The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-25 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 25, .1828.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS. APRIC
At a quarter to four o'clock the Duke of Cumberland
took the Oaths and his Seat. His son Prince George was
with him.
Lord CARRINGTON presented a petition from the
Unitarian Chapel, King's Lynn, Norfolk, praying for a
repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, The Noble
Lord stated, that this petition would have been presented
by the Bishop of Norwich, if he could have attended.
The House then adjourned ad libitum, and met again at
twenty minutes past live o'clock.
Sir V, . INGLEEY and others brought from the House of
Commons an Act for Improving the Navigation of the
River Humber, and also a Road Bill.
Lord KENYON presented four petitions from different
parishes in the county of Devon, against any further con-
cession to the Roman Catholics.
Lord ELDON presented a petition from the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Corporation of Beverley, against any
further concession to the Catholics.
Lord WINCHELSEA presented a petition from Mar-
gate against further concessions to the Catholics. Also a
petition from a parish in Bucks against the unqualified
repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
_Lord SKELMERSDALE presented a petition from
Bolton, Lancashire, praying that if the Elective Franchise
should be removed from Penryn, that Borough may be
made answerable for all the riots that may take place at
the Election.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from Pro-
testant Dissenters of a parish near Huddersfield, also of a
Chapel in Beverley, Yorkshire, praying for the Repeal of
the Test and Corporation Acts.
Lord GREY presented petitions from five different Dis-
senting Chapels, at Colchester, praying for the repeal of
the Test and Corporation Acts.
Also a petition from the members of the Established
Church, and others of Colchester, to the same effect.
Another from the Free Burgesses of the ancient and loyal
borough of Colchester, to the same effect, Also two peti-
tions from parishes in Essex, to the same effect.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
Zion College, London, against further concession to the
Catholics. Also a petition from the Members of the Esta-
b fished Church, Hereford, to the same effect.
The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from the
subscribing Landowners of Aberdeen against the importa-
tion of foreign corn.
Lord MALMESBURY said he had a petition to present
of some importance, signed by the manufacturers and corn-
merchants of Lynn, respecting what had receutly occurred at
Liverpool. With regard to the exportation of corn to the
Isle of Man, and the re-importation of it in flour, this had
gone to an extent for which there was no remedy, as
the whole that had been imported sines July last had
undergone this process, and which the Noble Lord thought
was what ought to be very much reprobated by the House.
The petitioners, however, seemed to be under a mistake with
respect to the relief to be obtained, inasmuch as they
prayed the House to pass an Act forthwith to put a stop to
this practice until a general Act, revising the Corn Laws,
was enacted. The Noble Lord understood the Noble Duke
at the head of his Majesty's Government to state a short
time ago that this subject should be looked into, and the
necessary steps for putting an end to it adopted.
Under these circumstances the Noble Lord thought it
sufficient for him at present to move the reading of this pe-
tition, and that it might lie on their Lordships' table.
Lord BROWNLOW presented a petition from the gen-
try and yeomanry of Horncastle, Lincoln, against further
concession to the Catholics.
The Earl of HAREWOOD presented a petition from the
Minister and Churchwardens of Woodhouse chapel, Leeds,
against further concession to the Catholics.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from two parishes in the county of Derby, for the repeal of
the Test and Corporation Acts.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from
Mr. Isaac Goldsmid, of Dulwich, in the county of Surrey,
a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, complaining of the
introduction of the words " on the faith of a Christian,"
with the declaration to be made by persons previously to
their accepting office. If this form of declaration were
insisted on, it would place the Jews in a worse situa-
tion than they now were under the existing laws.
As the law at present stood the Jews were relieved by the
Annual Indemnity Bill. The petition stated, that in the
Act of Geo. I. Jews were expressly exempted from being.
obliged to take the oath of abjuration.
On bringing up the Report of the Test and Corporation
Acts Repeal Bill,
Lord ELDON rose and said, that he held in his hand

an amendment to the Bill under their Lordships' consi-
deration, which he would take the liberty of suggesting to
the House. However, he wished to state, that whether
agreed to or not, it was his intention to oppose the Bill on
its third reading. The Amendment which he intended to
move he considered most essential to have inserted in the
second clause of the Bill. He wished not to be under-
stood as opposing that clause. His intention was only to
modify it, considering it, as he did, right and proper that
some change. should take place ; for he was most con-
scientiously satisfied that the second clause of that Bill was
drawn up in the most artful manner possible. The recital
of the clause was correct as far as it went, but it left out
by far the most important part. It provided for the con-
tinuance of those securities which were made by the Act
of Union, for the doctrine, discipline, and government of
the Established Church, but it wnitted the same securi-
ties whi,;b were introduced for the preservation of the Pro-
testant religion. The language of the Act of Union was,
that " whereas the Protestant religion as established in
England, and the doctrine, discipline, and government of

the Protestant Church—and whereas the Protestant reli-
gion, as established in Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline,
and government of that Church—were to be preserved
permanently and inviolably, that all those Acts passed for
their protection should remain in full force for ever." The
present Bill stated only that the doctrine, discipline, and
government of the Church should be secured, but omitted
any security for the religion of the Established Church.
What he would propose should he introduced in the Bill
was, a vow that the Protestant religion, as by law esta-
blished, should remain inviolable, as was already provided
for the doctrine, discipline, and government of the Pro-
testant Church. After stating that it was the opinion of
all that the state of the Catholics should not be altered by
the repeal of the Acts in question, the Noble Lord con-
cluded by moving for the introduction of these words ;.
" And whereas the Protestant Religion, as professed in
England, was, by the law of this realm, established per,
manently and inviolably, that all Acts for the preservation
of the same, in force at the time of the :union, should re-
main in force for ever."

