The Sun. — London, England, 1822-06-22 00:00:00

Cb/Yltaell /2 /t ,(649 NUMBER 9306.1 OFFICE OF, ORDNANCE, June i , 1822. PRINCIPAL OFFICERS (flag MA JESTY'S .ORDNANCE do hereby give Notice, that they will Sell by PUBLIC AUCTION, at the s Tote 7 , on Tuesday, the 45th June instant, at Eleven ®'Clock the Forenoon I;'icisely, sundry Lots. of NEW and OLD STORES; eintsisting of Bayonet and Sword Scabbards, Cartouch Boxes, Bolts and Slings., Old Brass Furniture from Small Arms broken up, Bushel Irim &c. Sand Bags, Blankets, and Counlets, Old Armour, Quarter Barrels, and Paper from .Unserviceable Cannon Cartridges. . The whole of whOch inay be viewed upon application at Me principal Storekeeper's Office in the Tower (with the ex ception of the Quarter Barrels and Citteton Cartridge Purr & phieh Mg!! ke.vlewed at the Aoyat Laboiatary at froaVl:k), until the Day of Sale; where printed Lists of the Lots ?s 11 be deli;ered to thosC Persons whO may apply for the same. . By Order of the Board, , R. H. CREIP; Secretary: CITY OF LONDON TAVERN, .LUXE 21, 1622. COMMITTEE of the' SUBSCRIP TION for some IM3IEDIATE ASSISTANCE in the eLtre nti -TEMPORARY DISTRESS of the Southern and Western Districts di RELAND;have to report that the Amount 13f the Subscriptions received to this day is £94,403 3 8 T he'arnount of 344 Remittalces in Money is 66,600 0 0 'whic h , With the sums placed at the disposition of the Protestant atd.datholic Bishops of the distressed provinces, with the cost °f Potatoes dispatched for seed, and of 100 tons of oatmeal, di :i to th e di str i ct o f Connimara, in the Bay of Galway, and ' l ePortof Cahir, in the Bay of Valentia, with other disburse ) amount together to about - - £80,500 Le Subscribers and the Public will observe, that the balance zo v c ,„. cling".. with-the Committee is small; and they r:•,,Tret to be . i . Obliged to state, that the want of the distressed districts n eases as the Season advances, and must be expected to become more extended and intense throughout the next month, and for laor e- ' than half the month of August. The Committee earnestly implore the further benevolent as sist, - * ri ce of the British Public. • The accounts they daily re eeiv - - . e of the increase of distress are more and more appalling ; vld can be mitigated only by the increasing means of this Sub kliption, by local exertions in Ireland, and by the prompt and Feral aids of Government. , The Committee have great reliance on the effect of the ex moons,i, of the Clergy of 'Great Britain, under the 'authority of —e I %'s Letter, graciOusly issued, to collect the Christian .: 13 'd benevolent Contributions of their Congregations ; and they nay. - et /lial confidence in theiealous co-operation on.this sad lie u ., --B LtY of 1, the Ministers -of Religion of every denomination. BY + •“ese united and . general exertions the Coisimittee trust That wit • i11i54,, 1 h the bl ess i ng a nd Mercy.of Divine Providence, much may he spared, and the lives of thousands preserved. p,r ie Committee earnestly solicit on behalf of the famishing a ' 3ant , r Y in Ireland the utmost promptitude in the Christian end eavours of the Ministers of Religion, *to place With them, in ' Me, the charitable succours - of, their. Congregations, which, be- Nile every day more needful and pressing. Aro ' • • JOHN SMITH, Chairman. l ' u nt'of Subscriptions already advertised £92,363 18 1 Pre Further Subscriptions received f Fr ont the Association From Barclay and Co. et the Relie f Al , . of the _ David Lloyd,. Esq. , 2 ., 2 0 , anutacturingand George Suggate, Esq. 1 1 0 "iabouring Poor, . Wellingborough, Ist el. \V '' • G. Carter, : Remittance, by the Xo„!1,t_1• - £l,OOO 0 0 Rev. C. Pryce, Vi, t : Th w ee l , lstilem . it- car - - 70 00, IFrom Masterman n Villdsor i 750 00 'd Sub- Wolverh tr e a ampton,s et d Co. se tiption, per C. Dudley : Collection knaveS;Fb qlOO 00, at the Meeting- , South- house, by the Rev. t •k, 2d SUbscrip- J. H. Bransley, 14 18 2 PI, . per Samuel . From Hankey and Co: k,l.'lrins Esq. 65 0 Longhorn Baptist Dis, 4:dial:Esq. Bar. senting Congregotion 7.. 0 6 •tt - - -• 2 2 0 Manningiree Chapel, \c' J• T. •a. 1 1.0 Essex, by the Rev, P ' Ni ' '• . - ci 0 0. .C. 'Norman 16 16.1 etubroke and • Ir' •From Sikes and Co., einity its . • i— " / - • , , )er G. St ar - Mr. , Perry, . W bite- V i c,ic,, Lsq. 46 15 n haven . - 22 0 -'' °rail faic o Miss POwells, clopton 10 0 0 pall y P m- . N u ef Leather From Latibroke and Co. 1, 4 L e a rs - - 21 0 0 Geo. Smith, Esq. 50 -0 q'Csir;l' . • - - 20 0 From Pole and Co. P ro -- Staff' Corps. General Sir G. Leith, • aaa -3 / 1 the Officers ' Bart. - (1 %32 Alen of two Egerton,. per the Rev. h ye Pahies at C. Borchdhart 314 3 C. la o l e, in Eng- Boughton Maiherhe, Corn' th e ot h er per ditto - 4. 1 0 (bZPaaies abroad James Watt, Esq. As- , d al , ,g about three . ton Hall - . 21 , 0.0 ~(li's PaY) bylk.less. , . -From:Willisand Co. Ite t . ce ilwood & Co. 47 6 0 ' -Shinfield, by the Rev. P e il• Anderson, - J. Bookett , •1714 7 . I ,lkti - 'l4rn , 10 10 0. Swallowfield, by, ditto '9 1,7 4 4 14 . %me most of . it 1 1.0 Oxford, further sub,. . I.Bo e o phia Render- „ , scription, per Wal "oho - - 22 0 ker and Co. 36 7.0. a d s Cow ar d , Esq. ,From Martin, Stone' any' Co. 1110 ti bseription 22 0 Wrington Church,So- . . e l m Northover, rnerset, by - the Rev. , „ ti on % 2 d` Subscrip- W. Leeves, Reciorls 10 10 i ,' • - 22 0 From Esdaile and Co. - `-h41,,: - - 15 0 0 R. S. - . • - 2 2 0 ts Robinson ' H. M. U. - .