had any foundation. There was one in Hertfordshire, which was supplied with boys chiefly from Westminster. There was a boarding school at Sedgley Park, in Warwickshire, which had 25 or 30 boarders before the Act, and had been of 16 years standing, though it had wickededly been said, in a paper he had seen, to have arisen since it. It was supplied by two priests and two lay-assistants, and four-fifths of the boys were educated for business. There were many foreigners, and many from the West-Indies, some taught Latin and languages, but it had no foundation. A cer. tain lady of fashion, lady Stourton, had maintained usually twelve boys at school. He had a list of them; none were the children of Protestants. There are now but nine, though sometimes twelve; and the suggestion of their taking Protestant children was not founded in truth; one school was gone at Hammersmith; one in another place and one or two more had dropped in London he was not able to find any boarding-school at all, nor in the northern parts of England, in Cumberland, Northumberland, and those parts, except one that had been set up by a house-painter, the better to procure a living. As to day-schools, they were never the objects of jealousy; there had, indeed, been brought to town several little schools which had been consolidated into larger; one of this sort was in the neighbourhood of Bloomsbury, another in the Minories; and they might be traced by the fires: the master of one of them had once 81 boys and 25 girls, though the latter were now reduced to 15, and he had refused to teach the children of near Protestant neighbours: they taught, what all men of liberal education might know, the Douay catechism. There was, indeed, another school in the Minories, the master of which was terrified and had run mad, of which he had no accounts, and there was not a single boarding-school existing in London. There were several day schools, one of good character and estimation; a Protestant had been employed at one time to teach there, and all taught the catechism of the church of England, and there was not a priest among them; they taught only the rudiments of grammar. Lord Arundel of Wardour had, indeed, a little school in his own neighbourhood, where there were only day scholars, about forty in all, and the noble lord in his letter (which he read) had declared, that no boarders were ever admitted: there were only two instances of Protestant children taught, they were his own tenants, and were taught the catechism of the church of England; children educated in schools were decreased from 355 to 350, and in the same proportion the Roman Catholic religion was diminishing; in many places a priest could be got for 30 or 351. per annum, salary; such a salary, which was the most they in general received, gave poor encouragement. There were great numbers of Irish Roman Catholics, who did almost all the labour of the metropolis; and he thought they should have some place where they might educate their children. The story of buying children, he was persuaded, originated from similar practices in Ireland. He did not wish to have opened his sentiments on this subject, but he could not now avoid it. There were Protestant charter schools in Ireland established, and money was voted every year by the parliament there to maintain them: the bishops and the crown recommended, and they bought none but the children of Papists :-it might be right so far; but when children were taken or bought, they were sent from north to south, from east to west, their names changed, and the ties of affinity were snapped and broken asunder; we secreted ourselves, and yet complained of others for doing that which cannot be proved. This blot and blemish should never have been mentioned, if he had not been forced to it. He quoted the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, in the twelfth century, against breaking the law of nature, and contended, that the parent had full right to dispose of the education of the child, and said the darkness of the twelfth century rose against the light of the eighteenth there were, he said, 50,000 Protestant children maintained at school in this town, and yet we were afraid of a miserable charity school of Papists. The reports originated from the loose suggestions of mean and base men, and many of them were false. He was now given to understand they would not be satisfied: why, then, in God's name, go on with the Bill? The petitioners had formidable names, and formidable hands; they did not petition till the 2d of June, and this was the 26th, and yet no evidence was offered till this day: he wished them to come, he wanted to see those men who were calumniators, and he wanted to know their names. He saw no objection to shutting up boarding schools from educating Pro testants, but objected to including apprentices. Sir Henry Hoghton said he lived in a country where many of his neighbours, many of his tenants, and many manufacturers, were Papists: he never heard of any complaint of their taking apprentices, and thought the amendment proposed improper. Sir Joseph Mawbey said, the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, had complained of the late day of presenting the petition of no evidence having been offered till this day; and of his wish to see the faces, and know the names of the persons whom he has described, with some virulence, as calumniators and falsifiers of truth; for his own part, his knowledge of them in general was recent; but some among them he knew were worthy and respectable men; he had seen two men on Saturday, for the first time, one of whom was a Mr. Swain, who had saved the life (as he was informed) of the worthy chairman (Mr. Ellis) and was a schoolmaster; the other was Mr. Fisher, who said he was a secretary to the Protestant Association, and had been honourably discharged after being taken up and put in the