Star. — London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

,~, they must not share in that until they had denied le supremacy of the Pope in religious matters in this country—if! laugh).,--The King, on his visit to Ire land, conferred the honour of St. Patrick on Lind Fingall ; but that Noble Lord could not vote for onej of his own Representatives. He had only considered the Act of 1678 in a political point of view; and they could not look at it without seeing that it passed under duress and false pretences; and if Lord Staf ford's guilt had been as clear as his innocence was acknowledged, still this Act ought not to stand. Not even the Popish Plot hid been true; and there had net been enormous perjury to support that infamous plot. They owed every atonement for those deeds, and the only way was to repeal this Bill. The facts were, that accusations against Lord Stafford and .ethers were sent up from the House of Commons as harbingers to the Bill. In five or six years after Lord Stafford had been beheaded, the witnesses against him wed c convicted of perjury, and the Bill of At tainder against that Nobleman was reversed ; and though Titus Oates was taken into pay by the Revolu-: tionary Government, yet he feared that the '6 4 Res dura, et regni novitas," forced them to such acts. They had now, however, no such reason for warping their judgments or de nying this concession, called for as it was by justice eq u a lly with true policy. In 1786, during the de bates on Mr. Hastings' impeachment, Lords Thar low and Kenyon gave it as their opinion that Lord Stafford's execution was a legal murder. Now he believed in the innocence of Lord Stafford and the other Catholic Peers, and he believed that their ex pulsion from Parliament was obtained under false pretence-, and on these grounds Parliament ought to revise this Bill. It was unjust, for it visited (more than attaint itself could do) not the guilt, but the in nocence of the parties on their children. He was not to be deterred from such a measure by the pre tended anomaly of admitting Catholics into one, branch of the Legislature, and not into the other.= He thought they did wrong in excluding Catholics from seats in that House, but that was but the with holding of an imperfect right ; the other was the deprivation of a positive privilege. The Catholic Gentleman did not carry about with him the distinc tive mails of his exclusion from the House of Com mons, but that was not the case with the Peer.— Who saw the coronet on the brow of the Duke of Norfolk but felt that it branded rather than adorned it? He hoped he had shewn the Hon. Member for Somersetshire (Lethbridge) that this was quite a dis tinct case from the general view of the Catholic ques t:on. He was quite sure that no Jury in the country .v.-ould refuse the restoration of the rights which he sought for, when they considered the innocence of Lord Stafford and the other Catholic Peers. He had argued this measure upon its own grounds alone; and if any who followed him argued it on the whole principle of Catholic Emancipation, he would tell them that he should then consider his cause as won. If the Catholic Peers were not guilty, why should this Act of Exclusion be continued on their posterity ? Bung free from the fear of a Popish Piot, or a Popish successor to the Crown, he desired to know why they were to continue this injustice? He put this question on the ground of right alone. He was satisfied that appeals to former times and former habits were some times dangerous, and were often open- to objection ; but he could not resist the inclination he felt to make such appeal. His appeal, however, was from the tines of 'rims Oates to those of Elizabeth, from the Peers of Charles to those of our earlier ancestors, and he called open that House to perform towards the Catholic Peers of the present day, an act of retribu tion for the cruelties which had been practised on their ancestors ; an act which was expedient on the score of policy, charitable on the part of humanity, and, in the name of GOD, most just. The Hon. Gen tleman then, amid the cheers of the House, moved, " That leave be given to bring in a Fill for repealing so much of an Act passed in the 30th year of the reign of King Charles the Second, as excluded Roman Catholic Peers • from sitting in the House of Peers." The Hon. G. A. ELLIS seconded the motion, and said, after the eloquent and convincing speech of his Right Hon. Friend, it would be bad taste, and indeed presumptuous, in so humble an individual as he was, to trespass long on the time or attention of the House. He was always of opinion that the general measure of removing the Catholic disabilities was a measure of right and of justice. The part of that question which was then before them had an additional claim to their favour, inasmuch as it related to an exclusion which had its origin in a plot which was supported by per jury, and in the exigence of which no one at present believed. He hoped the stain would be soon removed From the statute book. He recollected a saying of that spirited defender of the Protestant ascendancy, Queen Elizabeth, who, being advised to administer the Test Oath to the Catholics, replied—that she had better means of ascertaining the loyalty of the Peers. He would give his warmest support to the motion. Mr. PELL rose.