which they had taken to the Bourbon family. His lordship concluded a very long and able speech, nearly in these words. "The age, and the mighty events that have occurred within it, are sufficient to teach us that we must not be too confident that any particular end will arise from a certain cause; circumstances and their effects cannot at all times be correctly calculated, but still I have a strong opinion as to what may be the consequence of this concession, should your lordships be inclined to grant it. Still, however, I have confidence in that Providence who has hitherto protected our Church, and who will continue to protect, so long as it performs its duty fairly, uprightly, and conscientiously, to those committed to its care; but I cannot consent that we should undertake a great and perilous danger, or that we should make an inroad into our constitution when we may sacrifice our safety to the chance of conciliation, and injure ourselves without conferring any adequate benefit on others. These, my lords, are some of the reasons which will induce me to give my vote in the negative this evening. They are certainly far from being satisfactory, but I trust that they will be sufficient to induce you carefully to consider the vote you are about to give, and I implore you again, on behalf of the Protestant interest, not to pass a bill that may be pregnant with such danger." Lord Limerick said, he had not expected to hear a speech from the right rev. Prelate, which recommended intolerance and oppression. He admitted that the evil of non-residence existed too much, but the right rev. prelate's address went to irritate every class of the Irish people, landlords, tenants, Protestants, and Catholics. The Marquis of Lansdown began by saying, that before he entered on the general merits of the question, he would deliver a few words on the arguments used by the Right Rev. Prelate on the other side. The Right Rev. Prelate had laid it down, that the enjoyment of every civil right should be regulated by expediency; and here he must observe, that if the right Rev. Prelate rested his objections on the ground of expediency, he was, in all the other arguments which he had used, combating with a shadow; for if the ground of political expediency existed, the discussion on the theological grounds was not necessary; but if, as he (Lord Lansdown) had often contended, and was again prepared to contend that night, the expediency for excluding six millions of people from their civil rights had long ago ceased to exist, it must follow that they ought to be admitted to the enjoyment of those rights which were theirs in common with all other British subjects. He would contend, that the expediency of exclusion, if it were even well founded, had long since ceased, and that a regard for the security of property, for the peace of the country, and for the stability of the Church itself, dictated the propriety of putting an end to the system of exclusion, which had proved one of the greatest evils that Ireland ever experienced. The Right Rev. Prelate had said, that in the course of his recent studies, he had found reason to change his opinions on this question, in consequence of evils existing, connected with the state of Ireland; but he had not informed their lordships how many of those evils had arisen out of the nature of the Catholic disabilities, nor how the great statistical remedy (a word which the Right Rev. Prelate seemed to have borrowed from Sir John Sinclair) should be applied, without removing those disabilities he had not stated how they were to acquire in Ireland a Catholic gentry and yeomanry without a system by which the one and the other might be protected and conciliated. The Right Rev. Prelate, in enumerating the causes which produced the disturbed state of Ireland, had overlooked one circumstance which he might have remembered that in that country there was the singular anomaly of a Church establishment which was not of the religion of the great body of the people. How would he apply any remedy which would secure the stability of that Church without embracing a measure that would have the effect of conciliating the great body of the people? The noble Marquis went on to contend, that it was unfair to take objections to the Roman Catholic religion as it now existed, in its tenets of doctrine and discipline, from the principles which might have been in operation ages ago. The altered condition of society ought to be considered, and with it the conduct of Catholics in the different states of Europe and America, which shewed that they were not hostile to free constitutions, or disloyal to Protestant governments. It was impolicy to paralyse the energies of a large portion of the empire by political disabilities on the score of religion. He was fully aware of the grounds of the sensitive fears of those who apprehended that the Protestant Church would be endangered, if Catholics were allowed seats in legislative bodies, where subjects connected with the welfare of that Church might be decided; but he was less inclined to be influenced by such alarms, when he considered what had occurred in cases wherein similar fears had been expressed. It was matter of history 'that when the union of Scotland and England was proposed, that part of the plan, which was to introduce sixteen representative peers of Scotland to take their seats in the English House of Lords, was warmly opposed on similar reasoning. But experience has shewn the absurdity of the apprehensions then indulged. In general prophecies of the description to which he alluded had been unaccomplished. Dean Swift had predicted that Ireland would become Presbyterian, and alarmists had foretold that if the Catholics of Canada were admitted to civil rights, we should first lose that country, and then the whole of the United States, through the machinations of the Pope. The United States were gone from us, but Canada remained faithful. His Lordship concluded with the remark, that he did not imagine the Bill would of itself form a panacea for all the evils of Ireland, but he thought it would lead to those future measures, towards which alone she could look for improvement or lasting