ROMAN CATHOLIC PEER'S BILL.

HL Deb 21 June 1822 vol 7 cc1216-62

The Duke of Portland

rose to move the second reading of this bill. In doing this he could not refrain from reminding their lordships of what had been the state of Roman Catholic peers before the acts which the present bill proposed to repeal had passed. They would recollect that an act which passed in the reign of queen Elizabeth had excluded Roman Catholic members from the House of Commons. At this early period of the Reformation, when plots were supposed to exist against the new religion, it was not thought necessary to exclude Catholic peers from the House of Peers. In the reign of Charles 2nd, when the country was alarmed with charges of conspiracy, an act passed, by which Catholic peers excluded from their seats. This act of the 30th of Charles 2nd was afterwards repealed, and that of the 1st of William and Mary substituted in its stead; but if a jealousy of Roman Catholics was necessary in those times, it could not be contended that the same jealousy ought to exist now. At any rate, the jealousy ought not to be greater now than it was in the reign of Elizabeth, when the power of the church of Rome was in full vigour. The noble duke quoted the act of queen Elizabeth, which stated, that her majesty had confidence in the lords of parliament, and therefore that the act was not made to extend to them. Thus the law continued, allowing Catholic peers to sit in parliament till the 30th of Charles 2nd. During the whole period it never was objected to them that they acted in any manner hostile to the established religion. He could not, therefore, conjecture what reasons were to be urged against the present bill, and consequently could not be expected to answer them. In the time of Charles 2nd the jealousy and fears which prevailed afforded some pretence for the exclusion, and at the Revolution the state of the country also afforded a ground for that measure. But where could any pretext be found now? Parliament had, within the last twenty-five years, repeatedly suspended the Habeas Corpus act. But was it ever contended to be necessary, to make that suspension perpetual, because the dangers which made those suspensions expedient might again arise? Yet who would not allow that such dangers were a thousand times more probable than a Popish plot, or the intrusion of a Roman Catholic prince upon the throne? But those who opposed this measure ought at least to show that some such dangers were probable; for he would venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that if the alarm of the Popish plot, or the dangers which followed the Revolution, pr some equivalent cause of alarm had never existed, the Roman Catholic peers would have continued to enjoy their seats in that House to this hour, and if any person professing to entertain the fears which were opposed to the passing of this bill, had made them the ground of a motion to exclude de novo Roman Catholic peers from this House, such a motion would have been unanimously rejected as one of the grossest injustice.—He could see no difference between committing an act of injustice and continuing to connive at it. He regretted that his ignorance of the state of the law bad made him so long a party to its continuance—and he had great satisfaction in endeavouring to atone for it by now moving the second reading of this bill.

Lord Colchester

said:—My lords; differing entirely from the noble duke upon the important measure which he has brought under our consideration, I am desirous of stating briefly to your lordships, the grounds upon which I must endeavour to arrest its further progress. If, indeed, this day were set apart for declaring the sense of parliament upon the high and distinguished character of the Roman Catholic peers of the United Kingdom, the illustrious exploits of their ancestors, or their own personal merits, I beg leave to assure your lordships, with the most perfect sincerity, that there is no man living would concur more cheerfully or zealously than myself, in the expression or recognition of every sentiment which could redound to their praise and honour.

But, my lords, it is impossible for me, upon any such considerations, to concur in this bill, which by express enactment, or direct consequence, delivers to his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects at large, the keys of both Houses of Parliament; a measure studiously framed for obtaining, immediately and separately, the concession of a general principle in aid of the Roman Catholic claims, which concession may be afterwards brought to account, and turned to advantage, upon our future discussions; and this measure is represented to us now, as the: mere repeal of certain laws of exclusion, as if they had resulted only from the crisis of an unfounded popular panic.

This exclusion, however, if examined historically, will be found to have originated in the general spirit of our legislation, established long antecedent to that period, commencing from the laws passed in the reign of Elizabeth,* against all Roman Catholic recusants indiscriminately, and continuing down to the period of the Test act, and the growing practice of the House of Commons, to remove its own Roman Catholic members; † no Roman Catholic then sitting in either house of parliament but by sufferance. The exclusion then established by the act of Charles 2nd,‡ was afterwards substantially recognized: and adopted at the Revolution, by the prince of Orange's declaration from the Hague,§ requiring that Roman Catholics should be shut out from both Houses of Parliament, but by the summons of a Protestant parliament, and by the Bill of Rights ║ enacted for the safety of "this Protestant kingdom" with a Protestant king. The like exclusion was formally and specifically enacted as to Scotland, and incorporated in the very act of Union, ¶ which requires, that the representative peers and commoners, and their electors also, should all be Protestant. And this exclusion, after the interval of three reigns from that of Charles 2nd, was again deliberately confirmed, and applied to the whole of Great Britain, in the first year of the accession of the house of Hanover; ^** and *Stat. Eliz. 23, 29, 35. † Strickland's and Swale's cases. Come. Journ. IX. 393, 501. ‡ 30 Car. II. st. 2. § In M. Fagel's Letter 10 Mr. Stuart. 1687. ║1 W. M. sess. 2, c. 1. ¶ St. 5 Anne, c. 8. ^** 1 Geo. I, c. 13, § 16. again in the reign of Georges 2nd;^* the last of these statutes confirming all the former securities by express words, and declaring them to be in as full force as if every clause and provision of the former acts were therein inserted and re-enacted.

Such, my lords, are the origin and spirit of our policy; and such are the laws now existing upon this important point. And we have been often counseled by the wisest of our ancestors, that laws founded upon a general principle, such as this distrust of political power in Roman Catholic hands, although originating in a particular dander which has itself ceased to exist, may nevertheless be rightly retained, as safeguards against all other sorts of danger which fall within the scope of the same principle. But we are now told by the supporters of the present measure, that it is time to reverse our policy, and to repeal all our former laws upon this subject, and that the present bill is the first and fittest step to be taken towards so desirable an end.

Upon entering on this new course of policy, and considering how far we can safely proceed in this plan of repeal, and as to what we may do, or may not do, in the way of legislation, if we examine the ground before us step by step, we shall be enabled to judge more satisfactorily of the effect and bearings of the particular measure which we are desired this day to adopt. And in such a course, I have always thought that little should be done upon mere importunity, nothing upon menaces (such as we have sometimes heard), but every thing that we can do for the ease of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, so far as it can be done with safety to our own establishment in church and state; and so much, whatever be its amount, should, I think, be done freely and promptly upon its own fair grounds of justice and policy; and having done that, we should there, once for all, make our firm and final stand.

Of civil rights, I have always been of opinion, that the whole career of honours and emoluments should be laid open to the Roman Catholic dissenters, as much as to the Protestant dissenters from our national church, short only of the ruling powers of our Protestant church and government. I rejoice therefore, in the wise exercise of royal favour, in recently calling forth ^* 6 Geo II. c. 26, § 6. Roman Catholics of the highest rank to aid in the highest ceremonial of the royal state and dignity; and also in that signal mark of favour bestowed by the sovereign, in his late visit to Ireland, upon the most eminent of his Irish Roman Catholic subjects. The bar, the army, and the navy, are already open to them; and I see no reason whatever, against their admissibility to employment in all the services connected with the revenue, in all its various branches. It may be also matter of' fair consideration, to equalize the condition and privileges of all Roman Catholics throughout the United Kingdom, and to give to all (so far as may be possible) the same as are now enjoyed by any in any part of it. And I should be glad to see this course proceed with no limitation to the favour and munificence of the Crown, or the liberality of parliament, as to all those offices, which (in the language of Mr. Burke^*) are but instrumental in the executive administration of the state; reserving, nevertheless, and carefully reserving, to the king's Protestant subjects, all those higher offices which constitute its supreme rule and government.

Of religious toleration, and security for the worship peculiar to their mode of faith, there cannot be too much granted; and we should remove every painful restriction that trenches upon their feelings, and adds nothing at the same time to our defence. Of this sort would be the more complete protection of their worship from disturbance, if they need it; and the removal of that necessity which now compels them to celebrate their marriages in our church,† from whose rights and tenets their faith is abhorrent; and such relief I have cause to know was in the contemplation of a lamented friend, once the first minister of the Crown, whose life and power were unhappily and violently cut short by a premature fate.

But, my lords, the policy of our Protestant government still requires the continuance of our other existing restrictions upon all that concerns the ostentatious display of their worship; we must have no stately churches, no processions in our ^* Letter to sir H. Langrishe. 1792. † Marriage act, 26 Geo. II. c. 33 excepting Jews and Quakers. ‡ Irish stats. 9 W. III. c. 1. § 8; 8 Anne, c. 3; 21, 22 G. III. c. 62; 35 Geo. III c. 21; 40 G. III c. 85; English stats. 31 Geo. III. c. 32, § 17. streets, no monastic establishments in our realm, such as Castle-Browne, and Ample-forth, and Stoneyhurst, with their Jesuit professors, priests and missionaries; foundations erected in defiance of express law, and whose proceedings loudly call on the government and parliament for public investigation. On this head also, in addition to the enactments of our present laws, we shall do well to bear in mind the plain policy and express provision of the famous edict of Nantes,* which forbids the public exercise of any other than the dominant religion in our fleets and armies; a possible attempt, in the present growth of Roman Catholic pretensions, and which no man who values the safety of the state, can contemplate without just alarm.

With respect to the clergy of the church of Rome, as dissenters from our national church, I think it is needless and unwise any longer to refuse the recognition of their existence as a body. Nor do I see, why the sovereign may not in England, as he was rightly advised, to do in Ireland, receive their petitions and addresses in that character, as well as those of the Protestant Dissenting ministers (as they are called) of the three denominations.

But here, my lords, the necessity arises for new laws to regulate this ecclesiastical body; and the sovereign and the state have aright to demand, that no ecclesiastical authority shall be exercised in this realm, by aliens, nor by natives long expatriated, nor by students educated (as they now are) under Jesuit professors at Rome, nor by members professed of any monastic order; we should have no archpriests, no vicars-apostolic, the mere diplomatic agents and instruments of the court of Rome; no ecclesiastics should be recognized but those of episcopal and secular character, whose powers and duties are defined by the canon law, and those individuals to be subject to the approbation of the Crown.

Further, my lords, the policy of all Europe, in Protestant, and even in Roman Catholic states, requires that the intercourse of their subjects with the see of Rome, be placed under the direct inspection and control of the Crown; and the details of the necessary regulations, as ^*Edict of Nantes, article 15.—No Protestant worship in the army, "si non aux quartiers des chefs qui en feront profession. substantiated by the report from a committee of the other House of Parliament communicated to this House are now the standing diplomatic code of every nation in Europe, except our own. We must re-cast the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth;* and this is a work indispensably necessary, whatever else is to be done, and independently of all other measures. For lord Clarendon has long since truly told us,† that, it is in vain to legislate concerning the Roman Catholic laity, unless you also bind their clergy; for they turn things, civil into things spiritual at their pleasure; and, holding in servitude the conscience, they do therefore govern also the actions of the laity.

