but this principle was not to be carried beyond due bounds, and the measure of the danger was to be the measure of the exclusion. On this principle the constitution was established at the revolution, by which the power of the state was vested in those who professed its religion, and, at the same time, complete toleration was granted to all who held different tenets. On this principle the crown was subject to a religious test, best suited to our constitutional principles; and on the same grounds had protestant dissenters been for a century and a half excluded from the offices of the state, because they were supposed to be but imperfect ly attached to its government; and thus had catholics been excluded from these offices, as well as from parliament, because their principles were supposed to have been incon sistent with their allegiance. The laws pressing on the dissenters had from time to time been alleviated, but not repealed; and Mr. Windham, in the memorable debates of 1796, had said, that in self-defence we ought not to repeal them. These laws had been relaxed, on the ground of the tried loyalty of the protestant dissenters; but the principles imputed, whether justly or not, to the Roman catholics, were inconsistent with such relaxation with respect to this body. In this principle he concurred, and he was supported by Mr. Burke, in his tract on the popery laws of Ireland, who had distinctly given it as his opinion, that the exclusion of the catholics from parliament was a necessary and politic provision. Whatever he (the speaker) thought of the admission of the catholics to the army and navy, it was essentially different between making them instruments, and taking them as guides. He did not think that the maxims of our ancestors were safely to be departed from, but he was as willing as any man to allow a wide field for honourable exer tion. These were the principles on which he thought the bill should be considered. Of the bill, the object was to admit the catholics into parliament, and into the great offices, civil, military, and judicial. And finally, as to parliament, if that were granted, all other ulterior objects must follow. Taking the catholics as individuals, or as a body, what would be the consequences? As individuals, they might, from their talents, become leaders of parties, and thence the servants of the crown. Here, then, would be a most formidable junction of means and motives; and if their ambition were checked in the ordinary course, to what violent measures would they not have inducements and the power to resort? As a body, the catholics in that house would be a formidable mass of strength, which, aided by the body of discontent which must exist in every state, would form an overwhelming force. He did not say this with any injurious reference to any individual, but he thought that the bill had a tendency to produce such effects; and one of his reasons for objecting to the bill was, that he feared that he should not have the pleasure of seeing in that house the right honourable gentleman opposite to him, (Mr. Grattan,) and other members for Ireland. As to judicial offices, it was not to be supposed that in civil cases, as to the rights of the protestant church, a catholic judge could impartially administer the law; nor (setting aside the graver cases of criminal law) was it to be thought that even in causes between indivis individual and individual, he could discharge his functions to the satis faction of the country. To the admission of catholics to all military offices short of those which admit ted them to civil power, he could have no objection. Their admission to corporations (he thought) should stand on the footing of protestant nonconformists, that is, that they should be dispensed from taking the sacramental tests, and protected by an annual bill of indemnity. On the same footing they should also have been placed as to admission to the universities, subject to the particular statutes of those corporations. His objections to the bill were not on the ground of what it contained alone, but on the ground of what it omitted. No restraints were imposed on the existing religious houses no security against their increase: There were at present in this country, Benedictines, Dominicans, and specimens of almost all the monastic orders. The fund at Stoneyhurst was enough (he should have thought) to have awakened the jealousy of the house. By this institution young men were sent for education to Sicilya su spicious education for the youth who were to officiate through Ireland. There should have been also some restraint on the spiritual excommunication, of which the instances in 1791 were so deeply and feelingly lamented by the English catholics. Such a practice was derogatory to sovereign rights, and should not have been suffered to pass unnoticed. Why should there not have been included in this bill a protection of Roman catholic soldiers in their peculiar worship? Why not include an exemption from the necessity of solemnizing their marriages in protestant sburches? The places of worship also of this sect should have been put on the same footing of protec tion in Ireland as in England. The omission of these points showed how little regard the framers of the bill had paid to religious toleration. Their sole object was political as cendancy. The dangers he apprehended