The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-17 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1827.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-FEB. 16.

The Earl of Kingston, and Lords Kinnoul, Belhaven, and
Montfort, took the oaths and their seats.

Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented at the Bar an Ae--
count of the quantity of Gold and Silver coined at the Mint dur-
ing the last year.

CATHOLICS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Peti-
tion, praying that their Lordships would grant no further poli-
tical power to the Catholics, from Saint Nicholas, Surrey ;
from Sevenoaks and East Peckham, in Kent ; and from several
other places.
The Earl of KINGSTON presented a petition
from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of two Parishes in the
County of Limerick, praying for a Repeal of the Laws affecting
the Catholics.

1r Lord KING presented similar Petition., from the
Roman Catholics of Athenray, in Ireland ; and the petitioners
contrasted, his Lordship said, the liberality of the Government to.
wards the members of all other religious denominations, with its
illiberality towards the Catholics. His Lordship also prmented a
second petition, to the same effect, from Miltown, in the County
of Kerry.,
-Lord. CLIFDEN rose to present a petition from
the Catholic inhabitants of Liverpool and its neighbourhood,
which was numerously and respectably signed. His Lordship
said ,he would not trouble • their Lordships to hear the petition
read at length, but there was one passage on which he meant to
offer a few observations, and which he would therefore read to,
their Lordships. The passage expressed " the regret and
.indig-
nation •Of the petitioners, that-they were not to be believed on
their oaths when their religion was concerned ; and at. the ewe
time -their fellow-subjects, -of other religious persuasions, placed
the fitilest confidence in their honour and integrity in all the
concerns of life, and complained of the inconsistency of trust-
ing them, and imputing; to their.oaths some hypocritical object,
and accusing them of taking them to promote their own selfish
ends. They professed loyalty, and obedience, and allegiance;
and appealed to their conduct to justify their professions. They
assured their Lordships that they were attached to their coun-
try, • and found pleasure in the glory of Britain, which they
would spend their fortunes and shed their blood to support." It
wasem this passage that Lord Clifden
.said he meant to address
a few observations to their Lordships. He was sorry to know
that- there was yet in the world, and he was afraid, among
their Lordships, an unwillingness to believe their Catholic fel-
low-subjects on their solemn oaths. Two days ago their Lord-
ships had heard read the Declaration of the Catholic Bishops—
as eloquent a Declaration as ever was peened ; and that Decla-
ration solemnly declared the Catholics did not entertain the opi-
nions imputed to them. The English Catholics had made a simi-
lar declaration, and yet there were men found who said, preferring
their own suppositions to these solemn declarations, that they did
not believe them. This was like Dr. Duigenan, who was now
gone; he hoped, to a better world, as bewas.really a good man in
many respects, and friendly to .the Catholics in society,. but who
had frequently declared that he would not believe the Catholics
on their oaths ; and yet what kept the Catholics out of Parlia-
ment? nothing but a respect for oaths. He had reason to believe
that:such assertions had made a considerable impression, in the
highest quarter. Nothing could be more absurd than not to be.
Here such solemn declarations. He wished the Catholics would
take the oaths, for they might say with Hudibrae—
" 'Tis he who makes the oath that breaks it,
Not he who for convenience takes it."
He wished the Roman Catholic Lords who had a right to seats
in that House, would take the oaths ; what a confusion would
take place among their Lordships.—(A laugh.)
" High rose the white wig, from the learned ear,"
was said in the Rolliad, and that would again rise if the Catho-
lic Peers were to take the oaths and their seats. But the Ca-
tholics were too conscientious to take them, and yet they were
not tube believed on their oaths. Year after year. the Catholics ,
made the same declarations, and year after year, we acted,
though we did not always say so, as if we did not believe them.
People went back to the Council of Lateran, or to the acts
of the Popes at the time of the Crusades, when people went to
invade Palestine, some of them choosing n boat and a goose
for their general. The Popes were tyrants then, and made a
number of tyrannical decrees ; which were now stated to be
good reasons for not trusting the Catholics ; and it was asked,
if the Catholics did not now act on these decrees, why did not
the Popes repeal them ? To this he had found a good answer,
he believed, in a pamphlet written by Mr. Spring Rice, which
was well worthy of their Lordships' attention, hut he was dot
sure, and the answer was this: Some years ago, when bank
notes were depreciated, the House of Commons declared, that
a one pound note and a shilling were equal in value to a guinea,
and he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
present in the House; it was now known and admitted, how-
ever, that this declaration was erroneous ; but if any person
was to go 'to the Minister:, and ask them to declare in the
House of. Commons that this declaration was all nonsense, would
they do so? He thought not. They would reply cui bond ? and
would do no such thing ; and the Popes might say the same of
the decrees of former Popes and Councils. The late Pope, who
was very friendly to this country, did grant the Sovereign a
Veto on the appointment of Irish Bishops ; but the Irish
Catholics were so independent of hint that they threw the Veto
overboard. He would repeat, when nothing but a respect toe
oaths kept the Catholics out of Parliament, it was very absurd to
say they did not respect them. This question had now bean
agitated 26 years, and if it had been settled when first agitated,
would now have been forgotten; but had for these twenty-six
years kept Ireland in a continual state of uneasiness and disturb-
auce. Ile hoped to see their Lordships act wiser. His Lordship
cconcludedobl and
by presenting
vicinity,ntinga prayingtitio fornfrotn
relief.the
Catholic Inhabitants
o
The Earl of ROSSLYN and the Duke of DE-
VONSHIRE presented-similar petitions from some places, the
names of which were inaudible below the Bar.

