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

CRIMINAL LAW.

Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from Carlisle, and Sir
JOHN SEBRIGHT, one from Hitchen, both praying for a
revision of the Criminal Code.—Ordered to be printed.
CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

Mr. DOWNIE presented a Petition from the Magistrates
and Council of Stirling; Mr. HOME DRUMMOND one
from the Synod of Perth and Stirling ; and another from the
Parish of Denny all praying that ho privileges or indulgences
might be granted to the Catholics.—Ordered to be printed.
DEMISE OF THE CROWN.

Sir R. HERON postponed till next Session his motion rela-
tive to the renewal of offices on the Demise of the Crown,

Mr. SYKES stated, that in compliance with the wishes of
Many Gentlemen, he rose' to postpone his motion respecting the
duties on Tallow till a future day. As in the plan of the Noble
Marquis it was intended to remit taxes to the amount of
1,800,0001. he thought it due, in deference to that Noble Lord,
to wait until the Resolutions introduced by him were more
fully discussed. He begged leave to postpone his motion to the
19th of May.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.

Mr. SCARLETT obL'tined leave to bring in a Bill to pre-
vent the removal of the poor, with an understanding that the
discussion should take place in a future stage.
BANK OF ENGLAND.
21r. GRENFELL seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, wished to put a
question to him, with reference to the Bank Charter. He
wished to know whether any arrangement was made, or sti-
pulation entered into, to continue the clause originally intro-
duced in the year 1890, by which it was enacted that the Bank
should continue to enjoy all the allowances, emoluments, and
benefits which they now possessed, by virtue and in behalf•
of the public. There was also another question to which he
wished an answer, namely, whether it was intended to allow
40001. per annum for Coals and house expenses ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he,
was enabled to answer the Hon. Member directly in the nega-
tive. There was no clause of remuneration.

Mr. GRENFELL then gave notice, that on Wednesday
next he should take the sense of the House as to the propriety
of extending the duration of the Charter of the Bank under any
circumstances.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, there
was no intention to bring forward that subject then.
SOUTH AMERICA.
Mr. 'ELLICE said, that seeing the Noble Marquis in
his place, he 'wished to put a question to him on a subject
on which the greatest anxiety prevailed in the public mind—
he meant with respect to the relation in which that country stood
with the independent Governments of South America. He had
no wish to embarrass the Government; he felt that it was a
question snore of time than of doubt. If the Noble Lord
could give a satisfactory answer, he would impart a great grati-
fication to the public. He wished to know whether it was the
intention of his Majesty's Government to follow the example
of the United States of America, by recognising the independent
Governments of the South American Continent ?

The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said he knew that
proceedings were pending in the United States, but with their
precise character he was not acquainted. It was the intention
of his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Robinson) in his Bill
before the House, to introduce a provision calculated to do away
any difficulties in the comthercial intercourse between this
country and the different States of America.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY. ,
Mr. PEEL presented a Petition from the University of Ox-
ford against the Catholic Question.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE took that opportunity of declaring
his opinion, that if the motion that night about to be made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman was carried, the whole object
would have been accomplished. The reason why Petitions were
not numerously laid on that table was, that the great body of
the people were so absorbed in the consideration of their own
distress, as to have produced a total indifference to all political
subjects. He protested, however, against their silence being
construed in favour of that motion. The people of this country
still continued decidedly hostile to the question. He trembled,
hoivever—(a laugh)--at the probable effect of die Right Hon.
Gentleman's (Mr. Canning's) eloquence ; he trembled, because
he himself had too lately been an instance of his captivation—
Loud laughing.)—He repeated the fact. A few nights ago, lie
(Sir T.) came down with the intention of voting with the Noble
Lord
(J. Russell), until he had heard the very eloquent speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had a right to argue that the
same influence which that eloquence had over his mind, might
on the present question be equally persuasive over the minds of
others, and lead them from the true and strict path of their
duty—(Loud laughing, and cries of hear !).—Being himself an
instance, he thought it right that the Members of that House
should be cautioned—(A laugh, and cries of hear !)--He did'
believe that the great body of the people did require a more
adequate state of the representation, and such a proposition he
should support when brought forwardl in a manner more recon-
cileable to his feelings.
Mr. SCARLET' said, that probably if the Honourable
Baronet postponed his determination until after the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, he would be induced even on this
night also to vote with that Right Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Canning)—(Hear, hear !).
, The Petition was laid on the table. -

Petitions were then presented from Paisley and Glasgow
against the Catholic Claims.
Mr. 'COKE presented Petitions from several Hundreds in
the County of Norfolk, complaining of Agricultural Distress
and overwhelming taxation.
The Petitions were laid on the Table.
•_

On the motion of Mr. Fl OBH OUSE, there was orderid- to
be laid on the table a return of the Duties levied on Houses
and Windows, distinguishing the one from the other, and the
return of England: from Scotland and Ireland.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the return of News-
paper Stamps was ordered to be made forthwith.
CATHOLIC PEERS.

Mr. CANNING said, in rising to make that motion, of
which he had given notice, could he hope to- convey to the
minds of those who heard hiM but one-tenth part of the con-
viction produced on his own judgment of the justice and expe-
diency of that measure which he was about to recommend to
the consideration of the, House, he should approach this discus-
sionivith feelings
.of confidence, such as he had never known.
before. If he now came to it with diffidence, with agitation and

anxiety, it was because he was sure that if-his proposition should
fail of meeting with the approbation of the House (which he
hoped it would not), he could have np refuge in the weakness
of the cause itself, or in tke paucity of the arguments to be used
initaaupport, but it must be considered that the cause was lost
soitly through lack of ability on the part of the Advocate.—
Befora,he proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought
thellouse would do well to allow a Bill to be introduced to
remove the disabilities which at present precluded Catholic
Peers from sitting in Parliament, it might be advisable for
him to notice some of the partial and preliminary objections
which had been made elsewhere, to the form rather than to the
substance of his motion. When he spokeof elsewhere herneant
to allude to-the common current of conversation out of that
House. In that House his motion had been treated by an
Hon. Baronet, the Member for Somerset, as an insidious- at-
tempt to get the House to pronounce an unconscious decision
on the whole question. Connected with this, but contrary to it,
another objection had been raised, that to bring forward such a
motion must prejudice the great question of Catholic eman-
cipation. He might hope that these oppaaite objections would
counterbalance each other, If the snip now ;proposed to be
taken advanced the Catholic cause gTnetaatly, it could not be
prejudicial to-the great question. , If indeed it were prejudi-
cial to the main question, then it could not advance the cause,
and the Hon. Baronet ouasha rather to hail his motion with satis-
faction than to view it with that apprehension which he hail
confessed.
,He would however candidly say that, in his
opinion, success in this motion would lead towards success
with the larger question, inasmuch as when. part was gained
of a whole, which consisted of a number of parts, such
partial success detracted from the numerical difficulties that
were to be conquered. But in another respect he regarded
the present motion as that which would conduce to the final suc-
cess of the Catholic question, from the diAcussion which must
take place. Discussion itself on a law which was really • un-
just, he regarded as a great advance towards remedying the
evil. ,This was that which could not be put a stop to. Were
the attempt made to put down discussion, it would be also ne-
cessary to arrest the course of thought and the flight of time,
for till this was.done every hour that passed—every year that
elapsed, must bring this , great question nearer to • a triumphant
close. But every argument that went to make it appear that,'
coming to a conclusion favdurable to this motion, a pa-
rallel conclusion must 'of necessity be come to on the greater
question, he would utterly deny. He would deny that this
question was the same as that, and one great advantage
that he had on the present occasion was tins, that his motion
was brought forward on more practical grounds, and on a
narrower basis than the great queStion itself, which had in-
volved so many conflicting considerations. Hitherto it had
been imputed to the advocates for Catholic emancipation that
they did not confine themselves'to law and facts, but that wan-
dering from these they expatiated on generalities, soaring to
the heights of abstract-principles, ranging round the whole
circumference of analogy,- but sparingly on the laws of Eng-
land or the British Constitution. He should turn this argu-
ment to day from the supporters of his motion. Nothing that
he should offer would justify them in entering into that general
argument which had heretofore been connected with debates
on the subject of Catholic Emancipation : and with all his re,
verence for general principles he would call on those who' id him
the honour to give him their assistance, to confine themselves to
the precise question which he should bring before them, and to the
precise Act of Parliament on which he founded his motion. He,
however, was not one that was at All disposed -to throw aside
that measure in which he had ever taken so lively an interest,
that which should concede to the Catholics all that they had a
right to expect. He would only say, that he would not have
that in view on-this day, but he would strictly and honestly
confine himself to the motion of which he had given notice, and
looked for nothing beyond what must inevitably result from
, carrying that, and from the progress of opinion. He hoped,
then, he was in a condition to say that those who objected to
his motion, that it. called for a decision on the whole subject,
that their apprehension was not well-founded, and to those
who considered it likely to prejudice the main question, that
their alarm was equally groundless. But some were so high-
minded that they were indifferent about any progress being
made in the question, unless the whole of the demands of the
Catholics were satisfied. Some even thought that the loss of his
motion was to be desired, not because the privileges it sought to
obtain were valueless, but because these obtained would Strip the
adv'ocates for the Catholics of some of those topics of declama-
tion which had hitherto been at _their command. Much as he
wished for the general success of the Catholic Question, he did
not think it would be wise to give up the opportunity of gaining
partial advantages, in order to enrich future debates. If its this
he were wrong, the Catholics themselves had hitherto much
mistaken their own interest. Assuming this argument to be
good, why did not their regrets travel back to the period when
the penal code was in full operation, wheneven the mosticiune
statement was eloquence itself from the strength of the facts
with which it was connected. How much ought they to lament
the concessions which had been made from time to time during
the auspicious reign of the late Monarch, and which had taken
from the Catholic so many causes of complaint that he had
scarcely a specimen remaining of the chains with which he was
charged, when George 111. ascended the Throne. He supposed
they were to regret that the statute of 1778 had passed which
gave Catholics the right of holding property. He supposed
they were to lament the passing of the Act of 1791, which freed
Catholics front so many vexatious disabilities ; and also that
of 1793, which gave so much that comparatively they had but
little to demand should be conceded. That the army and
navy had been selectly thrown open to them three years ago
would, perhaps, by those who took such a view of the subject;
be regarded as a very unfortunate occurrence, for had these
advantages been denied what would have been the come-,
quence I' Why, they would have had a much fairer 'subject of
debate when they
,had these grievances altogether. He did
not think an objection to his motion, founded on such a view
of the case, entitled to much attention, nor very wisely urg-
ed at this moment. Another objection had been urged to
which he was disposed to pay greater respect. It had been
stated to him that sonie of the Noble Persons who would
be affected by the present motion, if carried, entertained a
certain disinclination to the partial discussion of the Catholic
Question. But he should not have yielded to delicacy upon this
point ; because, he must take the liberty to say, that even from
those Noble Persons themselves he should never allow approba-
tion to influence his conduct. The House would recollect that
lie had uniformly disclaimed appearing ahereias the common
advocate of the claims of the Catholic body. In common par-
lance, indeed, he might have said that he was the advocate of
.their cause ; but as to assuming the character of their common
advocate, for the purpose of defending and pleading for them
before the legislature of the nation, such had never been the
part which he had acted. And, inasmuch as the praise or
blame of the parties interested in the efforts he had thought
it his duty to make had never entered into his motives,
so was he exempt from any control, even if they should
have considered that the present measure for effecting a
part of their object would be detrimental to the obtainment
of the whole. But he certainly felt much relieved in not hay,
ing to dwel) upon this point, by the receipt of a letter which
had'come to his hands that day, proving that no such objection
as that to which he had alluded did actually exist. He could read
the letter if necessary, and he should merely say that it came
from a noble person of the very highest rank in the Catholic
body. He would only detain the House by stating that con-
cluded in these words: " I assure you, upon my authority,
that there is no foundation for that report." He was glad
of such an opportunity to contradict, by such means, the ru-
mours Which had gone abroad, because he understood that
they had made some impression. He had said in other places,
and he would now repeat before a larger audience, that, as he
would not have conceded his purpose to their feeling upon
the question, so, upon his honour, he had received no excite-
ment to pursue it, either directly or indirectly, from the noble
persons who were interested in its success. He made this call
upon the House with as little instigation from any parties
as if it embraced the condition. of the whole Catholic
body.. In clearing away the obstacles which beset the mo-
tion, there was another that he was desirous to dispose of in
the outset: He had heard something about as objection to
originating, in the House of Commons, a measure which meant
to effect the rights and privileges of the House of Lords.—
Thia he took to be a question whikh could only be, argued upon
precedent. And if they found that the very
,3ill which he
now called upon them to repeal originated in the Commons—
if that, originally, the Peers were not disqualfied from sit-
ting in their House; and that the Conimons stated the mea-
sure which excluded the Peers, and increased ale disqualifica-
tions upon themselves, by legislatively excludhgCominoners,
what, in the name of common sense, could be objected to the
measure he should have the honour to prolose upon this
ground ?—(Hear, hear, hear I)—Almost all tie Penal Acts
against Catholic Peers had originated in the Canmons. The
Act of the sth of Elizabeth, and the Acts whirl affected the

