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

NOTTINGHAM PETITION.

Lord HOLLAND held a petition from a Corporation, dis-
tinguished at all times for its attachment to the civil and reli-
gious Constitution of the country, 'the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Common Council of the Town of Nottingham, in favour of the
Catholic Peers' Bill. They prayed for the removal of those,
restrictive laws on the Catholics which assumed the character'of
pains and penalties.rand which ought to be no longer continued,
now that the danger which they had been created to repress no •
longer existed. A few days ago a Noble Duke had said,
whilst presenting a petition from the same part of the country,
that a feverish feeling prevailed in that quarter against the
Bill. Now this Corporation had , frequently been branded
with too easy a compliance with popular prejudices. The
present -Petition, therefore, either showed that it had spirit
enough to go against those prejudices, or that the Noble Duke •
had. been most grossly misinformed as to their existence.
The Noble ford- then moved that the -Petition be read at full
length—Agreed to. - •
, The petition was then read, and laid on -the 'table. •
Lord COMBERMERE presented a•petition from Horsham,-
in the County of Sussex, against the Catholic Bill.—Laid on
the table. - • • "
. The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from the
Parish of Clerkenwell, in favour of the Bill.
Sir J. ORM:IAA' and, others brought up several Private Bills
from the Commons, which were read a first time. . • • •
The Marquis of BUTE preAented a petition from the Owners
of Land at Cardiff against the Importation of Corn Laws
Amendinent Bill.—Lard on the table.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a great number
Of petitions, chiefly from Dissenters, in various places and
towns in the counties-of Surrey, Kent, and Sussex, [the im-
mense pressure • and agitation of the crowd below the Bar,
rendered it impossible to hear the names, and indeed much
of the . Speeches -that ensued,' . against the Catholic Peery'
Bill. .

Lord GREY wished to be informed, whether thoge petitions
had been agreed to at' public meetings, or privately circulated
for signatures ?
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY was understood to say, that;,,
he could not tell, as they hadbut just been put in his hands.
Lord GREY had put the iluestion, in order that the true
character of the Petitions 'might be ascertained, and to what de-
gree of credit they were entitled.
Afterb few words from Lord REDESDALE, the hORDCHAN-'
cELLon, and Lord GREY, which were inaudible below the bar,
the Petitions were laid, on the table. "_

Th ; 7F;;;;;l)uties and the Assessed Taxes Com-
position Bills went respectively through' Committees, and were
-reported. . • -
CATHOLIC PEEItS.

The Order of the Day having been read, . • -
The Duke of PORTLAND rose, pursuant to notice, to
move the second reading of 'the Bill for enabling Catholic
Peers to take their seats• in -that • House. Although most
anxious to spare the time of their Lordships as much as pos-
sible, he could not move the second reading of this'Bill-without
reminding them, that in the fiftieth year of. Queen Elizabeth, an
Act had, passed, making it necessary for the Commons to take
the,oath of supremacy, but containing a clause which exempted
the Members of the Upper House from the operation of the,
Act. The 'consequence was, 'that Catholic Peers continued
to sit in that Mouse until 'the 13th of Charles 11. At that
period certain Catholic Peers being supposed to be implicated
in a Popish plot, that Bill was passed, which deprived -them
of their seat in the,Legislature. Of all the Catholic Peers' so
implicated, Lord Strafford alone was brought to trial, found
guilty,' and executed. But posterity, instead of ratifying the
verdict of his gUilt, still looked upon his execution as nothing
less than a legal murder. • The• Act then passed was one which
belief in the existence of the supposed danger could alone
justify. But if the exclusion of Catholic Peers were necessary
then, could it be contended that it was necessary now ? NVould
their.sitting in Parliament be attended with more peril• than in
the time of Queen Elizabeth, when the -Pope of Rome had
most power ? He defied the most ingenious opposers of their
claims to maintain that the same state of things existed now as
at that. period. But even when it did exist, what was the lan-
guage of the law with respect to Catholic Peers ? It said
that, " as much as the Queen's-Majesty is assured of the faith
and loyalty of the temporal'Peers of Parliament, therefore
the Act should not be construed to require Peers of Parlia-
ment to take the Oath of Supremacy." Was his present Ma-
jesty less sure of the faith and loyalty of the Peers of Parlia-
ment than Queen Elizabeth ? Or would it be said that her Par-
liament had been too confident ? History proves that that
confidence was well founded, for it recorded no evil resulting
from the admission of Catholic Peers to seats in that House,
as long as they had been allowed to hold them. The Catholic
Peers had opposed the expulsion of the Bishops in 1611, and
supported their re-admission in 'twenty years after, as strenuous.
ly as the Protestant Peers. Undoubtedly it might be prudent
for William the Third, considering the circumstances under
which he was called to the throne, to exclude them from Pan:
liaroent ; but would any one say that because it had been done
then, it ought to be done now ? .During the last five and twenty.
years circumstances had arisen which had induced Parliament
more than once to suspend the Habeas Corpus ; but had any
one ever thought of reviving that suspension, or making it con-
tinual, after those circumstances had ceased to exist ? If a
degree of unfounded alarm had not actuated Parliament in the
reign of Charles 11., he was convinced that up to the present
day Catholic Peers would' have sat in that House. Had this
been the case, would not a motion for their expulsion be now
Considered an act of great injustice ? He saw no difference
between committing an act of injustice for continuing one.
He regretted that through ignorance he should have so long
been a party to such an act, and in order to repair the past,
should move " That the Bill for admitting Catholic Peers to
seats in that House be read a second time.
Lord COLCHESTER begged leave to assure their Lord-
ships, with the most perfect sincerity, that there was no -man
living more disposed than he was to grant all that it was pos-
sible to grant to the Roman Catholics without endangering the
safety of the. Constitution of the St-ate. But he could not con-
cur in a measure which delivered both keys of Parliament to
the Catholics—a measure which it must be seen, however skil-
[ fully framed, would only obtain a limited concession, in order
that that concession should afterwards be brought to act in
favour of others more general and unlimited. It was said that
the law which excluded Catholic Peers from Parliament was
originally founded on groundless alarm ; but if that was the
case it had since stood on the basis of, sound policy. The
system itself was antecedent to that law. It had commenced
under Queen Elizabeth with the Corporation and Test Acts.
The House of Commons had then excluded its own Members.
The Act of Charles 11, had followed, then the Bill of Rights,
and by the Act of Union with Scotland, by which it was settled
that no other but Protestant Peers should sit in that House ; at
the distance of three reigns Parliament had confirmed the exclu-
sion of the Catholics. Fresh confirmation had ensued at the Ac-
cession of the House of Hanover, and the Act of Geo. 11. had'
revived and sanctioned all that had been previously enacted
on the subject. The Noble Duke, however, saw no grounds
for continuing those laws ; he proposed .to revise and repeal
them, and .recommended the present Bill as the firststep to-
wards so desirable a consummation. If their Lordships exa-
mined its grounds, step-by step, they would see the full bearing
of the measure. He had always been of opinion, that little
should be yielded.to importunity, and nothing to menace ; but
that every thing that could safely be done should be done by
the Legislature on its own views; and that having done so, it
should then make its final stand. He-thought that Parliament
should open the full career of erdoluments and honours to

