The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-27 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, MARort 26. Lord G RENVILLE presented a Petition from the University of Oxford, against the Catholic Claims, and another from certain Owners and Occupiers 'of Land in Buckinghamshre, complaining of Agricultural distress.—They were ordered to be laid on the Table. The Commercial Intercourse Bill was bought up from .the Commons, and read the first time. - Mr. Johnson, from the London Dock Com pany,-presented the - usual Accounts, with a Re port of the progress of the Works. The Earl of VERCL 13i Presented a Petition from the Parish of Temple, in the City of Bristol, against thixCatholic Claims.—Ordered to be laid on the Table. ThP Earl of SII.XFTECDURY • p:esented a Peti tion florn Greenock, against any advance in the Duties - on Timber. Mr. Irving, from the Custom House, presented the Annual Account of the Trade• and Nairiga fion of the United Kingdom, ending the 4th of Jam►ary, Is2l. The Husbandry Horses Bill was read a third time and passed. CRAMPOUND. The' arquess of LANSDOWN, in the.absence his Noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), in troduced a Bill to indemnify all persons giving evidence before- the''Committee on the Grain 'pound Disfranchisement. Bill.—lt was read the trst time. `The Noble Marquess then moved for Copies of the Records of Conviction in the case of Sir Massey Lopez, and different voters, found guilty of bribery and corruption. The Loan CRAACELLOR said, he had no ob jection to the m6tiOn, but would reserve, his opi nion till the papers were laid before the lious . e whether they could or could not be admitted as evidence.--- 7 0rderetl. The Marquess of, LAN - snows presented a Pe-; tition from the Tiiwn.--and Neighbourhood of Taunton, in favour of a revision of the Criminal • Laws.—Ordered to beJaid on the Table. Adjourned till to-merrew. , }IOUS E 'OF COMMONS. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. LAMBTON observed, that he had given notice for Tues. day the Ioth of April, of a motion for a•Refcrm in the Repre sentation of the People. Filidiug, however, that many of his Hon. and Learned Friends would not that time have return ed froth the Northern Circuit, he 4•ished to postpone that mo tion for a week, and accordingly gave notice that he would bring the subject forward on Tuesday the 17th of April. • AGRICULTURAL HORSES. • Mr. ( .71,TRWESTPO;tio7;duntil Fritlay his motion for a re peal-of the 'Agricultural Horse Tax. • Mr. ,Johnson presented -an account of - the receipts and dis:. bursements of the London Duck Company, from the 30th NOT. MO, to the 30th Nov. 1020. AlSo a Report relative to the pieigre.ss Of the Works.—Ordered to lie on the Table. • 41r. WESTERN presented a P e tition. from a number of re spectable inhabitants of the Parish of Great Coggershall, in the County of Essex, praying that the severity of - the Criminal Code -Mht be Mitigated.—Ordered to be printed: Mr.WILSON presented a Petition from the Ship Owners of London, against anv alteration in the present Duties on Tint- ber—Ordered to be referred to the Committee on -Foreign Trade. • A New. Writ was ordered for the Borough of Biddlestone, inthe - roO.th of Mr. Bailey, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundre6.' . Sir E. KNATCIIBULL presented a petitionfrom the Grand Jury of the County, of Kent, thanking the House for the atten tion they had already paid to th e ilistre4ses of Agriculture, and intr eating that they would speedily, take these distresses into further consideration. Referred to 'the Committee on the state of Agriculture. Mr. DICKENSON presented two petitions, the one from the Clergy-of the Archdeaconry of Taunton, the oth e r f r om th e Clergy of the Arclultaconry of We. 11%, against the Roman Ca tholic Emancipation [ill. The Hon. Gentleman declared his own opinion to be hostile to the principle of the Bill. On the motion that the petitions be brought up, Sir T. LETIIBRIDGE concurred in the opinion expressed by his Honourable Colleague against the Bill, ,and stated that the apprehensions of ri . , ,, reat majority of his constituents were very much excited on the subject. . .• •_. Abs petitions were then brought up, read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. GROSSET-T presented a petitiofi from the Corporation and Burgesses of the Borough of Chippenhanf, in Wiltshire; against the Catholic Claims. Ordered to be printed... , Sir B. , MARTIN presented a petition from the Merchants and. Dealersin Corn, of Plymouth, against the Corn Average Bill. Ordered to be printed. Mr.S: WORTLEY presented a petition from the Trustees of the Cloth Hall, at Leeds, against the Bill for the alteration of stamping. . Ordered to be printed. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from the Archdea conry.and Clergy of York, and the West Riding, against the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill. 'The Honourable Gentle man spoke in the highest terms of - the respectability of the peti tioners • and expressed the gitat pain which he felt hi differing from them on this subject. Mr. SYKES also admitted the great respectability of the Pe titioners, but could not bow to their authority, wholly unsup ported as it was by argument., - Mr. J. SMITH challenged any one to show the period of modern times, .in which religious liberty had been found' dan gerous to the public peace. Sir T. LET BRI DGE deprecated mistaken liberality of sen timent, and dwelt on the bigotry and intolerance of the Catho lic RAigion. At the same time, -if the Bill for the Emancipa tion of 'the Catholics should rims into a law, he would do all he could to reconcile the mind of the country to it. . Mr. WARRE spoke in favour of the Catholic Claims. Sir C; BURRELL expressed hid hostility to them. The in tolerance of the Catholics was so notorio\ss, that he could not reconcile it'to himself to give them the privileges proposed in the Bill. • Mr. BENNET asserted, that all sects were intole r ant; and maintained, that our own establishment had become tokrant rather from the character of the times, than from any change in its principles. In some of the Petitions presented against the Bill, sentiments might be found quite inconsistent wish the true spirit of toleration, and which did as little credit to the candour'as to the knowledge of the Petitioners. Sir.A. WILSON said, that the general sense of the Metro polis might be gathered from the following fact :----He had been twice elected for Southwark, and he had on both occasions de eared to his , constituents, that when the claims of the Catho, lies cams to be considered, he should refer to their opinion, de terniined, however, to give up 'his seat in that House, rather than vote against those claims. Having, on the present Occa sion, communicated the nature of the Bill now in progress, not only to his own friends in the Borough, but to the opposite party, he found that the general impression was a perfect re liance on the wisdom of Parliament on the subject. Lord NUGENT said, that in no part of the service of the Roman Church was there any thing of an exclusiVe nature.— There was no such damnatory creed to be found in it as the St. Athanasian. Mr. J. SMITH, in ex'lanation, observed, that the Petition was diaivn up in terms' o/ moderation, highly creditable to the Petitioners. Mr. S. WORTLEY remarked that this was the only Peti tion from the county of York hostile to the Catholics. In no other communicztion which he had received from his Consti tuents, was there a single word on the subject.—The Petition was then brought up, read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. CURWENpresented a Petition from the Owners and Occupiers complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying relief.—Re. ferred to the Committee on the State of Agriculture. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Mr. CURWES7 presented a Petition froM certain Occupiers of Lard in the county of Leicester, complaining of the distress of Agriculturists.—Referred to the Agricultural Committee, THE CATHOLICS. Mr. HART DAVIS presented a Petition from the Mini sters, Churchwardens, and certain Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Augustine, in Bristol.---Ordered to lie on the table. BANK FORGERIES. Mr. HOBHOUSE said he had a Petition, which, though but from one individual, Dlr. G. W. Gibson, of the Strand, grocer, yet represented the sentiments of inatik thousands of his fellow-citizens. The Petitioner stated, 'that within a few days, he 'received no lesic than three and ; twenty one pound forged notesthe notes lie - held in hii - hand; and he would say that it. was quite impossible for any person, save the bankers themselves, and those employed by them, to distinguish these forged notes froth genuine notes. The-Petitioner stated, that in the course of one day he received no less than ten forged notes.—(llear, hear !)—Such indeed, was the perfection of the forged notes, that even the Inspectors at the Bank were not able on the first inspection to- pronounce whether they were forged or not. Th e Petition er wen t on to say, that he saw from Returns which had been laid before Parliament, that there were convicted of crimes connected with fergery—ln 1818, 165. perso:is ; in 1819, 160 persons ; in 1820, to the dreadful num her of 275 persons. —.Taus making a difference of persons bettzeen the years 1818, 19, and the year - 1820. Of the num ber convicted for the three years he had stated, two only were convicted of forgery ; 688 were convicted of uttering forged notes.. It further appeared that the average loss sustained by the public in consequence of the prevalence tpf forgery;, exceed ed 30,0001. a year, the greater part of.which loss was sustained by shopkeepers.