Star. — London, England, 1821-04-03 00:00:00

the Bill. After all the forms . through which it had gone, its various commitments and recommitments, the character of this Bill was not altered from what it had been the first day it was brought into the House. Formerly it diisatisfied only one party, now dissatis faction prevailed on all hands, as well amongst those. who were adverse to_the Bill, as amongst those whir were tc; be propitiated-(Hear). —lf the intelligence , which he had received was not very falseahe strongest. feeling prevailed in Ireland against the Bill—(Hear).l Being calculated then not to give satisfaction in any quarter, he was sure the Bill would turn out a bank rupt adventure—,(Hear, hear).—The difficulties were increased since the Intercourse Bill was consolidated 'with the other- What said the Roman Catholic Clergy ?—that oppression was to be their share, whilst the laity alone were to reap benefit from this Bill. This Was unjust ; and it was impossible a mea sure founded on such a principle could give satisfac ' tion. But he was not to he understood as opposing indiscriminately every enactment of the Roman Ca tholic Bill ; for whilst there were some parts of it in which he saw nothing exceptionable, there wereothers 'to - which his objections were great and insuperable. 'For instance, he would not oppose the sitting of the Roman Catholic Peers in the other House, for he had a high respect for them individdally ; neither was he a believer in the slander that no faith woos be placed in their faith—and fur this reason, that they had• books which explained that faith, which were open to the whole world, and which he (Sir Wm. Scott) could, if he wished, peruse and judge for himself. — He could not, however, shut hii eyes to the fact, that in Ireland assemblies had been called of those per sons who were the best judges of the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion, and that in these assem-* blies the provisions of the present Bill were almost unanimously condemned—(Hear, hear).— The House had also heard a protest to the same effect from a • Prelate in England, of whom he (Sir W. Scott) had no knowledge personally,,,but whom he respected for his zeal in standing by his religion. The Right Hon. Gentleman then stated that the part of the Bill which was most objectionable in his eyes, was that wherein explanation was given of the Oath of Su premacy. In his opinion an explanation of an oath ought to be coeval witlt the oath itself; and, as this was the first oath to which Parliament had attached any explanation at all, he hoped, for its honour, that it would also be the latta—(Hear, hear, hear). lie then quoted a passage from Doctor Burnett, to shew with what jealousy the preservation of the oath • of supremacy, untouched and entire, was looked upon in his time as a safeguard against the innova tions of the Papists. He also quoted from Dodd's and Charles Butler's histories of the English Catho lics; shewing that they had then so little objection in Toro conscsentice to acknowledge Elizabeth's supre macy, that in the three or four first years of her reign, they used to crowd in great numbers to the Protestant Churches, in order to avoid the penalty of twenty pounds to the Queen, and one shilling a Sunday for every Sunday that they were absent.— Looking at this part of the Bill, therefore, in every • light, he thought it the most important of the whole. If this explanation of the oath of supremacy was passed into a law, the law which it affected to ex plain would be thereby virtually repealed, and yet it was upon the principle of that oath that our Pro testant 'Constitution mainly rested, as it was fixed at the Reformation and the Revolution—(llear, hear). — The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to the opi nions of Selden, Locke, Lord Clarendon,_ and Black stone, stating, that so long as the oath of supremacy was preserved, there was no danger to be appre hended from the Roman Catholics. The subject, • therefore, ought to be well considered, before Par liament dispensed with this important oath. He came next to the oath which it was proposed Roman Ca tholics should take. Ile contended that Roman Ca tholics never could conscientiously take the pre scribed oath. It was sophistry to be attempting to draw a distincticn between the Pope's spiritual and his temporal authority. There was no difference, in 'fact, between them. The Roman Catholic, there fore, when he admitted the Pope's spiritual jurisdic• tion to any extent, admitted also his temporal autho rity, however he might by words disclaim such au thority. This oath was, therefore, a fraud upon the Roman Catholic, and a fraud upon the Protestant.— (Hear, hear).—lt called upon the one to assert that, which at the same time he was to unsay; and it took away from the other the only security which he had for the existence•of the Church to which he belonged. He asked, was this fair towards either party, but • especially towards the Protestant, who was now, it seemed, to lose that 'vantage ground which, by two centuries of suffering, he had been trying to obtain? The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded with an Amendment, " That this Bill be read a third time this day six months." . Sir GEORGE HILL seconded the Amendment. lie regarded the measure as one of a revolutionary nature, as it went to destroy those land-marks erected by .the wisdom of our ancestors against the encroach ments of the See of Rome. For the first time in the debates on the subject, he had heard it asserted, that the Constitution of this kingdom was not fundamen 'tally Protestant. The Right Hon. Baronet here quoted the Bill of Rights, to prove that Catholics could have no share in the Legislature. He should not notice those details of the Bill which ended to put our liberties in peril. By the provisions of the Bill, Catholics could be Sheriffs, and possess all the power attached to that office. He looked at the power of Catholic Sher iffs at elections with horror and dismay. A few Catholics sitting in that House would speak the sense of the whole Catholic body, and, of course, would possess far more influence than would attach tb the same number of votes of any other individuals— (Hear, hear).