The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

HOCSE OF COMMONS.

A person from the Exchequer brought up an at-
count of the Amount of Income charged on the Con-
solidated Fund of England and Ireland, up to the sth
January 18221.
Mr. LUSHINGTON laid on the Table an Account
of the Annual Public Expenditure, up to the sth of
Jan. IS2I.

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a Petition front the
Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Chattel' of Rif,
against the Roman Catholic Claims.--Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. If. DAVIS presented two Petitions of a si-
milar nature from the Ministers, Churchwardens, an"
Inhabitants of the parishes of St. Thomas and Tem-
ple, in the City of Bristol—Ordered to be printed.
The Public Notaries (Ireland) Bill was reported,
and ordered to bt• read a third time on Monday next.
Mr. R. MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the Office of Coroners in Ireland.
On the motion of Mr. RICE, the Trial for Treason
in Ireland Bill was read a second time.—Ordered to
be committed on Tuesday next.
On the motion of Mr. RICE, the Report of the
Bankrupt Eifects (Ireland) Bill, and the Report of
the Witchcraft Repeal (Ireland) Bill, were severally
brought up and received, and the Bills ordered to be
read a third time on Monday next.
On the motion of Mr. LIUSHINGTON, the House
went into a Col ttttt ittee on the Beer Duties Bill, and the
Report was ordered to be received on Monday next.
The Commercial Intercourse Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Mr. BYND presented a Petition front the Trustees of
the Bethnal Green Row!, against the Metropolis Roads'
I Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Ole. TULK presented a Petition from the Mayor, Al-
i dermen, and Capital Ourcesses of Sudbury, against the
Catholic Bill.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir E. OAIMANEY presented a Petition from the
Merchants :mil Ship-On ners of Plymouth-Dock, rela-
tive to the Duties on Timber.—Ordered to be printe.l.
Mr. E. BASTARD presented a Petition from the
Clerizv and lientry of the Comity of Devon, awainst the
• Bill for removing the Civil Disabilities of the Roman
I Catholics.

- -
Sir T. ACKLAND bore testimony to the respect•
ability of the sis:natures of the petition, and expressed
his sorrow that he could not participate in the plea-
sore whi►•h his Hon. Collesirtie and Friend must Imre,
in supporting the opinions of so large a portion of his
con4titoents.

Siir T. LETIIBRIINiE said, that the sentiments con-
tained in the Petition were entertain by a great majo-
rity of the inhabitant< of Devonshire. They felt, and be
v.-cm along with them in that feeling. that the Consti-
tution of the country world he overturned whenever the
Roman Catholics were admitted to power.
Sir I. COEFI S observed, that the Hon. Baronet had
been speaking exclusively of the feeling of the people of
Devonshire, whereas the present measure principally af-
fected the people of Ireland.
Sir W. GUISE presented a Petition from the Clergy
of the Deanery of Witelorombe, in the county of Glou-
cester, praying that the Douse would not *auction the
measures now before it. tor affording relief to Roman
Catholies.—Ordered to be primed.
Sir C. BURRELL rose for the purpose of correcting
an error which had gone forth in the public press, re-
specting the statement made by an Hon. Menobtr (ilr.
Ilume)-last night, as to the Receiver-Generals who had
been defaulters. The New Times had stated, that the
Receiver-General for Sussex had beer a defailltet,to a
considerable amount, wi:erras the lion. Member name 4
Salop. This was evidently an error of the press, and he,
only mentioned it for the purpose of having it correCted..l
I The lientletnan who filled the office of Receiver-Grueriol
for Susses was a most respectable character, and, he her
Red to observe, had never perforturd the duties of hts
office by &linty.
Lord A.HASI I LTON presented a Petition from certain
-inhabitants oTthe city of Glasgow, again t,a hill now
before the loose, canal the Ulasgaw Police ,BilL—Or-
•
dere! to Ile upon the table.
Lord A. HAMILTON moored for retnrn 3of an Par-

lit nentary Uraitts ,1041 Co:tarns:Amu' revointistailed by

AN.i..

