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

,~,

they must not share in that until they had denied le
supremacy of the Pope in religious matters in this
country—if! laugh).,--The King, on his visit to Ire-
land, conferred the honour of St. Patrick on Lind
Fingall ; but that Noble Lord could not vote for onej
of his own Representatives. He had only considered
the Act of 1678 in a political point of view; and they
could not look at it without seeing that it passed
under duress and false pretences; and if Lord Staf-
ford's guilt had been as clear as his innocence was
acknowledged, still this Act ought not to stand. Not
even the Popish Plot hid been true; and there had
net been enormous perjury to support that infamous
plot. They owed every atonement for those deeds,
and the only way was to repeal this Bill. The facts
were, that accusations against Lord Stafford and
.ethers were sent up from the House of Commons as
harbingers to the Bill. In five or six years after Lord
Stafford had been beheaded, the witnesses against
him wed c convicted of perjury, and the Bill of At-
tainder against that Nobleman was reversed ; and
though Titus Oates was taken into pay by the Revolu-:
tionary Government, yet he feared that the
'64 Res dura, et regni novitas,"
forced them to such acts. They had now, however,
no such reason for warping their judgments or de-
nying this concession, called for as it was by justice
equally with true policy. In 1786, during the de-
bates on Mr. Hastings' impeachment, Lords Thar-
low and Kenyon gave it as their opinion that Lord
Stafford's execution was a legal murder. Now he
believed in the innocence of Lord Stafford and the-
other Catholic Peers, and he believed that their ex-
pulsion from Parliament was obtained under false
pretence-, and on these grounds Parliament ought to
revise this Bill. It was unjust, for it visited (more
than attaint itself could do) not the guilt, but the in-
nocence of the parties on their children. He was
not to be deterred from such a measure by the pre-
tended anomaly of admitting Catholics into one,
branch of the Legislature, and not into the other.=
He thought they did wrong in excluding Catholics
from seats in that House, but that was but the with-
holding of an imperfect right ; the other was the
deprivation of a positive privilege. The Catholic
Gentleman did not carry about with him the distinc-
tive mails of his exclusion from the House of Com-
mons, but that was not the case with the Peer.—
Who saw the coronet on the brow of the Duke of
Norfolk but felt that it branded rather than adorned
it? He hoped he had shewn the Hon. Member for
Somersetshire (Lethbridge) that this was quite a dis-
tinct case from the general view of the Catholic ques-
t:on. He was quite sure that no Jury in the country
.v.-ould refuse the restoration of the rights which he
sought for, when they considered the innocence of
Lord Stafford and the other Catholic Peers. He had
argued this measure upon its own grounds alone;
and if any who followed him argued it on the whole
principle of Catholic Emancipation, he would tell
them that he should then consider his cause as won.
If the Catholic Peers were not guilty, why should this
Act of Exclusion be continued on their posterity ?
Bung free from the fear of a Popish Piot, or a Popish
successor to the Crown, he desired to know why they
were to continue this injustice? He put this question
on the ground of right alone. He was satisfied that
appeals to former times and former habits were some-
times dangerous, and were often open- to objection ;
but he could not resist the inclination he felt to make
such appeal. His appeal, however, was from the
tines of 'rims Oates to those of Elizabeth, from the
Peers of Charles to those of our earlier ancestors, and
he called open that House to perform towards the
Catholic Peers of the present day, an act of retribu-
tion for the cruelties which had been practised on
their ancestors ; an act which was expedient on the
score of policy, charitable on the part of humanity,
and, in the name of GOD, most just. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then, amid the cheers of the House, moved,
" That leave be given to bring in a Fill for repealing so much
of an Act passed in the 30th year of the reign of King Charles
the Second, as excluded Roman Catholic Peers • from sitting in
the House of Peers."
The Hon. G. A. ELLIS seconded the motion, and
said, after the eloquent and convincing speech of his
Right Hon. Friend, it would be bad taste, and indeed
presumptuous, in so humble an individual as he was,
to trespass long on the time or attention of the House.
He was always of opinion that the general measure of
removing the Catholic disabilities was a measure of
right and of justice. The part of that question which
was then before them had an additional claim to their
favour, inasmuch as it related to an exclusion which
had its origin in a plot which was supported by per-
jury, and in the exigence of which no one at present
believed. He hoped the stain would be soon removed
From the statute book. He recollected a saying of
that spirited defender of the Protestant ascendancy,
Queen Elizabeth, who, being advised to administer
the Test Oath to the Catholics, replied—that she had
better means of ascertaining the loyalty of the Peers.
He would give his warmest support to the motion.
Mr. PELL rose.—He knew how difficult it was to
znake an appeal to the sober reason of the House,
when their feelings had been worked upon by the
most persuasive eloquence—when their minds were
dazzled by the brilliancy of his Right Honourable
Friend's language. He could scarcely expect their
attention to the sober consideration of the subject,
which he alone found himself competent to bring
them to. His Right Hon. Friend had, in the con-
clusion of his speech, stated the grounds on which be
wished the question to be treated. He could not
avoid saying, that as the challenge was given by his
Right Hon. Friend, he should have left to others the
choice of the ground and the weapons. But he would
endeavour to confine himself to the limits which were
rresciibed. In the first place, he contended that the
Mouse should not make a distinction between the
claims of the Roman Catholic Peers and the people
of that persuasion. For the character of that Nobi-
lity lie avowed the greatest respect ; lie felt that their
rank and hereditai y honours claimed the greatest
veneration; still he could not allow these sentiments
to influence him against his conviction. The propo-
sition which he was anxious to establish was, that
they should not open the other House to the Roman
Catholic Peers, when they continued tit the same
time to close the doors of the House of Commons
against the other classes of that persuasion—(Heai).
Lle ould attempt calmly and dispassionately to fol-
low the arguments of his Right Hon. Friend. lie
knew the difficulty he had to surmount effectually to
do so. He would endeavour, in order, to notice the
arguments which had been advanced. First of all,
with respect to the competency of that branch of the