Tower. These men had put into his hands accounts of schools established since the Act, differing widely from the account of the hon. gentlemen: the committee, under whom that secretary acted, were in the lobby, and they were ready to prove, by indubitable evidence, all they had stated in their petition. With respect to the reasons that induced a delay of presenting the petition, he was not informed of them; this was not the first time proofs had been offered, from the first application of the petitioners to him, amongst whom were many of his constituents, though he himself had not signed, and he had offered in their names to bring the proofs forwards, and this he did a week ago. The adjournment of the House probably prevented an earlier offer; they were peaceable and quiet men, detesting, with himself, the infernal practices of a mob, whom plunder alone had instigated to the commission of acts disgraceful to humanity: he had authority to assert, that not a single subscriber to their petition had been found amongst the rioters; the secretary, against whom, in particular, so much had been insinuated, appeared to him to be an honest, artless, young man, that no one would suspect at all to have encouraged such transactions. [VOL. XXI.] |-He assured the hon. gentleman, that the petitioners, and the committee in particular, never were afraid of their names or persons being known; they were now in the lobby, ready to prove all they had asserted; that nothing had happened hitherto, and nothing could happen in future, in consequence of any enquiry, that could or would hinder them from appearing, if the House chose to call them in. As to their meeting in a peaceable manner in St. George's Fields, he believed no learned gentleman, either in this House, or any where else, when the trial should come on against a noble lord, would contend, that such meeting was treasonable in itself; if so, county meetings, meetings for enquiries into, and redress of public grievances, would be treasonable and illegal ; and that could never be supposed-not that he justified the propriety of such meeting; inasmuch as a mob took advantage of their peaceable deportment, to commit outrages, that every man, of every religion, must think diabolical: they could prove, that so far from any of that mob being influenced by religious motives, many of the most active rioters were Roman Catholics; not that he would, therefore, insinuate reflections against Papists in general: it was no reflection on any profession, that highwaymen, footpads, and housebreakers were of this or that religious persuasion, when no religious tenets, and no belief, appeared to influence their conduct.-He then went into a detail of the Roman Catholic schools, and read the names and descriptions, from a paper in his hand, of 33 schools established in London and its neighbourhoods since passing the late Act, all of which he was instructed to say, they had evidence to prove to the House; and so far from the petitioners deserving severe reflections, for publishing falshoods respecting Sedgley school in particular, as if established since the late Act, he assured the committee, in his paper, it was expressly described as an old one. stated the increase of mass-houses and chapels, and he read an account of several persons who were ready to prove they had been offered money to permit their children to be educated in the Popish religion, and of some who had actually taken particular sums for that purpose. He talked of the danger in a civil view to the public, from any material increase of Papists: was sorry the Act was repealed, because of the ferment it had occasioned; nobody molested them before; no one was inclined to put [34] He the penal laws in execution, and it was dangerous to disturb things at rest, more especially so at a time when the distresses of the public and individuals had filled the whole country with discontent. Administration was hated, their measures universally condemned, and political discontent, aided by religious, might prove extremely dangerous. He concluded by saying he could not approve of the Bill, if it really legalized the keeping any schools by Papists, and by so doing, virtually repealed the Act of the 23rd of Elizabeth. which had no foundation, he had no objection to the reception of a clause, expressly declaring it should not be construed to extend to a repeal of any existing Act; such a clause, though not at all necessary, was perfectly harmless, and might be conciliatory. Lord Beauchamp hoped the hon. gentleman near him would withdraw the amendment respecting apprentices; which appearing to be against the sense of the committee, was negatived, or withdrawn. His lordship then suggested the fitness of receiving an amendment, that would confine the offence to the keepers of boardingschools only, by substituting the word General Conway thought examinations of witnesses unnecessary, because if their evidence should prove all that was contended for, it would only shew the pro-" and," instead of "or;" and then the priety of further restraint on Papists educating Protestant children, and justify the present Bill. The amendment immediately before the committee was offered to prevent the Papists from taking Protestant apprentices; and the question for consideration was, whether such amendment would injure the common intercourse of commerce, and to that he should give his negative. clause would run, "if any Papist, or person professing the Popish religion, shall knowingly take upon him or herself the education, teaching, instruction, and boarding the child or children of any of his Majesty's Protestant subjects." Mr. Dunning objected to this amendment, because it would be impossible to convict any man of any offence against the proposed Act, unless he should be proved guilty not only of teaching and instructing, but of boarding also. Lord Beauchamp