Star.
London, England, 1813-05-12 00:00:00

The Hon. Baronet not only wished the appointment
of a Religious Committee of the House, but a Com-
mittee of Diplomacy, who should examine the cor-
respondence of Catholic Priests with Foreign Mates,
and it was impossible for the House to foresee where
their labours would end. He wished to treat the mo-

tion with that respect which he entertained for the
Ron. Baronet—a respect which difference of opinions
could never remove : but at the same time he con-

calved the motion unsupported by facts. It was not
true that the Catholic Committee in Dublin had come
to the Resolutions inserted in some of the Newspa.

pets alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, therefore any
argument founded on that report must fall to the
ground. The only Resolution they entered into was
that of sending Delegates to London. Indeed if the
House was to pass no Act in favour of the Catholics
so long as a newspaper would oppose it, or a Priest
refuse to concede the Veto, then, indeed, the period
of Catholic Emancipation must be distant. The Right
Hon. Gentleman then enumerated the heads of the Ca-

tholic Bill, which, he contended, would operate as an
act of substantial relief for the benefit of the Catholics,
without impairing the ascendancy of the Established
Church. The oath proposed was an abjuration of every
feeling or opinion that could interfere with the safety of
the Protestant Church. It went farther than any former

prescribed oath on the subject. It contained the ab
iuration of the dispensing power of the Pope, of his
infallibility, and of the principle of the not keeping
faith with others of a different opinion. It contained
the abjuration of every thing inconsistent with the Pro-
testant succession, it contained the provision, that the
Catholics were not to attempt to overthrow or dis-
turb the Protestant Establishment; that they were
to have no communication with the See of Rome,
that could interfere with the Protestant Church, or
that was inconsistent with its permanency and safety ;
and that they should acknowledge no Ecclesiastical
Power operating politically. The object of the Bill
was not to diminish, but to aid to the security of the
Protestant Establishment. It was with this view,
and on this principle, that the Oath had been made
so long. The former oath was more generalized,
and extended both to the Clergy and Laity. Here
the Committee had attempted to provide a security
for the present Establishment, and, if the House were
satisfied with this security so provided for, a Commis-
sion under the Crown would be farther appointed, to
have a control over the appointment of Bishops, and
to withhold their consent from any such appointment,
when the person nominated was not known to be
loyal and well disposed to the existing Government
and arrangements now existing in Church and State.
The Bill so framed, he conceived, provided for cur
complete domestic security, and it remained for the
House to make any alterations upon it that might ap-
pear to them necessary for this object. The Bill as
it now stood, had beer. as nearly framed as possible
to provide for Catholic Emancipation, while it pro-
vided also for the security of the Protestant Eccle-
siastical Establishment. It was a bar, at the same
time, against Catholic influence, and the interference
of any foreign power in our domestic arrangements
and policy. He concluded by moving the other or-
ders of the day.
Mr. RYDER, on the Question being put from the
Chair, said, he did not think the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman was justified in saying that the Catholic
Board would be satisfied with the Bill proposed. It
they gave credit to the reports received, the contrary
would appear to be the case. The Catholics were
not satisfied with the provisions of this Bill, nor was
the Bill, in his opinion, calculated to secure the in-
terests of the Protesiant Establishment. Should the
Bill be passed into a law, the Catholics would be
entitled to hold offices of State, to become Members
of Parliament, and even to act as Ministers of the
Crown ( loud cries ef Hear, hear, from the Opposition) ;
and all this was to be done without any security for
the safety of Church and State. It was true that an
oath was provided by the Bill, but what WAS this
oath more than that of ninety-one/or England, and
of ninety-three for Ireland already existing. As the
Bill, however, was yet to come before the House,
he should not trouble them at present with entering
into its details. The Hon. Baronet, he thought, had
sufficiently proved the necessity of a Committee to
inquire into the several points at issue. Though he
could not go along with the Hon. Baronet in all his
views of the subject, yet the arguments he had ad-
vanced were sufficient with him to make him vote
for the Committee, and ought, in his opinion, to be
an inducement with the House to support the motion,
as the Hon. Mover was welt known to be a friend to
the Catholic Claims. Had the motion come from
any other quarter, it might have been thought that
Iklinisters wished to throw obstacles in the way, and
that the motion was made in hostility to the Catho-
lics ; but coming as it did from the Hon. Baronet,
who had always been forward to second the Catholic
i Claims, no such suspicicn could be entertained.—
' , (Hear, hear).—The Hon. Baronet had retracted no-
thing of his former opinions, but only required that
the House should pause before doing away the laws
' that had existed for one hundred and fifty years, for
1 the security and safety of the State. Were they at
lonce to depart from these laws without inquiring into
their necessity, or the probable results of their repeal?
Were they prepared to say that there was no necessity
i for inquiring into the expediency of these laws, or
i that these laws might not be affected by the result of
an inquiry ? It appeared from the speech of the
Honourable Baronet, that out of half a million of
1 Catholics in England, not more than five thousand
had taken the already existing oaths.—(Hear, hear).
—Could this be construed into a proof of their attach-
ment for the existing establishment, or justify the ex-
pediency of other oaths ? The influence of the Ro-
man see was also another question of great impor.
Lance, particularly when they considered that on the
Continent, even in Catholic as well as Protestant
States, a principle had been always observed of guar-
; ding against the influence of the Church of Rome. If
such was the case, even in Catholic countries, ought
we not in this country particularly to ascertain the 're-
gulations of other States on this subject, so essential
to domestic policy and national independence ? The
Right Hon. Gentleman had said, that the question
, . bad been often discussed, but had any'such inquiry
been ever made ? What was the usual course of pro..
seeding on other subjects ? Was it not to refer the
necessary inquiries to a Committee, and to have so
many Resolutiorts framed accordingly, and reported
to the House. Why should not a similar proceeding