Sitting of 10 June 1819

GAOL DELIVERIES.
Mr. Westernrose, pursuant to his notice, to bring forward a motion, the object of which, he said was, to obtain a more frequent Delivery of the Gaols of those unfortunate persons who now often lay six, seven, and even eight months in prison, before they are brought to trial. It was possible some gentleman might think that a proposition of that sort, which tended to a material alteration in our present system of administering the laws, would have been better in the hands of some honourable gentleman who was a member of the learned profession; but the House would see that his proposal did not involve any intricate question of law;—it did not involve any consideration of doubtful justice, or even, he thought, of doubtful policy. It was founded upon a plain and obvious principle, which, at all events, in the abstract, would meet universal acquiescence and approbation; namely, that no man should be punished before he is brought to trial. And he then contended, that the interval between the summer and the Lent assizes occasioned a duration of imprisonment before trial, which was in effect a most severe punishment, and which could not be justified upon any plea whatever. He said, he was aware that any alteration of the criminal law of the country, or even of the established mode of administering the criminal law, should be received in the first instance with jealousy, and adopted with great caution; but his proposition went in effect to no alteration, other than as affecting those who have the labour of carrying the law into execution. There was no alteration even of any part of the process of the law,—the sole object was, a more frequent delivery of the gaols, and by that means to effect
1068
an alleviation of the suffering of long imprisonment, and the removal of that disgrace to the jurisprudence of the country, which, he contended, was brought upon it by inflicting such a punishment upon men before they were tried, as now was frequently the case.—Mr. Western here went into a variety of observations, th show that a more frequent delivery of the gaols would be more congenial to the spirit of the constitution; and he thought he should be able likewise to show, that it would be more conformable to the law of the land, to the ancient law certainly, and even to the unrepealed existing statute law—the institutions of former times,— those enactments, upon which the basis of the administration of justice was founded in this country, strongly marked an anxious desire to protect the subject, not only from unjust imprisonment by incompetent authority, but from long imprisonment before trial also; which, in truth, was always considered as unjust imprisonment. The provisons of Magna Charta evidently had this object in view. Those words, which the statute was made to speak, as it were, from the mouth of the sovereign,—"Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum vel justitiam,"—comprehended an assurance that justice should not be delayed any more than sold or denied. "Nulli differemus," though directed to other cases than that of mere delay, yet was pointed to that also. Lord Coke, when commenting upon this statute, said, "And hereby it appears that Justitia debet esse libera, plena, celeris, celeris, quia dilatio justitiæ est quædatm negatio. Could it be said that six or eight months imprisonment was not dilatio justitiœ?" Lord Coke again observes, upon the writ de Odio et Otia, which was granted for certain offences not bailable. "Yet the law did so highly hate the long imprisonment of any man before trial, though accused of an heinous offence, that it gave him this writ." and Mr. Justice Hawkins says,— "The greater the offence charged, the more horrible the sufferings of the person accused, in the interval between his commitment, and that of his being brought before a jury of his country." And again, in commenting upon the statute of Gloucester, lord Coke says,—"Lex Angliæ est Lex Misericordiæ for three causes; first, because innocent men shall not be worn and wasted by long imprisonment; but as hereby, and by the provisions of Magna

1069
Charta, speedily come to trial."-As to the existing law, it was certain that there was an unrepealed statute, which provided, "that the gaols of the kingdom should be delivered three times a year, and more often, if need be;" and that lord Coke considered that statute to be the law of the land at the time he wrote. The present justices or judges of assize and Nisi Prius came into use in the room of the ancient justices in Eyre, justiciarii in itinere, and are more immediately derived from the stat. of the 13th of Edward 1st c. 30, which says, "From henceforth two justices sworn shall be assigned, before whom assizes shall be taken, and they shall associate one or two discreetest knights, who shall take the assizes three times in the year." And then points out those stated particular time. By the stat. 27th of Edward 1st c. 3, these justices of assize were made also justices of gaol delivery, in these words:-"We for the utility of our realm, &c. have ordained, that justices assigned to take assizes in every county, immediately after the assizes taken, shall remain, and by our writ shall deliver the gaols of all manner of prisoners, after the form of the gaol deliveries before-time used." Here then we see the justices of assizes and Nisi Prius, who were appointed to take assizes at three stated times in the year, are directed, after they shall have taken their assize to deliver the gaols; and, it must be presumed, that after each and every such taking of assizes they did so deliver the gaols. An act was afterwards passed in the fourth year of the reign of Edward 3rd, c. 2; the title of which describes it to be an act by which the authority of Justices of Assize and Gaol Delivery, and Justices of the Peace, was pointed out; and by which it was ordained, that "good and discreet persons, other than of the places, should "be assigned in all the shires of England "to take Assizes, Juries, and Certifications, and deliver the gaols at least three "times in the year, and more often if need be." Lard Coke, commenting upon the commission of Gaol Delivery, and referring to this statute, says,—"By "the LAW OF THE LAND, ne homines diù "detineantur in prisonâ; but that they "might receive plenam et celerem justiciam, "this commission was instituted, and by "this commission gaols ought to be delivered thrice in the year, and oftener if "need be;"—thus using the very words
1070
of this statute, and showing that he considered, at the time he wrote, that the law of the land required that the gaols should be delivered at least three times in the year. Here then, in regard to the law upon the subject, we have a statute special and direct in its enactments, drawn from the best times of our history,—quoted and commented upon by the first authority,—considered by lord Coke himself not only to be the law, but the glory of the law, that men should not be long detained in prison, but should have full and speedy justice. Could it be said that a man imprisoned in July, not brought to trial till late the following March,—(and that many such had been, he would show by the papers he had called for),—had received full and speedy justice?—So far from it, had he not in effect been worn and wasted by long imprisonment,—had he not seen the summer in great part pass over his head,—if a labourer in agriculture, his harvest lost,—the autumn past,—then a long dreary winter in gaol, and even the spring far advanced, before he is brought before a Jury for his trial, and then perhaps acquitted, as it should be remarked more than one-third of the prisoners tried constantly were—If then, said Mr. Western, it was considered to be the law, and to be necessary, at the time lord Coke wrote, to deliver the gaols three times a year at least, how much more necessary was it at the time he was speaking, when so vast an augmentation of the number of delinquents had unfortunately taken place, and when at that moment the gaols of the kingdom were crowded beyond what they could contain. He was desirous to point distinctly to the House from the papers upon the table, the effects of the present practice of delivering the gaols only twice in the year. He would show it rather in detail in the first instance, by referring to some of the returns separately, and then the whole collectively; the first he had in his hand was that of the county of Kent. It appeared that at Maidstone last Assizes, there were one hundred and seventy-seven prisoners for trial; of these, twenty-nine were in prison before the 1st of October last, eighty three before the 1st of January, which, together with those that were subsequently imprisoned, made up a total of one hundred and seventy-seven. By-the-bye, it was evident that one more gaol delivery some time in January, would have reduced the

1071
numbers before trial, to be provided for and maintained, and for whom buildings must be erected, from one hundred and seventy-seven to ninety-four, and of course the same in other counties. But the point to which he then wished to call the attention of the House, and which was still more important, was, the injustice which these prisoners had suffered, particularly those in prison before the 1st of October, the shortest period of confinement of whom before trial had been six months; nothing could show more strikingly the cruelty of such confinement in prison, than the known fact that a sentence of six months imprisonment was considered sufficient punishment for half the felonies that were committed. But the case became yet stronger when we considered the sufferings of those who were afterwards acquitted; seventeen of the twenty-nine above-mentioned were acquitted; nine of the seventeen were discharged by proclamation, having no bill found against them, or not prosecuted. On the other side of the return, it appears that twenty-five convicted felons were sentenced to imprisonment, the longest period of confinement of whom was six months. It might be said, that some of these were imprisoned some months before trial; but was not this another illustration of the unquestionable injustice of long detention before trial? It was common for the Court to address the prisoner, and tell him, that, in consideration of the time he had lain in prison, his sentence was, to further imprisonment for one month only; two men thus brought to the bar, who had each been in prison five months,—the one convicted, is told that his sentence is one month imprisonment only, in consequence of five already suffered,—the other is put up afterwards, and a jury of his country return a verdict of not guilty, yet has he endured five-sixths of the punishment of the one who was convicted: there were three at Maidstone, who, after being about seven months in prison, were discharged by proclamation, whilst various convicted felons suffered six-sevenths only of the punishment (including their imprisonment before and after trial), which was inflicted upon these three persons against whom no bill of indictment was found. By the returns of the last Lent Assizes at Chelmsford, the cases were not less striking than those of Maidstone; the total number tried was one hundred and sixty-six. Of these, twenty-five were in prison
1072
before the 1st of October; of whom, eleven were acquitted, and of these eleven, six were discharged by proclamation; two were in prison eight months, three seven months and fifteen days, three six months and fifteen days: whilst, on the other hand, sixteen convicted of felony were considered to be sufficiently punished by imprisonment under six months. Upon the whole, it appeared by the papers on the table, that four hundred and five of those persons who were tried at the last assizes had been in gaol before the 1st of October, whilst from the annual return it would be seen that eight hundred persons, convicted of felony, suffered under their sentence a lighter punishment than the four hundred and five had experienced before trial. Mr. Western begged the House further to remark that, if there was another gaol delivery some time in January, it would diminish very nearly one-half the total number of prisoners before trial, which it was now neccessary to provide room for in the gaols, and to maintain so many months longer. This was an important consideration under all circumstances, and in the present moment peculiarly so, when our gaols were crowded beyond what they could contain. The House had appointed a committee to inquire into the state of the gaols, the management pursued in them, and the discipline of the prisoners. That committee, he doubted not, would have a wretched tale to unfold. The report upon the table which had been called for by order of the House of Lords, had been communicated to the House, would show a singular state of non-conformity to law, in the condition of most of our gaols, and prove distinctly how much some essential improvements required to be generally enforced. In the first place, it would be seen that eighty-five gaols, which were stated in the return to be capable of containing only 7,263 prisoners, had in them at one time 10,628. By the same return, it would be seen how excessively defective are the means of classification. By the 24th of the king, the number of classes or departments pointed out to be essentially necessary, amount to eleven in number; and even these are not sufficient to keep offenders of different descriptions properly separated from each other, and prevent the fatal mischief of associating the young offender with the hardy and inveterate practitioner. Now, out of three hundred and thirty-eight prisons, of all descrip-

1073
tions, it appeared that seventeen only were classed or divided according to law; ninety had only two divisions, merely to separate males from females; fifty-eight bad only three; fifty-one, four; nineteen, five, and so on; seventeen only being classed or divided according to the regulations of that statute. In the return it was also stated, that one hundred and ninety-four could not increase the number of their divisions without new buildings, or incurring great expense; others might, with comparatively small expense; and many others were either altering and improving their gaols, or were under directions and orders for that purpose. That same statute gives directions for materials to be found and prisoners set to work; but, in two hundred and seventy-four of the prisons no work at all was done; in sixty-four some work was done. And in some few of those sixty-four a considerable deal had been accomplished. He did not wish to see palaces for prisoners; but the prisons should be airy and healthy, with hard fare and hard labour, and ample means of separating the different characters and shades of guilt. He entreated the House to consider, that if the great work was to be accomplished, to which in fact they were pledged, of improving the gaols of the kingdom, of reforming the present management, and establishing a better discipline, that the measure he proposed would materially aid the accomplishment of their object, by immediately reducing the number of prisoners, for whom accommodation was to be found; and would be essentially useful in various other ways. By diminishing, as much as possible, the duration of imprisonment before trial, the danger of corrupting the innocent, or the young offenders, would be more than proportionally diminished. It was only by the means which time afforded, that the work of corruption and debasement could be accomplished. The first effect of imprisonment might be as salutary as it was painful; but time soon were away the first impression, and then the effects of example and vicious association began to operate in full force. The, mind became paralysed; habits of idleness were easily formed; the character changed altogether; and the unfortunate beings, thus corrupted and debased, were turned loose again upon society, to contaminate and corrupt others. Besides which, the efficacy of the law was lost, by its tardy operation. The hand of justice must
1074
strike promptly, to strike effectively—Mr. Western then said, that he would not anticipate objections that might be possibly urged against a more frequent delivery of the gaols; nor would he attempt to point out the means by which it was to be effected, and which he thought was the business of the executive to devise. It might very probably be remarked, that such additional duty would require an augmentation of the number of the judges; that such would be the case, he thought extremely probable. But, if it was necessary, was that an objection? He was of opinion, that the vast increase of business did require an augmentation of the number of the judges. He had no hesitation in saying, that he was also decidedly of opinion that their salaries should be augmented likewise, though the salary had been increased so late as the 49th of the present king, yet it was quite inadequate to the character and duties of the high and important situations which they held. As to the idea of throwing more weight of the business upon the quarter sessions, it was what he certainly did not approve. The sessions had, last year, tried upwards of seven thousand prisoners, out of thirteen thousand. He did not wish to see the magistrates in their sessions take higher classes of offence than they did at present; indeed, at present, he thought they went quite far enough in that respect—four hundred and forty-eight persons were transported by the sessions last year. The burthen of their duties were already, in some places, beyond what the magistrates could well get through; and, if these were to be increased, we should be obliged soon to have pensioned chairmen upon every bench in the country, and which, above all things, he should most deprecate.—He concluded by moving,
"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly to represent to his Royal Highness, that this House has taken into its serious consideration the returns of prisoners tried in the last Lent assizes, in England and Wales, which, in consequence of an address of this House, his Royal Highness was graciously pleased to order to be laid before it; and further to represent to his Royal Highness, that it appears by the said returns, that, of the prisoners tried at the last assizes in England and Wales, exclusive of Middlesex, 405 were in prison before

1075
the 1st of October last, which number was increased to 1,270 before the 1st of January, and which was further increased to 2,700 at the commencement of the Lent assizes; that those of the first period had consequently lain in prison from six to eight months before they were brought to trial; those of the second period from three to six months; and together accumulating the total number beyond what the gaols are capable of containing; that this House cannot but feel, that, though the practice has now prevailed for a considerable number of years of delivering the gaols only twice a year, that yet so long an interval as that which occurs between the Summer and Spring assizes, and so long a delay of justice as necessarily follows therefrom, is productive of the most injurious and fatal consequences; that, without detailing the various evils attendant upon long imprisonment, and the obvious injustice of inflicting so severe a punishment before trial, this House thinks it necessary to observe, that it appears by the said returns, that a very large proportion of those prisoners, who have been actually convicted of felony, have been considered to be sufficiently punished by sentence of imprisonment for a shorter period of time than one-seventh of the total number have actually endured before they are brought before a jury of their country; that this House, adverting to the practice of former times, has seen, that in all those enactments on which the basis of the administration of justice is founded, that it has ever been a primary object of the laws to obviate the possibility of long imprisonment before trial; that, without reciting the different provisions that at different periods of our history have been enacted for this purpose, this House will only beg leave to point out and humbly to represent to his Royal Highness, that the statute of 4th Edward 3rd, c. 2, ordains, that 'good and discreet persons, 'other than of the places, shall be assigned 'in all the shires of England, to take 'assizes, juries, and certifications, and 'deliver the gaols at least three times in 'the year, and more often, if need be;' that if it was necessary to deliver the gaols three times a year at that period, that necessity is increased beyond comparison by the vast augmentation of the number of delinquents which has taken place in late years, and which this House has seen with infinite anxiety and regret:
1076
and, therefore, under all these circumstances and considerations, to entreat that his Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to give directions that, according to the provisions of the said statute of Edward 3rd commissions of gaol delivery may be issued three times a year, and more often if need be; and that this House will make good any expenses attending the same."
The Attorney Generalcontended, that the statute of Edward 3rd referred not to justices of assize, but only to justices of peace, and referred only to a gaol delivery with respect to those minor offences cognizable by the quarter sessions. If the hon. member wished that there should be a more frequent gaol delivery by the twelve judges who constituted the present judicial administration of the country, he could assure him that it would be impossible. There was no class of eminent public men whose duties were so constant, whose time was so completely appropriated to the discharge of their various important functions, as the judges of the land. Even in those occasional cases when what was called a Special Commission was issued, the regular and ordinary administration of justice was necessarily suspended. The hon. and. learned gentleman paid a high compliment to the talents and devotion of the great body of gentlemen who as magistrates at the quarter sessions administered the criminal justice of the country, with reference to minor delinquencies, and suggested that a great alleviation of the evils complained of by the hon. gentleman might be effected were those gentlemen to extend their public services, by making such an arrangement in their various adjournments, &c. as would enable them to hold a sessions, eight, instead of four times in the year. Convicted, however, that a general gaol delivery could not more frequently take place, without an increase in the number of judges, a measure which he must long pause to consider before he could consent to its adoption, he felt it his duly to move the previous question on the hon. gentleman's motion.
Mr. Bennetobserved, that all parties acknowledged the existence of the evil; the only difference was with respect to the remedy. He was not himself aware of the evils that would arise from increasing the number of judges, but he knew the evils that existed in the present administration of justice. He could not help

1077
thinking that government were to blame for not having themselves proposed some specific plan on a subject so pregnant with evils, especially in the Northern counties. He had known a case in one of these counties, in which a man had been imprisoned for eleven months, and eventually the grand jury ignored the bill against him. It appeared that some mistake had arisen in the circumstances which caused the commitment of that person; but although that mistake was soon after discovered, it was impossible to discharge him but in due course of law. This was certainly an extreme case, but other cases of great hardship were constantly occurring. He hoped his hon. friend would persist in his endeavour to give to the people of England what a good police required—that those who committed offences might be speedily brought to justice, and those who were innocent speedily discharged.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, the hon. gentleman who spoke last had mixed up with the subject of the present motion another which had nothing to do with it, namely, that of the Northern assizes. As the courts of law were at present constituted, it was impossible for the judges to afford to all England a greater number of gaol deliveries than was provided for by two assizes. This could only be effected by some alteration in the number or constitution of our courts of law.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, as this was a subject that required very great consideration, he hoped it would be taken up at some future period. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion; that the attorney-general would also withdraw his amendment; and that government would, in a future session, take into consideration the various acts of parliament on the subject.
Mr. F. Buxtonfelt that some measure similar to that which was now proposed, was essentially necessary. If the hon. member for Essex should succeed in his object, he would do more to improve the morals of the country than bad ever been done by a single individual.
The motion was then negatived.

COLONIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
Mr. Humerose to submit a motion to the House for a variety of returns relative to the newly acquired colonies of Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Malta, and the Ionian Islands. All the
1078
old colonies, he said, were governed by colonial assemblies; but the newly acquired colonies, amounting in value to a very large proportion of our whole colonies, had this peculiarity attending them, that the government was carried on under the secretary for the colonial department, and that all affairs, however important, were carried on by the colonial governor, who was the only individual entitled to interfere under the secretary for the colonies. The House were not, perhaps, fully aware of the importance of these colonies, of the great revenue of each, and of their great expense to this country. Although the island of Ceylon had long been in the possession of this country, yet he was not aware that up to the present moment, any estimate of the revenue or expenditure of that island was yet in the possession of ministers. From the peculiar manner in which the accounts respecting the colonies were kept, it was almost impossible for any individual to know what they cost. Large bills were drawn from the colonies on the government here, and these bills were not submitted to the House till a year or two after they were drawn. One thing was so mixed up with another, that it was impossible to know for what the sums for which those bills were drawn were expended. This state of things ought not to have continued so long. During the war, when we were in a state of uncertainty, whether these colonies would be retained by us, some justification might have been offered for this system; but in the fifth year of peace, surely it was the duty of that House to see what was the real state of the colonies we had acquired, what was the expense incurred for them by this country, and if found too large, to consider in what way it might be reduced. It might be necessary to state to the House, as one cause of the peculiar interest which he took in this question, that he had himself visited each of these colonies, and that he had, both while there and since, obtained such information as warranted the inquiries which he now called for. By the estimates last presented to the House, it appeared that the total number of troops in our colonies amounted to 30,000 and between 3 and 400. The number of regular troops in Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape, Malta, and the Ionian Islands, was 10,240, being one-third of the whole of our military establishment out of England. The pay and

1079
clothing, alone of this one-third cost 376,100 l. without taking into account contingent expenses, the commissariat staff, and other ordinary and extraordinary expenses.. The staff of the whole British army was 79,535 l.; the staff of the new colonies was 25,000 l., being one-third of the whole British army. This seemed a very large staff indeed, when it was considered, that not a hostile naval flag waved to the east of the Cape of Good Hope; and that in case of hostilities, from the superior naval means at our command, we could always convey relief to our colonies before they could be endangered by any enemy whatever. In time of war he should be the last man to quarrel with an effective staff establishment; but in time of peace, when we could do so without risking the safety of the colonies, we ought to reduce these enormous staff establishments. Though it was impossible to attain perfect accuracy on this subject, he had been enabled to put down upwards of 900,000 l., which ought to be placed to the account of these new colonies. When it was considered that the revenue of Ceylon was 640,456 l., the Cape 229,494 l., the Mauritius 206,860, Malta 114,415 l., the Ionian Islands 120,000 l.; making on the whole a revenue of 1,311,225 l.—when it was considered that this revenue was altogether unknown to this House, though he did not mean to say it was improperly applied, he submitted it as a most important constitutional question for the House, whether the individual who filled the office of colonial secretary, and the individual governors, should continue to have the uncontrolled distribution of upwards of 1,300,000 l. a year, and nearly a million more of other expenses connected with it? Whilst in the old colonies there were councils to check and assist the governors, in these new colonies no check whatever existed. It became a question, whether the king in council were to continue to direct, without any local government of a senate, legislature, or council, sums of such an amount? Ceylon, under the Dutch government, paid to Holland a very large surplus income. He had every reason to believe that the Cape paid also a large surplus revenue; and that the Mauritius, after paying its expenses, yielded a surplus revenue. If that was the case under the preceding governments when these colonies were liable to attack from the most powerful naval power, great Britain—if they were
1080
still able to protect themselves, to maintain internal tranquillity, and to guard against sudden attack from without— surely it was not too much to expect from his majesty's government, with such superior means always at command, that they should maintain these colonies at least without entailing any charge on this country. He wished to know why the expenses of the war in Ceylon were not laid before the House? On a former occasion, he requested the chancellor of the exchequer to state the nature of the account between the East India company, but he could receive no satisfactory answer. These accounts were balanced generally by two or three millions on each side, but the public ought to be made acquainted with them. It was known that from 3 to 4,000 of the company's troops had been sent from Bengal to Ceylon; those troops must be paid for. In common justice, government ought to relieve the East India company from this expense. Notwithstanding all that had been done at different times, the expenses incurred at Ceylon had been kept from the public eye. Unless a system of government, consistent with the principles of justice, and conciliatory to the inhabitants, was adopted, it would be impossible to keep that colony in our possession, unless at an expense of a most ruinous nature. It would be impossible to derive any benefit from the possession of that island, while an arbitrary system of government was pursued. If this had been done five years ago, an immense expense of blood and treasure would have been saved. If the regular returns were laid on the table, the House would be astonished to see the number of British lives, which had been sacrificed in the course of this war. He did not mean to impute any blame to the governor of that colony, but he condemned the necessity which had given rise to the harsh measures that had been adopted. He was anxious to impress the House with the value of this colony, with the greatness of its produce and the amount of its revenue, if properly directed; and also to point out the saving which by a different policy could be made to this country. A sum of half a million at least could be saved by reducing the military establishments of Ceylon, and those establishments could be reduced without danger to our interests, if the colony were governed on principles of justice and sound policy. He had five motions to make, each of which contained

1081
four resolutions. But as the resolutions were the same with respect to each island, he should merely state those which referred to Ceylon. They were for, 1. "A return of the total revenue of Ceylon within the last two years, distinguishing the separate items under each head. 2. A return of the whole expenditure of the island, distinguishing the civil from the military establishment, and the expenses of the island from those incurred by the British troops, and specifying the sums paid by England beyond the revenue of the island. 3. A return of the civil officers who held salaries and emoluments to the amount of 150 l. and upwards during the last year; with the names of the parties, specifying those who were natives from British subjects; those who held more than one office; and those who performed the duties of their offices by deputy. 4. An account of the military staff of the island during the last year, specifying the emoluments of the officers, and distinguishing British from native officers." These accounts would enable the House to judge how far the recommendation of the finance committee of 1818, respecting our newly acquired colonies could be carried into effect. The resolutions respecting the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Malta, and the Ionian Islands, were precisely of the same nature with those he had just mentioned.—On the first resolution respecting Ceylon, being put,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had already signified his readiness to accede to the motion as it regarded our colonies, but he could not accede to such an inquiry into the financial situation of the Ionian Islands. Those islands had a legislature of their own, totally independent of this country; and the Crown had no more right to call upon the senate to furnish an account of their income and expenditure, than it had to call upon any other state to do so. If the hon. member would refer to the constitution of those islands, he would find, that the senate were vested with the power of appointing their own officers, without reference to this country, and ministers did not conceive that they had a right to enter into any such investigation as that proposed.
The resolutions for the production of the above accounts from Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, and Malta, and Gozo, were then put and carried unanimously.
Mr. Humesaid, he had a resolution in
1082
his hand, which ought to be carried, if they wished to ascertain the financial situation of the Ionian islands. The House had as much right to make this inquiry as they had to inquire into the situation of Ceylon, or any of our other colonies. It was urged, that the Ionian Islands were an independent state; but, by the treaty of Paris, these islands were placed under the protection of this country by the 8th article of that treaty. The treasurer of those islands was directed to lay before the British government a monthly account of their income and expenditure. If there were no demands on this country for the military establishments of those islands, he would not propose this inquiry, but surely, when we were supporting 3,000 troops there, it was not too much to examine how the revenue was disposed of, and whether it was not sufficient to meet the expenditure, as was stipulated by the before-mentioned treaty. He would ask, whether the emperors of Russia and Austria, who were parties to this treaty, were inclined to bear any part of the expenses incurred to us from the Ionian Islands? No; the treasury of those islands paid nothing, but this country was obliged to pay in all a sum of near 100,000 l. The hon. member then moved, for the production of accounts from the Ionian Islands, similar to those already ordered from Ceylon.
The first resolution was negatived without a division. Mr. Hume then moved for an account of all monies expended by this country on account of the Ionian Islands, during the last two years. —Ordered.

WAYS AND MEANS—MALT DUTY.
Mr. Brogdenbrought up the report of the committee of Ways and Means. The first six resolutions were read a first and second time, and agreed to. On the question being put on the resolution for the additional Malt duty.
Lord Miltonsaid, that when the House had been in the committee, he had proposed that the duty should be 1s. 4d. instead of 2s. 6d. In order to record his dissent to the present tax on the Journals, and not with any view to promote a discussion on the subject, he should propose his amendment, to the consideration of the House. In doing this, he was not actuated by any fear of laying increased taxes on the landed interest. The fate war had been carried

1083
on with a view of protecting those gentlemen in the possession of their estates; and now that it had been concluded so fortunately, he did not think that they were the persons who ought to complain of taxes being levied upon their property. His objection to the present tax was, that it did not fall exclusively upon the rich. For these reasons he should move, to leave out the paragraph charging the additional duty of 1s. 2d. per bushel on Malt on the stock in hand.
Mr. Broughamwished to avoid any discussion upon this subject at present, not because he thought that it had been already exhausted, but because there was another discussion appointed for that evening, in which, not merely the whole House, but the whole country was interested. He could not, however, help rising to impress on the House the necessity of discussing every measure in its right place. He could not agree with the noble lord, that the late war was undertaken to protect the landed interest only. Whether that war was justly or unjustly entered into, it afforded as much protection to the poor man as it did to his opulent neighbour. He objected to the tax, because it fell in the first instance and unequally, on the grower, as well as on the consumer. It was not on persons of large estate solely or chiefly that it fell. A person in the barley counties, who had perhaps only 50 l. or 100 l. a year, were taxed on their whole estates, while a person who had an estate of 50,000 l. a year, who had a variety of other resources, did not suffer in the same degree. The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the barley counties in particular, would suffer, and not less the counties of the North of England, where the tax would be more felt by the yeomanry than any which had been imposed for many years.
Mr. C. Calvertstated to the House the extreme hardships which the proposed duty on malt would create to the maltster, nine-tenths of them must be ruined, should the duty be fixed as high as 17 s. a quarter. The new tax had a reference to all the stock on hand on the fifth July, which always must constitute a great proportion of the malt made in that year, as the maltsters did not commence malting until late in October. The rate of 9s. might afford them a profit, but ruin would inevitably follow the imposition of duties as high as 17 s.. Indeed as the duty now
1084
was, he thought the maltster this year could not obtain more for his malt than he had given for his barley.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that as government had, upon the repeal of the war malt duty, repaid the maltsters and the trade the amount of duty already paid on the stock absolutely on hand, they would be justly entitled, after the 5th of July, to take the duty on the stock then on hand. He could see nothing inequitable in his arrangement.
The question being put, that the said paragraph stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 75.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.
The Attorney generalhaving moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a petition against the bill, which he said was signed by a most respectable number of the inhabitants of Westminster. The petition sat forth, "That the bill excited in the minds of the petitioners feelings of inexpressible dissatisfaction, alike hostile to the liberties and happiness of the Spanish American nation, now nobly asserting their independence, as it was to the obvious interests of our own country, the said bill being contrary to that neutrality which ought to be strictly observed by England between the parties at issue, one fighting for that freedom which God and Nature designed for all mankind, the other for continuing over widely extended regions, a government of oppression and cruelty peculiarly disgraceful to the present enlightened age; confiding in the justice, wisdom, and benevolence of an English parliament, in the premises, the petitioners prayed, that the said bill might not pass into a law." The worthy alderman said, that he should oppose the Bill in all its stages.
On the motion, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Colonel Davies,Colonel Davies, before the House went into the committee, took that opportunity of contradicting certain circumstances which had been mentioned by the supporters of the bill on the last occasion that the question had been argued. The noble lord opposite had then laid great stress upon this country being bound by treaties to do Spain every service that lay within her power, and had argued in such a way as would have led any inconsiderate person to believe, that Spain had not

1085
merely always acted in such a manner towards us, but had even strained every nerve to put a favourable construction upon such of her institutions as were hostile to our commercial intercourse with her subjects. But was such a statement reconcileable with facts? Would any body, except the noble lord, pretend to argue that the conduct of Spain had not been one continued series of unwarrantable aggressions against this country? that she had not violated almost every treaty which she had ever made with us? that she had not committed the most gross and unjustifiable outrages against our national honour? that she had not imprisoned the bodies, confiscated the property, and annihilated, as far as depended upon herself, the commerce of British merchants? He maintained that she had done all this upon repeated occasions, and said that the charges which he had brought against her were not mere invectives, unsupported by facts, but where so corroborated by them, that he would defy the noble lord either to disprove them. He would mention one or two of the facts on which he principally rested his assertions. The treaty upon which all our commercial transactions with Spain rested was made in the year 1667, and was afterwards confirmed by the peace of Utrecht. This, with some slight fluctuations, continued till the year 1783, when another treaty was formed between the two countries. That remained in force till the year 1796, when it was again altered. In 1806, when Spain was at the feet of Buonaparte, duties absolutely prohibitory were imposed by the king, for the avowed purpose of annihilating the commerce of Great Britain. In 1808, the patriot war broke out, and those prohibitory duties were withdrawn. In 1814, Ferdinand was restored, and he introduced the commercial relations that existed previous to 1796. On the faith of his decrees British merchants imported into Spain large quantities of our manufactures, and followed them up by very extensive orders; yet, would the House believe it, in less than six months afterwards, that monarch, who owed his very existence to this country, reimposed the very prohibitory duties which Buonaparté had compelled in 1806, and took care that the decree should have a retrospective operation. This was one of the favours for which we were indebted to the present Spanish government! Since that date still heavier duties had been laid
1086
on British goods; so that, in truth, the trade had been totally destroyed. But if such was the conduct of Ferdinand towards us as a nation, the instances of individual outrage were gross and tyrannical beyond conception. The Spanish cabinet had not only set at defiance the clearest law of nations, but had disregarded its own municipal regulations, for the purpose of oppressing the merchants of this kingdom. One case, selected from many, would be sufficient for the present occasion: it was that of a Mr. Simpson, a merchant, who had been subjected to the most grievous oppressions—not in a distant province, but in the purlieus of the court—in the heart of the capital. His House had been forcibly entered, on the 14th of October 1816, all his books seized, and a sentry placed over his person: he of course remonstrated, but our envoy at Madrid, Mr. Vaughan, could obtain neither redress nor explanation; and at the end of a fortnight, Mr. Simpson's House was again entered at night by armed men, who threatened instant death if he did not disclose where his property was kept. He was still kept in custody for some days, and at last was released; but from that hour to the present justice had been refused, and he had not been able to obtain the restoration of a single article of his property. Such had been the conduct of the myrmidons of the court of Spain, notwithstanding it had been constantly provided, ever since the treaty of Utrecht, that the persons and dwellings of British merchants should be held sacred! Of these facts the individual so injured was ready to make oath; and yet, with a knowledge of the whole of them, the noble lord had expressed his surprise that British merchants should feel any alarm, and he had charged them with departing from their characters as British merchants, because they remonstrated against the most grievous injustice. [Cries of No! no! from lord Castlereagh.] Such had been the tenour of the whole speech of the noble lord on a former night; he had, indeed, directly charged British merchants with becoming bucaniers and smugglers, and with preferring smuggling adventures to fair legitimate trade. Did the noble lord imagine that Spain, the moment she regained an ascendancy in her colonies, would not exclude our commerce? Did he not know, that while she had any authority, she had punished with death the natives who carried on inter-

1087
course with any nation but the mother country? The noble lord had referred to the conduct of the United States; but had he forgotten the interest which that people took in the events in South America? Had he forgotten that, in 1816, they sent out commissioners expressly to collect commercial information, particularly regarding the value of the trade to Buenos-Ayres, which had been since published in a report, and proved the wonderful resources of the favoured regions they had visited. If, then, the United States, pressed by none of the distresses that weighed upon this country —if the United States, who could derive but little comparative benefit from a trade with South America, had taken such pains to inquire, was it fit that we should be totally indifferent? Were we to submit to all kinds of insults from Spain, to have our manufactures excluded, our trade ruined, and to do nothing on behalf of millions of men who, on the other side of the globe, were anxious to receive us with open arms, and to compensate in the new world for what we had lost in the old? It appeared that Buenos-Ayres received British manufactures to the amount of more than 2,000,000 l. annually, while the utmost that had been sent to the mother country did not exceed 400,000 l. What comparison, therefore, was there between the two, and how short-sighted was the policy ministers were endeavouring to pursue! If this bill passed, though the hope of emancipation might not be destroyed, the event must be retarded. The South Americans turned to Great Britain as to a land of succour and freedom; and, if they were disappointed, their disgust would be in proportion to their despair. They would then, of necessity, direct their eyes to the great commercial and naval rival of this country, with whom we were at peace it was true, but with whom that peace would continue only just as long as suited the interests of that rival. He would venture to prophesy, the within six months after the passing of this; bill, the Buenos-Ayres government would be recognized by the United States, a commercial treaty would be formed, and the United States would at least monopolize the carrying-trade, and undersell us with our own goods in the South American markets. Upon the legal part of the question he only wished to remark, that the acts of the 9th and 29th of Geo. 2nd, were completely a dead letter on our
1088
Statute book: only three British subjects were serving with the king's license in the royal armies of South America, while from 50 to 60 were serving without license, and under those statutes were guilty of felony. If any additional proof were wanting that the acts were a dead letter, it was found in this fact, that only on Thursday last, two British officers, without license, in the service of Ferdinand, and consequently felons by the existing law, in full Spanish uniform, at the Prince Regent's levee, took their formal leave. The utmost Spain could expect was, the repeal of those two statutes. He had hoped that after the division of a former night, ministers would not have forced this measure upon the country; but the treasury circular, which he had seen, unfortunately showed that they intended to persevere to the last [Hear, from ministers.] He was sorry to find that his statement was confirmed, and that the government of Great Britain was under the necessity of yielding to the dictation of a foreign power. He opposed the bill, because it was calculated not only to destroy the best interests of the country, but to degrade it in the eyes of all Europe. [Cheers.]
Mr. F. Robinsoncontended, that if the arguments of the hon. gentleman were well founded, he had made out a case to prove that this country could not, without dishonour, avoid declaring war against Spain. If there were any foundation for the charges adduced, and if the gloomy colours in which the conduct of Spain had been painted were at all warranted, Great Britain had no choice left. Before he proceeded to the immediate question, he protested, in the most unequivocal and solemn manner, that the imputation against ministers, that this measure had proceeded from a servile acquiescence in the demands of any foreign nation, was wholly unjustified by the fact; it had been brought forward only from a conscientious conviction that it was required for the preservation of the honour and character of the country [Hear, hear!]. He could not expect that his declaration would be accepted as proof, but he protested, before God, that it was sincere. It had been charged, that ministers were acting in hostility to the principles of liberty: it was very easy to make general accusations, and very difficult to answer them but by a general denial; and this he gave in the most distinct and positive manner. With regard to the question