the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Scotch Courts of
fhistice.—Ordered.
Mr. PEEL rose to present tl Petition to the House
from a person named Hayes, a Roman Catholic Cler-
gyman, who had put the Petition into his bands with
an earnest request that he should present it this even-
' ing. With the statements and allegations contained
in the Petiti•tu, of course he had nothing to 810. At
the same time, if they were true, they deserved the
most serious attention of the (louse. The Petitioner
confidently asserted his ability to prove what he had
advanced, and offered to do so at the Bar of the House.
He should move that the Petition be read, and the
Honse would then become acquainted with its content'.
Mr. IVYNNE thought the Petition appeared to be
of considerable length, and that the time of the House
ought not to be occupied by reading Petitions of such
a nature, so as to impede the progre4s of business.
Mr. PEEL, said, if the House preferred it, he would
state briefly what the' statements of the Petitioner
were. He state:) that if the Bill now before the House
was carried, it would be contrary to the wishes of the
See of Rome, and of the general body of the Catho-
,

lies of Ireland. Ile also stated that an erroneous

Impression had gone forth relative to the situation
in which he, the Petitioner, stood with the Pope, and
with the leading Roman Catholic Clergy. Ile had
received letters from the Pope within a %bort period,
respecting some important services which he had ten.
ilered to the Roman Catholic Religion, that would
prove the confidence reposed in him by the See of
Rome. With respect to the Catholics of Ireland, they
' concurred with him in the feelings he entertained tom
ward. the present Bill. The Right lion. Member then
I moved that the Petition be received.

Mr. WYNNE did not intend to press his objection,
but be wished to direct the attention of the Hoots', to
the subject. All bn•iness might be entirely impeded
by and• person who chose to present a Petition of greet
length, if the House gave way to the practice of read-

ingthem.
Mr. BERNAL observed, that there had hero a
similar Petition frotn the same individual presented to
the House a fe►v days ago.
Mr. CAREW having some knowledge of Mr. Hayes,
wished to give the House a fair opportunity of judging
as to what degree of ►veight was to be attache.' to the
present Petition. At certain meeting of Catholics in
the county which he had the honour to represent

(Wexford) the conduct of this individual was so vio-
lent, that many of his (Mr. Carew's) friends threat-
ened to leave the meeting. Shortly after that, the
same individual preached a sermon of the most sedi-
lions character, which was ralculated to create dis-
union between England and Ireland.--((hear, hear,
bear.)—Ile irad received a letter from Wexford, which
he would read to the House, expressing similar opi-
nions of the character of this priest. The lion. Mem-
ber then read a letter whirl. requested him to caution
his Right lion. Friend (Mr. Plunkett) and those who
supported tlu Bill, against noticing any thing which
came from the demagogues and revolutionists of that
country. It asserted that they did not speak the sense
of the Catholics of Ireland, or at least of those who
bail any sense at all.—(llear.)—The Petition was then
ordered to be printed.
PETITION OF CATHOLIC NOBLES.
Lord NUGENT rose to present a Petition from four
English Catholic Peers, praying that the Bill now in
the House for affording relief to the Roman Catholics
might pass into a law. The first signature was that of
a Nobleman who had received precedence from all
others through a long series of ages, and who was now
at the head of the Nobility of the realm. '1 he second
was the premier Earl of the kingdom, and the two
others were names that had taken a distinguished lead
in the history- of the country. The signatures were
the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the
Lord Petre, and the Lord Arundel. Since a Petition
was some time ago presented to the House from
Dr. Milner awl others, a paper hail been freely circa-
toted professing to lie the theological objections of Dr.
Milner and three other Catholic Clergyman, against
the measure now before the (louse. Unless they
were prepared to recognise the dictatioes of these three
Gentlemen, this self-elected triumvirate, he entreated
the House to go on with the great work which it bad
begun. The circular of 'best. three Gentlemen de- I
dared that they opposed it in accordance to the wishes
of the Catholics of thi• country. Now, when Doctor
Milner made this statement, he (Lord Nugent) must
charge him with stating that which was untrue, and
with knowiug it to be so, at the time he made the
statement. Because at that very time all the Vicars
Apostolic, excepting himself, hail then signed a Petition
in which they expressed their satisfaction at the pre-
sent Bill. Ile serial,' not weaken the effect of the Pe-
tition which he hail the honour to present by saying
any thing more upon it. The great Noblemen who
had signed it had acted as became the hereditary ho-
nour of their names. They had nobly placed them-
selves in the breach which Ur. Milner had made, and
declared themselves ready to take the oath of supremacy
as it stood in the Bill.
The Petition having been read,
Sir .1. NIACKINTOSII wished briefly to point out to
the Douse why no other signatures appeared upon the
Petition. There were only six Catholic Peers who re-
sided in England, and only four happened to be within
reach of the notice it hich ha l induced them to sign the
present Petition. Reasons of prudence had operated to
prevent other distinguished Catholics from affixing their
signatures to it. Thee could not know, or assume, that
they might ever be railed upon either by the favour of
his Majesty, or by the choice of the people, to be in a
situation in which they would be compelled to take the
oath. It was upon the Peers alone this oath would of
necessity he imposed. Ile wished to make this short
explanation, because it should not he supposed that these
great Noblemen wished to separate theiuselves from their
brieher laymen in the Catholic religion. They were
the proper leaders of the Catholics, and to their senti-
ments the House should Idok for those of the great Ca-
tholic bully; and not to the statements of a Franciscan
Friar, who had been suspended by the Catholic Bishops
for his disloyal anti seditious conauct.—(Hear, hear
He diet not wonder that such a person was hailed by.
.certain zealous Protestants as a possible chance of throw-,
ing oat the present measure.
Mr. PEEL said that it' the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber alluded to him, when he spoke of those who hailed
the individual whom be mentioned, he had cett tinly
made an unfounded assertion ; because he had ,particu-
larly guarded himself against being involved in the
statements and opinions contained in the Petition which
lie revolted to the llonse.--(hear, bear;)
Sir J. MACIiINTIISII said that as the Right lion.
Member had so rtarded Glossa, he was wrist") that

