The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 2.
The Archbishop of YORK presented petitions from the
Archdeaconry and Clergy of Nottingham, and from the
Clergy of the town and neighbourhood of She!held, against
further concession to the Catholics.

Lord GODERICII presented petitions from the Roman
Catholics of Etherington and Sidney' Bransby, Yorkshire,
praying to be relieved from their civil disabilities. Also
a petition from Knareslanrough, against further concession
to the Catholics. The Noble Viscount also presented a petition
from the Mayor, aldermen, Sheriffs, Masters, and Journey-
men Weavers, of Norwich. This was a petition from a class of
persons whose condition had frequently excite:l attention, and
whose conduct, as well as the vicissitudes to which they were
exposed, had at all times entitled them to the consideration of
the House. This observation applied w the majority of the
petitioners : and the purport of their prayer was, that a
law might be passed providinf.; that in all cases where the
majority of masters and workmen consented to a certain
rate of wages, such agreement, during the time it was to
exist, should be binding on the minority of both parties.
The Noble Viscount, in consenting to present this peti-
tion, stated to the petitioners that he could not undertake
to support their prayer, apprehensive that if such a law
was passed, the effect would be contrary fo what the pe-
titioners expected. At the same time, as Ole petition
was signed by a great many respectable people, he had no
hesitation in presenting it, confident that it would meet the
serious attention of the House.

Lord TEYNHAM presented a petition from the carpet
weavers of Kidderminster, praying that the House would
interfere to settle their rate of wages, there being a com-
plete variance between the manufacturers of that town.
The Noble Lord postponed his motion for Monday, to
enquire into the state of the agricultural labourers of Eng-
land and Wales.

The Duke of BEAUFORT presented petitions from
Ministers and Protestant Dissenters iu various parts of
Brecknockshire, and also of Bristol, against farther cotton-.
siona to the Catholics.
The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from the
medical gentlemen of Aberdeen, praying their Lordships
to adopt measures to facilitate dissection.
Earl SPENCER presented a petition from the Catholics
of a parish in Lancashire, in favour of their claims. Also,
a petition from the Unitarians of Northampton, praying
for the removal of all religious disabilities.
Lord RADNOR presented a petition from Windsor in
favour of the Catholic Claims.

Lord KING presented petitions from the Catholics of a
parish near Warrington, and from Boston, Horsham, Car-
lisle, Yarmouth, and Morpeth, in favour of the Roman
Catholics.

The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a petitioa
from a numerous body in the county of Durham, against
the importation of lead ore.
Lord DARNLEY presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Canterbury, praying for the removal of all
their disabilities.

Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from the
Catholics of Worksop to the same effect.
Lord CARNARVON presented a petition from Iderts
to the same effect.
Lord YARBOROUGH presented a petition from the
Governors of the Lunatic Asylum at Lincoln, praying that
they might be exempt from the operation of the Act.
The Noble Lord also presented several petitions from
Landowners in different parts of the country, praying for a
protecting duty upon corn.
Earl GREY, in presenting a petition from the President
and College of Physicians in London, praying that the im-
pediments now thrown in the way of procuring subjects
for dissection might be removed, expressed his opinion that
the object of the petitioners was not likely to be attained
by discussion either in that House or elsewhere.
The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a similar petition.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Mr. Linnet, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, and others, from the
Commons, brought up some private Bills, which were
subsequently read a first time.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the
Humber Navigation Bill, and the Lincoln Improving Bill,
were read a third time and passed.
The Cards and Dice Duties Reduction Bill was read a
second time.

