The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

reared to him (Earl Grey) to be important. His' Lordship concluded by expressing a hope that the Noble Ear! mould not object .to the production of the papers alluded to. The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought the best course for the Noble Earl to adopt would be,, to give notice of a motion for thu production on some future day. He was - anxious to guard against the inference that Great Britain might be induc ed,'in either of the'two,caseS he had mentioned, to Make'comtiloncanse.vvith either of the con tending parties.' 'lt r . iias impossible to give such instructions as they had to the Commander . - in Chief on the station, - without contemplating the possibility of casual acts of 'hoStility ; 'but they - nre re to be confined to the 'particuleir circumstance alone. The Noble leird had expressed a tionbt ~how far any other Government could be justified adopting hostilities for the protection of the King. He was hot prepared to discuss that question now ; buthe . Coulfl state, that there was every reason to -believe that.the course pursued bY his MajeStv's Government had given great satisfaction at - Naples, and that there was not a rational man concerned in the Revolution, W6O did not feel the instructions sent out a tower of strength in their.-iands. - Nothing could . be more disgraceful or 'injtirions to the_ Revolution, than 'the commission orany violence upon the king or I • ROyal Family of NapleS: He repeated his opi-i that the Secret . Article had Been signed at Naples, and had no reference' to any thing done at the Congress of Vienna.. Loed 'HoLLA.Nie Observed, that the Noble Earl had allowed. that the Secret Article came to the • knowledge of his Majesty's Govern :tent, and be i wisheel'to know'hoW and When ? This fact -Was! of great importance, that they might have an 6pportunity•of comparing the two transactions, and deterraming whether Austria had knowingly concealed the article from this Government, while the Congress of Vienna was The Earl of LivEnroor, denied that the article had' arty reference to the Constitution of Sicily. Lord HOLLAND . referred to the Proclamation the King of 'Naples in proof that it had. Earl G ans thoUght: the Noble Earl Was boUnd • to shy, whether he came by' his' knowh:dge of - the Article through the Government of Austria ) er through secret means of his OWn: He con- Curled With. bin . ' in deprecating all violence to wardS the 'King of Naples, and especially as it would have the effect of tainting one of the purest causes that ever was taken up by a nation. There could 60AV be no doubt but that the instructions went only to warrant casual hostility, and not actual %Var.. was therefore much gratified by. , the explanation of the Noble Earl. • .The Earl of Bt .- Estee - 0s wished to know, if the, instructions extended to the protection of the Royal Family against.the Austrians? The:Earl of Liversoot..said, they extended to their - protection against violence from any, quarter ; and to shew the spirit in which it was acted on, the Duke of Calabria had already em barked a part , of his fatally on board a Neapoli tan ship, which was to be protected by a British, frigate. Lord tr.ttsnonouGHgavenotice,that he would on Tuesday move for an Address to. his Majesty praying fliat he would offer his mediation be tween Austria and Naples. Adjourned till Mon-, day. TIOLTE OF COMMONS. • - - - Mr. T. WILSON moved for returr.i of duties upon Hard and Soft Soap within a given period.—Ordered. The-Report of the Irish Public Notaries' . Bill was brought up anti agreed to. Toe third reading r, as ordered for Monday. 'Mr. P..3MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a-131.1.1 for re gulating the office of Co - ron.-r in Ireland. Upon the motion of Mr. R IC kt; the Reports of the Irish TrCa son,s Eill, the lrish Bankrupts' Effects. Bill, and the- Witch cr•et Act Repeal Bill, were receirt..d, and the third reading IL:ma for Menlar. -Mr. IXSIIINGTON - present:Nl certain r6torns connected with the Public Expenditure, which were Grderetl to be printed. The house went into a Committee upon the Beerbuties Bill, .and the report was ordered to tie received on. Monday: Sit F. OMMANNEY presented n petition from certain Merchants and Ship Owners of, Plymouth Pock, praying that .likeration ' nu.y be made in the duties upon Thither-imported froti. North Ameriea.—Ordered to be printed. • , PETITIONS AGit NST TnE ROMAN CATHOLIC BILL. Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition , from the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Ely, praying that the. House would not pass into a laxv the measure now before it, fdr oTninthpa.tiT.lg the Roman Catholics. The petition was ordered to he. printAi.. Mr. HART DAVIS presented Petitions from the, popu lojs parishes' St. Thomas, and Temple, in the city of Bristol against the Roman Catholics Bill. Ordered to be printed. Mr. TULSlCpres , entecl a Petition from the Mayor, Alder man, Cbrperation; and: PtllerS; of the town of Sudbury, which he been signed• by 509 towns in the, course of yesterday, against the Roman Catholics Pia Tile Petition was ordered to he printed. • • Mr. .BASTARD presentSa a 'Petition 'from the - Gentry, Clergy, anal Yeomen of the. County - of --Devon, . against the Roman Catholics Bill. , _ T. ACLAND bore tistimeny to the respectability of the , signtures of - the Petition, and expressed his se row that he could not participate in the pleasure which his Hon. Colleague and Frieno must have, in suppe.rting' the opinions of 49 large a portion of his Constitnetrts:: • He did not wish to enter into . any discussion. now, : (*to go at large into the reasons which induced him t9 .. dUfer from the Petitioners, inasmuch as it was his in tention to address the House when tile question was properly lief:3re Sir-T. LETHBRIDGE said, that the sentiments contained in the Petition were •entertlined by a great majority of then-. habitants of Devonshire -sentiments founded upon considera tions of the highest inviortande for the safetY of the Stite— They f:it, and he. went along .with them in that feeling, that the Constitution of the country wonid be overturned whenever the Re:ran Catholics were - admitted to power. Si: I. COFFIN obseried, that the lion. Baronet had been spew-zing exclu4,ivelY of the feeling of the people of Devonshire, whereasthe preSpt ineasurc.p:incipally affected the _people of Ireland. Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition- from the Clergy of the Deanery of .Whiteombe, in the county of Gloucester,-pray ing that the Heuse .would not sanction the measurcis . now be .fore'it, for afrorclifig rilie:f to /lonian Caiholics.- 7 -,Ordered to be printed. . . - 4.; • • • sir C. BIIRREJA.rose for the purpose of correcting . an er- , roe which had gone forth- in the public Press, respecting the statemeirtimatle.bi an Hon. Meinber (Mr. Hume) last fright, as to the -ReCciver4lenerals who had been; defaulters. The New Times tiaclstated that.t4e .Receiyer-Generalfe: Sussex had been • a -defaulter to a congiderable amount, whereas the Hon: Mem - - ber named Salop. This` was evidently an error of the press, laid he only mentioned 4. for the purpOse of having it corrected. The Gentleman who filled the office of Receiver-General-for Susiiex was a most 'respectable Character, and lie begged to ob serve, had never performed the duties. of his of by deputy. Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON presented a Petition against the "Glas u irovi Police Bill. His Lordship next mot , ed, for a return of Parliimentary Grants as - cOmpe . insation g . iven in. consequence of • the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into Courts of Justice in Scotland.—Ordered. PBEL said he was recipested to.present a Petition from Mr. Hayes, a Catholic - Priest in Ireland. lie had no acquaint ance with the Petitioner. Of course- he could not answer for the accuracy ofthe statements ; but if substantiated, they were important ; and the Petitioner Offered to substantiate _them. The Petitioner was aware of the entire differences of his opi nions (Mr. Peel's) from those stated in the Petition. Though , they came to the same conclusion it was by different means, 'and perhaps the Petition would therefore have been better in- Meted to another. lie thought the best way was to have the Petition read. ..- ~...-....... .- .. Mr. W. WY NN ObjeCtettto the reading.of such a long Pe tition, as occupying . too sh2hela time. The usual .way was for the Member presenting4egthtion to state the lubstante of it: . Mr. PEEL said thathihe Petition, though closely writtenn was in 'a large hanal; and tniglatiissin be rl-ash-solllettr ilitar !- . - - e He had .no oiejection to state the ' substance. - The Petitioner undertook to is form the House of the sentiments of the See of Rome, .and the Roman C-Atholics of 'lreland; respectieg - the Bill; before the House. He stated that the objectidhs against him by the I'ope had ' been removed by some signal services Which he had rendered. ,It stated that the Bills would not give general satisfaction, and that the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland everesofsthe same opinion- . , ._. ,_ - Mr. WYNN explained. There must be a stop , soinewheree The House had been e Sothinned . bythe, reading of a Petition from Mr. Cob'bett, that it was counted out. Mr. PEEL explained that he "had the Petition submitted to his consideration at a late liotir last night.' Mr,, C. CALVERT: said that a -similar Petition had been read on a former night. ' , - .. .. • Mr. CAREW said that the -petitioner was One who had al ways thrOwnevery obstacle, in the. way of conciliation and union between the Catholics and Protestants. At meetings in Wex fordshire his (Mr. Carew's) friends.had threatened to leave the Chair if Mi. Haves persisted in moving his resolutions: 'He .