HL Deb 13 May 1825 vol 13 cc582-5

The Archbishop of York presented a petition from the clergy of the East Riding of Yorkshire against granting further concessions to the Catholics.

Lord King

said, he could not assert that the opposition at the meeting at which this petition had been voted was numerous, but it certainly was very respectable, and that the arguments urged against the petition had been distinguished for good sense and sound reasoning. It was worthy of remark, that but few petitions had been presented from the clergy of those dioceses which were large and rich, such as Canterbury, York, Winchester, and Durham; whereas they came in great numbers from those parts of the country in which the dioceses were small; in short, from those places from which translations might be desirable. He must, however, say, that for his part, he preferred the steady and venerable fixtures of a House to those pieces of furniture which were moveable and liable to change.

Lord Kenyon said, it was not fair to make such observations when those members of the right reverend bench who were in the habit of addressing the House, were absent. He had no hesitation in saying, that it was a downright calumny to represent the petitions which were presented against the Catholic claims as proceeding from interested motives on the part of the right reverend bench, or to insinuate that, in this instance, the clergy did not act from their sense of duty, but gave way to temporal views. To say this, he would repeat, was nothing less than a downright calumny.

Lord King

replied, that as to the noble baron saying that any thing which fell from him was or was not a calumny, that was what he heartily despised; but if the noble lord meant to say, that what he had just stated respecting the quarter from which the greater part of the petitions came was not the fact, he must give him a flat denial. The fact notoriously was, that the petitions had been numerous from the counties where the dioceses were small, and that comparatively few had been presented from those in which the dioceses were large.

Lord Kenyon

did not mean to deny or assert that the petitions were numerous or few from any quarter; but he did say that it was a calumny to state that those which had been presented were procured by the clergy from interested motives.

The Bishop of Exeter said, that for himself he would declare, that he never used any influence in procuring petitions. It was unfair in the noble baron to make this assertion; for he (the Bishop) had before disclaimed the exercise of any influence; but the noble baron might, if he pleased, repeat the calumny, for calumny it was. With regard to one of the petitions, he had received a letter from the clergyman of the parish, informing him that no influence had been used to procure it, but that, on the contrary, the people had applied to him. A meeting was regularly called, and the petition was agreed to unanimously. He had used no influence with the clergy of his diocese. He believed the real cause of so many petitions being presented, was, that the people of the country were anxious that their sentiments on this question should not be misrepresented. Their lordships had been told of the danger there would be in refusing to accede to the claims of the Catholics; but was there no danger in refusing to listen to the numerous petitions on the opposite side?

The Bishop of Hereford disclaimed all exercise of influence on his part to procure petitions. Only one had come from the clergy of his diocese.

Lord King said, he did not allude precisely to large or small dioceses; but, the fact was, that the petitions were few from those where there were no translations.

The Lord Chancellor

did not rise from any wish to oppose the kind of observations in which the noble baron so often indulged. He had already said, and he was confident of the fact, that their lordships owed a great proportion of the petitions with which their table was covered to the observations of the noble lord; for the people of this country did not wish to be held up as indifferent on this important question. Let, then, the noble lord go on; because if he did, between that day and the day on which the measure was to be discussed, short as the time was, many more petitions against the Catholics would be laid on the table.

Lord Rolle

asserted, that the petitions against the Catholic bill fairly expressed the sense of the country, and deprecated the throwing of reflections on the lower classes for exercising their right of petitioning.

Lord Holland

was glad to hear this doctrine which was now held with respect to petitions. Whether the petitions against the bill were numerously signed or not, he was glad to find it admitted, that the voice of the people ought to be listened to. He felt, however, some difficulty in reconciling the assertion, that those petitions expressed the sense of the country, with what had fallen from several right reverend prelates and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; namely, that the great body of the people were hostile to the object of the bill which had now, for the second time, been brought up from the other House, and to which the Commons had twice solicited their lordships' assent. According to what he had always understood of the theory of the constitution, this could not be the case. At least, whenever the influence of certain secret parts of the constitution had been alluded to, he had been told, that in theory the House of Commons was the real representative of the people. This he had always been told, and he had assented to the theory. But, it seemed that he, in common with many of their lordships, had been labouring under an error. The Commons were no longer the representatives of the people. That House was, on the contrary, to be regarded rather as an oligarchy, as it had often been described by men who were called visionary reformers—as a body to which might be applied what a noble lord lately said which he somewhat whimsically compared to the French revolution; namely, that it was an ingenious contrivance to deprive the many of their rights in order to confer them on the few. It had sometimes been said, that there was no proper vent for public opinion; but that complaint could no longer be made, for now a voice had been found for democracy in that House; and the right reverend members of the opposite bench, and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, had constituted themselves the organs of the people. The noble and learned lord now looked to the bar, or to Palace-yard, for those whose opinions most deserved to be listened to on the subjects which came under the consider- ation of their lordships. For his own part, though rather a lukewarm reformer, he had really too much love for reform to deny the possibility of the vote of the House of Commons being different from the opinion of the great body of the people. After, however, that House had, not once only, but twice passed such a measure as the present, he did not think it could have been possible for any person to stand up and assert, that the universal feeling of the people was against it. In the face of the decision of the House of Commons, which represented the whole people, and in contradiction to the known wish of at least one-third part of that people, their lordships were assured, that the country was hostile to the measure; and this they were told on the authority of pocket petitions got up in holes and corners, of scraps of paper like private correspondence, which the members of the opposite bench, and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, were in the daily habit of producing. It would, however, be the duty of their lordships to consider what it was right and fitting for that House to do, without any reference to the opinions of others. But, if the opinion out of doors was to be inquired into, it would be found to be very different from the representation which had been made of it. Their lordships would find, that wherever there had been public meetings, the people had almost invariably decided in favour of the Catholic claims. Their lordships would recollect, that in speaking of public opinion on this question, they had to consider what was the opinion of the whole united kingdom; and, if there was any difference in the expression of that opinion, they were surely bound to pay some attention to the opinion of that part of the empire which was the most vulnerable, and through which this country might be most easily injured. He did not mean to say that there was not, on conviction, a decided objection in some reflecting minds, to granting the Catholic claims, and that there was not also an indifference on the subject in many others; but he would assert, that nothing had occurred which entitled any noble or learned lord to say that the feeling of the people of this country was hostile to the Catholic claims.

Ordered to lie on the table.