The Sun. — London, England, 1822-06-22 00:00:00

he - heti ; and those who had been 'in the habit of talking of general emancipation, ought to be ashen:led of the securities .they proposed with them. Well, then, now it would be be said That a specific measure was offered to, him. But it was such a measure, that if he admitted it, he should not be at liberty to resist any thing else which might hereafter be brought forward. He firmly believed that the Bill, if adopted by their Lordships, would lead to general emancipation. 'They were frequently aold„indeed, that general emancipation would come some time •or other. He did not believe it.—(llear, hear !)—And he thought the oftener that was repeated, the farther would its ful filment be off. However that might be, he should always with stand it as far as his power enabled him to do so, and he should conclude with the words of King William—" The laws, reli gion, and liberties of my country I will maintain ;" and he therefore gave his mosvlecided opposition to the Bill.— (Hear, hear, hear !) Earl GREY said, that after the impression which the elo emence of the Noble Earl• had made upon their Lordships should in some measure subside, he hoped to convince them of The inefficiency of his arguments to support his opposition to the bill. He should begin where the Noble Earl had ended, and say, that to the liberties of his country, as established at the Revolution, he was as firmly attached as any man ; and if he could believe that there was any thing in the present Bill which operated against those liberties, no man would be more firmly disposed to resist the motion for its second reading. But he was satisfied 'that, exclusion was not amongst the principles of the Revolution, but the exceptions. Believing it to have been the wish of those who effected the Reyolution to establish the full, political, and religious liberties of all their fellow subjects, and that they were driven to the neces sity of making these exceptions by existing causes and dan gers ; believing all this, and believing that such dangers and causes now no longer existed, he appealed to their Lordships upon the principles of the Revolution to restore these noble persons to the rights and privileges of which they had been de prived. It had been said by the Noble Baron on the cross bench, that if this measure were granted, it would lead to a Atli emancipation of the Catholic body from all their disabili ties. if this effect would be produced by the. Bill, it would not be an objection to his mind, excepting inasmuch as it might be an insidious means of gaining that end. But as the Bill had been charged with this object, and from thence an in eference had been drawn elsewhere, that it was a Jesuitical at tempt to attain that object, he would here deny his belief of any such imputation. It was true that the person with whom the Bill originated had alWays been the able, constant, zealous, and it must be added, most powerful advocate of the general question. But when 'he found that the claims of the whole body of the -Catholics were not likely to be brought forward at present by the person to whose care their interests appeared to be more immediately confided, he determined upon introducing the Bill which was now before their Lordships' House. It would be remembered that he had never declared the whole claims of the Catholic body to be founded on right. He had always said that men should be allowed the exercise of free conscience in matters of religion, and that they should be permitted to wor ship their Creator according to the manner which appeared to .them most befitting. But in doing this they were liable to cer tain restrictions for the safety and protection of the Religion of the State. Upon strong necessity, arising from political causes only, could this power of restriction be exercised. These, if the onus of proof that such causes as those of self-preservation and self-defence existed, must always lie upon those who im posed the disqualifications and restrictions. And if they were bound by this plinCiple, in a general sense, of the situation of the Catholic body, how much more so were they in the cases of these Noble Persons who now appeared before their Lordships, not in themselves, but from the operation of a sense of justice upon the mind of the author of this Bill. Well then, let their Lordships see how this necessity had existed. From the Re formation down to the Acts of Charles 11. Catholic Peers had not been excluded from seats in Parliament. It was a clear point in history, that until the sth of Queen Eliz. no oaths had been re quired from persons sitting in either House of Parliament. By that Act, an oath was administered to the Commoners, but not previous to taking their seats, and the refusal to take it 'was accompanied by' no penalty. But in this very statute there was an exception in favour of the Peers, who were ex pressly exempted from taking the oath. What was the situa tion of the Queen at that time ? She was seated upon her throne, and all the molt powerful nations of Europe were • leagued against her religion. The most ambitious, and the most powerful Pope that ever reigned, gave his sanction to this :league, and to all the attemps upon her throne and dominions. Tins was at a time when the same parties and the same feel ings excited the assassination of the Prince of Orange, and the herrible massacre in the parish of St. Bartholomew ; yet Queen .Elizabeth never thought it necessary to exclude her Catholic Peers from Parliament in those times ; but on the contrary, _she introduced a specific exception in this Act' in favour of Peers. She found no reason to repent this policy in' the course a of the occurrences which ensued in her eventful reign. When rthe ambition of Philip led him on to attack this country with his Armada, did Elizabeth find reason to repent the confi. -.deuce she had placed in her Catholic Peers ? Were they not .her most zealous and powerful defenders against the attacks -of the Pope ? He should next come to the Acts of' Charles IL ; . and here he thought the Noble Earl had somewhat confound ed the enactments which had been made in that reign. The 14th of Charles 11. was not certainly directed against the -Catholics but' against Cromwell and the Puritans. Then . came the Test Act, which was intended to operate against the Duke of York. This was followed by the declaration against transubstantiation, which had also the same object, and , was -attended with the effect of removing the Duke of York from ..all the offices which he previously held. His conduct proclaimed him to be an open Catholic ; and the King him, -self was looked upon with suspicion, and was now known to have favoured that faith in secret. Next came the Popish - Plot, the enormities and cruelties of which even the Noble Earl himself could not think of without shuddering. In the -same year the Bishops' Test Act was proposed, by which no one was to be admitted to the House of Peers without sub scribing to certain doctrines. This was resisted by the House upon the ground of inherent right in the Peers of the land to hold seats in that House. A standing order was immediately passed, declaratory of that right; and it was supported by -some of the most illustrious names of the age. A short in terval only elapsed before tie 30th of Charles 11. was proposed and passed with this Order still standing on their books. Their Lordships must also look to see by whom this Act was pro posed, and they would find them to be the very same men who had passed the Standing Order, and who still did not deem it ,necessary to rescind it. And why was this ? Simply because the Act of Exclusion was Passed under the distraction and alarm produced by the Popish Plot. All the history of the times -.shewed that the measure was founded upon that necessity, and upon that necessity alone. 