The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP TIT LONDON JOURNALS. The Catholic Relief Bill was read a third time and passed this morning by a majority of 104 The Disfranchisement Bill was then passed without a division. We have no room at present for com ment ; but we congratulate the nation on the glo rious triumph of reason and justice. We congra tulate also the Prime Minister on his great achieve ment. He has now acquired a double crown— her Vll No less renowned than war." With what delight must our benevolent Sovereign bestow his fiat on a measure, approved by immense majorities of both Houses of Parliament, and wait ing only his ratifying nod to diffuse pence, and prosperity, and power, through every part of the United Empire.—Tintes. We do not know what fruits the ex-Chancellor Eldon can promise himself, from his repeated and rather troublesome visits to the King. Does the mortified veteran fancy that his undesired presence will have more effect aeon his Majesty, than the remembrance of his own Royal resolutions, decla rations, and pledges, the notoriety of the state o' Ireland, and the recorded majorities in both Houses of Parliament, amounting io the Commons to above two to one, and in the Lords to nearly the same amount, in favour of the Catholic Relief Bill ? There has been, all through these attempts upon the firmness of his Majesty, an ab , ence of taste, a want of judgment, a disregard of experience, a forgetful tW:ia of character, and a contempt for Parliament, whieb, in a mind so trammelled by forms as that of Lord Eldon has long shown itself, scent to indicate no infatuation only to be accounted for by the im becility of a superannuated understanding. The Learned Lord's exhibition in the House last night was suite worth/ of the last Windsor visit.—lbid. The procession-petition yesterday was too trivial a concern to deserve any further censure. After an abortive attempt to raise a mob at Hyde Park corner, the petitioners, Mr. Stockdale, Mr. Hol comb:, and the Rev. Mr. Isaacson (who, we fear, is really a clergyman), with a few others, coached it to Windsor. At the Palace gates they were met by Townsend. " What did they want ?" An t;wer—" To present a petition to the King." He would inquire what was to be done : they were shown into a waiting-room. Thither Mr. Peel came, "by his Majesty's order," to receive their petition, awl they were told that the answer to it would be conveyed in the usual way. Exeunt canes. The whole was a farce, and the farce, in theatrical language, has been " damned."—lbid, The grand procession to Windsor must have been gall mid wormwood to the partizans of the Protes tant Constitution of 1688. The day was most pro pitious. Rat, alas, for Protestant zeal ! It has all oozed out by this time, it would seem. The country, as Lord Eldon ohzerved, is dreadfully agitated ; and in proof of it, we refer our readers to our report of the procession. On the very eve, too, of the de struction of the Protestant Constitution ! Where we w the 113,000 householders of London and w„ tin nster ready to stew! or fall by the Protes tant Constitution Had there been a battle be twee„ two d o ,smen or an exhibition of Punch at Hyde Park-corner, the assemblage would have been ten times more respectable. — Morning Chronicle. Lord Eldon was at his post last night in the House of Lords. Having disappointed expectation in his exertions in the Committee, he rallied last night, at the twelfth hour, and indeed delivered himself of a sort of funeral oration over the remains of she Protestant Constitution of 1586, the pathos j which was ludicrous in the extreme. With the menu: 7 of the blows he received from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Plunkett, and the Bishops of Oxford sad Landaff, still fresh, he endeavoured to pluck up a little by commencing with an attack on the deed, and fastened on the late Mr. Carmine.. Two petitions had been presented from Liverpool, one by hie Lordship, and another by Lord Gude ria. Lord Goderich having inferred from the cir eateetance that Mr. Canning's advocation of conces sion, while Member for Liverpool, had never lost him the confidence of his constituents, that the people of Liverpool were not generally oppotati to concession; this furnished an opportunity to Lord Eldon fm• fas tening ou what he considered the vulnerable points of .11r. Canning. " He had always (he said) a high re ;pact for Mr. Canning, who had always professed that he would not grant this measure without full seen eity. The present Bill provided no security, and its flamers could not be called security-mongers. Al though no man had done more to promote the Ca tholic cause than Mr. Canning - , with respect to the Dissenters almost the last declaration that he made was that he would oppose them. How he was to reconcile the opposition to the Dissenters with the support of the Catholics, he did not know." The future historian will not certainly dwell on the declarations of Mr. Camiiiig and MA', Huskisson against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, as the parts of their political lives which most en-, title them to general approbation. On principle, in fact, the declaration is not defensible. The question Which drew from Mr. Cunning the declaration was pat to him with a view to place him between two tires—the hostility to the High Church Party if the answer siaould be one way, and the hostility of the Dissenters if another. Considerations of expediency determined him to declare against the Dissenters. But there is something mean in Lord Eldon's fasten ins with so much bitterness on this vulnerable part of Canning's histoty, the more especially as Mr. Canning's motives could be no secret to any one; and we hare little doubt that the question was ori ginally eeggested by his Lordship, as a means of 401- harraesinK bim, at a time when he had to make head against all mariner of difficulties. The debate was conducted last night in a very lukewarm manner on the whole. The House, in fact, are by this time as sick of the business as the eountry is. Lord Elkus wished his speech of last night to be considered in the light of a swan's song. This life, he said, would bave no longer any attractions for him, now that in tolersoce is no longer established by A short conversation took place on the subject of I he expected motion respecting the Silk Trade on Monday night. Mr. Yesey Fitzgerald said " that his statement would, of course, be a consequent of the motiosa of the Hon. Member; and h .e:opted that course because he knew it was of importance there should be as little delay as possible in making known the intentions of the Government. What ever measures he had to propose could not, as a matter of course, be rendered efe.cutal until the ex piration of the holidays; but he was aw;re of the greet anxiety which prevailed on the subject, end it was to satisfy that anxiety that he consented, although somewhat prematurely, to explain the in tentions and views of the Government." Mr. Waithnsan complained of the statements of the pub lic mess, which he thought tattled very much to mislead the House upon this question. Mr. Waithinan undertakes to set the House right, as he himself, being forty years in the Silk Tiede, cannot be. wrong,—/bid. Yesterday morning, about three o'clock, the families of Messrs- RATIMONE and COWDROT, the pawn brokers, in Frederick's-place, No. 16, Borough-road, were awakened by a noise in the front room on the first floor, which is used as a depository for unredeemed pledges. One of the pirtuers immediately proceeded down stairs, and on entering the room saw a man, who sprang towards the window, and throwing up the sash let himself down into ;he street. A watchman, who happened to be near the spot, ran underneath the window just as the fellow was in the act of dropping from it, and caught him in his arms ; a scuffle ensued between them, and after a straggle the thief got away, leavin g his hat behind. It appeared that the thief had obtained an entrance into the house by cutting through one of the window-shutters with a centre-bit. It is a matter of surprise how the entrance could have been effected without the knowledge of the " guardian of the night," whose box is close at hand. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(LAST NIGHT.) Several Bills were read a second time, others a third time, and passed. Lord BEAUCH AMP presented a petition from theparish of Wolverley, Worcester, against further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Lord ELDON - presented petitions from the inhabitants of Middlesex and Surrey; Caxton, Cambridgeshire ; Wig town, Scotland ; Haverfordwest ; Kingston-on-Hull; Kingston ; borough ofCambridge ; Great and LittleHawks !ey ; several parishes in Duinhies-sbire ; and several others, a ; ainst concessions. Also a petition from the Paisley silk weavers praying for relief. A petition from the masters and throwstaTs of Macclearield, to the same effect; and a petition from the inhabitants of Liverpool, very re spectably- and numerously signed, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The Noble Lord believed there was another petition from some of the in habitants of that town of a contrary nature. What the insti uctions of a Noble Lord, who had to present that petition were, lie did not know, nor would he an ticipate what the Noble Lord had to say. He bad certainly weapons of defence, but as he had read in the Papers lately that persons fought occasionally with muffl al hands, he should certainly not take off his gloves until driven to it.—(Hear, bear, and laughter.) Lord GODERICH said, that if his Noble and Learned , Friend anticipated from him any observations which were at all likely to lead to that unpleasant sort of controversy which he anticipated, he would be agreeably disappointed. He had received no instructions to make any observations whatever on the petition the Noble Lord had presented— all, therefore, he should now have to do, would be to state what the petition was, and under what eircum stamsea he presented it to their Lordships. The petition, though not so bulky as the Noble Lord's, was a petition which would well deserve the attention of the House. It was from cue of the most loyal and populous towns in his Majesty's dominions, and when their Lordships recollected that in this borough of Liverpool, where the right of representation was very large, and the effect of popular opinion was very powerful ; when their Lordships recol lected that this borough did, in 1812, elect as one of its representatives art individual distinguished for his great learning, zeal, and aetivity, as one of the fore most supporters of the great question now be fore the House ; when it was recollected Cott only four months before that individual was elected to represent Liverpool, he successively proposed this measure in the other llouse, which was one of the first successful at tempts towards bringing forward this great question; when all this was recollected, could there be any doubt of the real sentiments of Liverpool? The same individual (he meant Mr. Canning) not only propoaed that revolution a few months before he was their representative, but proposed measure limited in its circumstanecs which induced the House to accede to it, and so ably did he carry his proceedings forward, that when they were opposed no one was able to stand before him on this ground. A review of these circumstances would lead their Lot dehipe, and intelligent meu, to suppose that Liverpool could not be taken to be opposed to the measure. This petition which he (Lord Goderich) had to present, was a complete confir mation of that. It was signed by upwards of 22,000 in dividuals, all belonging to that place. The reason why the petitioners had not addressed the House before, was not their want of zeal, but the most firm reliance on the wisdom of Parliament, and they would willingly have remained silent in the expectation that the opinion of Par liament would coincide with them, but finding there was another petition, they thought it their duty to let the Hnuee know that all Liverpool was not of one opinion. Lord ELDON supposed, that after he had pre sented nine Ito petitiwis, he had had the mis fortune not to present one from a person of common sense. Ile thought Liverpool would have done itself great injustice had it not elected a person of the talent of Mr. Canning. What that Right lion. Cieutleman had done respecting the Catholic Question he did not know, but be knew this, that almost the last words of that Gent. with respect to the Dissenters was, that he would oppose their BilL--(llear, hear.) —With regard to the respectability of the peasou signing his (Lord Eldon's) petition, the Noble Lord had not O;;;,: , wotal to say. Comp firing the sine of the Noble Lord's petition, which 1401 Q: . ?,00f) signatures, with the petition which he (Lord Eldon) had presented, his petition might be, and was probably signed by a mil lion, but hari;ng once had a controversy in Parliament re specting the superiority an, respectability of some petitioners he would adinit,if it pleased the Noble Lord, that his petition had all the respectability and talent on this occasion, and he would say ri4 more.--( Near- ) The Earl - of HADDINGTON observed, that the • Noble and Learned Loid (Eldon) had many times said that he should not introduce irreievaut matter on presenting petitions ; yet, at the conclusion of the disetiseien on this important subject, he had changed his tactics. He magbt to have gone on with his observations with respect to what Mr. Canging had said. It was well kn,iwn that he was always a !vocated the Catholic claims, and when that Right Hon. Gentleman said he should oppose the Test and Corporation Acts Repeal Bill, he said he should do a:.; because he thought it would impede Emancipation. Not ;hat !e undervalued the com plaints of the Dissenters, but iiecaase he considered the complaints of the Catholics as a great and peculiaz grievance. He (Lord Haddiugton) was sure the Noble Lord wo f il.l not have brought forward the name of the Right ll6n. Gent,, whom it had pleased Providence to take unto himself, in the manner in :yykich he had done, without some urgent motive. Lord ELDON begged the House to recollect, that it was not but the Noble Lard who had spoken be fore (GoderiCli) who had brought forward the name of that deceased gentleman. He begged !,0 know whether there was any Noble Lord in that House whp had ever heard him utter a syllable disrespectful to Mr. Canning. He had never spoken a disrespectful word of him, nor ever would of ids memory, though other Noble Lords had. If the Noble Lord had introduced a discussion upon petitions he was cot to be blamed for it, lr t the Noble Lord who . had done it. _ . _ Lard GODERICII explained. Mr. C. PALLME a and others brought up a private Bill. Sir THostas Act ND and others brought up two others . Sir Thakras FREMANTLE and others another. Colonel Cup'. and others brought up another. . . )$i r. BYNG and others . I,rpughi up two others. Lord LORTON presented petitions from Chepstow, Trowbridge, Bath, and numerous other places, against fur ther concessions. . . The Earl of RODEN presented several petitions against further concessions from various familial in Ireland. Lord PLYMOUTH presented a petition from some place, the name of which we could not hear. Earl GREY presented a petition from a place in ' Cheshire, in favour of emancipation of the Catholics. The petitioners concluded by earnestly hoping the House would unanimously agree to granting the claims, The Earl of FM1) 1 1E - IAN presented a petition from the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees against the Catholic claims.