House Of Lords, Monday, M...
The Times, 1824-05-25T00:00:00

Pi?MLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. "2r. tiTUAflT WO1TLBY, Lrd STAONLEY, and others, brought up several private bills, which were read a. first time. A reaur of the annual revenue of the East India C-ompany was pr,e.= tedu t th e b ar. The Earl of KINGSTON presented twelve petitio&k from Free- raon lodges itn Ireland, praying exemption fromn the operation of the ac againt secret societies. The noble earl also moved for cear. tain accounts of public und private grants to establishmenits for education in Ireland. .Lord CARBERY made tome observations on the subject of the motion, and, as we understood, wished their -lordships to consider whether it 'would not be proper to stuspendl the* bbard of education while an invesiti~on on that subject wvas going oni. The arlof IVERPOOL hoped thbat no motion to. -that effect would be mrade without reteiu notice. RESTORATIOTYP FORFEITED PEERAGES. Tihe Earl of LIVERPOOL, bad to subniif to their lordsbips, by command of his M1ajesty, certain- bills fnr the restoration of honours to persons whose ancestora had been attainited. In doing this, he fet it to be necessary for him to'trouible their lordships with a few words in explanation of the bills hte now ofrered for afirst treading. Applications had been made for the restoration of certain forfeited honoues, a few years ago, while his M1ajesty was in Scotland. That wa h first visit which bad been made to that country by any sovereign of his Alajesty's iliugtrious houses Ur, indeefi, by any sovereign since the revolution. On the occasion ot that visit, per- ,wrns whiose ancestors hal been attaintedl by treason, buit who had tehmraelvee been known to have aced with loyalty for more thaii 6d years, presanted Petitions to his Majesty, praying for the restoration of the honouars of their families. COULd It -be surprising to their lordships that his Majesty was disposed to lend a willing ear to this ap,plication? Certainly not. The subject, however required con- faidration, and the result was, the measures which lhe had now tov lay on the tabile. There vvas, besides the bill for the restorration of honours, one which formed an exception, and which was intro- duced on a different grundl. The bills of the first description in. cleded only four cas~s. Their lordships would not object t's the rigbt of the Crown, if any eases were to be selected for this object, to Choos- them as might appear proper. That was a subject into' which he should not enter. Ini the names he had to mtention there coMUld be no question of partiality. These acts of the Crown 'weree strictdv acts of grace and favour.'depending on the will of the 'Crown. ltwas not from any doubt of the legality of the forfeituxres ""at these bills~ were introduced. Nothing could induce himn to pro. pose any thing which might seem to question the justice of the origi- nal prZoceedings. It was not to be presumedt, that there were some doubts ini these cases, which did not apply to others. The measure proosd was exclasively an act or' Royal grace and favouir, spring. ing rom he raciou disprsition of the individual who inheritedI th-e throne, towards individluals whose loyalty and attachiment to their Sovereign andI the Constitution of the country coiuld not he dioubted. Regardling these restorations nmerely as favouts conferred, he did not think it necessary to say, aniy thing mnore with respect to theti. It was different with respect to the other eae to which he had alluded-nainely that of the attainder of Lord Staflor4. LNo one x7ho looked with, impartiality at the proceedings in that case could fail to acknowledge that tbey, formed a great'blot on the cha- racter of the Parliament which passed the lll, It afforded him, therfore, great satisfaction that while he was chosen as the mediumn through which arts of' grace and favour were conferred on indivi- duals, he haid also the opportunity of proposing a bill for reversing the at-tainder of Lord S-tafford, said thus to remnovens far as Possible, the greatest stigma to be found in the conduct of Parliamient. The noble earl then rmoved thte first readin,g~of the followinig bills:- A hill to retore John Francis Erskine to the honours of Earl of Mar; a bill to restoie John Gordon, Eaq., to the honou'-s of EarlI of Kenmare; an bill to restore James Druimmond, Esq. (atw n.. derstood), to the honours of Earl of Perth, and Lord Strathallan.t~ The Easrl of RADNOR rose while the title of the last bill was readin14, and expressed a wish to know mnore distinctly the nature of I the proceeding. The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that it would be better to bave the bill i cad at length. The Earl of LAUDERDALE, on hearing the bill read, observ- cd,thAt this was a measuire wvith regard to whiich considerable doubt-s must arise. rt would probably be found to be a question whether the per-on whose attainder it was proposed to reverse wvas Lord Strathallan. The bill might be found to be a mihnomer, and it would ther-efore be proper to have the opiniion of the judges as to who was Lord Strathallan. The Earl of RADNOR thought that when such a measure as this wvas sintroduced, the first thinz to be done should be to lay oni the table the document on whichi the attainder was founded' The Earl of LI VERPOOL assured their lordships that the course of prceeding he had adopted was pretyrglr If they agreed to the bill at all, it was n-cessary that it should in the first instanc be brought down signed bv the Grown. They would of course gv to such a bill a first readinjir. as they dfid to all bills which any pee thought fit to introduce. They would afterwards have