The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1805-05-14 00:00:00

that restriftions ought to have any prescriptive r right. Having, however, taken place, it may be necessary to consider how far it may be true, that the causes which' gave rise to them have ceased. The very continuance of long restriCtions may have stsch an of eft on those who have been used to them, as to render it difficult to restore them to that healthail state in which they were before such hardships took place. All these restrietions were originally laid on from political principles, and this must he apparent to every rational man, to have been the only cause. I won't go, Sir, to earlier times for a proof of this, than to the reigns of (queen Elizabeth, and James I. 'flat gnat and good Princess, who was one of the most celebrated Sovereigns that ever filled the Throne of these realms ; whose reign was one continued scene of glory to this country ; who was, from the vigour of her mind, and the attivi:y of her measures, at once the terror and envy of her enemies, and the pride and 'admiration of her own subjefts, was engaged in almost a continual war with great Catholic pow ers; and, above all. with the King of Spain : and, Rom the intimate conneftion he had with the Ca tholics and with -France, at that period, it was no wonder that the Catholics in Ireland should he look ed upon as enemies to Government. These, Sir, were, however, old times, and very few restric tions of a harsh and cruel nature took place till a much Liter period.—These happened afterwards in the times of the Stuarts. With regard to Charles I. bow far he might be in clined towards the Roman Catholic: religion I don't know; that may be a subjed for future historians; certain it is, however, that Charles D. and his bro ther, gave itilinite cause of suspicrun to the potpie that were friendly to it. At the time ,if sh e :ere lutiorr, all the restraints that were la'd were not against the Cerholiss but against tire Jacobites. In James 11. they were so mixed, that few persons cal say _which bigotry was the greatest. In Ireland things were much worse than they were here, and the war was settled by the conquest of that country ; the restraillts were not laid against transubstanti aticn, or other religious tenets, but against the pa in civics of the jacobites, who wished to overturn the Government and restore the banished family. King William, Sir, was a great man, and those who woeli represent him as a religious bigot do great injustice to his el-wafter. He consented with con siderablt reluctance to these restraints, hut they were Jacobites he had conquered there, and he was under the necessity of acceding tb the opinion of those who formed his council, and who thought it proper and requisite to impose restrtetions arid re straints, not on the ground of religion, but from pc+. litieal motives and reasons entirely. Thine years which immediately followed the Revolution were most of them years of war, and it is well known that one of the grand points on which France prin cipally relied was the hopes of being able to promote and bring about a civil war in Ireland, and by that means to accomplish their desire and aim to change the Government in favour of the deposed and banished family. It •becam-, therefore, a question of safety to the State, and the Catholics were accordingly disarmed. That there were bigotted ms e ons at that period there can b.! no doubt, but were those at the same time who thought, ▪ tberc are many now who continue to think, that more lenient measures would have been still more successful. Now, Sir, what was the nature of those laws ? They were nominally against the Catholics, but, in fag and reality, against the Jacobites; but, being afterwards followed by two reLellions in Ireland, considering all the circum stances attending those, it is impossible to deny that it was, at that time, difficult to trust the safety of the seat: without resorting to those restriftions which Bari. been laid on for its pmteftion and security. We C,71, • ow, Sir, to his present Majesty's succession to r` ..n; and at that period, 1 think, I may trea t •to without fear of contradiCtion, that all da err ores the ciaims of the Pretender, or any pa I . the banished family, had ceased, and was entirely it en '•.l I. In fan, 1 may say, that thus they had hecome weak and contemptible towards the latter end of the reign of George 11. From as ti.r. ; J esty's succession, therefore, we may date the period, and, if I am not mistaken, it was in the Lord Lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, that reline lions first took place with respeft to these restraints and disqualifications; because the reasons which gave rise to the terrors that occasioned the restric tions had ceased. nett+ re, Sir, in the American war, and in the subsequent one with France, arms • er yr-re:Waif° *. i, put into the hands of the Ca tholics. Tlicugla there was not at the time much deba.e on the subjed, yet there was a considerable difference of opinion; and I remember well the con e, rsations of those days, about the year 1776 or 1777, pasticularly a conversation tkat took place in the House, and afterwards became a topic among some of the wisest and most enlightened men in the kingdom. And though it was in the middle of the American war, the opinion then was, that it was a most desireable thing to relieve the Roman Ca tholics from the restriftions under which they laboured, and the disqualifications to which they were liable. AMong . those who held this opi