moved the order of the day for going, into a committee on this bill. The House having resolved itself into the said committee,

Mr. Secretary Peel proposed a verbal amendment in the clause enacting, "That it shall and may be lawful for persons professing the Roman Catholic religion to vote at elections of members to serve in Parliament, and to be elected such members: and also to vote at the elections of representative peers of Scotland and Ireland, and to be elected such representative peers, &c.," on producing to the proper officer a certificate of having taken the oath appointed; or upon taking and subscribing the oath at the time. The object of the amendment was, to render the passage more explicit, and to provide for the case of Scotland, and that of persons who were to administer the oath.

The question having been put on the amendment,

said, he trusted he should not be considered as making a factious opposition to the measure, or as intruding unnecessarily on the patience of the House, if he stated the reasons which induced him to oppose the clauses as they now stood. He would be the last person to obstruct public business, by frivolous or uncalled-for remarks; but he felt it his duty to call upon the representatives for Scotland to suffer no principle of temporary expediency to interfere with the great principles of the Union between England and Scotland; and he called upon the representatives for England, as they valued the faith of their ancestors and the national honour, to assist him in defending the articles of the Scottish Union from the most dangerous innovation attempted to be effected within the last century. After apologizing for having remained so long silent on the subject, and stating that he had been induced to remain so by the hope that some individual better qualified to execute the task than himself, would have taken the matter in hand, the hon. member proceeded to say, that at the time of the Union between England and Scotland, the latter country was as independent as the former; but if this bill passed into a law, the interests of the one country would, in some degree, be rendered subservient to those of the other;—we should violate the sacred principles of the Union, take away the securities of the church, which that act established, and lay open the gates of the constitution to many future dangers. If he could prove that this bill infringed the act of Union with Scotland, he thought no one could consider him as acting unreasonably in taking the sense of the committee upon the subject. The hon. member then cited the act agreed to by the parliaments of England and Scotland, and appended to the articles of Union; and, after proving that it formed an essential part of the Union between the two countries, added, that by that Union it was provided, for the security of the Episcopal and Presbyterian religions, that the sixteen peers and forty-five commoners who were to represent Scotland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be Protestant. By this statute, Papists were effectually excluded from sitting in parliament for Scotland. It followed that, if Roman Catholics were rendered admissible as members and peers of parliament from Scotland, as was proposed to be done by these two clauses of the bill, the act of Union with Scotland would be thereby repealed. He could not consent to the articles of Union between the two countries being violated in this manner. It might be said, that the present was a measure alike necessary and expedient, but, as long as he had a seat in that House, he could not submit to such an infringement of the act of Union with Scotland.

, after complimenting the hon. member on the tone and manner in which he had stated his objections to the bill, observed, that the right hon. Secretary, in bringing forward the measure, admitted, that one of the principal difficulties with which he had to contend, arose from the circumstance of its touching the articles of Union with Scotland. At the same time it was stated, that there appeared sufficient advantages in the extension of the measure, to overbalance any inconveniences that might arise from considerations such as that;—and, further, that in a measure of so comprehensive a nature, it would be unwise and inexpedient to exclude one part of the country from its operation. All the hon. member called for was this—that we should exclude the Catholics in Scotland from the same sort of advantages as they were to be allowed to possess in other parts of the country. There was nothing in the Scottish Union which said, that a member of the British parliament, elected to represent a place in England, might not be a Catholic. Strictly speaking, there was nothing in the articles of Union with Scotland, on the subject of exclusion of Roman Catholics from the representation of that country. In the act annexed to those articles however—an act which he admitted formed part of the Union—it was provided, that persons should not represent Scotland in the united parliament, except they subscribed to a certain formula, which it was now proposed to repeal. He was certain that there was no feeling on this subject in Scotland,—that no desire existed that Scotland should be alone excepted from the operation of this measure. He had looked through all the petitions presented to the House from Scotland on this subject, and, with one exception, he found that this infraction of the Treaty of Union between the two countries was never alluded to. Although various respectable and well-informed persons in Scotland were opposed to the measure generally, but few wished that, if once adopted, an exception should be made in favour of Scotland. There were only two peers in Scotland who professed the Roman Catholic religion. As to Catholic members of the lower House, he would say nothing: and he did not think that the present bill would add ten Catholics to the freeholders of all Scotland. The hon. member's objection was of no practical value whatever. The question amounted to this,—were the articles of the Scottish Union unalterable? While he admitted, that the clauses did affect that Union, the consideration was, might not the objection be got rid of? One article, and one only of that Union, had been declared unalterable. It followed, that with respect to the others, on a fair showing of necessity, alterations might be made. He was one of those who would always stand up for the maintenance of the articles of the Union, if any attempt were made to invade the privileges of the weaker by the stronger country. By the articles of Union, there was reserved a power to the parliament of Great Britain to alter those very articles themselves, which were contended to be unalterable; and as a consequence of that power, the House would perceive, that within forty years the whole of the heritable jurisdictions of Scotland were swept away by an act of parliament. The very year after the Union the power of the council, which was to adjust matters relative to the returns of peers and commoners from Scotland to the parliament of Great Britain, was itself invaded and extinguished, whilst the act of the 6th of Anne altered the mode of returning and electing both peers and commoners; which had been considered as intangible and unalterable until then, by any act, of the legislature. He firmly believed there was nothing in this bill which ought to alarm the religious professors of the Church of Scotland, on the ground that the privileges granted to the Catholics could shake the firm and rational ground of their religion, much less raise on its ruin the supremacy of the Church of Rome.