(Mr. Hayes) had-always been seditiouiin his opinions --(Cheers) and-his tavourite object was to efe':ta'separation between Eng land and Ireland.,--(Hearn—He always did every thing he coul'd id-agitate the anindshf the people, and 'to enforce sentiments of a seditioua character. - Re said in his petition that•he knew the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland t but he (Mr. Carew) held alettet in his hand from a friend of his who knew their minds niuchhetter s andgave quite acontrary opinion.: --(Cheers.) In the letter, 'his friend requested'him to assure Mr. Plithkett that it Was only a set of demagogues and revolutionists who were opposed to the Bills ,- that the sooner they were passed the-bet ter ; for when passed into law, the opponents , of the Measure, now few and distracted, would subside into utter insighificance— .(Cheers)—and that the sentiments of the people were entirely opposed to the agitators who wished to resist the Bills now be fore the House---(Cheers.) : • . The Petition was read shortly, and ordered to-be printed: ' CATHOLIC PEEI:IS IN ENGLAND. ' Lord NUGEN.T rose to preSent a Petition from four Eng. I lish Peers of the Roman Catholic persuasion, the only Peers of that persuesion in - England, 'praying that the bills before the House, which had been bronght in by his Right Hon. Friend I (Mr. Plunkett), might pass into ' law.—(l - lear, hear I)—The Pelition',Was indeed most illustrimisly signed. The first was the name of 'a Peer who was, by.rank and by the precedence of several centuries, at the very head of the Peers of Ehgland ; the next held the oldest title of Efirl in England ; the other two • if not at the heads 'stood eminently high in their rank ; and they. Were the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of,Shrewsbury-', birds Petre' and Arundel. They stated ' that - their ancestors _had borne persecution,-that they themselves bore exclusion; but imputations such as were cast upon them they would be un worthy of their ancestors, and of their rank,' if they could bear. tHe called on the Houseto go on - steadily with the great work which they had in hand, and not to pay more attention than w; a dile to the Petition of - the three reverend gentlemen who had thought it , necessary to plat themselves in motion against the present Bill. Those three Gentlemen had stated that the doc . trines which they maintained were in unison with those main tained by 'the rest of the Catholic prelates of the country. liebeg .ged leave to tell Dr. Milner that, in making such a statement, he was stating not only shat :vas untrue, but also what he knew to be untroe ;—(Hear s hear, hear !)—the former PetitiOn of tharatiso lies having .been .signed by every apestolic - vicar in the country except-himself.—(Hear, hear, 'hear I)—The Noble Lords who had signed the present Petition had acted as became their cha racter, their station, and the spirit of their ancestors; by, placing themselves in that breach which Dr. Milner had attempted to. make, and bit stating • that they Were ready tcr take" the altered . oath of supremacy, - either in the terms proposed by the Rioht honourable and Learned Genthiman - who had brought -in the Bill, or inany other terms which should .ieem proper to the wisdom of Parliament. The Noble Lord then moved that - the Petition be brought op. ' • ... . . - The Petition was then brought :op.—On the q-aestion that it be laid on the table,: e . ~ Sir J. MACINTOSH rose to state the reasons why no more than foirr names were subscribed to the present Petition. There were only six Catholic Peers at preient resident in England; and of these only four were within reach of a notice. fie un derstood, however, that no doubt could be entertained of the Other two 'Peers concurring in the sentiments contained in the Petition. - If any other persons,. either ecclesiastical or lay, had subscribed their names to they'would, in•his opinion, have irsplayzol - a degree 'of forwardness which would have ill be come them, inasmuch: as the ecclesiastic was precluded by his religion. from accepting any of the offices mentioned in the Bill, and the lay person - could not tell *hither he should ever attain any one of them which • would render it necessary for him - to take the oath revired. The: Catholic . Peers were, however, placed. in such a situation as compelledthem to declare whether toey would er would not take the proposed oath ; and they had consequently come forward boldly and manfully to.declare that they had no objections to urge against the form of it. He had deemed it requisite to give this short explanation, because the petitioners, illustrious as they were from their birth and station, would be the last person's in the world to draw any distinction between themselves and the lay. part of their community. He thought that they weremuch better Representatives of the Ca tholic body in England than a Franciscaa friar, who, having been suspended by his own bishop for a disloyal and seditious Serinoil—(Hear I)—was hailed as an allyby zealous Protestants - ':n the attack which. they were making upon a community by which he woe considered as a disgrace.