The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-08 00:00:00

le*l elustry existed no longer ; why, then, should not
4tves which-vide 'liaised Witlire4rence to them be re
pealed? Of all the observations which he had heard,
nth respect to the measure before the House, those which
fsg,:frern the Primate of Ireland made the greatest im-
4L_Prieeisn upon his mind. It was impossible not to admire
P4ignified eloquence with which the Right Reverend
'Mate besought their Lordships not to deliver the Church
qWhich he was the head into the hands of her enemies.
iesr-i—He, however, thought that the apprehensions of
the Right Reverend Prelate were groundless ; so long as the
two countries remained united, so long would the two
eillarckes indiss)lubly bound together. He might apply
the union of the Churches the words of a familiar
rl)eal. We had taken her "to have and to hold from
t4l, day furivard, for better for worse, for richer for poorer,
'A sickness and in health, to love and to cherish until
death do us part."—(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of LINCOLN and the Bishop of BRISTOL ad-
dresseil the House, but in so low a tone as to be quite in-
audible.

acknowledge the King's Supremacy. That principle had
been acknowledged since the days of our Saxon ancestors in
Edward the Conferee), 's Lei o, red he svaidd never consent
to see it abandoned. lle could fait do it —l,e would not do it.
Those who thought differently might act as honestly as he was
endeavouring to dO ; but he could net folloic their course.
It was in vain that Olen praised the exec lence of the
Established Church and the purity of its doctrines, and
to argue that that excellence and purity would alone main-
tain it as it now stood. If the members of the Protestant
Church admit that they do not acknowledge the supra•
ruicy of the Crown, it is not the manifestation of that
purity, nor that consistency of conduct, which they
always preserved.—(Laughter.)—That would insure them
the respect of the subjects—he would say the injured sub •
jects of this country..—(Cheers.)—lf they denied to him
that the voice of the country was raised against this mea-
sure more titan it had ever been before on any other oc-
casion, yet he should feel that all their purity and excel-
lence would not avert the effects that might be expected
from difference of religious opinion, nor take away from
their adversaries the appetite for tithes and glebe lands,
because they are the means of supporting an Established
Church.—(Hear, hear.)--He asked their Lordships
whether they slid not expect that from this tinse there
would cease in the minds of the great mass of the people
all that veneration for the Established Church which they
had formerly possessed—(hear, hear)—when they found
that the clergy treated this purely as a political subject, as
others did also as a purely religious subject? He main-
tained that it ought to be regarded as both. In a politi-
cal view of it, be had hitherto supported the laws for the
exclusion of the Roman Catholics, because he considered
them essential to the existence of civil and religious liberty;
and not merely were they so declared in all the Acts of
Parliament to be a perpetual security for the civil and reli-
gious liberties of his fellow-subjects, but also, he believed
they had had the effect hitherto of producing in the minds
of Englishmen those moral and religious feelings which had
distinguished them above all the nations on the earth, and
made them the patterns of moral and religious conduct to the
whole Protestant world. This objection did not goso far as
to exclude the Roman Catholics from all offices ; for he
did not object to place them in such political offices as
would introduce them to seats in Parliament, and entitle
them to be entrusted with the discharge of the duties of
the• highest offices in the executive departments of the
State. He confined himself to that extent; but this clause
threw open every office to the Roman Catholics with a
few exceptions. It was said that it was quite impossible
to describe the offices that might entitle persons to become
Cabinet Ministers, and therefore that all precautions of
that character were useless, He knew that Cabinets might
be composed of individuals, part of whom were united in
one opinion, and disagreed with the rest who were united
in another opinion. He knew that very well Thy expe-
rience, and he had seen how most wonderfully some Mini-
sters were converted to opinions directly opposite to those
they formerly held.—(Laughter.)—Yet still he thought
that he could apply an exception even to such persons as
these.—(Hear, hear.)—He desired to know whether, if
these two little words—" Privy Councillors," were made
part of the exceptions, they would not be effectual? He
felt that he should be acting improperly if he went through
all the clauses which he could better consider, and would
amply discuss, on the third reading, when he should be
ready to offer some arguments to their Lordships to which
he should beg their particular attention. He knew the
zeal and ability of the Noble and Learned Lord on the
Woolsack, and lie had no objection to confess, that some-
thing, not very comfortable to him—he meant a teasing
gout, would induce him to escape from the fatigue of
entering more fully into the question at that time ; but
if, on the third reading, he should be able to attend, lie
would go much more largely than he ought to da when
merely discussing the clauses, inasmuch as the observa-
tions would apply to other clauses not before their Lord-
ships. On the third reading, he could state his objections
at once to the principle and to all the parts of the
Bill. There was one point to which, before he concluded,
he desired to call the cousideration of the Noble and
Learned Lord on the woolsack, and of all the rest of their
Lordships, including the Noble and Learned Lord (Plun-
kett), on the Treasury Benches, and other Noble Lords,
his Noble Friends, as well as those Noble Lords who were
opposed to him. It related to James 11. One of the cir-
cumstances which, in the judgment of the people of this
country, had rendered him so odious that he was obliged
to leave it, was the liberty he took with the charters. He
(Lord Eldon) wished to know whether it was the inten-
tion of this Bill that all the charters of corporate bodies,
which the corporators were required, and had for years
and years been required, when admitted to corporate of-
fices, to take the oaths and declarations, to be repealed by
this Biil? He meant to ask, did their Lordships intend
to tear off the seals from these charters, and allow the
constitution of such corporations to be violated? In
future clauses of the Bill there were many exceptions for
some corporate bodies, but there were many who would be
placed, by the Bill, in the strange situation he had de-
scribed.