opportunite for the fulI cons~deration of the measure. The Earl of RADNOR said a few words which wrere itot heard. to which theEarl of LaVERpoor. replied that the bill wa.s signed, as is usual in aUl such cases, by the Crown. The Earl ot' RADLNOR again expressed his opin ion of the pro. priety of producing of documents and referring to precedents. TheLORD CHANCELLORreminded theirlordships that it was not regular to enter ir.to such discussions before a' Wil was reada first tirne. It was not necessary to produce any documents_iof the kind to which the noble earl had alluded, as the act of ParlIament by which the attainder had been effected was recited in the bill., Lord HOLLAND had no doubt wvhatever of the perfect regula. rity aad propriety of the mode in which the noble lord opst had introduced this measure. At any rate, it was always th atc of their lordships' house to allow bills to be readafrttm without discussion, and he saw no reason for departin from that Practice in the p resent instance. Foy his owen part, he wuld aways give everY Itiad of encourageent to bills of this desrpto.In the coarse of the farther proceedings. it would be for terldhips to take care that due attention was 'paid to all the queton flaw which the measure mnight involve. The Earl of LAUDERDALE wisheadto be understood that he mande no opposition to the first reading of the bill. He hiad merely irisen it, make their lordships aware of the nature of an objection whit.:h mighat be brought forward at another time. 'urd M1ELVILLE and L-ord RADNORS saidl each a few words, 'whih, fom he cowd nd onfuion elo the bar, were not heard. TheErl o B.ANORstil coniderd te proceeding a very ex. trerilnar on, ad sggetedtha th bil hould be printed. The Erl ofLIVER'OOL resetea bill for restorinz WVni. Naire, sq. tothe onors f Lrd airne, and moved that it be TheEarl of RADNORroe and made some observat ions in refer. ence to this bill. The Earl of L,IVERPOOeL asked whether he was to be maile in this case an exception to the rule, that every peer was entitled to have any bill he chose to introduce read a first time ? Whty was -the usual Practice op posed upon so important an occasion, whe~n acts, of royal grace andl favour Vere involved, and the bills were signed in the usual mannier by the Crown? The Earl of RADNOR did not oppose the first readiiig, hut thought he 'nigh', be allowed to make some inqur repctn the mneasure, wheix it was orpSed to restore "Wlim Soeoy Esq-`" for he could not hear the name. The bill, was readsa first timne. The Earl of LIV`ERPOOL said, that the bill wihichl he hadl next tO 1111roduce, was differently worded from those which had preceded It, as itsobject was diffbrent. It was a bill for reyersinig thie attainder; Of the late L-ord Viscount Stafford. This bill was readsa first time, without any further observation. ENGLISH CATHOLICS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented apetition frorn the~ members of the Protestant Union in L-ondon snd its neigbuhod againist the bills for removing the disabilities towhcEnls o [nan Catholics are liable. The Bishop Of St.DAV ID'S presented Petitions against the same bil from the clerg of Cardigan, the clergy of Carmarthen, and the clery of St. David's. Marqus ofLANSO~VNrose, in pur-uance of the notice he had given, to mnove the second reading of'the two bills which he had introduced for the relief of his Mlajesty's Roman Catholic sub. jects in En land. However sensibly be might feel the difficulty of; ah akh d u1ndertaken, he knew that he might rely on the in- dulgence of their lordships, and that be might expect from their! jusitice a favourable hearing. He must also observe, that he viewed the circumstances underwhich he nowvbroughtforwarfi themessures; he proposed for their lordshipa' adoption, as presenting a very fia.: vourable omnen. He had the satisfaction, on the samie nigbt on which he proposed to remove the disqualifcatiens under which Eng. lish Catholics laboured, to see an act of injustice which had been done to a Roman Catholic famnily! reversed. That act of glariisg anus=eteir lordships kuew had been committed by a Protestant Parlijamen; and It was an act, every recollection of which, as well as of the prejudice which gave it birth, he gould i-ish to be for ever obliterated. In bringing : rward the mieasures which he felt it to be his duty to rtecommend, he did not wish to address himself to chose who Mi&ht be disposed to indulge in feelings of hostility agint1l docitrines which they did not themselves profeass-who woldreist every concesion-..every act of justice-not becauise it -was dangerous, but because it was to be exercised in favour of persons of a diffbrent faith from their own. To persons who in. Zuged in such feelings he should addres no argzumenits, because no arguments could have any weight with them. He should rta his case upon one single ground; 'what hp meant to establish by his ar- gumenptt was simply this,-that every individual, wvhatever were his opinions, was entitled to ever piile-ge enjoyed by other suibjects, unless it could be hw httegvn him suhpiiee ol be contrary to thsatyothste.iutwn th rnigo a3ud privileeI ol epoe ob efcl eoclal withthepubic nteests thn i beamemore especially the dut ofther lrdsipsto akecar tht teywere not with- held Havng sid tus mch, e shuldproceed to explain the atur ofthe easres e hd inrodced. Thte two bills had one com on bect-..namnely, to place as nearly as poss-ible the onia Caholcs of England on the samne footing,with respect to privlegs, s toseof the saine faith who formed the great nsaj'ority of te ppultio in principal part of the united kingdomn. This washs general o'et he said general object, because there were Gome exceatiOn3 the most material of which related to onie particular ofie.T. utn n e; 1 n-an nuu tpoe oec1t ea hr .Wce 'Ina Offi)ce he had tnr,ught It proper to excepit, because there existed no parallel to it in Ireland. When, with the common con- currence oftaU parties, their lordships were legislatinc for the purpose of as3imilating the laws of every division of the unsted kingdom.. 