Star. — London, England, 1808-05-26 00:00:00

PARLIAMEIVTARr PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 25. 110XECEGH CLAIM. • The Hon. Henry Erskine was heard in continuation. To be heard again on Saturday next. On the motion of Lord STANHOPE, the third reading of the Indictment Bill was postponed till Monday next. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, it was ordered that the parties should be heard in support of their claim to the Banbury Peerage. Lord SUFFOLK, seeing the Noble Secretary• (Lord Hawk's burr in his place, begged leave to repeat his question, namely, whether any account would be•gtvest by Ministers respecting the application of the Droits of the Admiralty ? , Lord HAWKESBURY replied, that the Droits of the Admi ralty belonged to the King, and of course that his Majesty might dispose of then*,ip any manner he pleased. The Amend Tates'All passed through the Committee and was reported. • • / RLAND'S DIVORCE RILL. Two witnesses, oe each side one, having been examined, Mr. lVfontatue argued at some length against the Bill, and was followed by Mr. Harrison for it, after which, further proceeding was postponed till Monday neat. , Several private Bills, which were broUght up from the Coln mats, being read, the Houle adjotirned to Friday neat. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The following Members were chosen by ballot to try the merits of the Petition of Charles Morgan, En. complaining of an undue liectlon for the Borough of Sandwich Viscount Stopfurd G. H. Rochfort, Esq. Hon. John Meed Hon. A. Foley Earl ltleaborough E. W. Mundy, Esq. Lord Gower Robert Grey, Esq. W. Shipley, Fsq. C. M. Sutton, Esq. Right Hon. T. Crenville Sir C. Morgan Sir G. Bowyer, Bart. NOMINEXS.. R. M. Phillips. Sir William Elford. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY brought in his Bill for limiting the number of capital punishments, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second rime on Friday. Ordered, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, that the Bill for the better Collection of the Assessed Taxes be printed. Ordered, nr. the motion of Sir THOMAS TURTON, that Mr. Pahnor's Annuity Bill be read a second time on Friday. An Account, pursuant to order, was presented, of the per ven tage of two and a half per cent. of the sum received at the Post Office, over and above 240,0001. per annum, which was ordered to be printed. Sir THOMAS FURTON gave notice that he would mike a motion on the subject in the Committee of Supply. '{'he Duchess of Brunbwick's Annuity Bill was reported by Mr. Wharton, and was ordered ►o be read a third time to-morrow. WESTMINSTER ELECTION. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT adverted to the sett versation which occurred on a former night .in the House of Commons, respecting the verdict given against him in the Court of King's Bench, in which the High Bailiff of Westminster was plaintiff. The proceedings, he observed, had now arrived at that stage when, he was informed from high authority, that he might, with propriety, submit the subject to the consideration of the House, if he conceived it a breach of privilege. He felt no sort of interest in the hnsiness, but thought it a matter worthy of the serious consideration of the House, if they conceived that it infringed the privileges of Parliament. He was no minated a candidate for the city of Westminster at the last general election, without his knowledge of gonsent. He was returned and took his seat accord ingly, which he could not refuse without incurring the displeasiire of the House, and he was therefore, by a charge of the Chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, held liable to the expences incurred at the election, though without his knowledge or consent in becoming a candidate. The House would consider the fact, and determine, if it thought fit, whether in such case its privileges were violated or not. Sir ARTHUR PIGOT apbserved, that it was 'ne cessary before the House proceeded, that it should be put in possession of the fact. Sir FRANCIS said, an execution had been put in his house for the expences attending the erection of the hustings, in consequence of the action brought for the same in the Court of King's Bench. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER , said, that to bring . the matter forward on the grounds of a breach of privilege, the business must come in some tangi ble shape before the House. if the Coun • sal of the Honourable Baronet had takcn a Bill of Er. ceptions, or had brought a Writ of Error, then the' record might be laid before the House, on which oc-' casion it could deliberate whether its privileges were violated or not? On the contrary, the Counsel of the Honourable Baronet moved for a new trial, and the rule was refused, and consequently there was no pro ceeding of which the House could take cognizance on the subject. Sir ARTHUR PIGOT said, he was consulted by the Hon. Baronet on the subject, and bestowed on it much attention; but agreed with his Right Hon. Friend who spoke last, with respect,to the conduct that ought to have been pursued. Mr. TIERNEY observed, that a more upright Judge, nor one of greater integrity, never presided in the Court of King's Bench than the present Chicf Justice, but like other men he may be fallible, and the privileges of the House ought to he maintained, which may be done in the present case, without im plicating the character of his Lordship, as he did not belive that there was any man who would be less in. dined to violate the privileges of Parliament. The business was entitled to the consideration of the House, and ought to be