The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-05-18 00:00:00

for the passing of resent emanleauslo tgainet Popery, he thought that -eligion would quickly pus away. Years passed away—the'lest Ac , els repealed, and their Lordships knew whether Presbyterian ism hail liceomis the religion of that country, or whether that other r aigion, which, according to the Dean's prophecy, was to have , ot ,,s li mey, or whether it had not gon e on un d er t h e operat i on o f I I statutes, increasing in force and influence with every succeed pens s • .._ fi l e year: (Hear.) He would trouble the House with one other ,e s ervation on the subject of prophecies. In the early part of the lat reign, a measure introduced to give the Catholics equal rights with the Protestants in Canada had been deelared unsafe with re spect to Canada, and injurious to the Protest•int Establish ment ; and a Divine, quoted by Burke, had prophecied the in_ :sniffle eirect of that concession to be, that the French King w ould, through the means of Papal Bulls, induce the States of America to throw off their allegiance to this country. The Chris tian King had certainly, in conformity with one part of the predic tion, employed his powers to induce a part of the States of Arne tin to throw off their allegiance to the mother country . ; but what p a rt had it been ? Irby not the Catholic population who were to be a bsolutely ruled by these bulls, but the attached Presbyterian provinces, Over whom the power of the Pope could not bee-teethed, while the Catholic provinces, the tools it was supposed of the Papal Throne, remained firmly attached to their King and Constitution. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) And yet these were the Bulls to which they were told nothing !lumen could be opposed, before whose in thence an ties of public or private conuect ion were to sink into in. Ognifi,DC'. (II ear.) Ile could tell those who resisted this measure, that the grourd was shaking beneath their feet, and that it was im. possible torb people who existed amongst all the excitements of a tree country to continue contented with that state of debasement in which they were placer; and the very education which a Right ltev. Prelate hed mentioned as one of the substitutes for Eman cipation would prove one of the strongest stimulants to the in crease of that dissatisfaction which at present existed, and to the continuance of these demands for redress. A Noble Marquis (Anglesey) who stored his opinions with honourable .-nd manly freedom, had said that the complaints of the Catholics increased with every fresh concession. He admitted it was so; and he wouldt go farther, and say he wostlif have a bad opinion' of any men placed in such a situation, if they did not grumble until they were admitted to a participation in those rights to which they had so strong • claim (flear, hear). sad to which it was the property of human nature to aspire. They would continue to make those claims; and whatever remedies of education or statistics might be applied to the disease, the increase of wealth and commerce and power would only give a now impetus to their desire for freedom, and bring them the mare fre q uently b e tere that House . The eel question was, whether they would continue to rule over 1 eland by the old method of coercion, or whether they would have recourse to that system of conciliation uhith had been tried to some extent already, and by which it sae aimitted that the country was placed in a most pros li-mus condition. He thought it would become the Right Reverend Prelates who opposed that conciliation, that it' they -displayed less fear of the dangers to be apprehended front succession, and a little more confidence in the stability of the Church of England, when:they were getting rid of the prejudic e of commerce, it would be well for them to consider that what was conceded to the religion or relief of another,was not taken away from ue lie considered the Protestant religion, and it was his pride to di so, as not in wan of any peculiar protection, but as standing confident in the strength of its doctrines and the purity and virtue of its establishment. The Noble Lord then alluded to the opinions of those eminent men who brought about the Revolution in this couLtry, and quoted the declaration of Lords Somers and Peter boiougb, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Duke of Devonshire, in a conterence, to prove that they only looked upon the laws enacted at that time as temporary measures, and that they considered that nothing less than a crime should take away froth a man the power se serve his King and country. The Noble Lord concluded a very eloquent and argumentative speech, by imploring their Lordships to heal the dissensions of Ireland, by removing the restrictions under which the Catholics labour. The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose and said, he could not permit the consideration of the present measure to pass over, or the speech of the Noble Marquis ( Isansdown) who spoke last, to rema n unan swered without an attempt on his part to offer the observations which were the result of his own deep convictions on the present question. And, in doing so, he feared he should be obliged to trespass at some considerable length on the attention of the House. The present important question was ose that must be decided in a view of the good or evil likely to arise from its adoption or rejection. • And ha was desirous of making some obser. hails on the new and extraordinary position the Hoase was noe placed in. In consequence of the occurrence of certain events in Ireland, their lordships had been called on in the beginning . of the Session. to pass an Act for putting down the Roman 'Catholic Association, and an inquiry was instituted befoee both Houses for the retinue of investigating the state of Ireland. In his opinion it would have been more vstisfactory to literawrited the resuh of that inquiry before attempting the consi detatioa of.a measure like the present. Had this line of conduct been adopted their Lordships might then be enabled to legislate on • • furl and entire view of the subject. This proceeding was not adopted, but the present Bill had been introduced into the Lower Manse with o her concomitant measures, which some might and others might not approve. This had been done for the purpose of cstshing • few rotes to the right and left for the main question of anincipetion. (Hear.) But their Lordships did norknow whether these measures were to accempany it or not. The House of Com mons had sent up this Bill to their Lordships, having first pue- Chased a majority for it by means of these other measures. (Hear.) However, it was their duty only to decide on the Bill now before them ; `and he would say, foe his part, he detested the Bill that hid been law brought up for their approval. The first part of that lhll was• trash aid nonsense, and the latter part was scarcely less objectiocable; The only part of the Bill at all simple or intelligi ble was That Which related to concession. He was talking now not of the object, but of the construction of the Bill. In one half hour liehriould himself engage to draw up a simpler and more intelli gible Bill, because he would adhere •to the miin object without gting to the right or left. Ile repeated, the 801 1.4'23 full of errors in every six lines of it. The question came to this—. Wile it lit to remove the lioman Catholic disabilities or not ? That stood upon a plain and intelligible footing? Noble Lords s<serted his .Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects ought to enjoy equal rights with the Protestants. lie was ready to meet them serh a din et negative. ( H ear.) And that was a proposition equally simple wi,h their own. They were, therefore, at Witte. He had before proved himself friendly to particular concessions, but those row sought were wholly dihlbrent. l'arliameer had to decide sou OW Hilt on 1 s own merits alone, and he again repeated the Roman Catholic was not entitled to enjoy equal right. and privikgei with the Protestant. It was said, Yes, but in a het elate, all subjic a ate entitled to equal rights on equal conditions. His ground of abjection was, that the Catholic did not offer equal conchtio.s, and was rot placed in a similar situation to the Pro testant. He avoid. net concede equal privileges to two parties, one of whom offered an entire, the other a divided allegiance— the one r complete, and the other a qualified allegiance. - Till the prom:Weis of Catholic Emancipation could prove to him that he • wl o worked half a day was entitled to equal wages with him who laboured the whole day ; or. in other words, that the half was equivalent to the whole, they should never be able to satisfy hint that the individuals who paid spiritual allegiance to the Pope and thnseral allegiance to their Sovereign were equally entitled to chit privileges with the Protestants, who paid an undivided and unqualified allegiance to their King. He stood upon this broad and firm piaciple ; and though he h el heard the question discussed for twenty years, he had never heard the man capable of answering that questi n. But he knew the answer that would be attempted— It would be said that the Catholic's qualified allegiance was itnma mild to his conductin civil life. He thought it was; the quart& cation applied practically—on that ground fie took it. He had no , ding to do with the dogmas of the Romish Church—tranbubstan slaws, the Invocation of saints, or the opinions formerly enter tained on the extent of the Papal power. lie was content to let their theolrgical doctrines alone, and confine himself to the opinions of Papal authority now entertained, and avowed to be entertained, is the evidence on their Lordships' table. The Noble Lotd (Lime rick) who spoke last but one, derned the power of the Pope to appoint Bishops. But that fact was established by the testimony of Dr. Doyle and Dr. Murray. True, the Pope generally attended to the recommendation of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, bat be pawned the right of nomination If he chose to exercise it, and might appoint a foreigner, or the most objectionable individual in Europe, as a Catholic Bishop in Ireland. The nomination would stand good : the Bishops and Clergy in Ireland were bound to obey him. Was such a situation of things to be tolerated ? IVas he to be told now that the Roman Catholic was entitled to equal rights in this Protestant country ? Though the horizon was now clear e tempest might be near at band, and they should provide for it. What could be in appearance more prosperous than the state of the C'utrela of England at the commencement of the reign of Chute; the First? yet in twenty years it was overturned; and would any man have supposed that within twenty years of the Pelted of the Restoration of Charles 11. the Church, the Laws, and the Constitution of this .Protestant realm, should have been en lingered as they were. Did he fear the Pope? Not at all ; but •druded the Priest who was under his influence, and he objected n she principle. His objection was not to the abstract doctrine of Y pal influence, but to the practical application of it to the civil ;:..tions of life. The influence of the Priests was not like that of any other Clergy in the world. lie would not attempt to conceal Lis dread of a Church which insisted on confession, not as a matter of choice, but of duty. Absolution placed the Catholic entirely in the power of the Priest, and he had dominion over him. (Hear, bey, hear.) And what was the nature of this absolution ? It was this, when an individual acknowledged a crime, the Priest was bound to secrecy as to that crime, and not only as to that crime, and to all crimes done and committed, but to keep secret all other crimes to be dune and committed by the confessing Party, and not only by the individual confessing, but by a party or pavies not confessing, but of whose actions the Priest might acquire 4 knowledge through him. (Hear.) In a word if the Roman ( ..'itholic Priest knew, through the medium of confession, of a con. ricy to blow up the King and th e tw o Hou se s of Parliament I n 1 he was now putting a by no means impossible case), he was bound to secrecy—not merely justified in not disclosing, but rim allowed to disclose it under the constitution of his order. Yes, this was the fact, and though the lives of hundreds, and thousands, and millions, depended onthe disclosure, the Catholic Priest dared not to reveal it. (Hear.) He (Lord Liverpool) was u !ally alioeked at such • doctrine; but it was so, and Le was —re out by the evidence on their Lordships' table in saying so. if a priest were aware of a murder about to be committed—if ric knew a man was to be murdered at a place where two roads t. and that by turning to the right or left he might escape, he was not permitted to tell him to rum to the right or to the left. Such `Practice might well astonish their lordships; it had astonished him. 114 carte next to the question of education, and he felt there was an insurmountable difficulty in that. Protestants and Catholics I were separated and divided on that no less than oa other subjects. I On the question of marriage there were equal difficulties : a Popish priest would not period the marriage of a Protestant and Catholic without a pledge that the issue of the marriage should be all edu cated in the Roman Catholic religion. Was this to be tolerated Then on the subject of excommunication they all must know the I dreadful power of that terrible engine in the hands of the priests. And was not this an influential religion, and the power of the priests paramount over their flock. It had been proved to be NJ by . the evidence of every witness ex a mined on the state of Ire land. The power of the priest operated politically : all who had been int errogate d on t h e su bj ect, that i n screed cs‘e of a county election, if, the priests were to t a k e up I the cause o f one o f the candidates, the proprietors might whistle for their influence, for the priest would carry the day. The Catholic religion insinuated itself into all the civil relations of life, and gave a greater power to the Priests than any institution which had ever been devised could give. The Noble Lord oppo site (Marquis Lanmlown) asks what evils ran result from conrili ation. lie might retort the question, and say to him, " You I call on us to introduce alterations in the Constitution of the country—show me what good is to result from these inno va.ions before we consent to them ; but no, he would put the question fairly, and undertook to prove, that all the good of the Noble Lord's. own showing fell to the ground. They all held—the very Bill on their Lordships' table held, that the Constitution was essentially Protestant, that the foundation of their system was Protestant. Let them but grant the concession then demanded, and their Protestant foundation was not worth one farthing. (Hear, hear.) As long as the Constitution was Protestant the King must necessarily be so. Was it, he would ask, to be I listened to that the King of this country, or the eventual ' King of it, was the only individual who was not to have freedom of consedence ? (Hear, hear, hear.) He claimed for him merely the same right that the meanest revenue officer in the realm possessed. Was the King not to have conscientious scruples? Was he not to believe in transubstantiation, in purga tory, or the invocation of saints ? Was it not possible that he might entertain a belief in such doctrines as these. and yet not be allowed to act on them ? (Hear, hear.) The advocates of the Bill say it is hard that Catholics should be excluded from the Chief Jueticeship of the King's Bench ; and yet the Bill itself excludes them from the office of Lord Chancellor. Yet he (Lord