Star. — London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

elan* for seats in Parliament was negatived, the an 'hors of the meastire threw out the Bill. Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that to remain in the r e s ent state was i big with danger, and further steps were imperiobily demanded. It had been held by t he wisest politicians, that persecution was not only t he most wicked, but the most foolish of all proceed- Nothing could be so absurd as to harmonize pers ecution with the British Constitution. Ireland h a d at one time been called the Mother of the Saints, a nd then possessed more real piety than any other part of Eerope. Ireland had expended much of her 'tag lakti in the service of Britain; but at one time the policy was to separate parents from children, and children from parents. At last, as the age became pre enlightened, we became by degrees ashamed of :car Conduct. Whether the time for the Union had , been ' , miserly chosen or not, and whether the claims of the Catholics should not have been previously set tled, he should not then inquire; hut he well remem- N e ed what Mr, Pitt had said at the time, that, in the • rent of the Union, the claims of the Catholics would be granted with more safety, or refused with more, justice. It appeared that nothing was so much adap ted to excite discontent, as to allow things to rerrfain in their present stale. Did his Honourable Friend (Mr. Bankes) think things cbuld remain in their pre sent state? The possession of pol..tical power could not be refaced to those who had the means of acquiring great landed property. Let the Roman Catholics come into the House, for here we can deal with them (Lord end continued cheers).—The' Catholics had not known the British Constitution 'in its dignikd and liberating powers. If the priests were supposed to have too much power, the best way to lessen that was by allowing Catholics to have seats in that House; and the Catholic religion, if it were as bad as some dead described it, would be improved, by being incor porated with the principles of the British Constitu tion. He would suggest to hi. Honourable Friend, that, in places where Catholics had the majrnity, 'they might choose Protestant Representatives, who might be subservient to their wisle2;, and as much danger might be apprehended in that way, as by Catholics themselves having seats in that House.— In the view he took of the c...e, he relied much upon the progress of education, and the i ncr e a ,in g diffu ion of light and knowledge. Many of the Roman Catholics had been ornaments to their age and coun try, and he might, in particular cite the name of the amiable and enlightened Fenelon. The present state was one, not of restriction, but of degradation. It was we a ring the prison suit after the prisoner was et large. This country was remarkable foe all being aware that they had the protection of the laws. But is Ireland, the feeling was one of resistance to the laws. But when Ireland came treenjoy the blessings of the Constitution, hel character would be dulcified and liberalised. He was contideat that the part he was advocating was the one of sound policy, and a proper return to that country, to whose exertions Great Britain had been V) deeply indebted—(Cheers). Mr. BATHURST rose amidst much noise, and was for some time inaudible. Lord CASTLEREAGH implored the House to heat both sides of the question, on a subject of such importance to the Empire at large. Mr. BATHURST then resumed, and contended that the Honourable Gentleman had confounded civil and relig;ous rights. The Constitution of the 'hole Empire was essentially Protestant ; insomuch so that the Head of the State was bound to be of that religion. The admission of Catholics into the Legis lature would endanger that Protestant supremacy, Ind on that account alone they were excluded. The Catholics were in complete possession of their civil rights, and their interests were as much protected by Protestant Representatives as they could he by those of their own religion. A complaint had been made that Gentlemen at the bar could not ascend to the highest rank in their profession; but that limitation had been distinctly fixed, and it was necessary to stop somewhere. The Bill of the Right Honourable Gentleman himself bad drawn a line of distinction and separation. To reason, from the amiable quali ties of the Catholics, that they were entitled to seats is Parliament, was a mere waste of the talents of his .Honourable Friend. Whatevetshould now be con ceded could never be withdrawn, though more con cessions could still be demanded. The Right ho nourable Gentleman contended that, by adopting the Bill now before the House, a weight of political in fluence, inconsistent with the safety of the established religion, would be thrown into the hands of a body of persons differing in religious sentiments from that establishment. The Right Hollow able Gentleman concluded by moving that, instead of now, the Bill should be read a second time that day six month - s. Mr. METCALF adverted to the concessions made by Parliament, and observed, that a desire had been evinced to remove their disabilities ; at the same time, considering the rights the Catholics enjoyed in the army and navy, with that of the elective franchise, which might be considered the palladium' of the Con stitution, it would he, perhaps, unwise to grant them any more—(Hear, hear). Sir J. MACKINTOSH did not intend to reply to the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, not because those arguments were held light by him, but because the'Right Hon. Gen tleman had argued generally, and his arguments had already been repeatedly answered. He would content himself with adverting to a new fact, namely, the passing of the Act four years ago, which opened the ranks of the army and navy to the Catholics, so that the supreme command might be held by any adventurer, even should he be a Catholic; and the defence of that Parliament, whose doors were for ever shut against him, was vested in his hands, whilst even the Duke of Norfolk was excluded from exer tiling the functions of a Justice of the Peace— (Hear, /sear).