Star. — London, England, 1819-06-11 00:00:00

~~ r~~ . I, 1,, 10 # 1 i ~ ! , "' \ scriiStion of Christiatts; they were willing to take the important, Oath of Supremacy ; and in justice they should be put tvn an equal foo ting with other de scriptiotis of Di&nters. The remaining Tests would be abundantly suf f icient for all p oli t ical considera-" tions; and by an acquiescence in the present measure the Catholic would be relieved from much oppro brium "and the Protestant Dissenter from dime un just fetters which still pressed, upon them, with re spect to tests purely religious. They should not stop ,where, they were, but still go on in the beneficial work of concession, which would best lead the way to that final and healing adjustment with respect to religious exclusion, which unavoidahly they would have to come to at last. The Noble Earl then moved the second reading of the Bill for abrogating the Tests imposed by the Acts of the 25th and 30th of his Majesty King Charles the Second. The Bishop of NORWICH rose, he said, with peculiar satisfaction, to second the motion of the Noble Earl. He contended, that it was unjust to proscribe five millions of loyal subjects, because cer tain persons pretended that they knew the principles of the Roman Catholics better than they did them selves. It was the duty of a good man to seek for the truth ; and in pursuing it, would he not rather be guided by the repeated declarations of the per sons themselves, than the accounts of other men. It had been often his Lordship's lot to hear the Catho lics charged with what they often hive unequivocally disclaimed. He would not now enter upon topics which had been already so ably discussed. He could not, however, avoid making a few remarks, which he assured their Lordships he was prompted to do, rather by a motive of duty than with a view to turn that House into a Divinity School. And first, as to the declaration against Transubstantiation, he must observe, that he never heard it recited without the most unpleasant of sensations—self-reproach. Were it not, indeed, fur the glorious uncertainty of the law, and the plastic nature of its terms, he believed, there were a great many Noble Lords in that House who would have felt some strong misgivings before they took the Transubstantiation Oath. Such a declara tion he declared was unworthy of a rational man, much less of a Christian, and ought to be abolislecd. When he professed this sentiment, he thought it would be unreasonable to impute to him a wish to arraign the law. Were they who voted for the abo lition of the Statute De Combureride llrcretice, and the laws relating to witchcraft, accused of arraigning the law? Was that eloquent and enlightened lawyer, who a short time since strewed the necessity of cor recting the state of our Criminal Law, reproached with a wish to arraign the law, because he wished to expunge from the, criminal code those barbarisms which now disgraced it, and whose labours would be rewarded by the applause of all good men:— " thud tisn:o si r . equeo defendere Ciiman cum tat.to com mune viro."—'Hear, Hew, Near.) —The Reverend Prelate then said the question was not, how old the law was? Time 'did not justify What was bad. He thought the Sacramental Test, the most unexceptionable of all. An Act of Parlia ment, he said, could not alter the nature - Of our ob ligations to Gon; and it was lamentable to think that an article of Divine Faith should be made the means of climbing to Political Power.—(Hear.) — He, with at old Poet, had the strongest objection to this Church and State union— " To make the Symbol of atoning Grace, "An eke -key, apicliods, to—a place!" —He solemnly implored the house, therefore, to re peal those Acts,.which, in lis.own opinion, as well as in the opinions of abler men, had been too long suf fered to disgrace our Statute-Book.—(llcar, henr.)— lie differed widely from those who considered the Test Acts as the bulwark of the Conttitution ; he, on the contrary, thought them the excrescences and deformities which had grown upon its surface, and which were as offensive to the eye as they were dis gra:eful to the character of the, age.—(llear, Hear.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that the object of the Bill was to remove, by a single stroke of a pen, those Acts that formed an insur mountable obstacle to the admission of the Catholics to seats ,in the Legislature ; and if Catholics sat in the House of Lords at the time of the passing of the 30th of Charles 11. it then appeared that the Oath of Supremacy was not sufficient to exclude them from Parliament. An experiment had formerly been made, and failed, of a Catholic King and a Protestant Par liament. An attempt was then made to have a Pro testant King and a Catholic House of Lords and Commons. He felt it his duty to oppose the Bill. , .. Lord LIVERPOOL stated, tha t it would be un necessary for him to enter at much length into the question, as in many of the principles laid down by the Noble Lord he entirely concurred. For himself, he had always supported the Corporation and Test Acts, and was unable to see what objection a con scientious Protestant could have to subscribe the de claration against Transubstantiation. The present attempt was a preliminary to repeal all the Statutes operating against the Catholics, and on that account he should oppose it. He agreed with the Noble Earl, , that the repeal of the Acts in question would not open the doors of Parliament to the Catholics ; and in that case he would ask what would be the use of the enactment in question ? If the matter were to rest here, the point, as a principle of feeling, might be conceded to the Catholics. But would that be the case, and would the advocates of the Catlio. licsiabstain from a further discussion of their claims? Laffiat case, the concession sought, so far from being beneficial, might be productive of much mischief. 