Star.
London, England, 1829-04-11 00:00:00

..1111111014 Can it be possible. my Loral, that I can be.
eemsferted by making this declaration or that? Island
in a situation in which I would not wish to hold a dif-
ferent opinion. The Noble Duke opposite knows that
he never found me inflexible, except on this question;
and as to the Right Hon. Secretary, who is called the
Leader • f the House of Commons. there never was a
• mai for whose principles and 'feelings I bad a greater
• er MU were attached to, than those of the
Right Hoe. Gentleman i and any disunion between his
sentiments and mine most Decessarily cause me tbq
most bitter pings. , My Lords, 1..11411 .proceed to ear
eider under what circumstances this Bill was intruhsemL
The Noble Duke said on a former'oight that I did net
throw pebbles but paving stones in. his way. I Ws*
to throw neither paving stones nor pebbles in the Nebb
Duke's way; but I meant to regret, what I think the
Noble Duke ought likewise to regret, that this matter
was brought forward on the country by surprise, from
which it is to be wished that the Noble Doke had re-
lieved them. At the close of the last Session of Perlis-
%entitle Noble Duke talked of securities. It Nal matter
of controversy whether securities week spoken of this
Sissies% but the Noble Duke promised to bring forward
that which would give satisfaction to the country; and
how was that satisfaction to be given without securities
for the Established Church of the country? But, my
Lords, I cannot but revert to the letter which was writ-
ten by the Noble Duke a short time previous to the in-
t' oduction of these measures to Dr. Curtis. I know-not
by what title I should speak of this Gentleman, but,,
with regard to what had been said by a Noble Lord
in this House to the Noble Viscount (Sidmouth), reflect-
ing on the Nobles Lord who then had the honour of
I.olding the situation of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, fur
receiving any persons atCourt asCatholic B shops. Have
to acquaint your Lordships that so late as the4th of April.
1829, the title of his Grace the Catholic Bishop of an
Archiepiscopal See in Ireland was adopted and assumed
within these realm.. This circumstance, your Lord-
ships w ill recollect, took place only four days ago. I
must here, my Lords. tiler to what fell from my Right
Rev. Pi iend, the Bishop of Norwich, of whom I have
never spoken without respect, and for whom I have
alw.,s entertained the highest regard, having known
him since I was first a member of the Unisersity of
Oxford. From what the Right Rev. Prelate said with
regard to the sentiments of Bishop Hoadley I had de-
terrnined not to read any of his works; bur, having the
other day read a sermon of the sth of November from
Shit Bishop, it appears to me that he either spoke sen-
timents which he would not stand by, or be would be
compelled, were be here this evening, in consistency
with his declared sentiments, to vote with me against
the Bishop of Norwich and the. Lord Chancellor, so
much does be hold up to reprobation the Roman Ca-
tholics and their religion. With regard to the letter
written by the Noble Duke, and which led to the sen-
timents expressed by the late Lord Lieutenant *of fro.
land, recommending the Roman Catholics to continue
the agitation, Mlle Lords may say that tbismtasureia
itself will put ■ stop to agitation, and that it will Le as
oil to the truobled waters ; but that letter certainly did
tad the people of England to suppose that no such
measure as this was about to be introduced, and there
cannot be a bet.er -proof if it than the fact that the
people did not come forward to further the present
measure, but to aid his Majesty's Ministers in resisting
it. Looking. my Lords, to the members who voted
last year, when a measure similar to this was rikcted
by a majority of forty-five, and flicking to the vote
of the present year—l am anxious to treat every No-
ble Lord with great respect—but when I find that
there is this year a majority et a bundled and five in fa-
your of the same measure,.l am desirous of knowing how
this has happened. Ido not consider whether the ma-
jority is'great or sma I; my business is only to consider
what is soy o•n duty. Ili the fiest place, to refer to
• hat hai been said of a divided- Cabinet, which has
been considered a great abomination. As to those who
have acted for many years with me, how-do I know,
my Lords, what has made them all converts? Ido
not know ; for the whole argument which baa been
brought forward is, " If you knew what I know you
would support the Bill: I sourer, that Ido not know
what you knob; and why not? Because you will
not, or because you cannot, tell me. My Lords, I have
hitherto opposed going into a Committee on this ques-
tion ; but when his Majesty recommended it in his
Speech, I should have offered no objection. But instead
of going into a Committee, I think it is something new
for the Minister to come down and say,'," U you knew
what I know you would agree to the Bill." My Lords.
