The Statesman. — London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

~ `ow M ow Wal l ops of Rome alsoold have so attlsoeft, Whatever in this country. To him it appeared to he matter demonstrable beyond doubt, that one of the grew' riaeiples of our free Constitution,' as it now stood, was. that no Pontifical authority should be admitted in this country, even in spiritual matters. In fact it was im possible for any one successfully to claim authority over spiritual matters, without at the same time possessing some authority over matters slot spiritual. The law had therefore always excluded even spiritual authority of a foreign character. Adverting to the admonition an nexed to the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, the Right lion. Gentleman observed, that that admonition stated that her Majesty possessed no more authority than ha Royal Father. Itut what was that i No man mull doubt that the authority of Henry the Eighth was of a nature wholly excluding all foreign authority. After a variety of other observations on the odes,- nitions, the Right Honourable Gentleman read the Oath of that period, and contended that it excluded all foreign jurisdiction without any condition or limitation whatever. Adverting to the any introduced in the sill before the Committee with the incorporated expla nation, he expresses! his surprise that the Oath of king William's time should he the Oath adopted, but with an explanation which applied, not to that Oath, hut to the Oath of the time of Elizabeth. A century after the Oath of Supremacy was passed, to affix to it an interpretation different from that which it originally bore, was certain ly a novelty in legislation. This was, in the first in stance, done by means of a separate explanation, but now the explanation was metamorphosed into a part of the Oath itself. The Oath, whilst it affected to hind the Catholic, yet at the same time furnished him with a key to get out of it—that was a novelty in legislation, a no velty too of the most dangerous , nature. At the eliatanee of a century the Catholics were to be informed by the authority of Parliament, that what they conceived to have been the tenor of the oath was in future to he taken avith an understanding quite different. Such a violent interpretation of plain words lie could not but consider dangerous to the conscience of i non viduals, unworthy the honour and dignity of Parliament, and opposed to the conscience of mankind. There were other objections to the oath which he would not at present notice, for being opposed to it he would feel it his duty to vote against it. Mr. HORACE Twlss said he would not presume even to attempt to answer the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ; but he rose thus early in the debate, because he considered the principle of the Hill had already been discussed and admitted. In the few observations he had to offer, he should mix up the con sideration of the oath of Transubstantiation as well as that of Supremacy, conceiving that in the discussion they were inseparably connected. lie could not, how ever, but advert to an argument drawn up by the Right lion. Member from his reference to the reign of Eliza beth. It was impossible not to recollect that in the reign of Elizabeth there was no oath at all, although that was a period of our history in which the Monarchy attempted to assume an absolute power, religious as well as moral, if indeed there could be a distinction between them. The oath, however, as estahrshril, continued fur 150 years, and it was not until the time of Charles the Second that any further test was required. The decla ration against Transubstantiation was then introduced, but it was occasioned by a fear of theinfittence of the So vereign—it was indeed altogether a necessity of a tem porary nature. In the year 170 the dangers of Ifittn were too recent to admit of any relaxation of the laws. If the argument of that (lay on the score of danger were available now, it would he available to any extent. It would sanction the permanent suspension of the Habeas Coriolis Act, because its temporary suspensionthad been sanctioned in the time of danger.—(Bear.)—lt would authorise the general Proclamation of martial law in Ireland upon the same principle. Nay, we might abo halt all the safeguards of the Constitution, lest it might in time become endangered.—(Cleeers.) —No legal maxim was so clear as that which laid down that " the reason of time law ceasing, the law c:'asea also." Were we to say to the Catholics, " We will pat a brand upon you ; and although we preserve the Constitution, yet your children shall never share its blessings?"—(('beers). 'flee Ihmourable Member proceeded to refer to the 3temorial of William the Third, relating to the Catholics, ullich had been re ferred to by Hon. Members on a former occasion. This Memorial, he contended, had a double bearing. It admitted in substance, that the Catholics might progressively be tolerated ; and yet it was this very progression for which the. Catle Tics were now blamed. hear.)