tranquillity. The Earl of Liverpool met the Question as one of expediency, and in an animated speech, as uncompromising as that in which he delivered his opinion in 1821, he showed that he could look fairly at the advantages which were expected from the measure, and at the evils to which it might give rise. He began by protesting against the situation in which the Lords had been placed by the conduct of the other House. The Commons had sent them a Bill which they knew not how to act by, having purchased a majority for that Bill by the introduction of other measures. At least they ought to know what they had to decide upon, whether it was the measure admitted to them alone, or that measure as joined and connected with two others. The plain proposition which ought to have been admitted to them, distinct from others, was, whether the Catholics of this country and Ireland ought and were entitled to enjoy equal rights and immunities at all points with their Protestant brethren. He himself met it with a decided negative. He said, that the Catholics were not entitled to equal rights in a Protestant country, and that opinion he would maintain. Upon some points he had been favourable to the Catholics; he did not know but there were others upon which he might still be so; but upon that broad principle-that they were entitled to equal rights-he and their friends were at direct issue. He admitted-no man could dream of denying it—that all subjects in a free state were entitled to equal rights, upon equal conditions; but then the qualification of that principle in the case of the Catholics was clear-the Catholics who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was this-it was stated in a moment-the Protestant gave an entire allegiance to his Sovereign; the Catholic a divided one. The service of the first was complete; that of the last only qualified; and unless it could be proved that a half was equal to the whole, he should not be convinced of the truth of the Catholic proposition. Thus, therefore, he took his stand upon the broad principle of justice; he was content to argue the question at present as one of expediency; but he still maintained that his opposition to the spirit of it was founded in principles of justice and of common sense. It was said by the noble Lords on the other side, that the practical effect and conduct of Catholicism should be looked at; and that the actual result and operation of that faith was very different from what its tenets, some of them, in theory, seemed to point to. Practically it was, that he wished to examine the question, and in no other way. Seeing where the appointment of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland lay, namely, unrestrictedly with the Pope, who might nominate a foreigner to a Catholic Bishopric if he pleased, and who had actually appointed Irish Prelates at the nomination of the last Princes of the exiled House of Stuart; it was impossible not to apprehend danger from the temporal and practical power exercised throughout the country by the Priesthood. Immediate danger he apprehended none, but it was not always in the brightest and calmest weather, that the storm was most distant. When could the Established Church appear more secure than at the restoration of Charles II., and yet within 20 years it was threatened with total destruction by the machinations of a Popish Prince. Differences between the Established Church and Dissenters did not prevent their amalgamating, but while the Popish Priests hold their influence, there can neither be intermarriage, nor common education, nor any other similar bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants-there must be collision, and dangerous collision. It was the duty, the religion, the oath, the every thing with the Papists to destroy the Established Protestant Church, and the Bill could not possibly have the effect of obliterating all recollection of the bone of contention. It was argued, as if the Catholics were deprived of all civil rights and privileges; whereas they enjoyed more rights and privileges than the subjects of any other Christian Prince. It has been said that the Bill would be a great boon to them. How that could be was not quite so clear, when it went to give places to about forty individnals, on the condition of disfranchising five hundred thousand electors. This was a Protestant constitution-not like that of the United States, where you might pay any Priest you like best, or no Priest at all. Such was not the constitution that he wished for Great Britain. He wanted that constitution which was compacted from the union of Church and State. The noble Earl's concluding remarks pledged him to stand immoveably upon the present state of the law, and exhorted the House as they had the advantage of experience, and were bound by policy, reason and justice, to persevere in their course. Lords Harrowby and Fitzwilliam said a few words in favour of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor opposed it by powerful legal arguments in which he exposed the delusiveness of the securities. His Lordship observed that the preamble of the present Bill was similar to the other Bills presented for Catholic relief. They all declared a solemn acknowledgment of the necessity of securing the Protestant establishment, as previously secured by legislative enactment. There were five acts to guarantee that That was, establishment; but the whole of these were abrogated by the present Bill. the whole substance of these Bills that guaranteed the security were got rid of; and then he would desire to know, where existed the security the preamble acknowledged (hear, hear.) That preamble sets forth. moreover, that it was to knit together the hearts and affections of all his Majesty's subjects. Yet, strange to tell, that the very question which was to be accompanied with all these effects of conciliation and union, their lordships had before refused; and the introduction of which had set the very persons to be benefited by the ears. But the present Bill contained a provision which went to regulate the intercourse with the See of Rome; and who were to be the instruments in superintending the