—He knew how difficult it was to znake an appeal to the sober reason of the House, when their feelings had been worked upon by the most persuasive eloquence—when their minds were dazzled by the brilliancy of his Right Honourable Friend's language. He could scarcely expect their attention to the sober consideration of the subject, which he alone found himself competent to bring them to. His Right Hon. Friend had, in the con clusion of his speech, stated the grounds on which be wished the question to be treated. He could not avoid saying, that as the challenge was given by his Right Hon. Friend, he should have left to others the choice of the ground and the weapons. But he would endeavour to confine himself to the limits which were rresciibed. In the first place, he contended that the Mouse should not make a distinction between the claims of the Roman Catholic Peers and the people of that persuasion. For the character of that Nobi lity lie avowed the greatest respect ; lie felt that their rank and hereditai y honours claimed the greatest veneration; still he could not allow these sentiments to influence him against his conviction. The propo sition which he was anxious to establish was, that they should not open the other House to the R oman Catholic Peers, when they continued tit the same time to close the doors of the House of Commons against the other classes of that persuasion—(Heai). Lle ould attempt calmly and dispassionately to fol low the arguments of his Right Hon. Friend. lie knew the difficulty he had to surmount effectually to do so. He would endeavour, in order, to notice the arguments which had been advanced. First of all, with respect to the competency of that branch of the 77 7 7 1 119 •.J , •t./ 6 • Idr 4 measure for the regulation his 'Right Hon. Friend ha-placed . precedent ; the only precedent which - degree could be relied upon as similar As the Act 4 the Commons, in the time bf Charles the Second, by which spiritual Roman Catholic Peers 'Were excluded from the Upper House. Ile must pro- INN. against the admission of that Act as a precedent, basun it originated in peculia r and eitraordinary eirctimstances—(Hear, hear).=-In the 'year tea°, im mediately before - the breaking out of a. civil war, the House orCommons passed a - Bill for the exclusion of Roman Catholic Peers ; that was the only ground on which the precedent could be adopted—(Hear, hear). With respect to the Act of the SOth of Charles 11, he would ask, did his Hon. Friend go to the entire length of repealing that Act ?—(Hear).—lt did not exclu deely affect the Peers—(Hear). The Romao Catholic laity men were equally comprehended by it; the tests were imposed, the same declarations against transub stantiation were enacted against both—(Hear, hear). He Would ask his Right Hon. Friend if he would stand on the sound of placing the Peers and the Commons on the same footing ?—(Hear, hear). — He said that from the Reformation until the year 1878, Roman Catholics were allowed to sit in the House of Lords. But he (Mr. Peel) was aware that different opinions had been entertained on that sub ject, and that•different arguments had been produced from its consideration. He should be glad to know what expectation his Right Honourable Friend had of the authorities which he was about to produce? He would not call on him to be committed by an answer: perhaps he would suppose that they were some old musty authorities, doubtful in their nature, and of little value to the question. He (Mr. Peel) considered that the Roman Catholic Peers and Com mons were placed on the same footing exactly by the Act of the 30th of Charles 11. It was only last Ses ion that the whole question was under the consider ' ikon of the House. It was then sought to make a final arrangement, to put an end to all division, and to unite all classes in amity and peace. The argument then was, that the Roman Catholic Peers and Commons bad but one claim, and that they were equally entitled to a participation in the bene fits of the Constitution—(Hear, hear).