Star. — London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

man Catholic question was one which seemed 'ln-', tined in the hour of trial, always to be visited with great privations. The loss which it sustained by the death of the late Illustrious Member for Dublin City, was a severe one; yet it was scarcely more to be la mented than the present unavoidable absenceof die Right Hon. Gentleman who brought in this Bill (Mr. Plunkett), and *hose great talents had so lately dazzled that House, and obtained its approbation— (Hear, hear). The House would then imagine what his (Sir J. Newport's) feelings were. when he felt himself called upon to step into that track which the Right Hon. Gentleman had left—to fill up that out line which his masterly pencil had sketched, or to place himself in the rear of so many illustrious names, who had from time to time given this ques tion their suppoh. What was his embarrassment when he reflected, that after receiving support from such a galaxy of talent, it at length devolved upon him? But feeble as his efforts would be, they would at least be made in a spirit of sincerity. He was called upon now, late in life, to advocate a question, to the support of which he had devoted himself from his youth. He trusted, therefore, no want ofability on his part should compromise the cause in which he was engaged—(l lea? , hear). Having said thus much in apology for bringing forward the question to night, he would not now occupy the House any longer—they had already given their opinion upon the principle of it, and their only, office now was to judge of it in detail. He would leave the question, therefore, open to the lights which Honourable Mem bets in the House would doubtless throw upon it, and content himself witlrmerely moving the Older of the Day upon it. Mr. CROKER, said, that when he gave notice of . a motion for enabling his Majesty to make provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, he did so upon the full conviction that such a measure would tend to the security of the' Roman Catholic no less than that of the Protestant interest ; and the more he thought of the subject the more was lie satisfied of its propriety. Ile was aware, however, that many nourable Members, for whose opinion he entertained a sincere regard, objected that the time lie propose for introducing the :Leasure was unfatourable, and he therefore was anxious that the House should be enabled to give its undivided attention to the ap proaching discussion. With this view, he should postpone the motion of which he had given notice until the bringing up of the Report of the Committee.) The Bill now to be discussed, he considered as the second Union Act of the country, arid the best safe. guard .of the dangers which surrounded the empire —(Hear, hear).--lie was, consequently, desirous that such a Bill might not be embarrassed ; but he thought it proper to state, that the measure he intended to propose, was known to his friends no less than seven years ago, as being in his contemplation. The Hon. Member concluded by postponing his motion until the bringing up of the Report. The question was then put and agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee. The Bill was read by the Clei k, and on the ques tion being put, that the first clause be agreed to, Sir WILLIAM SCOTT observed, that the present was one of the many Bills which had been brought before Parliament by men of great talents, actuated by the best of motives. The present measure he be-1 lieved to have been introduced by a night Honour able Gentleman of equal talent, and with motives no less good ; and if this Bill should ultimate]) fail, it would shew that there were difficulties in its principle which no abilities could surmount. The Bill proposed to relieve certain Roman Catholics from the Oath of Supremacy, and the clause for that purpose, after, pointing to the oath, the the adding of an ex planation. Now the original Oath of supremacy contained two propositions ; the first affirmative, as to the kingly authority over the Church ; the second negative, as to the exclusion of Papal and all other foreign influence upon matters ecclesiastical or civil within the Realm. This was an ancient oath : at the Revolution it had been modified, and in that state it continued. It was not matter of concealment, but of notorious history, that, anterior to the Reformation, the Papal authority did exist, and was exercised, though checked occasionally by the firmness of our Princes and our Parliament. In one instance it had been restrained by an Act of the Legislature ; but it remained for the Reformation to decide against the authority altogether. This was the oath required, and taken in the kest of times, and which the experience of two centuries had confirmed. It was particularly ne cessaryto observe What was laid down at the time of the Revolution. It was then considered that a divided religion, a distribution of authority with a foreign Power, was inconsistent with the safety of the Rate. All the intermediate statutes had proceeded • upon the same principle ; and, with reference to the oath itself, • he thought no language could possibly be stronger. The,primary object of the o.ull was, not so much to confer authority upon the Crown, as to divest it from the Pope. It was demonstrable that this was the first principle of the Constitution to the exclusion of the Pontifical authority even in spiritual matters. It was impossible to possess