for a moment conceived, either myself, or them, to be statesmen, or politicians, nor do I believe that the wiser part of this very valuable body, will be displeased with me for denying their claim to a character which does not belong to us; a character, with which we cannot possibly have too little to do. Opinions like these I shall perhaps be told, (indeed I have been told, by a few overheated or ill-informed zealots,) that opinions like these, evince, both in myself and in others of far more consequence, a want of cordial attachment to the established Church and to its ministers. Upon this point, therefore, I wish, my Lords, to 670 be particularly explicit, and in my situation, it is highly incumbent upon me to be so. If by attachment to the established Church and to its ministers, be meant a firm, deep rooted conviction, that the Church of England, both in faith and in worship, in doctrine and in discipline, is the most pure, and truly apostolical Church, in the Christian world; and that its ministers are, with very few exceptions as intelligent and as irreproachable a body of men, as any in the kingdom; there is no man living who is more cordially attached, than I am, to the established Church, and to its ministers. But, if not satisfied with this declaration, if I should be called upon by any one, to declare further, without qualification or reserve, that those who dissent from us are grossly ignorant, or wilfully perverse; that they are not fit to be trusted, either in civil or in military situations of high responsibility; nor even to be believed upon their oaths; if I should be called upon to declare, that nearly two thirds of civilized Europe, have adopted a creed, which is little better than a tissue of absurdity and idolatry; if I should be called upon to declare, that a Fenelon, and a Pascal, men as remarkable for their power of reasoning as for their genuine piety, professed their belief in religious tenets which have no foundation whatever either in reason or in scripture; if, in short, I should be called upon to declare, that many persons now living as sincere and as pious Christians, as loyal and as good subjects as the best of those who hear me, have also subscribed to tenets of such a description; and not only so, but have anxiously endeavoured to impress these tenets upon the minds of their nearest and dearest relatives, as the best guides of life and the surest consolation in the hour of death; if I say, I should he called upon to make declarations of this kind as the only way of proving my attachment to the established Church, and to its ministers, I very frankly own that I disclaim so exclusive, so uncharitable an attachment; I never professed it, I do not feel it, nor, to speak plainly, do I greatly envy those who do.
I beg your lordships pardon for having talked so much of myself, and for having presumed to lay before you the leading articles of a creed, which I am now much too old to change, nor in truth, if I were given to change, do I know where to go for a better—for one, I mean, better cal- 671 culated to promote individual happiness, and at the same time, that public union of heart and hand, if not of opinion, Which is so loudly called for, and at the present very serious crisis, so much wanted: that real affectionate union, I mean, which is the "very bond of peace, of perfectness," and an unassailable bulwark of security, prosperity, and permanency to, I verily believe, the purest ecclesiastical establishment, and the best form of civil government, in the universe.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshiresaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the speech of the right reverend Prelate, but to state the ground upon which he should resist the motion for going into the Committee. He must always be of opinion, that so long as the Catholics acknowledged a foreign supremacy in spiritual matters, it would not be possible to allow them to make laws for the people, or to have a share in administering the government of this country; nor could he agree with the noble marquis (Lansdowne) who had spoken with his usual ability, that by the quiet submission of the Catholics for the last ten years under the rejection of their claims, they had substantially removed any of the objections, or established additional argument for the accomplishment of the object of their Petition. It might as well be urged, that the advocates for the wildest notions of Parliamentary Reform, universal representation for instance, should ultimately prevail provided the occasional failure of their efforts to carry it in parliament should not be followed by the disturbance of the public tranquillity. His lordship then proceeded to draw the attention of the House to the doctrines and principles which had recently been promulgated upon the subject of religious liberty, and Catholic rights, which he described as of an alarming and dangerous tendency. Without entering further into that subject his lordship said he would observe, that if the rights asserted, existed now, they must always have existed, and every man who had forfeited his property on account of his religious tenets, had in that case been unjustly dispossessed; that even the right of the House of Brunswick to the throne would be shaken to its foundation by such a doctrine, for that right rested upon a principle in contradiction to this assumed religious right, and was incompatible with it.—Lord Buckinghamshire could not, with the right reverend prelate, look at the conduct of foreign governments as affording 672 an example for this Country to follow. He could see nothing in the proceedings of any of them which called for our imitation. Whilst they had successively fallen under the power of France, we had maintained our honour and our independence. The storms that had ruined other nations we had weathered. Whilst they were' sinking, overwhelmed by the torrent which had poured down upon them, we had resisted its force, and were enjoying a degree of happiness and prosperity almost unexampled. Such was our situation, and to no circumstance was it more decidedly to be attributed, than to our having steadily determined to preserve the constitution from the daring hand of innovation, and especially to oppose any attempt to violate those principles which were' wisely established at the Revolution. He trusted, their lordships would not relax from the firmness they had manifested, and from