Star. — London, England, 1821-03-27 00:00:00

. - • ^ , , 1 be came from the Wa kes6dd Clnna to where we then were —The witness osteoberated what was stated by his beadier about Reding Ilse child.. • Witnesses vserecaped to 'Wive the dissedered state of mind es the pat of the prisoner; aid the evidence of a yr. Btake well, a Medical Gendemas, who was present en the trial, Was admitted. He gave his opinion, that the **wiling of the boy was a complete act of insanity. Mr. Baran Gaastow delivered a verb feeling and discrimi nating charge • and the Jury, after a kw minutes' consideration, returned a ve rdict, 44 That the prisoner was NA Guilty, because he had committed the act imputed to him when in a state of insanky."—The prisoner was ordered tube detained till his Ma jesty's pleasure shoald be known respecting him. _ 4 r:( WPW'E'L"'w.l PARLIAMANTARY PROCEEDINGS. " HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 26. Their Leedships met at ten skits& to hear Appeal Causes. " Watt a. Blair." This was from the Court of Session of Scotland, and was partly heard en Friday. The Arroancy- Gtamas was heard in continuation for the plaintilL The Sou erroa-Ggimeat. replied.—Judgment postponed. Lord GR EN V/ LLS presented a Petition from the Univer sity of Orford, against , the :Hills for granting further privileges to the Roman Catholics ills Lordship also presented a Peti tion from several Occupiers a Land in Buckinghamshire, fraying relief from Agricultural Distress. Mr. Sawa= and others brought up front the Commons the Commercial Intercourse Bill, and some Private Bills, which were read a Srst time. Mi Jounsox, from the London Docks brought up the An nual Account of that Company, and a Report of the progress of their works. The Earl of VERULA M presented a Petition front the Parish of Temple, in the City of 'Bristol, against the Roman Catholic Clain& The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a Petition from the Town of Greenock, praying that no further Duties might be laid on Timber imported from the Coksides.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Trade. Mr: lavas% from the Customs, brought up the Annual Ac count of the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom foe the year ending the sth of January, 1821. GRAMPOUND- DIsirftANCHISISMINT. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he rose at the request of a Noble Friend of his (the Earl of Carnarvon) veto WAS then absent, to move for certain Papers 'Welt should serve u re cords rtf those Resolations op which their Lordships should it mile to a decision on a Bill then before the House, for the dis franchisement of the Borough of Grantpound. He then moved that there be laid before the House a Copy of those parts of the indictment preferred against Sir M. Lopes, on which he had been found guilty of bribery and corrupdon, and also a Coff of the record of his conviction. He also moved for similar &co ntents respecting the several other persons who had been con victed of bribery at the Election for that Borough. The LORD CHANCELLOR skid he did not rise to object to the motion of the Noble Marquis, but he thought it necessary to say, that he should reserve himself until these Papers were laid on the table before he gave his opinion as to whether they could be received as evidence..—The motion was agreed to. The Marquis of LANSDOWN then presented a Petition from the Town of Taunton, praying for a revision of the Crimi nal Laws.--Adjourned. NOUSE OF COMMON& Mr. LAMBTON said, that u several Honourable Friends of his would not be returned to town front the Northern Cir cuit by the 10th of April, the day for which he had given notice of a motion for Parliamentary Reform, be would post pone it to the 17th of April. Mr. HUME postponed his motion (to disqualify Ordnance Officers and others from voting for Members of Parliament), which stood for Thursday, to Tuesday next. Mr. CUR WEN postponed to Friday next kis motion for a l Repeal of the Agricultural Horse Tax, which bad stood for this day. Mr. JonssoN, from the London Dock Company, presented an Actount of the Receipts and.Dishunensents of the Company, from the 50th November, 1919, to the 13th November, 1820; also a Report of the progreu of the works. Mr. WESTERN presented a Petition from Great Cogger. hall, praying a revision of the Criminal Code.--Ordered to be printed. Mr. WILSON presented a Petition from the Shipowner of London against any alteration in the Timber Duties.—Ordered to be referred to the Committee on Foreign Trade. Lord HOTHAII presented a Petition from Leominster, complaining of Agricultural distress... Referred to the Committee. A new Writ was ordered for the Borough of Medan, in the room of Mr. BALLRY, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. R. MARTIN brought in a Bill for the regulation of the office of Coroner in Ireland.—lt was read a first time ._ _ Sir T. B. MARTIN presented a Petition from Plymouth, stain st the Corn Average SR—Ordered to be printed. PETITIONS AOAINST CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. Mr. DICKENSON presented tw•o Petitions from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Clergy of Taun ton and Wells, against the Catholic Disability Re moval Bill. He concurred in the sentiments of the Petitioners. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE stated his concurrence in the prayer of these Petitions.—Laid on the table. Mr. GROSSET presented a Petition from the Bai liff, Burgesses, and Freemen of Chippenham, against the Catholic Bill.