The Sun. — London, England, 1812-02-01 00:00:00

Establisllttents in Churcl end Slate. Ravirtg stated thus much generally upon the importance of the question under consideration, and the claim it presents to our tnost serious and deliberate atten tion, I shall now proceed to make some obser- Vations upon the speech of the Noble Esti (Fitz- William), and the reasons urged by him in support 'of his mutton. In the first place, then, I must ob serve, that he has placed in the front of his argu-• 'lnent, a statement, taken from a newspaper report, of a transaction, said to have taken place in Dublin on a recent occasion. Wear foundation there in ry be fur that report, I cannot take upon me to decide" but this I will say, that as I never saw, nor read the newspaper statement to which the Noble Earl has alluded, I neither knew nor heard ahy thitig of The transaction to which it refers, ell I learned it frosts the speech of the Noble Earl. Tar use Shade of the report, by the Noble Earl, was ex actly what it was intended to give rise to; an insieti &llion against an Otlicer employed under the Irish Governtnert, of an intention, on his part, to procure an unfair return of the panel of a Jury. I am not nware how that fact stands, not having heard any thine of the cirsumstances till I heard it in this House ; but I must add, that I have also heaad that the objection upon weich the insinuation was founded has been subsequently over-ruled by the COUrt. I! the Noise Earl had been apprised of this eircumsrance, or of other circumstance s, which .1 unders'and also to have since taken place, he would have discarded the consideration trout relnd, and not thought it befiteng the dignity of Your Lordships' proceedings to make it the ground of any proposition to be submitted for you: consi deration. This, then, being the case, I will ask Noble Lord, whether he thinks a common newspaper report a sufficient reason to induce your Lordships to go into an iequrry into the stele of Ire land ? Does the Noble Earl really think so ? 'Or can any of your Lordships entertain the no tion 14 a single meinent when you consider titat the foundation of every cavil was removed by the decision of the Court, arid that this was followed up by other circumstances which, it known to the Noble Earl, would have prevented Lin from adverting to such an authority in the Manner he has done ? For my own part, I must say, that I do not consider this a sufficient ground for going into an inquiry into the state of Ireland.— ..then the Noble Earl has made this the subject of a - 'charge against the Governmeet of Ireland. U r on this point I -aye only to state, that it I had:iieard one word tending to convict that Government of any implopsr interference bst.veen the Subject and the Crown, or the People and the Parlia tuent—if th -r• was a tittle of evidence to that fgfect, Or that could shew, by any act, directly er i ndirectly, that Government had interposed its au thority for the purpose of preventing the exercise of the legitimate right of the subject to petition—or if in any of the measures w hi c h the Government aelt it necessary to take upon the ocsasion, any () Pinion whatever had b-eu given upon the subject 11)1 the Catholic claims, or the merits of their in !ended Petitions, I shoull conslctrr that Govern- Nent unworthy of the support of the Government of this country, and undeserving of the approbation , s 1 the public But Ito such step has been taken. No impediment has h-en throw n in the way of ri4ht of the Subject to petition the Clown cr the Legisla ore. When time q esiion arose re todeeting the construction and application of the C.:oneention A 61,, it has been at all times made a dis tind and separate c , nsideration from any thing cons► Netted with the right of petition. It has been so considered by the Uoverntrent , and so alegutd so lemnly and gravely, and repealdly, by all the Crow Lawyers in Ireland, in all the pleadings and forensic discussions which have taken place upon this fiubject. An all times—on all occasions, and under all , ircurnstances, the right of the subject to petition has been studiously and carefully excluded from all the adverse deliberations and discussions of the question P! issue. In the name of his Majesty's Servants therefore, and on behalf of the Irish Government, I wish to deny strenuously and positively that any charge, such as that bought forward, justly lies gaiesi its conduit generally, or its particular mea sures. I ant perhaps lite more anxious to give this bold and positive denial to the charge, because, as may well be supposed, I must feel parti , ularly in terested in any charge affecting that