Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

distinct heads; viz. first, the causes which called for the immediate consideration of the question; secondly, the nature of the relief that ought to be extended to the Catholics; thirdly, the character of the additional securities which were contended for as indispensable by some very respectable members of both Houses of Parliament; and, lastly, his reply to the argument that had been so often and so triumphantly urged against the consideration of the subject— namely, whether, in the present dissatisfied, and, as it was alleged to be, inflamed state of the Catholic body, it would be prudent to entertain the question. Towards the close of the discussion, the noble earl, in conformity to the opinion expressed by several noble lords, proposed as an amendment to his own motion, "that the House should resolve into a committee upon the question at an early period of the next session." It can scarcely be necessary to add, that this amended motion, like all the noble earl's former propositions on the same subject, was lost. In the latter end of the same month, Lord Donoughmore took an active part in the House of Lords in opposition to the East India Registry Bill; and in the course of the discussion on the Irish Spirits Duty Bill, in July, strongly pressed on government and on the legislature an attention to the just claims of the Irish distillers.

Not discouraged by his frequent failures, Lord Donoughmore, on the 11th of June, 1816, again presented the general petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, several petitions from the Catholics of respective counties, and the petition of the Irish Catholic Bishops and Clergy, suggesting domestic nomination as an effectual security against any danger that might be apprehended from foreign interference; and on the 21st of the same month, the noble earl moved a resolution, pledging their lordships to take the subject into their most serious consideration early in the next session. "Is not the situation of the Roman Catholics," asked the noble lord," such as demands inquiry? Can any thing exceed the glorious termination of the late contest? Can any thing exceed the high and commanding situation in

which this country has been placed? Can any thing exceed, not only what we owe to the great general under whose auspices so much glory has been achieved, but to those who have been the gallant though humble instruments of achieving it? No! Those brave soldiers who toiled through the fatiguing march of war ought to receive a just recompence in a period of peace. The blood of men of all religious persuasions has flowed in defence of the common interest; and is it reasonable, is it just, that any portion of them shall be excluded from the exercise of constitutional rights? If at former periods the Roman Catholics have been guilty of misdeeds, those of the present day have fully earned their pardon. By the loyalty which they have manifested throughout the war, they have more than earned all that can be granted them."

In 1817, we find the noble earl returning to the charge. Having, on the 8th of May, presented to the House, with some accompanying observations, the general petition of the Irish Roman Catholics, and a petition from the Catholics of Waterford, he, on the 16th of the same month, moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee to consider

the claims of the petitioners. "I now again," observed his lordship, "stand before you, the selected, though inadequate advocate of all my Catholic countrymen, of whatever rank or degree, of that great community of my fellow-subjects, claiming, with respectful firmness, the restitution of their political capacities; that they be admitted once more within the bosom of the constitution of their country." Having specified the insurmountable objections which he entertained to the veto, or to the payment of the Catholic clergy by the state, the noble earl thus stated the measure he should propose on that occasion: "My measure is a direct and absolute domestic nomination. Having guarded the church by that nomination from the influence, having made the election by the choice of the prelates in that country purely national and domestic, my next step would be to create the closest connexion between

small remainder of foreign

I

the Roman Catholics and their Protestant brethren. would throw open to the Roman Catholics, under the Protestant government, every office, without exception of any kind whatever, saving only such institutions as appertain to the government or patronage of the established church." The noble earl then proceeded to reply at considerable length to the arguments adduced by the opponents of concession.

To the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Lord Donoughmore, on the 19th of June 1817, gave his decided opposition; and in the succeeding month, he detailed his objections to the Irish Grand Jury Presentments Bill, unsuccessfully moving as an amendment to the motion for the third reading of the bill," that it be read a third time that day three months."

