Star. — London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

-4' M."' ~._ _~. _IN •.t • in point po i nt of property s ak the Heald . itary lands of E -h Roman Catheßais 'AN/ht.-after ail, what was tae effect of the present vesWctive system with I e soect to the English it‘makCaThilics? Their Lord ships now )ftw•in+lndirect•Matl'int influence in full exercise in the elections for English Members ; they s aw Roman Catholics on the hustings recommending Members to the constituents, in whom they had no per sonal or religious interest, but on. whose behalf they could not give a single vote. Was it not mortifying— was it not unconstitutional, to see a Sir Thomas Throck mortoo, or a Sir William Gage, recommending candi dates to constituents, and yet paving no right to desig ease by their votes who should represent them in Far li.onent ? With respect to numerical force, if no evil lead resulted from an extension of privileges in a coun tr y where Roman Catholics acted in bodies, could any ill be anticipate' s! in a country where Roman Catholics were dispersed, and where they did not amount to more than 2,000,000 at Mast? Having disposed of the first 13111, he now came to the other s for enabling his Majesty's English Roniau Catholic subjects to hold certain offices in the Customs and Excise, and to be eligible as Justices of the Peace. It was rather 'strange that pt ivileges which were found harmless on one side of Sc. George's Channel were taken to -be fatal to the peace of the other side. Thotigh some persons might have passed some sleepless nights ever since the Conso lidation Act, under the apprehension that tobacco and sager might, if once Roman Catholiat were permitted to be Officers of Customs, be infused with poison or infected with heresy, he could assure their Lordships, that under the Customs Consolidation Law, by an im portation of Irish officers, and a reciprocal exportation of English officers, the llortian Catholic was permitted to cater for the English Protestant. He could assure the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, that an ' easier had been issued by very high author ity, to sus pend one of those most valuable Acts with respect to Excisemen, which formed what his Lordship considered in rank among the best safeguards of the State, he meant the Act of Charles 11. which provided that all Excisemen must take the oath of Supremacy, whereas they were now admitted without taking the oath, by a sort of contumacious discretionary power, which de manded the attention of the Noble and Learned Lord . 1 but all that he (Lord Lsnsdown) now wished was the per: fect assimilation of the two countries in law as in excise. He could not understand what danger could result to this country from admitting English Catholics to act as Justices of the Peace, since Irish Catholics had acted with the greatest benefit to that country, and under cir cumstances not only of disorder, but of rebellion.. Should their Lordships think proper to reject these Bills, hoaever, it was not for him to say what sort of lesson they would teach to both countries. But this be feared such a measure would hold forth, that loyalty, forbearance, tranquil obedience, expectation of redress, and good conduct, were not to be preferred to appeals' to passion, reliance on number, and the effect of physi cal force. This was the lesson which of all others he wished might never be taught to a free, generous, and Mighty people. Lord COLCHESTER objected to the present Bills, because he found that instead of giving relief to the Catholics by a general measure, it was now the object to proceed step by step in an ascending scale. In the other House of Parliament he had expressed his willing ness to open to Catholics all situations of profit or emolument, but not those conferring civil rights. He still held the same opiniou. With respect to the office' of Earl Marshal, he thought that relief should be ob tained by a separate Bill. Admitting Catholics to be Justices of the Peace was admitting them to judicial situations, and therefore lie would oppose it. As to the other offices, in the Revenue, &c. whatever opinion might be held, he could not help saying that the Bill for ex tending the elective franchise had his most unqualified disapprobation. It would introduce religious animosity into election contests, and give Catholics of wealth and ambition an opportunity of buying up lands and making freeholders. If uniformity between England and Ire land was the object, it could only be obtained by de stroying the uniformity between England and Scotland. The Noble Lord then alluded to the conduct of some Catholic Bishops in 1808 and 1815, and a letter from Dr. Doyle, recently published, which appeared to him to be chatacterised by seditious insolence, and concluded by moving as an amendment, " That the Bills before the House be read that day six months." Earl WESTMORELAND was every day more and more satisfied of the impolicy of granting Catholics the general