Star.
London, England, 1821-03-27 00:00:00

millirem remained among the Catholics, the beet'
so remove them would-be to mix the Catholics
ufs with a Protestant majority. It had been said, that
*best place for a demagogue was a seat in that
Hope, as there be was sure to find his level ; and if
dyrgerous opinions were held by the Catholics, the,
imoe mode of reasoning would apply. It was incon-
fistent in the extreme to allow Catholics to command
ow fleets and armies, and at the same time to exclude I
Imes from seats in thit House ; when, for years to
ewe, they must form a minority. It ought to be
recollected, that it was the conscientious scruples of
die Catholics that prevented them from having seats
b that House. All the old arguments had now been
abandoned, and the question had become one of jea-
buy. Had the conduct of the Catholics in Great
6bain and Ireland been such as to entitle these
claims to consideration ?—and another question was,
if the public mind of the kingdom was prepared for
the proposed concessions ? He thought that the Pro-
testant public mind was ripe for the concessions, from
die light thrown upon the subject by repeated discus-
lions. Another question was, would the Church and
grate be safe after such concessions ? Did the Hon.
Member (Mr. Bankes) not think that the Catholics in
that House would be as much divided as the Pro-
eamous, and that they would not be equally attached
to their own interests as the Protestant Members?—
But if the Catholics would league then, why did they
not league now ? The Protestant mind would be im-
mediately roused, if it saw anything like a Catholic
Ileac, and must render it wholly unavailing.
SPEAKER said, he should confine himself
to a very few observations upon the question imme-
diately before the House. He agreed with all the
Honourable Members of that House, who had ar-
gued that exclusion was in itself to be regarded as a
grievance, and that it could only be justified by an
adequate necessity. Now, the Bill before the House
sot only recognised exclusion from some offices, un-
less certain conditions were complied with, but in
some instances it recognized absolute and unqualified
exclusion. Thus the Catholics were absolutely ex-
cluded from exercising judicial functions in the Ec-
clesiastical Courts. He did not refer to this part of
the Bill with a view of expressing any dissent from
k; no the contrary, he felt that the exclusion was a
necessary, and therefore a justifiable exclusion. But
if be were justified in feeling a jealousy as to the par-
ticipation of the Roman Catholics in the administra-
tion of the laws directly affecting our Ecclesiastical
Istablishment, be knew not how he was to be an-
eirered, if he declared that a jealousy might be rea-
sonably entertained of their participation in the enact-
bent of the laws themselves. This consideration led

immediately to that of the clause by which they were
admitted into the two Houses of Parliament. When
be looked into the preamble of this Bill, in which it
to stated that the laws relating to the Ecclesiasti-
cal Establishment were permanently established, it

was a necessary inference, that the Catholics were
excluded from judicial offices in ecclesiastical mat-
ters, lest any injury should arise from their malad-
!ministration. But when those laws were said to be
permanently established, the meaning of those words
could only be, that they were permanent so long as
k should not please Parliament to alter them. Was
k not reasonable, therefore, to feel a jealousy as to the
wxxinuance of those laws, as well as to guard against
their maladministration ? The Hon. Member who

