The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-07 00:00:00

. l'H

'IIRITIgTI

w

I.

the revenue of the Island—the other the pressing request to that
effect made in petitions to the House from the House of Keys. and
other inhabitants of the Isle of Man.—The Report was then re-
ceived.
PROVINCIAL BANKS—IRELAND.
Mr. S. RICE presented • petition from the Members of the
Chamber of Commerce in Limerick, in favour of the Irish Pro-
vincial Banks Bill.—Ordered to be printed.
TRANSFER OF ESTATES.
Mr. COURTENAY brought in a Bill to consolidate the laws
for regulating the Transfer of Estates.
The Bill was read it tirvt and second time, and Ordered to be
printed and committed on Monday nest.
CHANCERY COURT—IRELAND. -
Mr. GOl'LltUlts brought up the Report of the Irish Chan-
cery Court Bid. The Report, with ihe Amendments, was agreed
to, ordered to be engrossed, and the Bill was ordered to be read a
third time on Monday next.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL—COMMITTEE.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved the Order of the Day, that the
House resolve itself Into a Committee on the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill.
On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,
lieneral GASCOYNE said he must enter his protest, as far se it
went. against the proposed concession. It struck him, though per.
haps not noticed by other Honourable Members, that the Bills for
the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, and for pensioning the

Popish Clergy, must beconsidered as component parts of the pre-
sent measure. The principle of the Disfranchisement Rill he took
to be this, that the landlords exercised such an undue influence
over the minor fresholthers aerendered them incapable of exercising
their votes. Now every one must feel that it was inconsistent with
the nature of things that the landed proprietor should not, in a
great degree, influence his tenants. If such a principle were there-
fore once acted on, where was the line of demarkation ? who could
tell the exact point at which they were to stop ? (Hear, hear.)
Another reason for his opposition was, that no Honourable Mem-
ber could hone to see, however long he may expect to live. the Dis-
franchisement Bill carried into effect, for, according to its provi.
don, every 411 s. freeholder was to enjoy his rights during the con-
tinuance of his lease. Of these freeholds there were 250.000. so
that the House was called on to pass a Bill which was to have im-
mediate effect, in consideration of another Bill not to come into play
until these 2:4h.000 ceased to exist or their leases expire. lie further
begged to call the attention of the House to the Bill, to bringin which
leave was given. llt was suggested that leave wasnot given tobring
in a Bill; A was merely a Resolution."( Well (continued the Hon.
Member). has not a Resolution the same effect as a Bill ? So he
always considered it. Well, to that Bill or Resolution, whichever
they pleased to call it, he would remark, that if any Minister of
the Crown gave his assent that a sum not less than half a million
be paid to Popish Priests, he would hold that Minister responsible
for such conduct, and he supposed the Noble Lord (Lord L. Gower)
did not introduce the measure without such assent. The Minister
either had or hail not the concurrence of his Majesty, and he
thought that assent must be had ere they adopted a course that
must infringe on the Constitution of the country. If, then, the
'assent of his Majesty were given, he considered it equivalent to a
declaration, that if the Bill passed through both Houses of Par.
}lament, it should receive the Royal Assent, lie did not mean to
deny the axiom of the Constiution, that the King could do no
wrong; at the same lime he thought there was imposed on him
a restriction not to do any thing which was injurious to hie sub.
jests. Nothing, however, was lately heard of the Noble Lord's
measure ; it passed on like a flank company, without firing a shot,
and he trusted they should hear no more of it. The Hon. Mem.
