Star.
London, England, 1808-05-26 00:00:00

PARLIAMEIVTARr PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 25.
110XECEGH CLAIM. •

The Hon. Henry Erskine was heard in continuation. To be
heard again on Saturday next.
On the motion of Lord STANHOPE, the third reading of the
Indictment Bill was postponed till Monday next.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, it was ordered
that the parties should be heard in support of their claim to the
Banbury Peerage.
Lord SUFFOLK, seeing the Noble Secretary• (Lord Hawk's-
burr in his place, begged leave to repeat his question, namely,
whether any account would be•gtvest by Ministers respecting the
application of the Droits of the Admiralty ?
, Lord HAWKESBURY replied, that the Droits of the Admi-
ralty belonged to the King, and of course that his Majesty might
dispose of then*,ip any manner he pleased.
The Amend Tates'All passed through the Committee and
was reported. •

• / RLAND'S DIVORCE RILL.
Two witnesses, oe each side one, having been examined,
Mr. lVfontatue argued at some length against the Bill, and was
followed by Mr. Harrison for it, after which, further proceeding
was postponed till Monday neat. ,
Several private Bills, which were broUght up from the Coln-
mats, being read, the Houle adjotirned to Friday neat.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The following Members were chosen by ballot to try the merits
of the Petition of Charles Morgan, En. complaining of an undue
liectlon for the Borough of Sandwich
Viscount Stopfurd G. H. Rochfort, Esq.
Hon. John Meed Hon. A. Foley
Earl ltleaborough E. W. Mundy, Esq.
Lord Gower Robert Grey, Esq.
W. Shipley, Fsq. C. M. Sutton, Esq.
Right Hon. T. Crenville Sir C. Morgan
Sir G. Bowyer, Bart.
NOMINEXS..
R. M. Phillips. Sir William Elford.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY brought in his Bill for limiting the
number of capital punishments, which was read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second rime on Friday.
Ordered, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, that the Bill for the better Collection of the Assessed
Taxes be printed.
Ordered, nr. the motion of Sir THOMAS TURTON, that Mr.
Pahnor's Annuity Bill be read a second time on Friday.
An Account, pursuant to order, was presented, of the per ven-
tage of two and a half per cent. of the sum received at the Post
Office, over and above 240,0001. per annum, which was ordered

to be printed.
Sir THOMAS FURTON gave notice that he would mike a
motion on the subject in the Committee of Supply.
'{'he Duchess of Brunbwick's Annuity Bill was reported by Mr.
Wharton, and was ordered ►o be read a third time to-morrow.

WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT adverted to the sett
versation which occurred on a former night .in the
House of Commons, respecting the verdict given
against him in the Court of King's Bench, in which
the High Bailiff of Westminster was plaintiff. The
proceedings, he observed, had now arrived at that
stage when, he was informed from high authority,
that he might, with propriety, submit the subject to
the consideration of the House, if he conceived it a
breach of privilege. He felt no sort of interest in the
hnsiness, but thought it a matter worthy of the serious
consideration of the House, if they conceived that it
infringed the privileges of Parliament. He was no-
minated a candidate for the city of Westminster at
the last general election, without his knowledge of
gonsent. He was returned and took his seat accord-
