Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

once to the great principle; that very principle, which you resisted but the other night. What are we to infer from this conduct? But that you are insincere on the subject of parliamentary reform: But I must say, in no case would your insincerity be so mischievous both to yourselves and to the nation. The credit which you took to yourselves for favouring this object early in the session, has rendered your retreat not only dangerous but impossible; by urging public expectation to the very utmost, in order to court popularity, you have become more mischievous than those whom you call insurgents."

He went into a recital of charges against administration. He was sorry to be betrayed, he said, into personality or particular accusation; he was grown too old for those things, but he must vindicate himself from the charge of embarrassing government wantonly, and he declared, that if they supported this measure warmly and decidedly, he would serve them, though he never would act with them, he would vote with them unplaced, unpensioned, and unofficed, if they conceded his favourite object to the wishes of the people.

On the 22d of February, 1793, the Catholic bill was read a second time, and produced a very warm and interesting debate. Most of the speeches on this memorable occasion were in favour of the bill. Mr. G. Ponsonby and Mr. D. La Touche spoke against it. On a question of so much importance to the nation, and concerning which, deeply rooted prejudices had grown up with most of the members from the dawn of their intellects, it was to be expected, that those who were the most sincere in their former convictions, should be the most reluctantly brought to abandon their early prejudices. The general change of opinion in the House of Commons, upon the full notification of the will of the Castle, and consequently of the British cabinet, more irrefragably than any other argument, proved the ductile quality of

them with abhorrence and contempt. So much for the truth of the honourable gentleman.

He says, I voted against a pension bill: I did so, and would do so again, if it were not coupled with a responsibility bill, and other measures which the country demands. He says, the public do not give me their confidence: Sir, I am not vain enough to say they do; but I will give them such proofs, that whatever confidence they may have in my motives, they will be convinced by my actions that I am their friend.

We, Sir, who act on this side of the house, are not afraid of the aspersions, that are thrown upon us as men combined to force ourselves into power, while we see ministers every now and then taking up one of our measures, in order to conciliate the people: they take great credit to themselves for reducing the hearth-money, which was our measure; for a barren land-bill, which was our measure. What drives them to this? Their want of character. And thus they will proceed; and when they have adopted our measures one by one, they will then vaunt their popularity, and cry, Lord, what an upright administration we are!

that house to every dictate of the power to which they had vowed unqualified obeisance. Some few independent members, beyond the reach of that didactic sway, disdained to subject their opinions to the suggestions or commands of a British minister. They spoke firmly and resolutely upon the question; they drew forth from Mr. Hobart (the oracle and index of the British cabinet) a species of apology for them, which illustrates to demonstration the tenure of submission and concurrence, by which the majority of that house held their seats and influence. It had (he said) been truly stated, that no man had a right to argue, that a subject debated in that house was supposed to be influenced by the command of his majesty; his majesty in his good pleasure might recommend a subject to the consideration of parliament: parliament in their duty and affection would give the most respectful and attentive consideration to what his majesty recommended to their notice; but when the measure came before parliament in the shape of a bill, it then was the measure of the member, who introduced it, and his majesty's name was no longer to be used in its support; and therefore the gentleman. who spoke early in the debate was not justified in saying, this bill was by his majesty's command.

He agreed also with the honourable gentleman, that his majesty had recommended to them the care of the Protestant establishment, and that it was their duty to guard it from injury; and therefore the question was, how far could they go in behalf of the Roman Catholics without shaking the security of the Protestant establishment? On that question he had consulted with some of the most experienced and best informed men in the country, and it did appear to them, that the measure now offered would give effectual relief to the Roman Catholics, without shaking the Protestant establishment; the Roman Catholics themselves felt it so; and he was convinced it would not injure the Protestant. Though he differed from some gentlemen, for whom he entertained the highest regard, he knew that what they were doing would essentially serve the country; it would conciliate the Roman Catholics, it would cement a common union of interest and affection amongst his majesty's subjects, and enable that country to repel all her enemies.

