The Sun. — London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

awas no friend to Popery, and Lord Kenyon, who had cer -tainly not transmitted any suchfeeling to his descendants, de livered their opinions in favour of the innocence of Lord Straf eford. Lord Kenyon rejected the precedent, and said that what -ever might have been done while the passions were warm and prejudices strong, he must think of Lord Strafford, that there wes no man, when reasen had regained her seat, who would not Agree with him in pronouncing his execution to have been a species of -legal murder., Ile (Mr. Canning) would set this. against the evidence of Titus Oates, and he was sure the House - must agree with him, in concluding that the Catholic Peers had been excluded from the enjoyment of their just rights un der false pretences. , The House of Lords were induced to cast them their bosom under the dread of the Popish Plot, and Lord Strafford's innocence now stood clear to the world.— Upon these grounds the Parliament ought to repeal the Bill. They ought to do so because a violence had been done to in herent rights and priyileges,. which, according to the Order of the House, ought not to be touched but with life itself. This restoration of right to individuals could be - effected without detriment to the State, and-without giving rise to heartburnings amongst any portion of their fellow subjects. He must say that the tase of these noble persons stooupon grounds very different' from that of the general Catholic body. There was a great difference • between eligibility and a possessio'n. No one admitted more readily than he did the rig It of Roman Catholic Gentlemen, to sit in that House. But it was an imperfect right, and one that was always clogged with certain conditions. But in the case of the Peer they took from him his direct pos session, to which he was entitled by birth. And as there was , a difference in the right, so there was in the infliction of the penalty. If a person were not • eligible to sit in the House of COmmons,he mightbe debarred from other causes ; he might be a revenue officer, or he might not have the good fortuneto be cho sen. He did not bear with him an imperishable mark of his exclu a sion. With the Peer this mark was indelible. Whoever saw the coronet upon his brow, whoever heard his proud titles, enumerated, saw and heard the marks of his disgrace. - How much more cruel, then, was the deprivation to him. They had taken from him a just right, and inflicted upon him a wrong _and a dishonour which he • could never hide or cease to feel: —lf his object were attained, they would only then be doing tardy justice to the parties who had suffered. They had stood by fifty years while great allowances had been made to the other branches of- the Catholic body. They had stood by the silent spectators of the benefits 'granted to others ; and if they .should now receive that benefit themselves, by an unautho s sized proxy, lie would not say it wouldbe without their coun tenance, but certainly without having participated in originat ing the request. He now wished to observe to the Hon. lilem ber for Somersetshire, to whom he was much indebted for the kind manner in which he had been mentioned by him, that he thought he had made out exactly such a case as he had held to he necessary for the success of the present motion. He had drawn a clear distinction between this and the general claims of the Catholic body ; such a case as might be argued upon re moved and separate principles, as clearly an one cause in West minster Hall could stand from another. He would venture to pledge his life, that if the case could be brought and argued before any tribunal in the country, it would have a verdict in its favour. H e ventured to say, that if. a Jury were to be impannelled on the question of the restoration of these rights, that such a Jury, considering the innocence of Strafford, and the innocence -of the present sharers of his punishment would not fail unani mously to pronounce those Peers entitled to a restoration. , He begged•to impress upon the House, that the carrying of this mo tion did not necessarily include the rest of the question. • What was it that was now felt by the great body of the Catholics ? Nat the exclusion from ofhce—not exclusion from this or that House of Parliament; but the stigma, the degraded character • which was conveyed by the exclusion. The Clergy of England - were ennobled by the sitting of their Bishops in the Upper House, though they themselves were, by a legislative provi sion, excluded from places in the lower. On the same grounds -did the meanest Catholic participate in the stigma which was .thrown upon such an illustrious character as the Duke of Nor ' folk by the eiclusiona even though that Catholic had not him= -self the remotest prospect of obtaining an office Of any de , scriptien. When a scheme was proposed which considerably -affected our currency, it had been said that it would increase .the value of the poor man's pittance, and this. circumstance - was thought to be no contemptible argument in favour of this .measure; and in like manner the elevation of the Catholic Peers would be conferring a general benefit on the whole of the Catholic body. He trusted he had done right in not di verging into the -general question ; and in case he should be met in the course of - this debate by an assertion that this dal in . fact embrace the whole question, he thought , it due to candour to state, at once, that he should then .consider hie cause as gained,—(Cheers !)—He desired to know why Catholic Peers had been excluded by the Act of Charles, after they had been expressly retained by. that of Elizabeth ? The oaths administered to the Catholics, by their enactments, were of two sorts. Some were considered as tests of allegi since ; others were for the very purpose of exclusion, assum. -mg Catholicism to be in itself' a condemnation, and inconsistent with Allegiance. The oath of Elizabeth was framed with a view to the admission of those who could take it ; but that of , Charles was intended to be an exclusion, for it was well known to be an oath which no Catholic would take. The measure imposing the latter oath, was, substantially a new bill, though it reinforced the oath of supremacy. It'had been declared to be . a new bill in the course of the debates upon it ; and he there fore 'wished to be informed whether that was a 'wise po lity which superadded the provisions, of the Act of cbarles to those of the Acts of Queen Elizabeth ? Why were they eadded if not for one of two• reasons, to exclude the then Duke • of York, or in consequence of the disclosure of the Popish plot ? If the latter, was the assertion of the existence of that .plot to be believed ? Had the Catholic Peers of that day been , justly or unjsistly impeached ? If unjustly, why exclude the present Peers ; and if justly, why had the Peers in question , not been brought to trial ? It was true that one of them had been brought to trial ; but he would put it to the candour .of any man whether the . innocence of that one had not been completely established. And, assuming his