—The- Petitioner hoped that the Parliament would interfere, and would compel the Bank to pay their notes in the current coin of the realm. The Petitioner stated that he was aware that the. Bank made• some engagements to that effect ; but he was aware ' a l so th a t i t h a d made similar engage ments before, and had violated them. It was, therefore, pro bable that they would do so again. The Hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, said, that.the Legislature, by every obligation, was called upon to inteerere in so dreadful a case—a case which in- Volved the lives and-properties of their fellow-subjecti. Mr. G. BENNET expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring before 'the House the ?tirte of the country as regarded Forges Notes. If that were fully , done, the House would - see What was the dreadful increase of crime, and the loss of human life since that fatal measure which, in the year 1797, gave the-B a nk power to refuse payment of their Notes.—(Hear, hear !) Mr. CLTRWEN wished to know what progress had been made by the Commis s i oners i n pro d uc i ng a Bank Note of a de cription which would render imitation difficult, if not impos sible ? Sir WM. CONGREVE said, that upon this subject the re sponsibility of the Commissioners had; in his opinion, ceased ; since the publication of their Second Report, it rested with the Bank and the Artists employed by them to complete the new Note.- But it seemed to him that the Bank was not anxious to produee any new Note, unless they could devise such a Note aS would he quite efficient for the object in view. He felt him .self bound to add, that in effecting that object the Bank had be haved with the utmost liberality, the apparatus was of the - most Magnificent description ; and though it must be admitted; that the result was not such as to give the satisfaction that was anti cipated, there certainly was no want of exertion on the part of the Commissioners. Whether the Note which would be pro duced would satisfy the public, was more than he could say; but this he would say, that a Note cotild be made Which would give a greater degree of security, by being more difficult to coun terfeit than the pr e s en t co i n o f the Realm. Mr. BARING compl a i ne d, that Parliament had neglected its duty upon this subject ; lie could not but lament, when the subject had been brought under their inquiry, that they had not appointed a Committee £f the House, instead of a Com mission, which had already sat for two years, and the result of whose inquiries was so very unsatisfactory and so very ineffi cient. That Commission, it now appeared, gave up the sub jeCt to the management o f the Bank. When he considered the length of time with which the Bank had been occupied with this subject to no possible purpose, he confessed he had no great confidence in their efforts ; he could not see any thing to hope from the fact of the Commissioners having given up. this important matter •to the Eank. He was quite confident opinion which was held by men of science, that it was,prac ticable to produce a Note which would obviate that dreadful evil which was so forcibly complained of. When he considered the time that had been already lost with respect to this snbject, the number of individuals who had every year; fallen the victims of the Law—the great loss which was sustained by the public— the crimes and misery which were spread about the country in consequence of the prevalence of forgery, he could not but sin cerely deplore that Parliament had so Tong neglected its duty by not instituting an inquiry on the subject. 1-le could not help observing, that the country had been in some degree deluded by the frequent representations which had been made in that House on the part of Government that something satisfactory would have been done within a very short period. He hoped that the House would not separate the present Session without taking some measure upon the subject, unless, in the mean time, something satisfactory should be done by the Bank. Mr. PEARSE made a few observations, but in so low a tone as to have been almost inaudible in the Gallery. We could only collect from the Honourable Gentleman that it was the inten tion of the Bank, on the Ist of May, to commence paying their notes and sovereigns ; but that should, the accommodation of the country require it, the Bank would still continue to s issue I small notes. Sir. W. CONGREVE