On the motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY,
the Heuse resolved itself iato a Committee on the Sale of
Game Bill.
'I he Earl of MALMEgBURY made some observations
which were inaudible below the bar.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said, if he understood
the Noble Earl rightly, he did not object to that part of the
Bill which related to the sale of game.
The Earl of MALMESBURY did not object to that
part as an ox.pariment, although he felt that it was an errone.
ous notion that legalizing the sale of game would diminish
poaching. Upon a former occasion, he was informed
that this measure, was intended merely as an experiment,
and that it was to continue in operation fur but two years,
but he now found that the Bill had assumed a new appear-
ance he therefore felt it a duty to dissent from it in Coto.
Lord SUFFIELD hoped that, as he had hitherto ab-
stained from addressing their Lordships on the subject of
the present Bill, he would be pardoned for offering a few
observations upon it. He rejoiced that lie had been no
party to the present Bill now before the House, because had
he been engaged in framing it, he would have recommended
the adoption of some more general repeal than the Bill now
comprehended. He also rejoiced that he was no partner
to it, because it enabled him to give
.the Noble Lords
under whose anspicee it was brought forward that applause
to which they were so justly entitled. Although the Bill
did not go so far as he could wish, it was still
a matter for congratulation that it gave up that
exclusive system, which was the main evil in all
the Game Laws, and had entailed so great a weight of
public odium upon them. This was sufficiently proved by
the reluctance on the part of juries to convict persons ac-
cused of poaching, or drawee consequent upon it. As a
proof of which he would instance the case of a poor man
residing in his neighbourhood, who, whilst encountering
two poachers, had his brains literally kicked out; and yet
those persons, apon some pretence or other, were
.ac-
quitted of the crime of murder. It was not for him to
say whether wilful murder was actually committed by the
parties ; but it esemed to point out to him the extreme
reluctance which existed in the minds of a jury to convict
persons under suck circumstances. He considered, there-
fore, that the voluntary surrender of that exclusive privi-
lege, emanating as it (lid in that house, which composed,
he might say, the only aristocratic power in the country,
would reflect the greatest honour upon the Noble Lords
themselves.
Lord REDESDALE said, that the Game Laws were
originally intended as police laws, for that formerly large
tracts of country were infested by banditti, such as
Robin Hood ; and these laws were enacted only for the pur-
pose of putting then down. The state of the ::ountry was
at present in a very different condition—and it was, there-
fore, proper that the law should he altered. With respect
to the sale of game, it was acknowledged on all hands that
it could not he prevented ; and it was, therefore, ridicalous
to establish laws to prohibit it.
Lord SUFFIELD said, that the Act had been passed in
the reign of Richard the Second,—" for the better rep:,
lation of his Majesty's subjects, and for the purpose of send-
ing them to Church." It was, in fact, a political ma-
meuvre for tL.e purpose of disarming the people.
The motion was then put, and the House resolved itself
into it Committee for the re-commitment of the Bill.

laws at all—for though it might be borne by the people to
see the landed proprietors take their sport unmolested,
when that sport was turned into profit and trade, they
certainly would not submit to it.

Lord MALMESBURY was confident many of their
Lordships as well as of the publie, thought that poaching
was caused by the present Game Laws ; but on that point
the Committee did not go far enough in their inquiries.
It had been said that the number of commitments under
these laws had lately increased ; this was not the fact. As
to the word Esquire introduced into the Bill, he did not
understand its meaning. There was no legal definition of
the word. The clause giving a right to kill game to occu-
piers of ten acres was open to the same objection as the
qualification of 1001. It would create frequent litigation.
The old qualification of 1001. ought to be now raised to
SOU, when the difference in the value of money wascon-
sidered. In the case of several persons concerned in a
commonalty,,how would the proposed qualification operate?
Lord WIARNCLIFFE.--In such a case, every person
concerned in that common land has a right to shoot as far
as that land extends.

Lord MALMESBURY continued.—The sale of gauge
was notorious ; and even after the passing of this Bill,
poulterers would continue ta purchase game of poachers,
as from such they could still get it cheaper. This Bill
would, he was sure, create a new race of poachers, turn the
minds of tenants to illegal practices, and destroy their
habits of industry.

Lord CALTHORPE was of opinion, that the evidence
taken before the Committee was conclusive as to the neces-
sity of passing the present Bill.
On the first clause being put,
Lord MALAIESBURY divided the House.
For the Clause 33
Against it ... 18
Majority —l5
On the Clause exempting persons hunting and, coursing
from the penalties against trespassers,
The Earl of MALMESBURY stated his intention to
oppose this clause. He had no strong objection to exempt
persona hunting, but not persons coursing.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE could see no ground for a dis-
tinction between persons hunting and coursing.
Their Lordships then divided on the clause—
Contents 26 Non-contents lB.
The Report was ordered to be brought up on Tuesday,
and the House resumed.