ingly, which he could not refuse without incurring the
displeasiire of the House, and he was therefore, by a
charge of the Chief justice of the Court of King's
Bench, held liable to the expences incurred at the
election, though without his knowledge or consent in
becoming a candidate. The House would consider
the fact, and determine, if it thought fit, whether in
such case its privileges were violated or not.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOT apbserved, that it was 'ne-
cessary before the House proceeded, that it should be
put in possession of the fact.
Sir FRANCIS said, an execution had been put in
his house for the expences attending the erection of
the hustings, in consequence of the action brought for
the same in the Court of King's Bench.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
said, that to bring. the matter forward on the grounds
of a breach of privilege, the business must come in
some tangible shape before the House. if the Coun-
• sal of the Honourable Baronet had takcn a Bill of Er.
ceptions, or had brought a Writ of Error, then the'
record might be laid before the House, on which oc-'
casion it could deliberate whether its privileges were
violated or not? On the contrary, the Counsel of the
Honourable Baronet moved for a new trial, and the
rule was refused, and consequently there was no pro-
ceeding of which the House could take cognizance
on the subject.
Sir ARTHUR PIGOT said, he was consulted by
the Hon. Baronet on the subject, and bestowed on it
much attention; but agreed with his Right Hon. Friend
who spoke last, with respect,to the conduct that ought
to have been pursued.
Mr. TIERNEY observed, that a more upright
Judge, nor one of greater integrity, never presided
in the Court of King's Bench than the present Chicf
Justice, but like other men he may be fallible, and
the privileges of the House ought to he maintained,
which may be done in the present case, without im-
plicating the character of his Lordship, as he did not
belive that there was any man who would be less in.
dined to violate the privileges of Parliament. The
business was entitled to the consideration of the House,
and ought to be investigated.
Mr. LEYCESTER agreed with what had fallen
from his Learned Friends, and observed, that before
the House entertained the business, it was necessary
.to spew that the Judge had charged the Jury; that the
Hon. Baronet was liable to the expellees incurred be-
' cause he had taken his seat.
Mr. BATHURST bestowed a panegyric on the
integrity of the Noble Lord who presided in the
.Court of King's Bench, and observed, that as the
business stood at present it was impossible for the
House to entertain any proposition on the subject.
Mr. SPEAKER referred to what had occurred on
a former night. He did not then presume to direct
the Honourable Baronet, but observed, when any
practical consequence ensued, then he conceived that
, it was his duty to make a complaint to the House, if
he thought its privileges had been violated or infring-
• ed. In such case the rule to be pursued was to move
for a Committee to consider the subject, who, if they
. thought it not worthy to be entertained, would either
. proceed or not, as was the case in the complaints
made against certain Judges in the reign of Charles 11.
• Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said his sources of in-
formation were from the report of his Counsel, and
-Cunt the notes of a short-hand writer. The Learned
it:,lge from these it appeared said, he was liable to

