Star. — London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

Fir . 114 • r -eussion. Wh respect - out law that was unjust, die- i cussion errnatstlintnce ; and, if they agreed o avoid thatey . not only stopped discussion, but cduk b( thought and the flight of time. eierfyear, the passing of everrisour, brought the great question nearer to its final setdei Isteut, But .aa tD.thc.suppnsition that the success of this measure Carried the general question, the same arguments were to dena, leading in each case to - the same result, and involving a parallel conelusioa, he utterly denied. It was the great advantage of this question that it rested on more practical grounds, and a smaller basis than that which involved so many conflicting considerations. Hitherto it had been im- Seated to the advocates of the Roman Csv i holics that they did not confine themselves to law and fact, bet . • that they wandered into generalities ; expatiated free • over abstract topics; that they soared to the heights of principle, and ranged the circumfe rence of ana logy ; but t hat they touched not the law or the Cons stitution: he should turn that argument to-day— nothing should fall from him to justify the introduc tion of general topics ; much as he respected general i principles. he should call upon those who would op pose his motion that day to analyse the precise subject of his motion, and the precise Act of Parliament with which it was connected. At the same time he was not one to throw aside the importance of the general question, but anxiously indulged the hope that it would meet, as it deserved, the completest success. However, he would strictly, on this occasion, confine • himself to the motion of which he had given notice, and look for nothing but the inevitable consequences that must result from it, and- the necessary pro gress of opinion ; be was, therefore, he hoped, in - a condition to assure tho r se who entertained fears of the general question being prejudiced by this motion, that there was no ground for their alarm.— Some there were so high-minded as to be indifferent to any progress of the parts of a question if the whole was not carried, Some, again, would say, that it would be a loss if the question was carried—not be cause the privileges were valueless, but because it would strip the advocates of the Roman Catholics of some of the most interesting topics of declamation. He was not of opinion, however anxiously he desired the success of the general question, that to prevent the enriching of •future debates, it would be wise to throw away the advantage of making a step in the general cause. It this view of the case were correct, the course which the Roman Catholics had taken was unwise. Why not go back to the times when all the venal statutes were in full operation ?—wben'even the most jejune statement would be eloquence from the strength of their cause. How much then Must they lament those concessions made from time to time, during the auspicious reign of his late Majesty , which have put the Roman Catholics into that state, that he had scarcely a specimen to exhibit of those chains which they wote at the accession of George 111. He supposed they were to regret the statute of 1778, which gave the right of property to Roman Catholics. He supposed they must lament the sta tute of 1791, which freed the Catholic from vexatious disabilities. He supposed they must regret the statute of 1795, which took away from the Irish Catholics so much, that they had little comparatively remain ing to complain of ; and he roust be supposed also to regret the silent opening of the Army and Navy to Catholics, because, if all these important boons had been withheld to this day, what a fair debate would they have had I He did not think, however, that this argument was much to be attended to, or that it was exceedingly wise. Coupled with this was ano ther feeling, to which he was anxious to pay much respect. It had been suggested, that some of the noble persons deeply interested in the fate of this motion, entertained a certain disinclination to the partial discussion of the question. To this he should reply, that the present motion was brought forward without taking their opinions upon it ; and for this, he conceived, he need offer no apology. He was not there the agent of the Roman Catholic Peers—he did not there represent them. lie felt no delicacy in tell ing these noble persons, that as he was no more their sworn advocate (in the common parlance of a hired advocate) th an he was of the whole Catholic population —as he did not defend their rights at their instigation, or for their special sakes—as their approbation was not his reward, or the gaining of their favour his motive, so would he not compromise his own opinions to suit theirs—nay, farther, he could tell them, that though they flatly disapproved of the plans he proposed, yet he would not be turned aside from the path he had chalked out to himself. But he was glad not to be obliged to run counter to, or be independent of the feelings of these noble persons, for he could assure the House, upon the authority of a letter received this day from the principal Noble Lord interested, that no such objections as those stated did exist on the part of the Roman Catholic Peers—(Hear, hear). — There was, therefore, no foundation for the report, and he hoped the refutation would serve to.do away any impression unfavourable to the success of the motion which the suggestion was calculated to create. One word more only he would add upon the subject. Ile had already said, that in bringing this forward, he