- 1.. 1 0 Old ' ( 1 , • o , . .. ' 5 .0 0 Rev. J. Dudley, Rec- AL ms, fr om w-, . tor of Himley 9 4 0 Sub M.H. - 50 0 'lu p eriptions 12 8 0 From Glyn rs, .1 . °.al ik . larsh and Co. R. F. Wilson, Esq. 100 0 0 ~, teoh• 4 - 10 bree, Tot- From' Smiths Payne, and Co. 4 'ev p. 4r ° - - 5 0 0 W. Peyton, Esq. 2d - .13 f or rown, ca m _ donation . - ' 5 5" , 0 ,groin - 33 0 The. Members of the issdlarten,_Coll, and ommercialSociety 't0,„,1-4Mily Hall ' 5 0 C0.. 0 held at Mr. Carr's, "•• C Rammerdevs and c o - Banner-street 54 0 h IP ~, , - ' i. 1 . 0 • From Williams and Co. Co., y -nirahiond d Co. Right Hon. Lady Faralo 0.0 'Ne t i °e•- Hollis an 2 0 0 From Curtis and Co.. serip s t e i„ Y ' 3 d Sub. • Ramsgate RUyalHar alt -°, per J. bour, Officers and _ G en. niarez hart 65 0 0 Workmen - 712 0 48 b, '2d ' eerip u ,- ,„ Sub- Benj. Goad, Esq. 20 0 0 1 P --"" 5 0 0 From Bosanquet and Co. •'• W- . l,'M Coutts and Co.lrishwoman 50 0 Pr ar rer, En. 10 10 0 From) ones, Lloyd, and Co. 'air o °lll - Wright and Co. Robert Brant, Esq. 30 0 fh t ,,, e° .„,l'g.e Jerni ng -.. From Marryatt and Co. ,F 0 - ", , .uait. 10 0 0 Guildford -Subscrip- W r ''' Hodson. Stirling.'Haydn & • To and tio per ... ad 8 nsend, Esq. Con, - - 24 3 0 l 'qrs, g arnara bscription 5- 0.0 Sydenbam; per Rev. From 50 0 J. Cooksley 24 12 0 J o h„ otri Sn ow and ',Willi s , Es. Pa s' Mr. James Hardy 20 0 Ili Fro m Chile;nd Co. 5 ° From Lloyd's Oaffee-house. 1,, Francklin, ' =.sq . , War. Dubois, Esq. 5 0 0 P t - 5 From Curries and Co. . F ° ° l God- . ° ° Yellowley and Clark 10 , 10 O. lies C rofts ings and Sharpe. From Lubbock and C. G•& J, nixington , 1 5 1 0 . 0 'Weekly Labourers, 0 mostly all of them tapll'eerciattl,,dFraed and Co. - Irish, in the ern zakk, 4, ~ onCh ura h, ploy of T. and B. W r i . , Per Rev. T. ilawes - . Fr - 9 2,0 Hereford, City and 4 i ti f e : w mi n m P ern elin g and Co. County, 2d remit tance, per Messrs. tt) 4°4 ' Artilier Matthews 200 0 0 I , r °Pany wh Y Leominster, per Rev. 200 , ose t o .„, are known i G. 'Woodhouse -7919 11 L ae T., , _ From Bitnard and. Co. tiitt ee "" 8 ° Uoin- John Bell, Esq. ' 5, 0 0 F r ' , - 30 •5 0 Stitt ' l ° uanbur y a d ch°ll°,,,l, Goldfieldn Co. From Dorrien and Co. Colehill - Tamworth J. C e " , , , Per Rev. Dissenting Chapel, on the 16th June, l'— ' arn 67 0 0 Rev. J. Owen 22 10 6 4 ? at Eleven for' r dameu Committee v,72 . 11 per Tavern 4? at the City of London th e pr o se riPtions are received and b urs of Twelve and o at Y all tile Bankers 'ai Lom By Order of I IIICH. WM. 9 20 the Committee Room, between ; by Smith, Payne and Smiths; ion and Westminster. the Committee, CROY, Honorary Secretary. SIR, WATKIN LEWES, fiat., Deceased. The 13.0\D and otherSPECIALYT CREDI'foItS of Sir WATKIN LEWES, Knt., late of Ludgate-hill, and I ate one of the Aldermen of London, are requested to furnish Messrs. BERRINGTON and JENKINS; of Swansea, or Messrs. HURL) anil JOHNSON, of the Inner Temple, London, with . the PARTIOUL4IIS 'of their DEMANDS, and of the Secu rities th 4 bold, for the inforthation of the Administrators. of the said Intestate's Estatc.-7Letters tehe"postpaid. HURD and JOHNSON, Temple. Ptunr,. AMARRI ED CLERGYMAN of the ESTA- BusHEp ,CRITRCH, resident . within Twelve Miles of London, receives .a FEW PUPILS Wu his Hopse, and would be glad' to fill up a YACAN.Ciwitli a Gentleman's Son, whose Healtli• or Education .may require more. than usual attention. ~ • Letters to be addressed to Reverend T. N., Mr. Triphoole.st Bookseller, 23, Old Bond-Street' Litudon. ARCHDEACON NAIUIS!S GLOSSARY. This day was pnblisbed•in l vol. 4to of (100 . pages, printed in double columns, 41. 155: in boards,' AC°L.LECTION of Word s,Phrases, Names, and Allusions to Customs, Proverb;, zke.,, which vave been thought tw,require .illostratioir in the Works of English Authors, particul4rly.slitiksiieare , and. his Contemporaries,— and forming a necessary,Suteplein i ent taolmson's Dictionary. By ROBERT HARES, A.II. F R.S. and - F.A.S. Areltdeacon of SfafAird. Printed•for-Robert Triphook- ? .01t1 Bond-streee,-,-Libra ..• • • • ries purchased or valued. • • - IticHAßpsoN 7 -.G.OODLUCK and, Cop ReSpectfully acquaint tire Public, that the State. Lot tery of 13,000 Tickets wiJI be_iin drawing-the 161.1) of JULY; Second Da;*, &bib of JULY,Third and Last. pay, .13th• of AUGUST.' • The SCHEME contains 2 ...... Prizes of .1:30,06(1 Prizes of . X20,000' Sze. Consols and Money. TEN CAPITALS will lie Drawn the First Day; and may be gained by the 18s. A WHOLE TICKET.. And Shares - itt •lirbpnrtign••doWn tir a SIXTEENTH 'FUUR SHILLINGS.. Purchasers, after taking the Chance of the First bay, will be allowed taret urn their Tickets or Shares, whether Arawn Blanks, small Prizes - , or undraVen, and may receive for them the following Stivr, viz. • • Ticket costs .... X'2l IS' t) may receive trie.. X2O 0 0 HPlf .... posts .11 17 , 0 may receive back:: 10 12 0 Quarter .. toits'.... 519 0 roay'receive back.. 5' 't3 0 Eighth- costs .... 3 06. May receive back.. 213 0 Sixteenth 'costs::: ~ 110 . 