« PreviousContinue »
to him to incur the risk of an election in another part of the country, at which accidents might occur that would lead to the shedding of blood, which might have led to an instantaneous civil war in the country. That was the principal reason why Ministers could not advise His Majesty to exercise his prerogative in the creation of a peer; but he confessed that he had also another reason : he felt the strongest objection to give another triumph to the Roman Catholic Association. They were told, “Why not carry the law into execution ?” Why, their lordships would observe, that in all he had stated hitherto, there had been no resistance to the law. The magistrates were not called upon to act. There was no resistance to the King's troops ; indeed, except in the case of the procession to the north of Ireland, they were never called into duty. There was no instance, therefore, in which the law could be carried into execution. When he heard gentlemen reproach Government for not carrying the law into exe cution in Ireland as it was carried into execution in England, he must say their observations showed that they did not understand the state of things in Ireland. It was true the law was carried into execution in England in 1819. There were then large bodies of people assembled for illegal purposes ; they resisted the orders of the magistrates directing them to disperse, and having resigted these orders, the magistrates called on the troos to disperse them. In the recent cases no orders, were given to the people to disperse. No orders had been given, because no magistrates appeared ; and if the orders had been given, there were no troops to disperse them. It was the state of society in Ireland which rendered such events probable every hour: and it was impossible that magistrates could be at every spot, and at every hour, in order to put an end to those outrages which really were a disgrace, to the country in which they took place. It then was clearly apparent that neither the the law, nor the other means in the possession of Government, enabled it to put an end to this state of things.
It was therefore necessary to come to Parliament. Let their lordships see what chance there was of providing a remedy for the state of things he had described by coming to Parliament.
They all knew perfectly well that the opinion of the majority in another place, was, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland was the removal of the disabilities which affected His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Ministers might have come and asked Parliament to enable them to put down the Roman Catholic Association ; but what chance had they of prevailing on Parliament to pass a bill for that purpose, without being prepared to come forward and state that they were ready to consider the whole condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that, which Parliament stated to be the cause of the disease? Supposing Parliament had given Government a bill to put down the Roman Catholic Association,-even such a bill as they had passed this year,would that be a remedy for the state of things which be had already described as existing in Ireland ? Would it, he asked, do any one thing towards putting an end to the mischievous consequences of that organization ? Would it do anything towards giving the means of getting a better state of things ? But it was said, “If this will not do, let us proceed to blows.' What he supposed to be meant by “blows" was civil war. He believed that every government must be prepared to carry into execution the law of the country by the force placed at its disposal, (not by the military force, unless it were absolutely necessary,) in case the disaffected or ill-disposed be inclined to resist the sentences of the law and authority: but in this case he had already stated there was no resistance to the law. There was nothing that could be called resistance to the law and he' might go further, and say he was positively certain that this state of things, bordering on civil war, and being attended with all the evils of civil war,-the state of things which had existed in Ireland, during the last year and a half, might have continued a considerable time longer, to the injury and disgrace of the country of the country; and nevertheless those who managed this state of things-those who were at its head—would have taken care to prevent any resistance to the law, which must have ended, they knew as well as he did, in the only way in which a struggle against the King's Government, backed by law, could terminate. They knew that they would have been the first victims, in case of resistance being offered to the execution of the law; but knowing that, being sensible and able men, and perfectly aware of the materials with which they were working, this state of things might have existed for years without Government having an opportunity of putting it down in the way which some noble lords wished.
He would say, however, that supposing he was certain of pos· sessing such a means of putting down this state of things, he should have considered it his duty to avoid resorting to them.
