Star. — London, England, 1828-05-09 00:00:00

• ..•••••!•••••,.4.1 0 1. ‘ . • • passages from Sir Toby Butler relative Treaty al, Limerick, and then protteedetiMe and hope d after theikV' facterlAtletted with thegreaty o Limerick,' - :V that•Shesl4 l t Hon. Gentleman opposite would not say that the articles of that Treaty had rot been violated, or that it did not positively. and pointedly stipulate for civil liberty. Could there be a question but that the English °Devilment was guilty of a shameful compro mise salgood faith, in extending to Ireland penal laws which were not in existence in that country in the time of Charles the Second? He had, however, on this point the authority of a` highly respectable writer. Bishop Burnet says that the Irish, who were parties to the Treaty of Limerick, ireated not only for themselves, but for the It ish Catholics generally, that it was guaranteed to them by the Treaty that they should be restored to all the civil privileges which they enjoyed in the time of Charles the Second. Now the Act ex cluding Catholics from Parliament in England had not then extended to Ireland, and it was a most monstrous violation of the third of King William, to extend an Act not previously known in Ireland before the Treaty of Limerick; the faith of King William was pledged, and as he hoped to prove, not unwisely pledged, for he not only secured advantages, but he gained for this country benefits which she is enjoying at this mo ment. He promised that they should be admitted to all the privileges of subjects, upon taking the Oath of Allegiance,. without taking the Oath of Supremacy. — If then a case was not made out for the Irish Catholics upon this Treaty, he knew not how we could place reliance on the most solemn engagements. If there be meaning in words—if there be honour in the humas . breast—if there be.good faith in language, the Irk* people were entitled to all the rights and privileges which have been so long and so unjustly withheld ft Irl them.—(Cheers). Every one who looks at the hist or y the time must see, that the Treaty has been violet , The Honourable Baronet, after some further r emarks upon this subject, said, that the people of Leland had been guilty of no delinquency—had committed no crime. The Government of England, therefore, had no right to visit them with pains and penalties—they were true to the allegiance of the King as they were true to what we also were true, but in a different way —they were true to the liberties of their country—they were true to themselves.—(Cheers). They were not slaves kissing the rod of slavery—they were standing up for the Stuarts, who were the first who gave them a constitution, who were the first to extend to them the protection of the English Law. They fought in defence of their benefactors, to whom they were tied by grati tude more than by any oath of allegiance—they fought for them, not when they were in power and could dis pense favours, as they were discharging a debt of grati tude, they were honous ably paying a debt which they owed to the generosity of their benefactors—(Hear, hear !) When the King ran away, and abandoned his rights, the people of Ireland, like brave men, stipulated for what was as good for England to give as for Ireland to receive. When the Scotch rebelled in 1715 aid 1745,1 the lash did not join them, but stood firm to England. They were treated as delinquents for that attachment to the House of Stuart which was admired in the Scotch. When the Treaty of Limerick was signed, King William was so bard pressed, that he actually commanded his Generals to make peace with Ire. land on any terms. The city of Limerick was not so bard pressed, and none could say but that if the Treaty had not been - made, the English army in Ireland i would then have been destroyed, and the whole face of affairs changed. Ireland gave by that Treaty as much or more than she received. No one could then say whether it was not to the Treaty of Umetick that we owed the establishment and the success of the Revolutiou in England. The garrison of LimeriCk had more to give us than we had to give them ; they had the power of protecting us in our new establishment, while we bad to give them nothing. They asked nothing—but to be re cognised as a part of the country, and to be admitted to equal rights with the people of any other part. — Such then was the history of the Treaty of Limerick-1 such were the effects of that Treaty, and such were the claims which he contended the people of Ireland were entitled to put forth, grounded upon the faith upon , . which that Treaty was made and ratified. After this followed a dreary. and a doleful, and a disgraceful page in the history of lrelan.i—a pagiover which he would willingly pass, but' upon which he felt it his duty shortly to comment. Under a system of tyranny which followed the violation of that Treaty, the people of lseland seemed depressed in spirit and broken hearted—became so to such an extent that we ourselves began tosrecoil frOm the scene to w hich we had given existence. Then men of enlightened minds, of expe rience, and of information, spoke boldly out of the oppression under