House Of Commons
Monday, April 18, 1825
Roman Catholic Claims
Numerous petitions were presented both for and against the Roman Catholic Claims.
presented a petition from the Protestants of the county of Fermanagh, against any further concessions to the Catholics. The gallant officer denied that the feeling of the Protestants of Ireland was changed on the question. They were now, as on all former occasions, adverse to the policy of what was called Catholic emancipation.
said, he had the honour to reside in a very large county (Mayo), where a most respectable Protestant proprietary resided; and he could assure the House, that, at a recent public meeting which he attended, it was expressly decided, that there would not be either peace or prosperity, until Catholic emancipation was carried into effect by legislative enactment.
said, he held in his hand a number of similar petitions; some from the clergy, some from persons not connected with the clergy, and others from dissenting congregations, both here and in Scotland. Though called on to present these petitions, he had no knowledge of the parties. He had acted on the principle he before professed, of not attempting to influence, in any way, the sentiments of any class of petitioners on this subject. The petitions were entirely unsuggested by him, and were the voluntary expressions of the opinions of those who signed them. He, in no instance, had held any communication with the parties until the petitions had been agreed to. He received letters requesting that he would present them to the House; and his answer was, that if they were couched in respectful language he could have no objection to do so.
, in presenting several petitions of a similar nature, said he did not know the parties from whom they came. He had received letters requesting that he would offer them to the House, and he thought it his duty to do so. The reasons and arguments which they contained appeared to him unanswerable. He wished to take that opportunity of retracting the charge of apathy which he had brought against the country upon a former occasion. That sort of feeling had been now raised among the people against any further concession of the Catholics, which he trusted would excite a similar spirit in the House. It was his firm opinion, that it was the feeling of the great majority of the population of this country, that no further concessions should be made to the Catholics.
rose, to present three petitions in favour of the Catholic Claims. He had intended to present to the House that evening, the general petition of the Roman Catholics of England and Scotland, in favour of the bill for conceding to the Catholics those rights, which they so justly claimed; but he thought it would be more respectful to the petitioners and to the House, if he postponed the presentation of the petition until to-morrow, when the entire subject would be brought under their consideration.
said, he held in his hand a petition from certain inhabitants of great and little Bolton, in the county of Lancaster, in favour of the bill now before the House, for relieving the Roman Catholics from the disqualifications under which they at present laboured. The petitioners were of opinion, and in that opinion he entirely coincided, that it was equally impolitic and unjust to inflict civil disabilities on any body of men, because they adhered to a particular mode of religious belief. In presenting this petition to the House, he would take the liberty of stating the opinion which he had before expressed in that place, an opinion which he had always held, and always would hold; namely, that all tests, and all' civil qualifications, respecting disabilities to hold particular situations on account of religious belief, ought to be removed. He spoke not of the Roman Catholics merely. He was of opinion, that the pure doctrine of religious toleration ought to be extended to all sects, as well as to Roman Catholics. Why did he wish this? Because he felt that a man was no more answerable for the tenets which he espoused in religion, than he was for any peculiarity in his physical or mental constitution, over which he had no control. To adopt a different maxim—to inflict punishment on men because they adhered to certain religious opinions, was in fact, to make them hypocrites; for, however interest might induce them to submit to tests and forms, those religious opinions which were long rivetted in their minds they would still retain. This was human nature; and it was vain in such a case to impose tests, which never could interfere with deeply-rooted opinions, however the latter might, for the moment, appear to give way before the feelings of self-interest. Cherishing these sentiments, it was with feelings of pain, sorrow, and, he would say, of bitter disappointment, that he had listened to the opinions which had been advanced, by a few persons certainly, on this subject. He knew that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) had merited the confidence which those individuals reposed in him by the sincerity of his opposition to the Catholic claims. He also knew that the hon. member for Somersetshire (sir T. Lethbridge) likewise deserved the confidence of all who resisted further concessions to the Catholics, because he had, with perfect consistency, opposed their claims upon every occasion. By pursuing this course, they unquestionably were entitled to the confidence of those bodies whose petitions they had presented. But, he did feel very great sorrow, and, he would add, some degree of shame, when he looked to the quarter whence some of those petitions emanated. That the petitions brought forward by the hon. member for Kent should darken their doors, and load their table, was not at all surprising. Those petitions were signed by the archdeacons and the deacons of Canterbury; by the clergy of the established church; and by some few of the laity. This was quite regular; there was nothing extraordinary in it. But, there was a class of persons whose signatures he was ashamed to see affixed to petitions of a similar tendency. He alluded to that most respected class of men, the dissenters of this kingdom. If there were one class of men more than another bound to petition in favour of the Roman Catholics, that class was the dissenters. Those honourable persons— for so he would denominate them—were, he supposed, sensible that they themselves laboured under disabilities; and he hoped, as discussion was what they wished —as discussion on the subject of religious disabilities was always on their lips—as they called on that House to extend a little tolerance and liberality towards them in matters of conscience—he trusted, he said, that a little more of that discussion, which they so much admired, would have the effect of altering their opinions, ere long, with respect to the question of Catholic emancipation. He hoped that discussion would ultimately remind them how grievously inconsistent was the conduct pursued by them. Did they forget that they held offices, and