Bishops, were all originated in the House of Commons.— I
• How, then, was he to be told that it would he offensive to
their Lordships for that House to entertain a measure, because
it related to their privileges ? There was another objection
to which he would address a few observations. It had been
remarked by the Honourable Member opposite that it was
very singular how 'he (Mr. Canning) could. oppose Reform
in the House of Commons end suppert it in the House of ;
Lords. Now as this was purely argamentunz ad honzincninlie
should not have held it as deserving much attention from the
'House. But as the proposer of a measure like the present
Aught not to stand with any slur of such a nature upon his
principles, he hoped for pardon if lie went a little into this
part of the question in order to remove what difficulties it
might by possibility throw in his way. It often happened
that the points upon which men piqued thernselves most were
those which first exposed them to accusation. Now he
did think he could make out sliest clearly, that instead
of having committed any inconsistency in this .particUlar
part of his conduct, it was one in which he had been perfectl?
and strictly Consistent. He had always said that those who
had called upon that House. fee *Referee, must tell. ¶bcther
their object wag to' reconstruct any epart.of tine Cons'tination
anew, or to recall it to any specific state in which it was at
any former period. If they answered that they desired to re-
store it as it existed at a former period, he had a right to know
what the nature of the reform was, as also the precise nature
of the alterations contemplated, and as far as human foresight
could calculate, what would be their eventual extent. Now
these tests he of course meant to apply to plans of-Parlia-
mentary Reform in their abstract ; it -could not he expected
that information would be given upon all their details. To all
these he was ready to conform, and he would reply to them
separately and unequivocally. In
.the first place he should
say, that he was not going to construct anew any 'addition to
the House pf Peers, but to bring it back to a state in which it
had existed at a former period. He should theli answer that the
period to which lie would restore it terminated on the 30th No-
vember, 1678, being the day on which the Royal Assent was
given to the Act which he now called upon them to repeal.—
He should further say, that the Constitution of the House of
Peers would then stand such as it had been for time immemo-
rial previous to the passing of that Acts This would be
.
the extent of his wild and visionary plan ; , thetet would go to
the restoration, of the rights of sik Engliih Peers, and, by its
future operation, it would have the same effect upon about as
many Irish. He thought he had now shewn that he was ready
to conform to the grounds upon which alOne he considered any
reform warranted. He had hewn that the reform he proposed
was safe and defined in its object; that it went to• bring back
the Constitution to what it once was, and that it was limited in
its operation. And he, epuld not help feeling that it would be
attended with bsnefits equal to any that could result from many
larger schemes of reform of which he had heard, and that too
' without incurrhig risk. He Should now go back to the periods
at which the penal enactments against the Catholics were ob-
tained, in order to .shew that his object was not to make inno-
vation, but to renovate the Constitution. He would chew that
they had been inflicted under the pretence of evils 'and dan-
gers which did not. exist, and with a degree of cruelty that
was unparalleled in its operation upon the generations which
.succeeded them. In order to come at a- definite and precise
notion of the question as it stood, it would be expedient to
take a short review of the Acts of the Legislature against
the Catholics. Honourable Members need not be afraid that
he was going to raise up discussion upon all the different'
statutes ; his intention was merely tb classify them according
to their bearings upon the question. One great object in
doing this would be to disabuse those who, from a superfi-
cial examination of the historical facts connected with them,
had misconceived the real meaning, and to disentangle some
of the difficulties with which they were wound up. In exa-
mining the Legislative enactments against the Catholics, he
should divide them under three periods. First, that from
the Reformation, taking it at the time. of,Elizabeth, down to
the Restoration. The second. would be limited to the'reign of
Charles IL, and the third division would embrace the time
from the Revolution downwards, to that period of his late Ma-
jesty's reign,when the relaxation of these penal laws first began.
He would explain the reason 'of this unequal division with re-
gard to time. The severity of the penal laws which were
passed between the Reformation and the Restoration, was ac-
counted for by the -difficulties With which Elizabeth had tq con-
tend:Jr the maintenance of hee Throne. They were in some
'degree warranted by the frequent recurrence of plots against
her, by the instability of a religion scarcely established, and
by the danger of foreign interference. All these things com-
bined, made the establishment of the throne and of religion
almost the same thing. In taking the last period, from the
Revolution downwards, they would not find exactly the same
causes, but there were then an exiled family, divided parties,,
and violent feuds ; and these political agitations naturally
created divisions in the Church. When William came to the
Crown, there was nef wonder that he did not remove the ilaqua-•
lifications which the Act of Charles imposed, and which was
only then ten years old.' His buainess was to keep down the
attemnts of his }predecessor to' re-establish himself ; to make
powerful and effective' efforts to render those" attempts Mope.'
rative. In Ireland the consequences of these agitations were
still worse than in England.- The undoubted object of the
measures adopted towards that country was to grind the popu-
lation into the 'dust—to exterrtlinate their race—to loosen the
ties of kinared=and to'make the bonds of _society untenable.
And was this done in wantonness ? No ; but because the exis-
tence of the Crown was inseparable from the establishment and
security of the Protestant Church. • Cutting off these• two pe-
riods, then, the reign of Charlie the Second would stand insu-
lated; and marked by characteristics peculiar to itself. •' The whole
reign was one internal struggle, but unaccompanied-by exter-
nal. danger. The Church had its chief enemysnear the Throne;
and the penal enactments which were then made against the
Catholics did not descend from the Throne, but rose up from
the Parliament. Still the House would be surprised to find
that they had little to do in the way of removing difficulties, but
what was shut up in this narrow channel of the reign of Charles
the Second. The last relaxations which had' been granted in
the penal enactments anterior to the Restoration.; had removed
them all, except those inflicted by the nth of Elizabeth,
the same which were confirmed by the 30th of Charles the
Second. There was, indeed the 13th of Elizabeth also remain-
ing, which prohibited all intercourse with the See of Rome,
but that had fallen, almost, into disuse. All the penal acts
passed since the Revolution had been' repealed, excepting ,one.
of the 13th of Anne, with regard to the advowson of livings,
and another for administering certain oaths to civil and mi-
litary persons. The latter, indeed, he believed to be virtually
removed by the Act of 1316. Almost every thing of moment
which remained to be removed was confined to the one period
of our history, namely the reign of Charles the Second. The
discussion, therefore, would be confined to that period. They
could- not be surprised at finding that under Charles and
James (the latter a Popish Prince), the people should look with
suspicion, if not at the subversion of the 'Protestant Church, at
least at the destruction of its spirit and its practice. It would
be seen by the history of those days, that the predotninant
dread of the House of Commons was the passibility of a Popish
succession to the Ceown. And when they took this as a clue,
much would appear plain which was otherwise involved in
doubt and confusion. To this object of debarring the Duke of
York from coming to the Throne, must be referred the fre-
quent remonstrances of the Parliament to the King against the
Papists and the Duke Of York, and the various other expres-
sions of ill will towards him. He did not at all state this
as a matter of blame, or with the desire of casting any im-
hnitation upon the Parliament. No one could look at our
istory without coining to the conclusion that the attempt
at making Papists ineligible 'to sit 'in the House of' Lords
was intentionally directed against the Duke of York, and
that the Commons would have been perfectly satisfied if
they could have effected his removal without inflicting the
other , penaltied. When , the Act of 1678 was passed in
the Lords and ,returned to the Commons, but with a clause
in favour of the Duke Of York, then in despair they made
direct applications to the King for his banishment, and re-
moval from the succession. 'That intelligent and impartial
historian, Rapin, stated, that the Commons were governed all
along by this chief object,- in the measures which they directed
against the Papists. What was the inference that he meant to
draw from all this ? That the Commeins were wrong? No
such thing. His, inference was, that we having no cause of
alarm, were not justified in continuing the penalties, which
they imposed when alarm and danger were mostpressing. Had.
we a popish succession' to make us tremble for our establish-
ment ? and if not, what was to justify our continuance in inea-
Sures only intended to guard against the presence of 'such a
danger? They often heard much of the wisdom of antiquity,
and he should like to know whether the Act of 1678 received
that degree of attention and consideration which the wisdom of
the present day evould dictate.' The Parliament met on the.
26th of October, and the Popish Plot was slightly alluded to

