cused. If the noble lord had wished his motion not to be of a personal nature, instead of taking the line of conduct he had chosen, he would have brought the standing order under the consideration of the House. He seemed to think they ought not to have the power of judging of the circumstances connected with the case on which they were to pronounce judgment, but that whatever the circumstances an nexed to or connected with it might be, they should inflict the punishment due to an offender on the accused individual, even though they should be of opinion that such punishment would be unjustly inflicted. The motion went to attack his conduct indirectly, and call upon him a condemnation, which, under such circumstances, must be more painful than if the motion had been directly brought against him. The decision of the House, on his case, he apprehended, was owing not only to the transaction referred to not having taken place, but from its being their con upon it. The resolution which had been passed upon that occasion, had been since often cast in the teeth of the House-this referred to the resolution considered in itself, but compared with the one of 1779, he thought that they neutralized each other. In the petitions lately presented, the words of one of these resolutions had been cited, and even the quotation of their own resolutions had been urged as an objection to receiving the petitions that quoted them. He next referred to the conduct of gentlemen opposite on former occasions and upon questions affecting the privileges of that House. He instanced the case of Mr. Alexander Davison, who had been prosecuted and confined. He instanced also the case of the Hampshire petition, in which the gentlemen now composing his Majesty's ministers had taken so active a part, in avowed support of the privilege of parliament and the purity of election. Another inconsistency in the practice of those gentlemen, he conceived to be their approving of a criminatory re-viction, that under all the circumstances, resolution against lord Chatham, as did the noble lord (Castlereagh), and the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning), though they acquitted him of any intention to take an unconstitutional course, yet the same gentlemen, together with rest of his Majesty's ministers, had acquitted the noble lord (Castlereagh) on the ground that the intention was not carried into effect. He then concluded with moving, That the said entries be expunged from the Journals. Lord Castlereagh felt himself personally concerned in the question, though the noble lord had thought fit to direct his motion more against the decision of the House than against him. The noble lord could only intend to say the decision the House had come to on his conduct, was one which it was improper for them to come to on one of these two grounds; Either that they were not competent so to decide, or that being at liberty to come to such a decision, they ought not to have come to such a one in his case. In the latter part of his speech, the noble lord had particularly endeavoured to demonstrate to the House that their decision was improper. He had contended that the resolution of 1779 precluded them from going into the circumstances of any case that might come before them of that nature, and only left them to execute the Jaw and inflict the punishment denounced against an offender on the individual ac on no criminatory resolution was deserved, Lord Folkestone was surprised at the observations of the noble lord. Not a word or insinuation had fallen from his noble friend, which could go directly or indi- should have come to such a conclusion. rectly to impeach the noble lord. His If any thing new had occurred, he could noble friend had formerly felt himself see some reason for the motion, but there called on to bring forward a question con- was nothing new to account for it. If it cerning the noble lord opposite, on which were agreed to, he was convinced it would occasion an amendment had been moved be found to be a singular instance, nor by a right hon. gent., then one of the se- had it ever yet been attempted to overcretaries of state, which had been entered turn a vote of the House of such a nature, on the Journals. To this resolution, being at so recent a date. In the case of Wilkes, in complete contradiction to a previous no doubt, the resolutions had been exresolution, also on the Journals of the punged, but that was at a considerable inHouse, frequent allusions had been made terval of time, and by a different parlia in petitions to that House, and it had been ment. The motion now proposed was neirepeatedly thrown in their teeth. Cap- ther more nor less than an attempt to try tious objections had in consequence been his noble friend twice for the same offence. taken to the wording of these petitions, al- He did not quite approve of the conduct of though no notice was taken of the allu- his noble friend in the transaction in quessions to this more offensive and obnoxious tion, but still he had been tried; the House resolution. His noble friend, therefore, had expressed their opinion as to his concame forward to night, not to renew the duct; and he, for one, could not consent question in which the noble lord was con- that he should be subjected to a second cerned, but to point out the contradiction, trial.If the present notion had been and to move to have the resolution ex- brought forward by almost any other perpunged. What attack the noble lord saw son than his noble friend, of whose strict in this against him, he could not conceive. sense of honour and justice he entertained It was, no doubt, true that the charge ap- the highest opinion, he should have been