what he had said upon the subject, and that it was not his fault if that evidence was not received. The Lord Chancellor said, that if he was obliged to regard the matter in the same point of view in which the noble duke had placed it, and to consider it as a claim of civility due to his grace, much more as a claim of common justice, due to any man, he must of necessity follow it up accordingly, and vote for the motion. But he could not bring his notions of it to that idea. The noble duke had stated a rumour to their lordships, rather of an extraordinary kind; he having heard the matter differently, had opposed another to it, but as both the one rumour and the other were of no consequence whatever in the consideration of the House, and neither the noble duke nor himself were personally concerned in the real truth of the fact, he could not but consider the matter as much too ungrave for the discussion of their lordships. The Duke of Richmond insisted, that the case in question was extremely material; but even if it were less material, it was incumbent on the House, to suffer any lord, who had been contradicted with regard to a fact stated by him in debate, to answer that contradiction, by producing evidence at the bar, which would put the matter beyond a doubt. The learned lord had on Wednesday said, he was informed that the Russian officer was perfectly innocent, that he had strayed into the Sardinian ambassador's chapel from mere curiosity, and that upon this appearing he was discharged. The fact, he did assure their lordships he understood to be exceedingly different. The Russian officer was not an indifferent spectator, but an active instrument in the outrages com mitted at the Sardinian ambassador's chapel, nor would he desist, till a soldier presented his bayonet to his breast, and obliged him to leave off. He had regularly been given in charge with other persons who had been apprehended that night; not committed indeed, because none of them were committed, the situation of affairs not admitting of a regular, formal examination, consequently no information in writing was taken, nor any other of those proceedings, which were of necessity adhered to at the office in Bow-street and elsewhere, when magistrates could act without interruption. So circumstanced, his grace contended, that it was a very extraordinary act in the Se cretary of State to send and discharge him, without the smallest consultation with the magistrate who had put him in custody, and an act which merited enquiry. Lord Loughborough rose, for the first time since he has taken his seat as a peer, and said, he could not sit silent, and hear the noble duke state a matter to the House, respecting which he had been greatly misinformed, and which he himself was able to clear up, having been an eye witness of the whole transaction, as far as it related to the apprehending the Russian officer, and putting him into custody. His lordship then described the material occurrences of the night when the Sardinian ambassador's chapel was destroyed, and said, that when the soldiery reached the chapel, they came precipitately down Duke-street, and through the passage from Lincoln's-inn fields, so that of necessity a great number of persons, many of them perfectly innocent and mere spectators of what was going on, were forced into the chapel as a place of refuge. Among others so compelled as it were to enter the chapel, was the Russian officer, who, when he came to be questioned what he did there, declared he was accidentally present: that he was a man of rank, had been presented at court, and had been in company with the Sardinian ambassador, who he was sure must recognize him immediately, and would know, that it was impossible for him to have been at all instrumental in demolishing the chapel, or offering the ambassador, or his property, the least insult or injury. In consequence of this declaration, his lordship said, that a person called out to the Sardinian ambassador, and desired him to step down. The first person who entered the room happened to be M. d'Ageno, the Genoese minister, with whom the Russian officer claimed an acquaintance, and said he had been in company with him. Monsieur d'Ageno did not recollect him, and denied knowing him. This circumstance, added to the Russian's speaking English perfectly well, gave all present no very favourable impression of him, and that impression was rather confirmed than diminished by the Sardinian ambassader, who came down in a few minutes afterwards, and although the Russian claimed an acquaintance with him likewise, and said he had dined with him, did not recollect to have seen him. Upon this, what the Russian had said of himself, and of his motive for being present, were much doubted, and it was thought proper to detain him till morning, but he was not given in charge in common with the other prisoners. An officer seeing his appearance, and his dress and figure rather be speaking him a gentleman than otherwise, said he would take charge of him, and treat him as a gentleman. The Russian therefore went with the officer, and they sat up together till morning. What followed, he of necessity could not speak to with equal confidence, because he was not concerned immediately in any of the trans. actions, but he had understood, that in the morning the Russian envoy, on being applied to by the person who had been detained, immediately sent word that he was what he described himself, and therefore as he was detained only upon the idea of his having given a false description of himself, he was set at liberty. With regard to his being prosecuted for felony, he did assure the noble duke, the thing was impossible, there being no person that charged him with any illegal act. Only two men would say, they saw him in the chapel, and one of them, whose name he would not mention for particular reasons, could say nothing against him, the other was himself seized before the Russian officer was laid hold of, and was charged by