innocence, was it . to be said that the Catholic Peers of the present day were to be -excluded, because one of their number had been unjustly put to death ? In re-admitting them, in rendering this homage to _justice, there could be no possible dan"erof the precedent, .for the whole question was admitted in this instance to be one --of expediency: He was too well aware that in conceding it to . be a question of expediency, he was considerably understating :the merits of his case on the question of right. But he dig --claimed the discussioq of the abstract question of right, though he did so merely because, upon the particular circumstances -of the case, he placed it on the question of expediency ; and He trusted that ellen on this ground he should have the good fortune to gain the opinion of the - House. He was satisfied ethat appeals to former times and former habits were sometimes dangerous ; and were Often open to objection ; but he could not resist the inclination he felt to make such appeal. His appeal, however, .was from the times of Titus Oates to those of Eli . zahieh, from the Peers of Charles to those of our earlier an ..cestors ; and he called upon that House to - perform towards the Catholic Peers of the present day an act Of retribution for the cruelties which had been practised 'on their ancestors ; an act which was expedient on the score . of policy, charitable . on the part of humanity, and in the name of Gon most just. - The tionourable Gentleman then, amid 'the cheers of the . House, moved,, • " That leave be 'given to . Wing in a Bill for repealing so _much of an Act passed in the 30th year of the reign of King -Charles the Second, as excluded Roman Catholic Peers from -sitting in the House of Peers." The Hon. G. A. ELLIS seconded the motion, and said, after the eloquent and convincing speech of his Right Hon. .Friend, it would be bad taste, and indeed presumptuous in so humble an individual as he was, to trespass long on the time .or attention of the House. He was always of opinion that the ,general men sure of removing the Catholic disabilities was a measure of right and of justice. The part of that question which was then before them had an additional claim to their favour, inasmuch as it related to an exclusion which had its origin in a plot which . was .supported by perjury -,and in the existence of which no one at present believed. He hoped the stain would be soon removed from the statute book. He re collected a saying of that spirited defender of the Protestant ascendancy, Queen Elizabeth, who being advised to administer the Test oath to the Catholics,, replied—that she had better means of ascertaining the loyalty of' the Peers.—He would gi've his warmest support to the-motion. Mr. Secretary PEEL then rose, and commenced his address 'by remarking • that if his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning knew the full extent of the admiration which. he (Mr. Peel) entertained of his abilities—if he knew the delight and gratin - cation that never failed to attend those who were present at the , exhibition of them, lie might perhaps think him (Mr. Peel) a little presumptuous in offering at so early a period some answer • to a sneeech thus eloquent and impressive. But on an arena like that, it was important that every_ reason actually existing, and producing an operative effect; should be explained ; whe ther it tended` to the one side or the other, among all those who were found not to arrive at the-same conclusion. With this persuasion, - he intended to follow his ,Right lion. Friend, hand pass Thus ceiptis, it was true, from the point at which he set out, through tile line of argument he had adopted. The fancy of the House - had beep engaged by the brilliant metaphors enr -,oloyed in the-speech of his Right Hon. Friend ; thew seasions bad -also been ,'inflamed by appeals that could affect their pas : sions only ; and it was iinpOssible for him, litiwever necessary, to contend against all this fervour, to rest on aught but sober reasoning. He was-perfectly:willing to avoid, in his argument, all discussion of the general principle, and did not hesitato Ithough he,who gave the challenge -should leave perhaps to hiS . -opponent the cheiee.of armour) to -enter the field within the li smits prescribed hy. hi.s Rt. Hon. Friend. In commencement, then, 7J1.f.-xfould say that by could perceive ncoonnd reason for exempt. ing Roman Catholic Peers from political restrictions to which I a whole community professing the same - religious tenets wese by law subject—(Hear, hear !)--Ile should not ? he hoped, be regarded as one forgetful of the respect due to high moral cha racter, or insensible to the dignity which attached to hereditary rank and station, in the course which he now felt it his duty to pursue.—(Hear !)—The House might be assured that he ac knowledied not that " rigid philosophy" which in the lan guage of 1)r. Johnson overlooked these distinctions, nor should he be diverted either by that or any other cause from examining closely, and respectfully at the same time, the propositions of his Right lion. Friend. This design he hoped to adhere to without artifice or exception, and not at all availing him of ancient criticism, which in one of its maxims would recommend a more cautious prOceeding— et gum Desperat tractata niteScere posse, relinquit— he shoUld avoid all extraneou allusion, nor deviate in the least, if he could possibly guard himself against it.--(Hear !)—The first objection then, and it had not escaped his Right Hon. Friend's notice, was that by adopting the resolution the House would be dealing with a question that exclusively regarded the other House of Parliament.—( Hear, hear !)--It was acknow ledged that a question of this kind evidently referred to policy that must in a great measure be decided upon precedent.— 'Now he (Mr. Pel) doubted strongly, whether any of the pre cedents quoted on this occasion furnished an adequate autho rity for the views taken by his Right Hon. Friend. The first, if not sole, example of that House disabling certain Peers, or at all legislating on the qualifications of persons to sit in the other House of Parliament, was in 1640, and it was incumbent on them to recollect the circumstances of the time, and the pe culiar feelings which then prevailed.—(Hear, hear !)--Then, indeed, certain Members of the other House were affected by a vdte of the Commons ; but it was not an example which it was probable they would be anxious to imitate.—(Hear!)