which they had derived advantages that were inestimable. Lord Buckinghamshire said he could not sit down without adverting to a topic which had been introduced into the speech of the noble lord (Long-ford) who spoke second in the debate. He alluded to the address of the Catholics to the Prince Regent for the removal of the King's representative, on account of an alleged interference with the right of petitioning their lordship's House, although it was perfectly known at the time, that no such interference was intended. Lord Backinghamshire did not mean to question the right of any part of his Majesty's subjects to address the executive government upon proper occasions; but there was something in this proceeding extremely questionable, and when he observed the Catholics just at the dawn, as they supposed, of arriving at the attainment of their professed objects, pursuing a course so calculated to excite alarm, he must say that all the apprehensions he had ever entertained of what their conduct would be, if sufficient power was placed in their hands, had been confirmed and strengthened.
The Earl of Aberdeenwould confidently appeal to the House, whether the present situation of the country was such as to render it proper to accede to the present application. To that part of the noble marquis's (Lansdowne) speech, he could not but differ, agreeing as he did most cordially in most of the sentiments that night delivered by him. Although he should feel himself bound to vote against the motion on the present occasion, he 673 was convinced that a time would come when the Catholics would ultimately succeed. He could not but lament, however, that the Irish Catholics had not imitated the example of their English brethren in their exemplary and meritorious conduct, who possessing, many of them, rank and wealth, and with every claim to the favour of the House, had yet abstained from pressing any petition similar to that at present on their lordships' table. If this question were of material importance to the present safety of Ireland, their lordships would not be justified in any delay; but it would not be believed, he maintained, by the most sanguine advocates for the Catholics, that the immediate effect of the present measure, if acceded to, would be important to that country. The noble earl who opened the debate had detailed the services of the Catholics, and the readiness with which they would make every requisite sacrifice that might be demanded from them. He had no intention to depreciate the services of the Catholic body, but he must observe, that there was much to reprehend in their conduct; that they had shewn a want of unity and a spirit of dissension among themselves; and that by their obstinacy, and their desertion of former pledges, their conduct was but little calculated to conciliate those who might be disposed to look with a jealous eye towards them.
§ Earl Spencerexpressed his satisfaction, that the noble earl who had just sat down had shewn himself a warm and anxious friend to the sentiments expressed in the petition on their table, though he might differ as to the propriety of the present application. He was happy to find that the noble earl's view differed entirely from that of the noble and learned lord (Redesdale) who delivered his sentiments early in the debate. That noble and learned lord had stated a circumstance which made it necessary for him to trouble the House at present. He had told their lordships that a great statesman, now no more, had not quitted his situation on the grounds upon which the public generally believed he had quitted it, and which he must take the liberty to say, were not only believed by the public, but by those with whom that great man had been several years in office, of whom he unworthily was one. He had been six years connected with that person, and whatever share of his confidence might be enjoyed by the noble and learned lord, he thought it would not be presumption in himself 674 to state, that he was in a situation to have so much of his confidence as to be able distinctly to declare, that this was not only the opinion of the public, but the opinion of his colleagues. He had also the strongest reason to believe that the grounds assigned for his leaving office were the only grounds for his doing so; and it was on these grounds that he had thought proper to join with him at that time. It was of little consequence, indeed, what were the motives and what the conduct of himself at that period; but he could not help feeling a regard for the memory of that illustrious statesman, with whom though he had at some times differed on some material points, it was the greatest honour of his life to have been connected. This was the true ground of the resignation of that great statesman; and he could not help thinking that, except for a cause of such importance, he would not have been justified in leaving his Majesty's service at that critical moment.—He thought ha should not have done his duty if he had not noticed the statement of the noble and learned lord, which differed entirely from what was his own understanding of the matter. He would appeal to a noble earl who had come in since the declaration alluded to, (earl Camden,) whether the grounds which he had stated as those by which Mr. Pitt was actuated at the period of his resignation were not the real grounds of that resignation.—He did not wish to enter into the consideration of the Catholic question, to which he felt himself unable to do justice; but as a reference had been frequently made, in the course of this and former debates, to the measure of the Union, and to the pledges then supposed to be given to the Catholics, he would say that undoubtedly those who were concerned in that measure, did contemplate a greater facility in the Union of the two countries for the admission of the Catholic claims, than while they remained separate. He did not say that any distinct pledge had been given to the Catholics; but that was the conviction which he, for one, entertained at the time, and entertaining such a conviction, he was bound to profess it. On this subject differences did indeed exist in his Majesty's councils; but all along it had been his opinion, that the difficulties in the way of the Irish Catholics would be greater when not united with this country, and that the great measure in their favour would be much easier carried through in ft united than in separate parliaments.