After a very interesting and warm, though not intemperate debate, the question was carried in the affirmative, against only one negative and the bill was committed for the Monday following with three negatives. Of all the parliamentary friends to Catholic emancipation, Mr. Grattant was the most consistent,

13 Par. Deb. p. 271-2.

That gentleman seldom failed to add to the stupendous powers of his oratory much historical illustration upon every subject which he took in hand.

zealous, and persevering. His sentiments swayed many opinions in the nation; they also created discontent and opposition in another part of the community. He wished the bill under 'their consideration had gone further. He could wish that it had given the Roman Catholics the privileges of other Dissenters. Sure, he was, that was the only sound policy. He thought however the bill deserved thanks, because it contained much, and also because it led to much more; but the mover would have discovered more sense if he had then given to the Catholics the whole, and had settled with them for ever.

When the Catholic bill was in the committee, so far had ancient prejudices and prepossessions given way to the royal recommendation of humanity and justice towards three millions of loyal subjects, that Mr. George Knox, after a most liberal and

Alluding to an objection that had been raised against the Irish brigade being constantly recruited and officered from Ireland: he said, the fact was not so. The Irish brigade was not constantly recruited and officered from Ireland, but on the contrary, few of its officers, and very few of its men, were recruited from Ireland. Gentlemen would distinguish between officers of Irish families and of Irish birth, and they would distinguish also, between a regiment bearing an Irish name, and a regiment filled with Irishmen. The first was the case of the Irish brigade, the latter was not; for the refutation of that part of the objection, he appealed to the knowledge and the candour of gentlemen, who had seen service, and who must know the charge, that the Irish brigade was constantly officered and recruited from Ireland, to be absolutely destitute of foundation. The objection proceeded and stated, that 16,000 Irish Catholics fought against Great Britain in the American war. He believed the number of those Irish to be greatly magnified, and sure he was, that descrip. tion was not just; those Irish were great in numbers. Presbyterians of the North, not Catholics of the South; they emigrated in great bodies, and they continued on then to emigrate to America from the North of Ireland, not for rebellion, but for land, or a better condition. Their fellow subjects had emigrated from poverty at home, and sometimes had met war; and if they wished never to meet them in arms in other countries, their method should have been to give them a better condition at home. The objection proceeded, and stated, that great bodies of Irish fought against England at St. Eustatia and St. Lucia; here again the objection failed in point of fact; great bodies of Irishmen did not fight against England at St. Eustatia and St. Lucia. There was indeed a regiment of 1800 commanded by General Dillon, the Irish brigade, and that he supposed the objector conceived to have been those great bodies of Irishmen; but that regiment was chiefly composed of Dutch, and of the recruits of various nations, and of very few Irish; here again he appealed to the gentlemen in the service, whether that part of the objection was not, like the other parts, entirely unfounded. The objection proceeded and stated, that the Irish Catholics supplied the fleets and armies of the enemies in a much greater proportion than those of Great Britain; that he positively denied. They supplied the fleets and armies of the enemy in a very trifling proportion, and they supplied the fleets and armies of Great Britain in a very great and abundant proportion. In the last war, of 80,000 seamen, 50,000 were Irish names; in Chelsea, near one third of the pensioners were Irish names; in some of the men of war almost the whole complement of men were Irish. With respect to the recruiting service, it was a fact known to the gentlemen of the army, that since they had recruited for the foot in Ireland, the regiments had been filled in a great proportion with Irish Catholics.