him with having been himself concerned in the outrage. There was not therefore any ground for detaining him, although if he was obliged to speak his sentiments on the Russian officer's conduct, he should undoubtedly declare, that as far as his opinion went, the Russian officer's behaviour was by no means becoming him. The Duke of Richmond said, what he had just heard, so far from inducing him to withdraw his motion, made him more inclined to persevere in it. As far as the learned lord was an eye witness, he most undoubtedly could speak with precision, but the learned lord could not speak to what he had not seen, and the accounts which he had received of the transaction, were extremely different indeed from the learned lord's representation of the circumstance. The learned lord had said, that it was impossible for the Russian officer to be committed. There the learned lord could only speak from presumption. He could on no other ground than presumption rest such an assertion, for how was it possible for the noble and learned lord to know, what witnesses might have appeared, or what evidence might have come out a day or two afterwards, upon a | regular examination? The learned lord had said, that the Russian officer was not recognized by M. d'Ageno, the Genoese minister, and therefore he was detained, but it turned out the next day, that he was the person he gave himself out to be, and for that reason he was discharged. All that might be very true, but it had nothing to do with the principal fact upon which the whole matter turned. Was the Russian officer apprehended in the act of felony and was he discharged in consequence of the order of a Secretary of State, without the least consultation of the magistrate, by whose order he had been detained, or was he not? If he had been guilty of felony, he ought to have been tried for it, and in case of conviction punished. The noble and learned lord had himself said, the Russian officer's conduct was unbecoming him. That very opinion shewed that it was not defensible, and perhaps on further examination it might have been proved to be felonious. His grace concluded with asserting, that it was material for their lordships to enquire into the truth, and there could be no way of getting at it, so satisfactorily, as hearing evidence at the bar. His Lord Loughborough repeated that the man had not been detained on any charge of felony, but merely because it was thought he was an impostor, and from the circumstance of his having claimed an acquaintance with M. d'Ageno, and the Sardinian ambassador, neither of whom happened to recollect him. The doubt being cleared up by the Russian envoy next day, the man of course was set at liberty. lordship said, if the noble duke was not disposed to credit his account, he must, he presumed, be acquainted with the Sardinian ambassador, and if he would condescend to enquire of him, the marquis de Cordon would confirm all he had said, With regard to the names of the persons for whose attendance the noble duke had moved, one of them, James Mahon, had publicly advertised in all the newspapers, that he had given no information against any of the rioters, and that he had no information to give. The Duke of Richmond persisted in his story, declaring, that though the learned lord had heard it one way, he had heard it another; and therefore the only means by which he could be satisfied, would be by hearing evidence at the bar. His grace further said, that there was at that moment below the bar, a man, who was ready, if into the chapel from that curiosity which the letter described, and therefore he had sent an order for his being discharged. called upon, to prove not only that the Russian officer was in the chapel, not merely from motives of curiosity, but that he saw him tearing down the wainscot and setting it on fire. Let their lordships call upon that man and question him; it was by such means that the truth would come out, and not by his going to inquire of the Sardinian minister, or of the Genoese envoy, or of any body else. Lord Stormont said, as the chief part of the blame, if any were due, for discharging the Russian officer, lay at his door, for sending the written message, in consequence of which he had been set at liberty, it was incumbent on him to state to their lordships the cause of his taking that step. The first he had heard of the matter was, by a letter from the Russian envoy, informing him of the rank of the officer, declaring that he had done no illegal act, and claiming his person as a subject of the court the envoy served. The letter declared, that the officer had wandered into the chapel very innocently, and from too irresistible and unwise a curiosity. Not having heard that the man was detained for any other reason than on a suspicion of his being an impostor, and of pretending to be the person he was not, his lordship said, he immediately caused a letter to be written, and for which he considered himself as responsible as if he had signed it, to the officer, who had the Russian officer in charge, to set him at liberty. Had the officer been given in charge for a felony, undoubtedly he would not have been let go on so slight a letter, as that written by an under secretary of state on the occasion, but that not being the case, he was discharged. His lordship added, that he happened himself to know the Russian officer, and to be well aware that he was a man of rank and consideration in his own country. The Duke of Řichmond declared, that, what the Secretary of State had just said, corroborated all that had fallen from him, upon the subject. His grace then declared, that if Secretaries of State were so ignorant of the law of the land, as to send an order for the discharge of a person given in charge by a magistrate, on suspicion of felony, without the cognisance of that magistrate, they ought not to hold their situation. The noble viscount had owned himself, that he did not make the least inquiry into the matter, but took it for