The Sun.
London, England, 1823-07-10 00:00:00

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1823.

saryur advisable it might be.. Both the High Priest and the
High Churchman seemed to have forgotten that, a blind,
doting, obstinate adherence to old establishing*, reso-
lutely opposed to all reform, was as weak anti dangerous as
a wild and irrational desire of change. If we twined to fo-
reign countries, we should find that in Russia, Prussia,
and he believed in Austria, the Jews had been lately ad.
witted to those civil privileges, from which our Catholic
brethren were excluded. In . ITrance lie had never heard of a
single Petition having been_presented from the Catholic Clergy
against the admission of Protestants to any civil situation of
honour, trust, or emolument. The Established Clergy of Eng-
land were the only body, the great majority of which, in the
19th century, openly avowed their intolerance. Against such
a spirit of persecution and intolerance, said the Right 11ev.
Prelate, I will never cease to raise my voice, flues Mentor ipso
duottpirius he; rcgil nrtua. That he might not incur the
imputation of censuring men whose opinions were entitled to
much there weight than his Own, he would conclude the few
obseniations winch he had ventured to make with a passage
from one of the most learned and practically disc men who had
ever sat on the Bench of Bishops—a Prelate who enjoyed the
distinguished honour of being the personal friend of that en-
lightened, liberal, and magnanimous Prince, William 111.
lie alluded to Bishop Burnet, the great oblect of whose long
and useful life, as well as that of King William, was to unite
in
.one great social and civil bond 411 loyal subjects, on the *lle
ground of their tried allegiance and fidelity, wirbout..referenee
to their religious opinions. We have lost many opportunities,
said Bishop Burnet, since the revolution; of healing our
breaches; but let us not suffer the present opportunity to
slip from us on account of the fears which are harboured by
a few sour and narrow.minded men, who would close the door
on conciliation, and make those breaches perpetual. Ile would
only add that two Petitions had just been put into his hands,
one from Norfolk, and another from some of the Clergy of the
Diocese of Norwich, against granting any further concession to
the Catholics. It was needless for him to say that lie hoped
their Lordships would turn a deaf ear to the prayer of these
Petitions:

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S had always objected to the
admission of Catholics to offices of profit and trust, because
their principles were inconsistent with the safety of the lista-
!dished Church and Constitution. The possession of the Elec-
tive Franchise would be still inure dangerous, as It would give
them an influence in the formation of the laws. Ile should
therefore cordially give his vote against the two Bills at present
before their Lordships.

