The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

principle that in this country every individual was equally
entitled to the enjoynient of every political privilege not in,
consistent with the safety of State. And he would shew
that those which lie.was now claiming for the English Catholic
were perfectly reconcileable with the safety of the State. The
.common object of the two bills before the House was to place
as nearly as might be, the Roman Catholics of the whole'courr,
try on the same footing as they were now in a great portion
of the United Kingdom, with a few exceptions, proceeding
from the fact that there were offices here which had no parallel
in Ireland. After stating the object of the Bills, he should
have expected that when all parties, both in and out of doOrs,
were agreed as to the propriety of legislating to put all parts
of the United Kingdom in the same political condition,- there
would have been but one opinion as to the importance of in.,
troducing uniformity, but particularly religious uniformity—
Though he did not mean to contend that anomalies in -the
Constitution might not sometimes be attended with beneficial
effects. In this case, however, the anomaly was injurious
instead of beneficial, and every reason was in favour of 'its
being abolished. He should now enter into the details of the
Bills, and ask their Lordships whether the English Roman Ca.
tholics were not entitled to the relief proposed for them. The
object of the first Bill was to grant to English Catholics the
benefit of the elective franchise. Their Lordships were aware
that it had been conceded twenty years ago to the Irish Ca-
tholics, and it would no doubt be urged that it had contri-
buted to an undue extension of population in Ireland, and
had proved detrimental to that country. But it was not
from the grant of the elective franchise that those evils
had arisen, but from the subdivision of property. The same
argument could not be applied to the Catholics here, who were
quite is a different situation. The qualification of property
belonged to Roman Catholics in this country, and yet we were
exposed to the anomaly of seeing Catholic Land proprietors
coming forward to propose candidates for the representa-
tions of towns and counties, and afterwards obliged to re-
tire without giving them a vote. Nay, he understood that
in some instances Catholics had proposed Candidates
who were opposed to their claims. Was it just, he
would ask their Lordships, to the English Catholics, that an
Irish peasant should be received on those hustings, from
whence a Sir William Throgmorton or a Sir Thomas
Gage would be obliged to retire without giving a vote.?—
He thought he had now said enough to induce their Lordships
to give this part of the subject a favourable consideration. If
there was no danger in allowing Catholics to vote in bodies at
elections, there could be none in granting that privilege when
their numbers were small.. With respect to the other Bill for
enabling Catholics to hold certain offices in the Revenue and
Customs, he conceived that if Catholics were eligible to such
situations on one side of the Channel, they ought to be so
on the other. There was also a strange anomaly introduced
into the existing law by therecent consolidation of the Revenue
and Customs,Boards of the two countries. It was well known
that Catholics could in Ireland fill the office he alluded to, and
by a recent regulation those persons might be brought forth in
this country to fill similar situations here, while English Catho-,
lies were excluded. Our present system was, therefore, not
only inconsistent in principle, but inconvenient in practice. In
short, the Noble and Learned Lord on the 'Woolsack was
bound to bring in a Bill of Pains and Penalties against his Col-
leagues, for they had virtually repealed one of the Acts of
Charles IL, which obliged all officers in the Excise and Cus•
toms to take the oath of Supremacy. Upon the next point em-
braced in this Bill, he was at a loss to know what objection
there could be to relieve Roman Catholics from oaths on as-
suming the office of Justices of Peace in this tranquil and
peaceable country, which they were exempt from in a country
subject to rebellions and outrage.: Many days had not passed
since, in the Committee of which he was a Member to en-
quire into the state of parts of Ireland, an opportunity was
presented him of putting a question bearing on this topic.
Ile asked a witness, who was an Inspector of Police,:if he
knew any instances in which Catholic constables or police-
men were influenced by religious motives to depart from
their duty ? The answer was, not a single, instance ; and
nearly the same reply was made respecting Catholic Magis-
trates. Another officer, however, was included in the present
Bill, to which no parallel could be found in Ireland. • He
meant that of Earl Marshal, held by his Grace the Duke of
Norfolk, among many other honours inherited from his illus•
trious ancestors. Now he (the Marquis of Lansdown) under-
stood, that at the period of the ceremonial of the Coronation,
the highest law authority had declared the incompetency of the
Duke of Norfolk to officiate as Earl Marshal, without subju•
gating himself to the penalties of a misdemeanour. The Noble
Duke, however, he (Marquis of Lansdown) was bound to say
declined the restoration of the privilege attached to his house,
unless it was accompanied at least by a partial relief to.his
Roman Catholic countrymen. Having gone through the prin-
cipal points included in the Bills before their Lordships, he
would conclude by merely asking if they could really say dan-
ger was to be apprehended from the measures he had the
ho-
nour to propose ? Let them recollect, too, the lesson which the
decision of that night would give to six millions of Roman
Catholics in Ireland. If the Bills were adopted, it would teach
them that patience and merit met with a suitable reward—but
if the rejected, that numbers and influence might have more
weight. The Noble Lord sat down by moving the second-read-
ing of the Bills.
