** Lord Plunkett said, that the noble lord could not have applied his attention to the clause on which he intended to move his amendment. This clause did not relate either to the electors of, or to the persons elected for, the forty-five representatives of the Commons of Scotland: it related only to persons offering themselves to vote at the elections of at the elections of representative peers of Scotland, or to be elected such representative peers. If the noble lord had looked at the act of parliament regulating the election of representative peers of Scotland, he would have seen, that the election of representative peers of that kingdom was not at all affected by the Union: it was governed by an act passed in the same year with the Act of Union, but subsequently to it, he meant the 6th of queen Anne, c. 23. The Act of Union provided for the election of members to the House of Commons, but not for the election of representative peers. It was therefore followed by the act of the 6th of queen Anne, which repealed the act as to the privy council of Scotland, and then made provisions for electing and summoning sixteen peers of Scotland, to sit in the House of peers in the parliament of Great Britain. the provision was, that a certain oath | calculated to undermine that act. Altoshould be taken, until parliament should gether, a stronger proof that this was in otherwise determine. It was quite clear reality no violation of the Act of Union that it was contemplated, that some of the could scarcely be produced. most important parts of the Act of Union might be altered; and why might not these minor provisions be altered when change was contemplated in the more important parts of the act? He repeated, that the fundamental principle of the article was the security and preservation of the Presbyterian church establishment in Scotland; and the prescribed means for that purpose were to be adhered to, until parliament should consider them unnecessary for the object intended, and in that case an alteration might be made in the means then prescribed. This was his view of the matter, and he held this opinion in common, not only with the noble lords whom he had mentioned, but along with almost the universal sentiment in Scotland. Out of the forty-five representatives for Scotland in the other House, only five had voted against this bill. Of the sixteen representative peers of Scotland, only four had voted against the bill, while twelve had voted for it; and therefore this great majority of the representation of Scotland could not have considered this as a violation of the Act of Union. Out of thirty-one Scotch peers, who were also British peers, only three had voted against the bill; and of those British peers who, although not Scotch peers, possessed large property in Scotland, nine had voted in favour of the measure. Under these circumstances, he believed he might say, without arrogance, that his opinion on this subject was better founded than that of those to whom he was opposed. In addition to this, he might appeal to the petition lately presented from Edinburgh, which was agreed to at a public meeting, by the most intelligent men of all parties in Edinburgh and its vicinity, many of whom had never agreed on political questions before. The meeting, as was well known, had been attended by many of the most eminent men of the law; and by one eminent man ---he meant sir Walter Scott-who had particularly studied the history of his country, as many of his celebrated writings had manifested. At that meeting, amidst all the discussion that had taken place, no one hinted at the measure as trenching on the privileges enjoyed by Scotland under the Act of Union, or as Lord Bexley did not question the power of the united parliament to modify any clause in the Act of Union between the two countries; but such modification should never be applied without a careful examination into the emergency, which required it. Now, he had not heard one argument of necessity advanced, for making the present infraction on the terms of the Union with Scotland. The Roman Catholic peers in Scotland were not many; and, on that account, he had rather that their lordships should recommend to the Crown to make some express provision in their favour, than that they should infringe the articles of Union by allowing Roman Catholics either to vote for the election of Scotch representative peers, or to be elected such representative peers. He did not like to revise the terms of the Act of Union between England and Scotland; for he did not know how soon it might become a precedent for revising the terms of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The rights of the Irish church were recognised by the Act of Union with Ireland; but if their lordships violated the articles of the Union with Scotland, they might be inclined to deal quite as lightly with the articles of the Union with Ireland, as soon as they found it was expedient, or seemed to be expedient, to repeal them. He certainly did consider, that this bill was a gratuitous and unnecessary infraction of the Act of Union with Scotland. alteration was justified. It was clearly for the interest of the nation at large; and it could be scarcely supposed to be the feeling and the intention of the people of Scotland, that no article of the Act of Union should be altered for their own benefit, by their own consent, and at their own desire. Then, how stood the case with respect to the feelings and the opinions of the people of Scotland? Whatever might be said about the opinions of the people Lord Melville said, it would have been of England, he might very safely assert, better if the discussion of the general that the opinions of the great majority of the question of the bearing of this measure on most intelligent of the people of Scotland the Act of Union, had been reserved till were in favour of the measure. He adthey came to another clause; and he, mitted that the majority, in point of numtherefore, in the few observations which bers, might be the other way; but he he meant to make, felt himself precluded might venture to say, that not one of a from considering the point of the exclusion thousand of that description of petitioners of the Catholics from offices, as the whole had ever read the Act of Union. As to question at present related to their exclu- the opinions of the great majority of the sion from parliament; and he was sur- most intelligent classes of the community prised that a person with the acute mind in Scotland, an idea might be formed, not of his noble friend (lord Bexley) should only from the opinions of the meeting of have attached so much importance to it. distinguished persons at Edinburgh, alThe clause to which the measure at present ready mentioned, but from the conduct of related, was that by which it was provided, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, generally that no papist should be capable of composed of men of the first talent, intelelecting a member, or of being elected a ligence, and integrity, and, as a body, the member, to serve in parliament. And most influential of any of the same dehow did the alteration in this clause scription in the Church of Scotland. On affect the people of Scotland? It might a late occasion a proposal was made to that be considered of some consequence by body-whose real opinions on this subject them, that papists should be excluded must have been most extensively dissemifrom the British parliament. But if Ro-nated through the metropolis of Scotland man Catholics were to be admitted into the British parliament from other parts of the empire, what did it signify to them that they might be elected for Scotland, in which, at any rate, they had very little chance of being elected? As to the election in Scotland of members to be returned to parliament, there was in that country, he believed, only one peer who could by the operation of this measure, be enabled to vote for the representative peers, and only about a dozen freeholders who could vote for the election of the members to the other House. The people of Scotland might, no doubt, be on a different footing from the rest of the people of the empire; as they actually were with respect to their laws. But, how stood the case? The introduction of one hundred members from Ireland into the British parliament was a violation of the Act of Union with Scotland, but it was acquiesced in, for the general benefit of the empire, and it was on that ground that the present VOL. XXI. and its vicinity-to petition parliament against this measure, and they decided, by a majority of about three to one, that it was not expedient to petition on the subject, and the reason was well known from their speeches; namely, that they thought the best course would be, to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the legislature. They might, no doubt, legislate for Scotland, differently from what they did for other parts of the empire; but, in considering a measure of this magnitude, it did appear to be absurd to descend to this minute legislation, when it was not even called for by the voice of the most intelligent part of the people. There might be a difference in the feelings of the people as to the general question; but there was hardly any as to the mode in which Scotland. might be exclusively affected by it. The Earl of Eldon agreed, that this was not the most proper time for the discussion of the general question, as to how far this measure affected the Act of Union; but, T at the same time, he knew, from the numerous petitions which he had presented from Scotland, that, in the opinion of a great number of the inhabitants of that country, the measure did trench on the Act of Union, in a manner which they decidedly disapproved. As to the sentiments of the people of Scotland upon this question, no doubt, the noble viscount had good means of information; and all he could say was, that it did not accord with the intelligence he (lord Eldon) had received. If their lordships would refer to the Bill of Rights of Scotland, which ought to be as much respected as the Bill of Rights for England, they would see from it, that no papist could sit in the parliament of that country; and, though the Act of Union did not mention that no papist should sit, yet the sixth of queen Anne, which was an improvement on the Act of Union, declared, that all those acts which she passed before the Act of Union should have the same force and effect as the act itself; consequently, no papist could elect or be elected in Scotland. He did not refer to any oaths by which Roman Catholics might be excluded, but merely to the character of those who were said to be excluded. If the feeling of the people of Scotland was to be judged of by the votes of the Scotch members, their lordships should not look to the votes of the present year alone, but go back to the votes of the last two or three years. Lord Belhaven observed, that the noble earl must be altogether mistaken in supposing, that the Act of Union had directly excluded Catholics. It was proposed, in the discussion of the Treaty of Union, that Catholics should be expressly excluded, and the proposition was negatived. The Earl of Eldon had not said, that it was by the Act of Union itself, but by acts which had been passed before, and were afterwards virtually adopted in that act. Lord Belhaven said, he had understood the noble earl to contend, that Catholics were declared inadmissible to seats in parliament by an article in the Treaty of Union. The Earl of Eldon repeated, that the noble lord had misunderstood him. What he had said was, that between the time of the Treaty of Union and the conclusion of the Act of Union itself, there were acts passed in the parliament of Scotland, which excluded papists; and the Act of Union said, that the provisions of those acts should be of as much force as if they were in the Act of Union itself. Lord Plunkett said, it was quite plain, that one had secured the independence of the church of Scotland, and another had secured that of England; and that those two acts were considered as, and declared to be, fundamental parts of the Act of Union; but any provisions which might have been made by separate acts for the regulation of the rights of electors or elected, could not be considered, and were not at the time of the Union considered, as fundamental parts of that act. They were like many other public acts, which might be amended, or repealed, as necessity might require. Such acts as referred to Scotland could not, he was aware, be altered, except for the general benefit of that country; but that did not make them fundamental parts of the Act of Union. He had looked over the act with great attention, and he spoke of its provisions from the recollection of a recent and close inspection; and he was sure the noble and learned lord would not find in it a word about papists, or suspected papists. There was an act passed to regulate elections of persons "to the said estates," but that act referred clearly to the election of the fortyfive members to the House of Commons, but had no reference to the peers. The provisions for that were, that persons voting for the election of peers should subscribe the formula. This regulation was made by the sixth of Anne. But the Act of Union itself left the electors or elected without any provision. That was cured by the act to which he referred; which was a public act, that might be altered or amended, but formed no part of the Act of Union. Then, as to the mode of election ¡ by the seventh of Anne, the provision then made was, until parliament should other- + wise direct. If the noble and learned lord would examine the acts closely, he would find it as he had stated. The Earl of Eldon said, that in cour tesy to the noble and learned lord, hẹ would again examine the acts, and if he.. found that he was mistaken, he would readily acknowledge his error. He would do it also for the sake of the petitioners, and to show them, if it were so, that par-i liament had not tampered with their rights. Lord Duncan said: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the precise in, terpretation of the articles of Union; on Relief Bill. 550 Before I sit down I must return my indi vidual thanks to the noble duke, for the part he has taken upon this subject, Thanks is too poor a word to express my feelings. I look to him with the highest gratitude for the manly and most beneficial course he has pursued. I have certainly not been in the habit of giving that noble duke or his administration my support; but, after the passing of this bill, I shall say, that he has every claim to my confidence. It will give me the greatest satisfaction if, by pursuing measures of this nature, and in this manner, I shall be able to give him always that hearty support, which I am happy to give on the present occasion. there were only two Roman Catholic peers, The Earl of Haddington observed, that and eighteen or twenty Roman Catholic midable and mischievous body he should, freeholders in Scotland; from which forin a few days, have to present a petition in favour of this bill. The amendment was then negatived. offices, being read, On the clause, containing the excepted [ APRIL 8. ] that point it would not become me to say a word; but were I inclined to do so, it is rendered altogether unnecessary by the admission just made by the noble and learned lord. My object in addressing the House is to confirm, if confirmation be wanted, the statement of my noble relation with reference to the general sentiment of the intelligent part of the community in Scotland. I came from thence about three weeks ago, shortly after the meeting took place at which that petition was adopted which was presented by my noble friend below me. I can assure him, that no feeling of the kind spoken of by the noble earl (Eldon) exists in Scotland. That many petitions have come from thence, I do not mean to deny; and those petitions have been numerously signed. One of them I saw in the hands of a noble earl, but I am not aware whether he has presented it. With reference to petitions, I can only say, that having seen the placards and advertisements to procure the meeting circulated and published in Edinburgh, where Protestantism is more regarded than, perhaps, in any other city of the world, my surprise is rather that the names obtained were not more numerous. When the people were told, not that it was intended to bring in a bill to relieve Roman Catholics, but to establish popery in Scotland, I am astonished that fortythousand signatures, instead of only seventeen thousand, were not affixed to the petition. This I think affords a pretty strong proof, that the people at large entertain no such idle apprehensions. When I hear noble lords talk of agitation, it is fit that we should look to the quarter from which that agitation arises. I am persuaded that, if the people of Scotland had been left to the guidance of their own good sense, we should have had no petitions at all. No where, I will venture to say, will this measure be received with greater satisfaction than in Scotland. I beg pardon of the House for troubling it at all; but I have this apology to offer, that it is the first time I have obtruded myself, in the course of these discussions. I could not resist the impulse to confirm the statement of my noble relation, as from personal observation I know it to be true. I may add, that since the delivery of Dr. Chalmers' inimitable speech, many of those who signed the petition against the bill have altered their opinions, and would now refuse to pray for its rejection. great anomaly to except the office of lord Lord Kenyon said, it was certainly a Chancellor from the bill, and not to except the prime minister, who had the power of making and unmaking that officer. the offices excepted be added those of He should therefore move that to Lord High Treasurer, or First Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, the Secretaries nial Departments, President of the Counof State for the Foreign, Home, and Colocil, Lord Privy Seal, Master-General of the Ordnance, and Lord High Admiral, ralty. or First Lord Commissioner of the Admi mistook the principle of the exceptions Lord Holland said, that the noble lord made. The offices excepted were not excepted on political grounds, but because in their nature they partook something of the supremacy of the Crown. The office of Chancellor was one which exercised an extensive right of church patronage in the without the necessity of taking the pleaperson of the Chancellor himself, and This was a privilege annexed to the office sure of his majesty on such appointments. in the time of Henry 8th, and continued to the present time. necessary to except that from offices to It was therefore which Catholics might be eligible, or to mutilate it by taking from it the church. T2 patronage. The former was, he thought, the better and more regular plan. It was contended, that this was a principle affecting the Protestant succession to the Crown, because, as was said by a noble and learned lord (Eldon)-whom he was sorry he did not now see in his place, as he had a bone to pick with him on this subject-if it was a principle that no religious opinion was to be a bar to political power, there was nothing-and it was hard if there should-to prevent the heir to the throne from the succession, even though his religion should not be Protestant. The noble and learned lord had, with the good humour which always distinguished his remarks, taken this as an inference from some opinions which he supposed had been delivered by him (lord Holland). Now it fortunately happened, that the opinion referred to was on their lordships' Journals, in a protest which he had felt it his duty to enter on a former occasion. What he stated in his protest was, that religious belief was no bar to the possession of power purely political and civil. The noble and learned lord had, omitted the word "purely," and had then argued upon the declaration as it stood after the omission. The kingly office in this country was not purely political. It was partly ecclesiastical; and therefore he thought it was wisely excepted from those offices to which Roman Catholics were to be admitted. He begged to inform the noble lord who was anxious that the office of prime minister should not be open to Catholics, that the law recognized no such person as prime minister. The term was borrowed from the French; but it was, in fact, an offence against the law to assume that title. If the most influential minister should happen to be a Catholic, he could not, according to the provisions of the bill, dispose of any church patronage; and if he were to advise his majesty as to how he should dispose of it, he would, according to a subsequent clause, be guilty of a misdemeanour. The noble lord seemed to think that a lord Chancellor was completely at the beck and call of the principal minister. His noble and learned friend, who had held the office for twentyfive years, might not perhaps be altogether well pleased with the noble lord for entertaining that opinion. The noble and learned lord could probably tell him, that a lord Chancellor sometimes thwarted a prime minister full as much as he supported him [hear and a laugh]. In discussing this question, noble lords had been too prone to argue on extreme cases, as if they were of probable or certain occurrence. When the improbability of papists obtaining a preponderance in the cabinet had been urged, it was said— "Oh! but the king may be forced to take ministers whom he does not like." Now, he had been one of those who had endeavoured to force the king to take ministers whom he did not like; but he must say, he had found it no easy job to do so [a laugh]. If any one were desirous of forcing the closet-that was the phrase in lord Chatham's time-a Roman Catholic would be an odd lever to work with against a Protestant majority in both Houses. In conclusion, the noble lord said, that the great question which was settled at the Revolution of 1688 was not any dispute between Protestants and Catholics, but the principle, that the king was made for the people-not the people for the king; and that the king possessed the throne, not by absolute but by parliamentary right. Lord Kenyon did not agree with the principle last laid down by the noble lord; namely, that the king was made for the people; and he believed the noble lord would find that Mr. Burke, a great authority on that subject, had denied that principle. He would not enter farther than he had already done into arguments in support of the clause he had proposed; since, if the House were not convinced of its necessity, he was sure he should do little good by trying to bring them to his opinion. Lord Holland would not now enter into a discussion of the opinions of Mr. Burke, but he could shew from higher authority than Mr. Burke, namely, from lord Somers, and from king William himself, that the throne was founded on a parliamentary right. The Archbishop of Canterbury observed, that it had been said of the omission of other officers, besides the lord Chancellor, from this clause, " de minimis non curat lex;" but he did not think the Secretary for the Colonies was one who could be ranked as one of the "de minimis';" yet that officer was not mentioned in this excepting clause, although he exercised most important ecclesiastical patronage. He called their attention to this point, be |