ber, after some further observations, said the question before the
the Howse was never so unpopular as now ; he was convinced the
feelings of six sevenths of the country were hostile to it. lie implored
the House, unless they were lost to all consideration, to observe the
situation in which they were now placed. There must be soon a de-
' mine of Parliament (No. and a laugh). He meant a constitutional
death. (A laugh.) In the course of things it must expire after
next Session ; he had no wish for its dissolution (hear, hear) ;
neither did he entertain any apprehensions. A new Parliament
must soon assemble, and was the House sure that it would approve
of our act in granting concessions to the ,Catholics ? May we not
(said the Honourable Member), be placed in such a situation as to
require all the weight of Ministers to carry down the question with
the new Parliament. So great were his apprehensions, that lie
thought Ministers should, in the event of the Bill passing through
the Commons—and there existed a probability of its passing the
House of Lords—so great, he repeated, were his apprehensions,
that he thought Ministers, to prevent such a misfortune to the
country, should advise a dissolution of Parliament forthwith. The
Honourable Member went on to say, that nothing could be so un-
popular as the payment of the priests; anti from every tiling lie read,
heanl, of saw, there was no more calculated to render the emanci-
pation of the Roman Catholics so unpopular, as attaching to it a
provision that the Popish Clergy be paid by the country. Ile
though the Ministers acted unadvisedly, if not rashly, in assenting
to the introduction of that measure, the more particularly
as they had shortly to meet another Parliament before long,
when perhaps the country, owing to their conduct, would
he thrown into a state of anarchy. He did not see any at.
&tricot whatsoever in support of the Relief Bill, from the situa-
don of Ireland, or the dread of disturbance in that country ; be it
ever so turbulent, it could not be much worse than it has hitherto
been. (A laugh.) Certainly not worse than it was 20 years ago,
when rebellion raged throughout it. It was a strange circumstance
that the House should-now be engaged in conferring a boon on the
cattelics after it thought it necessary for the peace and security of
the ehuntry ao suppress its favourite assembly ; and it came with
a bad grace from the Attorney general for Ireland that he should,
when moving the third reading of the Association Bill, give
notice of the intention to introduce the present Bill. -Tbe Roman
Catholics said the object of the Association was to procure eman-
cipation. The conduct now pursued towards them was like that
adopted towards a child climbing up by •rope to come at a cherry
or any other sweet thing, and who Iwas told riot to procestim that way
lest he may break something or Mart himself, and that if he con-
sented to rest quietly he should get the object of his pursuit.
The Hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Brown ow) had stated, that
if these Bills passed lie had no objection to the measure or Catholic
Emancipation; but he (General Gaacoyneh contended that they
were going into a Committee, without being aware ef the consti-
tutional danger which attended those Bills, and which had totally
changed the nature of the question. And even supposing that the
passtarg of these accompanying Acts formed a security, why, he
would ask, were they retarded, and why were they calla upon to
pass the Catholic Relief Bill, without any guarantee that the other
Bills would receive the consent of that House along with it ? After
alluding to the opinions of the people, and expressing his ream
that the House world find the people of England were not so well
inclined to this measure, as same lion. Gentlemen had asserted,
the gallant General concluded by saying, that although he had
felt it his duty to state his objections to the principle of the Bill, he
would not oppose its going into a Committee.
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE said, lie hoped he would be
able to convince the House that a revision of their decision should
take place in this stage of the proceedings. This measure legis-
lated upon legislation, and went to repeal an oath solemnly taken
by the Members of the House la the presence of each other, and
which doubtless every Member recollected ; but in case any Mem.
ber might not be perfectly in possession of the precise words, be
would take leave to ask that the Clerk of the House do read the
oaths of Abjuration and Suprenacy, before he proceeded. (The
lerk then read the oaths). Now if it turned out that the passing
of the Bill would clearly violate that oath. he thought there could
be no doubt as to the result of tbequestion of its being committed.
lie looked at the objection with regard to the oath in two points.
The first was, that every Member, when he was elected to a
seat in that House, entered into at implied contract with the people
of England, that he would support the Constitution in Church and
State as it existed at the moment of his election. And he appre-
hended that »o one could gm rid of that contract, because the
people were aware of what the Milt were at the time they sent a
Member to that House, for they were not so ignorant as some per-
sona for the sake of argument had hinted—they knew and
thought, and he had no coubt they were sensible, that
Members could not proceed in support of this Bill with..
