legislate. How often and how beneficially are such elucidatory reports circulated for the like purpose, even upon ordinary occasions? And where can there be found an object so seriously demanding such an exposition, under all the circumstances, as that great object, at present, before the House. Need I say that it involves a most striking and material departure from a policy which has been the received policy for ages; and the negative side of the question, it must be admitted, is in unison with our earliest prejudices, prejudices sincerely admitted, and with difficulty to be eradicated. The mere act of legislation, however great the parliamentary majorities with which it may be carried, will still be comparatively unsubstantial, till hailed by the according public voice, enfranchised from its prejudices. The human mind is not so readily liberalized as civil franchises can be extended by the mere act of legislation. The Catholic would soon see and impressively feel the justice and prudence attached to such an intervening course as that proposed. At every step, his political character would brighten, and every hour would give new strength to his cause. In a word, he would become convinced that the great object in view was cordially to bind the Catholic to the member of the establishment, by the reciprocal "ties of affection" as well as " of interest," ties, such as the legislature has recognized to be the paramount principle in the laws hitherto modified or abrogated on this subject: And in the full spirit of that principle it is that I shall give my most cordial assent to the preliminary and necessary step, comprehended in the motion of my right hon. friend. Mr. W. Bankes. I should be as much overrating my own powers as undervaluing the time of this House, if I were to pretend to expatiate over that wide extent, or to wind through that intricate labyrinth of topics that have from time to time been discussed, as part of the present question; or if, after it has passed so repeatedly under discussion, and through the hands of such men, I could hope to set it in any new point of view. But happily for me (I may perhaps say happily for all who take part in it,) the field of argument lies before us contracted and retrenched, it has shrunk into a narrower basis, its boundaries have been defined, and its defenceless outposts abandoned. There are now but few minds in which this measure confounds itself with a toleration of religious exercise, and as few voices that are raised to urge it as a claim of natural paramount right. I stay not a moment therefore to demonstrate how fully that toleration is enjoyed, how necessary I deem it that it should be, how much I rejoice that it is. Still less will I stay to advert to the glaring inconsistency of talking of the natural rights of citizens, it is the coupling of terms which are in plain opposition to each other, that of a citizen being purely an artificial relation: what may be the rights of man in a savage and unsocial state concerns us not: he who talks of civil rights can mean no more than what the laws and constitution of the state do actually recognize, or, consistent with its security and well being, might admit. But I have done with this. These are positions which, in the heat of argumen. tative contention, were seized on for their loftiness, they have been isolated and untenable, and are abandoned. Stripped of the martyr brightness of persecuted faith, stripped of the tragic mask of outraged humanity, the question has at last approached us in its own proper character, in the simple quiet form of a question of state expediency. We have heard it in the thunder and in the whirlwind, and here at last is the still small voice! This warning voice appeals not to our compassion, not to our remorse, not to our piety, but to our terrors and our sense of danger. To this altar we are to fly for our own security; this we are to embrace that we may escape: it is to be our palladium; and, like Constantine we are to conquer under the sign of the cross. How! it is said, in times of peril and difficulty like these, how! when every wind under heaven is driving upon us, shall we leave some of the main timbers of our fabric unfastened, to vibrate with every gust; perhaps to crush all in their separation! When the world stands arrayed against us, shall we not strive to be united at home, to stifle all animosities, and heal all divisions? Most assuredly. I do more than admit its truth, I feel and I urge its necessity. It is this very consideration led me to weigh this question the more attentively, it is this very consideration that has decided me in opposing it. With this ardent desire of unanimity, is it possible that I can accede to a measure which seems to sow the seed of new struggles and new but tumult and ferment in the outset, and intrigues and jealousies to all aftertimes. It is this I deduce from the experience of all history, and anticipate the future from the retrospect of the past. But we are told that times are changed. What! so changed and so disordered that none of this experience will apply? Then I will ask, are these disordered times, times for experiments that are doubtful, and innovations that are sudden ? rivalships, from which I can augur nothing | bodies whatever, as distinguished from the Is this a time to turn state alchymists, to tamper with the crucible, and to mingle ingredients which in their combination may explode? Four millions; it is urged! "Four millions," is repeatedly dinned into our ears, as if this were per se an irrefragable argument for this concession. Now let those hon. gentlemen remember that if, on the one hand, this may seem to enforce the expediency, so on the other, in a like proportion, it must increase the hazard; and as I am not surprised that those who advocate this cause feel encouragement from those numbers, so let not them be surprised if