Star. — London, England, 1825-05-10 00:00:00

P i . 'T I , retee-eonnum*sts man into a robber. The present Game Laws were use ful to the tranquillity of the country, because they pre vented a general arming of the people. But if this BiU passed, every individual throughout the land would immediately have aims in bin ha ids. On all these grounds be should move that the INU be read a second time this day three mouths. The Eatl of MALMESBURY admitted ale evils of the present system, but found no remedy for them in' the Ball now before the House. He objected to contain expre.sions used in the preamble as hush and unjti.t. and trusted that they would be modified if th • Bell rhhould gee through the Cemmittee. A great advantage of the Game Laws, as they now stood, was, that they se.ecerred to the country one of the greats-st blessings Which it could enjoy, the residence of the Gentry use their estates.— lle feared that tier measure proposed would discourage the residence of Country Gentlemen and therefore should oppose it. Earl DARNLEY conceived the interference of the Legislate,' e nec , ssat y to settle the question of the Game 1. ws, as it WAS impossible that the present syste m should go on much longer. The Dill before the House was not perfect, lent approached nearer what was required than anything which bad yet besn proposed, and should therefore have his support. Lord CAL I'HOItPE thought it impossible to exag get we the evils of the present system, which evils arose chiefly from the sale a f game bring prohibited. He could not, theref ire, refuse his support to a Bell, the ob jec: of whi h was to remove ree ge eat productive cau -e of the - t zisting gri.vances. He thought it would be a pe culiarly invechous act in thei-Lordshaps to reject theßill He had heard it said that any measure of this sort passed by the other House of Parliament would tritainly be rejected in this. But Ire trusted their Lordships would consider that they were outfitting there as landowners merely, but that other considerations and other duties ought to influence their conduct in deciding upon this 'important question. Lord SUFFIELD combated the arguments of those opposed to the Bell, and said that no one had changed nis opiaios that the present system of Game Laws was a mo-t prolific source of crime. The Bill created no new desctiption of propetty.—Game was always the property of the owner of the soil, aird it re mained so under the proposed law: therefore no new description of property was created. His N &le Friend wished to have fin ther evidence before they proceeded with the Bell. Bat they had the evidence constantly betere them of the great - extent to abed' the present nefarious traffic was coaled. To reduce that load of crime by making the sale of game legal, was a great gond attained. Ile believed in his conscience that game Would not be diminished by the change; but even it it should be so to a c.rtain extent, those Gentlemen who in dulged 'n sporting would still find sufficient amusement, and without the demoralising effect of the present system. lie thought something was due to the public under the improved state of society, in respect to the existing Game Laws. If be were mated to define what was so due, be should describe it briefly thus: first, the owner of the land ought to have the right of killing game upon his own property ; secondly, be should have the power of stowing his friends to do so ; and thirdly, those who possessed per sonal property only should be allowed to purchase it. 1.5.r1 DA ILNLEY explained. Their Lordships then divided upon the Amendment:— . • Contents . • . . . . Sit _ Nod Contents . . . . 23 • - • ?lajorijy against the Second Ileadine-45 The llouse adjo urn at Nara o'Cs.ocr.. HOUSE OF COMMONS. ~: }' s e ~. , 1 I / • Sit R. FERGUSON resented a Petition frees the Seamus of the Port of London, respecting the Combination Lews.—Referred to the Committee on the Combination Laws. Sir bL RIDLEY presented • Pablo* Ana Newcastle-upon- Tyne. in favour of the flUl foe Preventing Cruelty to Animals. Mr. HOBHOUSE 'presented a Petition * die Operative Sawyers of Westminster, praying to be mimidsai before the Committee on the Combination Laws. Mr. T. WILSON resented a Petition from the Woolstapiers ot TAndon, praying to be beard before the Comndtter an the' Combi nation Laws. Alderman THOMPSON presented a Petition from the Sawyers on the Banks of the River Thames, (not Members of the Thames Union,) praying for protection.