country were left in their present position, than it would be through the basis upon which things would be placed by the measure under their lordships' consideration. As to the Protestant establishment in England, it stood on much too high grounds, for him to feel the slightest apprehension for its security. Lord Tenterden would not yield to any man, in his attachment to civil and religious liberty. He had all his life admired the Church of England. There was no church so tolerant. His objection then to the proposed measure was, that in his opinion the adoption of it would be to take the broad and direct road to the overthrow of the Protestant church. It might be said that in other countries different religions went on smoothly and amicably together. But was there any other country, either in Europe or elsewhere, that bore any resemblance to Ireland in that respect? In Ireland there was an acknowledged Popish hierarchy, assuming the names of the Protestant hierarchy established by law. Was it not impossible but that there must exist in such persons an anxious desire to obtain a restitution of the advantages of which they had been deprived? The acts for the exclusion of Roman Catholics had been frequently adverted to. It had been assumed that the exclusions in the reign of Charles the Second were introduced in consequence of the wilful misrepresentations of Titus Oates. Though this might be true as far as related to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from parliament, it was not correct as related to their exclusion from all other offices. He blamed not his majesty's ministers for the course upon which they had resolved. He believed they adopted it upon information which they deemed to warrant it, although the information laid before parliament did not support the necessity of the meditated change. He had felt it his duty to express the opinions he had done, as he conscientiously apprehended that the concession of political power to the Catholics would only enable them to aim at ulterior objects. Earl Grey said, "I do not assert that those who may differ from me upon this question are the enemies of religious liberty. They may think that other securities are necessary for the church; but it may be permitted me to hold that the best security of the church is not in exclusive laws, but in the purity and excellence of the doctrines of the Church of England. For my part, I can trust the Catholic upon his oath; and I am as much disposed to place trust in the assertion of a Roman Catholic as in that of any member of your lordships' house. I have always contended, that the settlement of the Revolution was founded on the principle of attending to the circumstances under which the laws were enacted. Supposing, however, that the Bill of Rights had contained an express exclusion of the Catholics from the enjoyment of all its enactments, the Bill of Rights itself has undergone numerous alterations since its first enactment. In the year 1807, I, then holding the office of one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, brought in a bill, under the provisions of which concessions were made to Catholics entering the army. Does Lord Eldon recollect the fury which was excited against the government by the announcement of that measure? Does he recollect the artifices which were made use of to inflame the minds of the people, and to impress them with the belief that the safety of the state, and the sanctity of the throne and the altar would be endangered by this concession? Does he recollect that it was declared if this oath was removed, and Catholics admitted into the army, all would be gone? The sovereign, too, by the same arts, was induced to declare, that any assent to a proposition such as that contained in the bill, would be a violation of his coronation oath, and destructive of the liberties of the people; and the result was, that the administration, of which I was a member, became the victim of the popular arts resorted to for its destruction. Another administration was formed, and formed too upon the principle of the strictest exclusion of the Roman Catholics. I, however had the satisfaction to find those who profited by my exclusion, propose a measure of precisely the same description as that which they had denounced. I cannot too strongly express my abhorrence at the attempt that has been made to circulate through the country the idea that this bill cannot be passed without a violation of the King's coronation oath it is one of the arguments of the day, I know; but I do not see how it is possible for a moment to support such an assertion. King William had declared himself in council as to the oath,-that it only bound him to maintain the church as by law established, at the same time reserving liberty to the legislature to make what alterations they might hereafter think fit. This was the understanding of King William on the subject; and, after this manifestation of the way in which he viewed the question, it will be unnecessary for me to insist further upon this part of the subject. I admit that this measure will give a power to the Roman Catholics; but then it is a power which is an essential ingredient of the British Constitution. The subjects of this country are the freest in the world, because they possess political power and civil rights. Take away these privileges from any portion of