—No Protestant could now take the old oath of supremacy, as he was bound to swear that the See of Rome neither had, nor ought to have, any authority in this realm. What evidence had we that • • Catholics and Protestants could be united in amity ? Nothing but the gratuitous assertions of the Honour able Gentleman, while the experience of the past af forded ample proof of the contrary. He was assured that both the Clergy and Laity of Ireland reprobated the Bill, and called it a Bill of Slavery. Last. week, the titular Bishop of Dublin, - Dr. Troy, assembled his Clergy, who came to an unanimous Resolution, that they could trot assent to the Bill that went to re gulate the intercourse with the See of Rome, and the interference of a Protestant Govertunentin the choice of their Bishops. A similar Meeting took place of the Clergy in Limerick, bdt 'the Resolutions were couched in much stronger terms ; and one of them expressly stated, that no conscientious Catholic could assent to the proviMons,of Mr. Plunkett's Bills. That was the sense of the whole Catholic Body in Ireland. At the Meeting in Limerick, a Petition was agreed 'on to the House of Lords, on the provisions of the Bill. Another Meeting also took place of the Catho lic Body of the City and County of Limerick, and some strong Resolutions were adopted, though,some of the. Laity protested ,against them, to the number of thirty-six ; hut the Protest had been treated with the utmost contempt. A Mr. Roach, a Gentleman of the utmost loyalty, had been called to the Chair, and upon any other occasion the Meeting would be allowed to be a fair representation of the City and County of Limerick. The Right Hon. Baronet here read several of the Resolutions of the Meeting, strongly reprobating the provisions of the Bill, on the subject of the nomination of the Catholic Bi shops; and that the relaxation of the penal laws, ac companied by such conditions, could never produce concord, but would lessen the security of the Throne and the Empire. Similar Resolutions had been adopted at ‘Vaterford. Like Meetings had been an nounced for Cork, Galway, and TURTII. At some of the Meetings, reference had been made to the con duct of the Catholics at the period of the Bill 'of, 1813. The Honourable Member then read the opi nion of Dr. CoPpinger, the titular Bishop of Cork, that taking the oaths of the Bill amounted to an ab juration of the Catholic faith. He was of opinion, that the Protest of the Clergy would not be less un qualified than that of Dr. Milner; or of the Laity, than that of Mr. O'Connell. He had no doubt that the Church of Ireland was their main object; and it' was also the object of many, though by no means of all, to effect that object by *a separation from Great Britain. He (Sir G. Hill) here read the opinion of Dr. Drumgole, who had stated it. to be the duty of a Catholic to extend his religion, which was the true Church, founded on a rock, before which all here sies would speedily disappear. As he (Sir G. Hill) objected to the measure, both in principle and detail, he had taken the part he had. The Protestant Nobi lity and Gentry of Ireland possessed a much larger i property than the Catholics, and proper security had! not been given to that valuable body of men. Should the Bill pass, he would do all in his power to render', it a safe and beneficial measure. Mr. O'GRADY stated, that the Gentry of the County of Limerick had made no part of the Meet ing. It had been an importation by Mr. O'Connell. He had a letter, stating that the Meeting had been composed of the lowest class ; and the real Gentry of Limerick knew nothing of the Resolutions till they appeared in the Papers. A disclaimer had been pub lished by the Catholic Gentry of the County of Li merick, to the number of 39; and among them the four Catholic Magistrates of that County. The Re solution of the real Gentry expressed much gratitude for Mr. Plunkett's Bills. Mr. FITZGIBBON confirmed the statement of his Hon. Colleague. Mr. S. RICE complained of the want of candour 'of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Hill), who had made no statement as to the nature of the Protest at the Meeting of Limerick. He thought securities were unnecessary from the conduct of the Catholics, and had no doubt that ultimately all parties would be satisfied. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, that he was one of a family who had at all times advocated the Catholic Claims, on the grounds of justice and policy. He would state what he formerly mentioned to the House—that he had had no communication from his Constituents on the subject of the Bill. But it was not candid, on a subject of such importance, to im pute improper motives to contrary opinions. He himself objected to some of the provisions of the Bill; and he believed the bulk of the Catholic Clergy were of the same sentiments. In that opinion he thought they would be followed by the great majority of their flocks. Though be would not vote for the Bill as it then stood, be should not divide the House against it. He admitted that the Protestants gave up much— they gave up their prejudices, and he cordially thanked them for the gift. He objected to the oath that was to be taken by the Catholic Clergy; in what situation would the House find itself should they con scientiously refuse to take the oaths? All the forcis of the Empire could not keep Ireland quiet, should it be attempted to enforce the enactments of the Bill by the imprisonment of the Clergy. If the House trusted to the oath to be taken by the Catholics, all the machinery of the joint Board of Catholics and Protestants, and for regulating the intercourse with the See of Rome, was completely nugatory. He hoped the House would throw out the machinery of the Veto altogether. Mr. ELLIS (the Irish Master in Chancery) pro tested against the Bill, because by a sort of infelicity of legislation, the latter part of it destroyed the first. He brought to this question as sincere a wish for the intereits of every part of his countrymen of Ireland, of every denomination of religious sects, as the Ho nourable Mover of the Bill. He denied that this measure was approved of by the Protestants of Ire land. He had better opportunities than that Right Honourable Gentleman's (Mr. Plunkett) retired ha bits and fastidious taste would allow him to possess, as to the opinions of the Irish Protestants on this measure—(Hear, hear).—The Irish Bar contained many as bright stars as the Right Honourable Gen tleman, and they and other Protestants had peti tioned against this Bill—( Hear, hear).—This Bill con tained more of irritation than conciliation. This was , the opinion of a Gentleman of his profession, who was chosen as the medium of communication be tween the Hierarchy of the Irish Nation and their People; By the present Bill they seemed to be determined to force the Protestant to neutrality, and the Papist into gratitude. They would not allow them to be happy in their own way. But he hoped the House would rescue the Catholic from this kind ness, and the Protestant from this coercion. He ob jected to this Bill, not because it would give freedom to their sock, but power to the Priests—(Hear). — The Catholics, always rebellions, did not deserve this boon. When they were called upon to admit the Ca tholics to a full participation in the benefits of the Constitution, they must recollect the conduct of the Catholics in former times. He quoted the words of one of the leaders of the Irish Rebellion, who. de ldared, that they gave up their efforts when they a found that they were fighting, not for liberty, but for the Catholic Religion and the despotism of France — (Hear, hear).—Upon all systems of faith, the inter course between GOD and a man's conscience should ' be as free as air ; but they knew that the Catholic religion was the most intolerant on the face of the earth. He was astonished to hear the Hon. Member for Waterford (Sir John Newport) propose a clause to allow Catholics to vote for. Members of Parliament, and not for Parish Officers. They would not allow the Catholic to vote for the repair of the Parish Church ; Ink he might employ himself in mending the sacred fabric of the British Constitution. They would allow a Catholic to sit on the Bench ; but not to join in parish disputes! He was brought up in the bosom of Popery ; and it was only from a con viction of its errors that he now expressed these opinions —(Near, hear). Mr. F. ROBINSON was sorry that the Honour able and Learned Gentleman had not made his un warranted attack on the Right Hon. Gentleman who moved this Bill, while he was present. He should not take the ravings of Mr. O'Connell's mushrcom eloquence, as it was called, as a proof of the opi nions of the Catholics of Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had always been discontented, and perhaps always would be; but he had no doubt that this measure would be acceptable to the great body of the Catholics of Ireland. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had urged his opinions with all the zeal of a convect. He was also a convect to this measure, having been educated in the fullest admiration of the names, cha racters, and conduct of those who brought about the Revolution, and who then established the Con stitution as purely Protestant. For the space of the last hundred years, the character of the internal wars of Europe had totally changed. In the reigns of King William and Queen Anne, we were leagued I with the Catholic House of Austria ; but .that was purely a political war, and not a war for religion.