Catholic Dissenters. as to Protestant Dissenters. He therefore
rejoiced when he saw. Catholics-called upon to perform high
• offices towards royalty at the late nronation, awl at the badge
of honour conferred by his. Majesty on a Catholic Nobleinan
in Ireland. The armyaand navy were already open to them,
andhe saw no objection to throw open all other roads to fortune
and distinction; and to equalize all Catholics in every part of
the United Empire. He should be glad to see them receive all:
marks of royal :favour, reserving only. those Which belong to
the Supreme Government of the realm. Of religious tolera-
tion too • much' conldnot be, granted : he would wish to see
more, omplete protection extended to their places of worship,
and especially that Catholics should be relieved from the pain--
ful necessity of celebrating their marriages in our churches,
Where tenets were professed contrary to their own. At the
same time he would allow of- no processions in our streets,
no 'monastic establishments,: no Jesuits sending missioparies
through the land, and-he would add that the College of eSuits
at Stonyhurst called for the investigation of Parliament. As to-
the, Catholic clergy, it would be unwise Ertel needless to deny
their existence as a body. He therefore thought that his Ma.:
jesty had been well advesedewhen in Ireland, to receive the ad-
dresses.: of the Catholic Bishops and Clergy, as 'he had done
those of other Dissenters. But the recognition of their Clergy
required new laws to be, made. , Let these be properly framed;.
nod we should have,no Students educated at Rome, no Vicars
Apostolic—the Mere instruments of the Papal Court, but an .
Episcopal Clergy,. independent of foreign influence and only
subject to the Crown., „There Were ample proofs.on their Lord-
ships' Table, that restrictions tending to produce that effect, by
reg(ilating the communications of the Catholic Clergy with the
See of, Rollie, existed in all, countries but our Own. For this
purpose their. Lordships would be uhder the necessity of recast-
in the 13th'of Elizabeth. -:Let the Catholics hold none of the
offices connected with the exercise of the Supreme authority,
none in the' Supreme Courts of Justice; no seat in the Royal
Councils; none in either-House of Parliament. Our Protestant
Establishment must be maintained, or eiseattempta would soon
be made- to tender it Catholic. For; let us not be deceived—
the principles- of the Catholics Were in direct-hostility to the
.Protestant Church and Government, and he believed this be-
cause he ,believed. in the sincerity. with which they professed
their religion. The,Noble Earl then quoted the opinions of the
Catholic Church as expressed in Bossuet's great work, and,
contended that' the- same doctrines had been renewed in our
days. - Their Lordships were told to take exampif by other
States where a more liberal policy had been adopted towards
the Catholics, and to be convinced that their admission
to the Councils of the State would he attended with no
danger. But so little were the views of the Catholic Church
altered, that the. Pope had lately restored the Order of the
Jesuits which had been proscribed in all countries, and•that
protection had been refused to • the tombs of Protestants,
within the walls. Of Rome, although it had been demanded
by Protestants of all .Countries Tesuling. in that city,- sup-
ported by the interference 'of their ambassadOrs, and even
by the request of the presumptive . heir to a Protestant
throne. If it were said that the Catholic Governments of other
countries treated Protestants with less of mistrust than we did
Catholics, it must be recollected that the nature of those Go-
vernnients, and their institutions, made the religion of the per-
Sons whom. they employed a matter of indifference.—Their case
was not parallel to our own ; foe this country was. the only one
in which the popular character of the constitution, could carry
a;i halividual to the-direction of affairs and the councils of his
Sovereign. He must look to to-morrow as well as to the pre
e their
ni
tnehis wishi
e every
sent day. . The paucity of the Catholics was no security against
CatholicTh eN oblfamilies Lord then
should reiteratedbe
consulted•
practicable way'; but believing that their introduction into both
Houses of Parliament would only tend to ravive political hos-
crereassts!of.
tilities, and being desirous that the ~ character of our establish-
ment should mot cease to be Protestant, he should propose that
instead of reading- this Bill a second time to-night, it be read
this day-three months. . . • •
Lord ERSKINE rose to support-the 811., Friend
said that he was not satisfied with thei immunities which the
Catholics enjoyed,' and that he was willing to enter .on a pro.
gressive system to increase theme why not then begin by let-
ting Catholic Peers have their own ? Ile had • admitted that
their exclusion formed no,part of the original constitution of
the country, andthatnotwithstandiug the law which operated
on the Commonsathey had continued to sit in Parliament till
the 13th of Charles 11.,.0r the supposed existence of a Popish
plot. Was there any man •who believed there was any truth
in the charges brought . against Catholic Peers on that occa-
sion ? They had not been examined by the Commons, but
rested entirely on the revelations of Titus Oates, a man who
was abroad at -the: time when the pretended plot .was to be
execitted. Did Serjeant Maynard, the principal manager for
the 1-louse of Commons, in the impeachment.of Lord Strafford,
venture to say that the charges had any other foundation than
the revelatibns of Titus Oates ?• he especially said that
they rested on the testimony of only one man, Oates. lie re-
presented the exposure. as the act-of GOD, not that of man, in
inducing Oates to make the discovery, and wished that thanks
should be returnedto ;ion. alone... it was not the act of Gon,
but the instigation of the Devil Which' had produced the revela-
tions of Oates. Less than five years afterwards that impostor
had been brought to trial, and convicted on the uncontradicted
testimony of forty-seven witnesses, whaall swore that he had
never. been 'nearer to London than St. Omers. lie should
consent to suffer the present Billoo be dropped if there were
any man who could believe .that Titus Oates had not been'
guilty of perjury.. He admitted: that great alarm had prevailed
at the time, and that those who had convicted Lord Strafford
had acted honourably, being led bythe prejudices of the times
to :consider' him•guilty.' But now were we in similar circhm,
stances ? Were -we in danger of a Popish Successor-in the per-
son of the Duke of York ? What had. Parliament already
done ? It had repealed most of the Statutes against Catholic's :
it had said that it was not necessary for, them to take the Oath
of Supremacy to enable them to hold situations in the. Arthy
or the Navy, to be Magistrates, Grand Jurors, Petty .Jurors,
offices much more important than the filling of seats in Palle,-
Merit. The Act which forbad Catholic Peers to come into the
King's presence without incurring heavy .penalties had been
repealed in 1791, when it had been emoted that Peers profess-
ing. the Catholic Religion, who should take: the oath of alle-•
giants, should •be relieved from those penalties, and should be
considered "as good and loyal subjects." On•what principle
-was the Oath of Supremacy retained after such a concession ?
No man had rejoiced more than he had done at his Majesty's
Visit•to Ireland, but the people of that country would never be
tranquilized, hitless Parliament showed that it. could trust in
the oaths-which it had administered to Thinking, as he
did, that Catholic Peers could not be justly excluded from
sitting in that House, he should vote for the second reading of
the Bill. . ' •
The LORD CHANCELLOR- said that it was now more
than twenty years ego that he had felt much pain in withhold-
' ing his assent from measures something like those now content-
' plated, for he contended that whatever the object asked for
might be,. that in view was neither more nor less than' unli-
mited concession. He would tell their Lordships why he had
felt pain. He had then the honour of .being noticed by that
great man now gone (Mr. Pitt), and if he differed from him
on this important point,• it was because no earthly-considera-
tion could induce him to consent to that measure as long as he
thought it wrong. Those who had proposed concession, in
1799, had said that they should be accompanied with 'securi-
ties, in order that if the Catholic mind were qhieted, the Pro-
testant mind- should not be disturbed.. He should hav6 been
ashamed to-refuse his consent if he had felt that the Protestant
Establishment would be secure, but what those securities were .
to be, he had never been able to learn. From some: hp •had
heard what they proposed ; good 001) ! that the descendants of
the great men who lived at the. Revolution should ever have
looked upon such things as securities equal to those provided
by the laws enacted at that period ! One individual, who must
be a Protestant King,. who, if he ceases-to be a Protestant, that
moment sees the allegiance of his subjects dissolved, was to be
surrounded by Catholic Ministers, with .the exception of the
person who filled the situation, whicb.he (the Lord Chancellor)
so inadequately occupied, and who was to be. a .Protestant.
Never had such nonsense and such trash been put into an Act
of Parliament as that was. With -respect to the object of the
present Bill, how did it happen that in all the dissentions which
had taken place on the Catholic Claims since 1799, no pro-
position had ever been made to distinguish the-case of Ca-
tholic Peers from that of the Catholics in general, until it
had beehMehtioned by a Noble Baron (Lord .Grenville we
belieVe), for whom he entertained so much, respect, that if
lie doubted the 'soundness of his own opinion, it. was because
it differed from that of the Noble .Baron. It was. not for
such a man as' he wag to use such language, but lie would say,
as to personal feelings towards the Catholics, with a great Judge
of former times, ": I have found it my duty to-enter into a cove-
nant with myself, that affectionate • feeling may not press on
judgment." He desired that their Lordships would give him