6 may'reteive back... 1 6 6 All who wish to avail themselves' of this otter, must "bringin their Tickets or Shares °nor before the 26th of Julyias-none will he taken back .after that day. TICKETS. and SHARES are Selling by RICHARDSON, bOODLUCK, and Co. who sold 11,221, a Prize of £20,000 in Shares, 28th March, atAheir Office, 104, BANK BUILD INGS, COI NIIILL ' • I`6TH JULY. and J—SIVEWRiOHT .have 'great plea t, • sure in offering to their Friends and the PUblie an opportunity of gaining the TEN CAPITAL PRIZES sure to be drawn the First Day (16th JULY}, at the following tri-' ding Risk, viz.:-- A Whole,Tickft only H. 18s. Half • il. Eighih • .7s. 6d. - Quarter 13s. I Sixteenth 4s. ALL PURCHASERS ,at J. and J. SIVEWRIGHVS Of fices, after taking the ,chance of the First Day ; will be al lowed to return their Tickets or Shares (at any time on or :before 26th July), 'whether drawn or undrawd, at the above very trifling Reduction from time Price they gave, which is all they can lose; and they may gaih the Ten Capitals that are sure to be drawn, and any..of the Floating Prizes that may happen to come up the First Day, July 16. • THE SCHEME CONTAINS TWO of TWO Besides other Capitals p,OOO, 4:1,000, Consols and Money, and Nut Two Blanks to a Prize. Tickets and Shares are . Selling at .3. and .1. - SIVE WRIGHTS' Offices, 37, Cornhill • 38, Haymarket, I Holborn : Corner of Corentry-street. Where they sold ALL the ;2c20,000 PRIZES in a recent Lot• tcrv, and in their Last Contract 4,421, a Prize of Z 25,000. WIDOW WELCH'S FEMALE: PILLS hare obtained the sanction and approbation of Gen tlemen of the Medical Profession, as a safe and valuable Medicine, in removing obstructions, and relieving other inconveniences to which the female frame is liable, especially those which at an early period of life frequently arise from want of exercise, and general debility of the system. They create an appetite, comet indigestion, remove giddiness and nervous head ache, and are eminently useful in windy Ilia orders, pains in the stomach, shortness of breath, and palpi tations of thi: heart. . Purchasers are requested to remark, that, as a testimony of authenticity, each Bill, of Directions is signed with the name of ~,, ~, ~ r.~~e~ in writing SOW wholesale and Retail, in London, by Wright, No. 46, Fleet-street ; Barclay and Sons, Fleet Market ; New bery and Sons, St. Paul's Church Yard ; Sutton and Co. Bow Church Yard ; Sanger, 350, Oxford-street, opposite Bond street; Evans and Son, Long Lane, Smithfield; Johnston, Greek-street, Soho; Butler and Sons, Clieniside ; : Godfrey and Windus, Bishopsgate-street : and by all Country Venders, at 2s. 9d per Box. l' o * It is -necessary to inform. the public that KEARSLEY'S is the only original and genuine Medicine, and has been pre pared by them for more than thirty years, fits NA ihog tipp u erta ce• of 64. L og r ec t :l se ve t he ing et or ,a l c l9 " if, 00 % e 504' ' s _ 14 - • \\ , 0 • , • G! /17 /I) /.// \ '1.41_44 ///2 SATURDAY, JUNE 22, 1822. PARLIAAI.ENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, FainAY, JUNE 21. - This day their LordshipiS inet,at half-after three o'clock, and no one then being in attend ance to be sworn, the Honse.adjourned till five. PETITIONS, Lord GRENVILLE presented a Petition from the `Jniver say of Oxford against the Catholic Peeis on the table. Lord KENYON presented a Petition to the same effect from. some 'Borough in the County of Warwiek.—Laid.on the table.' The Duke of MowinosE and the Bishop of LONDON pro. sehted similar Petitions from the Burgher Seceders Of Glas gow, and from the Parish of St. Mary Woolmer, in the City. ,of London.—Laid on the table. ' • - The ..,Duke 'of, GRAFTON presented four Petitions from Owners and' Occupiers of Land in , the County of Sutfolk,, against the Importation of Corn La'azi Amendment 8i11...L. "Lard7tin the table:. The Bishop of CHESTERpresented a Petition from North- with against the Catholic Peers Bill.—Laid on the table. NOTTINGHAM PETITION. Lord HOLLAND held a petition from a Corporation, dis tinguished at all times for its attachment to the civil and reli gious Constitution of the country, 'the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the Town of Nottingham, in favour of the Catholic Peers' Bill. They prayed for the removal of those , restrictive laws on the Catholics which assumed the character'of pains and penalties. r and which ought to be no longer continued, now that the danger which they had been created to repress no • longer existed. A few days ago a Noble Duke had said, whilst presenting a petition from the same part of the country, that a feverish feeling prevailed in that quarter against the Bill. Now this Corporation had , frequently been branded with too easy a compliance with popular prejudices. The present - Petition, therefore, either showed that it had spirit enough to go against those prejudices, or that the Noble Duke • had. been most grossly misinformed as to their existence. The Noble ford- then moved that the -Petition be read at full length—Agreed to. - • , The petition was then read, and laid on - the 'table. • Lord COMBERMERE presented a•petition from Horsham,- in the County of Sussex, against the Catholic Bill.—Laid on the table. - • • " . The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from the Parish of Clerkenwell, in favour of the Bill. Sir J. ORM:IAA' and, others brought up several Private Bills from the Commons, which were read a first time. . • • • The Marquis of BUTE preAented a petition from the Owners of Land at Cardiff against the Importation of Corn Laws Amendinent Bill.—Lard on the table. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a great number Of petitions, chiefly from Dissenters, in various places and towns in the counties - of Surrey, Kent, and Sussex, [the im mense pressure • and agitation of the crowd below the Bar, rendered it impossible to hear the names, and indeed much of the . Speeches -that ensued,' . against the Catholic Peery' Bill. . Lord GREY wished to be informed, whether thoge petitions had been agreed to at' public meetings, or privately circulated for signatures ? The Earl of SHAFTESBURY was understood to say, that;,, he could not tell, as they hadbut just been put in his hands. Lord GREY had put the iluestion, in order that the true character of the Petitions 'might be ascertained, and to what de gree of credit they were entitled. Afterb few words from Lord REDESDALE, the hORDCHAN-' cELLon, and Lord GREY, which were inaudible below the bar, the Petitions were laid, on the table. "_ Th ; 7F;;;;;l)uties and the Assessed Taxes Com position Bills went respectively through' Committees, and were -reported. . • - CATHOLIC PEEItS. The Order of the Day having been read, . • - The Duke of PORTLAND rose, pursuant to notice, to move the second reading of 'the Bill for enabling Catholic Peers to take their seats• in -that • House. Although most anxious to spare the time of their Lordships as much as pos sible, he could not move the second reading of this'Bill-without reminding them, that in the fiftieth year of . Queen Elizabeth, an Act had , passed, making it necessary for the Commons to take the,oath of supremacy, but containing a clause which exempted the Members of the Upper House from the operation of the , Act. The 'consequence was, 'that Catholic Peers continued to sit in that Mouse until 'the 13th of Charles 11. At that period certain Catholic Peers being supposed to be implicated in a Popish plot, that Bill was passed, which deprived - them of their seat in the,Legislature. Of all the Catholic Peers' so implicated, Lord Strafford alone was brought to trial, found guilty,' and executed. But posterity, instead of ratifying the verdict of his gUilt, still looked upon his execution as nothing less than a legal murder. • The• Act then passed was one which belief in the existence of the supposed danger could alone justify. But if the exclusion of Catholic Peers were necessary then, could it be contended that it was necessary now ? NVould their.sitting in Parliament be attended with more peril• than in the time of Queen Elizabeth, when the -Pope of Rome had most power ? He defied the most ingenious opposers of their claims to maintain that the same state of things existed now as at that. period. But even when it did exist, what was the lan guage of the law with respect to Catholic Peers ? It said that, " as much as the Queen's - Majesty is assured of the faith and loyalty of the temporal'Peers of Parliament, therefore the Act should not be construed to require Peers of Parlia ment to take the Oath of Supremacy." Was his present Ma jesty less sure of the faith and loyalty of the Peers of Parlia ment than Queen Elizabeth ? Or would it be said that her Par liament had been too confident ? History proves that that confidence was well founded, for it recorded no evil resulting from the admission of Catholic Peers to seats in that House, as long as they had been allowed to hold them. The Catholic Peers had opposed the expulsion of the Bishops in 1611, and supported their re-admission in 'twenty years after, as strenuous. ly as the Protestant Peers. Undoubtedly it might be prudent for William the Third, considering the circumstances under which he was called to the throne, to exclude them from Pan: liaroent ; but would any one say that because it had been done then, it ought to be done now ? .During the last five and twenty. years circumstances had arisen which had induced Parliament more than once to suspend the Habeas Corpus ; but had any one ever thought of reviving that suspension, or making it con tinual, after those circumstances had ceased to exist ? If a degree of unfounded alarm had not actuated Parliament in the reign of Charles 11., he was convinced that up to the present day Catholic Peers would' have sat in that House. Had this been the case, would not a motion for their expulsion be now Considered an act of great injustice ? He saw no difference between committing an act of injustice for continuing one. He regretted that through ignorance he should have so long been a party to such an act, and in order to repair the past, should move " That the Bill for admitting Catholic Peers to seats in that House be read a second time. Lord COLCHESTER begged leave to assure their Lord- ships, with the most perfect sincerity, that there was no - man living more disposed than he was to grant all that it was pos sible to grant to the Roman Catholics without endangering the safety of the. Constitution of the St - ate. But he could not con cur in a measure which delivered both keys of Parliament to the Catholics—a measure which it must be seen, however skil [ fully framed, would only obtain a limited concession, in order that that concession should afterwards be brought to act in favour of others more general and unlimited. It was said that the law which excluded Catholic Peers from Parliament was originally founded on groundless alarm ; but if that was the case it had since stood on the basis of, sound policy. The system itself was antecedent to that law. It had commenced under Queen Elizabeth with the Corporation and Test Acts. The House of Commons had then excluded its own Members. The Act of Charles 11, had followed, then the Bill of Rights, and by the Act of Union with Scotland, by which it was settled