{GEORGE IV. 1829—1830}
The Catholic Question..... Meeting of Parliament.....
Suppression of the Catholic Association..... Rejection of
Mr. Peel at Oxford..... The Triumph of Catholic
Emancipation..... Bill for the Disfranchisement of the
Forty-Shilling Freeholders..... The Case of Mr.
O’Connell..... Financial Statements..... Motion for
Parliamentary Reform..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
State of Affairs in Ireland..... Agricultural and
Commercial Distress..... Affairs on the Continent.
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.
{A. D. 1829}
The recommendation of the late lord-lieutenant to agitate, was followed
in Ireland to the very letter. When the Duke of Northumberland arrived
in Dublin as his successor, he found agitation pervading the whole
country. Protestants and Catholics alike were in the field, breathing
defiance and revenge against each other, so that there was every
prospect of a civil war. The premier’s situation at the opening of the
year, from this cause, was one of great and peculiar difficulty. The
whole tenor of his political life had been marked by hostility to
the Catholic claims; and every individual associated with him in the
government was pledged to resist their claims. The time had arrived,
however, at the opening of the year, when it became necessary for the
Duke of Wellington to decide on some mode of action; either to determine
not to yield, or to grant emancipation, or to retire from the helm of
state for a season, and permit a Whig government to carry the measure.
The course which he pursued astounded the nation. The wisest and most
honourable course which his grace could have taken, would have been to
have retired, since it was scarcely fair to steal the crown of victory
from statesmen who, during the whole of their political career, had
ably and eloquently pleaded the cause of the Catholics. Yet such was the
course he adopted. Although he had declared that he saw no prospect of
the settlement of the question, and although he had recalled the late
lord-lieutenant because he favoured the Catholics, yet he was now
determined to grant with a free and liberal hand all that they had ever
demanded. Nor did his grace alone change his opinions on this subject.
While the country was reposing confidence that the leading members of
the government were still faithful to their trust, these very men had
determined to go over to the Catholics; and in secrecy and silence were
arranging plans for carrying out a broad measure of emancipation. The
first thing they did was to obtain the consent of the king; a matter of
no small difficulty, as his reluctance to concession was deep-rooted
and vehement. It cost the premier months of management, vigilance, and
perseverance, to overcome his majesty’s antipathies; and it is probable
that he would never have succeeded had it not been for the king’s
indolence and love of ease. A dissolution of the ministry would have
interrupted his ease; and the thought of this overcame his repugnance to
the question. Till his consent was obtained not a whisper had been heard
of the change of sentiment which had taken place in the cabinet; but a
few days before the meeting of parliament the grand secret was told.
The surprise which the announcement excited was only equalled by
the indignation and contempt roused by so sudden an abandonment of
principle. The Protestant community complained—and very justly—that
they had been deceived. Up to that period, indeed, they had been allowed
to rest in the belief that the question would not be mooted, or if it
were, that the influence of the cabinet would stand in its way; but
these, their long-tried friends, had been planning and plotting how they
might secure a triumph to their enemies. They had been trusted by the
Protestant party as the champions of their cause; but on a sudden
they were found offering the hand of friendship to their enemies. It
certainly would have been more manly if they had, on resolving to
change sides, fairly and honestly avowed it from the first, for then the
Protestants would have had time to counteract their designs; but it
was evident at the meeting ol parliament that all opposition would be
useless. It was too late to make a successful stand against the measure:
it must be carried.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament reassembled on the 5th of-February. The speech, which was
again delivered by commission, detailed at length our foreign
relations, and announced the continued improvement of the revenue. The
all-absorbing topic of interest, however, was that which referred to
the coming measure of Catholic emancipation. It remarked:—“The state of
Ireland has been the object of his majesty’s continued solicitude. His
majesty laments that in that part of the United Kingdom an Association
should still exist which is dangerous to the public peace, and
inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, which keeps alive
discord and ill-will amongst his majesty’s subjects; and which must, if
permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to
improve the condition of Ireland. His majesty confidently relies on
the wisdom and on the support of his parliament; and his majesty feels
assured that you will commit to him such powers as may enable his
majesty to maintain his just authority. His majesty recommends that,
when this essential object shall have been accomplished, you should take
into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and
that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on his
majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal
of those disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and
permanent security of our establishments in church and state, with the
maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the
rights and privileges of the bishops and of the clergy of this realm,
and of the churches committed to their charge. These are institutions
which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom; and which it
is the duty and the determination of his majesty to preserve inviolate.
His majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the
consideration of a subject of such paramount importance, deeply interest
ing to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity
and concord of the United Kingdom, with the temper and moderation
which will best ensure the successful issue of your deliberations.” The
tendency of this recommendation to parliament was at once perceived by
the advocates of exclusion; and they loudly complained of desertion and
surprise, charging the duke with a perfidious concealment of his designs
till the last moment, and loading Messrs. Peel and Goulbourn with the
most bitter execrations, on account of their supposed apostasy. The
usual addresses, however, were carried without a division.
SUPPRESSION OF THE CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.
The first thing to be done was the vindication of the laws: laws which
had been long trampled beneath the feet of the Catholic agitators. In
pursuance of the recommendation in the royal speech to suppress the
Catholic Association, on the 10th of February Mr. Peel asked leave to
bring in a bill for that purpose. The general outline of the measure
which he proposed was briefly this. It was his intention, he said, to
commit the enforcement of the law to one person only; and to intrust to
him, who was fully cognizant of the state of affairs in Ireland, and
who was also responsible for the tranquillity of that country, the
new powers with which the house were now asked to invest the executive
government. He proposed to give the lord-lieutenant, and to him alone,
the power of suppressing any association or meeting which he might
deem dangerous to the public peace, or inconsistent with the due
administration of the law; together with power to interdict the
assembling of any meeting, of which previous notice should have been
given, and which he should think likely to endanger the public peace, or
to prove inconsistent with the due administration of the law. In case it
should be necessary to enforce the provisions of the law by which
these powers would be conferred, it was proposed, by Mr. Peel, that the
lord-lieutenant should be further empowered to select two magistrates
for the purpose of suppressing the meeting, and requiring the people
immediately to disperse. Finally, it was proposed to prohibit any
meeting or association which might be interdicted from assembling, or
which might be suppressed under this act from receiving and placing at
their control any monies by the name of “rent,” or by any other name.
