The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

-44 ' t No. 6,985. . L( NIY)N.- FRIDAY. APRIL 22. 1825. 13r. ' 1( a-----,.... - PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. away with the Roman Catholic Association had not passed. The i gioui libetry—principles which maintained the best security for the THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. ' language of the petition was therefore very strong, but in his opinion 'C'enstitnflon and the Church, by the prunes of justice and like- I A petition was presented from the Roman Catholic inhabitatits sari Mr. G. twj s.4'arlier Pei; ROUSE OF LORDS, Tutrasftow, Aram 21, 11125. it was not too strong. rainy. This latter observation he (Sir J. M.) thought contained of the Midland Counties, in favour of the Catholic MlL—Ordered 31r. BLACKBURN presented a aim' The petition was then read. the moat unanswerable argument in favour of the ;be meant to lie on the tahle. brook. In the Earl of Roscommon's claim to vote in the election of Irish Lord KING said, that as Nottingham was a large and populous that which was founded upon the security that =GM from the Sir T. LE' n ;BRIDGE presented a petition from the inf,ald- The petitions wereortH ered to be me• Representative Peers, documentary evidence was tendered at the town, it was somewhat strange that the petition was not more nu. !dispensing to the Catholics justice, and from bar; and the Gentleman who was Chief Clerk in the Parliament mmonsly signed. He happened to have one of the placards that liberality. The petition was signed by one Office of Ireland before the Union, together with Richard were posted about the town. calling upon the inhabitants to come , front the characters of the individuals who so 'fixed ththel7signeistb forward and sign thispetition. Thispetition contained, in k• 'they might taken A martin, Es+ M.P., were examined by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, in regard thereto. BALGANY CAUSE. opinion, most unwarrantable language,and. amongst other things, , . ..I representatives of the great bodyy, of the int ligence sad rite property and the charged the Catholics with being a people " accursed of God." lot-Glasgow • and in speaking of that city, he spoke of one, which, be gran In prosecution of the hearing of this appeal, there appeared as He recollected a Right Rev. Prelate hall stated, that the Clergy I for weelthAor knowledge, for population, for moral worth, and from a the Counsel on each side the following Scots eminent Advocates. had used no means to stimulate the people to come forward ; he ; general intelligence, held a high rank in the country. In sayand For the Hon. Mrs. Fullerton, Robert Forsyth, John Tawse, and Patrick Robertson, Esqoa. ; for the Respondent, Sir Hew Dal- - Correct. rymple Hemilton, Bart., James Moncrieff, James Keay. and John A. Murray, Emirs. Mr. Forsyth appeared at the bar for the first time since he has been Advocate, now upwards of thirty-two years. and stated the case on the part of the Appellant with per- worst of all places for such purposes. should be glad to know if in the present instance this assertion was lag tan:ro. f Chord, in Sornersetshire, against farther concession to the names, and Roman Catholias—bahl on the table. MESSAGE FROM ' A licensee was brought f-z tb' Alterman TROAIPSON said, he held in his hand a peti. of theßight lion. Dennis Brown. boroughiohabitants of the cities of London and Westminster mince of Privileges, now sitht . agreedupon of Southwark, prsying that no further coneessions Roscomtuoa to vote for ti " granted Ph to the Roman Catholics. This petition did not proceed Irelatd. Mk meeting :—thirty or forty individuals had assembled A similar request was the draft of the petition, which was signed by lien. Gentleman before r' this, however, he was ready to acknowledge, that a peti- 3,000 persons of great respectability. The address of every sub- Leave grassed. lion of a very opposite character had come from the Corporanon scriber was attached to his name. CA' The Bishop of CHESTER said, he had merely stated that the of Hammermen in that city ; and also from the Corporation of But. Mr. J. MARTIN would not take up the attend= of the Rouse Sir E. KNATC r Clergy had used no means to convene public meetings to discuss chess. He was far from saying that the people of fidow were per- long, but was desirous of sterng two circumstances connected against the Cacho). subjects of this nature. He thought public meetings were the reedy uuanimous on this head,or from deriving that tbanimermen, with the petition about to be presented by the Worthy Alderman was agreed to at' m well as that very necessary bpdy,thelliochers,had expressed lien- (Thompson.) Thole were facts that had come within his own, On the quer cite r spleeny and distinctness, in a speech of five hours• giving a de. bold HOLLAND thought that on questions of a public nature tirneuts opposed to the principms contained in the petition which he knowledge, and be could, therefore, state them with confidence. lilt. CALL veiled statement of the facts of the case, and of die procedure which Pnblic meetings were the best places for discussing them. then held in his hand. God forbid that be should deny to these On Saturday last, a friend called upon liinunMr. Martin) and in- when a peti' has taken place in the Court of Session ever since the first institu. The petition was then laid on the table. individuals the right of delivering their opinions, ir that he should ' formed him, that as he was passing the door of the London Tavern. ing, no her tion of the action on the part of the Appellant, Mrs. Fullerton. The Luke of NEWCASTLE then presented a petition of a seek to detract from the value and weight which ought, in justice, he observed a boy, in the dress of a charity school, stationed before soave tar.' 'fins he did with acuteness. Ile then argued the case in point of similar nature, from the Bailiffs and Commonalty of the Borough to attach to those opinions ; hut without speaking with the slightest im of' it. law with ingenuity, and showing throughout both research and of Braintree.s-Laid on the table. it, who invited him in to sign the petition against the Cathol . disrespect of of either the hammennen or the butchers, he might His friend felt some degree of curiosity, and went in to see the ing t lability. He will be succeeded in his argument by Mr. Patrick COUNTER-PETITIONS. say that one hundred of the wealthiest persons, the most cultivated nature of the proceeding. Four sheets of parchment were lying the Robertson ; and then Mr. Moncrieff will argue the case f. r the Earl FITZWILLLI 31 presented a petiole in favour of Catholic minds, and the most eminent in station and respectability in such aon a table. to which some signatures were attached. His friend hh Respondent. 'l'he case itself, being one of the reduction of the Emancipation, from Peterborough. The Noble Earl observed, city MOlasgor, were better entitled to the consideratmn, and the inquired if he could see the petition or a copy of it ; but was attentive consideration, of that House, than were even the butchers answered that there were neither to be seen. He next inqutred of title by which Sir Hew fhtlrymnle Hamilton has fur so many years that the petition was agreed to at a public meeting, after the subject f.t. held and eajo_yed the estate of Balgany„ in addition to Northiler. of it had been discussed. and hammermen who had recently forwarded petitions hostile to, the waiter if any public meeting had taken place. at whichth wick. Mrs. ullarton's plea mainly us, that she ought to have been The Bishop of CIII:STER wished to know by how many per. Can the claims of their Roman Caolic fellow-subjects. The only petition was agreed on : the answer was, is there were 20 or " F i the right heir to the property, she alleging that the predecessor, to sons the petition was signed. part of Scotland in which ney _consinerable opposition existed gentlemen here yesterdae." lie was then urged to sign Whom Sir Hew succeeded, by an act or deed. altered the mete; of Earl FITZWILLIAM replied (es we understead) that it con. against the concession to the Cs.tolleft, was Ice , the West; sad he petition, and told he might if lie liked leave fls. or 1.01. to SUCHIIIiOn. and thereby made it flaw to Sir Hew. vitereas, but fee tainted lig Sigaittarel. could scantly *nett/ate it to soy other WmajZichellewlMMikell of defraying the expenses o the petition. _(A laugh) P that art, it would have naturally descended in an unvaried line Laid on thotable. that puritanical spirit—that covenanting . shift, in Martin) felt Interested in the statement. and west illsouir to Mrs. Fullerton. Hitherto the Court of Session have repeatedly Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from certain Protestants many cases• fostered in that part tithe country. In sospeaking of his friend to the I,oteilem Tavern. There they fours, decided in favour of the Repot/dent, Sir Hew Dalrymple, that he resident at Lewes, in the county of Sussex, in favour of ounces. the zeal and spirit of the cereminters, he meant not disrespect to charity boy and the four sheets of parchnieet on the tan is the lawful heir, and that his preen:es= did no act to Create a sions to the Catholics. He could not say whether they were Pro. that zeal. When it writ dirneted against religious Oppression— tering, a pen was put into his hand. and he was reir forfeiture of his right, taunts of the Church of England, or to what class of Dissenters when it was exerted in maintaining civil rights, and securing re. His answer was, that it was not enstomary with lii, Lord Chanties, and other Members from the House of Commons, they belonged, but it was certainly a great compliment paid to Ilgious freedom—it should justly be the object of our grateful re- without previous examination, and a knowledge brought up several Private Bills. Dissenters In general, to see how happy the Reverend Bench collection. He conceived them to be wrong chronologically ; they He asked for a sight of the petition, but as hen' Mr. Adrian, from the Treasury, presented Accounts of the quart- opposite was to fight under the regis of Non-conformists. He were, he thought, one hundred and flfty years too late. `here he tition to be seen. (Hear.) Having stated tl• to A tityct of of Wi Parli nes and Spirits Bonded in the London Docks, pursuant admitted that the opinions of individuals were not to be con- living in the middle of the sixteenth, or even the seventeenth cent would leave it to the House to judge how fs sidered as thoee of the body of which they harmed a part- He tarry, he would entertain very cliff:rent opinions from those which by 3,000 natnee, was the petition of the C' ament. Mr. Waters, from the Court of King's Beech, presented the was nor sufficiently acquainted with Dissenter, to know what was he now supported. lie believed in his conscience, that the re- =niter, and the Borough of Southwark. Returns from that Court, from the Court of Common Pleas, and their prevailing feeling. Out of the three great congregations and speetable individuals who had signed that petition, spoke the sense petition of the subscribers. lie felt a P from the Court of Exchequer, pursuant to Act of Parliament. denominations of Dissenters, be was not aware that a single of a very large majority of the well-informed and intelligent laity anti-Catholie petitions were got up The Earl of LIVERPOOL laid certain papers upon the table, petition had yet proceeded against the Catholic claims, whilst of Great Britain. Here they had a petition on the one hand from the more confirmed in that opinion fr and moved that they be referred to the Committee on the state of every time thin iniponant question had been discussed, he had the bankers, the merchants, the manufacturers, and others, of the few or no public meetirgs called t Ireland.