The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-27 00:00:00

7Z , IMPERIAL, PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF tOttIiS.—(LAST NIGHT.) The Loan CHANCELLOR sat at 20 minutes before Five. Several Private Bills were read a second and third time, rand' passed. The Bishop of ELY presented three petitions against the Catholic claims. Earl HAREWOOD presented a petition from a parish in Yorkshire to the same effect. Lord ENNISKILLEN presented twelve petitions from the Protestant inhabitants of parishes in different counties of Ireland, to the same effect. Lord FEVERSHAM presented 25 petitions from the Protestant inhabitants of various parishes, in the county of York, to the same effect. The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Whitmore, Wiltshire, to the same effect. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition, signed by 4.5,000 Protestant inhabitants of Castletown Delvin, Westmeath, in favour of the Catholic claims. The Noble Marquis presented other petitions from the Roman Catholics of parishes in different counties in Ireland to the fame effect. The Noble Maagurs likewise presented a petition from an individual, Mr. Stockdale, a bookseller, of whom he bad no knowledge whatever, against the proposed measure, and the overthrow of the Constitution. —(Laughter.) - Lord DARNLEY, in presenting several petitions, be lieved that the emancipat►on about to be granted would act as a charm in allaying all irritation, and be most con ducive. to the prosperity of Ireland. He presented nu merous petitions from the Roman Catholics of families in Ireland, in favour of their Claims. The Duke of RICHMOND implored Noble Lords who acted in Lord Liverpool's constitution, not to abandon their opinions in toto. If leaders were wanted, there was the Noble and Learned Earl (Eldon) on the Cross Benches, who had always supported the Protestant C.institution. He trusted their Lordships would not give way to theoretical expediency. He ad ♦ised them to persevere in their opposition, but to be mo derate. THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER PRO TESTANT PETITION. The Earl of ELDON rose to present this petition, signed by u pwards of 113,000 inhabitants of London, Westminster, and the parts adjacent. The Noble Earl observed that the petitioners stated that in their opinion it was inconsistent with the first principles of the Constitution, and with the future tranquillity of his Majesty's subjects to concede to the Popish Church that part of the legislation which affects the Protestant Dissenters. That before the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Catholics were not permitted to enter the Legislature of their own country, nor to exercise the elective franchise, until very shortly before the Union, and that to admit them now into a Pro tesunt Parliament would not tend to trauquine Ireland. That the tenets of the Church of Rome were undoubtedly hostile to the Established Church. That no necessity (lid nor can exist to justify the subversion of the Protestant Consti tution. That it would be impossible, by any enactment, to render the popish power consistent with the stability of the Throne and the Established Churcli..— Many of the petitioners were most respectable Magistrates, Bankers, and Traders of this city. The petition lay at the Crown and Anchor (where the public meeting at which it was submiassi, bad been held) and an orator of some kind, who had held forth at Spa-fields, and who had advocated Emancipation of some sort or other for twenty years, oc casioned so much confusion that the petition was ohl;ged to be removed to some other place, where immense numbers had signed it. It was afterwards left at sixty different places for the purpose of obtaining signatures, and a person with it to take care that no improper parties signed it. The Noble Earl did not mean to say that in such a petition as this some improper persons had not signed ; hut he thought at all events there must be the names at least of 100,000 iiio6t respectable individuals at tached to it. The Duke of SUSSEX gave full credit to the explana tion the Noble Earl had given in presenting the pir,tion, and had no hesitation in saying that a great many of the names subscribed to it were extremely respectable. But as it had fallen to his lot on former occasions to com ment on some of these petitions, it was his duty on the prevent to state one circumstance which be thought would strike the Noble Lord with great force as to the incorrectness of the manner in which the petition had been got up. On one individual a person called and requested of hint his signature: the individual staked of that person his name, to which no objection was made. After urging him again and again to sign the petition, he also inquired by whose authority, and from whom he came, to which an answer was declined. He then :.! , ked whether he had Any objection to state upon a card, whirl, i possess, the reasons why he refused to state the name of those who employed him, hut he refused giving the names of those by j7rhoui be was employed on that occasion. The Emulous Duke did "at m ean to complain of this, but he thought a person going to house of another, asking him for his signature, and declining to 4 `" t he names of the persons by whom he was authorised to "'s b°, bore in itself, in every point of view, something of an ezirti:lrdi nary nature. Lord ELDON did not believe that there was any peti tion but on which some objection might be made to the signature of some particular individual. He had thought it his duty to examine carefully into the obtaining of signa tures to any of the petitions he had had the honour of prewnting ; anil he was perfectly satisfied, that if their Lordships were to take the same trouble he had done, that they would at once perceive that there were per sons who played what may be called tricks, for the very purpose of having those tricks related. to such a state as this country now is, there is not a corner from which a petition does not come but there may be raised some objeetion. The great question is, does the mass of the great body of the petitions bring before your Lordships the objects and wishes of the majority of the people. Earl GREY had nothing to say against the way in which this petition had been brought forward by the Noble Earl; but he could not agree that the country was in such a state of agitation as the Noble Earl would have the House believe it was. He rebel in his hand a printed paper calculated to excite the public wind, the like of which had he not seen it he could not have bee !ivied wild have been pobdished. This too he understood to be published and circulated by some Tract Society. The attempts that had been made to inflame the public mind had greatly failed, and whatever might be the ex tent of petitioners and number of petitions thrtiss in upon the House day after slay, he believed that the sober, steady, sound sense of the country was ready to agree to the measure about to be proposed, and to rely with confidence on the wisdom of Parliament. 