the Popish religion, is by law capable of exercising any regal authority that a Protestant king should, either in parliament, or with respect to the duties attached to the great executive offices in the state, conferring great political power, be advised by persons so reconciled, or holding such communion, or professing such religion. 3. Because it appears to us that when the establishment of 1688 was formed, and lords spiritual and temporal and commons are in our statutes stated to have taken into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the end of forming an establishment, in order that our religion, laws, and liberties, might not again be in danger of being subverted, and they deem 1. Because, should this bill pass into a law, the constitution of this realm (as at present established in church and state) must be materially affected by it, and it seems to me the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in parliament, the privy council, and almost all the great offices of the state, is a measure directly adverse to the first principles and true spirit of our Constitution, being Protestant, which I apprehend will thereby be pro-ed it fit that every king, who shall theregressively, and in the course of events, altogether subverted and overthrown; and to prevent such evil and disastrous consequences, no real and adequate securities (if any can be) are provided and embodied in this bill, nor is any compensation proposed for the concessions to be bestowed. 2. What relates to the navy and army I look upon to be essentially different, as they (the navy and army), in fact, exist only, by law, from year to year, the supplies for their support being in due manner granted accordingly. 3. And because I am of opinion those who are required to legislate upon this question cannot foresee, nor duly appreciate the result of it to ourselves and to posterity, whose welfare we are bound in our proceedings most scrupulously to consider, and whose just rights and interest we ought to maintain and protect unimpaired, equally with our own. (Signed) WALSINGHAM KENYON. The following Protests against the third reading of the Bill were entered on the Journals: Dissentient, 1. Because this bill, in its principle and enactments, in our judgment, tends materially at present to weaken, and threatens, finally, essentially to injure, that establishment in church and state which was formed in 1688, in order "that our religion, laws, and liberties, might not again be in danger of being subverted." 2. Because we do not think it consistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom, in which no person reconciled to, or holding communion with, the see or church of Rome, or professing after come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this realm, should at his coronation, or his coming to parliament, which should first happen, make, subscribe, and audibly repeat "the Declaration" mentioned in the statute made in the 30th year of Charles 2nd, entitled an act for the more effectually preserving the king's person and government, by disabling persons professing the Popish religion to sit in parliament, and also thought fit to continue in full force and effect the provisions of the same statute with respect to peers and members of the House of Commons claiming to sit and vote in the Houses of parliament, it must have been unquestionably their opinion that the Protestancy of the king alone was not a sufficient security for the Protestant reformed established religion, and that it must then have been the intention of the legislature that the king, lords, and commons, should all be Protestants-Protestant members of the legislature of a kingdom declared, in the language of its laws, to be a Protestant kingdom. 4. Because, although the present bill enacts, among other matters, that the "Declaration" required by the above-mentioned statute to be made and subscribed shall no longer be required to be made or subscribed by any of his majesty's subjects, and this enactment appears to have been made with intent to the enabling persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to sit in parliament, the act of the first year of William and Mary appears still to be left in full force and effect, which requires the king succeeding to the imperial crown of this kingdom to make and subscribe the Declaration contained in the act of the 30th Charles 2nd, by its titles stated to be an act for more effectually preserving the king's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in parliament. becoming members in either House of parliament are not to be required to make the Declaration contained in the before-mentioned statute of Car. 2nd, we, and all the present members of this House, have solemnly professed, in the presence of God, our disbelief as to transubstantiation, and our belief that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the church of Rome, are 5. Because the statutes which have been referred to in the course of the debates upon this bill, either repealing penal acts heretofore enforced against the Roman Catholics, or statutes altering the periods at which persons admitted to offices and places of trust were to take the oaths required to be taken by such persons, or the Annual Indemnity acts, do not, in our opi-"superstitious and idolatrous," and the nion, justify the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament, or into offices of state conferring very great political power, into which, by this act, they are to be admitted. 