said, it would be very much to be regretted if this measure were allowed to pass into a law without sifting it thoroughly, to ascertain how far the laws and interests of Scotland might be affected. That alterations had been made in the law since the Act of Union could not be denied; but he believed the learned lord did not mean to contend that the alterations which had as yet been made were necessarily to be considered as entailing others. He did not propose to follow the learned lord through all the observations he had made, because it would be vain for him to attempt to oppose himself in argument against that learned lord; but he did think it right that the measure should be discussed even on inferior points, and he should therefore call the attention of the committee to the twenty-first article of the Act of Union, in which a provision was made to preserve the rights and privileges of the royal burghs. In support of those rights and privileges there had always been, since the Reformation, a test to which members were subjected upon their election. That test was one of the strongest that could be devised. He confessed that, in a former session, when he heard honourable members holding forth against religious tests and bringing forward their own country as an example, he felt some surprise that they should have forgotten the tests which actually existed in that country at the time. He did not feel that there was, perhaps, much weight in the point which he had just raised before the committee, but he thought it right that every point which occurred should be stated, in order that it might be considered before the measure was finally disposed of. He would not detain the House by making further observations upon this point; but he begged to state that when they came to the following clause which related to the formula, it would be his wish that there should be some more distinct recognition of the repeals which had taken place in the laws of Scotland since the Union.

said, that the formula introduced by an act of William was not an essential part of the Act of Union, but was only intended incidentally to apply to it; in fact, there was no act of parliament, since the time of Charles 1st, by which any particular test was required. It appeared to him impossible that any article of the Act of Union could really apply to the question before the committee; neither, if such were the case, did he see why any one in Scotland should feel uneasy about it; for whatever apprehensions they might have as to the church of Ireland, there was not the slightest danger as to that of Scotland.

said, that he had presented a number of petitions from Scot and, and he would venture to assert, that there had not been one of them in which it was not stated, that one of the things which the petitioners feared was a violation of the Act of Union; indeed, he had no doubt that such an apprehension was very general in Scotland.

also defended the propriety of preserving the act of Union with Scotland in its original terms; and hoped the House would pause before it invaded a compact so solemn. For his part, he was happy that the objection had been taken. He felt, indeed, so strong a desire to oppose the present bill, that he was determined to take advantage of every argument which could he urged against it.

said, he did not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes; but as the hon. gentleman who opened the debate upon this question, had called on the representatives of Scotland to join in resistance to the clause, he felt himself bound to explain the reason why he did not think it his duty to obey that call. No man had more respect than he had for the principles upon which the Union between this country and Scotland was founded, and no man would be found more ready to defend them, or to resist any attempt to infringe upon the honour and interests of his native country. The very reverse of any thing of that kind was, however, the foundation of the present measure. That measure was intended to remove a blemish from the legislation of England and of Ireland; and he conceived it would not be for the honour of Scotland, if the same blemish was not removed from the legislation of that country. It would appear that those who framed the Act of Union with Scotland had almost foreseen the alterations which were now about to take place; because by that act they had expressly retained a power of altering all laws connected with their rights and privileges, according as the policy of civil government might require. This was a proof, indeed, of what was called the wisdom of our ancestors. Circumstances, they felt, required their enactment of particular laws; but it was not intended that those laws should be in force, when the circumstances that called them forth had ceased to exist, or had been materially altered; or when, as with respect to the laws to be repealed by the present bill, they had actually become detrimental to the public interest. If the committee looked back to the spirit of the times in which the Act of Union was framed, they would find a similarity to that now prevalent in relation to Ireland. For that country—as for Scotland, at the period he alluded to—they were now endeavouring to remove the evil effect of former measures of the legislature, and were thereby promoting the legitimate objects of the acts of Union. Upon these considerations, he had come to the conclusion, that, if it were proposed not to extend the present measure of relief to Scotland, so far from that exemption being of advantage to that country, it would, on the contrary, be to its great disadvantage and its dishonour. With respect to the argument of intimidation having induced the present measure, which some hon. members had indulged themselves in, he would only say, that that argument might, perhaps, have some plausibility, so far as Ireland was concerned; but could have no possible application to Scotland, seeing that, in the former country, the Catholics constituted the large majority of the population, whereas in the latter they were very few in comparison with the Protestants.

agreed with the gallant general, that Scotland ought to be in- cluded in the present bill. Without entering into the general merits of the measure, he would say, that he would not oppose it, as he placed entire confidence in the government whence it had emanated.

moved, that the whole clause be read, with a view to taking the sense of the committee on it as it stood, and thereby saving the time of the House in dividing on each part of the clause.

