Page images
PDF
EPUB

I am of opinion, that the existence and proceedings of the Catholic Association have greatly alienated the public mind of England from the Catholic cause. I declared that belief on the first night of the session. I have seen nothing to alter it. But I did not, and do not state this to be the only ground of what I believe to be the present feelings of this country.

If the Catholic question has within these few years retrograded in the favour of the people of England, as (expressing a most. reluctant and painful conviction) I think it has, I know not how I can better explain what appears to me to be one principal cause of that retrogradation, than by referring to the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) who concluded the debate on Friday evening. In that part of his speech in which the right hon. gentleman stated himself to be then, for the first time in his life, opening his lips in defence of the Catholic claims, which he had for so many years been contented to support with his silent vote, the right hon. gentleman,-with that good sense which always distinguishes him in debate, and by which he knows so well how to select and to urge those topics that are likely to have most effect, either with the House or with the country,-thought it necessary to preface his declaration, in fayour of concession to the Catholics, with a personal profession of faith. He described himself as being not only from birth and education, but from inquiry and conviction, a staunch adherent to the church of England. For like reasons, no doubt, an hon. and learned civilian, (Dr. Lushington) who spoke last night, took occasion to make for himself the same profession of faith, in terms even more energetic than those employed by the right hon. gentleman. Sir, I take these declarations for proof that the gentlemen who make them believe (as I believe), that the establishment of the church of England is deeply and firmly rooted in the affections of the English people.

Now, Sir, the sentiments thus expressed by the right hon. gentleman, and by the learned civilian were, as most hon. gentlemen know, and as 1, from my frequent communications on the subject of the Catholic cause with that great man, had opportunities of learning personally from him, these sentiments, I say, were the settled sentiments of the late Mr. Grattan. In every bill which Mr. Grattan ever presented to this House in favour of the Ca

tholic claims, there was a studious setting forth in its preamble, of the principle that the establishment of the united Protestant church of England and Ireland was permanent and inviolable. And so far from meaning to prejudice that permanency and inviolability, Mr. Grattan always contended that the tendency of his proposed measures was to confirm and strengthen that Protestant church establishment.

What is the language of the resolutions on which the act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland was framed? I beg the House to allow me to recall it to their recollection. The fifth resolution runs as follows: "That it be the fifth article of the Union, that the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, shall be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called "The United Church of England and Ireland ;" and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same now are by law established for the Church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union."

This, I say, is one of those resolutions on which the Union was founded. And it was in reference to the corresponding article of the Union, that every bill which Mr. Grattan introduced into parliament for the relief of the Roman Catholics was framed: I believe also, Sir, that in the bill introduced by my right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Plunkett) for a similar purpose, there was a clause in the preamble similar to that in Mr. Grattan's bills. The preamble in Mr. Grattan's bills was in substance this :-" Whereas the United Protestant Church of England and Ireland is established permanently and inviolably,” and "whereas it would tend to promote the interests of the same, and to strengthen the free constitution of which the said United Church forms an essential part," to admit the Roman Catholic subjects of his majesty unto a full participation of civil privileges, &c.

From the care thus taken to repeat and enforce the provision made by the act of Union for the inviolability of the United Protestant Church establishment of England and Ireland, up to the latest period at which bills for the relief of Roman Catholics

have been introduced into this House; the belief of the people of England has been that this article of the Union would form a fundamental rule for any conciliatory arrangement. But within the last two years, propositions have been introduced into this House, and have been received here with more or less favour, which are directly contrary to the principles thus laid down, and directly and avowedly hostile to the inviolability of the established Protestant Church of Ireland. I speak with knowlege of the fact, when I say, that these propositions, and the manner in which they have been entertained, have revived apprehensions which were previously quieted, and have excited serious alarm among sincere well-wishers to the Catholic cause, as advocated and explained by Mr. Grattan. The resolutions to which I refer were moved on the 4th of March, 1823 :

1. "That the property of the Church of Ireland, at present in the possession of the bishops, the deans and chapters of Ireland, is public property, under the control and at the disposal of the legislature, for the support of religion, and for such other purposes as parliament in its wisdom may deem beneficial to the community; due attention being paid to the rights of every person now enjoying any part of the property."

2. "That it is expedient to enquire whether the present Church establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed, and the incomes they receive; and if so, whether a reduction of the same should not take place, with due regard to all existing interests."