—Referred to the Committee. A Petition was presented from the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast, against alter lug the regulations of the Butter Trade. Mr. DUG DA LE presented a Petition from Aston, near Bir mingham, against further concessions to the Catholics. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition front Kilmoon, planing of oppression by a Tithe Proctor. Atter a few words from Mr. J. Spurn and Sir. Batmerr, the Petitior. was read. Oa the question that it be printed, Ur. BARI NG roar and said. he hoped that the Honourable Secretary fur Ireland (Mr. Goulburn) would turn Ms attention to this subject, and devise some remedy for these cases of hardship and oppression under the Tithe system. Mr. GOU LBURN said, the Government of Ireland had paid the utmost attention to this subject ; and the law which recently pass. d had given satisfaction to all parties ' and was calculated tosio away the matter of complaint represented in the Petition. Sir A. HOPE prevented a Petition from Linlithgow, against , any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. MI.:REIM presented a Petition from Harwich, against further concessions to the Catholics. Mr. SCAR utrr presented a Petition from the Barristers and Attornies of Neweastk upon-Tyne. in favour of the Catholics. Mr. J. WILLIAMS supportvd the Petition.—Read. and laid on the table. _ _ _ Sir T. I.IiTIIRRIDGE presented a Petition from a Parish in Somersetskire, against farther concessions to the Catholics. Ali.S RICE. with reteience to what had fallen from the Hun. llarliet on a former night, as to the pubii. ceinii of Dr. Tioy, said, that no sooner were the Ca tholic Hieraichy acquainted with the nature of the mutes ptildished in the Roman Catholic Testament, than they di► claimed them. and Ik. Troy himself had also disclaimed them. S's LE 1 HIIIIIDGE said, he certainly thought, wit n he quoted these notes, that they contained the sentiments of the C itholic II rrarchy of Ireland; but that was only one instance he adduced, to "hew that the sentiments 1,1 the Popish Cbtwch had nut changed, and sufficient remained to si.pport his opinion. General GASCOYNE said, these notes were actualf published in the Dimity edition, though expunged in that which circulated iu Ireland. Mr. S. Hats and Sir 'l' law mutually explained. %Vat or the more public then read and 'aitarian ♦lw a aimi- the Proteotant the claims of consideration a this Bill, • agreed to. been ntis• on a lot mcr Conimil tee in , ITr had ee, and wat Hr thutiki vote lusion to an an Honour opule:lt Gen • Protestant ot the Pro any such ears.. hard to be 'attacked twice on the same niiht on the same subject. ' It was not Parliamentary. Every Representative had a right to express his opinion without being called to account for it. A Moans. under the Gallery said,that this was a Matter Waal and nor of opinion. Colonel FORAM, with .respect to sane assertion that he had cbanged.bis mind on-the question, said, that he wai induced toibink thin the two, collateral Bib would make the gener.l nwainre of relief more aceeptable. Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH mid Se hackthe au therity of the Mr.4'ltre anshAFLord Stour. ton to deny the fact. The Newspaper which had reported the statement bad been prosecuted. Sir J. NEW PORT said that the Honourable Baronet had eat vindicated himself. lie had advanced what he was incapable of saaintainittg. Sir T. LETHBRIDGP. said he was capable of maintaining whatever he had said, at the proper time and placs.—Thq, amend. meets were then agreed to, the Hill ordered to be engrossed, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. . . _ ..... _ Mr. BROUGHAM said that the diseussinn would certainly come oo•to.morrow. • Mr. BROUGHAM said he saw the*Honourable Member for Cork Castle in his place. He wished to know whe•her the Honourable Member meant to move any amendment as to the right of Catholics to sit in Patitament, and whether he meant to take the sense of the House on it? Mr. BANKES sa:d he might possibly move two amendments, the first, respecting Catholics sitting in Parliament; aid - the second, to make the appointment of Commissioners optional. But be should not take t►e sense of the House on either Or them. tam ELECTIVE ?RASMUS' BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, Mr. GitarrAN said that he should enter his pro test against the lista:ore. Irish Members were divided in °pinion concerning the Bill, and how could English Members he capable of making up their minds upon it? This