'when they were desirous of extending the blessings of trial by jury to every partof the country--when it appeared to be thought desirable to. place all his Alajesty's subjects in the same condition, it -was difllcalt for him to conceive what distinction could be drawn with respect to the priaciple of these bills, the zole object of wnich was to entitle his Alajesty's subjects to enjoy m one part of the country what they already en. joyed iu another. He did not wish, however, give to this argu- ment more weight than was fairly its due. He did not mean to say that there might not he cases of anomaly which would caU upon their lordships to pause betbre they enacted for one part of the coun- try the same laws that subsisted in another. But,in the present case, so far from its being possible for those who were opposed to the mrea. aures he had introduced, to derive any advantage from the ex- isting anomalies it was, on the contrary, evident, that as far as any differences could be traced, they only served more decidedly to prove the justice of the claim of the English Catholics to the propesed relief. He desired their lordships to look carefully at what was pro. posed to be enacted by the biUs, and he begged leave in the first place to call their attention more particularly to the one which had tor its object the giving to the Roman Catholics of England the elective franchise. Twenty vears had elapsed since the enjoyment of the elective franchise haa been conceded to the Roman Ca- tholiL% of Ireland, and it was extremely difficult to discover any thing like a reason for still withholding it from the Bnzimh Catholics. The objection sutely could not be fopnded on the awno7unt of property; or was it the poverty of the great mass of the Irish popiulatlon to be ascibea to the effect of the elective, franchisi-f T~his, their lordsbips well knew was not the cause, whbich -ves, on the contrary, to be found in the minute subdi- vision of the land amon a t m itituae ot occupiers Without going the length of a no-bIe? M on thle subject of the amount of the property possessed by Catholics in Ireland, it was impossible not to admit that the Catholic population Gf-that country were greatly de- ficient in property, though not to the extent at which that deficiency had been stated This objection, however, could in noway apply te the Catholics of Engzland. who, on the. ground of property, were in ageneral as well qualifiedtro vote as any of his M~ajesty's subjects.Thse bill could not be opposed under the apprelhension of the Roman Ca- tholics acquiring too great ani influence in elections. Their small nuimber in this country. as weil as the example of the general result of elections inlreland.rendered all apprehension on that -core super- fluous.There v7ere instances in Ireland of Catholic proprietors recom-~ mending persons for election, but.witlioutrtheir beingabletoprocore any return favmrrable to their wishes. But it was not always persons suipposedl to be friends of the questions in which the Catholics were paricuarl ilerstei womthe supoted. There were instances of athlicprorieorscomng orw~rdon the htostings, and recoom- meningthereurnof ersnshosiletotheir cl2imS6 No evil had bee exerincd fom he tae o h lw in Ireland, and he would be ladto nowwha michif culdbeapprehended from the exer- cis ofth elerve rachie y Eglsh Cstholics? What ad- vantage was expected to bederived by excluding such mnii as Sir John Throckmorton and Sir Thocmas Gage from the elective fran- chise enjoyed by other subjects--by making thenii retire from the hustings, wvithout availing themiselves Of a priileg wh!ch Iany Irish peasant was permittedl to exercise?P _pivetogeht that he had said enough to induce their lordships to give their asset to the Measure, more particularly when their lordships considered that they were commuinicating those privileges that were already enjoyed by persons in a part of the empire where they could act in bodies, to persons in a part of the empire where they could not so act; that thteseprivileges were alreadly enjoyed where the versons in the enjoyment of them were mere likelv to be influenced aangerously than that class of his M1ajesty's sulijects to whom it was proposed to extend thlem. Son much for the bill relative to the elective franchise. The next bill was to enable Catholics jin Engisund to hold civil offices. W1ithi respect to this bill, also, he would observe, that it would oinly olperate to throsj,open privileges already enjoyed bya great prop-ortion of hiis Majesty's Rtomani Catholic sub- jects. It would appear sutfficiently abasurd, when it was stated that on, one side of the channel various offices of the revenue were filled by persons of a certain religicus persuasion, whilst, on the other side, other individuals equally respectable, and equallY competent, and of tue same religiousi persuasion, should not be able even to issue a permit, though the public convenience alikce demandled thiat such petty offices should be open in all parts of the einpire. If it were feared chat tobacco and sugar should be infected by their principles, or that spirits should be instilled with heresy, he could assure the house that they had no se- curity against it, tor the heads of'the Excise department might infect the whole kingdomi by an Impotaton of Irish Cathiolic