Star. — London, England, 1823-04-18 00:00:00

he was jegiSed in asking as favour from the Hon.: and talareserd Gentleman that he would state— 810)0GHAM.—.Not one wotd. Mr. C. W. WYNN thought that it would not be unbecoming in the Hon. Gentleman to state to the House whether or not Ise had intended to use the word ; i n a p e rso nal sense? llowever, as this was declined, he saw no other course. for the house to adopt than to demand a pledge from tlio%e Gentlemen that the i mattes should not be. carried further. Mr. A BERCROM DIE said, the question before the House was, that the !fight Hoe. Gentleman had I committed a breach of or der ; and the met was, whether he had made a sufficient explanatiou ? No o;;e, he thought, could deem the explanation saris- factory, and therefore the House would support its ()a n Orders, especially as this matter was now de• tached from all personal considerations Mr. WILMOT .said, that although his personal experience was not likely to give authority to his opi eiens, yet he trusted that they would have some .. e cight, from the very particular• attention he had paid to the expressions which fell from the Hon. and Learned Member. Ile hoped that the !louse would n, - abe bound down by too strict a regard for techni calities, bat he hoped that the Hon. and Learned Member would not object to state that he intended nothing personal—(Cries of " No, no").---Fie (%Ir. Wilmot) declared on his honour, that he thought the e spressioos personal to the highest degree, :tud he w orld have called the Learned Gentleman to order had there been time. He deprecated subjecting the honout of any Member to mere formalities, and. there fore, left it to diet-louse. to decide who was the otfender. Sir F. BURDETT said, if anything improper or disorderly had fallen from his Learned Friend, he was quite confident the Speaker would have checked him: It appeared to him that he had used strong language res pecting a public functionary, merely as a public functionary; on the contrary, the very interruption of the Right lion. Gentleman was highly disorderly, setting aside the words °used, which were greatly offensive. If the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last conceived his Learned Friend's language to be o ff e nsive, he ought to have moved that his words be taken &nen instantly. Sir ROBERT WILSON thought this question in volved in difficulties, which it did not at first possess. He thought that would be got over by the Right Hon. Gentleman admitting that he took the words tie politically, and not personally meant. Mr. CANNING—" If I understand the gallant General rightly, he desires that I should separate an official from a personal imputation. I will distinctly state, that, with respect to the House itself, 1 have been guilty of a breach of its Orders, and submit my self, as I am bound to do, with readiness, and at the same time with regret, to whatever it may decide.— I will further state, that I certainly did understand tit Learned Gentleman to apply the imputation to nie personally. I understood him to impute to me the having unbecominely submitted to some high per sonage, for the sake of coming into office, an impu tation which is not so much official as it is personal. If that intention be disavowed, I am ready to retract: if it be applied, will retract nothing !" The SPEAKER said, it appeared to him they were now to consider whether the Right lion. Member had made sufficient apology for the breach of its Orders. Urea, the House would, by its own power, enforce the Orders, so as to prevent anything resulting from what seemed now to be admitted to be a misunder standing. He understood the Right Honourable •Ese cretary to have retracted everything offensive to the House. Several Members had declared the words first used to have been personal, though others con sidered them not so. It would, therefore, be for the House to declare, that it would not suffer the matter to proceed farther. Mr. BROUGH AM observed, that if be were to codsult his own feelings, he should have wished, Le fore be entered on any explanation, to pass on to the remainder of the sentence in which he had been in terrupted by the Right Honourable Gentlemen (gr. Canning). Before he made any further observation * he begged it to be remembered that the call for ex planation had not proceeded from him. The ques e trots then before the House was, that the Right Horn Gentleman, who lead been stated by the highest au thority in that House as having been guilty of a vio laticn of its orders—a declaration unanimously ad mitted by every Gentleman who spoke, should be taken into custody, and tha