The Sun. — London, England, 1822-05-11 00:00:00

-emu step would be to give . the Catholic Bishops the same pri vile which it was now proposed to bestow upon the Peers. r. BROUGHAM would only trespass for one moment upon the House, but be was anxious to administer some small relief to the Hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) and the persons whom he represented.--(Laughter.)--The minds of those per sons appeared to be struck with alarm. If Catholic Peers were admitted to the House of Lords, then Catholic Commoners - would get into the House of Commons then the whole of the Lower House would soon be composed of Catholic Commoners, apd Catholic Bishops would be mixing with our own Right Reverend Fathers in the Upper!—(Hear !)—While these ter iified Petitioners were brooding over toe dangers of Ca thine admission to Parliament, it might afford some com fort, as diversion to their fears, to know how slight a phrase it was, not which prevented Roman Catholic Bishops from sitting in the Upper House, but which precluded. Jewish Rabois, or even the great Mufti himself, from coming into tkaalament, either by creation from the Crown, or election by tile people.—(Hear, and laughter.)—lt was barely the acci dental insertion of the word " Christian" in one of the tests, which prevented that consummation, dreadful as it would be to the good men of Kent. Neither the Mahometan nor the Rabbi i had any objection to the oaths ; they could digest the supre macy, the allegiance, and the abjuration of Catholic doctrine t. nothing kept - them out but the fortunate insertion of " all this I promise upon the faith of a Christian." The Hon. Gentle man concluded his observations upon the apprehensions of the Petitioners from Catholic Emancipation, by:repeating his pietar,e cf the other perils in which they sto od. The lucky word which saved them from Jews and Mahometans would .not pro tect them against the Members of the Greek Church. Disci ples of that church would not refuse the promise of Christianity; t.nd they Were in a situation to abjure the doctrines of the of Rome, as heartily as the best Protestant within the Archdeacon of Canterbury's jurisdiction. Sir E. KN2ITCH BULL said a few words io rep ly to Mr. Bzoitghtim, the import of which did not re a ch the . gallery. Mr. BROUGHAM declared, that if he had tne honour to be Patriarch of Constantinople, he knew of nalaw which could -abtit the doors' of ?ornament against • , Mr.i..'LUS"fIINGTON concurred in the sentiments of the PetltfOners,''atitl *mild prefer voting for the whole measure of Eltiatibipti . 4 . ;Onio giving the poliion now demanded of it. ' • Tilo'fylition *as then read, and ordered to be printed. :iIec?EEL presented a Petition against Mr. Canning's meaf ?..tire•froin the Dean and Prebendaries of th e C a th e d ra l - Church 4;5 Canterbury a like Petition from the Episcopal Church of Long-a c re ;=a like 'Petition from the Magistrates of Kilmar neek'...+—Read, and Ordered to be printed. Lord*HOTlllllpresented a Petition to . the same effect from :Beverly, , in Yorkshire. • MALT DUTIES' (IRELAND) REPEAL. The thira -reading of this Bill vvas postponed to Monday prcsented a.Petition from certain Dia tillers df ireland, relative to the duties' on Malt. .14ICENSING SYSTEM. :,Ir. H. G. BENNET postponed his motion upon this sub .';ect until Monday. 161 R. 'WILBERFORCE AND MR. WYNN. Alr: , WILBERFORCE desired to explain an observation which bad fallen from him in the course of the debate upon the sobject.of the Postmasters-General, and the meaning of whiCh had been much misrepresented. He had intended to say gene rally, that it was worthy the Attention of the House to consider whether Honourable- Gentlemen, in joining Administration, joined Ministers because they thought them worthy of confi dence, or thought them worthy of confidence because they had joined them. In making that observation, he declared before tacir, and his CountiT, that he had no intention of applying it o Ntr.Wynn. ilberforce spoke in so very low a tone, that IC was very difficult to collect what he said. The abpve how. trzr, we believe, was the substance of his explanation. 31r. WYNN, as far as he himself was concerned, had never misconceived the Honourable Gentleman's meaning. He felt happy, however, that the misconception had taken place, since it had led to such 'an explanation. planation. GAME LAWS. Mr. 31.-A. TAYLOR, on the part of some Hon. Member whose name was not mentioned, put off a motion on this sub ject, which stood for the 23d inst., to next Session. ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS BILL. On the motion of Mr. CANNING, the Order of the Day was read for the second reading of' the Catholic Peers Bill. Mr. SMYTH rose and sa id, he felt it his duty to address a few observations to the House on this particular measure, but on the general question he would not say one word. With all the respect which he had for the wonderful talents and splendid e _eloquence - of the Right Hon. Member w ho h a d i n t ro d uce d th e Bill, yet he' could not help looking on this measure as a most sextracrdinary One. It was isolated and partial. It was also unjust towards the great body of the Roman Catholics, and its pranciple was exclusively aristocratical ; for it went to grant a boon to Peers, whil e it left the people where they hear.)—He had paid sedulous attention to the speech of the Right Hon. Mover, and he had sat with considerable impa tience,- and: perhaps alarm, like the Hon. Member for So z.ersetShire—(A laugh)---Aest he should be captivated by the voice of the Syren. But if any thing were wanting to the Inca mire of his conviction, it was filled up—if any doubt remained, it was effaced hy the speech of the Right Hon. Secretary for th e Home Department (Mr.•Peel.) 7 -So closely had he argued that question, so historicellY had he illustrated it, and so clearly expounded all its merits, that there was nothing to be added to me full and complete conviction with which his mind was impressed. He must confess- that the vote of the House had not a little surprised hirit;' more especially as he had heaid Amours that the Bill was not . sanctioeed by the conscientious feelings of those very persons for whose special benefit it was, intended: But the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Plunkett), thinking that he could not dissuade the Right on. t.eatlemau from bringing on this question, had thought it izesre prudent and advisable to express his approbation of it tisan -to move the previous question,_ as had been expected by many.--(Hear ! and a laugh.) If that Right Hon. Gentleman fMr. Plunkett) had tho ug ht i t r i g h t t o b r i ng t hi s measure be ere the House, why did he not submit the general question at once to the Houser and it would have been better as coming isith the recommendation of having passed the House last Sell salts, than this one which had no such recommendation. Ile (Mr. S.) could not but look upon this Bill as a forestalment of 'general measure; and it was st ra n ge t h a t t h e Ri g h t H on ., over could not wait six little months to take the sense of the Licuse on the general question.