The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1810-05-19 00:00:00

mean t was, that 00 spiritual Magistrate should appointed by any foreign nom i n ation whatever; as t was the case , there must be danger ; orig a a t"...." but, when that ceasoedine.tjolieber,tohnel 1737 i , lui h t e i I e s " l r d e appointed by a d c onsider the Catholics as isolated with regard to the p o pe, and he should consider that every civil r ight which the Protestauts_ . enjored. ought to be a tested to the Catholics. He objected to 113 ; mato , she, b ec ause the Catholic Bishops bed not sta ted such a iphritiriple, House had no right to that, therefore, The they were averse to it. expect that the Roman Catholics should offer a de !oration of the lemma to which the y were read y to c the ; when the House should say it was ready the Catholics the privileges they asked, and „itled to, then the Mouse would nave a right expect, and it would become the Catholics to ,4, by a corresponding espreseion of their semi wants, that they were willing to subscribe to a dow weedy m niostiou. With respect to the communi. ca nna of the privileges of the Protestants to the c. t h s l ic s, be thought there could be 110 difficulty. woni 1t 1 I be as easy for the Hous e to g ive the C a. Mohr , their Privileges, as for the Catholics to Coo. cede the enact* of domestic nomination. He coo., tended, that the Parbetneut, in point of justice, h a d no right to mike partiel laws—it had no right to make arbitrary l aws, or laws imposing disabili ties for 'accidental circumetanct.s. " Parlianseut," he sail, "has tio right t o p u nis h religion, because &Lion is a relationship is which man staude, with 5t5 ,..., : t to his Maker, independent of any political emii•ieration whatever." He said he shoed not go into an abstract consideration of this question. It as • said in shooter to their claims, that the Ro m,' Danaher, in fact, did not come within the de - 'ea given of them, because the Catholic re eiisswas so constituted, that it could out be consi dered otatisectod with disaffection or treason. He 'odd ‘uppeeett Roman Catholic ind.cted for trea we,scd that a Catholic Lawyer attended the matter of the oath, namely, that the ptrsos iselieved in trans sabstitatiation, setoreid the Virgin Mary, and receNed from the Pope certain explanations of the Scrip tire. He would suppose that he tendered these w evidence of treason. Suds a lawyer would be a lashhinpotoek. If a Judge suffered such a goes nor to go to a Jury, lie would be punished by ion paichinent; sod yet epos the very evidence, for auto% which mud suffering to go .go a Jury, a Lawyer would be laughed at. and a ledge removed.; se that same evidence, sea as no of ground, Parliament had disqualified one-fourth et tie peo ple of the empire. Tim charges against the Catho lically would brit!! state; they were,that tbeCatho lies b, tweed in the deposive power of the Pope. is his sofallibility, awl unqualified power of o b lig a ti . sine. and, lastly, that the Catholic was an enemy to the —tehlishmeats in this couiitry, bola of Chts-ch an ' St are; to tnese charges innumerable answers had been wad.. He should eadeabour to reduce those movers within a narrow compass. These were, the ausweris of the Ltuiver.ities . to certain qeenes—the Arts of the In.h Parliament in the 18th and 28th Feats of the present reign-r-and the improbability .of the charges being true. With respect to the ens•ers of the 63;re-sines. it had heemthwuebt proper to reduce them, with reference fut the an swers given to ghesticess proposed bg Aix 'Unktrsi tie., the names of which he entsamiewated. Tiny de. and that the Pope had a temporal .99wer in this roestry—they denied that the Pope, er a Car. diaal, hails deposing power—they disclaimed the doctrine of no faith with heroics—the in loy of the Pope.--end the doctrine of un absolatisni. The were the principles adopted by the ( se who, as so addl. hose' test, were ready to swear that they would support the Prstestayit Church, . and the Pro teitaat Etahlishasent Of Chore* sad Government. This oath had been take n by ' m r Cetliolle4 go- nersily--the test had' been ProPosea to them by the Protestants, and they had answered the Test. He then proceeded to argue on the utter bonus. ability of the charges against the Catholics being nee. It was observable that the charges amount ed to a species of criminality, which would render the Catholics incapable of holding any rank hat.