he should suspect that the language he (Sir J. SI.) bet
used was in any way directed to him.
Sir U. HILL thought the Petition was rather scum,
signed. With respect to the Bill before the House, he
would say, as far as the Roman Catholic Press is
Ireland could be considered as the organ of the Catholic
opinion, that that press, especially in the North of Ire,
land, in Belf.ist, Cork, Dublin, and Galway, reprobated
in the strongest manner the measure which had bees is.
troduced by the Right Honourable Gentleman, as see
calculated not to emancipate, hut to injure and husk
the Catholics. The Catholic Press of London was aloe
hostile to the Bill. For his own part, if he conceived
the measure would be productive of conciliation and
harmony, it would hare no warmer advocate than bile.
self: and it was only his conscious conviction of darn.
trary that rendered him adverse to it.

Mr. II Tctii IV SON declared that he hail not receireill
single letter or commnnication from Ireland disapprer.
ing of his Right Honourable Friend's Rill. With re.
spert to the first Bill, that of Emancipation, lie was per.
suaded that it would meet with the concurrence of an
who were interested in the subject. To the second, he
had some slight objections, which he could take somber
opportunity of stating to the House.
Lord NUGENT said a few words in reply, in tie
conrse of which, he observed that the atreaph ofsstk
men as Dr. Milner lay in the divisions which Om
existing law created : and that that strength would
expire the moment the Bill now iu progress received
the Royal Assent.

Mr. It. 3IAIITIN, as allusion had been niade tel
Galway, begged to deckle his conviction that all the
respectable Roman Catholics of :hat count• would
be highly gratified by the pas.ing of the Bill. As
to to the press of Galway, it har.lly deserved the
name of a press.

Mr. Will E positively denied tint the (reliefs
of the great I► .dv of the Catholics in Ireland welt
hostile to the Dill The Get was finite the reverse.
Mr. DALY confirmed what the Honourable Men..
her for tialw•ay had stated. The lialway Parr was
conducted by a Protestant, who was no well wisher w
the Catholic claims.

Mr. M. FITZGERALD was satisfied that the great
body of the Catholics both in England and Irelaad
were favourable to the Bill.—The Petition was then
ordered to printed.