Such privileges as I have presumed to specify, and any others of the like degree, but under such limitations and regulation as I have suggested, may and ought, in my opinion, to be granted freely and promptly; but no political power in the ruling offices of the state, no seats in the supreme courts of justice, none in the royal councils, none in our Houses of Parliament.

Our Protestant ascendancy must be paramount, or we shall have, in no long time, a Roman Catholic domination. Let us not deceive ourselves. These two claims to power are utterly incompatible and irreconcilable.

The principles of the Roman Catholic religion are in direct hostility to the Reformed religion; and the basis of my refusal to admit Roman Catholics to the supreme offices of the state, is founded in my conviction of their sincerity in the religion they profess.

If you ask for the evidence of this hostility, it is prominent and undeniable; not drawn from Transalpine authority, nor from Spanish bigotry, but from the highest authority in the Roman Catholic church of France, from the writings of the acknowledged champion of the liberties of the Gallican church, the celebrated Bossuet, whose exposition of the Roman Catholic doctrines is still the manual of the faithful; and in his great work upon the variations of the Protestant Reformers from the true standard of faith, we are told again and again:—"The exercise of the power of the sword in matters of religion and conscience, is a ^* 13 Eliz. c. 2. † Lord Clarendon, Discourse on Religion and Policy; p. 667, 679. point not to be called in questions There is no illusion more dangerous than to make toleration a characteristic of the true church."*—"The, church of Rome is the most intolerant of all Christian sects.†—It is her holy and inflexible incompatibility which renders her severe, unconciliatory, and odious to all sects separated from her. They desire only to be tolerated by her; but her holy severity forbids such indulgence." These doctrines, renewed as they have been in our own times by the pontifical authority itself, t it is in vain for the Roman Catholic laity to disclaim, unless their clergy also, in whose hands their conscience is placed, shall now come forward and openly renounce this hostility.

We are told, I know, that our fears are nevertheless visionary, and the dangers we apprehend are unreal; that we who oppose these claims to power miscalculate their strength, and misrepresent the spirit of the Roman Catholic church in the present times;—that what once was hostile, is now changed and mitigated; that other states wisely adopt a more liberal policy;—and finally, that whatever be the principles of the Roman Catholics, their numbers are too disproportionate to ours, in this House, to give us cause for alarm.

Upon each of these points, a few words may suffice. And first, as to the mitigated spirit of hostility to our church in modern times. All who have visited the continent of late years, will, I am sure, be forward to allow, that the dignified simplicity, and unaffected piety of the reigning Pontiff, and the courteous attentions of his ruling minister to foreigners of all nations, and of England more especially, do justly command our respect and grateful acknowledgment. But it is not upon such grounds that we must legislate concerning the defences of our Protestant government. For history has recorded the circular mandates,§ issued by the present Pontiff himself, when torn from his dominions, and carried into exile, by the brutal violence of France; mandates, replete with the doctrines which we have most cause to dread; and history will not ^*Bossuet Hist. des Variations. Livre x. † Hist. des Variations, Sixiéme Advertissement. ‡ Circular Letter of Pius VII, to the Cardinals. 5th Feb. 1808. § 5th Feb, 1808. fail to record also, that, upon his restoration, he has re-peopled Italy with monks of all orders, and revived the Jesuits, whom all Europe had proscribed; and has opened the way for a Jesuit confessor to stand once more by the throne of a monarch.* And amongst the latest proofs of the same unchangeable hostility to Protestants, as such, the court of Rome has recently refused to protect from insult and destruction the Protestant tombs which have been erected within the walls of Rome; and has refused this reasonable request to the joint solicitation of all the Protestants of Europe there resident, though strongly urged by the diplomatic representative of one great Protestant power,† and repeatedly pressed by the presumptive heir of another Protestant crown,‡ an illustrious person, now no stranger to the habits and institutions of this country.

But then, my lords, we are next desired to withdraw our views from Transalpine or Transappenine Rome; not to look to the dark dogmas of the Vatican, or to the superstitious credulity of a people who could attest or believe in the modern miracles of 1797 or 1811:§ we are desired to come forth and look upon the map of enlightened Europe, and take example from the more liberal policy of other states, which rule over a mixed population of different modes of faith.

Be it so. And what shall we find here? Roman Catholic sovereigns, such as France, Austria, and Saxony (for Spain and Portugal are blotted out and of no value in such a question), ruling Protestant subjects; and Protestant sovereigns, such as Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, ruling over Roman Catholic subjects.

Of these, the Roman Catholic sovereign ^* King of Sardinia, 1822. † Envoy of Prussia. ‡ Prince of Denmark. § See "Miraculous Appearance of the Images of the Blessed Virgin opening her eyes in various parts of the Roman state, between 9th July, 1796, and January, 1797, published at Rome, 1797, by D. Gio. Marchetti, Esaminatore Apostolico; with 962 Attestations, by persons of the highest rank and credit. 1 vol. 8vo. Also, The Miraculous Extases of the present pope at Savona, in June, August, and September, 1811, engraved and circulated throughout Italy. has nothing to fear from the admission of Protestant subjects to political power; for the Protestant has no foreign connexion, no proselyting spirit in his religion, and he may be put down with the stroke of a pen.

The Protestant sovereign has, in every instance, jealously bound his Roman Catholic subject from any unauthorised intercourse with Rome; and he can equally dismiss him, if troublesome, by the same short process.

There is amongst these, no case parallel to ours. Arbitrary governments and limited governments stand on a different footing, as to the power and privileges which they can safely allow to the different classes of their subjects; and there exists no other country but this, where character, talents, and popular credit, can raise any subject instantly to that eminence which commands an entrance into the service of his sovereign, and gives him an effective share in the ruling councils of the state, for its preservation, or for its destruction, as the event may prove,

It is urged, in the last place, that the danger which we object to the present measure, must have reference to the numbers of those whose pretensions, if admitted, are to create the danger. This is undoubtedly true. But we must be careful, not to lay what ought to be the durable foundations of our legislation upon shifting grounds. In legislation, as in every other prudential and practical question, we should consider to-morrow as to-day. And it is amazing to me, that any persons of ordinary sagacity can fail to foresee, that the paucity of present numbers affords no security against their future increase.

Any powerful minister of the Crown, who advocates measures like the present, with a strong sense of the injustice which (according to his view) the existing families who constitute the Roman Catholic gentry have long suffered, may, and ought, upon his own principles to make them speedy and full compensation for their long-intercepted honours. In the reign of queen Anne, we have a precedent for a simultaneous addition to our peerage of no inconsiderable amount; and in proportion as the grievance is considered to have been long, heavy and unjustifiable, such in proportion would naturally be the reparation. We might-well look to have in our House a much larger importation than took place at that period; and successive ministers, under the; occasional difficulties which beset them, when the gates were set open, and the broad path paved, might, and would enlarge the number without stint or limit.

By irresistible inference, what might be called equal justice Should be done also with respect to the other House of Parliament. The Roman Catholic elector must be allowed to elect Roman Catholic representatives for his county, whether in England or Ireland; and I leave it to your lordships meditation, how soon, and by what courses, political ambition, coupled with or goaded by religious zeal, duly directed, might gradually appropriate to itself, by the wealth of ancient and opulent families, much also of that description of property, which locally influences the return of other members to the Commons' House of Parliament. I verily believe, that the current would set strongly and constantly in that direction, and the consequences are manifest.

And now, my lords, to conclude these observations with I have already troubled your lordships at too great length. With my view of the present character and future consequences of this measure, by which a new form of party spirit will be introduced into both Houses of parliament, directed always, under all circumstances, steadily and invariably to one and the same sole object, by which polemics will be revived in our universities, discord spread through our municipal corporations, the land peopled with more Jesuit establishments for the education of our youth, and a restless, proselyting clergy, with all their missionaries, set at work throughout the country;—and preferring as I do the national character and habits of our country as they now prevail, the sober piety of our Protestant form of worship, and the mild and tolerant spirit of the church of England, rightly understood, I must of necessity vote against the further progress of this bill; and I shall therefore conclude, with proposing as an amendment to the original motion, "That instead of this bill being now read a second time, it be read a second time on this day six months."

Lord Erskine

said:—I have listened, my lords, to my noble friend with great attention and respect. I give him full credit for the state of the Catholic world in the papal countries he has so lately visited. Nobody is more competent to make judicious observations, nor more sure to report the faithfully; but I cannot see their application, nor of any part of his able speech to the motion, he has made. To every thing that has been said, I answer, that this bill now before us, which he desires us to reject, does not claim, as matter of political expediency, the general admission of Catholics to the legislative franchise, but only asserts the hereditary right of Catholic peers to their seats in this House, upon their taking the oaths prescribed by law to other Catholics, when received to various functions of the magistracy from which thy were formerly excluded.

