Star. — London, England, 1817-05-17 00:00:00

c „, to g o, into a Comtisittie:in araeistimek.for some r ,1 15 w hich it ?nigh: he well to adopt . The measure wc r ?! .men•lett .could not be ventured neon without mfunciatioental change in ;dr •sststisW ; arid , e h .1 change he was Aut .pigparech . t o press :•e the Constitution, and to-kegii. the - 1:; We' on ihr rock which it had . been placed by the 4 ,;^n, and Item which •hetruiterfp in Goo, it' • ...eel be eispl.ictid. • GI:1:,Y said, however exhausted the House • tre.t :::t. subject might . lie, after the several,;,: c i,:st I (LT.:tent I\ l- obl:.! Lords who had . pre- v ;; this subject; he lrli he' could not re oriie it to ; , !r tself to give a silent vote upon that' veo qriestion, ie auppori oT 'whi c h . j u j ,:n.tys felt equally interested and, equally. lo v es ,. 'these observations should be.but few, and math :,5 a record of his zeal and earnestness iiinilrted, in his humble opinion,by ink th: it:vest principles, but the soundest policy. 7 10 .;, L.,,:tisltips had not this evening: been -wearied cet w ifi t .1 recapitulation of those objectionable te:tets Catholic religion, such as their being absolved ]stn the necessity of keeping any faith withiberetici, sad tho.e other monstrous doctrines; which, he a nod f ., nbserve. on other occasions, bad formed ec .msidvrable a proportion of the topics of objection g out g ranting the Catho!ies.those privileges and they sought in The petition now before * f ir Lordships ; but though lie had not heard those ors, which he hoped were now for ever coniittned punted oblivion, he had felt much pain and sur. by !he course of argument pursued by a Noble prise • Lor,: and Right Reverend Prelate who had preceded 4 t ri in the debate. They had made no objection, ru ;, v i an extraordinary nature, to the demands of i)eir Catholic fellow.countryrnen. What I was it at to period of general information and general rea r:wig habits, that the House of British Peers was to racoon the monstrous idea that the Protestant yell , I'lll an nu: such a religion as might, with safety, pat to the Catholics that power a Catholic Govern rent had thought it expedient to grant to a• Pro t:11:ot be.tly under similar circumstances ?—(Hear.) ::at! should it be listened to with any degree of ritocr, that though a Catholic State could grant ortylete toleration, nay more, an equality of rights ad privileges to the Protestant, we corld not, from de I:ature of our religion, act .squally generous to Catholic He thought, and until this evening to 11.41 never heard any thing to shake his cotiiietion, .::tt it our religion differed in any thing irons the relieiou, it was in thelitieFality of. its doe sees and of its Professors—(Rear, •hear)...-It had Teen stated, that -when the Greet Duke of Guise fell ly the land of the assaisin; 'hi the time of rho reli pcus divutes in Fr-mlo;4li* the Feign of the asel.st enemy of the Reformed Church, be exclaim ed to his assassins— !L Mark now the difference 'twist yoitr faith and niine ' " Your's prompts to dteds of violent:, and blooll • • " Aitt mine to deeds of mercy and forgivenessrl • (Harr, Hear. )—A sentiment in itself so• noble, that introduced into oile of our best.theattical pie..., the play of Tamerlane, with, the mostmenea al approsation. Was that House then to be told. some centuries after, that the Protestant . religion . Wis,sfrom its name. incapable of doing a liberal or a beuetieent actiaii.—incapable of granting to their Catholic fel low subjects the free exercise of their religion, and the full enjoyment of their-civil privileges and rights? —(Hear, hear).—The question befere , the House was, shether.their Lordships should gir into a•Comiiiittee :a viusider the state of the 14404 retail - re to their Ca tholic ter ow subjects ? They first should 'decide,' as aught undoubtedly to be first decided in altiestiOn of this importance, whether the ladrs,,as they at present toed, imposed upon that class of' his Majesty's sub jects restrictions front' the effect of 'which that body ought to be reliesied. It had been ;aid, that nothing lad been pointed out which it ,was incumbent on Parliament to change or medify--(Jhae,.. h ear ). — Was it necessary to recapitulate those enactments, which must ever be considered, whilst they remained is it, to be the disgiace of our Statute Book 3 He. could never admit thatan exclusion from power was toleration; it was a denial of rights,.whicb ought to he open to all subjects of this realm, indiscriminately. lie was of opinion, that all such exclusion; if not ins. teed by a