the people, and that portion will be slaves; insecure against the insults of the government, degraded in their rights, and distinguished as a separate and particular caste of society. I admit that by conferring on the Catholics eligibility to office, and the right of having seats in Parlia the bloodshed did not extinguish them, but has spread over the country into one general conflagration. Besides, the Catholics of Ireland do not offer an open resistance; theirs is a secret discontent, a spirit against the government, which is nourished until the opportunity shall offer to take advantage of what may be passing. This measure opens a happier prospect: it will be, as a noble marquis said last night, the beginning of the regeneration of Ireland. In spite of the calumnies circulated against them, his majesty's ministers have established their claim to a debt of gratitude from the country, which the people will be more willing to pay, than they were formerly disposed to reward the brilliant military achievements of the noble duke." ment, we are giving them political power, but that political power is also a civil right. They possess great power at present, but with the feeling that they are still unjustly treated. This being the case, their political power is not, as it ought to be, used for the purpose of strengthening the state. Those who are opposed to this bill talk as if the council, the bench, and the parliament were to be in a moment overwhelmed by the incursions of the Catholics. I am sure, my lords, that if we have to believe this, it will be a miracle far greater than that of transubstantiation. But if the Roman Catholics are strong, it is ourselves who have been really strengthening them; for it is we who have united the Roman Catholics, by awakening in their minds a common sense of the injuries they sustain. I do not venture to say that this law will at once give tranquillity to Ireland; but I am sure, that without this law it is impossible to have tranquillity, or to be free from danger. The noble and learned lord has said that one of its effects would be to destroy the Established Church. The only fear I have ever had for the Church of England, was from the impolitic laws which have been enacted under the pretence of supporting it. With respect to the Church of Ireland, the great obstacle to its triumph has always been that it has never been more than the church of a small minority of the people of Ireland and this, I verily believe, in a great degree owing to those very laws against which we are now struggling. Take away the false protection of exclusionary laws, and the ministers of that church whose doctrines are of superior truth and excellence will prevail in the conflict of argument. Those who oppose this measure have alluded to the possible case of the Irish Roman-Catholics rebelling, and thus giving an opportunity of employing military force with effect. This suggestion was almost a reproach to the noble duke, as if he would have had the weakness to have recourse to measures of severe coercion. But the noble duke refuted the imputation admirably. I will not attempt to repeat the passage in his speech on opening this debate, in which he described the horrors of civil war, and the sacrifices he would make to avert it from any country to which he is attached. From that noble duke, of all men living, it came most gracefully. A soldier by profession, he avows that he would shrink with fear and horror at the prospect of the barbarities and atrocities of a civil war. That declaration has placed on his head a crown of immortal glory. But if we resorted to the cruelties of a civil war, would even success be effectual for our purpose? Let the events in Ireland, since the rebellion of 1798, answer the question. Have the flames of disaffection ceased to burn since the blood of the people was shed over them? No; Lord Redesdale opposed the bill. The Earl of Eldon said,-" I believe in my conscience, that the noble duke has made this proposition because he feels it to be his duty to his country; but the people have been taken by surprise with this measure, which they conceive, and justly, affects their dearest interests and their best property. A letter of the noble duke to a Roman-Catholic prelate in December last, stated that it was not the noble duke's intention at that time to bring forward any measure of this kind. The publication of this letter has been a great misfortune; for it led the people to sink into a state of apathy, generated by the persuasion that no measures would be brought forward at any rate this session. I do not at all reply upon the construction which some persons have put upon his majesty's coronation oath. I rather prefer going at once into the spirit and principle of the constitution as cemented in 1688. The sentiment of the law as then constituted was, that the constitution should be essentially Protestant; the throne Protestant; the parliament Protestant, and the great officers of state Protestant. I do not mean to contend that these precautions were never, under any change of circumstances, to be liable to modification or alteration. I know enough of history to know, however, that laws must abide the eventual modification of circumstances. But it must be upon a clear and palpable ground of necessity. Where, then, is this necessity? Shew it to me, and I will endeavour to deal