Star. — London, England, 1821-03-27 00:00:00

m illirem remained among the Catholics, the beet ' so remove them would - be to mix the Catholics ufs with a Protestant majority. It had been said, that *best place for a demagogue was a seat in that Hope, as there be was sure to find his level ; and if dyrgerous opinions were held by the Catholics, the , i moe mode of reasoning would apply. It was incon fistent in the extreme to allow Catholics to command o w fleets and armies, and at the same time to exclude I I mes from seats in thit House ; when, for years to e we, they must form a minority. It ought to be recollected, that it was the conscientious scruples of die Catholics that prevented them from having seats b that House. All the old arguments had now been abandoned, and the question had become one of jea buy. Had the conduct of the Catholics in Great 6bain and Ireland been such as to entitle these claims to consideration ?—and another question was, if the public mind of the kingdom was prepared for the proposed concessions ? He thought that the Pro testant public mind was ripe for the concessions, from die light thrown upon the subject by repeated discus lions. Another question was, would the Church and grate be safe after such concessions ? Did the Hon. Member (Mr. Bankes) not think that the Catholics in that House would be as much divided as the Pro eamous, and that they would not be equally attached to their own interests as the Protestant Members?— But if the Catholics would league then, why did they not league now ? The Protestant mind would be im mediately roused, if it saw anything like a Catholic Ileac, and must render it wholly unavailing. SPEAKER said, he should confine himself to a very few observations upon the question imme diately before the House. He agreed with all the Honourable Members of that House, who had ar gued that exclusion was in itself to be regarded as a grievance, and that it could only be justified by an adequate necessity. Now, the Bill before the House sot only recognised exclusion from some offices, un less certain conditions were complied with, but in some instances it recognized absolute and unqualified exclusion. Thus the Catholics were absolutely ex cluded from exercising judicial functions in the Ec clesiastical Courts. He did not refer to this part of the Bill with a view of expressing any dissent from k; no the contrary, he felt that the exclusion was a necessary, and therefore a justifiable exclusion. But if be were justified in feeling a jealousy as to the par ticipation of the Roman Catholics in the administra tion of the laws directly affecting our Ecclesiastical Istablishment, be knew not how he was to be an eirered, if he declared that a jealousy might be rea sonably entertained of their participation in the enact bent of the laws themselves. This consideration led immediately to that of the clause by which they were admitted into the two Houses of Parliament. When be looked into the preamble of this Bill, in which it to stated that the laws relating to the Ecclesiasti cal Establishment were permanently established, it was a necessary inference, that the Catholics were excluded from judicial offices in ecclesiastical mat ters, lest any injury should arise from their malad !ministration. But when those laws were said to be permanently established, the meaning of those words could only be, that they were permanent so long as k should not please Parliament to alter them. Was k not reasonable, therefore, to feel a jealousy as to the wxxinuance of those laws, as well as to guard against their maladministration ? The Hon. Member who ke ire res os 0 ro• he lad just sat down seemed to think that the Honour able Member for Carle Castle had carried his views of danger to an unnecessary extent ; but it surely be timed them, in jegislating on so important a subject, 10 take the longest view within their reach ? and if ray consequent mischief should arise, it would be no sewer to say that the law might be repealed. The Hen. Member for Corfe Castle said, that there was much ground far alarm ; and the Hon. Member who last addressed the House, thought there was no such round ; but both the one and the other opinions were mere speculations. They were speculations upon which he did not presume to judge; but he must say, that upon a question of such paramount importance, be would rather look for his security to the law, than trust to the results of chance. The Honourable Mem ber for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce) had said the other night, that he felt strongly inclined to believe, that if the restrictions upon the Roman Catholics were removed, many of them would abandon their faith, and become Protestants—(Cries of Hear, hear), k was natural for the Honourable Gentleman, being himself an extraordinary good Protestant, and look ieg, as be did, to the intrinsic merits of the Protest ant faith, to entertain such an opinion, but he (the %maker) doubted whether a good Catholic would not be equally inclined to say. 4 , only give me admis sion into the House of Commons, and I will so con vince you of the truth of my religion, that you will oil turn Roman Catholics r--(4 laugh). He could not disguise his own opinion that difficulties had arisen, and were accumulating, in consequence of the alteration which had been made in the clause origin ally proposed. It was contended by some Honour able Gentlemen, that the words proposed to be added made no difference in the meaning of the clause, but if that were so, where was the necessity for altera tion? The Right Honourable Gentleman went on to obserie that the only difficulty which he felt in the case was the necessity of altering the oath for the purpose of admitting the Catholic. He disliked two oaths, one for the Protestant, and the other for the Catholic, and that for the Protestant containing something more than that sworn to by the Catholic. 