—But they had received Petitions from Reverend Conclaves, which spoke of the linden-' tial laws of the Constitution, and argued as if the present Bill was an anomaly. He, on the other hand.' contended it did not introduce, but remoied an ano maly. If danger were alleged as an argument against i fill, it was incumbent on those who urged it, to sheer the danger. Ile therefore, hoped that thou.' who stn ported the measure, would not be considered lukewarm Protestants : amid he could not bring him ll think that the introduction of a few Catliclic Members would make that House a Catholic Assembly. Ile, fur one, was, and always would be, opposed to a military Government ; yet would he on that account desire the exclusion from that House of those Gallant Members who were Officers in the Army:—(C'he'ers.) —The Parliament, after the passing of the present bill would, he cone ired, remain a Protestant Parlia went in tile lite sei!se as that in which the people were a Protestant people. The lion. Gentleman then adverted to the inconsistency of the exclusive laws in their present state; admitting the Members of the Scotch Kirk arid the Dissenters, all as winch opposed to the Establishment as the Catholics themselves, yet shutting out the Catholics. Re could not see a"Y danger, even supposing time Catholic disabili ties were removed to-morrow. He could not see that any man educated under the most artful Jesuit noold be at all aearer the accomplishment of his deai p.n. It certainly was the object of the Hill to increase the political power of the Catholics; hut then it clearly tended to deprive them of their present moral force; I. "'" the Passing of this Bill they would lose the moral force which they possessed in time support of those Protestants who advocated their cause.--(llear, could see no danger in the Catholic reli gmo. It was once the religion of the country, and yet it could not retain its influence, although support ed by all the authorities of the State.—(Cheers )-- But there was no fallacy u hick was nut brought to hear against the Catholics. At ore time it was said they were under the authority of the Pope; and cOn "(Plently suhject to foreign influence. Now, how ever, the Pretender was no more ; and Bonaparte was Powerless, and the Faith of the Catholic was objected against him. ages had been urged At tother tines the excesses of former against the Catholics, and the punishment of Binge exees.es was attempted to be hilted upon time generation of I i 421) " What !" said the lion, (( (em ber, " have not these Cranmers-and the "Ili" destroyed their it• 11f . thousands, and should we not *Pet to thei r rt.e s s!•i., being visited up" us ' " -- (Chee' t he .g nautli!' pr. ascii against .::•-. he Catholics, the Fable who was determined to .find an a:- ease for Lie intended conduct : "If it was not you that injured me, it was your father, or grandfather." —(A langh.)--llut then it was said that the Catho. lies were ambitions.—" Call them ambitious," said the Hon. Member, " if you please, but is the ho nourable ambition of four millions of people to be disconraged ?" Then it was said that they were few in number and inconsiderable in point of con sequence. They were, be thought, composed of some of the first Nobility and °entry, of many of the learned professions. They were the few that led the many, and these were, In sound policy, objects of the first consideration. He should now address himself to the question, as it regarded consistency ; and on this part of the subject he felt confident in saying, that if a Committee were appointed to consider the present laws, it would he impossible for that Committee not to arrive at a conviction, that even for the sake of consistency alone, an alteration of the law was indispensible. ►►'e allowed Dissenters, of every denomination, to sit in Par lament; and yet the sole object of the present Bill was to put the Catholics upon an equal footing with Dissen ters. The Dissenters were protected merely by the ope ration of the Annual Indemnity Act, and where could be the danger when we could suspend the Act? It was remarkable too, that we must necessarily admit every one who knew and acknowledged no religions dis tinction, hot that which arose out of what they called the laws of nature; and here be could not but observe that the framers of the late petition from Colchester, while declaiming against blasphemy and sedition, had forgotten that that House was open to every man who might choose to take the oaths, and was yet, to use the language of the Poet, dames of that tline identified with the heel that operated at present to exclude the Catholics. It only .hewed how prone people were