The second reading of the Night Poaching Bill was put
off till Tuesday.
Lord CARNARVON moved for the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the expellees of bringing
up evidence on the Penryn Disfranchisement Bill.—
Agreed to.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition,
signed by the Preses of the Senatus Academicus of Edin-
burgh, complaining of the difficulty of obtaining a suffi-
cient supply of anatomical subjects.

Their Lordships then proceeded to hear evidence in sup-
port of the Penryn Disfranchisement Bill, until half-past
Ten o'clock, when they adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 2.
The SPEA-YER took the Chair precisely at four o'clock.
Sir WM. GUISE brought up the Report on the Bris-
tol and Gloucester Railway.—Laid on the table.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Enfield, in
favour of Catholic Emancipation.
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented four petitions,
(one from the Magistrates of Buckingham, and three from
parishes in Ireland), against any further concessions to the
Catholics.
Mr. LANGS fON presented a petition from the Cor-
poration of the City of Oxford, against further conces-
sions to the Catholics.
Mr. CAREW presented several petitions from the Ro-
man Catholics of several parishes in Ireland, praying for
the repeal of the Sub-letting Act, and also of the Vestry
Act.
Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from the Magis-
trates and Inhabitants of Saffron Walden, against the Li-
censing Ale Houses Bill.
Lord BINGIIAAI presented petitions from the Roman
Catholics of certain parishes in the county of Mayo, in fa-
vour of the Catholic Claims.
Mr. LIGON presented a petition from Kidderminster,

praying that no tax might be imposed on the importation
of foreign wool.
Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Chudleigh in favour of the Catholic Claims.
Colonel IMEWER presented a similar petition from

parishes in Donegal and Carlow.
Sir J. OWEN presented a petition from certain inhabi-
tants of Flintahire, against any further oencesaions to the
Catholics.
Sir J. OWEN also presented petitions from several
Friendly Societies, in Flintahire, against the Friendly So-
cieties Bill.
Sir J. OWEN presented a petition from the merchants,
owners ofland, and other persons residing at Van Dieman's
Land, praying for a Legislative Assembly.
Mr. MOORE presented a petition from the Protestants
of the City of Dublin, against any further concession to the
Catholics.
Mr. GRATTAN said, that the inhabitants of Dublin
were generally favourable to the Catholic Claims.
Mr. MOORE said, that he was sure if his Hon. Col-
league laid his hand upon his heart, he would feel convinced
that the great mass of the respectable Protestants of Dublin
concurred in the sentiments expressed in the petition.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Sir R. W. VAUGHAN presented a petition from a
parish in Wales against any farther concession to the Ca-
tholics.
•Mr. BENETT presented a petition from the licensed
victuallers residing in the town of Trowbi idge, in Wilt-
shire, praying that they might be relieved from the ex-
pence of maintaining soldiers.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from Martin Sta-
pleton, Esq., of Yorkshire, relative to the regula-
tions in Horsham gaol. The petitioner stated that he
was informed that a weekly allowance was made to the
prisoners in that gaol out of a charitable fund, which
some humane person or persons had subscribed for
that purpose. Owing to the grievances under which the
prisoners considered ,that they laboured, they petitioned the
House of Commons, and in consequence of their having so
petitioned they have alleged that this charitable allowance
was reduced, and they were now in a state approaching to
starvation. Upon receiving this petition from Mr. St.t-
pleton, he (Mr. Sykes) told him that he would present it
to the House of Commons, but without at all pledging
himself to the truth of what the petition stated. He also
informed the County Members for Sussex that he had such
a petition, and he trusted they would be prepared to give
every explanation upon the subject. He did not pledge
himself that what was stated was true, but be would
assert that ii it was true that any such allowance
was denied to the prisoners upon the ground of their
having sent a petition to that House, that a mon-
strous and intolerant grievance bad been committed,
a gross act of injustice had been perpetrated against those
prisoners. He bad in his possession the letters to Air.
Stapleton, in which those grievances were detailed. In
one of them, from a person named John Gardiner,
it is stated that the prisoners petitioned the Quar-
ter Sessions, and obtained no redress to those com-
plaints, and many of the prisoners were afraid of proceed.
ing further ; but at length some of them petitioned that
House, and had, in consequence their allowance reduced,
and were now in a state borderiag en starvation. Rethought