Bill ought not to bemixed up with Catholic Eman cipation. He should oppose it on the same round that he supported the great measure. The individual whose name he bore would have opposed it. If the people of Ireland were not worthy of the elective franchise, they were not worthy of Emancipation. Mr. V. FITZG ERA LD supported the motion that the Speaker now, leave the Chair and made some remarks in favour of the general principle of t he Bill. Mr.LITTLETON said, irwotild be inconvenient to enter upon the general discussion at present. He would merely say that it was his firm determination to resist every attempt en extend the principle of disqualification beyond the 40s. freeholders. His object was merely to do away with fraudulent votes, and none other. He hoped the House would let the Bill go into a Committee. Mr. L. FOSTER said, that the princip'e of the Bill was just what he had always supposed.. All he wished was to annihilate fraudulent franchises. He was only anxious to reform, and not to destroy. But the details of the Bill were imperfect, and if it passed * a new kind of fraud woad be generated. There was a class of persons in Ireland who would be glad to increase their influence—no matter by what means; and this measure would 'afFOrd them the opportunity of doing it in a fraudulent way. He wished to strike out of the Bill those words which limited it to leasehold franchise. The 40s. freeholders of Ireland were exactly the same as 40s. freeholders in'England. It was just as preju dicial, in a constitutional point of view, to annihilate the lash as to destroy the English freeholder. The measure required great correction. He did not know whether be should vote against it or not, but be hoped that it would be considerably altered in the Comnittee.• Sk I. NEWPORT hoped that the discussion might end, and that the Bill might goluto the Columittee—(Hear). Sir J. WROTTESLEY made some general aservadnis In favour of the measure of Emancipation, and against the particular Bill for disfranchising nearly 200,000 . persosts. Mr. DAWSON observed, toot the three measures— the Catholic Relief Bull, the Regulation of the Elective Franchise, and the Payment of the Catholic Priesthood, were so blended together, that it was difficult to vote for one without supporting the other. He did not dis approve of the present Bill, but he felt himself bound to oppose it, because it was introduced into the House to aid the Catholic Relief Bill, to which he was opposed from principle. He believed that the freeholders of Ireland were as much debased by this privilege as their landlords were annoyed at being so often forced to use their influence. He would gladly consent to raise the qualification of voting to 201. which would introduce into Ireland what was so much wanted—a class of yeo manry, which would stand between the higher and lower classes of the people in support of liberty. .-Lord EBRI NGTON said, that though he was a zeal. ous friend to• Parliamentary Reform, yet he was willing to support this Bill, because he understood k would be conferring a boon on Ireland. and it would conciliate many to the Catholic Relief Bill. Lord CORRY was understood to be opposed to the Bill, but if the Emancipation Bill were to be passed, he thought the present Bill would diminish the difficulties of their situation. Mr. C. WILSON was more than half convinced that the measure would conduce to the happiness and inde pendence of Ireland. He should, however. decide upon it by its own merits, and not in connesion with any other question. Mr. lIUME thought cite presen. measure the greatest innovati •n he had ever known, on what he had been accustomed to regard as sacred and inviolable. While he objected to the measure in tot., he was a zealous friend to Catholic emancipation ; but should the measure have been introduced as a clause in the C ktbolie he should hive voted against the Bill sooner than such a measure should be carried. The Hon. - Member here lead an extract from the letters of Dr. Doyle, to shew that his opinion was decidedly adverse to any alteration in the elective franchise. He should move for the ap. pointment of a Committee to obtain information on the subject. Years w. re allowed to elapse before Gram. posind. with 50 or 60 voters, was disfranchised, and then the franchise was communicated to thousands. \Vas a whole people to be uisinUlthised without any previous inquiry ? The abuse of the elective franchise did not exist to the extent that was alleAed. He was confident that