Governmeet. I am thoroughly persuaded, besides, that such a pro ceeding is not only contrary to the feelings, sen tiMents, and principles of the Noble Person ige at the head of the Irish Goiernment, but peculiarly re liugnant to the habits and principles of the person who was his chief ad. tser on the occasion adverted to. I sin persuaded that nothing could be more abhor rent from the nature or feelings or disposition of that Person, than to star d between his fellow-subjeas 411 L1 the Legislature, and if I had no other giound fur the couvittion I feel respecting the purity of ttme motives which aet ua t e the Noble Duke at the head of the Irish Government, thee his conducl re speeting the Catholic claims, I am satisfied that he Would be the last person to interfere between agree, le , speSitable, and respected class of his fellow `'eth.teets, and the Sovereign or the Legislature. But, 113 I have before stated, in point of fati nu such in ter ference took place. The construction and appli cation of the Convention Act, which the Irish Go verr men( felt itself called upon to adopt and en force, has been learne tit by the concurrent DIA . olfins of all the Law Officers of that country, and liattationed by the unanimous decision of the Judges of time Court of King's Bench. The impression of the Irish Government then was, that a Convention, such as that proposed to be assembled by the Ca tholics, was contrary to law. Measures were there fore Liken to prevent the eleelions which were on the eve of taking place. If the constitution awe!' an assembly was illegal, the at of procuring elec tions of Member! to compose ii must have been con trary to law, and the Government was fully justified in the measures which it resorted to with a view to Prevent their taking place. For my part, without feel tug it necessary to enter into that part of the subject at present, I am prepared to say, that, as well in the circumstances in which the Convention Act was passed, as those in which it has recently been Put in force, the measure was equally wise and ne cessary. 1 remember well the occasion, and all 'th e awful characteristics of the moment, when the Measure was first brought forward. I remember, too, `that at the time, it had time sanction of the appro- Asation of the late Mr. Fox. Su strong was my k ease of its pro?tiety and urgency at that time, that, fltraagh t was then in opposition to the rash Got erament of that day s I gave the measure my cordial support, , because I considered it indispens sahly necessary to the security and preservation of the touutry. The opinion of that great Statesman (Mr. Fox) to which I have belOre alluded, was, that if the people of Ireland were to be allowed to form a convention, such as that which was then in coreemplation, consisting , tan assembly so consti- Reed, arid grow , ng out of the concerted forms of election, that nothing conld be expelled to result from it but an immediate and dangerous interrup tion to the tranquility of the country, and a long train of all possible mischievous consequences. The Convention Act was consequently passed, and the effect was, that it immediately put down those dangerous assemblies which 'threat ened so much mischief to the interests of the nation. When similar assemblies were about to be formed in Ireland, in the recent instance, • the Government felt it necessary to put this Aet in force. It did so for the security of the cou n try, and if the Irish Government be to blame in any respect, it is that in sutiering some progress to be made in the eleciions,which it should have prevented; it was, so far from being severe, rather more lenient than it ought. Yet it way v< e ll be supposed prudent in that Government to have abeained trout any exercise of its power, till the evil bad increased to such magnitude as to call for its inierf:trence..,But when this was the case, did the Government resort to the execution of the law with • out notice or communication to the pirties ? No such thing. A private adramition was most pro perly and decotou-ly sent to the leaders of the Catholic party, apprising them of the illegality of the course they were inirsuing, and, at the same time, iutimating the determination of the Govern ment to enforce the law. This admonition prov ed ineffectual, c easequently a Proclamation was issued by the Government, declaring what the law was, and announcing the intention of Go vernment to put it in force. What was the con sequence? That the Catholics proceeded with their elections to the proposed assembly, that they deliberately continued their violations of law, and that the Government of Ireland had no alter native, but to suffer