Lord KENYON felt so strongly on the subject of the
"Mau Catholic question, that he begged to be allowed
!:4,deliver his sentiments on this occasion. He thought
Lest the measure now proposed might, on the grounds
Which the Noble Duke had stated, just as well have been
ictrodueed2s years ago, and in many respects with much
Sreater advatutage.—(Hear, hear.)—He did not think that
it nweasute would produce tranquillity in Ireland, and he
Was sure it would create disaffection in this country. The
Noble Duke had said that it was impossible to put down
rpe Catholic Association unless by this measure. He (Lord
yon) thought the Government and preceding Govern-
-2el.lts were to blame for not exerting their strength to put
Association down, and they had no right now to make
tbeir own error an excuse fur committing a breach upon
the Conatitution.—(llear, hear.)—What advantage would
:f‘e.6,000,000 of the Roman Catholics derive from Catho-
lic Emiuicipation ') Their Lordships
knew that the Catho-
lic* had other object's than emancipation in view, and they
Tg_ W9uld ,be satisfied until they gained their ends.
hose who
. had asserted that the King's coronation oath
would
be touched by the present measure had been called
.th,t4ou to prove their assertion. He was one of those who
ought that an oath was an obligation so solemn that it
trld not be relaxed from considerations of mere expe-
IneY ; 'and if his Majesty should give his consent to a
Leasure by which a power would be introduced into Par-
"anent, the natural disposition of which would be to dis-
441ible his Majesty from fulfilling the terms of his corona-
li2ll oath, he should like to know how his Majesty could
1111 c that assent without infringing his oath ? A distinc-
• *'en had been made between the legislative and executive
Pacify of the King, but he conceived that his Majesty in
veth those capacities was bound to preserve the Protestant
establishments of this country inviolate.—(Hear.)
The question that the House resolve itself into a Com-
ttecs was then put and carried without a dissentient
YOjec

Lord REDESDALE stated, that if any thing could re-
- "Atilt his mind to the present measure, it would be the
consideration that the Government would acquire some
e°, 4troul over the Roman Catholic church, by means of
the introduction of persons professing the Roman Catholic
'44 into, Parliament. Those individuals would be, in
I°l4o degree, under the influence of Government, which
Would by those means have some controul over the Roman
Catholic church. There was one amendment he should
like to see introduced into the Bill. By the Bill as it now
stood, all the Privy Councillors of the King might be
Catholic, with the exception of the Noble and Learned
Lord on the woolsack. What he wished was, to have
the tlception extended.
The consideration of the preamble of the Bill was post-

. Lord FARNHAM was of opinion that it involved the
general principle of the Bill. He could not enter at length
'ot° the qnestion of the Oaths adopted at the time of the
Revolution of 1688 ; but this he knew, that all the ef-
. f9llll of the Revolution were to establish a Protestant Go-
' tersnaent, and to exclude Papists from offices, and from
the Legislature. The question was, did or did not the
Present measure interfere with the protection thus afforded
le the Protestant Church at the period of the Revolution.
:.111 his opinion it invalidated that protection, and threat-
''oiled the. Establishment with peat danger. The tran-
.Wility of Ireland, he was confident, would not be pro-
' 4loted by this Bill, because it was accompanied by another
measure offensive to the party whose agitation had caused
'''the King's Ministers, and the two Houses of Parliament,
-19 yield .the Relief Bill. He was opposed to the principle
'(this Bill ; but he thought his Majesty's Government
done right by not delaying it ; and in going to the full
lztent of concession he thought also they were right ;
Ikt as he considered it wrong in principle he therefore
Would oppose it to the utmost.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, the Noble
.14011 bad misrepresented him ; but he had said that he
hoped that hereafter there would be an arrangement, such
.5 would connect the Catholic Clergy with the Govern-
ment,. aemew hat as the Presbyterian Clergy were pro-
. !tided for by the Regium Donum. It was desirable for
5 tranquillity of Ireland that some measure of this kind
be adopted, and he trusted his Majesty would be
advised to put the.Catholie Clergy on the same footing as
the Presbyterians. •
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL stated that the Presby-
terians had entered into an agreement with the Govern-
. Meat to surrender their right to the tithes for a certain
sum, for ten years • after that period had elapsed, and
tatt*rlY, in lieu of die legal claim, the Regium Donum