1-4 tra,s old enough to recollect when, for slum Ses the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts f i rlb si ‘d o tber principal subject of discussion; and the in question were defended, not so much from a vi . to their actual and practical operation, as from th forming an invincible bulwark, should ever the Chesrch be seriously attacked. . Lord GRENVILLE.took a different view of this qtes'il to that which the Noble Earl had taken ; there were no grounds for thinking- that Catholics fr had e ve * sat in the House of Commons between the sth o Elizabeth and the reign of Charles 11. when Catho is Peers were excluded from Parliament. Peers did not sit in•Parllament, during that period, by any evasion of oaths ot laws, but by a legal right, there being no power to administer such oaths to them ; and he now asked upon.what 'grounds we at present continued to press their exclusion, in the face of the immortal services which therand their ancestors had performed for the country ? - .:lt might be that a ma might conscientiously believe in the levdeation of the Virgin and of Images, and yet deny the supremacy of the Pope.. It was the milfortune of the Catholics, , that we took the description .of the Catholic' tenets oily from their •tiversaries. We were told that they 'held a divided iffiegiance ; .but in all his intercourse with Catholics, and that intercourse had been widely extended, he had never found one who would bear to be told that he professed a divided allegiance, and .net a true allegiance to the King. What was true allegiance? Why it was obedience to the King in all his lawful commands, in his Courts of Justice, in his Legislature, and, in fact, in all matters in which he might by the Law and Constitution, command ; and in this obedience the Catholic swore in terms' precisely the same as his Majesty's other subjects did , and he trusted there was not a man in the country who did not pay that allegiance ; but there was no law which said the King, even in • his Parliament, should command his subjects as to the religioai faith they should profess. If, indeed, he were asked what, is his opinion, would be his act if he were to wor ship the Mass, he should say that in him it would be an act of idolatry to worship the creature as the CREATOR ; but the Catholic might conscientiously de so. The first object of the State at this day ought to be to unite, if not in the same faith, all the People in the same political and civil rights ; and he would ask now, after all the slanders and calumnies which had been uttered for years against the Roman Catho lics, if there was any man existing who would lay' his hand on his heart and say that the religion of Fenelon was idolatry ? In us, who professed a dif ferent faith, it would be idolatry ; but in a true Ca tholic it was pure religion ; and if they truly pro fessed the Catholic faith, they could not take the oaths that were required ; and it must be of the most pernicious and dangerous tendency, for the I people thus to see the Legislature trifling with re ligious professions of faith ; and thus making .ap peals to the Crertor in oaths contrary to the religious faith and belief of those who were obliged to take them. One of the Prelates of our Church, Bishop Herring, had declared, that although the sacrifice of the mass was unfit for us, yet it was not idolatrous. And Bishop Burnet, in his history, informs us, that Archbishop Sheldon had the same opinion. At pre sent we professed that to exclude any man on dif • fcrences wholly religions, was unjustifiable--.litit on the present occasion it was said. that there was a dif ference of political opinion among the Catholics, which called for their exclusion, independent of reli gious belief. He would reply to this, that the Ca tholics bad none of those political differences, but that he was ready to profess and to give to the Mo narch all that duty and obedience which any of the most dutiful and obedient subjects could give. What could be the opinion of the Catholics Olen they found us disclaiming any intentionofercluding them on religious principles, yet offering, as the price of their admission to civil right an oath, which consis tent with their religious belief, they could not take )1 He hoped, however, when it should be known that all the objections to the Catholics rested on the so , phistry of obedience and supremacy, they would ring that there were words which they could conscientiously adopt, which must be taken as full supremacy. The Noble Lord then adverted to the objections made to entertaining the Catholic Claims in any shape. If a Committee was proposed then, it was said this is too general, let us have a specific measure. If a specific measure was proposed, then a Committeeand a general measure was immediately called for. He concluded by giving his full support to the motion. •The LORD CHANCELLOR, on this occasion, was again called on to stand forward in thedischarge of his duty, in support of a 'Protestant King and a, Protestant Church ; and ip doing so he felt it to be his duty to oppose this motion. lie was certain this measure, if adopted, would give great alarm to the Protestants. He gave the same credit to the Catho lic religion, and to the Catholic's religious opinions, as he did to his own. Gon forbid he should not ; but yet his duty commanded him to stand forward in Iris place in Parliament and take that course which he considered the safety of the Protestant Establish ment called for. lie must always consider undi vided allegiance to be indispensible to that object.