confessed that was his meaning and intention: the restraint was meant to be applied for fear of the conversion of the Protestant to Popery, and that principle does in no way apply to a day-school, where no such danger could be apprehended. Mr. Dunning said, the Bill as it stood most certainly extended to every species of education, teaching and instructing. It had been first suggested as a Bill of conciliation to remove the fears and apprehensions that many had entertained. Such was the connection formed by living and boarding in the same house, that it might reasonably be supposed, that the tutor, under such circumstances, would labour Mr. Dunning said he must oppose the to convert, and care was taken to prevent amendment. The master of a day-school, such seduction; but the giving occasional who at present had little or no inducelessons in music, dancing, fencing, draw-ment, might open such school professedly ing, and riding, could not be the object of danger, without residence and living under the same roof, and therefore the Bill very properly had a proviso to exempt such from penalties. The wor-thy baronet had expressed his ideas, that this Bill, if it should pass into a law, would operate to repeal a former Act of Elizabeth; and he was more surprised to hear the same objection from a learned gentleman who had spoken in the debate. He had not been used to courts, where such opinions had countenance and weight; the Act alluded to had nothing particularly to do with the Roman Catholics; and he was convinced, a teacher of that religion would be equally the object of this Bill, though he should be licensed by the bishop. He was persuaded, it was in no way necessary; but if it would quiet the fears and alarms, to teach the Catholic religion: convert the particle "or" into "and," and no one can be prosecuted but him that instructs, him that teaches, and him that boards. Every man allows the impropriety of Roman Catholic schoolmasters teaching the children of Protestants: and if the amendment should be adopted, the hon. gentleman who brought in the Bill, would do much better to stop here, than go on with it. Earl Nugent thought the objection might be easily obviated, by leaving other words out, and by substituting the words, "teaching in schools, or places of education, kept by papists, or persons professing the Popish religion." There should be no crime in boarding Protestant children. Sir George Savile said, that no conviction could follow, unless the party actually did educate, teach, and board: his words were, "or board;" if the particle was changed to "and," the Act would be of no use. Lord North suggested that words might be changed, and when the penalty was named, it might be, "such education, teaching, or boarding." Mr. Dunning. It may be done by repeating the words, or referring to the preamble; it was not usual for Protestant children to be put to Roman Catholic families, merely to be boarded; if the Bill be so narrowed, as proposed, it will be of no use at all. Lord Beauchamp. The practice is for such as do not go into orders, to become language masters, and they almost always receive boarders. A Popish recusant convict cannot exercise the profession of an attorney; till convicted he may. Mr. Dunning. A Popish recusant convict most certainly cannot practise as an attorney, nor can he before conviction, because he must take the necessary oaths before admission. Mr. Burke. The Papists are few in number, and extremely scattered, and the children of such can have no education, at least not such as their parents would wish, if the amendment be rejected. There are no persons keeping day-schools to take the children of Papists, and the schools cannot be kept unless the owners of Popish schools be permitted to receive Protestant children; they will not afford a livelihood. No Popish child can be taught if the disjunctive "or" be admitted to stand in the Bill, and no Protestant can teach a Popish child. Some people get bread now, and this clause will certainly deprive them of it. Little day-schools are not objects of jealousy; no harm can possibly arise from them, and therefore he must resist their abolition and ruin. Sir W. Bagot said, in his country the greatest danger was to be apprehended from day-schools, and he was sure the greatest mischief arose from them. It was doing nothing at all in saying Popish boarding-schools should not educate Protestant children, if you left the children of the poor to be perverted by Popish dayschools. Mr. Mansfield declared his readiness to go to the greatest length in a toleration of Roman Catholics, if that was now the proper consideration; but the circumstances of the times had made it necessary to give relief to the minds of a great number of uninformed persons; one fear had arisen in their minds, of their getting possession of the children of the poor; and, though it was an ill-founded apprehension, that fear had been directed against day-schools, and therefore the Bill, in order to answer the end proposed, must include day-schools; they would otherwise perceive that day-schools were carried on with impunity: they would perceive, that we had passed an Act to prevent their taking children of the better sort, but had left the children of the lower class to seduction; therefore he was forced to desire that this important word, "or," might stand. Lord Irnham thought if the word "or" was continued in the Bill, all would be satisfied. Lord Beauchamp confessed, it was against his opinion altogether, but he must submit to the temper of the times. Mr. Burke said, that gentlemen should consider how they would like to force Protestants into Popish schools. He was sure they would not like it, and yet this principle was what had been contended for against the Papists; for four-fifths of the children of poor Popish parents in this country must go without education: this was an