The Bishop of LANDAFF remarked, that as to the
Oath of Supremacy, if he departed from it by allowing
Roman Catholics to seat themselves in Parliament the
whole amount of the argument was this—that he, in
taking that oath, denied the spiritual supremacy of any
foreign Power; nor did he admit it by allowing another
fellow-subject, who would not deny the Pope's spiritual
authority, to sit with him in Parliament. To maintain
that in so doing he departed from his oath, was the most
extraordinary doctrine he had ever heard urged in his life.
—(Cheers.)
The Earl of ELDON said, all the Members of that
House, the Right Rev. Prelates amongst them, had taken
the same oaths; they had all sworn that "no Foreign
Prince, Potentate, or Prolate, had any jurisdiction, pre-
eminence, or authority within this realm, civil, temporal,
ecclesiastical, or spiritual ;" and they had gone further, and
sworn that no Foreign Prince or Prelate ought to have
any authority or jurisdiction, temporal or spiritual, within
this realm. How could he keep this oath, which he had
repeated forty times in his life, if be agreed to admit Ro-
man Catholics to political power, who acknowledged the
spiritual authority of the Pope?
The Bishop of LANDAFF said, that one word the
Noble and Learned Lord had himself urged was an answer
to his own objection. The Noble and Learned Lord saw
no objection to the admission of the Roman Catholics to
certain offices, without marking the exact line which he
would draw. How could the Noble and Learned Lord,
with the regard he professed for the oaths he had taken,
give up the principle so easily, and make it a question of
degree merely.—•(Cheers) ?—lf we could admit them
to a certain extent with safety, it was only then a ques-
tion of degree to decide how far they should come.—
(Cheers. )
The Bishop of OXFORD.—The Noble and Learned
Lord has represented me by words, literally, precisely, awl
fairly construed, to have described the professors of the
Roman Catholic religion as idolatrous. I do not admit
that they are idolatore, when I admit that there are some
practices in the ceremonies of their religion which are idola-
trous.—( Hear. )—I agree that every idolator must be guilty
of idolatry before his God. Ido not believe the Roman Ca-
tholics are so ; and I will not asperse those from whom I differ.
The Noble and Learned Lord has stated, and repeated
several times, that I imputed idolatry to the Catholic re-
ligion, and he has stated this in a manner that I believe
neither the rules of this House, nor the common courtesy
of life, allow me to characterise as it deserves. I say
again, that the invocation of saints is idolatrous—that the
sacrifice of the mass is idolatrous—but I do not say that
the whole of the Roman Catholic religion is idolatry. I
am nut so young as to take my Protestantism from the
Noble and Learned Lord ; and I am not now to learn what
are the differences between the Roman Catholic and the
Protestant Churches. I have now done with the Noble
and Learned Lord's remarks on the churches and on the
idolatry ; and I pass to what he says concerning the oath.
If I understood the Noble and Learned Lord right, he
stated that the oath of supremacy denies also all regal and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all political power, to any
power is these realms, than that of the sovereign, and
that we cannot allow the Catholics to have offices without
a ♦iolation of our oath. Has the Noble and Learned Lord
then forgotten the Irish Act of 1777, the English Act of
1778, the English Act of 1791, awl the Scotch Act of
1793, by which Papists are required by law to deny, as a
necessary condition of holding office, that the Pope has
any temporal power in these realms, while the English
Protestants, on taking office, are called on to deny the
ecclesiastical authority of the Pope ? By , these different
.Acts, tile Papists are to take one oath, and the Protes-
tants another. If I beard the Noble and Learned Lord
right, he asserted that we were now, for the first time,
about tcesadmit the Catholics to hold office. This is to
me quite unintelligible unless there be some Parliamentary
meaning attached to an oath that I never heard out of
Parliament. If that be not the case the conclusion of the
Noble and Learned Lord is to me quite unintelligible.—
When I filled that chair of Regius Professor, to which he
has alluded, had any of my pupils drawn such a conclusion
I should have thought that they had rejected logic from
their studiee.---( Hear and a leugh ; Order ! Question !)

