The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

TIOLTE OF COMMONS.

• - - -
Mr. T. WILSON moved for returr.i of duties upon Hard
and Soft Soap within a given period.—Ordered.
The-Report of the Irish Public Notaries'. Bill was brought
up anti agreed to. Toe third reading r, as ordered for Monday.
'Mr. P..3MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a-131.1.1 for re-
gulating the office of Co-ron.-r in Ireland.
Upon the motion of Mr. R IC kt; the Reports of the Irish TrCa-
son,s Eill, the lrish Bankrupts' Effects. Bill, and the- Witch-
cr•et Act Repeal Bill, were receirt..d, and the third reading
IL:ma for Menlar.
-Mr. IXSIIINGTON -present:Nl certain r6torns connected
with the Public Expenditure, which were Grderetl to be printed.
The house went into a Committee upon the Beerbuties Bill,
.and the report was ordered to tie received on. Monday:
Sit F. OMMANNEY presented n petition from certain
Merchants and Ship Owners of, Plymouth Pock, praying that
.likeration
'nu.y be made in the duties upon Thither-imported
froti. North Ameriea.—Ordered to be printed.

• ,
PETITIONS AGit NST TnE ROMAN CATHOLIC BILL.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition, from the Dean
and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Ely, praying that the.
House would not pass into a laxv the measure now before it, fdr
oTninthpa.tiT.lg the Roman Catholics. The petition was ordered
to he. printAi..
Mr. HART DAVIS presented Petitions from the, popu-
lojs parishes' St. Thomas, and Temple, in the city of
Bristol against the Roman Catholics Bill. Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. TULSlCpres,entecl a Petition from the Mayor, Alder-
man, Cbrperation; and: PtllerS; of the town of Sudbury, which
he been signed• by 509 towns in the, course of yesterday,
against the Roman Catholics Pia Tile Petition was ordered
to he printed. • •
Mr. .BASTARD presentSa a 'Petition 'from the-Gentry,
Clergy, anal Yeomen of the. County-of --Devon, . against the
Roman Catholics Bill. ,
_

T. ACLAND bore tistimeny to the respectability of the-
,
signtures of - the Petition, and expressed his se row that he
could not participate in the pleasure which his Hon. Colleague
and Frieno must have, in suppe.rting' the opinions of 49 large a
portion of his Constitnetrts:: • He did not wish to enter into. any
discussion. now,: (*to go at large into the reasons which induced
him t9..dUfer from the Petitioners, inasmuch as it was his in-
tention to address the House when tile question was properly
lief:3re
Sir-T. LETHBRIDGE said, that the sentiments contained
in the Petition were •entertlined by a great majority of then-.
habitants of Devonshire -sentiments founded upon considera-
tions of the highest inviortande for the safetY of the Stite—
They f:it, and he. went along .with them in that feeling, that
the Constitution of the country wonid be overturned whenever
the Re:ran Catholics were -admitted to power.
Si: I. COFFIN obseried, that the lion. Baronet had been
spew-zing exclu4,ivelY of the feeling of the people of Devonshire,
whereasthe preSpt ineasurc.p:incipally affected the _people of
Ireland.
Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition- from the Clergy of
the Deanery of .Whiteombe, in the county of Gloucester,-pray-
ing that the Heuse .would not sanction the measurcis.now be-
.fore'it, for afrorclifig rilie:f to /lonian Caiholics.-7-,Ordered to be
printed. . .-4.; • •
• sir C. BIIRREJA.rose for the purpose of correcting. an er-,
roe which had gone forth- in the public Press, respecting the
statemeirtimatle.bi an Hon. Meinber (Mr. Hume) last fright, as
to the -ReCciver4lenerals who had been; defaulters. The New
Times tiaclstated that.t4e .Receiyer-Generalfe: Sussex had been
• a -defaulter to a congiderable amount, whereas the Hon: Mem--
ber named Salop. This` was evidently an error of the press,
laid he only mentioned 4. for the purpOse of having it corrected.
The Gentleman who filled the office of Receiver-General-for
Susiiex was a most 'respectable Character, and lie begged to ob-
serve, had never performed the duties. of his of by deputy.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON presented a Petition
against the "Glasuirovi Police Bill. His Lordship next mot, ed,
for a return of Parliimentary Grants as -cOmpe.insation g.iven in.
consequence of • the appointment of Commissioners to inquire
into Courts of Justice in Scotland.—Ordered.
PBEL said he was recipested to.present a Petition from
Mr. Hayes, a Catholic-Priest in Ireland. lie had no acquaint-
ance with the Petitioner. Of course- he could not answer for
the accuracy ofthe statements ; but if substantiated, they were
important ; and the Petitioner Offered to substantiate _them.
The Petitioner was aware of the entire differences of his opi-
nions (Mr. Peel's) from those stated in the Petition. Though
, they came to the same conclusion it was by different means,
'and perhaps the Petition would therefore have been better in-

