Debate in the Commons on the King's Speech respecting the Riots.] The Commons being returned to their House,

Lord Beauchamp rose, and in a short speech described the horrors of the late tumults, asserted the necessity the King was under of putting a stop to them by the exertion of that power with which he was entrusted by the constitution. He did not believe the Protestant associators had intended to commit the outrages that had been committed. He concluded with moving the following Address:

"Most Gracious Sovereign; "We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, beg leave to return your Majesty the humble thanks of this House, for your most gracious Speech from the throne; and for the com. munication which your Majesty has been pleased to make to this House, of the proclamations issued during the late most dangerous and alarming disturbances.

"We think it our indispensable duty to express, in the strongest terms, our abhorrence of the proceedings of those tumultuous assemblies, and of the criminal acts of outrage and violence committed by those desperate bands of men, and our highest indignation against the authors, promoters, and perpetrators of them; and to acknowledge, with the warmest emotions of gratitude, duty, and affection, your Majesty's paternal care and concern for the protection of your subjects, in the measures which your Majesty, as the father of your people, and the guardian of the public safety, took in the hour of extreme and imminent necessity, for the immediate and effectual suppression of those rebellious insurrections.

"We learn with satisfaction, that proper orders have been given for bringing the offenders to speedy trial, and to such punishment as, upon conviction of their crimes, the laws prescribe, and the vindication of public justice certainly demands.

"Although the constant tenor of your Majesty's just and constitutional government made a renewal of your Majesty's royal assurances to your parliament unne. cessary, yet we cannot but receive with great thankfulness so signal a mark of your Majesty's gracious attention; and we beg leave, on our part, to assure your Majesty, that this condescending and en

to your Majesty, in the hearts of your people, the most affectionate returns of confidence, attachment and support."

Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion, and expressed his warmest approbation of the measures that had been adopted to suppress the riots.

Mr. Fox agreed in part with the hon. mover and seconder of the Address. He admitted that it was necessary to employ the military, when a riot was suffered to grow too great for the civil power; but as much credit as he gave ministers for the suppression of the tumults, as much blame did he lay at their door, for not checking it in its birth. Upon the whole, he hoped that if any future occasion should call for vigorous measures, ministers would be a little less indolent, and shew themselves in earnest from the beginning. He trusted also that the calling forth the military upon the late alarming occasion, would not be established as a precedent for preferring the soldiery to the civil power. As to the present Address, it met with his warmest support, because he thought the wickedness of the rioters exceeded the wickedness of administration; and in such times of civil and lawless tumult, it cer tainly behoved moderate men to stand by each other in defence of their country.

Mr. Burke declaimed with unusual vehemence against the authors and abettors of the late riots, whom he termed a set of deluded fanatics, and spoke in sup port of the Bill they riotously petitioned against, as an Act that was founded in the true wisdom of parliament, and therefore ought not to be repealed at the dictatorial requisition of a lawless rabble.

Lord North, after paying a just encomium to the merit of the soldiery in their endeavours to suppress the riots, informed the House, that he intended to move for a Bill of Indemnity, for having called in the aid of the soldiery, because it might other wise appear a measure that militated against the spirit of the constitution; he should likewise move for national restitution being made to the several sufferers in consequence of the riots; for had government been able at that time to have given them the necessary protection, they would not have suffered in their property. As to the Act which had occasioned the tumults, it would, since tranquillity was restored, undergo an immediate inquiry; but he thought it behoved that House to weigh well the consequences that might

such allegations, to prove the increase of Popish schools, seminaries, and chapels, and in particular to prove, that a Popish chapel, which before the Act would hold 150 or 200 persons, had been so increased as to receive 3,000, and that they could prove 2,000 persons had been assembled at a time. He was going on, when he was called to order by

Mr. Montagu, who contended, that lord Beauchamp was first pointed to, and therefore had a right to proceed without interruption.

Lord Beauchamp insisted upon his right to proceed, as the petitions did not contain a word of desire of being heard by themselves or counsel.

Sir Joseph Mawbey contended, he was in order to submit to the House his objections to the manner of proceeding; though it was true, that no desire was expressed in the petitions of being heard by themselves or counsel, yet they contained several allegations of fact, and he thought those facts ought to be proved; the petitioners themselves were ready to prove them, and unless the truth of the allegations was admitted universally, he thought evidence ought to be called in.

Sir George Savile was fully of opinion an opportunity should be given to prove the facts; for if it was true that schools and seminaries had increased, he thought some steps should be taken about them.