explained. He denied that he had asserted that,the Commissioners had giiren the subject referred to them entirely up to. the Bank ' • on the contrary, they were still employed, andin the course of one month they expected to develope a plan for the prevention of forgery with respect to co~intry banks. Mr. DA VIES G 11/BERT said, that the labours of the Com mittee had been unwearied, for the purpose of promoting the object of their appointment. He agreed that Bank ,paper might be •made a better security than the coin ; and he eonceh ed, that Honourable Gentlemen who wished to see the Bank paper put dOwn were very much mistaken in their views._ lig thought highway robberies had decreased since the substitution of paper for coin. Mr. J. SMITH said, that in some places in the' country, nine tenths of the crne-pound notes were forged. He - was given to understand, from one of the Directors of the Bank of Eng.: land, that it was the intention of the Bank to pay off their notes. He hoped they would carry that intention into effect ; such a step would have the effect of doing away that frightfa evil which had been so forcibly described. 6ir M. 11". RIDLEY said that the forgeries on country banks wert so very few, that any plan to prevent them would be scarcely worth the trouble of adopting. After a short conversation between Mr. GRENFELT. and Mr. PEArtsE,_the Petition was brought up and ordered to be printed. REV. RICHARD HAYES. Mr. CAREW said, that he had that day received a letter from this person, requesting him to state that he had never been reprimanded for preaching a seditious sermon. The Catholic &Shop of Wexford had informed him (Mr. Carew), that he was obliged to reprimand Mr. Hayes, for preaching a sermon which he 'conceived to have been of a seditious tendency... He would leave the House to judge between the denial of Mr. Hayes, and the assertion of hi s Bishop--(Hear, hear !) - TIMBER TRADE, Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a Petition from Newcastle upon=Tyne, and from North Shields, against the Timber Datit s. Sir WILLIAM CONGREVE presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Plymouth, praying for a revision of the Penal Code. The Hon. Member presented another Petition from certain Ship Owners, praying that an alteration might-be made in the present Duties affecting Foreign Timber. The Petitions were referred to the Committee on the Timber Trade. THE CATHOLIC QUESTION. Lord GEORGE THYNNE presented a Petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Bath, against the 'Catholic Bill, which was ordered to be printed._ - M'ADA 11r. • Mr. CURWEN said he had to call the attention of the House to a motion to which lie could anticipate no' objection— ' it was to ascertain in fact, whether the public money w a s to b e disposed_ of with the sanction of th a t I - louse—his motion was for-an 'account of the sums of money paid to Mrs WAdain ; 'by what authority they were paid, and out of what fund. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he had no object - kin to the motion. The claim of Mr. M'Adam had been referred by the Treasury to the Postmaster-General, who reported that Mr. M'Adam had made great improvements in the public roads, and that his exertions deserved. remunera tion. Mr. M'Adam - was paid from the grants left by Parliament at the disposal of Government.—The motion was agreed to. MALT DUTY REPEAL BILL. Mr. WESTERN brought in this Bfil, and a similar one for Ireland, which were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the lid of April, and to be ininted. • TAX ON FOREIGN WOOL. Lord MILTON gave notice, that he would move for the Repeal of this Tax on the 10th of April. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. Mr. lIOBHOOSE postponed his motion for the Repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Bill. to Thursday se'nnight. ROMAN CATHOLIC BILL. Sir J. NEWPORT said, that if the Bill went ,through the Committee, he felt himself bound to state thus early, that he would in that case move that the two Bills should be consolidated. • The• CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that unless the Right Honourable Baronet moved in structions to that effect in the first instance, he could not afterwards move to consolidate the Bills without having them recommitted. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, that it had been re ported for him that he had received communica tons from Ireland, disapproving of the Bill.