had neither consulted the opinions of the Noble Lords as to his plans, nor regulated himself as to time by their approbation or dislike; be had said, that so little slid he take their concurrence into ac count, that he would not stoop to concede a single opinion to them ; but it was with pleasure he could add, that there was no advance made upon the parts of these noble persons ; and be declared upon his ho nour that there had not come to him a single sugges tion, either directly or indirectly, from the quarter most nearly interested in the event of this discussion. The whole matter, therefore, originated with himself; all the responsibility was his own. He wished to disconnect himself from any influence arising from the rank of the parties concerned, and to let is mo. von stand upon its own merits. He wished the Howe to look at the question as if it regarded the rights of all Roman Catholics, and to make no other difference in their legislative address upon this occa sion, than that which arose from the paucity of the numbers, and the particular rights which the indivi duals concerned claimed—(Hear). Another objection hid been stated, to which he would now apply hints 1 1 . but he hoped to be able to djspose of it _in the It was said that there was kosnethins peep- improper in originating in the House of Cum- Bill that affected particularly and specially Jeges of the House of Lords. Of this be • ; had been .1 Lel, but outset. burly int a the pr i x il i :~ . should say, tSet the true by the test of istecedent. act which he .proposed, House—(fieer, Ater)---kte A...- disqualification-of the Peers(_ tending to the House of Comfnbns at the time of its passing, t' two Houses stood • to each , _ man Catholics were excluded, l'latively excluded from Parliament hi e !: Oath o Su premacy _ whilst Roman Catholics sat In Parrnitnest, not only uninterruptedly to that time, but absolutely sanc tioned by a Parliamentary recognition; if he found that the Bill of 1678, which wits directed equally against the Peers as the Commons, eratratforced only against the latter, and that the fears of Popery which called for the Act of Supremacy applied Solely to the Peers, by which they were excluded and not before ; if he found that the measures of the late reign, not to confirm disabilities, but to restore rights to the Peers, all originated in this House, surely no matt of common sense would say that it was improper to originate a proposition like the present here--(Hear, hear).—There were multitudes of cases in pars mate.' ria in favour of his argument. He had only to men tion the sth of Elizabeth for disqualifying Catholics from sitting in the House of Commons, which also applied to the Peers, the Act for excluding Catholic Bishopi, and many others, 'all relating to the Lords and the Lords only, which had their origin in this Rouse. And yet he was to be told that it was a disrespect to the other House to bring the - subject on here, and that too in a case where it was not to im pose a grievance upon that House, but to afford it redress—(Hear, hear, hear). —He had thus, he hoped, disposed of those objections, and shewn that there was no ground for the suggestions alluded to. But one objection more remained—an objection which had been revived by an Honourable Member to-night. He was told that it was a singular combination that he (Mr. Canning), who was always opposed in prin ciple to Reform in the House of Commons, should now turn advocate for an extended Reform in the House of Lords. Now, although this objection had no reference to the question which was to be tried— not upon his (Mr. Canning's) but its own merits, yet he wished to set himself right with the House; for he held it good, as a general proposition, that the proposer of any measure would have a better chance of succeeding, whose objects appeared disinterested, and upon whose motives there was no slur. He would therefore claim leave to speak one word in his own behalf. It was a strange fact, but it frequently happened, that the very point upon which one piqued himself most, was that from which he was most ex posed to accusation. He had flattered himself; and he hoped to be able to make out before he had done, that his conduct in this instance was not only free from inconsistency, but that it was consistent with all the principles which he had from time to time advo cated. In discussing the question of Parliamentaty Reform, he always contended that it behoved those who defended it to define exactly what their objects were—whether they meant to construct anew, the House of Commons, or to recall it to what it was at some former period; and if they answered in the af firmative to the latter, that he had a right to call upon them to say distinctly what was the period to which they referred. He contended that he had a right to know as well the manner in which they would effect their Reform, as the extent of altera tion to which their plans would lead, so far as hu man foresight could measure. These, he stated, were the tests by which Parliamentary Reform was to be tried in the abstract; but particular plans of Reform were to he tried, of course, each upon its own ground. , By the like tests would he now be judged. To the first he would state distinctly, that his object was not to reconstruct anew the House of Lords, but to 'bring it back to some former period ; and to the se cond, that that period was the SOth November,l67B, the day on which the Royal assent was given to the 30th of Charles the Second. Nest, he would say, I that the House of Lords, after his Reform, would be restored to its ancient constitution—to that state in which it had been from time immemorial until a stated period, and to that other state in which it was for 112 years after, by special Statute. He said to that state in which it was from time immemorial, be cause, as far as British history could be believed, there were no oaths at all until a certain time, and that certain time the Peers continued to sit, for 112 years. And as to the extent of his wild and visionary scheme, the effect of it would be to give six English Peers a seat in the House of Lords immediately, and possibly the same number of Irish Peers at some fu ture period—(Hear, hear).