Slike strani
PDF
ePub

then had the constitution been often broken in upon. "Finally," said Mr. Peel," let those, who differ from me in opinion, consider the altered position of affairs in Ireland, since the annunciation of these measures of grace and favour has been made. To be defeated now, to throw the question back upon us, when a greater calm has been produced in Ireland than I ever knew to exist there- when there is no spirit of vulgar triumph displayed on the part of the Roman Catholics, and, in justice to the Protestants I must say it, when their disappointment has been marked by the most patient submission, to lose the advantage which we have now gained, and to reject the conciliation which is within our grasp, would be attended with consequences so fatal to the repose of the empire, that I 'cannot, even in fancy, bear to contemplate them. I am well aware that the fate of this measure cannot now be altered; if it succeed, the credit will redound to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon those with whom I have acted. These chances, with the loss of private friendship, and the alienation of public confidence, I must have foreseen and calculated, before I ventured to recommend these mcasures. I assure the House, that, in conducting them, I have met with the severest blow which it has ever been my lot to experience in my life; but I am convinced that the time will come, though I may not live perhaps to see it, when full justice will be done by men of all parties to the motives on which I have acted-when this question will be fully settled, and when others will see that I had no other alternative than to act as I have

acted. They will then admit that the course which I have followed, and which I am still prepared to follow, whatever imputation it may expose me to, is the only course which is necessary for the diminution of the undue, illegitimate and dangerous power of the Roman Catholics, and for the maintenance and security of the Protestant religion."

The result of the division was, 353 for the second reading of the bill, and 180 against it. The whole number of voters was greater by 18 than the number who had voted on the first reading, and of these thirteen had been gained by the minority.

The success of the bill in the House of Commons was thus sccured. On the 23rd, 24th, and 27th of March it was in committee. During its progress through the committee, many amendments were moved by the opponents of the bill, but they all shared the same fate, being each of them rejected by the same overwhelming majorities, which had carried the principle of the measure, and, in truth, most of them were too opposite to the principle on which the bill, professedly, had been framed, to obtain friends among its supporters. The very first was an amendment moved by Mr. Bankes, to the effect of excluding Catholics from either House of parliament. The objection to it was, that to grant every thing else, and refuse this, would altogether disappoint the object in view, and only give the Roman Catholic body additional energy and inclination to break down the barriers which stood between them and the legislature. Amendments moved upon the oath, to introduce clauses, by which Catholics should swear, that

[ocr errors]

they would defend and maintain the property of the church as established by law, and would not, directly or indirectly, attempt to subvert the present church establishment, were likewise unsuccessful.

On the clause being moved, which conferred on Catholics the right of voting in the election of the representative peers of Scotland, Mr. R. Dundas called the attention of the House, to the effect which the bill would have upon the articles of the Scottish Union. At the time of that Union, Scotland was as independent as England; but if this bill passed into a law, the interests of the one country would in some degree be rendered subservient to those of the other-we should violate the principles of the Union-take away the securities of the church, which that act established, and open the gates of the constitution to many future dangers. If he could prove that this bill infringed the Act of Union with Scotland, he thought no one could consider him as acting unreasonably in taking the sense of the committee upon the subject. He then cited the act agreed to both by the parliaments of England and Scotland, and appended to the twenty-five articles of Union, and, after proving that it formed an essential part of the union between the two countries, added, that it was provided by it, for the security of the Episcopal and Presbyterian religions, that the sixteen peers and forty-five commoners, who were to represent Scotland in the parliament of the United Kingdom, should be Protestant. By this statute, Papists were effectually excluded from sitting in parliament for Scotland. It followed, if Roman Catholics