the claim becattse he had talc•th is seat. This was)
the only point connected with: at privileges. of the I
House, because he would ha 4e violated these W
he
did not take his seat, and he was nominated as a Can-,
didate for Westminster without his knowledge or
consent. He therefore, having discharged his duty,
left it to the House to determine what line of conduct
it would pursue.
- - -

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The following petitions in favour of Catholic Emancipatio

were presented.:
From the Cob°lies of the County of Wexford, by Mr. She-
ridan.
From the County of Waterford, by Sir Joh" Newport.
From the County of Kilkenny, by Yr. Butler.
From the County of Kerry, by Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald.
And a Counter Petition from the Corporation of Dublin, by

Mr. Shaw.
Mr. GRATTAN moved, that the petition which
he presented from the Roman Catholics of Ireland be
now read. The petition having been read at length.
He began with observing, that not only that pe-.
tition, but several others on the table, spoke the sense
of the Irish Catholics. The petitioners formed a very
considerable portion of the electors of Ireland ; they
possessed a great share of political power, and they
-applied through the constitutional organ for a legal
eject. It was his most anxious wish that this goes-,
don should be discussed in a spirit of concord ; that
nothing should be introduced into the debate which i
could possibly tend to sharpen the public mind. To
conciliate not to provoke, was his object. He wished
to approximate those of his countrymen who differed
from each other, not to widen the separation. He
deprecated all religious and political animosity. He
recommended the balm of oblivion ; that the battle
of the Boyne, and the rebellion in 1745 should be for-
gotten ; and that there should be no allusion to those
scenes where parties contended against each other....-
If one side went back, the other would do so too.—
The Catholics would endeavour to make good their,
case. So there would be historian against historian.
and man of blood against man of blood. Each party
would be unreconciled and irreconcileable, and the
victory would remain with the enemy of both. Thisi
was what no friend to the empire could wish. Both
nations had something to admire, and much to for-
get, in each other ; and whatever difference there was
in the law, there should be none in disposition. • The
good sense of both countries, he trusted, would sup-
ply this defect of the law. It was, therefore, with re-
gret that he saw certain idle words (No Popery)
scribbled upon their walls. It was upon these prin-
ciples he lamented the petitions which had been pre-
sented, not indeed on the present but on former occa-
sions, against the claims of the Catholics ; that he saw
persons flying from the shadow of Popery, and falling
into the gulph of bigotry, intolerance, and persecu-
tion. This was fortunately not the case now. He
saw,-and he saw with satisfaction, the Catholics esta-
blished in Canada. He saw Government conducting
the Portuguese to South America, and establishin •
the Catholic religion there. He saw alliances form
with Austria and other Catholic States, from which
he must infer that whatever internal mischief might
be apprehended from a Catholic establishment, there
was no external danger to be feared. This would be
something towards his argument ; for he trusted, be-
-fore he sat down. he should be able to shew the
House, that the internal danger was small indeed.—
The petition prayed for admission into the state and
to the privilege of seats in that House. The Act of
the 33d of the King gave the Catholics admission to
political power; it admitted them to the constituency,
and rendered tem eligible to all offices, with a few
exceptions. The removal of these exceptions, and the
power of legislation, were alone wanting, to place
them upon a level with the rest of their countrymen.
Those who oppose,the claims of the Catholics object,
the first place, that they acknowledge the tempo-
ral power of a foreign Prince, and recognize in him
the capacity to depose the Sovereign, which the Con-
stitution has given them. These were the objections
of some of the mildest among their antagonists.--
Others, in the violence of their zeal and intolerance,
represent the Catholics as men execrable, and ren-
dered execrable by their religion. Now as to the
first objection, he should appeal to the unanimous de-
cision of the seven principal Catholic Universities in
Europe. Their opinion had been asked on the sub-
ject, and they unanimously declared, that it was not
a tenet of the Catholic religion that the Pope posses-
sed temporal power out of his own Idominions ; that
it was not a tenet of the Catholic religion that he had
a right to depose Sovereigns ; and that it was not one
of their tenets that they- should hold no faith with he-
retics. They observed upon all these imputations
with great moral indignation, and they condemned
and stigmatized such tenets. Such were the opinions
of the great Doctors of the Catholic Church. There
were documents equally strong on the part of the Ca-
tholic laity of Ireland. These were the various oaths
imposed upon them, particularly those by the 13t11
and 14th of the King. They disclaimed the infalli•
bility of the Pope ; they denied that it was any past
of their religion, to believe that he was infallible, and
they renounced all claims which they might have
upon property. From all these, he would contend that
there was no moral incompatibility between, the two
religions. But, say the opponents of the Catholics,
there is a political incompatibility; if transubstantia.
tion and the celebration of the mass were in any degree
connected with an adherence to the House of Hanover.
—lt was the policy of all nations but this to admit
persons of every religious description into the service
of the State. It was the practice in France, before
the revolution. In America,,it had long prevailed.
During the war which terminated in the independence
of that country, the American Catholic was seen
fighting by the side of the American Protestant, and
both in unity with France, of which the religion was
Catholic. England was at present without one ally
in the world but Sweden—the Protestant religion did
not supply us with one, and would they then give up
the only ally which they had at home ? The objection
therefore, on the score of political incompatibility,
was as absurd as the argument in support of a moral
incompatibility. But it was said the religion was to
be considered as symbolical of the political sentiment.
-To this he would answer, that society had no right t
impose an arbitrary test, and that the religious tenet
was not to be considered -as evidence of foreign at-
tachment. But even if it were, it could not• be made
available in this case, for the object of it had ceased.
The power of the Pope was now a name only—his.
authority, but a shadow. They were abjured, .not
only in alt temporal, but in all mixed cases. The

