the present claims originated. The third | land; but the truth was, that from claim was of this nature: during the the communication which he had had American war, a large body of negroes with the chief justice of that colony, and had placed themselves under British from other information which he derived protection, especially the negroes of Cum- from it, things were not in a state to berland Island, and after the war we did admit of any immediate change. He not feel justified in restoring them to could assure the hon. member, that he America as slaves, after they had thus should be happy to receive any communiplaced themselves under our protection. cation from him, or from any other memIn the same way, we did not feel justified ber, with a view to the benefit of the colony in ceding back to Spain those negroes who of Newfoundland, and would give whatever belonged to that power, and who had aid lay in his power to the carrying into voluntarily put themselves under our au- effect any suggestion that might be offered thority. for the advantage of that colony. If he obtained the necessary information, he should be most happy in the next session, to enter into the consideration of the subject. The resolution was agreed to. ANATOMICAL SUBJECTS.] Mr. Warburton moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider and give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Anatomy, in the last Session." The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Hyde Villiers said, he hoped the situation of this colony would invite the attentive consideration of parliament next year. He was unwilling to press the subject, under the peculiar circumstances of the present session. The inhabitants of Newfoundland were principally Irish, or descended from Irish ancestors; and he knew that, so great was the interest which they took in the welfare of Ireland, they would bear the disappointment of the consideration of their own claims being omitted this session, when they were assured that the cause of that omission was, that the attention of the legislature had been taken up with restoring religious peace to Ireland. He did not believe, however, that they would with equal contentment see their claims much longer postponed, and he therefore hoped that, next session the attention of parliament would be turned to the consideration, with a view to the improvement of the colony of Newfoundland. Sir G. Murray said, he could not perceive the immediate connexion between the Catholic question and the colony of Newfoundland. He was not aware that the Catholic question had offered any impediment to the consideration of any matters connected with the colony of Newfound Mr. Robinson said, he should not feel it his duty to bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice last night, if he could obtain a pledge from the right hon. gentleman that the government would introduce next session a legislative measure in reference to this colony. But the right hon. gentleman now said, that they had not sufficient information on the subject to enable them to legislate; and he was not bound to believe that they would have such information next year, or the year after, more than at present. The bills in question had now been in operation for five years, and it was strange if, during that period the public functionaries in that colony had not derived sufficient information as to the operation of them, to enable government to legislate on the subject, A strong impression prevailed amongst the inhabitants of Newfoundland, that parlia ment would legislate on the subject this session. A public meeting took place there in the course of last year, the various clauses of these acts were discussed, a statement of the abuses growing out of the operation of these acts was drawn up, and that statement, with suggestions as to the alterations which were required, was brought over, for the information of government, by individuals of high character and station in the colony. He did not want the right hon. gentleman to legislate in haste, but surely he could not object to give a pledge now from which the inhabitants of Newfoundland might have reason to expect, that all legislation on this subject would not be postponed, until these bills should expire-namely, in the year 1832? Surely the right hon. gentleman would not object to the appointment of a committee next session for the purpose of receiving whatever information the public functionaries and the inhabitants of the colony could lay before them, in order to furnish grounds upon which parliament could adopt a system of legislation in reference to that island. The truth was, that up to the present time the interests of the inhabitants of Newfoundland had given way to the interests of private individuals in this country. He was aware that the House would be unwilling to pledge itself on the subject, but if the right hon. gentleman would say, that he would agree to the appointment of the committee next session, the public functionaries of the island might then be enabled to furnish him with the information he wanted; and he would undertake on the part of the inhabitants, that they would furnish the committee with a body of evidence on the subject. If he should get that pledge, he would not bring for ward his amendment. Sir G. Murray repeated, that the chief justice of Newfoundland had stated to him, that he could not at present furnish him with sufficient information. Whenever he obtained the necessary information, he should be prepared to legislate for the colony. The House then went into a committee. On the