The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-30 00:00:00

DEBT TO TIM INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. nulitre next insetO Move• fOr accounts of
the debts•due by the Government'to the East
India Company.'- The..Hon.Gentleman stated
the growth of the debt., which was in 1815 about
1,300,000!. to the. year 1820, when he had good
reason to believe it amounted to 2,500,0001.- He
wished to have a statement laid before the House
ofthe amount incurred in each yeariand for what
purposes the money had been'expwided. There
was an old balance whiCh :Was *disputed,otelating
to sums expended in the .eipedition-•to Egypt.
lie was of opinion that' it should:be settled, and
that the accounts Abonl4 be more:frequently
balanced.thau They. had hitherto hoed. He con-
cluded by moving for, accounts of tire debts due
to the East India Compauyon• th'e Ist IMay, 1820,
distinguishing the old and the-itew debt, -the
amount contracted and each 'year; and ftsr-:what
services the mooey-hadtieen expended.- .
The CHANCELLOR- of the EX.CIi*JEa tsar!,
there could be no objection to produce the ac-
count.- The Hon. Member: was certainly correct
in stating that there were many disputed sums,
particularly the OGO,OOOI. for the expence of the
Expedition to Egypt. The allowance of this
sum had in fact been negatived by the House.
There were several other sums which could not
be allowed, and which, with the former sum, ma-

•
:erially affected the balance. The motion *as
.hen put and agreed to.

ROMAN cATtmthic DISABILITIES' BILL:
Sir JOHN NEWPORT moved the Order of the
Day for taking the Report on this Bill into con-
sideration.

The Report was brought up by Mr. J. SMITH ;
and on the question being put from the Chair
that it be read,
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE said, he would not dppose
the bringing up of the Report, but he 'trusted
to another opportunity of combating the mea-
sure. The House must bre conscious that the
Bills were likely to prove a cause of great un-
easiness to the Catholics of Ireland, and especi-
ally to the Catholic Clergy. He underslood
that meetings wexe to be called to oppose the
Bills. If that were the case, one of the chief
grounds for carrying the Bills had failed. The
Catholics, as they were told, looked on the
second Bill as highly penal and degrading to
the clergy. Ile complained of the precipitancy
with which the Bills had been pressed forward,
and the want of determination with which they
had been opposed. He apologized for some ex-
pressions n hich had fallen from hint on a former
night, by which he had given some uneasiness
to a Noble Lord opposite, than which nothing
could have been farther from his wishes or in-
tentions.

Lord NUGENT said, that nothing could be more
satisfactory than the explanation of the Hon.
Baronet ; and he begged to thank him for the
handsome terms in which he had conveyed it.
Mr. ADERCNOMBY regretted that the Hon.
Baronet had not been in his place upon a former
night, for in that case he would have heard a
succession of Irish Members bearing their testi-
mony to the general satisfaction which the pre-
sent measure gave to the greater portion of the
loyal and intelligent Irish Roman Catholics. It
no doubt would give dissatisfaction to others,
for it would reduce some who possessed an un-
worthy desire of power to a state of deserved
insignificance.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) said, that not only
was the measure approved by the Catholics in
general, but that Mr. O'Connel, of Dublin, who
had taken an active part in opposition to it, was
not able to get the signatures of nine persons,
which signatures were requisite to form an ag-
gregate meeting in order to disapprove of it.
Probably Mr. O'Connell thought, that if offices
rained down from heaven, not one of them would
be made to fit his own head.—(A laugh.)

Mr. C. HUTCIIINSON said, he could not allow
the remarks of even his lion. and esteemed
Friend (Mr. Abercromby) to pass unnoticed.
According to those remarks, which certainly were
not borne out by the fact, no loyal or intelligent
Catholic disapproved of the measure.—(Cries of
" No, no.")—He certainly had so understood his
Hon. Friend, and he was glad to be now correct-
ed by the House. Understanding his Honoura-
ble Friend as he had, it was the more necessary
that he should observe upon those remarks, be-
cause he (Mr. H.) had previously declared he
had the authority of a highly respectable Catho-
lic Prelate to disapprove of the measure. He
(Mr. II.) was for the removal of all the restric-
tions, but certainly he did not think those ought
to be called disloyal who disapproved of the
present penal enactments. Referring to the ob-
servation of the Hon. Member for Galway, he
begged to deprecate all attacks upon individuals
who were not present to defend themselves. He
(Mr. H.) knew nothing of the sentiments of Mr.
O'Connell on this subject, any more than was al-
ready known by the public ; but he had the
honour of a private acquaintance with Mr.
O'Connell, and be could confidently affirm, that
a more honourable or patriotic member of society
did not exist ; and he (Mr. H.) was decidedly
friendly to any measure which should enable that
House to gain the accession of the virtue and ta-
lents of such a ma❑ as Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. ABERCROMBY and Sir T. LETHBRIDGE
mufti-ally explained.
After a few observations from Mr. WYNNE and
Mr.G I PPS, the Report was read, and on the ques-
tion that it should lie on the table,