1089
itself, there could be no doubt that the Crown had a prerogative right to establish a neutrality, and that any violation of it was punishable at common law. The measure was founded upon these admitted facts; and if it went further than the common law, it was because there was a specific obligation by a special treaty with Spain, binding this country to take the most effectual measures to prevent its subjects from supplying arms to the revolted Americans. It was therefore, of course, the wish of ministers not to make a mere show of neutrality, and their sincerity was first evinced by the royal proclamation. The agents of the insurgents, notwithstanding, had succeeded in enlisting hundreds of men, the very instant they were disbanded from our own regiments; and if this government was to act with any regard to good faith in its engagements, it was bound to adopt some more effectual measure. Great ingenuity had been shown in endeavouring to prejudice the House by calling in aid passions and interests; and the first objection was, that the bill had been introduced at the suggestion of a foreign power. True it was, the dictations of other states ought not to be attended to: for instance, when Buonaparte required the prosecution of the free press of this country, after the peace of Amiens, the government would have disgraced itself by compliance; but when treaties were involved, how could a foreign power obtain redress but by war, if its remonstrances were not listened to? In 1794, a treaty precisely similar was entered into between Great Britain and the United States, and we had been obliged to make representations that the conditions were not fulfilled, and an act, to endure for three years, was passed: at the end of that time, the same act was continued at the suggestion of Great Britain; and if it had not been attended to, a justifiable cause of war would unquestionably have been afforded. So here. Spain would have a justifiable cause for declaring war, if we did not do our utmost to fulfil our treaty; and though her weakness might deter her from hazarding hostilities, with a generous nation, that ought to be the very reason why all cause of complaint should be removed. This might be further illustrated by a reference to the expedition of sir Gregor M'Gregor: he raised his troops in this country; he obtained the ships to transport them in this country; yet he had no commission
1090
from any sovereign authority, and not one foot of ground in the country to which he was proceeding. He went to attack a part of the territory still adhering to Old Spain, with which this country carried on a very advantageous trade; and though he had a right, perhaps, to attack Spanish property, he could not assail that of Great Britain, without being guilty of the most atrocious acts of piracy and robbery. Having done so, where was redress to be obtained? Sir Gregor M'Gregor had no court but his ship, no law but his sword; and in a case of that kind, it was the absolute duty of government to take some steps for the protection of the commercial interests of the kingdom; even supposing that honour and honesty were out of the question. Next it was urged, that the cause of the South Americans was just; that it was most fitly and naturally popular in Great Britain; and that to support it would importantly relieve the commercial and manufacturing interests of the kingdom. No man could be more sensible than he was of the impolicy and injustice of the system pursued by Old Spain towards her colonies for centuries; and no man who loved liberty could wonder that the struggle in which the insurgents were engaged, excited a strong feeling in their favour here. He knew, too, that commercial pressure was at this moment peculiarly felt, and of course that there was great anxiety that this field for speculation should be opened; yet, recollecting the solemn treaties entered into by this country, he could not but pause, at least, before he consented to sacrifice to feeling and interest the honour and good faith of the nation. In his view, nothing on earth should be held so dear by a country as fidelity in its engagements. What state could confide in us in future, if we held out to the world, that for pecuniary considerations the most sacred obligations were disregarded? He implored the House to reflect for a moment on the consequences. Could any period of our history be pointed out when peace was so essential to our welfare as at present? But if we were to act upon the principles recommended by the opponents of the bill, with what country on earth could we be in bonds of amity? Should we not point ourselves out as the mark against which all other powers would be justified in aiming their hostility? The hon. member had talked of obtaining rewards in the new world for what we had lost in

1091
the old; but could he hope that even the revolted Americans, after they had made use of us for temporary purposes, would trust us more than other states whose treaties we had purposely violated. Upon the whole, therefore, he (Mr. Robinson) held the measure to be of the last importance to our character; and he thought it was impossible that the British parliament should reject it, unless it preferred the gratification of passion, and the promotion of interest, to the preservation of good faith and national honour.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he did not rise to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair, as he was aware there might be a convenience in proceeding to that stage of the measure. Against the measure itself, however, he entertained the most determined hostility; and he perfectly concurred in the intention expressed by an hon. member for the city of London of opposing the whole of it, with the exception of the first clause, which went to repeal the acts of George 2nd. That clause was clear, distinct and intelligible. It was open to the comprehension of every individual. It was just, and whatever might be the predominance of feeling in the breast of any one on a subject like the present, yet sentiment ought always to be compelled to submit to the dictates of justice. But, while he was bound to admit the expediency of that particular clause, he desired to be understood as doing so with regard only to the strict question of neutrality. Placing the question on the fair ground of our duty to maintain perfect neutrality, he would undertake to prove, that, with the exception of that first clause, the bill under the consideration of the House would be the complete destruction, instead of the preservation, of our neutrality. Differing as he did from the right hon. gentleman opposite on this subject, he must deprecate and condemn a measure which proclaimed war against the liberties' of America, which proclaimed war against the commerce and character of England, in order to conciliate the good opinion of Spain, and which was a gross departure from that impartiality which was unquestionably due to both the belligerents respecting whom it had been introduced. Denying, as he did, the claim of a foreign government to require from us the adoption of any such proposition, he would not oppose the bill on that ground,—he would not oppose it, because (which was in itself, however, sufficiently extraordi-
1092
nary) it was the first instance in which a Spanish ambassador, exercising a power which he believed was rather unprecedented in this country, had written or attempted to write an act in the British statute book. His opposition to the bill would be founded on a more general principle. He was certainly much surprised to hear a right hon. gentleman who had just spoken on the subject with so much clearness and eloquence, draw from the same premises a conclusion so different from that which he had himself drawn. He was by no means inclined to dispute the proposition of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the right possessed by the king of regulating the intercourse of his subjects with belligerent powers. That right had been well asserted by the royal Proclamation in 1817; disobedience to which was a misdemeanor, punishable as such by the common law. But, to go further—when by the common law the means existed of punishing a breach of neutrality, to enact a measure favourable in its tendency to one party alone, was in itself the grossest violation of neutrality. In what did neutrality consist? It was unnecessary to resort to the learned disquisitions of writers on international polity to ascertain what the real meaning of neutrality was; common sense would point it out. Neutrality consisted, first, in the abstinence of a government from affording aid to either of two belligerent parties; secondly, in the impartiality of the laws as respecting two belligerent parties. The proclamation of 1817 could warrant no other proceeding consistently with the principle of neutrality than the repeal of the two acts of George 2nd. Let those statutes be repealed, and England would instantly, and without any additional measure, be placed in a state of complete impartiality towards the belligerents. The present bill therefore was necessarily an act of supererogation. It was more—it was confessedly introduced at the instance of Spain; it was for the convenience and benefit of Spain alone; and parliament was called upon to pass it just at the critical moment when it especially suited the policy and the necessities of that country. The right hon. gentleman had dwelt much on the statutes of George 2nd; but if the right hon. gentleman had read them with the same attention which he (sir James Mackintosh) had given to them, he would have found that, by the 9th of George 2nd, officers

1093
entering into the service of Spain were not guilty of capital felony. It was entering into the service of the king of France only which was made a capital felony by that act. By the 29th of George 2nd, private soldiers entering the service were made guilty of a capital felony; but the penalty was not extended to any officers who might engage in that service. The acts of George the 2nd originated under peculiar circumstances. It was well known to all those who were conversant with the private history of that reign, that at no period were the efforts of the Jacobite party more unremitting than between, the years 1733 and 1736, when, falling into the common error of mistaking the unpopularity of the minister (sir R. Walpole) for the unpopularity of the reigning sovereign, they were induced to enter into various foreign services, with the view of availing themselves of that spirit of discontent which they were perpetually fancying they observed at home. The common law of this country was equally impartial in its efficacies and inefficacies with regard to Spain; and in its conveniencies and inconveniencies with regard to both belligerents. It was the duty of all neutral powers that their laws should be thus impartial; but their efficacy was a very different question. That depended upon distinct and peculiar considerations; such as the tone and temper of the times, motives of particular policy, and more especially the public expression of national feeling. The right hon. gentleman had adverted, in terms becoming an Englishman, to the interference of Napoleon, in 1802, with respect to the press of this country. He concurred with the right hon. gentleman in the indignant warmth which he had manifested on that point; but it was very strange that the very language which was used at that period against the liberty of the press in this country, was the language now used in support of the bill before the House! The complaint upon the occasion alluded to by the right hon. gentleman was, that no adequate security was given to foreign powers against the abuse of libellers; that we had little reason to boast of a constitution which thus permitted rank and station to be attacked with impunity, and did not recognize or protect the privileges of foreign sovereigns; that the common law of the land was evidently insufficient for the purpose, and therefore that some rigorous measures
1094
ought to be adopted to remedy the evil. The result of that angry interference was too well known to render it necessary for him to advert to it; but, because it was probable that a jury of this country would acquit a libeller of Napoleon, did any man dare to propose to the British parliament a bill to put down the liberty of the press, and the trial by jury? In the present instance, was it because English feeling had been manifested in the support of the cause of liberty in South America, that the government of Spain should be complimented by a surrender of the neutrality which we were bound to observe? It was no more to be tolerated, that hostility en the part of individuals to the oppression of Ferdinand should be suppressed, than hostility on the part of the press to the oppression of Napoleon. It had certainly been argued that the common law was insufficient in cases of the nature in question; but he contended, that that argument was entirely erroneous. If, however, it were so—if the common law did not contemplate the particular case for which the present bill was introduced, was the interference of a foreign power on such a subject to be tolerated? There would be no end to the demands of foreign powers, if the principle were once admitted, that our system of jurisprudence might be altered at their pleasure.—The right hon. gentleman had observed, that such a measure as the present had been introduced by the government of the United States, and acceded to by congress. The United States, said the right hon. gentleman, concluded a treaty with Spain, and congress passed an act to carry that treaty into effect. And why did they do so? Because, though the common law in England was sufficient for the required purpose, in America it was not. The power of making war and peace was not vested in the president of America, as it was in the king of England. In America, therefore, a legislative act was necessary. But, as his majesty's proclamation of 1817 was still in force, how could any legislative measure be necessary in this country? It was, indeed, singular that in such a country as England—a country which had so long flourished in security and glory by maintaining the principles of justice and liberty, no such proposition as the present had ever before been hazarded. Until the present period no belligerent had ever been able to obtain a favour which Great

1095
Britain was now called upon to grant to Ferdinand —a sovereign on whom he would bestow no epithets, because it was impossible by any epithets which the English language could furnish to add to the feeling which the mere utterance of his name excited. Never before had this country been asked to make a change in its ancient institutions for the benefit of one belligerent. Why was parliament to be now called upon to alter those institutions, and to make such a change in the relations hitherto observed in our foreign policy? Was there any sufficient cause for the innovation? Was the proceeding warranted by any particular emergency? No! nothing of the kind. The king of Spain desired it; and his wish must be gratified.—But, it might be demanded, "What! do you contend that no such wish as the present was ever expressed by a foreign government?" Yes; a similar application had been made by the same power as at present after the memorable treaty of 1604; but it was rejected by the enlightened ministers of that day the scholars of the illustrious Elizabeth. James 1st in his precipitate eagerness to reconcile himself with the legitimate princes of the continent, was very willing to depart from those maxims of sound policy which had placed his glorious predecessor at the head of what might be termed a body of national independence, and to evince towards Spain the same pliancy which marked the conduct of the present administration; but he was still in the hands of lord Salisbury, a statesman who prized and upheld the rights and honour of the British nation. With the permission of the House he would advert to an old document, which was strikingly in point on the present subject. In the Memoirs of Sir Ralph Winwood, who was secretary of state to James 1st, there was a curious letter to himself from sir Harry Neville, relating to a bill then lately brought in, which made it penal for a subject to go abroad into the service of a foreign power without having first taken the oath of allegiance, as recently framed. From this, he would just observe, it was quite clear that it had never been considered an offence by the common law. In the letter, which was dated July 8th 1616, sir Harry Neville, who had introduced the bill, observed, that it was originally confined to those who entered the service of Popish princes only, but
1096
that the Lords had spoiled it by making its provisions universal. Upon mentioning that circumstance to lord Salisbury, that nobleman told him it was of no consequence, seeing how easily the amendment might be evaded. Sir Harry Neville then went on to say, that there was an apprehension of the interference of Spain to prevent British troops from joining the standard of the insurgent Dutch provinces; and in fact there was an application of that nature; but the ancient friends and counsellors of Elizabeth refused to comply with so unreasonable and disgraceful a claim. The historical records of England afforded innumerable instances of British troops serving under foreign belligerents, without subjecting themselves to any penalty in consequence. A Catholic regiment served in the Spanish service in Flanders, under lord Arundel of Wardour: a nobleman distinguished among the first of his contemporaries; and a regiment of Scotch Catholics, commanded by the earl of Home, entered the service of the king of France. In neither instance, however, was any breach of neutrality supposed to have taken place.— But, perhaps it might be more agreeable to the taste of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, if he cited Spanish examples to justify the proceedings against which the present bill was brought in. Not only was there the authority of facts and historical experience against the principle of the proposed measure, but there was that of the writers on the law of nations, particularly of one of the most intelligent of those writers—the celebrated Bynkershoek, who was president of the courts of Holland. On the question, Whether it be a breach of neutrality to allow a friendly belligerent to levy troops in your territory, he answers in the negative. What would have been the cheers of gentlemen opposite had any hon. member on his side of the House ventured upon asserting an opinion similar to that expressed by this grave authority? In the war of the bishop of Munster against Holland, in 1666, the states general complained to the governor of the Spanish Netherlands that he permitted troops for the service of the bishop to be levied within his territories. What was the governor's reply? That the Spanish territories were equally open to the states general as to the bishop for the purpose in question; for that, although the latter was his friend, he would act with

1097
justice towards both. But this, agreeably to the modern interpretation of the law of nations, would be considered a breach of neutrality. It was clear, however, that the Spanish governor thought otherwise. A breach of the law, forsooth! What would the scrupulous politicians of the present times say when he mentioned the name of one of the greatest princes and most valiant leaders that Europe had ever beheld—a man whose sword had vindicated the cause of civil and religious liberty against the combined efforts of tyrannical power—what he asked, would they say when he referred them to the instance of Gustavus Adolphus, who had in his pay, not a small proportion of British troops, not a little smuggled army, headed by a few half-pay officers, on board a transport or two in the Downs; but a band of 6,000 men, raised in Scotland; and by whose co-operation, with a handful of other troops, he was enabled to traverse a great part of Europe, to vanquish the host that opposed him, and to burst the galling fetters of Germany? And who was the chief by whom those 6,000 British troops were led? Not an adventurer—not a sir Gregor M'Gregor of whom he knew little, and for whom he certainly cared less,—but the marquis of Hamilton; a man of the first distinction and consequence in his own country, the personal friend of the king—from whom, however, he had no licence. At that time, the Spanish and Imperial ambassadors were resident in London; but neither of them presumed to remonstrate, or to make a demand like that which had been made in the present day.—It was expressly laid down by Vattel, that a nation did not commit a breach of neutrality by allowing its subjects to enter into the service of one belligerent, and refusing the same permission with respect to another. There was one case more, which occurred in the reign of James 1st, to which he could not help adverting. At that period a great body of English troops commanded by one of the most gallant captains of his day, sir Horace Vere, served against the Spaniards, and received pay from a foreign power. Yet Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, whom king James was endeavouring by the most servile and abject submission to conciliate, who might be almost termed the viceroy of Spain in this country, who had sufficient influence to cause the murder of that most distinguished individual, the ornament of his
1098
native country and of Europe, who united in himself more kinds of glory than had perhaps ever been combined in an individual—that intrepid soldier, that skilful mariner, that historian, that poet, that philosopher, that statesman—sir Walter Raleigh—Gondomar whose power protected him from the punishment he deserved for such an act, dared not go so far as to require the boon which his majesty's ministers now called on the House of Commons of England to have the condescension to grant! The present was not a more important question as it affected the ruined commerce of a great country, than as it established a most dangerous precedent. With what authority would the envoys of despotic powers henceforward besiege the doors of a British minister with the most disgraceful claims! With what unanswerable force would they say, "You granted this with facility to Spain, and you granted it when Spain was under the dominion of Ferdinand the 7th, on what ground can you withhold it from us?" Dangerous and degrading would it indeed be, if Ferdinand the 7th, could prevail on an assembly of British gentlemen to establish a precedent which would subject the British government to be dictated to in future times by persons—if any such there could possibly be—resembling him in character. What they had refused to the greatest of modern military tyrants and despotic sovereigns—what they had denied to Louis 14th and Philip the 2nd, they were required to give to such a man as Ferdinand 7th! The reigning sovereign of Spain, whose character he would not trust himself to describe, bad achieved an object in which all his predecessors had failed.——
Quos nec Tydides nec Larissæus Achilles——
The simple question was, Whether we were to innovate upon a system which the venerable sanction of time had rendered sacred, while it also established its perfection, merely because it was the will of a foreign power that we should do so? Was it for such a purpose that we were to change our ancient institutions? To any reform of those institutions, his majesty's ministers had generally expressed extreme aversion. But there was one vice in them which there appeared to be the greatest disposition to eradicate. The constitution framed by our ancestors, who did not contemplate the extraordinary

