The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

tiee was, whether greater political power could be given to.
the Roman Catholics without endangering our Civil and Eccle-
eiasfieeil Establishments. No one regretted the exclusion of
elle Catholics from their rights more than he did, but toleration
was of two kinds, religious and political. The first allowed
-every man to worship the Deity according to the dictates
orlue own conscience, but the other was very different. The
Ade.
•Prelate then applied this distinction to the case of the
Henan Catholics, and argued to shew that their belief in the
'sspremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff influenced their civil con-
, duct as subjects of this country.' He kneiv that in the town of
Lancaster, .where there were many poor. Catholics in the work-
house, they refused to work on Saints' days and other holidays
held sacred bythe-Church of Rome. Again he would observe,
_
that the society a Jesuits, established at Stonyhurst, was both
unwearied and successful in making converts to the Catholic
religion. The Roman Catholics were, in fact, semper cadet):
- nil action re :rant dam quid agendum manebit. He did not,
however, wish for perpetual exclusion, but onlysuch as neces-
sity demanded.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that nothing but im-
perative duty could induce hem to trouble their Lordships en
-the present occasion. As a servant of the King, however, he
• could not allow his Majesty's prerogatives to be destroyed, as
must be the case if these Bills passed the Legislature. These
,two Bills, although discussed by the Noble Marquis (Lana-
down) as one measure, were in reality perfectly distinct.
The first Bill sought to alter what for more than a century
;had been the settled law of the land. But when it was con-
sidered that the whole frame of the Constitution was Pro-
testant, he did think it would be strange indeed if the Catholics
were not called upon to give some test of their adherence to
•it before they enjoyed the privileges it conferred. How was
it possible to grant the right of voting and not of being elected ?
Until two years back no one ever heard a whisper about giving
,the elective franchise to the English Roman Catholics. In Ire-
land it was necessary that every person voting at an election
should take the oath of _allegiance, and produce a certificate of
the same on the hustings.; but this Bill provided no such thing,
and therefore there was no analogy in the two cases. In Ireland
-the offices excepted were specifically enumerated, -but in this
respect also the present measure was different. As to the law
--of 1817, relative to Olficers in the Army and Navy, he (the
.Lord C.) had doubts whether that Act were necessary or not;
and although he did not recollect having given the opinion
stated by the Noble Marquis on the right of the Duke of Nor-
folk to officiate at the Coronation as Earl Marshal, he now had
no hesitation in saying that his opinion, if asked, must have
been such as had been described. The second Bill merely
went to demand haw Parliament could deny the same privileges
-to an infinite number of English Catholics, which were pos-
sessed by Irish Catholics. It was-sale, why not do now what
was done before. The truth, however, appeared to be, that
they had been.going on until they knew not where to stop. He
wished their Lordships to look into history. Let them study
the Ist of Philip and Mary, and they would then see that the
spiritual and ecclesiastical supremacy of the Catholics included
temporal supremacy also. deio subject had a• right to enjoy the
offices sought for who did not acknowledge the King as su-
preme. If, -within 20 years past, it was thought to carry the
Catholic Question by storm, that time was now gone, and it
was only. attempted to gain the same object by. raping and
mining. But he still relied upon the -wisdom of that House,
and should conclude with observing, -that he could never agree
to the Bills on their Lordships' table.
-The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that -were-the present the
general.-question relative to -the Catholics, no man should more
firmly oppose it than himself. -Events which had occurred even
within a few days, must have strengthened the sentiments
-with which he had always viewed that measure. The Bills,
however, under immediate consideration were .of a limited
nature, and had no reference to the 'Roman Catholics of Ire-
-land, but related solely to those of England. -For his own part,
he should say, that he-would violate every principle that
guided his public conduct through life if he 'did not up-
hold the supremacy of the Crown. But this -was always a
question of degree. He had no elifficelty in saying that the
King of this country should be Protestant, the Council Pro-
testant—the Parliament Protestant—and_ the Judges Protest-
ase, 'because they were the supreme parts of the Government.
Upon these grounds he differed with the Noble Lords opposite
respecting the general question. Every honest Catholic must
be hostile to a Government such as he (Lord L.) just described;
and where they would have the power to endanger it, they
should not in his-opinion be admitted. Hence he objected to the
general measure introduced by the Noble Lord opposite, and
desired him to partieelarize the redress he sought. To apply
the same principle to the Office of Lord Chancellor and of a.
etidewaiter, rendered it ridiculous. His object was net -to give
what would be dangerous,- not to refuse what would he safe.
—lle did not think because a certain law prevailed in Ireland
that that was in itself a sufficient reason for introducing a sirni.
.lar law into this country, but there were some cases where it
waulti be preposterous not to aim at uniformity. If the elec-
tive franchise was given 'at the recommendation of the Crown
t 3 the Irish Catholics, why should it be withheld front those of
f.:lghtrid ? Generosity, be thought, demanded the concession
as well as justice. The oaths alluded to it was well known
were scarcely ever tendered hut as means of delay. With re-
-speet to the second Bill, which went to confer eligibility to
-office, it was divided into three parts—that relative tothe Reve-
&c., Justices of the Peace—and the Earl -Marshal of
England. The'last he must join with all who had preceded
in wishing to have met as a separate measure although he
- -could well appreciate the exalted motives of the Noble Duke
-it concerned-for declining any individual relief. Next, as to
...Justices of the Peacee h.?. confessed there were some -debateable
-difficulties attending the subject, however free his own mind
might be from any important doubts. But he did not see how
- the law as regards. the Revenue, Custom, and Excise could re-
-main in its present state.—[The Noble Earl here entered into
--au explanation of the consolidation of the Boards of the two
-countries.] —That- evil must, he thought, have some remedy.
On the general iittestion affecting the Catholics he had no fears.
He knew the opinion of the public of this country on that sub-
, iect, and-he agreed with his Noble Friend (Earl Westmore-
land) that the only weakness to be apprehended was from re-
fusing trifling concessions irrelevant to the real merits of the
- measure.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN briefly, replied, after which
the question was ,put on the second -reading of -the .Elective
Franchiie Bill, • When the numbers were—.

