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

:~

.

should say, tSet the true
by the test of istecedent.
act which he .proposed,
House—(fieer, Ater)---kte A...-
disqualification-of the Peers(_
tending to the House of Comfnbns
at the time of its passing, t'
two Houses stood • to each , _
man Catholics were excluded, l'latively excluded
from Parliament hie!: Oath o Supremacy_whilst
Roman Catholics sat In Parrnitnest, not only
uninterruptedly to that time, but absolutely sanc-
tioned by a Parliamentary recognition; if he found
that the Bill of 1678, which wits directed equally
against the Peers as the Commons, eratratforced only
against the latter, and that the fears of Popery which
called for the Act of Supremacy applied Solely to the
Peers, by which they were excluded and not before ;
if he found that the measures of the late reign, not
to confirm disabilities, but to restore rights to the
Peers, all originated in this House, surely no matt of
common sense would say that it was improper to
originate a proposition like the present here--(Hear,
hear).—There were multitudes of cases in pars mate.'
ria in favour of his argument. He had only to men-
tion the sth of Elizabeth for disqualifying Catholics
from sitting in the House of Commons, which also
applied to the Peers, the Act for excluding Catholic
Bishopi, and many others, 'all relating to the Lords
and the Lords only, which had their origin in this
Rouse. And yet he was to be told that it was a
disrespect to the other House to bring the-subject on
here, and that too in a case where it was not to im-
pose a grievance upon that House, but to afford it
redress—(Hear, hear, hear).—He had thus, he hoped,
disposed of those objections, and shewn that there
was no ground for the suggestions alluded to. But
one objection more remained—an objection which
had been revived by an Honourable Member to-night.
He was told that it was a singular combination that
he (Mr. Canning), who was always opposed in prin-
ciple to Reform in the House of Commons, should
now turn advocate for an extended Reform in the
House of Lords. Now, although this objection had
no reference to the question which was to be tried—
not upon his (Mr. Canning's) but its own merits, yet
he wished to set himself right with the House; for
he held it good, as a general proposition, that the
proposer of any measure would have a better chance
of succeeding, whose objects appeared disinterested,
and upon whose motives there was no slur. He
would therefore claim leave to speak one word in his
own behalf. It was a strange fact, but it frequently
happened, that the very point upon which one piqued
himself most, was that from which he was most ex-
posed to accusation. He had flattered himself; and
he hoped to be able to make out before he had done,
that his conduct in this instance was not only free
from inconsistency, but that it was consistent with all
the principles which he had from time to time advo-
cated. In discussing the question of Parliamentaty
Reform, he always contended that it behoved those
who defended it to define exactly what their objects
were—whether they meant to construct anew, the
House of Commons, or to recall it to what it was at
some former period; and if they answered in the af-
firmative to the latter, that he had a right to call
upon them to say distinctly what was the period to
which they referred. He contended that he had a
right to know as well the manner in which they
would effect their Reform, as the extent of altera-
tion to which their plans would lead, so far as hu-
man foresight could measure. These, he stated, were
the tests by which Parliamentary Reform was to be
tried in the abstract; but particular plans of Reform
were to he tried, of course, each upon its own ground.,
By the like tests would he now be judged. To the
first he would state distinctly, that his object was not
to reconstruct anew the House of Lords, but to
'bring it back to some former period ; and to the se-
cond, that that period was the SOth November,l67B,
the day on which the Royal assent was given to the
30th of Charles the Second. Nest, he would say,
Ithat the House of Lords, after his Reform, would be
restored to its ancient constitution—to that state in
which it had been from time immemorial until a
stated period, and to that other state in which it was
for 112 years after, by special Statute. He said to
that state in which it was from time immemorial, be-
cause, as far as British history could be believed,
there were no oaths at all until a certain time, and
that certain time the Peers continued to sit, for 112
years. And as to the extent of his wild and visionary
scheme, the effect of it would be to give six English
Peers a seat in the House of Lords immediately, and
possibly the same number of Irish Peers at some fu-
ture period—(Hear, hear).—Thus having shewn that
he confined himself to the tests whit)) he before laid
down for the judging of the plans of others, he had
some hope that he had vindicated himself from the
charge of inconsistency. The groUnds upon which
he asked this Reform were safe, for he asked no inno-
vations ; the operation was limited, for he broached
no new experiments ; and the effect, he would ven-
ture to say, if not salutary, would be found at least
not to be dangerous—(Hear, heary.—lt was therefore
that he challenged the concurrence of the House in
his plans. They were safe And limited, but not too
much narrowed ; for there was as much in his scheme
as was contained in others which hppeared much
more extensive. But to go farther, he would confine
himself within stricter limits than he allowed to others.
From them he required only that they should shew
what they proposed was not an innovation. This he
would do ; but he would do more—he would not pro-
pose an innovation, but he would remove one; he
would effect a restoration—(Hear, hear).—He would
thew that what he purported to reform was an inno-
, ration, and that by evidence which could not be
doubted. He would shew that this innovation arose
from causes which were now no more—that it was
defended by pretexts which were never true—that it
provoked acts of injustice which could never be re-
deemed—that it was marked by cruelty which
could not be vindicated—and that it produced mis-
chiefs to posterity greater than those which were at-
tendant upon the most rigid confiscation—(llear).—
Here then was an existing innovation to which he
was not gonig to add, but which he would remove
It now remained for him to state the outline of his
plan. But in order to arrive at a definite and precise
notion of the gate in which the question now stood.
and the relation which the redress to be afforded to
these noble persons bore to the mass of the Roman
Catholic population, it would be expedient to review
the different periods of Legislation at which disquali-

