The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-09 00:00:00

CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, their
Lordships went into a Committee on the Catholic Relief
Bill.

On the second clause being read, that Roman Catho-
lics must not sit till they have taken the oath,

Lord KENYON stated that it wag his intention to pro-
pose to add a proviso to this clause, the object of which
would be, to provide that no Roman Catholic Peer, being
a Roman Bishop, should be allowed to sit and vote in
Parliament. His Lordship explained that the ground on
which lie proposed this proviso was, that he considered
the oath required by the Bill was quite incompatible
with the oath the Catholic Bishops were required to take
in their spiritual capacity. His Lordship quoted the oath
at length, and as it could not be taken, he said, with the
other, in order to guard against perjury he should propose
that Catholic Bishops, being Peers, be not allowed to sit in
their Lordships' House.
The Earl of ROSSLYN objected to the introduction of
the proviso, on the ground that if there were the incom-
patibility the Noble Lord pointed out, the conscientious
Catholic would not take the oath, and would not sit in the
House. The Noble Lord had also forgotten to notice the
addition made by the oath, on the authority of the See of
Rome, which expressly reserved, from the terms of the
oath when taken by such Bishops, the power and authority
of the King of Great Britain.
Lord KENYON had quoted all the words of the oath
.known to him.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, if his Noble Friend
would refer to the evidence given before the Committee,
both of Lords and Commons, in 1825, he would find that
the Irish Bishops expressly declared that the oath only ap-
plied to the Canonical obedience due to the Pope.
Lord KENYON thought the authority of J. K. L.,
whi-•h was in opposition to this, and whose statements had
been made without any view to political concessions, was
quite as good as the authority of the evidence given before
the Committee.

Lord BATHURST.—If the two oaths were compatible,
there was no ground for the Noble Lord's observations ; if
they were incompatible, the Catholic Bishop would not
take the oath necessary to sit in the House. Their Lord-
ships knew that respect for oaths had been sufficient, in
times past, to keep Catholics out of Parliament ; and,
therecxe, there was ho reason whatever to add the Noble
Lord's proviso.
Lord KENYON would not then press his motion ; but
when the Report on the Bill was brought up, he should
renew his motion.

The Clause was then agreed to.
On the next clause being proposed for allowing Roman
Catholics to vote at and sit at Elections,
Lord VERULAM moved, as an amendment, to intro-
duce a Clause restricting his Alajeity from creating one
new Catholic Peer, till three Catholic Peerages should be-
come extinct. The Nbble Lord stated that his motion was

Lord REDES DALE objected b the clause. There
could be no distinction between Protestant and Catholic
Peers, for religion was not hereditary like the Peerage.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought, that the intro-
duction of this amendment would introduce a new Catholics
Question on a new principle. It would also trespass on
his Majesty's prerogative of creating peers, and it was li-
miting that prerogative on one of the most extravagant
hypotheses he had ever heard. It supposed that his Maj,sty
would inundate the Peerage with Catholic Peers. The
answer which had already been given by his Noble Frit nd
seemed quite conclusive. Religion was not hereditary.
He did not say that any man would change his religion,
but such things had been, and he did not see, therefore,
how it was possible to lay down a rule far determining a
Catholic Peerage. He should object to the motion, as li-
miting his Majesty's prerogative.
The Earl of ELDON said-a few words in opposition to
the clause. •

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought that part
of the Act of Union which the Noble Lord proot:sed to
imitate, might have been advantageously omitted. He hjpotl
the Noble Earl would withdraw Iris clause.
Lord VERULAM agreed to withdraw the clause, and it
was withdrawn accordingly.
Lord FARNHAM too, had an amendment to propose:,
relating to the elections of Representatiye Peers of Seot-
land; and he thought that he might be permitted to say
a word or two on the manner in whi,.h this Bill affected
Scotland, as he had been the individual who had presented
a petition from Glasgow, very numerously and respeee,hly
signed, declaring, that in the opinion of the petitioners tl:ei
passing of this Act would be a direct infraction of the a rtdelee
of Unioa between England and Scotland. The Noble
Lord stated the reasons which induced him to corner Ire
opinion with the petitioners. It had been asserted, .L:re
the arrangement respecting the oaths to be taken by the
Representatives of the Peerage and the Commons of Scot-
land was a temporary arrangement, capable of being altered
by the Parliament of Great Britain, because it was pro-
vided in the Act of Union that the oaths therein Incr.-
tinned should only be taken " until the Parliament of
Great Britain should otherwise dit&i:" Now, if Noble
Lords would take the trouble of reading the Act of Uniort
through, they would find that the Act' Of .Union
corporated into itself the fifth Act of the first F;ar!iatocitt
of King William and Queen Mary, for ratifying the ?Asire:
fession of the faith and settling Presbyterian Church go-
vernment, with other Acts of Parliament relating thereto,
in prosecution of what the Scotch lawyers called the
claim of right. Now, by that Act Roman Catholics
were prohibited from sitting in Parliament; and lies,
was the difference itt the law of England and Scot-
land upon this subject. In England the Roman Catho-
lics were only prohibited by oaths from sitting in Parlia-
ment; in Scotland they were prohibited by expre's sta-
tutory enactment, and the oaths were only ancillary to do.
same object. He conceived that the words in the 2Zel artis
ele of Union, " until Parliament should other wise ditette''
ought to be construed in this reanner,you may alter tee
oaths which exclude Roman Catholics froth Parliament, sr)
far as their exclusion is affected by oaths, but "on Mud not
alter the law, which is made a part of the Union, Vritereby
they are excluded as Roman Catholics for ever from 'lbw
liament. He would not go into the question, whether it
was expedient to repeal this law at present : he would oats.-
say, that if they did repeal it, they would violate the Act
of Union, and must justify that violation on the ground of
necessity. He did not think that the necessity was marls
out. He should therefore move an amendment to this
clause, providing that the oaths now in force should siil
be administered to all persons professing the Roman Catho
tic Religion, who, being otherwise duly qualified, Offered
themselves to vote at the elections of Representative Nees,:
of Scotland, or to be elected such Representati vet.
The Earl of ROSEBERY contended, 01 the smug
grounds that were advanced by the Lord-Chancellor
per si
firmer discussion, that this Bill was no violation of the Art
of Union with Scotland.