out violating the oath they had taken. But there was another,
and he thought a more forcble' argument. In the terms
of the oath they bound themselves to resist the interference of
any foreign Prince in all matters spiritual anti ecclesiastical, and
yet they were about to give their consent to the formation of a Com-
mittee of Bishops before engaged by oath to serve and obey a fp-
reign Sovereign. He apprehended that this was a difficulty the
House could not get over, dithout violating the oath by which they
were bound. And lie defied any one, although he might defend et
on some ground of technicality, !Gl:support it in the sense of plain,'
honest, feeling. (Hear.) And he must continue the hope, al.
though he contained it was a taint one, that they would pause and
consider betore they consented to stultify the proceedings of Parlia-
ment. li-hen lie looked to the pet-amble, which said so much upon
permanence and inviolability, he felt himself bound, although, he
knew the talent by which it would be supported by the Honourable
Beronet (Sir F. Burdett) whom he did not now see in his place,
and the power by which he might be answered by the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman on die floor (Mr. Brougham) who
could give to any measure a character and appearance which
did nut belong to it. He felt it, he repeated. his duty to pull that
preamble to pieces, and expose the inconsistency of those who
framed it. This preamble commenced by declaring an intention
to preserve inviolate the Church and State as at present established
but did the [louse recollect that there was is c a use in the Act of
Union with Scotland, excluding all Papists from being returned as
Members from Scotland ? so that in the event of the Bill for the
Relief of the Roman Catholic% passing into a law, they would
have the strange anomaly of Papist Members being returned from
Ireland and not from Scotland. lie would not, however, dwell'
longer upon this parted' the preamble, but pass to another, where,
after speaking of the sacrifice of mass, it goes on to say that spi.
ritual and religious belief shall not affect the allegiance of his Ma-
jesty's subjects. Why is it that they arc called upon to make that
provision ? Why...on account of the creed of the Roman Catholics.
a great. 1 which, and he honoured them for it. they would-support
even to their death; hut a creed which bound them to. pay alle-
giance to a Foreign Sovereign in all matters, both 'primal and
teritpordi. To talk, therefore, of allegiance, unless they meant a
divided allegiance, was to speak in terms diremly the opposite of
truth. A great deal of talent and ingenuity had been exerted to
contradict the proposition of the Pope's spiritual and temporary
authority ; but if the Catholics consented to take the oath of sum*.
wary in temporal matters, lie did not know why they could object
to the spiritual, unless, as they had said, they would rather not.
Bad, however, any staunch Papist been ever asked to utio., this
oath ? Ile would venture to arty that no one would take it,'
(Hear.) Unless he misiolerstooth the nature of their faith,
(hear, hear,) which perhaps he did, (hear, hear, hear,) he.
would venture to say that no seer* Papist would. In the
evidence of Doctor Doyle be found that the Right Revesend

•

•
Prelate, upon being asked if he had taken an oath to the
the Pope, replied that he lied ; but upon being questioned as to
the nature °fit, extraordinary tosay, he was utiable to recoils: any
Part &f it—any portion of that oath upon which the whole ob-
jection,' connected with that part of the question hinges. lie
(Dr. Doyle) said, however, that he could get a pontitical. He (Sir
T. Lethbridge) did rot know what that meant, but that he could
get a pontifical—he supposed a copy of the oath from the Vicar
Apostolic, who was at that time in town. No one. however, had
sten that copy, or knew whether it had been presented, but he had
procured a copy himself, which he would read to the House, with-
out, however, pledging himself for its accuracy, although he be-
lieved it to be true : "I swear from this time to be faithful and
obedient to the Dead of the Church of Rome; to assist to the
utmost of my power in supporting and preserving the tenets of the
Holy Roman Catholic faith; to observe and obey, and assist in
making others observe and obey. the ordinances of the Sovereign
Pontiff, and to receive all his canons and ordinances, as well as the
decrees of the Council of Trent." (low could these Bishops.
