The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

~. W/INIPW•c , ':c I ;i: 1 neat period began from there. and went nn through the entire reign of Charles II.; the third reached from the Revolution down to the reign of his late Majesty. when • retaliation of the peal Ems first teak place. He would shew the reasons foe this onequal division in respect to time by.ond-hy.-- 1 The pervading principle of the first period woe "'Netiity—which was justified in a great degree. not • •tialy by repeated plots against the person of the So :sereign, but by the difficulty of subduing the re **lance of one religion wet wholly put down, mot of, upholding another not perfectly established— * Conti and intrigues of foreign *elm ; establishment of the throne • - were • the same con ' • From the Re period, when the relax began, the legislation nigh ceased. From 1. no new pawl ennet that should be considered At the Revolution nature at at the Rt .. hemmed in with dangles ins divisions--etroft A in a straggle for sm. tending to mingle W I No wonder aril 39116 of Charles H. to the •terll-being was to keep down we likely to rem, business was to reduce. influence of the Popish of the Edict of in the recollection of Ireland this principle ifietl—the people were dint ; treaties of fa ' nothing was spared and punishment. ttribute this to wan non in the govern. Monarch was justi. isiablielting a Protestant from the shock of two eft these two periods Revolution, the mid 11., was insulated to the other two .t derived no senctifi severity of Queen Eliza of caution tie difil- Revolution. The intermil straggles uncivil danger. The were on sod near against the Papists did but arose to it from bad undertaken was House would be sur. of anti-Catholic legisla. • plead egainsr, except the reign of Charles coarse of the late against the Crib°. repealed, except the ' extended by this Elizabeth, activist the See of home, He was soar* of admission of Catholics ' another which excluded certriu oaths, to serve As to the latter, the Catholics its 1817. a proposition, but enactme►it against the imed, had been re ,nislied the object of was in effect done Howe would truce the ' this Act (which con . sth of Elizabeth) from Revolution. The policy of the Catholics, with justiceof the measures. narrowed to the trans - H. and excluded would have been Jnd been taken.-- nne. H. openly, sup- No wonder that jea thst they were ..us- Popery as the esta subvert the former lye it of spirit and the most debetable violent extremes of to either party re vour to shape his impossible for the predominant &chug that reign was the , sod that he drew liament used the testi ' all the measures of the desire of the I. from the throne. numerous and sm. erotic at the time, with the executive, reduce the per leans which were re. a direct remedy. ct passed in 1673, compelled to give initial, seed quit the Mme principle led the lug Act. " The Bill the Duke of York line the Exclusion it Hun. Gentleman :fusion cud Banish. which took place is distinctly stated. the throsie, though lye of the Cotnnoons. remedy until other effecting their ob r from this that the .y weae jealous of a cr. Bpt the iiife. ihey the same cause ry a Popish bocce*. cruse had they for would not Shen go tate could he jus. interests to pub• :-i .Of counivas , ce, treachery, and in ' . matte ; an that ibe estahlishme I • •1.41 the Protesters' religion ever Firm in that perdu, period. welntioa down eo,the third period Mem of the rural code began erinet Catholics had well sigh the ocrepsion of George I. no I 4 I „limit took effect, except that shot ... h etiolated the land.tax. A :ti . queson was of the same nett I onion. Tit...state was Actium .—e4lo. exiled 411).40y—religions ,teeny feelhris—.4ll originating in • 11 1110 4 1 0 * dochlm*iesiewead all tend ta of icharcb and State. I Want could see nothing in the 3 . i libeta tea years yid, hostile to A t lt i r s :ie state. His business w i , which,. if entailed, way , smiled dynasty. H. titmice • i Jr•MtrtY. PoTtfe.l l od inlets 1 _ trx-e-to. effect the converse . , which was then fresh in I . •$ ._ . • ape. Ip.the treatment of Irel .. - • . , . 1,1 4eni pl , was not qualified. • t . , *they shed the do $ • . , rode l ly seta ' broken, and i ik 'cum of their bonds - ... ? Did he wash to attr • Co a tyrannical chi/poem , nit of William ? N. that &I ley the necassity of establie * , a, which should be safe frog kintlicting religious. Cutting oft ofi l the Reformation end the Re elle period, the reign of Chlorite flank the considerations attaching *rood upon ill own merits; it d alttoit from the justifiable 'emit! • --s :Itetb's resge; it had uo.pretences 0 * . .p such as appertained to the • c feu le reign was cheirecterixed by : ~ ..,,.nt the appearance of este .. . 