1k never attempted to conceal that this was the part of the question which was infinitely of the most im panel:et. He.could not but object altogether to the resent interpolation, and yet he did not see how the oath could be altered so as to effect its purpose with sat it. An Hooourable Oendeman had said that the whole question turned upon, whether, on the admis vioa of the Catholics to Parliament, the safety of the State could be guaranteed ?—whether also the con duct of the Catholics entitled then to the enjoyment such a privilege?—and whether, supposing those Prints to be allowed, this was not the most con. 'rimiest time that the concession should be made ? irols respect to the last, Monet he had not the same esaidence in the success of the measure, he agreed with the Honourable Member that never was there a doe when the deliberate judgment of Parliament use more likely to be the delib e ra te j u d gment o f t h e h"Ple—(aleers). As to the second point, he was moat willing to admit that their conduct for a long Itime past, and the benefits which they had conferred co the country, entitled them to everything that could be granted consistently with the safety of the State. He did not doubt their sincerity, but he did not think that their admission to seats in Parliament was a privilege which, in conformity with their tenets, they could exercise beneficially to the Country and Constitution. In his conscience he did not believe such a privilege could be safely granted. This was his sincere and deliberate opinion, and, as ad honest man, he was bound to support his Honourable Friend's Amendment— (Hear, hear). Mr. CANNINL opposed the Amendment. He said he considei ed the point now debated as the most vital one of the whole--(Hear, hear). It was that point, the withholding of sahich would take away much from the value of whatever .he might be con ceded, and the concession of which, if all others were withholden, would of itself be of the greatest im portance. It was this privilege which, in addition to the others which the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and those who maintained his opinion, confessed themselves ready to grant, that would form the key-stone of the arch which was to perfect the ample incorporation of the great intirests which the present question of conciliation went to promote. As to those Honourable Members who maintained with himself the practicability of an arrangement, he conceived that they were not called upon to nega tive the Amendment by any previous vote—(Hear, hear). An Honourable Gentleman opposite had argued, that there was much difficulty experienced in reasoning upon this subject separately, on account of what bad been already granted in fact, but he (Mr. Canning) did not admit that there was anything granted either in fact or argument, that made it im proper that the present point should be discussed on its own exclusive merits. Before he considered the grounds of the adverse argument, he could not but acknowledge the manly and candid manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Speaker) had deli vered his opinion—an opinion, which, as he had formed it most conscientiously, so he was bound in duty to express it freely—(/fear, hear). In dis charging that great duty, he a not left for a mo ment the road of fair argument, and one wholesome result of the course which he adopted was, besides contributing to the fair elucidation of the subject ) to elevate and improve the temper of debate—(Hear, hear). The distribution of what he intended to ob serve upon, in reply to the arguments adduced on the other side, was first to state what he conceived to be the Claims of the Catholics, under the present cir cumstances, to admission to seats in Parliament ; and secondly, what grounds there were for those dangers which had been raised to obstruct that concession.— In speaking of the claims of men to any political of fices, he should be understood to speak not of what were called natural claims, and which had no exist ence but in wild and impracticable theory, but of the claims of men in civilized society, where it was often expedient to controul the rights of a part for the safety of the whole : but then that necessity should be clearly proved, and made demonstrable upon un deniable arguments. When the point became a mat ter of doubt, it could only be determined by :hewing whether such a necessity existeJ or no—(Hear, hear). Without reverting to any wild theory, he must lay it down as a principle, that there belongs, in the na ture of things, to wealth, intelligence, station, and power, whether natural or acquired, a desire of something greater ; and the natural ambition of cul tivated minds, and the chief object of persons of rank and opulence in this country, and which had been so for past ages, and he hoped would be so for countless ages to come, was the laudable object of a seat in , that Assembly which governed the interests of the Nation—(Hear, hear).