Liverpool) saw many reams why they should be eligible to tae former rather than to the latter situation. For instance, the Lord Chancellor was removable at the will of the Crown ; the Chief Justice was not. It was possible th a t a certain numer of the Catholics may be Privy Councillors. They may get in their hands all the patronage of the Church of England. Still the King was excluded from be coming& Catholic. lie entreated their Lordships to consider what may be the future consequences of such a slate of things. !day it tat one day involve the country in a war ? They ought to meet the question fairly and fully—they ought not deceive the people or keep them in the dark ; but tell them at circa that the j Constitution was now Protestant, and that if the present 1111 I passed, it was Protestant no more--(cries of " Hear, hear") —that it was Protestant now, and may be Catholic hereafter. (Hear, hear.) The first evil which he apprehended from the mea sure he did not fear as one to come on immediately ; it may come on at a future period ; it was therefo re p ro p er t o guar d against it. It was ohis, and he had no difficulty in sating it, that the Church Establishment must be greatly endangered. (Hear, hear.) Let Noble Lords look to the evidence before the Committee. In his heart:he believed that the Catholic., did not entertain a detet mination4either now or hi Moro, of seizing on the Protestant pro perty. (hie of the witnesses, when asked "Do you not look for ward to the destruction of the church property ?" answered " No." '• Or to diminish it ?" Yes ; but Ido that as an Irishmen, and not as a Catholic Priest." They spose, he was sure, lionesiy— they knew the best and least inviduous way was not to take it, but to give it to the people. (Hear, hear, 'hear.) The question, they say, is which church is to sink or swim ; and if the property of the Protestant Church be diminished or destroyed, the Catholic Church must ntcessarily rise. Ile knew that if they !pelted on their own religion as the superior one, it must be legitimate fur them to maintain such doctrine?--they must wish to destroy the Protestant Church—their oath, duty, and interest bound them to such a course. Ile had more immediate objections to the BiU. Its preamble set forth that it would promote concord and happiness," so that all his slajesty's subjects may grow into one nation." He trusted that he had shown the difficulty of such a consummation. by what he said on education, and also from other causes ; and further on it said that conciliation must lead to an " utter oblivion and extin gujsSment of all former dissensions and discords." The ques- Idon then was whe t her con c ili a ti on wou ld remove t h e dis cords and dissensions, or whether it must not naturally tend to in crease them : it leaves the parties where they were, except that it gave increased power to the Catholics. He would ask the Noble Lords whether when they brought the parties nearer it was not rea sonable to expect that increase d opposition would be excited ? The effect would be not to allay-but to Increase ; not to put down but to excite dissensions. Ile next came to consider what wits the good hoped for from the Bill ; he could not but think that Noble Lords went 100 far when they went to expect such mighty results' or talk themselves into the persuasion, because they have seen Ire land in a disturbed state, that therefore the Insurrection Act grew out 'of the Catholic disabilities. Now he did maintain that the disturbed state of Ireland had nothing to do with the Catholic Question. In the lam 2,i years the Insurrection Act had never been carried into effect in the province of Ulster, although it was well known that province was, more than any other, torn by religious dissensions. The division of property had caused the dis turbances, and that evil is remedying its.lf. He agreed with the Right Reverend Prelate, that if this was a measure of strict justice to the Catholics, but there were circumstances connected with this counter that rendered restrictions more necessary than in an absolute monarch). The Catholics, he would maintain, possessed more liberty than any other Dissenters in Europe ; but these people, so jealous of civil rights, bring in a Bill to benefit about 40 or 50 persons, and, with the same breath, bring in another Dill' to take away the civil rights of thou-' sands. The Constitution sought to be founded ou this Bill was not that he wished to see established here, for the Consti tution of England, it ought to be granted, notwithstanding the obloquy that had been endeavoured to be cast upon the term, was essentially Protestant. There was another measure connected with this subject, which lie would now advert to. lie found by a Resolution of the, 29th of April, of the other House of Parliament, to the following effect:—" That it is expedient for this House to adopt some measure for making a legal prod. lion for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland." Now, really this appeared to him so extraordinary a proceeding, and so full of danger, that he looked upon it with as much jealousy as the great question now before their Lordship. 'The con stitution of the Church of England and that of the Church of Ireland materially differed, which was a strong reason for I pausing, both as to the Bill before the House, and the Resolu tion to which he had referred. Ile considered the Coronation Oath as purely a religious °Silgado?), and therefore it was incompatible with the concessions sought by the Catholics. The conduct of the Catholic Church in Ireland was also remark able; it aimed at a divided power with the Protestant Church. They had the same missionaries, the same parishes, the same priests. The contrast between the conduct of the Catholics a Eng : land and of Ireland was particularly conspicuous. In the latter country they even refused to acknowledge the Protestant Bishops ; and he had letters in his possession in which it was stated that the priests would not address those Prelates by their titles, denying that they were entitled to the rank they assumed. He would there fore warn their Lordships of the consequences that would ensue to this country if the Bill passed into a law. Ile would caution them that they had a most serious and perilous ground to legislate upon ; and he would put to the House whether it was possible that they could unite these two conflicting Chinches, consistently with the rights, privileges, and immunities of Church of England. He had argued this question upon narrow grounds; it admitted of a much more extensive field, but from the present exhausted state of his health he could not go further into it. !le repeated, that his argit. nienta had been upon the narrow grounds which the question offered, and he had endeavoured to show—first, that the present Bill was inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, and, in the secoud place, that it would be attended with very serious evils to the established religion, without in any degree contributing to produce that conciliation with the Catholics of Ireland which the advocates of the measure so sanguinely ex pected to result from it. Whatever might be the feeling first produced by it on the minds of the Roman Catholics, when pleased and elated at the achievement of their object, lie was convinced that this Bill, if passed, would eventually lead to a dissolution of the two countries. The Catholics would endeavour to implant in the minds of the rising generation all those principles upon which their religion was built, and would inculcate in them the feel ing of irreconcileable opposition to the Protestant Church. Their Lordships had been told that the Reformation of 16811 did no good, that King James 11. fell in the glorious cause of the reformation, and that lie fought not to perpetuate or eats. blish the Catholic Church, but to erect a universal tolerance, and that he was the martyr of