The clause being read, the committee divided: For the clause 158; Against it 54. Majority in favour of the original clause 104.

said, he had already gone as far as he could go in consenting to the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament, and allowing them to be framers of the laws of the land; but here he would take his stand, and he would not consent to open to them the judicial offices, and intrust to them the execution of those laws. He had hitherto uniformly opposed the Catholic claims, and it was rather hard that he should he called upon, all at once, to consent to a sweeping measure, which removed all the barriers that had been erected against Catholic influence, and which was accompanied with advantages not even expected by the Catholics themselves. Every thing was given by this bill to the Catholics, and no corresponding and sufficient security was afforded to the Protestants.

was desirous that the hon. gentleman would state the specific dangers which he apprehended; for then, and not till then, could they be provided against.

said, he would specify the danger which he apprehended. The Roman Catholics were known to be under the influence of their priests, and by obtaining seats in that House, they would be the better enabled to promote the designs of that priesthood. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. gentleman, if it was his intention to recommit the bill, or what was the course which he intended to pursue?

said, that it was not his intention to recommit the bill; but, between the bill passing through the committee and the bringing up of the report, he intended it should be printed.

rose to move an amendment. As the bill at present stood, there was nothing to prevent a Roman Catholic from being prime minister. It was true that there was not such an office recognised by the law as that of prime minister, but it was equally well known that, to all intents and purposes, the first lord of the Treasury was the prime minister. It was also true, that the lord Chancellor must be a Protestant, but a Catholic might be prime minister, and might have thus the disposal of all the patronage of the state and the church vested in his hands. To provide against that danger he would move that, after the words "office of," and before the words "lord Chancellor," be inserted the words "First Lord Commissioner of his Majesty's Treasury."

said, that the security proposed by the noble lord would be a perfectly delusive one. He should oppose the amendment, therefore, because the bill was founded upon the principle of an equality of civil rights, unless where special grounds justified special exceptions. Even if a Roman Catholic should attain to the office of prime minister—which was certainly a very unlikely thing—he could not interfere with the disposal of church patronage, for there was a special clause in the bill which provided that "it shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, directly or indirectly, to advise the Crown in the appointment to, or disposal of, any office or preferment, lay or ecclesiastical, in the united church of England and Ireland, or of the church of Scotland," and which further provided, that a Catholic convicted of so doing should be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown. That appeared to him a sufficient security against the danger of a Roman Catholic, as prime minister, disposing of church patronage. From the office of lord Chancellor the Catholics were excluded, because the church patronage in the hands of the Chancellor was inherent in the office; but it was not so with the office of the First Lord of the Treasury. The church patronage did not belong to that office, nor was the person who filled that office necessarily prime minister. Speaking constitutionally, he would say, that patronage belonged to the Secretary of the Home Department, for his name was always introduced in every form connected with the disposal of the dignities and preferments of the church of Scotland. The law of England never recognized such an office as that of prime minister, and it did not necessarily follow, that the person filling that conventional office should have the disposal of the church patronage, for according to the law of England, that attached to the office of Secretary of State. In a recent instance his late right hon. friend, Mr. Canning, determined to hold the offices of prime minister, with that of Secretary of State; and he knew, for his right hon. friend had told him so, that his right hon. friend was satisfied, that there would be no objection to his holding the two offices together—that of prime minister and Foreign Secretary, and having the church patronage of the country in his hands. His noble friend would, therefore, see that the security which he would propose, was, in fact, no security at all. There was but little chance that a Catholic would ever be first lord commissioner of the Treasury, and he might be prime minister without holding that office; and, in any case, he could not advise the Crown in the disposal of church patronage. He should therefore oppose the amendment, as it offered no security, and was against the principle of the bill.

said, he fully concurred in the objections which had been raised by the right hon. gentleman to the amendment as a matter of security. To him it appeared no security at all; and as Catholics were to be admitted to parliament, he would rather prefer that the whole of the offices in the state should be thrown open at once to them. Under such circumstances, he would be for throwing open to the Catholics all the civil and legal offices in the state—even the regal office itself [cries of Oh! Oh!]. It was his conviction that after Roman Catholics were admitted to parliament, all securities would be unavailing.

thought it as likely that a Protestant king would appoint a general in the army to the archbishopric of Canterbury, as make a Roman Catholic prime minister.

said, that there was no church patronage directly vested in the hands of the first lord of the Treasury, or of the Secretary of State. These officers merely advised the Crown in the disposal of that patronage. The offices of lord Chancellor and lord-lieutenant were excepted; as to those offices the disposal of church patronage inherently attached. No doubt, the minister who advised the Crown as to the disposal of that patronage exercised a great influence over its disposal; but no Catholic could do so without being guilty of a high misdemeanour.

said, that such a clause existed undoubtedly in the bill; but how, he would ask, could the fact be brought home to a person accused of it? and would it not be impossible to procure evidence for the conducting of such a prosecution to a succesful issue?

said, it was impossible to give the security required, as the law did not recognize such an office as that of prime minister. In the eye of the law, the ministers were all upon an equality, and his noble friend would not effect his object by making an exception of the first lord of the Treasury, for any other of the ministers might be prime minister. When lord Chatham was prime minister, he did not hold the office of first lord of the Treasury.

thought, that the only security consisted in excluding the Catholics altogether from the Privy-council. He entertained too much respect for his sovereign to be a party to a measure that might surround him with Catholic councillors. If his noble friend would permit him, he would propose an amendment upon his amendment, for the purpose of preventing Roman Catholics from being members of the Privy-council.

