The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-14 00:00:00

Hear, heat.)—But we are told, my Lords, that to the attainment of their object there is an obstacle opposed in the opinions of the people of England. If it be meant to state, that there exists among the inhabitants of the coun try an impression conceived, or I should say more cor rectly, received (hear, hear,) from I know not what cause, that there is a possibility of danger from admitting the C a tholics into power—if this be meant, I consider myself mound in candour to allow that it is the case; but in mak ing this admission, and professing a great respect for this class of persons, who are most respectable in their own calling and station, I must at the same time he permitted to say that the subject is not one on which they can form a competent judgment. I must confess it seems to me not extraordinary that they should declare their opinions, and that these opinions should serve as a guide to your Lord ships in all questions falling under their own observation, and personally interesting to themselves, that they should address your Lordships on the representatiou being inade quate, on the administration of justice being imperfect, on the pressure of particular taxes, and on any local grievances, these are questions en which they are most competent to judge; but I am surprised that we should now be told that their opinion is to be made great account of, when, being fully engaged with their own daily occupations, they declare themselves capable of judging of the laws and statutes which extend to the most important and intricate subjects which influence the whole Constitution, and which, in their re sults, effect the religious freedom and the civil policy of the empire. Theit opinions, my Lords, is now to be held a tri bunal from which there is no appeal.—( Hear. )—And your Lordships are invited to lay aside your own unbiassed judg tnent, to reject the petitions of the most learned and intelli gent part of the community, who are, without exception, in favour of these measures; and who are best qualified, by their studies, observations, and experience, to form a cm-- met judgment on the subject. But though the Govern ment may now appear to be suspected by the people, it is my opinion that whenever the measure shall have passed through this House, and shall have become the law—l bare no doubt the good sense of the people of England, with which, as a body, they are practically endowed—when they shall perceive the real effects of the liberal measures, and find out that far other consequences result from them than what they expect ; the spectres which now flit before their eyes will shrink into their true dimensions anti sub stance , and they will find reason to rejoice in the act of the Legislature, and be ready to give it their hearty con- Ettrrence. When it is said, my Lords, that the majority of the country is opposed to the measure, I must observe, that the classes most competent to form en opinion have expressed a decided opinion in favour of the measure re commended by his Majesty's Government. This opinion was not the less deserving of their Lordships' attention because it was one formed by slow degrees. In the course of thirty years that the question has beer discussed and con sidered, it has been regularly and continually progressive, and has increased in favour with all classes of the people. If in the course of that time the impressions of persons most interested from situation, and called on by their office to consider the question, have all gradually be come liberal—if we have seen, my Lords, those who en tered Parliament prejudiced against the measure, and on being called on to form a distinct opinion, from a serious consideration of the effects of the present state of the law— if we have seen these persons gradually forming an opinion directly adverse to their past impressions—if we have seen my Lords, public men of great liberality sent to govern Ireland, and from the duties of their office hest acquainted with its situation—if we have seen them go to that coun try adverse to the measure, and when there, greatly to their honour— (Hear, hear)—declare that nothing but conces sion could enable the Government to preserve tranquillity, must we not all, my Lords, be convinced that the ques tion has made great progress, and that the opinion favour able to concession is the one most deserving approbation ? And these changes have been made under circumstances when there was no temptation of emolument to induce the change ; when all those persons would, had they been in fluenced by vulgar ambition, have the strongest motive to remain attached to their opinions, but who have greatly enhanced the reputation of the public men of this country, by following the example, and embracing the opinions of those who long ago gave up office and emolument to main tain their opinion on this question, and among whom were to be found some of the greatest statesmen and orators that ever adorned this country. But while these successive conversions have been going on, there has not been, I be lieve, my Lords, one person converted to the other side. (Hear, hear.) Is there one man, I ask, whose name is of any value, who is looked up to with respect by ahe public, who, having been in office during any time these thirty years, in having known Ireland, has felt it his duty to give up his liberal opinion, and declare that it is neces sary to have recourse to coercion ? (Hear, hear.) If there is net one man of talents who has left ale liberal side, is it not true, is it not good to know, that all the able and considerable persons of the kingdom lend the mea sures about to be proposed to this House their support, and who, seeing the real danger of our present situation, do not suffer themselves to he led away by the apprehension of another danger, to oppose the measure which the Noble ' Duke has brought forward on Lis own responsibility, as necessary to maintain the tranquillity and obedience of the people ? This measure is supported by the principal mem bers of the most learned profession of the world—the de dared opinion of the liar of England is in its favour ; such also is the decided opinion of the Bar of Ireland ; and ' though the opinion of the Bar of Scotland has not yet bees declared, I have no doubt that it will also be on the same side ; it is supported by the Merchants and Bankers of Liverpool—the second city of this country. Your Lordships will soon learn also, from a peti tion I am about to present, that such is the opinion of the merchants and most respectable people of the city of Glasgow—the second city of Scotland ; and it is else the opinion of the merchants and bankers of Dublin, and even of those persons amongst them, who, being de scended from the refugees wile went to Ireland after the repeal of the Edict of Nantes, might be supposed, on ac count of their descent, to have strong prejudices on this subject. It is most certainly the opinion of the most in telligent classes of the community, that this question should be settled by means of reasonable concession to the Catholics. But I may be told that this is not the opinion of the great mass of the nation. I fully admit that the opinions of even the least informed classes of the commu nity, as expressed in their petitions, are entitled to the most respectful attention of your Lordships ; but still, my Lords, when the petitions come from those who are noto riously incapable of forming just conclusions on the subject to which the petitions refer, your Lordships will consider not so much the numbers by whom such petitions may be signed, as the real interests of the nation. That at least one intelligent body has declared against the settlement of the question by means of concession, is a fact which I la ment. Oxford has declared against concession ; but, on the other