7 grows of the conatitutiou The severities maim . _ .. -• •" d from the thrust, but :ar lament. The cam he bad thus far cleared, and the Hour wised to Bud how little of anti turn there was to undo or .to plea • -what was phut up within the 1 the Second. Indeed, in the c reign, every penal Act ern' lies had, iu substance, beets rep Lb glis4htth, confirmed sad o Act 30 Charles 11. sod the 13th I persons communicating with tho which had fallen into disuse. 'the Act preventing the Wellies to the Universities, and of anothi them, except they took cement in civil or military capacities. Ai ; question was settled in favour of I 0' He would not state too general i 1 he believed that every penal enac Catholics, except those he had Dal c a s I m ed. stt 0 I T , h e f t t i l A e t w t ste h d ich f ali o: i n: e a t slay. He thought the House reasons *lnch had prevented this Reined sod enlarged the sth al sting repealed at the Revolutio the latter period was to depress th ant attending to the positive justit 'fhe discussion then became sierra :reties:4 of the reign of Charles kitsch of the argument which 1 inimitable had a wider ground Charles 11. secretly, and Jame. ported the Catholic religion. Ni I Imisies were enterteined, and th pected of designs to introduce F 1 i Wished religion-84 ) f not to s constitution. at leas( to deprive freedom. This period formed th i ground of history; the most vi 4 opinion were held with safely t tit, apectiog it. He would endear coarse .between them. It was is reader not to see that the pre elf tlie Commons during that anted of the Popish succession. 1 (tom the proceeeliegs of Podium mosey of individuals, and that a *at . period were referable to CO•Dp3OIIS to exclude James 11. This might be learnt from the t portuopie addresses from the the from the frequent interference w and the attempts to control or rapider and all the other meal sorted to, in order to come at With this view was the Test Ac by which the Duke of York was aie t t e try .offi g e ot o lfoa Lord lle sate il r 'g ilt Adm , Commons to pass the Disablini passed the Lords, exempting it l' from the provisions, Th e n can RA which failed. [The Right continued his review oi the Each meat Hill, end the transaction!' relatinkto it.] Rapin upon this that the exclusiou of James from t the constant and governing motive was not resorted to as a direct r : . collateral remedies had failed of .1 . j..ct. Ile (Mr. C.) did not infer if.:nnimons were wrung; that they danger which had no existencs fence which he drew was, bad th of dread or jealousy ?—had they Dion to fear ? —and if not, what I tetsii.ing limit enactments ? He into the question hose far a ate 11 1 1 allied in esciificing individual i j .1. ..... . -___ lie exiwaieney. Either wny he might contend, eriposseraii plaid, were there no other ground, ►hat if the exclusion of the Duke of York did not justify this extinction of hirth.►igltt io the Peerr, or if it did, and the reason, lissinely, exclusion of the Duke of York bed erased—either way the contilouance of the dis abilities was oppressive, for which there were no reasons left either of state or policy. Though the cause was correct, • pretext WI, not wanting. • The Bill which, if carried, would have only excluded two or three Coholico from the Lower House, was sent down by the Lords and not passed. Theo sprang up the Popish plot—the proceedings upon which were well known, and which Hume had - desenbed no n method invented to reconcile and at. tacit the minds of the people to the courses which tire party were then pnrosoling. And now as they were referred so frequently to the wisdom of former Parliaments—reenring 100 years back to the pro. ceedingo of the Cernmions in this reign, he would ask, if the Act br 7678 was passed under those desirable eircum.tances of deliberation, calm new, and cireumspection, which they might be inclined, wohout inquirb to attribute to as intimetant a proceeding ? The Parliament met ' October, and the Popish Plot was then slightly glanced at in the Royal Speech. The Commons were tint disposed to take the hint so slightly. They sent for witnesses, and examined them themselves from day to doy, relieving the tedfam of the intervals by the issuing of warrants • for the oppreheission of a considerable crowd of 'persons, among whom were six Catholic Peers.— The Bill progressed mein time one stage a day, as rapidly as a turnpike Bill, and urged with more impetuosity to the end of its journey. it was sent with equal haste up to the Lord,. Bat this was not the only measure adopted —an order was sent to the Chief Justice to issue his warrants for the apprehension of the Catholic Peers. The Common& inight have been wire. and deliherote, and forbearing in theii course—what were the Peers ? Before thee coati:J . (4one to entertain the Bill, o ne . third of th e . 