—lt was not till the 30th Charles 11. that the Legislature naturally enough wished to repeal the former Act—(Hear!) and im Posed the necessity for a declaration against .transubstantiation, which indicated that the Peers were alone subject to the oath of supremacy. His Right Hon. Friend had argued that, in prac . tice and effect, Roman Catholic Peers were not excluded from seats in Parliament till the year 1778. Certainly,they were not, except by the oath of supremacy, whilst others were restrained by different obligations. It should not, however, be forgotten that this did comprehend a question which had given rise to 'opinions directly adverse. Authorities of a very contradictory nature might be produced ; how far, and in what way, did his Right Hon. Friend propose to use them ? He was ready to wait till those on the other side, however antiquated or musty, should be advanced, and should reserve till future opportunity the introduction of their adversaries. Then might come an immediate decision as to the difference of footiog upon which Peers and Commoners stood before the reign of Charles 11. But the House at this'inoment could not fail to bear in mind, that the whole subject had been recently discussed, and that it had reached a kind of settlement which it was hoped might cause much of previous agitation to subside, and might bring the subjects of one King and Government to that community of feeling which was so desirable in every period. His Right Honourable Friend, the Alerriber for the University of Dublin, (Mr. Plunkett), had In his late most impressive speech viewed the question in this:light. ,it was not till the case of Sir Solomon Swale, who had been previously convicted of recusancy, that the Act of the 36th of Charles 11. was passed-120 years after the original Act of Elizabeth. His Right Hon. Friend omitted all mention of these circumstances, however connected with his argument in support of the doctrin e —th a t th e p reva iling policy • of those times was often sacrificed and yielded to notions of civil right. The' argument of Sir R. Sawyer, as stated in our law books, was entirely opposed to 'the inference which it had that night been endeavoured to establish. His Right Honourable Friend (Sir. Plunkett) was indeed mistaken in the use that he had made of this portion of our history. What was the title of the Act which passed in 1673? It was " the better to secure the King's Government, by disabling Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament, &c." Here was no manifestation of any dif ference in the views entertained by our ancestors, as regarded different classes of Roman Catholics. But his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning), who made this motion, seemed to think that it rested on a ground peculiar to itself. His opinion appeared to be, that there was an inherent privilege in the Peerage not to be tampered with under any but the most extraordinary cir cumstances, or dangers of the most imminent nature. To this opinion he (Mr. Peel) objected on constitutional principles.— (Hear !)--He begged leave to deny that Peers were exempted from any of the restrictions or disabilities that were still applicable to Commoners. Let them look, if they pleased, to the Irish union, and what, he asked, would they discover there that contravened his proposition ? It exhibited, indeed,Zsome anomaly ; but the inference from it was directly the other way. Peers remain ed liable to the same punishments and penalties as Com moners; but they were to sit in Parliament (he of course alluded to Irish Protestant Peers) by the title of election. But as this was not altogether a novel regulation, as a similar grin : ciple had been alopted in the union with Scotland, was it not a little surprising that his Right Honourable Friend should have abstained from all mention of, or allusion to, . this last event ?—(Hear,hear !)—His Right Hon. Friend had at least forborne from reminding the House of one part of that ce lebrated treaty, and it was left to him (Mr. Peel) to submit to Parliament whether they would now qualify Catholic Peers to sit arhong them, or respect, co nornine, that article of the Act of Union, in which it was specifically declared, that ho person being a Papist should vote for, or sit as any -Member of the estates of that realm ?—( Hear, hear !)—Could it be denied that this article now formed as valid a barrier against the con templated innovation, as any statute or national contract on record ? It went to show that no such doctrine as that of any inherent privilege existing in the Peers was recognized by Lord Somers, or the other ereat Whig• Ministers of that day. If they had acknowledged the principle, would they ever have admitted or sanctioned a provision that must so effectually sub vert it ?—(Hear, hear !)—No : had they held the opinion of his Right Hon. Friend, they would never have thus attempted to bind future Parliaments to a fixed and determinate policy. But it had been maintained that' the Commons never in terfered with , the privileges of Peas, except in cases that would affect their lives. This was evidently not correct : the contrary had been' already indicated. With regard to the Roman Catholic Peers of England, they were in num ber as had been stated, not more than six or seven. Now did his Right Honourable Friend's measure provide only for the introduction of these Peers to seats in the other House ? No ; it invested the Crown with the power of an unlimited increase.— ( Hear, hear.)—Whilst one branch of the Legislature was sub ject to a variety of changes, the other was to be free from every alteration but that which emanated from the Crown. Whilst the House of Conynons, sitting as representative's of the people, with limited functions and a temporary existence, submitted to certain tests, upon what ground reconcileable to the Constitution were members of the other House to be exempted ? He desired also to inquire, where was the necessity for recognizing this sup posed right in the Peerage,admitting it to exist?--( Hear. )--lt did not appear to him tobe either necessary or expedient. His Right Hon. Friend had urged that it would have the effect of generally elevating the Roman Catholics. Why, let the House now consi der the situation in which it actually stood with regard to this question. Only seven or eight months had elapsed since they passed a Bill containing a declaration that affected the whole Catholic community. Where was the imperious necessity that dictated to them this form of entering upon the subject? It was, as far as he knew, the first instance of the question being thus divided. From the year 1805, when, for the first time after the Union, it was brought before the House by Mr. Fox, seconded by Mr. Grattan, no proposition had been submitted to the Legislature affecting Peers exclusively. Neither could he perceive in the present circumstances any peculiar reason for taking up the subject in this mode. What, in fact, were_ those circumstances ? Among the chief, it could not fail to be re collected by the House, that his Right Honourable Friend, the Member for the University ,of Dublin (Mr. Plunkett) had given notice that he intended to bring forward the whole question at an early period of the next session.—( Hear !)—Why then now, when approaching to the end of the present session, should they wish to confer on Roman Catholic Peers the barren privilege of being entitled to sit in Parliament during an interval when no Parliament was held ?—(Hear !)