Star.
London, England, 1822-06-22 00:00:00


principal manager for
impeachment of Lord ,
the charges bad any other
lations of Titus Oates?
they rested on the testimony
He represented the exposure GOD,
&at of man, in inducing Oates the discovery,
usyd wished that thanks should be returned to GOD
'alone. It was not the act of Gon, but the instigation
of the Devil, which had produced the revelations of
'Oates. Less than five years afterwards that impostor
bad been brought to trial, and convicted on- the un—
contradicted testimony of fortrsevea witnesses, who
all swore that he had never been nearer to London
than St. Omer's. He should consent to suffer the
present Bill to be dropped if there were any man who
could believe that Titus Oates had not been guilty of
perjury. He admitted that great alarm had pre-
veiled at the time, and that those who had convicted
Lord Stafford had acted honourably, being led by
the prejudices of the times to consider him guilty,
But now were we in similar circumstances? Were
we in danger of a Popish successor in the person of
the Duke of Yotk? What had Parliament already
done? It had repealed most of the Statutes against
Catholics: it had said that it was not necessary for
them to take the Oath of Supremacy to enable them
to hold situations in the Army or the Navy, to be
Magistrates,GrandJurors, Petty Jurors—offices much
more important than the filling of seats in Parliament.
The Act which forbad Catholic Peers to come into
the King's presence without incurring heavy penalties,
'had been repealed in 1791, when it had been enacted
that Peers professing the Catholic religion,who should
take the Oath of Allegiance, should be relieved from
those penalties, and should be considered as good
and loyal subjects." On what principle was the Oath
of Supremacy retained after such a concession ? No
man had rejoiced more than he had done at his Ma-
jesty's visit to Ireland, but the people of that country
would never be tranquillized, unless Parliament
shewed that it could trust in the oaths which it had
administered to them. Thinking, as he did, that
Catholic Peers could not be justly excluded from
sitting in that House, he should vote for the second
reading of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR assured the House,
that he felt great pain in opposing this Bill, and the
consequent measures; for he would rot hesitate to
say, that those who asked for this Bill had in view
absolute and unlimited concessions to the Catholics.
On this point he always differed with the great man
now no more (Mr. Pitt), with whom he had the.ho-
nour to be intimate. In 1799, the apologists for the
Catholics (and since) had promised securities for the
Protestant Establishment; but he could never learn
what those securities were to be. One of them pro-
posed last year was, that a Protestant-King was to
be surrounded by Catholic Ministers, save only the
person who should fill the office he not,/ so unwor-
thily held. Now this was to be done with a King, who'
the moment he ceased to be a Protestant dissolved'
the allegiance of all his subjects. If he had been out
of that House, he would have said, he never saw
such trash and nonsense put into any Bill as into the
Catholic Bill of last year. If he could yield any con-
cessions to the Catholics, agreeably to the dictates of
his conscience, and the duct he owed to his country,
he would. be the very first gladly to do it. Not one
of the former propositions for concession to the Ca-
tholics was ever made without an offer of securities
to the Protestant Church and State, except this. He
thought he was deceived by some foolish fellow who
might be Printer to the House of Commons, for he
read this at first as a Bill to repeal die Act of Charles
11. which was repealed one hundred years ago. This
was, however, he -found done by a great statesman
(to whom he wished well to whatever part of the
world he should go), ailed by a parcel of lawyers
and others.- He ridiculed the next tide which
they had given to the Bill. If this Bill passed, he
was of opinion that they would have a renewal of all
the civil wars and controversies, from the time cif the
Reformation to the Revolution. If they wished the
Catholic Religion to be dominant, let them say so;
but if they agreed to this Bill, he would say to his
Noble and Learned Friend, that he would outlive all
the laws of his country. There was an absolute re-
peal of all the Acts, by this Bill, which abolished the
Pope's supremacy in England. Unless a Catholic took
the Oath of Supremacy, he must take the Oath of
Allegiance in a different sense from a Protestant.—
Good Goo! that he should hear all the safeguards
proposed to be taken away, that the Cavendishes,
the Bentincks, and the Somersets, thought necessary
to be established at the Revolution. Were these men
afraid of Titus Oates's plot ? No mention was ever
made by the advocates of this measure of the reign
of James 11. but he could not forget what the Rus-
sells and the Sidneys said of Popery on the scaffold.
They formerly looked on the word of a King as equal
to his honour and his oath ; but it was not upon such
a tenure that Englishmen were accustomed to hold
their Constitution. The Noble and Learned Lord
had 'named the Duke of York, and no tame could
be dearer to the country ; but he could not allow him
to have the chief power in this country, without ex-
acting from him the securities demanded by the Con*
stitution. Titus Oates's infamy was established, and
himself unjustifiably punished, notwithstanding all
his guilt, by Jeffries, long before the Revolution,
and therefore that plot could have had no influence
over the securities demanded then, by our ancestors,
for Religion. King William's language, and that of
the Convention, was always that they wished to settle
the State and Religion on a secure and permanent
footing, and therefore they re-enacted the disabilities
on Catholic Peers (imposed by Charles II.), from
their sitting in Parliament. They determined to have
a Protestant King and a Protestant Parliament and
therefore they enacted, the King should be not only
a Protestant, but that he must not even marry a Pa-
pist. If he had lived in those days, and had told the
men who then sat up stairs (in the Commons), that
they were all a parcel of rank cowards, and afraid of
Titus Oates, he would have found his way down
stairs much quicker than he went up them. The
King of England must (as he who now sat on that
Throne did) take an oath against transubstantiation,
before he could do any act of kingly power. If they
could alter the laws respecting Religion, he never
knew such a foolish bargain as that which the Scots
made at the Union; but they did not trust to little
words, as in the Irish Act of Union; for the Scots
went so far as to say, that no Peer, or Commoner,
that was a Catholic, could elect or be elected to serve

