• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Advertisement
 Table of Contents
 Roll of the Lords spiritual and...
 House of Commons
 Officers of state
 Chronological table
 Advertisement
 March 1829
 April 1829
 May 1829
 June 1829
 Notices of motions
 Finance accounts
 Index














Title: Hansard's parliamentary debates
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072012/00007
 Material Information
Title: Hansard's parliamentary debates
Physical Description: 361 v. : ; 23-25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Great Britain -- Parliament
Hansard, T. C ( Thomas Curson ), 1776-1833
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: S.l
Manufacturer: T.C. Hansard
Publication Date: 1829-1891
 Subjects
Subject: Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Great Britain -- 19th century   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: New ser., v. 21 (Mar./June 1829)-v. 25 (June/July 1830); 3rd ser., v. 1 (Oct./Dec. 1830)-v. 356 (July/Aug. 1891).
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072012
Volume ID: VID00007
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07655885
lccn - sn 85062630
 Related Items
Preceded by: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Succeeded by: Parliamentary debates (1892-1908)

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Advertisement
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    Roll of the Lords spiritual and temporal
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
    House of Commons
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
        Page xxiii
        Page xxiv
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
        Page xxix
    Officers of state
        Page xxx
    Chronological table
        Page xxxi
    Advertisement
        Page xxxii
    March 1829
        Page 1
        House of Lords - Tuesday, March 31
            Page 1
            Page 3-4
            Page 5-6
            Page 7-8
            Page 9-10
            Page 11-12
            Page 13-14
            Page 15-16
            Page 17-18
            Page 19-20
            Page 21-22
        House of Commons - Tuesday, March 31
            Page 23-24
            Page 25-26
            Page 27-28
            Page 29-30
            Page 21-22
    April 1829
        House of Lords - Wednesday, April 1
            Page 31-32
            Page 33-34
            Page 29-30
        House of Lords - Thursday, April 2
            Page 35-36
            Page 33-34
            Page 37-38
            Page 39-40
            Page 41-42
            Page 43-44
            Page 45-46
            Page 47-48
            Page 49-50
            Page 51-52
            Page 53-54
            Page 55-56
            Page 57-58
            Page 59-60
            Page 61-62
            Page 63-64
            Page 65-66
            Page 67-68
            Page 69-70
            Page 71-72
            Page 73-74
            Page 75-76
            Page 77-78
            Page 79-80
            Page 81-82
            Page 83-84
            Page 85-86
            Page 87-88
            Page 89-90
            Page 91-92
            Page 93-94
            Page 95-96
            Page 97-98
            Page 99-100
            Page 101-102
            Page 103-104
            Page 105-106
            Page 107-108
            Page 109-110
            Page 111-112
            Page 113-114
            Page 115-116
            Page 117-118
            Page 119-120
            Page 121-122
            Page 123-124
            Page 125-126
            Page 127-128
            Page 129-130
            Page 131-132
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 2
            Page 133-134
            Page 135-136
            Page 131-132
        Page 29-30
        House of Lords - Friday, April 3
            Page 137-138
            Page 139-140
            Page 141-142
            Page 143-144
            Page 145-146
            Page 147-148
            Page 149-150
            Page 151-152
            Page 153-154
            Page 155-156
            Page 157-158
            Page 159-160
            Page 161-162
            Page 163-164
            Page 165-166
            Page 167-168
            Page 169-170
            Page 171-172
            Page 173-174
            Page 175-176
            Page 177-178
            Page 179-180
            Page 181-182
            Page 183-184
            Page 185-186
            Page 187-188
            Page 189-190
            Page 191-192
            Page 193-194
            Page 195-196
            Page 197-198
            Page 199-200
            Page 201-202
            Page 203-204
            Page 205-206
            Page 207-208
            Page 209-210
            Page 211-212
            Page 213-214
            Page 215-216
            Page 217-218
            Page 219-220
            Page 221-222
            Page 223-224
            Page 225-226
            Page 227-228
            Page 229-230
            Page 231-232
            Page 233-234
            Page 235-236
            Page 237-238
            Page 239-240
            Page 241-242
            Page 243-244
            Page 245-246
            Page 247-248
            Page 249-250
            Page 251-252
            Page 253-254
            Page 255-256
            Page 257-258
            Page 259-260
            Page 261-262
        House of Commons - Friday, April 3
            Page 263-264
            Page 261-262
        House of Lords - Saturday, April 4
            Page 263-264
            Page 265-266
            Page 267-268
            Page 269-270
            Page 271-272
            Page 273-274
            Page 275-276
            Page 277-278
            Page 279-280
            Page 281-282
            Page 283-284
            Page 285-286
            Page 287-288
            Page 289-290
            Page 291-292
            Page 293-294
            Page 295-296
            Page 297-298
            Page 299-300
            Page 301-302
            Page 303-304
            Page 305-306
            Page 307-308
            Page 309-310
            Page 311-312
            Page 313-314
            Page 315-316
            Page 317-318
            Page 319-320
            Page 321-322
            Page 323-324
            Page 325-326
            Page 327-328
            Page 329-330
            Page 331-332
            Page 333-334
            Page 335-336
            Page 337-338
            Page 339-340
            Page 341-342
            Page 343-344
            Page 345-346
            Page 347-348
            Page 349-350
            Page 351-352
            Page 353-354
            Page 355-356
            Page 357-358
            Page 359-360
            Page 361-362
            Page 363-364
            Page 365-366
            Page 367-368
            Page 369-370
            Page 371-372
            Page 373-374
            Page 375-376
            Page 377-378
            Page 379-380
            Page 381-382
            Page 383-384
            Page 385-386
            Page 387-388
            Page 389-390
            Page 391-392
            Page 393-394
            Page 395-396
            Page 397-398
        House of Lords - Monday, April 6
            Page 399-400
            Page 401-402
            Page 403-404
            Page 405-406
            Page 407-408
            Page 409-410
            Page 411-412
            Page 413-414
            Page 415-416
            Page 417-418
            Page 419-420
            Page 421-422
            Page 423-424
            Page 425-426
            Page 427-428
            Page 429-430
            Page 431-432
            Page 433-434
            Page 435-436
            Page 437-438
            Page 439-440
            Page 441-442
            Page 397-398
        House of Commons - Monday, April 6
            Page 443-444
            Page 445-446
            Page 447-448
            Page 449-450
            Page 451-452
            Page 453-454
            Page 455-456
            Page 457-458
            Page 459-460
            Page 461-462
            Page 463-464
            Page 465-466
            Page 467-468
            Page 441-442
        House of Lords - Tuesday, April 7
            Page 469-470
            Page 471-472
            Page 473-474
            Page 475-476
            Page 477-478
            Page 479-480
            Page 481-482
            Page 483-484
            Page 485-486
            Page 487-488
            Page 489-490
            Page 491-492
            Page 467-468
            Page 493-494
            Page 495-496
            Page 497-498
            Page 499-500
            Page 501-502
            Page 503-504
            Page 505-506
            Page 507-508
            Page 509-510
            Page 511-512
            Page 513-514
            Page 515-516
            Page 517-518
            Page 519-520
            Page 521-522
            Page 523-524
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 7
            Page 525-526
            Page 527-528
            Page 529-530
            Page 531-532
            Page 533-534
            Page 535-536
            Page 523-524
        House of Lords - Wednesday, April 8
            Page 537-538
            Page 539-540
            Page 541-542
            Page 543-544
            Page 545-546
            Page 535-536
            Page 547-548
            Page 549-550
            Page 551-552
            Page 553-554
            Page 555-556
            Page 557-558
            Page 559-560
            Page 561-562
            Page 563-564
            Page 565-566
            Page 567-568
            Page 569-570
        House of Commons - Wednesday, April 8
            Page 571-572
            Page 569-570
        House of Lords - Thursday, April 9
            Page 571-572
            Page 573-574
            Page 575-576
            Page 577-578
            Page 579-580
            Page 581-582
            Page 583-584
            Page 585-586
            Page 587-588
            Page 589-590
            Page 591-592
            Page 593-594
            Page 595-596
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 9
            Page 597-598
            Page 599-600
            Page 601-602
            Page 603-604
            Page 605-606
            Page 607-608
            Page 609-610
            Page 611-612
            Page 613-614
            Page 595-596
        House of Lords - Friday, April 10
            Page 615-616
            Page 617-618
            Page 619-620
            Page 621-622
            Page 623-624
            Page 625-626
            Page 627-628
            Page 629-630
            Page 613-614
            Page 631-632
            Page 633-634
            Page 635-636
            Page 637-638
            Page 639-640
            Page 641-642
            Page 643-644
            Page 645-646
            Page 647-648
            Page 649-650
            Page 651-652
            Page 653-654
            Page 655-656
            Page 657-658
            Page 659-660
            Page 661-662
            Page 663-664
            Page 665-666
            Page 667-668
            Page 669-670
            Page 671-672
            Page 673-674
            Page 675-676
            Page 677-678
            Page 679-680
            Page 681-682
            Page 683-684
            Page 685-686
            Page 687-688
            Page 689-690
            Page 691-692
            Page 693-694
            Page 695-696
            Page 697-698
        House of Commons - Friday, April 10
            Page 699-700
            Page 701-702
            Page 703-704
            Page 705-706
            Page 707-708
            Page 709-710
            Page 711-712
            Page 713-714
            Page 697-698
        House of Lords - Monday, April 13
            Page 715-716
            Page 717-718
            Page 719-720
            Page 721-722
            Page 723-724
            Page 725-726
            Page 727-728
            Page 713-714
            Page 729-730
            Page 731-732
            Page 733-734
            Page 735-736
            Page 737-738
            Page 739-740
        House of Commons - Monday, April 13
            Page 741-742
            Page 743-744
            Page 745-746
            Page 747-748
            Page 749-750
            Page 751-752
            Page 753-754
            Page 755-756
            Page 757-758
            Page 759-760
            Page 761-762
            Page 763-764
            Page 739-740
            Page 765-766
            Page 767-768
            Page 769-770
            Page 771-772
            Page 773-774
            Page 775-776
            Page 777-778
            Page 779-780
            Page 781-782
            Page 783-784
            Page 785-786
            Page 787-788
            Page 789-790
            Page 791-792
            Page 793-794
            Page 795-796
            Page 797-798
            Page 799-800
            Page 801-802
            Page 803-804
            Page 805-806
            Page 807-808
            Page 809-810
            Page 811-812
            Page 813-814
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 14
            Page 815-816
            Page 817-818
            Page 819-820
            Page 821-822
            Page 823-824
            Page 825-826
            Page 827-828
            Page 829-830
            Page 831-832
            Page 833-834
            Page 835-836
            Page 837-838
            Page 839-840
            Page 841-842
            Page 843-844
            Page 845-846
            Page 847-848
            Page 849-850
            Page 851-852
            Page 853-854
            Page 855-856
            Page 857-858
            Page 859-860
            Page 861-862
            Page 863-864
            Page 865-866
            Page 867-868
            Page 813-814
        House of Commons - Wednesday, April 15
            Page 869-870
            Page 871-872
            Page 873-874
            Page 875-876
            Page 877-878
            Page 879-880
            Page 881-882
            Page 883-884
            Page 885-886
            Page 867-868
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 16
            Page 887-888
            Page 889-890
            Page 885-886
        House of Lords - Tuesday, April 28
            Page 889-890
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 28
            Page 891-892
            Page 889-890
            Page 893-894
            Page 895-896
            Page 897-898
            Page 899-900
            Page 901-902
            Page 903-904
            Page 905-906
    May 1829
        House of Commons - Friday, May 1
            Page 907-908
            Page 909-910
            Page 911-912
            Page 913-914
            Page 915-916
            Page 917-918
            Page 919-920
            Page 905-906
            Page 921-922
            Page 923-924
            Page 925-926
            Page 927-928
            Page 929-930
            Page 931-932
            Page 933-934
            Page 935-936
            Page 937-938
            Page 939-940
            Page 941-942
            Page 943-944
            Page 945-946
            Page 947-948
            Page 949-950
            Page 951-952
            Page 953-954
            Page 955-956
            Page 957-958
            Page 959-960
            Page 961-962
            Page 963-964
            Page 965-966
            Page 967-968
            Page 969-970
            Page 971-972
            Page 973-974
            Page 975-976
            Page 977-978
            Page 979-980
            Page 981-982
            Page 983-984
            Page 985-986
            Page 987-988
            Page 989-990
        House of Lords - Monday, May 4
            Page 991-992
            Page 993-994
            Page 995-996
            Page 997-998
            Page 999-1000
            Page 1001-1002
            Page 1003-1004
            Page 1005-1006
            Page 1007-1008
            Page 1009-1010
            Page 1011-1012
            Page 1013-1014
            Page 1015-1016
            Page 1017-1018
            Page 1019-1020
            Page 1021-1022
            Page 1023-1024
            Page 1025-1026
            Page 1027-1028
            Page 1029-1030
            Page 1031-1032
            Page 989-990
        House of Commons - Monday, May 4
            Page 1033-1034
            Page 1035-1036
            Page 1037-1038
            Page 1039-1040
            Page 1041-1042
            Page 1043-1044
            Page 1045-1046
            Page 1047-1048
            Page 1049-1050
            Page 1051-1052
            Page 1053-1054
            Page 1031-1032
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 5
            Page 1055-1056
            Page 1057-1058
            Page 1059-1060
            Page 1061-1062
            Page 1063-1064
            Page 1065-1066
            Page 1067-1068
            Page 1069-1070
            Page 1071-1072
            Page 1073-1074
            Page 1053-1054
            Page 1075-1076
            Page 1077-1078
            Page 1079-1080
            Page 1081-1082
            Page 1083-1084
            Page 1085-1086
            Page 1087-1088
            Page 1089-1090
            Page 1091-1092
            Page 1093-1094
            Page 1095-1096
            Page 1097-1098
            Page 1099-1100
            Page 1101-1102
            Page 1103-1104
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 6
            Page 1105-1106
            Page 1107-1108
            Page 1109-1110
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 7
            Page 1111-1112
            Page 1109-1110
            Page 1113-1114
            Page 1115-1116
            Page 1117-1118
            Page 1119-1120
            Page 1121-1122
            Page 1123-1124
            Page 1125-1126
            Page 1127-1128
            Page 1129-1130
            Page 1131-1132
            Page 1133-1134
            Page 1135-1136
            Page 1137-1138
            Page 1139-1140
            Page 1141-1142
            Page 1143-1144
            Page 1145-1146
            Page 1147-1148
            Page 1149-1150
            Page 1151-1152
            Page 1153-1154
            Page 1155-1156
            Page 1157-1158
            Page 1159-1160
            Page 1161-1162
        House of Lords - Friday, May 8
            Page 1161-1162
        Page 905-906
        House of Commons - Friday, May 8
            Page 1163-1164
            Page 1165-1166
            Page 1167-1168
            Page 1169-1170
            Page 1171-1172
            Page 1173-1174
            Page 1175-1176
            Page 1177-1178
            Page 1179-1180
            Page 1181-1182
            Page 1183-1184
            Page 1185-1186
            Page 1187-1188
            Page 1189-1190
            Page 1191-1192
            Page 1193-1194
            Page 1195-1196
            Page 1197-1198
            Page 1199-1200
            Page 1201-1202
            Page 1203-1204
            Page 1205-1206
            Page 1207-1208
            Page 1209-1210
            Page 1211-1212
            Page 1161-1162
            Page 1213-1214
            Page 1215-1216
            Page 1217-1218
            Page 1219-1220
            Page 1221-1222
            Page 1223-1224
            Page 1225-1226
            Page 1227-1228
            Page 1229-1230
            Page 1231-1232
            Page 1233-1234
            Page 1235-1236
            Page 1237-1238
            Page 1239-1240
            Page 1241-1242
        House of Lords - Monday, May 11
            Page 1243-1244
            Page 1245-1246
            Page 1247-1248
            Page 1249-1250
            Page 1251-1252
            Page 1241-1242
        House of Commons - Monday, May 11
            Page 1253-1254
            Page 1255-1256
            Page 1257-1258
            Page 1259-1260
            Page 1251-1252
            Page 1261-1262
            Page 1263-1264
            Page 1265-1266
            Page 1267-1268
            Page 1269-1270
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 12
            Page 1271-1272
            Page 1273-1274
            Page 1275-1276
            Page 1277-1278
            Page 1279-1280
            Page 1281-1282
            Page 1283-1284
            Page 1285-1286
            Page 1269-1270
            Page 1287-1288
            Page 1289-1290
            Page 1291-1292
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 12
            Page 1293-1294
            Page 1295-1296
            Page 1297-1298
            Page 1299-1300
            Page 1301-1302
            Page 1303-1304
            Page 1305-1306
            Page 1307-1308
            Page 1309-1310
            Page 1311-1312
            Page 1291-1292
            Page 1313-1314
            Page 1315-1316
            Page 1317-1318
            Page 1319-1320
            Page 1321-1322
            Page 1323-1324
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 13
            Page 1325-1326
            Page 1323-1324
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 14
            Page 1325-1326
            Page 1327-1328
            Page 1329-1330
            Page 1331-1332
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 14
            Page 1333-1334
            Page 1335-1336
            Page 1331-1332
            Page 1337-1338
            Page 1339-1340
            Page 1341-1342
            Page 1343-1344
            Page 1345-1346
            Page 1347-1348
            Page 1349-1350
            Page 1351-1352
            Page 1353-1354
            Page 1355-1356
            Page 1357-1358
            Page 1359-1360
            Page 1361-1362
            Page 1363-1364
            Page 1365-1366
            Page 1367-1368
            Page 1369-1370
            Page 1371-1372
            Page 1373-1374
            Page 1375-1376
            Page 1377-1378
        House of Commons - Friday, May 15
            Page 1379-1380
            Page 1381-1382
            Page 1383-1384
            Page 1385-1386
            Page 1387-1388
            Page 1389-1390
            Page 1391-1392
            Page 1393-1394
            Page 1395-1396
            Page 1377-1378
        House of Commons - Monday, May 18
            Page 1397-1398
            Page 1399-1400
            Page 1401-1402
            Page 1403-1404
            Page 1405-1406
            Page 1407-1408
            Page 1409-1410
            Page 1411-1412
            Page 1395-1396
            Page 1413-1414
            Page 1415-1416
            Page 1417-1418
            Page 1419-1420
            Page 1421-1422
            Page 1423-1424
            Page 1425-1426
            Page 1427-1428
            Page 1429-1430
            Page 1431-1432
            Page 1433-1434
            Page 1435-1436
            Page 1437-1438
            Page 1439-1440
            Page 1441-1442
            Page 1443-1444
            Page 1445-1446
            Page 1447-1448
            Page 1449-1450
            Page 1451-1452
            Page 1453-1454
            Page 1455-1456
            Page 1457-1458
            Page 1459-1460
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 19
            Page 1461-1462
            Page 1463-1464
            Page 1465-1466
            Page 1467-1468
            Page 1469-1470
            Page 1471-1472
            Page 1473-1474
            Page 1475-1476
            Page 1477-1478
            Page 1479-1480
            Page 1481-1482
            Page 1483-1484
            Page 1485-1486
            Page 1487-1488
            Page 1489-1490
            Page 1459-1460
        House of Lords - Wednesday, May 20
            Page 1489-1490
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 20
            Page 1491-1492
            Page 1489-1490
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 21
            Page 1491-1492
            Page 1493-1494
            Page 1495-1496
            Page 1497-1498
            Page 1499-1500
            Page 1501-1502
            Page 1503-1504
            Page 1505-1506
            Page 1507-1508
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 21
            Page 1509-1510
            Page 1511-1512
            Page 1513-1514
            Page 1515-1516
            Page 1517-1518
            Page 1519-1520
            Page 1521-1522
            Page 1507-1508
            Page 1523-1524
            Page 1525-1526
            Page 1527-1528
            Page 1529-1530
            Page 1531-1532
            Page 1533-1534
            Page 1535-1536
            Page 1537-1538
            Page 1539-1540
            Page 1541-1542
            Page 1543-1544
            Page 1545-1546
        House of Lords - Friday, May 22
            Page 1547-1548
            Page 1549-1550
            Page 1545-1546
        House of Commons - Friday, May 22
            Page 1551-1552
            Page 1549-1550
            Page 1553-1554
            Page 1555-1556
            Page 1557-1558
            Page 1559-1560
        House of Lords - Monday, May 25
            Page 1561-1562
            Page 1563-1564
            Page 1565-1566
            Page 1559-1560
        House of Commons - Monday, May 25
            Page 1567-1568
            Page 1569-1570
            Page 1565-1566
            Page 1571-1572
            Page 1573-1574
            Page 1575-1576
            Page 1577-1578
            Page 1579-1580
            Page 1581-1582
            Page 1583-1584
            Page 1585-1586
            Page 1587-1588
            Page 1589-1590
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 27
            Page 1589-1590
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 28
            Page 1591-1592
    June 1829
        Page 1591-1592
        House of Lords - Monday, June 1
            Page 1591-1592
            Page 1593-1594
            Page 1595-1596
            Page 1597-1598
            Page 1599-1600
            Page 1601-1602
            Page 1603-1604
            Page 1605-1606
            Page 1607-1608
            Page 1609-1610
            Page 1611-1612
            Page 1613-1614
            Page 1615-1616
            Page 1617-1618
            Page 1619-1620
            Page 1621-1622
            Page 1623-1624
            Page 1625-1626
            Page 1627-1628
            Page 1629-1630
            Page 1631-1632
            Page 1633-1634
            Page 1635-1636
            Page 1637-1638
            Page 1639-1640
            Page 1641-1642
            Page 1643-1644
            Page 1645-1646
            Page 1647-1648
            Page 1649-1650
            Page 1651-1652
            Page 1653-1654
            Page 1655-1656
            Page 1657-1658
            Page 1659-1660
            Page 1661-1662
            Page 1663-1664
            Page 1665-1666
            Page 1667-1668
            Page 1669-1670
            Page 1671-1672
        House of Commons - Tuesday, June 2
            Page 1673-1674
            Page 1675-1676
            Page 1677-1678
            Page 1679-1680
            Page 1681-1682
            Page 1683-1684
            Page 1685-1686
            Page 1687-1688
            Page 1689-1690
            Page 1691-1692
            Page 1693-1694
            Page 1695-1696
            Page 1671-1672
        House of Commons - Wednesday, June 3
            Page 1697-1698
            Page 1699-1700
            Page 1701-1702
            Page 1695-1696
        House of Commons - Thursday, June 4
            Page 1703-1704
            Page 1705-1706
            Page 1701-1702
            Page 1707-1708
            Page 1709-1710
            Page 1711-1712
            Page 1713-1714
            Page 1715-1716
            Page 1717-1718
            Page 1719-1720
            Page 1721-1722
            Page 1723-1724
            Page 1725-1726
            Page 1727-1728
            Page 1729-1730
            Page 1731-1732
            Page 1733-1734
            Page 1735-1736
            Page 1737-1738
            Page 1739-1740
            Page 1741-1742
            Page 1743-1744
            Page 1745-1746
        House of Lords - Friday, June 5
            Page 1747-1748
            Page 1749-1750
            Page 1751-1752
            Page 1753-1754
            Page 1745-1746
        House of Commons - Friday, June 5
            Page 1755-1756
            Page 1757-1758
            Page 1759-1760
            Page 1753-1754
            Page 1761-1762
            Page 1763-1764
            Page 1765-1766
            Page 1767-1768
            Page 1769-1770
        House of Lords - Friday, June 12
            Page 1769-1770
        House of Commons - Friday, June 12
            Page 1771-1772
            Page 1773-1774
            Page 1775-1776
            Page 1777-1778
            Page 1779-1780
            Page 1781-1782
            Page 1783-1784
            Page 1769-1770
            Page 1785-1786
            Page 1787-1788
            Page 1789-1790
            Page 1791-1792
        House of Lords - Monday, June 15
            Page 1793-1794
            Page 1791-1792
        House of Lords - Friday, June 19
            Page 1793-1794
            Page 1795-1796
            Page 1797-1798
            Page 1799-1800
            Page 1801-1802
            Page 1803-1804
            Page 1805-1806
            Page 1807-1808
            Page 1809-1810
            Page 1811-1812
            Page 1813-1814
        House of Commons - Friday, June 19
            Page 1815-1816
            Page 1817-1818
            Page 1819-1820
            Page 1821-1822
            Page 1823-1824
            Page 1825-1826
            Page 1813-1814
        House of Commons - Monday, June 22
            Page 1827-1828
            Page 1829-1830
            Page 1825-1826
        House of Lords - Wednesday, June 24
            Page 1831-1832
            Page 1829-1830
    Notices of motions
        Page 1833-1834
        Page 1835-1836
    Finance accounts
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
        Page xxiii
        Page xxiv
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
    Index
        Page xxix
        Page xxx
        Page xxxi
        Page xxxii
        Page xxxiii
        Page xxxiv
Full Text


HANSARD'S


PARLIAMENTARY


DEBATES:


FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED

" THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."


t e Slries;

COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.



VOL. XXI.

COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM
THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF MARCH,
TO
THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 1829.


LONDON:

printab ip S. 0. @an#arb at tbe WattrMtnotM*orwNe e#,
FOR BALDWIN AND CRADOCK; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; PARBURY, ALLEN, AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON;
J. RIDGWAY; B. JEFFERY AND SON; J. RODWELL; CALKIN AND BUDD;
R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1829.








ADVERTISEMENT.



THE Proprietors of this work, in offering a renewal of their acknowledgments for
the patronage with which it has been so long honoured, feel those thanks to be no less
due for the great indulgence which has been shewn to them, notwithstanding the unfavour-
able delay which has taken place in the publication of the volumes of the last Session.
The causes it would here be useless to explain: but arrangements have been made
effectually to prevent their recurrence; and to ensure, in future, to the Subscribers and to
the Public in general, the regular appearance of a Part, consisting of about nine sheets,,
every fortnight, until the termination of each respective Session.
The Paper and the Printing, in consequence of the recently-invented machinery in their
respective departments, will be found to have been much improved; and no expense or
labour will be spared to render the work deserving not only of the continuance, but of an
increase of that patronage which it has, for so many years, enjoyed.
"Hansard's Parliamentary Debates" consists of two Series: the first, in Forty-one
Volumes, commencing with the year 1803, and ending at the period of the Death of
George the Third: the second, in Twenty-one Volumes, commencing with the Accession of
his present Majesty, George the Fourth, and coming down to the close of the last Session.
To the fidelity and strict impartiality with which it has been conducted, testimonials of
the most flattering description have been borne by nearly every one of our great public men,
and by all our most distinguished Literary Journals. In the thirty-eighth number of the
Quarterly Review will be found an elaborate article, written by the late Mr. CANNING, on
Mr. Brougham's Education Committee and the Reform of Charitable Abuses. Having,
in the course of it, occasion to refer to the Debates in Parliament on the Renewal of the
War in 1815, and to those on the State of the Country in 1816 and 1817, that eminent
man took occasion to pronounce HANSARD'S PARLTAMENTARY I)EBATES to be "a Record,
which,forfidelity, fulness, and despatch, has certainly never been equalled."
Neither has the Edinburgh Review withheld its meed of approbation. We cannot," it
says, speaking of this Work, and of its companion, 'The Parliamentary History of Eng-
land;'-" we cannot quote this careful and judicious Collection without bearing testimony
to its singular merits. It deserves, as well as the New Edition of the 'State Trials,'
undertaken by the same Proprietors, to be numbered among the most useful and best-con-
ducted Works of late years. Both are indispensable parts of all Collections of English History."
This latter panegyric came, like the former, from the pen of one of the most distinguished
Members of the House of Commons.
Of "The Parliamentary History" it is not too much to say, that it has completely
superseded all former Collections. In the preface to the recently-published posthumous
work of the great modern Historian, Archdeacon Coxe -" Memoirs of the Pelham
Administration,"-there is the following valuable tribute to its merits. Speaking of the
Parliamentary Journal of the Honourable Philip Yorke, eldest son of Lord Chancellor
Hardwicke, Mr. Coxe says, This curious narrative, containing a faithful account of the
Proceedings of the Lower House, recorded under the impression of the moment, and
accompanied with occasional views of the political history and character of the times,
has been printed by Mr. Hansard, in his collection of Parliamentary Debates. I have
likewise examined and compared the reports of the speeches given in the Gentleman's
and the London Magazines: but, in tracing the proceedings of the Legislature, I have
" derived the greatest assistance from the 'Parliamentary History' published by Mr.
A2






ADVERTISEMENT.

di Hansard; which forms an invaluable and indispensable appendage to our national annals, and
" contains a vast mass of curious information."
It is hardly necessary to :add, that a Work which has been thus spoken of, and which,
in consequence, has found its way into most of the great Public arid Private Libraries, not
only of the United Empire but of Europe and America, will continue to be conducted with
that activity and perseverance which a reception so flattering is calculated to produce. As
a book of Reference it is, and will continue to be, indispensable."
In addition to the Debates of both Houses, the work contains an invaluable collection
of Parliamentary Papers, consisting of many hundred Reports, Estimates, Returns, Pro-
tests, Petitions, Treaties, Conventions, Lists of Divisions, &c. & v.; together with a regular
Series, for the last twenty-five years, of Accounts, relative to the Finances and to the'
Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, These documents are exact copies of
those laid before Parliament. They are to be met with in no other publication, and will
be found eminently convenient and useful to the Reader: to whom, indeed, if his attention
be at all turned to subjects of Political Economy, they are indispensably necessary.
The Works formerly published under the titles of "The Parliamentary Absttact, and
The Parliamentary Digest" being now discontinued by the gentlemen who undertook
them, it is the intention of Mr. Hansard to supply their place by a selection, in addliion
to the usual Finance Accounts, of such other Accounts, Papers, Reports, &c., as may,
from their nature, possess more than a temporary interest; and thus, from resources and
assistance peculiarly his own, to form a volume of great importance in Political, Statistical,
Commercial, and Financial affairs. Finding also that others hatve taken t6 themselves
sotie merit by the insertion of what was an original feature of this work, he has been in-
duced to resume it; and to give, in a condensed form, the minor priceedings of eael 4{by,
under the head of "MINUTES," wherever they can be of use either as matter of'~'ie-
diate information to the parties interested, or of future reference.
To compete, in point of rapidity of publication, with the daily Journals, was never the
object of this Work; neither, with the necessary attention to accuracy 'in ts details, would
it ever be possible. To send it out in such detached portions as was consistent
with a due regard to accuracy and general utility, was the paramount consideration;
and to this object our endeavours have been always assiduously directed.
That such a work should have proceeded thus prosperously, for a quarter of a century,
without calling forth imitators and competitors, was neither to be expected nor desired.
Accordingly, during that period, no fewer than eighteen candidates for public favour
have started up, in all shapes and sizes, from the humble twelves up to the unwieldy
folio-some promising to give a more condensed and some a more elongated account of
the proceedings in Parliament. The greater part of them, however, dropped still-born
from the press: five expired even before the Easter recess; and only three weathered
out more than a single Session. The last of this description has been dragging on a
lingering existence, the period of which it can be no difficulty to foresee.
The Proprietors of HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES'1 have thought it due to
themselves and to their friends to say thus much. They have only to add, that no pains
shall be spared to render it for the future, what it has hitherto been pronounced, by such
high authority, to be; namely, one of the most useful and best-cotducted works; and
al indispensable part of all collections of English History,"

*7, Such Members of the two Houses as may have Communications for the Work, are requested
to forward them to MR. HANSARD, Paternoster R;', within five or sir days after
S the Debate to which such communications have reference has taken place.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

To

VOLUME XXI.

NEW SERIES.



".' DEBATES, -I THE H.OUSB OF IV. PARLIAMtETAift PAPERS.
SLOADS. V. PEIrTIONS.
IL -DEBATES IN TIHE HousE oFr
j ;.:' COlMMONs. VI. PiROESTS.
gI.. I ING'S SPEECHES. VII. LISTS.



L. )DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS,
Page,
March 1.. Roman. Catholic Relief Bill ...... ......... ........ 1
April ., Roman Catholic Claims--Petitions for and against...... 29
.2. Roman Catholic Claims-Petitions for and against........ 33
S..... .., Roman Catholic Relief Bill .......... .......... .. 41
,,,, Q;, .Rtoma, Catholic Claims-Petitions for and against........ 137
.:,: ..- Ro !oman Catholic Relief Bill-Adjourned Debate .......... 143
,., ,i R9gman, Catholic Relief Bill-Adjourned Debate.......... 264
6. Romap Catholic Claims-Petitions for and against........ 397
.iPor Laws in Ireland................... .......... 403
u,,, ; .. ,Qualification of Freeholders (Ireland) Bill .............. 407
Militia Staff Reduction Bill ........... ............ 467
; Al un, i, R Catholic Claiims-Petitions for and against........ 468
; ,,,,: ...Roman Catholic Relief Bill .............. .......... 471
S; ,8. Roman Catholic Claims-Petitions for and against........ 5366
S, .,., ,.Roman Catholic ReliefBill .. r...... .. ... ....... 538
... Conduct of the, Irish .Government- Release of Mr. Eneas
Macdonnell ...... ...................... 572
Qualification of Freeholders (Jrelaud) Bill ............. 574
10. Roman Catholic Claims-Petitions fot and against....... 614
Roman Catholic Relief Bill ................ ......... 619
13. Conduct of the Irish Government-Release of Mr. Eneas:
Macdonnell' ................. .. ... .. 7,25
May 4. The Marquis of Angltsey's Recal from the Government of
Ireland ......... ......................... 990
.. '8 or Laws in Ireland ..... ...................,,,... 1161
'Co tirttof Chancery....................... ...... ,1162
I1, Sae.off OameBa ,D,;;.......;;, ; ...........,,,.. 1241





TAB OFP 9 CONTENTS.,
Page
May 12. East India Trade ................................. 1270
SCourt-of OC ancery. .::: ... .... ... -........... .
14. Canada Govi nmint--Petition complain i of GTie'aices.. 1326
SPoor Laws Inreland .............. .... 1330
20. Anatomy Regulation Bill ............... ....i ......1489
: 21. Court of Chancery-Suitori-3in Equity Bill ..;. ..... 1492
22 '-C6vpratidn of London--Privilege of Parliament.:....... 1545
25. Corporation of Londoin-Privilege of Parliament...... .... 1559
Aitne I1. Sale of Game Bill ............. .. ............ 1592
5: 5 Anatonmy Bill ...... :..... ......................' 1746
5. AnatomyBill. 1746
M;: etropolis Police Bill ........................... 1750
S '. 12. Supply of Water to the Metropolis ...... ........ 1769
S15. City Accounrts ................. .... ........... 1792
S19. Londor Bridge Approaches ....................... 1793
-:" -Foreign Relations .................................. / 1795
24.- The King's Speech at the Close of the Session ......; 1830

; II DEBATES IN THE HOUSE QF COMMONS.

Mch 31. F'ig-ed Signratuie to a Petition ............... ...... 22
S Middlesex County Court ....... ..... .... 23
i Metropolis Roads Bill ................ ... '....., 27
Auction Duties .............. .......... ...... 28
April '2. Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland ........ ... .. 131
Miscellaneous Estimates ................,. .. 135
3. Arrest on Mesne Process ....... 262
East-Ihdia W writers' Bill........... ........... .... 263
.fish M.licl laneous Estimates .....
6. Apothecaries Act-Medical Practice in Ireland :'....... 441
Silk Trade ...................... ..,..... 444
Scotch Brewers ..................... .. .... 444
Jews ...................................... 445
Compensation to Proprietors of Bencoolen .or s;~ e sus-
tainted by the surrender of that'Sttlement ............ 445
British and Spanish Claims ............ ,... ... 449
Propagation of the Gospel in the Colonies ............ 455
S The Canadas .............................. ... 460
Newfoundland Fisheries Bill ...................'.... 463
S Swan'River Settlement Bill ................... .... 464
G I Game Bill ............................... 465
7. R6ian Catholic Claims.,..........,,. 52... ..,.... 523
Royal Canal Company of -Ireland ........... ...... 524
"".... Chaih'g Cross Improoements .,,., ....,, l* .. 527
fr. risli Admiralty Court .......,. .,,. ..,-. .,* 531
Splanih Claims ........ .... ... ,,.. 532
'. AiAtdlical Suibjects ..b........^ :it 4..... 533
Nbi vT6 utiidladi Fisheries Bill ................ .., ... 533
... .. B; D ties.. .., -q. .






TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Pag8
April 8. Silk Trade .............. .. ........... 571
SRoman Catholic Claims .......................... 571
9. Silk Trade ........................... .... ...... 595
Law of Patents for Inventions .................. ... 598
Irish Miscellaneous Estimates ...................... 608
Petition of Roman Catholic Bishops respecting Education in
.Ireland ........................................ 608
Greenwich Hospital ................................ 612
10. Archbishop of Canterbury's Estate Bill ................ 697
Silk Trade..................................... 702
East Retford ................................. .. .. 704
Spanish Claims Bill ............ ........... 711
Swan River Settlement Bill ......................... 712
Newfoundland Fisheries Bill................ .......... 713
13. Cheshire Police Regulation Bill ...................... 740
Poor Laws in Ireland .............................. 742
Court of King's Bench-Want of Accommodation ........ 743
State of the Silk Trade ............................... 744
14. Complaint against the Sub-Sheriff of Westmeath ........ 814
Subletting Act-in Ireland ........................... 815
State of the Silk Trade-Adjourned Debate ........... 818
15. Metropolis Police Improvement Bill .................... 867
Spanish Claims Bill .............................. 884
16. Finance Committee ................................ 886
S "" i Silk'Trade Bill ................................. 889
28. Regulation of Parish Vestries ..................,..... 890
May 1. Irish Church Establishment-Petition of W. Cobbett for
SRepeal of .................................... 906
Swan River Settlement ............................. 913
S Silk Trade Bill ................................... 914
S 4.' French Claims-Petition of M. Roudeaux .............. 1032
S French Claims-Petition of Mr. Simcox ................ 1033
I' fterference of the Bengal Government with the Supreme
S Court Of Justice................................. 1039
i .. Law Commission ................................ 1040
Somerset House-New College.. ....... .......... 1043
Militia Estimates ................................1043
Labourers': Wages Bill ............................. 1049
SGreenwich Out-Pensions Bill......................... 1053
5. Standing Orders respecting Private Bills ................ 1054
SRegistrar of Madras-Claims of Mr. O'Reilly ........... 1055
SEast Retford ....... .......................... 1055
6. Representation of.Canterhury-Members in India ........ 1105
S 7. C:oC Laws-Free Trade. .............. ..... ........ 1110
Supply of Watertto the Metropolis ..................... 1112
ot .tRawsint Ielandd ............... ......... ...1114
E t Retfo ... ......... ..... .......... ,- .... 1115






NWOiF. cONTZiT$.
Page
May ,7,. Sik.TrAde-itl .^ ... ...:.... :.... $.1. ,. .. 1186
8., Dover Right. f :leetiii Committee...I. ,......... .; 1162
London Bridge, Bill--Cqmmittee Clerks Fees .... ,..s 1164
Corn LawS-Petition of Anti-Bread Tax Asociaoiin ....
Anatomy Bill.............. .. ....*.... ....,, .... 1167
'The Budget ...............,.. ..... 1168
S SilkTrade BjU ...................... ....... 1241
.11., Wool Trade ................. ....,, ... 1252
ast Rtfodj4 .... ......, ....s t.. .. ..... 1254
TIBUd. T id ............... 4.... .., ...... 1255
..lKish Fisberies ......... ............... ... ..... 1269
'; l .Taiesgljsegl tion, (Sctlnda4 Bll 3 ...;.. ...... 1269
S 12, .Vt India Trade .................. ,,... 1292
Ma.lt and, :eer-Burthens anl Resttietikns ~ ah Manu-
factureof ..............., ....i ,.., .,..... 1300
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill ............ .... 1318
Sl aitin ...........'.. .... ^, ^....... 1319
Land Revenue Bill-Buckingham Palace........ ..... 1320
13. Husbaudry horses ..,........ ,.......... 1324
Law Terms Regulation Bill ............... ., .... 1325
14. Canada Government-Petition of Inhabitants cpmpaihing of
Grievances ............... .. .. .. .. 1331
East India Trade' .......... ..........~...... 1335
15.' :O'onnell- Clare Election .... ... 1378
Smithfield Maliket ill ..... ......",.......... .., 1389
S friendly Sdcieties' B'il ........,., ... ..i 1390
Laborers' Wages Bil .................. ':. .. ,., 1392
S Anatomy Regulation Bill ............ ........ ..... 1394
18. Mr. O'Connell-Clare Election ...................... 1395
19. Mr. O'ConneIll-Clare Election .................. 1459
Sierra Leone ......... ........ .... .. .......... 1461
Corn Laws .................................... 1464
Cotton Factories' Regulation Bill ............ ;... 48
Metropolis Police Bill ................ ........... 1487
Anatomy Ra1euation Bill .............. ........ 1488
20, Records of the Church of Scotland ia Sio~olleg ...... 1489
32.L St, Jams's Vestry Bill.................... I.... 1508
; : M. OConeel-.New Writ for Clare ... *...,, .... 1510
Timefor presenting Petitions s..,c ,, ,.**a .... 1531
J : Judges'SalariesAugam tatioa.B1i ....... ....I. 1532
Ecclesiastical ComsBillE .... ........,, .*** ..... 1543
2.2.. Loss of theRosamond Brig .......,.......*.,,** .... 1549
.. Irish EdwatiEon Esdmats ...... .**..... .. *.*,s 1552
SEast India QficeaBi l....... ;...,.... ., .. .... 1557
2&..C~out f CBiaoCYel.. ...a... i...., .,. .. 1
S, ,, .Sugard .ues BilU .-.',,' rg.. t.aia./:i o.i.... 1565
A. .Land .ReyV"uUi. Iill--Buckivnghan. malone-Chadittt If "ea?
i *. Xr i *RF risl >i i qi (.





Page
iMay 27. Crown Leases-Conduct of Mr. Nash ........ 5..;.. ... 1589
S: 28. Appropriation Clause in Exchequer Bills' Bill-Business of
the Session..... ..., ...,,... ..... 1591
Be 1.' Church Services-Petition of General Thornton,......... 1595
Tobacco Duties..............i ..< ., ..... .... 1587
1.ednctioeof the DatyDa IHtmp. .........,........ 1699
S Pottitgat......*-......... ........ ..,-*,. ,....... 1601
,, Parliamentary Reform .... .,.. ................ 1672
a, ,Itbl ,,. ,............ ....:.... 1689
3; ~1aVery in the Maurittus-Condu etof ,r R. Farquhar .... 1696
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill ............................ 1700
4. Rights of Authors-Petition of C. Bucke........ ....... 1701
Currency--Birminghasm Pttiion fdr an Alteration thereof .. 1702
Distress of the Labouring Classes-Redqndant Populition-

SSIary fn the West Indies :...... !.. ........... 1741
"" Grand Juries in India--Pettion of Natives to be admitted
it .erve on........................... ..... 1753
!. Charities EnqtifBilt .......... .....,........ 1756
S'- Ecclesiastical Courts Bill .......... ......... 1763
A C .ad. ...........................,... ..... 1764
1*. 'Breawh of Privilege-A Member asuam wed a aJuror ,.., 1770
S iftatpstedA Hath--Wilson's Estate Bill ............... 1771
Atten~b ine of Protestant Soldiers at Catholie Ceremonies 1772
St id bf'the Country-Blackburn Pettiotm ........... 1773
o Hampsteia' feath-Wilson's Estate Bi ................ 1814
)!; i.Cnduct of Mr. Nash-Crown Leases Committee ........ 1818
.: i. Non-Residence of the Clergy-Case of the Rev, Mrr. Wmr 1826


i IIIm. KING'S SPEECHES.

t 24. KING's SPEECH at the Close of the Session ............ 1830


IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

Notices of Motions which now stand in the Order Book of
Sthe House of Commons for the next Session............ 1833
F Ixc..i. C AccouNTS for the Year ending the 5th of Jnuary
: .1829 ...... ...............; .Appx. Li]


;* V. PETITIONS.

iWy1 1E P'EITONO of William Cobbett for Repeal of the Irish-'
Church Establishment.......... ... 906
June ih r4me iofi General Thornton respecting, the Church
S .. .. ......... Sevices .... ... ,,.i*** *... 1595






TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page


VIL PROTESTS.

April 13. PaoTETS against the, Second -Reading of the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill .................... 714
.- against the Third. Reading of the Roman
.., ... Cathplic Relief Bill ........ ..,..; : ,.. 715
S- -. against the Qualification.of Freeholders (Ireland)
Bill .......................... ....... 721


VII. LISTS.

April 4. LiST of the Majority and also-of the Minority, in the House
of Lords on the Second Reading of the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill ......................... 394
10. - the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House
of Lords on the Third Reading of the Roman Catholic'
Relief Bill ....... ...... ...... .... ... :694
May '1-. -the Minority; in' the House of Commons, on the
SSilk Trade Bill ....... ...................... 990
5. - the Minority, in the' House of Commons, on Mr. ,
Tennyson's Motion for leave to bring in a;Bit. to;, ;i
exclude East Retford from electing Burgesses, &c:. ., J
18. - the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the .;
Motion, that Mr. O'Connell is not entitled to sit or ,
vote in the House unless he first take the Oath Oif:,, ,,I
.. Supremacy .......................... .. 1458
19. - the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr,-i -
Hume's Motion respecting the Corn Laws ........ 1487
June 2. - the Minority, in the House of Commons,-on ;t he;;:?.:
Marquis of Blandford's Motion for a Parliamentary
Reform ..... ................... ....... 68














J 1












ROLL

-- OF THE

LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL,

IN THE THIRD SESSION OF THE EIGHTH PARLIAMENT

OF THE

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.


His Royal Highness WILLIAM HENRY
DuOe of CLARENCE and of SAINT
ANDREWS.
His Royal Highness ERNEST AUGUSTUS
Duke of CUM BE R LAND and of TEVIoT-
DALE. "'
His Royal H'iglness AUGUSTUS FRED.
Duke of StsEx.
His Royal Highness ADOLPHUS FRED.
Duke of C. M BR I DG E.
His Royal Highne-s WILLIAM FRED.
B De of GLOUCESTER and of EDIN-
BURGII. ,

CHARLrs Archbishop or CANTERBURY.
JoHN SIVi tTON Lord LYNDHURST,
SLoid Chancellor. -..
EDWARD Archbishop of YORK.
POWER Archbishop of TUAM.
HENRY Earl BATHURST, Lord Pre-
sident of the Council.
EDWARD Lord ELLENBOROUGH, Lord
Privy Seal.

SBERNARD EDWARD Duke of NORFOLK,
Earl Marshal of England.
EDWARD ADOLPHUS Duke of SOMERSET.
CHARLES Duke of RICHMOND.
GEORGE HENRY Duke of GRAFTON.
HENRY CHARLES Duke of BEAUFORT.
WILLIAM AUBREY DE VERE Duke of
ST. ALBANS.
GEORGE WILLIAM FREDERICK Duke of
LEEDS.
JOHN Duke of BEDFORD.
WILLIAM SPENCER Duke of DEVON-


GEORGE Duke of MARLBOROUGH.
JOHN HENRY Duke of RUTLAND.
ALEXANDER Duke of BRANDON. (T, ke
of Hamilton and Brandon.)
WILLIAM HENRY CAVENDISH Duke of
PORTLAND.
WILLIAM Duke of MANCHESTER.
CHARLES Duke of DORSET.
HENRY Duke of NEWCASTLE.
HUGH Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND.
ARTHUR Duke of WELLINGTON.
RICHARD Duke of BUCKINGHAM and
CHANDOS.

HENRY Marquess CONYNGHAM, Lord
Steward of the Household.
CHARLES INGOLDESBY Marquess of
WINCHESTER.
CHARLES Marquess of QUEENSBERRY.
(Electedfor Scotland.)
GEORGE Marquess of TWEEDDALE.
(Electedfor Scotland.)
HENRY Marquess of LANSDOWNE.
GEORGE GRANVILLE Marquess of STAF-
FORD.
GEORGE Marquess TOWNSHEND.
JAMES BROWNLOW'WILLIAM Marquess
of SALISBURY.
THOMAS Marquess of BATH.
JAMES Marquess of ABERCORN.
FRANCIS CHARLES Marquess of HERT-
FORD.
JOIHN Marquess of BUTE.
WILLIAM Marquess ofTHOMOND. (Lord
Tadcaster.) (Elected for Ireland.)
THOMAS Marquess of HEADFORT,
(Electedfor Ireland.)
,nBownow Marquess of ExFTER.






THE LORDS' ROLL.


CHARLES Marquess of the County of
N' ORTHAMPTON.
JOHN JEFFREYS Marquess CAMDEN.
HENRY WILLIAM Marq.of ANGLESEY.
GEORGE HORATIO Maiquess of CHOL-
MONDELEY.
HENRY Marquess CONYNGHAM. (I*
Sa other place as Lord Steward of the
Household.) (Lord flinster.) (Elected
for Ireta.)
GEORGE AUOUSTUS FRANCIS Marquess
of HASTINGS-
CI ARI.LS Marquess of AILESBURY.
FREDERICK WILLIAM Marquess of
BRISiot.
WILLIAM HARnY Marquess of CLEVE-
[LAND.
JOHN Earl of SHREWSBURY.
EDWARD Earl of DERBY.
H %Ns FRANCIS Earl of HUNTINGDON.
ROEiRT HENRY Earl of PEMBROKE and
MONTGOMBRY.
THOMAS Earl of SirrFOLK and BERt-

Fn.a crs HENRY Earl of BRIDGWATER.
WILLIAM BASIL PERCY Earl of DEN-
BIGH.
JOHN Earl of WESTMORR~LAND,
ALBEMARLE .arl of LI NbEY.
GEORGE HARRY Earl of STAMFORD and
Wa tRINGTON.
GEOkoG WILLIAM Earl of WINCHILSEA
and NOTTINGHAM,
GEORGE Earl of CIESTERFIELD,
CHARLES Earl of THANET.
JO*ar WILLNAM Earl of SANDWICH.
GEORGE Earl of EssEx.
'ROBIRT Earl of CARDIGAN.
GEORGE Earl of CARLISLE.
WALTER FRANCIS Earl of DONCASTER.
(Duke of Buccleuck.)
CROP4BY A~ILEY Earl Of SHAFTESBURY.
i Earl of BERKELEY.
MONTAiUE Earl of ABINGDON.
OTHam ACHEza Earl of PLYMOUTH.
RICHARD Earl of SCARBOROUGH,-
WILLIAM HENRY Earl of ROCHFORD.
Wi As.k1A CIARL IS Earlof ALBEMARLE.
GEOkG'E WLLIAM Earl of COVENTRY.
GOtRGE Earl of JEItSEY.
JOHN Earl POULEBT,
WILJ AII Gta~d. Earl of. EIaR-L.
(Elected for Scotland.)
AtEkANDER Ea of FHOME. (Elected,
for Scotland.)
ThOMAS Earl of kELLiE. (Elected for

TioMAs Etil of ELGIN aid KIs.LCAR-
PIME. ^Elected for Sicliand.)