—!f any class of qualified per sons %sere to be excluded from both the possession and hope of that honourable privilege, by positive enactments, circumstances should be strewn to jus tify such exclusion by the existence of a necessity which could not be controuled—(Hear, hear, hear). Now did such a necessity exist in this case, either in fact or reason ? He looked to the history of the country, and found that up to a certain period no one had been prosecuted or affected at all by such enact ments. But in that time the face of Europe had changed, and the line of demarcation which separated all nations and people among themselves,was changed. In looking through Europe, he saw that whatever was the policy of States, or the basii of their faith, that line, more especially in Spain and Portugal, was effaced, and only remained in full force among our selves—(Hear, hear).—When our Government was compared with simpler Monarchies, it would be found that we enjoyed a fuller as well as a more regulated liberty, which gave to every man, whatever his ori ginal station in society might be, a capability of rising to the exercise of the highest functions of the Consti tution. This right had been denied to the Catholics-- the necessity ought to be made evident ; hehad looked anxiously for the time when that separation took place. The claims of the Catholics had been overlaid since the time of the Reformation ; they were overlaid in the struggle of parties,. of which they afterwards formed the minority ; and were more overlaid on account of circumstances of subsequent misconduct. But it was the Statute of Charles the Second which disqualified Catholics, on the ground of foreign 'interference. That f oreign interference was the cause alleged. Here he was enabled to return from theory to fact, and to ask what was the foreign interference, and the subservience to foreign Powers to be apprehended now ?--(Hear, hear, hear).-- The anise was removed, and the consequences which sowed from it ought no longer to have any existence. Though the 13th of Elizabeth prevented Catholic Commoners from sitting in Parliament, yet Queen Elisabeth did not prevent Peers from sitting therein. The Commoners had been excluded on the ground that they were liable to foreign influence, and were bound to foreign allegiance,- but as Peers ware more under the view and controul of the Monarch, she did not exclude them. This proved that Catholics were not originally prevented from having seats in that House by doctrine or dogma—Wearasear). It was not their belief in transubstantiation which ex ' eluded them, it was a political reason, and not one of a religious nature. This exclusion lasted two him ' dred and sixty years. But Peers sat in Parliament till the 90th Charles 11. which made transubstantia tion not the cause, but the symbol of ,the cause, why both Peers and Commoners were excluded.— ' He would ask then for a plausible reason why Catho lic Peers sat in Parliament from the lit of Elizabeth to the 90th of Charles 11. ? and why it was unsafe to let them sit there now N.-(Cheers).-..lie would; • . . for a moment leave the Commoners out of the ;titles.; tion, and ask upon what imaginable ground was it I that Peers sat all that time in the Great Council of ' the State, and were unfit to sit there now—why; in what strange anomaly did not those laws stand at present ? Commoners were only deprived of a moral right, however qualified; they might or might not be elected to serve in Parliament, but Peers were di vested of a positive privilege, and these laws going further, annulled their birth-right—(Near, They were dispossessed of an inherent right—they were deprived of that which belonged to their station and dignity. They still received summonses to the House of Lords, and the Catholic Peers were sum moned to the trial the other day ; they paid the post- age of the letters, but could not come !—( Hear, and a laugh).—With GOD'S blessing, he hoped this would be altered ;'he did not believe it would lead to the ruin of the Constitution, that seven Catholic Peers, when summoned, should redeem themselves from the postage, and take their seats I---(Loud laughter).— With respect to the Commoners, some Honourable Members were afraid that they would outnumber them, they were in such masses at the doors, looking for admittance. These Hon. Members, whenever the subject was spoken of, looked and spoke as if they really heard the lion as the door, and were alarmed, lest, if it were once opened, the many-headed Ca tholic monster should be sent in to devour them— (Laughter).—As to the Peers, their number de pended on the creation of the Crown, and their right was only suspended. He could easily believe that right could be fully exercised by allowing seven Ca tholic Peers to take their seats io the House of Lords, without causing the subversion of the Constitution. Was any one prepared to support the principle of ex clusion with reference to them, on the ground that there were demagogues among them as among the Commoners; or would any one say that the Howards and Talbots bad so degenerated that they could not sit in the House of Lords without danger to the State? —(Near, hear)—As to the Commoners—what was the danger ?