said, he would altogether oppose such a proposition. It was perfectly consistent in the hon. baronet to effect such an exclusion; but it would be fraught with danger to the State, and injury to the Crown and the country. When they once admitted Roman Catholics to that and the other House of parliament, they had no right to exclude them from those rewards, to which public exertion and talents naturally aspired; and they had no right to deprive the Crown of the power of selecting from the parties in both Houses the individuals best calculated to conduct the public service. To admit Catholics to parliament, to allow them to be members of the legislature, and yet to exclude them from the service of the Crown would be to adopt a system dangerous to the Crown, detrimental to the interests of the country, and inconsistent with the principles of the constitution. Such a proceeding, he would re- peat, would be fraught with danger to the well-being and safety of the country.

said, he could not avoid referring to some observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Newark. That hon. member had repeated what he had said on a former night—that if this bill passed, he would rather that all offices should be thrown open to the Roman Catholics, and that the whole constitution should be granted to them. Indeed, the words of the hon. member were, if he recollected rightly, that his taste, as well as his judgment led him to desire, that if this bill passed, they should cease to oblige even the king to adhere to the Protestant religion. The hon. member spoke of the bill being, as it stood, an equal infringement on the constitution. Now, that the king should be a Protestant, formed a fundamental part of the constitution, as established at 1688; while the laws excluding the Catholics were passed before that Revolution. These laws were certainly recognized at the Revolution; but they did not form a fundamental principle of that Revolution; whereas the Bill of Rights, in order to provide against the possibility of a Catholic king, declared, in the strongest terms, that if the king ceased to be a Protestant, his subjects would be absolved from their allegiance to him. The hon. gentleman had also said, that there was one point recognized by the bill which would especially induce him not to support it; and that was the continuance of the Protestant ascendancy. Now, it was because the bill did provide for the Protestant ascendancy, that he would vote for it— since, in his opinion, a Protestant king and Protestant ascendancy were essential to the constitution. As to the general question he would not enter into it at present—but he thought that some of the points made by the hon. gentleman required notice. He understood the hon. gentleman to have observed, that so far as regarded the legal right to the Crown, that right would remain after the passing of this bill, but that the moral right would be affected by the measure. If the hon. gentleman had expressed that opinion, a more dangerous doctrine was never delivered in that House. The hon. gentleman must know, whether he (Mr. Sugden) had stated his sentiments correctly. He believed he had done so; and, indeed, this last mentioned sentiment was perfectly consonant with other expressions that had fallen from him; especially when he argued, that the legislature would be exceeding the power which the constitution had conferred on it, if this bill were passed, and that the people would never again rally round ministers for the security of the country if the measure were carried. These doctrines he looked upon as extremely dangerous.

expressed his determination to vote for the proposition of his noble friend, which, as he conceived, was a perfectly reasonable one. He would concede to his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State, and to the right hon. member for Liverpool, the position, that the office of prime minister was utterly unknown to the constitution. But they must argue the question with reference to the present state and situation of the country, and to the manner in which the government of the country was arranged. If, then, they looked at it in this way, he believed it would be acknowledged on all hands, that the office was one which was perfectly well known. He would ask any man at all conversant in the affairs of the country, to say, whether he was or was not aware of the power attached to the situation of prime minister? He did not think that any person could plead ignorance on that point. He repeated, that the proposition of his noble friend was reasonable and proper, and therefore he should give it his support. His right hon. friend, the Secretary of State had said, "I have provided for you already a security so sufficient, that it ought to remove every difficulty. I have, by my provision, sc hampered the measure, that a Roman Catholic cannot be prime minister." Well, then, if that were the case, what became of the objection to his noble friend's proposition? He admitted the course of argument adopted by his right hon. friend, to be correct; but, if the provision contained in the bill were such as must effectually exclude Roman Catholics from holding the situation of prime minister, he could see no good reason for refusing to name the situation, as one which no Roman Catholic would be allowed to fill He was willing to confide in the honour and sincerity of his right hon. friend, but he would say, "Let us have two securities. We already have got the security of my right hon. friend; let us have that of my noble friend opposite." Now, the only argument which he had heard on the subject, related to the difficulty of expressing their meaning clearly on this bill. He cared not whether they used the definition of prime minister, as laid down in 1827, in the correspondence between Mr. Canning and the noble duke now at the head of the government. It did not appear to him to be of any importance, whether they viewed as prime minister the first lord of the Treasury, or the person who received his majesty's commands to form an administration. All he wanted was, that Roman Catholics should be, by this bill, excluded in terms from filling that situation.

observed, that the question now before the committee was, whether it was expedient that the prime minister, or the person holding the chief place in the councils of his majesty, ought or ought not to be a Roman Catholic? He thought, that if they could by any phraseology designate that situation in the bill, they ought to do so. Roman Catholics ought to be effectually excluded from acting in that capacity. There was, he knew, a provision in the bill, by which any Roman Catholic who advised his majesty, with respect to the disposal of church patronage, was declared guilty of a high misdemeanor, and was disabled for ever from holding any office under the Crown. That certainly would afford some degree of security, if it were possible to discover the offence. But it could not be forgotten, that this offence, if ever committed, must be committed either in conjunction with his majesty only, or with the knowledge of his privy council. Now, how was it possible for any court of law in this country to become acquainted with what passed in the privy council? What competent witness could be brought forward in a court of law to give evidence of the misdemeanor? He believed, if the House of Commons procured proper information on the subject, it was in their power to make a privy councillor speak out. The law of impeachment was, he imagined, as strong and powerful as that. But, what a state of things would it produce, if privy-councillors were compelled to palter with the Oath of Secrecy which they had taken? He therefore contended, that the security thus offered was entirely useless and nugatory. The right hon. Secretary of State pointed out another way in which justice might be obtained. He said, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, counter-signed all these appointments. In stating that, perhaps the right hon. Secretary indicated the person who ought to be inserted in the bill, instead of the first lord of the Treasury. There were also other officers, whose situations gave them great authority with the sovereign, and who had the power of advising his majesty with respect to church property, as well as on any other subject. There was, for instance, the president of the council, whose duty it was to attend the privy council, and to inform his majesty of what passed there. There was, also, the lord privy seal, a very important officer, of whom lord Coke said, that he ought to inform his majesty if any thing were effected contrary to law. He threw out these suggestions to show, that if the noble lord opposite had selected, for his amendment, a character difficult to catch or describe, here were a number of offices which, though not of the same magnitude, were highly important, and might be selected for insertion in the bill.