In conclusion Mr. Peel said, that he was of opinion the act should, like
that of 1825, which had been intended to suppress the Catholic and other
associations, be limited; and he proposed to limit it to one year, and
the end of the then next session of parliament. The bill passed both
houses without opposition; for although its provisions were somewhat
arbitrary in their nature, the friends of the Catholics voted for it
as part of a system which was to result in Catholic emancipation. The
associators, however, rendered the act unnecessary; for before it was
completed, their dissolution was announced. They had gained their point,
and for the present they were satisfied; they had demanded emancipation,
unqualified emancipation, and nothing else; and when this was promised,
when government submitted to their imperious demands, they put up the
sword of defiance into its scabbard. The government boasted that they
had suppressed the Association. But such a boast, as it has been justly
observed, was as if a man should boast of his victory over a highwayman
to whom he exclaims, when the pistol is at his breast, “Down with your
pistol, Sir, and you shall have my purse and my watch:” the robber would
have the best of it, and so had the Association.
REJECTION OF MR. PEEL AT OXFORD.
The University of Oxford had elected Mr. Peel as a champion to the
Protestant cause; and when his mind underwent the change it manifested
on the subject of Catholic emancipation, he could not in common decency
or honesty retain his seat as member for that University. Under these
circumstances he addressed a letter to the vice-chancellor, announcing
his new views of policy by which he was to be guided, acknowledging that
his resistance to the Catholic claims had been one main ground of his
election by the University, and tendering his resignation. Mr. Peel,
however, was proposed as a candidate at the new election, trusting that
he might skill sit as the representative for Oxford in parliament. But
in this he was disappointed. He had for an opponent Sir Robert Harry
Inglis; and though the united influence of the Whigs was pushed to its
utmost limit in behalf of the Home Secretary, Sir Robert Inglis, who was
supported by the dignitaries of the church, and by the parochial clergy,
was elected. Mr. Peel was subsequently returned for the borough of
Westbury; and in this character he brought forward those measures which
for twenty years he had repudiated as dangerous and ruinous to the
best interests of the country, and which even now he was convinced were
pregnant with danger to the constitution.
THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
On the 5th of March Mr. Peel moved “that the house resolve itself into
a committee of the whole house to consider of the laws imposing civil
disabilities on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects.” He commenced by
stating, that, he rose as a minister of the king to vindicate the advice
which an united cabinet had given to his majesty to recommend to the
consideration of parliament the condition of the Catholics, and to
submit to the house measures for carrying such recommendation into
effect. He was aware, he said, that the subject was surrounded with
difficulties; which difficulties were increased by the relation in which
he himself stood to the question. Having, however, come to the honest
conviction that the time had arrived, when an amicable adjustment of
the disputed claims would be accompanied with less danger than any
other course that could be suggested, he was prepared to act on that
conviction, unchanged by the forfeiture of public confidence, or by the
heavy loss of private friendship. He had long felt, he said, that with a
house of commons favourable to emancipation, his position as a minister
opposed to it was untenable; and he showed that he had more than once
intimated his desire to resign office, and thus remove one obstacle to
a settlement of the question. He had done so on the present occasion,
though at the same time he notified to the Duke of Wellington, that
seeing how the current of public opinion lay, he was ready to support
the measure, provided it were undertaken on principles from which no
danger to the Protestant establishment need be apprehended. He was
aware, he said, that he was called on to make out a case for this change
of policy; and he was now about to submit to the house a statement which
proved to his own mind, with the force of demonstration that ministers
were imperatively called on to recommend the measure, however
inconsistent it might appear with their former tenets. The argument
by which the case was made out by Mr. Peel resolved itself into the
following propositions:—First, matters could not remain in their
present state, the evils of divided councils being so great, that
something must be done, and a government formed with a common opinion on
the subject. Secondly, a united government once constituted must do one
of two things—either grant further political rights to the Catholics,
or recall those which they already possess. Thirdly, to deprive them
of what they already have would be impossible; or at least would be
infinitely more mischievous than to grant them more: therefore, no case
remained to be adopted but that of concession. Having illustrated these
propositions at great length, and with much force of argument, Mr.
Peel proceeded to explain the nature of the measure which he and his
colleagues proposed as that which ought finally to settle and adjust the
question. The principle and basis of the measure was to be, he said, the
abolition of civil distinctions and the equality of political rights,
with a few exceptions only. Another pervading principle would be, in
fact and in word, the maintenance of the Protestant religion as by law
established, its doctrines, its discipline, and government. First of
all, he would repeal those laws which placed Catholics, unless they took
certain oaths, on a different footing from Protestants even in regard
to real property; a distinction which Protestants and Catholics were
equally interested in abolishing. The next provision would be the
admission of Catholics to parliament on the same terms with Protestants;
for unless this was granted, all other concessions of political power
would be of no avail. The bill would, also, render Catholics admissible
to all corporate offices in Ireland, and all offices connected with the
administration of justice, and to all the higher civil offices of the
state. He was aware, he said, of the objection as to the last; but
having once resolved to yield political power, this could not be
refused. In order to leave the avenues of ambition open to the Roman
Catholic, he was of opinion that we ought to render him capable of
being employed in the service of the country. As regards the oaths to
be taken, it necessarily followed from their concessions, he said, that
they should be modified. In the new oath, the Catholic would be called
on to swear allegiance in the usual terms; to disclaim the deposing
power of the pope, and the doctrine that his holiness had any temporal
or civil power, directly or indirectly, within the realm; solemnly to
abjure any intention of subverting the church establishment; and to bind
himself not to employ any of his privileges to weaken the Protestant
religion or government. As regarded the exceptions from the general
rule, Mr. Pitt said that they lay within a narrow compass, and related
to duties or offices connected with the established church. The
only offices he meant to exclude Catholics from were those of
lord-lieutenant, or chief governor of Ireland, and of lord high
chancellor, or keeper, or commissioner of the great seal. He meant,
however, to exclude Catholics from appointments in any of the
Universities or Colleges, and from exercising any right of presentation,
as lay patrons, to the benefices and dignities of the church of England.
In the bill, also, there were certain prohibitions against carrying the
insignia of office to places of Roman Catholic worship, and against the
assumption, by prelates of that communion, of the same episcopal titles
as those belonging to the church of England. There were also certain
precautions against the increase of monastic institutions, particularly
that of the Jesuits. A more effective check, however, on the
consequences which might result from admitting Roman Catholics
in Ireland to civil power, was meditated in a law for raising the
qualification of the elective franchise, in counties, from forty
shillings to ten pounds: by which means that privilege would be limited
to persons really possessed of property, and less liable to be misled by
the priests. After detailing the features of the plan in a speech which
occupied more than four hours, Mr. Peel remarked:—“And now, although
I am not so sanguine as others in my expectations of the future, I
have not the slightest hesitation in saying, I fully believe that the
adjustment of this question in the manner proposed will not only give
much better and stronger securities to the Protestant interest and
establishment than any other that the present state of things admits of,
but will also avert evils and dangers impending and immediate. I might
have taken a more popular and palatable course: more popular with
the individuals in concert with whom I long thought and acted, more
palatable to the constituents whom I have lost; but I have consulted
for the best, for Protestant interests and our Protestant establishment.
