CHAP. II. Roman Catholic Claims-Mr. Plunkett's Motion for a Committee to consider the State of the Laws affecting the Roman Catholics-His Speech-Mr. Peel's Reply-Mr. Plunkett's Resolutions agreed to Petitions-Dr. Milner-The second reading of Mr. Plunkett's two Bills-their Purport-the Reasons for keeping them distinct-Mr. Canning supports them-Their subsequent Progress-Their Consolidation Amendments moved by Mr. Bankes, Mr. Peel, and Mr. Goulburn, rejected-The Bill passes the Commons-Opposed in the Lords by the Duke of York, the Chancellor, and Lord Liverpool Meetings for Parliamentary Reform-Mr. Lambton's Motion on that Subject-Lord John Russell's Motion-Mr. H. G. Bennett's Motion on the Independence of Parliament-Lord J. Russell's Bill for the Disfranchisement of Grampound, and the transference of the right of Election to Leeds-Amendments moved by Mr. Davies Gilbert, Mr. Beaumont, and Lord Milton, rejected :-Mr. S. Wortley's Amendment carried-The Bill opposed in the Lords by the Chancellor, and Lords Redesdale, Lauderdale, and Harewood-Supported by Lord Liverpool-An Amendment carried, giving two additional Members to the County of York-The Bill passes-Lord A. Hamilton's Motion on the State of the Scotch County Representation-Breach of Privilege by the John Bull Newspaper-Examination of the Persons connected with it-The Editor committed to Newgate. that a committee of the whole House should consider the state of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, and inquire whether it would be expedient to alter or modify the same. He argued the question, as a question of religion, of the constitution, and of policy. In the first view, he maintained, that, for mere abstract religious belief, independently of any reasons of state, no man should be deprived of the privileges enjoyed by his fellow-subjects; and that, even if it were admitted, that adherence to the established creed was to be a title to favour in the eye of the law, why should its wrath be directed against Catholics rather than against Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans? He who worships Osiris, the ape, the crocodile, the host of heaven, and the creeping things of the earth, is admitted to the privileges of the state; and our abhorrence is reserved for the Roman Catholic, who believes all that we believe, and differs from us only by believing something more. Proceeding to the second view of the subject, Mr. Plunkett held, that the constitution intended to admit every person performing the duties of a liege subject, to all the franchises of the state. Now, were not the Roman Catholics the liege subjects of the king? No one denied that they were. What shut them out, then, from the general right? Nothing, that he had ever heard of, except that they asserted a spiritual supremacy in the pope-a supremacy which had been universally acknowledged long before the constitution existed, and had for centuries formed part of the creed of the country. Circumstances, he allowed, had afterwards occurred, under which it had been thought prudent to impose certain restraints and exclusions on those who acknowledged that supremacy; but these circumstances had long past away, and the present times called for a different course. "Backed, said he, by the original principles of the constitution, by the object and scope of the course of our history from the Reformation to the Revolution-backed by the concurrent declaration of the legislatures of England and Scotland on the first union, and of the parliaments of England and Ireland on the last-backed by the unimpeached loyalty, the unquestionable integrity of our catholic fellow-subjects recorded in the enactments of the legislature, and guaranteed by their own oaths-backed by the numerous concessions of the last fifty years--by that spirit of Catholic conciliation which presided during the late reign, and which, if the arguments in favour of exclusion were at all tenable, would have been so many outrages on the principles of the constitution, backed by the memories of the great lights and ornaments of that reign, of Dunning, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Windham-backed, by the name of every man who possessed buoyancy enough to float down the stream of time;--I feel that I have made out-I had almost said that I have established-the position that I sought, triumphantly. But when I look around me, and reflect on those whom I miss, and who were present when I last had the honour of addressing the House on this question, I am checked. When I reflect that since that period we have lost Whitbread, the incorruptible sentinel of the constitution-that we have lost the aid of the more than dawning virtues of Horner-that we had then Romilly, whose mature excellencies shed a steady light on his profession, on his country, and his nature-that Elliot, the pure model of aristocracy-that the illustrious Pon-. sonby, the constitutional leader of the ranks of Opposition in this House, revering alike the privileges of the Crown and the rights of the subject,-are no more-but above all, when I dwell upon that last overwhelming loss-the loss of that great man, in whose place I this night unworthily stand: and with the description of whose exalted merits I would not trust myself; God knows I cannot feel any thing like triumph! Walking before the sacred images of these illustrious dead, as in a public and solemn procession, shall we not dismiss all party feeling, all angry passions, and unworthy prejudices?" Mr. Plunkett then went on to argue the question on the grounds of policy. He admitted, that the established church in Ireland was in a situation by no means free from danger: but the danger arose from this-that a great majority of the people belonged to a different religion; and it would be lessened by every measure that softened down the animosity of the