all the offices which they were capable of holding under government, by connivance? Why were they thus situated? Because the religion which they professed was not the religion of the state. Therefore it was, that an annual indemnity bill was passed, in the absence of which all of them who held office were liable to penalties by law. Why, then, should they, who themselves laboured under disabilities, raise their voices against those who were placed in a similar situation? Why should they not wish the same kind of liberal tolerance to be extended towards others, which they demanded for themselves? The doors of office in the state, great and small, were shut against the dissenters, but, they got over this difficulty by the annual indemnity bill. And yet, labouring under those disabilities, they called on the legislature to continue the disabilities of the Roman Catholics. He recollected that James 2nd (a name which no doubt would be associated with this question) was addressed by the Quakers, on the occasion of his accession to the throne, in these terms:—"We hear that thou no more agreest with the established church of this land than we do ourselves; for the which reason, we expect that thou wilt extend that toleration to us, which thou thyself standest in need of." Now, he would apply to the dissenters (for whom he had a greater reverence and respect than for any sovereign) the words of the Quakers. He would say to those dissenters who had placed their petition in the hands of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and of the hon. baronet, that they ought to admit the Roman Catholics to a participation in those rights which they were themselves struggling for. The dissenters differed upon almost every point, upon almost every subject, from those to whom they had intrusted their petitions; but, pro hac vice, they came forward to oppose the Roman Catholics. Weil might the Roman Catholics say, "We, like your-selves, are oppressed by disabilities: and we hope that you will bear with us, as the state bears with you—that you will allow us a little of that toleration, so great an abundance of which you enjoy, but none of which is extended to us." Some of the petitions to which he had referred, came from Scotland, upon which he would say a word presently. Presbyterianism was the chief religion of Scotland, and several Presbyterians were members of that House. Now, he asked, how would his Scotch friends of that religious persuasion feel if the doors of all offices, great and small, were shut in their faces? They had, however, enjoyed the most considerable offices in the country, which was contrary to law; but that objection was met by the indemnity act. There had been two lord chancellors, there had been chief justices of the court of King's-bench, and the court of Common Pleas, who were known to profess this religious belief; but, if the same measure had been dealt out to them which was dealt out to the Roman Catholics, they never could have arrived at those honours. The law, which he must call a most savage one, provided, that all those who accepted of situations of this nature, should receive the sacrament of the church of England; those dissenters who abhorred that form, were required to have the sacrament administered to them; but, by the indemnity act they got over that difficulty, and were enabled to hold office, without violating their feelings. This was an act which enabled the government to procure the assistance of very able men. It was, no doubt, useful to the country, and was not, he hoped, at all disagreeable to those who took advantage of its provisions. A little more discussion would, he conceived, place this matter in so clear a light, that they would have no more anti-Catholic petitions from the dissenters. There were some millions of dissenters in this country: but a few of them had signed petitions of this nature; few, however, as they were, they were all too many, considering the glaring inconsistency of conduct which such a proceeding manifested. No man living had a greater respect for the dissenters than he had. He knew them to be friends to civil liberty; he knew them to be friends to the dissemination of knowledge, and the diffusion of education; and he hoped to find them all, henceforth, the sincere friends to the most extended religious liberty. If it were not for the respect he bore them, he would not have trespassed so much upon the time of the House; but, what he had thrown out was intended as a friendly, and he trusted it would be received as a kindly admonition, by those to whom it was addressed.
said, he wished to offer a remark or two in defence of the conduct of those whose petitions he had presented. One of those petitions—that from Bolton—was signed by nearly 10,000 persons, comprising almost the whole of the dissenters of that neighbourhood. Now, for his own part, he saw no inconsistency in the conduct of Protestant dissenters when they approached that House, and petitioned against granting any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, because those dissenters were protected by the annual indemnity act. That circumstance did not alter the state of the question. They had a right to petition against the concession of privileges to those whose religious doctrines they disliked, because they conceived them dangerous. The; petitions of the dissenters were couched in the most respectful terms. The petitioners declared, that they felt no hostility against the Roman Catholics, but that they were actuated solely by religious scruples. They felt that the doctrines maintained by the Catholic church were further removed from their own, than the doctrines maintained by the church of England; and surely they had a right to approach that House with petitions against granting additional privileges to a body? of whose intolerance all past history, most amply informed them. If the bill now before the House were passed, it would not alter the law relative to taking the sacramental test; but as might be inferred from what the learned gentleman had said, if it were intended to make that bill the first step towards repealing all laws which respected the necessity of taking particular tests, on account of religious opinions, he believed he might reckon on the opposition to the bill, of many persons who had intended to sup-port it.
wished to say a word in explanation. He hoped he should be un- derstood as not referring, in the observations he had made, to the bill now before the House. He spoke merely his own opinion. He was hostile to all tests; and his declaration on that subject was nothing more than his own individual sentiment. What the right hon. gentleman had just said, bore out the statement which he (Mr. B.) had made. This bill would leave the sacramental test untouched; and the result was, that the Roman Catholic and the dissenter would be placed on the same footing. Why, then, should the dissenter petition the legislature not to place the Catholic in as good a situation as that which he himself occupied?
