The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-07 00:00:00

although it had formerly been deemed the best' policy of Ga.
verninent to protect it as a trad'e that provided the best ntirery
for our seamen.

Mr. SYKES thought the total remission of this titY*iteinld
be attended with. serious injury to many individuan. . (The
remainder of this gentleman's observations we were unable tc
collect.)
Mr. H USKISSON said, if he were called; Eton slibrtly to
state the •absurdity of the existing system on Which.this trade
was established, so far as regarded the payment of duties, he
should state it in this manner—that we imposed a Mit.); on the
importation of an article, for the production of which 'we 'al-
lowed a bounty.—( Hear 1)--Now as the bounty was withdrawn
on this article, the duty ought to be remitted or if retained,
retained at the lowest rate possible. With respect to hat had
been said about the duty on foreign rape-seed, he could iesure
Hon. Gentlethen, that the duty bad never been imposed with any
reference whatever to the whale fishery. It was imposed during
the severest pressure of agricultural distress, at the suggestion
of some Gentlemen,' who, thinking that the whole land of
England was going out of cultivation, entleavettred to devise
means for retaining it in culture, and proposed the cultivation
of rape-seed with that view; bat he did not believe-that the two
descriptions of -oil that had been alluded to tvere -used for the
same or similar purposes. Whale-oil was employed for the
purposes of burning, '&b.; rape-seed oil, for dressing -cloth.—
Probably, indeed, at times, the one might happen' to 1, so
dear that it might be necessary to use the other as a substitute
for it ; and thus it was represented as one of the of
the cloth-trade, that whale-oil had been used instead of rape,
to the great disparagement of the manufacture,hatin conseqUeuce
of the dearness of rape-oil. However, he agreed -with the Hon.
Membertbr Hull, that the proposed arrangement in respect of the'
duty on imported foreign oil should be so managed as to bear
with the least possible severity on individuals in that trade.—
He had imagined that by allowing till next January- he bad af-
forded a sufficient time for this purpose; but perhaps it might
be of benefit to reduce the duty in January next only one
and the remaining half in six months afterwards.
- -Mr. HUME stated, that in consequence of the • alarm that
had been excited in -this trade by the approaching remission of
the duty on imported foreign had within these few .dayS
fallen 51. per ton. He agreed with the Right Honourable
Gentleman who• •had• just sat down, that nothing- could be
more absurd than that a 'duty of this kind should ever have
been imposed at all ; but lie 'recommended, under all the cir-
cumstances, that the whole duty be continued until-January
twelvemonth, as in the mean time .-fresh cargoes would have
been received that might be disposed of probably with :advan-
tage to the trade.

CURWEN said a few words that were quite inaudible
to us.

Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, as Chairmati-of the Com-
mittee in which this duty was originally proposed, disclaimed
all concurrence in tilt proposition. He'had been asked to bring
in the Bill, but had refused to do so;. and was now rejoiced- at
the conduct he had pursued on that occasion.—The petition
was then read.

• . Mr. HLTSKISSON presented a petition from a body of Pro-
testant Dissenters of Liverpool (Unitarians), representing that
they had heard that the Presbyterians generally had been repre.
Rented to be hostile to the Cathtilic claims. Theyhumbly prayed
leave, on the contrary, to state the grounds upon which, as they
thought, the Catholic disabilities might be withdrawn. They
conceived that the grounds of those disabilities never could
have been the religious opinions of the Ronian Catholics, merely,
as such. The petitioners had ever been friendly t'o the princi4
pies of a free government and a free constitution ; and they felt,
that the claims of the Roman Catholics had formerly been op-
posed, because there Was a family then in exile, to whom the
Roman Catholics were attached, who, if they again arrived at
power, would not act in unison with those principles.— (Hear!)
But, now that the danger to be apprehended from that -thirdly
had pa.ssetl hy—now- that the dangers against which the
ing laws pfovided were no longer -to be dreaded, anxious as.
they were for the Protestant succession to the throne, and. for
the safety, of the church establishment, they thought they.
'might, in perfect consistency with those feelings, and in per-
fect unison with the object their ancestors had in view at the
period of the Revolution, call on the Legislature to remove
those disabilities under which the Roman Catholics now iaboar_
ed ' • because they were of opinion, that from the non-removal'
of those disabilities, much danger might be apprehended, while
the danger against which those disabilities had been interpoSed
as ra safeguard had entirely subsided.—( Ifear l)—On these
grounds, the petitioners, men of the highest respectability, Mr.•
Roscoe and others, prayed the House that the disabilities af-
fecting the Roman Catholics might be removed.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN was surprised that Hon. Gentlemen;
•who presented petitions against the Roman Catholic claims,
did not recollect the numlier of Catholics who; century after
century', had falien'in the field, fighting in support of the Pm-'
testant,succession to The Crown of these realms.—(Hear!)—
Was it to he endured, that the descendants of men who
had thus conducted themselves should be excluded from the
benefit of the Constitution ? He was anxious that they should
have all the benefits which the 'Dissenters 'enjoyed, anil-nO
more. Nothing could be more fair or reasonable than such a •
proposition. • , • • .
The petition, which was from a • bOdy "of 'Presbyterians,.
now generally.known by the name of Unitarian Christians,
of Liverpool, was then brought up, laid on. the table, and.-
read. .

Mr. ATTWOOD presented a petition from Callington,
;ainst the Roman Catholic Claims.

"Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Guild of Joiners
of Dublin, praying, as we understood, for a reconsideration
of the Combination Lamm—Referred to the Committee on the
said laws. _

Mr. P. SMITH presented a petition from' the Chamber of
Commerce of Drohedi4 praying for a Repeal of the Duty on
Coals carried coastwise. _ _

3lr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from Robert
Gourlay, Esq. stating that he had been -persecuted\ for the lalt
fifteen years, and praying for a Commission to inquire into his
case.

• The Lunacy Traverse Bill was read a 'second time:—To
be committed on Monday;

BANK ACCOUNTS.
Mr. 011ENFELI, said, hiS Hon. Friend (Mr.. Manning)
would recollect, that at the beginning of laat session.he sailed
for an-.2ecouht, as he'had been in the-habit of doing for sove,
ral years past, to shOw to the public what profit was maile'.by
the Bank on the balances of the public debt.. Ills Hon. Friend
had, when thus applied to, denied that the public had any
right to call for such an Account.. tic now wished to ask _his
Hon. Friend, 'whether, if he matt the same motion in • the
Parliament,
present Session of irliament, a similar objection would tie
opposed to it, 'or whether the 'document in question would he
laid before- the•flouse ?:. •