a greater au thority than that which was mentioned in the oath. .4 Give me (said the Right Hon. Member) a man's conscience, and you give me, in some degree, the guidance of his actions." But to return to the his torical part of. the subject. In Elizabeth's reign the oath was qualified by an admonition which contained two propositions—one was, that the Queen enjoyed no other authority than that which was enjoyed by her Royal Father and Brother. Then what was that authority ? Why, an authority altogether exclusive of foreign influence. The other proposition was this —a slander had gone abroad, that the Queen, as head of the church, claimed the right of performing spi ritual functions. This was an error even as to the right, for the being head of the Church did not ne , cessarily include a right to perform the spiritual functions. However, against this right the Queen protested, and this was the whole of the admonition. Referring again to the terms of the Oath of Supre inacy, the Right Hon. Member said it was impossible for words to be more exclusive. But the clause under consideration stated that the Reiman Catholics felt scruples upon the subject, lest the oath might be con strued into a denial of the spiritual authority of the Pope. This he rather conceived to be a gratuitous assumption, hough undoubtedly it went to the ex clusion of authority in civil matters. T 4 in short, he conceived to be an attempt to explair a modern oviik by an ancient explanation in no way applicable to the question. He flair time to co n k er the enacting part. It WAS ptynted to change the nature of the oath itself. It was proper t o eo ns id er the terms. ,The Right lion. Member then • read the proposed explanation ; and referring to the wards sdiu any manner conflictinf with th e d uty due to his Majesty from his subjects,' observed, that this again was founded upon a gratuitous assumption ; 461 id reliance therefore was to be placed upon the expla. . nation. The interpretation he considered dicey contrary to the tenotu of the oath ; and he called up on Hon. Gentlemen to consider whether its introducems would not be the adoption of a dangerous novelty?` An *oath was now substituted contrary to the te ee i t of the former; and the person taking the oat h wit i to be informed that the words of it were to be es- . pounded drirerently from their ordiriarf import...i. This he thought was holding out a dangerm s cis; tinction for the private conduct of individuali (Hear, hear).—A distinction which he tonsidet e 1 fitter for the casuistry of *school s than the di gu i tv - Parliament—(Cheers).—He had oth er objection's 6 the measure, but he should forbear to state then; and he should therefore conclude by observing the his objections to it in principle, as well as in detail, were invincible—(Hear, hear).—The Right lion, Member appeared much exhauited at the close of his speech. . Mr. HOR ACE MISS began by obserVing that the whole tenour Of our history proved that the exclusiorr of Roman Catholics from any of the privileges or the Constitution was to be regarded rather as mann of accident than of fundamental. law. Without mesa;: ing to follow the Right Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down through the whole o f hi s atg , i. meat with regard to the principles on which theoath lof supretnacf was founded and explained, he mug . remind the Right Honourable Gentleman, that pre. sinus to the reign of Elizabfth, there wa s n o °Ad, of supremacy whatever. to him it appeared as origin. ally devised to mark the distinction between an and a religious conscience. The oath, however, was considered as affording sectir;ty enough, till the reign of Charles 11. when the declaration again s t transubstantiation was introduced as a new bar. I Now, if they looked back to the spirit which gays birth to that latter enactmeat, they would find that the " necessity" spoken of as its excuse, was de scribed as being probably temporary in its duration. The %%Ng Ministers of 1702 were reminded of this, and were mid that the Church was then out of dan. I ger. Their reply was at that ti me a very prop er i and significant one: it was, that although recover- ing from indisposition, 'they were not yet in a state to return to the regimen of perfect he4lth-- , i on i, But the argument nn the other side thight, : ii the . 1 principle were admitted, go to any exte.a. knight be quoted for the perpetual estal.lishment of martial law, because the'resort to it had been deemed mat. ter of expediency at a particular season. They were asked by the opponents of this measure to suspend for ever, as respected millions of individuals, the blessings of the Constitution, because that was the only means of preserving the Constitution itself: " Et propter vitArthriivendi petdere cams!" Nothing could be more jest than the observation made on this point by a Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning), that in following such a ccritse they were retaining a law after the reason for it had cmetl. But were they, the present House ei Common , . pre. pared to say to the Catholic, "You have been placeci under a perpetual bar : ho w e v e r we ma y re f orm due otherinstitutions, for ycu and your children there is no improvement and no change"--(llear, In the reign of king William, a Memorial was pre-, rented to Government from a very considerable Pro. testant authority, in which it was intimated, that the severer part of the penal laws against the Catholics