~

`ow Mow Wallops of Rome alsoold have so attlsoeft,
Whatever in this country. To him it appeared to he
matter demonstrable beyond doubt, that one of the grew'
riaeiples of our free Constitution,' as it now stood, was.
that no Pontifical authority should be admitted in this
country, even in spiritual matters. In fact it was im-
possible for any one successfully to claim authority over
spiritual matters, without at the same time possessing
some authority over matters slot spiritual. The law had
therefore always excluded even spiritual authority of a
foreign character. Adverting to the admonition an-
nexed to the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, the Right
lion. Gentleman observed, that that admonition stated
that her Majesty possessed no more authority than ha
Royal Father. Itut what was that i No man mull
doubt that the authority of Henry the Eighth was of
a nature wholly excluding all foreign authority.
After a variety of other observations on the odes,-
nitions, the Right Honourable Gentleman read the
Oath of that period, and contended that it excluded all
foreign jurisdiction without any condition or limitation
whatever. Adverting to the any
introduced in the
sill before the Committee with the incorporated expla-
nation, he expresses! his surprise that the Oath of king
William's time should he the Oath adopted, but with an
explanation which applied, not to that Oath, hut to the
Oath of the time of Elizabeth. A century after the Oath
of Supremacy was passed, to affix to it an interpretation
different from that which it originally bore, was certain-
ly a novelty in legislation. This was, in the first in-
stance, done by means of a separate explanation, but now
the explanation was metamorphosed into a part of the
Oath itself. The Oath, whilst it affected to hind the
Catholic, yet at the same time furnished him with a key
to get out of it—that was a novelty in legislation, a no-
velty too of the most dangerous, nature. At the eliatanee
of a century the Catholics were to be informed by the
authority of Parliament, that what they conceived to
have been the tenor of the oath was in future to he taken
avith an understanding quite different. Such a violent
interpretation of plain words lie could not but consider
dangerous to the conscience of i non viduals, unworthy the
honour and dignity of Parliament, and opposed to the
conscience of mankind. There were other objections to
the oath which he would not at present notice, for being
opposed to it he would feel it his duty to vote against it.
Mr. HORACE Twlss said he would not presume
even to attempt to answer the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down ; but he rose thus early in the
debate, because he considered the principle of the Hill
had already been discussed and admitted. In the few
observations he had to offer, he should mix up the con-
sideration of the oath of Transubstantiation as well as
that of Supremacy, conceiving that in the discussion
they were inseparably connected. lie could not, how-
ever, but advert to an argument drawn up by the Right
lion. Member from his reference to the reign of Eliza-
beth. It was impossible not to recollect that in the
reign of Elizabeth there was no oath at all, although
that was a period of our history in which the Monarchy
attempted to assume an absolute power, religious as well
as moral, if indeed there could be a distinction between
them. The oath, however, as estahrshril, continued fur
150 years, and it was not until the time of Charles the
Second that any further test was required. The decla-
ration against Transubstantiation was then introduced,
but it was occasioned by a fear of theinfittence of the So-
vereign—it was indeed altogether a necessity of a tem-
porary nature. In the year 170 the dangers of Ifittn
were too recent to admit of any relaxation of the laws.
If the argument of that (lay on the score of danger were
available now, it would he available to any extent. It
would sanction the permanent suspension of the Habeas
Coriolis Act, because its temporary suspensionthad been
sanctioned in the time of danger.—(Bear.)—lt would
authorise the general Proclamation of martial law in
Ireland upon the same principle. Nay, we might abo-
halt all the safeguards of the Constitution, lest it might
in time become endangered.—(Cleeers.) —No legal
maxim was so clear as that which laid down that
" the reason of time law ceasing, the law c:'asea also."
Were we to say to the Catholics, " We will pat
a brand upon you ; and although we preserve the
Constitution, yet your children shall never share its
blessings?"—(('beers). 'flee Ihmourable Member
proceeded to refer to the 3temorial of William the
Third, relating to the Catholics, ullich had been re-
ferred to by Hon. Members on a former occasion.
This Memorial, he contended, had a double bearing.
It admitted in substance, that the Catholics might
progressively be tolerated ; and yet it was this very
progression for which the. Catle Tics were now blamed.
hear.)—But they had received Petitions
from Reverend Conclaves, which spoke of the linden-'
tial laws of the Constitution, and argued as if the
present Bill was an anomaly. He, on the other hand.'
contended it did not introduce, but remoied an ano-
maly. If danger were alleged as an argument against i
fill, it was incumbent on those who urged it, to
sheer the danger. Ile therefore, hoped that thou.'
who stn ported the measure, would not be considered
lukewarm Protestants : amid he could not bring him-
ll think that the introduction of a few Catliclic
Members would make that House a Catholic Assembly.
Ile, fur one, was, and always would be, opposed to
a military Government ; yet would he on that account
desire the exclusion from that House of those Gallant
Members who were Officers in the Army:—(C'he'ers.)
—The Parliament, after the passing of the presentbill
would, he cone ired, remain a Protestant Parlia-
went in tile lite sei!se as that in which the people
were a Protestant people. The lion. Gentleman then
adverted to the inconsistency of the exclusive laws in
their present state; admitting the Members of the
Scotch Kirk arid the Dissenters, all as winch opposed
to the Establishment as the Catholics themselves,
yet shutting out the Catholics. Re could not see
a"Y danger, even supposing time Catholic disabili-
ties were removed to-morrow. He could not see that
any man educated under the most artful Jesuit noold
be at all aearer the accomplishment of his deai p.n. It
certainly was the object of the Hill to increase the
political power of the Catholics; hut then it clearly
tended to deprive them of their present moral force;
I."'" the Passing of this Bill they would lose the
moral force which they possessed in time support of
those Protestants who advocated their cause.--(llear,
could
see no danger in the Catholic reli-
gmo. It was once the religion of the country, and
yet it could not retain its influence, although support-
ed by all the authorities of the State.—(Cheers )--
But there was no fallacy u hick was nut brought to
hear against the Catholics. At ore time it was said
they were under the authority of the Pope; and cOn-
"(Plently suhject to foreign influence. Now, how-
ever, the Pretender was no more ; and Bonaparte was
Powerless, and the Faith of the Catholic was objected
against him.
ages had been urged At
tother
tines the excesses of former
against the Catholics, and the
punishment of Binge exees.es was attempted to be
hilted upon time generation of I i 421) " What !" said
the lion, (((ember, " have not these Cranmers-and the
"Ili" destroyed their it• 11f. thousands, and should
we not *Pet to their rt.ess!•i., being visited up" us'"
--(Chee' the
.g nautli!' pr. ascii against