— By the Act of Supremacy, the country was delivered from a most abject submission to a foreign Power, as appeared from the recital and the preamble to the Act ; that had been followed rip by the Act of Eliza beth, and then came the Acts of Charles 11. If the country required such Statutes, was it ever heard of that they should be repealed, because they might be incidentally abused. James 11. had no objection to take the Coronation Oath, though it bound him to the suppc.rt of the Protestant religion. The first Act of a King, when he came into the House of Peers, was to take the Declaration proposed to be repealed, and that was a plat of the compact made with the new Sovereign at the Revolution. He denied that all this was asked for the sake of religion ; for the Law and Constitution required that the Test, and the Oath of Supremacy, should be taken, to chew a man to be a Protestant. In order that no man who was a Pa-, pist should sit in that House, the Patriots, who es. tablished the Constitution, enacterl a declaration to be taken by all who came to that table to be sworn,. which could leave no doubt whether a man was a Papist or protestant. This, -therefore, was a religious test of political opinion, which was held by Doctor Paley to be the best test on such matters. Ile be lieved the Revolution had secured civil and religious liberty on the best possible footing ; and if the secu rities of both were taken away, by agreeing to this measure, they would establish Catholic Emancipa tion at once. As they regarded the liberties of the land, its civil and religious institutions, let them not chew thetnselves unpardonable in the eyes of poste rity, by handing those valuable privileges impaired to their successors.. The/ Earl of HARROWBY combated the argu ments of his Noble and Learned Friend, as they ten ded to shew that Catholics were only excluded on the grouad of their religion. It had been said that the declaration against 'I ransubstantiation was only a religious test of •political opinions, but why should such a test be required, when other tests of an en tirely political nature and of the most satisfactory description were previously given? With respect to the declaration that the worship of the Church of Rome was idolatrous, he could not join in it. He was ready to allow that the practice of the lower and uneducated orders in praying to the Saints might be idolatrous ; but if he looked to the doctrine of• the Romish Church on that point, as settled by the Council of Trent, he could not conscientiously say that it was idolatrous, altbougk he might consider it improper Earl BATHURST contended, that the Oath of Supremacy was not scient to exclude Roman Ca ' tholics from the House of Commons. The declara tion against Transubitantiation had been added to 'accomplish that object. But the present Bill went further than the repeal of that Declaration, and laid a foundation for repealing the Oath of Supremacy. On these grounds he should vote against the measure. Eel GREY replied at considerable length. Ile would not follow the Noble and Learned Lord •through the various caurse of argument which he had adopted ; but he felt the imperious necessity of utterly disclaiming the motives which had been at tributed to him by the Noble Lord (Batlinrst) who spoke last, in bringing forward this motion. It had been declared that the repeal of this oath was inten ded by him (Earl (rey) as a step to be taken pre paratory to other measures; and more particularly to the dispensing with the Oaths of Supremacy. If he could so far degrade himself to use this or any other measure as a cloak to deceive their Lordships, he should be unworthy their confidence or attention. After combating the arguments of the Noble Earl who preceded him, his Lordship bugged to remind the opponents' of his motion, of the dangerous ten dency of those doctrines which their Lordships had ' advanced, and which went to charge the Church of Rome with superstitious idolatry. For he considered that, when speaking of Roman'Cattolics, it was the heads of that religion who formed, the objects of their consideration. Their Lordships were r.ot legislating for a superstitious, crafty Priesthood, or an ignorant multitude. If we were to allow that all Chris tians, previous to the days of Henry the Eighth, were superstitious idolators, and that four-fifths of the Christian world were still in the same state, would it not be said by those who acknowledged no religion, that the Christian doctrine had rather been a curse than a blessing to the world ? He would caution their Lordships from treading on such dangerous ground. If the tenets of the Church of Rome were idolatrous, our own were substantially deficient on the same principle, when we declared that, « the body and blood of Cultist. were verily, and indeed taken, by the faithful in the Loan's Sup per." The Noble Earl concluded by entreating their Lordships, if they considered it necessary to declare themselves Protestants, to do it at least in terms which would inflict no insult on the creed of the Catholics.