The first of these resolutions was negatived without a division: on the second, the numbers who affirmed it were 62, the noes 167. In the year 1824 the second of these resolutions, with a slight omission, was brought forward again; the division upon that occasion was, ayes 79, noes 153. Now, Sir, I repeat it, I positively know that this evident and wide departure from the principle which Mr. Grattan always thought necessary to put forward as preliminary to any chance of a favourable reception for the Catholic question, has excited much suspicion and jealousy. I repeat, that it has disinclined from a favourable opinion of the question some even of those who have been most anxious

and ardent in their desire that Mr.

Grattan's bill should pass : but more, many more of those who had just brought their minds to an abstinence from opposition to it. I beg the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) not to suppose that I apply any thing which I am now suggesting, personally to him. I do not know that he voted for these resolutions; I believe he never did. All that I mean by appealing to the right hon. gentleman's speech is to take advantage of his authority; and to shew that the right hon. gentleman and myself, and a greater man than either of us, Mr. Grattan, all agreed in holding one and the same estimate of the feelings of the people of England;-in believing that the people of England are unchangeably attached to the Church of England; and that they know the Protestant Church of England and of Ireland, to be, according to the articles of the Union, one, indivisible and inviolable.

Mr. Grattan considered it necessary to consult the feelings, or, if you will, to respect the prejudices of the English people in this respect, and to found his measure upon a careful observance of them. The resolutions to which I have referred, bespeak a disposition, and no inconsiderable disposition, to overlook the guides, and to break down the principle so respected by Mr. Grattan. Who is there, then, among those who are favorable to the Catholic question, and still more amongst those who think the carrying of it the one thing needful for the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, but would acknowledge it to be an inauspicious circumstance for the success of that question, that any doubt should go forth as to the disposition of those who bring it forward, to tread in Mr. Grattan's steps, and to proceed with all his tenderness and consideration towards the Protestant Church establishment? When the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House shall bring forward any measure for the relief of the Catholics, I warn them, and I warn them in kindness,

that unless their bill shall manifest the same anxious regard for the inviolability and permanency of the Protestant Church of England and Ireland, as Mr. Grattan's bills, it will fail. It may be that some of those who think the carrying the Catholic question the one thing needful, may also think that it would have been better if the legislature had never been bound by an irrevocable pledge to preserve the inviolability of the Church of Ireland,

that it would be better if parliament were to revoke that pledge. But, I warn the honourable gentlemen, that they must settle that matter-not with the opponents of their bill only, but-with many supporters of the Catholic question, and with the Protestant people of England; that before another bill for Catholic emancipation can be successfully carried through this House, the proposers of the resolutions which I have quoted must make up their minds to one of two alternatives,either to renounce those resolutions, or to despair of the Catholic question. On this statement I am quite ready to go to issue; and I am content to be judged by

the event.

Let it not be inferred that I am therefore unfriendly to the Catholic question. I peremptorily deny that inference. I am at all times ready to give the Catholic question my best support: but I plead guilty to the charge of being irreconcileably unfriendly to the spoliation of the Protestant Church of Ireland.

I trust, Sir, there is no inconsistency in maintaining the Protestant Church establishment, and in conceding at the same time civil and political rights to our Catholic fellow subjects. At all events, it is an inconsistency which I am content to share with the right hon. gentleman to whose speech I have referred. I agree with him in wishing that holders of the Roman Catholic faith may be admitted to the franchises and privileges of others of his majesty's subjects (not from any want of conviction of the absurdities of the Roman Catholic religion, nor yet from any lukewarmness in my affection for that purer reformed religion, in which I have had the good fortune to be bred): but if I think it possible, as I do, to maintain both religions in perfect harmony together; impossible, I am sure it is, to maintain at the same time a bill for carrying the Catholic question, and the resolutions proposed to this House in 1823

and 1824.

I think, Sir, I have justified my statement that there are reasons, independent of the Association, why the Catholic cause has retrograded during the last two or three years, in the minds of the people of England.

I do not, however, mean to say that this retrogradation of the question in the minds of the country is irretrievable. Nothing like it. It is in the power of this House effectually to tranquillize the fears

which I have represented as pervading the minds of the people of England, respecting the security of the Protestant Church establishment.

Sir, though nothing can be more injudicious than those arguments which tend to confound the Catholic Association with the Catholic population of Ireland; and, though I utterly deny that the Catholic Association and the people of Ireland are to be considered as one; yet I cannot be supposed to have meant to say that, so far as the Catholic question is concerned, there can be any other than one unanimous feeling throughout the Catholic population of Ireland.

