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

from seats in both Hewes of Parliament, and the Test Act was
maintained fOr the preservation of the. Protestant rdigion. The
Bill of Rights asserted that the Lords SpitittniTand'Tttinporal
were to be Protestant: In correboration df his a:ginner= was
the fact that, at -the Revolution, a new CoronationaCtath was
framed, by which the Sovereign bound himself to defend the
Protestant religion. From the.Reformaeion to the Revolution
no such oath had been prescribed. The introduction of that
oath at the Revolution was therefore anothee circumstance to
prove that it was intended to weave Protestantism into the_
whole of the system established at the P.evolution. Let tic
House also consider the language of thnstatute by which the
Union with Scotland was effected: By that statute, it was proe.
vided, that not only the sixteen Scottish Peers,. but the whole
body of the Scottish, Peers, by whom those sixteen were to be
chosen,—that the elected, as well as the electors, must be
Protestant.. With all his admiration, therefore, for the great
talents of the Right Honourable and; Learned Gentlemen,
the Attorney-General for Ireland, he could not allow that
admiration to prevent him from expressing his astonishment',
that that Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman could for a
moment maintain the doctrine,' that the exclusion of Catholics
from the House of Peers was not a principle established at the
Revolution. The next point to which he wished to advert was
the singularitanftlie.proposition to extricate the Catholic Peer
alone from the restrictions to which the Catholics genezall
were,subject. On the common principle, that-charity begins at
home, he should have thought thatn -11 ember of the house of
Commons would rather have recommended that the intro-
duction of Catholic Commoners into the House of Commons
should peecede that of Catholic Lords into the House of Peere.
He shouhlhave expected a proposition in favour of the plebeian,
rather than in favour of- the equestrian order: Why- ware the
Catholic Peers to he reintegrated in their lost rights before the
Catholic Cele:moms ? There was another great inconsistency in
the measure. As the Bill stood. Catholic Lords were-to.go into
the House of Peeri without taking any oath ; as the existinglaw
stood, no individual could take his seat in the House of Commons
without taking the usual oaths. Why this deciehincy 7 Why-
was the Commoner to be bound by an oath, and the Peer not ?
, Why were they not both to be equally res Cored to theirpritileges ?
The.stippoiters of this Bill would surely not turn round on their
formee opinionseand.maintain, with reference to this point, that
there was any difference between the inherent right to legislate
which birth gave a Peer, and the eligibility to legislate which'
-every one else possessed. He would ask those who formerly,
voted for the whole measure of Dearmeipation, whether they
would not be guilty of inconsistency in voting for-this particular
Bill ? Why were _all the.tests-andaecurities omitted in this
Bill which were introduced -in the Bills of 1817 and 1821 ?—.
Whad had occurred to render the various oaths, tests, and see
comities which were thought necessary then, nrinoccssary now
Would it not be inconsistent, therefore, for those who hadtwice
voted for qualified and restricted-Emancipation, .nOw• • without
any ground whatever for the change, to vote for unquelifled and
unrestricted Einah eipation ? In support of this argument, the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman recited the various provisions Of
security in Mr, Grattan :3 Bill, and asked why they were not ,
inserted in that before the House? -But it was said there was
'no Popish successor to the Throne at present • and therefore
that the securities considered necessary at the. Revolution were
no longer necessary.. It was argued that as_ the cause had
ceased, the effect ought to cease. But what kind of logic was
that by which it was contended that because the larger danger
was no more, therefore there was no danger ? It was true there
was no Popish successor to the Throne; but the disposition of'
the Catholics to possess themselves of 'uite power still re-
mained. There was another view of the subject which it was
expedient to Lake. If a Catholic Peer had a right a priori to a
seat in Parliament eotwithsthnding his religion, why was not
the Monarch to have a right a priori to the Throne, notwith-
standing his religion ? And yet, by the Bill of Rights, the
Crown would drop from the head of the Sovereign of these
realms if he were seen at mass. Much stress had been
laid by the supporters of the present motion, on the small
number of Peers who would, be introduced into Parlia-
ment by its adoption. The principle, however, was the
same, whether the number was large or small ;--and,
as to the number, it was by no means insignificant, for there
had been frequent instances in which a much smaller number
had had considerable influence in the decisions of Parliament.
There was no Protestant State on the Continent, from large
Austria tessmall Venice, in which the Catholics had not been
subject to restriction. Why was Great Britain to be the only
Protestant country in Europe in which these guarantees for the
preservation of the civil and spiritual rights of the people -were
not to be required ? It had been said that the present generation
ought not to be alarmed with the old terrors of the Spanish
Armada, or of the Plot of Titus. Oates, but that they ought to
have some new and modern cause of apprehension shewn to
them, before they were called upon to be so vigilant. -Those
modern grounds of apprehension were not wanting; and in
proof of that fact, he instanced the remonstrances of the Con-
gress held in Germany, in 1786, of all the Ecclesiastical States,
at which the Eihnperor presided, against the encroachments of
the Pope. It was observed, by: the friendi or the Bill; that
Catholic Emancipation. Jiadebeen_ advocated by the great men
of all political parties—that it had been advocated. by Pitt, by
Fox, by Burke, by Sheriden—that it "was one of those causes
which as Vireil said— • = •• , • •

" MobiMate vigety viresque acquirit eundo."
