was counteracted by a disbelief in another, and thereby a sort of average faith was embraced, which entitled the subscribing person to swallow the whole, and to assume to himself any situation or promotion in the church or elsewhere, that he might be enabled to obtain.-Among the objections to this measure was one chiefly relied on; namely, the discrepancy between a pamphlet of bishop Doyle and the evidence of that person before the Irish committee. Without meaning to cast any imputation on that highly gifted man, he certainly would not deny, that there might be some intemperate or indiscreet sentiments in that pamphlet, to which he could not give his approbation. Nay, there were some expressions in it which the writer himself would probably reject in his calmer moments. But, was it not possible that Dr. Doyle was sorry for those expressions? Was it not barely possible that the tone of that pamphlet, the tone of speeches which had been quoted, and the difference which appeared in the evidence that had been subsequently given, might have been produced by the kind and considerate treatment which the individuals had experienced in this country? Might not that change have been effected by the opening of the doors of parliament, to a certain degree, for the purpose of listening to their grievances and complaints? Might it not have arisen from your listening to their story; from your allowing them to tell with their own lips, the miseries and privations under which their country suffered? And that, too, with an implied feeling, that you, the parliament of the united kingdom, would redress them? Might not these considerations mitigate the tone of those who approached the legislature with a tale of long-suffering? And if so, could any man advance a more cogent reason for proceeding in the same course of conciliation, and admitting the Roman Catholics to the full benefit of the constitution ? Was not that the mode by which the Catholics would be led to cherish feelings of loyalty, respect, and affection for this country? Those feelings-the feelings of loyalty, respect, and affection-had begun to show themselves, the moment the light and warmth of the constitution was seen and felt through that chink, through that trifling aperture, which had recently been made. What, then, would be the effect, if the whole benefits of the constitution were thrown open to them? He contended, that if this were done, the full and entire confidence of the Roman Catholics would be gained firmly and for ever. He must protest against making the speeches and writings of any individ uals, however reprehensible they might be, a reason for condemning all those with whom he might be connected. Why should they make the opinions of one man, out of five or six millions, the standard of all the principles, and of all the feelings, of the great body to which he happened to belong? How would gentlemen in that House like such a measure to be dealt out to themselves? How would the right hon. Secretary who spoke last feel, if he heard any individual say, "I will not judge of the right hon. gentleman by what he has said himself, but by such or such a speech, delivered by such or such a gentleman who supports his principles. Mr. Such-a-one spoke no very sensible speech-he can talk very great nonsense-so can sir such-a-one, or my lord such-a-one. Listen to them; and then you will have a sample of the speech of the home Secretary, whose principles they advocate." This would undoubtedly be most unjust towards the home Secre tary; and it would be equally unjust towards any other person. As an exemplification of this, let the House look to the productions of a certain reverend bart. out of doors. Whether he preached to or threatened the legislature, he wished his sentiments to be received as the transcript of the feelings of a very extensive body. He was totally opposed to any such proceeding. He would say, let the hon. baronet in the House, and the hon. and reverend baronet out of the House, stand or fall by their own speeches and writings. Let them not attempt to give a fictitious importance to them, by declaring that they speak the sentiments of vast numbers. He had, in the course of the debate, heard something of persecu tion; and it was said that the principle of persecution was inherent in the Catholic church. Let not those who used this argument be too nice in its application. There had been persecutions in all churches. Persecution was the effect of superior power, and superior domination. It occurred when any particular church had got the upper-hand, while as yet all heresies were not completely put down. At such a crisis, persecution flourished. Let the priests of any religion have power, and let men speak for themselves, in op- outlived the day when such charges were position to their doctrines; in that case, matters of moment. He would call on persecution was sure to follow. Let the the House to remove all those disabilities, House look to the head of the Lutheran which, while they created ill feelings establishment, which first pointed out amongst one party, created no benefit for the errors, as they were called, of the the other. To use the quotation from Church of Rome. Luther himself was Thuanus, which had already been applied not free from the charge of intolerancy. by the right hon. President of the Board But, the establishment of the country, of Trade, "Proscriptiones" (that was it would be said, was Calvinistic. What the very highest point of his climax), had lord Chatham said on this subject?" Proscriptiones irritasse potius quam He had declared, that we had a Calvin- sanasse morbum menti inhærentem.” istic creed, an Arminian clergy, and a The country was now at peace. But popish ritual that Calvin, whose pre-were there no circumstances which might cepts they followed, was himself a persecutor the persecutor of Servetus, whom he caused to be burned. But, they need not go back to so distant a period, to show how persecution was engendered by power. He called on the House to look at the scenes which, at no very remote period, had been acted in this country. He alluded to those infernal torments he could call them nothing else which, a hundred and fifty years ago, were inflicted on the people of Scotland under that tyrant, who, alike contemning the law of God, and the sacredness of the constitution, sent his people to die the death of martyrs, on account of the Covenant. They died as they had livedconvinced of