expressed his belief, that the great body of dissenters were, as he was, favourable to the claims of the Catholics. He was glad that this conversation had taken place; because it would tend to do away a very mistaken opinion, which prevailed in that House, and through-out the country at large; namely, that because an indemnity bill was annually passed, the dissenters laboured under no disability, disqualification, or reproach. He felt that they laboured under all these; and, when the proper occasion arrived, he would show it. A Roman Catholic in approaching that House, or in holding office, would not have to encounter greater difficulties than were opposed to the dissenter.
said, that the conduct of the dissenters in petitioning against the Catholic claims, was totally irreconcilable with any notion which he could form of consistency. He had, indisputably, a great respect for the dissenters. They were a very enlightened class of men. He could not, however, bring himself to view their proceedings with approbation and respect; on the contrary, he looked at them with every possible feeling of suspicion, when he found them opposing the claims of the Roman Catholics. Why should they, of all other persons, evince hostility to the rights of the Catholics? Why should they come forward for relief in their own case? Why should they come before the House and demand a full participation in all civil rights, when they said—"We will not grant relief to others?" How could he reconcile himself to the belief that the principles avowed by the dissenters—the principles of religious liberty—.were to be supported by their strengthening the arguments by which, to-morrow, the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department would oppose the Catholic claims—those claims turning altogether on freedom of opinion in religious matters? If gentlemen looked at the public press, they would find many of those papers which were most favourable to the dissenters, saying, "the measures now before the House are all wrong." And why wrong? Because "they are exclusive; because they do not include the dissenters." If they were intended for the Catholics and the dissenters at the same moment, then he supposed all would be well. But, as this was not the case, a jealousy was excited against the Roman Catholics, and these petitions were the fruit of it. This was a course of conduct incompatible with any idea which he had of common sense. He could not understand how the dissenters could come forward and pray for the continuance towards the Roman Catholics, of a system which they wished to have abrogated with respect to themselves. If he were to be guided by his feelings, and not by his reason, he should, when the dissenters called for a repeal of the Test act (such was the impression their conduct in opposing the Roman Catholics had made on his mind), oppose the motion. Whenever such a motion was made, he would undoubtedly vote for it from principle. Whatever was the conduct of those who took part against the Catholics, the great body of dissenters should not suffer for that conduct; inconsistent as it was with their general professions. They should have his vote, as if not one of their body had ever pursued such a line of conduct. On principle, he would vote in favour of the repeal of the test act: but, as he before said, were he to follow the dictates of feeling, and not of reason, he would vote against it.
repeated, that he meant to say nothing disrespectful of the dissenters. There were, he believed, six millions of them; and if some of them differed from the great body, and differed from their own avowed principles, it was a matter which he could not but lament. He was sorry, when those individuals found the church at a pinch for a cry of "No Popery!" that they were induced, he feared under a delusion, to step forward at that critical juncture for the purpose of raising it. He would state to the dissenters now present, if any such there were, that they most egregiously deceived themselves, if they thought the church of England would, in return, do any thing for them. He thought he knew the church—he spoke of the high church: he did not mean to class all its members together; and he was sure the dissenters who came forward with these petitions knew little of that establishment if they thought that, in the hour of need, their conduct on this occasion would stand in their stead. The church would not repay their services in the way they imagined. If he knew any thing of that body, they would accept the assistance of the dissenters, but they would give them no advantage in return. The dissenters might come to them and say, "Don't you remember on the 19th of April, 1825, when you were in the greatest distress for a 'No Popery' cry—when the Solicitor-general was in despair—when every body, even the hon. member for Somersetshire, complained of the apathy of the people—that we came forward, and gave you a few drops of alarm, a few crumbs of comfort, in the shape of ominous forebodings; and will you not now assist us in getting rid of our disabilities?" How would this appeal be received? The question would be—"What did you come forward for? Did you not come forward according to your conscientious belief that danger was to be apprehended? Were you not really alarmed? Certainly you were; and you came forward not to assist us, but to help yourselves. You have a monopoly of toleration. You have got into a snug birth yourselves, and all you wished for was to retain it. We have become enlightened on this subject ourselves; and we think it very inconsistent for you, the dissenters, to have acted as you did. For us it was the best thing that ever was done. You performed the work, and we despise you heartily for it; but, as to our assisting you, we are astonished how such an idea could ever have entered your minds." [hear, hear]. He might be allowed here to observe, and it was an axiom as true as any that was to be found in the "Principia," that the odium theologicum operated in an inverse ratio to the approximation of opinion amongst different Christian sects—a principle which undoubtedly applied to the established church. The nearer those sects approached, the more they hated each other—and, when the shade of difference was very indistinct indeed, as between a Dissenter and a Protestant, the parties hated one another to a degree of pure bitterness. If the dissenters hoped to receive any benefit by showing how near they were to the church, they deceived themselves. The nearer they proved themselves to be, the more would they be hated. He hoped the hon. member for Norwich would state to the dissenters, that such was the doctrine of the church. They would find that, if they hoped to accelerate the repeal of the Test act by these petitions, they had taken a most unwise and a most unprofitable course. He would vote for the repeal of that act a hundred times over in justice to the claims of the dissenters; but he must condemn the conduct of those amongst them, who attempted to interfere with the rights of the Roman Catholics.