ARCHIBALD JOHN Earl of RosEBERv.
(Lord Rosebery.) (Elected for Scot-
land.)
EDWARD Earl of OXFORD and Earl
MORTIMER.
WASHINGTON Earl FERRERS.
WILLIAM Earl of DARTMOUTH.
CHARLES AUGUSTUS Earl of TANKERr
VILLE.
SHEEAGE Earl of Aynsron .
PETER LEOPOLD LOUIs FRANCIS Earl
COOPER,
PHILLIP HENRY Earl STANHOPE.
ROBERT Earl of HARBOROUGH.
GEORGE Earl of MACCLESFIELD.
SGEORdE Earl of Po01 T.
JAMES Earl GRAHAM. (Duke of Mon-
trose.)
JOHN JAMES Earl WALDEGRAVE.
GEORGE Earl of ASHBURNHAM.... ,
CHARLES Earl of HARRIN.GTQN-. '.
JOHN Earl df PORTSMOUTH.
HENRY RICHARD Earl BRadoKn aqd
Earl of WARWICK.
GEORGE ROBERT Earl of BueCKPL 4
SHIRE. :,
WILLIAM Earl FITZWILLIAM. ,
GEORGE Earl of tE. iREONi.
WILLIAM Earl HF1tacoRr.
FRANCIS Earl of Gum RD .R ,
JAMES Earl CORNWA I~4i.
PHILIP Earl of H.% n Io iK r.
HENRY STEPHEN Earl of I rI.cnfESR.
GEORGE JOHN Earl DL L \s aa. R.
WILLIAM PLEYDELL Earl of RADmOn,.
GEORGE JOHN Earl SieLNcg. L -
JOHN Earl of CHATHAM .
HENRY Earl BATHURST, i
place as Lord President qftfe I i.)
ARTHUR Earl of HiLLBsson ue.
(Marquess of Downshire.)
JOHN CHARLES Earl of CLAPtE N i ,
HENRY Earl of ABERGAVINNY..
GEORGE Earl of NORWICIf, (Dua of.
Gordon.).
CHARLES CHETWYND Earl T.I-BO T..
RoBEIRT Earl GRosVEnOB. .
JOHN Earl STRANGE. (Ditke of A hol.)
RiCxArD Earl of klMoui EDir UMN z.
HUGH Earl FogTEGSUE..
EDWARD Earl of DIaBy, :
ALGERNON Earl ofIBEVE-RL.EV. .
WILrIAM Eat of R. MANISIELD. ;
HENRY GEORGE Earl of.C.AwRNANao.
ROBERT BANS Eartof LIvterTogQ ,
CHARLES HENRY Earl C.BOGA.%.
JAMES EDWARD Earl of MNALMLSBau JJy.
Sou(TER.i RIrdaniR Earl of G.taRacK,
(Elected for Ireland)





T1 LO6D$S' RO LL


FRRA NwTSYWfT.L M EarlofC II ARLC ONT.
(Electedfor Ireland.)
GEOREo Earl of KINGSTON. (Lord
Kingston.) (Elected for Ireland.)
STLPH[N Earl of MOUNT CASHELL.
(Elected for Ireland.)
THOMAS Earl of LoNGGORD. (Lord
Silchester.) (Elected for Ireland.)
JOHs 'Earl of MAYO. (Elected for
Ireland.)
JOHN WILLOUGHBY Earl of ENNIS-
e ILL ... (Lord Grinstead.) (Elected
for Ireland.)
JOHN Earl of ERNE. (Elected for
Ireland.)
WILLIAM Earl of WIcKLOW. (Elected
for Ireland.)
RI HlARD Eirl ofLucAN. (Elected for
Ireland.)
SoMEmRSIT Lowvr Earl of BELMORE.
(Elected for Ir2eland.)
CHARLES HETWR Earl O'NEILL. (Elect-
edfor Ireland.) .
FkikNcis Earl of BANDON. (Elected for
Ireland.)
D'uiPu- Earl of CALEDON. (Elected for
JAMES Earl of ROSSLYN. [Ireland.)
WILLIAM -Earl of CRAVEN.
ARTHUR GEORGE Earl of ONSLOW.
CHARLES Earl of ROMNEY.
HENRY THOMfAS Earl of CHICHESTER.
THOMAS Earl of WiLTON.
EDMUND HENRY Earl of LIMERICK.
(Lord Foxford.) (Electedfor Ireland.)
RIcARD Earl of CLANCARTY. (ViSC.
Ciancarty.) (Electedfor Ireland.)
EDWARD Earlof PowiA.s
WILLIAM Earl NELSON.
ARCHI ~ LD Earlof Gos ORD. (Elected
for ireland.) -
LAWRItEiaC Earl of RossE. (Elected for
Ireland.)
CIIARLrs WILLIAM :Earl of CHARLE-
VILLE, (Elected for Ireland.)
CHARLEs HERBRnT Earl MANVERS.
HORATIO Earl of ORFORD.
CHARLES Earl GREY.
WILLIAM Earl of LONSDALE.
DUDLEY Earl of HAIROWBY.
HENRY Earl of MULGRAVE.
HENRY Earl of HARDWOOD.
GILBERT Earl of INTO.
WILLIAM Earl CATHIIART.
JAMES WALTER Earl of VERtULAM.
JOHw Earl BnOWN LW.
WILLEAM EailI of SA INT GERMANS.
JOHN Earl of Mon LLE'.
GEDR.f. AuLvSTUS FRFDrRiCK HENRY
'Earl of BRADFORDI.


JOl N RrciN.tN i Earl BeAUCHAMi
CCHARLES JOHN Earl of BLESIKTO.,
(Elected for Ireland.)
JOHN Earl of ELDON.
EDWARD Earl of FALMOUTvH.
RICHARD WILLIAM PENN Earl How-v.
JOHN Earl SOMERS.
EDWARD CORNWALLIS Earl of STRAD-
BROKE.
CHARLES WILLIAM Earl VANi. (Mar-
quess of Londonderry.)
WILLIAM PITT Earl AMHERST.
JOHN WILLIAM Earl of DUDLEY. (One
of the Principal Secretaries of State.)
JOHN FREDERICK Earl CAWDOa,

HENRY Viscount HEREFORD. ,
JoHN Viscount ARBUTHNOTT, (Eleeted
for Scotland.)
JAMES ANDREW JOHN LAURENCEO-IAS .
Viscount STRATHALLAN. (Elected fir
Scotland.)
HENRY Viscount BOLINOROKE. ,o
GEORGE Viscount TORRINGTON.
AUGUSTUS FRED. Viscount LIiSTER,
(Duke of Leinster.)
WILLIAM Viscount COURTENAY.
HENRY Viscount MAYNARD.
JOHN THOMAS Viscount SYDNEY.
HENRY Viscount HooD.
ROBERT Viscount DUNCAN,
EDWARD JERVIS Viscount ST. VINCENT.
ROBERT Viscount MELVILLE.
HENRY Viscount SIDMOUTH.
THOMAS WILLIAM Viscount ANSON.
ROBERT EDWARD Viscount LORTONr
(Elected for Ireland.)
FRANCIS GERARD Viscount LAKE.
GEORGE Viscount GORDON, (Earl of"
Aberdeen.)
GRANVILLE Viscount GRANVILLE.
EDWARD Viscount EXMOUTH..
CHARLES Viscount GORT. (Elected for
Ireland.) ;
JOHN HELY Viscount HUTCHINSON.
WILLIAM CARR Viscount BERESFORD.
RICHARD Viscount CLANCARTY, (1I7
another place as Earl of Clancarly.) t
STAPLETON Viscount COMBER)ERE.
FREDERICK JOHN Viscount GODLRICH. '

WILLIAM Bishop of LODOn o.,
WILLIAM Bishop of DURHAM.,,
CHAS. RICHARD Bishop ofWi.cise;T gt
FOLLIOTT HERBERT Bp. Of WoaRCXSTr.,.
HENRY WILLIAM Bishop of BNqRQ. o
GEORGE ISAAC Bishop of HfREFBORD.
THOMAS Bishop of SALIsBUry; R
HENRY Bishop of NORwIwH,. .





T'IHB1 0oRDS`' -it OT;IL


JouH Bishop of Sr.'As.nPR
Bow rE E DWA R n Bishop 4f Ei,;
GEO. HENRY Bp. of BATH and WILLS.
HENRY Bp.ofLICI FI ELDandCov ENTRY,
HERBERT Bishop of PETRIBOROtrGc.I.
JOHN Bishop of LINcoi. .
WILLIAM Bishop of EXETER.
CHRISTOPH FR Bishop of GLOUCESTER.
ROBERT JAMES Bishop of CHICHESTER.
CHAr.tES JAMES Bishop of CHESTER.
Jo!,t BsBAcs Bishop of ST. DAVID'S.
CHAR tEs Bishop of OXFORD.
ROBERT Bishop of BRISTOL.
Hoc n Bishop of CARLISLE.
GEORiE Bishop ol ROCHESTER.
EDWARD Bishop of LLANDAFF.
ROBERT Bishop of OSSORY.
JAMES Bishop of KILLALA and ACHONRY..
CHRISTOPHER Bishop of CLONFERT and
KILMACDUAGH.

THOMAS Lord LE DESPENCER.
EWARD Lord DE CLIFFdRD.
GEORGE JOH Lord AUDLEY.
TokAsALord DACRE.
ROB. COTTON ST. JOHN Lord CLINTON.
CirlZ Loid ZOUCHE of H'ARYNGWORTH.
WILLIAM Lord STOURTON.
HrNRY Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE.
KENNETH ALEXANDER Lord HOWARD
,of EFFINGHAM.
ST. ANDREW BEAUCHAMP Lord ST.
JOHNof BLETSO. -
CHAS. AUG. Lord HOWARD de WALDEN.
WILLIAM FRANCIS HEN Y Lord PETRE.
GREGORY WILL. Lord SAYE and SELE.
JAMES EVERARD Lord ARUNDEL of
WARDOUR.
JoHN Lord CLIFTON. (Earl of Darnley.)
JOSEPH THADDEUS Lord DORMER.
HENRY FRANCIS Lord TEYNHAM.
GEORGE WILLIAM Lord STAFFORD.
GEORGE ANSON Lord BYRON.
CHAS. Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGII.
GEORGE GRANVILLE Lord GOWER.
JAS..OcaON CAR Lord FORBES. (Elected
for &otland.)
AiEA;iNDWRE GEORGE Lord SALTOUN.
(Elected for Scotland.)
FaLwNCrs Lord GRAY. (Elected for
Scotliatd,)
CHARLES Lord SINCLAIR. (Electedfor
Scotland.) ,
JOHN Lord CUViI.LL. of CULROSS.
(Elected for Scotland.)
WILLIAM JOHN Lord NAPIER. (Elected
for Scotlandl.) 1
ROBERT MONT&OrMEtY Lord BELHAVErI
and STBN'ON. (Elocteld fr Scotland.)


EDMUND Lord Boi1LE. (Earl of Cork
and Orrery.)
ITHOMAS ROBERT Lord HA.. (Earl Of
Kinnoul.)
HENRY Lord MIDDLETTON, '
PETER Lord KING.
FREDERICK JOHN Lord MONSON. ...
HENRY Lord MONTFORT.
FREDERICK Lord PoNSONwY. (Errl (f
Besborough.) .
LEWIS RICHARD Lord SoUN o .
THOMAS PHILIP Lord GCrAN.iir.A -
NATHANIEL Lord SCARSDALE, ,
GEORGE Lord BOSTON.
HENRY RICHARD Lord HOLLANDP,
JOHN Lord LOVELL gand HoLTA !pr
(Earl of Egmont.)
HENRY VENABLES Lord VERN ~ .,,.
THOMAS Lord DUCiE.
GEORGE WILLIAM Lord Sl'NDtRIDGI,,
and HAMILTON., (Dake of A ryll.)
EDWARD WILLIAM Lord HA w K.
GEORGE Lord.RIvERS.
THOMAS Lord FOLEY.
GEORGE TALBOT Lord DVNrvp" .
GEORGE Lord WA Lt'N M. I A I.
WILLIAM Lord BGOT. '-
CHARLES Lord SOUTHAMkPTON-,. ,,-I'.
FLETCHER Lord GRANTLBYi, E :i. |
GEORGE Lo.d RoNL. ,, Y.
GEORGE Lord C I.rrEr. 4. ,
THOMAS NOEL Lord BLr.rwICk. n..,
I,-
JOHN Lord SnrnonNI)'. .
HEN. JAMES MoNhrAGu Lqrd ONTA ", .
HENRY Lord TYRONE. (Marqqs. q~',
Waterford.) .
HENRY Lord CARLrTO. ,(Eu.f
Shannon.) .,! a
EDWARD Lold Sl: F1L r D. ,
GuY Lord DOHC1 LSI ER.c.
GEORGE Lord KrN YvN. -
RICHARD Lord Bu.rYBnoOKE. ..
GEORGE AUGUSTUS Lord FrslLIwRiC..r
(Marquess of Donegal.)
ARCHIBALD Lord DOUGLAS of DoUo MS.. .
HENRY HALL Lord GAGE..
WILLIAM WYNDHAM Lord G aREI N iL.,
EDWARD Lord THURLOW.
GEORGE Lord ArvUCLAND.
GEORGE FULKr Lord LYrrELTON.
HENRY Lord MLNDIP. ( I'iscollt C'l~f,
den.). '
HENRY. JON Lord SELSEY.,, ,
LAWIENCE Lord DUNDAS. :
CHAS. ANDERSON Lord. YA~O1BOQP H.,-,
FRANCIs Lord SrUART. of CTAt,'l
! STUART. (Enrlof .orvW.) ,.. j
GEORGE Lord SIE.WA RT~. GARL
(Earl of Galloway.)





THE LORDS' ROLL.


JAMPr GEORGE Lord; SALTERSFORD.
(Earl'of Courtown.)
JOHNs CHRISTOPHER Lord DAWNAY.
'( Viscuzint Downe.)
GEORGE Lord BRODRICK. (Viscount
Middleton.)
GEORGE GCUGt Lord CALTHORPE.
PETER ROBERT Lord GwYDIR.
FRANCIr Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE and
BAS'.i TT.
JOHN Lord ROLLE.
RIcHARD Lord WELLESLEY. (Marquess
Welleifey.)
ROBERT Lord CARRINGTON.
HENRY WILLIAM Lord BAYNING.
WILLIAM POWLETT Lord BOLTON.
JouN Lord WODEHOUSE.
JOHN Lord NORTHWICK.
THomaS ATHERTON Lord LILFORD.
THOMAS Lord RIBBLESDALE.
JO N Ld. FrITz;,BBON. (Earlof Clare.)
JOHN Lord CARBERY. (Elected for
Ireland.)
JOHN Lord FARNHAM. (Elected for
Ireland.)
JAMES Lord DurFERIN and CLANEBOYE.
(Elected for Ireland.)
CHARLES Lord MOORE. (Marquess of
Drogheda.)
JOHN Lord LoFiUS. (Marquess of Ely.)
JOHN JOSHUA Lord CARYSroRT. (Earl
of Carysfort.)
WILLIAM Lord ALVANLEY.
GEORGE Lord AnBenoM rBY.
ALLEYNE Lord Sr. HELEN's.
JOHN Lord REDESDALE.
EPWARDn Lord ELLENBOROUGH. (In
I'noVeim place as Lord Privy Seal.)
CHARLES GEORGE Lord ARDEN.
GEORGE AUGUSTUS FREDERICK CHAS.
Lord SHEFFIELD. (Earl of Sheffeld.)
CHARLES NOEL Lord BARHAM.
DAVID AMONT.It.U Lord ERSKINE.
HowrE PrTER Lord MOUNT EAGLE.
(Marquess of Sligo.)
ARCiHItAtD Lord ARDROSSAN. (Earl
of Eglintoun.)
JAMES Lord LAUDERDALE. (Earl of
Lauderdale.)
GEORGE Lord GRANARD. (Earl of
Granard.)
Jonut Lord CREwrL.
JOHN Lord PONSONBY of IMOKILLY.
ARCHIBALD Lord .A LS.. (Earl of Cas-
sillis.)
JOHN Lord .BitL.DA.LB.NEr. (Earl of
Breaddtbary.) .
ALAN LEGGED Lord .i aRD iNE a.
TuHdO -6ASld MANNERS.


,JAMEs Lord GAMBIER.,: -;.
iJOHN Lord JIOPnTOtN and N i4 y
(Earl ofHopetoun.) .
THOMAS Lord LYNEDOCIr.
ROWLAND Lord HILL.. .:,:;
GEORGE Lord DALHOUSIE., (Eari qf
Dalhousie.)
GEORGE Lord MELDRUM. (Eari:of
Aboyne.)
GEORGE Lord Ross. (Earl of lasgow.)
JOHN WILLOUGHBY Lord GRINSTEAD.
(In another place as Earl of Ennis-,
hillen.)
EDMUND HENRY Lord FOXFORD. (Itt
another place as Earl of Limerick.)
PENISTON Lord MELBOURNE.
FRANCIS ALMERICK Lord CHURCHIrLL.
GEORGE Lord HARRIS.
ALGERNON Lord PRUDHOE.
CHARLES Lord COLCHESTER.
JOHN WILLIAM ROBERT Lord KER.
(Marquess of Lothian)
HENRY Lord MINSTER. (In another
place as Marquess Conyngham.)
JAMES Lord ORMONDE. (Marquess of
Ormonde.)
FRANCIS CHARTERS Lord WEMYSsi.
(Earl of Wemyss and March.) ::
ROBERT Lord CLANBRASSIL. (EarI off
Roden.).
GEORGE Lord KINGSTON. (In another
place as Earl of Kingston.)
THOMAS Lord SILCHESTER. (In another
place as Earl of Longford.)
JAMES Lord GLENLYON.
WILLIAM Lord MARYBOROUGn.
JOHN Lord ORIEL.
WILLIAM Lord STOWELL.
THOMAS HENRY Lord RAVENSWORTH.
THOMAS Lord DELAMERE.
CECIL Lord FORESTER.
NICHOLAS Lord BEXLEY. ,
ROBERT FRANCIS Lord GIFFORD.
PERCY-CLINTON-SYDNEY Lord PENS-:
HURST. (Viscount Strangford.),
WILLIAM Lord TADCASTER. (In an-I
other place as Marquess of Thomoad.)-
ULIC JOHN Lord SOMERHILL. (OMar-
quess of Clanricarde.) .
JAMES Lord WIGAN. (EarlqfBalcarres,)
THOMAS Lord RANFURLY. (Vi'aTint
Northland.)
CHARLES Lord FARNBOROUGH. i
GEORGE Lord DE TABLEY: .
JAMES ARCHIBALD Lord WHI. aRNCLFrE.
CHARLES Lord FEVERSHAM.. :
CHARLES ROSE Lord SEAFORD.
JOHN SINGLETON Lord LyNDHURST.I.'
S(In another place as Lord Chancellor.).





wi TIa L0RDs' :RtL.
JAMES Lord FIFE, ARCHIWUAL Joit Lord RiBBEs T.
O &isai LIotd TAlrlBiDEN. (In another place. as Ewl of Roseie )
WILLIAM CoNYi rtAM Lord PUXIKkT. RicSAtit Lord CLAWItXaIM.' (WAril
THOMAS Lord MILtaos. of Clanwilliam.)
HEaRY Lord Cow.Ia. JoHIN GfoRaB Lord DuBNAM.
OHRiAQEB Lord I8UAast DE TROHEiSAY. EDWARD Lord SKELMrRSIflAcZ.
WILLIAM Lord HEYTESBUHY. THOMAS Lord WALLACO~


M* z.-Acwording to the Usage of Parliament, when the House atppoits a Select
Committee, the Lords appointed to serve upon it are named in thi Qrder qf4keii
SBMank, beg~tivg with the [Highest; and so, when the House seus a Commiif
to a. Coqferenae with the Commone, the Lord highest in Rank is called fSfi, m
the reot go forth in like Order: But when the Whole House is called oerfor any
Purpose within the House, or fr the Purpose of proceeding forth to We'stmi* r.
Hall, or upon any public Solemnity, the Call begi invariably witA the AJifr
Saron,


Novast








_Haul$SI OT -COMIMONS1
ZB1NG HE


THIRD SESSION OF THE EIGHTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KIN6- 6-7'1"-?
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELANiD,:
AND THE SECOND PARLIAMENT OF GEORGE IV.

APPOINTED TO MEET AT WESTMINSTER THE 5TH OF FEB. 1 ,29,
IN THE TENTH YEAR OF
GEORGE THE FOURTH.


ABercROMBY, rt. hon. J. .. Calne.
ACLAN D, sir Thos. D., bt. .. Devonshire.
A'COuRT, Edw. Henry .. Heytesbury
ALCOCK, Thos. .. Newton, Lancashire
ALEXANDER, Henry .. Barnstaple
ALEXANDER, James .. Old Sarum
ALTHORP, viscount .. Northamptonshire
ANSON, sir George .. .. Lichfield
ANSON, hon. George .. Yarmouth
ANTROBUS, Gibbs Crawf. .. Plympton
APSLEY, lord .. .. .. Cirencester
ARBUTHNOT, rt. hon. Chas. .. St. Ives
ARBUTHNOT, hon. H... Kincardineshire
ARCEDECKNE, Andrew .. Dunwich
ARCHDALL, Mervyn .. Fermanaghshire
ARKWRIGHT, Richard .. .. Rye
ASHBURNIIAM, hon. P. .. Beeralston
ASHLEY, lord .. ... Woodstock
ASHLEY-COOPER, hon. A. W. Dorchester
ASHURST, William H. .. Oxfordshire
ASTELL, William .. .. Bridgewater
ASTLEY, sir John D., bt. .. Wiltshire
ATKINS, John .. .. .. Arundel
ATTWOOD, Matt .. .. Callington
BAILLIE, John .. .. .. Hedon
BAKER, Edward .. .. .. Wilton
BALFOUR, James .. .. Crail, &c.
BANKES, George .... Corfe-Castle
BANKES, Henry .. .. Dorsetshire
BANKES, William John .. Marlborough
BARCLAY, Charles .... Dundalk
BARCLAY, David ...... Penryn
BARING, sir Thos., bt. .. Wycombe
BARING, Alexander .... Callington
BARING, Francis .... Portsmouth
BARING, William B. .. .. Thetford
BARNE, Michael .. .. .. Dunwich
BASTARD, Edm. Pollexfen .. Devonshire
BASTARD, John .. .. Dartmouth
BATLEY, Charles H. .... Beverley
BEAUMONT, Thomas W. .. Stafford
BEcKBEfT, rt. hon. sir J. bt. .. Haslemere
BECTIVE, earl of .. .. Meathshire
BELFAST, earl of ... .. Belfast
VOL. XXI. {N} .


BELGRAVE, visCe. .. .. Chester
BELL, Matthew Northumberland
BENETT, John .. .. Wiltshire
BENSON, Ralph ........ Satprd
BENTINCK, lord George .. King's'Lynn
BERESFORD, sir J. P.bt... Northallerton
BERESFORD, Marcus .. .. Berwick
BERNAL, Ralph .. .... Rochester
BERNARD, Thomas King's County
BINGHAM, lord .. Mayo
BIRCH, Joseph .. .. Nottingham
BLACKBURNE, John .. Lancashire
BLAIR, James ....... Minehead
BLAKE, sir Francis, bt. .. Berwick
BLANDFORD, marquis .. Woodstock
BONHAM1, Henry .. .. .. Rye
BORRADAILE, R... Newcastle-under-Line
BOURNE, rt. hon. W. Sturg. .Ashburton
BOUVERIE, hon. Barth. .. Downtown
BOUVERIE, hon. Dunc. P. New Sarum
BOYD, Walter ...... Lymington
BOYLE, hon. John .. .. Corkshire
BRADSHAW, Rob. Haldane .. Brackley
BRADSHAW, James .. Brackley
BRECKNOCK, earl of .. .... Bath
BRIGHT, Henry ...... Bristol
BROGDEN, James .... Launceston
BROUGHAM, Henry .. .. Winchelsea
BROUGHAM, James Tregony
BROWNE, James .. .. .. Mayo
BRowNLOW, Charles .. Armaghshire
BRUEN, Henry .. .. Carlowshire
BRYDGES, sir John .... Coleraine
BUCK, Lewis W. .. .... Exeter
BULLER, Charles .... West Looe
BURDETT, sir F., bt. .. Westminster
BURRARD, George .... Lymington
BURRELL, sir C. M., bt.. New Shoreham
BURRELL, Walter ...... Sussex
BUXTON, John Jacob .... Bedwyn
BUXTON, Thos. Fowell .. Weymouth
BYNG, George ...... Middlesex
BYRON, Thomas .. .... Hertford
CALCRAFT, rt. hon. John W. (Jreham
b


.. r-L: ?iliigi
..., i.-..;






( xviii )


CALTHORPR, hon. Fred. O. .. Braaber
CALTHORPE, hon. Arthur .. Hindon
CALVERT, Charles .. .. Southwark
CA,~VFaT, John ., Huntingdon
.CALVERT, Nicolson .. Hertfordshire
CAMPBELI, John .. Dumbartonshire
CAMPBELL, Walter F. ,. Argyleshire
CAMPBELL, Archibald .. Glasgow, 8Sc.
CANNING, ft. hon. Str. .. Old Sarum
CAPEL, John .. .. Queenborough
CAREW, Rob. Shapl. .. Wexfordshire
CARMARTHEN, marquis .. Helleston
CARRINGTON, sir E. C. .. St. Mawes
CARTER, John .. .. Portsmouth
CARTWRIGHT, Wm. R& Northamptonsh.
'CASTLEREAGH, visCOUlt .. Dinshire
CAULFIELD,,hon. Henry .. Armaghshire
CAVE, Robert O. .. .. Leicester
CAVENDISIT, Id. G. A. H. .. Derbyshire
CAVENDISH, Henry F. C. .. Derby
-CAVENDISH, Chas. C... Newton, Hants
.CAWTHORNE, John F. .. Lancaster
GCEBIL, lord Thomas .. .. Stamford
CIfAMBERLAYNE, Win. .. Southampton
'ClfANDOS, marquis -. .. .. Bucks
;CHWAPLIN, Charles ;. .. Lincolnshire
'CHAPLIN, Thomas .. Stamford
CiICHESTER, sir A.,bt. .. Carrickfergus
:CiiCHIESTER, Arthur .. Milborne-Port
C*OOLM:ELEY, M. J.: G.. r antham
ClHOI,MONDELEY, Id. H. ,. Castle Rising
CLEMENTS, viscount : .. Leitrimshire
CL.aKE, hon. Chas. H; B. Kilkennysh.
CLERK, sir Geo., bt... Edinburghshire
CLIFTON, lord .. Canterbury
CLINTON, C.- J. F.- .. Aldborough
CLIVE, viscount ... .. .. Ludlow
CLIVE,hon. Robert H .. .. Ludlow
CLIVE, Edw; B. ....Hereford
CLIVE, Henry -.. Montgomery
COCKBURN, rt. hon. sir G. Plymouth
,OCbCERELL, sir Chas., bt. .. Evesham
COCKS, James .. .. Ryegate
COKE, Thomas Wm. .. .. Norfolk
COLBOIaNE, Nich. W. R. .. Horsham
I.CLE, sir Christ. .. Glamorganshire
COLE, hon. Arthur H.. Enniskillen
CoLiTET, Ebenezer Jolm .. Cashell
COLTHURST, sir Nieh. C., bt. .. Cork
COOKE, sir Henry F. .. .. Orford
,COOPER, Rob. Bransby .. Gloucester
C'oiirr, Edward Synge .. Sliyolhre
COOTE, sir Chas. H., bt... Queen's County
CORPET-, Panton .. Shrewsbury
CQBRY, viscount' .. Fermanaghshire
Con ty, hon. Hen. T. L. ;. Tyroneshire
COTTERELL,0ir J.G., bt. Herefordshire
SCOURTENAY, rt. hon- T. P T .. ifTtness
ORADOCK, Sheldon ... Cam, /.b d


GCRrrs, Joseph *. .. Cirencester
CROKER, rt.hon. J.W. Dublin Univers.
CROMPTON, Samuel ... Derby
CvUTEIs, Edward Je~.. .. .-.Sussex
CuRzoN, hon. Robert .... Clitherow
CUST, -hn. Edward .. : Lestwithiel
CVST, lion. Peregrine F. .. Clfherow
DALRYMPLE, Adol. J... Haddington, sc.
DALY, James .. .. Gc 4wyshire
DARLINGTON, earl .. .. Totness
DAVENPORT, Davies .. .. Cheshire
DAVENPORT, Edw. D. .. Shaftesbury
DAVIDSON, Duncan .. Cromartyshire
DAVIES, Thos. Henry .. Worcester
DAVIS, Richard Hart .. Bristol
DAWKINS, Henry .. Boroughbridge
DAWSON, Alexander .. ..'. LLouth
DAWSON, Geo. R. .. Londonderry County
DAWSON, James H. M.- .. Clonmell
DENISON, Wm. Joseph ... iurrey
DENisON, John E. .. Hastings
DENNY, Sir Edward bt .. ,. Tralee
DICK, Quintn -... .. ':.: Orford
DICK, Hugh .. N lo M
DicKINSON, 'William.: .. Smertetshire
DoaERTY, John *. .-. ,'--Kilkenny
DOMYILLE, sir C., bt. ,r Ohkehampton
DOTTIN, Abel R. 1 '- ,iuMiimpton
DOUGLAs, Wm. R. K, Dwmfries, 8c.
DoURo, marquis .; .- Aldibargh
DowDEsELL, John Edm. Tewkiesbury
DowNEs, lord .. ., Queebhbrough
DOWNIE, Robert .. InvorhkeidhSg, c.
DRAKE, Thomas T.: I.n, Agmowdesham
DRAKE, William T i Agmasifesham
DRUMMOND, Henry;H. .;. Stdingshire
DUCAN,, Peter ;. &i"feyning
DUFF, hon. Alexander ... i'lElofn, 8c.
DUGDAIE, Dugd. Stratf. i. WarniEkshire
DUNCANh ON, viscount / Kilkeatyshire
DUNCOMBE, Thomas 8. 1H& fHrtford
DUNCOMBE, hon. Win.- ** 'Yerkshire
DUNDAS, rt. hon. Wmi. ., Ediniburgh
DunDAS, hon. sir R.-L. .'-Richmond
DunDAs, hon. G. H. L, :'''Orkney
DUNDAS, hon. Henry .. ~ ;. 'Rohester
DUNDAS, hon. Thomas l i Ridhmond
DUtNDAS, Robert Adam ... :.:. Ipswich
DUNDAS, Charles ,. .. Be'rkhire
EasT, sir Edward H-. bt.- .. Winchester
EASTHOPE,-John ... ... Sti'Alban's
EASTwoR, viscount H. .. Hereford
EBRIN; T N, viscount *.. ,Tabistock
EDEN, hon. Robert H, .. .. .. Fowey
EGERTON, Wilbraham .. Cheshire
Eiaro-, lord .. L' iskeard
ELIIS, hon. G. J.-W.'A. .. -Ludpyrshall
:EtLs, hon, Augustus F., .. Seaford
E 1. SON, Cuthb... .Newattle-.upo- Tyne







( ix ')


RaiwfiTasTON, las.D.-B .. Eas R ioae
ie6arm viscount .. Trwro
EiNarsions viscount .. Kerryshire
Emcousv, Thos. G..B. i.. Oeford Unit).
'1eTCOUn T, T. H. &S B. ... Mj1arlorovgh
EvsaOx, earl ... 'Sury St. Edmunds
EbrwS Henry .. .. Wexford
EWAinr, William .. leehingley
,*Fth, sir Henry .. Sandwich
Faw E, hon, Henry S. .. Lyme Regis
*FANS John .. .. Oxfordshire
FA&N, Jbhn Thomas .. Lyme Regis
FAiQUrn AR, sir ROb. T. bt. ... Hythe
FARQUHAR, James .... Portarlington
AZAAKERt.EY, Jthn N. ... Lincoln
FtEL.O'W-E Wm. Hen. .. Huntmngdonshire
EEagcvsoN, sir Ronald C. .. .Dysart, -c.
*FEYtrissow Rob. C. .. Kirkcudbright
FkTHERsTON, sirG,1r.bt. Longfordshire
*FITZoGAALR1, Id.Wm.,C. .. Kildareshire
FZTZGERALD,.rt. hon. Mau. .. Kerryshire
*FITZGERALD, rt. hon W. V. Newport
FTZ-GI BON, hou. Rd. Limerickshire
SFiT' Y, lord. Charles .. Thetford
,FDEMIG, John .. .. Hampshire
n. .-FbV, Edward T. ... Ludgershall
,,.,:Fst JohnH. H. ;: Droitwich
:Fim s, viscount' .. Longfordshire
.., .Folb Es, sir Chas., bt. .. Malmesbury
FoBa E, Jothin .. Malmesbury
,F.;. R ,I ER, hon..G. C.W. .. Wenlock
,-Fi ksseUE, hou. CGeo M. .. Hindon
...:.. :saB John Leslie .. .. Louth
S,.,nasitrLAND, nRobert .. .. Thirsk
.,, ,.FSMANTLE,sir.Thos, bt. Buckingham
.ENiCH, Arthur ,. Roscommonshire
FV L.R, Thomas B..... Coventry
:GAi~adlES, viscount Cockermouth
O A,,bboYNF, Isaac .. .. Liverpool
~ LBEaT, Davies .. .. Bodmyn
GocH, sir Thomas Sb bt. .. Suffolk
,Go noN,.sir James W. Launceston
o nov, hoi. Wil. .. Aberdeenshire
S ot0D.N, John .. .. Weymouth
.GORDON, Robert. .. .. Crickladt
n..... U u aN,.rt. hon. Henry .. Armagh
S..owER, lord F. L. .. Sutherlandshire
GUAAHAM, marquis.of .. Cambridgt
:GBAIIAl, sir J. R. .. Cumberland
Q BrANT, sir Alex. Cray,bt. .. AldborouglJ
GRANT, rt..hon C. ... Inverness-shire
-Q4ANT, hon. Francis W- ... Elginshirt
AR&ANT, Robert ...... Fo trose, 4c
GaATATr, Henry .. ,: ... XDubliz
.hATTAN, James .. WicklowshirT
4EENRB, Thonas. im. : .Lancastel
OIREVILtE, hon.,air Ci J. ... ; Warrwiec
Gaosvwsoa,hon. Robt.. .. Chestel


GhosvEnon, Thomas .. Stockbridge
GUEsT, Josiah John -. .. Honiton
GuIS, sir B. W. bt. .. Gloucestershire
GURNEY, Hudson ., Neeton, Hants
GYE, Frederick .,.. .. Chippithal,
HALSE, JameS .- St Ives
HANDcock, Riehard .. ... Athlone
HAxbINGE, rt. hon. sir H. Durham City
HART, George.Vaughat i. Donegalshire
HA kv Y, sir Eliab .. ... Essex
HARvEY, Daniel.W. .. Colchester
HASTINGS, sir C. A.. bt. Leicester
HAY) lord John. ... Haddingtonshire
HAY, Adam .. Selkik, ec.
HEATHeOTi, sir GilbeMt bt. ., Rutland
HEATHCOTE, sir W. bt. i. Haknpshire
HEAT~racTE Gilbert John I .. Boston
HEATHCOTE, Richard E. .. Cbventry
HNEAGE, George F,. .. Grimsby
HRaoN, sir Robert, bt.. .. Peterborough
HERRiES,) t. hon. John ,. Harwich
HILL, lord Arthar .. .i Dowishire
HILL, rt. hon. sir G. F. bt, .Lndonderry
HILL, sir Rowlmnd, bt. 'u 0 pS3lure
HoBHOUSE, John Cam, .wv Westminster
HooDsoN, Frederic .. Barnstaple
HoDsoN, James Alex.. ,. Wigan
HOLUDSWORTI, .Arthur H.. ; Dtrtmouth
HO.LMESD.ALE,.viSC .. 'ast Grinstead
HOLMES, William Bishop's Castle
H-NEYWOOD,.William P.' .. .. Kent
HoPr, hon. sir Alex, ... Linlithgbwshire
HOPE, sir W. Johnstone- Dumfries-shire
HoRTON,rt.hn. R.J.W. Neaeast. Staff.
.HOTHAM, lord .. Leofninster
HOULDSWORTH, Thomas .. Pofitefract
HOWARD, hon. Fulk-G. -. Castle Rising
HOWARD, Henry ... .. New.Shoreham
HOWICK, viscount i. Winchelsea
HUGHEs, William Lewis .. Wallingford
HULSE, sir Charles, bt. West Looe
.HUME, Joseph. .. .. Aberdeen, c.
H HUST, Robert .. .. .. Horsham
SHusKIssow, rt. hon. Wm. .. Lierpool
SHuTCsINsoir,John H, .. .. Cork
HUTCI INsoN,.John H. .. Tipperary
SINGLBY, sir W. A., bt. ,... Lincolnshire
INGLIS, sir.R.Hjbt, .. Oxford Univers.
INNES, sir Hugh, bt ... Kirkwaltl, &c.
IRVING,John. .... .... ..Bramber
J JVPsoN, C. D. O. i ,.. -Mallow
SJgMYN, earl ... Bury St. Erbunil's
JoLLIFFEr Hylton .. .. Petersfield
SJow*xs, John, .. .. .. Carnmar~then
SKAVANAGH, Thoma : Carlowshire
SKECK, George A. Li. ... Leeiestershire
KEKEWICH, Samuel T, .. 'Exeter
SKEMP, Thbs. Read .. .. i. Lewes
r KENNEDY, Thomas Francis ,. Ayr, Sc.
b2






( xx )


K rnnmsoN, sir Edward, bt. .. Eye
KING, sir John D., bt. .. Wycombe
KINC., lion. Robert .. .. Corkshire
KIN .;, hon. Robert .. Roscc',nionrs ir
KINo, hon. Henry ...... SI.;o
KN. 1iCHBULL. sir Edw., bt .. Kent
Kb .IITr, Robert .'. .. Wallingford
KNox, hon. Joln Hqnry; .. Newry
KNox, bon. Thomnas.. ,. 'Dungannon
L BoU C I Rr, Henry .. St. Michael's
]. ~ME, hon. George ... .., Dungarvon
L i MlerE r, James S. .. : alwayshire
L \N,sTON, James H... .. Oxford
LACELLES, hop W. S. East Looe
LkSCLLLES, bon. Heaty Northallerton
L. 1oi. ic Robert .. .. Kildareshire
L.\ \ r L. Francis .. .. Warwickshire
LL Ir, 'William. .. ,. St. Michael's
LEG.Gs, hon. Arthur C. .. Banbury
LEn, Thomas .. XNut'on, Lancashire
LNN4RD,. Thomas B. .: .. Maldon
LrNNO,, lord John:Geo.' .. Chicbeilcr
LETs'R, Benjrmin Lester .. Poole
LETH BRIDGE, ;gir T.'B.,bt. Somersetshire
LEwis, rt. hon. T. F.' .. Radnorshire
LLt .c F.trb ii, Ralph .. Shnflesbuli
I.onDE L, ilon. HT. T Northumberland
L. iaNs.Y, hon. Hugh .. Forfar, Sc.
LIN..D-.Y, Jn es .. .. Wigan
LTTrrLr.iON. Edward John Stafordshire
LLu: r,, sir Edw. Price, bt .. Flint
LLiov, Th,:.imas .. .. Limerickshire
L..>, 11, Jami .. .. St. Germain's
LocI.H#RT, John Ingram .. Oxford
LOOKJIA' T, William Elliot Selkirkshire
Lo~MBu. Edward .. .. .. Arundel
Lorr, HarrNy B. .... .. Honiton
LOVAINE, lord .. .... Beeralston
LOWTHER, viscount .. Westmorland
LowTHEiR, sir John, bt. .. Cumberland
LOWTiER, hon. Henry C. Westmorland
LowTr IR, John.Henry Wigton, 4c.
Lucy, George .. ...... Fowey
Lu MLEY, John S. .. Nottinghamshire
LvsiwNGTON, rt.hoh. S.R. Canterbury
Lsi5iJo,noN Stephen .. .. Tregony:
L'U HING ION, Janit-s L. .. Carlisle.
I.U I r E r LL. John F[uiies .. Minehead
LvGio, hon. Hen. B. .. Worcestershire
PA J i I L Y, J .l .. ... Abingdon
rA.iiirLY, W'illiam L. ., NOrthmpto
Ali_ -., i \ v, Col;n S/ta// /
ji.(C.DuN \L D, sil J.une's, bt. .. Calne
\r.C I NNON, Clianlt, .. .,. Ipswich
)'TAc ACiiossi, It. hIou. sirJ. K/iar-0borIj
i\Ic.li; E zr, sir J. W .'bt. .. Rosls-hire
MI \cl.ur.p. John N. .. .. Sad .i,'
M'1 iiu:.' I:N, .Jmn. A, .,. A.itruonhibe
M i, i i E i, "'lmniai P. J'dfordshire


MAITLAND, -viscount .. '.. Appleby
MAITLAND, hon. Antony.. Berwickshire
A.\ ITLA ND, Eben.:F. Chippenham
MAL'COLM, Neill .. .' Boston
MANDEVILtE, viscount Huntwngdonshire
MANNERS, lord C. S..... Cambridgsh.
MANNERS, lord.Robert .. Leicestershire
MANNING, William, .. .. Penryn
MARJORIBANKS, Stewart .. .. Hythe
MARRYATT, Joseph .. .. Sandwich
MARSHALL, John ..... Yorkshi e
MARSHALL, William .. .. Peerfield
MARTIN, sir Thomas B ... Plymouth
MARTIN, John .. .. Tewhesbury
MAULE, hon. William R. .. Fo/rfrshire
MAXWELL, sir Wm. bt. .. Wiglonshire
MAXWELL, Henry .. .. Cavinshite
MAXWELL, John .. .. Renfri'e~biie
MAXWELL, John Waring .. Downpiatrihc
MEYNELL, Henry .. Lisburne
MILBANK, Mark .. .. Camelfbi d
MILDMAY, Paiilet St. John.. Winchesler
MILEs, Philip J. .. .. Corfe.Castle
'MiLTON," visc6unt .. .. Yorkshire
MONCK, John Berkeley .... Readilg
MONTGOMERY, sir James, bt. Peebleshire
MOORE, George .. .. .. Dublin
MORGAN, sir C., bt. .. J1onimouthieife
MORGAN, George Gould .. .. Breco
MonisoN, John .. .. Banfshire
MORLAND, sir Scrope B.,btt..' St)M. s
MORPETH, viscount .. .. I' o'rpeth
MosTYN,-sir Thomas, bt:... Flintshire
MOUNTCIARLES, earl .. Donegashire
MUNDY, Francis .. .. Derbysh-re
MuiNDY, George .. .. Boronghbridge
MURRAY, rt. hon. sir Geob .. P'-eriAthife
NEWBOROUGH, lord .. Carnarvonshire
NEWPORT, rt. hon. sir J., bt... Watcrfoid
NICHOLL, rt. hon. sir John ..' Bedwyn
NIGHTINGALL, sir Miles .. '.. Eye
NoEL, sir Gerard N., bt. .. Rutland
NORMANBY, viscount .. ,. lMallto
NonTH, John H... filborne-Port
NORTHCOTE, Henry.S... Heytesbury
NoRTON, George C. .. .. Guildford
NuGE4T, lord.... .. Aylesbury
NUGENT, sit George, bt. .. BuLkingh nm
O'BREN, Lucius .. Cre
O'BRIEN, William S. .. .
O'CONNELL, Daniel .. Cle
O'HARA, James .. .. Galud t
O' NE I., hon. Johri l. B. .. Antrimshire
P'NiLL., Aug, J. .. Kingston-upon-Hall
ON-i.LO\, Arthur .. .. Guildford
OnD), William .. Mo.rp~h
Os ORN L, lord F. G. .Camr.ndigeshire
On r N,, sir John, bt, .. Peibrokeshire
0O LN, Hugh O0. "I. "' .' ;P eiembroke






( xsi )


,O X. ANTOW lord ., King's County
P-;G lord Willian .. .. Carnarvon
P-.i.N, sir tawrence V., bt. .. Ashburton
P.1L L1 I, Charles N. .. .. Srrei
PALMER, Charles F .. .. Reading
PAL taER, Robert .. .. Berkshire
,P,AlMERSTQN, vise. .. Cambr. Universe.
pA nlT.L., sir Henry, bt. Queen's County
PEr.CH, Nathaniel Will .. .. Truro
SPnagCHY, William .. .. Taunton
:PEARass, John .. .... Devizes
p..EJL, right hon. Robert .. Westbury
-PE.in, Jonathan. .. .... Norwich
.PiEj, Lawrence .. .. Cockermouth
P,BE.L, William Yates .... Tamworth
PriTLnA, Jolhn Cresset .. Shropshire
PEhN DAtv s, Edw.W.W. .. Cornwall
PENNANT, Deo.H.D. .. .. Romney
*PEZNatDDOCK, John ..... Wilton
Prac E' .\ L, Spencer i A'poi t, I. of W.
PETIT, Louis H. .. .. Ripon
Pu.1LLiMOI a,.Jps. ,. Yarmouth, Hants
PaHrLIrs, sir R. B., bt. .. Haverfordwest
Pu t9Is, sir Geo. bt. .. Wootton-Bassett
PHtL1Ps, GeorgeeRichard .. Sti,1uy,
PurmUs, hon. Edmund Scarborough
S~.iTT, Geo. E. G. F. .. Kinross-shire
ypi '.., ... Crickldde
4rATA, Josepl Htig
'.. ,E Sir Johlh Wi., bt,' .. Andover
f ioBYr, bon, F. C... Higham Ferrars
PoN soN N~~, hon. George. Youghall
PONSON B, hon. Will. F. S. .. Poole
PoRT 1.A N, Edw. Berkeley.. Dorsetshire
SPoWELL, Alexander .. .. Downtown
POWELL, W. Edward .. Cardiganshire
Pow c, Richard .. Waterfordshire
POW-LLTX, lord W. I..F. Durham Coun.
PoyuTz, William Stephen .. Chichester
PRLNDCR( ; A.T, Michael Geo. .. Gatton
PjRICE, Robert .. .. Herefordshire
PRci:, Richard .. .. New Radnor
PR~raGLE, sir Wm. Henry .. Liskeard
r iJRr~E, hon. Francis A. .. Tipperary
. poiBY, 'ion. Gran. L. .. Wicklowshire
,,PBOTEaRoE, Edward .. Evesham
E ,sE Pryse ,. ... Cardigan
hRaI, sir William, bart. .. Harwich
RAINE, Jonathan .. Newport, Cornwall
R sMBOrTTom,John .. .. Windsor
RAMiSDEN, John Charles .. .. Malton
RANCLIrriE, lord .. .. N.ltingla
RTrc, Thomas Spring .. .. Limerick
RicKroRD, William .. Aylesb4ry
RLDLEY, sir NM. \., bt. Newcastle-up.-T.
ROBARTS, Abraham W. Maidstoic
ROBERTS, Wilson A ... ... wdley
RoBirsogi, sjy Georgei ht. North/ipon
9 wN osi Georg R, W'r.es ier


ROCHFORT, Gust. .. .Iseinten / Conlt
ROGERS, Edward .. Bthvop's C'i tl
ROSE, rt. hon. sir. Geo. H. ChlrisqlcI,url,
ROSE, George P. .... ClrircIatrch
Ross, Charles .. .. S. Getrini 's
ROWLEY, sir W., bart. .. ... S'ffol
RuMBOLD, Charles E .... ariounth
RUssELL, lord'John .. Baldon,-bridye
RUSSELL, lord George \. .. Btdblid
RUSSELL, lord Willamin .. Tor,'/oc
RUSSELL, John .... ... Kinsale
RUSSELL, Robert G. .. .. Thirsk
RUSSELL, William .. Durham County
RYDER, right hon. Richard .. Tiverton
ST. PAUL, sir H. D. Chol. bt. Bridport
SADLER, Michael T. .. ..Newark
SANDON, viscount .... .. Tiverton
SAUNI)ESON, Alex. .. Cavanshire
SCARLETT, sir James .. Peterborough
SCOTT, sir William .. .. ,Carlisle
Scti,, hon. William .. .. Gdtton
ScoTr, lion. Win. H,. I. 'Nea'rio, I..::fl .
SCOTT, Henry F. R. b,'rghIslic
SCOTT, Samuel ., .. hitelirch
SLiiiiGiiT, sir J. S., bait. Hclrtiirdshiiir
SEFToN,-earl of .. .. DIodlih lth
SEYMTOUR, Heiry .. Tount.l,
S \ lMO.i Horace B .... Bodmyh
Sii LLLY, sir John, bart. '. .. 'Lc,
SHIRLEY, Evelyn J. ., Mlnaghalsh ire
SIBTHORP, Charles .,. Lic'lao
SINCLAIR, hon. James Cai'thih.'
SLANEY, Robert A.. .. SI reiws',ri
SMITH, hon. Rob. J.. Buctinjlani,,irhr.
SMITH, Abel .... Midhurst
SMITH, Christopher St. Alban's
SMITH, George ...... Werdover
SMITH, John .... .... Midhurst
SMITH, Samuel .. ... .. WWedover
SMITH, Thos. Assheton .. Andover
SMrITH, William .. .. Norwicft
SOMERSET, lord G. C.H. Monmouthsh.
SOMERSET, ld. Rob. E. H. Gloccstershl.
SOMERVILLE, sir Marc. bt. Meat hatire
SOTIIERON, Frank .. Nottinghamnshire
SPENCE, George .. .. Ripon
SPOTTISWOODE, Andrew .. Saltash
SrTAN LEY, lord .. ancashire
Sr. N L v, hon. Edw. G. Preston
ST.AIi i r, Le Gendre N. .. Ponl'frqct
Si EPCtiNON, Rowland .. L:c'mwister
ST r .1 r, sir iclih. S. bt... Lu;,'rkshire
STEWART, Alex. R, ., Londoderrshire
STEWARTI, John" .. .. .. Brerley
STEWART, William .. T!r.:ni Countly
STOPFFRD, Xilcouun .. IT obrdslire
S r a H .~vEN, lord .. Grinieaod
STRL'TT, Joseph Flolden ., Oilhmptoa
STIIAr, Tod Pat. J. H, E. Cardif






( xxii )


STUART, Henry V. .. Waterfordshire
STUART, James .. .. Huntingdon
SUGDEN, Edward B. .. Weymouth
SUTTON, rt. hon. C. M. .Scarborough
SYKES, Daniel- .. Kinagston.upo-Hudll
TALBOT, Richard Wogan .. Dublinshire
TALMASI, hon. Fred. J. .. Grantham
TALMASH, hon.'Felix T. .. Ilchester
TALMASII, hon. Lionel .. Ilchester
TAPPS, George W. .. .. Romney.
TAVISTOCK, marquis of .. Bedfordshire
TAYLOR, sirChas. Win. bt. .. Wells
TAYLOR, George Watson .. Devizes
TAYLOR, Mich. Angelo .. D~uham City,
TENNYSON, Charles .. ..i Blechingley
THOMPSON, George L. .. Haslemere
THOMPSON, Paul B. .. ..Wenlock
THOMPSON, William .. .. London
THoMsoN, Charles P .... Dover
THYNNE, lord Henry .. .. Weobly
THYNNE, lord.John .. .. .. Bath
THYNNE, lord William .. .. Weobly
TIERNEY, rt..hon..Geo... Knaresborough
TINDAL, sir Nic. C....Cambridge Univers.
TOMES, John, ... ... Warwick
TOWNSmBND, lord Ghas. F.... Tamworth
TOWNSHEND, lord J. N. B. .., Halleston
TOWNSHENP, hon. J.R. .. WAitchurch
TRANT, WilliatmH. .. ., Dover
TRENCH, Fred. William .. Cambridge
TREVOR, hon. Geo Rice .. Carmarthen
TUDWAY, John P ...... Wells
TirrTO, hon. H. ......Appleby
TUITE, Hugh M. .. Westmeath
TULLA.ORE, lord. .... .. Carlow
TUNKO, Edward R. .... Bossiney
Twiss, Horace .. Wootton-Bassett
TYNTE, Chas. Keys .. Bridgewater
URE, Masterton .. .... Weymouth
UXBRIDGE, earl of .... Anglesey
VALLETORT, Viscount .. Lestwithiel
VAN HOMrIGH, Peter .. Drogheda
VAdUGAN, sir R. W. bt. .. Merionethsh.
VERNON, Geo. GranvV. .. Lichfield
VILLIERS, Thomas i-. ... Hedon
VIVIAN,. sir R.;Hussay, bt .. Windsor
VYVYAN, sir.Rd. Rawl. bt. .. Cornwall


WAITHMAN, Robert .. .. London
WALKER, Joshua .. .. Aldeburgh
WALL, Charles Baring .. Wareham
WALLACE, Thomas .. Yarm. Le of Wigit
WALPOLE, hon. John .. King's Lynn
WALROND, Bethel .. Sudbury
WARBURTON, Henry .... Bridport
WARD, William' .... ... Lo ndon
WARREN-DER rt. hn. sir G. bt. Westbury
WEBB, Edward ..... Gloucester
WELLS, John .... .. Maidstone
WgMYss, James .. ...... Fife
WEST, Frederick R. .... Denigh
WESTENRA, hon. H. R.. Monaghanoh.
WESTERN, Charles Callis .. .. Essex
WETH1ERELL, sir C. .. Plympton-Earle
WHITBREAD, Sam. Chas. .. Middtesex
WHITBRBAD, Win. Henry .. Bedford
WHITE, Henry .. Dbhnhire
WHITB, Samuel .. .. Leistita~ire
WHI-TMORE, Thomas .. Bridgeorth
WIIrMORE, Will. Wolr. ., 'B~rigorth
WIGRAiV, William .. .. New Ro s
.WILBRAHAM, George .. Stockbridgye
WILLIAMS,-sir Rob., bt. .. Bethrarik
WILLIAMIS, Owen.. .. .. a
WILLIAMs, Robert .... D)orthtier
WILLIAMS, Thomas Peers .. Mrlw ''
WILLOUGHna, Henry ., 'rk
WILSON, sir Robert T. .. :souihwark
WILSON, James i. .... .. Yok
WILSON, Richard F. .. 'Y6thire
WINNINGTON, sir T. E. bt. Woriftprfh.r
WODEHOUSa Edmond .. .. Norfot'"
WooD, Charles .. : Gsy
WOOD, John .... .. .. P/eston
Woon, Matthew .. .. London
WooD, Thomas .. .. Breconshfrc
WORCESTER, marquis of .. Mb~nioujlt
WORTLEY, hon. John S. .. I bansii
WROTTESLET, sir J., bt. ... tyfobrdOhtr
WYNDHAM, Wadham .. Nr. Sariu,
WYNN, sir Watkin Wm., bt. Dtnbighsh.
WYNi, rt. hn. C.W.W. MlonwtgonmcryIh.
WYNNE, Owen- .. ... .. Sti
WYVILL, Mar.maduke .. ...'York
oKE.E sir Joseph- Sydney Ryegat.