— (Laughter.)—The Noble Lord sail it waa his opinion the petition was well worthy the consideration of the House. the Lordship then presented several other petitions of a similar nature from places in Ireland, and also one from the Editcrs, Printers, Puhlisliers, anti Compositors of the Monthly Magazine, Lord KENYON presented a pptition from Winchester against the Catholic claims. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from three Roman Catholics of the greatest respectability in favour of concession. The petitioners were large landed proprietors in Scutland. The LORD .CHANCELLOR presented a petition from a Gentleman of the Bar, named Honor', against the clauses in the Disfranchisement Bill, relating to the .Itssuits. The Marquis of LANSDOVNE presented a petition in favour of the Catholic claims, from a place in Wilt abire. The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented several petitions against the Catholic claims, amongst which was a second petition from the Rev. Sir Ifpcoart. Lees, preying that the House would not pass any 141.1 tbid tf. , (e;!d give the Roman Catholics the ascendaniy. The Duke of RICHMOND said, whateyer be might thint i ; of the question before the House, this petition could not be receir - q ; as there was no Bill giving ascendancy to the Catholics. Af...er a few observations from Lople GREY, KENYON, Rot.tat, and ELLENBoaouon,the petition w e...withdrawn. Lord FARNHAM presented a petition on the subject the Disqualification Bill, preying that no elector, whether Protestant or Catholic, he alluts , o to vote unless lie can read and write.—(Laughter.) ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. At a quarter before Seven o'clock the Duke of Wet- LINCION moved the Order of the Day for the third reading I of the Catholic Relief Bill. 'There were loud calls for the I Marquis Camden and Lord Eldon. The latter having yielded, The Marquis CAMDEN proceeded :—My Lords, I will not delay your Lordships lung from hearing the argu ments of the Noble and Learned Lord. But having been so long connected with this House, it must be supposed that I have had some opportunities of observing the pro gress of this great question. When I was sent to Ireland , as Lord Lieutenant, I was opposed tecconcesslons ; but from what I saw in that countryairid from subsequent ex perience, I came to the conclusion that they might be safely granted in a United Parliament. I had agreed with Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Mr. Wyndham, and Mr.- Dundas, upon that point, and I might now express my cordial satisfaction that the Bill has been brought before Parliament by the recom mendation of the King, and with the junction of his Ma jesty's Ministers. If introduced under a divided Cabinet, I probably should have taken a different course from that which I now do, in supporting the Noble' Duke's Bill. I fervently hope that the measure will be gratefully re eaived in Ireland, and whets the subject is fairly considered, that the good sense of the people of England will be no longer apposed to it. Lord GRANVILLE—My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships with very many observations. But having held office—a very subordinate one indeed—under Mr. Pitt, I have hal many opportunities of ascer taining his sentiments correctly upon this measure ; and being one of a Committee which was institute! to commemorate his principles, I saw with regret that those who professed to venerate the memory of that great Statesman, were adopting a line of policy foreign to his sen timents. I resisted that policy, and was then driven from those meetings by the toasts and sentiments which it was my pain to hear given. But, ray Lords, it is to me a source ef infinite eratification that those principles are about to become effective, and I ant fully satisfied that when the delusion has passel away, the country will reap the benefit of the change. If I had any doubt on the subject, the convincing arguments of a Noble Loid in this How*, and a Right Hon. Gent. in the other, would dispel them at once. I know from a confidential communication of a friend of mine, that that Right Hon Gent. would not have hesitated accepting office under Mr. Canning, but that be thought there was a deep routed prejudice entertained against the measure in this country. [ entirely agree with the speech of a Noble Earl on the other side, that this measure could be attended with benefit only under a united Cabinet. And I am convinced that while it will tend to strengthen the Church of Ireland, it will also give permanence to the Church 01 England, and augment the power of the nation. The Earl of ELDON—My Lords, as I have been so frequently called upon, I shall now state to your Lot dships the ground of my opposition to this Bill for the last time' that ever I shall trespass on your Lordships' attention in reference to this subject. I cannot help saying that I am much affected by the situation iu which I now stand, and I hope that your Lordships will pardon me, .if oppressed by erroneous opiniens, I have ever acted according to a feeling of conscious duty during twenty years in opposing measures of this nature. I had opposed them in conjunction with many who claimed from me the most sincere respect as web as the most affectionate regard; but with whom, and deeply do I regret it, I am now com pelled to differ. I had opposed these measures against one of the greatest statesmen and the most talented sti nkers this country ever knew, I mean Mr. Pitt, who was mvipersonal iriend and benefactor.—(Cheers.)—My Lords, I have said it is the last time that you will be troubled by me on this subject. However much I may regret it, if this Bill pass into a law it will then be my duty to eudvavour to smooth that agitation which I am sure it will produCe. It will be my duty to teach my countrymen to obey that which is law, and for myself I can pass the short residue of my life in retirement. I have been called upon time .after time to consider this subject, and I would rather pe rish this moment, so help me God ! than give my consent to this Bill. Having said thus much, let me recur again to that great man whose name I mentioned—Mr. Pitt. I owed great obligations to him in early life; and I here declare before my countrymen, that I never solicited any thing from any man who held the office of Prime Minister. I have been called forth moat unworthily to discharge func tions most laboriously, and I have for many years held great situations in the State; but I never condescended to solicit any preferment in my life, excepting that I desired to retire from the office of Attorney-General, and to sit down in the situation of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the duties of which I thought I had knowledge and talents to execute, and to a higher station I never thought myself equal. I was required to till a higher station, and as well as I could I discharged its duties. Many thought of me very indulgently—souse very harshly—but I now say to my country, and in the face of my country I speak it—l devoted my whole life to my duties—l did all that the English people require from an Englishman. England expects every Man to do his bed, and no man can do more. With respect to the memory of Mr. Pitt, it is impossible for tne to speak of him in any adequate terms. Did Mr. Pitt, my Lords, against the sense of the people ever bring forward this great question ? or did he ever think of bringing it forward without securities that would permanently establish the moral and religious bonds which result from the pire system of Christianity, as established in this kingdom ? No, my Lords, he never did ; the securities be brought forward, and the correspondence published between him and that King, whose memory I shall revere as long' es I exist, prove the contrary. Look, my Lords, at the se curities he that proposed. He knew what was going on at the time, and the securities he then proposed were secu rities ag rinst the radical doctrines of that day.