—The protection of the Government 'as, therefore, committed to a sort of political tatlaw, since the sole command of the army of %OW men might be entrusted to a man who was the forced enemy of the Protestant Establishment, I trthe deprivations he was subjected to—(/year}. nis was a most absurd state of things; yet this was the state in which the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle , was desirous we should remain. The Right Hon. Ctt 'tleinan (Mr. Bathurst) had entered into a long detail r elitiAg to the British Constitution, and seemed to describe Titus Oates as its founder. Now he (Sir roes) was an admirer of the British Constitution ; 114 .Tevered it; but he hated Titus Oates—(A laugh ).1 1 11 admired the Constitution, as consolidated by ' Hampden and Russell, who had mounted the scaf fold and bled for itz.-(Hear,hear).—The Right Hon. Gentleman had come two hundred years too late with his argument. His error was not so much logical as. i t • was chronological—( A .laugh).—Two hundred ' years ago he might have been inclined to agree in the Right Hon. Gentleman's argument against libe rality in matters of religion, but he could not adopt that course now. It was not his duty to defend the memory of the late Mr. Pitt against the violent at tacks made upon it by the Honourable Member for Corte Castle, who had described Mr. Pitt's measure of 1794 . as one of folly, weak ness , an d a b sur di ty. — If there were not others in the House better able and well inclined to justify Mr. Pitt against this attack made on his memory by his Friend, he (Sir J. Mackintosh) would do it ; he would say, that Mr. Pitt's measure, instead of being weak and absurd, was one of the most wise and liberal ever adopted by any Minister, and well calculated to tranquillize Ireland; and cement her union with this country.— The Honourable Member then adverted to the Edict of Nantz, and the conduct of the great Monarch by whom it was issued. No doubt then, as now, the King and his Ministers were told, that amongst the Dissenters from the religion of the State, there were many disaffected; but he wisely rejected such repre sentations, judiciously considering that the union of his people would prove the strength of his Throne, and under that impression he issued this Edict, de claring religious opinions . no bar to holding Civil Offices. The Right Hon. Gentleman had accused the Nf' )bleman, who now asked to be placed in the same situation, with being unreasonable. Was it un reasonable that the Duke of Norfolk should wish to enjoy the honours and .privileges of his ancestors? Was it unreasonable that the Earl of Shrewsbury, the descendant of the conqueror of Agincourt, should be desirous of sitting by the side of the Conqueror of Waterloo ?—(Hcar, hear). These were the real founJers of the British Constitution, and not the in famous characters whose names had been introduced in debate—(Hear, hear). The Honourable Gentle man then adverted-to the present temper and dispo sition of the Catholics, and of the Head of the Catho lic Church ; and again, as in the early part of the evening, alluded to the adoption of Cardinal Litta's Letter respecting the Vete on the nomination of the Bishops by Pope Pias•Vll. in 1816, and concluded by giving his support:to the Bill. Mi. PEEL, in rising to give his opinions on this question, could not help contrasting the situation in which he stood, with that in which his opponents were ',placed. His was the unpopular side; he exposed himself to be branded as the champion of illiberality; perhaps, too, he was.disheartened at the prospect. of an unsuccessful opposition, whilst Gentlemeo on the other side were.cheered by the prospect before them, and in every respect possessed advantages over him. All he asked was a toleration of opinion ; this he de sired, not solely from personal considerations, but with a view to the cause itself ; for he was sure the People out of doors would never be satisfied with the decision of the House on this subject, whatever that might be, unless they knew that both sides had been well heard, and that the question had been viewed in every possible point of view —(Hear, hear).—The Honourable and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, in the commencement used an argument on which he seemed to rely much, and to which he (Mr. Peel) would now address his attention. He stated that there was a great anomaly in admitting Roman Catholics to the highest offices in the army and navy, whilst they were excluded from the meanest civil offices. This unaccountable exclusion was said to be without parallel in the history of the civilized world, and was further said to be most pregnant with dan ger to the Constitution of this country. With re gard to the novelty of the thing, he (Mr. Peel) was much surprised that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, so distinguished for his historical re search, should have overlooked an instance, which occurs in history, not very long since —(Hear, hoar). When William the Third came over here at the Re volution, the United Provinces were exactly in the situation that Ireland now is—namely, the Roman Catholics were excluded all civil offices, though eli gible to the highest offices in the army and navy.