from this bill were not visionary. On such a subject they must look to the future; for when the flood had begun to rush through, it would be too late to repair the breach. The house should not overrate its guards; they should consider whether they formed an equivalent for which they should barter their protestant constitution. On the great majority of catholics the papal authority had the same influence as ever, and all the catholic prelates bowed to it. This authority might be exercised, too, by mere personal agency, without any commission. It was this fea ture which made Clarendon and Somers, as statesmen, Locke, as a political philosopher, and king William, as a sovereign prince, declare that such a religion was inconsistent with the British constitution; and from the instance which had recently occurred in Spain, they might see that such a religion would not be safe as a guest, much less so as a co-estate with our civil government. These reasons would govern his vote on the bill, which he had thought it better to state thus generally at that time, to avoid troubling the committee at a future stage. Those however who intended to oppose the bill, should make their stand on the admission of the catholics into the two houses of parliament. He should, therefore, when the chairman came to that clause, move that the clause be left out. Mr. Whitbread said that the right honoura honourable gentleman had fallen into that common-place and hustings error, of which they had heard so much at the elections some years ago, that because the crown might make a catholic an officer of state, all officers of state would be catholics; that when the doors of parliament were opened to catholics, not a protestant would be returned; there was to be such a combination in favour of catholics too, that even the wearer of the crown in Ireland was to be a catholic. Whence, however, were these combinations to flow? The speaker had referred to the authorities of Clarendon and Somers, forgetting the great difference between a catholic of that and of the present day; the distinction was as great as between light and darkness; not in the tenets of religion, but in the feelings they entertained for the protestants. The political animosity arising from circumstances had, with those circumstances, been extinguished: there was no longer a pretender to be supported, and a protestant sovereign was now the undisputed occupant of the throne:' from the wisdom, abilities, and statesman-like views of the authorities quoted, it was fair to presume, that had they lived to witness the progress of this bill, their opinions would have been diametrically opposed to the sentiments they formerly promulgated. Notwithstanding his approbation of parts of this measure, and his declaration that in some respects it did not accomplish all he desired, the speaker had not expressed any willingness, should he succeed in his amendment, to assist in the formation of a new structure out of the ruins of the old pile, with additions and improvements in his own taste. Although he lamented the situation of the Irish soldier, labouring under his arms without a hope of promotion, he had suggested for him no relief. No doubt this omission was owing to the technicalities of his situation, that did not allow him to interfere; but if the sentiments he had tonight delivered were not the ephiemeral productions of the instant, how must he have pitied the long and vain labours of those who had attempted on former occasions to administer a temporary and partial relief to the catholics! with what pain must he have occupied the chair, to which he was by forms confined, and with what difficulty must he have restrained those bursts of eloquent indignation at the defeat of a measure, which it appeared, from his speech of to-night, he deemed of vital importance! At this moment, however, he appeared ready to do nothing: he imparted no plan, not even in a whisper, to his nearest friends; not even to the two mighty pillars of the church (Messrs. Ryder and Yorke) seated together; to those massive props, who, anxious for employment, volunteered to support that which did not need their aid; to those two giants of intolerance, the Gog and Magog of the day, who boasted themselves equal to all antagonists; to those Samsons in debate, who were to defeat millions of enemies, with the same weapon that was em ployed by their prototype against the embattled Philistines. To them, even to them, the right honourable gentleman had been profoundly silent on the subject of concession, while he had endeavoured to alarm the house by imaginary horrors at the revival of monastic institutions. Where were these institutions, these gloomy convents and terrific inquisitions? To Mr. Whitbread they appeared appeared dangers in disguise, through which alone the piercing eyes of the speaker, and of an hon. baronet (sir J. C. Hippisley), could penetrate. The dearth of argument on the other side was proved by nothing more than by the pains that were taken to revive and reprint the opinions urged many years ago during the existence of the Irish parliament, when it was said, as at present, that one concession would lead to another, that the first step brought us to the brink of a precipice, down which we must inevitably plunge. The speaker had gone so far as to maintain, that from parliament the