* ern rs 61/II society-the charges amounted to no legs than a general imputation that they were tr.lh..g to transfee %heir allegience front their natural S •v-reign to their waters! enemy ; and, in fact, thalthey acted ape* a principle which was sub• rersire of civil society..:ln viewer to these charges be 'Null te• the treaties by which the Goa ternment t hisrti country had subsidized every Cathuric errantry sus the Continent, with the ex ..eption of Fumes. In answer to these cheer es he would appeal to Government itself. The t'targes were incomputble with the true disc t•aaes of . the Christsau religion—they auppee.ed the ttito icy to be worse than Idolattsra. It was mani :esi, however, that the Roman Catholics were 11 - 1 the slid:mit,' of Christians. It resulted, there. tare, that she fellower• of Christ were siippmed to le worse than the foliowers of Jove, or the fol. ..1.-rs of Mohammed; and it should seem that a:, •t we called Redemption. had been the duninu. t' 'n Si sur hopes of salvation. The Gentlemen s ou lad mad e rise o f t hi s argument, he thought tr ust eith er pose lort op their ramie or the argiiment— Ile is, he should be an.wered, that the ob )Thoti was not to the Catholic religion, het that it its tie bish Catholics. With re.P -ct to that ob art the danger did Imo' .0 iouch consiet in vac t ns i s religion as in the Irish Catholics ; he • : be glad to know how the t:lbarge was made ; • lie .as sure no•lrishatan world make such "mate. and he shout' noibehere hem if he did. Ile *geld cot believe an Irishman on his oath, if ‘t wive evidence against his csontry. As the `'""'", stood. the desert from the Catholic re. I, • • h e . Ireland must arise either from ph iii. e el morel causes—fr o m Ph causes they uld Iris. for physte • easisescoold not create s ad depravity, there coa l., nut be a moral plague, Im se c t arians that sectaran plague th a t paved the deer or a Pew t; 4 atop steps at the do or o f a C at holic. would r uo one bile of a neer. to order ue 1 argument t. , a sectarian on the- orbs. (.., Irfura i ea! th at sdoposed the donor of the religion s, Ireland to arise f h • l cicuosop_ld rhr caben4ej "rrrah - ean i se e m t va tu o u th li -t e y be s i l a ca irs a awl to the Government. It "" re line o f the Irish . wvg stated as set of %it's."is the Catholics that they Wm* a n lawe sad Goverment is Great Britain—Whenre did that imputation arise? It anise from our Penal Code—Could it he imagined that it was the sir, the western breeze, the soil, the verdure, of England, to which they had an aver-ion ? No; it was the laws which took away their property, their liberty, and their mous. He did uot think it necessary to go minutely into the ar gument, to thew that the charges which were made against the Catholics of Ireland, were. supposiug they were true, only to he attributed to the system which had been adopted with regard to therm It was, in fact, a charge against England. It amount ed to a declaration that we had been in possession of their country for upwards of five hundred years, and that the result of the connection was the snatch less depravity of the people. He observed, that our penal laws inflicted punishments upon the Irish Catholics, not for their acts, but for the character we chose to entertain of them. That character was not true—there was no probability of its being true, except 'as the probability might arise from the op pression of the people.. He asserted, that there was mottling in the Catholic religion, or in the composition of an Irish Catholic, that was hostile to the Constitution of this country, and if he was to leek for the grounds of the objection against the Catholics of Ireland, he should find them in the fundamental laws of the laud. But he observed, that the Irish Catholics should have been told, what would have been the operation of those laws, before the utilises took place—they should have been told so when they were promised that the result of the union would be a coininuoication of British rights —lt never could have been meaut to desire the Irish to give up their own Parliament, and then to tell them, that they were to be excluded by our Par !Monist frosts the full benefit of the fundamental laws of the land. lie was sure that the late Mr. Pitt was not ap aiithority for that system. He never thought that the fundamental laws of Eng land were against a fair participation of those law with the people of Ireland. He then took a tea view of the laws themselves, upon which the disabi lities affecting the Catholics of Ireland were prioci pally roweled; and, first, he adverted to the decla ration of rights. He admitted, that the declara tion of rights 'merited to be considered as an eternal monument of wisdom and liberality, and that it constituted a grand model of intelligible freedom-+ but upon what was it founded ? Upon two great prepositions ; first, it asserted civil and religious liberty was the inheritance of the subjects of these