Excise offi- cers. But this was not all Tthei lordships would be suirprised to lear, ad prhas te nbleandleanedlord might himself be un- acquinte wih it or urey hewoul beready with a bill of pains- andpenltis, henhe newtha on ofthose valuable securities for he hurh ad Sate on ofthe acts of Charles 1H., was ctualy sspeded. Thatactdirectedl that no person shoud b alowe to ntemedle iththe e*cise, tAhe Protestant ex- cise, without having previously taken the oaths of supremacy; yet some departmient of Government, in conitravention of that act, had issued an order so monstrous as to admit of persns being so employed without takinig the oath of supremacy. As to the justice of the ca'se, he could tiot bring himself to understand that at this tranqetil era~ any thing like danger or inconvenience could be apprehendedI from thte limiteEd numnber of justices of the pence of the Romani Catholic persuiasion, who wvould probably be admnitted into the commission of the peace in this coLantry, when the samneprivilegges were conferred in, Ireland, where it was likely that religious feeling might operate; yet there they acted with the i~reatest benefit to the public, and without a single instance being Known in thiat Catholic country which should point out the necesity of not extending the samie system to England. in thle comnmittee for inquiring into the state of Ireland, of which, by ther lrdssip' tvou, h wa a embr,he had an opportunity of putinga uesio tooneofthewineseswho hiad been employed as nsecor-enra ofpoic inIclad. He had previously stated thata geatnumbr o spcialcontabes~ and policenaeo who had beenempoyedwer Romn Ctholcs;in answer to a question, he satedthathe ad nver bsered sinele instance of any one being infleced in his conduct by being a Roman Catholic. He answered nearly in the same terms as to the Roman Catholics who were magistrates. Their lordships would observe that they had not only noreas~on tobelieve anydan4gerTwould result, but they hadl positive proof of the great benefit and conivenience which had been deriyed from the employment of these persons. He had now gone over the different description of offices which Romnan Catholics mnight fill in one oart of the uniited kingdom, but he had still to advert to one provision in the bill now before the house re- ltve to an ofce without a parallel in Ireland. He al- luded to the office of Earl 111arshal ot Eng-land. held, or ratlier claimed, by the Duke of Norfolk. Their lortsisips might know that of the manyv honours which in the lapse of centuries nad gathered roundl the iflustriours house of Howard, the office of Eairl Mars hal of England was one which had been granted by Charles II., and though there were no words in that patent, yet in other patents of the same reign, to the same noble prsoni, it was stated that it was ~~~~~~~~~~~ifthe Duke of Norfok i teMrusofLndw)hdhdae fol wer ntosdervewi our;c inn peso lie would be guilty, nion he had introduced this clause into tebl,tog it mgt wel have been the subetoaspatemsu,htte Duk of Norfoll, would be unwligtlokfraypvleerad vantage to himself, unconnecewihtoeftesaeft.Te whole effect of the twvo bills would be merely to establishuniformity; and he had to implore their lordships, feeling as they rmust that it was their duty to exctend the benefits of the British constitutioni to every one of his Majesity's subjects, that if they could see daniger in bringing forward the Englsh Romnan Catholics to that state of uni- formity by the law which ithese bills would do, he would entreat them to consider whether this were such adanger(asAMr. Burkehad observed on a similar occasion) would justify that fear, as qui caderc potest inlwmiuiierraconsattermtmet riorlntuenetttem? There were in Ireland six millions of persons who held these tenets. If the house neglected these bills, he would not say what lessoni they would teach those persons, beut the: lessoni they would not have taught themn was one not of tranquil obedience to the laws, but a reliance on tumult and numbers, as a more sure road to the attainment of those prVIlees which were the right of every British suibject. Lord COLCHE,STERlsaidhewasdesirous tostate hissentitsentss on the bills ; and wvould take the liberty to reverse the order in which the noble mnarquis had considered them. He thought, that with re- spect to the office of Earl Marshal, it was a subject which was more lit for a separate measure. As to thie admission of Roman Catho- lics to offices of the revenue,it was impossible forhim so consentto it, because it would put the Roman Catholic dissenters in a better situ- ation than the Protestant dissenters. As to the admirssion of Rn. man Catholics into thecommnission of tshe peace, itappeared to him so largea question, andi so likely to work such important alterations in the constitution, that he for one never could consent that they should sit on the benches of our courts of justice so administer the criminal law. The bill, so far as it went, appeared to him to be for conferring political power, and if passed, Parliamentary elections would soon exhibit a sc-ene of contention new to this country : we should see no longer the salutary contests bet ween Whigs and Tories, bluat we shiould seetshe introduction of religioun animosities. All property of that peuiar description which influenced the returns of members of Parliament would be gadually brought up by the Romian Catho- lics, and it was easy to foresee what would be the consequence of their being possessed of such a political power. He would ask what was the motive for grnting these privileges? The noble mar- quis said it was to assimilate the condition of the Romani Catholics of both countries-a good that certainly