tie law of the land to be violat ed with, impunity, or to put down the Catholic elections to a convention, by emorcing the pro visions of the law. Do s any Noble Lord entertain a doubt upon the subject, let hen look to what has taken place to remove every d übt —let hint look to those legal proceedings which supply so many brilliant specimens of the oratory of the Irish Bar, and to the grave and learned opinions pro nOunced seriatim, but concurrently, by the dis tinguished personages we', till the bench in the Court in which the proceedings took place. It the taw then be as I have stated :t, if tile Catholics, bs persevering in their purpose of elecitog represen tatives to an illegal assembly violated that law— and if the coneerrent opinions of the Bar and the Bench, and the unani:noes decision of the Ject.es, be a satisfactory expos' ion of the sette of the ore", what eround is there, I N ill ask, upon this view of the case, for your Lordships to go into an inquiry into the State of Irelai d- ? \Vey ore we to be called upon to institute so solemn and important a Parlia mentary oroceediog, as it tee Geiernrnent of Ire land had been guilty of s The gross tiolation of the Law and the Constitution-a-as if the persons in power in that Cotautty, had abused the authori y of office to tbe oppression of the subjea, and to the eattinctyJn of his legit mate rights, and the seopres %ion of his 'Privilege of complaint by p oition—as if time Judges, instead of being the impartial admi• nistrators of the law, had put arbitrary construc tions upon its enactments, • with a view to harass individuals, and wrested their obvious weaning, for the purpose pandering tat she arbitrary passions of the Goverritneni—a; if the Irish Administration had really interfered 0 the great right of the subject to petition, or had made any iniquitous at tempt, by the weight of i s authority, t•• crush the Catholic claims? Unless these chat get can be made out against the Government of Ire4m.l, I can never bring myself to consent to the-inquiry now propos ed; and upon this impression 1 feel it wholly lin postebte to accede to the motion of the Noble Earl. But I cannot t unclode what 1 h ive io say upon this part of the case without adding, that I cannot . con ceive any injury that would be greater —any pro ceeding that would be more likely to produce the mischiefs which it was the object of the • Convention Act to prevent, than to suffer the Ca tholics to proceed , to assemble their Convention contrary to law. And I most al wat s cement!, that in the admonition given to them by the Go verurnent, a course had berm taken which was most salutary to their own cause. Could any tiiing, I will ask, be more likely to atfea the final success of their application to the Legislature than the perse verance in a cundua whice was in direct eppusition and resistance to the declared intentions of Govern ment, expressed in alormal Proclamation, annumic ing the state of the law, and nelifying the intention to enforce it ? The Convention ACa, I will adorn, was not passed against Catholics, or any other p irti cular class of .übjetts, but against the coininueity generally, or such portions of it as may be disposed to form such conventions as it was the purview of the law to put doWn and prevent. It applies equally to all classes, and was intended altogether for the purpose of preventing any step being taken fur the purp 'se of forming assemblies injutious to the pab lic Safety. Having taken this %tea/ of the principle. I come now to touch ~.pon the riled that might pussi- • bly be pror:uced by the adoption of the motion of the Noble Earl. If your Lordships were to cot.cur in this motion, who could say that your acquiescence in it woulu not be construad into an intention, do your part, that it seeuld be considered as admired by you, that the assembly to which I have been allud ing was and would be legal ? Will any one of your Lordships say that such an assembly would be an ex cellent institution ? Is that your opinion ? Do you teiok so? "Can you believe that such a convention, so eia-ted and ho constituted, would be legal, or could oe harmless ? Is there an iodividoal,whether friend or opponent of time Catholic claims, who can think that such a tneetin would not be dangerous Does any map believe in the harmlessness. of such an institution, whether he be a peson who feels that the Protestant Establishment should be main tained with all its ascendancy and pre-eminence, or that the Catholics should be admitted, without reserve, to a participation of all the rights, inmte.. nities, and privileges enjoyed by any other - class of his Rittiec •Subjetis ? r trust