--Ordered. been honoured by their entrusting him with a petition in its most eminent station in Glasgow ; and on the other hand they ation, a thing that could not have EQUITABLE LOAN BILL. . favour. Bodies might certainly change their opinions, but this had one from the hammennen and the butchers. It was a question not known to be favourable to tt I.mrd HOLLAND presented a petition from the artisans in the ought not to be inferred from the conduct or sentiments of a few of authontv.in which they had Pitt and Fox on the one nde.and the Mr. JOHN SMITH coup, rieigltbourbood of London, in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill. individuals. Rev. Sir 'Harcourt Lees and Prebendary Denis on the other. It nourable Friend the Menthe His Lordship declined giving any opinion on the subject of the FREE TRADE. was an account in which characters were to be balanced against petition lay for inspection each other for the last twenty-five years. When he spoke thus question repeateily, an' petition.—Laid on the table. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Salis tANT I-CATHOLIC PETITIONS. bury, in favour of Free Trade.—Laid on the table. with reference to the laity, he meant no disrespect to the clergy— was no such thing. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from the SCOTCH PEERS. he intended to distinguish, not to disparage. Ile felt persuaded many signatures wee inhabitants of Stafford against the claims of the Catholics, afro Lord HOLLAND said, that he wished tot" a question of the that the Clergy of the Roman Catholics, for that church was tered London as of the Church of Scotland acre not opposed to the populous part, sot' another from the inhabitants of the pariah of Burton-Headwater Noble Viscount opposite (Lord Melville), who had given so much just demeana founded upon t e rock of poserty,hadnoreason to in kingdom where Laid on the table. consideration to the laws which respected the trial of Scotch Peers li • and the Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a similar petition from Bulge such fears would require the securitiesof tests x • ' Mr high treason, as to whether he intended this Session to proposeas and e - Catholic roarer elusions. %%'hen he saw that men, who, perceiving nothing If this had n the Dissenters of the town of Margate. any a teration in the laws which related to forfeiture and the cor ruption of blood ? to apprehend from the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, had known to O. Lord KING said, that a considerable change had been recently . perceived in the manner of the Right Reverend Prelates opposite ; Lord MELVILLE replied, that it was not his intention to bring candidly expressed such their opinion—when he saw such men,not. ins wool oho were now disposed to be very cordial to those Diseen t LIS of whom forward an as measure on the subject. withstanding their learning, their moral worth, and all the qualifi. the part' , . a former ornament of their bench observed, that the Catholic's were give HOLLAND said, that, as such w the case, he would cations which entitle them to preferment, excluded front the favour have e nearer and dearer to the church.—Laid on the table. give notice of his intentiotomorrow ow of bringing in a Bill to also. of those who dispensed church patronage, he could not but feel Imes -di Lord HOLLE presented a similar petition from the inhabitants l'ah the laws relative to forfeiture and the corruption of blood' as that the opposition hat the to this great measure wconfined within n r •as - nor 1 of Newtown Bushel—Laid on the table. they related to Scotch Peers. row limits, and was by no means actuating the whole mass. it The Metropolitan Police 3lagistrates Bill, the Innkeepers' Al. After a few words from Mr. D. BROWN, the purport of which ' . Lord KENYON presented a petition to the same effect from the lowance Bill and the Threatening Allowance Bill, went through was not heard in the gallery, parish of St. 3lathew, Bethnal-green, which he observed was 1 . . signed by upwards of 2,000 persons, although it was only two clays Committees, and were reported. Mr. HUIRE intimated, that he had been for some time in ev for signatures and another from the parish of Hackney, in the The House then adjourned. pectvion of a petition from Glasgow, for the delay of which county of Middlesex—Laid on the table. --owillnes—. could not account, but which he -had been informed would ' ' The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition to the saint HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, Alien 21. attached to it no less than six hundred signatures, and the of which would be similar to that presented by his Rig' effect, which he said was of a somewhat singular nature. It ema- SHIP CANAL. and Learned Friend (Sir James 31ackintosIn) Tic thou" natal from the congregation of Protestant Dissenters of the Jewry- Mr. JONES presented a petition from Carmarthen, against the cessary to make these observations, for the purpose or Rued Chapel, in the city of London, and was of some importance, because of the observations it contained. It was perfectly under. Ship Canal. the impression that the public mind in Glasgow wr ST. KATHARINE'S DOCK. concession to the Roman Catholics. Though it n• stood that every Dissenting Congregation formed of itself, as it On this Bill, which was not, as was supposed, passed on Tues. sounding effect to say that such and such Corpo' were, a distinct church • but still the petition was worthy of consideration, although" it was not signed by a great number of ril evening, beinproposed to be read • third time, tinned against the Bill, yet he had reason to belt the of the meeting where these petitions were got Ir. CALVERT said, that he should, in accordance with than nine . . rentalls. The petition went to an extent which would, per. wishes of his constituents, oppose this Bill ; but be hoped that his more than nine or ten Individuals present, ye haps, somewhat surprise their Lordships, as it did not only con. wishes Friend 131 r. Genial!) would consent to its postpone- forwarded to Parhunent under the seal e' claims the Bill now in progme in the other House for granting the s meet, es it would be of the greatest inconvenience todividethis spoke of afterwards as expressive of public claims of the Catholics, but it expressed p perfect contentment into that in his n evenin . the existing order of things, as might be they conceives! to trench g upon themselves; and they most anxiously hoped that those claims it was finally would not he panted, lost by el doing the interests of the Es. .„ •. tablished Church, which they conceived to preserve the Protestant till Religion,compi 'iei''.llstoc::y ifiroljunrediwilichetrlretaipentliytiotrcaomnge, ttlile p:rznhst of Diesentms in this kingdom viewed with great alarm the pro. . After some conversation between Mr. CALVERT and 31r. eel on the subject. From not one ad, en OREN FELL ' agreed that it should be postponed seined, had he received instruction, tito-morrow evening. COLLIER DOCK. now before Parliament. Mr. C. 11. HUTCHINSON he 31r. CA I.I'ERT presented a petition from St. George's-in-the- the sentiments which prevailed Alderman Ito CM presenfed a petition from_t the as Glasgow, and amongst i Water. bitants, for he had lately r 1 against the ontrug s language, attri' say part of the country opt . I .samer diseentiont voices. but he ••=sidored that the greet body LW. against the Collier Doak Bin.. . . Thames - I . centime' in question, as they conceived that by the safety of the Established Church the Protestant religion was secured; and he. men and Lightennen, praying to be heard by Couuse Ban—Referred to the Committee. BERMONDSEY DOCK. meeting in that city 'lane /minions for every clue' cause they conceived that under no system could they expect to . WOOD presented a similar petition against the Revlon. lie alluded enjoy toleration so perfect or so liberal as that which they now Mr. Aiderrn" ato enjoyed. For 'several years he had been an attentive observer of the Bermondsey Dock late meeting of the el- THAMES QU.I.Y. to see the people ge proceeding* of that body, and such wee his decided opinion. Ile A presented ansoinst the Thames Quay, from the of illiberality. had already said, that the sentiments contained in this petition .. petition Wa.... ... . • Mr. J. MAX' • Inhabitants of rieet.street and neernnournoou. ought not to be considered as the sentiments of the great body of A"E - -ED ese .en ' TAPES. niched in prior Dissenters, unless other and more extensive petitions of a similar nature were presented ; but even this petition was worthy of atten- Lewd STAN LEY Faxes. Tom Preston. 