hand, Cambridge has declared in favour of the removal of Catholic disabilities, by rejecting a petition which had for its object resistance to all concessions to the Catholics, and the events in that University afforded re markable indications of the progress of liberal opinions which had overcome the prejudices of a similarity of situa tion to that of Oxford. I had formed my opinion upon this subject early in life, and I thought it my duty to support a proposition brought forward by two Noble Lords for settling this question, by conciliation and concession to the Catholics. In consequence of this I lost the confidence of the University of Cambridge, which I had twice before enjoyed. But there is one distinguished Society there which, even at that early period, marked its continuing of con fidence. Since that time 20 years have elapsed, and dur ing a period of three years, no petition at all on this sub ject was presented from Cambridge. Lately, a petition against concession to the Catholics was brought forward in the University ; but that petition was thrown out by a great majority, even in the first stage of its progress; and if it had come into the Senate, it would have been thrown out by a still greater majority. Let me not, then, be told that the learned men of this country are adverse to the settlement of this question by concession. As to the mode in which, and the conditions under which, what is called Emancipation ought to be granted, I will, with your Lordships' permission, say a few words. When I was ap plied to by the Catholics five years ago to present their pe tion, in which they prayed for unqualified and uncondi tional emancipation, I informed them that I should be most happy if the question were settled on the principle of concession and conciliation. But lat the same time stated, that when I presented their petition, I considered my duty to them discharged, and I desired that it should be distinctly understood, that I reserved to myself the full and free right to judge as to the time when, and the mode in which the measure of concession ought to he brought, and under what conditions it ought to be carried into ef fect. I never thought that the measure ought to be pro. posed without some conditions calculated to allay the alarms of those who might honestly and sincerely have entertained apprehensions : and I now say, that to the conditions under which the measure is now proposed, I see no objection whatever.—(Hear, hear, hear.) — There is another measure, accompanying the great measure of conciliation, which must be considered on its own merits —I mean the measure for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. lam one of those who think that this latter mea sure i s entitled to the consideration of Parliament, only on grounds applicable to itself exclusively, and that the Bill for settling the great question of Catholic Emancipation ought not to be framed in such a way as to take away with one hand what it gives with the other. On principle of compromise like that, I never could assent to the measure for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. But from what I know and have heard of the infinite abuses which have sprung from the system, and the false relation which it created between landlord and tenant ) I am ready to say that an alteration in that system is imperiously required. Ever since J 825 I have been prepared to enter on this question, but, at the same time I never thought of a measure which would go the length of disfranchising those who were legally in the actual pos session of the elective franchise. This is a point with which we ought to deal with great circumspection. As to the influence of the priests, 1 have every reason to be lieve that that influence will not continue after the measure of Emancipation shall have passed into a law. But it will he equally pernicious if the peasantry should escape from the influence of the priests only to return under that of the landlords, thus creating a vicious species of votes and a vicious kind of influence, to which it is most desirable to put an end by every proper and legitimate means. On the whole, such are the importance and beneficial tendency of the measure of Emancipation, that I hardly know what racrifice I would not make for the purpose of having it brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and I look forward to the passing of the measure, not only without apprehension, but with the highest possible gr ,tification, confident that the result will be to lay the foundation of peace where there was strire—of strength where there was weakness, and of tolerance, harmony, and concord, where before there was intolerance, suspicion, and bigotry. (Hear, hear.) I have now the honour to present to your Lordships the general petition of those numerous and very respectable Protestants of Ireland by whom it was signed, praying that the very sound and substantial reason; therein stated, the civil disabilities under which the Catholics suffered, may be without delay removed.—The petition was read and laid on the table. His LORDSHIP then presented a petition from the University of Glasgow, and a considerable portion of the inhabitants of that place, in favour of concession to the Catholics. The petition, he stated, comprised a great portion of the of intelligent inhabitants of Glasgow. His LORDSHIP next presented a petition to the same effect from the Recorder and Members of a Court of Jus tice at Ipswich. Also a petition to the same effect from the Unitarian Congregation of Salford, in Lancashire. Alpo a petition to the same effect from Tadcaster, in the county of York. Two petitions to the same effect, from the King's County, in Ireland. A petition from the city of Cork, in Ireland. The Bishop of DURHAM presentel a petition from his Diocese against concession to the Catholics. The Duke of SUSSEX had to present a petition tl their Lordships from the inhabitant; of London, West minster, and the vicinity, in favour of concession to the Catholics, and of the removal of their disabilities. The petition was signed by between seven and eight thousand persons, all of the most intelligent and respectable descrip tion ; and his Royal Highness said he would not he mis spending the time of their Lordships, if he said a few wards as to the manner in which it had been got up, and the manner in which, and the description of per sons by whom, it had been signed. These persons had at one time thought it would be the most proper course not to petition at all, but to leave the question to the Legislature; but in consequence of another peti tion which they saw was in progress of signature against concessions to the Catholics, they determined to petition in favour of concession. The petition was laid in a room, and notice given of its being there, and of its nature and object, but nobody was invited to sign it. When any one came to sign it, a person in the room informed him of the nature and object of the petition before he signed ; and when it appeared that any person had signed the petition by mistake, the name of that per son was expunged from the list. But notwithstanding this very cautious and proper mode of proceeding, an at tempt was made to prevetit its being signed, and placards were placed before the door dissuading all persons from having anything to do with it. But the petition was, not withstanding, signed by 168 lawyers, 149 medical gen tlemen, 68 members of the Stick Exchange, a great number of bankers and others of high station in society, and upwards of 5,000 respectable tradestnen. He ought also to state, that it was signed by 17 Quakers, and would no doubt have been signed by many more of the Society of Friends, were it not that the strictest Quakers did not think that they could conscientiously siga a petition to the Lords Spiritual. The whole number who signed was 7,175 