relief which they sought, but still gave his sup port to these Bills. The elective franchise was extended to Catholies in Ireland, and if possessed by them here could do no harm, when at the utmost only .500 or 1000 individuals might avail themselves of the privi lege. The Noble Earl then contended, that as Parlia ment had sanctioned Catholic Officers in the Army and Navy, they should do the same with Officers in Civil employments. As a means of resisting the further claims of the Catholics, lie would give them the indulgences demanded in the present measures, which, though a fa vour to few, would be a consolation to many. Lord II EDESDALE considered the great objection to these Bills that every new concession led to further concessions. In the House of Commons he had voted for the removal of disabilities affecting the rights of pro perty by Catholics, but as political power would be stow an isfluence over the concerns of the Established Church, lie could not support such a demand. It was said, that because Catholics obtained the elective fran chise in Ireland, therefore they should obtain it bete. But if Parliament did wrong once,_ was it to do wrong twice? On these grounds he could not consent to the present Bills. The office of Earl Marshal gavels° political power, and he should consequently have no objection to see the noble individual who inherited the title in full possession of the privilege it conferred. It was now well known that the Catholics in Ireland were ready to seise on the Chute!' Establishment, and these measures, if carried, uould add something to the political power of the Catholics in that country. The Bishop of LITCHFIELD next addressed ahe House, and said that his sentiments on the general ques tion of Catholic relief had undergone no change. A seat in either House of Parliament would give the power of subverting the Established Church, and a desire to do so was natural in Roman Catholics generally, but the elective franchise, while it enabled a Catholic to express his political opinions through a Protestant re presentative, did not allow his religious motives to ope tate. The Bills under consideration would remove an anomaly and inconsistency in the existing law, and would enable the Protestant to say to his Catholic fel. lc"-subj.-et that lie was in every respect his friend, compatible with the safety of established political Institutioas. • The Bishop of BATH and WELLS thought to. only question was, whether greater political power could be given to the Roman Catholics wititott endangering our Civil sold Ecclesiastical Establishirients? No ont regretted the eaclusion of the Catholics from their rights wire thatt he did, but toleration was of two kinds, reli gious and political. The first allowed every man to worship-the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience, but the other was very different. The Rev. Prelate then applied this distinction to the case of the Roman Catholics, and argued to shew that their belief in the supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff influenced their civil conduct as subjects of this country. He knew ' that in the town of Lancaster, where there were many poor Catholics in the workhouse, they refused to work an Saints' days and other holidays held sacred by the Church of Rome. Again he would observe, that the ,society of Jesuits established at Stoneyhurst i was both unwearied and successful in making converts to the Catholic Religion. The Roman Catholics were, in fact, annper eadem, ttil actum reptans duns quid agendum manebit. He did not, however, wish for perpetual ex clusion, but only such as necessity demanded, The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that nothing but imperative duty could induce him to trouble their Lordships on the present occasion. As a servant of the King, however, he could not allow his Majesty's prero gatives to be destroyed, as must be the case, if these Bills passed the Legislature. These two Bills, although discussed by the Noble Marquis (Lanadown), as one measure, were in reality perfectly distinct. The first Bill sotrght to alter what for more than a century had been the settled law of the land. But when it was con sidered that the whole frame of the Constitution was, Protestant, be did think it would be strange indeed if the Catholics were not called upon to give some test of their adherence to it, before they enjoyed the privileges it conferred. How was it possible to grant the right of voting, and not of being elected ? Until two years back no one ever heard a whisper about giving the elective franchise to the English Roman Catholics. In Ireland it was necessary that every person voting at an election should take the Oath of Allegiance, and produce a cer tificate of the same on the hustings; but this Bill pro vided no such thing, and therefore there was no ana logy in the two cases. In Ireland the offices excepted were specifically enumerated ; but in' this respect also the present measure was different. As to the law of 1817, relative to Officers in the Army and Navy, he (the Lord Chancellor) had doubts whether that Act were necessary or not ; and although he did not recol lect having given the opinion stated by the Noble Mar quis, on the right of the Duke of Norfolk to. officiate at the Coronation as Hereditary Earl Marshal of Eng land, he now had no hesitation in saying that his opinion, if asked, must have been such as had been described.