4

1 444 •7. PRICE SEN*ENPENCEi

. .
credit for the' same sentiments. As to the question itself, he
had a right to avail himself of the OittheritY of Mr. Pitt, of the
Noble Baron, and even of the Hon.' Geitteman who wa the
author of the measure, to contend thaa no one had• hitherto
ventured to propose a Bill to emancipate the Catholics,
out at the same time. proposing some securities. It was said;
that there was-no danger in a concession like the present; bat
did their Lordships perceive that if they granted it, they put
if out of their power to deliberate-upon the general measure ?
. When the 13111 had first come into his hands, he thought he had
been misled by some foolish fellow calling himself .Printer to
.the House of Crinnoris, who had wrongly entitled it a ;Bill to
repeal the Act of Charles 11. for he could not believe that the
great Shatesmon to whom he should Wish well in all ports of the
world, and the able Lawyers by whom he had been assisted,
would hove Wished to repeal a Mil anterior to all the Statutes-
since passed, and still in feirce against the Catholics. He* had
foand, hoWever, that some words had been inserted to embrace'
the Act of King William and all other Acts, notwithstanding.
No than could look at. our history prior to the Reformation,,
without being satisfied that at some periods our ancestors had
subinitted in the most degrading manner to the See of Rome;
and at others had conducted themselves as became the subjects
of an independent State. . Till that event, the country hada
been plunged in the misery belonging to the circumstance of
not knowing exactly what was the Religion of the State. If.
their Lordships, should decide in favour of the present Bill; they.
would place back the country in the Same unsettled situation
till another RevolUtion should conic to decide whether the State
should be Protestant or Catholic. King William having said
to Sergeant Maynard; 'who was a very old man, " Why, you
have. outlived all the Legislators of the land," that 'distin-
guished individual replied, " Yes, and if you had not come,
I should have outlived all its laws too." if his Noble Friend
behind him (the Duke of Portland)' could peasuade their Lord-
Ships to adopt his ,motion, as he looked healthy and
.see Med
likely to live king, he might also outlive the laWs et the land...-.
(Laughter,)—The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to
the debasing Acts passed in the reign of Queen Mary at the
intercession of the l'ope's legate, by which,the supremacy of
the Pope had been restored in this country.. And here he
would...say, that he agreed' with Gillet Justice HaleS, that a
Catholic. and a Protestant could not take the oath of allegiance
together in the same sense; if they did not also- take that' of.
supremacy, which had been made to explain and reevent the
evasion of the former. Queen Elilabeth -had repealed the Acts
passed by Queen Mary, and for a long period of years the
country had been left tb that alternate and unsettled legislation,
which was contrary to its repose and happiness. The Revolution
at last had come. Good God ! could it be said that the Coven,
dishes, theßentincks, the Somersets were then in such a terrible
fright on account of the long past revelations of Titus Oates,.
whom it had .been customary to expose in the pillory about
three times avear, that terror induced them to, re-enact all the
provisions of the 13th of Charles 11. ?- It was his opinion, that.
if Titus Oates had never been born, not forgetting what ;the
Russels and the Sidneys had said as' to Popery, that similOr
enactments wouldahave been made. This opinion was strengtha.
ened by the measures taken by King William at the Revoa
lution, by his signature efathe Act of Settlement on his death
bed, by the provisions of the Act of Union with Scotland,;
by the Act of George 11. which re-enacted the former, in-
the very same words, and by what passed every year as to.'
Indemnity Acts. It scented to be forgotten that there had,
been such a reign as that of. James 11. in our history. That
King had declared to Parliament that nothing was nearer
heart than to take care of the Religion of the country, and .
yet from hour to hour and day to day, he went on violating
every law, making his own will his -law, and dispensing with
that Act of Charles 11. which he 'had prolnised to observea,
and by which he ought to have felt that -he ,was• bound. Ile.,-
would trust no one with powers or privileges which- the law,
notdid
allow. He spoke in the presence of his Royal High..
n'ess the Duke of Yank, than whom no man was dearer to his .
country'; but he would not trust him further. than the law.
tinged him. It had been said that the Act of Exclusion was .
'passed in consequence of the misdeeds of-Titus-Oates. But ilia
infaniaus. conduct had been exposed and establiShed long before_
the Revolution, and it could' not, therefore, be his'conduct but,
the principle.upon.which the Revolution was effected, that in-a
duced its authors to secure arid perpetuate the laws. They
felt a pressing and unavoidable necessity for putting it 'out
of the power of thoge persons, who. had involved the country'
in uneasiness"- and divisions during the time that elapse 4,
between the Reformation and thealtevolution, to renew their
mischievous. designs ; and it was to accomplish. that object
that these measures were resorted to. He was quite pre..
pared to admit that the Legislation of to-day was • not neces- -
aarily binding upon their Lordships to-morrow. But it was
quite in conformity with the spirit of our legislation, thot,
they should be either warned or guided by preeedipg. Acts.—
If they looked back itpon all those Acts which contributed to
the 'building up of the fabric of our Constitution, they would
find them to be declared 'Acts essential; and Acta undamental,
which should last foe ever ; but in. such' measures as did tan
come within that description, there wasno suctaccompanying,
declaration. We11,.-then; let their Lordships-see what King
William stated upon the character of the laws they were now
called apon tosepeala That :Monarch said; that his object was
" toeffect some permanent settlement of the laws, religion,
and libertihs of the country, which had been attempted to be
subverted, so that they Might never be disturbed again." Let
them alsossee what had been done by the Convention, the chief
movers and supporfers'ot the Revolution. They sent for the
Prince of Orange at a time when they were desperately afraid
of Titus Oates. But when they were afterwards relieved from
that fear, what did they do ? They found, that by the statutes
of Elizabeth, certain penalties had been enacted against the
Catholics, and that by the Act of I:heries the Second, they had
been continued, with the additional ones of disqualifying Peers _
from sitting in Parliament. They then proceeded tore-enact
those disabilities. And that was not all. They said that it
would be an anomaly in a free State for the Commoners not
to be allowed to choose their representatives from all classes
of men, unless there was a general and total 'exclusion of
any particular class from the off ees .of that State. Acctird.
ingly they .said, " If the House of Commons is to be Protes-
• tant—if the House of Peers is to be Protestant—we must have
a Protestant King also." It was then declared necessary to
the civil and religious liberties of the country; that a Protes-
tant King should sit upon the throne., Not' only that, but they
imposed the coronation-oath, which professed to find' a secu-
rity for-the spiritual liberties of theeople. The intention of
th_e Revolution was to make the Church Protestant, and to
make the State Protestant. Therefore it was that the King
could not take the coronation-oath until he had first made the de-
claration against -transubstantiation, unless he had previously
been in their Lordships' House, The/present King had made
the declaration under. the canopy Which they now beheld. He
knew many of the descendants of the great men who esta-
blished the Revolution.; and, if he had the honour of knowing.
their ancestors, and had gone up stairs, Where they were making
these laws, and told them, that they were a pack of cowards ;
and were doing so under the influence of false fear and ground-
less alarm, he apprehended they.would have shewn him a much
quicker way down again, than heathould otherwise have found.
laugh)—Yet they were now told that such was really the
fact. The last words of King. William were, that the acts of
james 11. were intendedato , subvert the Protestant'Estallish.
ment ; and the Bill of Rights declared that suclfEstablialithent
should remain fol ever. Their Lordships'were bound net only
to look at the present, but at the, remote cooserences of
the act they were called upon to do. Ile considered that \there
could be no censure so severe, upon the great authors of the
Revolution, as the repeal of their measures, upon this import-
ant question: It was one of their principles to exclude Catho-
lics from the offices of the State, and to upset it would be to
censure allthe principles ofthe Revolution. The Articles of the
'Scotch Union confirmed this 'view, and,proved that the same
principles continued, to be acted upon down to that•period.
One of the Articles expressly declared, that no Peer or- Com-
moner, w
to
werehoth e
Actsßomanof o
Catholics,e The Legislature shouldm h a
beeelectedl lla
then came that
time hadnothing to do with the causes which operated at the
passing of the Act of Charles 11. ; they had nothing to do with
the question of whether the Revolution was necessary or not;
they .expressly repealed the Acts, and then re-enacted them
anew. "If this Bill passed, how could they say to the Catholic
Commoner, ". You shall not sit in Parliament, but the Ca-
tholic Peer shall ?" • With all deference to tho Noble Mover
of the Bill, of whom, it was impossible to speak but wi.h re-
spect, he must tell him that it was impossible, audit it were
possible, unjust to do this. It was eitially unjust to the So-
vereign, that he should be debarred from the right of anarry-
ing whom he pleased, if the disqualifications were. to be
removed from the Catholic Peer. He should say to those
who proposed such a. measure, "If you will no permit my
Sovereign to marry a Papist, I will not permiPa Papist to -
come here." .It would, perhaps, be that he had always
been calling out for some specific measure. Ile admitted that