Lord Beauchamp then made a speech of considerable length. He stated the pains which had been taken to misrepresent the Act in question; the pulpit had been employed, and ministers, forgetting their Christian character, had preached against moderation. The extreme tenderness of the House and readiness to receive even ill-founded complaints, had led it to accept the petitions of 85 societies at Glasgow, though the noble lord who represented that city had declared he knew nothing of such societies; that, in truth, they were no other than little alehouse clubs: that the petitioners had stated, they had no opportunity of resisting the Bill in its progress through the House; that, indeed, the proposition for the relief of the cruel restrictions and heavy penalties they were subjected to, had met with little or no opposition, and therefore its progress through the House had been quick, as was usual in Bills unopposed: that when it was thought proper to apply for relief, the head of the church had been consulted, who had no objection

to it: that the Act of king William had been obtained against the wishes of that king, and he quoted bishop Burnet's account thereof: that the repeal had laid the foundation of toleration in Ireland; that civil and religious liberty went together; that the Bill, laying a foundation for the acquisition of landed property, ought to give no alarm; the Papists were double taxed to the land tax: that in a subsequent session he had moved for a repeal of such double tax, which he thought improper, though he had not succeeded. That the complaint about schools and seminaries was ill founded; that the two principal Popish schools would not receive the children of Protestants; but if such proceedings really existed in any considerable degree, it might be proper to make a new law. He could not see how Protestants, as stated in the petition, were in danger of incurring the guilt of perjury, any more than Quakers; and he did not think it right to call upon the Catholic to renounce the spirituals of his religion, after he had taken an oath to the state. He then read five resolutions, and moved the first.

The

Mr. Ambler stated that he had originally objected to the Bill; he was a friend to toleration, and averse to all persecution, but he thought the Bill went too far; Popery ought to be guarded against; the inhumanity of permitting a son to deprive a father of his estate on the score of religion ought not to be enforced. courts of law, judges, juries, and counsel on both sides, always endeavoured to prevent such persecution, and relaxed the law as much as possible; but he thought they ought not to purchase more lands than they had already; they might vest their money in the stocks, and in mortgages, and they ought not to be permitted to open schools. Popery was intolerant, and he should therefore heartily be for a repeal, in part at least, of the late Act; and he thought some enquiry ought to have been made into the riots at Edinburgh.

Lord North approved of the Act, though he was not the original mover of it. He would attend to petitions, but would not give way to them when made in such a manner, and after such violences, because it would give encouragement to future claims; he would decide on the Bill on its own merits: it had been misrepresented; it was not likely to bring on a dangerous toleration, much less an establishment of

and would move such Bill, though he had not yet made up his mind to the title of such Bill.

Popery. Could any man think imprisonment for life proper for saying mass? And yet Malony, an Irish priest, had been so sentenced, who had gone about making proselytes; he had recommended it to the King to pardon him, and he was released after lying in prison a year and a half. If you prevent the Papists from purchasing land, you take one purchaser out of the market, and hurt thereby property. As to influence, he thought that nothing, no additional influence would be created: the Papist must have property, before he could purchase, and that property would always give influence. He would oppose the repeal on the score of policy; it was impolitic to continue restraints of the sort imposed by the Act of king William: there was a total bar left to all ambition, and rising in the various professions, which were of great importance: Popery had been on the decline since the Revolution; nay, it had declined within the last 20 years, which would appear, among other instances by the red book: there were no Jacobites now, and few peers professed the Catholic religion.

Sir George Savile said, he was against proceeding while there was a mob at the door: he thought the petitions from the meanest of the people ought to have due weight in that House; and whether the 85 societies at Glasgow were an incorporation, or only clubs of men meeting at little alehouses, they had a right to apply to parliament, stating their grievances or apprehensions, and parliament were bound to receive and enquire into them. On the present subject, it might be proper to enquire of persons best acquainted with the subject; if it should appear, that many of the clergy had signed the petition, and thought Protestantism in danger, it might deserve very serious consideration, which ought to be given in a degree, at least, coming from any quarter; he thought Papists ought to have perfect security in the enjoyment of their property; and the degree of danger arising from their making new purchases, ought to be the measure of any regulations respecting such new acquisition-an enjoyment of land would take from their connection with foreign lands; every man loved some small domicile around him: it might be thought hard not to permit them to educate their own children; but if Protestant children had been seduced, he thought a Bill should be brought in to prevent such practices; he had turned his thoughts to that subject, [VOL. XXI.]