realms. Secondly, that a violation of that inheri. tance, was a forfeiture of the Crown. Neither of these principles, he contended, militated against the Catholics. He then referred to the Act of Settle ment, obaarving, that it was a limitation of the Crown, to a certain descriptions of persons, being Protestants, in consequence of the former family. who had enjoyed the Crown. ha►ing violated the civil and religious rights of the country. The words, being Protestants, were supposed to import, that no Cathi. lie should he King ; but they never could be seal bairn*, that uo Catholic should be a free subject. The exclusion of the Cathotics from the inheritance of the Crown, was supposed, ez ei teratini, , ..o be an exclusion from their civil I rights. This was in every respects lawless priuciple; it supposed that because a man was not qualified to take the oath pres ribed, he therefore could uric be a good subject. That because the King was not of the same religion as hie people, else people could not be good subjects to the King. It con founded two powers that were distinct. A power in Parliament to limit the Crown, and a power in Parliament to take away the inheritance of the people. lie maintained that there was nothing fundamentally objectionable in the declaration of rights against the claims of the Catholics of Ireland. He admitted that the qualifying oath was ■n objectiort. but he denied it to be a fundamental one. He argued, that a de elaratioa of those rights which had been obtained by Catholic ancestors, could not be considered as a fuodausentalobjectiou spinet the rights of the present Catholics of Irelorirl. The Rights of the people were not the gift of the King and Parlia. meat, but the people were toe foundation of both ; for Parliament did not make the people, or their own privileges, but it was the people made the Parliament and their acts. He insisted there neither was nor could he any thing fundamental in the de claration of rights against the Catholics of Ireland. He contended, that the foundation of the disqualify. tog oath, was the madnew of the moment; it had been introduced about the time of the Catholic Plot; the plot itself was a fabrication ; the executions that followed were so many murders ; and the disquali fying oath was the accomapauying act, dictated by the same principle of intolerance and bigotry...-. Therefor«. the disqualitying oath was no proof that the fundamental laws of the land were adverse to the rights of the Catholics of Ireland. He then referred to the terms of the King's coronation oath, by which the King swore to meintein the religion .r the land, as by law estelaished. He could not concede, that the assent of the King to a law, for the plarpoiie of improving the condition of the Irish Catholics, could he deemed any violation of his coronation oath. lie observed. that the die. abilities which affected the Irish Catholics, supposed the Protestant church to rest on patios and penal ties, and the word of God to bo founded on ty ranny. By the effect of them the tint filiirstrate of the country an. reduced to the nett-may of takiug an oath agaiiwt toe franchises of his peo ple, mod of calling npon God to witnes► so unna tend an olili;stMn. It was unnecessary for him to ask how often His Majesty had been thanked for that whieh could not be considered as a viola tion of las oath. He proceeded to contend that the altequalif)inig oath. ■oil those parts of the co reristiou oath which effected the rights of the Co. tholata, boll preemie' from the madness of the manelit, sad that. by the ioterpretation of them, tile first Magia'rate of the country was swore to act ye:Ml..oy to the interests of his Footsie. — lie insisted. that the Catholics of Ireland did out deserve, by their conduct. the seventies that ski cos ad them. The English Parliament seemed to say to them. 5 ' We have broke* your hearts amid roar fortunes, . slid all we desire is, that yes will lay down your lives in our service." He remarked, that the Govenuseut had not prevented the Cathos lice from acquiring wealth. Oa the contrary, many of the Catholics had attaiued a comodesabk degree of opulence—they had purchased land to a great exteat. Could it then be imagined that they dad not sensibly feel their exclitsiou from offices of trust of every triad their eeciesion from sees in Perhinneit an'l corporation. of every description Was it to be imireineil vest the, comatiOnalty did not sympathise iu the disaletitha. of their more opulent bretiiren .? He betieree, that it a Usti look labourer say to he asked who Ita.r %• opted for emancipa tion, he would not usiderNtaod the term : but it be Was asked whether he le-heveri there was any day. tinction between the