The LORD CHANCELLOR declared, that unless he
thought the measures proposed consistent with the public good,
no consideration on this side the grave could induce him to give
them his support. He had. known the Rev. Prelate opposite
(the 'Bishopof Norwich) during a long portion of a long life,
and entertained due respect for him ; yet he could not under.
stand how that Reverend Prelate could reconcile to his con-
science the sentiment which he had expressed and maintained,
that there was no other Body than the Clergy.. of this country
which was unwilling to grant the Catholic Chums, But there
seemed to he something peculiar in the See of Norwich, which
led to singular opinions; for he had seen a Statute, passed
some centuries ago, on the express account of a Bishop of
Norwich, from the operation of which all the other Bishops
were excepted, although they were told to look into it.—
The opinion of the Reverend Prelate, that the opposi-
tion to the Claims of the Catholics had, decreased, was un-
founded. He was sure that it had been increased on the con-
trary, in a tenfold ratio. With respect to the present • Bill,
OM forbid that he should say that it had been brought forward
at that late period of the Session, in order that the country
should : know nothing of it, But the proceeding was not
fair to'the Ilouse, nor consistent with its dignity. And what
was the nature of those Bills? The first was the most ex,
traordinary piece of legislation which had ever been seen
on the subject in thal House. It' it were meant to release
English Catholics from the Act of Williatit the Third, let it
be said so in the preamble. But if it were intended so 'to
weaken the security of the Establishment as to allow Catholics
not to take the oath of supremacy, let' it be said clearly thut
no one but Catholics should be relieved from the necessity of
taking that oath ; for as the Bill now stood the relief would be
extended to every clam Dissenters. lle knew that this
might be altered in the Consoiittee,..but it was impossible for
tam to dmit the pthseiple that any man held true allegiance to
the Crown who denied Its -s•er-m..sr rr.sitiee count to.: sp.
ptove of the hurried manner in which these measures were
Pressed et the close of the session. He had not the slightest
objection that matters of thet kind should be debated t he
only wished them to be debated with due consideration and
by adequate numbers : but for the last twenty years not one
had dared to introduce them at no earlier period than the pre-
sent, lest there should be time to discuss them.. The Reverend
Prelate, who had declared himself' a friend td inrovation, had
said that the Revolution was an innovation : he (the Lord
Chancellor) contended on the contrary that it had only restored
the ancient rights and Constitution of the Country. Bishop
Hoadley had said, that " the Reatoratlon Would have been no
blessing without the Revolution." The ;peat blessing of the
Revolution consisted in its having established the Church and
State, effected their union and settled their supremacy for,
without some difference between the Protestant Establishment
and the Dissenters, there-Would liave been no toleration; and
before the Revolution there had been nothing but a constant
clash of claims for power. A man who denied this Supremacy
Might be a very moral, a very worthy, a very good man ;
but
he never could be a loyal man. If he should have to give a
vote upon this question, which he should regret being cont.
pelted to do, it should be for reading the Bill a second time
that day three months ; and it not called upon to give a vote,
he should say that that House had been treated with indignity
in having ,such a measure sent for its consideretion at such a
period of the Session.
The Earl of HA RILOWBY contended that the state ,or
public opinion respecting the measures proposed ought to be
toed, not by the number. of private representations on either
side, but by the conduct of those public bodies who had been
in the habit of declaring their sentiments. He knew it would
he said that they knew nothing of these measures ; but if
they did not, it was their own fault. For these very Bills,
which his Noble Friend complained had been submitted
so late to their Lordships, had been between two and three
pionths befbre the Other
.House, and the immense pressure of
business which had occupied that !louse to a late houf every
night, was the tole cause of- their having reached their !Joni-
ships at that period of the Session. But the principle of these
hills was not new ; it had been almost annually submitted to
their Lordships for the last twenty years: in a different shape
It was true, and in connection with more extensive meAsures,
but still it was the same, and therefbre required no deep in-
vestigation before an opinion could he formed. He was really
perfectly at a lass to conceive on what grounds, except those
that applied to the general Catholic Question, the first of these
measures could be opposed. Would it be said that the exten•
sion of the elective franchise in Ireland to the Catholics had
produced her disasters,..and must not be conceded to the Eng-
lish Catholics, lest it should be attended with similar evils to
this vortntry. But if it had created some evils, it
.hart also done
considerable good in Ireland, and would have produced un-
mingled benefits,- it', as the Catholics themselyesreLpti l highereetes
it
etlhaci,s ot. electivel.rcefrhaonktiletrsi se granted there .
The infinite :on of land would
thus have been prevented ; the Catholic :Freeholders would
. .
have been raised in the uptown of the .people and of their
neighbours ; and the knowledge that such a privilege was
attached to a higher amount of property than the common,
would have acted as a stimulus to In-ditto
Then herds of
Catholics would not have been seen flocking to
the market
of an election. The evils which had resulted to Ireland did
out arise from their admission us Catholics, but froin their
admission rue paupers. Here no such danger existed.. Ought
a 'unity of one hundred years to he rewarded by being kept
But let them
in an inferior state to thati oeufgttihte
tCoattiedielionfcl,4reltaonitlL
Noble and Learned Friend defined loyalty to he a rwrrcet at.
tael:menf to every thing. in Church and State, ( Lord
iiarrowhy) thought that
an 4, with his hand on his
look to tilvtitortryls: would find that under the Most
trying circumstances the of the English Catholica to
of invasion or internal
King and State had been ummpeached and unimpeaddde,
dangers he
whom it WM indispensable.
And he defied any man to -stand tips
heart,- to say that in Mile
would not entrust the defer:es Of his country with its much
fitlenett to the Roman Catholics as to any of the Noble Lords at
present in that House. Why, there was nothing to -prevent a
French Catholic General frown becoming commander. of the
armies, ora French (!atholie.ildmiral leader of the navies of
England, and yet they were afraid of trusting an, rnolish ca•
tholic-with a 46,,. freehold, giving him a vote to Parliament !
The LORD NCE It asked whether it. would be
as the- Dill proijosctl to allow Roman Cattiolict to give