investigated. Mr. LEYCESTER agreed with what had fallen from his Learned Friends, and observed, that before the House entertained the business, it was necessary .to spew that the Judge had charged the Jury; that the Hon. Baronet was liable to the expellees incurred be ' cause he had taken his seat. Mr. BATHURST bestowed a panegyric on the integrity of the Noble Lord who presided in the .Court of King's Bench, and observed, that as the business stood at present it was impossible for the House to entertain any proposition on the subject. Mr. SPEAKER referred to what had occurred on a former night. He did not then presume to direct the Honourable Baronet, but observed, when any practical consequence ensued, then he conceived that , it was his duty to make a complaint to the House, if he thought its privileges had been violated or infring • ed. In such case the rule to be pursued was to move for a Committee to consider the subject, who, if they . thought it not worthy to be entertained, would either . proceed or not, as was the case in the complaints made against certain Judges in the reign of Charles 11. • Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said his sources of in formation were from the report of his Counsel, and -Cunt the notes of a short-hand writer. The Learned it:,lge from these it appeared said, he was liable to the claim becattse he had talc•th is seat. This was) the only point connected with: at privileges. of the I House, because he would ha 4e violated these W he did not take his seat, and he was nominated as a Can- , didate for Westminster without his knowledge or consent. He therefore, having discharged his duty, left it to the House to determine what line of conduct it would pursue. - - - CATHOLIC CLAIMS. The following petitions in favour of Catholic Emancipatio were presented . : From the Cob°lies of the County of Wexford, by Mr. She ridan. From the County of Waterford, by Sir Joh" Newport. From the County of Kilkenny, by Yr. Butler. From the County of Kerry, by Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald. And a Counter Petition from the Corporation of Dublin, by Mr. Shaw. Mr. GRATTAN moved, that the petition which he presented from the Roman Catholics of Ireland be now read. The petition having been read at length. He began with observing, that not only that pe- . tition, but several others on the table, spoke the sense of the Irish Catholics. The petitioners formed a very considerable portion of the electors of Ireland ; they possessed a great share of political power, and they -applied through the constitutional organ for a legal eject. It was his most anxious wish that this goes-, don should be discussed in a spirit of concord ; that nothing should be introduced into the debate which i could possibly tend to sharpen the public mind. To conciliate not to provoke, was his object. He wished to approximate those of his countrymen who differed from each other, not to widen the separation. He deprecated all religious and political animosity. He recommended the balm of oblivion ; that the battle of the Boyne, and the rebellion in 1745 should be for gotten ; and that there should be no allusion to those scenes where parties contended against each other....- If one side went back, the other would do so too.— The Catholics would endeavour to make good their, case. So there would be historian against historian. and man of blood against man of blood. Each party would be unreconciled and irreconcileable, and the victory would remain with the enemy of both. This i was what no friend to the empire could wish. Both nations had something to admire, and much to for get, in each other ; and whatever difference there was in the law, there should be none in disposition. • The good sense of both countries, he trusted, would sup ply this defect of the law. It was, therefore, with re gret that he saw certain idle words (No Popery) scribbled upon their walls. It was upon these prin ciples he lamented the petitions which had been pre sented, not indeed on the present but on former occa sions, against the claims of the Catholics ; that he saw persons flying from the shadow of Popery, and falling into the gulph of bigotry, intolerance, and persecu tion. This was fortunately not the case now. He saw, - and he saw with satisfaction, the Catholics esta blished in Canada. He saw Government conducting the Portuguese to South America, and establishin • the Catholic religion there. He saw alliances form with Austria and other Catholic States, from which he must infer that whatever internal mischief might be apprehended from a Catholic establishment, there was no external danger to be feared. This would be something towards his argument ; for he trusted, be -fore he sat down. he should be able to shew the House, that the internal danger was small indeed.— The petition prayed for admission into the state and to the privilege of seats in that House. The Act of the 33d of the King gave the Catholics admission to political power; it admitted them to the constituency, and rendered tem eligible to all offices, with a few exceptions. The removal of these exceptions, and the power of legislation, were alone wanting, to place them upon a level with the rest of their countrymen. Those who oppose,the claims of the Catholics object, the first place, that they acknowledge the tempo ral power of a foreign Prince, and recognize in him the capacity to depose the Sovereign, which the Con stitution has given them. These were the objections of some of the mildest among their antagonists.