— William, on corning here, was asked why he per mitted this anomaly, and what was his answer?— .r I allow," said he, " tile Catholics to rise to the highest offices in those departments in which they are most likely to excel; but I apprehend no danger from their preponderance whilst I have a Protestant Go vernment"—(Hear, hear).—Such was King William's answer; but whether his reasoning was conclusive or not, he (Mr. Peel) would not say, he had only men tioned the circumstance to shew that at least the si tuation in which the Irish Roman Catholics were now placed, was not entirely without its parallel in history. He was then come to the second part of the proposition—namely, that such an anomaly was pregnant with danger to the Constitution of this country. " So late as 1817," said the advocates of this Bill, " you suffered the Bill which threw open the army and navy to the Roman Catholics, to pass, and what has arisen since to make you jealous of them ?" Was this fair reasoning, he asked ? Was it just to turn now the concessions in 1817 into an argu ment against those who opposed further concessions? Was it in this spirit the concessions were then made? What was the reasoning of Lord Howick (now Earl Grey) in that House, when the measure was first pro posed in 1807 The measure was then inchoate and incomplete; but the, reasoning of the Noble Lord (then Secretary of State) was worthy of' attention. " We expect" said he, " that no objections will be stated to this concession, which is limited in its na ture. In looking to the situation of Ireland, and the concessions which she expects from us, we must not overlook the pledges given by the Irish Lord Chan cellor and the Secretary of State on a foriner occa sion. It is due from us to that country to throw open the Army and Navy to the jtoman Catholics; but this is less a matter of general policy than of good faith with the people of Ireland"—(Hear). Upon this understanding the measure met afterwards with general approbation ; and was it fair, then, to turn round, and charge the forbearance shewn on that oc casion as an argument against those who would op pose further concessions ? The Might Honourable and Learned Gentleman whir introduced this ques tion had charged him (Mr. Peel) with straying away from his argument on the former night, and going into what be termed an irrelevant discussion on the Test and Corporation Acts. He iMr. Peel) contencleils however, that the Ri g ht H on . G ent l eman ' s genera l I line of argument justified him in such a digression. IL.was said that exclusion never took place without impugning the credit of the excluded ; but there never was an sera in our history in which exclusion did not take place, and yet it never was considered, therefore, that the Roman Catholics were discredited on their oaths. He denied that exclusion from office fixed any brand on the forehead of tl:e Kaman-Ca tholic. He had ever conceded t political exclu sion was an e v il not to b e defen d by obsolete Sta tutes, but .he looked to what the effect of this Bill would be upon Ireland. The question was, would it ' conduce to the support o f t h e P rotestant Establish ment in that country ? He considerei the povier of sitting in Vestries, which would ever accompany the ' possession of property, would .be destructive to the existence of the Churches, and of the Ministers of the Established Church. In Ireland, the proportion of Catholics to the Protestants was as five to one; and could it be doubted that, if they sat in Vestries, they would not vote a single shilling towards the support of the Protestant Churches? Another power, dan gerous to the existence of the Protestant Establish-. ment, was that which would follow from their ad mission of Roman Catholics into Corporations, and into Parliament. This Bill certainly affected to offer securities for the Established Church; but if Catholic Members were in the House of Commons, 'what security would there be for the Bill itself?— When Catholic Members sat there, they were as un shackled as any Protestant ones, and they would na turally disregard any previous Bill in legislating on any particular question. The Roman -Catholics in Ireland already possessed great power; for, out of the 100 Members from that kingdom who sat in this House, not less than 84 were returned by popular elections. The proportion of Roman Catholic Elec tors to those of the Protestant was in the same pro portion as the bulk of the population were to each other—namely, five to one. The influence of the priests and the landlords was very great at these elec tions; and in a little time, if this Bill was passed, so strong was the preponderance in the hands of Roman Catholics, that not a Protestant would be returned from behind. The jealousy of the Legislature was in some measure justified by the exceptions made in the Bill by the Right Honourable Member himself. He ventured to say, however, that this Bill would not be in force five years hence, if it passed into a law— (llea r, hear, hear).