« ZurückWeiter »
of emancipation. But in nothing have the great leaders of the Irish Roman Catholics been more decisive and violent than in disowning him. He now pledges himself anew to support any measure for granting the claims of the Catholics under the reasonable securities suggested in the report of Sir John Hippesley's Committee. But the divine Hierarchy, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, has published to Catholic Ireland that what he calls reasonable terms would be subversive of their religion, and that they will set the example to the laity of spilling their blood rather than agree to them. Their lay associates placing, or pretending to place, implicit faith in the decision of their Bishops "Spurn at the idea of purchasing national benefits or civil immunities by the sacrifice of their ancient and Holy Religion," which by that decision, their acquiescence in the reasonable terms of Sir John Hippesley's Committee would require of them. Sir John asserts that the documents he has produced afford authentic proofs to shew that the principle of the interference of the Crown in the nomination of Bishops, and of a controul over the correspondence with Rome, has uniformly obtained in every country of Europe whether Protestant or Catholic, as an indispensable security for internal protection against the influence of the see of Rome. On that ground he takes his stand with Mr. Canning by his side, and assumes, for certain, that while the principle in both instances is made a sine qua non in granting to the Catholics any concession of their claims, they will really see no cause to fear any encroachment on their religious principles. All their present prejudices and discontents must be removed by the report of his Committee. But I should recapitulate the contents of every page of this address were I to enter into the proofs that are to be found in the most authentic documents published to the world previous to this report, to shew how egregiously this sanguine advocate for emancipation with securities, counts, to use a familiar phrase, without his host. But, perhaps, the state of the question has been changed subsequent to this report. I have already mentioned a Father Hayes, the deputy last sent from the Catholics of Ireland to the Holy See. So late as October last, this man, bearing the joint credentials of the laity and the Clergy, presented a letter to Cardinal Letto, which is decisive of the question-Decisive against the sanguine expectations of the Baronet and the flattering anticipations of Mr. Horner. It appears that this "shorn and frocked" deputy had previously written to his Eminence requesting "As he was on the point of leaving Rome to return homeward, that his Eminence would be so kind as to declare to him the sentiments of his Holiness with regard to those matters pertaining to Religion which for several years have been subjects of Contention between
the Catholics and the most powerful government of the British Empire, in order that he might be able to give some answer to his countrymen respecting an affair in which their temporal peace and eternal welfare were so vitally interested. To this application he received an answer from the cardinal, and the document to which I have now to refer the reader, is a reply to that answer.
After insulting with the lowest and most vulgar abuse Cardinal Gonsalvo, and other Courtiers, as he calls them, about the Pope's person, who it seems had represented him to his Holiness, as an obstinate and disrespectful person, he expresses the joy with which he is filled by the "truly happy intelligence his excellency's letter announces to Ireland in answer to his first query, viz. that his Holiness never meant, even by the letter from Genoa, to command or oblige the Catholics to admit of any condition whatever, which they might, from political or religious motives, dislike. This official declaration, issuing eighteen months after the date of the said letter, upsets," he says, " all those alarming and lying reports which the vetoists and their abettors in the Cabinet and the House (encouraged by the cringing, but, through his Eminence's care, happily ineffectual complaisance of a mere Roman Politician) industriously circulated to the prejudice of his Holiness, as well before the letter was published as afterwards, viz. That the Pope had entered into a private compact with the English Government, and had definitively granted the Veto, nay more the direct nomination. That his Holiness in Genoa had formerly confirmed and corimanded the execution of the decree signed Quarantotti; in a word, that the Holy Father of Christendom had sacrificed the Irish Church to her enemies in return for the support he had received from the English Ministry in the Congress of Vienna towards the recovery of his states.His Eminence's letter of the 5th of October gives, he says, the formal lie to these assertions, so injurious to his Holiness's character, and so alarming to Ireland."-" Indeed it was not for a moment to be imagined, either that his Holiness would hesitate an instant to revoke formally the letter, had it been mandatory, as scon as the Bishops and Catholics of Ireland should have proved to him that its effects would endanger religion, or that they in the mean time should acquiesce in its execution.-Although his Holiness had not barely promised after emancipation to permit, but in fact and pro presente commanded, by the letter of Genoa, the handing of the list of Candidates to the Ministry; nevertheless the Bishops and Clergy of Ireland not only might, but ought, and that under pain of the most grievous of sins, to prevent this interference of ministers."-After again expressing his satisfaction at having drawn from his Eminence an official declaration that should effectually silence the enemies of unconditional Emancipa,
tion, who have so much, and in so many ways, misrepresented the letter from Genoa, he "proceeds" further to remark, as his Eminence had often done, that there were many reasons presented by the Genoese letter in itself, to show that independently of its permissive tenor, which necessarily required the consent of the Catholics, Government could not rest upon that document. Ist. It formally revokes the decree signed Quarantotti: 2dly. It excludes all forms of oaths except the three therein proposed, thus condemning that which Catholics are now forced to take: 3dly. It requires that Ministers should leave to the list a sufficient number of names for his Holiness to chuse from; which in fact could be no security in their sense of the word: 4thly. It gives a flat refusal to their demand of the Regium Exequatur, (meaning the correspondence with the see of Rome, its rescripts, bulls, &c. &c., and of those other inadmissible abuses, as his Eminence pointedly terms them, proposed by Sir JOHN HIPPESLEY'S COMMITTEE TO PARLIAMENT; 5thly. It requires a previous condition, before any of the above matters be even PERMITTED, the formal and IRREVOCABLE enactment of FULL AND TOTAL EMANCIPATION WITHOUT THE EXCEPTION OF ANY ONE OFFICE IN THE STATE." He then concludes this letter as follows: "Such, my Lord Cardinal, is the declared expla nation drawn from the several conversations I have had with his Holiness and you, which I submit to your Eminence, because I think it necessary to submit the same to the nation, in order fully to remove all those doubts and suspicions, which the opposite party might take occasion to excite in the Catholics from the reserve with which your Eminence writes to me.Thus things being explained return to their former state; and the Catholics of Ireland have no further motive to dread on the part of his Holiness any sanction of the pretensions put forward by the British Government, which, if it be wise, will not continue to insist upon measures that must for ever meet the combined opposition of Ireland and Rome."