— He had . never said so ; but it now became his painful duty4o *state to the House, that since the last debate he had received a communication - from high authority, nathely, from the Titular Bishop of Cork, a Clerg3;than of great learning and of exemplary character. That Gentleman,- be was. •bound to say, disapproved in strong terms of the second Bill. He knew not whether the Reverend Gentleman was in • possession of the amended- Bill ; he believed not. There - was to be a meet ing.of the Catholic Prelates Ireland this day. He - Thoteld not bind himself to support the conso-; lidation of the Bills, bet he hoped the last Bill migldbe so altered as to be made acceptable to the Catholics. The House went into a Committee; Mr. Robert Smith took the Chair. After a few words from Mr. PEEL and Sir J. NEWPORT, as to the phraseology of 'the first clause, that clanse was read. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE rose to object to the clause and observed, that hitherto it had not been viewed in a-religious .shape, but he could not conceive that it could pass a British Legislature without taking that shape. If the Bill passed, the. Constitution would be greatly endangered, as they were bound to follow it up by repealing the Test and Corporation Acts. If this fatal measure passed,rand they had gone too near it to be comfortable—(A laugh)—it was difficult to foresee the consequences. He had been called upon by an Honourable Member (Slr. J. Smith) to say what danger had arisen freni the admis sion-of Catholics to offices in other Protestant countries. It was sufficient for him (Sir T. L.) to know what we in this 'country had formerly suffered from the ascendancy of Catholics. It was ,said that this measure was a measure of con ciliation, to. put all differences at rest ; but it had not passed two stages before a paper was put into his hand, signed by Dr. Milner, Walter Blount, and Ralph . Benson—(a laugh !)—This paper protested against the Bill. Now he-knew nothing of Dr. Milner but that he was a zealous Catholic. The Noble Member for Aylesbury 'Lord Nugent) had the other day recommended him to keep company with the Rev. Doctor, bu as a zealous Catholic, and an honest one, the Rev. Doctor might, he shOuld have thought, have found a better pliee in a part of his Lordship's family —(Hear!).—lt was not long ago that Dr. Mil ner was thanked by the whole of the other Vi cars Apostolic, and was patted on the back as a peculiarly good Catholic. The opinion of the Doctor was confirmed, by the determined opposi tion of a Titular Bishop in Ireland, which had been brought forward by the Honourable Mem ber for Cork. These were the persons whom the. Catholics were bound to obey, if they continued what they were. Ile contended, that Catholi cism was' now as intolerant as it always had been, as was proved by the article in the fashionable and popular Spanish Constitution; It was false liberality to grant what the Catholics would not take., There might be a few, indeed, who wish ed to get into Parliament, or to be made King's Counsel, but the great mass of his Majesty's Catholic subjects did not want silk gowns—(a laugh!) l'Ir• IR• MARTIN contended that the religion of Roman Catholics of the present day was by no means of that intolerant character which the on. Baronet seemed disposed to attribute to it. e had himself seen marriages in Ireland between oman Catholics and Protestants ; he had see the Roman Catholic wife bringing up her child in the religion of her Protestant husband, as she had been directed by him to do ; and yet these marriages were productive of the greatest happi ness and concord. For what the lion. Baronet had said as to this. Bill's not pleasing the hierarchy and prelacy of Ireland, Dr. Milner was the au thority cited by him in support of this supposi tion ; but, in point of fact, it was rather an argu ment against the Hon. Baronet himself. The argument which Dr. Milner and his friends were so fond of putting in the front of their battle was that this Bill would destroy the. Catholic religion ; whereas the fears of the lion. Baronet went; all of them, to its too great encouragement and pro tection. He should certainly vote against the Right /ion. Baronet. Sir G. HILL contended, that the clause would ead to a considerable historical error. If it was wise to get rid of the oaths .and declarations which the Bill repealed, it should be done with a regard to historical truth. The words of the clause conveyed the idea that the oaths were im posed to set up peculiar views of religion. They were not imposed for that purpose, hut to exclude Catholics from Parliament. He should move to lea+ out the words " and declared" after the word " enacted." The Amendment, as well as a few other ver bal Amendments, and the Clause, was agreed to, Sir T.' Lethbridge decl!ning to divide on it.