pearing on the face of a report of a com-led to suppose it something like an atmittee which remained on the record, his noble friend or any other person might renew the question; but still the noble lord opposite would not be worse; he would only stand on the same ground as before. But still his noble friend had declared, that he had no such intention, and all he wished was to have the resolution expunged as not creditable to the honour or the character of the House. He could not see that there was in this any attack on the noble lord opposite, and he should therefore vote for the motion. The Hon. J. W. Ward said the noble lord who had just sat down, had been pleased to express his surprise that his noble friend (Castlereagh) should have viewed the present motion as an attack upon him. For his own part, he could not forbear from expressing his surprise, that his two noble friends on his side of the House could have viewed it in a different light. After a serious charge had been brought forward against his noble friend, and the House had come to a resolution acquitting him, it was now proposed to expunge that resolution, and yet his noble friend was told that this did not affect him personally. He believed his two noble friends to be sincere in their declarations on this subject; but, at the same time, he could not have supposed it possible that two persons of such good sense as they possessed, tempt to catch at popularity among a class of persons who were pleased to attach to the subject connected with the resolution infinitely too much importance. He should have been almost persuaded to think, that it was an attempt to flatter a certain class of men who wished that House not at all to exist. There was only one change which had taken place, as connected with his noble friend since the resolution, now proposed to be expunged, was passed. On his former trial he was a minister of the crown, which he was not now. And should it be said that that House refused to inflict any punishment on a minister of the crown, but adopted a different and more severe line of proceeding the moment he became a private and unprotected individual? He Mr. Ord understood the motion of his noble friend to be founded on generals, totally distinct from the merits of the case of the noble lord. On that ground he should support the motion. was one of those who had not been so much struck with the enormity of the case as others had been. He, therefore, presumed to hope, that he gave an unprejudiced vote in supporting the present motion, which he did from a conviction of the irreconcileable nature of the resolutions quoted by his noble friend. His noble friend, in bringing forward the present within that House. He could not forbear saying so, feeling how unmerited the reproof was, which he had received from his hon. friend: and that his hon. friend had been successful in his attempt to catch popula from the large tribute of praise with which his effort had been crowned. The honour and credit of the House, however, required that this resolution should be ex mind, impossible for the House justly to find fault with any disrespectful impression which might be used against them. When the resolution, on the other hand, should be expunged, a considerable void would be made in the materials, of which such petitions as those which they had lately been accustomed to see were in the use of being composed. When his hon. friend in the only part of his speech properly applying to the question alluded to, the case of Mr. Wilkes, he seemed to have forgotten that a motion for expunging the resolutions in that case had been made at a far more recent date, than the period when they were actually expunged. When the motion to that effect was first proposed, it was treated with more hostility than the motion he had now submitted; and he did not despair of seeing the day when not only the present resolution, but a similar one relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered on the Journals a few days after, should be expunged. If, however, the House were not disposed at present to pay that attention to public opinion he must wait till another parliament. But motion, he was convinced, sought only to | rescue the House from the unfortunate predicament into which it had fallen, and to wipe out one of the foulest blots that had ever been cast upon them, and which they were obliged to submit to the indig-rity within the House, was to be inferred nity of having constantly thrown in their teeth. The question being called for, Lord A. Hamilton rose to reply. He could not but extremely regret that the noble lord opposite should, notwithstand-punged. While it remained, it was, to his ing his declaration to the contrary, have been pleased to conceive that the present motion was at all meant to affect him; or to use his own expression, that he meant to bring him to trial a second time. He had assured the noble lord that such was not his object, and in the course of his statement had carefully avoided any thing that could lead or give colour to such an idea. The noble lord, however, should recollect, that there were other parties besides himself concerned in this question. The dignity of the House of Commons was interested, and it was more becoming to consider the character of the House of Commons than the feelings of the noble lord. The noble lord had attributed to him a desire, by the present motion, to do him injustice, but had not pointed out any other mode by which the stigma of which he complained might be wiped off from the House. His lordship could not help feeling the entry in question most unfortunate and disgraceful to the House; and, if it could not be expunged