—He (Mr. Peel) would refer to the speech of the Right Hon. Mem ber for the University of Dublin (Mr.inunkett). He had stated that Roman Catholic Peers had sat in the House, and that they were entitled to do so under the Act of the SOth of Charles the Second. It was evi dent from the cote of Sir Solomon Swale, in 1677. He was expelled, not for being a Papist, but because he was a Recusant. Such was Sir Robert Sawyer's argument upon it. The Hon. Member for the Uni versity of Dublin was not content with this particu lar case, but went on to speak of the very title of the Act of the 30th of Charles the Second. It was stated to be one for the more effectually protecting the King's Government from the diabolical attempts of Papists to subvert it. His argument was, that there was no exclusion till the year 1768. When a special case is now wanted to be made out, that of Sir S. Swale is totally forgotten, and an attempt was now made to show that a pec uliar distinction existed be tween the Peers and the Commons. All that be (Mr. Peel) could say was, when such opposite arguments were brought upon such high authority as his Hon. Friend and the Honourable Member for Dublin, he felt the difficulty of coming to a conclusion when their opinions were thus contrasted—( Hear ). —Though lie differed from his Hon. Friend on the propriety of the House of Commons now,originating a measure to regulate the Upper House, he was bound on bold constitutional principles to my that she House of Common's were equal to originate any le gislative enactment. • Parliament had on other occa sions interfered with the House of. Peers. On the Union, in the introduction of Irish Peers to that House. With respect to-the Scotch Peers, his Hon. Friend had not informed them what provision he in tended—(Hear). He would wish to know if he had it in contemplation to extend to them the same privi lege as to the Irish, or was he inclined to repeal the Act of Union, which disqualified all Scotch Roman Catholic Peers even from the power of nomination. A condition of the Act of Union was, that no person, being a Papist, could sit in the House of Legislation, er have a voice in deciding upon the affairs of the realm. He wished to have it observed, that be re ferred to that.period for the purpose of spewing that there was not then recognized any intention of ever again bringing Roman Catholics into power. Lord Somers was one who had assisted in settling the Act of Union. The others who joined him in that mea sure, and the King's Ministry of that day, wished to destroy the principle of an inherent right in the Catholic Nobility, and wished to do so tor ever.— His Right Hon. Friend had said, that the continuance of those disabilities cast a stigma upon the character of the few Roman Catholic Peers of the present day, and they were deprived of the recognition of political rights to which no other Catholics could pretend.— He would ask him if he intended alone to legislate for these seven or eight Noblemen, or did he not ra ther seek to give the Crown a power of creating any number of Peers ?—(Hear, hear.) —His Hon. Friend had said, that if the question was settled favourably, it would create a general amendment in the condition of all classes of Roman Catholics. He would recall to the House, that it was but six or seven months since it had passed a Bill for the removal of all disabili ties from all classes of Roman Catholics. He would ask, what had occurred since? What was the pecu: liar and overruling necessity of making an applica tion of the present nature—or why were they called on for relief? Since the year 1805, when Mr. Fon had brought forward the question, and when Mr. Grattan joined to support it to the present mo.' ment, no proposition had been made to the effect •of that now before the House--(lfear, hear, hear). Next Session his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett) was to bring the whole question before the House; 'and be saw no reason until then of giving the barren privilege to the Catholic Peerage of sitting in Parlia ment during a recess, in which, of course, they could not sit. He protested against the argument that the exclusion of Catholic Piers was the consequence of . the fears of the Popish Piot, or the menaces of the Crown. They malt look at the whole policy of the age, and then they Would find that the Act of 1678 1 was tonilinsed at the Revolution, when a Popish. King was excluded 'from the Crown—when the Bill 'of Rights passed. Whatever his Right Hon. Friend might think of the perjuries of Titus Oates, could he Leesleture to on die ether. which on the ofr ea the il=t - TT•7 .t. . ;.• 47;71 ~,•;~ .; • ; "1".."' •••• r •• t. , . ~ . . . _ • ' • . . - • .4 . l . ^: l T i rt*Z•;:?•,."7"'. ' Ito!,0 04 2" 4 ----4*. 41 mr•• 4. .v•?0,A•0 0 1 ~t . • : ' t . ~.. I° t , k •411 1A014 . 4161 not .satfat . at .tha tl isle iherel 7- Was aa, Imlilslat again* the fellgion and iihr tls pe a: t ale :~rl!—.