« ElőzőTovább »
Irish army in five of the six counties, as well as to that army and to the inhabitants of Limerick. De Ginckel had withdrawn his principal forces towards Dublin; and his instructions being to close the war on almost any terms, he admitted the insertion of these words, on the plea that they had been accidentally omitted by the copyist: (a supposition sufficiently improbable, when it is considered that they were the most comprehensive and important in the whole article ;) and King William ratified the act of his general: but the Parliament of Ireland, on a full knowledge of these facts, expunged the words, and confirmed the article without them."
That no pledge was given at the Union that Catholic Emancipation would be the consequence of that measure.
"THE next position, (continued Sir R. Inglis,) which the honourable Baronet takes up in defence of the claims of the Petitioners, is the pledge given to them at the Treaty of Union.
"There was not only no official pledge given publicly by the government at the Union, in
respect to this matter: there was scarcely any semi-official declaration by which the public mind in Ireland could be led in any direction at that time. The pamphlet which the honourable Baronet seemed to regard as the manifesto of the government on the occasion of the Union was, though no name appears to it, written by the late Mr. Cooke, then private Secretary to the chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.* The pamphlet to which, as I think, far more attention is due, as representing the mind of the English Government, is the celebrated speech of Mr. Pitt, on the Union. Mr. Foster, at least, the Speaker of the Irish House, regarded it as the authoritative exposition of the principles of the administration in respect to that measure. He complains, that the influence and purse of government has been employed in circulating it, and 10,000 copies had been printed by the King's Printer. Does Mr. Foster find in this speech, so printed, so circulated, any pledge, or even much encouragement to the Roman Catholics?
"His words are these: I will only observe upon it, that Mr. Pitt's language is of such a nature, that one would imagine he had the two religions on either side of him, and one was not to hear what he said to the other. He tells the Catholic in his speech, that it is not easy to say what should be the Church Establishment in this
*Arguments for and against an Union between Great Britain and Ireland, considered.-Dublin and London, Dec. 1798.
kingdom; and the fifth resolution states that the present Church Establishment is to be preserved. He tells them, that the time for discussing their situation must depend on two points, 'when their conduct shall make it safe, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable;' and Mr. Dundas adds, if ever such a time shall come:' (Speech of right honourable I. Foster, 11 April, 1799, London.) This was Mr. Foster's construction of Mr. Pitt's speech. He at least, did not conceive that Mr. Pitt was circulating any distinct and positive pledge to the Roman Catholics: he answering Mr. Pitt at the time, did not collect from that speech any assurance on the part of Mr. Pitt to that body, that, if they would support him in his object, he would support them in theirs. Let the House judge from Mr. Pitt's own words:
By many I know it will be contended, that the religion professed by a majority of the people should at least be entitled to an equality of privileges. I have heard such an argument urged in this House; but those who apply it without qualification to the case of Ireland, forget surely the principles on which English interest and English connexion has been established in that country, and on which its present legislature is formed. No man can say that in the present state of things, and while Ireland remains a separate kingdom, full concession could be made to the Catholics without endangering the State,
and shaking the constitution of Ireland to its centre.
"On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon or how late, it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are indisputable: First, when the conduct of the Catholics shall be such as to make it safe for the government to admit them to the participation of the privileges granted to those of the established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable to such a measure: when these events take place, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an united Imperial Parliament with much greater safety than it could be in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it certain that even for whatever period it may be thought necessary after the Union, to withhold from the Catholics the enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the Protestant Legislature were no longer separate and local, but general and imperial.' (Speech of right honourable W. Pitt, on the Union.-Wright, London.)
"I might quote much more from other members of the government, and others, supporters of the measure; but, as they are only the public speeches of private men, and not clothed with the authority of a speech from the Throne to the two Houses, they could not, even if they con
tained distinct pledges to the Roman Catholics, do more than bind the individuals who delivered them.
"The right honourable gentleman, the Knight of Kerry, states that there were private pledges given by the Irish Government, to the Roman Catholics, in order to secure their support of the Union; that he himself was a member of that government at that time; and was not merely cognisant of the fact, but a party to it. But admitting, as I admit all his facts, I ask again what do they prove, except the obligation which such pledges imposed upon those who gave them? They left no obligation on others; they could attach no obligation upon the King, or upon Parliament.
"In the first place, there was no official body to whom pledges of a public nature could be given; there was no recognized organ of the Roman Catholics, with whom the government could communicate: all the intercourse was from individuals to individuals. The nearest approach to an assembly supposed to act for the Roman Catholics, was the meeting of the Prelates of that communion then sitting in Dublin; and though they deliberated on the question of a state-provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy, it does not appear that the larger subject ever came before them. In the next place, the Roman Catholics could do little in the matter, if in return for any pledges made to them, they had