without seeming to affect the noble lord, must it not be effaced at all, but remain a disgrace and reproach to the House of Com-he submitted to the House whether they mons? No part of his conduct warranted, he presumed to hope, the idea that he could be actuated by personal considerations. His hon. friend (Mr. Ward) therefore had hardly given him credit for his conduct on the present occasion, though he had at the same time been pleased to compliment him. He assured his hon. friend, however, that in such a case he would rather have his censure unaccompanied by his praise. His hon. friend had said, if the motion had come from some other persons he should have conceived it an attempt to catch at popularity. He however, could not forbear being impressed with the idea that his hon. friend himself was, at the moment he was making the observation, much more liable to such an imputation. His hon. friend seemed at that moment to have been en gaged in an attempt to catch at popularity did not expose themselves to the worst of all reproach, by not saying that the charge of their being resolved to connive at corruption was untrue, instead of allowing an admission to that effect to remain on their own Journals, He again said, that he had no intention that the noble lord should be twice tried for the same offence; but was it to be maintained, because an individual might feel hurt from an idea that the expunging of certain resolutions conveyed a reflection on him, which, however, was disclaimed by the person proposing the measure, that therefore entries of a discreditable and disgraceful nature to the House must continue on its Journals? Mr. Ward and Lord Castlereagh explained, disclaiming any idea of imputing any improper motives to the noble mover. The motion was then put and negatived without a division. (ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITIONS.] On the motion for a Committee to consider the Roman Catholic Petitions, make partial laws, or a different code for different parts of the same community. Again, the Legislature cannot, in justice, make arbitrary laws, or disabling statutes on account of accidental differences. Again, the legislature has no right to punish the operations of the mind, for she has no right to know them. Again, the legislature has no right to punish religion, or that relationship which man holds to his God independent of society. In answer to this it is said, that the Catholic code does not come within these descriptions, because the Catholic religion is connected with disaffection. Let us bring the objection to the test, and suppose a Catholic indicted for treason, and that the counsel for the prosecution tendered in proof, that he had committed the offences which the disqualifying oath abjures; namely, that he paid adoration to the Virgin Mary, received the wafer as the real presence, and considered the Pope as the best interpreter of the scriptures. Let me suppose the counsel, de Mr. Grattan spoke in substance as follows; That he was always happy to keep open a communication between the Parliament and the people, and particularly anxious that an arrangement with the Catholics should be contemplated as practicable; that he stated his intention to rest his motion on two grounds, domestic nomination, and civil capacities; with regard to the former, he considered the proposition as perfectly compatible with the rights of the Catholic church. Domestic nomination, obtained with the consent of the Pope, whether placed in the chapter, or the Catholic bishops, did not affect the Pope's authority of investiture of institution, or any of his spiritual functions: it is what has taken place in most Catholic countries; it has taken place in Protestant ones; it was part of a proposition of the Irish Catholic bishops, in 1799, and it is at present the practical constitution of the Irish Catholic church, for in gene-rided for such an attempt, should make ral the Irish Catholic church nominates. This proposition will be rendered the more necessary if the veto be withheld, otherwise there would be no domestic check on a foreign, and perhaps a French, appointment of Irish bishops. Let me suppose the Pope to be made by Buonaparté, to be a French subject, and to nominate by his direction Catholic bishops for Ireland. If under that circumstance an invasion should happen, I wish to know what would be our situation with French troops and French bishops in our country. The people of England may say to the Irish, follow your faith, we do not understand your religion; but there is one religion which we do understand, and which should be common to both of us, a perpetual separation from the politics of France; this should be our common faith; without it no Protestant is safe, and with it no Catholic is dangerous. The Catholics of Tipperary have answered that call, and agree; the Catholics of Kildare have done the same; the Catholic clergy, on consideration, cannot hesitate, because it is doing no more than has been done, and is now done in Catholic countries, and was proposed in 1799 by themselves. With regard to the second part of the subject, I beg to premise some general rules. And first, the Legislature has no right (I speak of justice, not power) to VOL. XVII. another essay, and tender, as evidence of treason, the canons of the council of Lateran. Such an advocate would be laughed out of Westminster Hall; or the judge, who suffered such evidence to go to a jury, would be removed and punished; and yet this very evidence, for the tender of which against a single man a lawyer would be scorned and for the admission of which a judge would be punished, is the ground on which we im pose a code of disabilities, not