clause limiting the operation of these acts to the year 1832 being put, Mr. Robinson moved as an amendment, that the word "two" be left out of the resolution. Mr. Hume thought the right hon. Secretary should agree to the proposition. He did not see what objection he could have to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the operation of these acts. Sir George Murray said, he should be ready to legislate, without reference to the interests of one party or another, but for the good of the whole colony, whenever he should obtain sufficient information on the subject to enable him to do so. But surely hon. members would not call upon the House, to enter into a specific pledge on the subject, in the absence of the necessary information? That information he should, in all probability, very shortly receive. The committee divided on the amendment; but as there were only thirty-seven members present, an adjournment, of course, took place, HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, April 8. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS PETI TIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] The Marquis of Lansdowne presented a Petition from a considerable number of the Clergy and Gentry of the County of Wilts, stating that they were entirely satisfied with the bill before the House for the Relief of the Roman Catholics, and regretting that any portion of the residents of the county should have thought it right to petition the king to dissolve the parliament rather than allow this bill to pass into a law. Lord Farnham said, he had several petitions to present against the Catholic claims; but as one of them from the county of Ayr, had a very particular allusion to other circumstances, he wished to call to it the particular attention of the noble duke at the head of the government. It referred to a practice which, he was informed, prevailed to some extent in the garrisons or settlements of the Mediterranean, where his majesty's troops were stationed. Now he had understood it was always the military custom in garrison to allow his majesty's Roman Catholic soldiers an exemption from attending the place of religious worship which they did not profess; but, it seemed, this becoming spirit of toleration was not extended to Protestant soldiers in Catholic countries; for this petition stated, and offered to prove, that the military of the established church of this country were obliged, in some of the Mediterranean garrisons, upon certain saints' days in the Romish calendar, to submit to ceremonies which they were taught to believe were superstitious and idolatrous. For instance, his majesty's troops, with their officers, were obliged to attend processions, bearing lighted tapers in their hands, and, as the petitioners stated, ordered to fire salutes in honour of them, and to march with figures and standards according to the programme of the priests. In Corfu, they stated, there was, on the festival of one of the saints, a most valuable relic produced for public display, it was the sacred thumb of the saint, which was borne in a silver chalice, in times when a visit from the plague was expected, and against which it was an infallible antidote. It was carried in sacred and solemn procession to the water's edge, attended by military honours, and there immersed in the Mediterranean. It was just at that hap-py moment of immersion, that the charm had immediate effect in repelling the approach of the infection: peals of artillery fired salutes on this auspicious occasion, and the troops escorted the relic back to its holy quarters where it was again deposited. If any truth belonged to these statements, what must be the feelings of Protestant soldiers who were compelled to accompany the march of such superstitions? [A murmur of incredulity from several peers]. He could assure the House, that the petitioners positively made this statement, and offered to prove it. He, of course, of himself could know nothing of such transactions, and had only to state the circumstance as it was communicated to him. The petitioners very properly prayed, that Protestant soldiers should be allowed the same tolerant indulgence which they gave to Catholic soldiers, of being exempt from compulsory attendance upon ceremonies which were opposed to their religious feelings. The latter paragraph of the petition contained a general objection to the Catholic claims. The Duke of Wellington said-My lords, I must say that although I have served in my profession in several countries, and among foreigners, some of whom professed various forms of the Christian religion, while others did not profess it at all, I never was in one in which it was not the bounden duty of the soldier to pay proper deference and respect to whatever happened to be the religious institutions or ceremonies of the places where they might be. We soldiers do not go into these foreign countries to become parties to the religious differences of the people, or to trouble ourselves with their notions upon matters of faith. We go to perform a very different kind of duty,-one which is purely military, and has no reference to the people's religion. I confess I never heard, however, that it was our custom to take any part in these religious rites, nor do I believe we do, except perhaps in Malta, where it is a long-sanctioned custom of the garrison, that a few artillery officers should cause small guns to be fired as some procession passes the platform; and I know that certain officers, on one occasion, disobeyed the usual order of their commandant, and-not on military, but on religious