Meted to another. lie thought the best way was to have the
Petition read. ..- ~...-....... .- ..
Mr. W. WY NN ObjeCtettto the reading.of such a long Pe-
tition, as occupying. too sh2hela time. The usual .way was for
the Member presenting4egthtion to state the lubstante of it: .
Mr. PEEL said thathihe Petition, though closely writtenn
was in 'a large hanal; and tniglatiissin be rl-ash-solllettr ilitar !-.--e
He had .no oiejection to state the ' substance.- The Petitioner
undertook to is form the House of the sentiments of the See of
Rome, .and the Roman C-Atholics of 'lreland; respectieg- the
Bill; before the House. He stated that the objectidhs against
him by the I'ope had ' been removed by some signal services
Which he had rendered. ,It stated that the Bills would not give
general satisfaction, and that the Roman Catholic Clergy of
Ireland everesofsthe same opinion- . , ._. ,_
-Mr. WYNN explained. There must be a stop, soinewheree
The House had beeneSothinned . bythe, reading of a Petition
from Mr. Cob'bett, that it was counted out.
Mr. PEEL explained that he "had the Petition submitted to
his consideration at a late liotir last night.'
Mr,, C. CALVERT: said that a -similar Petition had been
read on a former night. ' , - .. ..
• Mr. CAREW said that the -petitioner was One who had al-
ways thrOwnevery obstacle, in the. way of conciliation and union
between the Catholics and Protestants. At meetings in Wex-
fordshire his (Mr. Carew's) friends.had threatened to leave the
Chair if Mi. Haves persisted in moving his resolutions: 'He
.(Mr. Hayes) had-always been seditiouiin his opinions--(Cheers)
and-his tavourite object was to efe':ta'separation between Eng-
land and Ireland.,--(Hearn—He always did every thing he coul'd
id-agitate the anindshf the people, and 'to enforce sentiments of
a seditioua character.- Re said in his petition that•he knew the
minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland t but he (Mr. Carew)
held alettet in his hand from a friend of his who knew their
minds niuchhettersandgave quite acontrary opinion.:--(Cheers.)
In the letter, 'his friend requested'him to assure Mr. Plithkett
that it Was only a set of demagogues and revolutionists who were
opposed to the Bills ,- that the sooner they were passed the-bet-
ter ; for when passed into law, the opponents, of the Measure,
now few and distracted, would subside into utter insighificance—
.(Cheers)—and that the sentiments of the people were entirely
opposed to the agitators who wished to resist the Bills now be-
fore the House---(Cheers.) : • .
The Petition was read shortly, and ordered to-be printed: '
CATHOLIC PEEI:IS IN ENGLAND. '
Lord NUGEN.T rose to preSent a Petition from four Eng. I
lish Peers of the Roman Catholic persuasion, the only Peers of
that persuesion in - England, 'praying that the bills before the
House, which had been bronght in by his Right Hon. Friend I
(Mr. Plunkett), might pass into ' law.—(l-lear, hear I)—The
Pelition',Was indeed most illustrimisly signed. The first was
the name of 'a Peer who was, by.rank and by the precedence
of several centuries, at the very head of the Peers of Ehgland ;
the next held the oldest title of Efirl in England ; the other two •
if not at the heads 'stood eminently high in their rank ; and
they. Were the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of,Shrewsbury-', birds
Petre' and Arundel. They stated ' that -their ancestors
_had
borne persecution,-that they themselves bore exclusion; but
imputations such as were cast upon them they would be un-
worthy of their ancestors, and of their rank,' if they could bear.
tHe called on the Houseto go on -steadily with the great work
which they had in hand, and not to pay more attention than w; a
dile to the Petition of -the three reverend gentlemen who had
thought it , necessary to plat themselves in motion against the
present Bill. Those three Gentlemen had stated that the doc-
. trines which they maintained were in unison with those main-
tained by 'the rest of the Catholic prelates of the country. liebeg-
.ged leave to tell Dr. Milner that, in making such a statement, he
was stating not only shat :vas untrue, but also what he knew to be
untroe ;—(Hears hear, hear !)—the former PetitiOn of tharatiso
lies having .been .signed by every apestolic- vicar in the country
except-himself.—(Hear, hear, 'hear I)—The Noble Lords who
had signed the present Petition had acted as became their cha-
racter, their station, and the spirit of their ancestors; by, placing
themselves in that breach which Dr. Milner had attempted to.
make, and bit stating • that they Were ready tcr take" the altered.
oath of supremacy,- either in the terms proposed by the Rioht
honourable and Learned Genthiman - who had brought -in the
Bill, or inany other terms which should .ieem proper to the
wisdom of Parliament. The Noble Lord then moved that-the
Petition be brought op. ' • ... . . -
The Petition was then brought :op.—On the q-aestion that it
be laid on the table,: e . ~
Sir J. MACINTOSH rose to state the reasons why no more
than foirr names were subscribed to the present Petition. There
were only six Catholic Peers at preient resident in England;
and of these only four were within reach of a notice. fie un-
derstood, however, that no doubt could be entertained of the
Other two 'Peers concurring in the sentiments contained in the
Petition. - If any other persons,. either ecclesiastical or lay, had
subscribed their names to they'would, in•his opinion, have
irsplayzol - a degree 'of forwardness which would have ill be-
come them, inasmuch: as the ecclesiastic was precluded by his
religion. from accepting any of the offices mentioned in the Bill,
and the lay person -could not tell *hither he should ever attain
any one of them which • would render it necessary for him-to
take the oath revired. The: Catholic . Peers were, however,
placed. in such a situation as compelledthem to declare whether
toey would er would not take the proposed oath ; and they had
consequently come forward boldly and manfully to.declare that
they had no objections to urge against the form of it. He had
deemed it requisite to give this short explanation, because the
petitioners, illustrious as they were from their birth and station,
would be the last person's in the world to draw any distinction
between themselves and the lay. part of their community. He
thought that they weremuch better Representatives of the Ca-
tholic body in England than a Franciscaa friar, who, having
been suspended by his own bishop for a disloyal and seditious
Serinoil—(Hear I)—was hailed as an allyby zealous Protestants
-':n the attack which. they were making upon a community by
which he woe considered as a disgrace.—(Hear !) . : , ,
. Mr. PEE,Lsaid that he had not hailed Mr. Hayes as an ally.
He had presented the petition of that individual because it was
couched in respectful language; 'out:inking so he had endea-
voured. to gunrd himself against the supposition that Mr. Hayes
- was either a friend or connexion of his.---(Hear !)
Sir JAMES. MACINTOSH asserted that he did not intend
to crake any such imputation against the Right Hon. Gentle.
man who had just sat down. -
Sir G. HILL observed, that if the press of Ireland was 'to be
considered as the organ of the Roman Catholics in that part of
the_ empire, the Roman Catholics of Ireland certainlytitter-
tained similar opinions to those of Mr. Hayes regarding this
Bill. The press of Belfast, of Galway, of Cork, and (lA' Dtib-
lin,—nay more, the Catholic press of London, maintained that
this Bill was not intended to benefit and emancipate, but to
degrade and insult the Catholics.. If he conceived, that it
would produce peace, conciliation, and harmony, among the
different classes of his Majesty's . subjects, and that it would
not injure cur Constitution either in Church or State, he'tvould
give it-his support ; but, as he could not entertain such an
opinion, he must be forgiven if he ventured to meet it with the
most 'determined opposition.
• Mr. C. HUTCHINSON hailed it as `an auspicious omen
that the Honourable Baronet, who had so long opposed the Ca-
tholic Claims, could now find no other objection to them than
the petition of one or two, Catholic Clergymen. He had not re-
ceived a single letter from Cork, or from any other part of Ire-
land, in reprobation of the Bill.—(Hear!)
Lord NUGENT-asited whether that document deserved the
name of a i,danty docontent, which was signed by the descend-
ants of the heroes of Agincourt, and of those-hardy Barons who
had gained for us at Runrymead the great -charter of our liber-
ties.—(Cheers.)
Sir G.-MILL explained.
- •
Mr. R. MART-IN asserted that - the Catholic.; of Galway
were perfectly satisfied with the present 8i11..,
- Mr. WHITE' nonntained, that the feelings of the Catholics,
instead of being hostile to the Bill, were most warmly engaged
in its favour.—(llear.)- •
Mr. DALY corroborated the statements of his Hon. Col-
league. as to the manner in which this Bili was contemplated
by the Catholics of Galway. The Hon. Baronet who had cal-
led the present petition .a scanty petition, because it was not
signed by more than four individuals, had placed great reliance
'• I .
upon a-petition that, • even upon his own principles, was still
scantier—he meant the petition which was signed by one per-
son only, and that person the Rev. Mr. Hayes.-(llear !) - -.
Mr. MAIIRICL FITZGERALD said- that if there were.
only three Clergymen in England and one in Ireland opposed
to - theoßill, it was clear that the opiniortiof the Prelates was
greatly in its favoun—(Cheers.)
The.petition was then laid upon the table, and ordered to be

printed.
ROMAN CATROLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BIL

Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in rising to move that the
Order of the Day for the House going into a
Cominittee on the Roman Catholic Disability
RetnoVal Bill should . be thOn read, an order. ou
which depended *so many of the dearest and most
important interests' of• the country, felt that he
'should, under any circumstances, have to implore
the indulgence of the House. How much more
necessary did that indu!gence become to him,
when all the difficulties with which he should
have to struggle, were increased by the consi-
deration that' the duty he had then to perform,
had devolved upon him at a time when he 'was
totally unprepared to perform it! That duty
:had fallen upon him in consequence of the pres-
sure of heavy domestic calamity upon his Right

Hon and tearkip&-F rienct-Mrtio- had introduced
this Bill with sci,raTch eloquence to the notiue of
the Hoose, one, had disappeared all
those great characters whose4alents,. eloquence,
and integrity; ,had, Oe,LL lustre upon this 'cause-,
which they had • so abl-yHdefended.-.1-oue by one
had been extinguished all those-shining lights,,
who had.fbrwerly illustrated; by their reasoning,
whatever obscurities had seemed to hover around
this important question ; and now, as if to aggra-
vate the misfortune which had all along ptessed
hard upon the Catholics, his Right Honourable
and Learned Friend was prevented from assist-
ing in the debate en the present occasion; when
in all probability the triumph would be con-
summated, which his eloquence had been so in-
strumental in achieving. 'He (sir John New-
pert) therefore rose to discharge that duty which
his Rig,ht Honourable Friend was prevented from
discharging by seiere calamity. •He was well
aware of his own_ inability to fill up the outline
which his Right' Hon. Friend had sketched with
a pencil which he seemed to have snatched from
the dying hand of the great man who before him
_had advocated this gr:at question; but he trusted.
that if his. powers were feeble, the goodness of
the cause would more than compensate .for his

