HL Deb 28 February 1825 vol 12 cc711-7

Numerous petitions were presented to the House, both for and against this bill.

The Earl of Darnley

presented a petition from the parish of St. Catherine, Dublin, against the bill. He stated, that the petition expressed the sentiments of a very large proportion of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He did not wish to be understood as standing up there in defence of every thing which had been said or done by the Association. Many things might be said in public assemblies for which it would be necessary rather to offer apology than defence. That, however, did not alter his opinion of the injustice and impolicy of the measure now before the House.

Lord Holland

said, he had a petition to present against the bill. The petition contained some strong reasons against passing it. By some noble lords these reasons might not appear objections to the bill, but arguments for it. If the objections to the Catholic Association were, that it spoke the sentiments of the whole Irish nation; if it were an objection to that Association, that it endeavoured calmly but firmly to procure the redress of an intolerable grievance; then he was afraid that these petitions and these objections would only appear to some noble lords as arguments for the bill. These petitions, as expressing the common opinion and feeling of the country, were entitled to the serious consideration of the House. He trusted, therefore, that their lordships would give to them their most serious attention.

The Marquis of Lansdown

, in rising to present some petitions of a similar nature, wished to state, that since he had presented the Protestant petition in favour of the Catholic claims, he had received letters from the marquis of Sligo and lord Ashtown, expressing a wish that their names should be affixed to that petition. It was too late for him to comply with the request, but, out of courtesy to these noble lords, he thought it due to them to state their intentions. The noble marquis said, he had several petitions to present, which gave him great satisfaction. From what he had heard of the bill, it would be both inefficient and unconstitutional.

Lord Clifden

said, he had a number of petitions to present from Protestants as well as Catholics, against the bill. With respect to that measure, he did not think that much effect could be expected from ft. It would be recollected, that about two years ago they had passed a bill to suppress Orange societies; but instead of those Orange societies being put down by that bill, they flourished more than ever. The Orange societies had their secret meetings, and from the experience which had been obtained on this subject, their lordships might infer, that the Catholic societies, after the passing of the present bill, would also flourish more than ever. The nature of the measure proposed to be adopted might be judged of, from the satisfaction it gave to the natural enemies of this country. He had it from good authority, that the French were quite delighted at the idea of this bill passing. Such measures were not the means by which the peace of Ireland could be secured. He would put to every impartial man, whether there was any prospect of terminating the existing discontents except by conciliation—by opening the doors of parliament to the Roman Catholics. He could assure their lordships, that the great body of the Protestants of Munster and Ulster were desirous that the claims of their Catholic brethren should be granted. Many would wish such a measure to be accompanied by an alteration in the mode of voting for members of parliament, by raising the value of the franchise. On this question he was far from now giving any opinion.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells

presented a petition in favour of the bill, from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocess of Bath and Wells. It intimated in one passage, that the Catholics had covered their designs with a cloak of loyalty, which they had now thrown off, and were proceeding to threaten.

Earl Fitzwilliam

condemned the language which the petitioners used, on account of its impolicy as well as its illiberality and injustice. He must object to petitions from the clergy for the exclusion of others from constitutional privileges, as coming from an interested body. If a rich corporation petitioned for objects which were supposed to favour its interests, why might not the army be allowed to petition in the like manner? He condemned all penal laws for opinions; all attempts to control the consciences of men. Such conduct was flying in the face of heaven; and it was dreadful to think of the consequences which might follow from thus persisting in inflicting severe penalties on six millions of human beings. The only pretext for this manner of proceeding was a conscientious difference of opinion in men who acknowledged the same Saviour, and, in all its great principles, the same faith, as themselves.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells

was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl respecting the language of the petition. What had been stated, however, consisted altogether of general assertion, which he could only answer by a general negation. In his opinion, the sentiments contained in the petition reflected credit on those from whom it came. He was not aware of any improper language in it; if there was, the noble earl had not pointed it out. He could not see why petitions against a measure should not be received by persons whose interests might be affected by that measure; and, in the present case, he thought the clergy had as good a right to petition as any other class of his majesty's subjects. If any thing could show the unreasonableness of this exception, it would be the reception of a petition which professed to come from the whole body of the Catholic priesthood of Ireland.

