and manfully avowed. He could not help auguring most favourably for the great undertaking in which they were engaged, from the arguments of its opponents, and more especially from those of the hon. member for Corfe Castle. It was most remarkable, that when this question was brought forward, it should be met, not on the grounds of Catholic emancipation, but that we should be called upon to discuss, not the merits of this particular question, but of some collateral topics with which it was connected. However, he should not follow this example; but would endeavour to confine himself to the bill before the House. The most important, leading, and, if satisfactory, most conclusive argument made use of by the hon. member on the floor was thisthat the grievances said to be sustained by the Catholics of Ireland were altogether imaginary and unreal. The best way, perhaps, of replying to that argument, and of showing the real existence of some grievances, would be to apply the laws as they now were to any particu Armagh, have been conducted to a conclusion so completely different. His hon. friend had quoted the same evidence which had led to the conversion of the hon. member for Armagh, on this momentous question, as the strongest argument against it. He apprehended he stated the argument of his hon. friend correctly, when he stated, that he traced the inconsistency between the conduct and the evidence of the same persons before the committee to insincerity. He said, that the violence and turbulence of Mr. O'Connell, and other leaders of the Catholic body, while in Ireland, were inconsistent with the calm and moderate tone which the same persons assumed before the committee. But, could his hon. friend find no means of accounting for this difference of feeling? Let him only consider the different circumstances of the two periods which he brought into juxta-position, and in the comparison he would find a satisfactory solution. In one light, they appeared as oppressed and injured men; in another, as men to whom we held out the hand of conciliation, "Ilar individual or profession in Ireland, and hold," said Mr. Burke, "one sort of language to a kind and conciliating friend; another to the proud and insolent foe." In Ireland, these gentlemen, smarting under disappointment and injustice, spoke the language of passion and disappointment; but, the moment a change of conduct was adopted towards them, and they were called to discuss with you calmly in a committee, those measures which might lead to an adjustment of the grievances of Ireland, that moment their sentiments and feelings were changed, and their expressions were changed along with them. So totally did he differ from his hon. friend, that he looked upon this moderate tone as a foretaste of that corciliation and contentment which would follow this measure, if carried into execution. If we found those persons so changed when the smallest gleam of hope shone upon their minds, must we not reasonably infer, that that satisfaction would go on increasing as the dawn went on changing to perfect day? He, therefore, dissented totally from the interference of his hon. friend, and declared, that if he had not previously to the appointment of a committee, had his mind made up on this important question, he should derive from the evidence the same conviction which the hon. member for Armagh had so justly drawn, and so powerfully then ask the hon. member to place his hand upon his breast, and say that the case made out was not a grievance. Let the law be taken as it affected the Catholic country gentleman, and the Catholic professional man. He would take the country gentleman-supposing him a man of considerable influence in the country, distinguishing himself upon grand juries, and in all his undertakings, by calm good sense and sound discretion, and enjoying the esteem and confidence of all the gentlemen in his county. He is to derive from all those distinctions, what privilege? what advantage? Nothing more than the poorest forty-shilling freeholder in the county. Let us next take the professional man; take, for instance, the case of a gentleman who has been so often alluded to in these discussions. You allow him to enter into an ambitious professionyou urge him on to spend the best years of his life in the tedious studies of that profession-and when at length he has surmounted the difficulties, and begun to acquire for himself the esteem of the public, and to enjoy the advantages which attend it; when, flushed with success and burning to go on, he is impeded by your law in his honourable career, and held fast, whilst his Protestant competitor passes over him to distinction. This, surely, was a grievance, harassing, vexatious, and gall There was but one thing immutable, and that was human nature. If the policy of the state were based on its principles, it would be permanent as the rock on which it was fixed. Feelings of gratitude and affection would be called forth by kindness; and resentment would always be excited by insult and injury. Let the House choose this basis for their proceedings; and whatever theologians or doctors might say-whatever they might urge of professions not changing, the House might rely, that the Catholics would receive kindness with gratitude, and favour with augmented loyalty. Could any man believe that the religion which had been professed and adorned by a Pascal and a Fenelon, those lights and ornaments of their age-could any man believe that the religion of our own ancestors rendered the Catholic ungrateful or deceitful? No man practically held such a belief, neither in public nor private life; for the state contracted treaties with Catholics, and individual Protestants intermarried with Catholics, and found them as just and as honourable in their dealings as other men. It had been rightly stated, that it was no longer