deficiency. Called dpoir at a late period of his
life to defend the-principles-which he had avowed
at its outset, he knew not how to refuse the call;
and" he therefore implored the House to extend
to him that indulgence which habit(' never known ,
to be refused to any' one who requested . The I
House had already declared itselfin favour of the I
principle of the Bill.; and all that now remained
for it to do was to judge of its details. To en-
able them to express that. judgment,. tie should
'conclude by moving .that the order .or the day for
the House going into a Committee on the-Roman
Catholic disability 'removal Bill'be now read.
The order of the day was then read.—The
SPEAKER tiler) put the question, that this Bill be
reconamitted,which was carried in the affirmative.
—On his putting the question- that it be -now re-
committed,
Mr. Cnomett rose and said, that.when lie gate
notice that on the House's preparing. to.go into a
' Committee_upon this Bill he should move that it
be an instruction to the said Committee to pro-
vide for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic
Clergy in Ireland, he was not unaware that an
opinion -very generally prevailed that. such an in-
struction would, under all the circumstances of
the case,- be ill-timed and impolitic. Since that
tiarie he had.satisfiedhirnself that the more the
plan was considered which he- had in view,
the more satisfactory would- it appear, not only
to the Protestant, but alSo to the Catholic com-
munity. But as many Gentlemen were of opi-
uion that the consideration of that plan at pre-
sent would embarrass that of the great question
then before the House, he thought it- would be
better, both for the Bill itself, and also for his own
measure, to allow the Bill to go to the Committee in
the shape which it had received from its original
framers, and to submit Vs proposition as a -fresh
clause to it on the bringing up .of the Report. In
giving notice that he would then press it .upon
the consideration of the Honse,.be thought that
nobody who knew that he hadalways considered
this measure as the means of produCing a second
union between England and Ireland, and as the
surest preventive of those distractions which had
so long desolated Ireland, and of events like
those which were now agitating certain parts of
Europe—would suppose that he was doing it to
impede the progress' of the. Bill. lie could,as-
sure the House, he had no such intentien.; on the

contrary, his object was to unite the interests of
the Catholic Clergyman with
,those of , the Ca-
tholic Layman, which might seem to be disunit-
ed, by the House legislating for the advantage of
the latter, whilst it neglected the claim,s of the
former. That this was his objeet.was well known
to many.of his private friends, and also that it
was an object which for some years past he had
had in,view. Seven:years ago it was his intention
to have made the' same proposition, had Mr.
Grat',an's Bill succeeded ; .but that Bill. was un-
fortunately lost in the, .Committee, and he had
therefore not bad an oppottunity of bringing it
forward. The. lion. Gentleman then asked leave
to withdraw his notice of motion.—Notice with-
drawn accordingly.
The. House then went into a committee, Mr.
R. Smith being in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN then read the preamble, and
the first clause.of The Bill. On his putting the
question, that this clause do stand part of the
Bill,.
Sir W.'Scorr said, that he had witnessed the
introduction of many Bills like the present dur-
ing the last- seventeen years, all. of which had
been rejected by the House. lie admitted that.
the present Bill had been introduced with the
advantage of talents and experience, on its side,
which were equal to those of any former advo-
cates of measures like the present. There were,
however, obstacles to the measure, which no
in-
genuity could -overcome. lie had many objec-
tions to the Bill ; he was entitled 'by the pre-
amble to refer to the chief authority appealed
to, as a constitutional precedent-for the principle
of it. The Bill proposed to relieve Roman
Ca-
tholics from certain results which would -ensue
' on taking the-oath of• supremacy, as at present.
required, and the clause which went to expound
that oath referred to a former oath of supremacy
established in the-reign of Queen Elizabeth, and
to the explanation given of the intention and
properties of that oath in the admonition of
Queen Elizabeth,. It was well known that at
the accession•of Queen Elizabeth _an oath was
prepared which was recited' in the present Bill,
which contained two distinct propositions—first,
that the- Queen's Majesty possessed supremacy
in these realms, and in all the civil and eccle-
siastical establishments. The second propo-
.,
was of a .relative character, and went
to make the taker •of the oath declare, that
he,did not admit any foreign Prince or Pre-
late, State or Potentate, to have jurisdiction,
'power, pre-eminence or authority in these
realms. At the Revolution this subject was
revised, and instead of that condition of the first
.proposition which attributed spiritual authority
in matters of conscience entirely to the head of
the Protestant Government, the State contented

itself with the denunciation of certain infamous
doctrines which were imputed to the Catholic
communion, . taking care that in the terms of the
oath there should be a positive denial of the juris-
diction and. authority of,the Conclave or Pontiff
of Rome in these -realms. • It was matter of ge-
'semi notoriety that before the, Reformation Che
authority of the State was vested in the secular
head of the Gevernment, subject to the checks
of the Spiritual Power and that of the Parlia-
ment. The authority of the Spiritual Courts had
been in operation for a 'considerable period, and
until, frOisfits- extreme iiteonvenielace, its -aboli-
tion became .necessary, the jurisdiction of
the Roman, Pontiff was in full force in these
realms. The Right Houourable and Learned
Gentleman then quoted a considerable 'ex-
tract from Justin, ea the * nature and influ-
ence of this authority on the internal policy
of the European .States. He admitted that:
there Was something of the character of pas--
sion, which had originally catered into -the
principle by which the oath of supremacy had
been. framed. But passion itself had frequently
been acted on in our Legislature, and its propriety
had been-often confirmed by the opinions of Oa;
most deliberate times:- The .subject of-this oath
had.been iconsidered particularly at the thee of
the Revolution, The oath was then revised, and
that form was given to-it-in which it at present
stood.
aThafpath admitted, that the diStribution
of the authority of the Government which gave
up a part to a foreign Power, was not consistent
with the safety and interesti of the State.: It,
therefoSe, deified that the. Pope should exercise
any sort. of jurisdiction. or authority 'in theSe
realms ; not-only so, but the preseminence or au-
thority of the Pope were. denied- in many various
Acts of Parlianseut. In the articles of the Pro-
testant 'Church, and by various Canons, it was
established, ,that ..the Pope should exercise no
sort of authority over ~;the. subjects of these
realms.; and from: various sexpressions which
were used in these ''sOreral' instritmentsa cer-
tainlysnot of a very .respectfuLkind, tuar such as he
would. be willing to repeat, the. utmost- utmost- anxiety
was evinced for confirming the exclusion of the
Pope's authority. But taking it es be dial for
a' matter, established beyond the possibility of
deubt,,that the frame of the CenStitutiOri as it now
stands, admitted no existence for the Pope's au-
thority, he could not conceive hoW any part of
that authority could , be admitted sitaa spiritual
affairs which could not 'be made to rentlatuttilb,,
to. temporal ones. 'rho civil atid'religiousdiities
and allegiance of subjects, were. so blended,
that they cquld scarcely give up the authority
in outs case without committing the security
of the other. Give him a mart's. conscience;
and he would find means thereby' 'to con.:
trol . his actions. . After...the Oath. of Snores
macya which, from its terms, was thesmest-
sweeping and preeise„ camp 'the admoaia
tion of Elizabeth, which had _ been pressed
into the service of the present measure. The ad-
Monition contained two Prepositiens—first, that
the Queeu possessed and claimed no other autho-
rity than had been enjoyed by her predecessors
(het rather and her brother). The questiOn that
occurred was, what had been the authority claim-
ed and possessed .by her father and brother ? No.
one could doubt that at least the Government. of
Henry VIII. disowued the right of jurisdiction
or authority of any foreign Po.wer. ThOruth
was, that the ReformatiOn had been scandalized,
as having a tendency to establish tyrannical pre-
rogatives in spiritual interests.- The sicoudpro-
position of the admonition went to explain this-sub-
ject, and claimed for the Queen, not the right of
exercising spiritual fanctionsas-that would have
beeu puesile, because that right was assumed
in the ceremonial of coronation, and 'was not
given by the establishment of .the oath orsupre-
macy—but the second proposition was intended
to prove to her Majesty's subjects that she -had
no views like those which had been inputted to her
by the enemies of- the Reformation: This was the
whole extent of the admonition.—(Here the
• Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman read
the oath of supremacys)—No form of words
could be more entirely exclusive—no words
could have less ambiguity, nor -could any be so
entirely free from limitation in disclaiming the au-
thority of the Pope. -He Was to have no power of
,any kind. Yet the injunctions upon this oath
were pressed 'into the service' of the Bill, which
Bill went on to state, that,'" whereas certain
scruples had arisen in the minds of his iNiajes-
'ty's Catholic _subjects as to the taking of the
said Oath," &c. And then came in what he must
call a most gratuitous assumption,. namely, that
the difficult part of the oath related solely to the
authority of the Pope " in matters of religious
belief." He desired to know where any such
words were to be found. The oath must have
carried with it at a disclaimer of the'authority
of the Pope in matters of conscience and reli-
gious belief, because it disclaimed hiS authority'
in all others: This Was merely a- plan or device
to rescue the character of the CatholiC con-
science. Ile Owned that_ he expected the oath
Of William 111. would have been appealed to.
But the oath and explanation of Queen Elizabeth
bore. a totally different signification to that which
had been ascribed. They went simply to declare
that she claimed no other authority- than had
be-en enjoyed. by her father Henry VIII., and
her brother Edward VI. To explain a modern
measure by an ancient exposition, substituting
terns which we're notsto be found in that ancient
explanation, and by adopting an acc-eptation
which could not be justified by any precedent in
the statute book, was at least a novelty. The
Catholics had always refused to take the oath,
because it disallowed of every kind of authority
in the Pope.. He came next to the enactments,
that "- from and after the passing," &c. The
Bill then declared that the terms of 'the -admo-
nition should no longer serve as the explaui-
tion of the oath—they were to be embodied in
the oath itself. This could not have Isen the in-
tention either of the oath or admonition. Ite
was _especially convinced of this, when he
read- the terms, " No foreign Prince or Prelate,
State or Potentate, shall have power, pre-emi-
.nence, jurisdiction, or authority," &c.: :With
respect to these enactments, therefore, he would
be glad to know where the limitations of the