'wenn, •implicated in the plot were swept away, by way of preliminary to the discussion. The Lords, however,did not proceed so fast with the Bill. The Cononsonisent continually to know what delayed it. At loot II come down, excluding the Catholic Peers, bortalliempting the Duke of York. He hod no dotibellillt Ike promoters of the Bill in. tended the operatiati l to 'be only temporary, in order to reach the Duke of York, and had they been present this day. would have been mach more eager for the repeal. Referring to the Bills of 1673 and 78, he fuuhcrtitet the Bill, went to disqualify Peers from exercising their right, except they took certain oath., the penalty being forfeiture among others.— To this there was a protest entered in the House of Lords, objecting its the Bill in ixogrees. because the right of sitting and' voting in Parliament are by birth inherent end insepsrshk from the persons mid rights of Peers, and cannot be taken except with the loss, *lmo conviction. of their estates and lives. There was an order of the House which passed unanimously to quiet thetears of those who dreaded that the exercise of their privileges would erase, and it was genital'r that this very order remained upon their Journals at this very day. It declared that no Peer should he prevented from sitting or voting by the tender of any oath, with or without penalties, or *hoard he subjected to any coercion on account of his refusal to take any such oath. Such was the order agreed to three years before the parsing of the Bill, which had rewound in force till this day. He did nut conteod that a measure of either Honer of Porliament was impregnable to, or was incapable of heing regulated by the general law of the land. But the argument was, that the Peers were in the calm and deliberate exercise of their faculties, and were resisting encroachment on their privileges when they put this record moon their Journals—and in assenting to the Bill of 1678, they were actuated by the fear waif dismay of the moment, and the alarm out of the House in sured their compliance, lest they should be sus pected of enmity to the person of the King and to the Constitntion. Even that, however, would not account for the order or the bleach of it by agreeing to the Bill subsequently. The Right Hon. Gent. went on toargue that the Peers had taken the cootie with respect to their privileges which had been subsequently taken on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, with a view to the resumption. on the recurrence of safety and tranquililty. He then pro ceeded to criticise the Act itself, which, in the for mation. was by no means so happy as it was supposed to be, refershly to the Constitution.) The preamble was so clumsy I iviece of legislation, that in these days of overwhelming legislation it could scarcely have been equalled. " Forssainch as there have been made and eructed divers good laws for preventing the increase and dangers of Popery, and of late free access had been gained by Popish recusants to the Court and presence of his Majesty, by resaon of their enjoying the liberty of sitting and voting in Parliament.' Then proceed the enactments ex cluding tire Popish Peers and Commoner, from Parliament. The first related only to the Lords, to prevent their access to the Court. The second was 'MOSCOW in terms—that which was said to hap. pen of late, was in fact am ancient privilege. The third' branch was not more wise, coofountling the case of Peers and Commoners, as if both had the same right to sit and vote in Parliament. The Bill, however, effected the expulsiuu of the Peers from Parliametit. But how came it, if this were really one of the bulwarks of the con stitution, that the legislators overlooked the expul sion from the Court f And how were they then to reconcile the argument to which he had before ad. vetted, that the Commons would not legislate in reinsert to the Hnue of Lords only? The 30th of Charles 11. excluded ult . Popish recusants Irons the Court and Parliament. What did the repealing Act of 1791 do ? It restored the privilege to Peers alone—allowing them to go into the presence of the Krug. He then compared the texture of the oath of supremacy adopted into the Test Act, with the oath required to be taken by Catholic Peer, by the Act of 1791. The Arat required theta to *wear " that no state or potentate, &c. bath or ought to loses any jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical:" the penalties for not taking which wpm exclusion •nd forfeiture. The Act of 179 t required them to ditown any temp ora l or c i v il au d io . city or jurisdiction exercised within the realm by any foreign Prince, State, or Potentate. Ile did not