If the ancient constitutional policy of the country had required that the legislature, in all its branches, should be Protestant, Roman Catholics (even peers) must of course have been excluded, from the period of the Reformation; but the contrary is most notorious; nor was the validity, of their inherent privilege ever agitated or questioned, until it was abruptly taken away by the act of the 30th of Charles the 2nd, an act not arraigning the general policy of the past enjoyment of their rights, but repealing them, upon a grossly false and wicked imputation of disloyalty in all Catholics, to the civil constitution of the state. In a word, my lords, the popish plot was the sudden and sole ground for incapacitating the whole Catholic peerage; although there was no evidence whatsoever, to arraign the integrity or loyalty of any one lord in this House. Nothing, indeed, can be more afflicting, than to look back to the trial of viscount Stafford, the unhappy victim of this atrocious conspiracy. Few men, my lords, have had more experience than myself in the proceedings of courts of justice, yet my whole life is in a manner a blank in the contemplation of human iniquity, when I compare all I have witnessed with the horrid perjuries by which this innocent and pious man was sacrificed; and nothing can more strikingly mark the blind prejudice which at that period overshadowed the ablest and justest men, than to attend to the language of Mr. Serjeant Maynard, so justly celebrated at the æra of the Revolution, in his opening of the impeachment, on the foundation, the sole foundation of this nefarious plot. This able lawyer addressed the House of Lords in these very words:—"The particulars concerning this noble lord, rested at first Upon the testimony of one man only, viz. Titus Oates; and as to the matter of fact, I shall say only this, and I wish it to be spoken in gratitude to the Almighty God, that the discovery of this plot was rather the work of God than of man. It was the act of God rather than of man.—It was the act of God in prevailing upon Mr. Oates to make the discovery, and afterwards, by the voluntary confession of one concerned in the whole plot, I Mean Mr. Bedlowe; and then there were two witnesses which was necessary in cases; of treason. I shall no more than that we ought to acknowledge the hand of God in this discovery with great thankfulness; for it is he, and he alone, out his own grace and goodness, that hath done it, and thereby preserved the life of our prince to us, and in him us too. I have no doubt that this great, lawyer delivered this speech with the most perfect conviction of its truth; yet with such a miserable case as he had to support it, nothing could be more unworthy of a man of sense. How much more just and affecting was the appeal to the mercy of God on the lips of the unhappy lord Stafford, when he expressed a confidence, that "it would please Almighty God, in a short time to bring truth to light, when his judges and ail the world would see what injury had been done him." And surely, my lords, the dying wish on an innocent and pious man was never more fully and strikingly accomplished; for this speech was on the 23rd of December, 1680, and on the 8th of May, 1685, not five years afterwards, this monster Oates was convicted of the most accumulated and, palpable perjuries, in the Court of King's Bench, upon the oaths of above 40 witnesses, who proved, without a shadow of contradiction, that he was, without an hour's absence, at St. Omer's in France, throughout the whole period when he had been swearing to the traitorous meetings in the Strand of London, by which lord Stafford and other innocent men were to be murdered. And, what should caution us, my lords, against prejudices beyond any one fact that history ever recorded, or can have to record hereafter, our public-spirited and honest forefathers, after they had redeemed their country by the glorious Revolution not only pardoned this most infamous monster, but libelled the court of justice that tried him, and granted him a pension for his life; and this not upon any assumed discovery of his innocence, but accomplished in all the nakedness of delusion and injustice.

Nothing can be more lamentable than all this; and, therefore, to close at once the disgusting subject, if any one amongst your lordships is prepared to say, that this charge upon the Catholic lords, had any other foundation whatsoever than this odious and detected conspiracy, I will withdraw my support to the bill, and vote for the motion before us. I am a man of Scotland, my lords, bred from the beginning of my days in what was called by Mr. Burke, the Protestantism of the Protestant religion, which I shall ever adhere to; but I never can believe that either the Protestant faith or our Protestant establishment, can at all suffer from establishing the birth-rights of calumniated Catholics, which is all that is demanded of us by this bill.

At the time when this exclusion took place, by enacting an oath which no Catholic could possibly take, and which we had by our own standing orders declared should never be administered to a peer for the destruction of his inheritance, there was a well-founded apprehension of a popish successor to the Crown. Is that so now? Let me ask my noble and learned friend upon the woolsack, whether he apprehends any such danger from the illustrious duke who sits so near him, or from any other prince of the royal house [Hear, hear, and a laugh!].

At the same period, also, and long after the Revolution, no credit whatsoever was given by the law to the protestations or oaths of Roman Catholics. They were proscribed by a long catalogue of penal statutes; and as they were admitted to no tests by which their fidelity to government could be manifested, they were, of course, excluded from every situation of trust or magistracy, which, by ancient custom, can be only filled under solemn sworn declarations of fidelity to the state. I am ready to admit, therefore, that whilst such a system of universal mistrust and proscription continued, it might be difficult to make an exception of the peerage after the 30th of Charles the 2nd, had been passed; from the assumption, that all Catholics were incapable of fidelity to a Protestant state whilst they admitted the supremacy of the pope; but can this be maintained now, when the whole proscriptive system has been abandoned; when spiritual supremacy is no longer absurdly confounded with temporal authority; and when Catholics have accordingly been admitted to the most important functions of the magistracy, after taking the oaths of abjuration prescribed by modern statutes—oaths which Catholics of all description without any religious scruple have ever been ready to take—and are received under them to high offices of trust. And in Scotland as your lordships cannot but know, the king's religious supremacy was never admitted, and such an oath was never, therefore, administered, and so entirely is such supremacy put aside, that by the act of the 33rd of the late king, referring to another act passed two years before, for the protection of English and Irish Catholics, the oath of abjuration only is prescribed as set out in the statute, and it then declares, that whoever has taken it shall be taken to be, to all intents and purposes, as a loyal subject, and as having abjured popery altogether.

Now, let me ask lour lordships, why this act, and this act alone, would not be sufficient test loyalty, and of having abjured popery altogether, in every sense connected with fidelity to the government, if administered to Catholic peers before they take their seats: and why the same oaths that are daily administered to rather Catholics, under which they are admitted to public stations, should not be now-accounted also sufficient test for Catholic peers who never should have been subjected to any test whatsoever?—To keep up this solitary test of supremacy for the purpose of exclusions therefore now not only most unjust, but manifestly contradictory and absurd.—I hoped that the well-timed and gracious visit to Ireland, and all that passed there, was intended to put an end to this impolitic and perilous system. Tranquillity can never be restored to that misgoverned country, so long as it continues, nor any benefit be derived from it to the empire, of which it would otherwise form so valuable a part.

The Lord Chancellor

was of opinion, that this bill demanded nothing more or less than unlimited concession to the Roman Catholics. Give the Catholics this bill, and they could resist nothing here after which they ought to resist. If he could hesitate one single moment to grant any thing which the Roman Catholics could request or desire, provided the Protestant church was secure, he should act most unworthily. But he never could learn what securities were to be given to the Protestant church; and that was the reason why he never could assent to the concessions asked. Towards the end of the last session he had, indeed, seen a bill which proposed its securities. But, good God, was it from the descendants of the great authors of the Revolution of 1688 that a measure proceeded which was the most amazing thing he had seen in the course of a long life? The measure of last year provided, or rather left, one security; which was, that one individual should be a Protestant—an individual who must be a Protestant, and who, if he ceased to be a Protestant, would at once, and by that act, dissolve all allegiance. The king, it was provided, must be a Protestant; but the bill of last year left that Protestant king to be surrounded by Roman Catholics, save only the individual who held the office which he (the lord chancellor) so unworthily held. If he were speaking any where but in that House, he would say he had never seen such nonsense. That House had never had submitted to it such trash about bulls and dispensations as that bill contained. He would here say, and he said it once for all, that many of their lordships had a very imperfect notion of what the state of the Protestant mind was upon this question. This he said, not upon the authority of petitions, but upon authority which could not mislead him. The noble lord had distinguished Roman Catholic peers from other Roman Catholics. He should say nothing but what was most respectful towards them. It was not for such a man as he was to speak his own sentiments on such a point, but he would adopt the words of a great judge, in the case of the great chamberlain, who said, that he made a covenant of his affections and feelings, lest they should wrest his judgment; for who that had any feeling of nobleness and greatness could help feeling in the case of such a person? So he said in this case. He could, however, avail himself of the authority of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Grattan, of many noble lords in that House, of every name celebrated as advocating concession since the last twenty years, and even of the respectable gentleman who was supposed to be the author of this bill—to bear him out in saying, that until the end of last session not one of them had asked concessions to the Roman Catholics