oath therein described existed.; and yet the 8i.31
enacted the use of " the said oath, with the said
limitations." This was by no mean's hie only
objection to the oath of the Bill. _The oath of,
supremacy was one of obligatioat ; this bad no ,
obligatory force .at alliaa It -contrived that the
obediencetdue to the head-Of the Catholic Chbrch
should- not interfeae with the undivided -aile-
giance due to the head of the State. 1-ti tho very
moment that it admitted the difficulty of recon-
ciling. the two duties, it provided the Pope with
the key to let himself ouz. of thirst, difficulties ;
.forhsa himself Would be judge in the leer appeal
of.censcience. On these grounds he thought it
impossible for Parliament to' pass the Bill'in the
form in which the oath then stood. The words
of the old oath were entirely without limits ; this
clause Went to establish-limits, for w ;all there
was no •such authority as that pleaded.. Ile
thought-the whole frame of the oath agreed bete
ter with the dark Ministry 'of .the schools, than
the wisdom and• firmness 'of -Parliament. He
fell'invintibhobjections to the propriety of thee
clause, and he would oppose the motion.
Mr. Honacc Twass said he would not presume
even to atteroptlO answer
.the- Right Hon. Cen-
time!' who had just sat down; but he rose thus a
early in the-debate, because he- considered th'-•
principle of the Bill had "already been discussed
and admitted. In the feW obaervations be had
to offer, he should mia up the consideratlen or
the,Oath of Trantubstantiaaion as *well as- that
of Supremacy, conceiving that in the discussion
they were inseparably connected. He could not,
hewever,• but advert to an argument drawn- bi- •
the Right Horn: Member 'from -his reference to
the reign of Elizabeth.* It .Was impossible not •
to recollect that in the reign of Elizabeth there
was no r`Oath at all, although that was a period
of our bUstory in which the Monarchy attempted •
to assume an absolute power, religious as well
as moral, it' indeed there conlif-be e. distinction
between them. The Oath, however, as etita'a•
blished, -continued for 15.0 years, and it tins not
until thetime of Charles the Second • that any
further test was required. The declaration
against Transubstantiation was then introduced,
but-it was occasioned by a 'feet. of the influence
of the Sovereign—it-was indeed altogether a as-
cessity Of a:temporary nature: 'lit the yaar 170
the dangers of 1688 were too recent to admit of
attrielixtalen Of the ItaVie—lf the ar-eittillea of
that-day on the _score of -danger were available
now, it' would be •available to any eatent. IC
would sanction athe permanent suspensioli of the-
Habeas- Corpus Act because its temporary sus-
pension • had been samationed- in the: trine of
:danger.---411earl)-----.IJ ti oeld authoriae
,
neral,•proclamation of martial. law in Ireland
upon ''the Sairie prineielea • Nay we miglicabo-
lish a"ll7,the.sareguards 'of, the cons•titution,!leit it
might•-in Aime become endangered.--(Cheers.)----
No lead maxim was so clear as that w high laid
down that " the reason of the •Law ceasing,
taw -ceases also." Were we. to say to.the Ca"
WO. 1011 plat- r brand upon.Yon;'ana
Although :we preserve the Constitutien,• yetayour
children "-shall- never share its
(Cheefe.)-4-The gon.,l)iem bet 'peva:seeded sts. refer
to the Memorial of William the Third, relating to
the CatholiCa, 'which hada been referred to by`
Hon. Withers on at former occasion..
lie-contended,-had, a double bearing. .1i ad-
miUed inailbstatace, that the Catholic might pro'
greaSitely, be tolerated , and yet i't Waa this 'Vol
progression.' fora which- the --Catholics were no ir
haar!)---a-.But they had. receive'
:Petitions: from Reverend COnclayes,which spa/k°
of the- prudeni-al---...a--a• of the Constitution e 314
argued as if the .preseUte Bill was an anotrialye---
lie, on the other. hand,- contended-, it dislanot
troduce, but remove an anomely. -If danger went
alleged as an argument against the I3ill',,it
cumbent on-those-who urged it, ff.) show the dan-
ger. Ile •therefore that those Who act!'
ported the aneastire, wotild not be consitlevea
lukewarm Protestants ; and he could not bring
himself to think that the inteoduction of a- few'
Catholic Members would make that Ilott;e
• Catholic Assembly: lie, for one. waS,and al,kaYs'
would be, opposed -to a military Government' ;
yet 'would he on that account 'desire' the.
exclusion' from that Honse U-f
those Gallant
Members who were.- Offieets in the .Army
(Cheers.)—The Parliament, after the passing
the. present .1341 would, he ea;oceived,• remain
• Protestant Parliament in the same setiSe as I•l',a
in WhiCh
.thepc.
eople were a Prot4stant Pon.
He could not see any danger, even supposing
the
Catholic -wtre removed to-►npr'r°w-
lle
c9uld not see- that any man educated under
the most'artful Jesuit would be
'accanipliSliment of his design. It c,ertainlY .
-the object of the Bill to increaae the-
ly•tendeo
political
power Of the Catholics; but then it clear a
to deprive. them of their present moral foraeio
'for by the passive. of this Bill they -
would _lO5
the mural force :,nchthe-, possessed in the saps
a d 'the"
port of those Protestants. who acivOca:,.9- •
eause.---(Hear, hear, hear !)--11e- could set
tl,O
danger in the Catholic religion: It wa:onsc
e„
religion of `he country, and' yet it •ccatld 10` IttLe
at all nearer
Wit its influence,' eltliough supported oil
authorities of the,State.-4Chears.)--E.ut there
no fallaCy.which was not brought to bear a-P-iara
the Catholics. At one time it was said they 'vette
under the authority of the-Pope, and consetloc",q,a
subject to foreign intluene.e. Nowt'howeveri..F`.eg
P-retender was, no snore and ,Benaparta e
'
powerless, and the Faith of the Catholic W 3 Ow
„g
t.-
jested against him: At Other times the 0• es.g
oa
of former ages had been urged _against tlaea Ca(
lies, and' the punishment of those er aessOs If'of
atte4 pted to be visited upon: the' generation
1821. " Whati!' said the Hon. IVernber,"hay!A
not these Cranmers and the Colviiis dettro_e:
their tens of thousands, and should we u°t,eob.....a
ject to their cruelties-. being visited upon us
"(Cheeas.)L-4ndeed the argnments pressed aecrst
the Catholics, strongly reeninded him of t, • tV':i
• in the Fable, who was determined to find tin ems'
.cuss for'his intended conduct if it .was no!
you that injured tnee it was your father, or grand,
father."---(A laugh.)----But then it wes.said that--
oar-
thi Catholics were ambitious.-7 t heal
a
ambitions," said the `l-Ion: - Member, ac ;if eon
•
• • •
pleaSe,' but is the honourable, ambition ,f fotil
•e•--
millions of people to be discouraged :7 •
L ` t