persons, and a petition, signed by a more respect able and intelligent body of men was never before laid on their Lordships' table. The Earl of ELDON said, that he was glad to find that there were 17 Quakers who admitted that there were Lords Spiritual in that House. The petition was presented and laid on the table. Earl DARNLEY had a petition, very numerously and respectably signed, from Rochester, in favour of concession to the Catholics, and he hoped their Lordships would per mit him to make two or three observations respecting it. The petition was brought to him that day, and he had every reason to believe that it was signed by a considerable majority of the educated inhabitants of Rochester. Some of them had been long adverse to any concession to the Catholics ; but now advocated the cause of Catholic Emancipation, from a conviction of its necessity. Ile had on a former occasion stated, that attention was due to the petitions of the humblest classes of the community, and especially when the object of the petitions was to re move a grievance under which the petitioners laboured. In such a case the petition of the meanest individual was en titled to as much attention as if it had come from one of their Lordships. But the petitions presented against con cessions to the Catholics were not of that description. The object was very diffinent. It was not to remove a griev ance under which they laboured, but to prevent those blessings from being extended to others which they them selves enjoyed. This was the manner in which these peti tions were got up; be thought it his duty to call the at tention of their Lordships to these circumstance. The Duke of RICHMOND said the Noble Earl ap peared to be angry at what he had said the other night, when he called on him to name the person who had in formed him that certain labourers had been compelled to sign a petition against concession to the Catholics, by a threat of dismissal from their masters. He still said that the Noble Earl ought to name his informer, that if the information was correct, the offending parties might be brought to the bar of the House for a breach of privilege. A petition, as the Noble Earl well knew, against conces sion to the Catholics, had been agreed to by the people of Kent, at Penenden Heath, and the meeting on that occa sion had all the advantage of his Lordship's eloquence, and that of many of his friends. It had also the advantage of a lawyer's eloquence, and he preferred a lawyer's eloquence to Isis opinion, when the lawyer got no fee. Yet after all these advantages, the people of Kent had agreed to the petition against concesion. As for himself, he would never be led to support or oppose any measure by clamour out of doors. But his prejudices on this subject, if pre - judices they were, had been confirmed by the speeches of Noble Lords and Gentlemen on the other side; for he was convinced by these speeches that this measure of con cession would not satisfy the Catholics, while it would materially injure one of the main barriers of the Con stitution. Earl DARNLEY was not in the least angry with the Noble Duke, although he did not think proper to adopt the course which he suggested. As to the Meeting on Penenden Heath, his opinion was, that there were few events which had tended more to shew the propriety of concession and conciliation than that meeting. The petition was then presented, and laid on the table. The Earl of ELDON, on rising, pursuant to his notice, to rnoie for an Account of the Roman Catholics in Eng- land who, since 1813, had taken the benefit of the Act of 1791, relieving them from certain disabilities on their swearing allegiance to the succession to the Throne under the Act of Settlement, took the opportunity of stating that it appeared to him to be very singular, that, at the present day, when the people of England were approaching both Houses of Parliament with the expression of their senti ments on the important subject which so strongly agitated the public mind, in greater numbers than he had ever be fore known in the course of fifty years' experience, the Noble Lords opposite (the Noble Earl spoke from the 3lini sterial side of the House) for the first time treated the great mass of those petitions with indignity. It was with great pain that he had heard a Noble Marquis express his sur prise that the people of England should—do whit? pre some to judge of the important question which at present filled the mind of every thinking man in the country. Presume ! What ! When Parliament were asked to de stroy an establishment which had existed fa. a hundred and forty years ; an establishment which secured the rights, the liberties, and the religion of the people of this country ; an establishment framed by a Parliament which contained sound lawyers, learned divines, and men eminent in every respect, to an extent probably unequalled, certainly not sur passed, in the present day. At such a moment was the anxiety of the people at large to petition that the blessings which they enjoyed might not be endangered, to be termed presumption ! On what had fallen from the Noble Viscount, with respect to the dissolution of the Catholic Associa tion by an act of their own, he would say only this, that he thought that dissolution would prove just as effectual as the Bill that had recently passed through that House. The motion which he was about to submit to their Lordships had, however, no relation to either of the topics on which he had touched. Adverting to the English Act of 1791, their Lordships were aware that that Act required Roman Catholics, for the purpose of exonerating themselves from the operation of the existing Penal Statutes, to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch on the Throne, and to the succession in his Majesty's family being Protestants. The Irish Act of 1793, far a similar purpose, also called tat the Roman Catholic to swear allegiance to the King, but only to the succession in his Majesty's family, omitting the words " being- Protestants." In 1813 an order had been made (we understood on the motion of the Noble Earl himself) for a Return to that House of the number of Ca tholics who had taken the oath prescribed by the Act of 1791. Although the Act directed that the names of the Catholics should be registered, yet to that order there were, from many places no returns ; and where there were it appeared, that during a period of time exceeding twenty years in duration, there had been in some counties one Ca tholic, in some two Catholics, in some four persons, who had taken the oath ; a number so small, when compared with the Roman Catholics in the country, as to be wholly insignificant. He would now move, " That a Return should be made to that House of the number of Roman Catholics who had taken the oath in question since the year 1813 ; and (as we understood the Noble Earl) it similar Return with reference to Scotland." The Act declared that the Roman Catholics should be re lieved from the penalties of the existing Statutes only on taking the Oath of Allegiance which that Act prescribed. God fin bid that he should have the slightest intention or wish to subject them to those penalties. No man was more anxious than himself to see the penal laws against the Catholics, as contra-distinguished from the disqualify ing laws, repealed. While upon his legs, he wished to he allowed to say a few words further. In the gracious Speech from the Throne made at the opening of the present Ses sion, after the recommendation to Parliament to commit to him such powers as might enable his Majesty to main tain his just authority, was the following passage :—" Isis Majesty recommends, that when this essential point shall have been accomplished, you should take into your delibe rate consideration the whole condition of Ireland ; sad that you should review the laws which impose civil dis abilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal of these disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent secu rity of our establishments in Church and State, with the maintenance of the Reformed Religion as established by law, and of the rights and privileges of the Bishops and of the Clergy of this realm, and of the Churches committed to their charge. These are institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom, and which it is the duty and the determination of his Majesty to preserve inviolate." This was a distinct pledge to the country that nothing- would be done by his Majesty that would bring the Protestant Establishment into the slightest hazard. His IlLijesty distinctly stated his determination to preserve the institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom inviolate. For this gracious decla ration, he (Lord Eldon) for one, felt the deepest gra titude; and it was the more necessary to call the atten tion of the House to this declaration, as his Majesty had lately been referred to on several occasions in that House, in a manner nut at all according with Parliamen tary usage and principle. Their Lordships had, however, had the declaration of a Right Rev. Archbishop and a Right Rev. Bishop on that subject; and it was his own conviction, founded upon means of judging of his Majesty's opinion—such as few persons had the happiness to enjoy— that it was his Majesty's determination, in the terms of his Majesty's most gracious Speech, to preserve inviolate the Protestant Constitution and frame of Government in this country. The question therefore would be, whether the measures which were soon to be submitted to their Lord ships' consideration were of such a character that his Ma jesty might give his consent to them, and yet preserve in violate the Protestant Constitution and form of Govern ment. He (Lord Eldon) should be guilty of the basest ingratitude to his Majesty if he did not assert his entire con viction that to those measures his Majesty would never give his consent unless the condition described in his Majesty's most gracious Speech was strictly complied with. The Noble Earl concluded by moving for a Return of the num ber of Roman Catholics in England who had taken the oath prescribed by the Act of 1791. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE begged leave to say one word. The Noble Lard had imputed to him that he had expressed his surprise that the people of this country should presume to judge of the question before the House. He (the Marquis of Lansdowne) had never stated that the people of the country ought not to presume to judge of any question. What lie had said was, not that the people had not a perfect right to judge of any question and to petition Parliament upon it, but that he was surprised that some Noble Lords paid. less attention to the petitions of the people when they were on subjects of which the people knew the most, than they did when these petitions were on subjects of which the people knew the least. The Earl of ELDON was confident that the Noble Mar quis had used the word " presume." The Marquis of LANSDOWNE appealed to the House whether he had used the word. If he had, it had been ac cidentally. Lord ELI)ON explained. The LORD CHANCELLOR would not have trespassed upon their Lordships' attention on the present occasion, I had it not been for certain observations not exactly bearing upon the question befiire the House, which had fallen from the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl had read a passage from his Majesty's Speech at the opening of the present Session, and from that passage had drawn an inference favourable to his own view of the case. The Noble Earl, from time to time, on presenting petitions, or making motions, de- dared that he would not enter on the consideration of the general question at issue; but with an address and a dex terity peculiar to himself, the Noble Earl, nevertheless, availed himself of every opportunity of glancing at and condemning the measures which it was in the contempla tion of his Majesty's Government to propose. On a former occasion the Noble Earl called those measures detestable. He now declared them inconsistent with our Protestant Establishment and frame of Government. He (the Lord Chancellor) would not enter at that time into the subject; but he pledged himself, in opposition to the opinions ex pressed and insinuated by the Noble Earl, that whenever the measures alluded to should come before them for re gular discussion, he would prove, to the satisfaction of their Lordships and to the satisfaction of the country, that they were in no respect whatever inconsistent with the per fect security of the Protestant form of Government. So much for that topic. In the same style of observation the Noble Earl had glanced at and condemned the measure which had passed both Houses of Parliament, and received the Royal Assent. That measure the Noble Earl pro nounced wholly inefficient. But how extraordinary it was that the Noble Earl, with all his talents, with all his ex perience, and with all his zeal to put pown the Catho lic Association, never entered into an examination of the merits of that Bill—never pointed out its defects-- was not in his place in the House when it passed through the Committee ! It was rather too much when the Noble Earl had not condescended to take this trouble, that lie should now glance at the defects of the measure, and insinuate that it was unequal to effect that for which it was passed. The speech of the Noble Earl comprehended an insinuation against the Catholics of Ireland, as if they were unwilling to take the oath pledg ing themselves to support the Protestant succession. The oath in the English Act of the 18th of the late King, was framed in the manner of that in the Irish Act of 1793. By the English Act of 1791, an alteration was made in the form of the oath, and the Catholics were required to swear to support the Protestant succession. The Noble and Learned Lord here entered into a history of the oaths in the Irish Acts ; and maintained that there was nothing to show that if their attention had been called to the circurn cumstance the Irish Parliament, in the Act of 1793, would net have adopted the form of oath in the English Act of 1791. The oaths in the Bills introduced in the other House of Parliament, in 1813 and 1821—the former of which was framed by the Member who introduced it, in concert with some of the principal Catholics of Ireland— afforded sufficient proof that the Catholics of Ireland were ready to swear to support the Protestant succession to the Crown. He had never heard until now any insinuation or surmise that they were not so. , If he doubted it, he should be as strongly opposed to the proposed measure as the Noble Earl ; but it was because he fAt the fullest confi dence on the subject, that he considered it his duty to support what the Noble Ear: had so repeatedly condemned. Lord REDESDADE expressed his satisfaction at being told, by the Noble and Learned Lord, that the Roman Ca lies of Ireland were ready to take the oath to support the Protestant succession. Adverting to the petitions which had been p:esented to their Lordships, he confessed that the manner in which those petitions had been treated had surprised him. He could assure their Lordships that the language in which those petitions had been spoken of in that House, had created great alarm in the country. Such language was insulting to the lower orders of the commu nity. For his own part, lie doubted exceedingly if peace and good order would be restored in Ireland by the Bills about to be proposed. His (Lord Redesdale's) opinion on the Bill fcr suppressing the Catholic Association was recorded on their Lordships' Journals. That Bill appeared to him of a character which his respect for that and for the other House of Parliament