—He was sorry to trespass on the general question, but before he sat down, he must express has hope that many Hon. Members who had supported this measure at first, would, upon consideration, agree in the pro xiety of its postponement, until they came to a vote On the ,general question. The - i uestion, as it now stoodovas not whe •tiser Titus Oates was false or not, whether Charles the Second was a Catholic, or whether the Catholics were unjustly de of their privileges or not, but it was, whether, because they were Lords, they ought to be restored to their privileges . instanter'? But if ever a time should. arise when such securi ties were offered as would be deemed sufficient in the opinion vf his Right ,lion. Friend (Mr. Peel), and would induce him to relax his opposition, then, and 'not, till then, would lie ac code to the concession. . • XL WETHERELL, after some preliminary observations, aaid he would state the grounds on,which he_opposed the Bill, acd he hoped the House would deeM then' such as fell Sped& rally :within the limits of thepresent question. : It was a princi pal ground of objection with him that the N.ight Hon. Mover had thought fit to insulate the particular branch of society, to which the present Bill applied; froth the -aggregate of the Ca. - community.--(Hcar 9,—He thought it :a bad principle aLicli detached a part in this manner from the whole ; and, in a case of general disability; gave' but a partial relief. He would state his. reasons for oposing partial, isolated, and unjust measure, The Right llon.Mover had stated as the foundation of :-:is argument in support of the Bill, that the Act of Charles the :`,4,arind, which excluded Catholic Peers from the House of _Lords, originated in what he (Mr. W.) believed to be a fiction— what he would call the huge lie of Titus Oates, and it was also argued that, supposing the original c au s e was true , i t h a d ceased to exist. Another argument was, that the exclusion of tua. Catholic Peers. from Parliament was not one of the funda eatal principles of the Revolution. He (Mr. W.) was ready to admit that the Impelling cause of the enactment of the 30 Car_, 2, was the popular delirium, the magnus f uror o f t h e nat i on at the time of the Popish plot;. yet, although the depositions of Oates were false, yet that there was then an intention to re-esta bliah Popery on the part of the CoUrt, there was no doubt; for no -sooner was the breath out of the body of Charles, who dared not hitriself avow such tutention,-thana niessage came from the Court of FrAZICe to know what was the force and thought of the Ca- taelie party. It was therefore no reason that, because the mov. • ir.:g cause ceased, the law should be discontinued, because there might be other causes which required , the contiTluance of the law, and with which it ought to be commensurate. As to the a...xument, that the exclusion of the Catholic Peers was not one oc the fundamental principles of the Revolution—if that could be demonstrated, one of the chief grounds of his, opposi t*:an would be removed, wad the man who proved it would have a chance of his humble vote. But he believed it was one th.e revolutionary principles, and he alluded, in support of that opinion, to a letter written in the reign of James the Second, when that Monarch made an attempt to conciliate the Prince and Princess of Orange,—(Hear, hear l)—with a view to stib vart the liberties of the country. The letter was written by pensionary Fogel, who managed the correspondence on the p ar t o; their Highnesses, and was in answer to one of Mr. St ewar t' s , •*rho acted for the King. The Hon. Member then p r o cee d e d ta.read an extract from the letter, which stated that their High. naases were ready to give their concurrence to the repeal of the ems' LaWs against the Catholics, provided that thoSe laws yer+e to remain la full force whereby Catholics were excluded from seats in both Hewes of Parliament, and the Test Act was maintained fOr the preservation of the. Protestant rdigion. The Bill of Rights asserted that the Lords SpitittniTand'Tttinporal were to be Protestant: In correboration df his a:ginner= was the fact that, at -the Revolution, a new CoronationaCtath was framed, by which the Sovereign bound himself to defend the Protestant religion. From the.Reformaeion to the Revolution no such oath had been prescribed. The introduction of that oath at the Revolution was therefore anothee circumstance to prove that it was intended to weave Protestantism into the_ whole of the system established at the P.evolution. Let tic House also consider the language of thnstatute by which the Union with Scotland was effect e d: By th at sta t ute , it was proe. vided, that not only the sixteen Scottish Peers,. but the whole body of the Scottish, Peers, by whom those sixteen were to be chosen,—that the elected, as well as the electors, must be Protestant.. With all his admiration, therefore, for the great talents of the Right H on o ura bl e and; Learned Gentlemen, the Attorney-General for Ireland, he could not allow that admiration to prevent him from expressing his astonishment', that that Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman could for a moment maintain the doctrine,' that the exclusion of Catholics from the House of Peers was not a principle established at the Revolution. The next point to which he wished to advert was the singularitanftlie.proposition to extricate the Catholic Peer alone from the restrictions to which the Catholics genezall were,subject. On the common principle, that-charity begins at home, he should have th o ught th at n - 11 ember of the house of Commons would rather have recommended that the intro duction of Catholic Commoners into the House of Commons should peecede that of Catholic Lords into the House of Peere. He shouhlhave expected a proposition in favour of the plebeian, rather than in favour of- the equestrian order: Why - ware the Catholic Peers to he reintegrated in their lost rights before the Catholic Cele:moms ? There was another great inconsistency in the measure. As the Bill stood. Catholic Lords were-to . go into the House of Peeri without taking any oath ; as the existinglaw stood, no individual could take his seat in the House of Commons without taking the usual oaths. Why this deciehincy 7 Why was the Commoner to be bound by an oath, and the Peer not ? , Why were they not both to be equally res Cored to theirpritileges ? The.stippoiters of this Bill would surely not turn round on their formee opinionseand.maintain, with reference to this point, that there was any difference between the inherent right to legislate which birth gave a Peer, and the eligibility to legislate which' -every one else possessed. He would ask those who formerly, voted for the whole measure of Dearmeipation, whether they would not be guilty of inconsistency in voting for-this particular Bill ? Why were _all the.tests-andaecurities omitted in this Bill which were introduced -in the Bills of 1817 and 1821 ?