Mr: MANNING answered, that his opinion on this subject
rchiained unchanged. Great inconvenience wouhl arise front
tht, production of such an account as that called' for, by his
with equal propriety,
demand an inspection of the accounts a any private bank.
brongrihstseucipgttreteatre. pg:tritpo., ofte the (not.
The Scotch Jutiiciture Bill went through a Committee. The
Hon. Friend : who might, he thought;
report was received, and Ordered to be taken into further consi.:
derstion On Monday se'rinight. , . . ,
with rtspect to the Isle of Man,
Mr. lID.ME presented two petitions ; the one from Arbioath,'
mti:no:,tte e on
the other from Aberdeen. agilinst the Clyde Navigation Bill.
Collili
. .
Mr. If ERRIES
e
and he-hoped that certain suggestions which had been thrown
out by him would not be neglected.
ourition from Mr. 111... .relative
-17. - - ..'
e
In answer to' a , to an
wthleAl i ii:rtsi:l ef.l(ot)-iStrlinl'an'niEenNt-h Acts.eaxdpa d opt eti w
agreement, or Supposed agreement, between Governtnent and '
the Duke of
.Athol, for a total relinquisinnent of all claims Of
.
scvereignty in the Isle of Man,
_ .
Mr: lIBRRIIN said', that those to whom thl:‘ b:,isiness W4ll-
- had two subjects before theM : One ti.:.s the purchaseof the interest which the Noble Doke had tin the revenue of the
island.; . and no (19tibt coUld be entertained 'of' .the utility of
malting' iliat-purehao, which had Not effected. With respect
' •hiefi related to tile autho 't 'I h
to the other polt4, , . • r,, Y possegßeG s 1
the Noble Duke in the admintstrawm of justice in the island,
the House of Keys had petitioned on the subject, and due re-
spect shoold be paid to'thetr representation, ,
The report'was then agreed to.
Mr. S. It 1('l: presented a . petition from thet harnber' of.
Commerce of Linieriek, in favour of the Corninercial Banks
Bill. .
.. . .
Bill
The report of of Chancery the Irish Court i was brought
up, and agl:Ced `the
_ _

Ltwheii9•?esyno,ftot,;:he_
. . .
ROMAN CATHOLIC. RELIEF. BILL -
Mr.ol .Brett.4l.Ji:gi.Hi4lllflwEntoovnecd;tuhleiliOrd4eteorf- ot
tlic Catholic Relief Bill. op

e• . ,
-L-On the question; ".that the Speaker do new I eave th Chtur,'
being put,
--•
General GASCOYNE-rose at present merely .adfkrt to
some points connected 'With the-Catholic Bit whill.Whieltitad
not been-generally noticed. • Two distinct measureft
were entro-
duced as adjuncts tollmancipation, 'which be sk-us justified
considering as-parts of the whole subject—he Meant the..llL4
for regulating the Elective Franchise in' Ireland, and'fOr pay-
ing the Romish Clergy.. The three Bills should receive 4is de-
cided oppotition. • If the House were prepared to adopt the prip -
ciple of disfranchisement, it Would comnience an Augeatelabottr,
for he could not conceive where the' interference 'was to'ittep.
Every man knew thafin the nature of things the "landlord : ester-
c sett an inflnenceover his tenant,. anti the master over hitt work-
man, and he therefore was at a loss to conceive any just fetinzirtt-
tion to thcoperAtion of such a law. In another respect he migh
serve, that the man most sanguine of long life could never hepe to
see the object of this Bill completely realized ; for althjettgl tt
proposed to give an immediate security' by disqualify irg
251J,000 electors, the present. generation . must pass away a
tharseiurity was really' available. The other 13111—if Bill he
Might call it--wheit althoughallewed to, be brought in,. had
-not -yet been introduced, was for granting 'aetum of money an-
nually to tee Boman Catholic Clergy. 'Pita Noble Lord is
short had come down contrary to the usage-of the Constitution,
and called for a vote without the sanctitoo of 'a responsible RI
nister of the Crown, who uniformly dernandeeSupplies 'at the
instance of the Sovereign. W
Was it then to be considered that
although the Minister had not made the proposition, Alin it rce-
ceived his otficiel approval, and would-be conc-urrepi after-
wards; if adopted, by the Executive Authority ? The litotio;!,
however; of. the Noble Lord appeared to atirst (General Gas-
coynd) as"a Sotnof .flank company, 'advanced to cover ulterthe
operations,antrriet intended to do more than discharge a random
shot. Ile was sorry, nevertheless, to see such an apparent ac-
quiescence of Ministers in the measure before the sense of Par-
liament. been ascertained. The authors of those laws it -was
now Sougheto-repeal would, if living, have seen,
_with dis May
and surprise, any Bill resembling. the Noble Lord's brought
into the House without the sanction of a responsible Minister ;
and be ((ien. Gascoyne) thought with the country, that adjunct
would be a most material objection to the granting Catholic
emancipation, particularly as the enlightened part of the
country were divided upon' the latter questions, and seven-
teenths of the mass of the population decidedly against. it.—
(Hear, heat !)-What, too, was the state of this House re-
garding Emancipation ?. Hon. Members could not expect A
dissolution to be far distant—another year at farthest would
see the demise of the present Parliament ; and were Hon. Gen-
tlemen sure if they passed this measure the next Parliament
would approve of the proceeding ? lie begged to say he had
no wish for a dissolution—(hear!)—It was generally attended
with trouble—(Hear !)—but neither had he ar y apprehension
for the event.—{Hear !).—All he wished' to show was, that this
'was not a fit moment for deciding so momentous a subject.: If
the advisers of the Crown thought otherwise, then they ought
to dissolve the Parliament forthwith,' .and subMit it to the sue"-
Ceeding Representatives of the People. Nothing, however;
he repeated, could make Emancipation so 'unpopular as coo-
piing with it a Bill for paying the--Romieh Clergy ; and he
must ituther observe, that whatever was the state of Ire..
land now, it had always hitherto been much the sante—with
a strong tendency to outrage and rebellion. He confessed,
when he saw. the Attorney-General for Ireland, almost en
the sante night ttat he moved the third reading of the Bill
ter suppressing the Catholic Association, the favourite or-
gan of the -Catholics, support the Catholic Relief Bill, • he
could not help considering the latter'd sort of bounty On distil-
feetion: If the people of England were reconciled to this
Bill; and any means could be devised for ascertaining that fa( t,
liewould be as ready as any man to say -let it pass. lie ee-e,..
confident, however, that-this. was not the case, and that the
House were proceeding precipitately into an evil course without
that knowledge which ought to be•tht; ground work of the mea-
sure. It *as nochis • intention to oppose the motion for the
House going into the Committee, although he had thought it
proper to deliver his sentiments bel,re that took
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE said; that he also was one
of those that would willingly restrain the House from going
into this Committee, although it was not his intention to call
for a division upon the queleion. Ile rose now for the purpo..e
of recording his sentiments merely, although he was decidedly
of opinion that the question ought to be • put to the vote in the
present stage of the measure. !'ibis raised a most impori
ant and vital question upon the subject of oaths. The Bill dealt
largely in oaths ; indeed it was a piece of legislation made up
entirely of oaths, repealing and substituting oaths till it pro_
;posed to repeal that very oath which the Members of that House
had taken in the presence of each other, and in the face 'of the
'cohntry—he alluded to the Oath pf Supremacy. • He did -not
doubt that every lion. Member was aequainted with the nature
of thiS oath ; but he should nevertheless request that the Clerk
should read.it from the table.