-- Others, in the violence of their zeal and intolerance, represent the Catholics as men execrable, and ren dered execrable by their religion. Now as to the first objection, he should appeal to the unanimous de cision of the seven principal Catholic Universities in Europe. Their opinion had been asked on the sub ject, and they unanimously declared, that it was not a tenet of the Catholic religion that the Pope posses sed temporal power out of his own Idominions ; that it was not a tenet of the Catholic religion that he had a right to depose Sovereigns ; and that it was not one of their tenets that they- should hold no faith with he retics. They observed upon all these imputations with great moral indignation, and they condemned and stigmatized such tenets. Such were the opinions of the great Doctors of the Catholic Church. There were documents equally strong on the part of the Ca tholic laity of Ireland. These were the various oaths imposed upon them, particularly those by the 13t11 and 14th of the King. They disclaimed the infalli• bility of the Pope ; they denied that it was any past of their religion, to believe that he was infallible, and they renounced all claims which they might have upon property. From all these, he would contend that there was no moral incompatibility between, the two religions. But, say the opponents of the Catholics, there is a political incompatibility; if transubstantia. tion and the celebration of the mass were in any degree connected with an adherence to the House of Hanover. —lt was the policy of all nations but this to admit persons of every religious description into the service of the State. It was the practice in France, before the revolution. In America,,it had long prevailed. During the war which terminated in the independence of that country, the American Catholic was seen fighting by the side of the American Protestant, and both in unity with France, of which the religion was Catholic. England was at present without one ally in the world but Sweden—the Protestant religion did not supply us with one, and would they then give up the only ally which they had at home ? The objection therefore, on the score of political incompatibility, was as absurd as the argument in support of a moral incompatibility. But it was said the religion was to be considered as symbolical of the political sentiment. - To this he would answer, that society had no right t impose an arbitrary test, and that the religious tenet was not to be considered -as evidence of foreign at tachment. But even if it were, it could not• be made available in this case, for the object of it had ceased. The power of the Pope was now a name only—his. authority, but a shadow. They were abjured, .not only in alt temporal, but in all mixed cases. The Catholics were charged with denying the right of' the es led Clergy to tythes—theyewere charged with 1 , - clri th hahvg them for themselves. They were charg w ed csgp" ying a legal existence to the established Church—they were accused with a design to make their own the religion - of the State. Now, against all these charges, they have protested in the most solemn ' public manner. They renounce, in the most unglue fified manner, the temporal power of the Pope, and they explain the extent of the spiritualauthority which they recognize in him. With respect to their Bi shops, they say the Pope only institutes, and gives a spiritual capacity, and that they nomivate. But if this should be thought dangerous, he was authorized to make a proposition which must remove the possi bility of any apprehension respecting the abuse of such a power. The Catholic Clergy were willing that his Majesty should exercise a negative upon the affirmative of their Bishops, so that no person could be elevated to that rank without the previous appro bation of the Sovereign. If, therefore, there was any truth in the assertion that Bonaparte influenced the Pope—that the Pope influenced the Clergy---that the Clergy influenced the People, and that by means of this gradation of influence a great part of the army . and navy was devoted to Bonaparte, here was an op portunity to get rid of all this influence, and the dan ger resulting from it. He had so far argued the question upon general principles : he would next consider it as applying to Great Britain and Ireland. It was said that the object of the petition was opposed to the principles of the revolution. It was said that it was hostile to the Declaration of Rights. By the fundamental laws of this country, the (...a.tholies form a part of the Constituent body. If they looked to the Constitution, they must agree with the petitioners ; if. to the principles of the Revolution or the Declaration of Rights, they must agree with them ; and if they looked to the duration of the Constitution, they must agree with them, because whenever danger should arise, where were they to look for assistance and sup port, but to the petitioners ? But it was said that this principle of exclusion would guard Church and State. GOD grant it might. The anomaly of a Protestant King with Catholic Councils was urged against the claim expressed in the petition. He could see no anomaly in the case, nor could he perceive any danger in the practice. The Councils of Henry the Fourth of France were guided by Sully, and Turenne headed the armies of Louis XIV. Neither of these servants was of the religion of their Sovereign, yet their set--' vices were not less acceptable or meritorious on that account. But the argument upon which the greatest reliance was placed was this. It is said that if the Catholics are admitted to the privileges of legislation, they would endeavour to establish their own religion. But how were they to establish it ? Circumstanced as property was, was there any likelihood that the Ca tholics would become the majority of that House— and if they were not, how were they to pull down the , Protestant establishment, and erect their own in its place To hear some of the opponente of the Ca tholics, one would suppose that they were a race is capable of any virtue, and capable ofeirery vice. He entirely agreed that the two Churches should be be parate, and that the Catholics should pay their own Church. This was not the way, however, in which I casuists considered the question. They looked to the ' dominant religion merely as a profitable establish ment, which they endeavoured to support by pains and penalties, and thus converted the principle of the Revolution, which should be a blessing to the empire, into au instrument of oppression and intolerance.