Wee uabstituted. The Catholic Clergy had no right or
title equal to this. Besides, the Roman Catholics, in his
Opinion, taught false doctrines, while there was very little
difference between the doctrines taught by the Presbyte-
rians and the Church of England.
The Earl of ELDON said, that unless he too had
silenced his opinion, it was impossible for him to address
the House to any effect, as he could only repeat his objec-
tion* to this Roman Catholic Relief Bill. No man could
bake.the oaths their Lordships had taken, and account for
it satisfactorily to his own mind, if he voted for this Bill,
aesording.to his (Lord Eldon's) view of the oaths. He
begged flair Lordships to recollect that the Great Lord
Chatham had expressly stated that " Parliament had as
•• good a right to repeal the Bill of Rights as the statute re-
quiring the Oath of Supremacy." But by this Bill the
. Protestant was still required to take it, while the Roman
'Catholic was relieved from those declarations against tran-
,, eubsta.ntiation, and the sacrament of mass, and other parts
Of the Roman Catholic religion, which bad hitherto been
called idolatrous. It was surprising to him, that ever
titleo the statute of Charles the Second was passed, it had
11'4 littered into the consideration of any man whether it
'W5 Within the power of Parliament to alter this oath.—
• liut he found he should get into a discussion on the prin-
.eiple of the Bill if he went any further into that topic ;
but he must say, that when he recollected that every
of the Church of England, front the moment of the
Passing of that Act to the day on which he spoke, or at
least to three or four days ago—(a laugh)—had solemnly
declared that certain ceremonies of the Roman Catholics
Were, as they were stated to be in the declaration,
~iclolatrous, he thought that the Roman Catholic
religion itself was neither more nor less than idolatry.
---(Cheers and laughter.)—But there was a Right Rev.
Prelate who held, the other evening, that the professors of
jj that religion were not at all idolatrous, though every
Bishop of the Church of England had declared, in this
Rouse, since the time of Charles 11., that religion to be
.-.idolatrous. Some of their Lordships were not aware of
„;•' this consideration, when they talked without reference to
c4.tbe principle of this Bill, and said that only five or six
Oman Catholic Peers would be admitted by its coming
jilt° operation. They only looked at the circumstance of
there being a few or large number of Roman Catholic
Members admitted into that House or the House of Corn-
teens.. It had also been said that the Oath of Supremacy
• leas a false declaration, if it imputed idolatry to the Ro-
uian Catholic religion. After all they seemed to see people
aserely as Protestant persons and Roman Catholic persons,
Said the Members of the Legislature merely as Protestant
llembers of the Houses of Lords or Commons. But he

Could not tell what the feelings of that man must be who
%hid hare gone into that House and see his Majesty on the
Throne, and the Lord Chancellor on Ids knees, calling on
lig Majesty, as he wits bound to do, if he had not ahead),
done t,o at the Coronation, to make.and subscribe that De-
• ?!!tration, by which the whole of the doctrines of the Ho-
. %an. Catholip religion are declare .1 to be idobtrous, while
the Roman Catholic Pee'rs and Afembc,rs of the House of
Ammons were assembled with the others to hear their reli,

Rion declared idolatrous; and so it would remain after this
Act was passed, if it continued in its present form. The Right
". Prelate also said, and said very truly, in the notion of a
riotestant Bishop, that we were all Members of the Chris-
!aili Church. If the Right Rev. Prelate would allow him,
4e would ask, respectfully, as he wished to do, from his
l'egatd to the Right tev. Prelate's character, whether the
declaration that the Protestant Church of England was a
branch of the Christian Church, and the members of it
'4;ll:Yrs of the Christian Church, had ever been made by
tLe Roman Citholic Church? If that was inserted into
,the, oath to be taken under this till by the Ronan Catho,
. "cos there would be something admitted by them. He
• him while
the favour of the House to think indulgently of
while he said again and again, that having on his oath
';.lsvorn that his Majesty had the Supremacy in this king-
41.°f in all matters ecclesiastical, he could not presume to
4414 others to office or seats in Parliament, who would not

The Earl of ELDON rose amidst some confusion;—
when he coull obtain a hearing he said—l never asserted
tl at the Right Rev. Prelate said that the Roman Catholic
Church was not a Christian Church.—(Hear, hear, and
No, no, Order, order. )—I understood the Right Rev. Pre-
late to say it was idolatrous. Perhaps I may have contra-