'But he denied that the present measure was at all similar in its
principle to any, which h d heretofiire been prOposed.—lt was a
measure for unqualified emancipation; whereas the Mee-
I -sures which preceded it haddeeen. for qualified emancipation.
After arguing at considerable length to show that there could
.be no ground for separating this particular class of the Catholic
community from, the other elasses.i the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman expressed his regret that, with all his respect for
; the Right Honourable author of the Bill, he could not con-
scientiously concur in it, and -concluded 'by moving, as an
Amendment, that the Bill-be reads second time that day six',
months---[The Honourable and Learned Gentleman was loud-
ly
cheered during the course and at - the conclusion of his
speech.]
Mr. WILMOT remarked, that he was desirous of briefly
explaining the reasons which induced him . to vote in support 1
of his Right- Hof'. Friend's Bill, because -he. knew that in so
voting he acted in opposition to the wishes of a large and re-
spectable body of his conetititents. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had asked, why the present proposition was sepa-
' rated from the question of general emancipation ? Ile did not
conceive that he was at all bound to answer that inquiry. All
that the House had to inquire was, Whether there was any
ground for refusing to the Catholic rs a restoration of their
right to sit in Parliament ? The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man has also asked, why securities were not required ?'. He
(Mr. Wilmot) Would reply, because he could not entertain "any
wish for security where ha could not discover any danger.--
The Honourable and Learned, Gentleman, in -the course of
his speech, alluded to the Coronation-Oath ; he (Mr. Wilmot)
denied that there was any thing in the Coronation Oath which
went to restrain the King from giving his sanction to an Act
of the other branches of the Legislature for the relief of his -
Catholic subjects. i By such an Act, the Catholics would be
raised to their proper station—that •of freemen,- without any
danger to the Protestant Church. It was curious to observe
how the question was now argued against the Catholics ; no
one now attempted to say that the Catholics of the present
day were the same in prejudice and in opinion with the Catholics
of former, times, but it was said that the ,continuance of the
Catholic disabilities was essential to the Protestant Church.;
he, however, would maintain that the Constitution of this coun-
try, founded as it was upon the real principles of-freedom, and
intended for the common good 'and liberties of all, would be
vindicated, not injured or endangered by. the admission of the
Catholics to a sharge of its privileges and its rights. It was
very little to the purpose to refer to former times ; he cared not
what were the views of Charles or of James ; he knew now that
there was no longer apretender; that whatever danger might have
been formerly apprehended, nolonger remained ; and that, there,
fore, the Catholics ought to be emancipated. It was in vain
for Gentlemen to say that the Legislature had gone far enough,
they had gone far indeed—too far to stop. The Learned
Gentleman had talked of anomalies in the Bill, but what
greater anomaly—what more striking or more dangerous than
that which the present state of the Catholic Body prnsented ?
The dangers apprehended by the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman appeared to be visionary. Could any man-now sup.:
pose that the Papal Power would attempt to exercise that in-
fluence in Civil Government which it formerly assumed to do?
Was it to be supposed, that if seven or eight Peers ere ad
:mitred to the other House of Parliament, that. they would 're-
main perpetually united-,-deterinined on one common purpose,
and that purpose the overthrow of the Constitution ? The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman had said, that the Catho-
lic Commons would have cause to feel discontented at the ree
storation to the Catholic Peers of their undoubted rights ; but
that was a feeling which the Catholics would reject with dis-
dain ; they would feel not discontent, but pride at the mea-
sure ;it would take no right from them—it would not delay the
discussion of their claims—it would not prevent the Parliament
from considering and finally adjusting the great question of
Emancipation, founded, as it must be, on those securities
which were necessary, because required by the country. Dif-
ferenti he confessed, was his notion of security. The security
he looked to was a sympathy between the Catholics and the
Protestants--a unionof the conntriesfounded upon equal rights,
that security was much more likely to be lasting than any spe-
cies of security founded upon technical points, which, after all,
were likely to prove impede& and insufficient. He would sup-
port the present Bill, because he was convinced that it was a
proper measure—because he believed that it would conciliate the
people of Ireland—apeople for whose loyalty he felt respect, and
for whose sufferings he felt compassion; and lastly, because it
would restore to a noble and illtistrious order of men the rights
which their ancestors possessed, and which they had never
forfeited by clime or dhshoriour. He retolleeted well, dur

ir.g discusslm on this question which took place in the other
House of Parliament, about eight-yeara- ago, having seen
,a
NOble'Lorch with his son, a lad `abbut'tivelve years of age,
standing at the bay of the House- of Lords. The Nobleman to
whcp.)ne 41luded .turned to A f4end .of his, arid " The.
