Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IV.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

The Catholic Question.—Mr Plunkett's Bill-Carried in the Commons'-Debates in the Lords'-Negatived.-Disfranchisement of Grampound,-Transference of its Votes.-Motion for Parliamentary Reform by Mr LambtonBy Lord John Russell.-Sir J. Mackintosh's Bill for Mitigation of Punishment in Cases of Forgery.

THE Catholic question, already debated so often, and in so many different shapes, made this session a nearer approach to a successful issue than it had done on any previous occasion. On the part of the ministry it was thrown entirely loose, being supported by several of the most leading members. It experienced opposition, therefore, chiefly from the alarms and prepossessions still cherished by the higher members of the political and ecclesiastical aristocracies.

The approach of the discussion was marked by the presentation of numerous petitions from the English clerical bodies, praying that the church should be deprived of none of those securities against popery, fixed to it at the glorious epoch of the Revolution. On the other hand, Lord Nugent, on the 28th February, presented a petition from the English Roman Catholics. This petition, his lordship observed, was signed by 8000 individuals. Among these were the names of seven peers, fourteen baronets,

seven of their own bishops, and a considerable body of their clergy. Besides the increased claims of the Catholic body, he rested his hopes of present success, particularly on the declaration of the petitioners on the subject of foreign influence, hitherto the main object of jealousy. One passage was expressed as follows:— "Your petitioners have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate a part of that allegiance which is due only to their own sovereign; but they have repeatedly and solemnly denied the charge, and they now again beg leave to make the same denial ;" and they added, "to our sovereign lord the king we swear pure and undivided allegiance; in him alone we acknowledge the civil sword of the realm" (using the words of the 39 articles)

[blocks in formation]

try. This main question being cleared away, there remained no longer any reasonable pretence for refusing to the Catholics an equal participation of civil rights. The doctrine that Catholics did not consider the oaths made with Protestants binding, was long since swept away along with the rubbish of other prejudices; but let the House recollect how long they had suffered from the effects of such prejudices. In vain had Catholic Europe disavowed the doctrines imputed to them; in vain had the opinions of the most learned universities been declared; in vain had the example of the amicable manner in which Catholics and Protestants lived together. operated; the tests which had been created on the ground of such prejudices still continued. How absurd was it to exact an oath, that no mental reservation was intended, and no dispensation expected from the Pope, when, if such were the case, no oath could be binding. The Catholics, however, valued the sanctity of an oath too highly to make it an instrument of political power where they could not take it conscientiously. It was therefore most fallacious and absurd to say, that Catholics did not regard the sanctity of an oath, and at the same time to place an oath as the only barrier to their power. It was arguing in a circle. His lordship quoted the sentiments of Bishop Hoadly and Archdeacon Paley, that though it might be necessary, from urgent political circumstances, to withhold for a time certain privileges from the Catholics, the first opportunity ought to be embraced of placing them on a level with their fellow-citizens. The motion being seconded by Lord Glenorchy, the petition was laid upon the table. Mr Plunkett afterwards presented a petition, signed by several thousands of the Catholics of Ireland, and which, he could say, contained

the sentiments of the great body of that persuasion.

After these preliminaries, Mr Plunkett rose to bring forward his grand motion in favour of the Catholics. He disclaimed employing any argument founded on supposed disaffection in the Irish Catholics. Such an argument their conduct had nobly refuted. Determined as they were to persevere in their efforts to obtain redress of grievances and restoration of rights, they were equally determined never to seek them but as the result of wisdom and justice in the legislature, in which they knew that they could not be ultimately disappointed. He admitted that there existed an eager desire for redress, and somewhat of that sickness of heart, which arises from hope deferred. He did not expect that the remedy would at once remove all discontent. The waves were heard to roll for some time after the tempest had ceased. The measure was objected to on account of the difficulty of settling the details, and some want of agreement in its friends. Such a course was not fair, manly, nor candid. The Catholics called for concessions which justice required, which the constitution admitted, and which policy warranted. If you showed the request to be unfounded in argument, he yielded the question; but if you objected to the form of the measure, or to the detail of the terms, he would say it was not fair, manly, nor candid, to meet the question so. What right have you, Mr Plunkett proceeded, what right have you to neutrality on such a question? Why don't you come forward to assist us? Why don't you remove the objections which you are so sensible of? Why don't you clear up the obscurities which mislead us? What right have you to wrap yourself up in neutrality on a question which, if not bad, is necessarily good? What