were now rendered admissible as members and peers of parliament from Scotland, as was proposed to be done by these two clauses of the bill, that the Act of Union with Scotland would be thereby repealed. He could not consent to the articles of Union between the two countries being violated in this manner. It might be said that the present was a measure alike necessary and expedient; but as long as he had a seat in that House, he could not submit to such an infringement of the Act of Union with Scotland.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland, in answer, admitted, that by the act in question, which undoubtedly formed part of the treaty of Union, it was provided that no person should represent Scotland in the united parliament, unless he subscribed a certain formula, which it was now proposed to repeal; but the question amounted to this,were the articles of the Scottish Union unalterable? While he admitted that the clauses did affect that Union, the consideration was, might not the objection be got rid of? One article, and one only of that Union, had been declared unalterable. It followed, that, with respect to the others, on a fair showing of necessity, alterations might be made. The legitimate use of such articles was to defend a weaker country from the attacks of a more powerful one; and if it were meant to injure Scotland by infringing these articles, he would never consent to their infraction. By the articles Union, there was reserved a power to the parliament of Great Britain to alter those very articles themselves, which were contended to be unalterable; and as a consequence of that power, the House would perceive that, within forty

of

years all the heritable jurisdictions of Scotland were swept away by an act of parliament. The very year after the Union the power of the council, which was to adjust most matters relative to the returns of peers and commoners from Scotland to the parliament of Great Britain, was itself invaded and extinguished, whilst the act of the 6th of Anne altered the mode of returning and electing both peers and commoners, which, until then, had been considered intangible and unalterable, by any act of the legislature. He firmly believed there was nothing in this bill which ought to alarm the religious professors of the church of Scotland, on the ground that the privileges granted to the Catholics could shake the firm and rational ground of their religion, much less raise on its ruin the supremacy of the church of Rome.

Sir G. Clerk, too, maintained that the declaration in the formula was to prevent the admission of Papists, by requiring candidates not to avow that they were of that persuasion. The formula, however, was incidental to, not part of the Act of Union.

Mr. Bankes thought that the House would act more properly in making the bill recognize the circumstance of that enactment having been passed as a partial repeal of the Act of Union. This would be the fairer course, since it was clear the bill would infringe the articles of Union. The clause, however, as it originally stood, was carried by a majority of 158 to 54.

When the clause which excluded Catholics from the offices of lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lord chancellor of Great Britain or Ireland, came under discussion, the Marquis of Chandos moved to add to the ex

cepted offices that of first lord of the Treasury, in order to prevent a Catholic from wielding the whole patronage of the church and state as prime minister. Mr. Peel maintained that there was no good reason for the exception. Even if a Roman Catholic should attain to the office of prime minister, he could not interfere with the disposal of church patronage; for there was a special clause in the bill which provided that "it shall not be lawful for any person, professing the Roman Catholic religion, directly or indirectly, to advise the Crown in the appointment to, or disposal of, any office or preferment, lay or ecclesiastical, in the united Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland,” and which further provided, that a Catholic, convicted of so doing, should be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown. That appeared to him a sufficient security against the danger of a Roman Catholic, as prime minister, disposing of church patronage. From the office of lord Chancellor the Catholics were excluded; because the church patronage in the hands of the Chancellor was inherent in the office; but it was not so with the office of the First Lord of the Treasury. The church patronage did not belong to that office, nor was the person who filled that office necessarily prime minister. Speaking constitutionally, that patronage belonged to the Secretary of the Home Department; for his name was introduced in every form connected with the disposal of the dignities and preferments of the church of Scotland; the law of England never recognized such an office as that of prime minister, and

[ocr errors]

it did not necessarily follow, that the person filling that conventional office should have the disposal of the church patronage, for, according to the law of England, that attached to the office of Secretary of State. There was but little chance that a Catholic would ever be first lord commissioner of the Treasury, and he might be prime minister without holding that office; and, in any case, he could not advise the Crown in the disposal of church patronage. The law did not recognize such an office as that of prime minister. In the eye of the law, the ministers were all upon an equality. There were three Secretaries of State, and any arrangement with respect to their business was merely an arbitrary and conventional agreement. He apprehended that the signature of the Secretary for the Foreign, or Colonial Department, would be just as valid, if placed to any of these documents, as that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Although, there fore, there was no distinct disqualification of the Roman Catholics, with reference to the office of prime minister,' yet it would be so inconvenient for any person, not possessing that patronage, to act as prime minister, that it appeared to him highly improbable, if not physically impossible, that any Roman Catholic would attempt it. The

security afforded by the bill was, that there must be a Protestant Secretary of State to sign documents relating to church patronage, for they must be countersigned by some minister, and the bill declared that they should not be countersigned by a Catholic minister. Parliament would always find the responsible minister prima facie in the Secretary or other minister who countersigned.