Cat:dies and the Protestaies, he would at once underoaisd the quest:me and detail the history of the suffering+ of Ids country-, mere A Catholh: peasant, though he *eight not be flt fur a Chancellor, was corn! eteut to feet I k. a man. lie exhorted the House to repeal the laws by which the rights of the Catholics were re strained. Hy doing so they would restore the Ca tholic to the protection of the British Constitution, and would be doing what was no less important and valuable, adding to the strength of the empire. At present, there were distinctions which deprived the. empire of a cousiderable portion of its popula tion. He trusted the disabilities would be rentrived, amid the country thereby acquire that strength a loch such an act of justice would give it. It appeared to him as if the English Protestants reproached the Catholics of Ireland, by saying, n We are a wealthy people, but as to you, poor fellows, you are not ca pable of being free." When this kind of language was held forth-to the Catholics of Ireland, it tended to lower and debase their minds, and to prepare them for a foreign invader.—( Hear ! *ear !)—He should be told, that if civil franchises were grant. ed to the Irish Catholics, they would employ them to destroy the property of the Protestants. This waster objection he would not enlarge open. He was of opinion. that the danger which aright result from the conduct, on the part of the Catho lics, in order to justify the system of exclusion. against them, ought to be proximate, tied not ima weary. The legislature that took away their rights, on the ground of imaginary danger, was guilty of oppression. lie contended against the probability of the Catholics acting aga:ost the inte rests of the Protestants, from the circumstance, that the lauded property of Irelaud depended upon Protestant title. The bulk of the rights of the Irish Catholics depended upon Protestam title. He insisted that there war no argument founded upon present danger, that could justify the Parliament in taking away the franchises of the Catholics of Ireland, and by that memo, perhaps, eventually endangering their own. He supposed the enjoy meat of civil liberty by the Catholics of Ireland to be incompatible with the security of the Protest ants, dad that it was necessary to declare so by Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament. he supposed, must run thus:e•-•• Where's the French nation has prevailed against all the posers of the Continent ; and whereas we have uo reliance for support but in our own fellow-subjects; therefore be at enacted, that orie-fourth part of our fellow. subjects shall be disqualified.'--(A /aryls.)—Ur, t m illustrate it further : he would suppose that a man of war had met with a ship of the enemy. and was just spier the point of engaging her; but that, before the eugagetneut began, some learned geetleinau should require to speak with the Captain; arid upon being introduced to him, he should say, that the people of Ireland had at various periods done certain things adverse to the intasests of England—that his ship had a number of Irishmen on board, and, therefore, fee the secu rity of the vessel, he would advise him to throw them overboard—The British Empire was that ves sel—the British Empire was the ark in the French deluge. Whatever remained of living creatures, not subjected by France, was under the British dominion; and yet the proposition was, that they should be drowned. He then made a few general observations upon the nature of the argument against the Catholics, and those by which the Church had been defended. These arguments, he said, might be reduced to six propositions : First, That the majority of Christians were the worst of the himati species. Secondly, That the result of the connexion of Ireland with Great Britain had been to render the peo ple of Ireland more depraved. Thirdly. That the laws of the British empire were incoinpatible with British freedom. Fourthly, That the King was a sworn Magistrate, against the rights of a fourth part of his people. Fifth, That the Irish had got possession of the Laud of the Protestants, and therefore ought to be disqualified. Anil lastly, that the Protestant Church was paid by the Irish Catholics, and therefore the Irish Catholics ought to be disfranchised. Upon these repo:winos there was founded the disabilities which endangered the ' safety of the empire. He considered, at some length. the circumstances which occurred at the • period when the chealsilities were first imposed on the Catholics of Ireland, and those which die . tinguished the era of their relaxation. He con trasted the state of Ireland. at the per.od when it was suck anti oppressed. with its condition at a