113,000 householders of the city of London, Westminster, 4nd the adjacent parts, he could not think could be found Ast sign such a peti- Linn as this, because no less than three out of the four Members who represent the eity of Lowi t on had voted in dse other House in favour of the proposed sei t az. sure, and their conduct had not induced their con, stituente to adopt any step whatever, with the view of correcting or eontomling that conduct. The petitioners to the Noble Earl's petition, denied that the eligibility to political power was a right of the subject, arguing that it was to be granted only to the Legislature. Now he (Lord Grey) denied the accuracy of that propcoition. He con sidered that it was the right of the subject, aod to be con trolled only by the Legisl.sture, provided that right _ve nted injuriously to the public. interest. Lord ELDON said that the question would be, whe ther, under the circumstances is which the State thought proper to `uvest power, it would proper and just to grant it, or to tri!lahold it on the present occasion. He was no friend to deeSmation, nor should die 441elge in it. As to inflammatory p a p...rs, if the House chose to.set aside a day for the purpose of hear:qg documents of this eleacrip tion, he would pledge himself to read inflammatory papers against the Noble Earl as long as cYfir he might wish to stay. There were revolutions in opinions az well as in Stotts ; and when he sat next to his Noble Pri s m , ' endeavouring to 'hew the value of the petitions of the people of this coun try, his Noble Friend at the same time enicayboring to ..Inder-value them, it would be well for both to reeoi::et that there was a time when speeches they had made (:4 Another House) perhaps did not very entirely accerd with the opinions of the people of England. Earl GREY held the petitions of the people of the country to be most sacred, and to require the most serious attention the House could at all times bestow ou and God forbid that he should ever knowingly undervalue, or attempt to undervalue them. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could not let it go forth to the country that this petition expressed the sense of the very numerous body of which the petitioners farmed a part. At the last general election for Westminster, both the Members chosen were in favour of emancipation, and not one elector stood forward to object to them on that ground. This could not be said to have proceeded from ignorance of their opinions, for they both had declared them openly ' there and elsewhere, and one of those Hon. Members ha only a short time previous to the election brought se a Bill for the removal of all disabilities which affected the Roman Catholics, which was carried by a very small ma jority, Was he then, not justified in stating that the pe tition before their Lordship, did not represent the opiaion* of the resident freeholders of London, 'Westminster, or the parts adjacent ?—( Hear, hear.)—That the sentiments con tained in that petition were those of the parties who signed it, he did not doubt, nor did he mean in any degree to im pugn their respectability ; but he must contend, that it could not be taken to represent the sense of the majority of the resident inhabitants. The Earl of ELDON then presented 31 petitions to the same effect from places in the counties of Buckingham, Stafford, Kent, Essex, York, Norfolk, Pembroke, and Dumfries. The Marquis of CAMDEN said a few words as to the sense of the majority of the inhabitants of a place from which one of the petitions came, being in favour of con • cession, but we could not catch the name of the place to which the Noble Lord referred. The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition in favour of emancipation. The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented nine petitions from the county of Armagh, one from a parish in the city of Dublin, two from parishes in the county of Wicklow, one from a parish in King's county, and two from other places in Ireland ; all against concession. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the order lately agreed to by their Lordships, relative to the presen tation of petitions, be read. The order was then read. It declared that Peers who had petitions to present should set down their names on a paper on the table of the House, and present their peti tions as their names were called over in rotation by the clerk. The LORD CHANCELLOR had caused the order to be read, because the Royal Duke, who had just presented some petitions to the House, did not seem to he aware of its existence, he having presented his petitions without being called on by the clerk. Lord ROLLE thought that no Peer should be allowed to set down his name by proxy. The paper was some times filled before Noble Lords came down to the House. The Duke of CUMBERLAND apologized for having in fringed the regulation, of the exiitenee of which he had not been aware. The Earl of HADDINGTON gave notice, that he would to-morrow present a petition from Edinburgh, in favour of Emancipation. COAL TRADE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved, " That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the Coal Trade, and the mode of collecting the various duties on coals ; also the charges paid on the same article in the port of London, and all other points connected with this important article of consumption." The Duke of WELLINGTON had no objection what ever to the motion ; on the contrary, from the information he received from all parts of the country, he believed it would, on inquiry, be found that much could be done to render the article cheaper to the consumer without any di minution of the amount of duty received by Government or the City. Lord FARNHAM said, that no motion should be made till after the petitions had been disposed of. If the present motion was entertained, he should feel himself entitled to ing forward the motion of which he had given notice yesterday, immediately. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if there was any dif ference cf opinion on the subject, the motioa had better be deferred. The motion was accordingly postponed. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from a place in Ireland, in favour of emancipation. Earl POWIS presented two petitions from places in Shropshire, and three from places in 'Montgomeryshire, against concession. Earl BEAUCHAMP presented a petition from the vicar, churchwardens, and other inhabitants of the parish of St. John, near Worcester, praying that no further concessions might he granted to the Catholics. Lord LYTTLETON said (as we understood), that a very improper hand-hill had been circulated in the parish, under the authority of the vicar, from which the petition proceeded. This hand-bill contained the following charit able and just expression—" The wolf should not be per mitted to intrude into the fold of the lamb, nor the heathen (the Catholic) to sully the tabernacle of the faithful." The hand-bill then proceeded to lecture on historical points. " We know," it said, " from history, that the people of Great Britain came forward with their ancestors, and said they would not have the laws of England changed."—(A laugh. )--He was inclined to suspect, from that sentence, that the hand-bill must have been the production of au Irishman. The document concluded with a sentiment, that at all events had the merit of novelty : it expressed a hope, that 2,000,000 of Irish Protestants would be rescued from the relentless hands of the Catholics, who had for years been occupied in the work of persecution. The do cument concluded by calling on the Legislature to " obey the wishes, the commands of the people." Earl BEAUCHAMP said, that since the Noble Lord had said so much about a hand-bill, he might be allowed to tell him that a document of that description had been cir culated in the neighbourhood of the Noble Lord's resi dence, which contained one of the most scandalous attacks on the church ever made. He would not have mentioned this circum..tance, had not the Noble Lord said so much respecting the placard on the other side. Lord LYTTLETON said, that if it should be made ma nifest that the hand-bill to which he had alluded had not l'oen circulated by the authority of Dr. Forrester, or at least with his full knowledge and consent, he pledged him self as a gentleman fully and openly to retract the charge which he bad made, and to express his sorrow for having brought it. He might mention, that the population of the parish from which the petition proceeded was 2,000 per sons. He disapproved of the hand-bill which had been circulated by the Popish priest ; but that individual had been harshly treated, and, m a moment of irritation, had forgotten himself. Earl BEAUCPIAMP said, he thought the Rev. poll donee had been very ill used by the Noble Lord. The Eiol of ELDON thought that before any Noble Lord brought a charge against an individual, he was bound to satisfy himself by personAl iinuiry of the truth of the charge. —( Hear.) Lord LYTTLETON said, he conceiyed himself justified in making 4, charge on what he knew to be respectable au thority. If the Rev, gentleman did not circulate the hand bill, he had not repressed it, and that was tantamount to circulating it. The Earl of GUILFORD said, that when such charges were brought against individuals in high situations, they ought to be substantiated by proof at the bar, otherwise Noble Lords r.oe.ld nut expect the House to give credit to them.—The petition was then received. Petitions against the Human c atholic claims were pre sented by the Bishop of CutcrixaxEic, from two places in the diocese of Chichester ;--by the Archbishop of Yott, from the Archdeaconry and clergy of York ;—by the Archbishop of ARMAGH, from the clergy of the (Hoene of Clogher, aid from another place in Ireland ;—by Lord ROLLE, from a place the name of which we did not hear ; and by Lord REDESDALE, from two parishes. COAL TRADE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY now renewed his motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into 4,e state of time coal-trade, which was agreed to. MILITIA STAFF. Lord F4R - 11-14ItI rnovcd for the production of certain papers relative to the redacting of the militia staff. The Duka of IVELLj?IGTON had go objection to the returns being made, and moved foT an Odjtipall return on the same subject. MODE OF PRESENTING PETITIONS. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it right to state, ; e 4; order that no mistake might in future occur as to the moti'e of ivevating petitions, that it was the understanding of the House th4.t etch Peers as had petitions to present, were, during the day os which they intended to present them, to write down their namei, yii<h their own hands, at any time after the meeting of the Hook. Sir A. GRANT, and others from the Cominonsy ,tvotight up the Innkeepers' Bill, which was read a first ,tinw.,— . 4.diop med. HOUSE OF C,,0Z01,0*5..- - (LAST NIGHT.) Petitions against the Cathceic c,1.41s ware presented by Mr. F. Wilson from Hedlington awl Llano /Ate; ; by Mr. R. Smith from Oakley and liransb.y in Essex ; by S;r 4. Inglis from Stonehouse, and four other places in the county ~,,-1 Ayr ; by Mr. Egerton from Macclesfield, John stone; a..d four other places in the county of Dumfries; by Mr. Harvey, from the Minister and Congregation of the Beresford CLpel, Walwerth ; by Mr. C. Pallmer, from the county of Surrey; .ehia Hon, Member observed, ,shat this petition was got up at it . paiii.e meeting of the 4 f itir of Surrey, regularly convened for the'Piap, - ,.;„:, and the tnotios ! t wee carried by a large majority. The pest, tion was signed 44 k large number of persons, respect"- able by their wealth, ini‘ei;g,e/ and education. He had often lifted up his voice against to .0 asure, and would ctr,,tiune to do so. ,On the Dr.,lion that the petition be brought up, Mr. DEINTSS,OI; qbserved, that however he might coin cide i n his Hou. Colleagids observations on the respecta bility of the petitioners, yet he nevi:r could admit that the petition 'poke the sentiments of the county of Surrey. He never . woßld admit that the present petition sposte tha real sentiments of a county so long and so well known for liberality. Lie felt that.nothing could induce him to withdraw his support from it messy's wbicl was founded on justice. On the occasion on which this petition Was got up the roads leading to the meeting were crowded with people carrying the most inflammatory placards, and the gentleman who seconded the petition acknowledged on the hustings that he had procured to be printed a consider able number of the placards, which were entitled " Queen Mary's Days." The society for the publication of reli gious tracts had originally published some of these pla cards, but they *dared that it was for a religious and net political purpose. He (Mr. D.) felt that what Burke declared in respect to the Revolution of 1791 was peculiarly applicable to the present measure ; that "it would benefit all, and injure none." The Right Hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Noble Duke at the head of the Administration, would reap their best reward in the peace they would visit on the Sister Kingdom, and the gratitude with which they would be remembered. Mr. ELLISON presented petitions in favour of conces sion