which they laboured, and began to reflect on the means of, lightening the heavy burdens which a severe and long, continued course of injustice had heaped upon them. Then the . Protestants of the sou . airy, too, manifested a spirit similar in view and with similar objects—till the people of that country, having arms its their hands, thought to raise themselves into that importance to which they conceived themselves entitled—and the Irish volunteers • demanded a constitution for their country. The Cabo -lics'had by this tittle grown into prosperity, had ac cumulated stoic'', and bad consequently become powerful; and in 1793, when Lord Westmorland was Viceroy, and Mr. Cooke under Secretary of State, they gained from this country a right of the highest character and consequence. When England gave to Ireland tl e elective Iritochise, sle gave her that with which, if she meant to withhold any other right, it was most absurd 'to entrust her—a more short-sighted course than such a course, was never adopted by any Ministry entrusted with a country's affairs. In giving her such a power she gave her that which Archimedes required, a point on which she might have moved the whole of this country ; and have moved it in a manner, which, it she bad not been speedily satisfied, might have led to the destruction of both. The Catholics had grown up to be men—a dreadful struggle ensued—a scene of horror, et desolation, and of blood, which be earnestly wilted. coold be for ever obliterated from the hitory of that counity—the land so gifted by nature, arid so calcu lated to bless as well as to nourish all to whom it bad given hint), was convened iams a land of suffering, and of misery, sdaretals o ., Weyer, (vaned. and not to be thought elPell.4lll l lWat a shudden In whatever way it should be lo ked' at,whither with the mi• croscopic eye, or with the extended view which takes in the whole political world, there was no greater interest than would be affected by the decision. to which they would come on that night. At dais par ticular period, the advocate of such a case as thatplaced • in his hinds could not refrain from reminding them that there was nothing so cheap as justice—nothing so costly as oppression. Let them, therefore, even with a mere economical view of the question, render justice. 6 -!. ' even tardy and reluctant justice, unto their kilow sub jects. who are as well entitled to their rights under the 4nglish t r iiiiitination as they vete themselves; and in' d o i ng nee, they wcstld achieve more in the way of eta .7- , agfw.7Y7 ' illybur Exchequer, would effect amore impenant saving. pre serve more the funds i n than eon fd be done by any a a sy s te l : of Financeeconomy, Committee. however rigid. than by the 'labours ..ohczemvenerdabtole.thOe n Ho th u is se tp c o o r n ta si n d t q er :t a e n sion d i tlait he i sso iild advantageer of the examples afforded by other countrie-. Let them fool' over those poftions of the Continent of Europe, which have been in former times the strong holds of religious persecution. Let them look to Germany ; let them look to France, both of which have been the seats of religious warfare; and let them look to the King's dominions in Hanover, to the kingdom of the Nether lands, to Holland, to Prussia, and having looked over the whole of Europe, let us look to the otl er hemi sphere, and so take in both the old and the new worlds ; what shall we find? That wherever that principle of peace, that great principle of Christianity, religions freedom, is established, uniform peace and tranquillity have followed in their steps. An expedient of such •3 nature is wor th our while to try, and above all, it is worth while trying it in Ireland. It would produce a great change there, unquestionably ; but any change in that unhappy country must be for the better. Having, how ever, the experience of other countries under their eyes, whether Republics, Aristocracies, Absolute Despotisms, or pure or mixed Monarchies—wherever a great con• gregation of mankind has existed—wherever difference formerly prevailed—die effect of such a change will be found invariably to be such as he ardently wished— such as he was perfectly corurinced would flow from the application of a similar principle, from a similar altera tion in Ireland. Mr. Pitt, at the very period when he proposed to carry the measure for a legislative union of England and Ireland, was an advocate for Catho lic Emancipation, and calculated upon it as a result of the Union ; nay, promised ' that it should flow ,frotii it. Now. if any danger could be apprehended ‘ froiß concessions, surely it was to be dreaded at that period, when Ireland possessed an independent Le gislature, and the large 'majority of the people being, as at present, Catholic, he must, if such a thing ought to be feared at any time, then have appre hended something, but he entertained no such dread ; And now that the measure of the Union has been ' carried—now that the Irish Legislature is no more —does not the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman, like the elephants of Pyrrhus, IA hich fell back upon and destroyed his own army, demolish