a question whether the claims of the Catholics were ever to be granted, but whether they should now be conceded, or how long they should be postponed. Until what period, he would ask, of embarrassment and danger was concession to be delayed? For what misfortunes, and for what critical situations, were the legislature to wait? The Catholics had acquired property, and were still increasing in wealth; and measures were now taking to give them education. Would the House wait until multiplied numbers added wealth, and increased knowledge united and concentrated their strength, and enabled them to overwhelm every opposing barrier? Concession would then lose every charac ing; such as no man of spirit could bear without complaint, and, so long as such a system continued, the country must remain discontented. Was he to be told that men of great talents, high consideration, and vast intellectual acquirements, would toil on all their lives in a profitless struggle, placed as it were amongst the money-changers in the porch, whilst the holier and diviner places were reserved for the more favoured? Could such things be, and discontent not follow? These were the grievances of the whole community: the country had a right-the Crown had a right-to the services of all its subjects; and it was a national grievance when the country was deprived of them. But, it had been said, that, admitting the grievances to be real, still there was something in the constitution which required their continuance. The constitution had been described as exclusive. He denied it. He believed the aim and scope of those who framed our constitution was, that all the members of the state should enjoy as much political power as could be conferred, consistently with the security of the state. He knew no other definition of the constitution; and in no part of it could he find that exclusive spirit. But, had the Catholic, indeed, no power at present? If you place him at the head of an association in Ireland, has he there no power? Can you prevent him from enjoying the confidence of millions of his countrymen in Ireland? Can you deprive him of the power of alternately agitating and tranquillizing the country, or making a drawn battle with the government; and, would you tell him that this was no power? In Ireland, such a man might easily become a giant; whereas, here, he might very possibly become a pigmy. Whether you confer it or not, power he will possess; and it was for the House to consider what direction they would give it; whe-teristic of beneficence; it would come ther they would make it their own, or continue it in hostility. Six centuries had elapsed since the English power had been established in Ireland; and during that period, what changes had taken place -a new world had been discovered; the Reformation had been brought about; but the Irish remained the same, resisting the assaults of time. Did gentlemen believe, that, during that long period, the Catholic religion had remained unaltered; and that it was now professed with the same zeal, and in the same blindness as then? without grace, and be received without gratitude. The dangers apprehended from concession were remote and imaginary: while those which resulted from denying the claims of the Catholics were near and imminent. Was it wise, he would ask, to add to the discontent of six millions of men; to look only to remote and barely possible dangers, and exclude from our view present disasters? Was it prudent to direct the political telescope towards the clouds, and shut the senses to the dangers lying in our paths? Some boldness was consistent with true wisdom; some inconvenience must be encountered; some dangers must be met; and he thought it was better to meet the dangers which were seen, than to legislate for those which could not be known. There was no principle that he knew, on which the claims of the Catholics could now be resisted. The Catholics were judges, and sat in judgment both on life and property. A judge sat in the court of Exchequer, who was a Catholic, and universally respected; and another judge presided in Clare. Would any person say, that those who were fit to administer justice in that county, were unfit to administer it in Dublin? Were those who presided in the court of Exchequer unworthy to sit in the King's-bench? Either the legislature had gone too far in the concessions already made to the Catholics, or, in now withholding further concessions, not far enough. Having remitted part of the penal laws, it was necessary either to remit the whole, or re-enact them all. In his opinion, the House should adopt that measure of conciliation which had been recommended by the wisest and most eloquent statesmen. That measure, he was persuaded, would restore peace to Ireland, and give safety and security to the empire. Colonel Forde addressed the House, in a very low tone of voice. We understood him to say, that, like the hon. member for Armagh, he had been lately made a convert to this cause, but that he now earnestly supported it. He felt the whole force of all that had been said by that hon. member. Some alterations were necessary; for the penal laws could not remain as they were. Lord Ennismore said, that he intended to vote against the second reading of this bill. He had voted in favour of the motion for going into a committee on this subject, in the hope that some arrangement might have been devised in it, which would have been satisfactory to all parties. No such arrangement was visible in the present bill. If, however, when it went into the committee, clauses should be introduced, providing for the Catholic clergy and regulating the elective franchise, he should have no objection to vote in favour of the third reading. Mr. James Daly expressed great surprise at the inconsistent conduct of his noble friend who had just sat down. His noble