He had probably passed a longer period of his life in the occupation of war than most men, and principally, he might say, in civil war, and he must say this, that if he could avoid by any sacrifice, even that of his life, one month of civil war in a country to which he was attached, he would cheerfully make it. There was nothing which destroyed property and the resources of prosperity in the same degree as civil war. hand of man was raised against his neighbour, of brother against brother, of father against father; the servant betrayed his master, and the whole scene ended in confusion and devastation. This was the resource to which Government must have looked; this was the last resource to which they could have looked for putting an end to the exisiing state of things in Ireland, if they had not made the option of bringing forward the measure before their Lordships, for which he was responsible.
Let their Lordships look a little farther. If civil war was bad and to be avoided, when occasioned by resistance to the Government, as in the case to which he had referred; how much worse was it, and how much more to be avoided, when the Government had to arm the people one part against the other? He was sure there were not many who heard him, whose blood would not shudder at such a proposition if it were made to them; yet that was the result to which we must have come, if 29.
we had continued in the course which was pursued last year. He entreated Noble Lords not only to consider the subject in that point of view, but likewise to revert to what had occurred on a similar occasion. He was old enough to remember the rebellion of 1798. He was not then employed in Ireland, but in another and distant part of his Majesty's dominions; but if he was not mistaken, the Parliament of Ireland at that time went up to the Lord-Lieutenant with an unanimous address (he believed they walked up to him in a body), beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down the unnatural rebellion then raging, and promising him full support in carry ing the measure into execution. The Lord-Lieutenant did take measures for putting down the rebellion, and succeeded in effecting that object. What then? Why, it happened in the very next session that Government proposed to put an end to that Irish Parliament by uniting the two kingdoms, by forming a legislative union between them for the purposeprincipally for the purpose of passing the very measure which he now proposed to their Lordships. And, in point of fact, the very first measure proposed in Parliament after the legislative union--after the successful measures adopted by the Lord-Lieutenant for suppressing the rebellion-was the very measure now before them. Why then, he asked, was it possible any Noble Lord could believe, supposing such a contest as that which he had anticipated were to take place, that it could be carried on, much less brought to a conclusion, without the measure which he now proposed being insisted on by one at least, if not both Houses of Parliament? He was sure when their Lordships looked at the division of opinion which prevailed in both Houses of Parliament on this question ; when they looked at the difference of opinion which prevailed in every family in this country and in Ireland, from the most eminent in station down to the lowest; when they looked at the division of opinion which prevailed amongst the Protestants of Ireland; when their Lordships looked at these circumstances, he was sure they would perceive the vast difference there
would be between a contest carried on now, and that whick. had been carried on at a former period.
He begged to remind noble lords of the declaration of Protestant feeling in Ireland recently presented to that House. In 1798, the Parliament of Ireland was unanimous, with the exception of, he believed, one or two persons. On a recent occasion two dukes, seventeen marquisses, twenty-six earls, and a vast number of other ranks, comprising not less than two thousand Protestant gentlemen of property in Ireland, had signed a declaration to Parliament, stating that it was absolutely necessary to grant concessions to the Catholics. Such being the case, a contest of the nature to which he had referred would be carried on under circumstances totally different from those which existed on the former occasion. But was it possible to believe that their lordships, having this state of things before them; seeing what the opinion of the other house of Parliament was; seeing what was the opinion of large numbers of the Protestants of Ireland; seeing what was the opinion of nearly every statesman during the last forty years. Was it, he asked possible to believe that their lordships would continue to oppose the measure proposed for settling the question? The thing was absolutely impossible. We could not have gone on longer without increasing the difficulties of the country. But it was very desirable that their lordships should look a little at what benefit was to be derived by any one class of the state by continuing the disabilities and adopting the measures to which he had alluded.
It was said that it was necessary to preserve the principle of the constitution of 1688; that the Act of 1688 permanently excluded Catholics from Parliament, and that, being so permanently excluded, it was necessary to incur all the existing evils in order to maintain that permanent exclusion. He wished very much that noble lords would take the same trouble that he had, and look themselves at how matters stood with respect to this permanent exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament. In the Bill of Rights some things were permanently enacted which he sincerely hoped would continue