1 a petition praying for the repeal of acted front a -tresente3 considend • tioa, because, although signed by a comparatively small number, tt the dressed Mr. HART DAVIS presented a similar petition (rota Saint persecutir was signed by a moin respectable class. Ile had had great =Wee- always, minds • Lion in presenting this petition, as it not only proved that the Die- BEER DUTIES. that ut 'enters viewed with great alarm the proceed inn,' in favour of the Mr. 31A BERLY announced the postponepostponement of his motion for liam the opinions of Noble Lords Were Catholics—a subject on which the re Al of the Duty on Beer. till the sth Ala). ' somewhat divided—but it also proved that among the Dissenters K the University A pennon from there was a spirit of ingenuousness and candour manifested towards favour of the Apothecaries' 11.11 —Oniered to lie on the table. t . the Established Church. He should therefore move—" That the pen A etition from certain persons in Scotland concerned in the tition front the Mii)ister, Delmore, and Congregation of the Jewry. .. P . . I I I laid the wham traae was press mei , am at ontable. street chspel, in the city of London, be now read. RA Earl GROSVENOR asked how many persons had signed the .111 r. J. P. GNT withdrew his notice on the sub'ect 1 •andthe delay ftrials, in wrongous inprisonment, petition ? kw the Mr. MUNDAY presented two petitions against altered Established Church had taken a difleient view of the subject front Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the ' The Bishop of CHESTER replied, that he did not w the Corn Laws, MC from the hundred of Repburgh, and exect number. They were not very numerous. from the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. "fite petition was then read and laid on the table. Lem/ CALTIIORPE said, that many very warm friends of the CATHOLIC CLAIMS. f • those Inssenting petitioners, and all in favour of Catholic Emery they had done so from an anxious habitants of Rochet, . . wish to support the interests pf that Church. For himself ho would the presentation of this petition, most cordially vote for the removal of those restrictions, because he SirJOHN NEWPORT wished to take t' conceived the most determined enemy of the Established Church making some explanation relative to the flasen could not have devised a method to. keep alive the spirit of Popery !tented to the House the other night from Bel' in Ireland, and to prevent Pthtestantimm from gaining ground in in his that country, more effectual, than those restrictions. His stew of in the fabrication of the petition, oanud_ • petition containing Catholic was engaged in He h Id the ease was not likely to be shaken because a it. a t contrary sentiments was presented by a body of Dissenters,although in his possession into the hands of with respect to the Dissenters generally. he believed they had rein that the persons who had so flagrant) • tiered essential service to the cause of religion by their zeal, their not go =punished. faithfulness, and their unwearied assiduity in that cause, and above Mr. PEEL fully concurred iii ell, by producing a reaction on the part of the Church of England. by the Right Hon. Gentleman , lie did not, therefore, regret any circumstance that had led. a mate, that the impression on '- Right Reverend Prelate to speak of that body in terms of cordta- fabricated by the Catholics! lity and respect, although it was somewhat new and unusual. He be equally desirous to see' (Lord Calthorpe) did not believe that the great body of Dissenters Atter some further di.' opposed the C. Catholics '• he was convinced that the contrary was the Mr. Wansow, the case with those of the Dissenters, who were the best educated, and Mr. DAVENPO' therefore the most able to form a sound opinion on such an im. against any further portant subject—a subject which involved tome of the nicest points Mr. H. SLIMY of legislation. What he had raid on a former night he would now the county of Sr repeat, that until petitions came from those persons who were to the Roman usually and justly considered as expressing public opinion, it was Mr. T. IV wrong to say that public opinion was against the granting of man- Swithin to cipation to the Roman Catholics. Sir hi. 1 The Bishop of CII ESTER observed, that although no man man Cr living had a higher opinion of the Clergy than he had, lie certainly and of earsidered the magistrates of the country as lit associates with them the • and very many magistrates had signed the various petitions amains f the Roman Catholics. On the part of himself and his Right Re. i• emend Brethren, he disclaimed any unusual degree of cordiality towards the Dissenters • but if there were a greater degree of cm diality titan heretofore, it was beesuse on the part of the Di tenter, there were increasing proofs& a growing candour, he wr nut say of affection, towards the Established Church. Lord CALTHORPE explained. The Bishop of BATH and 'WELLS presented a petit; *erne effect from the inhabitants of Holy bum, in the liimpshire. and another from the Archdeacon and C Arch leaconry of Rochester. The Right Reverend nrind, dist no persons were better acquainted wit' I and onsets of the Church they condemned than the ' were.—Laid oft the table. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER present, same effect from the Rural Dean and Cler Cirencestes, hi the diocese of Gloucester.— The Earl of DARTMOUTH present Darlestaft, and another (we understood Laid on the table. Viscount DUDLEY and WAR' same effect from a place, the war ills Lordship observed, that aht he did not eoneur in the pram Earl DARNLEY, in obv deacon and Clergy of the the petition only prayed fr • the Catholics that were r • England, and were Iv i wished the House to concesslonS that in ' the one or the oth The Bishop 1 glad to find :mon, sad h The Ear' Lord I. trace th of Ds T th ; I / I LONDON: FRIDAY. APRIL 22. 1825. No. 6,985. Price 74. PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. away with the Roman Catholic Association had not paced. The language of the petition was therefore very strong, but in his opinion it Was not too strong. The petition was then read. Lord KING said, that as Nottingham was a large and populous town, it was somewhat strange that the petition was not more nu merously signed. Re happened to have one of the placards that were posted about the town. calling upon the inhabitants to come forward and sign this petition. This petition contained, in his opinion, most unwarrantable language, and, amongst other things, charged the Catholics with being • people " accursed of God." Lie recollected a Right Rev. Prelate had stated, that the Clergy had used no means to stimulate the people to come forward ; he should be glad to know if in the present instance this assertion was correct. THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. A petition was presented from the Homan Catholic inhabitants of the Midland Counties, in favour of the Catholic Hill.—Ordeteck to lie on the tab le. Sir T. LE" !'ABRIDGE presented a petition front the inhabi tants of Chord, in Somersetshire, against farther concession to the Homan Catholics.—Laid on the table. Mr. G. RICE, promoted two Inmate petition from Llat.inllen and Liasdeaneld. Mr. BLACKBURN presented a similar petition tom IVour brook. The petitions were Ordered to be printed. MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS. A Message wu brought fseeZ the bards, begging the attendaece of theßight Hon. Bennis Blown, to give evidence before the Com mittee of Privileges, now sitting to determine the right of Lod Roscommon to vote fee the eleaton of a Representative Peer for I relatd. A danar request was made for the attendance of the Right Hera. Gunboats before are committee on the State of Ireland. Leave grassed. AT PETI Sir E. KNATC C H B U LL I The lion. Baronet said the pennon was agreed to at a public tneeting held at the Town Hall. On the question that the petition be ht up_ t • Mr. CA LCR AFT said, the Honourable net might see the when a petition came before thg House, agreed to at a public meet ing, no remark wu made on it. , (Hear, bear.) It was only when some ur,justifiable means were resorte d to t h at any not i ce was taken of it. He never opposed the full exercise of the tight of pa irion ing ; on the contrary, he wished to hear the full, fate, loud voice e the people. (Hear, hear.) He objected to its being whisp e r e d about in holes and comers, as was idc case with the petition from London (hear) ; but when a public county meeting en a public town meeting was held, a fair way was atfoided of ascertaining the public feeling. Ile would be the last man i n th e House to with hold his respect front it. Was not he, however, justified in saying, the course pursued Pith respect ta the petition about which the strange account that night given was highly derogatory to the right of petitionin ? Mr. C. PEI m a d e some observ a ti o ns th a t ors quite in audikle In theta& . - t;ir E. KNATCH BULL was glad he made ilk observations, as ji A l they had the effect of proving there was no disposition to throw ob stacles ia the lay of petitioning, and that where petitions were properly got up, the House would as properly receive them. Ni' blame could be attached to him for any thing improper that wait net:fleeted with the petition from London : with that petition ho surely had nothing whatever to do. (Hear.) Mr. DAVENPORT presented a similar petition from Gres bury. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL _presented a similar one from Ippledea, in the county of D.ron. The petitions were ordered to be printed. --- - ROUSE OF LORDS, TutrasDAY, Aran 21, NU fheHishop of CHESTER said, he had merely stated that the Clergy had used no means to convene public meetings to discuss subjects of this nature. He thought public meetings were the Wont of all places for such purposes. Lord HOLLAND thought that on questions of a public nature public meetings were the best places for discussing them. The petition was then laid on the table. The Duke of NEWCASTLE then presented a petition of a similar nature. from the Bailiffs and Commonalty of the Borough of Braintree.s—Laid on the table. COUNTER-PETITIONS. Earl FITZWILLIA 31 presented a petioo in favour of Catholic Emancipation, from Peterborough. The Noble Earl observed, that the petition was agreed to at a public meeting, after the subject of it had been discussed. The Bishop of CIII:STER wished to know by how many per. sons the petition was signed. Earl FITZ WILL LAX replied (as we understood) that it con tained 128 septum& Laid on the.tabls. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from certain Protestants resident at Lewes, in the county of Sussex, in favour of ounces. 'ions to the Catholics. He could not say whether they were Pro. testants of the Church of England, or to what clan of Dissenters they belonged, but it was certainly a great compliment paid to Dissenters in general, to see how happy the Reverend Bench opposite was to fight under the regis of Non-conformists. He admitted that the opinions of individuals were not to be MA sidered as those of the body of which they formed a part. He was not sufficiently acquainted with Dissenters to know what was their prevailing feeling. Out of the three great congregations and denominations of Dissenters, lie was not aware that a single petition had yet proceeded against the Catholic claims, whilst every time that important question had been discussed, he had been honoured by their entrusting him with a petition in its favour. Bodies might certainly change their opinions, but this ought not to be inferred from the conduct or sentiments of a few individuals. COMBINATION LAWS. Mr. GOULBUILN presented a petition from the master cabinet. upholsterers and cabinet-makers of Dublin, ptaying foe at al era. tion of the Combination Laws. FREE TRADE. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Salis bury, in favour of FreeTrade..—Laitltr the table. Mr. HU3IE could not let pass the n2portuttil of remarking oh the exaggerated statement of :he Right - Honourable Gentleman op posite. (31r. Peel)'who said that ['city lives were lox: since the repaid or the Combination Laws. Now the fact was, and he as certained it from the best possible information, that only two were lost. SCOTCH PEERS. Lord HOLLAND said,that he wished to ask a question of the Noble Viscount opposite (Lord Melville), who had given so much consideration to the laws which respected the trial of Scotch Peers for high treason, as to whether he intended this Session to propose any alteration in the laws which related to forfeiture and the cor ruption of blood ? Mr. Secretive PEEL said, that if he originally made a mistake as to the number, the Honourable 31ember had doubled it. What he said eras, that within the lett live or six ears, ten lives hid been lost, and that the loss of hem was owing to violence, growing out of some combinations. This statement he made on the authority of a gentleman examined before the Committee. From what that gentleman said, it appeared that two were killed and twenty re ceived severe bodily injury. Ile (Mr. Peel) said rolling from himself; he merely mentioned what he hail read in the evidence. After a few words from :Mr. 111JME and Mr. PE L, the pe tition was ordered to be referred to the Committer on.the Combina tion Laws. INDIA. Lord MELVILLE replied, that it was not his intention to bring forward any measure on the subject. Loll HOLLAND said, that, as such was the case, he would give notice of his intention to-morrow of bringing in a Bill to abo lish the laws relative to forfeiture and the corruption of blood, as they related to Scotch Peers. The Metropolitan Police Magistrates Bill, the Innkeepers' Al lowance Bill, and the Threatenuig Allowance Bill, went through Committees, and were reported. The House then adjourned. Mr. C. AVYNN presented certain perms relatin g to trades nude with the cadre tunes i. Irdia—Ordered to pruned. IRISH FRE Elie HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY, MiaiL 21. Mr. LITTLETON postpored till to-morrow his motion no sinning 40 Irish Freeholders. He hoped the Honourable :Hateber for Aberdeen would allow it to take precedence of his motion which stood for that day. _ SAW CANAL. In the Earl of Roscommon's claim to vote in the election of Irish Representative Peers, documentary evidence was tendered at the bar; and the Gentleman who was thief Clerk in the Parliament Office of Ireland before the Union, together with Richard srl i o , Ea+ M.P., were examined by th e At torne y-G enera l, on behalf of the 'Crown, in regard thereto. BALGANY CAUSE. In prosecution of the hearing of this &Meal, there appeared as the Counsel on each Ride the following Scots eminent Advocates. For the Hon. Mrs. Fullerton, Robert Forsyth, John Tawse, and Patrick Robertson, Estios. ; for the Respondent, Sir flew Dal rymple Hemilton, Ban., James Sloncrieff, James Keay. and John A. Murray, Eisqrs. Mr. Forsyth appeared at the bar for the first time since he has been Advocate, now upwards of thirty-two years, and stated the case on the part of the Appellant with per spicuity and distinctness, in a speech of five hours, giving a de tailed statement of the facts of thecae, and of the procedure which has taken place in the Court of Session ever since the first institu. tion of the action on the part of the Appellant, Mrs. Fullerton. 'Phis he did with acuteness. Ile then argued the case in point of law with ingenuity, and showing throughout both research and He will be succeeded in his argument by Mr. Patrick Robertson ; and then Mr. Moncrieff will argue the case f r the Respondent. 'l'he case itself, being one of the reduction of the title by which Sir Hew fhtleymnle Hamilton has for so many years held and eajoyed the estate of lialgany , in addition to North Bee. wick. Mrs. Fullerton's plea mainly is, that site ought to have been the right heir to the property, she alleging that the predeceesor, to whom Si r Hew succeeded, by an act or deed, altered the ma. of SUCACIIIIiOO. and thereby made is flaw to Sir Hew, treereas, but for that art, it would have naturally descended in an untried line to Mrs. Fullerton. Hitherto the Court of Session have repeatedly decided in favour of the Respondent, Sir Hew Dalrymple, that he is the lawful heir, and that his predecessor did no act to create a forfeiture of his right. Lord Chandos, and other Members from the House of Commons, brought up several Private Bills. Mr. Ad rian, from the Treasury, presented Accounts of the quan tity of Wines and Spirits Bonded in the London Docks, pursuant to Act of Parliament. Mr. Waters, from the Court of King's Beech, presented the Returns from that Court, from the Court of Common Pleas, and from the Court of Exchequer, pursuant to Act of Parliament. The Earl of LIVERPOOL laid certain papers upon the table, and moved that they be referred to the Committee on the state of Ireland.—Ordered. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL. t'ped HOLLAND presented a petition from the artisans in the neighbourhood of London, in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill. His Lordship declined giving any opinion on the subject of the petition.—Laid on the table. 'ANTI-CATHOLIC PETITIONS. The LORD CHANCELIAIR presented a petition from the inhabitants of Stafibrd against the claims of the Catholics, area another from the inhabitants of the parish of Burton-Headwater.— Laid or the table. The Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a similar petition from the Dissenters of the town of Margate. Lord KING said, that a considerable change had been recrntly perceived in the manner of the Right Reverend Prelates opposite ; • ho were now disposed to be very cord dal to those Diseen t ten, of whom a former ornament of their bench observed, that the Cabes were nearer and dearer to the church.—Laid on the table. Lord lit/LLE presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of Newtown Bushel—Laid on the table. Lord KENYON presented a petition to the same effect from the Parish of St. 3ilathew, Bethnal-green, which he observed was signed by upwards of 2,000 persons, although it was only two days for signature; and another from the parish of Hackney, in the county of Middlesex.—laid on the table. The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition to the same effect, which he said was of a somewhat singular nature. It ema nated from the congregation of Protestant Dissenter, of the Jewry street Chapel, in the city of London, and was of some importance, because of the observations it contained. It was perfectly under stood that every Dissenting Congregation formed of itself, as it were, a distinct church . • but still the petition was worthy of consideration, although it was not signed by a great number of 'mesons. The petition went to an extent which would, per. haps, somewhat surprise their Lordships, as it did not only con demn the Bill now in progess in the other House for granting the claims of the e:atholies, but it expressed p perfect contentment in the existing order of things, as might be they conceived to trench upon themselves; and they most anxiously hoped that those claims would not he granted, het by el doing the interest of the Es tablished Church, which they conceived to preserve the Protestant Religion, might he injured. Certainly among tl.e persons composing the Society from which the petition came, there might tomer dissentient voices, but he •••nsidereel that the greet body of Dissenters in this kingdom viewed with great alarm the pro ceedings in question, as they conceived that by the safety of the Established Church the Protestant religion was secured; and be cause they conceived that under no system could they expect to enjoy &toleration so perfect or so liberal as that which they now enjoyed. For several years he had been an attentive observer of the proceedings of that body, and such wee his decided opinion. He had already said, that the sentiments contained in this petition ought not to be considered as the sentiments of the great bode of Dissenters, unless other and more extensive petitions of a similar nature were presented ; but even this petition was worthy of aura tioo, because, although signed by a comparatively small number, it was signed by a moat respectable class. Ile had had great satisfac tion in presenting this petition, as it not only proved that the Dis senters viewed with great alarm the proceedings in favour of the Catholiee—a subject on which the opinions of Noble Lords were somewhat divided—hut it also proved that among the Dissenters there was a spirit of ingenuousness and candour manifested towards the Established Church. He should therefore move—" That the pe tition front the Illinister, DePCOIIS, and Congregation of the Jewry. street chapel, in the tit y of London, be now read. Earl GROSVENOR asked how many persons had signed the petition ? The Bishop of CHESTER replied, that he did not know the meet number. They were not very numerous. The petition was then read and laid on the