[354]

HISTORICAL CHRONICLE.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 23. Numerous petitions were presented for and against the Catholic Claims.

The order of the day for the committal of the CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL being read, Mr. Bankes moved an amendment, the effect of which was to omit the clause altogether, and exclude Catholics from both Houses of Parliament. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Moore, the member for Dublin, opposed by Mr. Peel, and negatived by 207 against 84.-Another division took place upon an amendment proposed by Sir R. Inglis, that after the words in the oath "that will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm," the words "ecclesiastical as well as civil," be inserted; which, however, was rejected by 276 against 114.-The last division was upon an amendment proposed by Mr. Estcourt, to add after the words " any intention to subvert," or "make any attempt to subvert or injure," which was lost by a majority of 262 to 99.-Upon the motion of Mr. Peel, the words "So help me God,' were added to the declaration, thereby converting it into an oath.

March 24. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, an amendment was proposed by Mr. Peel relative to Roman Catholics voting at elections, and, being elected, upon taking the oath; the clause was carried by a large majority.-In the clause which excepts certain offices from being held by Roman Catholics, an amendment was proposed by Mr. Peel, and adopted, for inserting the following words," the offices of Guardians or Justices of the United Kingdom, or Regent of the United Kingdom, during the absence of his Majesty, or his successors, from the same, under whatever name, style, or title, such offices may be constituted or appointed."-The Marquis of Chandos wished to extend the number of offices excepted, by the insertion before the name of "the Lord Chancellor," of the words, "First Lord Commissioner of his Majesty's Treasury," because, by the clause as it stood at present, the First Lord, who was considered as the Prime Minister, might

be a Roman Catholic. The amendment was opposed upon several grounds. First, that the First Lord of the Treasury was not necessarily Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary of State might be, and had been, Prime Minister. Next, that the Church patronage was not inherent in the office of First Lord of the Treasury. And, thirdly,

[April,

because if a Roman Catholic should become Prime Minister, he was debarred by a special clause in the Bill from interfering with the disposal of the Church patronage.-Sir Edward Knatchbull took a wider range of exclusion-he wished to exclude Roman Catholics from the Privy Council.-The amendment proposed by the Marquis of Chandos was negatived by a majority of 218 to 98.Sir E. Knatchbull then proposed his amendment relative to the Privy Council, which was rejected without a division. Some other amendments of minor importance were also rejected. In the 9th enacting clause relative to presentations to ecclesiastical benefices, the exercise of the right of presentation was committed to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, instead of being given to Commissioners.-The 16th clause, which enacts that Roman Catholics shall not assume, under a penalty of 1001. for each offence, the titles to Sees or Deaneries which belong to the Archbishops, Bishops, and Deans of the Established Church in England or Ireland, was agreed to without much discussion. The 20th clause relative to the Jesuits and Religious Orders, occasioned some debate, but no alterations were made in it. A fresh clause was agreed to, upon the motion of Mr. Peel, which provides that no person in holy orders of the Church of Rome shall be capable of being elected a Member; and that if any member shall take or receive holy orders from the Church of Rome, his seat shall become void. The Bill then passed the Committee, and was ordered to be reported on Friday the 27th.

March 25. Mr. Peel moved for leave to bring in a Bill for consolidating the Laws relative to the qualification and jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in Counties. The

Right Honourable Gentleman said, that the object of the Bill would be rather to facilitate the execution of the duties of Justices of the Peace, than to trench on the privileges of Magistrates, or to limit their powers. The Bill, he said, would abolish the distinction between Justices of the Quorum and other

Justices, and make regulations for holding Petty Sessions throughout the country; it also contains a general form of conviction in all cases for which the law has not already provided. The Bill would require Magistrates to make a return to the Clerk of the Peace of the amount of all fines and penalties they might have imposed for a certain antecedent period. It would also determine

1829.]

Proceedings in the present Session of Parliament.

in those cases which are not provided for by law at present, when an appeal should be allowed against a summary conviction, and contained a provision of great importance for regulating the fees of Clerks to Justices of the Peace. After some discussion the Bill was introduced, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on April 8th.

