The present coronation oath is another argument with the anti-catholics. But the coronation oath was framed when Catholics sat in both houses of parliament in Ireland, and were eligible to all offices, civil and military. The oath was framed in the first year of William and Mary, and Catholics were deprived of the rights which they are now reclaiming, by the 1st and 2d of queen Anne. This is a fact, and it is a conclusive one, respecting the royal oath.
Unhappily, although the arguments for the cause were so strong, a shield of temporary evasion from them has been afforded to their enemies by the Catholics themselves. In a cause so good, it was indeed the misconduct of partizans, and not the arguments of op ponents, that was most to be dreaded. The original managers of the Catholic cause were men of respecta ble rank, of moderate tempers, and of sound abilities. At their meeting in Dublin, in January 1799, (a time when the union was in contemplation, and when a state provision for the Catholic clergy was actually spoken of by the British government,) they agreed to the pro posal of allowing the king (in the event of emancipation) a veto over the appointment of their bishops. In 1808, previous to the business being again brought forward in parliament, Dr Milner, the avowed agent of the Catholic prelates, renewed the concession on the part of the Catholic bishops, that, emancipation being grant ed, they would in future supply no vacancy without presenting the name of the proposed successor to government ; and, in case of his being objected to, to present another and another name, till government should be satisfied with the loyalty of the nominee. This was announced in parliament, and immediately became the subject of discussion on the other side of the water. There is no reason to believe that the most respectable among the Catholics were at any time averse to conceding the veto ; but there had risen in the popular meetings of this body, as there ever will rise in popular meetings, a set of rash, turbulent, and ambitious men, who envied the confidence and respect due to the superior leaders. These demagogues, at taching to their party all the bigotted and disaffected among their fellow-believers, raised a cry against the veto, which threatened a schism in the Catholic body, and, by their noise and activity, succeeded in intimida ting the prelates at the prospect of such a schism, to acquiesce in their absurd opposition.
The unreasonableness of the Catholics in refusing this concession, as a return for emancipation, has been acknowledged by their Protestant advocates ; hut Mr Grattan, in bringing lorward his present motion, gave it as his opinion, that foreign influence, the object of such pretended dread, could be completely avoided, by another mode of security, viz. domestic nomination. Some of the Irish Catholics had, in fact, virtually agreed to the principle. It was not to be expected, however, that the Catholics were to come and make their offer to that house. Overcome them by justice (said Mr Grattan,) not by standing out upon terms : give them their just right in the first instance ;—make it an article, if you choose, that they shall not elect foreign bishops ; —but, at all events, act justly. But the Protestant
friends of Catholic emancipation, while they saw with grief that the Catholics had furnished their opponents with a pretext for refusing the claims, did not consider the concessions of emancipation, even without a veto, to be half so dangerous as the present state of affairs. It must be noticed, that, at present, we do not possess the veto. What then is done by withholding the rights of that body, but continuing the danger of their dis affection, without gaining the veto ? Emancipation, or no emancipation, the veto is not ours, until the Catho lics choose to grant it. But the Catholics ought to grant it. True : but is it a matter of indifference that the Catholics should not be conciliated ? If the House of Commons (said Mr Ponsonby, in supporting the motion) expected great concessions from the Catholics, they should at least begin by making small ones them selves. But it was evident, that veto or no veto, arrange ment or no arrangement, the party in power were determined to concede nothing. To insinuate that con cessions were refused, because no distinct offer had been made by the Catholics, was dissimulation and hypo crisy. Those who said so, had the words on their lips, but not the meaning in their hearts. All that was demanded was, to go into a committee on the subject. Would it be said, that the house aught never to go into the consideration of a petition like that of the Catholics, unless they were prepared to go the whole length of the claims of the petitioners ? Let us contemplate the situation of Europe. The greatest warrior and politi cian, who had ever lived,—a man whose ambition is as gigantic as his views,—sways against us the subservient energies of a people, ambitious like himself, and whose ruling national passion is to put England down, that they may reign the masters of the world. With this power to contend with. would it not be sound discretion to look to our own resources ? and when a committee is required to inquire into the grievances of so great a share of our population, is it the answer of statesmen, to say to those who plead for the petition, " you arc not empowered to make certain arrangements, and we will therefore not inquire into the propriety of conceding any thing ?" Is it wise to tell the Catholics that they are to make all the advances, and then to sit silently and sullenly to receive them ? The legislature ought to make the advances, for they possess the power of doing so ; and, viewing the matter not as a theologi in and a religionist, but as a statesman, it would be wise to do so. Force can never secure Ireland : It had been tried for centuries ; and, at this vet y time, Great Britain is not more secure of Ireland titan in the most troublesome times. To render her tranquil, her demands ought at least to be listened to.