Mr. Abercromby said, that in his opinion the Registrar made use of the suitors' money for his own benefit, contrary to law. He would oppose the clause, because if it was adopted by the House, it would not only defeat the intention of the Bill during the lifetime of lord Arden, but introduce a precedent for the continuance of this abuse in future possessors of the office. He would, therefore, vote against the Bill itself, rather than sanction such an illegal use of the suitors' money. He was as anxious as the noble lord could be for protecting vested interests, but would never sanction a Bill which went to perpetuate vested abuses, which the present clause would do, by giving a sanction to this unwarrantable use of the suitors' money, by the person holding the office of Registrar. Lord Castlereagh explained, that by his patent, lord Arden was banker to the Court of Admiralty, and, of course, had a right to make use of the money. rest. After that transaction, a law passed, Sir S. Romilly expressed his surprise, that on a question of such immense importance none of the crown lawyers had given their opinion, whether these sums of money belonging to the suiturs of the court had or had not been legally used. He did not believe any lawyer, who had a regard for his character as a professional man, would declare that such use of the suitors' money Mr. Stephen was surprised that any by the Registrar was legal. The House charge of illegality should have been was therefore left in a shameful state of made against the receipt of the profits atdoubt, to determine so weighty a question tached to the office of Registrar of the merely on their own private and indivi- Admiralty. His noble friend (lord Casdual judgment. For his own part, he had tlereagh) had introduced a clause, to prono hesitation to declare, that in his opinion tect the existing rights of a person having this use of the suitors' money was altoge- an interest in the office of Registrar; the ther illegal; and if this clause should be emoluments of which office he is stated to allowed to pass, he would consider it a have always enjoyed. This was a suffi point of duty to vote against the Bill, and cient answer to the question of legality, would positively divide the House upon it: put by his learned friend who spoke last, because this Bill, with this clause, would and at once shewed that those emoluments directly sanction the very abuse which its were legal. What was the fact of the end and aim was to do away. In the case case? It was merely this, the Registrar of lord Melville, the use of the public was the banker of the court, at his own money for his own private use was deemed personal risk-and that, too, in conseillegal by the universal opinion of the quence of the conduct of the persons inteHouse, and the only question of doubt was, rested; because there were many acts of whether a civil information could be filed parliament by which a party might, if he against him by the Attorney General. pleased, demand his own money, and have One of the articles of impeachment against it vested in the public funds. From various lord Macclesfield, also, was making use of causes, however, it was left in his possesthe public money for his own private ad- sion, and it could not surely be considered vantage it was a distinct article of im- a principle of law, that the officer having peachment against him, that he had coun-placed it at interest for his own benefit, tenanced Masters in Chancery in using the suitors' money for their own private inte(VOL. XXVI.) being responsible for the capital, was guilty of an illegal act. The crime al (X) dered that any interference with the Registrar's investing the suitors' money, un. der existing circumstances, would abridge his rights. It was illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to sound and honest principles, and, therefore, an act they had no right to do. Sir S. Romilly explained, contending that the hon. and learned gentleman had mistaken his allusion to the case of lord Melville. Sir J. Newport agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman that the question simply was, whether the money should be dead in the Bank, or fructify for the benefit of the Registrar of the Admiralty? What was the nature of the office? It was one, by virtue of which the person executing its functions was entrusted with the money of the suitors-not only the property of persons in this country, but of foreigners. Now, was it right that those sums should be appropriated to the benefit of the individual holding the office? He contended that it was not'; and, therefore, he opposed the clause, which could lead to no good; but, by giving the sanction of parliament to such a principle, might produce much injury. He deprecated any allusion to the person who now filled the office, which might tend to bias the judgment of the House. The question was not who lord Arden was, or whether he was more or less trust-worthy: no, the point for discussion was, whether the money of the suitors should be placed beyond all ha leged against lord Melville was entirely different from this act of the Registrar. He was impeached for the violation of an express act of parliament, which was supported, if not originally introduced, by him. Under that impeachment he was, however, acquitted, (contrary to the feeling of that House); because it was considered that the case did not come within the provisions of the statute. And it was not a little remarkable, that it was alleged