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a Petition from the Clergy and Archdeaconry of York, and the West against the Catholic Bills. He was convinced, however, none of the apprehended dangers would follow the enactment of the Bills now in progress through the House—(Hear, hear). Mr. SYKES lamented that the Petitioners did not point out the dangers which they apprehended. Mr. J. SMITH wished to know whether, in order to save the time of the House, the opponents of this measure would chew how religious liberty was, in any country, the parent of confusion ? If any Mem ber could state that such a consequence had occurred in any country in Europe for the last twenty-five years, he would abjure all his former opinions in fa vour of this measure—(Hear, hear). Sir T. LETHBRIDGE thought, that what was called modern liberality, was a very false liberality. He referred to the Spanish Constitution, as contain ing a stipulation, that no Religion but the Catholic should be heard of in that country. He confessed he could not answer the question of the Hon. Member satisfactorily. If the Bill should pass, however, though he would oppose it while in progress—yet, if it should pass, he would do all in his power to conciliate the minds of the people in his part of the country to the measure—(Hear, hear). Mr. WARRE admitted that the Spanish Constitu tion might be as the Honourable Baronet had repre sented ; but this was no answer to the question of his Honourable Friend. If the Honourable Baronet went to Prussia, Russia, or Holland, he would find that the effects of liberal policy were of the most be neficial character. Sir C. BURRELL referred to the transactions at Nisnies, in France, as an illustration of the hostili ' ties that had been recently excited between persons of different reli*ions. 11r. H. G. BLNNETT said, that the occurrence at Nismes was entirely political, and had nothing to do with religious feelings. The Honourable Baronet . (the Member for Somersetshire) had said, that the Roman Catholic religion was intolerant. He be lieved that was the fact ; but intolerance was not confined to that sect—it was common to every sect. As an additional instance of liberality, he referred to Hanover, where, by the spontaneous act of the Bove. . reign himself, all persons, of 'whatever religion, we re admissible to office. Sir ROBERT WILSON thought it right to in form the House of what had passed, between his con stituents and himself, upon the subject of the Bill now in progress through the House. On a former occa sion, he had told them that he would vote for Ro man Catholic emancipation; and that sooner than do otherwise, he would resign his seat in Parliament. Anxious to know what their opinion on the measure was (which might be taken, he believed, as a pretty fair criterion of the general opinion of this metropo lis), he had sent printed copies of the Bill to the lead ing persons of his constituent% and to many of those who had oliposed his election. From both parties he had received letters, stating that they were quite satisfied to leave the question to the decision of the Legislature, assentins to the measure, provided it would be attended with no danger to he Establish ment, and relying on the wisdom of Parliament for obtaining such securities as would guard the Church and State—( Hear, hear). M. STUART WORTLEY said, that this was the only Petition from the whole county of York— (Hear, Uar). He could not but observe that, in his opinion, there was a great change in the public mind on this subject. He had not heard anything against the measure from any person there, and he could not but think, generally speaking, that they hacfno ob jection to .it—(Hear, hear). FORGED BARE NOTES. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from an individual, who stated that within the last few days he had received three and twenty one-pound notes which the Bank of England had returned to him as being forged. Ten of these he had received in one day—(Hear, hear).—He complained of the general progress of forgery, which it was impossible for per sons in the hurry of retail business to detect on every occasion. The prayer of the Petition was, that the Bank should be compelled to pay the forged notes, whilst their paper was to be imitated with so much facility—( Hear, hear). Mr. H. G. BENNETT stated that it was his inten tion, in a future stage of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's Bill, to lay before the House the real state of the country as it is affected by forged notes. Mr. CURWEN, seeing an Hon. Member in his place, asked if there was any prospect of any plan being adopted for the prevention of forgery ? Sir W. CONGREVE said, that after the Second Report of the Commissioners was signed, the respon sibility of the execution of their recommendation rested entirely with the Bank. The Directors had most liberally aided the preparation for the purpose, and in consequence a most magnificent apparatus was got up. Whether or not a note would be pro vided- that would satisfy the Public, be did not know; but of this he was certain, that it was much less dif ficult to prepare a note that could not be imitated, than to produce a coin that might not be forged.