Sir John Hippesley, it is to be presumed, will have seen this precious document. On what ground then will he come forward to redeem the pledge he has given that the body of information he has collected, and the Report of the Committee on that information will satisfy the Catholics of Ireland. What credit can he hope to gain with the House, if he will continue to assert that they will no longer see any just cause to oppose the interférence of the Crown in the nomination of their Bishops, or the measures to be proposed for regulating the correspondence with the See of Rome? Here is the Friar of St. Isidore versus the Recorder of Sudbury. The accredited agent of the Catholic Clergy and Laity of Ireland, and the unauthorised, and oftentimes disowned and
reprobated volunteer in their cause. Here are on one side referen“. ces to regulations of other countries, providing in their wisdom against the interference of a foreign power in matters vitally connected with the authority of their governments and their internal peace, and on the other the peremptory negative on the part of that power against agreeing to the adoption of any such regulations when proposed for this country, and a menace of its eternal opposition to any concession on that head.
Is it then come to this? and what have we lived to see? Would the Parliaments of England, even when in communion with the Church of Rome, have waited to know the will and pleasure of the head of that Church; the decisions of his casuists; his bulls and his rescripts, and his concessions to other countries, before she should proceed to enact new laws or abrogate others on points intimately connected with the fundamental laws of the land, and the settled principles of the Constitution? Is the answer of her Barons to his Legates, when in the zenith of his usurpations on the civil power, forgotten? Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari? Could it have entered into the imagination of the distinguished characters who atchieved the glorious work of the Revolution, to fear that a day might come when the Legislature of England would suffer its deliberations to hang on the decisions of a power, from whose restless encroachments on the liberties and the internal peace of their country, it was one of the great objects of all their labours to rescue her? "We must not violate their religion," says Lord Castlereagh. "Their religion must not violate our Laws," would be the answer of the old Barons. "Their religion must not violate any of the fundamental principles on which we perfected the Constitution, such as we delivered it to you and to all future times," would be the answer of the great actors in the Revolution. But the spirit of our laws, the spirit of our Constitution, the spirit of our Church, as an integral part of that Constitution, is toleration. He must be an utter stranger to that spirit who would attempt to deny this, even in a controversy with the most intolerant of all sects. But dissent from the Established Church not content with Toleration is not," says Burke, "religion, nor conscience, but ambition." If I do not mistake, it is in the speech in which this observation is to be found, that this great man makes a distinction between Toleration and connivance. During a long period the Roman Catholics of Ireland professed and exercised their religion from connivance. I do not mean to justify the general spirit of that period. But in what country of Europe was Toleration ever more full, complete, boundless, in every thing that relates to the exercise of their religion, than the Irish Roman Catholics of the present day enjoy, than the Irish Roman Catholics of
the present day so grossly abuse? And are they content with that toleration? To be content with mere toleration; to see their clergy remain in a situation of bare permission to fulfil their exalted duties," they tell you, "is no longer to be borne."
But will Lord Castlereagh define to the House what that religion is which must not be violated in finally deciding on the Catholic Claims? In his own view of the question, the only tenets of that religion which parliament will have to take into its consideration are those that have a reference to the Crown in the nomination of their Bishops. Now whether we are to conceive the Pope to be the authority that is definitively to pronounce on these tenets, as we are at one time told, or their own Bishops and Clergy, as Friar Hayes, speaking on the part of the Catholics of Ireland, and within the very walls of the Vatican, maintains in his letter to Cardinal Letto, what can be less distinctly defined? What more contradictory, or less to be depended on as a basis for any permanent satisfactory arrangement, than the declarations either of the See of Rome, or of the Irish Synods? Cardinal Letto, in his letter from Genoa, conveys not only his Holiness's permission, but his commands, to the Catholics of Ireland to accede to the measure of the Veto; Father Hayes proclaims to the Catholics of Ireland, that he has the authority of that Cardinal to declare to them, that the question remains just as it was previous to the date of that letter: that the Catholics of Ireland have no further reason to dread on the part of his Holiness, any sanction of the pretensions put forward by the British government on the subject of securities, and that, if that government has any wisdom in its councils, it will not persevere in its attempts to carry a measure that must for ever meet the opposition of Rome as well as of Ireland.
I have already made the reader acquainted with the various transformations of the Proteus Hierarchy, which, suæ non immemor Artis, omnia transformat sese in miracula. I have quoted the acts of their Synods to show him the various fluctuations of that Inspiration to which they made pretensions at each successive sitting, and the contradictory doctrines, in the promulgating of which, they claimed its influence. I have exposed the series of their vacillations from the period at which they first acceded to the principle, and adopted regulations for giving it effect, to the vote of its being inexpedient under existing circumstances;-from thence to the declaration that it would be subversive of the Catholic religion in Ireland, and of their deep and unalterable conviction, that by acceding to it, they would betray the dearest interests of that portion of the Church which the Holy Ghost had con