dieted the Right Rev. Prelate mor, openly than I ought, '
in the heat of argument, and I apologise. I can only say,
of the allusion which h s been made to the Regius Pro-
fessor of Oxford, I had never any intention of casting any
imputation on the Right Rev. Prelate.-:-(Question.) .1
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Noble and Learned-
Lord has again brought the principle of the Bill under dis-
cussion. I am desirous to confine "myself to the clause
before your Lordships. Your Lordships have now been
occupied with the discussion of the principle of the mea-
sure for four nights; and I feel that I shall best discharge
my duty by directing my attention to the clause now before
us. As to the observations of the Noble and Learned
Lord, that the Church of Rome does not consider the Esta•
blished Church of this country to be a Christian Church—
(" No, no !")—that the Roman Catholic Church of Ire-
land does not consider the Protestant Established Church
of this country as a Christian Church—they astonish me
much. Knowing the exceedingly great industry of the
Noble and Learned Lord, I know he cannot have over-
looked the evidence which has been given before the Com-
mittee of your Lordships, while examining several mem-
bers of the Catholic Church. Recollecting myself that
there were some observations on that subject, I have sent
for the Report of the Committee, and this is what Dr.
Doyle says :—He was asked the opinion of the Established
Church, and he replied—" I look on the Established
Church in Ireland in two lights—as a Christian commu-
nity, and as a corporation, enjoying vast temporal pos-
sessions. As a Christian Church, consisting of a hier-
archy, and professing the doctrines of the Gospel, I respect
it "and esteem it more than any other church of the
Universe separated from the See of Rome."—(Lend and
continued cheers.)—l am astonished that the Noble
Lord can come down to the House, and, relying on its re-
spect for hie great talents and his industry, can so hastily
and unadvisedly make such bold, such incorrect, and such
unwise assertions.—(Loud cheers.) I shall now say a
few words as to what the Noble Lord has said of the Oath
of Supremacy. The Noble and Learned Lord says "he
has taken that Oath forty times, and has sworn that no
foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, bath, or
ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, or superiority, in
these realms ;" and how, he asks, can I take that oath, if
I do admit that there is in the country a body of persons
who acknowledge a foreign supremacy? It is not for me to
to reconcile this—it is for the Noble Lord. The law
stand so. The Roman Catholics do acknowledge, in mat-
ters of faith and conscience, to the spiritual power and
jurisdiction of a foreign Power, and the Noble Lord, there-
fore, takes an oath to what is not the fact.—(Cheers. )
How does the present Bill alter the state of things ? In
1791 the Noble Lord now sitting at the Table (Lord Re-
desilale) brought in a Bill which the Noble and Learned
Lord approved of, and that Bill prescribes the oath to be
taken in the very sense form as the present Bill. The
Noble and Learned Lord will recollect that no Catholic
can now exercise any right of any description—he cannot
hold any office—and subjects himself to the penal laws if
he exercise any office without taking the oath ; and yet the
Noble and Learned Lord can gravely state that the Act, passed
so long ago as 1791, has entirely fallen out of bis recollection.
What does the present Bill do more than give effect and ex-
tension to the principles on which the Catholics have be-
fore been admitted into office? We only extend privileges,
the principle of granting which the Noble and Learned
Lord has acted on. This is the plain statement of the
else, and what the Noble and Learned Lord quoted from
Hales, written with a very different view, has no relation
to the subject, and the opinion of the Noble and Learned
Lord is totally unfounded. If the remark had not been
made by the Noble and Learned Lord, I should say that it
was the assertion of a most extravagant, absurd, and un-
reasonable man.—(Cheers.)—lt would be a waste of your
Lordships' time now to discuss the principles when it has
already been settled. The first clause is the repeal of a
declaration against transubstantiation ; and as your Lord-
ships have agreed to that, with some exceptions, you can
discuss these exceptions when you come to the clauses
which specify them. If the Noble and Learned Lord
should hereafter discuss these exceptions, and should enter
again into the question of the Oath of Supremacy, I shall
extremely ready to meet him.—(Loud cheers. )

The Earl of MOIJNTCASHEL rose amidst cries of
" Question," and said a few words to show that the Ro-
man Catholics were taught to hate the Protestants, and
that the Priests in Italy ret,,arded the Protestant Church
as not a Christian Church. The Bull condemning all
Protestants was still read every year in the Church of St.
Mary Mazgiore, at Rome.—(Question, question.)
Lord TENTERDEN—It is now forty years since I was
a tyro, and I, perhaps, may have forgotten my grammar
as well as my learning; but if I have not, I would ask
what is a superstitious act but superstition ; and what is
an idolatrous act but idolatry?
The Bishop of DURHAM spoke at some length, but
was quite inaudible below the Bar. We understood the
Right Reverend Prelate's argument to relate altogether
to the theological part of the question; and that he de-
scribed the Church of Rome as idolatrous, yet a Christian
Church.