without securities to the Protestant church. It might be said, that this was a particular measure, and had nothing to do with the general one. But that he would deny. When their lordships should have passed the bill now before them, it would be out of their power hereafter to deliberate as they ought on any further concession. On looking at the bill in its original shape, he was disposed to think that he had been misled by some foolish fellow of a printer who had got hold of the wrong manuscript. The bill, to his great astonishment, proposed to repeal an act of Charles 2nd. It was not a little extraordinary that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), whom he wished very well whatever part of the world he might go to, assisted as he had been by the labours of many lawyers, should pretend to repeal an act which had been repealed a hundred years ago. This absurdity, however, had been got over; and now its advocates went on to say, that the circumstances and causes which existed in the time of Charles 2nd, were now removed, and, therefore, that the bill ought to be adopted, without ever considering whether the circumstances and causes which had called forth repeated enactments since that period, had all disappeared with those at the time of Charles 2nd. No man could look at the history of this country prior to the Reformation; without feeling that our ancestors, however nobly they might have conducted themselves in other respects, had ignominiously submitted to the See of Rome. From that period down to the Revolution, the public mind took another turn; and the country was afflicted with all those miseries which resulted naturally from the unsettled condition of its religion, and the difficulty of determining whether the Catholic or the Protestant would ultimately be adopted by the state. If the House should decide in favour of the present measure, they would place the country in the same difficulties, and expose it to the same calamities, until another revolution should determine whether the Catholic or the Protestant religion should predominate. If they were of opinion that the Catholic religion ought to predominate they should say so; if they thought that the Protestant religion ought to predominate they should say so. One or the other they were bound to say. An act to repeal the acts which had passed at different times, imposing restrictions on the Catholics, was an act to restore the supremacy of the pope. But what was the opinion of chief justice Hale himself with respect to the oath of supremacy? He bad stated distinctly, that it was impossible for Protestants and Catholics to take the oath of allegiance in the same sense, if the Catholic refused to take the oath of supremacy. In the reign of Henry 8th and in that of Elizabeth, the struggle went on between the contending parties. Then came the Corporation act and the Test act. It was impossible that they could give the Catholics what they asked, and leave the Protestant Dissenters in their present state. In the 5th of Elizabeth, by a strange anomaly, the House of Commons was at liberty to have Roman Catholic members, while the House of Lords was prohibited. This was inconsistent enough; but it was with perfect astonishment he had heard it insinuated, that all the great men concerned in the Revolution were seized with such a terrible fright as to continue and reenact for that reason alone, the provisions of the act of Charles 2nd in the settlement which they made. In his opinion, if Titus Oates had never been born, the same enactments would have taken place. He could not forget what Russell had said of popery, what Sidney had said of it. In looking to the spirit of the times, and the principle upon which those enactments rested, the question with him was, whether the pleasures taken by William, queen Anne, and George the 1st and 2nd, for the security of the Protestant establishment, should or should not be repealed? In all the indemnity acts that were passed, no allusion was made to the act of Charles 2nd, but merely to those which he had just mentioned. As to the confidence that ought to be placed in a king, he looked on the word of a king to be as sacred as his honour or his oath; but that would not do as a security for the constitution. James the 2nd had often said, that nothing could be nearer to his heart than the protection of the Protestant religion; yet he went on making his own will the law, and dispensing with the act of Charles 2nd, and with all others that ought to have bound him. He, therefore, would be unwilling to trust a king any farther than the law had trusted him. He was anxious to provide for to-morrow as well as to-day; and not being able to foresee what might happen, he was desirous to retain the securities which our ancestors, at the Revolution, considered to be necessary. He might be told, indeed, that no acts, not even those of the Revolution, could be considered fundamental; that the legislature of one day could not bind the legislature of another; but it accorded with the principles of legislation to say of certain acts, that posterity should be cautious how they disturbed them. They would find, with respect to the acts to which he now alluded that they were stated at the time to be fundamental and binding for ever; which marked at least the importance attached to them by our ancestors. What was the language of king William in all his communications? He had stated over and over that some permanent settlement should be made, in order, that the religion and liberties of the country might never again be put into danger. And what did our ancestors do? They who were so desperately frightened by Titus Oates, re-enacted the disability of the Catholic peers to sit in parliament. They provided that the Lords should be Protestant, the Commons Protestant, and the King Protestant also. They even took care to provide, that be should marry a Protestant; and, not content with all that, they added a coronation oath, by which the king bound himself to support the Protestant religion, as by law established. At the time of the Revolution they made the church and state Protestant, and the king could not take his seat on the throne without pledging himself to protect both church and state, under the obligation of an oath. They had determined that the' parliament should be Protestant as well as the king; and the Bill of Rights declared that that should be the law for ever. He did not mean to say, that parliament had not the power to alter the law if they should think proper; but he would say, that they ought to proceed with great caution in a question of such vast importance, and hesitate before they passed so great a censure upon those who effected the Revolution. He now came to the union with Scotland; and he would say, that if they were at liberty to do that which was now proposed, the parliament of Scotland had made a bargain with the legislature of this country, so exceedingly foolish, that he knew not how to designate it by any appropriate epithet. The English acts on the subject of that union were very few: those passed by the parliament of Scotland were more numerous. He would call on noble lords to read the acts both of England and Scotland relative to the union, and, having done so, they could- entertain no doubt but that a pure Protestant legislature was intended. It was expressly stated, that no man should be elected, and that no man should elect, to seat in either House who was not a Protestant. It appeared to him utterly impossible that they could, under these statutes, agree to this bill. If they did, they might, if they pleased, overbear the whole of the provisions connected with the union of Scotland and England.—He now came to the reign of Geo. 1st. Soon after the Revolution, an act was passed which had nothing to do with the causes that produced the act of Charles 2nd, and yet it recognized the provisions of that measure. In the same way, the act of George 1st, without referring to the Revolution as necessary not—without adverting to the causes that produced it—alluded to all the acts and declarations which had sprung out of it, and re-enacted them all. He then alluded to the act of indemnity passed in the reign of George 2nd, as a farther illustrations of his argument. In the preamble of that act, the causes and circumstances which gave rise to the act of Charles 2nd were enumerated; and he contended, that their lordships could not agree to the present measure, without saying that all the causes and circumstances which occasioned various acts from the time of Charles 2nd up to the last year, had ceased to exist. How, he demanded, could suck an assertion be made by those, who, year after year, when bringing bills into parliament on this very subject, ushered them in with a declaration, that they could not think of touching on the Protestant establishment in church and state, and therefore proposed what they called securities, but what he considered to be no securities at all? How any one could introduce such a measure as the present, and at the same time say, that it would have no effect whatever on the general measure of emancipation, he could not conceive. Submissive as he was sure the people of this country would be, to whatever parliament enacted, still, he hoped, that, with reference to this measure, the feelings of the people would not be forgotten. He knew not the meaning of one body of people being excluded from the House of Commons, while another body, professing the same faith, were admitted into the House of Peers. If they were once admitted to sit in that House, Roman Catholics must also of necessity sit in the House of Commons. It could not be otherwise. Would the noble mover of this bill abrogate any of those enactments which, with respect to religion, affected the sovereign? Would he allow the king to marry a Papist? I the noble earl, from a conscientious feeling, would prevent his sovereign from marrying a Papist, he from an equally conscientious feeling, must object to the introduction of Papists into that House. He was quite sure, that if he agreed to this specific measure; he could not resist any other was nothing more nor less than a motion for general emancipation; and therefore he could not consent to its adoption. In a short time it would be of very little consequence to what he did or what he did not consent; but, while he had the power, he would endeavor to discharge his duty firmly. It was repeatedly urged, that the question of emancipation would be carried sooner or later. He did not believe it: and he thought the oftener the assertion was made, the less chance there was of its being confirmed. If these were the last words he ever spoke, he would say, that, should this measure be carried, then the liberties of his country, as settled at the Revolution, the laws of his country as established by the securities formed at that time for the preservation of her freedom, were all gone: but he should, have the pleasure to reflect, that he had not been accessary to their destruction. The laws and liberties of England he would maintain to the uttermost; and therefore he would decidedly oppose this measure.