§ Lord Redesdaleexplained what he had I said respecting Mr. Pitt's opinions, and mentioned that Mr. Pitt, in conversation on this subject, admitted the difficulties to be so numerous, that he did not see how to provide the means of accomplishing his object.
§ Earl Camdencorroborated the statement of earl Spencer respecting the reasons assigned by Mr. Pitt for his resignation. He also stated, that no specific pledge had been given at the Union.
§ Lord Grenvillerose, and with considerable animation said, that he felt the call on the friends of Mr. Pitt in that House irresistible. The substance of what the noble and learned lord had said was, that he was satisfied that other causes than those which Mr. Pitt had himself assigned publicly produced his resignation. Now, he would appeal to all, not only to those who like himself were attached to that person by the ties of friendship and of blood; to those who were attached to him by long official connection, and friendly intercourse; but also to those present who differed with him through almost all his political life, whether he had left that character behind him, which could give credit to an imputation, that in that awful moment of our public affairs he deserted his duty to his king, to his country, and to the whole civilized world, on motives different from those of which he had distinctly made the public avowal? That illustrious character was now dead, and in-capable of repelling the charge. The noble lord, though he felt himself inadequate to do it as he wished, yet conceived it his duty to attempt it. He left it to any man, particularly to the friends of that great statesman, to say, what other reason they had ever heard him assign. The mind of his departed friend was peculiarly undisguised; he had lived with him not only in daily intercourse of business, but in exchange of private friendship; and he could have no possible suspicion of any other grounds of retirement than those agreed on between Mr. Pitt and himself, and which they had so stated to the two Houses of Parliament, namely that they found themselves unable to propose to parliament, with the sanction of government, a measure of great benefit, and indispensable duty; more particularly so at that important period. It was not merely the general question that they were then to bring forward, but the great object, was, the taking the time in all re- 676 spects the most favourable for carrying the measure into execution. The great opportunity was lost by the misguided counsels, and the wicked misconceptions imposed on the mind of the sovereign. An opportunity was thus lost that would never be restored. He did not, however, despond; he believed the period of success to be fast approaching, as the nature of the question was more more understood; but when accomplished, it could not be expected to produce one half of the advantages that it must have produced, had the councils of Mr. Pitt on that subject been followed at that auspicious moment. His own sentiments were so well known on this question, that when he came into the House, he little thought he should find it necessary to do more than to express his opinions by his vote: but what he had heard from the noble and learned lord compelled him to rise, and repel a blackening charge against the memory of his departed friend utterly groundless. He should sincerely vote for the present motion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had always entertained so sincere and rooted an opinion upon this subject, that though he might expose himself to be called a bigot, he would never suffer the motion for going into a Committee upon it to pass, without declaring his sentiments. He was grieved exceedingly at much of what had already taken place during this debate. He rose merely to re-state his former opinions. The noble lord who spoke last had lamented that this measure had not been carried after the Union, and had spoken of the opinions of the late Mr. Pitt. He had not, at that time, the confidence of that great man, to whose name and memory he believed he had shewn as much attachment as that noble lord or any other; but some time afterwards, for several years, he had enjoyed that confidence, and he could say, that in many, many conversations with him on this particular subject, he had taken the opportunity of trying to learn from him what was the nature of the securities and safeguards which he had to provide in case of granting such claims, and of telling him that he could not shift his foot from the solid ground of the constitution, till he told him in what they consisted. He would aver upon his honour, with all due respect for that great man, that he never could tell him, what were, in his own opinion, those securities and 677 safeguards which he meant to provide for the Protestant establishment. (A laugh). Noble lords might laugh if they pleased, but such was the fact. The objection he took was strengthened by a publication of the noble lord who spoke last (lord Grenvills's Letters) in which there was much about the subject