his own case? and does he not admit that if danger ever existed (and the only ground and justification of ihis harsh and exclusive measure was the existence of danger) it must have then existed? yet even Ire must admit that since the Union that argument has been completely removed ; for all have since that period been of the National Chula). He hoped that the manly mind of the D .ke of Wellington would perceive the absurdity of continuing restrictions —all necessity for them. real or imaginary, having passed away. He did not wish to press that Noble Duke—he did not wish to press the King's Ministers without cause—thee; have already done much—tcheers) ihey have done that which, in the eyes of all those who' are usually neoominated bigotted Churchmen, was the worst that could base been done; and, therefore , for all that ie to follow they must have been prepared— (Loud cheers). He consequently trusted that the Duke et Wellington would take that enlarged view of the subject, of which his capacious mind was capable—that he who never sound any real danger in the pursuit of victory, would not suffer the phantoms of imaginary danger to deter him from this great and noble con summation of a nation's happiness. If the Duke of Wellington should add this glory to his already tran scendant renown, the glory of being the pacificator of Ireland, he would become the equally glorious consoli- , dator of England's power—a glory greater than any of those gained by him in the field of battle, and, he would at the same time be making some recom pense to the brave Catholics oho fell in their co operation with him in asserting the military prowess of England, and who, in so dying, bound round their own brows a portion of those laurels which they had so often wreathed around his sword. In doing this, he would have done more for himself, more for his Sovereign, and more for his country, than it ever before tell to the lot of man to achieve—even all his own great glories would be absorbed in the grateful recol teed. n of the benefits he would thus have conferred upon his Sovereign and on this country. The Catholics were ever friendly to conciliation ; and giving fu:l credit, as he did, to Mr. Pitt's sincerity, and believing he possessed the power to carry the measure, the Catholics supported She Legislative Union. The Honourable Baronet, here read documents, tending to show that Mr. Pitt resigned his office, because be could not obtain for the Catholics : the possession of their rights, as he had given them reason to expect. The Honottrable Baronet also read an extract from the King's speech to the first Imperial Parliament, in which he said he should ever con sider the Union the happiest event of his reign.— Something had been said about the Coronation Oath, but he believed no reliance . was now , placed on that point as an objection to Catholic freedom. He had an authority which the opponents of the measure would respect, who said Ire did not think the Coronation Oath could debar the King from consenting to the removal of ditabilities from any part of his subjects. He hoped he had made out that by the Treaty of Limerick the Ca tholics were entitled to the privileges they enjoyed in the reign of Charles the Second; and that at the time of the Union they had every reason given them to believe that their admission to those rights would be the consequence of that measure. He hoped the House would not now refuse what they had granted in 1813, and would not allow it to be said that nothing was to be expected but from their fears. The inconveniences apprehended (tom Catholic Eman cip'ation vanished before inquiry. The charge of divided allegiance was made, but they owed no di vided allegiance. Some years ago questions on that point were sent to many Catholic Universities for answers. They expressed their astonishment that such questions should be asked, and all declared that no ecclesiastical power could weaken the allegiance of sub jects to their Sovereign. The Catholic Bishops of Ire. liter' had made a similar declaration; and the Pope himself had confirmed it. But he would not proceed on this point ; it could out be necessary to prove that Ca tholics were as virtuous as other men. He could not give up the boast of those glorious achievements by which their Catholic ancestors won the liberties their descendants now enjoyed. It was a Protestant Question—whether Ireland should continue a fair por tion of the British Empire? ' Oppression might be a luxury, but. it was the most costly a nation could enits/ ; arid as justice was economy, by this one great ass of Vational justice, they might do more to relieve the liboatiag poverty of England than could ever be effected by an; Finance Committee. He would only ask them to look at those countries which used to be . the hot-bed of persecution—at Germany, at France, at ussia, at Hanover, ' at the Netherlands, and they would (list thereote'well as in. the States of America, ity of civil risks had produced concord and yen- . 1. they saw this gterk principle producing the if I t II I I I . 