--The !louse then divided— Content. Not Contents Proxies l'rucies - 82 - G 9-141 Majority against the Bill —59 Adjourned at HALF-PAST TWELVE this Moniing. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. S. WORTLRY moved for a Committee bn the Laws regulating the Stamping of Woollen Cloths.—The motion was agreed to, and a Conimitteeforthwith appointed. Mr. S. VORTLEY then presented a Petition from the Trus tees of the Linen Hall of Leeds against the Tax on Foreign Wool.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. R. WJI,LIAMS presented a Petition from the band holders of Carnarvou, praying for protecting Duties on the Im portation of Foreign Corn.—Ordered to Ile on the table. Mr. Alderman WOOD wished to know from the Chair, if h was competent to present Petitions afYinst the proposed Taxes in the present stage of the proceedipps? The 'SPEAKER said in reply, that he had examined the Journals on the subject, and found no precedent to warraut Pe titions being presented under such circhmstances as the present, but that it would be for the House to exercise its own dikretion upon the matter. Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN brought in the Mock Auction Prevention Bill.—'Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on-Monday next.. Mr. 1...k818T0N gave notice, that he would take an early opportunity in the next Session to propose a measure relative to the Copy-right Act. Mr:SHIW moved for an Account of the Sums paid by the hotel-keepers in nublin, in support of the Police Establishment there, for the last six years.—Ordered. The Scotch Criminals Bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow (ibis day). Ou the Motion of Mr. WALLACE, the House resolved Itself into a Committee on the Salt Duties' Bill, and the Report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday next. I!: GAOL DELIVERT. Mr. WESTERN, in rising to call the attention of the House to a Motion of which he had already given notice, said that it was not his intention to trespass longer on the indulgence of the House than he could possibly avoid. The object he had in view was, that an humble Address be presented to the Prince Re gent, praying that he would be pleased to direct a more frequent Gaol Delivery. It was one of the soundest maxims of our system of jurisprudence, that every man was presumed to be innocent till his, guilt was proved before a Jury of his countrymen ; and he (Mr. Western) was therefore of opinion that no avoidable time should be lost in bringing persons accused-to trial. He knew it was a delicate matter to propose any alteration in the existing system of, Criminal Law ; yet the proposition he had to submit' appeared to him to he called fbr by the urgent cir cumstances of the case. The Honourable Member then entered into a minute detail of the several Sta- ' totes enjoining a frequent Gaol Delivery, and quoted the opinion of Lord Coke on the subject. He con tended, that the present crowded state of .the Gaols throughout the country rendered the proposed mea sure necessary ; and observed, that he had searched among the Records in the Crown Office for various precedents with reference to the question. Ile then stated numerous cases of long imprisonment before trial ; and dwelt particularly on .the hardships to which persons acquitted had been subject. The next subject he adverted to was the insufficiency of the Gaols for the reception of the-crowds of Prisoners who were placed together without any regard to clas sification or good order. The Honourable.Gentle man concluded with moving, that an Address (which, he read) should be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, the purport of which was, that imprisonments had considerably increased in England and Wales, since a Return had been, made on the subject, which his Royal Highness was graciously pleased to order to have laid before him; and pray ing.that he would be graciously pleased to order a more frequent Gaol Delivery, agreeably to the law of the ,land, and particularly to: the Statute -of the 4th of Edward- HI. chap. 2, enjoining a Delivery' of the Gaols three times a year, and oftener, if neces sary; and thatihe nation would defray any. additio -nal,expenie that shouldle,incurred by the proposed !TIMMY: : .*: • The - ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to object to the Motion. 'The substabce of the Honourable and Learned Qtyntlemaa's oppiisiiiert. to, the Motion Was founded upon the aroment, that, accnrilin g t present constitution of the Courts of Jactice, were no means of carrying into effect more lo:qt.. Commissions of Gaol Deliveries than at prestia, the time of the twelve Judges w.,; completvly gaged in the great variety of legal 1,1 , ,ine. % already occupied their attention. The and Learned Gentleman then stated the Gaol Deliveries, which, by the 4th of Li' I .were ordered to be held three times a yeai of Assize, and also the origin of Jtistic,. t. Peace, who had been ordered in the rein ea i;d•A, the Third, to facilitate the basine.. of of' ( Delivery, by holding Sessions the year. The 1101unit:ile and Learned I then stated, that he knew of no plan by purport of the Addro..., as f.lr as it regarded Deliveries being carried into effect, uniess Quarter Sessions l/eirg increased yearly from eight, and being held by a ljonrnmer.t, or by • pointment of an additional number of Judg , land. It was impossible that, undcr the pa.? teni of the Law Court , ., Commis';oils of Ga' very should be more fieopient than va ice a :. was plainly proved by v,bat took place, whcn. extraordinary exigencies, wllat v:ele called issued—as on such occasions the: of regular justice was of neces.ity . . I lonourable and Learned Member concluded by r ing the previous question. Mr. KENNET I' considered the evil corm' •. : . 