had fault with the terms of this oath. MIIINII But could any thing be more strange? A Peer had two dreitee to perform ; one to sit and de liberate in Parliament before his equals, and in the Ts •f his country ; another, as an hereditary Counsellor of the Crown, to go into the presence and advise with his Sovereign secretly. If he denied the temporal authority of the Pope it ' wa s enough, lie became a sufficient and good adviser of the Monarch and his Cabinet ; hut to sit and vote in Parliament, he most declare ex plicitly on the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority. He may. for aught contaiurd in the oath of 1791, • doubt the supremacy of his Sovereign. and yet nosy commune with him, and whisper secret councils. • This would be strange enough did it appertain to two individuals, hut it was to the same pereou it re ferred. A Catholic Peer might drive to St.James'e and have hi. audience, by acknowledging the tem poral and civil authority ; but the moment the horses' heads were turned towards Parliament, he was checked, and must call upon a Justiceof Peace, in his way down to the House, to protest by oath to his belief in the spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy. Was it possible for any persons, even with the dread of buying the Papal thunders in all their former rage at their own doors, to wish for the continuance of subh absurdities ? He must infer that the Lords legishated on the Bill in duress; idly. that there was no danger as t• any thing alleged in the preamble ; said from sham he concluded. that if either of the Aets of 167 s and 1791 were right, the other 6 not be too soon repealed. They were qfteo ch ecked iii their deliberations in the House, by the danger of creating what were called anomalies. He might sok, what could be more anomalous (hail the facts which he hail cited? The reign of George 111. which had proved so fruitful of reliefs from the penal code, had intro duced these anomalies into the case of those noble persons. But there were others which had occurred from the proceedings of the present reign. For the first time since the Reformation. Catholic Peers were seen aiding in the ceremony of a coronation, au augost ceremony, which it would be depot:hag to themselves to consider as au creterustietre pageant, when it was in fact nothing less than a 'solemn re newal of the civil compact by the Monarch, sur rounded by and receiving the homage of his imbles and all the orders of the realm. This took place before the eyes of the representatives of the -Owls lien Potentates, both Catholic and Protestant, all effected with n solemnity calculated to impress them with an awful sense of the majesty of the Kmg of a free people. Among the assem bled Noblere,, who overtopped his fellow Peers of the egret - emila The Catholic Lord Clifford. Who apoke to , express: the homage of the Dukes? The Catholic Duke of Norfolk. Who was directed to convey the gratulatious of his Mo tarch at the banquet in return for the loving kind nese of his subjects ? The same Catholic Duke of Norfolk. Could it ever have occurred to the spier,- • did crowd of illustrious guests at that entertainment that these Noblemen were to return and strip off their robes, and hang them up until called for • by the recurrence of the name sort of occasion ? Did the Duke of Norfolk—did Lord Clifford. re presenting a long line of ancestors, imagine that they, like the paraphernalia of the feast—the lights, or the decorations. were to be thrown by until the nest occasion of the kind P Could they have iron , glued that they wore to he considered worthy of the exercise of that privilege only, and that they were never to be allowed to discover their loyalty and zeal to serve the state iu the proceedings of legislation, of which their preserve there proved them to be a part ? The matter was not so light as might be supposed. It would have been better to have let them remain in their former state, than to have called them forth merely to ac complish a pageant, then leave them with the supposition that their minds could be satisfied with so paltry a distinction. At an indication of their rank in the state, that distinction might be desirable; but when offered as an exchange of their rights, every additional distinction would only be felt by a generous mind as an additional degra dation. In the late benignant visit of the King to Ireland, which was as full of wisdom as of grace, a Noble Catholic Lord had received from the hands of his Sovereign the national ribbund of Ireland. the decoration of the knighthood. He (Mr. C.) had been curious to learn the particular circumstances belonging to the honour of this ribband. He referred to the statute for the installation of the Knights of St. Patrick ; the preamble set out the qualifications with words like these Wheress it has been the practice of wise and beneficent Princes, in all ages, to distinguish such of their subjects as have vhewn themselves of the greatest dignity and merit in the offices of the State and the service of the country, that so others wit nessing their deeds and the rewards which they receive may be led to admire slid emulate them."