Earl Grey

admitted, that the learned earl had introduced into the present discussion a great portion of legal learning; but its application to the question now before the House had not, he thought, been very distinctly pointed out by the learned earl. He would begin where the learned earl had concluded. He would say, that to the liberties of his country, as established at the Revolution, he was as firmly attached as the learned earl; and if he could see, in this bill, the most remote tendency to the destruction of any of the necessary securities for the maintenance of those liberties, no man would more eagerly resist such a measure than he would. But, believing that this exclusion was not the principle on which their ancestors had acted at the Revolution, but was, in reality, an exception, to the general principle; and seeing, the present state of the world, that there were no longer any of those existing causes which history informed them operated on the minds of men at that time, he, in the genuine spirit of the Revolution, appealed to their lordships on behalf of those noble persons who had hitherto been deprived of the rights and privileges which were inherent in them from their birth. The learned earl like the noble baron on the cross bench, had endeavoured to impress their lordships with a notion, that this bill, if passed, was only a preliminary step to the adoption of the full measure of emancipation. Undoubtedly, if that were the ease, it would not operate as an objection in his mind. It was, however, said, that this measure was only a veil, by which the real object intended to be effected was kept out of view. But though he had heard such insinuations cast out against this bill, it did not in the smallest degree alter his opinion of it, and he thought that those insinuations were without the remotest shadow of foundation. How stood the case? The author of that bill, an open, ardent, and, it must be admitted, most powerful advocate of the Roman Catholics, seeing that it was not intended by those who usually introduced this question, to bring forward a general measure of relief in the present session, determined to introduce the measure now before their lordships. On his application to the House of Commons, he was allowed to bring in a bill to admit Catholic peers to seats in their lordships' house—a privilege of which they had been deprived contrary to justice. Was not the measure thus brought forward entitled to be considered on its own merits, without reference to any adventitious circumstance? Certainly it was; and it required more than the mere assertion of the learned earl, to prove, that, if it were passed, the full measure of emancipation was conceded. He had always abstained from resting the claims of the Catholics on any assertion of right. He maintained, as high as any man could do, the general rights of conscience, in obedience to which men were permitted to worship their Creator according to the forms of that religion which they believed to be true. Admitting this, however, he admitted also that it might be liable to restraint, when such restraint was proved to be, necessary for the general safety. But this necessity ought to be clearly made out, and the onus of proof lay upon those who maintained that restrictions and disqualifications were called for. This was the only true principle, on which exclusion could be justified. It such a case could be made out, and if the right of self-defence were as great in communities as amongst individuals, then he admitted that exclusion might be resorted to. But the proof of the necessity rested on those who introduced restrictions; and if, in the case of an individual, they were bound to look with anxious attention to the proof of such a necessity, bow much more forcibly were they called on to examine the circumstances connected with the situation of those Roman Catholic peers, who were brought before their lordships, not on their own application, but a strong sense of justice operating on the feelings of him the author of this bill? It was for those who opposed the bill to show, why those noble persons should be deprived of those privileges to which they were entitled at their birth—which their ancestors had enjoyed through a long series of ages—and which could not be abrogated, except for crimes that would degrade them from the peerage, or in consequence of some political necessity such as he had stated.—Placing the question on this ground, let their lordships see how it stood. From the Reformation, until the time of the act of Charles 2nd, Catholic peers were not excluded from that house. The learned earl had gone into previous parts of our history, and had quoted several acts of Henry 8th, passed to secure the succession of the Crown in the proper line. These acts referred to the oath of supremacy, but none of them required that oath to be taken by members of either House of parliament. Until the 5th of Elizabeth, no oaths were taken, and no qualifications were required for members of parliament. In the 5th of Elizabeth, an oath was taken; but it was not introduced as a previous condition for members about to take their seats, neither was it visited by forfeiture if they did not; and in the act containing that oath, there was an express exception favour of members of the House of Lords. Then, what was the inference, when, in the early part of the Reformation, at a time when the dangers which threatened the new system were so great, they found no test imposed? Was it not clear, that the Catholic religion was not viewed as containing doctrines dangerous to the state? What was the situation of Elizabeth, and what were the dangers to which her government was exposed? She had, at the time to which he alluded, the most powerful monarchs of Europe leagued against her: the most powerful pontiff that the history of the Catholic church could furnish, then sanctioned the measures of those potentates who were anxious for her destruction. That was a period abounding in fearful events. The assassination of the prince of Orange in the Netheralnds—the massacre of St. Bartholomew in Paris—the various conspiracies against the life of the queen, were all calculated to excite distrust and suspicion. And yet, with all these inducements to adopt severe measures, Elizabeth and her parliament never thought it necessary to exact that security, which the learned earl now declared to be the great defence on which the safety of the constitution, and of the Protestant religion, essentially depended. On the contrary, by an express provision in the act, peers were exempted from the operation of that law which compelled members of the other House to take the oath of supremacy. Elizabeth found no reason to repent of her conduct. The country was menaced by various dangers in her time, but the learned earl could not show that any danger arose from the course she adopted towards the Roman Catholics. Not withstanding all the efforts that were made to exclude them, the great body of the peers never thought such a security necessary. When the great combination was set on foot against the Protestant religion, headed by Philip 2nd, and aided by the policy of the pope, did Elizabeth find any reason to repent the confidence she had placed in her Catholic subjects? Were not the Catholics most zealous defenders of Elizabeth's throne, against the assaults of her numerous enemies? In the time of James 1st they continued to enjoy seats in that House, not with standing similar dangers which then prevailed, and the hatred which James bore to their religion. Charles 1st, plunged into a civil war, partly by his own misconduct and party by the misconduct of his advisers, found the Catholics amongst the most vigorous supporters of his Crown.—He now came to the reign of Charles 2nd. And here the learned earl appeared to have confounded two laws. The Corporation act was passed in the first years after the restoration of Charles 2nd, and that which was passed in the 13th year of his reign was directed against the adherents of Cromwell and the Puritans. The Test act was introduced to keep down the duke of York and his adherents—the duke being the next heir to the throne, and known to be a Roman Catholic. That act excluded from civil and military offices those who would not subscribe the declaration against transubstantiation. It had the effect of removing the duke of York from all his offices, which was followed by the resignation of the lord Treasurer. The subsequent conduct of the duke of York justified all the fears that were entertained of him; and it was also suspected that the king countenanced the religion of his brother. Under these circumstances, that period arrived which gave birth to the popish plot. The learned earl must surely be struck with horror at the bare recital of the proceedings which then took place, when law afforded no protection, and innocence imparted no security—when the most incredible tales were supported by the most hideous perjury—when fears and prejudices ware so much stronger than reason, that credit was given to stories so improbable as to excite wonder how men, even under suck circumstances, could believe them. The act of the 13th of Charles 2nd was passed during this alarming state of things. But he would refer to events that occurred in the year 1675, the year in which the test act was passed, but previous to the passing of the act. At that time another Test, called the Bishop's act, was pro posed. It was sent to their lordships House, but it was resisted, as incompatible with the rights of the peers. They declared, that its provisions affected those rights which were inherent in them from their birth, and which could not betaken from them except by the commission of particular crimes. In the course of the discussion on that bill, a standing order was proposed, in one of the fullest house that ever assembled, and was carried nem. con. that no peer should be deprived of his seat in parliament, on account of his refusal to take any oath. Thus was established the right of Catholic peers to sit in that House; yet, although this order remained on the Journals of the. House the statute of the 13th of Charles 2nd was passed. By whom was that statute proposed, and who were its supporters? By the very persons who had previously maintained the right of peers to sit in that House without taking a test. What was the inference to be drawn from this remarkable circumstance? That the Popish plot had excited such feelings of terror and dismay, as induced those who were in power to remove from amongst them the Roman Catholic peers. Those peers had an hereditary right to sit in that branch of the legislature, from which they could not fairly be excluded, except some paramount necessity demanded it. Their exclusion must be founded on, and limited by, that necessity alone. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the time, and looking to the heats and violences that prevailed, and which deprived the measure of all those sober qualities of collective wisdom that ought to distinguish such an act; he now stood before their lordships and claimed for the Roman Catholic peers the ancient privileges of the constitution. He asked for no new concession—he aimed at no innovation—he called for the ancient constitution of that House, bottomed on the principles and the practice of the ancient constitution of the land; and, before he refused the claim, the learned cart must show, that something had occurred at a subsequent period which gave to this law of exclusion that character, which could not fairly be contended to belong to it. The learned lord said, "Setting aside all the horrible perjuries of Oates, and of the villain Bedloe, we now come to the period of the Revolution;" and then it was argued that, although the perjuries of Oates had been discovered, yet was found necessary, on strong but very different grounds, to continue this law of exclusion. It was, he knew, continued under the reign of that monarch to whose exertions they were indebted for all the law and liberty which they now possessed. But he was inclined to think that, if some little credit had not been given to the stories of Oates, the act would not have been continued at the Revolution The Revolution stood on principles opposed to that measure; and as the exclusion was kept up at that time, it was necessary to show under what circumstances it was adopted or continued. If it could not be proved that it was continued in consequence of some manifest danger to be apprehended from the Roman Catholics, the mere fact of its being continued would not serve the argument of the learned earl. At that time the fabrications of Oates were fresh in the memory of the people, and a popish sovereign, who aimed at the religion and laws of the country, had been excluded from the throne. His interest was supported by almost a majority of the country; and his object was, to establish arbitrary principles, and to remove those laws which were obnoxious to the Roman Catholics. Besides the support of many of the subjects of this realm, the exiled price was countenanced by the great monarch of France, then in the zenith of his power, and all the Roman Catholics of that day were attached to his fortunes. It was to these impending dangers, and to the fears which were otherwise wholly inconsistent with the principles of the constitution. But the persons who acted at the Revolution, and to whom they owed every thing of law and liberty which they possessed, were not impelled by those motives alone: they also maintained opinions of the Roman Catholic religion very different form those that were held at the present day. Upon former occasions, the learned lord had quoted Locke and lord Somers. Now, those illustrious persons were not exempt from the prevailing prejudices regarding the Roman Catholic religion; they believed that its professors were connected with the abdicated monarch, and that it involved principles dangerous to society itself—notions which at present no man entertained. The noble earl opposite, on previous debates, had himself admitted that he found nothing immoral in the tenets of the Roman Catholics; he did not think that they sanctioned a breach of faith with heretics, or supported the doctrine that princes might be excommunicated by the pope, and subjects absolved from their allegiance. From all these charges the Roman Catholic religion had now been exculpated. Looking, then, to the period of the Revolution, he found that there were two grounds on which the exclusion had rested. 1. The danger to which the government might be exposed by a popish pretender. 2. That the Roman Catholic religion contained tenets which, in our day, no candid person attributed to it. Did those grounds exist at the present moment? As to danger, it was ridiculous to talk of if—the last miserable remnant of the unhappy race of the Stuarts was extinct. As to tents, all enlightened Protestants concurred in the opinion that from them there was nothing to be apprehended. He asked, then, whether, under these circumstances, the obnoxious law ought not to be repealed? Could the House, consistently with any principle of justice or policy, continue it upon the Statute-book? The learned earl had said that this measure was brought forward without securities—that it was the first time such an attempt had been hazarded, for that all who had hitherto contended for relief had always accompanied it with securities. He begged to be excepted from this statement; seeing that he had many years since stated it as his opinion, that the measure to be satisfactory ought to be unfettered with securities; that they were valuable rather in name than in substance, and that he looked at them rather as designed to reconcile public opinion than as being of any real importance. The noble earl opposite (Liverpool) had also over and over again said, that if he could reconcile himself to the bill at all, he could do so infinitely sooner upon its own distinct grounds, unincumbered with securities.