SPEAKf t .,
t'' 16 11 HON, CHA ,.,BB iAXZJERS SITT014.


J






( xxiii )


HOUSE OF COMMONS,

IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF COUNTIES, BOROUGHS, &c.


ENGLAND AND WALES.


ABINODON.
John Maberly.
AGMONDESHAM.
T. T. Drake,
W. T. Drake,
I ALBANS, ST.
Christopher Smith,
John Easthope.
ASLfDBIOROUos.
C. J. rynes Clinton,
Sir Ales. C. Grant, bart.
AL E BUl I(- II.
Jodhua Walker,
Ma.ruIlik of Doiiio.
AN D(V [ t..
Sir Jehn W. Pollen, bart.
T. A, Smith, jun.
ANGLE4ELY.
E.il of" Uxbiidrie.
Appj FH\.
Hon. lienry Tufton,
Viscoult Maitland.
'A I L N1 D I..
Edward Lombe,
.Iolin Atkies.
A 'SHl RiT'lN.
Rt. bou. W, S. Bourne.
Sir L.V. Palk, bart.
AYLESBURY.
Lord Nugent,
William Rickford.
B.\N B Lr R Y.
Hon. Arth. C. Legge.
BARNSTAPLE.
Frederick Hodgson,
Henry Alexander.
BATH.
Lord John Thynne,
Earl of Breeknock.
BEAUMARIS.
Sir Robert William, bart.
BtDFORDSHTRE.
Tkomnas P. 1~Facqueen,,
Marquis of Tavistock.
BEDFORD.
Lord Geo. Wm. Russell,
William. Ienry hitbreal,


GREAT BEDWIN.
Rt. hon. sir J. Nicholl,
John Jacob Buxton.
BEERALSTON.
Lord Lovaine,
Hon. P. Ashburnham.
BERKSHIRE.
Charles Dundas,
Robert Palmer.
BERWICK.
Marcus Beresford,
Sir Francis Blake, bart.
BEVERLEY.
John Stewart,
Charles H. Batley.
BEWObtEY.
Wilson A, Roberts.
BISHOP'S CASTLE.
William Holmes,
Edward Rogers.
BLEACHING LEY.
Charles Tennyson,
William Ewart.
BODMYN.,
Davies Gilbert,
Horace B. Seymour.
BOROUGHBRIDGE.
George Mundy,
Henry Dawkins.
BOssIXTEY.,
Hon. J. Stuart Wortley,
Edward Rose Tunno.
BOSTON:.
Gilbert John Heathcote,
Neill Malcolm.
BRACKLEY.
R. Haldane Bradshaw,
James Bradshaw.
BRAMBER.
John Irving,
Hon. Fred. G. Calthorpe.
BRECONsnIRIE.
Thomas Wood.
BRECON.
George GouN: Morgan,


BRIDGENORTH.
Thomas Whitmore,
Will. Wolryche Whitmore.
BRIDGEWATER.
William Astell,
Chas. Kemeys K. Tynte.
BRIDPORT.
Sir H. D. C. St. Paul,
Henry Warburton.
BRISTOL.
Rich. Hart Davis,
Henry Bright.
BuCKRINGHAMSIltIE.
Marquis of (hando-,
Hon. Robert J. Smith.
BUCK ING HA1M.
Sir George NNigernt, brt.
Sir Thos. F. Fre'ranitle, bt.
CALLINrGTON.
Alexander Baring,
Matthias Attwood,
CALNE.
Rt. hon. Jas. Abercromby,
Sir James Macdonaldf hart.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
Rt.hon. lord C. S. Manners,
Rt.hon. lord F.G.Osborne.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.
Viscount Palmerston,
Sir Nic. Conyng. Tindal.
CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH.
Marquis of Graham,
Fred. Win. Trench.
C~AMIELTORD.
Mark Milbank,
Sheldon Cradock.
CANTERBURY.
Rt. hop. S. R. Lushington,
Lord Clifton.r
CARDIFF.
Lord P. J. H. C. Stewart.
CARDIGANSHIRE.
SWilliam Edward Powell.
CARDIGAN.
Pryse Pryse,







CARLISLE.
.Innl rs L'.w Lushington,
--Sir William Scott, bart.
Si\R M.\ rnlle N 11 iR E.
Hon. G. R. Rice Trior.
C.ARn .MRTIIrN. '
John Jones.
, i, C.AH"N.1RYON'MHIRE;
,Lord Newborough.
CA R N.A R VO N.
C.'&nx.lRvoN.
Lord W\illidi Paget.
CASTLE RISING.
Lord H. Cholmondeley,
Hon. F. Grev. Howard.
CHESHIRE.
Davies Davenport,
.Wilbrabam Egerton.
CHESTE'R.
Viscount Belgrave,
Hon. Robert Grosvenori
-C: 'EHiIIESTELR.
Rt. hon,dJ4.,J.,Geo. LenxoX,
Willian SSteplien Poyntz.
Cj-I -NPFLNil \M.
Ebpi.Fyaler Maitland,
Fr-di ck Gye, ...

pi.Jion..sirn G. H. Rose,
9;qrgf Pitt Rose. .

Rt. hbon jrd Apsley,
uQ i LIT'PIIER l. '
I-Ton. Robert Curzon,
Hon. P. F. Cust.
Co.C i Ea i 0. 1o : I I
Viscount Garlies,
Lawrence Peel.
COLCHESTER.
Daniel Whlitle Harvey.i
CUr FC.s'Ti. L !
.Geopge.Bankes,
Phi*tpriohn Miles. -
iCoRNW. LL. i.
Sir R. Raw. Vyvyan, bt.
E. W, WV. Pt nd rvis.,
C VE,$TRY.
Richard i~, Heathcote,
'flioujaas Bilclit'e Fyler. i
('RICK.LA DE.
JoR l.rfp ,d4., .-', ..-i
C' u g -l., N r) .+ I -
Sir John JIQwther; bart, .
Sir'J. f. G. raham, bart.
DaRT iOU0 : It
Johnl Bastlad, : 1
Arthur Ho\we Holdsworth,


( xxiy )
DENBIGHSUI RE
Sir W. W. Wynn, bart, |
DENBIGII..
Frederick Richard West.
DERBYSHIRE.
Lord G. A. H. Cavendish,
Francis Mundy.
DERBY.
Hen. Fred. C. Cavendish,
Samuel Crompton.
DEVICES.
John Pearse,
George Watson Taylor.
DEVONSHIRE.
Sir Thos. D. Acland, bart.
Edm. Pollexfen Bastard.
DORCHESTER.
Robert Williams,
Hon. A. W. Ashley-Cooper.
DORSETSHIRE.
Henry Bankes,
Edw. Berkeley Portman.
DO\ R. .
Chas. Poulett Thomson,
William Henry Trant.
DowNTOXr .
Hon. Barth. Bouierie, ;
Alexander Powell.
DRotTwICH.
Earl of Sefton,
John Hodgetts H. Foley.
DuNwici.
Michael Bame,
Andrew Arcedeckne'.
DURHAM, COUNTY.
Lord W. J. F. Powlett,
William Russell.
DURHAAM.
Michael Angelo Taylor,
Rt. lhon. sir Hen. Hardinge.
EAST LOOE.
James D. B. Elphinstone,
Hon. Will. Seb. Lascelles.
EDMUND'S, BURY ST.
Earl of Euston,
Earl Jermyn.
ESSEx.
Sir Eliab Harvey,
Charles.Callis Western.
E Evrsmi.A M. .
Sir Chas-. Cdckeiril, hart.,
Edward Protheroe.
EXETEi.
Sam. Trehawke Kekewich,
Lewis William Brick.
EYE.
Sir Edwaid Kerrison,
Sir Miles Nightingall, ::


S.. FLINTSHIRWE.
SirThomas Molstyn, hart.

Sir Edw. Price Lloyd, bart.
FOWEY, ,
Hon.;Rah. Henley Eden,
George-Lucy.
GATTOTS.;; ::
Hou. William. Scot, -i
Michael Geo. Prenuergast.
ST. GRTn.1NI's. .
Charles Ross,
James Loch. -
GLAMORGANSIIItRi
Sir Christopher Cole,
GLOUCESTERS1HuRE.
Lord R. E. H. Somerset,
Sir Berk. WillU.,uise, bart.
GLOUCESILR. ,-
Edward Weqb,b:,.,
Robert Bransby Cooper.
GaaNTIIf.A.
Frederick James Talmaih,
1Montague .John Cholmeley.
GREAT 8JMjWis,: .
Charles WoJ;;: 9.:
George FjpshljHeneage.
E.isr GC RIsTr.o.
Lord Strathaven,
Viscount HolMsdale.
CG uIi DIOR nD.
George Chapple Norton,
Arthur -OaQeq w. -;

Marquis of Carmnrthen,
LordJ. N.B.B.To nshenrd.
:T,: H.1MPSHIRE,.
Sir Will. -lea.hoote, batt..
John Fleming.
S ALRWTCr I: -
Rt. hon. sir \\ill. Rae, bart.
Rt. hon. Johqa C.-Herries.
HAira31E,-E. y[
Rt. hon. sirJi Beckett, bt.
George Low ithr Thompson.
.. HAsTINtNceg;a.:j..i
John Evelyn Denisoeo,: 'j
Joseph Planta. ::
HA-vEtrQnwnst.:;
Sir Richard B.Philipp S, t.
.HEiDQN c ;
John Baillie, ..
Thomas Hyde Villiers. i
HER tO IDSHItE.
SirJ. G eers Cotterell, ba.
Robert Price ,- :
HREFORp..
Viscount Ejstnor, <::.: :;,_:
Edward Bo"taj^iie.







HEnT ron os u ir.
Sir John S. Sebright,
Nicholson Cahlert.
SHERTFORD.
Thomas Byron,
'Thi~ as S. Duncombe.
HEYTESjURY.
Edward Henry A'Court,
Henry Stafford Northcote.
: HIGH'AM-FERRERS.
Hon. Fred. Cav. Ponsonby.
HINDON.
Hon. Geo. M. Fortescue,
Hon. Arthur G. Calthorpe,
HoNITON.
Josiah John Guest,
Harry Baines Lott.
HORSHAM.
Robert Hurst.
Nich. Will. Ridley Colborn.
HirUNTtGriDOSHIRE.
Viscount Mandeville,
William Henry Fellowes.
H VNTI NG DON.
Jolnti 'hlVert, '
James Stuart.
HYTH .
Stewart Marjoribanks,
Sir R. T. T. Farquhar, bart.
IPSW cH.
Charles Mackinnon,
Robert:Adamt Dundas.
IVELCPESTER.
Hon. Liohel-T4Imash,
Hon. Felik Thbs.'Talmash
I V es, Sr.
Rt. hon. Chas. Arbuthnor,
James Halse.

Sir Edw. Knatchbull, bart.
Win. Philip Honywood.
K- INc.'s LYNN.
Rt. hn.;ld..F.C. 8entinck.
Hon. John Walpol!e.
KirNGsTON-UPON-HIULL.
Augustus Jphn O'Neill,
Daniel Sykes. '
KN.aRLSBoRoUG II.
Rt. hon. Geo. Tierney,
Rt. hon. sir J. Mackintosh.
LANCASHIRE.
John Blackburne,
Lord Stanley.
LANCASTER.
John Fenton Cawthbrhe,',
Thomas Greene.
LAUNCeS. GT.d-
Sir JamesTW. Gordon,
RJameoUioden.


( xxv )
LtLl CETERSt IRE.
Rt. hon. lord Rob. Manners,
George Ant..Legh Keek.
LEICESTER.
Sir Chas. A. Hastings, bart.
Robert Otway Cave.
LEOMINSTER.
Lord Hotham,
Rowland Stephenson.
LEWEs.
Sir John Shelley, bart.
Thomas Read Kemp.
LINCOLN'SHIRE.
Sir W. Am. Inglebj, bart.
Charles Chaplin.
LINCOLN.
John Nicholas Fazakerley,
Chas. D. W. Sibthorp.
LISKEARD.
Lord Eliot, .
Sir William Henry Pringle.
LICRFIELD.
Sir George Anson,
George Granv. Vernon
LIVERPOOL.
Rt., hon. Will. Huskisson,
Isaac Gascoyne,
LONDON.
William Thompson,
Robert Waithman,
William .Ward,
Matthew Wood.
LESTWITHIEL.
Viscount Valletort,
Hon. Edward Cust.
LUDGERSHALL.
Hon. Geo. J. W. A. Ellis,
Edwarj Thos. Foley.
LUDLOW.
Viscouqt Clive,
Hon. Robert Henry Clive.
LYME REGIS.
Hon. Henry Sutton Fane,
John Thomas Fane.
LYMINxTON.
Walter Boyd,
George Burrard.
MAIIDSTONE.
John Wells,
Abraham Wildey Robarts.
SiMALDON.
Thomas BarrettLennard.
Hugh Dick..

Sir Charles Forbes, bart...
John Forbes. ,:
MALTON.
John Charles Ramaden, .
Viscount.NNonaaby,


MARLBOROUGH.
Thos. Hen. S,~fJ;stcourt,
William Joh4iBankes.
GREAT MAZLOW,
Owen Williams,'
Thomas Peers Wlliams.
MAWES, ST.
Sir Serope B. Morland, bt.
Sir C. E: Carriagton, bart.
MERIONETHSHIRE.
Sir Rob. W. Vaukhan, bt.
MICHAEL, ST.
Henry Labouchere,
Willianm Leake.
MIDDLESEX.
George Byng,
Samuel Chas. Whitbread.
SMIDHURST.
John Smith,
Abel Smith.
MILBORNE-PORT.
Arthur Chichester,
John HenryNorth. '
SNMINEHELAD.
John Fownes Luttrell
James Blai:: r. i:'
MlONMOUTHSHIRE.
SirChailes Morgan, bart.
Rt.hn. d.G.C.H.Somerset,
SMoN sourn.
Marquis of Worcester.
3IoNToOMERYSHIRE.
Rt. ho. C. W. WW. Wynn.
MONTGOMxny..
Henry Clive.
MORfETH.
Viscount Morpdth,
William Ord.
NEWARK.
Henry Willoughby,
Michael Thomas Sadler.
NE C.STLE- N DER-LI NE.
Rt. hon. R. J. W. Horton,
Richardson Borradaile.
NEWCASTLE-1 PON-TyNE.
Sir M. W. Ridley, bart.,
Cuthbert Ellison.
NEWPORT, CORNWALL.
Rt. ha. W. F. V. Fitzgerald,
Jonathan' Raine. "
NEWPORT, ISLE or WV
Hon. Wm. Hen. J. Scott,
Spencer Perceval, -
NLWTON, LANCASZilRE.
Thomas Legh,
i Thomas ;AlooeeL: ;
NEWTON, MHAlTS
Hudson Guidey, .'
Chas. Comptoa Cavendish,








-NORFGOiK-
Thomas William Coke,
Edmond Wodehouse.
NORTAtALIERrON.
Hon. Henry LascelleS,
Sir John P. Beresford, bart.
NORTHAMPTONS'IIRE,
Viscount Althorp,
Wmn. Ralph Cartwright.
NORTHAMrPTN.
Sir G. Robinson, lart.
William Leader Mhberly.
NORTH UV BBRAND.
Hon. Henry Thos, Liddell,
Matthew Bell.
NORw Icir.
William PSitbh,
Jonathan Peel,
NOTTINGH MSHIRE..
Frank Sotheron,
John Saqill .Lqaniy.

Joseph Birhi,
Lord Rauclitlfe.
OKEHAMPTON.
Sir Comptoa 1 tmmaw e, bt.
Joseph Holdien Sttwtt,
QArop.
Sir Henry EFrd..Cooke,
Quint.ia Sp)Ck
OxFO asUTRB.
Williarrt HUiry Ashurst
John Fane.

Jas. Haughton Langston,
John Ingp~ep Lockhart.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
Thomas G, ~ Estcourt,
Sir Robert Harry I~nlis, bt.
SPEBAROKSAHTIRE,
Sir Joha Owen, ba t,

Hugh O~wes Qwen.a

David Barclay,
William Manning..
PETERfOReLtroH.
Sir Robeit H~eIro, bait.
Sir James ierltt.-
PETEtRSFSIEaD
fHylhn J;4wa, .
William Malsohall.

Rt. hon. sir 0. bttM,:
Sir Thos. B. Manii, bart,
PRaaftroma-E:v ilt..
Gibbs Crawftat Antrobus,
.Sir Gh.as attlesel, kha


( xxvi )
PONTEAPACT.
Thomas Houldsworth,
Le Gendre N. Starkie.
SPOOLE.
Hon. W. F. S. Ponsonby,
Benjamin Lester Lester,
PORTSMOUTTH .
John Bonham Carter,
Francis Baring.
PRESTON.
Hori. E. G. S. Stanley,
John Wood.
QUEBNBOROUGH.
Rt hon. lord Downes,
John Capel,
I RADNORSHIRE.
Rt. hon. Thomas F, Lewis.
RADNOR.
Richard Price.
READING.
John Berkeley Monck,
Charles Fyshe Palmer.
RICHMOND.
Hon. Thomas Dundas,
Hon. sir R. L. Dundas.

Louis Hayes Petit,
George Spence.
ROCHESTER.
Hon. Henry Dundas,
Ralph Bernal,
ROMNEY.
Geo. Hay Dawko. Pennant,
George William Tapps.
RUTLAND.
Sir Gerard Noel Noel, bt.
Sir Gilbert Heathcote, bt.
RYE.
Richard Arkwright,
Henry B onhamI.
.RYEGATE,
Sir Joseph. Sidney Yorke,
James Cocks.
SALO".
Sir Rowland Hill, bart,
John Cressett Pelham.
SALTASH.
Andrew Spottiswoode,
Cdlin Macaulay.
SAWDWICIH.
Joseph MarryaMtt,
Sir Henry Fane. ,
SALUOM, NEW.
IHn. .unc. P. Bouerie,
Wndham WyndhamI O
S: S.a uinI. O.L D.
Rt, hbi. StraifordCanniwg.
James.Aleandws,. .


SCARBOROIGUH.,
Rt. hon. Chas. M. Sutton,
Hon. Edmond Phipps.,
SEAFORD.
Hon. Augustus Fred Ellis,
John Fitzgerald.
SiRAFTESBU-IRY .
Ralph Leyiesters :
Edward Da~s, payeriport.
SIHORtiHAM.
Sir Chas. M. Burrell, bt .
Henry Howard. .
SHREWSUJL.Y.
Phnton Corbett,
Robert Aglionby Slaney.
SOMRSEXIHIRE.
William Dickinson,
Sir T. B. Letbbridge, bart.
SOUTHAMPr N,
Wiliam Chanmberlayne,
Abel Rous Dottin.
SOUTHWARD.
Charles Calvert,
Sir Robert Thos. Wilson.
S ST \FOR DSIIIIE.
Edward John Liltletoln,
Sir John Wrottesley, bart.
STAFFORD.
Ralph Benso;,: "' :
Thos. W. Beay;lon.
ST. AM FORD. "
Rt. hon. lordThdilWA Cecil,
Thomas Chaplin.. '
STEYNINEW.
George Richard Philips,
Peter Du Chne.
SrcK B RI DG'.
Thomas Grosvenor,
George Wilbrahanm.
SU DBULiRY ,' ''"
Bethel Walrond,
'John Norman Macleod. ::;
SUFFOLK.: !
Sir Ths. Sherl. Gooch, bt.
Sir'William Rowley, bart.', l
SURREY,
William Joseph Denisn,
Charles 1icholas Pallmer.

Walter B=rrell,. ,
Edward Jeremiak Curteis.
TaMvweaoR-x
R1hE.d. C.V. Towlsend,
William Yates Pe .eL .-: ;
hTAvlt.voc
Rt hon-v..ise. brinton, :
Re. ho0, loQ. swRuse .








TAIrVTOY.
Henry Seymour,
William Peachy.;
TsrwrtsavaB
John Eduaund Dowdeswell,
John Matin.

Rt. hon.lord Cbas. Fitzroy,
William Biaghan Baring.
THIRsk.
Robert Frankland,
Robt. Greenhill Russell.
TIVERTON.
Viscount Sandon,
Rt. hon. Richard Ryder.
TOTNESS,
Thos. Peregrine Courtenay,
Earl of Darllngtop.
TREGroLy,
Stephen Ltluhmntolo,
James Brougham.
TRURO.
Viscount Eicpmbe,
Nathaniel William Peach.
,'.\ALLI t a ro ID.
William Iewi4 HIughes,
Robert Knight.
W.%EiH.t M
Rt. hon. John Calcrafl,
Charles Baring Wall.
WA-wE ixE.
Dugdale Strat. )ugdale,
Francis Lawsy, .
W41wwo.
Hon, sir Chas, J,tre ille,
John Tomse, ,

Sir Chas. Win. Taylor, bt.
John Paine Tudway,
WENDOVR, l
Samuel Smith,
George Smith.
W{;4piL.UCK.
Hon. Gep. C, W, Forester,
Paul Beilby Thompson.
\VEOBLY,
Rt. hon'. lpl Hi. Thynne,
Rt. hon. lord Wm. Thynne.
WEQTBRIY.
Right hr RobertPel,
Rt. h6q. sir 0. Warreuder,
WeST LooE.
Charles Buller,
Sir Charles Hulse,'bart.
WESTfMINSTER.
Sir Frandsl Butriert, bait.
John Cani 'Ht6ou& -


( xxvii )
WESTMOLA 'ND.-
Viscount Lowther,
Hon. Hen. Cecil Lowther.
WEYMOUTH & MELCOMBE
RedIs.
Masterton Ure,
Those. Fowell Buxton,
John Gordon,
Edw. Burtenshaw Sugden.
WHITCHURCH.
Hon. John R. Townshend,
Samuel Scott.
WIGAN.
James Alex. Hodson,
James Lindsay.
WILTON.
John Hung. Penruddocke,
Edward Baker.
WILTSHIRE.
John Benett,
Sir John Dugd. Astley, bt.
WINCHELSEA.
Viscount Howick,
Henry Brougham.
WINCHeATER.
Sir Edward Hyde East, bt.
Paulet St. John Mildmay.
WINDSOR. :
Sir Richard Hussey Vivian.
John RamsbottoMi.
WOODSTOCK.
Marquis of Blandford,
Lord Ashley.
WOOTTON-BASSETT.
Sir George Philips, bt.
Horace Twiss.
* WORCESTERSHIRE.
Sir T. E. Winnington, bt-
Hon. Henry B. Lygon.
WORCESTER.
Thomas Henry H. Davies,,
George Richard Robinson.
WYCOMBE.
Sir John D. King,-bart.
Sir Thomas Baring, bart.
YARMOITH. ;
Hon. Geore Ansoni
Charles Edmund Rulnbold.
YAI. MOtrTR, HaNITS.
Joseph Phillimore.
Thomas Walheae,

Viscount Milton, :
Hen. WiiiAht D~-uni e, ,
Richard .Pouritaynie Wilkc,.,
:John Marshall. *
ORK.
Marmadude Wyvill,
Janme Wihseo *.... '-' ;


SCOTLAp, ,
ABERDBEENSHRR.
Hon. William GQrdon.i i .
.AzERD.Ewe, &.
Joseph Hume. .
ARGauYBsirn .
Walter Fred. Campbell..
AYRSHIRE.

AYR, &c.
Thos. Fras. Kennedy.
BANFSHIRE.
John Morison.
BERWICKSHIR1.
Hon. Anthony Maitland.
CAITHNESS and BUTE.
Hon. James Sinclair.
CRAIL, &C.
James Balfour.
CRONIAlRT and NA-IRN.
Duncan Davidson, jun,
DUMxBARTONsIIith.
John Campbell. '
DuMFRIES'SH RlE.
Sir Will. Johnstone Hope.
DUMrRIts, &c.
William Rob. I. Douglas,
DYrsiRT, &e. ,
Sir:Ronald C. Ferguson.
EDINBURGIHSHIUE. '
Sir George Ce rk, bart. '
EDINBUR6G H.'
Right hon. Will. Dundas.
ELGsntsIRB.
Hon. Francis Will. Grant.
ELGIN, &C.
Hon. Alexander aff.
FIFESHIRE.
James Wemgyss.
FoRFARSIIsI.
Hen. Will. Ramsay' tMule.
FORFAR '&&C.
Hon. Hugh l.iiuls.y:
SFORTROSE, &C.
Rabert Grant.
GLASotOW &A?.-''
Archibald Campbell
H IDDINGTO'fn'rRP. "'
Lord John Ha.1" '
H DDIN(.TO- ['R ',
Adolphus John Dtlrynple.
l N R K ET-1TITIr .&'C.
Robert Downie. ;
iNVERNF."jsrtRr. %
Right hort. Chthrles GraTrt.
; KINC-ARrtim&Ne'IR&1. '
Hon. Huigh rbtnro't r








Kriwss d G~LACKMA-
' -: SHR. I SI
George Edw. G. F. Pigott.
KIRK JUDBRIGHT.
Robert CutlaraFergusson.
KIxRKW.LL, &C.
Sir Hugh innes, bart.
tNAiaRKSHIRE.
Sir Michael S. Stewart, bt.
LIN LliGOWSHIRE.
Ho., sir Alexander Hope.
ORKNEY and SHETLAND-
SHIRE.
Hon. Geo. H. L. Dundas.
PEEBLESHIRE.
Sir Jas. Montgomery, bart.
SPERTHSHIRE.
Rt. hon. sir George Murray.
i RENFREWSHIRE.
John Maxwell.
Ross-sHIEn .
Sir J. W. Mackenzie.

ftenry FranciSqott,.jun.
SELKIRKSHIRE.
William Elliot Lockhart.
SELKIRK, &C.
4am Hay.
i STIRLINGSHIRE.
pErt Hohime Drummond.
$UTHERLANDSHIRE.
.l.hbn. lord F. L. Cower.
SWIGTONSHIRE.
Si Williapn Maxwell, bart.
WIGTON, &C.
John H. Lowther.


IRELAND.'
ANTRIMSHIRE.
Hon. John B. R. O'Neil,
Edm. Alex. M'Naughtean.
ARMAGHSIIIRE.
Hon. Henry Caulfield,
Charles Browniow.

Rt. hon.-Henry Goulburn.
i. A r.
Riklizrd lt'ndcock, jm.
BANDON-BRIDGE.
I iiordi"i Jhn Russell.
BELFAST.
&i of SBlfast.
CARLOWSHIRE.
Henry Bruen,
Thomas Kavanagh.
il ARLOW.
Lord. Tullamore.,


( xxviii ;)
CARRICKFERiGS.
Sir Arthur Chichester, bt.
CASHELL. : .
Ebenezer John Collett.
CAVANSHIRE.
Henry Maxwell,.
Alexander Saunderson.
GLARE.
Lucius O'Brien,
Daniel O'Connell.
CLONMEL. :
Jas. Hewitt Massy Dawson.
COLERAINE.
Sir John Will. H. Brydges.
CORKSHIRE.
Hon. Robert King,
Hon. John Boyle.
CORK, CITY.
Sir Nich. C. Colthurst, bt,
Johnr Hely Hutchinson.
DONEGALSHIRE.
Earl of Mountcharles,'
George Vaughan Hart. :'
..DDoWNSiIRXE. "':
Lord Arthur Hill, -'
Viscount Castlereasmh.-,'I
DoH NP.%TRICR. ..
John Waring Maxwell.'
DROBHEDA.
Peter Van Homrigh.
DUBLINSIIIRE.
Henry White,
Richard Wogan Talbot,
SDUBLIN, CITY.
George Moore, '
Henry Grattan.
DUBLIN, UNIVERSITY.
Rt. hon. John W. Croker.
DUNDALK.
Charles Barclay.
DUNGANNON.
Hon. Thomas Knox.
DUNGARVAN.
Hon. George Lamb.
S ENNIS.
Williamn Smyth O'Brien.
ENNISKILLEN'. :
Hon. Arthur Henry Cole.
FERMANAGHSHIRE.'
Mervyn Archdall;,
Viscount Corry.
GA iLA'HRE.--
James'Daly, '
James Staunton Lambert:
GALWAY.
James O'Hara,
KERRYSHIRE.
Rt hon.-Mau. Fitzgerald,
Viscouit Egnismpre.


KILEDAESIAsE.
R .hn. Id. W.C. Fitzgerald,
Robert Latouche,
KiLKENNV SHIRE.
Hon. Chas. rB.iCl9tb
Viscount Duncannon.
KILKENNY.
John Doherty.
KING'sCor NTY.
Thomas Bernard.
Lord Oxmantown.
KINSALE.
John Russell.
LEITRIM.
Viscount, Clements,
Samuel White, .: i
SLIMERICk-K.
Hon, Rich, H. Fitzgibbon,
Thorrias Lloyd, :: i

:Thomas Spring Rie.,

:Henry Meynell. .'ti'.";_
LoNimNjBRnY;..
George Robert JRtiimn!
Alexandec RohertSabtewati.d
.ON DONDRt D Vr' 1
PRt. hon. sir G.oF.I-Hff1; .
Loo 'oofitasmE.-'r-a;k
Rt.: hon; vi' cotirt' Forbes.
:Sir Gew.R. Fettbstodne,-bl.
'LburansTix-Ji, .
Alexander Dawsoif,
John Leslie Foster.
- MALLOW.
Charles D. O. Jephson.
MAYO.
Lord Bingham,
James Browne.
MEATHSHIRE.
EarLof:Bective,
Sir Marcus Somerville, bt.
ONAGHAN.
Evelyri"John Shirley,
Hon. Hen. Rob. Westcara.

Hon. Johi Henry: Knx. .
PoRT.aB.LIuGT o .
James Farquhar.

Sir Chas. HenryiCoote'bt.
Sir Henry Parnell bart,
ROSCOMMONSHIRE.
Arthur French,
Hon. Robert King.
NEW Ross, TowN,
William Wigram,







SM0IGOSIIE, E'
Hon. Henry King,
Edward Synge Cooper,

Owen Wynne.
TIPPERA RY.
Hon. Francis A. Prittie,
John Hely Hutchinson.
TRALEE.
Sir Edward Denny, bart.


( ,xxix )
TYRONESHIRE.
William Stewart,
Hon. H. T. Lowry Corry.
WATERFORD.
Richard Power,
Henry Villiers Stuart.
WATERFORD, CITY.
Rt. hon. sir J. Newport, bt.
WESTMEATH.
Gustavus Rochfort,
Hugh Morgan Tuite.


WExFPRDSXa R. ,,
Rt. hon. viscount Stopford,
Rob. Shapland Carew, jun.
WExrFORD.;
Henry Evais '
WICK LOW.
Hon. Gran. Lev. Proby,
James Grattan. .; ,.
YOUGHALLi .:.,;
Hon. George Porisonby,:. "


The NUMBER of MEMBERS sent by each County, &c. to Parliament.
Bedfordshirei*.:;... 4 Kent ............. 10' Suffolk ...........'6
Berkshire '.... 9 Lancashire.......... 14 Surrey ...... ... 14
Buckinghamshire i.. 14 Leicestershire........ 4 Sussex .... .'.... .'20
Cambridges1himre. q.l. V !6 Lincolnshire ... 12 Warwickshire....-..,
Cheshire............ 4 Middlesex .......... 8 Westmoreland ...., 4
Cornwall 0;:, .^:.. 42 Monimouthshire ...... 3 Wiltshire :..'.. 34
Cumbeland .i... 6 Norfolk .......... 12 Wor estershire .'.'9
Derhyshifl ii ;v .I 4 Northamptonsire .... 9 Yorkshite .'...;' ,
tDeoaaan i3,:*. ;i.rr. 26 Northumberland .. 8
Dqrethiwaq ,..;.. 20, Nottinghamshire .. 8 473
Durha ^gi,.-.... 4 Oxfordshire ........ 9 Cinque Ports..i."..'6
.Esse .. R tlandshire....... 2 WaleI....... ...:. 24
Glouc ter .ire ..,... 8 Shropshire .......... 12 Scotland..... .... 45
... 8 Sorsetshire.......... 18 Ireland ........100
Herr ire....... 6 Hampshire ......... 26--
Huntiti nsle ... e ,4 Staffordshire ........ 10 Total....
l., M bers for ENGLAND and WALES ...... 513 ,
.', ....... SCOTLAND .................. 45
; i : ,,,...,-. I ELAND ............... 100

TOTAL........ 658


ChieRf Ckrk, JSo
Clerk .1 ssistait,
Seooyr,&0iMV---.Vr
Clerk- of fsoVmrn
Elections, Tu
Prim Corn. Clks.

alld ViV 1. L [


CHIEF OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE. ,
HN HENRY LEY. Esq. Ccrk of the 'Journals nd Paper.s, dir
JOHN RIKMA.N, Esq. BULL, Esqi -
ILxLIAM LEy, Esq. Clerks of the :ngrossmnnts, SiR ,E ARD
ittees of Privileges and, ,STRACXY,:a Bart. and MI' I..t;'g
oMas DvsoPi, Esq. JONS.. ..
., SIR E. StRACEY, Bart. Serjeant at rnms, Rnf. SY0ouBa, -
i rr.an, SAi. GUNNELL, Ch aplain, Rev. EV'rLV- Surro.
I G. Rosi, EEqrs. ,,. Scrcury lo .Spcaiicr, ED. PU.II (P^


*5-






S( XXx )


OFFICERS OF STATE.

(APRIL, 1829.)


pDpke. qf Wellington ..
Riglt ~ qon., Henry Goulbi
Lord Lyndhurst .......
arl. Bathurst ..........

Right -on. Robert Peel..
Earl of Aberdeei.......
Right Hon. Sir Geo. Murr
Lord.Viscount 1elville ..
Right Hon. John C. Herri
.Lord Ellenbrough ......
pligl.ti Hon.W.. .Fitger


MINISTRY -QF ENGLAND .

.. First Lord of the Treasvry (Prime Ministbi).
urn Chancellor and Under Treasuier of the dxelequer.
L.ord'l igh Chancellor.
.. ord President of the Council.
Lord Priwy Seal .
... Secretary of State for the ome DepardienL.
.. Secretary of State for Foreign Ajfairs.
ay rtlrqryq "ofStalej fJr Ilf (Cuolniil Deptirtini~l.
First Lord ofit Ad.d mirally.
es Master of the Miit.
President of the, Board of Control. '
aid Ireasurer'of the Navy, and Piesideni of the Board of
Trade. .. ,


The above form the Cnbict.


* ; .r,


Right Hon. Sir Hen.Hardin
Viscount Beresford ......
Duke of Montrose ......
Marquis Conyngham: ....
Duke of Leeds.:........
Marquis of Winchester ..
Right Hon Ch. Arbuthnot
Right Hon. John Calcraft
Viscount Lowther ......
Thomas P. Courtenay, Esq.
Duke of Manchester ....
Sir William Henry Clinton

Sit Nicolas C. Tindall, Knt


Diulie of Northumberland ..
Rt. Hon. Sir Anth. Hart, Knt.
Lieut.-Gen. sir John Byng ..
Lord Francis Levison Gower
Right Hon. Sir G. Fitz. Hill
Rt. Hon. Henry Joy ......
John Doherty, Esq.........


ge Secretary at War.
Master General of the Oriciunce.
.Lord .Chamberlain.. .
... Lord Steward.
Master of the Horse.
Groom& of the Stole. i-
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster6 .
.Paymaster of the Forces.
First Commissioner of Land Revenue.
Vice President of the Board of Trade.
Postmaster General.
Lieut:-general of the Ordnance.
Attorney General.
S Solicitor General. '

MINISTRY O RELAND.
MINISTRY OF IRELIAMND.' :';


Lord Lieutenant.
Lord High Chancellor.
Commander of the Forces.
Chief Secretary.
Vice Treasurer of the Exchequer.
Attorney General.
Solicitor General.







( xxxi )


As in adverting to any Proceedings in Parliament, the Reader must
have frequent occasion to refer to "HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY
HISTORY," and to the Two Series of HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES;" the subjoined TABLES, which exhibit at one view the
period comprised in each volume of those Works, will be found very
useful.


A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
Shewing the A. D. and the A. R. in which the
Thirty-six Volumes of HANSARD'S PARLAMEN-
TARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND respectively com-
mence and conclude.

VOL. I 6 Wx. I 1072 to 22 JAMES I 1624
II 1 Cius. I 1625 .. 18 CHA. I 1642
11 18--. I 1642 .. 12 II 1660
IV 12 II 1660 .. 4 JAMEII 1688
1 4 Jas. II 1688 .. 13 W. II 1702
VI 1 ANNE 1702 .. 13 ANNE 1714
VII 1 GEO. I 1714 8 Go. I 1722
VIII 9 -- 1722 .. 6 GEo. II 173
IX 6 GEO. II1733 10-- 1737
X ---'1737.. 12-- 1739
XI 13 -- 1739. 14 1741
XII 14 -1741 16- 1743
XIll 16- 1743 .. 20- 1747
XIV 20 1747 ..26 1753
XV 26 1753 .4 GEo. III 1764
XVI 5 GEo. ll 1765.. 11 -- 1771
XVII 11 -1771 .14- -1774
XV~iI 15- 1774 .. 17 1777
XIX 17 -- 1777.. 19 -- 1778
XX 19- 1778 .. 20 --- 1780
XXI 20 1780 .. 21 1781
XXII 21 -- 1781.. 22-- 1789
XXIII 22 1782 ..24- 1783
XXIV 24- 1783 .. 25-- 1785
XXV 25 1785 .. 26-- 1786
XXVI 26-- 1786 .. 28- 1788
XXVII 28 1788.. 29- 1789
XXVIII 29 1789 .. 31 -1791
XXIX 31 1791.. 33 1792
XXX 33 1792 ..34 -- 1794
XXXI 34 1794 .. 35 1795
XXXII 35 1795.. 37 -- 1797
XXXIII 37 1797 .. 39 1798
XXXIV 39 1798. 40 -- 1800
XXXV 40_ 1800 .. 41-. 1801
XXXVI 42 1801 .43 1803


A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
Shewing the A. D. and the A. R. in which the
Volumes of the First and Second Series of
HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES respec-
tively commence and conclude.


VOL. I-I]
III-V
VI-VII
VIII-IX
X-Xl
XII-XIV
XV-XVII
XVIII-XX
XXI-XXIII
XXIV-XXVI
XXVII-XXVIII
XXIX-XXXI
XXXII-XXXIV
XXXV-XXXVI
XXX.VII-XXXVIII
XXXIX-XL
XLI


44 GEO. III I l:3/4
45-- 180i5
46-- 18.6
47 -- 1806/7
48 -- :1808
49 160
50-- 1810
51-- 1810/11
52--- 1812
53- 1812/13
54--_ -i18 93/14
55 181\4/15
56 J- 1816
57 1 17
58- Iq I-i
59--- 1819
60- 1819/20


VOL. I-II I 1GEO. IV 182?
Iy--V. -- 1821
VI-VII .3--- id1-i
VIII-IX 4-- 18f3
X-XI 5 -- 1824
XII--XIJI 6 --.-4" 18 4
XIV-XVI 7 1826
XVII 8 1827
XVIII-XIX 9- 1828
:- XX-XXI 10 1829


... : ... ;-i.
r -




'


Sfigt g0tvito.















Shortly will be Published,

HANSARD'S

PARLIAMENTARY DIGEST;
OR,

DICTIONARY OF READY REFERENCE,
TO THE

RECORDED PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES,
.. IN BOTH HOUSES.
PRdM TiHE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT TIME;:
BEIG
AN. ANAL TICAL INDEX :-I. TO HANSARD'% PARL.IAMENTAiLr
HISTORYI OF ENGLAND, from the earliest Perite to the Year i803.:
II. To i ANSARD's PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, from the. ear.
1803 to 1he present Time.
WITH
An INDEX containing the Name of every Member who took a part
in the said Proceedings and Debates.
IN TWO VOLUMES.


S: VOL. II.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES,
will be first published.
\* Such progress has been made (Twenty-five Volumes having been already
gone through) that it is confidently expected to publish this important
Volume in the course of 1830.








; % ... 4.


HANSiARD 'S;


Parliamentary Debates


During the THIRD SESSION of the EIGHTH PARLIAlMENT
of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND,
"appointed to meet at Westminster the 5th of Febritnry,
18s9, in the Tenth Year of the Reign of His Majesty
GEORGE THE FOURTH.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 31, 1829.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington moved, that this
bill be read a first time.
The Earl of Harewood.-My Lords; I
am well aware that it is not customary to
object to the first reading of a bill which
any of your lordships may think proper to
present; nor do I intend to deviate from
the ordinary practice. But, before we
read this bill a first time, I beg leave
to put a question to the members of
his majesty's government; and that ques-
tion is, whether there is or is not at this
moment levied in Ireland, under the
assumed authority of the Catholic Asso-
ciation, that which is generally denomi-
nated rent? Before we proceed one step
with this important bill, I wish to have
an answer to this question.
The Duke of Wellington.-As far as I
have any knowledge, no such thing as
Catholic rent now exists.
The Earl of Mountcashel.-I have re-
ceived letters this morning from Ireland,
stating that rent is, beyond all question,
still paid to the Catholic Association.
The bill was read a first time.
The Duke of Wellington then moved,
that the bill be printed, and that the
second reading should take place on
T4r.Saday, in case the printed bill should
~ie Lfid n their lordships' table to-morrow.
Lord Bexley said, he trusted that the no-
VOL. XXI. {s.ew}


ble duke would not attempt to carry this
bill through the House with so much pre-
cipitation; for which he was quite sure no
precedent could be found on their Journals.
On any bill of great importance, -time was
generally given to noble lords to make
themselves fully acquainted with its prin-
ciple; at any rate, no such hurry as was
now proposed was ever attempted. A
week was the least time allowed between
the first and the second stage of im-
portant bills; and he would, with their
permission, state very shortly the various
intervals which had taken place between
the first and second readings of this mea-
sure, whenever it had been previously
submitted to their consideration. For
several years no other proceeding was had
for some time after the first reading of
the bill, except the presentation of pe-
titions on one side or the other : and in
no case that he knew of, was there.ever
less than fourteen days allowed for its
consideration. He would run:over a short
statement which he had drawn up on the
subject. In the year 1809, a bill was
brought in, by a noble earl whom he then
saw in his place, for the purpose of
repealing the Oath against Transubstan-
tiation: that bill was read a first time on
the 25th of May, and the second reading
was fixed for the 10th of June, leaving an
interval of sixteen days between the first
and second stage of it. In the year 1821,
the next bill for the relief of the Roman
Catholics was brought into their lordships'
B


~d~1 ,;.s








; % ... 4.


HANSiARD 'S;


Parliamentary Debates


During the THIRD SESSION of the EIGHTH PARLIAlMENT
of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND,
"appointed to meet at Westminster the 5th of Febritnry,
18s9, in the Tenth Year of the Reign of His Majesty
GEORGE THE FOURTH.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 31, 1829.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington moved, that this
bill be read a first time.
The Earl of Harewood.-My Lords; I
am well aware that it is not customary to
object to the first reading of a bill which
any of your lordships may think proper to
present; nor do I intend to deviate from
the ordinary practice. But, before we
read this bill a first time, I beg leave
to put a question to the members of
his majesty's government; and that ques-
tion is, whether there is or is not at this
moment levied in Ireland, under the
assumed authority of the Catholic Asso-
ciation, that which is generally denomi-
nated rent? Before we proceed one step
with this important bill, I wish to have
an answer to this question.
The Duke of Wellington.-As far as I
have any knowledge, no such thing as
Catholic rent now exists.
The Earl of Mountcashel.-I have re-
ceived letters this morning from Ireland,
stating that rent is, beyond all question,
still paid to the Catholic Association.
The bill was read a first time.
The Duke of Wellington then moved,
that the bill be printed, and that the
second reading should take place on
T4r.Saday, in case the printed bill should
~ie Lfid n their lordships' table to-morrow.
Lord Bexley said, he trusted that the no-
VOL. XXI. {s.ew}


ble duke would not attempt to carry this
bill through the House with so much pre-
cipitation; for which he was quite sure no
precedent could be found on their Journals.
On any bill of great importance, -time was
generally given to noble lords to make
themselves fully acquainted with its prin-
ciple; at any rate, no such hurry as was
now proposed was ever attempted. A
week was the least time allowed between
the first and the second stage of im-
portant bills; and he would, with their
permission, state very shortly the various
intervals which had taken place between
the first and second readings of this mea-
sure, whenever it had been previously
submitted to their consideration. For
several years no other proceeding was had
for some time after the first reading of
the bill, except the presentation of pe-
titions on one side or the other : and in
no case that he knew of, was there.ever
less than fourteen days allowed for its
consideration. He would run:over a short
statement which he had drawn up on the
subject. In the year 1809, a bill was
brought in, by a noble earl whom he then
saw in his place, for the purpose of
repealing the Oath against Transubstan-
tiation: that bill was read a first time on
the 25th of May, and the second reading
was fixed for the 10th of June, leaving an
interval of sixteen days between the first
and second stage of it. In the year 1821,
the next bill for the relief of the Roman
Catholics was brought into their lordships'
B


~d~1 ,;.s








House, in this manner-it was read a first mended in his Speech, as the most likely
time on the 3rd of April, and it was or- to ensure the successful issue of their
dered to be read a second time on the deliberations, and which they had pledg-
16th of the same month; thus giving ed themselves to observe, in the Address
an interval of nearly fourteen days for which they had presented in return, to
further deliberation. In the year 1822, his majesty. Now, what sort of a ful-
a bill was brought in by a noble lord, for filment of that pledge was it, to hurrythis'
the purpose of enabling Roman Catholic measure, with breathless haste,' throauih
Peers to take their seats in their lordships' the House, and to allow them no more
House. It was read a first time on the than eight and forty hours between its
18th of May, and it was not proposed to first and its second reading ? He might
be read a second time till the 21st of June, perhaps be justified in reminding their'
thus giving an interval of something more lordships, upon this occasion, of the deep
than a month between its first and second feelings of the people upon this question,
stage. In the year 1824, a bill was as evinced in their petitions. He had
brought in for iRepealing the Disabilities endeavoured to extract from the votes of
of the English Roman Catholics only. On their lordships, the number of petitions
that occasion, the bill was read a first time which had been presented on both sides
on the 6th of May, and it was proposed to of this question. He believed that, in
take the second reading of it on the 24th; favour of the measure now at last 'before,
so that there was an interval of nearly their lordships, there had been sixi hldn-
three weeks. In the year 1825, the last dred and forty-four petitions presentd'
bill relating to this question was brought from bodies of Roman Catholics, and two
up here, and then an interval of only one hundred and seventy-four from bodies' of
week was given us, from the 11th of May Protestants, in different parts of the erh-
to the second reading; but their lord- pire. It could hardly be doubted that
ships would, perhaps, recollect the very this body of petitioners was cotntented-
peculiar circumstances which accom- with this bill; for it gave them as much'
panied the introduction of that bill. It as they had ever ventured to hope for in
was connected with two other measures, their wildest and most sanguine expecta'-
which were proceeding pari pass with it, tions. The petitions against thi tiea-
in the other House; and that was the sure amounted to two thousand' nine
reason why so short an interval as one hundred and fifty-three; and he believed:
week was all that was given for the con- that if the amount of signatures to each
sideration of their lordships. But in this set of petitions were contrasted, it would
case it was not a week-nay, it was be found that the proportion between
scarcely forty-eight hours-that the noble them would greatly exceed the proportion
duke proposed to give them for the con- between the different numbers of petitions.
sideration of this bill, of which they could There could be no doubt but that the
not, by any accident, have a full know- petitions against concession were' much'
ledge, as several amendments-and im- more numerously signed than those in its
portant amendments too-had been made favour; even supposing every thing to' be
that very morning in the House of Com- true that had been said about the former
mons. How could such a bill, he would petitions being hole-and-corner petitions,
ask, be properly considered, and deliber- and being signed by children and paupers :
ately weighed, in so short an interval? there could be no doubt, he repeated,
He thought he was acting a very candid that even after allowing for the operation
and moderate part, in proposing to the of all such causes,concession was opposed
noble duke, that an interval of a week by hundreds of thousands of his majety's
shoulW be given to their lordships before honest and loyal-hearted Protestant sub-'
the next reading of this bill. Surely, if jects. In using that expression, he beg-
ever there was an occasion when their ged he might not be misunderstood ; -h
lordships were bound to act with caution did not mean to say, that those' who'
and deliberation, it was the present, when favoured concession were' not honest 'or-'
so many petitions were pouring in against loyal subjects to the Protestant mona tAi"
it from. all parts of the country.-He of these realms. He did not inpute it'a~'
begged to recall to the recollection of blame to his maje'y's gbvernnment;t bt'! d
their lordships the temper and mode- he must contend, that the public hdd h bet'
rati which his majesty had recom-' completely taken by them by surprise roitl


Relief Bill. 4


[LORDS, ]


SRoman Catholic






5 Roman Cadthli[


this occasion. They were surprised, not
merely at the suddenness of this measure,
but'at the quarter from which it pro-
ceeded. The noble duke at the head of
his majesty's government, and the right
hon. Secretary who had just brought up
the bill from the other House, were con-
sidered the defenders and champions of
the Protestant cauie. How, then, could
we, who had acted under their banners,-
how could the country, which had reposed
with confidence on their support, feel any
thing but the greatest astonishment at
seeing them at the head of the storming
party, which was attempting to carry the
barriers of the constitution ? If the noble
duke consulted what was due to his own
character,--if he consulted what was due
to the dignity of the House,-above all, if
he consulted what was due to the feelings
of the public, he would allow their lord-
ships the usual time for the consideration
of a measure of such paramount im-
portance,
The Duke of Wellington said :-My
Lords; respect for the importance of this
question-respect for the dignity of this
House-respect for the declaration made
by his majesty, in his most gracious
Speech at the opening of the session-
respect for the Address which the House
presented to his majesty in reply to his
most gracious Speech,-and I hope I may
be permitted to add, respect for my own
character, would induce me to avoid
acting with precipitation on this measure.
But I must be permitted to say, that the
House has now been sitting for nearly
two months, and that this measure has
been under our discussion, day by day,
upon the presentation of petitions ; and it
having been publicly put to your lord-
ships, that the question for your con-
sideration is, whether Popery shall or
shall not be established in this kingdom,
I am anxious to state to your lordships
the grounds on which 1 rest this measure
for your consideration, and on which I
call upon you to rest your decision. I beg
that your lordships will recollect, that the
second reading of this bill is the first
stage at which you can deliberate on the
principle of this question; for, although
oiw the presentation of petitions, we have,
for the last six weeks, been perpetually
adverting to the subject, it has never yet
beae brought fairly under discussion, It
canant, therefore, appear extraordinary, I
trust, to any of your lordships, that I


should be anxious to take the first oppor-
tunity to enable your lordships to come
openly and fairly to a full discussion of it.
The noble baron, on the cross-bench, has
produced various precedents to prove,
that, upon former occasions, when bills,
similar in principle to the present, were
introduced into your lordships' House,
they were not brought under discussion
without a week's or a fortnight's, or, in
some cases, a month's previous notice.
I do not mean to dispute those pre-
cedents, but I would ask the noble baron,
are there not many other important sub-
jects which your lordships have discussed,
in a short interval after their introduction
into your House, especially when they
were brought under consideration on the
first day of the session, in the Speech
from the throne? Under these ciroum-
stances, considering how desirable it is,
that your lordships should come to a
decision upon this measure--considering
how desirable it is, that the public should
know your opinions upon it-considering
how desirable it is, that the agitation of
this question should be speedily brought
to a close-I entreat your lordships to let
me proceed to the second reading of this
bill upon Thursday next, if it should be
printed and in your hands to-morrow.
For these reasons, and under the cir-
cumstances which I have stated, I must,
my lords, persevere in my original in-
tention.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, he should
be the last person in the House to oppose
any factious or vexatious delay to this
measure. He was not disposed to look
at their mode of proceeding upon this
question merely with regard to the pre-
sent; he was disposed to look at it in
another point of view, and to consider how
posterity would regard it. What would
posterity think of their conduct, when it
saw that, on the 31st of March, this bill
was brought up for the first time, and
that, on the 2nd of April, their lordships
had decided upon its principle, within
four-and-twenty hours after they had first
had any parliamentary cognizance of it?
He thought that the country felt strongly,
very strongly, upon this question; and
one of his motives for wishing that the
consideration of this bill should not be
unnecessarily delayed was, that the ex-
citement of the public should not be much
longer continued; and therefore it was,
that he should like to see this bill brought
B2


Relief Sil.


