Star. — London, England, 1829-04-11 00:00:00

!I ..1111111014 Can it be possible. my Loral, that I can be. eemsferted by making this declaration or that? Island in a situation in which I would not wish to hold a dif ferent opinion. The Noble Duke opposite knows that he never found me inflexible, except on this question; and as to the Right Hon. Secretary, who is called the Leader • f the House of Commons. there never was a • mai for whose principles and 'feelings I bad a greater • er MU were attached to, than those of the Right Hoe. Gentleman i and any disunion between his sentiments and mine most Decessarily cause me tbq most bitter pings. , My Lords, 1 . .11411 .proceed to ear eider under what circumstances this Bill was intruhsemL The Noble Duke said on a former'oight that I did net throw pebbles but paving stones in. his way. I Ws* to throw neither paving stones nor pebbles in the Nebb Duke's way; but I meant to regret, what I think the Noble Duke ought likewise to regret, that this matter was brought forward on the country by surprise, from which it is to be wished that the Noble Doke had re lieved them. At the close of the last Session of Perlis %entitle Noble Duke talked of securities. It Nal matter of controversy whether securities week spoken of this Sissies% but the Noble Duke promised to bring forward that which would give satisfaction to the country; and how was that satisfaction to be given without securities for the Established Church of the country? But, my Lords, I cannot but revert to the letter which was writ ten by the Noble Duke a short time previous to the in t' oduction of these measures to Dr. Curtis. I know - not by what title I should speak of this Gentleman, but,, with regard to what had been said by a Noble Lord in this House to the Noble Viscount (Sidmouth), reflect ing on the Nobles Lord who then had the honour of I.olding the situation of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, fur receiving any persons atCourt asCatholic B shops. Have to acquaint your Lordships that so late as the4th of April. 1829, the title of his Grace the Catholic Bishop of an Archiepiscopal See in Ireland was adopted and assumed within these realm.. This circumstance, your Lord ships w ill recollect, took place only four days ago. I must here, my Lords. tiler to what fell from my Right Rev. Pi iend, the Bishop of Norwich, of whom I have never spoken without respect, and for whom I have alw.,s entertained the highest regard, having known him since I was first a member of the Unisersity of Oxford. From what the Right Rev. Prelate said with regard to the sentiments of Bishop Hoadley I had de terrnined not to read any of his works; bur, having the other day read a sermon of the sth of November from Shit Bishop, it appears to me that he either spoke sen timents which he would not stand by, or be would be compelled, were be here this evening, in consistency with his declared sentiments, to vote with me against the Bishop of Norwich and the. Lord Chancellor, so much does be hold up to reprobation the Roman Ca tholics and their religion. With regard to the letter written by the Noble Duke, and which led to the sen timents expressed by the late Lord Lieutenant *of fro. land, recommending the Roman Catholics to continue the agitation, Mlle Lords may say that tbismtasureia itself will put ■ stop to agitation, and that it will Le as oil to the truobled waters ; but that letter certainly did tad the people of England to suppose that no such measure as this was about to be introduced, and there cannot be a bet.er -proof if it than the fact that the people did not come forward to further the present measure, but to aid his Majesty's Ministers in resisting it. Looking. my Lords, to the members who voted last year, when a measure similar to this was rikcted by a majority of forty-five, and flicking to the vote of the present year—l am anxious to treat every No ble Lord with great respect—but when I find that there is this year a majority et a bundled and five in fa your of the same measure,.l am desirous of knowing how this has happened. Ido not consider whether the ma jority is'great or sma I; my business is only to consider what is soy o•n duty. Ili the fiest place, to refer to • hat hai been said of a divided- Cabinet, which has been considered a great abomination. As to those who have acted for many years with me, how-do I know, my Lords, what has made them all converts? Ido not know ; for the whole argument which baa been brought forward is, " If you knew what I know you would support the Bill: I sourer, that Ido not know what you knob; and why not? Because you will not, or because you cannot, tell me. My Lords, I have hitherto opposed going into a Committee on this ques tion ; but when his Majesty recommended it in his Speech, I should have offered no objection. But instead of going into a Committee, I think it is something new for the Minister to come down and say,'," U you knew what I know you would agree to the Bill." My Lords. I think if an inquiry into the state of Ireland was imam any, the proper course mould have been to go into Cees. mince for that purpose. The good sense of that