PETITIONS AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. (Hansard, 17 February 1813)

Lord Holland
inquired across the table if that were the whole? and being answered in the negative, he added, perhaps it was not the wish of the noble viscount to have the whole read.

§ Viscount Sidmouth
begged the noble lord's pardon, but it was his wish that all the petitions on this subject should be read.
The Clerk then read the whole of the Petition; it stated that the petitioners should view with concern any ascendancy of Popish power; and that they should view with alarm Papists sitting on the bench of justice, or acting in the capacity of legislators. The noble viscount presented another Petition from the mayor and corporation of Berwick-upon-Tweed, against the Roman Catholic Claims. This Petition was also read, and in one part it stated that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had uninterruptedly enjoyed their personal and civil rights, but that they ought not to be entrusted with political privileges.

The Duke of Norfolk
wished to ask the noble viscount, whether it was his intention to found any proceeding upon the Petitions he had presented?

§ Viscount Sidmouth
was somewhat surprised at the question put by the noble duke, and did not see the propriety of any peer presenting a petition being interrogated as to his future intentions. The Petitions on their lordships' table were put into his hands by desire of the petitioners, and he had done his duty in presenting them.

The Duke of Norfolk
disclaimed any purpose of the least offence to the noble lord, but was induced to ask the question from observing an assertion in one of the Petitions, which was false. In that Petition it was stated, that the Catholics in Ireland enjoyed full toleration of rights, civil 560 and political. That was a statement contradicted by the fact. The privilege of returning members to both Houses of Parliament was a civil right, which was not fully enjoyed by the Irish Catholics. They could vote indeed for members to sit in the lower House, but not to the representative seats in the House of Lords.

§ Viscount Sidmouth
thought it was treating the petitioners with very undue harshness, to scrutinize with such severity the terms in which their fair and legal petitions to that House were couched. They came before their lordships with an humble but earnest submission of their feelings and opinions upon a subject, which to them appeared of the greatest importance to the national welfare; and while so expressing their sincere opinions he could not think it either decorous towards them, or compatible with the liberality and justice of their lordships to charge them with stating a falsehood.

Lord Holland
perfectly agreed in the propriety of the noble duke's observations. When an allegation so material as that to which they referred, was set forth in a Petition to that House, it surely was incumbent on their lordships to ascertain whether it was true or false. Had the noble duke proposed the rejection of the Petition, there might have been some cause for alarm on the part of the noble viscount, but no such rejection was intimated. It was, however, of great importance, while such pains had been taken in every quarter of the country to excite alarms respecting the situation and claims of the Catholics, that their claims and situation should be fairly represented, and no material fact set down that could not be proved.

§ Lord Redesdale
could not help considering the language and terms of the noble duke's observations, as tending strongly to deter petitioners from exercising their fair and admitted right of submitting their opinions to that House on any great national question. The noble duke appeared not to have heard distinctly, or accurately attended to the words as read in the Petition, where a guarded distinction seemed to be made between personal rights and civil privileges, on one hand, and political privileges, on the other. The distinction indeed, was so clearly marked in the language of the Petition itself, that he could not conceive how it should be misunderstood, much less how the petitioners should thereby have incurred the charge 561 of stating falsehood. It had frequently, however, fallen to his lot, to hear language upon the present subject, within the walls of parliament, which he should very unlingly have listened to elsewhere. He had as little of narrow prejudice as any man, but he scrupled not to state, in conformity with the petitioners, that he conceived the concession of the Catholic claims incompatible with the safety of the constitutional establishments.

The Duke of Norfolk
wished to ask the noble and learned lord, what was the distinction he would lay down between civil and political rights?

§ Lord Redesdale
replied, that the distinction was clearly stated in the language of the Petition. The civil rights were those which the Catholics already enjoyed; the political were those to which they aspired, and the granting of which the petitioners deprecated.

The Duke of Norfolk
was by no means satisfied with the clearness of the noble and learned lord's definitions. Between the terms 'civil' and 'political' heknew of no difference, except the complexion which each derived from the Latin and Greek languages, from which they were adopted.

The Lord Chancellor
observed, that whatever variety of opinions might be entertained on the subject of the Petitions by the public, the meaning of the petitioners could by no means be mistaken. They saw a material difference between the privileges at present enjoyed and the new ones claimed by the Catholics, and to that difference they wished to direct the attention of the House. The temper and moderation which had been so conspicuously displayed throughout the country in the various discussions which in every part of it had taken place on the subject of the Catholics, was highly creditable to the public feeling, and he was confident that when that most serious and important question came before parliament, it would be met with suitable wisdom and moderation by their lordships.