begged leave to say, that the first thing he had done when he offered himself for Oxford, was to declare that, on every occasion, he would follow his own unbiassed opinion. He would not vote in any particular manner, because he was member for that place; but he would act according to the dictates.of his own mind.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Scotch Jurors Bill
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
said, he could not suffer this bill to be read a second time without a comment. He had himself often before proposed the very measure which was now about to be adopted; but he had always done so unsuccessfully. He did not mean to oppose the progress of the bill; on the contrary, he hailed its appearance, most sincerely glad to see it come from any quarter. He could not, however, fail to remark the inconsistency of the learned lord opposite, who had so frequently opposed the measure, which, on that learned lord's own introduction, was now about to be carried. The bill afforded him great satisfaction, because he believed it would be productive of benefit to Scotland. He therefore gave it his cordial support.
said, he had always thought that it was improper to reserve special juries for the civil courts alone, and to employ common juries to try persons charged with having committed crimes. Such a course seemed to him to be making too light of human life; and he was therefore heartily glad that the system was now to receive some alteration. He thought that the qualifications of special jurors might be simplified with great advantage to the public; and be trusted that something would soon be done for that purpose. Great credit was due to his hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy) whose exertions had led to the introduction of this measure.
said, that the main object of the bill was, to provide an impartial jury for all cases which should come on to be tried. With reference to the various classes of society, and the interests which were connected with them, it would be obviously impossible to do away with the difference between common and special juries; and, while that difference should exist, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman was wholly impracticable. He claimed, on behalf of the persons by whom this bill had been prepared, credit for the fair and honest manner in which it was brought forward.
said, that the credit of this measure, whatever it might be—and he was disposed to think very highly of it —belonged wholly to his hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy). His hon. friend, when he first proposed it, was called a dangerous innovator; and yet now the Lord Advocate was found to go much further than his hon. friend had intended. He was not disposed to say one word in opposition to the bill; but he wished that the people of Scotland might learn from the circumstances that attended it, this lesson—that if they would persevere in a good cause, without being alarmed either by the denunciation of the learned lord, or of those members who were supposed to represent the interests of the landholders of Scotland, they must ultimately succeed. He had no doubt that very great benefits would result to Scotland from the present bill; and he was convinced, besides, that the people of Scotland knew they would be indebted for all those benefits to his hon. friend.
The bill was then read a second time.
Addendum
Unlawful Societies In Ireland Bill
The following Report of Mr. Dawson's Speech in the House of Commons oh the 14 th of February, on Mr. Goulburn's Motion for leave to bring in a "Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland" will be found more correct than the one given at p. 357.
Mr. Dawson said, that, after the long discussion which the motion of his right hon. friend had undergone, he thought it neither decorous nor necessary to detain the House very long with the expression of his opinion; he was anxious, however, to explain the reasons of his vote, and he should endeavour to do so as concisely as possible, by avoiding an unnecessary allusion to the general question of Catholic emancipation. In the many eloquent speeches which had preceded him, at least one half of the time had been consumed in discussing, not the conduct or effect of the Catholic Association, but the merits of the Catholic question, and in the same proportion that reason and argument have been wanting to support the opposition to his right hon. friend's motion, so appeals to the passions, and the powers of imagination, have been applied to excite the feelings and divert the judgment from its proper subject. He should abstain, therefore, from following such examples, and should confine himself to this observation with respect to the Catholic question, that every passing event, and every proceeding of the Catholics, confirmed him still more strongly in the opinion which he had always maintained. That a further concession to their claims is incompatible with the safety of our constitution.
With respect to the question before the House, it seems to him that no man who understands the Irish character, that no man who has read the history of Ireland with common attention, that no man who has watched the progress of events in that country for the last thirty years, can conscientiously stand up and support associasions of any kind whatsoever. From the earliest period associations have been the curse of Ireland. In no country has the division of the inhabitants been so marked, so decided, so indelible, as in Ireland. The division between the Irish and the English has descended, under various denominations, through seven centuries;
party has followed party, faction has followed faction, and the whole history of the country, which unfortunately presents one continued series of blood, massacre, and misery, is an ample illustration of the danger of ungovernable parties; besides the character of an Irishman, is of all others, the least suited for such a trial. Rash and impetuous in his passions, he obeys only the impulse of the moment; his natural susceptibility lays him open to the power of any demagogue who makes the strongest appeal to his imagination; his actions follow the impulse of this feeling, and if reflection comes at all, it is only from the bitter fruit of disappointment and defeat. It is to him, therefore, a source of the greatest satisfaction, that it has been resolved to check this evil by putting down all kinds of associations; all kinds, because, though the Catholic Association was the most dangerous, the most mischievous, and the most unconstitutional, which has ever been begot in that country, yet the cure will be incomplete unless the spirit of Association be rooted out altogether. Let any man consider for a moment the character of popular assemblies in Ireland, and, with but one exception, he will find the result invariably the same, namely, ruin and destruction to the actors, disgrace and infamy to the country. The only exception to this miserable catalogue, is the Convention of the volunteers in 1782. That assembly, without doubt, accomplished great and glorious deeds, and deserves the gratitude of every friend of his country, and of liberty; but the national restlessness was nearly breaking forth even in this assembly, and a civil war between the volunteers and the parliament was prevented only by the firmness and prudence of lord Charlemont, who determined to withdraw himself from the convention after it had obtained the first object for which it was constituted. The convention followed his prudent advice, and