from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, from a parish in Durham, and also from the masters and journeymen shoemakers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the importation of French shoes. Mr. PALLMER presented a petition against conces sion from Carshalton, and also one from St. Saviour's, Southwark ; also a petition from the inhabitants of Mid dlesex and Surrey, recommending the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the Broad Silk Weavers of Leek, praying for a return to the prohibitory duties ; he also presented six petitions from parishes in Stafford, one against, and the others in favour of concessions. Sir C. COOTE presented a petition from the Corporals of the Queen's County Militia, praying for remuneration for past services. Mr. W. HORTON presented a petition from New castle-under-Line, in favour of concessions. Mr. G. PONSONBY presented a petition from a parish in Dul,lin, against the disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders ; also a petition from the Catholics of Youghall, in the county of Cork, in favour of the con cessions. .Mr. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions from parishes in York against concession. Colonel WOOD presented a similar petition from the county of Brecon. Mr. STANLEY said that the petition did not express. the sense of the county of Brecon. At the last election for that county 2,000 freeholders had been polled; and yet, this petition, after being ha.vked through the market towns of the county, including marksmen, and these were rather numerous, had only 900 signatures. Petitions were presented from the following places, against Catholic Emancipation :—By Mr. Fred. Talntash, from a place in the county of Lincoln ; by Capt. Wemyss, from Anstruther Western ; by Sir Edward Knatchbull, from a place in Sussex ; by Mr. H. Maxwell, from eleven places in Ireland ; and by Mr. Curteis, from two parishes in Sussex. Petitions from the following places in favour• of the Catholics, by Mr. Stanley, from the High Sheriff and Magistrates of the county of Brecon, also a similar one from a parilt in the same county ; by Mr. H. Grattan, from Wicklow ; and by Mr. Beaumont, from Blythe. Lord MILTON presented a petition from the worsted manufacturers of Bradford, praying the House to regulate the hours of apprentices working in the manufactories. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from Mallow, to increase the qualifications of freeholders. Mr. G. LAMB said he should not object to any exten sion of the Disfranchisement Bill to Corporations in Ire land. The people of Ireland would consent to this Bill in its present state, as the price of a greater good, and he (Mr. G. Lamb) conceived that in the present stage of the Bill any alteration would be premature, therefore he should withhold his opposition until a future period, and he could never consent to it, except considered as the price of another great measure now in progress. The petition was then laid on the table. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from a parish in the King's County, in favour of concession. EDINBURGH PETITION. Sir J. MACKINTOSH—AIthough I am perfectly aware of the natural and very reasonable impatience of the House at any lengthened speeches on presenting petitions, yet 1 flatter myself, when I state the nature of the petition on which I now lay my hand, Honourable Members will be disposed to think that I am not too presumptuous in requesting them to indulge me for a few minutes ; mare especially as I have not hitherto engaged any portion of their time in the gent cal discussion of this great measure. This is a petition from the undersigned inhabitants of Edinburgh and its vicinity; or, in other words, it is a petition in favour of the Roman Catholic claims from four-fifths of what, until such a levelling spirit seized the Honourable Gentlemen on the Bench below me, used with out objection or exception to be Called tile respectable clisses of the community in the ancient capital of the most Protestant part of this Protestant Empire, which, in my opinion, will peifoi in one of the noblest duties of its high office of guardian to the Protestant interest of Europe by passing this Bill into a law. The petition was adopted by an assembly which, I believe I may say, is absolutely unraralleled in the history of Scotland : it consisted of about 2,000 persons, comprising, as I before said, four fifths, and, in the opinion of others, nine-tenths of those who, until the late innovation of opinion, used to be considered the most respectable classes of the community. The number of signatures is something under 8,000, and to each name is added the place of abode : the most severe scrutiny was made into every signature, and all the prec tutions it was possible to take were adopted against those faults to which numerously signed petitions are ever liable. In a particular manner, precautions were taken which I wish had been adopted on the other side in Edin burgh and in all other places : the Committee by public ad vertisement disavowed every hand-bill, placard, or publi cation, not signed by them or by their agents. Whatever imprudences, therefore, in this respect were committed, of which I am not aware, they at least were not answerable for them. The wisdom of this precaution was proved in Edinburgh in a publication which, as my object is to com pose and not to inflame differences, I will not quote unless 1 am called upon to do so ; but it is one of the most daring and treasonable libels against the royal title and sovereignty of the House of Brunswick, and against the successors of the Princess Sophia, as established by the Act of Settlement. Many productions of a like nature have deluged the coun try during the last six weeks—in greater abundance than for 40 successive years after the battle of Culloden to the commencement of the present Session. As I before stated, I will not quote any part of that daring libel unless called upon to do so; it is certainly of a n store requiring no little legal discrimination to distinguish it from high tree ' son, and I should be extremely sorry that this author should obtain the honours of martyrdom, to which many, no doubt, aspire. In opposition to the new democratists of the lower benches, I shall venture to assert that this petition emanates from the higher class of society in Edin burgh. It is signed by seven Peers, suns of Peers, or Privy Councillors; by 25 Knights of the Bath and Ba ronets; by 155 Landed Gentlemen of considerable pro perty; by 150 practi,ing Advocates of the Scotch Bar, leaving scarcely twelve names of any distinction in this class not appended to the petition, and completing that union, I am proud and happy to say, of the Bar of Scot land with that of England, so worthily represented by my Han. and Learned