Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

eloquence habitual to him; but as
his path lay directly through all
those topics which had already so
often been brought forwards in the
former debates on the Catholic
question, it would be superfluous
prolixity to go through his train of
argument, and we shall only tran-
scribe the motion with which he
concluded. It was,
"That this
house will, early in the next session
of parliament, take into its most
serious consideration the state of
the laws affecting his Majesty's
Roman Catholic subjects in Great
Britain and Ireland; with a view
to such a final and conciliatory ad-
justment, as may be conducive to
the peace and strength of the
united kingdom; to the stability of
the protestant establishment; and
to the general satisfaction and con-
cord of all classes of his Majesty's
subjects."

General Matthew, who spoke next, moved as an amendment, "That the house should take the Catholic claims into their early and immediate consideration, and go into a committee upon them on Thursday next."

Of the debate which followed, we shall, for the reason above assigned, decline giving a sketch. One of the most observable circumstances was, that Lord Castlereagh made a liberal declaration in favour of an inquiry into the Ca. tholic claims. That the general feeling of the house was similar was proved on the division, when, after the amendment of General Matthew had been negatived, the original motion was carried by the decisive majority of 235 to 106. In the House of Lords, on July 1, the Marquis Wellesley, after a strong argumentative speech, but

of which the topics were such as had been amply dwelt upon in former debates, made a motion precisely the same with that of Mr. Canning. The previous question was moved upon it by the Lord Chancellor, and a number of lords on each side declared their sentiments upon the subject, in the arguments and observations already so often repeated. The division showed an extraordinary balance of opinion in the members of that house. On the motion of the previous question, the numbers were, contents, present, 74, proxies 52, total 126; non-contents, present, 74, proxies 51, total 125, majority 1.

Ministers, and their usual supporters, were ranged on each side; and of the royal dukes, two voted on one side, and three on the other.

Even the bench of bishops was divided, though UBequally, for 15 supported the previous question, and three alone opposed it.

Such was the state in which the close of the session left the very important question of Catholic emancipation.

In the debates concerning Lord Sidmouth's motion of last year to make alterations in the act of toleration, it had been stated, that different decisions respecting the meaning of certain clauses of that act had been given by the justices at the quarter sessions of different counties. It was, therefore, a laudable purpose of government to introduce a legal exposition of them which might prevent any future disagreement.

On July 10, Lord Castlereagh moved the bringing in of a bill to repeal certain acts, and amend other acis, relating to religious

worship

worship and assemblies, and persons teaching or preaching therein. He stated that in consequence of certain decisions at the quarter sessions, doubts had arisen as to the question of qualification; and that the object of this bill was to place the dissenters in the situation in which they practically stood previously to such decisions. The bill was brought in and read.

At the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, July 20, Mr. W. Smith congratulated the house on the unanimity with which it had hitherto passed, as a favourable omen of the increasing liberality of the times. He thought it would remove the practical evils of which the dissenters had to complain, although it did not recognize their great principle, that the civil magistrate had no right to interfere in matters of religious opinion. It removed the arbitrary discretion of magistrates, and required no other oath than that of allegiance. As an act of toleration, it was certainly the most complete which had hitherto been passed in this country. The honourable member concluded by moving a clause "to continue the exemptions now enjoyed by the toleration act, without requiring a fresh oath."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred with the honourable gentleman in his congratulations, which he was happy to consider as not arising from indifference to religion, since the same parliament had distinguished itself by its bountiful regards to the established church; and he instanced in the grants made to the parochial clergy, and the exemption of the smaller livings from the land-tax. He gave the late Mr. Perceval the credit both of those measures, and of

the design of the present bill. He alluded to an intention of the honourable gentleman to have brought in a bill for the protection of a particular sect (the Unitarians), and was glad that he had not put it into execution; for he believed the persons in question were in no danger of molestation, and such a bill might have given great offence to many well meaning persons, by exposing doctrines, to contumely which were generally viewed with great veneration. a future session means might be devised to reconcile the respect due to those doctrines with a full protection to the decent profession of opposite opinions.