he -heti ; and those who had been 'in the habit of talking of
general emancipation, ought to be ashen:led of the securities
.they proposed with them. Well, then, now it would be be said
That a specific measure was offered to, him. But it was such a
measure, that if he admitted it, he should not be at liberty to
resist any thing else which might hereafter be brought forward.
He firmly believed that the Bill, if adopted by their Lordships,
would lead to general emancipation. 'They were frequently
aold„indeed, that general emancipation would come some time
•or other. He did not believe it.—(llear, hear !)—And he
thought the oftener that was repeated, the farther would its ful-
filment be off. However that might be, he should always with-
stand it as far as his power enabled him to do so, and he should
conclude with the words of King William—" The laws, reli-
gion, and liberties of my country I will maintain ;" and he
therefore gave his mosvlecided opposition to the Bill.—
(Hear, hear, hear !)
Earl GREY said, that after the impression which the elo-
emence of the Noble Earl• had made upon their Lordships
should in some measure subside, he hoped to convince them of
The inefficiency of his arguments to support his opposition to
the bill. He should begin where the Noble Earl had ended,
and say, that to the liberties of his country, as established at the
Revolution, he was as firmly attached as any man ; and if he
could believe that there was any thing in the present Bill
which operated against those liberties, no man would be more
firmly disposed to resist the motion for its second reading.
But he was satisfied 'that, exclusion was not amongst the
principles of the Revolution, but the exceptions. Believing it
to have been the wish of those who effected the Reyolution
to establish the full, political, and religious liberties of all
their fellow subjects, and that they were driven to the neces-
sity of making these exceptions by existing causes and dan-
gers ; believing all this, and believing that such dangers and
causes now no longer existed, he appealed to their Lordships
upon the principles of the Revolution to restore these noble
persons to the rights and privileges of which they had been de-
prived. It had been said by the Noble Baron on the cross
bench, that if this measure were granted, it would lead to a
Atli emancipation of the Catholic body from all their disabili-
ties. if this effect would be produced by the. Bill, it would
not be an objection to his mind, excepting inasmuch as it might
be an insidious means of gaining that end. But as the Bill
had been charged with this object, and from thence an in-
eference had been drawn elsewhere, that it was a Jesuitical at-
tempt to attain that object, he would here deny his belief of any
such imputation. It was true that the person with whom the Bill
originated had alWays been the able, constant, zealous, and it
must be added, most powerful advocate of the general question.
But when 'he found that the claims of the whole body of the
-Catholics were not likely to be brought forward at present by
the person to whose care their interests appeared to be more
immediately confided, he determined upon introducing the
Bill which was now before their Lordships' House. It would
be remembered that he had never declared the whole claims of
the Catholic body to be founded on right. He had always said
that men should be allowed the exercise of free conscience in
matters of religion, and that they should be permitted to wor-
ship their Creator according to the manner which appeared to
.them most befitting. But in doing this they were liable to cer-
tain restrictions for the safety and protection of the Religion of
the State. Upon strong necessity, arising from political causes
only, could this power of restriction be exercised. These, if
the onus of proof that such causes as those of self-preservation
and self-defence existed, must always lie upon those who im-
posed the disqualifications and restrictions. And if they were
bound by this plinCiple, in a general sense, of the situation of
the Catholic body, how much more so were they in the cases of
these Noble Persons who now appeared before their Lordships,
not in themselves, but from the operation of a sense of justice
upon the mind of the author of this Bill. Well then, let their
Lordships see how this necessity had existed. From the Re-
formation down to the Acts of Charles 11. Catholic Peers had not
been excluded from seats in Parliament. It was a clear point in
history, that until the sth of Queen Eliz. no oaths had been re-
quired from persons sitting in either House of Parliament.
By that Act, an oath was administered to the Commoners, but
not previous to taking their seats, and the refusal to take it
'was accompanied by' no penalty. But in this very statute
there was an exception in favour of the Peers, who were ex-
pressly exempted from taking the oath. What was the situa-
tion of the Queen at that time ? She was seated upon her
throne, and all the molt powerful nations of Europe were
• leagued against her religion. The most ambitious, and the
most powerful Pope that ever reigned, gave his sanction to this
:league, and to all the attemps upon her throne and dominions.
Tins was at a time when the same parties and the same feel-
ings excited the assassination of the Prince of Orange, and the
herrible massacre in the parish of St. Bartholomew ; yet Queen
.Elizabeth never thought it necessary to exclude her Catholic
Peers from Parliament in those times ; but on the contrary,
_she introduced a specific exception in this Act' in favour of
Peers. She found no reason to repent this policy in' the course
a of the occurrences which ensued in her eventful reign. When
rthe ambition of Philip led him on to attack this country with
his Armada, did Elizabeth find reason to repent the confi.
-.deuce she had placed in her Catholic Peers ? Were they not
.her most zealous and powerful defenders against the attacks
-of the Pope ? He should next come to the Acts of' Charles IL ;
. and here he thought the Noble Earl had somewhat confound-
ed the enactments which had been made in that reign.
The 14th of Charles 11. was not certainly directed against the
-Catholics but' against Cromwell and the Puritans. Then
. came the Test Act, which was intended to operate against the
Duke of York. This was followed by the declaration against
transubstantiation, which had also the same object, and,was
-attended with the effect of removing the Duke of York from
..all the offices which he previously held. His conduct
proclaimed him to be an open Catholic ; and the King him,
-self was looked upon with suspicion, and was now known to
have favoured that faith in secret. Next came the Popish-
Plot, the enormities and cruelties of which even the Noble
Earl himself could not think of without shuddering. In the
-same year the Bishops' Test Act was proposed, by which no
one was to be admitted to the House of Peers without sub-
scribing to certain doctrines. This was resisted by the House
upon the ground of inherent right in the Peers of the land to
hold seats in that House. A standing order was immediately
passed, declaratory of that right; and it was supported by
-some of the most illustrious names of the age. A short in-
terval only elapsed before tie 30th of Charles 11. was proposed
and passed with this Order still standing on their books. Their
Lordships must also look to see by whom this Act was pro-
posed, and they would find them to be the very same men who
had passed the Standing Order, and who still did not deem it
,necessary to rescind it. And why was this ? Simply because
the Act of Exclusion was Passed under the distraction and
alarm produced by the Popish Plot. All the history of the times
-.shewed that the measure was founded upon that necessity, and
upon that necessity alone. 'With this view of the subject,
which to his mind was the clear and undoubted one, taking
into consideration the heats and animosities of the times, and
eth e fearful alarm into which the people were plunged, and
-seeing that such grounds no longer existed, he would say that
he stood there upon the principles and the practice of the,
-Constitution, when he asked, as- a matter ofs ,just right,
the restoration of those Noble Peers to the enjoyment of
_their natural privileges. If what the Noble Lord had said
- as to the ' measure being necessary upon some thing which
-arose after the period at which passed, were sound, he
must come down to the Revolution; and he (Earl Grey) would
say that all its Acts stood upon principle excluded and apart
from this measure. It was not the mere fact of its having been
continued at that period that would serve-the Noble Earl's re-
squest. He contended that they were not to look at what had
.passed since ; but they must look at the necessity in the den-
, ger and alarm which existed at the time of passing the Act,
or else the foundation upon which it was published would
.entirely fail. What were then the circumstances which fol-
lowed upon the plot, of that detestable villain, Titus Oates ?
. After 'the Revolution, there was a Sovereign excluded
'from the Throne, who was at that time supported by great
numbers of the people. He was also supported by the power-
ful Monarch of France. Almost all the body of Catho-
Asks in the country were alto attached to his cause.—
They must look to those dangers for the explanation of the
laws, which would otherwise he wholly inconsistent with the
principles and acts of the revolution. At a period too, when
.the Roman Catholic religion was regarded with feelings very
. different from those which it excited at the present time; ideas
of almost a superstitious nature were entertained as to the
tenets and practices of that religion. But all such violent doc-
trines had been denied, with the sanction of the heads of the
Roman Catholic Church ; and the simple principles of faith
•swhich they now professed were well understood, and not re-
garded with the feelings they used to inspire. Therefore in
:looking to The period of the Revolution, he found these
two grounds which formed the-necessity of imposing such
restrictions upon the Catholic body. But a Popish Pretender
-.could not now be feared, and the opinion .of the Roman
" Catholic religion which was then entertained, now no longer
prevailed. The causes of danger being removed then, how
;was it that the measures of caution were any 'longer neces-
. sary ? The last unhappy remnant of the race who were ba-
nished from the throne was now extinct, and the undivided
affectioos_of the people so centered in the family now upon 'the
ehroneethat a disputed succession was not to be apprehended.
'The Noble Earl had spoken of those who had formerly pro-
posed securities with the general measure of Emancipation, as
he thought, with great severity of manner. But, if their Lord-
ships remembered what had been said by a person so little
Worthy of their attention as himself, they would remember
that he escaped this censure, because he had long ago de-
clared that lie would require no securities at all ; and that if
the measure were carried, it should' be unfettered by securi-
"ties, or it was granting no boon to the parties who had so
elong suffered. But it was said also, that it would be a great
,
:anomaly if they admitted Catholic Peers into their Lordships'