— some verbal Amendments, of no importance, were made in therecond clause. Mr. WETHERELL suggested, that the words, declaring " that nothing in this Act shall be held to dispense with the oaths of abjuration and alle giance," were superfluous. Sir. J. MACKINTOSH observed, they were in serted out of greater caution. The clause was agreed to. Upon the reading of the third clause, that no thing in this Act should extend to repeal any of the laws in force respecting the Protestant suc cession to the Throne, the uniformity of public prayers, or the administration of the Sacraments in the United Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, Mr. BAKES rose to make his promised mo tion, for the insertion of a clause in addition to the above, providing that nothing in this Act should extend to dispense with or repeal any of the laws now in force, excluding Catholics from sitting or voting in both Houses of Parliament. There were, he was aware, two parties to whom he had to address himself upon this subject; one who thought that the measure proposed for the satisfaction of the Catholic claims, should be unaccompanied by any qualifications or re strictions; ;aid another, which formed, he hoped, the larger party in that House, who combined with a wish to make every due concession to the Catholics, a desire to obtain adequate securities for the maintenance or the Protestant Establish ment. Upon -the former- of -these parties, he could not flatter himself with tieing able to make any irnpression,ond therefexe, he had only to re- quest their indulgence. But he begged the par ticular attention - of the Matter While he stated the grouiels.of his motion, because he to 'that- if the Bill 'under the consideration of the Commit tee were passed into a law, without the provi sion 'which he had to submit, all the other re strictions or securities . which" might be provided Would prove utterly nugatory . ; for if such a ,de gree of political power were put into the hands of the Catholics as this . Bill proposed, it would be quite absurd to suppose that they would 'not 'act upon the maxims and principles which had :always characterised the professors of that reliion, or that they would no t use this power for the purpose- especially of re pealing any restrictions disagreeable to their Clergy. He lamented most sensibly the absence of the Right - Hon, Gentleman who had brought forward this measure, and particularly from a consideration of the cause ; but he was glad to find that the Right Honourable Baronet who un dertook the patronage of these two Bills was dis Posed, as he stated, for the _first time this night, to propose, that the Bill of Securities should be engrafted upon that for Concession. This he (Mr. B.) thought oeght to have been the case from the beginning . , in order to guard against the danger of having the Concessions passed without those Securities, against which it appeared that some of the Catholic Clergy and others, who had .a lead among the Catholic body, were now raising a pretty loud outcry. He was aware that the. Right Honourable Author of the Bill had stated at the outset, that hesew no objection to the incorporation at present proposed, but yet he could not undertake to say, whether the proposi tion of thelit. lion. Baronet, for the first time this night, resulted from choice or necessity: His Rt. Hon. Friend on the other side (Mr. Canning) and Others had expressed an opinion that Par liamerfi'should pass a measure of this nature with out anyregard or reference to the judgment of the:Catholics, with whom it was not for that or the other House to enter into any treaty or nego ciation, but to accede to a measure of necessary public - justice and great expediency. There inight . be in such language a vast deal of dignity; but he. must with deferenCe say, that it did not appear to him to contain 'much of common sense. It would be recollected that the Catholics, who composed a large proportion of our fellow-sub jects, were partly, at least, under somewhat of foreign - influence, and that it was rather incon sistent to maintain that their judgment or wishes "should not be regarded as to the merits of this measure ; -while it was on the other hand alleged that that Measure was mainly desirable as a means of conciliation, and as calculated to satisfy all parties. Yetit was evideut that many of the Catholics whom it was hoped to conciliate, were now forward to repudiate, condemn, and reject the provisions of the Bill before the Committee for providing some securities for the Protestant Establishment. This was the known disposition of the Catholic Clergy,who had notoriously more influence over the laity than those of any other Church ever known in the world.. Upon the opinion of the Catholic Clergy, then, it must de pend whether a measure of this nature would be received as a boon, or regarded as an act of per secution, and, that opinion was pretty well under