The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-08 00:00:00

le*l e lustry existed no longer ; why, then, should not 4tves which - vide 'liaised Witlire4rence to them be re pealed? Of all th e o b servat i ons w hi c h h e h a d h ear d, nth respect to the measure before the House, those which fsg,:frern the Primate of Ireland made the greatest im 4L_Prieeisn upon hi s m i n d. I t was i mposs ibl e no t t o a d m i re P4ignified e l oquence w i t h w hi c h th e Ri g ht R everen d 'Mate besought their Lordships not to deliver the Church qWhich he was the head into the hands of her enemies. ie sr-i—He, however, thought that the apprehensions of the Right Reverend Prelate were groundless ; so long as the two countries remained united, so long would the two ei llarckes indiss)lubly bound together. He might apply the union of the Churches the words of a familiar r l)eal. We had taken her "to have and to hold from t4l, day furivard, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, 'A sickness and in health, to love and to cherish until death do us part."—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of LINCOLN and the Bishop of BRISTOL ad dresseil the House, but in so low a tone as to be quite in audible. acknowledge the King's Supremacy. That principle had been acknowledged since the days of our Saxon ancestors in Edward the Conferee), 's Lei o, red he svaidd never consent to see it abandoned. lle could fait do it —l,e would not do it. Those who thought differently might act as honestly as he was endeavouring to dO ; but he could net folloic their course. It was in vain that Olen praised the exec lence of the Established Church and the purity of its doctrines, and to argue that that excellence and purity would alone main tain it as it now stood. If the members of the Protestant Church admit that they do not acknowledge the supra• ruicy of the Crown, it is not the manifestation of that purity, nor that consistency of conduct, which they always preserved.—(Laughter.)—That would insure them the respect of the subjects—he would say the injured sub • jects of this country..—(Cheers.)—lf they denied to him that the voice of the country was raised against this mea sure more titan it had ever been before on any other oc casion, yet he should feel that all their purity and excel lence would not avert the effects that might be expected from difference of religious opinion, nor take away from their adversaries the appetite for tithes and glebe lands, because they are the means of supporting an Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)--He asked their Lordships whether they slid not expect that from this tinse there would cease in the minds of the great mass of the people all that veneration for the Established Church which they had formerly possessed—(hear, hear)—when they found that the clergy treated this purely as a political subject, as others did also as a purely religious subject? He main tained that it ought to be regarded as both. In a politi cal view of it, be had hitherto supported the laws for the exclusion of the Roman Catholics, because he considered them essential to the existence of civil and religious liberty; and not merely were they so declared in all the Acts of Parliament to be a perpetual security for the civil and reli gious liberties of his fellow-subjects, but also, he believed they had had the effect hitherto of producing in the minds of Englishmen those moral and religious feelings which had distinguished them above all the nations on the earth, and made them the patterns of moral and religious conduct to the whole Protestant world. This objection did not goso far as to exclude the Roman Catholics from all offices ; for he did not object to place them in such political offices as would introduce them to seats in Parliament, and entitle them to be entrusted with the discharge of the duties of the• highest offices in the executive departments of the State. He confined himself to that extent; but this clause threw open every office to the Roman Catholics with a few exceptions. It was said that it was quite impossible to describe the offices that might entitle persons to become Cabinet Ministers, and therefore that all precautions of that character were useless, He knew that Cabinets might be composed of individuals, part of whom were united in one opinion, and disagreed with the rest who were united in another opinion. He knew that very well Thy expe rience, and he had seen how most wonderfully some Mini sters were converted to opinions directly opposite to those they formerly held.—(Laughter.)—Yet still he thought that he could apply an exception even to such persons as these.—(Hear, hear.)—He desired to know whether, if these two little words—" Privy Councillors," were made part of the exceptions, they would not be effectual? He felt that he should be acting improperly if he went through all the clauses which he could better consider, and would amply discuss, on the third reading, when he should be ready to offer some arguments to their Lordships to which he should beg their particular attention. He knew the zeal and ability of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and lie had no objection to confess, that some thing, not very comfortable to him—he meant a teasing gout, would induce him to escape from the fatigue of entering more fully into the question at that time ; but if, on the third reading, he should be able to attend, lie would go much more largely than he ought to da when merely discussing the clauses, inasmuch as the observa tions would apply to other clauses not before their Lord ships. On the third reading, he could state his objections at once to the principle and to all the parts of the Bill. There was one point to which, before he concluded, he desired to call the cousideration of the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack, and of all the rest of their Lordships, including the Noble and Learned Lord (Plun kett), on the Treasury Benches, and other Noble Lords, his Noble Friends, as well as those Noble Lords who were opposed to him. It related to James 11. One of the cir cumstances which, in the judgment of the people of this country, had rendered him so odious that he was obliged to leave it, was the liberty he took with the charters. He (Lord Eldon) wished to know whether it was the inten tion of this Bill that all the charters of corporate bodies, which the corporators were required, and had for years and years been required, when admitted to corporate of fices, to take the oaths and declarations, to be repealed by this Biil? He meant to ask, did their Lordships intend to tear off the seals from these charters, and allow the constitution of such corporations to be violated? In future clauses of the Bill there were many exceptions for some corporate bodies, but there were many who would be placed, by the Bill, in the strange situation he had de scribed. Lord KENYON f e lt so s t rong ly on th e su bj ec t o f th e "Mau Catholic question, that he begged to be allowed !: 4 ,deliver his sentiments on this occasion. He thought Lest the measure now proposed might, on the grounds Which the Noble Duke had stated, just as well have been ictrodueed2s years ago, and in many respects with much Sreater advatutage.—(Hear, hear.)—He did not think that it nweasute would produce tranquillity in Ireland, and he Was sure it wou ld create d i saffection in this country. Th e Noble Duke had said that it was impossible to put down r p e Catholic Association unless by this measure. He (Lord yon) thought the Government and preceding Govern -2el.lts were to blame for not exerting their strength to put Association down, and they had no right now to make tb eir own error an excuse fur committing a breach upon the Conat itution.