Lord PLUNKETT said, that the Noble Lira otid nok
have applied his attention to the clause on which lif!
tended to move his amendment. This clause did not tta
late either to the electors of, or to the persons elected Ibr,
the 45 representatives of the Commons of Scotland ; it
related only to persons offering themselves to vets at the
elections of representative peers of Scotland, or to hg
elected such representative peers. If the Noble Lord had
looked at the Act of Parliament regulating the election of
representative peers of Scotland, be would Lave seen that
the election of representative peers of that kingdom was
not at all affected by the union : it was governed by an
Act passed in the same year with the Act of Union. but
subsequently to it,--he meant the 6th of Queen Anne,
e. 23. The Act of Union provided for the election of
Members to the House of Commons, but not for the elec-
tion of representative peers. It was therefore followed by
the Act of the 6th of Queen Anne, which repealed the Act
as to the Privy Council of Scotland, and then made pee,-
visions for electing and summoning 16 peers of Scotland,
to sit in the House of Peers in the Parliament of Greet
Britain.

Lord BEXLEY considered this Bill was a gratuitous
and unnecessary infraction of the Act of Union with
Scotland.

Lord MELVILLE argued at considerable length that
there was no infraction of the articles of Union with
Scotland committed by this Bill.
'The Earl of ELDON contended that the principle of
the Acts for Regulating the Elections of Representatives in
Scotland and by which Papists were excluded from seats in
Parliament, was adopted by the Act of Union, though
there was no specific mention in that Act of the exclusion
of Papists. As to the declaration of his Noble Friend
(Lord Melville), that the opinions of the majority of ti-:c
intelligent people of Scothnd were in favour of the Bill, he
would only say that his Noble Friend possessed butter
means of pleasing the people of that country than he did,
and he must know them better; but be must add, that
if he were to judge from the petitions that had been pro
seined nom that country, he should come to a different
conclusion from the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord who
judged of the opinions of the people of Scotland front the
number of representatives of that country who were in
favour of the Bill, had relied much on those numbers ;
but to judge of the value of those numbers, it might be ne-
cessary to look hack a little Ind see how many of them had
supported the Bill last year.—(A laugh.)

Lord BELHAVEN observed, that the Noble Earl must.
be altogether mistake❑ in supposinij that the Act of Union
had iliieetly excluded Catholics. It was proposed in the
discussion of the Treaty of Union, that Catholics should be
expressly excluded, and the proposition was negati',Ad.
The Earl of ELDON had not said that it was by the
Act of Union itself, but by Acts which Lad been passed
before, anal were afterwards virtually adopted in that Act.

Lord BELHAVEN said, he had understood the Noble
and Learned Lord to contend that Catholics were deel,ife,i
inadmissible to seats in Parliament by an article in the
Treaty of Union.

The Earl of ELDON.—The N .ble Lord Lad misunder.
stood him. What he said was, that between the time of
the Treaty of Union and the conclusion of the Act of
Union itself, there were acts passed in the Parliament of
Scotland which excluded Papists, and the Act of Union
said, that the provisions of those Acts should be of as much
force as if in the Act of Union itself.

Lord PLUNKETT.—It was quite plain that one had
secured the independence of the church of Scotland, and
another had secured that of England, and that those two
Acts were considered as, and declared to he, fundamental
parts of the Act of Union; but any provisions which
might have been made by separate Acts for the regulation
of the rights of electors or elected, could not be considered,
and were not at the time of the Unio❑ considered, as fun-
damental parts of that Act. They were like any oti.er
public acts, which might be altered, or amended, or le-
pealed, as necessity might requite. Such acts as referred
to Scotland could not, he was aware, be altered, except
for the general benefit of that country ; but that did not.
make them fundamental parts of the Act of Union. lie
had looked over the Act with great attention, and spoke
of its provisions from the recollection of a recent and dime
inspection ; and he was sure the Noble and Learned Lord
(Eldon) would not find in it a avoid about Papists, or
suspected Papists. There was an Act passed to regulate
elections of persons " to the said estates," but that Act
referred clearly to the election of the 45 members to the
House of Commons, but had no reference to the Peers.
The provisions for that were, that persons voting for the
election of Peers should subscribe the formula. This re-
gulation was made by the 6th of Anne. But the Act of
Union itself left the electors or elected without any provi-
sion. That was cured by the Act to which he referred,
which was a public Act, that might be altered or amend-
ed, but formed no part of the Act of Union. Then as to
the mode of election by the 7th of Anne, the provision
then made was until Parliament should otherwise direct.
He was sure that if the Noble and Learned Lord would
examine the Acts closely, he would find it as he (Lord
Plunkett) had stated.
The Earl of ELDON, in courtesy to the Noble and
Learned Lord, would again examine the Acts, and if be
founr; that be was mistaken, he would readily acknowleige
it. He would do it also for the sake of the petitioners, and
to show them, if it were so, that Parliament had not Glipered
with their rights.
Lord DUNCAN observed, that the feeling as to this
Bill in Scotland, from which he bad returned about three