catholics would step into place and power, and would not be satisfied until they had attained possession even of the crown of Ireland. [The speaker said across the table," of the sovereign authority."] It might be so; but the word he (Mr. W.) recollected was the crown, purposely used for the sake of its ambiguity. He did not mean to criticize with too much severity the terms employed, but it was in this case more necessary on account of the weight attached to all that fell from so high an authority. The speaker of the house of commons by many people was considered infallible; and recollecting the unfair use always made of particular expressions out of doors, to what advantage might not the phrase employed to-night be turned by the designing, who would immediately put a dead stop to all reasoning among the lower orders, by observing, "The speaker of the house of commons says, that if this bill is passed, the crown itself may become catholic!" He (Mr. W.) fervently hoped that. the amendment moved by the speaker would be negatived, for without the original clause the bill was worthless. One main advantage of introducing catholics to parliament was to give vent to the catholic mind; to bring catholics and protestants together, that they might know each other better, and not be in dread of imaginary terrors supposed to surround them. The principle was on all hands admitted, and the specific measure was not resisted by the grave authority tonight heard until its latter stage: the battery of argument was now opened-the mine of invective was sprung; but the promoters of the bill would retire with confidence to their citadel, and defy the power of their enemies. The people of England were ripe for the measure which the people of Ireland anxiously expected, and to it he should give his firm support, at the same time being always ready to receive any assistance or advice which the speaker had hitherto withheld, but would now, he hoped, willingly communicate. A long and animated debate ensued, and the speaker's amendment was carried by a majority of 4, there being For it Against it 251 247 Mr. Ponsonby said, as the bill without this clause was neither worthy of the acceptance of the catholics, nor of the further sup port of the friends of concession, he would move that the chairman do now leave the chair; which being carried without a division, the bill was, of course, abandoned. 1813. CHAP CHAPTER III. The Speaker's Notice of a Letter from Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, which is read-Mr. Whitbread's Observations on it-Debates on Mr. C. Johnstone's Motion-Petition of Sir J. and Lady Douglas-Declarations of Lord Ellenborough and the other Law Lords-Debates on Mr. Whitbread's Assertions with regard to the Evidence of Mrs. Lisleon Mr. C. Johnstone's Motion on the Petition of the Douglases-on Mr. I'bitbread's Motion respecting the Earl of Moira. Johnstone respecting her royal highness the princess of Wales: we shall devote this chapter entire ly to the proceedings in parliament on the very interesting business, without intruding, in this place, any observations of our own. Mar. 2.-Immediately upon the meeting of the house, the speaker rose, and stated, that he felt it to be his duty to inform the house, that he had received yesterday, while seated in the chair of that house, a letter, purporting to come from her royal highness the princess of Wales, and which it was expressed to be her wish should be communicated to the house. The letter, however, being without date, and having been delivered to one of the messengers at the door of the house, the speaker did not think that it came to his hands in such an authenticated form as warranted him in laying it before the house. This day he had felt it incumbent on him to ascertain whether the letter was authentic or not; and from those inquiries, and from a letter which he had this day received from her royal highness the princess of Wales, acknow ledging that the letter of yesterday came from her, and inclosing a duplicate of it, he had now no longer any reason to doubt the letter's being authentic. With the fore, he should, if it was their permission of the house, there pleasure, read the letter he had received this day, with the duplicate of the letter of yesterday inclosed in it. The letter of this day, and its inclosure, were then read, as follows: "Montague House, Mar. 2, 1813. "The princess of Wales, by her own desire, as well as by the advice of her counsel, did yesterday transmit to Mr. speaker a letter, which she was anxious should be read without delay to the house of commons, and the princess requests that the said letter may be read this very day to the house of commons. The princess incloses Mr. speaker. a duplicate of the letter alluded to." The speaker then read the duplicate: Montague House, Mar. 1, 1813, "The princess of Wales informs Mr. speaker, that she has received from lord viscount Sidmouth a copy of a report made to his royal highness the prince regent, by a certain number of the members of the privy council, to whom, it appears, his royal highness had been advised to refer the consideration of the documents and other evidence respecting her character and conduct. "The report is of such a nature, that her royal highness is well persuaded that no person can read it without considering that it conveys most |