Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

"It has been suggested that it would be right to divide the whole of the temporal emoluments of the church of Ireland between the catholic and protestant clergy. I shall expect then, when the subject is more matured, to hear that the Irish protestant bishops, having first generously made over a portion of their endowments, for the peace and maintenance of their catholic brethren, are ready to make a further proposition, as in some of the German states, to subject all his majesty's dominions, by law, to a division of the produce of ecclesiastical dues between the two churches. That this is an opinion even now entertained it is not irrational to suppose; but that it is one of the consequences that will follow the concession of the catholic claims, I most sincerely believe.

[ocr errors]

My lords, we are not without authorities upon this part of the subject in foreign countries; and I should be glad to know where you would find a check on that spirit to which the conflict of these different interests must necessarily lead? I believe I may safely say that there is no free state in Europe, in which it has been found practicable for catholics and protestants, for any long continuance, to administer government under the same system together.

[ocr errors]

the religious establishment of this country. But the question is this-whether in a protestant country, whilst it remains protestant, you can introduce a Roman catholic power without an insurrection, or at least the most hostile prejudices against it? I say it is inconsistent with the principles of government, and at variance with every example of history.

"What do the Roman catholics say themselves? I do not wish to go now into the question of the veto. The Roman catholics profess exclusive submission to a foreign catholic church, and then they call upon you to admit them to all the benefits of your protestant establishment. This goes most materially and most essentially to the important view under which this question is presented to you. My lords, if I am to consider the effect that this have upon the constitution of this state: If I am to consider of the effect it may have upon the political and civil establishment of Ireland, I do believe whatever convenience may arise, from acceding to these claims, the mischief would be infinitely greater than the danger of refusing them at once.

measure may

"When I speak of the opinions of the Roman catholics, as they maintain them at present, I do not shut out the "In Switzerland we find it was not hope that some serious and essential the case, nor in Holland; and in Po- changes may take place. If they do, land the attempt was made, but it ter- the question may come, under new cirminated in the exclusive domination of cumstances, before parliament. Then the catholic religion. My noble friend will be the proper time to entersays, take away the interest that is hos- tain the consideration of the question. tile to the establishment, and you are But until we have these changes, or secure. For my own part, I believe that until we have sufficient security against if in Ireland you could establish the that foreign power of which I have Roman catholic religion, you could not spoken, I do consider it to be utterly also preserve a protestant king; because inconsistent with the principles of our the Roman catholic clergy would look constitution to admit the catholics. up to the crown for their temporalities, and the laws of the church must be Roman catholic instead of those of

"My noble friend concluded his speech with a reference to the constitution as established at the Revolution;

but I will not go into the consideration of that question. My noble friend seems, however, very much to undervalue the security which the intimate connection between the protestant establishment and the government gives to the constitution. My own view of the Revolution of 1688 is this that the church establishment of the country, as it now exists, having always been an object of affection to the government, the Revolution was as much founded upon the principle that the state should be protestant as that the monarchy should be limited. The object sought by that great event was the maintenance of our religious, civil, and political liberties together.

"In viewing this question, let me entreat noble lords to consider upon what principle you can justify the limitation of the crown to a protestant succession, if this question, as of right, can be admitted? You have done away all restrictions upon the catholics short of political power, and now it is desired to surrender that. If this is a question of expediency I can understand it; but if it is argued as a question of right, you have no alternative, and you can do nothing else. That they will not stop at the point that we may think expedient is pretty evident-the prayer of this petition is for every thing. You are not desired to consider their case with a view to give them any particular privilege, or a part of what they ask; but you are called upon not only to give every thing, but to consider their demand upon the ground of right. My lords, it is an essential principle of your protestant constitution, that your king be a protestant; yet I ask upon what principle of justice it is you can exclude the catholics from having a catholic prince in possession of the crown? If you surrender what they now claim, then I would ask you, would you put a Ro

man catholic family on the throne ? and if you would not, how could you exclude the Roman catholics, if it be their right, from the benefit of having a catholic monarch? I do therefore maintain, that the very essence and principle of the Revolution was that you should have a limited monarchy; and that the state should be protestant. I am thoroughly satisfied that in the present state of things, no benefit can arise from the discussion of this subject. You are called upon to make, not a particular concession, but to concede the whole; and upon grounds, as I think, inconsistent with the general security of the establishment of your country; and therefore I give my opposition to this motion."