[ MACOHa 1. ]






S* Relief Bill. 8


.forward. as soon as decency-no, that was
,too strong a word, he did not mean that
.-but as soon as the dignity of their pro-
.ceedings would render it fitting. He had
,hoped that the noble duke would have
fixed Monday next for the second reading
of the bill; but from what the noble duke
.had just'said. he was afraid he would not
consent to do so. He should therefore
be under the painful necessity, much as
.he respected the noble duke, to oppose his
-motion for coming to a decision upon this
,bill on so early a day as Thursday.-He
*would venture to add another precedent
,to those which his noble friend had alrea-
dy quoted, for the purpose of prevailing
upon the hoble duke to yield a little more
.time for the consideration of this bill.
,He referred to. what had. occurred on
.bringing in the -bill last year, to repeal the
Test and Corporation Acts. He had
looked at the Journals of the House, and
he found that' that bill was read a first
time on the 1st of April-an inauspicious
day, he should have conceived, for its in-
troduction, and one which might well
:enough have been selected for the intro-
:duction of this bill,-and that it was read
a second time.on the 17th of that month.
It was discussed too, in the mean time,
.every day upon petitions; but, in the pre-
.sent case, their lordships had been advised
not to discuss the principle of this mea-
-sure.upon presenting petitions, hut to wait
until it was 'brought in the shape of a
bill before the House; and now that the
bill was brought in, there was no time
given them for making themselves ac-
quainted with its details, or even for ex-
amining into its principles. Under such
.circumstances, he did not think it was
exactly fair to have insisted that they
should not discuss the principle of the
measure, in presenting their petitions
against it. In voting against fixing the
second reading of this bill for Thursday,
he did so with the utmost reluctance.
,But he. was impelled .to pursue such a
course, from an imperious sense of public
duty: for he had not only the dignity of
their lordships' proceedings at heart, but
also the opinion which the country would
form of their conduct. What would the
country say, if their lordships fixed so
.early a day as. was now proposed for the
second reading of so important a measure?
That their lprdships were as eager to pass
this bill as they would be to pass a bill of
:indemnity, and that they took as short a


time to vote it, as they did to vote an or-
dinary turnpike bill. As some noble lord
must do it, he would now propose, that
the word Monday be inserted for the word
Thursday in the. motion just made by the
noble duke.
Lord Holland said, that if it could be
proved to his satisfaction, that the motion
of the noble duke wou!il produce any in-
fraction upon the ordinary rules of, the
House, or that it would be attended with
consequences injurious to the proper con-
sideration of the important question which
would shortly be placed before them,.,he
would willingly acquiesce in the ,noble
earl's proposal for delay; but.he did not
think that either of the points which he
had stated could be clearly made out .to
his satisfaction, and he would shortly. tell
their lordships why. The House was full
now: the season of the year was that in
which most of their lordships were. gene-
rally resident in the metropolis; and this
subject had for some time been under
consideration, not only in that House, hut
in common conversation in every; corner
of the kingdom, even before the opening
of the session, and since the period when
parliament was recommended to. direct
its attention towards it, by the gracious
Speech delivered from the throne. Though
he might, for other reasons, acquiesce, in
the appointment of a distant, day fpr the
discussion of this bill, he certainly. could
not acquiesce in it upon the reasons stated
by the noble lords opposite.. The,noible
lord on the cross-bench had dwelt, with
great self-complacency, on the nature, of
the precedents which he had produced ,to
support his entreaty for delay. .Consider-
ing the character and opinions of that
noble lord-considering his great know-
ledge of all parliamentary proceedipgs-
considering his great and marvellous re-
spect for the wisdom of antiquity-he had
expected, that the noble lord would have
shown them, by some precedent, taken
from the good old Protestant times of the
constitution, which he so much admired,
how far time ought to be given for,the
consideration of this measure. .Much
time, as it appeared to him, was notneces-
sary to understand the principleof it. The
bill was intended to repeal two acts,of the
time of Charles the 2nd-acts, which,:by
some legal metonymy that he did not per-
fectly understand, had recently beep icfled
by some the constitution, of theqous3y,
and which, by a fanciful anachrohism,


7 Roman 'Catholic


. [ LORDS,]






9 Roman Catholic


which he understood as little, had been
described by others as the Protestant Re-
volution of 1688; and yet, of these two
acts-one of which was passed in the 25th
of Charles the 2nd, requiring that certain
oaths should be taken by all Roman Ca-
tholics, previously to their admission into
office, and the other in the thirtieth year
of the same'reign, requiring that certain
oaths should be taken by them previously
to their admission to seats in the two
Houses of parliament-of these two acts,
the result of the wisdom of our ancestors,
the fundamental laws of the land, the fruit
of the long deliberation, as it is said, of
most learned lawyers-of these two acts,
one was passed under the influence of
suspicion as to the prince on the throne
of the country, and of something stronger
than suspicion as to the heir presumptive
of that prince; and the other under the
operation of universal consternation and
dismiay, when five peers of that House
were, by an act of power unjustified and
'unjustifiable, condemned, and branded in
one day, swept away from their places in
this House, and sent in confinement to
the'Tower. I marvel how the noble baron
o 'the' cross-bench, among the number of
precedents which he quoted to the House,
contrived to leave out of his catalogue
these two acts, which he admires, and
worships; and venerates so much beyond
Small others. The Test Act, if I mistake not,
passed through all its stages in the House
of Conmons in the course of five days: it
was brought up here on the sixth day; it
was read a second time on the next day ;
and it passed through this House entirely
in six days This was the wisdom of our
ancestors-this was the decency and dig-
nity of their proceedings Let it not be
supposed that that measure had been for
a long time previously under the consi-
deration of the House : it had not-it was
the result of surprise-it was the result of
a sudden disclosure of the counsels of the
king, showing that he entertained designs
subversive of the Protestant constitution,
and tending to introduce popery and arbi-
traiy power [a cheer from lord Eldon]. It
was on that ground, and on that ground
S'alone the bill passed : but the noble and
learned', lord,' who cheers, must show, in
order' to justify the' continuance of that
vacr, that it is an immutable and perma-
trent principle of the British constitution,
that the' prince' on the throne is always to
be suspected of favouring popery. Wo]


are told, that the'law and'the constitution
of these realms require that the prince onr
the throne should always be a Protestant;
but, according to the new doctrine of the
noble and learned lord, he is nevertheless
to be always a hidden Papist. I say, that
unless the noble and learned lord is pre-
pared to prove that, he proves nothing.
-But, to return from my digression. I
was stating, that the Test Act was :passed
in five days by the House of Commons,
and in six or seven days by the House of
Lords; and now I come to that other act,
which, to any one who reads the history
of those times-and it may be a good act
in itself, and justified by the event-can
never be spoken of, so far as regards the
motives of those who proposed it, except
in terms of the deepest abhorrence and
indignation. It was read a first time
when TitusOates came to your bar with his
unparalleled absurdities and his monstrous,
impossibilities, respecting the Popish plot.
It was read a first time under the impres-
sion, that no man's life was safe, and at a
period when it was more safe, as Roger
North said afterwards, in describing the
excitement which then prevailed, to deny
Christ than to deny one article of the plot.
The second reading was the next-yes,
the very next day. Now, I would ask the
noble baron, why we are to confine our-
selves to the precedents of 1819 and
1820, and why we may not imitate those
of the good old Protestant times, which
he lauds, on other occasions, to the skies ?
But, it is said by some noble lords, Oh !
this is a breach of the constitution of the
country, and we must not proceed rapidly
with such a bill." I know, and I amr
sorry to say that I know, of many laws
having been passed, which made great
breaches in the fundamental principles of
theconstitution,with much greater rapidity
than that with which it is now proposed'
to pass this bill. I have known, my lords,
bills for the suspension of the HabeasCorpus
act, and bills for continuing the suspension
of the Habeas Corpus act, passed, at some
periods, in one, and at others injtwo or three
days. The suspension of the Habeas Cor-
pus act was not the mere suspension
of a single act; it was the suspension.of
all the fundamental laws of the country,:
as far as regarded the liberty of the sub-
ject; and yet I know that bills, for the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus act
have passed, more than' once, with extra-
ordinary rapidity,- And then, again, other


[MACH' 31. 1]


Relief Bill.- 10







lords say, that they are taken by surprise, to resist the amendment proposed. But
Talk of surprise! It is monstrous, it is when it is stated, that they want more
laughable, to hear of such a thing. It time, because the prints will not be on the
may be matter of surprise, that the noble table before to-morrow, I must own that
duke, with his acute and penetrating pow- I cannot discern how they want the prints
ers of mind, should have been so tardy in to judge of the principle of the bill to
giving to this question the benefit of his which they all declare themselves opposed.
support; but, to say that it is matter of The Earl of Malmesbbry said, he did not
Surprise that this question should come ask for his own personal convenience, but
under the consideration of parliament this from a regard to the character and dignity
session, is so inconsistent with common Iof the proceedings of the House. Since
sense, that I wonder how any man can the passing of the Bill of Rights, no mea-
assert it. Could any one delude himself sure of such vast importance had been at-
so far as to imagine, that the question tempted to be carried with such rapidity
would not come under our consideration through their lordships' House. If afort-
in the course of this session ? It would, night had been given him to consider the
indeed, have been matter of surprise if it principle of the measure, he might in that
had not. But, says the noble baron, time have made himself master, not only
some persons were surprised at finding of its principle, but also of its details. In
that the noble duke and the right hon. a parliamentary sense, he was ignorant of
Secretary for the Home Department, the provisions of the bill until it came re-
whom they had dubbed the champions gularly into his possession; but he ad-
and defenders of the Protestant cause, mitted that it would be absurd for him to
were not imbued with their own inveterate pretend that individually he knew nothing
and obstinate prejudices surprised at about it. He maintained that, in the first
that they possibly may be; but to be sur- stage of the bill, a considerable interval
prised that this question should again un- ought to be allowed for its consideration.
dergo discussion, is it credible-is it, I The noble baron had referred to certain
would ask, possible ? Why, it has been, precedents, which had taken place in what
I was going to say, from time imme- he had been facetiously pleased to de-
morial, but certainly it has been for the nominate the good old Protestant times.
last thirty years, and for a time before In reply, he would only say, that if those
many of your lordships had seats in par- precedents were to the noble baron's taste,
ligament, and to which the memory of some they were not to his, and that he must
of your lordships will not extend, an an- therefore decline to follow them. There
nual subject of discussion. And yet might be seasons of emergency, in which
noble lords are surprised that we should it might be necessary to pass bills through
receive this bill of Catholic Relief from all their stages in one night. He believed
the House of Commons. Why, it was that that had been done during the time of
only last year that the House of Com- the mutiny at the Nore. There was,
mons did that which ought to have made however, no such necessity for haste in
them expect something of the kind. Here, this case. His majesty had recommended
on your table, was placed, only last year, that the measure should becarefully and
a resolution of the House of Commons, deliberately weighed; and for that reason
expressing a strong opinion in favour of he felt himselfjustified in again asking for
Catholic emancipation. And then you delay.
had a recommendation from the throne Viscount Goderich said, he hoped that
on the first day of this session, calling the noble duke at the head of the govern-
upon you to take into your deliberate ment would not yield the delay which was
consideration the whole condition of Ire- now asked, and which appeared to him
land, and that you should review the laws most unreasonable. What was it that
which impose civil disabilities on his ma- their lordships had been about fot the last
jesty's Roman Catholic subjects; and now two modtths? He would venture to say,
you are surprised, forsooth, at what has that since their lordabips formed a Moase
happened, and call for longer time to of Parliament, there had never bearnench
consider. If it really were a matter of a full and constant attendance of peers
personal convenience to the noble lords paying such undivided attention to one
to have two or three days granted to them subject. There was not one, he believed,
for deliberation, I should not be disposed of their lordships, acc uaomed to take par


[ LORDS, ]


Relief Bill.


11 Romn Cz ~sathoic






12 Roaan Catholic


in thetdisoussions,who had not delivered his
,opinion, on the presentation of petitions;
and many of them had expressed not a
hesitating opinion, but a fixed condemna-
tion of the policy ofpassing this measure.
They had hitherto discussed its principle.
They were now in a condition to argue it
at length, and with reference to its dif-
eret details; and though he did not ex-
psect that the opinions of those who differed
r, omm himin that House would be changed
y the approaching discussion, he believed
that that. disseussion would have consider-
atde influence on the minds of those per-
ons .ut of doors whose sentiments were
,aw attempted to be forced upon their
Jordships as the guides and regulators of
.Aheir individual conduct. When his noble
friend founded his argument for delay
* #ppa the number of petitions which had
been presented to the House, he felt a
Settle susprise; for he (lord Goderich) built
.his own argument upon those petitions,
though it certainly cut the other way. He
.had every respect for the petitions of the
p ple, aad he wished to throw the doors
,wide pope to the .rightof petitioning: but
he .ust he permitted to declare, that in
iatnig at i. the people to sign those peti-
itions !which had recently been placed on
their lordships' table, recourse had been
hlad to schemes and stratagems, which
were discreditable to the country, and
against which he must protest, with a
Veliemeueicr prn..portitwned tr i lie value which
he set on petitions :originating in proper
motives. He must say, that the arts re-
earled to, within the last few weeks, to
prpouqepetitiuns, were scandalously unjust.
,To what did he refer ? Not to themisrepre-
sentations of history, with which they were
crammed-not to the gross blunders as to
facts, with which every line teemed; but
to the gross perversions of the objects of
this measure, and to the calumnies invent-
ed as to the motives of those who sup-
ported it, and to that system which had
roea:tly been adopted. He alluded to the
attempt to represent all persons who were
,friendly ito concession, as persons con-
,,demned to infamy here, and to perdition
hereafter, tas infidels and atheists,-to pry
into 'the hearts iof men like the worst of;
Pqpish inquisitors, and to hold them up as:
waxious to destroy not only the constitu-
.4on,i 'but the -eligion of their country..
Such vile artifices had been resorted to
Switch .suoh active ingenuity .as ought to
indu oe nhae on 1the cowutenance if


noble lords for their coadjutors. If noble
lords were thus to be held up to -their
countrymen as undeserving of respect and
confidence, he would say, that, on the
principle of justice, they had a right to ask
for the earliest hearing, to vindicate them-
selves from what he would venture,to call
a Protestant sentence of excommunication,
and.to show that they were not influehoed
by such motives as were attributed to them,
but by nobler, and more exalted principles,
and that they would not be struck off the
roll of Christianity, because they could
not bear to witness the miseries of millions
of their fellow-countrymen with an un-
moved countenance and an unreenting
heart.
The Earl of Eldon said, that the noble
duke, in naming Thursday for the second
reading, had mentioned one reason, which,
if stated separately and distinct from
others, would have great weight with him.
The noble duke said, that he was anxious
to have an opportunity of stating fully to
the Househis reasonsfor theintroduction of
this measure. This :anxiety was very
natural, and was highly creditable to his
character and honour; and if these were
the only grounds assigned, he should net
feel disposed to object to the proposed
course; but there were other reasons
urged, which, he owned, had no such
weight with him. It was urged, that the
principle of this measure was the same as
that which had been in disc ussion before
their lordships for nearly the last thirty
years. Now, he could not know what the
exact nature of the bill before their lord-
ships was, until it was read, and the House
was aware, that he might, in the exercise
of his privilege, call upon the noble and
learned lord on the woolsack, either to
read himself, or to direct one of the clerks
at the table to read, the whole of the 'bill
at length, by which their lordships might
be put in possession of its contents some
sixteen hours sooner than they otherwise
could. The bill, he understood, was
printed in the other House on the 24th of
March, but even since then some import-
ant amendments had been made. This
being the case, it could not be justly as,
serted, that the character of. this measure
was the same as those on the same subject
-which had occasionally been brought be-
fore their lordships for the last thirty years.
Let their lordships consider the important
interests which might be affected by this
was ure. lie was :sure that the public


Adief Ba 14~LL~


[ MAC 81a ]





Romant Catholic


(LORDS, ]


would look with great' respect and grati-
tude for their lordships' decision on this
important question, because they felt it
would be the result of calm deliberation,
and a just and anxious inquiry into its
merits. Now, he would ask what would
be one result of the proposed measure?
Would it not directly affect the supremacy
of the Crown, which they were all bound
to support ? Didlit not affect the interests
of the Church, which must be considered
as part of. the State? He knew it was
contended that nde effect of the measure
would be,' to benefit the interests of the
church, aindhet as ready to believe that
this was the real opinion of those who so
declared it. But surely some allowance
should be made for those who differed from
that opinion; and the petitions which
poured into their lordships' House from all
parts of the country proved that those who
so differed were supported by the voice of
the majority of the.community. He would
repeat, that the anxiety on the part of the
noble duke, to explain the grounds on
which this measure was introduced, was
very natural; and it was also natural, that
many noble lords should be anxious to
hear such explanation; but from his ex-
perience in that House, he was convinced
that their lordships' decision, whatever it
might be, would have infinitely more
weight with the public, when it was known
to be the world of serious, full, and calm
deliberation. They would look upon the
decision of their lordships with much
greater satisfaction when they found that
a measure of such importance was not
hurried forward with a precipitation un-
usual even in the case of a turnpike bill.
Looking, therefore, at the, result, whatever
it might be, he was sure the country would
be more satisfied with it, when it was
known that it was arrived at after mature
corisiderationi He therefore could not
consent to fix the second reading for
Thursday. All that was asked by his
noble friend was, to delay the second read-
ing to Monday.
Lord Farnham observed, that the bill
then before the House differed very ma-
terially from any former measure on the
same subject. It went further in its princi-
ple than any preceding bill, and on that
ground further time ought to be allowed for
the consideration ofitbeforethesecond read-
ing. Those who purposed to deviate from
the usual course were bound to assign
some satisfactory reason for it, For his


Relief Bill. 18


part, he must say, that he had heard only
one reason which was at all satisfactory,
and that was one personal to the noble
duke at the head of the government. It
was, he admitted, very natural for the
noble duke to be anxious to throw off the
obloquy which had been cast upon him,
with respect to these measures. But
though that might be a good ground for
the noble duke, it was not a good parlia-
mentary ground for precipitating the
second reading within twenty-four hours
after the printed bill should have been
laid on their lordships' table. He was
sure it was a ground which would not be
satisfactory to the people of England.
Their lordships should recollect, that there
was another bill also to come before them
-a sort of collateral security for the pro-
visions of the first. He did not know
whether they were to be discussed as form-
ing one great measure, but he supposed
they would each be considered with re-
ference to the other; for as one would
not have been introduced without the
other, they should be considered in con-
junction; and if debated together,, more
time should be allowed before the second
reading than if either had come before
the House separately. He could not,
therefore, consent to fix the second read-
ing so soon as Thursday. The House
would abandon its duty, if it thus yielded
to the suggestions of ministers, and passed
this measure without due deliberation. If
it should be so passed, he would predict,
that two years would not pass away,
before their lordships' table would be
covered with petitions from every part
of the country, praying for a repeal of the
bill.
Lord Ellenborough said, he should re-
collect the noble lord's prophecy next year,
when most probably the noble lord him-
self would have seen that it was in no
respect likely to be verified. He concur-
red with noble lords, that the shortness of
the time between the first and second
reading of the bill was unprecedented
but he would contend, that under the cir-
cumstances of the case a longer time was
not necessary. A noble lord had told the
House, that between three and four thou-
sand petitions in all had been presented
to their lordships on the subject of this
measure, and that a large majority of those
petitions called upon their lordships to
pause and deliberate before they assented
to the measure, Now, if those petitioaerI






1T7 Roman ,Catholic


had had time, since the introduction of
this measure to parliament to deliberate-
and he supposed it would not be said that
the petitions were not the result of deli-
beration-to form their opinions upon it,
and to communicate those opinions to
their lordships, it was not too much to
say, that their lordships had had at least
an equally good opportunity to consider
the subject and to form their opinions
upon it within the same time. It had
been said, that the proposed delay was
necessary for tde character of the House
with posterity. It was very natural to
wish to stand well in the opinions of those
who were to come after us; but he was
sure that posterity would have so many
proofs of the benefits which this measure
would confer on the country, that it would
readily excuse the haste of reading it a
second time on the second day after it was
presented to the House. Themoststrenu-
ous opponent of the measure-his noble
and learned friend (Eldon)-objected to
the haste of reading it so soon, on the
ground that such haste would not be con-
sistent with -the honour and dignity of
the House;- but it appeared to him, that
the honour and dignity of their lordships
would be more consulted in passing the
measure with deliberate discussion, than
by occupying themselves with objections
which were not well founded. It was said,
that the question had not yet been discussed
on its merits. As far as discussion con-
sisted in the application of reason to the
point in debate, he had not yet heard any
thing that could be called discussion from
the noble and learned lord, or from those
who concurred with him in his view of
the question. He had yet heard nothing
but assertions, roundly and strongly made,
-and by none more than by the noble
and learned lord-as well against the
general principle of the bill as against
some parts of it in detail. Now, consider-
ing the weight and dignity which justly
attached to the opinion of the noble and
learned lord, and the very great delibera-
tion which he always used before he pro-
nounced that opinion on any important
point, he should infer that any person of
such great sagacity as the noble and
learned lord would not have applied the
term "atrocious" to any measure, as a
whole, until he had gravely and maturely
considered it in all:its parts. As far,
then, as the noble and learned lord was
concerned, the second reading of a mea.


sure on' which he had already so deli-
berately and strongly pronounced his
opinion, could not be considered prema-
ture, even though it should be on the
second day after it was brought into their
lordships' House. There were strong
reasons why the discussion should take
place on the earliest day, which their lord-
ships should not forget. He meant the
state of the session, and the state of pub-
lic business. Since the commencement
of the session, this one topic had engros-
sed almost the whole attention, in and out
of parliament. That the country was
agitated on the subject, he did not believe;
but that the public mind was distracted
with respect to it, to the suspension of all
other public business, he was ready to
admit; and feeling that, he thought that
their lordships could not confer a greater
benefit on the country than by putting an
end to this distraction. That would be
most effectually done by passing the bill
now before their lordships, which did away
with the monopoly which one portion of
the community enjoyed to the exclusion
of the other. By this course the inter-
ests of the country generally would be
best consulted, and the tranquillity of
Ireland in particular secured.
The Earl of Carnarvon expressed the
gratification he felt at the good temper
with which the discussion had been con-
ducted. He had listened with much at-
tention to all the objections that had been
urged against the second reading, and he
must own they were not of a nature to
convince him that it ought to be delayed
beyond the time which the noble duke
had mentioned. The noble and learned
lord and other noble lords, had objected,
that the effect of this measure would be
to change the religion and government of
the country from Protestantism to Popery;
and the noble duke at the head of the
government was naturally anxious to take
the earliest opportunity of relieving him-
self from the imputation implied in the
objection. That he would do so ably and
effectually, he had no doubt; and he was
sure it ought to be the desire of every one
of their lordships to afford him the earliest
opportunity of meeting the charges which
had been thus indirectly made against
him. A noble lord on the cross-bench
had quoted precedents to show the course
adopted, when similar measures were in-
troduced; but he had omitted to take any'
notice of what the House had done, when


[ MAR11 31. 1


ReliefUL i






Relief ,ill. 6


it ant only received, but passed a measure
in pari material 4ent up from the other
MHouse, He alluded toe an act passed
When the aoble and learned lord was him-
self a member of the administration. By
Sthat act, the power of the sword by sea
and land, f: not given to Roman Catho-
ihc~ at least it was declared that from
rfhenceforth they were eligible to arny
-naval or military command in the British
empire f r her colonies, with the exception
of the;officers of commander-in-chief or
lord high uadmiraL No objection was, at
'the time, made to this great acquisition of
military power by Roman 'Catholics, on
the part of those who now so strenuously
opposed their participation of civil privi-
lqges; but, what was the course pursued
when that measure was brought up to!
their lordships' House ? It was brought
in on Friday, the 27th of June, 1817, and
read a first time. It was read a second
time on the next parliamentary day,-the
Monday following,-was committed on
the Tuesday and passed on the Wednes-
day. Yet that was a bill which, accord-
ing to the principles of the noble lords
ulo opposed the present measures, tended,
'by the power it gave to Catholics, to
undermine the constitution and Protestant
establishments of the country. How had
that bill been opened to the House ? Had
there been a brilliant speech setting forth its
justice and expediency? Had it been
mentioned in the Speech from the throne ?
Was it the subject of warm debate in
either House, or was time given to the
people to petition, and thus to ascertain
the sense of the country upon such an
inroad upon the constitution ? Nothing
of all this had happened. The bill was
introduced without notice, and carried
through all its stages sub silentio. So far
from the public knowing any thing about
it, he believed that many members of both
Houses were ignorant of its existence
until it had passed into a law. He could
not speak from his own ,Iersonal know-
ledge of what passed on that occasion,
for he was not in the counlky at the time,
but he was sure he had not heard or read
of a,single objection having been made
against the measure; yet all that time the
noble and learned earl was a member of
the administration. There was not then
a word of having been taken by surprise,
by those who now so loudly complained
of time not being allowed for the con-
aidwatiof of a eame which, thwigh it


went somewhat farther, partook of the
principle of the bill of 18rl7, and certainly
was very little different from the principle
of the measures on the subject which had
been objects of discussion in parliament
for the last twenty years. The only dif-
ference was in the detail; but the principle,
he contended, was the same. How was
it possible, then, for noble lords to :say,
that they were taken by surprise by this
bill, or that they had not sutlic;ent time
to consider its principle ? UTiner these
circumstances, he did hope that the able
duke would persevere in the second read-
ing of this most important measure on
Thursday. In the way of further info~m-
ation respecting it, nothing coad be
gained by delay, and much might be
achieved by setting it speedily at rest,
Viscount Sidmouth observed, tha no-
thing he had heard could diminish the
regret he felt, that the second reading i of
the bill should have been fixed for Thurs-
day-a bill than which, viewed with
reference to its consequences, ,none anore
important had ever been introduced since
the period of the Revolution. Yet it was
spoken of, by some noble lords, as a
measure of small importance-as ,oy the
,repeal of two acts, the 25th and 30th of
Charles the 2nd-and because those ,Acts
were passed with a rapidity, rendered
necessary by the very circumstances iout
of which they arose, that rapidity was now
urged as a ground why their lordships
should be equally rapid in passing the
bills now before them. He deeply de-
plored this rapidity for the honour .and
dignity of the House, and for the charac-
ter of government, by which the speech of
the commissioners at the opening of the
session had been advised. That speech,
their lordships would recollect, had reoom-
mended, that the whole state of Ireland
should be taken into consideration. It
was said, that ample time, had -been
afforded for discussing this measure.
Would it be contended, that their lamd-
ships had followed the advice of, the
Speech from the Throne ? They had given
a solemn pledge, that they would act upon
that advice, in the Address moved in
answer to the Speech. Had that plp4ge
been redeemed? Had their lordships
taken the whole state of Ireland ,into
their deliberate consideration? It was;his
impression, .as well as that of other lords,
that the pledge so given would 'haue been
redeemed by the onBsideration of ahestate


,[ LORDS, ]


RomwaM 4aholic'






S1 Faged 'Sigfature


of Ireland, either in a select committee or
a committee of the whole House,-that,
in either case, some inquiry would be
gone into. As that had not been done,
he implored their lordships to consult their
swn character and dignity, and the great
importance of the subject, by not entering
upon its discussion prematurely. Let the
whole of the subject be brought fully
,under the consideration of parliament.
While he said this, he gave the noble
duke full credit for his very natural desire
to take the earliest opportunity of explain-
ing the grounds on which he introduced
the measure; but he could not admit,
that that alone was a sufficient reason for
not allowing longer time for the considera-
tion of the subject before its second read-
ing.
The Earl of Longford said, he could
not admit that there was any analogy
between the circumstances connected with
the passing of the acts of the 25th and
30th of Charles the 2nd, and the bills
before the House. Would it be contend-
ed, that we were acting under intimida-
tion at the present moment ? He must
also object to the analogy attempted to be
established between suspensions of the
Habeas Corpus and this bill. Was the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus a per-
manent and irrevocable measure? In
the one case, a temporary and pressing
necessity would justify such rapidity; but
the present bill was intended to be per-
mranent. It was of a nature, as he and
others viewed it, extremely dangerous to
the constitution; and on that ground it
was important that it should not be urged
hastily through the House; at the same
time that he gave credit to ministers for
their intentions in the course they pro-
posed. A noble earl had alluded to the
act of 1817, which rendered Catholics
eligible to offices in the army and navy;
but that was not a new principle. It was
only an extension of what had been al-
ready granted, and what he believed
Catholics had already enjoyed in the
sister kingdom. One word on the subject
of petitions. A noble visoount had al-
luded to the feelings in which he supposed
some of the petitions had originated,
and had stated, that improper means
had been used, in order to get up peti-
tions against the measure. He would
not admit the fact as far as his knowledge,
extended; but if he were disposed to
resaciinate, he toRld show that very isu


proper means had been used to- obtain
petitions on the other side. It wa atated,
that the Catholics were excluded *cn
civil power solely on account of their
religious tenets. This was not the act;
their exclusion rested on political grounds,
and not on their religious options.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, that after
all he had heard, his opinion of theAim-
propriety of pressing the second leading
of the bill remained unchanged; ~ ut if
the majority of the House, as applredr, to
be the case, were not disposed to take the
same view of it, he would .not divide the
House.
The Earl of Winchilsoe said, that as
the noble lord had stated his intentie a net
to divide the House, he rose for the pwr-
pose of entering his protest against the
measure, and of expressing his opinion,
that their lordships would have better
consulted the dignity of their proceedings,
if the proposal of the noble lord had been
acceded to. Their lordships were tow
acting with precipitancy, with regard, to
a measure which the people justly felt to
be a question deeply altfcting their civil
and religious liberty. He could not have
contented himself to have been within the
walls of the House, and supposed to have
given his assent to the precipitate pro-
ceeding which had been resolved on.
The original motion was then agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 31.
FoGaxE SIGNATURE to A PETITION.]
Mr. Dawsos read a Letter which he had
received from the rev. Mr. Waddy, of
Kilrea, who stated, that having seen in
the newspapers a report, setting forth the
presentation, by sir George Hill, of a
Petition from that Parish against the
Catholic Claims, to which his name was
said to be subscribed, he felt it his duty
to notify, that the" signature of his name
must be a forgery, as he never signed.
or authorised the signing of his mame
to such a petition. It was singular enough,
too, that this very petition dwelt with
particular force upon the gross artifices
which were imputed to the Catholics to
create perjury and aamorality, He
meant not to proceed further than to
expose the grossness of this fbrgger
The Speaker.-I hope that the Hove,
when circumstances so strongly affecting
a most valutlds rihit of the subject


to a P46iti6n. %


J M&acnL 31. ]






23 'Middldsegi


and so -deeply affecting the dignity and
character of this House, are stated to
theii, Will not fail to do their duty. If
they do not, I will venture to say this is
the first time when such a proceeding was
passed' over. If the hor. member should
decline to proceed, some other hon. mem-
ber iiil, I am sure, take the matter up.
'Sir G. Hill said, that ls he had pre-
seitdd the petition in question, the House
wofkd naturally expect some explanation
frcim-i himn. All he could say was, that
the petition was enclosed to him by Mr.
Digby, a magistrate of the neighbourhood,
who apprised him that it was most re-
'spectally signed. Mr. Digby and Mr.
Waddy were both most respectable gen-
tlemen, and it surprised him that the
'latter did not at once require from the
former' some explanation of the matter.
It piuzled him altogether, and he knew
niat what to make of the business. He
should not, of course, oppose any investi-
,gtion.--
i Mr. 'Hume said, he would make a
thotion !upon the subject, if no other
member gave notice of one.
Mr. Dtdwson said, that having been the
personn, w-ho brought the matter forward,
he 'should not shrink from prosecuting
!te' inquiry, and would therefore move for
a committee to inquire into the facts of
the'e'ase.
.A committee was accordingly appointed.

MiDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.] Mr.
ernnard said, he wished very shortly to
state the grounds on which he asked for I
the returns which were the object of his
present motion. The County Court of the
County of Middlesex was established by
Act of Parliament, and I had jurisdiction
throughout the whole County of ,Middle-
sex ih causes under 40sL The judge of
thtdt court, who was called the county
cltrk, and must be a barrister of three
years' standlinl, was appointed by the
~hefiiff'fit: the time being, and held his
place I'rlife, That officer, or his deputy,
for he was allowed to appoint a deputy,
sat twice 't week in London, for the
puypte of hearing causes, and two other
days in each month ii other parts of
'Middlesex, 'that was to say, the first
'Piestlay in' every month in one of the
hundredss of Isleworth and Elthorne, and
'the last" Tuesday in Edmonton. His
salary' : dse from fees which he was
enti-ed to under the act head just


named. Those fees, he believed, were
fixed on the calculation of the number of
causes heard at the time of passing: the
act, and were intended to afford a reason-
able recompence to the presiding officer;
the causes had very greatly increased
since that time, and consequently the
recompence of the judge had increased in
the same proportion. It was notorious
that the place was one of great value.
By returns which were laid before the
House some years ago, it appeared that
the amount of fees received in London
only, was above 2,0001. a-year, but it was
said that the payments which the judge
had to make reduced his income to 1,5001.
He was anxious to obtain an accurate
statement of the particulars, and the
whole amount of those payments, and
this was one of the objects he sought in
the returns he' should move for. He tiad
no doubt it would be found that the judge
had a nett income arising from the causes
heard in London only, greatly exceeding
1,5001. a-year. The duty by which he
earned that salary, was by sitting, 'as -he
had said, twice a-week in London to
determine causes. By the return which
he had just mentioned, it appeared that
the number of causes which he had then
to hear, amounted to about seventeen
thousand a-year, which gave an average
of one hundred and sixty causes to be
disposed of every Court day. Admitting
that many of those causes required little
or no time for their decision, he thought
it must still be obvious, that one day was
Stood little for-the disposal of one hundred
and sixty causes. He thought it would
be found, when he obtained his returns,
that the number of causes had increased
since the last returns were made, in which
case it would be obvious, that the business
of the court and that the profits of the
judge had also increased. But supposing
they had only remained stationary, he
thought the House would feel that
there was ground both for reducing the
fees, and for calling on the court to ap-
propriate more time to the performance of
its duties. It must be recollected that
the object of courts of that sort' was to
render justice cheap and accessible to the
poorer orders : and it must be recollected,
that it was out of their pockets that the
fees were paid, so that any reduction in
the' fees was a good in itself, and was
calculated more completely to carry into
effect the objects contemplated by'the


t COMMONS, I


CauntytCourt. 24






25 .'. M ddlesexc


legislature when it established the court.
He knew that the court had been praised
by Blackstone for the low rate of its fees;
but if, from the increase in the number of
causes heard, it might. be possible still
further to reduce the rate of those fees,
leaving the judge at the same time an
adequate remuneration, he thought that
an object which the House would not
deem unworthy of its consideration. If
it should&be thought that the judge had
a vested interest in the present rate of fees,
at least some prospective measure might
be passed, to take effect when the interest
of the present county clerk might have
terminated; but he should think the best
courseto be pursued would be, one similar
to that recommended by the right hon.
gentleman opposite last year, in regard to
patent offices. He then said, it would be
advantageous to the public to purchase
those fees of the officers, to pay the officer
who received them fixed salaries, and carry
the. surplus into the Treasury. So he
should think it advantageous to make
compensation to the officer of this court,
and to .give him a fixed salary in future.
But, whatever might be the opinion of the
House upon that.point, he thought one
thing at least was certain; namely, that
if the amount of causes to be heard
annually were as great now as they were
when the last returns were made, they
would be fully authorized in calling on
the county clerk- to devote more time to
the, hearing of them.-Another point upon
which he was desirous of obtaining inform-
ation was, as to the balances of money
remaining in court, and as to the security
there was for the due application of them.
It .was the practice of the county court of
Middlesex, as of most other courts of
.Request, to admit payments of debts: by
instalmentss; and which were made into
court, in order to be repaid again to the
parties interested. It often happened,
that the money so paid continued. for a
considerable time unclaimed; and, not
unfrequently,, it was never claimed at
all. The consequence was, that. large
balances accumulated in these courts.
From returns made in 1819, it appeared
.that, in the court of Requests for the
jTower Hamlets, a balance had accumu-
lated, in the course'of nineteen years, to
,the, amount of 2,2001.; in the court of
Requests for Southwark to the amount
of 2,3001.. In the county court of Mid-
,dlesex there had- been a.balance, in the


course of seven yeais amounting to 1,4001.
In most of those courts there were ,sme
security for the due application of these
balances. In the, court for. the. Tower
Hamlets, the treasurer gave-security,i In
the court of Southwark, it was the prac-
tice that such balances should be yerste
in the funds in the names of trstees.
He believed there was no security ,of,,this
or any other sort in the court oft.the
county of Middlesex.-It, was another
object he had in view in moving for these
returns, to ascertain what was the, real
state of the case in these respects. He
was aware that the right hon. Secretary
was to bring the subject of county courts
before the House, but he believed the
court of the county of Middlesex would
not be comprised in. his bill. When
he had got the returns, he should eater
more at large into the question, and he
thought he should be able to show that
some alteration was necessary. It. Vas
possible, however, that the right ;,hen.
gentleman might think the point worthy
of consideration in the framing of his bill,
and he should be most happy if he should
succeed in directing his attention to it.
If the present court should continue in its
actual state, when the bill of the right hon.
gentleman came into effect, there would
then be two county courts for the.county of
Middlesex; the one having jurisdiction
over causes under 40s., the other over
causes under 101. It was obvious, that that
could not be intended, and he trusted that
the right hon. gentleman, when this point
was brought under his consideration would
at the same time consider all the other
points connected with that court. He was
sure the subject would be far better in the
hands of the right hon. gentleman than in
his hands, and he should be rejoiced if
the right hon. gentleman should find reason
under make inquiry into it.-The hon.
member concluded by moving for returns
of the number of causes tried in the Mid-
dlesex county court since the appointment
of the present county clerk; of the gross
amount of costs or fees paid by persons
suing or sued in the said court up to the
25th March last; of the sums receivedby
the county clerk, his deputy, or other
officers of the court; together, .ith, an
account of the amount of balancestof,un-
paid monies in hand; a statement, ,f.the
manner in which those balances were
applied, and whether any security, Was
given for the payment of them. .. ,.


-[A~IARCII "I.)







Thre motion was agreed to. dred yards without being obstructed by
turnpikes. Great advantage, it must be
M1lt*oPoS RoADs BrLL.] Lord admitted, had arisen out of the measure
ZwrAer, in moving for leave to bring in for the consolidation of the metropolitan
a bill, to aher and amend the Metropolis turnpike trusts; the results had been im-
Ttrmeaike Act, north of the river Thames, proved roads and diminished tolls. It
observed, that three years ago a bill was was extremely desirable that the com.
brought in, to consolidate all the road munication between the west end of the
trusts in the neighbourhood of London. town and the city should be rendered
That bill had merely put all the roads as free from obstruction as possible,
into-one act, without making any mate- One of the objects of the bill was to re.
risJalteration in the customary regulations move all the gates from the Edgware-
under which the trusts had been managed. road to the city, so as to open a free com.
If it had gone further, and relieved some munication between the east and west
of the outskirts of the town from the pay- of the metropolis. It was fair that parishes
meat of tolls, perhaps it might have been should maintain their own roads, and in
better. At the time, however, there were this case the rate would not exceed a
eleven miles of streets upheld by turnpike penny in the pound, on the average.
trusts, which were now reduced to three He was sure that the measure would prove
miles. A considerable portion of debt, a great convenience to the public at large,
previeolyineurred, had also been reduced, who ought gratefully to acknowledge
He now came to the House with a propo- the benefit. Indeed, the public was al*
sition to alter ani amend the act, under ready under great obligations to the noble
which the roads north of the metropolis lord. No commission could be better
were conducted. The bill would throw managed than that over which the noble
the new road in Gray's-inn-lane upon the lord presided; and when the present mea.
parishes to keep it up. The same thing sure was accomplished, he was sure the
would be done in other cases of a similar public could not fail to see and acknow.
nature. Objections might, perhaps, be ledge its practical effect.
taken to this, as imposing an unnecessary Leave was given to bring in the bill.
burthen. He, did not think the burthen
would be much. Originally it was thought AUCTION DUTI s.) The House having
that no turnpike rate ought to be con- resolved itself into a committee on the
sidered high, unless it exceeded 6d. in Auction Duties' Acts,
the pound; now, the average of this rate The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
would not exceed ld., or at the utmost that in the present instance he had to
2d. Many of the outlets in the north of propose a string of resolutions which were
the metropolis had become actual towns, the result of the investigation which had
and were lighted and provided with all been undertaken by himself and others
appurtenances as such. It was desirable into the mode of improving and regu.
that their streets should not be intersected lating the collection of the Excise. He
as they were at present with turnpike bars. had resolved to commence with this branch
From the communications he had had of it, because, as the duties stood at pre.
with the parishes, he understood that no sent, their payment was frequently evaded,
objection was likely to be raised to the and considerable suspicion might arise that
proposition. They found that they could it was not unfrequently accompanied by
employ their paupers advantageously, in fraud. The first step to effect the im-
breaking stones &c., under the new ar- provement was the alteration of the duty
rangement, and thus diminish the parish from 51. per cent. on goods, chattels, in-
rates. The noble lord concluded by terest, and estates sold as the law now
moving for leave to bring in a bill to the stood, with exceptions in cases of property
effect stated. bought in, to an invariable duty of 11. per
Mr. Maberly seconded the motion, and cent. on all property put up to sale and
expressed his conviction that the measure, sold, though bought in by the owner.
though apparently one of a local advan- This would render the law intelligible to
tage, was calculated to benefit the whole all, exempt sellers of property from all
of the metropolis. In the immediate unnecessary oaths, and remove the tempta-
neighbourhood of London, crowded as tion to, as well as the suspicion of, fraud,
it was, we could hardly proceed a hun- in the collection and in the paymerntof


Awho Du bkties. 280


~F~~. Meirepq& moEdt vill. [ COmmono~~






29 Roman CahoKe Clanms-' [A.IrPnI.] Petitintfor and aqaist. 3M5
these diities. The right hon. gentleman the earth-he meant the~ .mearclh of the
concluded by moving, that it was the opi- Austrian family, and also those of Spain.
nioni ef the committee that the present He believed that they were the confeasor
duties of Eteise, of five per cent on goods of Philip 2nd, of Philip 3rd, of Philip4h*,.5,,
disposed of by auction, should hereafter and of Charles 4th of Spain, :who, wami
cease and determine, and that in lieu little better than a drivelling idiot. The i
thereof the following duties be imposed : Jesuits, who were men of great talent and i
namely, ori every 1001., where the sale ability, were the confessors of these meno.
did not exceed 10,0001., 11. sterling; They educated men of high.degree; they
on every 1001., where it did exceed were the tutors of those who held high;
10,0001., but not 20,0001., 11. on the first situations in the army and in the state,
10,0001., and 10s. for every additional and thus they gained a degree of powe.
1001.; on every 1001. where the sale over individuals, which enabled them
did exceed 20,0001., but did not exceed afterwards to wield a still greater power
40,000., 15s. for the first 20,0001., and over the monarch. At the same time that
5t. on each additional 1001. on every 1001. they lived in this manner with the great,
where the sale amounted to 40,0001., and they did not neglect the lower orders; but
upwards, 10s. to the extent of 40,0001., wherever they found a clever man amongst
and for every 1001. above that amount of them, they rescued him from his obscurity,
sale. Is.; and whenever a fractional part and made him a brother of theia order.
of t 1l. should constitute part of the pro- The Jesuits were also the confessoasof
ceeds of the sale by auction, there should that weak but courageous man, Louis
be taken a duty of 21,d. in the 11. sterling. 13th, and of his son and successor, Louis
The resolutions were agreed to. 14th, whose character had been displayed
by St. Simon in its real colours. They
HOUSE OF LORDS. were severely attacked by the other orders,
Aprl 1. of the Church of Rome, in consequence of
Wednesday, l 1. the power which they thus obtained; but
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS-PETI- what, he would ask, was the reason that
TIoNs FOR AND AGAINST.] Lord Clifden they had ever had the means of acquiring
said, he had a petition to present, and as such power? The ignorance of the differ.
it was of a peculiar nature, he would take ent ages in which they lived. In that day
the liberty of saying a few words respect- there was no public press to expose their
ing its contents. The petition was against designs. The public press was the enemy -
that clause of the bill for the removal of of the society of the Jesuits. They had
the disabilities affecting our Roman Ca- been protected and encouraged in France
tholic fellow subjects, which gave to the by Charles 10th, but notwithstanding such
government power over the Jesuits, and protection, the power of the press had
the other monastic institutions in Great beaten them down. Supposing the Jesuits
Britain. It was signed by one. of the best were ever to gain a footing in the country,
and most honest men in his majesty's could they ever hope to withstand :the
dominions, than whom he believed there attacks of The Times," or of any other
was not, either in the House or out of the paper conducted with equal ability and
House, a man who more ardently wished success ? It was impossible that they .
for the peace, of Ireland, the security of could. There were at present only two
this kingdom, and the general prosperity establishments of Jesuits in the. United.
of the empire; he meant Dr. James Doyle, Kingdom-the one in Ireland, the otler-
the Roman Catholic bishop of Kildare and at Stonyhurst, in Lancashire. He unddr.
Leighlin. He was sorry that such a clause stood that all round the neighbourhood of:
was inserted, for it disfigured a bill, which those places the Jesuits were universally.
was one of the most useful and beneficial respected as good instructors of youthhi.:
bills which ever came before parliament, and as charitable and humane membersiofi!
As he understood the clause, the great society. He had no doubt-that tha ihobt
object of it was, to exclude the Jesuits duke at the head of the government an4d
from this country. That the Jesuits of those who were now joined with. hinriinwi
old were in possession of vast power, all the administration of affairs,,.would& use.,
their lordships knew well: they were the with great temper and moderation .the',
confessors of sovereigns, who were the power against these men, whiah waswgirhi;.
weakest ,mortals that 'ever walked upon I them by this clause ofthe bilL. Henotstel -