—. Whad had occurred to render the various oaths, tests, and see comities which were thought necessary then, nrinoccssary now Would it not be inconsistent, therefore, for those who hadtwice voted for qualified and restricted-Emancipation, .nOw• • without any ground whatever for the change, to vote for unquelifled and unrestricted Einah eipation ? In support of this argument, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman recited the various provisions Of security in Mr, Grattan :3 Bill, and asked why they were not , inserted in that before the House? -But it was said there was 'no Popish successor to the Throne at present • and therefore that the securities con s idered nec e s s ary a t th e . Revolution were no longer necessary.. It was argued that as_ the cause had ceased, the effect ought to cease. But what kind of logic was that by which it was contended that because the larger danger was no more, therefore there was no danger ? It was true there was no Popish successor to the Throne; but the disposition of' the Catholics to possess themselves of 'uite power still re mained. There was another view of the subject which it was expedient to Lake. If a Catholic Peer had a right a priori to a seat in Parliament eotwithsthnding his religion, why was not the Monarch to have a right a priori to the Throne, notwith standing his religion ? And yet, by the Bill of Rights, the Crown would drop from the head of the Sovereign of these realms if he were seen at mass. Much stress had been laid by the supporters of the present motion, on the small number of Peers who would, be introduced into Parlia ment by its adoption. The principle, however, was the same, whether the number was large or small ;--and, as to the number, it was by no means insignificant, for there had been frequent instances in which a much smaller number had had considerable influence in the decisions of Parliament. There was no Protestant State on the Continent, from large Austria tessmall Venice, in which the Catholics had not been subject to restriction. Why was Great Britain to be the only Protestant country in Europe in which these guarantees for the preservation of the civil and spiritual rights of the people -were not to be required ? It had been said that the present generation ought not to be alarmed with the old terrors of the Spanish Armada, or of the Plot of Titus. Oates, but th a t they ought to have some new and modern cause of apprehension shewn to them, before they were called upon to be so vigilant. - Those modern grounds of apprehension were not wanting; and in proof of that fact, he instanced the remonstrances of the Con gress held in Germany, in 1786, of all the Ecclesiastical States, at which the Eihnperor presided, against the encroachments of the Pope. It was observed, by: the friendi or the Bill; that Catholic Emancipation. Jiad e been_ advocated by the great men of all political parties—that it had been advocated. by Pitt, by Fox, by Burke, by Sheriden—that it "was one of those causes which as Vireil said— • = •• , • • " MobiMate viget y viresque acquirit eundo." 'But he denied that the present measure was at all similar in its principle to any, which h d heretofiire been prOposed.—lt was a measure for unqualified emancipation; whereas the Mee- I - sures which preceded it haddeeen. for qualified emancipation. After arguing at considerable length to show that there could .be no ground for separating this particular class of the Catholic community from, the other elasses.i the Honourable and Learned Gentleman expressed his regret that, with all his respect for ; the Right Honourable author of the Bill, he could not con scientiously concur in it, and - concluded 'by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill-be reads second time that day six', months---[The Honourable and Learned Gentleman was loud ly cheered during the course and at - the conclusion of his speech.] Mr. WILMOT remarked, that he was desirous of briefly explaining the reasons which induced him . to vote in support 1 of his Right - Hof'. Friend's Bill, because -he . knew that in so voting he acted in opposition to the wishes of a large and re spectable body of his conetititents. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had asked, why the present proposition was sepa ' rated from the question of general emancipation ? Ile did not conceive that he was at all bound to answer that inquiry. All that the House had to inquire was, Whether there was any ground for refusing to the Catholic rs a restoration of their right to sit in Parliament ? The Hon. and Learned Gentle man has also asked, why securities were not required ?'. He (Mr. Wilmot) Would reply, because he could not entertain "any wish for security where ha could not discover any danger.-- The Honourable and Learned, Gentleman, in - the course of his speech, alluded to the Coronation - Oath ; he (Mr. Wilmot) denied that there was any thing in the Coronation Oath which went to restrain the King from giving his sanction to an Act of the other branches of the Legislature for the relief of his - Catholic subjects. i By such an Act, the Catholics would be raised to their proper station—that •of freemen,- without any danger to the Protestant Church. It was curious to observe how the question was now argued against the Catholics ; no one now attempted to say that the Catholics of the present day were the same in prejudice and in opinion with the Catholics of former, times, but it was said that the ,continuance of the Catholic disabilities was essential to the Protestant Church.; he, however, would maintain that the Constitution of this coun try, founded as it was upon the real principles of-freedom, and intended for the common good 'and liberties of all, would be vindicated, not injured or endangered by. the admission of the Catholics to a sharge of its privileges and its rights. It was very little to the purpose to refer to former times ; he cared not what were the views of Charles or of James ; he knew now that there was no longer apretender; that whatever danger might have been formerly apprehended, nolonger remained ; and that, there, fore, the Catholics ought to be emancipated. It was in vain for Gentlemen to say that the Legislature had gone far enough, they had gone far indeed—too far to stop. The Learned Gentleman had talked of anomalies in the Bill, but what greater anomaly—what more striking or more dangerous than that which the present state of the Catholic Body prnsented ? The dangers apprehended by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman appeared to be visionary. Could any man-now sup.: pose that the Papal Power would attempt to exercise that in fluence in Civil Government which it formerly assumed to do? Was it to be supposed, that if seven or eight Peers ere ad : mitred to the other House of Parliament, that. they would 're main perpetually united-,-deterinined on one common purpose, and that purpose the overthrow of the Constitution ? The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had said, that the Catho lic Commons would have cause to feel discontented at the ree storation to the Catholic Peers of their undoubted rights ; but that was a feeling which