§ Mr. Plumptresaid, he had a petition to present from 2,600 Protestants—persons of the highest respectability and property—upon the subject of the concession of legislative power to the Roman Catholics. The petitioners stated 942 that they regarded the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power, as equally at variance with Christian duty, and with the Protestant principles and character of the British constitution. The peril to the Protestant religion and more immediately to the Established Churches of the United Kingdom, having been apprehended, from the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power, in order to obviate this danger, and as an adequate security for our Protestant establishments, it was by the act of the year 1829, for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, enacted, that all members of that communion should, previously to their entering on their legislative functions, swear, "that they will defend to the utmost of their power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws," and also "that they do disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm;" and further, "that they will never exercise any privilege to which they are, or may become entitled to disturb or weaken, the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the United Kingdom." That, notwithstanding the security which this solemn oath was intended to provide, Roman Catholic Members of the Legislature have used their utmost exertions, in as well as out of Parliament, for the destruction of the Church Establishment, especially of that part of it existing in Ireland; that they have voted for the alienation of its property, a measure characterised by his late Majesty's prime minister, its advocate in the House of Peers, as a heavy blow to Protestantism in Ireland; and that they have also voted for the subtraction of church rates, from the revenues of the Church of England, not scrupling to avow, as their ulterior object, that the state should withdraw its support altogether from any particular denomination of Christians, leaving all alike to the precarious maintenance of the voluntary system, but with the ultimate design as the petitioners were convinced, of finally establishing the domination of the Popish superstition"! The petitioners humbly submitted that the foregoing brief statement establishes, beyond all controversy, the two following facts:—1. That upon the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, a certain security was intended to be provided by the Legislature for the 943 Church Establishment. 2. That the security has proved wholly inefficacious. Under these circumstances, the petitioners humbly submitted to the House, that it is absolutely necessary to devise some more effectual safeguard for our national establishments; that scriptural authority, and the principles of the British constitution, as well as experience, call for the total exclusion of Roman Catholics, from the Legislature, and the petitioners humbly implore the House to take such steps as may be deemed advisable for the accomplishment of this essential object. Having adverted to the statements of the petition he had only to observe that he fully concurred in the sentiments it expressed. He never had but one opinion on the conduct of the Legislature in reference to the Roman Catholic concessions, and that it was, in every sense injurious to the welfare of the country.
§ On the question that the petition he on the table,
§ Mr. Wakleybegged to remind the House, that a short time ago, in consequence of an intimation from the chair, and in consequence also of an understanding that it was the sense of the House, he withdrew a petition which contained an expression deemed to be offensive to the other House of Parliament. He considered it his duty on that occasion to yield to the sense of the House. He thought, on all occasions, that it was most unfortunate when petitions contained any expressions which might be deemed derogating from the honour of either House of Parliament: but, in the case of the petition presented by the hon. Member, the petitioners, as plainly as words could express, imputed perjury to a large body of the Members of the House. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman himself was too candid to deny that such imputation was therein cast upon a large body of hon. Members; and the petition, moreover, prayed that between six and seven millions of our fellow-subjects in Ireland should be disfranchised. It was impossible to object to the reception of that petition on the ground of that prayer; but when petitioners stated, that Members representing an immense number of the British community, had been guilty, in the discharge of their duty, of the heinous crime of perjury, it behoved the character of the House, if it had any feeling for the reputation or honour of the country, not to receive such a petition.
§ Mr. Plumptresaid, the petitioners considered that the security intended to be given by the act of 1829 had not been sufficient security. He thought that they did not mean to reflect on the character of Members, and conceived there was nothing in the language or prayer of the petition to exclude it from being received.
§ Mr. Horsmanunderstood the petitioners to avow, that the conduct of hon. Members was not consistent with the securities given. He might have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plumptre) but he understood such to be the averment of the petitioners, and that they distinctly impugned the conduct of certain Members.
§ Petition read at length.
§ Mr. Wakleyobserved, that it was quite clear the hon. Member for Kent had properly interpreted the sentiments of the petition, and that a clearer imputation of perjury against any body of men had never been made in that House, and he should, therefore, move as an amendment, that the motion for the reception of the petition be negatived.
§ Colonel Butlerseconded the motion.