The Marquis of SALISBURY particularly objected to such a eOrllnleint as this deserved the attention of Parliament,
the miesilieyous tendency of 419 9PLe,:li ci she Noble Lord for if a charitable allowance was stopped for such reasons,
(Suffield). . it was, to say the least of it, a most abominable piece of
The Bill was then read clause by clause, and after some oppression.
observations from Lords Snerteen, Alaeasesaurtas, Mr. CURTEIS said, that the fund out of which this
WHARNCLIFFE, and REDESDALE, was agreed to.
ie
allowance was made was nearly exhausted; before this
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE wished to put the Game Laws petition was presented the Mee tsates of Sussex appointed
on such a footing as would enable the people to look upon a Committee to yisit the gaol, and he had no doubt that
thelll in a different light to what they had been accustomed the report of this Committee would convince the public
thought to do. He Wished to give every sums a right to sport that that prison was as well conducted as any in the king-
upon his own land. He that was but justice, but
he did not see any right on the part of one man to come dont, and that neither the prisoners nor the county had
any reason to complain.
on another's ground, and take away game. He likewise Mr. HURST said that as he was one of the
mast active
thought it unfair for one man to rear game on his encouragers of the voluntary contribytiona for cha-
ground, and though it came and fed upon the ground ritahle purposes in
.Sussex, Ise WP Most anxious to
of another, the latter was debarred the right of killing it. give the prisonere, a geed allowance, but the fact
The Noble Lord then alluded to some of the clauses of the was 04 asa allo'svance of three shillings a week to each
Act, by one of which, the son of an esquire, (1. a perssn Prisoner would exhaust the whole charitable fund in nine
of higher
degree, was tjualiaed ; liiit the teviire was him- weeks, and the prisoners would starve for the remainder of
self diequalifised;
The for o; a maw was not qualified the year.
as lord of 4 manor, though he might depute authority Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE corroborated the state-
which he (lid not himself possess to any other person. ment of his Hon. Colleague, and said that if.
upon
These distinctions were evidently most absurd. The (ration, any abuses should he proved, the magistrates at
Noble Lord then alluded to the clauses which made games the Quarter Sessions re.;;ld apply a remedy.
saleable article, and remarked, that having made it The petitissa having been brought up and read,
saleable, investi-
bsaleable, it was necessary to supply the market, otherwise Mr. '~TYKES moved that it be presented, and read est
it would only ;Joni additional eccgcre.geoseilt to peacher:e extract from a letter, stating that debtors confeled in
His Lordship insieSed on the neaessitY, as game was to be Horsham gaol, were not allowed te speak so their
saleable, of giving the proprietors additional means of pro- friends,except in the presenceof athi,rtlAws". He (Mr. S.)
tection. It was his feeling, that game should be made a thought this a great tkardshiPs an one which ought
matter of property, but at all events, as it was a matter of . to be done away with, because while such a system was
'value, thear would natiirahy ask for the means of protective. continued it .was useless to expect an exposure of abuses,
it. What he proposed as a protection ‘11'441 that' all k'noti ii!‘; :as it was not likely that a prisoner would make corn-
one man set his foot on another's ground; for the pur- ! plaints in the presence of one who would convey
pose of killing game,
be ehotild he liable to a penalty. . them to the gaoler who had the custody of the complain-
After some further remarks, the Noble Lord concluded by ant.
saying, that unless the protection which he demanded was Mr. R. COLBORNE denied the truth of the state-
given, it would be much better not to interfere with the merit, and added that, to his knowledge, the prisoners