subsequent Unit-, when its freedom was, in 1 1 some degree, insured, ishea its army was oddered secure by a Mutiny Bill, *deo it enjoyed a free • trade, and possessed other advantage., which an enbghteued system of police had imparted to it. He observed that, at this petiod, the prosperity of Ireland burst upon us like the morn. Young Ire land came on us like a giant, rejoicing in its strength—trade tiowished-..agricultuie increased —the powers of nature seemed to stand at the right hand side of her Parliament. Religious harmony shut the gates of Discord, when Perlianteut opened the gates of Commerce. Haviug proceeded in ties splendid stile of eloquence, to which the lateness of the hour prevents our doing justice, he concluded by remarking, that it had cent us slim years of expe rience to conquer our unjust prejudices with regard to the Carle - dim He rejoiced to see the infatuation and madness which had so long prevailed, at length subsided. To the honour of the country. there was Dot a single petteou on the table Egoism the Ca tholics of Ireland. The city of Loodon had scorned to present a petition. The city of Dublin, it yes true, had prepared one, but it bad been rejected. The Ilaieersity of Oxford had, be the judicious choice of its Chancellor, signified 'their approba tion of the principle upon which the present claims of the Catholics were founded. In 1793. we esta blished Popery is North America, and we had re cently aria two armies to non.staei the Catholics of Spain and Portugal in all the.r reihts. France out of the way, and there was not one papist we had not embraced, except our owl, cougar) men l Sir 'Joel's Cox Hirers:. EY, in a %prech ;vest length, seconded the motion. From the muses of Moult he produced and referred to, it appealed that he entered into an elaborate statement of the MIMI/ proceedings a,,d aims of C About. Council', hut from the low tone of voce in which he se. k, • et was impossible to catch a *lngle retitettet iu the gallery. Hr laiter:y defended the Catluoie t. nets of confession awl absolution, and calico en the Home to come to a decision which or aid save the countri from.ruin. Mr. O'HAN,A, on account of the lateness or , ; e hour, and the aheence of mine necessary docu ments, moved an adjournment of the debate till Thursday, which wassgreell to. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past UN); O'CLOCK. till Monday. 'toe he meant was, the .elt be appointed by au 'list for as long as that vs hut but, when that cee 'ire a inted ba d co ppo osider the y Cat eof the Pope, and he eof right which the 1' eof communicated to if the argument, the or. had not stated su hell, they were averse tr mid expect that the Ro ee ; elaration of the tet do, subocribe ; w hen tf he to give the Catholi were entitled to, th to expect, and it ally state, by a cores?: lust niente, that they w tae MtitiC UOUJIDatIOII. 111. r ation of the pri us- Catholics. v be thou! hen 1t wonlil be as eas3 a tholics their Pried I r cede the yriacipte c of tended, that the I liie had no ritslit to nis Ind to make arbitrary I. my ties for accidental nee he sail, "has uo Gs et ILlnn is a relatioi tM revi..,:t to his Mat to. ghat the p into an obstrac ' et It we said an atisi :sr; non Cadsdies, ill lan. meiotic° given of is lieliowas so consul et 4 diced es connected would slippage* a ills ow, scd that a Cat} of the oath, 134 ge. subskanilatioes,uleu from the Pope cei fes tire. He would b .41 at evidence of tree pG Imghing-otocke toy 1:04 to go to a Inc te. peachinent; and yi stating which awl Lawycr would beta ea as that same evils! tf Parliament had ohs itv pie of the emirre. —Gee hl wisuld bristle SIR FIGMCIS BURDET7'. FIRST RETORT FROII TNI ISLICT commarter. OR PROCREPIa OS RELATIFS To'sia FRANCIS lj l- DETT. —•••••-- --- .. [Ordered, by the Howie of Counniorie, to be printed, tills May, tato. The Select Committee, appointed to consider of the Proceed. ins had, sad to be bad, with reference to the ieisrmil Papers sigued " Punnets BURNIZT,;" the Conti. is of which related to his Min apprebeederl sod emerniitedne the Tower of Loodoo_ ; and which Papers were coonisiatei. ceded to the Noose by Mr. SPiAlLia, wpm time lath awl 17th days of April last ; and to report each faelnos they obey think mecessary, together with their mirage there spots, RIM thee so tfinn, es. des Moses: Awe to wbossi the matters stated by the ficejeast at-Anus aitesidiug die Hoses, sad the Prams served opus hiss in OA Actium at Law by Mr Fatness Busmen ; aid 14110 the SaMil4)oo served est Mr. iimaitau, sad the Notice of Decisration delivered to the herjems.at.iteses t at the salt of the sail Sir Fll•NCII BURDITT, were referral; have, puisuant to the Orders of the Moose, with