Com. mi.tee would certainly not have disclosed what it might be prudent to conceal, but, having taken the whole state of Ireland into consideration, they would come down to us. not testing on the mere assertion of the Ministers that they knew that which would induce your Lordships to pass this Bill. but declaring that they bad heard, on ii.qiiiry in Committee, that such measures were necessary. Haying said so much. my Lords, I now come to the strong arguments against supporting the present Bill. I think, on this question, lam entitled to speak as if it were not only the first day on which the question had been delisted, but, as it were, the first day on which the Parliament bad assembled. I will suppose that each of your Lordships had this day taken the oaths which you most have taken to sit in this House, namely, that acknoli !edging the supjemacy of the Crown, and That against transubstantiation. I will ask yoor Lord ships whether. after having taken those oaths alt four o'clock to-day, you can consistently pus the patient Bill? and. without entering into the nice distiosetainfle tweets the words idolatrous and idolatry. I will al; how is it possible that the majority of fos could have voted for the measure now before us? A Noble Lord bas said that religious opinions ought to have nothing to do with granting political power. In my opinion. my Lords, such a doctrine must tend, if not ountedi ugly, eventually to overturn the monarchy. It has been said that the ecclesiastical members of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland did not aspire to the emoluments and dignities of the Protestant Chord). But what is the fact? Hue they sot CathelieArchn bishops for every Protium Archbishop. Catholic Deese tot every Protestant Dean, Catholic Psebendories for, every Protestant Prebeadary? In fact. for every parish church its Ireland, have they not a Roman Catholic parish Priest? Is not the very masecterhons the Noble Duke at the head of the Government addressed that Extratordinary'letter the parses who dueled the right of die Protestant Archbishop of Armagh to bairebbishop? Did not the RomanCatholicEcclestasties dispateitgainu Hoary the Eighth, insistence of•the power of Pope ? And are there not Acts of Hooey the -ZOO which' treated the Minoan Catholics stollens to tbreatiatty And in Mary's time does it eat appear that the levee affecting the Roman , C.atholite wise repealed, :not kg tier authority - of the Parliaaillat, bat . through the its &tense and by the sanction of* legate of the. Pepe? Can it be denied 'heti in those Bobo Catholic Pr."- and Bishops were inducted into dignities and benefice in despite of the eosetments of the laws of the Pro testant Consdtotios of England ? Coo it be denied tat at that period the supremacy thit Clown on religious matters was denied by the ecclesiastical officers of the 'Romp Catholic' religion? *Yet the supremacy of thir, Crowns he said to Isavisoxisteal in Catholic times., even in MOM. ancient ffuoo ages. As an example of this we have a stoey.of two Christian Saxon Kings, who married two Kentish Ladies, which Ladies turned their husbands back agiio to the wrong faith.—(Here the Learned Lord read an extract from Coke, to the effect that men should not change their opinions on the subject miles. they were perseaded of, its rea sonableness.) — For Mt part (continued the Noble and Learned Lord) I have seen no reason to persuade me to change my opinions en the subject. On the Romeo Catholic Association I must say more, as I have not made tiny remark on it in the course of the Bill for sop• pressing its meetings; and this I say, which I have said before, that, unless you provide direct preventives against the possibility of its revival, you will see it re stored to life again. Even still they continue to exit still they continue to meet and receive the rent; and though they may profess to have dissolved it, while they continue to commit these acts it is nonsense to talk of their dissolution. This conduct reminds me of the Greek story in Demosthenes of the Athenians asking whether Philip was dead; and the answer, se No, but, even though he were, your conduct would raise op another Philip in his place.' So, even though yclo sup presi these Catholics who uttered those seditious, ties sonable, abominable, and detestable speeches, others will arise who will otter speeches more seditious, more treasonable. more abominable. and more detestable.