with his parliament of Britain, to renounce any claim of autho rity over Ireland. The time was most improperly chosen to agitate that question, and the object of the motion utterly im practicable. He said, he did not mean to agitate the question of right; the act of the 6th of George the First was certainly of little ornament upon the statute book, and of still less use; yet if it gave nothing to England, it certainly took away nothing from Ireland. The question answered itself. Were they to agree to the address, and the British parliament should declare, that they never had any right to bind Ireland, in what a miserable situation would that country be placed. He had looked over the papers of the forfeited estates, and found that there was scarcely a man in the house, that did not enjoy some portion of them, nor a county in Ireland, of which they did not make a considerable part. A worthy representative of the county of Cavan holds a large property, formerly forfeited, and afterwards granted by an English law. Would he doubt the validity of his title? many gentlemen who heard him were in the same situation. Some days ago the observation of a learned friend of his (Mr. Fitzgibbon) electrified the house, when he told them, that they were about to disturb all property derived under the laws of forfeiture, &c. &c. What then must be their feelings, when desired to loose all the bands which unite society, and leave almost the whole property of the kingdom to be grappled for by the descendants of the ancient proprietors. The honourable gentleman had said, that now when Great Britain was hemmed in by enemies on every side, when sinking under a load of debt, and the repeated strokes of ill fortunes, no resistance could be feared from her, when Ireland was in full vigour, expert in arms, and almost certain of success.....now was the proper time for demanding from Britain the relinquishment of what their ancestors had handed down from age to age; to make the British parliament eat up their words and humble themselves; to make them disclaim a power which they had exercised for the benefit of Ireland, and to plunge the nation into an armed anarchy. If an ambassador from France or Spain, or if the boldest agents for the rebels of America were at the bar to urge the house in language such as that, he should not be much surprised; for it ill accorded with the loyal and liberal feelings of Irishmen, who scorn to take advantage of an enemy in distress, but always remember acts of friendship with gratitude; he was therefore against the address, because it would give the world an opportunity of saying, Ireland had made demands on Great Britain, and was in arms to enforce them. He was against it because it was a challenge, though couched in terms of civility; because it tended to anarchy and misrule; because the thing con tended for could never gain strength but by struggle; and because, if obtained, it would shake all the property in the nation. Upon those principles he thought it an honour to oppose the address in any way; but from respect to the honourable mover, he would not give it a direct negative, but move to have it put off to the first of August; upon which motion the house divided, 137 for the attorney general's motion, and 68 against it. As government affected, that the late division against the address did not involve the question of right in Great Britain to bind Ireland by legislative acts, the patriots resolved to return to the charge, and force, if they possibly could, an acknowledgment from a majority of that house, of the independence of Ireland upon the British legislature. On the 26th of February, 1782, *Mr. Flood, in a short but elegant speech of about fifteen minutes, stated the rights of Ireland, and then moved the two following resolutions: 1st. "That the members of this house are the only represent"atives of the people of Ireland." 2d. "That the consent of the commons is indispensably necesแ sary to render any statute binding." The second, he said, he would not move till the first was determined upon. The solicitor general opposed the motion as unnecessary, and what every man allowed. He moved an amendment after the word resolved, "That it was not now necessary to declare." This brought on a debate, as he declared the amendment was proposed in order to negative the motion if the amendment passed. The amendment was supported by Mr. Fitzgibbon, Mr. Mason, Sir Boyle Roche, and other gentlemen. The resolution was supported by Mr. Ogle, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Forbes, &c. The attorney Mr. Yelverton openly challenged any man. general repeated his former opinion. He observed, that he had before declared he would not go into the question of right, and that, therefore, it was unfair and uncandid in any gentleman to extort his expression, or assume for granted positions not under debate. He then rose to deliver his political creed. England had assumed and exercised a power of making laws to bind Ireland; she had repealed some of them that were oppressive, and that house had returned thanks for the repeal; but he should shake all the property of the land by declaring that the laws under which it was holden had no authority; and, therefore, it was best to leave those statutes as they were: yet, as an Irish * 1 Parl. Debates, p. 279. man, and a friend to Great Britain, he would say, that if Great Britain should attempt to make any new laws, they would not be obeyed. He was the depositary of the laws of Ireland, not of England; and it is absurd to suppose, that an officer delivering his opinion, could give away any right that did exist: the legis lature alone, that made laws, had power to repeal them. Sir Hercules Langrishe said, that universal coincidence of opinion on this subject, and the universal acknowledgment of the great truth which was the substance of the resolution, made the motion unnecessary, and if it were necessary, it was unadvisable. The honourable member knew there was but one opinion on that subject through the nation: the nation to a man, from the magistrate who was to enforce, to the people who were to obey the laws: they had all declared it; and that conviction impressed on the minds of a spirited people, was a security an hundred times as strong as any parliamentary declaration of their own, which could give no strength to the great charter which they read in their statute book, or the great enforcement they felt in themselves. If they complained of the laws, they seemed to feel them. If they neither acknowledged nor obeyed them, they could not feel them. He concluded that it was not necessary to make that declaration. Mr. Daly and the Provost spoke in support of the independence of Ireland, but did not see the necessity of making a declaration at that time on a subject which was not contested; so when the house divided there appeared for the declaration only 76, and against it 137. The heads of the Roman Catholic bill in their progress through the committee occasioned several debates, in which most of the speakers in the house delivered their sentiments: all unexceptionably avowed principles of toleration, but many differed upon particular topics arising out of the general subject. Mr. Flood, professing