Star. — London, England, 1822-06-22 00:00:00

iv 1 _"'.~ `as P. be brought toNatt ig-favakof others . ..mote teetteral and unlimad:g. 111 was ilelltthat the law which ex luded Catholic ret t iz Parliament was origi'- '• ft:tondo:Me gro alarm ; bet if that 'was s alp ItilidlieslbitSt oh the basis of sound po icy. The system itself was antecedent to that slaw. It had commenced under Queen Elizabeth, with the Corporation and Test Acts. The House of Daimons had then excluded its own Members. The Aet of - Charles 11. had followed, then the Bill of Rights, and by the Act of Uaion with Scotland, by which it was settled. that no other but Protestant Peers should sit in that House ; at the distance of three reigns Parlia ment had confirmed the exclusion of the Catholics. — Fresh confirmation had. ensued at the Accession of the House of Hanover, and the Act of George 11. had revived and sanctioned all that had been pre viously enacted on the subject. The Noble Duke, however, saw no grounds for continuing those laws; he proposed to revise and repeal them, and recom mended the present Bill as the first step towards so desirable a consummation. If their Lordships exa mined its grounds, step by step, they would see the full bearing of the measure. He bad always been of opinion, that little should be yielded to importu nity, and nothing to menace but that everything that could safely be done, should be done by the Le gislature on its own views; and that having done so, it should then make its final stand. He thought that Parliament should open the full career of emoluments and honours to Catholic Dissenters as to Protestant Dissenters. He therefore rejoiced when he saw Ca tholics called upon to perform high offices towards Royalty at the late Coronation, and at the badge of honour conferred by his Majesty on a Catholic No bleman in Ireland. The Army and Navy were al ready open to them, and he saw no objection to throw open all the other roads to fortune And distinction, and to equalize all Catholics in every part of the United Empire. He should be glad to see them re ceive all marks of Royal favour, reserving only those which belong to the Supreme Government of the Realm. Of religious toleration too much could not be granted : he would wish to see more complete pro tection extended to their places of worship, and espe cially that Catholics should be relieved from the painful necessity of celebrating t ,their marriages in our Churches, where tenets were professed contrary to their own. At the same time he would allow of no processions in .our streets, no monastic establish ments, no Jesuits sending missionaries through the land, and he would add that the College of Jesuits, at Stonyhurst, called for the investigation of Parliament. As to. the Catholic Clergy it would be unwise and needless to deny their existence as a body. He thought that his Majesty had been well advised, when in Ire land, t') receive the Addresses of the Catholic Bishops and Clergy, as he had done those of other Dissenters. But the recognition of their Clergy required new laws to be made. Let these be properly framed, and we should have no students educated at Rome, no Vicars Apostolic, the mere instruments of the Papal Court, but an Episcopal Clergy, independent of foreign in fluence and only subject to the Crown. Thete were ample proofs on their Lordships' table, that restric tions tending to produce that effect, by regulating the communications of the Catholic Clergy with the See of Rome, existed in all countries but our own. For this purpose their Lordships would be under the necessity of recasting the 13th of Elizabeth. Let the Catholics hold none of the offices connected with the exercise of the Supreme Authority, none in the Su preme Courts of Justice, no seat in the Royal Coun cils, none in either House of Parliament. Our Pro testant E,tablishment must be maintained, or else at tempts would soon be made to render it Catholic; for, let us not be deceived, the principles of the Ca tholics were in direct hostility to the Protestant Church and Government; and he believed this, be cause he believed in the sincerity with which they professed their religion. The Noble Earl then quoted 1 , the opinions of the Catholic Church, as expressed in Bossuet's great work s and contended that the same doctrines had been renewed in our days. Their Lord ships were told to take example by other States, where a mcre liberal policy had been adopted towards the Catholics, and to be convinced that their admis sion into the Councils of the State would be attended with no danger. But so little were the views of the Catholic Church altered, that the Pope had lately re. stored the Order of the Jesuits, which had been pro sclibed in all countries ; and protection had been refused to the tombs of Protestants within the walls of Rome, although it had been demanded by Pro testants of all countries residing in that city, sup ported by the interference of their Ambassadors, and even by the request of the presumptive heir to a Protestant Throne. if it were said that the Catholic Governments of other countries treated Protestants with less of mistrust than we did Catholics, it must be recollected that the nature of those Governments, and their institutions, made the religion of the persons whom they employed a matter of indifference: their case was not parallel to our own, for this country was the only one in which the popular character of the Constitution could carry an individual to the direction of affairs and the Councils of his Sovereign. He must look to to-morrow as well as to the present day. The paucity of the Catholics was no security against their increase. The Noble Lord then