• ithtUlt-of-thienightii diScusiion Will 'determine me whether 1
:eneourar,e Pr:repress_ the spirit emtlation in this. boy's
t•iT, -hear (-111 r. W.) knew riot what..cdurse
thaenibletnantobk with respect to the education of his child—
Whet,llol.-in I;inznznts• of:despair; he laboured tO'repreAs in his
,;m4l‘.4.P'Ve,l7,,nableand aspiring thought, the better to fit him for
a:deg-faded state, in,a couAtry where.his ancestors
possened power ahti honour ; .butthis he Rfiew,.that it was un-
worthy in that liaise to preserve laws which went' to degrade
all that -was noble ..and to stigain honourable. minds the, desire
arid the-fibpe of ierving their Country; -Neither in a political
norreligious point of view Was-there any real objection to the
measure ; he, wetthl,therefore invoke than,. in the spirit of the
Constitution, to give freedoM to those ,Nho never forfeited their
rights .; sand in tie spint-cf te/igioti, to dci. unto others as they
would wish they should do unto them. -, . .-
, Mr. FOSTER. said, that until" the penal lays were totally
repealed, the pcicc and tranquillity, of lieland would,never be
rest:zed. But it repealing those lawa, the Parliament should
take care to cart.: the mind of the country with them_ He de-
nied that the mini of the Protestants was with the, present mea-
sure. He wouldsupport the general measure ; but he thOught
at -oresent that the country was taken by surprise ; that the
.
cuestion of seenr;ties was evaded. He would therefore vote
against the Bill.

-Dz. PHILLIMORE said, that ,with respect to securities,
however the Houle might feel-it necessary to impose securities
With respeat to the Catholics at large, he did not see' how they
were called for or necessary here: In his mind the cases were
very different. (In thezeneral- question they were to legislate
for the Catholic pspelauon at large.. They were to legislate for
the people of But here the objects werebefore them.
The Bill went oily to place in the House of .Lords seven or
eight Catholic Pecis--men' who were knoWn to them all. Who
would say that thsie Noblemen were so dangerous in any. way
as to render itnetessary for that-lids:se to enact measures of
security or restrahst respdeting them ? 'The names of every
one of those-Noble Persons were known to the Houee-e-they
were all persons who were ae.scended from the moareillustrious
of the Nobles of this -land-s:men who in their high trust bad
ever acquitted themselves With honour, • with fidelity to the
Crown, and advantage to the .county.. Heie the lion. and
Learned Member entered into an historical' detail of the con;
atict of- the Catholic N6bility in former times. When a Bill
was sent down from that House to exclude the.,Protestant
Bishops. from the Lot*, lite -Catholic Noblea,'-whstelliiii-sit in
Parliament, were foremost in opposing. that measure. The Ci-
vil Wars succeeded. Of 300 Nobles who fell in that unhappy
struggle, 190 were Roman Catholics.—ln the time of Eliza-
beth, holies were entrusted by that able and politic Princess.
with plates of the -greatest power. Howard of Effingham,
catholic Nobleman, was selected to command as High Ad-
miral the fleet fitted out to oppose the Spanish Armada—other
Catholics held places ,of sdarcely inferior trust—and none of
them were ever forgetful ,of their duty to their Sovereign
or their country. The Hon. and Learned Member next alluded
to the case of Lord Strafford, and read an affecting account of
the trial given by Mr. Evelyn, who witnessed the whole of the
proceedings. •Mr. Evelyn indignantly complained that the life
of a virtuous and aged nobleman should have been taken away
upon the evidence of a witness, whose testimony, with impar-
tial men, would not be considered sufficient to hang a dog.—
When it was said that the Catholic Peers would act with hosti-
lity towards the Church of England, what proof of this had
they from experience ? When the Bill was- agitated in the
House of Peers in the reign of Charles the First, to exclude the
Bishops, how did the Catholic Peers vote ?. How did the ances-
tor of the Duke of Norfolk vote on that occasion ? -What greater
possible danger could be apprehended from Catholic Peers than
trom Peers denying the divinity of our Saviour, or the doctrine
of the atonement, or professing Presbyterianism—a doctrine
much more hostile to the Church of England in many respects
than Catholicism, and under which the Church had actually
been trampled under foot? As a measure of retributive justice
and Christian charity, they were called on to peas the Bill..
(Hoar, hear.)
. Mr. W. COURTENAY said, that the true question for the
House to consider was, whether at the present moment it was
fit to pursue the same course of legislation as had been deem-
ed expedient at the time of the exclusion of the Catholic,
Peers. • Without entering into. any historical details already
referred ',to, he might say, that that system of policy had
been applied to the particular events of the time. The Hon.
