Lords Sitting of 19 May 1828

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington moved, that the following lords be managers of the Conference with the Commons, viz.—The lord President (earl Bathurst), the duke of Devonshire, earl Grey, earl Vane, the earl of Eldon, the bishop of Durham and lord Colchester. At half-past five, the above noble lords went to the Painted Chamber, and returned again almost immediately.
Earl Bathurstthen stated, that he had gone to the Painted Chamber, and met there Sir F. Burdett and other members of the House of Commons, who, in the name of the whole House, delivered into his hand the paper he now held, which he begged might be read by the clerk at the table.
The clerk then read the paper, which was the Resolution passed by the Commons, to which resolution the Commons desired their Lordships' concurrence.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that not having understood it to be the intention of any noble lord to propose any day upon which to take into consideration the communication from the Commons, he rose for the purpose of moving that the resolution be taken into consideration on Friday, the 30th inst.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it
768
would be more convenient if the noble marquis would postpone his motion to the Friday in the following week.
The Marquis of Clevelandsaid, that though some noble lords might wish for an early day, yet he, in common with other noble lords, felt he had a duty to perform in a very high quarter, to which he, and other noble lords probably, thought it their duty to attend. Under these circumstances, he hoped that Monday the 9th of June, might be fixed upon.
The resolution was accordingly ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday, the 9th of June; for which day their lordships were ordered to be summoned.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND.
Earl Greyrose for the purpose of once more offering to their lordships' consideration, a Petition from the great body of the Roman Catholics of England, praying for restoration to a full enjoyment of the rights of the constitution. The petitioners presented their claims to their lordships' consideration, on the strong ground that they had done nothing to merit exclusion. The petitioners humbly offered to their lordships' consideration,—and they appealed to the best periods of history as proofs of their assertion,—that with respect to them no paramount political necessity for such exclusion existed. They appealed to their conduct in many instances, both in ancient and modern times, for proofs of their undeviating loyalty and zealous devotion to the interests of their country, of their steady attachment to the constitution, to the support of which, though deprived of its benefits, they had never thought any sacrifice too great. They had repeatedly contributed their property, and unsparingly risked their lives, in the support of that constitution, whenever the services of the state required them; and no man was more competent than the noble duke opposite, to bear testimony to the bravery displayed in those contests in which they had been the humble instruments and partakers of his fame—to the noble manner in which they had supported the honour of the country and the independence of that constitution, of the benefits of which they were still deprived. The petitioners further appealed, in proof that there was nothing in their religion incompatible with religious or civil liberty, or dangerous to the interests of the state, to the conduct

769
of their ancestors in the best periods of our history. They referred to the resistance made by their Catholic ancestors, and by a Catholic sovereign, to all attempts made by the see of Rome to encroach on the temporal rights and constitutional liberty of the kingdom. They referred to the conduct of their ancestors in the glorious reign of queen Elizabeth, when they were found in the first ranks of the supporters of the Crown, and even assisting in defeating that blow which was aimed at the civil and religious institutions of the country, even though made under the sanction of the pope. They denied a divided allegiance. They denied that their respect for the spiritual authority of the see of Rome did in any way withdraw them from paying that obedience which they owed to the temporal authority of the king, as established by the laws of the country. They appealed to the example and institutions of all states in modem Europe. They appealed emphatically to the wise and beneficent policy of the king of Hanover, who admitted to a full participation of civil rights all subjects of whatever persuasion, and who excluded from the code of constitutional law of that country any disqualification of any class of his subjects, on account of religious opinions. They appealed to every state of Europe, with the exception of Spain and Portugal, and some part of Italy, for a proof that, in the service of the country, the union of the different persuasions, Protestant and Catholic, might be beneficial, and would not weaken, but consolidate and strengthen our security. But above all, they appealed to all the free states of Europe to show that their religion was not incompatible with civil liberty,—a charge most strange to be made in this country, where the very foundation of our liberty had been laid by our Catholic ancestors. They appealed to the free states of Switzerland, and still more to that union of the Protestant states of Holland and the Catholic states of the Netherlands, sanctioned and effected by this country for the general security of Europe, and as an outward defence to this country, made in peace for the general safety. They appealed to these things with confidence, and trusted they would meet with their lordships' most serious consideration. It had been stated, that this country was essentially Protestant: so were the States of Holland essentially Protestant: yet, under the sanction and
770
guarantee of this country, for the safety and security of Europe, and for an outward defence to this country, was the union of these Protestant States of Holland, under a Protestant sovereign, with the Catholic States of the Netherlands promoted; it being a fundamental article of the union, that, in the administration of government, and capacity for civil and military offices—that which was called political power—no distinction whatever should be made between the members of those states, on account of any difference in religious opinion. Holland was essentially Protestant, as well as this country. The political, civil, and religious relations of the two countries were very much alike. That country had been freed from great persecution and bigotted power, with the assistance of this country—upheld by us in security, and redeemed from a tyranny which had well nigh overwhelmed the world; and in that very arrangement, to which the noble duke opposite contributed, the principle was sanctioned as one of security to a Protestant state, and as an outward defence for the government of England; that no differences or disqualifications should exist on account of religious opinions.—He had thought it necessary to state thus much to the House. Perhaps some of their lordships might think he had gone too far, upon presenting a petition; but he could not help calling upon their lordships to consider the matter before they came to discuss the subject of which his noble friend had given notice. After what he had stated, he should think it extraordinary if he were still to be told—and by the very ministers who sanctioned the treaty which he had mentioned—that the provision introduced into it for the security of Europe, could not be adopted in this country, without danger to the constitution.—There were one or two other observations which he wished to make. This was a petition from, the Roman Catholics of England: they prayed for the full enjoyment of those rights to which they were entitled in common with every other class of his majesty's subjects, and their exclusion from which must be deemed an injustice, unless there existed grounds to justify such exclusion. Now, no such grounds could be shown. Their situation was one of peculiar hardship. It was a great aggravation of the injuries of which they complained, to see themselves excluded even from the limited

771
privileges which had been extended to the Irish Catholics. The present petition was signed by the duke of Norfolk, premier peer, and earl marshal of England; and by the great body of the ancient and respectable Catholic gentry of this country. It contained the names of thirteen thousand persons, all of whom complained of their; unjust exclusion from the benefits of the constitution under which they lived, and all of whom were now fulfilling their duties to the state in the most meritorious manner. On this, as on every former occasion, they came before their lordships in the spirit of conciliation and peace; evincing no perverse disposition to cavil at the grounds on which, should their prayer be acceded, their lordships would be pleased to extend to them the benefits which they sought at their hands. He believed that the best security was to be found in the adoption of this great measure; but, at the same time, the petitioners would not object to any security which was not inconsistent with the rules of the church to which they belonged. For himself, they should ever find in him a zealous supporter of their claims; satisfied as he was that the great work of religious peace and political security never could be accomplished, except on grounds of mutual satisfaction to all parties.
Ordered to lie on the table.