The Clerk having read the Oath,
Sir TIIOS. LETH BIZ ID(41.; preteeteled.—Now ifit should
turn out in the Committeithat this Bill contained clauses which
required the Members of that' Ilottse to violate thN oath, he
was sure hes need not say what would' be the result with those
Hon. Members who took the same view of the question which he-
took. He regarded this question in two points of view: He
thought that every Member in that house was returned there by
the people of England, under in implied contract to niaintainthe
Church and State in the condition in which he found it. Their
Constituents were not so ignorant upon this subject-as many
lion. Members chose to represent them. • They knew more; and
thouht more than was generally supposed ; and he could tell
the Rouse that they were sensibly alive at this moment to the
course of legislation the House of Commons, their Lepresen-
tatives were about to take. Another 'view which he took of
this repeal of the Oath of Supremacy. he thought 'was inexe.
forcible still. It was that the Bill before the house went by a
direct legislative enactment • to. recognize a foreign 'entire.
inacy. in the kingdom, also against the tenor of their
'Phe oath .also which the Bill proposed to impose upon the
Roman Catholic Bishops was ohe which, he sincerely believed,
no Bishop who had taken' a previous oath to- the See- .ofyt tains
could conscientiously take. He hoped, therefore,- Parliament
would not stultify their own proceedings so far ,as this.
.Wright be bold in -dius arraigning the technicality, of this vicious
piece of Legislation ; but he thought it his
.duty to do 411 he
could towards obstructing the cause of a measure whiCh Called
upon them to break' their most Solemn. engagement 'to each
Other; and to the -tontine. The Bill began by -saying that the
Protestant and Presbyterian Churches of .England and
land should be maintained permanent and inviolable: But if
this were to be maintained as regarded Scotland; it witS!elear
that the Catholics of 'that country could nut. be admitted 'to a
participation in the proposed benefit of the Act. -Tire Bill nest
went on to quote the oaths against 'fransuestantiatibnyaPtcr
which came the following words : " And whereas time
aerations relate only to matters Of spit-inlet:Mal telioint"
lief, which do not in any, manner affect the allegierier• of his
.3lajesty's subjects." Now he.--conterled that they were net 'in.
a state • to prove the preamble 'of the Bill, so lone its this Wail
port of-it.' He contended • that there were poiritS in., the:lto-
man Catholic Creed which went -to effect his allt;giartee.'--4
He understood but one mode -allegiate,-e to the S,AT.-
reign-of this country, and 'that -was spiritual 'and-
(Hear, hear, hear!)--The Bill then went Ori to enact the, oath'
to be substituted for the-Oath of -Supremacy; and.lie- eon-
tended that if Reiman Catholics could take the one, ti?ey:icililtl
take7the other, with the exception perhapi of that one word;'
".spiritual."—( Hear! )-1-16' believed fit. sincere Paplkt
• ventuee to' take . the - oath propoied to be substituted. Dv,
Doyle -said, he did not recollect what were the ciattenta, of `the •
oattitaken by Cathblic Bishops to:the Pope, tior did it Ai:446r-
that he Wag ever pressed subsequently upori"thet point. He
(Sir Thos: Lethbridge) had since procured a copy of :in oath
whichle believed to be that identical one: That oath' proio istet
fidelity•to the Pope; and **ore to 'assist 'him 'reg.-tieing-The •
lost privileges of .Popedorit, and' in reinstating 'the POpein
the plenitude of power which were 'Attached io the Chair 'of
-St. 'Peter.- It- also promised to observe all the -holy'
arid the articles of the Council of "Trent. This oath,- therefel •
was completely hostile 'in All its ports to oath 'in' the Bill,
and th e House would be sure to commit Nell' 15y smile absurdity
it' -it were to •go any farther in the matter. The next point . •
in:the Bill. to which he' should dire& attention- was that which
regarded -the appointment of Commissitinets. This: was to' =n, -
Popish body altogether—no Protestant COuncitlor was - to' be-
adtrtitted, they were to have it all to themselves, and this Was the
'body; strengthened as they would be 'by-their oaths to the Pops',
-which ' was -"to' advise the Protestant' King of a Prottatan't
cattntry.._(liear; hear )—Ou r -ancestors bud 'alw aye- . ,
upon the principles of security'; but-here was a course the very
reverse ot thitt. Yet lion.- Ahem bers- Wert ready ,epougli-to'
declare, that they were .desirous nothing • more than
support the Protestant Parliament and Church; declired7
he would' not !ratite believe& that such a clitute.- could creep' "
into any Bill had he not seen it. They were told that the Ca.

