The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-26 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, MARCH 25.

Mr. MASON, from the India House, presented certain returns
(,f Salaries, Pensions, and Gratuities, granted by the East India
tornpanv.—Laid on the table.
Lord 1-lotham, Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Dr.
.Llishington and others from the House of Commons, brought
up several Private Bills, which were read a first time.
Mr. SPI I.E R, from the Commissioners of Highland Roads,
presented the Eleventh Report, which was ordered to lie on
the table.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from
the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City
of London, Praying to be heard by Counsel at their Lordship's
Bar, against the principle of the Equitable Loan Bill.—Ordered
to lie OR the table.

'The NOBLE EARL presented also petitions against the Bill
from the Auctioneers of London and 'Westminster ; from the
Merchants and Bankers of London and Westminster; from
the parish of St. Mary Rotherhitlie, Hammersmith,St. Martin-
imthe-Fields, St. Giles, Cripplegate, and St. Mary Abbotts,
• Kensington, which were ordered to lie on the table.
The NOBLE EARL then said he should move that Counsel
be heard against the Bill on the part of the Auctioneers, &c.
Re was oersuaded their Lordships could not object to the mo-
tion. He did not mean at present to speak of that sort of fury
which seemed to have taken possession of the public mind in
the forming of Joint Stock Companies, but he was.cite sure,
if their Lordships did not adopt some effectual measures for
stemming the torrent, it would be productive of infinitely
greater evils than any he had known in the whole course of his
public life. There were perscns engaged in various new spe-
culations, who called upon the public for not less than
2.00,090.fk1/. a sum so enormous as not to be contemplated
witliOßt alarm under any circumstances.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished to avail himself of this
opportunity for saving a few words. He had hitherto given no
opinion on the subject to which the Noble Earl referred, and
now IT was ready to admit that a great degree of speculation
inig7lt, in some instances, be productive of great national, as
well as individual advantage. He was also ready to admit,
that in a time of profound peace, when the interest of money
uas very low, from their being a great abundance of capital in
the country, it was natural for persons te.engage in those specu-
lations. But then it was possible to carry the principle too far,
and he now wished that the public should be put upon their
guard with respect to the manner in which the several new com-
panies were constituted. Judging from all the circumstances con-
nected with the existing state of Europe, at no time was there a
greater prospect of a lasting peace than at this moment : but it
must still be observed that no man could answer for events.—
He only wished those who had so actively taken up the busi-
ness of speculation, to consider what would be the effect if

any circumstances should arise which would increase the value
of money ? When such events had occurred, on a former oc-
casion, their Lordships found bankers, merchants, and others
coming,to Parliament, and asking for aid, which was some-
times afforded them by an issue of Exchequer bills. But he
particularly desired that the parties who now engaged in Joint
stock Companies should distinctly understand, that they did so
at their own risk, and that any ulterior application to Parlia-
ment would be quite "useless. He was more induced to call
their Lordships' attention to this subject at present, as he un-
derstood that endeavours were making to form new Companies
not only in London, but in the country, through the medium
of country bankers. He Shoukl be the last man who would in-
terf..:re by any legislative enactment against the proper and fair
use of money, but as the consequences in the case of these new
Companies might be so serious, he felt that he should not dis-
charge his duty if he did not give the parties due warning, by
telling them that he was determined to resist to the uttermost
any relief they might apply for in their speculations, which at
this time appeared to be carried beyond all bounds.-1( Hear !)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had to apologize to
their Lordships for not having brought in a Bill on this sub-
jcct, but he felt a difficulty consistently with his ofncial duties
in framing a law there instead of declaring the law in judgment.
lie thought that all those who engaged in new Companies must
regard their present proceedings with altlrrn, even supposing them
to be legal. In his opinion it was impossible that the parties
could be well advised. .

SMALL DEBTS.
The. Marquis of DOW NSII IRE presented a petition from
Wokingliara. praying for an alteration of the law fur the Reco-
very of 6mall Debts.—Laid on the table.
- G.A.RDENS' PROTECTION BILL.

On the motion of Lord was read a
third titre and pnr• ed.