he was now to propose, was to refer the petitions which he had presented to a committee, for arranging the mode in which the desires expressed in them could be complied with. This question would have been carried on a former occasion, but for the gross misconduct of its friends. That was at a time when Europe was in a most critical and alarming state; and those who voted for it then, could not now withhold their support. No portion of the people had been more distinguished for zeal and valour in the defence of the country than the Catholics. They had fought our battles; they had shed their blood with a pertinacity of self-devotion for the liberties and privileges of the British constitution, which shewed that they were worthy to enjoy them. He apprehended, then, nothing of hostility, certainly nothing of rancour, against his motion. There might be something of prejudice opposed to him. When he said prejudice, he begged to be understood to mean nothing hurtful to the feelings of any individual or class of persons. The prejudices opposed to him were derived from an origin so noble, and connected themselves with feelings so intimately associated with the struggles of our ancestors, both for civil and religious liberty, that they claimed every respect and attention; but as they were honourable in their origin, he hoped they were in their nature accessible to truth and reason. The learned gentleman endeavoured to show, that religious belief could never be a justifiable ground of political exclusion. The requisitions, too, were entirely negative; nothing positive was called for. A man might be an infidel, he might believe in Jupiter, in Osiris, in all the host of heaven, and all the creeping things of the earth, and be admitted to all the privileges of the state, for the statutory abhor

VOL. XIV. PART I.

rence was limited to those who believed all the great principles of religion. He endeavoured to shew, that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation involved nothing so wholly absurd as was generally represented. In Queen Elizabeth's reign a great part of the nation believed in the real presence, and that politic princess caused the liturgy to be so drawn up, that it might not directly shock this belief. The restrictions under which the Catholics laboured had been imposed in consequence of circumstances which had now long ceased to exist. The situation of Europe, the designs of Spain, might at one time render it necessary to impose some restraints on those who acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope. Yet they did not attribute to him any absolute power, or temporal authority, but merely a spiritual supremacy. A right reverend prelate, eminent for learning and ability, while expressing the most liberal sentiments on the subject of religious opinion, had named something which he called civil worth, from which it was expedient that the Catholics should be excluded. Now by this principle of civil worth, it was very clear that a man might shut out persons of the highest merit; he might shut out all those who were most eminently deserving of admission; and he might let in those who were the most worthless and the most unfit. If this newfangled phrase of "civil worth" was to be repeated, with a view to keep the Catholics out, it might be well to know what it meant. It did not include all that had immortalized the worthies of English history; neither did it include the little accidents of birth, education, and virtue, nor the mere immaterial requisites of justice, probity, and honour. All these were shut out of civil worth. This principle of exclusion was an upstart, re

H

publican principle, hostile to the very soul of the constitution; it wrested the sceptre from the hands of the King, to strike at the rights of the King's subjects. The 30th of Charles II. was passed upon the principle, that the prince on the throne was strongly suspected of being a Catholic; it was a sort of substitute for a bill of exclusion. It was continued in the Act of Union, only until parliament should otherwise provide. "Backed by these clear proofs of the original nature of our constitution-backed by the plain object and scope of the reformation-by the plain object and scope of the revolution-by the provisions of both the unions-by the subsequent declarations of parliament, that the Catholics are liege and loyal subjects; but, above all, backed by the practice of the last fifty years by the whole course of the late reign-which, if the doctrines now maintained were true, would be an outrageous violation of the constitution; backed, too, by the declared opinions of all the great men who have lived since the agitation of this question of Mr Dunning, Mr Pitt, Mr Fox, Mr Burke, Mr Sheridan, and Mr Windham ; in short, by the authority of every man whose name has had buoyancy enough to float upon the stream of time, have I not then triumphantly accomplished what I set out with asserting, viz. that the exclusion of the Catholics was no fundamental part of the constitution? Yet, why do I say triumphantly? When I miss so many of the ornaments that illustrated this House when the subject was formerly agitated, I should feel any thing but triumph. Where is Whitbread, the incorruptible and sleepless sentinel of the constitution? Where the more than dawning virtues of Horner ?-the matured excellence of Romilly, that steady light that threw a lustre, not merely on his