the present day were very different from what they
trilerl_y, and therefore might be safely, ,admitted to a
/ die. Constitution. This was a most mistaken pronssi-
11*/).4atid-the more he inquired into their proceed-
, .
*titer it was„ in Ireland, in France or in Spain, the
.yiouithit truth became. If he looked •to thoue pagesthat of
sdesice he caste to the same conclusion, althgh,
vidence was given by men guarded in what they said, and
booking most steadily to the main chance. Dr. Doyle stated
in his.eyidence tha(the Pope's ordinances were held to be be-
yoad the cognizance of the Sovereign in this country since the
extinction of the Stuarts. This way, elling them a pod
Con-
deal,
and perhaps if they were admitted within the pale of the
stitutioa, they would no doubt let out a little more. The lion.
Baronet thin proCeeded to quote from the writings of Dr. Doyle,
in which he exhorted the Roman Catholics of Ireland to endea-
vour to_ recover their lost power, and whatever might have
es:aped:from the " Despoil. Was it likely, if this Catholic
Bishop had power, that he would not act upon the sentiment
that-he had here discovered. In Yorkshire he knew of a Ca-
tholic Gentleman, of great wealth and power in his neighbour-
hood, who, when his neighbours were getting up Anti-Catholic
petitions, put forth a paper intended to operate as a dissuasive:
• In thiapaper he set forth the wrongs of the Catholics, who; he
aaida bad been despoiled of their richly-endowed churches
and- cathedrals hy those who protested against their faith
and these wrongs he declared to be enough to account for all
the violence they had been guilty of, and a thousand times as
much. Now if this Gentleman were to obtain a seat
in that House, would he not be likely to come forward with a
motion. for restoring this property to its'. rightful owners,
according 'to this was of thinking ? .He had also another -
anecdote of a similar complexion to relate. This was of
a farmer who lived, he should not say where. The neighbour-
ing clergyman, who had been in the habit of reading pray
sed
ers'
to him and his family for many years, was suddenly refu
°emission to continue that practice. Upon inquiring to:
know the reason of this change, he was told that the farmer had_
lately taken the lease of some land from a " Catholic Este'
blishment," and there was a clause in his lease that no Protest
ant "prayers should be put up under his roof, nor a Protestant
Bible allowed to be there.—( Hear !)—These circumstances he
related to,sheaa that the feeling of Catholics towards Protest-
ants was.just the same as it was fifty or one hundred Years
back. If lie wanted a:ay additional proofs of this, he should
find them in the notes to
.the Catholic Bible. He took that
which was published not longer ago than 18/6e under the au-
thority of the Archbishop of Dublin. These notes diStinctlylaid
it down as a law that "the zeal of Catholics should be strong
against all heretics, and he should anathematize them though
they are. ever so dear to him." Again, " the Christian is
bound to burn in: their face all Protestant books." Again,
" all Protestants are heretics, and even in worldly conversation
and secular affairs we ought to avoid them, as there is the taint
or phison in their touch. The prayers of Protestants are no
better than the howlings of wolves."--(Hear, hear !)—This he
thought was enough to cut up the argument that the Papists of
1825 were not the same as the Papists of 1725 ; and he must
confess that he was ashamed to see an Honourable Member
then crossing the House (Sir John Sebright) who had de-
clared that he was ashamed to think that in the year 1825 that
House should be discussing the Catholic Question.—(Cheers.)
—He was surprised that any individual or-individuals, that any
Minister in that House, should dare (he used the word in no of-
fensive sense) to propose the repeal of all those Acts winch
had
hitherto been the tests of the Constitution.—(Heat',hear !)
For his part, he had never taken an oath, and never would, to
violate which in one letter of it he could he persuaded. Upon
this point he would put them in mind of the declaration of that
great arid good King who had filled the throne of these king-
doms before the present Sovereign. Upon being pressed upon
this subject, he said, " I will descend from my throne, and go
into a cottage, 1 will lay my head upon the block if necessary,
but I am' not prepared to violate the oaths I have taken.".....:
(Hear, hear !)—So I say, continued the Hon. Baronet, 1 am
not prepared, with my feelings upon this subject, to violate the
oath of supremacy which I have taken before this House- and
the country, and I defy you to enact one clause of this Bill
without such a violation being the consequence.—(Cheers.)
Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT said lie thanked the Hon. Bart.
for having recalled so faithfully the words lie had uttered on a
former night. Ile now rose for the purpose of repeating them ;
and that was all he thought it necessary to say upon the
Question. 'rile argument against this bill required no an-
swer—nothing had been urged to alter his mind upon the sub-
ject, and he must again say, that he was ashamed to see a
British House of Commons 'discussing the Catholic Question
at this time of day.
Mr. C. PELIIA3i said a few words which were inaudible in
the gallery.
Mr. PEEL said that the general impression amongst Mem-
bers certainly was, that the sense of the House would not be
taken on the measure in its present state.—(H ear !) —He had
himself tended to create that impression by statidg that lie
would take the sense of the House on the third reading; he
was therefore unwilling that any thing should be done in con-
travention of what appeared to he the general understanding.—
(Hear!)—He had heard with satisfaction that it was not the in-
tention of the Gallant tieneral (Gascoyne) or of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Somersetshire (Sir 'l'. Lethbridge) to divide the House
a: this stage, because such a proceeding would be unfair to-
wards those Hon. Members who were. absent from the House,
under the idea that the Bill would rase thou .11 the Committee
as matter of course. It was hardly necessa y for him to state
that he acquiesced in the proposition that the Speaker should
leave the chair, only because he would have another opportu-
nity of taking the sense of the House on the question. On a
future occasion, the measure would come before the House
with all the alterations which it might be in the contemplation
• of those who introduced it to make with regard to its very ob-
jectionable provisions. On the motion for the third reading of
the Bill, when the measure would be before them in its perfect
shape, he would take the opportunity of performing his pro-
mise—he *could not call it threat—of dividing the House. On
that occasion he should have very little to add to what he had
before stated on the subject. Ile should, however, feel it his
duty to enter his decided protest against the measure. He
was in a minority on the question ; but he could not carry his
deference for the opinion of the majority of that House so far
as to acquiesce in the measure. He should have further to
state, that his objections to the Bill now under consideration,.
so far from being weakened, were strengthened by the vote to
which the House had come on a former night, and by which
Cicy were pledged to make a provision for the Roman Catholic
Church.—l Hear !)—At present he hoped that no Member
would consider it necessary to take the sense of the House on
the question of going into a Committee.
Mr. B. CLARKE said it was impossible that Ireland could
remain in its present state. Under present circumstances no-
body would invest capital in Ireland. nobody would live in it
who could avoid it —(Hear !)—lf the Bill before the House
w.re passed, he was convinced that Government might with,
dravevery soldier from Ireland. Ireland would then be kept
quiet, with the assistance of the Catholics themselves.—(Hear!)
—His family hail always supported the question of Catholic
Emancipation in Parliament, under the conviction that upon
the success of it alone depended she happiness of Ireland. He
had risen at that moment, thinking that what lie had to say
might-not be altogether useless.
Colonel TRENCH was of opinion, that the unhappy situa-
tion of Ireland had resulted from the system of misgovernment
which has long prevailed in that country. That system had,
however, been changed ; the good seed was sown; but it could
not he expected that the crop should be reaped directly. If
C}overnuient for two' years longer pursued the same
course upon which they had entered, it would be
im-
passible for. agitators to, excite disturbances in Irelsid..
'lle Hon. Member who spoke last said, that nobody
would carry-canit4to Ireland. Capital to a large amount had,
he knew been_carried into that country, and more was about
to proceed thither. That capital would produce industry, and
industry would produce tranquillity. He opposedCathoiie eman-
cipation, because in Ireland the immense mass of the People.
was in an ignorant and degraded state, and were entirely end
er
the influence of priesthood, whom lie believed to be directe,
in their turn, by political persons and feelings.—( Hear !)—The
present was the proper moment for the Government to make a
stand against the Catholic Claims. The Catholics would not
he content with what Parliamentwould give them ; they would
never-"be .content until they obtained possession of supreme
power. hear !)—lle had no objection to admit the Catholics
to the privilege of a silk gown, about which so much had been
said, but lie would exclude them from the sacred circle of the
Protestant constitution. He dreaded foreign influence by
Trtearlt of the priesthood acting on an ignorant population. He
had attentively considered the evidence which had been given
before .-the Parliamentary Committees, and. was compelled to
come to a conclusion different from that to which the Hon.
Member for Armagh had brought his mind. He hoped the
IlouscwOuld give him credit for entertaining an honest opinion
on the subjet.—( Hear !)—He could declare from his own obser-
vationS; that the mass of" the people of Ireland were perfectly
indifferent_with regard to the
.question of emancipation, until
within the last year, when they were roused by the exertions of
the priests.—(hlearb—The Gallant General had said, :that he
was for carrying the main body, and abandoning the wings—
alluding to the Catholic Relief Bill, and the two measures which
were considered appendages to-it. He differed from the Gal-
lant-General. far he felt it necessary to resist the encroachments
of the main body ; but would use every means in his power to
promote the success of the wings. He believed that those two
measures would do much to promote the tranquillity of Ireland.
If Parliament, on the present occasion, were to make a firm
stand:-;--to. say "thus far we will go, and no farther,"—the
queatiotoveuld be set at rest for ever. It would be an insult
to the English Catholics =to pass the bill before the House; it
would;-iii fact, be an acknowledgment that Parliament had
yielded' to the threats of the Irish Catholics, what they had

never been disposed to grant to thetloyalty and good conduct of
their English brethren.
W3l. BANKES trusted that his acquiescence in the
Motion for going,into the Committeerwould not be misunder-
stOod. He did so merely because{ he thought the resistance
offered to the bill should be open and manly.—( Hear !)--The
third reading was the stage:on which to take the sense of the
House. _ _ _

The House then resolved itself into
THE CO3I.IIITTEE.