'With this view of the subject, which to his mind was the clear and undoubted one, taking into consideration the heats and animosities of the times, and eth e fearful alarm into which the people were plunged, and -seeing that such grounds no longer existed, he would say that he stood there upon the principles and the practice of the, -Constitution, when he asked, as- a matter ofs ,just right, the restoration of those Noble Peers to the enjoyment of _their natural privileges. If what the Noble Lord had said - as to the ' measure being necessary upon some thing which -arose after the period at which passed, were sound, he must come down to the Revolution; and he (Earl Grey) would say that all its Acts stood upon principle excluded and apart from this measure. It was not the mere fact of its having been continued at that period that would serve-the Noble Earl's re squest. He contended that they were not to look at what had . passed since ; but they must look at the necessity in the den , ger and alarm which existed at the time of passing the Act, or else the foundation upon which it was published would .entirely fail. What were then the circumstances which fol lowed upon the plot , of that detestable villain, Titus Oates ? . After 'the Revolution, there was a Sovereign excluded 'from the Throne, who was at that time supported by great numbers of the people. He was also supported by the power ful Monarch of France. Almost all the body of Catho- Asks in the country were alto attached to his cause.— They must look to those dangers for the explanation of the laws, which would otherwise he wholly inconsistent with the principles and acts of the revolution. At a period too, when .the Roman Catholic religion was regarded with feelings very . different from those which it excited at the present time; ideas of almost a superstitious nature were entertained as to the tenets and practices of that religion. But all such violent doc trines had been denied, with the sanction of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church ; and the simple principles of faith •swhich they now professed were well understood, and not re garded with the feelings they used to inspire. Therefore in :looking to The period of the Revolution, he found these two grounds which formed the - necessity of imposing such restrictions upon the Catholic body. But a Popish Pretender -.could not now be feared, and the opinion .of the Roman " Catholic religion which was then entertained, now no longer prevailed. The causes of danger being removed then, how ;was it that the measures of caution were any 'longer neces . sary ? The last unhappy remnant of the race who were ba nished from the throne was now extinct, and the undivided affectioos_of the people so centered in the family now upon 'the ehrone e that a disputed succession was not to be apprehended. 'The Noble Earl had spoken of those who had formerly pro posed securities with the general measure of Emancipation, as he thought, with great severity of manner. But, if their Lord ships remembered what had been said by a person so little Worthy of their attention as himself, they would remember that he escaped this censure, because he had long ago de clared that lie would require no securities at all ; and that if the measure were carried, it should' be unfettered by securi "ties, or it was granting no boon to the parties who had so elong suffered. But it was said also, that it would be a great , :anomaly if they admitted Catholic Peers into their Lordships' House, and refused Catholics admission in the Commons.— • They were asked how they could do this, and how they could stop short and refuse general emancipation ? He would say, they could stop short as their ancestors stopped short. They could leave matters as they stood from the time of Henry the Eighth down to the reign of Charles the Second, during which period Catholics were excluded from the Commons without being excluded from the Peers. These being his opinions, he could not see how it - could be argued that there would be any future danger to the State by admittin g Catholics to a full share of the benefits of the State. But he did not believe that their admission to such benefits would necessarily follow this measure: He would not have supported the measure for such a purpose: He did not deal in such methods of obtaining his ob- Jed. It was not according to his principles and practice to pur sne such courses. His firm belief was, that this Bill, if carried, would neither advance or retard the general question. The Noble Lord on the cross-bench had stated his willingness to grant3to the Catholics all the privileges that were not incon sistent with the safety of the State. If, therefore, he refused the admission of these Peers, it remained for him to shew what danger did arise to the State from their sitting in Parliament previous to the period of their exclusion. He could hot un derstand how this was a principle of the Revolution, so sanc tioned that it could not now be repealed with safety. The Noble Earl had argued that it had been again laid down at the Union with Scotland, and that it was binding for ever. Un doubtedly it was provided by that Act that the Oath of Supre macy should be taken ; but it was added, " until otherwise provided ;" which meant until the Parliament should provide otherwise. He saw a marginal note upon the Act; and he thought he recognized the hand-writing, which said, " the alteration must not be made to weaken, but to strengthen se curity." • The LORD CHANCELLOR here made some observations which we could not hear. We understood the marginal note to be written by him ; and that he recommended the Noble Earl to read some others which the statute contained-4A laugh.) Earl GREY proceeded. Some allusions had been made to the privileges which had been granted to Roman Catho ,lics in 1817. But he recollected that in 1807, when those re laxations were proposed, they met with opposition from those "who now opposed this Bill, upon the ground that