This is my defence against the accusations I have endured; this is my
consolation under the sacrifices I have made; this shall be my revenge.
I trust that, by the means now proposed, the moral storm may lie lulled
into a calm, the waters of strife may subside, and the elements
of discord be stilled and composed. But if these expectations be
disappointed; if unhappily civil strife and contentions shall arise;
if the differences existing between us do not spring out of artificial
distinctions and unequal privileges, but if there be something in the
character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be contented with
a participation of equal privileges, or with anything short of
superiority, still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle
must be fought; if the contest which we would now avoid cannot be
averted by those means, let the worst come to the worst—the battle
will be fought for other objects, the contest will take place on other
grounds; the contest then will be, not for an equality of civil rights,
but for the predominance of an intolerant religion. If those more gloomy
predictions shall be realized, and if our more favourable hopes shall
not be justified by the result, we can fight that battle against the
predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this
measure shall have been passed than we could do at present. We shall
then have the sympathy of other nations; we shall have dissolved the
great moral alliance that existed among the Roman Catholics: we shall
have with us those great and illustrious authorities that long supported
this measure, and which will then be transferred to us, and ranged
upon our side: and I do not doubt that in that contest we shall be
victorious, aided as we shall be by the unanimous feeling of all classes
of society in this country, as demonstrated in the numerous petitions
presented to this house, in which I find the best and most real
securities for the maintenance of our Protestant constitution; aided, I
will add, by the union of orthodoxy and dissent, by the assenting voice
of Scotland; and, if other aid be necessary, cheered by the sympathies
of every free state, and by the wishes and prayers of every free man, in
whatever clime, or under whatever form of government he may live.”
The motion was not very powerfully opposed. The principal speakers in
opposition were Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Estcourt, the two members of
Oxford University. The chief argument used was an assumption that the
grant of equal privileges to Roman Catholics would be the destruction of
the Protestant establishment. With regard to Ireland, it was said that
discord and agitation were not new features in the condition of that
country; that they were not a result of the penal laws; and that they
would not cease on the removal of civil disabilities. As regarded the
fear of civil war, it was remarked that reliance ought to have been
placed on public opinion, and the moral determination of the British
people. At best, too, it was argued, the evil days would only be
postponed, and resistance to ulterior struggles rendered more difficult.
It was asked, with respect to the divided state of the cabinet, why the
Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, instead of changing their own line of
policy, did not rather attempt to bring over their colleagues to their
views, especially as they still confessed that there was danger in
granting Catholic emancipation. Ministers were also taunted with
conceding the question from intimidation; a fact which was evident in
the provisions, called securities, against the danger of admitting
the Catholics to wield the civil, judicial, and military powers of the
state. If Mr. Peel and other converts, it was said, thought they could
no longer resist, because they had not a majority in the house
of commons, why did they refuse to accept a majority? Why was not
parliament dissolved? Such a course, it was argued, was right at
any time, when a measure strongly affecting the constitution was
contemplated; and it was peculiarly necessary in the present instance,
when the country had been deceived into a security, of which those who
had practised the deception were now seeking to take advantage. The
Marquis of Blandford even maintained, that if the house sanctioned the
present audacious invasion of the constitution, it would break the trust
reposed in it by the people of England, who were taken by surprise by
the unexpected announcement made by ministers. Was it right, he asked,
for the government to persist in measures to which public feeling was so
strongly opposed? Constituted as the house was then, it did not
express the just alarms of the people for the safety of the Protestant
institutions of the country. As regards the securities proposed by
ministers, they were treated with contempt. Viscount Corry said, that
he had in vain looked for them: with the exception of the forty-shilling
franchise being raised to ten pounds, there was no attempt at
securities; and even that was a half measure.
The motion was supported by Sir. G. Murray, colonial secretary, and
by Messrs. Grant, North, and Iiuskisson. These members repeated and
enforced the positions that the pacification of Ireland was necessary
to the safety of the empire; and that without emancipation pacification
could not be effected. All classes in Ireland, it was argued, had
identified themselves with the question, and Ireland had hence fallen
into a state in which it was impossible for it to remain: it must either
advance or recede; for all the ties which held society together had been
loosened or broken. It was conceded that a certain state of things,
not deserving the name of society, might be maintained by means of the
sword; but such a frame of society, it was added, could have no analogy
whatever to the British constitution. The only intimidation to which
ministers could be accused of yielding, was the fear of continuing
such a state of affairs, and aggravating all its evils by gradual
accumulation, instead of restoring mutual goodwill and the peaceful
empire of the law. No other intimidation existed: none was felt in
Ireland; for what was the force of an unarmed multitude when measured
against the force of the state? The power of the Catholics was as
nothing. But when it was considered what effects might arise from
disunion; when it was considered that a spirit of resentment was growing
up, which roused men against each other, there did appear a kind
of intimidation, of a nature which did not admit of contempt. The
Protestant body—at least the body which arrogated to itself that
title—knew the enthralment under which they had held the Catholics,
and that an unarmed multitude must submit. But were we, it was asked,
to destroy one part of the people, by rousing and inciting the other? It
was rather the duty of government to protect the whole; to ensure them
the greatest degree of protection; and to give to the people all the
privileges they had a right to enjoy. To those who urged a dissolution
of parliament, it was answered, that parliament as it existed was as
capable of discussing the question now, as any parliament had been at
any time during the last twenty-five years; that the question was a fit
one for the consideration of the house of commons at all times; and that
it was particularly fit for their consideration when it came recommended
from the throne, as necessary for the safety and peace of the United
Kingdom. A dissolution of parliament, remarked Mr. Peel, must leave the
Catholic Association and the elective franchise in Ireland just as they
were. If parliament were dissolved, the Catholic Association must be
left as it was, as the common law was inadequate to suppress it; and
being so left, it would overturn the representation of Ireland. Whatever
majority might be returned from Great Britain, Ireland would return
eighty or ninety members in the interest of the Association, forming a
compact body, against the force of which it would be impossible to
carry on the local government of the country. It had, indeed, been said,
“Increase the army, or the constabulary force;” but a greater force
could not be employed there. He would state one simple fact. Above
five-sixths of the infantry had been engaged in aiding the government
of Ireland, as by interposing between two hostile parties. Under
such circumstances a reaction would compel them gradually to this
alternative; namely, instead of resting the civil and social government
on its base, to narrow it and to rest it on its apex. It was also denied
that there was anything peculiar in the nature of the proposed measure
to require a special appeal to the people, since it was incorrectly
called a violation of the constitution. That constitution, it was
argued, was not to be sought for solely in the acts of 1688: its
foundations had been laid much earlier; laid by Catholic hands, and
cemented with Catholic blood. But, even taking the compact of 1688 to
be the foundation of our rights and liberties, yet the most diligent
opponent of the Catholic claims would be unable to point out in the Bill
of Rights a single clause by which the exclusion of Roman Catholics from
seats in parliament was declared to be a fundamental, or indispensable
principle of the British constitution; that bill merely regarded the
liberties guaranteed to the people, and the protection of the throne
from the intrusion of Popery. To the objection that the measure now
contemplated was unconditional concession, concession without a single
security for the Protestant establishment, it was answered, that
principles of exclusion were not the securities to which the established
religion either did trust, or ought to trust. The real securities of
Protestantism would remain, unaffected by this bill, in the unalterable
attachment of the people, who, though divided on minor topics, would
unite in resisting the errors of Popery. The house, it was said,
should also look at the great security which they would derive from
the generous attachment of the people of Ireland, who, after ages of
oppression, would find themselves restored to their place in society.
