The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-24 00:00:00

admitted, and always had contended, that some danger was
to he apprehended. He was still of that opinion ; but the
question now was, whether, on a comparison of dangers,
greater danger was not to be dreaded from excluding Roman
Catholics from that House, than from admitting them to
it—(Hear) ?--Would it not be a greater source of danger
that this leading and essenti•el part of the measure of relief
should be withheld, if Roman Catholics were to be admitted
to an equality of civil privileges in ether respects, than that
seats in Parliament should be conceded to them ? If
all other civil disabilities were removed, and the disqua-
lification to sit in Parliament were only retained, the
measure of relief would, in the first instance, be ineffec-
tual to give content to those for whose benefit the mea-
sure was intended ; and, secondly, the privileges which
they would obtain watuld only render them more anxious,
and invest them with increased means and additional
power for the attainment of the object from which they
were debarred.—(Cheers. )—The Hon.Alember for Dorset-
chile had placed the argument precisely on the same basis,
on which it truly stood—namely, that there was such a
union between the Clergy and Laity of the Catholic Body,
and that the Laity were so devoted to the views and pur-
poses of the Clergy, that when admitted to that House
they would endeavour to give effect to the ulterior objects
of the Clergy. This union, in Ireland, he (Mr. P.) be-
lieved to exist in consequenceof the disqualification and ex-
clusion under which the Laity and Clergy suffered. They
were bound together by a community of common griev-
ances—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—and when that
bond, cemented by disqualifying laws, was dissolved, there
was good reason to expect, from the state of society in
other countries, that the s t me alliance would not subsist.
Looking to France and the Netherlands, where an equality
of civil riOits prevailed, they did not see that close alliance
and attachment subsisting between the Laity and Clergy
that existed in Ireland. This shewed at least that this

Gentleman had better be postponed until another oppor-
tunity.
Mr. G. MOORE observed, that the clause contained
the words, " professing the Roman Catholic religion."
What were the means to be relied upon as a test of that
profession ? If a Roman Catholic came in secretly to that
House, what was to prevent him from taking the other
oaths ? He might thus sit and vote, without having af-
forded to Parliament or the nation any security.
Mr. PEEL replied, that in the third page of the Bill
there was a distinct enactment that no person professing
the Roman Catholic religion should be capable of sitting or
voting in either House of Parliament, unless lie had first
taken and subscribed the oaths appointed and set forth in
the Act ; and that if he sat and voted without having
taken those oaths, he should be subject to the same penal-
ties, forfeitures, and disabilities which at present attached
to any person sitting and voting in either House of Parlia-
ment without having taken the oaths required by law.
As to the words " professing the Catholic religion," Ca-
tholics were in former Acts of Parliament described in
different ways, sometime,. as Catholics, sometimes as
Papists, &c. He had thought it best to apply the same
designation to them throughout the whole of the present
measure.
Mr. G. MOORE again urged the necessity of some
test.
Mr. LESLIE FOSTER observed that the object of the
Bill was to let Catholics into Parliament, not to exclude
them from it.
Mr. G. MOORE said that they were to be kept out
unless they took the prescribed oath. They were legi-
slating on the supposed necessity of that security ; and if
there were no test, the law might be evaded.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE thought the oaths required
in the clause were sufficient.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that the Catholics

community of interest and feeling between the Laity and would he under the same penalties as Protestants.
Clergy formed no principle of the Roman Catholic religion, Sir R. INGLIS said a few words respecting the exclu-
and it was a fair ground of expectation to presume that sion of Catholics in Holy Orders from Patliament.
the same cause—equality of civil rights—would produce Mr. PEEL said, that so far as persons in Holy Orders
a corresponding effect in Ireland, and dissolve the intimate were concerned, they were more effectually excluded by
union at present subsisting between these two eastres in the present Bill than that which the Hon. baronet pro-
that country. He was at a loss to perceive how some P3sed•
Hon. Members could alone see danger in the admission of Mr. W. W. WYNN referred to the Act of 41 Geo.