a vote without taking an oath declaring;:that the King of this
country must lie a Protestant? •
The Earl of LIVERPOOL was anxious to explain the opl !
nion which he should give, as it would differ in some degree'
from that of his Noble Friend by his side (the Earl of W est-
morland), and that of his Noble and Learned griend on the
Woolsack. The first 11111 it was his intention to suppert : tea,
the postponement of the second, be should be under the ne.:
cessity of agreeing, if the Noble Marquis should insist on its
being read a Second time. That Noble Marquis had not
placed the question on its right footing, witch be had consi.
dered Parliament bound to give to the English Catholics
the same privileges as those enjoyed by, the because
it had not deprived the Irish of those privileges, on account
of the evils which they wete represented to have produced.
He ought to have felt the difficulty and impropriety of re.
moving what bad once been granted, without an overbear.
ing wealthy: lie ought to have recollected that the Union
had intervened, and although it contained no immediate provi-
sion on that subject, it would have been impolitic and un.
worthy to wish to place the Catholics on a footing inferior to
that on which they stood previously to the introduction of that
measure. 'Whether the elective franchise had originally been
rightly or wrongly granted to the Catholics, was a closed
question on which their Lordship had no option ; but they had
an option as to granting it to English Catholics, and if proof
were adduced to spew that it had produced nothing hut <vil in
Ireland, they had a right
,to say that they would not intrtaloee
it into England. The question must theretbre be stripped
of all considerations of consistency in every point between
the two countries. Let their Lordships look at what- he
feared must be considered the two sounder parts of the British
Empire, England anti Scotland, and they would find that they
Were governed by totally different laws. Vet would any
one contend that the laws of Scotland should be destroyed,
because they were not similar to those of England ? The
question of anomalies must therefore be put entirely out of
view. One of the great causes of evil to Ireland was the
disposition of Parliament to give her things, merely because
they aided in England. they might be good in one
country, but inapplicable to the other. Ile considered the
present question as a local one applying to Great Britain
alone : yet though it was closed with respect to Ireland, it was
curious to examine how it had been settled at the time in that
country. A Petition bad been presented in 1792 by the Ro.
man Catholics to the Irish Parliament, requesting, to be admit.
ted to the exercise of the elective . franchise tin higher qualifi-
cations than the Protestants. The whole Protestant interest
of Ireland immediately rose against the measure, with the ex.
ception of Mr. Grattan and thirty other Members, and it was
thrown out by an immense majority. In his opinion a more
imprudent opposition had never beets made ; for it had led the
next year, without any change of Administration, to give
more than the Catholics had. demanded, whilst the conces-
sions, accompanied by the restrictions originally proposed,
would have produced the greatest good. Whatever objet.
tions might be entertained to granting the whole Catholic
Question, they existed with tenfold force against a State in
which the Catholics did not enjoy a degree of infhtence pro-
portioned to the property which they held. One of the most
unfortunate events which had occurred in . that country, was
the refusal to grant to the Catholics the concessions which
they had asked in 1791 As to the Bills now, licfore
their Lordships, he saw no possible objection to them in
point of principle or practical inconvenience, and he knew
what he was abouL In no elections were ever the oaths al-
.

