Star.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

elan* for seats in Parliament was negatived, the an-
'hors of the meastire threw out the Bill.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that to remain in the
resent state wasibig with danger, and further steps
were imperiobily demanded. It had been held by
the wisest politicians, that persecution was not only
the most wicked, but the most foolish of all proceed-
Nothing could be so absurd as to harmonize
persecution with the British Constitution. Ireland
had at one time been called the Mother of the Saints,
and then possessed more real piety than any other
part of Eerope. Ireland had expended much of her
'tag lakti in the service of Britain; but at one time
the policy was to separate parents from children, and
children from parents. At last, as the age became
pre enlightened, we became by degrees ashamed of
:car Conduct. Whether the time for the Union had
,been ',miserly chosen or not, and whether the claims
of the Catholics should not have been previously set-
tled, he should not then inquire; hut he well remem-
Need what Mr, Pitt had said at the time, that, in the
• rent of the Union, the claims of the Catholics would
be granted with more safety, or refused with more,
justice. It appeared that nothing was so much adap-
ted to excite discontent, as to allow things to rerrfain
in their present stale. Did his Honourable Friend
(Mr. Bankes) think things cbuld remain in their pre-
sent state? The possession of pol..tical power could
not be refaced to those who had the means of acquiring-
great landed property. Let the Roman Catholics
come into the House, for here we can deal with them
(Lord end continued cheers).—The' Catholics had
not known the British Constitution 'in its dignikd
and liberating powers. If the priests were supposed
to have too much power, the best way to lessen that
was by allowing Catholics to have seats in that House;
and the Catholic religion, if it were as bad as some
dead described it, would be improved, by being incor-
porated with the principles of the British Constitu-
tion. He would suggest to hi. Honourable Friend,
that, in places where Catholics had the majrnity,
'they might choose Protestant Representatives, who
might be subservient to their wisle2;, and as much
danger might be apprehended in that way, as by
Catholics themselves having seats in that House.—
In the view he took of the c...e, he relied much upon
the progress of education, and the increa,ing diffu-
ion of light and knowledge. Many of the Roman
Catholics had been ornaments to their age and coun-
try, and he might, in particular cite the name of the
amiable and enlightened Fenelon. The present state
was one, not of restriction, but of degradation. It
was wearing the prison suit after the prisoner was et
large. This country was remarkable foe all being
aware that they had the protection of the laws. But
is Ireland, the feeling was one of resistance to the
laws. But when Ireland came treenjoy the blessings
of the Constitution, hel character would be dulcified
and liberalised. He was contideat that the part he
was advocating was the one of sound policy, and a
proper return to that country, to whose exertions
Great Britain had been V) deeply indebted—(Cheers).
Mr. BATHURST rose amidst much noise, and
was for some time inaudible.