—(Hear !) . : , , . Mr. PEE , Lsaid that he had not hailed Mr. Hayes as an ally. He had presented the petition of that individual because it was couched in respectful language; 'out:inking so he had endea voured. to gunrd himself against the supposition that Mr. Hayes - was either a friend or connexion of his.---(Hear !) Sir JAMES. MACINTOSH asserted that he did not intend to crake any such imputation against the Right Hon. Gentle. man who had just sat down. - Sir G. HILL observed, that if the press of Ireland was 'to be considered as the organ of the Roman Catholics in that part of the_ empire, the Roman Catholics of Ireland certainlytitter tained similar opinions to those of Mr. Hayes regarding this Bill. The press of Belfast, of Galway, of Cork, and (lA' Dtib lin,—nay more, the Catholic press of London, maintained that this Bill was not intended to benefit and emancipate, but to degrade and insult the Catholics.. If he conceived, that it would produce peace, conciliation, and harmony, among the different classes of his Majesty's . subjects, and that it would not injure cur Constitution either in Church or State, he'tvould give it-his support ; but, as he could not entertain such an opinion, he must be forgiven if he ventured to meet it with the most 'determined opposition. • Mr. C. HUTCHINSON hailed it as `an auspicious omen that the Honourable Baronet, who had so long opposed the Ca tholic Claims, could now find no other objection to them than the petition of one or two, Catholic Clergymen. He had not re ceived a single letter from Cork, or from any other part of Ire land, in reprobation of the Bill.—(Hear!) Lord NUGENT-asited whether that document deserved the name of a i , danty docontent, which was signed by the descend ants of the heroes of Agincourt, and of those-hardy Barons who had gained for us at Runrymead the great -charter of our liber ties.—(Cheers.) Sir G. - MILL explained. - • Mr. R. MART - IN asserted that - the Catholic.; of Galway were perfectly satisfied with the present 8i11.., - Mr. WHITE' nonntained, that the feelings of the Catholics, instead of being hostile to the Bill, were most warmly engaged in its favour.—(llear.)- • Mr. DALY corroborated the statements of his Hon. Col league. as to the manner in which this Bili was contemplated by the Catholics of Galway. The Hon. Baronet who had cal led the present petition . a scanty petition, because it was not signed by more than four individuals, had placed great reliance '• I . upon a - petition that, • even upon his own principles, was still scantier—he meant the petition which was signed by one per son only, and that person the Rev. Mr. Hayes.-(llear !) - -. Mr. MAIIRICL FITZGERALD said- that if there were. only three Clergymen in England and one in Ireland opposed to - theoßill, it was clear that the opiniortiof the Prelates was greatly in its favoun—(Cheers.) The . petition was then laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. ROMAN CATROLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BIL Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in rising to move that the Order of the Day for the House going into a Cominittee on the Roman Catholic Disability RetnoVal Bill should . be thOn read, an order. ou which depended *so many of the dearest and most important interests' of• the country, felt that he 'should, under any circumstances, have to implore the indulgence of the House. How much more necessary did that indu!gence become to him, when all the difficulties with which he should have to struggle, were increased by the consi deration that' the duty he had then to perform, had devolved upon him at a time when he 'was totally unprepared to perform it! That duty :had fallen upon him in consequence of the pres sure of heavy domestic calamity upon his Right Hon and tearkip&-F rienct - Mrtio - had introduced this Bill with sci,raTch eloquence to the notiue of the Hoose, one, had disappeared all those great characters whose4alents,. eloquence, and integrity; ,had, Oe,LL lustre upon this 'cause -, which they had • so abl-yHdefended.-. 