HC Deb 15 March 1825 vol 12 cc1030-3
Lord Palmerston

presented a petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of the University of Cambridge, against the concession of any further claims to the Catholics. The petitioners declared that, though their apprehensions on this subject had been often previously stated to the House, they had recently been much strengthened by the violent language used by the Catholics in this country. The petitioners discovered, both in that language and in the language used by the Catholics elsewhere, proofs of their entertaining principles hostile to religious liberty. They were convinced that if the concessions which the Catholics now asked were granted, they would lead to fresh demands. They also thought that the measures which they sought to carry could only be devised with the intention of producing a great change in the church establishment of England. They therefore prayed the House not to entertain the question, and more especially not to entertain that part of it which went to admit Roman Catholics into parliament.

Mr. W. J. Bankes

said, he should be sorry if this petition were laid upon the table in perfect silence, and without obtaining some portion of that attention to which it was entitled on account of the quarter from which it came. On a former night, when the absence of all petitions against these claims was alluded to, as a proof that a great change had taken place in the public mind upon this question, he had taken the liberty of warning honourable gentlemen not to lay too great stress upon that circumstance, as he believed many petitions were at that moment in preparation. In that belief he had not been disappointed. Indeed he had at the time information that the university which he had the honour to represent intended to petition. He would mention a fact connected with this petition, which might give it a stronger recommendation to the notice of gentlemen on the Opposition benches, than it would otherwise possess. Those who were at all acquainted with the institutions of our universities, were aware that it was but seldom that a layman filled the office of vice-chancellor. A layman, however, now filled it, and fully concurred in the prayer of the petition. It was consequently a petition which expressed the sentiments, not merely of the clerical, but also of the lay members of the university, and therefore might be received without exciting the sneers and laughters which had been excited by some petitions on the same subject, for no other cause that he could learn, except that they came from clergymen. He protested against the scoffs and scorns which were cast upon the petitions of the clergy. Considering their education, their rank in life, and their importance in the country, they were entitled to attention and respect. As they were the only class of men who had no persons to represent their interests in that House, it was unfair, impolitic, and unjust, to treat them with ridicule, when they presented to its consideration a humble but honest declaration of their opinions. They were, besides, the only class of men who were so treated; for if a word was said against the army, the navy, the law, or the commerce of the country, numbers of members belonging to those different occupations were ready to start up, and retort with interest the sarcasm on the offender. The clergyman, however, was obliged to silence, and could not defend himself by the eloquence of any of his brethren. He ought, there- fore, to be defended by the generosity of the House against sneers and sarcasms; which, if they meant any thing, could only mean that he ought not to come there as a petitioner. He contrasted the different modes in which the petitions of the Catholic clergy, and those of the established church, were received by the House. The former were heard with kindness and attention, and were made the subject of lofty encomiums: the latter were flouted and discountenanced, and all but laughed out of the House. He thought that hon. gentlemen would perform their duty in a more fair and candid manner, by listening to the arguments which the clergy urged against these claims, than by denouncing them without examination as absurd and ridiculous, and by assailing them with laughter as soon as they were brought into the House.

Mr. Hume

said, that no language had been used by gentlemen on his side of the House, which could warrant the hon. member in asserting, that there was a wish on their part to denounce and get rid of the petitions of the clergy. It would be preposterous for men who professed liberal principles, to adopt such an illiberal mode of proceeding. The hon. gentleman had raised a phantom, which had no existence but in his own mind, for the sole purpose of demolishing it after it had been raised. What he had said regarding the clergy on a former night, he was ready to say again. He had expressed his regret, that the clergymen of England, who were superior to the generality of the people, in education and rank in life, should be a century behind them in mildness and liberality of feeling. With christian charity always in their mouths, they ought to exhibit a little more of christian charity in their practice. Enjoying civil rights themselves, they ought not to seek to debar others from a full participation in them. If there was any difference in the attention which the House bestowed on the petitions received from the Catholic, and the established clergy, it was owing to this circumstance—that the former petitioned for justice, whilst the latter sought to perpetuate injustice.

Mr. W. J. Bankes

said, in explanation, that the remarks he had made were not so much intended to apply to what had been said, as to what had been done, by gentlemen on the other side. He recollected, that when an hon. member had presented petitions from the clergy of Essex and Ely against these claims, they were received with a sneering laugh, instead of the fair attention to which they were entitled.

Sir E. Harvey

begged to observe, that when he presented the petition from the archdeaconry of Essex, which did equal honour to the hearts and heads of those who signed it, it was received with an uproar and clamour which was more worthy of a bear-garden than of the House of Commons.

Mr. Carus Wilson

contended, that the ridicule thrown upon the petitions of the clergy was most undeserved, as they had always been the guardians of our religious rights.

Mr. Spring Rice

said, he belonged to the University of Cambridge, and was most anxious not to speak of it in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. He allowed that the petition was entitled to every attention; but, at the same time, it ought not to be taken as speaking the unanimous opinion of the university. He knew that there were a great many of the resident members who dissented from its prayer; and he believed he might say, that among them were some of the most enlightened and popular members of the senate. With regard to what had fallen from the last speaker, about the clergy being the guardians of our religious rights, he thought it savoured more of a Popish than a Protestant doctrine. Every man ought to be the judge of his own opinions; and the best defenders of our religious rights had always been found in the lay members of the community.

Ordered to lie on the table.