Lord CASTLEREAGH implored the House to
heat both sides of the question, on a subject of such
importance to the Empire at large.
Mr. BATHURST then resumed, and contended
that the Honourable Gentleman had confounded
civil and relig;ous rights. The Constitution of the
'hole Empire was essentially Protestant ; insomuch
so that the Head of the State was bound to be of that
religion. The admission of Catholics into the Legis-
lature would endanger that Protestant supremacy,
Ind on that account alone they were excluded. The
Catholics were in complete possession of their civil
rights, and their interests were as much protected by
Protestant Representatives as they could he by those
of their own religion. A complaint had been made
that Gentlemen at the bar could not ascend to the
highest rank in their profession; but that limitation
had been distinctly fixed, and it was necessary to
stop somewhere. The Bill of the Right Honourable
Gentleman himself bad drawn a line of distinction
and separation. To reason, from the amiable quali-
ties of the Catholics, that they were entitled to seats
is Parliament, was a mere waste of the talents of his
.Honourable Friend. Whatevetshould now be con-
ceded could never be withdrawn, though more con-
cessions could still be demanded. The Right ho-
nourable Gentleman contended that, by adopting the
Bill now before the House, a weight of political in-
fluence, inconsistent with the safety of the established
religion, would be thrown into the hands of a body
of persons differing in religious sentiments from that
establishment. The Right Hollow able Gentleman
concluded by moving that, instead of now, the Bill
should be read a second time that day six month-s.
Mr. METCALF adverted to the concessions made
by Parliament, and observed, that a desire had been
evinced to remove their disabilities ; at the same time,
considering the rights the Catholics enjoyed in the
army and navy, with that of the elective franchise,
which might be considered the palladium' of the Con-
stitution, it would he, perhaps, unwise to grant them
any more—(Hear, hear).
Sir J. MACKINTOSH did not intend to reply to
the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last but one, not because those arguments were
held light by him, but because the'Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had argued generally, and his arguments
had already been repeatedly answered. He would
content himself with adverting to a new fact, namely,
the passing of the Act four years ago, which opened
the ranks of the army and navy to the Catholics, so
that the supreme command might be held by any
adventurer, even should he be a Catholic; and the
defence of that Parliament, whose doors were for
ever shut against him, was vested in his hands, whilst
even the Duke of Norfolk was excluded from exer-
tiling the functions of a Justice of the Peace—
(Hear, /sear).—The protection of the Government
'as, therefore, committed to a sort of political
tatlaw, since the sole command of the army of
%OW men might be entrusted to a man who was
the forced enemy of the Protestant Establishment, I
trthe deprivations he was subjected to—(/year}.
nis was a most absurd state of things; yet this was
the state in which the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle,
was desirous we should remain. The Right Hon.
Ctt'tleinan (Mr. Bathurst) had entered into a long
detail relitiAg to the British Constitution, and seemed
to describe Titus Oates as its founder. Now he (Sir
roes) was an admirer of the British Constitution ;
114.Tevered it; but he hated Titus Oates—(A laugh ).1
111 admired the Constitution, as consolidated by