after taking this oath, abjure by another the Pope's temporal au-
thority ? Was it not almost compelling them to perjure them-
selves ? But he would not pursue the subject farther. He
thought it 3 very material point, and that the framing of such a
contradictory Aet was not very creditable to the wisdom of Par-
liament. There wee. however, another point with regard to the
Committee of Bishops, upnn which he wished to offer a few ob-
servations. In that Council which was called upon to advise the
Sovereign, there were no Protestant Counsellors, as in former
Bills—they had it all their own way, and were permitted to rev-
late all matters connected with church and State, uncontrolled
even by the Sovereign himself. How unlike such a proceeding
was the practice of their forefathers ? they went upon the principle
of security. The Protestant Gentlemen of the present day too
profess to supp rt the Protestant Church and State, as by law
established; but he would tell them, that by consenting to allow
such a Commission of Bishops, they were acting as inconsistent
with these feelings, and as much at variance with their profession,
as the East is removed from the West. Foe these Bishop', if any
thing favourable to the Government came to their knowledge,
were to communicate it to his Maiesty ; but if any thing tresses,-
able came to their knowledge—if any thing inimical either be
Church or State came to their knowledge, they were allowed to
keep it to themselves. In short, if ever there was a Bill full of
vicious principles in legislation. it was the o,e they were now
called noon to consider in a Committee. He had thus, although
very ineffeetually. he feared (hear, hear), endeavoured to guard the
House against the consequences to he apprehended from this
measure; and he would not now detain the !louse much longer.
One or two observations, however, he would take leave to add,
from the indulgence with which he had alreatly been favoured. It I
had been said that the Catholics were different now from what they
had been about a century ago in Ireland; but he denied that
point, and contended, that the more they inquired, either in Irelandli
or on the continent of Europe, with respect to the feelings of the
Catholics, the more they would be convinced nut only that their
feelings and principles remained unchanged, but that they had
acquired strength by time. Ile had. it was true, examined the evi.
dente taken before the Committee, and seen in it much which
militated against such an opinion, but he could not help ob-
serving That the witnesses seemed to have one general feeling, and
to he carefully looking to the main chance. Such was his con-
, elusion. although it might bear, ignorant one. He hid, however,
selected one or two observations from Dr. Doyle's evidence, which
might tend to support his opinions. The Hon. Bart. here read several
parts of Dr. Doyle's evidence, in which he stated that the Pope, even
in the case of a provision being made for the Catholic Bishops, had
a power to appoint to the See--that he had the power to make
ordinances and regulations without the consent of the King—that
he had had the nomination of Bishops since the end of the reign
of the Stuarts ,• and that the power could not be separated
from the I'apal Chair. The question of provision for the
clergy had been, lie rather thought, put an end to, but
he would ask how they would like such an interference
in the disposition of Sees endowed by English generosity ?
If the Roman Catholics were admitted into Parliament, would they
not seek a restoration of the property which they supposed to have
been wrongfully wrested from them ? To show that the tenets of
the Roman Catholics of the present day were the same as those of
the Roman Catholics of former periods. he would state the instance
°in fanner lately, in Yorkshire, who was tenant to a Roman Ca-
tholic, one of the conditions of whose lease was, that prayers by et
Protestant Dissenting Minister should rot be said in his house.—
He would also beg to adduce the conduct of Doctor Troy, Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, who published a pastoral letter in
Dublin. In which he permits the reading of the Scriptures only
when accompanied with Dona,' annotations. In those notes would
be found such sentiments as discouraging communion or society
with any sect of Christians who differed front them, the Roman Ca.
tholics. It inculcated the burning of all heretical books, inclusive
of the Protestant Bible; it inculcated further an avoidance of Pro-
testants, as their ways were contagious, and said that their prayers
reached not the kingdom of Heaven, and were not more re
than the howling of wolves.—(Hear. hear! and a laughridre
might easily quote many similar passages, but this was, he thought,
sufficient to trip up and overturn the arguments of those who con-
stantly said that the Roman Catholics of the present day were dif-
ferent from those of former days. He was glad to address this 'te-
gument to the House in the presence of an Honourable Member
fSir J Sebright), whom he saw crossing the floor, and who, on a
ormer night, declared that he was ashamed to see the House of
Commons discussing the Roman Catholic question In NU (Ilear,
front Sir J. S., accompanied by loud cheers from both sides of the
House.) He too (Sir T. la) was ashamed to see the !louse consent
to a measure which was calculated to destroy the present security
of the Protestant Establishment. He begged to rentioa the House
of the answer of their late uoveielgu on tieing applied to on this
subject soss said he, " to descend from the
throe. I am ready to repair to the retirement of a cottage. I
and even, if necessary, to lay my head upon the block, but I
am not prepared to violate my oath." He too had taken an oath
which lie would not violate ; and he begged lion. Gentlemen to
remember, that, in consistency with the oaths they had taken,
they could not agree to a single clause in the Bill now before the
(louse. (Hear. hear.)