CORN LAWS.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE,o,efragepriceof
W'B. morel
week, in the London
Ac-
count
Markets, from January Ist, 1824, to the per
rpresent time.—Ordered.
for an
Lenharn, Rent; from
thell is
ELordshipthen
Division
o presentedfK en
Kent
Petitionsfr om thnfre:
snitcr, Lincolnshire; and
from several Parishes in the County of Elgin, praying that no al-
teration should be made in the Corn Laws.g th
Lord KING had several petitions to present on
this subject, and lie was aware that subjects of humanity were not
much , attended to—whether the petitions related to black
slaves in the West Indies, or to white slaves in Ir-
land, or to the consumers of Corn in. England, they were sup-
posed to he hostile to the powerful interests of the country, and
Ministers were seldom adverse to those who possessed this power.
His Lordship then presented a petition from Glasgow against the
Corn Laws, signed by 13,000 persons ; a petition from the Bo-
roligh of Preston to the same effect, and similar petitions from
some Parish iu the County of Elgin ; and front the Journeymen
Carpenters and Joiners of Birmingham ; and Cupar Angus, For-
farshire. .

GRANT TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CLARENCE.
The' Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the Order of
the Day for taking his Majesty's Message into consideration. OU
the Message having been read, his. Lordship said it would not be
requisite fur him to take up their Lordships' time, or trouble them
with any observations on the subject. He certainly thought, as
the death of his. Royal Highness the Duke of York had made
a considerable alteration in the situation of the illustrious Prince
who was the subject of the Message, that nd objections could be made
to the Address he meant to propose. Their Lordships must be aware
that the commencement of the proceedings must be made else-
where; but as their Lordships would like to know what was in-
tended, he should inform them. In consequence of the death
of the Doke of York, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cla-
rence would receive 3,000/. per year additional, which fell to
him from a sum secured on the consolidated fund, a like addition
also falling to each of the other surviving Princes of the Royal
Family. It was proposed to give his Royal Highness 3,000/.
more, and to add 6,000/. to the income of her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Clarence, making, on the whole, an addition to the
income of their Royal Highnesses of 12,000/. per annum. Any
Noble Lords who had had access to her Royal Highness, or who
were acquainted with her, or had witnessed her conduct, must