The Earl of CLARENDON. aid not see why the Noble
Lord should propose amerdinents to a Bill which he had
expressed his intention to oppose on the third reading. As
to the Roman Catholics, no statute relative to them Lad
been alluded to in the Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the amend-
ment proposed by his Noble Friend either tended to ex-
clude Dissenters from certain offices, or it was altogether
unnecessary. If his Noble Friend meant that no person
should hold any office of trust without declaring himself to
be a Protestant, it would, of course, have the effect of ex-
chiding the Dissenters. The Bill before the House had no
reference to the promotion or injury of-the Catholic Ques•
tion. It was Dot his intention to pledge himself one way
or other upon that question. His opinions remained as
before. The object of the Bill was to do away with the
necessity of taking the Sacramental Test, which was con-
sidered detrimental to the interest of the country. It
could not effect any charge in the situation of the Ca-
tholics. Ilis Grace concluded by opposing the amendment.
The Earl of ELDON replied. The amendment which
he had proposed had reference solely to the corporate
offices. Nothing could give him greater consolation than
The declaration which he had just heard from the Noble
Duke. It was necessary, before the Bill should go out,
that it should be understood that it was not to injure or
promote the Catholic Question; but if it went out in the
words and form in which it was at present couched, it was
impossible that it would not have the appearance at least
of promoting it.

A NOBLE LORD, whose name we Could not learn,
considered that the Bill, in its present state, would not
only promote, but must at once decide, the Catholic
Question. lie agreed with the Noble Earl (Eldon), who
had so often risen to defend the Church and shield the
walls of that House from the blast which now shook it to
its foundation, that the amendment would have the effect
of excluding the Catholics, and the Catholics alone, from
corporate offices and corporate offices were at present the

doors to Parliament. He repeated, that the Bill must
have a serious effect with respect to the Roman Catholics.

The Earl of ITAREWOOD could not help calling the
attention of the House to the step they were going to take.
The Dissenters petitioned their Lordships for relief; and, as
he understood, were united with the Roman Catholics.—
(" No, no," from several Peer..)—He referred their Lord-
ships to the petitions upon their table. Now, if the words
proposed by the Noble and Learned Earl were introduced,
they could not injure the petitioners, because the Dissenters
were Protestants. But only let their Lordships consider
what the effects would he out of doors, if the House re-
jected the present amendment.

The Bishop of CHESTER reminded their Lordships
that every person who made this declaration was also
obliged to take the oath of supremacy; and consequently, as
they did not acknowledge the supremacy of the King as
head of the Church, this Bill could not be said to forward
their views. The question before the House appeared to
him to he only a question of security for the Established
Religion. The Dissenters offered a security, and the ques-
tion was, was it sufficient? When the Roman Catholics
came forward with an offer of security on their parts, that
would be another question ; and if that security were
deemed sufficient, there would then be au end of the ques-
tion of exclusion altogether.—(Hoar.)
Tho .Earl of ELDON. was not very confident in his
knoWledge of what the law Wai; for he knew- that that was
a species of law which slipped from the memory of those
professionally engaged in it much quicker than most people
supposed. But with respect to the oaths of allegiance aua
supremacy, he believed that in some corporations they were
observed, and in others not. Ile contended that they had
not sufficient security in these without the declaration
against transubstantiation. In Ireland they would not ad-
mit the words his Majesty and successors, " being Pro-
testants," to stand part of the oath-of allegiance. But there
was one question he would ask, to which, in the whole
course of the debate on this question, lie had heard no-
thing in the way of answer or explanation, and that was,
whether, if this Bill were passed as it now stood, their
Lordships must not have an indemnity act every session?
Their Lordships knew that the mayor of a corporation
need not as mayor, or an alderman as alderman, be a jus-
tice of the peace. He might, therefore, at present, be
c:dled upon to take different declarations, in each of his
different capacities. He (Lord Eldon) wouldspledge him-
self, that there was not a corporation in this kingdom of
which a Roman Catholic, unless he were excluded by their
charter, might not be a member under the clause of this
Bill. God forbid that he (Lord Eldon) should object to
any man declaring what his opinion was ; but at the same
time he must give hint (Lord Eldon) leave to have his opi-
nion also.