• •
•• r •
•
. •

va

a feeling in the country would resist the else-
*kr measures that he had no doubt were in contem-
plation, for giving fUll concession and esosonisitleo
'to the whole of the Papists. To such a measure be
could not give his consent, not even if securities were,
offered. If it were the last words he had to say
that House, they should be in the words of the Prince
of Orange-4g My Lords, the laws and liberties of
England I will always maintain."
Earl GREY hoped they would not suffer them-
selves to be alarmed by high sounding words, or long
drawn' inferences from Acts of Parliament not always
•applirable. He was as great a lover of the Consti-
tution, as established at the Revolution, as the Noble
Earl on the Woolsack, or any other man could be;
and if he could believe that there was anything in
the present Bill which operated against that Consti-
:tution, no man would more firdtly resist the motion
for its second reading--(Hear). But he considered
the Bill of Exclusion as an exception from the prin-
ciples tithe Revolution ; and, therefore, as bethought
the necessity of that disqualification done away, he
should call on them to grant their rights to those
Noble Persons who had so long been deprived of them.
It had been said by the Noble Baron on the cross
bench, that if this measure were granted it would i
lead to a full eniancipation of the Catholic body from
all their disabilities. If this effect would be produced
by the Bill, it would not be an objection to his mind,
excepting inasmuch as it might bean insidious means
of gaining. that end. But as the Bill had been
charged with this object, and from thence an infer-
ence had been drawn elsewhere, that it was a Jesuiti-
cal attempt to attain that object, he would here deny
his belief of any such imputation. It was true that
the person with whom the Bill originated had always
been the able, constant, zealous, and it must be
added, most powerful advocate of the general que.-
tion. But when he found that the claims of the whole
body of. the Catholics were not likely to be brought
forward at present by the person to whose care their
interests appeared to be more immediately confided,
_he determined upon introducing the Bill now before
their Lordships House. It would be remembered
that he had never declared the whole claims of the
Catholic body to be founded on right. He had al-
ways said that men should be allowed the free exer-
cise of conscience in matters of religion, and that they
should be permitted to worship their CREATOR ac-
cording to the manner which appeared to them most
befitting: But in doing this they were liable to cer-
tain restrictions, for the safety and protection of the
Religion or the State. Upon strong necessity, arising
from political causes only, could this power of re-
striction be exercised. These, if the onus of proof
that such causes as those of self-preservation and self-
defence existed, must always lie upon those who im-
posed the disqualifications and restrictions. And if
they were bound by this principle, in a general sense
of the situation of the Catholic body, how much
more so were they in the cases of those Noble Per-
sons who now appeared before their Lcrdships, not in
themselves, but from the operation of a sense of jus-
tice upon the mind of the author of this Bill. Well,
then, let their Lordships see how this necessity had
existed. From the Reformation down to the Acts of
Charles the Second, Catholic Peers had not been ex-
cluded from seats in Parliament. It was a clear point
in history, that until the sth of Queen Elizabeth no
oaths had been required from persons sitting in either
House of Parliament. By that Act, an oath was ad-
ministered to the Commoners, but not previous to
taking their seats, and the refusal to take it was ac-
companied by no penalty. But in this very statute
there was an exception in favour of the Peers, who
were expressly exempted from taking the oath. What
was the situation of the Queen at that time ? She
was seated npon her throne, and all the most power-
ful nations of Europe were leagued against her reli-
gion. The most ambitious, and the most powerful
Pope that ever reigned, gave his sanction to this
league, and to all the attempts upon her throne and
dominions. This was at a time when the same par-
ties and the same feelings excitefi the assassination of
the Prince of Orange, and the horrible massacre in
the parish of St. Bartholomew ; yet Queen Elizabeth
never thought it necessary to exclude her Catholic
Peers from Parliament in those times ; but on the con-
trary, she introduced a specific exception in this Act
in favour of Peers. She found no reason to repent
this policy in the course of the occurrences which en-
sued in her eventful reign. When the ambition of
Philip led him on to attack this country with his Ar-
mada, did Elizabeth find reason.to repent the confi-
dence she had placed in her Catholic Peers? Were
they not her most zealous and powerful defenders
against the attacks of the Pope? He should next
come to the Acts of Charles 11. and here he thought
the Noble Earl had confounded the enactments which
had been made in that reign. The 14th of Charles
was not certainly directed against the Catholics,
but against Cromwell and the Puritans. Then came
the Test Act, which was intended to operate against
the Duke of York. This was followed by the decla-
ration against transubstantiation, which had also the
same object, and was attended with the effect of re-
moving. the Duke of York from all the offices which
he previously held. His conduct proclaimed him to
be an open Catholic ; and the King himself was
looked upon with suspicion, and was now known to
have favoured that faith in secret. Next came the
Popish Plot, the enormities and cruelties of which,
even the Noble Earl himself could not think of with-
out shuddering. In the same year the Bishops' Test
Act was proposed, by which no one was to be admit-
ted without subscribing to, certain doctrines.—
This was resisted by the -House. en the ground of in-
herent right in the Peers of the land to hold seats in
that House. A Standing Order was immediately
passed, declaratory of that right ; and it was sup-
ported by some of the most illustrious names of the
age. A short interval only elapsed before the 30th
of Charles 11. was proposed and passed, with this
Order still standing on their books. Their Lordships
must also look to see by whom this Act was pro-
posed, and they would find them to be the very same
,men who had passed the Standing Order, and who
still did not deem it necessary to rescind it. And
why was this ? Simply because the Act of Eaclosiou