S1 Faged 'Sigfature


of Ireland, either in a select committee or
a committee of the whole House,-that,
in either case, some inquiry would be
gone into. As that had not been done,
he implored their lordships to consult their
swn character and dignity, and the great
importance of the subject, by not entering
upon its discussion prematurely. Let the
whole of the subject be brought fully
,under the consideration of parliament.
While he said this, he gave the noble
duke full credit for his very natural desire
to take the earliest opportunity of explain-
ing the grounds on which he introduced
the measure; but he could not admit,
that that alone was a sufficient reason for
not allowing longer time for the considera-
tion of the subject before its second read-
ing.
The Earl of Longford said, he could
not admit that there was any analogy
between the circumstances connected with
the passing of the acts of the 25th and
30th of Charles the 2nd, and the bills
before the House. Would it be contend-
ed, that we were acting under intimida-
tion at the present moment ? He must
also object to the analogy attempted to be
established between suspensions of the
Habeas Corpus and this bill. Was the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus a per-
manent and irrevocable measure? In
the one case, a temporary and pressing
necessity would justify such rapidity; but
the present bill was intended to be per-
mranent. It was of a nature, as he and
others viewed it, extremely dangerous to
the constitution; and on that ground it
was important that it should not be urged
hastily through the House; at the same
time that he gave credit to ministers for
their intentions in the course they pro-
posed. A noble earl had alluded to the
act of 1817, which rendered Catholics
eligible to offices in the army and navy;
but that was not a new principle. It was
only an extension of what had been al-
ready granted, and what he believed
Catholics had already enjoyed in the
sister kingdom. One word on the subject
of petitions. A noble visoount had al-
luded to the feelings in which he supposed
some of the petitions had originated,
and had stated, that improper means
had been used, in order to get up peti-
tions against the measure. He would
not admit the fact as far as his knowledge,
extended; but if he were disposed to
resaciinate, he toRld show that very isu


proper means had been used to- obtain
petitions on the other side. It wa atated,
that the Catholics were excluded *cn
civil power solely on account of their
religious tenets. This was not the act;
their exclusion rested on political grounds,
and not on their religious options.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, that after
all he had heard, his opinion of theAim-
propriety of pressing the second leading
of the bill remained unchanged; ~ ut if
the majority of the House, as applredr, to
be the case, were not disposed to take the
same view of it, he would .not divide the
House.
The Earl of Winchilsoe said, that as
the noble lord had stated his intentie a net
to divide the House, he rose for the pwr-
pose of entering his protest against the
measure, and of expressing his opinion,
that their lordships would have better
consulted the dignity of their proceedings,
if the proposal of the noble lord had been
acceded to. Their lordships were tow
acting with precipitancy, with regard, to
a measure which the people justly felt to
be a question deeply altfcting their civil
and religious liberty. He could not have
contented himself to have been within the
walls of the House, and supposed to have
given his assent to the precipitate pro-
ceeding which had been resolved on.
The original motion was then agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 31.
FoGaxE SIGNATURE to A PETITION.]
Mr. Dawsos read a Letter which he had
received from the rev. Mr. Waddy, of
Kilrea, who stated, that having seen in
the newspapers a report, setting forth the
presentation, by sir George Hill, of a
Petition from that Parish against the
Catholic Claims, to which his name was
said to be subscribed, he felt it his duty
to notify, that the" signature of his name
must be a forgery, as he never signed.
or authorised the signing of his mame
to such a petition. It was singular enough,
too, that this very petition dwelt with
particular force upon the gross artifices
which were imputed to the Catholics to
create perjury and aamorality, He
meant not to proceed further than to
expose the grossness of this fbrgger
The Speaker.-I hope that the Hove,
when circumstances so strongly affecting
a most valutlds rihit of the subject


to a P46iti6n. %


J M&acnL 31. ]






a3: Rornan-CatholiM Cliins- [ LORDS, ] Petitions fdr andagainst a3


thit other governments would act in the
aine -manner; but if they did not, he
thought that the severity of the clause
6vwuld defeat its :own object. The first
thing which any government must do to
carry this clause into execution must be
to catch the offender, then it must prove
him to be a Jesuit, and lastly it must
prove him to be doing something wrong;
or elsethe press, which had been so long
the enemy of the Jesuits, would raise in
their defence such a clamour and clatter
around the ears of ministers, as they
could not long support in a free country.
As he was convinced that this clause could
never, in the present improved state of
society, be productive of any ill effects, he
should not think of opposing it. The
Jesuits had been in existence as a body
for upwards of three hundred years, and
had gained most of their power within the
first forty years after their incorporation.
Europe was then in a state of half bar-
barism, and in such a state, beyond all
others, knowledge must always command
power. Consider what the condition of
this country was, even during the reign of
the two first Georges. It only began to
improve just before the end of the Ame-
rican war. In old magazines, we read of
repeated instances of gentlemen amusing
themselves by pinking holes in the bodies
of persons they occasionally met in the
streets. If any lord or gentleman were to
betake himself to such amusement now,
sir Richard Birnie and his myrmidons
would presently teach him a lesson how
to do bodily harm, and would leave him,
in all probability, to the tender care of the
finisher of the law. i But, bad as men were
then, they were far worse in the times of
the crusades, when they appeared to have
been as stupid and as ferocious as the
beasts of the field. The consequence was,
that the popes, the Bonifaces and the
Innocents then acquired great power; and
no wonder, for they either had themselves,
or were able to employ, all the knowledge
of their age. The power of the popes
was afterwards transfeired, in a great de-
gree, to the Jesuits ; and the same ignor-
'ance on the part of the monarch, which
made the monarchs of the early ages the
slaves of the papal power, made Louis
14th the slave of the Jesuits. The power,
-too, was exercised in both cases in a most
extraordinary manner. The popes induced
the crusades to leave their wives and
daughters to the care of those who were


prudent enough to stay at home; -and the
Jesuits compelled Louis 14th to marry an
old woman who had passed-through many
hands, but who, after all, was quite good
enough for him. He repeated that, in the
present intellectual improvement of the
world, no country had any reason to fear
the Jesuits: the press was more than a
match for them; it had already beateii
them down in France, and if a necessity
should ever arise for such a measure, it
would beat them down with equal facility
in England. He then laid on the table
the petition, which was from the titular
bishop of Kildare, and the clergy of his
diocess, against the said clause in the
Roman Catholic Relief bill.
The Duke of Leinster said, that as re-
ference had been made to the establish-
ment of the Jesuits in Ireland, he would
observe that they were merely employed
there in the education of youth; that
their schools were open to all persons who
chose to visit them; that they were ex-
amined by the fellows of Trinity College,
Dublin ; and that they invited any person
who pleased to inspect their system o ed u -
cation.
Earl Grey said, he had two petitions to
present, on the subject of the disfranchise-
ment ofthe forty-shilling freeholders in :re-
land. The first petition came fromthe utder-
signed subscribers, natives of Ireland, re-
siding in London, and was signed by lord
Killeen and several other' gentlemen of
great respectability. The other was from
the parishes of St. Mary, St. Thomas, and
St. George, Dublin. The petitioners
stated the gratitude which they felt'to his
majesty's government, for introducing the
bill for their relief, which was at last come
into their lordships' House. They express
their satisfaction at that bill, but regret
that it should be accompanied by another
bill, disfranchising, at one fell swoop,"
so many as between two and three
hundred thousand of their fellow-subjects.
They stated many grounds of objection to
such a measure. He regretted exceed-
ingly that it should have been thought
necessary to accompany the bill of relief
with another bill, to which he had upon
principle many serious objections. He
should proceed to the disfranchisem'ent
bill, with a disposition to be rdieved, if
possible, from the objections which he felt
to it: but he could riot conceal, either'
from himself, or from others, that to its"
principle there were considerable Objec-





,33 -Roman -Gathalie Claimts- [ APRIL 2.1


tions; and that' as a precedent, it violated
all the principles on which the security of
private property rested. He waited
to be convinced of its necessity; feel-
ing that the abuses of the system of
the forty-shilling freeholders required cor-
rection, but not seeing that it was ne-
cessary to connect the reform of those
abuses with the Roman Catholic Relief
bill, and not being satisfied that the
abuses of the system could not be removed,
except by the.general destruction of the
franchise.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 2.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS-PETI-
TIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] The interest
excited by the expected discussion on the
Roman Catholic Relief bill collected a
great crowd round the doors of their lord-
ships' House at an early hour. Although
there was a great number of constables,
theyvcould with difficulty keep order. The
House was much crowded when the re-
poqrgt were admitted; the space below
the Throne was completely filled, as well
asthe space allotted to the public. Several
ladies were present,
JThe Marquis of Downshire said, he had
a petition to present from the Roman Ca-
tholic bishop and clergy of the diocese of
IDQomore, in favour of the Catholic claims.
ISe had no difficulty in presenting it,
knowing, as he did, the respectability of
the reverend personage whose name was
at the head of the signatures. He could,
from his own knowledge, state that Dr.
Kelly was a man of great respectability
and of unblemished character. There
were, however, clauses in the Catholic Re-
lief bill to which the doctor objected.
The Earl of Eldon said, that he had a
petition to present from a body of Protest-
ant Dissenters residing in London and
Westminster against any further conces-
sions to the Roman Catholics. He had a
similar petition to present from the under-
graduates and students of the University
of Glasgow. In presenting it he would
obi'rfve, that he was no friend to,petitions
got9tip amopg under-graduates of any uni-
veti;t but as these petitioners were sub-
jets, of his majesty, and had requested
hbji to present their petition, he held it
hls duty to comply with their request.
There n as also a petition from Kingston-
upon-HuIl, which deserved peculiar atten-
VOL. XXI.


tion, as it was signed by seven thboisand
one hundred and fifty persons. On the
noble earl's presenting a similar petition
from the undersigned clergy of Liver-'
pool,
Lord Skelmersdale said, that as he was
connected with the neighbourhood from
which that petition came, he would make
a few observations upon it. Thispetitioit
was, in its prayer and tendency, quite opt-
posite to one which had been presented
on a former evening by the right reverend
prelate. From communications which -he
had received, he was afraid that the tre
presentation which had gone abroad ret
specting the words used by the right
reverend prelate had created a consider-
able mistake, as to the views which 'he
actually entertained. The right reverend
prelate appeared to have stated, that if
any person supposed that the clergy were
inaccessible to reason, and untutored by
experience on this question, that person
was mistaken, as he had a petition to pio-:'
duce from the clergy of Liverpool, in
favour of emancipation, which proved the
reverse. Now, the inference from sucif
an assertion appeared to be, that thoief
clergymen who were opposed to conces-'
sion were inaccessible to reason, and un-;
tutored by experience; and the conse-
quence was, that such part of the clergy
of Liverpool as had not signed the former
petition, were indignant that such an'im"
putation against them should come from
their diocesan. He had great satisfiactioni
in learning, that these clergymen had'
taken offence at what the right rev. pre-
late did not say. In the observations
which the right rev. prelate had made, lihe
was speaking, not with reference to the'
clergy of his diocese, but with reference to
some observations which had been made
on the subject by a noble lord.
Lord Farnham said, he had a petition to
present to their lordships against the Irish
Freeholders' Qualification bill, from a:
Mr. Thomas Flannigan. Their lordships
would recollect, that during the last ses'.
sion they had speit a number of days inrz
investigating the alleged corruption of a
single borough, and that after their invesk:
tigation they had refused their assent to a-,
bill of disfranchisement. But now they
were about to pass a bill, hiich would
disfranchise from two hundred thousand
to three hundred thousand freeholders,
without inquiry, and without asking ai
question'of a single witness
C


-P12eltlknsfo--midi againiiit. 344






29 Roman CahoKe Clanms-' [A.IrPnI.] Petitintfor and aqaist. 3M5
these diities. The right hon. gentleman the earth-he meant the~ .mearclh of the
concluded by moving, that it was the opi- Austrian family, and also those of Spain.
nioni ef the committee that the present He believed that they were the confeasor
duties of Eteise, of five per cent on goods of Philip 2nd, of Philip 3rd, of Philip4h*,.5,,
disposed of by auction, should hereafter and of Charles 4th of Spain, :who, wami
cease and determine, and that in lieu little better than a drivelling idiot. The i
thereof the following duties be imposed : Jesuits, who were men of great talent and i
namely, ori every 1001., where the sale ability, were the confessors of these meno.
did not exceed 10,0001., 11. sterling; They educated men of high.degree; they
on every 1001., where it did exceed were the tutors of those who held high;
10,0001., but not 20,0001., 11. on the first situations in the army and in the state,
10,0001., and 10s. for every additional and thus they gained a degree of powe.
1001.; on every 1001. where the sale over individuals, which enabled them
did exceed 20,0001., but did not exceed afterwards to wield a still greater power
40,000., 15s. for the first 20,0001., and over the monarch. At the same time that
5t. on each additional 1001. on every 1001. they lived in this manner with the great,
where the sale amounted to 40,0001., and they did not neglect the lower orders; but
upwards, 10s. to the extent of 40,0001., wherever they found a clever man amongst
and for every 1001. above that amount of them, they rescued him from his obscurity,
sale. Is.; and whenever a fractional part and made him a brother of theia order.
of t 1l. should constitute part of the pro- The Jesuits were also the confessoasof
ceeds of the sale by auction, there should that weak but courageous man, Louis
be taken a duty of 21,d. in the 11. sterling. 13th, and of his son and successor, Louis
The resolutions were agreed to. 14th, whose character had been displayed
by St. Simon in its real colours. They
HOUSE OF LORDS. were severely attacked by the other orders,
Aprl 1. of the Church of Rome, in consequence of
Wednesday, l 1. the power which they thus obtained; but
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS-PETI- what, he would ask, was the reason that
TIoNs FOR AND AGAINST.] Lord Clifden they had ever had the means of acquiring
said, he had a petition to present, and as such power? The ignorance of the differ.
it was of a peculiar nature, he would take ent ages in which they lived. In that day
the liberty of saying a few words respect- there was no public press to expose their
ing its contents. The petition was against designs. The public press was the enemy -
that clause of the bill for the removal of of the society of the Jesuits. They had
the disabilities affecting our Roman Ca- been protected and encouraged in France
tholic fellow subjects, which gave to the by Charles 10th, but notwithstanding such
government power over the Jesuits, and protection, the power of the press had
the other monastic institutions in Great beaten them down. Supposing the Jesuits
Britain. It was signed by one. of the best were ever to gain a footing in the country,
and most honest men in his majesty's could they ever hope to withstand :the
dominions, than whom he believed there attacks of The Times," or of any other
was not, either in the House or out of the paper conducted with equal ability and
House, a man who more ardently wished success ? It was impossible that they .
for the peace, of Ireland, the security of could. There were at present only two
this kingdom, and the general prosperity establishments of Jesuits in the. United.
of the empire; he meant Dr. James Doyle, Kingdom-the one in Ireland, the otler-
the Roman Catholic bishop of Kildare and at Stonyhurst, in Lancashire. He unddr.
Leighlin. He was sorry that such a clause stood that all round the neighbourhood of:
was inserted, for it disfigured a bill, which those places the Jesuits were universally.
was one of the most useful and beneficial respected as good instructors of youthhi.:
bills which ever came before parliament, and as charitable and humane membersiofi!
As he understood the clause, the great society. He had no doubt-that tha ihobt
object of it was, to exclude the Jesuits duke at the head of the government an4d
from this country. That the Jesuits of those who were now joined with. hinriinwi
old were in possession of vast power, all the administration of affairs,,.would& use.,
their lordships knew well: they were the with great temper and moderation .the',
confessors of sovereigns, who were the power against these men, whiah waswgirhi;.
weakest ,mortals that 'ever walked upon I them by this clause ofthe bilL. Henotstel -






,3 Romaan Catholic Cai~ms- [LORDS,] Petitionsfoa dagesum. IN,


[Here there was a loud cry for the
"order of the day," which was met by
similar cries of gp on, go on : more pe-
titions."]
Lord Kenyon rose to order. Noble
lords, he said, had raised a great clamour
in calling upon them, when a bill of
greater consequence was before them than
any which had been introduced into par-
liament since the year 1689, to proceed to
the order of the day without hearing the
petitions against it from hundreds of thou-
sands of the people, Much as he felt
ashamed of the House, on account of the
resolution to which their lordships had
come the other night at the instance of
the noble duke, who wished them to pro-
ceed forthwith with this bill, he should feel
still more ashamed, if their lordships, on
accoant of the intense interest which it ex-
cited throughout the country, and of the
hundreds, of petitions which now called
upon them not to subvert the Protestant
religion, for the preservation of which his
majesty's family was placed on that
throne, and front the continued support
of which his majesty derives his only right
to sit, upon that throne [cries of hear,"
amid louder cries of order," which caused
the noble baron to pause, and leave the
sentence incomplete. He then proceeded.]
He trusted that noble lords would give
him credit for the best intentions, and that
if he was not so correct in his expressions
as many of their lordships, who were
more in the habit of addressing the House,
they would male every allowance for his
inexperience. Jt was consistent with or-
dinary courtesy, for noble lords to con-
ceive that his meaning was right, when
two different interpretations could be put
upon his words. At this time, when
greater interest was felt by the people
upon this question, than had ever been
felt on any other question within his re-
membrance, their lordships were called
upon to proceed to the order of the day,
without deigning to pay the slightest at-
tention to the petitions of hundreds of
thousands of their supplicating country-
men. He hoped that their lordships would
not be led away by the dictation of some,
or by the clamour of others. The petitions
of the people were entitled to attention,
and there was no time during which they
could be so fitly considered as the time
when their lqrdships were going to pass
the bill against which these petitions were
directed. If. they turned a deaf ear to


these petitions, it would be most indeent
conduct; and if any thing could add to
the discontent which was felt by the ew-
ple at the intention of government to
make these changes in the constitution,
after every thing had been done to lull the
nation into security, and to induce it to
suppose that no such innovations were in-
tended, it would be the refusal of their
lordships to attend to their petitions. That
was the only aggravation which could:be
added to the grievances of the people: but
that aggravation he trusted they would
not receive [hear, hear].
There was then a cry of Go on with
petitions."
Earl Beauchamp said, that on Thursday
he had presented a petition from the
parish of St. John, Worcester, against asy
further concession to the Catholics. 4
noble lord had then thought proper to
comment, in terms of great severity,, on
the manner in which that petition had
been procured, and on the conduct of a
reverend gentleman, whom he accused as
the principal agent in procuring it. He
had received a letter from the individual
whose conduct had been impugned, deny-
ing the imputations which had been east
upon him. The individual had requested
him to read his letter to their lordships.
The Duke of Wellington rose to order.
Earl Beauchamp hoped the noble duks
would not object to his reading the let,
ter.
The Duke of Wellington.-Personally,
I have no objection to hear the letter read;
but the forms of the House, as there is no
motion before it, render it highly irregu-
lar.
Lord Rolle.-Then I beg to move an
adjournment.
The Duke of Wellington.-If the noble
earl is going to present a petition, or if he
is going to make a motion upon a peti-
tion, the House will listen to him with
pleasure; but if the noble earl is only
going to read a letter, then I must say that
it will be much more regular to proceed
at once with other petitions.
Earl Beauchamp. -There is now a mo+
tion to adjourn, and so I have a rightto
go on. The rev. gentleman, whose letter
I am going to read, writes as follows
[cries of" No, no :-" I am sorry to say,
that I perceive by the newspapersthat.ob-i
servations were made on my conduct,iAn:
the House of Lords"- :
Lord Goderich.-The noble eafl iatowri





,33 -Roman -Gathalie Claimts- [ APRIL 2.1


tions; and that' as a precedent, it violated
all the principles on which the security of
private property rested. He waited
to be convinced of its necessity; feel-
ing that the abuses of the system of
the forty-shilling freeholders required cor-
rection, but not seeing that it was ne-
cessary to connect the reform of those
abuses with the Roman Catholic Relief
bill, and not being satisfied that the
abuses of the system could not be removed,
except by the.general destruction of the
franchise.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 2.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS-PETI-
TIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] The interest
excited by the expected discussion on the
Roman Catholic Relief bill collected a
great crowd round the doors of their lord-
ships' House at an early hour. Although
there was a great number of constables,
theyvcould with difficulty keep order. The
House was much crowded when the re-
poqrgt were admitted; the space below
the Throne was completely filled, as well
asthe space allotted to the public. Several
ladies were present,
JThe Marquis of Downshire said, he had
a petition to present from the Roman Ca-
tholic bishop and clergy of the diocese of
IDQomore, in favour of the Catholic claims.
ISe had no difficulty in presenting it,
knowing, as he did, the respectability of
the reverend personage whose name was
at the head of the signatures. He could,
from his own knowledge, state that Dr.
Kelly was a man of great respectability
and of unblemished character. There
were, however, clauses in the Catholic Re-
lief bill to which the doctor objected.
The Earl of Eldon said, that he had a
petition to present from a body of Protest-
ant Dissenters residing in London and
Westminster against any further conces-
sions to the Roman Catholics. He had a
similar petition to present from the under-
graduates and students of the University
of Glasgow. In presenting it he would
obi'rfve, that he was no friend to,petitions
got9tip amopg under-graduates of any uni-
veti;t but as these petitioners were sub-
jets, of his majesty, and had requested
hbji to present their petition, he held it
hls duty to comply with their request.
There n as also a petition from Kingston-
upon-HuIl, which deserved peculiar atten-
VOL. XXI.


tion, as it was signed by seven thboisand
one hundred and fifty persons. On the
noble earl's presenting a similar petition
from the undersigned clergy of Liver-'
pool,
Lord Skelmersdale said, that as he was
connected with the neighbourhood from
which that petition came, he would make
a few observations upon it. Thispetitioit
was, in its prayer and tendency, quite opt-
posite to one which had been presented
on a former evening by the right reverend
prelate. From communications which -he
had received, he was afraid that the tre
presentation which had gone abroad ret
specting the words used by the right
reverend prelate had created a consider-
able mistake, as to the views which 'he
actually entertained. The right reverend
prelate appeared to have stated, that if
any person supposed that the clergy were
inaccessible to reason, and untutored by
experience on this question, that person
was mistaken, as he had a petition to pio-:'
duce from the clergy of Liverpool, in
favour of emancipation, which proved the
reverse. Now, the inference from sucif
an assertion appeared to be, that thoief
clergymen who were opposed to conces-'
sion were inaccessible to reason, and un-;
tutored by experience; and the conse-
quence was, that such part of the clergy
of Liverpool as had not signed the former
petition, were indignant that such an'im"
putation against them should come from
their diocesan. He had great satisfiactioni
in learning, that these clergymen had'
taken offence at what the right rev. pre-
late did not say. In the observations
which the right rev. prelate had made, lihe
was speaking, not with reference to the'
clergy of his diocese, but with reference to
some observations which had been made
on the subject by a noble lord.
Lord Farnham said, he had a petition to
present to their lordships against the Irish
Freeholders' Qualification bill, from a:
Mr. Thomas Flannigan. Their lordships
would recollect, that during the last ses'.
sion they had speit a number of days inrz
investigating the alleged corruption of a
single borough, and that after their invesk:
tigation they had refused their assent to a-,
bill of disfranchisement. But now they
were about to pass a bill, hiich would
disfranchise from two hundred thousand
to three hundred thousand freeholders,
without inquiry, and without asking ai
question'of a single witness
C


-P12eltlknsfo--midi againiiit. 344






V1 NuwmaCa h &uAfUc OWi (Ann itl Piflons fot-r ad dagantS. MC


tEarny eat af order. Though he may'
hare right to read a letter to us, he
*mnt, confortnably with long-established
practice, read to us a letter commenting
on a speech which the writer says was de-
livetrd in this House by one of your lord-
ships. Every man has a right to justify
his conduct; but no one ever took the
tmethod of justifying himself before your
lordships which is now attempted to be
taken by this rev. gentleman.
Earl Grey said, he apprehended that
nothing could be more irregular or more
irreconcileable with the ordinary course
of their lordships' proceedings, than the
line of conduct which had just been
adopted by the noble earl. An order had
been recently made, to prevent the tu-
tweltuous assemblages, which sometimes
took plate round the table, when noble
itrdA ad petition to present; and a regu-
latiot, which was new, at least here, had
bete framed for the greater order of their
proceedings, by which it was directed,
that every peer who had a petition to pre-
sent should, for the convenience of the
House, put his name down upon a paper,
and be called upon by the clerk in his
turn. That regulation was not intended
to give any person who had put his name
down upon the list an opportunity for
making a motion upon any other subject;
least of all, for producing a letter, com-
menting on what the writer had read as
passing among their lordships, to the
interruption of those proceedings of which
the greater regularity was intended to be
established. He hoped the noble earl
would not persevere in attempting to make
an explanation, which he could easily find
an opportunity of making upon another
night. The noble earl, conformably to
the order of the House, had no right to
insert his name on the petition list, as he
had no petition to present. It was for
the convenience of the House to see that
regularity was preserved; and it would
be a palpable contravention of their recent
order, if noble lords could insert their
names on the petition list for objects so
different from it, and for purposes incon-
sistent, at any time, with the regularity
of their proceedings. He therefore hoped
that the noble earl would reserve his ex-
planation for another time, when be would
be equally in a condition to give it, and
that he would not prevent the House from
proceeding instantly to discuss the im-
yrtvat bill which was then before it.-


As he was upon his legs, he would shortly
-advert to some of the observations which
had fallen from the noble baron on the
cross-bench. He could assure the noble
baron, that he was not one of those who
would concur in any indecent exclusion
of the petitions of the people. So far
from seeking to exclude them from the
notice of their lordships, he would afford
every facility to the presentation of them;
but if he saw reason to believe, that at-
tempts were making, by means of petiF
tions, to delay the ulterior proceedings of
the House upon this bill-if he saw reason
to believe, that petitions were accumulated
upon petitions for this occasion, when ant
equally convenient period for presenting
them occurred last night, Without any
advantage being taken of it-if he saw
reason to believe, that petitions were tao
offered to the House for the purpose of
creating delay, and for no other purpose,
he would put himself forward at once,
and, regardless of the taunts to which he
might be exposed, as acting with indecent
haste, and undeterred by the calumniie*
which would, of course, await him, he
would deprecate the use of arts which
were resorted to, not so much with an
intention to forward the petitions of the
people, as with an intention to embarrass
the progress of government. The House
yesterday was almost totally unoccupied
by business. He had come down to it
with two important petitions, in order
that he might not impede the progress of
businessbypresentingthem to-day. Hardly
any peers were then present; and if any
of them should now complain, that the
petitions of the people were not heard, it
was entirely owing to their own negligence;
and that, if the House intended to con-
sult its own character and dignity, it
would call for the order of the day.-The
noble baron on the cross-bench had also
told their lordships, that he was ashamed
of the proceedings of the House on the
evening before last; and that he should
be still more ashamed, if the House did
not wait to receive the petitions of the
people. He certainly was not one of those
who felt much affected with the shame
which the noble baron seemed to think
was the natural consequence of their for-
mer proceedings; for, to speak the truth,
he cordially concurred in them. He cor-
dially concurred in that indecent haste
which the noble baron had censured
so severely. He said that no indecent
C2






[LORDS;] Petitions for and against. AO


.haste had been exhibited either by the
,House or by any member of the House.
.It was impossible to suppose, that their
,lordships were not, one and all, prepared
for the discussion of to-night, on the
principle of relieving their Roman Catho-
lic fellow-subjects from their civil disa-
bilities. A question which had now been
debated almost annually for the last thirty
years, which had been in various shapes
so long before the House, which for the
last two months had given rise to inci-
-dental debates every day, could not be
considered as a novel question, and there-
fore they could not justly be accused of
seeking to take the House by surprise.
.He well knew that there were some, not,
.he trusted, now in the House, who were
.anxious that that decision should not now
take place. The delay called for could
*not he wanted for deliberation; could-not
be wanted for any purpose of fair dis-
cussion : no, it was wanted for the
purpose of .inflaming the public mind,
.by the' dissemination of the most false
and infamous placards; it was wanted
to produce irritation, consternation, and
dismay, which he trusted that no noble
lord had ever encouraged any man to
produce. He felt himself called upon to
denounce such attempts in the strongest
language. He trusted that they would
fail in producing any effect ; but if they
did produce any effect, it must be in dis-
turbing the public tranquillity, and in
exciting the people to those disgraceful
scenes-thank God, they had too firm a
government to fear a recurrence of them
-which the metropolis witnessed amidst
the flames and riots which signalized the
year 1780. He could not help saying thus
much; and if noble lords who had peti-
tions to present had neglected to present
them when the time of; the House was
unoccupied, he hoped they would withhold
them to some more convenient opportu-
nity, which would arise for their considera-
tion before the passing of the bill. He
also hoped that they would not be deter-
red by artifices of this nature from pro-
ceeding to the discussion which was fixed
for that evening, and which was most
anxiously expected by the public.
The Earl of Eldon said, that the noble
earl knew him well enough to be aware,
that he was not likely to disgrace himself
by endeavouring to produce any unneces-
sary delay in the discussion of an import-
ant, measure likp the present. The fact


was,- that the last time he was ii the
House, he had brought down the ;very
petitions which he had just presented,
but he did not present them because
there were only four peers in the House.
He never would act such a part to; those
who intrusted him with their petitions, as
to present them when there were oply
four peers present, and when he could not
make even those four peers listen to, what
he might say. He certainly had delayed
the presentation of them till to-night.; but
if he had wished to create delay, he
should have brought down three times the
number of petitions; andhe could assure
the House, that he now hadthat numberr
safe at home.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, he was
most anxious to learn whether the ob-
servation of the noble earl (Grey) upon
the motives which had led to the different
proposals for delay, were intended to ap-
ply to the motion which he .had made
the other night for the postponement of
the second reading of the Catholic Relief
Bill.
Earl Grey-No, no.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, that
that declaration relieved his mind from
considerable anxiety; for it appeared.tp
him, that the noble earl had accused him
of seeking delay, for .other objects, than
those which he had professed ,Now,
he had the deepest respect for the,.,peti-
tions of the people, but he would not, for
the sake of procuring them, condescend
to appeal to their passions.. He had made
his motion for the further postponement
of the second reading of the bill, from ,a
regard to the dignity and character of
their lordships' proceedings. Did not
their lordships see the inconvenience to
which they had exposed themselves by
their extraordinary precipitancy? Only
one day had elapsed since the first read-
ing of that bill; and what was,that day ?
One of those days on' which, by courtesy
and the wholesome practice of parliament
ministers were allowed to be absent from
their places in both Houses.
Earl Grey said:- I can assure the
noble earl, with the utmost truth and siuw
cerity, that no man is less disposed than
I am to cast aspersions on the purity of
his motives. I have had too long a know
ledge of his character, too long ,an .ex-
perience of his conduct, to doubt the
truth of his assertion, that he is actuated
by nothing but a sense of duty.and .a 'er


,39 Aoman Catholic Vlai*-~-






'41 Roian C atolic


guard' to the dignity of our proceedings.
I.therefore disclaim any design to throw
the slightest imputation on the conduct
of'the noble earl. I declared myself to
be against delay, because I knew that it
would be used, not by the noble earl, or
by any of your lordships, but by persons
out of doors, to, inflame and irritate the
public mind. I said, so distinctly [cries
of No']. I think I said. so; but if any
of your lordships misunderstood me, I
am glad to have this opportunity to set
myself right. I hope that no peer will
join in any such attempts as I denounced ;
but that such attempts have been made,
and are still making, to excite the passions
.of. the people to a degree which, if suc-
cessful,. will be most disastrous, I did
maintain, and.to whatever imputations it
may expose:, me,. I will still continue to
maintain.. At the same time I repeat,
that I had not any intention to impute the
slightest blame to the noble earl.
The motion of adjournment was with-
drawn.
The Bishop of St. David's presented
several petitions from Wales against fur-
ther concession to the Catholics. The
right ieverend prelate said, he could not
agree in the prayer of the petitions; for
he thought the time was arrived when a
subject which had been so long agitated
should be set at rest. He would give his
support- to the. measures before the House,
because he, thought the admission of
Roman Catholics to civil privileges was
not onlynot incompatible with the main-
tenance of the constitution and the Pro-
testant establishments of the country, but
would tend to strengthen those establish-
ments, by uniting all. parties in attachment
to the constitution and establishments of
the country..

'ROMA- CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] On
the motion of the duke of Wellington, the
order of the day was read for the second
reading-of this bill. The order of the
day being accordingly read,
The Duke of Wellington: rose- and ad-
dressed their' lordships as follows :-
It-is now my duty to move your lordships
to read thi bill a second time, and to
explain.to your lordships the: grounds on
which I recommend this.measure:to your
lordships' attention. I.may-be under: the
necessity of requesting a larger portion:of
yoiirtime and attention, upon this oc-
aionri,thnI rhavehitherto beeniathe habit


of doing;' butT assure you, my lords,:that it
is not my intention to take up one instant
of your time with respect to:myself, or my
own conduct in this transaction, any'fur-
ther than to express my. regret, that I
should differ in opinion on this subject
from so many of those for whom I enter-
tain the highest respect and regard. I
must, however, state, that I consider the
part which I have taken upon this" subject
as the performance of a public duty; abso-
lutely incumbent upon' me; and 'I will
say, that no private regard, no respect for
the opinion of any noble lord, could" in-
duce me to depart from the course which
I have considered it my duty to adopt. I
must likewise say this-that, comparing
my own opinions.with that of others, upon
this subject, I have, during the period I
have been in office, had opportunities of
forming a judgment upon, this subject,
which others have not possessed;. and
they will admit, that I should not have
given the opinion I have given, if I was
not intimately and firmly persuaded that
that opinion was a just one.
My lords, the point which' I shall first
bring under your lordships' consideration
is the state of Ireland. I know :that,.by
some, it has been considered that the state
of Ireland has nothing to do with this
question-that it is a subject which ought
to be left entirely out of our consideration.
My lords, they tell, us, that Ireland has
been disturbed for the last thirty years-
that it is a disturbance we have been ac-
customed to-and that therefore it does
not at all alter the circumstances: of the
case, as they have hitherto, appeared to
this House. My lords, it is perfectly true
that Ireland has: been disturbed during
the long period I have stated; .but within
the lastyear or twopolitical circumstances ,
have, in no small degree, occasioned. that
agitation. Besides that, my lords, I must
say,-although I have no positive legal
proof of the fact,-I have every reason to
believe, that there has been a considerable
organization of the people, for the pur-
poses of mischief. My lords; this organi-
zation is, it appears to me, to be proved,
not only by the declarationsof those who
formed and who arranged it; but likewise
by the:.effects which it has produced in
the election of churchwardens throughout
.the country-in the circumstances attend-
ing the election for the county of Cl're-
in the circumstances' that preceded;:and
followed that electionia-.te proceedings


,Relif Bill.,-, 42


[ APttrL 2. ]






*a Reman ChAolic


*f the gentleman who went at the head of
a body of men to the north of Ireland-
in the simultaneous proceedings of various
bodies of men in the south of Ireland, in
Templemore, Killenaule, Cahir, Clonmel,
and other places-in the proceedings of
another gentleman in the king's county;
and in the real of the former gentleman
from the north of Ireland by the Roman
Catholie Association. In all these cir-
eumstances it is quite ,obvious to me,
that there was an organization and direc-
tion of the people, proceeding from some
superior authority; and this organization
has certainly produced a;state of society
in Ireland which we have not heretofore
.witnessed, and an aggravation of all the
evils which had before afflicted that un-
fortunate country. #
My lords, late in the year a consider-
able town was attacked in the middle of
the night by a body of people who came
from the neighboring mountains-the
town of Augher. They attacked it with
arms, and were driven from it with arms
by the inhabitants of /the town. This is
a state of things which I feel your lord-
ships will admit ought not to exist in a
civilized country. Later in the year still,
a similar event occurred in Charleville;
and, in the course of last autumn, the
Roman Catholic Association deliberated
upon the propriety of adopting, and the
means of adopting, the measure of ceas-
ing all dealings between Roman Catholics
and Protestants. Is it possible to believe
that supposing these dealings had ceased
-supposing this measure had been carried
into execution-asi I firmly believe it was
in the power of those who deliberated upon
it to carry it into execution-is it possible
to believe, that those who could thus cease
these dealings would not likewise have
ceased to carry into execution the con-
tracts into which they had entered? Will
any man say, that people in this situation
are not verging towards that state, in which
it would be impossible to expect from them
that they would be able to perform the
duties of jurymen, or to administer justice
between man and man, for the protection
of the lives and properties of his majesty's
subjects? My lords, this is the state of
society to which I have wished to draw
your attention, and for which it is neces-
sary that parliament should provide a
remedy.
Before I proceed to coanider what those
remedies should be, I wish just t show


your lordships what is the effct of this
state of society upon the king's presoga-
tire. My lords, his majesty codud not
create a peer; and the reason he cedui
not create a peer was this-his iajesty
servants could not venture to recommend
to him to incur the risks of an election in
another part of the country, and the risks
which might have attended any accident
at that election, which might have eI-
casioned the shedding of blood. Sceh a
disaster must have been produetive of an
immediate civil war in the country; but
not only was that the ease, my lords, but
I confess that I had the strongest bjeo-
tion to give another triumph to the Roman
Catholic Association. Then we are asked
"why do you not carry the law into
execution ?" Why, my lords, in ah tht I
have stated hitherto there was no resist-
ance to the law. The magistrates were
terrified, and did nothing; the troops did
not happen immediately to be upon the
spot, and there was no resistaea.. There
were no troops, except in the case of' the
procession that went to the north of Ire-
land. I believe there was no insttae of
any opposition to the, king's troops, and
there was no instance in which the law
could be carried into execution. When
we hear noble lords reproaching the goVernl
ment for not carrying into execntits the
law in Ireland, as it was carried into
execution in England, the observation
shows that they do not understand the
state of things in Ireland. The truth of
the matter is, that in England, when the
law was carried into execution, i the yefar
1819, a large body of persons assembled
for an illegal purpose: they resisted the
order of the magistrates to disperse, and
having resisted that order, the magistrates
ordered the troops to disperse them ; but
in this7case there were no circumstances of
the same kind: no order was given to dis-
perse; no order could be given to dis-
perse--because no magistrates were pre-
sent; and, if they had been present, thete
were no troops to disperse them. The
-truth s, the state of society was such as
rendered these events possible every htar;
and it was impossible that the m .agisates
could be at every spot, and at all times to
:put an end to these outrages, which Wraly
are a disgrace to the country in which they
exist. But, my lords, neithe the law nor
the means in the possession of govers ent
enable govertmert to pat an end to tgee
thns. It war ieeaar, threfOre to


R)tief Bttt.


[LORDS, ]






fEif tfhal.


eme te parliament. Now, let us seewhat
chanee there was of providing a remedy'
for this state of things by coming to parlia-
ment. My lords, we all recollect perfectly
well, that the opinion of the majority in
another place is, that the remedy for this
state of things in Ireland is a repeal of the
disabilities affecting his majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects. We might, to be sure,
have come and asked parliament to enable
us to put down the Roman Catholic Asso-
oiationi but what chance had we of pre-
vailing upon parliament to pass such a bill
as that, without being prepared to come
forward and state that we were ready to
consider the whole condition of Ireland,
with a view to apply a remedy to that
which parliament had stated to be the
cause of the disease. Suppose that parlia-
ment had given us the bill to put down the
Roman Catholic Association, would such
a law as that which has passed this year
be a remedy for the state of things which I
have already described to your lordships as
existing in Ireland? Would it, I ask, do
any one thing towards putting an end to
the organization which I have stated to
your lordships to exist? Would it do any
thing towards putting down the mischiefs
which are the consequences of that organi-
zation ? Would it do any thing towards
giving you the means of getting a better
state of things in Ireland, without some
further measure to be adopted? But,
my lords, it is said, if that will not
do, let us proceed to blows." What, I
suppose, is meant by proceeding to blows"
is coming to civil war. Now, I believe
that every government must be prepared to
carry into execution the laws of the coun-
try by the force placed at its disposition-
by the military force, in case that should
be necessary; and above all things, to
oppose resistance to the law, in case the
disaffected or the ill-disposed are inclined
to resist the authority or sentence of the
law; but as I have already stated to your
lordships, there was no resistance of the
law ;-nay, more, Iwill go further, and say,
I am positively certain, that this state of
things- existing in Ireland for the last year
and a half, bordering upon civil war-being
attended by nearly all the evils of civil
wau-might have continued a considerable
tiae longer, to the great injury and dis-
grace of the country, and those who man-
aged the state, if they would have taken
tare to prevent that resistance which might
hWe ended in that state of things being
A


put down. They know as well as I do
they are not strong enough to wrestle with
the king's government, backed by the law;
they know perfectly well they would have
been the first victims of that resistance;
but knowing this, and knowing, as I do,
that they are sensible, able men, and per-
fectly aware of the materials upon which
they have to work, I have not the smallest
doubt that the state of things which I have
stated to your lordships would have con-
tinued for years, and that you would never
have had an opportunity of putting it
down in the manner some noble lords
imagine. But, my lords, even if I had
been certain of possessing such means of
putting it down, I should certainly have
considered it my duty to avoid resorting
to those means. I arn one of those who
have probably passed a longer period of
my life engaged in war than most men,
and principally, I may say, in civil war;
and I must say this-that if I could avoid,
by any sacrifice whatever, even one month
of civil war in the country to which I am
attached, I would sacrifice my life in order
to do it [cheers]. I say that there is
nothing which destroys property and pros-
perity, and demoralizes character, to the
degree that civil war does: by it the hand
of man is raised against his neighbour,
against his brother, and against his father;
the servant betrays his master, and the
whole scene ends in confusion and devast-
ation. Yet,my lords, this is the resource
to which we must have looked-these ar"
the means to which we must have applied,
in order to have put an end to this state of
things, if we had not made the option of
bringing forward the measures, for which I
hold myself responsible.
But let us look a little further, my lords.
If civil war is so bad, when it is occasioned
by resistance to the government-if it is
so bad in the case I have stated, and so
much to be avoided-how much more is
it to be avoided when we have to arm the
people, in order that we may conquer one
part of them by exciting the other part
against them? My lords, I am sure
there is not a man who hears me, whose-
blood would not shudder at such a pro-
position, if it were made to him ; and yet
that is the resource to which we should be
pushed at last, by continuing the course
we have been adopting for the last few
years. However, I entreat your lordships
not only to look at it in this view, but
likewise to revert a little to what passed


44 Am" &tkelic~Bti


[Alttm 2.j






47 Roman Cantolic


ot a former similar occasion. My lords
I am old enough to remember the rebellion
in. 1798. I was not employed in Ireland
at: the time, I was employedd in another
part of the dominions ;I but, my lords, if I
am niot mistaken, the parliament of Ire-
land at that time went up to the lord
lieutenant with a unanimous address, (I
believe they walked up in a body) be-
seeching his excellency to take every
means to put down that unnatural rebel-
lion, and promising their full support in
order to carry that measure into execution.
Th. lord lieutenant did take those mea-
sures, and did succeed in putting down
that rebellion. Well, 'y lords, what hap-
pened in the very next session? The go-
vernment proposed to put an end to the
Irish parliament, and to form a legislative
union between the two kingdoms, for the
principal purpose of proposing this very
measure [cheers]; and in point of fact,
the very first measure that was proposed
after this legislative union-after those
suqcqssful endeavours to put down this
rebellion was the very measure with
which I am now about to trouble your
lordships. Why, then, I ask, is it possible
noble lords can believe that, supposing
there was such a contest as that which
I; have anticipated-is it possible noble
lords can believe that such. a contest could
be carried on, much less brought to a
conclusion, without the measure which I
now propose being insisted on by one at
least,- if not both Houses of parliament ?
I am certain, my lord when your lord-
ships look at the division of opinion which
prevails in both Houses of parliament
upon this question,-when you look at the
division of opinion which prevails in every
family in this country and in Ireland, from
the most eminent in station down to the
lowest,-when you look at the division of
opinion;which prevails amongst even the
Protestants of Ireland-when your lord-
ships look at these circumstances, I am
sure you will perceive the vast difference
there would be between a contest carried
on; now, and that which was carried on at
a former period.
i, y lords, I beg your lordships to re-
collect that, upon a recent occasion, there
was a: Protestant Declaration of the senti-
ments,of Ireland. As I said before, the
parliament of Ireland, in the year 1798,
with the. exception of one or two persons,
were unanimous; and, on a recent occa-
siothlere were seven marauies, twenty-.


seven earls, a vast number of peers of
other ranks, and not less than two thou-
sand Protestant gentlemen of property in
the country, who signed the Declaration,
stating the absolute necessity of making
these concessions. Under these circum-
stances it is, that this contest would have
been carried on-circumstances totally
different from those which existed at the
period I before alluded to. But, is it pos,
sible to believe that parliament would
allow such a contest to go on ? Is it pos-
sible to believe that parliament, having
this state of things before them-that this
House, seeing what the opinion of the
other*House of parliament is-seeing what
the opinion of the large number of Pro-
testants in Ireland is-seeing- what, the
opinion of nearly every statesman, for the
last forty years, has been on this question
-would continue to oppose,itself to mea-
sures brought forward for its settlement ?
It appears to me absolutely impossible
that we could have gone on longer, with-
out increasing difficulties being brought
on the country.
But it is very desirable that your lord-
ships should look a little to what benefit
is to be derived, to any one class in the
state, by continuing the disabilities, anid
only taking those coercive measures which
will have all the evils which I have stated.
We are told, that the benefit .will be to
preserve the principles of the constitution
of 1688-that the measures of 1688 per-
manently excluded Roman Catholics from
parliament and that they being so
permanently excluded from parliament,
it is necessary to have recourse to
all those evils, in order to keep up
that permanent exclusion. Now, I
wish very much that noble lords would
take upon themselves the trouble I have
taken to see how the matter stands as to
the permanent exclusion of Roman Ca-
tholics from parliament. My lords, in
the Bill of Rights, there-are some things
permanently enacted, which sincerely
hope will be permanent;-those are, the
liberties of the people; the security for
the Protestantism of the person on the
throne of these kingdoms, and that he
shall not be married to a papist. Then
there is an Oath of Allegiance and Supre-
macy to. be taken by all: those of whom
that Oath of Allegiance is required, which
is also permanent; but thereis no Decla-
ration against Transubstantiation. There
is also an Oath of Allegiance, different


Relief Billk-. 4-9


[ LORDS, ]






da Romtant Craolic


from that which, is required to, be: taken,
by a member of parliament. I beg your
lordships will observe that, although this
Oath of Allegiance was declared to be
permanent, it was altered in the reign of
William and Mary. This shows what that
permanent act was. Then, with respect
tp.the: oaths to be taken, by members of
parliament, I beg your lordships, to ob-
serv,, that these oaths, the Declaration
against Transubstantiation, and the sacri-
ficeeof the mass, are not in the act of Wil-
liam 3rd but in the act of 30th Charles
2nd. During the reign of Charles 2nd,
there were certain oaths imposed, first on
Dissenters from the Church of England,
by the 13th and 14th Charles 2nd, and to
exclude Roman Catholics, 'by the 25th,
and 430th Charles 2nd. At the period of
the Revolution, when king William came,
he thought proper to. extend the basis of
his government, and he repealed the oaths
affecting the Dissenters from the Church
of England, imposed by the 13th and
14th Charles 2nd, and likewise that
affirmative part of the Oath of Supremacy,
which Dissenters from the Church of
England could not take. This is the his-
tory of the, alteration of these oaths by
William 3rd, from the time of Charles
2nd. But, my lords, the remainder of
the oath could be taken by Dissenters,
but could not be taken by Roman Catho-
lics. The danger, with respect to Roman
Catholics, had originated in the time of
Charles 2nd, and these oaths still existed
in the time of William 3rd; but the oath
was altered, because one of the great
principles of the. Revolution was, to limit
the exclusion from the benefits of the
constitution as far as it was possible.
Therefore we have the great principle of
the Revolution, as well as the principle I
before stated, which consisted of the Bill
of Rights and liberties of the subject.
Now, the noble lords state, that what they
call the principles of 1688-that is to say,
these oaths excluding Roman Catholics-
are, equally permanent with the Bill of
Rights, by which the Protestantism of the
Crown is secured. If noble lords,will do
me the favour to, look at the words of the
act- I have it ready-they will, find that
the difference between, the two, things is
just the difference between that which is
permanent and that which is not. The
bill of Rights declares that the Pro-
testantism of the Crown, shall last for
ver-rthat the liberties of the people shaUl


be secured for, eyer;- but it is remarkable,.
that as to these oaths which were enacted,
on the same occasion,. not one word is;
said about their lasting for ever, or as, to,
how long they should last.
Well, then, my lords, what follows ?
The next act we have is the Act' of Union
with Scotland; and what doesithat: act
say ?-Why, that the oaths to be taken:
by the members of parliament are to be.
laid down by the1.st of William and Mary.
until parliament shall otherwise direct.
This is what is called a permanent act
of parliament-a permanent provision, for
all future periods, to exclude Catholics
from seats in parliament!" My lords, I,
beg to observe, that if the act which ex-
cludes Roman Catholics from seats: in,
parliament is permanent, there is another,
clause (I believe the.10th of chap. 8,,lstof
William and Mary) which requires officers
of the. army and navy to take these. very
oaths, previous to their acceptance of their
commissions. Now, if the act made, in
the first year of William and Mary, which
excludes Roman Catholics from. parlia-
ment, is permanent, I should like to, ask
noble lords w4y the clause in that act, is
not equally permanent? I should like to
ask the noble and learned lord- on the.
cross-bench to answer that. question. If
the oaths were permanent in,the one case
they were equally so in the, other; and
yet the noble and learned lord consented
to the bill of 1817, which repealed oaths
required to. be taken by officers, of the
army and navy. I suppose the noble and
learned, lord will answer my question, by
saying, that one act was permanent and
ought to be permanently maintained, but
that the other act was not permanent, and
the parliament did right in repealing it in.
1817. But the truth of the matter is,
that neither act was intended to be per-
manent. The parliament of queen. Ann
recognized, by the Act of Union, that the
first act, relating to seats in parliament,
was not permanent; and the noble and:
learned lord did quite right, when hecon-
sented to the act of 181.7,. which put an
end to the 10th clause of the 1st of Will.
3rd, chap. 8. Then, if this principle of
exclusion-if this principle of the consti-
tution of 1688, as it is called--be not
permanent, if it be recognized to be not:
permanent, not only by the Act of Union:
with Scotland (in which it is said,. that the,
exclusive,oath shall continue until parlia-.
'nrent otherwise provide), but also. bythes


[ APr u 2. ]


Relief Bil..







ldt t, Of Unioii With Ireland, I wauld
iJ*~ tr l~ fdhips, whether you are not
M iblty titO it consider the expediency
6of eilng awaywilh it altogether, iti order
to relieve the counttty from the incon-
teiiends to which I have already ad-
v*tWd? I would ask your loidships,
~heter you are not called upon to review
tsh stat of the representation of Ireland
-whether you Ate not called upon to see,
whltheri even supposing that that. principle
wewe a permanent one, it be fit that par-
ldit~lt should remain as it has remained
fef rofft time g~oatintg under a popish
i"auence exereised by the priests over the
deetions in Ireland. I would ask your
lolaships I repeat, whether it be not right
st Make ai arrangement, which has for its
dbJetj riot only the settlement of this
tiastiofl, bitt at the same time to relieve
the country from the inconveniences which
I hfle mentioned. I have already stated
tdJ iflader in which the organization I
hv6 already alluded to works upon all
Agte eat interests of the country ; but I
ws yottri Iordships particularly to attend
fO the mafrner in which it words upon the
Ohuivh itself. That part ofethd Church of
UBgland which exists in Irelahid is in a
vty peculiar situation i it is the church of
ite minority of the people. At the same
time, I believe, that a more exemplary, a
more pious, and a more learned body of
men, than the members of that church do
ot sxisi. The clergy of that church cer-
talaly enjoy and deserve the affections of
thtee whoAn they were sent to instruct,
to the same degree as their brethren in
England enjoy the affections of the people
of this country ; and I have no doubt that
they would, if necessary, shed the last
drop of their blood in defence of the doc-
tinds and discipline of their church. But
violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect
the interests of that church and I would
put it to the House, whether that church
sin be better protected from violence by
egoverntient united in itself, united with
parliament, and united in Sentiment with
she great body of the pe6ple-or by a
government disunited in opinion, disunited
ft, parliament, and by the two Houses
of parliament disunited. I am certain
that no man can look at the situation of
Jrtland, without seeing that the interest
of the t Atch, as well as the interest of
:erf elass of persons under government,
i inv H led iA such a settlement of this
questit6 as will bring with it strength to


the governteet, and strength to every de.
apartment of the state.
Having now, my lords, gone through
the general principles which have indtoed
me to consider it desirable to bring for,
ward this measure, I will trouble your
lordships for a short time longer, whilst t
explain generally the provisions of the
bill before the House.
My lords; the bill is in itself vety
simple. It concedes to the Roman Ca-
tholics the power of holding every effite
in the state, excepting a few connected
with the administration of the affairs of
the church; and it also concedes to them
the power of becoming members of parlia-
ment. I believe it goes further, with
respect to the concession of offices, thr
any former measure which has been in-
troduced into the other House of parlia-
ment. I confess that the reasons which
have induced me to consider it my duty
to make such large concessions now, arose
out of the effects which I saw following
the acts passed in the years 1782 and
1793. I have seen that any restriction
upon concession has only had the effect
of increasing the demands of the Roman
Catholics, and at the same time of giving
them fresh power to enforce those de-
mands. I have therefore considered it
my duty, in making this act of concession,
to make it as large as any reasonable man
could expect it to be; seeing clearly, that
any thing which remained behind would
only give ground for fresh demands, and
being convinced, that the settlement of
this question would tend to the security of
the state, and to the peace and prosperity
of the country.
I have already stated to your lordships
my opinion respecting the expediency of
granting seats in parliament to Roman
Catholics ; and I do not conceive that the
concession of seats in parliament can, in
any manner, affect any question relative
to the Church of England. In the first
place, I beg your lordships to recollect
that at the time those acts, to which I
have before alluded-the one passed in
the 30th of Charles 2nd, and the other
at the period of the Revolution-were
enacted, it was not the church that was
in danger-it was the state. It was the
state that was in danger-and from what ?
It was not because the safety of the church
was threatened. No but it was because
the sovereign on the throne was suspected
of popery, aad beeavse the asueessor to


St Omd* ditblic~~l;


t MODR, I


aelafBiUt






a RM1e1" ca ouic


the throte ws actually a papist. Those
tlws Were adopted, because of the exist-
cue of a danger which threatened the
state, and not of one which threatened
the chiuth. On the contrary, at that
perodf danger to the church was appre-
handae, not from the Roman Catholics,
bat front the Dissenters from the Church
of England. I would ask of your lord-
shps, aB of whom have read the history
of those times, whether any danger to the
aeatch was apprehended from the Roman
Cathoies.? No I Danger to the church
was apprehended from the Dissenters, who
had become powerful by the privileges
granted to them, under the act of parlia-
meat passed at the period of the Revoluh
tio I think, therefore, that it is not
necessary for me to enter into any justifi-
cation of myself for having adopted this
meture, on account of any danger which
might be apprehended from it to the
harch., Roman Catholics will come into
parliament by this bill, as they went into
parliament previous to the act of the 30th
of Gharles 2nd. They sat in parliament
up to that period, and were not obliged to
take the Oath of Supremacy. By this bill
they will be required to take the Oath of
Allegiance, in which a great part of the
Oath of Supremacy is included; namely,
that part which refers to the jurisdiction
of foreign potentates; and I must say,
that if the church be in danger, it is better
secwred by this bill than by the 30th of
Charles 2nd, which has continued in force
upr to the present moment; though the
object for which that act was recognized
st the period of the Revolution; namely,
to keep out the House of Stuart from the
throne-has long since ceased to exist,
by the extinction of that family. It is
the opinion of nearly every considerable
man in the country, that the time is now
arrived for repealing those laws. Circum-
stances have been gradually moving to
their repeal, ever since the extinction of
the House of Stuart; and at last the
period is come, when it is quite clear that
that repeal cannot with safety be any
letger delayed. But I know that there
are many in your lordships' House, and
many in the country, who think-and I
admit that formerly I was of the same
epindi-- that the state ought to have
sotme security for the church, against the
proceedings of the Roman Catholic clergy,
besides the oaths imposed by the act of
lffienftt P hve already alluded to. But


I conftes that, oil examining itt tde
question, and looking more htrmuterly thaf
I had before an opportunity of dohng at
the various acts of parliament by W ldh
the Church of Englagfd was constfttfted
and which form the faUit titbn on which*
it rests, I can think of nto ofrt 6f arrange-
ment capable of being C*tried iter exectt"
tion ti this country, which aN add t fiti
security of the established duties; '1
your lordships to attend for- & morneat,
whilst I ex laiV the sitratioft of the Iing~
doa of Prussia, with respect to ihe Roman
Catholic religion. The king of Pritrti
exercises the power whidh he holt over
the Roman Catholie ehurcht ia ite vIt
rioUs dofiinioias, under d i erent concordats
made with the pope: in Silesta, tiddet
concordat made with the sovereigns of the
House of Austria and the pope fit t. i
territory on the left bank of the Rhiht,
under a concordat made with Buoriapart
and the pope: and in the territories dtt the
right bank of the R hine, tider a cL orcrrds
made with the fofther sovereignii of ts
countries and the pope. Each of ithds
concordats supposes that the pope posN
seses some power in the covtrty, which
he is enabled to concede to the sovtreig'i
with whom the concordat was made. That
is a point which I can never yield ft any
sovereign whatever. There is no sovereign,
be he who he may, who has any power it
this country to yield up to his majesty.
We must keep our sovereign clear from
such transactions. We cat have no- se,
curity of that description-rot even a veto,
on the appointment of a Roman Catholic
bishop-without detracting, in some de-
gree, from the authority and dignity of
the sovereign, and without admitting, that
the pope has something to concede to his
majesty.
Now let your lordships suppose another
security. Suppose it were arranged, that
his majesty should have the nomination of
the Catholic bishops. If he nominated
them, he must also give them a jurisdi-
tion,-he must give them a diocese. I
should like to know in what part of Irelatd
or England the king could fx upon a spot
where he could, conoisteully with the oath
he has taken, nominate a Catholic bishop.
or give him a diocese ? The king is s fter
to maintain the rights and privi~eger of
the bishops, and of the clergy of this realm,
and of the churches committed to their
charge. Now,.consisently with that aath,
how could the king appoint a bishop of


tAntt 2.;)


"of M& 0.4






Relief Bill. 56


theORoman. Catholic religion; and would
4ot the established church lose.more than
it, gained, by the assumption, of such a
power on the part of his majesty ?-Then;
here is another security, whichsome noble
lardsthink it desirable' to have; namely,
the,.abtaining, by government, of copies of
ll. correspondence between the Catholic
clergy and the court of Rome; and the
supervising of that correspondence,, in
order, to prevent any danger resulting to
the established church. Upon that point
I must say, that I feel the greatest objec-
tjOpn to involve the government of this
q ontry in such matters. That corres-
pondence,. your lordships are told, turns
Ipon spiritual affairs.. But I will suppose
that. it turns upon questions of excommu-
nication. Is it, then, to be suffered, that
the pope and his majesty, or his majesty's
Secretary of Stateacting for him, should
niake l4w, for this country ? for that would
be the r.esult.of communications between
thJCatholic clergy of this realm and the
pope being submitted to. his majesty's in-.
speqtion,;or to the, inspection of his ma-.
jety's, Secretary of State.. Such a security
a~aouats.to.a breach of theiconstitution ;
and it is quite impossible that it could be
made available. It would do more injury
to the constitution and to the church, than
any thing which can be done by the Ro-
man Catholics themselves, being placed by
this bill in the same situation as Dissenters.
With respect to communications with the
court of Rome, that- has already been pro-
vided against and prevented by laws still
in- existence., Your lordships are aware
that those laws, like many others regarding
the Roman Catholic religion, are not
strictly enforced; but if they should be
abused,-if the conduct of those persons
whose actions those laws were intended to
regulate should be such as to render neces-
sary the interference of government, the
veuy measure which is now beilre your
lordships will enable government to inter-
forer in such- a manner,, as not only to
answer the. object of its, interference, but
alhto give satisfaction to your lordships
and.to the country.
.4Another part of the bill has for its ob-
jec.the. putting an end to the order of the
Jesuits, and other monastic orders in this
country. If your lordships will look at'
the act.passed in the year 1791, you will
probably see that, at that time it was
possible to make laws through which a
04ioand0four miglkt be4drien Fa laugh].