Catholics. By acceding to an act of justice, we retained all the securities we already possessed, and gained some These were which we had not. the main grounds on which the question ought to be determined; and the House ought not to allow the least weight to the partial cavilling objections, which were too often advanced. It was frequently said, for instance, that the Catholics were not aggrieved to the extent they complained of, and that the specific plan proposed had defects or inconsistencies: objections were taken to some of the offices proposed to be opened, or to some of the oaths proposed to be retained, and it was urged, that the friends of the measure were not themselves agreed as to the nature of the conditions or securities which should accompany it. This, Mr. Plunkett maintained, was neither a candid nor a manly mode of meeting the question. Was the question itself fit to be entertained? Did justice plead for it? Did the constitution sanction it? Did did not require; and on the part of the Catholic, not to refuse any thing which, consistently with his principles and conscience, he could give, although it might appear to him unnecessary. A great part of Mr. Plunkett's speech had been devoted to answering the arguments, by which Mr. Peel had on former occasions resisted concession to the Catholics; much of it, indeed, had been directed personally to that right hon. gentleman. Mr. Peel accordingly now felt it to be necessary to take the lead in opposing the motion. The principle, he asserted, laid down by the other side, was, that every subject of the realm had an equal right to office, and that, to exclude him, you must show some great and paramount danger, with which the country would otherwise be threatened. Grant this, and what is the consequence? You must not merely modify, but entirely repeal the Test and Corporation acts: those restrictive laws of which Burke and Windham had approved, and which Mr. Pitt had revered as the bulwarks of the national church. The very basis, therefore, of the argument on the other side was an assumption which had not been proved, and which was at variance both with authority and with sound principle. He then went into some critical discussion of the views, with which, and of the circumstances, under which the laws, sought to be repealed, had been first adopted; insisted upon some partial objections, and concluded with contending, that the measure now proposed would exasperate rather than mollify the political dissensions of Ireland. Sir James Macintosh supported the motion, and was followed by Mr. Charles Grant and lord Castlereagh on the same side. The House divided: the Ayes were, 227; the Noes, 221; so that the motion was carried by a majority of no more than 6. On the 2nd of March, the order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself into a committee to consider the Roman Catholic claims, Mr. Plunkett stated the course which he meant to pursue. It was, to propose in the committee certain resolutions; and after they were carried, and leave was given to bring in a bill founded on them, to fix the first and second readings of that bill at such intervals, as would leave ample time for the full consideration of its merits. The House went into the committee, and Mr. Plunkett proposed the six following resolutions: 1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned. 2. "That such parts of said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and that the sacrifice of the Mass, as used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous; appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed. 3. "That it appears to this committee, that, in several acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of Supremacy, is required to be taken, as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned. 4. "That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms. 5. "That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word spiritual' being inserted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and recognised in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which is explained by the thirty-seventh of the articles of the church of England, imports merely, that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doer. 6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation, should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant succession to the crown, according to the act for the further limitaVOL. LXIII. tion of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant episcopal church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and discipline thereof; and the church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof, as the same are by law respectively established." The resolutions were agreed to pro forma, Mr. Peel at the same time declaring his determi nation to oppose the measure in every successive stage; and leave was given to bring in a bill founded on them. Mr. Plunkett digested his scheme in two bills. On the 7th of March they were read a first time without discussion; and the second reading was fixed for Friday, the 16th of March, an order having been previously made, on the motion of sir George Hill, that the House should be called over on that day. In the mean time, petitions from various bodies of Protestant clergy and others, were presented against the Catholic claims; and on the 16th, Mr. Wilberforce presented one from the Roman Catholics in Staffordshire and Warwickshire. It was numerously signed, and among the signatures was that of Dr. Milner. Professing the utmost loyalty and the strongest attachment to the king and constitution, it prayed that the bills before the House might not be passed into a law, because they imposed intolerable restrictions on conscience. Sir Thomas Lethbridge having made some remarks on this petition as affording clear [D] |