religious freedom. Ily this species of rea soning had they been addressed by the Rev. 1)r. Doyle, who was the champion of the Catholic cause. But there was one powerful answer which could be given to this, and which was turnished to us by the page of history. There was this undeniable fact, that we had had for a period of the last 130 years religious peace, and that period was preceded by 100 years of religious convulsions; this was a powerful and irmistibleurgument,and which he believed had grown out of the law of the country • that law allowing a large and ex tended toleration to all oth er religions, yet, at the same time, giv ing a moderate and reasonable preference to one religion above the rest, and which thereby constituted it the religion of the State. But now their Lordships were called upon to alter all dine laws which had thus secured the country from religious dis sensions, and they were about to place men of an religions upon an equality. lle begged of their Lordships to pause before they ventured upon this experiment; they had experience to warn and to guide then). For his own part he could not contemplate the attempt without much serious apprehension both fir the safety of the Church and the existence of the State. The Earl of HARROWBY felt extreme unwillingness in offer ing himself to the House at the present moment; but if lie did not do so now, he was afraid he should have no future op. portunity of doing so. lie felt peculiar unwillingness in offer ing himself in direct answer to the Noble Lord who had just sat down, not from any fear that he should disparage himself by the comparison which he should afford between arguments urged with such considerable talent, ability, force—anti arguments which must be urged with very inferior ta lents, for he would not entertain such a feeling. But his Nobl e Friend had applied his mind to the subject for so long a period, that it was hardly possible that he (Lord II.) should be able to reply to him. The Noble Lord had argued the question so ably, and with so much talent and candour, that if he (Lord H.) did venture to offer blanch . ht TH ITISH PRESS. • opposition to him. it could only be upon the ground that those t arguments had 111114 C no impression upon his own mind, and from the hope that they had not done so upon the minds of their Lord. ships. It appeared that we were not to be told that it was the doctrines of the Catholic Church on certaits mysterious points, that where the grounds now assumed for opposing the Roman Catholic subjects from participating in the high offices of State. and being &emitted to a seat in Parliament, but his Noble Friend had rested his arguments upon the exclusive ground of a divided allegiance. His Noble Friend had said that it was impossible the Catholics could hold two allegiances, the one to a temporal Prince and the other to a spiritual one, each of whose powers were opposed to the other ; but the Catholics th emse l ves declared they could distinguish between these two kinds of allegiance, and could make them perfectly consistent with each other. But in his opinion the argument proved too mach, for if they pushed it to its extent it must prove that no Roman Ca tholic could hold tires allegiance to any Catholic Prince in the world. But supposing it could be proved by the most logical deductions that all the Catholics had been wrong, what should we gain? Not that the Catholics were not good subjects, but that they were bad logicians. He considered that history would show that the allegiance of persons differing from the religion of the State was perfectly good fur any purposes for which alleiOance was rc mined, It was impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to con- tradict, in direct terms, that which had been asserted by what that I church considered to be a competent authority, yet if their Lord ships would be content with aught but that (and which he thought they should) then every thing they could have was already, pos. sensed by them. Was it nothing that when certain questions were I put to all the Universities of Europe, about thirty years ago, as to I the doctrines of the Catholic Church, that they should all enequi• vocally express their surprise that at that time of day such questions could be serioasly propounded to them ? But it was objected that the book of practice contained those doctrines: but which of the two was most likely to influence the minds of practical men—the opinions promulgated by mien of the present day, or those promulgated by persons who lived at a remoter period ? The next argument of his Noble Frieud was. that the Roman Catholic could not be a good subject, on account of the practice of his Church in the article of confession. Ile ad mitted that et first it appeared to him a frightful end monstrous thing to suppose that a Mall might know even of murder being in tended to be committed, and not be at liberty to give the person who was to be murdered the haat inti•nation, in order that he might save his life. But the guts; ion was, in what way did this doctrine, If true, make iteappear that a Roman Catholic could not be a good subject? It might make the priests liable to something like mis prision of treason; but it did not perm that a Catholic was in capable 6frbeing a good subject. If the man did not believe that the prime was restricted front retreating the fact, it would never be revealed to him, and therefore Ate country had just the same secu rity as if th ere were no such thing as confession. The Noble Lord (Earl of Liverpool) had argued that the Catholics opposed educa tion, and were adverse to the circulation •of the Bible ; but were they to be deprived of their civil rights on that account?— What would their Lordships then say of thole among themselves, (of course he did not mean to ullude to the Right Reverend Bench on his left) who objected to the circulation of the Bible, un. less accompanied by the Player Book ? He would submit then to their Lordships whether•the-Catholics were likely to be less dan gerous toAtie dwelt, being separated from Min than by being takenidtdene‘prottetien and allowed to share and enjoy an interest in all its betteffis ? If they were not to be admitted into the en joyment of their civil privileges on account of the.r embracing the various doctrines imputed to them, he would ask with what safety had weatready admitted them to those privileges which they now did enjoy ? If their Lordships really believed that the reposing of these doctrines made retains unht to be admitted into the State, we had gone too far already, and what was more, had tegun at the wrong end, lie thought it 'would have been safer to have admitted the Catholics into Parliament than Into the higher offices of State which.' they were at. this moment allowed to hold. There was another topic on which lie wished to say a few words. Ile was persuaded that all the influence wheel the Pope exerted in Ireland could not be entirely loosened, but he doubted but that such arrangements could be entered into with the See of Rome as would prove a sufficient security in making concession to the Roman Catholics. Though such concessions he believed would not tranquillize Ireland, yet without it no extensive or useful coulee of policy could be pursued. It was feared that the constant conflict+ which would arise front the desire to return Roman Catholic Members would have the effect of keeping the country in a state of constant political excitement; but were eat all these evils at pre sent in full operation in consequence of the desire to return Mem bers to Parliament who should, wider their existing disabilitisa, support their claims for relief: It was perfectly natural that the Roman Catholic should think, for instance, that he ought npt to be excluded from the office 'of Chief Justice. The ground of political expediency excludes Roman Catholics from the Throne, and why should not the same cielsidetation