table. Lon/ CALTIIORPE said, that many very warm friends of the Established Church had taken a different view of the subject from those Dissenting petitioners, and they had done so from an anxious wish to support the interests of that Church. For himself ho would most cordially vote for the removal of those restrictions, because he conceived the most determined enemy of the Established Church could not have devised a method to keep alive the spirit of Popery in Ireland, and to prevent Pmtestantion from gaining ground in that country, more effectual, than those restrictions. His view of the ease was not likely to be shaken because a petition containing contrary sentiments was presented by a body of Dissentent,although with respect to the Dissenters generally. he believed they had rose. tiered essential service to the cause of religion by their zeal, their faithfulness, and their unwearied assiduity in that cause, and above ell, be producing a reaction on the part of the Church of England. lie did not, therefore, regret any circumstance that had led a Right Reverend Prelate to speak of that body in terms of cordia lity and respect, although it was somewhat new and unusual. He (Lord Calthorpe) did not believe that the great body of Dissenters opposed the Catholics • he was convinced that the contrary was the case with those of the bissenters, who were the best educated, and therefore the most able to form a sound opinion on such an im. portant subject—a subject which involved some of the nicest points of legislation. What he had said on a former night he would now repeat, that until petitions came from those persons who were usually and justly considered as expressing public opinion, it was wrong to say that public opinion was against the granting of eman cipation to the Homan Catholics. The Bishop of CHESTER observed, that although no man living had a higher opinion of the Clergy than he had, lie certainly considered the magistrates of the country as fit associates with thein, and very many magistrates had signed the vstinus petitions against the Roman Catholics. On the part of himself and his Right Re verend Brethren, he disclaimed any unusual degree of cordiality towards the Dissenters • but if there were a greater degree of cor diality titan heretofor e, it was beesuse on the part of the Die. nenters there were increasing more of a growing candour, he would not say of sffection, towards the Established Church. Iced CALTHORPE explained. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition to the *erne effect from the inhabitants of Holy bum, in the county of liimpshire. and another from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Arch leaconey of Rochester. The Right Reverend Prelate ob.! :ervi.d, that no persons were better acquainted with the doctrines and tenets of the Church they condemned than the Protestant Clergy were—Laid on the table. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a petition to the saine effect from the Rural Dean and Clergy of the Deanery of Cirencestes, hi the diocese of Gloucester. —Laid on the table. The Earl et DARTMOUTH presented a similar petition from Darlesteo, sad another (we understood) from West Bomwich-- Laid on the table. Viscount DUDLEY and WARD presented a petition to the same effect from a place, the name of which we could not learn. Ills Lordship observed, that although he presented the petition, lie did not concur in the prayer of it.—Laid on the table. Earl DARNLEY, in observing on the petition from the Arch ,ltACol and Clergy of the Arehdeaconey of Rochester, said. that the petition only prayed for the House to matt measures towards he Catholics that were neeaswy for the welfare of the Church of England, and were not hazardous to the Constitution. Now he wished the House to do nothing more than this, and to make no on ceessloos that in the least degree hazarded the welfare of either the one or the other. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS observed, that he was glad to find the Noble Earl had paid some attention to the pe tition, sad he hoped every Noble Lord would do the same. The Earl of DARNLEY explained. Lord COM BERMERE presented a petition to the 'tame effect, tr,,tn the Minister, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of the parish at Denbury, in the diocese of Cheshire.--l Aid on the table. 'flit Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a similar petition from the town of Nottingham and its vicinity. The Noble Duke ob. Tomei, that when the petition was set on foot. the Act fee doing k I A Mr. JONES presented; petition from Carmarthen, against the Ship Canal. ST. KATHARINE'S DOCK. _ _ On this Bill, which was not,aswas sup passed on Tues day evening, being proposed to be read a third time, Mr. CALVERT said, that he should, in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, oppose this Bill ; but be hoped that his Honourable Friend (3k. Grenkll) would consent to its postpone ment, as it would be of the greatest inconvenience to divide this evening. After some conversation between Mr. CALVERT and Mr. GREN FELL, it was finally agreed that it should be postponed till to-morrow evening. COLLIER DOCK. 111 r. CA INERT presented a petition from St. George's-in-the- East, against the Collier Dock Bill. ' Alderman 11 - 0(111 presented a petition from the Thames Water men and Lightennen, praying to be beard by Counsel against the MlL—Referred to the Committee. DER3IONDSEY DOCK. Mr. Aldermni similar petition against the Bermondsey Dock. THAMES QUAY. A petition WVI presented sexinst the Thames Quay, from the Inhabitants of Ficet.street and neighbourhood. ASSESSED TAND.4. Lord STANLEY Itresente3 a petition praying for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes. from Preston. - . Mr. MAST DAPIS presented a similar petition from Saint Mary's. BEER DUTIES. - . . Mr. 3IABCRLY announced the postponement of his motion for the repeal of the Duty on Beer, till the sth play. A petition from the University of Edinburgh was presented, in favour of the Apothecaries' Bill.—Ordercd to lie on the table. A petition from certain persons in Scotland concerned in the whale trade was presented, and laid on the table. J. P. URANT withdrew his notice on the subject of wrongoua Imprisonment, and the delay of trials, in Scotland. Mr. 1111.1NDAV presented two petitions against alterations in the Corn Laws, one from the hundred of Itepburgh, and the other from the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. - - Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Protestant Ir.- habitants of Rochthill, in favour of Catholic Emancipation. After the presentation of this petition, SirJOHN NEWPORT wished to take this opportunity of making some explanation relative to the fairicated petition he pre sented to the Pot= the other night from Ratlinesloc. He had then in his hand a declaration from a person who had a principal share in the fabrication of tie petition, and who asserted that not one Catholic was engaged in it. He s houldl put the documents lie had in his possession into the hands of the Committee, and he hoped that the persons who had so flagrantly iniposcd on the House would not go =punished. Mr. PEEL fully concurred in the propriety of the course taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman. He begged at the same time to state, that the impression on his mind had never been, that it was fabricated by the Catholics : but Protestant or Catholic, he should be equally desirous to see such impositions repressed and punished. Atter some further discussion between Sir J. NEWPORT and Mr. C. WiLsOw, the subject was dropped. Mr. DAVENPORT presented a petition from Nantwich, against any further conuasions being made to the Catholics. /dr. H. SUMNER presented a petition from the landowners in the county of Surrey, praying that no further concessions be made to the Roman Catholics. Mr. T. WILSON presented a petition from the parish of St. Swithin to the same effect. Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented two petitions from certain Ito. ', man Catholics of the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and of the town of Newmatle.opon-Tyne, praying for a repeal of the penal laws affecting members of their Church. Colonel LESLIE presented a petition from the parish of Doonoth, in the county of Monaghan, in Ireland, against the Roman Ca tholic Claims. Petitions were also presented to the same effect from the hundred of Repburgh, in the county of Derby, and from the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Sr J. MACKINTOSH then rose, saying, that he held In his hand a petition from a considerable number of the Bankers, Mer chants, Manufacturer', and other respectable inhabitants of the city of Glasgow, in favour of the Catholic Claims. He hoped the House would give him credit for unwillingness to occupy their time under present circumstances; but when it was perceived that a more than ordinary show of attention was due to the petition which he was then shoal to present, they would feel that he was not unduly trespassing. He could not better state the claims which the petition had upon the attentive consideration of the House than in the words of the late Member for Glasgow (Mr. Finlay), a Gentleman too well known to the hlestibers of that House to require from him any eulogium, or to make it necessary that he should enlarge upon the intellectual power or extensive information of that highly respectable person. In a letter which he had re ceived from Mr. Finlay, and which he would then read to the House, it was stated, that the petitioners had requested the writer to place the petition in the hands of Sir James Mackintosh, having attached to it the signatures of many most respectable individuals who were desirous of submitting to Parliament their deliberate opinion on the subject of the Catholic claims. He could hear testi mony to the fact, that the petitioners were of different and opposite opinions on many political subjects, and were therefore not ob noxious to any imputation of party bias. Ile (5ir.1.31.) believed, and was informed, that If selection had not been attended to more than accumulation the number of the signatures might have been increased tenfold. Amongst the names of these petitioners he saw many who were in the habit of supporting his Majesty's Ministers, and of differing in this respect and in others from several