1 -oue by one had been extinguished all those-shining lights,, who had.fbrwerly illustrated; by their reasoning, whatever obscurities had seemed to hover around this important question ; and now, as if to aggra vate the misfortune which had all along ptessed hard upon the Catholics, his Right Honourable and Learned Friend was prevented from assist ing in the debate en the present occasion ; when in all probability the triumph would be con summated, which his eloquence had been so in strumental in achieving. 'He (sir John New pert) therefore rose to discharge that duty which his Rig,ht Honourable Friend was prevented from discharging by seiere calamity. •He was well aware of his own_ inability to fill up the outline which his Right' Hon. Friend had sketched with a pencil which he seemed to have snatched from the dying hand of the great man who before him _had advocated this gr:at question; but he trusted. that if his. powers were feeble, the goodness of the cause would more than compensate .for his deficiency. Called dpoir at a late period of his life to defend the-principles - which he had avowed at its outset, he knew not how to refuse the call; and" he therefore implored the House to extend to him that indulgence which habit(' never known , to be refused to any' one who requested . The I House had already declared itselfin favour of the I principle of the Bill.; and all that now remained for it to do was to judge of its details. To en able them to express that. judgment,. tie should 'conclude by moving .that the order .or the day for the House going into a Committee on the-Roman Catholic disability 'removal Bill'be now read. The order of the day was then read.—The SPEAKER tiler) put the question, that this Bill be reconamitted,which was carried in the affirmative. —On his putting the question- that it be -now re committed, Mr. Cnomett rose and said, that . when lie gate notice that on the House's preparing. to.go into a ' Committee_upon this Bill he should move that it be an instruction to the said Committee to pro vide for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland, he was not unaware that an opinion - very generally prevailed that. such an in struction would, under all the circumstances of the case, - be ill-timed and impolitic. Since that tiarie he had.satisfiedhirnself that the more the plan was considered which he- had in view, the more satisfactory would- it appear, not only to the Protestant, but alSo to the Catholic com munity. But as many Gentlemen were of opi uion that the consideration of that plan at pre sent would embarrass that of the great question then before the House, he thought it- would be better, both for the Bill itself, and also for his own measure, to allow the Bill to go to the Committee in the shape which it had received from its original framers, and to submit Vs proposition as a -fresh clause to it on the bringing up .of the Report. In giving notice that he would then press it .upon the consideration of the Honse,.be thought that nobody who knew that he hadalways considered this measure as the means of produCing a second union between England and Ireland, and as the surest preventive of those distractions which had so long desolated Ireland, and of events like those which were now agitating certain parts of Europe—would suppose that he was doing it to impede the progress' of the. Bill. lie could,as sure the House, he had no such intentien.; on the contrary, his object was to unite the interests of the Catholic Clergyman with ,those of , the Ca tholic Layman, which might seem to be disunit ed, by the House legislating for the advantage of the latter, whilst it neglected the claim,s of the former. That this was his objeet.was well known to many.of his private friends, and also that it was an object which for some years past he had had in,view. Seven:years ago it was his intention to have made the' same proposition, had Mr. Grat',an's Bill succeeded ; .but that Bill . was un fortunately lost in the, .Committee, and he had therefore not bad an oppottunity of bringing it forward. The. lion. Gentleman then asked leave to withdraw his notice of motion.—Notice with drawn accordingly. The. House then went into a committee, Mr. R. Smith being in the Chair. The CHAIRMAN then read the preamble, and the first clause.of The Bill. On his putting the question, that this clause do stand part of the Bill,. Sir W.'Scorr said, that he had witnessed the introduction of many Bills like the present dur ing the last - seventeen years, all. of which had been rejected by the House. lie admitted that. the present Bill had been introduced with the advantage of talents and experience, on its side, which were equal to those of any former advo cates of measures like the present. There were, however, obstacles to the measure, which no in genuity could -overcome. lie had many objec tions to the Bill ; he was entitled 'by the pre amble to refer to the chief authority appealed to, as a constitutional precedent-for the principle of