admit Roman Catholics to such offices as they might without danger fill ? They dischein any intention of transferring the property of the Church into their own hands: and tt' the bare apprehension of danger have drawn forth such a strong expression of public feeling on that point; what would be the result of an actual attack upon the pro perty of the establishment ? Look back to the reign of Charles the Second, nod ace what securities our ancestors provided. Did they not provide abundantly well for the emergency ? and when it arose ? And surely it would be much less difficult for the present generation, or for posterity, to guard the integrity of the church and constitution by sufficient securities. If the higher classes of the Roman Catholics have the course of honourable ambition opened to them, what motive could they have for becoming faithless subjects 2 And even granting that a rebellion did take place in Ireland, no man would venture to assert that England could not at once crush it ; but at the same time Ireland can never be happy unless the Catholics be in that state of tranquillity which will allow of Great Britain ceasing to employ for the Government of Ireland a large proportion ef its disposable tuilitary forte. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to address the House, but fur a considerable time was so inaudible below die bar, that his' opening observations were consequently lost. So soon as his Lordship could be heard he was under to say that there were one or two points to which he found IrWecessary to allude. Ile could not understand how the Bill cause before their Lordships in that shape or form. • They could collect that there was passing elsewhere proceedings respecting a measure—respecting the dis franchisement of certain freeholders in Ireland, as also that a vote had passed relative to salaries fur the Roman Catholic priesthood. No man could be aware of these circumstances without seeing that there was a connexion between the Bill then before their Lordships and the two other measures to which he had adverted ; and yet, in ignorance of the principles and details of these other proceedings, they were called upon to decide a Bill which obviously had the closest possible connexion with them. lle had heard great deal of pledges said to have been given at the time of the Irish Union, but he could say (as we understood hint) that a Noble Friend near the Woolsack had assured him that net such pledge had been given, though strong expectations were en tertained. A distinguished Minister, now no more, with whom he had been in frequent habits of intercourse, was, he felt con vinced, determined never to give his consent to acknowledge the claims °Mho Roman Cathohee. antes, security were given suf ficient for the safety of - he Established Church, but what the nature of that contemplated security was he never could learn. There was as little security now as at any former time. He begged next to call the attention of their lordships to the pre ambles of the several Roman Catholic Emancipation Bills, as they were called. They all set out by declaring that the invio lability of the Church should be preserved; but by the Bill itself they destroyed that inviolability which they pledged they would retain. Sa much for one pan of the preamble. 'T he Bill proposes next to unite the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects, and to knit them into one nation ; but a different opinion seemed to prevail towards the tendency of this Bill, for the terms of this Bill could hot be agreed upon, whereby it would ap pear that instead of knitting. the hearts of the people together, the Bill was calculated to set them all by the ears. A Commission had been proposed an a security, but that amounted to no security in his mind, as this Commission was to be composed of Roman Catholic Prelates, and neither the Sovereign not the Government was to have any direct interference whatever in the appointments which they might think proper to make. He for one could never agree to this Bill, tin lie had repeatedly here and elsewhere declared that no foreign Prince or Potentate hall or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country. Two emi. nent lawyers, one a distinguished lawyer from Ireland, and another of this country, aided by a Mr. J. K. L. (a great friend of the church no doubt—so great • friend that he would gladly pull it down in order to build up a new one)—(Hear and a laugh)— I those Gentlemen explained away the spiritual jurisdiction by say ing that this jurisdiction meant a jurisdiction not recognised by law. This was certainly a very subtle and jesuitical distinction, but was not one by any means satisfactory to his mind, or one that would induce him to dispense with the qualifications which were at present requisite to be taken, and in the sense in which they were taken, as qualifications to places of political power. The oath of allegiance originally included in its meaning the oath of supremacy, and the oath of supremacy was only a moderate ad- dition annexed, to satisfy the consciences of scale persons who put a different construction on the oath of allegiance than it originally bore. The oath of supremacy did not therefore create anything, but °My restored that which before existed in the oath of lateen. ance. It was idle to speak of power purely spiritual—spiritual power necessarily created temporal power. This was evinced in the marriages and excomm unicat tons as exercised in the f;sithol ic church. Marriages contracted by law in this country were annulled by the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, and the husband and wife lived separately. Again, excommunication was frequently re sorted to ; and for the ill-treatment which a person received in consequence of this excommunication, he would, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, be entitled to bring an action in a Court of Law, as for a civil injury. Vet this was the consequence of this jurisdiction. It was idle, therefore, to say, that there was no necessary connexion between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. As to the proposed stipends to the clergy of Ireland, why not extend them to the same species of hierarchy in England. And in referring their Lordships to the petitions—the un- fortunate petitions, he wield call them, from the manner in which by some persons they had been treated;—but lie would refer them to these petitions to determine whether a payment of the Catholic clergy of England could be adopted with the peace of the country. America had been alluded to ;of that allusion he would take no farther notice than to . say, that he hoped the not having an established religion io Ameriea may as much contribute to the happiness of that country as the estab lishment of a religion has contnbuted to the happiness of this kingdom. (Hear, hear, hear.) As to the Elective Franchise Bill, if it were a part of this measure they ought to have it before their Lordships, together with the present. The advantages to be derived from this Bill , it was said, were only to lOW •_ ; z., • be the admission of a few persons to certain liiglt office's. This was not in his mind a suffictent reason to deprive persons of certair. rights which had been thought proprr to concede to them, and which they ought not on light or insufficient giininds to be deprived of. !le had beer. asked if he had become a Reformer? He could answer he had not. He had lived tyl long to value any popelarity that might arise from the adoption ut ineasuree of uncertain advan• tage. Ile would only advert to one other topic, which was the frequent assertion that this measure was not agninst the feeling of the public. He would refer to the petitiofs, which were in a pen . _ poraen of ten to one against -the Bill, and he was sstisfied that if the sense of the country was canvassed, it would be (u-,td to be against it. Ile remembered the celebrated East India Bill, whidi was certainly a great change. At that time it was said that the House of Commons spoke the sense of the country, and that tite petitions to the House upon the subject did not. But a disso , lotion took place, and it was fou.