to him who discerns in it the sources of mischief, it appears just by so much the more formidable. The intimidation may work in opposite directions, if it daunt them from refusing, so it may daunt us from conceding this power. It is a sword that has two edges; it is a colour that will tint and heighten either sketch. For my own part, I would to heaven I could think it safe to grant their Petition; and this not so much an incitement as a recompense! We hear that our fleets and our armies are full of these brave Irish, and it is this makes me grieve to reject their prayer. It is because they are brave and they are loyal; it is because in spite of their disqualification, we have their services; it is because, at this moment, I am contemplating them, covered with wounds and with laurels, around the walls of Badajoz, that I would fain have seen them in the enjoyment of their heart's desire; and this without diminishing the grace of the boon by proving to how very few any real sensible benefit could result. It is true, they are brave, and they are loyal. But are they above the ordinary passions and interests of human nature? Are they not men? Will they not act as all other men have done in parallel cases? It is notorious that there is a superior degree of zeal and of activity, and a firmer principle of co-operation in all smaller community at large; and this is found to obtain the more where a religious difference constitutes the line of separation. But, for the present, I will wave this last circumstance, and consider this body with whom we have to treat, simply as a numerous class of subjects who have views and interests in common, who are accustomed to think and act collectively, who are recognized as a distinct party, and peculiarly so embodied and organized at the present time. So far, in this view, from imputing any peculiar malignity, it is rather in the social virtues themselves that I trace a source of mischief; in gratitude and fraternal fidelity. Now, can it be supposed that men thus long accustomed to act in concert, embarked in one common cause, brothers in debate, brothers in risk and in perseverance, in the very hour too when they receive the accomplishment of their wishes, in the hour when their hearts are full, and when success has shewn them the strength of their co-operation, is it to be believed that they (the badge of whose league, let us remember, emancipation will not supersede, nor oblivion wear away,) will, so soon as the pasture is opened to them, mix indiscriminately with the herd? Will they become one with the mass of the people, and drop as water to water? Will they not continue to feel as a party? Will not the chords of their passions vibrate in unison? Will they not be perpetually dreaming that they are favoured or dis. countenanced as Catholics are advanced or passed over? Will it be matter of indifference whether one of themselves or any other be selected? More especially let us consider the lower orders. What exaggeration have they not heard of the importance of this acquisition? What expectations have they not formed? They have been taught to estimate the greatness of the boon by the measure of their own importunity. For my own part, I cannot conceive but that it would be ground of murmur and complaint, if they do not themselves discover some sensible benefit. But how, if it should so happen, that none of their whole body be called into immediate notice? Is it the part of a multitude to consider that (however numerous) yet bearing but a small proportion to the nation at large, the lot can but seldom be expected to fall amongst them? No; they will look to their own numbers; they will reflect upon the four millions, and (as seems to be much the fashion upon that side of the question,) they will forget the eleven. But they will sit down satisfied that they have nothing more to claim. Will they? What! have they none amongst them upon whom their eyes will more particularly be fixed? Will they not be fixed upon those chosen leaders whom they have long supported and obeyed, whose names and services are familiar to them all, whom in gratitude, in allegiance almost, they must feel them. selves bound to advance, and whose exaltation must appear their own? We know how much every faction is disposed to magnify its leaders, and most of all a struggling faction; ultimate success is not likely to diminish this high conceived opinion. Then surely it will be matter of astonishment to those who think they have among them the most qualified and the most worthy, the most able and the most eloquent, should the door stand open, and yet upon looking in they should behold no brother Catholic welcomed into power. And will not this astonishment turn to suspicion and disgust and resentment? Yes, it will turn, and will turn the most upon those who have laboured to encourage the delusion. For at present this measure seems only likely to take effect in the case of those gentlemen coming into office, who (if we may judge from recent circumstances,) are the most desirous to have it all to themselves. And in that case they will soon discover their ignorance of human nature, if they have conceived that such a multitude has been for years exerting all its strength for the attainment of a bare remote possibility, without any one definite expectation of substantial advantage. Let them congratulate themselves if, for a time at least, the ebb of their Catholic popularity is delayed. | For, let the million, (which is most unlike ly) be never so fickle, never so forgetful of its leaders, will those leaders be as forgetful of the million? Will they for ever hush the call that could awaken them, and the signal that could bring them together? Such power is too tempting to be always resisted. Such power is too great to be willingly put into the hands of any man. And influence founded on the gratitude and regard of thousands, who