•PF'

--...MM1

NTICI alarm produce,'
Plot. AU the history of the times
the IlltallATO was founded upon that ne.
that necessity alone. With this view
which to his mind was the clear and
taking into consideration the heats
of the times, end the fearful alarm
into which the people were plunged, arid seeing that
such grounds no longer exiated, he would say that)]*
stood there upon awl:principles and the practice el
the Constitution, when he asked, as a matter of just
(right, the restoration of those Noble Peers to the en-
joyment of their natural privileges. If what the
Noble Lord had said as to the measure being netts,
'sary, upon something which arose sifter the period at
which it passed, were sound, he must come down to
the Revolution ; and he (Earl Grey) would say eon
ell its Acts stood upon principles excluded and apart
from this measure. It was not the mere fact of its
having been continued at that period that would serve
the Noble Earl's request.. He contended that they
were not to look at what had passed since; but they
must look at the necessity in the danger and alarm
Which existed at the time of passing the Act, or else
the foundation upon which it was published would
entirely fail. What were, then, the circumstances
which followed upon the plot of that detestable vil-
lain, Titus Oates ? After the Revolution, there was
a Sovereign excluded from the Throne, who was
at that time supported by great numbers of the
people. He was also supported by the powerful
Monarch of France. Almost all the body of Catho-
lics in the country were also attached to his cause.—
Thet must look to those dangers for the explanation
of the laws which would otherwise be wholly incon-
sistent with the principles and acts of the Revolution.
At a period, too, when the Roman Catholic religiors
was regarded with feelings very different from those
which it excited at the present time, ideas of almo,t
a superstitious nature were entertained as to the
tenets and practices of that religion. Rut all such
violent doctrines had been denied with the sanction
of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church; and
the simple principles of faith which they now pro-
fe.sed were well understood, and not regarded with
the feelings they used to inspire. Therefore, in look-
ing to the period of the Revolution, he found these
two grounds which formed the necessity of imposing
such restrictions upon the Catholic body. But a Popish
Pretender could not now be feared, and the opinion
of the Roman Catholic religion which was then en-
tertained now no longer prevailed. The causes of
danger being removed then, how was it that the
measures of caution were any longer necessary ?
The last unhappy remnant of the race who were
banished from the throne, was now extinct, and the
undivided affections of the People so centered in
family now upon the throne that a disputed succes-
sion was not to be apprehended. The Noble Earl
had spoken of those who had formerly proposed se-
curities with the 'general measure of emancipation,
as he thought with great severity of manner. But,
if their Lordships remembered what had been said
by a person so little worthy of their attention as him-