The Earl of ELDON said, that with respect to the
marriage instance mentioned by the Noble and Learned
Lord (Plunkett), the Roman Catholic priests, considering
it to be a sin, declared it to be such accordingly ; and the
consequence was, that the parties were put under such a
spiritual censure, that they could not very well continue to
live together; but by the Ecclesiastical Courts of this
country, of which the King was the supreme head, the same
parties might be compelled legally to cohabit together ; so
that they would, under these circumstances, be placed in
the predicament of either violatin,, their religious duties,
or of acting in disobedience to the decree of one of the
established tribunals of the country.
Lord PLUNKETT begged to explain that the pi jest, in
such a case, acted only by censure, and not by any co-active
jurisdiction : if the parties from conscientious feelings chose
to discontinue living together, they certainly might do so,
but in that case they would be acting from an option of
their own, and not from any direction of the priest.
The Earl of 1110UNTCASHEL and Lord TIEDES-
DALE addressed a few words to the Committee ; but the
1 cries of " Question !" were so loud as to render the obser-
vations of their Lordships inaudible.
Lord TENTERDEN rose for the purpose of proposing
an Amendment en the first Clause, and he believed that
that was the right time to do so. He did not propose
this Amendment fur the purpose of introducing any
alteration, but rather for the purpose of carrying the in•
tentions of the Bill, if he understood them rightly, more
fully into effect. If he understood the Bill aright, it
was not its object to have any retrospective view what-
ever, or to legalise anything which had not been legal
before its existence. The first Clause absolutely repealed
those Declarations which had been imposed in the time of
Charles the Second ; and he wished to call the attention
of the Committee to what the effect of that would be. Let
it be supposed that any Roman Catholic had been
elected a Member of the House of Commons, or to any office
within the contemplation of the Bill, previous to that
Bill passing into a law ; in that case be would only have to
wait ten days after the Royal Assent had been given, and
there would then be no occasion for him to make either of
the declarations as the law now stood, but merely to take
the Oath of Allegiance. He knew that there were some
Catholics who thought that they could conscientiously take
those oaths, and therefore the effect of the Bill, as it now

stood, would be to act retrospectively. With a view to
prevent this, his intention was to propose that there should
be added the words " Excepting also the case of any per-
son, who before the commencement of the Act may have
been returned to the House of Commons, or to serve any
Corporate office."
The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the amend-
ment. It was true that it was not intended that the Act
should he retrospective; but the amendment proposed by
his Noble and Learned Friend had reference to a particular
individual.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord TENTERDEN said, that if the Noble and Learn-
ed Lord was correct in what he had stated, he would ask
him why these words were to be found in the Act, " from
and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful
for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, be-
ing a Peer, or who shall, after the commencement of this
Act, be returned as a Member to the House of Commons ?"
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the general
principle of the Bill was prospective, but the amendment
proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend applied to an
individual, and he therefore opposed it; at the same time,
he would suggest to his Noble and Learned Friend, that if
he would look over the Acts, he would see that it was
clear that the individual ;,;ludrd to could not take his seat,
as in so doing, he would be obliged to subscribe to the
oath of supremacy. _ .....

The Bishop of OXFORD explained.
The Earl of ELDON did not mean to follow the Noble
and Learned Lord through his observations. I have now
been (his Lordship continued) twenty-seven years in this
House, and I have on all public questions spoken the opi-
nions I entertained, perhaps in stronger language sometimes
than was warranted ; but I have now to tell the Noble
and Learned Lord, that I have never borne down the
House, and I will not now be borne down by him, nor
twenty such as he is.—(Cheers and laughter. During
the whole of this personal altercation their Lordships used
much louder tones and more violent gesticulations than we
are accustomed to witness in their House ; and altogether
the scene was much more animated than debates usually
are in the Upper House,)
Lord PLUNKETT could not allow the discussion to
pies by without saying a few words respecting the Oath of
Supremacy. The Noble Peer then entered into a gram-
matical analysis of the oath, and showed that it denied an
acknowledged and well-known fact, for the Pope has spi-
ritual authority in these realms. Some Noble Lord having
interrupted Lord Plunkett, he called " Order," and ob-
served that he had a right to state his sentiments, and begged
he might not be interrupted. The Noble Lord went on to
shew that he understood the Oath of Supremacy to imply
that no foreign Prince or Power had any power or autho-
rity over the Church o tthis kingdom. The point that had
been laid down contained the strangest sort of assertion ;
and he certainly could not take the clause in any sense but
that which he had already stated. When he had in another
place stated (in a similar manner to that in which he had
made the statement that evening) the interpretation which
he put upon the Oath of Supremacy, he had been accused
by the Noble and Learned Lord of using something like
Jesuistry in his way of enforcing it ; but if this were not
the sense of the Oath, and if the Noble and Learned Lord
did not mean to admit that the Pope bad the same spi-
ritual power as he had described, Ile should be glad to
know what was the sense of the Oath ? Did the Noble
and Learned Lord mean to assert that the Pope had no
power at all ? He (Lord Plunkett) was well aware that
he did possess power, and that as long as the Roman Ca-
tholic religion continued to exist, he must possess it ;
but the point of view in which this country was chiefly
concerned was whether the Pope in the exercise of that
power interfered in any way with the authority of the
Crown of England ?—(Hear.)—ln discussing that point,
it had frequently been said that it was not easy to distin-
guish his temporal power from his spiritual power.—
(Hear.)—But how was that proved to be the case? This
question had now been tinder discussion for more than 30
years, and the most inquisitive minds and the deepest re-
search had been employed for the purpose of finding where
the spiritual power of the Pope did interfere with the tem-
poral concerns of the people. After that investigation,
which had been carried on with so much care, only one
instance could be discovered in which this was the case.—
That instance was where the Pope, exercising his juris-
diction pro salute anzune, had the power of saying that
persons were living in a state of sin who, according to
the laws of this country, were cohabiting together in a
state of lawful marriage. That was the only one iro.tance
that had ever been discovered. But at the same time it
was worthy of observation, that although the Roman Ca-
tholic Clergy said that this was, spiritually speaking, a
state of sin, yet they did not attempt to contest the legality
of the marriage, nor the lawfulness of the issue proceeding
therefrom—including their right of inheritance of property
—on the contrary, if any one, connected with that faith,
should attempt to interfere with any of those lawful rights
that person would, undoubtedly, receive the censure of his
own Church.—(Hear.)—This was the only point known
to stand in the way of the distinction he had math., and he
therefore contended that the interpretation which he haul
put upon the oath was a just one.
Lord REDESDALE and Lord Fa uNIIAM said a few words
amid loud cries of " Question."
The Earl of ROSSLYN thought that it would save a
great deal of time if Noble Lords would confine themselves
in speaking to the cluuse that was actually before the
Comm i ttee. —( Hear. )
Lord LIT TLETON said, that it appeared to him e.at
the point on which so much stress had been laid, respect-
ing the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, turned
on a paint which had not as yet been touched upon. Ad-
mitting, for the sake of argument—and, indeed, justice
required that it should be admitted—that that which was
i i,!'atrous in practice was really idolatrous, and that that
which was superstition* in practice was really supersti-