In

Mr. Whitbread said he had examined the bill, and found it the same that he had intended to have brought in, and drew the same happy inferences from its silent progress as his honourable friend had done. had done. He hoped this spirit would continue till the great work of religious freedom received its final consummation.

Mr Smith's clause was then brought up and agreed to, and the bill was read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the bill in the House of Lords was moved, on July 23, by the Earl of Liverpool, who observed that the subject could not be properly entered into without repealing certain acts which remained on the statute book, but which no one would now think of putting in force. Among these were the conventicle, and the five-mile acts. The latter was entirely abrogated: some parts of the former were retained in another shape. In order to com.. bine the most ample toleration with the requisite securities, it was pro

posed

posed in the present bill to give to places for religious worship notoriety and publicity, and to require from the preachers and teachers of the same some test or security in the oaths taken by them. Meetings for worship in which the persons assembled did not exceed 20 above the family of the occupier of the house, were exempt from any restriction. Others were required to be registered, and their meetings were to be held with unbolted doors. The preachers of congregations were to take the required oaths at the sessions, but were not required to take them antecedently to their exercising the duties of teaching and preaching.

Earl Stanhope objected to the bill, that it was founded in its preamble and clauses upon expediency alone, and did not recognize the right of religious worship, which he contended to be the unalienable right of man.

Lord Holland, though he agreed with his noble friend as to this right, was nevertheless a warm friend to the bill, as so much gained to the cause of toleration.

Viscount Sidmouth could not give his unqualified approbation to the bill. He regretted the extension of the number allowed at unregistered meetings, from five to twenty. He thought the exemptions granted from civil duties and the militia might lead to abuses; and he particularly lamented that no qualification was required from preachers or teachers, but that all persons, whatever might be their ignorance or moral character, might assume the office on taking the oaths. He did not, however, mean to oppose the bill.

The Lord Chancellor expressed a dissent from the clause granting

exemptions, but said it would be best judged of in the committee. The bill was then read a second time, and committed.

In the committee on this bill, July 24, the Lord Chancellor objected to the clause granting exemptions to teachers and preachers exercising any other profession or occupation; and contended that complete justice was done by the exemption before, granted to all teachers or preachers exercising no other profession except that of a schoolmaster. He, therefore, moved to strike out the clause.

Lord Holland was disposed to acquiesce in this amendment, but was doubtful how it might affect dissenting ministers in the possession of land.

The Lord Chancellor thought that the same rule might apply to them, as did to the established clergy; namely, that though they could not take land to farm, yet that being in possession of a lease of land in consequence of the death of a relation, or holding land in fee simple, was not considered as farming. The clause was truck out.

Earl Stanhope moved some amendments which were negatived, and the bill passed through the committee. The report was received on the next day, when the bill passed.

It is to be observed that Earl Stanhope had some time before introduced into the House of Lords a bill "For preventing the imposi tion of disabilities upon persons on account of religious opinions, or the exercise of their religion," which was founded on the enlarged principles that he held on these subjects, and in supporting which he took

occasion

H

occasion to speak very slightingly of the former then intended bill. The second reading of his bill was, however, negatived by a division of 31 against 10.

The defeat in the fast session of the attack upon information exofficio did not prevent the noble lord (Holland), who had a principal share in it, from bringing the matter again before parliament, though in a different shape. His Jordship, on July 3, presented to the House of Lords two bills relative to ex-officio informations, the object of the first of which he stated to be, to prevent delay between the commission of the offence and the filing of the information, and between the latter and proceed. ing to trial; and that of the second, to repeal so much of the act of the 48th of the King, as related to holding persons to bail upon ex officio informations. They were then read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The order of the day for the second reading being moved on the 17th, Lord Holland rose, and made his introductory speech on the sub-, ject. As the whole of his argument, as well as those which followed, were of a legal nature, it is impossible to do them justice in the abridged form which our compass would admit, and we must therefore content ourselves historically with a sketch of the result. His lordship, after arguing at length upon the abuses to which these informations were liable, and the power they gave of inflicting penalties upon obnoxious persons, for which the law gave no redress, came to the purport of the bill he intended to move, which was only the first of the above-mentioned,