—At the commencement of the ensuing Session the subject would, they had ground to expect, be opened by his Right Hon. Friend in all its bearings. He confessed that, notwithstanding the elo quent anti ingenious speech of his Right lion. Friend (Mr. Canning), he was not satisfied that any clear or substantial case had been stated in support of the present motion. Still lie re membered that he had given a pledge at the commencement of his observations, which he hoped not to abandon : it was that of accuratelteexamining that course of legal and constitutional history which formed the basis of his Right Hon. Friend's whole argument. Might lie not then fairly say, that his Right lion. Friend had endeavoured to trace the exclusion .and final disabilities of the Catholics to the Popish plot, and to the dis coveries of Oates ?—that previous to • the year 16711 they. were not so disqualified ? . Now he (Mr. Peel) must here protest against the selection of detached periods of history on which to raise an argument of this kind. It was not from isolated events, or the peculiar circumstances attending one occasion, that they could deduce a just or fair conclusion upon a question so ex tensive. Times of commotion required them to, carry back their views into antecedent circurnstances,before they came to a final judgment. Neither the French revolution, nor any epoch re -sembling it, would ever be regarded in its true light, unless the predisposing causes wore understood as well us the concurrence of fortuitous events that happened coteiuporaneously. On vari ous considerations, the policy and principles to which he had been adverting were re-enacted and confirmed at the period of the revolution. The. Bill of Rights was itself an example of the firm and enduring nature of this policy. Whatever his Right Hon. Friend might think of Oates or of the Popish plot, it was ih his (Mr. P.'s) opinion; manifest that there did then' xist a fonnida- ' ble and infamous conspiracy against the Protestant establishment. —( Hear !)--The object of the conspirators was not merely to ex tinguish and destroy the Protestant . religion. Immediately after the downfall of Clarendon, a disposition was evinced by the Court, as well as by particular individuals, for rooting out the Protestant faith, and subverting the Constitution in Church and State. - It was due, in common justice to our ancestors, to the memory of those who established_ he rights , which we were now enjoying, to refer to the situation in which they were placed, and the motives that, influenced their conduct. If he admitted all the monstrous injustice which was said to have been committed in the case of Lord Strafford, did it follow that no foundation existed for the policy that was adopted by our forefathers in 1678, and that was afterwards sanctioned and continued ?—(llear, hear.)—lle did not agree with Mr. Dryden, who had said " Succeeding times will equal madness call, " Believing nothing, or believing all." And if he granted that in what was called the Popish plot Might be found an extravagant fabrication and tissue of wickedness, still he must ask what ' was the prevailing temper at that time, and how were these disclosures - received ? (Hear, hear, hear.)—People at that time were in possession of their common sense : it was the period when, according to Blackstone, our Constitution had become theoretically per fect. Mr. Fox, had described it as the era of good laws, and of bad Government. Would these stories against the Catho lics have been listened to with such avidity, had not a feeling existed that there was ground for jealousy and suspicion ? King Charles 11. had, throughout his reign, by every sort of artifice, and apparently out of favour to the Dissenters, exerted himself to procure a relaxation of the laws against the Catholics. The Dissenters, indeed, to their great credit, saw through the artifice, and refused to accept any advantage that must be pur chased by granting the Crown a dispensing power. Was there, indeed, not amply enough to alarm their suspicions ? It was now known that King Charles was engaged in a secret treaty with .Louis XIV., and the letters of Coleman, Se cretary to the Duke of York, in 1675, actually developed a plan for destroying that pestilent heresy with which the northern part§ of Europe. were infected," and described it in another passage " as having a greater prospect of success than any design framed since the time of Queen Mary."—(Hear !) Surely all this threw some light on what occurred in 1672. In the secret treaty was an article that pledged Charles 11. to a change of the religion he professed. It stated that he was con vinced of the truth of the Roman Catholic religion—that he would shortly be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and that in case his subjects should rebel, which was not likely, that his Most Christian Majesty should furnish a sum of 200,0001. ,to his assistance. Here, then, was an instance of a British Mo narchproposing to barter away the religion and rights of his subjects, and, for the sum of 200,0001. He wished only to re mind the House, that the chief advisers and instigators of that secret treaty, by which the liberties of the country were bar tered for 200,0001. (a less sum by half than was now voted for a Caledonian canal or a Penitentiary), were Lord Arlington, Lord . Clifford, and Lord Arundel, of Wardour.--(llear, !) Such being the fact, was it surprising that, independent of the terror the Popish Plot might produce, Parliament should feel so much jealousy lest Catholic Peers should again become the advisers of the Crown ?—(Hearl)—His Right Hon. Friend had dwelt with great force upon, and attached much importance to, an order of the House of Lords made in 1675, and which de clared that Peerage being an inherent right, no Bill should pass which tended to impose a test upon Peers. Hence it was inferred that , it could only be under the influence . of du ress and compulsion, and the effect of some extraordinary terror, that the Peers three years afterwards passed the law Of exclu sion. His Right Hon. Friend, however, had not adverted to the fact, or perhaps he was not aware of its existence, that in that very Bill, out of which the order originated, a test was imposed .upon Peers. 'True it was, the Bill did not pass, but to the latest state the test remained inserted in the Bill. The date of 1675 was highly important. It was probably known that the whole history of that Act, and of the debates upon it, was given by Mr. Locke, in what was called a letter to or from a person of qua lity. The Act originated among the Spiritual Lords, and it was especially to exclude from seats those infected with the old leaven of the civil wars. No less than 17 days were occupied upon it, and it was perfectly true that in the course of the debates an order was ,moved by Lord Shaftesbury to prevent the imposition of tests ; yet at the very moment this order was made, the House of Lords did in fact the very thing that was objected to. After the order had been made, the Lord Keeper proposed a test equally applicable to both Houses ; and in Mr. Locke might be found a protest on the subject, the ground of which was that it was inconsistent with the order. The Lord Keeper stated, never theless, that the House was master of its own orders, and as far as the Bill went, it was accompanied by a test, the effect of , which would be to exclude Roman Catholic Peers. The gene ral history of the motives actuating Lords Shaftesbury, Hali 'fax, and Hollis, to support the order, wasgiven by Burnet, who said that the new test was opposed by those whom he terms Papists, because they well knew that if there were any precedent of a test, it 'would be applied to theinselves. He added, that Lords Shaftesbury, Halifax, and others, thought it was not right that any test should be imposed upon Members of Parliament ; that Peers were appointed by the Crown, and Commons elected by the people : and that it was absurd to impose• a test that would shut them out from the national de liberations. At the Revolution, the Bill passed requiring the declaration against transubstantiation, and alterinc the oaths of allegiance and supremacy ; ' and if any act of Parliament could in its nature be permanent, permanency ought to belong to those acts passed at the period of the Bill of Rights, when it was declared that James 11. had a design to extirpate the Pro testant religion, and had been under the direction of evil coun cils and Ministers.