the interests of half a million would be affected by the proposed measure, and the popular branch of tl4‘ electors would be annihilated. No modi fication in t e Committee would reconcile him to the principle of the Bill. Let the two wings be t..ken off, and the Bill for Emancipation would p •ss wi bout dif ficulty. It would be a better course to bring . hr a Bill to l unish the land'ords who encouraged perjury and falsehood. He wouli ask the friends of Parliamentary Reform to reconcile their support of ti is measure with the it former opinions on that subject. The cause of Emancipation amid lose mote votes than it would gain by auth a summers. - Nothing could justify such a measure hut a, paramount advantage to the whole community. and that had not been ,hewn.. The lion. Menhir then moved for the appointment of a Select. Committee, to inquire into the abuse of the Elective Franchise in Ireland, and how such abuse (if it existed), could be effectually checked ? Colonel JOHNSON utmost)/ supported the amendment. Mt. it MARTIN wi.o d consider the measure as most uncqns itutional, if separated from Catholic Emancipation. Irish Gentlemen were the worst eci. deuces upon such a measure. We ate al, said the • Il iart onn ightei ttrab em h;tio-asanit'nointeprreOlplirlseedwirs; "rsi.crtir-JJlel°eeil five franchise in England •as we'l as in Irelol? He felt, notwithstanding, .cOmpelled to go into the Com !thittee, for Ito considered the Bit as a . aittifice for the pUrchise of catholic Emancipation, at which eaerifice he was willing to he the Priest-1A laugh). AmoNst the• freeholders of Galway, he would -relate . an so 'stance of independence, such asthe world cook, not match. It was agreed between the candidate!, that `their respective tenants should remain neuter, and that if one should break loose, and give his vote for his landlord, the latter should bring two other tenants to •vote for his opp nest. In the course of the election, a booth was about to close, as is usually the case when '4O freeholders do not appear from a certain district wi hin a given t;me. In order to prevent its closing, five of his Honourable Colleague's freeholders, contrary to his expressed desire, voted against him (Mr. Martin), and kept the booth open. The other candidate imme diately offered reparation, and compelled ten of his tenants to vote in his (Mr. M.'s) favour, but they did so in another booth, which was also on the eve of closing, in consequence of which occurrence, lee (Mr. M.) lot 600 voters—(lnonense laaghtey). He however acquitted his Honourable Friend (Mr. Daley) of any participath.n in the occurrence. Mr. DALEY rebutted such insinuations with indig % nation. The facts were correct. but the most unfair inuendoes were thrown out by his Honourable Col ic ague—(Cries of Ao. no. from all parts of Me 'louse). He was"willing to go into the Committee, but he feared he should be sinabte togive his support to the measure. Mr. MARTIN explained. • Mr. S. RICE conera•olated the House on what had fallen from the two Members for Galway, which laid open to them the real state of the 40 shilling Free holders in Iceland—(Hear, hear). The Honourable Member for Aberdeen had stated that the persons to whom the Catholics had entrusted their cause, had betrayed them for personally ambitious views and in terested motives--(Hear, hear). He :evened that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Hume) should have given the weight of his assertion to the base insinuations of those who, through disappointed vanity, sought to throw odium upon honourable persons. He (Mr. H. 4 said, that he could not support the Bill as a friend to Re form, but it was because he (Mr. S. R.) was a friend to Reform, that he would support the Bill, and give his vote upon the purest principles which ever actuated a lover of popular rights.' Mr. MACNAGHTEN rose to oppose the Bill alto. gether. If the House wished to proceed judiciously in such a course, it ought first to inquire what the abuses of the existing system really were ? and then legislate to remove them. Would it be fair, because the Borough of Grampoond was corrupt, that they should disfnm ebbe the whole people of England? He considered the BEI .int, that !nevoid sot vets for F. BLARE supported the Captain O'GRADY could not avoid saying that the county which he represented was free froth the excesses which bad been stated to prevail in other coun ties. The Honourable Member' adverted to a state ment made on a former night by the Honourable Member for Armagh. He alluded to the circumstance of a Gentleman gotog over to Ireland to serve the office of Sheriff, It had been said the Gentlemen divided his estate into 40s. freeholds for the purpose of returning himself a Member to serve in Parliament. He was en abted to say, from the best authority, that the Gentle man alluded to denied the statement. The Gentleman did not divide his estate, nor add one more voter to his tenantry.