Star. — London, England, 1828-02-27 00:00:00

as and great ioveroment, for ever re. p on, as the .is that have o seem! ity to exampled in ik patronage Bury, of the td achieved,• med besides be said, that lenge power, kh he l i ed, r feelings, it ntitiotts who' t be foe the A—(Heard e heard, ac!' ice of with.. rd then nestle attentfort le se do repolwr tti enosigero. - Ins to rents, rites of to . He said tent of the* union Acts.- office en rants aissi shies; and ical in the t complied Lt he held. other. He a will, of eceiving a the Right el) abjure -(Hear.)—. ild feel for d give fair ibion. All lute error. ,t to believe lacy. The hat he be to them.— .e had goa t certificate tat he had irector waa lig was to. in the wh o him that ,tence. He olunteers is e could say. etweea the we the pre it time two n England. vas it to be hat offered iuntry owed. •tch Presby ., was con- idoned N AV] COM.% were perse. House when him, 41 Go could never l would say,. erely to hold Nuenters be bat the Go. - He thought which" was 'a in by the test ohms of the to oppress d said, that pent:ma of committed ild it be just t . kiss against ed Christians of Goa, as act ; and in ientious, he N and should e penal laws ive of human led were their 'ant equality ad Catholics, (be comasou ray frt n n the the country Treat Brifain ations of the b, apologized 'telt on its at ; but he had bject, and he trn with the have elitted Itts necessaiy, the lapse of wept away all ption, to per rye no other lionsopinions. reason for as t, beyond that of the wrong ght he !night r of an abuse- A alliance be 'Mao people as of necessity ate, and the He however He thought Deb other, Rod *bey adopted I W say that in institedei &fences; but bees mode, ad soother it oat sects par. fired to belong tinctieneooldi bed to porta precagtiosho of ndeed it could getber witlra y and pleads roved tbidatat did is km& n, indeed,- he trt be justiOrds teie was iioo , witethe** Oaf • - • fs had strength sufficient, if they were so inclined, to pro duce any mischief? And supposing, for argument, merely for the sake of the argument, that such a disposi tion really did exiit, then would come that great ques. lion, were the Test and Corporktion Acts adapted to give security against their designs ? Now, he thought it might be eery clearly shown that they were not. Let hinvput the instance of the Bishops in the time of Charles the 'Second. The whole of them, with the 'exception .of three, were opposed to the Bill of Exclu sion. In the next reign they were -Opposed to King William and the Revolution. Had their opposition at 'both these periods been successful, was it not clear that they would have overthrows the Constitution and the *very Hierarchy of which they themselves were Mem 'hers ? That they did not succeed was owing to those 'very Dissenters, whom afterwards they bad the mean ness to persecute—(Hear.) On this question they had 'the support 'gall the friends of religious liberty, and the tacit assent eves of their opponents, for they *supported the Annual Indemnity Act. Would they do so if Ihey did not feel convinced of the utter inutility ad worthlessness of the laws which it was, lsow sought to repeal? The Test Law was not, is fact, meant for the purposes to which it was now applied. it was meant as a check upon the prerogative, at a time and under circumstances when the King could hot be trusted with the nomination of his own servants. Was it not strange that it should be continued in force now, and that those should refuse to assent to its re peal, who, In their own persons, derived so many advantages from the free exercise of the prerogative ? —(Hear, hear). He was unwilling to trespass so long upon the attention of the House; but he should not enter much further into the subject, feeling that it . would be presumption on his part, after the able speech of the Noble Lord, to attempt following in the same course., There were onlytwo points which he wished tobring under their consideration. In the first place, it was pretended that, by reason of the Annual Indemnity Bill, the evils arising from these Acts were rather imaginary than real. Was it not an eiil in itself that an Act of In ___ demnity should at all be necessary? What was it but a temporary concession ? It was an acknowledgment of the very bad principle, that the strong had it in their rower to exclude the weak from civil office on account of their religious principles. Was it not telling English enen that they held their rig* only by yearly lease— (lle ir)—and that by the Were caprice of any one branch of. the Legislature they might be crushed by the weight , *of those laws? The' evil of such a sys• tem did not arise so much from the privation of place and emolument, as from the stigma and disgrace it affixed,' and the • insolent superiority with which it lathed their orthodox oppressors—(Cheers). It had beep said that the Dissenters themselves were careless about these Acts. The number of Petitions laid upon their table was a sufficient answer to that ; bat even though a single Petition bad not been presented, he should not think it possible that Englishmen, even the Lowest, sat down quietly under such grievous privations. How much more strange if it were borne without re pining by men well educated, men who upon all occa sions, showed themselves friends to the liberties of their country, and supported them at a time when they would have been betrayed by the Dignitaries of the Established Church. One argument against the repeal of these laws was, that if it should be conceded, they did not know how