the late period of the session having induced him to defer the second. He said, it was a measure merely of regulation. It leit untouched the purposes for which these informations were instituted: it did not interfere with the speedy prosecution of enormous offences; but meant to counteract that principle by which the terror of a criminal information was kept hanging over a man's head. The first clause enacted, that no information should be filed by the attorney-general within Great Britain and Ireland, unless it should be filed and exhibited in a given time (to be specified) after the misdemeanor or offence committed. The second was, that if any infor mation ex officio be not proceeded upon, and the offender brought to trial within so many months, all further procedings upon the same should cease, except such trial should, upon cause shewn, have been postponed by a rule or order of the King's Bench. His lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.

Lord Ellenborough expressed his surprise at the bill which had been brought in, and wished his lordship had taken better advice on the subject. He made many legal objections to it, and showed the inconveniences to which it would give rise. He concluded with saying, that it was of so light and frivolous a nature, that he would not propose that it be read a second time this day three months, but would treat it as it deserved, by moving" that it be rejected."

Lord Erskine stated a number of arguments in defence of the bill, and said, with respect to some of the objections made by the chief

justice,

justice, which applied to the bill as now printed, that his noble friend had professed his willingness to amend it. To the bill, if confined to cases of libel, and guarded in its limitations, he not only saw no objections, but considered that it would be productive of the greatest good, by removing odium from the administration of criminal justice.

After a reply by Lord Holland, the house divided on Lord Ellenborough's amendment, contents, 16; non-contents, 7: majority against the bill, 9.

This question acquired additional interest from a circumstance which happened about this time in Ireland and became a matter of debate in parliament. On July 13, Mr. Sheridan said, in the House of Commons, that he understood that an ex officio prosecution had been commenced against Mr. Fitzgerald, a printer in Ireland, for the publication of a pamphlet containing a statement of the various acts affecting the Roman Catholics, accompanied with observations, which he had read, and saw nothing in it libellous but the acts themselves. The notice served on Fitzgerald was extremely curious: it required him to show cause before Mr. Saurin, the attorney-general, at his house in Stephen's green, why a criminal information should not be filed against him. He submitted that a proceeding of this nature was quite illegal, and should now move for the production of a copy of it.

Lord Castlereagh said that this was the first time he had heard of the subject, and he hoped the hon. gentleman would not press his

motion without a notice; to which Mr. Sheridan acceded,

Mr. Sheridan, on July 21, rose in pursuance of this notice, to call the attention of the house to the summons sent by the attorney-general of Ireland to Mr. Fitzgerald. He related the fact as above stated, and said, that he knew not on what authority an attorney-general could require a man's attendance at his own house, but he knew that such a practice might lead to mischievous consequences. Supposing an ignorant man should be sumoned in that manner, the attorney-general might ask him to sit down, tête-a-tête with him, perhaps over a bottle of wine, is his nice snug little back parlour of a star-chamber, where he might be induced to utter unguarded things which might tend to his prejudice when he came to his trial. He did not suspect any such design from Mr. Saurin; but the esteem in which he stood rendered it the more necessary to examine his proceedings. He understood that Mr. Fitzpatrick did attend the summons, and that the attorney-general had nothing to say to him. Mr. Sheridan concluded with moving, that a copy of the notice in question be laid before the house.

Mr. Wellesley Pole stated it to have been the ordinary practice in Ireland for the attorney-general to give notice to the party against whom an information was about to be filed, of such an intention, and to call upon an individual to show cause why such information should not be filed; the purpose of which was not to draw from him what he might have to offer. in his defence, but to give him an opportunity

« ForrigeFortsett »