. bers of their own body. A report had Mr. Baring said, the question was one unaccountably gone abroad, that it was which was intimately connected with the in contemplation to place all the turnpikes economy of trade. It was a fact, that under the immediate control of the go- the establishment of these dock compavernment. He denied that any such in-nies, though it was at first a sort of expetention had ever existed; and had no hesitation in saying, that there could be no surer mode adopted of opening the door to jobs of all descriptions. riment, had proved of the greatest public utility. When they were first established, it was impossible to know how far the rates would or would not afford a sufficient compensation for the capital employ Mr. Curwen expressed his jealousy of any measure which should take the man-ed; but now that it had been ascertained agement of the roads out of the hands of those who had local knowledge. The roads about London were not uniformly bad, the Uxbridge road for instance, was a very good one. Leave was given to bring in the bill. WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY.] Mr Marryat rose to present a Petition from the merchants of London against the renewal of the charter of the West India Dock Company. The hon. gentleman addressed the House upon the impolicy as well as injustice of continuing, in an enlightened age like this, such monopolies, which were at once injurious to commerce and to the revenue of the country. He entered into a detail of the many inconveniences and evil consequences to trade generally, and to the trade of London in particular, resulting from the very high rates charged by this company. Sir Isaac Coffin observed, that there never appeared to be much friendship in trade. Each merchant sought his own interest, monopoly was the order of the day amongst them, and beggar my neighbour the object. Mr. F. Lewis animadverted on the abuses which crept into establishments of this nature, through the inattention of the legislature to the precise enactments which they sanctioned. By a clause introduced into the act for the renewal of the East India Company's charter, private traders were admitted into the East India Docks. Mr. Robinson said, it was undoubtedly the duty of the House to watch with peculiar vigilance the tendency of any measure which involved private interests as well as the great commercial interests of the country. There were other docks which had charters, having a longer period to run than the West India; it would be inexpedient, therefore, to make any declaration of the views of government as to the renewal of the charter of this company, until the whole question, as it respected those several charters, had been taken into consideration. The that they had greatly exceeded such a compensation, it was an important question for parliament to determine, whether the charters should be renewed. charter was granted to the West India company, with a restriction that they were never to divide more than 10 per cent. The obvious inference was, that if the rates exceeded such a sum as would afford a dividend of 10 per cent. they were bound to reduce them. They had, however, done no such thing. Instead of reducing the rates, they had, accumulated a sum of no less than 500,000%. Prudent men would not incur the, responsibility of dividing so large a sum among the stock-holders, for such a division without the sanction of an act of parliament would be illegal. Mr. Gordon said, he had heard that 500,000l. had been offered to be placed at the disposal of the government, as a bribe for the renewal of the charter. Mr. Robinson assured the hon. member, that no sum had been offered to be placed at the disposal of government. Odered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS, EXECUTION OF MURAT.] Lord Cas tlereagh said, that a gallant officer had asked on a former night, whether their was an English accredited agent present at the proceedings which terminated in the military execution of Murat? He was now enabled to give the gallant officer an answer. He had referred to the dispatch of sir W. A'Court, in which he found it stated, that after Murat had been taken, with thirty of his followers, by the peasantry, for there were no troops, he was tried by his own officers, condemned by his own laws, which were yet in force, and suffered the punishment which, by a proclamation found upon him, he had denounced against the adherents of king Ferdinand. No English agent could have been present. Sir R. Wilson said, the noble lord's explanation was satisfactory as far as it went; but it would be remembered, that what he had asked was, not whether a British agent was present in the military commission, but in that council at Naples, the result of which was the handing over of the late king of Naples to a military trial? Lord Castlereagh said, that the rumour was utterly destitute of every colour of foundation. PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Mr. Fitzgibbon presented a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Limerick, praying to be admitted to the full enjoyment of the privileges of the British constitution. The hon. gentleman begged to offer his testimony to the loyalty and respectability of the petitioners, and expressed an earnest hope that the result of that night's debate would determine that a large portion of the people of Ireland should no longer be excluded from participating in the blessings of the constitution. Mr. S. Rice supported the prayer of the petition, conceiving it to be founded on justice. No paltry question of expediency, if expediency could ever be separated from justice, ought to induce them to exclude from the full enjoyment of all constitutional rights, men who had proved by their patience under severe privations, how well they deserved them. He hoped the House would consent to go into a committee on the Catholic