Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

that they only meet for the purpose of petitioning. Petitioning! -we appeal to all sober-minded people, whether the assembling of those Aggregate Meetings (as they term them), was not rather for the purpose of prescribing, at once, the quantity of power claimed, the mode of granting, and the time of giving it.Something like those men of old, who abused the limited privileges with which they were invested" Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw,-thou shalt give it me now, and, if not, I will take it by force." (1 Sam. 2.)-We are to consider, too, that the remaining disabilities, which still lie on the Papists, are of the nature of PUNISHMENT FOR FORMER MISDEMEANORS; the Romanists are not RECTI IN CURIA; a little more humility would better become them. There is a great deal of difference between claiming a right, and petitioning for a remission of punishment. This is a distinction which ought to be made; although neither the Papists nor their apologists seem to be aware of it. Mr. Canning was reduced to the necessity of desiring the House to forget all that had passed; " to consider the subject as if it were now presented to them for the first time, and to look at it with a fresh eye;"-if he could persuade the House to this happy state of mind, he promised himself, "a pretty general acqui escence" in his motion. "Ye Gods," (said the lover, in the learned treatise, Пg Batas,)" annihilate but space and time!" "Mr. Speaker, let but the House lose both memory and common sense, and I hope to carry my point."

Now for the three principles upon which Mr. Canning erects his reasoning. (P. 4.) I." Citizens of the same state,-subjects living under the same government,-are entitled, primá facie, to equal rights and privileges.”—Mr. Canning could not but know, that there must be exceptions to this general rule 3 but he throws the onus of stating them, as far as they apply to the case of the Romanists, on his opponents. This, however, is no very hard task.-The Romanists themselves profess to obey a foreign potentate. Now, the Constitution avers, that "the King's power within his realm, is the highest power under God;" and that "he is supreme governor over all persons, in all causes, VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Nov. 1812.] L

as well ecclesiastical as temporal;"-but the Romanists deny this; they refuse to the King a moiety of his constitutional power; and, therefore, the Constitution itself denies them, and justly, an equal share in the rights and privileges enjoyed by other subjects who are not guilty of this defeasance. The Constitution cannot, without a manifest absurdity, nor, indeed, without the utmost danger, compromise its own principles. What becomes then of Mr. Canning's first principle, as far as it relates to his Popish clients? It is of no consideration whatever.

II. Mr. Canning's second principle. (P. 4.) "It is at all times desirable to create and maintain the strictest union (some of Mr. C.'s clients detest this word-union), and the most perfect identity of interest and of feeling, among all the members of the same community." Here again, after uttering some puerile truisms, the reporter represents Mr. Canning as leaving to others the burthen of proving, that the maintenance of union among the members of a given community may be impracticable. This is no very difficult business.-That identity of interest and feeling which ought to subsist among the subjects of the British crown, has ben destroyed by the Romanists themselves! and, therefore, Mr. C.'s second principle cannot avail them. They are themselves the primary authors of the disabilities of which they complain. Look at the History of Ireland; does it not present us with rebellion after rebellion, for a long series of time, prior to the reformation? and since that epoch, have the Protestants ever been placed in a state of security? The Irish Romanists have always counted their own interests to be contrary to those of the Protestants; with whom, moreover, they do not think it Recessary to hold good faith.-Here we think it right, as this is a heavy charge, and what some of the apologists for the Romanists will hardly allow to be founded in truth, to produce one unquestionable fact, instar omnium." The Romish population of many parishes in the county of Wexford, with their priests at their head, went to the Protestant magistrates of the county, and took the oath of allegiance to his Majesty, a fortnight before. the rebellion broke out; and it is very remarkable, that the Romish inhabitants of these parishes, were the first insurgents,

and the most cruel and barbarous in that rebellion of 1798."* If it be urged that, argumentum non valet à singulis in universalia ; we beg leave to quote two short passages which give, in the opinion of the Papists, infallible authority to the abominable doctrine just mentioned. "Juramentum contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam præstitum non tenet."-" Non juramenta, sed perjuria sunt dicenda quæ contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam at entantur." (Decret. Greg. lib. 2, tit. 24, cap. 27.)-To talk of identity of feeling between his Majesty's Popish and Protestant subjects, savours much of that figure of vulgar rhetoric, called nonsense. The uniform conduct of the Papists towards the Protestants, in every great political instance, demonstrates that they themselves have no practical identity of feeling with their Protestant fellow-subjects;-and, consequently, Mr. Canning's own turbulent clients prove the exception which he leaves his antagonists to make out.