—(Hear.)—Such was the intention of the le gislators of that day ; and he never could believe, if it were not the intention that Lord Somers and the other Whigs would, in 1705, so soon after the Revolution, have inserted the articles in the Scottish Union, that the Peers and Commons from thence should necessarily be Protestants, and Protestants only. At the Revolu tion a view was taken of all the dangers to which thecountry had been exposed. The statesmen of that day had seen that Charles I. had been under the influence of a Catholic Queen, and that James 11. was an avowed Roman Catholic, and endeavoured to subvert the religion of the State, and that Charles 11. though in external conformity a member of the established church, did not by, that outward compliance aflbrd a sufficient guarantee for the safety of the Church. It was found that he, too, had been influenced by evil counsellors. At the revolution, therefore, provision was made for excluding a Roman Cathol:c Queen from the throne —for preventing a Roman Catholic King from presiding over the affairs of the nation, and for shutting out of the Councils- and the Legislature all who were not of the Protestant faith. Ten years after the discoveries of Oates, the Houses of Lords and Commons took these sage precautions ; and whether they were net or avrong, they established the Protestant character o Parliament.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—His Right Honourable Friend had referred to two other points : one was, that the summons to Catholic Peers to attend the Coronation esta blished a peculiar claim in their favour. He (Sir. Peel) confessed that upon this point lie had heard his Right Hon. Friend with some surprise and pain. Ile should have thought that he would have been one of the last to, discourage these acts of favour and liberality on the part of the-Sovereign, by endeavouring to pervert them into an argument of this kind. If they had been told-at once merely that they were excluded from legislation, it was possible that theyanight have listened with regret, and perhaps with disgust; but if it had been explained to them further, that the Constitution" was essentially Protestant—that laws had been passed requiring conformity with the Church, abjuration of the , tenets. of Catholicism, and that there was no disposition to extend them further, they might have heard it with patience and acquiescence. He.would not give to the Duke of Norfolk and other Catholic Peers what the Right Hon. Gentleman termed , temporary; privilege, but he would not exclude them from such , honours and personal distinctions as the Sovereign might think fit to bestow. If in the case of Lord Fingall there was a wish to give a Roman Catholic the full benefit of an honour conferred, he hoped it did not im pose the necessity of extending the concession further. Of this he was perfectly certain, that if a Roman Catholic Peer had been excluded from a privilege he was qualified to en joy—if in the case of Lord Fingall it had been contended that he could not receive the honour proposed, on the ground of his faith, the country - would never have heard the last of such a glaring instance of obstinate bigotry.—(llear, hear !)_lf he (Mr. P.) were called upon, he should unquestionably advise the Crown to act upon the . principle it had then adopted, and he would not carry the spirit beyond the letter of the law.—(Hear !) —Yet by making such a recommendation, he should assuredly not hold himself precluded from opposing a propositionlike that of his Right Hon. Friend, or one of a more enlarged description. His Right Hon. Friend, in the next place, had referred to what he considered a strange state Oflegislation upon this subject; but would his motion cure any one of the anomalies at present exist ing ?...-(Hear ! )—Supposing this Bill passed, would the condition of a Roman Catholic Peer of Ireland be improved? He would be qualified to sit and vote in the House of Peers, and to vote on the election of a representative Peer; but if he were chosen by any county or town to sit, as he might, were he not a Rbman Ca tholic, in the House of Commons, he would be turned back be causehe could not make a declaration from which he was freed in the House of Lords.—(Hear!)—He would put it to any man whether the ammaly was not thus rendered more striking than at present ?—(Hear !)—Again he would ask if it were right that a Roman Catlolic Peer (the Duke of Norfolk, for instance) should enjoy al the hereditary privileges of his rank and sta tion—should st and vote`in the House cf Lords, and advise the crown upcn all matters, end among them de rebus cower nentiblis eeclesem Auglicanum—would it not indeed be a a - nost strange state o'leislation if he were by law not permitted to . receive from tie Crown the slightest mark of official confidence? —(Hear !)—This was one of the strongest arguments that could be used for postponing the consideration of the Peers (which was all it was necessary for him now to maintain) until the great questiOn relating to the whole Catholic body were brought before the House. 'He (Mr. P.) saw around him many who had both supported and opposed the Roman' Catholic claims upon perfectly distinct grounds. He presumed that the latter, who on constitutional principles had voted against the admis sion of Catholic legislation as a dangerous departure from the law of the land, would resist the motion now before the House. The enemies of general emancipation, as it was termed, would hardly be disposed to admit to another place those who would supporktlie claims of the whole Catholic body, which had hi therto beeh there effectually resisted.—(Hear, hear !)—ln con clusion, thanking the House for the indulgence it had already sh ewn —( H ear! )—he wished to address a few observations to such as had hitherto supported the Roman Catholic claims. There were many, probably a large portion, of the advocates of an extension of privileges, who thought, whenever the general subject was discussed and decided, the result should be, to quote the words of his Right Hon. Friend, " a final and conciliatory arrange ment." To them the arrangement now proposed could neither be final nor conciliatory.