with it. present I deny its existence. There is no security provided by the bill for the church; and it proposes to admit persons to have a seat in parliament who do not acknowledge the king's supremacy in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical. The measure is described as necessary to give a new buttress and support to the Church of England-a support which I fancy is to supply the place of that which was taken away by the act of last session for the repeal of the test and corporation acts. Against that act, if I voted, it was because At I thought it would injure the church, and on the same principle I mean to vote against this measure.' Lord Plunkett remarked, "I shall address my observations more particularly to that which is the more alarming position of the two assumed by the noble and learned lord-namely, that the bill is calculated to subvert the Protestant constitution in church and state." Without this measure the suppression bill would not be successful in putting down the Catholic Association, nor would it give peace to the country. The existing system interfered with every thing and disturbed every thing: it entered into all affairs, it affected all ranks and classes, it poisoned all enjoyment, it put a stop to the ordinary intercourse between man and man. So long as matters remained in this state an Irish Protestant on hearing of this measure, says at once, "What! shall a Catholic have the privilege of a Protestant? How can I be safe if a Roman Catholic be associated with Protestants in the administration of the laws?" But the Roman Catholic says, "Am I safe when the laws are exclusively administered by Protestants?" The answer is quick, "Oh, yes-that is very good for you-quite good enough; but as regards the Protestants it is a different thing." It was not merely Catholic orators, or persons who might sit in parliament, who pressed for emancipation; the lower classes also felt interested in the favourable decision of the question. During the last fifty years, the Catholics had gone on advancing in numbers; and, looking at this undoubted fact, he asked from what source was danger most to be dreaded? Employment and education were doubtless good in themselves; but the effect, leaving the laws untouched, would be, that if you made Ireland three times as prosperous as she was at present, you would make her three times as dangerous. He had not heard any other practical remedyoffered for the evils of Ireland. It had been contended, that if the Catholics were honest in the belief of the religion they professed, they must be hostile to the Protestant establishment. But an establishment was not a principle of religion, but merely a political institution, which some thought had been unwisely connected with religion; but he thought differently, and considered the connexion both wise and necessary. The Roman Catholic would prefer the Protestant establishment, under which security was of fered to his property, his family, and his life, to the wild and chimerical attempt to uproot the Protestant establishment, which could only be done by shaking the foundation of the empire. The two countries must be separated before that establishment could be abandoned. The danger to the church was one which no human power could effectually cure. It was impossible for the legislature to make Catholics Protestants; their lordships must deal with the people as they found them. What did the friends of the Protestant establishment say?" We believe you to be very good sort of people; but you cannot have what you ask whilst the Protestant establishment exists." This was a desperate alternative to hold out to five or six millions of people pressing for their rights. One word as to the Reformation. The noble and learned lord had stated that it was the established principle of the Reformation to exclude Roman Catholics from parliament and from offices; and therefore it was that the oath of supremacy was framed. Now the 5th Elizabeth did not exclude Roman Catholics from sitting in that House: and the reason was stated; because the Queen was assured-not of the religion, but of the loyalty of the Roman-Catholic peers. Then the oath of supremacy was a test, not of religion, but of loyalty. Queen Elizabeth was a staunch Protestant, yet she felt herself safe in dealing with Roman Catholics. It was her policy to gain the Roman Catholics; and for that purpose she changed the Articles and the Liturgy of the Church of England, as framed by Edward VI., and adopted the communion service, to suit the Roman Catholics, and to enable them to join in communion with the Protestants. Passages, containing an express denial of the real presence, were expunged; so that the form was such as would admit a Roman Catholic to join in communion with Protestants. This was a fact; and for thirteen years after the Reformation did the Roman Catholics take the oath of supremacy, and join in communion with the Church of England. Afterwards the Roman Catholics became suspected, not on account of their religion, but owing to their supposed adherence to the designs of the throne. The throne became first disaffected to the liberties of the subject, and from the reign of Charles the First the Roman Catholics came to be considered as enemies to the state through their adherence to the king. What was meant by saying that the law was consummated at the