ページの画像
PDF
ePub

risk of that distant and speculative one, which is so much dreaded—whether, if so improbable an evil should occur, the remedy against it would not at all times be in our own hands? The Catholics now are supplicants for justice, and for an equal participation of civil rights with their fellowsubjects. It is this position which makes them formidable. Concede to them that participation, and the danger ceases. I believe it would cease altogether; but admitting, for argument's sake, that the constant object of Catholic ambition is the subversion of our Protestant government, I think the most prejudiced Protestant must admit, that it would be a danger of a different description. The Catholic laity and nobility, who now supplicate to be admitted to the benefits of the British constitution, backed by all the moral and political influence which upholds their claims, must then, in order to create any danger, become aggressors against those very institutions, upon which depends the existence of those very benefits, which they are so anxious to share. By what influence, moral or political, would they then be supported? By none. I believe there would be no risk of such an aggression; but, assuming it to be possible—that is, assuming men to be desperately foolish, as well as desperately wicked, I say that the risk would be contemptible— contemptible in proportion as the attempt was wicked and foolish-compared to the dangers to which we are now exposed.

My right honourable friend, the strength as well as the sincerity of whose arguments upon this question have so often called for the applause of all parties in this House, is not one of those who object to every concession to the Catholics. He does not make common cause with those who think that every thing which is now withheld ought for ever to be withheld. On the contrary-and it is the strongest evidence, if any were wanted beyond his own personal character, of his sincerity-he has told us, that, with some

doubts as to the Bench, he limits his objections to seats in the two Houses of Parliament, and the Privy Council. With respect to the latter, my right honourable friend appears to have forgotten that it rests with the Crown to bestow such a mark of distinction, and that, moreover, it is scarcely possible for any individual to attain to it but through the channel of Parliament.

But then there may arise a man in Parliament, of such transcendant talents, of such exalted excellence of character, with such a following in this House, as to give him an ascendancy in the councils of Parliament and of the country! It cannot be denied, that such an occurrence is barely possible. But, with how many bare possibilities must it be coupled and connected, before the presence of such an individual would lead to danger! He must be a bigot, his mind debased and subdued by the worst doctrines of the Roman church-a hypocrite of the most profound dissimulation, such as would enable him to blind the House, and to escape the keen vigilance of the Press, and the jealous scrutiny of the other free institutions of the country. His ambition must be such as never actuated a statesman in a popular assembly-his love of fame, still more extraordinary than his ambition. He must, in short, possess such a combination of qualities, as have never been united in any individual who has in any times endeavoured to obtain authority through the medium of a popular assembly. Yet, if there be such a man, I would say,-let him come into this House. And then, Sir, let his talents, his eloquence, his genius, be what they may, we have had standards, we still have standards in this House, by which this creature of my right honourable friend's ingenuity may be measured, and modelled. Let him come here, and his ambition will be taught to move in its legitimate sphere. Here its progress can be watched, its course calculated, its movements foreseen, its orbit ascertained. But, exclude

[ocr errors]

his ambition, banish it from its natural sphere, it becomes an eccentric and blazing comet, disappearing at intervals, but, in its irregular and desultory movements, returning again to spread alarm, and carry desolation in its course.

[I am sorry to trespass so long upon the time and patience of the House, but I cannot conclude without saying a few words more, with regard to the Societies which have been suppressed in Ireland, or without warning honourable gentlemen,—and I must be permitted to repeat that warning again and again—that if they do not at once proceed to do away with these unjust restrictions, and to repress these childish and unfounded prejudices, they will, over and over again, have to deal with assemblies in that kingdom of as formidable a description as the late Catholic Associations.] You may put down one association, but the like evil will arise again in some other shape, directed to the same ends, pregnant with the same dangers, putting forth the same pretensions, exercising the same power over the Catholic population, giving birth to the same angry passions, fostering the same violent factions, which, in their struggles, have so often rendered the laws inefficient, the Government powerless, and the people miserable.

*

I have only one word to say upon the subject of the two Wings, as they have been called, to this Bill; which has been rendered the more necessary, by what fell from the honourable member for Durham,† last night. The honourable member stated, that he considered those two measures as having originated with those to whom the House had devolved the task of bringing in the present Bill, and had been the result of meetings and discussions, which they had held for that purpose. Now, Sir, I only think it necessary to state, that neither my right honourable friend,+

• The Elective Franchise for Ireland Bill, and the Resolution respecting a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. + Mr. Lambton, the present Lord Durham.

Mr. Canning.

(whose absence on such an occasion as this, and more especially on account of its cause, the House must deeply regret), nor myself were present at any of those meetings or discussions that we were no parties to the bringing forward those measures; and I believe I may positively state, that the notice given by my honourable friend, the member for Staffordshire, and by the noble lord,† was the first intimation which he had of their intentions. He was no party to their plans, and had no cognizance of them. [For my own part, I believe that both measures were intended to aid and accelerate the great measure of Catholic emancipation. As to the Bill for disfranchising the forty shilling freeholders of Ireland, I cannot quite say that I altogether approve of its principle. of its principle. In voting for the other, I intended to give it my sanction only up to this point and to this extent-that as this House holds the public purse, and is bound to provide for the expenses of the public service, so I should hold it to be, to provide for the effectual operation and results of a measure which, by granting Catholic emancipation, will be calculated to produce such incalculable benefits to the community, over which the parties in question may fairly be supposed to exercise so extensive an influence. But when my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Home department, talked about the making provision for a regular establishment,―for archbishops, bishops, and an inferior clergy,— as a concomitant to the bill for Roman Catholic emancipation, I beg to say that I stand pledged to no such provisions whatever I think, indeed, that it will require much previous inquiry and consideration, before we can proceed to make any provision for the Catholic clergy by law. And I should be unwilling-as far as I can judge now upon a subject so complicated and difficult, and mixed up with many other considerations that will be fully gone into be

• Mr. Littleton.

↑ Lord Francis Leveson Gower.

fore any definitive plan is acted upon-to place that provision, whatever it may be, beyond the control of Government; in the same manner as was observed towards the Protestant dissenters and other separatists from the church To the Bill now before the House, I give my most cordial support.]

of England.

The House divided: For the third reading of the Bill, 248. Against it, 227. Majority, 51.

REPEAL OF THE BUBBLE ACT-CHARTERS OF

INCORPORATION.

June 2.

The Attorney-General, Sir John Copley, having moved for leave to bring in a Bill, "to repeal so much of the Act 6 Geo. I. c. 18, as relates to the restraining several extravagant and unwarrantable Practices, and for conferring additional powers upon his Majesty, with respect to the granting Charters of Incorporation,"

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the proposition of his honourable and learned friend was one which he warmly concurred in, because he was satisfied that the interests of commerce required the encouragement and protection of Joint-Stock Companies. When the gallant member who spoke last* said, that if a decision of Lord Ellenborough had not been called in question in another place, the proposed bill would not have been necessary, he showed, by the possibility of that decision being disturbed, that it was highly expedient to have the law made certain. That decision was, that all Companies, not prejudicial to the public interests, were legal. But, where there were so many companies, was it fit that this question should be left to the consideration of the jury? Where persons had embarked large properties in a speculation, ought they not to be guaranteed by some secure provision of the law, instead of having their interests

• Colonel Davies.

« 前へ次へ »