claims. If securities were wanted to guard the Protestant church from danger, he should vote for them. But he was satisfied that the best security the church of England could receive, would be afforded by an act of conciliation and generosity towards the Roman Catholics.. Sir T. Lethbridge presented a Petition from Bruton, against the Catholic claims. The petitioners looked with great anxiety to the recurrence of this question, but relied on the wisdom of that House, if the subject should go to a committee, to provide suitable securities for the Protestant interest. In this feeling he agreed with the petitioners. He should be inclined to consider the appointment of a committee only a delusion; for he could not see how any thing could be done that would relieve the Catholics, and at the same time give security to the Protestant establishments. It was from this feeling that he was always disposed to object in limine to any plan of this kind, and le now called upon those who wished to hand down the constitution unimpaired to posterity to oppose the claims of the Catholics. Mr. Grenfell said, that so far was he from thinking that by conceding what was prayed for they would do any thing to undermine the constitution, that he was convinced the measure in question would prove one of its firmest supports. Mr. Warre, when an hon. baronet called on the House to oppose the claims of the Catholics in limine, wished them to remember in what situations they had heretofore been called upon to oppose them in limine. In 1806, when it was proposed to admit Catholics to a certain rank in the army and navy, the hon. baronet called on the House to oppose this proposition in limine. Then the cry of "no Popery," was raised, and the proposition failed. Since, the measure alluded to had been carried by the very persons who then opposed it. At that time they were told," if you do this, you will pave the way for overturning the constitution, as it was established at the period of the revolution." But this excellent measure had since been carried. It was introduced in the Lords and when it came to the Commons, it was passed sub silentio; and they might now have a Catholic general at the head of an army, and a Catholic admiral commanding the Channel fleet. Had this endangered the constitution? It had not, and he hoped the Catholics would still go on step by step till they gained the consummation of their wishes. Mr. Barham objected to the foul calumnies urged against the Catholics in one petition which had been laid before the House. It was stated that the prayer of the Catholics ought not to be attended to now, because the concessions formerly made were given as their ultimatum. This he must declare to be utterly false. They had been content to receive so much as parliament was disposed to grant; but at no time had any compromise taken place. Though he was ready to believe that much of this petition originated in ignorance, yet he could not suppose the petitioners so ignorant as to believe that the Catholics had a mental reserve when making oath, under the impressions that faith was not to be kept with heretics. He thought they must know that such were not the tenets of the Catholic church from the results of the various inquiries that had 'taken place. Yet on this calumny they founded the bold charge that a Catholic was not to be believed on his oath. This was an idea so absurd, that he might defy the devil himself to produce one more so. Lord Nugent said:-I rise to present a Petition from upwards of 8,000 of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, praying for admission to certain civil privileges, from which they are now by law excluded. The petition, Sir, is signed by seven peers, sixteen baronets, and seven bishops, besides a very considerable body of their clergy, as well as laity. And if I permit myself to look forward with the sincerest and most sanguine hope to the success of its prayer, that hope is not founded upon an expectation on my part of any very extensive change in the opinions on this subject, of this House or of the country;— but it is founded upon the increased and increasing claims of the petitioners themselves upon your favourable consideration:-it is founded upon their uniform and exemplary good conduct;-upon the tone and temper of this petition;-but, above all, upon one new and most important declaration;-a declaration, not new in principle, but now for the first time thus explicitly made, which I trust the House will feel entirely removes the one great obstacle, which has hitherto presented itself to the admission of these petitioners to a community of privileges with their fellow-subjects. The House is aware, that the oath of supremacy, in the renunciation it contains of the spiritual power of the pope, now remains the one, and I may almost say the only one, great practical difficulty in their way. The declarations of the thirtieth of Charles 2nd, against the doctrine of transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, are now, I believe on all hands, allowed to be justifiable only as tests subsidiary to the declaration contain ed in the oath of supremacy. On the oath of supremacy, therefore, I conceive, now hinges the whole of that long-contested question of foreign influence, and of what has been called divided allegiance: and on this subject I should wrong these petitioners if I presumed to state their opinions in any terms but those in which they have themselves so admirably described them. They state in their petition, that they have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate part of that allegiance, which is due to their rightful " sovereign, but they have repeatedly denied the charge, and again deny it." They state, that to their sovereign" they swear full and undivided allegiance: in him alone they recognise the power of the civil sword within the realm of England" (these