the Catholics would reject with dis dain ; they would feel not discontent, but pride at the mea sure ;it would take no right from them—it would not delay the discussion of their claims—it would not prevent the Parliament from considering and finally adjusting the great question of Emancipation, founded, as it must be, on those securities which were necessary, because required by the country. Dif ferenti he confessed, was his notion of security. The security he looked to was a sympathy between the Catholics and the Protestants--a unionof the conntriesfounded upon equal rights, that security was much more likely to be lasting than any spe cies of security founded upon technical points, which, after all, were likely to prove impede& and insufficient. He would sup port the present Bill, because he was convinced that it was a proper measure—because he believed that it would conciliate the people of Ireland—apeople for whose loyalty he felt respect, and for whose sufferings he felt compassion; and lastly, because it would restore to a noble and illtistrious order of men the rights which their ancestors possessed, and which they had never forfeited by clime or dhshoriour. He retolleeted well, dur ir.g discusslm on this question which took place in the other House of Parliament, about eight-yeara - ago, having seen ,a NOble'Lorch with his son, a lad `abbut'tivelve years of age, standing at the bay of the House- of Lords. The Nobleman to whcp.)ne 41luded .turned to A f4end .of his, arid " The. • ithtUlt - of - thienightii diScusiion Will 'determine me whether 1 :eneourar,e Pr:repress_ the sp irit emtlation in this . boy's t•iT, -hear ( - 111 r. W.) knew riot what..cdurse thaenibletnantobk with respect to the education of his child— Whet, llo l.-in I;inznznts• of:despair; he laboured tO'repreAs in his , ; m4l‘.4.P'Ve,l7,,nableand aspiring thought, the better to fit him for a:deg - faded state, in,a couAtry where.his ancestors possened power ahti honour ; .butthis he Rfiew,.that it was un worthy in that liaise to preserve laws which went' to degrade all that - was noble ..and to stigain honourable. minds the, desire arid the - fibpe of ierving their Country; - Neither in a political norreligious point of view Was-there any real objection to the measure ; he, wetthl,therefore invoke than,. in the spirit of the Constitution, to give freedoM to those , Nho never forfeited their rights .; sand in tie spint - cf te/igioti, to dci . unto others as they would wish they should do unto them. -, . .- , Mr. FOSTER. said, that until" the penal lays were totally repealed, the pcicc and tranquillity, of lieland would,never be rest:zed. But it repealing those lawa, the Parliam e nt should take care to cart.: the mind of the country with them_ He de nied that the mini of the Protestants was with the, present mea sure. He wouldsupport the general measure ; but he thOught at - oresent that the country was taken by surprise ; that the . cuestion of seenr;ties was evaded. He would therefore vote against the Bill. - Dz. PHILLIMORE said, that , with respect to securities, however the Houle might feel-it necessary to impose securities With respeat to the Catholics at large, he did not see' how they were called for or necessary here: In his mind the cases were very different. (In thezeneral - question they were to legislate for the Catholic pspelauon at large.. They were to legislate for the people of But here the objects werebefore them. The Bill went oily to place in the House of .Lords seven or eight Catholic Pecis--men' who were knoWn to them all. Who would say that thsie Noblemen were so dangerous in any. way as to render itnetessary for that - lids:se to enact measures of security or restrahst respdeting them ? 'The names of every one of those-Noble Persons were known to the Houee- e -they were all persons who were ae.scended from the moareillustrious of the Nobles of this - land-s:men who in their high trust bad ever acquitted themselves With honour, • with fidelity to the Crown, and advantage to the .county.. Heie the lion. and Learned Member entered into an historical' detail of the con; atict of- the Catholic N6bility in former times. When a Bill was sent down from that House to exclude the.,Protestant Bishops. from the Lot*, lite -Catholic Noblea,' - whstelliiii - sit in Parliament, were foremost in opposing. that measure. The Ci vil Wars succeeded. Of 300 Nobles who fell in that unhappy struggle, 190 were Roman Catholics.—ln the time of Eliza beth, holies were entrusted by that able and politic Princess . with plates of the -greatest power. Howard of Effingham, catholic Nobleman, was selected to command as High Ad miral the fleet fitted out to oppose the Spanish Armada—other Catholics held places ,of sdarcely inferior trust—and none of them were ever forgetful ,of their duty to their Sovereign or their country. The Hon. and Learned Member next alluded to the case of Lord Strafford, and read an affecting account of the trial given by Mr. Evelyn, who witnessed the whole of the proceedings. •Mr. Evelyn indignantly complained that the life of a virtuous and aged nobleman should have been taken away upon the evidence of a witness, whose testimony, with impar tial men, would not be considered sufficient to hang a dog.— When it was said that the Catholic Peers would act with hosti lity towards the Church of England, what proof of this had they from experience ? When the Bill was - agitated in the House of Peers in the reign of Charles the First, to exclude the Bishops, how did the Catholic Peers vote ?. How did the ances tor of the Duke of Norfolk vote on that occasion ? - What greater possible danger could be apprehended from Catholic Peers than trom Peers denying the divinity of our Saviour, or the doctrine of the atonement, or professing Presbyterianism—a doctrine much more hostile to the Church of England in many respects than Catholicism, and under which the Church had actually been trampled under foot? As a measure of retributive justice and Christian charity, they were called on to peas the Bill.. (Hoar, hear.) . Mr. W. COURTENAY said, that the true question for the House to consider was, whether at the present moment it was fit to pursue the same course of legislation as had been deem ed expedient at the time of the exclusion of the Catholic, Peers. • Without entering into. any hi s torical d eta il s a l rea d y referred ',to, he might say, that that system of policy had been applied to the particular events of the time. The Hon. Member then examined the act of exclusion, and other statutes its paH mater-ia, such as that against the iretender, in order to show that - though it was a principle-of the revolution of 51638 to secure a Protestant Ring and a Protestant succession, no importance had been attached, to the point whether the Les gislature shoUld be Protestant. If any - danger existed formerly, none existed now. He rejoiced to see a system of greater tole. ration prevail_ among all classes, and ale Annual Indemnity /3111 was purposely passed to enable Dissenters of all denomi nations to sit and vote in Parliament. The army and navy had been opened to Roman Catholics: their Peers might fill the most exalted ranks, and enjoy all the advantages of promo tione In short, they . were intrusted by law with every species of power that .might be dangerous, yet refused admittance • within the Walls of Parliament.where. they would be Subject to control,. Surely_ this .was a most. strange anomaly.