House, and refused Catholics admission in the Commons.— •
They were asked how they could do this, and how they could
stop short and refuse general emancipation ? He would say,
they could stop short as their ancestors stopped short. They
could leave matters as they stood from the time of Henry the
Eighth down to the reign of Charles the Second, during which
period Catholics were excluded from the Commons without
being excluded from the Peers. These being his opinions, he
could not see how it-could be argued that there would be any
future danger to the State by admitting Catholics to a full
share of the benefits of the State. But he did not believe that
their admission to such benefits would necessarily follow this
measure: He would not have supported the measure for such a
purpose: He did not deal in such methods of obtaining his ob-
Jed. It was not according to his principles and practice to pur-
sne such courses. His firm belief was, that this Bill, if carried,
would neither advance or retard the general question. The
Noble Lord on the cross-bench had stated his willingness to
grant3to the Catholics all the privileges that were not incon-
sistent with the safety of the State. If, therefore, he refused
the admission of these Peers, it remained for him to shew what
danger did arise to the State from their sitting in Parliament
previous to the period of their exclusion. He could hot un-
derstand how this was a principle of the Revolution, so sanc-
tioned that it could not now be repealed with safety. The
Noble Earl had argued that it had been again laid down at the
Union with Scotland, and that it was binding for ever. Un-
doubtedly it was provided by that Act that the Oath of Supre-
macy should be taken ; but it was added, " until otherwise
provided ;" which meant until the Parliament should provide
otherwise. He saw a marginal note upon the Act; and he
thought he recognized the hand-writing, which said, " the
alteration must not be made to weaken, but to strengthen se-
curity."
• The LORD CHANCELLOR here made some observations
which we could not hear. We understood the marginal note
to be written by him ; and that he recommended the Noble
Earl to read some others which the statute contained-4A
laugh.)
Earl GREY proceeded. Some allusions had been made
to the privileges which had been granted to Roman Catho-
,lics in 1817. But he recollected that in 1807, when those re-
laxations were proposed, they met with opposition from those
"who now opposed this Bill, upon the ground that admitting
Catholics to the Army and Navy was entrusting them with the
most dangerous of all powers, the power of the sword. In
1817, however, this power was granted, and the Army and
Navy were opened' to Catholics as well as Protestants. This
was as contrary to the enactments which were continued from
the Revolution as the Bill before their Lordships. The Act of
Settlement expressly provided that the officers of the Armv
and Navy should be Protestants ; therefore, if the whole
rank of those services were to be thrown open to Catholics
contrary to the principles of the Revolution, there was
no argument which could apply the same objections to the ad-
mission of the six Peers into that House—six Noble Persons,
whose ancestors had performed the greatest services to the State,
and who had themselves great orsonal claims upon the coun-
try. He maintained that the case ought to be considered upon
its own intrinsic merits, and that it involved no ulterior conse-
quences. He was sorry, indeed, that the measure did not go
further; but as it, only went to the restoration of individual
rights, it was entitled to be judged upon its own individual
merits. If this Act passed, the general discussion would take
place if it did not pass, still the general discussion would come
on after the same lapse of time, and he hoped that time would
not be long. He called upon the Noble Earl to say why this
question must expedite the general measure. He thought the
Bill would do great good am matter of justice to the Peers
who had a right to complaikof their exclusion. It would also
be a great advantage to the House, and the act would be in
conformity to the wish it always pursued of not extending its
penalties beyond what necessity required. The Act would be
consistent with the practice and principles of the Constitution.
Policy anti justice alike demanded it; and he earnestly hoped
that their Lordships would do themselves the justice of remov-
ing the statute of exclusion from their books.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not intend to consume much
of their Lordships' time, as he was completely ready to take
the question on the narrow ground of the merits of the Bill be-
k fore them. He would first take the Noble Lord's proposition
that this Bill was not likely to expedite the success of the ge-
neral question. If this were the opinion of the support.
ers of the Bill, he had a right to put it in this way :—that
if they passed this measure, they did not mean to go far-
ther in their demands. Ile would then say that no mea-
sure could be devised that was likely to be injurious to the
general body of the Catholics ; and he would-call upon all
those who usually supported measures of general emancipa-
tion' to vote upon their own principle against the adoption of
this Bill. Before entering into his specific objections to the
Bill itself, he would go shortly into the history touched upon
by the Noble Earl, in order to render intelligible some of his
subsequent remarks. In the first place, he would say that no.
body had a greater abhorrence than he of the infamy of Titus
Oates, and the faction which at that 'time led honourable mert
into the commission of deadly crimes, and perverted all the
best feelings of humanity. He would go with the Noble
Lord back into the history of times antecedent to the pass-
ing of the Act of Exclusion, in- order to trace the causes
which previously existed, and eventually. led to that Measure.
In the reign of Edward the Vlthj.. the separation from the Ca-
tholic Church first began, under the direction of some of the
greatest and most pious and learned men that ever- this or any
other country produced. Their great -works were stopped by
the death of that Sovereign, and his successor Mary being a
Catholic, a revulsion took place, and the Catholic religion was
again established, and the Protestants were persecuted. After
this the Reformation took place, and the subsequent Acts of
Elizabeth were legislated ; but still no law was enacted to
provide that the Sovereign should be a Protestant. Accord.
ingly, when they came to James I. they found him marrying
his son Charles die First to the daughter of Louis the Thir-
teenth of France, a Catholic Princess. It was owing to this
that a great portion of the divisions and the animosities which
afflicted the country., sprung up ; this was the cause of a great
deal of the blood that was shed in the unhappy contests which
then spread in all directions. It was not until the reign of
Charles the Second that the Acts of disqualification and exclu-
sion were determined upon as the remedy againstall this evil.
It was well known that under the worst Governments some of our
best laws had been enacted. Experience proved this in number-
less itistances ; and the Acts in question were not necessarily
bad, because they were adopted under such areign. It was said,
that they were resorted to under the influence of groundless
alarm, from the terror inspired by the Popish plot. But put-
ting Titus Oates and the Popish plot entirely out of the ques-
tion, no man could say," that there was not at that time a real
conspiracy going forward to overturn the Protestant religion
of the country. Up to this period he had never heard it
argued that there- was no real danger at the time of pass-
ing these Acts. It had always been the argument that there
was danger at the time, but which now no longer existed.—
He begged of them to look at the anomaly which this Bill would
create in making the Peerage in part Catholic, whilst the
Crown and every other part of the Legislature was Protes-
tant. The Noble Earl (Earl Grey) told them that it was
the perjuries of Titus Oates alone that had deprived these Ca-
tholic Peers of that privilege which it was now sought to re-
store to them. That Noble Earl could not have forgotten that
the Act had • been confirmed by the Revolution. He did not
mean to say that Titus Oates or his perjuries had any thing to
do in influencing the measures of that period. The great good
of the Revolution was, that it led, with a change of dynasty to
a review of our situation, and to the enactment of those things
which ought to have taken place before, 'and many things which
ought to have been done at the Reformation were then done.
He admitted that the Catholic Peers would have aright to com-
plain if the Xing were permitted to be a Catholic, or any
other religion he pleased. But when lie was told that if the
King were to profess the same religion with himself the alle-
giance of his subjects would cease, and he would be compelled
to descend from his throne, he had no right to complain of his
excluSion from the House of Peers—(Hear, hear !)—This was
the grourid of opposition he had always stood upon with re-
gard to the general question. He had always taken his stand
upon the-connexion of Church and State in our Constitution,
upon the principle of Protestantism inherent in the law, which
regulated the Crcwn and the other estates of the realm.---( Hear,
hear !)—But it was contended that those' Acts which had been.
renewed and re-affirmed by the Revolution, by the Act of
Union, and by various Acts since those periods, were not in-
tended to be essentially fundamental by our ancestors ; and
the. Noble Earl (Earl they) said, that all that was asked was,
to bring them back to where these Peers were in the time of
Charles IL He intreated them to look at this part of the sub-
ject. It was only during the period from the commencement of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth and Charles 11. that the-Catholic
Peers enjoyed that 'privilege which it was the object of this
Bill to give them ; and under the securities which were then
imposed, however improperly obtained, they had enjoyed a
period of 150 years of religious peace ; and the question then
was, whether they would go to sea again, as would be their
situation, were they now to abandon those securities. He knew
he might be told that 'times were changed ; but he was a bold
man who should say so as applicable to this question. Who
could have foretold, in 1630, that a few years after the mo-
narchy would he dissolved, and the House of Lords abolished
after the exclusion of the Bishops ? Who could now say
whence the danger would arise, not perhaps from the Roman
Catholics, but from some quarter to which the principle, if ad-
mitted by the adoption of the measure offered to them, would
give force ? Were they to be persuaded, he asked, ;from any
arguments that had been addressed to them, to give up se-
curities which had given them 150 years peace under a Pro-
testant King and Protestant State ?—(Hear, hear, hear 0--
, He had declared his intention not to go into a discussion
1 of 'the general question ; but it was impossible to advert to