might thereafter with safety be repealed. This shewed that the principle of progressive relaxation was even then maintained, and was contemplated and suggested even by the founders of the Ilevolutinn.A. The system of exclusion had never been establish* it had only been tolerated by our ancestors. The ma nopoly of privilege.and power now existing, skis not. so much their work, as that of the . present age. how could any system of penal law be justified in his con tinuance, after the circumstances in which it ongs. nated were altered in every respect ? It would hardly be contended, that the system to which he was al -luing was not penal in its effects, as excluding from office, just as much as it deserved that epithet when it disqualified for holding landed property. The law, at least, regarded with equal respect corporeal ant incorporeal hereditament,. Most anxious was he— as anxious as any Hon. Gentleman could be--that the predominant character of the Legislature ands( the State should ever continue to be Protestant. If there did exist any danger of a Popish Pelham% or of a Popish Sovereign, he should not give thesste which his conscience demandedfrom him on this OF' casion ; but the utmost that could happen from the °aeration of the proposed change was, to admit a serf few Members comparatively to seats in both Houses of Parliament. Who objected to the presence done Military Officers amongst them? Who apprebe, o44 that it might lead to the e s t a bli s hment of a penny nent standing army ? The admission of a few Ca tholics would produce as little impression 00 the general character of Parliament—Wear, They would not be able any more than the g enelit Members who had fought our battles abroad to ef fect, even although they should desire, any choir in that character. The House would still remain to Protestant Representative of a Protestant peoPle- H e could not, therefore, entertain those apprehen • sof sion danger which had been expressed by some 'W u .% able Members ; and if he did, he should care hot.h t tle for any views taken - at the time of the Beldam e ', 'lf danger did actually exist, he should sly—' the times in which it existed provide against it, n oon they be present or future times. In his opinion was a perfect fallacy to represent the Churches !!! Ireland and of Scbtland as being in a similar co ol tion. But was there, upon any view of the cassie probability that the Roman Catholic religion Wet a , extend itself in this country ? When it was acre"? possessed of supremacy, instead of making all P e ! gress in conversion, it declined and had been gee: dually giving. way. They had now . a PrPr ow Monarch on the Throne ; they had an establi which was altogether Protestant. The wh ole sent on the other side stopped short Of h intingt there was any danger of a Popish Kingi and was that the alleged dang&s were equallY eb col. The dominatioa and infhenco of .6054 . tion had been such as he could have conscientiously concurred in. He was unwilling, by fprther re marks. to bring on a premature debate, and again regretted his inability to support the Petition. Siz T. LETEIBBIDGE rose to explain why his name ifecid . Vii .' to the Petition. On coming into the House he bad been informed that the names of the Petitioners, - being on 3 - septrifirskin of parch ment from that on which the Petition itself was en grossed, rendered the Petition informal, - and by the Orders of the House, could not be received. To prevent the intention of the Petitioners being thus defeated, and possessing some property in the county of Devon, he bad signed it. He concurred in the sentiments of the Petitioners, and he entertained these .principles frOm ideas he had long entertained (A lough)—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they ought to wait till they heard him out, when, per ' haps,. they would not laugh. There was but one opi nion on. the subject amongst all those who agreed with him in opinion—(Loud laughter).—There was but one feeling in the county of Devon, and that was that the Constitution would be overturned by any., further concession to the Roman Catholics. COFFIS' said, the Hon. Baronet had spoken as if the Bills related solely to the county of Devon. Now they related principally to Ireland—(Laughter).. The Petition was ordered to be printed. Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition against the ' Roman Catholic claims, from the Cler?y of the Deanery of Witchcombe, in the county of Gloucester. - - --The Petition was ordered to be printed. PETITION OF RICHARD HAYES. Mr. PEEL held in his hand a Petition from one Richard Hayes, a Franciscan fa iar, which he had re ceived last night. Of the Petitioner he hail no know. ledge, and could not vouch.for the veracity of the various allegations contained in the Petition. The Petiaiorrer, in his letter to him (Mr. Peel), enclosing the Petition, stated, that he was fully, aware of the sentiments of the great majority of the Catholic clergy and laity, can the subject of ,the Bills then in progress through that House, and he knew and could prove that they were hostile to the Bills. As he (Mr. Peel) and the Petitioner came to the same conclusion on the subject, although by a different process of reasoning, he regretted that the Petitioner had se lected him to present his Petition. He moved that tae Petition be read. Mr. C. W. WYNN objected to the reading of the Petition at full length, on accottnt of its appearing to be very long, and