weeks ago, was not such as had been described by the Noble
Earl. It was true there had been a petition signed by many
thousands in Edinburgh against it, and, considering the
means taken, and the statements made that the object of
the Bill was to introduce Popery into Scotland, he should
not have been surprised, if, instead of 11,1000, it had been
signed by 40,000 persons. If left to themselves, he was
satisfied the majority of the people of Scotland Would be
in favour of it ; and he was sure that aftet the eloquent
appeals recently made by Dr. Chimers and others, many
who had signed petitions against it wouid ha be dispos.d
to do so again.
The Earl of HADDIGTON" raid, Alit any fears tram
the operation of this clause in rstotland were utterly ground.
There were fly two Catholic Peers in Scotland, and
about 18 landed vroprietors. If the Act of Union was at
all violated 1.-,y the Bill (which he denied), it was by the
ge sera! principle ,r it, and not by this clause.
the umer.:arnent was then put, an negatived without a
vtion, and the clause, as it stood in the Bill, was put and
agreed to..
The next five clauses for regulating the mode of admi-
nistering the oaths at elections--for repealing the tender of
formula (in Scotland)—for excluding Roman Catholic
Priests from seats in the house of Commons—for allow-
ing Catholics to hold civil and military offices under his
Majesty, with certain exceptions, and for not exempting
Roman Catholics on admission into office from taking any
other oaths than those mentioned in the Act -as.were seve-
rallut and agreed to, without discussion.
On the next clause, containing the excepted offices, being
read,

election of churchwarden!, ke., in Ireland, was read and
agreed to.
The next clause, allowing Roman Catholics to become
tnembers of lay Corporations, was then read'.
Lord FARNHAM stated that theii: Wti're many institu-
tions in Dublin,--%-suilt) fol. instance, as Morgan's Charity
the Management of which had been devised to certain
Law Officers of the Crown, such as the Chancellor and
Lords Chief JuMices, Who were Protestants At the time the
'Charit'y wad nevisetf, i4e pioposed an amendment, pro-
.t/icling that no Roman Catholic, filling any of those situa-
tions, should become a trustee of such institutions.
Lord PLUNKETT said, that if any Roman Catholic,
or any other person hemming a trustee of such institutions,
should mistnanege the trust, they would be subject to the
contronlof the Court of Chancery.
Lord FARNHAM did not press hie amendment, though
he thought that a trust might be abused, not only in an
open and flagrant manner, but also in such a way IA no
Court of Law could take cogni2ant:e of the mettter.
The Clause was then agreed to, as was also the next,
providing that Roman Catholics, being members of cor-
porations, should not vote in the disposal of ecc:isiastical
appointments.
The clause, providing that no Roman Catholic should
hold any office in the Established Churtha or Ecclesiastical
Courts, Universities, Colleges, or Schools, was read.
The Earl of HADDINGTON did not see why Catho-
lics should not be allowed to hold offices in the Commis-
sary Court of Edinburgh, as that Court had no connection
with the Church.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that that Court
was of the same =Wye as the Ecclesiastieal Court in
Ehgland.
The clause was then agreed to; as was the next, pro-
viding that the right of presentation to benefices connected
with office, if held by Roman Catholics, shall devolve on
the Archbishop of Canterbury.
On the next clause, providing that no Roman Catholic
should advise the Crown in the disposal of offices connected
_ _