— These persons always painted the Catholic ns a being incapable of being conciliated—as unworthy of all trust and confidence. It was also said that if the Ca tholics should acquire the political privileges they sought, they would in the course of time begin to think of resumption of property.. He did not be lieve they would. A great part of the property of Ireland was already in the hands of the Catholics So far from possessing only a sixtieth part of it, he could name one Catholic who would inherit near £70,000 a year. But the possessors of those estates from which the ancestors of the Catholics had been driven entertained no such apprehensions. There were nine counties in which resolutions of the Pro testants in their favour took place. They dis claimed any apprehension of danger, and recommen ded that they should be admitted to the full privileges of the Constitution. They deprecated the monopoly of legislation. They invite -you to do—what ?To provide for the security of Ireland, and of England too : to give a greater strength to the empire' than it can derive from the Local Militia, or from the Pa rish Bill, or from any other measure of the kind. It is said, the oath of the King is incompatible with the admission of the Catholics. Their enemies first con demn the religion of the Catholics, and next apply to the piety of the Sovereign. The King, he would ad mit,was sworn to maintain thc Constitution in Church and State, but he was not sworn to the eternal maintenance of the penal laws. He was sworn as to his executive, but noeas to his legislative capacity.— When Henry VIII. assented to the Reformation, he departed from his oath. So did Elizabeth. So did his present Majesty when he gave his consent to the Quebec Act—when he admitted the Catholic to the right of inheritance in 1782—when he admitted him to the professions in 1791—when he admitted lair to the constituency in 1793—50 that, according to the mode of reasoning employed by the opponents of the Catholic, all the best and most gracious acts of his Majesty's reign were but a succession of perjuries.— This was to make the rights of the Church the wrongs of the People. This was to make the Church a con e _ federacy against the .People, and what was worse, to make the King a party to it. The King was sworn to maintain the Protestant religion ; but his Majesty was not debarred by his oath from concurring with Parliament. He was not debarred by his oath from uniting all the strength, and power, and heart of the empire, in support of a Protestant King and a Protes tant Establishment. Having thus stated the principal objections to- the measure, he would endeavour to be as short as possi ble in what he had to urge in support . of it. He thought he had 'sheens there was no moral incornpa 4hilitragainst the.chtim of the Catholic, and that the poliiical dangers were visionary and unfounded. He trusted he had t prosied that the Constitution of the country did not 'eland in the way of the Catholic, whether it Weis considered previous or subsequent to the Revolution. The state of Ireland required that the full benefit of the one-itution should be cemmu ideates' to the catholic, - and it . was most imperiously T ,~ i** essal • ta**** ° sb called for by the state of Europe. The opponents of the measure appeared to be haunted at every step by the penal code : their arguments against the m easure were arguments against the Liberties—again st t h e Defence—against the Security of the Country, M r Fox, on a former occasion, submitted the measure t o the consideration of Parliament. He was a great, a -zealous, and a powerful advocate for it. In Ire, when that great man was young in his political liar, he had heard him express his abhorrence of the penal code against the Catholics. Ireland had reasen t o .weep over his grave—for, in losing him, she 16st the ablest supporter r,f her interests. . lie felt deeply on this occasion the want of the unaffected glow sit his zeal, of thenegligent grandeur of his eloofiee ce Before Gentlemen should make up their minds to re. ject the motion he intended to make, he entreated them to pause, and consider the situation of th e country. Austria had left us—Russia, who should have been ours, was matched against us. There was re. thing left for us but an titoion of every heart and evoy hand. All religious and political differences shoal be lost in a sense of our danger, in order to oppose 'that daster—a danger the most gigantic that ever hung over any country, where two islands stood alone almost against mankind. He would concdiate th e Catholic—he would give him an equal interest with his Protestant neighbour, in that Constitution whi c h it was his duty to upheld and defend. In order to oppose this danger, he would recommend . s pi r i t o f national concord—a spirit which could not be 1 00 scra adopted. He would recommend