' Hampden and Russell, who had mounted the scaf-
fold and bled for itz.-(Hear,hear).—The Right Hon.
Gentleman had come two hundred years too late with
his argument. His error was not so much logical
as. i t • was chronological—(A
.laugh).—Two hundred'
years ago he might have been inclined to agree in
the Right Hon. Gentleman's argument against libe-
rality in matters of religion, but he could not adopt
that course now. It was not his duty to defend the
memory of the late Mr. Pitt against the violent at-
tacks made upon it by the Honourable Member for
Corte Castle, who had described Mr. Pitt's measure
of 1794. as one of folly, weakness, and absurdity.—
If there were not others in the House better able
and well inclined to justify Mr. Pitt against this
attack made on his memory by his Friend, he (Sir J.
Mackintosh) would do it ; he would say, that Mr.
Pitt's measure, instead of being weak and absurd,
was one of the most wise and liberal ever adopted by
any Minister, and well calculated to tranquillize
Ireland; and cement her union with this country.—
The Honourable Member then adverted to the Edict
of Nantz, and the conduct of the great Monarch by
whom it was issued. No doubt then, as now, the
King and his Ministers were told, that amongst the
Dissenters from the religion of the State, there were
many disaffected; but he wisely rejected such repre-
sentations, judiciously considering that the union of
his people would prove the strength of his Throne,
and under that impression he issued this Edict, de-
claring religious opinions . no bar to holding Civil
Offices. The Right Hon. Gentleman had accused
the Nf' )bleman, who now asked to be placed in the
same situation, with being unreasonable. Was it un-
reasonable that the Duke of Norfolk should wish to
enjoy the honours and .privileges of his ancestors?
Was it unreasonable that the Earl of Shrewsbury, the
descendant of the conqueror of Agincourt, should be
desirous of sitting by the side of the Conqueror of
Waterloo ?—(Hcar, hear). These were the real
founJers of the British Constitution, and not the in-
famous characters whose names had been introduced
in debate—(Hear, hear). The Honourable Gentle-
man then adverted-to the present temper and dispo-
sition of the Catholics, and of the Head of the Catho-
lic Church ; and again, as in the early part of the
evening, alluded to the adoption of Cardinal Litta's
Letter respecting the Vete on the nomination of the
Bishops by Pope Pias•Vll. in 1816, and concluded
by giving his support:to the Bill.
Mi. PEEL, in rising to give his opinions on this
question, could not help contrasting the situation in
which he stood, with that in which his opponents were
',placed. His was the unpopular side; he exposed
himself to be branded as the champion of illiberality;
perhaps, too, he was.disheartened at the prospect. of
an unsuccessful opposition, whilst Gentlemeo on the
other side were.cheered by the prospect before them,
and in every respect possessed advantages over him.
All he asked was a toleration of opinion ; this he de-
sired, not solely from personal considerations, but
with a view to the cause itself ; for he was sure the
People out of doors would never be satisfied with the
decision of the House on this subject, whatever that
might be, unless they knew that both sides had been
well heard, and that the question had been viewed
in every possible point of view—(Hear, hear).—The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman who had just
sat down, in the commencement used an argument
on which he seemed to rely much, and to which he
(Mr. Peel) would now address his attention. He stated
that there was a great anomaly in admitting Roman
Catholics to the highest offices in the army and navy,
whilst they were excluded from the meanest civil
offices. This unaccountable exclusion was said to be
without parallel in the history of the civilized world,
and was further said to be most pregnant with dan-
ger to the Constitution of this country. With re-
gard to the novelty of the thing, he (Mr. Peel) was
much surprised that the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, so distinguished for his historical re-
search, should have overlooked an instance, which
occurs in history, not very long since—(Hear, hoar).
When William the Third came over here at the Re-
volution, the United Provinces were exactly in the
situation that Ireland now is—namely, the Roman
Catholics were excluded all civil offices, though eli-
gible to the highest offices in the army and navy.—
William, on corning here, was asked why he per-
mitted this anomaly, and what was his answer?—
.r I allow," said he, " tile Catholics to rise to the
highest offices in those departments in which they are
most likely to excel; but I apprehend no danger from
their preponderance whilst I have a Protestant Go-
vernment"—(Hear, hear).—Such was King William's
answer; but whether his reasoning was conclusive or
not, he (Mr. Peel) would not say, he had only men-
tioned the circumstance to shew that at least the si-
tuation in which the Irish Roman Catholics were
now placed, was not entirely without its parallel in
history. He was then come to the second part of
the proposition—namely, that such an anomaly was
pregnant with danger to the Constitution of this
country. " So late as 1817," said the advocates of
this Bill, " you suffered the Bill which threw open
the army and navy to the Roman Catholics, to pass,
and what has arisen since to make you jealous of
them ?" Was this fair reasoning, he asked ? Was it
just to turn now the concessions in 1817 into an argu-
ment against those who opposed further concessions?
Was it in this spirit the concessions were then made?
What was the reasoning of Lord Howick (now Earl
Grey) in that House, when the measure was first pro-
posed in 1807 The measure was then inchoate and
incomplete; but the, reasoning of the Noble Lord
(then Secretary of State) was worthy of' attention.
" We expect" said he, " that no objections will be
stated to this concession, which is limited in its na-
ture. In looking to the situation of Ireland, and the
concessions which she expects from us, we must not
overlook the pledges given by the Irish Lord Chan-
cellor and the Secretary of State on a foriner occa-
sion. It is due from us to that country to throw open
the Army and Navy to the jtoman Catholics; but
this is less a matter of general policy than of good
faith with the people of Ireland"—(Hear). Upon
this understanding the measure met afterwards with
general approbation ; and was it fair, then, to turn
round, and charge the forbearance shewn on that oc-
casion as an argument against those who would op-
pose further concessions ? The Might Honourable
and Learned Gentleman whir introduced this ques-
tion had charged him (Mr. Peel) with straying away
from his argument on the former night, and going
into what be termed an irrelevant discussion on the
Test and Corporation Acts. He iMr. Peel) contencleils