reite rated his wish that the interests of Catholic families should be consulted in every practicable way ; but believing that their introduction into both Houses of Parliament would only tend to revive political hosti lities, and being desirous that the character of our establishment should not cease to be Protestant, he , should propose, that instead of reading this Bill a se cond time to-night, it be read this day three months. Lord ERSKINE rose to support the Bill. His Noble Friend said that he was not satisfied with the immunities which the Catholic enjoyed, and that he was willing to enter on a progressive system to in crease them, why not then begin by letting Catholic Peers have their own? He had admitted that their exclusion formed no part of the original Constitution of the country, and that notwithstanding the law which operated on the Commons, they had continued to sit in I'arliameat till the 13th of Charles 11. or the supposed existence of a Popish plot. Was there any man who believed there was any truth in the charges brought against Catholic Peers on that occasion They had not been examined by the Commons, but rested entirely on the revelations of Taus Oates, a who was abroad at the time when the pretended was to be hexecuted. Did Solemn Maynard, the • 1 : : a l: lac:: principal manager for impeachment of Lord , the charges bad any other lations of Titus Oates? they rested on the testimon y He represented the exposure GOD, &at of man, in inducing Oates the discovery, usyd wished that thanks should be returned to GOD 'alone. It was not the act of Gon, but the instigation of the Devil, which had produced the revelations of 'Oates. Less than five years afterwards that impostor bad been brought to trial, and convicted on- the un— contradicted testimony of fortrsevea witnesses, who all swore that he had never been nearer to London than St. Omer's. He should consent to suffer the present Bill to be dropped if there were any man who could believe that Titus Oates had not been guilty of perjury. He admitted that great alarm had pre veiled at the time, and that those who had convicted Lord Stafford had acted honourably, being led by the prejudices of the times to consider him guilty, But now were we in similar circumstances? Were we in danger of a Popish successor in the person of the Duke of Yotk? What had Parliament already done? It had repealed most of the Statutes against Catholics: it had said that it was not necessary for them to take the Oath of Supremacy to enable them to hold situations in the Army or the Navy, to be Magistrates,GrandJurors, Petty Jurors—offices much more important than the filling of seats in Parliament. The Act which forbad Catholic Peers to come into the King's presence without incurring heavy penalties, 'had been repealed in 1791, when it had been enacted that Peers professing the Catholic religion,who should take the Oath of Allegiance, should be relieved from those penalties, and should be considered as good and loyal subjects." On what principle was the Oath of Supremacy retained after such a concession ? No man had rejoiced more than he had done at his Ma jesty's visit to Ireland, but the people of that country would never be tranquillized, unless Parliament shewed that it could trust in the oaths which it had administered to them. Thinking, as he did, that Catholic Peers could not be justly excluded from sitting in that House, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR assured the House, that he felt great pain in opposing this Bill, and the consequent measures; for he would rot hesitate to say, that those who asked for this Bill had in view absolute and unlimited concessions to the Catholics. On this point he always differed with the great man now no more (Mr. Pitt), with whom he had the.ho nour to be intimate. In 1799, the apologists for the Catholics (and since) had promised securities for the Protestant Establishment; but he could never learn what those securities were to be. One of them pro posed last year was, that a Protestant-King was to be surrounded by Catholic Ministers, save only the person who should fill the office he not , / so unwor thily held. Now this was to be done with a King, who' the moment he ceased to be a Protestant dissolved' the allegiance of all his subjects. If he had been out of that House, he would have said, he never saw such trash and nonsense put into any Bill as into the Catholic Bill of last year. If he could yield any con cessions to the Catholics, agreeably to the dictates of his conscience, and the duct he owed to his country, he would. be the very first gladly to do it. Not one of the former propositions for concession to the Ca tholics was ever made without an offer of securities to the Protestant Church and State, except this. He thought he was deceived by some foolish fellow who might be Printer to the House of Commons, for he read this at first as a Bill to repeal die Act of Charles 11. which was repealed one hundred years ago. This was, however, he -found done by a great statesman (to whom he wished well to whatever part of the world he should go), ailed by a parcel of lawyers and others. - He ridiculed the next tide which they had given to the Bill. If this Bill passed, he was of opinion that they would have a renewal of all the civil wars and controversies, from the time cif the Reformation to the Revolution. If they wished the Catholic Religion to be dominant, let them say so; but if they agreed to this Bill, he would say to his Noble and Learned Friend, that he would outlive all the laws of his country. There was an absolute re peal of all the Acts, by this Bill, which abolished the Pope's supremacy in England. Unless a Catholic took the Oath of Supremacy, he must take the Oath of Allegiance in a different sense from a Protestant.