—( Hear, hear.)—Give me leave, my Lords, to tell your Lord ships, that I have had a great deal to do with what has ly..!en going on in this reuntry in that re spect, and if your Lordships suppose the existence of the Aristocracy of the country has nothing to do with what is now going on, your Lordships never laboured under a greater error. My Lords, having said thus much, let me state to yeti that eensistency in error ie, in my opi nion, one of the greatest faults that can be objected to in a statesman. But what is the effect of that ? That a man is bound to state on every occasion what he considers the line of duty he ought to adopt. I have, my Lords, on every occasion stated what was my duty. I never have been able to chtnge my opinion, and I do declare now, as I hope for mercy hereafter, that I firmly believe this mea sure to be more dangerous to the interests of my country than any that has ever yet been brought forward. Can it possibly be, my Lords, that I can represent to toy own mind that I am standing in a situation in which I should not feel a most anxious wish tq entertain a different feeling ? I am speaking in the presence of the Noble Duke who will do me the justice of saying, except with respect to this measure, he has not found me very inflexible to any thing he has proposed. I think, my Lords, I may say with respect to the Right Honourable Secretary io the other House, who is said to be the leader there, there never was a man tq whose feelings I was more attached; and )5 hose conduct I more revered. And, my Lords, I must say, that the difference of opinion between his present conduct and mine has cost me the most bitter pangs I ever felt. My Lords, let no look now a little at this Bill. A Noble Lord said opposite, I had thrown out not a pebble, but a p aving. stone. I never meant to throw one or the other, but what I said was this, that the country had been taken by surprise, and the Noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Govern ment cannot but suppose it has so. The Noble Duke at the close ef the last Sessions talked about securities. There has been a squabble about whether he talked about them this ses, sion or no. I must now allude to something that fell front a Rigl:t Rev. Prelate, whom I have known and respected ever since I wad a member of the University of Oxford. He said that the doctrine, that Roman Catholics were not to be tolerated, was an intolerable doctrine, and he went on to quote Bishop Hoadly, in favour of c, neession. Now, I have read a serni,cri by Ho idly, since I last laud the ho nour of seeing my Right Bev. Friend (if he will allow the to call him so, and I wish it most sificerely), alt!tough I said I never would read a writ d of boadly, if it were true that such were his doctrines. But I met with a ser mon, by Billop I.loadly, preached on the sth of November, and I take upon myself to say, that if he spoke in the pulpit sentiments by which he would aye put of it, he could not have voted on the sa - ole side is my Bight 4cv- Friend. A sermon more directly adverse to the Romps Catholics was perhaps never preached or published. The Noble Duke mistook entirely what I stated with reference to his letter to th;s Dr. Curtis. I said that it was an un fortunate step, comweted wit,l , , the subsequent recom mendation (tithe then Lor.d . l.ieutenantof keiazd, th9,t the . people should continue in a sta te of ' are told that after this Bill is passed agitation will be at an end—that all will he as smooth as Oil thrown upon' tjie waves; but after you have granted this claim further dP - Jet/ a l - ,ds will be made, which you will not he able to with 'Stand. say that the letter of the Noble Duke had this Unfortunate circuinetamre ba'^ooing to it, that it led the peopia to believe that no such Measure wo u ld h e b rou ght forward ; and can there be a better proof that they aid expect them than the fac t that t h ey associated ikdiffereni parts of the kingdom/ not to further such i t sc h eme , 14/t to Lid the King's Ministers in resisting it, However pain ful it nnif ie a we---and to no man can it be more painful I how coup) she pe , , , pi.d that this Bill I tmonbuest 4k b a rotight In when tlieY belioye(4 and had every r aaaota heiieve ; that the most influential Minister in the other House would n,ey - e?.. consent to such a change? It is certainly a most painful thing, lords, to state this, but when I a m a rguing and the Right Hon. Gentleman in the Mlle,' duty justice bd:twei-4 the N o bl e Duke to my eountey ti t is s a my q my coun as them, and be disregardful of the conse quences.at the circu ms t ances atten ding t_i consider that thi s measure was b. ws question,ell as When o ;,)z thrown out of this Hou se b y a ma j orit y of 45, aa observe t glwhen l i ve now that there is a majority of 105 at present for that very measure passing, bolt m y Lords, can I see this without desiring to know in the most satisfactory manner bow such art occurrence has happened. Whether the ma jority was more or less, is to me a matter of serious con sideration. My duty, therefore, is to consider my own conduct. We were told we should have most satis factory reasons for this measure, and also that a disunited Cabinet was a great abomination. But, my Lords, who should I know what was to make all those Members, whom I acted with in - union, dissent from one another ? All I have heard is, if you would know, you Mind be of the same opi nion. My answer is, I cannot be of the same opinion, because you will not tell nae.—(Hear, and laughter.)