ke
ire
res

os
0
ro•
he

lad just sat down seemed to think that the Honour-
able Member for Carle Castle had carried his views
of danger to an unnecessary extent ; but it surely be-
timed them, in jegislating on so important a subject,
10 take the longest view within their reach ? and if
ray consequent mischief should arise, it would be no
sewer to say that the law might be repealed. The
Hen. Member for Corfe Castle said, that there was
much ground far alarm ; and the Hon. Member who
last addressed the House, thought there was no such
round ; but both the one and the other opinions were
mere speculations. They were speculations upon
which he did not presume to judge; but he must say,
that upon a question of such paramount importance,
be would rather look for his security to the law, than
trust to the results of chance. The Honourable Mem-
ber for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce) had said the other
night, that he felt strongly inclined to believe, that
if the restrictions upon the Roman Catholics were
removed, many of them would abandon their faith,
and become Protestants—(Cries of Hear, hear),
k was natural for the Honourable Gentleman, being
himself an extraordinary good Protestant, and look-
ieg, as be did, to the intrinsic merits of the Protest-
ant faith, to entertain such an opinion, but he (the
%maker) doubted whether a good Catholic would not
be equally inclined to say. 4, only give me admis-
sion into the House of Commons, and I will so con-
vince you of the truth of my religion, that you will
oil turn Roman Catholics r--(4 laugh). He could
not disguise his own opinion that difficulties had
arisen, and were accumulating, in consequence of the
alteration which had been made in the clause origin-
ally proposed. It was contended by some Honour-
able Gentlemen, that the words proposed to be added
made no difference in the meaning of the clause, but
if that were so, where was the necessity for altera-
tion? The Right Honourable Gentleman went on
to obserie that the only difficulty which he felt in
the case was the necessity of altering the oath for the
purpose of admitting the Catholic. He disliked two
oaths, one for the Protestant, and the other for the
Catholic, and that for the Protestant containing
something more than that sworn to by the Catholic.
1k never attempted to conceal that this was the part
of the question which was infinitely of the most im-
panel:et. He.could not but object altogether to the
resent interpolation, and yet he did not see how the
oath could be altered so as to effect its purpose with-
sat it. An Hooourable Oendeman had said that the
whole question turned upon, whether, on the admis-
vioa of the Catholics to Parliament, the safety of the
State could be guaranteed ?—whether also the con-
duct of the Catholics entitled then to the enjoyment
such a privilege?—and whether, supposing those
Prints to be allowed, this was not the most con.
'rimiest time that the concession should be made ?
irols respect to the last, Monet he had not the same
esaidence in the success of the measure, he agreed
with the Honourable Member that never was there a
doe when the deliberate judgment of Parliament
use more likely to be the deliberate judgment of the
h"Ple—(aleers). As to the second point, he was
moat willing to admit that their conduct for a long
Itime past, and the benefits which they had conferred
co the country, entitled them to everything that

could be granted consistently with the safety of the
State. He did not doubt their sincerity, but he did
not think that their admission to seats in Parliament
was a privilege which, in conformity with their tenets,
they could exercise beneficially to the Country and
Constitution. In his conscience he did not believe
such a privilege could be safely granted. This was
his sincere and deliberate opinion, and, as ad honest
man, he was bound to support his Honourable
Friend's Amendment— (Hear, hear).
Mr. CANNINL opposed the Amendment. He
said he considei ed the point now debated as the most
vital one of the whole--(Hear, hear). It was that
point, the withholding of sahich would take away
much from the value of whatever .he might be con-
ceded, and the concession of which, if all others were
withholden, would of itself be of the greatest im-
portance. It was this privilege which, in addition to
the others which the Right Hon. Gentleman who had
just spoken, and those who maintained his opinion,
confessed themselves ready to grant, that would
form the key-stone of the arch which was to perfect
the ample incorporation of the great intirests which
the present question of conciliation went to promote.
As to those Honourable Members who maintained
with himself the practicability of an arrangement, he
conceived that they were not called upon to nega-
tive the Amendment by any previous vote—(Hear,
hear). An Honourable Gentleman opposite had
argued, that there was much difficulty experienced in
reasoning upon this subject separately, on account
of what bad been already granted in fact, but he
(Mr. Canning) did not admit that there was anything
granted either in fact or argument, that made it im-
proper that the present point should be discussed on
its own exclusive merits. Before he considered the
grounds of the adverse argument, he could not but
acknowledge the manly and candid manner in which
the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Speaker) had deli-
vered his opinion—an opinion, which, as he had
formed it most conscientiously, so he was bound in
duty to express it freely—(/fear, hear). In dis-
charging that great duty, he a not left for a mo-
ment the road of fair argument, and one wholesome
result of the course which he adopted was, besides
contributing to the fair elucidation of the subject) to
elevate and improve the temper of debate—(Hear,
hear). The distribution of what he intended to ob-
serve upon, in reply to the arguments adduced on the
other side, was first to state what he conceived to be
the Claims of the Catholics, under the present cir-
cumstances, to admission to seats in Parliament ; and
secondly, what grounds there were for those dangers
which had been raised to obstruct that concession.—