1099
refinement which their descendants were to attain, and who therefore regarded their own liberty more than the desires of foreign nations, did not possess sufficient pliancy. It did not enable the minister, in reply to the application of a foreign ambassador, to say with a courtier like smile, that certainly every thing should be done to meet the benevolent and enlightened wishes of that ornament of sovereignty, that Marcus Aurelius of Spain, Ferdinand the 7th. The roughnesses in the British constitution which rendered such amiable conduct difficult, must be polished. To correct this uncomplying spirit in our laws, and subdue it as much as possible to the tone of continental acquiescence, something effectual must be done. The coarse system of our ancestors was not in unison with the feelings of his majesty's ministers, who dwelt with complacency upon the refined and improved governments of the continental powers; and who must have something in the way of imitation—an Alien act, for, instance. They now called on parliament to refine the British laws in other respects, and to render them more agreeable to his Catholic majesty.—Instead of the conduct which they had thus pursued, why did they not imitate the example of lord Liverpool, when in the answer which, in a manner so highly honourable to him, he made to the application of Napoleon in 1802, to limit the freedom of the press, he said, "You mistake the law and constitution of England. It is not in the power, if it were in the inclination of a minister, to do what you require." But, as they had not done so, he trusted that parliament would supply the deficiency. He trusted that that House would exclaim with the brave barons of former days, Nolumus leges Angliœ mutari! Such an answer as that ought to have been returned to Ferdinand. He ought to have been told that the laws of England were irreversible, and that he must be satisfied with a determination in which every power of Europe, from the time of Louis the 14th, had been compelled to acquiesce.— The right hon. gentleman opposite had said, that sir Gregor M'Gregor, being only a military adventurer, he was without weight or influence, and that there was no court in South America to which British subjects could appeal for redress.—But he (sir James Mackintosh) contended, that there was a tribunal in that country to which British subjects might appeal; and
1100
that the character of sir Gregor M'Gregor was to be viewed in a different light from that of a brigand or piratical adventurer.—If any additional proof were wanting of the partiality of the measure before the House, it might be derived from this consideration. There was one sort of aid which England could give to Spain, but which, from the nature of things, she could not give to the Insurgent Provinces—he meant a supply of transports for the purpose of conveying troops across the Atlantic. Now there was no provision whatever in the bill to prevent British subjects from supplying transports—a flagrant instance of anti-neutral spirit in its framers. But what indeed could be a more gross departure from neutrality than that evinced in the treaty concluded with Spain in 1814; in which treaty, while we professed a wish to reconcile the people of South America to the authority of the king of Spain, we stigmatised as rebellion the noble struggle they were making to free themselves from an intolerable bondage. To adopt the proposed bill would be, to repeat and re-pronounce that sentence of condemnation on the cause of the Spanish provinces. It had been contended, that the bill was founded on the treaty. A frank admission of its real character! For what neutral proceeding could possibly emanate from a measure of such decided and uncalled for anti-neutrality?—It was the observance of neutrality on the part of the state that he was advocating. Neutrality in the feelings of individuals was impossible. In a contest between superstition and tyranny on the one side, and the hope, or even the chance of liberty on the other, never could his heart be neutral!—Much had been said of the motives by which the merchants of this country were actuated with respect to this subject. A noble lord had on a former night treated them with great and unjust severity; imputing the solicitude which they felt for the success of the South American cause to interested motives. Without indulging in common place declamations against politicians, he must however say, that it was a question with him, whether the interest of merchants did not more frequently coincide with the best interests of mankind than did the transient and limited views of politicians. If British merchants looked with eagerness to the event of the struggle in South America, no doubt they did so with the hope of deriving advantage from that event. But on what was that

1101
hope founded? Was it on the diffusion of beggary, on the maintenance of ignorance, on the confirmation of slavery, on the establishment of tyranny, in America? No! Those were the expectations of Ferdinand. It was on the successful assertion of freedom—of freedom! that parent of all good!—that parent of industry!—that parent of talent!—that parent of heroism! —that parent of every virtue! The fate of South America would be accessory to the wealth of British merchants only as it became accessory to the dignity and happiness of the race of man.—There was one topic connected with the present subject which had always struck him as peculiarly interesting. Among the titles which Ferdinand the 7th seemed, in the eyes of his majesty's ministers, to possess to the interference of England in his behalf, he wished to know if the noble lord opposite reckoned his ready compliance with the request of the noble lord, and the request of many other ambassadors from the various powers of Europe, for the release from confinement of those allies of Great Britain, and patriots of Spain, who had incurred his sovereign displeasure? Parliament had been told of repeated applications made by the British government of those excellent individuals; the victims at once of ingratitude and tyranny. Still, however, they languished in their dungeons. Among those distinguished sufferers was Mr. Arguelles, a name which had lately been eulogized by one of the highest characters and authorities in Europe. The noble lord had assured the House that the assembled majesty of Europe had twice interceded for that eminent person, and had interceded in vain! The noble lord had on a former occasion dwelt on the success of his negotiations with Spain relative to the slave trade. Let the noble lord remember—or at least let not that House forget—that what Ferdinand had done for money, was spontaneously and gratuitously accorded by the insurgent colonies; that what Ferdinand reluctantly, and after long negotiation consented only partially to restrain, Arguelles prevailed on the cortes instantly, universally, and for ever to abolish. And, having introduced the subject of the slave trade, he could not refrain from calling on the House to consider how much respect was due to the various governments founded by the revolted provinces of Spanish America, for having with one consent, and notwithstanding the
1102
creolean prejudices with which, in common with all colonies, they must have been imbued on the subject, put an end to a traffic which was still cherished in Europe; and which, to the eternal disgrace of one nation in particular, was clung to by that nation with the utmost tenacity and fondness.—He would trespass on the House with only one further observation. He had called the leaders of the Spanish cortes the allies of Great Britain. What must be the feelings of any man who read the inscription on the French mortar, taken after the raising of the siege of Cadiz, presented by the cortes to his royal highness the Prince Regent, and placed by his royal highness's commands in a conspicuous situation in the metropolis? "Devictis a Wellington Duce "prope Salamancam Gallis, solutaque "exinde Gadium obsidione hanc quam "aspicitis basi superimpositam bombardam, vi præditam adhuc inaudita ad "urbem portumque Gaditanum destruendum conflatam, et a copiis turbatis relictam, Cortes Hispanici pristinorum, "haudquaquam beneficiorum obliti summæ venerationis testimonio donaverunt "Georgio Illus. Brit. Princ. qui in perpetuam rei memoriam hoc loco ponendam, et his ornamentis decorandam jussit."—We had thus accepted a trophy in commemoration of a glorious victory, presented to us by our brave allies, and had in the inscription engraved upon it associated their name with the name of our greatest and most renowned captain by whom that victory had been achieved; —a trophy, expressive of their gratitude and affection, and which had been received with the respect and attention due to it;—and yet at that very moment those bravo and illustrious men were languishing in the dungeons of the country they had in vain delivered, the victims of that prince whose cause a British parliament was now called upon to espouse!—[The above is a very imperfect outline of a speech which was listened to with the deepest attention; and at the close of which, the hon. and learned gentleman sat down amidst the loudest cheers from both sides of the House, which continued for several minutes. When silence was restored.]
Mr. Canningrose. He began by declaring, that there was not a man in the House who had expressed his merited approbation of the eloquence of the hon. and learned gentleman that was more sensible of it than himself, or that felt more

1103
deeply than he did the difficulty of the task prescribed to him by his duty of endeavouring to remove the splendid impediment which the hon. and learned gentleman had raised in the way of what he (Mr. Canning) considered to be the Straight forward and honourable course which the House ought to pursue. If in his observations, he should confine himself to a few of the hon. and learned gentleman's statements, he trusted that it would not be attributed to any disposition to pass lightly over his magnificent speech. He however must conjure honourable members not to allow themselves to be led away by the power of glowing eloquence from the real facts of the subject under discussion. It was not for the House to look to the character of Ferdinand with reference to the decision of the question before them, but to consider how far the proposed measure was justified and required by the circumstances of the case. If the only point to be determined were the character of the Spanish government, he would by no means stand up as the panegyrist of the conduct, either of that government in the abstract, or of the individual in whose hands the authority of that government was at present lodged. But he must again caution the House against allowing any feelings excited by such a consideration to mingle and interfere with the strict discharge of their duty. Were we indeed commencing a new struggle for the independence of Europe, we might perhaps be induced to take means for deriving advantage from services which, however they might have been unacknowledged, he, for one, could never regret had been performed. The hon. and learned gentleman had mixed with his invectives against Ferdinand the 7th praises of another government which he (Mr. Canning) could not allow to be altogether just. In the cortes there were certainly individuals of great virtues and splendid talents; but he denied that there was any great difference between the two governments with respect to fondness for English interests, or attachment to English alliance. And with respect to the colonies, the cortes had unquestionably shown themselves to be the hardest task-masters, and to be more disposed to fix and perpetuate the yoke of slavery than Ferdinand. But the business of the House that night was, not to consider the character of any individual monarch or government, but to consider what was the
1104
duty of Great Britain in the pending contest. The House had to determine, first, if the existing laws of the country would enable her to maintain her neutrality; secondly, if the repeal of those laws would leave the power of maintaining that neutrality; and thirdly, if both the former questions were negatived, whether the proposed measure was one which it was fit to adopt. The question was not whether it would be better that we were under no obligation to Spain, but, being under the obligation imposed by the treaty of 1814, whether a dry and strict observance of nominal neutrality was giving her all which, from that treaty, she had a right to expect. Until the hon. and learned gentleman could "rail the seal from off that bond," he could not free England from the obligation which he had described. He (Mr. Canning) might wish there had been no such obligation. The terms of the treaty were however by no means liable to the censure cast on them by the hon. and learned gentleman; for at the time the treaty was executed, the colonies had not assumed an independent character, and therefore could be spoken of in that treaty only as the revolted colonies of Spain. The hon. and learned gentleman had dwelt on the advantages to be derived by Great Britain from the success of the South Americans; but were he even in the emancipated condition of the hon. and learned gentleman: in speaking on this subject, he might nevertheless hesitate to say whether any prospects which the support of the cause of South America held out, ought to induce this country to depart from her neutrality. If the acts of George the 2nd were simply to be repealed, there was no power in the law of this country by which an infraction of neutrality on the part of British subjects could be prevented. Was there, he would ask, any thing incompatible with the spirit of liberty in enabling a government to lay such a restraint on the action of its own subjects as might insure the observance of perfect neutrality towards two belligerents. If there was, how happened it that the hon. and learned gentleman approved so cordially of the proclamation of 1817? In that proclamation, which was the only public act of the British government on the subject, a spirit of strict impartiality had been exhibited. Contemplating the character of that proclamation, what right had any man to infer that the feelings and opinions of

1105
government had undergone a change on the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman had cited many instances from history, in which the subjects of this country had been not only permitted but encouraged by the government to enter into the service of foreign states;—and had sometimes even been thereby brought into the field to combat with each other. The fact was indisputable; but the hon. and learned gentleman was not to be told that in respect to military service and enterprise a great change had taken place in the tone and temper and state of Europe since the times of Elizabeth and James 1st. In those times, there was a general thirst for military glory pervading all Europe. The profession of arms, instead of being a duty and task imposed upon the people, was a proud and honourable profession. Since those times a most material alteration had taken place; but it was not the policy of governments, but the temper of the people which had undergone the change. Formerly a spirit of adventurous enterprise was cherished and sanctioned, which would not now be deemed justifiable. The usages of modern Europe did not recognize such proceedings as those adverted to by the hon. and learned gentleman. It surely could not be forgotten that in 1794 this country complained of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior in degree to those now under consideration) committed on the part of subjects of the United States of America. What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of its independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neutrality? Neither. In 1795, immediately after the application from the British government, the legislature of the United States passed an act prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies of any belligerent power. Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but last year that the United States passed an act, by which the act of 1795 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engagement of their citizens in the service of any foreign power; and pointing distinctly to the service of Spain, or the South American provinces.—The hon. and learned gentleman, he was sure, was not one of those who would exclaim, "Aye, but America had good reason for acting as she did, for she had the cession of Florida
1106
in view." What the motives of America were for that proceeding he could not say: he disbelieved in the existence of those which were imputed to her. But, without anticipating the decision of the House that evening, of this he was convinced, that if a similar cession were held out to this country as the price of the bill under consideration, the House would reject the bill with indignation, tainted as it would be by such an offer of advantage. What would be the result if the House refused to arm government with the means of maintaining neutrality? Government would then possess no other power than that which they exerted two years ago, and exerted in vain. The House would do well to reflect seriously on this before they placed government in so helpless a situation. Did the hon. and learned gentleman really think it would be a wholesome state of things that troops for foreign service should be parading about the streets of the metropolis, without any power on the part of government to interfere to prevent it? At that very moment such was the case in some parts of the empire; and he had little doubt but that in a very short time the practice would be extended to London. If a foreigner should chance to come into any of our ports, and see all this mighty armament equipping for foreign service, he would naturally ask, "With what nation are you at war?" The answer would be, "with none." "For what purpose then," he would say, "are these troops levied, and by whom?" The reply of course must be, "They are not levied by government; nor is it known for what service they are intended; but, be the service what it may, government cannot interfere." Would not all that give such a foreigner a high idea of the excellence of the English constitution! Would it not suggest to him that for all the ordinary purposes of a state there was no government in England? Did the hon. and learned gentleman not think that the allowing of armaments to be fitted out in this country against a foreign power was a just cause of war. He knew well indeed that from the exhaustion of Spain we were perfectly secure from hostility in that quarter. That consideration however afforded a complete reply to the taunt that had been thrown out against ministers, that they allowed themselves to be dictated to by Spain. But it was precisely because Spain was weak—because her

1107
resentment could be attended with no practical inconvenience—that they were desirous to discharge the duties of neutrality towards her the more scrupulously [Cheers], The maxim of "do unto others as you would they should do unto you," was as applicable to politics as to morals. Did the hon. and learned gentleman recollect the celebrated Mémoire Justificatif which was understood to have been drawn up for the government of the day by Mr. Gibbon, previous to the war with France, during our contest with the American colonies? The language of that document was such, that if it were to appear for the first time at the present moment it might be considered as the memorial of the Spanish ambassador addressed to the government of this country. In that paper it was stated, that agents from our American colonies had endeavoured to penetrate into and settle in the different states in Europe, but that it was only in France they found an asylum, hopes and assistance:—that the French merchants furnished America, not only with useful and necessary merchandise, but even with saltpetre, gunpowder, ammunition, arms, and artillery; and loudly declared that they were assured not merely of impunity, but even of the protection and favour of the ministers of the court of Versailles. "The marks of these facts, which could be considered only as manifest breaches of the faith of treaties, multiplied continually, and the diligence of the king's ambassador to communicate his complaints and proofs to the court of Versailles did not leave them the shameful and humiliating resource of appearing ignorant of what was carried on and daily repeated in the very heart of the country."—If we wished to support the South Americans, because it might be profitable to do so, let us take the manly course adopted by France on the occasion to which he had just alluded; let us fairly come forward and favour the cause of the Spanish insurgents; and let us not think that, because we did not take that manly course, either Spain or any power on earth would believe that the operations now going on in this country were not connived at and encouraged by the government. It was the doctrine laid down by the English government itself that was now on its trial. This country was now called upon to say whether it would act on its own asserted principles. Those acts which the bill under the consideration of parliament tended to
1108
repress were acts which in the document put forth by England forty years ago were termed "a manifest breach of the law of nations."—He would appeal to the House, whether, having at the period to which he alluded held this language to France with reference to her conduct towards America, we could now, without the grossest indecency, be guilty of such tergiversation as to say, that, although the French were then wrong we were now right; and that because, forsooth! forty years had elapsed since our declaration, and because we now wished to take a contrary course, on the pretence of strong and ungovernable feeling? Was it possible that we could falsify our own doctrines in so barefaced a manner, and be guilty of such a dishonorable abandonment of principle on the ground of a supposed convenience? Could we with our eyes open suffer such a stain to be put on our national character as thus to act in direct contradiction to our own recorded opinions? If the king of Spain—be he who or what he might—was in any one thing the faithful representative of universal Spain in Europe, it was evidently in the conduct which he observed towards the Spanish colonies. In South American politics, the people of Spain and Ferdinand were identified; and if that monarch should sign and confirm South American independence, he would inevitably lose the affection of his subjects, if he had as many virtues as the hon. and learned gentleman imputed to him crimes.—He was not himself disposed—God forbid! to view without emotion the march of liberty throughout the globe, beating down oppression where it for centuries had reared its almost consecrated head; but whilst such were his feelings in a good and virtuous cause, he could not think of endangering our own invaluable advantages, by suffering an exhibition to take place, perhaps in the very metropolis, revolting to the decency of the nation; namely, the array and ostentatious parade in our streets of ignorant and undisciplined individuals, arming to serve against a foreign power. Did he ask Englishmen to assist in rivetting the fetters of South America? No. He only wished them to allow things to take their own course. It was impossible to suppose that affairs there could be restored to the state in which they were before the contest. That was morally impossible. The causes which were in operation must one day or other

1109
produce a result, the expression of which he should restrain himself from indulging in. He was however most anxious that neither the House nor the nation should be deceived either by the show of magnanimity that was displayed in taking up the cause, or by any unfounded notion of the advantage which this country might derive from espousing and forwarding the cause of the Independents. This country saved European Spain: the fact was indelibly recorded in the page of history; but did Spain believe or acknowledge it? England, by her exertions, might establish the liberties of South America; but would the Independents allow that she had done so? No; all the Brentford armies that could possibly be transported from hence to South America, would be considered but as flies on the wheel; and he would prophecy that those deluded men who flocked to that land of milk and honey, full of the idea of the glory they would achieve, and of the rich harvest they would reap, would soon find that all their mighty expectations were groundless, and would return as much disappointed as the statesman who in former times embarked from this country in quest of the El Dorado.—By the constitution of the Independent states (if such they might be called) foreigners were declared to be incapable of holding any offices of honour or emolument in South America. That was the first offspring of the deliberations of a people asserting what were called liberal principles; and it might be taken as a fair sample of the pretensions they had to call on the people of other countries for countenance and aid in their career of liberality. The volumes of private correspondence from that country were open to all. Was there one, he would ask, of our countrymen there, possessing any talents, who had not become an object of jealousy and hatred, who had not been exposed to insulting treatment from his rivals; and who, if found refractory, had not been thrown into a dungeon? With a perfect knowledge of these dreadful and melancholy facts, was government to stand idle, and see these gallant men, deserving a much better fate, hurrying away to experience nothing but hatred, punishment, and degradation? It was a most indispensable duty on the part of government to apply to parliament for the means of stopping the progress of the evil.—A great trade was at present carry-
1110
ing on between Jamaica and the adjoining continent. That trade would be placed in jeopardy by the force lately fitted out by sir Gregor M'Gregor. He undoubtedly thought that ultimately there would be a great and gradually increasing commercial intercourse between this country and South America; but to furnish goods with the one hand, while holding the sword with the other, was likely to promote that trade as little as the happiness of the original natives had been improved by the offer of the Bible in the one hand, and the sword in the other.—He was not disposed to take advantage of the argument which might be founded on the character of the Insurgent states. Whether an acknowledged or an unacknowledged power, he would maintain towards South America the strictest good faith; he would cultivate her friendship by every fair and legitimate means; but not by recruiting her armies with our soldiers not by committing a breach of faith towards old Spain He was convinced that if parliament now denied to the executive government the power of maintaining neutrality, instead of accelerating, they would retard the period of a stable and permanent connexion between this country and South America. Ministers did not apply to parliament for this aid until they had tried without effect all the means which were in their power; if they were not now vested with the requisite authority, if before next summer the country should exhibit the scandalous and disgraceful scene of lawless bands of armed men raised for foreign service parading through the streets, let not ministers be blamed; for they had warned parliament of the danger, and had called on them to prevent it. Ministers had done their duty in bringing forward the present measure to maintain the neutrality and honour of the country. If their conduct cast a blot on its character (which might easily be asserted, but which he trusted would be difficult of proof); if they were detected in the abuse of the power entrusted to them by any act of partiality towards either side, it would be competent to parliament to recall that power, and to confide it to others who might be considered capable of exercising it more conscientiously.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that in rising to address the House, he felt the difficulty under which he was placed by the splendid eloquence of the two preceding speeches.