I think if an inquiry into the state of Ireland was imam
any, the proper course mould have been to go into Cees.
mince for that purpose. The good sense of that Com.
mi.tee would certainly not have disclosed what it might
be prudent to conceal, but, having taken the whole
state of Ireland into consideration, they would come
down to us. not testing on the mere assertion of the
Ministers that they knew that which would induce your
Lordships to pass this Bill. but declaring that they bad
heard, on ii.qiiiry in Committee, that such measures were
necessary. Haying said so much. my Lords, I now
come to the strong arguments against supporting the
present Bill. I think, on this question, lam entitled to
speak as if it were not only the first day on which the
question had been delisted, but, as it were, the first day
on which the Parliament bad assembled. I will suppose
that each of your Lordships had this day taken the oaths
which you most have taken to sit in this House, namely,
that acknoli !edging the supjemacy of the Crown, and
That against transubstantiation. I will ask yoor Lord-
ships whether. after having taken those oaths alt four
o'clock to-day, you can consistently pus the patient
Bill? and. without entering into the nice distiosetainfle-
tweets the words idolatrous and idolatry. I will al; how
is it possible that the majority of fos could have voted
for the measure now before us? A Noble Lord bas
said that religious opinions ought to have nothing to
do with granting political power. In my opinion. my
Lords, such a doctrine must tend, if not ountedi
ugly, eventually to overturn the monarchy. It
has been said that the ecclesiastical members of the
Roman Catholic religion in Ireland did not aspire to
the emoluments and dignities of the Protestant Chord).
But what is the fact? Hue they sot CathelieArchn
bishops for every Protium Archbishop. Catholic Deese
tot every Protestant Dean, Catholic Psebendories for,
every Protestant Prebeadary? In fact. for every parish
church its Ireland, have they not a Roman Catholic
parish Priest? Is not the very masecterhons the Noble
Duke at the head of the Government addressed that
Extratordinary'letter the parses who dueled the right of
die Protestant Archbishop of Armagh to bairebbishop?
Did not the RomanCatholicEcclestasties dispateitgainu
Hoary the Eighth, insistence of•the power of Pope ?
And are there not Acts of Hooey the -ZOO which'
treated the Minoan Catholics stollens to tbreatiatty
And in Mary's time does it eat appear that the levee
affecting the Roman,C.atholite wise repealed, :not kg
tier authority- of the Parliaaillat, bat .through the its-
&tense and by the sanction of* legate of the. Pepe?
Can it be denied 'heti in those Bobo Catholic Pr."-

and Bishops were inducted into dignities and benefice
in despite of the eosetments of the laws of the Pro-
testant Consdtotios of England ? Coo it be denied tat
at that period the supremacy thit Clown on religious
matters was denied by the ecclesiastical officers of the
'Romp Catholic' religion? *Yet the supremacy of thir,
Crowns he said to Isavisoxisteal in Catholic times., even
in MOM. ancient ffuoo ages. As an example of
this we have a stoey.of two Christian Saxon Kings,
who married two Kentish Ladies, which Ladies turned
their husbands back agiio to the wrong faith.—(Here
the Learned Lord read an extract from Coke, to the
effect that men should not change their opinions on
the subject miles. they were perseaded of, its rea-
sonableness.)—For Mt part (continued the Noble and
Learned Lord) I have seen no reason to persuade me to
change my opinions en the subject. On the Romeo
Catholic Association I must say more, as I have not
made tiny remark on it in the course of the Bill for sop•
pressing its meetings; and this I say, which I have said
before, that, unless you provide direct preventives
against the possibility of its revival, you will see it re-
stored to life again. Even still they continue to exit
still they continue to meet and receive the rent; and
though they may profess to have dissolved it, while
they continue to commit these acts it is nonsense to talk
of their dissolution. This conduct reminds me of the
Greek story in Demosthenes of the Athenians asking
whether Philip was dead; and the answer, se No, but,
even though he were, your conduct would raise op
another Philip in his place.' So, even though yclo sup-
presi these Catholics who uttered those seditious, ties
sonable, abominable, and detestable speeches, others
will arise who will otter speeches more seditious, more
treasonable. more abominable. and more detestable.— '
Through whose instrumentality these acts were tole;
rated, which tended to the desudetion of the constitu•
don, I do not take upon me to say—whether oftbel:w.