(Hear i :kaar)., It could oe" e that opinion would agree on - the bee L e tet„. . . tradition von, be &WM owillliwiwl To Oboe, tia bob isool the win; Sidevedia g daps did colly eall, Belintat nashing, air Wining an ! --Supposing that he (M r . P eel) g ranted that datees disaYeeiles were a tissue of lies, still there were cir cumstances ofdangerwhicb predisposed oar ancestors to hearken to stories disadvantageous to the Catholics. Charles 11. had endeavoured to relax the laws as re spected the Catholics, and to destroy the liberties of the country. Let them recollect the Secret Treaty with Louis XIV. This was proved from the papers : of Coleman, who had been Secretary to the Date of York. It was but right that the House should look at all the bearings of this case. One of the articles of the Secret Treaty was to assist Charles IL with troops and money, to the amount of £200,000, in order to enable hitt) to declare himself a Catholic, The advisers of this Secret Treaty were three Catholic Peers—Lords Arlington, Clifford, and Arundel of Wardour. He, therefore, denied that the Exclusion Act was passed through duress alone. The Acts of that day were intended to settle the Protestant cha racter of the Constitution and Government of this Empire; for they were all supported by Lord Somers and the Whigs of the Revolution, at w hi c h t im e , too , they were all of them confirmed. They were done to prevent the danger of having an avowed Roman Cacho lac on the Throne. If it had been explained that the Constitution of England was fund a mentally Protestant, then the wonder would have ceased. He should have hoped that his Right Honouratile Friend would not have argued from the former concessions to the Ca tholics, that still further concessions should be made. But he was firmly of opinion that the laws against the Catholics should not be carried beyond the spirit in which they were enacted. But the measure of his Right Hon. Friend would . not correct the present anomaly of the Catholic Peerage. How could an Irish Catholic, like an Irish Protestant Peer, ever be a candidate.for a seat in the House of Commons, when he would be met by oaths which he could not, upon his principles, take? Though, by the present Bill, the Duke of Norfolk would be enabled to sit in the House of Peers, he could accept no favour from the Crown. He would therefore postpone the subject, till it could be taten into consideration in all its bear ings, and embracing all classes of Catholic subjects. He would ask of those who thought securities neces sary, whether it was wise to open one branch of the Legislature without any securities at all? That omis sion would render the demand of securities highly invidious, as the Members of the House of Commons sat only for seven years, but the Peers for life.—(Loud cheering)..—lt had been said that the Government of Ireland was conducted on too narrow a basis, and that her population should be admitted to all the pri vileges of the Constitution. He would ask such per sons if any object could be gained by the partial con cession to the Catholic Peers? If the time had arrived for the admission of Catholic Peers to seats, yet the consideration of their peculiar case should be post poned till the general question should be investigated, and the requisite securities be propounded. He would not move any previous question, but should give the proposition a decided negative—(Loud cheering). Lord F. GOWER was clear as to the justice of the claims of the Catholic Peers. The House was not to follow and to sanction the rash acts that had been enacted under very different circumstances, and in very different times. Could he believe that the six Catholic Peers, whom he hoped the vote of the House would aid in restoring to their rights, sere the rankest bigots that ever issued from the Escurial, still he could see no danger in their admission to the privileges of their ancestors. Though he wished that the prison-doors should be opened to all, he should then confine himself to the view of the Right Hon. Mover, to which he gave his cordial assent. Lord NUGENT thought no constitutional grounds could be adduced against the Catholic claims. He was one of those who thought the claims of the Ca tholics to be claims of justice and right, and to which nothing could be validly opposed, excepb'a - strong case of State necessity, which had long ceased to exist. From the very nature of the enactments at was clear they were only temporary. One of the de clarations w ch Protestants were called on to make against trans bstantiation was never allowed by Is\ l Queen Elizabeth to be called in question; and in de 'fence of which Martin Luther wrote—(Hear, hear). Though the body whose rights the House was dis cussing was small, yet they consisted of the oldest of the Nobility, and their titles were enrolled among the heroic ages of England. To the particular mea sure he felt some objections, and should he vote for it, it must be in the hope that the objectionable parts of the Bill would be done away, upon the principle of general concession —(Hear, hear). Mr. WABRE said, he was an advocate for conci liation to the Catholics. The great Lord Chatham bad well said, in answer to some objections which were urged against the policy of employing the High landers, in consequence of their Jacobite principles, that he had found in the Highlands a brave and gal lant race of men, against whom unjust prejudices were entertained, that he hai taken - them under his protection, that he had called them forth to fight the battles of their country, and that his expectations had not been disappointed—(Hear).