luded to administered or, if they were, it was only ii;r
one purpose, that of delay. With respect to the exercise of
the elective franchise, he therefore conceived that the aims
pier the oaths were made, or even if they were reduced to one,
it. would be the better. lie trusted therefore that the fitat Bill

would pass, with any alterations in the Committee which might
tend to remove the objections of those
,by whom it was op.
posed. He had no objection likewise to the objects of the
second Bill, to extend to the English Catholics the privilege of
tilling; a number of civil offices which they could not now oc-
citplby law. His only objection watt to the mode in which
that object was attempted to be accomplished, not by saying
what offices they were to be admitted to till, but by exceptions.
—Now he did not know whether those were all the exceptions
that should be. He wished, therelbre, that whilst the, principle
was adopted, the offices which the Catadies tyere to be allowed
to fill, should be clearly named instead of the exceptions. On
telethte7nsiglitfantg% repb'sliin It itt:' I were Pro"'
Viscount CLIFDEN urged the propriety of granting the
claims of the Catholics to the last letter Whilst they were
peaceable.
The Earl of LIMERICK. explained that the apparently in-
consistent conduct of the Parliament of Ireland in rejecting, in
179t1, what it passed without opposition in 1793, arose from the
suggestions and directions of the 4‘linistry of England, who,
in 1793, wished that the bill should pass.
Viscount MELVILLE approved of both the Bills, but
should move in the Committee on the second reading some
words to exempt Scotland from its operation, as it would vio-
late the laws of that country and the Act of I Inion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN, in reply, expressed his
intention to postpone the second reading of the second Bill to
another Session, in consequence of the assurance of the Noble
Lord opposite (Liverpool) that he was friendly to the principles
and would not Object to another Bill operating through a di&
fer(nt mode.
The LOAD CtIAXCELLOR and the Earl. of TiIvERPOOL
having mutually explained, the House divided...-
Contents Present 43 Proxies 30—Total 73
Not Contents . 41 4 - 39-- 00
Majority agshist the Bill -
• - TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.

When strangers i;eie74ltlniiiied, 7 777
Lord CLIFDEN was moving that it should be an instruc-
tion to the Committee on the Tythes Composition Bill, to ini
troduce a clause, giving power to, the Lord Lieutenant to up.
point Commissioners Mr settling the composition with respect
to the amount of tythes, according to the sum actually paid in
a certain number of yes:4
'The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought it likely that a compul-
sory provision must eventtially be made ; but, in the first in-
stance, he thought it right to give the, voluntary adjustment a
trial. lie opposed the instruction merely . because he thought
the experiment which he had recommended ought first to be
made, and net because he was adverse to the principle of a corn-
poison, measure when proved to be absolutely necessary,
Lora KING drought the measure, without the. compulsory
clause, would be wholly nugatory, •ovid he should therefore
support the motion for the proposed instruction. Ile .briefly
commented on the evils which oppressed Ireland, in conse-
quence of the situation in which tits people *ere .placed be-
tween the Established and Catholic Churches. The one by its
exactions subjected the people to sufferings, which almost
doomed them to a hell in this world, while the other threatened
diem with hell in the next.
Lord ELLENBORMIGII objected to the present Bill, and
would rather allow the evil intended to be corrected to remain
as it was for the present, than sanction the adoption of a rues,
sure '§o imperfect as that then under the consideration of
their Lordships.
The Earl of LIMERICK supported the Bill.
The Earl of DARN LEY would vote for the Bill, of
Opinion, that though it could not accomplish touch, it would
be taken as an earnest of the wish of the Legislature to
afford relief to the people of Ireland. The property of the
Church ought never to be toadied. The Noble Earl concluded
by saying he should vote for the proposition of the Noble
iscount.
Lord HOLLAND said, necessary as the motion of his
-Noble Friend Was -to carry into effect the 'good object Of ale
Bill, he could not avoid saying a few words us to the motive.
which would induce !dui to give his vote. The Venerable and
Leaned Prelate who had spoken on an inrportant question
that night with eloquence, and truly honourable liberality, had
stated an anecdote respecting Ilishop floadley. Mr. Iloadley
said, the RefOrmation was no blessing without the Itevolu-
titm. It-might also be said, without the clause proposed by
his Noble I riend, . the Bill would he no blessing. The NOW
Baron opposed the argument of the Noble Earl, who would
not allow tithes to be any thing but Property. There was
another part of the Bin which had been ably discussed by
his Noble Iteration. The Noble Baron alluded to taking the
averages. He felt objection to that clause, hut did not-know
how to deal with it before the House went into C'brutuittce on
the Bill. Tbe statement or the Noble hord, with *street to
Lay Impropriators was to be looked at with some doubt. To
the Bill itself he acquiesced, on the ground that it was aft ail-
vance towards the measure which Ireland requireak tie was
sure without compulsion the measure would not succeed: The
thing must be done on the broad principle of necessity.; it must
• be carried into effect speedily. A Noble and Learned Lord,
in the discussion- upon the Catholic Claims, had said that the