—(H ear, hear !)—There were others who • thought that whenever the period arrived for removing the disabilities of our, Roman Catholic brethren, the whole state of the Roman Catholic Church should be taken into considera tion, with a view to some such securities as were enacted in the Bill of last session. It had been distinctly urged at that time that measures of concession and security should go hand in hand ; and this notion had been supported by the Right Hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject. A notice had been given, that within six months the whole subject would be introduced ; and of those who had supported securities he would ask, whether they thought it wise to pass a partial mea sure opening one branch of the legislature to Roman Catholics without any securities at all ?—(Hear !)—What would be the situation of those who should insist on securities hereafter ? Would it not be most invidious ? A right was given to the Crown to increase the House Of Lords, and that without any securities. Yet 'when Parliament came to consider the case of Catholic Members a the House of Commons, whose func tions would be only temporary, being elected at most for seven years, if securities were then demanded, would not the situation of those who required them be most painful and invidious ?, itight not the Commoners justly say, that though there can be no doubt of the fidelity and loyalty of the present Duke of Norfolk, or of Lords Clifford and Shrewsbury, yet their pos terity, which may not be equally loyal and faithful, is ad mitted to the privilege of sitting and voting to the latest gene ration without any attempt to obtain the slightest security.— (Hear, hear.)—lf no security were required of the aristocracy, chosen by the Crown for more than the period of their lives, it was a little too much to ask security from the Commoners, who at most would only sit in Parliament for seven years.--( Hear, hear.)—Besides these classes, there were others who, admitting some remote and possible danger to the Constitution, would be disposed to incur it, on account of the present state of Ireland : they contended that the Government of that country rested on too narrow a basis, and that it could not be safe, solid, and permanent, unless the Catholic inhabitants were admitted to the privileges Protestants enjoyed. Would it advance the views of peace and good order in Ireland—would it shew that the interests of the great, majority were regarded, to tell them that Roman Catholic Peers had been admitted in to the House of Lords; but that the representatives and guar dians of the people were still excluded from the House of Com mons ?—(Hear.)—Other Gentlemen had argued this question upon the broadest and most constitutional principles ; and at the head of this class was the Right Hon. Member for the Uni versity of Dublin. They had taken the most enlarged and comprehensive view, and it could not be explained more fully or more adequately than in the emphatic words of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself.—He said, " I speak in the presence of enlightened constitutional lawyers and statesmen, and I do not fear contradiction when I assert, that the doctrine of exclu sion is not to be found in the principles or in the analogies of the constitution,—it is not to be found in the history of our country, or in the opinions of any of our statesmen,—and it is at once inconsistent with the subject's rights and the King's preroga tives. Ours is a free monarchy ; and it is of the essence of such a Government that the King can call for the services of all his liege subjects, otherwise it is not a monarchy; and no class of subjects can be excluded from privileges, otherwise it is not a free monarchy." He (Mr. Peel) appealed to those who had used or adopted this language, and of, them he asked, the time being arrived when it was wise and safe to remove restrictions preventing admission into the House of Lords, if it was just or decent to continue the restrictions to admission into the House of Commons ?—(Hear, hear !)—lf admissibility to office were a general right belonging to all ranks of Roman Catholics, why were the disabilities of the great mass of that body to be postponed to the claims of a few, however respecta bly founded as those claims were, only upon the same in herent right ? All he required (and it formed the whole object of his address) was, that the claims of the Roman Catholic Peers - should be postponed until the whole question, with the securities, were again introduced. He gave his Right Hon. Friend full credit for the best intentions : he was perfectly sure that he fancied there existed in the case of the Peers a pecu liarity warranting this distinct motion in their favour, but he was equally certain that it was neither worthy of the great abi lities of his Right Hon. Friend, nor of the character of the House, thus, by a partial measure, to give an advantage to the great question, independent of the principles upon which it must rest its pretensions. He had thus attempted to state why he had arrived at a different conclusion from his Right Hon. Friend, and, in order to give effect to his arguments, it was not his intention to move the previous question to secure some stray vote, but to meet the motion in the most fair and open man ner.—(Hear !)—He should pursue now the course in which he had always proceeded on this subject, by giving the proposal his most decided resistance.—(Hear, hear !) Lord FRANCIS GOWER declared that he should not attempt to follow the Right Ilon. Gentleman who had just sat down through all the topics of his speech ; but feeling a lively interest in the success of the proposition, he begged to be allowed shortly to state his reasons for supporting it. Ile stood there as the advocate of a great act of justice. If the noble and illustrious persons to whom it was proposed to re open the doors of the House of Peers were as much infected with bigotry as any persons who had ever entered the Escu rial, still he would not anticipate any danger from intro ducing them into that of which their ancestors formed a part. (Hear, hear !) Lord NUGENT contended that the restrictions on the Roman Catholics was an anomaly in the British Constitu tion, And Stood unsupported by any one doctrine laid down by our greatest lawgivers. The claims of the Catholics were founded in clear matter of right, and could only be rejected upon some case of great danger being made out.