—He concluded by disclaiming any thing like personal feelings in his opposition, and de clared, that if the Hduse in its wisdom passed it into a law, his great aim would be to reconcile the Pro testants to it—(Hear, hear). Mr. CANNING then rose, and said that,. though he had been a Member of that House for many years, and had been present at the discussion of many im portant subjects, he bad never risen to discharge his duty under greater anxiety than on the present oc casion. That :Inxiety arose in part from the intense conviction which he felt of the great and growing expediency of the measure then before the House— (Cheers). Having stated this, he hoped, if in the warmth of debate he should appear to treat with dis respect those whose opinions differed from him, that it would be regarded as unintentional, and that the cause would be his apology. From the magnitude of the stake now at issue, the question being brought forward now in a new reign, and in an unpledged Parliament, he approached it with no common ap prehension. He must lend a deaf ear to the argu ment that the present enactments did not press with severity on the Catholics. It was not the precise enactments that formed the subject of complaint, but was because they were viewed as the symbols of accusation and imputation that they created that bit terness which at present existed. But some said, the present laws emanating from the old Jaws, ought to be adhered to in preference to making any new ex periment. But the laws respecting Catholics, it should be remembered, had never been stationary. They had been growing up for two centuries, and had been losing - their rigour for half a century. At the period when they had gained their terrible perfec tion, they remained stationary but about 20 years.— It was for the House to look at the shame which the laws passed against the. Catholics had heaped on them, and the indignation consequently excited; and look ing at these, it was idle to say the House ought to dispose of the question, with a view to the precise enactments now in force. It had ever been the fashion to suppose the Papist was carried away by a strong predilection for a foreign Power hostile to his native laud. And on what was this grounded ? h had been necessary to describe the Papist as a man con nected with that family which had been excluded from the Throne, and ready in every deed to engage in an attempt to restore it to its former station. They had therefore fastened on the Papist's religious Creed. And why? Because the guilt was in the Creed? No, but because the Creed designated the man, and his guilt was found in his foreign attachments. But now those foreign attachments were gone. Ile would not argue this, Cor the fact could not be questioned ; and for this sufficient reason, the object of them was no more. Vet still the believer in transubstantiation was pursued with vindictive jealousy, as one inclined to prefer a foreign Power to his own Government.— This conduct was like that of a Magistrate who should Cause it to be announced, that a murder had been committed, and describing the murderer as wearing a wig and spectacles; and afterwards, on its being ascertained that no murder had been committed, con tending, that notwithstanding this, a person who had been appiehended in a wig and spectacles ought to be punished as a murderer. Under existing circum stances, the Catholics ought no longer to be excluded from the Constitution, unless it were contended, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not the only' mark so detect by, but the crime to punish. He briefly noticed the circumstances connected with the Reformation of the Church of England. He thanked Goes that the Reform had triumphed, but he could not help feeling that they ought not to judge harshly of those who had been slow to appreciate its value and importance. Those who saw how the first Monarch who favoured it had acted from mixed motives—when they feund those who dealt harshly with him arraign ing his tyranny—when they found those who wet e dis posed to speak more kindly, 'complaining of his pas sions—when it was seen from what motives he acted, which had caused the period to be described as that— ., When Love could teach a Monarch to be wise, And Gospel light first beam from Boleyn'seyes Whet 411 these things were seen, it WAS no great wonder if the Catholics were slow to approve of this Reform. •He then traced the Catholics through the . reign of Queen Elizabeth, ar the end ef which, those who had not been able to agree with Henry the Eighth in his contradictory wishes, that all who were for the Pope should be hanged, and that all who were against him should be burnt, %vete found strip. peel of all the at:: ibutes of Litizens, denuded of all that social man could value, and comp'etely bereft of the very semblance of freedom. The Catholic of that day, singled out for vindictive punishment, if he but ventured five miles from his dwelling, in curred the penalties of a pramuni r e ; and, if found offending in the same way a second time, was sen tenced to death for treason !—(hear, hear).