The INNKEEPERS' BILL was read the third time, and passed.

March 26. The House having gone into a Committee for the further consideration of the IRISH FREEHOLDERS QUALIFICATION BILL, Mr. Moore proposed an amendment that 201. should be substituted for 10l-a provision which he observed was absolutely necessary to secure the objects of the Bill; and without which, little or no good would be effected by the measure. The amendment was rejected; and the whole of the clauses being gone through, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received the following day.

March 27. Mr. Peel having moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, Sir G. Rose said, he considered the present question as a religious, and not a political one, and in this light was it looked upon by the country at large. The constitution would certainly be endangered by the admission into power of so powerful and so united a body as the Roman Catholics.-Mr. Bradshaw expressed himself favourable to the Relief Bill, which he considered a matter of justice; as well as to the Disfranchisement Bill, which he considered a matter of expediency.—Mr. O'Neil thought the argument of expediency a very dangerous one, and it should not be admitted unless a clear case was made out. He contended that after the passing of the present law, a still more dangerous Catholic Question would remain unsettled.-Mr Ewart thought the Laws against Roman Catholics were subversive of the spirit of Christianity; and therefore he was disposed to support the measures of relief. The Marquis of Blandford observed, that he did not find any guards for the protection of the Protestant Establishments, which these laws were framed to support. What was there to secure them against the domination of the Romish Church? It had been said, "if you do not like these measures what have you to propose." He would say in answer, let these measures be sent to every town in the kingdom, and read from the hustings, and then you would soon be told that they were odious to the nation. On the motion that the report be engrossed, the House divided, when there appeared, for the motion, 288-against it, 106-Majority, 127.

355

ROMAN Catholic Relief BILL be read the third time. - The Marquis of Chandos moved that it be read a third time this day six months.-Mr. G. O. Moore seconded the motion.

Mr. Hyde Villiers, Mr. Townsend, Mr. J. E. Denison, and the Solicitor General, supported Mr. Peel's motion.-General Gascoyne, Mr. Pearse, Mr. Hart Davis, the Hon. Mr. Cust, Sir Charles Burrell, and Mr. W. Bankes, opposed the measure.

The Solicitor General said, if he believed that these concessions would in the slightest degree weaken the Protestant faith, he should be the last person to advocate the change. It was because he felt well assured that without this measure the Irish Church might fall, and that even the English Church was in danger, that he gave his humble assistance in bringing forward this measure. It was on these grounds that he at first gave it his concurrence, and that he now continued to support it.

Sir C. Wetherell strongly opposed the measure. He denied that the securities in the Bill were of any utility. Whoever thinks (said he) that this Bill does not endanger the maintenance of the Protestant Church may, salvá conscientiâ, be a strong supporter of it; but whoever cannot entertain that opinion must oppose it, in order to support the Constitution of 1688, which the King, and all his sworn servants, are bound to support and maintain. The oath in this Bill furnishes no security. Who can prove that a Catholic Privy Councillor has given illegal advice to the King? Who can check a Catholic Prime Minister in his attempts against the Church? It is said we may have the security of the Home Secretary. But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will keep the keepers? Who will stand guard for the Church, and say that no man shall eat her bread who disputes her doctrines and betrays her interests? (Cheers.) That no man who writes one day on one side and another day on another (Cheers)-shall receive her support, and that such tergiversating men shall not be allowed in the Church? If the Prime Minister recommends an improper appointment, it is said that the Home Secretary will refuse to countersign it. But suppose the Home Secretary is a Catholic; or, if he is not, suppose him to be a friend to the Premier, so that what one does the other will, through sympathy, adopt—then, I say, you have no security. Among other innovations, this Bill is to give us the benefit of Catholic Judges: Allybone was a Judge and a Jesuit, the last that graced our Bench, who wore the ermined exterior of a Judge, and scandalised and vilified the administration of British law. By his charge to the Jury in the case of the Seven Bishops, he gave us a sample of what may be expected from a Papist when elevated to that

March 30. Mr. Peel moved that the station.