—(Hear, hear, bear l) —Looking at the presentestate of Ireland, it was .11103tSimportant that . this -Bill_ should be passed—that - these who hail hitherto been most unjustly excluded from the .benefits oftbe.constitution might feel a common interest, an d unite in.a common cause. Tie . friends of harmony and tran quillity mustbe - the friends of this Bill. He felt a strongper suasion that the great and general measure was silently making progress toWards ultimate success; and he conjured Gentlemen Who had not voted, or who having voted still doubted, to con sider whether the present was 'not the precise moment when such a gracious concession ought, for the general welfare, to be made. Mr, W. PEEL did not believe that the.supporters of the Bill on the previous night were aware of the consequences that would ensue if it were passed into a law. The question was not mere ly whether six or eight Catholic Peers of high character should be admitted into the other House; for if .this 'partial mea sure were. successful, ere long. the Catholic-Commoners would be introduced into this House, and there would then he no ma, son why other sects should be excluded. What, then, became of the security of the Protestant Church ?—(Hear !)--R had been said that-the majority of the inhabitants of Ireland were in favour of the measure : perhaps so ; but if -it were possible to poll the whole population.of the three kingdoms, the numbers would be-greatly against any concession. He could not tell how any man who hoped for tranquillity.conld support such a`pro - - position: If the present were the time to admit Catholic Peers, why was it not the time to admit Catholic commoners; andif so, why had not the Right Hon. Gent. brought forward the general question? Mid fee Mr. P. been a Catholic Peer, he should have objected to the introduction of the separate question, and would not have aceepted a bobn that was not given to all those who were of the same-persuasion. He should be- glad to learn why - this question was now agitated ? Its most sanguine friends could not hope that it would pass into a bilY.--(" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition- -Sitieo e -eHe was satisfied that it could not— (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial side);--and it was only casting an invidious task upon the, House of Peers to require them to throw it out.—(Much cheering from both sides.)- Mr. W Y.NN - Observed, that though the Hon. Member for Louth (Mr, Foster) had qualified his declaration of the necessity that the claims- of the Catholics - should be conceded e by saying that the Protestant mind was not prepared for it, yet .he hoped-that deciaratiOn would eee far to . produce the conviction that wes-desireee The concession of the Catholic Claims was of great importance eejeeland, not only in itself, but-- as blending with all other measures; for without it every act of conciliation would lose its beneficial influence, and every measure of coer cion with greater severity. Because the whole measure could not be carried, he should not therefore reiect any part of it; and though 'he concurred at the time in the abandonment 'of the Bill of. 1813, because the clause admitting Catholics to the /lame of Commons had been struck out, he now consi dered- it -an act rather of indignation than of prudence. It was said by the -Hon. Gentleman who, spoke last, that if Catholits were admitted to Parliament, other Dissenters could not be ex— cluded:- Why other Dissenters were not excluded—(llear; hear !), which formed a strong argument for the admission of Catholics--(Hear !)—The Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wetherell) had said, that if the seven Catholic Peers were lo be admitted to Parliament, the prohibition under which the King was placed of not marrying a Catholic must be repealed. But there was no parity in the cases. Six or seven Catholic Lords would be controled by the general Protestant voice of 300 other Peers, hut the King was the sole depositor of the executive ' power. It was, however, objected that the King might create any number, even amajority, of Catholic Peers. Now, really, if they supposed that public opinion had- no force to prevent such a measure, they might prove the necessity of a qualifica tion of property for the House of Peers. The King, it might be said, when he wished to carry any measure, might create the whole of a regiment of Foot Guards Peers, and march them in a body to give their votes. There was not one of the powers of the Constitution that was not liable to the imputation of this possibility orextreme abuse. There had now elapsed 2DO years since the Reformation, for half of which time the Catholic Peers had sat and voted in the House of Peers, in infinitely greater numbers than they could at present; and if in that time they had been dangerous, or if it could be conceived. that at any time during the last 80 years they would have been likely to have given their votes in a manner dangerous to the Consti tution, lie would say there was a case made out far securities. The condition of- the Catholics in society was now changed. They were till Istely aiieees in their native lend.—they lived s' a separate and a distinct class, and no one visited a Catholic, who .was not. considered as almost a Papist. . They were now: mingled with the mass of society, and Pound together by no common notions in points of policy and Government. Their .admission to all the privileges.of other subjects would be per fectly safe and desirable, but he should support the smallest measure of concession, .propoied as pro tanto, an act of justice and policy. Mr..R. MARTIN began by complimenting the Honourable Member for Oxford (Mr. Wetnerell) for the intrepid manner in. which he had defended the cause he had espoused. He looked upon him as one of the 1-loriLatti.—(Laughter.)—He looked upon him as only one of the ilori-atti.--(Much laugh ter—some Members intimated to Mr. Martin that he had mispronounced the word.) If he had mis-pronounced it, he was sorry for it, but it was not his fault.—( Hear, and laughter.) —He was not surprised at the success that had attended the proposition of the Right Honourable Member for Liverpool : the gigantic powers - 0i his eloquence, and the force of his rea soning; must of course produce a great effect upon the opi nions of Members. Deprived of that support, it would not have succeeded. But he had no doubt - that the measure would be successful in that House, well warranted as it was by facts, and strongly enforced as it would be by the Right Hon. Gen tleman.