Star.
London, England, 1821-04-17 00:00:00

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1821.

. •

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS. APRIL is.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

I.ong before the doors were opened, all the passages leading
to the House were crowded with strangers eager to obtain ad-
mittance; and it was not until half-past five o'clock that the ad-
mittance was obtained. Every part below the bar was then filled.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented a Petition from the
Archdeaconry of Oxford, against the Roman Catholic Bill.
Petitions to the like effect were presented from the Parish of
St. Peter's in the East, in the City of Oxford; from the-Parishes
of St. George, in the Borough of Southwark, and from St.
Olave ; from the Parish of St. bumph, Aldgate ; from the
Eastern part of the County of Sussex, and also from the Inha-
bitants of Lewes • from Six Thousand Residents in the Town
and Neighbourbotl of Liverpool; from the Archdeacoory of
Bath, and the Deanery of &owe; from the City of Bristol;
from Great Torrington; from the City of Leicester, signed by
2000 persons; and from the Congregatit it 'assembling in Gale-
street Chapel, near Lincoln's Inn-fields.
The Bishop of NORWICH felt it his duty to present to their
Lordships, in favour of the Roman Catholic Bill, a Petition
signed by fifty-four Clergymen belonging to the Establidied
Church, who yielded to none of their Reverend Brethren in at-
tachment to that Church, but hoped they were as warmly at-
tached as any others. In tendering this Petition, he trusted
that their Lordships would finally be induced to consider and
concede the prayer of it, as nothing but what endangers the
safety of the Constitution could justify those restrictive laws,
which the Petitioners now referred to, one moment longer than
the occasion might require.
After the Petition had been read, purporting to proceed from
certain of the Clergy of the Arehdeaconrr of Norwich, it was
ordered to be laid upon the table.
A Counttr-Petition was presented from Liverpool, by Earl
Garr, in favour of the present Bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented Petitions against
the Catholic Bill, from Newarkmpon-Trent, in the County of
Nottingham • the Parish of East Deerham, in the County of
Norfolk; the Inhabitants of Hammersmith, in the County of
Middlesex; and the Mayor and Corporation of the Borough of
Woodstock, in the County of Oxford.—Laid on the table.
Earl GREY said he had to present two Petitions
in favour of the Bill then before their Lordships.
They came from some of the most respectable Ca-
tholics in England. The Petitioners stated that they
were most grateful for those laws that had already
been passed fur the removal of certain disabilities un-
der which they had laboured ; but they submitted to
Parliament whether there was any necessity for con-
tinuing those incapacities under which they still la-
boured ; and they appealed to that House, and asked
whether any part of their conduct, in the public or
private walks of life, was such as could clash with
any of the moral or political duties which they were
hound to observe as British subjects; and whether
they were inferior to any other set of men in alle-
giance to their S wereign? They made the most un-
equivocal declaration of allegiance; they solemnly
protested against the imputation that they acknow-
ledged the power of any foreign Prince; and humbly
prayed that the House would pass the present Bill.
This was the prayer of the first Petition. The second
Petition was signed by the Duke of Norfolk, the
Earl of Shrewsbury, and other Roman Catholic
Peers. They stated that they had minutely consi-
dered the form of the oath of supremacy requited to
be taken by the present Bill, as well as the several
other provisions in the Bill;
,they declared that this
oath was perfectly consistent with their religion:
and that they would most readily take it if the Bill
passed into a law. His Lordship said he conceived
it most important to state this fact, on account of the
high character of the Petitioners, the justice of their
claims, and the spirit of moderation in which these
claims were set forth, He would assert that there
did not exist in the Kingdom any set of men more
distinguished for the exemplary discharge of all their
duties in publ:c and private, than the present Peti-
tioners. This fact must be well known to the Noble
Earl at the head of the Treasury, who had already
declared his intention to oppose the present claims.
He (Earl Grey) was most anxious to avoid taking
any part in the discussion of that night, as he felt
that he could do no more than urge the same argu-
ments which he had repeatedly submitted to their
Lordships ; particularly so, as there were other Noble
Lords then present on whom the trust of supporting
the measure more immediately fell. He was there-
fore contented at present with resting on those
general grounds upon which the measure had for-
merly received his support, and with putting for-
ward the claims of the Petitioners on the princi-
ples of justice.—The two Petitions were then re-
ceived, and briefly read by the Clerk.

The Order of the Day being then moved for the
second reading of the Bill for the removal of certain
Disabilities under which the Roman Catholics at pre-
sent laboured, _ _

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE rose to support
it. He began by calling their Lordships' attention
to those Penal Laws of extreme severity which had
been enacted against Roman Catholics, and which
existed for upwards of a century ; and then adverted
to the happier prospects which had been opened to
them during the reign of his late Majesty. The first
departure from the old system of severity began in
the year 1778, when some of the severe restrictions
were removed from the Roman Catholics of Ireland.
A Statute passed by Elie Irish Parliament in that year,
made the first breach in the old system of Roman Ca-
enlic exclusion. The Irish Parliament seemed to be
more alive than that of Great Britain to this spirit of
liberality and just feeling; for in the year 1782, a
still further progress was made towards granting re-
lief to the Roman Catholics. The same disposition ma-
nifested itself still more in 1792: and at last, in 1793,
the Parliament of Ireland passed an Act for restoring
the elective franchise to the Roman Catholic subjects
of Ireland. By this Act they were raised to a situa-
tion in the State, which could not be justified on any
of those principles of reasoning by which the present
Claims were opposed; for if it were just at present
to resist those Claims, the concessions of 1793 .ought
never to have been granted: but from those conces-
sions no mischief had ever arisen. In this way
stood the affairs of the Roman Catholics after the
year 1793 and they would have still continued
so, were it not for an Act introduced by a fiend
of his, then at the head of the Admiralty, which