—He (Mr. Warre) doubted not, that if the disabilities under which our Catholic brethren laboured were removed, there would be found among them, on all occasions, some of the most useful and valuable Members of the Legislature. Mr. R. MARTIN said, that it was only from want of time that the table of the House had not been covered with Petitions in favour of the present mea sure. All who were in favour of Catholic emanci pation were bound to support the present measure. Tithe Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxford, bad failed, it was because he had to grapple with a subject that could not be overcome. In answer to objection of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he would the s say that the que s tion was not what had been the con duct of Catholics centuries ago, but what was it at present ?—(Hear, hear).—That objection cf the Right Hon. Gentleman put him in mind of a story, in a book which he might be justified in calling classic — lie meant 4scip s Fables ,! —(A laugh),He found there that a wolf .a a lamb went to drink. at ,the same stream, " You muddy the water," said the wolf. " How can hat be, Sir," said the lamb, " when 1 Almon • Great Britain their hereditary honour* add Pgitfiltges —some of which 'rights it ought to he recollected were partly restored already—for they were, infect, Councillors and advisers of the Crown—and the object of his Right Hon. Friend's Bill was .oisly to bestow the right of giving that advice publicly, which they were now able to give in private—(Hear, hear). —This motion merely called upon Parliament to re verse an act of attainder, that had its origin in per jury and falsehood, an Act passed at a moment of terror and delusion, occasioned by the most odious and abominable plot that ever was set on foot against the lives, the property, the honours, and privileges of innocent men. The great object which the Legis la:ure at the time proposed to itself was to secure the Protestantism of the Throne. The person who then filled it was supposed to be a Roman Catholic, though the proofs were not then so strong in support of such a supposition, as those which had been since brought to light. The presumptive heir was known to be a Roman Catholic, and the consequence was that in the auaiety to secure the Protestantism of the Throne, the innocent branch of the Legislature was attainted on account of the infirmity of the branch that was guilty. The Right Hon. Gentleman, however, (Mr. Peel) took a different view of the subject, and said, the measure of excluding the Catholic Peers did not rest either upon an apprehension of want of Protestantism in the Crown or upon the plot of Titus Oates, but upon another plot which it was well known the Ro man Catholics were carrying on at the time under the sanction of the Duke of York, for the establish ment of their religion. He would admit that the Roman Catholics at that period were not well af fected to the State; that they entertained designs hostile to a Protestant succession, and • mig ht have been engaged in plots for -the re-establi shment of their religion, but they entertained such designs be cause they were well affected to the Throne, be lieving it to be Catholic. But admitting for a mo ment that the law for excluding the Peers had its origin in this, was it a reason why the law should be continued when the circumstances on which it was grounded had long ceased to exist? Were the Ra man Catholics disaffected now ? Was there any appre hension of want of Protestantism in the Throne ? His Right Hon. Friend had further attempted to for tify his argument by coming down to the Revolution; but these - laws formed no part of the Revolution— they formed no part of the Bill of Rights—(Hear).— The Oath of Supremacy, indeed, was mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but the reason was this :—Queen Elizabeth had claimed to be the Supreme Head of the Church ; that claim, in spiritual matters, was subsequently given up, and it became necessary to change the oath in that respect; but the oath was not a fundamental principle or doctrine. He was at a loss to know how the sacred name of the Revolution could be brought to bear upon the Act of Charles 11. What were the laws of the Revolution ? Was it meant that all the laws existing against the Catholics were to go by that designation ? If so, we had been doing away the glorious Revolution for the last fifty years—(Hear, Fear).