Lord fiLuNkETT said that the statute of William
left the Catholics still subject to the oath of supremacy :
in the time of Elizabeth he believed that Catholics had
taken that oath, but since that time it had got into b.al
company along with other oaths, and the Catholics had
ojected to it.
Lord TENTERDEN said that when it was taken out
of bad company, perhaps the Catholics would again be
willing to take it.--(A laugh.)
. .

Lord HOLtANDssaid that the Act which this Bill was
to repeal was as retrospective as this; and it was, there-
fore, but a fair corollary, that in repealiug that Act, it
should be taken as a precedent as to how far this Act
should be retrospective.
Lord TENTERDEN withdrew his amendment.
Their Lordships then divided on the first clause, when
the numbers appeared to be—
For the clause - 142
Against it 63
Majority
When strangers were re- admitted, the Clerk was read-
ing the clause relative to the oath to be taken by Mem-
bers who came to take their seats in either House of Par-
liament.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL then proposed an amendment,
the effect of which was to exclude from the House of
Peers, such Roman Catholic temporal Peers, as should
happen to be Bishops or Cardinals, or in holy orders in
the Romish Church.
The Earl of ROSSLYN objected to the amendment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON understood the object of
the amendment to be, to exclude Irons the House of Lords
such Roman Catholic Peers as shotild be a Bishop or Car-
dinal of the Romish Church, or in holy orders in that
Church. But then they had already decided, by adopting
the principle of the Bill, that it was expedient that Ro-
man Catholics should be allowed to sit in Parliament, and
that, in that respect all distinction between Catholic and
Protestant should be put an end to. But, in the case of
Protestants, a Protestant Peer was allowed to sit in the
House in virtue of his temporal Peerage, although he
should be in holy orders, and there appeared to be no good
reason why a Roman Catholic Peer should not be placed
on the same footing, if in holy orders in their Church.
Lord REDESDALE said, that a very good reason was,
that a Bishop of the Romish Church took an oath directly
at variance with his allegiance to the King of this country.
After a few words from Lord PauemErr, the Earl of
HADDINGTON, and the Duke of RICHMOND,
The motion was withdrawn.
Lord FALMOUTH then proposed an amendment, the
effect of which was to provide that no greater number
than 100 Roman Catholics should be capable of sitting in
Parliament. This was the number of Members returned
for Ireland ; and although he thought the limitation to 100
did not go far enough, yet he had rather have that than
no limitation at all. The reason which had been stated
for the expediency of admitting Roman Catholics to Par-
liament was the great numerical superiority in Ireland of
the Roman Catholic population. That reason did not
apply to great Britain, where the Roman Catholics formed
but a very small minority.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—If he understood the
amendment of the Noble Lord, it went to exclude Roman
Catholics from being returned for any place out of Ireland.
Lord FALMOUTH—The expediency of admitting Ro-
man Catholics to Parliament was resisted on the ground
of the superiority in Members of the Irish Roman Catholic
population, and his object to confine the number of Ro-
man Catholic Members that could sit in Parliament to that
which Ireland returned.
The Duke of WELLINGTON.—The principle had
been agreed to, that it was expedient that Roman Catho-
lics should be admitted to Parliament, and then there was
no reason why they should not be allowed to represent
counties and boroughs in England as well as in Ireland.
The Noble Lord said, that he took the limit of one hun-
dred Members, because that was the number of Members
returned fur Ireland, but there was no ground whatever
for supposing that the one hundred Members would: be
Roman Catholics, nor much reason to suppose that one
half of them would be so.
Lord FALMOUTH did not wish that there should
be 100 Catholic Members in Parliament, but he pre-
ferred haviug the limit of 100 to having no limit at all
The Earl of CAERNA.RVON.—The Noble Lords who
were distinguished by the epithet of the Lords on the cross
bench,had complained of the conduct of the people of
Ireland, and said, that whereas they deserved punishment,
Parliament was called upon to grant them a boon, But
there was no complaint against the conduct of the Catho-
lies of England, and then see what was the amount of the
Amendment ? It was to grant the boon to those who de-
served punishment, and to punish those against whom no
complaint had been made.
Lord KENYON.—But the argument few admitting the
Roman Catholics to Parliatnent was the excess of the Ro-
man Catholie population over the Protestant in Ireland,
and therefore the Roman Catholic Members ought to be
confined to that country.
The Marquis of LAN SDOWNE. —lf the passing of thin
Bill would be followed by the advantage 3 anticipated from
it, that must arise from destroying, in point of civil rights,
all distinction between protestant and Catholic; and al-
though that might not immediately happen, the ultimate
result would be, that the electors, whether Catholics or
Protestant., would never inquire whether the candidates to
represent them were Catholic or Protestant, but merely
whirls was the most competent to perform the duties. As
1 in the caw of the returns to the French Chambers, out of