— The second Bill merely went to demand how Parliament could deny the same privileges to a number of English Catholics, which were possessed by Irish Catholics. It was said, why not do now what was done before? The truth, however, appeared to be, that they had been going on until they knew not where to stop. He wished their Lordships to look into history. Let them study ' the Ist of Philip and Mary, and they would then see that the spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy of the Catholics included temporal supremacy also. No sub ject had a right to enjoy the offices sought for who did not acknowledge the King as supreme. If, within 20 years past, it was thought to carry the Catholic Question by storm, that time was now gone, and it 'was only at tempted to gain the same object by sapping and mining. But he still relied upon the wisdom of that House, and should conclude with observing, that he could never agree to the Bills on their Lordships' table. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that were the present the general question relative to the Catholics, no man should more firmly oppose it than himself. Events which had occurred even within a few days, must have strengthened the sentiments with which he had always viewed that measure. The Bills, however, under im mediate consideration, were of a limited nature, and had no reference to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but re lated solely to those of England. For his own part, he should say, that he would violate every principle that guided his public conduct through life, if he did not uphold the supremacy of the Crown. But this was always a question of degree. He had no difficulty in saying that the King of this count y should be Protestant, the Council Protestant, the Parliament Protestant, and the Judges Protestant, because they were the supreme parts of the Government—( Hear ). Upon these grounds he differed with the Noble Lords opposite respecting the general question. Every honest Catholic must be hostile to a Government such as he (Lord Liverpool) just described, and where they would have the power to endanger it, they should not in his opinion be admitted. Hence he objected to the gene ral measure introduced by the Noble Lord opposite, and desired him to particularize the redress he sought. To apply the same principle to the office of Lord Chancel lor and of a tide waiter, rendered it ridiculous. His ob ject was not to give what would be dangerous, not to refuse what would be safe. He did not think because a certain law prevailed in Ireland, that that was in itself a sufficient reason for introducing a similar law into this country ; but there were some cases where it would be preposterous not to aim at uniformity. —lf the elective franchise was given at the recom mendation of the Crown to the Irish Catholics, why should it be withheld from those of England? Gene rosity, he thought, demanded the concession, as well as justice. The oaths alluded to, it was well known, were scarcely ever tendered but as means of delay.— With respect to the second Bill, which went to confer eligibility to office it was divided into three parts—that relative to the Revenue, &c. Justices of the Peace—and the Earl Marshal of England. The last he must join with all who had preceded him in wishing to have met as a separate measure, although he could well appre ciate the exalted motives of the Noble Duke it con cerned for declining any individual relief. Next, as to Justices of the Peace, he confessed there were some de bateable difficulties attending the subject, however free his own mind might be from any important doubts. But he did not see how the law as regards the Revenue, Custom, and Excise, could remain in its present state.— ' (The Noble Earl here entered into an explanation of the consolidation of the Boards of the two countries). That evil must, he thought, have some remedy. On the ge neral question affecting the Catholics he had no fears. lie knew the opinion of the Public of this country on that subject, and he agreed with his Noble Friend (Earl Westmor eland) that the only weakness to be apprehended was from refusing trifling concessions irrelevant to the real merits of the measure. The Marquis of LANSDOWN briefly replied, after which the question was put on the second reading of the Elective Fianchite Bill, when the numbers were— ~ ; ;-4 .-, - . 