lics what they ask now, will they not ask more, when we know that no sooner were the concessions made them in 1793, than they expressed that farther concessions would ensue? The character of the Catholics, if they did acquire power, we can collect from the history of the short period when one of the Stuarts held temporary sway in Ireland; for there were then the most diabolical laws enacted and enforced in the districts of the Catholic Government. By the Revolution of 1688, however, the accession of Catholics to power is foreclosed; and certainly these are not times to abrogate the laws in their favour. This was done by the Whigs, who, - however, could not have effected that Revolution but for the zeal of the Church, that had, on so many occasions, aided the State. For if the Church has been upheld by the State, the State has been upheld by the Church; hence innovation of the Constitution of the Church ought to be received with jealousy, and promptly repelled. By the Act of Settlement the Catholics cannot be admitted to unlimited, unconstrained, ecclesiastical, and political power. Why are they anxious about what will not avail them? If we are to protect our laws, let us do so while in our power: If we are to give them up, let us do so with our eyes open, and aware of the value of what we are surrendering. What I have said, I am conscious applies solely to the Great Officers of State; and I am ready to admit that the question with respect to the right of sitting in Parliament stands, in some respects, on different grounds. The Law requiring persons holding offices of trust to hold communion with the Church of England, does not apply to Members of Parliament. All that is required is a declaration against Popery, merely of a doctrinal kind. But there are reasons against the privilege of an insurmountable nature. Some years ago the Irish Government granted to the Roman Catholics the Right of Elective Franchise, whether properly 1 properly or not, I shall not say. The effect of it, I believe, was to benefit the Catholics, and not to injure the State. It was to the one a civil advantage, without proving to the other a political inconvenience. But the moment you open the Representation, and extend it to Catholics, the privilege of voting, which in Catholic Counties is nearly equal to universal suffrage, will then be entirely changed. It will, on all occasions, become a question between Catholic Priests and the tenantry; and thus, instead of bettering the situation of the mass of the people, or giving them a boon, you will have involved them in perplexing, difficult, and embarrassing situations. The inference, therefore, which I draw from this circumstance is, that though the question of a right to sit in Parliament, is, in some degree, subordinate to the claim of being appointed to the highest offices of trust, the principle applies from the one to the other. I come now to consider a question which I cannot help thinking the Noble Lord treated in a very extraordinary manner. He said, he saw nothing in the time when the Petition was brought forward, which seemed to him at all to render it objectionable. I view this in so different a manner, I think that things are so ресиliarly changed since the year 1801, that I should esteem it no inconsistency in any to say, that, while he approved of the measure at that time, he disapproved of it at the present moment. I must on this point call your Lordships' attention to a period somewhat antecedent to that which I have now alluded to. The French Revolution, from the principles on which it was latterly carried on, had made it become the cause of all religions to join in opposition to those who disclaimed every idea of religion, and acted on a blind and headlong philosophy. Men of every persuasion preferred those who had some religion, to those who had none, and thought it better to bury their old animosities and to write against what they felt to be the grievances of the day. Even after the circumstances which had raised this opinion ceased to operate, the idea continued with some. Within the three last years, however, we have seen a wonderful change in the internal Government of that country. Sixteen years of extreme democracy have ended in subjection to the arbitrary powers of a single individual; the Chief of that country now seeks to prop his own power on the support of the Catholic Church; and, between him and the Pope of Rome, a close and intimate connection subsists. Whoever looks at the present state of Catholic Europe, and contemplates that every part of it, except Austria, is under the power of France; whoever considers the connection between France and the Pope of Rome, and between the Pope of Rome and Ireland; whoever does so, and reflects seriously, will confess, that there never was a time so improper for conferring additional immunities on Roman Catholics. If they look at the active powers of our enemy, they will confess that this is not the time to relax the principle. I do not urge this, however, as my reason for objecting to the motion. I think that it would be objectionable at any time; but I urge those considerations on account of other Noble Lords, who may think the measure not objectionable in itself, if brought forward at a proper period. I shall now proceed to state some other practical effects which must be produced by the adoption of the present motion. We are called on to make a great and fundamental alteration in the laws of our country. It is therefore, surely, the duty of those who recommend that measure to us, to shew what beneficial effects will result from it. I do not believe that the measure proposed will affect the great mass of the people of Ireland in the smallest degree, even should it be carried. It would, indeed, be of advantage to a few individuals, and this we are called on to grant at the expence of the general system of our own laws. In proof of this, I cannot help referring to a circumstance which happened. pened some time since, when a person, who, by many men of the first talents in this country, was represented as a respectable and worthy man, but who afterwards turned out to be an infamous traitor (O'Connor), and another man of considerable superior talents (Dr. M'Niven) were pardoned, on confessing what they knew on the subject and causes of the Rebellion. When this question was put to them, in what regard Parliamentary Reform and Catholic Emancipation were held by the mass of the people of Ireland, the answer of the former was, that the great mass of the people "would not give a drop of ink;" and, of the latter, that they not care a feather for Parliamentary Reform, nor for Catholic Emancipation, till it was explained, that under the latter was meant to be comprehended the abolition of tythes." The Noble Lord has said, that we, by acceding to his Motion, are parting with little, but are giving to the people of Ireland much. My opinion is exactly the reverse. You would, indeed, were you to agree to the Motion, be giving them little, whilst you would be giving up much. What, not enriching them, would make you poor ، indeed.' "did The argument rather seems to amount to this-As you have already given them so much, why do you not give them the rest? What you have given is of little consequence, if you do not give them what remains. To get all which they want would be to be made the State itself. In giving this, you give the whole; you give into their hands the powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Another consideration operates in my mind; supposing all the objections I have already mentioned, were got rid of, would they be satisfied with what they are now asking? Would they not ask something farther? And would not you then be in a worse situation to resist their demand? Even in this Petition, though I confess it is temperately worded, I cannot help remarking, that they do not seem satisfied with the tests to which they G at at present conform. They take them, but they conconsider their doing so a hardship; and if you give them this they are now asking, you will find they are not at the conclusion of their complaint. It would be more manly to state the whole of their complaint at once. You would then see what you were doing, and whether it would be right or wrong to grant it. This reminds me, however, of a little history which occurred in the year 1793, when my Noble Friend opposite (Earl Fitz-William) was Lord Lieutenant The elective franchise, and every thing, indeed, they then asked for was granted them. They came up with an Address of thanks, and at the end of that Address they let out a hope that that was only the first step towards granting them all their demands. It is important to bear this in inind, and to consider not what we grant, but what we may be called on to grant. May we not, if we this day give what is asked, be informed next day that three-fourths of the population of the country are called on to pay for a church to which they did not belong? Would we not then have another battle to fight-not stronger in argument, but more suited to the feelings of the people? This is the outwork of your Establishment. You are called on to fight for it as such. If you surrender it you will maintain your inposts to less advantage, when it is destroyed. If there was no reason but this for rejecting the Motion, I should feel it my duty to resist it. I admit that all concessions granted during the present reign have been properly bestowed. But this circumstance I can never forget, that from the time of their being excluded from every privilege, to the period of renewing the concessions to them, although two serious rebellions, within that period, raged in Great Britain, Ireland was uniformly tranquil and it is only since the concessions to the Catholics have been made that rebellion has again began to shew her head there. The Noble Lord approves the principle of granting concessions gradually. I think otherwise. Gradual concessions keep |