. .
*a§ said that' they were few 'in -ntirqber and in-
considerable- in point of consequence: They
Were, he thou ht, tomposed of servile of the 'first
01 our Nobility and Gentry, qf ninny of the learn-
ed professions, and withcint ,(heir assistance we
governed inconveniently. They were .the-felv
that led the many, and" these Were, hi' sound
liuy,.objects of the first consideration. Ile •should

now address himself to question, as it regarded
consistency; and on this part of the subject he felt
confident in saying, that if a Committee were
appointed to consider the presentlaws, it would
he impossible to that Committee not to arrive
at a conviction, that even for the sake of • consis-
tency alone, an 'alteration of the law Was•in-
dispensible. We allowed • Dissenters of every
denomination to sit in Parliament ; and yet-the
sole object of the present Bill /was to put the Ca-
tholics upon an equal footing •with Dissenters.
The Dissenters were protected merely by the
operation of the Annual Indemnity Act, and
'where could be-the danger when we could sus-
pend the Act ? It was remarkable,.too4 that we
must necessarily admit every one who knew and
acknowledged no religious distinction, but that
'Which arose out of what-they called the law of
tature ; and heie he could not but observe that
the framers of the late Petition froM Colchester,
declaiming against blasph'etny a:ld sedition,
.114 d forgotten that that Hods& was open to every
rnan who might choose to take the' oaths, and. was
yet, to use the language of the Poet,, • •

• " True to no King; ' . to no Religion trite."
But it was also urged, that so long as papal dispensation ekisted,
We Were unsafe in granting the concesstons of the,present Bill.
This he never could admit ; for it was obvious that, at the
Present moment, the refusal to swear was the strongest proof..
of, Catholic good faith.—(Cheers.!)—lle must once more be al-
-lowed to refer to the inconsistency of our present law. We
trusted the'Catholics as witnesses and as jurors upon questions
affecting the property, the liberty, nay, the life of the Pro-
- testant subject.—(Hear, hear, hear !)_We were at pains to
educate the lower classes ; but the higher, the polished,
• 'those who were placed above temptation, the hereditary
aristocracy of • the country ; • all these, among Catholics, we
excluded. Suppose'a Bill were brought_ in for embodying in
one Act, the substance of all those inconsistent Laws. It
111,,,,i5t declare, that "Whereas a Catholic is regardless of the
°Qligation of an oath ; therefore -he shall beregtured to take an
Oath in the following terms."—(Continued heers•.)—ln this,
Way must the inconsistency run thfoughout the Act •in gun-
tion. There Cour-d not, in his 'opinion, be any lion. Mem-
ber who would gravely say, that this was a code-which ought to
continue ; for tt really. was an heresy against,tommon sense.—
Wear, hear, hear !)—As to dangers to be guarded against by
these Bills, we admit none • but if there be--timid men, for
,)-eir fears we-gife this boon,. lest by chance, in the Midland
-Lstrict, in a spot too Central for light to have reached, in the
vall,,ev of the shadow of Doctor Miner, there be found -any
weaker Protestant brethren disturbed by the terrors of the Vicar
Apostolic. That House was not- discussing whether this or
• that *mold satisfy the 'Catholics ; it was `waxing a law.—.
(E` lecrilig.)—Heshould as little thinl: of whifwould satisfy the
. eatholit as, he Should of what 'would saiisfy-his frolinesS the
PPpe ; though' this 'he said without meaning any disrespect.
. It was not to be considered what would please his-Holiness,
but 'What would be just. He should conclude ley repeating the
of 'an 'able* and respected.hiktorianL--" That if -n good
Bill were, brought into Krliameiit, however- it rniglit'be
op-
kosed. in its commencentent, it would' sooner or later be success-
ful:"—(The Hon.`Member sat down. amid loud' and-- Yea:Y ge7
nerah cheering.)
..
• , Sic 4'lN NiCHOLL, after 'referring:to toe • terms
of the-oath of supremacy, observed, .that nothing
'could be clearer than the- language of t4t, oath.:
- :The present Bill proposed. a great and Important
41CerAtion in its substance, and was, tiler.
'worthy. the grave Consideration of every Member.
in the Ilouse. He could by no means agree with
the Hon. Member --who spoke last, that: it was
Incumbent on those -who oPpOsed 'the:Bill. from
sense-of danger, -to -shew- its existence. That
danger had beets proved by the- conduct of our,
aucestors, and by• those Statutes -which were the.
bulwarks of our. Constitution. In speaking of.
those bulwarks, he could tiot be supposed to re-.
l'Pr to those penarlaws which had too long dis-
graced our Statute:•book, -and- were now so judi-
ciousty yeipe'ak.d. But the Acts• now in" force
tvere,:;lke' contended, penal in no sense of the
word: They. were merely• self-defensive; for
111(.y:-.merery 'excluded front powar. These
'awe were enacted to avoid the special clan-
,ger. of. Catholics being-in possession of office=
of trust; The Corporation Act, which was
Passed immediately after: the Restoration, stated,
that it was in order to preserve the public
Peace of the Church. and. State. What said the
test" A-0., Which was passed in 167-2—a period
When there- .was no foreign power to fear ?
t declared, that it was enacted with a view to
counteract .the danger of the Popish; religion. The
_Fill of Rights-was equally anxious to prevent'
°ffices of trust being possessed by any but Protes-
tants. The Acfo(Settlement.notonly restricted.
the Crows) on this subject, but also restricted the
ettholics from holding offices of trust. Another
.~lci was paused the vearafter, enacting additional
;01 eel-ides, the lath of Williailtlcap. 6, in which all
't former laves were incorporatod. These Acts.,
4" contended, forcee.d the constitutional law of
•th 4 Coqntty- on this subject ; and he -must- beg
the -
House to remember that 'this .was not a
;t"‘ Oates Constitution. This was the Consti-
lltio 11. they had derived from the great- King
4011laili, from 'the reat Lord Somers, and- wi.ich
pa`rthe- great Whigs. and the moderate- Tories
.th, Lleipated-in;forming. 'lt did not stop even at
-s Period of our history ; for, throughout the
rei7l-lf,
s of Queen Anne,- King George the First,
and Second, the spirit of the Constitution was
requentl3( interpreted in favour of • Protestants
itud Protestants only, holding offices of -trust.—
3did:not deny that Acts- which were made by
)3,Tliarnent, might be changed by .Parliarneut.—•
what he- asked was—that they should look
*." question fairly-in tile face. They were about
°4lake a great and fearful change in the Consti-
,ltion--th‘s whole of tile-laws he had enumerated
-Were about to be repealed ; and all offices, with the
tZeePtion Of the ,Lord Chancellor's, and the Vice-
leY of Ireland, were about to, be opened to the
te.tholics. They were told that there was some-
thiog-superior to the Statutes in what was termed
the spirit and principle of-the Constitution. . For
Zits part, he knew not where they were to- look
Tor the spirit, the principle and-the analogy of
this Constitution if not us the Laws themselves.
r
i hie . was not set up as a paper Constitution,
otherwise they might with consistency treat as
Waste paper all the great bulwarks of our rights
. and privileges—Magna Charta ; all the Acts re-
strictive of the Pope's poWer, the Act of Corpo-
ration, the Test Act, the Unifcrmity Act—all
•• might be treated as paper laws in favour of the
spirit of e.
4, laws
... themselves.—( - 11 ear, hear!)—
It was said also, that our Constitution was an
unqualified - one,
.admitting indiscriminately all
subjects of the realm to. an- equal participation of