Mr. MACDONAT.D in the Chair.
The Bill having been read a first and second time,
The SPEAKER rose, he said, to occupy the attention of the
Committee but for a very.short time. After the recent and
very elaborate discussion which this subject had undergone, he
very much doubted whether any person could say any thing
now with regard to it, and he certainly was not prepared to arro-
gate to himself the capability of doing so. He was perfectly
aware, -that according to the strict rules and forms of the House,
the present stage of the Bill under consideration was neither the
most convenient, nor the most regular occasion, for any Mem-
ber to state his opinion with regard to it ; but as his opinion on
the question remained entirely unchanged, and as this was the
first opportunity, and perhaps it might be the last, on which he
should be enabled to address the House on the measure, he
trulited„he might be permitted to say a few words.—(llear,
hear !)=Ncithing, then, which he had heard or read had re-
lieved his mind from the serious apprehensions with which it
was filled with regard to this great, and, as he thought, most
dangerous measure.—(Hear, hear !)—Having said thus much,
he could assure the Committee that he had no amendment
to propose, nor did lie wish to press a division, particularly
after the opinion of the House had been so decidedly expressed
on that point. However painful it might be to him to differ
from the majority of the House—howsver • painful it might
be to his feelings to differ from the opinions of those whose
opinions he ought to respect, and on whose opinions he
.in
almost every case placed the greatest reliance; and above all,
notwithstanding he felt that the course ,he was now pursuing
was a great evil, and to be justified only by the necessity of
the case, still feeling that a question of this kind admitted
of .no compromise, so long as he retained his conscientious
objections to the question of emancipation, lie should be
ashamed of himself if he did not declare den.—(Hear, hear !)
He hoped that the Committee would pardon him for having
troubled them with these few words. Ile had, as he before
stated, no amendment to propose. nor was he aware that it was
intended to propose any, or to come to any division in the Com-
mittee. He had been anxiout not to remain silent with regard
to the present Bill, the only public measure with which lie had
_ interfered since he had had the honour to fill the Chair.—
. -(Hear, hear !)
Mr. PEEL observed, that in 1821, when a Bill similar to
that now before the House was under discussion, various pro-
positions were submitted to the House—some for the purpose
of restricting the offices to which Catholics should be admitted;
and others for continuing their exclusion from Parliament, and
the Government of the Colonies. He rose for the purpose of
stating, that it was not his intention to submit any propositions
of that kind to the Committee on the present occasion, the
sense of Parliament having been fairly declared on those points
in 1821.
Sir H. PARNELL took that opportunity of stating that the
Hon. Member for Somersetshire, in reading the oath taken by
Roman Catholic Bishops, had omitted a very important pas-
sage, in which they stated that their relations with the Pope
could in no way shake their obedience to the King and Royal
Family.
Mr. PEEL thought that the oath which the Catholic Rishopa
at present took was highly objectionable. • The House ought to
have had some assurance that it would be modified before they
pledged themselves to grant a provision for the Roman Catholic
Clergy.
Sir H. PARNELL replied, that what appeared to be the
objectionable parts of the oath. had been explained to he harm-
less by high Catholic authorities. The words salvo eneo ordine
.were introduced into the oath to separate the spiritual obedience
which the Catholics owed to the Pope, from- that which they

owed to their Sovereign.
On the motion of an Hon. Member, whose name we could
not learn, that the form of the Catholic oath should be amend-
ed by substituting the words " present Protestant Church
Establishment" for " present Church Establishment,"
Mr. PLUNK ETT,objected to the alteration, on the ground
that casuists might call it an admission that there was some
other Established t' hurch besides the Protestant, existing in
yingland. The Right Hon. Gentleman further observed, that
the oath already was any thing rather than such as was called
forbi the friends of the Catholic Bill. It called fbr a disvoval
by :the Catholics of doctrines which no man in his senses could
suspect them of entertaining. But the fact was, in the year
1/.121,. the Catholic advocates had been taunted by their adver-
saries for not employing the full and formal oath provided in
the year 1793; and, in order to satisfy as far as possible all
scruples; that oath of 1793 was now returned to. -
Mr. PEEL concurred with his Right lion. Friend en+irely,
in thinking the addition of the word " Protestant" strerfluo IF,
and.still- further as to the needlessness of many of the disa-
vowals called for by the oath. lie could not think it nece'ssary
to call upon the Catholic, at this time of day, to swear that he
would not destroy or murder any person under the plea of that
person's being a heretic.
31r. BROUGHAM gave the Right Hon. Secretary credit
for his frank and manly declaration, and regretted that their
differences upon the general question were such as were not
capable of being reconciled. He thought•the amendment could
operate in no other way (if it operated at all) than to produce
future cavil ; and should certainly wish to see it withdrawn.—
For the terms of the oath, he considered decidedly that they
conveyed an insult upon the Catholics generally ; and he only
refrained from objecting to them, because be wished to leave
no excuse fur even the most scrupulous to be dissatisfied.
Mr. BRANSBY COOPER professed himself at a loss to
see how any good Catholic cou'd take the 'oaths proposed at
all. He must, by so doing, renounce principles which his
church—or the See of
.Rome at least—had ever maintained,
and still contended for. -
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD said that the oath which the
Hon. Member thought no good Catholic could take was, in fact,
the-oath already taken by all the Catholics in Ireland. Now,
whether those Catholics took the oath with the consent of the
see of Rome, or in defiance of its authority, the rion. Gentle-
man should take his choice, and assume the fact to be which
way lie pleased.
Sir J. NEWPORT had hoped that, the day of cavil was at
an end ; hut, to avoid all dispute upon the subject, was content
that the oath should remain as it stood.
Mr. GOULBURN saw no necessity for adhering so strictly
to the oath of 1793, if new evidence since that time showed any
part of it to be unnecessary or prejudicial.
Mr. HOLME SUMNER said a few words, which did not
reach the gallery.
Mr. PLUNKETT said he was glad of the liberal feeling
with which the Bill was viewed in the House. lie would not
object to some parts of the clauses being withdrawn, but he
thought it better to leave them in their present state in that
House. If in the progress of the Bill through the other House,
' (and be did not mean to anticipate what would be the issue of
the discussion there),—but if in its progress, those illiberal parts
of the oath should he struck out, lie for one would hail it with a
satisfaction in which lie was sure the majority of the country
would participate. .
After a few words from a Member under the gallery, whose
name we did not hear,:
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that the oath was required to be
,tako only by those who were called to exercise some public
funttion. If they should 'not undertake the, office, there would
be no necessity of taking the oath. Some Hon. Members ob-
jected to the oath as an insufficient security, in consequence of
what was supposed to be the absolving power of the Pope.—
But he begged to ask what other security hail they at present
but that-of an oath ?—(Hear, hear !)—What was there to
hin-
der his Learned Friend, Mr. O'Connell, from coming into the
House at the present day but an oath ? There were many
parts of Ireland (he would not name them -lest he should give
alarm to some of the Irish Members) where, if Mr. O'Con-
nell presented himself as a candidate, his' election would be
`certain. There were also some places in England, in which,
if he presented himself, his return would he secure. What was
it that prevented him, but an oath ?—(Hear, bear !)—" Oh,
but," said the opponents of this Bill, " the Pope may ab-.
solve him from that oath."—" No," replied Mr. O'Connell,
" I do not believe that he or any other authority has that
power, and therefore I' will stay out of -Parliament, because I
. cannot conscientiously take it.—(Cheers.)—Why, the thing was
quite 'plain, anti he did not despair of making it understood
'even by the lion.. Member for Bristol.—.(Cheers.)—The Hon.
Member, however, and his consort the Member for Surrey"
(Mr. 11:Sutimer), who sailed together on this question, fired
whole broadsides at every kind of oaths, and yet turned round
. and.-said thin was not sufficiently strong as a security. Why,
in the name of Heaven, or he would say, as perhaps something
of greater weight with those who were now so much alarmed
•for the security of the Protestant establishment, in the name of
Dr. Duigenan himself—(Cheers and laughter)—what security
-,could they- have greater than that which they. already pos-
sessed ? What, he would repeat, prevented the Catholic from
coming into Parliament without the intervention of any Bill,
but his respect for the sanctity of an oath, and-his consequent
.unwillingness to take one from which lie knew be could not
,be absolved ?—( Hear, hear !)—For his (Mr. Brougham's) own
pa-t, be was not anxious for any -oath, because lie did not
oelieve any such security necessary ; but he consented to an
oath heft embodied in the Bill, because he knew
dash he
had to conciliate prejudices • and if, - by allowing the•t to
,
remain, he could make even one convert"in this House or
in the other, he would- consent to the oaths remaining as
they now stood in the Bill ;- but he
.did not admit they were

