opposite, (Sir J. Mackintosh,) who certainly had the love of freedom as much at heart as any man, would not willingly go back to that palladium of liberty-to that invaluable blessing -Scottish independence. The same opinion, in regard to Ireland, was becoming daily more prevalent among many of those who had most strenuously opposed the union with that country. The interposition of the British in the constitution of Sicily had been solely with the view of fitting that island for a military station. It must, however, have been unpleasing to the people, and its result had not been happy. As far as he could judge, he never knew a constitution less suited to the genius of a people, or which seemed less likely to work beneficially for them, than that which had been formed; and he believed there was no feeling more general when the British troops left the island, than that that constitution could not stand. Those who formed it affected to take the British constitution for their model; and he believed they took measure of the table on which he was then leaning, so determined were they to be correct, even in the most minute point of arrangement (a laugh); as far as the administration of government, the raising or the supporting an army, were concerned, no constitution could be more defective, and it was equally inefficient for securing the happiness of the people. At length all parties determined that a fundamental change should be made. In 1814, Sir W. A'Court was authorized to explain to the people of Sicily the reasons which compelled Great Britain to withdraw her troops from the island; and it was perfectly true, that in the memorial which he presented on that occasion, he expressed a hope, that whatever changes were made in the constitution, should be worked out by means of the con stitution, and not effected, as modern alterations in government were, either by the army, or by secret associations. However, after working for near twelve months in remodelling the constitution, the parties intrusted with that duty came to a dead stop. The consequence was, that the two Houses addressed the Crown, and a royal commission was appointed to effect the desired object. This royal commission also failed; and then the king was called on to renew the constitution of 1812, which it had been found impracticable to carry into effect. This was referred to the council of state, under whose cognizance it was for several months, without any good being effected. So that if it were wished to establish the reign of chaos in Italy, those individuals appeared to have pursued the most feasible means for the accomplishment of that object. He was not aware of there having been, during the six years that had elapsed since the period of our leaving Sicily, a single instance of a Sicilian alleging that he had been illused on account of his previous connexion with the British. He did protest against the extravagant notion that the British government was to be held to an eternal interference in Sicilian affairs; for such was the effect of that principle of obligation which was contended for by the noble lord. It would be perfectly unjustifiable and impracticable, unless we had made a specific contract for such interference. He was not aware, therefore, of any circumstance by which it could now be justified. Sir J. Mackintosh strongly supported the motion. With regard to the delay in bringing it forward, no man in Europe knew the pledge given by Britain, till the papers were laid on the table. The question, as replied to by the noble marquis, involved three propositions. First, there was no evidence before them, or before Europe, of the impracticability of the political government established in Sicily under the auspices of the noble lord (Bentinck.) Secondly, he would submit to the House, that if the government were really found impracticable, and were proved to be so, instead of the ancient constitution being restored, the constitution which we were obliged to restore, if the one which superseded it should be destroyed, the whole of their ancient constitution had been overturned, all their privileges were abolished, and there was an entire establishment of despotism instead. The third proposition for which he would contend was, that the change which was now made by the King of Naples re-opened the question, and entitled the Sicilians still to have their ancient system restored. The ridicule against the Sicilians for their minute copying of the British constitution, was neither very becoming nor very generous. No proof had been given of the impracticability of maintaining the constitution, and of correcting any defects which experience might shew to exist in it. The real obstacle lay in the desire of restoring absolute power, and the obligation to do it, incurred by the flagitious agreement with Austria of the 12th June, 1815. Whatever opposition existed against the Sicilian constitution, had not been in the two Houses of Parliament, but in the court, in the councils, and, if Europe was not deceived, in the very family of the king. The only friends of England were the friends of the Sicilian constitution. The lovers of liberty naturally became attached to England. The constitution of England had been the ancient standard; England, the classic ground of