granted that the Russian envoy's account was true, and that the officer had gone [VOL. XXI. J Lord Loughborough said the magistrate had not given the Russian officer in charge, but that he had been detained all night at his individual request. The Duke of Richmond contradicted this, and declared Mr. Gilbert had, that very morning in Westminster-hall declared to him, that he gave the officer in charge. His grace said he was sorry to mention private conversation, but he was forced to it. He repeated it therefore that Mr. Gilbert had that very morning told him, that he gave the man in charge, and had at the same time said, he wished not to concern himself at all in the matter, and had rather not be called upon. The motion was negatived without a division. Debates in the Lords on the Bill for the Security of the Protestant Religion.] The Duke of Grafton said, he had observed from the votes of the other House, that a Bill had been brought in there for repealing the late Act respecting the Roman Catholics. His grace thought the reverend bench ought to be consulted in the matter, and submitted to their lordships, whether it would not be more proper that the bishops should take the law into consideration, and that the modification of it should originate in that House. The Bishop of Peterborough. If I interrupt your lordships' attention from what is more worthy of it, it is only, with your permission, to unburthen my mind, by saying a few words on a subject which I confess hangs heavy upon it, and my apology for doing it now is, that my other avocations may probably prevent my at tendance on the intended Bill in its progress through this House. I take it to be an indisputable maxim, founded on expe rience, that so long as prejudices and passions form a part of human nature, there is no preserving any government whatever in peace and security without attending to them. I take it also to be the principle of this, and every free state so to lead and direct the inclinations of the people, as to conciliate their confidence and affections, rather than by violently contradicting their general character to force an unwilling obedience to authority. In making new laws, therefore, or abrogating those which have the sanction of antiquity and popular opinion, it is not sufficient, that we be sa[3 C] lic religion at all; but if any relief was intended by the Bill, it surely did not mean to deprive parents of that natural right, which, of all others, must be most dear to them, the right of educating their own children in the faith which they think most conducive to their eternal happiness. No man can look on that part of the laws with more horror than myself, and in com tisfied of the justice and humanity of the measure, nor of the principles and intentions of those who propose it. Policy and prudence require, in the legislature, an attention, not only to what the measure is in itself, abstractedly considered, but in the full extent of its relations and effects. -It was in this view of things, that I presumed, on the second reading of the Bill for the relief of Roman Catholics, to sub-parison of it, I think it mercy to forbid mit to your lordships' consideration, the propriety there was of giving it a mature deliberation. I was satisfied, that the principle of the Bill was consistent with reason, justice, and Christian benevolence; and I was convinced that the hon. member who introduced it into the other House, and the noble lord who supported it in this, were men deservedly of the first estimation for integrity in private life; and in their public conduct, I confess to look up to them with respect and reverence, as zealous advocates for the civil and religious rights of the constitution. But, my lords, I was apprehensive the Bill was of a nature, as that, if not guarded with the utmost caution, might be misconceived and misrepresented, and thereby afford too much occasion for alarm and offence. The times, too, appeared to me peculiarly unfavourable for such an experiment, because, engaged as we were in our fatal contest with America, and a rupture with Spain as well as France, in my opinion inevitable, I thought that nothing but the phrenzy of religious zeal was wanting to fill up the measure of our national calamities.-Finding, however, that what I had to offer for the delay of the Bill, did not seem to meet the sense of the House, and that the Bill was to pass immediately, I conceived that the less which was said, capable of giving alarm, the better. I did not then particularize an objection or two, which, with your lordships' permission, I will mention at present, in hopes, that if they deserve any attention, they may be provided against in the Bill, which I understand is to be brought in on the occasion. The Bill appeared to me materially defective, in that, while it gave relief from the most rigorous restraint upon the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, it did not make exceptions, or provide any means for preventing persons professing Popery from making proselytes, or admitting the children of Protestants into their schools and boarding-houses. I am aware it may be said, there are laws in force against the exercise of, or teaching the Roman Catho any Roman Catholic residing in the kingdom. The late Bill must have intended the contrary. I may be told, however, that it neither justifies nor countenances making converts; but it does not forbid it, and I beg to be understood, that my objections and difficulties do not arise from the express sense of the Bill, but from the interpretations which may be put upon it; and give me leave to say, that it is a very prevailing opinion, I will not take upon me to say how true, that there are of the Romish persuasion, who think it a merit, and may make a practice to gain converts by arguments, which are almost irresistible when opposed to necessity, promises, gifts, and rewards. At a time, then, when a liberal indulgence was given to conscience, it surely would have been