—For those reasons, Lord Fingal re ceived a ribband from his Majesty. But when Lord Fingal returned from the Court, the meanest peasant on his estate possessed more of his civil rights. He might have a vote for the member who represented him, but his Lordship could never participate in the Legislotura iii soy way. This was another anomaly. In the event of his motion being carried, he intended the Bill to be brought to reach the case of the representative Irish Peers and those who elected them. Hitherto he had spoken of the Act of 1678 as political—it had, however, a moral operation tit to consider. They could not look at the period and circumstances without seeing that it w::s passed by • Le gislature under duress, and that upon weak and false pretences. II •Il this were held so at the time, they had less difficulty on seeing it now ; and ao he thought also, that the Popish plot which grounded the Act had no fuusidation iu truth. But a the plot were true, if this, five Popish Peers there executed hail been tried and COW. victed, if the guilt of the itouicesit Lord Staf ford could he admitted, yet the Act ought not to stand even on the grounds stated in the preamble. They ought not to perpetuate dis ability indicted for temporary expediency. An Act SO framed to bind remote posterity, where the reason of it had ceased, was unjuit and unconsti tutional. and repugnant to the slim of the English law. But when the haste and alarm of the period were Wien into the account—when it was seen that the Popish Plot itself was disproved by the conviction of the chiwf' witnesses seven }ear s afterwards for perjury—ehen theft was us" at. • ..., tempt made afterwards to Maintain that Lord Stafford deserved the death he died, staler the at taint of that odious law, there eould be no justifi eittiois fur its continaince. He believed that those who posted the Bill had the some sort of feeling, though they might have succeeded in persuading themselves that there was enough in the plot, and therefore contented themselves without inquiring fur ther into it. If they considered that this Act passed under the same impulse which brought Lord Stafford to the block, Parliament would do well to remove every recollection of the stigma. The occutations of Stafford and the five Peers were sent np to the Lords, as the harbingers of the Bill. These mea sures so far succeeded that the five Peers tint only suffered death. but the whole of the Catholic No *trine') were excluded. Lord Stalked was be. headed, and on the conviction of his witnesses for perjury, seven years after, • Bill was brought in to reverse the attainder. The Bill failed in the Commons, which was accounted fur by some hitt°. Mons on the ground of the disinclination of the House to entertain so flserant • proof of their rashness and injustice ; other historians attributed it to the troubles of Monmouth's lauding, the news of which arrived on the same day. He knew the arguments which had been used to defend throe proceedingr—that there were besides the sympathy for Ostes's severe punishment by the new Govern merit; hut there were some things which state neces sity con Id not justify. Whets he found one histories representing this treatment of Lord Snaked—the Bill of Attaitider, and the neglect of the Bill for re moving it, in terms of reprehension—deprecating the injustice of it, yet excusing it as being pecti c:try to prevent too great a triumph of the Papist., aid too great an impeachment of the Exclusion Bill, he felt that it was lot on the merits of the Bill, or the facts, that the framers proceeded, but on the exuediency only. He would not new say if Home were right or not ; but he would ask did any such now remain ? Had they any power to look back and undo any of that mischief which had worked such irreparable damage ? were they pre pared to repair the wreck which had beets made of the rights sod liberties of their fellow subjects ? He had found the passage in Hume, which he would read to the House, on the Bill for the attainder of Lord Stafford. "Ws bill fixed so deep a repro bation in the public mind, that it met with great opposition in the House of Lords. and wsadropt in the Common. lifter one reading." This was not the fact. It failed oil the second reading, that very day the news of Monmouth's landing arrived, which caused the breaking up of Parliament. [ Hie Right