[ocr errors]

ted Kingdom, is here distinctly stated, not by a bigoted champion of intolerance,' but by the great leader of the Roman Catholic advocates. The same admission has been repeatedly made by other eminent supporters of the Roman Catholic cause.

"There is another name, that has been frequently alluded to, an individual of unimpeached political integrity, of great enthusiasm, of distinguished eloquence; I mean the late Mr. Grattan. I have a paper lying before me, to which I would particularly refer, were it not that I do not wish to trespass upon the patience of the House, in which Mr. Grattan declares, that when the Roman Catholics ask for political power, the Protestants have a right to demand securities, and unless adequate security be given, the Roman Catholics can set up no just title to political immunities. So much for the opinion of Mr. Grattan.

"The authority of a noble lord, now no moreI mean the Marquess of Londonderry--has been frequently referred to as hostile to the views of those who have felt it their duty to make a stand against concession.

"But what was the language which he uniformly held? We must have security-not the security of oaths alone-we must have real power, real substantial security, against foreign influence, and the peculiar tenets of the Roman Ca


tholic faith. Mr. Canning, repeatedly, I may say over and over again, declared in this House, that he could never think of making such concessions to the Roman Catholics as would invest them with political power and authority, unless he felt fortified the security against foreign influence was most ample and satisfactory.

"From this great authority, I pass to my right honourable friend, who on a recent occasion, so splendidly distinguished himself I mean the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Plunket.) At what period of his political life did he ever sanction concessions to the Roman Catholics, upon any other terms than those contended for by the other great names to which I have referred? Has he not uniformly called out for security? Has he ever ceased to maintain that the Protestant religion and establishment should be protected? Who, then, will question that these authorities are of the greatest weight, and that the individuals now existing, who have expressed the opinions that I have quoted, are for ever disabled from dispensing with securities, without contradicting their pledges? They are unavoidably bound, if they be consistent, to take the same view of the subject that I have felt it my duty to present to the House, and to resist to the utmost every claim of the Roman Catholics, except upon the principle of security.

"Whether any such barriers and arrange

ments can be devised as shall afford sufficient security, cannot at present be examined; because none are now proposed-nor hitherto have any that appear satisfactory been anywhere stated. The negative to be vested in the Crown on the appointment of bishops, has since been rejected and disavowed by the Roman Catholics, notwithstanding the acquiescence of their church in a similar arrangement under other governments, and the express consent formally given by the most considerable of their own bishops.' The demand now seems to be made on their part, of unconditional concession, without any guard or security whatever; and, what is still more strange, these supporters of the Roman Catholics, from some unaccountable change in their opinions, appear ready to go that length in their concessions!!! And what is it that is now demanded? That which does not exist in any country, Roman Catholic or Protestant; namely, that the government of the Church shall be wholly independent of the State, while the members of that church thus denying the authority of the State shall yet fully partake in the exercise of all its political powers."

"The Jesuits are again established, not only abroad, but also at home; not merely in France and Spain, but also in England and Ireland. The Roman Catholic religion is again dealing its miracles and indulgences; and displaying a spirit of intolerance and persecution, which can

only be equalled by that which it displayed in the seventeenth century. Now, when such is admitted to be the fact, I cannot see the consistency of the logic which called upon the House to make concessions which were questionable when there was no danger, under circumstances which the very advocates of emancipation admit to be full of danger."

"There is a sort of stubborn and stupid consistency (says the Quarterly Reviewer) by which men seem sometimes to be possessed, as by an evil spirit; no proof can then evict them of the persuasion which they have once taken up; the more light is thrown upon it, the less (like the owl in the emblem) are they able to see and to discern. The sectaries who desire the overthrow of the church-and they who consider all religions with equal indifference, and are willing, therefore, to tolerate all, provided they pay for none,and they who hate Christianity, and would eagerly, if it were possible, destroy it root and branch, because their hearts rebel against the restrictions which it imposes and the duties which it enjoins; such persons have an intelligible motive for their conduct in leaguing with the Roman Catholics, and aiding them in their endeavours to open a practicable breach in the constitution. But it is not so obviously intelligible wherefore sincere Protestants, who love the religion which they profess, hold it by choice as well as by inheritance, adhere to it in heart as well as with their lips, understand its inestimable worth,

and-if a dreadful necessity were to arrive_ would lay down their lives in its defence-it is not so intelligible why such Protestants (and such there are among the Emancipationists) should persist in this league, when the ulterior designs of the party, by whose professions they were first allured to engage in it, are no longer dissembled, and can no longer be concealed. A better explanation, however, may be found than in the stubbornness into which even well-meaning men sometimes suffer their consistency to degenerate. They continue to act with the Roman Catholics, not because they retain their first opinions, but because they have changed them. They believed at first that securities were necessary, and spake and acted upon that belief in full sincerity. Having learned, from the experience of twenty years, that no securities can be obtained, rather than acknowledge their error, as in honourable rectitude they ought to have done, (and must have done, if they had kept on in the straightforward path of an upright understanding,) they have persuaded themselves that no securities are needed; and of this they would now persuade the nation."

« ElőzőTovább »