The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-19 00:00:00

liberality of Cambridge.--(Cheers.)—l will beg the at-
tention of the House for a few moments, while I distin-
guish between the Attorney-General aiel the Member for
Plympton. As Attorney- Ceiieral, I declined to draw the Bill
now lying on the table of flat house, because, laol:iire to the
oath:l have taken as Attorney-Gs neral, I thought, by di aw-
ing that Bill I should not he deitig the duty I owe to the
King, and that should draw the death-warrant of the
Protestant Church.—(Cheers.)—To that conclusion I
came by having long reflected on this question, and by my
reflections having grown out of recollections, and by hay-
ing
been on numerous occasions embodied into one system
of persevering inquiry.—(Cheers.)—l say, then, if I had
done so, I should have drawn the death-warrant of the
Protestant Church Establishment, I should have betrayed
my duty to my Sovereign as the Attorney-General Noy
betrayed his duty in the affair of ship-money, and as Jef-
freys betrayed his when be drew the warrant for commit-
ting the Protestant Bishops to the Tower. He had taken
this resolution on reflection, and having formerly declared
his opinion concerning the religion of the Catholics, he
could not divest himself of that opinion. I stand before
Parliament, then, as an independent man—independent of
both sides of the House. I have not sought to preserve
office. I have repudiated office; and I stand in the middle
of the House, and I say that lam exempt from censure
from either side. The Noble Lord who last addressed the
House celled on me before he sat down—not by name in-
deed, but in such a manner as to leave no doubt to whom
he alluded—he called on me to support the opinion, that
the disabilities under which the Catholics now labour were
a part of the Constitution as established at the Revolution
of 16S8. I know that the Noble Lord belongs to a fa-
mily which has ever been sincerely attached to that Revo-
lution ; but if the House permits me, and will allow me
to refer to documents, I am ready to state the grounds on
which I assert that the exclusion of the Catholics from
office was one of the principles of that Revolution. The
Noble Lord has challenged me to this, and I accept his chal-
lenge. I know that with his great knowledge of this
part of our history, he will not seek to evade my ob-
servations by a sort of legal quibble, and he therefore
will admit that the Bill of Rights did recognise the Act of
Elizabeth, which imposed the Oath of Supremacy, and that
the Act of Cyrles, which imposed the Oath of Abjuration,
though nut recited—not introduced verbally—were legally
embodied into the Bill of Rights. The Noble Lord must be
aware that the Bill of Rights did not recall or cancel the
Statute of Elizabeth imposing the Oath of Supremacy, and
did not recall or cancel the Statute of Charles, imposing
the Oath of Abjuration; on the contrary, the Bill of
Rights declared that those Acts remained in full force.
The restrictions on the Catholics existed before the Revo-
lution, but they were revived, and confirmed, and re-as-
serted, in King William's reign. Before King William
landed in this country—before be had touched the British
soil, an agreement between him and the people of England
had been entered into on this subject. Before that extre-
mity arrived which drove King James from his throne,
there were dissentions in this country on the ground of
Catholic Emancipation—(hear, hear).—and attempts were
made to do what is called settling the Catholic Question
before James was expelled from the throne. The Members of
; the House will excuse me if I remind them, that in dis-
cussing the Catholic Question they seem to forget that a
library has been provided for them, which contains many
documents illustrating the Catholic Question. The Ro-
man malaria, which has got amongst us—(laughter)—and
which has shown itself in so many ways, seem to have had
no more pernicious effect than that of occasioning a loss of
memory. If Members will look at the compilations which
relate to King William—if they will look at Tindal's his •
tory, or other similar books, they will see that before that
extremity arrived which ended in the expulsion of James--
the just expulsion—that an attempt and a correspondence
was entered into with the Prince and Princess of Orange,
to induce them to act as mediators, and settle the question
before it became of such pressing exigency as to call for
the exclusion of the Monarch from the Throne. I am
ready to accept the challenge of the Noble Lord, and am
ready to assert, with every deference and respect for him,
that the statements he has made are not borne out by his-
tory, or the facts which took place at that period. I hope
to olstain the indulgence of the House for a moment or two
while I detail a few facts materially bearing upon this
question.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.")—Before the land-
ing of King William a negotiation was attempted between
the then Prince and Princess of Orange, for the purpose
of ascertaining their feelings as to the exclusion of the
Roman Catholics from civil and political privileges ; to
which their Royal Highnesses replied, that they were de-
termined to exclude them from all civil, military, and
ecclesiastical appointments, because they were anxious to
preserve all the tests which fin med protections for the se-
curity of the Protestant religion, but that they were ready
to qualify the laws so far as they affected Protestant Dis-
senters. The Hon. Member for Inverness, and the Soli-
citor-General for Ireland, have told us that relief to the
Roman Catholics was contemplated at the Revolution.