—But, what the Supporters of the bill were contending for this day was, not a general measure of relief, but a particular measure which was to restore Roman Catholic peers to their privilege of sitting and voting in parliament, which they had enjoyed from the Reformation to the reign of Charles 2nd. What securities were annexed to the exercise of this right at that time other than those which resulted from the undoubted loyalty of the individuals? "Then," said the learned earl "it will be an anomaly to admit Catholic peers into this branch of the legislature, and to exclude Catholic commoners from the other." To this he replied, that parliament might stop short here, as on other occasions; and that if it were an anomaly, it had existed from the time of Henry 8th to the reign of Charles 2nd. For his part, he should be most happy to see this anomaly removed; to see Catholics sitting and voting in the House of Commons; but he looked at this simply as a measure of restoration, and he found that the earlier period of our history the enjoyment Of the right had been attended with no danger to the Protestant succession. The learned earl opposed this bill, also, because he fancied it must lead to ulterior measure. Now, this bill stood on its own separate ground, and neither would retard nor promote the general measure of relief. The learned earl admitted that the legislature of to-day could not bind that of to-morrow. On what principle, then, was it contended, that this exclusion was so sanctioned by the parliament of the Revolution, that it could never afterwards be repealed. At the time of the Union, it was undoubtedly provided, that the lords should take the oath of supremacy, but only "until it shall be otherwise directed by the British parliament:" But, when securities were called for, he would ask whether there were no acts standing emphatically upon the same ground as that now under consideration in which no securities had been given? By the act of 1817 every rank of the army and navy was laid open to the Catholics. He had reason remember something of that statute, for when, in 1807, a feeble attempt was made to accomplish the same object, it was resisted by the learned lord and others, who represented its supporters as the enemies of the constitution. The power of the sword then only was talked of. Yet, in a few short years afterwards, this very power was given by those who had raiser such a clamour against it, and without the exaction of any securities. Having thus opened the army and navy unrestrictedly, he put it to the House, whether the dangers arising from six or seven Catholic peers of illustrious descent, having scats in that. House, and whom their opponents acknowledged would be the ornaments of any assembly, was not chimerical? When it was asserted, that the bill must lead to farther consequences, he would ask, how did the experience of the act of 1817 justify that assertion If the bill passed the general question of relief would be brought on; if it did not pass, the general question would still be brought on, and at no distant period; but he could not see how the general measure would be affected by the result of this motion, in any other way than because it was founded on the same large principles of justice and policy.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, it was on every account desirable to discuss this bill on its own merits, with as little reference as possible to the more extended measures. The noble earl had said, that this bill not meant as a step to the general question. Supposing, then, it were to exclude that general question, he would ask whether it was fit, if it passed, that nothing else should be done? For no measure could be more mischievous to the Catholics than passing this bill, if it were not intended to go further. Those, therefore, who had hitherto been most favourable to concession, ought to be the firmest in their resistance upon the present occasion. Before he stated his specific objections to the bill, he wished to say a few words on the general history to which the noble earl had adverted. No man could hold the conduct of Titus Oates and the popish plot in greater abhorrence than himself; they only afforded an additional instance of the melancholy effects of faction, confounding the understandings and perverting the feelings of its dupes. Before, however, he came to that date, he would shortly look back to the real state of the country, as to Catholics and Protestants, in the anterior part of that century, and the century before. In the reign of Edward 6th was begun the great work of Reformation, by some of the most pious and able men of this or any other country. Its progress was unfortunately arrested by the premature death of the sovereign; for that the Protestantism of the Crown would otherwise have been established, was evident from some of the events towards the close of that reign. On the accession of Mary, a complete revulsion took place, and the Protestants endured the most cruel persecutions; but when Elizabeth came to the throne, the Protestant religion was again established. From that date down to the Revolution, the question was never looked at in a general way, as to the connexion between church and state. This fact really solved a great deal of difficulty, and unravelled much mystery; for, up to the Revolution, though the church was Protestant, the sovereign was not necessarily so. No law was in existence compelling the sovereign to be Protestant—preventing his marriage with a Catholic, or giving that great security to the Protestant establishment of the realm, that the king should be a Protestant. What had been the effect? That James 1st, that infatuated monarch, though sincerely and zealously a Protestant, had used his utmost endeavours to marry the heir apparent to a Catholic princess. No event could have been more unfortunate for the kingdom than the marriage of Charles 1st with the daughter of Louis 14th. He mentioned this circumstance to show that the question of the connexion between church and state had then never been fairly examined. He believed it might truly be said, that much of the blood spilt in the course of 150 years was to be attributed to the want of a legal connexion between the church and he state. Catholic peers were not then excluded; and why should they be excluded, when even the king might himself be a Catholic?—Coming down to the reign of Charles 2nd, he had, already intimated his opinion regarding Titus Oates: but it was no answer, to say, that the violence of, faction at that time led to great crimes which ended in certain laws; those laws might be good and necessary, however flagitious the events out of which they had risen. Some of the best laws on our Statute-book were passed in the reign of the most cruel tyrant that had ever sat upon the throne of England. It did not follow, therefore, that because conspiracy was the immediate occasion of the laws, the laws themselves were not necessary. He would put Oates and the Popish plot out of the question, and ask whether, in the reign of Charles 2nd, there did not exist a conspiracy to overturn the religion and constitution of the country, and with that conspiracy a necessity for this or some other security and safeguard? In former debates, he had always considered this an admitted point; and undoubtedly, whether the law now complained of was or was not a proper one, there were circumstances in the times requiring strong measures. He was ready to allow that it might at the time have been very plausibly urged, that if this principle of exclusion were applied to the peerage, it ought also to be applied to the Crown. But, what was done at the Revolution? And here he could hardly suppose that the noble earl would contend, that the plot of Titus Oates had any influence upon the measures then adopted. The great blessing of the Revolution was, that a change of the dynasty led to a complete review of the whole system. What was done at the Revolution ought, in fact, to have been done at the Reformation—then it ought to have been provided, that the king and his parliament should both be Protestant. Surely the Catholic peer had no right to complain of not being allowed to sit and vote, when, supposing the king from conscientious motives were to change his religion, he must descend from the throne of his ancestors. He should feel no difficulty in saying to the duke of Norfolk, or to any Catholic peer, all of whom he highly respected, that he had no right to be placed upon a better footing than the king upon the throne. The exclusion from parliament was not personal; it was the law of the land. Such was the ground he had always taken on a general view of the subject; he had always stood upon the connexion between church and state, Protestantism lacing the principle of the law. While it was maintained against the Crown, it must be maintained against what the Scotch act of Union termed "the other estates of the realm." His learned friend had truly stated, that this principle of the act of Charles 2nd was renewed and confirmed at the Revolution—in the act of Union with Scotland—in the act of Settlement—and during the reigns of George 1st and 2nd. It was renewed and confirmed also in words; which, though they could not make an act of parliament eternal, showed that it was considered one of the essential and fundamental laws of the realm. He put it to the noble earl opposite, whether it was not clear that our ancestors meant it to be a law, not subject to any ordinary changes? The noble earl had said, that the supporters of this bill wanted nothing new—that they only required that the Catholic peers should be replaced in the situation they occupied, from the reign of Elizabeth to that of Charles 2nd. What did the history of that period present? That under this old system, in the absence of all security to the church, there were 150 years of convulsion and bloodshed: while, subsequent to the date of this security, and under the new system, the country had experienced 150 years of religious peace and happiness. With the advantage of such experience, was it fit again to put to sea, to incur all the dangers to which the nation had so long been exposed? He was to be told, no doubt, that times were changed, and that no dangers were now to be apprehended; but who, in the year 1630, would have supposed that in less than twenty years the monarchy would be abolished, and the House of Lords annihilated, after the bishops had been excluded from their seats? Who could foresee what in future might happen, not from the Roman Catholics perhaps, but from other quarters, if this security, which time had proved to be so valuable, were at once abandoned? With it the country had enjoyed religious tranquillity; and to dissolve the connexion between church and state would be, to say the least of it, to risk the continuance of that tranquillity.—He now came to the bill, to which he objected upon various grounds. In the first place, while it sacrificed the great principle of participation in the legislature, it did not set the ques- tion itself by any means at rest. When his right hon. friend (Mr. Plunkett) last year brought in his bill, it was with the avowed object of a final adjustment. He (lord L.) had resisted it. Some might think, as it would be the termination of a subject that had excited much feeling, it would be proper to run a risk, and to make a sacrifice: but what could they say to this bill, which left the great and irritating subject as open to discussion as before? He objected to it on principle, also, on this ground:—If the time should ever come when Catholics were admitted into the House of Commons, then no doubt the doors of this House ought to be opened to Roman Catholic peers; but the objection was much stronger when it was proposed in the first instance to introduce Catholic peers into House of Lords. If there were any thing in the constitution of that House, it was this—that it was the great repository of religion and law. Its members were called together by their writs of summons, "to deliberate on affairs of church and state." The House was most intimately connected with the established church, and both in theory and principle, it must be, to the last degree, objectionable to admit into it those, who, by their religion, were hostile to that church. On the subject of securities, he must remind the House how it stood,—Last year the bill of, his right hon. friend had, by consent, been divided into two parts; but it was agreed that they should proceed through their stages pari passu; and if the securities were rejected, the privileges were to be withheld. How, then, could the House now pass so material a part of the whole measure in the absence of all securities? If, indeed, securities were needless, let parliament have done with the farce; that point being given up, the question was stripped of many difficulties and absurdities.—He had another objection to the bill, founded upon the exclusive nature of its provisions. The subject had now been discussed for more than twenty years, and as a strong argument in favour of concession the peculiar state of Ireland had always been urged. It had been urged upon every occasion, that it was fit to remove the exclusion for the sake of soothing the people of Ireland. There was not a single Irishman who would directly receive any benefit from this bill, the principle of which applied only to English Catholic peers. If he could argue the present as a general measure, he might concur in considering it as one which might be beneficial to the Irish nation. But if he were to argue it as a specific and isolated measure, could any thing be more galling to Irish feeling, than that such a concession as this, was to be made to English peers of the Roman Catholic persuasion, while Irish peers of the same faith were excluded from its provisions? But he had another objection. He conceived, that the showing this favour to Catholic peers, without extending proportionate advantages to Catholic commoners, would not redound much to the honour or the credit of the peers themselves. Such a partial distinction would be obnoxious to every principle of equity. He was ready to admit, That in the reign of Elizabeth, the Catholic peers had a right to sit in that House, while the other members of the great Catholic body were not eligible to sit in the lower House of parliament. But if their lordships considered how little the Catholic commonalty were then known as men of influence or property, they could not esteem it as matter of surprise, that this difference was observed. But on what principle could it rest now? He had been always taught to believe, that thought the possessions and privileges of the different classes of the British community might be different, yet their respective rights to them were the same. He had been taught to believe, that in this country, the right of a poor man to his but or his cottage, was the same, and was as binding, as that of any of their lordships to his mansion or his castle. He had been ever instructed, that the right of a magistrate to exercise his functions within the borough or jurisdiction which as that of the king to his throne; and he maintained that this equality of right, so far from weakening the title of the rich man to his possessions, was, in effect, its greatest security: for the rights of rich and poor stood all of them on the same principle. Though the property might be of different value, the rights were alike. This reasoning he begged to apply to the case before their lordships. He should say, that the right of a commoner to be elected was of the same force as that of a peer of England to sit in the House of Lords. Both rights, indeed, might be explained and qualified for the public benefit, according to the wisdom of the legislature. Both rights might have conditions put upon them: thus tests might be attached to one of them, but not to the other, if the distinction should appear to be justified on public principles. But on what principle could their lordships say—"We will not object to a peer's sitting amongst us, though he does acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction in some matters of spiritual concern; but we will object to a commoner's sitting in parliament, under similar circumstances?" Could any thing so invidious, so monstrous, so unjust as this, be successfully proposed in modern times? Was it not the boast of our aristocracy, that though they possessed high privileges, they were so possessed for the benefit, and not for the injury of any man? If their lordships looked to the nature of the duties and privileges which belonged to them, they would find that the concerns of religion were especially theirs. Now, if it was the right of any branch, surely it was the right of that branch of the legislature above all others, to require from its members some test that they were attached to the established church. The noble lord had said, that it was right to pass this bill, even if they did not go farther in the business. Now, he firmly believed, that a more serious evil could not befall the country, than to pass the bill, even assuming that their lordships should proceed no farther; that if they should pass this bill, and then take their stand against farther Catholic concessions, it would, in that case, still be the most impolitic and mischievous measure imaginable. What could be a more invidious concession, than a favour of this sort specially to the Roman Catholic peers? On ever ground, he objected to this bill. It was not calculated to effect any certain advantage; it settled nothing; it left the whole question precisely where it was before. It did no good to that great interest, the welfare and protection of which had hitherto been assigned as the grand objects with which the general question was brought forward. All that it offered was, a most unwise and invidious distinction between the peers and the commonalty of a particular church. He called not merely upon those who were in the habit of opposing the general measure, but upon those who supported it, to look well to the present bill, and to consider, before they gave it their support, whether any benefit was likely to result from in— whether they were strengthening their ground with respect to the discussion of the general question—or whether they were not in fact beginning at the wrong end? The question into which the consideration of this measure must ultimately resolve itself was, whether Roman Catholics generally should be admitted to a share in the legislature? On this point, he had already given his opinion. He thought that the concession of such a privilege would be most impolitic and dangerous; but to confine it, as this bill proposed to do, to Catholic peers, and to exclude from all participation in it the Catholic commonalty, would, be equally dangerous and impolitic, and infinitely more inequitable and invidious.