—Thus having shewn that he confined himself to the tests whit)) he before laid down for the judging of the plans of others, he had some hope that he had vindicated himself from the charge of inconsistency. The groUnds upon which he asked this Reform were safe, for he asked no inno vations ; the operation was limited, for he broached no new experiments ; and the effect, he would ven ture to say, if not salutary, would be found at least not to be dangerous—(Hear, heary.—lt was therefore that he challenged the concurrence of the House in his plans. They were safe And limited, but not too much narrowed ; for there was as much in his scheme as was contained in others which hppeared much more extensive. But to go farther, he would confine himself within stricter limits than he allowed to others. From them he required only that they should shew what they proposed was not an innovation. This he would do ; but he would do more—he would not pro pose an innovation, but he would remove one; he would effect a restoration—(Hear, hear).—He would thew that what he purported to reform was an inno , ration, and that by evidence which could not be doubted. He would shew that this innovation arose from causes which were now no more—that it was defended by pretexts which were never true—that it provoked acts of injustice which could never be re deemed—that it was marked by cruelty which could not be vindicated—and that it produced mis chiefs to posterity greater than those which were at tendant upon the most rigid confiscation—(llear).— Here then was an existing innovation to whi c h he was not gonig to add, but which he would remove It now remained for him to state the outline of his plan. But in order to arrive at a definite and precise notion of the gate in which the question now stood. and the relation which the redress to be afforded to these noble persons bore to the mass of the Roman Catholic population, it would be expedient to review the different periods of Legislation at which disquali disentangle arguments complicated. lc tiould have the effect, too, as he hoped, of sheering that the generalities in which too many indttlged, respettieg the antiquated weals tions and exploded wisdom of our ancestors, svpplied much less to the question than many Gentlemen sup posed. Thehistory then of these times of disquali fying enactments he would divide into three periods: the -first extending from the Reformation, or rather, from the Ist of Elizabeth {in order to get rid of times in which the discussion might be perplexed) to the Restoration ; the second from the Restoration to the Revolution, being little more than the reign of Chao les IL and the third from the Reiolution to that period of the reign of his late Majesty, at which the' first relaxation of the penal laws took place. Gentle men would of course wonder at the inequality oil this division, but he hoped to be able to explain the reason of it. It was to be observed that the pervading principle of all these laws was severity against the Catholics. It was not hard to account for this, from the circumstances of the.times. The rigour of Eliza beth was partly occasioned, if not justified, by the repeated plots against her life—the unquietness of one religion (not yet put down) and the claims of another, not yet established—the instability of fo reign politics, and the connection which these were supposed to have with one portion of her subjects.— Such causes made that Sovereign enact severe laws ; and, indeed, so critical was her situation, that she was obliged to make the support of her Crown and the predominance of the Established Religion go hand iu hand. To take, then, the last period next—namely, from the Revolution to the relaxations in the late reign—for there was no Penal Law after Giorge the First, except the annual Bill by which Catholics were required to pay double Land Tax, it would appear that there existed causes for severity, arising out of the times—if not exactly of the same nature, at least resembling those of the former period. There was then a contested Dynasty, a divided country, and a co-operation of the Roman Catholics with the foreign enemy to bring in the exiled family. In this period the enemies of the Church were still the enemies of the State, for the dispute was a religious one. It was, therefore, not to be wondered at that William, whose policy it was to keep the Catholics under, as his rival was a Catholic King, did not repeal the 30th of Charles the Second. William's aim was to oppress the Ca tholics, that they should not become formidable—to disarm them, that they should not turn against him; land, in effect, to render them as ineffective and pow erless as he possibly could. And to all was to be added the obligation which was put upon him, in his own defence, not to restore any immunities to the Catholics, for the revocation of the Edict of Names had but just taken place, by which the French Pro testants were so much oppressed. In Ireland, no doubt, the principle was carried farther, the pretext of political necessity was there prostituted to the worst of persecutions. It would seem that Govern ment did not think itself safe, aril it bad burst asun der all the ties of family affection, and so paralysed the people, as not only to make combination impos sible, but society intolerable--(Hoer, hear).