nion, Sir, I can mention two names which then did and ever will continue to reflex the highest honour OTT this country, from the arnltisie virtues, superior talents, and sincere patriotism, with which they were so eminedtly endriwed. I mean, Sir George Saville and Mr. Duttning, and many others of the first respeetability for political and caestitn tional knowledge, were of the same opinion. As to myself, Sir, I always thought, that, putting a man into a state of restiklion, and rendering him liable to disabilities from religious motives, if not conneeted with political ones, sees a tyranny of the worst and most hateful kind. I remember at that t re most men were staggered on this subjeti ; there were no objeitions that could be made on ac count of the Pope or the Pretender. There might, perhaps, be those who wished to indulge themselves en minting or insulting their names or their memo ries ; but there was not a single bosom in the coun ts, ia which was to be falba a tittle or a particle of terror or dread of either of them. There was, indeed, a reason assigned which was of some weight, and which, I am sorry to say, had, I fear, too much truth in it. This originated from the then state of - lower orders of the Catholics, to the ferocious cantina and ‘ ls them by the laif and Protestants. The Gentlemen the great MATS of the lc seseiag, as it WAS stated, I treatment used towardi ►acs orders of the Pi of Ireland will exense me ; T must speak what his been advanced on this subjeft, without having ever been refuted, that this minks% and treatment had so far debased and degraded the great mass of the Catholic people, that Mr. Burke himself admits, in his letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, "that the system of slavery, persecution, and degradation of the Irish Catholics was carried so far, and continued so long, as to make it doubtful whether they could be restored to that state which would make them capable of enjoying of benefits of the British Con stitution."—bit, the change which took place in he land in the reign of King William produced the effeft of throwing almost the whole property of the country into the hands of the Protestants; whilst the population was in the Catholics ; a clear and evident proof that property and power go hand in hand. This state of things was deemed to be anomalous in our Constitution ; and therefore it was that the Govern ment began to give the Roman Catholics the power of acquiring property. The consequence of this had been most conspicuous, for they had not only acquired a very great share of mercantile riches, but had also possessed themselves of a very considerable portion of the landed property in the country. This had been the ground work of one very great im provement and advantage to the Catholics, for it had very much softened their minds and inspired them with habits of i dustry and useful speculation, which had been attended with the best consequences to the general inferests of the whole country of Ire land. There is one argument, Sir, which I have heard used against the Catholics, which I think is fraught with the grossest absurdity, which is, that they have kept in their memories the landed estates which had belonged to their ancestors, before the rime of Cromwell, and that if they even were allowed to possess political power, the first use they would make of it v. (mid be to claim these estates from those who at present possess them. Nothing can more clearly, prove the folly and falsity of this mode of rea sneing than this plain and simple feel, that if they were to make this attempt, many of the Catho lics themselves would be as great or greater suffer ers than the Protestants — and what Catholics are those ? Why, Sir, the Catholics who petition this [louse, and it is therefore clear you can't do any harm by allowing them a participation and share of political power. I never cot.' i conceive, sir, any reason why these restriftioos should continue after what has been already done in fawn.. of the Catholics. The general restriftions now rein:tilling may be brought under two heads, viz. incapacity from enjoying certain offices Civil and Military ; die other, that of sitting in either Houses of Parliament. These restriaions are useless and odious. In the his tory of incapacitation, the first points which peseta themselves are the two following one to restrain the prerogative of the Crown ; the other the privileges of the people. We are said to have rear hit J the prerogative of the Crown by restraining the. Catho lics. Let us see, Sir, how that point nearly stands. The Test Atll was originally fr anted and passed for the express purpose of excluding the Catholics from the service of Charles 11. and - here is a very whim sical, though a very strong observation, that it was done in order to make the Constitution age t able to analogy, that it should be all of a piece; and when you insist on making your King a Protestant, all his Council and advisers must be so likewise; but, Sir, this beautiful and harmonious theory is quite modern. Our ancestors argued directly the con trary; they did not restrain Charles the Second from employing Catholics because he was a Protestant, but because they doubted whether he was one or not. It might, therefore, be proper and rational to restrain him of whom they entertained doubts; but to say you will do so, because the King is a:Juan)! a Pro testant, and there can be no doubt about it, is the dr red reverse of our ancestors' arguments, and I think their's is infinitely the best. This