prudent in the legislature, and could by no means have been thought hard or unjust to have prevented the abuse of it, by a transgression, which, if it does exist, is an invasion on the established religion of the country.In speaking to another point, I hope to be understood, that I am myself persuaded there is no ground in any part of the Bill for supposing that offices of trust or power, civil or military, are intended hereafter to be committed to Roman Catholics; but I have heard many sober-minded men express very serious apprehensions, lest the relief granted by this Bill might, on some future urgency of state necessity, be a prelude or foundation for further instances of confidence. I could have wished, therefore, that the sense of the legislature on that article also, had been directly or indirectly expressed, either in the Bill, or by some resolution, so as to prevent such jealousies and suspicions. One circumstance of objection, indeed, I did specify before, and here I confess, my lords, I am not satisfied with any thing I have heard on the subject. By the law, as it now stands, Roman Catholics may purchase and settle estates as freely as Protestants; they may, therefore, on a marriage settlement, limit an inheritance in favour of a second or younger son, in as very severe, and adapted only to the circumstances of the nation at the time; and it was with a view to relieve persons professing that religion from the very great hardships they might suffer under that and other Acts inflicting pains and penalties, that he had consented to the Bill for repealing them, which had given rise to the Protestant petitions, and to the present Bill. If, therefore, their lordships should be of opinion that Popish schools had increased, and that Protestant children were seduced to be educated in them by Romish teachers in the principles of their religion, the provisions in this Bill would be very proper, and should meet with his concurrence. exclusion of the elder, if he renounced the faith of the family. Now, though I do not approve of the law which tempted a younger brother to supplant his elder, by professing himself a Protestant; yet, I think it very hard, that an heir at law should suffer in his fortune, merely because he may conform to the established religion of his country. I am told, that such a limitation would not be deemed good in law. I suppose it may be so; but I fear the right heir so deprived, should the next in remainder get the possession, has no remedy but by a law-suit, which might be tedious, and expensive at least, if not precarious. These, my lords, are the principal points in which the Bill has appeared to me, from the first, unguarded and defective. I do not mean to propose a repeal, nor wish to have it proposed, for no man is more a friend to toleration than myself; but I must not forget that I am an English bishop, and bound to attend to the security of the established religion. My objections are submitted to your lordships, in hope, that if they appear deserving attention, some mode may be adopted, in the Bill now in agitation, for to render the last less exceptionable than it appears to be. I particularly address myself to those who are most strenuous in its favour, that they may not leave the Roman Catholics, at last, in a worse state than they found them. The bishop of Llandaff professed himself warmly in favour of toleration. The bishop of Rochester said a few words in favour of the Roman Catholic Bill. After which the subject dropped. July 3. Previous to the reading the order of the day, which stood for the commitment of the Bill for the security of the Protestant religion, The Marquis of Rockingham was for restraining the Papists as much as possible from educating the children of Protestants; but when that was done, he hoped there would be no infringement on the toleration granted them for the free exercise of their religion, nor any restriction upon their building or repairing chapels for public worship; for it did not appear to him that they had erected many new ones. Much had been said about the chapel at Bath; but, after all, it was not a new one; there had been a chapel on the spot ever since queen Elizabeth's time; part of it had been pulled down to widen a street, and an addition had been made in another position about five years ago, before the Bill in their favour was thought of, which made it larger than the old chapel, and suitable to the increased number of the Roman Catholics residing in that city. Earl Ferrers, after a few preliminary observations, introduced the following motion: "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting him that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to the reverend bench of bishops, that they do every one give orders to the several clergymen within their distinct parochial jurisdictions, to make an exact enumeration of the Roman Catholics within their districts, and that the same be laid before the House the first day of next session." The Archbishop of Canterbury rose and made a short speech, professing the warmest attachment to the generous principles of toleration, so long as it did not affect the civil and religious establishment of the country, and gave it as his opinion, that the doctrines of the Church of England itself were the strongest arguments The Bishop of Bath and Wells said, he for this species of indulgence, as the first had already, in part, made an enquiry siand most respectable tenet in the Chris-milar to that just now wished for by the tian systém was humanity, and it never could consist with that virtue to compel a man into a mode of worship against his conscience and belief. The Act of the 3rd of William and Mary, against the Roman Catholics, he had always considered noble lord. He felt himself extremely happy in informing the House of the result of that enquiry, as it would tend to remove certain misconceptions that had had considerable prevalence abroad, and had in some degree contributed to the |