—These were the laws of our ancestors, of which they heard so much, and these laws were the ancestors of those which were at present in force against the Catholics. In Ireland, if great pains had been taken to extir pate Popery, but little had been done to make the People acquainted with the superior excellence of the Reformed Church. They ought not, therefore, to be vis4ed with severity. In the reigns subse quent to that of Queen Elizabeth, they had done nothing to prove that the Catholic Religion was at all hostile to the frame of Civil Government—(Fleco). It was not the Catholics that matte war on Chat les— it was not a Catholic that struck the fatal blow—nor was it the influence of the Court of Rome that brought that Monarch to the block. It was stated by some Honourable Members, that if the Catholics were ad mitted to participate in all constitutional rights, that they would endeavour to overthrow the Parliament and Church. This those Hon. Members professed not to blame, and were so candid as to say they were of opinion; that under such circumstances they should act the same part themselvLe. Each who said 'this knew that the Howe would not inculpate him, but taking this course, he thought he obtained a right to attack the Catholic, on the suppositierr that he would act the part desci ibed. He must vindicate his Right Hon. Friend, who had thus inculpated himself in or der to save the Catholic, from the rebound. He did not believe that his Right lion. Friend, admitted to the privileges to whi c h it was proposed to admit the Catholics, where the dominant religion was different from his own, would endeavour too overthrow that Church. The exemplary conduct of the Catholics during a civil war, gave a pledge for their future conduct. A Bill for excluding Protestant Bishops from Parliament had been rejected Ly a majority in which Catholic Bishops ward—a Bill for excluding Catholic Bishops had been afterwards brought in, and Protestant Bishops voted for it. What would have been said had the case been reversed, and had the Catholics thus acknowledzed a vote in their favour by the Pro , testants ? One good win deserved another—he did not know that the good turn rendered by the Roman Catholics had ever been returned by the Protestants. He hoped by the passing of this Bill the Bishops of the present day would have an opeortunity of returning it. He commented on the absurdity of supposing that the Catholics had disguised their intentions, for the purpose that they might rise and revenge themselves I on the Protestants the mbment this Bill was passed. He then commented on the rigid laws which had enabled a Conforming son to disinherit a Non-con forming father—a Conforming wife to prey on the property of her betrayed Non-conterming husband— laws which divided families, and took from the Ca tholic all domestic life: It was only in 1774 that these laws began to be relaxed. Then a Bill was in troduced to enable a Papist to rent fifty acres of bogl —(Hear, hear).. .Four years afterwards, further coo: cessions were made; and in 179, that which, whether it was good or evil, had led to the present questiOa was given—the elective franchise. For two centuries we had been engaged in electing a mound against the Catholics, which had frowned over the waters, and defied attack. A breach had at last been made. in it—the kindred mountains saw each other, and would fain meet: Wei s e they now to close up the mound again, or say tlrey would let it remain in in present state, till it mouldered away at a distant pe riod—or should they now cut through the isthmus, and float on the mingling waves the ark of the Con stitution. Notwithstanding the situation in which the Catholics were placed, there were those who ex pected them to manifest the most ardent love for that Constitution, which, though a positive blessing tO . Protestants, excluded and repelled the Catholics: " When late I attempted your pity to move, You were deaf to my sighs and my Prayers; Perhaps it was right to diisemble your love, But why did you kick me down staitar —Such was precisely the feeling which he thought ,might be expected from the Catholics with respect to the Constitution as it affected them. The privi leges which this Bill would secure to their body, would, he was of opinion, satisfy their a ishes, and he was not afraid of any evil resulting from the ad mission of Roman Catholics into l'aratnent. Thep would not be able materially to cni::•arrass the Go: vernment, as, if they had objects in view like those which had been imputed to them, tile very notoriety of their views would prove their defeat. He was not afraid of any demagogue getting into Parliament. It was that which he could wish for. He never kum a demagogue find his way there, who did not, in the course of months shrink to his original dirtier. sions. If any Reform were attempted, he should wish to see a snug nest of Boroughs reserved for their accommodation, arid the demagogue's' qua lification for taking a ;seat for one of them, he would willingly make, a speech in Palace-yard (Hear, hear). Let him come there and do his worst, and his worst would be harmless—(Laughter). He felt that there was a strong and pressing neces. sity for passing, he would not say the present Bill in all its details—that would be matter of ulterior dis cussion ; but some measure of such a nature, and this was the period at which it ought to be done. la what situation did we at this moment stand ? We were in the enjoyment of a peace won by Irish valour, in a field watered with. Catholic blood--(Hear, hear, hear). We stood in the enjoyment of aveace, which, notwithstanding the threatening asOtt of affairs, he hoped would stall). preserved. Burt this was at best a time wbeirwe ought to strengthen nurse - lies by every means in our power—(Cheers). This was the spot marked out. in time when we ought to remove that source of agitation which would otherwise be renewed from year to year; and if the opportunity were Missed, that agitation would become more hope less aid more impatient, as llt was the moat delayed —(Hear, hear). It was difficult to say in what form the erpression of national gratitude wls moat ems. I - i I J i I 1-_ _ .. .. " :,