Nc•-i'

placed the Roman Catholics of Greattit:tin on
the same footing with those of Ireland, in regard
to holding Commissions in the Army and Navy.—
The concessions of 1793 had been confined to the ,
Catholics of Ireland ; and the attention of the British
Parliament was called over and over again to the situ-
ation of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain. At
length a Bill of the greatest importance was passed
by the other House of Parliament, and before it
passed the threshold of their Lordships House, it
met with a promised and premature opposition on
the part of the Noble Lord at the head of the Trea-
sury, and the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool.
sack. Such was the announcement, and such the
decision which these two Noble Lords had thought
proper to give. But in the course of the present
debate, he trusted that their Lordships would have
stated to them the reasons why so unusual a course
of proceeding had been adopted. The present stage
was the proper Parliatnentarr. reading of the Bill ;
and before they came to a decision upon it, he hoped
their Lordships would condescend to hear every ar-
gument that could be urged far or against it. This •
Bill had passed the other House, not in a moment of
hurry or enthusiasm, for it had undergone an ordeal
there of five weeks; and after all the laboz ious atten-
tion which had been given to it in the other House,
and after the deliberate sense of that House had been
taken upon it, he would ask their Lordships if they
could be justified in rejecting it? He was, iodeed,
much surprised at the early opposition which had
been announced by the two Noble Lords to whom
he had already alluded ; for it was unusual to make
an opposition to the principle of any Bill until the
second reading of it ; and he was still more surprised
that the opposition should be made in such a manner
as if the measure was so bad in all its parts as to be
incapable of amendment. The Bill consisted of two
Iparts; the first went to restore the Roman Catholics
to all their privileges; and the second part went to
fix tile price which they were to pay for these privi-
leges. How, he asked, could any one object to the
first part, who was satisfied with the present situ-
ation in which the Roman Catholics stood ? And
why should the Noble Earl, and the Learned Lord,
who objected to the securities, say that they would
not grant the privileges ? It was impossible to con-
ceive on what principle those Noble Lords founded
their opposition. It might, indeed, be said that their
authority was very great, and therefore that he him-
self had to contend against a great power ; but there
was anotheiauthority which he respected as much,
and that was the authority of the other House of Par-
liament, therefore he begged of their Lordships to
consider this Bill of Relief in a Parliamentary man-
ner. He (Lord Donoughmore) did not desire their
Lordships to pledge themselves to the whole of the
Bill, but to give it the fullest possible consideration.
—Let them consider who the parties were who now
called for relief; and whether they were not worthy
of consideration. They composed one-fourth of the
population of the United Kingdom, and four-fifths
of the population of Ireland, there being four millions
of Catholics in that country. Among these were
numbers of the most respectable inhabitants of that
country ; and he asked if their Claims and Petitions
were to be rejected without due consideration ? But
had their Lordships never heard of these people be-
fore? Had they not received many privileges before,
ami were not those privileges given under the sanc-
tion of oaths the same as were administered in Courts
of Justice? And no imputation had ever been thrown
out against them that they did not consider these
oaths as binding. They took the oaths, and they
were found trust-worthy. He did not know, then,
what was left for Roman Catholics to disavow.—
When the Act of 1798 was passed in the other coun-
try, with the full approbation of his Majesty's Minis-
ters, that Act gave them the elective franchise ; and
when that was granted, it was a full admission that
the Roman Catholics were worthy of political power.
They had had this elective franchise twenty-eight
years; and let their Lordships see what had been the
conduct of the Roman. Catholics with that franchise,
and if it appeared they had not abused that privilege,
was there any reason why the doors should not be
opened to them further? It was true that our's was
a Protestant Constitution ; he loved that Constitution,
and would support it; but if all causes of jealousy
were removed from all the subjects, the Constitution
would be strengthened; and these were his motives
in calling on their Lordships to grant the privileges
now called fors He should now, advert to the other
party, from whom it had been alleged that injury
might arise, were this Bill to pass. He asked, if it
would be wise to say that no subjects of this country
should ever correspond with the Pope on mere mat-
ters of religion ? The Pope was not the sort of per-
son who could be held up in that light, much less a
man from whose influence any danger might be ap-
prehended. On the contrary, he bad gone every pos-
sible length to reconcile the Roman Catholic subjects
of this country to their Government, and had done
everything in his power to bring about measures of
conciliation- between the Roman Catholics and the
Protestants.—{Here the Noble Earl read extracts
from Edicts voluntarily issued by his Holiness, in
order to shew what were his disposition and his prin-1
ciples in this respect.j--Such was the man whom
their Lordships had thought fit to describe as a man
conspiring against the safety of every State—a man
who had proved himself unworthy of trust, and as
one who consulted nothing but the security of his
own religion. This Bill had not passed through the
other House of Parliament without great considera-
tion ; 'and there it was discussed hi the greatest tone
of moderation. This Bill went to bring the Roman
Catholics within the Protestant Constitution, which,
if the Bill passed, would not be less a Protestant Con-
stitution than it was before. It was not a Bill for
granting privileges to the Roman Catholics, but for
restoring them to the rights they bad formerly en-
joyed. They had been tried for twenty-eight years,
and they were not found wanting in any part of
I their duty.' The Bill provided every necessary pro-