of safeguards: but he had never heard of any but one, and that was the Veto, without which it appeared the noble lord would not agree to the claims, and which the Catholics would not consent to grant. He had heard of no other. God forbid he should refuse to any class of his Majesty's subjects privileges which it would be safe to concede to them. But it was quite different to discuss specific propositions, and, after such a debate as that, to go into a Committee upon general grounds, when they might only raise unfounded hopes, and excite groundless fears. He anxiously asked to know, what the safeguards consisted in; then he should understand the matter better. When he looked into the law books, civil, canon, or otherwise, or into the common prayer-book, though on such a subject it might be sufficient for a reverend prelate, he, for his part, as a lawyer, could not take the opinion of Mr. Fox, for whose name he had much respect, or of Mr. Pitt, or of Mr. Burke, or of Mr. Windham, as conclusive on the subject. The Revolution of 1688 was founded on a belief that certain tenets existed which precluded persons holding them from power, and the existence of those tenets was now denied. We had therefore been guarding the constitution by various laws, and now we were told that supremacy meant nothing. He hardly could tell where he was; he could not think himself in a British House of Lords, when he heard some things uttered that night. He had read something of archbishop Wake, having himself been, in early life, intended for the church, and he could quote him page by page with other noble lords. He could also quote Fenelon on some of these subjects. He could hear of nothing as a security but the rejected Veto. Was he too rush, in standing upon the constitution of England, and the principles of the Revolution, which united and knitted together a Protestant State and Constitution, and a Protestant church establishment, for the express purpose of handing them down together, with all their benefits, to our remotest posterity? Would their lordships consent to alter the establishment 678 at the Revolution, by consenting to a motion, which could only create uneasiness and disappointments? He might be called a bigot, and very likely a monk: but he had only in answer to this, to say, "give me your distinct propositions, explain to me your safeguards and your securities, and then I will most anxiously consider and examine them, on their own grounds, and see what can be done; but I will not consent to go into a Committee, on any general statement of a petition."
Lord Hollandfully concurred in the definition of the noble and learned lord on the nature of civil and religious rights. They belonged naturally to all classes, and when withheld, the onus probandi lay not on those to whom they were denied, but on those by whom they were refused. Upon this principle, then, all parties were agreed; and he was happy at it, because it was one on which he had often been misunderstood. And, indeed, although he certainly thought that the discussion of abstract rights was generally to be avoided, yet there were occasions, and this was one of them, when an understanding and concurrence in fundamental principles was indispensibly necessary. The noble and learned lord had founded himself upon the Revolution; he believed that if his education had not been of that nature, as to enable him to cope with that noble and learned lord in all the depths of legal knowledge and research, it had at least disposed him to regard with an admiration surpassed by none, that great and glorious event. The noble and learned lord had, in his observations, libelled the character of the Revolution, and entirely misrepresented the causes that produced it. What! was it to be said that it originated in a dispute between contending sects! Was it, indeed, to be traced even to the question of a Catholic or a Protestant king? No, very far from it. It was a great struggle between tyranny on the one hand, and freedom on the other; it was a contest between king and people. Let the issue be searched for in the Bill of Rights, which gave the death blow to that famous doctrine, that the interests of the governed were secondary and subordinate to the interests of the governors. The noble and learned lord (Redesdale) however, whose legal habits might have rendered his conclusions more, correct, had ventured to assert, that the repeal of the Test Act would overturn the Bill of Rights. He challenged the noble 679 and learned lord to shew it. Did he remember, that at the time of the passing that act, a motion was made to prohibit any future alterations in its provisions, and that this motion was lost by a large majority? or had he forgotten, that when the Union itself was under discussion, a proposal to make the Test Act a part of the Union, was likewise rejected? The noble and learned lord had said, that all the essential parts of our constitution were Protestant, and that it had been secured by the Test Act. During the long Struggle, therefore, which had taken