your tordships will adtitit, - that in what I hive said, I have fully disposed of that part 'of the ques ion which regards the construction and aeldication of the Convention Act, and the prudenae and pm priety of the Irish Government in the ski s taken to enforce it. Upon the next point, aesia al mg the claims 'Of the Catholics, though upon the present occasion I differ with the Noble Earl, s ill think, as I have always thought, that the situation of the Roman Catholics, is that the condition of that great body of the population of Ireland is deserving of every attention, and entitled to every alleviation, Deeply impressed, however, as I am with this opi nion, I (oust say, that I do not think the present period a favourable moment for conceding their claims, or the discussion or' the subjed. But it I had no other objeelion to the consideration of the question hut what I entertain to the grouads laid by • the Noble Earl, I should look upon this as a mo ment highly inconvenient for the agitation of the - question. With regard to the abstrael subjea of the precise limits of the distiociiiin bet seen toleta tion and the encouragement of the Catholic preien siona, it may, perhaps, be difficult to state any ac curate definition; and I shall not, therefore, trou ble your Lordships with any attempt to aseettain the exact boundary. It appears to me, that no pre cise line of 'distinction can at any time be drawn without a full arid comprehensive consideration of all the existing circumstances of the period. The case respecting the Catholics is not now, nor has it ever been, a question reseeding - merely the restraining of any particular religious principles or opinions. Every State is perfectly justified in re fosaining any principles, or any setts, which are likely to prove injurious to its interests, or danger ous to ire security. If the restraints be limited to the extent of the necessity that cads for them, they are completely justifiable and justified ; but no community can, with propriety, carry restraints be yond the limit which the expediency and necessity for their enactment require. The question, there fore, now, as it applies to the Catholics of Ire land, is, to what degree are we justified in continu ing restraints upon them, and what are the in stances of restriction which we may, without risky danger, relinquish. l'or my own part, I have no hesitation to declare to your Lordships that I hold all restraints to be in themselves positive evils; — whether I am right or in error in holding this opi nion, and' these principles, it is not for tne w de cide. This I know, that I hay been born with them, been educated with them, that they have grown up with my years, and will accompany me to my grave; that they are interwoven in my poli tical creed, and too firmly established to be ever era dicated. Upon . these principles it is that I hold any restraints upon any class of subjects, which preclude them from the possession and enjoyment of any rights or immunities accessible to any other class or subjects, are in themselves evils, and rind), tolerable when the amount of the danger from their removal exceeds the mischiefs of their coati- nuance. The danger, I will admit, may be greater, if so, I say hold to' your restraints ; but, if the contrary he the case, there is no principle of pru dent policy, or a sound discretion, that will justify the continuance of rest tints beyond the actual necessity. I have heard that an opinion has been u•ged• to otter ~laces, !bough I have never., heard it stated in this House, nor has it, that 1 kno.v of, been' stated in the other House of Parliament, that these restraints are in themselves a posi ive good—that they leave been represented as the means not of protecting the establishment or deleodin 4 the altar, but as the raligion and the a. tar fur which they were originally intended as guards—not as the defence of the sanetuary, but as the syntionry and the ark itself. Bu. no Mau can seriously, in toy opinion, defend these restrialons upon any so aemnds—no roan can reconcile to himself the absurdity of considering such measures of secs:- nty for the altar, as that altar which they \vete intended to secure. Well respect to the ques oaf, t a aught forward ay the Noule Earl this day, and that ultimate one to which it ,points, linos; say, that, in order to insure any agreement, much must be conceded on sit her side. It we Wish to insure concord we must take down much of the vehetneuce on both patties; we must take down the pomp and parade and os ciliation of the claim of right on one hand, and from the violence and fury of intemperate zeal on the other. Bot upon the general