that no other but Protestant Peers should sit in that House ; at the distance of three reigns Parliament had confirmed the exclu sion of the Catholics. Fresh confirmation had ensued at the Ac cession of the House of Hanover, and the Act of Geo. 11. had' revived and sanctioned all that had been previously enacted on the subject. The Noble Duke, however, saw no grounds for continuing those laws ; he proposed .to revise and repeal them, and .recommended the present Bill as the firststep to wards so desirable a consummation. If their Lordships exa mined its grounds, step-by step, they would see the full bearing of the measure. He had always been of opinion, that little should be yielded.to importunity, and nothing to menace ; but that every thing that could safely be done should be done by the Legislature on its own views; and that having done so, it should then make its final stand. He - thought that Parliament should open the full career of erdoluments and honours to Catholic Dissenters. as to Protestant Dissenters. He therefore rejoiced when he saw. Catholics - called upon to perform high • offices towards royalty at the late nronation, awl at the badge of honour conferred by his. Majesty on a Catholic Nobleinan in Ireland. The army a and navy were already open to them, andhe saw no objection to throw open all other roads to fortune and distinction; and to equalize all Catholics in every part of the United Empire. He should be glad to see them receive all: marks of royal :favour, reserving only. those Which belong to the Supreme Government of the realm. Of religious tolera tion too • much' conldnot be, granted : he would wish to see more, omplete protection extended to their places of worship, and especially that Catholics should be relieved from the pain - - ful necessity of celebrating their marriages in our churches, Where tenets were professed contrary to their own. At the same time he would allow of- no processions in our streets, no 'monastic establishments,: no Jesuits sending missioparies through the land, and-he would add that the College of eSuits at Stonyhurst called for the investigation of Parliament. As to the, Catholic clergy, it would be unwise Ertel needless to deny their existence as a body. He therefore thought that his Ma.: jesty had been well advesed e when in Ireland, to receive the ad dresses.: of the Catholic Bishops and Clergy, as 'he had done those of other Dissenters. But the recognition of their Clergy required new laws to be, made. , Let these be properly framed;. nod we should have , no Students educated at Rome, no Vicars Apostolic—the Mere instruments of the Papal Court, but an . Episcopal Clergy,. independent of foreign influence and only subject to the Crown., „There Were ample proofs . on their Lord ships' Table, that restrictions tending to produce that effect, by reg(ilating the communications of the Catholic Clergy with the See of , Rollie, existed in all, countries but our Own. For this purpose their. Lordships would be uhder the necessity of recast in the 13th'of Elizabeth. - :Let the Catholics hold none of the offices connected with the exercise of the Supreme authority, none in the' Supreme Courts of Justice; no seat in the Royal Councils; none in either-House of Parliament. Our Protestant Establishment must be maintained, or eiseattempta would soon be made- to tender it Catholic. For ; let us not be deceived— the principles- of the Catholics Were in direct-hostility to the .Protestant Church and Government, and he believed this be cause he ,believed. in the sincerity. with which they professed their religion. The,Noble Earl then quoted the opinions of the Catholic Church as expressed in Bossuet's great work, and, contended that' the- same doctrines had been renewed in our days. - Their Lordships were told to take exampif by other States where a more liberal policy had been adopted towards the Catholics, and to be convinced that their admission to the Councils of the State would he attended with no danger. But so little were the views of the Catholic Church altered, that the. Pope had lately restored the Order of the Jesuits which had been proscribed in all countries, and•that protection had been refused to • the tombs of Protestants, within the walls. Of Rome, although it had been demanded by Protestants of all .Countries Tesuling. in that city,- sup ported by the interference 'of their ambassadOrs, and even by the request of the presumptive . heir to a Protestant throne. If it were said that the Catholic Governments of other countries treated Protestants with less of mistrust than we did Catholics, it must be recollected that the nature of those Go vernnients, and their institutions, made the religion of the per- Sons whom. they employed a matter of indifference.