from the Throne. But this would not satisfy the Parliament :
they immediately sent for the. witnesses who had been exa-
-mined, aniliesonti warrants for the apprehension of six Peers.
After the, expiration of seven days, the Bill was pesee,d-and
sent up to the Lords. Thus allowing one day for the Address,
~and the intervention of Sunday, five days only were bestowed
upon the consideration of a measure which went to deprive
some of the highest personages in the realm of their just rights,
a period not greater than would be given in our time to the•
pasting of a turnpike bill to Gut through a road that was neces-
sary to• he cleared at the shOrtest public notice. Immediately
the Bill was sent up to the Loriha they got the Lord ChiefJus,
-rice's warroat for the 'apprehension of six Peers out of the,
eighteen who had seats in that liouee. What must have been
the feeling with which the. House of Lords went to the coml.:
'aeration of the Bill unAersech circumstances ? They saw it
came before them.at the moment that one third of the persons
against whom it was directed were swept away to prison.
They, however, would not be goaded into a similar line of con-
duct. The commons sent, day after day, to know the reason
why the Bill was not passed, and when at last that Ctbjcct was
accomplished, *a: clattee was added in favour of the Duke of
York. edndlie interval,between• the year 2673, at :the 'passing,
of the Test Act, and-the year 1678, when this Bill was adopt-
ed, a Bill was introduced into the H cuss of Lords,- to, atlinini-,
ster certain oaths to Peers, under the forfeiture of .iiStitialitica-
tion. Upon this, not only the Catholic, but other temporal
Peers, and that no small number either, joined in a protest,
which set forth,: that the right of sitting in the House was so
inherent and inseparable from theni, that nothing could take it
away from them, and it was what the law must only take away
with their lives. That protest was adopted unanimously, and
not by a small House, there being 167 Members present.—
It was-then made an Order of the Lords Spiritual and Tempo-
ral, that no oath could be proposed to them, -the refusal of
which incurred the penalty of losing their places in Parliament.
Such_ an. order as this was passed only three years befbre the
passing of the Bill in 1678, and became a standing-order of the
House. He would endeavour to shew how those Acts could
be reconciled to each other. He did not mean to Say that a
standing order of the House of Lprds was impregnable to the
law of the land. But it shewed, that while they were in pos-
session of their calm deliberate faculties, they would not give
in to the menaces of the House of Commons, or the threats and
tumults of the people out of doors. It was iese things and the
fear of the Popish, conspiracy, which at last induced them to
surrender their calm judgment,, and to inflict the penalty upon
the members of their own body. How were they to account
for the order to which he had referred being allowed to remain
ou their Lordships' Journals after the Bill wzs subsequently
passed ? The only explanation was to be found in the infee
rence, that as their alarm was temporary, so were the measures
they adopted intended to be so. As in cases of the suspension
of the Habeas Corpus, the Act remained-untouched, so they
meant that the rights of Catholic Peers should only be sus-
pended until the storms of the day had bloin over. Admit -
that, and these Acts of the Legislature were intelligible ; ad-
mit it not, and it was impossible to unravel their meaning, or
the intentions of the Legislators. This construction was greatly
so strengthened by the Act itself. And he must say that tine Act
was one 9f the most unhappy productions, whether they looked
to the preamble or the enactments, that could even be found in
these days, when the business of legislature had increased to
such an extent.' The Right lion. Gentleman then read pas-
sages from the preamble of the Act, and commented on their
incongruity. Catholics were therein denied access to the King.
An Act was subsequently passed, which originated in the
House of Commons, for admitting Catholic Peers only into the
Royal presence. This shewed that there was a distinct privi-
kge which they possessed, and that they_ were the- inherent
Counsellors of the Crown, and the removing it from them was
an infringement upon their natural rights. :The.- Right HOn.
Gent. then alluded to the difference of the oaths necessary to be
taken by Peers admitted to the presence of the King after
the passing of the Act in question, and those by which alone
they-would be allowed to sit-in Parliament. Was there ever
so strange an anomaly its this ? What ! was it to be said that
a Peer in a temporal and civil capacity was a goOd coun-
cillor to the King, -but spiritually and ecclesiastically he
was disqualified for a legislator ? Good GOD ! was there
ever such nonsense heard of? A Peer might go to St.
James's to pay his homage to his Sovereign, anal be there
a good and loyal subject, but the moment he turned his
horses' heads towards -the Houses of Parliament, it was ne-
cessary that he should -go before a Magistrate, and take the
Oaths of Supremacy, before he could be considered other-
wise than a dangerous subject. Was it possible that our an-
cestors could have left such anomalies behind them-without the
existence of some particular and urgent causes. These
causes might be found in the fact, that the House of Lords
passed the Act of 767th under duresse, and their intention to
repeal it in better times. :But anomalies did not end here.
In the auspicious reign of our present gracious Sovereign,
anomalies were not wanting with regard to the situation- of
Catholic subjects. For the first time these hundred years
they had lately witnessed the ceremony of a Monarch's coro-
nation. It would be degrading that ceremony to the lowest
pitch to consider it in the light of a mere pageant. It was the
renewal of a solemn compact betwixt the King and his people,
at which he received the homage of all classes of 'his subjects.
This took place in the face of all Catholic and Protestant
Europe, and it . was solemnized with that awful majesty
which attended upon a compact of such a nature between
a Sovereign and a free. people: In this ceremony, the t a-
- tholic was admitted 'to enjoy his rights and privileges. And
amidst the proud train that graced the festival, who was it that
overtopped the whole, and stood the first subject of the land ?
The. Catholic Duke of Norfolk ! 'Who was it that held the
highest office in the ceremonial next to the Royal Family ?
The Catholic Duke of Norfolk ! Who was it that had the
honour to drink publicly the health of the Monarch, and under
circumstances which rendered its reception peculiarly gra-
cious ? Again, the Catholic Duke of Norfolk •! And whilst
the different Courts of the world were present at this
scene, by,their representatives, did it occur to the Catholic
Austrian, or to the Catholic Frenchman that es soon as
the ceremony was over the Catholic Peer was to strip
off his robes, and bang them upon a peg until the occurrence
of another coronation should call again for their use ? Did
it occur to them that Lord Clifford had' been called theta
amongst the paraphernalia of the pageant, like the was can-
dles and the lustres of the day, to be thrown-by when it ex-
pired 5 Was it to be iniag,ined 'that those upon whoM the
choice anal faVolir of the Sovereign had fallen were held un-
worthy of a share in legislating to the country, which their
very 'presence at such a ceremony was an acknowledgment
that they had a right to ? These incongruities were not so
light as Gentlemen might imagine. Be would say thatit wa.l
better never to let them exercise their rights at all, unless all
their disabilities. were removed. These were proud distinctions
when enjoyed in common with the other rights to Which they
were entitled by birth ; but while they were shut out 'from the
Legislature, they were only so many painful remembrances of
what they hadi lost. The Right Hon. Gentleman then alluded to
the Royal visit to Ireland, and the King's gracious favor to Lord
Fingal„ in investing-him with a blue ribleand. Ile read a por-
tion of the preamble of the Order of St. Patrick, wed remark-
ed upon what the feelings •of his Lordship must have been,
after receiving the honour which his Sovereign had bestowed
upon him. But wheh he returned to his home, what must'bc the
first reflection that would embitter his sense of the Royal favour ?
It would be that of recollecting, that the labourer upon his 'do-
mains possessed a privilege which was denied-to Mitt, namely,
that of sending his representative to Parliament. He had as
yet only considered the consequences of the Act' of 1.158, in
their political character. But even' if its covered object of
getting rid of the Duke of York was as just as het thought
it was—if the existence 'of the Popish conspiracy had been
as true as he believed it' was not—if the guilt of the
five Catholic Peers had been as clear as the innocence of Lord
Stratford Was\now universally allowed to be,—still he should
not have said that there were just political grounds fur such a
measure. But when all these were known not to be true, there
were no atonements which they ought not to make to the
living, for the shedding of innocent blood, and for the infliction
of the highest penalties upon generations which had passed
away. Only six or . seven yearn after Lerd Strafford was
brought to the block, the witnesses, upon whose evidence he
was executed, were convicted of perjury, and a Bill passed
the Lords for removing the attainder. He quoted Home and
Rapin, and argued at some length to shew that the reason
why the Commons did not also pass the Bill was to be found
in their unwillingness to grant such a triumph to the Catholics.
He did not mean to ask'whether this was right or not; he would
only ask whether we had any reason for refusing to • make
reparation to the best extent of our power ? It happ=ened
debate in the House of Peers upon the irnpeaahmeht of Me.
Hastings, that a precedent was endeavoured to be drawn from
that of Lord Strafford ; vtlien the continuance or discontinu—
ance of the attainder was again discussed. Lord Thurlow, who