it dissolved itself just at the critical time when the volunteers on one side, and the government on the other, were prepared for a contest to decide the question of parliamentary reform. But with this exception, the history of every popular assembly in Ireland is tragical and disgraceful. What was the result of the Catholic Committee in 1793? What was the result of the Society of United Irishmen in 1796 and 7? A most bloody rebellion; a rebellion that laid waste the country from the north to the south, ruined thousands of families, and reduced the kingdom to the lowest state of misery and degradation. What was the result of the Catholic Board in 1812 and 1813; almost a continued interruption of the public tranquillity from that time to this. The most violent exasperation of one party against the other. The consequent effects of that exasperation, a servile war, robbery, murder, and assassination, accompanied with the necessary preventions, namely, Peace Preservation acts, Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, Constabulary acts and Insurrection acts. This, Sir, is the history of all popular assemblies in Ireland; but he should leave the catalogue unfinished, if, in the list of popular assemblies, he omitted to mention the name of the Irish parliament. Let any man look at the extraordinary acts of this body of the collective wisdom of the country, 24 or 25 folio volumes of statutes, in which human ingenuity seems stretched to the utmost point to find out what is not suited to the circumstances of the country, to multiply law upon law without care for their present execution, without foresight for their future effect. Look at the constant character of these legislators, corrupt and venal jobbers, the ready tools of every minister, ready to sell themselves and their country to the highest bidder; but, Sir, thank God, this parliament is annihilated, and better days have already begun to dawn upon Ireland from its connection with this country. It seemed, therefore, upon a general principle, that no man who is a friend to the peace or character of his country, can object to a law which puts down political associations of every kind whatsoever. The motives which bind these Associations together, can make no difference in the decision of the legislature, all must be put down to ensure the tranquillity of the country; and though be should always maintain that there is the greatest difference be-
tween the principles and conduct of the Orangemen and the Catholics, yet he would never become the advocate of compelling one party to submit, and allowing the other party to escape from the operation of a general law, which was necessary for the peace of the country. If he could be so blind to the principles of common justice, he could not be insensible to this plain truth, that one association begets another, and that the strongest argument against the existence of Orange Lodges arises from the encouragement which they afford to the continuance of the Catholic Association. He thought, therefore, that he acted consistently in voting for a law which puts down, not only the turbulent and seditious efforts of the Catholic Association to disturb the peace of the country, but which prevents the misguided loyalty of the Protestant from any exuberant display of its devotion; but he could not admire the consistency of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who vote for the immediate annihilation of every Orange lodge, without the proof of any charge except the oath of secresy, and yet oppose the extinction of the Catholic Association, whose acts no man yet has been bold enough to justify. The complacency and levity with which this inconsistent conduct is justified, is almost ridiculous. Who can forget the parade and pomp with which the hon. and learned gentleman, the member for Calne (Mr. Abercromby), introduced his motion to put down Orange lodges? Who can forget the violent speeches, and the opprobrious epithets which were used against every person connected with the Orange party? Who can forget the shouts of triumph which followed the discovery of the hon. member for Waterford (sir J. Newport) that the members of an Orange lodge subscribed three-pence each to buy pens and paper, in order to record the proceedings of the evening? But, Sir, these arguments were successful, and every well-wisher of his country consented to join in crushing the Orange lodges. But, what is their conduct now? In the speech from the throne, a distinct recommendation is given to heal the evils of Ireland by pulling down all kinds of associations. It is distinctly proved, that the Catholic Association has assumed a form inconsistent with the principles of the constitution; that it usurps the functions of government; that it exasperates party hatred; that it interferes with the
administration of justice; that it calumniates the character of every respectable man in the country; that it paralyzes the magistracy; that it keeps the people, through the instrumentality of the priests, in a state of servile vassalage, ready to obey their orders however dangerous; and that it levies a tax upon the people, to be converted to their own mischievous purposes, no matter what they are. All this is proved; is as evident as the sun at noon day; and yet the hon. gentlemen refuse to check the career of this dangerous association. They still continue to hurl their anathemas against Orange lodges, when, in fact, there are no Orange lodges in existence; at least he would state for the satisfaction of the hon. member for Wicklow, who seems to think Derry the focus of all Orangeism, that there are no Orange lodges in that city; they still continue to laud the peaceable, mild, and tranquillizing conduct of the leaders of the Catholic Association, and to condemn lord O'Neil for not abandoning his political principles. They justify Mr. O'Connell and others for driving their country almost into a state of rebellion by their inflammatory speeches; but they can find no excuse for lord O'Neil's continuing stedfast to the principles of his family. Can any man blame lord O'Neil for seeking protection in the times of peril through which we have passed? Can any man blame him for wishing to know who are his friends, and who are his foes? His father found himself deceived in the appeal which he made to the humanity of a neighbouring dependant. He found kindness forgotten, and all the kindly feelings of nature destroyed by the poison of political hatred; and can we, or ought we, to blame the son who seeks only to know those to whom he can trust?