Hon. Gentleman went on to recite the condemna tion of Hume on that transaction, and all that was connected with the Popish.] lit the debates on Mr. Warren Hastings's trial, on • discussion of precedents, that of Lord Stafford was brought for ward. Lords Thurluw and Kenyon resisted the application of it. Lord Thurlow declared that he would never moment to allow • precedent draws from the most melancholy and shameful transactions of history. Lord Kenyon, though he had left the possession of such sentiments to his son, was equally averse to the precedent, which he characterised as a legal murder. Here there was the opinion of Judge Kenyon against the questionable pension of Titus Oats. [The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue on the invalid foundation of the &relation Bill, thus shaken by the condenotiatom of Lord Staffisrd, by whose trial, he snsintained,the Bill mom stand or fall. He contended that Parliament must remove the Bill—that the loss of. privilege to the sufferers must be estimated by the feelings of those who owned them—and that those of the Peers could only, as they had expressed it in their order, be lest with their lives them selves. He proceeded to explain the difference in the privation of right between the Peer who loses that of his birth to sot in Parliament, and the Commoner, whose right would be, as it low been, clogged with qualifications—and. indeed, as no absolute right in itself, as millions are excluded simply by non-election. That of the Peer, on the contrary, was as winch his right as his life or any other possession. Besides wbich, a Commoner was not branded by exclusion; but who, that saw the Duke of Norfolk; was not aware the his Lordship was disabled?—that his honours and proud titles were empty sounds, rather of ignominy than honour, when the privilege which alone could give them value was withheld? He wished to pay no vulgar homage to their rank : but it was to be remarked, that the Catholic Peers had pro fited nothing from the concessions merle in the last fifty years to their Catholic brethren, whose advantages they had silently and cheerfully wit nessed in that period. He again justified himself from the supposition this he hod acted at all from the instigation of others. He hoped that the Ho nourable Member for Somerset would allow that lie had made his case out, us he hed led the Home to anticipate. He again recapitulated the leading facts which he had cited, and, supposing the pos sibility of the question being put in More before a supreme morel tribune?, whether this Exclusion Bill, so founded on false pretences and unjust Yee cutions, ought to continue or not, lie would ieita ture his life on the decision tieing against the conti nuance of it. He proceeded to argue on the power sod discretion of Parliament in repealing this Bill. When the scheme was suggested for the gradual raising of the currency of the kingdom to its pro ! per level of value, by pitying gold kr paper in err nun quantities and under ceituon regulations, much was said to shew that it would but aggravate tin: evils of the depreciation to those who were not pos. seated of sums of so great a magnitude. wits said that the poor man's pound note would be much lessened in value by pitying his rich neigh bour in gold. Parliament, however, did adopt the measure, which, although not fully acted on, had raised the value of the currency to all classes from the highest to the lowest throughout the kingdom. Aud so would it be in this cote ; the Catholic 'objects of every d egree would be raised in the scale of his estimation as a member of the British community, by the removal of the disabilities from the first rank of that class of subjects with which he was connected, and would plumlike in the exalta tion of the Catholic Peers, by their admission to the full enjoyment of the privileges of their order.— He had now finished the view which be hail pro posed to take of the several pointy on which his proposition appeared to him to be founded; sod he hoped he had kept his word by arguing the questiou ou its particular grounds, wholty distiuct from the general measure. If he were to he s et by being told that his proposition embraced tie w h a l e go o n , and by a gem-roil argument foto, ed eel that assumption, instead of bein g addr • to the particular cote, he should 111113 k that .1. question was g•ined.—(Cheer.).—H e timu g hc,..