to min up what- 1 ever was transient and fleeting with the more piviel-1 nent characteris tics of any great transaction. It was the object of the revolution to abridge irhitrar Ho rernment ; and if in the heat of the chase to o btain possession of entire liberty the great principle of tole ration was lost sight of, it was too natural, although too palpable an error to be handed down at this time of day as an authoritative example. If any thing that bore the stamp of the Revolution was to be held sacred, they would find themselves in a situation to advocatt many things that were held to he very unanthoriseahle at the present Jay. They would find in that Revolution, that although it was to destroy arbitrary Government, it introduced the government of the sword, although it was to establish the freedom of opinion, it overthrew, with sum mary power the discussion of the ntnltitude ; and al though the purity of public faith was one of its object•, that period temed with more flagrant breaches of it than almost any other period of our history. Was it at those periods of our history, when the laws, exclusive of the Catholics, were passed, that were most retuarka ble for deliberative wisdom? The contending parties were excited against each other to a state of shameful phrenay ; both the nobles and the people, as though they seemed desirous of carrying the question more bx accla mation than with those marks of deliberation which ourlit to attend all legislation on such important sub ject?. The time of the first struggles for the establish ment of our reformed Church produced many Mow' men—many who had evinced their zeal in becoming martyrs for their principles: but none of them ever dreamt of the exclusion of Catholics from the House of Commons as the palladium of the Protestant Church. They relied with justice upon the purity of doctrine, and the conduct of its preachers for the maintenance of their cause. The Hon. Gent. who spoke last had referred to the Great Charter, and he (Mr. Grant) was surprised that when lie adverted to that instrument, it had not occurred to him who those were that had rescued from a Catholic king, and the domination of a Catholic Pontiff, that great Charter. When a Noble Lord op posite (Lord Nugent) presented in an early part of the evening a Petition signed by four names coeval with that Charter, and who were descended from the great persons who had been instrumental in obtaining it ; which of the lion. Members did not feel his heart thrill with a sensation of admiration and respect to wards those great pi•;.sonages who presented themselves at that liar, which their ancestors had won for them, petitioning for those rights they hail handed to them, but in which an ungrateful posterity refused them a participation. The simple question, as it appeared to him, was, whether if the Roman Catholic took the oath prescribed to him by these propositions, that House and the country would hare a sufficient guarantee ? It was not whether this oath was supported by this or that document, but merely whether they conld say, as far as human legislation went, was this binding or not ? rime argument that was urged spinet this oath would serve against the oath of Supremacy ; there was no more consistency in the one than in the other. With respect to the notion of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, it was needless to say he did not possess it, although altogether misunderstood by the generality of those who reviewed the subject. It never was con sidered hut as purely ecclesiastical, which was clearly sliewn in Lord Coke's description of the First of Queen Elisabeth. That Act he denominated a declaratory Act, and said it gave n • new power to the Crown, but only rcstareil its ancient jurisdiction. Refore he sat down, he must entreat the House, in directing their attention to the great question before them, to come to the consideration of it deeply impress. d with its importance. As a question of legislation, and of the deep interest which the individuals concerned had in the result of their deliberation. Coder these points of view, he hoped they would not allow themselves to be thwarted by any hut great and solemn objections. This question was no other than what was to he the principle of the connection betwixt Ireland and this country for the future. He (Mr. kraut) did not stand there for one portion of the empire. He claimed the concession of these eights i n h e . .half of the whole empire, for the peace and the tranquillity of the whole, for the glory of the one part and the happiness of the other.