liberty. He asked, wherein the constitution now given to the Sicilians could be distinguished from the most absolute monarchy? It was a very fashionable topic, that certain nations were not fit for political liberty. Where in the world had any nation become qualified to enjoy liberty, without the possession of it? The Italians were now in the same situation as the English three centuries ago. They were now struggling, as we had done while laying the foundation of the noblest fabric of liberty the world ever saw; and, by the same struggles, they might yet be restored to their_ancient splendour and glory. The noble lord now proposed a motion, which called for no censure, and manifested no severity. It only asked something more of their ancient privileges for the Sicilians, than the constitutions of 1821 or even 1816 had given. He should rejoice if any improvement were derived by a defenceless people from the interfe rence of Great Britain, who had offended deeply against them. On a division of the House, the notion was negatived by 69 to 35. CHAPTER IV. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. The Catholic Question.—Mr Plunkett's Bill-Carried in the Commons'-Debates in the Lords'-Negatived.-Disfranchisement of Grampound,-Transference of its Votes.-Motion for Parliamentary Reform by Mr LambtonBy Lord John Russell.-Sir J. Mackintosh's Bill for Mitigation of Punishment in Cases of Forgery. THE Catholic question, already debated so often, and in so many different shapes, made this session a nearer approach to a successful issue than it had done on any previous occasion. On the part of the ministry it was thrown entirely loose, being supported by several of the most leading members. It experienced opposition, therefore, chiefly from the alarms and prepossessions still cherished by the higher members of the political and ecclesiastical aristocracies. The approach of the discussion was marked by the presentation of numerous petitions from the English clerical bodies, praying that the church should be deprived of none of those securities against popery, fixed to it at the glorious epoch of the Revolution. On the other hand, Lord Nugent, on the 28th February, presented a petition from the English Roman Catholics. This petition, his lordship observed, was signed by 8000 individuals. Among these were the names of seven peers, fourteen baronets, seven of their own bishops, and a considerable body of their clergy. Besides the increased claims of the Catholic body, he rested his hopes of present success, particularly on the declaration of the petitioners on the subject of foreign influence, hitherto the main object of jealousy. One passage was expressed as follows:"Your petitioners have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate a part of that allegiance which is due only to their own sovereign; but they have repeatedly and solemnly denied the charge, and they now again beg leave to make the same denial ;" and they added, "to our sovereign lord the king we swear pure and undivided allegiance; in him alone we acknowledge the civil sword of the realm" (using the words of the 39 articles) "to be placed." The petitioners further stated, that they did not acknowledge that any foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, ought to have any authority in any matter civil, spiritual, or ecclesiastical, in this coun try. This main question being cleared away, there remained no longer any reasonable pretence for refusing to the Catholics an equal participation of civil rights. The doctrine that Catholics did not consider the oaths made with Protestants binding, was long since swept away along with the rubbish of other prejudices; but let the House recollect how long they had suffered from the effects of such prejudices. In vain had Catholic Europe disavowed the doctrines imputed to them; in vain had the opinions of the most learned universities been declared; in vain had the example of the amicable manner in which Catholics and Protestants lived together operated; the tests which had been created on the ground of such prejudices still continued. How absurd was it to exact an oath, that no mental reservation was intended, and no dispensation expected from the Pope, when, if such were the case, no oath could be binding. The Catholics, however, valued the sanctity of an oath too highly to make it an instrument of political power where they could not take it conscientiously. It was therefore most fallacious and absurd to say, that Catholics did not regard the sanctity of an oath, and at the same time to place an oath as the only barrier to their power. It was arguing in a circle. His lordship quoted the sentiments of Bishop Hoadly and Archdeacon Paley, that though it might be necessary, from urgent political circumstances, to withhold for a time certain privileges from the Catholics, the first opportunity ought to be embraced of placing them on a level with their fellow-citizens. The motion being seconded by Lord Glenorchy, the petition was laid upon the table. Mr Plunkett afterwards presented a petition, signed by several thousands of the Catholics of Ireland, and which, he could say, contained the sentiments of the great body of that persuasion. After these preliminaries, Mr Plunkett rose to bring forward his