356

Proceedings in the present Session of Parliament.

Mr. Peel delivered a very long and argumentative speech in reply. He stated that it was not until the 23d of Feb. that the Attorney General expressed any opinion against the measure, or any determination not to draw the Bill. The intentions of the Government were communicated to the Hon. Gentleman seven days before the meeting of Parliament; he assisted in drawing the Bill for suppressing the Catholic Association; he assisted us with his advice, and never during that period expressed any doubt of It was the general policy of the measure. not until the night when the Hon. Gentleman made his speech that any member of the Government knew or thought that it was repugnant to the oath the Hon. Gentleman had taken as Attorney General to draw the Bill. Mr. Peel then replied to the objections of Sir Charles relative to the securities, and thus concluded: I shall follow the example of the pilot, who does not always steer the same course to guard the ship from danger, but a different course under different circumstances, as they arise, in order to save the ship from the very dangers which the captain and crew have most to dread. This has been the opinion at all times of the men who have been called to the practical administration of public affairs. -The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud and general cheering.

Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Sadler, and Mr. Trant, spoke against the motion.

On a division, there appeared for the Amendment 142; against it 320; majority 178. The Bill was then read the third time, and passed.

The IRISH FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS BILL was also read the third time, and passed, without discussion.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 31. The ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL having been brought up by Mr. Peel from the House of Commons, on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, it was read the first time without a division. The noble Duke then gave notice that he should move the second reading of the Bill on Thursday the 2d of April.

The IRISH QUALIFICATION OF FREEHOLDERS BILL was also read the first time.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the same day, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the AUCTION DUTIES. He then moved that the present Duties of Excise on property sold by auction should cease; and that, in lieu thereof, there should be charged on every 100l. when the sum did not exceed 10,000l., 11.; when the sum exceeded 10,000l. and did not amount to 20,000, the Duty should be 11. on every 100%. of the first 10,000l. and 10s. on every 100l. after; when the sum exceeded 20,000l.

[April,

and did not amount to 40,000l. the Duty would be 15s. on every 100l. of the first 20,000l. and 5s. on every 100l. after; when the sum exceeded 40,000l. the Duty should be 10s. on every 100l. of the first 40,000l. and 1s. on every 100l. after; and in the case of the amount not being 100l. altogether, or, of their being a fraction of 100l. the Duty should be 24d. per pound. The Resolution was agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 2.

In

The Duke of Wellington having moved the second reading of the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, proceeded to state the causes which had led to the present measure. a speech of great length, he brought under consideration the disturbed and disaffected state of Ireland for the last thirty years, and particularly the dangerous spirit of organization which had lately manifested itself. This organization was to be proved (said the noble Duke) by the effects which it had produced in the election of churchwardens throughout the country; in the circumstances attending the late election for the county of Clare; in the circumstances that preceded and followed that election; and in the simultaneous proceedings of various bodies of men in the South of Ireland. This organization had produced a state of society in Ireland which we had not heretofore witnessed, and an aggravation of all the evils which before afflicted that unfortunate country. The state of society in Ireland was such that the King could not create a Peer, as his Majesty's subjects could not venture to recommend the risks of an election, but still there was no resistance to the law; the magistrates were terrified, and did nothing; the means in possession of Government did not enable Government to put an end to this state of things. We might have asked Parliament (said his Grace) to enable us to put down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of prevailing upon Parliament to pass such a Bill, without being prepared to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a proper remedy to that which Parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease? 1 am one of those who have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally, I may say, in civil war; and I must say this, that if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I was attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. I say that there is nothing which destroys property and prosperity, and demoralizes character, to the degree that civil war does; by it, the hand of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against his father; servant betrays master, and the whole scene ends in confusion and disorder. I am old

1829.]