the justice of the opinions they had espoused, and scorning to give up a principle, even though their existence depended on it. What was this but the clashing of two sects? On the one side were the priests who possessed power; on the other side were the honest men, who dared to deny that their doctrines were right; and the result was, that persecution which he defied the man the best read in matters of this kind to equal in the history of this country or of Europe. In arguing this question, he put all mention of heresies, jesuitism, and persecutions out of his view. Such violent language was unsuited to such an occasion; and he hoped they should have more of it on the one side or the other. What he said was-Let us throw open the doors of the constitution with out delay. Let us put an end to a long series of discontent and bickering. When individuals bandied about the charge of jesuitism and of persecution, he would advise them to look upon these things as matter of history-as things only to be remembered for the purpose of making their minds, and the minds of their children happy, in the idea that they had make this transient? What must be the situation of this country, if her power in Ireland was only to be kept up at the point of the bayonet? at one time depriving her of her constitution, and at another approaching her, not with the open hand of peace, but with the mailed hand, to crush and oppress her. Could any one hope to preserve peace and harmony between the two countries, while one of them was kept down by punishments, penalties and chains? If you wish to secure the happiness of the empire-if you wish to complete its safety-let no foreign country have the opportunity of looking with a malign aspect towards Ireland. Let England throw aside her long-prized, and he once thought exploded Irish impolicy. Let her leave to foreign powers no spot on which they could dwell in the hope that in that spot the empire might be weakened. Some of them at that moment dwelt with delight on Ireland. Every thing that passed in Ireland had found its way into foreign gazettes. In the Vienna gazette not a word was said about our improvement in arts and sciences-not a syllable about the strides which education was making-not the least notice was taken of the liberal policy which distinguished our commercial arrangements. No mention was made of those great blessings which, day after day, were pouring into our laps-no attention was paid to the knowledge which the liberty of debate was constantly showering on our heads. These matters were all carefully concealed; and, with one exception, our domestic affairs were passed over wholly unnoticed. Unfortu nately, the condition of Ireland formed that solitary exception. The same feel. ing existed elsewhere. Then, he said, let there no longer be a spot in the empire on which foreign enemies, who hated this country, could suffer their eye to dwell with malicious pleasure. Make it as unpleasant for them to look on Dublin or on Cork, as it was at present for them to view Edinburgh or London. Peace, it was true, was now established: but would war never come? And when it did come, let them, unless they changed their conduct towards Ireland, look to that country then. Did they recollect the situation of Ireland during the revolutionary war? Nay, fifteen years ago, when they talked of Ireland, did they not speak of that country as if a province of the empire was likely to become a province of France? Such times might come again, and such fears might be renewed, if the Catholic question were rejected now. After they had put down the Catholic association after they had increased their military power-after they had done much to irritate, and little to produce a kind feeling, he did not believe there was any man, whether English or Irish, who would be vain enough to answer for the peace of Ireland, even if a firm peace prevailed in every other part of Europe, if this measure were thrown out. But, this he would say, that if they sent up this bill to the other House by a large majority he thought, without arrogating to himself any peculiar foresight, that they might depend on the tranquillity of that country [hear, hear]. Without arrogating to himself any vain spirit of prophecy, he would say, that were this bill carried by a large majority through that House, he would be one ready to answer for the thorough pacification of Ireland, because he could then answer for its becoming a law. But, if it did not become a law in that manner -if it were not carried by such a majority, and that at the present moment, in this very reign-in the reign of his gracious majesty the king who now sat on the throne-then he could only say, that he had exonerated himself from any blame that might attach to future consequences, by calling on the House to be wise in time-by imploring them to act while it was day-by entreating them not to wait until the dark night shrouded them, "when no man can tell what will come!" [cheers]. ९ He Sir F. Blake rose, amidst tremendous shouts of "Question," which continued during the whole of his speech. supported the bill; and as well as we could hear, declared that he would always be at his post. He stood up at that moment the unsolicited advocate of the Roman Catholics. To deny them the privileges they called for was an act os injustice; and that he would state in the face of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. Colonel Forde, amid cries of "question," and "withdraw !" spoke briefly in support of the bill, and expressed his approbation of the measures which had been appended to it. The question being put, the House divided: Ayes 248. Noes 227. majority for the third reading 21. The bill was accordingly read the third time. Mr. Bankes then brought forward his promised amendments. The first amendment was, that Roman Catholics should not be eligible to certain offices, "nor to sit in either House of parliament." That was put and negatived without a division. The second amendment was, to the clause authorizing the sovereign to appoint a commission of Roman Catholic prelates to superintend the correspondence with the see of Rome, &c.; the amendment was, that the sovereign or his successors should appoint such commission "if they shall so think fit." It was also negatived without a division. The bill was then passed. The following is a List of the majority, and also of the minority on the above division. List of the Majority and Minority. |