disentangle arguments
complicated. lc tiould have the effect, too, as he
hoped, of sheering that the generalities in which too
many indttlged, respettieg
the antiquated weals-
tions and exploded wisdom of our ancestors, svpplied
much less to the question than many Gentlemen sup-
posed. Thehistory then of these times of disquali-
fying enactments he would divide into three periods:
the -first extending from the Reformation, or rather,
from the Ist of Elizabeth {in order to get rid of times
in which the discussion might be perplexed) to the
Restoration ; the second from the Restoration to the
Revolution, being little more than the reign of
Chao les IL and the third from the Reiolution to that
period of the reign of his late Majesty, at which the'
first relaxation of the penal laws took place. Gentle-
men would of course wonder at the inequality oil
this division, but he hoped to be able to explain the
reason of it. It was to be observed that the pervading
principle of all these laws was severity against the
Catholics. It was not hard to account for this, from
the circumstances of the.times. The rigour of Eliza-
beth was partly occasioned, if not justified, by the
repeated plots against her life—the unquietness
of one religion (not yet put down) and the claims
of another, not yet established—the instability of fo-
reign politics, and the connection which these were
supposed to have with one portion of her subjects.—
Such causes made that Sovereign enact severe laws ;
and, indeed, so critical was her situation, that she was
obliged to make the support of her Crown and the
predominance of the Established Religion go hand iu
hand. To take, then, the last period next—namely,
from the Revolution to the relaxations in the late
reign—for there was no Penal Law after Giorge the
First, except the annual Bill by which Catholics were
required to pay double Land Tax, it would appear
that there existed causes for severity, arising out of
the times—if not exactly of the same nature, at least
resembling those of the former period. There was
then a contested Dynasty, a divided country, and a
co-operation of the Roman Catholics with the foreign
enemy to bring in the exiled family. In this period
the enemies of the Church were still the enemies of
the State, for the dispute was a religious one. It was,
therefore, not to be wondered at that William, whose
policy it was to keep the Catholics under, as his rival
was a Catholic King, did not repeal the 30th of Charles
the Second. William's aim was to oppress the Ca-
tholics, that they should not become formidable—to
disarm them, that they should not turn against him;
land, in effect, to render them as ineffective and pow-
erless as he possibly could. And to all was to be
added the obligation which was put upon him, in his
own defence, not to restore any immunities to the
Catholics, for the revocation of the Edict of Names
had but just taken place, by which the French Pro-
testants were so much oppressed. In Ireland, no
doubt, the principle was carried farther, the pretext
of political necessity was there prostituted to the
worst of persecutions. It would seem that Govern-
ment did not think itself safe, aril it bad burst asun-
der all the ties of family affection, and so paralysed
the people, as not only to make combination impos-
sible, but society intolerable--(Hoer, hear).—But did
not all this arise from political causes ? Having, they,
Ishewn that in the first and last period the circum-
stances of the times justified the severities used to-
wards the Roman Catholics, he was now come to the
second, which stood upon grounds of its owe. The