Lord KENYON 'aid that it was certainly a great ano-
maly in the bill to except the office of Lord Chancellor
from the Bill, and not to except the Prime Minister, who
tract the power of making and unmaking that officer. He
Should therefore move, that to the offices excepted be added
th se of Lord High Treasurer, or First Lord Commissioner
of the Treasury, the Secretaries of State for the Foreigli,
Home, and Colonial Departments, Lord President of the
Council, Lord Privy Seal, Master-deneral of the Old.
nonce, and Lord High Admiral, or First Lord Commi,
sinner of the Adreiralt;-.
Lord HOLLANb said that the Noble Lord mistook
the principle of the exceptions trade. The offices excepted
Were not excepted on political grounds, but because in
their nature they partook something of the supremacy of
the Crown, The office of Chancellor was one which
"Oterei.'-aerl an extensive right of church, patronage in the
;erson of the Chancellor himself, an.l without the neces-
sity of tali:ll,g the pleasure of his Majesty on such appoint-
ments. This was a privilege annexed to the office in the
time of King Henry VIII., and continued to the present
time. It was therefore necessary to except that from offices
to which Catholics might be eligible, or to mutilate it by
taking from it the church patronage. The former was,
he thought, the better and more regular plan. It was con-
tended that this was a principle affecting the Protestant suc-
cession to the Crown, because,as was contended by a Noble and
Learned Lord (Elton), (whom he was sorry he did not now
see in his plauei, as lie had a bone to pick with him on this
subject), if it was a principle that no religious opinion
teas 'ae a bar to political power, there was nothing—and
tt ".as hard if there should—to prevent the heir to the
throne friam the succession, even though his religion should
not be Protestant. The Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon)
had, with the good humour which always distinguished
Ai* remarks, taken this as an inference from some opinions
which he supposed had been delivered by him (Lord Hol-
land.) Now it fortunately happened that the opinion re-
trred to was on their Lordships' journals, in a protest
which he had felt it his duty to enter on a former occasion.
What he stated in his protest was, that religious belief was
no bar to the possession of power purely political and civil.
The Noble and Learned Lord had omitted the word
" purely," and then argued upon the declaration as it stood
after the omission. The kingly office in this country was
ottt purely political. It was pal fly ecclesiastical, and
therefore he thought it was wisely excepted from those
offices to which Roman Catholics were to be admitted.
He begged to inform the Noble Lord who was anxious
that the office of Prime Minister should not be open to
Catholics, that the law recognised no such person as Prime
Minister. The term was borrowed from the French word
premiere, but it was in fact an offence against the law to as-
Some tilt title. If the most influential Minister should hap-
pen to be a Catholic, he could not, according to the provisions
of the Bill, dispose of any church patronage ; and if he were
to advise his Majesty as to how he should dispose of it, he
would, according to a subsequent clause, be guilty of a
misdemeanour. The Noble Lord seemed to think that
a Lord Chancellor was completely at the beck and call
of the principal Minister. His Noble and Learned Friend,
who had held the office for 25 years, might not perhaps be
altogether well pleased with the Noble Lord. for entertaining
that opinion. The Noble and Learned Lord could proba-
bly tell him, that a Lord Chancellor sometimes thwarted a
Prime Minister full as much as he supported him.—(A
laugh.)—ln discussing this question, Male Lords had been
too prone to argue on extreme cases, as if they were of
probable or certain occurrence. When the improbability
of Papists obtaining a preponderance in the Cabinet had
been urged, it was said—" Oh ! but the King may be forced
to take Ministers whom he does not like." Now he had been
one of those who had endeavoured to force the King to take
Ministers whom he did not like ; but he must say, he had
found it no easy job to do so.—(Laughter.)—lf any one
were desirous of forcing the closet, (that was the phrase in
Lord Chatham's time), a Roman Catholic would be an odd
lever to work with against a Protestant majority in both
Houses. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said, that the
great question which was settled at the Revolution of 1688
was not any dispute between Protestants and Catholics, but
the principle that the King was made for the people—not
the people for the King ; and that the King possessed the
throne, not by absolute but by Parliamentary right.
Lord KENYON observed, that the Whig-writer, Burke,
opposed the principle which the Noble Lord had just pro-
pounded.
Lord HOLLAND said, that the Noble Lord misunder-
stood him if he supposed that he advocated the opinions
which Burke had, he thought, succeeded in confuting. He
thought he could convince the Noble Lord at a fitter oppor-
tunity, upon the authority of Lord Somers and King Wil-
liam himself, that the establishment of a Parliamentary right
to the Crown was effected at the Revolution.

with the Established Church, being read,
Lord TENTERDEN rose to make an amendment,
which be thought would extend the provi*ion of the Bill
to the colonies. He took the present opportunity of say-
ing that he had looked into the Act of Parliament respect-
ing the repeal of the sacramental test, and he found th.t
the Noble and Learned Lord's observations upon it were
correct, though he complained of the manner and tone in
which the Noble and Learned Lord's remarks were made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had too much expe—
rience of the liberality of his Noble and Learned Friend,
not to be quite sure that he would make every allowance
for any expression that might have fallen frorn him (the
Lord Chancellor) in the eagerness and warmth of debate.

His Noble and Learned Friend well knew the deep respect
which he (the Lord Chancellor) felt for his character,
and the high Tense which he entertained for the advantage
which he had done to the country by his great and exten-
sive learning, and by the admirable manner in which he
had performed the duty of his high situation, to be satis-
fied that, whatever expressions had fallen from him, had

not been uttered with any intention of casting the slightest
reflection on the Noble and Learned Lord. With respect
to the amendment, he thought it unnecessary, as the clause
sufficiently provided that no Roman Catholic should fill an
office under the Church of England and Ireland, in what-
ever country it might be.
Lord TENTERDEN did not press his amendment, and
the clause was agreed to.
The clauses respecting the time and mariner of taking
oaths for corporate offices—respecting the time and man.-
nee of taking oaths for other cffices—respecting the pe-
nalty on acting in offices without taking the oath—respect-
inz the oaths taken by naval and military officers, were
agreed to without discussion.
On the clause which enacts that no other oaths shall be
taken by Roman Catholics being read,
Lord FARNHAM proposed to substitute the words
" the commencement of this Act," in the place of the
words " the passing of this Act," as the Act did not corn-
mence till ten days after it had passed.

After a short conversation the amendment was with-
drawn, and the clause agreed to.
On the clause which prohibits Roman Catholics from
assuming titles to see•, &e., being read,

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL proposed to include in
the penalties of the clause, all those who addressed Roman
Catholics by such titles.