place in this country between Catholic and Protestant, it was not till the passing the Test Act that the country had a constitution. The reasons of the noble and learned lord against the motion for a Committee, appeared to him to be the best arguments for it, and nothing could be more unreasonable than to require all the details which might be there entered into, to be laid before them as a preliminary to the appointment of the Committee. The noble lord who spoke second in the debate, objected to the mode of proceeding by Petition. Was not this proceeding then the unalienable right of the subjects of the empire? The noble lord said also, that the present was an improper time, and that at another period his objections might be removed. He (lord Holland) was apprehensive, however, that in thus wishing for more time, the noble lord was anticipating an opportunity of finding out some better arguments on the same side, than those which he had urged that night. The noble and learned lord (Redesdale) although he had carried his warmth to an excess, had evidently misunderstood the noble mover, who had never intended to accuse him of partiality in his judicial duties. In that noble lord's remarks on the treaty of Limerick, he must say, that however warm a foe he might be to his holiness the Pope, he doubted if that Pontiff had ever proved himself a greater enemy to oaths and treaties than the noble lord himself. What did the history and result of that treaty prove, but that the Irish Catholics, after surrendering their last hope, had been wronged of the conditions in their favour, upon the flimsy pretence, that the sanction of parliament was wanting to them? Without referring to the supposed declarations of individuals, or to any implied pledge, he felt himself justified by an appeal to the letter of the statute of the Union. He had been the 680 first to press the claim of the Catholics on the attention of the House after that event, and was then told by several noble lords, that he had produced no petitions to shew that it was the desire of the people at large. The noble and learned lord had said, that he never could extract from Mr. Pitt his opinions as to the securities required. But the noble and learned lord would surely not consider the silence of Mr. Pitt, to his enquiries, as evidence against his declarations and avowed opinions at different periods. As to safeguards, it would be most absurd to go in search of questions for controversy even before the House had signified or expressed any disposition to concession. The noble and learned lord would have done better in proving this to be a question of theology, than in sneering at the right reverend prelate for stating that he considered it merely a political one. The noble and learned lord was astonished that the king's supremacy should have been said to be not universally acknowledged in this country. Did he forget or overlook the Kirk of Scotland, in which it was a fundamental doctrine to deny that supremacy? He was happy to find that noble and learned lord so well versed in the Prayer-book, and as he said he looked for Catholic tenets in the decrees of Catholic councils, he begged to ask him, whether he had never discovered any thing in the Prayer-book hostile to the Bill of Rights? He believed that it would be impossible to discover any thing more destructive of political liberty than the Homilies in the Bishops' Book, in which, among many other similar sentiments, it is declared that the king is the vicegerent of God on earth. A decree of the University of Oxford might be quoted, in which it is promulgated, that whoever should deny this, should be guilty of blasphemy. Why, then, search musty records for the decress of ancient councils, and apply them to modern circumstances?—It was curious to note the different expedients employed at different periods to put down Popery. In Henry g's time, it was by burning, a practice which prevailed some time, and at length, in Charles 2's reign, exclusion was resorted to. A Protest signed by lord Shaftesbury and many others, was entered against the Test Act, which protest stated, that a seat in that House was so "sacrosanct a right," that no government could interfere to take it away. The debates in the Lords on this subject 681 were conducted with disgraceful heat and acrimony, and the Commons even proceeded to blows. The grossest absurdities were there uttered, and cheered as the groundwork of a superstructure worthy of it. But it was now said the object of continuing this law was to guard us from a foreign power. Even here, however, there were more cats than could catch mice, for the test imposed required a disavowal of any belief in transubstantiation. He should be glad to know if any of the noble lords, the champions of the Church, would have ventured to propose this test to Henry 8. The whole history of the test laws reminded him of a farce, in which a physician is applied to, to prescribe for an ostler, and inquiring what had been done yesterday, is told that the horses on the left had been bled, and those on the right had been purged. 