--(llrar.) I reland is as placed io peculiar circumstances with re spect to them ; she was not there to plead her own cause 0:1 the question. This cor...try haul given up that system of exclusion which it had so lung etter cised in almost every other branch of legislation. That system which in politics was the spirit of domination; is mums Tee, short-sighted policy; in aviculture, creel restriction; and which in religion, was intole rant bigotry—had now been entwined in all its ope rations except in regard to •religion. Surely they would not now stickle at that which ought io have keen the Erst, but which was unfortunately the last. It wanted but this act to place the ttatup of confidence hetet reit the two countries. If they viewed this cruel sys!eiti of exclusion in another country, they would leaf:aim upon the consequences of their not poseaxing a Consti!otion like outs, which left ii; en is. all equally the Basic tort' to buttonr and preferment. Let Irelat.d then be no longer the only exception to this spirit of the British Constitution. Let it hr theirs to receive the gratitude which had been accumulating f ages, to be rendered to those who slimed atcuitipl4b in one Scl•dott what had withstood the attacks of centuries. = (Heat . , hear.) Mr. BROWN d.sclared that he 'lid not think the Ca tbolies were able to give adequate securities to renter them eligible to take the immunities held out to thrum. Ile begged to meal to those llottourrble Members who till this dry had opposed this measure, whit their appre hension had been. Was it not that the Roman CAW lie: pastors were not the most proper for their ()thee; be cause of their connexion with the Papal See, or with foreign Princes? What was it that they now propose.l to do to remove the danger they apprehended formerly ? They were to appoint certain Cormuissiooers, some of w hom were to be Catholics and some Protestants, in w hose bands was to be entrusted the whole of their se curity against the supposed danger. II) the mode in which this commission seas to be appointed, there mizlit h e a rreatee proportion of Catholics than Pro•estasits,‘ in &tide case there would be a catnotission to advise the as :o is aAZ was belt ralrul•tcti p- mi.! r ~ . . ~l._ wkly of his dosalnions, w►kh would he ixtero-tml in he cause of those against whom they would be called apes to exhibit chatges. 'gaily ill-contrived was t►e vice, for cheeidag the intercourse of the Irish ltessaa Catholics with the Pope. He had another reason for his opposition to the niessure, whirls was. that he be lieved the Catholics were themselves in direct hostility to it. They bad seen instances of this in 1907 and 1813, and he believed the same feelings still existed as were 'thews on those occasions. Whilst amongst the advocates of the Rlfifife was seen an sir of trioniph, Ireland was ready to burst into insurrection ; not of 11. e Catholics against the Protestants, nor of the disaffected against the tiovernusent ; but the Catholic against the in terference which this measure threatened with their reli- • gion. On the part of the Roman Catholics, he felt assured there was a lunging desire to restore their Church to its former snpremacy—(llear, bear)—and he did be lieve that if Catholics were admitted to seats in that House, they would be advanced one step towards the attainment of their object. In Ireland there were five million of souls; four million of these were Catholic•, and about 500,000 Dissenters. With this population of four to one in farg.ur of the Catigolics, ttaiit to 1.1.‘ supposed that there could not be a preponderance of members of that persussi tttt in that House? Although other Honourable Members er: of a different opinior, he perfectly agreed with the llononrable Member for Uramber (Mr. Wilber orce) that the Catholic* were gaining,► immense property, and wealth, and rouse. limier in Ireland, which rendered the potting them in rooeision of Ciis a power the more fearfiC. 'Elie Protestant establishment in that country It'3 4 is great danger as it was, and h.' could never ag►rre to e adoption of a tneasure which must plac,! it in st:.l mot imminent peril. Mr. WHEW:BELL said, he was sorry that he w:•s obliged to follow the same line of oproaitiott ha tls:s measure, which he had felt it his duty to take MI 4 farmer occasion when it was prupos••d. With re+ire, t to the Bill then before them, it as.ertel in t:►e pr-- amble that which, in Isis humble u • .. 4 unfounded in fact, and an outrage upon historie..l • truth. It stated that there was a time in the Lists's./ of this country, when the Catholics tvere able to tali:, the Oath of Supremacy according to the interpretl tion annexed to it by Queen Elizabeth, by whic.a meaning to demonstrate, that it was the object of tip, Bill to restore a part of the Constitution. and not t•, add any thing new to it. lie (Mr. Wetherell) however, denied that there ever was a time when the Catholi s could take this oath, and he challenged any of th• supporters of the Bill to prove the truth of their . . Assertion in the preamble. Sir J. 1.1t:KIN'IOSII—I challenge the lion. and Learne I Gentleman in re!itrn to point ont in the pr.