On the 5th of May 1819, Lord Donoughmore presented a number of petitions from the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and on the 17th of the same month, moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the subject. Indisposition prevented the noble lord from addressing their lordships at any great length upon this occasion. "I trust," said he, “that, after all that has passed, and after the great light which has recently been thrown on the subject, the relief asked by the Roman Catholics will be granted. Through the whole of my parliamentary life, I have earnestly and sincerely supported their claims. It would be difficult for me to offer any new arguments in their support; but I think it would be more difficult to maintain the converse of the problem, and show any good reason for their exclusion from the benefits of the free constitution which their fellow subjects have the happiness to enjoy."

On the 17th of December, 1819, Lord Donoughmore objected to the Seditious Meetings Bill, generally, as a measure which, if it did not absolutely take away one of the most important rights of the people, certainly limited and narrowed it considerably, by vesting in the ministers of the crown, or, at least, in those whom they appointed, the right of calling all public meetings, which was the next thing to taking away

that great constitutional right altogether;" and he especially protested against the extension of the measure to Ireland. On the 20th of December, when the bill was in a committee, the noble earl repeated his objection to the extension of its provisions to Ireland. In the same month the noble lord expressed his strong disapprobation of the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill; declaring that "ministers had wound up to a happy and appropriate conclusion, by that attack upon the freedom of the press, those measures of indiscriminate coercion, that system of pains and penalties, which they had devised against a suffering and a prostrate people; and which had been carried into complete and unrelenting execution by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament."

ment.

It is well-known, that on the return of her late Majesty to this country, in 1820, certain papers respecting her conduct were communicated by government to both Houses of ParliaWhen the Earl of Liverpool, on the 7th of June 1820, moved to refer the consideration of those papers to a secret committee, the motion was warmly opposed by Lord Holland and the Marquis of Lansdowne. Lord Donoughmore said, that "he could not allow the question to be put without stating the nature of his opinion to the House, particularly as that opinion was at variance with the sentiments of individuals with whom he had long been in the habit of acting, and for whose motives and conduct he entertained the sincerest respect. Differing from those noble persons, he felt that he ought to distrust his own judgment; but he could not consent to give up his opinion." The noble lord proceeded to argue in favour of the reference of the papers to a secret committee: observing that "the Houses of Parliament were merely called upon to advise the Crown whether, from any circumstances divulged by the papers before them, an ulterior proceeding would or would not be necessary, Was not such an arrangement calculated rather to shield the illustrious individual from judicial examination, than to deserve the name of a criminatory measure? The opinion which might be expressed by either House would not amount

to an imputation of guilt. It would be merely a declaration, that the papers did or did not contain matter upon which further inquiry of some description would be desirable." The next day, when the motion for proceeding to ballot for the committee was under discussion, Lord Donoughmore again urged the expediency of the proceeding. The ballot having taken place, the Earl of Donoughmore was reported as one of the members of the committee.

During the subsequent proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty, Lord Donoughmore took an active part in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses; and in the incidental discussion which thence arose. In the long and important debate which occurred on the motion for the second reading of the bill, the noble lord expressed a very unequivocal opinion on the subject under consideration. Rising, on the 3d of November 1810, immediately after Earl Harewood, who, although he allowed that he was by no means satisfied of the Queen's innocence, yet contended that the bill was an impolitic measure, Lord Donoughmore asked, "what was the practical conclusion to which the noble earl proposed to bring the House? If the illustrious person was not innocent in the noble earl's opinion; why did he not state what measure he would recommend in lieu of the bill? Were their lordships to relinquish at once their deliberate voice upon so grave a subject to what the noble earl was pleased to call the judgment of the public; but which might be more aptly denominated a state of popular violence and irritation? To such a spirit of intemperance he (Lord Donoughmore) for one was not prepared to submit. For the opinions of the English people he felt the greatest possible respect; but he had at that moment a duty to perform, which he was not prepared to sacrifice to the cry which had been so industriously excited without those walls." The noble earl then proceeded to examine the evidence in detail, declared his conviction of the Queen's guilt, and strongly reprobated the conduct of her counsel, more

« ForrigeFortsæt »