The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

esteM Oftior power. It _
se of Peen upon the impeachment of Mr..
at a precedenrwas endeavoured to be draw
it of Lord Stealbed; when the continousco roe
Isaac-of the attainder was 'aged, discussed.
seldom, who was no friend to Popery. sad Lord
, who hod certainly not transmitted say such
o his descendants, delivered their opintoas
I. the inaocenee of Lord Strafford. Lord Kenji's
she precedent, and said that whatever might
redone While the passions were warm aad pre-
geosig, be most think of Lord Strailbed, that
as .8o man, when reason had regaised her
0 voila not agree with Idm in proaeoncing
stiun to have been a species of legal weeder.
he Honourable 31r. would set this
he evidence of Titus Oates. and he was sure
must agree with him, in concluding that
one Peers had been exelnded from the enjoy.
their jest rights ostler false pretences. The
Lords were induced to cast then' frosn their ho-
er the dread of the Papists Plut, and Lord Steal
novence now stood clear to the world. Upon
Ands the Parliament ought to repeal the Bill.
gist to do so because a violence had been done
ot rights ind privileges, which, according to
r of the house, ought not to be touched hot wills
This resasratiun of right in individuals could
iii without detriment to the State, and without
le to Isearshernings amongst any portion of
le, subjects. He most say that the case of these
rsons stood upon grounds very different from
ie general Catholic body. There was a great
e between eligibility and possession. No one
mere reaelify than he slid the right of Roman
lietstlusion tout in that house. Het it was an
right, end sow that was always clogged with
oadt%tows. But in the case of the Peer they
s him Isis direct possession. to which lie was
by birth. And as there was • difference
right, so, there was In the indiction of the.
If a penes *u not eligible to sit
house of thrombosis, he might be debarred
her maser; he might be a revenue officer,
,ight toot Inv* the good fortune to be cho-
i did not boor with !dui an imperishable mark
elusion. Withtlse Peer this mark was indeli-
hoever nab the'Coronet upon Lis brow, whoever
s proud tides erinnterated, saw and heard the
his diegissee. How much more cruel, then,
deprivation ts him. They had taken'frosu him
ght, and inflisoed open him • wrung and a die-
IV hid! Ise could sever hide or 11•11140 to feel. If Isis
ere emitted, they Would only then be doing
slice to the parties who had snffered. They had
fifty yeats tokile great allowances bad been
other. knacks •f the Catholic body. They
üby the Went apectators of the benefits granted
and if. they should slow receive that , benefit
rev, by an naailltorised prosy, he would not
said be witlkontiVeir countenance, bat 'certainly
baring p.vitei.pated in originating the request.
wished to cdperie to the lion. Member for So.
sire, to whom he was.much indebted for the kind
ix which belied been mentioned by hint, that be
he had made out exactly such a case as he had
be necessary fur the :access of the present mo-
le haul craw* it clear diatincticsa bet* ern this and
era; claims of the Citholic itedi ; such a case as
x argued upon removed and separate iriaciples.,
ly as one canoe in Westniinster.ball could stand
whir. He would venture to pledge his life, that
ms shield be Inongt atoll argued beforellany tri-
r the mature. it wuttill hive • verdict in its (so-
Coimarei 1413:47, debt Ifs Jury were robe int--
ow the a of the nestoeu4oa of. thou
be such • ney,,considering the lumen's,* of
',wl the innoseora of the proem sharers of his
mt. would not fail unanimously to pronounce
Ts, entitled tea restoration. • H. bogged to lo-
on the House, that the carrying of this motion
sfstanafily include the rest of the- question,—
sit that was n?w,,fils v,the great hody of the
I? Not the exclusidis from olfice—Oot rick.
this or that Harms -df Valli/meat t• but the
the dirgreeled Mantle, which ws*conveyed byl
shin. The Clergi of toiglaid whe ennobled I
ti rig of their Bishops rutin topper House, tkOugh
shvisail ware* by.. legislative ?sullying. eaclud-
places• in the lower. Os the same •grounds
meanest Cath•lic 'participate is the stigma
m thrown spew •mstit an illustrious character as
of Norfolk by the beelusion, eve" though that
had not biome!, the 'remotest prospect of ob.
.n -Are of any drocAption. When a scheme
osetl which considerably affected our eurrucy,
en said thatit would Unease the Tabu of tie
is pittance, and this circumstance was thought
coutemptibk asgisnent in favoar of this mei-
II in like manner the elevation DI the Catholic
all be conferring i general beleftost On whole
ithiAic body. He trusted he had dove right in
ging into the general question; and in case he
e met in the course of this debate by an user-
this slid in fact embrace the• whole'questiont be
t due to candour to state at on e, that he should
eider his cause as gained.—(Cheers.)--He de.
Soon' Irby Catholic Peers should be excluded
,ct oi4;hariesvafter they had bees expressly re-
r that of iitisabet It ? The oaths administered to
dies, by their enactments, went of two sone.—
re considered as tests of allegiance; others were
try purpose of eulogies, sustaining Catholicism
well a condemnation, and locansistent with al-
The oath of Elisabeth was framed with a
Le admission of those who could take it; but
'harles was intended to be an erclusion, for it
known to be an oath which no Catholic would
he measure imposing the latter oath, was sub-
y a new hill, though it reinforced the onda Ole-
. It had been declared to be a new bald die
f the debates upon it ; and he therefore
'formed, whether that was a wise policyleht
led the provisions of the Act of MOW to
the pacts of Queea Elisabeth ? Why were they
not for one of two reasons, to exclude thethey
'lurk, or in consequence of the disclosure of the
dot ?If the latter, was the assertion of the Et. I
1 that plot to be believed? Had the Catholic
that day been justly or unjustly impeached? If
why exclude the present Peers; and if jostles
the Peers in question not been brought to trial;
le that one of them bad been brought to trial ;
nuld put it to the candour of any man whether
cence of that one bad not been completely este.
And, assuming his innocence, was it to be
I the Catholic Peers of the present day were to
did, because one of their number had been un-
it to death ? In readmitting them, in render-
hoznage to justice there could be no possible
1 the precedent, for the whole question was ad-
o !Lis instance to be one of expediency. He
well aware that in conceding it to be a condos
9e.acy, be was considerably anderstatiog the
this case on the question of right. But he dis-
the discussion of the abstract question of right,
X did so merely because upon the particular
-Laces of the case he placed it on the question of
'ay; and he trusted that even on this groood he
itive the good fortune to gain the opinion of the
i e was satisfied that appeals to former times
teller habits were sometimes dangerous, and were
to ohjection; but he could not resist the in.
ahe felt to make such appeal. His appeal bow-
s front the times of Titus Oates to those of Ell-