said, there was a security in the bill, which he thought would completely satisfy the hon. member, and would ensure his vote in favour of the clause. He conceived that the clause gave complete security, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be easily amenable for any advice he might give, if the government were administered on principles similar to those on which it had always been carried on; for he apprehended, that advice to the Crown was really indicated by the counter-signature attached to those documents, by which church patronage was disposed of. The Secretary of State, therefore, whose name appeared attached to any document of that kind, whether it were the nomination of a bishop, or for the disposal of any other portion of church patronage, must be considered as the adviser, and he thought, if the House of Commons wished to find out who was the adviser, the signature would afford complete prima facie evidence on the subject. Therefore, there would be no necessity for divulging the secrets of the council; because orders signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be the evidence as to the person who advised the Crown. The hon. member had, therefore, perfect security, under the present clause, with respect to that point.

observed, that by the bill, Catholics were excluded from offices to which church patronage was annexed, or were virtually excluded, by the appointment of a commission to dispense that patronage. That, in his opinion, was a sufficient security.

was in hopes, that the right hon. Secretary would vote for the amendment. With respect to such an office as that of prime minister, not being known, they could adopt the words of Mr. Canning, and consider the individual as prime minister who had the formation of the government. At any rate, there never was a doubt, in any situation of the country, as to who really was prime minister. He was sure that the ingenuity of the solicitor-general—which, by the way, had not been much evinced in the drawing up of this bill—would be able to find some words to describe who was meant by prime minister. He thought the words of his noble friend so good, that he trusted he would persist in his amendment.

asked, whether they could, with any propriety, pursue the course pointed out by the right hon. Secretary. Would they allow the Roman Catholics to suppose, that they might fill the situation of ministers of state, at the very moment that they imposed conditions which rendered it impossible that Catholics could ever become ministers? His right hon. friend had said, that it would be a monstrous, a disgraceful thing, to allow them to get into those great offices ["no, no"]. His ears had cruelly deceived him, if the right hon. Secretary did not say so.

observed, that what he did say, was, that according to the practice of the constitution, he considered that the person who filled the office of prime minister must have the disposal of the church patronage; and there was a provision in the bill, declaring that Roman Catholics should not advise the Crown, with respect to that patronage. Now, this being the case, though there was not a distinct disqualification of the Roman Catholics, with reference to the office of prime minister, yet he thought it would be so inconvenient for any person, not possessing that patronage, to act as prime minister, that it appeared to him highly improbable, if not impossible, that any Roman Catholic would attempt it. As to the words "monstrous" and "disgraceful," they were little effusions of the hon, member's fancy.

said, he saw no reason for altering the course he had taken. He thought it was better, in a plain and direct way, to declare that Roman Catholics should not fill the office of prime minister, rather than to leave the matter in the way recommended by the right hon. Secretary.

said, that if the Secretary for the Home Department, were the person whose duty it was to sign documents relating to church property, he could not see why Roman Catholics should not also be excluded from that office.

observed, that there were three secretaries of state, and any arrangement with respect to their business was merely arbitrary and conventional. He apprehended, that the signature of his noble friend in the foreign department, or of his right hon. friend in the colonial department, would be just as valid, if placed to any of these documents, as that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The security afforded by the bill was, that there must be a Protestant Secretary of State to sign documents relating to church patronage.

said, that according to the right hon. Secretary's declaration, if all or any of the three secretaries Of state were eligible to sign those documents, a greater difficulty presented itself in selecting the responsible adviser; and if the House of Commons felt it necessary to proceed with an impeachment, it was very likely that they might pitch upon the wrong person.

said, that if he had not entered into a detail on this subject, it was because he felt perfectly satisfied that the hon. member was deeply conversant with the principles and practice of constitutional law. He had an unaffected respect for the hon. member's abilities and knowledge; and as he believed that the hon. member understood the subject thoroughly, he did not think it necessary to explain the nature of the difference between the three Secretaries of State, which was nothing more than an arbitrary one. In the absence of one secretary, the signature of another was perfectly valid. He would again say, that if a Roman Catholic secretary gave advice with respect to the disposal of church patronage, or issued any document for that purpose, he would under this clause, be guilty of a misdemeanour.

said, that advice relative to the disposal of church property must be given by a Protestant Secretary of State. If one of the secretaries happened to be a Roman Catholic, any document relative to church property must be signed, not by him, but by one of his colleagues.