he (Mr. Brougham) who was not even charged with any breach of its law, should also undergo a similar punishment—(A laugh, heir, hear). He opposed the first as well as the last part of that proposition. He should neither assent to its passing a vote of censure, or the commi tai to custody, in consequence (of the language that had been addressed to him—(Hear). With respect to thel sentence ill which be had been interrupted, be very alleclt regretted, he spoke it most sincerely, that he was wholly incapable of repeating the words that Ile bad made use of. lie recollected his meaning well, and in the full recollection of that meaning, he could " take upon himself to say, that he had not teed words that participated both a little of a political and personal application. He was not a man of that nieechacaCter of expression as to precisely discriminate the boundaries between these two terms. The meaning however of his language he would state, and leave to the House to judge of its interpretation. He we'll rectal ted that he bad used the words " poi i tical tergivesesa here" It was undoubtedly a strong expression, but it wine which had been over and over again used in tAdiscuosions of that House; he had certairily felt 4 . Ugly on the subject on which he had been addrecs them, and he felt also as .he felt now, that there ileter was Au occasikli . ou which that language was rake accauet,e,ly pptied. Aux thstno „stroog feelings "ere excited wholly by a reference-to the ,public and Ptikell 'life of the Right Dion. Gentlernan ; but as to , hi lllahete character, good GOD ! he (Mr. Brougham) . 11 _ 11, V/Othiag that .dui not redound to that Right 44 1 44(Mstati4 honopea.-4,4;(par, hAar,). lie had lil liillhowledge of his private life, and that little ac cidentally. It was in that passage of This lite.horeto fixer when he agreed with him on the very question of the Catholice of Ireland that he (Mr. Brougham) tOtelittko that personal interceprae. It was not un ....."4llLY•fue lump—not for factious—not for per purposes, that he had adverted-to the conduct of the 'Right Hon. Gentlem a n.. It was because he 4 0 1 h 4 401ad -that, from the very moment that he had "sae a declaration, in his speeds at Liverpool, in 4 ` ll 'ch he considered the cause of the Catholics here. less, and that he trusted he should not see it agitated i again, that lie felt called upon to a 9 that he u s e d. A t t h at moment 1 Gentleman 0f preparing perfe c t ot for his y e t: l w y th. tha a e rig l th e b n ie g Liian ua 6 ge rd.. 'notoriety, to India. 4 It was a matter Chancellor of England was in • direct hostility not alone to the question of the Catholics, hut to the Right Honourable Gentleman - himself. When, there- , lore, he connected that declaration at Liverpool with that hostility, and Lire subseque n t a pp o i n t m ent of that !nin H onoura bl e Gentleman to the office he now held, he did form the opinion he had that night expressed as to his change of sentiment. He had no. right to judge of the motives of Ally man ; but when he coupled that change of sentiment with the out ward and visible conduct—when he saw him at the head of Foreign Affairs, arid „tat was uncomtitu , n . onally called the Manaeer of that House, he did deeply deplore the change that had taken place; but why ? not fo r party purposes, still less for personal (Hear, heiro—but because he felt that such c(anitict wai at once a death-blow to the hopes of the Ca tholics. He should have willingly said rnore;.but the expressions which fell from the Right Honour able Gentleman, the second time he ad.iressed the House, entirely closed his mouth from any further explanation. In that address he r:newed, he re peate.l the disorderly expression; and whilst it re mained, no further explanation could be given. Mr. PLUNKETT said a few words across the table, which weic not heard in the Gallery. . Mr. Secretary PEEL put it to the House, whether it WAS not the sincere conviction of every man in that House that a most satisfactory explanation was given, calculated to allay any unpleasant feeling that might have existed between his Right lion. Friend and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ? (Hear, hear.) With respect to the circumstances out of which the misun derstanding arose, he would say that the facts must have been misrepresented to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; for, if there was a man less likely to truckle for office by unbecoming submissions to any man, it WAS his Right Hon. Friend (Hear, hear.) After the explanation that had been mutually given, he did not see the necessity for continuing the motion. Mr. BANKES met the suggestion, by most wil lingly withdrawing his motion (Hear, Mr. TIERNEY hoped, after what had passed, that the Right lion. Gentleman would assure the House that he would think no more of the misunderstand ing (cheers.) . Mr. CANNING.