suggested that its substance might be stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman'. Mr. PEEL said the Petition was not a long one; it was written in a large hand ; but he thought it' ex traordinary that the Hon. Gentleman should object to its being read, on account of its apparent length. The Petitioner stated, that from his own personal knowledge, he was able to inform the House of the sentiments of the See of Rome on the subject before the House, and those sentiments sere hostile to the Bills. Tnat he knew also, that a strong spit it of tip position to the Bills existed among the Catholic clergy and laity of Ireland. That he was aware that reports to his prejudice were in circulation, founded on his disagreement with his-Bishop; but the Court of Rome was now convinced of his in►iocence. Mr. C. W. W YNN contended that his objection to the reading of the Petition at length Was by no means a new one, and he instanced a . Petition pre sented from Cobbett, which, flour its extreme length, caused several Members to leave the House, and, the House being counted, the Petition was lost. Mr. C. CALVERT would not object to receiving the Petition, but reminded the House that another Petition against the Bill, from a Roman Catholic Clergyman, had been presented on a former night. Mr. R. S. CAREW -knew the Petitioner Hayes, a few years ago, and knew him to be always ready to throw opposition in the way of, and excite disturb ance at public meetings of the Catholics=( Hear, kear).--Ile knew several of his (Mr. Carew's) own friends, who, while presiding at those meetings, have declared they would quit the Chair, if the Petitioner (Hayes) persisted in his then line of conduct. lie Was a Clergyman in Wexford, and preached a sermon which his own Bishop (Dr. Ryan) considered of so seditious a nature, and tending to separate the two' countries, that Dr. Ryan (the Bishop) reprimanded Hayes, and, he believed, silenced him. In conse quence the Petitioner (Hayes) had gone to Rome to explain his conduct. He (Petitioner) stated, that Orel sentiments of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy and laity were against the Bills. He (Mr. Carew) had received a letter from a Gentleman in Ireland, who had often filled the Chair at Catholic Meetings, and who, consequently, must know the sentiments of the Irish Roman Catholics better than the Petitioner.— He begged to read that letter—" I wish you to use your influence with Mr. Plunkett and other friends of the measure, not to take notice of what.dema gogues here may say or do ; they are now furious ; but they are weak and despicable, even in numbers.", He here mentioned the names of certain Lawyers in Dublin, who were attempting to excite disturbance, and hoped their conduct would have no weight against the measure. The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed. PETITION Or ROMAN CATI/OL4C PEERS. Lord NUGENT presented a Petition, signed by four Roman Catholic Peers—the only Catholic Peers who happened to be then in London, praying that the Bills now before the House might pass into laws. He need not add, that the Petition was most re sFectably signed. The first signature to it was that of the first, by rank and the precedence of centuries, of the Peerage of the kingdom—(Hear, hear).—The second w4s th e premier - Earl of England ; the two others were nearly at the heads of their class. They were—the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and Lords Petre and Arundel. -The Bill now before the House was one which, the Petitioners said, would relieve five millions of their fellow-subjects from seri ous disabilities. Their ancestors had suffered perse cution, and they themselves had patiently borne ex clusion and imputation—( Hear, hear).—He (Lord N ug ent) would-contrast that Petition and those Peti tioners with another, which had been presented. An exposition of the doctrines of Roman Catholics had been given to the House, this night, by three indivi duals. To this unauthorised document the House ought not to pay the slightest attention for unau thorised it was in every part, because nothing ,could be more untrue, than that the principles of the Bills were at variance with the satinteuts of the Roman. Catholic prelacy of England. A person called Doc tor Milner; had naleviaken to say they were so ; but he (Lord Nugent) repeated, that the assertion was false, and this person, when he made itosiust have been sensible that it was Pa.—(Hear, hear).—What authority was this Milner against the evidence af forded by the Petition which he (Lord 'Nugent) had the honour to present some time ago—a Petition signed by all that was great )end respectable of Ca tholicity in the land, and one too that was signed by every Vicar Apostolic in England, except himself— (Hear, hear).—These Petitioners were the true organ of the Roman Catholic body. With' this hereditary spirit they had signed their names to the Petition, and would place these names and their titles in the breach which Doctor Milner attempted to make. They were loyal and good subjects, ar.d faithful to their engage ments; they had declared themselves ready to take such - oaths as this House in its wisdoM thought fit to impose upon them—(Hear, hear). • The Petition was then brought up, and on the question that it be printed, Sir J. MACKINTOSH rose, to point out the re spectability of the signatures tO.the Petition. At this day, there were but six resident Catholic Peers in England, and of these, four were signed to the Pe tition—the other two were not within reach of the Metropolis. Now, these Noblemen had come for ward very properly to declare their readiness to take the required oaths, because they were the more likely to be called upon first. It would not look so well in any body of Commoners to put themselves forward: for could any individual say that they would ever be chosen, either by the King or the People, to fill an office, where the disqualifying oath was required to be taken ?