in themselves necessary to the security of the country. He I
concurred with what had fallen from the Right Hon. Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, that no force could be re-
quired to enter by the door -of the Constitution unless it were
closed. tet the door be opened, and the force would spend
itself.—(Hear, hear !) -
Mr. PEEL was anxious. to know whether the lion. and
Learned Gentlefnan intended to propose any amendment (as
we understood) in that part of the oath to be taken by Protest.
ants, as far as respected the actual authority of the Pope in this

country.
111 r. BROUGHAM said, When the clase respecting the com-
mission came to be discussed, he would propose an amend-
inent, buf not in the point to which theßight Hon. Gentleman
adverted.
• 3lr. "PEEL, withotikrneaning to anticipate the discussion on
the clause, said, that when they relieved: the Catholic from
taking the oath of supremacy, they should also consider the
situatfia in which they 'night leave the conscientintis'Protest—
ant with respect to it. By the very fact of exonerating the Ca-
tholic from the oath, an admission was made that the Pope had
Y ; and yet the Protestant would still
that no foreign prince, prelate, state,
some mznsepdir uponit spiritual su
to psr weenalrac "
or potentate, hathor ought to have any power, pre-eminence,
or authority, cceksiastical or temporal, in these realms." Now
how, after an admission of the spiritual authority to, the Ro-
man-Catholics, could a Protestant be called upon to swear that
it did not exist? . _

Air. PLUNKETT did not think the Plotestants would be
in a worse
.situatioa after.the passing of this Bill than they were
bethre it, with respect to the oath of supremacy. Why, his
Right Non. Friend knew—every body knew—that the Pope
did at the present moment exercise an authority—a spiritual
authority in this country.. But those who took the oath denying
any such authority; did so with great satety, because they
meant it, and the oath meant no more than that no such autho-
rity or controul ptistett over the person taking,it. If the oath
was intended to convey that no such authority existed any where
in this country, then all those who swore that, must swear to
what was false. If, however, his Right Honourable Friend
wished to have a Bill to relieve the tender consciences of any
individuals with respect to the oath, he should have no objec-
tion whatever to such a course as a distinct measure. _

Mr. PEElolid not consider the explanation of his Right
Hon. and 'Learned 'Friend satisfactory. It was true in one
se ise the situation of the Protestant would not he worse. than
at present if this Bill Should. pass • but in another it would,
because by this Bill, the spiritual of the Pope would,
to a- certain extent, be legalized, which it was not at.the pre-
sent manent. We were now about to grant salaries to Roman
Catholic Archbishops and Bishops, which would be recog-
nising the Catholic Church as legally established, which it was
not i t present.
31r. BROUGHAM observed, that after the able statement of
his Right Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Plunkett), he should
de4pair of convincing the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ; but
still he could not avoid saying a few words. If the oath of su-
preniacy was to be understood in the sense in which the Right
Hon, Gentleman took it, no man could swear it without swear-
ing falsely, because uo man could deny that the Pope had a
spiritual authority recognized in this country by a large portion
of our tellow-subjects.. Ile had taken the oath, and he did it.
safely. He swore, not that the Pope had not some authority
over many of his (31r. Brougham's) fellow-subjects, but that
be had not any over liim, or those who thought with hitn. But
the Right Hon. Gentleman said,• that we had not hitherto re-
cognized the Roman Catholic Establishment ;. but was it re-
collected that the Government paid for the education of Roman
Catholic priests, who were commissioned by the Pope ?—that
was a recognition of the Catholic church as great as that now
proposed, and yet he had not heard of any man who had vo-
mited forth the oath of supremacy in consequence.
Mr. PEEL did not admit that the. Catholic Bishops were re-
cognized in their prelatical capacity. They were called most
reverend, and right reverend; but their titles as, Archbishops
and Bishops warnot admitted.
Sir J. NEWPORT asked why were the titles " most reve-
rend" and " right reverend" given to the Catholic Archbi-
shops and Bishops, if not to distinguish their rank from that of
the other orders of Catholic priesthood.. The time was, when
Catholic priests were hunted down wherever they were found
n this country. That time was now gone by forever. Was it
intended to re-enact those penal laws, and reduce the Catholic
priest to his former state ? If not, why deny the Catholic-
hierarchy that rank to which they were by ordination entitled?
He thooght that when leis` present Majesty was advised by his
Minste7s to receive the Catholic Bishops, and did receive
them, at his levee in Ireland, that he fully recOgrfized them as
's,ch, and that it was not quite decent in a Minister of the
Crown now to deny that which his - Sovereign publicly acknow-
ltd el. _ _ .

Mr. PEEL said he was not recurring to the subj9cts which
tl'e 11 T. Member had introduced, nor had he any wish to pro-
s ribe the Catholic clergy. All he contended for was, that they
were n w about to make an alteration inconsistent with the „ex-
isting law, and that some' other -law would be required to re-
cc the oath of -supremacy. to the conscientious feelings of
Many i•-cliv duals
Mr. L. FOSTER paid, that when he took the oath of supre-
macy, he d'd so with the understanding that the Pope had not
any legal authority iii these' countries ; • but now the case would
be different, if this Bill were passed.
Lord J. RUSSP,H,I4 said.; that a time was, when the exercise
of the Catholic religion in this country subjected the party to
p rsecu ion; but when once the religion was tolerated, the
a irit_ual authority of the Pope was recognized to a certain ex-
tent, fir the recognition of that authority formed part of the re-
ligious tenets of the Roman Catholic.
i%lr. PI,UNKETT said, that the Catholic religion and Ca-

