The National Register. — London, England, 1821-04-08 00:00:00

r •. • %Or , I Ofi . • . • • • 3Jutpertal Varitamtnt. —assrae-- HOUSE OF LORDS, 310NDAY, APRIL 2. Viscount HAMPDEN presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land, in the Eastern part of Sussex. complaining of agricultural distress. The petition read and laid on the table. Lord GRANVILLE presented a petition from the solicitors and attorneys of Stafford against the County Courts Bill. Laid on the table. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a variety of Peti tions from various parts in the West of England, in which the manufacturers and others concerned in the woollen trade prayed for repeal of the tax on imported wool. The noble marquis observed, that as far as his knowledge upon this important sub ject went,. he knew the existing tax had proved injurious, instead of at all being beneficial to the clothiers, therefore this petition came before their Lordships with strong claims to their attention. He was satisfied Government were disposed to act upon liberal views„and that they might be induced to withdraw this tax, which was generally considered injurious to the interests of the woollen trade and the best policy of the country. The petition was laid on the table. The Bishop of CHESTER said, he had the honour to mesent a petition, signed by the arcluleaconry and chapter of Chester. against the Roman Catholic claims. The petition was read and laid on the table. The house adjourned. TUESDAY, APRIL 3. Lord ERSKINE presented several petitions from owners and occupiers of land in the county of Sussex, complaining of agri cultural distress. The Irish Witchcraft Bill was read a third time and passed. Petitions were presented from Sudbury, and the clergy and archdeacon" , of Hereford, against further concessions to the Roman Catholics. THE BILL OP CONCESSIONS, &c.--Sir JOHN NEW • PORT and a numerous deputation of Irish members brought up the bill to relieve Boman Catholics, which passed yesterday morning in the Commons. It was received by the Lord Chan. toiler, the title read. and laid on the table. The Earl of DONOUGH MORE. some time after the bill was brought up. moved it be read the first time. The bill was tic conlingly read the first time without any observation. The Earl of DONOUGH MORE then said, it was impossible be should not feel the deepest impression, as to the advocate of the Roman Catholic claims. on the arrival of such a bill as that which had just been brought from the other honse of parliament. He could not avoid feeling the full weight of responsibility whith which attached to him in his then situation. It would be a total of duty on his part to decline becoming the advocate of the neglect he could not undertake to advocate it in the precise form in which it had been received from the other house. From some communication recently had with a number of the foremost men among Inc Roman Catholics, he had the best grounds for soppwing, that in the progress of the measure, such amendments could be made as would do away every objection resting in the mind of any reasonable man. Concessions might be made to the Roman Catholics, withoutsurreudering one iota of the securities whirls the professors of the Protestant faith had certainly a right to receive. In consequence of the recent communication to which he had alluded, he undertook to be the advocate of the bill, and he expressed a hope it might be so modified as to do away every objection on the part of Catholics and Protestants, by the former giving full securities. In that view he moved the bill be read a second time on Tuesday nett. The Earl of LI VERPOOL—" My Lords. I certainly do not rise for the purpose of making any objection to the motion of the noble lord fur the second reading. I wish merely to observe, that as this bill comes from the commons in a most important shape, it will doubtless receive from your lordships the most serious consideration, and whatever the decision of the house may be, I trust the discussion will be temperate, and that it will be conducted with that moderation which has characterized the other house of parliament. It would be irregular to enter into the matter of this bill on the present occasion!; a but having on former day taken an extensive part in the discussion of the sub dict of this bill. I feel I should nut deal fairly with the house if I d not say, that when the proposition is made for the second reading of the bill, I shall feel it my duty to object to it.—(Hear. hear.)—The bill contains two parts:—one is to remove disabili ties; the second part contains regulations respecting the ecclesi astical establishment of the Roman Catholics. My Lords. lam sorry to say, that those parts forming enactments in this bill. are so objectionable, that I shall feel it my duty to object to both. I cannot agree to grant the privileges it is proposed to grant the Roman Catholics. But even if my mind, and the mind of every noble lord in the house, was made up to concede these privileges, I should feel it my duty strongly to object to those claisses in the bill which relate to the Roman Catholic clergy, because I think if such a clause could stand, persons must make out there is not that danger arising from it, which I think. with others, is to be apprehended, 1 feel that many of the enactments are unjust, and many extremely impolitic. They will never answer the purpose, nor meet the end proposed. I thought it fair, after the part 1 have taken on this subject, to