'Oh! then,' said he, bleed those on the right, and purge those on the left.'—He must now beg leave to say a few words with respect to the time, and in support of his own opinion that the present was most proper, was most advisable. For twelve year many who had professed themselves friends to the Catholic claims, had as uniformly opposed them on the ground of the unfitness of the time whenever they were advanced. He knew this was a subject of delicacy, but the period might come when it would be roughly handled if too long deferred. Greatly did he rejoice at our victories in Portugal; but if, instead of his brilliant achievements, lord Wellington had been under the necessity of re-embarking his army, what might have been now our situation, the French having possession of Cadiz, of Lisbon, of Ferrol? and with how much less grace and dignity might we have found it necessary to concede the claims of the Catholics, than at the present moment, when no misconstruction could be put upon the boon? If there was one criterion more certain than another of the truth of human judgments, it was to be found by placing ourselves in other circumstances and in other times. What, he would ask, were the sentiments of ministers on learning that, by a large majority, the Cortes had refused to appoint a British officer with a command over Estremadura, and adjoining provinces? Did they not exclaim what strange and extravagant notions? Did they not vent their surprise, that any set of men, at a crisis so big with their fate, should be so stupidly bigotted as to apprehend any danger to 682 their religion from the appointment of lord Wellington?—'Mutato nomine de to fabula narrator.' Doubtless the ministers had condemned the unfounded and ridiculous alarms of the Spaniards in South America, and had said in their hearts, that all this might have been well in the reign of Philip 2, but was most extravagant and absurd in the circumstances of the present period. Let the House then take this vital question into calm and dispassionate consideration; let them remember the recorded sentiment of Mr. Burke, that "no free constitution could ever be supported by exclusions; sooner or later the government must destroy them, or they will destroy the government." For his own part, he would not hesitate to avow, that if he did not enjoy in as large a degree as his fellow-subjects all the privileges of the constitution, although he should certainly feel it his duty to give it his support, it would be with less attachment, and with very different feelings from those which now actuated him.
The Earl of Westn Orelandsaid, that until a distinct plan was previously laid before their lordships, stating the securities by which the integrity of the Established Church was to be maintained, he thought it premature to ask their lordships to go into a committee.
The Earl of Moira,in a short speech, supported the motion: he said that in all that had been urged that night by the noble lords who opposed it, he had not heard one new objection started, and in the old ones that had been repeated, not one argument. It had been said by one noble lord that the Irish Catholics were not generally anxious for the object now claimed in their behalf. He knew not why their own Petitions should not be admitted as evidence of their sincere and constant wish upon that subject? but, independent of that evidence, was it to be pretended that it was in human nature to be indifferent to persecution, unless, indeed, noble lords would argue as did a fox-hunter, in whose company he once heard an argument against the cruelty of hunting. The fox-hunter admitted that the hunting of hare or deer was cruel, but that of foxes was not so, because, in his judgment, the fox liked to be hunted. He denied the necessity of that previous stipulation on the part of the Catholics which had been contended for; the Catholics came before their lordships, not as Catholics but as British subjects, to claim their 683 share in British rights, and the burden of proving them unfit for such share lay on those who opposed their claim to it. The Act of Toleration had been relied upon; but what was that act but a recognition of right. Another objection had been made to the time. He thought that the work of conciliation could not be entered upon too early. It was too of all things desirable, if the claims of the Catholics were to be acceded to, that they should be granted as the gift of our justice rather than as extorted from our necessities. As to any danger to be apprehended from those concessions to the Established Church, he thought that such an apprehension was, of all others, the most idle. He looked upon the Established Church as holding forth the best standard of religious freedom; and he, as a sincere admirer of that establishment, would be the last man to support what he conceived to be likely, in its remotest consequence, to injure, much less endanger it. The motion of his noble friend should therefore have his most cordial support.