the Noble Earl's (Eai Grey) speechewithout going as far as
he had. With regard to the Bill itself, he objected to it in the
first place, because he was of opinion that whilst it sacrificed
the whole principle of an equal participation in. the Legislature,
it did not settle the question. Last year his Noble Friend had
brought in a measurefor a final adjustment of the question of
Catholic Emancipaticn. He (Earl of Liverpool) had objected to
that measure, admitting, however, that some sacrifices should
be made, to set the scatter at rest, and in his objections he was
supported by the House. But what were they to say of a Bill
which left the matter as much open to discussion as before ?
He objected, howeVer, to this measure on principle; for though
he might admit etat if they were to open toe doors of the Com-
mons to the Catholics they ought to open their Lordships' doors,
he should contend that the objection was much stronger in the
latter case than in the former. If there were any thing pecu-
liar in the constitution of that House, obnoxious- to a mea-
sure of this nature, it' was its connection with the Church.—
They were the depositaries of the Church interests—they legis-
lated by writ of summons upon the affairs of the Church--and
it was contrary to all sense and principle to contend that the
introduction of such a measure into that House was more con-
sistent than in the other. He would not dwell on the other
objection, which was on the question of securities, on which he
had so often expressed his sentiments in that House. But he
could not refrain from adverting to what appeared to him a
trifling discrepancy in the arguments of the supporters of this
measure. Last year a measure of emancipation was brought into
the Legislature, and with it another of securities, and so much
value was placed by those who introduced the measure in another
place, that it was there distinctly stated they would not let the
one exist without the other ; that they must go on pan' passe ;
and that if the Bill of Securities were not passed, they would
not consent to the other. Now, he did not care so much
about securities ; but he asked those who adopted this course
of proceeding last year, how they could reconcile to them-
selves to pass this Bill without securities ; and if they did,
could they ever ask them in any subsequent measure of eman-
cipation ? Even if the general question were a question affect-
ing England alone, he should have an insurmountable objec-
tion to it. But there was always another ground for bringing
the measure forward, and that was the state of Ireland. It
had always been brought forward upon petitions, and it had
been urged that the greater portion of Ireland were Roman
Catholics, and that the effect of getting rid of the disqua-
lifications, if it conferred no practical benefit, would at
least be soothing. Supposing these reasons to have any
weight, in what light could they view this measure ?
Would it confer any good upon any one in Ireland ? If they
argued even that the measure was good in itself, still it must
be admitte4 that nothing was more galling than for an act of
emancipation to be passed for the English Peer, not including
the Irish. Thus by adopting this measure they would abandon
the ground of every preceding one. But there was another ob-
jection of a more serious nature which he had to point out to
their Lordships against the_-Bill. This was the granting of
privileges to the Peers, in which the Catholic Commoner did
not participate, which in a free Government was a principle
more obnoxious almost than any that could be devised. It was
said that in the, reign of Elizabeth, Catholic Peers sat in 'the
Legislature, though the Commons did not. But if they would
examine the history of those times, and mark how little the
rights of the commoner were known in those times, there would
,appear reason sufficient to exclude them from taking that as
an example. In the discussion upon the general question they
were told that they might make a stand against Catholic en-
croachment in various ways. It was true they might throw up
barriers against the franchise, against the admission into the
Privy Council, or beyond the Legislature; but on which
principle could they justify their admission to the Peerage,
and not to the House of Commons? Although the rank and
privileges of men might differ, still the rights of all men
were the same. The right of the poor man to his cottage
was as good as that of their Lordships to their mansions.—
The King did not hold his crown by any higher title than
the owner of the smallest property his right of enjoying
it, and in this consisted the great strength of the monarchy.
—(Hear, hear, hear !)—By this Bill they were called upon
to say that the right of the Commoner to be elected was not
equal to that of the Peer to sit. Both rights might be mo-
dified and qualified for the public benefit ; but how could they
go forward to say that the Peer shall sit in the Legislature, but
that the Commoner should not? He asked if any thing were so
objectionable or new, in modern times, as this distinction. They
possessed certain privileges for the good of the state, but
not for invidious purpoees. To look after the concerns of
religion was one of the principal duties of that House, and
surely then that branch of the Legislature had a greater right
to ask for securities as to faith than the other. The Noble
Earl opposite had stated the question to them in plain terms,
that they were justified in passing this Bill, even if they
went no further. Now, he believed that there could be
no more serious evil than to pass this Bill, and go no fur-
ther. He believed that they must go further; but if not, they
would do that which was most invidious, and give more dissa-
tisfaction
than if they did nothing at all. He contended, that
upon every view of the question they were called upon to reject
the Bill. It settled nothing, but, left the whole question open, 1
as much as when they first entered upon the discussion of it. It i
drew the most invidious distinction between the Peerage and
the commonalty—a distinction which, he believed, no one
could seriously recommend. And as, to those who did not
agree with him upon the general question, but supported the
Catholic claims generally, all he asked of them was to put this
question to themselves, viz. whether this measure did any. thing
towards strengthening the cause, tor promoting the advance-
ment of the Catholic Emancipation generally. In his opinion
it was more objectionable than if they were to do nothing, and
it was his intention, for the reasons lie had stated, to vote for
the amendment to the question before their Lordships.—(Hear.)
Lord GRENVILLE next addreesed the house. He said
it became the more necessary for him to make a few observa-
tions on acceunt of the ground upon Which his Noble Friend
had rested bis opposition. He called upon those who had al-
ways advocated the general question to say what was the ad-
vantage of the present measure. He would answer that he was
one of those who had been never backward, perhaps some might
think a little too forward, in advocating Catholic 'concessions,
and he should say, that this measure would confer the greatest
of all benefits, the benefit of doing justice—(Cheers)—an object
in his estimation which set at nought all considerations of expe-
diency. He would say " Bejust and fear not." If it were true
that in this Bill the rights of six individuals were concerned,
if the rights of even but one individual, and he of the lowest
instead of the highest class in the community were concerned
in it, he should say that their Lordships were not at liberty to
entertain all those questions of expediency. He considered it
as a question of strict distribUtive justice ; rue on which their
Lordships were called upon to pronounce, not in their legisla-
tive but in their judicial capacity. It was a question, whether
they would restore a certain number of British Peers to the ex-
ercise and enjoyment of those rights which they inherited by
their birth. He held that their Lordships were bound to re-
store to those persons the rights of which all men he believed
would admit that they had been deprived, not only unjustly,
but by the most scandalous and iniquitous means that ever
were practised. Having been deprived Of those rights under the
most false, unjust, and scandalous pretences, it was for their
Lordships to judge whether they should now be restored to
the full enjoyment of those rights. It was argued that the
law had not deprived them of their rights as Peers, but had
only annexed to the privilege of sitting in Parliament the
condition of complying with certain tests ; and the principle on
which these tests were now defended, was, that persons claim-
ing to sit in their Lordships' House ought to be subject to the
same tests as the Commons. But it' was perfectly well known
that besides the test in question, there were a variety of other
causes of disqualification for seats in the Commons, which no
man had ever thought of proposing to extend to that House.
It was no pare of the fundamental law of this country—it
was not the principle of the Constitution—it was not the
principle of the legislation of this country to adopt sweep-
ing regulations . of that nature. On the contrary, most
of those dangerous and fallacious notions which were now
getting possession of the public mind arose out of the vain,
absurd, and preposterous attempt to regulate all the varied
and complicated interests of this vast community by such
general and sweeping measures. He did not conceive that in
supporting this Bill he was bound to show what he should
neither attempt, nor indeed was able .to shew, whether this
measure passed Or not, why they should continue even for one
year longer the general restrictions on the great body of the Ca-
tholics. Much stress had been laid. upon the absence of any
securities from the present Bill ; it seemed as if it were consi-
dered that there was some wonderful property in the abstract
name of security, apart from the dangers against which it was
professedly intended to. Foy*. But every hour of considera-
tion that was bestowed on the subject, the dangers themselves
seemed to grow less ; and such was the change in his opinions
on that' point, which had been brought about by the won-
derful revolution of events that had occurred within a few
years, that if the Bill of last year had come up to their Lord-
ships without securities, he should have raised his voice in
earnest endeavours to dissuade their Lordships from adding
securities to it. But though he himself regarded securities as
unnecessary, yet knowing the expectations which prevailed
in the minds of the people of the country in that respect, and
the great object of the measure being conciliation and
union, if that object could in any way be forwarded by such
securities, he should have been sorry that the want of them
should have stood in the way of making that which was a mea-
sure of concession to one party, contribute to the confidence and
tranquillity of the other. If there were any of their Lordships
who thought it possible that it might ultimately be found ne-
cessary to pass this measure, yet hesitated at the present mo-
ment from the fear of its leading to the whole question, he
begged to assure fl:tan, that where the expediency of the mea-
sure was so manifest, where its justice and policy was so evi-