77771119

•.J

,
•t./ 6
• Idr

4 measure for the regulation
his 'Right Hon. Friend ha-placed
. precedent ; the only precedent which
- degree could be relied upon as similar
As the Act 4 the Commons, in the time bf Charles
the Second, by which spiritual Roman Catholic Peers
'Were excluded from the Upper House. Ile must pro-
INN. against the admission of that Act as a precedent,
basun it originated in peculiar and eitraordinary
eirctimstances—(Hear, hear).=-In the 'year tea°, im-
mediately before-the breaking out of a. civil war, the
House orCommons passed a-Bill for the exclusion of
Roman Catholic Peers ; that was the only ground on
which the precedent could be adopted—(Hear, hear).
With respect to the Act of the SOth of Charles 11, he
would ask, did his Hon. Friend go to the entire length
of repealing that Act?—(Hear).—lt did not exclu-
deely affect the Peers—(Hear). The Romao Catholic
laity men were equally comprehended by it; the tests
were imposed, the same declarations against transub-
stantiation were enacted against both—(Hear, hear).
He Would ask his Right Hon. Friend if he would
stand on the sound of placing the Peers and the
Commons on the same footing ?—(Hear, hear).—
He said that from the Reformation until the year
1878, Roman Catholics were allowed to sit in the
House of Lords. But he (Mr. Peel) was aware that
different opinions had been entertained on that sub-
ject, and that•different arguments had been produced
from its consideration. He should be glad to know
what expectation his Right Honourable Friend had
of the authorities which he was about to produce?
He would not call on him to be committed by an
answer: perhaps he would suppose that they were
some old musty authorities, doubtful in their nature,
and of little value to the question. He (Mr. Peel)
considered that the Roman Catholic Peers and Com-
mons were placed on the same footing exactly by the
Act of the 30th of Charles 11. It was only last Ses-
ion that the whole question was under the consider-
' ikon of the House. It was then sought to make
a final arrangement, to put an end to all division,
and to unite all classes in amity and peace. The
argument then was, that the Roman Catholic Peers
and Commons bad but one claim, and that they
were equally entitled to a participation in the bene-
fits of the Constitution—(Hear, hear).—He (Mr. Peel)
would refer to the speech of the Right Hon. Mem-
ber for the University of Dublin (Mr.inunkett). He
had stated that Roman Catholic Peers had sat in the
House, and that they were entitled to do so under the
Act of the SOth of Charles the Second. It was evi-
dent from the cote of Sir Solomon Swale, in 1677.
He was expelled, not for being a Papist, but because
he was a Recusant. Such was Sir Robert Sawyer's
argument upon it. The Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin was not content with this particu-
lar case, but went on to speak of the very title of the
Act of the 30th of Charles the Second. It was stated
to be one for the more effectually protecting the
King's Government from the diabolical attempts of
Papists to subvert it. His argument was, that there
was no exclusion till the year 1768. When a special
case is now wanted to be made out, that of Sir S.
Swale is totally forgotten, and an attempt was now
made to show that a peculiar distinction existed be-
tween the Peers and the Commons. All that be (Mr.
Peel) could say was, when such opposite arguments
were brought upon such high authority as his Hon.