of their fellow. petitioners. To show the House the just views which the peti tioners entertained, he would read an extract from the petition, which was to the effect that the petitioners had seen with much sa tisfaction the announcement of there having been introduced into that Ham a Bill for the Removal of the Disabilities under which their Roman Catholic brethren laboured ; that they considered the measure then before the House proceeded upon grounds of wisdom end just policy, as well upon the true principles of civil and rat- I~ioui libeety—principles which maintained the beat security for the teenstitneion and the Church, by the practice of justice and libe rality. Thii latter observation he (Sir J. M.) thought contained the moat unanswerable argument in favour of tbe Bill ; be meant that which was founded upon the security that mold from the dispensing to the Catholics justice, and from them w i t h hia sise `liberality. The petition was signed by one liana, and 1 from the characters of the individuals who so axed their sips. tares. he hesitated not to say, that they might be truly taken as the Irepresentatives of the great bOdy y, of the int ligence aad the property 1 of Glasgow • and in speaking of that city, he spoke of one, which, I for weulth,for knowledge, for population, for moral worth, and ; general intelligence, held a high rank in the country. In say mg this, however, he was ready to acknowledge, that a pnti. tion of a very opposite character had come from the Corporanon of Hammermen in that city ; and also from the Corporation of But. cheer. He was far thorn saying that the people of Glow were per fectly unanimous on this head,or from denying that tbManimermen, m well as that very ceceseary bpdyebe Iliechers,had expressed sen timents opposed to the principles contained in the pedalo; which he then held in his hand. God forbid that be should deny to these individuals the right of delivering their opinions, or that he should seek to detract from the value and weight which ought, in justice, to a:tacit to those opinions ; but without speaking with th e s light est disrespect of of either the hammermen or the butchers, he might say that one hundred of the wealthiest persons, the meet cultivated minds, and the most eminent in station and respectability in such a city as Glasgow, were better entitled to the consideration, and the attentive consideration, of that House, than were even the butchers and hammermen who had recently forwarded petition. hostile to A the claims of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The only part of Scotland in which any considerable opposition existed against the concession to the CsOtolies, was lit the West; and he could ameeely *aril/ate it to soy other trauglipi arVoiMiim of that puritanical spirit--that covenantieg ziellkallebieh It anti, In many cases. fostered in that part tithe country. In so speaking of the zeal and spirit of the cevenanters, he meant not disrespect to that zeal. When it was directed against religious oppression— when it was exerted in maintaining civil rights, and securing re. ligious freedom—it should justly be the object of our grateful re. collection. He conceived them to be wrong chronologically ; they were, he thought, one hundred and 4fty years too late. Were he living in the middle of the sixteenth, or even the seventeenth cen tury, he would entertain very different opinions from those which he now supported. lie believed in his conscience, that the re. spectable individuals who had signed that petition, spoke the sense of a very large majority of the well-informed and intelligent laity of Great Britain. Here they had a petition on the one hand from the bankers, the merchants, the manufacturers, and others, of the most eminent station in Glasgow ; and on the other hand they had one from the hammermen and the butchers. It was a question of authority.in which they had Pitt and Fox on the one side,and the Rev. Sir 'Harcourt Lees and Prebendary Denis on the other. It was an account in which characters were to be balanced against ' each other for the last twenty-five years. When he spoke thus ' with reference to the laity, he meant no disrespect to the clergy— he intended to distinguish, not to disparage. He felt persuaded that the Clergy of the Church of Scotland acre not opposed to the just demands of the Roman Catholics, for that church was founded upon die rock of poverty, and had no reason to in. dulge such fears as would require the securities of tests and ex clusions. When he saw that men, who, perceiving nothing to apprehend from the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, had candidly expressed such their opinion —when he saw such men,not. withstanding their learning, their moral worth, and all the qualifi cations which entitle them to preferment, excluded front the favour of those who dispensed church patronage, he could not but feel that the opposition to this great measure was confined within nar. row limits, and was by no means actuating the whole mass. After a few words from Mr. D. BROWN, the purport of which was not heard in the gallery, Mr. HUIIIE intimated, that he had been for some time in ex pectation of a petition from Glasgow, for the delay of which he could not account, but which he had been informed would have attached to it no less than six hundred signatures, and the prayer of which would be similar to that presented by his Right lion. and Learned Friend (Sir James elackintosh.) He thought it ne cessary to make these observations, for the purpose of removing the impression that the public mind in Glasgow was opposed to concession to the Boman Catholics. Thought it may have high sounding effect to say that such and such Corporations had peti tioned against the Bill, yet he had Tensor to believe that at several of the meetings where these petitions were got up, there were not more than nine or ten Individuals present ' yet these petitions were forwarded to Parliament under the seal of the Corporation, and spoke of afterwards as expressive of public opinion. He was happy to any that in his part of the country opinions had decidedly alter ed on the subject. From not one of the boroughs which he repre. misted, had he received instructions at all hostile to the measure now before Parliament. Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON had heard, with great satisfaction, the sentiments which prevailed on this subject in so important a city as Glasgow , and amongst the respectable portion of its inha bitants, for he had lately read most disgusting, disgraceful, and ontrugeous language, attributed to persona who spoke at a public meeting in that city—language which was a libel on a clergy con spicuous for every quality that VMS calculated to raise their pro fession. He alluded to what WAS reported to have been said at a late meeting of the Synod of Glasgow, and he now heartily rejoiced to see the people generally of that city relieved from the imputation of Mr. J. MAXWELL said, that many of the petitioners were at tached in principle to his Majesty's Government, and thought they acted front a mistaken view of the subject, rather than from a well considered opposition to the Bill. Thcy had suffered under the persecutions of Episcopacy, and they confounded that in their own minds with Popery. They might be prejudiced, but he trus.cd that ultimately they would lesve the subject to the wisdom of Par liament, Me. J. P. GRANT made one or two observations to the effect, that no change of opinion had taken place, u stated by the previous speakers. Mr. C. WILSON vindicated the Clergy of the Established Church from the charges made against them in the speech of the Honourable and Learned Member (Sir J. 3lackintosh) who pre sented the petition. Those Clergy were, he said, the successors of those who freely had laid down their lives in support of their min. eiples, and those of the present day he was sure would be no less devoted to the maintenance of their faith. This petition was then brought op, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the inhabitants of Burlinscoope, also another petition from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Felids, against the Roman Catholic Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. R. PRICE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Kingtown, in favour of the Bill for the relief of the Roman Ca tholtes.—Laid on the table. Mr. HU.SIL presented a petition from the Catholic inhabitants of Blackburn, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, in favour of the Catholic Bill; also, a petition from John Lawless, a Roman Catholic resident in Belfast, praying Emancipation for the Romnn Catholics, unencumbered with the two provisions re lative to forty shillinfreeholders, and the salaries of the Catholic Clergy. The Hon. Member expressed his own determination to oppose those two measures whenever they shkuld come before the House; at the same time it was not his wish to retard or interfere with the great cause of Catholic Emancipation by any premature discussion of .bat he must consider highly objectionable provi sions. He further thought every Protestant who was a well-wisher to the peace and prosperity of the country should desire the Eman cipation of the Catholics to be effected, independent of those in tended regulations respecting t h e Clergy, and the forty shilling freeholders.