In speaking of the claims of men to any political of-
fices, he should be understood to speak not of what
were called natural claims, and which had no exist-
ence but in wild and impracticable theory, but of the
claims of men in civilized society, where it was often
expedient to controul the rights of a part for the
safety of the whole : but then that necessity should
be clearly proved, and made demonstrable upon un-
deniable arguments. When the point became a mat-
ter of doubt, it could only be determined by :hewing
whether such a necessity existeJ or no—(Hear, hear).
Without reverting to any wild theory, he must lay it
down as a principle, that there belongs, in the na-
ture of things, to wealth, intelligence, station, and
power, whether natural or acquired, a desire of
something greater ; and the natural ambition of cul-
tivated minds, and the chief object of persons of rank
and opulence in this country, and which had been so
for past ages, and he hoped would be so for countless
ages to come, was the laudable object of a seat in ,
that Assembly which governed the interests of the
Nation—(Hear, hear).—!f any class of qualified per-
sons %sere to be excluded from both the possession
and hope of that honourable privilege, by positive
enactments, circumstances should be strewn to jus-
tify such exclusion by the existence of a necessity
which could not be controuled—(Hear, hear, hear).
Now did such a necessity exist in this case, either in
fact or reason ? He looked to the history of the
country, and found that up to a certain period no one
had been prosecuted or affected at all by such enact-
ments. But in that time the face of Europe had
changed, and the line of demarcation which separated
all nations and people among themselves,was changed.
In looking through Europe, he saw that whatever was
the policy of States, or the basii of their faith, that
line, more especially in Spain and Portugal, was
effaced, and only remained in full force among our-
selves—(Hear, hear).—When our Government was
compared with simpler Monarchies, it would be found
that we enjoyed a fuller as well as a more regulated
liberty, which gave to every man, whatever his ori-
ginal station in society might be, a capability of rising
to the exercise of the highest functions of the Consti-
tution. This right had been denied to the Catholics--
the necessity ought to be made evident ; hehad looked
anxiously for the time when that separation took place.
The claims of the Catholics had been overlaid since
the time of the Reformation ; they were overlaid in
the struggle of parties,. of which they afterwards
formed the minority ; and were more overlaid on
account of circumstances of subsequent misconduct.
But it was the Statute of Charles the Second which
disqualified Catholics, on the ground of foreign
'interference. That foreign interference was the
cause alleged. Here he was enabled to return from
theory to fact, and to ask what was the foreign
interference, and the subservience to foreign Powers
to be apprehended now ?--(Hear, hear, hear).--
The anise was removed, and the consequences which
sowed from it ought no longer to have any existence.
Though the 13th of Elizabeth prevented Catholic
Commoners from sitting in Parliament, yet Queen
Elisabeth did not prevent Peers from sitting therein.
The Commoners had been excluded on the ground
that they were liable to foreign influence, and were
bound to foreign allegiance,- but as Peers ware more
under the view and controul of the Monarch, she
did not exclude them. This proved that Catholics
were not originally prevented from having seats in
that House by doctrine or dogma—Wearasear). It
was not their belief in transubstantiation which ex-
' eluded them, it was a political reason, and not one
of a religious nature. This exclusion lasted two him-
' dred and sixty years. But Peers sat in Parliament
till the 90th Charles 11. which made transubstantia-
tion not the cause, but the symbol of
,the cause,
why both Peers and Commoners were excluded.—
' He would ask then for a plausible reason why Catho-
lic Peers sat in Parliament from the lit of Elizabeth
to the 90th of Charles 11. ? and why it was unsafe
to let them sit there now N.-(Cheers).-..lie would;