Having thus submitted ample specimens of the sentiments and reasonings of the leading men in both houses of parliament on each side of this great question, the chapter shall be concluded by a few general reflections.

Every man who is capable of taking a dispassionate view of this subject, must be aware, that in the heat of controversy many very silly arguments have been urged on both sides, from which it were well if the subject could be disencumbered. It would be too much to say, that even the discussions of the legislature have been untainted with this species of folly, generated in the violence of debate, and the desire of victory; while the proceedings of the catholics themselves have been wholly stained and debased by the most despicable extravagances. It might have been suppo. sed, for instance, that a general as sent would have been given to some leading propositions, not less obvious to common sense than to the most re

fined philosophy; viz. That the end of all free governments is the general benefit of society; that the greatest benefit is produced by the equal par

ticipation of all classes of the people in the rights and privileges of the constitution; and that under such a government, therefore, all the subjects are entitled to the same privileges, unless some weighty reasons can be urged to justify an exception. The right of the people may not be what is called an absolute right, that is, it cannot be vindicated by force, since no abstract reasoning can for a moment imply an appeal to force against the supreme power of the state. But all classes of the people have a fair and unquestionable claim, in justice and policy, to an equal participation, not of some but of all the privileges which are enjoyed by their fellow subjects,-a claim which cannot be lawfully resisted, unless some strong case of necessity is made out to justify the exclusion. The necessity which creates also limits the right exercised by the supreme power; and any disability imposed, any abatement of privilege without a cogent reason to justify it,-is an act of mere tyranny. It is not the business of him who is excluded or oppressed to shew that he may be safely admitted to the enjoyment of his rights; he pleads the great and general law which sustains the very being of society, and requires not arguments to make it out; his case is established if his adversary, on whom the whole burden of the proof lies, cannot justify the exception.These reflections expose the folly of the distinction which is so ignorantly taken by some persons-a distinction betwixt toleration and power-a distinction which falsely assumes, that if persons whose religious sentiments differ from those of the established church are merely tolerated, they have no right to complain, and that their exclusion from power requires no justification. The catholic or the dissenter have an irresistible answer to such puerilities; they are entitled to say

that what is called power is their

birth-right, as well as that of their fellow-citizens, and unless it can be proved that there is a clear advantage to the state, in giving a monopoly of powers to certain classes, and that there would be danger in admitting others to an equal participation, no benefit can be derived from the distinction. The extent to which the measures of exclusion ought to be carried, is a question, not of principle but of degree: and the catholic or dissenter is still injured, if he be deprived but of one insignificant privilege, to which his fellow subjects are entitled. He who owes a debt, does not discharge it by paying one half, nor by paying up to the last shilling, if that shilling be still withheld; the catholic is the creditor of the state for his natural privileges; and unless he has done something to forfeit them, no part can be refused him. Those who resist catholic emancipation on such grounds, are the worst enemies of that cause which they are so forward to espouse.

Lord Wellesley declared, "that the claim of the catholics is not a claim of right; that the question before the legislature was a question of mere political expediency." He must by this have meant to express his disapprobation of the doctrines propagated by some insane persons, who described the catholic claims as claims of abstract right, which under any circumstances must be conceded. There is not-there cannot be, any such thing as abstract right-the adage fiat justitia ruat cælum, as applied to politics, is a brilliant absurdity; all that the most virtuous and enlightened mind will require on a great question of policy, is, that no base motives should interfere with the distribution of national justice, not that, from a veneration for empty sounds, the being or happiness of society should be hazarded. In this limited and intelligible sense, the claims of the ca

tholics are as much claims of right as any other pretensions submitted to the cognizance of legislative wisdom. This concession, however, alters not the basis on which these claims must for ever rest. Those rights which are recognized, that justice which is reverenced solely because it is necessary to the of the social or support der, can never demand that any thing should be done which may bring into peril the repose, nay, the very existence, of that frame of society which our duty and our interests alike call upon us to support. The catholic can gain no advantage, therefore, by stating his claim as a matter of right; his enemies may concede so much without fear or hesitation, but he himself, if he really wish to succeed, should direct all his efforts towards convincing his fellow-subjects, that he may be safely admitted into the bosom of the constitution. It is a singular circumstance, that in the beginning of the 19th century, the statesmen of the most enlightened nation of Europe should be chiefly occupied in adjusting the pretensions of religious sects; and it is no less curious, that scholastic questions should find their way into a great controversy of practical politics.