6. Because it appears to us, that it cannot be reasonably hoped that persons summoned by the king's writ to parliament, to advise the Crown in urgent and weighty matters concerning the church and state of this Protestant kingdom, if they are conscientiously attached to the church of Rome, can give due support to our established reformed Protestant church, its concerns and interests, as we apprehend it may be made to appear, upon a due consideration of the decrees and canons of their church, and of the oaths required to be taken by their bishops and priests, and from the writings of their members, that there is reason to apprehend that the united Protestant church of England and Ireland, and the Protestant church of Scotland will not be by them admitted to be branches of the Catholic Christian church. kings of this realm are still required, as above-mentioned, solemnly so to declare upon the occasion aforementioned. 9. Because, although we have been repeatedly told that the present measures of parliament are measures which are finally to settle a long-agitated question, we are convinced, regard being paid to the feelings of the king's Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects, that they cannot be expected to have such effect; and experience seems to have demonstrated that concession does not and will not stifle demand; and the declarations of persons, both lay and ecclesiastical, appear to sanction the opinion that concessions will be asked as long as any thing remains that can be conceded; and the rather, because, at the time when this bill has been brought forward, the measure may probably be thought the effect of intimidation. 10. Because, though the Protestant church of England and Ireland, and the Protestant church of Scotland, are by former laws declared to be churches essentially and inviolably to be maintained and preserved, such declaration alone cannot be effectual inviolably to maintain them; and if this bill tends to injure those churches, and repeal enactments of law necessary for their support, as we think it does, both in its principle and enactments, the declaration that they are to be inviolably maintained can give them no effectual support. 7. Because we are now called upon to consent to admit into parliament, and into offices of great political power (with the exception only of offices few, and much too few in number), those who are by the bill exempted from acknowledging the king's supremacy in matters ecclesiastical or spiritual, and required to acknowledge it only in matters temporal or civil, although it seems to us that it cannot be 11. Because we cannot admit that any reasonably denied that, according to the such necessity for this bill has either been doctrines of the church of Rome, jurisdic-proved or stated as can justify our assent tion and authority in matters of a temporal and civil nature have been usurped and exercised in the united kingdom, connected with foreign influence, under the pretence that such matters are only of a spiritual nature, or that they are spiritual only because the authority is exercised in ordine ad spiritualia. 8. Because, although persons hereafter to it, considering the serious mischiefs, both to the church and state, which we are afraid that the passing of this bill will occasion. 12. Because we are now about to tender to his majesty this bill for his royal assent, and his majesty must naturally be induced to suppose that we have dutifully and fully attended to his gracious recommendation communicated to us on the first day of the session, in which he was pleased to recommend to us to take into our deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and to review the laws which impose disabilities on his Roman Catholic subjects, and to consider whether the removal of those disabilities could be effected consistently with the great object referred to in his majesty's, recommendation-the full and permanent security in church and state, according to his majesty's recommendation; and we cannot admit that this House has taken into its deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland, which consideration, we conceive, his majesty deemed to be necessary, in order to enable us to judge satisfactorily whether any and what disabilities could be safely removed. (Signed) ELDON. The following peers afterwards signed the protest-Winchilsea and Nottingham, Ernest, T. Sarum, Arden, Bexley, Mayo, Hay (Kinnoull), Mansfield, Brownlow, Farnham, Sidmouth, Farnborough, Clanbrassil (earl of Roden), Ailesbury, Abingdon, Romney, Longford, Enniskillen, Rolle, Kenyon, Lorton, O'Neill, Verulam, Thomond, Norwich (duke of Gordon), Digby, Shaftesbury, Falmouth, Skelmersdale, Newcastle, Feversham, and Bradford. Dissentient, 1. Because the principle of exclusion of the Roman Catholics from parliament was recognized and sanctioned at the period of the Revolution, when that principle was extended to the Crown, thereby completing that essentially and exclusively Protestant Constitution, and by which the Protestant establishments of these kingdoms have been from that time secured. 2. Because no security, except that of a legislature exclusively Protestant, as settled at the Revolution, can be adequate to the permanent protection of the Protestant establishments of these kingdoms. 3. Because, therefore, the Protestant character of the two Houses of parliament is as essential to the constitution as the Protestant character of the royal branch of the legislature. 