—(llear, hear.)—What advantage would :f‘e.6,000,000 of the Roman Catholics derive from Catho lic Emiuicipation ') Their Lordships knew that the Catho lic* had other object's than emancipation in view, and they Tg_ W 9uld ,be s a ti s fi ed unt il t h ey ga i ne d th e i r en d s . hose wh o . had assert e d th a t the King's coronation oath would be touched by the present measure had been called .th,t4ou to prov e th e i r assertion. H e was one o f t h ose w h o ought that an oath was an obligation so solemn that it trld not be relaxed from considerations of mere expe- IneY ; 'and if his Majesty should give his consent to a Leasure by which a power would be introduced into Par "anent, the natural disposition of which would be to dis 441ible his Majesty from fulfilling the terms of his corona li2ll oath, he should like to know how his Majesty could 1111 c that assent without infringing his oath ? A distinc • *'en had been made between the legislative and executive Pacify of the King, but he conceived that his Majesty in v eth those capacities was bound to preserve the Protestant es tablishments of this country inviolate.—(Hear.) The question that the House resolve itself into a Com ttecs was then put and carried without a dissentient YOjec Lord REDESDALE stated, that if any thing could re - "Atilt his mind to the present measure, it would be the co nsideration that the Government would acquire some e° , 4 troul over the Rom a n C a tholic church, by means of the introdu ct i on o f persons pro f ess i ng t h e R oman Catholic ' 4 4 into, Parliament. Those individuals would be, in I ° l4 o degree, under the influence of Government, which Wou ld by those means have some controul over the Roman Catholic church. There was one amendment he should like to see introduced into the Bill. By the Bill as it now stood, all the Privy Councillors of the King might be Catho lic, with the exception of the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack. What he wished was, to have t he tlception extended. The consideration of the preamble of the Bill was post- . Lord FARNHAM was of opinion that it involved the general principle of the Bill. He could not enter at length 'ot° the qnestion of the Oaths adopted at the time of the Revolution of 1688 ; but this he knew, that all the ef . f 9 l lll of the Revolution were to establish a Protestant Go ' t ersnaent, and to exclude Papists from offices, and from the Legislature. The question was, did or did not the Present measure interfere with the protection thus afforded le the Protestant Church at the period of the Revolution. : .11 1 his opinion it invalidated that protection, and threat ''oiled the. Establishment with peat danger. The tran .Wility of Ireland, he was confident, would not be pro ' 4loted by this Bill, because it was accompanied by another measure offensive to the party whose agitation had caused '''the King's Ministers, and the two Houses of Parliament, - 19 yield .the Relief Bill. He was opposed to the principle '(this Bill ; but he thought his Majesty's Government done right by not delaying it ; and in going to the full lztent of concession he thought also they were right ; I kt as he considered it wrong in principle he therefore Would oppose it to the utmost. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, the Noble . 14011 bad misrepresented him ; but he had said that he hoped that hereafter there would be an arrangement, such .5 would connect the Catholic Clergy with the Govern ment,. aemew hat as the Presbyterian Clergy were pro . !tided for by the Regium Donum. It was desirable for 5 tranquillity of Ireland that some measure of this kind be adopted, and he trusted his Majesty would be advised to put the.Catholie Clergy on the same footing as the Presbyterians. • The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL stated that the Presby terians had entered into an agreement with the Govern . Meat to surrender their right to the tithes for a certain sum, for ten years • after that period had elapsed, and tatt *rlY, in lieu of die legal claim, the Regium Donum The Bishop of LANDAFF remarked, that as to the Oath of Supremacy, if he departed from it by allowing Roman Catholics to seat themselves in Parliament the whole amount of the argument was this—that he, in taking that oath, denied the spiritual supremacy of any foreign Power; nor did he admit it by allowing another fellow-subject, who would not deny the Pope's spiritual authority, to sit with him in Parliament. To maintain that in so doing he departed from his oath, was the most extraordinary doctrine he had ever heard urged in his life. —(Cheers.) The Earl of ELDON said, all the Members of that House, the Right Rev. Prelates amongst them, had taken the same oaths; they had all sworn that "no Foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prolate, had any jurisdiction, pre eminence, or authority within this realm, civil, temporal, ecclesiastical, or spiritual ;" and they had gone further, and sworn that no Foreign Prince or Prelate ought to have any authority or jurisdiction, temporal or spiritual, within this realm. How could he keep this oath, which he had repeated forty times in his life, if be agreed to admit Ro man Catholics to political power, who acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Pope? The Bishop of LANDAFF said, that one word the Noble and Learned Lord had himself urged was an answer to his own objection. The Noble and Learned Lord saw no objection to the admission of the Roman Catholics to certain offices, without marking the exact line which he would draw. How could the Noble and Learned Lord, with the regard he professed for the oaths he had taken, give up the principle so easily, and make it a question of degree merely.—•(Cheers) ?—lf we could admit them to a certain extent with safety, it was only then a ques tion of degree to decide how far they should come.— (Cheers. ) The Bishop of OXFORD.—The Noble and Learned Lord has represented me by words, literally, precisely, awl fairly construed, to have described the professors of the Roman Catholic religion as idolatrous. I do not admit that they are idolatore, when I admit that there are some practices in the ceremonies of their religion which are idola trous.—( Hear. )—I agree that every idolator must be guilty of idolatry before his God. Ido not believe the Roman Ca tholics are so ; and I will not asperse those from whom I differ. The Noble and Learned Lord has stated, and repeated several times, that I imputed idolatry to the Catholic re ligion, and he has stated this in a manner that I believe neither the rules of this House, nor the common courtesy of life, allow me to characterise as it deserves. I say again, that the invocation of saints is idolatrous—that the sacrifice of the mass is idolatrous—but I do not say that the whole of the Roman Catholic religion is idolatry. I am nut so young as to take my Protestantism from the Noble and Learned Lord ; and I am not now to learn what are the differences between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches. I have now done with the Noble and Learned Lord's remarks on the churches and on the idolatry ; and I pass to what he says concerning the oath. If I understood the Noble and Learned Lord right, he stated that the oath of supremacy denies also all regal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all political power, to any power is these realms, than that of the sovereign, and that we cannot allow the Catholics to have offices without a ♦iolation of our oath. Has the Noble and Learned Lord then forgotten the Irish Act of 1777, the English Act of 1778, the English Act of 1791, awl the Scotch Act of 1793, by which Papists are required by law to deny, as a necessary condition of holding office, that the Pope has any temporal power in these realms, while the English Protestants, on taking office, are called on to deny the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope ? By , these different .Acts, tile Papists are to take one oath, and the Protes tants another. If I beard the Noble and Learned Lord right, he asserted that we were now, for the first time, about tcesadmit the Catholics to hold office. This is to me quite unintelligible unless there be some Parliamentary meaning attached to an oath that I never heard out of Parliament. If that be not the case the conclusion of the Noble and Learned Lord is to me quite unintelligible.