words are the words of the thirty-seventh article of the Church of England). "They acknowledge in no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, any power or authority to use the same, within the said realm, in any matter or cause whatever, whether civil, spiritual, or ecclesiastical." Sir, the prayer, then, of these petitioners reduces, as far as they are concerned, this great question to within a very narrow compass. There remains but one plain question of practical justice, which in fact embraces the whole matter so long at issue in this House. Is it on account of their religious opinions only, or on account of presumed political opinions, that the Roman Catholics of your empire are disqualified from performing certain services to the state? For the answer, let us look at the oaths and declarations which are the instruments of their exclusion, and let us look at the terms of the petition which I shall move to lay upon your table; and it appears, both from the grievances it states, and from the relief it prays for, that the removal of certain tests, of a purely spiritual effect, and relating to spiritual matters only, would leave your Roman Catholic countrymen as fully qualified for the enjoyment of every privilege they ask, as you are from whom they ask them: that they are excluded, not by virtue of any political test, but by virtue of a spiritual test only; and, ex vi termini, they put it to the proof; for they ask you to abolish the spiritual test only-the political test they are ready to embrace. But it is said, that from these spiritual tenets certain political tenets may be inferred. Then, Sir, let us come at that truth by direct means, which by indirect we never can arrive at. Put to them what political test you will. Stronger, if you will, than that already imposed by the nineteenth of the late king, in Scotland; stronger, if you will, than that already imposed by the thirty-third of the late king in Ireland; the Roman Catholics of Great Britain are willing, and are eager, to meet you. Charge it with every security which the utmost ingenuity can devise, or the most jealous caution impose, for the safety of principle of religious fidelity to your own advantage; and, by the bond of an oath, make it, instead of being the instrument of their disfranchisement, the pledge and guarantee of your own security and union. our Protestant establishment in church and state the Catholics of Great Britain are willing, and are eager, to meet you still. They state their allegiance, political and civil, to be as entire and as extensive as your own: and they urge no less-And what, let me ask, has been hitherto than character, conduct, the evidence of the operation of these declarations of the history, and even of the very oaths which 30th of Charles 2nd? Declarations enactexclude them, to support this statement. ed under the belief in two things;-under If, then, we refuse this prayer, it is not the belief in the evidence of Titus Oates's that we protest against this or that par- plot; and under the belief in the influticular form of relief, it is not that we ence of what is called the king-killing protest against such or such extent of to- clause in the council of Lateran. True leration, but we must do a great deal that upon the monstrous falsehoods and more: we must do this; we must declare perjuries on which that plot was founded, that, in our deliberate judgment, no man history has long since solemnly proought to be admitted into a participation nounced its verdict; but the effect of in civil privileges with ourselves, who those perjuries is still in operation against dares, contrary to our opinion of the effi- the Roman Catholics. True that no atonecacy of such invocation, to invoke, in his ment could be made for the innocent closet, the intercession of saints between blood of those who were the victims of himself and his Maker; who ventures to those perjuries; but the laws of exclusion believe in the spiritual efficacy of the pope which were enacted upon the belief in in council to interpret the Holy Scrip- those perjuries, still remain a blot, a distures; or who presumes to recognise a real grace, and an anomaly upon our Statute presence of the Deity in the consecrated book. Sir, that monstrous other assumpelements of our Lord's Supper. We tion, namely, that Roman Catholics bemust be prepared to declare, that these lieve themselves absolved from keeping opinions, for it is against these alone that faith with Protestants, although now on the oaths of exclusion operate, are opi- all hands abandoned, and by common connions so full of danger to the state, that it sent brushed away with the rest of the is wisdom to protect ourselves from them rubbish with which this great question at no less a sacrifice than that of one was obscured: still let us remember, that fourth of the moral strength of our whole even this assumption it was for years vain empire-one fourth of the property, one to combat:-vain that the council of Confourth of the talents, one fourth of the stance was urged, abrogating that proflienergy, zeal and integrity, of the whole gate that thousand times denied and disempire, by law excluded from the civil proved clause of the council of Lateran : service of the state. This we must assert, -vain the general and indignant disbefore we can upon principle reject the claimer of all Catholic Europe tendered prayer of this petition. But if, on the to Mr. Pitt in 1788:-vain the evidence other hand, it is only that, under cover of of the civil history of every nation in the these spiritualities, you enable yourselves world, where Catholic and Protestant live to exclude persons against whom certain together, with the same privileges, under social tenets are imputed, then, Sir, allow the same laws and the same government. me again to say, come at this directly, Oaths of exclusion remain upon our Staindirectly