Sitting of 5 July 1825

CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—PETITION OF MR. BISHOP BURNETT.
Mr. Broughampresented the following petition from Mr. Bishop Burnett, of the Cape of Good Hope. The contents of the petition were as follows:-
That your petitioner having presented sundry grievances to your honourable House, inculpating the conduct of his excellency the governor of the Cape of Good Hope, and that his excellency's return to this country to repel your petitioners charges at the next ses-
1484
sion of parliament appearing to be the probable consequences of the discussion thereon, your petitioner humbly submits to your honourable House, that he should, in justice, be permitted to avail himself of the interval in collecting his evidence at the Cape for substantiating; the accusations he has advanced.
"Your petitioner, well aware that in promoting this inquiry, he is opposing himself to the concentrated force of a gigantic power, has no security but in the justice and sympathy of your honourable House; and as he has no hesitation in declaring, that with the collection of his evidence, thus facilitated, he cannot only prove the charges already adduced. but others also of equal magnitude, he trusts that your honourable House, in its paramount disposition to further the first end of its high calling, will perceive the necessity of allowing your petitioner, the accuser, to approach the bar of your honourable House upon equal terms with lord Charles Somerset, the accused.
" Your petitioner begs further to present, that as the unwarrantable violence of his deportation from the Cape was a virtual inhibition to the security of evidence of any kind, even to the proof of his banishment, your honourable House will not permit your petitioner to appear before it disqualified by injustice to bring home charges of oppression and persecution.
"Your petitioner's private affairs—if he may presume to offer so inconsequential a motive for consideration to your honourable House—imperatively demand his presence at the Cape, appellant, as he is, in nine causes before the full Court of Justice, each involving very important issues to himself and his brother colonists, and the fiat of his competence or beggary hanging upon their decision.
"Your petitioner respectfully adds, that he should have manifested less zeal in vindication of his violated. rights as a British subject, as a man, and as a gentleman, but for an impeachment of his veracity, and a direct charge of conspiracy brought against him by the under secretary of state for the Colonial department. Your petitioner is from hence solemnly determined to prove his charges to the world, even should his excellency lord Charles Somerset not avail himself of the permission to return, granted by his majesty's government, contrary to a most affronting implication of earl Bathurst, that your petitioner's importunity to the

1485
colonial department resulted from his apprehension of strict investigation into his complaints.
"Your petitioner therefore prays, that your honourable House will, with reference to the premises, adopt such measures for his immediate return to the Cape of Good Hope as the magnitude of the occasion implies, and the wisdom of your honourable House may deem proper; and your petitioner will ever pray. (Signed) B. BURNETT."
Mr. Humeobserved, that this petition contained grave charges, and he wished to know whether there would be any facilities afforded by government to the petitioner to return to the Cape, for the purpose of collecting evidence to substantiate them?
Mr. Canningwas at a loss to conceive upon what ground government could be called upon to assist with money every person who chose to prefer complaints against public functionaries in that House.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman misunderstood his object. Mr. Burnett had been banished from the Cape by lord C. Somerset; and it was necessary that he should return to obtain evidence in support of his petition. Would he be permitted to do so?
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, it was not at all essential to the case of this petitioner that he should go to the Cape for evidence. At least, hitherto it had not been shown that such evidence was necessary. When it had, then would be the time for entertaining the question of permitting him to return. Every statement which he had hitherto made, had turned out to be unfounded.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SOUTH AMERICA.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he had come down to the House, in order to answer certain questions which had been put, on a preceding evening, by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), whom he did not now see in his place. The hon. member had remarked, that an individual of great respectability, accredited to this country by the state of Buenos Ayres, had not been presented at the last levee; and, from that fact, the hon. member had inferred, that some interference had been used by foreign powers to prevent that gentleman's being so received. This suggestion he desired to say was wholly void of foundation. No attempt had been made on the part of
1486
any foreign state to regulate, in the slightest degree, the conduct of this country towards any of the states of South America; nor, if such an attempt had been made, could there have been the least chance of its being successful. The reason why the individual in question had not been presented, was, that although he appeared in the character of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, he had no regular credentials. The state of Buenos Ayres had sent this gentleman a paper appointing him minister plenipotentiary to this country, but making him minister plenipotentiary also to France; and he did think that England was not stickling too much upon ceremony in saying that she must have an entire minister to herself. It had benn suggested, in some quarters, that these states, which were as new powers in the division of the world, might well be placed, in some points, upon a more free footing than the older ones. In this view, he by no means agreed. He thought it was sufficient that they were fully and regularly brought into the community of nations; and, as far as his advice went, the same full observance of all forms and arrangements should be required from them, as from the oldest, best secured, or most despotic governments existing. The paper which this gentleman produced might be sufficient between his government and himself; but it was not sufficient between his government and this country; nor could he be properly admited into the condition of a minister without producing the formal and usual credentials. There was another point, upon which he desired to say a few words. It so happened, that at an early period of the present year, the state of Buenos Ayres had appointed a British subject, a gentleman who was a partner in a considerable mercantile house in this country, its consul-general for England. In that capacity the individual alluded to had called upon him, and, tendering his commission, had proposed to enter with him into the discussion of highly material political transactions. Now, under such circumstances, he had no hesitation in decidedly refusing to listen to that gentleman; and he had, moreover, refused even to see him a second time. He had taken that course, in the first place, because the appointment in question had not been regular; but he had felt another objection, of still greater importance. In all the relations of England with these new states—

1487
there had been a great deal more of commercial and of speculative, than of political actual transaction. And whoever considered what had been the fluctuation of various projects within the last year in this country, would see, that it was only taking a proper precaution, when he had expressed a desire that the states of America, generally, would not appoint British merchants in this country to be their consuls. Upon the same principle, he had written, to his Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres, and to the resident ministers at other places, requesting that such nominations might not take place in future. He had, moreover, written to the officers of this country appointed in America, generally, desiring that they would not engage in commercial transactions; and he had removed any whom he thought to have done so in despite of that prohibition.