But his objection to the Catholic Association was founded upon much stronger reasons than upon an objection in principle to associations. It appeared to him to be the most dangerous and most mischievous body which has ever been sufered to exist in Ireland. Its proceedings, the speeches of its members, the agency of the priests, all unite to make it the most dangerous engine to work upon the passions of such a susceptible people as the Irish. It commands a paid press to circulate its poison through every part of the country, it has orators who stick at no falsehood to alienate the people from their confidence in every established institution
of the country, it has associated in its labours the priesthood, who have amply repaid the expectations of the Association, by their undisguised expressions of hostility to the constitution of the empire, and by their unceasing efforts to instil the same hatred into the ignorant and infatuated peasantry. Now, Sir, many hon. gentlemen have said, that they see no harm in the proceedings of the Association, and that the speeches of their leaders, like all violent harangues, are soon forgotten. But, Sir, the Catholic Association takes care that the effect of their speeches shall not be confined to those who hear them; the auditors perhaps know their leaders too well to be much affected by their orations; but when these speeches are sent down to every little village in the country, when every institution in church and state, when the highest characters both in England and Ireland are held up to public odium, when the ecclesiastical bench, the judicial bench, the magistracy, the parliament, the laws of the land are calumniated and misrepresented, when rebels who have suffered from the offended laws of their country receive public thanks, when the people are encouraged to unite in one general system to pull down every establishment in the kingdom, these speeches are not to be judged by the character of the speakers, but by the effects which they produce upon a credulous and ignorant people. It will hardly be believed to what an extent this violence has been carried; and as be had no means of judging of the intentions of the gentlemen who deliver their sentiments in the Catholic Association but by their speeches, as he had no means of ascertaining the object of the Association but by its proceedings, he should endeavour to explain the impression which is made upon his mind by a few extracts from them.
What says the Finance report which was published in the early part of the last year, before the rent became as successful as it is at present, and 50,000 copies of which were circulated through the country:
"It exhorts the people to wait in the sullen silence of discontent for a more favourable opportunity and better organized resources, to prove to Britain and the world that we are men, and deserve to be free."—This language is plain enough, it breathes the spirit of disaffection, and of disappointment at not having the power to carry these designs into execution. But what says Mr. O'Connell a short time afterwards, when the rent became more abundant, and when the means were daily accumulating of arming and organizing the peasantry; he says, "He would not press the introduction of the claim of arming the Roman Catholics, for if he did, it might be supposed that they were going to proclaim war at once." Now, Sir, this sounds very ridiculous in this House, but I should like to ask what is the effect produced upon the mind of a Catholic peasant in Kerry by this language? Does it not prepare him, aye and every Catholic peasant in Ireland, to expect that some great design is in agitation, and does it not prepare him to put into execution another favourite exclamation of the same gentleman, "Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not, who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." This may be called figurative language, the exuberance of eloquence, of a heated imagination, and so forth; but the Catholic peasant sees in it good practical matter, and would not be sorry to have it brought to the test of experience. He could read many other passages in the same strain, but it is enough that such sentiments are uttered, and circulated with assiduity among the people, to convince any one that the assembly from which they emanate is most dangerous and unconstitutional.
And what, Sir, is the language of the Association in reviewing the conduct of such members of either House of parliament, as venture to express any sentiment unfavourable to the Catholics; all courtesy, all moderation is abandoned, and the liberty of speaking our thoughts is represented as the highest crime against the majority of the Catholic people; one gentleman (Mr. Shiell), says, that "if the British legislature require the degradation of a whole people for the enjoyment of its advantages, that it is the asylum of intolerance," and so on. When lord Redesdale states in the House of Lords that he shall freely give his opinion upon the Catholic question, and shall not be deterred by the fact, that his assassination was preached from the altar by a priest in Dublin, the Association immediately decree that the assertion is calumnious, and not only calumnious, but an assassinating calumny. His royal highness the duke of York exposed him- self also to the assaults of the Catholic Association, by his observations on the Catholic claims. He is represented in a report from the Association, which was to be circulated throughout the country, as an enemy to the Irish people; and when one gentleman wished to have the expression softened, Mr. O'Connell refused, declared that it was just, and that the heir apparent ought not to forget that there was once a duke of York who lost his crown and kingdom. Another orator observed, "that by the public expression of their sentiments, the duke of York might be induced to alter his opinion, as far as related to the Catholics of Ireland, but that his was a life of no service."
This, Sir, is the tone in which they speak of the parliament; these are the sentiments which they circulate through every part of the country; he allowed, indeed, that such assertions are contemptible, but is it safe, is it just, to allow a slanderous faction to disseminate their poison among a deluded and credulous peasantry?
The same hostility pursues every member of the Established Church, wherever an effort has been made to counteract the objections of the Catholic Association. The archbishops, bishops, and clergy of all descriptions, are involved in a general anathema; they are held up to accusation, as plunderers by the Catholic Association, and they are denounced as usurpers by the Roman Catholic clergy. Every act of kindness, of charity, of duty, performed by the Protestant clergy towards the poor of their districts, has been forgotten since the establishment of the Catholic Association. During the severe season of distress in the West of Ireland, in the year 1822, the archbishop of Tuam, who with true charity exerted himself for the relief of the poor, received the following address from Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic archbishop of the diocese:—
"Resolved, That the judicious, efficient and unwearied exertions of his grace the archbishop of Tuam, in the causes of charity, call forth our warmest sentiments of admiration, and we now beg to offer him the humble tribute of our sincere gratitude, hoping that his benignity of character, and his active and well-directed beneficence (qualities worthy of our emulation), may long continue to shed their influence over us.