—Their case was not parallel to our own ; foe this country was. the only one in which the popular character of the constitution, could carry a;i halividual to the-direction of affairs and the councils of his Sovereign. He must look to to-morrow as well as to the pre e their n i tnehis wishi e every sent day. . The paucity of the Catholics was no security against CatholicTh eN oblfamilies Lord then should reiteratedbe consulted• practicable way'; but believing that their introduction into both Houses of Parliament would only tend to ravive political hos crereassts!of. tilities, and being desirous that the ~ character of our establish ment should mot cease to be Protestant, he should propose that instead of reading- this Bill a second time to-night, it be read this day - three months. . . • • Lord ERSKINE rose to support-the 811., Friend said that he was not satisfied with the i immunities which the Catholics enjoyed,' and that he was willing to enter .on a pro. gressive system to increase theme why not then begin by let ting Catholic Peers have their own ? Ile had • admitted that their exclusion formed no,part of the original constitution of the country, andthatnotwithstandiug the law which operated on the Commons a they had continued to sit in Parliament till the 13th of Charles 11.,.0r the supposed existence of a Popish plot. Was there any man •who believed there was any truth in the charges brought . against Catholic Peers on that occa sion ? They had not been examined by the Commons, but rested entirely on the revelations of Titus Oates, a man who was abroad at - the: time when the pretended plot .was to be execitted. Did Serjeant Maynard, the principal manager for the 1-louse of Commons, in the impeachment.of Lord Strafford, venture to say that the charges had any other foundation than the revelatibns of Titus Oates ?• he especially said that they rested on the testimony of only one man, Oates. lie re presented the exposure. as the act - of GOD, not that of man, in inducing Oates to make the discovery, and wished that thanks should be returnedto ;ion. alone... it was not the act of Gon, but the instigation of the Devil Which' had produced the revela tions of Oates. Less than five years afterwards that impostor had been brought to trial, and convicted on the uncontradicted testimony of forty-seven witnesses, whaall swore that he had never . been 'nearer to London than St. Omers. lie should consent to suffer the present Billoo be dropped if there were any man who could believe .that Titus Oates had not been' guilty of perjury.. He admitted: that great alarm had prevailed at the time, and that those who had convicted Lord Strafford had acted honourably, being led bythe prejudices of the times to :consider' him•guilty.' But now were we in similar circhm, stances ? Were - we in danger of a Popish Successor-in the per son of the Duke of York ? What had. Parliament already done ? It had repealed most of the Statutes against Catholic's : it had said that it was not necessary for , them to take the Oath of Supremacy to enable them to hold situations in the. Arthy or the Navy, to be Magistrates, Grand Jurors, Petty .Jurors, offices much more important than the filling of seats in Palle,- Merit. The Act which forbad Catholic Peers to come into the King's presence without incurring heavy .penalties had been repealed in 1791, when it had been emoted that Peers profess ing. the Catholic Religion, who should take: the oath of alle-• giants, should •be relieved from those penalties, and should be considered "as good and loyal subjects." On•what principle - was the Oath of Supremacy retained after such a concession ? No man had rejoiced more than he had done at his Majesty's Visit•to Ireland, but the people of that country would never be tranquilized, hitless Parliament showed that it. could trust in the oaths - which it had administered to Thinking, as he did, that Catholic Peers could not be justly excluded from sitting in that House, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill. . ' • The LORD CHANCELLOR - said that it was now more than twenty years ego that he had felt much pain in withhold ' ing his assent from measures something like those now content ' plated, for he contended that whatever the object asked for might be,. that in view was neither more nor less than' unli mited concession. He would tell their Lordships why he had felt pain. He had then the honour of .being noticed by that great man now gone (Mr. Pitt), and if he differed from him on this important point,• it was because no earthly-considera tion could induce him to consent to that measure as long as he thought it wrong. Those who had proposed concession, in 1799, had said that they should be accompanied with 'securi ties, in order that if the Catholic mind were qhieted, the Pro testant mind- should not be disturbed.. He should hav6 been ashamed to - refuse his consent if he had felt that the Protestant Establishment would be secure, but what those securities were . to be, he had never been able to learn. From some: hp •had heard what they proposed ; good 001) ! that the descendants of the great men who lived at the. Revolution should ever have looked upon such things as securities equal to those provided by the laws enacted at that period ! One ind ividual, who must be a Protestant King,. who, if he ceases-to be a Protestant, that moment sees the allegiance of his subjects dissolved, was to be surrounded by Catholic Ministers, with .the exception of the person who filled the situation, whicb.he (the Lord Chancellor) so inadequately occupied, and who was to be . a .Protestant. Never had such nonsense and such trash been put into an Act of Parliament as that was. With -respect to the object of the present Bill, how did it happen that in all the dissentions which had taken place on the Catholic Claims since 1799, no pro position had ever been made to distinguish the - case of Ca tholic Peers from that of the Catholics in general, until it had beehMehtioned by a Noble Baron (Lord .Grenville we belieVe), for whom he entertained so much, respect, that if lie doubted the 'soundness of his own opinion, it. was because