Sir J. EBRIGHT rose to repeat what had fallen from him on
a romper night ; there was not, he thought, the shadow of argu-
ment tbr resisting the measure of Emancipation. So far from
being ashamed of what find fallen front him on a former night,
it was a sentiment which lie repeated, and which he was proud of.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. PELHA M made a few observations which were not
distinctly audible in the gallery.
Mr. Secretary PEEL perceived there was a pretty general im-
pression prevailing that the sense of the House would not he taken
on the question of the House going into a Committee. lie believed
that he (Mr. Peel) had himself contributed to create that impres-
sion, and lie now should not do anything to contravene it. He was
happy that the Honourable Member for Somerscahire haul not ex-
pressed his intention to oppose the Speaker leaving the Chair.
Many Members were absent on both sides, and it was besides the
more unnecessary to press a division on the question of the
House going into a Committee, as on the question, with Its
alterations in a whole shape on the third reading, he should
certainly take the sense of the House. The objections which he
entertained were not diminished by his being in a minority ; on
the contrary, the objections which he entertained to the simple
removal of the restrictions which at present affected the Roman
Catholics, were not only not abated, but were confirmed and
strengthened by the proposition which the House lately ac-
ceded to, for making a provision by law for the Roman Catholic
Clergy. This would operate as an inducement to divide the House
on the third reading; but lie felt himself bound in fairness to
abstain from doing so on the question of the House going into a
Committee.
Mr. B. CLARKE said he was favourable to the treasure of Ca-
tholic Emancipation. independent of the evidence of Dr. Doyle
or Mr. O'Connell, which bad been so much relied upon by other
Honourable Members; but no person who took part in this debate
leas] said that things could remain in Ireland as they were. If they
did, we must lire under a military government; he saw no other
state in which it was probable, or even possible. for us to continue.
Did we hope to break the spirit of the Catholics, or what slid we
propose, he would be glad to know, from our present system of
misgovernment ? Are we to keep the people of Ireland in a state
of perpetual war with each other? (Heer, hear.) lie spoke thus
of a state of peace; but if a stato of war were to come, who were
to pay the army? The people of Ireland could not—the people of
England must. He entertained no apprehension from the Roman
Catholics; he would with confidence entrust the peace of his
family, and the security of his property, to the Catholics. But
as they were at present treated, the country was miserable, and no
person would live in it due could conveniently live out of it.
(Hear, hear.) At present no person would risk a shilling of capital
in Ireland; but if this measure were to pass, ho was satisfied that
capital would flow into the country. Ile had supported the mea-
sure for suppressing the Catholic Association, and felt anxious
therefore to express the conviction he entertained of UlO necapsity
of carrying the present Bill. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel TRENCH felt es warmly as any person towards his
country; lie had a considerable estate there, and was therefore
deeply interested in its welfare. The seeds of good government
were already sown there. An finmedeate harvest could not be
expected to be respect, but he was satisfied that ere long its pros.