1111
He certainly should not have offered himself to the House, had he not been convinced that all the arguments of the right hon. gentleman were inapplicable to the present case. He understood the right hon. gentleman to have acceded to the opinion of his hon. and learned friend respecting the principle of neutrality; and at the same time to have objected to preserve such a neutrality. The right hon. gentleman had called upon the House to enable the executive government to carry into effect the treaty between Spain and this country. If now, after a lapse of five years, it could be shown that a new act of parliament was necessary for this purpose, the House ought to accede to the proposition; but he thought the whole object of this treaty might be effected by the law as it now stood. In the clause of the treaty which referred immediately to this point, Britain engaged to prevent any of her subjects—from what?—not from enlisting in the service of the insurgents, but from sending them arms or ammunition. That the common law of the land was sufficient to carry such a prohibition into effect, could not be questioned. What, then, became of the right hon. gentleman's argument, when he found that a new law was not necessary for this purpose? But it was said, that an additional law was necessary to maintain the neutrality professed in the proclamation. Did the common law say that the king of Spain should not be at liberty to enlist troops in this country, but that the insurgents should? Certainly not; and the prohibition could not be applicable to the one power, without being equally so to the other, unless any statute intervened to prevent the operation of the common law. If any such statutes, framed to meet the particular circumstances of the times in which they were enacted, as was the case with the two statutes of George 2nd; if any such statutes existed, let them be repealed; and then what more could the king of Spain require? If the common law of the land had been found sufficient to preserve neutrality for the last 200 years, how had it been discovered that it was not sufficient now? Admitting it to be defective, there was an easy remedy to be found in repealing the statutes that rendered it so; but ministers wished to interfere with the common law itself. If we had already a law to meet the case, what right had any foreign power to call, on us to enact another law? It had been admitted, that the
1112
conduct of Spain did not entitle her to expect any favour at our hands; but then it was urged, that our own good faith called on us to adopt the measure, however unmerited on her part. It was clear that she could not enforce it; but then the House had been reminded, that it would be ungenerous to take advantage of her weakness, and to deny the been because she had not the means of compelling us to grant it. Now, the argument amounted to this—Spain was weak and could not compel it, she was worthless and did not deserve it; therefore our merit was the greater in granting it. He should afterwards show that this law was not only unnecessary for the purpose of neutrality, but that in principle it was directly anti-neutral. The right hon. gentleman had drawn from his own imagination, a picture of lawless bands of troops parading through the streets; but surely the common law could punish that offence. He had listened with the greatest attention to the eloquent speech of the right hon. gentleman; and he had been unable to discover any one argument to show that when these statutes were repealed, any thing more would be required. He maintained that, unless in commercial arrangements, no foreign power had a right to call on another to alter the common law of the land for the purposes of neutrality. The hon. and learned member, after briefly adverting to what had been said of the feeling with which merchants viewed the present measure, and suggesting the propriety of leaving to them to consider their own affairs, in the conduct of which they might not be disposed to consult the right hon. gentleman, concluded amidst loud cheers by again observing, that the present bill would, in every sense of the word, be violating the neutrality which it was proposed to preserve, and destroying those hopes which it was once an object with the British government to excite.
Mr. Serjeant Copleycontended, that his hon. and learned friend had wholly failed in proving the principle with which he had set out; and he appealed to every member, whether the speeches on the other side were not rather appeals to the passions of the House, than arguments against the measure before them. If it were intended to depart from the neutrality which we ought to observe, it would be more fair and candid, and more consistent with the dignity of our national character, to do it in an open and manly manner, than to re-

1113
sort to the underhand mode which seemed to be proposed on the other side. The whole measure had originated in the act of the 9th Geo. 2nd, and as it was not denied by members opposite, that that act should be repealed so as to substitute a minor for a capital punishment, the principal question was, whether, if any alteration should be agreed on, it should not be carried on so as to make both the belligerent parties equal; but he contended that if these acts were repealed, the common law would be insufficient, as it did not make any provision for enforcing itself. Suppose the act to be repealed, then he maintained, that the common law would be quite inadequate to prevent the evil which this bill was intended to put an end to, and it would be absurd to suppose that any law should exist which could not be carried into effect. The offence would be committed before any means could be taken to prevent it. As to what Spain might demand of this country, he should say, that if she demanded any thing, it could only be the fulfilment of those treaties which we had contracted with her. She would ask no more; but was it necessary that she should ask, or that we should wait for her to ask, for the fulfilment of those treaties which an accidental slip of our law prevented us from carrying into effect? He maintained, that the measure arose out of the relation of peace in which we stood towards Spain; and without any treaty those relations should teach us a strict neutrality. With respect to the commercial benefits which we might derive from our intercourse with the insurgents, he conceived that they only kept up the intercourse with us because they found it advantageous to themselves; and as long as they so found it, they would continue to hold it, whether the present measure was passed or not.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that after the powerfully eloquent, the unanswered and unanswerable speech of his hon. and learned friend (sir J. Mackintosh), a speech which the eloquent declamation of the right hon. gentleman, and the legal arguments and acute logic of the learned serjeant had left altogether untouched, he felt it quite unnecessary to occupy the attention of the House at any length. He felt it the less necessary, as he perceived that even into that House, the force of public opinion had found its way, and the term "insurgents" had not been attempted by any member except the learned ser-
1114
jeant. His majesty's ministers had abstained from using the term, which was to him a proof that the strong feeling of the British public (which on this subject had always remained the same) had partly had its effect. He would not found any argument against the present bill upon the loose doctrines advocated—not by him or any of his honourable friends—advocated by no writer which he had read but one, a Swiss, who, from the circumstances of his country, became naturally prejudiced in favour of the right of subjects to enter into the service of belligerent powers in peace with their own. He would say that subjects as well as kings might, on this subject, go as far as the law allowed them. If the law made it a crime to enter in arms against any power in amity with the state —and in this country it was a misdemeanor—that law might be put in operation against the individual so offending. But the learned serjeant had said, that this law was rendered inoperative to prevent the crime, for that it was committed before any step could be taken to counteract it. Why, what was this but admitting that this was like all other crimes, that it could not be punished until detected? If the individual committing it were caught, he would be punished, and his punishment would serve as a warning for others; but if he could not be caught personally within the jurisdiction of any of our courts, then he was outlawed for the misdemeanor in violating the king's proclamation. The effect of this would be, that he would be obliged to remain banished from his country all his life, or if he returned, be exposed to a forfeiture of all his goods and chattels—a punishment which, he should observe by the way, was more severe than that which the bill provided. The present bill was, he contended, not only not declaratory of the common law, but quite repugnant to its principle. If it could be proved to him, that the measure was founded upon any treaty which we had pledged ourselves to fulfil, he would be the first man in the country to support it, let its inconvenience be ever so great, let its injury to commerce be felt however severely; but he denied that any treaty with Spain bound us to such a measure. A treaty had been made which had never received the sanction of the House, and from that it was contended that this measure ought to be brought in; but who had ever heard that a king could by any treaty pledge

1115
himself, or those whom he represented, to an alteration of the established law of the land; or that the nation should be bound by it? But he again denied that there was any such law as the proposed one implied by the treaty in question. It went, it was true, to prevent the supplying of arms, ammunition, &c.; but upon this the present bill was wholly silent, while it spoke against the raising of troops or furnishing of money in any manner, of which not one word was to be found in the treaty itself. The hon. and learned gentleman then commented upon several observations which had fallen from the supporters of the bill. He would now propose, if no gentleman on his side of the House should think a different course preferable, to take the sense of the House, not on the question for going into the committee, but after the first clause had been agreed to. In going thus far, the House would show that they were willing to restore the common law to the state in which it stood before the act of the 9th Geo. 2nd was passed, and that they were determined to reject any measure which might tend to alter the law upon the invidious principle of the present bill.
Lord Castlereaghdid not object to the manner in which the learned gentleman proposed to lake the sense of the House, which he thought would be a very convenient one. The repeal of the existing statutes which the gentleman opposite had in view, was not, however, a measure that carried along with it so much fairness as was attributed to it; There was no equity in reverting to the common law, after having acted, with respect to all other powers of Europe for the greater part of a century, on statute law. With regard to the treaty by which it had been asserted we were not bound, it ought to be recollected, that it was laid on the table, along with the other treaties of amity concluded on the restoration of peace; and that on the whole of the arrangements produced by these treaties, the most approving address ever voted by parliament had been presented to the Crown.
The Attorney General The Attorney General moved an instruction to the committee to insert, as an addition to the first clause, words repealing two acts passed by the Irish parliament against foreign enlistments in that country. The House then resolved into a committee, and the first clause was amended, according to the instruction moved by the attorney-general, and agreed
1116
to.—On the second Clause, the House divided—For the clause, 248: Against it, 174: Majority, 74.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Forbes, C.

Althorp, viscount

Foley, Thos.

Anson, hon. G.

Gascoyne, general

Archdall, gen.

Grosvenor, gen.

Aubrey, sir J.

Grant, J. P.

Barham, J. F.

Gordon, Robt.

Barnard, visct.

Graham, S.

Barnett, J.

Graham, J. R. G.

Becher, W. W.

Griffith, John W.

Belgrave, visct.

Guise, sir Wm.

Bennet, hon. G. H.

Gurney, H.

Benyon, Ben.

Gurney, R. H.

Bernal, R.

Heygate, ald

Birch, Jos.

Harcourt, John

Brand, hon. Thos.

Harvey, D. W.

Browne, Dom.

Hill, lord A.

Brougham, H.

Honywood, W. P.

Burdett, sir F.

Howorth H.

Byng, G.

Hughes, W. L.

Burrell, hon. P. D.

Hume, Jos.

Bentinck, lord W.

Hurst, Robt.

Blandford, marq. of

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Burrell, Walter

Lawson, M.

Cotes, John

Lester, B. L.

Calcraft, J

Longman, G.

Calvert, C.

Leigh, Thos.

Calvert, N.

Lamb, hon. G.

Campbell, hon. J.

Langton, W. G.

Carter, John

Latouche, John.

Cavendish, lord G.

Latouche, Robt,

Cavendish, Henry

Lemon, sir W.

Chamberlayne, W.

Lloyd, sir E.

Clifford, Aug.

Lyttelton, hon. W. H.

Clifton, visct.

Mahon, hon. S.

Coffin, sir I.

Maberly, John

Colborne, N. R.

Maberly, W. L

Coke, T. W.

Marryat, Jos.

Coke, T. W. jun.

Montague, lord F.

Concannon, Lucius

Macleod, Rod.

Dawson, G.

Macdonald, J.

Davies, T. H.

Mackintosh, sir J.

De Crespigny, sir W.

Milton, viscount

Denman, Thos.

Martin, John

Denison, W.

Merest, J. D.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Mills, G.

Duncannon, visc.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Dundas, hon. L.

Monck, sir C.

Dundas, hon. G.

Moore, Peter

Dundas, Thos.

Morpeth, visct.

Dundas, C.

Mostyn, sir T.

Ellis, hon. G. A.

Newman, R. W.

Ebrington, visct.

Neville, hon. R.

Ellice, Ed.

Newport, rt. hon. sir J.

Ellison, C.

North, D.

Euston, earl of

Nugent, lord

Fazakerley, Nic.

O'Callaghan, James

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Ord, W.

Finlay, K.

Osborne, lord F.

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

Protheroe, Ed.

Fitgerald, lord W.

Portman, E.B.

Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.

Palmer, C. F.

Fitzroy, lord C,

Pares, Thos.

1117

Parnell, sir H.

Thorp, ald.

Peirse, H.

Vernon, G.

Pelham, hon. G. A.

Westenra, H. R.

Philips, G.

Wilson, Thos.

Philips, G. jun.

Webster, sir G,

Phillipps, C. M.

Williams, sir R.

Primrose, hon. F.

Walpole, hon. G.

Ponsonby, hon. F. C.

Waithman, ald.

Powlett, hon. W.

Webb, Ed.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

Western, C. C.

Price, Robert

Wharton, John

Pryse, Pryse

Wilkins, W.

Rickford, W.

Williams, O.

Ricardo, D.

Williams, W.

Ramsden, J. C.

Wilson, sir Rt.

Rancliffe, lord

Wood, Matthew

Ridley, sir M. W.

TELLER.

Robarts, W. T,

Lambton, J. G.

Robarts, A.

PAIRED OFF.

Rowley, sir W.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Russell, lord G. W.

Astell, W.

Russell, lord J.

Baring, sir T.

Russell, R. G.

Churchhill lord C.

Rumbold, C.

Curwen, J. C.

Scarlett, J.

Fleming, John

Sefton, earl of

Grenfell, Pascoe

Smith, Saml.

Hamilton, lord A.

Smith, W.

Hochepied, G. De

Smith, G.

Maxwell, John

Spencer, lord R.

Piggott, sir A.

Stewart, Wm.

Smith, hon. B.

Stuart, lord J.

Smith, John

Tavistock, marq. of

Stanley, lord

Taylor, C.

Whitbread, W. H.

The other clauses were debated, and several amendments moved and agreed to; after which the House resumed.

MARQUIS CAMDEN'S TELLERSHIP BILL.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he should not think that he discharged his duty to the public, if he moved the second reading of this bill without saying a few words to call their lordships' attention to its nature. The office, their lordships knew, had been given to the father of the noble marquis, as a reward for eminent services he had performed to his country. Whether, in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown the granting of such an office was the best way in which rewards for public services could be given, was not a question now to be discussed. Though at the time the grant was made, it could not have been contemplated that the emoluments would prove so great, it was unquestionable, that the noble mar-
1032
quis had a full right to all the income of the office, and all the contingent profits derivable from it. This was not the only sacrifice the noble marquis had made. He relinquished a considerable part of the emoluments from the year 1798 to the peace of Amiens. From the year 1813 to the conclusion, of the late war, he made a further sacrifice, and the whole amount of the interests he had given up could not be less than 100,000 l. On the present occasion he need not call to their lordships' recollection a sacrifice which had been made by another noble marquis (Buckingham) now no more; but it perhaps was not known to all who heard him, that the noble marquis, to whom he alluded had made application to have his office put on the footing of the regulated tellerships of the exchequer. He would not now enter into the circumstances which had prevented this arrangement from taking place. It was sufficient to state, that it was in the power of the Treasury to have accomplished it. The sacrifices made by the marquis of Buckingham, amounted, however, to at least 42,000 l.
The Marquis of Lansdowneconcurred in opinion with the noble earl as to the right of the Crown to give the offices in question, and the right of the two noble marquisses to the full emoluments. This question was totally independent of the propriety of making such grants. He concurred, as he doubted not all their lordships did, in every sentiment that had been expressed in approbation of the conduct of the two noble persons alluded to.
The bill was read a second time.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
The Earl of Darnleymade some observations on the papers, relative to the state of the navy which had been lately laid on the table. From the perusal of those papers, he admitted that in no former period of our naval history did the navy appear on the whole to have been in a state of greater efficiency in, time of peace. He spoke strongly in approbation of the exertions of Mr. Seppings, whose improvements had been of great advantage. But, notwithstanding the praise which he thought generally due to the Admiralty, there were some particulars with respect to the state of the navy which he thought it right to notice, as they might be of importance in the case of the country being involved in a contest. He could not overlook the naval power of America, which the

1033
events of the last war had tended to raise to a state of consideration. It appeared from the papers, that means had been taken for building ships of larger dimensions, corresponding with those of the same rates built by other powers. It was known that the American 2 deck ships were superior to those of the same rated built in this country, both as to guns and men. He did not, however, think that it would be advisable to have all the ships in the British navy raised to the same scale. To attempt such a measure would be only a useless waste of money. The American frigates were of a very superior class compared to the scale on which British frigates had formerly been built; but he could not think it necessary that all the British frigates should henceforth be built on so enlarged a scale. He thought it would be better to build frigates of a size between those formerly fitted out by this country and the American frigates. This seemed the more advisable, as the latter could not be expected to be very numerous. In the present state of the country, economy in every department was most desirable, but he did not think the naval service one in which economy ought to be too rigidly enforced. Every reduction that could be made, consistently with the great object of having the navy in an efficient state on the commencement of a war, ought to be carried into effect, but nothing more should be attempted. He thought the number of ships in active service on foreign stations might be more, and the number of guard ships less. This change would produce a state of greater efficiency without materially augmenting the expense. He had heard that the regiments of marines were reduced in numbers below what might have been expected, but he hoped that useful corps would be preserved in such a state of efficiency, that, in case of a war unfortunately occurring, it might be employed with the usual advantage to the service. The practice of impressing seamen had been long a subject of complaint and regret. He was afraid, that on a sudden emergency, the navy could not be manned without the impress. It would, however, be advisable for their lordships to consider how far the evils of that practice might, without public inconvenience, be diminished. He concluded by moving that the papers be printed.
Lord Melvilleexpressed his acknowledgments to the noble lord for the candid
1034
and handsome manner in which he had spoken of the state of the navy. He concurred in the propriety of this country building ships on a scale similar to those with which our navy might probably have to contend. It was the duty of the legislature to be prepared to maintain, on any emergency; that naval supremacy which the country had acquired. With respect to the dimensions of ships of war, it was true that some were building on a scale considerably, beyond what had formerly been thought proper for the same rate. He did not, however, think that all the two-deckers of the navy ought to be raised to that scale. Many vessels were wanted for convoy and other purposes in time of war; and frigates and ships of the line might be so employed, though not constructed on so large a scale as those of other powers with which the country might happen to be at war. At the same time he did not concur with the noble earl in his opinion, that it would be proper to build ships of an intermediate size between the scale hitherto adopted in the navy and that of other countries. He did not think it right to place the officers of the British navy in a situation which would compel them to go into action with a great disparity of force. With regard to what the noble lord had said, as to the number of guard ships compared with the other ships in commission, he thought that upon reflection he would perceive that there was no disadvantage in that arrangement. The men employed in the guardships could be removed to others at a moment's notice; and the having them ready for such a transfer would be very useful on any emergency. The noble earl had alluded to the state of the marines, and he concurred with him in his view of the propriety of maintaining that corps in an efficient state. No force was, in his opinion, more useful; and any report of an intention to reduce them to a scale lower than that of the last peace establishment, was founded in mistake.
The papers were ordered to be printed.