Moreover, the securities which the bill contained were not so nugatory
as they had been represented. Mr. Peel said, that when he looked at the
petitions sent from all parts of the country, he could not help being
struck with one extraordinary coincidence. These petitions prayed for
those securities; and the prayers of them were similar, whether they
came from the county of Wicklow, or from the county of Armagh, &c.;
that it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that those
prayers, and the terms in which they were conveyed, had been suggested
by one common head and source. And what were the securities prayed for?
Why, the first was, “Put down the Catholic Association;” the second,
“Correct the elective franchise of Ireland;” and the third, “Abolish for
the future the order of the Jesuits in this country.” Now the bill which
he proposed contained all these securities; and if the necessity of
obtaining them were so great as the petitioners contended, let him be
answered this question: “Would the Protestants ever have had the least
chance of obtaining them if his majesty had not recommended that the
disabilities of the Catholics should be taken into consideration, with
the view to an adjustment of this question? Could any man say it was
possible, though the unanimous voice of the Protestants of Ireland
declared those securities to be necessary, that any one of them could
have been obtained, unless a proposal or adjustment had been made?” On
a division the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and
forty-eight against one hundred and sixty; a preponderance which, as
regarded the house of commons, was decisive of the ultimate fate of the
question.
Resolutions, proposed by Mr. Peel in the committee, were immediately
agreed to; and a bill founded on them was introduced and read for the
first time on the 10th of March. The opponents of the measure allowed
the first reading to take place without opposition, it being arranged
that the debate on the principle of the bill should take place on the
second reading. That reading was fixed for the 17th, on which day it
was moved by Mr. Peel. The motion led to a very warm debate. Sir
Edward Knatchbull strongly attacked Mr. Peel on the desertion of his
principles, as well as other members of the government, asserting that
from it the confidence which had hitherto been accorded to public men,
had received a blow from which it never would recover. Mr. Goulburn
admitted that he had adopted new opinions on this subject; but he had
done so, he said, because it was impossible that any other thing could
be wisely done in the present state of Ireland. He contended that the
measure proposed was calculated to give more complete ascendancy to the
Protestant establishment, by diminishing the irritation, and removing
the prejudices of its opponents. He argued, that it would also have the
effect of causing the people to treat the ministers of the Protestant
church with the respect and attention to which their character and
virtues so eminently entitled them; and that it was only under such
circumstances that the church could be employed as an important engine
in the moral improvement of the people. These notions, however, were
ridiculed by Mr. G. Bankes, who contended that, although the house did
not surrender all the rights of the Protestant church at once, they
gave the Catholics the first stepping-stone for reaching everything
they might desire. It was admitted, he said, that the adherents of the
Catholic faith would struggle for ascendancy; and that this bill was to
give them the political power which would be the great instrument used
in the struggle: and how a bill which did all this would tend to the
security of the Protestant church surpassed human comprehension. The
very framers of the measure saw the absurdity and the danger which it
was employed to conceal; and they had endeavoured to obviate the danger
by a precaution which proved its existence, but was impotent to prevent
it. They had devised this remedy—that when the prime minister happened
to be a Roman Catholic, all power connected with the established church
should be vested in the hands of commissioners. But who was to appoint
the commissioners? Why the prime minister. Lord Tullamore followed in a
similar strain. Ministers, he said, had themselves given the tone on the
opposite side of the question at public meetings; they had sat at the
festive board, hearing with approbation the avowal of sentiments which
they themselves had avowed, but now disclaimed completing the picture
drawn by the poet—
“Drunk at a borough, civil at a ball.
Friendly at Hackney, faithless at Whitehall.”
The measure was supported by Lord Palmerston and Sir George Murray with
much eloquence and animation; but the speech which on this occasion
claimed and deserved the greatest attention from the house was that
of Mr. Sadler, a man of distinguished abilities, who had recently
been returned to parliament for the borough of Newark, by the Duke of
Newcastle’s interest. He rose, he said, to add his humble vote to that
faithful band who had resigned the countenance of those whom they had
hitherto deeply respected; who had surrendered, in the language of many,
all pretensions to common sense or general information; who are branded
as intolerants and bigots, from whom ministers had happily escaped; and,
what was still more painful to generous minds, who were ranked among
those that were as devoid of true liberality and benevolence, as of
reason and intelligence. He continued: “All these things, however, move
us not. In a cause like that of the Protestant constitution of England,
now placed for the first time since its existence in a situation of
imminent peril, an humble part in its triumph would indeed give me a
share of that unmeasurable joy which its rescue would diffuse throughout
the nation; but to be numbered as one of those who, faithful to the end,
made a last though ineffectual struggle in its defence, will afford a
melancholy satisfaction, which I would not exchange for all the pride,
and power, and honours which may await a contrary course.” After this
preamble, Mr. Sadler argued at great length against the principles of
the bill, and its dangerous tendency toward the Protestant church: and
showed its utter futility in remedying the evils which oppressed, or
repaying the wrongs which she had suffered from so many generations.