—With respect to the Bill he should not vote for it, but support the Catholic Relief Bill, believing it would do much good for Ireland. Illr. D. BROWNE supported the measure, because be thought the present system of voting for 40s. freeholds, perpetuated the misery and degradation of the people of Ireland. -Colonel TRENCH gave his opinion, that this Bill would bean honest meuure and a blessing to Irela nd. He should support it upon its own merits. Lord MILTON said he should support the Bill be cause it would promote the object of the great measure. He thought the benefits supposed to be derived from this measure were much exaggerated. Out of this mea sure great evils might arise. Those who divided their estates into Forty Shilling Freeholds, would divide them into £lO freeholds. He was not disposed to doubt the independency of the freeholders of Ireland, but be should rote for the Bill, because it would check the Oligarchy. An Honourable Member who represented a borough in England, and who so strongly opposed the Bill, some years ago represented the county of Antrim, in Ireland. When the heir of a Noble Family came of age he came in for Antrim, and the Honourable Member represented the Borough of & ford. That was certainly no proof of the independence of the freeholders. He should give the measure his support, but it did not go the length of preventing fictitious votes. The gr?at object was to put an end to fictitious voting. The Noble Lord sug gested whether that might not be accomplished by staking the term longer for registering votes? A man should scat vote until a number of years had expired, and his land was map valuable. In the Constance it was probable be might submit a proposition on the subject. Mr. id ACNA.GHTEN explained. The Noble Lord had spoken of him as the Representative of a Borough, u if be had storied to vote---t Here a loud and general exclamation was raised of Spoke ! spoke! Order ! Chair !) The SPRAKRR said, an Hon. Member who had spoken in de bate was only allowed to explain. Mr. MACN AO HUM again, in explanation, said the Noble Lord was wrong in his stikensent. Mr. W. BECHER was sorry more information had not been procured, but no man who was impressed with the importance of the great question, could refuse to vote for the Bill then befOre the House. It was called for by the note:toot landlords, a-d the Roman Catholics gave their consent to ft. He should vote for it, because it would facilitate the Catholic Relief Bill, and 'thereby promote 0 e inures: of Ireland. The ques tion being loudly called for, the House divided. For going into the Committee . • 168 Against it • —ll5 Majority When the Gallery was re-opened, Mr. Homiousx was entreating those Hon. Members who had expressed their intention not to sup• punt the Suffrage Hill, to give their vote for the Catholic Relief BTU. Mr. HUME sai. - , he iotmetly declared, whets the two qutstions were coupled together, that he would give up the Catholic Question, rather than disfranclii-e cite Irish Ftee'•oldets. In that view ht had wished the Bill then before the House to be separated from the Roman Catho lic Relief - NIL He Could not vote for both. Alf. W. SAllTli had voted on various occasions fur the Catholic Question, and also for Parliamentary Reform. lie saw tmtiting inconsistent in following that course of duty. Mr. BROUUHANI hoped that what he should say would meet with the mote favourable reception of his Honourable Friend, as he quite agreed with him in bating iswainst the Bill. He (Mr. Brougham) lamented not Kt: than his Honourable Friend that this measure had beer. connected, he thought most unadvisedly, with tl.e. Catholic Relief Bill. It v►as only owing to an . . halireinatfon of the mind that in"fi-x; n rents 1.41 formed between the two Measures, Thee was ao nr4 cessary or natural twice' or siMil 4ri , y between them. He had supported this opinion by his vote on a former night. He might even take to himself the credit of leading the ° I -position to the inea,stite, but his Name then %horrid not be with him a grnend of opposition to the Bill for . Emancipation, which was totally distinct from the freehold question and the question of Pariii mentary Reform, but which he supported because f considered the passing of it essential to the salvation of the Empire—(fienr).