PRICE StVENPENCE.

offe' stion formerly was not understood,, but now, it was repro
bated all over the kingdom.. How did the Noble and
Lord know the •popular opinion ? The IlottSeUf CMIIOIOZIS,
who were Representatives of the people, were only supposed
to speak the public feeling of the country. It appeared, how..
ever, that popular opinion was only known to Noble Lords in
that House. - If they were to try the efficacy of measures by
public (minion,. he might ask
.what was the popular opinion in
Ireland respecting tithes? It watt the opinion of Mr. Pitt that
the tithe system must be altered, and the Catholic Claims eon-,
ceded, before Ireland could be restored to peace. He had.. in
his eye persons who supported Pitt (Rubs, and yet heard with
horror theluipular (minions ar that Minister. The Noble Lord
did not can to vote against the Bill, although be had little
hope that it Would produce a beneficialabet.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL, said, if the compulsory clauie
was intended to give the parties their rights, and what was
equitable, he should not oppose ir. A compulsory clause was
originally introduced to the Bill, and afterwards struck out, be-.
cause it was not clearly aseettains4 how compulsion could ap-
ply. This was-to be considered ass question of property. It
was not merely property of the Church, but the property at
individuals. Tithe was like other species of property ; and,
the House must deal with it as they would deal with a question
of property between man anti man. It might be asked whether it
belonged to the lay impropriator or the Clergyman. Sortie
would say it belonged to the State • but it was clear the indivi-
dual who belonged to the land had no claim to tithe if. the Mate-
could claim it. Ile had never denied the right of Parliament to
deal With every description of property, and if • they did that
which was substantially equitable with respect to tithes, they
would do right. The Noble Lord could net look with any ar.
tention to the notion, that if tithes were to be got rid of, the
owner of the land was to have the sole benefit. A Noble Lord
ivho spoke early in the debate, had censured the Church of
Ireland. He could not see on what ground that censure was
delivered. Marty of the Clergy of Ireland went over without
any bias upon questions of interest. A more respectable body.
was not to be found. To try the conduct of the Church, they had
only to ask the farmer who he would rather pay his tithes to ?--
The answer would be in favour of the Church, because no body
of men butt acted with more liberality. In the. bill there was
at least the elements or fair.dealini:;, and they might safely tty
how it would answer without the compulsory clause, before
they consented to adopt conumlsion.
The LORD CHA NCEI4I,OIt. then put the question upon
the Noble Viscount's clause, and the house
Contents -
Non-Contents 31
Majority against the Clause -
• The House then went into a Committee on the Bill, several
amendments were made, and it was ordered to be re-vontroitted
on Yriday.—Adjourned at a (ILTAILTEfi to ONN O'CLOCK..