Mr. Fox said, that his objection, if he had lived at the period of the Revolution, would have been to the House of Stuart, not because that House had embraced Popery, but because Popery had embraced the House of Stuart; that the latter was supported in its attempts on the liberties of the nation, by Popery in general; there were now no such dangers to be apprehended; the Pretender was out of the question; besides every Papist abjured the Pope in temporals, before he could avail himself of indulgencies. He could not think the Popish religion incompatible with government, nor civil liberty; because, in looking round the world, he saw that in Switzerland, where democracy reigned universally in the fullest manner, it flourished most in cantons of that religion. He was a friend to universal toleration, and an enemy to that narrow way of thinking, that made men come to parliament, not for the removal of some great grievances felt by them, but to desire parliament to shackle and fetter their fellow subjects; he wished to know the number and sort of names to the petitions which desired persecution, and called upon the House for an exercise of its judgment merely, instead of desiring grievances of their own to be removed. He wished to know who the petitioners were. He observed many signed their marks; and it was curious that men who could not read nor write, found their blood fired that a Roman Catholic should read and write. He differed in opinion from his hon. friend, and confessed he had no predilection for the signatures of the clergy; and he was convinced, if at the Reformation their opinions had decided the matter, we should have had no Reformation: it was not likely that men whose interests in general were against the reform, should have been eager to obtain it. He went through a variety of reasons in favour of general toleration, and declared against the repeal of the Bill, and against every thing that tended to bridle the liberty of the conscience.

Sir P. J. Clerke, after speaking in favour of the petitions, concluded by moving, that the chairman might leave the chair, and report a progress, in order to afford time for the reception of evidence.

Sir George Yonge spoke in favour of toleration; but thought some alteration of the law necessary.

Mr. Dundas rose to justify himself from the reflection made relative to the not punishing riots at Edinburgh. If any neglect had been shewn, he alone was culpable; he was not restrained by any motive of fear to himself, or by other improper motives: he had caused strict enquiry to be made, but he found the ringleaders had fled, and there were only in custody some of the lowest and meanest of the rabble, against whom he had not sufficient evidence for conviction, and he was unwilling they should triumph by an acquit tal. He had promised to bring in a Bill in favour of Papists in that kingdom: he did not give over such intention, till the Papists themselves desired it of him. At some fitter opportunity, he hoped, therefore, that measure might take place. He defended the late Act, and declared himself a friend to general toleration.

Mr. Spencer Stanhope supported the right of general toleration, and thought the Act did not go far enough in favour of the Roman Catholics. The petitioners, he believed, were mostly Methodists, and the Methodists in general were composed of the lowest of the people; he was afraid the resolutions offered would lead to a persecution of Papists on the present subsisting laws, and would do mischief, but thought, nevertheless, it might be proper to restrain them from educating Protestant children.

Mr. Alderman Bull. I rise, Sir, to declare my most hearty concurrence with the petitions from the different Protestant associations: and, Sir, I am happy in having a sanction for this opinion from that corporation of which I have the honour to be a member, and in which there are a large number of my constituents. It gives me pleasure to see, at length, a spirit of opposition to that encouragement which Popery has been long receiving from the servants of the crown.-The establishment of that sanguinary and intolerant system of superstition in the province of Quebec ought to have spread a general alarm throughout the nation. The design was too evident to be mistaken. The late toleration of Popery within the realm, I firmly believe, is a part of a deep-laid ministerial

a plan, which has for its objects the

its distinguishing peculiarities.-I would not be understood to be an advocate for persecution; I abhor the idea; it is not on account of any of the religious tenets of the Papists that I object to their toleration; it is because they cannot give any security for their civil obedience under any Protestant government whatever. To a Protestant they are devoted foes; they are bound by every obligation from their earliest infancy, to oppose what they call heresy, and to destroy those whom they call heretics, that is, to destroy those who differ in opinion from them. And is this religion? No, Sir, it is priestcraft and statecraft; and opposition to a set of men holding such horrid opinions is not persecution, much less religious persecution; it is common prudence; it is benevolence to ourselves and our connections: it is selfdefence, and ought to be supported by every one who is a friend to the rights of mankind.-What, Sir, was the conduct of our bishops, and the clergy, in the memorable year 1745? They were then indefatigable in warning the people to beware of Popery, a religion falsely so called, which had often deluged Europe in blood, and had at that time for its object the banishment of our good old king and his family, and the ruin of our free constitution. And what alteration has Popery undergone since? The Pope remains still supreme, the priesthood is the same, and the people are as fast held in delusion and obedience as ever; yet, because the court and its dependents have thought proper to patronize Popery, the bishops and the clergy are silent, and that religion, which not forty years ago excited every horror in the people, without the least alteration in any one of its tenets, we are now persuaded to believe is perfectly harmless and deserving of our countenance and support! An imposition this, which may produce the most melancholy consequences.-We already hear of Popish schools being opened to teach the children of the poor gratis, and of priests and jesuits publicly proselyting the people to that system which supplants moral honesty in the world, and which tends to subvert the peace and order of society. And what may not be the un

and the formation of an arbitrary, despotic government. Popery is most favourable to this design, as passive obedience in the people, whenever the priest chuses to enjoin it, is, on pain of eternal damnation, one of

of the prince, and the slavery of the people. Those numerous Protestants who are now applying to this House, entertain the same apprehension, and they are discharging their duty to themselves and their posterity in beseeching us to take