The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

~:

laid d
th own apply to the Protestant ?—(Cheers.)—Were
ese arguments, at the same time, not equally erroneous?
According to the doctrine of the Hon. Gentleman, any
man who lays down an obnoxious or incorrect doctrine on.
the Bench is, by so doing, not only disqualified himself
for civil liberty, but his erroneous doctrine is to disqualify:
all the persons who possess the same faith, through all ge-
tterations.—(Cheers.)-0a this principle, I ask, what
*Yin become of the lawyers of 1829, if they are to be
Judged by the doctrines of the last century ? What was
(lone, Sir, on the question of ship money ?—(Hear.)—
Were the Judges on that occasion Roman Catholics ?
(Cheers.)—ls it possible to draw any argument against
any opinion for the erroneous opinions of men during a
bad time ? Is it possible to conceive for a moment that
because Mr. Justice Allybone held an opinion in such
times that was not the same as that held by his colleagues,
that his opinion is for ever to exclude Catholics from the
judgment seat?—(Cheers.)—What, however, did the
Loa Chief Justice say on the same occasion ?—" Now,
gentlemen, any thing that shall disturb the Government or
make mischief and a stir among the people, is certainly
within the case of Libellis Famosis, anti I must, in short,
Rive you my opinion, Ido take it to be hbel." Other
Judges, not Catholics, held the same opinion as Mr. Jus-
tice Allybone. Now the Hon. Gentleman quotes a Catholic
Judge; but when the Hon. Gentleman wanted, the other
evening, to hurl a sarcasm against my Noble Friend, the
Lord Chancellor, then he referred to Lord Chancellor
Shaftesbury, and Lord Chancellor Jeffreys. When he is
to oppose the Catholics, he refers to the errors of a Ca-
tholic ; when he attacks a Protestant, he finds arms
amongst Protestants. But we disclaim the doctrines—we
refuse to be bound by the acts of those Judges, and so may
the Roman Catholics of this day disclaim the doctrines, and
refuse to be bound by the decisions of Mr. Justice Ally-
bone, as we disclaim the doctrines of Lord Chancellor
Shaftesbury, And refuse to do homage to the cruelties of
Chief Justice Jeffreys. The argument of the Hon. Gen-
tleman
is worth nothing, or it tells against the Protest-
ants quite as much as against the Catholics. As I have
disposed of this point, and as the Hon. Gentleman has al-
hided to me, I feel myself hound to advert to the points
mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman. I must first say
that no person could have been so much surprised, I may
say astonished, as I was, at the speech the Hon. Gentle-
man made from this bench. I cannot express indeed,
the surprise, the astonishment, that speech excited in me.
Sir, up to that hour no person heard of the intent:on of the
Ron. Gentleman to make a speech, and no person heard
of the indignation by which the Hon. Gentleman says he
was actuated, nor of the dangers from the political anti-
Panty. of the Catholics to which he then alluded.—(Hear.)
''Sir, I will narrate facts. The Hon. Gentleman has
blamed the House correctly that a communication was
Inedeto him seven days before the meeting of Parliament,
of the intentions of the Government as to this Bill. But
why was the communication made ? The Hon. Gentle-
man was 'no confidential adviser of the Crown. We were
not bound to ask his opinion as to the course of policy
we meant to pursue.—(Hear, hear.)—We had merely to
resort to his assistance, not for advice as to the course we
meant to pursue, but for his legal assistance in framing
the measures we intended to submit to Parliament.—
The House would suppose, when this communication
Was made to the Hon. Gentleman, that he had declared
that he could not assist to draw the Bill, and that he could
not support the principle of the measure; but the Hon. Gen-
tleman
said nothing whatever by which it could be inferred
that he did not acquiesce in the measure. [Sir Charles
Wetherell here interrupted Mr. Peel, but what he said was
not heard in the gallery.l—l am bound to add, Sir, that
the Hon. Gentleman did assist in drawing the Bill for the
Suppression of the Catholic Association. We thought it
Was not fair to ask his assistance in drawing the Bill to
Put down the Catholic Association, without communi-
cating to the Hon. Gentleman the whole intentions of the
Government, as far as the principle of the measure was
concerned. The Hon. Gentleman made no objections—
he, assisted in drawing the Bill to suppress the Catholic
Association. He did more. He assisted us with his legal
14:1th,v.in drawing up the present Bill, both as respects the
Wof endowments and of ecclesiastical charities. It was
thlt until the 23d of February that the Hon. Gentleman
elPrested any opinion against the measure, or any determi-
nation not to draw the Bill. But Parliament met on the
stlllif February. —( Hear, hear.)—The intentions of the
Government were communicated to the Hon. Gentleman
en days'before the meeting of Parliament; he assisted
,11 drawing the Bill for suppressing the Catholic Associa-
-4441; he assisted us with his advice, his endowments, and
ntPerstitious uses in this Bill, and never during that time
FZiressid any doubt of the general policy of the measure.