Aft, Sir, was therefore passed in the reign of Charles 2d, and even Mr. Locke, in a pamphlet which he published some' little time afte:, acknowledged " that the 'rest Aft might be necessary." Well. Sir, we then come to the reign of James ed, who was an open and profes sed Catholic, and to have allowed him to employ Catholics in his service, would have been absurd and idle in the extreme. Since that period, however, cir cumstances are almost entirely changed,and theques lion very naturally and appositely occurs, How came these laws to be continued now ? Why we are told forsooth because the Dissenters are included in the Test Aft; that the greater objeft was, to continue to hold the Dissenters under the authority and do- minion of the High Church Party—conceiving it a point they had not conceded to that party which had been most instrumental in effelling and bring ing about the revolution. This Aft does not, how ever, absolutely preclude the Dissenters of any per suasion from offices, but only provides, that after a stated time, they must take certain oaths in order to qualify them for holding an office. In Ireland these restrietions have been us many instances given up, such as in all subordinate offices of the Navy, the Army, and the Law; yet you refuse them ad mission to the highest offices, and then, in an insult. ing way, you say to them, " Why, you can't ell ex peft to be Admirals, Generals, and Chancellors, and therefore there can be no harm in refusing to let sty of you have a chance of being se." You say to the Roman Catholics —" Yon may have talents, you may have industry. You may remise fortunes, but you shall never arrive at any of the honours of the liberal and superior professions. Thus far shall you go, and no farther." Let us look at trade for instance. Supposing you take a personage in the lowest trade, one who makes, perhaps, his 201. a-year only, with which he contents himself, after gaining a support for his fsmily—say to him," You may go on. make money as rapidly as you please; but you shall not, on any account whatever, gain a sixpence more than one million." This is a scope so extensive, that in all likelihood he will be satisfied with it. But the human mind is so framed, that the very idea of limit destroys its best propensities, and puts an end to that useful arid laudable spirit, energy, specula tion and industry, which have been so conspicuous, and which have added so much to the wealth, ho nour, greatness, and splendour of this country. Do we not proudly and exultingly hear them boast and say, " Thank God, 1 live in a country where, bs in duvry and perseverance, I may make a fortune equal to that of the first Duke of the land."? What should we, on the contrary, say if this %%ere only par. Bally so Why men in such a situation would' stand marked by their fellow-subjects, as being in a most unfortunate and melancholy predicament. Apply the eigament, Sir, to the profession of the law : would ask any one conversant with that profession, if they were to say to a young man who was about to embrace and enter into it, or to his parents who generally form the pleasing hope that their son will be a great man, and rise to the top of his profes sion—if they were to say to him or them," You are going into a profession by which you may gain a great deal of money ; but you cannot possibly rise to the highest and most honourable offices in it," would not this, I ask, be a very bar to those incen tives which aspiring ambition breathes into the minds of men in general? would not the parents feel mortified and dejected at the idea that their son could never arrive at the high honour of being Chancellor? Does any one go into the army without feeling an ambition to rise to the highest honours and most splendid rank which that gallant profession holds out to them? What must be the situation of the Lieutenant or Captain, who, after paying every attention to the duties of his profession, after mak ing himself master of those ditties, and after bravely fighting the battles of his country, he comes and says, at the end of a well fought day, after seeing what has been done, " Alas! I can ne ver command an army; I may, perhaps, be a Colonel or a General on the Staff, I may expose my life in the service of my country, but the vast and brightest reward is, and ever must remain out of my reach." Does not such a melancholy and degrading refec tion lay an extinguisher on military ardour ? an ex tinguisher, which, I will be bold to say. dors not exist to deaden and defeat the hopes of the sub jeds of any other government in the world. I will put it, Sir, in another, and a lower way of' stating the case: to gain a charades, is, in many instances, with certain descriptions of men, one of the strongest incentives to ad with moral tectitude and propriety. If you tell such a man he cannot rise to office, he nal be led to say, " If I cannot, why should I endeavour to obtain a cha racter ; where will be its use, if I am to be treated in a more degrading way than others of my fellow-subjects, who, without my pur:ion of me rit, may enjoy the benefit of every office to which ambition, interest, ar connedion may lead him." What is then the situation of the general mass of the Catholic people in Leland, who are dis abled by these laws? Sir, they are marked as objects of restrictions and disqualifications, not for religious motives, but those which are mixed with political motives; and who is it that is thus marked ? Strange to tell, it is above 3-fourths of the people of Ireland, and inure