Catholics to seats in that House, and could see no danger 111. on the subject.
in the repeated declarations of Protestant majorities of Mr. F. LEWIS thought it better to discuss the point
that Hi use, during the last sixteen years, in favour of Ca- when the clause relating to it was under the consideration
tholics. Was there no danger to be even in four out of five of the House.
successive Parliaments deciding in favour of relief—in Mr. HUSKISSON thought the words naming the
pointing cut the grievances under whirls Roman Catholics former oaths required of Catholics might be omitted.
suffered—in creating a sympathy in their behalf—in excit The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no ab-
ing their hopes, and keeping alive the excitement which salute necessity for the words ; they were inserted merely
'these hopes and the constant discussion of their claims to shew where the subject had been taken up, as well as
created. He was at a loss to perceive how Honourable the nature of the exchange.
Gentleman could be alone alive to the power which the Mr. PEEL thought the words merely surplusage and
introduction of some Catholic Members into that House might be omitted.
would confer, and appear insensible to the great and ma- Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished to know if persons be-
terial power which they enjoyed (of which that Meuse had longing to religious societies were to be excluded from
recent experience) by the elective franchise, which, as it Parliament?
was under the controul of spiritual influence, that in- Mr. PEEL deferred answering the question till the
fluence, he believed, would be greatly diminished by the clause relating to the exclusion of priests was before the
proposed regulation of the elective qualification—(hear).— House.
and he would ask Hon. Gentlemen fairly to consider, who- Mr. H. GRATTAN wished to know if the exclusion
ther that regulation could be effectively established if not by the words of the clause, at the table of the Mouse,
accompanied by the measure of concession ? He would would be final and conclusive ?
here again refer to what had fallen from his Hon. Friend, Mr. PEEL said, that if a Catholic were returned to
the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. highs), Parliament previous to the Act, bile claims would not be
that twenty-three counties in Ireland were ready to imi- prejudged. His case stood better than before, as he was
tate the example of the county of Clare. If such were uow in such a case obliged to take only the oath of
the state of society and of feeling throughout Ireland, what supremacy.
advantage could be expected from Ireland, if a general Mr. S. RICE was authorized to state by a certain in-
election were to Wee place, by those who were opposed dividual, that he trusted the Act would be discussed with--
to the measure of concession?—(Hear.) Besides, lion, out reference to him. He did not wish his individual case
Gentlemen should consider, who had such an anxiety for to prejudice the general reeasure.—(Hear, hear.)
the preservation of the interests of the Church, that it Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the question of being
was not necessary that Members returned now to Par- elected, and that of sitting in Parliament to be two dis-
liament were in communion with the Church of Eng- tinct questions. Were a person elected who was not quell-
land. All that was now necessary was, that the Mein- fied to be returned to Parliament, a Committee would de-
ber returned to Parliament should abjure the tenets dare that he was not duly elected ; but being duly elected,
of the Church of Rome. This was all required of him ; then came the question of the oaths required of him, and
ea(' provided they abjured these tenets, there might be sent if those oaths were taken he was fully competent to sit in
to that Hone° as bitter enemies to the Church of England that House and vote. This equally affected those who had
as might be. He saw greater danger in this state of things been elected as well as those who might be elected here-
than in the proposed change; for, after all, he admitted after. Such was the nature of the Act of Charles 11.
that it was a compromise of dangers, and the adoption of At present the situation of the House was very much
that course which was less dangerous thau a perseverance changed, for last year Parliament declared, that persons
in the present system. After re-asserting that the change professing the Catholic Religion were not to sit in Perlis-
in the elective qoelification could not be made without the ment, and now it was about to declare that they might sit
measure of relief, and that the Roman Catholics would and vote. It was very unfair that by the present measure,
be less objects of apprehension when their grievances were of two persons professing the Catholic Religion at the
removed, the Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to advert table of the House, one elected, for instance, in 1829,
to the argument of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) as to the would lie received into the House, whilst one elected in
denger that would result from a small party of Catholics 1848 would be rejected. This appeared to him an anomaly.
acting as a cooseact and united body for the attainment of Mr. PEEL said, that if a case should occur of an in-
objects peculiar to themsalvev. Without undertaking to dividual being returned without any reference to this Act,
determine what might be the effect of :mph a small party and before the Act was in contemplation, and he refused to
acting in such a way—of which, however, he did not en- take the oaths required at the time of his election, he saw
tertein the same apprehension as his Hon. Friend—of this no injustice whatever in rejecting him. If the individual
he was sure, that if any body of Catholics should attempt could establish his right to sit and vote by the law as it
to advance thew keceliar interests, and to give them a pre- stood when he was elected, nothing could be more unjust
ference over the general views and interests of the House, than to exclude him. The Act had been drawn up care-
from the feelings which were now described to exist through fully, so as not to affect such an individual.
out the country, they would be met by an overwhelming Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Act of Charles 11. ap-
resistance which must effectually defeat such an attempt. plied to all persons being then Members.
