The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

Emperial Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.

Lord Denman, who sat as Speaker, read a letter from the
Earl of Devon...

'rhe letter, which was dated lune 22, 1835, set forth, in effect,
that the writer (Mr. Courtenav, late Dep. Cler. Parliamentor.)
took the earliest opportunity of int.ortning their lordships that
the.title of Earl of Devon had devolved on him, in consequence
of the decease of the late earl ; and that he had received from,
his Majesty a writ of summons to attend in his 'place as a peer
of parliament. He could not, however, give up the office which
he had so long held in their lordships' house, without express-
ing the deep sense which he felt of the uniform confidence
which their lordships had reposed in him, and the uniform
kindness which had been extended towards him in the discharge
of his various duties—a kindness and confidence which had ren-
dered the performance of those duties comparatively light, and
which never should be obliterated from his recollection.
On the motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, the letter was or-
dered to be entered on the journals.

Viscount MELBOURNE moved for a committee to inquire into
the duties and emoluments of the office vacant by the accession
of Mr. Courtenay to the peerage.

IRISH CHURCH APPROPRIATION,

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from a parish in
Ireland, against the apropriztion of church property to any
but ecclesiastical purposes. The right rev. prelate would take
that opportunity to state that he had this day received a letter
from a respectable clergyman in Ireland, on a subject of con-
siderable importance. He should read an extract from that
letter, but he would not mention the name of the writer. He
would, however, put the letter into the hands of the noble
viscount (Duucannon), and, if the noble viscount found the
facts to be misstated, be should then feel it to be his duty to
name the individual who had addressed the letter to him. It
would appear that the letter referred to one of the gentlemen
who had been appointed -commissioners of public instruction in
Ireland. The right rev. prelate then read as follows :—" The
appointment of Mr. —, to act as the commissioner at,—,
had a tendency to deter protestants and encourage Roman ca-
tholics. For this gentleman (who resides about four miles from
was a well known Roman Catholic agitator, and about five
years ago had been chaired through that town on a Sunday,
after having delivered a most inflammatory speech in the ehapel
, against tke established church, the constabulary, the schools,
and in fact, every person and thing in the neighbourhood, not
employed in the extension of popery. The meeting was ad-
journed for three weeks or a month, when I attended with se•
veral persons win:oiled been represented as roman catholics to
contradict the statements that had been made respecting them.
One, a man named ---, who was stated by the priest, on oath,
to have declared that be, his wife, and eight children, were ail
Roman catholics, was anxious to go before a magistrate to
swear that he never made such a declaration, and that his sons
could not have been at mass the Sunday previoy. But no
commissioner came—his servant adjourned it to afuture day,
when we again met, and were again disappVinted, his man
'having came, after five o'clock iu the evening, to say that his
master could not attend : the people's patience was thus ex-
hausted, and very few attended when the commissioner came,
and when, but for the accidental presence of the son of the
rector, many persons, especially and his fainily, before
mentioned, would have been registered as Roman catholics.
'One circumstance is worth attention—viz., that the protestants
'who died, or removed since 1831, were subtracted from the gross
number, whilst the Roman catholic population was not sub-
meted from."