himself a friend to the bill, and declaring that he loved and admired the Roman Catholics, wished them to have permanent property, but not political power; but conceived that the possession of the fee simple would give political power, by com manding influence in elections. Mr. Montgomery supported Mr. Flood's objection, as did also Mr. Warburton, Mr. Rowley, Mr. John Burke, Mr. Coote, and particularly Mr. St. George. Mr. Fitzgibbon, Mr. Mason, Mr. Bushe, and several others, were strenuous against Catholics receiving foreign education, and were for their being admitted to the University. Several members objected against their being permitted the open and public exercise of their religion, and still more against allowing the same toleration to the regular clergy, as to the secular priests. Mr. Yelverton, the Provost, General Cunningham, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Forbes, Mr. D. Daly, Mr. Hussey Burgh, Mr. Dillon, Captain Hall, Sir Lucius O'Bryan, and Mr. Mossom, declared themselves warm advocates for removing the whole penal code from the Catholics, and zealously espoused their cause, not only in justice to them, but for the general benefit and welfare of the country. Mr. Gardiner, wishing to avail himself of the general disposition of the house to grant some relief to the Catholics, moulded the matter he had brought before the house into the form of three separate bills, the first of which afterwards passed into an act, entitled An Act for the further Relief of his Majesty's Subjects of this Kingdom professing the Roman Catholic Religion.* The act recites, "that all such subjects as had taken the oath of allegiance prescribed by the 13th and 14th of Geo. III. c. 34. ought to be considered as good and loyal subjects, and that the continuance of several of the Popery laws affecting them, was unnecessary, and injurious to the real welfare and prosperity of Ireland." It then enables Catholics to take, hold, and dispose of, lands and hereditaments in the same manner as Protestants: except advowsons and manors, or boroughs returning members for parliament. It removes several penalties from such of the clergy as shall have taken the oath and been registered; it confines its operation to the regular clergy then within that kingdom, (by which the succession of other regulars from abroad might be prevented) it deprives any clergyman officiating in a church or chapel with a steeple or bell of the benefit of the act, and repeals several of the most noxious parts of the acts of Ann and Geo. I. and Geo. II.† 21 and 22 Geo. III. c. 24. † Such as the power given to a magistrate to fine and imprison every Papist refusing to appear and declare upon oath when and where he had last heard mass, who celebrated and assisted at it, and the residence of any Popish ecclesiastic such as prohibited a Papist to have a horse of the value of 51. under certain penalties, and which enabled the chief governor to seize all their horses upon any invasion or intestine war likely to happen: such as enabled the grand jury to present the reimbursing of all robberies and depredations of privateers in time of war upon the real and personal estate of the Catholics within the County: such as subjected every Catholic to certain penalties, who did not provide a Protestant watchman to watch in his turn: and such as subjected to certain penalties every Catholic, who should take or purchase a house in Limerick or Galway, or the suburbs thereof. In the course of these debates (1 Parl. Deb. p. 311.) Mr. Bushe expressed a desire, that a clause should be inserted in the bill to ease the Roman Catholics from a most oppressive law then in being, which compelled them to make good the depredations committed by robbers in the country in which they resided. He instanced a transaction which happened within his own knowledge, in the county of Kilkenny: a number of villains, under the denomination of White Boys, assembled a few years since, and did considerable mischief; the grand jury, from the affidavits of the sufferers, granted a presentment accordingly; a short time after, one of the offenders was apprehended, who proved to be a Protestant, and was executed for the offence. He said, there was no other The second bill was for providing for the education of the Catholics, which afterwards passed into a law, entitled* An Act to allow Persons professing the Popish Religion to teach School in this Kingdom, and for the regulating the Education of Papists, and also to repeal Parts of certain Laws relative to the Guardianship of their Children. The act repeals as much of the acts of William and Ann as imposed on Catholics teaching school, or privately instructing youth in learning, the same pains, penalties, and forfeitures as any Popish regular convict was subject to; but excepts out of its benefit, any person who should not have taken the late oath of allegiance, who should receive a Protestant scholar, or who should become an usher to a Protestant schoolmaster. The act also enables Catholics (not being ecclesiastics) to be guardians to their own or any Popish child. When Mr. Gardiner proposed his third bill, which was for establishing intermarriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the house divided upon it, and the bill was negatived by a majority of eight.† Mr. Gardiner's bill, which in its original form was one, had been long drawn and considered by men of eminence on both sides of the water, before it was brought forward in the Irish House of Commons. Much previous negociation was requisite ere Mr. Gardiner dared venture to the discretion of the house. The great opposition to it was given from the Archbishop of Cashell's interest: several others, who held places under government, were also adverse. Certain it is, that government gave no direct countenance or support to it, though several supporters of government cordially favoured the measure. These bills were viewed in very opposite lights by different descriptions of persons. Some considered them as ruinous to the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, and therefore opposed them in every stage: others considered them too liberal, although some encouragement ought to be given to the long tried and then much wanted fidelity of the Catholic body: a third was disposed to grant even more than these bills imported; though they still maintained, that the great body of the Irish Catholics were to be kept in a proof required by this iniquitous act, to obtain a presentment on the Roman Catholic inhabitants, than to swear that the plunderers spoke with the Irish accent. Another hardship that the people of that persuasion laboured under from that oppressive law, was, that an individual could be compelled to pay the whole sum, notwithstanding he lived in a distant part of the country from the place where the offence was committed. One of the members instanced a gentleman who resided within a mile of his own house, and near thirty miles from where the offence was committed, on whom they levied the amount, by virtue of an execution taken out of the Crown office, and that he and his family were beggars about the country ever after. ⚫ 21 and 22 Geo. III. c. 62. VOL. II. † 10 Journ. Com. p. 317. 1 |