ground I will ask whether it is uot expe dient th it the restrictions should be taken off the Catholics ? my opinion, an opinion lormed up on the best and most deliberate consideration which I have been able to give the subj e ct, tire removal of those restrictions would be not only no: danger• ous, but would afford an additional security to the Protestant Establishments of the Empire, and more particularly in Ireland. lam not now disposed or ,prepared to state what may be the precise extent or measures of security which may be necessary in or der to provide for the future safety of these establish ments. It has always been my ouinion, that the best mode of providing for the real interesas of the Empire, wottid be to disarray the dist mcoons rit specting political rights of that rancour which eno bodies the discontents of the country—to remove that principle of sepiration of the people, which holds the d:ssatishad and disaffeeled connected against tire common interest, and preVrills that union of heart and sentiment which is the best fbuedation of a nation's welfare. Upon the closest and best consideration which I have given the (pies tion, therefore, I nun persuaded that every regric tion ought to be rernovedbut removed in such a manner, that the Legislature might have the oppor tunity of discussing the principle and grins of the removal in every stage of the business, and be there by enabled to comb ne, ss ith the release of the Ca= (holies from their disabilities, the enactmetit of ade quate securities for the proteaion of the Protestant Establishmeets. By such a measure, we should get rid of that principle that arrays and embodies a por ti n of the stiength of the country against the esta blishments. By removing the disqualifications, and giving to the 'individual, a personal interest in die support of the establishments, we shall embody that force, for their preservation, a hisr in the present state of things must be arrayed for their overthrow. I know it may be said, as it has - baen said, that if sae were to grant the present claim of the Catholics, they would not he satisfied, but would demand sometliieg more. Mica, it is urr , ed, has been granted to them, and it is asked whether they have rested satissed ? But This. I cOlitaud affords no lest ground of 04-talon against their claims. If we were now to open a new field of concession—it u I had re •t previoesly made any at rangenient tor tt eta telier—il we h eot admitted them upon aey terms to a p rticipation of pole ical power, we inigh•, will admit, very reasonably, exercise our judgment upon the subject. But what t will ask is the situa tion of the Catholics of Ireland ? What is the view that any Statesito would be bound to take of it ?--e Do the Catholics not possess political pee er ? Every man who knee's any thing of the situation of that country, must be sstisible that they do. It wt give them an. individeat interest in ti,d supprlrt ut the establiSinneotss by granting their claims, there will be no danger in the grant. skey thing that is to he apprehended, must arise from the prssent situa tion of thinga, which dicsociai es them Wee any interest in the permanent support of the establish ments. This is no principle n , vel to the Constitu tion of this country. The whole frame and existence of the Constitution itself depend upon this pi inciple of the individual interest that all the parts have in the general preservation of the whole. It is absurd to suppose that the balance of King, Lords, and Commons, is preserved by t: heir mutual checks and . , interference. This 1-Tnuse has many points of con nettion with the people, so alsd has the other House of Parliament in . a greater degree ; both Houses have also bonds of connection with the Crown, and it is by th e common sense of a common interest in. maintaining the Constitution, that that Constiroteed is preserved, rather than by any system of mutual restraint of interference. Let us then give tt Catholics the indisidual interest in the State—let us fill up those interstices occasioned by their excel sion from civil privileges in the Constitution, ,and we shall bind them to the support of our establish ments. But it is said, !het when they seslt the admission to the higher offices of the chtlefent ero fessions, trieir wishes are utireaconable. Is it then unreasonable, if a gallant officer distinguishes hen self, that lie should wish for the natural reward of, valour ? These wishes we have ourselves caused in them—they are founded upon the truest the soundest and the best principles. But it is said . now that th e Po p i s h S uccession is extineenow that the Catholics according to the