paramount state necessity, was unjust, and destitute of all support. upon equitable principle. What answer , could possibly be given to such a state ment? Perhaps it would be said, this was a Govern. meat essentially Protestant, any that itvias impossible to concede hat was asked, withast subverting the' tondamental principles of the British Constitution, as tettled at the Revolution. He must reply, that the rinciples of that Monarch (William the Third) who had so justly been applauded and eulogised from the opposite Bench, for his principles of goverdnient as veil as conduct in the field, were completely in fa vour of general toleration ; if he were'prevented from, Pittin g them into execution, it was not his fault. What had been adduced from Mr. Locke, as autho rity for the continuance of the exclusion of Catholics from the full benefits• of the Constitutioe., was no longer applicable: the great point of Objection with r.. Was, that as they were, by their religious tenets, hound in allegiance, and firmly connected tsith the: rattily iif the Stuarts, who contended for the Crown, they never could be considered stable or firm ad. h"eatS of a Protestant King or Protestant Govern- This bugbear bad ceased to exist, and in '..it point 01 view there was no reason to suspect the Catholic would not be a true and liege subject to the family now on the Throne—(Hear, hear.) — . Noting had been stated from the opposite Bench, bet an apprehension of a vague and indeterminate !auger. The Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Usaernment had arg u ed, that if the Catholics were kdmitte‘d to the f u ll enjoyment of the tights conten. c 4 for, it would be no longer in our power to secure Protestant Parliament. He would ask, were it now Church • Parliament ? Were not the Protestant "fetchers returned by Catholic . constituents, and must tie; not be cinsidered to sit in the House of .Com. !Ilona: representing Catholic interests ? He had ever heard until this night, that those who were in itlat low est an d l ast stage o f nat i ona l d egra d a tion,- tnulling from i surrender of rights, influence, and au thority, of which they had once just reason to be. rood, o ug h t to cons id er it a source o f conso l a tio n , the mid st of other distressing reco ll ect i ons , t h at they .r s a il retained the names, forms, and symbols of. wut I : 2 Le of happiness and liberty they. once pot-i 1410 ;4 (Hear hear. ) They - had been cquaidted bu t.might 6 be te ctse l perhaps, that !Mb thitj 110 .e and the... Commons might contince to all IT pea :.nce the same Houses, with the substitution of a few Catholic Members in the Conarrtos, asd the re. so ration or a few Catholic to that rank to which troy "ha,! ao hereditary right in that Ttoise —hut st.ll this,would: not be a Prott,stant Pm-limn-iv, al• though. thc.majarity should consist of Protestants.— This Ntiaksbe first J.ight such a distincti .n had been taken: in that House. What 1 atter the concessions made to this part of the community in 1777, MS. and 1793, 'were their 'Lordships to expect • that this brckad.gritimd of objection should . have been taken up by the Noble Earl ?. No; first let him defend the gtotind of those concessions.. For his.part, he was satisfied the established religion .was the best system 'tif religion in the world—as such, he v:ished it should be supported by the most efficacious. means. This, in his idea, was liberality to the professors of other relikiettrofer, ets— (Near, hear.)-= A departure from this principle was the more inexctoable, when. as in the insulator of Ireland, the majority of the inhahi tints were not of the established religion. If there had-been any ground of exclusion ten Ale, it would have been that maintained befine the p conces sions of 1777 and 1775. But marl—the Govern ment had- then opened some of those offices so eagerly sought, to the-Catholics—as it it were more strongly to escite,.their discontent and resentment at withhold ing the remainder. For instance, in the army, what could be more absurd than admitting a Catholic to the rank of ColOnel, but restricting him from ever becoming a General ? Ile might even command a garrison —What then ? Was this not throwing in his way a temptation to abuse the rank lie thus must hold ? Would he n,t be emboldened to act as -a General, perhaps, under such circumstances ? If at Waterloo*, where the Catholic, (he felt in com mon with most of his grateful countrymen) had amply contributed his talents and his blood t.) our triumph in the he:y trial,•all the superior Officers had been killed off, and a