perity would so advance as to prevent agitators from creating dis-
turbarce there. The Honourable Member (Mr. 11. Clarke) hasi
said that this measure would lead to the introduction of capital
into Ireland. lie was happy to inform the Honourable Member,
that, to his knowledge, there was already a considerable influx of
capital into Ireland. Industry was thus increased_,industry would
produce tranquillity—and tranquillity would servo as en induce-
ment to die investiture of capital in Ireland. His chief objection
to the measure of emancipation was the absolute dominion which
the priesthood of Ireland—who were a political priesthood—exer-
eiecti over the people of that country. Another argument that
weighed strorgly upon his mind was, that the members of that
ambitious religion would not be satisfied with what they at present
prayed for, but would aspire to the high situations from which it
was proposed they should continue excluded. 11(as had been said)
this was a question of feeling with a great portion of the Roman
Catholic people, would not their feelings be still dissatisfied by
being excluded the Throne, front the Lord Chancellorship,
and the Lord Lieutenantcy of Ireland ? Would they not na-
turally require the Act of' Settlement to be repealed ? It' the
Melt Catholics could be educated, his opposition to the measure
wonld be abated, if not altogether extinguished. He sae one of
those who could not admire the principles of the Roman Cathollo
religion ; and considering the evidence taken before the Committee,
which lie (Col. Trench) haul perused attentively, lie was forced to
look upon this measure with great apprehension and dread. He
was a convert, thought to a different side of the question from that
espoused by the Honourable Member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow).
He entataitted a jealousy ageinet prestos educated in foreign

eountries,whose principles teere sophisticated and dun edam
at • high station in this ttry. tie did not think the meuere of
Emancipation would s.it stv she Irish. He believed thet ,ysure
was indiffereht to them until theseveseeVt year s• but he thought the
House could no.r do much to tranquilize Ireland. /le alluded to
mbeaairndteattedheaGcohvaeracnim,eenr
fto:,
itthve
thlirct:icltnisatincti
fanidhoiseepanrale.atesnuireeasstisr,c7oubielfobree thapeilinvo,usedse,tomemy
parhamed
eTi..1.11
lora
joined with what was already done, he thought the present
would be at rest for ever. As to the English Catholics, their
daims
rested upon grounds altogether different. The English (;aiholl;s
were insulted by neglect. In Ireland an ignorant Catholic popui,„
En
and yet they now stood in a worse condition than their Nil
lehnadoraltw4l;ynst.
tines, led
lish
brethren. In conclusion, he called upon lion. Members, if the
Collathboyliens
were not prepared to do away with a Protestant Government aYt
once to coe decided and set this ;whits:lg question at rest. 3
Mr. BANK Es hoped his acquiescence to the motion for gels
into a Committee, would not be construed into any arg,,,,,,e,-„ege
strong and expression of opinion.
with the principle of the measure before the House. He did not
oppose the motion for going into a Committee, because he thought
this was a measure which ought to be met by a manly and op: ez
opposition, and not by the interposition of obstacles of a tern's°.
vary nature. (Hear.) Ile did not expect that any amendments
which could be proposed in the Committee, would obviate the
objections to this Bull. Ile opposed it upon principle, and no um_
dilication could satisfy him. (Hear).
J.
TheDowas n House
it
hthe en a
Cresolved itself into a Committee, 31r.
Min '
The SPEAKER then rose, and addressed the Chairman. n.
begged pardon for taking up the time of the Committee, and after
the repeated and lengthened discussions which had taken Ow
on this subject, he disavowed all ides of arrogating to himself
design of saying any thing new. He was perfectly aware that in
this stage of the Bill it was not within the strict forms of the
House, neither was it quite convenient nor correct that any Hon.
Member should address himself to the principle of the measure.
But as he had no amendments to propose in the Committee, and dill
not wish individually to press his opposition to the Rill, he took
advantage of what might be his only opportunity. to oblerrethtt his
opinion on the measure remained unchanged. Notlspg that he had
heard or read upon the subject relieved his mind om the appre.
!tension which he had ever entertained of the dangerous conse.
titiehces that might arise from the measure before the House lie
was not aware of any amendments to he proposed in the Cont..
mittee, but however painful it might be for hint to differ with a ma.
jority of that House, and however painful it might be for him to
differ with those whose opinions he ought to respect, and did re.
specs, he felt himself bound to express his conscientious opposition
to the Bill ; and however irregular the time which he had chosen
for the expression of this opinion, he felt himself justified by the
,necessity of the Mast. ( Hear, hear.) It was a question which ad.
mated of no compromise ; It should be supported or opposed on
principle. On principle he (the Speaker) objected to the measure,
and lie should be ashamed of himself if he lout neglected to ex.
press his decided conviction of its inexpediency. Ile repeated
that he was not aware that any alterations or amendments sere to
be made in the Committee, and, considering this, lie L. he should
not have done his duty if he had given a silent vote.