stood. Unless, indeed, the Catholic Clergy of Ireland should depart from all the principles which . -they solemnly' deClared but a few years ago, it was impossible to doubt of their hostility to all the provisions of the second Bill ; for those Clergy declared- the most determined 'objec tion to give the King any power of original nomination _or direct negative' upon the ap pOintment of Catholic Bishops, or other mem bers' of the Catholic hierarchy.' If, then, the Irish Clergy should not - be shewn to, have changed their sentiments, the House should consider whether, in, tic - ceding to the measures under discussiOn, it might not, instead of promot ing peace 'and harmony in Ireland, contribute rather to . produce agitation, dissent, and even tumult in that Country. It would be remem bered that-the Bill of 1813 was abandoned, be cause the .clause 'was negatived for admitting Catholics into Parliament ; but that abandon ment proceeded from thit authors of the Bill itself and rested upon grounds which he could not at all comprehend, especially as the Bill without that clause contained many solid and valuable concessions to the Catholic body=—for all those concessions, he was, as he told his .Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) at the time, a very ready advocate; but beyond these concessions he was not prepared to go one step. He, would ever agree to have. Catholics admitted to either House of Parliament, because he thought their exclusion most essential to the security of the Protestant establishment, which was essential to the stability of the Crown, and particularly to the maintenance of the Protestant Church of Ire land.—(Hear, hear, hear !)-H e was aware that he, and others who acted With him, were charged with intolerance and illiberality ; but, feeling the charge.to be utterly inapplicable, he should never allow himself to be withdrawn from his endea vours to guard the Constitution and Church of the Country from danger, by the use of any emp ty epithets.—(Cheers.)—He would always act upon the measure of a great Statesman long since no more, that those men should not be admitted to partake of the powers of any system, whose principles must prompt them to desire the overthrow of that system. The prin ciples of the Catholic body did not appear to have undergone any change, although it was pretended they were become much more enligh tened and liberal ; and if no such change had taken place, it was quite absurd to suppose that if the professors of this sect were put in posses sion of political pow e r no w , they would act on different principles from those which had ac tuated their conduct when in power heretofoCe. By this Bill it was proposed to invest the Ca tholics with power, which he could not contem plate without alarm. If it were passed, Catholic Representatives were likely to he sent to that Houie from a decided majority of Irish counties, as well as from some English Boroughs. When the tlective Franchise Was granted to the Ca tholics in 1793, that concession was understood to be conclusive, and to close their demands.-a -' (No, no! from several voicks.)—lle maintained that such - Was_the language of manyl:Catholic ad aocates at the titiPe a that measure was; discussing in , the Irish Parliament, under the reebanmenda tion of the British Ministers, who would not; he was persuaded, have sent that recommendation to Ireland, if. it were not for the alarm created by the French RevolUtion, and the peculiar ur gency of the tithes. Yet it w a s now held that the grant of a right to sit in that Douse was the necessary consequence of the former concession, and if Catholics were admitted into Parliament, what should prevent theproposition that that re ligiOn, which was embraced by the great majority of the Irish people, should be the established re ligion of that country ?---(lleartaas-It was p indeed, a principle laid down by a atureber of accredited writers, among whom were some distinguished Protestants, - that 'the religion of the great body of the people in any State ought to be the established religion of that State ; and it'the Roman Catholiei were invested - with the political power proposed by the present Bill, what was to prevent them from pressing the adoption of that principle ? But if Catholics were admitted into Parliament, what guarantee was theie for the continuance of- the Test and Corporation Acts,. which - Blackstone called the bulWarks of the Constitution ? -The eCatholies would havea common interest with the- Dissenteee in producing the repeal of those Acts; and- it. would be recollected, that in the year-17.90, when that repeal was last proposed, there was only amajOrity of twenty against the entertain ment of that proposition.