— In the seven years' war, we were united with the Ca tholic Empress Maria Theresa, against the Protestant state of Prussia, in order to preserve to her her Ca tholic subjects of Silesia. Again, in 1756, we were leagued with Protestant Prussia against Catholic Austria-and France. All these were wars of poli tics, not of religion. The greatest blow that ever the Pope received was from the Catholic Emperor, Joseph 11. and he could not conceive how any man could conjure up any fear from the influence of the See of Rome. His Right Honourable Friend (Sir G. Hill) had declared that the new oath of allegiance could not be taken by any conscientious Protestant ; because he could not deny that the Pope had no ju risdiction or influence in this country. Now, he (Mr. Robinson) considered this oath as denying the tempo ral power of the Pope in this country. He had no fear that the Protestant Aristocracy of Ireland would leave their country if this Bill were to pass; on the' contrary, he had no doubt that the Protestants would meet in Parliament their Catholic fellow-subjects, con gratulating them on the success of this measure, and anxiously combining for the good and prosperity of their common country. Mr. GOULBURN apprehended dangers from the introduction of Catholics to unlimited political power. Did they not restrict the Throne and both Houses of Parliament to Protestantism ; and if they opened the doors of the latter to Catholics, what hindered them from having a Catholic King ?—(Hear.)--He could not depend upon the securities proposed by this Bill. The Catholic was altogether incapacitated by the Constitution from holding the offices and duties which this Bill was intended to open to him. His dread was, that the Catholics should acquire that consolidation and strength, which would enable them to carry their ulterior object. We might have a King who would be indifferent to any sort of religious opinions, and then, if he had an ambitious point to carry, would he not grant ail to the Catholics for their assistance which they might think proper to require? In the House of Peers, they had security in the small num ber of Catholic Peers who could sit in that House; but that would not be the case with the Representa tion of the People in the other House of Parliament. The Constitution of the land required that Catholics ought not to be received into the State under any cir cumstances. It was for the framers of this Bill to correct the errors of k. If the House were to profit at all by experience, no hopes would be entertained that the measure, if adopted, would give satisfaction. Concession would now, as on former occasions, only lead to new demands. Lord BINNING arose amidst loud cries of " Ques tion !" It was with great pain that he now rose to express his sentiments on this great subject, when he considered that he differed from numbers of most re- 1 spectable friends, with whom he was in the habit of acting on political subjects.---The Noble Lord Oen, amidst considerable confusion, proceeded to urge the arguments so frequently repeated in the course of the recent ample discussions on the measure, in support of the Bill. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON explained. He objected to the oath more on account of that which it insinuated, than that which it declared.—( Question 0 Mr. PEEL rose amidst loud cries of " Question !" He was anxious to embrace the last opportunity he should have to deliver his sentiments on this import ant measure. He had two great objections to it : one was, that to adopt the present Bill, would be to introduce a great change into the Constitution.— It was impossible to think of any great event since the Reformation, and not have the Roman Catholic Religion immediately present to his mind. Previ. ow to the Reformation, care was taken to exclude foreign interference. After the Reformation, all was given to the Protestant Church, and studious care was adopted to exclude theßoman Catholics from the State. Such had been the course adopted ever since,• and now it was proposed to put an end to all the securities which our ancestors had laid down.— The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to com ment on the nature of the Catholic Religion, and of the influence which the Priesthood had over the minds of the laity. He mentioned an instance of a Gentle man at Cork, who was desirous of establishing a school for the children on his estate, amounting to 43 families; of these 40 were Catholics, and to suit his school to such, he directed that passages should be selected from a Catholic Bible for the use of the school. Several Catholics sent their Children; but when that fact came to the knowledge of their Priests, they refused to admit these poor persons to the Sa crament, till they had taken their children from the Protestant school--(!fear).--.This was a striking. in stance of the extraordinary and undefin:d power a the Clergy of the Catholic persuasion, and to which strop he objected. He was asked, was h e a f ra ' d of danger from the Pope ? He would sa y no , not of the s foreign power of the Pope, though th e power of the Po pe was as great now as it w as w h en t h ese securities were taken, at which time th e F renc h Ambassador and threatened the tem to p o m ta a l rc p h o% t r o er Rome of tiie with 5400 wassoo not m en enough to resist him. But it was not t hi s tempo g; ral power of the Pope against which Lord Somers and King William took securities—(Hear, scar).— No, it was against domestic danger that security w as taken ; and against domestic danger he wished now to have this question considered—(Hear).—This Inca, sure, it was said, was to still the demagogue forever. How many topics of inflammation would rot be left open to him, to leave alone those which he was even now extracting from it ?—(Hear, hear).--If the Pope could assent to the securities demanded by the mea sure—if every Roman Catholic in Europe could as sent to them, and the Roman Catholic of Ireland withheld them e he could not help feeling that ther e was something in the policy of Ireland that w as much to be feared. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by declaring, that as he could not think that this Bill would have the effect of conciliating those on whom it was intended to operate, and think. ing that it could not contribute to the knitting toge. ther of the hearts of his Majesty's subjects in bonds of harmony, and of uniting them in one common interest, nor indeed of effecting any of the benefit s stated to be its object, he could not consent to t h e third reading of the Bill—( Loud cheering). Mr. CANNING said, that if he could concur in the concluding sentence of the Honourable Gentle man, he should become a convert to the greater part of his doctrines. The Gentlemen who had taken that side of the question which his Right Honourable Friend had taken, and so ably illustrated that night, said that they were placed in a situation difficult and delicate. But he must beg leave to say, that those who advocated the side which he did were in &situa tion equally di ffi cult; for they we r e chargel ac aa labouring to introduce, unasked, fallacious ameliora• tion; that they departed from established practice to walk in new and untried paths. The only innora tion which the supporters of this Bill proposed to make was in the state of the law—a law which car ried not only persecution, but death, to the cottan of every Priest, and sanguinary persecution to trio 'dwelling of every superior Ecclesiastic in the Church Establishment of the Catholics. Of all the perver sion of meaning lie ever heard of, the greatest was t ' that of attributing to the Bill the inflicting of woimils, rather than the healing of old sores. Whilehis Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel) feared from this mea sure the destruction of the Protestant Church the Catholics at least did not apprehend in it any addi tional safeguard to their religion. Amongst the va . rious arguments that had been brought to bear upon this question, he had been charged with having ex hibited the danger of a hundred Catholic Members finding their way into the House, at the same time that he was charged with raising arguments in order to contend with thern—(Heor, hear, hear).— • Now the fact was, that an Honourable Member on the other side of the question had estimated the pro bable number of Catholic Members at 100—seventy Irish, and thirty English ; and he (Mr. Canning), in ! order to refute the argument built upon it, admitted that number, althoUgh he believed about half a doted Irish and half a dozen English were all the Catholics that were likely to form a part of the 658 Members of that House. The Henourable Gentleman who had introduced this Bill, with an eloquent precision that would not have disgraced Tacitus, pointed out in his speech, as in a funeral 'oration, the statues of those great orators who had distinguished themselves id this question. Among the names .he (Mr. Canning) had missed one now no more, never second in the zeal of his resistance, but whose place, had this Ses sion been- amply supplied by an Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. 'Ellis), : from the same country; indeed so amply and effic iently, so muchie the spirit and manner of the great original, that lit , tle was left to be desired. As applied to that Hong Substitute he might perhaps be allowed to parody two well-known lines : " The tdne and topics opening to the view, " Methinks I see Dricevax here anew f'--(Loegher). —The a straßinig o h f t H v o e n a o t u h ra u b m le ou G r en a t n lem dw a i n t, tlen proceeded'tiocharatteo. in t the conduct of the Right Honourable Member Oxford (Mr. Peel), who, when the House was in _lot tmoaprocfh theuid serh hill, proposed banners topose d that h ha tt theyi s B i s l i l i , and di turn at nt round upon the Churchwardens. Comparing this with the _ o. lofty strain of declamation held by the Right nourable Gentleman in a previous discussion on th e , same subject, when he indulged in bolder flights . . imagery, and displayed to their terrified eyes the t prospect of those mighty phantoms of danger were to trouble the repose of the Constitution m fu-. cure times, he could nut help applying to humus' words of Horace : " None Reges et tetrarchaa Omnia magna loquens." To which he would add— " Nunc wares et Churchwardenset !" ( Much laughter).—The Bill would go down to pos. terity with a halo of glory round it, composed 0 . 1 tk e names of all those who had been chiefly distingan in ked. framing it ; and he hoped the name . of his Bight Hon. Friend would pass to future ages with all the unsullied honour of having been the author of tite Restrictions on the Churchwardens and Vestry 9E' e i cers,—( Leughter).—He contended that it was t ( to look with some consideration at the sentim ents the Catholic Clergy on the subject of the measure , but they were also to bear in mind, that this was so much a question between Priest and Layman, ble as to the embodying of the Catholic and Protcos with the Constitution. Let the House, in Moder e l what the Catholics were, put out of their minds 04 they had been iq times gone by, and take them they now were. Let them not borrow the los Smithfield to animate the debate, and he would rt• frain from going to the times of Charles the Fre, tt make up anything against any other Sect-4 104 ' Let them not take their Catholic from the pry l , l of Acts of Parliament in the time of Eliz abeth t *-- . he was described ai a traitor to his Sovereign Is • tue of his religion; but rather look for him in the 1 7, Acts of the present day, wherein he was demr7 at a good and faithful subject to the King 1-4,/ke, Ilear.)--The blood of the Protestant and ‘3141 ' 411, . . •