ROMAN CATHOLICS RELIEF BILL— DOCTRINE OF THANSUBSTANTIATION.
Earl Greysaid, he had hoped that the bill, the second reading of which he now rose to move, would have met with the general concurrence of their lordships. That hope was founded on the reasonableness, as it appeared to him, of the bill itself, and the admission, that doc-

1035
trines, of faith, considered with regard to religion only, were not a ground for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the enjoyment of the advantages of the British constitution; and that no reason remained for maintaining that exclusion, except their acknowledgment of foreign spiritual supremacy, which it was contended rendered it impossible for them to give to a Protestant government a sufficient security for their allegiance. After these admissions, he had thought there could be no objection to a bill which merely proposed to repeal declarations required of a religious and dogmatical nature, relating entirely to questions of faith and doctrine, and which had no reference whatever to the supremacy of any foreign power. He had therefore expected, that a proposition for the repeal of these declarations would not have been resisted; but he was told, from an authority which he could not doubt, that the bill he had introduced was to be met with a most determined opposition. It became, therefore, incumbent on him to state the grounds on which he thought their lordships ought to pass it. The bill proposed to abrogate two declarations enacted by the 25th and the 30th of Charles 2nd. The former was required on admission to office, and the latter to a seat in parliament.
Before he proceeded to inquire on what grounds it could be thought reasonable to maintain these declarations, he would briefly call their lordships attention to the state of the times in which the laws he wished to remove from the statute book had been passed. The 25th of Charles 2nd was commonly called the Test act, and it could scarcely be necessary to remind their lordships of the state of agitation which prevailed in the country when that law was enacted. It passed in the year 1673, when parliament met, after repeated prorogations, with the country in a state of great irritation and alarm. The king was suspected of being a Catholic; the queen was known to be one; the duke of York, also a Catholic, the next heir to the crown; and all the principal offices of the court were filled by Catholics. The act of Non-Conformity had been suspended by proclamation, for the purpose of favouring Catholics. There was a camp at Blackheath commanded by the duke of Schomberg, a foreigner, and most of the officers were Roman Catholics. These troops had been assembled for the very purpose of overawing parlia-
1036
ment. A war, too, had recently commenced against Holland, the only protestant power in Europe in which civil and religious liberty then found protection. If such were the circumstances under which the act of the 25th of Charles 2nd had passed, those which existed at the time of passing that of the 30th were still more remarkable. In addition to all the circumstances he had already stated, with a court and government so hostile to civil liberty, the mind of the country was irritated by the disclosure of the popish plot, and the evidence of Titus Oates, and others. The circumstances of dismay under which these acts were passed, accounted for their intolerant nature. Every Roman Catholic was then regarded as a conspirator, and an enemy of public liberty. It was therefore against crimes attributed to Catholics, and not against their religion, that these laws were enacted. They were considered necessary safeguards, while the monarch was suspected of being a Catholic, and his successor avowedly of that religion. That it was in this spirit these measures had been adopted was abundantly proved by the other severe statutes, which not only excluded Catholics from office, but even deprived them of civil existence. It was only on a principle of great jealousy and apprehended danger that the passing or such laws in a free state could be accounted for.
Happily, these cruel laws had been repealed in more temperate times. Still, however, some intolerant acts were retained, and there were none which, in Christian charity and justice, their lordships were more bound to remove than those which it was the object of the present bill to abrogate. The Roman Catholics were now regarded in a very different point of view from that in which they were contemplated when these acts passed. The imputations on the moral principles of the Roman Catholics had been disclaimed; on that disclaimer parliament had acted; and never had the humanity of the legislature been more completely justified than by the conduct of the Catholics since the severe disabilities under which they laboured had been removed. The oaths which had at different times been formed in order to be administered to persons taking office or entering into parliament, had all one object, namely, to separate spiritual from political supremacy. The noble earl op-

1037
posite (Liverpool) had admitted that there is nothing immoral in the Roman Catholic religion. Every imputation of that kind he acknowledged to have been satisfactorily disclaimed and disproved. He stated almost in the words of the declaration, that it is not because they believe in transubstantiation, in the invocation of the Virgin Mary, or of Saints, or in this sacrifice of the Mass, that they are excluded from the benefits of the British constitution; but that before they can be admitted to the full enjoyment of their political rights, it is necessary that the legislature should be satisfied that the spiritual authority they acknowledge is so separated from temporal authority, as to enable them to give a perfect allegiance. That the doctrine of transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and the other doctrines he had alluded to, did hot, in the opinion of the legislature, carry with them any moral or civil disqualification, was proved by acts which had already been passed for the relief of the Roman Catholics. He would appeal, in support of this opinion, to the acts of 1778 and 1791, passed for the relief of Roman Catholics in Scotland. The preamble of the act of 1778 contained a declaration of this principle. It referred to an act of the Scots parliament passed in the reign of king William, requiring Roman Catholics to make a renunciation, according to formula, of transubstantiation and other articles of their faith; and declares that the act, ought to be repealed, as the formula contained only speculative opinions and religious doctrines. A clear distinction was made between temporal and spiritual authority: and the same principle governed the act of 1791. Thus he had not only the admission of the noble earl opposite, but the authority of an act of the legislature itself, for saying, that the speculative opinions or religious dogmas of the Roman Catholics ought not of themselves to form the ground of exclusion from office, or a reason for political disqualification. Why, then continue these declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation, which related merely to speculative opinions? Was not the oath of supremacy, by which the temporal and spiritual power of the pope was renounced, sufficient to secure the legislature add the higher offices of the state from the admission of Roman Catholics? He hoped it would not now be necessary to prove, that no political or civil disqualification ought
1038
to exist, on account of any doctrine that did not affect the character of the person who maintained it, as a good member of society or a loyal subject. That the declarations which the present bill was introduced to repeal was no rest of obedience or loyalty, would appear from their nature. The first declaration which was imposed by the act of the 25th of Charles 2nd was directed against those who believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The second, or that of the 30th of Charles 2nd, went further, and declared the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the invocation of the Virgin Mary and of the saints, Idolatrous and superstitious. Now, he would ask, if it was necessary to exclude the Roman Catholics from office and power, was it likewise necessary to denounce their belief and revile their worship? Must it not be galling to that body, not only to be denied the privileges to which their fellow subjects were admitted, but to hear themselves branded as the votaries of a blind superstition, and the partisans of an idolatrous worship? But how could the Protestants in most cases take these declarations, or subscribe these oaths, without some feelings of doubt and some scruples of conscience? It had been a general complaint against most governments, that they had imposed useless oaths, and thereby weakened the solemn obligation which an oath implied; and from this charge we were not wholly exempt. Previous to any noble lord taking his seat, he was obliged to come to the table of the House, and to take those declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints—doctrines and practices which they had never examined; thus converting into a mere ceremonial and matter of course the most solemn act that could bind the conscience. Had all their lordships examined the tenets alluded to with such attention, as to be able, on conviction to declare them idolatrous and superstitious? Did they understand distinctly what the Roman Catholics mean by transubstantiation or the invocation of the Virgin Mary? Did they know sufficiently what was meant by the sacrifice of the Mass; and could they declare, that in the sense in which it was understood by the Catholic body, the ceremony was idolatrous and superstitious?
He was sure that many of their lordships would admit, that they had never seriously considered these questions, and

1039
that they would find it difficult, with a safe conscience, to make any declaration on the subject. On this account he thought that their lordships could not resist a revision of that part of the statute-book by which such a test was imposed. The doctrine of transubstantiation, which was declared to be idolatrous, did not differ so widely from the doctrine of Protestants on the same subject, as to authorize them to declare so strongly against it; nor, in the sense in which it was understood by the Catholics, could it be called idolatrous. The Catholic maintained, that in the sacrament the elements were changed, and that he enjoyed the real presence of that Deity to whom all worship and adoration were due. How could this be called idolatry, in the sense in which the Catholic understood the doctrine of transubstantiation? But was this doctrine so different from the doctrine of the Protestants of the Church of England, or so inconsistent with the text of scripture, on which the belief of both was founded, as to warrant the epithet applied to it in the case of the Roman Catholic? Their lordships, as members of the Church of England, must of course believe, that the interpretation of the Catholic was wrong; but it was their duty not to revile the conscientious belief of others who differed from them, but to attribute their difference of opinion to a fallibility of judgment, and to consider that only one omniscient being could unanswerably decide between them. It ought to be recollected, that no two churches agreed in the interpretation of the text of scripture, which the Roman Catholic appealed to, as supporting the doctrine of the real presence; while the church of England, and other Protestant churches, drew from it doctrines that differed only by such slight shades, as the generality of those who took the oaths might not always sufficiently examine so as to be able to come to the decision required. The Roman Catholic believed, that in the sacrament of the eucharist there was a real transubstantiation of the elements into the body of Christ; the church of England believed in what was called consubstantiation; and the Calvinist in a mysterious union of the soul of the worshipper with the saviour, through the sacred symbols: in one way or other the doctrine of the real presence was adopted by them all. Was not something very similar to the doctrine of the real presence believed in by the most
1040
early reformers? Was it not the belief of queen Elizabeth? Was it not that of archbishop Laud? The real interpretation of that part of the sacred scripture could only be given by the Divine Author of the scripture; and no difference of opinion upon it could authorize us to renounce that charity which was the common and undoubted duty of all, or to use those reviling terms that we applied in a solemn oath to the worship of the Roman Catholics. In confirmation of this opinion, he begged leave to call the attention of their lordships to a letter of a very eminent divine of the Church of England—he meant archbishop Wake. That reverend divine had engaged in a controversy with the doctors of Sorbonne, but had candidly admitted, that in many things the church of England and the church of Rome maintained the same doctrines and practised similar rites. [Here the noble lord read a quotation from a Latin letter of the archbishop, in which he allowed the similarity between the doctrine and discipline of the two churches.] The attachment of this divine to his country, his loyalty to his sovereign, and his conscientious adherence to the tenets of the church at the head of which he was, could not be doubted; and yet he admitted, that in a comparison between the church of England and the church of Rome their articles of faith differed very little, their discipline still less, and that in fundamentals they were nearly the same. Adverting again to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the noble earl observed, that it had not been considered as idolatrous by many eminent Protestants. In confirmation of this position, he quoted the opinion of Mr. Waller, of sir William Temple, and others. Bishop Burnet had mentioned, that at the framing of the declaration the bishop of Ely objected to it, and contended that the practice of the church of Rome, in the administration of the eucharist, could not be called idolatrous. The noble earl produced other authorities in support of this opinion, and called upon their lordships, on these grounds, to agree with his bill in abolishing a test which unnecessarily declared against the dogmas of another church, and reviled a religion which on the point in question, was so little different from their own.
On the impropriety of such epithets as idolatrous and superstitious, as applied to the Roman Catholic tenets, he would not further enlarge; but as he understood
‡

1041
there were objections to the repeal of the act in question, he would endeavour to answer them as well as he could. He would have found it difficult to know what these objections were, had he not met with a statement of them—a paper, which contained the resolutions of a certain body of men against the present bill, on which a petition was to be founded, which, as far as he knew, had not yet been presented to the House. This paper evinced the same spirit as had been manifested against the bill which he (lord Grey) had introduced to another House in 1807, which excited at that time such clamour, and produced such consequences; and it was some consolation to him to reflect, that as the hostility to that measure had subsided when its objects were better understood; and as it had received the sanction of parliament without creating any alarm, without leading to any discussion, or meeting with any opposition; showing, that what was resisted at one period, and in the hands of one man, as dangerous and disastrous, was adopted at another, and from a different quarter, as wise and salutary: so it might happen with the present measure, which he might have expected to have been received with indulgence, if not with favour. It was, however, to be opposed, and the resolutions which he had alluded to stated the grounds. He could not say that the noble lord on the woolsack had had any hand in drawing up that paper; but from the technical terms in which it was expressed, from the particular phrases which were used, the style of thinking that it evinced, and the precision of the ideas that it contained, he did not doubt that it had come under his revision, and expressed his sentiments. The noble and learned lord had said, that our constitution was fundamentally Protestant, and the first resolution stated nearly the same thing: he said, "that the British constitution and government are essentially and fundamentally Protestant, and the Protestant religion forms the great security of the public happiness and welfare of this country, as established and secured by a solemn national compact at the period of the Revolution, and by the acts of the legislature which happily settled the crown of these realms upon his majesty's august family." The second resolution stated, "that, being sensible of the religious and political blessings enjoyed under the sway of the royal house of Brunswick, and
1042
convinced that upon the maintenance of that compact and of those acts of settlement, the safety of his majesty's person and government—the continuance of the monarchy of England—the preservation of the Protestant religion in all its integrity — the maintenance of the church of England, as by law established—the security of the ancient and undoubted rights and liberties—and the future peace and tranquillity of this kingdom, do (under God) entirely depend, this meeting is filled with alarm when the least attempt is made to abrogate any of the laws, or subvert any of the securities, by which those inestimable privileges are held." He was ready to give praise to those who supported the Protestant constitution, and were ready to guard the church from any danger with which it was threatened; but he should wish that they would show the same resolution to support the constitution, the rights and liberties of the people, on other occasions when they were assailed. In the third resolution they profess, "that, by the wise policy of our ancestors, Roman Catholics were excluded from bearing certain offices, and from the legislature and councils of the nation; and by stat. 39, Car. 2, it was enacted, "that no peer of the realm, or member of the House of Commons, should vote or sit in parliament, until he should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration, against transubstantiation and popery." The fourth resolution stated, "that the meeting has been informed that a bill has been brought into parliament, and is now in progress, in which it is proposed, that the declaration against transubstantiation, required by the statute 25th Charles 2nd, and the declaration against transubstantiation and popery, required by the statute 30th Charles 2nd, shall no longer be required to be taken as a qualification for holding any office or place of trust from his majesty, or under his authority, or for sitting or voting in either House of parliament; provided that nothing therein should dispense any person from taking the oaths of allegiance or supremacy." The fifth resolution was as follows:—"That although the said declarations against transubstantiation and popery contain only a renunciation of certain opinions entertained by Roman Catholics, yet they form, in the opinion of this meeting, the principal test by which Roman Catholics are to be ascer-

1043
tained, and without which the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are not sufficient to exclude Roman Catholics from parliament, and from situations of political power."
Now, he apprehended that the petitioners were wrong in what they said about the necessity of taking these declarations as precedent to becoming members of the privy council, or being invested with political power; and he would maintain, that there would be the some securities against the admission of Catholics after the passing of this bill as before. The oath of supremacy, was a sufficient guard against admission into parliament. With respect to the great offices of state, neither the oath of supremacy nor the declarations were required to be taken before entering on their duties; and a bill of indemnity passed every year, to secure from penal consequences those that had neglected so to qualify themselves. When the House heard of the other securities besides those declarations, it would naturally inquire what they were. They were three—the oath of allegiance, which a Roman Catholic could take; the oath of abjuration, which, after the exiled family of the Stuarts had become extinct, it was a solemn mockery to take and the oath of supremacy, which the Catholic could not take. This last oath must therefore, in the judgment of this meeting, have appeared unavailing without the declarations in question. They say that they were in a state of great alarm, therefore, about the repeal proposed by the present bill; and as alarm was not usually a reasoning state of mind, they had accordingly stated no arguments to justify their apprehension of danger. How could they suppose that the oath of allegiance would be unavailing, as a barrier against the admission of Catholics to offices from which they were now excluded? He saw no reason for a suspicion that this oath would not as effectually exclude the Catholic from any office to the taking of which it was a qualification, as it and other tests put together. It had always been effectual for that object. Many Catholics had been in the army and navy, and even in parliament, after the passing of the act by which this oath was imposed; but it was by special dispensation from it by the Crown. If they were admitted to office, it was therefore not by taking the oath for the purpose of breaking it, but by the special favour of the Crown reliev-
1044
ing them from the necessity of submitting to it, and suspending in their behalf the existing laws. The declarations against transubstantiation had not been introduced because the oath was ineffectual for its object, but because the Crown had dispensed with it. This had happened with regard to the admission of Catholics into offices of power and emolument. Their lordships knew, that, though the declarations were enacted to prevent any Roman Catholic members from being admitted into the House of Commons, no member who had a seat at that time was excluded; while the case was different with the House of Peers, because Ro-man Catholic peers before that time sat by dispensation from the Crown. It would appear, that from the 5th of Elizabeth, when the oath of supremacy was made to the restoration, no Roman Catholic had obtained a seat in the Commons' House of parliament. Writers mention no exclusion. He had searched the Journals, and did not find an instance of a member deprived of his seat on account of his Catholicism. Such a circumstance would have been mentioned had it occurred. In 1640 a commission had been appointed to inquire whether any improper persons had got into the House, and not one Roman Catholic was found. At the time when the acts of the 25th and 30th of Charles 2nd were passed, their declared object was, to prevent Catholics from getting into parliament, not to drive out any who were already members. Now, was it possible that no trace should be found in Burnet, or other cotemporary historians, of an expulsion of a member on account of his haying taken the oath of supremacy, while a Catholic, if any such instance had occurred? He was therefore entitled to conclude, that the act of Supremacy was sufficient, from the 5th of Eliz. to the 30th of Charles 2nd, to guard the door of the House of Commons against the admission of Catholics. If, then, in point of fact, this oath had been effective when these declarations did pot exist, what reason was there for believing that if the declarations were repealed it would not be equally efficient? Why was the oath altered for Ireland in 1792, unless because it could not be taken then as it stood? The oath of supremacy excluded before that time gentlemen from the bar, and accordingly no Roman Catholic was a barrister. It also excludes the English Catholic from