— ' Through whose instrumentality these acts were tole; rated, which tended to the desudetion of the constitu• don, I do not take upon me to say—whether oftbel:w . officers of the Crown - in Ireland, whether Solicitor Ge neral, or Attorney General. • Lied PLUNKETT said, be was Attorney Otweral only two tars• The Earl of ELDON (in continuation)—l do not blame any officer of the Crown unless he was auxiliary to that system of unconstitutional toleration in relation to the conduct of the Catholic Association. I remem ber the case of a person, named John Ross, who was prosecuted in the time of the Conventions, when I was Attorney-General, and what the Conic of King's Beach said to pee on that occasion. .For a relative instant's I may take the case of Mr. O'Connell, or, as some call him, King . O'Connell—(Laughter)-Lfor that he may be called, as it seems be has obtained a princely revenue, or, if he has sot it already in his pocket. he soon will. As to the conduct of those who have-brouglt forward this measure, I now see nothing extraordinary in it. When I see so many sit in silent acquiescence who three. months ago would have been eloquent in uttering abo mination and vituperation of the present measure— (Here the Noble and Learned Lord, in a low tone, re fated their Lordships to certain legal authorities on the particular arguments relative to the oath of supseassey.) We have even the words of a Roman Catholic ecclesi astic (Doctor Doyle), who declared his opinion that the Roman Catholic nfigion would not have succeeded in obtaining all its rights until they should have a Reman Catholic Legislature and a Catholic King. My Lords,, let us only look to the conduct and declarations ()fling William and of the Convention after it became a Par liament. Did they not abjure the doctrines of the Church , of Rome as idolatrous? Can it be believed that King William would ever have accepted the Crown on the condition that the Houses of Lord* and Commons might be Roman Catholics? Never. Then, in continuing the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from the Crown, you offer an insult to the Catholics which they can never forgive; and in retracting that declaration on fhe nature of the Romeo Catholic doctrines made by the Kips end by all of vier Lordships, what effect do you think such a retractation will have on the moral and religious prin ciples of the cruntry ? It has been said that this Bill will have the effect of admitting only a few Peers into this House; but supposing it admits only five or six, there is no limit to the principle. Wbo can put a stop or stay to the future augmentation of the number ?" My Lords, on that point I must trespass on your Lordships attention. Knowing, as I do, the mode of constitution of the House of Commons, can I believe that no more than twenty or thirty Catholics will be able to enter that Assembly, particularly when we see that, under the proposed Disfranchisement Bill, the Roman Catholics will he able to send as many Representatives to the House of Commons as they could under the system rf forty shilling keeholders? Indeed, on this subject I remember to have been told once by a Solicitor that he was authorised to introduce into the flows of Commons, by certain means, as many Members as those means would allow. It has been s.id that this is not a religious question. My Lords, I contend it is both a political and religious question, and one, too; of paramount im. portance. 1 uo believe that the majority of the people of England are adverse to the Measure, in consequence of the indulgences ant .other extravagant d comes of the Catholic religion. As to the asserti..n that while the King remained Protestant he would not confer power on Roman Catholics, and that, in consequence, the Bill would Wing no harm to the Protestant institu tions of the country. if the King shall continue to ex clude Catholics from prover ,you make them discon tented, and direct their disaffection from the lams, and` turn it again 4 die King—(Loud cries of Hear, bear). — On the argument as to the possibility of our having a Roman Catholic King and a Roman Catholic Parlia ment, I shad only refer to what Lord Loughborough said, and Lord Kenyon, and Lord. Elknborough, and to what I myself not (oily said and publiihed, and— thlugh it may be a foolish thing to publish °of. *poi.. menus—what I am ready to say and publish again, having done so while theeoutest was raging between the Protestants and the Roman Catho:ies; and that will be i bold man who Will rise and contradict what I say; I hold that it is the duty of the English Government to, ptioride an Established . Church for the S:ate, sod to take care that it be connected with it so as to constitute an essential part Tik; and the only method of keeping up such an institutiog is to anemic with political power, At tllll same time granting full toleration to all othes _sects. Goo : forbid, my Lords, that I. ehould entertain any nsaligoaot feeling egaiast 'Rental) Catholic* or Dissenters on account of their religious opinions. So far lons such a feeling, my Lords, I should rather • see uny rellgiorrestebli . shod in connexion with the State, lod.granting toleration to the Church of En l iland, than cooseot to a measure calculated to destroy the Church of Ireland, which I consider an esseoti 1 part of the •Established Choi ch of England. In the first place. my Lords, let us look at what was the nature of the contract between King William and the people of this country. Will your Lordships please to attend to what King 'William said respecting the exclusive religion and cba 'reefer of t h e Sovereign. Will pour Lordships please to 'tutted to what is stated in the Bill of Ittibte, the very first clause 01.obitts Mate that we must have a Po"' teat King, sod two tell, me, if you are not to have a Protestant king, do yes not destroy the principle of that bargain? Tell me