The Bishop of CHESTER felt himself bouni to admit
the truth of the Noble and Learned Earl's observation re-
specting the declaration against transubstantiation. It
was his duty, however, feeling as he did on the subject,
to oppose the Noble and Learned Lord's arguments.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE entreated their Lordships
not to suffer this Bill to pass without introducing the
word "Protestant" into the declaration, a. proposed by
the Noble and Learned Earl.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF, in a very law tone of
voice, was understood to say, that while the Noble and
Learned Lord professed a wish to leave the ROM3II Ca-
tholic question on open ground, the only object of his
amendment seemed to he' to affect that question.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the declaration
as proposed to be amended by the Noble and Learned Earl,
would affect officers in the army and navy, some of whom
must be in this country, and many of whom, it was well
known, were members of the Roman Catholic religion.—
Now, as the amendment of the Noble Earl would have
the effect of excluding them, he (the Duke of Wellington)
would oppose it.
_ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought a consideration
of the subject would show that the word " Protestant"
ought to be introduced into this declaration, in order to
leave the Catholic Question clear and unprejudiced when
it came on for discussion. As he understood the law at
present, it was not. necessary, in order to be admitted a
member of the Corporation, to take the oath of Supre-
macy; it was only required to do se on becoming a mem-
ber of its government, such as Mayor, Bailiff, Common
Councilmen, &c. Now if it were not necessary to take
that oath, the consequences of this Bill would be, that
there would be no obstruction to a Roman Catholic becom-
ing an individual member of any corporation. What he
understood from his Noble mid Learned Friend was, that
his amendment was only intended to refer to the declara-
tion to be taken on becoming a member of a corporation ;
and he thought the House ought to adopt it, in order to
guard against taking any step affecting the other question.
The Earl of ELDON said, that the Noble Duke (Wel-
lington) had misunderstood him. Their Lordships would
recollect that they were now on that part of the Bill which
related to Corporations only ; when they came to the sub-
sequent clauses respecting offices under the Crown, they
might make any exceptions they pleased as to the words
proposed by him. But at present all they would do, if
they agreed to his amendment, would be to exclude Ro-
' man Catholics from Corporations. Their Lordships ought
not to have this Act so expressed that persons might
hereafter say—and he would stake his character as a
lawyer that those now studying this Act would say_
that it operated in furthering the power of the Roman
Catholics. lie did not ask their Lordships, although
he wished. them to do so, to carry this amendment
to the other clause of the Bill. All he was now
saying was, let them take care not to open the corpora-
tions in England to the Ilurnan Catholics; for he again re-
peated, and he did so in the presence of great lawyers, one
on the woolsack and another (Lord Redesdale) sitting
near him, that a mayor, or an alderman was not, as such,
necessarily a justice of the peace. It was evident, that as
the law now stood, the merely taking the oaths of supre-
macy and allegiance, withcnt the declaration of transub-
stantiation, was not sufficient to render an individual eli-
gible to enter into a corporation, or to take office in this
country. The present measure. however, worded as it
was, did not require that declaration—and persons who
only took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, omitting
the declaration against transubstantiation, might be placed
in 'official situations. No declaration, though it were
framed by every one of their Lordships—though it were
stamped with the authority of every one of them—unless
it contained such a provision as he meant to propose,
wo'.id give that species of security, which in his opinion,
they had a right to have embodied in this Bill.—(Hear.)
Such was his opinion, and to that opinion he would adhere
although it might be opposed by all the ability of the
most powerful members of that House.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of B4.TU and WELLS said, that, iii his
opinion, the safest course would be to vote fur the amend-
ment.

Lord HOLLAND thought the attacks on this Bill rather
frivolous than solid. The Noble and Learned Lord had said
that although a Mayor and Aldermen, if Justices of the
Peace, were called on to sign the declaration against Trail-
' substantiation, and to take the Oaths of Allegiance and
Supremacy, yet such was not the case with a Mayor and
Aldermen who were not Justices of the Peace ; Since it
was, as Justices of the Peace, and not as Members of a
Corporation, that the declaration with respect to Transub-
stantiation was required to be taken. He was ready to
bow to the authority of great lawyers—to the opinion of
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and to that
of his Noble and Learned Friend who moved the amend-
ment ; but he believed that, so far as Corporations
were concerned, the effect of the Test Act would not be to
Corporations, the necessity of force on Freemen, entering
taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as well as
of signing the declaration against transubstantiation. But
the other Act, the Corporation Act, on which the sacra-
mental test rested, did provide for the assent to the decla-
ration against transubstantiation, as well as for taking the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy. He knew that, by
decisions of Courts of Law, the construction of the former
Act had been twisted both ways. It was proper, in deal-
ing with the Noble and Learned Lord's argument, to beer
in mind that it was set forth, in the preamble to the Test
Act, that it was intended " for quieting the minds of his
Majesty's subjects," This was expressly' stated. Now his
Noble and Learned Friend had asserted, that no Noble
Lord in that House could say, that the Test Act was not an
Act for the establishment and preservation of the Church.
But, in point of fact, there was nothing of the kind stated
in the preamble and recital of that Act, which had been
construed in Courts of Law as applying to corporations,
and persons employed under corporations. What would be
the situation of Roman Catholics if the proposition of the
Noble and Learned Lord were adopted ? At present the
Roman Catholic might possiblyget into a corporation, and
he would be protected by the A 'mita! Indemnity Bill ; but if