Member then examined the act of exclusion, and other statutes
its paH mater-ia, such as that against the iretender, in order
to show that - though it was a principle-of the revolution of
51638 to secure a Protestant Ring and a Protestant succession,
no importance had been attached, to the point whether the Les
gislature shoUld be Protestant. If any-danger existed formerly,
none existed now. He rejoiced to see a system of greater tole.
ration prevail_ among all classes, and ale Annual Indemnity
/3111 was purposely passed to enable Dissenters of all denomi-
nations to sit and vote in Parliament. The army and navy had
been opened to Roman Catholics: their Peers might fill the
most exalted ranks, and enjoy all the advantages of promo-
tione In short, they. were intrusted by law with every species
of power that .might be dangerous, yet refused admittance
• within the Walls of Parliament.where. they would be Subject to
control,. Surely_ this .was a most. strange anomaly.—(Hear,
hear, bear l) —Looking at the presentestate of Ireland, it
was .11103tSimportant that . this -Bill_ should be passed—that
-these who hail hitherto been most unjustly excluded from the
.benefits oftbe.constitution might feel a common interest, and
unite
in.a common cause. Tie . friends of harmony and tran-
quillity mustbe-the friends of this Bill. He felt a strongper-
suasion that the great and general measure was silently making
progress toWards ultimate success; and he conjured Gentlemen
Who had not voted, or who having voted still doubted, to con-
sider whether the present was 'not the precise moment when
such a gracious concession ought, for the general welfare, to be
made.

Mr, W. PEEL did not believe that the.supporters of the Bill
on the previous night were aware of the consequences that would
ensue if it were passed into a law. The question was not mere-
ly whether six or eight Catholic Peers of high character should
be admitted into the other House; for if .this 'partial mea-
sure were. successful, ere long. the Catholic-Commoners would
be introduced into this House, and there would then he no ma,
son why other sects should be excluded. What, then, became
of the security of the Protestant Church ?—(Hear !)--R had
been said that-the majority of the inhabitants of Ireland were in
favour of the measure : perhaps so ; but if -it were possible to
poll the whole population.of the three kingdoms, the numbers
would be-greatly against any concession. He could not tell how
any man who hoped for tranquillity.conld support such a`pro--
position: If the present were the time to admit Catholic Peers,
why was it not the time to admit Catholic commoners; andif so,
why had not the Right Hon. Gent. brought forward the general
question? Mid fee Mr. P. been a Catholic Peer, he should have
objected to the introduction of the separate question, and would
not have aceepted a bobn that was not given to all those who were
of the same-persuasion. He should be- glad to learn why- this
question was now agitated ? Its most sanguine friends could
not hope that it would pass into a bilY.--(" Hear, hear!" from
the Opposition- -Sitieoe-eHe was satisfied that it could not—
(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial side);--and it was only
casting an invidious task upon the, House of Peers to require
them to throw it out.—(Much cheering from both sides.)-
Mr. W Y.NN-Observed, that though the Hon. Member for
Louth (Mr, Foster) had qualified his declaration of the necessity
that the claims- of the Catholics- should be concededeby
saying that the Protestant mind was not prepared for it, yet .he
hoped-that deciaratiOn would eee far to . produce the conviction
that wes-desireee The concession of the Catholic Claims was of
great importance eejeeland, not only in itself, but-- as blending
with all other measures; for without it every act of conciliation
would lose its beneficial influence, and every measure of coer-
cion
with greater severity. Because the whole measure
could not be carried, he should not therefore reiect any part of
it; and though 'he concurred at the time in the abandonment
'of the Bill of. 1813, because the clause admitting Catholics to
the /lame of Commons had been struck out, he now consi-
dered- it -an act rather of indignation than of prudence. It was
said by the -Hon. Gentleman who, spoke last, that if Catholits
were admitted to Parliament, other Dissenters could not be ex—
cluded:- Why other Dissenters were not excluded—(llear;
hear !), which formed a strong argument for the admission
of Catholics--(Hear !)—The Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr.
Wetherell) had said, that if the seven Catholic Peers were lo be
admitted to Parliament, the prohibition under which the King
was placed of not marrying a Catholic must be repealed. But
there was no parity in the cases. Six or seven Catholic Lords
would be controled by the general Protestant voice of 300 other
Peers, hut the King was the sole depositor of the executive '
power. It was, however, objected that the King might create
any number, even amajority, of Catholic Peers. Now, really, if
they supposed that public opinion had- no force to prevent
such a measure, they might prove the necessity of a qualifica-
tion of property for the House of Peers. The King, it might
be said, when he wished to carry any measure, might create
the whole of a regiment of Foot Guards Peers, and march them
in a body to give their votes. There was not one of the powers
of the Constitution that was not liable to the imputation of this
possibility orextreme abuse. There had now elapsed 2DO years
since the Reformation, for half of which time the Catholic
Peers had sat and voted in the House of Peers, in infinitely
greater numbers than they could at present; and if in that time
they had been dangerous, or if it could be conceived. that at
any time during the last 80 years they would have been likely
to have given their votes in a manner dangerous to the Consti-
tution, lie would say there was a case made out far securities.