.::•-.

he Catholics,

the Fable who was determined to .find an a:-
ease for Lie intended conduct : "If it was not you
that injured me, it was your father, or grandfather."
—(A langh.)--llut then it was said that the Catho.
lies were ambitions.—" Call them ambitious," said
the Hon. Member, " if you please, but is the ho-
nourable ambition of four millions of people to be
disconraged ?" Then it was said that they were
few in number and inconsiderable in point of con-
sequence. They were, be thought, composed of some
of the first Nobility and °entry, of many of the
learned professions. They were the few that led the
many, and these were, In sound policy, objects of the
first consideration. He should now address himself to
the question, as it regarded consistency ; and on this
part of the subject he felt confident in saying, that if a
Committee were appointed to consider the present laws,
it would he impossible for that Committee not to arrive
at a conviction, that even for the sake of consistency
alone, an alteration of the law was indispensible. ►►'e
allowed Dissenters, of every denomination, to sit in Par-
lament; and yet the sole object of the present Bill was
to put the Catholics upon an equal footing with Dissen-
ters. The Dissenters were protected merely by the ope-
ration of the Annual Indemnity Act, and where could
be the danger when we could suspend the Act? It was
remarkable too, that we must necessarily admit every
one who knew and acknowledged no religions dis-
tinction, hot that which arose out of what they called
the laws of nature; and here be could not but observe
that the framers of the late petition from Colchester,
while declaiming against blasphemy and sedition, had
forgotten that that House was open to every man who
might choose to take the oaths, and was yet, to use the
language of the Poet,