2 by his Honourable Friend a.: one of the ut , , • portance. Ile could not on this occaSion adverting in particular to the situation of f e Northern Counties, where he personally • stance in which an individual was confined e months and a half on a charge of murder, liberated, the Grand Jury thrnixiag wit the II:: trusted, if his Majesty's Government took no s:c;) this important subject, his Honourable Ftiend at an early period of the next (2 , -sin rttov- f. Committee to inquire into the suhiect, that :t.e plc of England might in future have what thc•; present had not, a regular administration of . that criminals might speedily meet puniihrne:l the innocent be as speedily declared so. Mr. BATHt.msT thou, ht the ILinourable tleman had gone out of the way on this occasion t: an argument. The Northern Counties had Only o: Assize in a year, yet the Honourable Gentleman ha drawn them into his argument, to shew that mo than two Assizes were necessary in other Countie The Hight Honourable Gentleman opposed the M. tion on the same grounds as those taken by the torney-General. Sir E. KNATcr !num, wished the 'Motion wntr now be withdrawn till nest Session, to afford tin. for inquiry. Mr. WESTERN replied, when the Motion w negatived, and the.previous question adopted wit... out a division. COLONIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. MP. lIUME rose to n:ove the production of an r. timate of the expenses of our new colonies of Ceyh and the Mauritius. It was impossible for the How!. in the way the present expenditure for these colon. was conducted, to know what they really cost country, as the accounts were only returned once two or three years, and so mixed up that it was ir.. possible to separate items of account. It way, the?. • fore, highly necessary that this subject sl:c fairly sifted to the bottom, in order to establish Fcrr.• thing like a system of retrenchment and economy.-- From documents on the table, the expense of t.t troops in Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Gc.l Hope, Malta, and the lonian Islands, amounted one-third of all our expenses for troops from host. serviae, and therefore he though t these colonies oug to bear their own expenses. contended that the .! was no risk to our Eastern Colonies from any Pm. whatever. The saving on the Staff of these Colonit and the money to be saved by their being obliged suppart their own expenses, would amount, accordii to his calculation, to £900,000. The annual amou raised from these Colon:es was nearly I:2,300,00('. and therefore, with all his confidence in the Nob . . Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, could not consent to so Etrge a revenue being man.- ged without the knowledge of the British Colonial Legislatures. He had reason to believe that Ceyl,'. and the Cape of Good Hope, paid large sums tot.- Dutch ; and though he had not sufficiently accur... information as to the Mauritius, yet he believed II: it, as well as the other Colonies, were capable • maintaining all the troops necessary for their intr.• nal security or external defence. If Governme.: would take pains to cultivate the good opinion of t people of Ceylon, they would be able to take ofl great deal of the military expense, and would :c conferring the greatest benefit to the people of th... valuable Colony. If such a system had been adept , .: five years ago, a waste of British treasure and blo would have been saved, to an extent whi:h the Hor. could have no conception of. He then moved for total Amount of the Revenue raised in these Colon . for the last Two Yeam; the total Amount of the L • pence of Ceylon for the same period ; a Return Civil Officers Salaries for the last Year ; and an A • count of the Military Staff Officers for the same f'• riod in the same Island. lie had similar motions make respecting the Mauritius, the Cape of Go, Hope, Malta, and the lonian Islands. Mr. GOULBOURN bad before informed the 11.- _ pourable Gentleman, that he had no disposition; resist the motion, and should therefore reserve what had to say on the subject till a future period ; pled. ing himself to prove much of the Honourable Ce tleman's •statement to be erroneous ; arising, I doubt, from misrepresentation. As to the Ioni: Islands he would say, that we could not contra their revenue, since that was vested in the Senatel the Constitution granted by us to those Islands. The motions were carried nem. con. as were simil. motions respecting the Mauritius, the Cape of Gcc Hope, and Malta. lib. HUME, in moving for similar Returns frcr tbe lonian Islands, denied that they were independe: of this country, inasmuch as the appointment of MG was in the power of Government ; and that their nate was obliged to make a Return of the Expend tore and Revenue of those IslandF. He therelo7c hoped the Under Secretary of State ‘venld have objection to this Return, which would complete thc• for all the newly acquired Colonies—The met' , was, however, negatived %% ithout a division. Mx. HUME tl.eu 11;oi c.. 1, fur a netuiu vl M. • 11, ••••• ';;• :.• 0:, no nu. Lin w rit • r • Itnt. n. t e . ir e .• rr • IC!_ ig he - nit li 3U 10(' oh': 1. an. mill vi, •.