(Hear, tear.)—The instance adduced by his Honourable Mr. PEEL said, that by the present state of the law
Friend of the uppositien given by Mr. Wilberforce and a Catholics were not excluded from the House. If they took
small party in 1795 resisting toe cenduct of Government the oaths, they were admitted.
in endeavouring to bring about a peace, was not a ease Mr. MAURICE FITZGERALD could not conceive it
certainly in point, to prove the influence of a small party, to he the intention of the law to extend a penal act by re-
fer peace was concluded in 1803, and was effected by other trospection,
mearres then by the interference of Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. H. GRATTAN had made no reference to any in-
his party. The sacramental Test, at the time of its repeal, dividual ;he had spoken solely with reference to time wishes
it was said, would be atieneled with imminent dangers, of the people. The question had better be decided in that
but none of them had been realized, nor wae there now House than out of doors. He would move a verbal amend-
any apprehension of their being so. He would refer to a ment.—(Cries of no, no.)
precedent more apposite to the present case—namely, to Lord DTJNCANNON had intended to propose a verbal
the prooheciaa which were put forth at the time of the amendment on the subject, but he had been requested not
Scotch Union. lit WS; then said of the Presbyterians, es to do so by the individual whom it most concerned.
it was now of the Catholics, that they would form them- Mr. GRATTAN consented to withdraw his motion.
selves into a small party; but, op the contrary, all these The motion for the omission of the words " instead of
prophecies were falsified, and instead of forming a separate taking oaths against transubstantiation, the invocation of
end distinct phalanx, the Presbyterians arranged themselvee paints, as practised by the Church of Rome," was then
on diieverent sides of the House, and attached themselves to pot and carried,
ordinary parties, without regard to religious partialities. Col. SIBTHORPE asked the Right Hon. Secretary a
He hoped and expected that the Roman Catholics world question inaudible in the gallery.
be found arranging themselves L. a similar manner, and Mr. Secretary PEEL said, his answer to the Hon.
that the dangers anticipated by his Hoc,. Friend would Member was short, and, as lie conceived, decisive. if a
Catholic Member was introduced to that House, he would
net ba realized.—(Hear, hear.) ,
Mr. ROT rose, amid cries of " Question, quea•
haye to take the oath proposed in this Bill; but if a con-1,
T
tion." Ile said that if Catholics were admitted into Par- cealed Catholic was to present himself, and attempt to
liament, he thought a far greater number would find their take his seat as a Protestant, they he would have to take
way into that House than was generally supposed. In the oath of supremacy, which would be ten times more
1825, it had been stated by his Right liOn. friend, that binding upon him than the other.—(Hear, hear.)
about 25 would obtain admission, but there would he 4 Mr. BUTLER CLARKE said a few words, which
I site ells larger infusion of Roman Catholic Members. They were inaudible in the Gallery.
should ;t .amber that there were Roman Catholics in Mr. Secretary PEEL observed, that the proposed Bill
England as wc4i as in Ireland, who were possessed of con. expressly excluded all acknowledgment of the civil rights
siderable wealth. Lauds, s. the Catholic Association, of the Pope in these realms. This wag dope in England
by the Act of Elizabeth, but it was not done in Ireland
Lord Shrewsbury was censured io, nut haying sent four or
until the reign of William, in 1692 ; so that the argument
five Members into Parliament. They simedd alee consider
the effeet of that Roman Catholic conspiracy which they of his Hon. Friend did not apply.
were told by the Hon. Member for Cornwall (Sir R. Vy- bliv. c-. MOORE was of opinion, that there ought to
1 sci^' sae- of she temporal jurisdiction the
tion, prevailed thweeilsout Europe.—(Cries of " Ques •be a decided m S '74, - of
tion, question.") Court of Rome.
Colonel LINDSEY thought that tile edcmleeion of Ca- Mr. HOLDSWORTU thought it advisable te have
theilice into Parliament would be a great security eee toe r oath proposed as a test against the authority of the
_...
