The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-22 00:00:00

TAR STA TESIHA 111

die bloodshed that bad tikes place es the ground of re•
ligions animosities. It was altogether a different thing
ao exclude Roman Catholic Peers from that [louse, at a
' period when the King might be a Catholic himself, end
to exclude them now, when by the law of the land'the
' Sovereign was obliged to profess the Protestant religion.
In the one iestanee a plausibleargensent might be urged
' ie support of each • motion as the present; in the other
there we. no groused whatever for it. He had already
stated his opinion on the subject of the plot in which the
notorious Oates had been co d; but he must ob-
that laws might be necessary though the events
which led to them were highly culpable. Had they not
some whole.ome lawson their statute books, which had
passed ander one of the greatest tyrants that had ever
reigned in England? Dismissing altogether the sub.
jest of the Popish plot, and the conduct of Oates, be
would ask, was there not in the reign of Charles 11. a
emispiracy to overturn the Religion and Constitution of
the State ? A very fair argument might be urged in fa-
roar of an alteration in the law. that if it was to be ap-
plied to this case, it ought also to the Crown—but the
Crown was esseatially Protestant. and must remain so
immutably. He could sot tblek that the perjury of
Oates had any thing to do With the Revolution; bat he
would contend that what was done at the Revolution
ought to have been done at the Reformatioe. (Heir.)
He alluded to the connection which at the formerperiod
bad been established between the Church aid the Sove-
reign. If the King were now to change his religion,
he would be obliged to step dews from his throne, and
descend to the level of an erdioary individual, forfeiting
all his distinctive rights and dignities. Now finding
that to be the case, be would say to the Duke et Norfolk,
when, is his private capacitg. be highly. respected—
" You have no right to be on p. better hooting then the
King upon his throne; oar's is a Protestant Constitution
end does not sanction your claims." He would always
maintain this principle, that no maws was to operate
with respect to the Crows &lose, which seas not also to
have effect with respect to the other estate& of the realm.
The principle of exclusion, as it pegeededCatbolic Peers,
was renewed and re-elfin:4 in the Act of Union with
Scotland ; it was renewed and re-a/armed in the Act of
Settlement; it was renewed and r•-efhnned in the reign
of Door's 11. He would ask, if oar ancestors did not
mean the laws to be fundamental ruts of the Constitu-
tion? But the Noble Earl oppoeste had said that this
BilletesSemplated only the restoration of a right. aid to
Beier beak things to the state la which they had formerly
bees. All laws were la the lest instance experimeatal,
sad their Lordships
.could sot look before the time of
Elisabeth for any pnaciple that cotultd of the
a prece-
dent. What was the coalmines= of th parsed
from the time of Elia. doter to the la tofthe reign of
Chesil ? A sane of contiaial bleodsbed, fora period of
nearly 151 years, and all for Want of • due cessoetion
hay mg bees ettablished between the Church and the
Sortreigs. Were they thee with the advaispes of the
latter period before their eyes, to gem ma a without
a compass ? Bet it was that all Autger h long erased
to exist, sad the recurrence of such misses as bad takes
place could not possibly be anticipated. He was Indeed
a bold man who maid say wt. ' Who, in the year 1630;
could have foresees OWN* monarchy would be abo-
lished—that the House of Lords would be abolished;
and that the bienrchy "said be abolisbed? Who could
sag what disastrous acmes might again occur. not, per-
haps. through the agency of Catholics, bat from unfore-
seen causes arising out of any Intriegenteat of them
laws. which our ancestors bad wisely enacted for ear
protection. He was the MN opposed to this Bill, see-
ing it could not be adopted as an isolated measure. A
great deal mere must be dose, or their Lordships had
mach better do nothing at all. It might, perhaps, be
ezpodiest to make eaerMms, I. order to attain so great
eScit as hi give to Catholics a Nil pa:tit:Spades In
N statue; bat tale Bill would sot set the
rat When a - NOM Pew bind et his r.
Plunkett) bad lest year introduced a Mamas. be so
with • view to Anal adjustment. This was as object for
which sacrifices might be naade—but what did this Bill
effect towards it? Nothing at all; It left the whole
question open for discussion as before. If the time
should come when tbe doors of the, Legislature were to
he thrown open to the Catholics generally, Catholic
Peers would of course be admitted; though for his own
part he thought there wars melt eirosger objection to
the latter than to Ohs tinier ismensch, se by
their right of esmmene. their ships were called
upon to attend* the interests of a Church decidedly
opposed to the dactrieseprofessed by the Catholic Peers.
who were to sit among them.—(Hear, Imar.)—ln the
measure introduced last year. securities Ee:ldroposed ;
but it was asked. that the Bill which • them.
should go Ijssel paint, with the Bill of lei, and that
one should sot pass without theother. However, le the
Bill now before their Lordships, the question of secs-
rides was entirely lost sight of, and therefore be consi.