friend ought to vote for the second reading of the bill, in order to give the House an opportunity of introducing into it the clauses which he recommended; after which, if they were not introduced, he might consistently withhold his support from the third reading. He should vote in favour of the present measure, because he considered it one of the very first importance. The system of liberality on which it was founded was calculated to put an end to the party animosities of Ireland for ever. The Catholics had of late years advanced in numbers, in property, in education, and in liberality of feeling. Was it extraordinary that, under such circumstances, they should ask for a remission of the laws under which they smarted, and should claim an equality of rights with the rest of their fellow-countrymen? One hon. member had opposed this measure, because part of it tended to disfranchise the freehold. ers of Ireland. He knew nothing as yet of such a measure, and should therefore consider this bill entirely upon its own merits. He was persuaded that the different parties in Ireland were kept alive by these persecuting laws. Mr. O'Connell, though he possessed great talents, owed his importance to the laws which kept up the distinction between Catholics and Protestants. It was said that if the claims of the Catholics were granted, they would not be contented, and would be ready to ask for something more. But, was their ingratitude, or discontent, supposing it to exist, a reason why the legislature should commit injustice? The Catholics had not decreased in loyalty by the acquisition of property. They had now, for many years both in our Army and Navy, given conspicuous proofs of loyalty; and, was it to be credited, that further concessions would make them disloyal? He thought the present time a very critical one for Ireland. calm which existed in that country was not the calm of apathy; it was the solemn stillness of intense interest and expectation, and would be interrupted as soon as the Catholics heard that their just claims had been denied. He could not contemplate without dismay, the prospect of so many discontented men as would be roused into activity, should this measure be rejected. They were now obedient from hope: they had submitted at the first word, from the expectation that their grievances would be redressed; but, let the House not flatter The themselves, if they threw out this bill, that the calm of Ireland would be preserved, and its tranquillity remain uninterrupted. Complaints had been made of the influence of the Catholic Association, but its influence had been as nothing to what it would be, if this bill were to be lost. It would then unite, which it had not before done, all Ireland in its support. It would find some means of meeting in spite of the law; and uniting all hearts in Ireland in its favour, all the Catholics of England, and many of the Protestants; it would go on gathering strength, until it was in a condition to take by force what was not granted by fair means. He did not mean to say, that with arms in their hands, they would conquer from the Protestants of England their just rights; but, they would bring the whole empire into danger. He felt himself bound to state his opinions freely. He had a deep stake in the country, and was persuaded, if this measure were lost, that property in Ireland would lose half its value. If the House should now dash the cup of hope from the lips of the Catholics, he would answer neither for the safety nor security of property in Ireland. Before he sat down he must state, in opposition to the hon. member for Armagh, that he had seen the Catholic clergy give very efficacious assistance in a season of distress: had seen them pointed at by the people like the Protestant clergy; and had known them receive the thanks of the magistrates for their conduct. He gave his warm and cordial support to the motion. Sir N. Colthurst said, he should vote in favour of the measure, because he conceived it unjust to exclude any class of men from the benefits of the constitution, without the existence of an adequate necessity, or of some great danger being fully proved. Now, he thought that a necessity was proved for their admission into the pale of the constitution; and that great danger would arise if they were any longer excluded from it. He would also vote in favour of this measure, because he was convinced that by so doing, he should diminish the number of Catholics, and consequently increase the stability of the established church. Things could not remain long in the situation in which they were at present. The question must be settled in some way or other; and in no other way could it be safely settled, than by conceding to the Catholics the rights they demanded. Until such concessions were made to them, the prosperity of Ireland must inevitably be retarded. Mr. Goulburn said, that if he could be induced to believe, that by acceding to the present bill, the House would produce general conciliation and tranquillity in Ireland, he should have no hesitation in following the honest and manly course of the hon. member for Armagh, and in giving to it his decided approbation. He could not, however, bring himself to entertain such a belief; and he must therefore repeat the objections which he had formerly urged against this measure. He could not agree in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for the county of Galway. To tell him that the Catholics of Ireland demanded these concessions, and that if they were refused, they would take them by force, was not an argument to which he could listen. He was willing to yield to the voice of reason, but he would be the last man to give way to any thing like a threat on a question of this nature. He had been hostile to this measure on former occasions, on the very same grounds that he was