much further the Dissenters might go. This was indeed a strange argument to refuse what was just, from an apprehension that what was unjust might afterwards be demanded. He was not connected with any body of Dissenters, nor did he profess their tenets; but were he a Dissenter he should never cease to knock at the door of that House until it was opened—until he was placed on a footing of perfect equality with the rest of his fellow subjects--(Hear, hear.) Let it not be supposed that he was inimical to a Church Establishment. He allowed that an Establish ment was necessary for preserving the good order, the morality, and decency .L. society. He wished to, seethe Establishment preseived in a state of respect ability; and it was for that reason he wishei to see it stand on other ground than that of exclusion, that he did not wish to see it call in persecution to s support. Let others show their zeal for the Establishment by arguments founded on intolerance, be should show his by endeavouring to wipe off those blots which were alike derogatory to its interests, and injurious to its teal strength-(Hear.) He should not attempt to 871111 NI against those who were inimical to all further concession. But he understood there were some who, though friendly to Catholic Emandpation, refused. under the pre sent circumstances, any further concession to the Dissenters, from an idea that It would injure the Catholics. He, too, was tflendly to the great 'cause of Emancipation, but he had yet to learn how, by liberating one body of men from their chains, they must necessarily rivet more closely the chains of others.—(Hear.)—All they could &Ado in the way of religious liberty, was so much gained to Ca tholic Emancipation itself. Let the bulwarks of bigotry and pre judice be once broken down, and the victory was their own.— He came now to the second point which be wavdesirous to ad vert to. He believed it was not denied that there once existed a religion of more purity, of more perfection in practice, than any of those numerous branches which bad sprung from it in the progress of time—a religion, the mother d those various Christian denominations which new existed. He should wish to ask any theological professor how that religion could be a perfectly pure one which supported principles that seemed destructive of the very first principle of Christianity itself, mutual benevolence. Was it con formable to religion to make that holy ceremony of the sacrament, which.was intended for far other purposes, the stepping-stone to ambition, and the picklock of place? It had been said that it was wit more improper to make the sacrament the test of fitness for once, than to make an oath the test of truth. He could see no similitude between the two cases. An oath was a solemn cere mony, sanctioned by civil society as a test by which to judge of the veracity of man; but would any one tell him, that the holy sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted for a similar purpose? Let anything else be made a test, but * that holy ceremony be exempt from such csammination—(Hear). He should give his cordial support to the motion ; aad be trusted that be should that sight see the first blow given to that intolerant and persecuting system of laws, which was the disgrace of this country and of civi lisation—(Hest)—taws which, while they professed to protect and save, only created the very danger which they Acted to guard against—(Cheers). • Sir H. INtiLIS said, though he despaired of 'hewing any thing approaching to the talent of the Hon.Oent. who last addressed them, or the extent of infornsation displayed by the Noble Lord who introduced the sub ject, he trusted the House would permit him shqrdy to explain what his views of this subiect were. The ques tion was this—were th ese laws justified by the effects produced, or was it necessary that some religious, establishment should be kept up? He could not suppose that he had sow to contend against any perms who denied the necessity of sofas establishment. That, he believed, was admitted on all sidcks. He was quite ready to admit that the least degree of restrictioo, •consistent with the preservation of that establishment,' ought to be the measure of restrictive laws. Some restriction, however, was nFessary. Their Church Establishment was part of the Constitution, and how ever men may differ, if they were now to give a Consti tution to New Zealand, as to the propriety of uniting the Church and State, that was not here the question. They were not now called upon to form a new Consti tution; they bad one already, in which-Church and State were united inseparably, aad in place of see t hing , its overthrow, he should Spites ammo% bane oral: The question was, were the restrictions on Dissenters greater in degree than was necessary, or was required by the circumstances of• the time? If the evil arising from these restrictions Were se great, hoW clid'it happen that, during thirty-eight years since this question was last discussed, they had heard so little abuot it? He saw by a publication which lately fell into his hands,l that it was lost only by a tisajprity of twenty. But I then, at a subsequent Period, the majority against it was 290 to 105, and that in the year' following, when Mr. l Pitt and Mr. Burke opposed the motion. He had no hesitation in admitting that the mode in which the Esta blished Church was at present supported by tests, was not the most desirable ene,and ought not to be persevered in, if any equally good security could be obtained. It belonged to those who opposed that mode to suggest one which could be equally successful. He did not see how it was possible to answer the argument of Bishop Sherlock, in reference to tests. He did not think that it was felt generally as a heavy grievance. In the county with which he was connected, not more than 2$ had qualified within the last eight years. He could not say how many more might have sacrificed their religious scruples to their worldly interests; but he believed the number, if any, was not great. It never was intended that the provisions of the Act of Indemnity should be fully carried into effect, unlesssuch circumstances should arise as occurred about two centuries back, when both Church and State were completely overturned, unless no other way remained for preserving their Establish ment.both in Church arid State.