Catholic Colon e l, hi g h est on t h e li st , had assumed the command, would it have been con sidered a breach of duty, either by his Royal High. ness the Commander of the Forces, or by their Lord ships, or by the nation at large ? (Hear, hear.) This was one of the many absurdities connected with the system against which he must protest. Nothing was more dangerous than discontent. It was giving the Catholic a retaining-fee to continue in perpetual op position to the wishes and operations of Government —besides, what was worse, it was so far giving the Catholic means to render his opposition much more , formidable than it could h a v e b een p r i or to t h e re moval of the restriction in 1777. Upon such a system it was impossible to rest the hand or arm was thus furnished with effective vigour, whilst the body was palsied. Thus the words of that accurate judge of human nature were fulfilled— " Nuul comes•ezeo.". This made the limitations and restrictions imposed upon that patient and woolly class of his Majesty's subjecti the mote distressing. The object of this mo. non was to secure to the English Catholics the same enlargement of privileges enjoyed by the Catholics ofliZ•land, and still further extend the general effect of a.system of toleration to all classes of the Catho lics. Would it be impolitic to repeal the test laws. when the• Dissenters of all classes have so nobly sus tained the cause of the British Empire at the most critical and trying moment of her fate ? if the expe diency of the restriction applied to England, it also did to the oase• of the French Government and the French Clergy ; fur it was a Clergy owing allegiance and homage to the Pope. • Yet had it ever appeared in history, that the French people anci the French church had not supported the cause of its own inde pendence, and of the authority of its Kings, against all external or spiritual' rule or dominion whatever? It Would be necessary to be proved, that there existed some extraordinary difference between these professors I of the same 'religion' in two neighbouring countries. With respect to the declaration published by the Aahhishup of Mechlin, at Brussels, it was worthy of observation, that by treaty' concluded in this country, and Signed by the British Minister, our con .sent was 'leen to the union of the Netherlands to the Government of Holland. If then, as he hoped none of the Learntd Prelates would object, we did at we world be thee by, and we felt it our duty to add to the Protestant Government of 'Holland, which may ~ .strictly be termed the strong Protestant bulwark of this country upon the Continent, a population of Pa. Oats, as the . Netherlands : confessedly were, and had consented to grant them the guarantee contained iu the declaration of the Archbishop, that no alters • tion should be made in thi Church Establishment in the country of the Netherlands, and that all parties in the State should be equally eligible to all places of trust, honour, or emolument—if, he observed, all this had been .one with a view to strengthen our natural Atly on the Continent, should we' be told of 1 the policy, nay, necessity, of excluding Catholics in this country from those situations and privileges which were the subject of this Petition ? If the prac tice weretood in Holland, why not unite the Irish ,and English Catholic more firmly to the State by granting to them the long-earned weed of their pa tience and their desert? Many other observations he 'might have felt it his duty to have made, but for the lateness of the hour at which he had risen. He was happy, however, in having once more the satisfaction of raising his voice in that House against the ennti. nuance of a aystem of restrictions discreditable to the nature of our Government, to the character of our country, and to our religion—impolitic in principle, .unjustifiable in practice, and pregnant with dangers, aggravated by the appalling circumstances of the CA-. lAMILOUS period in which the boon was solicited.