was desirable; but to at- tain it they were nor to surrender to the professors of a hostile reli- gion those safeguards whichi were necessary to our own. before the could think of assimilating the state of England aLnd Irln,they should begin with atltering the elective franchise of Scotlandi. It was not the numbers of the Roman Catholics that he feared, but the fixed principles of the church of Rome. For the sincerity of the English Catholics he entertained the highest respect ; but the experience of the last fifteen years would ainply prove the existence and operation of the principles to which he had ailuded. WVithout referring to the pisblications of Dr.Milner in this country he would only refer their lordships to that extraordinarymanifesto n?sedition anldinsolence-oublished rece-ntlyby Dr. Doyle, which evinced the existence of the ;ame principles. in the Nethierlands two Roman Catholic societies had been suppressed by Ryaledit, ecaue tey ad eenfound dangerous to the pub. .licpeae. Amonshedby nch ircmstnces of the encroac'hing spirt o th chrch f Rme,thehoue wouild best do its duty by oppsia thse easresas heyhaddoe before. The noble 'lord conludd y mvig, hatth bil e rada second time this day The Earl of WESTMO-RLAND said, he wouldI ask the noble lordl (Colchester) whether if five hundred, or a thousand, or even double that number of English Romnan Catholics were admitted to -the elective franchise unider this bill, any possible danger could ac- CrLIe f'iori granting that right ? It had been uniformly asserted, that the bulk of' the people of Ireland were particularly dead to parlia- mentary power. It was wor hiy of remark, that the Catholic claims had not been granted in the Irish parliament aftez it hiad been filled wiith) members sent to it by Catholic elections. The friends of the Catholics were about equal in the Irish parliament, to which Catho-~ lics mnight have been elected, as in she Britisli parliament, to which Catholics could not be returned. He (Lord Westmoreland) could not see the sense of making Catholics eligible to militar office, while they were refused to be admitted to civi?' offices. HE would be the last to grant them I'srliamentary power, but he thoughit it cruel to refuse them eligibility isto those places where they could do no mischief. It was cruel a:nd oppressive ~to bar from them any of the humbler w.alkc.-of office, or the en o inent of any civil righit whichi they couldi harmlessly exercise. The noble lord who had spoken secotid in the deae a.eeuvt hs hononur, been instrumestal in bringing the House of Cominans to refuse the Catholics admission into Partatient. lVhen this clause of the bill was lost, it would be recollected the bill itself was given up. In so far as the noble lord (Colchester) hati then gone, he had his approbation; but the noble lord ought, on the same grounds that he refused dangerous power, to grant barmless claims. ile hoAd once quoted against the Catholics, that the graDting of the higher of- fices of the state wouldtbegaudinLm et solatizum adpaucoc,et timor ad onmie. With reference to the measure now before their lordships, he might say that it would be timor ad pancos, geudiam et soltatiun ad ommmes. He would tberefore give his support to the bi.- Lord REDESDALE said that he was opposed to this bill, not so much on account of the immediate danger Vhich it would occasion, as because he believed that every concession would lead to farrher concessions. This truth was illustrtted in the history ofthe relaxa- tion of theyenal laws, and the granting of civil privileges to the Ca- tholics of .reand. When the penal laws were first proposed to be repealed, and privileges granted, thev were told that an was to be harmony and peace, that not a murmur of discontent was to be heard after the measures in contemplation had passed. This was, however, so far from being venified, that discontent was immediatelv manifested, and concession only led to farther claims. He himseff (the noble Lord Itedesdale), because he acted according to the dic- tates of his conscience, and resisting those concessions, had been the objectof a cruel persecution. He had indeed escaped in safety ; but he had been told that-the merits of assasinatinghimbad been opqnly reachedinoneoftheckapels ofDublin; thepersonsw~hohadinform3 nim of this, and who warned him of his danger, being Roman Catholics themselves. He had opposed concessions to the Uatholics ecause he believed that the constitution of this country was essen- tiaDy Protestant, and because in its union with Ireland, the same Protestant establishment wassecured for both kingdoms. It might besad thast the privileges granted by thepresent bill were in thern. selvea small, lbut we might pu11 stone aftea stone out of a building till it tumbledl into ruins. The noble lords who defended the mea' . sure, required the house to be consistent, and to do that for onepoart of the empire whick they had done for another. He hiowever, (liordl Redadae)coud ot oncr n tisargmen, or e aw no reason why,havng one ron inone nstnce the shulddo so its an- othe. Wy wre he oma Catolis eclued,butbecause they wererecone dageros ttheProestat etabishentand itf they wer dagerus o te Potetan esablshmnt,howcould thev relax theaw~ in teir favou? He hadno objecIonto a part ini the second bill, so far as the nol dkwaencerned, to see hiM restored to the office whioh the bill confirmaed, bitt he did not see how it could happen without including his name. Hie believed that the late proceedings of the Catholics of Irelathi had conviniced every impartial mind that they wished to seize upon the establishments9 of the churc'h, and would not be satisfied with less. Wlas not,then, this