Revolution? Did the Bill of Rights trouble itself with all the trumpery of the invocation of saints and transubstantiation? No such thing. The framers of that bill thought only of settling the principles of the constitution so far as they had been invaded, and they had not room in their heads for the consideration of such things as these. There were thirteen particulars stated by them, in which the crown had violated the liberties of the subject, and they confined themselves to these. The question had been repeatedly asked, Was this measure calculated to tranquillize Ireland? He would ask in return, ought it to produce tranquillity? If their lordships had done perfect justice, let them take for granted that it would produce its due effect. If, after the passing of this measure, the Roman Catholics should be guilty of excesses, the English Catholics and the Irish Protestants would unite against them. Lord Farnham said, the fundamental cause of this measure was alleged to be the state of Ireland. He thought that the great danger to be apprehended from this measure threatened the Church of Ireland, though he was sorry to make use of that expression. The noble duke had spoken of the Church of Ireland as a church of the minority; but the only church established in Ireland was the united church, and that was a church of the majority. If the Church of Ireland was sacrificed to the Roman Catholics, the hierarchy of England might tremble in their sees. There was a great fallacy in the arguments of the noble and learned lord (Plunkett) in respect to what he conceived to be the tenets of the Roman Catholics. He (Lord Farnham) took it that the Catholics were sincere Catholics; that they professed a religion they believed; and he looked for their tenets, not in their individual creeds, but in the doctrines of the church itself, as expressed in decrees of councils. The Duke of Wellington rose.-He did not intend to detain their lordships longer than was necessary to explain those points which required some explanation. A most reverend prelate had averred that the laws were not executed against the Catholic Association. He had endeavoured to find the means of proceeding against the Association; yet being of opinion that it was essential to the interests of the country to bring forward this measure, it would not have been his duty to refrain from so doing, whatever might have been the conduct of the Catholic Association. Another point to which it was necessary for him to refer, was the repeated assertion, that the measure was dangerous to the Church of Ireland. Was this danger apprehended from legislation, or from violence? If from legislation, their apprehension was clearly puerile; for it was impossible to suppose that the small number of persons which this measure would admit into parliament, could afford any ground for apprehending danger from legislation to the Church of England in Ireland. A fundamental article of the Union of the two countries was the union of the two churches. He thought the measure would give additional security to all the interests of the state. noble and learned friend accuses me of acting with secresy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows, as well as I do, how the cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure until the most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? A noble earl accused me of misconduct, that I did not at once dissolve the parliament. But when I knew the state of the elective franchise in Ire "If my land,--when I recollected the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in Ireland in the course of last summer,-when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the House of Commons, to say nothing of collisions that might have led to something little short of civil war,-I should have been wanting in duty to my sovereign and to my country, if I had advised his majesty to dissolve his parliament." On the division, the numbers were— Proxies 70-217 The house sat in a committee on the bill, April 7 and 8; on both which days numerous amendments were proposed and negatived. THE THIRD READING.-April 10, The Marquis of Camden expressed his approbation of the bill. As one of those who had always supported the claims of the Roman Catholics, and went out with the ministry in 1801 on the question, he could not give a silent vote on the measure.-Lord Granville assigned a similar reason for addressing the house, and praised the mode in which government had brought forward the question.-Lord Eldon said, "If near the close of my life, for it cannot last long, I were not convinced of the extreme peril to which the constitution of the country will be exposed by this bill, I would not again trouble you; but I am compelled to state the grounds of my opposition, and perhaps it may be the last time I shall ever address the house on any political question. In the discharge of my duty, I have now for twenty years resisted measures of this nature. Whatever I may think of the question, God forbid I should add to that agitation which, at its present height, affrights me. I shall go into retirement with the consciousness of having discharged my duty. So completely and thoroughly am I satisfied that I am not in error, that, so help me God, I would rather perish at this moment than give my consent to this measure. Sooner or later it will overturn the aristocracy