would not allow him to describe. He was convinced that if the Government of Ireland had done their duty, the Catholic Association might have been suppressed long ago, by the operation of the common law. Lord PLUNKETT, with reference to the last remark of the Noble Who had just eat down, Would tape the liberty • signs on the part of the Catholics running through more to observe that it was utterly incapable of being supported than half a century, that he had proved by evidence the by argument. The Noble Earl, whose motion was under most indisputable, and evinced by acts and supported by their Lordships' consideration, had indulged in strictures oaths which the Catholics held as sacred as the Noble Lord on a measure which bad already passed, and on a measure or any Member of that House held any oath they might which had not yet been introduced, on a measure which was take—that the imputations against them were wholly nn - beyond their Lordships' reach, and on a measure which had founded. The Catholics had throughout that period not yet been submitted to them ; and with reference to the evinced their loyalty and their affection to the Govern last, the Noble Earl had argued on the presumption that latent by oaths and by acts, which the undeviating probity that measure was to be taken as subversive of the Pro- of their character declared to be founded in honour and in testant Constitution. Was this proper ? Was :it defen- I sincerity. Ile trusted there was no Noble Lord in that B ible thus to scatter firebrands among the vulgar, though ' /louse who considered that the Catholics were persons honest, portion of the community ; and to tell them that destitute of honour or of character. lie did not for an in the measure recommended to Parliament by the Throne stant allow himself to believe that any Noble Lord in that was a violation of the Constitution ? At first he (Lord P ) House could take up the opiniona occasionally to be met bad felt alarmed when the Noble Earl spoke of his know- with among the ignorant and the vulgar—that Catholics ' ledge of his Majesty's opinions. The beginning tithe Noble were men totally destitute of probity and of honour, and Earl's sentence, " that lie had the best means of knowing that they were not to be dealt with, because they must not that his Majesty would never give his consent," was alarm- be considered as entitled to belief upon their oath.—(Hear, ing; but the conclusion of the sentence, "to any melt- hear.)—He knew that no Noble Lord entertained such an sure subversive of the Constitution, or of the Protestant opinion of the Catholic:.—(Hear, hear.)—He knew that form of Government," was perfectly satisfactory. In that they looked upon the Catholics as they deserved to be con opinion he perfectly coincided. The Noble Lord who had sidered ; and if, therefore, they were men of honour and of just sat down had declared that the Catholic Association high feeling, sad if they were to be believed upon their had been suffered to exist because the Government of Ire- oath, he would ask the Noble and Learned Lord upon what land had not done its duty. The Administration of his principle he or any other Noble Lord could contend that Noble Friends b e hind a nd near him shared, with all the the Catholics were ever disposed to take oaths which Governments in Ireland since the first settlement of the they knew or felt to be false?—(Hear, hear.)—To the re- English in that country, in the condemnation of turn which the Noble Lord required, he conceived there the Noble Lord. As far as his (Lord I'lunkett's) could be no objection; but if it was the intention of the testimony went, he begged to rescue the Administration of Noble and Learned Lord, or of any other Peer of that his Noble Friends, and the Admiuistration of their prede. House, to deduce any argument from the nature of cessors, from the imputation attempted to be thrown upon that return, he thought they ought to be reminded them by the Noble Lord. lie did not remember any that the operation of the Act was the same upon period in which the laws had not been fairly administered the Protestant as the Catholic; and be should therefore in Ireland. The vice was in the laws themselves. It was move for a similar return of the number of Protestants and impossible that any Government could administer such Dissenters who had taken the same oath. That oath, he laws so as to give satisfaction to the people. It had been believed, had never been taken by either Protestant or said that in Ireland there was one law for the rich and Catholic, unless when about to assume an office or for another for the poor. He denied that such was the case. avoiding a penalty. The Noble Lord will find from that He had had ample opportunities for observation, and he return, that the Protestants and the Catholics have in would declare that no charge could be more unjust or un- every instance taken the oath, in cases where they were founded. With respect to the Catholic Association, it compelled to do so, upon accepting office, or where it be would have been impossible to put it down by the force of came necessary to do so in order to avoid a penalty. In no any existing law. It could only be accomplished by arm- instances, indeed, was it otherwise, unless, he believed, in ing the Government with a summary power. The con- the case of those persons who were admitted into the Ca duct of the Noble Lord with respect to the Bill for sup- tholic seminary at Maynooth. He should take another pressing the Association had indeed been extraordinary. and a fitter opportunity to refute the heavy and unjusti- If there should hereafter occur any disposition to fiable slanders which have been heaped upon that establish evade the provisions of the law, to the Noble Earl ment. For the present he should content himself by ob that disposition might be attributed ; for he had suf- serving, that no person could be a member of that college fered the Bill to pass, and he now told the people of for even the space of three months without having taken Ireland that it was a measure wholly ineffectual. Was these oaths to which the Noble Lord referred. The return that the Noble Earl's duty as a Legislator? If he knew which he proposed to move for would have the number of the law to be imperfect, why did he root tell their Lord- Protestants who had taken the oaths of allegiance, Belpre ships ? What legal authority was higher than that of the macy, and abjuration, and it would prove that no Pro- Noble Earl ? But he allowed the Bill to pass, " with all testant or Dissenter load ever taken those oaths, unless they its imperfections on its head," and then said to the people were forced upon him by situation. Was it possible, in of Ireland, "it is so imperfect a measure, that it will be deed, to imagine for a moment that any man, whether easily in your power to evade it." It bad been asserted Protestant or Catholic, should come forward voluntarily that there was a principle in the Common Law which and declare his strong inclination to take certain oaths would have been sufficient for the purpose of putting down prescribed by Act of Parliament? If any man expressed the Association. It would be a great satisfaction to him to such an inclination, he (Lord Plunkett) should be very learn how. He would not say that a great part of the much inclined to suspect that such a person had some in proceedings of the Catholic Association was not contrary to direct object in that wish, by which ordinary men were the spirit of the Common Law ; but he was nevertheless not likely to be affected.—(Hear).