—But did not all this arise from political causes ? Having, they, I shewn that in the first and last period the circum stances of the times justified the severities used to wards the Roman Catholics, he was now come to the second, which stood upon grounds of its owe. The reign of Charles the Second was an insulatel period, and to be judged entirely by its own merits. Its seve rities were not sanctified by necessity, like those of Elizabeth ; nor could they receive the countenance which past events and impending evils gave to the period which followed. The whole of that interval was a continued internal struggle, without any exter nal danger. The chief enemy during the time Was net a foreigner, but was near the Throw—( Wear, kear).—.. The severities did not proceed downwards from the Crown, but rose upwards to the Throne from Parlia. ment. Indeed, so severe and unjust were the enact ments of this period, that when Gentlemen looked closely into the Statute Book, they would be sur prised to find how few penal laws there were to be repealed out of the reign of Charles the Second. He believed, that by the relaxations given during the late reign, every penal Act before the Revolution was repealed, except two—namely, the sth of Eli zabeth, which was confirmed by this, and the lath of Elizabeth, prohibiting all intercourse with Rome, which had fallen completely into disuse. He also believed, that every penal law after the Revolution, was repealed by the same relaxation, except one Act of Anne, which transferred the advowsons belonging to Roman Catholics to the Universities ; and another, excluding them from civil and military offices, by oaths ; but be doubted whether that too was not in effect, though not in words, repealed by the Act of 1817. He did not, however, lay it down as a uni versal proposition, that all the penal laws were re pealed, except those of Charles the Second and those be had mentioned ; but he would contend that, be sides the enactments of that reign, there was little else of any importance which was not done away with. He would use this argument for two purposes. —First, it narrowed the ground of discussion, and called the attention to the circumstances of that reign, and that alone. Ile had already said that it was an insulated period. If, however, there was anything to connect it with the times which preceded or followed it—anything in its legislation which would seem to argue an analogy with the politics of other times, it was this Act alone; for this was framed upon the principle of the Act of Elizabeth, of which it was an amplification, and it extended to the Peers those disqualifications of sitting in Parliament which before applied to the House of Commons. —lt would . be seen, however, that with this apparent connection, the Act of Charles the Second arose out of•the circumstances of the times in which it was made. The discussion then was narrowed to the period of Charles the SecOnd, and therefore a great deal of declamatory matter, which - might be used in considering the question .upon a more extended scale, could here be dispensed with. It was at this day.no wonder that the reign of Charles . the Second was marked by rigour an 4 severity to Bomap Catholics.. • o de dieettestiT it yrs*. aFikad bevel Paued itdavexpooges.l Ebe Mond chat hi s *millet be arra; t 9 to rekttoriginated in this - 1 diliaserits ofttay pfr,.tic ar liiitate, or totake its - Act- aOplynik solely to the giceoptiong to it ; they wonlo. feel with hitts, that Vers—(ffeer, hitar).-not ex- to classify the different COOS *Mad be one step to- ConttnOns; if he found that wards making plain this 4bject. It would also be g, the relation in which the material to refer to ihese trines, in order to disabuse sch other was this, that Ro- those who do not look deeply_ into the question , and to dissotanale at-Rumens %Alia would be *otherwise The Kint was secretly, though not in that creed—the Duke of York —A Protestant Parliament was • ,such a Sovereign, and naturally ssor ; and they therefore set defeat a design, which was ' reducing the Roman Cathoh the religion of thp State, at least as engines to deprive the people dispensing with the forms of the was aware that he was now enteri bateable ground, and touching a upon which many vat ions and been entertained. He would, ho, state facts fairly, without being those violent , opinions. He wow asserting that it was impossible the reign of Charles the Second, stimulating motive of every actit minant dread of a Popish successor Only grant that clue, and the appal _ in the conduct of Parliament would be explained._ :he measures of the Commons, otherwise in: !ved , 1 mystery, would be explained, and great light throw rl upon Actsovhich, but for this, could neither b2elider. stood nor justified. The primary object was to k eep James the Second from the throne. To this teiltiti the motions in the House of Commons, the petse, cutions against the Catholics, the toward s James, and, when every collateral attempt had failed, the direct attack upon him by tha Exclusion But did he mention these occurrences with a view to ' impugn their wisdom, or cast any imputations up' those who promoted them? Certainly not. lit mentioned them only to prove a distinct object la view, and he could cite other instances in the same way. Why was the Test Act passed, but to take the Flag of High Admiral from James, that he might cease to be a Minister of the Crown ? The Act cer. tainly applied to Dissenters too, but it was plain it 'was levelled at the Duke of York alone. Why, he would also ask, was the Bill of 1678, which this was to repeal, passed, but to exclude the Duke of York from a seat in the House of Lords; and as a pr.lof of it, when the Bill passed, with the exception of the Duke, the Commons were dissatisfied, and they ceased to use milder remedies any longer? In the mean time the King was addressed to put James iiw a y from his councils—to prohibit his marriage —and fine, when all these failed, the direct Bill of Exc:u sion was introduced—(Hear, hear).