—I assure the Right lion. Gen tleman and the House that I shall think no more of it—( Cheers.) • Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he cordially acqui esced with the Right Hon. Gentleman. h was not the first time he was embattled against bins, and he assured biro, if ever there existed any remains of per soled ill-will against him, they existed no longer. Here the matter dropped. Mr. BROUGHAM then resumed his speech. He said that, by abandoning the question to-night, to use a homely expression, they would be playing with edged tools. lle was ever ready to impute the greatest degree ofindiscretion to the men who would so demean themselves to the Catholics.. They have alternately abused, deserted, and betrayed them; but he would not'betray or abandon Ireland-1e would not follow the 'example of bird, who, out of office, would profess to be its warmest friend, and, in office, would not endeavour to obtain its accomplishment. Their conduct would shew them what they had to expect at the other side, and ought to be a solemn ad vice to all the friends of that question. He would entreat them to take example from the abolition of the Slave Trade. His Hon. Friend the Member for Ycnkshire (Mr. Wilberforce), who first introduced that measure, was defeated day after day, and still he returned to the charge ; though, as Mr. Pitt wax not hearty in : his support of - it, he was advised to put it off to a more favourable period.— lie admitted that it seas at length carried by a Mi nistry favourable to it, and that otherwise there would have been little chance of its success. It his Hon. Friend had not persevered in that measure, he doubted if, in ten years after its introduction, it would have been caried during the Administration of Lord Gien ville and Mr. Fox. By the union of the Ministry, though it was not a Cabinet question, that detested traffic sunk amid the general acclamations of the House, when there were found but sixteen Members who were tied to the rigging. His advice• to the friends of the Catholic Question was, not to abandon it to those whose sincerity they doubted, which was the strongest ground for their keeping at their post. It was a sure specimen of plundering when persons went to pull down a house, half built, for the pur pose of destroying a rat: he spoke only of the house, not of the vermin. On the other hand, if they con tinued to persevere in the structure, they would at length succeed iii its completion. Mr. HUME said, though he was no friend to se cession though it was no slight occasion which would make him leave the House, yet he would agree with the proposition of the Hon. Baronet. It was a fixed principle with him never to desert his post ; but no man ought to be a party to a system of delusion. The Hon. Member here adverted to the speeches vf several Members on the Catholic ques tion, to prove their inconsistency by accepting office. Ministers were responsible for all the blood which . would flow id consequence of such treatment. For his part, he certainly would too longer be the dupe of those who so often changed their opinions. Mr. 4. MARTIN lot Galway) said that his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General was placed in an awkward situation. -Would he take upon himself the awful responsibility of losing the question, when many of the <ientlernee at the other sidethreawned to wlth- draw, if it was agitated? Those Hon. Gentlemen, ' who, while they ackeowledged the vitality of this question to Ireland, still withdrew reminded .him of a man who, when challenged to fight a duel, shot himself, and left a paper, in which he stated, us.an . -excuse, that he shot himself, because, if he did not, his adversary might. i Mr. S. RICE said he was unwilling that an impu- , tation should be affixed to that side of the House of . having deserted the Catholic question. He was re d , Isolved to remain in his place to .the last , .s m a ll us , might be.the minority on his side . Sir JOHN NEWPURT.observeJ, that hitherici . the. Iquestion had always.gained grkauld by reAatd dis / cussion. It ever there was,a time when.th e vital in terests of Ireland called urgently (or the pass i ng cif preuut. the measure, it was the Sir Re HERON expressed his regret that he could not consult ie the.pbssrveticins of they non. Member f4tYlltstatinaterASir E., Burdett) in this. particul or in stance,—The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.' ' cetteeete., C L A IX% . • ! At the moment when the SlT...faze called on Mr. PLUNEETT• ,several of the leading Meniers on the Oppositiun Brochea roie an:l left the iloute„ among whom were Sir F. Burdett, the Earl • of P...