however, that the Right Hon. Gentleman's general
I line of argument justified him in such a digression.
IL.was said that exclusion never took place without
impugning the credit of the excluded ; but there
never was an sera in our history in which exclusion
did not take place, and yet it never was considered,
therefore, that the Roman Catholics were discredited
on their oaths. He denied that exclusion from office
fixed any brand on the forehead of tl:e Kaman-Ca-
tholic. He had ever conceded t political exclu-
sion was an evil not to be defend by obsolete Sta-
tutes, but .he looked to what the effect of this Bill
would be upon Ireland. The question was, would it
' conduce to the support of the Protestant Establish-
ment in that country ? He considerei the povier of
sitting in Vestries, which would ever accompany the
' possession of property, would .be destructive to the
existence of the Churches, and of the Ministers of the
Established Church. In Ireland, the proportion of
Catholics to the Protestants was as five to one; and
could it be doubted that, if they sat in Vestries, they
would not vote a single shilling towards the support
of the Protestant Churches? Another power, dan-
gerous to the existence of the Protestant Establish-.
ment, was that which would follow from their ad-
mission of Roman Catholics into Corporations, and
into Parliament. This Bill certainly affected to
offer securities for the Established Church; but if
Catholic Members were in the House of Commons,
'what security would there be for the Bill itself?—
When Catholic Members sat there, they were as un-
shackled as any Protestant ones, and they would na-
turally disregard any previous Bill in legislating on
any particular question. The Roman -Catholics in
Ireland already possessed great power; for, out of
the 100 Members from that kingdom who sat in this
House, not less than 84 were returned by popular
elections. The proportion of Roman Catholic Elec-
tors to those of the Protestant was in the same pro-
portion as the bulk of the population were to each
other—namely, five to one. The influence of the
priests and the landlords was very great at these elec-
tions; and in a little time, if this Bill was passed, so
strong was the preponderance in the hands of Roman
Catholics, that not a Protestant would be returned
from behind. The jealousy of the Legislature was
in some measure justified by the exceptions made in
the Bill by the Right Honourable Member himself.
He ventured to say, however, that this Bill would not
be in force five years hence, if it passed into a law—
(llea r, hear, hear).—He concluded by disclaiming any
thing like personal feelings in his opposition, and de-
clared, that if the Hduse in its wisdom passed it into
a law, his great aim would be to reconcile the Pro-
testants to it—(Hear, hear).
Mr. CANNING then rose, and said that,. though
he had been a Member of that House for many years,
and had been present at the discussion of many im-
portant subjects, he bad never risen to discharge his
duty under greater anxiety than on the present oc-
casion. That :Inxiety arose in part from the intense
conviction which he felt of the great and growing
expediency of the measure then before the House—
(Cheers). Having stated this, he hoped, if in the
warmth of debate he should appear to treat with dis-
respect those whose opinions differed from him, that
it would be regarded as unintentional, and that the
cause would be his apology. From the magnitude
of the stake now at issue, the question being brought
forward now in a new reign, and in an unpledged
Parliament, he approached it with no common ap-
prehension. He must lend a deaf ear to the argu-
ment that the present enactments did not press with
severity on the Catholics. It was not the precise
enactments that formed the subject of complaint, but
was because they were viewed as the symbols of
accusation and imputation that they created that bit-
terness which at present existed. But some said, the
present laws emanating from the old Jaws, ought to
be adhered to in preference to making any new ex-
periment. But the laws respecting Catholics, it
should be remembered, had never been stationary.
They had been growing up for two centuries, and had
been losing-their rigour for half a century. At the
period when they had gained their terrible perfec-
tion, they remained stationary but about 20 years.—
It was for the House to look at the shame which the
laws passed against the. Catholics had heaped on them,
and the indignation consequently excited; and look-
ing at these, it was idle to say the House ought to
dispose of the question, with a view to the precise
enactments now in force. It had ever been the fashion
to suppose the Papist was carried away by a strong
predilection for a foreign Power hostile to his native
laud. And on what was this grounded ? h had
been necessary to describe the Papist as a man con-
nected with that family which had been excluded
from the Throne, and ready in every deed to engage
in an attempt to restore it to its former station. They
had therefore fastened on the Papist's religious Creed.
And why? Because the guilt was in the Creed? No,
but because the Creed designated the man, and his
guilt was found in his foreign attachments. But now
those foreign attachments were gone. Ile would not
argue this, Cor the fact could not be questioned ;
and for this sufficient reason, the object of them was
no more. Vet still the believer in transubstantiation
was pursued with vindictive jealousy, as one inclined
to prefer a foreign Power to his own Government.—
This conduct was like that of a Magistrate who should
Cause it to be announced, that a murder had been
committed, and describing the murderer as wearing a
wig and spectacles; and afterwards, on its being
ascertained that no murder had been committed, con-
tending, that notwithstanding this, a person who had
been appiehended in a wig and spectacles ought to
be punished as a murderer. Under existing circum-
stances, the Catholics ought no longer to be excluded
from the Constitution, unless it were contended, that
the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not the only'
mark so detect by, but the crime to punish. He
briefly noticed the circumstances connected with the
Reformation of the Church of England. He thanked
Goes that the Reform had triumphed, but he could
not help feeling that they ought not to judge harshly
of those who had been slow to appreciate its value and
importance. Those who saw how the first Monarch
who favoured it had acted from mixed motives—when
they feund those who dealt harshly with him arraign-
ing his tyranny—when they found those who wet e dis-
posed to speak more kindly, 'complaining of his pas-
sions—when it was seen from what motives he acted,
which had caused the period to be described as that—
., When Love could teach a Monarch to be wise,
And Gospel light first beam from Boleyn'seyes

