understanding of those who meant to stop at Hounslow, from what it bore among that division of the reformers whose intention it was to proceed till they came before the middle window at Whitehall: so does this word, conciliation, mean more or less, according to the principles of the person who uses it. Earl Grey and Lord Grenville attach no such signification to it as is attached by Lord King; and when Sir Thomas Acland and Mr. Grant join in voting for it with Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hume, they would find themselves, if they came to compare meanings, in widely different degrees of latitude. In one thing only are all the advocates for this undefined and undefinable conciliation agreed, and that is, that, whenever the subject is agitated in Parliament, the golden opportunity is arrived, they have reached the ró vuv, the moment of projection, the point of time in which the great work is to be accomplished."

"That concession will conciliate and satisfy the Roman Catholics is at least contrary to past experience; the fact being, that while restriction was most severe, the Roman Catholics were most quiet; and ever since concessions have begun, they have been most dissatisfied, and their demands have progressively increased. The fact only is stated.

"When conciliation and satisfaction, therefore, are held out as advantages which would follow from concession, past experience renders

it probable that the expectation of those consequences may be disappointed."

Let us look to the remarkable change in the language of the petitioners for emancipation, since concession has been tried, as noticed in the speech of Sir R. Inglis, in 1828.

"I proceed (says he) to compare the language of the Roman Catholics of former times, before their existing measures of political power was conceded to them, with their later language. It will thence be seen whether concession be conciliation-whether the Roman Catholics, when all penalties on their religion, as such, were removed, were not better subjects than they are now, when political power has been given to them, and they are seeking for more. I will take only declarations made by the Roman Catholics subsequent to the period when the freedom of their religion was restored in 1782. And first I will quote the language of Dr. James Butler, titular archbishop of Cashel.

"The work which I quote is an answer to the celebrated pamphlet of Dr. Woodward, bishop of Cloyne, and speaks of the state of the Roman Catholics before they were permitted to enter on the career of political power. In this work,* which is of a controversial nature, and in which,

*The work is entitled, "Justification of the Tenets of the Roman Catholic Religion, and a Refutation of the Charges brought against its Clergy by the Right Rev. Lord Bishop of Cloyne. By Dr. James Butler."-1787.

as such, he might be supposed rather to have magnified the evils, than exaggerated the blessings of their condition, Dr. James Butler speaks thus justly and gratefully of the then existing situation of the Roman Catholics. He speaks of the duty of the Roman Catholics, as 'a grateful body of people towards the sovereign and the legislature, under whom we have derived so many and great immunities.' (p. 10.) He says, We had heard the trumpet of persecution... blow its last. . . . The storms and clouds of an inauspicious century had been dispersed by the mild sunshine of peace, and the harmless Catholic reposed under his safe and unenvied.' (p. 14.)

vine and fig-tree This was written,

let it be remembered, in the interval between the period in which the Roman Catholics first obtained security for the exercise of their religion, and that in which their appetite was first whetted by a taste for political power. I will continue to quote Dr. Butler: he is speaking of the insurrection in the south, the Whiteboy system, &c., and he says that, when the first troubles broke out in the south, the most active exertions in their power were used by the Roman Catholic clergy to bring back their deluded flock to a sense of duty, order, and obedience. We exhorted them in the name of our religion; we threatened with the fear of punishment from that Almighty whom their wickedness might provoke. We argued upon the impolicy, and pointed out

the ingratitude of irritating a legislature, whose power to depress us had been so manifestly evinced in the very privileges it had opened to us.' (p. 29.) Compare this with the language of Dr. Doyle in 1825, not writing under the initials J. K. L., but in his own avowed character. 'If a rebellion were raging from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear, not a priest would denounce it from the altar.' There is a strange and wonderful difference between the language of the Roman Catholic Bishop, who forty years ago considered that the secure exercise of his religion, the freedom of his property, and the personal privileges restored to him, were inestimable advantages, and the language of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the present day, who wishes to raise his creed to political power.

"So much for the declarations of the Roman Catholic Prelates; I will not, however, confine myself to such evidence-I will place before you the declarations of the Laity; and I will call upon you to mark the difference between the language of the addresses of the Roman Catholics thirty years ago, and the language of the petitions presented at present. I have endeavoured, to find some place which sent addresses at both periods, in order to contrast the difference in their language, but I have not been able to find exactly any such; but I will compare an address from two places in the county of Wex

ford, in 1797, with the general address of that county in 1827.

"The people of Moyacomb and Barragh, fifteen hundred and sixty-one in number, assembled at Clonegal Chapel, in the county of Wexford, declare as follows:- We the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the parishes of Moyacomb and Barragh, think it incumbent upon us at this crisis of internal disturbance publicly to declare our unalterable attachment to his sacred Majesty King George III., and that most excellent constitution which his mild and paternal reign has restored to us. Loyalty has ever been the distinguished trait of the Catholic body; superadded to this we have now a common interest to defend: his Majesty, in admitting us to the constitution, has bestowed on us an invaluable heritage and we solemnly promise at this altar, in the presence of Almighty God, that we will cling to him, and defend him, and that heritage which he has conferred on us, if need be with our blood.'

"Now the language of the last petition which I can find of the body of the same county', is that the parties are excluded from the free constitution of these realms;' (Journals, 1824, p. 446); they, the Roman Catholics, who thirty years ago, declared that they had a common interest in it with ourselves, and professed their gratitude to their sovereign for bestowing on

« ElőzőTovább »