—(?lear, hear !) Mr. PEEL said, that after tile full measure of indulgence which he had experienced from the House, when he had the difficult task of following his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning), it was not his intention then to trespass_ on their attention longer than for a very few minutes. He rose rather for the purpose of correcting some misconstructions from which he had suffered when he had last had the honour of addressing them on that Subject, without the opportunity of disclaiming them, than to prolong the discusSion. Before he proceeded to address him self to those points, however; he tiro-hid refer the argument upon which the Hon. Member for Galway chiefly relied, and deprive him at once of any authority hethought he derived from SirW. Blackstone. Arid he must beg of that Hon. Member not to be content for the future with reading only one page of that learned writer's works; and if he would not read the-whole work, at least to read a chapter through. Had he done that in the pre sent case, he would have found, that when'Mr. Justice Black stone spoke of granting further favour to the Catholics, it was confined solely to the execution of the penal laws.---( Hear !)-1f then he looked at the Act of 1793, he would find that all that 1 Blackstone contended should be granted to the Catholics, was conceded to them by that Act, which was an Act 'of penal re-1 Taxation. And if it were possible to summon the dead, accord ing to the Hon. Member's fancy, and that Learned Judge were tcavote on this. question with the Hon. Member for Galway, he (Mr. Peel) would send for the first volume of his work, and she* him that he would give a vote inconsistent with his own declared principles and opinions. He would turn to . that part wherehe said in terms, that one of the great bill warks of our Constitution was the Act which excluded the 'RoMan Catholics from sitting in Parliament.—(Hear, hear!)— That opinion 'was not upon the penal exclusion s of the Catho lics, but to their exclusion from the Legislature.—(Hear !)--He then proceeded to touch upon the point for which lie princi pally rose. He did understand his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning), at the.conclusion of that able and beautiful speech by which he introduced this measure on a late evening, to speak something to the following effect;—" I give you warn ing, that if on thia subject 370 u oppose my argument, by enter ing into discussion upon the general measure, I shall consider .this particular question as carried." Now he (Mr. Peel) did meet the question as his Right Hon. Friend wished that he should—he did not argue the general, but confined himself to the particular measure introduced by his Right Hon. Friend; and after so doing he certainlo did not expect that he should be taunted in the reply, with not having met the question on the grounds of justice and liberality. ( Hear!) H e h ad said that whilst he opposed the partial measure, he made it no part of his opposi tion to the general question. Not that he would allow any one` who might vote with him to suppose that the rejection of this measure would in any degree tend to diminish his opposition to the general, when that came to be discussed by the House. He admitted, that from the reception this Bill met with, he could not expect so much opposition to the general measure.. When that came forward it might be carried; but it did not follow because he held that opinion he should at all diminish his oppo sition to it. There might be overwhelming majorities, but he could not retrograde. It was the beauty of our Constitution that we were able to retain our opinions to the last, whatever they might be met by. But upon this he must insist, that if the general measure were likely to be carried, when next brought forward, the arguments in favour' of this partial one were, pro tanto, weakened. In proportion as this was pro , bable, he deprecated this partial Bill. The outline of the argument upon which he relied to substantiate this was, that, supposing the House, taking - a different view of this question than he did, should determine- upon general prin ciples to remove .the disabilities -under which the Catholics la boured, he would then have - inother duty, distinct from op. posing that determination, to_perform.--(Hear !)—That duty would be to create as little evil by the discussion as possible; • and to make the arrangement, into which he assumed the House to: be willing to enter, as complete . as possible.—(Hear !)-- That would clearly be his interest in such a posture of affairs, and therefore it wes t _ the. House would perceive, he was fully justified in deprecating this partial agitation of the question.- - And he must:here say, that it was perfectly fair on his part to unite with him on the present occasion those who might not agree *with him upon the general- question; and if they thought that this measure was likely to prejudice the general:question, as respected the securities which ought to accompany any ex tension of power to the Catholics, he had a right to appeal to them - to' support hini and reject the present Bill. He did not object to this merely because it was a partial measure.— He had said last Session that he was ready to assent to a Bill whieh should peen to the Catholics the av e nu e s to m an y pl aces Of profit, , and indeed to all except the Bench. The reason of his objection to this measure was, that it was partial in its operation but general in principle, and that he repeated w as the ground of his olpection, and not merely because it w as a partial measure. I it were right that disabilities should be taken off six dr seven Catholic Peers, they ought to - be taken off the whole body of -the same persuasion. Here he must ob serve, that it was not a fair way of . arguing the question, to argue it upon individual - merits, and to say, " Look at the Duke of Norfolk, Lords Arundel and Clifford ; look at the characters of these men, and say if you have any thing to fear by removing their disabilities." Would not any one in posses sion of his ordinary senses see that this was full of sophistry ? The question was not, whether six or seven individuals should become privileged; but whether one part of 'the Legislature should be endowed with a power which the other did- not pos sess. The question was, whether the House of Peers should have the . power to put a certain number of Catholic Peers into their body-, and that the Commons should not. His Learned Friend (Dr. Phillimore) said, that the reason why he thought they ought to vote for the removal of the disabilities from the Catholic Peers first was, that those disabilities were imposed upon them last. If that argument was good for any thing it was 'to - remove the same disabilities from the Throne.—(Hear, hear !)