OLIVER KELLY."
At this time, there was no Catholic Association; but last year under the baneful influence of their body, which infects and poisons every thing that comes in contact with it, the Roman Catholic clergy of the same diocese published an atrocious and infamous resolution, accusing the archbishop of having introduced a party of military, with drawn swords, for the purpose of intimidating, and perhaps massacreing the Roman Catholic clergyman, insiduously invited to a meeting.
But, Sir, not satisfied with every indignity that can he offered personally to the highest dignitaries of the Church; the leader of the Association, at its very last meeting, gave to a people, already through the agency of their priests worked up to the highest state of fanatical hatred against the members of the Established Church, the humane hint of massacreing them by wholesale. At the last meeting, Mr. O'Connell said, "Scotland did not exhibit the patience and self-control of Ireland, nor patiently suffer herself to be trampled on, while her oppressors rode by in triumph. She hewed down with the sword of the Lord the archbishops and bishops, and when the force of the British arms became too strong for her people, they retired to their mountains, and after renovating their vigour they returned to carry desolation to the very dwelling of their assailants."
Now, Sir, does such language as this require any comment? To whom is it addressed? not to the Association, but to the Roman Catholic peasantry, the most ignorant, the most deluded peasantry in the world, and unfortunately the most ready tools for any work of blood.
The same observations apply to those who are intrusted with the administration of justice. The chancellor, the judges, the magistrates, all come in for their share of abuse. There is an exception, indeed, in favour of those who are known to entertain opinions favourable to the Catholic cause; but the honest and conscientious assertion of an adverse opinion, no matter how amiable in private and how pure in public life the individual may be, is sufficient to have him represented by the Catholic press, in every cabin in Ireland, as a tyrant and a despot. In speaking of the chancellor of Ireland, Mr. O'Connell says that "the chancellorship of lord Manners, and the Attorney-generalship of Mr. Saurin, tended to degrade the dignity and sully the independence of a bar, which had given a tone to the public feeling of Ireland." Sir, the bar of Ireland rejects the hypocritical compliment; the dignified characters who have adorned it, the judges Burton, Jebb, Bush and Penne-father, find more honour in being associated with such men as lord Manners and Mr. Saurin, than in all the hypocritical cant of the Catholic Association.
Again, Sir, what is their language respecting the magistracy? that "the administration of justice in Ireland is corrupted at its very source; that a simple despotism weighs with an equality of pressure upon every class of the community; that the sense of masterdom mingles itself in the ordinary familiarities of life, and that the administration of justice is partial, vindictive, and unjust." Sir, if any one of these assertions were true, the laws would afford an ample remedy to the party aggrieved. But redress is not the object of the Catholic Association; it is more to their purpose to instil these dangerous falsehoods into the minds of the peasantry, and to prepare them, by undermining their confidence in every establishment, for deeds of aggression whenever they shall be proposed.
But, Sir, besides the speeches of the leaders, we may infer, from the proceedings of the Association, what great respect is entertained for the laws of the country. On the 24th of November, a Mr. Devereux and Mr. Hamilton Rowan were both admitted as members of the Association, and the announcement of their names was received with thunders of applause. The reason of this enthusiastic admiration is curious enough. Mr. Devereux was announced to be the almost only surviving delegate to the Catholic committee in 1793, and he was admitted immediately by Mr. O'Connell, as a matter of course, in that capacity: in other words, he was admitted because he belonged to an assembly which was declared to be illegal, and which was put down by law. The case of Mr. Hamilton Rowan was more notorious: and here he begged to express his regret at being obliged to renew the recollection of events long passed, and which certainly would have been buried in oblivion, so far as he was concerned, except for the indiscretion of the individuals themselves: they, not he, must be responsible for raking up the records of ancient and troublesome times. But Mr. Hamilton Rowan has made himself too notorious to be passed over in silence; he was secretary to the Society of United Irishmen; was actually convicted of sedition, and whilst in prison he was attainted of high treason. His associate in treason, the Rev. Mr. Jackson, was tried and convicted, hut put an end to his life in prison. Mr. Rowan was more fortunate; for he escaped from prison, and suffered exile for many years from Ireland. After a long lapse, he was allowed to return to his native home by the indulgence of the government; and the best reward he can make for this clemency, is by becoming a member of an Association as dangerous and unconstitutionalas that of the United Irishmen; and what is still more remarkable, and tending to show the spirit of the Catholic Association, the accession of this attainted traitor is received with thunders of applause; and in the address presented to him, direct allusion is made to those circumstances of his life in which he plotted against the peace and laws of his country, as deserving of the applause and gratitude of his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen.
Now it is impossible to mark proceedings of this kind, without contemplating the result of these transactions. Why is every violent sentiment applauded? why is every dangerous man received as an useful ally? why is such publicity given to these mischievous sentiments? The object is plain; it is to alienate the people from their attachment to their rulers, to disgust them with the laws, and to prepare them for the overthrow of the Protestant religion.