The condition of- the Catholics in society was now changed.
They were till Istely aiieees in their native lend.—they lived s'

a separate and a distinct class, and no one visited a Catholic,
who .was not. considered as almost a Papist. . They were now:
mingled with the mass of society, and Pound together by no
common notions in points of policy and Government. Their
.admission to all the privileges.of other subjects would be per-
fectly safe and desirable, but he should support the smallest
measure of concession, .propoied as pro tanto, an act of justice
and policy.
Mr..R. MARTIN began by complimenting the Honourable
Member for Oxford (Mr. Wetnerell) for the intrepid manner
in. which he had defended the cause he had espoused. He
looked upon him as one of the 1-loriLatti.—(Laughter.)—He
looked upon him as only one of the ilori-atti.--(Much laugh-
ter—some Members intimated to Mr. Martin that he had
mispronounced the word.) If he had mis-pronounced it, he
was sorry for it, but it was not his fault.—( Hear, and laughter.)
—He was not surprised at the success that had attended the
proposition of the Right Honourable Member for Liverpool :
the gigantic powers-0i his eloquence, and the force of his rea-
soning; must of course produce a great effect upon the opi-
nions of Members. Deprived of that support, it would not
have succeeded. But he had no doubt-that the measure would
be successful in that House, well warranted as it was by facts,
and strongly enforced as it would be by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman.—(?lear, hear !)
Mr. PEEL said, that after tile full measure of indulgence
which he had experienced from the House, when he had the
difficult task of following his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning),
it was not his intention then to trespass_ on their attention longer
than for a very few minutes. He rose rather for the purpose
of correcting some misconstructions from which he had suffered
when he had last had the honour of addressing them on that
Subject, without the opportunity of disclaiming them, than to
prolong the discusSion. Before he proceeded to address him-
self to those points, however; he tiro-hid refer the argument upon
which the Hon. Member for Galway chiefly relied, and deprive
him at once of any authority hethought he derived from SirW.
Blackstone. Arid he must beg of that Hon. Member not to be
content for the future with reading only one page of that learned
writer's works; and if he would not read the-whole work, at
least to read a chapter through. Had he done that in the pre-
sent case, he would have found, that when'Mr. Justice Black-
stone spoke of granting further favour to the Catholics, it was
confined solely to the execution of the penal laws.---( Hear !)-1f
then he looked at the Act of 1793, he would find that all that 1
Blackstone contended should be granted to the Catholics, was
conceded to them by that Act, which was an Act 'of penal re-1
Taxation. And if it were possible to summon the dead, accord-
ing to the Hon. Member's fancy, and that Learned Judge were
tcavote on this. question with the Hon. Member for Galway,
he (Mr. Peel) would send for the first volume of his work,
and she* him that he would give a vote inconsistent with
his own declared principles and opinions. He would turn to.
that part wherehe said in terms, that one of the great bill-
warks of our Constitution was the Act which excluded the
'RoMan Catholics from sitting in Parliament.—(Hear, hear!)—
That opinion 'was not upon the penal exclusions of the Catho-
lics, but to their exclusion from the Legislature.—(Hear !)--He
then proceeded to touch upon the point for which lie princi-
pally rose. He did understand his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Canning), at the.conclusion of that able and beautiful speech
by which he introduced this measure on a late evening, to
speak something to the following effect;—" I give you warn-
ing, that if on thia subject 370 u oppose my argument, by enter-
ing into discussion upon the general measure, I shall consider
.this particular question as carried." Now he (Mr. Peel) did
meet the question as his Right Hon. Friend wished that he
should—he did not argue the general, but confined himself to
the particular measure introduced by his Right Hon. Friend;
and after so doing he certainlo did not expect that he should be
taunted in the reply, with not having met the question on the
grounds of justice and liberality. ( Hear!) H e h ad said that whilst
he opposed the partial measure, he made it no part of his opposi-
tion to the general question. Not that he would allow any one`
who might vote with him to suppose that the rejection of this
measure would in any degree tend to diminish his opposition to
the general, when that came to be discussed by the House. He
admitted, that from the reception this Bill met with, he could
not expect so much opposition to the general measure.. When
that came forward it might be carried; but it did not follow
because he held that opinion he should at all diminish his oppo-
sition to it. There might be overwhelming majorities, but he
could not retrograde. It was the beauty of our Constitution
that we were able to retain our opinions to the last, whatever
they might be met by. But upon this he must insist, that if
the general measure were likely to be carried, when next
brought forward, the arguments in favour' of this partial one
were, pro tanto, weakened. In proportion as this was pro-
, bable, he deprecated this partial Bill. The outline of the
argument upon which he relied to substantiate this was,
that, supposing the House, taking -a different view of
this question than he did, should determine- upon general prin-
ciples to remove .the disabilities -under which the Catholics la-
boured, he would then have-inother duty, distinct from op.