He remarked:—“Ireland degraded, deserted, oppressed, pillaged,
is turbulent; and you listen to the selfish recommendations of her
agitators. You seek not to know, or knowing you wilfully neglect, her
real distresses. If you can calm the agitated surface of society, you
heed not that fathomless depth of misery, sorrow, and distress whose
troubled waves heave unseen and disregarded: and this, forsooth, is
patriotism, Ireland asks of you bread, and you proffer her Catholic
emancipation: and this, I presume, is construed to be the taking into
our consideration, as his majesty recommended, the whole situation of
Ireland.” As regards the nature of the measure, Mr. Sadler contended
that it could only be described as an inroad on the constitution of the
country, and a preparatory movement towards its final destruction.
The securities, also, were treated by him as vague and unsatisfactory.
Matters, he said, had reached such a point of noisy and dangerous
discord between parties in Ireland, that ministers contended there must
be an adjustment of the question. Adjustment generally terminated in
mutual concessions and reciprocal advantages: but would the authors of
this bill point out what it gave to the Protestant constitution for
that which it took away? The Protestant faith surrendered everything,
it received nothing. As a security, the office of viceroy, an office of
pageantry, was to continue Protestant: but what Protestant cared an iota
about it, when its holder was to be surrounded with Popish advisers,
and to act by Popish instruments? The king, too, it seems, must still
continue to be a Protestant. This reservation was the worst of all, and
heightened every objection to the measure into abhorrence and disgust.
“What!” he continued, “after establishing by a solemn act the doctrine
that conscience ought to be free and unrestrained; that disabilities
like that sought to be removed, inflict a wound upon the feelings of
those whom they reach, intolerable to good and generous minds, worse
than persecution, than even death itself, how do you apply it? Why you
propose to sear this brand high upon the forehead, and deep into the
heart of your very prince, while you render the scar more visible, and
the insult more poignant, by making him the solitary individual, whose
hereditary rank must be held and transmitted by the disgraceful
tenure which you have stigmatized as the badge of slavery. Freedom
of conscience to all subjects, but none to your king! Throw open the
portals of legislation, that a Duke of Norfolk may take his seat in your
senate; but hurl from his loftier seat there, the throne of the realm,
a Duke of Lancaster, if he exercise the same privilege, and presume
to have a conscience! Hitherto the British constitution has been fair,
uniform, equal, demanding from all the same moral qualification.
That qualification has long been declared, by a certain school of
politicians, to be slavery. Ministers have now adopted their creed; yet
they are content, nay, they propose, that the king shall be the only
proclaimed slave in his dominions. Worse than this, however, remained
behind: the proposed measure not only hurt the feelings of the monarch,
it touched his title. It was a bill to reverse the attainder which had
been passed upon Popery, and the natural consequences of this reversal
were obvious. The privileges of Protestantism were the title-deeds of
the royal family to the throne, the actual transfer of the estate
which the king held in parliament and in the country. It was Protestant
ascendancy now become a term of reproach, and Protestant ascendancy
alone, that introduced the royal line that rules us; it was that which
still formed the foundation of the throne, which combined its title with
the very elements of the constitution, identified it with our liberty,
consecrated it with the sanctities of our religion, and proclaimed our
monarch king by the unanimous suffrages of all our institutions. The act
of settlement indeed was to remain; and though it had been passed with
difficulty by a parliament exclusively Protestant, it would of course be
zealously maintained by a parliament partly Catholic: but still this
was to remove the royal title from the broad foundation of national
principles, supported by all the analogies of the constitution, and
place it upon a mere act of parliament, or rather upon an exception from
that act: whatever became of the legal title, the moral title of the
king would be touched. But,” continued Mr. Sadler, “the intended
change of the constitution was doubly objectionable on account of
its unavoidable consequences. He contended that it would put the real
liberties of the people in jeopardy; and that the united church of
England and Ireland would be placed in peril by it, the moment it was
passed. The real object of the attack was the establishment, or rather
its principles and immunities. The war had begun; the siege commenced:
the first parallel was nearly completed; the very leaders of the
garrison were summoning a bold and numerous band of fresh assailants to
the attack; and the approaches would be carried on till a final triumph
was obtained over the most tolerant, the most learned, and the most
efficient establishment which any country had ever yet been blessed
with. And could any man, he asked, flatter himself that even when this
was destroyed, a long and uninterrupted reign of quietness and peace
would ensue? When this victim had been hunted down, the same pack would
scent fresh game, and the cry against our remaining institutions would
be renewed with double vigour, till nothing remained worth attack or
defence. An oath was certainly to be taken, verbally forbidding Roman
Catholics from harming the establishment; but they must be more or less
than men to be enabled to keep such an oath. It was even immoral to
present it to them: it established a war between words and principles,
oaths and conscience: and which of these would finally prevail needed
no explanation. That Roman Catholics once seated in the house should not
feel disposed to lessen the influence, and finally to destroy a church
which they abhorred was impossible; and that they should not make common
cause for a similar purpose with other parties inspired by similar
views was equally impossible. Much, it was true, had been said about
the weakness of such a party in point of numbers; but a party acting
invariably in unison on this point would ultimately carry it, and with
it, all others of vital importance.” Referring to the apologies which
had been made for these portentous changes, Mr. Sadler said that the
country had been beguiled by them. He continued:—“I was one of those
who thought the conduct of the noble and right honourable individuals
who resigned in 1827 a sacrifice to principle and consistency: what it
really was, it is now not worth while to inquire, since it was anything
than that. It is now too late to rectify the error; all that remains
is to regret most deeply, that, faithfully following those who have so
secretly, suddenly, and unceremoniously deserted us, we were taught to
regard a highly gifted individual, unhappily now no more, as one who
ought not to serve his king and country as the head of the government,
because he was favourable to the measure now so indecently forced upon
the country. I do heartily repent of my share in the too successful
attempt of hunting down so noble a victim; a man whom England and the
world recognise as its ornament, whose eloquence was, at these days at
least, unrivalled, the energies of whose capacious mind, stored with
knowledge and elevated by genius, were devoted to the service of his
country. This was the man with whom the present ministers could not
act, and for a reason which vitiates their present doings. Coupling,
therefore, that transaction with the present, if the annals of our
country furnish so disgraceful a page, I have very imperfectly consulted
them. But peace to his memory! My humble tribute is paid when it can
be no longer heard nor regarded—when it is drowned by the voice of
interested adulation now poured only into the ears of the living. He
fell; but his character is reserved, it rises and triumphs over that of
his surviving,—what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply
the hiatus.” Having paid this eloquent tribute to Mr. Canning, a tribute
as just also as it is eloquent, Mr. Sadler contended that it was the
duty of ministers to have gone to the people, since the invasion of the
constitution, bad in itself and ruinous in its consequences, was beyond
the power of parliament. The people of England, he continued, had not
sent the members of the house of commons for the purpose of throwing
open the doors of that house to the admission of Popery, to the scandal,
disgrace, and danger of the Protestant establishment in church and
state. He added in conclusion:—“Be assured they will resent it deeply
and permanently if we proceed. I know how dear this sacred, this
deserted cause is to the hearts and to the understandings of Englishmen.