Lord COLCHESTER objected to the present Bills, because
he found that instead of giving relief to the Catholics by a
general measure, it was now the object to proceed step by
step in an ascending scale. In the other-House of Parliament
he had expreseed his willingness to open to Catholics all situa-
tions of profit or emolument, but not those conferring civil
rights. He still held the same opinion. With regard -to the
office of Earl Marshal, he thought that relief should be obtain-
;edby a separate Bill. Admitting Catholics to be Justices of
the Peace was admitting them to judicial situations, and there-
! fore he would oppose it.. As to .the other offices in the Re-
venue, &c. whatever opinion might be held, he could not
: help saying that the Bill for extending the elective franchise
i had his most unqualified disapprobation.. It would introduce
• religious animosity into election contests, and give Catholics
of wealth and ambition an opportunity of buying up lands and
making freeholders. If uniformity between England and Ire-
land was the object, it could only be obtained by destroying the
e
on -
otilicsereelief bad undergone change.
uniformity between England and Scotland. The Noble Lord
then alluded to the conduct of some Catholic Bishops in 1808
and 1813, and a letter from Dr. Doyle,- recently published,
whiCh appeared to him to be characterized by seditious inso-
lence, and concluded by moving as an amendment, " That the
Bills before the House be,read that day six months."
Earl WESTMORLAND was every day more and more sa-
tisfied of the impolicy of granting Catholics, the general relief
which they sought, but still gave his support to these Bills.—
The Elective Franchise was extended to Catholics in Ireland,
and if possessed by them here could do no harm, when at the
utmost only 500 or 1,000 individuals might avail themselves of
the privilege. The Noble Earl then contended, that as Parlia-
ment had sanctioned Catholic Officers in the Army and Navy,
they should do the same with Officers in Civil employments.—
As a means of resisting the further claims of the Catholics, he
would give them the indulgences demanded in the present mea-
sures, which, though a favour to few, would be a consolation to
many.
In
the House of Commrwi
Billstl es that
everyig ince
merit
n Ireland
did thereforewron wrong
r once,t
cheel:oEspshot: wrongittlihitaceirinnrt
bae nl
nedtr e
these. u9.r
measures,
Lord REDESDALE considered the great. ob.je.ctiooTiunft teipooatoohrffiniesisa:e_
flea power would bestow an influence over the concerns of the
c Catholics in lrelandl e ethlte
Hweeoll.rue:errre,abedduy.;
Established Church, he could not support suck a demand. It
f
was said that because Catholics obtained the elective franchise
ognhst concession
h6ef hadp votedp led
et
yt of
boyr the further
ioci
removalnce
bs concessions.
adss s
ap
"s to
es ;life On.
these
of Earl Marshal,c Church
ttrcal poiver, and he sli .office
easures, if
pohsasetstshioencaothf
othlie priv'l •
groundsi3hisehocpouolfd consent to
something to thee ponliiiecallndp
n-
D.-next addressed
hq ue
seat
ent.
ieta yd
tqwlhivaoeeuvtslei:ti leoad
,nod
It was now
country.
Ca-
tholics in that
catorri
carried,
seize
The
we re,,retwas for the to say most part inaudible 14low- the
'We understood-him to say, that his •
Bar. sentiments, on the
Aseat m either mouse of rarliament wold U give the power of
subverting the Established Church, and a desire to do siOvas:na.
tural in Roman Catholics generally. itthe
well known t
elective franchise,
while it enabled a Catholic to express his political, opinions
through a Protestant representative, did not allow his religious
motives to operate. The. Bills under consideration would remove
full
an anamoly and inconsistency in the existing law, and would
enable the Protestant to say to his Catholic fellow-subject that
he was in ever, his • •
respect friend, compatible with th.frafety of
established political Institutions. ; r• -
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS thought the only, ques.