—Now, my Lords, I never was against going into a Committee; hilt is it right for Ministers to come here and tell us, if you knew what we know you would be for this measure ? Why, my Lords, I have known a very peat deal, but there is a great difference between going into a Committee to consifier things which it is not very prudent should be dise4ed to all, and taking into consideration the whole state of Ire land. But it is quite a new thing to me to be told, if tou know what I know you would vote for this measure, and t en to be in formed we can nut tell you what we do know. Hay ng stated these general opinions, which would be quite eno gh to guide me in deciding upon this, I find myself eompe ed by what is stated in Parliament to call for some fort ter information. A Committee might have told us who or any and what securities. are necessary; but here we re legislating in the dark, upon the assertion of Minist rs, that they have something behind, which, if once disclo I , ied would compel us all to approve that to which we now le cidedly object. I think I am entitled to argue this cities tion, not merely under the circumstances at this moment existing, but as if this were the first day of the session, tind as if your Lordships had just taken the oath of supremitcy of the Crown, and subscribed the declaration against tr . n substantiation. Let me ask whether it is likely to incr e j a the reverence of the people for Parliament, to bear this *— that to-day, at four o'clock, your Lordships swore at re table, that" no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Pot n tete, hath or ought to have, any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-einiuence, or authority within these realms," and yet immediately afterwards passed this Bill ? I ant not entering into the nice distinctions between idolatrous and idoletry, but I say, that after taking the oaths I have mentioned, a majority of 105 of ycur Lordships voted in favour of the measure before us (the Duke of Wellington cheered.) The Noble Duke may cry " hear, hear !" and I will give the , utmost attention to his cheers, but h e will no more the able to persuade the people that he is right in forcing forward this measure, than he would be able" to persuade me that be is now in Persia.—(llear, hear, from Lord Hol land.) There is no man for whom I feel mere kindness than for the Noble Baron. We differ, it is true, and I know his notions. I know, two, that sooner or later, this Bill will overturn the Aristocracy, and the Monarchy. Perhaps, he may like it the Letter for that, and I in aware that it is his doctrine that religious opinions ought to have nothing to do with political power. Whether I am right or wrong is another question, but what I have stated is my notion of the danger to the establishment , e to. which I have unfortunately given the name of the Consti tution. Not only men of great learning in my own pro fession, but moat able men in other professions agree with me. Here I must do justice to a Noble Peer who recently came among us. He entered in the beginning of March, and if, like March, he came in like a lion, I must do him the justice to believe that, like March, he will go out like a lamb. This leads me to consider the matter of the supre macy of the Church with reference to the oath, which de clares that " no foreign prince, prelate, state or potentate hath,7or ought to have (that is the point) any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority within these realms." 1 say, my Lords, that it is against time law, that it is against reason, that the House of Lords and Commons should in ef fect destroy the oath against supremacy. They who contend for this Bill say there is no harm in giving Catholics seats in Parliament. Nay, they have gone so far as to say that the Archbishops of Ireland may have seats here. In Ireland you have Archbishops and Bishops for every see . But, it is said, they are not exercising any jurisdiction whatever. Is that the fact ? My Lords, I say it is not so, and instance upon instance might be brought for. ward to prove that it is nut. I will select one. First, with respect to marriage. Marriage, I have beard said, is merely a civil contract. If it be so, then I desire to know whether those Bishops and Archbishops interfering with those contracts, are not interfering with civil and teal pond matters? I have always, my Lords, held it to be a contract, partly civil and partly religious. My Lords, at the time I was married—now 56 years since—l under stood that Gud had joined us together, and I never could bring myself to think there was not something religions in the ceremony. Now, see, my Lords, with respect -to marriage, what is the spiritual power of the Roman Ca tholic Clergy. The law of the land, looking at the con tract as a civil contract, says, that persons shall marry who are within a certain degree. What says the Roman Catholic Priest? He szys, "No such thing—you shall not marry if you are within that degree; for if you do marry according to the law of the land, and as that law permits you, I shall punish you for offending the law of the Church of Rome; and if you chouse to live as hus band and wife, which the law says you shall do, I say you shall not so live unless you get a dispensation from us, and unless that dispensation is confirmed by the Pope."— This is what the Priests say, my Lords, although I know they have not the power of doing all this, for the parties who so marry and live together will be only following the law of the land in which they live. But how does that law agree with the law of the Church of Rome ? What do we do in our Ecclesiastical Courts when the husband and wife disobey the laws that guide those Courts? If the laws desire the husband and wife to live together, and they are not obeyed, those Courts issue excommunications, which, being followed up by process from our Common Law Courts, that enforce respect and obedience to the decrees of the Ecclesiastical Court, produce the desired effect, and these proceedings - are according to the laws of the country. No, says the Roman Catholic Priest, you shall not do anything that the laws of this country require, if they do not agree with the laws of the Church of Rome; for if you do I will appeal to the Church of Rome, and that will set all things right. Our Courts say you shall be at liberty to do a certain thing, and why ? because your Sovereign the King of England is at the head of the laws which be has sworn to administer, and which , you must obey. The Church Establishments in Ireland ate invaded as much as the laws are set at defiance. There are Catholic Arclibiehops in every Protestant See in Ire land—there are Catholic Deans in every Protestant Deanery —there are Catholic Prebends in every Protestant Pre bendary. e —and there are Catholic Priests, called Catholic Parish Priests, in every parish in Ireland. . These claim the titles of the various offices belong to and occupied by the Protestant . Clergy. My Lords, it is for you to say whether this system shall continue—it is for you to say whether you will have persons in places where they can exercise their duties, or whether you will hays the Church Establishment thus invaded by , the Roman Catholic Clergy ? I do not know, my Lords, whether the Roman Catholic Prelate to whom the Noble Duke addressed a let ter was or was not the Archbishop; but there was a Ro man Catholic Archbishop, who disputed whether the Pro testant Archbishop was pr was not entitled to hold a See in Ireland. It is, therefore, evident my Lords, that in this matter there is, with the Roman Catholic Prelates, a dispute between the authority of the King of this country ....guy Sovereign—and that of the Pope. My T.ords, the predecessors of Philip and Mary made it highly penal for any one in this country to accept benefices from the Church of Rome. Under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edw. VI. Roman Catholics were 'uusi aliens iu this country; but these Acts were all repealed by the Act of philip and Mal y, and these. again by the first Acts of Elizabeth. They were repealed in the reign of Philip and nary, not as of right, my Lords—that is, not as by the exercise of the independent right of the Lords and Commons of Eng land--but in hmnble aequieseenee with the kindness of the Legate of the Pope; eo that, if I May so say, the each; limiting the jurisdiction of the Pope were repealed by the p e rmission of the Pope, th e Perliament being, as it were, on their knees to his representative. It has not been denied, and it cannot be denied, my Lords, in the coarse of this debate, that when a Roman Catholic Parish ptie,t is sent to his be ne k e ie Ireland, he has or can, as far ' as tlie . 