against his lordship at the time, as a circumstance aggravatory of his offence, that an increased salary had been given to him, on condition that he should pay over to the Bank certain sums of money, which, prior to the regulation, had been placed out to interest for his own benefit. This proved that such a proceeding had been recognised, and he therefore hoped his hon. and learned friend would not speak in so high a tone on the subject of legality. The very reason of the thing was in favour of the practice in the present instance; for, if an individual were compelled, by the suitors themselves, to take charge of their money, under all risks, was it unjust that he should, by making use of the interest of it, indemnify himself from hazard? In the impeachment of lord Macclesfield, the charge of conniving at the conduct of the Masters in Chancery, in making use of the suitors' money, was only thrown in as a make-weight. But the hon. and learned gentleman must be aware, that the real accusation against him, and for which he was justly punished, was the sell-zard, until the law decided to whom it ing the office of Master. In that case, too, it appeared, that many persons were ruined by the conduct of those Masters, by whom their property was dilapidated. But was there any point like this in the case now under consideration? Was there a single breath of censure directed against the conduct of the nobleman who filled the office? No complaint whatever existed, except that he laid the money out in government securities, instead of letting it lie dead in the Bank. Not an instance could be adduced where the money was not forthcoming the moment a suitor demanded it. In conclusion the hon. and learned gentleman observed, that, if the Bill were passed without the clause which had been proposed, it would be breaking in on a vested office, a species of property which he considered no less sacred than a freehold estate, and thereby be the means of invading one of the most sacred rights of the subject. He consi belonged, and when it should be paid. It was not a question of person, but of principle. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that they had no right to interfere with this office: but, he would ask, how many were the public offices with which they had interfered? He denied the inference drawn by the hon. and learned gentleman from the circumstance of an increase of salary having been granted to lord Melville. His salary, it was true, was augmented-and why? Because the increased duties of the office called for an increased compensation. He was decidedly hostile to the clause; and he considered it better that the public should forego any benefit which might be derived from the regulation of the office, as originally intended by the Bill, rather than parliament should sanction such a principle as that involved in the noble lord's proposition. Mr. Bathurst observed, that there was nothing in the case of lord Macclesfield | done; the inference from which was, that which applied to the present question. be considered such a use of it, for indiviIn the former, facts of great atrocity were dual advantage, as illegal. And he substantiated; but, in the present, the thought he did not go too far in saying, question related to a person, whose name, that any officer procuring emoluments in character, and fortune, were long before a similar manner, namely, by using the public. The Registrar, as the office suitors' money for his own benefit, was at present stood, not only ran the risk, doing that which he had no right to do. consequent on his custody of the money, The case of lord Macclesfield, he conbut also secured the suitors from risk. Aceived, afforded him an authority, to quote suitor, for instance, would say, "I have a against the hon. and learned gentleman certain sum of money pending a cause in (Mr. Stephen) who had observed that the the court of Admiralty, and I do not wish onus lay with those who supported the to run the risk of placing it in the funds, Bill, to prove, that the profits made by where it may be endangered by the fluc- the Registrar were not legal. He could tuation of the government securities." It also refer to the case of Churchill, tried was, therefore, left in the custody of the before lord Alvanly, in which the court Registrar, who became accountable for it. sanctioned, by their opinion, the princiAnd unless the House contemplated the ple, that if parliament could point out a insolvency of the noble lord, who now speeific sum, applied by any public officer filled the situation, it must be admitted to his own benefit, in the way of interest, that he freed the suitors from the risk at- he might make such officer accountable tendant on any fluctuation in the funds. for the profit so derived. And, grounding In supporting the clause introduced by the himself on this authority, he had no doubt, noble lord, he gave no opinion as to the that if the use of any particular sum could legality or illegality of putting out the be traced to lord Arden, he might be made suitors money at interest; but he con- responsible for its produce. If that were tended, they had no right to take from the case, what became of those legal an individual a profit which he had always rights which had been so much spoken enjoyed. They should, in his opinion, of? But the fallacy of contending for grant every indulgence to the individual such a right was still more evident, when now holding the situation as long as he it was known, that the judge