grounds-refused to comply with this ancient usage, and thought proper not to fire as this proces sion passed. What was the consequence? Why, they were brought to a court-martial and cashiered-not because they would not form a part of any religious procession to which they were hostile-not be cause they would not conform to the rites of the natives, and worship any relic that was honoured by them; but for this plain and intelligible reason-that they had taken upon themselves to refuse obedience to the orders of their commander-in-chief on the spot, who, according to a long-prevailing custom, directed the usual salute to be made at the appointed time. I see, by the copy of the proceedings, that this was the ground taken by the court-martial, and I know that when submitted to his majesty for supervision by the Commanderin-chief at home, the sentence of the courtmartial was approved and confirmed, Ifany other transaction of this kind has occurred, it is unknown to me. Lord Farnham.-I do not believe the petitioners allude to the practice in Malta, for they state Corfu to be the place; but, as the noble duke has alluded to Malta, I wish to know whether the marquis of Hastings, during his govern ment of that island, did not rescind this practice, and whether his order in this respect was not revoked by the superior authority of the government at home. The effect, of course, was to revive the old practice. I do not mean to justify among soldiers a disobedience of orders, or any lapse in that proper respect which is due to their superiors; but I repeat, that I think it is highly improper to impose upon Protestant soldiers the task of assisting in the ceremonies of the Romish faith. The marquis of Hastings very properly issued an order, to deliver up for the particular occasion the small pieces of ordnance to the priests to let them off themselves during the procession, as he thought British soldiers ought not to be called upon to assist on such occasions. His order was, however, reversed by the government at home. The Duke of Wellington.-I think he did make some alteration in the usual practice, and, as well as I recollect, the Commander-in-chief, at home counteracted his order. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] The House resolved itself into a committee upon the Roman Catholic Relief bill. The Earl of Shaftesbury, as chairman of the committee, then read the clause of the bill which provides, that no person professing the Roman Catholic religion should be returned to either House of parliament or sit or vote therein, without first taking the oath provided by this bill. Lord Kenyon.-When this clause shall be disposed of, I mean to propose, that to it shall be added these words,-"Provided always that such Roman Catholic peer being a priest shall not be entitled to be elected, sit, or vote, &c." My ground for this proceeding is shortly this,-what is the oath which this bill provides for Roman Catholics to take who are elected? It is in these words," and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present church establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the united kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever." I do not know whether the noble duke is aware of the special oath which is taken by the Roman Catholic bishops, and which is so completely contrary to the tenor of the oath in this bill, that no man who took the one could take the other, who did not wish to commit perjury. In fact, the Catholic bishop's oath is quite incompatible with this new oath.. 1 The Earl of Rosslyn objected to the proposed addition, and for two reasons. It was never any part of the penal code against the Catholics to exclude them from office by direct enactment. In fact, it was always done by a side-wind,-by imposing upon them some particular test. So that any specific exclusion now would not only be in direct variance with the principle of this bill, but of the old code. In the next place, if the oath of the Catholic bishops were at such variance with the present oath, then it was clear that a conscientious man would not take it. It was right, however, to remind the noble lord, that in his quotation he had omitted to include the words of qualification distinctly authorized by the see of Rome. He could not at that instant recollect them, but he knew that they specifically reserved the rights, privileges, and immunities of the king of Great Britain, and the due allegiance by which his subjects are lawfully bound to him. Lord Kenyon said, he would never exhibit a want of candour in any extract or quotation. What he had read was from the popular work of a person very competent to impart information on this point. It did not certainly contain the qualification to which the noble earl alluded. His great objection was, that the two oaths were incompatible Lord Ellenborough said, his noble friend was perfectly right in referring to the qua lification of the oath of the Irish bishops, by the express authority of the pope. Indeed, he wondered how any noble lord could speak upon this point, without recollecting the full explanation given by Dr. Doyle before the lords' committee in 1825. Lord Kenyon explained, that he had made no charge against the Roman Catholics. What he had said was merely to show that these two oaths were incom patible. Earl Bathurst said, that if they were incompatible, it was quite clear that they would be inoperative, and the alteration nugatory. The original clause was then agreed to. The Earl of Verulam said, he wished to propose a clause, founded upon the precedent in the reservations of the Acts. of Union with Scotland and Ireland, that it should not be competent for his majesty to create a new Catholic peer, until three Catholic peerages became extinct. This was intended to prevent, in other times, a rush of Catholic peers into that House by creation from the crown. Lord Redesdale said, that religion was not hereditary, and that it would be difficult to work the noble lord's amendment. The Duke of Wellington ridiculed this apprehension, which was, he said, formed upon the most extravagant hypothesis; namely, that any king of England was likely to inundate the House of Peers with Roman Catholic peers. Besides, how were they to ascertain that three Catholic peerages were extinct: religion was not hereditary, and people might change back again. He opposed the clause on constitutional grounds, as an invasion of the king's prerogative. The Marquis of Londonderry also op The Earl of Verulam said, he was not in love with this clause any more than he was with the bill itself. If the result of his amendment being carried would be such as had been described, he would withdraw it. The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. posed it, and thought that that part of the | manner,-"You may alter the oaths which precedent of the Act of Union was not exclude Roman Catholics from parlia one to be followed. ment, so far as their exclusion is effected by oaths, but you must not alter the law, which is made a part of the Union, where by they are excluded as Roman Catholics for ever from parliament." . He would not go into the question, whether it was ex-· pedient to repeal this law at present: he would only say, that if they did repeal it, they would violate the Act of Union, and must justify that violation on the groundof necessity. He did not think that the necessity was made out. He should therefore move an amendment to this clause, providing that the oaths now in force should still be administered to all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, who, being otherwise duly qualified, offered themselves to vote at the elections of representative peers of Scotland, or to be elected such representatives. Lord Farnham said, that he, too, had an amendment to propose, relating to the elections of representative peers of Scotland; and he thought he might be permitted to say a word or two on the manner in which this bill affected Scotland, as he had been the individual who had presented a petition from Glasgow, very numerously and respectably signed, declaring, that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the passing of this act would be a direct infraction of the articles of Union The Earl of Rosebery said, he had, on between England and Scotland. The a former occasion, ventured to state, that noble lord stated the reasons which in- whenever the clause affecting, or supposed duced him to concur in opinion with the to affect, the Act of Union with Scotland, petitioners. It had been asserted, that came regularly under consideration in the the arrangement respecting the oaths to committee, he would attempt to show, that be taken by the representatives of the this measure, though it should be passed peerage and the commons of Scotland in its present shape, was not a violation of was a temporary arrangement, capable of that act. But, as to the general question, being altered by the parliament of Great his view of the point had been already Britain, because it was provided in the much better argued by the noble and Act of Union, that the oaths therein men- learned lord who usually sat on the Wooltioned should only be taken "until the sack, and in the most eloquent and con parliament of Great Britain should other- vincing speech of a noble friend of his wise direct." Now, if noble lords would than he could pretend to do; and there take the trouble of reading the Act of fore he found himself relieved from the Union through, they would find that that task of entering at length into the general act incorporated into itself the fifth act of question. But he would, with their lordthe first parliament of king William and ships permission, mention one or two queen Mary, for ratifying the confession considerations to which they had not adof the faith and settling Presbyterian verted.-He thought it was not fair to church government, with other acts of consider this measure with reference to parliament relating thereto, in prosecution a particular article in the Act of Union. of what the Scotch lawyers called the The proper mode of considering it, was claim of right. Now, by that act Roman with reference to the act as a whole. The Catholics were prohibited from sitting in subject of the article had been taken from parliament; and here was the difference a previous act of the parliament of Scot in the law of England and Scotland upon land, and incorporated with other matters this subject. In England the Roman Ca-in the Act of Union; and he contended, tholics were only prohibited by oaths from sitting in parliament; in Scotland, they were prohibited by express statutary enact ment, and the oaths were only ancillary to the same object. He conceived, that the words in the twenty-second article of Union, "until parliament should other wise direct," ought to be construed in this that the fundamental principle of the article in question was the security of the Presbyterian church establishment in Scot land; the preservation of which was to be sworn to by his majesty. It was never meant that the exclusion of the Catholics should be considered as an essential and permanent part of the Act of Union; but |