admitting Catholics to the Army and Navy was entrusting them with the most dangerous of all powers, the power of the sword. In 1817, however, this power was granted, and the Army and Navy were opened' to Catholics as well as Protestants. This was as contrary to the enactments which were continued from the Revolution as the Bill before their Lordships. The Act of Settlement expressly provided that the officers of the Armv and Navy should be Protestants ; therefore, if the whole rank of those services were to be thrown open to Catholics contrary to the principles of the Revolution, there was no argument which could apply the same objections to the ad mission of the six Peers into that House—six Noble Persons, whose ancestors had performed the greatest services to the State, and who had themselves great orsonal claims upon the coun try. He maintained that the case ought to be considered upon its own intrinsic merits, and that it involved no ulterior conse quences. He was sorry, indeed, that the measure did not go further; but as it , only went to the restoration of individual rights, it was entitled to be judged upon its own individual merits. If this Act passed, the general discussion would take place if it did not pass, still the general discussion would come on after the same lapse of time, and he hoped that time would not be long. He called upon the Noble Earl to say why this question must expedite the general measure. He thought the Bill would do great good am matter of justice to the Peers who had a right to complaikof their exclusion. It would also be a great advantage to the House, and the act would be in conformity to the wish it always pursued of not extending its penalties beyond what necessity required. The Act would be consistent with the practice and principles of the Constitution. Policy anti justice alike demanded it; and he earnestly hoped that their Lordships would do themselves the justice of remov ing the statute of exclusion from their books. The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not intend to consume much of their Lordships' time, as he was completely ready to take the question on the narrow ground of the merits of the Bill be k fore them. He would first take the Noble Lord's proposition that this Bill was not likely to expedite the success of the ge neral question. If this were the opinion of the support. ers of the Bill, he had a right to put it in this way :—that if they passed this measure, they did not mean to go far ther in their demands. Ile would then say that no mea sure could be devised that was likely to be injurious to the general body of the Catholics ; and he would - call upon all those who usually supported measures of general emancipa tion' to vote upon their own principle against the adoption of this Bill. Before entering into his specific objections to the Bill itself, he would go shortly into the history touched upon by the Noble Earl, in order to render intelligible some of his subsequent remarks. In the first place, he would say that no. body had a greater abhorrence than he of the infamy of Titus Oates, and the faction which at that 'time led honourable mert into the commission of deadly crimes, and perverted all the best feelings of humanity. He would go with the Noble Lord back into the history of times antecedent to the pass ing of the Act of Exclusion, in- order to trace the causes which previously existed, and eventually. led to that Measure. In the reign of Edward the Vlth j .. the separation from the Ca- tholic Church first began, under the direction of some of the greatest and most pious and learned men that ever - this or any other country produced. Their great -works were stopped by the death of that Sovereign, and his successor Mary being a Catholic, a revulsion took place, and the Catholic religion was again established, and the Protestants were persecuted. After this the Reformation took place, and the subsequent Acts of Elizabeth were legislated ; but still no law was enacted to provide that the Sovereign should be a Protestant. Accord. ingly, when they came to James I. they found him marrying his son Charles die First to the daughter of Louis the Thir teenth of France, a Catholic Princess. It was owing to this that a great portion of the divisions and the animosities which afflicted the country., sprung up ; this was the cause of a great deal of the blood that was shed in the unhappy contests which then spread in all directions. It was not until the reign of Charles the Second that the Acts of disqualification and exclu sion were determined upon as the remedy againstall this evil. It was well known that under the worst Governments some of our best laws had been enacted. Experience proved this in number less itistances ; and the Acts in question were not necessarily bad, because they were adopted under such areign. It was said, that they were resorted to under the influence of groundless alarm, from the terror inspired by the Popish plot. But put ting Titus Oates and the Popish plot entirely out of the ques tion, no man could say," that there was not at that time a real conspiracy going forward to overturn the Protestant religion of the country. Up to this period he had never heard it argued that there - was no real danger at the time of pass ing these Acts. It had always been the argument that there was danger at the time, but which now no longer existed.— He begged of them to look at the anomaly which this Bill would create in making the Peerage in part Catholic, whilst the Crown and every other part of the Legislature was Protes tant. The Noble Earl (Earl Grey) told them that it was the perjuries of Titus Oates alone that had deprived these Ca tholic Peers of that privilege which it was now sought to re store to them. That Noble Earl could not have forgotten that the Act had • been confirmed by the Revolution. He did not mean to say that Titus Oates or his perjuries had any thing to do in influencing the measures of that period. The great good of the Revolution was, that it led, with a change of dynasty to a review of our situation, and to the enactment of those things which ought to have taken place before, 'and many things which ought to have been done at the Reformation were then done. He admitted that the Catholic Peers would have aright to com plain if the Xing were permitted to be a Catholic, or any other religion he pleased. But when lie was told that if the King were to profess the same religion with himself the alle giance of his subjects would cease, and he would be compelled to descend from his throne, he had no right to complain of his excluSion from the House of Peers—(Hear, hear !)—This was the grourid of opposition he had always stood upon with re gard to the general question. He had always taken his stand upon the-connexion of Church and State in our Constitution, upon the principle of Protestantism inherent in the law, which regulated the Crcwn and the other estates of the realm.