-ftem Lord relkstone, Edward Ellice, Esq. Ski R. IVilion. J; C. liubbiouse, Mr. Home, Iron. it. G. Bennet. Sir 11. Fer. !Taxon, Ur. Peter Moore, Lord F. Oillorne, Ur. S. aurett. Mr. Thomas Creevey and 3lr. Coke. Air. I'LUNKE TT rove and said, he had intended. to present to the House that day a Petition on behalf' of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, signed by a con siderable pOrtion of that body—considerable in num ber, in ploperty,'and station, to a degree that would entitle' he person beating it to lay claim to speaking the sense of the greet body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but some mistake prevented it at present. ile never in his life addressed the House under such circumstances of extreme difficulty as he was placed in at this'moment. Ile found he had to sustain the claims . of the Catholics, not only against all those who had been opposed to them, but against a consi .derable portion (.1 those who had ever l een looked upon as their friends. if the cause sustained a loss by the secession of those Honourable Members who had retired, it had suffered a still greater loss by the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Tie - ney), who remained in the House with the intention of giving his vote in its favour. That Right Ho nourable Gentleman had always been the itiend of the Roman Catholic Claims; he had always acted so, and he had no reason to doubt his sincerity. But lie would say that the greatest enemy which th 4 cause ever had never gave it so deep a wound as had( that ni,eht been inflicted upon it by its ancient friend. It was in vain that the Right Honourable Gentleman. and others endeavouted to throw on !inn the respon sibility of the failure of the question. The responsi bility of that failure lay upon those who had foretold in such ominous tones its defeat, and treated•the sub ject as a farce and mockery, while they animadverted on the personal demerits of its advocate. He (Mi. Plunkett) had always looked on this question as too high for party. He ever considered it as separate horn all petty interests, and he was proud to say that his coming over from one side of the House to the other had not injured him in the opinion of the Ca tholics of Ireland as the advocate of their cause ; and he could state, that it had not in the least effaced the impressions of unalterable zeal with which he had ever come forward to support their claims. The Right Honourable Gentleman appeared to think it a cause of censure that he had moved over from one side of the House to the other. If his memory did not misserve him, the Right Honourable Gentleman had made a similar movement; he had performed the figure of going over from one side of the House to the other, and back again, quite as gracefully as it could be done by any Honourable Member.— But he supposed the Right Hon. Gentleman could give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct, and he assured him be could do the same ; for, although he (Mr. Plunkett) had changed his side of the 11!m!.e, he disdained the imputation of petty or mercenary motives. He did not on coming over compromise the principles which he had ever maintained, and he felt.,,that the portion of that divided Cabinet who were its friends, gave it their. emit e and sincere sup port. The Right Hon. Gentleman had done him the honour of supposing that his accession to office bad injured the Catholic cause. • Humble an indivi dual as he was, if he thought his accession to power could have such an effect, the Right Hon. Gentleman would never have seen him in that place. He had made sacrifices to that question, and they did not rest upon flourishing word; or theatrical declama tion. He had given sufficient proofs of his sincerity, not to be put down by such insinuations. On the present occasion, notwithstanding the blow uhich the cause had experienced from the secession of some Honourable Gentlemen, and thefuneral oration which had been pronounced upon it by a Right Hon. Gen tleman before it was beard, he would not yield to the suggestion to postpone it, because he felt that he should be doing a great injury to it by such a concession. He had formed his opinions at a time when he could have been warped ' by no considerations of personal interest, and his early convictions had been strength ened by the experience of thirty-five years. He did not believe