dered it as set at rest. On all former occasions the Ca-
tholic questions were brought forward chiefly with
reference to the state of Ireland; and very fairly so, for
the great mass of the population being of the Catholic
persuasion, many thought it adviseable to get rid of ex-
chokes, which were considered to effect the tranquil-
lity of the country. Bat this Bill did sot confer a single
benefit on Inland; it applied only to English Peers,
and eventually a few Irish Catholic Posse aught obtain
'eats if it passed; the *amber would be very trifling,
and the advantages to the general body of the Catho-
lics sone at all. He would ask the., whether this was a
measure likely to prove satisfactory to the Catholics of
Ireland; he certainly thought sot; and be would far-
ther say, that it was likely to prove a positive evil. If
it served as a step in the geseral measure, it might be
of some service; but that sot being the case it would
only be galling to the feelings of the Irish datbolies.—.
Another objectioe to this Bill was, that the granting
privileges to Catholic Peers and 004 to Catholic Com-
masers, was obeezions and hostile to the principles of
a free tiovernmest. With respect to the Army and
Navy being throws open to Catholics. it did not follow
that though enacesmos was made in one instance it
should be made in another; for the rumpus in both
might be materially different. He bad already stated
why a diatinctioa formerly existed in ee eegseam of a
choice of relies' being optionalarith the Crown ; bat
that was sot now the case. He had bees taught to
believe that though the possessions sad attributes of
individuals might differ, the rights of all were the
same.—(Hear.)—He bed bees taaght to believe that the
hereditary right which a Minister might happen to
enjoy, was to him as good • right as the title of the
King to hie Crown. and so far from weakening the
Constitution, this privilege firmed its greatest strength.
—(Cries of bear hear, hear.)—He weld sap thee,
with this impression upon his mind that the capacity
of the Commoner so be elected was as good as the
right of the Peer to sit. He would ask their Lord-
skips then upon what right weld they say that they
would sot ohket to a Peer sitting. though they would
object to a Comeemser being elected. This would invade
a principle which constituted their Lerdships highest
pride; namely, that while they had peculiar privileges,
they enjoyed them privileges so the prejudicei of so
man. It was spots this principle that that House had
originally excluded men who were thought hostile to
the religion of the State. Bet the Noble Bari said that
their Lordships ought to pass this Bill eves if they west
so further. New be (tbe Earl of Li l) would say,
that they mod go farther. If they made a stead there,
it would be a most invidious act towards the Catholic
body at Ism. The Bill settled settling; it led! the
whole questios precisely is the some state as Won. Ho
sow so possible pod that could molt tram it, wino it

drew a most Illiberal tehtinrtiee Mimeo the peerae-
and the confines/Its.. He asked their Lordships m look
at this measure, slid say whether they thought it calcu
lated to produce any advantage whatever ?
Lord GRENVILLE said that he shoeld have re
mained silent upon this questiue upon which lie ha.'
so often delivered his sentiments to their Lordship.
had sot the grosuds of his Noble Friend's opposition
placed him under the ity of rising to enter Ili,
protest against them. He had called upon them t.•
I consider whether any benefit to the State would be
gained by the passing of this Bill, and his (Lord Oren-
' vine's) answer to the Noble Earl's question, was, that
from it would accrue to the State the greatest possible
of all benefits—that of doing justice—(hear)—sad in
comparison with that he set all otherconsideratiees as
eothing. He said to them, "be just and fear not."
Even if it were tree that the Bill before them involved
the interest of six individuals only—if but eons, and
that one, instead of the highest, of the lowest in the
country, he sbopld say that they were mot at liberty to
put any queen,* as to the cosaequeeces, er what
of - enema brere likely to follow it. Stop where
As . dim* they could not stop. He considered
the jr. question, of which this was a branch, as
• aff and extensive policy, which might cosh,
in%
a
• he ih Respire the greatest benefit it was pot-
s -forthd mind of man to eonceire. But be regarded
the pretest Twenties before their Lordships as an act
of retribetive justice, to timid, upon which their Lord-
elilie,Ware Arra in their judicial, lied not their legis-
lative cipdieltim..---Ztlear.)—Tliire was se ground ea
which it was possible for any power or authority to
divest a Peer of that noose of his civil rights. but
some immediate, present and overbearing state neces-
sity. such as should justify their tampering with the
Domination itself. The question here was whether
this right, already'vested in the individuals from
sources as high as any right could be derived from,
could any logger, with the smallest shadow of justice.
be withheld i mid in that point of view., the real ques-
tion wee. whither they should hesitate to commit the
meet Migrant isjustiee. - Mach had been said about
securities, and there appeared to lie something is that
word which molted a remote api..ebensioe of danger.