Nor was this, as I believe, the true sense of a statement made on this side of the House (I am not quite sure on which night of the debate), and completely misunderstood (as it appears to me) by an hon. gentleman opposite. It was stated, that all that remained to be granted to the Irish Catholics affected the higher classes of society only,-that we had already granted all the concessions which could affect the mass of the people:-and it has been attempted to infer from this statement, that it was intended to argue that the granting of what remained must be, therefore, matter of indifference to the people. Now there is no argument that I should be more eager to combat (it is one which I have often combated), than that which assumes that the lower classes of society are not affected by what peculiarly regards the higher,-which supposes that there is no necessary sympathy between these classes, however numerous the links of the chain which connects them together. It is, indeed, true that what remains to be granted to Ireland, must now be granted chiefly to the higher classes; for it does happen, by what I cannot but consider to have been an unfortunate mistake in legislation, that almost every thing which parliament has hitherto conceded, has been granted to the lower orders of society. I did not however understand this statement to be put forward as an argument against further concession, but simply as a fact ;and as a fact condemnatory of past legislation, rather than prohibitory of legislation to come. What may yet remain to be granted to the Catholic peer, is deeply interesting to the Catholic peasant. Until all classes of Catholics shall be admitted to a participation in the privileges of their Protestant fellow sub

So much, Sir, for the Catholic question: and quite as much as, on an occasion in which it is not the proper subject of debate, it can be necessary to say upon

it.

jects (with some qualifications indeed, I on the basis of a determined resistance to too much matter of detail to enter into it. Of that administration lord Castlenow), until they shall be admitted to reagh subsequently became a member: the full extent which Mr. Grattan pro- but the cabinet was still avowedly and posed, I do not expect not that much systematically hostile to the discussion good may not be done, (for past conces- of the Catholic claims. No attempt was sions have already done very great good, made during its existence to bring those and many, many improvements have been claims into discussion. introduced into the state of society in To lord Sidmouth's administration sucIreland, with which the Catholic question ceeded, in 1804, that of Mr. Pitt. During has no concern), but, I do not expect Mr. Pitt's administration, individual dif that the great work will be complete. ferences of opinion upon this subject were The concessions which remain to be grant-kept in abeyance by one preponderating ed will be the crown and finish of the sentiment, in which there was a general whole. agreement. There was, in the feelings. of all the members of that cabinet, an insurmountable obstacle to the discussion of the Catholic claims: an obstacle, of which it is difficult to speak in proper parliamentary language, but which has been so often alluded to in debate, that it must be known to every man who hears me. It is now matter of history. I mean that scruple of the royal mind, which Mr. Pitt determined to respect; and which was pleaded, in no obscure terms, as one main ground of his resistance in 1805 to the motion then brought forward by Mr. Fox for the consideration of a Roman Catholic petition. Of the validity of that obstacle, and of the respect which it was justand right to pay to it, I will not enter into any argument. I aim not so much at shewing who was right, or who was wrong, at any particular moment, in the series of successive administrations, as at giving a faithful picture of their respective conduct. In this spirit I beg to be distinctly understood by the hon. gentlemen opposite, as not intending to use the vulgar reproach of "You did the same," when I proceed, as next in course of history I must, to Mr. Fox's and lord Grenville's administration.

I come now to the third division of the matters of which I find myself compelled to treat. Not the hon. baronet alone, but many others who preceded him in this debate have imputed as a reproach to the present Administration, that we are divided in opinion on the Catholic question. I ask the hon. gentlemen who have made this charge, to be so good as to tell me, when that administration existed (since the Union with Ireland), in which there prevailed a common sentiment respecting the Catholic question? -I challenge them to point out a single month for the last twenty-five years, when division of opinion on that question has not existed among the confidential servants of the Crown; and when the objection to sitting in a chequered cabinet has not been just as applicable as at the present moment. I defy the hon. baronet to disprove this assertion. There have, indeed, been periods, when this conflict of opinions had no practical operation; because it was superseded by a general understanding that all the members of the cabinet, what ever might be their personal opinions, concurred in resisting for the time, all consideration of the Catholic claims: but of a cabinet concurring in opinion to grant the Catholic claims, I repeat there is no example. Wherefore then is the present cabinet to be selected as an object of peculiar reprehension on this account?

When Mr. Pitt retired from office in 1801, on account of his inability to carry this question, the administration, under lord Sidmouth (then Mr. Addington) was formed,-formed it is needless to say, VOL. XII.