dames of that tline identified with the heel
that operated at present to exclude the Catholics.
It only .hewed how prone people were to min up what-1
ever was transient and fleeting with the more piviel-1
nent characteristics of any great transaction. It was
the object of the revolution to abridge irhitrar Ho-
rernment ; and if in the heat of the chase to obtain
possession of entire liberty the great principle of tole-
ration was lost sight of, it was too natural, although
too palpable an error to be handed down at this time
of day as an authoritative example. If any thing that
bore the stamp of the Revolution was to be held sacred,
they would find themselves in a situation to advocatt
many things that were held to he very unanthoriseahle
at the present Jay. They would find in that Revolution,
that although it was to destroy arbitrary Government, it
introduced the government of the sword, although it was
to establish the freedom of opinion, it overthrew, with sum-
mary power the discussion of the ntnltitude ; and al-
though the purity of public faith was one of its object•,
that period temed with more flagrant breaches of it
than almost any other period of our history. Was it at
those periods of our history, when the laws, exclusive
of the Catholics, were passed, that were most retuarka-
ble for deliberative wisdom? The contending parties
were excited against each other to a state of shameful
phrenay ; both the nobles and the people, as though they
seemed desirous of carrying the question more bx accla-
mation than with those marks of deliberation which
ourlit to attend all legislation on such important sub-
ject?. The time of the first struggles for the establish-
ment of our reformed Church produced many Mow'
men—many who had evinced their zeal in becoming
martyrs for their principles: but none of them ever
dreamt of the exclusion of Catholics from the House of
Commons as the palladium of the Protestant Church.
They relied with justice upon the purity of doctrine,
and the conduct of its preachers for the maintenance of
their cause. The Hon. Gent. who spoke last had referred
to the Great Charter, and he (Mr. Grant) was surprised
that when lie adverted to that instrument, it had not
occurred to him who those were that had rescued
from a Catholic king, and the domination of a Catholic
Pontiff, that great Charter. When a Noble Lord op-
posite (Lord Nugent) presented in an early part of
the evening a Petition signed by four names coeval
with that Charter, and who were descended from the
great persons who had been instrumental in obtaining
it ; which of the lion. Members did not feel his heart
thrill with a sensation of admiration and respect to-
wards those great pi•;.sonages who presented themselves
at that liar, which their ancestors had won for them,
petitioning for those rights they hail handed to them,
but in which an ungrateful posterity refused them a
participation. The simple question, as it appeared to
him, was, whether if the Roman Catholic took the oath
prescribed to him by these propositions, that House
and the country would hare a sufficient guarantee ? It
was not whether this oath was supported by this or
that document, but merely whether they conld say, as
far as human legislation went, was this binding or
not ? rime argument that was urged spinet this
oath would serve against the oath of Supremacy ; there
was no more consistency in the one than in the other.
With respect to the notion of the spiritual jurisdiction
of the Pope, it was needless to say he did not possess
it, although altogether misunderstood by the generality
of those who reviewed the subject. It never was con-
sidered hut as purely ecclesiastical, which was clearly
sliewn in Lord Coke's description of the First of Queen
Elisabeth. That Act he denominated a declaratory
Act, and said it gave n • new power to the Crown, but
only rcstareil its ancient jurisdiction. Refore he sat
down, he must entreat the House, in directing their
attention to the great question before them, to come
to the consideration of it deeply impress. d with its
importance. As a question of legislation, and of the
deep interest which the individuals concerned had in
the result of their deliberation. Coder these points
of view, he hoped they would not allow themselves to
be thwarted by any hut great and solemn objections.
This question was no other than what was to he the
principle of the connection betwixt Ireland and this
country for the future. He (Mr. kraut) did
not stand there for one portion of the empire.
He claimed the concession of these eights in he.
.half of the whole empire, for the peace and the
tranquillity of the whole, for the glory of the
one part and the happiness of the other.--(llrar.)
I reland is as placed io peculiar circumstances with re-
spect to them ; she was not there to plead her own
cause 0:1 the question. This cor...try haul given up
that system of exclusion which it had so lung etter-
cised in almost every other branch of legislation. That
system which in politics was the spirit of domination;
is mums Tee, short-sighted policy; in aviculture,
creel restriction; and which in religion, was intole-
rant bigotry—had now been entwined in all its ope-
rations except in regard to •religion. Surely they
would not now stickle at that which ought io have
keen the Erst, but which was unfortunately the last.
It wanted but this act to place the ttatup of confidence
hetet reit the two countries. If they viewed this cruel
sys!eiti of exclusion in another country, they would
leaf:aim upon the consequences of their not poseaxing
a Consti!otion like outs, which left ii; en is. all equally
the Basic tort' to buttonr and preferment. Let Irelat.d
then be no longer the only exception to this spirit of
the British Constitution. Let it hr theirs to receive
the gratitude which had been accumulating f ages,
to be rendered to those who slimed atcuitipl4b in one
Scl•dott what had withstood the attacks of centuries.
=(Heat., hear.)
Mr. BROWN d.sclared that he 'lid not think the Ca-
tbolies were able to give adequate securities to renter
them eligible to take the immunities held out to thrum.
Ile begged to meal to those llottourrble Members who
till this dry had opposed this measure, whit their appre-
hension had been. Was it not that the Roman CAW-
lie: pastors were not the most proper for their ()thee; be-
cause of their connexion with the Papal See, or with
foreign Princes? What was it that they now propose.l
to do to remove the danger they apprehended formerly ?
They were to appoint certain Cormuissiooers, some of
whom were to be Catholics and some Protestants, in
whose bands was to be entrusted the whole of their se-
curity against the supposed danger. II) the mode in
which this commission seas to be appointed, there mizlit
he a rreatee proportion of Catholics than Pro•estasits,‘
in &tide case there would be a catnotission to advise the
as :o is aAZ was belt ralrul•tcti p- mi.!

