HC Deb 23 March 1825 vol 12 cc1143-51
Sir Francis Burdett

brought in a bill, "for the Removal of the Disqualifications under which his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour," and moved that it be read a first time.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, that before the bill was read a first time, he was anxious to know whether it was drawn up in conformity with the petition presented by the hon. baronet on the first of March?

Sir F. Burdett

replied, that the object of the petition which he had formerly presented was, to obtain the removal of certain disqualifications which affected the Roman Catholics, in consequence of certain oaths which they were called on to take, antecedently to their admission into certain offices. His bill was intended to meet, as far as was possible, the prayer of that petition.

Sir T. Lethbridge

said, he not only intended to object to the details of the measure, but to the principle upon which it was founded. Though the right hon. Secretary, to whom the country owed such a debt of gratitude for the strenuous and uniform resistance which he had offered to the claims of the Roman Catholics, had announced his determination not to offer any resistance to this bill until its second reading, he could not allow one single stage of it to pass by, without expressing his intention of giving it his decided opposition. Of the bill itself, he knew nothing at present; but he conceived it to be founded upon a series of resolutions, which the hon. baronet had carried after a speech of singular temper and moderation, which had conferred no less credit upon the hon. baronet, than it had advantage upon the cause he had advocated. He did not wish to give any unnecessary trouble to the House; but as there were several reports abroad respecting this bill, to which it was impossible that he could shut his ears, he begged leave to say a few words regarding them. He had heard, that this bill was framed, not merely on the resolutions which had been formally sanctioned by the House on a former night, but on several other principles, which had never been regularly submitted to its consideration. One of those principles, he understood, was the principle which had been promulgated by the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty. That principle, though it might not be new to those who had read the various treatises and pamphlets which had issued from the press on the subject of the Roman Catholic claims, was still new to the House of Commons. It had never till now been stated in the House, that a pecuniary establishment ought to be formed for the support of the clergy of the Roman Catholic church. [Sir F. Burdett here intimated this bill did not contemplate any such establishment.] He was glad to hear it. There was, however, he understood, an-other principle mixed up with it, which related to the elective franchise of Ireland. [Sir F. Burdett intimated, that the hon. baronet was mistaken.] Well, then, he was to understand, that this bill was not intended either to create an establishment for the Roman Catholic clergy, or to alter the elective franchise in Ireland. He was glad of it; but still his objections to it were not at all removed. At any rate, the bill went to alter the Test act, and so far to change the ancient constitution of the country. If this bill repealed the oaths of supremacy and abjuration, so as to render them palatable to the Roman Catholics, it must be pretty nearly the same bill which had before undergone the consideration of parliament. If that were the case, novelty could not be urged as an objection against it; but the same objections which had formerly been urged, might be repeated, with all the confirmation which they had received from recent transactions. He allowed that, on the last debate, he had heard arguments advanced by the advocates of concession, which were not only very fascinating in themselves, but much stronger than any which he had ever heard advanced upon any former occasion. Still, he must say, that he had not yet heard sufficient to satisfy him, that more could be granted to the Roman Catholics, without danger to the constitution of these realms as by law established. He had not heard several very essential points of the popish creed properly explained; and till that was done, he could never consent to give those who held it, any thing like unqualified emancipation. They were told, however, that they had nothing to do with the religious tenets of the popish creed, and ought only to look at the political bearings of this important question. This he denied, even at the risk of being denominated a fanatic, or a bigot. "I know," said the hon. baronet, "that a great endeavour has been recently made to throw new lights upon this subject. I regret, however, that they have not been brought into such a focus, that any member of this House might seize them in his grasp and make himself master of them." He did not know whether it was orderly for him to refer to what had passed in the committee then sitting above stairs; but he had been informed by hon. members who had paid great attention to what had taken place there, that, several witnesses had made depositions of a very extraordinary nature. Four bishops, as they were called, of the Catholic church,—men of great learning, great piety, and unblemished character,—had given evidence before that committee, which not only upset all the notions which were usually entertained regarding Catholicism, but which even went to trip up every thing which members of their own body had previously written upon the subject. There was a certain Dr. Doyle, who had formerly published certain papers or pamphlets under the signature of J. K. L. He had himself read those pamphlets, and had always considered them to contain the authentic writings of that reverend doctor. He had likewise been accustomed to think the reverend doctor a person of such weight and influence in the Catholic church, that it was almost sacrilege to doubt his word. If the reverend doctor asserted, that he was not the author of those pamphlets, it would be the better for his consistency; but, until he made such assertion, he must be permitted to state, that there was a marvellous difference between the doctrines which he had committed to paper, and those which he had recently detailed to the committee. But perhaps it might be, that the Roman Catholic church had recently adopted new doctrines; and if so, much of his former, objections might possibly be removed. He did not, however, expect to have that, point admitted; and, until it was admitted, he must continue to press his former objections. He owed an apology to the House for anticipating the effect of evidence which would hereafter come before it: he could not refrain, however, from noticing it incidentally, when he was told, that this question was not at all religious, but entirely political. He should certainly have to present several petitions on the religious part of the question, which, to say the truth, was the essence of it, notwithstanding the apathy which at this moment prevailed throughout the country. He regretted the existence of that apathy; because he was convinced that it was not in unison with the real feelings and general sentiments of the people.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, he did not rise with any intention of provoking any discussion, upon this stage of the bill. He rose to say a few words, which he almost deemed unnecessary; to prevent its being supposed that, because he did not oppose the first reading of this bill, his zeal in the cause had became abated. As the House-by its decision on a former night, had sanctioned the principle on which this bill was founded, and, in point of fact, had ordered it to be brought in, he conceived it to be only fair, that the House should be allowed to see it; and he would therefore -postpone his opposition to it until it came to the second reading. But, though he did not intend to take the sense of the House at present, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that his opinions on this question were entirely unchanged—that his objections to the principle of this bill were as strong as ever—that he was not inclined to enter into any compromise with the Catholic body—that he should give to this bill the same determined opposition which he had given to every bill with the same object which had preceded it—and that he should most certainly take the sense of the House on the second reading. He abstained, however, from entering into any discussion on the measure at present; because, from the state of the House, it could only be partial, and must be attended with little benefit. He hoped, however, that even those gentlemen who differed from him as to the principle of this measure would, if they succeeded in carrying it through its next stage, pay great attention to the details of it, when it reached the committee. The details of such a bill must at all times be a matter of great importance; and now that it was notified to the country, and promulgated to the world, that the person who prepared the draught of it was Mr. O'Connell, the leader of that Association which the House had deemed it prudent to suppress, he could not see any reason why their attention should be diverted from them.