The Earl of I%IALMESBURY had, on principle, always
opposed Catholic Emancipation ; but that having been
carried, he was opposed to encumbering emancipation with
restrictions like these, which were of no use.
The Duke of WELLINGTON could not agree to the
amendment proposed. He concurred with the Noble Earl
that the clause itself was no security. It was inserted fir
the satisfaction of the public, and to show that the Legis-
latut &did not countenance the assumption of these titles
by the Roman Catholics. Many persons attached a great
degree of importance to the assumption of these titles : and
the amendment now proposed was another instance in sup-
port of what he bad said on a former occasion upon the
difficulty of Ivgisluting nn this subject at all, so as to give
general satisfaction..--(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of DURHAM said the clause only tended
to check the open avowal of these titles, and did not touch
the evil itself. The constitution of the Roman hierarchy
in Ireland was perfectly unique. It proceeded pixel passu
with the Protestant establishment,— bishop for bishop, dean
for dean, and so down to the incumbent of every being in
the country. Re believed there was no similar anomaly
in the whole_history of ecclesiastical polity.
The Bishop t f LONDON said that the real evil was
this : the Pope of Rome pretended to give the temporali-
ties, as well as the spiritualities, of benefices to the Romish
hierarchy. The Irish people knew this, and the conse-
quence was, that an improper expectation that their clergy
would obtain possession of the temporalities was kept up in
the minds of the Irish people.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that the Right Rev.
Prelate who had just spoken had taken the correct view of

this subject.
Lord REDESDALE said, there was one difficulty in
this clause, which he could not clearly see his way
through. He did not know how those individuals who

had long been called " My Lord Bishop (,f Dublin," or
" 3ly Lord Bishop of Kildare," could divest themselves
of those titles, or act efficiently in their clerical capacity,
without describing themselves by these titles. If those
persons exercised power, they must exercise it in that
way, For his own part he thought the clause would do
no good.
Lord FARNHAM obiected to this clause, becau.e it
might very easily be evaded.
Lord TENTERDEN said, his opinion was, that this
clause afforded no security at all, although the Noble Duke
had declared that the securities which the Bill would com-

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY spoke in support
o the amendment,

The Bishop of LONDON felt peculiarly interested in
the amendment. He thought the office of Colonial Se-
czetary and President of the Board of Controul should be
excepted from the operation of the Bill. Indeed, he would
go so fir a, to say, that all Colonial Governors should he
of the Protestant community. It was not alone by the
dispo.al of patronage that the Protestant church in the
colonies could be injured. That church was still in its
infancy, and it was highly necessary that the inhabitants
of the colonies should feel a conviction that its interests
would be protected by a Protestant Representative of his
Majesty, who would display readiness to receive suggts-
tions fur its welfare, and promptitude to act upon them.
Good or evil would result in proportion as the persons
fillin; those offices were disposed to encourage or t) de-
press the church. If those offices should be filled by Ro-
man Catholics, attached to their own church, and anxious
to promote its prosperity, he had no hesitation in saying
that the Protestant church in those colonies must be
crushed. —( Hear, hear. )

prise must satisfy everybody. He thought it was of
paramount importance, especially in Ireland, that Roman
Catholic ecclesiastics should not be called by the name
and title which belonged to Protestant Bishops, because it
kept up in the minds of all an opinion that the titles thus
assumed were lawful titles, and led them perhaps to think
that those who possessed such titles ought also to possess
the temporalities that belonged to them. That could not

Lord REDESDALE wished to know how his Majesty
was to be advised with respect to the disposal of church
patronage in the colonies, in the event of there being a
Catholic Secretary. The Bill did not transfer the right
of advising. The consequence would be, that the ad-
vice would be given by the Catholic Secretary, but given
indirectly.
The Duke of RUTLAND wished that some clause had
been contrived to exclude the Roman Catholics from fill-
ing the office of Prime Minister, in which case he should,
after what he had taken the liberty of saying last night,
have felt it his duty to g;ve the Bill his support.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that unless
Roman Catholics were prevented from becoming Privy
Councillors, the excluding them front any particular office
would not preclude his Majesty from selecting a It man
Catholic fur his adviser, and thus constituting him Prime
Sinister. The amendment was therefore nugatory.
Lord REDESDALE said the influential person in the
reign of King James 11. was a Privy Councillor.
The Duke of WELLINGTON stated that the mode by
which the Government proposed to effect the object that
the Noble Lord who proposed the amendment had in view,
was by this and the following clause, by which all such
Privy Councillors as might be Roman Catholics were pre-
vented from giving advice to the King touching the dis-
posal of ecclesiastical patronage.
Lord FARNHAM wished to know whether the instru-
ment communicating the King's pleasure respecting the
disposal of church patronage would be countersigned by
any responsible Minister.
Earl BATHURST replied that the instrument would be
countersigned by one of the Secretaries of State, who would
be responsible for the act,
Lord KENYON then withdrew the amendment, inti-
mating at the same time his intention of proposing a
similar amendment on the bringing up of the Report, un-
less the Noble Duke (Rutland) should take the matter up.
The clause was then agreed to without an amendment.
the next clause, providing that the Bill shall not in
ny way alter an Act passed in 7 Geo. Iv. c. 72, regu-
latius the levy awl application of church rates, and the