speak as an individual, and state the turn of my opinion. When the second reading is moved, I will state my objections to both parts of this bill more at large." The Earl of DON'OUGH MORE felt as the noble earl did upon particular enactments. The Catholics should feel that they ought to make sacrifices to the apprehensions of Protestants, whether those apprehensions and prejudices were right or wrong. The LORD CHANCEI.i.OR expressed some diffidence, rising to address their lordships at that moment, upon so inte resting a subject; but having observes! in the bill laid upon their table, that it did nut interfere with the Lord Chancellor, whose duty it might be to consider whether he ought to approve of the proposed alteration in church and state of this country, he should ray a few words. The house knew well the part he had passionaly taken on this subject, and out of respect to the opiniods d per. sons in that house, and in the other house, he had no difficulty in saying, he would most willingly avoid a change of his own opinion, if any . such change could by possibility occur; but upon full consideration and conviction, he felt that the essential inte rest of this country, and it., state of civil liberty, would not permit hint to change his opinion. It was impossible to consent to this bill, under any alteration or inediticatioo. On the contrary lie would prima,' the house to conduct himself with care and caution, in order to guard against it. It was impossible to reconcile this bill with the prinesples of the Censtitution. and no modification could make it admiasible. The order for the second reading of the bill was then fixed for Tuesday, and die lords were ,tounanied ter that day. wniisii.m.i.3„teicii. 4. The D CI lANt E1.1.01t 'net this day at an early hour to hear appeals. After prayers, Lord COL VI LI. E presented a Petition from Chipptiihtuu against the Italian Catholic Calms. The Petition was read and laid on the table. The Innkeeper's Subsistence Bill was read a second time.— The House then adjourned. IHURSDAY, APRIL 5. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti tion friou the clergy of Norstich it4/111161 the bill tor re. moving restrictions upon the 1111 l au Catholics. ills Glace observed, that it was proper to state boo the petition come into his hands. His right reverend Itiend, the Bishop of Norwich, had undertaken in prevent it, but heite4 unable to du so, he requestid tott•Clit of partii -, to plevesit it. 'foe petition tva• ~ •01,11 by nteu V , ;111 whom :.e lived livoll 'militate term', sod with It had udiciated Hit Is great sot lit uuu to tnt NA'T'IONAL lIEGI3TEIt. during a great part of his professional life. The petition was read mid laid on the table. Petitions were also prevented from the Royal Borough of Queen's Ferry—the cleigy of the Diocese of Gluiteeoter— and the Rector and Churchwardens of the parish of S . George, Exeter, against the Romeo Catholic claims, and praying the bill may not pass into a law. Read and Lid on the table. On the motion of the Earl of CARNARYON. several witnesses upon the Grami nil election question were ordered to attend the house.—Adjourned. FRIDAY, APRIL 6. The royal assent was given by commission to the Com mercial Intercourse bill, the Husbandry Horses bill, the Irish Attorneys' Fees Regulation bill, the Irish Witchcraft Act Repeal bill, and the Grampound Witnesses Indem nity bill. The commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shafteshery, and Viscount Melville. An order was made that a message be sent to the House of Commons, reqnesting the attendance of Sir M. Lopez, to be examined at their lordships' bar as a witness, touch ing the Grampound Disfranchisement bill. Lord SIDMOUTH presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and one from Stirling, against the Roman Catholic Claims. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the clergy of Sion College, having a similar effect. The Earl of MACCLESFIELD and the Earl of SHAFTESBURY also presented petitions from the clergy, praying that no alteration may be made in the existing laws which apply to Roman Catholics. The pe titions were read, and laid on the table. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said, he held in his hand a petition from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, and several members of that church, praying the house to remit the restrictive part of the bill now before parliament, for giving relief to the Roman Catholic body. The noble earl observed, that the petition was numerously signed, by persons of highly respectable cha racter, and it was entitled to the consideration of the house. The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated that he did not wish to oppose the reading of the petition, but he enter tained a doubt whether the honae could receive the peti tion of a Roman Catholic Bishop, described as the Bishop of Limerick. The Bishop of Limerick known to their lordships was a Protestant Bishop, and the question might arise whether the house could recognise more than one Bishop of Limerick. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE expressed his surprise that any donbt should exist 011 the subject, as it was known to the house that the Catholic Bishop of Limerick was ordained, and in the regular exercise of ecclesiastical functions. He believed there was a law in Ireland which allowed a Roman Catholic priest to become a Protestant minister, without any new ordination. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, observed, that he did not doubt the functions of the petitioner, but can dour induced him to express an objection whirl, might operate not only on his own mind, but upon others. The petition was then read,aud laid on the table. The house adjourned to Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY. APPAL 2. Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the Cler kenwell road trust, ugeiust the metropolis consolidation trusts' bill. Mr. K. DOUGLAS presented a petition from the corn merchants of Leith, against the corn averages' bill, praying that it might not be hurried into a law. Cartroxsc Bt IL SU M N Elt presented a petition from St. Saviour's, signed by 600 persons, against the Cu tholic bill—which be hoped would not pass. lie observed, that the gallant general had said that his vote was supported by the majorities of Southwark; this petition, sigaed by SOO persons, came from one parish only. Sir R. WILSON replied, that in such parish there were few electors; and that doubtless the petitioner spoke the language of their rector, who said, last Sunday, that Sundays would soon cease to be observed as days of religions worship, and that a power was rising up which would soon sweep away all leasehold and freehold property.—(A doubted not the respectability of the petitioners—hue, he added, he acted according to what lie deemed the wishes of his constituents ; if, however, they felt otherwise—grateful as be was for their support, helwould rather resign his seat than give it vete against his conscience and against this bill. Petition ordered to be printed. Similar petit' were presented, during the evening, from St. Paul, Bristol—Christchurch, Canterhury—Dutufries-- and Clifton, Gloucester. Severally ordered to be printed. Mr. HUME presented a 'petition from a person named Chidley, committed to the county jail of Somerset, com plaining of vexatious severities, of having beet. chained, &c. Ordered to be printed. Mr. BUTT ER %V ()KT'', having proposed the discharge of the forever order, moved for retains of weekly Sunday papers, and Monday editions, with an account of their pro duce to the revenue. &e.—Ordered. CATHOLIC DISABILITY BILL.-Sir J. NEWPORT moved the third reading of the Catholic Disability Re moval bill. 'I he order of the day for the third reading was then read. Sir W. SCOTT rose. He contended that such a mea sure could only be likely to be productive of advantage where large parties approved of what was to be done ; but here, unless lie was much misinformed, the party who were to be conciliated by the bill were as much divided about it as those who were avowedly against the bill. There was so much difference of opinion on the subject, that by passing the bill he anticipated any other result than conciliation. He then went on to anbmit, that, much as the petit' of the Catholic Peers was relied on, they were not to be received as the expositois and expounders of the Catholic faith ; they were rather to go to the clergy and assemblies of the Catholic church. Looking to such authority as not altogether without weight, lie could not forget their celebrated explanation on the oath of supre macy ; and, remembering that, bow could lie say that - the Catholic clergy were likely to be satisfied with what was passing (Hear.) He then wilverted, in illustration of this point, to the Catholic historians of the reformation; and to the replies of Air. Charles Butler, which lie admit ted to lie as candid as they were learned. The proposed oath he viewed as the most important part of the bill.— lie would give them more important opinions than ihs I own. Mr. selden said, that the Catholics could not enjoy privileges sncli us were enjoyed by the other subjects, who were Protestants. Mr. Locke held that such was their religion, that they gave themselves up to a foreign prince and foreign iutlueuce. Lord Clartntlun and Mr. ‘' Justice Blackstone expressed like opinions—namely,tha so long as they acknowledged foreign inthrence, even in spiritual matters, they could not complain of exclusion. Such were the opinions of most eminent men; and by acting on such opinions, the constitution had stood from the reformation down to the present time. It was now proposed to alter the securities which had been deemed essential from the time of the reformation. As to the pro posed oath, he maintained that it was quite impossible fur the Catholics of Ireland to take it; it acknowledged the King, nut only as head of the temporalities, but of the spi ritualitien. Could they sincerely take such an oath as this? He thought not—that it was quite impossible. The Ca tholic's conscience was, or it was not, in the keeping of the Pope, as head of the Romish church. If it were not in such keeping, the Net had not been truly represented ; but if it were in such keeping, how could the proposed oath be taken ? The laws declared that such foreign in fluence was noxious—it was calculated to be must mis chievous, and therefore had it been forbidden and guarded against by language es sweeping as language could he. Yet now such guard was to be done away—but the Ro man Catholic's conscience remained. As to the influence of this oath, we neidei stood hint to state, that on toleration, accompanied with such fetters, he had no relianee. But they talked of the Irish Roinish church as well as the Irish Protestant church, so that we had two churches ther e— Ireland had the double-headed mousier.—(A langh.)