officers of the Crown-in Ireland, whether Solicitor Ge-
neral, or Attorney General. •
Lied PLUNKETT said, be was Attorney Otweral only two
tars•

The Earl of ELDON (in continuation)—l do not
blame any officer of the Crown unless he was auxiliary
to that system of unconstitutional toleration in relation
to the conduct of the Catholic Association. I remem-
ber the case of a person, named John Ross, who was
prosecuted in the time of the Conventions, when I was
Attorney-General, and what the Conic of King's Beach
said to pee on that occasion. .For a relative instant's I
may take the case of Mr. O'Connell, or, as some call
him, King.O'Connell—(Laughter)-Lfor that he may be
called, as it seems be has obtained a princely revenue,
or, if he has sot it already in his pocket. he soon will.
As to the conduct of those who have-brouglt forward
this measure, I now see nothing extraordinary in it.
When I see so many sit in silent acquiescence who three.
months ago would have been eloquent in uttering abo-
mination and vituperation of the present measure—
(Here the Noble and Learned Lord, in a low tone, re-
fated their Lordships to certain legal authorities on the
particular arguments relative to the oath of supseassey.)
We have even the words of a Roman Catholic ecclesi-
astic (Doctor Doyle), who declared his opinion that the
Roman Catholic nfigion would not have succeeded in
obtaining all its rights until they should have a Reman
Catholic Legislature and a Catholic King. My Lords,,
let us only look to the conduct and declarations ()fling
William and of the Convention after it became a Par-
liament. Did they not abjure the doctrines of the Church,
of Rome as idolatrous? Can it be believed that King
William would ever have accepted the Crown on the
condition that the Houses of Lord* and Commons might
be Roman Catholics? Never. Then, in continuing the
exclusion of the Roman Catholics from the Crown, you
offer an insult to the Catholics which they can never
forgive; and in retracting that declaration on fhe nature
of the Romeo Catholic doctrines made by the Kips end
by all of vier Lordships, what effect do you think such
a retractation will have on the moral and religious prin-
ciples of the cruntry ? It has been said that this Bill
will have the effect of admitting only a few Peers into
this House; but supposing it admits only five or six,
there is no limit to the principle. Wbo can put a stop
or stay to the future augmentation of the number ?" My
Lords, on that point I must trespass on your Lordships
attention. Knowing, as I do, the mode of constitution
of the House of Commons, can I believe that no more
than twenty or thirty Catholics will be able to enter that
Assembly, particularly when we see that, under the
proposed Disfranchisement Bill, the Roman Catholics
will he able to send as many Representatives to the
House of Commons as they could under the system rf
forty shilling keeholders? Indeed, on this subject I
remember to have been told once by a Solicitor that he
was authorised to introduce into the flows of Commons,
by certain means, as many Members as those means
would allow. It has been s.id that this is not a religious
question. My Lords, I contend it is both a political
and religious question, and one, too; of paramount im.