had been ascribed to him. What he said was this,—
that the measure which he shdtild have the honour
to prOpoie tq that House, Woii!di in his opinitin--:
And it *at, In his opinion, calculated to---giVe satiw
fiction to thC House and to the country; and that, in its
effects, it would be found to be a measure more calculated
to prevent the growth of Popery than to increase it.—
Hear, hear.).--These were the words, as near as he
bonld recollect, of which hd made use in speaking to his
Noble Relative, who was then in the Houk!. It was
scarcely necessary to mention, that this took place Within
two days of the period when his Right Hon. Friend
brought this Rill into the House of Commons ; and cer-
tainly it would be admitted, that he could ndt have in-
tended to d6Ceite their Lordships tvith respect to a Wilt
On which he knew their Lordships would be set right in
two days.—(Hear, hear.)—What he said was, that the
measures which would be proposed were calculated, in his
view of the subject; to give satisfartion. He was still of
the same opinion. Ile thought thot the}' were likely to
produce tranquillity, awl to prevent bloodshed.—( Hear.)
Lord TENTERDEN said, if he had mistaken the
Noble Duke, he was bound to apologise ; but so much
had been said about securities, that he might possibly have
'confounded different observation..
The clause was then agreed to.
The next clause, enacting " that jadicial or other
officers are not to attend with insignia of office at any place
of worship, save of the established church," was agreed to
without remark.
The following clause, "inflicting a penalty on Roman
Catholic ecclesiastics officiating, except in the usual places
of worship," was, after an olservation from Lord Renzs-
DA LE, agreed to.
The ensuing clause, providing " that this Act should
not repeal Statute 5 Geo. IV., c. 25," was agreed to
without observation.
On the following clause being read, " providing for the
suppression of Jesuits and other religious orders,"
The Eat' of MALMESBURY rose and observed, that

he could not himsef form an abstract idea of a Jesuit, and
he should be glad to know by what sign a Jesuit was to
be discovered. Perhaps the Noble and Learned Lord (the
Lord Chancellor) woiald be good enough to inform him.
He had been in various countries, and he was not aware of
any distinctive mark by which a Jesuit might be known.
Lord BEXLEY considered this to be a very important
clause of the Bill. When their Lordships considered the
nature of the institution of the Jesuits, and how prone they
were to extend their authority, every effort ought to be
made to prevent the increase of that order. He could not
but think that some effectual provision ought to be re-
sorted to for putting down and suppressing that body.
Lord FARNHAM was of opinion, that instead of the

punishment awarded by this act in cases where its provi-
sions were invaded by Jesuits, &e., it would be much
better, after a certain time, which the Legislature might
name, if they directed that any property acquired by them,
or by any other monastic order, should be attached.
After a few words from Lord REDSSDALIC and the
Bishop of OXFORD, the clause was agreed to.

On the clause, that a Jesuit, or ()Tiler member of a reli-
gious Order, coming into the realm, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanour, and being lawfully convicted there,
shall be banished the kingdom for the term of his natural
life, being real,
Lord TENTERDEN rose to propose an amendment,
The Noble Lord said, that banishment was unknown to
the law of England ; and, besides, he would ask, what
punishment it would be to a person coining into this coun-
try to be ordered to go out of it? The Noble Lord there-
fore proposed, as an Amendment, that all the words after
the word " misdemeanour," should be left out of the
clause. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the proposition of
the Noble Lord would not effect the purpose which he had
in view, for in all the words after the word " misde-
meanour" should be omitted, a Jesuit, on being convicted
of the offence of coming to this country, could only lie im-
prisoned, and after the time of imprisonment had expired
lie would have a right to remain here; but the clause as

it stood wcul I enable the Government to remove him out
of the countr✓. He was astonished to hear the Noble and
Learned 1..,r1 say that banishment was unknown to the
I.w of Engl old. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth an act

of Parliament was passed indicting the punishment of ba-
nishment on certiin offences, and it was no doubt in the
-recollection of the Noble and Learned Lord opposite (El-

don), that so late as seven years ago an act was passed
imposing that punishment on the offence of publishing
a seditious libel a second time. There were, therefore,
precedents to justify the infliction of such a punishment.
In reply to the question of the Noble Earl (llabnesbury)
as to what evidence they could possess to convict a Jesuit
in a court of justice, he (the Lord Chancellor) would say,
that as the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland were ac-
quainted with all the regulars in their diocese, they could
in such cases be compelled to give evidence, if necessary,
to produce a conviction. The clause as it stsod was in-
tended to prevent the public displays of these societies,
such as had of late occurred in the vicinity of Dublin, and
in parts of the county of Lancaster.
Lord HOLLAND was gratified by hearing the highest
authority on criminal law in the country state, that banish-
ment was unknown to the law of England. When the
Act to which the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord
Chancellor) had alluded was before their Lordships, he
(Lord Holland) made a similar assertion, and on that oc-
casion he was overborne by the opinions of all the Noble
and Learned Lords then in the House, who produced a
deal of learned arguments which he could not understand,
and which therefore did not convince him, to disprove that
posit7on.
Lord TENTERDEN expressed his doubts that the Act
to which the Noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chan-
cellor) alluded, had ever been put in force against any in-
dividual. The Noble Lord (as we understood him) still
maintained that the punishment of banishment was con-
trary to the principles of the common law of England.
Lord HOLLAND believed it was the law in Scotland

to banish the people to England.—(A 141104.)
The Earl of AIALMESBURY would be sorry to make
he Catholic Bi.shops informers against the Jesuits.
The amendment was then put and negatived, and the

original clause agreed to.
On the clause permitting his 31,ijesty's Secretary of
State, being a Protestant, to grant licences to Jesuits to
come into the kingdom, and to remain for six months,
being read,
Lord FARNHAM inquired what was the object of this
clause?
The LORI) CHANCELLOR said the object of the
clause was to enable the Government to admit Jesuits who,
for private or scientific purposes, might feel it necessary
to visit this country, to come and reside here for a certain
time.