ilen the time came that it was necessary for my Noble
iend, who had given notice that the measure would be
Snbraitted to Parliament on the sth March, that all the
urtails of the measure should be prepared—for about the
Principle we had previously agreed—when it became ne-
e", tory that my Noble Friend should, on February 22, ask
t4e Hon. Gentleman to prepare the Bill, is there any man
who heard the speech of the Hon. Gentleman the other
evening, who would not suppose that the Hon. Gentle-
Man displayed ,his indignation, and answered, " I foresee
danger to my country from the measure, and I have sworn
an oath which will not allow the to assist you ?" Sir, the
Hon. Gentleman did no such thing.—[Sir C. Wetherell
was understood to say, that he did.]—The Honourable
Gentleman has referred to the date of the communication
Made to him, to prefer his charge against me—(Hear,
hear)—and I must state facts in opposition to those
ehatges. It was not until thi night when the Hon.
Gentleman made his speech, that any Member of
the Government knew or thought that it was repug-
nant to the oath the Honourable Gentleman had taken as
Attorney-General, to draw the Bill. The Hon. Gentle-
man only told my Noble Friend that he could not give his
individual support to Catholic Emancipation.—(Cheers.)
"--That was the amount of the intimation he made.—
(Cheers.)—Here, however, as a servant of the Crown—
''.' King's Attorney-General—he continued to hold office,
'or the purpose of founding charges against the Bill. This
tu,..rpea.d me in the Attorney- General.—(Cheers.)—
~'nese were the facts. The Hon. Gentleman, hemust say,
its not warranted in any such conduct; he held the
l'olee of Attorney-General; he had not signified any in-
'lkon of resigning, and he was not, I must say, warranted
'a stating, at that period, the confidential communication
Thiel], as one of the law advisers of the Crown, had been
Cede to him, and on that he formed charges against the
,slwernment under which he held office. Now, with re-
-Peek, t to the laws themselves, though I confess lam con-
Ltlth of the very great difficulties I labour under in dis-
y-';nga question of law against the Hon. Gentleman ;
t. if 'understand the Bill, nothing could recompense me
f'"r the loss of the legal assistance of the Hou. Gen-
th-", than to find him stating such objections as he has
night stated to that Bill.—(Hear, hear.)—l shall fol-
li*7 41mr'step by step, through his legal argument, and as
na,nts.
h,tte-4efv4tions have made me regard the Bill as even
04.1! than I before thought it, so I have no doubt that
miservations will enable me better to recommend the
le. to the Huuse than ever at present. The Hon. Gen-
,.Man states as his first objection to the Bill, that it opens
iM allows an unrestricted intercourse with the See of
smunte. The Bill does no such thing. It does not repeal
1•v„,,
•"gie Act which now restrains that intercourse. If we
itlialised that intercourse, by establishing a Commission to
ittspect and regulate it, we should by that have recognized
But as the Bill stands, it does no such thing. Every
•Which prohibits that intercourse remains untouched in
Statute Book. The Bill admits the Roman Catholics
4 the exercise of equal civil rights with Protestants, and
11. not recognise the intercourse with the Holy See.
e 24 Ron. Gentleman, then, has confounded two things
4;rhtially different. The Hon. Gentleman accuses
14.,-ef of, having abandoned the clauses which were found
4.14 Bill of 1825, for appointing a Commission of
7an Catholic Bishops, who should inquire into the
oketer of candidates for ecclesiastical places, and report
po the Crown. Sir, I did abandon those clauses
tue I tiniugl4 !iem useless. The Commission of
ass' 7,111,1 was to report on the loyalty of any ecclesiastical
ssridates. This was invalid as a security. know not
%"40tioyalty means, or !icily it is to be ascertained. Thou
vs. take the oaths preserthed, are to be considered as com-
a4ng with the obligations imposed by the Legislature,
t 440 to be considered as loyal. I abandoned the clauses
uu because I thought them useless as a security ; and
licht.hie Crown appointed a Commission of Roman Catho-
tsss'nons to inquire into the character of candidtes, and
srt that to the Crown, it would have been on '
the part
gin Crown a recognition of the Roman Catholic reli-
thus' 11 in, England, which it is better should not be recog-
P,„," the' Government of this country.—(Cffeers.
t4ese reasons I abandoned the provisions the Hon.