and the monarchy. From the moment that the bill passed, the state would no longer have a Protestant king and a Protestant parliament. When those dangers shall have arrived I shall have been consigned to the urn, the sepulchre, and mortality; but that they will arrive I have no more doubt than that I yet continue to exist. I solemnly declare, that I had rather not be living to-morrow morning, than on awaking to find that I had consented to a measure fraught with evils so imminent and so deadly, and of which had I not solemnly expressed this, my humble but firm conviction, I should have been acting the part of a traitor to my country, my sovereign, and my God." The Earl of Harrowby drew a comparison between the state of public feeling during Mr. Pitt's administration and at the present time, and stated it as his firm belief that the measure in progress was the very one Mr. Pitt would have chosen, and the present moment the one he would have selected for its introduction. The doctrine that religious opinions ought to have nothing to do with political power, is to be found in the statutes. An argument against this measure, is the unchangeable nature of the Roman-Catholic tenets. But the question is, not whether Catholics will revoke what have been de clared articles of faith, but whether they have not long ceased to be practically acted upon? Events shew how little the power of the pope is dreaded by those who have the power of resistance. We should inquire, in a question of command and obedience, not only whether A commands, as he used to do, but whether B obeys. It is said, that hereafter the Catholics will wish to repeal the Union. I have no doubt that there are, and will be, some who wish such an event to take place; but I cannot imagine that it will ever be the wish of an Irish proprietor, now that the Catholics have all the same rights and privileges as their fellow-subjects. Noble lords have said, that they were surprised at the measure coming from the quarter it has done; but who is so fit, so proper, to call upon others to sacrifice their opinions to the general good, as those who have already sacrificed their own on the altars of their country? The Bishop of Norwich said, he regretted that Lord Eldon had mistaken the opinions of Locke and Bishop Hoadley; they were not friendly to the principle of exclusion on religious grounds. The Duke of Athol supported the measure: the Earl of Arlington opposed it, as an infringement of the constitution; and Lord Middleton, who had before opposed concessions, declared himself convinced by the arguments in favour of the bill.-The Duke of Newcastle observed, that the reasons stated for introducing the measure were so nugatory, such perfect trumpery, that he could not conceive how any person could think of justifying such a measure upon such grounds.--The Earl of Roden for eighteen years had invariably opposed what were called the Catholic claims, and saw no reason to change his former opinions. A momentary calm might be produced by the measure, but it could not deprive the Roman-Catholic priests of that power which they now enjoyed and continued to exercise.The Bishop of Lichfield spoke briefly in favour of the measure.-The Earl of Falmouth complained of the CHRIST. OBSERV. APP. sur rapidity with which it had been pressed forward.--The Duke of Cumberland said, that nothing had occurred in the progress of the measure to change that impression which he had originally entertained of it.--The Duke of Sussex thought it his duty once more to record his approbation of the bill.-The Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Redesdale spoke shortly against it.-The Duke of Wellington said, there had been no prise. The numerous petitions presented, amounting to not less than ten thousand, was the strongest proof that there had been no surprise. He rejoiced that these petitions had been presented, as they shewed the sound Protestant feeling of the country. The house had never sat longer upon any bill; and never had any bill been more fully discussed. As the bill did no mischief, it could not require any securities and the introduction of securities would really have endangered the church. If the bill gave no securities, did it take any away? He could only say, and this was his consolation, that in the course of these proceedings he had not done an act or said a word which it was not his duty to do and to say. Their lordships then divided, when there appeared Contents-Present......149 Such is the outline of these memorable and eventful discussions. Never perhaps was more, or so much, said and thought and written upon any legislative question, or with more warmth of spirit and desire of success in the contending parties. Numerous beyond precedent were the petitions to the king and both houses of the legislature, and the pamphlets and publications in every form which issued from the press on the occasion. Our account of the speeches in parliament is necessarily an abstract; for in full they would occupy volumes; but we have endeavoured to present a fair digest of the chief arguments on both sides; confining ourselves of necessity principally to the regular debates; though every inch of the ground was contested over and over again for many weeks during the presentation of petitions and in the discussions on the bill on the elective franchise. During the progress of 50 |