—The petitions were laid on the table. COMBINATION LAWS-PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE. Mr. HUME had to present a petition from the Seamen of Stock ton-on-Tees, in the county of Durham, against the Combination Laws, and complaining of charges which had been thought against I them in the course of the debates of the House. The Hon. Member was aware that an objection might be taken to the peti tion, on the ground that they could not be aware of what passed in that House. and had no right to animadvert on its proceedings. However, lion. Members must know. that what passed in the House did find its way to the public, and that being the case, petitioners had come forward to say they felt aggrieved at charges being made against them, for crimes of which they were not guilty. On the motion that the petition be laid on the table, Sir T. LETHBRIDGE WAS aware that there existed a mode by which the proceedings of that House came before the public, but thought that circumstance no justification of the present petition. Ile collected from what had fallen from the Hon. Member who held the petition in his hand (3lr. Hume), that it contained neither more nor less than arguments and observations upon sentiments which had fallen from Honourable Members in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties in that House. He considered that • breach of the privilege of Parliament, and would oppose the bring ing up the petition. if such a course were to be permitted there would be no cm' of petitions, and every proceeding of the House would be liable to similar animadversions. Ile trusted the House would consider the tendency of such a course of proceeding, before they gave it the sanction of precedent in the present case. Mr. A. BARING expressed his concurrence in what bad fallen front the Honourable Baronet who spoke last. Ile thought there was a great deal of justice in his remarks. Mr. IVY NN would prefer not entering into the consideration of what was or wu not the rule of the House at the present moment. It would be much the better course if the Honourable Member fur Monttose (Mr. Hume) would concept to withdraw the petition. Mr. Il LIME did not consider this a petition upon a trilling or or dinary subject : it appeared to allude to measures likely to involve the comfort and happiness of a numerous class of individuals. As to the petition itself, he bad often before presented petitions of the same kind and similarly wooled ; and as to the objection with re- Rpm to the mode in which the knowledge of the proceedings of the House got abroad, that was too slight an objection to require any attention. The mode wu perfectly well known. Ile held in his hand another petition to the same effect, from 7 or 1100 individuals ia Sunderland, who were exactly in the same situation as the Stock ton petitioners, and approached the House in the same manner. However, as an objection had been raised, and rather than have the petition rejected, he would consent to withdraw it, and give the in dividuals concerned an opportunity to amend it. The petition was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. Alderman THOAIPSON said, he held in his hand a peti. tion from theichabitants of the cities of London and Westminster and the borough of Southwark, preying that no farther concessions be granted to the Roman Catholics. This petition did not proceed from a public meeting :—thirty or forty individuals had assembled and agreed upon the draft of the petition, which was signed by 3,000 persons of great respectability. The address of every sub scriber was attached to his name. Mr. J. MARTIN would not take up the attention of the House long, but was desirous of stating two eirciimstances connected with the petition about to be presented by the Worthy Alderman (Thompson.) Theme were facts that had come within his own knowledge, and be could, therefore, state them with confidence. On Saturday last, a friend called upon liim,,(Mr. Martin) and in formed him, that as he was passing the door of the London Tavern. he observed a boy, in the dress of a charity school, stationed before it. who invited him in to sign the petition against the Catholies. His friend felt some degree of curiosity, and rent in to see the nature of the proceeding. Four sheets of parchment were lying on a table. to which some signatures were attached. His friend inquired if he could see the petition or a copy of it ; but was answered that there were neither to be seen. Ile next inquired of the waiter if any public meeting had taken place, at whiat the petition was agreed on : the answer was, " there were 20 er 30 gentlemen here yesterday." lie was then urged to sign the petition, and told he might if he liked leave (h. or /01. towards defraying the expenses of the petition. (A laugh.) He (Mr. Martin) felt Interested in the ststetnent, and west ii asensutay *ids his friend to the Lontricn Tavern. There they found the same charity boy and the four sheets of parchniert on the table. On en tering, a pen was put into his hand. and he was requested to sign. His answer was, that it was not ctistomary with hint to sign papers' without previous examination, and a knowledge of their contents. He asked for a sight of the petition, but as before there was no pe tition to be seen. (Hear.) Having stated those simple facts, he would leave it to the House to judge how far that petition, signed by 3,000 names, was the petition of the Cities of London, West. rummer, and the Borough of Southwark. or how far It was even the petition of the subscribers. lie felt a strong conviction that many anti-Catholic petitions were got up in the sante way, and be was the more confirmed in that opinion from the fact that there had been few or no public meetirga called to take the subject into consider. ation, a thing that could not have happened if the public mind was not known to be favourable to the claims of the Catholics. Mr. JOHN SMITH could confirm the statement of his Ho nourable Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin). No petition lay for inspection at the London Tavern ; he had put the question repeatedly, and could get no other answer. There was no such thing. Under those circumstances no doubt but many signatures were procured by soliciting passengers in that populous part, some of whom might have that moment en. tered London as strangers. If there was any part of the kingdom where liberal opinions prevailed upon the subject of Catholic redress. it was in the cities of London and Westminster. If this had not been the case, and were not that circumstance well known to the propagators of the" No Pope'," cry, public meet. ings would have been called for the purpose of petitioning; but the parties whu were desiruue of doing so well knew they would have experienced a defeat. In his opinion very unworthy proceed ings had been resorted to for the purpose of getting up those peti tions. Alarming representations had been made, lie did rot doubt, in obscure parts of the country, to individuals who laboured to procure their bread, and were not the best judges of such a subject. They had been told their religion was in danger their), and that apprehensions of violent proceedings on the part of the Catholics were entertained. (Hear.) Persons capable of such conduct were either extremely ignorant, or something else, which he was un willingto say. Every honourable man was bound, in the pursuit of polit ical objects, to adopt a candid anti fair coutse of proceeding. It was not his intention to Cast any general stigma on the Clergy, whom he believed, generally speaking, to he a fair and liberal body of men, but he feared there were individuals to be found among them prepared to use all sorts of eft:iris to effect their pur pose. If general meetings had been called he had no hesitation in saying immense majoritiss would have appeared in favour of the measure. Mr. Alderman WOOD said every step had been taken to get np public meetings in vain. The fact was. the people of London were not now to be scared by talk of Smithfield burnings. That the measure ought to be carried was the opinion of the majority of the Citizens of London. lle would shortly have to appear before his fellow-citizens in another capacity, but . he would rather forfeit his seat than oppose the present Dill fur the relief of the Roman Catholics. -----.-.. ..... . Mr. BROUGHAM rose for the purpose of returning his warmest thanks to the worthyAldortnan, who had just distinguished himself by the expression of his bold, manly. and honest opinion. It did him (Alderman Wood) infinite credit, and if every Honourable Member who might have experienced threats tor giving an un biassed and honest opinion on this most vitally important question were to act the gallant part adopted by the Honourable and Worthy Member for London, lie would discharge his duty, and eventually have nothing to fear. He (Mr. B.) repeated, there was little dan ger of a Member's being able to meet his constituents on good and favourable terms, provided lie did his duty, however it might be the interest of certain individuals to represent to the contrary.— Their constituents would have to thank the Members who acted like the Worthy Alderman, and gave a conscientious expression of their public sentiments and opinions on so momentous a question. Mr. Alderman T11031PS()N said, the petition had been pub licly advertised in the newspapers. As to the circumstance alluded to by the Hon. 31embers (Messrs. Smith and Martin), it must have occurred during the time when, froin some unsuspected cause, the person who had the petition in charge was absent.--(A laugh.)— Subsequently every person had a copy of the petition put into his hands. He (Alderman T.) was not aware of any attempt to get up a public meeting. Mr. T. WILSON preferred petitioning to public meetings. 31r. CALCRA FT said, public meetings would have been un doubtedly called, if majorities could have been procured against the Catholic Bill. In 1813, when a different feeling was abroad, there was abundance of public and county meetings. He did not dispute the respectability of the signatures attached to this petition, but three thousand signatures, for London, Westminster, and Soilthwark, constituted no adequate expression of the public voice. It had been said advertisements were put in the newspapers ; did the charity boy examine those whom he solicited as to whether they had f.:en those advertisements ? (Hear.) Mr. Alderman THOMPSON explained. Sir E. KNATCHBUI.I.--If they summoned public in letings they were accused of an attempt to agitate the public mini and raise the "No Popery" cry.--(llear.)-- If they petitioned. they were accused of clandestine conduct.—(Hear.)