—ln order, therefore, convinced thst any legal measure founded on its letter to show that no person had ever taken these oaths, unless would have failed. It was a principle of the Common Law under such circumstances as he described, he should move that the people of this country could be represented only in for a return of all Protestants and Dissenters who have Parliament. These, therefore, who assumed to be the re- since the year 1813 taken the oaths of abjuration and presentatives of the people were violating that principle of supremacy, as prescribed by the 23d of Geo. 111., and the Common Law. But, if there was a law excluding afterwards adopted by the Irish Legislature in the Act the people so represented from Parliament, how could of 1793. those who endeavoured to remedy that grievance come The Earl of ELDON, so far from feeling any disincli within the operation of the Common Law ? With respect nation to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord, to the petitions from the people of England on this sub-' should feel happy to second it. He thought, however, ject, he willingly admitted that they manifested a most cor- that the Noble and Learned Lord had very much mistaken dial attachment to the Constitution. But to argue, from the nature and object of the motion which he had submitted the number or vehemence of these petitions, that the to their Lordships. The Noble Lord had indeed quite measure proposed by his Majesty's Government misconceived the views upon which the information was would be an infringement of that Constitution, was to required. Their Lordships had heard and knew that it was argue erroneously. Was any measure proposed to take the intention of his Majesty's Government to admit the from the Protestants any part of their privileges ? To Catholics to political power, and that in doing so they were take from the Protestants for the purpose of giving to to take from them certain securities for the maintenance of the Catholics, to take from A to give to B, would be a the inviolability of the Protestant Establishments. If, robbery. But was it not evident that the present pro- however, they were to have securities at all, it was the object ceeding bad no character of that description, but was of Parliament to take care that those securities should be as founded on a high State necessity ? Isle would not say effectual as possible. He denied that he bad even con that at the time of tire Union the Catholics of Ireland templated, as the Noble Lord seemed to imagine, the failure of the Protestant issue of the House of Brunswick. On the contrary, he prayed most sincerely and fervently for the continuance of that succession, and that God might give them length of days in the land over which they ruled in honour. He did not, however, think that the Niible Lord had applied himself to the purpose of the motion, when he went into a detail of the proceed ings previous to 1793. What was it to those who wished information upon the subject of the taking of their oaths that such and such things had taken place previous to that year? He confessed himself indeed unable to comprehend the bearing of some of the Noble Lord's observations. Neither did he un derstand what the Noble Lord on the Woolsack meant by imputing to him an attempt to influence their Lordships by insinuation. He would tell that Noble Lord that he could not continue to call that man a friend who imputed to him such an attempt ; and when the Noble Lord talked of insi nuations, he would remind him that he (Lord Eldon) had been, at least, consistent in his political course with reference to the question which now agitated the country. The Noble Lord then proceeded to contend, in reply to another observation of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, that the Act for dissolving the Association was totally unnecessary. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, although the Noble Lord charged him with remaining silent, that he had observed, more than once, when the subject was under consideration, that the law in Ireland must be very different from the law of England, or the powers provided at common law for the suppression of such Associations were quite suf ficient without the assistance of the Legislature. He had said snore than once, that the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) must have been unable to procure evi dence of the seditious and treasonable proceedings of the Association, or the common law would have been found quite sufficient for the punishment of the offenders. The law in England had been found quite sufficient for putting down the affiliated societies who threatened a meeting at York, and he had snore than once expressed his surprise that the law which could be rendered so effectual in Eng land was wholly inapplicable to Ireland. After some fur ther observations upon the subject of the misapprehension of his meaning, which he attributed to the Noble and Learned Lord (Lard Plunkett), the Noble Earl concluded by declaring, that be did not feel himself called upon to answer the observations of the Noble Lord on the Wool sack when he was told by that Noble Lord that he (Lord Eldon) evaded the honest expression of his opinions, and attempted to convey his hostility by insinuations.—(blear, hear.) —To the observations of that Noble Lord he would not condescend to reply, but he would call upon him to make his accusations consistent with the character which he had held in that House for the space of near fifty years. The Duke of 'WELLINGTON was induced to offer a few remarks, principally with a view of prevailing upon both his Noble Friends to withdraw their resolutions. If instead of these resolutions an Act of Indemnity were in troduced for relieving Catholics who had omitted to take an oath, for the not taking of which no blame could attach, every reasonable object which Noble Lords could require would be obtained. The oath was not one that it was likely every Roman Catholic would he called upon to take ; but (as we understood the Noble Duke) it was an oath like that introduced into a Bill now in progress through another House, which persons called upon to fill particular offices may be required to take, but it was not one that every Roman Catholic was called upon to take ; so that the omission to qualify according to the Act could not be the cause of any great blame, or for which there could be any strong ground for refusing to indemnify for the omission of it. (The Noble Duke wa s s o ind i s tinctly heard in the new place allotted to the Re p orters, that we can only undertake, in the above passage of his speech, to give an imperfect outline of what he was understood to say.) I cannot forbear from availing myself, continued the Noble Duke, of this opportunity to animadvert upon the inconvenience that arises from the frequent allusion that is mule to a Bill now in another place. It would he hr more convenient to delay these and any similar remarks upon the measure until (should the present Bill pasts through another place) it came as a matured measure, fairly submitted to the consideration of your Lordships. The discussion upon this question has been anticipated here, not quite regularly or fairly, by describing it as an attempt to introduce arbitrary power—as an attempt to sub ver t t h e ini in part it has Constitution—to violate the Co ronation Oath —and under mine the Established Religion of t h e C o untry. This has keen been a conveyed „erted partly . But, assertion, allow me to say (w hat I a m prepared to prove) by w insinuation,ete whether conveyed andb by insinuation or that it is unfounded. Meanwhile, I would suggest that it would be better that these topics; should be left out of dis cussion until the subject to which such constant reference is made comes regularly under your Lordships' notice.