Whet 411 these things were seen, it WAS no great

wonder if the Catholics were slow to approve of this
Reform. •He then traced the Catholics through the.
reign of Queen Elizabeth, ar the end ef which, those
who had not been able to agree with Henry the
Eighth in his contradictory wishes, that all who were
for the Pope should be hanged, and that all who
were against him should be burnt, %vete found strip.
peel of all the at:: ibutes of Litizens, denuded of all
that social man could value, and comp'etely bereft
of the very semblance of freedom. The Catholic
of that day, singled out for vindictive punishment,
if he but ventured five miles from his dwelling, in-
curred the penalties of a pramunire ; and, if found
offending in the same way a second time, was sen-
tenced to death for treason !—(hear, hear).—These
were the laws of our ancestors, of which they heard
so much, and these laws were the ancestors of those
which were at present in force against the Catholics.
In Ireland, if great pains had been taken to extir-
pate Popery, but little had been done to make the
People acquainted with the superior excellence of
the Reformed Church. They ought not, therefore,
to be vis4ed with severity. In the reigns subse-
quent to that of Queen Elizabeth, they had done
nothing to prove that the Catholic Religion was at
all hostile to the frame of Civil Government—(Fleco).
It was not the Catholics that matte war on Chat les—
it was not a Catholic that struck the fatal blow—nor
was it the influence of the Court of Rome that brought
that Monarch to the block. It was stated by some
Honourable Members, that if the Catholics were ad-
mitted to participate in all constitutional rights, that
they would endeavour to overthrow the Parliament
and Church. This those Hon. Members professed not
to blame, and were so candid as to say they were of
opinion; that under such circumstances they should
act the same part themselvLe. Each who said 'this
knew that the Howe would not inculpate him, but
taking this course, he thought he obtained a right to
attack the Catholic, on the suppositierr that he would
act the part desci ibed. He must vindicate his Right
Hon. Friend, who had thus inculpated himself in or-
der to save the Catholic, from the rebound. He did
not believe that his Right lion. Friend, admitted to
the privileges to which it was proposed to admit the
Catholics, where the dominant religion was different
from his own, would endeavour too overthrow that
Church. The exemplary conduct of the Catholics
during a civil war, gave a pledge for their future
conduct. A Bill for excluding Protestant Bishops
from Parliament had been rejected Ly a majority in
which Catholic Bishops ward—a Bill for excluding
Catholic Bishops had been afterwards brought in, and
Protestant Bishops voted for it. What would have been
said had the case been reversed, and had the Catholics
thus acknowledzed a vote in their favour by the Pro-
, testants ? One good win deserved another—he did
not know that the good turn rendered by the Roman
Catholics had ever been returned by the Protestants.
He hoped by the passing of this Bill the Bishops of the
present day would have an opeortunity of returning it.
He commented on the absurdity of supposing that
the Catholics had disguised their intentions, for the
purpose that they might rise and revenge themselves
I on the Protestants the mbment this Bill was passed.
He then commented on the rigid laws which had
enabled a Conforming son to disinherit a Non-con-