— When I filled that chair of Regius Professor, to which he has alluded, had any of my pupils drawn such a conclusion I should have thought that they had rejected logic from their studiee.---( Hear and a leugh ; Order ! Question !) Wee uabstituted. The Catholic Clergy had no right or title equal to this. Besides, the Roman Catholics, in his Opinion, taught false doctrines, while there was very little difference between the doctrines taught by the Presbyte rians and the Church of England. The Earl of ELDON said, that unless he too had silenced his opinion, it was impossible for him to address the House to any effect, as he could only repeat his objec tion* to this Roman Catholic Relief Bill. No man could bake.the oaths their Lordships had taken, and account for it satisfactorily to his own mind, if he voted for this Bill, aesording.to his (Lord Eldon's) view of the oaths. He begged flair Lordships to recollect that the Great Lord Chatham had expressly stated that " Parliament had as •• good a right to repeal the Bill of Rights as the statute re quiring the Oath of Supremacy." But by this Bill the . Protestant was still required to take it, while the Roman 'Catholic was relieved from those declarations against tran ,, e ubsta.ntiation, and the sacrament of mass, and other parts Of the Roman Catholic religion, which bad hitherto been called idolatrous. It was surprising to him, that ever titleo the statute of Charles the Second was passed, it had 11 ' 4 littered into the consideration of any man whether it 'W 5 Within the power of Parliament to alter this oath.— • liut he found he should get into a discussion on the prin .eiple of the Bill if he went any further into that topic ; but he must say, that when he recollected that every of the Church of England, front the moment of the Passin g of that Act to the day on which he spoke, or at least to three or four days ago—(a laugh)—had solemnly declared that certain ceremonies of the Roman Catholics Were, as they were stated to be in the declaration, ~ i clolatrous, he thought that the Roman Catholic religion itself was neither more nor less than idolatry. ---(Cheers and laughter.)—But there was a Right Rev. Prelate who held, the other evening, that the professors of j j that religion were not at all idolatrous, though every Bishop of the Church of England had declared, in this Rouse, since the time of Charles 11., that religion to be .- .idolatrous. Some of their Lordships were not aware of „;•' this consideration, when they talked without reference to c4 .tbe principle of this Bill, and said that only five or six Oman Catholic Peers would be admitted by its coming jilt° operation. They only looked at the circumstance of there being a few or large number of Roman Catholic Members admitted into that House or the House of Corn teens.. It had also been said that the Oath of Supremacy • leas a false declaration, if it imputed idolatry to the Ro uian Catholic religion. After all they seemed to see people aserely as Protestant persons and Roman Catholic persons, Said the Members of the Legislature merely as Protestant llembers of the Houses of Lords or Commons. But he Could not tell what the feelings of that man must be who %hid hare gone into that House and see his Majesty on the Throne, and the Lord Chancellor on Ids knees, calling on lig Majesty, as he wits bound to do, if he had not ahead) , done t,o at the Coronation, to make.and subscribe that De • ?!!tration, by which the whole of the doctrines of the Ho . %an . Catholip religion are declare .1 to be idobtrous, while the Roman Catholic Pee'rs and Afembc , rs of the House of Ammons were assembled with the others to hear their reli, Rion declared idolatrous; and so it would remain after this Act was passed, if it continued in its present form. The Right ". Prelate also said, and said very truly, in the notion of a r iotestant Bishop, that we were all Members of the Chris !aili Church. If the Right Rev. Prelate would allow him, 4 e would ask, respectfully, as he wished to do, from his l'egatd to the Right tev. Prelate's character, whether the d eclaration that the Protestant Church of England was a branch of the Christian Church, and the members of it '4;ll:Yrs of the Christian Church, had ever been made by tLe Roman Citholic Church? If that was inserted into , th e, oath to be taken under this till by the Ronan Catho, . "cos there would be something admitted by them. He • him while the favour of the House to think indulgently of while he said again and again, that having on his oath ';.lsvorn that his Majesty had the Supremacy in this king 41.°f in all matters ecclesiastical, he could not presume to 441 4 others to office or seats in Parliament, who would not The Earl of ELDON rose amidst some confusion;— when he coull obtain a hearing he said—l never asserted tl at the Right Rev. Prelate said that the Roman Catholic Church was not a Christian Church.—(Hear, hear, and No, no, Order, order. )—I understood the Right Rev. Pre late to say it was idolatrous. Perhaps I may have contra dieted the Right Rev. Prelate mor, openly than I ought, ' in the heat of argument, and I apologise. I can only say, of the allusion which h s been made to the Regius Pro fessor of Oxford, I had never any intention of casting any imputation on the Right Rev. Prelate.-:-(Question.) . 1 The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Noble and Learned- Lord has again brought the principle of the Bill under dis cussion. I am desirous to confine "myself to the clause before your Lordships. Your Lordships have now been occupied with the discussion of the principle of the mea sure for four nights; and I feel that I shall best discharge my duty by directing my attention to the clause now before us. As to the observations of the Noble and Learned Lord, that the Church of Rome does not consider the Esta• blished Church of this country to be a Christian Church— (" No, no !")—that the Roman Catholic Church of Ire land does not consider the Protestant Established Church of this country as a Christian Church—they astonish me much. Knowing the exceedingly great industry of the Noble and Learned Lord, I know he cannot have over looked the evidence which has been given before the Com mittee of your Lordships, while examining several mem bers of the Catholic Church. Recollecting myself that there were some observations on that subject, I have sent for the Report of the Committee, and this is what Dr. Doyle says :—He was asked the opinion of the Established Church, and he replied—" I look on the Established Church in Ireland in two lights—as a Christian commu nity, and as a corporation, enjoying vast temporal pos sessions. As a Christian Church, consisting of a hier archy, and professing the doctrines of the Gospel, I respect it "and esteem it more than any other church of the Universe separated from the See of Rome."