-- amble of the Bill the allegation lie speak; of.—(Crik.s of " Order.") Mr. WETHERELL did not mean to over-state the question ; if he should de so, hr was open to the cwt.. tigati.:n of any lion. Meinher in the Howie. He un derstood the preamble of the Bill to declare what he had said it did. On the accession of queen Elisabtlo, some persons gave out certain idle tales that she claim ed the Supremacy in a different manner than was 'tit tended by law, or was ever claimed bcferc, in cow , quenec of which a pamphlet oils put forth, which th- Hon. and Learned Mewl for h Jet.--111.1reshoroiegli (Sir .1. Mackintosh) natl. t surely have si ea. It ii a: 4 'e 1 " An Admonition to Simple Men."—(A laugh.)—ln this production it was 'fated that she only claimed the same Sal rmia y as her Royal rather exerted, an I Edward the Sixth. 'I here was, therefore, no new' interpreta tion given on that occasion to this oath by which the Catholic could n ore va,ily take it : anti he hoped II o nou rabic Members would nut allow themselves to he ilo;ied by this false rt presenfation. lie ob j ected to the measure on account of its political and general cons .- qiiences. Thy i.ractical client of tl r nicasare via: to admit within the walls of that House rathclic Leg:s tators and Catholic F.seeittike Ministers of the Urowtt. lie was of opinion that Catholi.• mill not be ad mitted to legislate in a Protestant i °natty without Jae ger to the existing estahlishinent. The Kill he was of opinion would not produce the effects 'thick its sup sporters expected. If it passed, the Catholic would still be on a ditfereat tooting from the Protestant. Thurt7ll he might IICE0:11t. Prime 3linisser, he was olt to hate o voice in ecclesiastical matters. The Hill was full of 1 inconsistency—whila it made the Cat h olic capable, it also made him incapable i while it enabled, it disabled t , and while it authorised, it unauthorised. When it had f built up a Catholic Premier nith one hand, with the other l it would be necessary that a duplicate Minister should be raised, and that there should be an Ecclesiastical as well as a Civil Premier. What could be more ab surd than this? lie wished to look at the situatioo in which the Privy Council would stand if this Kill passed. As the law now stood, the Privy I lommellor was bound by his oath to adv se the King, not only on civil 'matters but ecclesiastical and every other. If this Rill passed, it w.ml I be necessary to alter every word of the oath at present taken by Privy Counsel lors. Were this change made, and the Catholic Privy Counsellor restrained from advising the King in what concerned ecclesiastical appuintnsents, hr wished to know what punishment was to visit a breach of Ws oath ? Was it to be a fine of six sod eightpence, er was he to incur the peualtiesof a proinunireF if a y severe an ail s mobil lat iishmert were indictee. what would the Catholic say to that Bill, which alt - fished disabilities and at the same time inflicted new penalties? The Lord Chamberlain, if that office %tomtit he filled by a Catholic, mast on the principle laid down in the IEII, b • i r eluded from noudnating.,: to any ecclesiastical appointment. That power must he transfused into some other person, and exercised its some other way. lie admitted it might seem bard that a C a th o lic why had bravely fought the. battles of his country—who by his heroism had rontri;otted to the victory of Waterloo— . it might seem 11.Ird that such a man . should not . Se eligible to become (ins ernor of Jamaica—of one of the Leeward islands, er sintie one of our pospessiqus in' tt,e Vest Indies. Lut as it was necessary,lhat the 4:4m:emir of an island should in every instant* be the represrotative of his Sovereign, and be ace# ingly .til i l the head of the Church in the Colony . The . idle bin precluded from interfering in iteilitaiatiticat at . tees, must have some one to rct fir laic, an ( • ile the illnernor went out in one frigate, it would' 5ten0.19.47 .19.47 to si!trl out an P•rl ..iastical Coniulisii 'Ate in Ia loftier. " U :•• said tit •ti 0 rem a o on i ft,, %kit, v -..-. c T ISTPITISMAN• 3 troogly retol.toled Mak of the Wel( I the peewit times ' - • ' - • 1111110.. •• True to no King; to no Religion true." But it was also urged, that so long as papal dispensa- ' don existed we were unsafe in granting the concessions of the present Bill. This he never could admit : for it was obvious that, at the present moment, the refusal to swear was the strongest proof of Catholic good faith.—(Cheers.) He must once more be allowed to refer to the inconsistency of our present law. We trusted the Catholics as witnesses and as jurors upon questions affecting the property, the liberty, nay, the life of the Protestant subject.