bil,addling somnething to their pow,er, and enabling them to come nearer to their objeot ? Believing so, he mroust give his decided opposition to the measure of the noble The Blsishop of LICHFIELD professed -himself hostile to the Cathoric claimns, as the. general question had hitherto been brought forward, lie would effeictually bar their way to Parliament, be- cause, considering that the Catholic obeyed. sa foreign power, that if seriouslyconvinced of the truth df his own system, lie must try to subvert ours, and that he must employ all the means in his power to eff'ect tlhat purpose, he belicved, that if admitted into the legislature, he would be dangerous to our Protestant constitution. But he would not deny himn the elective franchise. His religoioi did not a ~eartobimto beadisLqstalificationfor theexercise of that right,nor dlhethnk thLat the enjoyment of it could occasion the least apprehension. Corruption was the only proper ground for refusing this privilege, and every one who was not so disqualified had a fair right to vote at theoelections of members of Parliament. Thevdenial of this righit was a grevance, and that rianethe bill'before t'heir lordships was intended to remedy. fterlrdippasdthis bill, the Roman Catholic fnln ol epae ntesm si- tuation with the Irish Catoi.H ol erpeetdin his pro- perty ,he wouldi be represented in his intrssh oderpeend in his views of general policy, in his oa tahet,a4ee inhppat Ire~dicesbut not in histreligion, oruinanyviwwhh t'ih enT.to theaggrandizermnt of his own church,or to the injutry of the Protestant establishment. (Hear, hear.) Such were the grounds on which he would have voted for the extension of the elec- tive franchise so the Irish Catholics, haLd he held a seat in the Irish parliament in 1792; nor did he think hie should have had aniy reason to have repented of hisvote, for he did not believe that any evil had resulted from the Measure. 'Whether, therefore, he looked at the principle on whichi he was called upon to examiune the bills,h or guarded experience, he felt that the measure before the hotuse was one to he pressed. He wotild appeal to his brethren and the noble. lords aroiund him who supported with him the Protestant establishmnent; and he woule beseech them to destroy the existing anomalici, and to place the English on the footinig with the, Irish. Catholic. They then coulda address the Catholics in saying-"1 W'e grant You the civil privileges of which you werddeprived when we belieied you dangerous to the Protest-I ant estabhishnient, and believinig you dangerous no longer in this ex- tent of the exercise of your civil rights, our toterantprinciples enable us to allow you to exercise themi, and to reap from themn alltha- vantages which yourmoral qualities deserve."tha- The Bishsp of BATH and WELLS observed, that the only, question now before their lordships was, whether granting theCa tholics the privileges to which the bill would entitle them, thei lordships could do itwithout danger to our estabtishmnents? In en tering on this question, he was free to acknowledge that exclusion o every sort was an evil. The exclutsion, for instance, of the nobl duke fronm the exercise of his rights ef Earl-Mlarshal of England was an evil. The question then came to be-' was the evil necessary, or not?~ He thought it was a neceasaty evil, and he would state his reasons. Toleration was of two kinds,-re- ligious and political. Religious tolctation he wvould be the last man to deny te any class of human beinys ; but his opinion was not the samne when political privileges were rlaimred. If atny religious sect entertained opinions contrary to good government, tnough under the garb of religious opinioni, and if they acted upon their coinvictions, the magistrate was not surely hound to give its memibers any degree of Political power which might be tured to his owss destruction. If any sect, for instance, heid the tuernet that property should be equaUly divided, wasq Governmient calledl tpon to give thlat sect pri- vileges which might enable it to realize its doct rie, or powers 'which might be turned against itself ? Holding tias undeni- able, let the house considler the doctrine of the Romiau Catholics w-ith respect to the Pope's supremacy. They believed thast his Ho- liness was the head of the church, and that Kings only exercised with him a divided authority-" Dizisurnzimperiznnr cum Jove Ctrgar Jiab't." The Roman Catholics not only professed this doctrine, but acted upon it. This fact he could not only prove, by an appeal to the uniformn tenour of history, but by a reference to our own con- stant experience. Into the 'first sptuies of proof he would nor enter, the pages of history were opex, to all ? hut he wouild state what had occurred within his own experience; and he shouldI be en- abled to shiow that it would be impossible to separate the civil from the religi-us power-the authority of' the magistrate from that of the Pope. There were a great number of Roman Catholics with wvhom he was lately connected, and a workhouse hadi been establishied in the neighiboutrhoodl of a grat town, by the magistrates, who received Catholics indiscriminaite fywith Protestants. The Catholics refused to work on particular saints' days at the comnmand of the ma"gistrates. The Magistrates appealed to the priest the priest referred to the vicar-general of the district, and the vicar-general stated that be could not interfere without -authority from the Pope. Surch a power of dispensation appeared to him incompatible with the juist obedi- ence due to the civil authority. To slhow the growing influence and zeal of the RIoman Catholics in that quarter, he miight mention that the order of Jesuits