Lords Sitting of 5 May 1819

PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.
The Bishop of London presented petitions against the Catholic claims from the archdeaconries, of Colchester, Essex, Middlesex, and St. Alban's; and from the clergy of the city of London. The reverend prelate observed, that the petitioners had uniformly expressed themselves desirous that every degree of toleration consistent with the safety of the church and state should be granted to the Roman Catholics and Dissenters of every description; but they wished to guard against any concessions, by which the security of our establishments might be endangered.
The Earl of Donoughmorerose to present a number of petitions from Ireland, with which he had been intrusted. They were chiefly from their lordships Catholic fellow subjects, who prayed that they might be completely raised from the state of degradation in which unjust laws had placed them, and relieved from the unfair exclusions and deprivation of civil rights which they continued to experience. It would not be proper for him to enter into the merits of the question on the present occasion; but with respect to the petitioners themselves, he could with truth say, that they represented the sentiments of the whole of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. They were couched in language which was respectful to the legislature, and becoming for the petitioners to offer. From the petitions which had already been presented, and which remained to be offered, it appeared that the number of applications in favour of the Catholics increased, while those against them diminished. The number of petitions to parliament praying that the Catholic claims might not be granted, were few and weak, compared with those which had been presented on former occasions, notwithstanding extraordinary endeavours had been made to procure petitions hostile to the Catholics. An attempt had even been made in the city of Dublin to array his majesty's forces against his majesty's Catholic subjects, by procuring the signatures of the military to a petition. These attempts were, however, counteracted by the petitions of large bodies of Protestants in different parts of Ireland. He had a petition to offer to

109
their lordships in favour of the Catholics from the city of Cork: one had already been presented from the city of Dublin, signed by the lord mayor himself, and persons of the first consideration in that city. Having said this much, he should proceed to present the petitions. He would not trouble their lordships by the reading of the whole: as they were all couched in proper terms, and had all the same object, it would be sufficient to hear one or two of them at length. The first petition was signed by lord Fingal, by sir Thomas Esmond, the first baronet of Ireland; and by a great number of persons of rank and fortune. Another petition was signed by a name of great weight and respectability in Ireland—he meant Mr. Owen O'Connor. The noble lord then presented petitions from the Roman Catholics of Dublin, Roscommon, Cork, Tipperary, Waterford, Monaghan, Donegal, and Cavan, and about 20 more petitions from other places. He also presented one from the Protestant freemen, freeholders, and inhabitants of the city of Cork, praying the repeal of all civil disabilities which operate against the Roman Catholics.
Earl Greyrose in consequence of its being once more his duty to present to their lordships the petition of a most respectable class of individuals, praying to be relieved from the oppression of many penal laws to which they were subject, for no other reason than a conscientious adherence to the religion in which they bad been educated. They, therefore, again came forward to request that their case might be taken into consideration, and that they might be permitted to enjoy the full benefit of the British constitution, in common with their Protestant fellow subjects. This was, in nearly the same words, the same request which was humbly and respectfully made three years ago, and which he then had the honour of submitting to their lordships. The present petition was also signed by the same description of persons, namely, the nobility, gentry, great landholders, and clergy of the Roman Catholic religion. It would be found, as he was instructed to state, to contain a faithful representation of the Roman Catholics of England; and whether this petition was regarded with respect to the character of the parties from which it came, the nature and object of the prayer, or the time at which it was presented, there never had
110
been on any occasion an application made to their lordships which was more intitled to their serious consideration. It was not necessary, nor was this the fit time, for him to repeat the arguments he had formerly urged for inducing their lord-ships to acquiesce in the prayer of this petition; nor should he in any degree anticipate what properly belonged to the discussion of the question of which his noble friend near him had given notice. He would only now say, that the truth of the opinions on this subject, which he had so often unsuccessfully urged, became by every thing which had passed over his head, by every consideration he gave to the question, more deeply impressed on his mind. And though the English Catholics had hitherto been unsuccessful in their applications for relief from the oppressions under which they labour, he was not without hope that they would finally and speedily succeed. This hope was founded, not only in the conduct of the Catholics themselves, but in the conviction that the opponents of their claims daily diminished. Those who had hitherto been most hostile to the Catholics were ready to acknowledge their merits as fellow-subjects. Indeed, who could deny their loyalty and attachment to the constitution, their liberal employment of the wealth they possess, or forget that many of them were the descendants of men who had contributed to give lustre to the brightest periods of British history? Many pernicious doctrines which had been attributed to the Catholics were now admitted to have been improperly urged as grounds of exclusion. It was admitted by a noble earl, whom he saw in his place, that the doctrine and moral character of the Roman Catholics afforded no reason for refusing the prayer of their petition; and it was now acknowledged that the whole question turned upon the point of foreign supremacy. It was contended that the Catholics were incapable of giving a full and perfect allegiance in a country where the king is the head of the church as well as of the state. This objection, he doubted not, would also in its turn give way to the progress of reason, and the increase of information on the subject. He was encouraged in entertaining this hope, not only from the advantage which had been gained by the Catholic cause from the admission to which he had alluded, but from the recollection of a measure of very considerable relief having