Lord FARNHAM wished to know wliy the words
" being a Protestant" were employed?
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied that these words
were used because it was possible, after the passing of
this Act, that one of the Secretaries of State might be a
Catholic.
Several sub.,equent clauses were put and carried.
On the clause providing that the Act should not extend

be prevented by this clause and it would be better if, in- to female societies, being read,
stead of the clause now under consideration, another clause The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL could see tiro necessity
were introduced, declaring it to be unlawful for any person for the females if the males were to be discouraged.—
to accept of any suck nomination to the title of Archbishop (Hear and great laughter.) The nunneries were equally as
hereafter. He spoke of the prospective measure. mischievous as the Jesuit and monastic establishments.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt, if he could be a They were used in many instances as places for confining
party to the introduction of such a clause as that proposed females against their will. There were female Jesuits as
by the Noble and Learned Lord, that he should 10L' guilty well as males, and they were quite as dangerous, The
of a recognition of that which he conceived to be highly Noble Lord concluded by moving that the clause be ex-
illegal,—that he should be acknowledging an assumption punged. The motion was put and negatived.
of authority by a foreign power, which was utterly incon- On the clause that the penalties under this Act should
sistent with the Constitution of this country.-- (Hear, hear.) be recovered by information filed by the Attorney-General
—He did not mean to say, that it was not true that those being read,
persons were nominated as Bishops, and eve❑ placed in the Lord FARNHAM proposed as an amendment that the
care of dioceses by that usurped authority. He certainly penalties should be recovered in the usual way, by being
would not say that. But he did not, and would not, sued out in the various Courts of Law in England, Scot-
recognise in any manner appointments of such a nature; land, and Ireland.
because it was evident that those appointments were made After a few words from the Loan CRANcELLoa, the
by the power of usurpation. They knew nothing of that amendment was put and negatived, and the original clause
usurpation, nor of the assumption of those titles. He agreed to.
repeated, that of the assumption of such titles, the The remaining clauses in the Bill were then put and
framer or author of the Bill knew nothing. It was true, agreed to without any amendments.
as had been stated by the noble mover of the amend- Lord KENYON said, that as lie had the two amend-
ment, that the clause would have been more perfect, if menu which he had already suggested to the Committee to
persons could have been prevented by it from using those propose when the report should be brought up, he wished
assumed titles of Archbishops and Bishops in writing.— to know from the Noble Duke what day he would fix for
But he begged their Lordships to advert to the difficulty the receiving of the report, and what day he shoul.l fix for
of carrying such a principle into effect. Let their Lord- the third reading.
ships look to their own proceedings,—let them examine The CHAIRMAN (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said he had
their own journals,—and they would find places over and never known an instance of a report, where no amend-
over again where those titles were given in print to those in- I ments had been made, not being received at once by the
dividuals.—(Hear.)—ltwasimpossibletodeal with writings House.
under such circumstances. All their Lordships could do The Duke of WELLINGTON said, as no amendments
was, to declare that those titles should not be assumed by i had been made in the Bill, the report, in accordance with
those persons in future. He could not conceive that they the usual practice of the House, after the House resumed,
would suffer any inconvenience in carrying on their spiritual might he brought up and received. Its further considera-
concerns because they were prohibited from assuming those tin he should propose for to-morrow (this day), and it
titles. And he would say, that though he meant not to urge was his intention to fix Friday for the third reading of the
the clause as a powerfnl security in Ireland, yet that it Bill.--(Hear, hear.)
would give great satisfaction to many persons in that part Lord KENYON wished the Noble Duke would post-
of the United Kingdom. The Noble and Learned Lord pone the third reading to Monday.—(Cries of " No, no.")
on the cross-bench had attributed to him a certain ex- The House then resumed.
pression ; but before the Noble and Learned Lord at- The report was brought up by the Earl of SHAYLES-
tempted to fix it on him, he should have made him- near, and on the question being put that it be received,
; self master of the fact. He (the Duke of Welling- Lord KENYON rose and proposed the two amendments
ton) never said one word of the description which , which he had already suggested ill the Committee i the first