Office apd power. He thought, on the contrary,
that the spirit of the ConStitution was, that it re-
quired qualification for every. .thing, from the.
Cron-El down to the lowest Officer -in the State.
These.qualifications were derived from property
and religion, in :general, combilied., The major.
part of the qualification was derived from
; and as far' as lie was. able to judge on the
subject, he did not-think the House ought to be
satisfied with the s.ecurities offered by the present
measure on the score of religion. In the oaths
proposed there was a degree of mental reserva-
tion and .supererogation, that opened a most
dangerous prospect to :the eyes of those who
sought to look into the page of futurity. In con-
clusion, he trusted the House would,' in its ‘wis..
dom, finally reject propositions which must be
most unsatisfaCtory in their operation.
. Mr. C. GRINT hegan by observing, that he
did not, of . course, recollect of those former
periods of Irish history which had been referred
to, in which the penal code. had been made the
subject of discussion ; but from what he -bad
read, it appeared to him. that the sarnearguments
had,been used on those 'occasions, although with
less success, as-were made use of at present.' The
same alarm was rung upon the demolition of the
ancient bulwarks of the nation in the guiph of
'Popery. With reference to the remarks of the
lion, Gentleman who spoke last, on the spirit of
the constitution, he had .only to remark, that he
did not think the lion. Gent. had exhibited that
spirit in its. most favourable, point of view; for
after.recounting various points of the past history
of the country, carrying down
,Ireland from one
point of degradation to another, lie told them
that this • was the spirit, of the Constitution. At
the sameltime.that the Hon. Gentleman spoke of
the Revolution, he regretted to: hear the greatest
names of that time identified with the laws that
operated at, present to exclude the Catholics.
It only showed how .prone people , were to
mix up whatever was transient and fleeting;
with , the more prominent characteristics of any,
great transaction. It was . the object of the Re-
volution to abridge abitrary Government ; and if
in the heat of the chase to obtain possession of
entire_ liberty the great principle of toleration
was lost bight of, it was too natural, altheugh.too
palpable an error to be handed down at, this time
of day as an authoritative example. If any
thing that bore the stamp of the Revolution was
to be held sacred7theY would 'find themselves in
a situation to advocate many things- that were
held to be very unauthOrisable-atthe present day:
They 'would find in that Revolution, that al-
though it was to destroy arbitrary Government,
it introduced the government,,of the sword—al-
though it • was to- establish the freedom of opi-
nion, It overthrew, with' summary power, the
discussion of the, multitude.; and although the
purity of public faith was one of its objects,
that period teemed with more flagrant breaches
of it than almost. any -other period of
our history, which went to tinge . the. re.;
cords of the tithe with that indelible.. die.;
grace which attached to a.country to the
most, remote. ages. Was it at those periods
Of:our hiStory; when the laws, exclusive saf the
Catholics, were'passed, that svers.Foosit.reniark-
:able for deliberativ:e wisdoisi ? The tentoriding-
•
parties were excited'against each Other to -a state
'=of shameful Phrenzy ; both the -Nobles .and the
People, as though -they ,seernett.desirous
-rying the question more by acclamation.than„With
:those Marks of delthenition Which ought to At.;
tend all legislatiOn oil *sticli ithportant: subjectii::
The time of the first struggles for the establish-
ment of our reformed Church produced Many
• illustrious inen.--,many. .-who :had evinced their
zeal in becOming martyrs for their -principles ;
but none of them ever dreamt of the exclusion'.
of Catholics from the Iloute.of .Conarnons.-as the'
Palladium of • the Protestant Church They re
lied- with justice,- upon the purity. of doctrine,
and the couduct'of its preachers for the maiute-
nance.of their cause. The Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last had referred to the Great Chapter,
and .he (Me. Grant) was surprised that-when he
adverted to. that
_instrument, it had not occurred
to him- who. those, wore, that had rescued from a
Catholic and• the.domina.tion of a Catholic,
Pontifkthat Great Charter. W heu a Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Nugent) presented in an early part
of the evening a Petition signed by 4 names Co-
eval with that Charter, -and who were descended
from the great persons who had been instrumen,
tat in obtaining it ; which of the Hon. l'ilernbers
did not feel his-heart thrill with a sensation of
admiration and respect towards those great per.
sonages - who presented themselves at, that bar,
which their ancestors had won for them,petition-
ing for those rights they had handed to_ them,but
in wh!cli an ungrateful posterity refused them a
participation. lle would not advert to all the
topics of the Horioerable Gentleman's speech
who he really. thought had' perplexed the ques-
tion in. a great .measure by the moltiplicity• of
them. The simple questiou„ as it appeared
to .him, was, whether if the Roman, Catholic
took the oath prescribed to him by these' pro-
positions, that House and the country would
have • a- sufficient- guarantee ? It was not whether
this oath was supported by this or that docu-
ment, but merely whether they could say,
.as far
as human legislation went, was this binding or
not ? The same argument that was urged against
this Oath would serve against the Oath of
Supremacy ; there was no more consistency in
the one than in the other. With respect to the
notion of the spiritual jurisdiction• of the Pope,
it was needless to sly he did . not possess.it,- al-
though altogether misunderstood by the genera-
litv of those who reviewed the subject. It never
was considered but as purely ecclesiastical, which
was clearly sliewn in Lord Coke's description of
the First of Queen Elizabeth: That Act he de-
nominated a declaratory Act, and said it gave no
new power to the Crown, but Only restored its
ancient jurisdiction. Before he sat down, he
must entreat,the House, in directing their atten-
tion to thczi great question, before them, to
come to the consideration of it deeply' impressed
with its importance. As a qtiestion of legis,
lation, and of the deep interest which the indi-
viduals concerned had in -the 'result of their
deliberation. . Under these . points
,of view, he
hoped" they would not allow 'themselves to be

thwarted by any but great .and solemn objec-
tions.- • This 'questien Was • other than Whlit,
was to be the principle •of the connection betwixt
Ireland and this.'cotintry for the future. Ile
(Mr.. Grant) did not stand there for one portion
of the `kinpire. He claimed the Concessieeof
these •rights-in behalf of the '. hole'l~rripire, for
the peace and the tranquillity of the whole, for,
the glory of the one part and the happiness of
the other.—(Hear!)--dreland was placed in pe-
culiar circumstances With .7„respect-tO them.; she
was. not there to plead her own .6ause, on the
qUestion. This country had -given' up that sys-
tem of exclusion which it had. so long exercised
in almost every other branch of legislation. That
system which in politics was the spirit of domi-
nation ; in coanerce,. short-sighted policy ;
in agriculture, cruel restriction ; and- which,
in religion, was intolerant
.bigotry•----'-had now
been -reformed in all its Operations except in
regard to religion. Surely they would not
now stickle at that which ought to have been
the first, but which was unfortunately the last.—
It wanted but this act to place the-stamp of con-
fide-race between the two countries. If they
viewed this cruel.system of -exclusion in another
country, they would exclaim upon the conse-
quence" of their net possessing a Constitution like
ours,- which left open to all equally the- same road.
to honour and preferment. Let Ireland then
be no longer the only exception to this spirit
of the British Constitution. Let it be theirs to
receive the gratitude which'had been accumulat-
ing for ages,.fo be rendered to those who should
accomplish in one
,Session what had withstood
the attacks of centuries—(Hear, heir !)
. .