The committee divided: For the amendment 98; Against it 218; Majority 120.

said, that he was so completely unable to satisfy his mind of the propriety of surrounding the king with a council of Roman Catholics that he should move that, after the words "governors of Ireland,"the words "or become or be of his majesty's most honourable privy council" be inserted.

said, he agreed with the hon. baronet, that the only way in which particular offices could be excluded was by express legal provision, and a clause framed in comprehensive terms. It was obvious that ministers possessed a most extensive power to affect the interests of the clergy, by measures both in parliament and out of it. For these reasons he should support the amendment.

said, that, although he should support the government through the remainder of the bill, he felt obliged to vote for the amendment, as he did not think that adequate security was provided against an improper exercise of the functions of the office, if filled by a Roman Catholic.

The amendment was put, and negatived.

then proposed, that the words "or governor, or lieutenant-governor, or deputy-governor, or acting governor, of any of the colonies," be added to the clause. It was perfectly well-known that the Protestant churches and the Protestant religion, in many of our colonies, was in a situation which required peculiar care and attention. This care and attention must be principally supplied by those who executed the functions of government in the colonies; and the persons so executing the functions of government being so far removed from control, the amendment appeared to him to be imperatively called for.

said, that his hon. friend had anticipated, in this amendment, one which he had intended to propose. When it was considered what extensive powers were committed to the governors of colonies, and what power every government must have over the church, he could not consent that any person holding the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion should be invested with the trust.

congratulated the hon. members on the far-sightedness of their religious alarms; but thought that they need not be so severe with Catholic churches in a spot, where, whatever faults of civil government the Catholics had committed, they had first planted the cross of Christianity.

said, he could not concur in the proposed amendment. The church patronage was not vested in the civil governors, and therefore there was no necessity for this caution. Besides, in three or four of our colonies, for instance, in Trinidad, the population was altogether Catholic, and he had long been convinced of the necessity of removing the disabilities under which Catholics in the colonies were placed, when he found that they were precluded from forming a part of the governor's council, although their knowledge and advice were, in many cases, absolutely necessary for the welfare of the colony.

said, that the bill had already thrown open these offices to Catholics, by making it lawful for them "to hold, exercise, and enjoy all civil and military offices and places of trust or profit under his majesty."

opposed the amendment. It was unnecessary, inasmuch as ecclesiastical appointments were not in the hands of the governors; and it was unwise and ungenerous, seeing that these governments were usually the reward of dangerous and important services in naval and military commands.

thought it would be fount that the oaths to be taken by governors of the colonies would exclude Catholics. As to the Catholics planting Christianity in India, it was there long before any such a thing as a pope was heard of.

said, the question was, whether the present bill admitted Catholics to these offices, and it was clear that it did.

said, that if the hon. member for Dover wished for a real security Catholics must be excluded from being directors of the East India Company; fo they appointed the chaplains.

The amendment was negatived.

On the clause for the admission of Roman Catholics into corporate offices,

said, that, notwithstanding the opposition which members on his side of the House had met in giving their opinions upon the question, he should not be driven from the discharge of his duty. He could not agree that these subjects were trifling. His principle, on the contrary, was, "principiis obsta." He contended, that any interference with the municipal rights of the corporations would be extremely injurious to the constitution. A corporation was a sort of petty government, a species of little republic. It would be as manifest a breach of the constitution to admit Catholics to corporations, as to seats in the government; and for this reason corporations had frequently the disposal of funds for ecclesiastical purposes, church endowments, and admissions to schools, with extensive patronage of purely an ecclesiastical character. In Ireland, the introduction of Catholics to corporations would be found peculiarly objectionable. In that country there were a hundred and fifteen corporations, and under these no fewer than two thousand five hundred offices, to each of which fees were attached; and yet it was proposed to throw the whole of these open to the Catholics! The consequence would be, to transfer power from the Protestants to the Catholics; and the effect of that transfer must of necessity prove most mischievous to that constitution which it was the duty of every Protestant to preserve entire. The admission of Catholics would be contrary to the charters of corporations. He would instance an inconvenience that might arise. To most corporations a chaplain was attached, who would be necessarily of the established religion. The mayor might, should this measure pass into a law, be a Catholic. What, in such a case, could be more ridiculous than to see the mayor go to one place of worship, and his chaplain to another? The hon. member concluded by declaring his intention to propose an amendment which would, he hoped, give additional security against Catholic influence.

supported the view taken of the clause by the hon. and gallant member. It frequently happened, that mayors and other officers of corporations were, ex officio, governors or trustees of Protestant institutions and establishments. Now, he should like to know whether that new innovation was to be added to those already contemplated?

would make inquiry into the points suggested by the hon. member. At present he was not aware of any power possessed by members of corporations to divert the funds from their original and legal destination; but if his hon. and learned friend could show him any real danger that might be incurred he would most willingly give such further security as the nature of the case might require. He thought, however, that the original clause was sufficiently strong and comprehensive.

The clause was agreed to.