Lord Grenville

said, that his noble friend had called upon those who, on former occasions had been the friends of the general measure, to consider whether any advantage could be derived to it from the success of the present bill. As one of those who had always been favourable to the concession of the Catholic claims, he answered, that, from passing this bill, the greatest of all benefits would accrue—the benefit of doing justice. In comparison with this, he set at nought all which they had heard in the way of precedent and authority; all the statements and the documents which had been quoted; all the penal enactments for which the statute-book had been resorted to. His answer to all this was, "Be just, and fear not." If it was true, that six individuals only were aggrieved, or that this bill was even brought in to meet the case of one individual, and whether that individual was the highest of the lowest say, as he now said—their lordships were not at liberty to legislate upon what next might come to pass, or to speculate, hypothetically, upon what next might come to pass, or to speculate, hypothetically, upon what measure they were to take in consequence. Let their lordships hesitate as the might, here it was impossible that they could stop. With respect to the general question, his opinions upon it were borne out by those of the wisest men of this age. Their lordships had it in their power, by looking at it in its true light, and by divesting their minds of all that visionary terror which had that night been attempted to be thrown around it—to confer upon the British empire the greatest imaginable benefit. This question he viewed as a question of distribu- tive justice. There were two grounds, and two only, upon which it was possible, by any power or authority known to the constitution of this country, to divest a peer of England of his right to sit and vote in that House. The first was, the conviction of a peer of any offence, of such enormity as might seem properly to incur this penalty; the second, such a ground of overwhelming state necessity as might justify the taking away from a peer the hereditary and constitutional rights in question—rights which were as clearly defined, and in principle as inviolable, as any that could be devised. He repeated, that this was not a question of what was proper to be done, as to the precautions to be taken. He contended that it was not competent to noble lords to view it in any such light. He was speaking in an English House of Lords, in which every peer had a right to say,—"I sit here by a privilege which I hold—not as a matter of permission or favour, but as a right, co-ordinate with the constitution itself, and not depending on the discretion of any one." The question, then, for their lordships was, whether the rights of those peers—rights which had been wrested from them by the grossest fraud and the most violent injustice, should or should not be restored to them? He felt himself bound to restore to thee injured individuals the rights of which they had been most iniquitously deprived upon evidence the most false and flagitious. His learned friend had asked, how they could so far infringe upon the law as to admit these Catholic peers into their House? But where was the law which excluded them? Admitted they might still be; but their admission would be accompanied by certain tests, which were so repugnant to the spirit of their faith, that no one would dare to propose them to a Roman Catholic. He denied, therefore, that any such consequence as had been anticipated would necessarily follow upon the admission of Catholic peers into that House. He well remembered to have heard it on a former occasion asserted, that to annihilate these tests would be to annihilate every distinction that existed in the state. But it was not the province of their lordships to press these strange doctrines, or to sanction these wild and sweeping propositions. He was disposed to think, on the contrary, that some of the most destructive principles which were now developing themselves out of doors, and which kept the passions and the fears of men in a state of feverish anxiety, arose from similar vain and un-statesman-like attempts to reduce the whole operation of the British constitution under some of these sweeping maxims. He confessed that, whether this bill should pass or not, he was quite at a loss to know on what grounds noble lords could justify the continuance, even for one year longer, of those restrictions and disabilities which were at present imposed on so large a portion of the people.—Much had been said on the subject of securities; and to him it seemed that there existed in the minds of some noble lords that sort of idea, as if there were something in the abstract name of securities existing independent of those dangers against which they had originally been provided. When this measure was new, undoubtedly there existed a great desire to provide adequate securities to meet all possible dangers, if those dangers could be shown to exist. But he was free to say, that upon the best consideration of the subject, the wonderful changes which had taken place since the year 1801, had so completely altered his opinions about securities, as to induce him last year to declare, and the House would permit him to repeat the observation—"that if this bill had come up to the House in the form of an absolute and unconditional gift of political privilege, he should have given it his concurrence without hesitation, because he thought the concession proper in itself, because it was a measure of wise justice and true policy, and because the benefits it would achieve (though improved by the securities) would be such as to warrant the passing of the bill without them."^* On the other handy while he was perfectly willing to pass the bill without any securities, yet, seeing that a great many of his fellow subjects thought differently on the matter, and being sensible of how great importance it was, whenever the bill might pass, that it should not be the triumph of one party of men over another, but rather the bond of conciliation between them he thought, that if by the adoption of any securities that should not trench on the great principle of the measure, their objections might be removed, and their apprehensions quieted, it would be well to pass the measure with these additions.— *See Vol. V. p. 337, New Series. His noble friend had objected that the present measure was not calculated to set the general question at rest. Undoubtedly it was not. So far from indulging any expectation of the kind, he earnestly entreated their lordships, if any one of them felt disposed to support the bill under an impression so false and mistaken, to dismiss it from his mind. Let such noble lords be assured, that where the policy and wisdom of a great measure were so evident, nothing but the fall concession of it could set it at rest. Their lordships would inevitably be obliged to settle this important question at no remote period. What they must do at length, they might as well do without farther delay; for every day that the final settlement of the question was delayed, added to the embarrassment attending He could not suppose, that their lordships would take up an injurious opinion against illustrious ands suffering individuals founded on the worst of authorities. Nor would they, with the noble earl opposite, while they professed them selves convinced of the perjuries of Oates, perpetuate the wrong which they had generated, because, it might have been found convenient in practice. That memorable plot—the most detestable ever heard of—had subjected soma of those individuals to the loss of life; others to the loss of property and rank; and their descendants to the loss of a privilege, the highest which in this country a man could enjoy. Their lordships, surely, would not say "This is indeed a wrong; but we will continue it, because our ancestors have permitted it." The injury being once acknowledged, the blame and dishonour of it must attach to their lordships as long as it remained unremedied. Their attention had now been called to it; and if, after the debate of that night, they permitted the mischief to remain unredressed, it was not Titus Oates, it was not lord Shaftesbury, it was not the profligacy of the minister of Charles 2nd, to whose account the injury must be laid but it was to the House of Lords of the present day that the imputation must attach. The noble earl opposite had admitted the infamy of Oates, and had allowed the injustice of his accusations. "It is," said the noble earl, "an ugly stain to be sure; but look at the revolution, and those who achieved it. Did not they sanction this exclusion?" He (lord G.) admitted the filet. To those persons the aggrieved parties might have looked for redress in time gone by: e but it was for the noble lords whom he was now addressing, to reconcile to their own breasts, if they could, the injustice of permitting this persecution to exist one day more. He had no hesitation in saying, that, even under the circumstances which the noble earl had put, he could not allow that the liberties of the country had ever been endangered by the Catholics, not even under the impending danger of the popish priesthood and a popish succession. The best security which could be taken, our ancestors arranged during the reign of Charles 2nd, and adopted under that of James 2nd, by driving the latter from his throne, and thereby cutting off the hopes of himself and his posterity. In the agitation which ensued, it was not to be wondered at if they overlooked the injustice of perpetuating an odious proscription against individuals who were no parties to the acts which that proscription was intended to punish. The experience, not of the reign of Elizabeth of Mary only, might have proved their fidelity; but the reigns of James 1st, and Charles 2nd, showed, that whatever dangers might have surrounded the throne at any time, there was no moment at which any danger had arisen to it from the law of queen Elizabeth, which restored to Catholic peers the in theoretical and positive right of sitting and voting in the House of Lords. Whatever dangers did exist, no security surely was ever obtained from excluding the Roman Catholic peers from parliament. If it was necessary to prove this, and to, show what loyal and good subjects they were, he would advert to the manner in which the Spanish Armada, after alarming the fears of all Europe, was defeated and destroyed by those brave Catholic commanders who vindicated the ancient fame of England, while they sealed their fidelity to a Protestant mistress with their blood. This was a question of right to be done, which their lordships had too long delayed to do. It was because the question had been treated as one of expediency instead of one of distributive justice, that he had, contrary to his first intention, detained the House thus long in stating the grounds on which he should support the bill.

Lord Redesdale

contended, that the right to exclude Catholics from the House of Peers, was as strong and as well grounded as that by which they were excluded from the House of Commons. One of the first duties of the legislature was, to protect the religion of the state; and yet it was now proposed to introduce into the highest assembly of the country, persons who must of necessity be hostile to that religion. The question was a simple question of expediency, and one with which neither right nor justice had say thing to do. If the law as it stood was a hardship upon the subject, in how much greater a degree was it a hardship upon the sovereign? The individual who filled the throne, was bound to be of the established religion of the country; but all that was demanded upon admission into the legislature was, that the individual should not be of the Roman Catholic religions. It would be as unjustifiable to introduce Catholic peers into that House, as it would be to take out of it a certain number of the bishops, and supply their places with persons adverse to the Protestant interest. And in what an anomalous situation did it place the sovereign? Catholics being once admitted into the legislature, the king might have measures tendered to him by his parliament to which his oath and his duty made it impossible for him to assent. If James 2nd could have prevailed upon his parliament to have sanctioned such a measure, he might have succeeded in overturning the constitution of the country. His firm conviction was, that if the present measure was carried, the Protestant establishment in Ireland must fall. He had no other dependence for the security of this great country, than upon a Protestant succession and a Protestant legislature.