'PaPal Potirer can &lifer it, ts right to be en•. sowed with all the pro4ti which; in pidut of law,' do' mite belong to the nehaistere of the thureh of tii;laiul..' I could multiply instances, if this were dalied ; but there can be no doubt of the number of cases in which lot sign jurisdiction is exercised in Ireland in mitten' of high im portance, through the means of the Roman Catholic priest hood. iefoev i , i at lv e, 4 !4r i d t :, c_f w n it t l e r ,: e . :T , e im et n2 to of ti r te n m gi a: n t ( e i r , :: n f a So to - Y ev e l r t e o i r g a P l tY: oere my undivided alles e iance; claiMs froni hiteseb-- : s7ai t s t., re e. t e mal( a .wi c 1 itiitsr discussedes v i t le e d t g o m ) e , o n bu t yr o LL f oo l l 1. Lordships t s i C. S t i t iki p )es r . e an; ease no in t kwnholiwchlwltihee i ti'l'er in tine age, irises t;i.ii.4t:3ll it EP pinch ping about, ' that no ChM of men, lint . eSp'ecl'allY thili . f wyes, Will 1 ,1 , ag remain what they Were called in thv course of year itY a Noble Lord, " great blockheads"—l say, my l' nrd 's in such a t ime l v ik , t hat ,bu Ids t iw not 4 1 1,, c know .d whether you will be much ep eoseei to velmit the au th or i ty o f a case f rom my L or d Coke's i y it seems to me• most iniportant ton,i i on L r Lordships, 4i.d hioie because it part of an argument of Lord Coke, to shOw that' the Sovereignty of the King and his Supremacy was a doc trine of the law in the oldest titnee of this country—in times, when pure Christianity, which (said his Lordship), Lord Somers observed, was the best inheritance of his Ma jesty's subjects, and which they had a right at all times to defend, but (added hii God forbid they should defend them by any but Constitutional means. The case went on to show that this Supremacy of the Crown was not a Supremacy that originated in the troublous times of Mary and Elizabeth, but in the Saxon times of the Monarchy, when the religions supremacy of the Crown was maintained with the: utmost firmness; and it was a singular case, that though the men of Kent nude so violent a resistence to the Conqueror, they yet insisted in his favour on the supremacy of the Crown. His Lordship then read the observation of Lord Coke, that no wise, true-hearted Englishman would refuse instruction, by which he might see that he had been deceived in adopting the Catholic re ligion, and by which he might escape from the error into which he Lad fallen from his blindfold ignorance. My Lords (continued the Noble Earl), I use exactly these reasons for the purpose of opposing this Bid. It is said that the Bill is introduced as a measure of necessity, and to meet a case of necessity. If there be any case of ne cessity, it is one that has existed for some time, and yet has never been discovered before. I have not yet said one word about the Association, except simply that if the suppression of the Associatieo has. been effected by the passing of this Bill, it contains nothing, not even the common preservatives, against its revival. We have been told that they dissolved themselves, but we have not been told whether the kings of that agitating So ciety do not still continue every day filling up its list of members with the names of men of rank. If this is, as I have no reason to doubt it is, the course now pursued by these people, I say that all pretences about self-dissOlution are mere nonsense. My Lords, on this subject, I may re fer you to a passage of Demosthenes, who, when he was asked the question—" Is Philip dead ? answered,— " No ; but if Philip should die, and if you go on with these modes, you will soon raise to yourselves another King !" When I speak of the proceedings of that Associ ation, I beg leave to say that I know nothing of them, ex cept as I understand those proceedings from the insulting, abominable, detestable, and seditious speeches that were thus uttered. Yet, notwithstanding all these, not one pro secution has been brought on account of them. The Noble and Learned Lord near me (Lord Plunkett) is .quite clear from the blame of having passed them over.—(Lord Plunkett here said lie had not been Attorney •General dur ing the last two years. )—And, thank God (answered the Earl of Eldon), I have not been Attorney-General during the lust 20 years. But, my Lords, when I had the honour of being called to fill that office, it was at a moment when it became necessary to put down some mischievous Soci eties that had sprung up in this country. Laws were in troduced into Parliament for the purpose of effecting that object ; but they would have done nothing towards it if they had not been considered as auxiliaries to the powers, and the constantly exercised powers, of the Attorney-Gene ral of England, which I bad there the misfortune to be; and God forbid, my Lords, that any man should again have to go _through what I then did. I remember one case, my Lords, that occurred at that time, and that furnishes a curious contrast to what has lately taken place in Ireland. There was a man of the name of John Ross, a very good and respectable man in other respects, but who belonged to the Convention, and who had received contributions to carry on the cause of " No King." He was prosecuted by Sir Archibald Macdonald, who was then Attorney- General:; and when I came into the office of Attorney- General, in consequence of Sir Archibald Macdonald being promoted to be Chief Baron of the Exchequer, that prose• eution was carried on ; and what did the Court of King's Bench say to him ? Why, my Lords, instead of the three months' impri.onment provided by this Bill against the members of the Association—a punishment, by the bye, that they may escape, for you can only inflict it if you get hold of them, and there are no provisions for getting hold of them—instead of that, my Lords, the Court of King's Bench said to Mr. Ross, that the words he had uttered at the Meetings where he had been were highly seditious, and they ordered him to be imprisoned for three years. —He would now draw their attention to the case of King O'Connell—(a laugh)—who would doubtless ere long be in possession of a princely revenue, if he had it not in his pocket already, which was by no means improba ble. When an Act was passed for the purpose of putting down the Catholic Association, King O'Connell called it an Algerine Act. Why was he not prosecuted for this? Then there was the orator who spoke at Penenden Heath, and to whom he would not now particularly allude ; but had not he traduced all the established institutions of the country, and yet been permitted to escape without a pro secution—( Hear)—although lie had exhausted almost every opinion of vituperation which his imagination could suggest. And yet they were told that they must consent to this measure, because the Government know of matters which, however, they do not choose to communicate. If their Lordships would read Barrow on Supremacy, they would find there more arguments than he could offer, though he were to speak until he were exhausted. The oath which every one of their :Lordships took, prior to taking his seat, was that he believed that no foreign prince, power, nor potentate had or ought to have power in these kingdoms. Now when Dr. Doyle published his pastoral letter, be seemed to think that un less there was a Catholic King and Legislature, the affairs of the kingdom could not proceed as they ought to do. He would suppose that they were now speaking in 1688, instead of 1829 ; and if their Lordships would look to the proceedings of the Convention in the time of Wil liam, both before and after that Convention was turned into a Parliament, there was not one of their acts which did not require a declaration against transubstantiation, and although they did not require it to he sworn that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were damnable and ido latrous, still they required it to be sworn that a cer tain portion of their creed was idolatrous.