posing that determination, to_perform.--(Hear !)—That duty
would be to create as little evil by the discussion as possible;
• and to make the arrangement, into which he assumed the House
to: be willing to enter, as complete . as possible.—(Hear !)--
That would clearly be his interest in such a posture of affairs,
and therefore it west_ the. House would perceive, he was fully
justified in deprecating this partial agitation of the question.-
-And he must:here say, that it was perfectly fair on his part to
unite with him on the present occasion those who might not
agree *with him upon the general- question; and if they thought
that this measure was likely to prejudice the general:question,
as respected the securities which ought to accompany any ex-
tension of power to the Catholics, he had a right to appeal to
them -to' support hini and reject the present Bill. He did
not object to this merely because it was a partial measure.—
He had said last Session that he was ready to assent to a Bill
whieh should peen to the Catholics the avenues to many places
Of profit, , and indeed to all except the Bench. The reason of
his objection to this measure was, that it was partial in its
operation but general in principle, and that he repeated was
the ground of his olpection, and not merely because it was a
partial measure. I it were right that disabilities should be
taken off six dr seven Catholic Peers, they ought to-be taken
off the whole body of -the same persuasion. Here he must ob-
serve, that it was not a fair way of . arguing the question, to
argue it upon individual- merits, and to say, " Look at the
Duke of Norfolk, Lords Arundel and Clifford ; look at the
characters of these men, and say if you have any thing to fear
by removing their disabilities." Would not any one in posses-
sion of his ordinary senses see that this was full of sophistry ?
The question was not, whether six or seven individuals should
become privileged; but whether one part of 'the Legislature
should be endowed with a power which the other did- not pos-
sess. The question was, whether the House of Peers should
have the.power to put a certain number of Catholic Peers into
their body-, and that the Commons should not. His Learned
Friend (Dr. Phillimore) said, that the reason why he thought
they ought to vote for the removal of the disabilities from the
Catholic Peers first was, that those disabilities were imposed
upon them last. If that argument was good for any thing it
was 'to-remove the same disabilities from the Throne.—(Hear,
hear !)—The argument was good for nothing else, for the last
quarter upon which their disabilities were placed was the
Throne. Another argument, used by the Learned Civilian,
was in the same predicament,--instead of supporting, it oppo-
sed his cause. He referred to the favour shewn by Queen
Elizabeth to Catholic Peers, in allowing them to remain in the
posseSsion of their hereditary right as Peers, and also in her
employment of the Marquis of Winchester as Treasurer. If
this argument went to shew any thing, it went to spew that they
ought to follow the example of Elizabeth, and not only remove
the disability to sit in the House of Peers, but also to take of-
flee. • If they were to give to the Catholic Peers that influence
over the House of Peers which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Canning) possessed in that House, surely it became them seri-
ously to consider whether they ought not also to consider whe-
ther,they should not -give power to the Crown to employ their
talents in office. The securities had not been touched upon
in the last discussion,' _ and indeed that subject had better have-
been left alone than mentioned in the slighting way in which
it had been Noticed that night. • It was now plain that the
object of this -partial measure was to evade the subject Of
securities altogether. They were now told that it was merely
to calm certain ancient worn-out bigotted fears of the bigotted
Proteatants, that securities were even thought of.---(Hear !)