able speech moved, that the committee might be empowered to receive a clause to admit Roman Catholics to sit and vote in the House of Commons. Major Doyle seconded the motion, which was strongly supported by Mr. Daly, col. Hutchinson, Mr. M. Smith, Mr. John O'Neile, Mr. Hardy and some other gentlemen friendly to Catholic emancipation; it was however rejected upon a division by 163 against 69. When the Catholic bill had passed its second reading in the lords, the bishop of Killala (dr. Law, the brother of lord Ellinborough) expressed his ready and most cheerful assent to a bill for the relief of his long oppressed and loyal Catholic brethren, and their return to that portion of the constitution to which the bill before the house went to admit them. His lordship went into an history of the origin and progress of the penal statutes, and deprecated the whole system, as founded in the prejudices of a bigotted and persecuting age, and continued for near a century with equal impolicy and injustice to a loyal body of subjects, whose conduct for that period was a full refutation of every argument that could be offered in support of that code, under which they had so long groaned with patient submission. In times like the present, when threatened by foreign enemies, and agitated by domestic dissentions, he wished to unite the great mass of the country in support of that constitution, to which they had ever been loyal, rather than turn them against it by perpetuating restrictive systems and oppressive exclusions, which no existing necessity could warrant, no policy

approve.

He felt it his duty to declare fully his sentiments on these points, because he looked upon his Roman Catholic brethren as fellow subjects, and fellow Christians, believers in the same God, and partners in the same redemption. Speculative differences in some points of faith from him were of no account; they and he had but one religion-the religion of Christianity. Therefore, as children of the same father-as travellers in the same roadand seekers of the same salvation, why not love each other as brothers? It was no part of Protestantism to persecute Catholics, and without justice to the Catholic, there could be no security for the Protestant establishment; as a friend, therefore, to the permanency of that establishment, to the prosperity of the country, and the justice due to his Catholic brethren, he should cheerfully give his vote that the bill be committed.

The earl of Glandore and the marquis of Waterford spoke very warmly upon the subject. Lord Portarlington observed, much to the credit of the Catholic body, and somewhat against the tendency of certain parts of the lords' report upon the late disturbances, that he was one of the committee lately appointed by their lordships to inquire into certain alarming events of late

prevalent in that country, and if he were not fully convinced that the Catholic body had no concern whatever in the disturbances created by some of their communion in the north, he should never give to this bill the support he then meant by voting cheerfully for its committal.

The lord chancellor declared his most earnest wish was, to have made no opposition to the bill, to have let it pass without any observation, as the state of the country seemed to render it absolutely necessary; but when the general principles of anarchy, the rage of innovation, and the epidemical phrenzy seemed to have reached that house; when inflammatory declamation, and illadvised misstatements came from the reverend bench, it attached upon the existing government, and he felt it necessary to rise in defence of the constitution. Before he alluded more particularly to the right reverend prelate, he must assume the office of his apologist, and the apology he had to offer for him was an utter and radical ignorance of the laws and constitution of the country from whence he came, and the laws and constitution of the country in which he lived. Then after having disclaimed any personal bigotry or acrimony, he entered into a wide field of justification of the whole penal code on the score of temporary necessity, and enlarged upon the pernicious tendency of Catholic tenets, as even recently defended by their primate doctor Troy. He concluded a very long and elaborate speech with a reflection, which gives strong room to believe, that the committee of the lords received that tint of crimination which is so visible in it from his lordship's influence and suggestions. He mentioned the powers assumed by the Popish convention, of levying taxes upon their community for defraying the expenses of their claims and proceedings, which, were they fair, just, and open, required no such support. He wished to resist further innovation; he foresaw, in granting more than the present bill gave, a total separation from England, or an union with her....each to be equally dreaded.

The archbishop of Cashel delivered a virulent philippic against the Catholics; and was particularly severe upon the bishop of Killala for having extended his liberality towards them, beyond what became a Protestant prelate. Several of the clauses were debated in the progress of the bill: but the debate which took place upon that clause, which enabled Catholics to accept military employments, calls most upon our attention.

Lord Farnham, in a speech of some extent, argued, that until a law similar to the present was passed in England, Catholic officers could not attend their regiments, if ordered on duty into England. His lordship was, therefore, for amending the clause, by wording it so, as that a Roman Catholic should not be eligible to a military commission in Ireland, until the principle were

« AnteriorContinuar »