This, Sir, I maintain, is not the fact. If such statements
are to be credited, then must we take history fur an old
Almanack.—(An Hon. Member, " But not an Almanack
for the present year.")—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
proceeded—Sir, Ido not possess the tongue of a Scotchman,
and am, therefore, incapable of answering two persons at
the same time.--(Flear, hear, hear, and a laugh.)-1 am,
Sir, not possessed of that duplicity, that double-faced
logic that fugitive or fugacinus mode of expression,
which would enable me to express myself in the man-
ner which some Honourable Members seem to ex-
pect.—(Hear, hear, hear, and a laugh. )—I am not now an-
swering the Hon. Gentleman for Knaresborough, but am
addressing myself to the observations of the Noble Lord
who represents Yorkshire. I say then, Sir, that before
the landing of King William—(Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter)—l say, Sir, that he who strikes a blow at me, must
allow me to strike at him in return.—(Cries of " Go on,
go on.")—I maintain, Sir, that the principles established
before the Revolution were afterwards established by
William, with additional securities. This is a fact which
I hold to he established beyond doubt. It is well known
that James, who, it is said by some, had a liberal kind of
conscience—a kind of trading in religion, not unlike that
which it is the fashion to indulge in in the present day—a
sort of amalgamation of religion and jacohinism—was
anxious to give every facility to Roman Catholics; but
even he, when driven to extremity, was desirous to restrain
Roman Catholics, while he gave facilities to Protestant
Dissenters. A similar doctrine was held by the Prince
and Princess of Orange. They felt opposed to grant pri-
vileges to the Roman Catholics, but had no objection to
grant them to Protestant Dissenters. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Knaresborough, from whom we ex-
pect such an excellent history of his own times, appears
desirous to relax the rule established in 1688, by which
Roman Catholics were rendered incapable of sitting in this
House. Sir, when lam told that this exclusion ought not
to be continued, I can only account for it by some epidemi-
cal effect of those new doctrines which affect the reminis-
cences of modern emancipators.—(llear, hear, and a laugh. )
I shall now, Sir, say a few words with respect to the Bill
of Rights. The Hon. Member for Inverness has told us that
that Bill contains no clause excluding the Roman Catho-
lics from power. He is right; but the Noble Alember
for Yorkshire is placed in a different situation: Sir, 1
trust that I have now fairly met the question, and I appeal
to history, I appeal to the facts I have stated, as to
whether there was not an utter exclusion of the Roman
Catholics front place and power, both before, at, and after
the Act of Settlement? (Hear, hear.) I, Sir, as Attorney-
General, felt naturally anxious to look around me and see
what the nature and ,effects of the proposed measure would
be. And I felt the more inclined to do so from the cir-
cumstance of having the Lord Chancellor of England in
favour of the measure. lam not a man to give my opi-
nions of judgment to the Lord Chancellor, or to any man
in England. (Hear, hear.) But I ask, if my Lord
Lyndhurst, as Lord Chancellor, thinks proper to give his
sanction to a Bill, which Sir S. Copley, as Master of the
Rolls, declared to be subversive-of the Constitution, am I,
as Attorney-General, obliged to prepare and bring it in?
Am Ito be dragooned into opinions and feelings to which
I have all my life been hostile ? Am I, as his Majesty's
Attorney-General, to be his legal adviser in introducing
such a measure? For God's sake let us not run a muck
tapon this Catholic Question. I would prefer being as I
now am, the humble Member for Plympton, whether
right or wrong, than be placed in the situation of the sup-
porters of this measure. What ! Could it have been ex-
pected that I would have drawn up a Bill calculated to sub-
vert that Constitution which his Majesty, by his Corona-
tion Oath, was sworn to support? Sir, I fear not to
assert, that no earthly inducement could make me draw
up or subscribe to a Bill so atrocious as that now upon
your table. That measure has been supported by many
able and eloquent Members; but I cannot forget that it
has upon former occasions been opposed by the able and
eloquent and logical arguments of my Friend Sir John
Copley, when Master of the Rolls. That Right. Hon. Gent.
quarrelled with Mr. Canning upon the subject in 1827,
on the question as to whether Roman Catholics ought or
ought not to sit in the House of Commons. Then, I ask
again, am I, as his Alajeety's law adviser, to be twisted
from the right or the left? and here I may take leave to
say, that I care little fur such twistings. lam ready to
meet those opposed to me, but am I, I say, to he found
fault with for not having prepared and supported such a
measure ? I have got no speech to eat up ; I have got PIO
apostacy to explain—(hear, hear)—l have not been black
on one day and white on the other. I am not the sup-