— ( Continued a/ore/mum arid Awing.) The LORD CHANCELLOR considered the grand objection to granting the prayer of the Petition, svas.in the nature of our Government, which required the King should be Supreme Head of the Church. Whilst .the Court of Rome challenged to itself the right of excommueication, it arrogated to itself the b right of deposing Kings—(llear, hear). —As to the authority,of Mr. Lock, quoted-by a Right Re' erend Prelate,- whom ix &mild eta honour (bishop of Norwich) be must say, he should be sorry to enter tain the same opinions of the Catholics. of our day , as Mr. Locke did of the Catbolicsot . his day—(Here. the Lord Chancellor read tome passages from Locke.) --fit the very- dist - aet of King William re quired every man who: came . into Parliament, to declare aiaiost TcaoastiP&P!iatice-- Wulf , Ac 4 ")i — r The next act to ivhiab he 'Wa' advert was that Ispeeting the Coronatinii Oath;- npon•wlich.43 mnch hid been said, an d w hi c h re q u i re d t hi . C lown t . i sup ! port the Protestant E st i bli s h itiem . No man could read the Bill of Rtglits without seeing that King William slits sent lot purposely to protec: the r reli gion as well .as their civil . riglkis. A Proteitant ' Crown was tendered to Ilim, and nnrhing else, so that it Popisksticcessor evou!al be Ors firte dead. Let them also read over the 7th of Supremacy, which forbids any foreign Prelate to bear either civil or cc.. clesiastical jorisdittioo in this reilnt—(Hear, hear-) He had Ling entertained an opinion utterly incamsis. stent with those-who supposed that nor Constitution was no longer to be guarded by those tents which had Mimed its security. If the Catholics were to be ad mitted to that House, it would be necessary to alter the summonses of the Hou,e, since they would be coated on , 4 to advise the King on his Throne."— They most conscientiously undertake to supp•irt it against their consciences in Church And State. He. most take the libcrty to say he did not understand or accept the motion as a motion for going into a Com mittee on the explanation that had been given. Na Resolution for a Bill could with propriety originate with such a Conimittee ; it was deceiving the Catho iics and ensnaring the Protestants to pit tend to such a thing; and, in fact, if the measure was intended to be seriously carried, it would be more beneficial to one side, and more honourable to the other, to propose a Bill to such efFect at once. He therefore felt it, upon these grounds, his bounden and most solemn duty to oppose his motion. . The Bishop of NORWICH rose to explaitt, and cited the authority of Bishop Hoadley, in favour of the 'sentiments he himself had espoused. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, with die ut. , most deference for the Right Rev. Prelate who last addressed their Lordships, that he never had rea.l the writings of Bishop Hoadley, and, it such were the doctrines broached in his works, he never would read them —(Laujhter. ) Amidst cries of 9 Qtratioft 1" their Lordships then proceeded to divide, when there appeared—For the Motion 90—Against it 14.2—Majority against the Catholic Claims 52.—Adjourned. • HOUSE OF COMMONS. On the question that the Truro Railway Bill Report be re ceived, some conversation arose, and a division afterwards took place. The numbers were even, 79 on each side, on which the became' gave his vote in meant of the ayes. Lord LASCELLES brought in a Bill to make the Proprietors of Lead Witte hable'to the Poor Rates.—Read a first time, or dered to be read a second time on Friday next. and to be printed. The Rrpert of the London Gaugers' Bill was read and agreed to. The Committees of Supply and Ways and Means were post poned till Monday. Sir WILLIAM 11URROWF.S postponed his Motion respect ing Volunteers in Ireland, till Thursday. Mr. FINLAY moved fur Accounts of the quantity of Linen exported from Great Britain, and imported into Great Britain, front Ireland, in lel6.—Ordered. Ike farther consideration of the Usury Laws Bill was post poned till Friday, the 30th In►t. Lord EBBING lON, on behalf of Sir James Mackintosh, pus:putted his miricei, relative to the Druits of Admiralty, Irvin Monday till Thursday. . 1 he it rpurt of the - Committee on the Sugar Bounty Acts was brought m., the resolutions were agreed to, and a bill ordered. Lurd PA LMERS EON moved fur the term. of the effective strcttgth of the brawl' Army at home and abroad.—Ordered. SA VlNtis BANKS. On the motion that the Report of the Savings Banks Bill be recommitted, • General V - lORNTON expressed the hope that the Bill would not be allowed to proceed any further; at all events that the Honourable Mover of it (Mr. Rose) would withdraw it for the present Sessioli.