that the rejection of the measure would lead to the separation of the two countries, or even to any disturbances in Ireland. The Catholics were grateful for the benefits they had received, and the question was now one of sooner or later; for no doubt could exist that it "'Auld ultimately be carried. It was a grosi mistake to suppose that any indifference on this subject existed in Ireland. The humblest Catholic felt a deep interest in it. In 1821, the sense of the House of Commons had been in favour of the measure; and the principle had been again fully recognized when the BiH of his Right lion. Friend (Mr, Canning) had passed that House. Should the Bill pass to morrow, the youngest man now alive would not see twenty Catholic Members in that House. Of that the Catholics were so well persuaded, that they would have no objection to a limitation of the number of Catholic Members.— Should such a clause be moved and carried, he would not on that account abandon the Bill. The Bills in favour of the Catholics had never returned from the other House, and it had been said the reason was that concessions to the Catholics were contrary to the princieies pf the Protestant Religion and those of the ReVolution. But could it be supposed that the House of Commons would be unmindful of those great prin ciples? He positively denied the justice of such an inference. He denied that we were incurring such risks, or that such a black lowering cloud was hover ing over the destinies of the country. Securities had hitherto been the subject of much' difference and dis cussion. By some they hodbeen considered useless ; by others, ahose which had been offered had been deemed imufficient. For himself be had always been decidedly of opinion that, some securities were abso- ' lutely and indispensably necessary ; So much so, in deed, that he should object to passing any Bill with out them. Another objection to former' Bills was,- that they did not contain any provision in favour i of die PrOt4stela , DiSieSt*l; L but that they relieved the - 11.01124 n Cathulic s s front si4abilities to which 1 :hey lett. the Protestant' Dissenters liable. ' lie was i i glad .o 1 the y i resent opportialfftY us)* disabuse. the Orb ' Fie mind on -the'' poi& . gothats..cOuld breitss ti,lic. The tenancy 0f.t.4 thilsoeas to put the Roman Ca tholics . on . the fisoting.iithe Protest a t Ltseoters, ao4 nothieg mot& r Warldoglitterl;ellnniVrit:d n thi .t piMe Were in rtta__y, _rtg " eforriror the Yrotelt!it ni . !1,1 to sit 'iiith6.tt,u'se of Coditnons. - Ori l i tae Cu he had as much right to sTtin tliat Ifetkeanitin:tite !loose of in as the Member of tlie ., ere:est:pit EstabliShment. He would now call at:entioa ut the H's use to she a!gutnent founded An the princiiles • connected w:th 'thelteformation ; he admitted that • from the Reformation must be justly dated the rights and liberties of the people. At the rerio4 of the Al. formation three principles were operative. The first was the establishment of the Protestant religiiin; the . sscen ! was, to put doSsn all relight's differing from that of tl:e State, and forbidding; their public exer cise as contumacious ; the third wa . s . , to give the St:4e the poWer of distinguishing bet7e?f tooll=affected and d;saffected subject:, in order to - prevent the latter from being admitted into its high offices. Ot diose principles the first was the most iniricia tant s and was inalienable. The second, after having beeo . contended 7 v r ainst for three hundred years; seas at length aban doned by the rep-al of the law against recusancy ; the third was intended as a test th separate the well-affected from the disaffected, 'rind for that purpose the Oath of Septernacy was framed. What the friends of emancipation sottp . ,lit, was a quali fied Oath of Supremacy ? such as might . be raked by a conscientious Roman Catholic, ssho must always acknowledge a certain degree of - spiritual 'authority in the head of his Church.— A proviso in the Act of Elizabeth stated, that she being 'otherwise assured of the loyalty of the Lords Tem , potal, therefore the Oath of Suremacy - was not AO be taken by them. That alone decided that the oath was intended as a test of loyalty, not of religion, because it allowed persons of whose loyalty the Queen was otherwise assured, to sit in Parliament, and to hold offire. To those documents, plainly sheaving that the Catholics were not excluded as a sect, he never heard an answer given. The history of the times %hawed, that, from Elizabeth to James and Charles the First, the Catholics sat in Parliament and 'held Assizes. It might be said, that the Catholics were admitted to office by means of the dispensing power. The fact, however, was, that they were out excluded by law. By the Act of the 27th of Eliza beth, severe penalties were enacted against Jesuits and - Priests. The Right lion. Gentleman then pro ceeded th state, that the law continued so till the time of Charles the Second, when the Catholics were excluded from office, and fiorn Parliament.