awas no friend to Popery, and Lord Kenyon, who had cer-
-tainly not transmitted any suchfeeling to his descendants, de-
livered their opinions in favour of the innocence of Lord Straf-
eford. Lord Kenyon rejected the precedent, and said that what-
-ever might have been done while the passions were warm and
prejudices strong, he must think of Lord Strafford, that there
wes no man, when reasen had regained her seat, who would not
Agree with him in pronouncing his execution to have been a
species of -legal murder., Ile (Mr. Canning) would set this.
against the evidence of Titus Oates, and he was sure the House
- must agree with him, in concluding that the Catholic Peers
had been excluded from the enjoyment of their just rights un-
der false pretences. , The House of Lords were induced to cast
them their bosom under the dread of the Popish Plot, and
Lord Strafford's innocence now stood clear to the world.—
Upon these grounds the Parliament ought to repeal the Bill.
They ought to do so because a violence had been done to in-
herent rights and priyileges,. which, according to the Order of
the House, ought not to be touched but with life itself. This
restoration of right to individuals could be -effected without
detriment to the State, and-without giving rise to heartburnings
amongst any portion of their fellow subjects. He must say
that the tase of these noble persons stooupon grounds very
different' from that of the general Catholic body. There was a
great difference • between eligibility andapossessio'n. No one
admitted more readily than he did the rig It of Roman Catholic
Gentlemen, to sit in that House. But it was an imperfect
right, and one that was always clogged with certain conditions.
But in the case of the Peer they took from him his direct pos-
session, to which he was entitled by birth. And as there was,
a difference in the right, so there was in the infliction of the
penalty. If a person were not • eligible to sit in the House of
COmmons,he mightbe debarred from other causes ; he might be a
revenue officer, or he might not have the good fortuneto be cho-
sen. He did not bear with him an imperishable mark of his exclua
sion. With the Peer this mark was indelible. Whoever saw
the coronet upon his brow, whoever heard his proud titles,
enumerated, saw and heard the marks of his disgrace. - How
much more cruel, then, was the deprivation to him. They had
taken from him a just right, and inflicted upon him a wrong
_and a dishonour which he • could never hide or cease to feel:
—lf his object were attained, they would only then be doing
tardy justice to the parties who had suffered. They had stood
by fifty years while great allowances had been made to the
other branches of- the Catholic body. They had stood by the
silent spectators of the benefits 'granted to others ; and if they
.should now receive that benefit themselves, by an unautho-
s sized proxy, lie would not say it wouldbe without their coun-
tenance, but certainly without having participated in originat-
ing the request. He now wished to observe to the Hon. lilem-
ber for Somersetshire, to whom he was much indebted for the
kind manner in which he had been mentioned by him, that he
thought he had made out exactly such a case as he had held
to he necessary for the success of the present motion. He had
drawn a clear distinction between this and the general claims
of the Catholic body ; such a case as might be argued upon re-
moved and separate principles, as clearly an one cause in West-
minster Hall could stand from another. He would venture to
pledge his life, that if the case could be brought and argued
before any tribunal in the country, it would have a verdict in its
favour. H e ventured to say, that if. a Jury were to be impannelled
on the question of the restoration of these rights, that such a
Jury, considering the innocence of Strafford, and the innocence
-of the present sharers of his punishment would not fail unani-
mously to pronounce those Peers entitled to a restoration. , He
begged•to impress upon the House, that the carrying of this mo-
tion did not necessarily include the rest of the question. • What
was it that was now felt by the great body of the Catholics ?
Nat the exclusion from ofhce—not exclusion from this or that
House of Parliament; but the stigma, the degraded character
• which was conveyed by the exclusion. The Clergy of England
- were ennobled by the sitting of their Bishops in the Upper
House, though they themselves were, by a legislative provi-
sion, excluded from places in the lower. On the same grounds
-did the meanest Catholic participate in the stigma which was
.thrown upon such an illustrious character as the Duke of Nor-
' folk by the eiclusiona even though that Catholic had not him=
-self the remotest prospect of obtaining an office Of any de-
, scriptien. When a scheme was proposed which considerably
-affected our currency, it had been said that it would increase
.the value of the poor man's pittance, and this. circumstance
-was thought to be no contemptible argument in favour of this
.measure; and in like manner the elevation of the Catholic
Peers would be conferring a general benefit on the whole of
the Catholic body. He trusted he had done right in not di-
verging into the -general question ; and in case he should be
met in the course of -this debate by an assertion that
this dal in . fact embrace the whole question, he thought
, it due to candour to state, at once, that he should then
.consider hie cause as gained,—(Cheers !)—He desired to know
why Catholic Peers had been excluded by the Act of Charles,
after they had been expressly retained by. that of Elizabeth ?
The oaths administered to the Catholics, by their enactments,
were of two sorts. Some were considered as tests of allegi-
since ; others were for the very purpose of exclusion, assum.
-mg Catholicism to be in itself' a condemnation, and inconsistent
with Allegiance. The oath of Elizabeth was framed with a
view to the admission of those who could take it ; but that of
,Charles was intended to be an exclusion, for it was well known
to be an oath which no Catholic would take. The measure
imposing the latter oath, was, substantially a new bill, though it
reinforced the oath of supremacy. It'had been declared to be
. a new bill in the course of the debates upon it ; and he there-
fore 'wished to be informed whether that was a 'wise po-
lity which superadded the provisions, of the Act of cbarles
to those of the Acts of Queen Elizabeth ? Why were they
eadded if not for one of two• reasons, to exclude the then Duke
• of York, or in consequence of the disclosure of the Popish
plot ? If the latter, was the assertion of the existence of that
.plot to be believed ? Had the Catholic Peers of that day been
, justly or unjsistly impeached ? If unjustly, why exclude the
present Peers ; and if justly, why had the Peers in question
, not been brought to trial ? It was true that one of them had
been brought to trial ; but he would put it to the candour
.of any man whether the . innocence of that one had not been
completely established. And, assuming his innocence, was it
. to be said that the Catholic Peers of the present day were to be
-excluded, because one of their number had been unjustly put
to death ? In re-admitting them, in rendering this homage to
_justice, there could be no possible dan"erof the precedent,
.for the whole question was admitted in this instance to be one
--of expediency: He was too well aware that in conceding it to
. be a question of expediency, he was considerably understating
:the merits of his case on the question of right. But he dig-
--claimed the discussioq of the abstract question of right, though
he did so merely because, upon the particular circumstances
-of the case, he placed it on the question of expediency ; and
He trusted that ellen on this ground he should have the good
fortune to gain the opinion of the -House. He was satisfied
ethat appeals to former times and former habits were sometimes
dangerous; and were Often open to objection ; but he could not
resist the inclination he felt to make such appeal. His appeal,
however, .was from the times of Titus Oates to those of Eli-
. zahieh, from the Peers of Charles to those of our earlier an-
..cestors ; and he called upon that House to -perform towards the
Catholic Peers of the present day an act Of retribution for
the cruelties which had been practised 'on their ancestors ;
an act which was expedient on the score . of policy, charitable
. on the part of humanity, and in the name of Gon most just.
-The tionourable Gentleman then, amid 'the cheers of the
. House, moved,,
• " That leave be 'given to. Wing in a Bill for repealing so
_much of an Act passed in the 30th year of the reign of King
-Charles the Second, as excluded Roman Catholic Peers from
-sitting in the House of Peers."
The Hon. G. A. ELLIS seconded the motion, and said,
after the eloquent and convincing speech of his Right Hon.
.Friend, it would be bad taste, and indeed presumptuous in so
humble an individual as he was, to trespass long on the time
.or attention of the House. He was always of opinion that the
,general men sure of removing the Catholic disabilities was a
measure of right and of justice. The part of that question
which was then before them had an additional claim to their
favour, inasmuch as it related to an exclusion which had its
origin in a plot which. was .supported by perjury-,and in the
existence of which no one at present believed. He hoped the
stain would be soon removed from the statute book. He re-
collected a saying of that spirited defender of the Protestant
ascendancy, Queen Elizabeth, who being advised to administer
the Test oath to the Catholics,, replied—that she had better
means of ascertaining the loyalty of' the Peers.—He would gi've
his warmest support to the-motion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL then rose, and commenced his address
'by remarking • that if his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning
knew the full extent of the admiration which. he (Mr. Peel)
entertained of his abilities—if he knew the delight and gratin-
- cation that never failed to attend those who were present at the
, exhibition of them, lie might perhaps think him (Mr. Peel) a
little presumptuous in offering at so early a period some answer
• to a sneeech thus eloquent and impressive. But on an arena
like that, it was important that every_ reason actually existing,
and producing an operative effect; should be explained ; whe-
ther it tended` to the one side or the other, among all those who
were found not to arrive at the-same conclusion. With this
persuasion, -he intended to follow his ,Right lion. Friend, hand
pass Thus ceiptis, it was true, from the point at which he set out,
through tile line of argument he had adopted. The fancy of
the House -had beep engaged by the brilliant metaphors enr-
-,oloyed in the-speech of his Right Hon. Friend ; thew seasions
bad -also been ,'inflamed by appeals that could affect their pas-
: sions only ; and it was iinpOssible for him, litiwever necessary,
to contend against all this fervour, to rest on aught but sober
reasoning. He was-perfectly:willing to avoid, in his argument,
all discussion of the general principle, and did not hesitato
Ithough he,who gave the challenge -should leave perhaps to hiS
. -opponent the cheiee.of armour) to -enter the field within the li-
smits prescribed hy. hi.s Rt. Hon. Friend. In commencement, then,
7J1.f.-xfould say that by could perceive ncoonnd reason for exempt.