— Good Goo! that he should hear all the safeguards proposed to be taken away, that the Cavendishes, the Bentincks, and the Somersets, thought necessary to be established at the Revolution. Were these men afraid of Titus Oates's plot ? No mention was ever made by the advocates of this measure of the reign of James 11. but he could not forget what the Rus sells and the Sidneys said of Popery on the scaffold. They formerly looked on the word of a King as equal to his honour and his oath ; but it was not upon such a tenure that Englishmen were accustomed to hold their Constitution. The Noble and Learned Lord had 'named the Duke of York, and no tame could be dearer to the country ; but he could not allow him to have the chief power in this country, without ex acting from him the securities demanded by the Con* stitution. Titus Oates's infamy was established, and himself unjustifiably punished, notwithstanding all his guilt, by Jeffries, long before the Revolution, and therefore that plot could have had no influence over the securities demanded then, by our ancestors, for Religion. King William's language, and that of the Convention, was always that they wished to settle the State and Religion on a secure and permanent footing, and therefore they re-enacted the disabilities on Catholic Peers (imposed by Charles II.), from their sitting in Parliament. They determined to have a Protestant King and a Protestant Parliament and therefore they enacted, the King should be not only a Protestant, but that he must not even marry a Pa pist. If he had lived in those days, and had told the men who then sat up stairs (in the Commons), that they were all a parcel of rank cowards, and afraid of Titus Oates, he would have found his way down stairs much quicker than he went up them. The King of England must (as he who now sat on that Throne did) take an oath against transubstantiation, before he could do any act of kingly power. If they could alter the laws respecting Religion, he never knew such a foolish bargain as that which the Scots made at the Union; but they did not trust to little words, as in the Irish Act of Union; for the Scots went so far as to say, that no Peer, or Commoner, that was a Catholic, could elect or be elected to serve • • •• r • • . • va a feeling in the country would resist the else *kr measures that he had no doubt were in contem plation, for giving fUll concession and esosonisitleo 'to the whole of the Papists. To such a measure be could not give his consent, not even if securities were , offered. If it were the last words he had to say that House, they should be in the words of the Prince of Orange-4g My Lords, the laws and liberties of England I will always maintain." Earl GREY hoped they would not suffer them selves to be alarmed by high sounding words, or long drawn' inferences from Acts of Parliament not always •applirable. He was as great a lover of the Consti tution, as established at the Revolution, as the Noble Earl on the Woolsack, or any other man could be; and if he could believe that there was anything in the present Bill which operated against that Consti :tution, no man would more firdtly resist the motion for its second reading--(Hear). But he considered the Bill of Exclusion as an exception from the prin ciples tithe Revolution ; and, therefore, as bethought the necessity of that disqualification done away, he should call on them to grant their rights to those Noble Persons who had so long been deprived of them. It had been said by the Noble Baron on the cross bench, that if this measure were granted it would i lead to a full eniancipation of the Catholic body from all their disabilities. If this effect would be produced by the Bill, it would not be an objection to his mind, excepting inasmuch as it might bean insidious means of gaining . that end. But as the Bill had been charged with this object, and from thence an infer ence had been drawn elsewhere, that it was a Jesuiti cal attempt to attain that object, he would here deny his belief of any such imputation. It was true that the person with whom the Bill originated had always been the able, constant, zealous, and it must be added, most powerful advocate of the general que.- tion. But when he found that the claims of the whole body of. the Catholics were not likely to be brought forward at present by the person to whose care their interests appeared to be more immediately confided, _he determined upon introducing the Bill now before their Lordships House. It would be remembered that he had never declared the whole claims of the Catholic body to be founded on right. He had al ways said that men should be allowed the free exer cise of conscience in matters of religion, and that they should be permitted to worship their CREATOR ac cording to the manner which appeared to them most befitting: But in doing this they were liable to cer tain restrictions, for the safety and protection of the Religion or the State. Upon strong necessity, arising from political causes only, could this power of re striction be exercised. These, if the onus of proof that such causes as those of self-preservation and self defence existed, must always lie upon those who im posed the disqualifications and restrictions. And if they were bound by this principle, in a general sense of the situation of the Catholic body, how much more so were they in the cases of those Noble Per sons who now appeared before their Lcrdships, not in themselves, but from the operation of a sense of jus tice upon the mind of the author of this Bill. Well, then, let their Lordships