3str. BaOwNtOws felt himself wholly incompe-
tent to enter into the. contest of eloquence oa
this great measure ;. but, as he was one of those
who objected entirely to the principle of the Bills
before the House, he could not 'refrain from stat-
ing one or two of the grounds -of his conviction.
—No securities were in his judgment sallicient
to give Roman Catholics elegibility to sit in
Parliament ; and those no* offered on ix/twine-
tion were unreal and unsubstantial, and melted
into nothing_when an attempt was made to grasp
and grapple with them. Neither in his view would
the measure, if passed, have the eiect of uniting all
classes-. 'The clergy would be grossly offend-
ed-atan endeavour to legislate on matters merely
_spiritual,; and were they likely to conciliate a
nation almost exclusively Catholk If he were
asked 'to point out the danger, 'he should assert
that-the Roman. Catholics of Ireland had a long-
ing desire to restore• their church to its ancient
splendour,. and this introduction to Parliament
would be one step gained towards the accern-
pliihruent..of their wishes: 2rhe. first Motion of
the Roman Catholic Members WOuldruatorally tie
to provide. that they' should pay tithes only to
their priests: Wlth'regard'to the number of mem-
bers of that faith who might be intreduced under
this Bill, it was to lie recollected that the elettors
werisin the ratio of about 4.t0 1 ;but hektiew of
no fairer data of judging upon the subject than by
taking the proportion of tire members .who sup-
ported the Catholic claims: they would proba-
bly meet with the common reward of popular in,
gratitude,- and be obliged to make way for more
successful 'candidates of opposite - persuasion.—
(Hear, hear.)-:-=He contended that -the Catholics
had considerable 'property in Ireland, and that
that propefty eaOl4, be represented : hitt if -it
viefeeetherwise in this speculating, almost- gamble
ing.eduntry, ivho would say that property Might
not change even in ,the lapse of a
few years, while the House was responsible
to the. latest. posterity for the vote of-to:night
Mr."'Wenteavet. said,' he was sorry that he
was obliged to follow-the same line of opposition
to this measure, whiCh he had felt it his duty to
take on a former occasion when it'was proposed.
The Same difficulties which he
,then felt, still
existed. With respect to the 13111 theri before
Oleic, it asserted i 4 the preamble that which, in
his humble understanding, was unfounded in fact,
and an outrage upon histOrical truth. It stat-
ed that there
_was a time hi the history of this
country, when the Catholics were able to take
the Oath of Supremacy according to the ioter-
pretation annexed to it by Q. Elizabeth, by which
meaning to demonstrate, that it was the object of
the Bill to restore a part of the Constitutioa,aud
not to add any thing new -to it. Ile (Mr. We-
therell) however denied that ...there ever was a
time when the Catholics could take this. oath,
and he challenged any of the supporters of the
,Bill to prove the truth of their assertioxi in the
pregnable. , • • ".
Sir J. MACKINTOSTI—I challenge the -Hon.
and Learned Gentleman' in return to point out in
the preamble of the Bill the allegation he speaks
of.—(Cries of " Order.")
Mr. Wenstnome said, he would accept the
challenge of the Hon: and• Learned Gentleman,'
and, as he'had thrown the glove, he • (Mr. We-
therell) would take it up. He understood that
the statement toade.in the preamble of that 13111
was founded on the supposition that Roman Ca-
tholics were ready to' take the oaths as they were
expounded by the adro'onition 'annexed to the in-
juuctions -of Elizabeth, which were published in
the first of_her reign. On the death of Mary
the Protestaot religion was' again -restored, and
on the accession of Elizabeth some perions gave
out some, ridiculois and idle tales, that Queen
Elizabeth claimed the supremacy in a: sense dif-
ferent from teat in which.her predecessors, Henry
the Eighth and Edwaid the Sixth, had, exercised
it. Some stories were afloat, that she claimed
the personal, exercise_ of the ministry of the
Church, such as the imposition of hands, the
conferring of orders, and churching of Avornen,
&c. On occasion of theSe rumours, the admo-
nition. was issued,sand was titled !‘ An Admoni:
tion to simple Men"—(A laugh.)---Land that ad-
monition was annexed to the injunctions. Their
object was, that simple- men should not be
duped. He (Mr. W.) was one-of those simple
men,
..and he protested against any attempt
to dupe him. Those• injunctions-ovegatived, in.
terms-the, most clear, the most intelligible, the
most direct, and the most.positiVe, the supremacy
of the Pope. That Was the occasion of 'the' ad-
monition. ~Retnan Catholics had never taken-the
oaths introtluca hif the:statute of 'Elizabeth.—
Itlvas at the haZard of his character he. ventured

to make the assertion, and he would repeat, that
Catholics never: took it-; :and it was a fallacy to
suppOSe that the Catholics wo,uldftake the oath in
its ,aMended form. • The _preamble having im-
plied that it 'vas only
:required to remove the
Corruption of_the oath introduced by the Statute
of Elizabeth, .he - would say that that preamble
was. historically. untrue., Under semblance of.
restoring the oath to its original Meaning, it was'
a new oath the Bill was about to adopt. He
would rather have a new oath than accede to. the
proposition of giving to the old oath anew meaning
which it never had. But it was not to the oath
and preamble alone he objected :
,he was hostile
to the. principle Of .the Bill. The Bill went to the.
repeal of the. Test Act, and to open to the Ro-
man Catholics every civil office in the State,:
except the placea of Lord High Chancellor of.
Englandond Chief: Governor of Ireland; The
effect of the Bill was to admit Roman Catholics
to, all other ,sittiations. The practical questien
Was, whether they would admit Catholics as mem-..
bens of the Legislature and Executive Govern-
ment. The supporters of the Bill desire Catho-
lics to be- admitted to the Legislature and the
Executive. Nov, sup posing they be in every
sense qualified for these offices, were they not' in.
effect excluded from the execution by the Bill.it-
self, which says-they shall not advise the Crown
in the, appointment or disposal of any ecclesiasti-
cal appointment 2 So far then that was. an incapa-
citating and an enabling Bill at the same lime.
Suppose a Catholic became a Prime Minister, or
a Member of the Privy Council, he could not by
that Bill, advise the Crown respecting any Eecle-
-astioal appointment. How then could he take a
Prime-Minister's oath ? They would, admit
him Premier, but pulled down half the
building when .they lopped "the chief branch
of his power. He would_ not blame the Right
Honourable -Gentleman who introduced that
fill, and whose absence they all deplored nor
would he blame the other Hon. Members who
acted with him. The necessity of the thing required
those contradictions :and monstrous absurdities.
IX a Roman Catholic became. Premier, a counter
Premier should be -chosen, and each would Have•
only a mutilated office. But who were to name
the Commissioners? Why, the Bill says the
Crown. There again, the Roman Catholic Pre-
mier Would *be -called on to-advise the Crown
-whom to appoint, but from that the Bill disqualifies
him. He accepted the challenge of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Knareiborough. 'He (Mr. W.) had got
with him a copy-of the Privy Counsellor oath,
and he would say that oath should be repealed be-
fore the Bill would pass, which would make a Ro-
man `Catholic a Privy Counsellor. For the same
reasons no Roman Catholic could be a Governor
',of any'of- the Colonies, hoWever gallant his con-
duct, howeier: glorious his exploits. He would
not then discass how many Roman Catholics
were 'likely to come. into that House, but he
would say, that if the' Roman Catholics were
honest men, they Would do- all in their power to
-raise their o*n Church,- to the destruction of the
.Established Church--4nd in saying that, he would
-not be understood as arguing from their vices, but
i:
' their virtues.,
T Right Hon. Gentleman
kr:1:11111:ar the
introduced the
t1B)i
were
lent and eminent Statesmen, and" wished to
carry their concessions to the Roman Catholic's As
fer as possible. They' blame Lord .Sorneri and
the great men Of his day for uotgoing farther for
the Catholics: They might depend on it the
Same would be said if that enabling, incapacitat-
ing Bill passed. . The Roman Catholics would
not be Content with any thing short•of universal
emancipation, , • :
" Ni ul scrum reputant, thunquid kap9i7essit agendum."
Concession; in part, would only create a demand
for more. Emancipation would not be worth.a.
drop of ink, unless it were counected with the
hopes and expectations- of ultimately delivering
,the .Catholic from the payment of-tithes to the.
support of the Established, Church.. `Any thing
short of that final measure could not give satis-
faction to the• Cattilics: Who was there.
on their part, eithir Bithop or Cardinal, who
would warrant- their 'acceptance: or 'the freatY
which the •ComMittee was now. making' with
them He Would. appeal_ to the Noble.Lord'i
(Lord Castlereagh's) experience in diplainmy,
if ever he .knew any treaty orcOntract to be enter-
ed into witlx.fitt;,eme guaranteethat the high eon-
parties would abide by the treaty ? The
supporters o( that Bill would be taunted„ as Lords
Somers and Camien had been, for not going -so
far as the abolition of tithe's. Neither Lucke,
nor Hobbs, nor SydneY, nor Harrington, nor' any
other writers 'on government went farther than
toleration.' They all agreed that the Non-Con-
foroliSt Ought flat to be admitted to any offices
in State. The lion. Member for Knares-
boyough.could not find that Sydney, in his " Com-
monwealth," would admit a Roman Catholic Se-
cretary. In the ancient governments, in Rome;
for example', all Non-Conformists were excluded
from any -share in the Administration. There
was one respectable writer; indeed„: Whose argu.:
m ents seemed more favourable to the cause of the
Roman-Catholics, he meant Archdeacon Paley,
but no other respectable writer could be. pointed
out who adopted. his doctrines: Neither Mr.
Fox .nor Mr: Burke could he undeYstood as grant-
ing so much political:power•to Cathelics as were
now demanded for them by..the' framers of that
Bill. Great Authorities had been quoted, on the
other side of the House, in- favour_ 'this ques-
tion. He belieied that he couid.rriention some
authorities who coincided in his view of this ques-
tion-Tthe late Lord Itosslyn, Lord Auckland, and
Lord Bolton; and, if the Hon.Mernhers oh:the other'
side brought doe- n thenames of Whitbread and• Sir
S.Romilly, and. Sir A.' Pigot—men undoubtedly.
of high talents—still he might place against theni
the names of Lords, Somers and Camden. They
were told that the Gunpowder Plot, and the
times of Titus Oates, were so far removed 'in the
obscurity of past time, that they were.not now_to
be mentioned. He would not !,.f6. so far back,
nor needed he to do so ; far, no longer back than
the year 1768, •the Pope had ekcommanicated
the-Council
.saf- the prince of Parma,..and -what
was the consequence ? The Parliament of Paris
took up th 6 matter,"and in' 1772 the King- of