tious, yet it 41 not follow, that ene person might not six Deputies, ref urned for a aistriet in Franco, to the
accept a doctrine in a sense that was not idolatrous, while Chamber, three were Protestant, although the great majo-
another person might accept the very same doctrine in a rity of the electors were Catholic : the reason of that was,
sense that was idolatrous.—(Heir.)--This observation that in France, the distinction in these matters between Ca-
might well apply to the test by which the Roman Catho- thnlic and Protestant had ceased—en, he hoped, it would
lice had hitherto been prevented from taking their seats sone cease here.
in Parliament. The E srl of DARNLEY opposed the Amendment, and

said, he did not think that mire than twenty Catholic
Members would be returned for Ireland.
Lord FALMOUTH said, he had no security for that,
except the Noble Earl's bare word, which, though the beat
security in matters within his power and kuowledge, was
in this case no security at all.
Lord HOLLAND objected to any departure from the
principle of the Bill which this Amendment, if adopted,
would be.
The Amendment was negatived without a division.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA had an amendment to
propose, which, he thought, would meet the approbation
of every Member of that House. The amendment he had
to propose was the omission of the following words :
" I do further declare, that it is not an article of my faith,
and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that
Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any
other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or
murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever."
Now, whatever might have been the proceedings of the
Court of Rome in former days, or whatever might have
been the course it pursued towards the subjects of other
Powers, he believed most sincerely the Roman Catholics
held no such opinions, nor had no such object now, and
he therefore proposed that those words be altogether omit-
ted, in order that the Catholics may not be insulted by
being called upon to renounce opinions;which no man could
believe they entertained.
Lord REDESDALE concurred with the Noble Earl,
that there was no use in these words, and that they might
therefore be just as well omitted.
After few words from Lord FARNHAM to the same
effect,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that theßoman Ca-
tholics had been taking this oath for the last forty years
without making any complaint, and as it might by some
persons be supposed a security, he could net consent to lay
it aside.
The Amendment was then negatived.
Upon the Clause respecting the admission of Catholics
into Corporations,
Lord TENTERDEN, after observing that the Act
seemed to be a very hasty composition, and the wording
ta require very grave consideration, proposed that the oaths
regular] to be taken by the Act of 1793, when a Catholic
took office, should he added to those prescribed by this Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the
The Amendment was also negatived.
Some other Clauses being agreed to, Lord KENYON
moved that the House resume, and the Chairman report
progress, as it was not possible they could go much farther
at that hour of the morning.
Earl GREY and Lord HOLLAND suggested the propriety
of the Committee continuing to consider those clauses
which were not likely to excite much discussion, and to
pass over those which might give rise to objections.
After some conversation, Lord KrwiroN persisted in his
motion that the House should resume, and their Lordships
divided upon that question :
The numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority 99
In the absence of strangers, we understand that Lord
ROLLE threatened, if the Committee continued to sit, to
divide it upon every question that could be raised. Under
these circumstances, the Duke of WELLINGTON submitted
to an adjournment till to-morrow (this day) at Five o'clock.
Adjourned at Half-past One.