ell dispatch, coasidered the matters referred to the.; and have agreed to the fol. lowieg Report : - It appears to your Committee. after referring to the Order of the House of the sth day of April last, for the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower ; the Warrants of the Setaker for that pur pose ; the Letter of Sir Francis Kuniett to the Speaker, dated the 17:h day if April last; the Re. port and Examination of the Strjeanteat-Arms, touching his proceedings in the execotioo of each warrants ; the notices sif the Speaker referred to your Committee ; the demand made upon the Ser jeant-et-Arms of a copy of the warraiit under which he erreeted Sir Friona, Burdett ; the writ .erred upon the Seijeant, and the .unnuons oersted mu:, the Speaker, and the notice of declaration li'e'f a2ainst the Serjeitut ; which said notices, dematid, writ, and summons, are alt at the suit or on behalf of the said Sir Francis Burdett, ani all hear the name of the same Solicitor, John EDI. :—That •he said proceedings have been brought against Coe Speaker and the Serjeast, on acconst of what VDU doge by them respectively in obedience to the On at of the house ; and fur the purpose of bringing int question, before a Court of Law, the legality of tae proceedings of the House is ordering the commit ment of Sir Francis Burdett, and of Use conduct of the Speaker and the Serjeaut, in obedience to that Order. I.—Yoor Committee, not in consequence of any doubt open the question so intended to be rained. bet for the purpose of collecting into on , view such preeedeets of the proceedings of the Honore, epee case* of Breach of Privilege, as might afford light upon this important subject, have in the tine place essmined the Journals, with relatiou to the practice of the House in commitment of persons, whelk*. Members or others, fur breathes ut privilege, by offensive words or writiug- derogatory to tl e hoonise and character of the House, or of any of its Met hers; and they bare &moil numetuus in -tasters, in the history of Parliament, so far as the J uuuuu is cc tend, of the frequent. uniform, and ustioterrup:ed practice of the House of Commons, to comusit to different custodits, persons wham thr ) h av e ad judged guilty of • breads pf their privileges by so offending. The statement of these rreeedents, wh'sh esta blish the Law of Parlsameat upon this point by the usage of Parliament ; the utility of sucio lie and the necessity which exists for it. cositinueuve, in order to maiotaio the dignity and indepilidtore of the House of Commons ; its analogy to the acknowle4ged powers of Conn' .of Jostle,. and the recognition of such right to variant i a ,,ia licea , by legal autnurities, by judieial decisions, dud by the other branch of the legislator ; as we:; as the invariable assertion and maintenance of it by the _ _ House of Conimoor ' are topics whicti may lie re served for a further Kepner. And, although tiger, are Some instances in *filch tl:e !House has thought 6t to direct proocmi lose for such offences set the Committee confides:lly state, that the tuore frequent practice of the Hence. at all tone., bas bceo to vie• dictate its own pr vileges by its own aoihorill. e. Time rubject *latch appears toyour Comnii!. tee to press most urgently. for an immediate report, is, the state of the law and the practice of the House to cares either of crireissal prowl-igloo or civil act.. ti agonise soy of its Members, for any tiling spu*.ets or dose in the House of Commons ; or for any vio• coeding against any of its oli evs, or soy othr t pet.. sous acting under its authority. The principal isotope.' to he found tinder this head arose-out of those proceeding. which, iii use time of Chinks tit* First. Cliserles the Serood, ord Junes the Second. wire inst•tote I by the officers (tithe Crown, iu derogation of :!ie nein& dog Ist. vilezes of the C0mm0,...0f Entered. Thos.e pro. cetdiugs were tesistsd, and regorged by the Noose of Commons ; Oeer condemned by the whole Legi. Astute. as utterly alai nirectly ceutrary to the known laws and asaturea and tre-don ..1 this realm; and led directly to the decloro/IJO of the Bill of Rights. " That the freed...an at speech, and bates or raveling. in Pmiminet,t, ought ant to be impeached or noes:moo:4 in any court or place out of Parlionost ;"—and y our Committee bawr hesitation in swing, that tilt. article i n t h e 8, 11 Rights extends as clearl, t i OrtiVOS or uidictoseuts brought, or proaecutioos by individu.le,a. to infor mation- or other proce.dc,gs directly instituted by the authority of I nc Crown. Tie Ist of Ftriamett osi this sollject. so fans ►elates to words woken in Paslistoesit. as lauvely declared it a statute to be foci 1 .•a •