On the death of Mr. Pitt, in January 1806, Mr. Fox, jointly with lord Gren ville, succeeded to the management of affairs. Mr. Fox certainly did not hold in the same respect as Mr. Pitt professedly had done, the scruples of the king's conscience: for Mr. Fox's motion in 1805 was made and maintained in direct (I do not mean to say whether proper or improper) defiance of those scruples. That motion was not eight months old, when Mr. Fox seated himself as minister in Mr. Pitt's place in the House of Commons.

Here, therefore, I desire the House to pause with me, while I put a question or

21

two to the hon. gentlemen opposite:-If the necessity for making the Catholic question a cabinet question is so very apparent,-how happened it not to strike Mr. Fox in that light, when he took office in 1806? It will not be said that Mr. Fox was so unimportant an element in any administration to be formed in this country, after the loss of Mr. Pitt, that he could not have dictated terms, which it is always taken for granted, and made matter of charge that I could have dictated if I pleased, in 1822. How then are we to account for it, that Mr. Fox in forming his cabinet, not eight months after he had brought forward his motion, (the first since the Union) for Catholic emancipation, so far from having endeavoured to bring together a cabinet harmonious and consenting on the Catholic question; should not even have been contented with the single dissent, which he possessed, and could not perhaps get rid of,-in his lord chancellor, (lord Erskine) but should have gone out of his way to bring into the administration the two persons in public life, the most decidedly and notoriously opposed to that question? The first of these was lord Sidmouth, with whom neither Mr. Fox nor lord Grenville had ever had any political connexion, and to whom they could therefore have no political pledges; the other was sought for in a quarter in which I trust a member of a cabinet will never be sought for again, on the highest seat of justice,-the_chief criminal judge of the kingdom. Let it not be said that lord Sidmouth's and lord Ellenborough's sentiments on the subject of the Catholic question were unknown. By lord Ellenborough, I believe,-by lord Sidmouth, I am confident (for he has more than once declared it in his place in the House of Lords), a formal and solemn claim to freedom of action upon the Catholic question was distinctly stipulated,-before they would accept the offices that were tendered to them. It was, therefore, knowingly and advisedly, that these discordant materials were incorporated into that government;-a governmeht (be it observed, too,) which did make the abolition of the Slave trade for the first time a cabinet question; and which had therefore the doctrine of cabinet questions full and clear before their eyes.

I do not wish to press this point harsh ly or invidiously; but it does require, I think, some courage,some front-in

those who were connected with Mr. Fox's administration of 1806, to catechise any man, or any set of men, as to their motives for framing or belonging to an adminis tration divided in opinion upon the Catho⚫ lic question. I say, Mr. Fox's adminis tration,-not as presuming to apportion power between the eminent individuals of whom that administration was composed, but-in order to mark particularly that period of the administration of 1806, dur ing which Mr. Fox was alive. During Mr. Fox's life-time it is perfectly notorious that there was not a stir, not a whis per, towards the agitation of the Catholic question, or of any thing connected with it. In the interval between Mr. Fox's death, and the dissolution of lord Grenville's administration, an attempt to moot a part, and no unimportant part of the question, was made; and it is therefore that I address to the friends of Mr. Fox, not to those of lord Grenville, the interrogatories which I have taken the liberty to propose.

Sir, to lord Grenville's administration, succeeded in 1807, that of the duke of Portland; which, being formed in a great measure out of the materials which had been broken up by the death of Mr. Pitt, naturally inherited his principles, and walked in his steps. The obstacle, which had opposed itself to the favorable consideration of the Catholic question in Mr. Pitt's time, continued unchanged. I think it not necessary to make any other defence for myself for having adopted Mr. Pitt's principles, than that they were Mr. Pitt's. I continued to abide by them so long as the same obstacle existed. I followed the course which he had pursued, and I followed it equally in office and out of office. Under the influence of his example I resisted the question in 1808, when I was a minister. I resisted it again in 1810, after I had resigned my office; when I had no tie to controul me; and when, my opinions being what they have been ever since and are now, I should naturally have taken a different course, if unrestrained by the motive which I have described.

I resigned my office in 1809; and shortly after, by the death of the duke of Portland, the government devolved into the hands of Mr. Perceval. Mr. Perceval's sentiments on the Catholic question are well known. His cabinet, however, contained members differing from him, and agreeing with me, upon that question;

« PreviousContinue »