sal, they would remember that he escaped this
censure, because he had long ago declared that he
would require no securities at all ; and, that if the
measure were carried, it should be unfettered by
securities, or it was granting no boon to the parties
who had so long suffered—(Hcar).—hat it was
said also, that it would be a great anomaly if they
admitted Catholic Peers into their Lordships' House,
and refused Catholics admission in the Commons—
They were asked how they could do this ; and how
they could stop short and refuse general emancipa-
pation ? He would say, they could stop shoit as
their ancestors stopped short. They could leave
matters as they stood from the time of Henry VW.
down to the reign of Charles IL during which period
Catholics were excluded from the Commons without
being excluded from the Peers. These being his opi-
nions, he could not see how it could be argued that
there would be any future danger to the State by ad-
mitting Catholics to a full share of the benefits of the
state. But he did not believe that their admission 0
such benefits would necessarily follow this measure.
He would not have supported the measure for such a
purpose. He did not deal in such methods of ob-
taining his object. It was nut according to his prin-
ciples and practice to pursue such courses. His firm
belief was that this Bill, if carried, would neither ad-
vance nor retard the general question. The Noble
Lord on the cross bench had stated his willingness to
grant the Catholics all the privileges that were not
inconsistent with the safety of the State. If, therefore,
he refused the admission of these Peers, it remained
for him to strew what danger did arise to the Sta:e
from their sitting in Parliament previous to the period
of their exclusion. Ile could not understand how
this was a principle of the Revolution, so sanctioned
that it could not now be repealed with safety. The
Noble Earl had argued that it had again been laid
down at the Union with Scotland, and that it was
binding fir ever. Undoubtedly it was provided by
that Act that the Oath of Supremacy should be taken;
but it was added, 41 until otherwise provided r which
meant until the Parliament should provide otherwise.
He saw a marginal note upon the Act ; and he
thought he recognized the hand-writing which said,
a the alteration must not be made to weaken, but to
strengthen security."
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know from the

Noble Earl what was the law to whieh he referred?

Earl GREY said he had argued from the measures of the Re-
volution and the Act of Union, and the book from which he bad
quoted had been handed to him by the Clerk.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the Noble Earl
might have the benefit of his notes, but he should not like him
to read all the notes in that book—(Vintage).
Earl GREY proceeded.—Some allusions had been
made to the privileges which had been granted to
Roman Catholics in 1817; but he recollected that in
1807, when those relaxations were proposed, they met with op-
position from those who now opposed this Bill, upon the ground
that admitting Catholics to the Army and Navy was entrusting
them with the most dangerous of all powers, the power of the
sword. In 1817, however, this power was granted, and the
Army and Navy were opened to Catholics as well as Protest-
ants. This was as contrary to the enactments which were con-
tinued from the Revolution as the Bill before their Lordships.
The Act of Settlement expressly provided that the Officers of
the Army and Navy should be Protestants; therefore, if the
whole rank of those services were to be thrown open to Catho-
lics, contrary to the principles of the Revolution, there was ro
argument which could apply the same objections to the admis-
sion of the six Peers into that House—six Noble Persons, whose
ancestors had performed the greatest services to the State. and
who had themselves great personal claims upon the country.
Ile maintained that the case ought to be considered upon its own
intrinsic merits, and that it involved no ulterior consequences.
He was sorry, indeed, that the measure did not go fanber; but

the House of commons, in the in Parliament. Even if a Brit?al fititiloWthilkfttiltiwas passed under
I Stafford, venture to say. that House, and voted Or acted without balm* takes' the loy the Popish Plc
ther foundation than the revs- oaths against Popery) italwaYs required =tar showed that the
? No; he especially said that Act of-Indemnity, 5 -emu he could be to cessity, and upon
imony of only one man, Oates. come into that House aon. He was greatly ploased of the subject, w
posure as the act of GOD, not that this measure lied beenbroeght forward; as he nadoubmid one, t
ng Oates to make the discovery, was confident that the Mover of this Bill hid awakened and animosities o
rs should be returned to GOD a feeling in the country which would resist the ttlte. into which the pe