Catholics were charged with denying the right of' the
es led Clergy to tythes—theyewere charged with
1,-clrithhahvg them for themselves. They were charg
wed
csgp" ying a legal existence to the established
Church—they were accused with a design to make
their own the religion-of the State. Now, against all
these charges, they have protested in the most solemn
'public manner. They renounce, in the most unglue-
fified manner, the temporal power of the Pope, and
they explain the extent of the spiritualauthority which
they recognize in him. With respect to their Bi-
shops, they say the Pope only institutes, and gives a
spiritual capacity, and that they nomivate. But if
this should be thought dangerous, he was authorized
to make a proposition which must remove the possi-
bility of any apprehension respecting the abuse of
such a power. The Catholic Clergy were willing
that his Majesty should exercise a negative upon the
affirmative of their Bishops, so that no person could
be elevated to that rank without the previous appro-
bation of the Sovereign. If, therefore, there was any
truth in the assertion that Bonaparte influenced the
Pope—that the Pope influenced the Clergy---that the
Clergy influenced the People, and that by means of
this gradation of influence a great part of the army.
and navy was devoted to Bonaparte, here was an op-
portunity to get rid of all this influence, and the dan-
ger resulting from it. He had so far argued the
question upon general principles : he would next
consider it as applying to Great Britain and Ireland.
It was said that the object of the petition was opposed
to the principles of the revolution. It was said that
it was hostile to the Declaration of Rights. By the
fundamental laws of this country, the (...a.tholies form
a part of the Constituent body. If they looked to the
Constitution, they must agree with the petitioners ; if.
to the principles of the Revolution or the Declaration
of Rights, they must agree with them ; and if they
looked to the duration of the Constitution, they must
agree with them, because whenever danger should
arise, where were they to look for assistance and sup-
port, but to the petitioners ? But it was said that this
principle of exclusion would guard Church and State.
GOD grant it might. The anomaly of a Protestant
King with Catholic Councils was urged against the
claim expressed in the petition. He could see no
anomaly in the case, nor could he perceive any danger
in the practice. The Councils of Henry the Fourth
of France were guided by Sully, and Turenne headed
the armies of Louis XIV. Neither of these servants
was of the religion of their Sovereign, yet their set--'
vices were not less acceptable or meritorious on that
account. But the argument upon which the greatest
reliance was placed was this. It is said that if the
Catholics are admitted to the privileges of legislation,
they would endeavour to establish their own religion.
But how were they to establish it ? Circumstanced as
property was, was there any likelihood that the Ca-
tholics would become the majority of that House—
and if they were not, how were they to pull down the
, Protestant establishment, and erect their own in its
place To hear some of the opponente of the Ca-
tholics, one would suppose that they were a race is-
capable of any virtue, and capable ofeirery vice. He
entirely agreed that the two Churches should be be-
parate, and that the Catholics should pay their own
Church. This was not the way, however, in which
Icasuists considered the question. They looked to the
' dominant religion merely as a profitable establish-
ment, which they endeavoured to support by pains
and penalties, and thus converted the principle of the
Revolution, which should be a blessing to the empire,
into au instrument of oppression and intolerance.—
These persons always painted the Catholic ns a being
incapable of being conciliated—as unworthy of all
trust and confidence. It was also said that if the Ca-
tholics should acquire the political privileges they
sought, they would in the course of time begin to
think of resumption of property.. He did not be-
lieve they would. A great part of the property of
Ireland was already in the hands of the Catholics
So far from possessing only a sixtieth part of it, he
could name one Catholic who would inherit near
£70,000 a year. But the possessors of those estates
from which the ancestors of the Catholics had been
driven entertained no such apprehensions. There
were nine counties in which resolutions of the Pro-
testants in their favour took place. They dis-
claimed any apprehension of danger, and recommen-
ded that they should be admitted to the full privileges
of the Constitution. They deprecated the monopoly
of legislation. They invite -you to do—what ?To
provide for the security of Ireland, and of England
too : to give a greater strength to the empire' than it
can derive from the Local Militia, or from the Pa-
rish Bill, or from any other measure of the kind. It is
said, the oath of the King is incompatible with the
admission of the Catholics. Their enemies first con-
demn the religion of the Catholics, and next apply to
the piety of the Sovereign. The King, he would ad-
mit,was sworn to maintain thc Constitution in Church
and State, but he was not sworn to the eternal
maintenance of the penal laws. He was sworn as to
his executive, but noeas to his legislative capacity.—
When Henry VIII. assented to the Reformation, he
departed from his oath. So did Elizabeth. So did
his present Majesty when he gave his consent to the
Quebec Act—when he admitted the Catholic to the
right of inheritance in 1782—when he admitted him
to the professions in 1791—when he admitted lair to
the constituency in 1793—50 that, according to the
mode of reasoning employed by the opponents of the
Catholic, all the best and most gracious acts of his
Majesty's reign were but a succession of perjuries.—
This was to make the rights of the Church the wrongs
of the People. This was to make the Church a cone_
federacy against the .People, and what was worse, to
make the King a party to it. The King was sworn
to maintain the Protestant religion ; but his Majesty
was not debarred by his oath from concurring with
Parliament. He was not debarred by his oath from
uniting all the strength, and power, and heart of the
empire, in support of a Protestant King and a Protes-
tant Establishment.
Having thus stated the principal objections to- the
measure, he would endeavour to be as short as possi-
ble in what he had to urge in support. of it. He
thought he had 'sheens there was no moral incornpa-
4hilitragainst the.chtim of the Catholic, and that the
poliiical dangers were visionary and unfounded. He
trusted he had tprosied that the Constitution of the
country did not 'eland in the way of the Catholic,
whether it Weis considered previous or subsequent to
the Revolution. The state of Ireland required that
the full benefit of the one-itution should be cemmu-
ideates' to the catholic,- and it.was most imperiously