prohibittng4onaissoftec Peers, being priests or hishops,
from sitting in that House; and the second excluding Ro-
nian Cdtholics, in addition to the offices already excepted,
from the offides of Loft' High Treasurer, or First Lord
Commissioner of the Treasury, Lord Privy Seal, Comman-
der-in-Chief, or General-in-Chief commanding his Majesty's
forces—Principal Secretaries of State, and Lord High
Admiral. The Noble Lord said he had no expectation that
those amendments would be adopted, and he only proposed
them for the purpose of having them recorded on their
Lordships' Journals.
'the amendments were then severally put and negatived.
The report was received, and ordered to be taken into fur-
ther consideration to-morrow (this day) ; and on the mo-
tion of the Duke of WELLtNoTog, the third reading of the
Bill was fixed for Friday, for which day their Lordships
were ordered to be specially summoned. .
Adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(LAST NIGHT.)
Sir T. FREEMANTLE presented a petition from cer-
tain owners of collieries on the Tyne and Wear, respecting
the duties of 6d. and 4d. per chaldron on the importation
of coals into the London market. These duties were to be
appropriated to defray the expence of the approaches to the
new London-bridge. The petitioners prayed to be heard
by Counsel before the Committee on the Bill in defence of
their interests. The Hon. Member moved that the peti-
tion be referred to the Committee.
Sir IL WILSON opposed the motion. The Committee
had already heard Counsel on the subject, and decided that
the 4d. and 6d. duties should be solely applied to defray
the expence of the new London-bridge approaches.
Sir T. FREEMANTLE denied that the Committee
had come to the decision stated by the Hon. and Gallant
Member.
Sir R. WILSON repeated his assertion that the Corn-
_

mittee had decided as he had before stated.
Mr. TENNYSON denied that the Committee had
come to the recision stated by the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for the borough of Southwark, and was of opinion
that the petition should be referred to the Committee.
The SPEAKER, in reference to the decision alluded to
as having been made by him, observed he had decided that
an individual, who merely professed to be an agent of the
public, and who had no interest in a Private Bill, could
not have his petition referred to a Committee—such a
person had no locus standi before a Private Committee.
The cage was different where the petitioner possessed an
interest likely to be affected by a Bill. The present peti-
tioners professed to possess interests which would be pre-
judiced by certain clauses in the 1111; and so far as that
consideration went, the petition ought to be referred
to the Committee, who were to hear the petitioners upon
such parts of the measure as concerned their interests.
But it was stated, the Committee had gone beyond that
point of the case to which the petition related. If so, it
was useless for the petitioners to go before the Commitee:
unnecessary loss and expense would be the only conse-
quences; and the House, knowing the fadt through one
of its Honourable Members, that the Committee had al-
ready gone too far to entertain the question, would not
remit the petition to it, as by so doing they would only oc-
casion delay, loss, and delusion. The only remedy was
to move upon the report that the Bill be recommitted,
when the petitioners might be heard.

Mr. TENNYSON trusted the House would refer the
petition to the Committee, leaving it to itself to decide
whether or not it had gone too far to hear the petitioners
upen the matter in question.
After a few words from Sir R. Wuson the SPEAKER,
Mr. STUART WORTLEY, and Mr. lloattousr, the petition
was referred to the Committee.

Dr. PHILLIMORE presented a petition from certain
persons possessing interests in places likely to be affected
by the approaches to the new London-bridge, praying to be
heard before the Committee respecting those interests.—
Referred to the Committee.

Mr. COURTENAY said, it would be a matter of very
great convenience to Government if the Hon. Member
for Coventry would consent to postpone his motion upon
the subject of the Silk Trade, which stood for to-morrow,
to any other day, even though it were only till the
next day.
Mr. FYLER acceded to the request of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, and fixed his motion for Friday. He hoped
th it the intention of Government would be then stated.
Mr. COURTENAY was satisfied to let the motion
stand for Friday ; and added, that his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald) would be fully prepared upon that
day—upon any day after to-morrow—to state the inten-
tions of Government on the subject.
The notice of motion was accordingly postponed till
Friday.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH had received two petitions in
favour of the Roman Catholic claims. One of them he
should only then present, reserving the presentation of the
other for a future opportunity. The petition lie was now
about to present was from certain Students of the Univer-
sity of Glasgow, and it would have been more numerously
signed than it was, but that the signatures were confined
to those of Students of three years' standing in the Uni-
versity. Thi. petition, and a circumstance that had lately
occurred in Edinburgh, gave him great satisfaction, as
affording a confii mation of the statement he had made
when presenting the Edinburgh petition, that the rank,
talent, and intelligence of Scotland (including the ministers
of tie Presbyterian Church) were in favour of civil and
religions liberty. A proposition lately made in the Edin-
burgh Presbytery to forward a petition to Parliament
against the Roman Catholic claims had been rejected by a
majority of 13 to 4. This distinctly sliewed the feelings
of the clergy of the metropas of Scotland upon this
subject. He rejoiced at this circumstance, for the sake of
the character of his native country, and of the clergy of the
capital, and as affording a corroboration of the state-
ment lie had made with respect to the sentiments of
enlightened persons in Scotland, including the clergy,
which were decidedly favourable to the great measure
of relief now passed by the Commons, and received in the
Upper House of Parliament by so triumphant a majority.
Mr. TRANT said the present petition came a day after
the fair -as did the attempt to get up a counter. petition
in the Presbytery of Edinburgh.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH observed, that the attempt to ob •
tarn the petition was made a fortnight before the Relief 8.11
had passed the Commons, and at a time when he believed
it impossible for the Presbytery of Edinburgh to know the
determination of the House.—The petition was ordered to
be printed.
Mr. SUGDEN obtained leave to bring in the following
Bills :—a Bill to amend the Laws for the Payment of
Debts out of Real Estates; a Bill to amend the Laws re-
lating to Illusory Appointments; a Bill to amend and
consolidate the Laws relating to Lunatic femmes covert
and Infants; also a Bill to amend and consolidate the Laws
relating to Lunatics and Infants being Trustees.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned.

4.•