It can never be an essential part of the constitution to exclude a large proportion of the subjects from the power and honours which are accessible to others. Those who maintain a different opinion, offer an insult to that constitution, of which it is probable they understand but little; they affirm, that under any circumstances, how favourable soever to the most generous and liberal principles, the British constitution prescribes the degradation of a portion of the people. Yet this venerable pile was constructed, we are told, for the security and protection, the comfort and happiness of the whole people; it was reared, in

deed, in an age when a spirit of turbulence made it necessary to surround it with many defences, which were neither essential to its integrity, nor propitious to its elegance; but when better days shall arrive-when its defenders shall become so powerful, and its enemies so weak, that it might safely be stripped of these cumbrous appendages, how stupid must that veneration for ancient deformity be, which with religious care would still retain so much of what would be at once useless and inelegant ? If the British con-stitution were, indeed, such as it has been represented; if it were structed on the principles of eternal exclusion and endless tyranny; if it perpetuated alarm when the danger had subsided, and immortalised animosities, which time might already have extinguished, every wise and good man would pray as devoutly for its speedy apotheosis, as he now with a fervour, not less than that of Roman patriotism, will exclaim, Esto perpetua!

con

It is quite absurd to pretend, u defence of their exclusion from political power, that the great body of the catholics suffer no injury; that the whole clamour originates in the ambition of a few individuals, and that the people have no interest in the dispute. Even if it were true that only the higher orders of the catholics suffer from the existing disabilities, and if it were also true that they suffer without reason, the danger of refusing to accede to their just claims might be less imminent; but the moral obligation to grant relief would not be less binding. The most galling tyranny to its victims, is that which selects but a small number for vengeance, and leaves. them without even the consolation which is derived from a community of suffering. But is it true that the higher orders the candidates for the great honours of the state, are alone

affected by the disabilities? is it true that in this free country the distribution of honours is confined to certain privileged orders, and that genius humbly born dares not look forward to its due reward? No man will presume to say this; so that although the remaining disabilities which attach to the catholics may affect but a small number, even of their nobles, in the way of actual exclusion from power, they damp the hopes and repress the energies of all; they wound the reputation of the whole professors of the catholic religion, and lower their rank in the scale of society. Hope and fear are passions opposite in their nature, yet analogous in their operation; when you repress hope, you mortify the feelings of a thousand, whom you do not positively injure in the vulgar sense of the word; when you excite a general alarm, you may agitate the passions of multitudes, whom the evil so much dreaded can never overtake. It is insulting to tell the catholics, that as a body they should not complain of the disabilities imposed on them, because a very inconsiderable proportion of them can ever attain the honours and the power from which they complain of a peremptory exclusion. As a question of the actual enjoyment of power and emolument, the catholic question is indeed nothing; but as a question of character and reputation in society; as a point of honour to which high-minded men must be acutely sensible, it is every thing which can agitate their feelings and rouse them to exertion. Hope is the grand stimulus to every noble enterprise; the spring which gives life to society, and generates all its comforts and refinements; yet hope is denied to all by a system which is vainly represented as affecting only a small number of the people. By the disabilities on the catholics, the actual enjoyment of power is denied but to a

few; yet the deadening influence of such laws extends to all who may under a free government aspire to its highest dignities; that is, embraces the whole population which professes the Roman catholic religion. It is vain and extravagant, therefore, in the highest degree, to attempt to palliate the evils of any system of exclusion; they are great and prominent; and the only question is, whether a change may be effected without danger to the civil and religious institutions of the country, which we are all bound to defend, even ad internecionem.

It is an unfortunate circumstance that the enemies of catholic emancipation should have shielded themselves under the coronation oath, and should have entangled their cause with so much sophistry, which no talent could ever reconcile to common sense and upright feelings. To conscientious scruples existing in the breast of an illustrious individual, the loyalty and affection of his people might well pay the highest respect; the paternal cares and distinguished virtues of the sovereign displayed in a long reign, were more than sufficient to command the love and veneration of a generous people. Yet as the king of England is not responsible for any measure of policy, his ministers could not be bound by the private sentiments of their sovereign; and although it might have been highly imprudent in them to press a measure to which he was averse, and to which he could at the last stage have given his negative, still it was their duty, if they differed in opinion, to remonstrate with firmness, yet with respect, against sentiments which they could not approve, and to refuse encountering the danger of responsibility, while they were not enabled to exercise their legitimate and constitutional influence. Thus far it was at all times their duty to go; yet, in the whole circumstances of the case, it might

« ForrigeFortsett »