111
already been conceded by parliament. Their lordships might remember, that, in 1816, on the last occasion when he had the honour to present a petition from the English Catholics, he had stated a case of great hardship which had occurred in the naval service. He alluded to the case of captain Wright—a gentleman, who, after six of his brothers had fallen in the cause of their country, had at last, by a long service and his own merits, obtained the appointment of master and commander. But from this reward so dearly purchased he could reap no advantage, without taking an oath which amounted to the abjuration of his religion. When he had stated this case, the hardship was generally acknowledged; and, in 1817, a noble viscount on the opposite side introduced a bill for the relief of Roman Catholic officers of the army and navy, by putting them on the same footing with other dissenters who are relieved from their disabilities as a matter of course, as regularly as the year comes round. He had seen with great satisfaction the silent progress of this measure, which passed without any opposition. He felt the more gratification at seeing this measure pass unopposed, when he found it to be in substance and effect neither more nor less than that for the proposing of which the administration of 1807 went out of office. He stated this for no other reason than to show, that strong prejudices, resting on grounds which reason could not avow, were sure to be ultimately overcome, and to warn their lordships not to admit, without inquiry, assertions of the impropriety of granting relief to the petitioners; for from what had happened, they must see that the same measure which was at one time asserted to be fraught with the greatest danger to the church and state, might be granted at another as an act not only of justice but of security. This measure had certainly afforded great relief to Catholics in general; but the English Catholics, whose petition he was about to present, still remained subject to several oppressive laws, from the operation of which their fellow subjects in the sister kingdom were free. That the Roman Catholics of both countries should be placed on the same footing was what he believed no reasonable man would deny. But it was not for that degree of relief he should apply; for he looked forward to nothing less than the admission of that unjustly oppressed class to all the privi-
112
leges of the British constitution. And what time could be more propitious to the performance of such an act of justice than the present? The head of that religion, so long placed under the power of a military and ambitious chief, and therefore represented as likely to exercise a dangerous influence in this country, had been restored to his temporal authority chiefly by British efforts. All apprehension on that ground was therefore done away; and it was to be presumed that gratitude to this country would induce the head of the Catholic church to accede to every regulation which might be found necessary for the security of this country. Fully correspondent with this state of the Catholics were the sentiments and feelings of the most enlightened portion of their Protestant fellow subjects towards them. His noble friend had presented a petition, numerously and respectably signed by Protestants in Ireland in favour of the Catholic claims. Many other petitions to the same effect had come from different quarters. In this country the cause which he advocated was rapidly gaining ground, and their lordships could not overlook what had happened on Monday night in another place, where a motion in favour of the Catholics had been lost only by a majority of two. This was a decision which could not fail to recommend most strongly the prayer of these petitions to their lordships serious consideration. The peace, he trusted; would be of long duration; but their lordships surely could not have forgotten the many embarrassments which had, during the late contest, been experienced in consequence of the divisions that subsisted in the country. He hoped that the prospect of war was remote; but, as statesmen, they could not avoid looking forward to the possibility of such an event. With France on the one side, and America on the other, would it be wise to expose ourselves to all the evils of internal discontent, along with the chances of war with either of these powers? Who could be certain that the refusal to listen to just demands might not some time or other produce movements of despair? Such a result was consistent with human nature. He wished, therefore, to impress if on their lordships consideration, whether it would be wise to defer to such a period the making a concession which, at the present moment, would be received as a boon. The measure would then lose all the grace with

113
which it might now be granted, and would be infinitely less advantageous in point of security. The Roman Catholics of England had hitherto manifested a patient submission to laws of the most unjust and oppressive nature. If loyalty and attachment to the constitution as citizens and subjects; if the faithful discharge of every duty; could recommend men to the consideration of their lordships, none were more entitled to that consideration than the Catholics of England. He would not say that the religion which gave to the world men of such character was necessarily free from objection; but this he would assert, that the religion which trained its followers to such virtues ought not to exclude those, who professed it from privileges enjoyed under the British constitution by every other class of men. He concluded by presenting a petition signed by a great number of Roman Catholics, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which they labour.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad of course no intention to offer any opposition to this petition being laid on the table, and should not have felt any disposition to say a word on the subject, had not something which fell from the noble lord rendered it necessary for him to trouble their lordships with a few observations, not with the view of discussing the subject, but of preventing misunderstanding when it came to be discussed. Above all, he hoped it would not be supposed that he intended to offer any objection to the motion for laying on the table a petition which he knew to be signed by many of the most respectable individuals in the country, and with some, of whom he had lived many years in habits of friendship, and of the worthiness of the character of others he was able to bear testimony. The noble earl was perfectly correct in stating that he had acknowledged that there could be no objection to the Roman Catholics on the ground of immoral principles or doctrine. He, and those who concurred in opinion with him, opposed the claims of the Roman Catholics on constitutional principles only—on the ground that it was necessary, for the security of the church and state, that the existing laws should be maintained. Under these circumstances he should have remained silent, had not the noble lord thought proper to call their lordships' attention to a measure which passed two years ago. He was anxiously desirous to state what
114
was the fundamental distinction between that and the other measure with which the noble lord had compared it. The noble lord was correct in his reference to the case of an individual, as having given occasion to the alteration in the law. He would readily admit that no claims could be more respectable; but he could not admit that a hardship incidental to the state of the laws, would be a reason for abrogating them, if in other respects it was fit that they should be continued. When the case alluded to occurred, it was well known that Roman Catholics had, under the same circumstances, been for a number of years admitted to the army. The question which then arose was, what was the ground of the distinction between the two services? Did it depend on practice or on law? It appeared to have been long the practice in the army not to tender any oath to officers previous to their entering on the service, leaving them liable only to the operation of the test and corporation acts. In the navy the practice was different. The oath had always been tendered previously to granting a commission, and thus Roman Catholics were excluded from that service. When the subject came under the consideration of government, some persons were of opinion, that the practice of the army was correct, and that it was in the power of the government to relieve the officers of the navy, by ordering the previous administration of the oath to be discontinued. The question, however, being referred to those individuals who were best able to form a judgment as to what was the law, they gave it as their opinion, that the practice of the army was erroneous. Under these circumstances, it was thought necessary to legalize the practice of the army, and to make that of the navy coincide with it. The act which was passed accordingly made both services subject to the test and corporation acts, but relieved them from the liability of taking an oath in the first instance. The difference between the present state of the law, and the object of the bill which the noble lord wished to pass in 1807 was this—the noble lord's bill proposed to repeal the test laws entirely, and to open the navy and army by a new oath to Catholics and dissenters of every description as a matter of right. The measure of 1817, on the contrary, maintained the test and corporation laws, making this essential distinction—that

115
Catholics, or other dissenters, were not admitted to serve as a matter of right. The noble earl would therefore find it a matter of no small difficulty to show that there was no difference between the two measures. What he, and those he acted with, contended for in 1807, was, that great inconvenience would arise if a principle were adopted which placed all religions on a footing of equality. If the noble lord's bill had passed, the members of every religion might claim to serve of right, as well as the members of the church of England, instead of enjoying that privilege by way of sufferance as they now did. If such a system of equality were to prevail, the great principle on which the security of the church and state rested would be essentially changed. It was upon that question of security that their lordships' decision, on every point connected with this subject, must finally rest. He was, however, far from wishing that any privilege should be withheld, that could be safely granted.
Earl Greysaid, he was not quite satisfied with the account which the noble earl had given of the difference between the two measures in question. Their lordships were aware, that both the measures proposed to open the army and the navy to Catholics and all dissenters. That was alike the object of the bill of 1807, and of that which passed two years ago. He was therefore justified in stating, that the measures were in substance and effect the same, though the one had caused a most extraordinary clamour, and the other had passed through both Houses with an almost silent approbation. The only distinction was this—that which he did in 1807, he did openly. He professed to open the army and navy to every description of dissenters, without the necessity of the annual Indemnity bill.
The Earl of Charlemontpresented several petitions from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, for the removal of the political disabilities to which they were subjected. He stated, that the hopes of that body were raised in a very high degree, that the time had at length arrived for the attainment of their proudest wishes. They could not suppose that in the present enlightened age of the world, any arguments could be successfully urged against claims which were founded on the immutable principles of justice.
The Duke of Wellingtonrose, to present a petition against the Catholic
116
claims, from certain Protestants of the city of Dublin. With respect to a circumstance to which a noble earl had alluded, he had to state, that inquiry had been made, whether any soldier had signed the petition; and the result of the inquiry was, that the names of no soldiers were affixed to it. He did not mean to admit that there was any objection to soldiers signing such a petition as this as individuals, but as the fact was that they had not, it was not necessary to discuss that question.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, if the noble duke asserted from his own knowledge that there had been no solicitation of soldiers to sign the petition, he must of course believe it; but unless the noble duke did so, he must continue to believe that some practice of that kind had been resorted to. Why else did the commander of the depot issue the order to prevent the soldiers under his orders from interfering in any political discussion, or signing any paper.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that he could of course say nothing upon the subject from his own knowledge, neither could he answer for the motive of a commander of a depot in Ireland, for issuing an order. It was possible that the order might have been issued in consequence of some trick played by the opposite party, to discredit the petition. With regard to the fact, he had the authority of the whole committee who had the management of the petition for stating, that no soldier had by their authority been solicited to sign it, nor could they discover that any soldier actually had signed it. With respect to another statement also that had been made respecting getting charity boys to sign the petition, he had the authority of the lord mayor of Dublin, and the trustees of the Bluecoat school (which his grace likewise read) for stating that it was a false and scandalous report.
Numerous petitions for and against the Roman Catholic claims were presented by the marquis of Lansdowne, the duke of Sussex, the earl of Enniskellen, earl Fitzwilliam, and the duke of Leinster; all of which were ordered to lie on the table.