-- The measure, as it now stood, went to impose an ex prise on the public, and to that he could not agree. Mr. ROSE was surprised at :his opposition. Only three Petitions had been presented against the Bill, namely, from the Parishes of St. Paul, Norwich, and Herelord ; and those Petitioners, he had every reason to believe, were now satisfied with the Bill. The Bill was then recommitted, in which the se veral blanks were filled up, after remarks from Mr. LAMB, Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. BROUGHAM, Sir C. MoxcK, Mr. Dicstessoo, Mr. HI.:3ICISSON, Mr. G. Rosa, Sir J. NEWPORT, &c. ch.efly on the mode of securing the funds of the Saving Banks, some being in favour of an investiture in the Public Funds, and others for security in Exchequer Bills. On the clauses being proposed, which provided that a bonus should be given to those persons who, for a certain number of years, shall contribute to Savings Banks without receiving any pariah relief ; and to enable Magistrates to order parish relief to such persons, in case they should be reduced to such a state as to require it, although they might have an the Savings Bank a deposit to a certain amount. Mr. BRAND opposed these dailies, because' he thought the principle of them objectionable: But even if it was not allowed that the principle was bad, it must be allowed that this was not the proper occa. sion fur such an enactment, as it would cothe'more regularly under the attention of the . Houae dinin g . the discussion on the Report of the Co mMittee lOr the revision of the Poor Laws. • Mr. BARCLAY spoke shortly in favour of these clauses. Mr. HUSICISSON defended the clauses, on the ground that they would tend to eticritmige a spirit ot frugality and industry among the poor. • lie con tended that the• only rhtlical remedy for the defects of the present system of our Poor Laws, WAS to be found in instilling into the minds ot the lower classes the necessity of industry and frugality—in teaching them the means by which' they could look forward to their future comfort Irony the ssvings•of their pre : sent wages. It would be with the.utmost regret that he would see these clauses rejected, because he was firmly convinced that they 'would have the most•hc neticial effects. • Mr. PHILLIPS spoke against the clauses. If •it were thought proper to introduce clauses of this kind, it might be done at some future time. , In the 'pre sent (ha they were certainly out of place. Mr. C. GRANT, jun. thought that•the effect oil the cliusee would - be; to tro away with the great evil of the Poor Laws, by making a distillation between the virtuous and vicious poor. MY. BROUGHAM said„ that he would consent to the clause which allowed Magistrittes to . order pa rish relief to persons having sums in Saving Banks, under the circumstances mentioned in the clause. But as• to the clause which went to the payment of abonus, out of the Poor Ravi to contributors to Saving. Banks, who should not have received parish relict tor a cer tain time, be objected to it Entirely. Its etf cc was to divert the Poor Rates to a purpose for which they ha never yet been applied —name 7, to those On . were not panperi, and svhn did not weJ relict Ihm • the parish. On this last clause he was resolved to Lake the sense nt the Cnmmittee. Mr. WILBERFORCE spr,ke shortly in favour of the clause, empowering parish relief to those who hai a small sum in .a Savings Bank ; but expressed eoty.iderable doubts as to the other chose respecting the bonus. The clause allowing them to receive parocl!ial re. lief, was then agreed to. The clatt+e for giving them a premium wal negatived without a division. The other clauses were agreed to.aad the Report was ordered to be received on Monday. CLERGY recstorNcE BILL. On the motion of Mr. MANNERS SUTTON, for the House to go into a Cordmittee on this Bill. Mr. BA BINGTON objected to the general prin. ciples of the Bill, on the ground that it would not answer the great end intended by it. It did not ade. goately provide lc:- the evil of non•residence, and still left the Cietgy at Vie ra2rcy of the informers. HI! took a vie w s of the number of- non residents for 4 aeries of years, and said that he was hippy to find that the number of residents had mtterially iucrersed within the Ittst year. He regretted that the P.;11 nil 110 clause to promote residence ; hut he must leave the retts:dy to abl.ei heads ; he could n , tt say t!)at he had any !tom front the B li before the House as to the general principle. .• Sir W. scorr, on seconding the motion f the. Committee, traced • the regulations respecting rest. dente from the time of Henry VIII. It was an an.)