tholic Church were fully recognized in Ireland when the Ca-
tholics were released from the penalties of recusancy. They
were now hound to attend the established form of worship, un-
less they attended at the Catholic chapels. That was, he con.
tended, a direct legal acknowledgment of their religion.
After a few words from Mr. BUTLER CLARKE, the clause
was agreed to.
The next clause provided that -no Catholic should be eligible
to be Lord Lieutenant or Lord Depity in Ireland.
Mr. ROBERTSON spoke at some length against the Bill
(as we understood), but his remarks were for the most part in,
audible in the gallery. He concluded by proposing that there
be added, as an amendment to this clause, the following words :
—" or of being returned as Member to serve in Parliament for
any of the Universities in that part of Great Britain called Eng-
' land and Scotland."
Sir C. COLE said that he would make use of the proposal of
this amendment to say a few words on the comparative
situation of the English and the Irish Catholics. The English
Catholics did not enjoy the same privileges as their brethren in
Ireland. He was most anxious to put them both on the' same
footing, and would willingly undergo any labour to accomplish
such-a consummation. He deed not say that he could not con-
cur in the amendment which had been proposed by the Hon.
Member below him.
The gallery was then cleared, but the arnendment was after-
wards negatived without a division.
The CHAIRMAN theri put the clause containing the regula-
tions which are deemed necessary touching the appointment
of Bishops and Deans of the Roman Catholic Church in Ire-
land, and the commission which is to issue.to Roman Catholic
Bishops.
Mr. BROUGHAnsaid that he had an amendment to •pro-
pose upon this clause. After reading the following words of
the clause,—" Arid whereas it is expedient that such precau-
tions should be taken, in respect of persons in holy orders pro-
fessing the Roman Catholic religion, who may at any time here-
after be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or dis.
charge of episcopal duties or functions in the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland, or tothie duties or functions of a dean in the
said.church, as that nrymicttpersons shall at any title hereafter.
assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions
within the United Kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty
' and peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascer-
tained, as hereinafter Provided"--he said he wished to add to
diem these words---" And whereas, it is fit and requisite to
regulate the intercourse between the subjects of this realm
and the see of Royne.; he it therefore enacted, that it shall
and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and suc-
cessors, by two several commissions, to be issued under the
great seal of Ireland, to nominate and appoint such persons in
. holy orders professing the Bon-lan Catholic religion, and exer-
cising episcopal duties or functions in Ireland, as his ,Majesty,
his heirs, and successors shall think fit to be commissioners
under the Act for two purposes before-mentioned, and that the
person first named in the said commissions should be the pre-
sident thereof." The Learned Gentleman said, that as he had
before stated the grounds on which he recommended these se-
curities, he should not now pretend to repeat them. The ob-
jection to this measure was, that by agreeing to it the (louse
would legalize the spiritual authority of the Pope. lie asserted
t tat the House would do no such thin it would merely
regu-
late the existence of that which had :existed for many years, in
I spite of its enactments. That the Pope had spiritual authority
in this country could not be contradicted. For instance, if the
l'ope were to ordain him- a priest--(a latigh)—and the King
were to appoint him to the bishopric of Durham—(another
laugh)—one of the most lucrative aointments, by the by, in
pp
his gifts, and the best trade of all now going—(laughter)--he
rweogunlitrleboerednintintlteiodntofrhomecoamnye apebrissohnop per saltum, and would not
English church. A p a proo
idle assertion upon .this point, he would remind the House of a
case of recent occurrence in Ireland. Dr. O'Beirne, the late
s
Protestant Bishop of Meath, was originally ordained a priest
wu ala fineodi
indulgingt o conferit
ini nmte_hr
mere
farther orclination.--.
I becoming a Protestant, without any
further argu-
ment in addition to those which be had already •
tiainite,arh madewotild a
offerßis Bishop

subject of securities. He saw no danger, and therefore could
not admit the necessity of securities. He was, however, wil-
ling to grant them, in order to obtain the support of those who
were not willing to accede to the bill without securities. He
believed that the proposed securities were perfectly innocent,
and he was nearly certain that they were utterly inefficacious.—
He had therefore, upon principle, no objection to urge against
them-; on the contrary, he was rather anxious to concede them,
in the hope that the might be of some utility in allaying the
rancour of religious animosity... The Learned Gentleman then
placed his amendment in the hands of the Chairman.
Mr. PEEL said, that as the authority of Bishop Horsley had
been-referral to in the-course of the debate, he could wish that
Hon. Gentlemen would refer to the Rev. Bishop's speech for
the arguments contained in it. The Rev. Prelate drew a
distinction between the different authorities exercised by the
Pope of Rome, which well deserved the attention of the
House. He admitted the Pope wits Bishop -.of Rome, and
that he had liberty to confer degrees within his own jurisdic-
tion ; but he denied that the Pope had any liberty to do 50 in
this country, and upon that principle refused to remove the
disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured.—
He would only say a few words on the previsions which
this clause introduced into the Bill. He declared, with the
utmost candour, that it would be a great satisfaction to his
mind .if the llon. and -Learned Gentlemen would leave these
provisions entirely out of the Bill. He made that declaration,
not with any sinister intention of thereby defeating the Bill, but
from a full conviction that such provisions were worse than nu-
. gatory: No objection which he felt to the removal of the Catho-
lic disabilities would be removed by the existence of such se-
curities. They were very different from those which had for-
merly been proposed by his Right Hon. Priend'ilic Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs ' • and such as they were, they . were
disclaimed by' the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, who
. said that they did not conic from him, but were framed out-of
pure deference to the scruples of those gentleiben with whom
he (Mr. Peel) had the honour of acting. It was remarlfed' by
the fabulist, that
. " The child, whom many fathers share,