by what moans I am to ebcape from the terms of my solemn oath, that I would do my Win to support the Protestant teligion? And tell me w, after what Kidg William said respecting those I am to reconcile msistelf that they can W dispensed with, hearing in mind thee, as SingWilliant understood they are nothine less than the security of the law iram land 7 rti it‘Ainn to all this., has ally Man ever sakes the oaths of a P)lvy Councillor without taking the oaths which we tale on entering this Hone ? If. Abanfore, he has taken these oaths, it belongato him , to fecoecilw his eiroacienco to such a depots:* from their principle as a concurrence in this measure would stonstente.' I cannot do so. L say, therefore.' that the elect tithe bargain this made between King Will 7 ao sod thupeople was to the invent that the religion of the State aboard never again be endangered. I will 11114 say that circuesstances might not occur out ot:tails4 a case might arise to justify an alteration in the opiates of an individual respecting this Catholic getstitro.—. GOD forbid that I should say so. But, my Lords, let is consider the terms of the Act of Unioa, and see bow tifoiy bear spots this geestion ; and. hi doing this, I shall do only that which the Noble and Learned leird would do.; for, having looked at that Act with all the attention of which I am capable, I am decidedly of rpinion that it is part of this Act of Union that no Papist should ever Ant or be elected. When I say this, I say also that it Avis my opinion, when bitting upon the judicial bench, no occupied by the Nsble and Learned Lord—it was efore mitre. as it mite be his—judicial opiniun on ta i r u n h ell ect. Lord w h en in s i d s m ity it tthhtaht Nob l etrust am acthlineg only c and on. ocientiously. When looking, thei clots., at this Act of-Par 41ament, it is, my Lords, impossible to say that the S. wilt Parliament did not insist on it. It was the laws of the land which they claimed on the past of the people of Scotland, and that no Papist should have any thing to do with the Crown. Now, when they said that the declaration of the Bill of Rights of England con tained such an exclusive clause, it was not extraotdi oaty that they should immediately pass Acts in Eng land, Ireland. and Scotland, by which that lOWA im portant of its clauses was recognised. If we look to the Articles of Uoion, we shall find that, with respect to the Church of England and Church of Scotland, they Were declared to be fundamental and entire. The Ar *lts themselves, alter making that declaration. went farther and said, that unless that inviolability which it recognised was preserved, that declaration was worth inching. Having said this they proceeded both io Scotland and England, before the Union too, to pass Acts of Parliament to render this matter more certain. Oise of those Scottish Acts mentioned what persons were to be elected Peers of Scotland, and what Members *ere to be elected to the other House, and ran in these Seords—" Be it hereby enacted, that no person sh .11 be capable of electing or being elected who is, or shall be, a Papist or a suspected Papist." And the Act concluded iv saying that what it th. n enacted would be as much an article of the Union as it it were agreed upon. And *ben, in the subsequent year, the muds of settling how elle sixteen Peers for St.dand were to be returned to Parliament, it was declared that they shoulJ, in the open Court of Chancery, take the Oaths of Allegi sate and _Supremacy, and that they should woke the declaration against transubstantiation. These were oaths I myself took over and over again. That declaration also I have repeatedly made.. And so-remains the system then or dered up to the present toonsent. Now, then, conies the question, was not that syltem, were not those laws, 111 declared to be fundathental, and not to be dent tea from or violated? Was not that such a settlement of a ques tion as went to declare that our religion, our laws, and our liberties, shall never again be thrown into jeopardy ?. With respect to the opinions of Mr. Pitt on this subject let me repeat, that had be continued to live, we should, never again have heard of this measure without ,ita being accompanied by full,. ample, and satisfactory securities. The measures connected with this (and which are called securities) are that for putting down the Ca tholic Association, which basalteady passed your Lord: ships' House, and that for disfranchising the forty shil ling freeholders. Not having been pre eat when that 'measure was last night discussed in a Committee of your Lotd,hips. I shall now say that I deem that` measure one of vast importance to the country.