Friend and the Honourable Member for Dublin,
he felt the difficulty of coming to a conclusion
when their opinions were thus contrasted—( Hear ).
—Though lie differed from his Hon. Friend on the
propriety of the House of Commons now,originating
a measure to regulate the Upper House, he was bound
on bold constitutional principles to my that she
House of Common's were equal to originate any le-
gislative enactment. • Parliament had on other occa-
sions interfered with the House of. Peers. On the
Union, in the introduction of Irish Peers to that
House. With respect to-the Scotch Peers, his Hon.
Friend had not informed them what provision he in-
tended—(Hear). He would wish to know if he had
it in contemplation to extend to them the same privi-
lege as to the Irish, or was he inclined to repeal the
Act of Union, which disqualified all Scotch Roman
Catholic Peers even from the power of nomination.
A condition of the Act of Union was, that no person,
being a Papist, could sit in the House of Legislation,
er have a voice in deciding upon the affairs of the
realm. He wished to have it observed, that be re-
ferred to that.period for the purpose of spewing that
there was not then recognized any intention of ever
again bringing Roman Catholics into power. Lord
Somers was one who had assisted in settling the Act
of Union. The others who joined him in that mea-
sure, and the King's Ministry of that day, wished to
destroy the principle of an inherent right in the
Catholic Nobility, and wished to do so tor ever.—
His Right Hon. Friend had said, that the continuance
of those disabilities cast a stigma upon the character
of the few Roman Catholic Peers of the present day,
and they were deprived of the recognition of political
rights to which no other Catholics could pretend.—
He would ask him if he intended alone to legislate
for these seven or eight Noblemen, or did he not ra-
ther seek to give the Crown a power of creating any
number of Peers?—(Hear, hear.)—His Hon. Friend
had said, that if the question was settled favourably,
it would create a general amendment in the condition
of all classes of Roman Catholics. He would recall
to the House, that it was but six or seven months
since it had passed a Bill for the removal of all disabili-
ties from all classes of Roman Catholics. He would
ask, what had occurred since? What was the pecu:
liar and overruling necessity of making an applica-
tion of the present nature—or why were they called
on for relief? Since the year 1805, when Mr. Fon
had brought forward the question, and when Mr.
Grattan joined to support it to the present mo.'
ment, no proposition had been made to the effect
•of that now before the House--(lfear, hear, hear).
Next Session his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett)
was to bring the whole question before the House;
'and be saw no reason until then of giving the barren
privilege to the Catholic Peerage of sitting in Parlia-
ment during a recess, in which, of course, they could
not sit. He protested against the argument that the
exclusion of Catholic Piers was the consequence of.
the fears of the Popish Piot, or the menaces of the
Crown. They malt look at the whole policy of the
age, and then they Would find that the Act of 16781
was tonilinsed at the Revolution, when a Popish.
King was excluded 'from the Crown—when the Bill
'of Rights passed. Whatever his Right Hon. Friend
might think of the perjuries of Titus Oates, could he

Leesleture to on
die ether. which
on the ofr-
ea the il=t