1 I , 'f, - same glorious effect under evet y foj.m of govaewasent in the civilizes world. He hoped he Might b sat'llacd that the Houselivould net tecedie bow * incised that had formerly passed. lOW not. it Might beobsetved, `aid lik t rota about securities. In his opinion, no securities , were rich the consideration of' a statesman or a mao of sent', but what were derived from a system of equal laws and their impartial aditinistratiOn. He hoped the people of Ireland might yet have reason to rejoice at, and not to lament the r union with this country ; and he called upon the House to pay the debt of justice so long due, confident that it would be received with g A r n a y t i t w o d c e u , r i a t n y d n a o ff t o r e r d p u t g h n e a b n e t st t security othe p r i t n o c ipl es both o f th e countr ies. re ligion they profess (the refusal to give which is the greatest of all the securities we can have) they are will in, to give. Be thought none necessary; but he did not, therefore, object to its being given, for those who fancy the danger may think it a security. Let then any security, with the limitation he had mentioned, be pro posed, and it will he given. Any Gentleman who thought . security necessary would agree to the motion he was about to make, as the only means of obtaining his object. Whets they were in Committee, should by possibility such a feeling of the necessity of a security arise in the breast of any man, then would be the time for him to propose it. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving— " That the House resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the State of the Laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland, with a view to such Conciliatory Amendments as may be to the general satisfaction of all patties." Mr. BROUGHAM seconded the motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose at nearly the same time with Mr. Perceval, for whom there were loud calls, but that Gentleman yielded to the Solicitor- General, who, after the noise of sheeting had subsided, said—There is one very important point in this question to which I expected the Honourable Baronet would hat e more applied himself than he has done. When we find, from the time of the Reformation downwards, it has been the anxious eesign of this nation, by laws passed. with the greatest consideration, to strengthen and confirm that Reformation, I did expect to hear some arguments offered in proof that some change had taken place in the opinions and reasonings of those who were tot rued) , removed by those laws from the rank which they held in the State. I expected some such arguments, in order to have induced the House to ac• cede to this motion. Thelionourable Baronets wish is to have no securities or pledge; and from all that we canittarn, the Catholics themselves are unwilling to give any; yet we are called upon to grant them privileges that will enable them to injure us. The Hon. Baronet's proposition is to remove the sestraints imposed by law for the protection of the Established Church, from 6 000,000 of people completely under the guidance of their Priests and Bishops—(Cheers) ; and not only that, but to allow them, if not to be through the Priest, under the government of a foreign Power, at any rate, much subject to its interposition and controul—(Hear). I do say that, from the earliest period at which Eng land was a nation, there never has been such a state of things as the measure the Hon. Baronet proposes would introduce. I will endeavour to follow him through the principal portions of his speech, and trust I shall be able to convince the House that the claim he has set up on the part of the Catholics has no ground on which to stand. With respect, in the first place, to the Treaty of Limerick, I think I shall show that both its words and spirit, are in direct opposi tion to the conclusion he has come to. The Hon. Baronet says that he should like it to be examined in a Court of Justice as the title to any other claim might be. I will deal with him more fairly and liberally than he wishes, for in Courts of Justice we construe all contracts to.the very letter, but in this I will put the most ample cos - lit/Action the spirit of it will allow. Even then I shall come to a very . different conclusion from the Hon. Baronet. Now it appears clear that throughout the Treatxtyro sets of persons are contemplated. In the first artiaeoll Catholics in ge-* neral seem to be included ; , but the second relates excln sively of those in the City of Limerick, or that were then under the Controul of different officers in King James's pay. lam sure, and I say it advisedly, that the Hon. Baronet will agree with me, that.this must be the right construction of the Treaty, if he will turn his attention to the provisions of an Act passed soon sifter. The Act to sshich I allude is the 7th King William, passed in 1695. It was an Act passed for the general disarming of the Ca tholics; but he will find that the 4411 .section ot it exempts from its operation all such persons as were included in the Treaty of Limerick. What, can. this mean but that no Catholics, except those actually in -Limerick, were affected by the Treaty? If all Catholics were included in