On the next clause,

, with reference to that part of the clause which provided that, "where such right of presentation should belong to any office in the gift or appointment of his majesty, his heirs or successors, in which case, if such office shall be held by a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, it shall be lawful for his majesty, his heirs and successors, to appoint, by commission under the great seal, such member or members of the privy council, being a Protestant or Protestants, as he or they should think fit, to be a commissioner or commissioners for exercising such right of presentation, while such office shall be held by a person professing the Catholic religion," remarked, that the hon. member for Corfe Castle had objected to this part of the clause, that the appointment of the commissioners might be under the control of a Catholic prime minister, and therefore they would probably exercise their office under his influence. He proposed, in order to obviate this objection, that instead of the appointments in such cases devolving upon commissioners, they should be made by an individual whose Protestantism could not be suspected—he meant the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

The next clause provided, that "it shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, directly or indirectly to advise the Crown in the appointment to, or disposal of, any office or preferment, lay or ecclesiastical, in the united church of England and Ireland, or church of Scotland; and that if any such person shall presume to advise his majesty, his heirs or successors, or the lord-lieutenant or lord-deputy, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, touching or concerning any such appointment or dis posal, he shall, being convicted thereof by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disqualified for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown."

asked, what security was there that a Catholic minister might not go into the closet of the king and advise him to do that which would be subversive of the constitution? How would such conduct become known? What evidence could be obtained of it on which to convict the offending minister?

asked, in reply, what security we had at present that the minister would not go into the king's closet and advise his majesty to deliver the country into the hands of the French? The proposed law said, that Roman Catholics should not give advice to the effect alluded to by the hon. member; and certainly there would be the same facility of prevention of bad advice then as there existed at present.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman was right, that there was no security at all, it would be better to give it up altogether, and leave our security to chance.

proposed the addition of the words, "or regent of this kingdom."

said, the provision at present covered the case suggested by the hon. baronet. He would not, however, object to the addition of the words proposed.

The clause so amended was agreed to. On the clause enacting that titles to sees, &c., shall not be assumed by Roman Catholics, and that every person offending against it shall, for each offence, forfeit 100l.,

wished to know whether it was meant that, on paying the fine, the Catholic might be entitled to retain the title which he had assumed, or whether he was to be fined for every offence which he committed against this clause?

observed, that any Catholic assuming the title of any bishop in England or in Ireland, would be guilty of a distinct and substantive offence, every time he assumed that title.

On the clause inflicting a penalty on Roman Catholic ecclesiastics officiating except in usual places of worship,

said, that this was a clause calculated to give great satisfaction to Protestants, and no dissatisfaction to the Catholics.

wished to know whether, if the Speaker of that House should hereafter be a Roman Catholic, he would be entitled to elect a Roman Catholic chaplain; and whether captains of men-of-war might appoint to their vessels Roman Catholic chaplains?

stated, that this act would make no difference as to the appointment of officers or chaplains to men-of-war; nor would it, in the event of the Speaker's being a Roman Catholic, in the promotion of his Catholic chaplain, as the Crown would probably be unlikely to appoint upon such a nomination.

On the reading of the clause inflicting a penalty of 50l. for every calendar month during which an unregistered Jesuit, or member of any monastic order of the church of Rome, bound by religious vows, shall remain in the country, without giving the usual notice to the proper officer,

objected strongly to this clause, as containing severer penalties than even the 27th of Elizabeth, and comprehending a wider scope of operation. It would embrace the Knights of Malta, composed of the first families in Europe.

Rice also opposed the clause. He was sorry to see new penalties imposed by a bill the object of which was to remove other odious penalties. He contended, that persons belonging to monastic orders could do no injury to the Protestant establishments of this country. There were some lay orders in Ireland established for charitable purposes, which had founded schools, and the members of which were bound by vows which this bill would affect. He would, therefore, propose as an amendment, that those persons who were not ordained should he exempted from the operation of the bill; or, in other words, that it should not affect lay persons though bound by monastic vows. He should, therefore, move, that the words "not being laymen" should be inserted.

also objected to the clause. It would, he said, affect the college of Stoneyhurst, where Jesuits diffused a useful system of education, and were of the utmost local advantage to the neighbourhood.

regretted extremely the invidious tendency of this clause. If one of the society of Benedictines, in pursuit of the great history in which his order had been for so many years employed, were to come to England to search records, ought he to be liable to this penalty? Or if Angelo Mai were to arrive here from Rome to prosecute his learned studies, ought he to be exposed to similar obstruction? The government might reserve to itself, through the Secretary of State, a control over individuals, to be optionally exercised. Such a course would be better than an enactment of this nature.

thought the exclusion of the Jesuits from this country would be attended with unmitigated good. That order had always been opposed to civil and religious liberty; and this had been felt in every Roman Catholic country. In France, a great struggle had long been carried on, to prevent the Jesuits from monopolizing the establishments for the education of youth; and this opposition, on the part of the people of France, was the result of experience, and of a knowledge of the character of the Jesuits. If the clause had been introduced as a substantive measure, wholly independent of the general measure, of which he entirely approved, it should have had his entire approbation. In his opinion, it was the best part of the bill.

said, he heard the opinions of the hon. member for Dover with regret. He did not like the Jesuits; but he objected to any class of persons being excluded from this country, who conducted themselves with propriety. Nothing could reconcile him to this clause, which was contrary to the free, open, and hospitable character of the English constitution. There were many scientific and learned men, members of religious orders, and it would be paltry and disgraceful to exclude them from visiting England. Turks, Pagans, and Infidels were admissible to this country; and it would be highly discreditable to exclude only those bound by religious vows. The only monks which he (Mr. L.) had ever seen in this country were some monks of the Swiss order of St. Bernard. Many gentlemen, in common with himself, had been indebted to the hospitality of those persons abroad; and if any one of them expressed a desire to visit this country, on scientific or literary pursuits, what pain an English-man must feel, on being obliged to state, that if he or any of his brotherhood should come to England they would be liable to fine and imprisonment, merely because they belonged to a religious order.