it. The Bill proposed to relieve Roman Ca tholics from certain results which would -ensue ' on taking the-oath of• supremacy, as at present . required, and the clause which went to expound that oath referred to a former oath of supremacy established in the - reign of Queen Elizabeth, and to the explanation given of the intention and properties of that oath in the admonition of Queen Elizabeth , . It was well known that at the accession•of Queen Elizabeth _an oath was prepared which was recited' in the present Bill, which contained two distinct propositions—first, that the- Queen's Majesty possessed supremacy in these realms, and in all the civil and eccle siastical establishments. The second propo ., was of a .relative character, and went to make the taker •of the oath declare, that he,did not admit any foreign Prince or Pre late, State or Potentate, to have jurisdiction, 'power, pre-eminence or authority in these realms. At the Revolution this subject was revised, and instead of that condition of the first .proposition which attributed spiritual authority in matters of conscience entirely to the head of the Protestant Government, the State contented itself with the denunciation of certain infamous doctrines which were imputed to the Catholic communion, . taking care that in the terms of the oath there should be a positive denial of the juris diction and. authority of,the Conclave or Pontiff of Rome in these - realms. • It was matter of ge 'semi notoriety that before the, Reformation Che authority of the State was vested in the secular head of the Gevernment, subject to the checks of the Spiritual Power and that of the Parlia ment. The authority of the Spiritual Courts had been in operation for a 'considerable period, and until, frOisfits - extreme iiteonvenielace, its -aboli tion became .necessary, the jurisdiction of the Roman, Pontiff was in full force in these realms. The Right Houourable and Learned Gentleman then quoted a considerable 'ex tract from Justin, ea the * nature and influ ence of this authority on the internal policy of the European .States. He admitted that: there Was something of the character of pas-- sion, which had originally catered into - the principle by which the oath of supremacy had been. framed. But passion itself had frequently been acted on in our Legislature, and its propriety had been-often confirmed by the opinions of Oa; most deliberate times: - The .subject of-this oath had.been iconsidered particularly at the thee of the Revolution, The oath was then revised, and that form was given to - it-in which it at present stood. a Thafpath admitted , that the diStribution of the authority of the Government which gave up a part to a foreign Power, was not consistent with the safety and interesti of the State.: It, therefoSe, deified that the. Pope should exercise any sort . of jurisdiction . or authority 'in theSe realms ; not-only so, but the pre s eminence or au thority of the Pope were. denied - in many various Acts of Parlianseut. In the articles of the Pro testant 'Church, and by various Canons, it was established, ,that ..the Pope should exercise no sort of authority over ~; t he. subjects of these realms . ; and from: various sexpressions which were used in these ''sOreral' instritments a cer tainlysnot of a very .respectfuLkind, tuar such as he would. be willing to repeat, the. utmost- utmost- anxiety was evinced for confirming the exclusion of the Pope's authority. But taking it es be dial for a' matter, established beyond the possibility of deubt,,that the frame of the CenStitutiOri as it now stands, admitted no existence for the Pope's au thority, he could not conceive hoW any part of that authority could , be admitted sitaa spiritual affairs which could not 'be made to rentlatuttilb , , to. temporal ones. 'rho civil atid'religiousdiities and allegiance of subjects, were. so blended, that they cquld scarcely give up the authority in outs case without committing the security of the other. Give him a mart's. conscience; and he would find means thereby' 'to con.: trol . his actions. . After...the Oath. of Snores macy a which, from its terms, was thesmest sweeping and preeise„ camp 'the admoaia tion of Elizabeth, which had _ been pressed into the service of the present measure. The ad- Monition contained two Prepositiens—first, that the Queeu possessed and claimed no other autho rity than had been enjoyed by her predecessors (het rather and her brother). The questiOn that occurred was, what had been the authority claim ed and possessed .by her father and brother ? No. one could doubt that at least the Government. of Henry VIII. disowued the right of jurisdiction or authority of any foreign Po.wer. ThOruth was, that the ReformatiOn had been scandalized, as having a tendency to establish tyrannical pre rogatives in spiritual interests. - The sicoudpro position of the admonition went to explain this-sub ject, and claimed for the Queen, not the right of exercising spiritual fanctionsas-that would have beeu puesile, because that right was assumed in the ceremonial of coronation, and 'was not given by the establishment of .the oath orsupre macy—but the second proposition was intended to prove to her Majesty's subjects that she -had no views like those which had been inputted to her by the enemies of- the Reformation: This was the whole extent of the admonition.