„ Ball of the 30th Charles 11. was in tin pert of it re-enacting measure. It was as entirely 110.11 the Act of Elizabeth had never passed. For, though it renewed the provistooo of that Act, %., it did so alio intrine, adding to it oaths wheel s Act never contained, and which were expressly c. dared to he framed for the purpose of ezeinde • Catholics from sitting in either Home of Perk: merit. It was not taking a fair view of this gm.. lion to put all the oath. (those entitled A y t Act of Elizabetli, and those introdtteral Lot i first time 111 the Act 30th Charlesl l.) um Ole •41 footing; and he would ask, why %est. the m - a . exclusions added to those which were preemo. existing ; by what policy could they have bees .1 hoed, unless by one of two reasons --either fey purpose of excluding the Duke of York from I succession to the crown, and doing it covertly a. Catholic, or from the discovery of the Popish If they were fouoded no the latter groom', should desire to know whether, not any site Of to . individuals, but Parliament were now is the far -• that th e stories of the Popish plot were true- ? fle would ask whether they thought that the Cathulit Peers of that rierriud were justly or unjutity peached if unjustly, why had they love fir. chided frets Patheasent ? If justly, why had soh one been brought to trial ? He would eel, wh e . titer Parliament still believed that one to have bdee guilty ? Aud if they did not, why should the Ca tholic Peers and their desceudsuie ramose a i d, ject to the exclusion to which they bad been 4. jetted, not became they had otteatiited Lunt the State , but hiecauee the/ bed been aerseed of doing so ? If this istasere stood on these grounds, he should desist to know whether, b i g e g *ow happily free from all dangers sods alarms e t the score of Popish power, being disabused uf Kt elvers which had led to the smiposittoo of th e guilt 011 which it was founded, they would my longer persevere in maintaining a law which (sold serve only as a memorial of their jusolicatioa hos crime? He was aware of the many difficulties which it might be attempted to throw in the way's( home. tion, in discussing it as a question of expediea.. ! The whole question of Catholic disabilities, us• doubtedly could only rest on grounds of pralitie:. expediency, from their operation ou the getter:: rights of the Bantry; and when a person cane t. argue the whole question, he was necessarily oblige greatly to understate this part of hie argunieti• But now, taking it up on tliis part of the rate mill he did feel entitled to take this quett;mb a s ■ g ee , tion of right, though the whole question was one 5 expediency. He would appeal from mimesis; t• ancestor ; from the times of old to times move re cent; from Shaftesbury to Borleigh, from Oates t Elizabeth. He would appeal to the oujoet decision c' the House of Lvrds upon the case of LoidStAftet. He called upon them to lei the cold-birx.oled caw Lion of Hume, not to do too much its viodicwoo, of the Catholics, oo longer stand in the way II invoked them in the nettle of charity, to do the. which was chseitable—in the name of God, to el that which was just.—(Groat cheering heat sh parts of the House.)—The Right I Inn. Gentlemen theta moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal es much of the statute of the Stith Charles H. debars Roman Catholic Peep from the caeseireof their right took and vote in the Houses( Lima. Oh. G. AGAR ELIAS meowed the winelms. He mid, after the elaborate sad toavinciag speech of I,is Right Rao. Priced, he could sot think of hospataise as the banter atiesaieo of the Hesse. He had always a decided opiiiiite ere she justice sod humanity of grouting the ruenti Ilboavere at Cat balk Eanoeipation, and he thought the portioa of ol then brought before the House was eutit:ed to their r , because the disabilities to which it related Mad a difetew ollgia. There was a class of dist lege ishei imilvidoals were deprived of their rights ou account of a plot, is No existettiee of whirti no one of the piesent day believed time plot was the only gtound for paiiiiitie ILr Ise obi/head/Ike from Parliament tbet Catholic Peers. He hoped that a la* so originatiag, and so it/tended, would hut be all.wed le remelt' any lugger a stain ou the statute book. lie mama breed to have read a ssyisg of Elizabeth, that "Oita/it/- fender of the Protestant faith aid ascend/we', "Awe cows gelled to administer tests to the CathuliCti, the refuted, say lag, She had better means of ascertaiiiiag the loyalty en the Peen." After a few more oluservai /vas, whirls we rest) eel hear, he erraeladed by givirtg his curdled support to the met haw. Mr. Secretary Peet. said, if lie Right Hon. Friend knew to its full extent the sincere odsoirshos which he had of his talents, and the delight soh which he heard hire on every occusion which called upon him for the exercise of those talents, he cosh! then fully understand how much he 'feared to incur the charge of presumption is veuteriog to oppose bib motion while the fiscinatioo of hie powers yet hung on the minds of his hearers. He knew haw dtr kith it must he to make a