it, the Act I have quoted would havebeen inopera tive. This, I think,' is a proposition which &isnot be controverted with any appearance of reason. The first article, as I have already stated, applies to all Catholici . ; but the question whether all Catholics are not merely to be entitled to the free elm cise of their religion, which , that article provides, but whether no laws were there. after to be passed to alter their condition in any man ner? Whether, for example, if circumstances were to arise to call for such a measure, they were not to be excluded from the two Houses of Parliament? It they meant to have bargained for any such thing, they used words as foreign to the purpose as it was possible for them to have found out:— (Hear. hear, hear). — Sir Toby Butler, whom the Hon. Baronet has justly mentioned with great praise, was himself en Limerick at tie time, and passed out with the test of the army with all the honours of war. It cannot.be supposed that a man of such ability, and so accomplished a scholar, could have been concerned in, or have even known ot, such an instrument, so worded to express a meaning so different. With respect to the ninth article, which pro vides that the oath of allegiance shall be the only oath the Catholics shall take ? —that cannot be meant to apply to all Catholics, but merely to those who were then about to submit themselves—(Hear, hear!) Indeed. it was impossible that it could apply to all Catholits,for already they were obliged to take other oaths. All who held public offices were obliged to take the Oath of Supremacy. The 2d of Elizabeth, and the 26th Charles 11. both imposed oaths. Now, the treaty could never have meant to re lieve Catholics generally from taking these oaths, since, even it any of the persons in Limerick had wanted to hold an - office of State afterwards, it would have been neces sary for them to take the oath I have mentioned. Mine, therefore, I contend, is the true construction of the Treaty. But, besides, the argument is bad, for it proves too much. If there is any thing in it at all, it implies that King William bound himself, whatever circumstances might arise hereafter, not to diminish the privileges the Catholics then enjoyed; so that, in point of tact, the Catholic would be better off than the Protestant, for the latter, it cannot be denied, might have his situa tion altered by the Legislature in any manner circum. stances might direct. If, for example, a Protestant was disabled from obtaining a seat in that House, unless he had an estate of SOU per annum in land, a Catholic Would be liable to no such disability. Is it a states men-like view of the subject to go back to art old Treaty made a hundred and thirty years ago, and to fOund att wigwam now on the alleged breach of that -.-- ; wry, which was never before declared to be broken? A rA `That too without taking into consideration the wh it ; compacts subsequently entered int the tcd•ion f the Union of England with Scotland 41. d l el.nd? it, I repeat, a qatesnian-like way of arguing to pin f O ,l ward such a Treaty? Suppose the Hous should, at legislating on a subject, rake up some old Treaty ni n4 in fhe time of the vows between the 110%1m:04 0 ,k 414 Lancaster, or in the reign of Hem y itp R bearing on the subject of their legsblation,.l ask, on t o tbe.House to place any reliance on arguments town on documents of such remote antiquity . ? Surely :44 but how did the Irish themselves act in relation this Treaty? They did not consider the Tre,ity`• the same view that the Hon. Baronet looks at it in the Parliament that sat in the October following, a doubt was expressed intimating a violation '4 d u Treaty. No, it was reserved for those days to assert thi t , I contend that all the lawyers from Lord Coke down, wards declared their opinion that England had a n to bind Ireland. In the Parliament That met in 14 . 2, —' the Catholics were asked to take that oath (of S om . macy). and they must have declined; for it appe k , there was but one Catholic Commoner in that ment, the Representative of the county bf the town ri f Tuam. In fact, a construction has been given to d i , Treaty of Limerick which was never dreamed of oct h t time. In giving to the Catholics the privileg e , th ei enjoyed in the reign of Charles H. it was never come. plated to admit them into the House of Comm ix ,. Sir, there is no stability at all in the argument. a c the Honourable Baronet complains that the Catholic, have been deprived of inalienable tights; now, thi,j, 4 the case. The Honourable Baronet confounds mitts rights with political privileges. I agree with him, ih, every subject of the state has a right to life, liberty,,,, property;. and that the Government that would in, a 4 those rights, would not only violate all law, but rea r be acting on a principle whose operation must destro. that Government itself ; but to deny public cffic e , l , persons holding opinions injurious to the t. te, is q another thing from the deprivation of natural tight, but never, since the memory of man, were persons bold ing opinions detrimental to the state allowed to tura office in that state. Sir, the idea of such a thing is 11x4; absurd. Who would make a Quaker, who holds at doctrine of non-resistance, the General of any arty ; or a German Anabaptist, who holds that all property should be in common, a Judge? or one of the Luat ic of the times of Cromwell, a dignitary of the Chunb? Sir, the violation of natural rights sounds well; but tilt abridgments of political privileges are not to be Cot founded with penal laws.