4. Because it does appear that the present bill cannot be passed into a law consistently with a strict observance of the Coronation Oath, which oath, like every other, ought to be construed according to the plain obvious meaning of the words, in the sense in which it was framed and in which it was taken. 5. Because it is impossible to reconcile with that oath the admission to political and legislative power, of Roman Catholics, who, in proportion to their conscientious attachment to their church, are bound by the duty which they owe to that church to use their endeavours to remove what that church condemns as a dangerous heresy, and to restore to that church those rights, that authority, and that establishment, of which they consider the Roman Catholic church to have been wrongfully dispossessed. 6. Because the Roman Catholic church, claiming infallibility, has never herself disclaimed any of those doctrines or pretensions which give just ground of objection and alarm to Protestants; and, denying the right of any individual to judge for himself in matters of faith, doctrine, or church government, has de prived any disclaimer by individuals of that authority to which from individual character, it might otherwise have been entitled. 7. Because laws, which are of vital and permanent importance to the religious and political constitution of this country, ought not to be sacrificed to a measure of alleged expediency, the good effects of which, if any, can only be of short duration. 8. Because, considering the time at which, and the means by which, these concessions have been obtained; considering also the character of the Roman Catholic church, and the dominion which that church exercises over the minds and consciences of those who are in communion with her; it is impossible that the demand of concessions should stop at this point, when great political and legislative power is given to the lay members of the Roman Catholic church, while from that church and her hierarchy every object of· spiritual and temporal ambition is professedly withheld. 9. Because, therefore, continued demands, either for the increase of the power and influence of the Roman Catholic church, or for the diminution of the power, influence, and property, of the Protestant established churches, will neces sarily follow, while the means of resisting such demands will be materially reduced. 10. Because, independent of ulterior consequences, the present measure, if passed into a law, will subvert that Protestant constitution by which the Protestant estab lishments of these kingdoms have been effectually secured, and to which the mass of the population of these kingdoms, comprising a very large proportion of the religious and constitutional intelligence of the country, have unequivocally expressed their attachment. (Signed) ROMNEY. KENYON. 4. Because it is in defiance of the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, which sets forth, that the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof." 5. Because we are of opinion that such sacred statutes ought not to be invaded without due caution and deliberate conWINCHILSEA and Nor- sideration at least, nor without the clearest demonstration of an insurmountable state necessity. TINGHAM. SHEFFIELD. PROTESTS AGAINST THE QUALIFICATION OF FREEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL.] The following Protest against the second reading of this Bill was entered on the journals: 1. Because it is contrary to the usual and highly constitutional custom of this House to deprive any fellow subject of any vested right or privilege which he possesses, without evidence on oath having been produced at the bar of this House, proving that he had used such vested right or privilege unconstitutionally, or that it was forthegeneral welfare and interest of the country that he should be called upon to surrender it. 2. Because it will establish, by taking away the elective franchise from the fortyshilling freeholders of Ireland without any such evidence having been produced, a precedent which, in future ages, may prove the source of the greatest injuries to the dearest rights and liberties of this country. (Signed) Dissentient, WINCHILSEA and NOTTINGHAM. 1. Because to seize upon and to confiscate the indubitable rights, privileges, and franchises of unoffending citizens-unaccused, unheard, untried-by whole descriptions, by hundreds and thousands together, is an utter subversion of that immutable law of true justice which is at once the vital principle and the most beautiful in the British constitution. 2. Because it is in direct violation of the great charter of the liberties of England, which enacts "that no freeman shall be disseized or essoined of lands, chattels, franchises, or of any right, without lawful judgment of his peers." 3. Because the same security is confirmed to the people in the Petition of Right, but now will be encroached upon. 6. Because we deem the arbitrary enactment of ex post facto law, for the summary as well as final destruction, without appeal or compensation, not only of the vested rights of life interests, but even of those hereditary privileges which belong to fee simple estates, is as contrary to the spirit and practice of the British constitution as it is harsh and severe in its retrospective operation upon those who may happen to be affected by it. 7. Because, arguing from analogy of that act of the Irish Union which granted, by authority of parliament, pecuniary compensation, amounting to above 1,200,0002. to those cities and boroughs which consented to resign their elective charters, and from that act of 1746 which, in relation to Scotland, granted upwards of half a million of money, in compensation for the deprivation of heritable jurisdictions, as well as from that article of the Scotch Union which reserves, among others, superiorities, as rights of property, to the owners thereof, we feel bound to consider the elective franchise of Ireland in the double light of a privilege, and a property of computable pecuniary value, and must, therefore, view any arbitrary deprivation of both, without compensation, in the sense of a spoliation. 