ing Roman Catholic Peers from political restrictions to which I
a whole community professing the same-religious tenets wese
by law subject—(Hear, hear !)--Ile should not? he hoped, be
regarded as one forgetful of the respect due to high moral cha-
racter, or insensible to the dignity which attached to hereditary
rank and station, in the course which he now felt it his duty to
pursue.—(Hear !)—The House might be assured that he ac-
knowledied not that " rigid philosophy" which in the lan-
guage of 1)r. Johnson overlooked these distinctions, nor should
he be diverted either by that or any other cause from examining
closely, and respectfully at the same time, the propositions of
his Right lion. Friend. This design he hoped to adhere to
without artifice or exception, and not at all availing him of
ancient criticism, which in one of its maxims would recommend
a more cautious prOceeding—

et gum
Desperat tractata niteScere posse, relinquit—
he shoUld avoid all extraneou allusion, nor deviate in the least,
if he could possibly guard himself against it.--(Hear !)—The
first objection then, and it had not escaped his Right Hon.
Friend's notice, was that by adopting the resolution the House
would be dealing with a question that exclusively regarded the
other House of Parliament.—( Hear, hear !)--It was acknow-
ledged that a question of this kind evidently referred to policy
that must in a great measure be decided upon precedent.—
'Now he (Mr. Pel) doubted strongly, whether any of the pre-
cedents quoted on this occasion furnished an adequate autho-
rity for the views taken by his Right Hon. Friend. The first,
if not sole, example of that House disabling certain Peers, or at
all legislating on the qualifications of persons to sit in the
other House of Parliament, was in 1640, and it was incumbent
on them to recollect the circumstances of the time, and the pe-
culiar feelings which then prevailed.—(Hear, hear !)--Then,
indeed, certain Members of the other House were affected by a
vdte of the Commons ; but it was not an example which it
was probable they would be anxious to imitate.—(Hear!)—lt
was not till the 30th Charles 11. that the Legislature naturally
enough wished to repeal the former Act—(Hear!) and im
Posed the necessity for a declaration against
.transubstantiation,
which indicated that the Peers were alone subject to the oath of
supremacy. His Right Hon. Friend had argued that, in prac-
. tice and effect, Roman Catholic Peers were not excluded from
seats in Parliament till the year 1778. Certainly,they were not,
except by the oath of supremacy, whilst others were restrained
by different obligations. It should not, however, be forgotten
that this did comprehend a question which had given rise to
'opinions directly adverse. Authorities of a very contradictory
nature might be produced ; how far, and in what way, did his
Right Hon. Friend propose to use them ? He was ready to
wait till those on the other side, however antiquated or musty,
should be advanced, and should reserve till future opportunity
the introduction of their adversaries. Then might come an
immediate decision as to the difference of footiog upon which
Peers and Commoners stood before the reign of Charles 11.
But the House at this'inoment could not fail to bear in mind, that
the whole subject had been recently discussed, and that it had
reached a kind of settlement which it was hoped might cause much
of previous agitation to subside, and might bring the subjects of
one King and Government to that community of feeling which
was so desirable in every period. His Right Honourable
Friend, the Alerriber for the University of Dublin, (Mr.
Plunkett), had In his late most impressive speech viewed the
question in this:light. ,it was not till the case of Sir Solomon
Swale, who had been previously convicted of recusancy, that the
Act of the 36th of Charles 11. was passed-120 years after the
original Act of Elizabeth. His Right Hon. Friend omitted
all mention of these circumstances, however connected with his
argument in support of the doctrine—that the prevailing policy
• of those times was often sacrificed and yielded to notions of
civil right. The' argument of Sir R. Sawyer, as stated in our
law books, was entirely opposed to 'the inference which it
had that night been endeavoured to establish. His Right
Honourable Friend (Sir. Plunkett) was indeed mistaken in the
use that he had made of this portion of our history. What was
the title of the Act which passed in 1673? It was " the better to
secure the King's Government, by disabling Roman Catholics
to sit in Parliament, &c." Here was no manifestation of any dif-
ference in the views entertained by our ancestors, as regarded
different classes of Roman Catholics. But his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Canning), who made this motion, seemed to think that
it rested on a ground peculiar to itself. His opinion appeared
to be, that there was an inherent privilege in the Peerage not
to be tampered with under any but the most extraordinary cir-
cumstances, or dangers of the most imminent nature. To this
opinion he (Mr. Peel) objected on constitutional principles.—
(Hear !)--He begged leave to deny that Peers were exempted
from any of the restrictions or disabilities that were still applicable
to Commoners. Let them look, if they pleased, to the Irish union,
and what, he asked, would they discover there that contravened
his proposition ? It exhibited, indeed,Zsome anomaly ; but the
inference from it was directly the other way. Peers remain-
ed liable to the same punishments and penalties as Com-
moners; but they were to sit in Parliament (he of course alluded
to Irish Protestant Peers) by the title of election. But as
this was not altogether a novel regulation, as a similar grin-
: ciple had been alopted in the union with Scotland, was it
not a little surprising that his Right Honourable Friend
should have abstained from all mention of, or allusion to,
. this last event ?—(Hear,hear !)—His Right Hon. Friend had at
least forborne from reminding the House of one part of that ce-
lebrated treaty, and it was left to him (Mr. Peel) to submit to
Parliament whether they would now qualify Catholic Peers to
sit arhong them, or respect, co nornine, that article of the Act
of Union, in which it was specifically declared, that ho person
being a Papist should vote for, or sit as any -Member of the
estates of that realm ?—( Hear, hear !)—Could it be denied
that this article now formed as valid a barrier against the con-
templated innovation, as any statute or national contract on
record ? It went to show that no such doctrine as that of any
inherent privilege existing in the Peers was recognized by
Lord Somers, or the other ereat Whig• Ministers of that day.
If they had acknowledged the principle, would they ever have
admitted or sanctioned a provision that must so effectually sub-
vert it ?—(Hear, hear !)—No : had they held the opinion of his
Right Hon. Friend, they would never have thus attempted
to bind future Parliaments to a fixed and determinate policy.
But it had been maintained that' the Commons never
in-
terfered with ,the privileges of Peas, except in cases that
would affect their lives. This was evidently not correct :
the contrary had been' already indicated. With regard
to the Roman Catholic Peers of England, they were in num-
ber as had been stated, not more than six or seven. Now did
his Right Honourable Friend's measure provide only for the
introduction of these Peers to seats in the other House ? No ;
it invested the Crown with the power of an unlimited increase.—
( Hear, hear.)—Whilst one branch of the Legislature was sub-
ject to a variety of changes, the other was to be free from every
alteration but that which emanated from the Crown. Whilst
the House of Conynons, sitting as representative's of the people,
with limited functions and a temporary existence, submitted to
certain tests, upon what ground reconcileable to the Constitution
were members of the other House to be exempted ? He desired
also to inquire, where was the necessity for recognizing this sup-
posed right in the Peerage,admitting it to exist?--( Hear. )--lt did
not appear to him tobe either necessary or expedient. His Right
Hon. Friend had urged that it would have the effect of generally
elevating the Roman Catholics. Why, let the House now consi-
der the situation in which it actually stood with regard to this
question. Only seven or eight months had elapsed since they
passed a Bill containing a declaration that affected the whole
Catholic community. Where was the imperious necessity that
dictated to them this form of entering upon the subject? It
was, as far as he knew, the first instance of the question being
thus divided. From the year 1805, when, for the first time
after the Union, it was brought before the House by Mr. Fox,
seconded by Mr. Grattan, no proposition had been submitted
to the Legislature affecting Peers exclusively. Neither could
he perceive in the present circumstances any peculiar reason for
taking up the subject in this mode. What, in fact, were_ those
circumstances ? Among the chief, it could not fail to be re-
collected by the House, that his Right Honourable Friend,
the Member for the University
,of Dublin (Mr. Plunkett)
had given notice that he intended to bring forward the whole
question at an early period of the next session.—( Hear !)—Why
then now, when approaching to the end of the present session,
should they wish to confer on Roman Catholic Peers the
barren privilege of being entitled to sit in Parliament during an
interval when no Parliament was held ?—(Hear !)—At the
commencement of the ensuing Session the subject would, they
had ground to expect, be opened by his Right Hon. Friend in
all its bearings. He confessed that, notwithstanding the elo-
quent anti ingenious speech of his Right lion. Friend (Mr.
Canning), he was not satisfied that any clear or substantial case
had been stated in support of the present motion. Still lie re-
membered that he had given a pledge at the commencement of
his observations, which he hoped not to abandon : it was that
of accuratelteexamining that course of legal and constitutional
history which formed the basis of his Right Hon. Friend's
whole argument. Might lie not then fairly say, that his Right
lion. Friend had endeavoured to trace the exclusion .and final
disabilities of the Catholics to the Popish plot, and to the dis-
coveries of Oates ?—that previous to • the year 16711 they. were
not so disqualified ? . Now he (Mr. Peel) must here protest
against the selection of detached periods of history on which to
raise an argument of this kind. It was not from isolated events,
or the peculiar circumstances attending one occasion, that they
could deduce a just or fair conclusion upon a question so ex-
tensive. Times of commotion required them to, carry back their
views into antecedent circurnstances,before they came to a final
judgment. Neither the French revolution, nor any epoch re-
-sembling it, would ever be regarded in its true light, unless the
predisposing causes wore understood as well us the concurrence
of fortuitous events that happened coteiuporaneously. On vari-
ous considerations, the policy and principles to which he had
been adverting were re-enacted and confirmed at the period of the
revolution. The. Bill of Rights was itself an example of the firm
and enduring nature of this policy. Whatever his Right Hon.
Friend might think of Oates or of the Popish plot, it was ih his