Friend who is at the head of it (Sir J. Scarlett)—a union, let me add, not merely between the English and Scotch Bars,s id b v ut e w nc i e t i l i t btyheo,Perpoetteisttianinit pre rented Bar of Ireland, a by my Hon. and Learned Friend—if he will allow me to 'Nap en (Mr. Doherty). Thus we have the general consent of the'lsgal prifeeeion in ell parts of 0111 British Islands, to show that these odious and voluntary professors of Constitutional Law, who deal with Crowns at their pleasure, may be mistaken in their opinions. I may add, that the petition is signed by fifty Divines, com nrehending dignitaries of the Church of E ng l an d , and Mi. iatera well known to be most usefully employed in dis charging their sacia:ll d; i ttipa in Edinburgh. It compre hends also the Presbyterian Clergy, still fore anti-Papal than the Scotch Divines of the Seceding "Cllitircb, all Protestants, and comprehended in that class Which we call orthodox D:ssenters. The petition is subscribed also by the Principal of thebol\dlyet;robpyoltittvaenxtUtyn.oivneersßitayt,ikaenrtsi by s ixteen Professors of thaoturvenuonsivre,:e.dininas:tauytiownimreakitinigs andthe g o i: m eg e t ei r i :a , j ,f ori Ti ty 4l o k f i ; g iat c we ll k n own that the bapking buiple§s is the pri nc ip a l tra d e ; by six General Officers and forty Colonels, and other Officersnf the toy N in his 1j by thirty-two a e s a t v c , s . Aiali Officersincluding Officers; by 199 Physicians and Surgeons ; b y a b out 600 Gentlemen connected w ith various branches of the law, /oes;dea Advocates ; and by nearly 250 respectable Mer chants and rir,,a'ajil ! If it be any addition to the weight of this list; I will 'say thai. it ~:iTit2ins the names of almost all the considerable persons of the two kail i e di vided Edinburgh until the happy intr9duce.un of these measures by Ministers l u. ni a r in ie s t t l p the r a e r s t pe y et d d i b ffe ji : t er y ic o es f th in e ; may state with confidence now; that 'with a v in deivryi:i what harnsgoibi uitmalsal'floerlmei2nPgt;*Cv.37hi:h exci:ptioi3. 1 , 1 do not breathe a oftition the Tories, e singled,u n word—theilu ' as pleasurewell tmbeenpteitnintio;:nhaotf titiheereWrexisgts at Eprdeisnebnut dis tinction, I I take the liberty of remarking, that the petition i t h in thesepetition six weeks, iis signed_ Id t Itsel:pfe -oeower• - •'' ' contains no common names. At the Lead 0( the Requi sitionists for the Meeting, and nearly at the head of the signatures to the petition, is the name of the most cele brated writer in the world—of a writer, who has given in a 1 more delight to a greater number of human being s , shorter space of time, than, I will venture to say, any au thor who has preceded him could ever boast of having communicated. What is more pertinent to the subject be fore the Hcuse, he is a man, to the full, as much above the common standard in sense and rectitude of judgment as in other more conspicuous, but not more valuable quali ties. I need not add that this illustrious name is that of Sir Walter Scott. Although not so pertinent to this peti tion, I would indulge in the melancholy pleasure of adding, on this question, to the first name in British literature the first name in British science—that of Sir Humphrey Davy. Though on a sick bed, he was not so absorbed by his suf. ferings.from which, I trust, he will be speedily relieved —but that he felt and expressed a glow of joy at the glad tidings of the introduction of a Bill which he held as honourable to his religion as to his country. The person who took the most active part in introducing the petition is a gentleman whom I have the happiness to call my friend —Sir James Moncrieff. Placed by the unanimous suffrage of his own profession at the head of it, as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and enjoying an extent of legal practice which none of his greatest predecessors ever ap proached, I cite him chiefly on the present occasion, in the hope that his name may furnish something to appease and conciliate the hostility directed against this measure, arising from feelings which, in the utmost excess, I can not but reverence, which I cannot approach without ten derness, and which I cannot wish on the whole to be weaker, although I might pray that they should be ma naged with more forbearance. His father was one of the brightest ornaments of the Church of Scotland, whose venerable pia sense now rises before my eyes, uniting the appearance of the primitive Christian and of the gentleman of ancient blood in a degree I never knew equalled. My friend, " of virtuous father virtuous son," has subscribed the petition with as true a heart as was possessed by his pious progenitor. Before I elopes' to the next name, I must say that we have in it that of one of the most splendid ;and the weightiest of these who have supported this measure—the learned, the philosophical, the eloquent, and, above all, the pious Dr. Chalmers, than whom no more zealous Protestant can exist, or one more ready to take a part in the contest be tween the two religions with more activity and sincerity. It would be in vain to look among the Brunswickers for so zealous a champion of the Protestant cause. I know that he had never before spoken at any meeting called together for any Protestant purpose; on this occasion lie made his first appearance on behalf of his religion, for I never heard of his political opinions before. He feels warmly; arid, if I may so speak on so sacred a subject, he manifested what I may venture to call a proud and jealous solicitude for the religion which, above all human concerns, is most dear to his heart. He prays us to disencumber his religion of all that antiquated armour of disabilities and penalties which has weakened it, and which has been worn by false hood and imposture, in order that the contest may be de rided by appeals to Scripture and reason which is the true religion. He desires us to act in the noble spirit of that ancient father of the Christian Church, St. Austin, who, when offered military aid by the Pro-Consul of Africa to support his religion, answered—" I should despair of the Church of Africa, if it received the military aid of the Pro- Consul." I turn also to him who was the light and glory of the Protestant Church of Ireland. I appeal to those who are acquainted with the history of that Church, whe ther Jeremy Taylor is not entitled to as high a rank as any individual in any Protestant Church—whether he is not indeed one of the most resplendent lights of the Protestant Church? He, in language becoming him, but much too bold for me, censures those who have recourse to such aids in support of religion, because, he says, " they distrust the power of God to maintain his own Kingdom." I will appeal also to a person of high authority, Dr. Routh, venerable for