see how this necessity had existed. From the Reformation down to the Acts of Charles the Second, Catholic Peers had not been ex cluded from seats in Parliament. It was a clear point in history, that until the sth of Queen Elizabeth no oaths had been required from persons sitting in either House of Parliament. By that Act, an oath was ad ministered to the Commoners, but not previous to taking their seats, and the refusal to take it was ac companied by no penalty. But in this very statute there was an exception in favour of the Peers, who were expressly exempted from taking the oath. What was the situation of the Queen at that time ? She was seated npon her throne, and all the most power ful nations of Europe were leagued against her reli gion. The most ambitious, and the most powerful Pope that ever reigned, gave his sanction to this league, and to all the attempts upon her throne and dominions. This was at a time when the same par ties and the same feelings excitefi the assassination of the Prince of Orange, and the horrible massacre in the parish of St. Bartholomew ; yet Queen Elizabeth never thought it necessary to exclude her Catholic Peers from Parliament in those times ; but on the con trary, she introduced a specific exception in this Act in favour of Peers. She found no reason to repent this policy in the course of the occurrences which en sued in her eventful reign. When the ambition of Philip led him on to attack this country with his Ar mada, did Elizabeth find reason.to repent the confi dence she had placed in her Catholic Peers? Were they not her most zealous and powerful defenders against the attacks of the Pope? He should next come to the Acts of Charles 11. and here he thought the Noble Earl had confounded the enactments which had been made in that reign. The 14th of Charles was not certainly directed against the Catholics, but against Cromwell and the Puritans. Then came the Test Act, which was intended to operate against the Duke of York. This was followed by the decla ration against transubstantiation, which had also the same object, and was attended with the effect of re moving. the Duke of York from all the offices which he previously held. His conduct proclaimed him to be an open Catholic ; and the King himself was looked upon with suspicion, and was now known to have favoured that faith in secret. Next came the Popish Plot, the enormities and cruelties of which, even the Noble Earl himself could not think of with out shuddering. In the same year the Bishops' Test Act was proposed, by which no one was to be admit ted without subscribing to , certain doctrines.— This was resisted by the - House . en the ground of in herent right in the Peers of the land to hold seats in that House. A Standing Order was immediately passed, declaratory of that right ; and it was sup ported by some of the most illustrious names of the age. A short interval only elapsed before the 30th of Charles 11. was proposed and passed, with this Order still standing on their books. Their Lordships must also look to see by whom this Act was pro posed, and they would find them to be the very same ,men who had passed the Standing Order, and who still did not deem it necessary to rescind it. And why was this ? Simply because the Act of Eaclosiou •PF' --. ..MM1 NTICI alarm produce,' Plot. AU the history of the times the IlltallATO was founded upo n t h at ne . that necessity alone. With this view which to his mind was the clear and taking into consideration the heats of the times, end the fearful alarm into which the people were plunged, arid seeing that such grounds no longer exiated, he would say that)]* stood there u po n awl:principles and the practice el the Constitution, when he asked, as a matter of ju s t (right, the restoration of those Noble Peers to the en joyment of their natural privileges. If what t h e Noble Lord had said as to the measure being ne tts , 'sary, upon something which arose sifter the period at which it passed, were sound, he must come down to the Revolution ; and he (Earl Grey) would say e on ell its Acts stood upon principles excluded and ap art from this measure. It was not the mere fact of it s having been continued at that period that would serve the Noble Earl's request.. He contended that they were not to look at what had passed since; but they must look at the necessity in the danger and alarm Which existed at the time of passing the Act, or else the foundation upon which it was published would entirely fail. What were, then, the circumstances which followed upon the plot of that detestable vil lain, Titus Oates ? After the Revolution, there was a Sovereign excluded from the Throne, who was at that time supported by great numbers of the people. He was also supported by the powerful Monarch of France. Almost all the body of Catho lics in the country were also attached to his cause.