of the Admicontinued it. ralty Court, if he pleased, might order, by the authority vested in him, all the suitors' money to be placed in the Bank of England. It should also be recollected, that the person filling this office gave no secu that the House should legislate on personal respect? If they admitted such a principle, the time, perhaps, was not far distant, when they would legislate from feelings of dislike and prejudice. He had but one other observation to make, and that was, his perfect conviction, that the principle of the Bill would be entirely defeated, if the clause proposed were annexed to it. Mr. H. Martin denied that the present Registrar of the Admiralty had always received those emoluments, and he denied it on the evidence of lord Arden himself. By referring to the twenty-seventh Re-rity. This being the case, was it proper port of the Finance Committee, it would be found, that in the year 1798, when the return to the committee was made, the only emolument attached to the office was the fees. He did think that the case of the Masters in Chancery, connected with the impeachment of lord Macclesfield, bore directly on the question under consideration. When a regulation of the situation of Master took place, in conse quence of that impeachment, was any recompence made to the eight solvent Masters? Certainly not. A general regulation of the office took place; which extended to those against whom there was complaint, as well as to those against whom there was none-it was the principle which was levelled at. It was also particularly worthy of observation, that lord Macclesfield denied his having granted permission to any of the Masters to make use of the suitors' money, as they had Sir F. Flood with some difficulty obtained a hearing, and declared that he had manynes wavered about, undetermined on which side of the question he should vote; at one time he was convinced that the clause was proper, at another he was as firmly persuaded of its unfitness. Upon the whole, however, he was inclined to think that lord Castlereagh was in the right, and should give him his support. He sat sometimes on one side of the House, and sometimes on another; but take which side he would, he did not feel that he The ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.] order of the day being read for going into a Committee on the Bill for the better re gulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in Eng land, and for the more easy recovery of Church Rates and Tithes, Sir W. Scott proposed several alterations, some merely verbal, and others affecting the principle of the Bill itself. Among the latter was one that continued to in ferior ecclesiastical courts the power of excommunication, in consequence of the difficulty which he had found in accommodating that part as it originally stood, to all the variety of local circumstances throughout the kingdom. Mr. Peel said, he had contemplated the extension of the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and had intended to propose a clause for that purpose, but having learned that the member for Armagh bad a separate measure calculated for that country under his consideration, he had dropped his design under the impression that the hon. member would bring forward his projected Bill either in the present session of parliament or early in the succeeding. Sir S. Romilly thought the Bill was to be so altered as to deprive it of its chief value, in his estimation, that which went to remedy the serious evils attendant upon the power of excommunication in inferior courts. He wished the difficulties experienced by the right hon. and learned member were distinctly communicated to the Committee. With respect to the intended Bill for Ireland, he had had a conversation with the hon. member for Armagh upon that very subject; and he knew it was his intention to bring in a Bill precisely similar to the one as origin ally tramed by the right hon. and learned gentleman. But he did not know whether he would adopt the alterations now proposed in the Bill before them. And with regard to that Bill, he wished it had gone much further than it did. He could see no good reason, for instance, why spiritual courts should take any cognizance in matters of defamation; why, for slanderous expressions spoken in one case, the remedy was in civil courts, and in another in spiritual courts. He knew that great abuses existed in this part of their jurisdiction. He concluded by repeating his disappointment at the alteration in the Bill relating to excommunication. Sir W. Scott regretted that he should cause the disappointment of the hon. and learned member, but he was compelled to do so from information he had received from different parts of the country. For instance, in the dioceses of Exeter, York, and Chester, much of the ecclesiastical business was performed by the instrumentality of the subordinate courts. He had deliberately weighed the subject, and was convinced that the greatest inconvenience would result from retaining the clauses of the Bill as they now stood; he acted from an overwhelming necessity, and he really did not think it worth while to incur so much practical inconvenience as would certainly ensue. The amendments and alterations were then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 24. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] The House was called over, according to order. After which, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider further of the Bill to provide for the removal of the Civil and Military Disqualifications under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour. The right hon. The SPEAKER, arose and addressed the Committee as follows: Mr. Abercromby; According to my view of this great measure, in its origin and progress, I must of course be adverse to the present Bill. And I am desirous of taking the earliest opportunity which is allowed to me, for stating the general grounds upon which I think we should now do well to pause upon our proceedings; and also those general principles, which, when applied to the structure of this Bill in its different parts, must lead to such amendments as would destroy its main purpose, namely, the admission of the Roman Catholics to political power, and the capacity of bearing sovereign rule in a Protestant state. The basis of our whole proceedings was originally laid down in terms of sound practical wisdom. And the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) who brought forward in a former parliament, out of which the present Bill has sprung, after explicitly declaring that his object was to accomplish a final and conciliating adjustment, declared also, that unless such arrangement could be made satisfactory to all parties, and without conferring a triumph upon either, he himself should no longer think its execution to be desirable. And now that this Bill, with all its amended and incorporated provisions, is before us, does it appear that this basis of general satisfaction and concord is likely to be established? What Say the Roman Catholics of Ireland-Have the Roman Catholic laity and their Catholic Board (the hitherto avowed and accredited organ of their sentiments) declared their approbation of this Bill? Certainly not. And so far as we do know of their proceedings, some of their most distinguished leaders and auxiliary delegates, have in three successive meetings, most vehemently declaimed against it. The Roman Catholic clergy on their part, also cry out loud against its ecclesiastical provisions. The Roman Catholic metropolitan archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Troy, has declared them to be worse than the old Veto. And a vicar apostolic in England, who presides episcopally over the Midland district, and is himself the agent for all the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, has denounced them as what all Roman Catholics must abhor, and has declared to the world, that sooner than accept them, they will lay down their lives upon the scaffold. ing concord, we shall only be opening new scenes of collision and conflict. But, Sir, in proceeding to the consideration of the Bill itself, I think our judgment must be formed by an examination of the system which it seeks to establish, as compared with those general rules and maxims of policy, which hitherto have been deemed fundamental in this constitution. The elementary principles upon this subject are few and clear, and happily are. now admitted by all who share in our debates. It is now allowed, that state expediency and civil utility, not abstract right, must decide in all cases upon the form of government in which the sovereign powers of any state are to be concentrated, and also upon the extent to which its control should be exercised over the natural free agency of the people, in matters civil and religious. Looking to the strength and tranquillity of a state, in the mode of combining its civil and ecclesiastical authorities, many of the wisest men have hitherto agreed, that it would be desirable, so far as practicable, that the civil authority of the state should be vested in those only who conform to the established religion of the state. But the diversity incident to human opinion, and the liberty of action necessary to a popular state, require also, that such conformity should be exacted no farther than the safety of the government itself demands; and the measure of its danger, is the true measure of exclusion. And thus it is, that our constitution, as settled at the Revolution, stands upon the joint principle, of excluding from power all non-conformists by a religious test, and of bestowing at the same time the fullest religious toleration upon all the excluded. Upon this principle it is, that the crown itself is holden by a religious test: and the church of England having been found upon experience to be well suited, by the form of its government, to the practice and habits of the English constitution, the safety of the church has been at all times, and deservedly, the object of its earnest solicitude. By the same principles adopt Of the Protestant millions in this United Kingdom, the large majority of his Majesty's subjects, it is needless to ask, Whether they can be satisfied to place the government, if not the crown of Ireland within the reach of Roman Catholic hands; and to create the means of surrounding the sovereign himself with mi-ed and acted upon now for nearly 120 nisters of state, whose religion must be hostile to his own right of succession to the throne? This surely is an inauspicious commencement, and might be well taken for a warning loud enough to arrest our progress; for I fear, that instead of establish years, the state has excluded by a religious test all Protestant dissenters from civil and military offices, upon an opinion (rightly or wrongly formed) of their imperfect attachment to the constitution in church and state; and it has also excluded the Roman Catholics from parliament, as well as from |