§ Earl Greysaid that he was confident their lordships would acquit him of any intention at that late hour, and after such a debate as they had heard, of rising to add any thing to the reasoning or observations which had been urged in support of the present motion. He rose for no such purpose. All that ha might have originally intended to have urged that night had been so completely forestalled by the most convincing and eloquent speech of his noble friend who had opened the debate, and by those noble lords who followed on the same side, that there was nothing new left to him, but to re-assert his entire concurrence in their sentiments. He differed from the observations of the noble lord on the woolsack, respecting the Revolution. He denied that the principle of that glorious event was one of mere exclusion, on the ground of religious jealousies, or establishing upon any such narrow ground the connection between church and state; the grand principle was equal rights and privileges to all their fellow subjects. Mr. Pitt's name and authority had been resorted to frequently in the course of the debate; he thought that some of he noble lords who had appeared most anxious to support the memory of their deceased friend, had not been very happy in their manner of doing so. One noble lord had slated, that the public motive generally assigned for Mr. Pitt's 684 retirement from office in 1801, was not the private motive which had really actuated him; while another noble lord had declared that he never could learn from. Mr. Pitt what were the grounds and securities which he had proposed to himself as the best means for preserving the established Church from all danger. What inference did the noble and learned lord draw from this?—With respect to that part of the question respecting the Veto, he should only say that that question might be in itself a sufficient warning to others, not to be too ready to submit plans upon the subject before they had gone into the Committee; as to what had been said, with regard to the claims of the English Catholics not having been repeated this year, he had to acquaint the House, that it had been left by that respected body to his discretion, to determine whether their Petition should be presented that session; but of this he could assure their lordships, that the English Catholics felt common cause with the Irish Catholics, and were most cordial well-wishers to the success of the present Petition.—But he now came to that which he confessed was the chief, if not the sole cause of his having then risen to trespass upon their lordships his had listened to certain observations in the speech of a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) with the greatest pain. He assured the noble and learned lord he had acted under a great misconception. He had listened with every possible attention to the speech of his noble friend the mover; it was indeed a speech that commanded attention; and he would venture to declare, that, throughout it, there was not a word to warrant the misapprehension of the noble and learned lord. He trusted that the noble and learned lord would gladly seize an opportunity to explain expressions, that could have dropped from him only under the mistaken apprehension of a very heavy charge.
§ Lord Redesdalethanked the noble earl for the handsome manner of his interposition, He had certainly imagined that the noble earl who opened the debate had made a strong allusion to the discharge of his judicial duties, when in a judicial station in Ireland; but when, in answering that supposed charge, he had said that many of the Irish Catholics themselves could prove it to be false and unjust, nothing was more distant from his intention than to impute to the noble earl any design of knowingly preferring against 685 him a charge which he at the same time suspected to be groundless. This he had never intended to say; and if the words he had used had given rise to such a construction, he apologised for having used them.
§ Earl Greycongratulated himself and the House upon the promptand ingenuous explanation of the noble and learned lord. He had no doubt that his noble friend in his reply would "meet it with corresponding good will.—The cry for question then becoming general,
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, that as every argument which he had already offered remained unanswered, and as they had been so well and ably confirmed by the reasoning of his noble friends who followed, he felt it unnecessary to trouble their lordships with any reply. With respect to a matter that had occurred in the course of the debate, and which personally alluded to himself, he hoped he knew too well what he owed to those who had honoured him with the high trust reposed in him, to have suffered any feelings of a private nature to have mixed with and disturbed the discharge of a great public duty. Nor should he now have at all alluded to the circumstance itself in that place, had it not been for the full and candid explanation just made by the noble and learned lord. Indeed, when the noble and learned lord was adverting to what had fallen from him, he was on the point of correcting the misconception, when a term fell from the noble and learned lord which he thought necessarily closed his mouth. He had certainly alluded to the judicial capacity of the noble and learned lord, but not for the purpose of charging him with a corrupt administration of it, but merely to designate him when that noble and learned lord was in Ireland. He had materially differed from that noble and learned lord, in many of his political principles, but he never questioned the purity of his administration of justice. He expressed himself satisfied with what had just fallen from the noble and learned lord, and returned his acknowledgments to their lord-ships for the patient attention with which they had honoured him.
The House then divided,
| Contents | 36— | Proxies | 26–62 |
| Non Contents | 74— | Proxies | 47–121 |
| Majority against the motion—59 |