SCOTCH JURIES BILL

. This Bill went through a Committee on the motion of Lord

1' ETITIONS against CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition
front the Clergy of the Archdeacortry of Taunton, in his Dio-
cee, praying that their Lordships would not grant what might
Ile termed Catholic Emancipation, but which, the Right Rev.
. l'rjate observed, it was row the fashion to call Concessions to
the Catholic Claims. The petition, was temperately worded,
tersi he wished it so to be ; for intemperance could never be of
aavantage to any cause, and was calculated to injure the hest.
He must take this opportunity to vindicate the Established ,
Clergy front those charges of intolerance which had lately been
made against them, for endeavouring to maintain the cause of
civil liberty against Popish domination, and the pure Protestant
•.ReligiOn of the Church of England, against the superstitions
et:: the Church of Rome. It was the earnest prayer of the peti-
tioners that their Lordships would continue to maintain the re-'
ligion in which they had lived, and in which they hoped to die.
The Earl of DARNLEY (the petition being read) hoped
that the Rev. Lord opposite dill not impute to him any of the
.improper langßage-which he now complained of ; for if the, pe-
..ti tioners thought they wore doing right in upholding the Church
of England, they had certainly a right to do so. He must
aisclaim all desire to prevent such Reverend Persons from pre-
senting.their petitions to the House ; but be held in his hand a
yeti:ion from that Body, which he believed had been presented
last Monday, but was rot then read, for if it had been read it
woniti certainly not have been entertained by the Rouse. He
ee.es;nal the Bishops to admonish their Reverend Brethren not
:::::::: that exclusive tone which their predecessors in former
.1!;!ys condemned in the Church of Rome. Respecting the
Clergy of the Irish Church, they did their duty in a manner
w others would do well to imitate ; but how did the peti-
el',retrs now before their Londships treat them ?—( Passages
were cited by the Noble Earl from the petition which he consi-
dered to be opprobrious to the Catholic Clergy of Ireland.)._
The petitioners were calling for energetic measures to put down
tie-It Church. He should only say, in the language of a book
revered by all Christian Churches, let the English Clergy take
out the beam from their own eye before they took the mote out
4-)t. their brother's eye.
_ _

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS, in explanation, here
beeged to disclaim all intolerance on the part of the Church.
• thherality is, my Lords, a great virtue, but far bo it from
nit to be liberal at the expense of religion." He thought the
Clergy were entitled to approach the House and prefer their
eoinplaints 'or assert their claims.
1...t,rd KING adverted to what was called the "prostration
ur mind and will," recommended by a Reverend Prelate not at
preeent in his place. These were fine words, but he wondered
wl-er 1 the Right Reverend Prelate stole them from. He be-
have l that they were taken from a printed charge of the Bishop
of ....-ondon, who advised this prostration as the root of ail reli-
gion, and yet the Established Clergy could turn short round
upon the Roman Catholics and taunt the latter with supersti,
tisin. Such things would no longer go down with the country,
ant: such petitions as the Reverend Prelates were presenting
could only be found in the holes anti camera of cathedrals. ,
Lord CA LTHORE took this opportunity to vindicate his
character from the imputation of change which he was accused
of. Letters from anonymous correspondents, with regard to
some of the petitions now before the House, inferred that their
language was not consistent with that candour, moderation,
charity, and even that justice which the petitioners exemplified
in their own lives. It was injustice to judge of the character
of the petitioners from the language of their petitions, since
they naturally took rather a strong view of the question. Such
was his impression of this fact, that had it not been for the
high character of the petitioners, and the estimation in which
they were so deservedly held, and had the arguments they used
been left to themselves, he was confident that Parliament would
not, Session after Session, have listened to their representations
with so favourable an ear. He was-satified that the influence
of the Roman Catholic religion was on the decline, and that
many Members of Parliament, who'otherwise were firm friends
to•the Established Church, voted for concession not merely as
an art of justice, but<as thinking it the better way, by conci-
llating all parties, to tindermine the Catholic Religion in lre-
latid. While restrictions wereaUffered to remain on the Catho-
lics, they acted as a common bond of union, and resisted the
trogress of Protestantism in-ire:and. The nature of the peti-
tions from the antagonists of the Catholics, and the smallness of
their number, went to negative the assertion that the public opi-
nion was against the Catholic Claims. ff it were not so, the
opinion of opposition was expressed in a manner it never had
been before.
• The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition -from the
Rural Deanry of the Diocese of Gloucester, praying their Lord-
ships would grant no further concessions to the Roman Catholics.
e begged to remark, while presenting this petition, on the un-
due advantage which some Noble Lords had taken of detached.
• passages in the petitions from the Clergy, to impute to the pc-
:Aim:lees what had never. been. intended to be conveyed by them.