— No such case,had been, or in his opinion could be, made out. —Let them look at the great names whose power to serve their King and country was thrown into the dark by these disabi lities. He considered that this question stood upon all -those principles of liberty and justice upon which our most indisputa ble rights depended. The strong belief and conviction that he re tained that whatever subject discharged his duties as a citizen was entitled to the privilege of being a Statesman, induced him to take that view of this question which he was then ad vocating. This was not an innovation that was proposed, but an act of restoration. For the sake of the Noble Persons them selves he did regret that this question had'been agitated. For the space of a century and a half they had stood at the head of their sect for purity and integrity of motive. They had been told that it was without their knowledge or consent that this question was brought forward. If he had been authorised, he assured the House that he could quote a magnanimous dis claimer made to him by a Noble Friend of his. He did not mention names, however, from motives of delicacy, lest it should appear invidious to the rest of that body, who all, he was sure, felt equally solicitous for the welfare . of their fellow , countrymen. He should give his vote for the motion, from a conviction that the motion, of which his Right Hon. Friend, the Mepiher for Dublin (Mr. Plunkett), had given notice, • would in less than a twelvemonth be carried triumphantly.— ' He had hoped that the visit of the King of these realms to his • Irish dominions had been the herald of peace and emancipation. • However it might not be apparent, he was convinced it was only delayed, not destroyed. ' Mr. WARRE spoke in favour of the motion.—He begged to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), whose his torical knowledge was so great of that period of our history, when upon Queen Elizabeth being attacked by a combination of three of the most poiVerful Catholic Potentates of foreign, dominions, she chose as an Ambassador to represent her inte rests a Catholic Nobleman.' That Nobleman was Lord Mon tagu, who had frequently expressed his violent Catholic prin ciples in Parliament. He mentioned this to shew that that shrewd Princess did not think Catholic principles inconsistent with the most perfect political honesty. Regarding the state of persecution in which the Roman Catholic Peers were living, he was convinced that if they united and embodied them in the Legislature they would find them most useful and faithful Members of it. Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) assured the House that the county of which he had the honour to berepresentative, though the most Protestant in' Ireland, was most anxious to see the Catholics reinstated in their rights, although they might not appear to , take an active part with respect to it. Whether this motion bore part of the great question or not, he did not care ; but he wiiuld say, that whoever was friendly to the great ques tion ought to vote for this motion. At the same time, many who were not disposed to support the claims of the great body of the Catholics, might be inclined to vote for this. The Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) had certainly done his best, but he could not prevail.-- , -(Loud and general cries of " Question !" and " Withdraw !' ) Mr. PLUNKETT considered that the subject was already so completely exhausted that he should attempt to add nothing to it but a single observation. This was, that as he had given E notice of a motion upon the same subject, for early in the next ; Session, he feared that if he were silent, it would appear that k‘ he considered the motion of his Right Hon. Friend as inter fering with the general measure, and that he was therefore not frfendly to it. It was principally for the purpose of nega tiving this inference that he at all rose to speak in the de bate. He must, therefore, begin by stating that. he cordially and entirely concurred in the motion.—(Hear, hear !)—lle did so, not only because he thought it one sup towards the at tainment of the whole of the Catholic claims, but because he considered it as an essential act of justice.---(1Imr, hear * Although he had last Session carried through that Hou%e his Bills on this great question, yet he had been considerably embarrassed by the details of these measures. These details were rendered so extensive, from a desire to accompany the measures with an entire class of securities, calculated to gain . the confidence of the House ; and the enemie s of th e Catholic were greatly encouraged from the opposition made by them to the accompanying securities. Indeed, there was no side to which they could turn, that they were not involved in these details. The present measure ; however, was perfectly re lieved from all ,objection on that score. It was a distinct and reasonable proposition. It proposed to restore the Peers of Ireland to their hereditary honours and privileges.; to render those who had by an Act of the Legislature been. restored to be Counsellors and Advisers of the Crown, to be Coun sellors and Advisers to the public. In the opposition which had been made to it, he did not find any argument addressed Ito the wisdom, the justice, or the safety of the measure. He did not find that any danger was predicted from it, a nd the opposition seemed to be wholly confined to points of etiquette and forms. It was said that it was part of the general meae sure. To this, a House, which had already sanctioned the ge neral measure, could make no objection.—(Hear, hear!)—He could not see whence the objection to this partial measure was to spring from a body which had already decided, in the case of five millions of its fellow.subjects, that it was, matter of right and justice. 'With respect to the other House he should be glad to see them called upon as Judges, as Gentlemen, and as Legis lators, for their decision in this question. When they put tneir shoulders to the door to shut out the hereditary rights of others, those who advised than so to act would do well to show how their rights were to be maintained, if some Titus Oates of the day were to attack them.--(Hear !)—This measure was no more than reversing Bills of Attainder, .obtained by the most abominable and disgusting artifices. Every one knew that it was a want of security in the Crown that caused the origin of these severe acts, which deprived these Peers of their heredi tary right. The Sovereign was suspected ; the heir to the Crown was known to be tainted with Catholicism, and this Act was passed to preserve the rest of the nation from the.machl nations of powerful Catholics ' in conjunction with a King too well affected towards them. Had the security in the Crown been what it now was, the Act never would have passed.- - Thus, it appeared, that because one part was guilt t h e other was attainted—an unoffending branch. His Right Honourable • Friend (Mr. Peel) said, that this measure did not rest alone on the abominable falsehoods of Titus Oates ; but that there was besides a plot against the Government. The Catholics ' in the time of Charles the Second, it was true, were not well affected towards the State, and that might be the cause of the measure being resorted to. But that reason for continuing those severe penalties did not now exist. The Catholics of this day were not disaffected to the Throne or to the State.