§ After numerous petitions had been presented for and against the Roman Catholic Disability Removal bill,
§ Earl Greyrose to present two petitions. The first was from a large body of persons in this country, professing the Roman Catholic religion. The petition had been drawn up before the bill now before their lordships had passed through the other House, and it prayed for general relief from the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. The petitioners felt grateful for the acts passed for their relief during the benevolent reign of the late king; but they complained that they still laboured under great disadvantages, and that they were marked out as persons dangerous and unworthy of public trust. In answer to these unmerited imputations, they appeal to those persons who have had an opportunity of observing their conduct in a political as well as a moral point of view, and call upon them to declare whether they deserve the character thus attempted to be fixed on them; and whether, on the contrary, they have not always been distinguished for loyalty and attachment, and submission to the laws. The petitioners have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate the submission which is due from them to the king of this country; but this they deny, and state that they fully recognise the sovereign power of his majesty. The second petition he had to present was signed by six Roman Catholic peers—the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Arundel, lord Petre, lord Clifford, and lord Stourton. These petitioners stated, that they had read the bill which had passed through the other House of Parliament, and had been read a first time by their lordships, and that it received their full concurrence. The petitioners had hitherto been prevented from sitting in their lordships' House, in consequence of the form of the oath which they were required to take as a necessary preliminary to the enjoyment of that privilege. He felt great satisfaction in presenting these petitions, not only on account of the characters of the petitioners, but also from the feeling which he entertained of the justice of their claims, and of the temper and moderation with which they were advanced. He felt himself bound to answer the appeal which had been made by the petitioners, and to state, from the result of his own personal observation, that there did not exist men more distinguished for the exemplary discharge of their public and private duties through all the various walks of life. This would be acknowledged even by those who felt themselves under the painful necessity of opposing their claims. He remembered on a former occasion to have heard the noble earl opposite (Liverpool) say, that, for distinguished loy- 219 alty and integrity, he knew of no class of men more entitled to approbation than the Roman Catholics. It. was admitted also, that the Roman Catholic religion was no longer rendered dangerous by those tenets which formerly constituted a part of it, and which, if they existed at present, would be a reasonable ground for allowing the professors of that religion to continue in their present situation. The opposition of the noble earl, however, rested upon different grounds, which would doubtless be made evident during the discussion of that evening. He should refrain from taking any part in the approaching discussion, unless called upon so to do by some unforeseen circumstances. His opinions upon this subject were well known, and it would only be irksome to their lordships to hear them repeated. Any exertions of his were the more unnecessary, as there were those present by whom that just cause would be more effectually advocated. No one could surpass him in zeal for the success of the measure; but he would content himself with a general reference to the grounds on which he had given it his support on former occasions; and those grounds were, that the disqualifications which were imposed on the Roman Catholics could not be justified on the grounds either of policy or justice. Circumstances were more favourable for the contemplated measure than they ever had been. The head of the Roman Catholic Church, whose power might once have been deemed formidable, could no longer be an object of apprehension. It could not now be alleged that the pope was under the influence and control of the power which had been the terror of Europe. The present bill had not met with that opposition on the part of the public which former bills of a similar nature had experienced. The present bill had passed through one House of Parliament without any expression of public discontent. From this it might be argued, that, if this great measure of justice and mercy was now to receive the sanction of the House, it was probable that, while it relieved the Catholic, it would not be followed by any dissatisfaction from any part of his majesty's subjects. We were still at peace, but surrounded by warnings upon all sides. How long we could keep out of that war, which seemed to threaten Europe, it was impossible to foresee. But the storm being heard at a distance, every 220 principle of policy required that we should prepare against its approach, and provide ourselves with the means of resisting its fury. It was from divisions at home that the greatest danger was to be apprehended; and it should be remembered, that those for whose relief the present measure was introduced, had freely offered their blood in the defence of their country, even under all the disadvantages of exclusion, and had contributed by their bravery to the peace which she now enjoyed. With those feelings on his mind—with a full conviction, that every motive of justice and policy, of Christian charity and true religion, and he would add, of national gratitude, was in their favour, he could not avoid anxiously entreating the attention of the House to these petitions.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.