dent, they had but one course to pursue--to look the question
at once fairly in the face; for if they omitted to pass this mea-
sure now, every day, every hour of delay would increase the diffi-
culty, and they would at length do it with less prospect of set-
ting the great question at 'rest. To reject- this measure with
the information that they now possessed of, the true nature of
those grounds on which the restrictions were originally founded,
would be to say to the six Noble Individuals concerned,
" True, you were unjustly, deprived of your rights ; we detest
the perjuries of Titus Oates, we abhor the Popish Plot,
we acknowledge the proceeding's founded on it to be unjust;
but we will continue to keep them in force, because we were
not the original authors." And then would they proceed to
drag forth Acts of former Parliaments, and to quote the greatest
names that adorned the history of the country, in justification
of these restrictions. Titus Oates, and those who believed him,
were indeed the' authors of the injustice; Lord Shaftesbury,
and the other illustrious names that adorned the Revolution,
had continued, it, but their Lordships.- should remember
that if they rejected this measure, from that day forward, not
Titus Oates and,his associates, not Lord Shaftesbury and the
authors of the Revolution., but the present House of Lords,
would be regarded as the inflictors of that injustice which
they perpetuated and adopted as their own. The Noble Earl
said he would dismiss from his memory Titus Oates, and
his discoveries ; but the authors of the Revolution, and
the great characters who then existed, adopted the restric-
tions as necessary, and they were the persons whose mo-
tives and conduct their Lordships were to look to. He
(Lord Grenville) said so too. He did not mean to disparage
the conduct and motives of these persons, to whom we owed
what liberties we enjoyed ; but he must say, that if they
looked to that painful period, their Lordships would find
that the danger against which they had to provide did not
arise from the Catholic Peers, or any plots on their part
against the,. throne or the Government. There was indeed a
Popish Plot, but it was not a plot of the Catholic Peers
against the State, but of a Catholic heir to the Crown against
the Protestant religion and the liberties of the country. The
whole experience of our history, from the reign of Mary to the
end of Charles 11. shewed, that not any the smallest particle of
danger arose from that law of Elizabeth which continued to
Catholic Peers the right which they before possessed of sit-
ting in that House ; and no security whatever to the Consti-
tution and liberties of the country was obtained by the law
that was passed to deprive them of that right ; nor was
there the least shadow of proof in the history of the time of
any conduct: on the part of the persons subject to the persecu-
tions that aiiose out of the Popish Plot, to justify the measures
that were directed against them. To contend for the continu-
ance of securities adopted in times of confusion and alarm,
should be continued when those alarms had subsided, because
the dangers that were then apprehended justified their adoption,
was as absurd as to say, that because the City of London was
formerly surrounded with a high wall, and other places in the
kingdom were fortified, to secure them from the attacks of an
enemy, it was necessary now, in a period of profound peace,
to change the face of the country into that of an armed camp.
—lf it were armed that danger still existed, or might be ap-
prehended, he.had a right to ask where it was to be found,
and in what shape it was to be detected ? And if those who
raised that argument failed to define the precise nature of
the danger which they feared, he felt himself bound, not as
a matter of expediency, but' of retributive justice, to remove
this restriction. He asked, what part of the measures adopt-
ed at the period of the Revolution were to be considered as
essential for the protection of the fundamental liberties of
the country, and what part only as providing against a tem-
porary danger ? Looking at the argument of the Noble and
Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) on that point as well
founded, he must have risen to oppose every on 9 of the Acts
for the removal of restrictions passed in the reign of the late
benevolent Sovereign. If their Lordships would look at the
measure of that night as one of retributive justice, lie would
venture to predict that no danger whatever would arise to the
country from its adoption. If they rejected it from, the fear of
its leading to the general question, they would exclude six
English Peers from their rights, not because the exclusion
was just, but because those would be hampered in argument,
who, if those Peers were admitted, sought to keep out others,
whom, for his own part, he saw no reason for excluding. He
had not intended to address any observations to their Lordships
on this occasion, but he had not been able to sit silent when he
heard argued, on the ground of expediency, a measure which
he considered as a measure of Justice, a question of property,
privilege, and birthright to be restored, which had been wrong-
fully taken away, and which could no longer be withheld
without injustice.—(Repeated cheers.)
Lord REDESDALE said that the present Bill called on
them to admit into the Legislature persons who were in direct
hostility to the Protestant Establishments. Those persons were
bound in conscience to uphold and promote their own faith.
Could he have a stronger ground for excluding them, or for
continuing the exclusion ? But even this Bill proposed oaths
of allegiance and abjuration. If it were the right of the Ca-
tholic Peers, as had been contended, they were not justified in
imposing those oaths. The question involved in the Bill, how-
ever, be contended was one of expediency, and of expediency
only; the justice of the case had nothing to do with its considera-
tion. He maintained that the exclusion was required for the secu-
rity of the Protestant Establishment,and the King on his Throne.
The oath taken by the Sovereign required him to support the
Protestant Establishment to the utmost of his power; but
when the Monarch had done so, were they to surround him
with persons who held different principles and views ? It was
idle to talk of the few who would gam admittance into that
House if the question were carried. But in what situation
would they place the Sovereign on the Throne, if the conces-
sion required by this Bill were granted ? They would give
him a Parliament with principles directly opposite to the terms
of the Sovereign's cath. It was useless to talk of securities;
the only security they could have was that exclusion which it
was now sought to remove. The Constitution gave them a
Protestant Executive Government, and a Protestant Legis-
lative Government; but to pass the present Bill would be
to change that Constitution, and to convert those Protestant
Governments into Roman Catholic. James the Second at-
tempted by his power to set aside the very statute which
their Lordships were now called upon to repeal. This
would show of what avail that Monarch thought it if he
could get it into his hands. His suspending powers eXer-
cised in this very instance, were amongst the tyrannical
and unconstitutional measures which ended in his being driven
from the Throne. "There was no doubt but that if it had never
passed, and James had been allowed to fill the House of Lords
with Catholic Peers, that that great Revolution, so glorious in
the annals of this country, would never have come to pass. It
was therefore not a measure of slight importance, but was inti-
mately connected with, and fornied part of the fundamental
laws of the realm. The Noble and Learned Lord then pro-
ceeded to argue upon the results which the introduction of Ca-
tholic' Peers into Parliament would have upon Church institu-
tutions in Ireland. He contended, that it would be the ruin of
the Church Establishment and Church property in that coun-
try. As property was in every case the great object, the Roman
Catholic Clergy would never cease to use their influence for
having transferred to their hands some of the profits of Church
livings, which had been long enjoyed by members of the Esta-
blished Church. Whilst Catholics were totally excluded from
Parliament, there was no opportunity for such machinations
, open to them. In conclusion, he stated, that if Parliament
took the first step—namely, to admit Catholic Peers to vote,
they would not know where to stop. if they should admit men
of different persuasions to the House of Commons, they would
eventually become so mixed up with the institutions of the
country, that the Constitution would cease to have that Protes-
tant character which was at once its boast and its best security.
For all these reasons he opposed the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND having• caused the Standing Order, No.
71, xo be read, which directed, that no oath should be imposed
by any Bill or otherwise, the refusal to take which should dis-
qualify any Peer to sit in Parliament, proceeded to say, the
reading of that Standing Order placed the question on its true
looting ; which was, whether the time was now come at which
it would, be safe and proper for their Lordships to restore to
the Catholic Peers the free exercise of their undoubted right,
of which they had been unjustly deprived, in violation of that
Standing Order. It was the undoubted right of every Peer
to sit and vote in Parliament without any oath ; and that re-
gulation imposing the test was an exception and a departure
from the Constitution, justifiable only by expediency, which
was to be proved by those who advocated such restraints.
—lt was said, if they passed this Bill, they would create
an anomaly. An anomaly ! In what ? In the system of
our religious and political exclusions ? In that which was a
chaos of anomalies throughout ? The whole system of re-
ligious legislation in the 'three kingdoms was one •vast
anomaly ; and were their Lordships to be deterred from
an act of justice by the fear of adding to the number the
trifling anomaly that might be created by this Bill ? But
this andrialy that was so much deprecated, was one that
had already existed ; it was one of the ancient law, and there-
fore, he should have conceived, in some degree entitled to
the Noble and Learned Lord's respect. One great objection
that had been urged was, that the measure was attended with
no securities ; and the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord
Chancellor) said it was the first measure of the sort that had
ever been proposed without them. But he (Lord H.) himself,
in 1799, soon after the Noble and Learned Lord came into
that House, moved to refer the Act of 30 Charles 11. and
the Act of 1 William and Mary,' for altering the oath, to a
• Committee, and no mention was then made at all of securities.
That motion was met, not by a direct negative, but with the
previous question. Why did not the Noble and Learned Lord,
on that oh casion, object to such a mode of disposing of the
motio:., which left open for future discussion a question,
which, according to his present doctrine, would over-
throw the whole of the laws and liberties of the kingdom ?