hadl been established at Stoneyhurst, and hadl been both zealouis and successful in miaking converts, It could not he pretended that the Catholic relgion was altered. It might besaid to be semper eaderm, and the words Ni1 aectzm r-epnotans Jda quid sriperesest agenrdum might fitly be applied to the spirit of' its professors. With regard to ucha rligon,seuri* soul prcee concet-sion. He might thenbe ske, wee tey lway to.bgdeprived of their civil o)rtvi- lege? An he ouldiepl~No,thatexclusion should he carried the engh o neessty,andno arter.Butas long u-s thev held tha th Poe o Roe, nd ot he ingof ngland, was tha head of he hurh,andenttld t thirobeiene,he would grant them no additional privilegs The LORD CHIAN1CEILOR began by stating, that he wras sorry to dlfier from some of his noble friends on this occasion, but he felt that lie could not yield to their views in a measure which he conceived threatened danger to the Protestant Establishment. The noble marquis who introduced the bills w-as not irregular, although, In pesenting two,when otly notice hadbeen g,iven of one,he had feg. lectod one ofthe ustualfarmsofthehouse. Both bills were,bowever, on the same subject, anti therefore mnight he introduced at the same time without inconvenience. Tue bill for allowving Catholic-s to enjoy the elecEivefranchise, he could not agree to. It was said to be ntr-duedto remove an anomal ;but it made no provision for the Catholic of this country taking l~e same oaths as were requiredl of the Catholic of Ireland. The right reverend prelate who had spoken last hut one, had arguied that a right to vote in a Catholic elector could have no influence on the minds of the parsonis sent to Parliament. This did not appear to he very evident. But upon what ground could the right reverendl prelate granit thezight of elect- ing without that of being elected e Fromn tim revolution downward, no mnan had ever thought of giving in England the right of the elec- tive franchise to Roman Catholics.- nor had the anomaly been corni. plained of snete union of Irefand, till very lately. The right of cllin on he lector to take the oath of supremnacy was not li- mited to the Romn Ctholic; and if the Irish Roman. Catholic didi not takeit in the same form as Protestants,he wasnot exempted from an oath as binding. If the Englis,h Catholic, therefore, was to be admittedI tO the elective franchise to remove an anomaly, he should be required to give the same security as the Irish., By thie bill of 1793, which conferred on the Irish Catholics that irivilege, they were bound to take the oath of the 13th and 14th of SYe King, andtsobring acertificate that they h,ad done so. The right rev, pre- late (Bishop of Liebdield) had contended that the Romnan Catholic had a right to vote at elections. if such a right existed, his prin- ciples ought to carrybhim agreat deal further. ThelIrish Catholics, it should be observed, had,~ vaios cs, obtained a right to va- rious privileges which the bW s on the table did not grant to English Catholics. The mleasure, therefore, before their lordships could not be supported on the principle of coDnsistency, as it did not place the Catholic religion in the tvwo countries on the same footing. Woith respect to the noble duke whose name was mentioned in one of the bills, he had no hesitation in giving his opinion, that he could not exercise his office without taking the oath (of supremacy. His (theI Lord Chancellor's) only objection to the admission Jf the noble duke was, that 'by going step. by step bY taking here, little and there a little, teir lord ips wvould he doing that which thev coudI not do at onice, and mi ht be cre- ating danger wvithout exciting a salutary alarm. Syh must grant the English Catholics the same privileges with the rish, if they granted them any st all; and he saw no reason why their lord- ships should do wriong aain from wrong have been once doiie. The truth wan, that they hal been going on from step to step till it was n-ow diffciclt to atop. He, however, held it to be his bounden duty, in the particular situation in which he was placed, to take care of the supremacy of his Soverieigno. Let their lordsahips look hack at the struggle which hadl been mnainitained, not only in the time Of HenrY VII.I. of Queen Elizabeth, and of Jaines, bimt at the Revolution to 'support the supremacy' of' the sovereign, and they would see what impiortance had always beep attached to it. Let themn readl the leSt Iof IVillians and Mary, andI he was sure that thtey would be convinced of its vastinmportance Nopeorson could boasubject of tlhis country, andenjy he iriilgesof bebil wthout taking the oath of su- premcy; ut i themeasre o nobe marquis no such urovi- sion was made nor was any such~~~j i ealiicon requie: t was xtrmel rifllult ifnotimpssile, to soparte the spiritual andeclesasica athrit o th Ppefrom temporal power. In I lrla th elctie frnchse ad eengihveenuon ta'king an oath eqiv~etto he ath f suremay. t th union the 'Protestant relgio wa th cae f bth ouniris.There was no necessity, therforetoreoveayanoalie to nswr the purpose of thte unio7n. At he nio wth cotanditwasstiulaedthat hoth electors and eletedshold e Potetans. he hurch of Enigland hadl for teelast 20 years been attempted to be taken by stormt. It had land mining. He wac persuaded that til their lordships as well as himself were determined to uphold it, but that they thought they might remove manv of its securities Without danger. While he was able to maintain any opinions with hiis lips, he would always raIle his voice.when he thouglht it in danger. Forinerly the Catholics had been accused of bigotry, nov a charge of bigotry was brought against him, because he opposed wiat lie thought their dangerous claims. Charges of thiskind heentirelydisregarded; he was prepared to do what was right, and to leave the consequences to God. He must, therefore, oppose this bill. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that he had resisted on former occasions the general claims of the Catholics, and their recent con- duct? together with productions of theirs wvhich he had observed within the last week,- confirmedhim more in the wisdom of thatre- sistance. But the question before the house had no reference to those claims. The noble marquis had introduced limited bills, which had no reference to Ireland but granted certain privileges to the Catho. lics of' England. He (Lord Liverpool) did not yield to his honour- able and learned friend on the WoolSack, in his zeal to nmaintain the Protestant Establishment, or the principle of the supremacy of the Crown; but the bills now:before their lordships involved only que- tions of degree. His noble and learned friend hinted indefinite dan. gers; he (Lord Liverpool) required soncthing intelligible and tan. gible. He (Lord Liverpool) thought, tlat in order to main. tain the Protestant ascendancy, it was necessary to have a Protestant Parliament, a Protestant Council, and Protestant Judges. He was awrare that some of the noble lords opposite did not exactly agree with him in this but they must admit that the distixetion w as broad and intelligiblc between such high securities and those privileges granted by the bills. Looking at the ques- ion -fairly in the face, wostof their lordships would own that there would be daager to the Protestant Esablishment if a legislatuae, if judges andi a countil hostile to it were pn-Atte& by the constitution to be created. How, for instance, could the Pro- testant succession be maintained without a Protestant Parliament ? Suchwe,e his reasons forresisting thehigherclabm of theCatholica; bat, with the same sentiments, he would give his concurrence to the Vresent measure. He apprehended from it none of the dangers vhich he had alluded to in the former case: nay he even believed that the granting of sucI privileges to the Catholics of England would strengthen the Protestant Establishment, as a cause of dis- content would thus be removed-as a reproach perpetually thrown in their teeth would be takenaway,and as,by conccaingthese little things they acquired strength to resist greater encroachments. Not only pra tanto, therefore, did they remove dissatisfaction, but they actuallv acquired power. Now, as he had said with respect to the marniage bill, although a differenit system existing in Scotland, was no reason why it should be established in England, so he would say that the enijoyment of certain privileges by the Irish Catholics was no reason why they should be granted to the English ; but the notori- ous fact was useful in both cases, as it gave experience in favour of some change. If it bad been adopted without danger in Ireland- if the Catnolics there enjoved the electivefranebise, it was at least a reason why the concession should not excite alarm in England. In Ireland the proportion of the Catholics was infinitely greater, and therefore if any danger existed that danger must be propor- tionably augmented. If he liad been asked in 17ff3, whe- ther this privilege should be extended to the Catholics of Ireland, he would have certainly recommended a modification of the measure, and required that the qualification should be raised. Could their lordships, then, refuse to vass a measure where the dan- ger was comparatively nothing, which bad been in existence in an- other part of the empire where the number was infinitely greater; Wrhat they gave to the strong and the powerful, it would be unge- nerous to refuse to the weak and the helpless. IHis noble and learn- ed friend had spokeu of oaths to be taken at elecdons, and the sectt ritr which the Protestant Establishment enjoyed from the acknow- ledgment of the King's supremacy on such occasions; but he must be aware that these oaths were never tendered but for the purpase of delay. (Hear.) With respect to the justice of peace part of the bill, there might be somue difficslty, but there could be none about the ad. m isibility of Roman Catholics to be officers of revenue. Bv the union of tbe Treasuris, andtheunionof rheboardsof Customs and Excise, officers were liable to be t-ansferred from one country to another, bY ordet of the board sitting in London. A Catholic, therefore, wihy might be a very good excise officer at Limerick, would be a very bad one at Liver ool. Thus, by crossing the Channel, in obedience tc the command of the board that he served, he entirely changed hi, quality. Wlras it possible for their lordships to alow this anomaly to remain ? Surely such inconsistencies might beretmoved withoun grant- ing the highest rights to the Catholics, orendangering the Protestant Establishment. He (Lord Liverpool) was not afraid of the Catholic question. He knew the temper of the people of this coantrv: he knew they were attached to their religion, and that the only dangex was in adherence to things that were not uecessary to its security. There was as mucl real wisdom in knowing when concessions ought to be made, as in knowing when they ought to be resisted. The Mlarquis of LANSDOWirN made an observation or two in reply.-The lhouse then divided on the first bill- Content . (present) 63 . . (proxies) 38-101 Notcontent (present) 74 . p (roxics) 65-139 Olajority agamst the bill -3B On the second bill- Content . (present) 67 . (proxies) 42-109 Nor content (piesent) 76 . (proxies) 67-143 Majority against the bill -3 Adjourned at TEN O'CLOCK. __ _ UOUSE3 OF lZMB .D20OPMAY_ MAY 24.