— Thet must look to those dangers for the explanation of the laws which would otherwise be wholly incon sistent with the principles and acts of the Revolution. At a period, too, when the Roman Catholic religiors was regarded with feelings very different from those which it excited at the present time, ideas of almo,t a superstitious nature were entertained as to the tenets and practices of that religion. Rut all such violent doctrines had been denied with the sanction of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church; and the simple principles of faith which they now pro fe.sed were well understood, and not regarded with the feelings they used to inspire. Therefore, in look ing to the period of the Revolution, he found the se two grounds which formed the necessity of imposing such restrictions upon the Catholic body. But a Popish Pretender could not now be feared, and the opinion of the Roman Catholic religion which was then en tertained now no longer prevailed. The causes of danger being removed then, how was it that the measures of caution were any longer necessary ? The last unhappy remnant of the race who were banished from the throne, was now extinct, and the undivided affections of the People so centered in family now upon the throne that a disputed succes sion was not to be apprehended. The Noble Earl had spoken of those who had formerly proposed se curities with the 'general measure of emancipation, as he thought with great severity of manner. But, if their Lordships remembered what had been said by a person so little worthy of their attention as him- sal, they would remember that he escaped this censure, because he had long ago declared that he would require no securities at all ; and, that if the measure were carried, it should be unfettered by securities, or it was granting no boon to the parties who had so long suffered—(Hcar).—hat it was said also, that it would be a great anomaly if they admitted Catholic Peers into their Lordships' House, and refused Catholics admission in the Commons— They were asked how they could do this ; and how they could stop short and refuse general emancipa pation ? He would say, they could stop shoit as their ancestors stopped short. They could leave matters as they stood from the time of Henry VW. down to the reign of Charles IL during which period Catholics were excluded from the Commons without being excluded from the Peers. The s e being his opi nions, he could not see how it could be argued that there would be any future danger to the State by ad mitting Catholics to a full share of the benefits of the state. But he did not believe that their admission 0 such benefits would necessarily follow this measure. He would not have supported the measure for such a purpose. He did not deal in such methods of ob taining his object. It was nut according to his prin ciples and practice to pursue such courses. His firm belief was that this Bill, if carried, would neither ad vance nor retard the general question. The Noble Lord on the cross bench had stated his willingness to grant the Catholics all the privileges that were not inconsistent with the safety of the State. If, therefore, he refused the admission of these Peers, it remained for him to strew what danger did arise to the Sta:e from their sitting in Parliament previous to the period of their exclusion. Ile could not understand how this was a principle of the Revolution, so sanctioned that it could not now be repealed with safety. The Noble Earl had argued that it had again been laid down at the Union with Scotland, and that it was binding fir ever. Undoubtedly it was provided by that Act that the Oath of Supremacy should be taken; but it was added, 41 until otherwise provided r which meant until the Parliament should provide otherwise. He saw a marginal note upon the Act ; and he thought he recognized the hand-writing which said, a the alteration must not be made to weaken, but to strengthen security." The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know from the Noble Earl what was the law to whieh he referred? Earl GREY said he had argued from the measures of the Re volution and the Act of Union, and the book from which he bad quoted had been handed to him by the Clerk. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the Noble Earl might have the benefit of his notes, but he should not like him to read all the notes in that book—(Vintage). Earl GREY proceeded.—Some allusions had been made to the privileges which had been granted to Roman Catholics in 1817; but he recollected that in 1807, when those relaxations were proposed, they met with op position from those who now opposed this Bill, upon the ground that admitting Catholics to the Army and Navy was entrusting them with the most dangerous of all powers, the power of the sword. In 1817, however, this power was granted, and the Army and Navy were opened to Catholics as well as Protest ants. This was as contrary to the enactments which were con tinued from the Revolution as the Bill before their Lordships. The Act of Settlement expressly provided that the Officers of the Army and Navy should be Protestants; therefore, if the whole rank of those services were to be thrown open to Catho lics, contrary to the principles of the Revolution, there was ro argument which could apply the same objections to the admis sion of the six Peers into that House—six Noble Persons, whose ancestors had performed the greatest services to the State. and who had themselves great personal claims upon the country. Ile maintained that the case ought to be considered upon its own intrinsic merits, and that it involved no ulterior consequences. He was sorry, indeed, that the measure did not go fanber; but the House of commons, in the in Parliament. Even if a Brit?al fititiloWthilkfttiltiwas passed under I Stafford, venture to say . that House, and voted Or acted without balm* takes' the loy the Popish Plc ther foundation than the revs- oaths against Popery ) italwaYs required =tar showed that the ? No; he especially said that Act of - Indemnity, 5 -emu he could be to cessity, and upon imony of only one man, Oates. come into that House aon. He was greatly ploased of the subject, w pos ure as the act of GOD, not that this measure lied been broeght forward; as he nadoubmid one, t ng Oates to make the discovery, was confident that the Mover of this Bill hid awakened and animosities o rs should be returned to GOD a feeling in the country which would resist the ttlte. into which the pe m