it differed from that of the Noble .Baron. It was. not for such a man as' he wag to use such language, but lie would say, as to personal feelings towards the Catholics, with a great Judge of former times, ": I have found it my duty to - enter into a cove nant with myself, that affectionate • feeling may not press on judgment." He desired that their Lordships would give him 4 1 4 44 • 7 . PRICE SEN*ENPENCEi . . credit for the' same sentiments. As to the question itself, he had a right to avail himself of the OittheritY of Mr. Pitt, of the Noble Baron, and even of the Hon.' Geitteman who wa the author of the measure, to contend thaa no one had• hitherto ventured to propose a Bill to emancipate the Catholics, out at the same time. proposing some securities. It was said; that there was - no danger in a concession like the present; bat did their Lordships perceive that if they granted it, they put if out of their power to deliberate - upon the general measure ? . When the 13111 had first come into his hands, he thought he had been misled by some foolish fellow calling himself .Printer to .the House of Crinnoris, who had wrongly entitled it a ;Bill to repeal the Act of Charles 11. for he could not believe that the great Shatesmon to whom he should Wish well in all ports of the world, and the able Lawyers by whom he had been assisted, would hove Wished to repeal a Mil anterior to all the Statutes since passed, and still in feirce against the Catholics. He* had foand, hoWever, that some words had been inserted to embrace' the Act of King William and all other Acts, notwithstanding. No than could look at . our history prior to the Reformation,, without being satisfied that at some periods our ancestors had subinitted in the most de g rading manner to the See of Rome; and at others had conducted themselves as became the subjects of an independent State. . Till that event, the country hada been plunged in the misery belonging to the circumstance of not knowing exactly what was the Religion of the State. If . their Lordships, should decide in favour of the present Bill; they . would place back the country in the Same unsettled situation till another RevolUtion should conic to decide whether the State should be Protestant or Catholic. King William having said to Sergeant Maynard; 'who was a very old man, " Why, you have. outlived all the Legislators of the land," that 'distin guished individual replied, " Yes, and if you had not come, I should have outlived all its laws too." if his Noble Friend behind him (the Duke of Portland)' could peasuade their Lord- Ships to adopt his ,motion, as he looked healthy and . see Med likely to live king, he might also outlive the laWs et the land...-. (Laughter,)—The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to the debasing Acts passed in the reign of Queen Mary at the intercession of the l'ope's legate, by which,the supremacy of the Pope had been restored in this country.. And here he would...say, that he agreed' with Gillet Justice HaleS, that a Catholic. and a Protestant could not take the oath of allegiance together in the same sense ; if they did not also - take that' of. supremacy, which had been made to explain and re event the evasion of the former. Queen Elilabeth - had repealed the Acts passed by Queen Mary, and for a long period of years the country had been left tb that alternate and unsettled legislation, which was contrary to its repose and happiness. The Revolution at last had come. Good God ! could it be said that the Coven , dishes, theßentincks, the Somersets were then in such a terrible fright on account of the long past revelations of Titus Oates,. whom it had .been customary to expose in the pillory about three times avear, that terror induced them to, re-enact all the provisions of the 13th of Charles 11. ?- It was his opinion, that . if Titus Oates had nev er been born, not forgetting what ;the Russels and the Sidneys had said as' to Popery, that similOr enactments would a have been made. This opinion was strengtha . ened by the measures taken by King William at the Revoa lution, by his signature efathe Act of Settlement on his death bed, by the provisions of the Act of Union with Scotland, ; by the Act of George 11. which re-enacted the former, in the very same words, and by what passed every year as to.' Indemnity Acts. It scented to be forgotten that there had, been such a reign as that of. James 11. in our history. That King had declared to Parliament that nothing was nearer heart than to take care of the Religion of the country , and . yet from hour to hour and day to day, he went on violating every law, making his own will his -law, and dispensing with that Act of Charles 11. which he 'had prolnised to observe a , and by which he ought to have felt that - he ,was• bound. Ile., - would trust no one with powers or privileges which - the law, notdid allow. He spoke in the presence of his Royal High.. n'ess the Duke of Yank, than whom no man was dearer to his . country'; but he would not trust him further. than the law. tinged him. It had been said that the Act of Exclusion was . 