Link to Home Page
© MP McConnon, MC Research Service, Seabank, Castlebellingham, Dundalk, County Louth, Ireland.
Last update 12 June 2008.
1793
During the
debate,
in the
Irish
House of
Commons on
27
February
1793, on
the
passage of
a Bill to
extend the
franchise
to Roman
Catholics
the
Speaker
John
Foster
gave a
lengthy
reply
opposing
the
measure.
The Bill
however
passed
into law.
John
Foster
lived in
Collon in
County
Louth.
During the debate he stated:-
"In ever
thing
which had
hitherto
been
granted to
them
[Roman
Catholics],
he had
concurred.
He would
allow them
property,
with equal
security
for that
property;
civil
liberty,
with equal
security
for that
civil
liberty,
and every
thing
which
could tend
to their
ease,
their
happiness,
and
personal
welfare;
but he
would draw
a line
round the
constitution,
within
which he
would not
admit
them,
while
their
principles
were, he
would not
say
hostile,
but
certainly
not as
friendly
to the
constitution
as those
of
Protestants.
It was
impossible
while
church and
state were
so
intimately
connected,
that Roman
Catholics
avowedly
averse to
the one,
could be
as
friendly
to the
other, or
attached
to a
constitution
founded on
both, and
one
principle
whereof
was the
inseparable
union of
both. He
would say
that the
plain,
natural
and
inevitable
consequence
of
admiting
them
within the
pale of
the
constitution,
would be
the
destruction
of the
church
establishment;
....
'.... Admited then to every trust and power in the state, legislative and executive, do you think they would not feel their clergy degraded, while they remained subordinate?. Would they rest content, when there was no inequality between the Protestant and Catholic laity, that there should be a degrading and mortifying inequality between the Protestant and Catholic clergy?. He was not arguing on wild methaphysical speculations; he argued from human nature, from the common workings of the feelings and passions of men; from what Protestants would do and had done, and what he himself would do, were he a Catholic, in the same situation. Catholics would never bear to see the clergy of the minority, while the Protestant would then be, exalted by dignities and supported in affluence and splendour, while theirs had neither honours nor maintenance; they could not be content to see the clergy, who administered to them the duties of their religion, sunk in poverty, while the clergy of a church, to whom they had long been obliged to contribute, without profiting by their labours, were enjoying all the benefits of a wealthy establishment; subordination to Protestant power, had alone hitherto induced men to pay tithe for the support of a clergy, whose spiritual assistance they rejected .
....
Having .... argued on the unfitness of the inferior Catholics to exercise the elective franchise at present, without injuring the purity of election, he stated another danger to the constitution from this admission, that they must be advocates for the worst species of reform, that of individual voting, which every gentleman on every side of the House reprobated. The Protestant was superior in property, inferior in number; the Catholic the reverse; and the latter must be blind indeed to his own interest, if he did not endeavour to procure the reform which would give the influence to numbers and take it from property. But there is one consideration not yet adverted to; you are trustees for your constituents, they are Protestants, have you the power to destroy their rights, by overwhelming them without their consent: for his part he received his seat in this House, and the trust which he brought with it, from Protestants, under a Protestant king, a Protestant constitution, and a Protestant ascendancy, and, by the blessing of God, he never would give up their rights till they should desire him. Consult your constituents before you venture on such an act; will you give to the petitioners, for their three millions of men, a full participation of all that the one million enjoys, and not see that you are overpowering the rights of the one million?
....
I have shewn you that you are not bound to give franchise as a right, that you cannot grant it as a favour, without hazarding the overthrow of the Protestant church; the Hanover succession, and our connection with Great Britain; that even if you could do it without such hazard, the mass of the Catholic body is unfit to exercise it with safety or advantage; that such a grant will make every Catholic an advocate for the worst species of reform, where numbers, and not property are to influence; that if these arguments have no weight, still you are but trustees for you constituents, and cannot surrender their right without their especial leave, which you have not obtained.
...."
(Source: The Parliamentary Register or History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons of Ireland, The Fourth Session of the Fifth Parliament in the Reign of his present Majesty; Which met at Dublin on the 10th of January, and ended the 16th of August, 1793., vol.XIII, online at www.books.google.com)
Link to
County Louth Page
Link to
Home Page
© MP McConnon, MC Research Service, Seabank, Castlebellingham, Dundalk, County Louth, Ireland.
Last update
12 June
2008.