profession and his country, but on every thing connected with the interests of our nature? Where is my illustrious friend Ponsonby, the constitutional leader of the ranks of opposition, revering alike the privileges of the crown and the rights of its subjects? Where is the lamented Elliot, as noble in his nature as liberal in his sentiments,-the model of a true and unaffected aristocracy?— Where is the firm constitutional integrity of Pigott? But, above all, how shall I deplore that overwhelming and inestimable loss last sustained, and with which I dare not trust myself? Missing the presence of all these, can I feel any thing like triumph? Walking before the sacred images of these illustrious dead, as in a public and solemn procession, shall we not dismiss all party feeling, all angry passions, and unworthy prejudices?" Mr P. would now particularly consider the speech formerly made by Mr Peel, than whom no man's opinion was likely to produce a stronger impression on the public mind. Mr Peel urged, that in the present state of Ireland, and the disproportion which existed between the Protestants and the Catholics, it was impossible that the latter should be faithful to their oaths, and should not seek to establish the supremacy of their own faith." In that case," said Mr Plunkett, "Catholics and Protestants are in a state of interminable hostility; we are bound to support our establishment to our last gasp, and they to their latest breath bound to attempt its destruction. Thus are we lashed together, for ever struggling, and never in security. If I could view the question as the right honourable member for Oxford looks at it, I would at once abandon all intention of legislation; not in the hope that I should bring back the freedom, the glory, and the security of our ancestors, but because I should think

they were doomed to perish. I should retire from the question, not like him to a state of rest, but of torpor-not to repose, but to that insensibility which is the prelude to dissolution." Mr P. would venture to assert, that the Catholics were wholly guiltless of such a frightful imputation; that they harboured no hostility to the establishment. "Every rational Roman Catholic feels himself no more at liberty to attempt the subversion of our establishment, than to entertain the unworthy purpose of depriving an individual of his property. He knows that the same principle gives him and us life, liberty, and property; and he wisely prefers the Protestant establishment in an unimpaired state, to a Roman Catholic establishment in a subverted one. He is bound by the oath he takes, both as a man and a Christian, not only not to make the attempt, but to resist it, if made in any other quarter; and if, indeed, the oath were, as is contended, so contrary to the principles of his religion and his nature, it would be as unjustifiable in the legislature to impose it as it would be disgraceful in a Catholic to take it. I ask the right honourable gentleman on what authority he takes upon him, in opposition to the assertions, to the oaths of the Catholics, to brand and burn this stigma upon their foreheads? I cannot find in the large volume of human nature any principle which calls upon Roman Catholics to subvert that state by whose laws he is protected, merely that the heads of his priests may be decorated with a mitre. If, however, he is excluded from the privileges of the state merely on account of his religion;-if he is made an invidious exception in a country which permits the talents and virtues of all other men to advance them to the highest honours; and if this exception extend to the filii natorum et qui nascentur

ab illis, they will indeed have a sufficient motive to aim at the destruction of that state which heaps upon them only so heavy a load of injustice." The Speaker proposed to require extensive securities from the Catholics, particularly in regard to the loyalty of their clergy; but the grand remedy, in comparison of which all others were vain and nugatory, "is," said he, "to incorporate the Roman Catholics with thestate, that their interest shall be our security, to rivet them, as it were, to the state, and through the state to the establishment. I would unite the Catholic by every affection and every good feeling of his nature-by every motive that can operate upon his heart and head-by every obligation that can bind his conscience, and every argument that can convince his understanding; not so much by adding to his power, as by removing every offensive exclusion-every unworthy distinction. I do not propose here to strike the shackle from his limbs, for he is free; but to remove the brand from his forehead, for he is stigmatized. I would not have him a marked man and a plotting sectary, but would raise him to the proudest rank man can attain-to the rights and privileges of a free-born subject. Do not, I entreat you, as sincere friends to the Protestsnt establishment, reject this appeal for justice and grace; do not drive your Roman Catholic brother from your bar a discontented sectary; do not tell him who wishes to be a friend that he is, and ought to be, an enemy." Could Mr Peel assert, that Ireland must ever remain as it now is, a moral jungle, only fit for the abode of beasts, and men like beasts? It might be said, that there was a point where concession must stop; but this was not the act of 1793, which placed them in the most strange and anomalous situation.They were entitled to vote for every

« PreviousContinue »