:13ontents
Proxies
Not Contents -
Proxies - - - 55-139
-Majority against the second reading
The Rouse then divided on the second Bill,. for admitting
,Riaglish Roman Catholics to offices, &c.—when the numbers
-wore, for the second reading,
Contents -
Proxies -
Non-Contents
Proxies -
Majority - -
'The Rouse then Adjourned.

43-163
74

67-143
_34

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. BYNG presented a. petition from certain persons against
the St. Katherine's Dock Bill, and praying to'he heard-by
Counsel against it.
Mr. Git EN FELL complained of the 'delay which had oc-
• curred before the Committee on the Bill by the hearing Coun-
sel. Twenty-three petitions had already been referred to the
Committee, and each had been supported by Counsel. In fact
it was quite clear that the object of those who opposed the Bill
,was delay ; and no individual had more plainly and unequivo-
.cally evinced that spirit than an Hon, Alderman near-him. He
trusted the House would rescue its character from this discre-
.dit--he had almost said disgrace ; and if there was any prece-
dent for refusing.to hear Counsel against a Bill, he should be
-disposed to follow it upon this occasion.
Mr. C. CALVERT complained of the course which had
'been adopted by the-Committee.
Mr. Alderman HEYGATE said that he had only opposed
delay to what he considered unjustifiable and unprecedented
•preespitation.
The SPEAKER recommended that the House should not go
into a discussion upon the merits of.the Bill, because they were
obviously not in a condition to do so until the Committee made
f the
'their report. He stated the.practice
,9f _ House to be not to
c troe t ipo articularo
_refuse to hear the prayer of parties who
ionbtjhetecotae.dis
-details of the Bill. It was, however,
Committee not to allow the same points be argued over
petitions.
again upon the presentation of different
• After some further observations from Mr. BUTTERwORTIT,
Mr. GRENFELL, and the SPEAKER, the petition was referred
to the Committee.

.....
°Various other petitions to the same effect were presented and
similarly disposed of.
Several petitions were presented Against the South London
Docks Bill.
Mr. J. SMITH presented one from the Rev. Samuel Ben
son, Lecturer of St. John's, complaining that his interests woulde seriously injured by the removal of the houses where the
ben-
son,
was to be made.—Referred to the Committee.
lES.
The Report of theNEW AllianceCOMPA Insurance Company Bill was
brought up.
Mr. GItENFELL wished to know what was the operation
of that Clause which enabled such Companies to sue and be
jived in theperson of their Secretary. It was necessary that
pu Wiz credit andyublic security should have some guarantee
ore Bills of this nature were'passed ; and he should like to
Ilext. the opinion of any ilon.°Member acquainted with the law.