— Until the question which will be brought forward pur suant to the gracious recommendation from the Throne shall be submitted fairly to the House, such assertions as I have a dverted to should be laid aside. With re spect to the Law for the Suppression of the Associa tion that had been passed in 1825, it was true that that Act was not effective, and it was found necessary to amend the Act in this Session of Parliament. I would were absolutely promised Emancipation; hut he would say that they had been led strongly to expect it, although he would not at that moment go into the evidence to prove it. He should new take leave to say a few words upon the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. He did not think that Noble and Learned Lord bad dealt quite fairly with the people of Ireland in the course he had pursued with reference to this question; and in his opinion, a simple s►tatement of the facts which attended the passing of the Acts to which the Noble Earl alluded, would be suffi cient to satisfy their Lordships that the fears, which seemed to be the foundation of the motion, were wholly unfounded. The first Act which contained the declara tion to which the Noble Earl referred, was the Act passed in 1774, in the 13th and 14th years of the reign of the late King. After that came the Act of 1778—commonly called the 18th of Geo. 111., and it was not a little singular that the Act of 1778 adopted the exact phraseology of the Act of 1774. The Noble Earl seemed to look upon that Act as if it had been invented for some ulterior purpose by the Catholics themselves ; and it was not a little extraordinary that the Act was not intro duced by any advocate of the Roman Catholics, or by any of those who were considered even favourable to their claims. That Act was introduced by two of the most distinguished men known to the history of this country, as well as the most devoted to the protection of the rights and privileges of the Established Church. He alluded to Sir George Saville, and Mr. Dunning. Of Sir George Saville it was impossible for any man to speak without the highest respect, and no man could hear the name of Dunning without admitting him to have been one of the most accomplished Lawyers and most eloquent Statesmen who ever sat in either House of Parliament. The Aet which contains that declaration to which the Noble Lord referred, was introduced into the House of Commons by Sir George Saville, and supported by Mr. Dunning ; and it was still further remarkable, that it was taken up by Lord Thurlow and supported by his authority in the House of Lords. This Act, so introduced and so supported, was now, it appeared, to be construed into a crime upon the part of the Catholics, and as having been invented and adopted by them for some purpose which after ages were to bring to light, but of which they were in these days to see the accomplishment. If the subject was not too serious, and if the consequences of such opinions were not likely to be pro. ductive of mischief, it really might be said there was some thing absolutely ludicrous in the arguments attempted to be deduced from the passing of that Act. It was, iu fact, at. tempted to be insinuated that the Act thus introduced by Mr. Dunning and Sir George Saville, although avowedly pro posing to secure allegiance to the House of Brunswick, was so managed as to be intended to anticipate an altera tion in the succession when a Member of that House might come to the Throne of this Kingdom who was not a Pro testant.—(Hear, hear.)—That in truth there was a con spiracy on the part of the Catholics of that day to provide for some contingency which might take place during the present period.---(Hear, hear. )—And still more, that it was to the prosecution of that conspiracy all the efforts of the Catholics were now directed. The Noble and Learned Lord then proceeded to detail the history of the adoption of the words of these Acts by Leland, and observed that when the Irish Houses of Parliament found these Acts adopted by. the English Parliament with reference to the English Ca tholics, they thought it right and proper to follow their example. Even the Act of 1793, passed by the Irish Par liament, was, however, the Act of the Government of Ire land, and introduced by the then Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant—a fact which he conceived went far to prove that the Noble and Learned Lord was mistaken in the in ferences which he seemed disposed to draw from the passing of these Acts. After observing that the Catholics had never refused to take the oaths, the Noble Lord proceeded to say that the conduct of the Catholics, if ether evidence was wanting, formed an unanswerable argument against the opi nions of the Noble and Learned Lord ; what went farthest in his opinion to shake the authority of the Noble Lord, was the known fact, that when the Bill of 1813 was intro duced, no objection was even made to that oath which formed the subject of the present discussion. That Bill was canvassed and discussed and protested against by all classes and all parties in Ireland; but among all the scru ples and doubts and objections to which it gave rise, not one word was ever said upon the subject of that oath of 1791, to which the Nol•le Lord's motion refers.„,, From what had taken, place, however, he thought himself bound to give some explanation of the change introduced, with reference to the oath, into the Bill of 1825, as compared with the Bills of 1793 and 1815. In the Bill which he had the honour to introduce in the House of Commons in 1825, the oath to which the motion of the Noble Lord refers was not introduced, and for this reason, that it was intended at that time to compel both Catholics and Pro testants to take an oath in common. The oath of alle giance was, therefore, substituted, and the oath of the Bill of 1'793 emitted. In 1825, therefore, the Noble Lord would see there was no such conspiracy as he seemed to impute to the Catholics, although it would seem that as far back an 1774 that conspiracy was concocted.—(Hear.) He trusted, however, notwithstanding this evidence of de- I here remind my Noble Friend (Lord Eldon),- "11 now complains that the Bill of 1825 was ineffectual, an maintains that the Commoa Law was sufficie! for the suppression of the Association, to COnsv• it der when the Bill of 1825 was under consi d e ration--' that year, that the first paragraph of a very abl e desptal` from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, that there 0. nothing in the form, institution, or proceedings of the Ali dation which the Common Law could interfere with; an my Noble Friend (Lord Eldon) was a party to the Bill fo r putting down the Association in that year. If the CAW mon Law was then sufficient, in the opinion of my No Friend, to put down the Association, wherefore Was he, ,.! party to the concoction of an additional measure to enfoo lt the suppression of it ?—(Loud cries of hear, hear.)--- was because the Common Law, even with the assistance° the Act of 1825, was insufficient to suppress the Assnci t ; tion, that recourse was obliged to be had this Session " Parliament for the purpose of investing the Lord Lien!' • nant of Ireland with extraordinary powers to put down t!al Association.—(Hear, hear.)—The Noble Lord has 0 0 that there was sufficient power in the country to cob° the Officers ofthe Crown to put down the Association" 'Tis true there was ample military power in the coenlll to put it down. No doubt there was—but surely militad power is not the description of force which one would des to see put in operation for the suppression of such an Al: ciation.—(Loud cheers.)—But that power and authorl! which belongs to the law, and which may be carried to execution by ordinary means.