Mr. Bankes, Mr. Trant, Mr. Bright, and others answered, that all this furnished the best possible reason for acceding to the amendment. Mr. Peel's argument amounted to this, that the bill itself would, by its indirect operation, keep back a Catholic from climbing to the office of prime minister, and would work out a practical security and disqualification. If so, why not declare it directly. In whatever light the constitution might view the office of prime minister, it must be acknowledged on all hands that it was one which was perfectly well known, and every man knew the power and influence attached to it. The bill to be sure declared that any Catholic minister, who should advise regarding church patronage, should be punishable as for a misdemeanour, and that would be some security, if the offender could be reached. But this offence, if ever committed, must be committed either in conjunction with his Majesty only, or else with the knowledge of his privy council. Now, how was it possible for any court of law in this country to become acquainted with what passed in the privy council? What competent witness could be brought forward in a court of law to give evidence of the misdemeanour? If the House of Commons, indeed, procured proper information on the subject, it was in their power to make a privy-councillor speak out. The law of impeachment was strong and powerful enough for that. But what a state of things would it produce, if privy-councillors were compelled to palter with the oath of secrecy which they had taken? The se.curity thus offered, therefore, was entirely useless and nugatory. Nor was the difficulty got rid of

by saying, that documents connected with church patronage might be, and constitutionally ought to be, signed by a Secretary of State. The only consequence deducible from this was, that, if ministers were sincere in placing church patronage beyond the reach of Catholic advice, the three Secretaries of State ought to be added to the excepted offices.

The amendment was lost; as were other amendments for extending the exclusion to the offices of privy councillor, and governor in any of the colonies.

On the other hand Mr. Peel proposed an amendment, by which, in the event of its becoming necessary to exercise the patronage attached to an office which happened to be held by a Catholic, that patronage was vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, instead of a commission to be named by the king, as the bill had originally proposed.

To the clause which required that all Jesuits, or other persons belonging to religious orders, already within the kingdom, should register themselves, and that no others should be admitted into the kingdom, after the passing of the bill, an addition was made to the effect, that it should be lawful for one of the Secretaries of State, by license, to allow a foreign Jesuit or member of a religious order, to come into the United Kingdom, and to remain therein for a period not exceeding six calendar months, with power to revoke such license if he should see fit; and if such foreign Jesuit or other person did not depart within twenty days after the license had been revoked, or within twenty days after the expiration of the license, he should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and

be banished for life from the United Kingdom. A list of all such licenses granted within the preceding twelve months was to be laid before parliament each session. The addition was made to meet the case of eminent scholars, persons engaged in historical or other inquiries, or other individuals who might be specially called hither by their pursuits of business, or of learning.

The motion for engrossing the bill with its amendments was carried by a majority of 233 to 106; and on Monday, the 30th of March, the third reading was moved by Mr. Peel. The Marquis of Chandos, on the other hand, moved that the bill should be read a third time that day six months. A debate ensued, in the course of which all that had been already said, more than once, on both sides, was said over again. The third reading was carried by a majority of 178, there being 320 in favour of it, and 142 against it. Thus, in only three weeks from the time at which it had been introduced, was passed a bill which its own supporters acknowledged to be an infringement of the constitution, and which, whether for evil or for good, introduced into the frame and spirit of that constitution, an infinitely more important change, than Britain had witnessed since the Revolution.

In the mean time, the speech of sir Charles Wetherell had procured for him an intimation that his Majesty had no further occasion for his services. After the indignant plainness with which he had denounced their manoeuvring and apostacy, ministers could not allow him to retain his office of Attorneygeneral, without admitting that he was their master. But even his dismissal forced them into an

« PrejšnjaNaprej »