improper thing to be done, and therefore, after the adoption of such a principle, he could not attend the Bill any longer. Other amendments, and several new clauses, were afterwards moved and ingrafted into the Bill; and amongst the rest, one proposed by sir J. Mawbey, to declare, "That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to extend to repeal, or in any manner invalidate any of the laws now in being respecting Papists, or persons professing the Popish religion." After which the House was resumed. The Bill passed the Commons on the 28th. Debate on the Duke of Richmond's Motion respecting the Conduct of the Military in disarming the Citizens of London, during the Riots.] June 21. The order of the day being called for, and the letters of lord Amherst to colonel Twisleton, the plan of an association by the Lord Mayor, and the Declaration of Rights in the 1st of William and Mary, were read. The Duke of Richmond rose, and observed, that he felt himself extremely concerned for the necessity under which he lay of condemning the mode which had been adopted for the suppression of the late disturbances, he being so sincere an advocate for the thing. He assured their lordships, that if the tendency of the letter alluded to, written by the noble lord at the head of the staff, had been any thing short of a direct violation of one of the leading articles in the sacred and inviolable statute he had just alluded to, he would not have interposed in any manner in pronouncing a public censure upon the contents of it; but when he read, and considered the clause in the above Bill of William, which says, "that every Protestant subject shall be permitted to arm himself for his personal security, or for the defence of his property," and compared it with the general tenor of the letter wrote by his lordship, particularly the passage in it, which directs the inhabitants of the city of London to be disarmed, the militia only excepted, or those who were authorised by the King for bearing arms, it was impossible for him so far to forget the duty he bore his country as a citizen and a senator, as not to demand some species of punishment for the blow directed against her dearest privileges, and for the prevention of similar violations in future. Every citizen of London, in common with every other subject of this kingdom, had a right by the great constitutional Bill alluded to, "to keep arms for their defence." What did the letter say, the contents of which he so strongly reprobated? Why, that the citizens of London shall not keep arms for their defence. Whatever might be the intention of the noble author of the letter, however averse he might be to a deliberate breach of law and constitutional privilege, yet so was the fact, that he had been positively guilty of the violation, and the effect of that as a great and dangerous precedent, could not otherwise be prevented but by the immediate interposition of parliament, whereby a high and respectable disapprobation might be transmitted to posterity, and the rights and prerogatives of the people of England be thereby secured against invasion by a recorded testimony of censure. After dwelling upon the subject for some time, and commenting upon the impolicy as well as illegality of the command given by the noble lord at the head of the staff, in the letter written by him on the 13th of June last, and on the discharge of the Russian nobleman, and the notice given to destroy the Fleet prison, he concluded with moving, "That the Letter written on the 13th instant, by the right hon. Jeffery lord Amherst, eldest general officer on the staff and commanding the military, ad-› dressed to lieut. col. Twisleton, then doing duty with an armed force in the city of London, directing him, if any arms are found in the hands of persons, except they are of the City Militia, or are persons authorized by the King to be armed; to order the arms to be delivered up to him, to be safely kept until further orders,' is an unwarrantable command to deprive the Protestant subjects of their legal property, and a dangerous attempt to violate their sacred right, to have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law,' as is expressly vindicated, asserted, and declared by the Act' (of the 1st of William and Mary) declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown,' to be the true, ancient and indubitable right and liberty of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be, and shall be strictly holden and observed as therein expressed; and that all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all times to come." The Earl of Carlisle set out with a minute historical detail of the successive transactions of the mob, and painted all the extravagancies of their fury in a style equally ingenious, descriptive, and elegant. The recollection of them, he said, impressed him with the same sensation as a sick man feels after a dream. The whole event struck him, on retrospection, as a vision-the effects of which he would gladly disbelieve, but could not-which he could not forget, but dared not revive. After a regular enumeration of the various mischiefs, his lordship proceeded to ask how it was reasonably to be supposed that the officer entrusted with the direction of the means necessary for the suppressing of these tumults should be so far disinterested and unconcerned in his mind as to find time for an attention to verbal minutiæ, and to the exact critical tendency of his phrases. A man in that situation was attentive only to an intelligible intimation of his intentions and accurate discriminations were by no means to be expected. This, continued his lordship, might be a sufficient apology for the noble lord; but he would not thank me for such an exculpation. The plain tenor of the letter, if read dispassionately, and taken collectively, is a sufficient justification for him, as it is |