(Mr. P.'s) opinion; manifest that there did then' xist a fonnida- '
ble and infamous conspiracy against the Protestant establishment.
—( Hear !)--The object of the conspirators was not merely to ex-
tinguish and destroy the Protestant.religion. Immediately after
the downfall of Clarendon, a disposition was evinced by the
Court, as well as by particular individuals, for rooting out the
Protestant faith, and subverting the Constitution in Church and
State. - It was due, in common justice to our ancestors,
to the memory of those who established_ he rights, which we
were now enjoying, to refer to the situation in which they were
placed, and the motives that, influenced their conduct. If he
admitted all the monstrous injustice which was said to have
been committed in the case of Lord Strafford, did it follow that
no foundation existed for the policy that was adopted by our
forefathers in 1678, and that was afterwards sanctioned and
continued ?—(llear, hear.)—lle did not agree with Mr.
Dryden, who had said
" Succeeding times will equal madness call,
" Believing nothing, or believing all."
And if he granted that in what was called the Popish plot
Might be found an extravagant fabrication and tissue of
wickedness, still he must ask what ' was the prevailing temper
at that time, and how were these disclosures - received ?
(Hear, hear, hear.)—People at that time were in possession
of their common sense : it was the period when, according
to Blackstone, our Constitution had become theoretically per-
fect. Mr. Fox, had described it as the era of good laws, and
of bad Government. Would these stories against the Catho-
lics have been listened to with such avidity, had not a feeling
existed that there was ground for jealousy and suspicion ?
King Charles 11. had, throughout his reign, by every sort of
artifice, and apparently out of favour to the Dissenters, exerted
himself to procure a relaxation of the laws against the Catholics.
The Dissenters, indeed, to their great credit, saw through the
artifice, and refused to accept any advantage that must be pur-
chased by granting the Crown a dispensing power. Was there,
indeed, not amply enough to alarm their suspicions ? It
was now known that King Charles was engaged in a secret
treaty with .Louis XIV., and the letters of Coleman, Se-
cretary to the Duke of York, in 1675, actually developed
a plan for destroying that pestilent heresy with which the
northern part§ of Europe. were infected," and described it in
another passage " as having a greater prospect of success than
any design framed since the time of Queen Mary."—(Hear !)
Surely all this threw some light on what occurred in 1672. In
the secret treaty was an article that pledged Charles 11. to a
change of the religion he professed. It stated that he was con-
vinced of the truth of the Roman Catholic religion—that he
would shortly be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and that in
case his subjects should rebel, which was not likely, that his
Most Christian Majesty should furnish a sum of 200,0001.
,to
his assistance. Here, then, was an instance of a British Mo-
narchproposing to barter away the religion and rights of his
subjects, and, for the sum of 200,0001. He wished only to re-
mind the House, that the chief advisers and instigators of that
secret treaty, by which the liberties of the country were bar-
tered for 200,0001. (a less sum by half than was now voted for
a Caledonian canal or a Penitentiary), were Lord Arlington,
Lord . Clifford, and Lord Arundel, of Wardour.--(llear, !)
Such being the fact, was it surprising that, independent of the
terror the Popish Plot might produce, Parliament should feel
so much jealousy lest Catholic Peers should again become the
advisers of the Crown ?—(Hearl)—His Right Hon. Friend had
dwelt with great force upon, and attached much importance to,
an order of the House of Lords made in 1675, and which de-
clared
that Peerage being an inherent right, no Bill should
pass which tended to impose a test upon Peers. Hence it was
inferred that ,it could only be under the influence . of du-
ress and compulsion, and the effect of some extraordinary terror,
that the Peers three years afterwards passed the law Of exclu-
sion.
His Right Hon. Friend, however, had not adverted to
the fact, or perhaps he was not aware of its existence, that in that
very Bill, out of which the order originated, a test was imposed
.upon Peers. 'True it was, the Bill did not pass, but to the latest
state the test remained inserted in the Bill. The date of 1675
was highly important. It was probably known that the whole
history of that Act, and of the debates upon it, was given by
Mr. Locke, in what was called a letter to or from a person of qua-
lity. The Act originated among the Spiritual Lords, and it was
especially to exclude from seats those infected with the old leaven
of the civil wars. No less than 17 days were occupied upon it, and
it was perfectly true that in the course of the debates an order
was ,moved by Lord Shaftesbury to prevent the imposition of
tests ; yet at the very moment this order was made, the House of
Lords did in fact the very thing that was objected to. After the
order had been made, the Lord Keeper proposed a test equally
applicable to both Houses ; and in Mr. Locke might be found
a protest on the subject, the ground of which was that it was
inconsistent with the order. The Lord Keeper stated, never-
theless, that the House was master of its own orders, and as far
as the Bill went, it was accompanied by a test, the effect of
, which would be to exclude Roman Catholic Peers. The gene-
ral history of the motives actuating Lords Shaftesbury, Hali-
'fax, and Hollis, to support the order, wasgiven by Burnet,
who said that the new test was opposed by those whom he
terms Papists, because they well knew that if there were any
precedent of a test, it 'would be applied to theinselves. He
added, that Lords Shaftesbury, Halifax, and others, thought
it was not right that any test should be imposed upon Members
of Parliament ; that Peers were appointed by the Crown, and
Commons elected by the people : and that it was absurd to
impose• a test that would shut them out from the national de-
liberations. At the Revolution, the Bill passed requiring the
declaration against transubstantiation, and alterinc the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy ; ' and if any act of Parliament could
in its nature be permanent, permanency ought to belong to
those acts passed at the period of the Bill of Rights, when it
was declared that James 11. had a design to extirpate the Pro-
testant religion, and had been under the direction of evil coun-
cils and Ministers.—(Hear.)—Such was the intention of the le-
gislators of that day ; and he never could believe, if it were not
the intention that Lord Somers and the other Whigs would, in
1705, so soon after the Revolution, have inserted the articles in the
Scottish Union, that the Peers and Commons from thence should
necessarily be Protestants, and Protestants only. At the Revolu-
tion a view was taken of all the dangers to which thecountry had
been exposed. The statesmen of that day had seen that Charles I.
had been under the influence of a Catholic Queen, and that James
11. was an avowed Roman Catholic, and endeavoured to subvert
the religion of the State, and that Charles 11. though in external
conformity a member of the established church, did not by, that
outward compliance aflbrd a sufficient guarantee for the safety
of the Church. It was found that he, too, had been influenced
by evil counsellors. At the revolution, therefore, provision
was made for excluding a Roman Cathol:c Queen from the throne
—for preventing a Roman Catholic King from presiding over
the affairs of the nation, and for shutting out of the Councils- and
the Legislature all who were not of the Protestant faith. Ten
years after the discoveries of Oates, the Houses of Lords and
Commons took these sage precautions ; and whether they were
net or avrong, they established the Protestant character
o Parliament.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—His Right Honourable
Friend had referred to two other points : one was, that the
summons to Catholic Peers to attend the Coronation esta-
blished a peculiar claim in their favour. He (Sir. Peel) confessed
that upon this point lie had heard his Right Hon. Friend with
some surprise and pain. Ile should have thought that he would
have been one of the last to, discourage these acts of favour
and liberality on the part of the-Sovereign, by endeavouring to
pervert them into an argument of this kind. If they had been
told-at once merely that they were excluded from legislation, it
was possible that theyanight have listened with regret, and
perhaps with disgust; but if it had been explained to them
further, that the Constitution" was essentially Protestant—that
laws had been passed requiring conformity with the Church,
abjuration of the, tenets. of Catholicism, and that there was no
disposition to extend them further, they might have heard it
with patience and acquiescence. He.would not give to the
Duke of Norfolk and other Catholic Peers what the Right
Hon. Gentleman termed, temporary; privilege, but he would
not exclude them from such, honours and personal distinctions
as the Sovereign might think fit to bestow. If in the case of
Lord Fingall there was a wish to give a Roman Catholic the
full benefit of an honour conferred, he hoped it did not im-
pose the necessity of extending the concession further. Of
this he was perfectly certain, that if a Roman Catholic Peer
had been excluded from a privilege he was qualified to en-
joy—if in the case of Lord Fingall it had been contended that
he could not receive the honour proposed, on the ground of
his faith, the country-would never have heard the last of such
a glaring instance of obstinate bigotry.—(llear, hear !)_lf he
(Mr. P.) were called upon, he should unquestionably advise the
Crown to act upon the
.principle it had then adopted, and he
would not carry the spirit beyond the letter of the law.—(Hear !)
—Yet by making such a recommendation, he should assuredly
not hold himself precluded from opposing a propositionlike that
of his Right Hon. Friend, or one of a more enlarged description.
His Right Hon. Friend, in the next place, had referred to what
he considered a strange state Oflegislation upon this subject; but
would his motion cure any one of the anomalies at present exist-
ing ?...-(Hear ! )—Supposing this Bill passed, would the condition
of a Roman Catholic Peer of Ireland be improved? He would
be qualified to sit and vote in the House of Peers, and to vote on
the election of a representative Peer; but if he were chosen by
any county or town to sit, as he might, were he not a Rbman Ca-
tholic,
in the House of Commons, he would be turned back be-
causehe could not make a declaration from which he was freed
in the House of Lords.—(Hear!)—He would put it to any man
whether the ammaly was not thus rendered more striking than
at present ?—(Hear !)—Again he would ask if it were right that
a Roman Catlolic Peer (the Duke of Norfolk, for instance)
should enjoy al the hereditary privileges of his rank and sta-
tion—should st and vote`in the House cf Lords, and advise
the crown upcn all matters, end among them de rebus cower-
nentiblis eeclesem Auglicanum—would it not indeed be a a-nost
strange state o'leislation if he were by law not permitted to
. receive from tie Crown the slightest mark of official confidence?
—(Hear !)—This was one of the strongest arguments that