portance. 1 uo believe that the majority of the people
of England are adverse to the Measure, in consequence
of the indulgences ant
.other extravagant d comes of
the Catholic religion. As to the asserti..n that while
the King remained Protestant he would not confer
power on Roman Catholics, and that, in consequence,
the Bill would Wing no harm to the Protestant institu-
tions of the country. if the King shall continue to ex-
clude Catholics from prover ,you make them discon-
tented, and direct their disaffection from the lams, and`
turn it again 4 die King—(Loud cries of Hear, bear).—
On the argument as to the possibility of our having a
Roman Catholic King and a Roman Catholic Parlia-
ment, I shad only refer to what Lord Loughborough
said, and Lord Kenyon, and Lord. Elknborough, and
to what I myself not (oily said and publiihed, and—
thlugh it may be a foolish thing to publish °of. *poi..
menus—what I am ready to say and publish again,
having done so while theeoutest was raging between
the Protestants and the Roman Catho:ies; and that will
be i bold man who Will rise and contradict what I say;
I hold that it is the duty of the English Government to,
ptioride an Established. Church for the S:ate, sod to
take care that it be connected with it so as to constitute
an essential part Tik; and the only method of keeping
up such an institutiog is to anemic with political power,
At tllll same time granting full toleration to all othes
_sects. Goo:forbid, my Lords, that I. ehould entertain
any nsaligoaot feeling egaiast 'Rental) Catholic* or
Dissenters on account of their religious opinions. So
far lons such a feeling, my Lords, I should rather• see
uny rellgiorrestebli.shod in connexion with the State,
lod.granting toleration to the Church of Enliland, than
cooseot to a measure calculated to destroy the Church
of Ireland, which I consider an esseoti 1 part of the
•Established Choi ch of England. In the first place. my
Lords, let us look at what was the nature of the contract
between King William and the people of this country.
Will your Lordships please to attend to what King
'William said respecting the exclusive religion and cba-
'reefer of the Sovereign. Will pour Lordships please to
'tutted to what is stated in the Bill of Ittibte, the very
first clause 01.obitts Mate that we must have a Po"'
teat King, sod two tell, me, if you are not to have a
Protestant king, do yes not destroy the principle of

that bargain? Tell me by what moans I am to ebcape
from the terms of my solemn oath, that I would do my
Win to support the Protestant teligion? And tell me
w, after what Kidg William said respecting those
I am to reconcile msistelf that they can W dispensed
with, hearing in mind thee, as SingWilliant understood
they are nothine less than the security of the law
iram land 7 rti it‘Ainn to all this., has ally Man ever
sakes the oaths of a P)lvy Councillor without taking
the oaths which we tale on entering this Hone ? If.
Abanfore, he has taken these oaths, it belongato him,
to fecoecilw his eiroacienco to such a depots:* from
their principle as a concurrence in this measure would
stonstente.' I cannot do so. L say, therefore.' that the
elect tithe bargain this made between King Will7ao
sod thupeople was to the invent that the religion of the
State aboard never again be endangered. I will 11114
say that circuesstances might not occur out ot:tails4
a case might arise to justify an alteration in the opiates
of an individual respecting this Catholic getstitro.—.
GOD forbid that I should say so. But, my Lords, let
is consider the terms of the Act of Unioa, and see bow
tifoiy bear spots this geestion ; and. hi doing this, I shall
do only that which the Noble and Learned leird would
do.; for, having looked at that Act with all the attention
of which I am capable, I am decidedly of rpinion that
it is part of this Act of Union that no Papist should ever
Ant or be elected. When I say this, I say also that it
Avis my opinion, when bitting upon the judicial bench,
no occupied by the Nsble and Learned Lord—it was
efore mitre. as it mite be his—judicial opiniun on
tairunhellect. Lord when
in sidsmityit tthhtaht Nobletrust
am acthlineg
only
c
and
on.