Proceedings in the present Session of Parliament.

enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in Ireland at the timeI was employed in another part of the dominions; but, my Lords, if I am not mistaken, the Parliament of Ireland at that time walked up to my Lord Lieutenant with a unanimous address, beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down that unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support in order to carry that measure into execution. The Lord Lieutenant did take those measures, and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my Lords, what happened in the very next Session? The Government proposed to put an end to the Parliament, and to form a Legislative Union between the two Kingdoms, for the principal purpose of proposing this very measure; and, in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after this Legislative Union, after those successful endeavours to put down this rebellion, was the very measure with which I am now about to trouble your Lordships. His Grace here argued, as a proof of the measure being desirable, that all the leading Protestants of Ireland were favourable to it; and he passed a high eulogium on the Clergy of the Established Church in that country, than whom there did not exist, in his opinion, a more exemplary, a more pious, and more learned set of men. Having thus shown the necessity for some change in the system of Government, I shall now proceed briefly to state the general provisions of the Bill. The Bill itself is very specific and comprehensive. It concedes to the Roman Catholics every office of the State unconnected with the administration of the affairs of the Church. concedes to them Seats in Parliament, and many other offices and situations from which they had formerly been altogether debarred. By the proposed law, they are not required to take the oath of supremacy; but an oath of allegiance had been framed, in which a great part of the oath of supremacy has been retained, and which will answer sufficiently that particular purpose. Many in this House, as well as throughout the country-and I confess I was of that opinion myself-have contended that the State ought to have some security for the Protestant Church against the encroachments of the Catholic Clergy; but I confess, on examining the question, and looking more minutely than before at the foundation on which the security of the Church and State rests, I could find no security which would be satisfactory. The Bill, I think, my Lords, as it stands, affords more security than any that could have been received either from the Catholic Clergy or a Foreign Potentate. The King has sworn to preserve the Protestant Church, the Bishops and Clergy, and every thing belonging to them. Now, how could he appoint a Catholic Bishop

It also

357

without giving him a diocese? There could be no doubt that, after the Roman Catholics had been put on the same footing with their Protestant fellow-subjects, they would have no separate interests, and could, therefore, have no grounds for confirming the suspicions which were entertained against them. If, however, we should be disappointed of the hopes of tranquillity, and attempts to create dissatisfaction should be renewed, I will without delay come down to lay the state of affairs before Parliament, in order to enable the Government to meet the danger.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said he always opposed with great pain any measure brought forward by Government; but it was with still greater pain that he now rose to oppose a Government whose measures he generally approved, and for whom he had the highest respect. But he could not bring

his mind to believe that this measure would be productive of tranquillity to Ireland, or allay the animosities which prevailed there. The constitution of the country he considered was essentially Protestant; but if this measure were carried into effect it would cease to be so. The Archbishop concluded with moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.-The Primate of Ireland said the Bill removed all efficient securities, and would not make friends of those for whose good it was intended.-The Bishop of Oxford supported the Bill. The Rev. Prelate said, I think it convenient to grant concession, for I hold it to be a just proposition that whatever action is not sinful may be granted upon the principle of expediency.The Bishop of Salisbury expressed his continued and decided opposition to the measure. His Lordship at the same time stated his desire to support His Majesty's Ministers if he could, and expressed the great pain which he experienced in differing from them, as he felt in conscience bound to do, upon this question.-The Earl of Winchelsea said it was evident, by the number of petitions, that the measure was a most odious one in the eyes of the public.-Lord Somers maintained that the removal of the Catholic disabilities would deprive the Protestants of nothing, and would do nothing to injure their religion.-The Earl of Harewood opposed the Bill.-The Marquis of Lansdowne contended that a power had arisen in Ireland, which could not be put down but by concession. The Catholics possessed political power; and it was the object of the Bill to bring that power within one that was regular and salutary—the Protestant power, and thereby produce tranquillity.-The Bishop of London opposed the Bill; as did also the Marquis of Salisbury.-Viscount Wicklow spoke in support of the measure; and the Earl of Enniskillen against it.—Calls for