r ~

. . ~l._

wkly of his dosalnions, w►kh would he ixtero-tml in he
cause of those against whom they would be called apes
to exhibit chatges. 'gaily ill-contrived was t►e
vice, for cheeidag the intercourse of the Irish ltessaa
Catholics with the Pope. He had another reason for
his opposition to the niessure, whirls was. that he be-
lieved the Catholics were themselves in direct hostility

to it. They bad seen instances of this in 1907 and
1813, and he believed the same feelings still existed as
were 'thews on those occasions. Whilst amongst the

advocates of the Rlfifife was seen an sir of trioniph,

Ireland was ready to burst into insurrection ; not of 11. e
Catholics against the Protestants, nor of the disaffected
against the tiovernusent ; but the Catholic against the in-
terference which this measure threatened with their reli- •
gion. On the part of the Roman Catholics, he felt assured

there was a lunging desire to restore their Church to
its former snpremacy—(llear, bear)—and he did be-
lieve that if Catholics were admitted to seats in that
House, they would be advanced one step towards the
attainment of their object. In Ireland there were five
million of souls; four million of these were Catholic•,
and about 500,000 Dissenters. With this population

of four to one in farg.ur of the Catigolics, ttaiit to 1.1.‘

supposed that there could not be a preponderance of
members of that persussi tttt in that House? Although
other Honourable Members er: of a different opinior,
he perfectly agreed with the llononrable Member for
Uramber (Mr. Wilber orce) that the Catholic* were

gaining,► immense property, and wealth, and rouse.
limier in Ireland, which rendered the potting them
in rooeision of Ciis a power the more fearfiC.
'Elie Protestant establishment in that country It'34 is
great danger as it was, and h.' could never ag►rre to e
adoption of a tneasure which must plac,! it in st:.l

mot imminent peril.
Mr. WHEW:BELL said, he was sorry that he w:•s
obliged to follow the same line of oproaitiott ha tls:s
measure, which he had felt it his duty to take MI 4
farmer occasion when it was prupos••d. With re+ire, t
to the Bill then before them, it as.ertel in t:►e pr--
amble that which, in Isis humble u•.. 4
unfounded in fact, and an outrage upon historie..l
• truth. It stated that there was a time in the Lists's./
of this country, when the Catholics tvere able to tali:,
the Oath of Supremacy according to the interpretl-
tion annexed to it by Queen Elizabeth, by whic.a
meaning to demonstrate, that it was the object of tip,
Bill to restore a part of the Constitution. and not t•,
add any thing new to it. lie (Mr. Wetherell) however,
denied that there ever was a time when the Catholi s
could take this oath, and he challenged any of th•
supporters of the Bill to prove the truth of their