defended the clause. The present bill was, he said, a measure of concession to the Catholics, and should be met by persons professing that religion in the same spirit. The existence of monastic orders was by no means necessary to the existence or maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion, or the Roman Catholic church. There was a wide distinction between the members of monastic orders and the secular clergy. The laws of England were always opposed to monastic orders, and distinguished between the members of those orders and the secular clergy. When the measure passed for the relief of the Roman Catholic clergy in 1793, the laws against the monastic orders remained in force; but they were evaded by means of secret trusts, which was an additional reason why there should be some direct enactment on the subject. Every foreign country had manifested a jealousy of the Jesuits; and, as had been well observed by the hon. member for Dover, in France a great struggle had been carried on, to prevent the members of that order from monopolizing the education of the people. If the Jesuits were excluded from other countries, it was natural to suppose that they would resort to this; and it was too much to expect that this order should meet that encouragement and protection in a Protestant country, which was denied to them in Roman Catholic countries. It was consistent with good policy that every precaution should be taken with respect to the introduction of those religious orders into this country; and, considering the nature of this bill, every satisfaction ought to be given to those who entertained apprehensions, as to the consequences of those monastic orders being established here. There was a law already in existence for the prevention of Jesuit establishments, but it was not found effective. There was nothing intolerant, however, in the proposed clause. Those persons at present resident in this country were allowed to remain, upon the registration of their names, which was not a very severe penalty and we were only following the example of almost every Roman Catholic country, in preventing them from settling here. If the House could be aware of the anxiety and apprehension entertained in some neighbourhoods where Jesuits had arrived, with large funds, and with thee intention of establishing themselves, the necessity for some provision on the subject would be most obvious. As to the benefit derived from the exertions of those persons in promoting education, as referred to by the hon. member for Limerick, if persons wished to promote education it was by no means necessary that they should bind themselves by monastic vows. Vows of celibacy, or vows of poverty, had surely nothing to do with the promotion of education, or, as far as he could see, with the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion. The constitution and the law of this country were opposed to persons binding themselves by secret vows. The clause had given great satisfaction to those who had hitherto offered a Conscientious opposition to the claims of the Roman Catholics; and, for his part, he could not consent to withdraw it, when Roman Catholic states had thought it necessary to exercise the same kind of jealousy with respect to particular orders.

said, he could not approve of the proposal for the suppression of monastic institutions. The principle had been adopted under the despotism of Russia; but was certainly contrary to our free constitution. If the House divided, he would vote against the clause.

said, there was nothing in the conduct of the Jesuits in Ireland, (whose whole number did not exceed fourteen) which militated against social order. The principle of the clause, as applied to them, was harsh and unnecessary.

defended the clause, on the ground of the religious excitement which now existed in every part of the world, and more particularly in those parts where the Roman Catholic faith was professed. He added, that the order of the Jesuits had recently been revived by the Pope; and contended, that it was impolitic to have, in a country like this, establishments of a society, which were bound to act implicitly according to the dictates of their ecclesiastical superior.

observed, that while he concurred in the general principle of the clause, he thought that some exception ought to be made, or that some discretionary power ought to be vested in government, with respect to members of religious orders who might be thrown upon our shores by the accident of shipwreck, or who might come here for the purposes of science. It would surely not be to the credit of the country to punish, or to banish, men under such circumstances.

also concurred in the general principle. He thought it would be impolitic to allow the establishment of societies, the members of which were bound by secret engagements, and were obliged to pay implicit obedience to the commands of their foreign superior. That the society of the Jesuits would extend here, there could be no doubt, from what had taken place in France. With respect to Ireland, he was not so much acquainted with those societies there engaged in educating the poor, but if they were such as had been described, he saw no objection to their being excepted from the bill. At the same time, he objected to their living in communities, where they must endeavour to enlist others, and to multiply their numbers. With respect to the second clause, he thought there could be no objection to invest the government with the discretionary power of permitting members of religious orders, coming here for the purposes of science, or even of residing here, they being registered.

thought, that this part of the bill was the only one which gave security to the Protestants; and, as a geat deal remained to be said and done with respect to it, he would propose that the further discussion be adjourned [cries of "no, no"]. He would bear all the odium of exercising his privilege, in order to give full time for the discussion of the measure.

said, that though opposed to the principle of the bill, he thought it better as they were in the committee, to go on with it. However much he disapproved of it, he would never offer any obstruction, which could only be useful for delay.

could not agree that it was in any degree precipitate to go on with the bill. Nothing was more tedious than protracting the sittings in committee. He remembered the time, when the House willingly sat till four in the morning, to get through committees; but now hon. members, who did not come into the House till eight or nine o'clock, seemed quite exhausted after two or three hours' discussion. He was sure his hon. friend did not mean to give any unfair opposition to the measure, particularly as he did not appear to be opposed to those clauses.

disavowed the intention of giving any thing like a factious opposition to the bill. He, however, was anxious that full time should be given for discussing every clause fully.

said, if the committee went through the bill that night, he supposed there would be no objection to receiving the report then, in order to have the bill, as amended, printed.

The House resumed, the bill was reported, and the further consideration of it fixed for Friday.