Viscount DuNcasiNom said the allegations chiefly referred to
circumstances that had occurred some years ago, and with
which he could not possibly be acquainted.
The Bishop of EXETNR said he had mentioned the subject in
order that the noble viscount might inquire into it.
The execution of wills bill and the executors bill, were read
a second time and referred to a select committee.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY.
Mr. W. F. Ponsonby, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Wagon, took
the oaths and their seats.
Mr. FIELDEN moved for a new writ for the borough of Old-
ham, in the room of the late William Cobbett, Esq.
EMIGRANT PASSENGERS' SHIPS.
Mr. FERGus presented a petition from Kirkaldy, praying
that the house should take measures to prevent unseaworthy
vessels from carrying emigrants to America. The petitioners
attributed the loss of a great many vessels with passengers lately
to the fact of their being unseaworthy, an evil which arose out
of the present 'system of marine insurance, and the mode of
marking vessels at Lloyd's
CORPORATION OP NEW•RK.
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE presented a petition from the corpo-
ration of Newark, complaining of the great injustice done to
them,by the report of the commissioners on that borough. They
stated that the commissioners carried on the inquiry at their own
,inn, instead of carrying it on in public, and under the control
of public opinion. The petitioners controverted and contradic-
ted the statements made in the report of the commissioners.
The hon. member stated, that neither he nor the petitioners
wished to arrest the progress of the bill, but he must protest
with them against the tone and spirit of this report.
THE CATHOLIC OATHS.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a very influential
and numerous body of the inhabitants of Birmingham,yespect-
ang,a notice of a motion given by the member for Tipperary
(Mr. Shell) and in reference to the oath taken by that and
other catholic members on their admission to that house. Mr.
'Blselll, having objected to the notice as being incorrectly stated
is the petition, Sir It. Inglis read it from' the records of the
house; It was as follows :—" On the first day of going into a
committee of supply, to move a resolution that no person who
shall be thenceforth appointed to any ecclesiastical benefice or
dignity in Ireland shall be deemed to have any such vested in-
terest as to entitle such person to compensation in the event of
such benefice or dignity being suppressed." Sir Robert then
proceeded to explain the objects of the petition. The petitioners
stated that the notice (which he bad just read) was evidently
conceived in a spirit of hostility to the established church of
Ireland. Now certainly people should be very chary in attri-
buting motives to others, but, when they came to the construc-
tion of acts, it was a 'different thing, and he was sure that the
hon. and learned member would not defend the tendency of such
a motion, ii it should, when carried, place the church of Ireland
in a worse position as regarded the property belonging to her
• than she was in at the time when the hon. and learned member
took the oath not to " disturb or weaken the protestant religion
in the United Kingdom." (Hear, hear.) The petitioners
went on to state that they could not conceive how such a notice
of a motion could have been given by any one who had solemn-
ly sworn in the following words:—" I do swear that I will de-
fend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property
within this realm, as established by the laws; and I du hereby
disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert
the present church establishment as settled by law within this
realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any
privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or
weaken the protestant religion or protestant goverliment in the
united kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God,
profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and
every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words
of this oath, withot any evasion, equivocation, or mental reser-
vation whatsoever. So help me God." The petition then pro-
ceedett to call the attention of the house to the catholic relief
bill, aryl to the circumstances under which it was 'Sassed. Now
be (Sir R. Inglis) was sure that there would be found an almost
unanimous concurrence both on the part of the protestant sup-
porters and on the part of.. the protestant opponents of the bill
on this point—that that measure would not for a moment have
passed that house if it had been then suspected that the power of
dealing with the rights aid property of the church had been con-
ceded by it to the Roman catholics. (Hear, hear.) The• pe-
titioners, with this conviction on their minds, stated that they
regarded this notice of motion as a violation of honour and of
the solemn 'obligation of an oath which had been voluntarily
taken by the catholic members of that house. They added that
they felt it was a mockery to tell them that the protestant reli-
gion in Ireland would be neither "weakened" nor " disturbed"
by lessening to a great extent the number of its ministers there,
and by virtually turning the church establishment of Ireland
over to the dominion of men who regarded its doctrines with
horror. (Hear.) The petitioners, in conclusion, prayed the
house to adopt such measures as should prevent this oath—the
• only security that the church possessed against the attacks of
its inveterate enemies—from either being treated with scorn or
broken with impunity. They further prayed the house to ex-
clude by express enactment Roman catholic members from any
share in ecclesiastical legislation. (" Hear, hear," from Mr.
O'Connell and other catholic members.) He (Sir R. Inglis)
did not concur in the prayer of the petition, and his reason was
tbis—not that the petition prayed for too much, but that it
prayed for too little. He would go much further. (Hear.)
According to the view which he had uniformly entertained, he
had always thought that the introduction of members of the
church of Rome into that assembly had been the greatest cala-
mity that had ever occurred to this country. ("Hear, hear,"
and laughter from Mr. O'Connell and others.) lie could not
indeed expect that the hon. and learned member for Dublin
would concur in that opinion. .(A laugh.) He would venture,
however, to say this, that it was a feeling that was rapidly in-
creasing throughout the country—it was a feeling which pre-
vailed very generally sotne tone ago—he believed that it was
now gaining strength every day throughout England, and he
was sure that the events of the lust four months had tended
much to increa.e such a feeling amongst the intelligent and
rational part of the population of this country, (hear, hear.)
For himself be (Sir It. Inglis) would say, that if he hattaaken
such an oath regarding the church of Rome as the catholic
members had taken respecting the established church;—if, after
taking that. oath Ite—had" given notice of a motion authe one
given by Mr.. Sheil, he would not complain if the catholic tnem--
hers accused hint of doing something approaching to perjury.
His principel motive in calling the attention of the house to
this subjectlvas to give a warning to the catholic members who
had taken this oath, and to show that there was one protestant
member in that house who would warn them that they were in
danger. The honourable member (Mr. Sheil) had, in a letter
to the aforniity Chronicle, challenged him, Sir R. Inglis, to bring
.forward some distinct and substantive motion on that subject.
Were ke.to do so, the member for Dublin and his thirty-five
toHowersfatotild negative it as they had carried the Irish church
bill. The'tnember fur Tipperary was the first Roman Catholic
member whohad originated a proposition in that house that
tended to " weaken or disturb the protestant religion or govern-
ment." When aitgave his notice he rose from the very spot be
now occupied on the treasury benches, where sat the membeis
of a government, which he and his patty had placed in power,
and without whose support that government could nut exist fur
a single day,—(cheers from the opposition, )—a government, in
fast, that would be floundering in the dirt, if the learned mem-
ber for Dublin should withdraw his support. It had been asked
what was the use of catholic emancipation if catholic members
Isere not at liberty to vote on church as well as on all other
questions ; to this he woulil reply that it was not for him, and
those who had resisted it, to tell the house what was the use of
that concession ;—it was for those who had supported that mea-
sure to state what geed it had
.produced either in Ireland or
England,—in his (Sir R. Inelis s) opinion it had been produc-
tive of unmixed evil to the protestant church and protestant
community of both countries. The honourable baronet then
proceeded to speak of the catholic oath, which he read, and in
the course of his comments upon it referred to Mr. Eneas
M`Donnell's pamphlet on that subject. He concluded by mov-
ing that the petition be laid on the table.

Mr. SHELL spoke at peat length in defence of his motion
upon which the petition from Birmingham bad been founded.
The question between the honourable baronet and himself
had risen to an importance which did belong to it,—the house
and the country must decide between them. With respect to
his notice of motion;—the church temporalities bill provided
that in certain parts of Ireland benefits might be suppressed;
when the old commissioners of bankrupts were superseded by
the erection of a new court, all the commissioners appointed
after a certain day received no compensation for the abolition
of their offices. The motive of the hon. baronet was to offer
an affront to the body to whicb he belonged ; in giving his con-
struction of the oath his only purpose was, to have the gratifica-
tion of making him (Mr. Stied) the object of contumelious in-
sinuation. The honourable and learned gentleman emicluded
by declaring that it was not his intention to subvert or weaken'
the protestant church.
Mr. O'CONNELL followed at great length; at the conclusion
.of his speech the debate, on the motion of Lord John Russell,
'was adjourned.