than one-fourth of His Majesty's ELM •pean subjects. The exclusion from being sheriffs is perhaps one of the greatest hardships of which the Cathol.cs have reason to complain, and it is an exclu sion for which these is less cause than any other. Can any one suppose, even for a moment, that the Go s+rnment of Great Britain can ever appoint sheriffs for bad purposes ? That they would appoint men to that office who would raise disturbances, or promote insurrections ? In ?ham - Sir, this is one of the cases in which there is the least. chance of injuring the King's pretogative, for Sheriffs are appointed by the Government itself. I now come. Sir, to the right of Catholic Peers to vote in Parliament, which was continued till 16;t3, and I appeal to the whole history of the country, whether there ever was a single instance of harm accruing from such allowance ? Mr. Locke, in the sense pamphlet to which I before alluded as to the Test Ad, ap proves of this as a good regulation. When did it cease? In 1678, at the time of the Popish plot, when the whole country was thrown into a paroxysm of terror and dismay; when it was thought that the handful of Catholics in England were going to massacre and destroy the whole Govetnmeet and people. In that period of terror, rage, and fury, this Bill was passed; and why ? because there was nothing else to be done; every thing besides was already done to their hands. Now ' Sir, as to their having votes in the House of Commons : if the Roman Catholics have really any bad designs against the Government, you do not prevent them by not letting them sit in Parlia ment. What is your objedion ? Because they are the same as Dissenters, and those do not aparove the church establishment of the country. Does any rational man believe that if these laws were re pealed, there would be twenty Catholic, returned to the House of Commons—suppose fortp—or ever: four•fifths, if you please. If you will take the cri terion of population, they would be nearly eighty. Does any man in his senses imagine, that if eighty Ca tholics sat in this Hous there would be any danger to this Government ? The idea is preposterous. If the dudrine of virtual representation be true, and it is unquestionably to a certain extent, would it not add to its strength, to have the Catholics sit in this House ? Youlleve trade, land, soldiers, sailors, merchants, represented; but there is no represen tation for the interests or property of the Rumen Catholics; therefore, according to the argument of virtual administration, you must assuredly want a very material branch of it. You say to the people of Manchester, Sheffield, &c. "You return no Mem bers to Parliament ; but it is the same thing to you : you can do as well without them, because you are virtually represented by the votes which many of you have for counties, or other places, than whose in which you severally reside." You cannot say so to the. Catholics; they are defi cient in, and want, that sympathy of interest that every one else has. You have also deprived the Catholics of Ireland of all corporate rights. If they serve the King In the army, why debar them of cor porate rights. Though these rights in that country are but few, and, therefore, of no great consequence to the Catholics, you still, by depriving them of their enjoyment, keep up an unnecessary stigma, which, of all modes of punishment is the moat 'grating to a people, and destrudive of that unanimity of ac tion which is so necessary to the welfare of a coun try. Now, Sir, a very few words on the subject of the advisers of' the King. being at all events to be Protestants, becauie the King himself is so : I can scarcely conceive that if two men were sitting in council, the one a Protestant, and the other a Catholic, would quit the subject of directing the force and operation of a fleet or army, and one should say to the other, " You believe io the Virgin, or believe in Saints, but I don't," or that the ether should, begin a speiCh in praise of trassubstasqiation. It is really ridiculous to mention such a thing. I want to know why two persons of different tenets may not agree en political measures, though they der in a religious creed ? . is there a country in Europe, except this, ohm this is not done? In tlie reign of Henry IV. O f F romm. did it enter into the head of any man that the Duke de Sully was not a good Minister, and did every thing within the scope of his splendid tale n t s y„,, the real interests and welfare of France, beca use h; was a Protestant ? Did arty ma*io,Fr Anee " et , oh. jed to the administration of M.Weeker on that ac count? Does not the Emperor of Austria, wh o i„ rigid Catholic, trust to Protestants who are high his councils and confidence ? If I am not misin formed, Sir, the Government pmr o l f 7l V ote ien rci ;;: cri : skitti : ry i as very time entrusts el to Priiice Frederick of ;Nur. temberg, who is a Protestant. In Prussia, at pre. sent, there is no Protestant employed under the Go. v lt er o n m m an e n e t a; but t c, in i s P a ru P ‘ r s it where the Greek is the established religion of the country. In Venice there are a Grecian Patriarch and a Romidi Patriarch. In the Swiss Cantons they were pretty nearly divided, about half and hall'* and those which were called the Democratic:ll Go vernment of Switzerland, vii. Zurich, u n a erw ,d j _ &c. were the most bigotted Rom an c a .:„, iic : A singular argument, I understand, h as vanced, in some quarters, respeeing the. 