his Notes to Burnett, who has said that "all sound divines of the Church of England consider that the Roman Catholic Church retains the fundamentals of Chris tianity, though it has added to them errors and mistakes in raising the superstructure." I am anxious to make a few observations to caution the House against considering the toleration of other opinions as a proof of indifference to our own. I was surprised and shocked when I heard it represented that since the appearance of the works of Jeremy Taylor and Locke, toleration should be regarded as a proof of indifference in religious matters. On the contrary, I apprehend that those who are most careful to guard the conscientious exercise of their own religion themselves would be those also who would most respect that right in others; those who would most deeply resent the least in trusion on the most valuable of all the privileges they enjoy themselves, are generally those who are the least disposed to invade those of others. Let not the House and the country be abused by vague words which signify nothing, but have a great effect in explaining the passions of men. I highly approve of the just observations of an amiable and excellent Prelate in another place, who distinguished so well between the two points of religious toleration and civil liberty. Nothing can be unfisirer than to excite the feelings of the ignorant by confounding a union with the Roman Catholics in the performance of the offices of civil life and a union with them in the profession of the articles of their religion.—(Hear, hear.)—There is no more ten dency to union with them in religious opinions than there is in India between us and the followers of the 13rahrni- Meal and Mahometan doctrines, because we do them the justice to exercise a watchful care over their property, and even over the endowments of their false and idolatrous re ligions; but we retain our religious opinions there as much as we shall do when we have done the same justice to the Roman Catholics. I shall close what I have to say with a single observation concerning the effect which our example in dealing with this Bill may produce on fo reign cotearies. I beg to call the attention of the House to what I am going to say, and especially those who are zealous for the Protestant cause. Let us consider how the success of this Bill may affect the conditions of Protestants in other parts of the world. There is a vast body of them subject to France and other Roman Catholic Powers. This is a question of some importance, if it be considered in a religious point of view. There are some places from which Protestants are shut out absolutely : I allude to that unfortunate country which lies to the south of the Pyre • nees. They are only let in by a precarious connivance to Italy. In France and Austria only do they enjoy their po litical rights fully. Will you then refuse this Bill on tie principle that the Roman Catholic religion is to be con.. sidered as idolatrous, and the professors of it incapable + of performing the common duties of society, or worthy to he believed on their oaths? What sort of disposi tion would such a result create in the minds of those Sovereigns in whose hands the rights and happiness of our brother Protestants are placed? What hosti lity would they not feel? What desire would they not have to annihilate the political privileges of the Protestants, if they saw such treatment endured by the Roman Catholics? I may be allowed, I trust, to close with an observation :slake by a great man, Mr. Burke, who described Sir George Savile's Bill, in 1788, for the Repeal of the P ena l t i es aga i nst Roman Catholics, as a Bill for the toleration of the Protestant religion throughout Europe ; and I, in a much more emphatic manner, will say, that I consider the Bill now before the House as a that will promote the interests of the Protestant reli gion in every other country in the world—that will open the doors which long have been shut against the professors of the Protestant faith, and enables' them to obtain a pa tient hearing to its preachers in places where the most violent prejudices now prevailed against it—that will give to Protestantism a legal toleration, where it now subsists only lay a precarious connivance—and will finally secure, a trengthen, and perpetuate, the rights of millions of Pro testants whp bye under Roman pathulic Sovereigns. If we could convoke all the Protestants on the Continent of Europe at the Bar of this House, I am sure they would implore us this day to spread over their rights and privi leges the shield of tol erat i on b y the example of our con • l o ticsh in act which may be e l s e s l se to d of illchic Roman NF!i :o, c l Catholics. prej t hat repre sented as a proof that we hated their Roman Catholic op ponents mere than we loved our Protestant brethrs n. On moving that the petition should be broeght Mr. TRANT said, he could not feel himself justified in admitting that the middle classes of people hail not an equal right to addreas that Muse by petition as well as the most eminently learned persona to be found in that city which designated itself, by 1 . 1 : 11y of eminence, the modern Athens. _ 44 1 3 90, and hear.)—Certainly, distioctips of thie natnrei to Ole pl . P.i4lPee of pertinn; ipferier stations in life, came with a very ill grace from quarters where, when he was a boy, he recollected the sovereignty of the people c st o i t o n n oi e i li to h u y re a giou . be of had often been advocated, an d t h e majesty of the mob been drunk as a toast. Whe n t h e H ouse was acquainted with f. r w o, rm h h ic ti h rtebi h il a : d dw,a l s a h lately thoughte n l o y t beena ue tnttni a ca r tei o it would no longerhs at apenos tit correspondent acquainted hir4. that at a late Catholic procession its Ireland; 'the ' Protegt ant pas i ers-b j ; had been ; compelled A Worship th e gags were . carried in the , procession, and the Cath o li cs actually broke into a Protes a letter fact i tont chureh, and publicly burnt the Bible as a conclusion of this ceremony. 1 Sir R. INGLIS remarked there was a wide distinction to be draWn between toleration for which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had Sio eloquently pleaded, and that admission to power which was the object of the Ca tholics and their advocates. Sir G. MURRAY pat ticipated in the gratification so eloquently expressed by the Right Hon. and Learned pre senter of !ha petition, in finding the views of his Majesty's Government were sanctioned by the approbation of so many men whose genius and talents had raised them to deserved eminence. Mr. S. BOURNE conceived, that by whatever term the measure alluded to might be called, whether a mea sure of prudence, of policy, or of necessity, it certainly could not with propriety be denominated by the term " toleration." Mr. C. GRANT admitted that there were many per sons, no doubt, in Scotland, who felt insuperable objec tions now to this measure ; yet with all the zeal which characterized those who held these objections, he defied them to produce a petition against concession signed by persons of equally admitted character, intelligence, and established fame, as those attached to the petition before the House. Mr. H. DRUMSIOND observed, that the present peti tion was a proof of the intelligent mind of the best class of people in Scotland. After a few words from Sir J. Illicirmrosu and Sir R. Itict,ts the petition was read, and ordered to be printed. FREEHOLDERS' QUALIFICATION IN IRELAND BILL. The order of the day being moved by Mr. Secretary PEEL, for the re-consideration of the Report on this Bill, Mr. MOORE, in rising to move that it he an instruc tion to the Committee on the Qualification of Freeholders' Bill, that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill to corporate and other towns sending represen tatives to Parliament, and also power to preserve the ex-• isting rights of Protestant freeholders, totally disclaimed this Bill as a security for the measure of concession and relief to the Roman Catho:ics. He considered the Bill just in its principle, and that it derived its best claim to his support from this circumstance,—that by raising the freehold it the more effectually guarded the purity of elec tion in Ireland. The necessity which existed for this im provement of our Constitution was not confined ,to the electors for counties in Ireland. The Bill was totally in adequate to the object the Right Hon. Gentleman had in view. The reasons which his Right Hon. Friend had assigned for not extending the operation of the Bill to cities and towns, had not, upon full consideration satin fied his mind; and lie begged to move the following in struction to the Committee :—.‘ That power be given to the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill to boroughs, cities, and towns corporate in Ireland." Mr. V. FITZGERALD would not detain the House long in stating the reasons which induced him to oppose the proposition of the Hon. Member for Dublin. The Hon. Member bad stated the grounds on which he thought the machinery of the Bill ought to be applied to all places returning Members to Parliament. The Hou. Member had stated that his Right Hon. Friend had supported the Bill as it stood, on the principle that it was a counterpois e to the predominant influence of corporations. For his own part he had no recollection of his Right Honourable Friend having used these terms ; but lie did recollect his Right Hon. Friend having said that in addition to other considerations, which his Right lion. Friend stated, it ought to be recollected, that in the greater part of towns and cities there existed the right of extending the elective franchise indefinitely, and that for that reason the Bill could not be applied to cities and towns without giving an unfair advantage to corporations. He perfectly concurred in this view; and he must say that when the principle of these measures was to confer an equality of civil rights, it did appear to him not a little inconsistent to propose that the representation should he placed exclusively in corpo rations.—(Hear, hear.)—There was a very considerable difference between the franchise in towns and the fran chise in counties. It was undoubtedly true that the free hold districts in towns were not confined to streets and houses —but surely the Hon. Member did not mean to contend that there was, in and about the towns of Ireland, that very great, almost undefined, extent of ground which would lead to such abuses as might be practised in coun ties. As to the power vested in corporations of creating an unlimited number of freemen, he could only say, that if there was any one circumstance more likely than ano ther to endanger the rights of great corporations, it was the exercise of this power for the purpose of creating a predominant influence in elections, instead of for the pur poses for which they were invested with the power. If there was any case--and the Hon. Member fur Dublin would know if there was—of a corporation admitting freemen, not by name, but as members of certain political clubs, in order to controul elections, he did think that the fact would weigh with the House against, and not for, a pro position, the avowed object of which was to diminish every other influence which could be opposed to that of eorporations.—(Hear, hear.)—The lion. Member had said that it would be easy to add a clause to this Bill, which would carry his proposition into effect. He (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) should protest altogether against the measure being coupled with this Bill, even if the measure were one in which he was inclined to acquiesce. Ile meant no dis respect when he said that it was impossible for gentlemen to be wholly free from the influence of the interest by which they were returned to Parliament ; and he must say, that if the propositioa of the Hop. Member for Dub lin was to be agreed to, without raising the qualification, it ought to be the subject of a subsequent measure, and at another time, though, for his own part, there would be no time at which he would consent to increase the power of corporations to so great an extent. The Hon. Member for Dublin had said that there were judicial officers in towns and cities which corresponded to the assistant bar rister. Now if there was any one thing which he liked more than another in the Bill, after raising the qualifi c.tion, which elevated the Irish voter, and gave to the Irish Member a character which he had never yet possessed, it was the selection of the persons to whom the powers given by the Bill were confided. No body of men had greater claims for their independ ence, for the excellence of their deportment, for their strict impartiality, and for the extent of their knowledge, than the gentlemen who presided at Sessions in Ireland; and the Catholic gentlemen who had lately been raised to these stations were not inferior to the most eminent of the b.dy.—(Hear.)—But, on the other hand, the Recorder was an officer elected by the corporation.—(Hear.) —The Mon. Member (Mr. Moore) bad himself been a candidate for that office in Dublin—and the Hon. Member for Drog heda (Mr. Van Homrigh), who was at that moment speaking to the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Moore) across the gangway, was himself the Recorder of Drog heda.—(Hear, bear.)