—(Hear.) My Lords, I entreat of you to consider the effect that the decision of this great question will have on the minds of the majority of the community ; the moral and reli gious community. I call it moral and religious, my Lords, because it undoubtedly is so acknowledged to be. Con.. eider, I say, my Lords, what the effect will be of intro ducing into this House five or six Catholic Peers ; by the introduction of even that number, my Lords, you sanction no limit to the practice. (Hear.) Then with respect to the other House of Parliament. I know how that House is filled. I may be told that 90 Roman Catholic Members will be the extent of the number returned by the forty-shilling free holders of Ireland. But I would ask, my Lords, what, in the name of God ! after this Bill passes into a law, is there to prevent as many Roman Catholics taking their places in that House as there are seats to accommodate ? (Hear.) —It has been said that the present question is not a religious one ; it is, my Lords, a religious as well as a political question, and that in a very greet degree. My Lords, what has Dr. Doyle said, that we, that is the Roman Catholics of Ireland, must have a Roman Catholic King; but what has Kenyon, and Thurlow, and Ellenborough, and many more said on this subject ?—and I would pray your Lordships to remember what they said, and what I have said and perhaps foolishly published—(a laugh)—and I would have your Lordships also at the same time to look into the history of the country at the periods when these religious contests between Ro man Catholics and Protestants have been going on ; look also to the period of the revolution in 1688, and there is not, I am sure, one of your Lordships who will contra dict me when I say that it is the duty of every Govern ment to support an Established Church ; that has been my opinion from the first, and I certainly do not hesitate to tell your Lordships that it shall remain so to the last.-411ear.)—I do not harbour any to wards the Roman Catholics, Itor to the professors of any other religien; but I will tell your Lordships that I had touch rather that you would establish a new religion altogether, than you should introduce that religion, which I am persuaded is calculated totally to overthrow the Established Church in Ireland as well as in England, I . , have no hesitation in saymts tuet.,—(Bear.)—Torn your Lordship' attention to the Act of Union ; it is impossible to look at that Act and say that any Papist can ever have a right to sit in Parliament ; look at the different articles in that Act, both with respect to the Church of Scotland and the Church of England ; the object of these articles was to preserve the fundamentals of the Protestant religion entire; that Act also distinctly 'states that no Papist, or suspected Papist 0.01 be ci.pable of electing, o of being electetl; and Snel l , I din well inenired, is the underelanding in Scirtland at the present time, My Lords; if in modern phraseolegy you are settling the question, I beg to remind your Lordships that those laws, when they were framed, were intended never to be disturbed ; by the adoption of these measures I am convinced that you will break in upon the present and most holy system of religion on the face. of the eertia alai were I to vote for it, I should be giving a vote Which will'lead to the utter ruin of the Church of England. The Noble Earl here read extracts from various writers, to show the necessity of protecting the Protestant establish ments by legislative enactments. His Lordship then eon tiuusd :—My Lords, I inn fully convinced no true Protes tae;'it. h e eiy e a ttlhi?st tmtat consider e tion 'Which its i mpor t anc e demands, can support time Bill, God forbid I that this Bill should endanger the best interests of the Protestant religion. I hope, my Lords, I sincerely trust, my anticipations may not be realised, but those we have deal with are much too wary to chew themselves in their true Poioi,i's is not immediate danger that I anticipate, it is dagger of tettitere tray, but. t have no more doubt, my Lord, that dangSr will at some day or other ensue—l have no more doubt but that my. worst fears will be realised, than I-ant at this ta ir ment 'that I arn'standingln dos' House. You hear, *AO Lords, the words of an aged man, wlmmust soon be to his great account ; and with, that imitessiort age, my mind I again most decidedly, and eenscientionelfkie it : I that I have no doubt of the b a d e ff ec t s thit th e se tneas ter : will produce. I cannot give my consent to this meson' I consider it necessary that I should, withhold, it, joy the safety of the Crown, the Aristocracy, 'and the °Pet it ': tion of this country.—(Hear, heer.)—And s ooner, 0 1 Lords—(said the Noble Earl with great emphaeiei striking the table with great force)—soo ne r, than I Wel give my vote to this measure I h a d ra th er hear dra t , should not be in existence toanorrow morning . neve r will be a traitor to my King, to my Country, and its L; O6. stitution.—(The Noble Lord sat down amidst . ionside r able cheering.) The Earl of HARROWBY and the LORD CHANCELLOA rose together,—the latter gave way, and The Eat 1 of HARFLOWBY proceeded :—I will nett my Lords, enter into all the arguments touched lira 14 , the Noble and Learned Lord who ha s j us t sa t down ; there is one observation that fell from that Noble and Learned Lord which in my opinion was an unjustifiable attack on one of the greatest Statesmen that ever a dorned this country, I mean the late Mr. Pitt ; that great moo i had never, as the Noble Lord seemed to insinuate, change' his opinion on this great and momentous subject. - Heel:me' nued up to the time of his death, the firm,- the zealous' and enlightened supporter of the' measure. The Nob and Learned Lord had said that Mr. Pitt had never eor teumlated bringing forward a similar measure to the Orr . sent without sufficient securities for the Protestant But if the Noble Lord would look back and consider th e nature of the securities proposed by that great Statesman he would find that there was not a s i ng le w o r d that weal; in any manner alter the principle of the Bill. Note, Lords, there have been a great many petitions preset:lto against this measure, there have been a great many objectied raised against this Bill, and great exertions bad been mad e throughout the country, to persuade the people thralls' effect of this measure would be to change the Protestan t religion to the Papists. Had the measure been properly es' plained to the people of England, and been explaine d throughout the kingdpm, and understood, Ihope, 80011 ° 1 ' e a ' the passing of this Act it will be, instead of raiaiag foolish alarms on false grounds, and thereby causing petitions to be presented against concessions, I have no doubt the grea t mass of petitions would be of a contrary nature. My Lordh I must say that all the arguments I have heard io opposition to the measure are, in my opinion, most 1 think nothing could be more unjust than to say Rowe Catholics were not entitled to political power. The Act 01 Elizabeth never intended to keep those professing the Cutler lie religion out of Parliament, it was only intended as a tea' porary measure, but it was idle to suppose that they never were to have a seat in this House. There is nothing in th e arguments of Noble Lord s th a t pr o d uc es any fear in my toil ed for the safety of the Protestants.