—(Lend and continued cheers.)—l am astonished that the Noble Lord can come down to the House, and, relying on its re spect for hie great talents and his industry, can so hastily and unadvisedly make such bold, such incorrect, and such unwise assertions.—(Loud cheers.) I shall now say a few words as to what the Noble Lord has said of the Oath of Supremacy. The Noble and Learned Lord says "he has taken that Oath forty times, and has sworn that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, bath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, or superiority, in these realms ;" and how, he asks, can I take that oath, if I do admit that there is in the country a body of persons who acknowledge a foreign supremacy? It is not for me to to reconcile this—it is for the Noble Lord. The law stand so. The Roman Catholics do acknowledge, in mat ters of faith and conscience, to the spiritual power and jurisdiction of a foreign Power, and the Noble Lord, there fore, takes an oath to what is not the fact.—(Cheers. ) How does the present Bill alter the state of things ? In 1791 the Noble Lord now sitting at the Table (Lord Re desilale) brought in a Bill which the Noble and Learned Lord approved of, and that Bill prescribes the oath to be taken in the very sense form as the present Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord will recollect that no Catholic can now exercise any right of any description—he cannot hold any office—and subjects himself to the penal laws if he exercise any office without taking the oath ; and yet the Noble and Learned Lord can gravely state that the Act, passed so long ago as 1791, has entirely fallen out of bis recollection. What does the present Bill do more than give effect and ex tension to the principles on which the Catholics have be fore been admitted into office? We only extend privileges, the principle of granting which the Noble and Learned Lord has acted on. This is the plain statement of the else, and what the Noble and Learned Lord quoted from Hales, written with a very different view, has no relation to the subject, and the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord is totally unfounded. If the remark had not been made by the Noble and Learned Lord, I should say that it was the assertion of a most extravagant, absurd, and un reasonable man.—(Cheers.) —lt would be a waste of your Lordships' time now to discuss the principles when it has already been settled. The first clause is the repeal of a declaration against transubstantiation ; and as your Lord ships have agreed to that, with some exceptions, you can discuss these exceptions when you come to the clauses which specify them. If the Noble and Learned Lord should hereafter discuss these exceptions, and should enter again into the question of the Oath of Supremacy, I shall extremely ready to meet him.—(Loud cheers. ) The Earl of MOIJNTCASHEL rose amidst cries of " Question," and said a few words to show that the Ro man Catholics were taught to hate the Protestants, and that the Priests in Italy ret , ,arded the Protestant Church as not a Christian Church. The Bull condemning all Protestants was still read every year in the Church of St. Mary Mazgiore, at Rome.—(Question, question.) Lord TENTERDEN—It is now forty years since I was a tyro, and I, perhaps, may have forgotten my grammar as well as my learning; but if I have not, I would ask what is a superstitious act but superstition ; and what is an idolatrous act but idolatry? The Bishop of DURHAM spoke at some length, but was quite inaudible below the Bar. We understood the Right Reverend Prelate's argument to relate altogether to the theological part of the question; and that he de scribed the Church of Rome as idolatrous, yet a Christian Church. The Earl of ELDON said, that with respect to the marriage instance mentioned by the Noble and Learned Lord (Plunkett), the Roman Catholic priests, considering it to be a sin, declared it to be such accordingly ; and the consequence was, that the parties were put under such a spiritual censure, that they could not very well continue to live together; but by the Ecclesiastical Courts of this country, of which the King was the supreme head, the same parties might be compelled legally to cohabit together ; so that they would, under these circumstances, be placed in the predicament of either violatin ,, their religious duties, or of acting in disobedience to the decree of one of the established tribunals of the country. Lord PLUNKETT begged to explain that the pi jest, in such a case, acted only by censure, and not by any co-active jurisdiction : if the parties from conscientious feelings chose to discontinue living together, they certainly might do so, but in that case they would be acting from an option of their own, and not from any direction of the priest. The Earl of 1110UNTCASHEL and Lord TIEDES DALE addressed a few words to the Committee ; but the 1 cries of " Question !" were so loud as to render the obser vations of their Lordships inaudible. Lord TENTERDEN rose for the purpose of proposing an Amendment en the first Clause, and he believed that that was the right time to do so. He did not propose this Amendment fur the purpose of introducing any alteration, but rather for the purpose of carrying the in• tentions of the Bill, if he understood them rightly, more fully into effect. If he understood the Bill aright, it was not its object to have any retrospective view what ever, or to legalise anything which had not been legal before its existence. The first Clause absolutely repealed those Declarations which had been imposed in the time of Charles the Second ; and he wished to call the attention of the Committee to what the effect of that would be. Let it be supposed that any Roman Catholic had been elected a Member of the House of Commons, or to any office within the contemplation of the Bill, previous to that Bill passing into a law ; in that case be would only have to wait ten days after the Royal Assent had been given, and there would then be no occasion for him to make either of the declarations as the law now stood, but merely to take the Oath of Allegiance. He knew that there were some Catholics who thought that they could conscientiously take those oaths, and therefore the effect of the Bill, as it now stood, would be to act retrospectively. With a view to prevent this, his intention was to propose that there should be added the words " Excepting also the case of any per son, who before the commencement of the Act may have been returned to the House of Commons, or to serve any Corporate office." The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the amend ment. It was true that it was not intended that the Act should he retrospective; but the amendment proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend had reference to a particular individual.