-d that a total difference had taken place, and that the former delusion was quite a delusion. At that late hour in the night—he meant the mooting—be would not trespass further on the attention of the !louse; but as he had always done, would give his decided opposition to the second reading of this Bill. After a few words from the 31arquis of LONDONDERRY and Earl FITZWILLIAM— ThoHouxe divided, when there appeared— Akainst the Bill . . 11$ Proxies - . - 65 . . Total against it 178 For the the Bill - . . - 84 Proxies Total for it - - 130 Total Majority against the hill . 4U The House then Adjourned at liwiEr-PAST Ftt•t: o'CLoca Tuts Moastso. HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUE•DAY, My 17. ST. ()LAVE'S TITHES. Dr. PHILLI3IORE presented a petition from the Rectar of the parish of St. Olave's, the Rev. Dr. Owen, against this Bill.--it was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. COURTENAY presented a similar petition from Mr. Gil. burst, the lay impropriator of the parish. lA)NDON TI THE BILL. Mr. Alderman WOOD then moved the second reading of this Bill. The principal object of the parishes was to obtain a defini:e settlement. It could not be said that any proof existed of the enrol. went of the deed by which these tithes were claimed. Mr. COURTENAY thought that this was r Bill which ought not to pass. By an Act of henry V 111. it was decreed that cer tain sums should be paid in a certain manner. Upon- this Act a decree was issued, by which 2s. in the pound was raised. This was at present . enjoyed by 31r. Gilhurat, the lay impropriator. Now, was he to.bc deprived of his rights because they might be of greater extent than the parishioners chose to pay ? The right of 3lr. (Win:lst-had ezisted by law for MI years. The next question was, whether the decree was enrolled ? Because there was no me. mmial of such enrolment, it did not follow that the right did no: exist. In all the decrees which had from time to time been made on the subject, the right of the impropriator was acknowledged. In 1647, a decree was issued which enforced this right. In 1617. a suit was tried on this subject, in which it was decided that the claim was legal. Now, would the House entettaia a Bill which rested merely on the assumption that this deed had never been enrolled ? The passing of this Bill would be the great st injustice to ahe lay impropriator. The lion. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be read that day six months. 31r. Aldermau BRIDGES supported the Bill. .Mr. W. WYNN seconded the motion for the rejection of the Bill. It might .as well be asked why a man raised his rents, as why the lay i-ipropriator had increased his rent charge. It was sometimes necessary to interfere with private property for public benefit, but then a full and ample compensation was awarded. The present proprietors bought the land subject to this charge, and with what face could they now ask to have it reduced ? Mr. J. S3IITII said a few words in opposition to the Bill. Mr. CALGRAFT said due in the trials that had been alluded to the enrolment was never , questioned, and that it would not, therefore, be unjust to grant an issue to try whether this enrol ment reully did take place. Not that he was not aware of the deli cacy of the ground on which he stood, in speaking of ancient documents, and would not therefore be thought to wish to stir up inquiry into all sorts of titles. There was, in his opinion, no proof that the enrolment had ever taken place. If Parliament could deal with the clergy for their own benefit, as had before hap. pened, they could also do it for the benefit of their parishioners. A Bill was broug!a. in last year, by which a stipend was m a d e f or the clergyman of St. Andrew's. 'I his was a liberal allowance, he believed 1,200/.; but still less than he might have exacted. He must again say that he thought the question of the enrolment might be tried, and that by that means the difficulties would be set at rest for ever. 3lr. COURTENAY referred to a case in which the enrolment was virtually acknowledged. Mr. PELL thought that the enrolment was sufficiently proved to make a legal right. If such documents were rot allowed as had been brought forward, there would be touted a great deal of private property in a very insecure state. Besides, even if the decree tin der the Statute of Henry VIII. was not enrolled, there was a prior law by which they were entitled to the times. The question was, whether a legal claim existed now P Here there was such a claim, and the House of Commons had no right to come down and inter fere. The case of St. Andrew's, Holborn, had been alluded to, but they must remember that the arrangement there made was agreed to by the Rector, whilst no such agreement had here been made, and the House could not therefore interfere. Mr. W. S3IITII came into the House to vote for the second reading, but from what he had heard from the Hon. Member for Exeter (Air. Uourtenay) he now thought that they could not do it ' with justice. 3lr. Alderman WOOD still insisted that there was not a single document in which the decree was enrolled upon which the claim was founded. After a few worth from Mr. BURROUGH, the question was put, and the Bill was rejected without a division. JUDGES' SALARIES. Mr. BROUGIIAM gave notice, that he should make • motion next Thursday to secure the independence of the Puisne Judges. Since they were to have as large salaries as a Lord of the Treasury, he should move that they be rendered incapable of ever becoming Chief Justices. Sonie conversation ensued upon this between Mr. Brougham and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after which the subject was dropped. After a few words from Lord LOWTHER, Mr. CALCRAFT, Mr. Byxo, and Mr. R. COLBORNE, the order WAS discharged. A petition was presented from the freeholders of the county of Elgin. against any alteration in the Coru Laws.---Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the mechanics of Hull against the Combination Laws.—Ordered to be referred to the Com mittee on the Combination Laws. Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the merchants of Hull, praying that the duty on rapeseed should not be taken off.—laid on the table. COURT OF CHANCERY. Mr. J. WILLIAMS postponed his motion respecting delays in the Court of Chancery, to the 30th May. 31r. BRIGHT presented a petition from Bath against the revi val of the Combination Laws; also similar petitions from York shire and Derbyshire.—Ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Combination Laws. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from certain freeholders of Rye, complaining that they are improperly deprived of exercising the elective franchise. The petition stated, that the Corporation were under the influence of an individual who had for many years appointed the Members, that the revenues of the Corporation were squandered, and that the petitioners labouredunder many grievances. —The petition was ordered to be printed. Sir I'. BURL Erf presented a petition from the inhabitant householders of Westminster, against the repeal of the House and Window Tax—Ordered to be printed. REPEAL OF THE WINDOW TAX. Mr. HODHOUSE, in pursuance of • notice previously given, rote to move the repeal of the Window Tax. Having formerly ex. pressed his opinion at great length on this subject, he said lie should not now rind it necessary to trouble the House at any great length. The Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade must have perceived that his financial operations did not meet the full concur. rence of the public. Notwithstanding the general approbation given by the House and the country to the financial plans of his Majesty's Ministers, a general dissatisfaction was felt that a greater relief had not been given in the removal of the Assessed Taxes. Those who recollected the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, upon opening his Budget, could not forget that he went over the ground nimbly, and with that ease which was peculiarly his own, until became to the subject of the Assessed Taxes. Then it was his difficulties seemed to commence. Not content with prose he turned to verse, and not content with English he quoted to Latin. His appropriation of the verse and the Latin befitted his character as • scholar and • man of taste; but yet it was clear that he felt himself treading upon delicate ground, and was labouring to make the House believe that which he could not convince the country, that after the great struggle and sacrifices which had been made, the public was not entitled to any sensible relief in the removal of the assessed taxes. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer's speech wan memorable, because of the disappointment which it had created. In that memotable speech the Right Hon. Gentleman adverted to many topics which he (Mr. Hobliouse) con ceived were quite unconnected with the subject ; he alluded to what lie called metaphorically " the giant smuggler," and stated, that if the direct taxes were diminished smuggling eeuld not be put down. The Right Honourable Gentleman also referred to Ireland. The revenue of that country, he said, would be doubled in a certain nuniber of years, and he called upon the House, for the sake of Ire land, to consent to a liberal system of taxation. He (Mr. Hob house) believed that the feeling in this country was strongly in favour of Ireland,and that the people of England would be willing to do anything which would !chum that country from distress. When nearly four millionsof money were already annually paidby England for the misgovernment of that country, it was a great hardship to say. that because Ireland was distressed this tax should not be re• moved. It was a curious fact, that such were the claims of that sriuntry, and such the clamo u r of it s i n h a bit a nts, against what they properly called the fever-tax, that the Ministry (and not so comply. tag a Ministry as the present) were forced to yield to their com plaints, and Ireland has been for some tame relieved from the burthen of the window tax. This tax produced not only moral but physical evils; health was destroyed and comfort dimi nished by its operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted of an calcu thlt ther p 1 2 .0. had for hts to those all that The many view of tliis all the In the aie .. nion, to the on by liberu neve that the assessed taxes were productive of much evil ; but when '.:n reduced the duties on various commodities, and left the direr. taxes untouched, he said that he had only made a choice of evils. Here the Right Honourable Gentleman was not only supporred by Iris Colleagues, but many of the political econornista in that House agreed with him, that under the ciecumstarers it was inetpedient to remove the lh - indos Tax. This was not the feeling of the country, however. The assessor and the tt'a collector were looked upon as things unused, and when the printed miner is delivered by them, u is received with much the some kind of feeling that a Pacha receives an order to having his head taken off: Every mar rho paid this tan considered it a greater grievance than paying a high price for commodities. The country, after its sacrifices aed struggles, ought to be relieved from this Hill of Paine and Penalties. On luoking at the paper delivered to the householder, disgusting and unpleasant detnils meet the eye, and at the top. the middle, and the end, is to be seen a penalty of MU. Whilst such a mode of taxation is persevered in, Ministers had no right to boast of the prosperey of the country. Ainotiest the many oleerions to this tax, i'•ere was one which Ought rester to be lost sigh": of. It made the Liyernment hateful to the country, because it brought the Goverment in contact with the country. fierce, individuals dis honestly resorted to subterfuge to evade the tax, who would not have acted dishorestly under any other circumstances. Froth the vexatious character of this tax, more petitions were presented against it than tmainst any other tax. Petitions were often pee -1 se /i n on ted nu a ra g b a l i e ns tYie t from the o et same the epla goa s rd of Trade, ev"altim although t h h e ou ßight Toted against the repeal, had himself presented twopetitions against this tax from Liverpool. lie urderitood it was the intention of the inhabitants of that town to present the Right Honourebia Gentleman with a piece of plate, which would do hononr alike to those that gave and him who received it. He hoped Liverpool wculd have to present' the Right Honourable Gentleman with a second piece of plate fur his vote that evening. His (Mr. Hobliouses) motion did not attack the financial arrange. meats of the year, and therefore he had some hopes of receiving the Right lion-Gentleman's support. In a letter to his constitu, enta respecting this tax, site Right Hon. Gentleman stated that ft was not an inquisitorial tax. Twice a year the inspector enters the house, anti if there be any suspicion of fraud it is liable to be en tered at other periods. The expectation of those two annual eisits gives tide tax a most inquisitorial character. But it was stated that the direct taxes of the country are small compared with the inch. 'reel taxes. This was true, because the indirect taxes were so enormous, and levied with so much facility. But the window Tax was given in lieu of other taxes, and was orig nally expected only to be levied wider very peculiar circumstances. He would ask whether the reduction of the duty on wines, was so direct a relief to the country as the repeal of the diem taxes would have been. 'True, the window :at had been reduced. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had stated, that by his new arrangement he had relieved 635,936 persons from the burden of the window tax, and that these persons consisted of the poorer classes. In his (Mr. liobhotee's) opinion the Right lion.tientleman was mistaken. It was not the poorer classes who were relieved. The persons wit, formerly paid this tax were the landlords of small poor houses, art not the tenants. The relief was to the landlords, therefore, and not to the poorer classes. It did not relieve the poor householders and shopkeepers, who wanted relief most, because they felt the bur. dens of taxation the heaviest. It was a strange fact, that when any relaxation took place in the direct taxes the asseasos instantly became more severe, and the public enjoyed no relief. The Right lion. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had recom mended this tax upon the grsand of its antiquity. This tax was the same in principle as the hearth tax, which was passed in the 131 h and 14th of Charles I 1., and eveo at that time it excited consider.. able disapprobation. In the first year of William and Mary the House of .Contmons petitioned to have it abolished, and stated it to be a most oppressive, slavish, and burdensome impost_ What was the case in 1784? In that year Mr. Pitt persuaded the people to give up their money to pay fur windows because they would gain as muzli on the article of tea. In a few ye: s after. Itrards the tax was raised one hundred per cent., and to justify /Mother great augmentation, in 1797 it was alleged that the watch. mod clack makers could not otherwise be relieved from burdens drat pressed on diem. In 1802, by a similar cajolery to that used at present, they were told that they must pay the sindow tax for die sake of having their coffee, wine, and spirits cheaper. In Point faet it was no; the classes that used these commodities who most suffered by the window tax. To show the inequality of its opera tion, he said that the inhabitant of a house in Toiliill-street, West.. minster, with twenty windows, would be compelled to pay as much as the owner of a house in Lombard-street having an equal number of lights, though the former might perhaps be wor.h rot MI. a year, while the inc ome' of the latter might perhaps exceed 3,000/. per annum. The occupier of the (Me house will then pay one-seventeenth of his income, while the other scarcely contributes one-seven hunredth part. No:hine could be more unequal in its operation. It was particularly injurious to many of the working classes. for, as iris well known, there were many of th e mechanical tradeswhich required an extra number of lights. In another way it also operated injuriously ; he meant as regarded the business of building houses, and brought disgrace upon this age of architecture by their unsightly appearance. There was one mansion in Picea. dilly, recently erected, which was peculiarly liable to this objection it was all wall—it was shapries in the extreme— Monstrum horrendum ingens cui lumen ademptiun. A foreigner, astonished at its appearance, had inquired what milt have induced the owner to raise such a tasteless mass lie would not now more particularly allude to that irdividual than to say, that he was one of the Committee of Tsste for the improvement of Windsor Castle. Jr might be asked, if this tax were repealed what would he propose to substitute for it. To that he would reply, that he and those who thought with him did not sees necessity (or making any such substitution. It was incise absurd to say that it would be required by the necessities of the war in India. lie thought the ainki g fund a mere delusion; but at sore who agreed with him respecting the window tax, differed from him o t this point, he would not now dwell upon it. lie then adverted t the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of the Session, and that, as well as reference to official &cu. menu, showed that the amount of annual surplus would generally speaking, be not less than eight or nine hundred thousand pounds and as the window tax was lit t le more t h an a m illi on , t h e means o ft removing dust tax might thence he derived. Those Members who by voting fur the supplies had sanctioned the intended expenditure of the year, might tnen have a difficulty in agreeing to areduction of the means by which those expenses were to be defrayed ; but that-difficulty would be removed by his simply stating that the resolution which he intended to propose did not contemplate any reduction for the current year, but a reduction to commence io the month of April next. Of course if any great emergencies arose, such as a foreign war, or a rebellion in any of our distant possessions, the proposed pledge was not tb be considered binding. In making this proposition he did not ask any thing equal to what the petition, on their table prayed for, and he would call upon Hon. Mem bers not to trifle with the just claims of their constituents. They in their capacity of 3lembers were at the oint of death, and surely their friends would not think the worse of them that in the eleventh hour they were alive to their duty ; and that, unlike the man at tended in his last moment, by Dean Swift, they would not " make a stcrifice to God of the devil's leavings." In that the tenth year of peace they hid a right to look for relief from this intolerable burden.—lle then moved a resolution to the effect that the petie dons which hail been received on the subject of the window tee ware deserving of attention, and that that tax ought to cease and determine from the sth of April, 1826. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, although he did not mean to say that lion. Gentlemen having voted for the pay ment of such sums as the public service required, were therefore in capacitated from acting with perfect freedom on that occasion, yet the House could hardly think that it had not already in substance decided the question which the lion. Member for Westminster then brought under its consideratiou. The difference between the resolution which he moved with regard to that tax differed from the motion of the lion. Member for Abingdon i Mr. Maberly) iv this only, that the latter proposed the immediate removal of the tax, and the former urged its repeal at a future period. Any one who recollected the principle on which he recommended the reduc don of 1.500,000 L of taxes during the present year, would see that . be had Pro''" which the • at the , House financial in imp . uta. inconinsteni other -• been ■ion Goverami ~r~ City withstandi ed on thin themselves vidual t 'r I ,i S~~ a 4 1 I I 1 44 I had proceeded upon a quite different principle from that ich the Honourable Gentleman now proposed 1.250,000 i, amount of the window tax. He had not formed his esti. to of the surplus revenue of the country u7ion the prod uce in y one year ; not from the la s t ye ar or the present, but from :illations founded upon the probable state of our finances, the termination of the years 1825, 28, and 27. I:Hers the • use was prepared to sanction an entire alteration in the whole incial system of the country, it could not agree to give a pled ge . t in addition to the reduction ( 1,500,0 . .) N already made, a fur- r reduction of 1,250,0001. would be effected on the sth ot April. O. Great stress had been laid on the numerous petitions which I been presented to the House for the repeal of that tax; and he. his part, was perfectly ready to give due weight and importance 1 . : :hose expressions of individual or collective opinion ; but they- t not, as matter of course, to listen with implicit submission its that might be suggested in petitions presented to that House.. ey had heard much of the ingenious artifie: o said to have been din getting up such petitions ; and though' he did not concur mputing those artifices yet he could not but think it extreme l y 3nsistent with what he had been in the habit of hearing from the er side, to attach much importance to the petitions which had n adverted to. Mr. HODUOUSE denied his having undervalued any petitions.l Che opinions of the Hon. Gentleman then formed a creditable option to sentiments which very generally prevailed. But to at of these petitions more particularly, he must observe that ny of them were presented before he had stated to the House the w which his slajesty's Government took with regard to the re- ]of taxes during the present Sesenm. It did not appear, how- r, that the petitioners were particularly anxious the the removal his particular tax. Many of them prayed for the total repeal ot t the assessed taxes; and many more for uveral individual taxes. the reductions which I propose, I proceeded on the contictiotl i t it would be very desirable to if relieve, as extenettay as peg- le, the poorer lasses of his 31ajeaty's subjects ; but, in his opi- n, the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman opposite w ould operate specially ter their re li ef. Very soon after his statement he House for the current year, he had the honour of being w e lt e d i il• by a deputation from the city of London ; and though tie cou ld flatter himself that the communication which he ( e k t m an& u rty to make could give them entire satisfaction; yet he Uhl be- e that they departed from the interview with a stronglmpees. I that they had no great risht to find fault with the k ttentions at . rernment in reference tothe window tax. Thew n frau the r of Westminster bed something about it very ,eityitrus, fby tote r standing all the discontent which it was sold hill been etymon._ in this subject, so little touched did the ponple elhat city 44 twelves by the tax adverted to, that one very notorious ladl e i sal scouted the Honourable B aronet and his colleague, hors, foot, from the meeting. If the witiflow teA woe so deo a 4 . ~ li • , _ .