This usage was not less pardonable when the remarks which ac-
companied it happened to be couched in language that had been
borrowed from the dog kennels. One Noble Load opposite had
declared that he did not object to receive petitions from the
Clergy of the Church of England ; and he (the Bishop of Ches-
ter) must, in courtesy, be obliged to him for this concession.
He thanked the Noble Lord for this; but then, on the other
hand, there was another Way of attacking the petitioners, the
mischief was to be effected in another shape—by picking
holes in the substance of a petition, or commenting on par-
ticular words—a practice, he believed, though very young
in Parliament, quite unknown to their Lordships in bet-
ter times. If the petitioners, whose prayer it was his duty
to present to their Lordships, had been brought up in the
faith they professed, why was some warmth to be blamed
in asserting it? Evetr. some acrimony might perhaps be ex-
cused. Before he came into the House he had taken much
trouble in settling his opinion on the question soon likely to
come before their Lordships ; but he found, what indeed was
notorious, that in Ireland the most intolerant doctrines were
promulgated in language as intolerant, which he trusted he
should be able to prove at the proper time. Adverting to the
Bishop of London's charge, an expression from which had lately
been borrowed by a Right Reverend Prelate, and which a
Noble Lord opposite had turned to his present use, he would
just mention to their Lordships what he conceived to be the
true meaning of the passage. Could any of their Lordships
suppose for a moment, that so eminent an ornament of the
Established Church,, distinguished for his learning and his
liberality, could intend by a prostration of the will and un-
derstanding to Advocate the superstitions of the Romish
Church ? No. The inference was obvious—it was the pros-
tration of the will to the precepts of the Gospel, and of the
understanding to the mysteries of the Gospel. It was impossible
for him to know where some Noble I,7rds had learned their
political tactics, but the conduct they pursued was most un-
fair, and quite unbecoming the character of a generous adver-
sary. yHe would, however, do the Noble Lords the justice to
suppose that they knew enough of Ecclesiastical history not to
be ignorant that in these atempts against the Church they were
imitating the example not only of the antagonists of the Church
of England, but of the enemies of all Religion. If this conduct
were to be pursued from time to time, and under such circum-
stances, he must call upon their Lordships to protect the Esta-
blished Church, not from argument, which her supporters were
always ready to meet, but from such unfriendly missiles as
were directed from the opposite side. It was both the interest
and duty of Noble Lords to consult the evidence of History, for
they might presently find, as their ancestors had done, that there
existed no sincerer friends either to Civil or Religious Liberty
than the chief Members of that Sacred profession to which he
had the honour to belong. It was, therefore, the duty of their
Lordships to treat its Members with respect, and at all events to
protect them from contumely.
Lords CALTHORPE and DARNLEY explained.
Lord KING remarked, that if petitions were not treated so
before, it was because they were diligent in former times. He
declared he was no enemy to the Church of England, but he
was no friend to pluralities and non-residents. He wished that
the Apostolic purity of the Church would remedy such evils.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose to order. He wished to
know whether the purity of the .Church of England was the
question new before the House?

Lord KING explained.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL now interposed. He would ap-
peal' to all Noble Lords present, who looked hack to their
younger days, whether there ever was a period when the clerical
duties of the Church of England were so well performed as at
the present day. He believed that no Church was ever so
respectable.
The Bishop of CHESTER denied the charge of non-resi-
dence as applicable to his diocese, which circumstance he attri-
buted to the excellent conduct of his predecessor.
Lord KING—Is it not true that the greater part of Churches
have no resident Minister?

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS—I answer the Noble
Lord, no ! certainly not in my diocese. There I found most
of the Clergy performing Divine Service, and preaching twice
every Sunday. The returns are regularly sent by the Bishops
to the Government. if there be any fault, it is not with the
Bishops, but rests with the Privy Council, who alone have the
power of following the matter up.
Lord HOLLAND here regretted the total departure that had
taken place from the question before the House. Sorry should
he be indeed if the true question were itself to be decided by
the comparative merits of the two Churches. He always had
considered the present as a '"Teat political question, in deciding
which their Lordships were bound to act upon political grounds
alone, for the general good of the community.
• The Earl of LIVERPOOL could not conceive a more incon-
venient course than their Lordships had taken, in departing of
late from the question, as to whether a petition should be re-
, ceired or not, and debating such and such expressions as had
occurred in it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he should not be doing
his duty by Pijir Lordships, if he did not protest, in common
with his IsToGre Friend, against the practice now pursued in
that House. He wished not only that the petitions of bodies
but individuals, should come fairly before the House in the
first instance. It was the sacred right of the subject to submit
his opinions, if respectfully stated, and leaving to Plrliniment
to decide in what manner they might be disposed of'. If, in-
stead of the old wholesome practice of their Lordships, they
should hereafter deal with their own debates, as they had lately
dealt with petitions, he did not know how any one could abide
by it. He must beseech their Lordships to let the Clergy come
before them with their petitions, for they had done nothing but
their duty in manfully stating their opinions on a subject which
so much concerned the Established Church. .He had observed
that one Noble Lord complained of being represented as hav-
ing changed his opinion. He himself might condole or congra-
tulate with the Noble Lord upon the same subject ; but from
every thing he could hear and learn, he was convinced that
those who wished to support the Constitution in Church anti
State, must come to the same conclusion he had beets obliged
to form.

Lord DARNLEY explained. He had done nothing offensive
to the Right Rev. Prelates in criticising the language of the pe-
titions which they had presented ; and he had said nothing de-
rogatory to his duty as Member of the House.
Lord KING moved for a return of the numbers of Resident
and Non-resident Clergy in England and Wales.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought the motion irregular at
the present time; and he hoped' the Noble Lord would take
time to consider the subject. He had no objections, however,
to the return being made.
Lord KING said, that he would not press it at present; but
he gave notice of his intentions to bring it forward.
The Earl of LAUTI`ERDA LE moved for a return of the evi-
dence taken by the Committee of the House on the Equitable
Loan Bill last Session.—Ordered.
The House then adjourned.