* He was as unwilling as any man, that persons should be prevented by penal statutes fspm worshipping GOD as they pleased; but then he was equally unwiHing that the existence of the Constitution in Church and State should be endangered through want of due attention to their interests. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke in the course of the debate (Mr. J. Smith) seemed to allude sneeringly to tests as a specimen of the wisdom of our ancestors, and that sneer was received with a cheer. He was not one of those who were prepared to depreciate the wisdom of those who went before them. No doubt, in latter times, many useful and important discoveries had been made in phy sical science which were unknown to their ancestors, but he must deny that the moderns showed more practical wisdom in reference either to Church orState. than those who were the founders, as he might say, of both, and by whose measures they bad been supported through so many difficulties and dangers up to the present time.— The reason for the continuance of these laws which it was now sought to repeal, was not to be found in any overt acts of the present generation. He was in habits of intimacy with many Dissenters—he entertained for them the greatest respect, nor did he apprehend any danger from them either to Church or State. • He con sidered it, however, wise at the same time, that they shoold retain in their bands the means of opposing any future danger, and meeting any exigency that might arise. As some differences must always continue to exist between the body of Dissenters and the s e of the Established Church, it was rnuch better that the contest should continue to be carried on in the outworks of the Constitution, than permit a' ooting is he gained within. Mr. H. FERGUSON said, when the question was last discussed, the artillery of Mr, Burke was brought into the field against the measure, mixing up the dan gers of the French revolution with the repeal of those laws. But if these Acts were not now in existence, could any Minister propose them ?—He was confident no Mi nister could carry them—(Hear, hear).—lt was natural that, at the time of the Restoration, a fear of those sec; tanks who had overturned the Church and the Throne shoed be regarded with suspicion; but did any person suppose that there was now_ any sectary in this country plotting to overturn the Constitution and the Throne?— (Hear.) The Hon. Member asked' if.the Dissenters had done any thing to merit exclusicie? The Test Acts wet e framed wHen a Catholieliting feigned, for - the purpose of securing the independence 'of Parliament, and to prevent the introduction of. tyrarnift "Artiris time the Duke of York had declared himsel A Catholic, and at that time, had ,he (the Hon.- Meiniier)- been alive, he would have voted for the measure; -but if it was right then, was it right now? Have the Dissenters failed in 1 their allegiance to the King on any occasion ? Time was, when the Pretender was running through the Kingdom, the Dissenters rose as one man, and tended essentially to restore the then tottering throne. When foreigners asked what had been done with the rebels, it was said they had been pardoned, l and that the Dissenters had been pardoned too. He admitted that he belonged to the national Church of Scotland—are you afraid of them ? Have not the people of that Church contributed more than their share? If the Government wanted only Church men,tbey should -say so. He would ask if the glorious victory of Water loo would have been gained, if none but sons of Church men had been engaged in it ?—(Cheers). The same re mark might be applied to the Catholics of Ireland— (Hear, hear.) Scotland Was a more ancient Kingdom than England (a laugh)—it was true.—(Great laughter). In the Union of Scotland, it was made a stipulation, that their forms should be preserved entire. As a mem ber of that religion, he could not hold a civil or military service, because it was held that you must support the Church of England. He did not put the claims of his countrymen higher than those of the Dissenters; but what he wished to see was an universal toleration. As it was, however, Scotland was now entirely pro scribed.