Lord Holland

said, that before he proceeded to answer the observations of those peers who had spoken against the measure, he wished the 71st standing order of the House should he read. [The order was accordingly read.—It provided, that no oath should be imposed, by bill, or others wise, upon a peer, with penalty attached in case of refusal, that he should lose his place in parliament, or privilege of debating.] Placed upon the only footing on which the House could properly decide it, the question came precisely to this—whether the time was come when it would be safe, just, or proper for the House to restore to their Catholic fellow peers the unconditional exercise of their privileges? It stood recorded upon the standing orders of that House, that it was the undoubted privilege of the members of that House, to exercise their rights without any condition at all. To debar peers in any case from the exercise of those rights, was a departure from the declared constitution of the country, which could only be justified by absolute necessity. The onus of showing that necessity was cast upon those who objected to the present bill. Those who opposed the right were to show the danger attendant upon its exercise: it was not the advocates of the present measure who were bound to show that the danger did not exist. It had been said by noble lords, that the passing of the bill would involve an anomaly in our parliamentary system. What! talk of an anomaly in that system which was an anomaly throughout? Were not Presbyterians already admitted to privileges in Scotland which the law prevented them from enjoying in England? Did not the Catholics of Ireland enjoy rights which were not enjoyed by the English Catholics? But the learned lord upon the woolsack said, that if the bill was passed—a bill which was to admit into the House six of the most respectable persons, whom even their opponents had scarcely been able sufficiently to praise—he should think that be had out-lived the laws and constitution of his country. The mischief which these six peers were to do was incalculable—they were to produce a bull from the pope upon a sudden from under the table, and to destroy, at one blow, the religion and the constitution of the empire. Much stress had been laid upon another alleged anomaly—that the bill would introduce a qualification for the House of Lords different from that which was necessary in the House of Commons. A different qualification! Why, the qualification was different already. A reverend bishop might sit in the House of Lords; who could not sit in the House of Commons. Again, it was said, that if the measure was passed, the grant of the elective franchise to the Catholics must follow. Why, the Catholics of Ireland had the elective franchise already. Noble lords talked of dreading anomaly. Why, it was impossible to turn a step in the existing system without encountering the grossest, anomalies. The noble earl opposite had treated the admission of Catholics to the House of Peers as still more objectionable than their admission to the House of Commons. "The House of Peers," said the noble earl, "were the great guardians of law and religion of the state; it was their duty to debate of matters connected with church and state." Why, the very same words which described the parliamentary duties of peers were found also in the oaths for members of the House of Commons. The learned lord upon the woolsack had stated, that no measure of the same kind had ever before been introduced. It was not astonishing that what had emanated from so humble an individual as himself should have escaped the recollection of the learned lord; but he (lord Holland), in April 1800, soon after the House enjoyed the advantage of the learned lord's accession, had, moved to refer the act off the 30th of Charles the 2nd, and the act of the 1st of William and Mary, to committee, * with a view to their being modified or repealed. Now, that motion had been met, not openly, by a negative, but with the question. And why had not the learned lord risen to put a negative upon the proposition altogether? Why had he endured to hear talk of future discussion upon a measure which was to overthrow all the establishments of the kingdom? For himself, be set no great value upon securities; but if it were denied that securities existed, be should say, that the House had both technical and real ones. As the mother of the Gracchi, being asked for her treasures, pointed to her children, so he, if he were asked for his securities, should point In the sixteen Scottish peers, and to the right reverend body opposite to him. The bill before their lordships, whether they thought it founded in just policy or not, was, as it had been passed by the House of Commons, at least one which ought to be treated with grace and favour. The learned lord who spoke last had insisted on the necessity of securities, and what the learned lord had said on that subject reminded him the securities which that learned lord had introduced the relief of Roman Catholics. Let the learned lord look to his own bill for the securities he required. A clause in that bill contained permission to Catholic peers, on taking certain oaths, to approach the court and give advice to their sovereign. The 5th of Elizabeth under which Catholic peers still continued to sit in the House of Lords, had passed under the declaration that her majesty had other *See Parl. Hist. Vol. 35, p. 161. means of knowing the loyalty of her peers than she had of her commons. And so it might be said with regard to this bill, that the present sovereign had other means of ascertaining the loyalty and good faith of his peers. All that could be required from Catholic subjects was, that they should be good citizens. Their lordships would find this question illustrated by reference to the debates of that House in the reign of Charles 2nd. He would recommend to their consideration, an order which was introduced by lord Shaftesbury, and drawn up either by him or by Mr. Locke. A very considerable number of Catholic peers, about 19, took part in the debate on the Test act, on the side of lord Shaftesbury, against that unconstitutional measure, which passed in 1678. The recollection of the order he had formerly introduced in 1675 was then brought under his notice. It was said, "how come you to support measures so inconsistent?" Lord Shaftesbury did not deny the inconsistency, but observed, "leges posteriores anteriores abrogant." A noble baron had properly described the object of the act of exclusion. It was intended to guard against the danger apprehended from a popish king and a popish succession. In such times the enactment of such a law would have been proper, for the kingly office was a trust held for the benefit of the people; and the friends of liberty felt that they were in a situation which rendered such measures indispensable. King Charles, on the 9th of November 1678, stated from the throne, that he would accede to any precautions that parliament might think necessary, if they did not interfere with the Succession. It was then that the measure introduced by lord Shaftesbury was resorted to as a substitute. The learned lord omitted to notice different bills which had been passed about this time, and proceeded to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consisted of three parts: 1st, the assertion of ancient and immutable rights; 2nd, the declaration of what had been done in support of them; and, 3rd, some positive enactments for their future security. One of the charges against king James was, the disarming of Protestants and the arming of Papists. One of the ancient and indubitable rights thus violated was the right to take up arms. The learned lord said, that the Bill of Rights must not be touched; but did he admit this doctrine of resistance? The learned lord had quoted the words of king William relative to the Test act, but he had omitted the most important part of what was stated by that sovereign. He had said, that if the king of England was not a Protestant, he thought that bill could not be repealed. Did the learned lord, who contended that the Bill of Rights could not be violated, recollect that that bill declared that parliaments ought to be frequently holden. By "frequently holden," annual or triennial parliaments were meant. They were afterwards made triennial, and next came the septennial act, which was the greatest innovation ever made upon the Bill of Rights. The act of Settlement had also been referred to. By that act the king was not to go out of the kingdom. It was also provided, that no persons holding pensions from government, and no placemen, should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. Had these provisions been adhered to? Soon after George 1st ascended the throne, the act of Settlement was repealed, by his being permitted to leave the country. An act of parliament was passed, appointing lords justices of the kingdom to act in his stead. After the king had left the country, it became a question whether the Test act might be repealed. The ministers were asked whether, in the case of a bill passing; for that purpose, the lords justices would notify the royal assent to it. The answer was, that no opinion could be given on this subject. It was afterwards asked, whether they would give the assent to the act of Uniformity. The answer then given was decidedly in the negative. It appeared, therefore, that in the opinion of the government of that day, the Test act for which the learned lord so strenuously contended, was not considered in a constitutional point of view so fundamental a measure as the act of Uniformity. The preamble to the Test act states the object of that act to be, to give force and effect to the laws against Popish recusants. Now it happened, singularly enough, that almost all the laws to which the Test act was intended to give force, had already been repealed, and repealed, too, by a bill introduced by the learned lord who was so much attached to this Test act. He had always heard from the learned lord that he considered these penal exclusions, an evil, and one which was only to be justified by necessity. He had heard him say, that what necessity had created necessity should limit; then, if necessity had occa- sioned the whole of the law, that part which did not apply to the circumstances of the present times ought to be repealed. The House had often rejected general questions for the relief of the Catholics, but this now came before them in a more favourable shape. There was no anomaly in the measure. The exclusion of Catholic peers, he had shown, was no fundamental part of the constitution of this kingdom. It was said that the object to be gained was trifling; but he could not help thinking, that to the Catholic gentry of this country it would be a considerable gratification to see their religion represented in that House. The introduction of six or seven peers, although it produced no political alteration, would yet be of great importance in the way of conciliation. The noble lord on the cross bench (L. Colchester), professed great respect for the persons whom he wished to exclude. He was perfectly willing to concede to them the playthings and gewgaws of children; he would not deny them the honour of a ribbon to deck their shoulders, or the important privilege of marching at a coronation; he would grant them complete toleration, but no political power; as if there were any security for toleration in a government, where men were totally excluded from political power. Even the noble lord was far from being content with the present state of the law, for he admitted that it was full of anomalies, and while he produced his large dish of restrictions on the one hand, he had a little reserve of indulgencies on the other. There was a broad distinction between the principle on which the constitution had declared, that a Catholic was incapable of filling the throne of these realms, and that on which the functions of the Catholic peers had been suspended. In the one case, the parliament and the people of England had declared that no Catholic could exercise the functions of sovereign, but that he should be ipso facto degraded from the throne, and another man found to perform the office. Here there was no suspension or limitation of the functions of a Catholic king, but an absolute exclusion; whereas in the case of Catholic peers, their functions were only suspended because they did not comply with certain conditions. He had a right, therefore, to infer, that our ancestors at the Revolution had no intention to make this a permanent law, since they did not pass a bill of attainder to corrupt the blood of the Ca- tholic peers, and deprive them of their civil rights, but merely left their functions in abeyance. Upon these grounds he gave his cordial assent to the motion.

The House then divided: Contents—present, 80, proxies, 49–129. Not-contents—present, 97, proxies, 74–171. Majority against the motion, 42.

List of the Minority, and also of the Majority.
MINORITY.
DUKES.	Darnley
Sussex	Cork
Somerset	Lauderdale
Grafton	Cassillis
Devonshire	Limerick
Portland	Ormonde
Buckingham	VISCOUNTS.
MARQUISSES.	Melville
Lansdown	Gordon
Bute	Granville
Downshire	Clifden
Conyngham	Downe
EARLS.	BARONS.
Derby	Clinton
Thanet	Decre
Essex	Howard of Eff.
Albemarle	Howard of Wal.
Jersey	Say and Sele
Oxford	King
Dartmouth	Grantham
Bristol	Holland
Cowper	Ducie
Harrington	Foley
Darlington	Berwick
Delawar	Braybrooke
Grosvenor	Amherst
Fortescue	Gage
Carnarvon	Grenville
Rosslyn	Auckland
Wilton	Dundas
Grey	Stewart, of Gar.
Harrowby	Calthorpe
St. Germains	Dunstanville
Morley	Lifford
Bradford	Alvanley
Aberdeen	Ellenborough
Elgin	Erskine
Roseberry	Crewe
Donoughmore	Stewart
Lucan	Cawdor
Caledon	Maryborough
Gosford	BISHOP.
Blessington	Norwich

Proxies.
DUKES.	Anglesea
Bedford	Queensbury
Brandon	Tweedale
Leinster	Sligo
Argyle	EARLS.
MARQUISSES.	Suffolk
Wellesley	Carlisle
Stafford	Waldegrave

Guild ford	Duncan
Hardwicke	Anson
Ilchester	BARONS.
Spencer	Ponsonby
St. Vincent	Melbourne
Mulgrave	Sondes
Minto	Hawke
Somers	Ashburton
Charlemont	Sherbourne
Wicklow	Yarborough
Suffield	Abercromby
Kingston	Gwydir
Carrington	Glastonbury
Carysfort	Hutchinson
Granard	Lynedock
Breadalbane	Hill
VISCOUNTS.	Churchill
Hereford	Belhaven
Bolingbroke

MAJORITY.
DUKES.	Glasgow
York	Enniskillen
Richmond	Wemyss
Beaufort	Longford
Rutland	Falmouth
Northumberland	Kinnoul
Montrose	VISCOUNTS.
Wellington	Torrington.
MARQUESSES.	Hampden
Winchester	Sidney
Bath	Sidmouth
Cornwallis	Lake
Exeter	Exmouth
Northampton	BARONS.
Lothian	Willoughby de
Ailesbury	Broke
EARLS.	Bolton
Pembroke	Dynevor
Bridgewater	Walsingham
Denbigh	Bagot
Westmorland	Montague
Stamford	Kenyon
Winchelsea	Selsey
Cardigan	Rolle
Shaftesbury	Bayning
Plymouth	Bolton
Scarborough	Northwick
Aylesford	St. Helens
Bathurst	Redesdale
Abergavenny	Arden
Talbot	Gambier
Digby	Combermere
Mansfield	Harris
Liverpool	Colchester
Romney	Glenlyon
Powis	Ravensworth
Manvers	Stowell
Lonsdale	Delamere
Harewood	Rocksavage
Verulam	ARCHBISHOPS.
Whitworth	Canterbury
Brownlow	Dublin
Eldon	BISHOPS.
Farnham	London
Belmore	Worcester
Courtown	Bangor
Aboyne	Lincoln

St. David's	Oxford
Salisbury	Llandaff
St. Asaph	Exeter
Ely	Ossory
Chester	Clonfert.

Proxies.
DUKES.	Balcarras
Clarence	Carrick
Marlborough	Mayo
Dorset	O'Neill
Manchester	Charleville
Gordon	Morton
Newcastle	VISCOUNTS.
MARQUESSES.	Dudley and Ward
Salisbury	Maynard
Thomond	Middleton
Ely	Tyrone
Cholmondeley	Arbuthnot
EARLS.	Carleton
Huntingdon	BARONS.
Abingdon	Le Despenser
Rochford	Audley
Coventry	De la Zouche
Poulett	Vernon
Ferrers	Rivers
Stanhope	Rodney
Macclesfield	Douglas
Pomfret	Broderick
Portsmouth	Wodehouse
Buckinghamshire	Ribblesdale
Harcourt	Manners
Radnor	Beresford
Strange	Oriel
Mountedgecombe	Forrester
Malmsbury	Saltoun
Craven	Napier
Chichester	BISHOPS.
Nelson	Durham
Norwich	Winchester
Cathcart	Chichester
Beauchamp	Carlisle
Howe	Gloucester
Stradbroke	Peterborough
Home	Bristol.
Kellie