'nil which the Pope might. by the admission of those:.:. be entitled to exercise in Ireland, or, in ether woLl., that the Pope, who, du:i:tg the Rebellions of t7t and 1745, for the Restoration of a Romish Pretender, was not able to raise or excite the cc-operation of a single Roman Catholic in his favour, is to be in lull and dangerous- power, when he has no Pretender to offer to them. At the time of th e Rebellion breaking rut in 1793, to far was the t ei . fortunate Pope from having any share in it. that he was himself in a state of the most wretched sets:- rude, and look-A to this Protestant conntri, as I best and surest friend—neither was helbpro, nor ever accused, of having taken any part is •: projects aad intrigues of Mr. O'Connor an : associates. Such apprehensions as these or , indeed, have had some foundation in former ; , when tae Popes were accustomed to send to ith extraordinary powers, into this country—b ~.; present. nothing cettainly can he mote-inapplicaiee. Some others there Ire, pet hips who display -. greater share of iagenuity in devising objedions.— f hey will tell you, Sir, that Bonaparte, whose great (shied is said to be an attack upon Ireland, ha; tamed a great ascendancy over the Pope--that the Pope can exercise sepreme authority over the Priests —and that the iuflitence of those last is uncontrculed over the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I admit, indeed, the probability that Bona; ante would not fail to make all the use in hi: power of such an engine, and would represent to toe Roman Catholics ot that country, that the French come for the per pose of restoring them to those esturs that had been liken from their ancestors, to restore their religion, and give them, in future, the same civil and religious ascendancy which their Protest ant masters have so long exercised over them. By rejeding this Petition, you would certainly open a fair ground for such representations ; but, by libe rally-granting all that the Roman Catholics desired. the door would be closed against the enemy ; the most that, in all human possibility, the 1 oait seoulei ever gain by ir, would he, perhaps, an un certain or pi ecarious influeni•e over one or two mem. bers of his religion. in this /louse. The Roma* Catholics, at this time, form an anomaly in the British Constitution. If it bi conteneted, that the country will not he safe, unless all the Ambit% of the Legislaoure be rf the Church of Englaed, why do we retain die [Trion with Scotland? Stota land possesses an erclesiastical system. independent of the hierarchy of Englaest ; and act the Scotch arc known to he as g..1(1. And faid,tul sithkest es art' of our Protestant Brethren When Gentlemen talk of the power of the Pape, let them heir, ' with temper, whatever the Roman Catholic; themselves . say upon the subjeft. They tell you, on their oaths, that they da not allow the Pope to have any temporal power whatever within these realets. They tell this solemnly; and then comes that strange, unaccountable, and iecomprelvensible argu ment of some gentlemen, s' Why, it is true, they say so ; but we do not believe them." I have esti been of opinion, that SO foal an argument as that, :f it was worthy 'of the name of argument, must al ways betray the greatest malignity of heart, o: the greatest weak. t.-s and pet versity of understanshag. Let me ask, Sir, why did the Ad of Parliament pie scribe the oath to them, if it was determined, after wards, not to believe them ? After a man gives all the proof you require of hie allegiance and loyalty, is he then to be cowitiered as aaworthy of trust, if at any time he should be f iund going to say his prayers at mass ? Good God 5i r, ran there be any thing so preposteroas, aa,first to give them an oath, and , when they take it, to add the .seeurity of prescribing another oath; after taking which, if they shottl.i br desired to do so, they were at liberty to do us all the mischief they ever could have meditated ? I have no disposition whatever to enter into this religions controversy. I have neither the talents nor learning necessary for such an undertaking s but had las ma ny qualifications for it as could be possessed, even by the present laird Chancellor of Ireland, I think I can see reasons which would deter me from doing so. When I refled that not only four-fifths of the people of behind, and one-fourth oiNieMejserel proper subjeas,but also that three-fourths of civilised Europe are at this moment Roman Catholics, I should hold it monstrous, barbarous, ignorr-', and bigotted, to try that all this mass of peop e is ir,7l - of the relations of amity, and of keepil,t with heretics. Such an assertion appears to be the legitimate offspring of abominable bigots, determined wickedness. If I were asked whether I thought it right that these oaths should have been proposed and prescribed by Aft of Parliament lobe not tak on taken by thsealiWoe grou lics ndh t !ear I originallyainly ppo should n answ i e ed ri them, not that I deem them sufficient, but because I thought them degrading and unnecessary. To say the truth, I looked upon them as insincere pro' posals. and thought that, in the spirit in which they were drawn up. the fairest way would have been to say to the Catholics, s. You maytake them oaths if you think proper, but even after you have done so we are determined not to believe you." I could sot help remarking, Sir. that when first this Petition was read at your table, it evidently made a great. impression on the {louse, many of tbe Mauled or which might perhaps, from the ,Mete or made to them, have scarcely espeted that all Ca- r--=--