The principle may be indeed weak in this house, but abroad it marches in
more than all its wonted might, attended, in spite of the aspersions of
all its enemies, by the intelligence, the religion, the loyalty of the
country; and if the honest zeal, nay, even the cherished prejudices of
the people, swell its train, thank God for the accession. Here, sir,
that cause, like those wasting tapers, may be melting away: there it
burns unextinguishably. It lives abroad, though this house, which is
its cradle, may be now preparing its grave. To their representatives the
people committed their dearest birthright, the Protestant constitution,
and have not deserted it, whoever has. If it must perish, I call God
to witness that the people are guiltless. Let it, then, expire in this
spot, the place of its birth, the scene of its long triumphs, betrayed,
deserted in the house of its pretended friends, who while they smile are
preparing to smite; let it here, while it receives blow after blow from
those who have hitherto been its associates and supporters, fold itself
up in its mantle, and, hiding its sorrow and disgrace, fall when it
feels the last stab at its heart from the hand of one whom it had armed
in its defence, and advanced to its highest honours.”
Mr. R. Grant on the other side contended that it was in vain to speak of
applying to the evils of Ireland such cures as it was supposed might be
found in the establishment of poor-laws, or the compulsory residence
of the absentees: even if the expediency of these measures was assumed,
this was not the proper time for their application: the question at
present was, how existing discontent might be allayed, how the raging
pestilence might be stopped. It was only after that had been done, that
preventives could rationally be suggested, and it was only by removing
the grievances of which Ireland complained, that that object could be
effected. Although the evils of Ireland, he said, had been traced to
many causes these causes themselves, even where they existed, were but
the effects of the political distinctions founded on the difference of
the religious creeds. The house had been told, for instance, to seek for
the source of these evils in the local oppressions practised in Ireland,
rather than in the general restrictive laws. Of local oppression, no
doubt, plenty had always existed, but it had existed merely because the
adherents of one creed were armed with power to oppress the believers in
another faith, who were vested with no power. The same mischiefs, it
was said, existed before the Reformation, when all Ireland was of one
religion. True: and they had existed, just because, even before the
Reformation, the same system of excluding the natives from political
power had been long followed, though on different grounds. What Sir John
Davies, who wrote in the days of Elizabeth, stated to be the cause
of the evils of Ireland in his time, was in force still:—“From the
earliest times,” said that writer of the English government of Ireland,
“it seemed to be the rule of policy that the native Irish should someway
or other be not admitted to the privileges of the constitution equally
with the English residents. And in order to perpetuate the ascendancy
of the latter, the governors of Ireland had determined to oppress the
former as much as possible. Accordingly, it has been the system of rule
in that country, for the last four hundred years, to attempt by all
manner of means to root out the native Irish altogether.” That system
had been acted on since the time of Sir John Davis in some form or
other, and with consequences which would last so long as the laws
against the Catholics remained unrepealed. This inequality of political
power, then, was the cause; and by removing it, an end would be put
to the turbulence and exasperation to which it gave birth. Mr.
Grant further argued that this might be done without injury to the
constitution, and that the constitution did not recognise any principle
of exclusion against any portion of the community. Its essence, he said,
was the communication of its protection and privileges to all. Lord
Palmerston followed on the same side. He admitted that if the question
were, whether we should have any Catholics at all; whether the religion
throughout the empire should be exclusively Protestant; then all Ireland
should be made Protestant. But this was not possible, Catholics there
were, and Catholics there must be. There they were, good or bad; and,
whether their tenets were wholesome or unwholesome, the persons holding
them were six millions in number, and they were seated in the very heart
of the empire. What, then, he asked, were we to do with them, since we
were not able to exterminate them? Were we to make them our enemies,
fiercer and more inveterate in proportion as we persecuted them? or were
we by kindness and conciliation to convert them into friends? The latter
was clearly the more expedient and desirable in itself, unless it were
accompanied by some imminent danger. He called upon the house to turn
the materials of discord into strength, and to imitate the skilful and
benevolent physician, who from deadly herbs extracted healing balms, and
made that the means of health which others, less able, or less good,
used for the purposes of destruction.
Of all declaimers against the bill, Sir Charles Wetherell, the
attorney-general, was the most violent. He had refused to draw up this
bill in his official capacity; but he still remained in office, under a
minister who was understood to have made implicit submission to his
word of command the tenure by which office was to be held. Knowing
that nothing but the difficulty of supplying his place prevented his
discharge, he delivered a speech of defiance to his colleagues in
office, which produced a great impression in the house and throughout
the country. In explaining his objection to frame this bill, he
said,—“When my attention was drawn to the framing of this bill, I
felt it my duty to look over the oath taken by the lord chancellor,
as well as that taken by the attorney-general; and it was my judgment,
right or wrong, that, when desired to frame this bill, I was called to
draw a bill subversive of the Protestant church, which his majesty
was bound by his coronation-oath to support. If his majesty chose to
dispense with the obligations of the coronation-oath, he might do so;
but I would do no act to put him in jeopardy. These are the grounds on
which I refused, and would refuse a hundred times over, to put one line
to paper of what constitutes the atrocious bill now before the house.
Hundreds of those who now listen to me must remember the able,
valuable, and impressive speech delivered two years ago by the present
lord-chancellor, then master of the rolls, and a member of this house.
It will also be in the recollection of hundreds that that eminent
individual, than whom none is more acute in reasoning, more classical
in language, and more powerful in delivery, quarrelled with the late
Mr. Canning on this very subject. Am I then to blame for refusing to
do that, in the subordinate office of attorney-general, which a more
eminent adviser of the crown, only two years ago, declared he would not
consent to do? Am I, then, to be twitted, taunted, and attacked? I
dare them to attack me. I have no speech to eat up. I have no apostasy
disgracefully to explain. I have no paltry subterfuge to resort to. I
have not to say that a thing is black one day and white another. I have
not been in one year a Protestant master of the rolls, and in the next
a Catholic lord-chancellor. I would rather remain as I am, the
humble member for Plympton, than be guilty of such apostasy;
such contradiction; such unexplainable conversion; such miserable,
contemptible, apostasy.” As for the bill itself, Sir Charles stated,
that when it was dissected and anatomized, it destroyed itself. It
admitted the danger, and yet provided no security for Protestants. He
would not have condescended to stultify himself by the composition of
such a bill. The folly and contradictions be upon the heads of those who
drew it. They might have turned him out of office; but he would not be
made such a dirty tool as to draw that bill. “Let who would, he would
not defile pen, or waste paper, by such an act of folly, and forfeit
his character for common sense and honesty.”
