Star.
London, England, 1821-03-27 00:00:00

_ . .

of calling in their one-pound notes. They would try
the experiment, however, and, if it succeeded, they
intended continuing the system.

RSV. MR. HAYES.
Mr. CAREW begged to call to the recollection of
the House, that he had stated on a former evening,
that a communication was made to him some years
ago by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Wexford, that
he was obliged to reprimand Mr. Hayes for having
preached a sermon of a seditious tendency. He had
since that statement received a letter from Mr. Hayes,
in which he denied the occurrence of any such cir-
cumstance. All, therefore, that he (Mr. Carew) had
to do, was to leave the House to decide between the
veracity of the Bishop and Mr. Hayes.

TIMBER DUTIES.
Petitions were laid on the table from the Merchants
of Plymouth, the Ship Owners of North Shields, and
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against any' alteration of
the Duties on Timber.

DISPOSAL OP PUBLIC MONET. 1
Mr. CURWEN said, he had a motion to submit
to the House of the greatest importance, as affecting
the question in whom the disposal of the Public
Money was vested. He then moved, that there be'
laid before the House an account of the sum granted
to Mr. M'Adam, specifying the amount, under what
authority granted, and from what funds taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that his explanation would be short and satisfactory.'
The Gentleman in question had spent a great deal of
his time upon the improvement of the public roads.
His services had been recommended to the attention
of Government, and upon references being made to
the Post.Masten as to the effect of his plans, the
most satisfactory representations were:made ; and, in
consequence, an order was directed to the Treasury
to remunerate him by a grant out of certain funds
already voted by Parliament. He had no objection
that the motion should pass. Motion put and carried.

THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS BILL.

Sir J. NEWPORT, in moving the Order of the
Day for going into a Committee on the Bill, said, it
was his intention, in a future stage of the Bill, to
propose to consolidate these two Bills.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-
minded the Honourable Baronet that this proposition
must be made in the Committee.
Mr. HUTCHINSON observed, when this subject
was last before the House, he represented that he
had received no communications from Ireland against
the Bill ; he had been represented as stating that he
had received many communications in favour of it,
he had not said so ; he had said be had received no
communication whatever on the subject. His Right
Honourable Friend had now given notice of his in-
tention to move, in a future stage, to consolidate these
two Bills ; on that notice he felt it his duty to say,
there were parts of that Bill to which be could not
assent, especially as he understood there were great
objections to this Bill existing in the minds of the
Catholic Clergy. He had, since last in the House,
received a communication from high authority on
this subject, namely, from a highly respectable ti-
tular Bishop, declaring his utter hostility to this se-
cond Bill ; and he further understood there was to
be a Meeting of the Irish Bishops in Dublin to-day
on the subject. Under these circumstances; it was
with pain tie felt himself called on to state, that he
must oppose that second Bill in its present shape,
although he hoped it might be so altered as to ren-
der it acceptable to the Catholics. •
The House then went into a Committee on the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then read the Clause relating to
the Oath respecting the doctrine of Transubstantia-
tion, the worship of Saints, and sacrifice of the Mass.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE felt it his duty to oppose
the repeal of the Oath on these subjects. Before he
could consent to giving up this test, he must be sa-
tisfied that the Catholic religion did not remain what
it formerly was ; that the Catholics were entitled to,
and might safely be trusted to hold the high offices cif
State, and to sit in Parliament. He had heard a
Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman describe
this Clause against Transubstantiation, as one that
no man could understand. He could not think that
this question should be got rid of without endeavour-
ing to see how it squared itself with the Protestant
Church Establishment. He believed that he could
not vote for this Bill, unless contrary to the oath he
had taken—(Hear, hear).—ln his opinion, if this Bill
were passed, the British Constitution would be greatly
endangered ; and they must go still farther, and re-
peal the Corporation and the Test Acts. lithey did
not do this, there would be a favour granted to one
part of the community, to the manifest injury of
another. We had gone too near to the passing of
this Bill to be comfortable among ourselves ; the fact
was, that it was enough for him to know the evils
which this country endured when Catholics were in
power—(Haar, hear).—He had seen a Paper, signed
by a Dr. Milner, which shewed him clearly that they
could expect no conciliation with the Catholics. He
believed that this Apostolic Catholic Bishop was a
very true and honest Catholic. The Papists were
bound to obey the head of their Church, and he could
never, therefore, consent to their sitting in that House
.(Hear, hear).—He looked on the Catholic Religion
as intolerant and absurd ; and, compared, with the
Protestant, it could not stand for a moment. It was
idle to. tell that House that they should pass this
measure, which the great majority of the Catholics
would not accept of. He should therefore oppose
the Bill openly, and upon ail occasions.
Mr. R. MARTIN thought it would be fair to ask
the Hon. Baronet whether he thought there was any
connection between a belief in transubstantiation and
a want of allegiance in the Catholics? He knew that
the Catholics no more believed in the divinity of the
Virgin• Mary, or any other Saint, than the Honour-
able Baronet, or any other Member of that House.
He did not know what intolerance prevailed among
the nations of Catholics abroad, but they were not
intolerant in Ireland. There he had been accustomed
to see the wife who was a Catholic educating the
children in the Protestant faith, at the desire of her
Protestant husband. He took it for granted that the
Honourable Baronet was adverse to the diffusion of
the Catholic- religion. Now Dr. Milner and the
other Catholics who opposed this Bill did so because,
according to them, this measure would destroy the
Catholic religion.
Sir GEORGE HILL contended thatour ancestors
did not oppose the Catholics on the score of religion,
bat only to keep them out of Patliameuti he should,

-.