know that she conducted herein' in the most irreproachable and
exemplary manner. The Noble Earl concluded by moving an
Address to his Majesty, assuring him of their Lordships' concur-
rence in his wish to make' such a provision for their Royal
Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Clarence, as circumstances
required.
'The Earl of LAUDERDALE did not rise to op-
pose the Address, but he wished to ask the Noble Earl how it
happened that 3,0001. a year, on the death of the Duke of York,
fell to each of the younger surviving sons of the Royal Family?
The Earl of LIVERPOOL explained, that it was
from a fund secured on the 'CAnnsolidated Fund, with benefit of
survivorship to all the remaining Royal Dukes. It could not ex-
ceed a certain amount to each; He was himself not aware of this
circumstance till the question ielritive to his Royal Highness came
under his consideration; it habeen then mentioned, and referred
to high authority, and there veaWno doubt tat his Royal High-
ness had a claim to. 3,0001.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE inquired if the
Noble Earl could inform him by what Act of Parliament this ar-
rangement was made?
The Earl of LIVERPOOL replied in the negative.
The motion for the Address was then put, and carried unani-
rnotisly.—Adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,' i!EB. 16.
Nir. MASSEY DAWSON presented a petition
from the Millers .of Clonmel and its vicinity, againit the importa-
tion of roreign Flour.

spectability of many of those who signed it, 'was, in his estima-
tion, one of the most important with reference to the Irish
Catholics, that had as yet been presented. The, petitioners com-
plained of the powers given_by the Act to the Parish Vestries to
tax the several parishes for the building and reps*: of Churches to
any amount, at their discretion ; whereas; that burden ought
properly to fall on the Church property--especiapy as the Church
of Ireland was the richest, and the people of Ireland the poorest in
the world. It was deserving of the most seritins consideration,
that the vast majority of the population of these parishes were Ro-
man Catholics, who must feel it
.particularlyAgalling to be. thus
taxed for the building and repairing of the Churches of an estab-
lishment of which they were not Members. . •
Mr. GOULBURN said that he did not feel him-
self called upon to enter into the subject -Merely on occasion of
presenting a petition. • lie must -content .himself 'with denying
that the petitioners were aggrieved by the act in question. If any
one thought he might make a motion, founded on the allegations
of the petition, for the repeal of that Bill, then he would-he ready
to show that the Act, instead of adding to, had greatly diminished
many of the previously existing• grievance*.
Mr. GRATTAN stated that, under the Act, the
Vestry, consisting, perhaps, of only four• or fire Protestants,
had the power to assess the whole parish, for the building and
repairing of the Church, these four or five persons being, pro-
' hably, In their character of artificers, lima/211y interested in
making the assessment- as high as possible. The Bill was cer-
tainly one of the most important of its kind that ever was brought
before• the House. The subject of these Vestries had been agi-
tated in the House for three or four years, by the Hon. Baronet
below (Sir J. Newport). What ! had the )light Hon. Gentle-
man opened the Vestries? No such thing. lie only made the
matter, .in some respects, worse than before.
Sir J. NEWPORT admitted that this was not the
most proper occasion for entering on the .subject. But, as he
had been alluded to, he would trouble the House with a few
words. He had moved for Returns from these Vestriei; which
proved that the powers vested in them had been most grossly
abused, and he readily admitted that the Act in question, subse-
quently. Passed; had removed several causes of complaint, although
it was far from being an efficient and a complete remedy. It still
gave too great a power to the Vestries, and the taxes which they
were enabled to levy on the Dissenters from the Church were
grossly unjust. The revenues of these Churches, when they came
into the hands of the present Establishment, were chargeable
with the repair of the churches; and, since the hierarchy chose
to suffer them to fall into decay, it was incumbent on them to re-
build and to repair, without throwing that burthen on the public,
especially on the Catholic population. The Act, however, had
done something towards remedying abuses, and it was capable of
alteration, so as to do more good. But it was certain that, as
matters stood at present, two, or three, or four Protestants, might
exercise the powers of the Act to an enormous extent, in favour
of their own particular interests. It Wall a gross injustice to
throw on the Catholics the burthen of rebuilding and repairing
the churches of the Protestant Establishment.

After a few words froai Mr. HUME, the petition was brought
up, laid on the Table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME then presented a petition from the
Seamen of the Port of Sonth Shields, in the county of Durham,
against the present system of the Corn Laws.