---( Hear, hear !)—But it was contended that those' Acts which had been. renewed and re-affirmed by the Revolution, by the Act of Union, and by various Acts since those periods, were not in tended to be essentially fundamental by our ancestors ; and the. Noble Earl (Earl they) said, that all that was asked was, to bring them back to where these Peers were in the time of Charles IL He intreated them to look at this part of the sub ject. It was only during the period from the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth and Charles 11. that the - Catholic Peers enjoyed that 'privilege which it was the object of this Bill to give them ; and under the securities which were then imposed, however improperly obtained, they had enjoyed a period of 150 years of religious peace ; and the question then was, whether they would go to sea again, as would be their situation, were they now to abandon those securities. He knew he might be told that 'times were changed ; but he was a bold man who should say so as applicable to this question. Who could have foretold, in 1630, that a few years after the mo narchy would he dissolved, and the House of Lords abolished after the exclusion of the Bishops ? Who could now say whence the danger would arise, not perhaps from the Roman Catholics, but from some quarter to which the principle, if ad mitted by the adoption of the measure offered to them, would give force ? Were they to be persuaded, he asked, ;from any arguments that had been addressed to them, to give up se curities which had given them 150 years peace under a Pro testant King and Protestant State ?—(Hear, hear, hear 0-- , He had declared his intention not to go into a discussion 1 of 'the general question ; but it was impossible to advert to the Noble Earl's (Eai Grey) speechewithout going as far as he had. With regard to the Bill itself, he objected to it in the first place, because he was of opinion that whilst it sacrificed the whole principle of an equal participation in. the Legislature, it did not settle the question. Last year his Noble Friend had brought in a measurefor a final adjustment of the question of Catholic Emancipaticn. He (Earl of Liverpool) had objected to that measure, admitting, however, that some sacrifices should be made, to set the scatter at rest, and in his objections he was supported by the House. But what were they to say of a Bill which left the matter as much open to discussion as before ? He objected, howeVer, to this measure on principle; for though he might admit etat if they were to open toe doors of the Com mons to the Catholics they ought to open their Lordships' doors, he should contend that the objection was much stronger in the latter case than in the former. If there were any thing pecu liar in the constitution of that House, obnoxious - to a mea sure of this nature, it' was its connection with the Church.— They were the depositaries of the Church interests—they legis lated by writ of summons upon the affairs of the Church--and it was contrary to all sense and principle to contend that the introduction of such a measure into that House was more con sistent than in the other. He would not dwell on the other objection, which was on the question of securities, on which he had so often expressed his sentiments in that House. But he could not refrain from adverting to what appeared to him a trifling discrepancy in the arguments of the supporters of this measure. Last year a measure of emancipation was brought into the Legislature, and with it another of securities, and so much value was placed by those who introduced the measure in another place, that it was there distinctly stated they would not let the one exist without the other ; that they must go on pan' passe ; and that if the Bill of Securities were not passed, they would not consent to the other. Now, he did not care so much about securities ; but he asked those who adopted this course of proceeding last year, how they could reconcile to them selves to pass this Bill without securities ; and if they did, could they ever ask them in any subsequent measure of eman cipation ? Even if the general question were a question affect ing England alone, he should have an insurmountable objec tion to it. But there was always another ground for bringing the measure forward, and that was the state of Ireland. It had always been brought forward upon petitions, and it had been urged that the greater portion of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and that the effect of getting rid of the disqua lifications, if it conferred no practical benefit, would at least be soothing. Supposing these reasons to have any weight, in what light could they view this measure ? Would it confer any good upon any one in Ireland ? If they argued even that the measure was good in itself, still it must be admitte4 that nothing was more galling than for an act of emancipation to be passed for the English Peer, not including the Irish. Thus by adopting this measure they would abandon the ground of every preceding one. But there was another ob jection of a more serious nature which he had to point out to their Lordships against the_-Bill. This was the granting of privileges to the Peers, in which the Catholic Commoner did not participate, which in a free Government was a principle more obnoxious almost than any that could be devised. It was said that in the, reign of Elizabeth, Catholic Peers sat in 'the Legislature, though the Commons did not. But if they would examine the history of those times, and mark how little the rights of the commoner were known in those times, there would ,appear reason sufficient to exclude them from taking that as an example. In the discussion upon the general question they were told that they might make a stand against Catholic en croachment in various ways. It was true they might throw up barriers against the franchise, against the admission into the Privy Council, or beyond the Legislature; but on which principle could they justify their admission to the Peerage, and not to the House of Commons? Although the rank and privileges of men might differ, still the rights of all men were the same. The right of the poor man to his cottage was as good as that of their Lordships to their mansions.— The King did not hold his crown by any higher title than the owner of the smallest property his right of enjoying it, and in this consisted the great strength of the monarchy. —(Hear, hear, hear !)