--The Honourable Member agreed in the propriety of a Church Establishment; so far he differed from the Honourable Member for Aberdeen, who thought every man should pay his own clergyman. He did not know what that Honourable Member (Mr. Home) would pay (great laughter) ; but for himself he would not vote for the repeal of these Acts, if he thought that it would endanger the Church of England—the ministers of which he held to be a most worthy and useful class of men. At the same time that he held up the right of the Church of England, he would uphold the Church of Scotland. The property of the Church ought to be as sacred as that of any landed property, .sad was as secure; and so it should be. Was it to be presumed that the Dissenters would run away with the property of the Church? No such pia jest was entertained—it was ridiculous. It bad been said that we were indemnified by an annual Act, but `the Honourable Member contended that this Act would 'not, if not taken within six months, secure any Dissenter from the penalty imposed by the Act. He hoped there never would be a fresh revolution, but that his Majesty's Ministers would keep us in a/state of peace. In twenty eight days thellodesnity Act would expire, but an ac cident might arise to prevent its renewal ; it might be' poi by the Lords into the hands of a Bishop, and thus In alight be defeated ; so that the Dissenters might la. ,boor under the denunciation of the law. W4s not this disgraceful to a set of men posseising comnion sense?; The Honourable Member concluded by saying, he b ould like to know how those Members of 'his Ma rjesty's Government, who supported the claims of the Catholics, could refuse those of the Dissenters ? He was, however, sorry to learn that great efforts had been made on the opposite (the Ministerial) side of the, House, for the purpose of defeating the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. It. PALMER supported the repeal of these Acts, on the ground that a great variety of Petition's had been presented in favour of the repeal, but none against it. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that if he looked, in the ab' stract, at the motion of the Noble Lord for the repeal of , the enactments of these laws, he could have no hesita tion in saying that he regretted their continuance on the Statute Book. But he equally regretted that, under existing circumstances, the Noble Lord should have chosen the present time for bringing forward his motion —(A laugh, and hear ! from the Opposition). He trusted he should be permitted to state his reasons for not being able to come to the same conclusion as the Noble Lord. He did regret that the motion was brought forward at present. The reason was this, that after all he had heard from the Noble Lord, it did not appear to him that the motion was directed to the removal of any considerable or imme diate pressure, of any urgent evil. He was greatly-mis taken however if the agitation of the question would not lead to much inconvenience. He should have thought, from the speech of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferguson), that he had only lately returned to the country after a long absence, and had heard nothing of the laurels gathered by his countrymen at Waterloo and Aboukir, but supposed them to be never called upon to serve either in the army or the navy. He believed no one Gentleman inficotland had, in consequence of these laws. felt any objection or difficulty in encasing into the naval or military service. A full proportion of the emoluments of the State were shared among the natives of the country the Hon. Gentleman came from, and there was no danger that they would be interrupted in their career. He had been 32 years a Member of that House, and he was now called upon for the first time to discuss this question. It was nearly forty years since it was last agitated. This was a proof that these laws were not of a nature to occasion atiy very great or practical oppression. But, said the Honourable Gent. (Mr. Ferguson), there was, during that time, a good reason for the silence of the Dissenters, for these were years of danger and alarm, when the country would be little desirous to listen to such a subject. Did he know so little of the history of *these fo:ty years as not to be' aware, that a similar question had, within that period, been often agitated; a question which led to the most important results, which divided the opinions of both Houses of Parliament, and more than once was the occa sion of depriving the country of the set vices of a powerful Administration ? To say, therefore, that danger had been the cause of this silence was not a well founded view of the question. He knew that the Petitioners were, many of them, men of acute, intelligent, elevated minds, enjoy ing high consideration in the country, and deserving of it. Was it to be believed that such men would have remained for forty /ears quiescent under what they felt as a serious evil. Though not a Member of the House in 1791, he well recollected the nature and . effect of the debates, and they then seemed attended with the happiest results. Feuds and distinctions. had gradually abated. Men met in their social and other capacities like citizens; and he was proud to say that no petitions were then. brought forward against the respectable parties whose case was under cousideration. No class of men had more contributed to produce so happy an order of things as the Clergymen of the Church of England—and as they were the first to promote so desirable a state of things, so he now hoped they would be the last to interrupt it—(Hear, hear.) He would now state to t.e House why it was that he regretted the present motion *as brought for ward, because it tended to interrupt the concord which had existed between Churchmen and Dissenters, and created the danger of doing away that mutual forbearance which each exhibited to the other; and lastly, that peace and good will which it was so desirable to see cultivated between them. On such grounds alone he felt regret that the motion was brought forward —and his regret was now increased, because he