Images de page
PDF
ePub

Postscript to the Public.

Stop-I omitted to tell our King one glorious matter,

Merely through modesty pure, and my virgin-like fear of offending;
You, my Public, must know I mean that this worthy Production,
This Magazine of mine was in his Regency founded.
GEORGE THE FIRST declared that he held it a haughty distinction,
To be the monarch at once of NEWTON (Sir Isaac) and LEIBNITZ.
So I should think GEORGE THE FOURTH must feel himself highly delighted
With the idea of having so famous a subject as KIT NORTH!
This is no more than a guess, but is it not likely, my Public!

Postscript the Second.

Counting my lines on my fingers, I find they want six of a hundred,
And 'twere a pitiful thing if I did not make up the number,
Therefore I throw these in for the sake of my millions of readers,
Who might otherwise think me a stingy chap of my hexams:
So I have added them here, and now my reader benignant,
Reckon my lines with care, and you'll find them certainly five score.

C. N.

BLACKWOOD'S

EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.

No. LXVI.

JULY, 1822.

VOL. XII.

LETTER FROM A PROTESTANT LAYMAN TO CHRISTOPHER NORTH, Esq.
ON MR CANNING'S SPEECH,* AND ON THE LETTER OF THE
CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

SIR,-Having considered with some attention the great question, whether it is expedient to confer on our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects farther privileges than have been already granted; and as you have already laid my thoughts on the subject before your readers, in the shape of a letter to Lord Nagent, I am tempted to offer you some remarks on the speech of Mr Canning, delivered in the House of Commons on the 30th of April last, on the occasion of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to restore the Catholic Peers to their seats in Parliament,which speech has been recently presented to the public.

The talents and character of Mr Canning, the friend of Mr Pitt, and the zealous defender of the Constitution against the attempts of Radical Reformers, entitle him to a high degree of respect, which, I trust, I shall not trench upon whilst I freely state the difference between my sentiments and his on the question before us. I am conscious that no unworthy motive disposes me to contravene his liberality towards persons of that religion, and I am as well satisfied that his intentions are guided by the best principles.

Before I proceed to examine the arguments he employs, it may be proper

to take a succinct view of the whole of his speech.

He begins by noticing certain preliminary objections, which had been made within and without the walls of the House of Commons, applicable rather to the form than to the principle of his proposition. The first is, that there is something insidious in thus obtaining a partial decision on the general Catholic question. The second, that the separation of one class of the Catholic community from the rest, is a prejudice to the whole. These two objections, Mr C. observes, counteract each other, that all discussion is an advantage to the general question, but that no unfair advantage is gained by setting the case free from complicated matter, as is done in the present instance; no data being here assumed, nor do the arguments soar into the regions of abstract principle, but are confined to law and fact. Those who think the question too much narrowed, must, he thinks, "lament the removal of so many disabilities, under which the Roman Catholic has long ceased to groan. How must they regret that, from an early period of the late reign up to the present time, so many of the most galling fetters have gradually been taken off, and leave little more than the mark of them now visible !

Corrected Report of the Speech of the Right Honourable George Canning, in the House of Commons, 30th April 1822, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to restore to Roman Catholic Peers their right of sitting and voting in Parliament. 8vo. London, Murray, 1822.

VOL. XII.

A

How must they regret the act of 1778, which restored to the Roman Catholics the right of property;-the act of 1791, which removed many vexatious disabilities, with respect to the exercise of religion, to professions, to civil, and, in several important instances, political rights! How must they deplore the act of 1793, which gave to the Irish Roman Catholics, in many instances, advisedly, distinctly, specifically, in all more remotely, and by sure implication-political power and consequences in giving them the elective franchise! How must their sorrow have been increased by the measure which, five years ago, silently opened the army and the navy to Catholic enterprize, bravery, and ambition!" Mr C. rejoices that these privations are removed, though the relief takes away the ground-work of much impressive eloquence. Another objection coupled with this last is, that the noble persons interested have some disinclination to the introduction, because it does not include all those connected with them in the same religion. He denies having any special commission to be their advocate, and asserts that he undertakes the cause merely on principles of state policy and national benefit; it is, however, untrue that the Catholic Lords have any disinclination to his plan, and he cites the Duke of Norfolk's authority to this effect; but he assures the House that the proposition is spontaneous on his part, without receiving any suggestion from any of those Peers. Another objection is, that there is an impropriety in originating in the House of Commons, a measure which concerns exclusively the rights of the House of Peers. This is completely overturned by precedents; as the very act, the operation of which is now proposed to be corrected, originated in the House of Commons; and also, that of the 5th of Elizabeth, which recognised the right of Peers to hold their seats unquestioned, and undisqualified on account of religious opinions. The act, too, which was brought in by Mr Mitford, (now Lord Redesdale,) in 1791, entirely regarded the House of Peers. It has likewise been remarked, that a proposition for reforming the House of Lords, comes with an ill grace from an adversary to reform in the House of Commons. Mr C., however, contends, that his great objection to schemes of