—By this Bill they were called upon to say that the right of the Commoner to be elected was not equal to that of the Peer to sit. Both rights might be mo dified and qualified for the public benefit ; but how could they go forward to say that the Peer shall sit in the Legislature, but that the Commoner should not? He asked if any thing were so objectionable or new, in modern times, as this distinction. They possessed certain privileges for the good of the state, but not for invidious purpoees. To look after the concerns of religion was one of the principal duties of that House, and surely then that branch of the Legislature had a greater right to ask for securities as to faith than the other. The Noble Earl opposite had stated the question to them in plain terms, that they were justified in passing this Bill, even if they went no further. Now, he believed that there could be no more serious evil than to pass this Bill, and go no fur ther. He believed that they must go further; but if not, they would do that which was most invidious, and give more dissa tisfaction than if they did nothing at all. He contended, that upon every view of the question they were called upon to reject the Bill. It settled nothing, but , left the whole question open, 1 as much as when they first entered upon the discussion of it. It i drew the most invidious distinction between the Peerage and the commonalty—a distinction which, he believed, no one could seriously recommend. And as, to those who did not agree with him upon the general question, but supported the Catholic claims generally, all he asked of them was to put this question to themselves, viz. whether this measure did any. thing towards strengthening the cause, tor promoting the advance ment of the Catholic Emancipation generally. In his opinion it was more objectionable than if they were to do nothing, and it was his intention, for the reasons lie had stated, to vote for the amendment to the question before their Lordships.—(Hear.) Lord GRENVILLE next addreesed the house. He said it became the more necessary for him to make a few observa tions on acceunt of the ground upon Which his Noble Friend had rested bis opposition. He called upon those who had al ways advocated the general question to say what was the ad vantage of the present measure. He would answer that he was one of those who had been never backward, perhaps some might think a little too forward, in advocating Catholic 'concessions, and he should say, that this measure would confer the greatest of all benefits, the benefit of doing justice—(Cheers)—an object in his estimation which set at nought all considerations of expe diency. He would say " Bejust and fear not." If it were true that in this Bill the rights of six individuals were concerned, if the rights of even but one individual, and he of the lowest instead of the highest class in the community were concerned in it, he should say that their Lordships were not at liberty to entertain all those questions of expediency. He considered it as a question of strict distribUtive justice ; rue on which their Lordships were called upon to pronounce, not in their legisla tive but in their judicial capacity. It was a question, whether they would restore a certain number of British Peers to the ex ercise and enjoyment of those rights which they inherited by their birth. He held that their Lordships were bound to re store to those persons the rights of which all men he believed would admit that they h a d b ee n d e p r i ve d, not only unjustly, but by the most scandalous and iniquitous means that ever were practised. Having been deprived Of those rights under the most false, unjust, and scandalous pretences, it was for their Lordships to judge whether they should now be restored to the full enjoyment of those rights. It was argued that the law had not deprived them of their rights as Peers, but had only annexed to the privilege of sitting in Parliament the condition of complying with certain tests ; and the principle on which these tests were now defended, was, that persons claim ing to sit in their Lordships' House ought to be subject to the same tests as the Commons. But it' was perfectly well known that besides the test in question, there were a variety of other causes of disqualification for seats in the Commons, which no man had ever thought of proposing to extend to that House. It was no pare of the fundamental law of this country—it was not the principle of the Constitution—it was not the principle of the legislation of this country to adopt sweep ing regulations . of that nature. On the contrary, most of those dangerous and fallacious notions which were now getting possession of the public mind arose out of the vain, absurd, and preposterous attempt to regulate all the varied and complicated interests of this vast community by such general and sweeping measures. He did not concei ve th a t i n supporting this Bill he was bound to show what he should neither attempt, nor indeed was able .to shew, whether this measure passed Or not, why they should continue even f o r one year longer the general restrictions on the great body of the Ca tholics. Much stress had been laid. upon the absence of any securities from the present Bill ; it seemed as if it were consi dered that there was some wonderful property in the abstract name of security, apart from the dangers against which it was professedly intended to. Foy*. But every hour of considera tion that was bestowed on the subject, the dangers themselves seemed to grow less ; and such wa s th e c h ange in his opinions on that' point, which had been brought about by the won derful revolution of events that had occurred within a few years, that if the Bill of last year had come up to their Lord ships without securities, he should have raised his voice in earnest endeavours to dissuade their Lordships from adding securities to it. But though he himself regarded securities as unnecessary, yet knowing the expectations which prevailed in the minds of the people of the country in that respect, and the great object of the measure being conciliation and union, if that object could in any way be forwarded by such securities, he should have been sorry th a t th e w a nt o f them should have stood in the way of making that which was a mea sure of concession to one party, contribute to the confidence and tranquillity of the other. If there were any of their Lordships who thought it possible that it might ultimately be found ne cessary to pass this measure, yet hesitated at the present mo ment from the fear of its leading to the whole question, he begged to assure fl:tan, that where the expediency of the mea sure was so manifest, where its justice and policy was so evi dent, they had but one course to pursue--to look the question at once fairly in the face; for if they omitted to pass this mea sure now, every day, every hour of delay would increase the diffi culty, and they would at length do it with less prospect of set ting the great question at 'rest. To reject- this measure with the information that they now possessed of, the true nature of those grounds on which the restrictions were originally founded, would be to say to the six Noble Individuals concerned, " True, you were unjustly, deprived of your rights ; we detest the perjuries of Titus Oates, we abhor the Popish Plot, we acknowledge the proceeding's founded on it to be unjust; but we will continue to keep them in force, because we were not the original authors." And then would they proceed to drag forth Acts of former Parliaments, and to quote the greatest names that adorned the history of the country, in justification of these restrictions. Titus Oates, and those who believed him, were indeed the' authors of the injustice; Lord Shaftesbury, and the other illustrious names that adorned the Revolution, had continued, it, but their Lordships.