—These were two acci dental causes which were now both removed. His Right Hon- Friend (Mr. Peel) seemed to feel that he could not rest upon the time of Charles the Second, and therefore he Caine down at once to the time of the Revolution and its laws.. But when he talked of the laws of the Revolution, he must beg to ask what was meant ? Did he mean, that all the laws that were before the Revolution were part of the laws of that time ? If see we had been doing away our great and glorious Revolution for more than the last halt century. In whatever shape this quest i ion was brought forward he should support it. It was a r debt of justice, and he should consider he paid more or less 01- it, in proportion as the measure embraced more or less of wha t that House had already decided should be granted. As had been said; it would be received by Ireland as matter of grae c e and favour. It was said they interfered with the privileges e`' the Lords ; but last year when they sent them a joint measure it was rejected ; and now that it was separate it was objected to. This was a claim of right and justice. The House were to see whether there was any public reason for rejecting it. If Lords, ‘st here was not, they ought to send the proposed measure to the and it would be for that body to do their duty. Mr. WETHERELL rose amidst a loud cry for the tin es ; don.' He assured the House it was not his intention to detain them long. He considered the proposition a novelty, or e was desirous of making a few observations on some of tn points. He took the liberty of stating . that the Right non' Gentleman had departed from the principle upon which th e greatest Authorities had supported the claims to Catholic Emancipation. He might mention Pitt, Fox, Wyndham, and Ponsonby, those great advocates of Catholic Claims. Those distinguished characters had all declared that no measure a general measure should be brought before Parliament... was formerly held that concessions should be made on sg o: o and security given on the other. By that arrangement, vro lics and Protestants were to be reconciled. That , was t"w t .' t he position on which the Bill of last Session was founded, V on . measure proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was all war . cession on one part and no security on the other. He was, ranted in stating the names of Pitt and Fox, before whic h, Right Honourable Gentleman would certainly no t consider tre._ self paramount authority. If Catholic Peers were.allowed 'sit in the House of Peers, could that House say Catholic moners should not come to the House of Commons ? if. ti tu n e t f, Were to be admitted, which they must be, if the Right .1.1 - „f Gentleman's . proposition was adopted, what would become I', Mr. Pitt's principle, that no concession could be made svithouL securities for the preservation of the constitution ? He wa s s ure to the catalogue of names he had mentioned would outweigh' the candid judgment of the Right Honourable Gentleman, any modern authority. The Right Hon. Gentleman introduction of six or eight Catholic Noblemen to Parliamen„. who could. not be bound to subscribe to any test whateve,rLi s The Bill reminded him of Dr. Johnson's account or ' 4 Journey in Scotland, where he went to an inn, and fou l ' o f nothing solid or fluid in the place, but an entire blew , „. provisions. The Right Honourable Gentleman's Bill wa s blank of securities. If the Right' Honourable Gentleman right in the application of his principle without securities , ! iv the persons whose names he had mentioned had taken a narr u vel l " and partial view of the subject, for not one of diem had a e` tured to ask for concessions without securities. The ne.,:a ought, to see to what a compliance with the measure ProPe' e - to by the Right Hon. Gentleman would lead. If such a Bill ve to carried, the next Session Catholic Commoners would sit in that House without restraint. The Right Hon. Ge% oo man had lately favoured the House with a splendid exhiln s i n proposed ket, of talent, and they might not perhaps be able to hear him agof in 1823.—(Here Mr. Wetherell was interrupted by the crY .. . ct " Question !")—The House would in that case have to refi t h e the absence of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but the loss ° ics . proposed measure would occasion regret.—(Question, tkt` 1 1, Lion ! "Withdraw !)—lt had been said-tbe 30th of Charles He was founded upon the pretended plot of Titus Oates... in, could only say with respect to the statements of that public former.-- " Some truth there was, Yet much must truth deny—." ; of There was no doubt Charles was a Papist—the Marqu s ;,ar Halifax knew him to be one; and there was clearly a . 1 1.,;, plot in existence against the Government. The late Mr. r h it in a tour to Paris, discovered a curious document, 13)' appeared, that eight days after the death of Charles the Se con h; the French King sent over to know what w a s the state o f t o, Catholic party in England. The efforts made by Charles s to establish Popery were well known.—(Here the question stv3,,, again .called with increased vehemence, and Mr. Airetherell down, observing that he should reserve what he had to S" further upon the subject till a future opportunity.) ensfi re Mr. CANNING then rose to reply. After the full rn of attention he had received from the Ho u se, he was only 0 2 1. rous of availing himself of the privilege which the House lowed those who brought forward a motion. The measure able and Learned Gentleman had considered the Inee s .t. t he proposed to introduce as one of a singular nature ; Duri3 with the exception of the hostility of the Honourable ti Learned Member, and that of his Right Hon. Friend, it 3 1 13 .. peared they had been discussing an object which all were sirous to promote.. Notwithstanding the opposition he now luded to, he ventured to say he should be the harbingeFcht that success the Honourable and Learned Gentleman i nl ii b et l . deprecate, but could not prevent.• Mr. Canning then exP:La7aet his statement with respect to the sth of Elizabeth. The P lain of was, there was a test which excluded some from the House Commons, and with regard to the House of Peers there hat no exclusion at all. On that he had built his argu ment ' on:- Parliament did wrong to the Bishops, and repaired that wr t 0 So also, as they had done wrong to the Peers, they o "g ht r 9 hts them justice at the present day. With regard to their t of the Peers, he had been ch a rg e d with inconsisten c y Actof stating the restrictions impdsed on Scotch Peers by tile Union. He had not taken into account the limitation woitil,ire: spect to the number of Peers allowed to legislate, but n he could say or do on that subject would cure the anoulay aee , The Scotch had contracted that no change should ta1t.E.... ;0n and they were without remedy. The Irish i n the Act o f p i i ng were more provident. He had been charged withla,u, from the principles upon which Mr. Pitt and others tw o ported the Roman Catholic Claims.' It was said by au"' is ha ve some years ago opposed the general measure—" Let o t _ as i c ri parts of the measure before us." On the present sticrt, part was offered, and they called for the genertil mea, " Their great capacity had stomach for it the „as. The Catholic Peers had been unjustly excluded, and SAT CA It() tl 4 0 Sei SII 13a, n . Pe 3 Pe 6 11/( S un te nt