—The) had tricd the Test Act to exclude him from the Peers, for t!:;; they knew was a step to exclude him from the Thro::e; but when that failed, they proposed at once to de• prive him of all chance of the Crown. Rapin, p.,r tial historian, as to these times, states distinctly, the exclusion of James was the governing motive d the Commons, but that they began with collateral attempts, and that it was only when these failed, they had recourse to the . plain remedy. But what inference did he draw ftom all this?—That Parlia ment was wrong ?—No. That they acted unjustly towards the Duke of York—that their feats of a Popish successor were idle and visionary ?—No. But had we any fears of a Popish successor—..,as there even a foreign enemy -with whom a poi tion ci our people could be. in league ?—(Hear, hear).— The Parliament of Charles the Second was wise— its acts were founded in wisdom and prudence— its severities were justifiable—but why ?-3ecaLie they were necessary, because there was that would sanctify almost anything—imperious necei sky.- 'Did that necessity now exist ?—(Hear, hear).— Was that a good plea at this day ?—lf so , t h en re peal all the relaxing Statutes of George the Third. 'lf not, erase from the Statute-book all the gat: Statutes of Charles the Second =( N ear , h ear ). fie was not going into any nice disquisition of how far individual injustice might be defended by political necessity. It was a question, admitting of intermi nable discussion. He did not stand up to defend or arraign the Parliaments of Charles the Second. Whe ther their wishing to exclude the Duke of York was a sufficient justification for excluding Roman Catk .lic Peers from the House of Lords, or not, he did not care; one thing only he maintained, that a cause then existed, which, good or bad, seern.tti to require their exclusion ; that cause no Ir.:riger existed ; therefore it was unjust to continue the consequences—therefore the birth-right of Peers ought to be restored to them —(Hear). The inference, then, that be drew from the history of Charles the Second was, that the ex clusion of James was the great object with Parlia ment. But though this was the object, yet pi etexts were not wanting to give the business another cha racter. A Bill for excluding Roman Catholics from Parliament was sent up to the House of Lords by the Commons, but not passed. In the meantime came on the Popish Plot—a plot of which Hume said, « Out it was peculiarly fitted to seize upon the fears of the people, jealous as they were of the Government, and ready to receive impressions of the worst nature."— And as, in debates of this nature, the House were con stantly referred to the settled wisdom of our ancestors, he would only ask of them to retrench a hundred. years of antiquity, and to look at the reign of Charles the Second as insulated and standing alone. The Act of the 30th of Charles 11. removed Peers alone from the presence of the King, while the Act of 1731 restored them to the royal presence. Who, then, would consider, the Act of Exclusion as o n e of the safeguards of the Constitution ? In the Oath of Supre macy the Catholic was required to abjure all foreigu religious authority in this kingdom. In 1731, tilt oath was altered to his denying the Pope's temporal and civil authority, and then he might come into the King's presence; but he must deny his spiritual au thority before he could come into the Parliament House. Was it possible that even the fear of the Popish Plot could have made our ancestors legisla:e so absurdly? This Act of exclusion could not 1 . , e too soon expunged from their Statute book. Bo,: anomalies did not cease here; as for the. first ttr.•.: since the Revolution had Catholic Peers been soli tnoned to the Coronation. This was not to be lookt : l at as an idle pageant, but one in which the Nlonarca renews the understood compact between him and his people. The Duke of Norfolk was chosen to coavcf the King's sentiment, when he drank to all his lov ing subjects; and could the Catholic ..Austrian or French Ministers present believe that this same Duke of Norfolk had to strip off his robes ? not to rat them on again until *(may Gon long avert the day!) another Coronation ?—([sear, hear, hear!)-- The Catholic Peers might •hold the train, or mix la the suite of Royalty ; but as to legishaing,--0 ! no, 0 n o t openly, a 'believer rk was asinvedly naturally jealou s afraid of such a sti r themselves to wa r I but too manifest, lie religio, if not st to use its Minist of their liberties, Constitution, ering upon very de t pe r i o d of bur hiA.;r violent opinions !lad owever, endeavou r t o influenced by any tf mild begin, then, b, to read the history , and not see that th e lion was the predr !nor to the throne,. 'parent contradictiozs