But he (Lord Holland) never did set any value on securities;
and he had only agreed to them, in any case, as the price to
be paid for a more important object. Queen Elizabeth re-
jected the idea of such securities; and Henry :VIII., who
destroyed the Pope's supremacy in this country, had never
thought of exacting such an oaih as was now required. Tbs.
standing order, which had just been read, was introduced by
that Lord Shaftesbury whose name had been mentioned on
the other side; and when he afterwards supported the Bill im-
posing the test, and was asked how he could do so in viola-
tion of his own order, he defended himself by saying'
" lege: posteriores priores abrogant," later laws abre-
gate former ones. The danger which was then to be guaill;
ed against was that of a Popish successor ; and when
King refused to sanction an Act for the purpose of ex-
cluding his successor, this measure was had recourse
to, as a step toward's the other, by cutting eff
power those who might be likely to favour his desig,na•:
The Noble Lord then proceeded to combat the doctrine that
the Act of 30 Charles 11. was heretofore considered as one
the fundamental laws of the country, or as an essential part °
the Constitution. The objection of King William to its red-
peal, which a Noble Lord had referred to, was accompanie s
with this preamble—" That while the King of England Iv!,
not a Protestant, he. did not think it would be safe to repeo'
it." He then supported his position by arguments draw!'
from the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, n
et
ther of which contained any mention of, or allusion tt:
the Act in question. He also ' referred to the apelisi
ment of Lords Justices for administering the
Authority in the absence of George I. from the kingdom'
who were instructed not to consent to the repeal of
any
of the fundamental laws of the kingdom, which were the,.
enumerated, but among which this Act, 30th Charles
was not included. No man wished more than he did, that.tl
whole question of the removal of restrictions should be ari
ex fie
He had always heard the Noble and Learned Lord say, e•
sion was an evil, and could only be justified by necessity. -
had also heard him say, that " that which 'necessity creates,
from
necessity limits." He would therefore say, that if this excill"
sion wa., justified by expediency arising out of necessity at Mel
time of its enactment, it was not, upon the Noble and Le
Lord's Lord's own argument, to be justified now that such necessiti
no longer existed. The Commons, therefore, in his op_lininf°o;
had done right in selecting this law to be repealed ;
these reasons he did not think the objections against the
could be maintained.—(Hear.)
The question was then loudly called for, and the House teas
cleared for a division. The numbers were-.

Contents - - - 80 Present
Proxies - - " 49---129
Not Content - 97 Present
Proxies . 74--171
Majority against the Bill - - - .--42ar A
new
It was consequently thrown out.—The House then adjc
at HALF-PAST TWELVE.