reform is, that they have always been loose and undefined;-he aims not at reconstructing the House of Lords, but to bring it back to the state in which it formerly existed, and he points out the precise period of its existence to which he would restore it, viz. the 30th of November 1678, on which day the Royal Assent was given to the Act, by which Roman Catholic Peers were excluded. "The principle of my measure," says he, "is not innovation, but restoration; and if further questioned as to the extent to which this restoration would go, I reply,-to the immediate admission of six English Catholic Peers, and by possibility, at some future time, to the admission of about the same number of Irish." He proceeds to state, “But I will go farther: I will shew that not only my measure is not innovation, but restoration,-but that it is a restoration founded upon principles of the strictest justice. I will shew that it restores rights, the suspension of which arose from causes which no longer exist, and was justified on pretences, which were never true." Mr C. divides the legislation affecting the Catholics into three periods;-1st, From the reign of Elizabeth to the Restoration;-2d, From Charles II. to the Revolution ;-3d, From that time to the reign of George III., the auspicious era of the relaxation of the penal code. He very fairly justifies the precautions and the severities of Queen Elizabeth, on account of "the disquietude of one religion not altogether put down, and the instability of another not wholly established; and by those frequent plots against her crown and life, which were instigated by the influence of foreign politics, and connected an opposition to her belief, with a refusal of allegiance to her authority. The security of Elizabeth's throne was identified with the security of the Reformed Religion." In the third period, Mr C. observes that the circumstances of King William inclined his advisers rather to discountenance the religion of the exiled monarch, than to do away laws enacted against the Roman Catholics; and he supposes that some design might have existed of driving the Catholics of England to expatriation, though by a less violent process than that which some years before had driven out the Protestants from France, by the Revocation of the Edictof Nantes.

"I state these circumstances," adds he, "without either condemning or justifying them; without condemning, because much allowance must be made for the political exigency of the times; without justifying, because it would, indeed, be painful to justify, in cold blood, the harsh and terrible enactments of irritation, jealousy, and fear. In Ireland especially, where so much greater a proportion of the people was hostile to the government, and favoured the cause of the dethroned King, the system towards the Catholics was one of unmixed oppression. The endeavour there was to grind the people to the dust, to loosen the holds of family and kindred, to reduce society to barbarism, and to erect a garrison of Protestants amidst a nation of Catholic slaves. But was this attempted in mere wantonress or caprice? No; but because the Protestant religion in Ireland was less settled; and because the opposition to it was, in almost every instance in that day, connected with the support of a competitor for the crown." He lastly takes the middle period, the reign of Charles II. which particularly concerns the present question, and lays down the following positions. In the merciful reign of our late Sovereign, almost the whole of the penal laws of the two other periods were repealed. Charles II. being secretly a Catholic, and his brother avowedly so, a design was justly suspected of re-establishing that religion, and of subverting the Constitution. The predominant feeling of Parliament was the dread of a Popish successor. Keeping this point constantly in view will throw light on the transactions of that time, remove some appearances of inconsistency in the principal actors, and divest their measures of the stain of excessive rigour. The great object of the House of Commons was to debar the Duke of York from the succession. This is proved by their repeated angry remonstrances which preceded their direct attempt at his exclusion. The Test Act of the 25th Ch. II. had the same purpose in view, and also the Address to the Crown against the Duke's marriage with a Catholic, and another to remove him from the King's presence and councils; and finally, by the act of the 30th, which was defeated by the Lords inserting an exemption in his favour. The Commons then resorted to the direct and more

questionable measure of an Exclusion Bill. Mr C. does not argue that the Commons were wrong, but that they were anxious to provide against "the real and undoubted danger" which then threatened the country. But if that great state necessity existed then, he asks, is there any ground now for continuing these penalties? Whether the expulsion of the Catholic Peers were then right or wrong, he thinks it is now no longer maintainable.