--A II he should say was, if they did exert themselves in consequence of such rematches, and the " No Popery" cry were raised, and die public mind agitated, on the heads of their opponents be the blame (hear), nut on them. (Hear, hear.) Mr. A. BARING shought it necessary to see bow petitions were got up ; and therefore it was that there did undoubtedly pre vail an interest to know the history of that presented this evening from !Westminster, London, and Southwark. Far be it from him to question the right of petitoning ; but when a petition was brought forward, coming from a district containing tens of thou. sands of inhabitants, and aigued by only three thousand, it was material that it should not be passed off as a petition of the whole. Putting altogether the paucity of numbers out of the question, he must say that it appeared from the statement of his Honourable Friend that the manner of getting it up was very discreditable. (Hear, hesr.) He had listened with great attention to the petitions presented to the House against the Catholic claims, and found that • pretty considerable portion of them came front the Clergy. (Hear, and a laugh.) They all seemed anxious, too, after reciting that the peti.ion Caine from " the Archdeacon, and Clergy"—to put in—" and others ;" by which an attempt was made to confer additional respectability on it. There was one thing worthy of re mark—it was, that no considerable town was fairly convened. (Hear, hear.) No means were afforded of ascertaining the general voice of the people ; this lie would contend for, that no matter where petitions were got up. whether in public or in private, there was an evident alteration in the feeling of the country on the Catholic question. (Hear, hear.) Mr. R. MARTIN wished to come at a knowledge of Mt public opinion. Ile thmiglii that could be best aseertaioed by public discussion. As a friend to the Catholics and their cause. he would submit it to public discussion. (Hear, hear.) Now was the best time for that. There were now in London gentlemen from Ireland fully able to tell their story at any public meeting. (Great laughter, and cries of " Order.") He would supplicate even the' llonourable Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) to commit it now to dis cussion, as the best test of the accuracy of this statement ; here we have people competent to talk on the part of Ireland.— (Laughter.) They were not, to be sure, Members of that (lone; but there were many other places at which they were qualified to speak. An Hommrable Member, as we understood, said they were not qualified.] Well. if they were not qualified, they had the power and means of qualifying themselves. (Laughter.) ADERCRO3IBIi did not complain of the appealing fairly to the feelings of the public ; that was not his complaint, but that surely was not a fair appeal that was addressed to tLe pm. indices and worst passions of the people. That was what he would ever denominate and denounce as the "No Popery" cry. He complained that the question wan not fairly stated to the people. No man could think more highly of the right of priponing. tle questioned not the exercise of that right ; but when the passions, and not the sound judgment, were appealed to, then there were most unquestionably grounds for complaint. It would appear from a communication made to him, in which it was stated that the people were told at a public meeting by a Her. Clergyman, that there was danger of the Protestants being burned by the Catholics. lie did not know of his own knowledge that the Gentleman said so. Ile mentioned the eircnmsuince to the House as it was represented to him. When persons tame forward armed with the sanction of religious authority, and all the influence of high otticiil situations, urging persons to petition, no candid man could say otherwise than that the petitions coming from them were, if nut the result of endue influenee, to he attributed to their prejudices and passions. DISTILLERY LAWS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he intended on to.mcrrow evening to bring Wore the II MAC a questit n of some importance. It was his wish to move certain resolutions pre paratory to bringing in a Bill to amend the Distillery Laws. It would expedite the business much, if on to-morrow he were allowed to move these resolutions in a Committee of Supply. as a preliminary measure. U3IE was ready to meet the wishes of the Hon. Mete. bee. He would therefore postpone his motion to Wednesdaynext. Mr. W. HORTON wished the Honourable Riember to he another day. RU3lE—Let it stand for that day, or any day af:ertrards that would be most convenient. (Heir, hear.) ADJOURNED DEBATE—C.ITHOIAC RELIEF BILL. tier F. BURDETT nicreed on s etthe ot tie dyfor :Titetina reading of the Catholic Relief Bill. On the question being put from the Chair, Mr. I.IOI. 7 LBURN rose—He commenced by saving, that when he concluded on the former evening, be had brought his observa tions to that point where his argument would have shown that the very Bill itself furnished the most incontroversible evidence of the danger likely to follow Emancipation. That very Bill pointed our the danger by the smithies which were intended to guard against it. Ile would proceed to consider how far these securities were calcu lated to achieve the important object fie which they were intro duced. To avert the danger which they were to guard against, the securities were threefold: those contained in the preamble of:11E11in ; that great and important one, coatained in the provision for establish - ing a commission to inquire into the loyalty of those who were to fill high offices in the Catholic Church, and that was to control the correspondence with foreign Powers ; the last anti most important security of all was that for limiting the Protestant succession of the throne. As to the first security, he begged to say, that be could not consider it IL any degree valid, since no future legislature would find any difficulty in disregarding the declaration of the preamble, if it thought it necessary. He would proceed to examine theopinions of those who brought forward the present Bill, and the opinions of those most intimately connected with it, as to how far that succession was secured from them. It would appear that it wax not looked on as immoveably fixed, and further, that they cast forward their views to the day when the throne should nu longer be filled by a Protestant. Ile would advert in the first it - stance to the evidence of a gentleman often mentioned in the House, Mr. O'Connell—evidence so important as to chaßge the opinions of the Honourable Member for Armagh (Mr. rflownlowl. From that evidence he thought it plain that if ever the issue of the Princess Sophia of Hanover should fail, an event which he (Mr. Goulburn) could not allude to without pain, and which the Cs. tholies seemed to contemplate as not improbable, the moment might be looked for as not fat distant when a Catholic might sac. crel to the throne of Great Britain. The next part of the preamble refers to the security of the Episcopal Church. If he (Mr. Goll• I burn) construed rightly the Act of Union, be understood it as se curing firmly and inviolably the permanency and superiority of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland, and as never having at any time contemplated the possibility of is being replaced by. or put in competition with, any other. Now, what did this Bill do for the preservation of that supremacy ? Why., it recognised tint existence and establishment of a rival Roman Catholic EpiEcopaze in all its splendor. Ile had heard with satisfaction his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland assert, that as long as the Catholic Prelates were content to call themselves Roman C.uho lie Bishops, they were not overstepping the just hounds of their acknowledged privileges; but the moment they departed from that language, and called therriwnves Bishops of the Church, they were wrong—they invaded the privileges of Zhe Protestant Epia. copacy, and violated the principle of the Constitution. If, then. they were to have, as he (Mr. Gnulburn) had heard from common rumour--and one-half of the arguments by which this Bill was supported are founded upon common rumour—it they were to have a Catholic Priesthood, paid throughout till its gradations by the Government of the country, fixed in all its titles and dignities. wanting no one quality to make it as much the Church at Ireland as that Church which was to be considered by the Act of Upton supreme, how were the supporters of this Hill to reconclle the contratliciion ? or how was the one Church to maintain its in. violable supremacy. when another was, to be invested with th e Mine privileges and power ? Looking at this measure in the RUM: favourahle view, he must repeat, that he thought it tended to the subversion of the Protestant Church. He now came to the amino to be derived from the oaths which were to be admiatstered to the Catholics; and he would repeat what his lion Friend tee Mt ?the; for Carle Castle (Mr. Banked had advanced upoa a !amr evening —that this oath, rejecting and disclaiming all interference of the Pope in temporal matters, conveyed a direct aeltnewledg ment of his spiritual authority. Ile would ask. then, if oaths MUM be taken by both Catholic and Pio:extant. when entering this House, or upon the assumption of office, while the Codicil(' is taking the oath denying the Pope's temp .cal authority. what must. he would repeat, be their situation--he meant that of the Protestant, while taking the oath of supremacy? —au oath which not only denies that the Tope's spiritual authority should exist in England, but goes further, and declares that it ought 1101 to exist. Why he would say to the Hor.ourable Baronet (Sir F. Bartlett). who had the reputation of having-Ironed this len, that it was a cor.dition in which be ought not to have pieced them ; that it would subject them to the imptastioi, of perjury that it would compel them to do a violence to their cense-Race. and that it was. with mew to the security to beflerir,el irons oaths, the most objectionable course that could lame bean ii,rcared. i although lie perfectly aware that VTYlilleTlthit pOrttl.l of t he (11111111 were taken front the Bill, to give gererul relief to the Cache lien, be twat still contend that they pee no accunty against the disavow any intention to subvert the present Proust:int Establieh :to_ po l e ( t ; but be could eery well eon:Tier that while a Catholic took C l ht t ou w rebe as haP tru irlie r b t e h lu it ilied a n2 C enrwm a t t . hol ilet i .a c u a lie snr n eoY t t i . , b d erO ine nn l e s "‘' i 4 m airn a lgi t udr al t that oath. he might at the same time think it a perfectly CiWiCitlf thous action, and perhaps a great moral duty, to do every thing in his power to advance the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. How, then, could a Catholic use his utmost intentions to support and uphold his own chereb,_eri th out some kind of hostility to that which was opposed to it ? He would refer them to the words of Dr. lirly t. or