Mr. Tierney

said, that, after the candid and manly declaration of the right hon. Secretary, nobody could venture to accuse him of inconsistency in opposing the second reading of this bill, after he had acquiesced in the first reading of it. It was not, however, to make that observation that he now trespassed on the attention of the House; but to say a few words, by way of comment, on an assertion that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary. The right hon. Secretary had asserted, that it had been publicly notified to the world, that Mr. O'Connell was the person who had prepared the draught of the bill which the hon. baronet near him had just introduced. Now, as one of the committee which had been appointed to draw up this bill, he begged leave to say, that be knew of no such proceeding. Ever since the Catholic deputation had been in England, he had so guarded himself that he had not had one minute's political conversation with Mr. O'Connell: on the contrary, he had carefully avoided it. He had before stated, and he would now repeat it, that his object was, to do what was right on this question, without any regard to the Catholics, as a separate body; that was, to do what was right to the empire generally, and not what was right to any portion of it in particular. He had, therefore, assisted in drawing up this bill, as well and as ably as he could; and, as one of the committee which prepared it, he would say, that he did not know, and did not believe, that Mr. O'Connell had drawn it up. That Mr. O'Connell would not willingly say any thing that was untrue, he most sincerely believed; but, that he laboured under some error or other was manifest. He thought he saw the way in which Mr. O'Connell's error had originated. Some gentlemen of the committee might have consulted Mr. O'Connell on the subject of this bill, and he, in return, might have communicated to them his sentiments in writing. Those sentiments Mr. O'Connell might have considered as the foundation of the bill; and so it might have got abroad that he had drawn it up. If, however, by the statement that Mr. O'Connell had drawn up the bill, it were meant to be insinuated, that the committee had delegated to Mr. O'Connell the duty which the House had delegated to them, he must be permitted to give a most peremptory denial to such an insinuation, and to say that no others but the committee had been engaged in preparing it for the consideration of parliament.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, he had not imputed any blame to the members of the committee. For the statement he had just made, he had no other authority than a letter from Mr. O'Connell, which he had read in the newspapers. The authenticity of that letter had never, he believed, been disputed. There was a distinct assertion in it, that the preparation of the draught of the bill had been committed to Mr. O'Connell; and it was upon that assertion, that he had made the remarks which he had just offered to the consideration of the House.