This attack of the attorney-general called up Mr. Peel, who closed the
debate. After complaining of the violence of his colleague, he reverted
to the grounds on which he had first proposed the bill; again urging
the state of Ireland, and the absolute necessity of doing something; the
inability of his opponents to do anything better, though they vehemently
opposed the measure now offered; the impossibility of any government
standing which should set itself on avowed principles against
concession; and the folly of treating the question as one which had any
connexion with religion. The Catholics were never excluded at any time
because of their religious creed; they were excluded for a supposed
deficiency of civil worth, and the religious test was applied to
them, not to detect the worship of saints, or any other tenet of their
religion, but as a test to discover whether they were Roman Catholics.
It was a test to discover the bad, intriguing subject, not the
religionist; and, therefore, when he parted with the declaration against
transubstantiation, it was not from any doubt which he entertained as to
the doctrines of the Roman Catholics, but from looking at it as a test
of exclusion, and from thinking that, when the exclusion was deemed
unnecessary, the test of exclusion, might be dispensed with. Mr. Peel
complained grievously that an unfair application had been made of his
unhappy phrase, that the proposed measure would be “a breaking in upon
the constitution of 1688.” He meant no more, he said, than that there
would be an alteration in the words of the Bill of Rights: and if an
alteration of its words were a breaking in upon the constitution, then
had the constitution been often broken in upon. He called upon the
house to consider the altered position of affairs in Ireland since the
annunciation of this measure had been made; and warned it that if the
bill was rejected, it would be attended with consequences fatal to the
repose of the empire. He added, “I am well aware that the fate of this
measure cannot now be altered: if it succeed, the credit will redound
to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon
those with whom I have acted. These chances, with the loss of private
friendship, and the alienation of public confidence, I must have
foreseen and calculated before I ventured to recommend these measures. I
assure the house that, in conducting them, I have met with the severest
blow which it has ever been my lot to experience in my life; but I am
convinced that the time will come, though I may not live perhaps to see
it, when full justice will be done by men of all parties to the motives
on which I have acted; when this question will be fully settled, and
when others will see that I had no other alternative than to act as I
have acted. They will then admit that the course which I have followed,
and which I am still prepared to follow, whatever imputation it may
expose me to, is the only course which is necessary for the diminution
of the undue, illegitimate, and dangerous power of the Roman
Catholics, and for the maintenance and security of the Protestant
religion.”
The result of the division on this great question was three hundred
and fifty-three for the second reading of the bill, and one hundred and
eighty against it. The success of the bill in the commons was therefore
certain; and it passed the committee in three days. During its progress
in the committee several amendments were moved by the opponents of
the bill, but they were all rejected; and on the 31st of March it was
carried up to the lords by Mr. Peel, with an unusually large escort
of members. It was immediately read a first time; and the Duke of
Wellington then moved that it should be read a second time on the 2nd
of April. This motion was opposed by Lord Bexley and the Earl of
Malmesbury, as too precipitate, urging that on all former occasions
a longer time had been allowed for consideration, and that breathless
haste was the conduct of men called upon to decide as another dictated,
rather than of legislators called to deliberate on a grave matter of
public policy. Lord Holland, however, justified the motion, by referring
to the haste with which the statutes about to be repealed had been
originally passed: and it was carried without a division.
On the appointed day the Duke of Wellington moved the second reading of
the bill, by stating that he trusted the house would believe that the
course which he had now adopted on this question had not been adopted
without the fullest conviction that it was a sound and a just one. His
grace then went on to show the state of Ireland as it had existed for
many years, describing it as bordering upon civil war, and attended
by all the evils of civil war, adducing this state of things in
justification of the measure. He conceived it his duty, he said, to
correct the evil by other means than force. “I am one of those,”
said his grace, “who have been engaged in war beyond most men, and,
unfortunately, principally in civil war; and I must say this, that, at
any sacrifice whatever, I would avoid every approach to civil war.
I would do all I could, even sacrifice my life, to prevent such a
catastrophe.
“Nothing could be so disastrous to the country; nothing so destructive
to it prosperity as civil war; nothing could take place that tended so
completely to demoralize and degrade as such a conflict, in which
the hand of neighbour is raised against neighbour; that of the father
against the son, and of the son against the father; of the brother
against the brother; of the servant against his master: a conflict
which must end in confusion and destruction. If civil war be so bad when
occasioned by resistance to government; if such a collision is to be
avoided by all means possible, how much more necessary is it to avoid
a civil war, in which, in order to put down one portion, it would be
necessary to arm and excite the other? I am quite sure that there is no
man that now hears me who would not shudder were such a proposition made
to him; yet such must have been the result had we attempted to terminate
the state of things to which I have referred otherwise than by a measure
of conciliation. In this view, then, merely, I think we are justified
in the measure we have proposed to parliament.” On the other hand, his
grace asked, what benefit could arise to any one class in the state from
pertinaciously persisting in an opposition which had already produced
bad consequences, and threatened worse? One of the chief obstacles to
the measure, he continued, was the safety of the Protestant church. Now
that part of the united church of England and Ireland which was placed
in the latter kingdom, was in the peculiar situation of being the
church of the minority of the people; and if violence against it were
apprehended, he would ask whether that church was more likely to be
defended against violence by an unanimous government, and a parliament
united with government and with itself, or by a divided government, and
a parliament of which the parts were opposed to each other? No man could
look with patience and attention at the present state of this question
without being convinced that the real interests of all classes in this
country, and particularly the church itself, required the consideration
and settlement now proposed. This settlement would give security to
the church, strength to every department of the government, and general
tranquillity to the country at large. In conclusion, his grace said,
“On the whole I entertain no doubt that, after this measure shall have
passed, the Roman Catholics will cease to exist as a separate interest
in the state as they at present do. I have no doubt that they will cease
to excite disunion in this or the other house of parliament. Parliament
will then, I hope, be disposed to look at their conduct, and everything
as respects that country, as they would look upon the people and the
affairs of England and Scotland. I will say, however, that, if I am
disappointed in my hopes of tranquillity after a trial has been given
to the measure, I shall have no scruple in coming down to parliament and
laying before it the state of the case, and calling for the necessary
powers to enable the government to take the steps suited to the
occasion. I shall do this in the same confidence that parliament will
support me, that I feel in the present case.”