intercourse? Three Roman Catholic commissioners, who refused to give a pledge on their own parts of the Supremacy of the Crown (hear.) He had taken a positive oath, by which he had bound himself to deny the Spiritual or Temporal Jurisdiction of any foreign Prince, Potentate, or prelate within these realms, which, so help him God, he should not violate. It was true that somewhere an interpretation had, he understood, been put on that spiritual jurisdiction by two eminent lawyers, one English, the other Irish, which he undoubtedly did not understand. As a Privy Counsellor he had also taken an oath to defend and maintain entire and inviolate the supremacy and prerogative of his Sovereign. He had also taken the oath of allegiance. He knew that it might be said his mind was fettered by the trammels of a lawyer, but he had the authority of Lord Hales to state, that the oath of allegiance was erected to dissipate the different constructions that were put on the oath of abjuration, which, though not created, was restored by that enactment. Under the sense of these obligations he was prepared to give his opposition to any measure which derogated from the supremacy of his Sovereign. It was out of his mind to understand what a jurisdiction merely spiritual meant. If, by a spiritual jurisdiction, the marriage of a Protestant with a Catholic was set aside, though the Courts of Civil Law of this country compelled the parties to continue in wedlock, he would ask was that a spiritual or temporal jurisdiction (hear, hear, hear)? They had heard much of the Constitution of the States of America. He trusted that the experiment that had been made in that country of a Goverment without a religious establishment, might, for the peace of its people, succeed; but it was not because such an experiment was on trial, that he would agree to surrender the rights and security of that Church Establishment in this country, which had contributed so essentially to its glory, prosperity and happiness. He felt that, in the few observations he made, he had not, at that advanced hour of the morning, expressed himself as clearly as he wished, but he should conclude with assuring their lordships, that after twentyfive years' deep consideration of the subject, he could not, conscientiously with his sense of duty, and the station which he held under the Crown, give his support to the present Bill. The House divided at a quarter before five o'clock, when the numbers were For the Bill present, 84 Proxies 46 ·· 130 Majority 48 The majority was nearly one fourth greater than that which rejected Mr. Plunkett's Bill in 1821. 'that when the union of Scotland and England was proposed, that part of the plan, which was to introduce sixteen representative peers of Scotland to take their seats in the English House of Lords, was warmly opposed on similar reasoning. But experience has shewn the absurdity of the apprehensions then indulged. In general prophecies of the description to which he alluded had been unaccomplished. Dean Swift had predicted that Ireland would become Presbyterian, and alarmists had foretold that if the Catholics of Canada were admitted to civil rights, we should first lose that country, and then the whole of the United States, through the machinations of the Pope. The United States were gone from us, but Canada remained faithful. His Lordship concluded with the remark, that he did not imagine the Bill would of itself form a panacea for all the evils of Ireland, but he thought it would lead to those future measures, towards which alone she could look for improvement or lasting tranquillity. The Earl of Liverpool met the Question as one of expediency, and in an animated speech, as uncompromising as that in which he delivered his opinion in 1821, he showed that he could look fairly at the advantages which were expected from the measure, and at the evils to which it might give rise. He began by protesting against the situation in which the Lords had been placed by the conduct of the other House. The Commons had sent them a Bill which they knew not how to act by, having purchased a majority for that Bill by the introduction of other measures. At least they ought to know what they had to decide upon, whether it was the measure admitted to them alone, or that measure as joined and connected with two others. The plain proposition which ought to have been admitted to them, distinct from others, was, whether the Catholics of this country and Ireland ought and were entitled to enjoy equal rights and immunities at all points with their Protestant brethren. He himself met it with a decided negative. He said, that the Catholics were not entitled to equal rights in a Protestant country, and that opinion he would maintain. Upon some points he had been favourable to the Catholics; he did not know but there were others upon which he might still be so; but upon that broad principle-that they were entitled to equal rights-he and their friends were at direct issue. He admitted-no man could dream of denying it—that all subjects in a free state were entitled to equal rights, upon equal conditions; but then the qualification of that principle in the case of the Catholics was clear-the Catholics who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was this-it was stated in a moment-the Protestant gave an entire allegiance to his Sovereign; the Catholic a divided one. The service of the first was complete; that of the last only qualified; and unless it could be proved that a half was equal to the whole, he should not be convinced of the truth of the Catholic proposition. Thus, therefore, he took his stand upon the broad principle of justice; he was content to argue the question at present as one of expediency; but he still maintained that his opposition to the spirit of it was founded in principles of justice and of common sense. It was said by the noble Lords on the other side, that the practical effect and conduct of Catholicism should be looked at; and that the actual result and operation of that faith was very different from what its tenets, some of them, in theory, seemed to point to. Practically it was, that he wished to examine the question, and in no