grand motion in favour of the Catholics. He disclaimed employing any argument founded on supposed disaffection in the Irish Catholics. Such an argument their conduct had nobly refuted. Determined as they were to persevere in their efforts to obtain redress of grievances and restoration of rights, they were equally determined never to seek them but as the result of wisdom and justice in the legislature, in which they knew that they could not be ultimately disappointed. He admitted that there existed an eager desire for redress, and somewhat of that sickness of heart, which arises from hope deferred. He did not expect that the remedy would at once remove all discontent. The waves were heard to roll for some time after the tempest had ceased. The measure was objected to on account of the difficulty of settling the details, and some want of agreement in its friends. Such a course was not fair, manly, nor candid. The Catholics called for concessions which justice required, which the constitution admitted, and which policy warranted. If you showed the request to be unfounded in argument, he yielded the question; but if you objected to the form of the measure, or to the detail of the terms, he would say it was not fair, manly, nor candid, to meet the question so. What right have you, Mr Plunkett proceeded, what right have you to neutrality on such a question? Why don't you come forward to assist us? Why don't you remove the objections which you are so senclear sible of? Why don't you the obscurities which mislead us? What right have you to wrap yourself up in neutrality on a question which, if not bad, is necessarily good? What up he was now to propose, was to refer the petitions which he had presented to a committee, for arranging the mode in which the desires expressed in them could be complied with. This question would have been carried on a former occasion, but for the gross misconduct of its friends. That was at a time when Europe was in a most critical and alarming state; and those who voted for it then, could not now withhold their support. No portion of the people had been more distinguished for zeal and valour in the defence of the country than the Catholics. They had fought our battles; they had shed their blood with a pertinacity of self-devotion for the liberties and privileges of the British constitution, which shewed that they were worthy to enjoy them. He apprehended, then, nothing of hostility, certainly nothing of rancour, against his motion. There might be something of prejudice opposed to him. When he said prejudice, he begged to be understood to mean nothing hurtful to the feelings of any individual or class of persons. The prejudices opposed to him were derived from an origin so noble, and connected themselves with feelings so intimately associated with the struggles of our ancestors, both for civil and religious liberty, that they claimed every respect and attention; but as they were honourable in their origin, he hoped they were in their nature accessible to truth and reason. The learned gentleman endeavoured to show, that religious belief could never be a justifiable ground of political exclusion. The requisitions, too, were entirely negative; nothing positive was called for. A man might be an infidel, be might believe in Jupiter, in Osiris, in all the host of heaven, and all the creeping things of the earth, and be admitted to all the privileges of the state, for the statutory abhor VOL. XIV. PART I. rence was limited to those who believed all the great principles of religion. He endeavoured to shew, that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation involved nothing so wholly absurd as was generally represented. In Queen Elizabeth's reign a great part of the nation believed in the real presence, and that politic princess caused the liturgy to be so drawn up, that it might not directly shock this belief. The restrictions under which the Catholics laboured had been imposed in consequence of circumstances which had now long ceased to exist. The situation of Europe, the designs of Spain, might at one time render it necessary to impose some restraints on those who acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope. Yet they did not attribute to him any absolute power, or temporal authority, but merely a spiritual supremacy. A right reverend prelate, eminent for learning and ability, while expressing the most liberal sentiments on the subject of religious opinion, had named something which he called civil worth, from which it was expedient that the Catholics should be excluded. Now by this principle of civil worth, it was very clear that a man might shut out persons of the highest merit; he might shut out all those who were most eminently deserving of admission; and he might let in those who were the most worthless and the most unfit. If this newfangled phrase of "civil worth" was to be repeated, with a view to keep the Catholics out, it might be well to know what it meant. It did not include all that had immortalized the worthies of English history; neither did it include the little accidents of birth, education, and virtue, nor the mere immaterial requisites of justice, probity, and honour. All these were shut out of civil worth. This principle of exclusion was an upstart, re H |