—(Hear, hear.) Lord TENTERDEN said, that if the Noble and Learn ed Lord was correct in what he had stated, he would ask him why these words were to be found in the Act, " from and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, be ing a Peer, or who shall, after the commencement of this Act, be returned as a Member to the House of Commons ?" The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the general principle of the Bill was prospective, but the amendment proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend applied to an individual, and he therefore opposed it; at the same time, he would suggest to his Noble and Learned Friend, that if he would look over the Acts, he would see that it was clear that the individual ; , ;ludrd to could not take his seat, as in so doing, he would be obliged to subscribe to the oath of supremacy. _ ..... The Bishop of OXFORD explained. The Earl of ELDON did not mean to follow the Noble and Learned Lord through his observations. I have now been (his Lordship continued) twenty-seven years in this House, and I have on all public questions spoken the opi- nions I entertained, perhaps in stronger language sometimes than was warranted ; but I have now to tell the Noble and Learned Lord, that I have never borne down the House, and I will not now be borne down by him, nor twenty such as he is. —(Cheers and laughter. During the whole of this personal altercation their Lordships used much louder tones and more violent gesticulations than we are accustomed to witness in their House ; and altogether the scene was much more animated than debates usually are in the Upper House,) Lord PLUNKETT could not allow the discussion to pies by without saying a few words respecting the Oath of Supremacy. The Noble Peer then entered into a gram matical analysis of the oath, and showed that it denied an acknowledged and well-known fact, for the Pope has spi ritual authority in these realms. Some Noble Lord having interrupted Lord Plunkett, he called " Order," and ob served that he had a right to state his sentiments, and begged he might not be interrupted. The Noble Lord went on to shew that he understood the Oath of Supremacy to imply that no foreign Prince or Power had any power or autho rity over the Church o tthis kingdom. The point that had been laid down contained the strangest sort of assertion ; and he certainly could not take the clause in any sense but that which he had already stated. When he had in another place stated (in a similar manner to that in which he had made the statement that evening) the interpretation which he put upon the Oath of Supremacy, he had been accused by the Noble and Learned Lord of using something like Jesuistry in his way of enforcing it ; but if this were not the sense of the Oath, and if the Noble and Learned Lord did not mean to admit that the Pope bad the same spi ritual power as he had described, Ile should be glad to know what was the sense of the Oath ? Did the Noble and Learned Lord mean to assert that the Pope had no power at all ? He (Lord Plunkett) was well aware that he did possess power, and that as long as the Roman Ca tholic religion continued to exist, he must possess it ; but the point of view in which this country was chiefly concerned was whether the Pope in the exercise of that power interfered in any way with the authority of the Crown of England ?—(Hear.)—ln discussing that point, it had frequently been said that it was not easy to distin guish his temporal power from his spiritual power.— (Hear.)—But how was that proved to be the case? This question had now been tinder discussion for more than 30 years, and the most inquisitive minds and the deepest re search had been employed for the purpose of finding where the spiritual power of the Pope did interfere with the tem poral concerns of the people. After that investigation, which had been carried on with so much care, only one instance could be discovered in which this was the case.— That instance was where the Pope, exercising his juris diction pro salute anzune, had the power of saying that persons were living in a state of sin who, according to the laws of this country, were cohabiting together in a state of lawful marriage. That was the only one iro.tance that had ever been discovered. But at the same time it was worthy of observation, that although the Roman Ca tholic Clergy said that this was, spiritually speaking, a state of sin, yet they did not attempt to contest the legality of the marriage, nor the lawfulness of the issue proceeding therefrom—including their right of inheritance of property —on the contrary, if any one, connected with that faith, should attempt to interfere with any of those lawful rights that person would, undoubtedly, receive the censure of his own Church.—(Hear.) —This was the only point known to stand in the way of the distinction he had math., and he therefore contended that the interpretation which he haul put upon the oath was a just one. Lord REDESDALE and Lord Fa uNIIAM said a few words amid loud cries of " Question." The Earl of ROSSLYN thought that it would save a great deal of time if Noble Lords would confine themselves in speaking to the cluuse that was actually before the Comm i ttee. —( Hear. ) Lord LIT TLETON said, that it appeared to him e.at the point on which so much stress had been laid, respect ing the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, turned on a paint which had not as yet been touched upon. Ad mitting, for the sake of argument—and, indeed, justice required that it should be admitted—that that which was i i,!'atrous in practice was really idolatrous, and that that which was superstition* in practice was really supersti- Lord fiLuNkETT said that the statute of William left the Catholics still subject to the oath of supremacy : in the time of Elizabeth he believed that Catholics had taken that oath, but since that time it had got into b.al company along with other oaths, and the Catholics had ojected to it. Lord TENTERDEN said that when it was taken out of bad company, perhaps the Catholics would again be willing to take it.--(A laugh.) . . Lord HOLtAND s said that the Act which this Bill was to repeal was as retrospective as this; and it was, there fore, but a fair corollary, that in repealiug that Act, it should be taken as a precedent as to how far this Act should be retrospective. Lord TENTERDEN withdrew his amendment. Their Lordships then divided on the first clause, when the numbers appeared to be— For the clause - 142 Against it 63 Majority When strangers were re- admitted, the Clerk was read ing the clause relative to the oath to be taken by Mem bers who came to take their seats in either House of Par liament. Lord MOUNTCASHEL then proposed an amendment, the effect of which was to exclude from the House of Peers, such Roman Catholic temporal Peers, as should happen to be Bishops or Cardinals, or in holy orders in the Romish Church. The Earl of ROSSLYN objected to the amendment. The Duke of WELLINGTON understood the object of the amendment to be, to exclude Irons the House of Lords such Roman Catholic Peers as shotild be a Bishop or Car dinal of the Romish Church, or in holy orders in that Church. But then they had already decided, by adopting the principle of the Bill, that it was expedient that Ro man Catholics should be allowed to sit in Parliament, and that, in that respect all distinction between Catholic and Protestant should be put an end to. But, in the case of Protestants, a Protestant Peer was allowed to sit in the House in virtue of his temporal Peerage, although he should be in holy orders, and there appeared to be no good reason why a Roman Catholic Peer should not be placed on the same footing, if in holy orders in their Church. Lord REDESDALE said, that a very good reason was, that a Bishop of the Romish Church took an oath directly at variance with his allegiance to the King of this country. After a few words from Lord PauemErr, the Earl of HADDINGTON, and the Duke of RICHMOND, The motion was withdrawn. Lord FALMOUTH then proposed an amendment, the effect of which was to provide that no greater number than 100 Roman Catholics should be capable of sitting in Parliament. This was the number of Members returned for Ireland ; and although he thought the limitation to 100 did not go far enough, yet he had rather have that than no limitation at all. The reason which had been stated for the expediency of admitting Roman Catholics to Par liament was the great numerical superiority in Ireland of the Roman Catholic population. That reason did not apply to great Britain, where the Roman Catholics formed but a very small minority. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—If he understood the amendment of the Noble Lord, it went to exclude Roman Catholics from being returned for any place out of Ireland. Lord FALMOUTH—The expediency of admitting Ro man Catholics to Parliament was resisted on the ground of the superiority in Members of the Irish Roman Catholic population, and his object to confine the number of Ro man Catholic Members that could sit in Parliament to that which Ireland returned. The Duke of WELLINGTON.—The principle had been agreed to, that it was expedient that Roman Catho lics should be admitted to Parliament, and then there was no reason why they should not be allowed to represent counties and boroughs in England as well as in Ireland. The Noble Lord said, that he took the limit of one hun dred Members, because that was the number of Members returned fur Ireland, but there was no ground whatever for supposing that the one hundred Members would: be Roman Catholics, nor much reason to suppose that one half of them would be so. Lord FALMOUTH did not wish that there should be 100 Catholic Members in Parliament, but he pre ferred haviug the limit of 100 to having no limit at all The Earl of CAERNA . RVON.—The Noble Lords who were distinguished by the epithet of the Lords on the cross bench,had comp l a i ne d o f t h e con duct of the people of Ireland, and said, that whereas they deserved punishment, Parliament was called upon to grant them a boon, But there was no complaint against the conduct of the Catho lies of England, and then see what was the amount of the Amendment ? It was to grant the boon to those who de served punishment, and to punish those against whom no complaint had been made. Lord KENYON.—But the argument few admitting the Roman Catholics to Parliatnent was the excess of the Ro man Catholie population over the Protestant in Ireland, and therefore the Roman Catholic Members ought to be confined to that country. The Marquis of LAN SDOWNE. —lf the passing of thin Bill would be followed by the advantage 3 anticipated from it, that must arise from destroying, in point of civil rights, all distinction between protestant and Catholic; and al though that might not immediately happen, the ultimate result would be, that the electors, whether Catholics or Protestant., would never inquire whether the candidates to represent them were Catholic or Protestant, but merely whirls was the most competent to perform the duties. As 1 in the caw of the returns to the French Chambers, out of tious, yet it 41 not follow , that ene person might not six Deputies, ref urned for a aistriet in Franco, to the accept a doctrine in a sense that was not idolatrous, while Chamber, three were Protestant, although the great majo another person might accept the very same doctrine in a rity of the electors were Catholic : the reason of that was, sense that was idolatrous.—(Heir.)--This observation that in France, the distinction in these matters between Ca might well apply to the test by which the Roman Catho- thnlic and Protestant had ceased—en, he hoped, it would lice had hitherto been prevented from taking their seats sone cease here. in Parliament. The E srl of DARNLEY opposed the Amendment, and said, he did not think that mire than twenty Catholic Members would be returned for Ireland. Lord FALMOUTH said, he had no security for that, except the Noble Earl's bare word, which, though the beat security in matters within his power and kuowledge, was in this case no security at all. Lord HOLLAND objected to any departure from the principle of the Bill which this Amendment, if adopted, would be. The Amendment was negatived without a division. The Earl of WINCHILSEA had an amendment to propose, which, he thought, would meet the approbation of every Member of that House. The amendment he had to propose was the omission of the following words : " I do further declare, that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever." Now, whatever might have been the proceedings of the Court of Rome in former days, or whatever might have been the course it pursued towards the subjects of other Powers, he believed most sincerely the Roman Catholics held no such opinions, nor had no such object now, and he therefore proposed that those words be altogether omit ted, in order that the Catholics may not be insulted by being called upon to renounce opinions;which no man could believe they entertained. Lord REDESDALE concurred with the Noble Earl, that there was no use in these words, and that they might therefore be just as well omitted. After few words from Lord FARNHAM to the same effect, The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that theßoman Ca tholics had been taking this oath for the last forty years without making any complaint, and as it might by some persons be supposed a security, he could net consent to lay it aside. The Amendment was then negatived. Upon the Clause respecting the admission of Catholics into Corporations, Lord TENTERDEN, after observing that the Act seemed to be a very hasty composition, and the wording ta require very grave consideration, proposed that the oaths regular] to be taken by the Act of 1793, when a Catholic took office, should he added to those prescribed by this Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the The Amendment was also negatived. Some other Clauses being agreed to, Lord KENYON moved that the House resume, and the Chairman report progress, as it was not possible they could go much farther at that hour of the morning. Earl GREY and Lord HOLLAND suggested the propriety of the Committee continuing to consider those clauses which were not likely to excite much discussion, and to pass over those which might give rise to objections. After some conversation, Lord KrwiroN persisted in his motion that the House should resume, and their Lordships divided upon that question : The numbers were— Contents Non-contents Majority 99 In the absence of strangers, we understand that Lord ROLLE threatened, if the Committee continued to sit, to divide it upon every question that could be raised. Under these circumstances, the Duke of WELLINGTON submitted to an adjournment till to-morrow (this day) at Five o'clock. Adjourned at Half-past One. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(LAST r•aCHT.) 31r. Alderman ATKINS moved the second reading of the St. Albans Court-house Bill. Mr. HUME presented two petitions against the Aber. deer Police Bill. Haynes's Divorce Bill went through a Committee, and on the motion of Mr. TEtixYsox Counsel were called in, and witnesses examined. The House resumed, and the Report ordered to be presented on a future day. Mr. FYLER presented a petition against the Coventry Canal Bill, and praying that the petitioners might be heard by Counsel against the Bill. Campbell's Naturalization Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. _ _ Mr. BELL moved for returns of the quantities of Coals brought into London during the years 1825 and 1826. Ordered. Mr. LENNARD presented a petition from the silk weavers of Halstead, in the county of Essex, praying the House to take into its consideration the present state of the laws affecting the silk trade. Mr. HUME said no one was more anxious to see the difficulties under which the petitioners labour removed than himself, but he must say lie thought they were under a great mistake as to the real cause. Mr. D. W. HARVEY had no doubt but that it was owing to the large quantities of French silks imported into this country ; he wished the advocates of free trade would point out some means by which the starving thousam!s could obiain a livelihood. He trusted they would be thus prepared when the subject came before the House on Thursday next. After a few observations from Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bright, Mr. Baring, Mr. Fyler, and Mr. Maxwell, the petition was brought up, read, and ordered to be printed. A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' concurrence to several private Bills. Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from certain I Dissenters of Paisley, in favour of the Catholic claims; and another from 4,500 persons of that place, respecting the distressed state of the Silk Trade. Lord CLENIENTS presented petitions from several places in the county of Leitrim, against the Sub-letting Act. Lord TULLAMORE, in presenting a petition from the Royal Canal Company, said, I hold in my hand a peti tion from the Directors of the Royal Canal Company, com plaining of a grievous injury inflicted on their vested rights. Sir, there is in Ireland two canals—the Grand Canal and the Royal. Most unfortunately for the into. rests of both, they were executed in parallel lines, running for about thirty miles from Dublin, at a distance of about six miles from each other. This fatal error has been at tended with such ruinous consequences to each, that the Royal Canal does not yield 1 per cent. on the capital ex pended. At this point the canals diverge to their extreme point the complaint ofepa contained r at ion b between i n s petition t a i t n i d o n i 18 s, that mileL the N G ow ir: crn ment have sanctioned the issue of 18,0001. out of the separation public purse, for the purpose of executing an off-branch from the Grand Canal to Kilbeggan, in the direction of the Royal Canal, which will again approximate the two canals, and bring them within eight or nine miles of each other; this extension of an off-branch, they are advised by the highest Law Authorities in Ireland, is illegal. Now, Sir, us the Government exercise a controul over their expenditure, they are prevented from following any other mode of attempting to obtain redress for the injuries complained of. I must explain in a few words, the circumstances attending this grant :—About the time of the dissolution of Lord Liverpool's Government, the Directors of the Grand Canal Company, and John Lambert, the proprietor of the town of Kilbeggan, applied to the Lord Lieutenant for an advance of money cut of the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose of making a Branch Canal to the town of Kilbeggan. I got intimation of this application, and addressed a letter to Lord Mel bourne, the then Secretary of State for Ireland, stating, amongst numerous other objections to this proposed work, that the 10th and 40th George 111. had hat been complied with, which enacts " that no aid out of any public money shall be given for completing any canal un!ess the scheme be first laid before the Directors-General of Inland Navi gation." After some correspondence, it was determined to submit the plans to the Board of Directors, and to stand by their derision, who, after a minute investigation, re ported, that it would be injurious to existing and long esta blished interests, and that they could not feel justified in recommending the work as being one of public utility. The measure was, in consequence, abandoned ; and great was our surprise to find, that on the appointment of Lord Angle sea, as Lord Lieutenant, and my Noble I, 7 riand as secretary, wt h as ascarried application f eit witho t• advance:_ klu c p secrecy, ec f: w cz Nar enewed, that believe warrant was a;tnaily signed before the application for this money had transpired. I wrote several reinonstranca.s to the Noble Lerd, and have to thank him for tl.e courtesy 11 the Parliament, ssu e it o and attention which he paid to the ommunications bi;t how great was the consternatiou ef the Royal Canal Corn f:Wttaiiieis.&4l,lometoNhnocebyeoi,Ln:edr.i.l.dli'esic:!leuttpeli,rleoiislitaotiatoitniiaatsoectaotin:anAneoc-tf a . any to find which states, " that no off-branch shall be authorised by the said Directors which shall interfere with or approach to wards eith er cana l," & c . & e . F rom t hi s startling deter mination the Royal Canal Company wished to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, Vas were informed ti e . Acts of P ar li amen t h a d no t con t emp l ate d t hi s case; t h at if the Directors had approved, and the Lord Lieutenan: had negatived, an appeal lay to the Council against his de cision, but no provision was made for the present case. It they carneto this House =1 asked for a vtivate committee, Government would not meet the expense. Government c , .ntrouled their expenditure, and naturaLy would not al low of an expenditure of their funds in applying against their own decisions. This, Sir, is the only course left for the petitioners to pursue, and they looic with confi dence to the justice and wisdom of Parliaatent for pro tection against this injury. I beg to express my most anxi ous hope that the Government will take this petition into their consideration; if not, I shall feel reluctantly obliged on a future day to give notice of a motion founded on this petition, and th.it the petition be referred to a Com mittee up-stairs. Sir, I beg to move this. petition be now brought up. After a few words from: Lord L. GOWER, the petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. MIME moved for Returns to show the number of Writers, Cadets, Assistant-Surgeons, and Chaplains, seat out to India in I 526, 1827, and 182 8. —Agreed to. Mr. 111.731 E also moved for a Return of the number of Freemen belonging to each Corporate Town in Ireland, distinguishing the resident from the non-resident free men, as far as the same can be complied with. —Agreed to. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Bolton-on-the- Moor, in favour of the Catholic claims. Lord L. GOWER gave notice that he should, on Thursday next, move that the Irish 'Miscellaneous Esti mates should be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. A. BARING presented a petition from the SM.: Manufacturers of London, complaining of the state of the trade. Mr. JEPIISON presented a petition from the Boman Catholics of two places in Cork, in favour of the Ca tholic claims. Mr. COURTENAY presented Returns from the Fo reign Office, which had been received from the King's Consuls abroad, relative to Fore'gn Corn. Mr. STUART presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Kirkmichael, and another place in Bampffshire, in favour of the Catholic claims. CHARING-CROSS IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged to draw the attention of the Noble Lord at the head of the departments of Woods and Forests to the singular circumstances attending the projected improvements in the neighbourhood of Charing cross. The original estimate of these :itnprovements bad been so moderate as to induce Parliament to sanction the undertaking without hesitation. They were taken at a sum not exceeding 400,0001., and estimates were placed before the House which held out the hope that this sum would not be exceeded. Other improvements were sug-, gested in addition, and the whole was estimated at an ex pense of 851,2131. Os. led. The result, however, as was but too generally the case when Government was con cerned, proved that this was a fallacy, and it now came out that these improvements would extend this sum above 25 per cent., amounting in all to 1,147,313/. 