" But seldom boasts a father's care;"
and his remark seemed verified in the pre4entinstance. This
datum appeared to have no legitimate father. The Hon. and
Learned Member disclaimed the securities it contained ; and he
was obliged to follow his example. They were not required,
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, by the Catholics; and
he would add, that they were not at all wanted by the Protest-
ants. if any Gentleman would get up and say that these secu-
rities would be effectual securities to the Protestant Church in
Ireland, he would wave the objection which he now felt to
'them ; but if no person should be found anxious to support
them, he hoped that the lion- and Learned Gentleman would
consider whether the Bill would not be better calculated to con.
ciliate the people of Ireland without these securities than it
would be with them. lie objected to them on this ground—
that they imposed on the Crown an obligation to appoint two
permanent commissions, compo;ed -exclusivelY of ecclesiastics.
Besides they provided that if the hull, dispensation, or other
document received from Rome were of an innocent na-
ture, it should be sent to the parties to whom it was
directed, but did not provide for what was to be done with it, in
case it should appear to be of a dangerous description. There
was likewise no penalty attached to any Bishop who should ex-
erciseepiscopal functions without having received such a certi-
ficate as was mentioned in the present clause. Add to this,
that no commissioner would like to impeach otdisloyalty a man
who had not been convicted of some disloyal 'act.' There was
nothing more vague than the ideas attached to the words loyal
anti disloyal ; and he would therefore wish to know what con-
struction the lion. and Learned Gentleman intended to put
upon them ?—(11 ear !)
Mr. PLUNKEI"I" said, that- he should have no objec-
tion to throwing these securities overboard, if, by so doing,
he could ensure' the company of his Right Honourable
Friend to the conclusion of his voyage • but as he could
not flatter himself with the 'hope of suchl a contummation,
and as he knew that the abandonment of these securities would
deprive him of the support of several of the crew with whom
he Was then embarked, he felt bound to keep thein- at all ha-
zards. For his own part, be thought these securities to be inef-
fectual securities, and to be highly essential to-the success of the
Bill. Still, if he deemed them as useless as he believed them
to be serviceable, he would abide by them for two reasons—
first, because they tended to make the Bill more likely to suc-
ceed ; and secondly, because they tended to conciliate towards
it the Protestant feeling of the country. In spite of the taunts
of his Hon. Friend that these securities had not the good for-
tune to possess a father,he would avow that he was the person on
whom this bantling had a right for support. W heuhe recollect-
ed that all former securities had been similar in nature to the
present, and especially those which considered oaths and corn.
missions as admissable, he could have no reason to disown his
connexion with it. Indeed, he saw a strong necessity for grant-
ing these securities in the fact that they recognized, for the first
time, the admissibility of Catholics-to the privileges of the con-
stitution. It was also known that Catholics liVed under the
spiritual controul of their, priests—were influenced by it to a cer-
tain degree in their political conduct, and were, by means of
their priests, in constant connexion with the Court of Rome.
lie held it to he no inconsiderable security, that when the people
were so much under the influence of their priesthood, that
priesthood should be brought into connexion with the State,
and should give to it full assurance of its peaceful and loyal
behaviour. As to the objection that loyalty was a vague
texm, which meant every thing and nothing, he would
merely reply that it was an objection which might have
had some weight, supposing they had been framing an
Act of Parliament to punish a want of loyalty. In that
case it might have been necessary to define clearly the
meaning of loyalty, in order to ascertain the extent of crime
which was concealed under a want of it ; but in the present
case,- no such niceness of language was required ; it was only
necessary that the Commissioners should certify whether the
candidate for preferment was what in corm-non parlance was
called a loyal or a disloyal man. He admitted that the securi-
ties of the present bill were not the same with those of the bill
which he had introduced in 1821. By the bill of 1821, the
commission was to consist of certain prelates', certain-laymen,
and certain Ministers of the Crown. By the present bill, no
layman nor Minister of the Crown would be admitted into it,
but it would consist exclusively of Roman Catholic prelates.—
He considered the security of the present bill to be equally,
good with the security of the bill of 1821. He should not
have suggested any change in those securities, if it had not
been for this reason.. He thought it his duty to furnish the
Cominittee with such measures as would ' be thankfully
received by the Catholic population ; and he was informed,
on good authority, that to a commission of this nature no
part of it would object. It was no slight recommendation of
this Bill to say, that it was a measure which, in the present
critical state of Ireland, was calculated to give immediate and
universal satisfaction in that country. He did not propose this
species of security to guard against the supposition that the
Roman. Catholics were bad subjects. The Roman Catholics
were like other subjects ; if they committed crimes against the
State, they were liable to punishment by the Ordinary laws of
the country. The dangers against which the House had to
guard were those which arose from the Catholics being con-
tradistinguished in several respects from the- other subjects of
the realm. Ile took it for granted that the Roman Catholic
Prelates were good subjects—were honest men—were persons
whose oaths-amid be relied on ; and if that were admitted, he
would ask whether it was not a great security that the Crown
should be allowed to select four individuals from their body,
from time to tirsie, by whose certificate it could be assured that
every person enrolled. into their number was -a-loyal subject,
and not only that he was loyal subject, but that this nomina-
tion had been domestic and had not proceeded from the Pope,
or from any foreign power. Domestic nomination had been
Considered, from, the commencement of these discussions, as a
security to a direct veto ou'the part of the Crown. The people
of Ireland were ready to grant domestic nomination without a
Cct 10ft.53.501/11-,Cpm:rrr
.°l.ahilPtPßireisesitEioi lernaNun
murmur, whereas the veto could not have been..given to the
Crown without great difficulty, and perhaps not without enter-
ing into an express Concordat with the Pope— In conclusion,
the ',earned Gentleman said, that even if the ,question of Ca,
tholic emancipation could not be carried, he should consider
an arrangement of this nature to be highly essential to the
security of the empire, and to the tranquillity of Ireland.
Mr. BANKES thought the proposed securities were quite
Severalpon
that
r other
eaEpecceeltlai
entsigsmetssht
iewc
so
oath
twehht
othoewnbe
or
were
takeng r
reallye agreed db
by the
withouttohree
oe
dependantidaesht
iao
Ecclesiastical
inadequate they were, as compared -with the ones offered in
1321, merely the form contrasted with the substance.
The original clause was then agreed to.
complained that it had no reference to the Eng-
lishthe Irish.
KETT was really at a lost to see what danger
apprehended from the Catholic hierarchy in England.
G ciAM concurred in this view of the absence of
cooutottanntoi
mt
et
no t ewheinc
clause for regulating the reception of bulls franc the
all danger from such a body.
Churchsi r
FRANCIS o fßoi
con-
trary toto tthheeseselicuololds
ORM ANNE Y complained that the homage
--(A laugh.) • encouraged--it uragel
• Mr. BROUGHAM assured the Bon. Gentleman that he
might retire to, or rather continue his 1 u h)
night's. rest—(a a g
without any fears upon that head—for these bulls were not the
prohibitedit witalosla(t°4..
animals with horns, that were sometimes calculated to scare e
man, but quiet and inoffensive bulls upon paper—(a laugh)_:-
which were merely received by the Catholics with some pious
tokens of adoration and respect.
This clause being agreed to,
The CuAtitarkx announced that the clauses of the Bill had

been agreed to, and the time had arrived for proposing any
further ones, if such were intended. __ . _

Lord EN ISIII11)REhoped that this Bill would not he
pressed to a third reading until the Clergy Provision Bill were
passed. Several Members had agreed to the former, on the'
condition of its being accompanied by the latter.
SirJOHN NEW:PORT contended, that the House stood by
its resolution sufficiently pledged to the Clergy Proyisitin Bill,
without delaying the present measure unnecessarily.
111 r. 13 ROUGHAM would willingly have made a reasonable
sacrifice to conciliate the Noble Lord.; , but he- entreated the
Noble Lord to consider hoW cornpletely the clause he proposed
would go to nullify some of the most gracious labours in which
the House had ever been engag al. It went to make the
passing of this Bill depend tiro the passing. of another -Bill,
which was not yet in existence—which was not even in con-
templation at the time this measure was chalked out with
the concurrence of A majority of the House. Lefllie-Noble
Lord only consider what it Was.to make a Bill, which had pro-
gressed nearly through the Committee, depend upon the multi-
plied forms of passing another Bill, which might be checked
and thrown out .in -any one: of its stays. Surely there vai
sufficient security for , those measures of a provision for the
clergy, and the 'qualification of the elective franchise, in the
majority which had voted for the resolution of the Noble Lord
(Levoson Gower), and the clause in the bill of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Stafford. which made the'passing of that bill to depend
upon the fateof the bill now before the Committee.
Mr. H. SUM NER said that they had heard nothing from
his Majesty's Ministers as to what was likely to be' the recep-'
tion of the measure which was to follow upon the resolution of
the Noble Lord (Leveson Gower), when presented for the Royal
Assent. He thought it was trifling with the "House to keep it
in ignorance upon that point for a fortnight after the passing.of
the resolution.- . . .
' Mr. It ROUG I IA'M said, that every man of them ftgreek
that the measure for the provision for die Catholic clergy would
be quite out of the question, unless they first gave emancipa...
tion. The priests had over and over, again informed them by
the evidence,
,that to accept A .provision for the clergy,. without
emancipation, would'-'be to betray their duty to their flocks.
The resolution only pledged the House to make that provision
Contingently upon passing this 13111., '
Lord ENNISIORE consented to withdraw his proposition.'
Some conversation' took place upon the arder of proceeding'
with the several measures which were to accompany the Bill;

• though not in strict connexion with it.
The House resumed. The Report was brought up, received;
and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday
next. The Bill was ordered to be printed, anti read a third
time on Tuesday next—a reservation being expressly made;
that on either of those occasions the opponents of the Bill should
be at liberty to take their ground against the same as if the
question should be upon the bringing up the Report, • '
The. other Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the -
House' adjourned at ONE tfetOCIC.