—(Hear, hear.)—lhe Peers had to think for themselves, whether they would take the oaths or not ? for, if it werenot for the oaths, they could now take their sears in the other 1-louse of Parliament.— The case was different with Commoners, who were still to stand the chance of being chosen to any office. He wished to point out the distinction, in order to do away with any invidious feeling which might be ..itt relied to the Peers petitioning by themselves. And, talking of their authority as the organs of Catholic feeling, he asked, could there be a question between these high-minded Noblemen, and Franciscan friar flaps, a man who, after having been superseded by his Bishop for disloyal and seditious preaching, was now taken tip as an ally by some zealous Pretestants in that House, in their attempts upon a communion to which this Hayes was already a disgrace ? (hear.) Mr. PEEL declared, in the most solemn manner, that he never meant to connect himself with the indi viduals Milner or Ilnyes, who had been mentioned. Sir MACKINTOSH, in expldnation, said, that he had no intention of imputing anything personally to the Right Hon. Gentleman. Sir GEORGE HILL said, that so far as the Press of Ireland was the organ of public opinion, be could understand from the Papers in Belfast, Cork, Dublin, and Galway, that the feeling was generally against the Bill now pending in that House, which they declared would, instead of emancipating the Roman Catho lics, only insult them. The Hon. Baronet declared, that if he thought the measure would produce conci liation, or preserve the Constitution, no man would be a warmer friend to it than himself. His opposi tion was founded on a conscientious belief, that fur ther concessions to the Roman Catholics would not be safe, and he had heard nothing lately to remove that conviction. The Hon. Baronet then read a sort of Protest, signed by Dr. Milner, his Ordinary, and Chaplain, against the principles of the Bills before the House; and pronounced the Petition presented by the Noble Lord, to be a very scanty production. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON was glad that at length, when every argument had failed, as they long since had in and out of doors against the emancipation and union of millions of his Majesty's subjects, that an Honourable Baronet who had opposed them so long from .principle, was now driven to borrow his last argument from a Protest, signed by one er two in dividuals of that great body—(Hear). Ile hailed this as an auspicious circumstance for the cause of his country, w!sen he assured Or.? House the general feeling was in favour of this Bill. He bad the ho nour to represent a great city in Ireland, and ma a word came from it to lint, nor, indeed, from any 'other part of Ireland, unfriendly to this Bill. Lord NUGENT again protested _against the opi nions of an individual such as Dr. Milner being re ceived as the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of England. With regard to what was said of the Pe tition which he had the honour to present being a " scanty document," he would Only remind the Ho nourable Baronet that it was signed by the Repre sentative of every Noble Roman Catholic family which time had spared. Sir GEORGE HILL said, *he only meant to say that the document was " scantily signed." Mr. R. MARTIN said, the great majority of the respectable Catholics of the county of Galway were favourable to the Bill. Mr. LUKE WHYTE gave the same evidence as to the feelings of the Roman Catholics in the county of Leitrim, in Ireland. Mr. DALY confirmed the statement given by the Honourable Member for Galway, as to the feelings of the Roman Catholics there on the Bill for their relief before the House. He was surprised the Ho nourable Baronet should call the Noble Lord's Peti tion a 4. scanty document," when he himself placed so much reliance upon a still more scanty document, which was,signed by only three individuals, Mr. M. FITZGERALD contended that the cir cumstance of only three individuils from England, and one from Ireland ) having protested against this Bill, afforded a presumption that the aggregate body of the Prelacy of these countries were favour able to its principles.—Ordered to be printed. COMMITTER ON THE CATHOLIC BILL. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that when it became his let under any circumstances to move the Order of the Day for a Committee of the whole House upon the Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, involving, as that Bill did, ques tions affecting the best interests of the Empire at large, he would have to request the special indul gence of the House whilst he discharged the outy so Imposed upon him. He was now called upon, in consequence of the absence of a Right Hon. Friend, who was absent from a severe domestic calamity. He regretted that absence less for his own sake ) than the cause to which he feared he should not do jus the; and he could not help observing, that ditt r