12s. 9d. The speculation would, he believed, as far as profit was concerned, prove a vet) , unproductive one to the public, whose money was expended on the alteration Like an other great financial project, it would be found to have its dead weight also, and the result of his calculation on the out lay of money and the returns, proved pretty clearly theta would be a loss to the public on the transaction after relettini of about 193,6031. Possibly the Noble Lord was not awate of the extent of loss sustained. His was an arduous duty, no doubt, when it was recollected there were no less than 18 folio Reports on the subject of the crown lauf?s, woods, and forests. These be had vainly attempted to get through during the recess, and perhaps that Nob:e Lord bad, like himself, not got through the half of them. Extreme personal loss had been sustained in the whole of this district by individuals who had been isolated by the demolition of buildings around them ; and a butcher in that neighbour hood stated to him, that his receipts in trade were dimi nished from 4,0001. to 1,2901. within the last three years. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, that a return be laid before the House of the manner in which the sum of 542,905/. Bs. 6d. had been laid out already in purchases of property for the improvements contemplated in Cha ring -cross, together with an account in detail of the actual expenditure in different departments connected with these improvements, contrasted with the estimates originally laid before the House. Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion. He learned with suprise and regret that the Government Sur veyor had himself taken a considerable tract of ground, which he had let out on lease, su as to realize a consider able profit on the speculation. Lord LOW THER assured the House that there was not one word of truth in the allegation of the last speaker. ..._(ll ear .)_The only property exposed to sale consisted of three lots. The first had fallen into the hands of the vicar whose house bad been pulled down; the second was pur chased by a tradesman in the neighbourhood, befOre he (Lord Lowther) came into office and the third bad been exposed to public rent—(Hear)—and was purchased at the highest bidding—certainly the fairest way, and one which he intended to pursue with respect to the Crown lands generally—by a gentleman known to many of them, Mr. Baker, who had no connection whatever with the depart ment. Great difficulty existed in getting a fair or just estimate where the good-will of property and shops of business was allowed to form part of the amount of the estimate, which often swered the demand of the occu pants to an enormous and unconscionable degree. Such was the case of the butcher alluded to; it 'Was impossible to deal with him OH any thing but exorbitant terms, and he had, it appeared, felt his obstinacy to his prejudice. As to the .economy recommended by the lion. Member, he should recollect the widening of the Strand at Exeter change had been suggested, not by Government, but by Members of that House. Nor could it be expected that it was possible, when money was laid out in the purchase of houses in such a great and valuable thoroughfare as. the Strand, that the public could make a profitable specula,. tion of it, when it was necessary to give up 80 feet depth of ground altogether, in order to throw back the frontage of the street to that extent. Mr. C. BARCLAY wished to call the attention of the Noble Lord who presided over the woods and forr s t s , to the great advantages that would accrue to the public from the proposed improvements in Bird-cage walk. A little more expenditure would he sufficient. Mr. HUME recommended his Hon. Friend to with draw his motion, and to shape it in obedience to the wish( 4 of the Noble Lord. In answer to a question of Mr. R. CoutoßNE, Lord LOWTHEER stated, that the recounneu.aations suggested last year by a Committee of that Hrose to the Board of Works, did not apply to the Woody, and Forests, Mr. BANKES thought a more suffitient control than at present existed over the exper.diture of the public money on public buildings and improvements, was highly ex , pedient. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was glad the Hon. Member saw the expediency of modifying his present motion, and would recommend him also to with.. draw other motions for returns made by him on the 13th ult., relating to the Court of Requests and Queen Ann's Bounty, as in their present lorna they would be not only tedious and voluminous, but very expensive. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, the returns alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman were not pursuant to l,is mo, tion, but to one made by his Hon. Friend tbt Member for Aberdeen, last session. His motion was merely for an analysis of those returns. Mr. PEEL assured the Hon. Gentleman that no censure was intended by the suggestion of his Right Hon. Friend, which merely recommended a more practical and less ex pensive form of motion.—The motion was withdrawn. IRISH ADNIIRALTY COURT. Lord F. L. GOWER row to move for a Select Com mittee to whom the lSth report of the Commissioners on the Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland would be referred. His object was to inquire into the alleged abuses of the Admiralty Court, under its present Judge, Sir Jonah Barrington, which it was due to that officer himself, and to the interest of public justice, should be no longer let to remain without inquiry and, if possible, re dress.---The motion for the Cona:,nittee was agreed to, and a Committee appointed. - ANA ? ! TAIICAL SUBJE( Mr. WARBUitTON . moved for a Committee of In quiry into the ;cleans of carrying into.effectthe'recomnien. datienscf the Committee on Anatomy of last Session ; and also for leave to discharge his Bill at present in progre4s through the House.—Agreed to. Sir A, GRANT brought up the Report of the Commit-. tee of Supply of yesterday. Mr. HUME ob erved,—when the vote granting 200,0004. todefray the claims under the Spanish Conven. tion Act was read,—that it was understood that Ministers would afford full information of the details of the claims, to the defraying of which the present grant was to he applied. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that inquiry, made since he 14st had a conversation on the sub ject with the Hoo,. Member, enabled him to state that satisfactory ex,planation w ou ld b e - Worded respecting the claithants under the Spanish Convention Act. There were three classes of there claimants. The first was fur seizures of slave-vessels. One of these amounted to 1,5081. The next was consequent upon our last rupture with America, when Spanish among other vessels were seized, though not' condemned, by British cruisers. Th e third was for n egro s l aves that had sought and received pro:ection from us in Cumberland Island, on the coast of Florida, during the American war. Those slaves partly btionged to ;interim and partly to Spain. 'The Americans