Their security was to be the concession of this very power, and
in proportion to its amount was their security great. WThat
answer would they meet with next Session, • when they asked
for securities ? When the Catholic Commons demanded ad-
misSion to their body, and quoted this concession of power to
Catholic Peers without any security of any kind, would it not
at the least be invidious to ask them for securities? Their
lopponents could then tell them, 'referring to this Act, that
at this 'time they gave distinct notice that they regarded se-
curity as nothing important. - But with regard to the Bill
itself, its comprehensive title was no part 'of its recommen-
dation. There was, however, one point about it which, ma-
nage as he could, _his Right Honourable Friend would find
it extremely difficult to get over. This was, . that the Bill
was. neither more • nor, .less than -a measure to relieve the
House of Peeis from the necessity. Of taking the Oath
of Supremacy. Now, as far as authority went in favour
of this Oath, he had a host in support of it. All those
on the other side of the question, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Ponsonby,
and Mr. Pitt, would never have parted with this security._
Indeed the Bill of last Session,_ not content with that oath, ac-
tually introduced another Oath of Supremacy. On this part of
the measure he appealed to all those gentlemen in that -House
who usually stood forward. on constitutional questions. He re-
minded them that the great Leaders of the Revoltition of 1688
actually recognized - and insisted on that oath in the Bill •
of Rights, the great Charter by which William accepted the
Throne. This was enacted to 'be permanently _ and for ever
the law of this realm. It came then to this impor.ant question,

whether the Haute of Peers was to he exempted from the Oath
of Supremacy, and the House .of Commons net? There was
one other objection in the Bill. It stated, as the :ground of
the Act, that the Act of the 30th of Charles H.• was enacted
for causes and circumstances, which now no longer existed,—
His Right Hon. Friend the other night said, that, the Lords
were to be considered as in durance at the time of Passing this
Act, from the sway held over their minds by the falsehoods
of Titus Oates. He (Mr. Peel) had met that argument,
by admitting the falsehood of Titus Oates; ebut he main-
tamed that other causes existed to warrant, and which, in
fact, did cause the passing of this Bill. fiat, supposing
they did no longer exist, were they to part with guards,
because the causes and circumstances which called them forth
were gone? Yes, they must part with same of, flee best se-
curities of the Constitution.' The ConStittition never we's
formed a priori ..L.(Hear, hear I)—Persons 'did notenotemeet and
frame securities beforehand. But were they; thetefere, to
throw down the firmest bulwarks of their liberties because_ the
causes and circumstances which dictated thein.' ware gone?--
Was he bound to shew the state of Mind-tinder which Henry
the. Eighth did certain acts—why he eneyear Wrote a book—
" adversus Martinum Lutheranz," and the next was a song
opponent of the Romish Church ? The causes which gave rise to
the Septennial Act was gone. But if that argument was a sound
one, what became of the exclusion of Catholics from the Throne?
Did the causes for that part of the law exist now there
any fears of a Catholic successor ? Why then were they to
continue to restrict a Monarch from the right anti privilege of
the meanest of his subjects to cause- for the prirener of his bed'
and fortunes, the being that pleased hie -taste ? Fie opposed
this Bill, because he thought it Would lead to the success of the
general measure; because he thought-the carrying of this partial
measure would lead to the abandonment Of the securities. 12t
him, however, guard the House against suppOsing that he opt
posed it because it was partial, or that ha wished to entrap one
vote under the idea that he would eeiLe4e. the general mea-
sure less strongly when it came. He oppeieci it not only be-
cause he was a friend to the Motareliy, .but because he vhls
equally a friend to the democracy ; and he, irriploredehoee who
stood forward for the privileges of the people, to consider
whether it was decent orpropee that :116; should originate sueli
thleoreßdepthreemsenttoactiovnessiaGefr itheheitilleoerpilte,wassizocouind-
saismteen4tsuthre they,ileimplored
come forward to remove- disabilities from the House of Peers,
which they did not remove from the ComMors.—afear, leen !i
• ,
assist the genteel measure. Next Sission, it was intended to
bring forward the whole question of civil di abilities under
which the Roman Catholics laboured. Then they would hear
from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett) that there were
rights inherent in every citizen. If So; ;then how could they
consent to exclude the Commons ? Let them only postpone it
for four months, and then they would not be chargeable with
having abandoned What appeared to him to be the exclusive &it/
of the Houee of Representatives.—(Loud and long Cheering.)
: Mr. WILMOT explained.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY and Mr. CANNING
rose at the same time, but the latter gave way. The Noble
Lord assured his Right Hon. Friend that he would not long
detain the House. He merely wished to advert to the genet's.'
ground of argument assumed in opposing this Bill. This ap-
peared to be, that as they were not prepared for the general
measure, they could not consistently consent to a partial one-
. For his own part, he had from the beginning said, since this
measure was first put in agitation, that there was a much
greater tendency in the minds of the people towards it. But
in proportion as he felt that to be the case, he had wished'
not to harrass their minds on the subject, and he thought
there was a more reasonable chance of its success, when
brought forward at intervals, rather than year after year.--
He always considered that the real question to be resolved 00
was, the amount of danger to which they 'became exposed by
removing the disabilities under which the Catholics laboured-
As to securities, he was one who had always thought that they
should be a component part of any measure for that purpose'
but he always wished to make them of that nature as shan't'
best fall in with the prejudices of the partie.s. But that branch
of the questibn did not affect this measure. All that was asked
'on the present occasion was, to permit this partial measure tie
pass before the general measure connected with the admission
of the Catholics to the higher offides of the State, and the Re-
presentation? was brought forward upon reasonable securities'
If the question turned upon the Oath of Supremacy, and if
his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Peel) would give oP
his opposition upon that Oath being part of the
thought there Would be no ditlicaltY in coming to an under"
standing. He had no hesitation in saying that the whole
of the Roman Catholics would be content to take the Oath 0,
Supremacy at present on the faith of our laws. With reference
to the extent of danger incurred, it appeared that there was
ground to apprehend the addition of no more than seven, eight,
or nine Members in that House. If he could think that there
was any,danger to the State, the Constitution, or the Eccie-
siastieal Power, he would stand on a rock in his oppositicesii
,Nor could he admit that it was any argument in favour of WI
measure, that the original Act of Exclusion was an act of in"
justice. They were not there to administer justice, but to up'
hold the Constitution in Church and State. They would come
better to the trial of the question next year, having first ascer-
tained the feeling upon this partial measure. He therefesolie,
thinking there were advantages in moving the partial quest; to
this year, although not the general one, gave his oppor
the Bill. Friend
Mr. CANNING began by assuring his Right Hon. re.
