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

lie exiwaieney. Either wny he might contend,
eriposseraii plaid, were there no other ground,
►hat if the exclusion of the Duke of York did
not justify this extinction of hirth.►igltt io
the Peerr, or if it did, and the reason,
lissinely, exclusion of the Duke of York bed

erased—either way the contilouance of the dis-
abilities was oppressive, for which there were no
reasons left either of state or policy. Though the
cause was correct, • pretext WI, not wanting.
• The Bill which, if carried, would have only excluded
two or three Coholico from the Lower House, was
sent down by the Lords and not passed. Theo
sprang up the Popish plot—the proceedings upon
which were well known, and which Hume had
-desenbed no n method invented to reconcile and at.
tacit the minds of the people to the courses which
tire party were then pnrosoling. And now as they
were referred so frequently to the wisdom of former
Parliaments—reenring 100 years back to the pro.
ceedingo of the Cernmions in this reign, he would
ask, if the Act br 7678 was passed under those
desirable eircum.tances of deliberation, calm-
new, and cireumspection, which they might
be inclined, wohout inquirb to attribute to
as intimetant a proceeding ? The Parliament met
' October, and the Popish Plot was then
slightly glanced at in the Royal Speech. The
Commons were tint disposed to take the hint so
slightly. They sent for witnesses, and examined
them themselves from day to doy, relieving the
tedfam of the intervals by the issuing of warrants
• for the oppreheission of a considerable crowd of
'persons, among whom were six Catholic Peers.—
The Bill progressed mein time one stage a day,
as rapidly as a turnpike Bill, and urged with more
impetuosity to the end of its journey. it was
sent with equal haste up to the Lord,. Bat this
was not the only measure adopted—an order was
sent to the Chief Justice to issue his warrants for
the apprehension of the Catholic Peers. The
Common& inight have been wire. and deliherote, and
forbearing in theii course—what were the Peers ?
Before thee coati:J.(4one to entertain the Bill, one.
third of the. 'wenn, •implicated in the plot were
swept away, by way of preliminary to the discussion.
The Lords, however,did not proceed so fast with the
Bill. The Cononsonisent continually to know what
delayed it. At loot II come down, excluding the
Catholic Peers, bortalliempting the Duke of York.
He hod no dotibellillt Ike promoters of the Bill in.
tended the operatiatilto 'be only temporary, in order
to reach the Duke of York, and had they been
present this day. would have been mach more eager
for the repeal. Referring to the Bills of 1673 and 78,
he fuuhcrtitet the Bill, went to disqualify Peers from
exercising their right, except they took certain
oath., the penalty being forfeiture among others.—
To this there was a protest entered in the House
of Lords, objecting its the Bill in ixogrees. because
the right of sitting and' voting in Parliament are
by birth inherent end insepsrshk from the persons
mid rights of Peers, and cannot be taken except
with the loss, *lmo conviction. of their estates and
lives. There was an order of the House which passed
unanimously to quiet thetears of those who dreaded
that the exercise of their privileges would erase,
and it was genital'r that this very order remained
upon their Journals at this very day. It declared
that no Peer should he prevented from sitting or
voting by the tender of any oath, with or without
penalties, or *hoard he subjected to any coercion
on account of his refusal to take any such oath.
Such was the order agreed to three years before the
parsing of the Bill, which had rewound in force
till this day. He did nut conteod that a measure
of either Honer of Porliament was impregnable to,
or was incapable of heing regulated by the general
law of the land. But the argument was, that the
Peers were in the calm and deliberate exercise of
their faculties, and were resisting encroachment
on their privileges when they put this record moon
their Journals—and in assenting to the Bill of 1678,
they were actuated by the fear waif dismay of the
moment, and the alarm out of the House in-
sured their compliance, lest they should be sus-
pected of enmity to the person of the King and to
the Constitntion. Even that, however, would not
account for the order or the bleach of it by agreeing
to the Bill subsequently. The Right Hon. Gent.
went on toargue that the Peers had taken the cootie
with respect to their privileges which had been
subsequently taken on the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, with a view to the resumption. on the
recurrence of safety and tranquililty. He then pro-
ceeded to criticise the Act itself, which, in the for-
mation. was by no means so happy as it was supposed
to be, refershly to the Constitution.) The preamble
was so clumsy I iviece of legislation, that in these days
of overwhelming legislation it could scarcely have
been equalled. " Forssainch as there have been
made and eructed divers good laws for preventing
the increase and dangers of Popery, and of late
free access had been gained by Popish recusants to
the Court and presence of his Majesty, by resaon
of their enjoying the liberty of sitting and voting
in Parliament.' Then proceed the enactments ex-
cluding tire Popish Peers and Commoner, from
Parliament. The first related only to the Lords,
to prevent their access to the Court. The second
was 'MOSCOW in terms—that which was said to hap.
pen of late, was in fact am ancient privilege. The
third' branch was not more wise, coofountling the
case of Peers and Commoners, as if both had the
same right to sit and vote in Parliament. The
Bill, however, effected the expulsiuu of the
Peers from Parliametit. But how came it, if
this were really one of the bulwarks of the con-
stitution, that the legislators overlooked the expul-
sion from the Court f And how were they then to
reconcile the argument to which he had before ad.
vetted, that the Commons would not legislate in
reinsert to the Hnue of Lords only? The 30th
of Charles 11. excluded ult. Popish recusants Irons
the Court and Parliament. What did the repealing
Act of 1791 do ? It restored the privilege to
Peers alone—allowing them to go into the presence
of the Krug. He then compared the texture of the
oath of supremacy adopted into the Test Act, with
the oath required to be taken by Catholic Peer, by
the Act of 1791. The Arat required theta to *wear
" that no state or potentate, &c. bath or ought to
loses any jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical:"
the penalties for not taking which wpm exclusion
•nd forfeiture. The Act of 179 t required
them to ditown any temporal or civil audio.
city or jurisdiction exercised within the realm
by any foreign Prince, State, or Potentate. Ile
did not had fault with the terms of this oath.

MIIINII