therefore, propose that this clause should
nos %
declaratory one.
The clause was then so amended, and it also re.
ceived several other verbal amendments.
Mr. WETHERELL objected to the svords "that
nothing herein contained should dispense with the
taking of the oaths of abjuration and allegiance-.
' This proviso seemed to be unnecessary.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, that the inter.
tion of these words had arisen from an over-anxiety
not to leave any security out of the Bill which could
affect the Protestant religion.
The clause was then amended verbally.
Mr. BANKES rose to move an Aniendrhent, that
person could sit in either House of Parhliadamaen:
nothing should alter .the oaths required before any
hoped there was a large portion of the Members who
wished for this security for the Protestant religiae,
He begged the attention of all those who were of this
way of thinking; because, without this security, all
others were idle and nugatory. They htlieto
every security, for even the Catholic Prelates were
discontented with this Bill. They had to deal with
persons who were governed by a certain portion
foreign influence. finless they had every species eif
security, it was impossible to conciliate all insereei
in the State. Petitions had been presented, tonnes,
merously and respectably signed, by Catholic Clergy.
men on this side of die water, against this Bill; and
without a perfect conciliation of all interests, Fa
would be in vain to pass this Bill, whose object wag
said to be to conciliate the minds of all classes in the
State. Instead of peace and conciliation, it would
be a matter of tumult and agitation among theme.,
bers of the Catholic Church. The point of admit.
Ling Catholics into Parliament was of such impote.
ante, that the Bill was lost in 1813, or rather it was
withdrawn; for the supporters of the measure said,
that without that boon the Bill would be good fir
nothing. What would be the case if a similar ester
were to take place that night, he knew not; but be
never would consent to Catholics holding seats it
Parliament, because such an admission would be&
tal to the Established Church of Ireland. Golds.'
men complained of the intolerance of those who op.
posed this measure ; but he knew himself to be by no
means intolerant ; and he would never forego his duty
because he might be accused of possessing a perse►
cuting spirit. The purer the Catholic's faith, theme,.
hostile must be be to the existence of the Protestait
religion. If Roman Catholics regained their power,
they would be the same as at the commencement of
the Reformation. The very large portion of popular
Election in Ireland would, he had no doubt, coos
centre in the Catholics. It was admitted, that their
wealth, their consequence, and numbers wereioneas-
ing. The Act which passed the Irish Parliamest is
1792 was suffered by Mr. Pitt and his Government,
for fear of.the influence of the French Revelatioaos
the great mass of the Irish Catholics; but that AM
was not meant to go farther than giving these the
elective franchise. Now it was contended, however,
that this measure was naturally consequent 'pea
that. The Established Church of every munny
should be that to which the bulk of the People ad.
hared; but that should only be in countries indepts.
dent of all others. If that principle were admixed
in Ireland, what would become of the Protestant
Church Establishment in that country? There were
perhaps many Members in Parliament who woad
grudge paying anything for the establishment of the
Catholic Church, from which they could reap as
benefit, and to the tenets of which they could sot
subscribe. This measure was a perfect traptokieg
about the repeal of the Corporation and Tat Acts.
These Acts were discussed in 1787, in nelly ad
again in 1790, when there was only a insionty d
twenty against the consideration of them. Let ari
man consider whether those Acts could last a limb
Session, after letting in the Catholics to seats hire-
Bement. It had been suggested by an Honourable
Gentleman, that there should be an establishasaufer
the Catholic Clergy. If this were done, kneel:OM
out of the pockets of the people of England; kris
revenue of Ireland was well known not to burl
to her own expenditure. Whatever oaths or rime
ties they imposed, without the qualification whitibt
proposed to have inserted in the Bill, they wesideile
the Catholics the power to undermine thataineet
Succession and Government, as established lONA
this country. If the Jesuits had not been !Ord
very much, they had been accused oft:pimento/of
all the oaths and securities which were previa*
established. Did they not know that there woe
Canonical Establishments of the Jesuits in Law
shire, and at Castletown, in Ireland, which held or
respondence with the Society of Propaganda 2
high
wealthy those who were bora of
yßoomuthe? These Jesuits would have the education d
thy CatholParliament,ic there w
parents.
If
Catholicsou
security for the Protestant Constitution in the State.
Mr. CALCRAFT had never before declared _
opinion to the House, and therefore hood for its
ter
which be belle"
iwould be
admitted
dulgence. Should the Bill pass, wh
siould do, be wished to give his opiniom ale t
speaker had taken a wider field than be malt 11,r_
If he could believe in the fancied dangers dliasi.
nourable Gentleman who spoke last, Tie noght•
1..10.:
diced to think in a different manner. Belt--
surprised, at the present day, that such argl.22
could be offered to the House. He looked to pir
securities as of little avail ; but, in the relent 221'
the parties concerned had a large stake la rye
try, and were bound to watch over its WOW°
had been said by the last speaker, that if the
had seats in Parliament, they would ofetil iodic
Constitution ; but that argument suPPosed
zeal in the Protestant majority, than in the
minority. The Hon. Gentleman had anilar,l
on the conduct of Mr. Pitt, in 1793; and ngft.,',"Al
thought he should have found it necessary to "
the conduct of Mr. Pitt against the Hon.
The conduct of Mr. Pitt and his colleagnes a< T.
day, had arisen from enlarged views of uatiasd
pedience, and was certainly never intended. w,S,
there. At the time of the Union, it was the wr*
of Mr. Pitt to merge the Catholic in the
population, and thus be enabled with safety to Pf:
still further concessions. It was not in human new-
for men to nor. when they had quel_ified_."too•
for higher stations and privileges. The
in Church. and State was safe, tlunalln
t.r,pro•
in both Houses, from the predominanceer of
II testant , majority. If he apprehended nlnTlapyi
would ■be the last ono to 'uppers the 12213ag.