to his courary men to associate more with the Catholic ; to remove r e . dually the little jealousies by which he was agitated. It was not the political exclusion, so much as the per. sonal inferiority which he felt. It was by the toasts, by the little political distinctions, by the narrow (ride of assumed superiority that he felt, himself aggrieved. These petty insults were at his door. These were tie 'nerves in which men were most irritable. There was also a class of persons in Ireland, the Orange men. to whom he should not be ashamed to appeal on this occasion. He would entreat them to lay aside their animosities, and to consider the Catholics as entitled to receive and capable of cunfening all the charities and confidence of civilized society. He would appeal to the Administration too—it would be no justifica, tion for them to say that the people of Ireland should not have felt so strongly upon this subject. The people might have been indiscreet, but he would pledge himself that they would have no Frem li among the Catholics, if there was no bigotry among the Go , vernment. He entreated the House not to believe the tales which were circulated respecting the fero. cious disposition of the lower orders of the people in Ireland ; that the Catholics would suffer eo Prote stants to live among them. He would gladly, if he could obtain permission of the House, go into a Committee to disprove the assertion. It was not by such calumnies that a people were to be conciliated. Look eiS the state of Ireland ; consider the progress which it made in the course of the list 25 years, end judge from that how imporoint a part of the empire it is. See how its trade, its population, its industry, has been increased dui•ing that period. These were the barbarous accomplishments of the Irish. Within that time the Catholic had acquired accessiblizy to the professions--accessibility to the constituency. The Catholic constituent could now go to a public meet ing, and arraign the political conduct of his represen tative, or.condemn the measures of Parliament. This, to be sure, was no great privilege ; but it was a pri. vilege which he will - not surrender to the Kings of England. It was a privilege which he will not sur render to the followers of Bonaparte. Ireland stood by their side, contributing five millions to the popula tion of the empire ; exporting to the amount et ten millions ; remitting two millions annually in rent ; paying as much more in interest, and giving to' the army and navy one-third of their number. And was a connection with such a country to be placed in jeopardy for a privilege, the benefit of which would only be enjoyed by a few, but the denial of which was considered injustice and oppression The experience of a century had shewn how foolish it was to thilik s Of governing Such a country by a system of bigotry, or any system but else principles of a legitimate, constitu tional Government. Suppose, now that all the navies of the Continent were at the disposal of Bonaparte, that an invasion of that country should take place, what would be the conduct of Government ? Would they send over expresses, reco mmending that the Coto For stions should be guarded ; that they should be shut against the Catholics? Would they compel them to oaths of allegiance ? Would not Parliament call upon them to do away the death-doing divisions, and pre. pare the country for the great battle it had to fight? The Catholics did not come before that House as a few individuals, but as a people. They did not come with affected humility to implore a favour, but to claim what they conceived to be a right. If, in stating their case, he had represented them in any other light, he had done them wrong, and he begged their par. don. They apply to you as freemen should to free men.. Austria had deserted you ; Russia is your ene my. What do they ask but to share your dangers, and to go to the grave with you, should the fate of the battle he against you ? It was upon these grounds he would move that the petition on the table be referred to a Committee of the whole House. He was sensi ble how mach he had trespassed upon the patience of the House, and would conclude with expressing two wishes. The first was, that they might lung preserve their liberty ; the other, that they might never survive the loss of it.—[When Mr. Grattan had sat down, as no other Member rose, there was a loud cry for the question, which was put, and the gallery was cleared for a division ; but in. a short time it was opened, and we found Mr. Secretary Canning on his legs.] Mr. Secretary CANNING asked what would hare been the opinion of the country , if the division had taken place; without a word having been said by. any Gentleman on that side of the House ? What Voted have been thought, if when they had heard a speech in which such admirable talents were di;played, they should come to the vote, without a singe obaervation? It must have been supposed that they were Silent from fearing that they would expose themselves to still stronger attacks • from those who would follow. He did. not hesitate to confess, that he would have wished the debate had net been brouolit forward, but since it had teen brought forward, - he hoped it might not Islrtionprobeneraciceleeds7an[dCarnieisonofglitheearre!siset fr ar , c i fro L m or j th i e em Op i ri He heard the triumphant in which the Noble Lord cheered the expression, and he anticipated frets. 1. 'op. Ye tbibeiv el ioseat ITO" codki illsrf"! P i ate 21 dap & dot b oace bid re' linC 4 WhiCh cord I die ir be hal ID cai SOW tbit 9 Ns 91 , •FJ a mt doubt even bar< WIG ilicti do imp the tiro witi b 1 dei tik sickari ear;