ocientiously. When looking, thei clots., at this Act of-Par-
41ament, it is, my Lords, impossible to say that the S. wilt
Parliament did not insist on it. It was the laws of the
land which they claimed on the past of the people of
Scotland, and that no Papist should have any thing
to do with the Crown. Now, when they said that
the declaration of the Bill of Rights of England con-
tained such an exclusive clause, it was not extraotdi-
oaty that they should immediately pass Acts in Eng-
land, Ireland. and Scotland, by which that lOWA im-
portant of its clauses was recognised. If we look to the
Articles of Uoion, we shall find that, with respect to
the Church of England and Church of Scotland, they
Were declared to be fundamental and entire. The Ar-
*lts themselves, alter making that declaration. went
farther and said, that unless that inviolability which it
recognised was preserved, that declaration was worth
inching. Having said this they proceeded both io
Scotland and England, before the Union too, to pass
Acts of Parliament to render this matter more certain.
Oise of those Scottish Acts mentioned what persons were
to be elected Peers of Scotland, and what Members
*ere to be elected to the other House, and ran in these
Seords—" Be it hereby enacted, that no person sh .11 be
capable of electing or being elected who is, or shall be,
a Papist or a suspected Papist." And the Act concluded
iv saying that what it th. n enacted would be as much
an article of the Union as it it were agreed upon. And
*ben, in the subsequent year, the muds of settling how
elle sixteen Peers for St.dand were to be returned to
Parliament, it was declared that they shoulJ, in the open
Court of Chancery, take the Oaths of Allegi sate and
_Supremacy, and that they should woke the declaration
against transubstantiation. These were oaths I myself
took over and over again. That declaration also I have
repeatedly made.. And so-remains the system then or-
dered up to the present toonsent. Now, then, conies the
question, was not that syltem, were not those laws, 111
declared to be fundathental, and not to be dent tea from
or violated? Was not that such a settlement of a ques-
tion as went to declare that our religion, our laws, and
our liberties, shall never again be thrown into jeopardy ?.
With respect to the opinions of Mr. Pitt on this subject
let me repeat, that had be continued to live, we should,
never again have heard of this measure without ,ita
being accompanied by full,. ample, and satisfactory
securities. The measures connected with this (and which
are called securities) are that for putting down the Ca-
tholic Association, which basalteady passed your Lord:
ships' House, and that for disfranchising the forty shil-
ling freeholders. Not having been pre eat when that
'measure was last night discussed in a Committee of
your Lotd,hips. I shall now say that I deem that`
measure one of vast importance to the country.—
That is my belief, nay, I ans certain that it is a measure
of infinite importance, and that the mode of proceeding
on it was tine of the grimiest difficulty that c.in be con-
ceived. I have admitted the competency of Parliament
to make alterations in the Act of Union of England
and Scotland, and cannot deny that yOu are competent
to alter laws respecting the liberties of the people oh
Ireland, recognized by the Act of U. ion with that
kingdom. I think I have now, in my humble opinion,
advetted to many of the must important points of th.s
question. I have opposed this Bill when passing through
its former stages, in doing which I may have been
wrong, but until it shall appear to me that no alteration
can be made in it I shall continue to oppose it. I should
be uselessly taking up your Lordships time were I to
attempt to repeat the various injuries it is calculated to
inflict upon the purest church and tie purest system of
Christianity that the world eves beheld. Wets ! to Ite.
fur it I should be supporting it against my deckled opi-
nion of the dangers that will result from it. I do not be.
limre, that if the church of Ireland were destroyed (and
such would be one of the inevitable consequences of
the 8.11)—I do not, in that case, believe that the church
of England would or could survive it an hour—(Hear).
Such is my decided opinion. • (Here the Noble Lord.
in support of this opinions read extracts from a pamph-
let, written by a Roman Catholic Clergymin—" not
Dr. Doyle," as the Noble Lind himself said—but, we
believe, one publishectunder the signature of " J. K. L.
in which the writer says, that .84 the Roman Catholics;
bad no securities to give to the Church of England
if she tampered with her safety. That it was in vain
for Statesmen to contend—in vain for Parliament to
declare that the Established Church was inviolable
—tor fall it must; it was of human erection, and
therefore liable to decay. It would fall, and nothing
bet the memory of the mischief it bad occasioned would
survive it. Already did it begin to exhibit symptoms
of apploaching dissolution.") liow this, coseanued the
Noble and Leann& Lord, is not of ihtt men who are net
Wheat the trouble fo take the oaths required of Roma&
eigliobc Bishops. His Lordship proceeded to read fur-
ilia extracts from the book, in which the writer, in speak-
leg of the Established Church, said, " It (the Pro-
testate Cherch) his had its day, and when the hour
of its dissolution shall have arrived, we shall once
more hatTe a Catholic*King and a Catholic Parliament."