now. He held it to be inconsistent with the British constitution, which was indissolubly united with the church establishment; he held it to be inconsistent with the first principles of that constitution, to admit those within its pale, who were actuated by religious feelings of the most bitter hostility to the church of England. He agreed with the hon. member for Corfe-castle in thinking, that if they should give their sanction to this bill, they would depart from the ancient recognized principle of the constitution. The constitution was built upon this principle-to exclude every thing that was dangerous to its existence, and to guard against any evil which it foresaw, by checking its operation. Now they were told to neglect that principle, and to trust to the securities which had been formed to neutralize the effects of the evil apprehended in the present instance. He was not disposed to take that advice; but felt inclined to adhere to the old principle, and not to desert it for the new. His hon. and learned friend behind him (Mr. North), in one part of his speech, had doubted whether any danger could arise from granting these concessions to the Catholics; and yet, in another part of his speech had admitted, that he did behold some danger, but a danger that was remote in its operation. He left his hon. and learned friend to reconcile this inconsistency as he could. He should merely remark, that the bill itself admitted that there was some danger. If there were not, why should it contain so many precautions? Why should it contain a special certificate as to the loyalty of the bishops? [Loud cries of question!] The securities which the bill gave against the apprehended danger were of three kinds-the first was the declarations in the preamble; the second the oaths in the bill itself; and the third, the commission formed to control the intercourse of the bishops with the see of Rome. The right hon. gentleman was proceeding to show, that they were all inefficient, when the increasing noise in the House, and the cries of "adjourn," compelled him to desist. Mr. Peel complained of the interruption which was given to his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend had had no opportunity of declaring his sentiments upon this question, and had been anxious to declare them on the present evening. If it should be the opinion of the House that the time was now come at which they ought to adjourn, he had no objection to it, provided it was understood, that his right hon. friend was in possession of the House on the next evening. Mr. Brougham said, that from the manner in which hon. members were leaving the House, it was evident that it would be very inconvenient to proceed further at that moment. He believed that no disrespect was intended to the right hon. secretary, but that gentlemen were leaving the House because they were aware that their votes would not be wanted on the present evening. He fully concurred with Mr. Peel, that the right hon. gentleman should be considered in possession of the House, when the debate should be resumed on a future evening. The debate was then adjourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 21. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] A petition having been presented against the Catholic Claims, from the Protestant Dissenters of Margate, Lord King said, he thought it somewhat strange, that the Dissenters should stand forward as they had done, against the Catholics, and in support of an establish ment that had never evinced any very kindly feeling towards them. He remembered a great ornament of the reverend Bench saying, that the Catholics were far nearer and dearer to them than the dissenters. Lord Holland said, that with respect to the petition which had been just presented, he was not sufficiently acquainted withi the sentiments of the dissenters generally to presume any opinion upon it. He knew there were many dissenters who did not come under any of the three great denominations which were in some respect sanctioned by government; but he had not heard that any of these denominations had sent up petitions against the Catholic Claims. On the contrary, he had himself had the honour to receive petitions from them in favour of those claims. It was, therefore, too much to say that the Protestant dissenters were generally adverse to any further concessions to the Catholics. The Bishop of Chester said, he had a petition to present, singular in its nature, and remarkable from the circumstance of its having been confided to his hands. It was the petition of the minister, deacons, and congregation of the Protestant dissenting chapel in Jewry-street, London. Their lordships were aware that each congregation of the dissenters formed a church of their own, and their petitions expressed only the opinion of those who signed them. The petition of one congregation was not supposed to express the opinion of the whole body of the dissenters. The petition had excited his surprise; for it not only deprecated the removal of any restrictions to which the Catholics were subjected, but it expressed the entire satisfaction of the petitioners, that such restrictions were imposed on them. The petitioners were anxious that no change should take place which might in any way endanger the safety of the church of England, which they considered the great bulwark of the Protestant religion. While that church was secured, their religion was placed on a rock. He was persuaded that the great body of Protestant dissenters viewed with no dissatisfaction the church of England, and were sensible that under no other were they likely to enjoy the large and liberal toleration which they enjoyed under it. He had great satisfaction in presenting a petition of this nature; and was glad to see the dissenters alive to the dangers of the Protestant religion. |