III. We come now to his third principle, p. 5.

Where there exists, in any community, a great permanent cause of political discontent which agitates the minds of men, and has agitated them for many years past; and when experience has shown that, so far from having any tendency to subside and settle itself by mutual forbearance and accommodation, the contest only grows more fierce the longer it is protracted; mingles with all the disquietudes, and allies itself with all the real or imaginary grievances of the country; it becomes the duty of the Supreme Power of the state, whether residing in one or in many, whether King, or Senate, or Parliament, to take a Question of such a nature into its own consideration; to make up its own mind upon it, and finally to determine in what mode it may be most advantageously set at rest. To this general rule, I am not aware of any exception; for I am not aware of any possible circumstances in which it must not be infinitely more dangerous to leave such a Question unconsidered and uncontrolled, than to attempt the settlement of it; and I am not prepared to hear that the

• See Dr, Duigenar's" Demands of the Romanists explained," p. 204. We know that the Papists detest this Rt. Hon. Gentleman: so do they Sir Richard Musgrave; but nothing can do away the force of the testimony which they both have borne against the Romanists. We have not the honour of knowing either of those gentlemen. Happy shall we be, if these pages shall receive the sanction of their approbation; happier still, if they will admit us into their confidence, and unite with us in maintaining the inte grity of the British Constitution.

settlement of any Question, however difficult and complicated, lies out of the province, or beyond the competency of the collective wisdom and authority of the state.

[ocr errors]

That either the King, or the Senate (as Mr. C. affectedly calls the House of Lords), or the Parliament (as he seems to term, not very correctly, the House of Commons), may take the Romish Question into consideration, is very true. The KING did so, long ago; and decided upon it. His deliberations were guided and determined by the nature of his coronation-oath. Undoubtedly, the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, may move that Question; and it is certainly neither "out of the province, nor beyond the competency of the collective wis dom and authority of the State," to discuss it. But, perhaps, the present time may not be the best adapted to this purpose; and perhaps (and this we undertake to prove) Mr. Canning's motion may not be the best that might be devised to insure internal peace and general safety to the country at large. The Parliament may interfere, if it shall be thought right; but we are fully persuaded that the Question ought not to have been brought before Parliament, as yet. The behaviour of the Papists confirms us in the opinion which we have formed. It must undergo a great and radical change, before there can be any wisdom in placing them on a footing with Protestants." Let the Catholics (we protest against the Catachresis which gives this name to the Papists) not merely in their petitions, but in their writings, and in their meetings, adopt that discretion and forbearance, and those principles of moderation, which every true view of their own interest, and every feeling of loyalty so imperiously prescribe to them. Let them manifest concordaucet with each other, conciliation and good-will towards the Protestant Establishment; temperance and consistency in their general views and language;

let them follow this line of conduct, and I think that I can, with confidence, pronounce, that Englishmen will cease to possess the character of Englishmen, and Protestants of Christians, if,

Lord Boringdon's Speech, June 10, 1810. 2d edition, page 16. Sold by our Pube lisher, 41, Pall Mall.

+ This alludes to their divided opinion on the subject of a Péto.

in the course of no very considerable period, the Legislature be not ready and anxious to extend to its Catholic fellow-subjects, the full rights and privileges of the British Constitution." May that happy hour soon arrive! But, before it comes, the Romanist must drop all claim to the exclusive name of Catholics, - and must entertain so much Christian charity in their bosoms, as will allow them to believe, that the worshippers of God, in spirit and truth, may be saved, although they do not believe in the infallibility, and spiritual supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.--The conduct of the Papists in Ireland, from the Reformation of Religion, to the time of King William and Queen Ann, rendered it criminal in the Legislature to connive at the perpetration of those enor mities which distinguished them; without attempting to provide some remedy for such dreadful political evils. Nothing but á system of restriction could avail; and the adoption of that system arose out of the necessity of the case. Thus much is certain,

that it was followed by the most salutary effects. Mr. Canning seems to argue as if the Irish Popery Code, is the cause of the "discontent which agitates the minds of men, and has agitated them for many years past." Dr. Duigenan, however, says,—— "it is notorious from all records and histories of Irish affairs, from the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, to the era of the Revolution, that Irish Popish rebellions succeeded one another in a quick succession. Desmond's rebellion was succeeded by that of Tyrone, which lasted eighteen years; that was succeeded by the rebellion of the Earls of Tyrone, and Tyreonnel, and Sir Cahir O'Dogherty, in 1613; that by the horrible Irish rebellion and massacre in 1641, which continued twelve years, till the Irish Roman traitors and murderers were finally subdued by Cromwell, in the years 1652 and 1653. From that time, the nation continued quiet, till the great Romish rebellion, under Tyrconnel at the Revolution in the year 1698; thirty-two years after the suppression of the former rebellion, by Cromwell. From the time of the capitulation of Limerick, in 1691, to the year 1798, there was no rebellion in Ireland, being a space of 107 years. This term of quiet in Ireland, was nearly four times longer than any other term of rest from the bloody effects of

"Demands of the Romanists explained." Page 215.

« PreviousContinue »