• . .
for a moment leave the Commoners out of the ;titles.;
tion, and ask upon what imaginable ground was it I
that Peers sat all that time in the Great Council of '
the State, and were unfit to sit there now—why; in
what strange anomaly did not those laws stand at
present ? Commoners were only deprived of a moral
right, however qualified; they might or might not
be elected to serve in Parliament, but Peers were di-
vested of a positive privilege, and these laws going
further, annulled their birth-right—(Near,
They were dispossessed of an inherent right—they
were deprived of that which belonged to their station
and dignity. They still received summonses to the
House of Lords, and the Catholic Peers were sum-
moned to the trial the other day ; they paid the post-
age of the letters, but could not come !—( Hear, and
a laugh).—With GOD'S blessing, he hoped this would
be altered ;'he did not believe it would lead to the
ruin of the Constitution, that seven Catholic Peers,
when summoned, should redeem themselves from
the postage, and take their seats I---(Loud laughter).—
With respect to the Commoners, some Honourable
Members were afraid that they would outnumber
them, they were in such masses at the doors, looking
for admittance. These Hon. Members, whenever the
subject was spoken of, looked and spoke as if they
really heard the lion as the door, and were alarmed,
lest, if it were once opened, the many-headed Ca-
tholic monster should be sent in to devour them—
(Laughter).—As to the Peers, their number de-
pended on the creation of the Crown, and their right
was only suspended. He could easily believe that
right could be fully exercised by allowing seven Ca-
tholic Peers to take their seats io the House of Lords,
without causing the subversion of the Constitution.
Was any one prepared to support the principle of ex-
clusion with reference to them, on the ground that
there were demagogues among them as among the
Commoners; or would any one say that the Howards
and Talbots bad so degenerated that they could not
sit in the House of Lords without danger to the State?
—(Near, hear)—As to the Commoners—what was
the danger ?—let it be looked in the face, and what
did it really appear to be? WaSit feared that there
would be a very numerous return of Catholics to that
House, or that being returned, they would combine,
.nid being combined, they would endeavour, by force
or argument, to prevail on Parliament to subvert the
lawful religion of the State, and in its place establish
their Church? He never knew of such a combination ;
some people had strong antipathies, and knew at once,
by it sort of instinct, when the cat was in the room I
He did not know whether anybody could discover a
Dissenter in the same manner; but he believed that
it was such a sagacious antipathy, and not the force
of reason, which raised up this danger, and detected
men in selling themselves beforehand to an object of
which they had never dreamed. He would like to
know, supposing the Catholics cherished such inten-
tions, how they were to be accomplished? He would
grant that one hundred Catholics should be reurneo,
for argument's sake, and that they should congre-
gate to overturn the State and the Church, though
he should be obliged to retract that by and bye. Now
he knew but three ways in which any men or body
of men could attempt to carry any object; first, by
reason ; secondly, by numbers; and thirdly, by force
alone. Was it then, in the first place, to be supposed,
that the 100 Catholic Members should possess such
powers of argument and eloquence, should have such
a prodigious ascendancy of intellect and wisdom, as
to prevail on all the other Members of that House to
displace their own Church Establishment, and erect
the altars of the Catholic worshipose on its ruins? Was
tha for a moment to be supposed probable? Was it
not one of the wildest of all imaginable absurdities?
Would not the most distant attempt of the kind be
at once met and defeated ? Would not even a mo-
tion for a scrap of paper, having such a tendency, be
scouted with disdain ?—( Wear, hear). In the next
place, could it be imagined they were to prevail by
numbers ? How was that to be done ? He could not
conceive, unless they treated the majority of that
House in the same way that an Honourable Gentle-
man the other night threatened to treat the opinions
which he had to combat, when in arguing against
Archdeacon Paley, he said he would throw the book
in the fire (A laugh); or, like Harry the Eighth, who
had gone a little farther, when he said to the school-
master who presumed to dispute with him on theo-
logy, " I will throw you in the firel"—(Laughter).—
That of the Catholic was the only interest which was
not represented in Parliament. The very first oath
which a Member of this House took, was an open de-
claration of hostility towards them. Place the Catholic
there, and they would hear no more threats of force.
It often happened, that in the zeal of individuals to
discover imaginary evils or dangers, they entirely
passed over real ones. So it was with regard to the
present Bill. He believed that a Catholic Speaker
might sit in their Chair without incurring any penalty
whatever. That palladium of the British Constitution,
the Oath against Transubstantiation—was directed
to be administered as follows After the election
of a Speaker, a' considerable number of 'Members
being present, each Member shall take the Oath
against Transubstantiation standing at the table,
the Speaker sitting in the Chair." Now, how the
Speaker was to take the oath, unless he could stand
at the table, and sit in the Chair at the same time he
was at a loss to conceive. This was a danger which,
in the case of the Bill not being passed into a law,
Honourable Members would do well to provide
against, for he really considered it to be one equal
in magnitude to any of those which their imagina-
tions had conjured up--(A laugh). Apprehensions of
the most serious nature were entertained when the
admission of Officers of the Navy and Army was
brought forward in the House. lint had any man
ever entertained the slightest apprehension since those
concessions were made? Yet they all remembered
what anxiety and doubt was felt and expressed when
the question was first agitated. It was thought that
his Hou. Friend brought forward his Amendment,
because a similar one had been fatal to another mea-
sure on a former occasion. Speaking his own senti-
ments—and upon this point be it understood, be was
not speaking those of a single individual besides him-
self, to his knowledge—but, speaking his own send-
menu, he did think, that whatever decision the
House might :ome to upon this immediate question,
it ought ndt to be fatal to the Bill. His opinion was,
that in whatever form, it ought in someone or other
to pass that House. He had no fear for the exten-
sion of the Papist power among our Colonies. The
--41,1 Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to deny the