— New laws were then enacted, but the imputation as that they were not disloyal, they were in tact too loyal—the King was the pi ime traitor to the S;Ate— new provisions were introduced, and the declaration against the Mass and ti ansubstantiation.was framed— it the oath of supremacy was in itself' sufficient, why was the declaration ever introduced ? With ieseect to the argument that had been urged against the Catholics on the subject of oaths, it Is as not fair to wards the Catholics to suppose that they would be willing to interfere with any new oath they might take ss hen their delicacy alone prevented them inter fering with the old oath. The Right I-lon. Gentleman then quoted the opinion of Lord But leigh, as to the .binding nature of an oath on a conscientious Catholic ; and which appeared to that great man to be sufficient. If the House were to go bask to the eaths, they had better go back to the penal laws, and if they would go back to those laws, they had better not subdue but exterminate—they had better sole with a rod of iron—they had better not cut off the hair of the vic tim, because that might grow again, but cut off his head, for that would not grow. There was no greater mistake on this subject than that which supposed that the settlement at the Revolution was conclusive. The Revolution did not grant a pure and an enlight ened toleration; the lass of William did not grant it ; on the contra, y, the laws of that pet iod exposed the Ministers of the Catholic religion to seer pu nishment—prevented them from being schoolmasters —attacked therighi ef property; both in England and Ireland the Catholics were the victims of cruel persecu tion. The true foundation of religious liberty was not laid until 1793. Many laws which existed pre viously to the Revolution had been retained, many's:if those enacted since that period had been abolished; in short, it appeared that, by a perverse kind of che mistry, everything good was extracted, while every thing perverse and oppressive, as regarded the man Catholics, was allowed to remain ; all wines could adorn 'and dignify was removed, while every thing was left which could degrade or debase.— The Right Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the opinion of Mr. Locke, which, he observed, could only apply to individuals not good subjects. True, at the Revolution the Irish were not good subjects: they were ready to join any foreign eitemi; but would arty one say that the Irish were nut now good subjects? But if the Roman Catholics be considered to be rood subjects, then be would ask what became of the au thority of Mr. Locke? It was Katural for the Bleat men, who Watched as it were the cradle of the Con stitution, to feel considerable alarm at the conduct of the Roman Catholics, and to consider them at; bad subjects, in consequence of their teediness to join •a foreign Power. It was true that the great men of that period, such as Lord Clarendoa, Lord Somers, Mr. Locke, &c. were decidedly hostile to the fCathe hes ; but then Gentlemen who referred to the writings of those men should take into - consideration the cir cumstances of the times in which they wrote. * He would next call the attention of the House.to the doctrines held by Blackstone with 'aspect to the 'Catholics. That great waiter, speaking upon the subject, • said, " if men qUarrel with the Eccle siastical establishment, the civil Magistrate has no thing to do with it ; unless their tenets and practice are such as threaten ruin or disturbance to the State. Ile is bound indeed to protect the Established Church; and if this can be better effected by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emo lument, he is certainty at liberty so* to do ; the dis posal of offices being ••niatterof form ac id distinctio n . But this point being once secured, all persecution,for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous and absurd they may be; is contrary to every ptinciple of sound policy and civil freedom." This was 'exactly the doctrine . upon which he now called upon the House to act. The same author went so as follows As to Papists,'what 'has been said of the ProtestA.teiiria nt i Dis- . seeiers w ould ,hold equally ' toictalicinbr PrZvi....ied their :4444m —will's . • ~d