—(Here the • Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman read the oath of supremacys)—No form of words could be more entirely exclusive—no words could have less ambiguity, nor - could any be so entirely free from limitation in disclaiming the au thority of the Pope. -He Was to have no power of ,any kind. Yet the injunctions upon this oath were pressed 'into the service' of the Bill, which Bill went on to state, that,'" whereas certain scruples had arisen in the minds of his iNiajes 'ty's Catholic _subjects as to the taking of the said Oath," &c. And then came in what he must call a most gratuitous assumption,. namely, that the difficult part of the oath related solely to the authority of the Pope " in matters of religious belief." He desired to know where any such words were to be found. The oath must have carried with it at a disclaimer of the'authority of the Pope in matters of conscience and reli gious belief, because it disclaimed hiS authority' in all others: This Was merely a - plan or device to rescue the character of the CatholiC con science. Ile Owned that_ he expected the oath Of William 111. would have been appealed to. But the oath and explanation of Queen Elizabeth bore. a totally different signification to that which had been ascribed. They went simply to declare that she claimed no other authority- than had be-en enjoyed. by her father Henry VIII., and her brother Edward VI. To explain a modern measure by an ancient exposition, substituting terns which we're notsto be found in that ancient explanation, and by adopting an acc - eptation which could not be justified by any precedent in the statute book, was at least a novelty. The Catholics had always refused to take the oath, because it disallowed of every kind of authority in the Pope.. He came next to the enactments, that "- from and after the passing," &c. The Bill then declared that the terms of 'the -admo nition should no longer serve as the explaui tion of the oath—they were to be embodied in the oath itself. This could not have Isen the in tention either of the oath or admonition. Ite was _especially convinced of this, when he read - the terms, " No foreign Prince or Prelate, State or Potentate, shall have power, pre-emi .nence, jurisdiction, or authority," &c.: :With respect to these enactments, therefore, he would be glad to know where the limitations of the oath therein described existed.; and yet the 8i.31 enacted the use of " the said oath, with the said limitations." This was by no mean's hie only objection to the oath of the Bill. _The oath of, supremacy was one of obligatioat ; this bad no , obligatory force .at allia a It - contrived that the obediencetdue to the head-Of the Catholic Chbrch should - not interfeae with the undivided -aile giance due to the head of the State. 1-ti tho very moment that it admitted the difficulty of recon ciling. the two duties, it provided the Pope with the key to let himself ouz. of thirst , difficulties ; .forhsa himself Would be judge in the leer appeal of.censcience. On these grounds he thought it impossible for Parliament to' pass the Bill'in the form in which the oath then stood. The words of the old oath were entirely without limits ; this clause Went to establish - limits, for w ;all there was no •such authority as that pleaded.. Ile thought-the whole frame of the oath agreed bete ter with the dark Ministry 'of .the schools, than the wisdom and• firmness 'of - Parliament. He fell'invintibhobjections to the propriety of the e clause, and he would oppose the motion. Mr. Honacc Twass said he would not presume even to atteroptlO answer .the - Right Hon. Cen time!' who had just sat down; but he rose thus a early in the-debate, because he- considered th'-• principle of the Bill had "already been discussed and admitted. In the feW obaervations be had to offer , he should mia up the consideratlen or the,Oath of Trantubstantiaaion as *well as- that of Supremacy, conceiving that in the discussion they were inseparably connected. He could not, hewever,• but advert to an argument drawn- bi- • the Right Horn: Member 'from - his reference to the reign of Elizabeth. * It .Was impossible not • to recollect that in the reign of Elizabeth there was no r`Oath at all, although that was a period of our bUstory in which the Monarchy