— That is my belief, nay, I ans certain that it is a measure of infinite importance, and that the mode of proceeding on it was tine of the grimiest difficulty that c.in be con ceived. I have admitted the competency of Parliament to make alterations in the Act of Union of England and Scotland, and cannot deny that yOu are competent to alter laws respecting the liberties of the people oh Ireland, recognized by the Act of U. ion with that kingdom. I think I have now, in my humble opinion, advetted to many of the must important points of th.s question. I have opposed this Bill when passing through its former stages, in doing which I may have been wrong, but until it shall appear to me that no alteration can be made in it I shall continue to oppose it. I should be uselessly taking up your Lordships time were I to attempt to repeat the various injuries it is calculated to inflict upon the purest church and tie purest system of Christianity that the world eves beheld. Wets ! to Ite. fur it I should be supporting it against my deckled opi nion of the dangers that will result from it. I do not be. limre, that if the church of Ireland were destroyed (and such would be one of the inevitable consequences of the 8.11)—I do not, in that case, believe that the church of England would or could survive it an hour—(Hear). Such is my decided opinion. • (Here the Noble Lord. in support of this opinion s read extracts from a pamph let, written by a Roman Catholic Clergymin—" not Dr. Doyle," as the Noble Lind himself said—but, we believe, one publishectunder the signature of " J. K. L. in which the writer says, that . 84 the Roman Catholics; bad no securities to give to the Church of England if she tampered with her safety. That it was in vain for Statesmen to contend—in vain for Parliament to declare that the Established Church was inviolable —tor fall it must; it was of human erection, and therefore liable to decay. It would fall, and nothing bet the memory of the mischief it bad occasioned would survive it. Already did it begin to exhibit symptoms of apploaching dissolution.") liow this, coseanued the Noble and Leann& Lord, is not of ihtt men who are net Wheat the trouble fo take the oaths required of Roma& eigliobc Bishops. His Lordship proceeded to read fur- ilia extracts from the book, in which the writer, in speak leg of the Established Church, said, " It (the Pro- testate Cherch) his had its day, and when the hour of its dissolution shall have arrived, we shall once more hatTe a Catholic * King and a Catholic Parliament." Pod cheers followed the reading of these extracts. hen they had subsided, the Noble Lord resumed). — Such is the opinion of this writer—such is the opinion of the Boman Catholics. No Man who is a real and 'inert Catholic can or does look for Jess than a Catho lic King and a Catholic Parliament. My Lords, you may flatter yourselves that the dangerl I have anticipated are visional y b aUdGoo forbid that I should say that those who shall havetvoted f ar thetbird readies of this Bill will not abatis dome so conseientionly, believiog that no i danger exists or can be oppthedded - from it. But in so trait*, if you do not conscientiously believe that you are placing in any danger the great, the para• mount interests of this Protestant State, you have nos that knowledge of its true interests and situation that you ouAlst td have; for, from the moment that this Still passes—from this night forward—that Star a will no longer' have a Protestant King and a Pro.. 'tastaat Piulianseest--(Long coothsued cheering, whi c h. was renewed at intervals during the following sea. tenets of the Noble and la-arned Lord, the solemnity of whom taw and occasional isurcatiwas of deep woos ;ion, produced upon the &foam corresponding feeli ngs ), Those with whom we are dealing are too wary to no. palm you, by any imiistreet conduct. of the dangers to which you are exposed. When 'bow dangers shall have arrived I shall have been consigned. to t:'e urn, the se. pukhre. and mortality; but that they *ill attire I haw; no more doubt than that I yet continue to exist. Nut. withstaading this sad conviction I ray to Gin to nest the dangers that I foresee. You hear the woods of a man who will soon be called to his glee' account. Gnu fora - bid. therein., that I should raise my humble staining foie. did I not diem this weasel. • blearli of e.ttely nor lion that I have o' a civil coutraet—a breach on every article of the Constitution, and contrary to the bpirit rf those oaths I have taken to my King and to that Con. satiation. Pardon, my Lord., a man far advanced is years, who is willing to give up his ex'stence to aver; the dangers with which all be loves, all he severer, are threatened. I solemnly declare that I had seher not be living to.mortow morning than on awaking t:, find that I had consented to this measure; for atter all the consideration I have given to it, I feel it is impossible that I could concur in it. believing it, as I do, to be an sbrigation of all those laws which I deem necessary to the safety of the Chin violation of those laws . which I hold as necessary to the pieservat on of he Throne as to that of the Church, and as ind , spensable to the eaistence of the Lords and. Commons of this letslat as to that of the King and our holy religion. Feeling all this, I repeat, that 1 would rather cease to mist than, upon awaking to-morrow morning. to find that I bad consented to a measure fraught,with evils so imminent and so deadly, and of which bad I not solemnly expressed ibis, my bumble, tut film cowrie. Lion. I should have been acting the part. of a traitor to any country, eriy Sovereign, and my GOD—(The Noble