—The Act of William the Third against Recusants—an Act which prevented Catho lics from coming within five miles of London—that 'atrocious Act, which deprived them of education, of property, and religion, was one of these, and upon the same reasoning its repeal must be considered as infringement of the principles of the Revolution. What was the history of the odious Acts passed at this period ? There existed at that time a party in this country, which was act ing in continual hostility to King William-•-a Monarch, whose whole life was passed in a struggle against every specks of in tolerance. This party, constituting the Ultra-Protestants of that day, introduced those Bills with a view that they might not be passed, and merely for the purpose of embarrassing the Govern ment ; for they could hardly suppose that any Parliament would 'enact laws so odious and unjust, that the comments passed on them by Bishop Burnett at the time, and afterivards by Mr. Burke, could hardly aggravate their enormity. But the party who i ntroduced those laws were deceived with regard to the supposed conduct of their opponents • for-the latter allowed them to pass with all their enormities, ;hey well knowing that it would be absolutely impossible to put them in force—(Hear). — In this manner these insolent and profligate factions, as if they were playing with balk and counters, made a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of their fellow-creatures. Other sets of parsecs don have been acts of malice. This was a subversion of junks from wantonness and petulance. The . whole of this Act had been repealed. What then became of the glorious Revolution? It was completely at an end if these Acts formed part of it. The same argument might with equal justice have been urged against the measure of 1791, as that now employed agaiust the motion of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning), and the same unfounded appeal might with equal propriety have been then made to party prejudices In support of the laws of the glorious Revolution. It was the happy mixture of deli and religious liberty that gave our Constitution its highest claims to respect, and no man could be a greater enemy to a Protestant Ding, or a Protestant Par liament, than he who would make them inconsistent with the liberties of all, or dependent upon any system of exclusion for their support. Mr. Burke had said, that if ever he could be brought to believe that the interest of the Protestant Church was necessarily opposed to the civil sights of the People, he ' would then tremble for the Protestant Religion—(Hear !). . His only object in rising was to remove the possibility of in ferring from his silence that he did not approve of the motion of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning), or would net be ready ' to give this great measure of policy and justice his support, in ' whatsoever shape, or in whatever portion it might be brought forward. It was a debt of justice they owed their Catholic fel low-subjects, and whatever pan of the question might be suc cessful, he would hail only in proportion AS it was a payment of ' that debt to a greater or smaller amount—(ilear, hear). Every hour they delayed it he should feel that they were 11994.:: themselves parties to an act of injustice. He could ventwa, to say that the measure would be revered by the pro* of Ireland, as one of grace and concession—that no Roman Catholic of that country, whether Peer or Commoner, would consider it ie any other light than as a measure of justice, conciliation, axed However the success of the great general question ferred, it would be important to find it advance e towards completion. , On the merits and justice of now proposed , not a s i n gle word had been said by Honuursble Friend in opposition to it. lie confined geneail observation an the policy and necessity of ti when they were enacted, but said not a word against pricty of repealing them now. It was a claim of rigi. 1 . , • . -- • I 61.1.." " 116- ii e 't 6 r.th 7.6 nor • iZybobtea - ' ri anallystb - ase as yearrago).dien," said the wolf ; .-- qt.: NW net be ffibtlosdif oft Me t zias difti,lit t i e o n l ems r .. . . , beestaz Of act bOlo at tha dose you speak ec.i. tepW• - IS Then some efyoor - aneestenidid t and-t ... ',Anse, for* eat yots u ra rr eantioned ' - '). . Mr. PI. said, be ' le at i o ,', * es . arsatiro t =t. on da aiieatiott of the ouae.-iith hat d ate e s negative to the inspeessina which seemed so he gins- re were cir- telly felt, that the present maser. was ilhelEto ak- ar ancestors "dere with thOr.vierld clte• He filly,, in e Catholics. it , not only nA. 14 e 1 7 to advance tbe smesore, laws as re . but as in itself an- essential net of *doe. v kationr„ liberties of when he (Mr. Plunkett) brbught forward' i lean, cret Treaty some °lneacies Were thrown in the ivativ*liinri- t i le papers ties; but happily the present assasare would be di- b e D a t e o f vested of all such difficulties. The propenaLof•his should look Right - Hon. Friend went to restore to the Peers of - . . - 1144.1 11l .10 a., ion, anti relief. a might be de- even one step of Ow measure I by his Right Med himself to of those laws ping the pre. ght and justice. I tl w a P ' s 1 11, 6 il 1 l'(t pli ;t~-: I:: ;r :~~ 'Ii:~