My noble and learned friend will, excuse
me I hope, for saying, that notwithstand-
ing all the pains which he took to: draw
up the act of 1791, yet the fact is,-of
which there cannot be the smallest doubt,
-that large monastic establishments have
been regularly formed, not only in Ireland,
but also. in this country. The measure
which I now propose for your lordships'
adoption will prevent the increase of such
establishments, and, without oppression to
any individuals, without injury to any body
of men, will gradually put an end to those
which have already been formed., There
is no man more convinced than I am of
the absolute necessity of carrying into exe-
cution that part of the present measure,
which has for its object the extinction of
monastic orders in this country. I enter-
tain no.doubt whatever, that if that part
of the measure be not carried, into execu-
tion,:your lordships will very soon see this
country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits
and regular monastic clergy, sent outvfrom
other parts of Europe, with means toesta-
blish themselves within his majesty'sAking-
dom.
When I recommend this measure-,to
your lordships' attention, you have un-
doubtedly a right to ask, what are the
reasons which I have for believing that it
will effect the purpose for which- it is in-
tended. My lords, I believe.it will answer
its object, not only from. the example of
all Europe, but from what has occurred in
a part of this kingdom, on a former, occa-
sion. If I am not mistaken, at the:time
of the dispute between- the episcopalians
and the kirk of Scotland, the state of
society in Scotland,. was as bad as.'the
state of society in Ireland is.at the present
moment. Your lordships know, that abroad,
in consequence of the diffusion of; civil
privileges to all classes, the difference be-
tween Protestant and Catholic is never
heard. I am certain that I can prove to
your lordships what I state, when I say,
that the state of. society in Scotland, pre-
vious to the concession of civil privileges
to the episcopalians, was as bad as the
present state of society in Ireland., I hope
your lordships will give me leave to read a
petition which has been sent to me this
day, and which was presented to rparlia-
ment at the period when those concessions'
were about to be made, and your lordships
will perceive, that the petition is almost a
model of many of the petitions which:have
been read in your lord4hip' House, re-


65 Rb"Mn Catolic


[ LORDS, ]






X7 RmRnt.aAtholic


specting the question under discussion. "I
am therefore in expectation, that should
the present bill pass your lordships' House,
there will be no longer occasion for those
complaints which have been expressed to
'your lordships, and that the same happy
and peaceful state of things which has for
the last century prevailed in Scotland will
also, prevail in Ireland. I will with your
:lordships' permission, read the petition I
have alluded to,.and I think that after you
have.heard it, you will be of the same
opinion as I am with respect to the simila-
rity it bears to many of the petitions which
haveebeen presented to your lordships on
-the subject of the Catholic question. The
-petition states, that to grant toleration to
that party (the episcopalians), in the pre-
:sent circumstances of the church, must
unavoidably shake the foundation of our
'present happy constitution; overthrow
*those laws on which it is settled; grievously
disturb that peace and tranquillity which
-the nation has enjoyed since the late Revo-
-lution; disquiet the minds of his majesty's
-best subjects; increase animosity; confirm
discord and tumult; weaken and enervate
.the discipline of the church; open a door
to unheard of vices, and to popery as well
as to other errors; propagate and cherish
'disaffection to the government, and bring
,the nation under the danger of falling back
'into those errors from which it has recover-
ed itself." The petition in conclusion
stated,. "that to grant toleration to the
*episcopalians would be to establish iniquity
by. law, and they therefore prayed the
members of the high court of parliament
to uphold, and preserve the laws." I
sincerely hope that as the prophecy con-
tained in the petition I have just read has
not been fulfilled, a similar prophecy re-
specting the passing of the present bill,
contained in many of the petitions pre-
sented to your lordships, will not be ful-
'filled likewise.
But, my lords, I have other grounds be-
.sides those which I have stated for sup-
.posing. that the proposed measure will
,answer the object in view. There is no
doubt that, after this measure shall be
adopted, the .Roman Catholics can have
:no separate interest, as a separate sect; for
,I am!sure.that neither your lordships nor
the other House.of parliament will be dis-
posed to look upon the Roman Catholics,
not ypon any thing that respects Ireland,
'with any other .eye than that with which,
you behold whatever affects the interest of


Scotland ori f this:country. Foramiyiowti
part, I will state, that if' Iam disappointed
in the hopes which I entertain, that tmran-
quillity will 'result from this measure, AI
shall have no scruple in coming down and
:laying before parliament the state of the
.case, and calling upon parliament to enable
government to meet whatever danger may
arise. I shall act with the same confidence
that parliament will support me then, as I
have acted in the present.case.
Having now explained to yourlordships
.the grounds on which this measure "is
brought forward,-the state of Ireland,--
the inconvenience attending the continued
agitation of the question,-the difficulty,
nay, the impossibility, of finding any other
remedy for the state of things in Ireland,
-the state of public opinion on the' ques-
tion,-the divisions of the government and
of the parliament on'this question,-the
pretences, for so I must call-them, which
have been urged against the claims of the
Catholics, founded on acts passed previous
to the Revolution,-having stated likewise
the provisions of the measure which I pro-
pose as a remedy for all these inconveni-
ences, I will trouble your lordships no
further, except by beseeching your lordships
to consider the subject with the coolness,
moderation, and temper, recommended in
his majesty's most gracious Speech from
the Throne.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Di.
William Howley) said, that since ,he had
had the honour of a seat in that House,'he
had uniformly been opposed to 'granting
further concessions to the Roman Catho-
lics. He had always opposed any measure
havingthat object, with pain and diffidence,
but never with greater than on the present
occasion, when he found himself opposed,
on this important question, to persons
whom he highly respected. But he ha 'a
duty to perform which was paramount to
all other considerations,-he had a duty
,to perform to the church to which he be-
longed,-he had a duty to perform, as a
member of the Protestant faith which that
.church was meant to support,-and hb had
a duty to perform to the state, whichfihe
apprehended might be injured by granting
political power to the Roman Cathblics:.
It was from that apprehension that he no,
rose to oppose the present measure of ton-
cession, and he could discern nothing itii
the course of the debates whirh had of late
taken place on the subject, that could tendi
to lessen that apprehension, He had hb rd


Relief Bill.


[ Ar ita S ]







itaid at different times in their lbrdships' vment, and in defiance of the laws, leadian
Ifuse, that the principles of the Roman themselves to the exaction of a tax levied
Cathdoiehadundergoneamaterialchange; on the people, and converting their places
butthose assertions he -could not believe, of worship into meetings for factious puri
then he had heard it stated by persons of poses ;-in looking at all the circum-
the highest rank in the Roman Catholic stances, he saw little encouragement for
priesthood, that the principles of their reli- any sanguine expectation, that the meaasre
gion were unchanged and unchangeable. proposed would either produce tranquillity
He had heard it said, that the influence in Ireland or safety to the church.
of the Irish Catholic priesthood had been But he had been told, that this measure
much overrated At least it had been ob- was absolutely necessary. He had been
setved that their influence did not extend told, that such agitation existed in Ireland,
to temporal, but only to spiritual affairs. that government could not venture on
NSow he would appeal to their lordships, any other measure without danger of a
ald to the evidence of facts, and he would civil war. On that point it was impossible
Ask, whether the abuse of spiritual power for him to speak. He could not control'
had not, of late, proved one of the most vett an assertion coming from such aa-
mischievaus engines in the hands of the thority as the noble duke, respecting a
peisatad, for the attainment of temporal subject on which he had not the same
prposes ? He had also heard it stated, means of information. But he deeply ie
" Grant to the Roman Catholics what gretted, if such were the case for their
they damard ive them, to the full, con- lordships were called upon to purchase
ertsion-and you will find in their conduct what would be, perhaps, only a temporary
ample security and gratitude." Now, an security, at the expense of a change in the
observation which he had sometimes heard constitution of this country. He con-
amade was, that it was not very safe to ceived that that constitution was essea-
atckon on the gratitude of great bodies of tially Protestant, and that the present
men, and he thought that that observation measure threatened an innovation, which
had been verified by recent experience, in would entirely alter the character of the
.regard to the I Roman Catholic priesthood constitution [hear, hear]. Did he there-
af Ireland. fore say that the constitution would be
With respect to the repeal of the penal popish. He said no such thing: but-he
laws, he thought that when there was no did say, that the character of the country
ltoger any imperious necessity for their would be no longer Protestant, as it now
existence, their repeal was demanded by was.
all the principles of justice. Therefore He hoped their lordships would indulge
their lordships had no right, perhaps, to him for a few minutes, while he endea-
look for gratitude for their repeal; but voured to show the grounds upon which
when he saw what had been the effect of he had formed his opinion. It could not
granting concessions to the Roman Catho- be unknown to their lordships, who were
lies,-.when he considered that concession acquainted with the history of this, conn-
of much the same nature as the measure try, that the disputes between the soe.-
now proposed had been made to the Ca- reigns of this country and the popes; re-
tholics-the concession of the elective specting the authority of the church, had
franchise-and when he saw the use been very long continued. Those disputes
which had been made of that concession, had taken place within a century after the
lnAding to consequences which, it was said, Conquest, commencing about the reign of
had meadered the present measure neces- Henry 2nd. This struggle was carried
suy, he could see no return of gratitude on, with success inclining sometimes to
ilalhe conduct of the Roman Catholics. the one side and sometimes to the other,
When he considered the liberality of the until the reign of Henry 8th. Of the
public, which had established a college character of that prince he had nothing to
.for educating the Roman Catholic youth, say: but whether from the vigour of his
,"when he looked at the liberality of par- mind, or from the violence of his passions,
ligament, in granting supplies for its sup- he broke the yoke of the see of Rome,
port-when he saw those very men who which had for so many years weighed
ad been bred up at the public expense heavily upon the neck of England; and
besoniag members of an Association which that yoke, in spite of all attempts on the
had isted in contempt of the govern- part of the Catholics, had never been re:


LORDS,3,


asurf DiuU. 60P


so RA""'WhC~olic





M Ro"Ma (Yatlozc


placed. An attempt was made to replace
t in the reign of queen Mary, but that at-
tempt was frustrated by her death, and
would, perhaps, have proved ineffectual
even if she had lived. From the death of
Henry 8th, during whose reign England
was freed from the spiritual tyranny of
Rome, the people of this country became
gradually more and more acquainted with
the pure spiritual doctrines of the reformed
church; and as their acquaintance with
the doctrines of the reformed church in-
creased, in the same proportion did their
attachment to the church which professed
atd taught them increase. That attach-
ment had continued until the present
hour, and had, on every occasion, frus-
trated the attempts of the church of Rome
to regain her ancient dominion in England.
There was no occasion for him to enter
into the history of the struggles in which
the Protestant church had been engaged
with the see of Rome, in each of the
reigns subsequent to that of Mary. He
would pass on at once to the reigns of the
two brothers-Charles 2nd and James
2nd-of whom one was a concealed, and
the other a professed, papist. At that
time, the people of England, jealous of
encroachments upon the religion to which
they were so warmly attached, rose in
defence of it; and those two acts were
passed, which it was the object of this bill
to repeal. Those acts might have been
made in a moment of irritation and of mis-
take; but that had nothing to do with the
question; and he had been at once sur-
prised and sorry to hear it gravely argued,
that those acts ought not to be retained,
because they originated in the plot of
Titus Oates, or in some other delusion.
It mattered not what circumstances pro-
duced them; for whatever those circum-
stances were, surely the acts acquired a
very different character, when they were
re-established at the Revolution [cries of
" hear," and no"] as a security to the
Protestant religion of the country.
At that time every part of the constitu-
tion was Protestant, except the king upon
the throne, and a law was made, that no Ca-
tholicshouldbe king. To guard also against
female influence, a law was made, that the
king should not marry a Roman Catholic;
and farther, the Coronation Oath was
alteredandput into the form in which it now
stood. The Coronation Oath consisted of
three great points. The king swore,
that he would govern according to the


laws; that he would cause lawand justio
to be executed in mercy; and, thi.nly-.
which seemed to have been thought of
equal importance then, and which mnst
still be thought so by persons who had
any attachment for religion-that he
would maintain the laws of God, the true
profession of the Gospel, and the Pro-
testant reformed religion as established by
law. The Oath also added, which was a
minor regulation, but which showed the
spirit by which the framers of the Oath
were actuated, and preserve unto the
bishops and clergy of this realm, and to
the churches committed to their eharg,
all such rights and privilegesas bylaw door
shall appertain unto them, or any of them,"
These, of course, were secured to the
clergy by that respect and attaehmeat
which their conduct alone could comaamm
But it was to this Oath that he wished
to draw the attention of their lolleship.
The king swore to maintain the true pr-
fession of the Gospel, and the Protestant
reformed religion as established by law.
How was the king to do this? .By
attending churches in person? No; by
his councils and his ministers. Could the
king act without responsible advisers?--
No such thing; and therefore, when sach
a clause was inserted in the Oath, it was
thought that the king would always
have about him proper servants, who
would enable him to discharge the obligap
tions put upon him by the Oath. Let
him put a case-an extreme case, certainly
-but he merely put it for the purpose of
illustration. Suppose the king had none
but Roman Catholic ministers about him
[hear! and a laugh]. He knew it was an
extreme case, and he meant it only for
the purpose of illustration. Suppose,
then, the king to be surrounded by
ministers who were all Roman Catholics,
would he not be incapable of fulfilling the
obligations of this Oath ? It was clear he
would: he could do nothing towards
fulfilling those obligations; for, whatever
measures he might contemplate for that
purpose, he would be destitute of any
person to carry them into effect. He said,
therefore-and it seemed quite clear as far
as the illustration went-that no adviser or
minister of the Crown, who could not
enter into the views of the king, for the
maintenance of the true profession of the
Gospel and of the Protestant refohned
religion, could assist the king to ftfi
those obligations which were imposed upoa


[ Ayn.M.' ]


RVaf M. aJ~






13 R -Ct Catholic


.4iim by the Coronatibn Oath. How did
*the king govern the different classes of his
subjectss? Why, :not personally, but by
certain great -officers of State. In the
army and navy, by the Commander-in-
chief and by the Lords of the Admiralty,
,and by other persons ; and so it was in
every -ther department, where certain
persons appeared as the representatives of
the king. These representatives of the
,king maintained the Protestant reformed
religion in the army, and navy, and in the
other departments over which they re-
spectively presided; and thus the obliga-
tions of the Coronation Oath were fulfilled.
The king, as a sovereign, transacted affairs
with-foreign nations, pot in person, but-by
means of a Secretary pf State. And how,
he would ask, could a Protestant sove-
reign appear or act in foreign affairs by a
Roman Catholic representative? So was
it also in the -colonies, where different
governors were appointed, and the colo-
nists -knew the king only through these
his representatives; and if they who repre-
sented the king in the colonies were not
Protestants, the colonists were deprived
of the care and protection of the king,
so fat as regarded their maintenance of the
true profession of the Gospel and of the
Protestant reformed religion. So, also,
in the administration of the internal
affairs of the kingdom-the king was only
known by his representative, the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, in the
various concerns to which the Secretary's
care extended.
He must beg of their lordships to be
allowed to go a little more into detail on
this subject. Of the army and navy he
-would say nothing, although they con-
sisted of a .class of men whose religious
sentiments might be of the greatest im-
portance to the country, and who were
under the clerical guidance of a large
portion of the Protestant establishment.
-But let him call the attention of their
lordships to the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. -He apprehended one
of the great causes of the importance of
this country on the continentt to be its
support of Protestant States in every part
of Europe,. and not only of Protestant
States, but (which was of equal importance,
both as maintaining the true profession of
the Gospel, and as indicative of the power
of England) of those little bodies of
Protestants which were found in large
States, and of which ,the members, sur-


rounded by the jealous disciples of the
Church of Rome, naturally looked to. this
country for protection, and. in-time: of
danger sought refuge in the influence, .the
intercession, or the power, of the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs in this country.
He would not mention names, but he
must be allowed to say, that a former
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
whom he had had the honour to be
acquainted with, and with whom he had
had frequent communications had, told
him, that his interference, as Foreign
Secretary, had often been successful :in
behalf of oppressed bodies of -Protestants
on the continent. He by no means meant
to say, that a Catholic would :not exert
himself to prevent oppression; but could
the oppressed Protestants) settled in a
Catholic country, trust the Secretaiy of
State for Foreign Affairs, if that Secretary
were a Roman Catholic, as -they trusted
him now,-or apply to him with that
confidence with which they made, their
applications now? They knew. now that
they were sure of sympathy at -least, and
that they were addressing their:, comw
plaints to a person who would not rejoice
at their misfortunes, though he mightinot
have the power to alleviate them. ,To
save the time of their lordships, he would
not push this matter further, but would
content himself with observing, that, it
many foreign states there, were large
congregations of Protestants, with clergy
attached to them, who required our care
and protection.
He passed now to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies. It was a matter
of far greater importance than he knew:
how to describe, that the Secretary for the
Colonies should be well affected to the
Protestant faith. A noble lord whom he
then saw in his place, and who had for
some time presided over this department-
with benefit to the colonies, and with
honour to himself, that had never been
exceeded, had admitted him to his coni
fidence, and done him the honour to con-
sult him on several affairs connected with,
the Colonial department.. The zeal..of
that noble lord, his moderation of temper,
his considerate kindness for the clergy, the-
pains he took to reconcile dissentions-
in fact, the whole conduct of that noble
lord had produced in his mind a respect,
for him, which he should preserve to:his
dying day. But, he asked ihat :.nblX
earl if he, did not feel that a Cathahli


Relief-Bill&


[ LORDS, ]





65 Roman Catholic [ APR 2.] Relief Bill,. .6
could not do.for the colonial church what Department, and with a Roman Catholic
be had been enabled to do; and whether, Secretary for Ireland.
if a Catholic were inclined to do it, he He had thus endeavoured to show to
would have, the same advantages as the their lordships the sense in which he
noble earl had possessed. Let him appeal meant, that the constitution would be
to the noble, earl whether, in respect of changed by this measure, and how it
the church, the power of the Secretary for would lose its Protestant character. :He
the Colonies was not almost absolute, did earnestly hope that noble lords would
The church patronage of the colonies, consider the heavy responsibility they inr
though not entirely, was principally at the curred by supporting a measure of this
disposal of the Secretary for the Colonies: nature; and, while he hoped that they
the clergy were almost absolutely under would look into every department with
his control. In dissensions among the the true spirit of Protestant statesmen, he
clergy, and for the protection of their must beg of them that they would turn
interests, he was the person appealed to, their particular attention to the Church of
and these matters had always, he believed, Ireland. It was that which demanded
been. settled according to the strictest their greatest attention; and, in his
rules of justice; but if there was not a opinion, they would hardly act fairly by
strong Protestant spirit in the Secretary the people of Ireland, if they did not take
for the Colonies, it would be in his power the strongest measures possible fore de-
to .discourage, to the most alarming stroying the dominion of the priests," for
degree, and even almost to extinguish, giving instruction to the people, and for
the Church of England, in many of the preventing the Catholics from impartiing
colonies. It was possible, that a person to them that instruction which was di-
ofeligious mind, looking at the position rected to the purpose of making converts.
which England occupied-at the extensive He did hope that places of worship and
colonies she possessed in the east, the pastoral cures would be established
west, the north, and the south-might throughout the country, and that from'
believe,,,that she was ordained to be in- one end of Ireland to the other, there
stiumental in the hands of Providence in would be found no district in which 'the
extending true religion to the remotest Protestant could not find a place for
quarters of the. globe. The missionaries worshipping God as his conscience di-
of England were to be found in all parts reacted him, and according to the forms
of, the world-but would these zealous of the church to which he belonged.
Ipen continue their arduous pursuit, if a With respect to securities in a measure
Catholic Secretary for the Colonies were like this, he must say, in justice to his
added to the difficulties, already numerous majesty's ministers, that he was well
enough which they had to encounter? satisfied with them for rejecting certain
He would maintain this position-that the securities which others had proposed.
king was not fairly represented in the Interference with the Catholic priesthood
colonies, unless he was represented by a would have recognized something like a
Protestant. Roman Catholic establishment, and ac-
As to the duties of the Secretary of knowledge to a certain degree, the power
State for the Home Department, he had of the pope. He was glad, therefore,
much to say upon that subject, but he that the government contemplated in
did not feel himself justified in detaining such interference. He was glad also to
their lordships. Much there was to be hear the noble duke express 'his- detet-'
said, with respect to the church patronage mination of carrying into effect the
at his disposal, and with respect to the clauses of the bill which were directed
many institutions, connected with the against the Jesuits.: He confessed that',
Church of England, which were under his when he first read those clauses, he was
control. The dangers to which the afraid that it was intended never to car
Church of Ireland would be exposed, if them into effect, and that they would
this bill passed into a law, furnished an have been little better than a,dead-letter
ample field for discussion: and he put it upon the Statute-book.-Though he hA4
to their lordships to consider, in what a turned aside from the general principle tf
condition.a Protestant lord-lieutenant of the bill to touch upon these minor regu-
Ireland would find himself with a Roman lations, still he lifted up his voice against'
Catholic Secretary of State for the Home the general principle of the measure. fie
VOL. X XI. D






Relief Bill. 68


[LORDS,]


must firmly and decidedly oppose the
bill, as he always had opposed mea-
sures of this nature, he hoped, with-
out intemperance of passion, without un-
charitable feeling, and only on account
Of those interests which had been con-
fided to his charge.. He would trouble
their lordships no longer. He had, how-
-ever, an amendment to move, which was,
That this bill be read a second time this
day six months."
The Archbishop of Armagh rose and
said:--My lords, in rising to give my
decided and uncompromising opposition
to the measure under your lordships' con-
sideration, I do not expect that your lord-
ships will be so far influenced by any
-words of mine, as to reject a bill which
has already passed the other House of
parliament, which has been introduced
into this House, at the recommendation
of his majesty, under the auspices of the
noble duke, and with' the approbation of
-many noble lords, wh4, until this session,
have been hostile to its principle. But I
feel that, however fruitless my opposition
may be, I have a sacred duty to discharge
to the Irish branch of the United
Church, and to the country, in laying
before your lordships my views of the
proposed measure.
My lords, I stop not to throw blame on
any man for the change which may have
taken.place in his opinions; nor shall I
say a word calculated to inflame the
animosities, or to widen the breach of
contending parties; but as amongst those
who were once opposers of this measure,
but who are now its supporters, there are
men with whom I am connected in the
strictest ties of friendship, and who have
been accustomed on former occasions to
,pay a partial deference to my suggestions,
I trust I may be permitted to express the
deep concern I feel at their having com-
mitted themselves upon this important
question, without even imparting to me
the course they intended to pursue.
Still, my lords, I am forward to believe
that they have been actuated by a desire
for the public good, not less intense than
my own; and what I now solicit from
your lordships is, that while their argu-
ments are received with favour, you will
vouchsafe a patient and candid hearing to
'those reasons with which I would vin-
dicate my own consistency. My lords,
I believe that, in yielding to this mea-
sure, the persons to whom I have alluded,


entertain a hope, either of at length
satisfying the claims of Roman Catho-
lic ambition, or, if that be impossible, of
uniting the now divided Protestant parties
in the resolute defence of their common
interests. If I mistake not, the arguments
of the advocates of the measure, who are
at the same time the friends of the
church, may be reduced to one or other
of these heads.
In the first place, then, I would ask,
will the passing of this bill give tranquillity,
as they suppose, to Ireland? Is there-
moval of the disabilities specified in the
bill, all that the Roman Catholics seek,
or with which they will rest contented ?
Have they so much as condescended to
assure you, that they confine their views
to this measure? So far from it, their
leaders have explicitly told you, that their
ambition is limited to no such objects.
What then, is the emancipation which
they seek ? I verily believe, that they
themselves could not, at the present
moment, define it, so progressive are
their encroachments and durst hot if
they could. It so happens, that in the
very paper which announced his majesty's
recommendation to parliament to revise
the laws affecting Roman Catholics,' with
a view to the removal of civil disabilities--
in that very paper, was contained a list
of some of the grievances which are here-
after to be used as a means of again dis-
turbing the peace of Ireland. The great
mover of agitation is there repbrted-to
have declared, that he will accept seven
shillings and sixpence in the pound this
sessions, with the full purpose of demand
ing, with renewed energy, in the ensuing
one, the twelve and sixpence remaining due
-that the regeneration of the country will
not be complete, until the odious Act of
Union shall have been repealed, and Ire-
land, from the state of a pitiful province,
to which she is reduced, restored to,her
just independence amongst kingdoms--
that Mr. Pitt's pledge at the Union was
to embody the Roman Catholic religion
with the state, as the Presbyterian religion
was embodied at the Scottish Union,
abolishing tithes, however, and making
the clergy dependent on the charitable
contributions of those who are to be bene-
fited by their ministry. After the Uan-
nouncement of the measure, and even
before the bill was introduced into., the
other House, such was the formal declarst-
tion of the conciliatory effects likely tto


670 Roman Catholic






69 Rowan Catholic


be produced by it. It may be said, that
these are the wild and visionary schemes
of a public agitator. Wild and visionary
as they may appear to- those noble lords,
who are prepared to go only certairi
lengths with Roman Catholics in their
encroachments, they are approved and
adopted as legitimate claims, by the most
influential leaders of the party, and con-
stitute the principal part of those alleged
grievances which we have been asked to
remedy.
It may be thought the Roman Catho-
lic aristocracy and gentry are far more
moderate in their views, and the fact I
believe to be so; but it is evident that
the aristocracy and gentry possess little or
no influence over the great body of Irish
Roman Catholics; their voice is seldom
heard, and when heard, it is disregarded.
The priesthood are in fact every thing;
and the people, and even the agitators
themselves, are but instruments in their
hands. It is, then, the absolute power of
the Romish priesthood over a population
like that of Ireland, and the projects of
ambition founded on that power, which
make the still-existing barriers necessary
to Protestant establishments under a free
and mixed constitution like our own; and,
by the present bill, you take away these
the only effectual securities that can be
devised, without making friends of the
persons against whom they are your de-
fence : you increase the power of doing
mischief, without lessening the inclination
to do it. Could you by these concessions
hope to appease the. hostility of the Ro-
man Catholic priesthood to what is Pro-
testant; could you disarm them of their
unbounded influence over the people;
could you dissolve their blind allegiance
to the see of Rome; could you free them
from its jurisdiction, and make them citizens
of their own country, quietly taking their
stand, with other classes of Dissenters,
where the wisdom of the legislature shall
place them- then much good might be
anticipated from this measure: but, does
any one believe that by these concessions
the Church of Rome will be suddenly
rendered tolerant, that the Romish priest-
hood will be content to hold an inferior
rank to a clergy, the validity of whose
orders they deny, and leave in possession
of its privileges a church which they revile
at intrusive and heretical-that they will
become indifferent to domination the
neaerthey approach to it, and the greater


their means for obtaining it-that they will
quit their hold upon the wills and affec-
tions, the passions and prejudices, of the
people, at the very moment that their
spiritual despotism may be turned to most
account, in forwarding their temporal
aggrandizement? It is because I am per-
suaded that the proposed concessions will
not produce these effects-that they are
not desired for their own value, but as the
means of attaining those ulterior objects
which a legislature, essentially Protestant,
can never voluntarily surrender-it is be-
cause I am persuaded that the increase of
power will tend only to exasperate, if not
successful in effecting the purposes for
which it is coveted-it is, my lords, with
this conviction on my mind, that, regard-
less of the obloquy and disquietude I
bring upon myself, I take my stand on
that ground which affords me the only
firm footing for defence, and am unwil-
ling to abandon the position, until at least
I have warned the country of its im-
portance to the security of the Protestant
institutions of Ireland.
But, my lords, necessity is, in the second
place, pleaded in justification of the mea-
sure. It is described as the only means, if
not of satisfying the Roman Catholics, at
least of uniting the Protestants, parti-
cularly the members of the administration,
in firm resistance to further encroachments.
On the one hand, it is said, that with the
cabinet and the two Houses of parliament
divided on this great subject, a wavering
and undecided policy must necessarily
follow-that in such a state of things nO
useful measure can be adopted for the im-
provement of the country, or for the effl-
cient administration of the laws, much
less for extending to the church that share
of protection and support which is her
due. On the other hand, we are assured,
if, after this last boon be granted, new
demands shall be preferred and old dis-
contents continued, and the Roman Ca-
tholics shall strive to raise themselves, by
your concessions, to a degree of power,
subversive of our establishments, that the
eyes of all men will be at length opened,
that the incorrigible restlessness of this
sect will deprive it of every Protestant
supporter, and unite the friends of the
establishment in a phalanx, which will at
once overwhelm the efforts of those who
are league together for its destruction.
All this, my lords, sounds well, and
may seem to promise much security ia
D2


Reief Diu. 70


[ Apu 2, ]






71 Roman Catholic


perspective. I am bound to give the per-
sons who use this language full credit for
the sincerity of their -intentions; and I
trust we shall not call upon them in vain
to redeem their pledges of attachment to
the church,' whenever her hour of need
shall come. But as to the united stand
that is to be made against future en-
croachments, after the most effectual secu-
rities have been wrested from us, in con-
sequence of our divisions, I confess myself
to be most incredulous. If difference of
views in the administration, and in the
Houses of parliament, be now assigned as
a reason for the surrender of our safe-
guards, is it to be supposed that ministers
and parliament will not be again divided
upon a subject so. fruitful of contention--
that when new:demands are made, and
the physical force of the five millions is
once more arrayed in debate against us,
as it. will no doubt be after the recent
experience of the efficacy of such a topic
of persuasion, variance of opinion will not
again exist, and that our divisions will not
be again brought forward as a resistless
argument for the necessity of larger sacri-
fices, in order to obtain that peace, which
is continually receding from us, the more
eager we shew ourselves by compromise
to secure it.
But the advocates of the bill deny that
our dangers will be increased by conces-
sion. It might be enough to answer, the
Roman Catholics themselves do not think
so." My lords, upon this point I am con-
tent to rest my cause. If it can be made
appear that Roman Catholics can be admit-
ted into both Houses of parliament, with-
out increased danger to the Irish church,
I shall not vote for their exclusion. It
will not be thought unnatural or indeco-
rous in your eyes, that the welfare of that
church should be my first and principal
object. I regard it as one of the great
providential instruments of doing good;
as the great barrier against superstition on
the one hand, and fanaticism on the other
-as the incorrupt witness of truth in a
land abounding with error and delusion.
Now, my lords, on this point I would en-
treat'your lordships, and every man who
'is acquainted with the state of political
parties, and the manner in which business
is conducted in parliament, to consider
how great would be the influence exercised
over public measures, by a body so large
as that which we have reason to think the
Roman Catholic representation will even-


tually form in the popular branch of the.
legislature;-a body firmly compacted fdr
carrying Roman Catholic measures, moddle
ling its votes solely with a view to that
end, ready to throw itself into the scale of
the party which shall bid the highest for
its accession, embarrassing the measures
of any administration that shall honestly
and boldly set it at defiance; sent into
the House by the influence of the Romish
priesthood, who, as they have made, so they
can unmake their representatives--that
priesthood, governed by a foreign state, aiid
armed with the terrors of a superstition all-
powerful in Ireland. Will it be said, that
such a number of representatives, so consti-
tuted and so bound together by unity, f
purpose,so governed and so directed, would
not have a preponderating weight in' all
.deliberations-would not possess that kind
of influence, which would expose the Pro-
'testant church in Ireland to the greatest
danger, under the most upright and vigor-
ous administration-would not accomplish
its downfall under a weak or corrupt mi-
nistry? Of this, at least, I am confident,
-that to raise up such a force against the
established church in the popular branch
of the legislature, under the notion of
strengthening her defences, and in expecta-
tion of controlling her adversaries, is the
most unwise and hazardous policy-a po-
licy which has already served the purposes
of the Roman Catholics, by disunitifig the
church's friends. If it be said, that I am
alarming myself with a phantom pf my
own imagination, I would beg nobl lords
to consider, that the party proposed to be
formed in parliament against the church,
is one of no ordinary description. The
Roman Catholic representatives, about to
be admitted from Ireland into the other
House, will not be the representatives of
property, or of the people; they will not
even express public feeling, or well-directed
public opinion: they will, in effect, be the
agents and commissioners of the Roman
priesthood, sent thither to give utterance
to the sentiments, and to manage the in-
terests of that body; a body, it should be
recollected, which has objects to gain and
views to promote, irreconcilable with the
general good of the empire. The priest-
hood of the Church of Rome, must ever
stand alone in a Protestant country; Pra-
testant sects run into each other, and final-
ly unite with the Established Church.
But the Romish priesthood have ,set' the
mark of separation upon their own 'fore-


. LORDSS]


I Relief Bill.-






Relief Bill. 74


heads, by their unnatural though politic re-
strictions; by their exclusive and arrogant
pretensions; by their dangerous, and, as
it was until of late supposed, unconstitu-
tional connection with a foreign power.
With other sects, ascendancy is hopeless;
their opposition is confined to matters of
inferior moment; it ceases when the com-
mon'cause of Protestantism is endangered.
With the Roman Catholics of Ireland as-
cendancy will be placed within their reach
by this measure; and with the Roman
Catholic priesthood, the promotion of the
interests of their church is their point of
honour: it ranks, in their estimation, above
country, kindred, aid friends. It is, then,
the confederacy of the Romish priesthood,
actuated by a never-dying hostility to what
is Protestant, that we have to dread; and
not merely that of Roman Catholic repre-
sentatives, who, it may be thought, will be
acted upon and divided into parties like
other men.
If we are told, indeed, that Romish
counsellors and Romish legislators are
found to be in foreign states as honest and
patriotic as men of other creeds, I would
answer that, without minutely sifting the
truth of the assertion, the cases are, in my
opinion, quite dissimilar. In the instances
alluded to, the Roman Catholic religion is
either already the established one-and,
in that case the point is carried, and there
is nothing further to be gained by agita-
tion-or else the government is absolute,
there is no voice heard but its own; and
should a disposition to encroachment on
the part of the Romish church be mani-
fested, a single rescript from a minister
would suffice for the correction of the evil.
With us the Romanists constitute an active
party in the commonwealth,-dangerous
to our establishments, in proportion to the
power with which it is invested; ever rest-
less, because it has still an object to attain,
and constantly excited to fresh machina-
tions, by the increasing hope of accom-
plishing its purpose. I do not, however,
mean to say, that the subversion of the
Irish Church establishment will be immedi-
ate on the passing of this bill, nor do I
think that it will be far removed from it.
It is probable that, at first, the approaches
will be cautious, and concealed under
various pretences; until at length the
assailants shall become emboldened by
success, and favoured by political occur-
rences.
- ]ask, then--for this appears to me to-


be the only fair and intelligible way of
discussing the question-are you prepared,
my lords, to go the length to which you
will be urged, after you have conceded all
that is now demanded ? Are you prepared
to sacrifice the Irish Church establishment
and the Protestant, institutions connected
with it-to efface the Protestant character
of the Irish portion of the empire-to
transfer from Protestants to Roman Ca-
tholics the ascendancy in Ireland ?-for to
one or other of these opposed parties, it is
admitted on all hands, ascendancy must
be granted. I would fain hope, my lords,
that those who view with indifference the
establishment of popery in Ireland, know
not what that religion is in its practical
effects upon the human mind. It has been
represented to your lordships, within the
last few years, in the form most capable of
bearing the light of day-the line of de-
fence taken up by its champions has been
that of extenuation and apology, and some
have described it in harsher terms. I shall
not, however, trouble your lordships with
a theological discussion : suffice it to say,
that those doctrines and practices of the
Romish Church-which, however modified
or disguised, form the distinguishing
features of her creed-are in irreconcile-
able variance with purity of faith and
morals-the firmest basis of national pros-
perity and individual happiness. I do not
think that England, with her intelligence
and her independent spirit of inquiry, will
ever become a vassal of the pope of Rome,
but I do think that, with a considerable
number of the representative Roman Ca-
tholics, and with a large proportion of the
remainder, either indifferent to, or dissent-
ing from, the established religion, her
church will share the fate of our own-
her ascendancy and incorporation with the
state will be no longer maintained-the
equal right to national support and national
favour will be asserted for sects the most
erroneous and the most discordant; a
neglect of religious truths will ensue, and
the pure light of the Reformation be ex-
tinguished here also.
I thank you, my lords, for the courteous
attention with which you have listened to
me ; and, whatever impression my observa-
tions may have made upon your minds, I
feel that, in delivering them, I have dis-
charged a duty which I owe to the Church
of Ireland, and to that of England also,-
if those establishments are to be spoken of
as distinct, which the legislature has inl


73 Romarn Catblic


( APRIL 2. ]






is Roman Catholic


dissolubly united. In conclusion, my lords,
I would only add, that if I am asked what
is to bedope for Ireland, I explicitly answer
-tolerate, but do not encourage, still less
do any thing to establish, religious error;
-cherish, with equal care, all classes of
his majesty's subjects; withhold nothing
in the spirit of monopoly, which can be
safely granted -but, for the sake of all-
yes, for the sake of Roman Catholics
themselves, let the constitution be ever
Protstant in its essential members,-in
its ftonarch, and in his responsible ad-
viseri -in its legislature,-in its public
institutions for education;-but, above
all, in its religious establishment.
The Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Lloyd) rose
and said :-My lords; when I first had
the honour of a seat in this House, it was
ty wish to offer myself as rarely as possi-
le to your lordships' notice, and I made
the determination never to do so, unless I
was compelled by a paramount sense of
duty; being fully satisfied that, in every
matter of secular legislation, my advice
and opinion would be of little assistance
to your lordships, and that in every thing
relating to the ecclesiastical concerns of
this empire, there are many of my right
reverend brethren much more able, and at
the same time much more willing than
myself, to explain those matters to your
lordships.
My lords, I shall not pretend to address
myself to any of the arguments delivered
to your lordships by either of the most
reverend prelates, because the respect that
I owe to their high stations prevents me
from doing so; and because I am bound
to the most reverend prelate of all England
by every tie of gratitude, attachment, and
respect.
My lords, I think your lordships will
agree with me, that this is one of those
occasions on which I should not be justi-
fied in remaining silent. Were I to con-
tent myself with a silent vote, opinions
might be attributed to me directly oppo-
site to those which I maintain, and my
vote must be supposed to arise out of
motives which I should be anxious to dis-
avow; and I am desirous, therefore, to be
permitted to explain to your lordships the
grounds on which I intend to support the
measure now before your lordships.
My lords, the noble and learned lord
on the cross-bench, in a speech delivered
by him in 1821, and, I believe, published
with his permission, after examining with


much learning and ability what a~," anl
what are not the fundamental and es ~,r
tial laws of the English constitution, as
settled at the Revolution, stated, that
" although parliament could not absolutely
be bound by its enactments for all genera-
tions, yet that the laws then settled being
essentially fundamental, they were as nar
alterable as they could be; and that thops
who proposed to change them, were bound
to shew that there was a cogent neeosity
for the change." My lords, whether that
noble and learned lord has proved, that
the constitution was then made essentially
Protestant, I do not now inquire- I
neither affirm nor deny it. But, my lords,
he has, at the same time, admitted, that
if a cogent necessity could be proved, such
a change, or at least the proposal of such
a change, would be justifiable. My lords,
I conceive that such a cogent necessity
has been proved,-short only of that last
and irresistible necessity, which would top,
semble physical force, and would.leave no
room for argument or doubt. I conceive
that an impossibility has been proved of
maintaining things in the state in which
they now are,-I conceive this to have
been proved-by the state of the Irish re-
presentation-by the quantity of armed
force which it has been necessary to main
tain in Ireland for the security of life and
property-by the balanced state of both
Houses of the legislature-by the progress
of public opinion-and by a circumstance
which appears to me to be beyond all pos-
sibility of reasonable doubt, the course
which has of late years been taken'by tem
talent and education of the country. To
this last circumstance I attach, I confess,
very great importance, because it seems to
me to prove the impossibility of maintain-
ing a permanent system of exclusion; and
of the fact I have no doubt whatever. My
lords, I think the very state of this House
proves the fact; for 1 ask the noble duke
on the cross-bench-that noble duke, who,
through the whole of these debates, has
maintained a manly opposition to these
measures of the government-and who by
the generosity of his tone, has softened, as
far as he was concerned, the asperity of
these discussions, and assuaged the bitter-
ness of these times,-I ask that noble
duke, who has exhorted all noble lords to
rally under the banner of the noble and
learned lord, (of whom he ought, I think,
to have said, not that he is now, but that
he always hs beea ahe head of the Pto-


[ LORDS, ]


Aelief BiU.






pRemen Calolic


testant party of this House);-I ask that
noble di4ke, whether the noble and learned
lord himself, and those who have chiefly
joined that noble and learned lord, are not
a proof of what I am stating, concerning
the rising talent of the country. My lords,
those noble lords who are at the head of
the opposition to his majesty's government,
(let it not be said with any unkind or un-
gentlemanly feeling, but rather with every
feeling of astonishment and admiration)-
those noble lords have now reached that
time of life when most men have seceded
from the busy scene of human life-when
far the greater part, indeed, have been
called away, altogether, from this sublu.
nary scene of things. I ask the noble
duke, whether these are not the men of
whom his party has, most reason to be
proud? And, taking that criterion, which
is the only one I can find, I ask, whether
all those who, in the prime of life, and
who have been called to the public offices
of the state, and to the public service of
the country, have .not passed over to the
qther side ? And this being the case, my
lords, I ask whether it is possible for any
man to believe that the exclusion of the
Catholics from political power can be ex-
pected to be permanent ? My lords, I
bhve known many who have wished anxi-
ously wished, that this exclusion might
he permanent; but I have not for some
years, met with one person who believed
that it would be so. They have wished,
msy lords,. but have known, my lords, that
their wishes would be ineffectual.
My lords, while.I state that such is my
solemn conviction of the progress and
continuing course of public opinion
throughout the country, I do not say that
I rejoice in that progress-on the con-
trary, my lords, I should have seen with
far greater pleasure, opinions taking a dif-
ferent course. I should have preferred,
my lords, to see the educated persons of
the country declaring themselves in favour
of the old and existing institutions of the
kingdovE-but such, my lords, is not the
case. The stream has passed into a dif-
ferent channel, and is, in my judgment,
incouttollable by any human power; and
it remains ouly for those who, like myself,
behold thece things with fear, and agony,
and sorrow, to rely upon that wise and
lbomteous Providence, who can turn all
thing's unto good, can bring light out of
dak'ness, and order out of anarchy. But,
my luen it 4 ot, even an the grounds of


this necessity, or by the causes, however
cogent, which I have now stated, that I pro-
pose to regulate my vote; for these causes,
mylords, were all antecedentto the decisions
of the ministers-and all, I suppose, ope-
rated in producing that decision. But
the question comes, before this House-
comes before your lordships-comes before
me- after the king's government have ad-
vised his majesty to recommend this mea,
sure to his parliament-after they have
told his majesty that it is in vain any
longer to fight the battle, and to contend
with the impossibilities which surround
them; and it is this circumstance, my
lords, that makes me consider it now ab.
solutely impossible that the adjustment of
this question should be delayed. My
lords, this question comes before this
House recommended by his majesty from
the throne, seconded by the strong and
explicit declaration of the heir presump.
tive-supported, as I believe, by every
branch of the royal family, except the
illustrious prince who is now sitting on
the cross-benches-sent up with an over-
whelming majority from the other House
of Parliament-supported by all those
noble lords who have always maintained
the injustice, the impolicy, the inexpe-
diency of these restrictions-supported by
all those who have fought under the ban-
ners of the noble Chancellor of the, uni-
versity of Oxford, or under that of the
illustrious statesman, whom Providence
has now withdrawn from the councils of
this country-and now, my lords, sup-
ported by the united government of his
majesty-by those, especially, who have
been hitherto considered, and, I think,
considered truly, the champions of the
Protestant interests of England. Such,
my lords, are the circumstances under
which this measure comes before, us, and
the only question which I have proposed
to myself since the first recommendation
of this measure from the throne, has been
this,-What will be the effect of the re-
jection of this measure, in case it should
be rejected ? What will be the effect of
such rejection upon the best interests of
Church and State? My lords, the only
effect that I can foresee is this, that it will
pass after the interval of a year or two-
and who can look forward to such an in,
terval of anarchy, of bloodshed, and con-
fusion.
My lords, I am not one of those who,
in a case in which the high interests of


t AparY, 9 1


Relief Bill.