The particular circumstances under which the Act passed, he remarks, deserve especial notice. In the hottest ferment of political controversy, the Popish Plot came to the aid of the Exelusionists. It may be too much to affirm, that the whole of this accusation was unmixed falsehood; but certain it is, that the character of those who pretended to give information of it is stamped with fraud and perjury. The Commons, under the influence of this panic, sat for seven days occupied in the examination of Titus Oates and his associates, and then passed the Act, which is the subject of the present proposition, having previously issued warrants for the arrest of five out of the eighteen Catholic Peers who then sat in the House of Lords. The tears and protestations of the Duke of York obtained an exemption; but the whole of the Catholic Peers were excluded from their seats, and they continue so to the present hour. Mr C. contends that the framers of this Act did not mean to inflict a permanent disability. The King himself, he thinks, expressed that intention; for in passing it, he said that he consents to it, because it is thought fitting at this time. In fact, had the Duke of York not been a Papist, the Catholic Peers would not have been disturbed in their seats. Attempts had formerly been made to impose oaths and declarations on the House of Lords, which had uniformly been rejected. A standing order was made in 1675, that no oath shall be imposed upon the Peers, with a penalty, in case of refusal, to lose their votes in Parliament, which order remains to this day unrepealed. Mr C. infers from this, that their intention in 1678 could only have been a temporary enactment; but he acknowledges that a standing order could not be placed in competition with the law of the land. He draws an analogy from the Habeas Corpus Act being left unre

pealed during its temporary suspension. The Act of 1678 is, he observes, very hastily put together, the case of the Peers and the Commons being strangely confounded, and the reasoning in it as inconsequent as the measure was unjust. One of the privations inflicted by this act has been removed. The privilege of a Catholic Peer to come into his Majesty's presence, as an hereditary counsellor of the Crown, is restored by Lord Redesdale's Act in 1791, which substitutes another oath instead of the Oath of Supremacy, the altered form merely denying the Pope to have any temporal or civil power within this realm. The deprivation of access to the King is the only one for which the statute assigns a reason; whilst the expulsion from Parliament, for which no reason is given, still remains, which Mr C. deems a gross absurdity. Mr C. acknowledges that the reign of George III. was fertile in acts of relief, ameliorating the condition of his Roman Catholic subjects His present Majesty added another anomaly to the condition of the Catholic Peers, by having them summoned to his coronation; which, gracious as the design was, Mr C. supposes must have brought some bitterness with the enjoyment. "Did it occur to the representatives of Europe, when contemplating this animated spectacle did it occur to the ambassadors of Catholic Austria, of Catholic France, or of states more bigotted in matters of religion, that the moment this ceremony was over, the Duke of Norfolk would become disseised of the exercise of his privileges among his fellow Peers? that his robes of ceremony were to be laid aside and hung up until the distant (be it very distant!) day, when the coronation of a successor to his present most gracious Sovereign might again call him forth to assist at a similar solemnization?— that, after being thus exhibited to the peers and people of England, and to the representatives of the princes and nations of the world, the Duke of Norfolk, highest in rank among the Peers, the Lord Clifford, and others like him, representing a long line of illustrious ancestry,—as if called forth and furnished for the occasion, like the lustres and banners that flamed and glittered in the scene, were to be, like them, thrown by as useless and trumpery formalities?-that they might bend

the knee, and kiss the hand-that they might bear the train, or raise the canopy-might discharge the offices assigned by Roman pride to their barbarian ancestors-Purpurea tollant aulaa Britanni,-but that with the pageantry of the hour, their importance faded away;-that as their distinction vanished, their humiliation returned; and that he who headed the procession of Peers to-day, could not sit among them as their equal to-morrow?"

He goes on to mention the honours conferred on Lord Fingall during the Royal visit to Ireland, which he thinks of little avail, whilst excluded from electing, or being elected among the Representative Peers. This would be remedied by the proposed Bill. Having considered the Act 1678 hitherto principally in a political point of view, he endeavours to show that it was a measure of individual injustice. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to have extinguished the Catholic Peers, instead of excluding the Duke of York,-had Lord Stafford and the four other Peers been clearly guilty of the alleged treason, there is no ground for visiting the Catholic Peers with perpetual disabilities, still less when built on such a foundation as the Popish Plot. Lord Stafford was brought to trial, condemned, and executed. His attainder was reversed by the Lords about seven years after, on the principal witnesses against him being convicted of perjury; but the bill was dropped in the Commons, which might have been occasioned by the Duke of Monmouth's landing about the time the bill was to have been committed. Mr C. quotes Hume, and also the authorities of Lords Thurlow and Kenyon, who, in a discussion of precedents at Mr Hastings's trial in 1786, asserted, in very strong language, their belief of Lord Stafford's innocence. Mr Hume speaks of the execution of Lord Stafford with generous indignation; but Mr C. takes occasion to censure the historian for using terms, when mentioning the loss of the bill, which he thinks cold-blooded and revolting. This is the passage: "Though the reparation of injustice be the second honour which a nation can attain, the present emergence seemed very improper for granting so full a justification to the Catholics, and throwing so foul a stain upon the

« PrécédentContinuer »