1;e.., 1! Contents - - - a SS Probes - - 3S-101 Non-Contents 74 Proxies - - - 65--)59 Majority against the second reAng —Ss The House then divided on the second for admitting lint halt Roman Catholics to offites, kc. when the numbers were r for Ate seconi reading, Contents - - 66 Proxies - 43-109 Non-Contents - - 76 Proxies - - 67-143. Majority The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. - - This being the last day for receiving Reports on Private Mils, the Horse was occupied for a lung time in rece►ving them. Mr. BY NG presented the Report of the Commercial Roads Bill, which was read and agreed to. Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from certain persons in Lancashire, praying for an inquiry into the case of the lase Mr. Smith, the Missionary. Mr. BROUGHAM said that he would bring forward his motion upon this case on Tuesday week, instead of neat Thursday, If an Honourable Friend who had a motion for that day, would yield to hint precedence. Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE presented a Petition for an inquiry into Mr. Smith's case, from certain inhabitants of Royston. Sir 'l'. ACLA ND presented a similar Petition from Barnstaple. Mr. STANLEY presented Petitions from Charleswortk and Warrington, praying that the House would institute serious inquiry into the transactions which gave rise to she trial of the late Mr. Smith, Missionaty in Demerara. As the question was to undergo a grave discussion in the course of a few days, he would refrain from any present comment. Mr. HUSKISSON took the same course with respect to a Peti tion signed by 4,000 inhabitants of Liverpool, upon the same subject. The same Hon. Member presented a Petition from blerthants and Bankers of Liverpool, against the Corn Laws, and the system of monopoly and averages, which the Petitioners asserted was so far from being beneficial to the growers, that grain bad never been so unreasonably low as since the year 1815, when this system was first established. Mr. CURTEIS expressed his readiness to give up the system of averages, as wholly inefficient to protect the growers. Mr. WHITMORE said, that it was impossible that grain could be foes her coos from the operation of those improved and liberal maxims Which now influenced all the other interests of the country. If no one else underfoot' is,he pledged himself in the course of next Session to bring the whole subject, difficult as it was, before the consideration of the House. After a few words front Mr. Cuarvs, the Petition was laid on the table. - . Mr. WHARTON presented a Petition from several Justices of the Peace at Northalkrton, against a clause in lire Jail Bill. Mr. CHALON ER complained ,shat the object of these Justices was to have the power of inflicting the punishment of the tread mill on prisoners before trial. Mr. BROWNLOW gave notice that be would, on Friday neat, present a Petition respecting the Catholic Association now sitting in Dublin, and move that it be referred to the Committee now sitting on the state of Ireland. Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS presented a Petition from the Inhabi tants of the burgh of Annan, against any alteration in the Duties on Hides and Skins. He also presented a Petition from the Presbytery of the same Burgh, against the Scotch Poor Bill. Lord A. HAMILTON said, that instead of supporting the Scotch Poor Bill, as had been said, he was a decided opponent of the measure, and hoped it would be withdrawn. Mr. KENNEDY said he should withdraw it, after explaining the.reasege whit& induced him to introduce it. He hoped the Right Hon. Ohnsismun oppodte would allow him to do so this evening. ST. KATHARINE'S DOCKS. Mr. BYNG presented a Petition from certain indivi duals, praying to be heard by Counsel against the St. Katharine's Docks Bill. Mr. GRENFELL did not know whether there was a precedent for such a proceeding; if there was, he would now call on the House to reject this Petition. The Bill to which it had reference had now been three weeks before the Committee, and they had not as yet been able to get through the preamble. They had already had twenty-three Petitions referred to them against the Bill, in which the parties had desired to be heard by their Counsel, and the Committee had been condemned to sit, day after day, hearing Counsel after Counsel, and listening to cross-examination after cross-examina tion, hours in length, and now here was another Peti tion about to be referred to them, to open anew these examinations. An Honourable Alderman had declared publicly, that he would do all he could by delay and otherwise to defeat the Bill. The Honourable Alder man might smile; but W such a course as this was tolerated, there was no measure which could not be de feated by money, if it wa; brought forward on the first day of the longest Session of Parliament that ever was known. He called on the House to interpose and to rescue its character from the obloquy which must be brought upon it by such a proceeding as this. Mr. C. CALVERT complained of the mode of pro- , ceeding which had been adopted before the Committee. Mr. Alderman