other way. Seeing where the appointment of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland lay, namely, unrestrictedly with the Pope, who might nominate a foreigner to a Catholic Bishopric if he pleased, and who had actually appointed Irish Prelates at the nomination of the last Princes of the exiled House of Stuart; it was impossible not to apprehend danger from the temporal and practical power exercised throughout the country by the Priesthood. Immediate danger he apprehended none, but it was not always in the brightest and calmest weather, that the storm was most distant. When could the Established Church appear more secure than at the restoration of Charles II., and yet within 20 years it was threatened with total destruction by the machinations of a Popish Prince. Differences between the Established Church and Dissenters did not prevent their amalgamating, but while the Popish Priests hold their influence, there can neither be intermarriage, nor common education, nor any other similar bond between Roman Catholics and Protestants-there must be collision, and dangerous collision. It was the duty, the religion, the oath, the every thing with the Papists to destroy the Established Protestant Church, and the Bill could not possibly have the effect of obliterating all recollection of the bone of contention. It was argued, as if the Catholics were deprived of all civil rights and privileges; whereas they enjoyed more rights and privileges than the subjects of any other Christian Prince. It has been said that the Bill would be a great boon to them. How that could be was not quite so clear, when it went to give places to about forty individnals, on the condition of disfranchising five hundred thousand electors. This was a Protestant constitution-not like that of the United States, where you might pay any Priest you like best, or no Priest at all. Such was not the constitution that he wished for Great Britain. He wanted that constitution which was compacted from the union of Church and State. The noble Earl's concluding remarks pledged him to stand immoveably upon the present state of the law, and exhorted the House as they had the advantage of experience, and were bound by policy, reason and justice, to persevere in their course. Lords Harrowby and Fitzwilliam said a few words in favour of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor opposed it by powerful legal arguments in which he exposed the delusiveness of the securities. His Lordship observed that the preamble of the present Bill was similar to the other Bills presented for Catholic relief. They all declared a solemn acknowledgment of the necessity of securing the Protestant establishment, as previously secured by legislative enactment. There were five acts to guarantee that establishment; but the whole of these were abrogated by the present Bill. That was, the whole substance of these Bills that guaranteed the security were got rid of; and then he would desire to know, where existed the security the preamble acknowledged (hear, hear.) That preamble sets forth. moreover, that it was to knit together the hearts and affections of all his Majesty's subjects. Yet, strange to tell, that the very question which was to be accompanied with all these effects of conciliation and union, their lordships had before refused; and the introduction of which had set the very persons to be benefited by the ears. But the present Bill contained a provision which went to regulate the intercourse with the See of Rome; and who were to be the instruments in superintending the intercourse? Three Roman Catholic commissioners, who refused to give a pledge on their own parts of the Supremacy of the Crown (hear.) He had taken a positive oath, by which he had bound himself to deny the Spiritual or Temporal Jurisdiction of any foreign Prince, Potentate, or prelate within these realms, which, so help him God, he should not violate. It was true that somewhere an interpretation had, he understood, been put on that spiritual jurisdiction by two eminent lawyers, one English, the other Irish, which he undoubtedly did not understand. As a Privy Counsellor he had also taken an oath to defend and maintain entire and inviolate the supremacy and prerogative of his Sovereign. He had also taken the oath of allegiance. He knew that it might be said his mind was fettered by the trammels of a lawyer, but he had the authority of Lord Hales to state, that the oath of allegiance was erected to dissipate the different constructions that were put on the oath of abjuration, which, though not created, was restored by that enactment. Under the sense of these obligations he was prepared to give his opposition to any measure which derogated from the supremacy of his Sovereign. It was out of his mind to understand what a jurisdiction merely spiritual meant. If, by a spiritual jurisdiction, the marriage of a Protestant with a Catholic was set aside, though the Courts of Civil Law of this country compelled the parties to continue in wedlock, he would ask was that a spiritual or temporal jurisdiction (hear, hear, hear)? They had heard much of the Constitution of the States of America. He trusted that the experiment that had been made in that country of a Goverment without a religious establishment, might, for the peace of its people, succeed; but it was not because such an experiment was on trial, that he would agree to surrender the rights and security of that Church Establishment in this country, which had contributed so essentially to its glory, prosperity and happiness. He felt that, in the few observations he made, he had not, at that advanced hour of the morning, expressed himself as clearly as he wished, but he should conclude with assuring their lordships, that after twentyfive years' deep consideration of the subject, he could not, conscientiously with his sense of duty, and the station which he held under the Crown, give his support to the present Bill. The House divided at a quarter before five o'clock, when the numbers were 84 Against the Bill, present, 113 Proxies 46 130 178 Majority 48 The majority was nearly one fourth greater than that which rejected Mr. Plunkett's Bill in 1821. |