§ Sir R. Inglisbelieved the present would be the first instance of a petition, couched in the respectful language of that now upon the table of the House, being rejected. Petitions of a similar import had been frequently presented, and it was not by the construction that any hon. Member might put upon it that the petition was to be judged. It was needless for him to conceal the view which he took of the subject, but he assured the House that he was not aware of what the petition contained, or from whom it emanated, until it had been read. The petitioners were strictly in order. They alleged certain facts, and left it to the House to adopt its own conclusions. The petition stated, that in the year 1829 a certain measure passed that House, accompanied by certain securities, and it stated that these securities had proved utterly inefficacious. Did the hon. Member for Finsbury deny that such securities were given?—or would he deny, in the second place, that such securities had proved utterly inefficacious? Had they, or had they not, done anything to alienate the property of the church? If the hon. Member denied that, then he could understand his course of proceeding. The allegation in the petition was, that they had been instrumental in endeavouring to alienate 945 the church property, and the petitioners stated that, so long as such conduct was adopted, the security which had been given proved inefficient, and they prayed that the House would adopt some measure to render it effective. In his opinion, nothing whatever was stated in the petition that could justify the House in refusing to receive it.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that it appeared to him that the petition stated that as a fact which really was not so. Nobody could doubt that the allegations in the petition went directly to verify what had been stated by the hon. Member for Finsbury. In his opinion, no language could more strongly convey the allegation of perjury against the Roman Catholic Members than that which was used in the petition. The Members to whom the petition adverted, instead of doing that which was alleged, had done all that they could to assist the House to improve the condition of the church. He believed that all the statements in the petition were utterly futile and groundless. The Roman Catholic Members, together with the other Gentlemen on that side of the House, had done all in their power to remove from the Church of England all the abuses which existed in it. This being his opinion, he should support the motion for the rejection of the petition.
§ Lord Ebringtonagreed with his hon. Friend who had spoken last, that the allegations of the petition were utterly false and groundless in all their charges, both as applying to the Roman Catholics and the other Members on that side of the House. At the same time he was one who had always been an advocate for extending the greatest possible latitude to the receipt of petitions, and nothing except a strong feeling that the statements and charges in the petition were so wholly groundless and so plain, as to leave no possible doubt as to what their interpretation was, would induce him to vote for the rejection of a petition. He must, however, confess that the present petition appeared to him to go nearer to charge the Catholic Members with perjury than any he had ever yet heard; because it staled in plain language that a certain body of the Members of that House had taken an oath to preserve, to the utmost of their power, the Church Establishment; and yet that, in defiance of that oath, they had voted for measures which had a direct tendency to 946 cripple the Establishment. They stated certain facts, and then they put their own interpretation upon them. He felt great doubt, however, whether it would be to the advantage of the House to set the precedent of rejecting a petition of that sort. As there seemed to be considerable doubt upon the question, he trusted that the House would be favoured with the opinion of the Speaker upon it.
§ The Speakerobserved, that he had no difficulty in stating the opinion he entertained upon the question. When there was any doubt, he was always disposed to give it in favour of the reception of the petition. By a certain train of reasoning, the petition certainly implied that a certain class of Members in that House had violated an oath; but then the House ought to remember that it was a mere matter of opinion, and rested entirely upon the view or interpretation which the different parties put upon the oath. As his opinion had been called for, he would state that there was one objection to the petition which had not been mentioned. It was the rule that no petition was received which complained, or took notice of any statements or proceedings which had taken place within that House. The petition before the House alluded to proceedings which had taken place within that House, and complained of the conduct of certain Members. It then became a question, whether by receiving it they would not tend to open the door for complaints being made of the manner in which Members performed their duty.
§ Mr. Barronexpressed the hope that the hon. Member for Finsbury would withdraw his opposition to the reception of this petition. He was one of the parties against whom the vile slanders had been made, and he despised them. The Catholic Members could afford to be slandered; and he, for his part, was always anxious that discussion should be had on these subjects. He stood there in defence of his honesty, his opinion, and the construction of the oaths he had taken; and he thought he was as capable of putting a construction on them as any man in or out of that House. He courted investigation, and defied the calumnies, the slanders, and falsehoods put forth on this occasion. He could say that he had acted conscientiously, and as an honest man, in the votes which he had given, and which were alluded to in the petition. He also 947 believed that every man on his side of the House could say, with similar feelings of indignation and of honesty, that they had acted from pure principles, and they looked with the utmost scorn and contempt on the calumnies of individuals who dared to impute to them base falsehoods, treachery to their constituents and their country, and forgetfulness of the oaths they had taken. He flung back with indignation in the teeth of the petitioner the base calumnies—they were totally groundless and totally unfounded—but at the same time he hoped the House would not reject the petition, because he was at all times anxious that the petitions of all classes, from the highest to the lowest—from the most instructed to the most ignorant—from the most prejudiced and violent bigots to the most enlightened persons in the kingdom, should at all times be laid before that House. It was only by hearing opinions on all sides that the truth could be arrived at. If it came to a division, he should vote for the reception of the petition. He interpreted the oath he had taken as it had been acted on by the members of the Protestant Church—ay, and by the dignitaries of the church who had voted on questions relating to the church with him, and who had adopted the same opinion of Protestant interest that he had adopted. He conscientiously believed, and was morally convinced that, in voting as he had voted on these questions, he had voted with the real friends of the Church of England, and had consulted its true interests. In his opinion, the Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who prided themselves on being the only friends of the church, showed themselves by their actual conduct to be its greatest enemies. Every thing they did for the purpose of serving the church was actually injurious to its real interest.
§ Petition laid on the table.