interference of the Bill with ecclesiastical office.. His
Right Hon. Friend had said, that the recognition of.
Popish Bishops was new to the Coil:action. To re-
fute this assertion, he would refer
,to an Act of the
4th of King William, iby which t was enacted as
follows ;-4, Whereas, &c. &c. whomever shat
secute any of the said. Popish Bishis to irenvic-
don, shall have a reward of one hundred pounds;
and the Bishop perpetual imprisonment.". Was not
this a recognition of Popish Bishops ?.-(A
This Act was repealed by the Bth of George 111. ancl
the Popish Bishops then, as now, existed at perfect
liberty. Was he to be told that certain Privet re-
fused to accept these enactments? If there werasuch,
let thews. conie there. He could respect the sanctity
which attached to the character of a Clergyman,
whatever difference of creed might exist between
them. But he knew of no protection which would
enable him to come there with impunity to beard the
Patliament, and tell them that he would not submit
to their emictinents--(Cheers).—He cared not if Dr.
Milner came there marls% in one of his own bullt!--'
(A laugh).—He trusted the House would go on, heed-
less of any threats of representations, coming froM
parties who would lose everything by losing their in-
fluence if this measure was carried—(Hear, hearl)--
He trusted that no fear of ,that kind would operate
to induce the House to refuse that moral claim to
their share of the free franchises of the State which
the Roman Catholics undeniably possessed--(ffear).
He did not mean to say that in so doing they would
not be effecting a great and most important change;
but it was a change not of repulsion, but of progres-
sion. The long and patient struggle to obtain this
concession, would make the change operate like a
measure of: maturity, and render it free from the
difficulties of precocious existence. It mould create
that good will amongst men, that union, harmony,
and peace which was so desirable upon every ac-
cbunt. He had fallen upon perilous times, and if in
kite stormy season thew was one gleam of sunshinic
let them not lose the opportunity of profiting by 14
lest they should leave to themselves oodung but
what must necessarily ensue from disappointment and
despair—( Cheers).
Mr. BRIGHT stated the Constitution of Great
Britain to be fundamentally and unalterably Pro.
testant—(Hear).
Mr. H. DAVIS said, that should the proposed
concessions be granted, the Catholics would not e
satisfied, but would still ask for more. He should
support the Amendment.
Sir T. ACLAND felt extremely anxious on the
present occasion ; and must give a vote in direct op-
position to the opinions of the two last Honourable
Members. It had been said, why should not the So-
vereigri have the choice of his own religion? but to
that it might be replied, that he held the Crown on
the express condition that he should be a Protestant.
At the time of the Test Act, the Earl of Bristol, a
Catholic, advised the House of Lords, as a Protestant
Assembly, to pass the Bill ; observing, at the same
time, that he spoke not as a Catholic, but as a Mem-
ber of a Protestant Assembly. As the question must
ultimately be carried, it would be good policy to
make the concession as soon as possible.