could be used for postponing the consideration of the Peers
(which was all it was necessary for him now to maintain) until
the great questiOn relating to the whole Catholic body were
brought before the House. 'He (Mr. P.) saw around him many
who had both supported and opposed the Roman' Catholic claims
upon perfectly distinct grounds. He presumed that the latter,
who on constitutional principles had voted against the admis-
sion of Catholic legislation as a dangerous departure from the
law of the land, would resist the motion now before the House.
The enemies of general emancipation, as it was termed, would
hardly be disposed to admit to another place those who would
supporktlie claims of the whole Catholic body, which had hi-
therto beeh there effectually resisted.—(Hear, hear !)—ln con-
clusion, thanking the House for the indulgence it had already
sh ewn —( H ear! )—he wished to address a few observations to such
as had hitherto supported the Roman Catholic claims. There were
many, probably a large portion, of the advocates of an extension
of privileges, who thought, whenever the general subject was
discussed and decided, the result should be, to quote the words
of his Right Hon. Friend, " a final and conciliatory arrange-
ment." To them the arrangement now proposed could neither
be final nor conciliatory.—(H ear, hear !)—There were others
who• thought that whenever the period arrived for removing the
disabilities of our, Roman Catholic brethren, the whole state of
the Roman Catholic Church should be taken into considera-
tion, with a view to some such securities as were enacted in
the Bill of last session. It had been distinctly urged at that
time that measures of concession and security should go hand
in hand ; and this notion had been supported by the Right
Hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject. A notice had
been given, that within six months the whole subject would be
introduced ; and of those who had supported securities he
would ask, whether they thought it wise to pass a partial mea-
sure opening one branch of the legislature to Roman Catholics
without any securities at all ?—(Hear !)—What would be the
situation of those who should insist on securities hereafter ?
Would it not be most invidious ? A right was given to the
Crown to increase the House Of Lords, and that without any
securities. Yet 'when Parliament came to consider the case
of Catholic Members a the House of Commons, whose func-
tions would be only temporary, being elected at most for seven
years, if securities were then demanded, would not the situation
of those who required them be most painful and invidious ?,
itight not the Commoners justly say, that though there can
be no doubt of the fidelity and loyalty of the present Duke of
Norfolk, or of Lords Clifford and Shrewsbury, yet their pos-
terity, which may not be equally loyal and faithful, is ad-
mitted to the privilege of sitting and voting to the latest gene-
ration without any attempt to obtain the slightest security.—
(Hear, hear.)—lf no security were required of the aristocracy,
chosen by the Crown for more than the period of their
lives, it was a little too much to ask security from the
Commoners, who at most would only sit in Parliament for
seven years.--( Hear, hear.)—Besides these classes, there were
others who, admitting some remote and possible danger to the
Constitution, would be disposed to incur it, on account of the
present state of Ireland : they contended that the Government of
that country rested on too narrow a basis, and that it could not be
safe, solid, and permanent, unless the Catholic inhabitants
were admitted to the privileges Protestants enjoyed. Would
it advance the views of peace and good order in Ireland—would
it shew that the interests of the great, majority were regarded,
to tell them that Roman Catholic Peers had been admitted in-
to the House of Lords; but that the representatives and guar-
dians of the people were still excluded from the House of Com-
mons ?—(Hear.)—Other Gentlemen had argued this question
upon the broadest and most constitutional principles ; and at
the head of this class was the Right Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin. They had taken the most enlarged and
comprehensive view, and it could not be explained more fully
or more adequately than in the emphatic words of the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself.—He said, " I speak in the presence
of enlightened constitutional lawyers and statesmen, and I do
not fear contradiction when I assert, that the doctrine of exclu-
sion is not to be found in the principles or in the analogies of the
constitution,—it is not to be found in the history of our country,
or in the opinions of any of our statesmen,—and it is at once
inconsistent with the subject's rights and the King's preroga-
tives. Ours is a free monarchy ; and it is of the essence of such
a Government that the King can call for the services of all his
liege subjects, otherwise it is not a monarchy; and no class of
subjects can be excluded from privileges, otherwise it is not a
free monarchy." He (Mr. Peel) appealed to those who had
used or adopted this language, and of, them he asked, the time
being arrived when it was wise and safe to remove restrictions
preventing admission into the House of Lords, if it was just or
decent to continue the restrictions to admission into the
House of Commons ?—(Hear, hear !)—lf admissibility to
office were a general right belonging to all ranks of Roman
Catholics, why were the disabilities of the great mass of that
body to be postponed to the claims of a few, however respecta-
bly founded as those claims were, only upon the same in-
herent right ? All he required (and it formed the whole object
of his address) was, that the claims of the Roman Catholic
Peers-should be postponed until the whole question, with the
securities, were again introduced. He gave his Right Hon.
Friend full credit for the best intentions : he was perfectly sure
that he fancied there existed in the case of the Peers a pecu-
liarity warranting this distinct motion in their favour, but he
was equally certain that it was neither worthy of the great abi-
lities of his Right Hon. Friend, nor of the character of the
House, thus, by a partial measure, to give an advantage to the
great question, independent of the principles upon which it
must rest its pretensions. He had thus attempted to state why
he had arrived at a different conclusion from his Right Hon.
Friend, and, in order to give effect to his arguments, it was not
his intention to move the previous question to secure some stray
vote, but to meet the motion in the most fair and open man-
ner.—(Hear !)—He should pursue now the course in which he
had always proceeded on this subject, by giving the proposal
his most decided resistance.—(Hear, hear !)
Lord FRANCIS GOWER declared that he should not
attempt to follow the Right Ilon. Gentleman who had just
sat down through all the topics of his speech ; but feeling a
lively interest in the success of the proposition, he begged to
be allowed shortly to state his reasons for supporting it. Ile
stood there as the advocate of a great act of justice. If the
noble and illustrious persons to whom it was proposed to re-
open the doors of the House of Peers were as much infected
with bigotry as any persons who had ever entered the Escu-
rial, still he would not anticipate any danger from intro-
ducing them into that of which their ancestors formed a part.
(Hear, hear !)
Lord NUGENT contended that the restrictions on the
Roman Catholics was an anomaly in the British Constitu-
tion, And Stood unsupported by any one doctrine laid down
by our greatest lawgivers. The claims of the Catholics
were founded in clear matter of right, and could only be
rejected upon some case of great danger being made out.—
No such case,had been, or in his opinion could be, made out.
—Let them look at the great names whose power to serve their
King and country was thrown into the dark by these disabi-
lities. He considered that this question stood upon all -those
principles of liberty and justice upon which our most indisputa-
ble rights depended. The strong belief and conviction that he re-
tained that whatever subject discharged his duties as a citizen
was entitled to the privilege of being a Statesman, induced
him to take that view of this question which he was then ad-
vocating. This was not an innovation that was proposed, but
an act of restoration. For the sake of the Noble Persons them-
selves he did regret that this question had'been agitated. For
the space of a century and a half they had stood at the head of
their sect for purity and integrity of motive. They had been
told that it was without their knowledge or consent that this
question was brought forward. If he had been authorised, he
assured the House that he could quote a magnanimous dis-
claimer made to him by a Noble Friend of his. He did not
mention names, however, from motives of delicacy, lest it
should appear invidious to the rest of that body, who all, he
was sure, felt equally solicitous for the welfare. of their fellow-
, countrymen. He should give his vote for the motion, from a
conviction that the motion, of which his Right Hon. Friend,
the Mepiher for Dublin (Mr. Plunkett), had given notice,
• would in less than a twelvemonth be carried triumphantly.—
' He had hoped that the visit of the King of these realms to his
• Irish dominions had been the herald of peace and emancipation.
• However it might not be apparent, he was convinced it was
only delayed, not destroyed.
' Mr. WARRE spoke in favour of the motion.—He begged
to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), whose his-
torical knowledge was so great of that period of our history,
when upon Queen Elizabeth being attacked by a combination
of three of the most poiVerful Catholic Potentates of foreign,
dominions, she chose as an Ambassador to represent her inte-
rests a Catholic Nobleman.' That Nobleman was Lord Mon-
tagu, who had frequently expressed his violent Catholic prin-
ciples in Parliament. He mentioned this to shew that that
shrewd Princess did not think Catholic principles inconsistent
with the most perfect political honesty. Regarding the state
of persecution in which the Roman Catholic Peers were living,
he was convinced that if they united and embodied them in the
Legislature they would find them most useful and faithful
Members of it.

Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) assured the House that the
county of which he had the honour to berepresentative, though
the most Protestant in' Ireland, was most anxious to see the
Catholics reinstated in their rights, although they might not
appear to, take an active part with respect to it. Whether this
motion bore part of the great question or not, he did not care ;
but he wiiuld say, that whoever was friendly to the great ques-
tion ought to vote for this motion. At the same time, many
who were not disposed to support the claims of the great body
of the Catholics, might be inclined to vote for this. The Right
Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) had certainly done his best, but he
could not prevail.--,-(Loud and general cries of " Question !"
and " Withdraw !' )
Mr. PLUNKETT considered that the subject was already
so completely exhausted that he should attempt to add nothing

to it but a single observation. This was, that as he had given E
notice of a motion upon the same subject, for early in the next ;
Session, he feared that if he were silent, it would appear that k‘
he considered the motion of his Right Hon. Friend as inter-
fering with the general measure, and that he was therefore
not frfendly to it. It was principally for the purpose of nega-
tiving this inference that he at all rose to speak in the de-
bate. He must, therefore, begin by stating that. he cordially
and entirely concurred in the motion.—(Hear, hear !)—lle did
so, not only because he thought it one sup towards the at-
tainment of the whole of the Catholic claims, but because
he considered it as an essential act of justice.---(1Imr, hear *
Although he had last Session carried through that Hou%e his
Bills on this great question, yet he had been considerably
embarrassed by the details of these measures. These details
were rendered so extensive, from a desire to accompany the
measures with an entire class of securities, calculated to gain.
the confidence of the House ; and the enemies of the Catholic
were greatly encouraged from the opposition made by them to
the accompanying securities. Indeed, there was no side to
which they could turn, that they were not involved in these
details. The present measure; however, was perfectly re-
lieved from all ,objection on that score. It was a distinct and
reasonable proposition. It proposed to restore the Peers of
Ireland to their hereditary honours and privileges.; to render
those who had by an Act of the Legislature been. restored
to be Counsellors and Advisers of the Crown, to be Coun-
sellors and Advisers to the public. In the opposition which
had been made to it, he did not find any argument addressed
Ito the wisdom, the justice, or the safety of the measure. He
did not find that any danger was predicted from it, and the
opposition seemed to be wholly confined to points of etiquette
and forms. It was said that it was part of the general meae
sure. To this, a House, which had already sanctioned the ge-
neral measure, could make no objection.—(Hear, hear!)—He
could not see whence the objection to this partial measure was
to spring from a body which had already decided, in the case of
five millions of its fellow.subjects, that it was, matter of right
and justice. 'With respect to the other House he should be glad
to see them called upon as Judges, as Gentlemen, and as Legis-
lators, for their decision in this question. When they put tneir
shoulders to the door to shut out the hereditary rights of others,
those who advised than so to act would do well to show how
their rights were to be maintained, if some Titus Oates of the
day were to attack them.--(Hear !)—This measure was no
more than reversing Bills of Attainder, .obtained by the most
abominable and disgusting artifices. Every one knew that it
was a want of security in the Crown that caused the origin of
these severe acts, which deprived these Peers of their heredi-
tary right. The Sovereign was suspected ; the heir to the Crown
was known to be tainted with Catholicism, and this Act
was passed to preserve the rest of the nation from the.machl-
nations of powerful Catholics' in conjunction with a King too
well affected towards them. Had the security in the Crown
been what it now was, the Act never would have passed.--
Thus, it appeared, that because one part was guilt the other
was attainted—an unoffending branch. His Right Honourable •
Friend (Mr. Peel) said, that this measure did not rest alone on
the abominable falsehoods of Titus Oates ; but that there was
besides a plot against the Government. The Catholics' in the
time of Charles the Second, it was true, were not well affected
towards the State, and that might be the cause of the measure
being resorted to. But that reason for continuing those severe
penalties did not now exist. The Catholics of this day were not
disaffected to the Throne or to the State.—These were two acci-
dental causes which were now both removed. His Right Hon-
Friend (Mr. Peel) seemed to feel that he could not rest upon
the time of Charles the Second, and therefore he Caine down at
once to the time of the Revolution and its laws.. But when he
talked of the laws of the Revolution, he must beg to ask what
was meant ? Did he mean, that all the laws that were before
the Revolution were part of the laws of that time ? If see
we had been doing away our great and glorious Revolution
for more than the last halt century. In whatever shape this
questiion was brought forward he should support it. It was ar
debt of justice, and he should consider he paid more or less 01-
it, in proportion as the measure embraced more or less of what
that House had already decided should be granted. As had
been said; it would be received by Ireland as matter of graece
and favour. It was said they interfered with the privileges e`'
the Lords ; but last year when they sent them a joint measure
it was rejected ; and now that it was separate it was objected to.
This was a claim of right and justice. The House were to see
whether there was any public reason for rejecting it. If Lords,
‘sthere
was not, they ought to send the proposed measure to the
and it would be for that body to do their duty.
Mr. WETHERELL rose amidst a loud cry for the tines;
don.' He assured the House it was not his intention to detain
them long. He considered the proposition a novelty, ore
was desirous of making a few observations on some of tn
points. He took the liberty of stating. that the Right non'
Gentleman had departed from the principle upon which the
greatest Authorities had supported the claims to Catholic
Emancipation. He might mention Pitt, Fox, Wyndham, and
Ponsonby, those great advocates of Catholic Claims. Those
distinguished characters had all declared that no measure
a general measure should be brought before Parliament...
was formerly held that concessions should be made on sgo:
o
and security given on the other. By that arrangement, vro-
lics and Protestants were to be reconciled. That , was t"wt.' the
position on which the Bill of last Session was founded, Von.
measure proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was allwar.
cession on one part and no security on the other. He was,
ranted in stating the names of Pitt and Fox, before which,
Right Honourable Gentleman would certainly not consider tre._
self paramount authority. If Catholic Peers were.allowed
'sit in the House of Peers, could that House say Catholic
moners should not come to the House of Commons ? if.titunetf,
Were to be admitted, which they must be, if the Right .1.1-„f
Gentleman's
.proposition was adopted, what would become I',
Mr. Pitt's principle, that no concession could be made svithouL
securities for the preservation of the constitution ? He was sure
to
the catalogue of names he had mentioned would outweigh'
the candid judgment of the Right Honourable Gentleman, any
modern authority. The Right Hon. Gentleman
introduction of six or eight Catholic Noblemen to Parliamen„.
who could. not be bound to subscribe to any test whateve,rLis
The Bill reminded him of Dr. Johnson's account or '4
Journey in Scotland, where he went to an inn, and foul'
of
nothing solid or fluid in the place, but an entire blew, „.
provisions. The Right Honourable Gentleman's Bill was
blank of securities. If the Right' Honourable Gentleman
right in the application of his principle without securities, !iv
the persons whose names he had mentioned had taken a narru
vell"
and partial view of the subject, for not one of diem had ae`
tured to ask for concessions without securities. The ne.,:a
ought, to see to what a compliance with the measure ProPe'e-to
by the Right Hon. Gentleman would lead. If such a Bill veto
carried, the next Session Catholic Commoners would
sit in that House without restraint. The Right Hon. Ge%oo
man had lately favoured the House with a splendid exhiln sin
proposed ket,
of talent, and they might not perhaps be able to hear him agof
in 1823.—(Here Mr. Wetherell was interrupted by the crY...ct
" Question !")—The House would in that case have to refithe
the absence of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but the loss °ics.
proposed measure would occasion regret.—(Question, tkt` 11,
Lion ! "Withdraw !)—lt had been said-tbe 30th of Charles He
was founded upon the pretended plot of Titus Oates... in,
could only say with respect to the statements of that public
former.--

" Some truth there was,

Yet much must truth deny—." ; of
There was no doubt Charles was a Papist—the Marqus;,ar
Halifax knew him to be one; and there was clearly a .11.,;,
plot in existence against the Government. The late Mr. rh it
in a tour to Paris, discovered a curious document, 13)'
appeared, that eight days after the death of Charles the Seconh;
the French King sent over to know what was the state of to,
Catholic party in England. The efforts made by Charles s
to establish Popery were well known.—(Here the question stv3,,,
again .called with increased vehemence, and Mr. Airetherell
down, observing that he should reserve what he had to S"
further upon the subject till a future opportunity.) ensfire
Mr. CANNING then rose to reply. After the full rn
of attention he had received from the House, he was only 021.
rous of availing himself of the privilege which the House
lowed those who brought forward a motion. The measure
able and Learned Gentleman had considered the Inees.t.t
he proposed to introduce as one of a singular nature ; Duri3
with the exception of the hostility of the Honourable ti
Learned Member, and that of his Right Hon. Friend, it 3113..
peared they had been discussing an object which all were
sirous to promote.. Notwithstanding the opposition he now
luded to, he ventured to say he should be the harbingeFcht
that success the Honourable and Learned Gentleman inliibetl.
deprecate, but could not prevent.• Mr. Canning then exP:La7aet
his statement with respect to the sth of Elizabeth. The Plain of
was, there was a test which excluded some from the House
Commons, and with regard to the House of Peers there hat
no exclusion at all. On that he had built his argument' on:-
Parliament did wrong to the Bishops, and repaired that wrt 0
So also, as they had done wrong to the Peers, they o"ghtr9hts
them justice at the present day. With regard to their t
of the Peers, he had been charged with inconsistency Actof
stating the restrictions impdsed on Scotch Peers by tile
Union. He had not taken into account the limitation woitil,ire:
spect to the number of Peers allowed to legislate, but n
he could say or do on that subject would cure the anoulayaee,
The Scotch had contracted that no change should ta1t.E....;0n
and they were without remedy. The Irish in the Act of piing
were more provident. He had been charged withla,u,
from the principles upon which Mr. Pitt and others two
ported the Roman Catholic Claims.' It was said by au"'
is have
some years ago opposed the general measure—" Letot_asicri
parts of the measure before us." On the present
sticrt,
part was offered, and they called for the genertil mea,
" Their great capacity had stomach for it the „as.
The Catholic Peers had been unjustly excluded, and