—The argument was good for nothing else, for the last quarter upon which their disabilities were placed was the Throne. Another argument, used by the Learned Civilian, was in the same predicament, --instead of supporting, it oppo sed his cause. He referred to the favour shewn by Queen Elizabeth to Catholic Peers, in allowing them to remain in the posseSsion of their hereditary right as Peers, and also in her employment of the Marquis of Winchester as Treasurer. If this argument went to shew any thing, it went to spew that they ought to follow the example of Elizabeth, and not only remove the disability to sit in the House of Peers, but also to take of flee. • If they were to give to the Catholic Peers that influence over the House of Peers which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) possessed in that House, surely it became them seri ously to consider whether they ought not also to consider whe ther,they should not -give power to the Crown to employ their talents in office. The securities had not been touched upon in the last discussion,' _ and indeed that subject had better have been left alone than mentioned in the slighting way in which it had been Noticed that night. • It was now plain that the object of this -partial measure was to evade the subject Of securities altogether. They were now told that it was m e r e ly to calm certain ancient worn-out bigotted fears of the bigotted Proteatants, that securities were even thought of.---(Hear !) Their security was to be the concession of this very power, and in proportion to its amount was their security great. WThat answer would they meet with next Session, • when they asked for securities ? When the Catholic Commons demanded ad misSion to their body, and quoted this concession of power to Catholic Peers without any security of any kind, would it not at the least be invidious to ask them for securities? Their l opponents could then tell them, 'referring to this Act, that at this 'time they gave distinct notice that they regarded se curity as nothing important. - But with regard to th e Bill itself, its comprehensive title was no part 'of its recommen dation. There was, however, one point about it which, ma- nage as he could, _his Right Honourable Friend would find it extremely difficult to get over. This was, . that the Bill was. neither more • nor, .less than - a measure to relieve the House of Peeis from the necessity . Of taking the Oath of Supremacy. Now, as far as authority went in favour of this Oath, he had a host in support of it. All those on the other side of the question, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. Pitt, would never have parted with this security._ Indeed the Bill of last Session,_ not content with that oath, ac tually introduced another Oath of Supremacy. On this part of the measure he appealed to all those gentlemen in that -House who usually stood forward. on constitutional questions. He re minded them that the great Leaders of the Revoltition of 1688 actually recognized - and insisted on that oath in the Bill • of Rights, the great Charter by which William accepted the Throne. This was enacted to 'be permanently _ and for ever the law of this realm. It came then to this impor.ant question, whether the Haute of Peers was to he exempted from the Oath of Supremacy, and the House .of Commons net? There was one other objection in the Bill. It stated, as the :ground of the Act, that the Act of the 30th of Charles H.• was enacted for causes and circumstances, which now no longer existed, — His Right Hon. Friend the other night said, that, the Lords were to be considered as in durance at the time of Passing this Act, from the sw a y h e ld ov e r t h eir minds by the falsehoods of Titus Oates. He (Mr. Peel) had met that argument, by admitting the f a l se h oo d o f Titus Oates; e but he main tamed that other causes existed to warrant, and which, in fact, did cause the passing of this Bill. fiat, supposing they did no longer exist, were they to part with guards, because the causes and circumstances which called them forth were gone? Yes, they must part with same of, flee best se curities of the Constitution.' The ConStittition never we's formed a priori ..L.(Hear , hear I)—Persons 'did notenotemeet and frame securities beforehand. But were they ; thetefere, to throw down the firmest bulwarks of their liberties because_ the causes and circumstances which dictated thein.' ware gone?-- Was he bound to shew the state of Mind - tinder which Henry the. Eighth did certain acts—why he eneyear Wrote a book— " adversus Martinum Lutheranz," and the next was a song opponent of the Romish Church ? The causes which gave rise to the Septennial Act was gone . B ut i f that argument was a sound one, what became of the exclusion of Catholics from the Throne? Did the causes for that part of the law exist now there any fears of a Catholic successor ? Why then were they to continue to restrict a Monarch from the right anti privilege of the meanest of his subjects to cause - for the prirener of his bed' and fortunes, the being that pleased hie -taste ? Fie opposed this Bill, because he thought it Would lead to the success of the general measure; because he thought - the carrying of thi s p a rtial measure would lead to th e abandonment Of the securities. 12t him, however, guard the House against suppOsing that he opt posed it because it was partial, or that ha wished to entrap one vote under the idea that he would eeiLe4e. the general mea sure less strongly when it came. He oppeieci it not only be cause he was a friend to the Motareliy, .but because he vhls equally a friend to the democracy ; and he, irriploredehoee who stood forward for the privileges of the people, to consider whether it was decent orpropee that :116; should originate sueli t h l e ore ß d ep th r e e m sen t t o a c ti o v n e s s ia G e f r itheheitilleoerpilte,wassizocouind saismteen4tsuthre they,ileimplored come forward to remove - disabilities from the House of Peers, which they did not remove from the ComMors.—afear, leen !i • , assist the genteel measure. Next Sission, it was intended to bring forward the whole question of civil di abilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. Then they would hear from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett) that there were rights inherent in every citizen. If So; ;then how could they consent to exclude the Commons ? Let them only postpone it for four months, and then they would not be chargeable with having abandoned What appeared to him to be the exclusive &it/ of the Houee of Representatives.—(Loud and long Cheering.) : Mr. WILMOT explained. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY and Mr. CANNING rose at the same time, but the latter gave way. The Noble Lord assured his Right Hon. Friend that he would not long detain the House. He merely wished to advert to the genet's.' ground of argument a ssume d i n opposing this Bill. This ap peared to be, that as they were not prepared for the general measure, they could not consistently consent to a partial one . For his own part, he had from the beginning said, since this measure was first put in agitation, that there was a much greater tendency in the mind s of the people towards it. But in proportion as he felt that to be the case, he had wished' not to harrass their minds on the subject, and he thought there was a more reasonable chance of its success, when brought forward at intervals, rather than year after year.