and Learned Lord here sat down amid cheering that contsnwd for several minutes). The Eol of HARROWBY reit called on by as ob servation made by his Noble and Learned Friend in the beginning of his speech. He meant what he said' re 'peeling Mr. Pitt. His Noble and Learned Fi isn't said that Ms. Pitt never would bring forward soca a mea sure without securities, but Mr. Pitt never named any securities, nor did be mean securities .against the principles of the Korona 'Catholic religion. The se curities which Mr. Pitt required ace' to meet the agitation that prevailed on that day; but what was the nature of the agitation that prevailed to-day It was widely different. from what prevailed-.then. for in the present day the agitation was in .favour of the measure. The Noble Earl here took a view of the Oath of Supremacy, as taken in the reign of Elisa beth, which he observed was never intended as a religious test, or to keep Catholics cut of Parliament, and, with respect to the Acts passed in the reign of Charles the Second, he observed, the state of the times warranted their enactment, but it was never intended .tb it they should be permanent. The same opinions did not exist in these times among the Catholics which did then. They, in the present dim denied it to be a. part of their doctrine that faith should out be kept with heretics— and if a change in their opinions did not appear from any of , their councils, =pentane . showed that they were not acted upom He ridiculed the idea of apprehending any danger from . the Pope. There was no instance within this century of the Pope ezcommunicasing any person in Ireland; acid- even if. he should issue out his fulminations against any Femme what would be the effect? It was a question of cops •mand end obedience. It could not affect the liberties or pi operty of any individual. The apprehensions respect ing the safety of the Church if this measure should pass be deemed puerile; for if Catholics were to be beliived on their oaths, this measure would no: enable them to do more injury than they could do now to the Estahlish mint. He contended that the present Bill was giving , something to the Catholics, without taking away soy • right from another; and to keep these rights from the Catholics, unless on grounds of State expediency, would . be unjust and oppressive. This measure could not deprive • the Csown of its parsonage, nor prevent properly from being represented. It could in no respect give more power to she Catholics than they possessed at present. He would ask what could tempt the Catholics to eneesvour to over throw the Church Establishasentovhen they should know that they would fail in any such attempt? He entreated the r Lordships. for the safety of the Church. to grant this measure. He saw great danger in reject. ing it. He had no doubt but that Parliament would tudeavouno console the Protestant Chinch for the dis appointment it should experience in passing this Bill.-- Some Noble Lords apprehended dasioer to the Church, on account of a 'loather of Vie other House enchaining hostile fe lungs towards it; butte, the E srl, believed teat hostility was only apparent, and proceeded from an idea in such Members, that the Clergy of the Chinch oi Eng land were great obstacles to the passing of the present measure. The Noble Earl took a view of the state of the Protestant Church at the period of the Revolution, and exorcised his regret in not seeing his Noble Friend (the Earl' of Westmoreland) in his place, who a few nights ago had brought forivard au accusation against all persons who bad sat in a divided Cabinet, wnibuting to them the evils which ceased to-day in Ireland. He niantid.ask, was not the Noble Earl himeelf a ineentior cif a divided Cabinet? and he would further say. that it 4,4 as morally impossible to form a united Cabinet in the existing state of society. This measure would rensoeuthe spell. It would have been much better if done at an earlier peripd. He had oo doubt but that it would teed to tran. quilline Ireland. Other Noble Lords said not. - That toy one musses could effectually restose tranquillity he would not say; but he would say any somber of measures would be ineffectual without this. The die sention and enmity, beartburniags and discord, which Ole existing laws had caused in Ireland, made that sentry as different from this as any two countries could Ml croup one another. The Noble Earl took a brief view gem miserable state of society in Ireland, which be confident the present measure would ameliorate, and nut down amidst cheers. The Bishop of NORWICH said he regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon) seemed to baye mistaken the opinions of Locke and Bishop Hoadla7— those two great men whose writings were the guides Of his youth. Had the Noble and Learned Lord read them with more situation, he would have found that they, were not friendly to the principle of exclusion 'on religioui grounds. Locke laid it down that no 'man ought to mac In his civil rights on account .of his religiom opinions; and Bishop Headley. in his book on the Test % and Corporation Acts, spoke Lin a • mahout With* .stada• it clear that he would be