—( The Noble Earl hers, read a great many extract s from the writings and speeches 0 ' I the late Lord Clarendon, the purport of which went t° chew that there bad been great intolerance in the pr°' fessors of the Church of England, as well as in th e Catholic Church, and combatting the opinions of & Pe who thought that danger, would ensue by giving the° political pow e r. )—My Lords, if any other arguments wer e wanting, I will refer you to the many Noble advocate of the measure between the years 1563 and 1673, o ' 6 ' who for their piety and worth were never excelled. 9efr ing that time the cause was ably support e d, a nd many ~ tholies were employed by the Government with great t g vantage to the State. The Noble Lord gives it es ill opinion that the King cannot give his consent to this 13 . without an infringement of the Coronation Oath, and t h at the passing of this measure would endanger 0 0 , 1 1 of his Majesty to the Throne of these hear.)—l trust no such thing, and am decidedly o agt"Pd such opinion. Another argument that had been r rie use of was the great danger that would exist from the power possessed by the Roman Catholic priests. Thee power had been much misrepresented. It was said that the people who were Catholics were taught that .they were net bound to pay allegiance to a Protestant Sovereign,' This opinion had been long ago exploded, even the P O P ° and different Councils had long since expressed differes e opinions. It was idle to suppose that the. oath which the Roman Catholics had taken respecting not. keeping faith with heretics, they considered in a lasts ' , sense to be binding. Any one acquainted with the Ilia' tory of Ireland must know that there was not th 6 least danger in that oath. My Lords, .have not had sufficient experience mad history to know that ' the Roman Catholic religion was not changed, the Pre fe " eon of it had ceased to be practised; of that intolerance, of which so much was said for centuries,therewas no instal of their unlawfully seeking to obtain- they had sought for such an opPOrtunity the-Revolutio n of 1688 would have been a very proper time for, such pur pose.that the tim Catholicaßoftourautheßogi .Catholics Weg s, So driven from the Th rone o f t h i s . kingdom by a Pro t e stant King. h That en i t was was the have shown their power, b u t even th en the Pope was tlui t ' e ' Roman but it would not be said his power was less then than it w 0 at the present time, therefore what danger ? Again* 1 1 . : later period, when George 11. was excommunicated. b y Pope Boniface, what was the effect of that ? The Pfq remained tranquil ; there was not the least attempt rebellion, not even when a King of England 14 ' 1 ; clap excommunicated. One hundred Years had since ealr -- ; ita I yet there had been no instance of revolt ag v o l t th authority of the Crown. Is net this sufficient, my Lot to to prove there is no d anger t o b e . an ti c ip a t e d ; that t h e is no fear of the attachment o f th e R oman Catbolies. i t t L e Constitution of the country, wh en suc h , instances as mentioned, have had no effect in sh a king their loYn, l e When Rome was taken, the Pope excommunicated persons who achieved that enterprise and opposed the ' l ' ). vet ntnent who ordered it. My Lords, the question WI of command and obedience. . A. may comman d, but af' B. obey? We may "command spirits from the vasty ( 1 ? e l l ' but will they come ?" That, I conceive, applies Pertf:d larly to the state of Ireland hitherto. We have 111 "% t laws, which it was the duty of the Executive Gove rn une b - a f rom measures have carried into effect, but that could only.-be d o measures of coercion, and were not complied with fro"' willing obedience. Now, the main question, after, all, fer your Lordships' consideration is, is there any thing '1 this Bill which endangers the safety of the Established • Church ? It is said that the Catholics will not be contests but that they will push their wishes to the utmost extremity' and to the subversion of the Protestant religiOn• Thie to the argument employed by the oppo ne nts ef the Dill; o . t if much danger really exists, I ask your Lordship; how t, is to be met, but by oaths ? The Noble and Le arnt" Lord (Eldon) has said that Mr. Pitt would never have consented to a measure of this nature unaccompanied b securities. We can have uo security but.hy oaths. 131) it is contended ahat the Catholics are not to be believed o a ° their oaths. I ask your Lordships on what ground, th is assertion is made? I, for my part, can find -flo e ' What they are seeking for now is that which. gives semi thing to them, and takes nothing from any man, It .w ill only Serve to place wen on an equality of political right''' upon whom we have looked down with loath. This measure will give security to the Protestant . Church in kith countries ; it will strengthen Governinent iu Ireland, give vigour to the laws, form a guarantee for the sa fet y property, and impart confidence to the resident aristomort My Lords, an ulterior result has been auticipale4 by u Noble Lord opposite as an argument why this Bill o° o ' not pass. He thinks that a rebellioti in Irelan d must follow as a necessary coneequeiace. I cannot jute' gine bow he means to prove the inference he Ils e drawn, for I cannot think what could tempt the peeP le ' of that country to risk their lives, liberties, and their newly recovered rights, by attempting so hopeless and so piofitless an experiment. Yet this is the d an ger which some contemplate to the Established Church. I ' 4 that which binds a people in gratitude and affection to the Government of a country is the best bond for their alle giance, the best security Protestants can demand, I r Ca b i dailies can give. If ever I opposed the measure, 06 .1 , scarcely indulge in such gloomy anticipations as those w hit : have been uttered in your Lordships' House, and I wart t , °"'l fideut that if this measure should Ll\s3 hit° it liW; 'll'C*l who have done to will find thei - ' appribeniriensgroundie ee ' BO' if it should be' i'ejecfed,. and those calamities sh e Id follow on' its rejection' whieh have been predicted, wha t ivill be the responsibility that must attach to the onP nents of the measure. 1 might go on to illustrate th e by a reference to other countries, but that I 15e i I have trespassed too largely on your Lord,bir attention. However, before I sit down, there are one o r two topics to which I must revert. A 1 ` 411.1e , i Lord has objected to the manner in which thia Riii been brought tbeward, and also to the ;:itne of intro; dtietion. it is contended that both are objectionable. is alleged that his Majesty's Ministers could not,, CO' eistently with their duty, as responsible advisers of til e King, have introduced a Bill, the effect of which !q uid fip to s;di‘ert that Constitution which owed its origin t° the revolution of 1688. In terms of congratulatie er Nolte Lends have spoken of that revolution, and they claim these who achieved it us their ancestors and relative" whilst they thought proper to apply the term of apostateet 9 the supporters of this Bill. But I would beg them t o boo' J 7, T mind that, if the Tories of that period kaji,. not s,postafteSt Low would that • revointioo- balm , beeti: tidy,,afit ;t4 01.t DO, my Lords, when we are told a divided .Cabinet i's' materially hastened thin great measure, and when this •