8. Because we are of opinion that the ulterior consequences of this measure will be a successful endeavour, by many Irish landlords, to eject a vast number of the existing leaseholders from their fortyshilling freeholds, in the intention of consolidating the same into 107. freeholds, for the sinister purposes of political influence; whereof the consequences in a country destitute of any refuge established by law for the preservation of the unfortunate pauper from misery and starvation will be to reduce multitudes of these ejected freeholders to the shocking alternative of starvation at home or of seeking refuge in the poor laws of England and Scotland, to the great prejudice and detriment of the labourers, and to the increased burthens of both nations. v19. Because we deem it unfit and indecorous that a measure fraught with such important and serious consequences should be carried with unbridled haste, under cover of another measure absorbing the whole public attention. 10. Because we think it inconsistent with the usages and derogatory to the character and dignity of parliament to consent ever to abrogate the rights and liberties of the humble classes of his majesty's unoffending subjects on the bare asseveration of the king's ministers of the existence of a case of expediency, or even of a state necessity, for so extraordinary a measure, without further inquiry. 11. Because, further, whilst we acknowledge indubitably a supreme authority in parliament to legislate in the spirit of justice, we deny its title to an arbitrary power to legislate in the spirit of injustice, especially in the summary and unexplained destruction of that immediate constituency through its responsibility, to which at all times one estate of parliament derives its only constitutional power, as it previously had derived its creation. The following Protest was entered against the third reading of the bill: Dissentient, 1. Because, that although, in opinion, the elective franchise in Ireland requires regulation, yet the provisions of this bill are highly unconstitutional, inas much as they require that the qualificatious to entitle freeholders to vote at elections for counties in Ireland shall be decided on by officers appointed by the Crown, removable at the pleasure of the Crown, paid by the Crown, and, possibly, looking up to the government for the time being for professional promotion, and therefore under its direct influence 2. Because this bill does not give any effective appeal against the decision of such officers, that which is provided by it being of so expensive a nature as not to be available by the major part of the freeholders of Ireland. 3. Because it appears to me that by the provisions, of this bill a corrupt and arbitrary government may obtain an undue power over the constituency of Ireland, and by such influence procure the return of members to the House of Commons subservient to their views, and thus endanger the liberties of the people. 12. Because we cannot but bear in mind that the elective franchise in England is built upon similar, and no more secure foundation, than those we are about to tear away: and that this, therefore, at a future moment of public apathy, may be drawn into a dangerous precedent, in justification 4. Because, in my opinion, the fit and of a corresponding curtailment of the proper tribunal to inquire into the qualielective rights of the yeomanry of Eng-fication of freeholders to vote at elections land. 13. Because we cannot but recollect that the preservation and security of all public and private property rest upon no other basis than the moral inviolability of those principles, which we are now about to overthrow upon a declaration by ministers, that parliament must consent to this measure of injustice and restriction as the necessary price and appendage of one of concession. 14. Because we deem this principle of barter, in questions of justice and legislation, as dangerous in its consequences as it is repulsive and unseemly in its immediate character. 15. Because, whilst we are most willing and anxious to correct every proved abuse we cannot consent to commence the refor for counties would be the magistrates of such counties, together with the assistant barristers (their powers being co-ordinate), with an effective appeal from their decision when required; thus the magistrates would be able to counteract any undue bias of the assistant barrister, if such should exist, and the assistant barrister would check any party feeling which might be supposed to influence the magistracy.. 5. Because the bill makes no provision for the regulation of the elective franchise in cities, counties of cities, or towns, in which abuses exist, in proportion to the number of freeholders, to a greater extent than in counties at large. (Signed) FARNHAM. CONDUCT OF THE IRISH GOVERN |