(Mr. Peel) that in nothing he had said, did he intend to rep e
sent that he had unfairly met the question. On the contrary'
according to his feeling, he had never encountered a fairer
an-
tagonist. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded CO see
a review of the history of the Parliamentary contests for eeseCs'
tholic Emancipation. The House was first induced to enter''_
taro favourably a measure of the kind in 1813, upon a Re_
other
lution moved by him. On that occasion, however, the oa
House did not concur with it. In the following year the J.TI.
was thrown up by himself and his friends, on account of the
loss of one particular clause. But the leading opponents to the
measure of that day offered them all sorts of partial measucett
but they would accept none. Last year the subject was brotifq.
forward by the stupendous abilities of his Right Hon. Frier
(Mr. Plunket.) It passed that House, but was rejected by.u_i
House of Peers, and the question now was, whether they
or had not adopted the best means of overcoming the oyPt,
tion of that House ? One considerable part of the general Dr;
sure had been brought forward and amended'in the other Hods,
He meant.the removal of the disabilties from the Catholic sew
Biers and sailors of the Army and Navy. Thus it seemed th, ",.
e
Peers had a liking for partial measures. It could hot "
objected by that House that they should adopt means e,en
suit-
able to the taste of the other House in this respect. lie ,
measure was free from all those remote and undefina
objections which ingenuity had discovered, to object to:::
its predecessors. Jt was not an innovation, but a resto7o
Lion of ancient practice, and if it touched the. Lords it Irs'ete
all reverence. It was offering that to then which they ect"'„,
not of themselves have collie forward with to the exclusion
the Commons. Was it not of importance that they shotile!pfo
w-
ee
a view to the shape of any measure to ascertain the objecum:Te
it? It was the interminable-principle which must succeed. oet,
there was a disposition to concede any thing, if was aieent
impossible upon such a question to withhold concession.
House and the other branch of the Constitution ,could not co! ,
cede upon any question with more satisfaction than upon__
question which must promote the integrity or the leeeragell'ie.
Could they conceive any thing more likely to lead to sitinee
essence than the measure before the House ? They had tee
allowed Peers for a century to sit in Parliament, but the ctie
of exclusion no longer existed. The House Was. not
called upon to restore a franchise, but to restore to in deed
terity the rights of their ancestors. He denied that l 3 n.
in the boon he contended for would oblige them to. to
cede the admission. of Catholics to other rights. There ,to
nothing in this concession which could force Parliarnelleece
make others. Did the admission of the Catholics to pro
tion in_ the navy and army of the country sanction other eee,e,
cessions ? He might ' ask at the same time, whether tt.e.7,
nothing to create that anomaly ? The son of the Catholic
bleman, by honourable ardour and glowing ambition, eight `,o-
nothing
come a popular. general at the head of the army. Be
ot sit
give advice to his Sovereign in the closet, yet he could I,,erity
in the Senate, which had given him the exercise of alitnuEtee.
more dangerous than any Parliamentary power. The' arse,
maly would be removed by the measure before the nu" ee
and, upon a clear view of it, all the hostility must fall to?2,le-
pound. The measure was founded in justice, and not a
at se
individual could consider the exclusion of the Catholics %use
present day a case of justice. None could say that the... Gee no
which led to their exclusion in 1688 now existed. It
bad
longer the means of excluding a Popish succession., He
fbr "
not heard it said that there was the least shade of 3,1,
eaistice e a.
their exclueion. His Right Honourable Friend hot
it is said, liad not. vitiated the Reformation, which I?7_sre
ngoottphrisntachipdliengshvobusltdruncotitobne. aTbhueeeden,maintyd
of
faHt ietnwryoutlhele_tErili!
to
flow from his reign. The great men of the Revolu.tiol.e
still anxious to preserve Protestantism. This mietu who
gent in point of manning leht it was obvious that tin-with
brought about the Revolution were as much imPri7/7resenc
what was due to the Catholics as any could be at t
day. They had, however, other dangers to guard Nig ee.
There was, perhaps, a necessity to control a part)'„ weeuceetibio -
deavoured to seize the Government. The Right riree ther
to skew to
Member called upon all who opposed the Bill
was danger in passing the Bill. He did not welter eehis
produce a Popish Monarch, ready to alter the rehr*Lagere
subjects ; but wheceoulcl they not shew some htlitele-;761
some scanty Portion of danger, which could by pos-rw'
eou be
low the passing of such a Bill ? If any ellng_seee no the.
*hewn, he would most willingly sit down and Am'