. .
Assertion in the preamble.
Sir J. 1.1t:KIN'IOSII—I challenge the lion. and
Learne I Gentleman in re!itrn to point ont in the pr.--
amble of the Bill the allegation lie speak; of.—(Crik.s

of " Order.")
Mr. WETHERELL did not mean to over-state the
question ; if he should de so, hr was open to the cwt..
tigati.:n of any lion. Meinher in the Howie. He un-
derstood the preamble of the Bill to declare what he
had said it did. On the accession of queen Elisabtlo,
some persons gave out certain idle tales that she claim-
ed the Supremacy in a different manner than was 'tit-
tended by law, or was ever claimed bcferc, in cow,
quenec of which a pamphlet oils put forth, which th-
Hon. and Learned Mewl for h Jet.--111.1reshoroiegli (Sir .1.
Mackintosh) natl. t surely have si ea. It ii a: 4 'e 1 " An
Admonition to Simple Men."—(A laugh.)—ln this
production it was 'fated that she only claimed the same
Sal rmia y as her Royal rather exerted, an I Edward
the Sixth. 'I here was, therefore, no new' interpreta-
tion given on that occasion to this oath by which the
Catholic could n ore va,ily take it : anti he hoped II o-
nou rabic Members would nut allow themselves to he
ilo;ied by this false rt presenfation. lie objected to the
measure on account of its political and general cons .-
qiiences. Thy i.ractical client of tl r nicasare via: to
admit within the walls of that House rathclic Leg:s-
tators and Catholic F.seeittike Ministers of the Urowtt.
lie was of opinion that Catholi.• mill not be ad-
mitted to legislate in a Protestant i °natty without Jae-
ger to the existing estahlishinent. The Kill he was of
opinion would not produce the effects 'thick its sup-
sporters expected. If it passed, the Catholic would still
be on a ditfereat tooting from the Protestant. Thurt7ll
he might IICE0:11t. Prime 3linisser, he was olt to hate o
voice in ecclesiastical matters. The Hill was full of
1 inconsistency—whila it made the Catholic capable, it
also made him incapable i while it enabled, it disabled t
, and while it authorised, it unauthorised. When it had
f built up a Catholic Premier nith one hand, with the other
lit would be necessary that a duplicate Minister should
be raised, and that there should be an Ecclesiastical
as well as a Civil Premier. What could be more ab-
surd than this? lie wished to look at the situatioo
in which the Privy Council would stand if this Kill
passed. As the law now stood, the Privy I lommellor
was bound by his oath to adv se the King, not only on
civil 'matters but ecclesiastical and every other. If
this Rill passed, it w.ml I be necessary to alter every
word of the oath at present taken by Privy Counsel-
lors. Were this change made, and the Catholic Privy
Counsellor restrained from advising the King in what
concerned ecclesiastical appuintnsents, hr wished to
know what punishment was to visit a breach of Ws
oath ? Was it to be a fine of six sod eightpence, er
was he to incur the peualtiesof a proinunireF if
a y severe an ail s mobil lat iishmert were indictee.
what would the Catholic say to that Bill, which alt -
fished disabilities and at the same time inflicted new
penalties? The Lord Chamberlain, if that office
%tomtit he filled by a Catholic, mast on the principle
laid down in the IEII, b • i r eluded from noudnating.,:
to any ecclesiastical appointment. That power must
he transfused into some other person, and exercised its
some other way. lie admitted it might seem bard
that a Catholic why had bravely fought the.
battles of his country—who by his heroism
had rontri;otted to the victory of Waterloo— .
it might seem 11.Ird that such a man. should not .
Se eligible to become (ins ernor of Jamaica—of one of
the Leeward islands, er sintie one of our pospessiqus in'
tt,e Vest Indies. Lut as it was necessary,lhat the
4:4m:emir of an island should in every instant* be the
represrotative of his Sovereign, and be ace# ingly
.tilil
the head of the Church in the Colony. The . idle
bin precluded from interfering in iteilitaiatiticat at-
. tees, must have some one to rct fir laic, an( • ile
the illnernor went out in one frigate, it would' 5ten0.19.47
.19.47 to si!trl out an P•rl ..iastical Coniulisii 'Ate in
Ia loftier. " U :•• said tit •ti 0 remao on i ft,, %kit, v

-..-. c T ISTPITISMAN• 3
troogly retol.toled Mak of the Wel( I the peewit times
' - • ' - •