—(llear, hear, hear.) — We were at pains to educate the lower class:is ; but the higher. the polished, those who were placed above temptation, the hereditary aristoeracy of the coon.. try ; all these, among Catholics, we excluded. Sop pose a Bill acre brouelit in for embodying in one Act, time substance of all those inconsistent Laws. It rest declare, that Where is a Catholic is regardless of the obligation of an oath ; therefore lie shall be re quire:l to take an oath in the following terms."— (Continned cheers.) In this way mud the inconsist ency run thronghout the Act in question. There could not, in his opinion, be any !lon. Member a bit would gravely say, that this was a code which odo::lot tee continue ; for it really was an heresy against e' sense.—(llear, hear, bear.) Before sitting down, be woold iiineli very shortly upon the question as to what would satisfy the Catholics.—'This he considered im material to the dis.inssion. lie should as little think of what would • %misty the Catholic as he should of what would satisfy his Holiness the Pope; thootzld this he said without eneatoitoz any disrespect. It W 4,4 lint t o be considered wiiat woold please his Holiness, but what would he just. Ile conclude by repeating the words of en able and respected! historian—" That if a good Bill were lirmight into Parliament, however it might be opposed in its coniudencetnent, it wind I sooner or later, he successful."—( Hon. Mensher sat down amid loud and very general cheering.) Sir J. NICHOL', denied tlrit those aho opposed the Bill were hound to shim', that it woodol be attended with danger to the Protestant establishment to emancipate the Catholics. The law, as it st I, proved the exists ence of that danger. The law at least was enacted to coaril against danger, and those who sought to repeal the law were bound to prove that no danger would fol low that repeal. The Right Honourable Member then enumerated a variety of Arts, and observed, that almost up to the present time, on the creation of any office, the State had been protected from the admission of Oahu lies into it. When it was said that the Constitution was not Anti-Catbolie, he knew not what was meant; bet certainly all the great others were shut against Catho lics, and Catholics only. The Acts which imposed dis abiiities upon the Catliolics, formed a part of the Con stitntion—not of a Titus Oates' Constitution, hut of a Constitution estal,lislee nl Icy the glorious King IVilliam, and by the great Lord Somers. They were now called upon to alter this Constitution ; they were throwing open to Catholics all offices eseept that of Lord Chan cellor, and of the King's immediate Representative in Ireland. It was said, that there nas something popes ricer to these Statutes in thee spirit of the Constitution. — Ile knew not where the spirit of the Constitution was to he found, hot in the Statutes which established! our Ilene I . .liarta. the Petition of Rights, t he 11,1,,0 a , l'orpus Act, the Hill of Vigils, would surely he stud to contain something of the spirit of the l'oeis• itution. it was a main principle of our Constitution, as exemplified in our Statutes, that there should be no admission to office without qualification% of religion and property. In sonic cases a religions qualification was respired, when a qualification in property was not. He know not what the alliance between (touch and State could mean, if it was not that religion should be wade necessary for ad mission into Civil (*yea—Wear Yet, on the alli ance between Chords and State, it was said, that the safety of our Civil liberties m ainly i l e pended—(Hear ). Would the Hauge, therefore, proceed to enact oaths which left an opening to mental reservatitin or prevari cation, soil to admit, a ithout further caution, Catholics into all offices of the State Ile hoped they would see that these oaths were quite insufficient secotri:y, and on that ground he should vote against the Clause. Mr. C. GRANT began by observing, that he did not, of course, recollect of those former periods of Irish history which had been referred to, in whicli the penal code had been made the subject of discussion ; but from what be hail read, it appeared to him that the same arguments had been used on those life:lltitif) although with less success, as were made use of at present. l'he same alarm was rung plu m e the demoli tion of the antient bulwarks of the nation in die ;:itlpli of Popery. With reference to the treuae ka of the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. on the spi..it of the Constitution, lee hail only to remark, that he (lid not think the Hon. Gentleman had exhibited that spirit in its most favourable point of view ; for after ream-tang various points of the past history of the country, car rying down Ireland from one point of degailition to another, he told them that his was the spirit of the ConStiintion. At the-sateoe time that the lion: Gen tleman spoke of the Revolution, iie fegretleo to hear , i