on an individual, but on the fourth part of the community and their generation. I will abridge the charge against the Catholics: it is nearly as follows; namely, that they believe that the Pope has a deposing power-has, in this country, a temporal power: that they hold the doctrine of, no faith with heretics;' that they believe that the Pope is infallible; that they hold that he has a power to absolve from moral obligation; and that they are hostile to the establishments in church, state and property. To establish this monstrous libel, the framers havé brought no proof whatever; and to disestablish these charges, ar given three answers: 1st, the reply of the six universities; 2dly, the oath of the Catholics; and 3dly, the impossibility of the truth of the charges. With regard to the universities, three questions were proposed; namely, whether the Pope or cardinals had, in these countries, any temporal power? whether they had a deposing power? and, whether the Catholic church maintained that with relation to heretics no faith was to be regarded? The six universities (those of Salamanca, Louvain, Paris, Valadolid, Douar, and Alcala) distinctly and indignantly answer, that the Pope and cardinals have, in these countries, no temporal powerhave no deposing power; and that the supposition of the doctrine of no faith with heretics, is equally false, injurious, and abominable. say to this? will he become a false witness against his country? Well, according to this, the religion is acquitted, and we must search for the source of censure in physical or moral causes. But there is no physical cause producing moral depravity: God punishes, but he does not corrupt. We have no idea of a moral pesti lence, least of all of a party plague, which should visit the house of the Catholic, and obediently retire from that of the Protestant, living in the same vicinity: such a supposition is nonsense. The cause cannot be physical, it must be moral, therefore; that is to say, it must be the laws: it cannot be wealth that has caused this perversity in Ireland, it must be the penal laws and penal government. It seems, then, the charge goes not against the Catholics, but against your system of governing them; and pronounces, that you have been in possession of Ireland for 500 years, and that the result of your connection has been, the unparalleled de pravity of the inhabitants. However untrue the charge may be, the general system is the ground of it; it is the ground of whatever alienation towards this country may be supposed to harbour in the minds of the Irish Catholics: or do you suppose it is the soil of freland, or the air, or the Eucharist, that produce that conclusion: and not the laws, that took from the Catholics their land, their arms, and their civil liberty. The laws, or the penal system, are a partial attainder of the people in mass, not on account of acts, but on an al The second answer to the charges is the oath of 1793, proposed and enacted by the Irish parliament, which abjures the temporal power of the pope, his dispensing power, the doctrine of no faith with heretics; abjures the pope's infallibility, as an article of the Catholic faith; and swears the Catholic to the support of the Protestant state, church, and property. This oath has been taken by the Catholics generally, and is conclusive on the Protestant who made it, a test of his affection, and on the Catholic, by whom thattest has been taken. The third answer regards the impossi-w bility of the truth of the charges; for they amount to a criminality, which would have rendered the Catholic incapable of civil government or foreign relationship; it amounts to a transfer of allegiance, and a dissolution of the elements of human society. The existence of society, and of government, in Catholic nations, is the practical answer. But there is another answer, more conclusive and authorita-legation of character; which character is tive; that is to say, that the charge is irreconcilable to the truth of the Christian religion: it supposes the Catholic to be more depraved than either pagan or idolater. But the Catholics are by far the majority of the Christians; it would follow, that the majority of the worshippers of Christ are worse than the worshippers of Jove, or of Mahomed. But that is not all; they are, according to this charge, rendered thus execrable by their religion; it would follow, that the design of Christianity had been defeated; that omniscience had been blind, omnipotence baffled; and, that what we call redemption, was the increase of sin and decrease of salvation: that is to say, that the Christian religion is not divine. They who make the charge, must therefore abandon their argument or their religion. No, it is replied, it is not the Catholic religion, but the Irish Catholic, we object to. What will an Irishman not proved, is not true, and has no possibility of truth, except such as may arise from oppression. I conclude this part of the subject by observing that there is nothing either in the Catholic religion, or in the composition of the Irish Catholics, that warrants the objection. We are told we are to look for that objection in the fundamental laws of England, and in the oath of the king. It is late, very late, to tell us this; before the Union we should have known it. What, have you taken away the Irish parliament, and then do you tell the Irish Catholics that by the fundamental laws of the land, they must be excluded from yours; did Mr. Pitt think thus when he held out that expectation; did his cabinet?-Come let us examine the laws alluded to; namely, the declaration of right, and the limitation of the descent of the crown; I bow to these sacred instru |