• maly, he s lid, to suppose that the administration v' an Episcopal Clore!) was nut in the hands of the Bis Lops. The actions hroitg'it by the com:non infor mer were nevn received by the law with m.nch cow: tenance, as they were known to arise frommarce, partly from farmers, chavine.l ablut t!;eir tith! , . .ind partly with a view to °train money by fir hint actions. It was more than ever necessary to invest Bishops with ihe powers which this Act proposed to give them, since they had been so much call; tuniated for not enforcing residence. In a country lite this,- where there were such a number of poor livings, there must of necessity be pluralities, and of consewiehce non-residence. Let us, said the Learned Gentleman, do the best we can, not theoretically, but according to existing circumstances , t o ren d er t h e B i ll e ff ectua l - . • Lord EBRINGTON contended; that the number of non•residents had not been materially diminished by the former. Bill of the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman, and Ise'veas afraid that the pre sent Bill would be equally ineffectual, 14 placing so mach power in the bands of the Bishops, of either enforcing residence or exempting from it. He would not oppose the Committee, as he was anxinus to hear their opinion.. • Mr. DICKENSON said there were not less than 60(X) livings under £BO a year, and therefore how was it possible to enforce residence t General THORNTON said, it 11:0 Clergy were incompetent to enforce residence, the Laity ought to be called in to•assist them: The House then went into the Conimittee.• Mr. MANNERS SU'rfON argued in favour of the clause for restraining the Clergymen from the oc. cupation of more than fifty acres, with which quani , tity he proposed to fill up the blank. - • Mr. DICKENSON was against this limitation, the quantity being in some counties 'worth little or nothing. He would rather propose a compensation of .itid or 870 a year; than any number of acres. He proposed, as an amendment, to - fill up the blank with the value of 4100 per annum. Colonel WOOD obierve,i, that the Welch ClergY• men were much alarmed at the clause of the 241 tact year, for restraining them from farmitift" 'as much . Land as they pleased. He thought tl,e. clause ut ' just and impolitic. , Mr. SU I'TON explained, that the Clergyman was not cut dostn to the fifty acres, but miglif have :se . much more land as he could, get a li cence f or . If restraint was to exist, a milder one could not be.pos. tressed than that of this clause. Mr. WYNNE observed, that the ancient principle of the law was intended to prevent the Clergy Iron) making money by engaging in secular affairs. He, argued in favour of fixing a discretion in•the Bishop. to restrain any clergyman from renting' !nor- Allah • i'loo a year. If he rentcd more, it must 'Noire a degree of attention inconsistent with his clerical duty. Mr. COURT ENAY thought, if the clause was to stand, the least objectionable mode would be to sert ti:ly acres; but he was - rather for omitting it al. - togeth'e?, because he could not see the evil against, which it was intended to provide. . _ 'Lord MILTON proposed that the clause should state fifty .acres, 'unless the annual value pl'ffle'llu4 should be under A'loa.a yeir. . • Sir JOHN NIC,HOLL said, the. while object. of the clause was to take off, and not to sidd, restraints, - • and therefore the alarm of the Clergy, as stated .by; • tire Honourable Colonel; was unfounded. Dr. I'IIILLIMQ,RE was . infaeSur.of limitation . tq a certain number of acres ; but objected to that part of the clause that respected the recovering of'the penalty, as there was no proviuon for ti.e disposal of • it. The clause would go to th e extent L .t i nt r o d uc i ng a new jurisdiction. Mr. BRAGGE BATI-ITJRST defended theprin ciple of allowing the Clergymen ro farm land, Ifit did not proceed to such an extent . 7is to i n terfere iiith his ditties, beyond which it ought not to • Ht: . agreed that the fifty acres were sufficient. It *as nut necessary for a Clergyman to oc:upy so much land as to luicorrie a farmer. Mr. DAVENPORT disapproved of the those. . Sir 'l'. ACLAND thought the clause wools! to taken as an apProbaticifof the Clergy ; takin . g to titer trade as a matter of profit. It would be a sr,urce - uf cmopetirion and jealousy between the Cie:gym:Ln . and the Parishioners. SMITH was against the clans:, on :ha same grounds as the preceding speakers. But he made %awe pointed observations on the reproachful conduct of certain Clergymen in Essex, respect ing.tithes. Lord PALMERSTON t: - as ts.Tair,st Ole clause., A division look place on an amendment proposed by Lord EBKINGTON, to leave oor certain words which authorised Clergymen to hold I.,:ms. ' For the Amendment 35 —Against it 38-s-Ittajo thy in favour ofthe Clause as it stood in 3. A convervetion ensued ewt qtr number of .t:res with yel blink was t) Lord Esai%:;; - 0•. prorosri Agai vh!ch She .:,0 .'cle.,