Protestant Establishment. Pope.
The Committee then divided : Mr. Secreiary PFFL thought the proposed clause
For the Amendment
Against it ... s, . 207 After a few words hem Mr. B. CLARKE,
Majority —425 Mr. HOLDSWORTH thought the principle upon
Mr. LOCK HART took it for granted that it was not eshieh he acted right, and he was determined to act
intended, n the present case, that a Roman Catholic Priest upon it.
should sit or vote iii Parliament. He had heard that a Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, it -eve:, neither his in-
Catholic Priest, having been Gill:sine(' by a Bishop, might, tention nor his will' to embarrass the'questien, and ;44
in the event of his abjuring the Catholie eeltion, be ad- hoped his Hun. Friend would not press his clause. ' lie
',flitted to officiate as a Protestant Clergyinan. ;Vieerp could not, however, help observing, that the enactment of
enie ses•es laid down he knew not. It certainly formed no a disrk'eaen oath fpr Catholic and Protestant Members of
part of the ;.aw of the land. There ought, however, to that House, wisold ciettsc a diseonnection, not only be-
be a more full expos;tion of the meaning of Parliament in tween the King and the 'State, but bowel:, the Cherelt
e
the present Bill. To the phrase, "being in all other re- and the Constitution.
spects duly qualified," there ought to fee apTe addition, Mr. Secretary PEEL and General GASCOYNE said a few
excluding persons being in holy orders. words, after which
Mr. Secretary PEEL could give the Hon. Gentleman fir. PIetILLIMORE opposed the amendment, and
.cateseweee satisfaction on that point. The Act of the 41st maintained t 1 e'Ceoeficie.l cffgzts of the original motion.
of the King 4ecleeed that ito person in holy orders, should The clause was then withdraws,.
be qualified to sit arssi !sesta in that House. The first ins- Mr. BATLEY was anxious to propose a clause omit-
pression was, that that would be .eacu,,_',l4 to provide against pelling Roman Catholic» to swear that they would de-
the introduction of a Roman Catholic nleegyinaie. But at fend the church property as established by law, including
the end of the Act to which he bad alluded a cetlaip 4e- gleles lands, and the rights and other properties of the
eerie,tiesn of evidence was required, as prima fade evi- chiircit,
dence, hat the individual excluded on that ground had I Mr. Secretary VEEL rerereed `ee t.le clauses of the Act,
officiatediu .the ,C'eatietsb MEngland or in the Church of and maintained that the wot ds `‘''civ4- an 4 re;ig;orie
Scotland; s.chich ;hewed that the Act did not contemn- rights" included every right that ought to be maintained.
plate, and could 5,,t be appliid to the Roman Catholic 1 Mr. BATLEY persisted in moving his clause.
priesthood. He granted that no doubt oeght te
,44 taloteed ! Sir R. INGLIS said a word or two, which we could
.f 9 exist on the subject ; for no one would contend that a ' esoe oelleet in the gallery.
Rowe:: Catholic should have any advantage in that respect ; 10'0'511.1.rii.QN olsserved, that the Act oath alluded to
over a Pieteslaelt Clergyman. He had a clause in his by some Hon. ''.
Mended a, IF,e; different as it affected
hand which it was his :sa.`sention to introduce, providing English and Irish Members apprOaeliing that asietse, ill
that no person in Orders belonging ;o the Church of Rome l Dr. LUSHINGTON observed, that the words con-
should he capable of sitting and voting in .f. get 1-,!ouse•— tained in the proposed Bill were sufficient to satisfy all
That wrath! completely meet the Hon. Gent's. 01laCtioa,- amens acquainted with the Courts of Law or Equity.
Mr. BUTLEit Cii,,ARK.E, adverting to the declaration Theie was amp:a p 7 .?.vision for the protection of the code.
in the proposed oath, that tiee ?'one had no spiritual au- siastical and civil piopeity em la
, the c„frel. - But who ever.
dimity ip this country, objected to thoec words, it being thought that the civil property of the church stood opon
well known that he had such authority. a different footing from any other civil property ?-4Heara)
Mr. Secretary PEEL observed, that the discussion of —it was upon this ground that he opposed the clause.
so extensive a subject as that alluded to by the Honourable 'Mr, SUGPEN concurred with his Hon, and Learned
•