In reply, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved an amendment, that the bill
should be read a second time that day six months. He was surprised,
he said, that any man remembering the conduct of the Catholics at all
times, and who knew, as every one must know, that even what was now
proposed fell short of their ultimate objects, should attempt to justify
a measure, on the ground that it would bring peace to Ireland. When he
considered the use which had been made of the concession of the elective
franchise, to produce consequences which, it was said, had rendered the
present measure necessary; he could see no return of gratitude in the
conduct of the Roman Catholics. When, too, he considered the liberality
of the public, which had established a college for educating the Roman
Catholic youth; when he looked at the liberality of parliament granting
supplies for its support; when he saw those very men who had been bred
up at the public expense becoming members of an Association which had
existed in contempt of the government, and in defiance of the laws,
lending themselves to the exaction of a tax levied on the people, and
converting their places of worship into meetings for factious purposes;
when he looked at all these circumstances, he saw little hope that the
measure proposed would produce either tranquillity in Ireland, or safety
to the church. To him it appeared irreconcilable with the Protestant
essence of the constitution. It mattered not what circumstances produced
the laws about to be repealed; they had been adopted, and re-established
at the Revolution, as a necessary security for the constitution. By the
coronation-oath, as then arranged, the king swore to maintain the
true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion
established by law. How, he asked, was the king to do this? By attending
churches in person? No! The king could only act by responsible advisers;
and, therefore, when such a clause was inserted in the oath, it was
presumed that the king would always have proper servants about him, who
would enable him to discharge the obligations imposed upon him by the
oath. Suppose the king to be surrounded by ministers who were all Roman
Catholics; if so, it was clear he could do nothing towards fulfilling
those obligations, for whatever measures he might contemplate for that
purpose, there would be no one to carry them into effect. No adviser or
minister of the crown, who could not enter into the views of the king
for the maintenance of the true profession of the gospel and of the
Protestant reformed religion, could assist the king to fulfil those
obligations which were imposed upon him by the coronation-oath. His
grace then went on to show the vital importance of having ministers
in every department of the state well affected towards the Protestant
religion. For instance, the secretary of the colonies, he said, had
absolute power in respect to the church; church patronage was at his
disposal, and the clergy were under his control. In dissensions, also,
among the clergy, and for the protection of their interests, he was the
person appealed to; and if there was not a strong Protestant spirit
in the secretary, it would be in his power to discourage to the most
alarming degree, and even almost to extinguish, the church of England
in many of the colonies. Under all these circumstances, therefore, his
grace concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the bill should be read
a second time that day six months.
The debate in the lords continued four successive nights by adjournment.
The spiritual lords who spoke, in addition to the mover of the
amendment, were the Archbishops of York and Armagh, the Bishops of
London, Salisbury, Durham, and Oxford. All of these opposed the bill,
except the last, who contended that concession was called for, not
merely by the situation of Ireland, but by the turn which talent and
education had taken in this kingdom with reference to the question.
Those peers, said his lordship, who opposed concession, were men
advanced in years; but the individuals who were rising in the natural
progress of things to fill the high offices of the state, were, with
scarcely an exception, in favour of this measure. But independently
of the fact that the talent, intelligence, and education of the country
were marshalled in favour of concession, there were abundant reasons
why he should vote for the measure. He would vote for it because it came
recommended by his majesty’s speech from the throne; seconded by the
declaration of the heir presumptive to the crown; supported by all
the members of the royal family, except the Duke of Cumberland; carried
through the other house by an overwhelming majority; supported by many
members of the house of lords; supported, too, for many years by that
great and eloquent statesman whom Providence had recently snatched away
from the service of his country; and specially brought forward by those
ministers who had hitherto been champions of the Protestant interest.
These were extraordinary circumstances which had never been combined
before; and he thought that a bill introduced in these circumstances
would in a few years produce a different state of things in Ireland. As
to the safety of the church of England he had no doubt, since the people
of England possessed the most hostile feelings towards all the doctrines
of Popery. The Irish church was certainly, he said, placed in an
anomalous situation, and he had no wish to depreciate the dangers to
which she was exposed; but instead of being increased by the measure
before the house, they would be diminished by it. On the other hand,
the Archbishop of Armagh argued, that the Irish church had everything to
fear from Catholic emancipation. If the house, indeed, could subdue the
intolerant spirit of the church of Rome, disarm the priests of their
influence over the people, and withdraw the people from their allegiance
to the see of Rome, making them citizens of their own country, and
letting them take their stand among other dissenters, all might be well.
But would any man, he asked, say that they could make the church of Rome
tolerant, or persuade the priesthood of that church to hold an inferior
rank to a clergy, the validity of whose orders they denied, and whose
church they reviled as adulterous? Could any one suppose that the Roman
Catholic priests would quit their hold upon the consciences, wills,
and the passions of men, when their spiritual despotism was the most
powerful engine for their own aggrandisement? The Roman Catholic
priesthood must ever stand alone. It had set the indelible mark of
separation on its own forehead, by its unnatural, though politic,
restrictions, by its claim to exclusive pre-eminence, and by its
dangerous and unconstitutional connexion with a foreign state.
Ascendancy, he contended, would be placed within the reach of the Roman
Catholics by this bill; and could any one believe that they would not
attempt to seize upon that ascendancy when it was well known that the
promotion of the interests of their church was with them a point of
principle and of honour, which they considered as far superior to
the claims of country or kindred. The confederacy of the priesthood,
actuated by a hatred of whatever was Protestant, would leave no
means untried to exalt their church at the expense of the Protestant
establishment, and especially when they found that those who ought to
support that establishment were divided into parties. Such must be their
objects and their wishes; and the bill would furnish them with both. The
bishops of London and Durham expressed the same sentiments regarding
the inevitable danger to the Protestant establishments, which must
necessarily spring from what was neither less nor more than a deliberate
arming of the Catholics with the power required to effect objects
which the Catholics themselves bad the caution carefully to conceal
or disguise. They also denounced the folly of legislating upon the
principle that men would lay down their mischievous designs whenever
they obtained the means of putting them in execution. The enemies of
Protestantism knew better; and it was remarkable, the Bishop of Durham
observed, how strange a combination of persons hailed the dawn of the
new policy. It had united in its favour the acclamations of Catholics
and of all classes of liberals, down to the lowest grade of Socinians.
When men, he added, whose opinions led them to keep down the ascendancy
of any church, and others whose conscience bound them to labour against
the ascendancy of the Protestant church, so acted, he could not help
thinking that the consequences of the measure would be anything but
friendly to that ascendancy.