Mr. Secretary PEEL observed, that when the Catholic Relief
Dill was before the House in 11121, various restrictions were pro.
posed. It was proposed to continue the exclusion of Roman Ca.
tholics from Parliament. and from his Majesty's Pricy Council.
On these exclusions he thought the sense of Parliament had been
satisfactorily taken. The principle of exclusion from particular
offices wan overruled, and the opinion of the House given decidedly
against it. the House determined that the innciple of the
measure was just, he was not sure that the introduction of restric-
tions would be expedient.
.11e therefore rose to say, that it was not
his intention hi reopose ray amendments, excluding Catholics
from particular omces.
Sir. If. PARNELL begged belay to refer to the obsenrations
of an Honourable Baronet (Sir T. Leihbridge) upon the oath of
the Roman Catholic Bishops. Whilst the Honourable Baronet
referred to the expression of spiritual subiniasion to the Pope. he
omitted the passage which expressed the obligation of a Catholic
Bishop to hold inviolable allegiance to the King of Great Britain.
Mr. S.scretary PEEL thought the oath taken by the Catholic
Bishops timid(' have been modified before the House pledged it.
self to the measure for affording a stipend to the Roman Catholic
Clergy.
Sir H. lINEI.L said, that many objections which Teems.
rently objectirmable, if properly explained. would prove perfectly
harmless. (Hear, bear.) The oath alluded had been explained
• by high authorities in the Roman Catholic Church.
Sir I'. LETHBRIDGE briefy explained,
When the CHAIRMAN put the quest.en upon the first clause in
the Bill,
After a few words from Mr. TRACT,
A Member, whose name we could not learn, in noticing the oath
by which the Catholics were to abjure any intention of overturning
the established religion of the country with a view to substituting
their own, proposed that the word " Protestant" should be intro-
duced before the words " Church Establishment."
......

Mr. PEI "NfiETT.observed, that the oath contained in the Bill
which he had the honour to bring in in the year 1821, was somewhat
similar to the present, but it was objected to. Now as seruplea dal
exist on the subject, and as he wished to do away with them, to
agreed to the oresent form ',loath. and he thought it wise sad es.
petlient that the Committee should adopt it. not that he had any ob.
jeetion to the introduction of the word " Protestant," but so sure
as he lived there would be found those out of doors who would cavil,
and ask why did the House use the word " Protestant" as nay
other religious eatablishment existed in the country—who would
contend that the introduction of such a word amounted to an at:-
minion that the House ought not to make.
Mr. Secretary PEEL hoped to be able to reconcile his Honour.
able Friend who had proposed the introduction of the word " Pro.
testant" to the form of the oath as it now stood, for if lie referred
to another part of the Bill before the Committee, he would tied that
the Roman Catholic was not only to swear that he would not over.
turn the Establishment for the purpose of substituting his own sys-
tem of religion, but that also he was to swear that he wont.' Lot do
any act to disturb, in any respect, the existing establishment. He
trusted that this second oath would meet the view of his Honourable
Friend. Unwilling to raise any arils on the sulijcet, he, for one.
would not object to die oath as it stood, but he confessed that he
thought it not necessary to call on the Roman Caaielies to declare
that they do not hold it justifiable to murder and depose Protester/
Princes, or break faith with heretics. It he were a supporter of the
Bill he would object to this oath. for, in his conscience, he did ant
impute to his Roman Catholic fellow.subjects the opinions and
doctrines which these oaths were intended to guard against.