saw no immediate necessity for it. Those who knew his public life, must be aware that he could not advocate the principle of the necessity of Religious Tests to the attainment of civil rights. On the contrary, as the friend and well-wisher of Morality, of Religion, of the Church of England, and the Country at large, he would be glad to see such Tests very differently arranged; but while stating this, he was also bound to 'add, that in looking at so great a subject, he was bound to look at it as a system—and as a whole, and not to take up any particular portion of it, as was involved in the motion before the House. He regarded the evils complained of, as very secondary in their nature — for as to real hardships, he thought they were almost exclusively thrown upon others—to the great disadvan• cage of the sufferers, as well as to the best interests of State. But looking at the subject as a whole, he could not dissever from it what he considered to be the interests of the kingdom at large; and in saying.so, he need not more particularly reter to that question, where the system unfortunately neutralized what was good, and stimulated too much what was bad in the par ticular community. His view of the question under discussion was similar to that taken by Mr. Pitt, that eminent and profound statesman, whom he was so proud to follow ; and he requested Hon. Members opposite and around him to look at the correspondence (lately published) which had taken place in the year 1801, .between his late Majesty and his late Right Honourable Friend Mir. Pitt). It would there appear that Mr. Pitt was anxious to modify the Test Laws ; but yet he considered that question was to be so dealt with, as not to endanger the Catholic Question—(Hear, hear). In referring to that correspondence, he begged leave to return his best thanks to those persons 'who gave it to the world—(Cries of Hear, flint the Opposition Benches). —He thanked them not only on the part of the public, but on the part of Mr. Pitt, and of his sincerity in the cause of religionse freedom. And he (Mr. Huakisson) • trusted that he would never again hear iisaid, either in that House or any other place, that he only felt an evanescent scintillation on the subject—without having any clear notion of his views—or without a wish that his opinions should at some happier period be followed up by those who might succeed him—(Hear). He was anxious to support those principles of Mr. Pitt—and fear. jug that the present discussion would lead to dissenticn and irritation, he must again express his regiet at its hav ing taken place. The princiPle now involved in discussion was this—that up to the present hour the rule' of the' . country was, that conformity to the Church was the ne cessary source of admission to civil office. If the rule in this case were repealed, what would become of the gene ral rule to which •be had just adverted ? Why, from that very moment, from the hour of such a partial repeal,the general rule would be altered { and the excepted party would alone beds Roman Catholics. He would appeal, then, if that were so, to those who, like himself, advocated the Catholic Claims, whether, in making the conces sion now called for, they would not be giving some countenance to an impression that the Catholics were to be excluded from civil rights in the State, solely because they acknowledged the spiritual authority of the See of Rome?-,-(Hear, hear, hear.)—There was no !,necessity for arguing that question now; but be was quite satisfied that if the House granted the request of the Noble Lord (Lord J. ittoseli) ibiiiiiinesiion which he stated would undoubtedly.get abroad, and doing so produce considerable, ahheugh peAais yeiy gnin tended, mischief. • Lord Joins Rus.st..—The Roman . Catholics petitioned. fora rti peal of the Test and Corporation .Laws, In favour of the,Dissepters. Mr. HUSKISSON—That might be exactly as the Noble Lord had stated ; but in.return he would ask the Noble Lord, whether he could take upon himself to say that the Dissenters were favourable to the Roman Ca tholics? Or he would rather ask if the repeal of the, Test Laws would not produce as achltional power against them ?—(Cries of No, no.) Honourable Gen tlemen might say, no, no; but he had some knowledge of the feelings of the Roman Catholics ; and it would be revolting to his feelings to deny his rights to the first Doke in the realm and several other Peers,. while relieving the Dissenters from some supposed or ima ginary humiliation. He was satisfied that if this ques tign were carried, the Catholic question would be in jured—not in the minds or judgment of enlighsened or liberal men, or educated Protestants; but he felt no he sitation in saying, as far as his own opinion went, that it would lead to an additional opposition to the Ca tholic question. Did the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Nugent) not believe that there was a majority of per tons in this country, who honestly and conscien tiously entertained apprehensions from the Catholics having any further civil privileges—even though, -if they were granted to-morrow, it would not be without the guarantee of some Test or other? If then the Test Laws were now repealed as to Dissenters, was it not clear that the Catholics alone would be required to take them. He did not mean to say that the check or the guard of Test Laws should remain for ever ; but this he would-say, that they were necessary as a security, for which no other substitute had as yet been proposed. The Test Laws, be it re membered, were introduced to