UNITARIANS.
The Marquis of Lansdownrose to present a petition most respectably signed, praying, that their lordships would institute an inquiry into the state of the law relating to Unitarians. He expressed his astonishment, that it should still be wished to exclude the petitioners from the benefits of the constitution, without there being on record any case in which their competence to discharge the duties of good subjects could be questioned; and the more so, as the objection to them was founded on inferences drawn from scattered judgments and the words of old acts of parliament, without any proof that the opinions of those persons were of a nature to sanction such exclusion—without its being even pretended that they did not believe in a future state and the doctrine of rewards and punishments. It was scarcely credible that, while it was not pretended that the petitioners held any opinion inconsistent with the safety of the state, they should, now, several years after an act had been passed for their protection, be told that they were still liable to the penalties which it was the object of that, statute to repeal. Yet the lord chancellor had ex-

1481
pressed a doubt whether those persons, for the relief of whom the statute was passed, were now protected by it. Doubts such as he had described having been entertained, the Unitarians now approached their lordships with a petition, to which their lordships were bound to give their most serious attention. They prayed, that they might be informed what their situation really was; that they might know on what conditions they owed allegiance as subjects of the realm. They requested to know whether their interests were not to be protected, and their safety ensured, in the same manner as if they were members of any other religion. If he were asked, whether he would, in another session, originate any bill to remove the doubts to which he had alluded, he should say, that, looking to the necessity of relieving those persons from the practical grievances of which they had to complain, and more particularly from those they experienced under the marriage act, and to the necessity also of relieving the Church of England from a disagreeable duty—looking, likewise, to the disposition of parliament, if not to pass a law in the same form as the bill of the present session, yet one which might accomplish the same object, he should be disposed, on the part of the petitioners, to accept the passing of such an act as an assurance of the removal of those doubts.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the law turned out to be as it was supposed to be, he would rather pass a law for the benefit of those persons than otherwise. When the question of what the law was, came to be regularly discussed, he would state the grounds of his opinion respecting it.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the learned lord seemed to have forgotten that he had already twice spoken upon this subject in the course of the present session. He would not venture to say, that the learned lord had stated what the law was; but he had stated, that it was such as ought to induce the House to pause before they passed an act for the relief of the Unitarians on the subject of marriage. The petitioners had taken the only manly course which they could adopt; and if the learned lord had followed the same example, he would have stated what really was the law, and not left it to be understood that he still believed them liable to be punished under the common law. This was a subject
1482
which called for inquiry, as it involved the interests of that great portion of the community which consisted of Dissenters; for the doubts thrown out did not affect. the Unitarians alone, but every description of persons who did not belong to the established church. It appeared, from the opinion of chief justice Foster and lord Mansfield—an opinion to which Blackstone seemed to assent—that the whole dissenting body in this country existed by sufferance—that they were all liable to be indicted—that their institutions, for the purposes of charity or education, all stood on a sandy foundation, and might be swept away by a process at law. However, on the late discussion of the Catholic question, those who approved most of this interpretation of the law, were in the habit of using many kind expressions towards the Dissenters. These persons were then called "our Protestant brethren," in the same way as Hotspur had been called "Gentle Harry Percy," and "kind cousin." He durst not follow up the quotation and say "the devil take such cozeners." But, the spirit of kindness with which the Dissenters were to be treated, was plainly shown a few days after, when a part of that body came forward to ask of parliament a small boon, which many of the dignitaries of the church, to their honour, declared was not merely a boon to the petitioners, but to the clergy of the establishment also. As soon as the bill came to be discussed, up jumped a person and said, "Who are you? I have found out an act of parliament which proclaims you to be guilty of a detestable crime." This supposed application of the law to Unitarians was founded on the maxim; 1st, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of England; and next, that to deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity. As to the first of these points, he could not help being surprised to find upon what slender grounds it was founded. What was the meaning of this maxim? If lord Raymond and justice Holt said, that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, and if lord Mansfield said, in language more precise, that revealed religion was not to be reviled, and that to revile it was punishable, it followed that if these phrases were legal terms, they must have a legal meaning attached to them. Was it the holy scriptures which constituted the Christianity which was said to be part and parcel of the law? If so, then no persons who built their faith

1483
on those scriptures could be said to deny Christianity. But, perhaps the Christianity meant was that which existed at the time to which the origin of this law maxim referred. If so, their lordships were placed in a curious dilemma; for they ought now to believe in that transubstantiation, which every person was called upon to abjure before he could sit in that House. He wished the House to see the consequences of extending the application of this maxim. He reminded their lordships of the important decision in the remarkable case of Mr. Evans, who, being fined for not accepting an office, refused to pay the fine, on the ground that he, in taking office, would be required to conform to the church of England, which as a Dissenter, he would not do. He was answered, that his very non-conformity was itself a crime, and therefore could afford no ground for his not paying the fine. After the cause had gone through the courts below, it came, by appeal before their lordships, and the House decided, that Mr. Evans was not obliged to pay the fine. The ground of this decision was, that the Toleration act gave a right of protection to all Dissenters. Since the passing of the late act relative to Unitarians, those persons stood in the same situation as all other Protestant Dissenters; and if the Toleration act did not protect them, it afforded no security to any members of any sect whatever.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had given no opinion of his own on the subject of the law as it applied to the Unitarians. He had merely stated what had actually passed in the courts of law in West-minster-hall.
Ordered to lie on the table.