Alt. BROUGHAAI declared that the sentiment just then es.
peered by the Right Honourable Secretary, was woerhy of the
candid and manly opposition which he offered to the CailitiL
Claims ; and he fully concurred with him in thinking that the
word Protestant need not be introduced, the words following bees;
quite sufficient. Ile also concurred in thinking, that with sorer
settled mind' it would by received as indirectly implying what was
not intended as a " negative pregnant." These extreme wahtilties
were to be guarded against ; were It not so, he should coarider it
worse than useless. They ought not to call upon the Roman Ca-
tholics to abjure any tenets excepting those that were peculiar to
them. Those which they held in common with others it was in-
sulting to require them' to abjure. We all, Protestants and l'athe.
lies, abjure any intention of seeking to dissolve the monarchy or to
overturn the established religion. But there were those who thought
that the Catholics ought to be called on to go further, and as they
were dealing with persons who entertained such suspicions, they
should proceed accordingly, No one could fret the oaths which
were sworn at the table ot that !louse without feeling that in swear-
ing them the' were insulting their Roman Catholic feint...subjects.
( hear). Who now thought that absolution could be given for the
deposition of Monarchs or the breach of faith ? One further reason
for agreeing to the present oath was that it had been Led before
persons of authority amongst the Roman Catholics, and they has.
ing approved of it, he would now be unwilling to after. add, or
remove a single word.—The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. B. COOPER was persuaded that the Roman Catholics
couki not conscientiously take the oath, and even if they did he
would still consider it an insufficient security, for in the year 1761
in
valid.
Mr. an oath was declared by the Pope to be
Mr. V. FITZGERALD wondered that the Hon. Gentleman.
in recurring to the year 1767, did not seem aware that this oath had
been withdrawn in consequence of the objection which had been
taken ; and yet, by permission of the See of Rome, was afterwards ,
taken by the whole Roman Catholic body, clergy and laity.
(Cheers.) They had taken this oath, either by periniuion ot the
See of Rome, or in defiance of its authority. lie left tbs Her
Gentleman to choose which horn of the dilemma he pleura. At
to the view which his Right Hon. Ftiend the Attorney.Gentral fee
I Ireland took of the subject, be fully concurred with him in it.
Sir J. NEWPORT did tot wish to speak to terms of censure
of the individual who framed this oath (Dr. Duigenan`. he D'.t
now no more; but he had hoped that when that eery:.
had departed this life, the spirit of cavil had died with him. :sew
as the oath had been acceded to by persons of authority in the
Roman Catholic Church, he would moat decidedly object to an
alteration. Giving satisfaction to them by an oath framed by tic
most extravagant supporter of their exclusion, was, lie thoie!i:,
measure that could not wisely be objected to.
Mr. GOIJLBIIRN defended the view of the subject wife:h. ".
been taken by Mr. Cooper, and denied that the oath proposal i.
1793 should be adopted in 1823, if new information had be
elicited ; and he pledged himself, when all the evidence winhefac
the House. to show, from the examination of some of the Rem-.-.
Catholic Bishops, that such further information had been ettei..:.e,l
as would sustain the opinion of his lion. Friend.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD explained.
Mr. H. SUMNER said a few wards not audible m the gailcil;
Mr. PLI.'NKETT said he did not think he should be ccesiiere.
irregular in anticipating what might occur in the Upper 11°'-`,1.:
relation to the Bill. If their Lordships should agree to the 1,11 .
first rejecting the objectionable dewiest. and then send it tack to
them in its emended state, he should hail it as a matter of coesaa-
tulation.
Mr. BR(./17011‘1111 said, many millions of individuals to it oleo
molt u a necessary condition upon the enjoyment ot
the elec-
tive franchise, on coming to the bar, precious to taking etßee oc
•
practising as attorneys. What obstacle, in fact, existed 'o l3;h• ,
lie coining into the House of Commons but the security afforcti.
by an oath which they declined taking ? If Cleamed and takr.t‘e-
Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) was desirous of coming into Faros-
ment foe many places—he would not sey in Irellaud, lest he seculd
alarm some Honourable 51einbere for that country, but tot wine,
place% in England—he Mr. (Mr. Brougham) thought he nigh.
command a sufficiency of 'votes to send him into that Hoot.
Why did he not come into the House ? because he declined takiaa;
the oath of supremacy. And why should he decline taking IL
oath from the observance of which lionourablx Gentlemen asserted