- should remember that if they rejected this measure, from that day forward, not Titus Oates and,his associates, not Lord Shaftesbury and the authors of the Revolution., but the present House of Lords, would be regarded as the inflictors of that injustice which they perpetuated and adopted as their own. The Noble Earl said he would dismiss from his memory Titus Oates, and his discoveries ; but the authors of the Revolution, and the great characters who then existed, adopted the restric tions as necessary, and they were the persons whose mo tives and conduct their Lordships were to look to. He (Lord Grenville) said so too. He did not mean to disparage the conduct and motives of these persons, to whom we owed what liberties we enjoyed ; but he must say, that if they looked to that painful period, their Lordships would find that the danger against which they had to provide did not arise from the Catholic Peers, or any plots on their part against the,. throne or the Government. There was indeed a Popish Plot, but it was not a plot of the Catholic Peers against the State, but of a Catholic heir to the Crown against the Protestant religion and the liberties of the country. The whole experience of our history, from the reign of Mary to the end of Charles 11. shewed, that not any the smallest particle of danger arose from that law of Elizabeth which continued to Catholic Peers the right which they before possessed of sit ting in that House ; and no security whatever to the Consti tution and liberties of the country was obtained by the law that was passed to deprive them of that right ; nor was there the least shadow of proof in the history of the time of any conduct : on the part of the persons subject to the persecu tions that aiiose out of the Popish Plot, to justify the measures that were directed against them. To contend for the continu ance of securities adopted in times of confusion and alarm, should be continued when those alarms had subsided, because the dangers that were then apprehended justified their adoption, was as absurd as to say, that because the City of London was formerly surrounded with a high wall, and other places in the kingdom were fortified, to secure them from the attacks of an enemy, it was necessary now, in a period of profound peace, to change the face of the country into that of an armed camp. —lf it were armed that danger still existed, or might be ap prehended, he . had a right to ask where it was to be found, and in what shape it was to be detected ? And if those who raised that argument failed to define the precise nature of the danger which they feared, he felt himself bound, not as a matter of expediency, but' of retributive justice, to remove this restriction. He asked, what part of the measures adopt ed at the period of the Revolution were to be considered as essential for the protection of the fundamental liberties of the country, and what part only as providing against a tem porary danger ? Looking at the argument of the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) on that point as well founded, he must have risen to oppose every on 9 of the Acts for the removal of restrictions passed in the reign of the late benevolent Sovereign. If their Lordships would look at the measure of that night as one of retributive justice, lie would venture to predict that no danger whatever would arise to the country from its adoption. If they rejected it from, the fear of its leading to the general question, they would exclude six English Peers from their rights, not because the exclusion was just, but because those would be hampered in argument, who, if those Peers were admitted, sought to keep out others, whom, for his own part, he saw no reason for excluding. He had not intended to address any observations to their Lordships on this occasion, but he had not been able to sit silent when he heard argued, on the ground of expediency, a measure which he considered as a measure of Justice, a question of property, privilege, and birthright to be restored, which had been wrong fully taken away, and which could no longer be withheld without injustice.—(Repeated cheers.) Lord REDESDALE said that the present Bill called on them to admit into the Legislature persons who were in direct hostility to the Protestant Establishments. Those persons were bound in conscience to uphold and promote their own faith. Could he have a stronger ground for excluding them, or for continuing the exclusion ? But even this Bill proposed oaths of allegiance and abjuration. If it were the right of the Ca tholic Peers, as had been contended, they were not justified in imposing those oaths. The question involved in the Bill, how ever, be contended was one of expediency, and of expediency only; the justice of the case had nothing to do with its considera tion. He maintained that the exclusion was required for the secu rity of the Protestant Establishment,and the King on his Throne. The oath taken by the Sovereign required him to support the Protestant Establishment to the utmost of his power; but when the Monarch had done so, were they to surround him with persons who held different principles and views ? It was idle to talk of the few who would gam admittance into that House if the question were carried. But in what situation would they place the Sovereign on the Throne, if the conces sion required by this Bill were granted ? They would give him a Parliament with principles directly opposite to the terms of the Sovereign's cath. It was useless to talk of securities; the only security they could have was that exclusion which it was now sought to remove. The Constitution gave them a Protestant Executive Government, and a Protestant Legis lative Government; but to pass the present Bill would be to change that Constitution, and to convert those Protestant Governments into Roman Catholic. James the Second at tempted by his power to set aside the very statute which their Lordships were now called upon to repeal. This would show of what avail that Monarch thought it if he could get it into his hands. His suspending powers eXer cised in this very instance, were amongst the tyrannical and unconstitutional measures which ended in his being driven from the Throne. "There was no doubt but that if it had never passed, and James had been allowed to fill the House of Lords with Catholic Peers, that that great Revolution, so glorious in the annals of this country, would never have come to pass. It was