—lle would beseech his H nom.- able Friends. the Members for Dm ham and B•Plton" (Mr. Lamhton and Colonel Johnson) both by the iriend shipthat subsisted between, and by the more important consideration of the duty they (Avid their country, not to oppose the Emancipation Bill, more particularly as they could offer no better reason for such an oppositiorti than that they had failtd in carrying another measure, of a totally' different nature and degcription. • • . • Mr. LAMB TON said, that perhaps hehad . no ttAlle to complain of hiving fallen under the lash' of' his friends, as it was no uncommon lot in the history of political events. One :Honourable Gentleman hail in- tacked his motive—that was riot fair, and especially as he was willing to state the grounds upon which he ac ed himself. The reason why he shotild not vote for the Catholic Question was because it was connected wiiir a Bill of dislranchisemenr—(flear). As he would' prefer the continuance of the 40 , . freeholders even toll* grant of the Catholic Claims, his vote should be directed cordingly. Nothing had fallen from either of the Ron. Gentlemen, that could induce him ti alter his opinion in this respect. The present 13.9 was as true') a part of the Bill for relieving the Cathati..s, as if it.was clause in th it Bill, instead of being a distinct and se- . parate enactment. Such was the conduct he should purine, such were the motives that induced him to adapt it. Ile was not to he hrowh.aten out of his memo, but would hereafter; as he had hitherto, act f9r the good of his country, and to she best of his judgment, so help him (ion. Mr. BROU,,HANI wished to put it to any Hon. Member (it was a large challenge, as he believed there were nearly MO present), whether he would get up and say, these had beet! anything in the tone of what he (Mr. B.) had ventured to submit which could be consi.: dered as an attempt to browbeat ?—(Hens) If even the lion. Member for Durham himself would say there WAS anything beyond affectionate and respectful remonstrance, then he (Mr. B.) would admit be had been guilty of a great offence. Colonel JOHNSON repeated that he did not think Catholic Emancipation was worth the price of this Bill. Mr. JAMES said, horn the evidence before the Irish Committee, which he had taken the trouble of reading, he was persuaded that the Irish forty shilling freeholders were freemen In name and not in reality. The House then went into a Committee on the Rill. Mx. LITTLETON said be merely wished the Bin se be com— mitted preform now, in order that it might be printed, and Mem— bers might have an opportunity of reading it. He therefore moved. that the Bill should be recommitted on Thursday neat. 11r. V. FITZGBR LH niketed to this, but after some words from Mr. HISSZIPOSI, SO J. Nswroae, Mr. CALCILA rr, and o senta f en tl t tic ytH ra o, uses onthAseedr i z : d o not n re —Adjourned ytuatet ztosboejbledcaPyLe:crdsdisedlapyot.:edhith: Hun. Member con -- Punt star, explaining that this was merely Iwoforwes, and that mint t ill of e t ru he i ' n other g. ' Orders on' THE DUKE OF Yoult"S SPzECIL ...m0Mp....,. The Speech delivered, by his Royal Highness the Doke of Youlc, in the debate of the V.Ath tilt. having been very differently reported in differen: Newspaper-, and much discussion having arisen on the exprev,io a attributed to his Royal Highness, we insert the' follow ing accurate statement of the Speech, as it was actually delivered His Royal Highness stated, that he had been requested to pre sent to their Lordships the Petition of the Dean and Canons of Windsot, praying that no further concessions stiould be made to the Roman Catholics. He considered it unnecessary, in bringing before their Lordships the Petition of so learned and respectable a body,to assure them that it was worded so as to ensure its reception ; but before he moved that it should be read, he must be permitted to my a few words. Sensible as his Royal Highness was of his want of habit and abi lity to take a part in their Lordships' Debates, it was not without the greatest reluctance that he ventured to trespass upon their time and attention ; but he felt that there were occa.ions when every man owed It to his country and to his station, to declare his senti ments; and no opportunity could, In his opinion, offer, which required mere imperiously the frank avowal of them than the pre sent, when their Lordships were called upon to make a total change in the fisidamental principle of the Constitution, and. in his Royal Highness's view of the question, to strike at the very root of its existence. His Royal Highness observed, that 28 years had elapsed since 'this question had been first agitated, under the-most awful circum stances, while this country was eugand in a most arduous and expensive, though just aod glorious war; that the agitation of it had been the cause of a most serious and alarming' illness to ars Illustrious Personage now no more, whose exalted character and virtues, and whose parental affection for his people, would render his memory ever dear to this country ; that it had also produced the temporary retirement from his late Majesty's COoncils of one of the most able, enlightened, and most honest Statesmen of whom this country could boast. Upon this question they were now called to decide ; and from the first moment of its agitation to the present, his Royal Highness bad not foe one instant hesitavd, or felt a doubt as to the propriety of the line of conduct he bad adopted in reference to it. That he mast also call their Lordship" attention to the great change of language and sentiments which had taken place, since the subject was first introduced, among the advocates for Catholic Emancipation. That at first the most zealous of these had cautiously and yet strenuously endeavoured to impress upon the minds of the people that Catliclic Emancipation ought not to be granted wkhnut esta blishing strong and effectual barriers against any encroachment no the Protestant ascendancy. But how changed was now their lan guage! Their Lordships were now required to surrender every principle of the Constitution, and to deliver us up, bound hand and foot, to the mercy and generosity of the Roman Catholics, without any assurance even that they would be satisfied with such fearful concessions. His Royal flightless bad, upon a former occasion, taken the liberty of stating his sentiments folly upon the subject, and had en.. deavuvred to convey to their Lordships that no person was ntore decidedly inclined to toleration than his late Majesty, but that It must be admitted there is a great difference between toleration, participation, and emancipation. Ile would not now enter into this discussion, convinced as' he was that if the Hill should again be brought under their consideration, its merits would be much more ably discussed by others of their Lordships. There were, however, one or two points which appeared to him to have been kept out of view in the different debates that had occurred iu various places, and which seemed to him of such vital importance that be could not help touchirg upon them. The first was, the situation in which the Church of England would be pbced,should Catholic Emancipation pans. Mi. Royal , 1114.1. •• OM.. ,i. \MUMMY MS .alias.... Mr. S. Batt and Sir 'l' lei mamma mutually explain 11r. V. FITZGERALD said, the withdraw, Cath. lk Bishop,' App.i.b4tiou was made num I than their approval had been.—The Petition was titer laid on the table. ,; , blr. W. SMITH presented a Petition from the Unit t.' 1* . ,:enters of Itrigloon, in favour of the Catholic Mims. A lar Petition from South-place, tin bury-square. k A Petition was presented fr.= the Colliers of U .: / . against re-enacting the Combination Laws. N. Air. IIIiOUGH ANI presented a Petition from the Dissenters of S..fron Walden, in Essex, in favour of the •) the Roman Catholics. / ' The Thrown S.lk BiU went through a Comm port to-morrow. CATHOLIC RELIES BILL. f Mr. BROM II A M moved the furtiori consideration c;i and that tbs. Amendments of die Committee be agreed i t. ' • 1 Mr. J W. MAXWELL mod, that he bad t J Vprezented as to what had fallen from hint on cr.;ca sion. Be had merely voted for a Cum , c ider to acquire information on the subject. , - • re .d the evidence t4lten before the C. intuitive, / not induced by it to change his former sentiments. He. . against the third reading. Lord G. CAVENDISII made some anus; • ass rtion which fell the other evening brim an able Baronet (Sir T. Lethbridge) that an opul dental% n ar Wetherby had aswited that the ii i 1 - i Churches were p r of ane d by th e performance of tenant service. That Gentleman bad never made any 1 tion, and the Hon. Baronet was bound toexplain. Sir T. LEI fiaBItIDUE said that • es aas ha . . . . . 1 . . 'y • ,