79 Romani Catholic


liberty and religion are concerned, think
war, necessary war, unchristian or un-
liwful. I have not so been taught, I
have not. so learned the articles of the
Church of England. But, my lords, be-
fore I,do an act, which might lead, and
must lead, probably, to such a war, I
rust be satisfied, that when the battle
all have been fought, and the blood
shall have been shed, we shall not be left
exactly where we were when we began.
And, unless this can be shewn to me, I
should deem the. entering into such a war,
I should think that, to do an act which,
in my judgment, must lead inevitably to
such a war-an act unchristian and un-
lawful.
But,-my lords, speaking as a churchman,
I: ask myself another qiestion,-To whom,
if this measure be rejected, are we to in-
trust the Protestant interests-the inter-
ests and welfare of the Church ? I look
around, my lords, and among those who
are opposed to these measures, I see
none, in whose hands, I think, the un-
divided management of those interests
would, under present circumstances, be
safe. My lords, I feel the greatest re-
spect towards that noble duke on the
cross-bench, who, in another place, by the
establishments which he has founded in
the place to which he owes his education,
has shewn his true and genuine zeal for
the advancement of God's glory and the
improvement of sound learning. My lords,
I feel a high respect for the zeal and
chivalry of that noble earl, who has ad-
dressed the Protestants of England, how-
ever wild that zeal may be in its nature,
and however dangerous its instruments.
But, my lords, I dare not do an act which
should, even for the interval which I have
stated, throw the undivided management
of the Church of England into the hands
of those noble lords. My lords, I cannot
forget that the Church of England has
been once, and once only, prostrate in
the dust-prostrate, my lords, not by the
intrigues of Papists, but by the violence of
Puritans-by men irritated and driven to
madness, by the rash and imprudent as-
sertiois of those high principles, which,
evfn in ihe time of Charles 1st had long
gone by-of principles, my lords, which,
however abstractedly true, have ever been
fatal and disastrous in their operation,
t' rotil~ tie whole history of England-of
principles which I never advocated; and
never will advocate,


My lords, if the rejection, of this bill
should produce such an effect,, should
bring these principles into .immediate
practical operation, I should fear a great
and terrible re-action-a re-action which
would cast down the Church of England-
not slowly and gradually, but rapidly, im-
mediately, and precipitously. My lords,
these are the grounds on which I propose
to give my vote in favour of the measures
of his majesty's government. I shall-sup-
port these measures, because I believe this
bill, if rejected, would still pass in a year
or two; and because I dread such anrin-
terval, for fear of dangers both eccle-
siastical and civil.
My lords, I had come to this deter-
mination without any doubt or hesitation
-though I will not say without much
sorrow and regret;-but I had come: to it,
my lords, under the full conviction, that,
as an honest man, anxious. to discharge
his duty according to his conscience, and
after the fullest consideration of the case,
I could give no other vote. I had come
to this conclusion, my lords, when my
mind became disturbed by letters put into
my hands, of which the whole gist and
object was to shew, that it was unlawful
to vote in favour of this bill-that: such
an act was sinful and irreligious, and that
all who did so were guilty of a defection
from the truth-were traitors to their con-
science and their God. Your lordships
will not require any evidence of such
charges. I dare say there are some: noble
lords even now prepared to reiterate them
-and they are evidently the very argu-
ments which have alarmed and awakened
the religious feelings of the people of this
country. I desire therefore to be al-
lowed to consider those arguments, with
the view of shewing that the act 'of my
right reverend brethren and myself who
support this bill is not an act of sin, and
with the view also of dissolving, if it may
be, some of the fears of the people of this,
country.
My lords, the first argument that has
been stated by a very learned clergyman'
-a clergyman deservedly of great name
in the church-a man of great learning
and ability, and the most unquestionable
respectability and moral worth-has been
this-that in admitting the; Roman- Ca-
tholics to parliament, we are making; a
political union with idolatry. My lords,
the words are these, "that the senators
who shall so vote-ae insultin6 God to his


.IRelief Bill. -- so


[ LORDS,]






81 Roman, Catholic


very face, by forming a national- amalga-
mation, in defiance of his own threats and
prohibitions, with a system which they
themselves, in his absolute presence, have
declared, without equivocation, to be
idolatrous and superstitious." My lords,
if this charge had come from one of less
credit in the church than the individual
who has published it, I should have
passed it over, as the other effusions of
the public papers, altogether without no-
tice. .But I should not now think myself
justified in doing so. My lords, the ar-
gliments of the reverend writer stand
thus: -"Every member of this House has
sworn, that the invocation of saints and
the sacrifice of the mass are superstitious
and idolatrous-therefore he has sworn
that all papists are idolatrous ;-therefore
by admitting Roman Catholics into par-
liament, he is voting, according to his own
oath, for a political union with idolatry-
but such an union has God's curse de-
nounced against it : therefore every mem-
ber of this House who shall vote for the
admission of Roman Catholics into either
House of parliament, is exposing his
country to the certain and necessary
judgment of Almighty God." My lords, I
cannot describe to your lordships the hor-
ror which I first experienced when I read
this argument, coming from such a quar-
ter. My lords, he who brought forward
this fearful imputation, alleged no proof
of this tremendous denunciation-brought
forward no text of scripture in evidence
of his assertion, that a political union
with idolatry was forbidden to christians
by Almighty God. My lords, I cannot
describe to you the intense anxiety, the
agony of mind, which this letter created
in me. It alarmed my conscience and
unnerved my mind. Well, my lords, very
soon appears a second letter, in which
the writer states that it had been in-
timated to him that a political union
with idolatry was not so positively for-
bidden-and he addresses himself to prove
that which he says requires no proof-
namely, that political union with idolatry
is forbidden by scripture. And what, my
lords, are his proofs? First, that the
Jews, whenever they fell into idolatry, or
cormected themselves with idolatry, re-
ceived their punishment from God-which
is perfectly true,-and if applied. to this
coniti y, would, of course, expose us to
God's curse, because we hold commerce
with India and Cbina-and in Roman


Catholic countries, with France, Italy, aifd
Spain. For this, my lords, is the unidn
with idolatry, of which the scripture
speaks-commerce, my lords, and trade-
such.as that of Solomon with Ophir and
Tarshish. But I need not, surely, tell
your lordships that arguments from the
Old Testament are of little use in any case
of this kind. I need not tell your lord-
ships, that the circumstances of the Jew-
ish people were different from those of
any other nation-nor need I remind you,
that it was out of arguments of this kind
that the follies of the Puritans of England
and the Covenanters of Scotland arose.
My lords, these objections the writer of
these letters calls captious, I must be bold
to say, my lords, that these objections
have been made by every divine of the
Church of England-and that it is now
fully understood that the commandments
of this kind found in the Old Testament,
were applicable only to the chosen people
of God. My lords, the learned divine now
turns to the New Testament, and I also
turned to his arguments from that volume,
with an interest more painful than I ever
felt-and what did I find ?-one text,
my lords, from the Apocalypse-a text too,
which I confess appears to me to have no
reference whatever to the subject of a
political union with idolaters. My lords,
you will observe that, in every thing I have
said, I have argued on the assumption of
the author-that all papists are idolaters
-that is, men guilty of idolatry in the sight
of God. But, my lords, though I have
assumed this as the assertion of the writer,
I do not believe it. I have sworn, indeed,
that the invocation of saints and the
sacrifice of the mass are idolatry, but
I have not sworn that all papists are
men guilty of idolatry before God. My
lords, I dare not believe it-if I did be-
lieve it, I must at once exclude all Roman
Catholics from the pale of salvation, and
leave them to the uncovenanted mercies
of Almighty God. My lords, much of my
early life was spent in the company of
Roman Catholics of the Gallican Church-
of men, my lords, virtuous and religious-
whose spirits have before this time, I trust,
passed into that kingdom, into which
those who are guilty of idolatry in God's
sight shall never enter. My lords, some
of their actions, might be idolatrous,-
some, in my solemn judgment, partake of
the nature of idolatry, and have a tendency
to idolatry itself-but they were not wil-


[APRIL 2. ]


Relief Bill. 82~






0 Am" catkodic


filly aud intentionally guilty of idolatry-,
t&ay were no*, in my opinion, guilty of
idelary before God. My lords, lest it
should be imputed to me. that these are
.wu opinions of mine, formed out of
deferqu to hi4 majesty's government,
and from a baseiand paltry tergiversation,
I eg to state that I recorded them some
yeao ago, when, in consequence of an
attempt that was made both in this House
atsd out of it, to shew that the doctrines
ofi-PPrtetantism were the same as those of
Rpery, I thought it my duty to take a
renew 'of sosIe other doctrines of the
Church of Rooe. I was, at that time,
NPofessor of i Divinity in Oxford, and
opirauicated! the fact of my having
written that review to several of my pri-
vate friends. My lords, I am so well con-
viaced, that this is one of the arguments
that has had weight with the clergy and
people of England-so much pains have
hwao taken to inculcate these letters (for
I myself have received eleven copies of
them by the; post), that I hope I may
stad .excused for having trespassed so
l@ag upon your time,
SMy lords, another and a similar charge
has been brought against those who aup.
port this measure: and certainly, my Fords,
against all the dignitaries and the clergy
wio take that view of the subject. They
have been charged, my lords-I will not
sap by whom--of being guilty of a de-
feotion of scriptural truth." Now, my
lo ds, I do think that individual who
brings tbis charge-be he who he may,
high or, lo, rich or poor,-ought to be
prepared to bring some evidence that his
charge is true; for the charge, my lords,
isano less then this-that all who think
that Roman Catholics may be admitted
into the legislature are traitors to their
church, their conscience, and their God.
My lords, when the Redeemer of the
World contended with the enemy of man,
he thought it not below him to refer to the
very wod of God. It. is written," he
sasd--tiree times he said unto the
tempter, it is written '' and referred
him to the very word of God, for the over-
throw of his arrogance and insidious
advice, My lords, I think that he who
brought this charge against so many of
the clergy of this realm, need not be
ashamed to imitate the Son of God. My
loids, it is sufficient for me to bring this
chalrg before your lordships, and to leave
it,. without further notice, to it& own
atrocity and absurdity,


My lords, another assertieo, and one
which already has been brought forward
very frequently in this House is, that this
question ought not to be argued on the
grounds of expediency. My lords, I was
some time before I understood theairea
meaning of such an assertion s bt Itake
it to be this-that the thing being in itself
sinful, ought not to be argued at all, on
the grounds of expediency-and true it
is, my lords, that there are many matters
which ought not to be argued, and
which must not be argued, on such
grounds, True it is, my lords, that in
my opinion, Dr. Paley has erred in this
point, and has done mischief to many
minds, by arguing some points on the
principles of expediency, which ought to
be argued only on the positive grounds of
morality, and the declared will of God.
True, also, it is, that in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, many actions were
done according to what were called max,
irns of state policy-many of them atro.
ciously wicked-and which would admit
of no justification from religion and moral!
ty. But, my lords, allowing all this, I stilt
take it to be as certain and true a proposal
tion as can possibly be stated-that every
action which is not sinful in itself may be
argued on the grounds of expediency, and
must be argued on those grounds alone--
on the grounds of their conduciveness. to
the public happiness and the public good.
And, unless this measure can be shewn to
be sinful in itself, I maintain, my lords,
as a positive and most indisputable pro-
position, that it may be argued, and must
be argued, on the grounds of expediency
alone.
My lords, the question before us is
this :-Are Roman Catholics to be admit-
ted into the offices of the state, and to.
the Houses of the Legislature ? If this
admission be evidently sinful, it must not.
be argued on the grounds of expediency;
if it be not, it may be argued on such
grounds. Now the sin, if sin it be, must
arise from the fact of the government
connecting itself with a religion, which it
has declared to be superstitious and idola-
trous, and so giving encouragement, either
direct or indirect, immediate or remote, to
a religion which it believes to. be untrue.
My lords, as far as concerns the sin-
fulness of this measure, the sin,, whatever
it may be, has been committed. .It does.
not remain to be done now., When,, in
the year 1778, yea repealed some of the


[ LORDS, ]


Relief Bill.






96 1?emqn Catholic


laws passed against popish bishops,
priTts, or Jesuits and Papists, professing
and keeping school," you took the first
step towards the legalizing of popery in
this country: when, in the year 1791, you
released from penalty and conviction every
popish priest, and permitted all who would
to enter or belong to any ecclesiastical
order or community of the Church of
Rome, or for being present at, or per-
formirg any rite, ceremony, practice, or
observance of the popish religion, or.main-
tainig others therein," you took the se-
cond, and the greatest step for legalizing
popery in this country. When, in both
these years you framed an oath, relating
simply to civil allegiance, and bearing only
on those tenets of the Romish Faith which
relate to temporal concerns, you, for the
first time, threw religion out of the ques-
fton, and declared openly to the people,
that you did not think popery an offence
against God. Yet, then was the time,
my lords, to have been afraid of the in-
troduction of popery-then, when you
admitted the priests to the full exercise of
their functions then, when you gave
them leave to keep schools, only providing
by a clause, that the popish schoolmaster
should not admit into his school the sons
of Protestants, a clause which is broken
every day by hundreds and thousands
i the neighbourhood of London. Then
was the time to have been alarmed for
yourselves and your children..then was
the time to have called out" sin," idola-
try," and "defection from scriptural
truth :"-
Tune decuit metuisse tuis-tunc sera querelis
Haud justis assurgis, et irrita jurgia jactes."
My lords, I know there is much difference
between toleration and ascendancy-be-
tween a toleration of opinion, and an
admission to political power but the
difference, my lords, is merely a political,
not a religious difference; and I am only
arguing the religious question-and, I say,
my lords, that it is nugatory, after what
was done in those years to talk of the sin-
fulness of the present measure-to accuse
those of sin who now propose the admis-
sion of Catholics to parliament, when at
that time you gave full scope ,and range
to every form and fashion of popery.
I My lords, another argument, calculated
to alarm the conscience, has been derived
from the form of the oath, which it is pro-
posed by the bill shall be given by all
Reoua athlica who are admitted into


parliament, or to any other ofme-.to,
which, under the bill, they are, tmde a
missile. My lords, the oath they 4i
desired to take is this: they are oed
upon to deny that the pp h" any teo
poral or civil jurisdiction within these
realms;" and as the Protestant swears,
as all the members of this House have
sworn, that the pope has no jurisditina,
either "ecclesiastical or spiritual," it ia
argued, that by allowing the Roman Ca-
tholics to omit these words, iwe arq, in
fact, admitting by implication, that the
pope has ecclesiastical jurisdietiou
within these realms. My lords, this ar.
gument has been already brought forward
in this House-it has been circulated
widely through the country-it forms the
matter of some of your petitions. It is
stated, that this oath is calculated to
alarm the consciences of all the Protest-
ants of the country. Now, my lords, how
stands the fact? This oath is precisely
the same, as to the words to which ob*
jection is taken, with the oaths of 1778
and 1791. In both the oaths that were
at that time framed, the Catholic swears
only that the pope has no temporal or
civil jurisdiction within this realm." And
this oath, my lords, every papist is bound
to take, who desires to have the advana
tages of those acts-and, by taking it, is
released from the penalties, and admitted
to the privileges, Now, my lords, I do
think, that those who bring objections of
this kind, are bound to assure themselves
of facts like these, and to have some show
of argument in their favour. But how
stands the fact? The very persons object-
ing have always been taking this oath;
and yet now, for the first time, we hear of
these awakening fears, and are alarmed by
the terrors of these trembling consciences.
My lords, I correct myself-it is not the
first time the objection has been made be-
fore-it was made in the year 1780-jit
was made in the petition of the Protestant
Association, presented by lord George
Gordon, and signed by one hundred and
twenty thousand persons. My lods, these
are the words of the petition to which I
allude: "That as papists can now, by
legal authority, confess the eoclesiastieal
or spiritual jurisdiction of the pope and
See of Rome, which our laws, before the
passing of the late act, have constatlyy
disavowed, the petitioners are verysakwh
alarmed.lest they should be involved in the
guilt of erjury when called a to tclare,


( Arm, 2.


ROliqf Rail.






87 Roman Catholic


dpon oath, that'no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, orpotentate,has any jirisdic-
tion or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
intthis realm.'" So that, my lords, the
objection has, at least, not the recommenda-
tion of novelty-it was raised fifty years
ago, and is as old as the oath itself; yet
we have all taken the one without fear of
perjury, while the papists have taken the
oeher.
My lords, your .lordships will recollect
that, at the time when this petition was
presented, London was in a state of riot
and confusion. The consideration of the
petitions was accordingly delayed for a few
days. But, after a short interval, the
House of Commons took the petition into
consideration, and came to the following
resolution:-" That no ecclesiastical juris-
diction or authority is given by the said act
of the 18th of his present Majesty, to the
pope or see ol'Rome." And theycame to the
rieblution rightly,-for the oath does give
no jurisdiction,-the Romanists cannot
take the oath, because they think it against
their consciences. Whatever power the
pope exercises over his votaries in the
united kingdom, it is only in foro con-
seientie&,-it is no matter of jurisdiction,
nor ever will be, till some legal court be
constituted and admitted in this kingdom,
in which he can exercise his authority and'
defend his claim.
My lords, when Henry 8th transferred
the power of the ecclesiastical courts from
the pope to himself, he abolished for ever
the jurisdiction of the pope, and the de-
rivative authority of his bishops. And,
until it shall please your lordships to re-
store the ecclesiastical courts to the pope,
and to allow him to assert his authority
and maintain his claims, it will still be true
that the pope has no jurisdiction, power,
pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical
or civil, within these realms. My lords, I
must again repeat, that those who make
these charges, and endeavour by these
.means to alarm the consciences of men,
ought, at least, to make themselves ac-
quainted with the historical facts out of
which these charges grow.
My lords, I desire now to say a few
words on the argument derived from the
fixed and immutable character supposed
to be given to the constitution by the Act
of Settlement, and the Bill of Rights-for
here, my. lords, it is asserted, and in a
different sense, that the argument of ex-
pediency must not be employed. My


lords, I deny the proposition-I say that
the argument of expediency must come in
-and that it is contrary to all sound logic,
to the very essence of human affairs, to
give to any thing so perfect a character of
immutability as to assert, that an occasion
can never arise on which it may be ex-
pedient to change it-nor has 'the noble
and learned lord asserted it. But, my
lords, let us look a little more closely at
this very character of immutability, as
applicable to this case. My lords, I
admit, on the authority of the noble
and learned lord, that the constitution,
settled at the Revolution, was essentially
Protestant. My lords, I agree with the
noble and learned lord, that those who
formed that Constitution were great and
powerful men. My lords, they had a
great work to do, and they found the way
to do it. They used the means necessary
for the accomplishment of that great pur-
pose-and they did accomplish it. Their
means, to be sure, were not always of the
most delicate kind-but that matters not.
Well, my lords, they determined-that the
Roman Catholics should have no share in
the constitution; that the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial, should all be
Protestant; and these three parts, it must
be confessed, make up the constitution.
But, my lords, it is not always easy to give
to these three branches a single identity of
character. The times and circumstances
permitted our ancestors to do it. But
what did they do? Did they say to the
Roman Catholics, You shall come to the
doors of Westminster, but shall not enter
into Westminster-hall or to this House-
you shall come to Downing-street, but
shall find no admission there-to the Ad-
miralty and the Horse Guards, but the
doors shall be shut against you?" Not
they, my lords; they were not so unrea-
sonable-if they had pretended to do.that,
they knew they should have been attempt-
ing what it was impossible to accomplish.
They kept the Roman Catholics entirely
at a distance. They said to them, You
shall not come even into the neigh-
bourhood of Westminster-you shall not
come near the Admiralty,. or the Horse
Guards-you shall not come near London
-you shall not have an acre of property
in the country-you shall not exercise
your religion-your priests shall be ba-
nished-and your altars shall be demq-
lished." This, my lords, was' the lan-
gage and the conduct'of mena of sense


[LORDS, ]


Relief Bill. 88





89 Roman Catholic


-but what have we done since thatday?
Why, my, lords, we have done just the
contrary-we.have said to them, "You
shall come close to Westminster, you shall
have property, you shall have priests,
but you shall not come in here." Why,
my lords, when you did this, you sanction-
ed the principle, that a religion positively
acknowledged to be false, declared at your
table to be superstitious, and idolatrous,
is to. have ample range and circulation
throughout the country.
My: lords, I am aware that there is a
difference between toleration, equality and
ascendancy-a difference in the abstract
meaning of the terms-a difference of the
bearings of those terms on the. political
relations of society:-but in a religious
sense, they are all the same-they all ac-
knowledge the. principle which I have
stated above-a principle of, which I am
not now bound to examine either the truth
or falsehood:--but by the sanction of
which principle, by your Acts of 1778 and
1791, I. say again, that if there be any
sinfulness in what you are now doing, you
have already done it. As for the more or
the less, it does not touch the principle of
the action-the consideration is indeed of
vast importance, and I shall attempt here-
after to shew that the difference is in
favour of the measure of his majesty's
government.
I, pass now, my lords, to that which I
esteem the most important point for every
churchman to consider-the probable
effect of this measure upon the united
church of England. Your lordships will do
me the justice to believe that I have given
to this part of the subject my most atten-
tive and serious consideration. And I
have no hesitation in declaring to your
lordships, that in regard to that part of
the united church which is situated in this
country, I have no fears at all. When I
consider the number of Roman Catholics
in this country, and compare them with
the number of Protestants-when I con-
sider the purity of our own faith-the
decided aversion of the people of this
country to all the doctrines of popery-
when I see, as I think I see, that the whole
current of opinion in this country is in
favour rather of licentiousness than of arbi-
trary; power--I can have no fear of the
establishment of popery in this kingdom,
nor any .apprehensions of danger to the
English.part of the united church. And
here, my lords, let me be permitted to say


a few words in regard to the- conduct
which has been pursued by the English
clergy in the matter of petitions. uiich
blame, as your lordships know, has .bee
thrown upon them for what they have
done. I take for granted, my lords, that
they have written petitions for their pa-
rishioners, and have, in many places en-
couraged them to present them. ,I say,
I take for granted that they have done so;
for I have no means of knowing that the
fact is true. But, if they have done this,
I think that.they have done their duty. I
say, my lords, that the clergy of England
have shewn themselves to be, what I have
always known them to be, a body of
fearless, honest and independent men-ia
body, who, having, many of them, the
strongest religious aversion to the measure,
have not concealed that aversion, in defer-
ence to the opinion, or through, any fear of
the authority of the government. But, my
lords, I think they have also proved them
selves to be a body of discreet and prudent
men. I am one of those, my lords, who
consider the right of petitioning to be what
it has been often called, the safety-valve of
the English constitution. When: i an
Englishman has petitioned, he has exer-
cised what he conceives his privilege of
birth-right-he has done his act-and is
proud of his act-and is less likely, when
he has done it, to make himself troublous
or unquiet afterwards. My lords, I con-
sider that the clergy of England, in'per-
suading their parishioners to petition (if
they have persuaded them), have secured
the peace and quiet of the country (for I
believe the country to be, at present, in a
perfect state of peace and quiet); and, if
this measure is to be carried, to them I
shall consider that it is to be attributed
that the people of England will remain
satisfied with the decision of the legisla-
ture.
My lords, I pass on now to the last, but
most fearful, part of the whole subject-
the probable effect of this measure on that
.part of the united church which is situated
in Ireland. My lords, the Church of
Ireland has been now, for many years,
exposed to fiery and fearful trial.:' Her
ministers have been vilified, her revenues
magnified, her exertions depreciated',;with
the view of exciting profligate and ieel--
lious men to attempt her overthrw -' and
yet, my lords, it is surely true, that th-re
never was a church in which Ihere was i
greater quantity of piety, learning, and


[APRIL 2.]


Relief Billi-_ 90







ability, than there is at this moment among
the bishops of the Irish church;-never
was there a church that had a ministry
more religious, more active and energetic:
.-ahd yet, notwithstanding all this, what
has not been said of her? My lords, the
dangers of the Church of Ireland come,
not from within, but from without; she is
brought into competition, with a rival
church--a church neither missionary nor
established; but pretending to be estab-
lished in a country in which there is already
a church established by law-a church,
having at its head two and twenty bishops,
nominally appointed by the pope; but,
really, at least in general, elected by them-
selves-bishops connected together, not
only by the ties of their peculiar religion,
but by the bonds which unite together the
fellows of the same college:--having under
them, as it is staled, a body of at least
three thousand five hundred clergy, placed
beyond the pale and protection of the law
in their spiritual relation, and in no way
responsible to the law-men entirely under
the control and superintendance of the
bishops, removable at will, having no ap-
peal to the king's courts, in case of a
suspension ecclesiastically irregular; and
in truth, as I have said, in every point
submitted to the arbitrary authority of the
bishops. These clergy, again, exercise over
their flocks the most unlimited influence-
the most undisputed sway; and this they
do chiefly by the tenets of their religion,
which places the consciences of their vota-
ries altogether at their disposal.
My lords, I hope I have not diminished
the dangers of the Irish church--but the
question now before us is, not whether the
Church of Ireland is in danger, but whether
the measure now proposed by his majesty's
government is calculated to diminish or
inrease that danger? My lords, after
what I have heard, with great sorrow, from
the primate of that church, I will not ex-
prCis a strong opinion on the subject.
Bt this I must say, that I think I can see
in thi measure some faint gleam of hope,
and hail the dawning of a brighter day.
But, my lords, I will now say no more
on that point. This is the only part of the
subject which has, for some years past,
made me hesitate as to the propriety of
measures similar to the present. And let-
not, I beseech you, my doubting hopes
influence your judgments on this mo-
lMetous part of the question now before
your lordships. Give to the Church of


Ireland your most bslemn and serious
consideration. Do not, I intreat you,
treat with scoffs, or levity, or disrespect,
the fears, perhaps the too just fears, of those
who are alarmed and agitated for her safety.
In the aristocracy of England the Church
of England has hitherto found her firmest
guardians and supporters. Here let the
Church of Ireland find them too. Ot,
your care, and vigilance, and religion, let
the united Church of England and Ireland
securely rest. Preserve her against the
intrigues of the cunning, the lust of the
avaricious, the violence of profligate and
rebellious men. Preserve her inviolate
against that day (a day which shall as-
suredly come), when Ireland shall, at last,
be converted to a holier doctrine, and a
purer faith. Preserve her inviolate against
that day, when the sons of Ireland, return
ing from a longer than Assyria captivity,
shall find that the temple of the Lord has
been already built, and the foundations
have been long since laid. And if ye shall
do this, whatever may be the event of your
deliberations (as the event is assuredly in
the hands of Providence), still posterity
shall say,-that posterity, of whose judg-
ment we have not been unkindly or un-
generously reminded,--posterity will say,
that the peers of England, when they
admitted the lay-members of the Catholic
body into the communion of the Legisla-
ture, still it did not put God out of the
question; but went about Sion and marked
well her bulwarks, that they might tell
them that came after. My lords, I shall
support the bill.
The Duke of Richmond said, he would
trespass but a very few moments on their
lordships' attention. He was unwilling
indeed to occupy their attention at any
length, feeling that there were many
noble lords present who, concurring
with him in opposition to this measure,
were much better able to state the
grounds upon which that opposition
was founded, and in the next place the
state of his health would prevent him
from taking a prominent part in these
proceedings. But the right rev. prelate
who had just sat down, had called him
up, by asking him, whether there had not
been a great accession of talent to the
support of this question, and if so,
whether we could continue to resist the
measure any longer. Now, he btould
respectfully remind that right rev,'pre-
late, that if there had been so great an


[ LORD, ]


191 oftdt Odhrtozli


Aelsf Di.





03 R0sna6r cadholic


accession of talent'nd eloquence to the
support of this measure, it must have
taken plate very lately and very suddenly.
It should be recollected that, down to last
year, this House had decided against this
measure, the last decision being against
a resolution for merely going into a com-
mittee on the question; and he believed
that, though they had not the benefit of
the right rev. prelate's eloquence on that
occasion, they had what was-he would
say it with perfect courtesy-much more
valuable--his vote. He would not take
upon him to say what the "march of
intellect" might not accomplish after that
specimen. He did not know but far
greater wonders might be accomplished,
and much more talent brought over to
the support of the question, if the noble
duke at the head of the government, could
be prevailed upon to wait a-while, and
instead of going on with this measure, to
put it off for another year. The right
rev. prelate had not stated the precise
period when this march of intellect wrought
such wonderful effects upon him. Perhaps
it was after the right rev. prelate had read
his majesty's Speech, that his intellect
became so suddenly illuminated. The
right rev. prelate had entered into a
variety of arguments, most of which had
no connexion with the question before
their lordships. He had referred to the
pamphlets of noble lords and others,
which he would assure him he had never
seen. He understood the right rev. pre-
late, in one part of his speech, to answer
the pamphlet of a Mr. Faber. He wished
the right rev. prelate would answer it by
writing one himself. He must confess,
that he could not see the weight of the
arguments of the right rev. prelate. It
appeared to him, that many of the illus-
trations adopted by the right rev. prelate
were not very justly applied. The right
rev. prelate had asked, whether it would
not be better to defend a fortified city
than one deprived of its fortifications.
He would only say in reply, that a fortress
would be much better than a city; and it
was for that reason he would, to the last,
stand by the safeguards of the constitution,
--by those Protestant guards which had
been hitherto considered an impregnable
defence. There he would take his stand,
and to them he would adhere to the last.
He should not have risen at all, but for
the direct appeal of the right rev. prelate,
and .he should not further stand in the


way of other noble lords, who were ttrmct
better able than he was to address the
House upon this important subject.
The Bishop of Salisbury (Dr. Burgess)
said :-My lords, although I have heard,
in the arguments of the two most reverend
prelates, who have addressed your lord-
ships on the subject of the bill before the
House, enough to satisfy my own mind,
that the bill ought not to pass into a law;
yet I cannot content myself with giving a
silent vote against it. My lords, I object
to the bill for admitting Papists into
parliament, because it is contrary to the
fundamental laws of the Reformation;
namely, the abolition of all foreign juris-
diction in this realm, and the re-union of
all civil and ecclesiastical authority in.the
sovereign-and is inconsistent with the
liberty and independence of a free country,
byits recognition of a supreme ecclesiasti al
authority distinct from, and superior to,
the sovereignty of the realm. I object to
the admission of Papists into parliament,
because it is contrary to our religion-
I mean the religion of the Bible, of our
Liturgy, our Articles and Homilies, and
the first Canon of our Church, which are
opposed to the supremacy of the pope,
and to the idolatrous and superstitious
worship of the Church of Rome. What-
ever may be said on the plea of expediency,
no measure can be useful or expedient,
which is opposed to religion, and the
express law of God. I object to th6
admission of Papists into parliament,
because it is contrary to the oath which
I have repeatedly taken in this House,
and to the Declaration which I have as
often made here against popery; from
which Oath and Declaration, taken in
the sense in which I received them I
speak of myself individually-I feel that I
cannot depart without wilful and criminal
prevarication. I object to the bill, be-
cause it is contrary to the very purpose of
his majesty's commission; by which his
majesty, from time to time, convenes par-
liament to consult for the defence of the
church, as well as the state, of Englahd.
The Church of England cannot be de-
fended by giving legislative power to the
members of another, church, who are
bound by principle, to use their utmost
endeavours for the overthrow of the Pro-
testant religion. My lords, the bill for the
admission of Papists into parliament appears
to be equally contrary to the direct and
literal meaning of his majesty's Coronation


[ At=i 2. ]


Relt Bill.





95 Roman Catholic


Oath, in which his majesty by the most
solemn pledge, promises to maintain, to
the utmost of his power, the Protestant
reformed religion established by law.
The bill, as it appears to me, is not less
contrary.to a much later pledge--the
only pledge contained in his majesty's
Speech from the Throne-in which his
majesty most graciously expressed his de-
termination to preserve inviolate the
established institutions of our country,
of which a Protestant parliament is one of
the chief-the pillar and bulwark of the
rest. My lords, we' have, at present a
Protestant parliament, but if the bill for
the admission of Papists into parliament
should pass into A law, a Protestant
parliament will cease to exist. His
majesty's Parliamentary Commission, his-
Coronation Oath, the last Speech from
the Throne, and the Act of Settlement,
if viewed as mutual comments on each
other, may perhaps, serve to decide the
question, whether the admission of Papists
into parliament is4 or is not, consistent
with the Coronation Oath of our Pro-
testant sovereign.--If I were to argue
against the bill from the danger of
admitting Papists into parliament, I
should not confine myself to the danger
impending over the temporal establish-
ment of religion, and the worldly pro-
perty of the church- though that is
inevitable; I should lay my stress on the
danger likely to result to religion itself,
from the corruption of public principle,
through what will be called, the inefficacy
of oaths and the most solemn declarations;
and from the public encouragement given
by a Protestant parliament to idolatry and
superstition; and on the prospect of the
calamities denounced in Scripture against
idolatry and its promoters, so often verified
in the history of the Jews, and even of
our own country, as has been strikingly
shewn by Mr. Croly, in his work on the
Apocalypse, and by a learned physician
Dr. Bagnell, in: his answer to Mr. Gally
Knight.-My lords, I shall detain your
lordships no longer than to add, that, for
the reasons which I have before mentioned,
I shall give my most cordial negative to
the bill.
The Earl of Winchilsea said: On
former occasions, my lords, I have so
often expressed, both in your lordships'
House and elsewhere, my opinions on
this. great and momentous question, that
I shall not enter- into any thing like a


general discussion of it. I think it
now neither expedient nor necessary to
enter at length into the question, whether
or not it is just or desirable to put political
power into the hands of the followers of
the Church of Rome. I shall not now
enter into an extended inquiry, as to the
justice or wisdom of a Protestant legisla-
ture giving strength and consistency to a
body of men, who are called upon, by
every motive and consideration which can
actuate the mind of man, to use every
power with which they may be invested
to subvert and destroy Protestantism ill
every shape, and especially the established
religion in England. I will not now,. my
lords, as I have already assured your.
lordships, recapitulate the arguments
which, on former occasions, I have used
against any concession of political power
to the Catholics; on the contrary, my lords,
my wish is to proceed at once to a brief
consideration of the enactments of this
bill, which the noble duke at the head &'
his majesty's government proposes to sub-
stitute for those long-known and tried
safeguards, under which our Protestant
constitution has arrived at its present
pitch of perfection, and under whiqh this
country has so long and so happily e~n-
joyed the blessings of liberty, ot equal'
justice, and of political independence..
Your lordships will recollect that, when
the nature of this measure was first an-
nounced, there was received an assurance
from the noble duke which gaie to the
country a peculiar pledge; and your lord-
ships are now called to determine howfar'
that pledge has been redeemed. When
asked by noble lords, to state thd nature
and extent of the intended measure of
concession, the noble duke replied, that"if
would be a bill which should give .tabi-
lity to the public peace, satisfaction to the
minds of the Protestant community, seCu-
rity to the established religion, and that,
above all things, it would be calculated to
check the growth of poperyin these realms.
Now, my lords, it is for your lordships to
judge how far that pledge has been re-
deemed. We are to judge from iecenit'
and remote circumstances. Two parts pf
that undertaking I shall have little ifi-
culty in showing are assumptions that
rest upon grounds the most erroneois.
I shall commence with the alleged satis-
faction to the Protestant mind of Eng-
land. Look, my lords, attthe innuinmrable
petitions that have poured nto your lord-


Relief Bil.;-


[LORDS,]






97 Romian Catholic


ships' House, ever since this disastrous
announcement on the part of his majesty's
ministers. Look to the innumerable ad-
dresses' that have been laid at the foot of
the throne. Look at the extent to which
the public mind has been agitated from
the moment this threatened inroad upon
the constitution became known. Mylords,
the most distant parts of the empire have
rung with the voice of indignation, from
the hour at which Protestant ascendancy
was first assailed. Ever since the people
of England came to know that the religion
and institutions of their ancestors were in
danger, they have taken every opportunity
of looking into the question, of judging
for themselves, and of expressing their
sentiments to parliament respecting the
proposed measure of the noble duke, and
in what degree it might be considered con-
sistent with the constitution which it pro-
fessed to support, or sufficient to meet the
dangers which it was put forward as the
means of averting. My lords, I believe
there is no man living who will assert that
it is otherwise than an experimental mea-
sure. Hitherto, my lords, this country
has enjoyed a greater degree of liberty
than has been elsewhere to be found in
Europe. Justice has been fairly and im-
partially administered; and are we to
believe that the admission of Roman Ca-
tholics to political power, that the placing
men in situations of trust and political
influence, to whom is denied the right
of private judgment, will tend to the pre-
servation of that constitution and those
privileges, for which our .ancestors sacri-
ficed so much? My lords, I have no diffi-
culty in boldly affirming, that the great
body of the Protestants of the empire
have arrived at this conclusion--that the
present bill will not afford the slightest
security to the reformed religion, or to
the church establishment of this country;
that not one of those safeguards will be
afforded, for which they have been taught
so anxiously to look; that we shall get
nothing in return for those encroachments
upon that constitution, of which, though
thqri might have been some dawning in
early periods, England knew nothing,
until it. as. finally established and settled
in- 1I88. The people of England have
arrived at this conclusion after, what I
will call, a cool and deliberate considera-
tion.i They are persuaded that their rights
an' liberties are in danger, and they
think that the preservation of Protestantinm
VOL. XXI.


is essential to the preservation of those
rights and liberties. It is in vain, my
lords, that it will be asserted that the cdn.
stitution of this country is of popish origin,
or that it had any substantial existence in
popish times. True it is, that the door of
freedom was opened previous to the Re-
volution of 1688, and that the tide of
liberty occasionally ebbed and flowed;
but, without the slightest fear of contra-
diction, I assert, that the civil rights of
Englishmen were not permanently esta-
blished until long subsequent to the Re-
formation. We are told, my lords, that
the character of popery is changed; but
we are yet left without the proofs of that
assertion. My lords, I hold, that despotism
flows from the predominance of popery,
as naturally and necessarily as' the effect
flows from its cause. I hold it to be a truth
equally indisputable that, whatever is
truly and morally good, whatever is Chris-
tian and religious in any church, or in any
country, will be found to exist, in propor-
tion as the members of that church or of
that country shall have receded from the
Church of Rome, and advanced towards
the principles and faith of-the Protestait
Church. I will go further and defy any
noble lord to prove, that rational liberty
and attachment to true freedom are not
found to exist in a greater proportion
among Protestants than amongst another
class of Christians. Are we, then, to allow
the most precious rights:for which men
can contend, to be trampled down, that
Irish rebels may teach England howto
defend those rights which none but Eng-
lishmen have ever enjoyed? Are we .to
be intimidated by the menaces of treason-
able and illegal associations? Let us
have some approximation to a proof, how
the unrestricted admission of Catholics
will, in any way, give strength and security
to the state. My lords, it is the will that
actuates, and not the hand that signs,,
which determines the character of a series
of measures or of an administration. It is.
in vain that the houses of legislature or the
subordinate, offices be filled by the. ma. ;
jority of Protestants, if we have, notWith-
standing that, a popish prime minister.;,
If we are to judge of the future by the
past, how are we to suppose that men who :
have always submitted their minds to the
spiritual jurisdiction of a foreign power.
will devote themselves at once to the:
maintenance, of ihstitutions'such as ours, :
and exert themselves in maintaining that
E


Relief Bill.


[ APRIL 2.]






90 1 Romnrx Coatholic


connection between a Protestant church
and the state, the value of which I hear
no man stand forward to question? .Does
any rational man believe that the proposed
concessions will tend to strengthen the
Protestant constitution? Will any man
be influenced by the belief that Roman
Catholics will regard with favour, and
sincerely lend themselves to the support
of, a constitution which, like a.phcenix,
has risen from the ashes of popery? Will
any ,man believe that such an experiment
would not expose that constitution to
unusual danger? The advocates of this
measure tell us, that it will tend to check
the growth of popery. I call on those
who make such an assertion to tell me, if
they believe that admission to political
power will induce any one of the followers
of the Churc of Rome to throw off the
spiritual and temporal power of that
church ? Had it been practicable for
owr ancestors to remain Catholics, and
at the same time to relieve themselves
from the intolerable ascendancy of popish
influence, where would have been the
necessity, three centuries ago, of effecting
the great work of the Reformation ? Why
needed we, then, to reform our religion ?
Why needed we to banish the Jesuits ? Why
needed we to suppress the monasteries ?
I would entreat your lordships to pause
before you take upon yourselves the awful
responsibility of overturning that for which
our ancestors so nobly struggled, and
which they so nobly achieved. I would
entreat the right reverend prelates, by that
sacred character which separates them
from the restfof the community, to weigh
well the awful responsibility which will
attach to every one who takes on himself
to recommend the relinquishment of the
great safeguards of Protestantism in this
country, before they give it up to any
experimental project or any plea of ex-
pediency. I would entreat all your lord-
ships to remember the blessings that
England las enjoyed under the present
constitution, and the extent to which she
has, flourished, while adhering to the doc-
trines of her present church. With this
sincere appeal I shall conclude by declar-
ing my determination to support the
amendment of the right rev. prelate.
Earl Sqmers expressed his gratification
at seeing this measure brought forward in
the manner, in, which it had. been brought
forward ~y his majesty's ministers. That
circumstance alone was a strong presump-


tion in its favour, when those who had the
best means of knowing .the state of the
country abandoned their old opiniOns, and.
introduced this measure, on the ground, otf
its being absolutely necessary for the
peace of the country. His xnajesty'a;
ministers, who best knew the wants of the
country, were united in opinion as to the
necessity of this measure. It was a strong
presumption, too, in favour of it, that two
such great men as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,
who hardly agreed on any other Iquestion,
perfectly coincided as to the necessity of
conceding the Roman Catholic claims,
The other House of parliament, the popular
branch of the legislature too, had .fre-
quently decided in favourof the concession;
of these claims; and that was a further
strong argument in support of this nmpae
sure. He was of opinion also, that this
measure could be supported upon religion
grounds. .He could uot agree with a right
rev. prelate (the bishop of Oxford), tht.
the clergy, had. acted well in reference to
this, question. It would -haye become
them more as Christian ministers, not to
have taken the strong .and violent, ,art
which they had adopted against i1 Ca,
tholics. They should lhae recolleted,
that they were the 1iunisiters of peace au4
good will amongst men, and' that 4t,was
out of character for them to appear aA the
stirrers up of strife and conatntntion. tIe
would remind them, that if they had at-
tended with more care than they appeal~ e
to have done to those parts o tile bible
in which peace and charity towards all
were inculcated, they must have followed
a different course-that if they had paid
more attention to the Lord's Prayer, the
Sermon on the Mount, and the beautiful:
parable of the Good Samaritan, who, as
all acknowledge, was the type and model
of a good Christian; and, if they had
acted up to the precepts inculcated in
those divine lessons, he did not think they
would have taken the part which ihev bad
done against.their fellow Christians. What
reason was there for denying justice to
the Roman'Catholips? They fought .oHy
battles, and shed their .bood in the oe-
fence of our common, country. Why,
then, should they be excluded from the
rights of citizenship, in that state to whose
support they.contributed their blood and
treasure? The Roman Catholi e had,
fought our battles in the fild-l-ha fg? ,f
spilled their,blood in-defeace of the con-
stitution-and surely ought :to hv e


aeReef x~l. : 1,00


[ LORDS, ]






181 Roento Catholic


ash~e in the blessings of that constitution.
Was it just to exclude them from partici-
pating in those advantages, which they
had maiitained with their lives? His
opinion of justice was very different. He
thought it was not just to exclude those
from equal rights, who were exposed to
equal dangers, and who contributed an
equal share to support the burthens of the
state. Those who were opposed to the
Catholics should bear in mind, that the
e*eoutive power ballotted those Catholics
for the militia, and pressed them, some
way or other, into the regular army, of the
material of which they formed a material
portion. They should bear in mind, that
those Catholics gallantly risked their lives
in winning those victories, in the field and
ow the sea, of which the country was so
juitly proud. Was it, then, justice to
xc'lude then from those political advan-
tages, which they helped their Protestant
brethren to maintain? He sawnot the
justice of such policy; and therefore would
support a measure which went to repeal
itjistlaws and to administer strict justice.
-But the measure before their lordships
wts also recommended upon the principle
of' expediency. If its tendency were, as
had been alleged by some noble lords, to
change the Protestant constitution of the
eO~intry-if a single reason had been ad-
vanced in support of such a doctrine-he
for one would give up the :argument, and
would oppose the present policy of the
government. But what ground was there
for such an extravagant assertion ? Was
it that a minority-a small minority-
could triumph over an overwhelming ma-
jority? Was it not a fact, that in Great
Britain the Roman Catholics were com-
paratively few--that the mass of the
people was Protestant ? If so, what ap-
prehensions could be entertained of the
Catholics in this country, supposing, for
a moment, that it was their design to
subVrt its Protestant institutions? In
Ireland, it was true, the majority of the
inhabitants were Roman Catholics; but
what could the numerical strength even
there of the Catholics effect on the parlia-
ment of the United Kingdom ? Suppos-
ing, for example, that that numerical
strength prevailed so far as to return Ca-
tholic members for every county and place
iii Ireland, that sent representatives to the
-N14i~i of Commons-would those Catholic
members outvote the Protestant members
O(f Great Britain? Could they, as that


House was now constituted,' carry any
measure hostile to the interests of the
Protestants? Impossible: for, on this
supposition-which, by the way, was a
very unfounded supposition-they would
be as one to five and a half-the House
of Commons consisting of six hundred and
fifty-eight members, of which but a hun-
dred were Irish; the remaining five hun-
dred and fifty-eight being the representa-
tives of England, Wales, and Scotland,
where the Catholics had and could have
no election influence. Upon every prin-
ciple of calculation, then, which he had
ever heard of, was it not absurd to talk of
the admission of Catholics into the House
of Commons being the death-warrant of
the constitution ? Admitting, for a mo-
ment, that their efforts would be so, di-
rected, how could theyobtain the numenrlc
majority-whence could they derive thb
weight" in the legislature sufficient to
subvert the Protestant establishments of
England and Ireland in church and 'state ?
He really was ashamed to argue' against a
proposition so absolutely absurd; but it
had been so repeatedly urged by indivi-
duals, considered in their generation wise
and learned, that he could not pass it
unnoticed. By the laws of the country
the Protestant was the established religion
of the state. It could not have become
so, unless the large majority of the people
had been Protestants : it could not cease
to be so, until the large majority of the
people had ceased to be Protestants.
Therefore, until the people of this country
had become Catholics, and abandoned
Protestantism, there could be no danger
of our Protestant establishments; so that
those who contended, that the admission
of the Catholics to the benefits of the
state was fraught with danger to our Pro-
testant establishments, were bound to
show, that the whole country would be-
come Catholic on the passing of the mea-
sure before the House. When the country
had, indeed, become Catholic, there might
be well founded fear, that the Protestant
constitution of the country would be over-
turned ; but until then there could be no
rational apprehension. And he asked their
lordships-he asked the veriest opponent
of the measure-to show that the passing
of it would increase the number of Ca-
tholics, to such a degree as to give them
a numerical majority in the legislature, and
a preponderating weight in the country
Was there any thing so recommendatory,
E2


[ APaL 2. ]


Relief Bill. 102






103 Roman Cithllic


so pure, in the doctrine of that religion, or
had it been heretofore treated with such
favour, that parliament had only to repeal
the penal laws against its votaries to make
it the religion of the people at large? The
supposition had only to be stated, to show
its monstrous absurdity. It was idle, then,
to talk of the admission of Catholics into
the House of Commons being the inevita-
ble precursor of the downfal of the Pro-
testant institutions of the country. It was
equally idle to talk of the danger of ad-
mitting them into their lordships' House.
The present measure would only enable six
or seven Catholic peers to take their seats
there; and it was ridiculous to talk of the
king-an essentially Protestant king--
making so many Catholic peers, as that
they, would constitute the majority in that
branch of the legislature. With respect,
then, to the admission of Catholics to par-
liament, there could be no objection to the
present measure. Indeed, he had spent
night and day in examining the bill, to see
whether it could possibly endanger our
Protestant establishments, and he could
see no danger; on the contrary, he thought,
the withholding it would be much more
dangerous. He would ask their lordships,
whether there was no latent mischief in not
passing the bill? Were there no hardships,
productive of mischief, in their making
Catholics fight the battles of a constitu-
tion, from the political advantages of which
they were excluded? Who composed a
very large proportion of the privates of
their armies, of the sailors and marines of
their navies, but the Roman Catholics?
Ahd that being the case, he asked whether,
after all the discussion which the claims of
those Catholics had received yearly,
monthly, he was going to say nightly and
hourly-and after all the hopes and expec-
tations of the Catholics consequent upon
that discussion, in the event of their reject-
ing those claims, they ought not to be pre-
pared for one of two evils? Either they
could not henceforward allure or force into
their armies and navies that portion of the
superabundant population of Ireland, which
had hitherto rushed to supply them with
soldiers and furnish them with sailors; or,
if they did press them into their service,
they could not any more trust them in the
hour of peril.-But this dangerous state of
things was not all; for they must be pre-
pared to maintain a great and sanguinary
resistance to every appearance of commo-
iion in Ireland. In the event of withhold-


ing concession from the Catholics, they
must be prepared, not only to do without
the military aid which Ireland had, not-
withstanding her wrongs, hitherto atforded
them, but they must also keep up A large
army of their own, to keep down the re-
bellious spirit of the Irish people. And
were they prepared for such a state'of
things? He thought not; for though he
had heard of, and had witnessed, the pass-
ing of many acts of parliament, he was sure
an act to extend and keep up martial law
in Ireland, would not receive the sanction
of the legislature. Upon this ground alone,
then, it was most desirable that the bill
should pass.-That there was no danger
from the admission of Catholics into that
and the other House of parliament, or
that, if there were danger, that it was ten
times less than that arising from perpetual
exclusion, he had endeavoured 'to' slow.
Indeed, this point was so evident, thit it
was almost monstrous to deny it, and
almost absurd to argue it; so fat as Eg-
land was concerned. It was true, aid he
lamented it, that there were many Catho-
lics in Ireland: but, he asked, how came
there to be so many ? Was it not a fact
in the history of that country, that no at-
tempts had been made to extend to them
the Protestant form of Christianity ?':He
spoke not of the governmentdofthlat coun-
try for the last'thirty years;i when, he
thanked God, a better system'of tile&'had
been adopted towards that ill-tftited
country, but of the early government, be-

fore and since the time of the Rbformi'itibn.
It was well known that England, then in a
state of semi-civilization, had conquered
Ireland, not many degrees removed from a
savage and barbarous condition of society.
It was equally well known, that the c'n-
querors imposed a law so mucll in their
own favour, that an offence against them-
selves was punished capitally, while the
killing a merus hibernicus" was a crime
which a small penalty atoned fbr. 'Nor
was this monstrous system of oppression
departed from at the Reformation; which
the English Protestants took no pains 9to
extend to Ireland. In fact, it was found
less troublesome to kill the mere Irish-
men" (who, by the way, were not Catholic
converts from Protestantisin, like many of
the English settlers, but members of the
church of Rome as long as their history
could well inform them), than to coiivert
them to the Protestant faith. No wonder,
then, that the Catholics were many and


Relief Bitl. *


[LORDS,]





Roman Catholic [.APRIL.2.j]


the Protestants few; for the latter not only
did not encourage, but actually discouraged
the making of converts at the dawn of the
heformation ; because they felt, that the
lawplaced Catholics more under their un-
controlled and irresponsible power than it
did the Protestants, even though they
were Irishmen. After the Reformation
had made some progress in the time of
Elizabeth, the Catholics, being the ma-
jority of the population, and viewing the
Pj'Qtestant religion as that of their oppres-
sors and conquerors, rose under Tyrcon-,
nell, and other leaders, against the English
yoke, but being suppressed, they were
treated as a newly-conquered people, and
'eudered still more wretched. In the reign
of James 1st, which, however inglorious it
might have appeared to the people of
England, was a new era in the English
rtEp of Ireland, a better state of things was
q44ced in that country: many improve-
eents were made in the administration;
Prtitait colonies were founded ; but still
no attempts were niade to convert the Ca-
tholics to the established religion, though
many .were made to exterminate popery.
The next reign wvas that, in every respect,
unortunate, oe, of Charles Ist. The Ca-
,thplics having received less oppression
from that monarch than from his prede-
cessors, and hat ing taken as a consequence
the side of the king against the parliament,
,apd having alarmed the fears of the Pro-
t stants, of England by their atrocious
pnd4ut ,in the Rebellion of 1641, were
trpatedby the Puritans,.and afterwards by
Cr9.mwell, with all the oppression of mili-
tary conquerors, infuriated by religious and
national antipathy. Under such circum-
stances, it was not to be expected that
converts to Protestantism would be made.
At the Revolution, an unfortunate combi-
nation of circumstances arrayed the Pro-
iestants, so against the Catholics, that
converts to Protestantism were' not to be
expected. But shortly after William had
finally destroyed the power of his father-
in.law in Ireland, and with that all hope of
,his restoration to. the throne of England,
h, concluded a treaty with the Irish Ca-
,thalics-the treaty of Limerick-which,
without offering an opinion on its being all
,tha, thbep Roman Catholics alleged, was
Anore tolerant in principle than that body
were accustomed to meet with from their
SEnglish rulers. The fact was, the Catho-
lip;weri3treated:more kindly by William
than by any monarch from the period of


the Reformation.-A retrospect of the go-
veriment of Ireland by this country fur-
nished many other arguments in favour of
the bill before their lordships, besides that
arising from the neglect of all feasible
attempts to extend the influence of the
Protestant religion. He was happy that
the present bill, while it granted the Ro-
man Catholics their civil rights, did not at
all tamper or meddle with their ecclesias-
tical affairs. It left the clergy of that
religion on their, present footing, while it
preserved the integrity of the existing Pro-
testant establishment. Such policy he
considered the best species of security for
those establishments that could be afford-
ed. Now, on what grounds were securities
required-that is, on what grounds were
the penal laws against the Catholics
enacted at the Revolution of 1688 ? There
was no doubt that severe laws were passed
inr the reign of Charles 2nd against the
Roman Catholics; but the principle was
the same with those of the Revolution. It
was a special object with the statesmen
who brought about that great event, to
keep the Roman Catholics as tight as pos-
sible; but the reasons of that policy were
special-he might say personal and tempo-
rary-and had long since ceased to have
existence. The laws against the Roman
Catholics, passed in the reign of Charles
2nd and William 3rd, were directed against
James 2nd and his more devoted (on reli-
gious grounds) adherents. But, whatwag
it that drove that king from the throne of
these realms ? Was it not his attachment
to popery, and his insatiable thirst of
arbitrary power? Then why were the laws
enacted against the Roman Catholics ?-
because they were the adherents of the
dethroned monarch. The Catholics were
naturally attached to James; for he not
only favoured them, but belonged to them.
Others also, a powerful party, were opposed
to the new dynasty, from a strong natural
predilection for the hereditary sovereign of
the ancient line of their kings. From these
two classes of adherents to the House of
Stuart danger was to be apprehended at
the Revolution; and accordingly it was
not to' be wondered, that severe laws
against them were then enacted. The ex-
pediency of such laws was then more than
probable; but the injustice of them now
was less questionable.-Such was the
origin of the harsh measures against the
Roman Catholics passed at the Revolu-
tion, But these were not the only motives


I.. Rl~fill. 10







by which the ministers of William were neat of the Cathblic claims, the late lord
actuated. For the ill-fated last king of Liverpool, on this point. That noble earl,
ah ill-fated race, not only rested his hope as their lordships must remember,deeltred,
of restoration to the throne whence he had that if his objections, on other gronnds,
been driven, on the support of his Catholic were removed, he would have no scruple,
and Jacobite adherents in England, Scot- so far as the Coronation Oath was coneern-
land, and Ireland, but also sought for and ed. Every child knew, that while the
derived aid from the ambitious monarch executive possessed a double power--a
*ho then ruled France, and whose avowed executive and a legislative-he was atil
object was the expulsion of William, and bound to act according to law, and that
the restoration of James and the Catholic the most important part of his prerogative
religion. It was known, moreover, that would be an idle letter, if, while the two
Louis was little scrupulous about the means Houses of parliament made and repealed
lhe employed to attain his end, and that he and re-enacted laws, the kingaloneshould
was not only: the head of the Catholic not be at liberty to approve or disapprove
party of Europe, but also the personal foe of any law or doctrine, that came under
of our great deliverer. Under such cir- his consideration.-But, how did the oath
caiustances, strong measures against the apply to the present bill ? Supposing it
Catholics, and all the adherents of the did apply ir the maaaer asserted by some
House of Stuart, were not only justifiable noble lords look at the state in which it
but expedient.-But how stood the case would place the imoarch. It would deprive
now ? Do you fear any Pretender of the the king of the highest exertion of his pre-
House of Steart any longer ? Is there a rogative; namely, the power of .repeating
formidable Jacobite party among us, or passing laws, which he and his servants
threatening the existing line of monarchs ? might deem essential to the pablio safety.
Do you fear danger from Catholic France, He was aware that his late mav y had
where Protestants have been admitted to entertained certain scrupleoas to itte o -
all the civil advantages of the state? I patibility of concession to he. oatholito
say (repeated the noble earl) do you fear with his Coronation Oath. -Bt he wes
a Pretender, or do you dread the Catholic aware that those scruples wow not injs-
influence of a state, that has honourably perable; for George 3rd had given his
preceded you in the career of civil and royal assent to several measures in favour
religious liberty ? What are your fears ?- of the Catholics, equally opposed to his
for, upon my word, after the maturest Coronation Oath. Besides, how could a
deliberation, I cannot see any. If your oath, framed under cirawnvstanes with a
fears are great, why not acknowledge them view to exclude a Catholic frOm the throne,
by granting the:concession ? If you enter- apply to a Protestant monarch, with Pro-
tain no fears, why hesitate to assent to a testant institutions in church and state ?
measure equally recommended by justice And what did the oath pledge the monarah
and sound policy ?-One word with respect to ? Merely "to preserve and support the
to king William, whose name had been so Protestant religion in these realms, and to
often quoted, or rather misquoted, by the secure to the bishops and clergy of the
opponents of the present bill. It was a established church their rights and pro-
fact-no matter what the ignorance and perty." Now, was there any thing in this
bigotry of the Orangemen of Ireland might bill which could subvert the Protestant
assert to the contrary-for which there religion, or deprive the clergy of their
was, on this point, the unquestionable rights and property ? Andif not, he further
authority of bishop Burnet, that that asked, how could it be said to interfere
monarch was most anxious to lessen the with the Coronation Oath ? Was it not a
hardships of the laws against the Catholics, barefaced begging, of the question to
of which circumstances might have justi- assert, that the concession to the Catholics
fied the enactment. King William'sname, contemplated by the present bill was
then, was libelled, when it was quoted on dangerousto the Protestant establishtmet ?
the side of exclusion or intolerance.-The Would not the Protestant religion and the
next point he would call their lordships' rights and property of the clergy, be
attention to, was the Coronation Oath. exactly in the same condition after the bill,
Perhaps he ought to content himself with as they were then in ? For his own part,
quoting the recorded emphatic declaration he was convinced that the Protestant eli-
f4 on all other grounds, a strweano oppo. 0ion wwold be owow fltouihing aAfer the


1161 Ra" atkiie


SieWf al.