—let it be looked in the face, and what did it really appear to be? WaSit feared that there would be a very numerous return of Catholics to that House, or that being returned, they would combine, .nid being combined, they would endeavour, by force or argument, to prevail on Parliament to s ubvert the lawful religion of the State, and in its place establish their Church? He never knew of such a combination ; some people had strong antipathies, and knew at once, by it sort of instinct, when the cat was in the room I He did not know whether anybody could discover a Dissenter in the same manner; but he believed that it was such a sagacious antipathy, and not the force of reason, which raised up this danger, and detected men in selling themselves beforehand to an object of which they had never dreamed. He would like to know, supposing the Catholics cherished such inten tions, how they were to be accomplished? He would grant that one hundred Catholics should be reurneo, for argument's sake, and that they should congre gate to overturn the State and the Church, though he should be obliged to retract that by and bye. Now he knew but three ways in which any men or body of men could attempt to carry any object; first, by reason ; secondly, by numbers ; and thirdly, by force alone. Was it then, in the first place, to be supposed, that the 100 Catholic Members should possess such powers of argument and eloquence, should have such a prodigious ascendancy of intellect and wisdom, as to prevail on all the other Members of that House to displace their own Church Establishment, and erect the altars of the Catholic wo rshi p ose on its ruins? Was tha for a moment to be sup posed probable? Was it not one of the wildest of all imaginable absurdities? Would not the most distant attempt of the kind be at once met and defeated ? Would not even a mo tion for a scrap of paper, having such a tendency, be scouted with disdain ?—( Wear, hear). In the next place, could it be imagined they were to prevail by numbers ? How was that to be done ? He could not conceive, unless they treated the majority of that House in the same way that an Honourable Gentle man the other night threatened to treat the opinions which he had to combat, when in arguing against Archdeacon Paley, he said he would throw the book in the fire (A laugh); or, like Harry the Eighth, who had gone a little farther, when he said to the school master who presumed to dispute with him on theo logy, " I will throw you in the firel"—(Laughter).— That of the Catholic was the only interest which was not represented in Parliament. The very first oath which a Member of this House took, was an open de claration of hostility towards them. Place the Catholic there, and they would hear no more threats of force. It often happened, that in the zeal of individuals to discover imaginary evils or dangers, they entirely passed over real ones. So it was with regard to the present Bill. He believed that a Catholic Speaker might sit in their Chair without incurring any penalty whatever. That palladium of the British Constitution, the Oath against Transubstantiation—was directed t o be administered as follows After the election of a Speaker, a' considerable number of 'Members being present, each Member shall take the Oath against Transubstantiation standing at the table, the Speaker sitting in the Chair." Now, how the Speaker was to take the oath, unless he c ould stand at the table, and sit in the Chair at the same time he was at a loss to conceive. This was a danger which, in the case of the Bill not being passed into a law, Honourable Members would do well to provide against, for he really considered it to be one equal in magnitude to any of those which their imagina tions had conjured up--(A laugh). Apprehensions of the most serious nature were entertained when the admission of Officers of the Navy and Army was brought forward in the House. lint had any man ever entertained the slightest apprehension since those concessions were made? Yet they all remembered what anxiety and doubt was felt and expressed when the question was first agitated. It was thought that his Hou. Friend brought forward his Amendment, because a similar one had been fatal to another mea sure on a former occasion. Speaking his own senti ments—and upon this point be it understood, be was not speaking those of a single individual besides him self, to his knowledge—but, speaking his own send menu, he did think, that whatever decision the House might :ome to upon this immediate question, it ought ndt to be fatal to the Bill. His opinion was, that in whatever form, it ought in someone or other to pass that House. He had no fear for the exten sion of the Papist power among our Colonies. The --4 1,1 Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to deny the interference of the Bill with ecclesiastical office.. His Right Hon. Friend had said, that the recognition of . Popish Bishops was new to the Coil:action. To re fute this assertion, he would refer ,to an Act of the 4th of King William, iby which t was enacted as follows ;-4 , Whereas, &c. &c. whomever shat secute any of the said. Popish Bishis to irenvic don, shall have a reward of one hu ndred pounds; and the Bishop perpetual imprisonment.". Was not this a recognition of Popish Bishops ?.-(A This Act was repealed by the Bth of George 111. ancl the Popish Bishops then, as now, existed at perfect liberty. Was he to be told that certain Privet re fused to accept these enactments? If there werasuch, let thews. conie there. He could respect the sanctity which attached to the character of a Clergyman, whatever difference of creed might exist between them. But he knew of no protection which would enable him to come there with impunity to beard the Patliament, and tell them that he would not submit to their emictinents--(Cheers).—He cared not if Dr. Milner came there marls% in one of his own bullt!--' (A laugh).