Whoa the lipstimi of Catholic Emancipation was first
raised, he felt a great desire to provide securities for
whatever dangers could be shewn to exist. But every
heir's deltaideration. aid the subsequent coarse of
emote slice the year 1801, bad rendered the desire
less strong in his riled ; and if the Bill of last
year had mem up to them without securities. he
should have raised his voice to dissuade their
Lordships from attempting to add securities to it.—
(Cries of " Hear, bear, bear.)—So far from soliciting
votes from this measure, under an idea that it was not
to go farther. be assured their Lordships that it was his
spiel., that the expediency and justice of the case was
so imalfest that the only way of putting the quer
dos to rest washy looking it 'fairly in the fece. The
appestats oftlie Masan assured them that setae from.
ng Titus Oates, they detested the very same of
rptill“ Platt but they went quite content to say to these
eix esellisediagindivideals.that they and their latest pm-
terityabould siaiseit to the deprivation of the greatest
privilege which paid be enjoyed, calling it only the
minimums ofilbe wrongs of their ancestors. Why
aboald they await themselves of the prejudices of Tittle
Hata Oporslsorietthe commission dr a wrong. Their
iiillellti, it wall dike, were to sealant for that 'sag
Ithi:Nsoultithogilla t 1 from this day forward itwoulit. be
of the p.ceeens time that.
aathecemid sews in depriving these men of their jut
rights. We used more than asy other oosutry did
yet ofliberty and law, and he believed that however the
coustry might have been surrounded by dangers. at no
period aim history did we impede** the smallest par-
tials ofdanw free the law of Quilt Elisabeth, for
permideg CiOtolie Peers their undoubted right of sit-
ting sod melt' la that house. The Noble Lord referred
to some Forties' of history to prove that the Popish pints
wets is most cases sot the plots of the country against
the Stair, bat of the State professing Protestantism
Zirlest die Protestant establishmest of the country.
He chewed that nobody bad ever been mere devoted to
the Crown thasthe Wividnala who were the object of
the Bill before the holies. It appeared to him that the
osly principle upon which they could refuse to pass this
Bill from the Assam of security, was the same which
would jeatify their fortifying this peaceful city because
it come was *might necessary to surround it with walls
of defence. ?ht danger being completely, absolutely.
and entirely removed, all that rested upon that part of
the question must fall to the ground; and be mast ask
os whatgrounds they were to perpetuate what was only
erected aeon some temporary emergency. If they would
look at tins measure in its true light as as act of restric-
tive justice. he would venture to predict that it was one
from which no danger would acorns to the country. Ho
maintained that whether he was of opinion that the sae
seeding niemares oestesiplated were right or not, It
eaght to mahatma dllimrescii as to this question, which
was not oesof expediiney esd policy, but of right to be
dose. It ware lamas of property. of privilege, and
of birthright to be redeem,. which could no lodger be
withheld without the greatest injustice.-411isfi 461*-)
Lord REDESDAL said it was the duty of the Ls
&litters to protect the Protestant Religion ; yet. ac-
cording to the argument of several Noble Lords, they
were to call perms to discharge the duty of Legisla-
tors who were beadle to the religion of the country.—
Could there be a stronger ground of exclusion than
difference in religion. The fact was, the LegislamM
had a public duty to perform for a Protestant people,
"which Roman Catholics never could perform consistent
with their own' couscientiotte view.. Their duty was
different. Catholic Prelates might jest as well eit
with the Ravened Bishops as Catholic 'Nen ell :n that
lumen They were asked why they required the oath ?
His skewer was to support the Established Church.—
They osittieedlook at the oath imposed ea the :Soft-
raise. made him swear to protest Protestantism,
yet they wi to give him Roma', Catholic Lrgisla-
ton. A Prometwat succession required a Protestout le-
gislator*. James 11. esdearoored by his power that
which they were then called Imes to de is their legisla-
tive capacity. The Noble Lord then adverted to Ire-
land, and expressed his opinion that tke Protestant es-
tablisbiseet is that country could not stand if superior
political power waa given so Raman Catholic .Wgia-
lators.
Lord HOLLAND could not admit that the danger
just stated by the Noble and Learned Lord. could pos-
sibly result from the measure ceder consideration. but
before he, entered into the disessalos be should per ,
that the !Reeding Order 71, be read.
The Order was mcordieg4 read from the Jos
by tho Clerk. It was aa order that se with shield
impend on any Peer. the refusal to take which w
disqualify him to sit in Parliament. .
Lewd HOLLAND that mid be wee compelled Madsen
to mime of the circumstances which gave the A. the
standing order be bad vested. lie should bra/sever first
manna, that that order *met the qesitien es its true
footing. It held out to the boom that Pain bad been
deprived of their privilege Miappeor is thit Woe. The
oaseproloadi was throw, is these who opposed the