—Let, the• Committee also consider ivhether, if Catholicsavere invested with the - political. power which their advocates now desired, it was possible that they vaoul4 be reconciled to the payment of a double Ecclesias tical Establishment, 'or that they would not en deavour to get rid of that burthen, especially as in such art endeavour they would be seconded by the other Dissenters? lint the dangers likely to result froM the' adoption of. such measures were quite palpable and alarming as to Ire land. He should not, indeed, be much surprises" if this Bill were passed in its present state, soon to hear of propositions in that country for the alternation of the dienitiea and emolu ments at present enjoyed by theEstablishedChurch between the Ecclesiastics of that Church and those of the Catholic Communion. With respect,to the oath itself, as . it now stood, . a great deal bad been said in the course of the debate on a former' night, and it was not his intention to Occupy much of the time of the House upon this part of .the subject. It should be recollected, however, thax oaths were frequently rendered nugatory, by the mode of interpreting them ; and 'it might not be impeoper to consider in what. way the oath pro posed by the Irish Parliament in 1703 was exr plained. The words of that oath appeared too clear to be misunderstood. They were these, " F do solerrinly swear - not to, exercise any pri vilege to which. I am or may be admitted, to the disturbance of the Protestant Religion and Go vernment of this country." Yet - the interpreta tion given to this oath was, that they 'VP,ere bound not to exercise their privileges in any way which might violate not only the established religiortr but the Government of the country ; because it was contended, that the words Religion and Go vernment were connected together, without any comma after the sword religion. Was it known to the Committee s that an order of Jesuits was canonically established at - Stoneyhurst, Lancashire, and another_ at Castle. Brown, its' Ireland ? That at- Stoneyhurst was establish ed . by the .POpe's authority in 1813, though it . was not finally sanctioned till Augusts 1814. • When the House recollected the way in which -the Jesuits had feemerly exercised 064 - influence, they . must see the danger which would result - from the education of the youth of high families, who - were afterwards to take their seats, in that. house, in such- an establishment, 'SuCh was the horror in which the Jesuits were held, that they had been driven out of Russia', where they were long tolerated,and in Spain, Piedniont and Naples they were either, not tolerated, or at least in-very great disrepute. The Honour able Member concluded by deprecating any con cession, which, by opening the door of Parliae ment to Catholics, would .dispossess the House of those' securities which were necessary for the security and permanence of the established imti- utions. • Mr. CALCRAFT.—NeVer .11111 7 1113 ventured on any former occasion to trespass on the House hsr stating his opinion on this subject, he hop.:(1 he ,should now be indulged while he Matte a few ob servations. It was not because he did not feel, most strongly .and anxiously, the great irn portance of the question ' under considera tion, that he had forborne from stating his sentiments ; but he had always seen it in such powerful hands as removed any wish'on his part to deliver his opinion. It was not because the c l ues- , don was now less ably advocated than it had hitherto- been, that he presented himself to the House;. bit because, if this• Bill passed, as. he ,thonglif it would, he should regret that the ques- - tion had . been decided, without his having re- . corded his opinion . ; and, on the other hand, it were not carried, he feared that his Parlia,• mentary life would have gone by before any per 7 son would be found bold enough to propose the revival of the measure. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat doWn had taken a much l ar ger field of argument than he meant to do; because. he meant to confine himself as strictly as pos sible to the question immediately before the. Committee, viz. the questi o n o f a d m itti ng Ro man Catholic Peers to their seats in the House , of Lords, and such persons of the Roman Ca tholic per Suasion as might be elected by the con stituency of this country to seats in the House of Commons. He Must say that he for one could not entertain those imaginary fears and ground less dangers to,which the lion. Gentleman was • argument. The H on . G ent l eman , p obliged to hav e recourse f or th e s u pp or t. o f his of the question the present st a t e of .society—not putting c•qt deigning to inquire whether any danger was to be aPPCehended from the anomalous situation in