[ LORDS, I






tGo Rom#skao7wtolic


passing.f the present measure, than it had abused. if the most gross terms. What
ever been in Ireland or even 'England else did he find ? He found that when a
before ; and even for that reason alone he bill was before parliament for suppressing
would give it his best support. His opi- that illegal body-on the just grounds
nainswere not lightly formed : they were that such an association was an anomaly
theresult of twenty years experience, and in a free country, and went on so far as to
decidedly were, that no better security for overawe the legislature-that many'de-
the Protestant establishments in church dared they would vote for the bill abnt
and state could be devised, than that which because they considered it right that: it
thet bill itself afforded. should not exist--but because they yielded
tSe Earl of Harewood said, he felt one concession, to obtain a much greater
a1kioas to state the reasons by which he in return. He applied to that bill, as he
*pMathen, as he had hitherto been, opposed I would to the measure .before the House,
to'the principle of the present bill. the general principles of legislation, and
Though, as he said, he was, from the first, he would say that that bill did not go far
ostesed *to the bill, he was still one of enough, if it were intended as a security.
those who had derived some consolation The noble earl proceeded to argue, that as
from the declaration made by the noble another society-under the title of The
duke at the head of the government a few Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty"--
vwebks ago respecting the tendency of the which was disconnected from the Catho-
measre now before their lordships. The lic Association, was not mentioned in the
noble duke had then stated, that he would Suppression bill, it was by implication per-
etgage at the proper time, to prove, that mitted to exist, if not actually approved of.
a*.tmeasure would tend to check the He was as firmly attached as any van to
growth and influence of popery, and to the principles of civil and religious liberty;
tsdend those of the Protestant religion, and he, therefore, would approve of any
From tatt declaration hehad derived some association, in which those principles
consolation; but, so far from having re- were advocated, but he was not to be de-
eeived any from the noble duke's speech luded by a plausible denomination. It
of that eveniii, he declared that whatever was on the principles of eiiil and religious
tiightfhave been his apprehensions before, liberty that he was opposed to Catholicism;
not only of the measure itself, but of the cir- for if Protestantism, which encouraged
caumtancesprecedingit,andhoweverstrong those principles, were succeeded by Catho-
hiifeelings might have been, those feelings licism, there was an end to civil and religi-
were deepened and aggravated by what he ous liberty in England. Opposing, then,
hadheard andwitnessed since that evening, the principle of concession tothe Catholics
Uponfiwhat grounds were their lordships on such principles, itwas too 'bad to be
called iup"n to grant political power to the denominated tyrants and big6ts by the
Rioman Catholics? He, for one, was advocates of that concession. .He repeat-
anxious to do away with religious distinc- ed, that no man could be more attached
'tions in civil affairs, but still he must to the principles of civil and religious liber-
pause before he admitted the professor of ty than he was. As a proof, he would op-
the Catholic religion to full political power pose the measures before their lordships,
in this Protestant state. Their lordships were it, only for two of their clauses, which
were called upon to grantthat power from were inimical to those principles. By one
principles of expediency. But, what was a religious offender against the bill might
that expediency? He looked back to the be transported, for life'; ;by another, a
last three years-or rather to a few months whole class of our fellow-gtbjects had
of, the last year-and he saw, from the been disfranchised. If he looked to, the
proceedings of an association that had bill, and read it backward, he found the
existed in defiance of the law, that the punishment at one end-the boon at
mass of the people of Ireland were in an another;-but both in a manner which no
organized state, through the exertions of friend of civil and religious liberty could
that body. He saw in the proceedings of approve of; seeing that its general ten-
that association, which had been ostenta. deny was dangerous to the Protestant
* tislc y lpmaulgated in the public prints, institutions of the country. He hoped his
the institutions of the country in church apprehensions, would prove unfounded-
and Atate, vilified, and the clergy of the that he might turn out wrong in his p~e-
tstablished religion wer e desicibed ad dictions, and that all the good expected


r Aritt 2. 1


.WiV ~Bill 11-0






Relf Bill.-


ljyhe advocates of the.bill would follow
iom it. But he, feared he should not be
rotg; ,nor were his fears lessened by the
f;,thtf.none of those advocates had
poe in more than a conjectural tone-
tha. none had ventured to express more
tlha a:hope of those benefits. If he could
persp~ad, hirumslf that the tranquillity and
p,;d~pe'ity promised to Ireland would be
~ consequencesof the measure before their
loihisps, he would willingly sacrifice his
ow p.pinion. on its principle, and give it
his .earnest support. But he solemnly de-
clqred, that he saw not how any thing of
the kind could occur to Ireland from the
bill, or how it could be productive of such
beneficial results: and therefore he would
oqt consent to it. Experience had taught
him,. that concession did not tend to
tranquillize Ireland. He had seen for
many.years, concession generating a de-
niand rfr more concession, until at length
the legislature were compelled, by a princi-
ple.of expediency, forsooth, to yield the
present additional concession. He was
convinced that eten thiswould not satisfy
the Catholi.:s; and he.wouldventure to
sy, that if the ingenuity of man could find
out any thing more to be demanded, the
saif scenes of demand and concession,
anid disturbance, and absence of all tran-
(quilliy, would be renewed.-With respect
to the Coronation Oath, he would only say,
that his opinion of an oath was, that it
should be observed according to the spirit
in,which it was taken; that no man having
taken, an oath in a certain spirit, ought
subsequently to apply to others to point
out some ingenious mode of eluding it.
If, therefore, those who took particular
oaths against the Catholics, felt they were
pledging themselves to resist concession
to that body, they were bound to keep
those oaths faithfully to the letter. But,
if tey did not take them in that spirit, the
case would be different; but, in his mind,
unless that was the case, the oath was
binding in, the spirit in which it was ad-
ministu.red and taken. He begged leave
to repeat that he opposed the bill because
he could not see the advantages which
wouqi c,,as its advocates alleged, arise from
it, li,;he,thought its tendency was dan-
g r')iou to the Protestant establishments of
the country. This opposition might, if
nobl, lords would so have it, be obstinacy
orjudpIe, but it was the feeling never-
th.,O, large portion of the. people of


The Marquis of Lansdowwn said,-he felt
that he should be guilty of a derelictionzof
duty, if he failed to express -the opinions
he entertained upon the subject of the
claims of the Roman Cathlalics--4claiinst6
which he had advocated the propriety of
concession through the whole of his poli-
tical life. It had been: observed by the
noble earl who spoke last that he waswilr
ling to grant the Catholics every benefit
or advantage which they could desire,
short of political power. But did the
noble earl not perceive-did not their lord-
ships perceive that the Catholics ;ha
obtained political power already ? That
they were in possession of that very poli-
tical power which this bill must remove ?
-a power, the existence of which was
dangerous to the peace of society, and
which had manifested itself in acts of mis.
chief, or, at all events, of extravagance,
which could not be tolerated under any
well-regulated government.. It was to re-
move this power, and to substitute for it
the influence of the Protestant government
and the laws of the country, that this-bill-
was intended, while at the same ,time it
would tend to promote a spirit of peace
and of concord calculated to render that
influence permanent, and to secure the
prosperity of Ireland and of the .empire
at large. The noble earl, indeed, did
not sit down until he had disproved much
of his own assertions, by shewing that
those dangerous powers which the Catho-
lics had obtained, never could have been
acquired but for the artificial system un-
der which he admitted them to be placed.
The noble earl had expatiated on the
seeming inconsistencies of this bill, which,
whilst it extinguished certain powers un-.
der the laws as they at present existed,
revived and extended others, which were
decidedly for the benefit of one class, of
his majesty's subjects. His answer to that
argument was this-that the powers which.
had been thus extinguished by this act,
were powers in themselves illegal and:
often oppressive; whilst the powers which,
it granted were salutary, and calculated
to connect this class of subjects with the
legislature. It could not fail to produce
that most desirable result, that hereafter
this class would appeal to the proper and.
constitutional channels to which its.griev-.
ances, its remonstrances, and complaints,
ought to be addressed. In this would be,
found the perfect consistency of the bill
before their lordships-that it allowed; t


RomanmCathalic


[ LORDS, ]






IJ13 Roman, Cat hoelic


be heard -and. made known through the
proper representative of the public, that
which it was the interest of every free go-
vernment/ but of this in particular, should
be directly conveyed to the sources of
authority., Its enactments were not only
reooncileable with, but were even condu-
eijejto the interests and the safety of the
public, and of the established church.
i The right reverend prelate at the head
of .the established church of Ireland, who
had expressed his sentiments in a manner
which reflected honour on himself, and
showed him to be worthy of the high sta-
tion, which he held, had argued, that the
whole question turned upon this-whether
the-measure were of that nature, that it
might be reckoned upon as likely to con-
ciliate and tranquillize Ireland. On that
ground he-was willing to take his stand
in defence of this bill. The argument of
the-right reverend prelate had been, that
the moment the intentions of government
to make these concessions to the Roman
Gatholics of Ireland had been announced
through a paragraph in the newspapers,
its immediate effect was to push those
claimants on to assert that which they
had not had the courage to assert before ;
or; in other words, to raise exorbitantly
their expectations and demands. In
making that statement, what did the can-
dourjf the right reverend prelate lead him
to confess;? Why, nothing short of this
--that these expectations were excited by,
andahaddin fact originated with, that class
who were considered and designated as
the-class of agitators in Ireland; whilst
the rational advocates of concession, who
were of a more moderate description, 'had
no influence on the public sentiment.
Now, he would boldly ask, why this class
of persons failed to produce any effect, or
to exercise any influence over the public
sentiment? How was it that, in .every
country to which our attention might be
directed, it would be,perceived, that these
governments had means to correct and
temper that violence which, in this in-
stamne, and under, this form of govern.
meant; was found to be incontrollable by
the .interposition of the calmer and more
dispassionate part of society, existing
alike in all societies? or why was it that
in Ireland third was found to be of no avail?
He would not hesitate to answer, that it
was principally, if not altogether, owing
to the existence of those disabling sta-
tuote which as long as they existed, tend I


ed to.keep up the excitement, which was
too general in the Catholic body, and was
calculated to give a controlling power to,
the agitators, -which not all the.influence
of the Catholics, who were men of acknow-.
ledged property, and of the Catholic gen-
try, and nobility themselves, could ntei-
tralise or counteract. The legislature, it
had been said by the right reverend pre-
late, had yielded up all restrictions and,
disabilities imposed by law on Catholics,
except this restriction, because it.was ap-
prehensive that it would be the means of
future dissention in Ireland. Now,, he
would meet that assertion broadly, and.
avow his conviction, that the concession
would prove the means of 'securing the'
tranquillity, the prosperity, and the future
good government of Ireland. Another
most reverend prelate, the head of the
Church of England, differed from. the.
most reverend prelate in the extent of his
fears, and expressed a confident opinion,
that the measure now before their lordships
could not lead to conciliation-an opinion
which he founded upon the axiom, that.
great bodies of people were never con-
tented with, or grateful for the favors of
their government. This axiom thus put.
forth, the most reverend prelate illustrated.
by a reference to the conduct of the Irish:
priesthood, who had shewn such ingrati-
tude for the favours bestowed upon them.
by the foundation of the college of May-:
nooth. Without stopping to, inquire
whether the boon of education bestowed
upon the priesthood in that, seminary,
afforded a reason for their continuing
subservient to the views and interests of
the government, he would ask whether
other great bodies of the Catholics were
found ungrateful for benefits bestowed
upon them ? He would ask, whether the
Catholic army and navy had exhibited any
want of gratitude to the Crown, or of de-
votion to the interests of their country ?
He appealed upon that subject to the no-
ble.duke opposite, whose testimony would:
probably be admitted upon that question,:
by those most opposed to the measure'
before the House; and he would. call on'
him to confirm the assertion, that it.was;
possible to conciliate the Catholics bylbe-1
nefits, and to secure their.cordial:co-ope-,
ration by kindness and liberality.
He was gratified to -perceive that. thii.
question had made already so much pro-;
gress, that there seemed; to .remain but;
two or three grounds on which it was now:


Relief Bill. 114


[ApA-rt 2.]






ALkWfB. t14


likely t-t be debated. It would perhaps
b pettinent to inquire, whether there was
my. infirmity in the government of this
country, which precluded it from extend-
ing to all religious classes of its subjects
thbBt liberties and privileges which less
liberal forms of government, in other
c*Untries, had felt it safe and wise to
cetfede; or whether there were any just
Unstiw.to be now pleaded by the oppo-
udtief concession, why this government
s alid not follow that wise and liberal
policy which had characterized the con-
ductf nations in many respects similarly
ciroumstanced ? That this government
was not precluded from following that
liberal line of policy, he would take upon
him to demonstrate, from an appeal to the
history of our country, to which the op-
pments of the bill had so frequently of
ate ignited the attention of their antago-
nirts. The principle of the exclusion of
Catholics was not to be found in the his-
tory of the period of the Revolution in
l6I88t It was to be found in no one
staette of that period. It certainly was
wt admitted by any stipulation or public
ait of king William 3rd. The parliament
fifthat day had not sanctioned by any act
their doctrine that Catholics were to be
eaxided from seats in that House, or the
LvWerr House, or from offices. Nor did
they, it would appear from subsequent
acts many years after, recognize any such
principle as having actuated them at the
period of 1688, In fact, the evidence
of history went decidedly the other way.
He had turned over with attention those
acts of the Scotch parliament which pre-
ceded the Union of that country with
England. Those acts might be well
taken as the test of the popular indis-
position in Scotland to acquiesce in any
change in their established form of re-
ligion, and their firm determination to
keep out popery; because, if the Church
of Scotland possessed any one principle
more aoroibly marked than another, it was
samrnpulous jealousy of the possible re-
introduction of the popish religion.
here was no proof given of supineness
onthe part of the Scottish parliament, in
coostiucting a barrier against papal en-
craanhment; without which the Act of
Union could never have been carried.
Yet, i all those preparatory acts, there
were woty to be foamd declaratory en-
acaents of the intention of the Scottis
ptiiaeat to maintain their naciein


national institutions. There was, im-
primis, a provision to render permanent
the established church, according to the
Presbyterian form of worship. There was
next, a provision to render the court of
session permanent; this last had already
been altered six times; another wais
passed for rendering the hereditary juris-
dictions permanent; and next followed an
act, for requiring that all the oaths cus-
tomarily taken by public officers arr
members of parliament should be con-
tinued by them to be taken in future,
" until they should be hereafter altered
as parliament should direct." Whence it
was plainly to be inferred that the posei-
bility of.their being so amended was coe-
templated at the time of passing the act.
The Presbyterian religion was throughout
marked with a thorough aversion for
popery, and yet it was well worthy the
consideration of the noble duke, whose
prejudices were so decided on this subject,
to reflect, that of the representatives of
Scotland thus opposed in spirit to the
Roman Catholic persuasion, forty out of
forty-five voted for the present hill in the
other House of Parliament, within these
few days. In this vote the House, per-
haps, might trace some.connexion between
the question before them, and the great
question of parliamentary reform; nor
was it to be supposed such a vote woeld
have been given, except with a view to
secure the approbation of their constitu-
ents, and their own future return to par-
liament.
It was somewhat singular in the arguing
of this question, that those very persons
who, at one time told their lordships to
consult the instructive page of history,
and to examine with jealousy the details
of the Council of Trent; at another, to
analyze the dangerous principle of a
divided allegiance, or look for instruction
to the avowed principles of the Reforma-
tion, as unerring lights to guide them in
their decision, should, after all, appeal to
the numerical array of people who had
petitioned the House, in order to induce
their lordships to follow the course pre-
scribed by the majority of petitioners to
the House. He approved, for his part,
Sof the present bill, because it gave no
power, but removed another which was
fin iprejudicial to the true interestsof
s society. It had been argued by the right
rev. prelate opposite, that the introduction
f rfCat lic peasnit M representatives into


r1os0C Cmwtic


[ LORDS, I






117 Roft r"gtwoic


the legislature, would have the effect of
creating to the Catholic body an influence,
which neither the power of the Protes-
tants, not of the Protestant king of this
country, nor of the Protestant church
establishment, nor even the purity of its
doctrine,' more powerful than all, could
ever compete with, or successfully oppose;
and that the Protestant church must in-
evitably fall beneath the doctrines of the
Romish church, -which was so eminently
calculated to ensnare the mind and cap-
tivate the affections. Jn other words, that
it would overthrow in time the interests,
and undermine the basis, on which our
religion was founded. He would admit
the bare possibility of such a result; but,
would it be wise in them to legislate on a
bare possibility of that undefined nature?
If such a possibility were to be a ground
6f alarm, it was a matter of surprise to
him that noble lords had, for so many
hundred years, slept quietly in their beds,
lest some monarch of this country should
have filled-as undoubtedly he might
have done-all places of trust and eminent
station with- military men, and rendered
this a military despotism, through the
medium of a standing army. For the last
hundred years, the king might at any
period, have filled all those stations with
Presbyterians-than whom no class of
men were more determinedly hostile to
our established church, which they de-
scribed openly as "the intolerable griev-
ance of prelacy."
So much for the dangers to be appre-
hended from concession. What, he would
now ask, were the dangers to be antici-
pated to our established church, from
refusing to the Catholic a fair and equal
participation in the privileges and immu-
nities of the constitution ? The right rev.
prelate would perceive, that such had
been the growth of instruction amongst
the children of the Catholic persuasion,
that for one child instructed by Catholic
seminaries twenty years ago, there were
now three or four so instructed. He would
ask that right rev. prelate, would it be ad-
visable, pending the growth of information
in this ratio in )Ireland; to acquaint the
rising youth of Ireland, that there was
but one thing which stood between them
and the attainment of high place and
office, and that bar was the established
church ? The inference would naturally
arise, that this was that body in the state
to which a the ei f or s ought to be


directed, in order to effect its overthrow .
The safety, therefore, of our established
church itself demanded the concession
provided for by this bill. The right revS
prelate had expressed a hope, that if the
concession were made to the : athloii
body, government would take effectui
steps to repress the influence of the rGat
tholic priesthood over their flocks. Now;
it was very remarkable, that no such re-
sults had been experienced in Catholic
countries, where that influence might be
fairly inferred to be greater, and Iad
nothing to control it. A remarkable
instance of this kind occurred in the elec-
tion of 1826 in Ireland, where the Roman
Catholic priesthood interfered most de4
cidedly in the elections, and with- great
success; whilst, in the ensuing year, the
attempts of the French clergy to influeaee
the French elections were almost altogether
defeated; notwithstanding their intense
anxiety to effect that object, owing to the
great interests they had at stake. Ho*
was this to be accounted for? Or to*
was it that, in a country where eery
bulwark was raised against the influetee
of the priesthood, all opposition of rank, or
property, or influence, was unavailing ftand
yet, in a Roman Catholic country, their
efforts, were defeated by the independent
feeling and spirit of their own flooks ?
Why! because, in Ireland, the principle Of
exclusion was part of the constitution; but
in France it was unknown, or at least its
influence was defeated, by the silent sense
of the Catholic population of that country.
What colour was there for these alarms,
then, with respect to the church, should the
proposed concession be made; whilst the
glory and success of the Catholic clergy
in Ireland was proved to haveits basis-it
theexclusionsofour Statute-book ? ,Hemost
earnestly warned their lordships not to
mistake those instances of exclusion from
the privileges and rights of their fellow-
subjects which had been adopted for terh
porary purposes into the constitution, for
the constitution itself. Were they to act
thus, the consequence would he, that they
would entrench on Magna Charta itself,
and the constitution would only preseit- &
mass of monstrous and accumulated dis-
abilities, tending to the injury na lpptres.
sion of the subject. It had been said,
that the temporary ebullitions or efFusions
of popular feeling -which had broken 'out
in Ireland, bore a near resem blance tb
those volcanic erptions which vw6r so


( ApRIt 2. J


Rief Bill.






fl9 Roman Catholic


frbqueot-in -peuliar climates. Yet, he
wouldremind their lordships, that even in
tifse regions and in that very soil which
was visited with those alarming indications,
Madenrproper care and management, were
produced the most abundant harvests.
Had such a measure as this been earlier
introduced and properly followed up,
puph: mischief might have been saved
to; Ireland., But those animosities had
arisen, those eruptions of heat had been
disiplyed, and the whole condition of
society in Ireland had assumed that cha-
radter which had .been described by the
noble duke, and which never would have
happenedhad the, present measure been
adopted with a wise and statesman-like
poUlcy.i But the time was not yet too late.
He felt-grateful to his majesty's govern-
mieat, iand to his majesty for the intro-
duction of a measure, in which he saw
vly smeurity to the state; and which,
whea carried into effect in a liberal and
agwiliatory manner, would permanently
pte :to us six millions of people. For
these .reasons, he assented to this new
measure, and he supported it as cordially
as if,he himself had had the task of pro-
posing the adoption, of this great mea-
surei. .
s.The:Bishop of London [Dr. Blomfield]
said, it was not his intention to take up
the time of their lordships with a length-
'ened, statement of his opinions, because,
on akformer occasion, he had entered at
considprable.length into the reasons why
he withheld his assent to the present bill,
and: nothing had since occurred which
had; in any way, shaken his confidence in
the conclusions at which he had arrived,
after a close and careful examination of
thqe evidence which had come before go-
vernment, and before both Houses of Parlia-
ment, with respect to the state of Ireland.
On the contrary, much had occurred to
oonfirtn those conclusions. Every thing
which~ he had since heard, from persons
,in whose veracity he placed the utmost
: sfidence, had strengthened his belief,
ihat the immediate and entire removal of
Catholic disabilities was not that emanci-
0itopiof which Ireland stood in need.-
.if.E e,iterecapitulated, not the reasons of
hbi~bj;etions to this measure, but the ob-
jeitjpng4 themselves, he would beg permis-
::laipnrtio 8ay one word to the noble marquis
who had. just sat down. He said it with
all.due respect to the noble marquis; but
a1. OuliC5s0ft that the noble PW arquis


had placed the Church of England'an-
fairly, in' respect to this question, when
he represented that church as the sole ob-
stacle to the concession of demands,
which, if withheld, would be the cause of
disturbance in Ireland. It would be more
correct to say, that the British constitu-
tion was : the obstacle; of which the
Church of England was, indeed, an in-
tegral part, because it was the dispenser
of the pure word of God. It was, there-
fore, not a fair statement .for any noble
lord to say, that the Church of England
was the only obstacle in the way of the
boon intended for Ireland.-He could not
regard the bill before their lordships as
that effectual remedy for the existing .di-
orders of Ireland, which hadbeen antici-
pated; otherwise itwould go far to recon-
cile him to a measure to which he,, t rPe-
sent, entertained insuperable objection;
but the bill adjusted only one of numarogis
points in dispute. When the Cathol* c
became possessed of this one point, ,they'
would value it only as a means of securing
the rest. Without manifesting any want
of charity towards the Catholics.,,a a
body, he must consider them as actuatej
by what they considered to be a duty
due to themselves. The Roman Catholic
clergy would not be satisfied, until they
had secured those ulterior measures, o
which the present was but preliminary.
Until they had attained a considerable ad-
dition to their power, they would ant,he'
content with a measure like this ; whjih
would be more likely to kindle than t9y x-
tinguish the flames of discontent, The
power possessed by the Roman Cadholic
priesthood of Ireland.had been attributed
by the noble marquis to the ,disabilities
themselves. He differed from the ,.oble'
marquis in that opinion, for it did not ap-
pear, and he denied that the power of the
Roman Catholic priesthood arosefrom a
sense of civil disabilities on the part qf the
people. It was not those disabilities
which came across their mindsandcreated
the discontent in Ireland: it was along
series of mismanagement of that country;
he did not mean mismanagement.in an
insidious sense, but a long seriesof mis-
takes and errors, which co-operated with
other causes which he should not specify ;
for if he did he might arouse feelings
which had been awakenedwhen ,he, A-'
dressed their lordships on a former ~s-
sion. UntiLthose causes wete remdove -
on which the Roman Catho1i4 diabiitime


[ LORDS, ]


, Reli_4fBill. *,, 1-p)






41291 R&oAnwt'atUoic [AcaL'


had no bearing whatever-it would be
vain to expect that the Cathblic popula-
tion of Ireland would be restored to tran-
quillity.-As to the degree of mischief
which might proceed from the admission
of a few Roman Catholic members into
the House of Commons-for he had no
apprehension of danger from the admission
of Rbman Catholic peers to a seat in their
lordships' House-as to what degree of
danger that would lead to, he would tell
their lordships, that such a united and
compact band might carry on a very ef-
fective and diversified warfare, though few
in number. Of the success of a principle
of-action so acted upon, it was not neces-
sary for him to do more than adduce one
example, from a great historian, of those
who succeeded in overturning the church
and monarchy of England at the period.of
the great rebellion. "By these means,"
he observed, speaking of the malcontents
of those days, "did a handful of men,
frim the-inferior ranks of society, come to
give law'to the major part of the country."
It'might be objected, that there was not
the least probability that the clergy'would
be/able to succeed in reducing the Roman
Catholic members of parliament to a com-
,pct* band, and as far as the Catholic aris-
tocracy was concerned, he admitted the
force of the objection. But the influence
of the Roman Catholic priesthood over the
members of the Lower House, would be ex-
ercised-th ough the medium of the people.
In the course of the last hundred years,
that priesthood had exercised in Ireland
an imperium in imperio, and it would
most probably take more than a hundred
years to destroy it. The noble marquis
had compared the danger arising from the
introduction of the Roman Catholics into
the state to' the danger arising from the
admission of Presbyterians to the same
offices. But the danger arising from the
admission of any sect or description of
Protestants to power bore no comparison
to that of Roman Catholics. Into that
question, however, he was not willing to
enter; he was only anxious to justify the
vote he should give, and he wished not to
say a single word that would tend to ex-
asperate feelings, which it was their duty
to allay and mitigate. If this measure
should pass into a law-and that it would
there could be no doubt-it would be his
duty to do all in his power to promote its
objects. For the same reason he ab-
stained flion other topics. He was aware


of the odium which was attached toirelUi
gious intolerance; and if his own' indfi
vidual feelings were alone-conceriieh~ dbl
should have abstained from expressing his
sentiments, because it was a thankles.
theme: :'.-
Bella geri placuit nullos habitura triunmpho .l
In justice to a large portion of the people
the religious part of our fellow-subjictsl
there was something to be said, as totie
duty of a Christian government, to'disitii
guish between truth and error; as -tothe
duty of a Protestant state, to make a dis-
tinction between fundamental truth and
dangerous error, so far as not: to nWak
them co-ordinate powers in the' :state.
But so much might be said on both sides
of this difficult'question, that he merely re-
ferred to it, and more especially in justi-
fication of the Protestant clergy, VwhSe
studies led them to apply themselves imore
closely than others to the pointsbf eantf'-
versy between the two churches, no'roit ly
in respect to the distinction between tbuth
and error, but as to their effectsin a mothl
point of view. If a prevalence off'stady
had led the clergy to express themselves
with warmth and energy, it was riot attri-
butable to a defect of Christian charity,
but solely to a close application of their
minds to those serious studies, which 1i'e
to qualify them for their sacred dutibs'.*-
As to the recommendation of a noble Iord
to the clergy; that it would be better for
them to read their bible and attend to
their more peculiar duties, he would-only
say, that it would be better if that noble
lord knew what he was talking abo.it.-
For himself, he stated that evening the
grounds of his objections, solely:in juati-
fication of his vote, without wishing, to
kindle or embitter feelings, which, h'ov-
ever they might prevail n ithoful the walls
of that House, had rot yet displayed
themselves within. Although heldid not
hesitate as to the vote he should givre,'hiv-
ing made up his mind on the subjetv; the
could not give it without pain anrtifglet
at differing from so many of tlistWto
whose opinions he was accust6med&t1h6d-
fer, and whose friendship hehighlyprized,
especially the members of his- majety, s
government, in whom he s as dlspoed-, to
place great confidence ; and moost'parti-
cularly the noble duke at the head of-:he
government, towards whom he ertionatly
owed a debt of gratitude, for his favobr-
able opinion, and for-a rec~Mrihmffd~iffa


[APia2.1


Rei&f BiS.






REkief Rai. 124


to his sovereign for an advancement in the
dbtch.,-When once the measure was
passed into a law, he should feel it to be
ieduty to impress upon the minds of his
clergythe necessity of a cheerful acqui.
eseence in the decision of their lordships,;
and also the necessity 'of an increased
attention to their duties, the fulfilment of
which constituted the strongest foundation
of the church, whose bulwark was about
t. be shaken. But, as to the real founda-
ti3O of the Protestant church, which was
a brach of the Catholic church, as it was
not laid by their lordships, so it could not
be shakenby them. The clergy looked to
that House with confidence for an affec-
tionate support of the church; and so
long as it continued to be a faithful in-
stauctress of the people, she was entitled to
look to their lordships for an increase of the
raIns of doing good, for the security of
her property, and for the augmentation of
the number of places of worship. Al-
though-ha anticipated some struggles in
stOre for the church, he was confident she
would survive them all.
The Marquis of Salisbury said:-My
lords, I rise with the greatest reluctance,
to address a few words to your lordships
on the present occasion, and to explain
the; grounds of the vote which I am about
to give on the present question. When I
had the honour of moving the address in
this House, at the commencement of the
session, I was fully prepared to make great
and extensive alterations in our Protestant
constitution, and to extend to the Roman
Catholics the full privileges conferred by
the present bill, it never, however, entered
into my imagination, that the privileges
conferred by this bill, were not to be ac-
companied by full and valid securities for
onu Protestant church. The present bill
I cannot look upon as affording any such
sec uities. Yet, even with this opinion, I
entertained considerable doubts as to the
course which it would be my duty to pur-
se ;, whilst, on one hand, I considered
the imperfeet securities offered by the bill,
on. the other hand I was anxious to avoid,
if possible the effect of once more disap-
pointing the hopeswhich had been excited
in. the breasts of the Roman Catholics.
WhJnE I last year had the honour of ad-
dmtising.your lordships on this subject, I
lsated, that I was ready to agree to any
measure for the relief of the Roman Ca-
tholies, which should be attended with
adiqitat* securities, for our Protestant


church. I also stated, that the only so.
curity which I could see, consisted in an
union of the Catholic clergy with the state.
The more I reflect upon the subject, the
more do I become convinced of the danger
of any other mode of proceeding. I think,
my lords, that it is an axiom of our con-
stitution, that no person ought to possess
power in the state, who had not an interest
in using his power for the public benefit.
Now, I believe that the Catholic priests
possess this power in a very high degree.
Hitherto the Catholic priests have exer-
cised an influence over the legislature
through the medium of the electors only,
but now we are going to give them a di-
rect influence, which they cannot fail to
have through Catholic members, owing
to the power which the priesthood must
possess over every sincere Roman Catho-
lic, according to the tenets of that religion.
As to what has fallen from the noble duke
at the head of the government, I conresp
he has started difficulties this night, re-
garding the possession of a veto, for which
I was not prepared, and which I will freely
state I do not at present see the way to
overcome; I only wish the noble duke had
the kindness to state his reasons for neg-
lecting to adopt what I consider the best
means of connecting the Roman Catholik
priesthood with the state; namely, bt
paying them-for I am clearly of opinion'
that they ought to be paid. The import-
ant fact exists, that the Catholic prit ts
are about to obtain the exercise of great
political power, while every motive of hds-
tility against the established church, that
they could :ever have had still remains itn
full force; and it would'be too much to
expect, that they would not endeavour to
influence the Catholics against it. I have
great respect for the abilities of the framers
of this measure, but I do not think human
ingenuity could devise an oath calculated
to compass all that is requisite, without
compromising the legislative authority.-
It will be recollected, that, a few years
ago, above seventy members of the other
House of parliament voted for a measure
which went upon the principle, that the
revenues of the church might be alienated
and converted to public uses. Now,'T ill
ask, if there was then so formidable a
body of that opinion-if'there were so
many at that period prepared to vot in
favour of an attack on the establishment
-I will beg leave to inquire, if this be not
sufficient grounds for apprehending danger:


[LORDS, ]


Romat Catholie





125 Rown4 Catholic


from the passing of the measure? This is
no imaginary vision of my own; for I am
justified in saying, that it has been the re-
corded opinion of every individual taking
a part in the debate upon the question,
that some security, such as I have referred
to, should be obtained, before concession
can be granted with safety. The names
of Mr. Fox, of Mr. Canning, of lord Gren-
ville, and of a noble and learned lord now
in his place (lord Plunkett) who often ad-
vocated the measure in the other House,
would be sufficient to countenance me in
holding that opinion. I will not trouble
your lordships with any quotation; but,
if that noble and learned lord entertained
this opinion, it is sufficient surely to au-
thorise an humble individual like myself
to peak in favour of securities. There is
one other authority to which I will advert
-that of one of the greatest legislators
the country ever, possessed, and whose ad.
vice, if taken, would have saved us from
the dilemma in which we are now placed.
These words occur in almost the last speech
le ever spoke upon the subject. My
idea," said Mr. Pitt, was, not to apply
t@pts to the religious tenets of the Catho-
lics, but tests applicable to what was the
source and foundation of the evil, to ren-
der the priests, instead of making them
the instruments of poisoning the minds of
the people, dependent in some sort
upon the government, and thus links, as
it were, between the government and the
people."' With these sentiments I en-
tirely coincide, and this I should consider
a,wise course to adopt, and it should have
my strenuous support. Ever since I
beogn to take any part in politics, I have
professed the principles of Mr. Pitt, and
consideredhim the star by whose guidance
I was to steer my way in public life. As
long as circumstances induced him to
forbear from advocating concession, I
opposed it. I am now ready to support
it on the terms which he would have pro.
posed had he brought it forward; and I
have no reason to think that he would
-have changed his mind, in consequence of
aiy events that have since occurred. Am
I to look for such a reason in the declara-
tiqn of a Romish priest, that' he would
advocate the abridgment of the revenues
of the established church, although not
Sag priest, yet as an Irishman? Am I to
loo p,fr it in the votes of the other House,

* 4Sfirst Seris of this Work, vol. iv. p. 10165


or in the declaration of one of its members,
who said that he supported the measure
as the first step to the subversion ofi the
church ? Am I. to look for it in one of the
most eloquent speeches of a noble ; ead,
who said, that if seventy Roman Catholie
members were admitted into parliament
this session, they would in the next be fAb
upsetting the Protestant. establishment ?
For my own part, I must believe that
your lordships, in passing this measure,
will be signing the death-warrant of the
Protestant establishment in Ireland ; and,.
if it falls, it requires not much discern%
ment to perceive, that the downfall of the
English establishment will soon follow, and
that a revolution will ensue in this eoun-
try, such as your lordships can neither'
foresee the consequences nor the end of.
I do not think that the evil is without a
remedy; but, unless I distrust the sinv
cerity of the government, I must wsupposea
the present the only one they could bring
forward. With respect to it, I shall com.
fine myself to the way in which it wilt
affect the property of the church, a: it
would lead to endless discussion, to enter
upon the various ways in which it ,atfeet
it in a religious point of view. The col*
sideration of that I leave to the right
reverend prelate, whose instructions I have6
often received.- I can assure you, my
lords, that, however objectionable I
might have considered the measure -in
many points, I would most willingly have
waved them, had I conceived it to be a
measure that could be passed with safety.
It pains me greatly to make any interrup-
tion of the confidence which I repose in
the authors of the measure, but I should
have esteemed it a violation of a solemn
duty, had I not obeyed the feeling which
it excited in my breast. I have, therefore,
deemed myself bound to make these ob-
servations to your lordships, and I beg to
express my thanks for the patience with
which they have been listened to. .
The Earl of Wicklow said:-My, lords,
having heard the noble marquis who lha
just sat down express his sentiments upon-
the question upon a former odcasion, andF
having heard him express different sentii
ments now, I beg to offer an observation
upon what has fallen from the- noble'
marquis. I remember that, when the.
noble marquis seconded the address eto
the throne, at the commencement of tha
session, he reserved to himself the liberty.
of voting as circumstances might diotate i


[ A atil 2. ]


Relief B'L






127 Rbman Catholic


but I think he has made use of some
observations at variance with some asser-
tions which he made at the opening of
the session. I must,say, that I have
heard the opening speech of the noble
duke at the head of the government, with
very great satisfaction. To me it is most
satisfactory to find, that the government,
having the best opportunities of judging
of the state of Ireland, and the feeling of
the country, have felt themselves called
up6tn, in consideration of the state of
affairs; and contrary to their former opin-
ions, to bring forward the present mea-
sure. It is now argued, on the ground of
expediency, that the state of Ireland abso-
lutely requires this alteration of the laws.
To me, connected closely with that coun-
try by'many'ties, the subject is one of the
greatest interest, and I do most sincerely
approve:of the course that has been taken,
as statedl this evening. But it is not easy
for ani Irish proprietor to come forward
without some degree of prejudice, and
with that calmness and moderation so
requisite for the proper discussion of the
question; and, conscious of the fact, I am,
therefore, disposed to view the measure
rather in reference to this country than to
that with which I am so intimately con-
nected. I am, therefore, willing to leave
Ireland for a moment out of consideration.
Let us, then, suppose that country free,
contented, and happy-with no vexatious
and restrictive laws to repress her ener-
gies-let us suppose it the seat of wealth
and of liberty, and turn our attention to
England. My lords, we have Catholics
in this country; but we do not know them
by their'indigence nor by their clamours,
but by the proud names which they bear,
by their-wealth and high hereditary rank,
and by the debt which is due to them
from the state. It is impossible to read
the history, of this country and not to see
that they have been excluded from their
places in the legislature, by the most ini-
quitous means, and it is now attempted,
by ,the' very same means, to effect a
continuance of their exclusion. It has
been said, that the principles of the Ca-
tholic religion are inconsistent with our
free constitution; but let those who make
this assertion look to the founders of that
constitution, and see if they are borne out
in their opinion. The time of which Bur-
net is the historian speaks to the case.
When Elizabeth established the Protes-
tant church the majority of her privy


council were Catholics, and, when it was
proposed to frame an oath for the -Ca-
tholic'peers, she rejected the advice,'and
said she had too much confidence in her
Catholic subjects to adopt it. When Eng-
land was threatened by a confederacy of
Catholic Europe-when the mot alarming
invasion ever meditated against our shores
was hourly expected-how did the Ca-
tholic subjects of queen Elizabeth act?
They flocked to her standard-they ap-
plied to the lords-lieutenant of counties
to be permitted to arm for the defence of
the country-and they fitted out vessels
at their own expense, to be sent out under
the command of the lord high adibiral;
himself, I believe, a Roman Catholic.
Such was the conduct of the Roman Ca-
tholics of that day: and how have they
acted in our own ? We have witnessed
the termination-the glorious termination
-of a great war. What jealousy, or
apprehension, has been felt of the l omai
Catholics in its progress? They H.i've
joined in our ranks, and fought side by
side, and conquered, with' their Protes-
tant fellow-soldiers. But even granting
that there was, in the time of Eli/abeth,
of James, or of William, just reason for
excluding the Roman Catholics I'rom par-
liament, it is incumbent upon those who
urge the continuance of that exclhion to
show, that the same cause still exists.
Every man acknowledges that exclusive
laws can only be justified by necessity,
and by a necessity proportionate to their
severity.-In the course of w.,hbahas
fallen from some noble lords allusion has
been made to the Coronation'Oath. This
is certainly a delicate topic for an* ilidi-
vidual like myself to touch upon u, it 'I
must say that, in the wording'or the lan-
guage of that oath, there is nothing which
appears to me properly to bear the con-,
struction put upon it by some noble lords.
The only part of the oath upon which ap.
objection is raised, is that part' Mhich is
considered as binding the king to niin-
tain the Protestant religion as established
by law in this country. For my own part,
if- a similar oath formed part of those'
which the members of' this Houise are
bound to take, and when a minister in
whosejudgment and honour, and honesty,
I place confidence, comes forward with a
bill which will have the effect of main-
taining the Protestant establishment in'
Ireland, I think I should violate my oath
if did not support it. Much objection


[ LORDS, ]


Relief Bill. 4128






Romdn 'Catholic


[APr


,has:been made to this measure, on the
,ground of the number of petitions which
have been presented from all parts of the
country against it.. I declare it as my
belief, that the petitions which have come
to your lordships' House do honour to the
feelings of the people of England. They
prove their love of the Protestant religion,
.the constitution, and the laws. But when
it is considered, that it is by the vilest
artifices that these petitions have been
procured-that the most inflammatory
means have been resorted to, to make the
people believe that these measures have a
tendency to injure the constitution and
the Protestant church-it must immedi-
ately be felt, that these petitions were
founded on mistaken notions. But still I
say, that the petitions furnish a strong
arguenent in favour of these measures;
for they prove that, so strong is the love
of the people for their religion and con-
stitifiU61 that, even granting all the dan-
gers which are held out by noble lords
who are opposed to concession-even
supposing that all the power and influence
of the Roman Catholics should be used
for the subversion of the Protestant
refigion-they would not weigh a feather
ini the scale against the fidelity and at-
ta itnefit ,of the whole people of Eng-
land.- My lords, I hate now stated the rea-
sons why, independently of considerations
of xpeddencty, I am disposed to support
thisbill; but when, in addition, I con-
sidei what has been so forcibly impressed
by the noble duke at the head of the
government, and so ably enforced by the
noble marquis on this side of the House
(Lansdonn), it really does appear to me
extraordinary, that any man should stand
up in this House to oppose the measure;
for what arguments can be used to uphold
tha opposition, except those which deep-
rooted prejudice supply ? Those noble
loids who have been in the habit of op-
posing these claims are now appealed to
on'the ground of consistency, to persevere
in their opposition. Such arguments ap-
pear to ime to be addressed to their weak-
ness, and not to their judgments. They
are built on the supposition, that it must
be'co~sidered consistency in noble lords
to vote systematically and uniformly on
onre side of a question; simply because
they had voted so before, altogether dis-
regarding any change of circumstances,
arnd not reflecting that, while, on former
occasions, the question was whether the
VOL. XXI.


IL 2.] Relief Bill.
law should be altered or left as it was, at
present it is whether the government is to
be disturbed or measures of great national
policy are to be effected?-whc~hier le
heads of the government are to' be rI-,
moved, or the country left in. a state of,
agitation, under the management of thos'
who, whatever may be their merit- in
other respects, are, in my estiimation,
totally incapable of holding the reins of .
government in this country? Having
said thus much, I shall not trespass, upo!n
your lordships' time any further.
The Earl of Enniskillen said, that
though he had great respect for the re-,'
commendation contained in his majesty.'.,
Speech, and though he had great respect
for the noble duke to whom his majesty
had intrusted the administration of the
country, he could not give up his owi
opinion on this .question out of respect io
either. He had uniformly opposed emp n-
cipation on former occasions, as being d.r-
structive of the constitution, and ruim no'
to the church establishment of the cou~ -
try. He had heard no satisfactory ri:-
sons for the change which had taken,
place in the policy of the country. The
Catholic Association had been as violent,
last year as it had been this. The power
of the priests had been exerted at -the
elections for Cavan and Monaghan, as
strongly as it was exerted at the election'
for Clare. Moreover, as he knew that the
lower orders of Roman Catholics were en-
tirely guided and governed by their priests,
and as he knew that this bill made no
provision for the priests, but trenched
upon their consequence by depti ing them
of their titles, he could not see how the
people of Ireland could be reconciled to
it. Thinking that the bill would do no
good to Ireland, he should remain finn to
the opinion which he had always held
upon this question, and should give it LJ.
strenuous opposition.
The cries of adjourn" became inces-
sant. In the midst of them
The Earl of Falmouth moved, that the
debate be adjourned to to-morrow. '
Lord Clifden.-What! adjoui i tie de-
bate when it is barely one o'clock ? '
The Duke of Atholl.-I am astonished
at the motion of the noble earl. I have
now been fifty years a member of this
House, and I have sat here drrirg im-'
portant debates until three, F.ie, seven,
and even eight o'clock in the norqnng;
and shall we on a bill, on which the If'a
F




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs