which it might now be granted, and would be infinitely less advantageous in point of security. The Roman Catholics of England had hitherto manifested a patient submission to laws of the most unjust and oppressive nature. If loyalty and attachment to the constitution as citizens and subjects; if the faithful discharge of every duty; could recommend men to the consideration of their lordships, none were more entitled to that consideration than the Catholics of England. He would not say that the religion which gave to the world men of such character was necessarily free from objection; but this he would assert, that the religion which trained its followers to such virtues ought not to exclude those who professed it from privileges enjoyed under the British constitution by every other class of men. He concluded by presenting a petition signed by a great number of Roman Catholics, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which they labour.

The Earl of Liverpool had of course no intention to offer any opposition to this petition being laid on the table, and should not have felt any disposition to say a word on the subject, had not something which fell from the noble lord rendered it necessary for him to trouble their lordships with a few observations, not with the view of discussing the subject, but of preventing misunderstanding when it came to be discussed. Above all, he hoped it would not be supposed that he intended to offer any objection to the motion for laying on the table a petition which he knew to be signed by many of the most respectable individuals in the country, and with some of whom he had lived many years in habits of friendship, and of the worthiness of the character of others he was able to bear testimony. The noble earl was perfectly correct in stating that he had acknowledged that there could be no objection to the Roman Catholics on the ground of immoral principles or doctrine. He, and those who concurred in opinion with him, opposed the claims of the Roman Catholics on constitutional principles only-on the ground that it was necessary, for the security of the church and state, that the existing laws should be maintained. Under these circumstances he should have remained silent, had not the noble lord thought proper to call their lordships' attention to a measure which passed two years ago. He was anxiously desirous to state what (VOL. XL.)

was the fundamental distinction between that and the other measure with which the noble lord had compared it. The noble lord was correct in his reference to the case of an individual, as having given occasion to the alteration in the law. He would readily admit that no claims could be more respectable; but he could not admit that a hardship incidental to the state of the laws, would be a reason for abrogating them, if in other respects it was fit that they should be continued. When the case alluded to occurred, it was well known that Roman Catholics had, under the same circumstances, been for a number of years admitted to the army. The question which then arose was, what was the ground of the distinction between the two services? Did it depend on prac tice or on law? It appeared to have been long the practice in the army not to tender any oath to officers previous to their entering on the service, leaving them liable only to the operation of the test and corporation acts. In the navy the practice was different. The oath had always been tendered previously to granting a commission, and thus Roman Catholics were excluded from that service. When the subject came under the consideration of government, some persons were of opinion, that the practice of the army was correct, and that it was in the power of the government to relieve the officers of the navy, by ordering the previous administration of the oath to be discontinued. The question, however, being referred to those individuals who were best able to form a judgment as to what was the law, they gave it as their opinion, that the practice of the army was erroneous. Under these circumstances, it was thought necessary to legalize the practice of the army, and to make that of the navy coincide with it. The act which was passed accordingly made both services subject to the test and corporation acts, but relieved them from the liability of taking an oath in the first instance. The difference between the present state of the law, and the object of the bill which the noble lord wished to pass in 1807 was this-the noble lord's bill proposed to repeal the test laws entirely, and to open the navy and army by a new oath to Catholics and dissenters of every description as a matter of right. The measure of 1817, on the contrary, maintained the test and corporation laws, making this essential distinction-that

(I)

Catholics, or other dissenters, were not admitted to serve as a matter of right. The noble earl would therefore find it a matter of no small difficulty to show that there was no difference between the two measures. What he, and those he acted with, contended for in 1807, was, that great inconvenience would arise if a principle were adopted which placed all religions on a footing of equality. If the noble lord's bill had passed, the members of every religion might claim to serve of right, as well as the members of the church of England, instead of enjoying that privilege by way of sufferance as they now did. If such a system of equality were to prevail, the great principle on which the security of the church and state rested would be essc ally changed. It was upon that question of security that their lordships' decision, on every point connected with this subject, must finally rest. He was, however, far from wishing that any privilege should be withheld, that could be safely granted.

Earl Grey said, he was not quite satisfied with the account which the noble earl had given of the difference between the two measures in question. Their lordships were aware, that both the measures proposed to open the army and the navy to Catholics and all dissenters. That was alike the object of the bill of 1807, and of that which passed two years ago. He was therefore justified in stating, that the measures were in substance and effect the same, though the one had caused a most extraordinary clamour, and the other had passed through both Houses with an almost silent approbation. The only distinction was this-that which he did in 1807, he did openly. He professed to open the army and navy to every description of dissenters, without the necessity of the annual Indemnity bill.

The Earl of Charlemont presented several petitions from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, for the removal of the political disabilities to which they were subjected. He stated, that the hopes of that body were raised in a very high degree, that the time had at length arrived for the attainment of their proudest wishes. They could not suppose that in the present enlightened age of the world, any arguments could be successfully urged against claims which were founded on the immutable principles of justice.