reign of Charles the Second was an insulatel period,
and to be judged entirely by its own merits. Its seve-
rities were not sanctified by necessity, like those of
Elizabeth ; nor could they receive the countenance
which past events and impending evils gave to the
period which followed. The whole of that interval
was a continued internal struggle, without any exter-
nal danger. The chief enemy during the time Was net
a foreigner, but was near the Throw—( Wear, kear).—..
The severities did not proceed downwards from the
Crown, but rose upwards to the Throne from Parlia.
ment. Indeed, so severe and unjust were the enact-
ments of this period, that when Gentlemen looked
closely into the Statute Book, they would be sur-
prised to find how few penal laws there were to be
repealed out of the reign of Charles the Second. He
believed, that by the relaxations given during the
late reign, every penal Act before the Revolution
was repealed, except two—namely, the sth of Eli-
zabeth, which was confirmed by this, and the lath
of Elizabeth, prohibiting all intercourse with Rome,
which had fallen completely into disuse. He also
believed, that every penal law after the Revolution,
was repealed by the same relaxation, except one Act
of Anne, which transferred the advowsons belonging
to Roman Catholics to the Universities ; and another,
excluding them from civil and military offices, by
oaths ; but be doubted whether that too was not in
effect, though not in words, repealed by the Act of
1817. He did not, however, lay it down as a uni-
versal proposition, that all the penal laws were re-
pealed, except those of Charles the Second and those
be had mentioned ; but he would contend that, be-
sides the enactments of that reign, there was little
else of any importance which was not done away
with. He would use this argument for two purposes.
—First, it narrowed the ground of discussion, and
called the attention to the circumstances of that reign,
and that alone. Ile had already said that it was an
insulated period. If, however, there was anything to
connect it with the times which preceded or followed
it—anything in its legislation which would seem to
argue an analogy with the politics of other times,
it was this Act alone; for this was framed upon
the principle of the Act of Elizabeth, of which it
was an amplification, and it extended to the Peers
those disqualifications of sitting in Parliament which
before applied to the House of Commons. —lt
would. be seen, however, that with this apparent
connection, the Act of Charles the Second arose out
of•the circumstances of the times in which it was
made. The discussion then was narrowed to the
period of Charles the SecOnd, and therefore a great
deal of declamatory matter, which-might be used in
considering the question .upon a more extended scale,
could here be dispensed with. It was at this day.no
wonder that the reign of Charles . the Second was
marked by rigour an 4 severity to Bomap Catholics..

• ode dieettestiT it yrs*. aFikad bevel Paued itdavexpooges.l
Ebe Mond chat his *millet be arra; t 9
to rekttoriginated in this -1
diliaserits ofttay pfr,.tic ar liiitate, or totake
its-Act- aOplynik solely to the giceoptiong to it ; they wonlo. feel with hitts, that
Vers—(ffeer, hitar).-not ex- to classify the different COOS *Mad be one step to-
ConttnOns; if he found that wards making plain this 4bject. It would also be
g, the relation in which the material to refer to ihese trines, in order to disabuse
sch other was this, that Ro- those who do not look deeply_ into the question, and to
dissotanale at-Rumens %Alia would be *otherwise