—(Loud cheers.) - ro ds ? to withdraw their resolutions, and suggested as Noble Duke concluded by recommending his Nob le Frie the b el substitute that could be introduced for them, a B ill to demnify all • • • tio b ° 6 persons who suffer under any disquala wa from having omitted to take the oaths prescribed by Acts of 1791 and 1793. The Earl of ELDON said, that as the Noble Duke he referred to what had taken place during the period that Pei was in his Majesty's Councils, he would recall the Or, mory of the Noble Duke to what was his opinion at t ia period to which the Noble Duke referred. What he a ° was, that the Act of 1825 would be auxiliary to the et r forcement of the Common Law ; but that without l l* Common Law, that Act of itself would be ineffective ," He would further recall the attention of the Noble De to what he had said respecting the Common LW* P ° had maintained that the Common Law was sufficient t° reach the conduct of Individuals; and, by reaching the conduct of individuals, the proceedings of the Associatioa would have been impeded, and thereby the Associ atl ° ° itself effectually suppressed. He thought that opportuat: ties for proceeding agait.st individuals for their condoc! had been permitted to escape ; and so strongly was he ha' pressed with this opinion, that when the propriety 01:11, prosecution was intended, in consequence of a n atta upon a late lamented Royal Personage, he (Lor d Eidaai was adverse to such a prosecution, from an unwillingni after the many other opportunities for prosecutions tits had been neglected, to risk the possible failure of a prole; cution in that particular case, and thereby disturb 6 1 1 last moments of that Royal Personage..--(We believ e 11 ,, Noble Lord adverted to a speech of Mr. Sheil, animadve ing upon his late Royal Highness the Duke of Y ork) ' The Noble Earl concluded by stating that he felt hi o called upon, in justification of his own honour and O r sistency, to mention this circumstance. The Noble Earl and Lord Plunkett then withdrew the original Resolution and the Amendment, after wh ich House adjourned at a Quarter to Nine o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(LAST NIGHT.) Lord BRECKNOCK took the oaths and his seat 0 Member for Bath. Mr. Alderman WOOD brought in a Bill for alteringt ar.d improving Smithfield-market, which was re ad a fill time. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought in a Bin f °l' adjusting the claim of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborot to poors-rates in Lincoln's-inn.--Read a first time. On the motion of Mr. PLANTA, a New Writ was or' tiered to be made out for the borough of Newport, in th e room of the lion. C. B. Percy, who had accepted the office of Comptroller of the Household. Colonel POWELL presented a petition from a parish 0 Cardigan against the Catholics. Lord CASTLERE A G presented a petition from Os' borough in favour of concession. Sir E. ELLIS presented four petitions from f° llr parishes in Suffolk against the Catholics. Captain CUST presented similar petitions front parish e in the county of Stafford. Mr. SEYMOUR presented a petition from Taunter, Somersetshire, in favour of concession. He hea rtil y cc°' curred in the prayer of this petition. Mr. LEYCESTER presented a petition from Poole ° favour of the Catholics. Mr. DOHERTY presented two similar petitions font It eland. Mr. W. SMITH presented several petitions front the Unitarians and Dissenters of the New-road Chapel, Brlgiv ton, tool several other Dissenting Congregations, in &O I C of the Catholics. Admiral Sir E. HARVEY presented 13 petitions fool different parishes against the Catholics. Mr. A RKWRIGHT presented a petition against furthe r concessions, from the town of Ilyde, in Sussex. of Mr. BROWNLOW presented ten petitions in suPP - f of the Catholic Claims, front parishes in the co up tio ° Armagh, Down, Antrim, Cork, Cavan, and Tif , Ps l l; The Honourable Member presented another petitio n the same effect, from the Protestant inhabitants of the ust; o r y, of Bath. This petition, he observed, had been entr to his care for the purpose of rebutting the asserti on toa st in this House on a previous night, that the Pro testa population of the county of Somerset was, he might eats' to a man, opposed to Catholic Emancipation. It tv,A4 signed by nine Clergymen of the Established Choral by four of the Corporation, by a great number of Na V , g and Military Officers, by the great majority of the Me thodist dualist Ministers, and by upwards of 200 respectable _ how‘eholders. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE was glad that the petition 134 i been confided to his Hon. Friend, for he was su re it not have been placed in better hands. He (S ir T. L"u1( eth bridge had stated on a former evening, that a great change bad taken place in the opinions of many persons 41 Sc' mersetsldie on this question, and the petition before the House was a proof of it : and he might apreal, as an ad' ditinnal proof, to the petition which had that evening been presented from Taunton. Mr. LATOUCH 1 . .... presented three petitions io front p a' rishes in the county of Ki ldare in favour of the Catkol claims, and another against the Subletting Act. Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the Unitarian Dissenters of Gofkilining, in favour of the Catholic claimg. DUBLIN PETITION. Mr. MOORE had several petitions against emanciPsi n) °‘ ton. The first was from the Lord Mayor, Alderm e , Corporation of the city of Dublin. He could not 100°0 this petition with ou t me ntioning that this Corp orati ? , had been long distinguished for its loyalty, and that W' I ' 6 suggestions were on that account worthy of peculiar O sideration. The petitioners state their alarm at the Inc a; cures introduced by Ministers, to destroy the Pr otestant institutions in Church and State, and to shake the foursi v tiuns on which the title of the House of Brunswick re s ", to the Throne of these realms. They likew ise state, the they are not actuated by, and that they do no t p articipate in, the feelings of fear and intimidation to whic h they ail; cribe the origin and progress of these measure, feeh of that there is in the natural energy of the P ro testants Ireland sufficient power, strength, energy, and influence! r not only to check, but to controul and repress by the T m(Tal efficacy all the efforts of the disaffected. hel , represent, that when Ministers professed that it ev ils necessary to reform the Constitution, to meet tke now existing in Ireland, they did not try any De ° periment to see whether it would be efficacious in cbe c ,:" . ; ing those evil., They state their conviction th a t other remedies might have been applied to the dise ease of the State, and that the remedies now propose d he applied will only create a further aggravation of it They repeat their opinion that those reme dies will lead t° the destruction of the Protestant Constitution ; they es press their alarm at seeing the measure proposed and for ported by Government ; and they pray that it may th e pass into a law. The other petition came from Warden and Corporation of the Guild; of Mercian" in Dublin. It: prays not: only 3 that no further, cessions shall be miole to the Roman Catholics, but also that the Elective Franchise shall be so regulated as n ot t . c , throw political influence into the hands of their priests; likewise prays that the House will put down the establish' ments of the Jesuits, and every other religious and on s- tic establishment in the British Empire. The Hon. Meliv her presented petitions from al the different Guilds in tti. Corporation of Dublin, enumerating , with great pia larity in each instance, that they came from the Master' Warden, and Brethren of each Guild. Among other Guilds which petitioned were those of the following tradesi carpenters, sitddlers, shoemakers, bricklayers, p lasterer ' s joiners, barbers, surgeons, and stationers. Mr. DOHERTY would take that opportunity of Ins k , n ' ing a few observations on the degree of weight which oug to lie attached to the petitions which had just keen Pr e ' sented in such numbers by his Hon. and Learned Friet't the Member for Dublin. He would also anno unce being House other petitions, which were in the course of presented to it, with a contrary prayer on the same clu