But much as he condemned the existence of the Catholic Association, he thought it would be comparatively innocent in its operation, if it was not for the agency of the Roman Catholic priesthood. To the conduct of the priesthood he attributed most part of the evils which had desolated Ireland for so long a period: he regretted to be obliged to make this avowal, but these were times when the truth must be told, and when a delicate forbearance may prove an everlasting injury to the country. It was his misfortune to differ entirely from his right hon. friend below him, the Attorney-general for Ireland, in his opinion of the priesthood. In their conduct during the last five or six years, he had seen very little to approve of, but a great deal to condemn; and he could view their alliance with the Catholic association in no other light than as the first step towards the attainment of their grand object, the overthrow of the Protestant church, and the ascendancy of the Catholic religion in Ireland. Their prelates could no longer refrain from expressing their anticipation of this long-wished-for feast. Dr. Curtis, the titular primate of Ireland, informs the archbishop of Dublin, that he is an usurper, that he holds his archiepiscopal chair by sufferance, and that he is no more entitled to it, than he is to the dukedom of Leeds. Dr. Doyle says, in his letter to Mr. Robertson, a member of this House, "that the whole body of the Catholics is impatient, that disaffection must be working within them, that the ministers of the establishment are and will be detested, that if a rebellion were raging from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear, no sentence of excommunication would be fulminated by a Catholic prelate, and that the Catholics possessed of property in Ireland will not render any efficient services to the government, should eventful times occur; that from such men the government has only to expect defiance, and open hostility." Another priest, a Mr. L'Estrange, declares, "it ought not to be expected that the Catholic clergy, who have a divine right, were bound to meet men not dignified with the same exalted character: perhaps all the gentlemen present [this was uttered in the Catholic Association] were not aware, that they, the Roman Catholic clergy, deny any character whatever to the bishops, or other clergy of the Protestant church."
This is the denunciation of the Catholic clergy; it is fulminated from the altar, it is reported to the Association, it is read in every cabin in Ireland, as a useful lesson to the rising generation to cultivate obedience and resignation to the established laws of the country. But it is said that we are indebted for the present tranquillity to the Catholic clergy: he really believed so, but he believed also, that we are indebted for the late disorders to the same persons. He recollected in a trial which took place in the county of Cork, before Mr. Blacker, who presided as king's counsel under the Insurrection act, that Mr. Blacker asked a Catholic priest if he was aware of the disturbed state of his parish. The priest, with considerable reluctance, confessed that he was aware of it; and being pressed by Mr. Blacker, he allowed that no plot could be in agitation without his knowledge, and moreover, that every priest in Ireland must be aware of what was going on, if he did his duty. He recollected also that a priest of the name of O'Sullivan saw a man murdered before his face, and refused to give evidence against the murderer, because, if he did so, he would lose his influence with his parishioners; he thought himself justified, therefore, in saying, that the priests contributed to the continuance of the disorders which prevailed during the last four years, by not coming forward to co-operate with the gentry of the country for their extinction. If the tranquillity of Ireland is now owing to their exhortations, the disturbances of 1820, of 1821, of 1822, and 1823, were owing to their want of exhortation. The influence of the priest over the Irish peasant is well known. By the terrors of the church he can frighten him into good or evil habits, and the extraordinary and fanatical devotion of the wretched peasant, in giving the miserable pittance which he had destined to cover his own nakedness, or to feed his starving children, to give it, at the orders of the priest, to the Catholic Association, is a strong proof how much good might be effected by them, if the inclination was as strong to do good as it is to do evil.
In a letter from Mr. Duggan, the parish priest of Kilrush, published in the proceedings of the Catholic Association, he says, "Many of them (his parishioners) have sworn to appropriate the whole of the corn-crop to the payment of the rent, no matter what other creditors may be justly entitled to, or even the wants of nature may imperiously demand." Who but a person of the most perverted understanding could encourage such a practice; what clergyman of real morality would recommend the withholding of a just payment, in order to provide for some undefined object; what man of real morality would recommend robbery to encourage sedition. Another priest, a Mr. Kelly of Mallow, advises his parishioners to contribute largely, because money is the sinew of war, and because the Catholic rent will supply the Association with those sinews, whenever the proper occasion shall present itself. Hundreds of examples of a similar kind might be adduced, to shew the disposition of the Catholic priesthood; and in every public occurrence the mischiefs of their disastrous influence might be traced. Who is it that is employed to sow distrust between the clergyman and his parishioners;— the priests. Who is it that bursts without remorse all the ties of connexion between the landlord and the tenant?—the priest. Who leads on contending parties at elections, and in addition to political animosity, throws on the fuel of religious hatred; who impedes the course of education, and blasts the efforts of the most benevolent individuals for the civilization of their tenantry?—It is the priest. In every situation, in every character, the priest appears as a foe, unless the object to be obtained conduces to the advancement of his own power; and what is the object of the priesthood in thus standing aloof from any intermixture with the Protestants?—It is to establish their own church upon the ruins of the Protestant establishment; this is his dream by night, and his thought by day; for this he leagues himself with the Catholic Association; for this he employs his influence over the people, to devote their money and their persons to the command of that imperious body. If such a state of things is suffered to exist, there can be but one result, a contest between the two parties; and, unless the government is supported by parliament, to extinguish the Association, the Association, with the priesthood, will soon extinguish the government [hear, hear!].