Lord Holland

observed, that, always inclined to open the widest door to the applications of the people, he would make no objection to the reception of this petition. He would receive it notwithstanding the absolute falsehoods and the gross allegations of improper motives with which it was filled, and the spirit and temper which it displayed. The petitioners came before their lordships "humbly" representing their views and their fears; but, what evidence did they give of christian humility in their arrogant denial of equal privileges to their christian brethren? They professed their regard for christian establishments, but showed none for christian charity. His noble friend had objected to the petition, that it contained imputations of motives which the petitioners could not prove, and asserted facts, of which the Catholics could establish the falsehood. When this was denied, his noble friend had justified his assertions by an appeal to the words of the petition. It broadly stated, that the Catholics avowed the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy in civil matters—an assertion which the Catholics denied. It next asserted, that the real object of the Catholics was to overthrow the Protestant Church establishment, and possess themselves of its revenues; and this the Catholics denied. It did not become a body of men profess- ing to act under the influence of christian charity, to suspect lightly the motives of others, even when there existed reason for suspicion; but no man with the least pretentions to candour or justice, could impute bad motives to his neighbours where none existed, or ascribe designs to them which they disavowed. But, it was said, the designs imputed to the Catholics in the petition were avowed. If so, where? In every petition presented to the House for Catholic emancipation, so far were designs against the establishment of the country from being avowed, that they were distinctly disclaimed.

The Bishop of Chester

[Dr. Blomfield] said, he was unwilling to hear any imputations upon any portion of the clergy, for a want of charity. As to the supremacy of the Pope, the Catholics were too wise to allude to it in any document submitted to that House, because the maintenance of such a doctrine would be unlawful. But he would inform their lordships, that in a Catholic journal circulated throughout his own diocess by the Catholic priests, such doctrine was advanced. In December last, the editor of that journal, who had been repeatedly thanked by the various branches of the Catholic body, in speaking of a late ordinance of the king of France, disapproving of the conduct of a cardinal for compromising the liberties of the Gallican church, said, that he could not agree with the views of the French government on that occasion, because the king had no title to interfere with the conduct of the church, to the injury of the indefeasible rights of his holiness the Pope. The same doctrine was asserted by the Roman Catholic priests of Lancashire. They made no scruple to say, that the churches of this kingdom had been theirs once; and that they expected they would be theirs again. The noble baron imputed a want of charity to the petitioners for suspecting the designs of the Catholics, and had found fault with some allegations in the petition. He himself did not entirely approve of all the expressions in the petition. There were some that he would have been glad to see expunged; but it would be hard to refuse conscientious men the right of making known their fears, and raising their voices in defence of our establishments, though they might, in their sincerity and honest conviction, employ a greater severity of terms than the occasion warranted. If he wanted any further ex- cuse for such conduct, he might find it in what the world looked upon as a justification; namely, a similar harshness of language in the opponents of the petitioners. The clergymen of the establishment who conscientiously discharged their duties were styled "hungry Protestant parsons" in all the publications of the Catholics. He could not sit silent while he heard the conduct of the petitioners arraigned, and motives imputed to them which they would disclaim.

The Earl of Carnarvon

did not disapprove of churchmen petitioning on public measures; but he objected to their separating themselves from the great body of the people in their applications. If he were a clergyman, he should feel a distrust of his own impartiality in a matter which had reference to the establishment; and would not petition, lest he might be actuated by prejudices which rendered his opinion of no value. The petitioners had not shown this prudent distrust; but had completely justified its necessity. They evinced the strongest bias, and were actuated by prejudices which led them to distort facts. The petition prayed that the House would protect the established religion, which was threatened with spiritual tyranny and oppression. What man could look around him, and say that the Protestant body were threatened with spiritual oppression and tyranny from the Catholics? He had always heard, that the tyranny and oppression was not only threatened, but inflicted, from the other side. However this might be, there certainly was spiritual coercion. He regretted that the petitioners should have thrown such discredit on their order, by uncharitable allegations, and the falsehood of their assertions. They had justified lord Clarendon's character of churchmen; who had said, that of all classes of men, the clergy were, on general subjects, the least informed, and took the most incorrect view of public affairs.

Lord King

expressed his belief, that such a petition could not have come from any other corporation, or place in the kingdom, than from the wise men of the dioceses whence it issued. Such a mass of bigotry and nonsense could no where else have been concocted. The clergy in that town were entirely in the dark. They read, and knew nothing. They had not even perused the tolerant proclamation of the tolerant king of Hanover. He wished the right rev. prelate of the dioceses would take that proclamation and hang it upon the door of every chapel. He would probably be asked by the petitioners, "What have we to do with Hanover?" as it had been asked, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" He would say, much good might come out of Hanover, if the rev. gentlemen would read that liberal proclamation.

Ordered to lie on the table.