could throw aside? It is in this view that the present moment seems to me so peculiarly inexpedient; now that the ties of fellowship have been drawn so close among the Catho lics, now that they are enrolled in a sort of congress or convention, now that they are so so systematically combined, and have so readily the means of keeping up a communication and understanding amongst themselves; at such a moment I say it is most unsafe to set the seal of success to the bond of unity. Do what you will, at such a time, to amalgamate this faction, it will not crumble into mere individuals, it will not melt into the mass of the people. Be the country at never so low an ebb, such a replenishment is hazardous; it will but pass as the Rhone does through the Lake of Geneva, without mingling its waters; it will not indeed taint the purity; it may extend the surface, it may raise the level, it may deepen the shallows; but will it introduce no cross current? Will it slumber in the still calm bosom of the lake, and forget its homage and tribute to the ocean? But it is a party, now you say it is; and I think I have proved that if its object be attained, it is likely to continue so; but it is now a party without power, and it is then to be a party with power; here is the distinction. I do not say it will necessarily abuse this power, but I ask is such a body nothing thrown in the lump into the one scale or into the other? Nothing for the spirit and intrigue of party to work upon? May not times come when, on the one side or the other, they will bid high for such a support? May there not be those who would be for keeping such a body in good humour upon any terms? What fatal concessions then may it not be at least in their power to extort from a declining minister or an eager opposition? And all this, let us remember, however eventually pernicious to the state, however fatal in the very outset to our Church establishment, in a cause which, besides that it is their inclination and their interest, it is in them virtue, it is piety to advance. For let us now consider a little more closely, what is the badge and link of association that is to hold this body together, what this characteristic which no consolidation with the community at large can do away. It is a peculiarity of religion. What does this not promise of perpetuity? What not of zeal and of courage to the cause? When I add that it is the Popish religion, does nothing more occur to us? It is not the mass; it is not the eucharist; it is not the invocation of saints and angels APRIL 23, 1812. [802 it is not the solemn requiem for the dead. | most weight. But upon examining the These have neither my hatred nor my ri-enor of those documents, and more espe dicule: I venerate their antiquity, I respect their imposing sublimity; for my own part, I would not be ashamed, though my soul were lifted with the stream of their incense, or though I put up a prayer at the sound of the passing-bell. Not all these gorgeous superstitions could dispose me to acquiesce in their exclusion: not all these did actually induce our wiser ancestors to exclude them. I would no more fear a man, simply because he adored the Virgin Mary, than, on the other hand, I would have formerly feared a Puritan, simply because he sickened at an organ, or a surplice. No, Sir: it is, because the keys of heaven were made to unlock every thing that is valuable upon earth; it is because the tiara is too much made up of terrestrial crowns; and the priestcraft, (as is somewhere well said) has what Archimedes wanted, another world to fix its engines upon, and so can do what it will with this. It is not that the Romish religion is dangerous, is hostile to all civil government. (Whoever maintained so absurd a position?) To some forms of civil government, to monarchy, even to absolute monarchy it is favourable: but it must be a Catholic monarchy; it is dangerous, it is hostile to every other. It is said, even to a proverb, of the element fire, that it is "a good servant and a bad master;" now the very converse is true of Popery; where it has the ascendancy, nothing is to be apprehended from it to the state, where it has not, it is to be dreaded and guarded against. I will not go through the detail of these doctrines and maxims, which have so fully, at different times, been exhibited to this House, and which, in fact, a very moderate acquaintance with history must have forced upon every man's attention; I forbear it, because it is superfluous, and I forbear it from inclination; I am not for visiting upon this generation all the usurpation and iniquities of their forefathers, I would not advert to this to render them obnoxious, but ourselves secure. I am not for using retaliation, but I am for using experience. Now I am aware, Sir, that these doctrines and maxims have been solemnly disclaimed, I am ready to admit they have been disclaimed at the very fountain-head, by those from whom such a disclaimer comes with the most authenticity and the (VOL. XXII.) cially the most explicit and valuable of them all (Pope Pius's letter) we shall find little reason to be satisfied. They deny and they disclaim too much. It is not "that their Church does not, at this day, hold such and such doctrines, but that it never did, it is not that their Church does not arrogate to itself such and such powers now, but that it never did." Now will history bear them out in this? Will their own councils and decrees bear them out? In this view it is not only as to veracity, that the whole statement becomes suspicious. But, though the assertion be correct, what do we gain from the protestations of a Church whose practice has been so systematically at variance with its avowed principles? for really is it possible that we can look upon the successive and progressive usurpations (I might almost have said lives) of such a series of Popes, as mere exceptions and carnal deviations from the established tenets of their own Church, and with all their infallibility too? It is true, that the maxims are disowned, but in disowning them no change whatever is professed. It is still "The milk-white hind unspotted and unchanged." What then is to secure us? We can look back and see what was her conduct in former ages, and when we look forward, what shall assure us that it shall not recur? What, but the want of inclination! A poor security!