Pod cheers followed the reading of these extracts.
hen they had subsided, the Noble Lord resumed).—
Such is the opinion of this writer—such is the opinion
of the Boman Catholics. No Man who is a real and
'inert Catholic can or does look for Jess than a Catho-
lic King and a Catholic Parliament. My Lords, you may
flatter yourselves that the dangerl I have anticipated are
visional ybaUdGoo forbid that I should say that those who
shall havetvoted f ar thetbird readies of this Bill will
not abatis dome so conseientionly, believiog that no
idanger exists or can be oppthedded -from it. But in

so trait*, if you do not conscientiously believe that
you are placing in any danger the great, the para•
mount interests of this Protestant State, you have nos
that knowledge of its true interests and situation that
you ouAlst td have; for, from the moment that this
Still passes—from this night forward—that Stara
will no longer' have a Protestant King and a Pro..
'tastaat Piulianseest--(Long coothsued cheering, which.
was renewed at intervals during the following sea.
tenets of the Noble and la-arned Lord, the solemnity
of whom taw and occasional isurcatiwas of deep woos
;ion, produced upon the &foam corresponding feelings),
Those with whom we are dealing are too wary to no.
palm you, by any imiistreet conduct. of the dangers to
which you are exposed. When 'bow dangers shall have
arrived I shall have been consigned. to t:'e urn, the se.
pukhre. and mortality; but that they *ill attire I haw;
no more doubt than that I yet continue to exist. Nut.
withstaading this sad conviction I ray to Gin to nest
the dangers that I foresee. You hear the woods of a man
who will soon be called to his glee' account. Gnu fora -
bid. therein., that I should raise my humble staining
foie. did I not diem this weasel. • blearli of e.ttely nor
lion that I have o' a civil coutraet—a breach on every
article of the Constitution, and contrary to the bpirit rf
those oaths I have taken to my King and to that Con.
satiation. Pardon, my Lord., a man far advanced is
years, who is willing to give up his ex'stence to aver;
the dangers with which all be loves, all he severer, are
threatened. I solemnly declare that I had seher not
be living to.mortow morning than on awaking t:, find
that I had consented to this measure; for atter all the
consideration I have given to it, I feel it is impossible
that I could concur in it. believing it, as I do, to be an
sbrigation of all those laws which I deem necessary
to the safety of the Chin violation of those laws .
which I hold as necessary to the pieservat on of he
Throne as to that of the Church, and as ind,spensable
to the eaistence of the Lords and. Commons of this
letslat as to that of the King and our holy religion.
Feeling all this, I repeat, that 1 would rather cease to
mist than, upon awaking to-morrow morning. to find
that I bad consented to a measure fraught,with evils so
imminent and so deadly, and of which bad I not
solemnly expressed ibis, my bumble, tut film cowrie.
Lion. I should have been acting the part. of a traitor to
any country, eriy Sovereign, and my GOD—(The Noble
and Learned Lord here sat down amid cheering that
contsnwd for several minutes).