decision of the six. principal of their U n i ver -i ties in Europe, abtere the dangerods doctrines which formerly formed a part of their tenets; that they hate a right to be ed. Mitred into the p osses Si on o f every privilege tee.: joyed by any .otheeesubjed.. They have retnoved„ rio doubt, many o bj e ati ons to the giant of their. claims,-- But ie - was .pot against the dangers of a Pop:sh Succession or the consequences of their ex ceptionable doEtrines so mach as against the possible danger of the intreduaion of atbitrary power into this Country that the resiii&ions svere imposed. Having said thus mach as to the claims, the Noble Earl will do the the justice to believe that I am substantially •with them, though Icannot coneeive , any time more unlatoureble -for pressing them then the present, when the objections entertained by a many very. well- mean i ng persons against them are increased by the Catholics theruselves in their de termined violation of the law. trust that the Catholics, andehose who are well d'sposed to their . claims, will employ themselves in devising proper means to provide securities for the Protestant Estee blishments whenever it may be the wili of the Le gislature to grant their claims—thee they cast off the intemperate spirit with which they are at present animated, and present themselves before Parliament in the modest guise of suitors and estittonerse-- that they vt ;II not think to make the Protestant sceptre of this empire bow to claims preferred from any quarter, however respe3able—' hat they shall not seek to attain their objets by means likely to overthrow the bulwarks of that Constitution which is to them, quells , with the Motes ants, the sues:-t pledges of their rights and liberties—end, thrt with a due submission to the outliority of Parlia ment, and a just veneration ear the principles .of the Censtitution, they will present their Claims to a participeion of all the rights enjoyed by any other class of his Majesty's subjeas. The Marquis of LAN'SDOWNE observed, that if the Noble Marquis had urged in the Cabinet the arguments which the House had jest heard, and with as. touch ability, the criminality of his colleague.; ins the cendua which they had pursued, was rendered doubly criminal. He most con!ially agreed with the Noble Marquis in the statement, that the rights of the Catholics depended only on the safety with which their claims could •be ceded, and that the moment the necessity of their exclusion from a participation in the privileges of their countrymen ceased, that moment their right to such a participation commenced. But still more cordially did he agree with the .Noble Marquis (Wellesley) in his argument, that it was tot only just and reasonable to admit the Catholics to an equal participation of rights the moment that they could be so admitted with safety; but that no. thing could be more fatal to the interests of the eine Aire at large than to abstain from doing so. He ens at a loss, however, to perceive the application of the Noble Lord's arguments on the necessity of any de lay on the - subjeCt. - What was there in the state of tile world ; in the relations of this country with other countries—with America for instance—with 'Spain— , and all the other relations, with the nature of which the Noble Marquis was so well acquainted, that cntiht induce him to believe the Legislature would do the's duty in forbearing to agree to the measure whit lt his Noble Friend wished them to adopt, in order to reconcile the hearts'and feelings of so large a portion of •t he population of the empire ? For his part, he could not coricaive any momenrso fit for such a put pose as the present. At the instant of commencing a new era of. government, .Parliament mein to tee tleEt on the pasts to see what had been the effete of repeated denials, and to consider the foal failure of that system. which had nn fortunately been so loft persevered in eowards Ireland. FrOm the past they enght•tceobtain a lesson how to amend the future, and leeee to acquire strength fteen the conseious e &less of the weakness -which the-measures of Uovern ment had hitherto occasiolied. It was with great satisfaciiotmoots mo►ions to Without nnalesyitrgt.hl.:iiiiil;it:::tp:s.e:ritelillis,:hriecln)elhal,tiaa,c;cstgelt:h:rtditeiroen:lth:p:eeltet:ati:inaitael.oetrttdatatdciloosltueatpa)gfe:teolsytooysuenfii;rdeott s h ifoo . h e stre:i : ten i d g iti! tiattio.,ratlreland t that the agitation. alleged to be,fell ar t here, existed only in the Honse, snd that theepoptslation of, Irelene quiet and satisfied. .4The absence Or . this argument, nn ehe.presete occasion, proved the growing dircynn. 'Ant 0f.2