The Duke of Wellington rose, to present a petition against the Catholic

claims, from certain Protestants of the city of Dublin. With respect to a cir cumstance to which a noble earl had alluded, he had to state, that inquiry had been made, whether any soldier had signed the petition; and the result of the inquiry was, that the names of no soldiers were affixed to it. He did not mean to admit that there was any objection to soldiers signing such a petition as this as individuals, but as the fact was that they had not, it was not necessary to discuss that question.

The Earl of Donoughmore said, if the noble duke asserted from his own knowledge that there had been no solicitation of soldiers to sign the petition, he must of course believe it; but unless the noble duke did so, he must continue to believe that some practice of that kind had been resorted to. Why else did the commander of the depot issue the order to prevent the soldiers under his orders from interfering in any political discussion, or signing any paper.

The Duke of Wellington observed, that he could of course say nothing upon the subject from his own knowledge, neither could he answer for the motive of a commander of a depot in Ireland, for issuing an order. It was possible that the order might have been issued in consequence of some trick played by the opposite party, to discredit the petition. With regard to the fact, he had the authority of the whole committee who had the management of the petition for stating, that no soldier had by their authority been solicited to sign it, nor could they discover that any soldier actually had signed it. With respect to another statement also that had been made respecting getting charity boys to sign the petition, he had the authority of the lord mayor of Dublin, and the trustees of the Bluecoat school (which his grace likewise read) for stating that it was a false and scandalous report.

Numerous petitions for and against the Roman Catholic claims were presented by the marquis of Lansdowne, the duke of Sussex, the earl of Enniskellen, earl Fitzwilliam, and the duke of Leinster; all of which were ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 5.

ROYAL BURGHS.] Mr. Primrose said, he rose to present six petitions to the House, all intimately connected with the

Two of the petitions prayed, in conformity with the petitions from the greater proportion of the royal burghs of Scotland, for that adequate and general reform which was necessary to remove the abuses now notoriously in operation. These two petitions were from the provost and magistracy of the burgh of Stirling, in which they beg to call the attention of the House to the constitution of their own burgh, in order to afford an illustration of the benefits arising from the annual election of the magistrates, by a poll of the burgesses. The only remedy they proposed for these abuses was, to give those who were interested in the expenditure of the burghs, a control by annual elections of the magistrates. Stirling and Montrose were, however, the only places in Scotland where that salutary system was in operation, and its benefits were in those two burghs strongly exemplified. Three other petitions were from the different incorporations or guildrys of Stirling, and they prayed that the bill introduced by the lord advocate might not pass into a law; but at all events that the burgh of Stirling might not be comprehended within its operation. The sixth and last petition was from the burgh of Minto, with a similar prayer. He could not sit down without repelling the insinuation that had been made within the walls of the House, relative to the character and influence of the burgesses of Scotland. From his own knowledge, together with the information he had obtained from the most respectable sources, he took upon him. self to say, that, in their respective places, they were the first persons in consequence, property, and consideration.

The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION OF MR. BARBER BEAU MONT, COMPLAINING OF THE LICENSING OF PUBLIC HOUSES.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from Mr. Barber Beaumont, setting forth, "That the petitioner is suffering a virtual demolition of his property, against which the laws of this country afford no redress, and his case being that of a multitude of other unoffending citizens, he humbly appeals for that protection which loyal subjects may expect from a just government; that the petitioner is ground landlord of upwards of 70 houses at Shepherd's-bush, a village of new houses, chiefly raised through the

ing desire of his tenants, and to supply their reasonable wants, he built a superior public house or inn in the centre of the village, where two cross roads meet, and at a distance of 250 yards on one road, and of three quarters of a mile on the other, from any licensed house; that seven annual applications have been made to the licensing justices at Hammersmith for a licence to open the house, but on dif ferent pretences it has been always refused; that the said justices, however, three years since, granted a licence for a mean thatched house, standing almost alone in the fields, some hundred yards distant from the petitioner's buildings, for procuring which licence 350l. was paid by the owner to the vestry clerk, when the land about the house so licensed became covered with houses, and the petitioner's land, being denied the convenience of a public house, became deserted; that, on the last licensing day, the chairman addressed the tenant to the following effect: 'We cannot grant you a licence, because 'your certificate is not signed by the minister and churchwardens; the act of parliament requires this, and we should not be justified in granting a licence without their certificate;' and another magistrate declared that that was the only reason of their refusal; but the act of parliament rendered no such signing imperative, nor had the minister of Hammersmith signed a publican's certificate for 30 years; the licensers have since acknowledged, upon oath, that they had determined not to licence the petitioner's house before any thing about the minister's certificate was mentioned, and in fact within half an hour's time of their refusing to deliver a licence for the petitioner's house, on the above ground of the want of the concurrent act of the minister, they granted new licences in favour of a brewer in the neighbourhood, and another for two low tipling houses, which had been suppressed by former magistrates as disorderly, each being in the same parish, and situated within a few yards of similar houses already licensed, not only without any concurrent act of the minister, but in opposition to his earnest entreaty, contained in a letter read at the meeting, that one of these houses in particular might not be licensed; the petitioner, fully aware that in this country no relief is procurable for the sufferer under the most corrupt refusal of a li