1045
voting at elections; and, he believed, none voted. They might, indeed, vote where the oath was not administered, or in the tumult and confusion of the election there might be instances of their taking it; but that no more proved that the Catholic was regardless of an oath, than the taking of a Custom-house oath, or a bribery oath, by a Protestant, which he broke, proved that all Protestants would perjure themselves. He was therefore entitled to infer, that it operated an absolute exclusion. He had heard, indeed, of one instance of an elector, in Devonshire, to whom the oath was tendered, which he refused to take. If the oaths themselves were scarcely an adequate security, declarations must be still more ineffectual.
In the seventh of those resolutions to which he had alluded, it was asserted that the Romish church granted no toleration to those who did not participate in its communion, and that therefore there could be no peace or security for those who professed a different creed, and lived under its authority. It was true that a principle of persecution might be found amongst its ancient canons; but it was not just or candid to infer, that the practice of the Romish church corresponded with their spirit. He would put it to the right rev. prelates whether the true character of our own Protestant church could be ascertained from the tenets and doctrines promulgated in the homilies of many celebrated divines; he would appeal to them whether the 18th article, or that part of the liturgy which it had been the well-known wish of our pious sovereign to see withdrawn; were congenial to the pure spirit of Christianity. In their relation to political subjects, they would form an equally wrong test of the principles on which our ecolesiatical establishment was founded. Their lordships must recollect that a decree had been passed at one time by the University of Oxford, inconsistent with the justness of those means by which the Revolution was accomplished—a decree which; if itself right, would render it impossible for the reigning family to hold any legitimate power in this country. He entreated them, however, to consider what the actual policy of the Romish church was in those states where it formed the established religion. In every country, save one, toleration was extended to alt modes of religious worship. We had ourselves been
1046
the means of restoring that one country to a situation which enabled it at the present moment to seek the degradation and oppression of its own colonies. In France the legislature, as well as all civil and military offices were accessible to persons holding opposite opinions on questions of faith. The same policy had been adopted in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Hungary, in Saxony. The converse of the proposition was therefore strictly true, and it appeared that the Roman Catholics did allow to those belonging to a separate communion from themselves a liberal toleration. The practice in Rome itself was equally mild and tolerant; the venerable prelate who filled the papal chair, and the cardinal who acted under him, had not objected to the celebration of divine worship in that capital according to the ritual of the church of England. There were noble lords now present who had attended on such occasions, whose carriages had waited at the doors, and who could testify that it took place with the utmost freedom and facility.
There was one other resolution of considerable length, with regard to which he felt it his duty likewise to offer a few observations. It represented, that the Catholics regarded certain oaths as null and void; and that the Pope had himself, a few years ago published a proclamation to his subjects, wherein he authorized them to take a distinction between active and passive oaths. It had cost him some time to discover the exact meaning or allusion intended to be conveyed in this proposition, and he might now venture to state that there never had been a grosser perversion or misrepresentation. It was true, that the Romish church held that oaths, in themselves unlawful, were not binding; but was the same principle maintained by all the great authorities on public law? If an oath were taken repugnant to the allegiance which a subject owed to the allegiance, it would be an offence, and the execution of it would be a second. The same rule applied in the case of an established religion; and it was an unfounded calumny on the church of Home to assert, that the doctrine was peculiar to her. If a Roman Catholic should take the oath of supremacy, he separated himself from his church, and that separation would be followed by a denial of its sacraments. Such was the doctrine of every church in modern Europe. He had hoped that after the repeated discus-

1047
sions which the subject had undergone in that place, and the ample information derived from so many quarters, an exploded calumny, ascribing to the Romish church so unsocial, so detestable, and damnable a doctrine as that of not preserving faith with those of a different religious persuasion, would not at this moment have been, revived. But, if oaths were inadequate to bind the Roman Catholics, how could a declaration, which had not the same solemnity, be expected to secure that object? As to the distinction between active and passive oaths, it was with considerable, difficulty that he had been able to trace its origin. In a work, however, of some value and interest, containing a relation of the French occupation, of the Papal territories, he had found an explanation. A requisition had been made by the French emperor to the Pope, and the king of Naples, in 1808, to join in the war against this country. The Pope refused, his dominions were invaded, and he himself was conveyed a prisoner into France. It was then he instructed his subjects in the difference between an active and passive oath, by allowing them to show a passive obedience to a power which they could not resist, and restraining them only from any active service in its support. What was there in this which every other government would not have felt itself authorized, and even bound to adopt, in a similar emergency? Had Buonaparté ever succeeded in occupying any portion of the British territory, had he landed in Ireland, would the noble lord have hesitated to recommend a like proceeding? He would ask the prelates on that reverend bench, whether, because subjects submitted to an usurping invader, it was their duty likewise to join his forces against their lawful sovereign, in virtue of the oath of temporary obedience which had been exacted from them? He had been at some pains in his inquiries upon this point, because he understood that considerable stress would be laid upon it. The proposition, however, was too plain to admit of argument; and he could not witness an attempt made to revive unfounded prejudices against a large body of deserving men, without feeling it to be his duty to refute and repel those prejudices. The noble and learned lord had admitted that the oath of supremacy ought not to be dated from the reign of Henry 8th, but that it formed part of the common law, and had, therefore, been established; by
1048
our Catholic ancestors. If the Roman Catholic could take it with a safe conscience, there was no reason why he should not be put on the same footing as other dissenters. But it was unjust to require declarations to be made, which could be attended with no useful effect, and which cast opprobrium on the religious principles conscientiously entertained by others. He had but one more, observation to make. If he were asked, why he, who had so much at heart the success of the Roman Catholics in their claims to a full enjoyment of every constitutional privilege, was thus anxious for a measure which would not advance that object, he answered, that although this bill did not open either House of parliament to them, or qualify them to hold office, it relieved them from a stigma and an opprobrium, and. our own church from, the painful necessity of thus condemning doctrines with which it did not agree. Whether all further concession was to be refused, or parliament was to go on in the beneficent work, the completion of which would so materially strengthen our security, no Catholic could hear without soreness, and no Protestant pronounce without regret, sentiments opposite to every feeling of good-will and calculated to produce only jealousies and divisions. If they were determined to concede no further privileges, at least they should abstain from adding insult to injury, and reflect that it was their own interest to occupy a safe and tenable position. On the other hand, should a conciliatory policy be, adopted with a view to the final adjustment, of this great question, it would have the more beneficial effect by being preceded by a measure that would evince a sympathy for the honest and conscientious scruples of those in whose favour it was passed. Upon these grounds he now proposed to their lordships the second reading of the bill.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid:—Unaccustomed, and in general, very unwilling, to address your lordships; upon the present occasion, I rise, with great satisfaction, to second a motion, which, as it strikes me, those only can consistently oppose, who are prepared to maintain, that religious opinions, merely speculative, and having no influence whatever on practice, may notwithstanding, be justly made a ground, for excluding respectable individuals from situations of honour and emolument in a state; or rather, from the

1049
capacity of holding such situations; a capacity, which has been considered, by some of the ablest men, whom this country ever produced, as ranking among the common rights of subjects, unless it can be clearly shown, that the principles in question, are obviously injurious to the welfare of the government, or incompatible with the due discharge of our social, moral, or political duties. I say, clearly shown, for five millions of loyal subjects are not to be proscribed because certain persons, in defiance of reason and of experience, and of plain common sense, unreasonably suppose, that they understand the tenets of the Roman Catholics better than they do themselves; a supposition, the reverse of which is, certainly, far more likely to be true: at all events, a benevolent and unprejudiced man, sincerely anxious to obtain accurate information upon the subject of that apparently unwise policy, which forbids us to grant an extension of civil privileges to a numerous class of individuals who are said to entertain religious opinions; which render them unfit for the enjoyment of such privileges, would take some pains to learn, from the best sources, what those opinions really are; and with a view to this end, he would surely prefer the testimony of credible witnesses now living; he would prefer their avowed sentiments in various publications; above all, he would prefer their declarations upon oath, to any account, given by persons of the same religious persuasion, who lived many ages since; ages of comparative darkness, and superstition; still less, would he pay regard to the representation of an angry controversial opponent. This, however, is not the course which we pursue: on the contrary, we persist obstinately, in disbelieving all that the Roman Catholics say, and in disregarding all that they write; and not only so, but in opposition to every canon of legitimate controversy, we object to them doctrines, which, in the imputed sense, they unequivocally deny; and we charge them with consequences, following, in our judgment, from the doctrines which they do admit; but which consequences they do not acknowledge: and to fill up the measure of insult and injustice, we affect to be surprised when they complain, and say that they are never to be satisfied; "as if," says Mr. Burke, "there were no other mode of curing this disposition of mind, but by continuing to give them cause for
1050
dissatisfaction."—The glaring impolicy of this conduct, has been so often pointed out, that it would be presumptuous in a man of my profession to dwell upon a topic, which has been so repeatedly discussed; but I will offer a few of the many religious considerations which induce me to support most cordially this motion. I am perfectly aware, that I tread upon very tender ground, but "he that walketh uprightly, walketh surely." I shall therefore with unreserved frankness, mention two or three of the principal objections which I have to the declarations in question. To begin with the declaration against transubstantiation:—your lordships well know, that this declaration was the ill-omened off spring of the fictitious plot of an infamous informer: a plot, which, in addition to the many other evils it occasioned, was the cause of the legal murder of an amiable peer (viscount Stafford), and the consequent illegal attainder of his family. Let others speak as they feel: to me, there is something very incongruous, at least, in the idea of any religious test as a qualification for civil offices; and of all tests, a sacramental test, or any thing in the smallest degree approaching to it, when applied as an instrument for the exclusion of some, and the admission of others, into these offices, is, by far, the most exceptionable; not to mention, that a test of this description, though it will certainly exclude men of honour and piety, is no bar whatever, to Infidels, to Deists, or to Atheists; who are not apt to be troubled with scruples upon such occasions: this observation applies equally of course to the declarations now under the consideration of your lordships, against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints; but setting aside this argument, I wish to ask any serious man, whether it be not a gross impropriety, and in some measure a profanation, to make our sentiments respecting the nature and design of the most solemn rite of our religion, a rite, ordained by our Divine Master, for the commemoration of his death, and of the benefits which we derive from it, benefits which assuredly have a reference to another world; to make, I say, this solemn rite, a mere scaffold, by which we climb to high situations in this world; whether it be not in effect,
"To make the symbol of atoning grace,
"An office key, a picklock to a place,"
as one of the most interesting of our mo-

1051
dern poets beautifully illustrates the idea.—I shall probably be told, that an oath is a religious test; but the parallel between an oath and a sacramental test, will not hold, as has been almost demonstrated by one of the most learned and pious prelates, who ever had a seat in this House, in his celebrated discourse in "Vindication of the Common Rights of Subjects," against a much more ingenious, and touch more formidable opponent in all respects, than has ever since appeared as an advocate for disabilities and restrictions on the score of religion merely.—To return, however to the formula more immediately under our consideration, I wish to state another very Weighty objection; it is this: In the course of a protracted life, I never made the declaration in question, without experiencing the most unpleasant of all sensations, the sensation of self-reproach; when I recollected, that I had pronounced four parts out of five, of the Christian world, to be superstitious and idolatrous; including in the number; a Fenelon, a Pascal, a Bossuet, and "Marseilles good bishop"—besides many most valuable men, now living, who are allowed, on all hands, to adorn by their lives and conduct, the religion which they profess; and I am firmly persuaded, that if it were not for the ambiguous meaning of the words made use of in this declaration, and the glorious uncertainty of the law, arising from this ambiguity, there are very many who hear me, who would experience the same un-pleasant misgivings, when they take their seat in either House of parliament.—Such, my lords, are the natural consequences of a declaration, which reviles, in the most revolting terms, one party, and lays a snare for the other. Let an heathen moralist palliate the conduct of philosophers, when they paid an external homage to the ceremonies of an unhallowed religion, which they inwardly despised, by saying that they deemed such matters to be "tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam Deo grata"—the excuse is but a sorry one in the mouth of a Pagan, and is still less allowable in the mouth of a Christian. I do not mean to say, that with some ingenuity, a satisfactory mode of making this declaration may not be devised; I have satisfied my own mind; but I am still of opinion, that, upon so solemn an occasion, no ingenuity, no skill in the interpretation of language, should ever be called for. It will perhaps be said, that I arraign the wisdom, and
1052
the justice of the legislature, in requiring such a test, and that I rashly attempt to introduce an important innovation. What, my lords, were those benevolent and enlightened men, who voted for the repeal of the writ "de Heretico comburendo" accused of arraigning the wisdom, and the justice of the parliament? or, were those who afterwards, to their honour, voted for the repeal of the laws against witches, accused of this; presumption? Was that honest and patriotic senator, and very able lawyer, who so lately pointed out, with all the force of argument, and all the charms of eloquence, the severity of the criminal code, was he, I say, accused of arraigning the wisdom and the justice of the legislature?
"Haud timeo, si jam nequeo, defendere crimen,
"Cum unto commune viro"
To the charge of attempting to innovate, I shall shortly reply, that the question is, or at least ought to be, whether a law be just, and reasonable, not how old it is, for time can never sanctify injustice.—With respect to the doctrine of the invocation of saints, the doctrine has, in past ages, been abused, and that it may sometimes be abused now, I am ready to admit; but it should always be remembered that intelligent Catholics do every thing in their power to correct this abuse; and censure it, whenever it occurs, as strongly as any Protestant caw do. He who will accurately and impartially compare, what is said in "The First Catechism of the Catholics," in "The Catholic Manual," in a well known work, the title of which is, "The Papist Misrepresented and Represented," and in an excellent work, "The Principles of Roman Catholics with Reference to God and the King;"—he, I say, who will without prejudice, compare what is stated in these publications upon the tenet in question with what is said by Nelson, in his explanation of the Collect in our Liturgy, appointed for All Saints'-day, will find a Very striking coincidence both of thought and of expression. Those who wish for farther information upon the subject of the religious principles of Roman Catholics, will do well to peruse attentively, letters lately written by an amiable and learned Catholic prelate, who is, at this moment; going out under the immediate sanction of government, to the Mauritius [Right Rev. Edward Slater, bishop of Ruspa].— Upon the whole, my lords,

1053
I do most earnestly implore your lordships, to repeal declarations which contain an unjust and vilifying censure upon the doctrines of millions of our conscientious fellow Christians, and loyal fellow subjects; and are also a stumbling block in the way of many a serious member of the church of England, when he takes his seat in either House of parliament.—I say not this upon my own judgment merely, for that would be saying very little; but upon the authority of several of our most eminent divines, not to mention, our great moral writer, doctor Samuel Johnson: but I will detain the House no longer; admitting, for the sake of argument, that these declarations were expedient in the reign of Charles the 2nd, when, as the noble earl truly observed, a papist (for such was then the opprobrious appellation in constant use), was regarded as of course a dangerous enemy to the state;—will it necessarily follow, that they are expedient now? The Test act has been long termed the main pillar of our ecclesiastical establishment, and is still so called by some; but others (and I think more justly), deem it as nothing better than a time worn buttress, which deforms and disgraces the building it was intended to support. Is there a single individual of education in the united kingdom, who now contemplates, in the character of a Roman Catholic, a being so much to be dreaded; a being, against whose, wicked designs to undermine both church and state, it is wise and prudent to insist upon such an apparatus of precaution? No, there is not one. The precautions, then, being in the opinion of the public unnecessary, to say nothing more they ought to be repealed.—"The gospel no where demands from us such precautions; the church, which judgeth not those that are without, wants them not; the commonwealth, which should embrace indifferently all men, who are loyal, peaceable, honest and industrious, requires them not."* These, my lords, are the words of that wise, and good, and great man, whose authority has so often been appealed to, in the course of the various discussions which have taken place in this House upon the Catholic question. May his sentiments make the same impression upon the minds of your lordships, which they have long made, and still continue to make, upon my own; you will then, with-
* Locke on Toleration.
1054
out hesitation, accede to the motion of the noble earl.*
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that by some persons he had been described as so surrounded with prejudices and so influenced by interest, as to be capable of taking only a limited view of this subject He might be liable to the charge of prejudice, but he could assure their lordships that he had no interest
*Note.—"Norwich June 18, 1819. My opinion upon the subject of the Catholic question (the most important which has engaged the attention of the public during the times we live in) is, not the casual offer of prejudice or precipitation; but of much reading, much consideration, and much converse with men of different religious persuasions; with men of all parties, and of all professions: if, therefore, I err, it is not for want of an honest, impartial, and sedulous enquiry after truth. Under such circumstances, I should be ashamed of myself, if I felt the least reluctance to a row publicly, sentiments, which I have maintained in private, for nearly half a century; and which I shall never cease to, think, are much more consistent, not only with Christian charity, but with the real interest of our civil and ecclesiastical establishment, than the exclusive spirit which prompts some of his majesty's ministers, to pursue a line of conduct, which bids fair (and at no distant period) to endanger the peace and welfare of that very Protestant ascendancy, for the security of which they express so serious an alarm, if seven respectable noblemen, and perhaps twice as many independent commoners, be allowed to have a seat in parliament? That, in the nineteenth century, such an idea should induce a great majority, of the most enlightened assembly in Europe, to oppose a motion, enforced with argument so conclusive, and with eloquence so persuasive, as were displayed in the late debate, by earl Grey, and lord Grenville, both of whom are as decided friends to this ascendancy when rightly understood, as any two men in the united kingdom, is a melancholy proof, that to the bulk of mankind, whether in the higher or the lower ranks of society, the remark of Seneca, is equally applicable: 'Greditur, non judicatur; sequimur antecedentium gregem, euntes belluarum ritu, non qua euodum est, sed qua itur'.
"HENRY NORWICH."