The Eol of HARROWBY reit called on by as ob-
servation made by his Noble and Learned Friend in the
beginning of his speech. He meant what he said' re-
'peeling Mr. Pitt. His Noble and Learned Fi isn't said
that Ms. Pitt never would bring forward soca a mea-
sure without securities, but Mr. Pitt never named any
securities, nor did be mean securities .against the
principles of the Korona 'Catholic religion. The se-
curities which Mr. Pitt required ace' to meet the
agitation that prevailed on that day; but what was
the nature of the agitation that prevailed to-day
It was widely different. from what prevailed-.then.
for in the present day the agitation was in .favour
of the measure. The Noble Earl here took a view of
the Oath of Supremacy, as taken in the reign of Elisa-
beth, which he observed was never intended as a religious
test, or to keep Catholics cut of Parliament, and, with
respect to the Acts passed in the reign of Charles the
Second, he observed, the state of the times warranted
their enactment, but it was never intended .tb it they
should be permanent. The same opinions did not
exist in these times among the Catholics which did
then. They, in the present dim denied it to be a.
part of their doctrine that faith should out be kept
with heretics— and if a change in their opinions
did not appear from any of, their councils, =pentane .
showed that they were not acted upom He ridiculed
the idea of apprehending any danger from . the Pope.
There was no instance within this century of the Pope
ezcommunicasing any person in Ireland; acid- even if.
he should issue out his fulminations against any Femme
what would be the effect? It was a question of cops-
•mand end obedience. It could not affect the liberties or
pi operty of any individual. The apprehensions respect-
ing the safety of the Church if this measure should pass
be deemed puerile; for if Catholics were to be beliived
on their oaths, this measure would no: enable them to do
more injury than they could do now to the Estahlish-
mint. He contended that the present Bill was giving ,
something to the Catholics, without taking away soy •
right from another; and to keep these rights from the
Catholics, unless on grounds of State expediency, would .
be unjust and oppressive. This measure could not deprive •
the Csown of its parsonage, nor prevent properly from
being represented. It could in no respect give more
power to she Catholics than they possessed at present. He
would ask what could tempt the Catholics to eneesvour
to over throw the Church Establishasentovhen they should
know that they would fail in any such attempt? He
entreated the r Lordships. for the safety of the Church.
to grant this measure. He saw great danger in reject.
ing it. He had no doubt but that Parliament would
tudeavouno console the Protestant Chinch for the dis-
appointment it should experience in passing this Bill.--
Some Noble Lords apprehended dasioer to the Church,
on account of a 'loather of Vie other House enchaining
hostile fe lungs towards it; butte, the E srl, believed teat
hostility was only apparent, and proceeded from an idea
in such Members, that the Clergy of the Chinch oi Eng-
land were great obstacles to the passing of the present
measure. The Noble Earl took a view of the state of the
Protestant Church at the period of the Revolution, and
exorcised his regret in not seeing his Noble Friend (the
Earl' of Westmoreland) in his place, who a few nights
ago had brought forivard au accusation against all
persons who bad sat in a divided Cabinet, wnibuting
to them the evils which ceased to-day in Ireland. He
niantid.ask, was not the Noble Earl himeelf a ineentior
cif a divided Cabinet? and he would further say. that it
4,4 as morally impossible to form a united Cabinet in the
existing state of society. This measure would rensoeuthe
spell. It would have been much better if done at an earlier
peripd. He had oo doubt but that it would teed to tran.
quilline Ireland. Other Noble Lords said not. -That
toy one musses could effectually restose tranquillity
he would not say; but he would say any somber of
measures would be ineffectual without this. The die-
sention and enmity, beartburniags and discord, which
Ole existing laws had caused in Ireland, made that
sentry as different from this as any two countries could
Ml croup one another. The Noble Earl took a brief view
gem miserable state of society in Ireland, which be
confident the present measure would ameliorate, and
nut down amidst cheers.
The Bishop of NORWICH said he regretted that
the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon) seemed to baye
mistaken the opinions of Locke and Bishop Hoadla7—
those two great men whose writings were the guides
Of his youth. Had the Noble and Learned Lord read
them with more situation, he would have found that
they, were not friendly to the principle of exclusion
'on religioui grounds. Locke laid it down that no
'man ought to mac In his civil rights on account
.of his religiom opinions; and Bishop Headley. in
his book on the Test% and Corporation Acts, spoke
Lin a • mahout With* .stada• it clear that he would be