-Not the want of power and of opportunity, for these we are at once to concede; and to concede, because though their tenets remain identically the same, we are told their practice is reformed ever since these have been in precaution withheld ! Not that I am one of those who are for calling up this apparition in all the terrors with which darkness has invested it, I am ready to grant that these horrors of fire and blood, these plots and persecutions, these engines of excommunication and intolerance, have come down to us greatly heightened by bigotry and prejudice; but I may say in the lines which were originally written of a Popish plot, Some truth there was, though dash'd and To please the fools, and puzzle all the wise: If I am asked whether, for my own part, I do not really believe, that these baneful influences are wearing out of themselves, I answer, I certainly do: if I did not, I should think that we had already conceded a great deal too much; for I never can suppose that our ancestors imposed these then novel restrictions without experience of their necessity: we have granted more than many successive ages have thought it prudent to grant; let us remember, if the Catholics have changed their spirit, so have we changed their condition; if they have thrown aside their weapons, so have we laid aside our armour. Let any one compare the present condition of Papists, with that in which they stood at the beginning of the present reign; and I think he cannot but admit that, let their temper be never so much improved, concession has at the least kept pace with that improvement and so it should be. there is any project at all). I say conjecture; (without offence I say it) for what other ground have we to go upon? We are to pledge ourselves to the measure before the terms are disclosed. One suspects a buyer of no great liberality who is ashamed to name his offer. It is an odd sort of a bargain, where the receiver is to be paid in full, and afterwards trusted to for an abatement. Here we are to set our hands to a bond, in which (what is most material) the amount of the sum, and the nature of the security, is to be left blank ! would any creature upon earth treat upon such terms ? Are Catholic dealings to be as contrary to our reason as Catholic mysteries, and are we to dispute neither one nor the other, because they are above our comprehension? But we are told, in particular with respect to the Veto, that there was a time when we might have had it; that that time is passed; that we must concede more in proportion as we have deferred longer. What! is there a sort of compound interest gathering upon these claims? Are they like the Sybil, the oftener rejected, the higher in their de But let us not be too precipitate; let this proportion still be observed and graduated. Whilst a spark of this fire remains, there is risk; and let us bear in mind too, that at this moment the eagles of France gripe in their talons the thun-mand? ders of the Vatican. But when at last, (and pray Heaven that day be not far dis tant) these baneful influences, these obnoxious principles shall be wholly gone and vanished, as though they had never been, then none will more rejoice than I shall to see Catholic and Protestant all upon one footing. But, alas! That day is still in the womb of time; these are not yet wholly goue and vanished; from their own writings I could prove it, from their practice I could prove it, nay, if there were no other, I would need to look to no other proof than their refusal of the Veto! Now I have mentioned the Veto, I would say a few words upon the subject of securities, without which I must confess I can look to no change of times and circumstances under which I could accede to this measure. Even upon the other side of the House a colour of some security is still held out, though in the same breath In the present state of things there must be no preliminaries; the offer must be altogether upon the part of parliament, the Catholics will make none ! Perhaps there may be some prudence in this, since offers have come of late to be considered matters of insult and of aggression. But really in any other times, I should not have thought it unbecoming a petitioner to be explicit. Let us attend to the reason that is assigned for this reserve; their terms are to be kept secret, because they would else be picked and pulled to pieces, and cried down upon this side of the House. Are they then never to be examined and weighed at all? Surely, if they ever are, the hon. gentlemen opposite, feeling so conscious that these securities are so very unsatisfactory, and certain to be rejected, must see in common with the rest of the House, that it is better this should take place in an earlier stage than one more advanced. Besides, that it would be so so much is thrown in about uselessness, ❘ much a handsomer mode of dealing, both and futility, and inadequacy to answer any purpose, that if we may found any conjecture, or form any probable estimate of what this particular project is from their general language, one would not be disposed to expect any thing very substantial or satisfactory, (if even in point of fact by the Catholic body, and by the parliament. Can any thing be conceived more productive of ill humour and disgust, more likely to bring things to an ill issue, than to hold out the full expectation, and then, from the insufficiency of the security, be obliged to retract ? |