— The subject was one upon which he had bestowed some attention, and he was convinced that it was prac. ticable to provide a species of note which would prove very difficult of imitation. Mr. BARING thought there never was an occasion on which the House had so neglected its duty as it had done in transferring this inquiry to a Commission, instead of confining it to a Committee amongst them selves—(Hear, hear). —lt was at length found that the question had been vainly turned over to the Bank of England ; and, notwithstanding his clear convic tion of the respectability and talent pervading that Corporation; notwithstanding his knowledge of their zeal and exertions to prevent or diminish the evil which they alike deplored, it was still to be regretted that the House had not taken the subject into its own hands—(Hear, hear).—He had heard of many inge nious schemes, and he did, on his own part, still in dulge the hope that it was practicable to frame a new note which should obviate the inconvenience now complained of; but that they had neglected a most serious duty did appear to him manifest from facts which were denied on neither side, nor on any authority. The House, however, could not but feel gratified at any explanation from the Hon. Gentle man opposite, which should hold forth a prospect of some alleviating remedy to this evil. Perhaps, after the remarks which he had already thrown out, the House would be favoured with some further expla nation—(Hear, hear). Sir W. CONGREVE explained—that although the public functions of the Commissioners had for some time past been at an end, individually they still felt the same zeal and anxiety as ever on the subject. Mr. D. GILBERT bore testimony to the activity of the Commissioners, who lost no opportunity in doing everything to promote the object for which they were appointed. One Bank Director only was in the Commission, thah whom no man could have acted more zealously for the public benefit. He was much afraid that those Gentlemen who were most anxions for a recurrence to a metallic currency, would have'reason to find that its substitution for an im proved paper currency would not be so very desirable as they bad imagined. Mr. J. SMITH stated, that in one district of a part of the country with which he was connected, nine tenths of the forgeries consisted of one-pound notes. He trusted that the time was not long distant from that when the Bank of England wculd be enabled to make all its small payments in cash, and to withdraw a considerable part of the present circulating paper. Mr. PEARSE observed, that it was certainly in the contemplation and intention of the Bank to pay in sovereigns, instead of one-pound notes; but he could not at this moment state at what particular period before May next. Sir M. W. RIDLEY expressed his apprehensions that the difficulty of preventing the imitation of coun try bank-notes world be found insurmountable. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that one thing was pretty certain, viz. that a worse plan of a Bank -note, with a view to the facility of forgery, than that now in use, could not well be adopted. The Petition was then brought up, read, and or-' dered to lie on the table. _ _ Mr. GRENFELL asked some questions of Mr. Pearse, as to the circumstances under which the Bank intended to issue coin for their one-pound notes; to which the Hon. Member replied, the first object of the Bank was to study the public convenience, and they therefore intended paying the one-pound notes in sovereigns whenever they might be demanded.— But he was sure it was unnecessary for him to state to the House that the Bank had no power whatever , _ . . of calling in their one-pound notes. They would try the experiment, however, and, if it succeeded, they intended continuing the system. RSV. MR. HAYES. Mr. CAREW begged to call to the recollection of the House, that he had stated on a former evening, that a communication was made to him some years ago by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Wexford, that he was obliged to reprimand Mr. Hayes for having preached a sermon of a seditious tendency. He had since that statement received a letter from Mr. Hayes, in which he denied the occurrence of any such cir cumstance. All, therefore, that he (Mr. Carew) had to do, was to leave the House to decide between the veracity of the Bishop and Mr. Hayes. TIMBER DUTIES. Petitions were laid on the table from the Merchants of Plymouth, the Ship Owners of North Shields, and of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against any' alteration of the Duties on Timber. DISPOSAL OP PUBLIC MONET. 1 Mr. CURWEN said, he had a motion to submit to the House of the greatest importance, as affecting the question in whom the disposal of the Public Money was vested. He then moved, that there be' laid before the House an account of the sum granted to Mr. M'Adam, specifying the amount, under what authority granted, and from what funds taken. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that his explanation would be short and satisfactory.' The Gentleman in question had spent a great deal of his time upon the improvement of the public roads. His services had been recommended to the attention of Government, and upon references being made to the Post.Masten as to the effect of his plans, the most satisfactory representations were:made ; and, in consequence, an order was directed to the Treasury to remunerate him by a grant out of certain funds already voted by Parliament. He had no objection that the motion should pass. Motion put and carried. THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS BILL. Sir J. NEWPORT, in moving the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the Bill, said, it was his intention, in a future stage of the Bill, to propose to consolidate these two Bills. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re minded the Honourable Baronet that this proposition must be made in the Committee. Mr. HUTCHINSON observed, when this subject was last before the House, he represented that he had received no communications from Ireland against the Bill ; he had been represented as stating that he had received many communications in favour of it, he had not said so ; he had said be had received no communication whatever on the subject. His Right Honourable Friend had now given notice of his in tention to move, in a future stage, to consolidate these two Bills ; on that notice he felt it his duty to say, there were parts of that Bill to which be could not assent, especially as he understood there were great objections to this Bill existing in the minds of the Catholic Clergy. He had, since last in the House, received a communication from high authority on this subject, namely, from a highly respectable ti tular Bishop, declaring his utter hostility to this se cond Bill ; and he further understood there was to be a Meeting of the Irish Bishops in Dublin to-day on the subject. Under these circumstances; it was with pain tie felt himself called on to state, that he must oppose that second Bill in its present shape, although he hoped it might be so altered as to ren der it acceptable to the Catholics. • The House then went into a Committee on the Bill. The CHAIRMAN then read the Clause relating to the Oath respecting the doctrine of Transubstantia tion, the worship of Saints, and sacrifice of the Mass. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE felt it his duty to oppose the repeal of the Oath on these subjects. Before he could consent to giving up this test, he must be sa tisfied that the Catholic religion did not remain what it formerly was ; that the Catholics were entitled to, and might safely be trusted to hold the high offices cif State, and to sit in Parliament. He had heard a Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman describe this Clause against Transubstantiation, as one that no man could understand. He could not think that this question should be got rid of without endeavour ing to see how it squared itself with the Protestant Church Establishment. He believed that he could not vote for this Bill, unless contrary to the oath he had taken—(Hear, hear).—ln his opinion, if this Bill were passed, the British Constitution would be greatly endangered ; and they must go still farther, and re peal the Corporation and the Test Acts. lithey did not do this, there would be a favour granted to one part of the community, to the manifest injury of another. We had gone too near to the passing of this Bill to be comfortable among ourselves ; the fact was, that it was enough for him to know the evils which this country endured when Catholics were in power—(Haar, hear).—He had seen a Paper, signed by a Dr. Milner, which shewed him clearly that they could expect no conciliation with the Catholics. He believed that this Apostolic Catholic Bishop was a very true and honest Catholic. The Papists were bound to obey the head of their Church, and he could never, therefore, consent to their sitting in that House .(Hear, hear). —He looked on the Catholic Religion as intolerant and absurd ; and, compared, with the Protestant, it could not stand for a moment. It was idle to. tell that House that they should pass this measure, which the great majority of the Catholics would not accept of. He should therefore oppose the Bill openly, and upon ail occasions. Mr. R. MARTIN thought it would be fair to ask the Hon. Baronet whether he thought there was any connection between a belief in transubstantiation and a want of allegiance in the Catholics? He knew that the Catholics no more believed in the divinity of the Virgin• Mary, or any other Saint, than the Honour able Baronet, or any other Member of that House. He did not know what intolerance prevailed among the nations of Catholics abroad, but they were not intolerant in Ireland. There he had been accustomed to see the wife who was a Catholic educating the children in the Protestant faith, at the desire of her Protestant husband. He took it for granted that the Honourable Baronet was adverse to the diffusion of the Catholic - religion. Now Dr. Milner and the other Catholics who opposed this Bill did so because, according to them, this measure would destroy the Catholic religion. Sir GEORGE HILL contended thatour ancestors did not oppose the Catholics on the score of religion, bat only to keep them out of Patliameuti he should, -. therefore, propose that this clause should nos % declaratory one. The clause was then so amended, and it also re. ceived several other verbal amendments. Mr. WETHERELL objected to the svords "that nothing herein contained should dispense with th e taking of the oaths of abjuration and allegiance-. ' This proviso seemed to be unnecessary. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, that the inter. tion of these words had arisen from an over -anxiety not to leave any security out of the Bill which could affect the Protestant religion. The clause was then amended verbally. Mr. BANKES rose to move an Aniendrhent, that person could sit in either House of Parhliadamaen: nothing should alter .the oaths required before any hoped there was a large portion of the Members who wished for this security for the Protestant religiae, He begged the attention of all those who were of thi s way of thinking; because, without this security, all others were idle and nugatory. They ht lie to every security, for even the Catholic Prelates were discontented with this Bill. They had to deal with persons who were governed by a certain portio n foreign influence. finless they had every spe c i es ei f security, it was impossible to conciliate all insereei in the State. Petitions had been presented, to n n es , merously and respectably signed, by Catholic Clergy. men on this side of die water, against this Bill; and without a perfect conciliation of all interests, Fa would be in vain to pass this Bill, whose object wag said to be to conciliate the minds of all classes in the State. Instead of peace and conciliation, it would be a matter of tumult and agitation among the me ., bers of the Catholic Church. The point of admit. Ling Catholics into Parliament was of such impote. ante, that the Bill was lost in 1813, or rather it was withdrawn; for the supporters of the measure said, that without that boon the Bill would be good fir nothing. What would be the case if a similar ester were to take place that night, he knew not; but b e never would consent to Catholics holding seats it Parliament, because such an admission would be& tal to the Established Church of Ireland. Golds.' men complained of the intolerance of those who op. posed this measure ; but he knew himself to be by no means intolerant ; and he would never forego his duty because he might be accused of possessing a perse► cuting spirit. The purer the Catholic's faith, theme,. hostile must be be to the existence of the Protestait religion. If Roman Catholics regained their power, they would be the same as at the commencement of the Reformation. The very large portion of popular Election in Ireland would, he had no doubt, coos centre in the Catholics. It was admitted, that their wealth, their consequence, and numbers wereioneas ing. The Act which passed the Irish Parliamest is 1792 was suffered by Mr. Pitt and his Government, for fear of.the influence of the French Revelatioaos the great mass of the Irish Catholics; but that AM was not meant to go farther than giving these the elective franchise. Now it was contended, however, that this measure was naturally consequent 'pea that. The Established Church of every munny should be that to which the bulk of the People ad. hared; but that should only be in countries indepts. dent of all others. If that principle were admixed in Ireland, what would become of the Protestant Church Establishment in that country? There were perhaps many Members in Parliament who woad grudge paying anything for the establishment of the Catholic Church, from which they could reap as benefit, and to the tenets of which they could sot subscribe. This measure was a perfect traptokieg about the repeal of the Corporation and Tat Acts. These Acts were discussed in 1787, in nelly ad again in 1790, when there was only a insionty d twenty against the consideration of them. Let ari man consider whether those Acts could last a limb Session, after letting in the Catholics to seats hire- Bement. It had been suggested by an Honourable Gentleman, that there should be an establishasaufer the Catholic Clergy. If this were done, kneel:OM out of the pockets of the people of England; kris revenue of Ireland was well known not to burl to her own expenditure. Whatever oaths or rime ties they imposed, without the qualification whitibt proposed to have inserted in the Bill, they wesideile the Catholics the power to undermine thataineet Succession and Government, as established lONA this country. If the Jesuits had not been !Ord very much, they had been accused oft:pimento/of all the oaths and securities which were previa* established. Did they not know that there woe Canonical Establishments of the Jesuits in Law shire, and at Castletown, in Ireland, which held or respondence with the Society of Propaganda 2 high wealthy those who were bora of y ß o om uth e? These Jesuits would have the education d thy Cathol Parliament, ic there w parents. If Catholics ou security for the Protestant Constitution in the State. Mr. CALCRAFT had never before declared _ opinion to the House, and therefore hood for its ter which be belle" iwould b e admitted dulgence. Should the Bill pass, wh siould do, be wished to give his opiniom ale t speaker had taken a wider field than be malt 11 ,r_ If he could believe in the fancied dangers dlias i. nourable Gentleman who spoke last, Tie noght• 1.. 10 .: diced to think in a different manner. Belt -- surprised, at the present day, that such arg l . 22 could be offered to the House. He looked to pir securities as of little avail ; but, in the relent 221 ' the parties concerned had a large stake la rye try, and were bound to watch over its WOW° had been said by the last speaker, that if the had seats in Parliament, they would ofet i l io dic Constitution ; but that argument suPPosed zeal in the Protestant majority, than in the minority. The Hon. Gentleman had anilar,l on the conduct of Mr. Pitt, in 1793; and ngf t .,'," A l thought he should have found it necessary to " the conduct of Mr. Pitt against the Hon. The conduct of Mr. Pitt and his colleagnes a< T. day, had arisen from enlarged views of uatiasd pedience, and was certainly never intended . w,S , there. At the time of the Union, it was the wr* of Mr. Pitt to merge the Catholic in the population, and thus be enabled with safety to Pf: still further concessions. It was not in human new for men to nor. when they had quel_ified_." too • for higher stations and privileges. The in Church. and State was safe, tlunalln t .r,p r o• in both Houses, from the predominancee r of II testant , majority. If he apprehended nlnTlapyi would ■be the last ono to 'uppers the 12213ag. '