CROKER rose to bring forward a measure
which he said he had had in contemplation two
years ago. He considered -it a hardship on the
Protestant that he was compelled to take an oath
denying that the. Pope had any spiritua' authority
in the realm. After so many Acts of Yarliament
had been passed, in which a mitigated spiritual
authority of the Pope was admitted, he put it to
House whether the oath of supremacy, in its pre-
sent language, should be allowed to continue.—
It had, been said by a-late Right Hon. Friend of
his, (Mr. Grattaij)
_that a Catholic would scarcely
have any objection to,take the Oath in the sense
in which it must necessarily be understood by the
Protestant. Upon the present occasion it was
thought proper to introduce explanatory words
for the Catholic. Now, if the words meant the
same thing for the. Catholic as well as for the Pro-
testant, why should there be two oaths ? Or how
could the oath in its present language remain, if
this Bill should pass, which directly provided for
the exercise of the Pope's authority ? He sub-
mitted, it was better that the same oath should
not remain with two meanings. As the House
adopted the explanation, he would confidently
ask the House, whether the oath could be con-
scientiously taken by a Protestant ? He should
therefore u)ove, that the words " Roman Catho-
lic,",,immediately preceding the word " subject,"
should be -left out.

(A conversation here took place between two
Hon. Members near the Hon. Mover.)
Mr. CROKER resumed. It had been suggested
to him that the alterition he proposed was of
consequence enough) to warrant a separate dis-
cussion, and he therefore for the present would
not press his motion.
A short conversation then followed between the
SPEAKER and Mr.. CROKEtt upon a point of form ;
upon which,
Mr. PEEL rose and said, that he was aware of
the difficulty suggested by the Hon. Member ;
but as it had been caused by the present mea-
sure, he considered it better that it should be left
to the promoters of the Bill to remove that diffi-
culty. He thought it deserving- the serious con-
sideration of the House.

Mr. WysNi conceived that the words in the
Oath of Supremacy, denying the spiritual autho-
rity of the Poper,initst necessarily mean any law-
ful authority.--Mr. PEEL explained.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, he recollected a case
in which a Roman Catholic had, under the direc-
tion of his Ecclesiastical Adviser, taken the Oath-,
of Supremacy in the sense adverted to. It was
the doubt which rendered the explanation gene-
rally valuable to the Catholics. With respect
to the Oath, as it regarded the Protestants, he
could not think that ally explanation was neces-
sary after a practice of 300 years under the old
Oath. lie saw nothing in the Oath of Suprema-
cy to which a conscientious Protestant knight not
submit ; and he therefore should prefer the com-
mon mode in both cases. lie should not, for his
own part, object to a considerable nlodification, so
las to make it suitable to all the subjects of the
realm, if he were not apprehensive that an objec-
tion would be taken to this elsewhere, and that
it might prove an obstacle to the passing of the
Bill. lie considered the two Oaths to mean, in
point of fact, the same thing, and the Protestant
took his Oath with a reservation similar to that
intended on the part of the Catholic. To alter
the• Oath now taken by the Protestant, he was of
opinion,'might cause a grave objection to the Bill
to be taken elsewhere, as it- would be complained
that it altered the oath not merely to qualify
the Catholics to participate in the blessings of the
Constitution, but to diminish the security for al-
legiance which the Protestants had been accus-
tomed to gire.
Mr. CROKER contended that it was impossible
for the old Oath of Supremacy to be made appli-
cable to the two cases.

Dr. PHILLIMORE reminded the House of the
circumstances under which the two oaths had
been introduced. The Right Hon. Gentleman
who brought the subject forward, had, in the
first instance, intended that the same oath should
remain for both parties, but had added an ex-
planation to enable the Catholics to take it. The
objection made to that course had induced him to
propose two oaths. It was now at this late
stage of the Bill complained that this had been
done, though it had been done with a view of
conciliating all parties.
Mr. CANNING did not rise to prolong the con-
versation, but to suggest that as the subject was
to come again before the House" on Monday, they
could gain nothing by a preliminary debate now.
Mr. CHOKER, in explanation said, he had en-
deavoured to avoid prolonging the discussion,
and as it had been complained that he had ob-
jected to the oaths in this late stage of the Bill,
he begged to set himself right, and to remind the
House, that on a former occasion he had said the
arrangement seemed to him a trap for the Protes-
tant's conscience, which he should endeavour to
correct on the first opportunity.
Mr. GOULRUHN thought it right to mention,
that as this subject could not come on again till
after the question on the third reading had
been disposed of, and as a long debate might
take place on the third reading, it would be for
the House to consider whether at a late hour in
the morning it would be well to enter upon it.
Several of the amendments were then read and
agreed to.
Mr. CHOKER submitted to the House that it
might. he better for him to move the amend-
ment be had proposed on the 3d reading that
night. It could then be regarded as .a notice.

Sir J. NEWPORT proposed several- clauses one
of which went to give the Catholics the right of
voting at Parish Vestries. These, after a few
desultory remarks, were agreed to.