therefore not a measure of slight importance, but was inti mately connected with, and fornied part of the fundamental laws of the realm. The Noble and Learned Lord then pro ceeded to argue upon the results which the introduction of Ca tholic' Peers into Parliament would have upon Church institu tutions in Ireland. He contended, that it would be the ruin of the Church Establishment and Church property in that coun try. As property was in every case the great object, the Roman Catholic Clergy would never cease to use their influence for having transferred to their hands some of the profits of Church livings, which had been long enjoyed by members of the Esta blished Church. Whilst Catholics were totally excluded from Parliament, there was no opportunity for such machinations , open to them. In conclusion, he stated, that if Parliament took the first step—namely, to admit Catholic Peers to vote, they would not know where to stop. if they should admit men of different persuasions to the House of Commons, they would eventually become so mixed up with the institutions of the country, that the Constitution would cease to have that Protes tant character which was at once its boast and its best security. For all these reasons he opposed the Bill. Lord HOLLAND having• caused the Standing Order, No. 71, xo be read, which directed, that no oath should be imposed by any Bill or otherwise, the refusal to take which should dis qualify any Peer to sit in Parliament, proceeded to say, the reading of that Standing Order placed the question on its true looting ; which was, whether the time was now come at which it would, be safe and proper for their Lordships to restore to the Catholic Peers the free exercise of their undoubted right, of which they had been unjustly deprived, in violation of that Standing Order. It was the undoubted right of every Peer to sit and vote in Parliament without any oath ; and that re gulation imposing the test was an exception and a departure from the Constitution, justifiable only by expediency, which was to be proved by those who advocated such restraints. —lt was said, if they passed this Bill, they would create an anomaly. An anomaly ! In what ? In the system of our religious and political exclusions ? In that which was a chaos of anomalies throughout ? The whole system of re ligious legislation in the 'three kingdoms was one •vast anomaly ; and were their Lordships to be deterred from an act of justice by the fear of adding to the number the trifling anomaly that might be created by this Bill ? But this andrialy that was so much deprecated, was one that had already existed ; it was one of the ancient law, and there fore, he should have conceived, in some degree entitled to the Noble and Learned Lord's respect. One great objection that had been urged was, that the measure was attended with no securities ; and the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said it was the first measure of the sort that had ever been proposed without them. But he (Lord H.) himself, in 1799, soon after the Noble and Learned Lord came into that House, moved to refer the Act of 30 Charles 11. and the Act of 1 William and Mary,' for altering the oath, to a • Committee, and no mention was then made at all of securities. That motion was met, not by a direct negative, but with the previous question. Why did not the Noble and Learned Lord, on that oh casion, object to such a mode of disposing of the motio:., which left open for future discussion a question, which, according to his present doctrine, would over throw the whole of the laws and liberties of the kingdom ? But he (Lord Holland) never did set any value on securities; and he had only agreed to them, in any case, as the price to be paid for a more important object. Queen Elizabeth re jected the idea of such securities; and Henry :VIII., w h o destroyed the Pope's supremacy in this country, had never thought of exacting such an oaih as was now required. Tbs. standing order, which had just been read, was introduced by that Lord Sha ft esbury whose name had been mentioned on the other side; and when he afterwards supported the Bill im posing the test, and was asked how he could do so in viola tion of his own order, he defended himself by saying' " lege: posteriores priores abrogant," later laws abre gate former ones. The danger which was then to be gua i l l ; ed against was that of a Popish successor ; and when King refused to sanction an Act for the purpose of ex cluding his successor, this measure was had recourse to, as a step toward's the other, by cutting eff power those who might be likely to favour his desig,na•: The Noble Lord then proceeded to combat the doctrine tha t the Act of 30 Charles 11. was heretofore considered as one the fundamental laws of the country, or as an essential part ° the Constitution. The objection of King William to i ts red peal, which a Noble Lord had referred to, was accompanie s with this preamble—" That while the King of England Iv!, not a Protestant, he. did not think it would be safe to repeo' it." He then supported his position by arguments dra w !' from the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, n et ther of which contained any mention of, or allusion tt: the Act in question. He also ' referred to the ape li s i ment of Lords Justices for administering the Authority in the absence of George I. from the kingdom' who were instructed not to consent to the repeal of any of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, which were the,. enumerated, but among which this Act, 30th Charles was not included. No man wished more than he did, that.tl whole question of the removal of restrictions should be ari ex fie He had always heard the Noble and Learned Lord say, e• sion was an evil, and could only be justified by necessity. - had also heard him say, that " that which 'necessity creates, from necessity limits." He would therefore say, that if this exci ll " sion wa., justified by expediency arising out of necessity at M e l time of its enactment, it was not, upon the Noble and Le Lord's Lord's own argument, to be justified now that such necessiti no longer existed. The Commons, therefore, in his op_ l inin f ° o ; had done right in selecting this law to be repealed ; these reasons he did not think the objections against the could be maintained.—(Hear.) The question was then loudly called for, and the House t eas cleared for a division. The numbers were-. Contents - - - 80 Present Proxies - - " 49---129 Not Content - 97 Present Proxies . 74--17 1 Majority against the Bill - - - .--42 ar A new It was consequently thrown out.—The House then adjc at HALF-PAST TWELVE. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE WAREHOUSING. BILL. aof Mr. WALLACE; for the convenience of the House, an, he persons out of doors, begged leave to state the course whirJATh e intended to pursue with respect to the Warehousing Dill. ; House must be aware that he had on sever a l occasions b most anxious to forward the progress of the Bill, sent stood for a second reading. From the great quantity °to` business before the House, he found it would be imposaih l , pass through its several stages until the beginning of Jul e p to period too late , he feared, to permit the measure to go t i ,.„P re , the House of Lords, 'and be discussed there. He there . `" t he reluctantly, had come to the determination of ostponing P der - Bill till next Session. He wished it, however, to be tie stood, that he was now, as he had always been, fully convitt` — ,,, of the advantages which were likely to result to the coune, rc ,"' manufactures, and every interest of the country, f r om the al a i' s ; tion of the measure, and he gave the most distinct pledge o n he would take the earliest opportunity in the ensuing Se ssi . e . which at Pre ; of again bringing it under the consideration of the IHt' u o The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded with moving,, o f amendment to the order of the day for the s e cond reading the Bill, that it be read a second tim e thi s d a y three month s ' Mr. RICARDO regretted that the Ri g ht lion. Gendelj r , intended to withdraw the Bill, the operation of which he. t o to Ricardo) believed would be found to be extremely benefie l 7 o , the general interests of the country. H e h o p e d the Right to Gentleman would redeem the pledge which he had giv,l'.bit bring forward the measure next Session. He begged the the Hon. Gentleman would take into particular consideration 2.„ state of the silk trade, which'at the present moment was la b to ing under peculiar disadvantages. He b e li eve d that if 'P oi , trade received proper encouragement, it would be able to si l k, petewith foreign countries. It appeared to hi m that ours „of manufacturers were not so much injured by the competiw,,—ths the fair trader as by the contraband dealings, whi c h wer e ther result of the high duties imposed upon importations. An°7s great grievance which affected the silk trade was the Spitalfiel 'Act. Mr. ELLICE felt obliged to his Hon. Friend, the Me lub b er t for Portarlington, for having directed the attention of the Rig s ', Hon. Gentleman to the state of the Silk T ra de. He trus t , 'n that, previously to the measu re b e in g b roug ht forward all„ 1 , next Session, the Right Hon. Gentleman wo u ld be able t o nounce the intention of Ministers to reduce the duties upon c , raw material, and take other steps to protect the silk-mane e%' turers from the danger to which they would be at present posed by foreign competition. 1 1 14 Mr. GRENFELL also expressed his regret that the It f Hon. Gentleman had abandoned the further prosecution %L a Bill, because he was of opinion, that the discussion which 1.. 4 0 have taken place upon the measur e , wo u ld h ave re moved r e , the public mind the false impressions w hi c h ex isted with spect to it. on Mr. WALLACE', in reply to what had fallen from p re' Gentlemen opposite, stated, that in the interval between thf, l t t le sent time and the next Session of Parliament the Silk would become the object of his most serious consideration• ca lio agreed that at present the tr a d e was suffering underl e ha reJ privations, not one of the least o f w hi c h was t h e b e ing et" - the advantage of free labour. s After a few words from Mr. L ITTLETON an d Mr. MI PORT, the motion of Mr. Wallace was agreed to. 00 1 ' The New South Wales' Acts Bill passed throug.b a da y. mittee, and the report was ordered to be received on go? PASSAGE-VESSELS' REGULATION Bilal'; r the Mr. CANNING requested the Hon. Und er S ec retary * ° l o o Treasury (Mr. Lushington) to consent to postpone th e the Bill till next Session. The ground upon which he rine* application was, that many of his constit ue nt s , Shi,P-°% s to West India Merchants, and others, felt serious obiect l %, to the Bill, and they wished for further tim e t o e n a ble w e state their objections. D es • Mr. LUSHINGTON agreed to postpone th e . Bill ti ll Session. a and The Prison Laws' Consolidation Bill was recommitte d' several clauses were agreed to without any amendment^ f ictet! Lord FOLKES'T'ONE opposed the clause which res. , i t oa the visitation of Magistrates to p ers on s comm itt e d to stri ct safe custody for political offences, except under c ircurnst: - . ol t. of their having complaints to make again s t th e i r mode of . ment by the gaoler. the After some discussion, the Com m itt ee di v id e d oP° - „ clause, when there appeared, For the clause, 44 Against it, 10 I Majority, 34 ' e nd' The Committee then proceeded, and several verbal am ments were agreed to. act ing On the clause with regard to chaplains of prisons, 0 0 01 that no clergyman in that office, an d rece i v i ng 2001. Per ~,t i ca) for the performance of its duties, should hold any preferment, the Committee, after a g r ea t d ea l o f disc divided— ecclesi, ssioo For the Clause, 21 I Against it, 26. ,ittg e When strangers were re-admitted, we found the Cett l ay e en t engaged upon the succeeding clause, to which an a-wen rim was moved by Dr. LUSHINGTON, for allowing to ever,itoe soner under sentence of death, th e v i s it s an d s pi r itual a 5 , 1 ,5 of a dissenting Minister , whatever his religious persuasi -. This Amendment, after considerable conversation , adopted. OP' On the clause relative to the establi s hm e nt Of rules h ,,- o / n t of gistrates for the regulation of the prison, to which the o°t.d, the chaplain was required, Mr. Alderman Wool) of tb e an amendment, that the words, requiring the consell„ t chaplain, be omitted. The Committee divided t i r" amendment, when there appeared-- nt I' Ayes, 54 I Noes, 55 I Majority against the amendin e d ;40, The other clauses with regard to the classification full/ ration of prisoners having been agreed to, and the 01 WO' gone through, the report was ordered to be received on nesday next. IRISH CONSTABLES BILL. , j 1 Mr. BROUGHAM, seein S g a Right Hon. Gentlemmis (P Goulburn) in his place, wished to know whether it WO o se tention, in conformity with the order of the day, to wit" so late an hour the committal of the Irish Constables 1 0 ' o sur e the view of making any progre s s in carrying the Di through the House. pa Mr. GOULBURN observed, that when he origin all ;ted posed to commit the Bill on that day, he had conten3l3,_ecooo_ full discussion ; but as he was aware th a t this had now. order impossible, he should only move for the Committee P A e ee' to fill up the blanks, reserving for a future period the /0 1 ‘1* si deration. kjei; Mr. GRATTAN urged, as a strong objection to I .h e a t tt eua' any step in advancement of this measure, the very thi n ance of Irish Members at that moment. f sce et4 l Mr. PLUNKET'I' remarked, that the only effect of the ~5 to his Right Hon. Friend's suggestion would he, tri a n e rnbe` would be printed in a more perfect shape, and flop. 4,