—Penal laws are those enaa silents which inflict penishments on a man for worship ping the Divinity according to the dictates of ki ' conscience ; against such laws I shall ever mu . a: voice ; but to exclude from office persons holtliti: opinions detrimental to the state is not a punishaux It is absurd to suppose it. Com yentum ad verum est, sensus moresque repugnant, Atque ipso utilitas, Justi prope mater et aqui. • Sir, a review of our laws to the remotest period, a show the great care and caution with which our a tors provided for the safe and indissoluble union of Church with the State. Looking then at the grog on which they enacted those laws, and on the circell stances of the present time, is there, I ask, any suffi ie new reason that can warrant us in throwing open ti door to rash innovations ? I will not here detail e , feuds and animosities that gave rise to those laws, 1 is sufficient for me that I find them in existences I will not cast such a libel on the wisdom of•ourd cestors—(Cheeeing from the Opposition side) as tole pose they enacted them without adequate reason. Sir contend that these laws were enacted by some of wisest men that ever lived. At the period of the formation these laws were moulded by men who the ornaments of their times. In the reign of Qad Elizabeth an Act was passed, the preamble of off recited, that the Commons prayed her Majesty tonsil those Acts which had been repealed in the preceditr reign, condemning as illegal those claims usurped b Foreign POWers to exercise dominion within the reals and uniting all authorities and jurisdictions under ti dominion of the Crown; and it is worth remarking,tl/ the Commons in that were claiming no new power,tr the restoration of one that had been for a season e pended. Thus the. first and second of Philip and MA were repealed, and the old Acts against foreio pow tevived. - The next legislation on this subject was ii otediately after the Restoration, when Acts were pays ordering,the oaths against Popes y to be taken on eat' •ineoffices in the State and Corporations. The object these - lews'of the-reign of Charles was to strengtheilt 'anion . betvieen the State and the Reformed Chu" Then, coming down to the Revolution, no man ' *ay that - the enactments then on this subject were Tho than ivrestoring of the laws to that condition is who had been' before the reign of James the b cond. LOok at the care and caution with which dl' Coronation Oath was drawn up—that oath 11 1 taken by the King, by which be. promised "to d serve the laws of the land, to respect the laws Bed Qs` ' pet of GOD, and to maintain the Protestant RON" Religion." But, on the obligations of this oath, it been said by one side that they are so strict that cannot be relaxed, and by those on the other side they are not binding on the M-narch in his legawi capacity. My own opinion is that the Monarch ca by his Coronation Oath, give his consent to any la which he believes in his conscience to be detrimesuil the interests of the Established Church. Nor did Of gislative enactmetus on the subject stop here. In 1 when the Act of Unioh witli Scotland passed, the care was taken by the Legislature to exclude feseiga o premacy and to protect the Reformed Protestant agic *—for by that Act all persons taking office were bona ( take the oath to support the settlement of the LstAbliO.r Church. A century after that came the Irish Uric . . when the same caution was used for the potectio" i the Church ; in fine, there is not one national comp". entered into since the Reformation, in which il "; not been expressly provided, that the Esob li ' h , ; Church should be indissolubly unitei with th e 60 7. " merit. As to the laws declaring the abolition "i_ supremacy.of the Pope over the affairs of this kin g dw! I am aware that the Hon. Baronet holds they stentoo to the abolition of his spiritual and ecclesiastical sir macy—that the temporal supremacy of the Pope Is: a .bugbear, and that he claims over the Catholics these kingdoms only a spiritual dominatitm. Is : No; and any person who wilt look into t he laws . see that more than spiritual power was claimed b 1,.! foreign Potentate ; and that the objects et allot 1. .. was to exclude all domination claimed by the Cor, Rome. This appears even from a law ve t ting lir, land d st h re a l d uc b t e a e n n t K al i:g ay , a in su w b jlereicthtnitdwieasKriencsitsedol, si,liigF, and -that .the claims of the Court of Rom e to ew, 9 power in England were unlawful anti inadrels"'. s and ought not to be submitted to. Vs ooi j our _ cestors have enacted those laws if the pewero not been claimed by the Court of Rome, 0 1 '. 1 1 0 temporal supremacy was a mere bug bear ? the the act of premunire have been passed i n thoscuw I