HEYG ATE could not sit silent under the charge that had been brought against him. It was true he had smiled when he heard an Honourable Member propose to the British Parliament, to reject the Petition of, or refuse to hear an individual, who asserted that a certain measure now in progress through the House would, if adopted, be his ruin. He had never said, he would defeat the Bill by delay ; what he had said was, that precipitancy on one side must be met by propor tionate delay on the other; and he would say, that never had a measure of such importance as this, a measure going to destroy 800 houses, and the property of numetous individuals, been pressed through the House so precipitately, or introduced at so late a period of the Session. The SPEAKER said, it appeared to him, that the House having referred this Bill to a Committee, to in quire into its merits, and to report to the House upon them, the House c ould not now regularly enter into a debate on the principle of the Bill. As to the Petition to be heard by Counsel, it was clear that it was the duty of the Committee to hear all persons interested in the measure, whether for or against the Bill, and with that view they were bound to hear the Counsel of the patties till they were fully informed on that particular point; but having once been satisfied on that point, they were not bound to hear other Counsel upon other Petitions relating to the same point, and only differing in the name of the individual petitioning; of that fact, the Committee were the judges. The Petition was then referred to the Committee on the Bill, as were the Petitions of several other indivi duals, containing the same prayer. THE ALLIANCE COMPANY. The resolutions of the Committee were agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. Mr. GRENFELL having observed that a great num ber of these incorporating Bills had been introduced, which enabled the Companies to sue or be sued by their Treasurer, or other officer to be by them appointed, wished to know what security the public was to have for their interests in those cases in which verdicts should be obtained against the Treasurer? He wished to know, in short, after judgment had against the officer, who was to be actually responsible for the debts or damages which might be recovered Mr. HUSKISSON was glad of this Opportunity of having the question openly stated, that it might be met with as fair an answer. As he understood it, under these Bills of Incorporation, in case of judgments obtained against the Treasurer, and their not being made good, the individuals who might obtain the ver licts would be at liberty to select any one or more of the mem. bers of that incorporation, upon whom he would levy for full satisfaction of his claim. The Honourable G ea . tleman might depend upon it, that without such a claus e attached to it, no Bill of that nature would be allowed to pass. He would propose, for public convenience, another clause, which would require the names of all the parties to be enrolled at the Stamp Office and none of the proceedings of the association should he held good in law till such enrolment had been effected. Alderman BRIDGES put a question as to the power of transferring vhaiies, and to ascertain with whom the responsibility io such cases would rest. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that up to the very m n , merit in which the transfer should be effected in th e Stamp Office, the name of the previous subscribe r would be held responsible. There was nothing n ew i ti the spirit of this regulation, and the result would be, that them could be ao le/ o ttransfer tsntil the chan ge o f the name at the Stamp e. SEER BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for considering the Report on the Beer Bill.—The Bill was recommitted; and on the m o . tion for the House going into the Committee, Mr. M ABERLY said, that although the Chanceter of the Exchequer had given up many objectionable pans, the Bill was yet of a nature to demand the greatest con. sideration. It had two objects: first, the altering of the Malt Duty, and next, the throwing open of the Beer Trade. But still it continued a most vezatious duty ; and even the proposed reduction only went to take oIF the duty from one kind of beer to put it on anodic!. With regard to the Beer Trade, the Bill was opposed ' by many Brewers and Victuallers ' who declared that i t would be their ruin. He was in favour of free trade ; but he wished to be cautious in disturbing capital which had been embarked for several years in property of this nature under the authority of law. All that these per sons required was an investigation. before their interests were destroyed. That this inquiry might be effectually made, he should move that the present Bill be recom mitted that day siz months ; but he repeated, he should do so only to prepare for a proper inquiry. He had no interest of a personal nature in the question : but he did not wish to see vested interests unfairly dealt with; and indeed in this ca e, he really thought few people would be able to avail themselves of the liberty given by the Bill. The,. people, it should be observed, did not ask for compensation, but only to be heard. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill be recommitted that day six months. Mr. DAVENPORT opposed the Bill on account of its being injurious to the publicans. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the arguments of the Honourable Gentleman had already been discussed and decided by the House. He did not know about what the Honourable Gentleman thought it necessary to inquire in a Committee, espe cially as he admitted that opening the trade would lower the price of beer. this was giving him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the whole case for which he contended. As to the argument about vested in terests, it would apply at all times, and if it were there fore allowed to prevail, no alteration could ever take place. Besides, it was doubtful at this moment., whe ther, under the present law, a brewer could not deal in beer by retail. Many individuals had tried to do so, and being convicted for so dealing, their appeal to the Court of King's Bench had led to a suggestion, from the Court, that the law should be set at rest by a decla ratory Act. The brewers and publicans could not say that they were now taken by surprise, as a Committee had been appointed on the subject two years ago, which had been frequently brought under the no tice of the House since that period. The evils of the present system were admitted, and the advantages which would follow from the proposed Bill were not denied. He could not therefore consent to the post ponement of the measure, and he begged the House to meet it with " Aye" or "No." He telt confident as to the result, particularly as the Bill proposed measures which would contribute to the comfort of the poorer classes—(( Hear, hear). Mr. LOCKART supported the Bill. Mr. 'l'. WILSON thought the interests of the brewers and publicans deserved some consideration. Mr. F. PALMER thought the Bill as it now stood, would work a considerable benefit to the community. Mr. CHARLES WHITBREAD assured the House his opposition to the Bill was not caused by interested motives, but by a regard to the rights of many of his constituents, who were brewers and publicans. He should oppose the Bill. Mr. Alderman BRYDGES, Mr. CHARLES CALvilirr, Colonel DAVIRS, and Sir EDWARD KR/81011MA, op posed the Bill. Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT supported the Bill, in order to check the monopoly of brewers. Mr. CURWEN thought the Bill was deserving of the support of every Member of the Horse. _ Mr. MONCK also supported the Bill. It had actually been proved that the brewers brewed several kinds of beer, the best for the free houses, over which they had no controul ; and the very worst for their own houses. Mr. Barclay, the great brewer, had very handsomely offered to consent to open the trade.—Mr. Wonmouse supported the Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD contended, that the measure was one not calculated to benefit the people of England. So far from relieving the poor, it had a direct contrary tendency. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put the duty on a quarter of malt at 24.5. as he had for merly held out, instead of 37,. 6J. it would be putting the question on its right footing. Free trade ought to be established in every department of national industry. It was absurd that them should be free trade in one ar ticle and not in another. Mr. DENISON supported the amendment. His Ho nourable Friend only called for inquiry r he did mot pledge himself to any specific course of conduct or opi nion. His object was to reconcile the interest of the public at large to the measure, to which in reality he did not object. Mr. CU RTE IS said, that in compliance with the prayer or the Petitions which he had presented, he should vote against the Bill. Mr. MANSFIELD supported the Bill, because it had been altered from its original shape. The House then divided— For the Bill, 99 ( For the Amendment, 32 I Majority,67 The House then went into a Committee on the Report. Mr. MA I3ERLY moved an amendment to a clause, to the effect that Licenses to Publicans be discontinued. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he must oppose this motion, because he could not agord to give up two hundred thousand pounds. Mr. MA BE It LI said he only wished to place the Publican upon the sane footing at all other trades. The gallery Wiia then cleared for a division, but no division took place. The Amendment wai withdrawn, and the clause adopted. 'rile other clause; of the Bill were then agreed to, with certaii 1" r • ~.. V part] foe* web Awed 14 tool 11 et teal * the' COW wei bet w thoi, to pc jecti Frie sup VOUI mei am the Brea Am ofd flue the for whip with tionz For 0 L SIMI Stia 11 prem held and 1 Mei Ai fora TI R eE T 22- t•