Sir F. BLAKE thought the cause of the Catholics
had been advocated with a liberality that 'did credit
to the age. Instead of stopping here, he was for
going on, and doing that now which ought to have
been done twenty years ago. It ought to have
been the Act of a Union between the two countries;
and had it been then adopted, would have bound
Ireland to us by the tie of gratitude. He trusted it
was not now too late, and. that the House would now
alter the law in their favour; but in granting what
was now asked, he would stop, be would go no fur-
ther, he would make no excuse for the King, who, if
he forgot his religious principles, ought to lose his
Crown--(Hear, hear).
Mr. GRATTAN having been loudly called upon,
proceeded to address the House, but the noise which
prevailed rendered the Hon. ember inaudible in
the Gallery for several minutes. “I advocate the
proposed measure," said the Hon. Gentleman, übe-
cause I conceive that upon it depends the prosperity,
the happiness, and liberty of my country.' He did
think that the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle (Mr.
IBankes) had not made out his case against the Irish
Catholics. He had looked to former periods, and
had ascribed the conduct pursued at those periods to
the present times—(Hear).—ln Ireland the dregs of
the ancient code were still preserved and acted upon.
There was independency given to one party, depend-
ency to another, bat liberty to neither—(Hear, hear).
—He knew both the Catholics and Ptotestants of
Ireland from a long residence asbong them, and he
felt that nothing but the measure now proposed was
wanting to produce harmony and good feeling be-
tween them—(Near, hear).—He trusted that the pre-
sent system would soon terminate, as the evils of it
were greater than any person unacquainted with them
could possibly imagipe. The Hon. Member then
entered into a history of the Penal Laws, and of the
gradual amelioration of that severe Code. He im-
plored the House to allow the present Bill to pass;
by doing so they would confer an inestimable benefit
on Ireland—they would promote peace, harmony,
and good will among its inhabitants. Whatever dif-
ferences of opinion might exist among, the Catholics
at present—whatever might be said by fanatics at
either side, to interrupt the progress of freedom and
damp the hopes of good and wise men, he was cen.
taut that the day was not far distant when this mea.
sure would be hailed by all parties with heartfelt
satisfaction—by the Catholics in particular, with gra.
titude, as relieving them from oppression— by every
patriotic Irishman it would be hailed with delight
and pride, as a measure which would put an end to
as unjust monopoly of place and power—which
would restore to their country the rights she had
lost—the peace, tranquillity, and happiness, which
were in vain to be hoped &r under a system which
'had for its basis the exclusion of the great majority
of the people from the Constitution—(Hear, hear).
The Honourable Gentleman here a review of
the Catholic question from the year 1793 to 1795,
and lamented the recta, in this latter year, of Earl
Fitzwilliam, who was, he would take the liberty to
say, the best Lord Lieutenant Ireland bad ever seen
(Hear,hear).—The HonourableGentleman concluded
by hoping the Amendment of the Honourable Mem.
ber for Cork Castle would be negatived—.that the
Bill would be passed into a law—thus confining
transpsality and 'happiness on his (Mr. Grattan's) nn-