ig
might see their friends in a private room devOte4 d
purpose.
Mr. HURST corroborated the statement of hi!,
Colleague, and opposed the presenting of the petition'.s
Mr."CURTEIS objected to the printingnia,My
which contained only a repetition of a petition,
printed.
After a few observations by Mr. SYKES, the petito
withdrawn.
Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from eefilf
Pastors of the Church of Scotland,. praying for a rep'
the Test and Corporation Acts.
Mr. KEMP presented a petition from the Prod
Dissenters of Lewes, against the Roman Catholic' o',
Mr. J. BROWNE presented two petitions frotsi
Roman Catholics of Mullingar and Mayo, in favour's'
Roman Catholic Claims.
Sir J. NEWPORT ;talented a petition (rots f
assignee of a bankrupt, named Williams, owner °
vessel called the Charlotte, which was seised 1136)
port of Newry, stating that there was a 5
statement in the Returns made by the Vice Ad 0077
Court of Ireland, pursuant to the vote of that House.
Mr. LESLIE FOSTER said he knew the gratkelty
, against whom this charge was mseo, and he thought
Hon. Baronet ought to have been fully satisfied of theti"
of the statement before he presented the petition.
The petition having been read,
Mr. BROUGHAM said the charge in the petition°
tit
a breach of the privileges, and he thought the be-„i,
course for his Right Honourablo Friend to pursue le°7o
be to withdraw the petition, and then to call for We
into the conduct of the person complained of.
Mr. LAMBE said if the person who was eomple'',
of could not acquit himself of the charge, that'
would undoubtedly feel itself bound to institute some Pr
ceeding against him.
Mr. PEEL thought that the person who made
charge ought to be called upon to substantiate it before
other party could be called upon to exculpate hisnseC,•oo
After a few words from Sir J. NEWPORT, the Pie'
was withdrawn.

BANKRUPT LAWS. At'
Mc. EDEN brought in a Bill for the amendment"'
Bankruptcy Laws, which was read a first time. Al'
Mr. LIDDELL postponed his petition from NeWn:',i
on the subject of the 11. notes, to Monday next. He
this to make room for the motion of the Right lion."'
lonial Secretary on the Canada Question.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACT. ty
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the order of the day for d
consideration of the Lords' amendments on the Test
Corporation Act Repeal Bill.
Mr. H. GURNEY said, that it would be extreOliii
convenient that the words of an Act of Parliament sh°;)
be susceptible of a clear and distinct interpretation, VTA
he regretted was not the case with this Bill in some P*',.,4
as it came from the other House. The object of the
originally was to relieve those Dissenters in whose hebo
it was necessary to pass annually an Indemnity Act; bed
as the Bill came from the House of Lords, it was elool
from a question between the Dissenters and the Church°
England to a question between the Church and Stitt'
According to the act as it now stood, the moment
change was proposed in any thing connected. with tW
Church, in any of the ecclesiastical courts of Raglan' „
Ireland, the minister, who shonld venture to make
proposition would be told at once that he was aetiog be"
violation of the declaration. if any attempts should
made to explain that declaration away, we should barte
as in the case of the coronation oath,—an outcry rajas
and pamphlets published by Diana of Chester, and oth
to,
very zealous dignitaries of the Church, complaining Oli,,
infraction of the law, and of the violation of the Chivy";
rights and privileges. Then with this law no ale
whatever must be made hereafter ; and if that were t°,,;
the construction put upon it he would assert that no Porio
ex-Chancellor, in times when the great seal W it
the Ihands of churchmen, would have ventured
have proposed such a test to ministers of the Crot
In conclusion, the Hon. Member observed that he thoof:,
the Bill much weakened in its effect by the injudiciol'il
amendments introduced into it since it left that House, mld
upon the explanation of these amendments which he reig
hear from the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) or sit 3
other member of the Government, would depend whew"
he should votefor their reception or rejection.
Mr. PEEL did not admit the right of the Hon. *e:d.
her to put any question to him for any amendments
in the Bill in the other House of Parliament:', It Oh,
clear that the amendments did nothing for the Chore,
which was not done before. All that it required °*".1:1.
that the party taking dike should declare that,,
would not use the influence or authority of - his 0
to weaken, or injure, or disturb in its tights tor pry
vileges, theiProtestant Church so declared to be pertaie
nently established by law. There was no alteratOD
made in the gill of any consequence, except that could 0,,
so considered which substituted the words "in Englan6'
for the words "within this realm." The addition of die
words, "I sincerely, in the presence of God, profess; testiQ'
and declare upon the true faith of a Christian," did Or
make any material difference. He (Mr. Peel) was 0!:
willing to throw any difficulty in the way of parties makil
the declaration, but he did not think the addition coo'
raise any objection in the minds of the most scrupulous.'
Any member of any Dissenting communion might sale
scribe this declaration. If it was objected that the t
wards, "in the presence of God," gave a religious sanctio°
to' the declaration, he must say that it came badly Prod
those who made no objection what ever to taking oaths°
allegiance and abjuration. The oath of allegiance 01/:,
"I do solemnly promise and swear to bear true ailego:
to our Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and succeesol-
—So help me God." This oath was under a religte,
sanction, yet no objection was made. Neither was any
to the oath of abjuration. It did not appear that any new at
culty was placed by those amendments in the way
parties who might be called upon to subscribe to 7,i4d
declaration. They gave to it a religious sanction, but
t
not alter the object contemplated. He would repeat, tima,
he was not responsible for the insertion of those svill.:4
hut though he considered their introduction by no tneal
essential to the Act, he did not think they threw any 31:
ditional difficulty in the way of those whom it was ',IV
tended to relieve, nor did they warrant the inference Wilk'
the Hon. Member had drawn from them.