you never can; and do not en- tute book, which can exclude only those deavour, in breach of every moral law, to whom their very being excluded by those appeal to the consciences of men on such oaths shows are religiously scrupulous of false pretences, when considered as poli- what engagements they enter into with tical tests, as are these doctrines of tran- a Protestant government. By one single substantiation and the invocation of saints. act of that perjury, be it observed, You find the Roman Catholics of Great which we have so untruly and cruelly Britain professing a religion to which they imputed to him, the Roman Catholic are fondly and firmly attached. How might at any time have admitted, or fondly, and how firmly attached, the his- might now admit himself to all he seeks, tory of their sufferings, their privations, and from which it is only those oaths the undeserved obloquy they have endured that exclude him. And, having done for now upwards of two centuries, suf-so, he might turn round again, and deficiently attests. Use, then, that strong clare himself to you and to the world for to be a Roman Catholic; but that would not exclude him. You exclude him, therefore, not because he is a Roman Catholic, but because he is a Roman Catholic who does keep faith with Protestants, and abandons even the common-law privileges of his citizenship for the sake of his religion and his oath. articles of our own church do not even profess; and now, above a century and a half since its enactment, when even the political pretext has long ceased to operate, this unwarrantable, this horrid declaration still subsists upon our Statute books. Sir, on the oath of supremacy I will say nothing; because, modified or explained in the spirit of this petition (I mean as renouncing all temporal supremacy in the Pope, and all spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy which can be enforced by temporal means, or can, in any manner or for any purpose, conflict or interfere with the civil duty and allegiance which is due to his majesty, and his successors; or, with the civil obedience and submission which is due to his courts in all matters affecting the legal rights of his majesty's subjects):-so understood and declared, I am enabled, I am authorised, to say, that the great body of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain are prepared to take it with you: and that this is all which you have, on other occasions, thought necessary; witness your laws concerning the elective franchise and civil appointments, the thirty-first and thirty-third of the late king in Ireland and Scotland. By these acts the admission of a foreign supremacy in foro conscientiæ, is distinctly recognized, and such spiritual supremacy is declared These petitioners submit, that to the declaration against transubstantiation is to be objected, first, that, in its terms, it is intemperate and calumnious; secondly, that it affects matters of belief of much too subtle and metaphysical a nature for human laws to take cognizance of; and thirdly, that, if its terms were as temperate, as charitable, as incontrovertible, as they are the reverse, still, that in effect this declaration nullifies the very securities it affects to give, and illustrates how vain the attempt to protect yourselves by oaths against a perjurer. For example: after applying to this doctrine of transubstantiation the word idolatrous (a rather violent and hazardous epithet by the way, and one which I think I could show, if strictly taken, is quite untrue), you profess "in the presence of God, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation already granted, or hope of such dispensation," and so on. Why, Sir, if the Roman Catholic had received such dispensation, or if he hoped for such" not dangerous to society or civil liberty." dispensation, or if he thought that such dispensation could avail him in the sight of God, he might take currently every oath on your table, admit himself to the eligibility he seeks, and Parliament might, in despite of your laws, be filled not only with popery but with perjury too. And yet this is what we term security! The security of an oath against those whom no oaths will bind! Sir, we know what is meant by a bad reasoner arguing in a circle; but what shall we say of a law, which calls upon us to swear in a circle thus? If the imputation were true, the oaths could not secure you: they only do secure you because you know the imputation to be untrue. But it is in a much wiser, a much more conciliatory and much truer spirit, that the thirtynine articles, the work of better hands and of better times, speak of this same doctrine of transubstantiation. It is there described as " having given rise to many superstitions." But not a word of idolatry. We are therefore, in this House called upon to declare on oath what the Now, farther than this, by these acts you have declared, that there is no necessity to demand:-farther than this you have no reason or right to demand. Sir, it is singular, that three of our greatest text authorities in divinity, in law and in moral philosophy, concur in almost prophetically describing the present state of the Roman Catholics of your empire as a state, in which it would be no longer either expedient or just to hold them in exclusion from the full enjoyment of the privileges to which birth, property, talents, or merit, might fairly entitle them. I shall take the liberty of quoting a short but striking passage from each of these authorities. And, first, bishop Hoadley. The venerable champion of Protestantism, the staunch advocate of civil liberty, the zealous antagonist of popery, connected as in his day popery was with arbitrary power:-bishop Hoadley thus expresses himself in his treatise entitled "The Common Rights of Subjects defended." "I cannot," says he, "justify the exclusion of a papist from civil office upon any |