—He trusted the House would go on, heed less of any threats of representations, coming froM parties who would lose everything by losing their in fluence if this measure was carried—(Hear, hearl)-- He trusted that no fear of ,that kind would operate to induce the House to refuse that moral claim to their share of the free franchises of the State which the Roman Catholics undeniably possessed--(ffear). He did not mean to say that in so doing they would not be effecting a great and most important change; but it was a change not of repulsion, but of progres sion. The long and patient struggle to obtain this concession, would make the change operate like a measure o f: maturity, and render it free from the difficulties of precocious existence. It mould create that good will amongst men, that union, harmony, and peace which was so desirable upon every ac cbunt. He had fallen upon perilous times, and if in kite stormy season thew was one gleam of sunshinic let them not lose the opportunity of profiting by 14 lest they should leave to themselves oodung but what must necessarily ensue from disappointment and despair—( Cheers). Mr. BRIGHT stated the Constitution of Great Britain to be fundamentally and unalterably Pro. testant—(Hear). Mr. H. DAVIS said, that should the proposed concessions be granted, the Catholics would not e satisfied, but would still ask for more. He should support the Amendment. Sir T. ACLAND felt extremely anxious on the present occasion ; and must give a vote in direct op position to the opinions of the two last Honourable Members. It had been said, why should not the So vereigri have the choice of his own religion? but to that it might be replied, that he held the Crown on the express condition that he should be a Protestant. At the time of the Test Act, the Earl of Bristol, a Catholic, advised the House of Lords, as a P r ote s ta n t Assembly, to pass the Bill ; observing, at the same time, that he spoke not as a Catholic, but as a Mem ber of a Protestant Assembly. As the question must ultimately be carried, it would be good policy to make the concession as soon as possible. Sir F. BLAKE thought the cause of the Catholics had been advocated with a liberality that 'did credit to the age. Instead of stopping here, he was for going on, and doing that now which ought to have been done twenty years ago. It ought to have been the Act of a Union between the two countries; and had it been then adopted, would have bound Ireland to us by the tie of gratitude. He trusted it was not now too late, and. that the House would now alter the law in their favour; but in granting what was now asked, he would stop, be would go no fur ther, he would make no excuse for the King, who, if he forgot his religious principles, ought to lose his Crown --(Hear, hear). Mr. GRATTAN having been loudly called upon, proceeded to address the House, but the noise which prevailed rendered the Hon. ember inaudible in the Gallery for several minutes. “I advocate the proposed measure," said the Hon. Gentleman, übe cause I conceive that upon it depends the prosperity, the happiness, and liberty of my country.' He did think that the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle (Mr. IBankes) had not made out his case against the Irish Catholics. He had looked to former periods, and had ascribed the conduct pursued at those periods to the present times—(Hear).—ln Ireland the dregs of the ancient code were still preserved and acted upon. There was independency given to one party, depend ency to another, bat liberty to neither—(Hear, hear). —He knew both the Catholics and Ptotestants of Ireland from a long residence asbong them, and he felt that nothing but the measure now proposed was wanting to produce harmony and good feeling be tween them—(Near, hear).—He trusted that the pre sent system would soon terminate, as the evils of it were greater than any person unacquainted with them could possibly imagipe. The Hon. Member then entered into a history of the Penal Laws, and of the gradual amelioration of that severe Code. He im plored the House to allow the present Bill to pass; by doing so they would confer an inestimable benefit on Ireland—they would promote peace, harmony, and good will among its inhabitants. Whatever dif ferences of opinion might exist among, the Catholics at present—whatever might be said by fanatics at either side, to interrupt the progress of freedom and damp the hopes of good and wise men, he was cen. taut that the day was not far distant when this mea. sure would be hailed by all parties with heartfelt satisfaction—by the Catholics in particular, with gra. titude, as relieving them from oppression— by every patriotic Irishman it would be hailed with delight and pride, as a measure which would put an end to as unjust monopoly of place and power—whi c h would restore to their country the rights she had lost—the peace, tranquillity, and happiness, which were in vain to be hoped &r under a system which 'had for its basis the exclusion of the great majority of the people from the Constitution —( Hear, hear). The Honourable Gentleman here a review of the Catholic question from the year 1793 to 1795, and lamented the recta, in this latter year, of Earl Fitzwilliam, who was, he would take the liberty to say, the best Lord Lieutenant Ireland bad ever seen (Hear,hear).—The HonourableGentleman concluded by hoping the Amendment of the Honourable Mem. ber for Cork Castle would be negatived—.that the Bill would be passed into a law—thus confining transpsality and 'happiness on his (Mr. Grattan's) nn-