guard against the Ca. tholics—and he did not deny that checks might still be necesary in case of danger. At present he was not pre pared to part with this security—neither would he con tent to treat the question in part and in detail as the r • Noble Lord had to-night proposed. It was only a few years ago that a Bill was brought in, by which Catholics were allowed to hold places in the revenue—and in that case, a certain Test was retained as a check or !ward in case of danger. With these views of the subject, he could not accede to the present motion. though ably and temperately as it had been introduced by the Noble Lord. He hoped the discussion of to night would not lead to any irritation out of doors ; but though it should,"he was ready to admit, it would arise rather from the nature of the case itself, than from Any thing which had fallen from Honourable Gentle men in the course of the discussion. He begged pardon of the House for having trespassed so far upon their' attention; but he was so sttotigly impressed with the feelings of Mr. Pitt, on this question as• well as on:thar that to which he had so often alluded op this and 90%4* occasions. that he could not avoid thus early Presenting . . himself to their notice. He was a friend cricivit•and - religious liberty—but he must net endanitetV.Oat subject to secure'the success of a part of •thaerirftble, • . to which he was not averse, further than for. those rea sons which he had already stated. His general opinions in these subjects were well known, and he viewed the question of repealing the Test Laws, as he , would *the , repeal of other Laws regulating other matters of gteat importance, but yet as only forming past of a reit *hole, which required great attention before they toad - be altered. He again begged pardon for detaining the House with these few observations; .and he must. • for the reasons he had 'stated, oppose the motion of the .Noble Lord—(Hear, hear.) Lord ALTHORP supported the motion on the gene ral principle, that no man ought to be excluded from political lights on account of his religion. The onus probandi lay on those who opposed the admission of their fellow subjects to equal rights, and not 'on those persons who supported the admission. The Hon. Ba ronet had said, that all men were excluded from equal power in the State by the nature of civilized society. He (Lard Althorp) would not say, that all men ought to possess power, but that all men ought to be left capable of power—(Cheers)—and that no man ought to be excluded from power until it was proved that his possession of it would endanger the State—to the Established Church he was as mach a friend as the Honourable Baronet, yet he denied that the exclusion of other religionists from political rights was necessary to support the interest of the Established Church. The Honourable Baronet had taken credit to himself and that Church for their love of tolerati on. Talk of toleration in the 19th century ! Wnat was the reverse of toleration? Tyranny, persecution, blood shed, and murder, inflicted on men for their refusal to conform to the dominant religion! And yet the Honourable Baronet takes credit in these days for supporting toleration, and that, too, in this coun try !—(Loud and long cheering from all sides). It had been said, tie grievances imposed on Dissenters by these Acts were fanciful and theoretical—then the Annual Indemnity Bill was theoretical—and the defence itself of these laws was theoretical—but he would contend the Acts were practical. These laws were an insult to a great body of the people, and to the Church, whose most sacred rite they made a subject of abuse, by ' making it a bait of temptation to the mercenary. This • • alone was a serious evil in. the eyes of any man who had any respect for religion. For these reasons he • " would support the motion of his Noble Friend.' Lord NUGENT could not see bow it was possible for 'a man to support the repeal of the Roman tathu . lic Claims and refuse those TT the Dissenters. He was friendly to the repeal of these Acts, because one man was allowed to arrive at power and influence which was denied to another. The latter, indeed, could not tie- . • come the guardian of his own children; nee was be •capable of bequeathing property. Was this no griev ance to the Dissenters ? The Noble Lend had heard with astonishment, that the reasons for rejecting these claims was, that they had been patient forty years. What a lesson was this to three millions of people in England, and to seven millions in Ireland ! Lord MILTON observed, that " existing circum stances" was a very nice phrase in the hands of a poli tician. He, however, congratulated the people of Eng. land and Ireland upon the speech of the Right Hop. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) on the subject , of the Catholic Claims. The Noble Lord desired to know if the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman was also the opinion of the Cabinet? The Right Honourable Gent's. man had said that he Should like to see the whole of the penal statutes touching civil disabilities removed i and yet, by a Strange anomaly, he refused to vote for the teperd of these Acts? It might be unphilosophical for Mr. Thompson to wish to become an Alderman— (Great laughter)—or for a grocer or a linendraper to desire to arrive at a similar honour ; but as respectable . men, had they not a right? The Noble Lord (lot ki g at the Ministerial b i coches and galleries) then obsess!. a that, notwithstandinglia conviction, hum the nUmbgr ~. ~. L. 4' I, . I• , II I I u