successful appeal toil* sober judgment of hearers, uhtobe senses had been so powerfully worked upon, and whose feelings were inflamed by the fervour and eloquence of the appeal of his Right flammable Friend; and lie knew how little tlop.iied the House must feel to attend to the colder stews and sober ree! , Otis which he alone was competent ta present to their minds, as the grounds nu which he dissented from the motion. Ile must remind ht. its v tas Horton:able Friend, flint a. it was he (Mr. Coosa t• 1 who had given the challenge, according tie aN 115' rules of war his opponents ought to have been rd their choice of weapons in the combat. He (Mr. Peel) would, however, in the outset, dioclains alh Ir *vitt too of going into shegeneva I questa), and iocont pliunce with the wish exp r dby his Right Hot. Friend, would endeavour to contior himself to the limits which he bad marked out, sod to meet Wool& the grounds on which lie bud rested this ass particu lar question. He saw DO reason why the Catholic Peers should chitin any exemption from those rest rif• tiolls to Willett the !louse of Continents was sultket.-- (Hear, hear.)—He undoubtedly felt the highest re spect fur those persons, and far the titration which they occupied, but still he could riot feel sits that ucconist soy reason for adopting in their favour soy ineesure by which the other (louse wf Parliament would be opened to them, while the House of Cum• moos remained closed pgiiiiiiit persotui similarly cir cumstanced with respect to the Constitution. Ile knew how cant it would be to attempt to chide the watchfulness of his Right Honourable Frivoil. Or to 011:11t soy thing to which he hart alluded be would nut, titetelore, sticoept it, but youiil d eat were now in the fir • r . .. 41 ; 11 inah plot were tripe? i hairglit that the Catholic re justly or rojesity i r - wiry had they hew* a If justly, why hod s ki s He would ask, why. • reed that one to hare hi ts not, why should thee esceorlabie continue .016, ehuch they bad been olio 111 had Weighted soot .14.4 yid been screw Maumee &toed on three tl re to know whether, Wag II dangers gads alarms so r. being diiwilseted of lit sl o the sniiposttioo of th e ouoded, they would asp inning a law which child of their justification boat • the many difficulties whit* throw in the w. s . a his att a question of tipedienei 1 Catholic disabilities, 3 4 on grounds of pralitir•: operation on the genet:: id when a perms) claw h. he was necessatily oblige is part of his argeniete this part of the case Gull 1 A this quest•ori as I get, whole question was owe c appeal from ancestor t• of old to times snore rt 0 Budeigh, time Oates t !al to the enjem itecision c the care of Lord Stiffest. lit the col.l..b4ot.iled tee i too much io vindicrww, rr stand in the way- or of chanty, to do At. the name of God, to d. .e ;Great cheering help le Right lion. Gentleman wing in a Bill to tepeel as the 30th Charles Hs 111 1 Peer. from the ramie at in the Houses( Lima. owed the ern use. fie said, I cieg opteeh of his Sod Mai. of haps/rim ea the time lad •Iways a decided °philtre so r•ratiiie the general meareire at he thoorght the podia's of i•ci was eutit:ed to OW* r , which it related had a difetras distiegoisboi ioulbsidisals whir: ou ar-rooot of a plot, is tlis the pierce* ilay believed: that )a..iiry; It' law orbit bo exeledet : Peers. He hoped that a Lao idea, would out be •Howed so the statute book. lie resew, sf Elizabeth, that apirioadt- h sod aseeodauey, yaws maw be Catholics she rehired, say- of ascrrtemioe the 10144 sit obeervat tour, which 00 reek , /Jag his cordial support toilet said, if hi. Right Hon. tent the sincere actioertios entP, and the delight rush • rery occasion which called 1 of those talents, fit mild r much he 'feared to incur • lon is veuturiie to oppose • •cinatioo of his powers yet • bearers. He knew how dif- • tuccrvefsl appeal to the tiers, a hose anises had irked upon, and whose by the fervisor awl • of his Right Honourable • r little (top vied the House • r colder stews and sober • •• IP competent to presets* to ds which lie disarmed • .1 1. 111 1 19 t W t tt: r i t l l 4 l :N il i r 1 . 1 1‘ " a4 lit .o.4 11 "; lige, according tie' gN lid' is ought to have been Wiwi- •in the combat. lie (Mr. the outset, disclaim all is- mere I quest!en, and • r dby his Right Hot. • it to confine liiiiiirlf to tile red out, and to meet him tat bad resit., this as a portico- • abtedly felt the highest rr- ;empttoii from choice Rat rle• he couleh not feel g* Iltet t &piing in their favour any tier louse of Parliansent while the Hower of Cum• perwoushusilerly cur- to the Constitution. He br to attempt to chide the ? fight I lonourable Frired• o whirls he had allotted • sticippt it, but !writ! 4 , • e SI 0 • • a . d *i