—By agreeing to thin bill, he maintained that by it was endan gered by two centuries of blood and suffering. He con cluded with moving an amendment, that the bill be read a third time this day six months. Sir J. HILL seconded the amendment, contending that he viewed the measure as being of a decided revolutionary character. It went on to authorise an intercourse with the see of Rome. He had heard with astonishment the assertion that our constitution was not essentially Proles taut; he maintained that it was such, if there were any meaning in the bill of rights, and the calling of the Prince of Orange to the tlwone, and the terms on which every monarch thereafter was to hold the crown. This change made I view the bill as a revolutionary measure ; and lie also considered the change of the oath of a revolution ary character. Every Protestant was bound, contrary to the provisions of this bill, that no foreign power, pope, or potentate, ought to have influence in this country. If this bill passed, he did not see how Protestants could take the present oaths. He also maintained that the bill was ab surd. He had received ample proof that the Catholic clergy and laity of Ireland were against the bill. They called it the slavery, the insult bill, and both parties ap plied to it every opprobrious epithet that they ersald.tlsiesk of. Where then was the prospect of conciliation ? Capt. O'GRADY stated, that as fat as IA could learn, there was not that opposition to the Catholic which had been described to exist. Mr. C. HUTCHIBSON again spoke of the bill as not calculated to produce the concord anticipated by some. He would not vote for the amendment, because that would get rid of the bill altogether; nor could he vote for the bill in its present forms: lie was sorry that the bill could not be re-committed, that there might still be the opportunity of getting rid of the obnoxious portions of it. Mr. RICE observed, that when the resolutions of some Catholics were adverted to, the protest of other Catholics was not named. Mr. ELLIS spoke against the bill, maintahring that it was not calculated to give satisfaction to Protestants or Catholics. denied that the opinion of Mr. • Mr. ROBINSON O'Cnnnel was the opinion of the Catholic body; be had no hopes of satisfying that individual by the present or any other measure, but he was fully persuaded that, if adopted, it would give satisfaction to the great body of the Catholics. Mr. GOULBURN repeated his former arguments against the bill. Mr. CANNING thought, that the house was to look at this present proceeding not as an act commencing a new series of acts, hut as a crowning set of mercy following and in pursuance a variety of others. The great question was, whether, upon passing thelpresent bill, there would not be a more wholesome state of law than formerly.-- He next touched upon the number of Catholic members that were likely to be introduced by it into parliament, contending in contradiction to the opponents of the mea sure, that instead of To from Ireland and 30 from En gland, the utmost that would probably be returned would be a dozen in the whole. Admitting, however that more might obtain entrance, allowing even that t he vision of the hundred knights was to be realized, still lie would ask in what way they would be able to set about the destruc tion of the constitution? The other side who talked so much of danger was bound to show Irma whence it would proceed, and how it woidd operate—in what way the Ca tholic representatives would succeed in corrupting the rest of the SW members, or at least the whole of the 1 minorities on the late divisions on this subject, and the greater part of the supporting majorities. (Hear.) He contended that the measure was eminently calculated in conciliate the Irish, and to cement the Union; the re centness of which was to be considered an advantage instead of an ebject.on, inasmuch as expectations in dulged since that event were now to be realized ; pro mises and pledges were to be fulfilled before Mope were so delayed as to make sick the heart. To this considera tion must the house come at last, whatever fate might attend the bill elsewhere—viz. whether it was not neces sary to incorporate the hearts and feelings of four millions of Catholics in the same manlier we had incorporated their laws, ;heir commerce, and their institutions.? whe ther they should be united to Great Britain firmly and effectually, or leave them in an island of their own, and by a mistaken policy coerce theta in proportion to our clanger whether they should he continued under the (Meat of repression and subservience, or raised to a level with ourselves. Regardless of internal squabbles and party cavils, let the house now consummate that g reat. work whic h, when once convumated by it, sootier or later must be accomplishi.l. (Continued cheering.) The cries for the question and for clearing the gallery were now universal, and strangers withdrew accordiegly. The house then divided—For the third reading, 216 — Against it, 197—Majority for it, 19. On our cutout, in the gallery we found Mr. YELL stating that though he would not admit the Roman Catholics ought not to be called on to take the oath of supremacy as well as the Protestants yet he cousidrred the same argument by a kieh the Catholic was exempted, would ulm go to exempt the Protestant. He would there fore, with the view of having his opinions recorded on the journal., move that tile ,econd page (Putt containing the oath) he omitted. This, alter a few words from Sir J. Mac- .*PP. • ..., 41r, .v.t4 •i r r