Star.
London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

The Kint was secretly, though not
in that creed—the Duke of York
—A Protestant Parliament was •

,such a Sovereign, and naturally
ssor ; and they therefore set
defeat a design, which was
' reducing the Roman Cathoh
the religion of thp State, at least
as engines to deprive the people
dispensing with the forms of the
was aware that he was now enteri

bateable ground, and touching a
upon which many vat ions and
been entertained. He would, ho,

state facts fairly, without being
those violent , opinions. He wow
asserting that it was impossible
the reign of Charles the Second,
stimulating motive of every actit
minant dread of a Popish successor
Only grant that clue, and the appal _
in the conduct of Parliament would be explained._
:he measures of the Commons, otherwise in: !ved ,1
mystery, would be explained, and great light throwrl
upon Actsovhich, but for this, could neither b2elider.
stood nor justified. The primary object was to keep
James the Second from the throne. To this teiltiti
the motions in the House of Commons, the petse,
cutions against the Catholics, the towards
James, and, when every collateral attempt had failed,
the direct attack upon him by tha Exclusion
But did he mention these occurrences with a view to'
impugn their wisdom, or cast any imputations up'
those who promoted them? Certainly not. lit
mentioned them only to prove a distinct object la
view, and he could cite other instances in the same
way. Why was the Test Act passed, but to take the
Flag of High Admiral from James, that he might
cease to be a Minister of the Crown ? The Act cer.
tainly applied to Dissenters too, but it was plain it
'was levelled at the Duke of York alone. Why, he
would also ask, was the Bill of 1678, which this was
to repeal, passed, but to exclude the Duke of York
from a seat in the House of Lords; and as a pr.lof
of it, when the Bill passed, with the exception of the
Duke, the Commons were dissatisfied, and they ceased
to use milder remedies any longer? In the mean
time the King was addressed to put James iiway
from his councils—to prohibit his marriage—and
fine, when all these failed, the direct Bill of Exc:u-
sion was introduced—(Hear, hear).—The) had tricd
the Test Act to exclude him from the Peers, for t!:;;
they knew was a step to exclude him from the Thro::e;
but when that failed, they proposed at once to de•
prive him of all chance of the Crown. Rapin, p.,r-
tial historian, as to these times, states distinctly,
the exclusion of James was the governing motive d
the Commons, but that they began with collateral
attempts, and that it was only when these failed,
they had recourse to the . plain remedy. But what
inference did he draw ftom all this?—That Parlia-
ment was wrong ?—No. That they acted unjustly
towards the Duke of York—that their feats of a
Popish successor were idle and visionary ?—No.
But had we any fears of a Popish successor—..,as
there even a foreign enemy -with whom a poi tion ci
our people could be. in league?—(Hear, hear).—
The Parliament of Charles the Second was wise—
its acts were founded in wisdom and prudence—
its severities were justifiable—but why ?-3ecaLie
they were necessary, because there was that
would sanctify almost anything—imperious necei-
sky.- 'Did that necessity now exist ?—(Hear, hear).—
Was that a good plea at this day ?—lf so, then re-
peal
all the relaxing Statutes of George the Third.
'lf not, erase from the Statute-book all the gat:
Statutes of Charles the Second=( Near, hear). fie
was not going into any nice disquisition of how far
individual injustice might be defended by political
necessity. It was a question, admitting of intermi-
nable discussion. He did not stand up to defend or
arraign the Parliaments of Charles the Second. Whe-
ther their wishing to exclude the Duke of York was
a sufficient justification for excluding Roman Catk
.lic Peers from the House of Lords, or not, he did not
care; one thing only he maintained, that a cause then
existed, which, good or bad, seern.tti to require their
exclusion ; that cause no Ir.:riger existed ; therefore it
was unjust to continue the consequences—therefore
the birth-right of Peers ought to be restored to them
—(Hear). The inference, then, that be drew from
the history of Charles the Second was, that the ex-
clusion of James was the great object with Parlia-
ment. But though this was the object, yet pi etexts
were not wanting to give the business another cha-
racter. A Bill for excluding Roman Catholics from
Parliament was sent up to the House of Lords by the
Commons, but not passed. In the meantime came on
the Popish Plot—a plot of which Hume said, « Out
it was peculiarly fitted to seize upon the fears of the
people, jealous as they were of the Government, and
ready to receive impressions of the worst nature."—
And as, in debates of this nature, the House were con-
stantly referred to the settled wisdom of our ancestors,
he would only ask of them to retrench a hundred.
years of antiquity, and to look at the reign of Charles
the Second as insulated and standing alone. The
Act of the 30th of Charles 11. removed Peers alone
from the presence of the King, while the Act of 1731
restored them to the royal presence. Who, then,
would consider, the Act of Exclusion as one of the
safeguards of the Constitution ? In the Oath of Supre-
macy the Catholic was required to abjure all foreigu
religious authority in this kingdom. In 1731, tilt
oath was altered to his denying the Pope's temporal
and civil authority, and then he might come into the
King's presence; but he must deny his spiritual au-
thority before he could come into the Parliament
House. Was it possible that even the fear of the
Popish Plot could have made our ancestors legisla:e
so absurdly? This Act of exclusion could not 1.,e
too soon expunged from their Statute book. Bo,:
anomalies did not cease here; as for the. first ttr.•.:
since the Revolution had Catholic Peers been soli-
tnoned to the Coronation. This was not to be lookt:l
at as an idle pageant, but one in which the Nlonarca
renews the understood compact between him and his
people. The Duke of Norfolk was chosen to coavcf
the King's sentiment, when he drank to all his lov-
ing subjects; and could the Catholic ..Austrian or
French Ministers present believe that this same Duke
of Norfolk had to strip off his robes? not to rat
them on again until *(may Gon long avert the
day!) another Coronation?—([sear, hear, hear!)--
The Catholic Peers might •hold the train, or mix la
the suite of Royalty ; but as to legishaing,--0 ! no,

0

not openly, a 'believer
rk was asinvedly
naturally jealous
afraid of such a stir
themselves to war
I but too manifest,
lie religio, if not
st to use its Minist
of their liberties,
Constitution,
ering upon very de
t period of bur hiA.;r
violent opinions !lad
owever, endeavour to
influenced by any tf
mild begin, then, b,
to read the history
, and not see that the
lion was the predr
!nor to the throne,.
'parent contradictiozs