'passed in consequence of the misdeeds of-Titus-Oates. But ilia infaniaus. conduct had been exposed and establiShed long before_ the Revolution, and it could' not, therefore, be his'conduct but, the principle . upon.which the Revolution was effected, that in- a duced its authors to secure arid perpetuate the laws. They felt a pressing and unavoidable necessity for putting it 'out of the power of thoge persons, who . had involved the country' in uneasiness" - and divisions during the time that elapse 4, between the Reformation and thealtevolution, to renew their mischievous. designs ; and it was to accomplish. that object that these measures were resorted to. He was quite pre.. pared to admit that the Legislation of to-day was • not neces- - aarily binding upon their Lordships to-morrow. But it was quite in conformity with the spirit of our legislation, thot, they should be either warned or guided by preeedipg . Acts.— If they looked back itpon all those Acts which contributed to the 'building up of the fabric of our Constitution, they would find them to be declared 'Acts essential; and Acta undamental, which should last foe ever ; but in. such' measures as did tan come within that description, there wasno suctaccompanying, declaration. We11,.-then; let their Lordships - see what King William stated upon the character of the laws they were now called apon tosepeala That :Monarch said; that his object was " toeffect some permanent settlement of the laws, religion, and libertihs of the country, which had been attempted to be subverted, so that they Might never be disturbed again." Let them alsossee what had been done by the Convention, the chief movers and supporfers'ot the Revolution. They sent for the Prince of Orange at a time when they were desperately afraid of Titus Oates. But when they were afterwards relieved from that fear, what did they do ? They found, that by the statutes of Elizabeth, certain penalties had been enacted against the Catholics, and that by the Act of I:heries the Second, they had been continued, with the additional ones of disqualifying Peers _ from sitting in Parliament. They then proceeded tore-enact those disabilities. And that was not all. They said that it would be an anomaly in a free State for the Commoners not to be allowed to choose their representatives from all classes of men, unless there was a general and total 'exclusion of any particular class from the off ees .of that State. Acctird. ingly they .said, " If the House of Commons is to be Protes • tant—if the House of Peers is to be Protestant—we must have a Protestant King also." It was then declared necessary to the civil and religious liberties of the country; that a Protes tant King should sit upon the throne., Not' only that, but they imposed the coronation-oath, which professed to find' a secu rity for - the spiritual liberties of theeople. The intention of th_e Revolution was to make the Church Protestant, and to make the State Protestant. Therefore it was that the King could not take the coronation-oath until he had first made the de claration against -transubstantiation, unless he had previously been in their Lordships' House, The/present King had made the declaration under. the canopy Which they now beheld. He knew many of the descendants of the great men who esta blished the Revolution.; and, if he had the honour of knowing. their ancestors, and had gone up stairs, Where they were making these laws, and told them, that they were a pack of cowards ; and were doing so under the influence of false fear and ground less alarm, he apprehended they.would have shewn him a much quicker way down again, than heathould otherwise have found. laugh)—Yet they were now told that such was really the fact. The last words of King. William were, that the acts of james 11. were intendedato , subvert the Protestant'Estallish. ment ; and the Bill of Rights declared that suclfEstablialithent should remain fol ever. Their Lordships'were bound net only to look at the present, but at the, remote cooserences of the act they were called upon to do. Ile considered that \ there could be no censure so severe, upon the great authors of the Revolution, as the repeal of their measures, upon this import ant question: It was one of their principles to exclude Catho lics from the offices of the State, and to upset it would be to censure allthe principles ofthe Revolution. The Articles of the 'Scotch Union confirmed this 'view, and,proved that the same principles continued , to be acted upon down to that•period. One of the Articles expressly declared, that no Peer or- Com moner, w to wereho th e Acts ßoman of o Catholics,e The Legislature should m h a beeelected l lla then came that time hadnothing to do with the causes which operated at the passing of the Act of Charles 11. ; they had nothing to do with the question of whether the Revolution was necessary or not; they .expressly repealed the Acts, and then re-enacted them anew. "If this Bill passed, how could they say to the Catholic Commoner, ". You shall not sit in Parliament, but the Ca tholic Peer shall ?" • With all deference to tho Noble Mover of the Bill, of whom , it was impossible to speak but wi.h re spect, he must tell him that it was impossible, audit it were possible, unjust to do this. It was eitially unjust to the So vereign, that he should be debarred from the right of anarry ing whom he pleased, if the disqualifications were. to be removed from the Catholic Peer. He should say to those who proposed such a. measure, "If you will no permit my Sovereign to marry a Papist, I will not permiPa Papist to - come here." .It would, perhaps, be that he had always been calling out for some specific measure. Ile admitted that C, 1. . e ‘4'L tf'lN ' ' ' i.-: • 6 de. ol r 1 ay ‘4 Alter l ove r ' Aro to xr . ort r l t l; tot i. c ; s°