Lord Hotham

begged to put a question to the right hon. member for Knaresborough. Did this bill provide for the support of the Catholic clergy, or make any alteration in the elective franchise of Ireland? He should certainly vote against the bill, unless it contained some provision on both these points.

Mr. Tierney

replied, that it was impossible for the committee, after the instructions it had received from the House, to introduce in one bill three such distinct measures as Catholic emancipation, a provision for the Catholic priesthood, and an alteration of the elective franchise in Ireland. It was competent, however, to any member of parliament, to bring in a bill to effect either of the two measures to which the noble lord had referred. It had been the object of the framers of the bill to make it as palatable to all parties as they possibly could; but, on the subjects to which the noble lord alluded, they had not received any instructions. It was, therefore, no dereliction of duty on their parts, not to meddle with those subjects; on the contrary, it would have been a dereliction of it, had they ventured to undertake them.

The bill was then read a first time.

Sir F. Burdett

said, that with every desire to meet, as far as he could, the convenience of all parties, he felt, after long consideration, that he was compelled to adhere to the notice which he had originally given, and to bring on the second reading on the 14th of April.

Mr. Estcourt

lamented sincerely, that the hon. baronet could not postpone the second reading for a few days, on account of the inconvenience which it would occasion, not only to those members of the House who were magistrates, but to the magistracy of the country at large. He lamented it also upon another ground. If this bill—to which he intended to give his strenuous opposition—should be passed into a law, he should wish to see it digested with the utmost care and attention; so that it should be at least stripped of all that was objectionable as to time, arrangement, and so forth. Now, if this bill were to be hurried through the House at a time when half the members were absent in the discharge of other duties, it could not undergo that minute examination to which it would be subjected, if the House were full. An extraordinary time had been selected for the second reading of this bill. There was but one week in the whole session in which, by law, a large portion of members ought to be in their different counties, discharging their duties as county magistrates; and yet this was the very week selected for the discussion of this important question. If the hon. baronet would only postpone his motion for four days, the gentlemen on his side of the House would have no objection to offer. The slightest extension would render the hon. baronet's motion, in respect of time, much more palatable.

Mr. Sykes

said, that if he were merely to consider his own convenience, and that of the magistrates with whom he usuallyacted, he should take the same view as the hon. member who had just spoken. His hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had been at considerable pains in collecting the opinions of all parties, as to the proper time of bringing on this discussion; and, after consulting the convenience of all of them, he had felt himself under the necessity of adhering to his original resolution. One of the objections which had been raised by the last speaker might easily be obviated. It was not necessary that quarter-sessions should be held on the day oh which they were opened. They must commence on a certain day; but, after being opened, they might be, and often were, adjourned to other days, to suit the convenience of the magistracy.

Mr. C. Wilson

considered it unwise either to exclude these gentlemen from the discussion on so momentous a question, or to deprive their respective counties of their attendance at the quarter-sessions. He should move, therefore, as an amendment, that the second reading of the bill be fixed for the 20th of April.

Mr. Calcraft

entreated the hon. baronet not to turn a deaf ear to the appeal which had been so strongly made to him. Upon a question of this nature it was important to preserve unanimity. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend Would not bring forward a measure of this great consequence so near the holydays, that gentlemen who had country duties to attend to might not be put to inconvenience. Besides, it was unusual to have a call of the House upon the first day after the adjournment. A delay of three or four days in the proceedings of the Lords, at this period of the session, was not very important. For all these reasons, he hoped his hon. friend would fix the discussion, for the 20th or 21st.

Mr. Secretary Peel

trusted, that the hon. baronet, whose whole private life evinced such a disposition to candour and honourable dealing, would feel the necessity of postponing the discussion to such a period as would allow of the fullest attendance.

Sir F. Burdett

trusted the House would give him credit for a desire to meet the wishes of all parties. As, however, such a feeling for further postponement was manifested, he should comply with it, and fix the second reading, for Tuesday the 19th of April.

On the motion of Sir John Newport, the call of the House was fixed for Monday, the 18th of April.