France made it High Treasciii for any of his sub-;
jests,, to hold communication With the Se 6
of llorri.-(ilear,:heiti•:!)--N 01;i; *hat -were th.ek
abOut to dO ili tarts Committee '? They,via.re:
about to legiti!natethe•Coire§pondence of-British
subjects with the See-. of Itorrillear, hear.)--•-
They *ere about to- throW.'away :that sthte. Su-
prenlacy—which: had hithertci heen held inviol-;
able in these realms.
.They might be told -that
that decree in` France was the • result: of -narrow
-illiberal vieivs of policy." -But the Nationat-As-
sambly could-not be supposed. to • be:actuated :b-y•
any "views of that description, and that- detree
was Confirmed by them in 1701. Could they -then.
say there was no danger to be• apprehended in
those countries from -the legitimation of sutli a
corresiondence, seeing that it was- guarded
against so-cautiously by one of the- most- power-
ful Monarchies of modern Europe(Hearillea!".)
There was no. Government at this time that to-

.
aerated au. unrestrained communication of that:
description.- Besides:this he had always umkr-
.stooJ upon this subject, that concession-and -se,
curly were to' o hand in hand. But HOW they
were granting the concessions, and- at the- •sanki.

time throwing away that power, of security -which
other States had preserved.- His opinion,-there-
fore, was, that this Bill eradicated from the Bri-

tish Constitution a principle which, sooner or
later,-would involve these countries in disturb=
ante.—(hear, hear
-!)—It was said, indeed, that
becauSe the elective franchise was given: to. the
Roman Catholics in Ireland, it naturally,follewad
that they 'Ought to be themselves eligible. “This
was exactly the species of argument which would
be used hereafter if they passed 'this measure.; he
did not say that it would produce evils anme-
diately, but it would produce them is its• cc pos-
teriority,"—(Lond laughter from. every part of
the House.)—He begged pardon if he had in the
fer-vor of argument used an improper expression,
what he meant to say was, that. in its coUse-
queßces.this measure would' not produce a state
of " finality," but would be the parent Of fur-
ther demands—(hear, hear.)
• Sir J. MACKINTOSH complained of the devia-
tions from the question which had occurred; and
called the attention of the Committee to till con-
sideration of the clause immediately before them.
This clause did not go to admit Catholics into
Parliafnent, or to throvr open to them offices which
at, present they could not fill. Agreeing, .to this
clause they-pledged themselves to nothing-of the
kind, but rejecting they closed the door against
conciliation. ,He then commented on '-various
parts of the preceding speech. His Hon. Friend
had mentioned Mr. Hobbes as a liberal.: ma.u.
. who had been opposed to the Catholici. Mr.
Hobbes . was certainly a man of great talents,
but be was not very liberal in his iileas,
as it was known that he had redtued. f:des-c
potism to a, system, and slavery to a philoso-
phical creed. His.principles.were most despotic,
as in his Leviathan he proposed to treat. every
deviation from the religion of the Sovereign as a
capital crime. lie' had, however, to remark, that
Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Sir G. Saville, Mr. BuTke,
Mr. Wyndham, and a Noble' Lord who was .no
visionary, but who had this .cause nticit'at -heart,
Lord Melville; and' every Statesman of -the first
class- who had lived within the last fifty years,
had faveiired the views of the Catholics,..--and to
these his. Hon. and Loarne& Friend could only
oppose a body of theoretical politicianS:. And
who was the person who had-said that Catholic
Emancipation for. itself Was not Worth the drop
1-of ink that -wrote- it ? Would the -Ilonse...be-
lieve it that this was no other than a Dr:

lan, the head of a proposed Direetdry Jaii
intended Irish .13.4Mb1ic.; This was the •Gen-,
tleman who had made the remark at a iiirriewLen
a rebellion was preparing; and he, With. Mr.
Hobbes and the practical Harrington, 'well, op-
posed to all the Statesmen Qf -the la4—class
'that could- be named, as.. being within' the last
years. .Que nixie had been mentioned -Which
attracted' mere notice than all the rest---4Aord
Bolton. He supposed he might be- a celebrated
politician, but it was. the first time. he had heard
of his existence, and all around him head been
inquiring, who this .unknown celebrated,' man
could be. Ile denied that the preamble. ?if the
Bill embodied,. an ,historical falsehood, r,s bad
been.. stated by Wl'S' Hon. and Learned Friend.
lie contended that no inconvenience was 'to be
apprehended 'from
.the situation in Whi.7ll.l_,ord
ChamberlaihS, Premiers, and GOverosks icoittl
be,placed by_this .What had been Said on
the subject of the. Privy Council was brit is re-
petition of What had, beets said :over and over
again, to throw a cloud over this impbrtaut
measure. For the inconsistencies ttiatlt was
contended were in these Bills,' he thOught
this argument came with but an. inditrerent
grace
,from those that supported a" jumble of
the most anoMalous contradictions tlia't the
most .whimsical legislation . could prodnce.-----
The Bills went to • remove 10,000 aninxialies,

and leave a few, and on these few they. were at-
tacked by the adVocates for. the.-I9,000: It was
said the situation in which the. Catholicsould.
be placed by the present_- Bill would be
.more grating than that in Which they-ii6od at-
this mornent. He would take the w'Oril of be Duke

of Norfolk in preference to thelton: anabearned
Gentleman, who said. he would 'rather be ad-
mitted to Parliament and torQflice undef the pro-
posed restrictions, than not at.all. It:Was said
a Cotifederation •of twenty-five Catholics.' might
produce a most important effect in tha.t'llouSe,
but 'lt seemed to be forgotten tha.t theSe
would immediately be oppos.ed by 9.'25 Protes-
tants, the moment it' was seen the ¶2l,GiCtholics
wished to form a Papist's establiShme'ilt: The
question was, whether the oath -propfTiej, to be
tendered-Was that which‘gave as much security
as an oath could afford, and the Civil f; overt,-
ment ought to require. Ile contended, that tt e
Catholics swearing to obey thelaW of thi; land
gave all the security that 'Ought to be dethanded.
Mr. °MILBURN thought dangt-s.i'..of ad-
initting Roman Catholics -I'6 a The legis-
lation, was that'against which the ought
always to guard. Ile thought th-r...g.w4,,,s a great
inconsistency in this nwasUre,' inas.mni:'h as it
went to reptire from the Catholic, of mars th.e
State 'might:be-jealous a less bitiding'bath than
that *.hich was imposed. en the Prpteste,kit, who