LAbetltlenian reproaches me with having given up. The
itassreasOns apply to the clauses for the inspection of the
'X course with Rome, to be found in former Acts.
some ves provided that what was purely of a spiritual
ali:brwsbauld be excepted' limn the inspection, anti this
Ins such large exceptions that I thoughit it 'was' of no
1 .With such exceptions, the clause would not have
hagany real restrictions, while enacting it would
to bi. better,
the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed
to therefore, to, abandon the:clause, and not
InsfVgnize that church. Now we do'not recognize it,
etliw e de not pretend to possess a security that can never
theser
?the purpose expected from it. For these reasons,
)3i4LI he relief
the securities formerly demanded in
'vr the relief of the Catholics, It has been well said

of them, that they serve-only as a blind to the Protestants,.
without affording them any effectual security. The next
objection of the Hen. Gentleman is as to the oaths. The
Hon. Gentleman sass:, that d have not in.el terl in the oath
prescribed to the Rouen Catholics a declaration that t;:ey
are not excused from I oldiag faith with Pi otestants, and
are not bound to kill then. But why should we retain
offensive words that are better omitted ? We omitted
them because it seemed wiser to do so ; and now we are
charged with having abandoned all security for the Pro-
testant. Church, because we have not imposed a declaration
on the Catholics that they are bound to keep faith with
heretics, and are nut bound to kill Protestants. If the
words are omitted, the Hon. Gentleman thinks that the
Catholics will not incur the same penalties as under the
Act of 1793. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that
Lord Eldon took part in drawing up the Bill of 1791, but
he was also Attorney-General in 1793. I must admit
that those who were parties to the Act of 1793 are
not called on to be parties to this measure, because
this Act goes much beyond that in the privileges it grants;
but the preambles of the Bill of 1793 says, that the Ro-
man Catholics shall not incur any penalties, forfeitures, or
pains whatever, more than Protestants, on taking the
oaths prescribed by that Act. The exceptions from office
in the Bill of 1793 were more numerous than by the pre-
sent Bill. The lion. Gentleman says that the Roman
Catholics' oath will not prevent Protestants front entering
the House If this argument is well founded, hew does
he reconcile it with the declaration to admit the Dissen-
ters, and with the oath of a Privy Councillor ? The de-
claration of a Dissenter when he entered Parliament is,
that he shall not use any power or influence he may pos-
iess by virtue of any office he holds to weaken the Protes-
tant Church Establishment, or disturb the Bishops and
Clergy in the exercise of their legal authority. The Bill
admitted the Roman Catholics into the Privy Council,
calling on them to take an oath that they will not use
their privileges for the injury of the Established Church.
We are not willing that the Catholics should be excluded,
and we are willing to provide for the security of the Esta-
blished Church; and the reason for introducing the oath
is, that similar oaths have been formerly introduced.—
The next objection of the Hon. Gentleman is to the clause
which gives the power to the Archbishop of Canterbury to
exercise the right of presentation to any ecclesiastical be-
nefice or preferment, in case the appointment to such a be-
nefice shall belong to the holder of an office who is a Ca-
tholic. We are willing to remedy any plausible objection
to the Bill ; but if the Hon. Gentleman has so many ob-
jections to make to the measure, why did he not attend
the Committee, and why did he reserve all his objections
to this last stage of the measure ? An objection was made
in the Committee, and it was suggested that the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury was the best person to hold in his
hands any power to present to ecclesiastical preferment.—
We were willing to listen to that suggestion ; but the
Hon. Gent. reserves his objections to the third reading of
the Bill, when, if they be correct, the evil cannot be re-
medied. The objection of the Hon. Gentleman, however,
is not well founded, when he states that the Church
preferment of Scotland was to be placed in the hands
of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bill does no such
thing; and either the Hon. Gent. has not read, or has not
understood the Bill, if he supposes that it vests any power
over the Church of Scotland in the bands of the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. The Bill does not vest the Arch-
bishop with any patronage or preferment whatever. But
as there is certain Church preferment in the hands of the
Crown, which is disposed of under the advice of a re-
sponsible Minister, should the Minister for the Home De-
partment be a Roman Catholic, in that case he cannot ad-
vise the Crown in giving away this preferment, which
must be done by a Protestant Minister. There are, how-
ever, some offices under the Crown, such as the Chan-
cellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which bestows on
its holder, virtute nificii, a right to present to certain eccle-
siastical preferments : and the Bill provides, that if such
offices are held by a Roman Catholic, the presentation to
those preferments shall be exercised by the Archbishop of
Canterbuty. Now it does so happen, that in Scotland
there is not a single civil office which has annexed to it
any Church patronage.—(Hear, hear.)—ln this case, then
of such offices as he had alluded to being held by Catholics,
ti.e patronage belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the presentations by the Crown must be made by the ad-
vice of a responsible Minister. The next objection made