forming father—a Conforming wife to prey on the
property of her betrayed Non-conterming husband—
laws which divided families, and took from the Ca-
tholic all domestic life: It was only in 1774 that
these laws began to be relaxed. Then a Bill was in-
troduced to enable a Papist to rent fifty acres of bogl
—(Hear, hear).. .Four years afterwards, further coo:
cessions were made; and in 179, that which, whether
it was good or evil, had led to the present questiOa
was given—the elective franchise. For two centuries
we had been engaged in electing a mound against
the Catholics, which had frowned over the waters,
and defied attack. A breach had at last been made.
in it—the kindred mountains saw each other, and
would fain meet: Weise they now to close up the
mound again, or say tlrey would let it remain in in
present state, till it mouldered away at a distant pe-
riod—or should they now cut through the isthmus,
and float on the mingling waves the ark of the Con-
stitution. Notwithstanding the situation in which
the Catholics were placed, there were those who ex-
pected them to manifest the most ardent love for that
Constitution, which, though a positive blessing tO .
Protestants, excluded and repelled the Catholics:
" When late I attempted your pity to move,
You were deaf to my sighs and my Prayers;
Perhaps it was right to diisemble your love,
But why did you kick me down staitar
—Such was precisely the feeling which he thought
,might be expected from the Catholics with respect
to the Constitution as it affected them. The privi-
leges which this Bill would secure to their body,
would, he was of opinion, satisfy their a ishes, and
he was not afraid of any evil resulting from the ad-
mission of Roman Catholics into l'aratnent. Thep
would not be able materially to cni::•arrass the Go:
vernment, as, if they had objects in view like those
which had been imputed to them, tile very notoriety
of their views would prove their defeat. He was not
afraid of any demagogue getting into Parliament. It
was that which he could wish for. He never kum
a demagogue find his way there, who did not, in the
course of months shrink to his original dirtier.
sions. If any Reform were attempted, he should
wish to see a snug nest of Boroughs reserved for
their accommodation, arid the demagogue's' qua-
lification for taking a ;seat for one of them, he
would willingly make, a speech in Palace-yard
(Hear, hear). Let him come there and do his
worst, and his worst would be harmless—(Laughter).
He felt that there was a strong and pressing neces.
sity for passing, he would not say the present Bill in
all its details—that would be matter of ulterior dis-
cussion ; but some measure of such a nature, and this
was the period at which it ought to be done. la
what situation did we at this moment stand ? We
were in the enjoyment of a peace won by Irish valour,
in a field watered with. Catholic blood--(Hear, hear,
hear). We stood in the enjoyment of aveace, which,
notwithstanding the threatening asOtt of affairs, he
hoped would stall). preserved. Burt this was at best
a time wbeirwe ought to strengthen nurse-lies by
every means in our power—(Cheers). This was the
spot marked out. in time when we ought to remove
that source of agitation which would otherwise be
renewed from year to year; and if the opportunity
were Missed, that agitation would become more hope-
less aid more impatient, as llt was the moat delayed
—(Hear, hear). It was difficult to say in what form
the erpression of national gratitude wls moat ems.

I -

i

I

J

i