Mr. H. GURNEY repeated his objection (as we under
stood him) to the alteration in the Bill which took from
the Crown the power of dispensing with the taking of ths
oaths by Ministers of the Crown.
Mr. PEEL said that the object of that part of the Bil/
was, not to relieve Ministers or others in high officer
was intended to apply to persons in subordinate situation*
clerks, and others, in whose favour he could wish to we
exemption from taking a declaration which he trusted
would bind all who took it. The dispensing power of the
Crown was not intended to apply to Ministers of the COO
or others holding high offices. The oath did not apply t°
members of the legislature,—it was only to persons %Alt
office, and in that view he did not see why the origins,„,"!
proposed dispensing power should be extended by I"'
Crown to its own servants.

Mr. CROKER was sorry that the Bill had not cave
from the Lords in the same state in which it had gent
from that House, and that such alterations had been Watt
He had little doubt that when the Act of Indemnity if'i
removed, this Bill would not stand, or, if it did, it avow'
require another act of indemnity. to accompany it; and h,_e
o*
was sure that the first business of the next session would
either to repeal this, or to pass another act to relieve thus'
affected by it from its pressure.
Mr. W. SMITH did not think the objections of bi 9
Non. Friend (Mr. H. Gurney) at all tenable; fat there
was no doubt that whenever the Ministers of tJaa Crow°
found it necessary to make any alteration in the discipline
or government of the Church of England, it would be very
easy for them to make the public believe that such chalge
t.
was for the benefit of the country. This very ac:
itself was an illustration of his argument, for it ";
said, and very truly said, that this measure would
strengthen that Church, and any other measure whiib
might bo proposed hereafter, with the same tendency'
would be passed with as little, and he should hope wit",
$
opposition. This Bill was introduced to set at re',
a question between the Dissenters and the Church ot
England, and as one of a numerous body of Dissenters he
'Naas :satisfied with it. He could not refrain from bearil4
his testimony
evinced to the great liberality which had he°
04 the discussion of the Bill in the other no°4,
ill, the high quarters to which he had alluded, and W
sorry that any fastidious objections in other quarters had
tendered to diminish the effect of that liberal feeling'
With reflect to the Protestant Dissenters, he repeated
declaration trade no difference ; and as to the Establish
Church, be thought that the passing of the repeal of the
Aell would give it additional security and power.
ed
Lerd MANDEVILLE said he by no means concurr.
in the amendments made by the other lionae, and if Pe
stood alone he would object to them : he thought the iv::
troductiun of the words " on the true faith of a Christiaoo
highly objectionable. They meant nothing as they the,el
stood, and if the principle on which they were intrAuc,i,
was worth any thing, it ought to have been carried 017,10
further, and some explanation given of what those w°_,,
meant. He therefore would object to the amendiseeßre
unless after the word " God," in the declaration,-
should he inserted the words "the Father, Son, and P°
Ghost."
Lord SANDON hoped the Noble Lord would not