attempted • to assume an absolute power, religious as well as moral, it' indeed there conlif - be e. distinction between them. The Oath, however, as etita'a• blished, -continued for 15.0 years, and it tins not until thetime of Charles the Second • that any further test was required. The declaration against Transubstantiation was then introduced, but-it was occasioned by a 'feet. of the influence of the Sovereign—it-was indeed altogether a as cessity Of a : temporary nature: 'lit the yaar 170 the dangers of 1688 were too recent to admit of attrielixtalen Of the ItaVie — lf the ar - eittillea of that-day on the _score of -danger were available now, it' would be •available to any eatent. IC would sanction athe permanent suspensioli of the- Habeas - Corpus Act because its temporary sus pension • had been samationed - in the: trine of :danger.---411earl)-----.IJ ti oeld authoriae , neral,•proclamation of martial. law in Ireland upon ''the Sairie prineielea • Nay we miglicabo lish a"ll 7 ,the.sareguards 'of, the cons•titution,!leit it might•-in Aime become endangered.--(Cheers.)---- No lead maxim was so clear as that w high laid down that " the reason of the •Law ceasing, taw -ceases also." Were we. to say to.the Ca" WO. 1011 plat - r brand upon.Yon;'ana Although :we preserve the Constitutien,• yetayour children "-shall- never share its (Cheefe.)-4-The gon.,l)iem bet 'peva:seeded sts . refer to the Memorial of William the Third, relating to the CatholiCa, 'which hada been referred to by` Hon. Withers on at former occasion.. lie-contended,-had , a double bearing. .1i ad miUed inailbstatace, that the Catholic might pro' greaSitely, be tolerated , and yet i't Waa this 'Vol progression.' fora which- the --Catholics were no ir haar!)---a-.But they had . receive' : Petitions : from Reverend COnclayes,which spa/k° of the- prudeni - al --- ...a -- a• of the Constitution e 3 14 argued as if the .preseUte Bill was an anotrialye --- lie, on the other. hand,- contended-, it disl a not troduce, but remove an anomely. -If danger went alleged as an argument against the I3ill',,it cumbent on-those-who urged it, ff.) show the dan ger. Ile •therefore that those Who act!' ported the aneastire, wotild not be consitlevea lukewarm Protestants ; and he could not bring himself to think that the inteoduction of a- few' Catholic Members would make that Ilott;e • Catholic Assembly: lie, for one. waS,and al , kaYs' would be, opposed -to a military Government' ; yet 'would he on that account 'desire' the. exclusion' from that Honse U - f those Gallant Members who were. - Offieets in the .Army (Cheers.)—The Parliament, after the passing the. present .1341 would, he ea;oceived,• remain • Protestant Parliament in the same setiSe as I • l ', a in WhiCh . thep c. eople were a Prot4stant Pon . He could not see any danger, even supposing t he Catholic - wtre removed to-►npr'r°w lle c9uld not see- that any man educated under the most'artful Jesuit would be 'accanipliSliment of his design. It c,ertainlY . -the object of the Bill to increaae the- ly•tendeo politica l power Of the Catholics; but then it clear a to deprive. them of their present moral foraeio 'for by the passive . of this Bill they - would _l O5 the mural force :,nchthe- , possessed in the sap s a d 'the" port of those Protestants. who acivOca:,.9- • eause.---(Hear, hear, hear !)--11e - could set tl,O danger in the Catholic religion: It wa:onsc e „ religion of `he country, and' yet it •ccatld 1 0 ` I ttLe at all n earer Wit its influence,' eltliough supported oil authorities of the,State.-4Chears.)--E.ut there no fallaCy.which was not brought to bear a - P -ia ra the Catholics. At one time it was said they ' ve t te under the authority of the-Pope, and consetl o c", q , a subject to foreign intluene.e. Now t 'howev er i.. F ` . eg P-retender was , no snore and ,Benapart a e ' powerless, and the Faith of the Catholic W 3 Ow „g t.- jested against him: At Other times the 0 • e s.g oa of former ages had been urged _against tlaea Ca( lies, and' the punishment of those er aessO s If ' o f atte4 pted to be visited upon: the' gen eration 1821. " Whati!' said the Hon. IVernber,"hay!A not these Cranmers and the Colviiis de ttro _ e : their tens of thousands, and should we u°t ,e ob .....a ject to their cruelties-. being visited upon us "(Cheeas.)L-4ndeed the argnments pre ssed a e cr s t the Catholics, strongly reeninded him of t, • tV':i • in the Fable, who was determined to find tin ems' .cuss for'his intended conduct if it .was n o ! you that injured tnee it was your father, or g rand, father."---(A laugh.)----But then it wes.said that-- oar thi Catholics were ambitious. - 7 t h eal a ambitions," said the `l - Ion: - Member, ac ;if eon • • • • pleaSe,' but is the honourable, ambition ,f fotil •e•-- millions of people to be discouraged :7 • L ` t