by the Learned Gentleman was to.the clause relating to the
scholastic establishments. The Hon. Gentleman objects
to the words " ecclesiastical schools ;" but, in fact, the
Bill makes no alteration in the law is this respect, and
Protestant foundations will, as heretofore, have only Pro-
testant masters. We have foreseen this objection, and we
come prepared to leave out the words "schools of ecclesi-
astical foundation," so as to make the clause apply to
schools generally. The Act will not then give any per-
sons any new powers in this respect, nor entitle them to
any exception, they do not now possess. The Bill will
then leave the Catholics their schools, and the Protestants
theirs. The next objection of the Hon. Gentleman is, that
all the penalties are pecuuiary, and that the offences are to
be prosecuted at the di'cretion of the Attorney-General,
who may be a Catholic, and appoint another Attorney-
General.—(Hear, hear.)—ln the first place, the House
must suppose the Attorney-General unwilling to prosecute;
but the Honourable Gentleman might have recollected, that
some Attorney-Generale, at least, have some respect for the
oath they take. In the next place, the penalties are not
altogether pecuniary; if the Hon. Gentleman had read
the whole clause, be would have found that the four last
lines stated, the person should lose his office. The clause
is this :
" And be it enacted, that if any person professing the
Roman Catholic religion, shall enter upon the exercise and
enjoyment of any office or franchise, or of any office or
place of trust or profit under his Majesty, not having, in
manner, and at the time aforesaid, taken and subscribed
the Oath hereinbefore appointed and set forth, then, and
in every such case, such person shall forfeit to his Majesty
the sum of two hundred pounds : and the appointment of
such person to the office, franchise, or place, so by him
held, shall thereupon become altogether void : and the of-
fice, franchise, or place, shall be deemed and taken to be
vacant to all intents and purposes whatsoever."
(When the Rt. Hon. Gent. had read the clause, his atten-
tion was called to the word " thereupon," by Sir C. We-
therell. )—I do not think the word thereupon applies to the
fact of the conviction, but if it does in legal construction,
had the Hon. Gentleman stated that objection in the
Committee, the evil should have been remedied. If that
word makes the forfeiture of office depend on the convic-
tion obtained by the Attorney-General, I have no objec-
tion to alter it.—(Hear, hear.)—(Re-commit the Bill, we
believe from Sir R. Inglis.)—lt will not be necessary to
re-commit the Bill ; that is, I apprehend, very unusual af-
ter it has been engrossed. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman must suppose, because we are willing to listen to
reasonable objections, that we shall delay the measure.
The Hon. Gentleman seems also to think, that the penalty
of two hundred pounds is not sufficient. But what suc-
cess, I would ask, attended the old penal laws, and are we
to revert again to them ? A moderate penalty will be
more likely to be exacted than a severe punishment inflict-
ed, and I believe the penalty will be more efficacious in
preventing a violation of the law, than severe penal enact-
ment. I certainly did not expect, at this stage of the dis-
cussion, that I should have had to answer legal and tech-
nical objections. I expected that all the discussion this
evening would have been on the principle of the Bill, and
I did not expect that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman,
which be was burning with impatience to deliver, was to
have been a speech fit only for a Committee. He was not
content with the opposition he might have given to the
Bill, when in progress; he could not restrain his impetu-
ous enthusiasni, and be at peace till he had given vent to
his speech. Though he was willing to exclude others
from the House, he showed that he bore his own ex-
clusion with great impatience. The Hon. Gentleman had
spoken of our Churches being consumed—first, the lighter
ornaments were to be the prey of the flames, which were
then to extend to the whole edifice, and consume them, as
York Minster was consumed. We, however, will not be
the incendiaries—we will not be like Martin, who applied
the torch to the building, nor do any thing that can war-
rant the most distant interference that we have any of that
maniac's lipstility. If the Hon's Gent's apprehensions
should be realized—if between the contests of the Protest-
ants and Catholics the land should be enveloped in flames,
I shall be disposed for once to give him the benefit of a si-
milar delusion to Martin's, as an excuse for his individual
labours. I listened tio the speech of the Hon. Gentleman
with great attention, and it seemed to me more like a
hustings speech against the Solicitor-General than an ar-
gumentative speech, shoWing the dangers and impolicy of
the measure.—(Hear.)—The late speeches of the Mem-
bers who opposed the measure, as well as the speech of
the Hon. Gentleman which seemed to have been heard
with great satisfaction, left the question where it was
before.—(Hear, hear.)—Those speeches were full of per-
sonal invective unworthy of notice, and did not convince
any person of the impropriety of the present measure, or
suggest any other which 'ought to be adopted in the pres-
sing exigency of the state of Ireland. This important part
of the subject remains as it was. I have, however, re-
ceived a letter this morning from the highest authority in
Ireland; it is only a private letter, but I will just read
one sentence to show that the measure has already had
some good effect. The letter is dated March 27, and it
states that the amelioration is visible in all parts of social
life, and more particularly in the public peace of the