1055
in it, except a common interest with all of them, in the security of the Protestant government in church and state. He regarded the present measure as having in view the same end with a more general proposition which had recently been decided, with this difference—that if carried, it would arrive at that end, not by the circuitous means of a committee, charged to consider deliberately in what manner and to what extent further indulgences might be safely granted, but a single effort, and by blotting with a single stroke from the Statute book what was now the only insurmountable obstacle to the admission of Roman Catholics to parliament. It was said, that the 30th of Charles 2nd was only a renunciation of a dogmatical tenet, but the effect of it was, to point out distinctly who was a Roman Catholic. He as a Protestant, would not quarrel with a Roman Catholic on the ground of his religious principles; he might lament his errors, but he was at the same time disposed to reverence his integrity. The declaration against transubstantiation, as he had before said, he considered as the great obstacle to his admission to the two houses of parliament. There was, also, the oath of supremacy: but the noble lord had himself argued, that until the 30th of Charles 2nd, Catholics sat in both Houses of Parliament.
Earl Greysaid, across the table, that he had alluded only to the upper House.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that he had a distinct recollection of this argument having been urged by more than one noble lord on a former occasion. If, then, the oath of supremacy was not of sufficient force to exclude the Roman Catholics from parliament and from the great offices of state, the proposition now made would arrive instanter at that point which many noble lords conceived to be most dangerous to the country both in church and stale. He sincerely believed that the noble earl who had introduced the bill was as firmly attached to the constitution as any man, but he requested their lordships to look at the character in which Roman Catholics sat in parliament at the periods to which the noble earl had alluded. They sat there under the danger of a prœmunire. If we brought them hack now, we should bring them back absolved from all those penalties. They would be brought back very different creatures from what they were under the reign of Charles 2nd. This
1056
was a very perilous experiment, and he knew nothing equal to it, except in the reign of James 2nd, when the government was administered by a Catholic king, assisted by a Protestant House of Lords and a Protestant House of Commons. It was now proposed, that a Protestant king should reign, and that the laws should be framed by a Roman Catholic House of Lords, and a Roman Catholic House of Commons. In this dangerous age of experiments, when so many innovations had been made—when, in a neighbouring country, morality, social order, and good government, had been overthrown, and even Christianity itself annihilated, should this nation, in the pursuit of a political experiment, throw away the blessings of a constitution which had saved us from so many perils? He was aware that individuals, and sometimes states, did not avail themselves of the advantages which belong to experience; but he hoped that their lordships would not lose sight of the dangers we had passed, and that they would hesitate before they exposed this country to new and hazardous experiments. For all these reasons, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he did not feel himself called upon to go at any length into the question proposed by the noble earl, because, on some of the points he was not aware that he had any great difference of opinion. In every period of his life, he (lord Liverpool) had supported the continuance of the Test acts; and he still thought them necessary for the preservation of our religious and civil liberties. From what had been stated by the right reverend prelate who spoke first, it appeared that this motion was founded on the necessity of abrogating the Test and Corporation acts altogether; and if he looked at the present measure as impolitic and dangerous, it was not so much on its own account as that it was an attempt to remove all those barriers at once. He was old enough to recollect when the repeal of the Test laws was the subject of controversy during a whole session. What was the principle on which it was resisted both by the legislature and by the country? It was that they were a weapon in our hands to protect and secure our civil and religious liberties; and that, while they existed, they were a most essential barrier against any attempt on the church and constitution. The noble earl had said, that he conceived there might

1057
be many individuals who had great scruples of conscience in making these declarations. He had objected to the words "superstitious" and "idolatrous;" These words were applied to the invocation of saints, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the sacrifice of the mass; and being so applied, he (lord Liverpool) had never felt any difficulty in making those declarations. What was to be the effect of this measure if it passed? Was it or was it not to have the effect of admitting Roman Catholics into offices of state, and into parliament? He fully agreed that no respectable Roman Catholic could be admitted into parliament as long as the oath of supremacy remained; but when it was admitted, that Roman Catholics, after the framing of that oath, sat in the House of Lords, he could not trace any period when they were members of the House of Commons. But if the oath of supremacy operated as an exclusion, what benefit could the advocates of this measure promise to the Roman Catholics from the repeal of the oaths in question? He thought that the repeal of these oaths might be beneficial in one sense; and if he were satisfied that, by conceding this point as a point of feeling, their lordships were putting an end to the agitation of this question, he should have no objection to accede to the proposition of the noble earl. But had the noble earl stated, that if this bill were carried, those who advocated the claims of the Roman Catholics in that House would abstain from bringing them forward again, year after year? Not a word had been said on that subject. What possible benefit, then, was to be derived from this measure, if it was merely to leave the question in all other respects just where it was. The right reverend prelate had told their lordships, that it was a step to more important measures: he had frankly stated, that he considered it as a step to get rid of all religious tests whatever. He (lord Liverpool) would cheerfully admit, that it was right and proper to consider the feelings of Roman Catholics; but then he would say, that it was the duty of their lordships to consider also what might be the feelings of the Protestants. He did say, that when a proposition was brought to that House to repeal some of the most ancient tests in this country, he could not see what benefit could arise from adopting a measure which might do some harm, but which could do no good whatever.
Lord Grenvillesaid, he had a totally different view of the subject from the noble lord who had just done, and had also a different idea of its policy and wisdom; After, the very able and eloquent speech of his noble friend who had made the motion, it would be unnecessary for him to add any thing to the statement so luminously laid down, and he should therefore confine himself to a few of the arguments against the motion. The noble lord then recited some of the provisions of the act of Elizabeth, and contended that persons who were entitled by their birth to a seat in that House, ought not to be deprived of it on mere presumption and false accusation, but only when imperious necessity called for such being the case. He would ask their lordships then, why the descendants of those brave men who had shed their blood in several cases for their country, and had laid the first foundation of its liberties, should be now debarred from their rights? True, that had taken place in the profligate and disgraceful reign of Charles 2nd, but why should it be continued now? Certainly their lordships ought to pause before they any longer debarred from their rights those who were entitled to those rights by their birth, and the merits and valuable services of their ancestors. With astonishment he had heard it said that the Catholic tenets were friendly to a divided allegiance. He had conversed with many of that body on this subject, and never yet did he meet a reasonable Catholic who could bear the idea of this divided allegiance. The allegiance they gave was undivided, and what the law required. Let their lordships look at the oath upon their table. They had there distinguished between allegiance and supremacy, because oaths of allegiance were taken in this country long before any oaths of supremacy were framed. Every man was bound to swear true allegiance to the country. What was allegiance? Obedience to the king in his courts of justice, obedience to him in his legislature, and in the executive ministers of his government. This was the allegiance which, he trusted, every man in this country bore to his sovereign, and this was the oath which the Roman Catholics took in the same sense in which it was taken by their lordships. There was no law in this country to enable the king to impose religious penalties on any man. If a man submitted himself to that obedience which

1059
the laws have given to temporal subjects, that was the obedience which the Roman Catholics professed. If that infatuated sovereign who attempted to re-establish the Roman Catholic religion in this country had required of his subjects that they should join in the doctrine of the mass, how would their allegiance have bound them to conform to that? How, then, did the repeal of these oaths release the Roman Catholics from their allegiance? If it were asked of him, what he thought of the invocation of saints, of the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and of the sacrifice of the Mass, he could have no hesitation in declaring that he thought it would be idolatrous in him to join in such worship. But, would their lordships venture to say, that this oath was pot repeated by many, not as relating to their own worship, but in the calumnious sense of reviling the worship of their fellow subjects? "Begin," said his lordship "by silencing these atrocious libels against your fellow subjects: instead of magnifying grounds of disunion, show that it is the constant endeavour of the legislature to conciliate, not to exasperate and to reconcile and hold together, if not in one common bond of religious belief, at least in one bond of political union, all those who boast the same origin, who obey the same laws, whose veins glow with the same blood, which has been shed in the same cause, though not by all with equal chance of honourable remuneration." But if the interests of the Catholics were entirely out of the question, and if no other reasons existed but what regarded the personal feelings of their lordships, he would implore them, for their own sakes, to blot from the Statute-book, the necessity for using any longer those disgraceful, unjust, degrading calumnies, which must be as disgusting to those who were compelled to utter them, as to those against whom they were ordered to be pronounced. He called them disgraceful calumnies, because he was convinced that with all the prejudice which might still exist against the Catholic faith, with all the exertions that had been made to inflame the ignorant and unthinking, no reasonable man out of doors, not one he was sure of their lordships, would undertake to say, that the religion of Fenelon was idolatry, that Fenelon (he mentioned him merely as a familiar instance out of many), worshipping according to the sincere dictates of his conscience, was a man
1060
to be shunned and degraded as a profane worshipper of idols. The real state of the case was this: the Catholics believe (erroneously, according to our principles of belief), that what is possible to Almighty Power is done by Almighty power; and this, in the instance of transubstantiation, they believe on a sincere interpretation of that same sacred authority on which we Protestants believe the other miracles thereby recorded. In all this there might be error, perhaps the grossest error, but there was no idolatry: on the contrary, there was a pure feeling of devotion, addressed, according to the measure of belief, to the common God of Catholics and Protestants. In us, indeed, who were Protestants, and whose opinions were of a different cast, such a profession of faith would be gross idolatry; and in that sense only could conscientious Protestants take the oath against the doctrine of transubstantiation. But the declaration oath further said, that the sacrifice of the mass was idolatrous. Now, of the eight hundred in both Houses who lately took that oath, he would confidently ask how many had read the mass book? how many could give any intelligible account of what that was which they solemnly swore to be idolatry? He remembered a bold expression of one of our poets: it was "one eternal now." Now, this "one eternal now" seemed to be the language of the declaration oath; it was applied to the sacrifice of the mass as practised in the time of Charles 2nd, it had been applied ever since, and was applied now, though the ceremony so denounced might have been repeatedly varied, perhaps entirely altered, in the interval. Was it not, then, a solemn mockery in the legislature, to persist in taking an oath, on a subject on which they knew little, and perhaps had not reflected at all; and if this applied to their lordships, how much more must it apply to churchwardens, to constables, to custom house officers, to all those who took it in shoals at every quarter and petty sessions? was it not better at once to remove this habitual disregard to the most sacred of all obligations—this constant appeal to the Creator, by men not even professing to understand what was the nature of the appeal? But there was still another objection that struck him. He could imagine a conscientious Protestant, who might believe that the sacrifice of the mass was erroneous, but not idolatrous: ought such a man to be

1061
excluded from parliament? He remembered that bishop Burnet, and Mr. Evelyn, in that most valuable book which threw more light on his cotemporary history than any publication that had come down to us, had both referred to a most excellent churchman (Herring) who held the opinion that the sacrifice of the mass, though erroneous, was not idolatrous. If that man had been excluded from parliament for such belief, the legislature would have lost one of its brightest ornaments—one of the few men who, in times of violent persecution, at the greatest personal risk, had maintained an asylum where the members of the church of England might resort to hear the pure doctrines which they loved—who had kept the light of his church burning, when all around was the darkness of bigotry. Another great ornament of the church, the famous archbishop Sheldon, had maintained a similar opinion, and he also must have been excluded by this oath. He therefore called upon their lordships, first, to relieve themselves from the opprobrium of uttering a calumny against their fellow subjects; next, to relieve all Protestants from an oath so disgusting to their sense and feeling; thirdly, to put an end to that habitual reproach and invective against a class of fellow Christians which, abhorrent as it must be to their lordships feelings, could only be looked at with complacency by certain ignorant or designing persons, who referred to this legislative abuse as the best argument of continuing the Catholic exclusions. In saying this, he meant no allusion to any of their lordships, but only to means that had been employed out of doors; for he was happy to say, that in doors a total change had taken place, and he hailed it as an omen of still better times, and as a proof of the certain progress of truth, benevolence, and kind feeling. He wished their lordships to be consistent and honest. They all professed that it was improper to exclude Catholics for religious belief, but thought that there was some civil difference of opinion which threatened danger and ruin to the state, if even one hereditary peer should sit among their lordships with the title earned by the virtues of his ancestor, should he happen to believe in purgatory, or if one member should be added to the House of Commons incumbered with the belief of transubstantiation. Thus, professing to have nothing to do with religious, but only
1062
with political opinions, their lordships, with strange inconsistency, put two tests—one merely political, the other merely religious. Now, how could the Catholics believe their lordships' professions to be sincere? Their lordships said to the Catholic—"We exclude you, not for reasons of faith, but for reasons of state." The Catholic came forward and said, "Well I take you at your word; I cannot change my religion, but I am ready to pay the same dutiful allegiance which is required from every Protestant subject. Now give me your tests." Your lordships then take care to give him a test which binds him to reject every article of his faith. [Cheers.] "Do, you," exclaimed his lordship "speak truth? Are you just, are you honest, when you profess abhorrence at excluding any man for his religious opinions, and yet offer him, as the only condition of coming among you, the disclaimer of his religious belief? What is it you mean? Is it you, or is it he, that must palter with the most sacred of all things—an oath? If indeed your lordships believe that persons holding such religious tenets are unfit to sit among you, in God's name say so fairly and directly; but if you believe such a doctrine on your part will be a breach of your duty to God and man, why keep this test? I conjure you for your own honour, for the honour of your government, in the name of truth, of conscience, and of common honesty, expunge from your Statute book an oath which has made England a by-word of reproach among the nations of Europe. Be just to yourselves as well others: let your professions and your actions accord; and cease to do in fact, what you are ashamed to avow in, principle." [Continued cheering.] For himself, he should be dealing most unfaithfully with their lordships if he did not avow his hope and belief that if this test were abolished, things would not stop there. When the exclusion rested on the oath of supremacy alone, Catholics and Protestants might examine more carefully and calmly what was the amount of the civil difference of opinion between them; and he had little doubt that the result would be to wipe away the foul reproach cast upon us by the enlightened of all nations. That absurd sophism about divided allegiance would be heard no more. Protestants and Catholics would feel assured of a complete security in the conscious enjoyment of equal rights. At present

1063
the Catholic was insulted and calumniated for his religious belief, and when he asked for political advantages, he was not allowed even the means of explaining on what ground he asked them. But let him once be treated as he ought to be treated; let the insulting calumny against his doctrines cease to exasperate his mind, and then see if he cannot as well as the Protestant discharge all the duties of "true allegiance" which a subject owes to his lawful sovereign. A right reverend prelate had objected to the motion as isolated, and had asked, why was not the House called upon for a general inquiry? About a month ago, when a general inquiry was moved for, the objection was, Why do you not bring forward some specific measure? "We have (said his lordship) accepted the challenge; we have brought forward a specific measure, and now you say, we have no objection to this measure; but come with us into a committee, and then we will show you another measure to which we have a strong objection, and for the sake of that, we will reject both."
The Lord Chancellorbegan by paying some high compliments to lords Grey and Grenville, for their ability and eloquence, and then proceeded to exculpate himself from any share in the resolutions alluded to by the former. He disavowed any knowledge of them till he had seen them that morning. Addressing himself to the question before the House, he contended, that the law of the land, as expounded by its ablest writers, had defined "true allegiance" to be allegiance to the constitution in church and state, and he maintained, that the oath required by the statutes of Henry 8th and Elizabeth was merely declaratory of the common law. It was somewhat miraculous that the Whigs of the present day should denounce the Declaration act, as if it had proceeded from that most wicked king, Charles 2nd. What! had they forgotten that it was re-enacted after deliberate discussion in the first parliament of William, the founder of our civil and religious liberties? Some persons with a profusion of something which seemed meant to be law and logic, but which in his mind was neither, had held up the act of Indemnity as if it protected the Catholics as well as Protestants. Now, the act of Indemnity was no more than this; it saw that the establishments of the country were sufficiently guarded by proper enactments,
1064
and it then said, that it would not rigidly punish every non observance, but would be content with keeping in its hands the power of exacting obedience when it thought proper; and to make all sure, this indulgence was only annual. What, then, was meant by the extravagant proposition, that a judge might act on the bench without taking the proper oaths, and then claim the indemnity. The real fact was, that every judge took the oath upon entering office; but, supposing it to be otherwise, was it not monstrous to think that a judge would disgrace himself by breaking the laws which he was called to maintain? The noble lord then argued at great length, that, from the time of Charles 2nd to the time of William, who had sanctioned the act of Charles 2nd, it had been thought necessary, for the preservation of our civil and religious liberties, that Papists should not be allowed to sit in parliament; and the consequence was, that some test was absolutely necessary by which it might be ascertained whether a man was a Catholic or a Protestant. Now, it was obvious, that this could only be done by some oath declaratory of religious opinions. It was, as Dr. Paley had observed, perfectly just to have a religious test of a political opinion; nor was there any more breach of charity or violation of justice in excluding a Catholic, by requiring from him the fulfilment of certain conditions, than there was in disqualifying a Protestant who had not 300 l. a-year. He therefore called upon the House, as it had any regard to the constitution in church and state, as settled by the glorious Revolution, and mainly preserved by this very oath, not to commit the unpardonable crime against posterity of transmitting to them their civil and religious liberties impaired or endangered.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he would support the motion, though he doubted the expediency of reviving the subject so soon. What he had heard from his noble and learned friend who had just sat down was not calculated to remove his regret at this renewed discussion; for his noble and learned friend had advanced doctrines, in opposition to the motion, which he had trusted were for ever abandoned. His noble friend, indeed, professed his unwillingness to exclude men on account of their religious belief, but the inference from his speech was directly contrary to its declaration; for if his ap-

1065
probation of the Test act arose from its demanding of every man whether he was a Catholic or Protestant, what was this but approving the principle of exclusion for religion? And as to the other ground that it was no more than a religious test of a political opinion, what need of this additional one when one existed already? The only purpose which the Declaration act answered was, to exasperate the feelings of the Catholics, and disgust those of all reasonable Protestants. For himself, he did indeed believe, that many of the practices of the lower orders of the laity and priesthood in Catholic countries were idolatrous; but he saw no idolatry in the recommendation of the council of Trent, the great authority of the Catholic church. It was remarkable, too, that the venerable men who had deliberately framed the articles of the church of England had not called transubstantiation and the adoration of saints by such hard and violent and abusive names as were used by the framers of the declaration-oath, in the midst of the senseless panic arising out of a pretended plot. The articles called these doctrines merely by the term of "a fond thing." Why, therefore, should their lordships be compelled to adopt abusive and insulting language, which the church itself had not thought it necessary to use? His learned and noble friend had laid great stress on the circumstance that the Declaration act, though originally passed by Charles 2nd had been sanctioned and confirmed by William, and had called it a free and deliberate act of his first parliament; Surely it was not necessary to tell their lordships, that there never was a period when calm deliberation was less likely to be exercised in any matter relating to the Catholics than in the first parliament of William. The whole nation was exasperated against the Catholics, the Catholic king just banished was in arms to regain the throne and reestablish Popery, if he could. Surely this was not a time for any alleviation of the laws against Popery. The time of the Popish plot itself was hardly less suitable for a favourable consideration of the subject. No such reasons existed now for galling and insulting the feelings of our Catholic brethren; and the more pure our own religion was, the less fitting was it that we should make it an instrument of abusing the religion of others. He was not so proud of the character of a "good hater," as a celebrated man had professed
1066
himself to be; he thought it very possible to be a good Protestant without calumniating the doctrines of the Catholic; and he was desirous, for one, to be relieved from the necessity of using expressions abhorrent to Christian charity, and shocking without object the feelings of our fellow-men.
Earl Bathurstsaid, that the question was, whether the oath of supremacy was sufficient to exclude Catholics from parliament? He thought not; and this he gathered from the preamble of the 30th of Charles 2nd; for if the oath of supremacy had been reckoned sufficient, all that would have been necessary in framing the act of Charles would have been to require their lordships to take the same oath heretofore taken by the Commons. Both Houses were therefore included in the new act, and the declaration was added, on the conviction that some further security was necessary to keep Catholics out of parliament. The noble earl proceeded next to show that the reference in the preamble of the bill before them to the 31st of the king indicated this to be only the first step to take away the oath of supremacy, and declared that upon this ground he must oppose it.
Earl Greyreplied with great animation. After repelling the imputation of attempting to effect ulterior objects by any insidious means, he contended that the act of Charles 2nd had been occasioned by the blind fury which agitated the minds of men of all ranks, and not by the presence of any Catholics in parliament. He now stated, after accurate inquiry, that Catholics did not then sit in parliament. The application by certain Protestants to the learned lord on the woolsack, he could not, when he considered the character of that noble lord, and his uniform disposition on this subject, ascribe to very pure and perfect zeal. It was not the intention, and it would not be the effect of this bill, to introduce Catholics into parliament: its object was conciliation. If they would apply this test, let them do it at least in decent terms. Upon what pretence could the learned lord apply the charge of superstition and idolatry to the Catholics? The invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass, as understood by intelligent Catholics were neither superstition nor idolatry. While no two sects agreed as to speculative opinions, and scarcely any two individuals of one sect agreed, what

1067
ground had we to pronounce this anathema against the Catholics? While the whole Christian world, up to the time of Henry 8th, and four-fifths of the believers of the blessed Gospel at this day, received those doctrines as sacred, with what modesty or sense could we pronounce them superstition and idolatry?
The House then divided: Contents, 49, Proxies, 33; 82. Not Contents, 72, Proxies, 69; 141. Majority against the bill,59.