- - He always considered that the real question to be resolved 0 0 was, the amount of danger to which they 'became exposed by removing the disabilities under which the Catholics laboured- As to securities, he was one who had always thought that they should be a component part of any measure for that purpose' but he always wished to make them of that nature as shan't' best fall in with the prejudices of the partie.s. But that branch of the questibn did not affect this measure. All that was asked 'on the present occasion was, to permit this partial measure tie pass before the general measure connected with the admission of the Catholics to the higher offides of the State, and the Re presentation? was brought forward upon reasonable securities' If the question turned upon the O a th of Supremacy, and if his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel) would give oP his opposition upon that Oath being part of the thought there Would be no ditlicaltY in coming to an under" standing. He had no h es it a tio n i n say i ng t h at t h e w hole of the Roman Catholics would be content to take the Oath 0 , Supremacy at present on the faith of our laws. With re ference to the extent of danger incu rre d, i t appe a re d t h at t h ere w as ground to apprehend the addition of no more than seven, eight, or nine Members in that Ho use . If h e cou ld think that ther e was any,danger to the State, the Constitution, or the Eccie siastieal Power, he would stand on a rock in his oppositic e sii ,Nor could he admit that it was any argument in favour of WI measure, that the original Act of Exclusion was an act o f in" justice. They were not there to administer justice, but to up' hold the Constitution in Church and State. They would come better to the trial of the question next year, having first ascer tained the feeling upon this partial measure. He therefes oli e , thinking there were advantages in mo v i ng the partial que st ; to this year, although not the general one, gave hi s oppor the Bill. Frien d Mr. CANNING began by assuring his Right Hon. re . (Mr. Peel) that in nothing he had said, did he int e nd to rep e sent that he had unfairly met th e q ues ti on . O n t h e contrary' according to his feeling, he had never enco untere d a fairer an tagonist. The Right Hon. Gentl e m an t h en procee d e d CO s ee a review of the history of th e P ar li amentary contests fo r eese Cs ' tholic Emancipation. The House was first induced to enter''_ taro favourably a measure of the kind in 1813, u pon a Re _ other lution moved by him. On that o ccas i on , h owever , the oa House did not concur with it. In the following year the J.TI . was thrown up by himself and his friends, on account of the loss of one particular clause. B u t th e leading opponents to the measure of that day offered them all sorts of partial measuce t t but they would accept none. Last year the subject was brotifq. forward by the stupendous abilities of hi s Ri g h t Hon. Frier (Mr. Plunket.) It passed that House, but was re j e cted by.u_ i House of Peers, and the question no w was , w h et h er they or had not adopted the best means of overcoming the oyPt, tion of that House ? One consid era bl e p ar t o f t h e genera l Dr; sure had been brought forward and amended'in the other Hod s , He meant.the removal of the disabilties from the Catholic sew Biers and sailors of the Army and Navy. Thus it seemed th, ",. e Peers had a liking for partial measures. It c o u ld hot " objected by that House that they sho u ld a d o p t mea ns e , en suit able to the taste of the oth er H ouse i n t hi s respect. li e , measure was free from all those remote and undefina objections which ingenuity had discovered, to object to::: its predecessors. Jt was not an innovation, but a rest o 7 o Lion of ancient practice, and if it tou c h e d th e . Lords it Irs' et e all reverence. It was offering that to then which they ect"'„, not of themselves have collie forward with to the exclusion the Commons. Was it not of importance that th e y shotile!pf o w ee a view to the shape of any measur e t o ascertain the objecum:Te it? It was the interminable - principle which must succeed. o e t , there was a disposition to concede any thi ng , if wa s aie ent impossible upon such a question to withhold concession. House and the other branch of the Constitution ,could not co! , cede upon any question with more satisfaction than upon__ question which must promote the integrity or the leeerage ll 'i e . Could they conceive any thing m ore lik e ly to l ea d to si t i ne e essence than the measure before the H ouse ? Th e y had tee allowed Peers for a century to sit in Parliament, but the cti e of exclusion no longer existed. The Ho use Was . not called upon to restore a franchise, but to restore to in d eed terity the rights of their ancestors. H e d en i e d that l 3 n . in the boon he contended for would oblige them to. to cede the admission. of Catholics to oth er r i g ht s . There , t o nothing in this concession which co u ld f orce Parliarnell eece make others. Did the admi ss ion of th e C at h o li cs to pro tion in_ the navy and army of the country sanction other ee e , e , cessions ? He might ' ask at the s ame t ime , w h e ther tt. e .7, nothing to create that anomaly ? The son of the Catholic bleman, by honourable ardour and g lo w i ng ambition, eight `,o nothing come a popular. general at the h ea d o f th e arm y. Be ot sit give advice to his Sovereign in the closet, yet he could I ,, erity in the Senate, which had given him the exercise of alitnu Etee . more dangerous than any Parliamentary power. The' arse, maly would be removed by the measure before the nu" ee and, upon a clear view of it, all the hostility must fall to?2,le pound. The measure was founded in justice, and not a a t se individual could consider the exclusion of the Catholics % us e present day a case of justice. None could say that the... Gee no which led to their exclusion in 1688 now existed. It b a d longer the means of excluding a Popish succession., He fb r " not heard it said that there was the least shade of 3 ,1 , eaistice e a. their exclueion. His Right H onoura bl e Friend hot it is said, liad not. vitiated the Reformation, which I?7_s r e n g o ot t p h ri s n ta c h ip d l i e ng sh v o b u s l t d ru n c o ti t o b n e . aTbhueeeden,maintyd of f a H t ietnwryoutlhele_tErili! to flow from his reign. The great men of the Revolu.tiol.e still anxious to preserve Protestantism. This mietu w ho gent in point of manning leht it was obvious that tin - w ith brought about the Revolution were as much imPri7/7resenc what was due to the Catholics as a ny could be at t day. They had, however, other dangers to guard N i g ee . There was, perhaps, a necessity to control a part)'„ w e e u ceet ibio - deavoured to seize the Government. The Right rir e e t her to skew to Member called upon all who opposed the Bill was danger in passing the Bill. He did not welt e r e ehis produce a Popish Monarch, ready to alter the rehr*L a gere subjects ; but wheceoulcl they not shew some htlit e l e - ;761 some scanty Portion of danger, which could by pos- r w' eou be low the passing of such a Bill ? If any ellng_ s e ee n o the. *hewn, he would most willingly sit down and Am'