—Speaking with all respect of the Hon. Member for Dublin, he must say that such a re commendation as this, coming from the Hon. Member, was not very likely to be attended to. His objection, however, was to the principle of the instruction. Far from conferring an equality of civil lights, it was calcula ted to recreate the most odious ascendancy; and he did therefore implore the Mon.Alember not to press his motion. After de opinion which the House had expressed of these measures for tranquillizing Ireland, lie could not under will d ac o co n m w p h iish what what principle yu any one o t ne bu c t o l ul w d il s l ay t the cauldro n w hi c h s h a ll make it abortive. " Mr. H. GRATTAN never heard a proposition so ex. say, "wl see t ha y t o i u n traordinary, so injurious, or so well calculated to revive thole occurencee which they all deprecated, as the propo sition which had been made by his Hon. colleague (Mr. Moore.) Mr. VAN HOMRIGH hoped the Hen. and Learned Member for Dublin would see the inexpediercy of pressing his motion to a division, the rather as the Bill of which it was intended to be an ametdment, was ow that many Hon. Members—himself (Mr. Yan tionarigb) for one._ spppo}•teth pot op its own merits, but from its being an appendage to a most beneficial measure. Mr. TRANT would support the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin's proposition. Col. TRENCH differed from the Hon. Member, and contended that theli before the House would materially strengthen the Protestant establishments. Mr. LLOYD opposed the motion, because he conceived its tendency would be to make the corporations in Ireland omnipotent at elections. After a few words, in reply, from Alr. Mona}, the ga ll er y -,ias &geared, but the 'Hon. Member 'withdrew his motion without pressing it to a division. On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. MOORE proposing his next resoltn4-4t That it be an instruction to the Committee on he qualification of Freeholders' Full, that they have the power to preserve the existing rights of Protestant freeholders." His reason for thus exempting the Protestant forty-shilling free holders from the operation of the Bill was, that the Pro testants—particularly of the north of Ireland—were an in dustrious and intelligent set of men, and, unlike the Ca tholic freeholders, quite free from the influence of priests. The Catholic freeholders were more objects of pity than punishment, but stood in a very different relation to the Bill from their Protestant brethren, Wh . ile the frauchiie of the former was a great political evil, that of the latter was a constitutional He did feel, th en , that Ills proposition was not more than was due to the Protestant freeholders; indeed, his motto would be, sic utere Imo, at aliennm non icedas ; so that nothing but jttatice \v,ould be leave to propose dope towards all his r parte4ition.ieq. Vpoti that gr oun d he begged Mr. PEEL thought his Hon. Friend had acted wisely in not pressing his former resolution to q diviiinn 4 and thought that such was also the feeling of dist Housto.O . (Hear, hear.)—He also thought, that when his Nei' . Friend considered that his present, motion was founded off' a religious distinction, and not on political grounds, 1,0 would see the expediency of withdrawing it as in the' former instance. His Hon. Friend must see that it would; not he fair to grant the Protestant freeholder a privilege whiCh they took from the Catholic, because, as his Hon. Friend stated, the Protestants in the North of Ireland were respectable and uncontrolled in the exercise of their. franchise by spirital influence ; for his Hon. Friend must know, that very many respectable Catholic freeholders who had voted in favour of Protestant candidates, undis!. mayed by popular clamour, would be disfranchised by the • Bill before the House, no less than the Protestant free holders. There then existed no valid ground of distinc tion so far as respectability and freedom from spiritual in fluence was concerned. And would his Hon. Friend rest his proposition on a religious distinction? H© wa s stile not,—and that the force of the legal maxim quoted by his , Hon. Fri e nd, " Si c utere tuo, ut alienum non hulas,' would induce his Hon. Friend to withdraw his motion. . Mr. TRANT would vote for the Hon. Member's ma• tion if he pressed it to a division. Mr. V. Fl 7 ZGERALD felt himself bound to state, that he never suffered one expression of censure or dissa-; tisfaction to escape him in consequence of the opposition given to him at the late election by the forty-shilling free- t holders, and that be never suffered himself to be at all influenced in his support of the present Disfranchisement' Bill, nor to be at all influenced in his private or public conduct by that opposition.—(Hear, hear. )—lf he had' any resentful feelings in consequence of that event, -he had kept his word given at the time, that it would not at all , influence the course of conduct which he had so long un deviatingly pursued toward his Catholic fellow-subjects. He had not deviated from that course ; so that he might repeat the language of a Noble Lord in another place, and say " he had had his revenge."—(Hear.)--He sup ported this Bill because he considered it a security which ought to satisfy the Protestants of the country. He sup ported it as afford'ng the beat reformation of the state of the elective franchise in Ireland, and the most effectual means for the regeneration of that country. It was on these grounds, and on .the grounds which had been de tailed by his Right Hon. Friend in introducing the met sure, that he (Mr. Fitzgerald) supported it, and no per- • sonal feelings whatever mingled with his advocacy of the measure.—(Hear, hear.) The motion was then put, and negatived without a division. Lord DUNCANNON was anxious to state before the House went into a Committee on this Bill, that though he had not altered his views with respect to it, for he still considered it a measure equally unnecessary and unjust, yet after the sense of the House had been so decidedly ex pressed upon it, and after the Right Hon Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had declared that he and his colleagues viewed this Bill in no other light but as a portion of the great mea sure of Catholic relief, he (Lord Duncannon) should not take up the time of the House by giving this Bill any fur• ther opposition.—(Hear.) Sir H. PARNELL entirely concurred in the senti ments expressed by his Noble Friend (Lord Duncannon•) He (Sir H. Parnell) should also feel it his duty to give no further opposition to the Bill, lest, by so doing, he might at all imped e the success of the great measure of emanci pation.—(Hear.) Mr. ESTCOURT also conceived that it would be quite useless, and only wasting the time of the Nouse, to offer any further opposition to this Bill. Mr. A. DAWSON concurred as to the inutility of offer ing any further opposition to the Bill, but he trusted that when in Committee, a clause which he intended to sug gest in reference to those forty-shilling freeholders who held in perpetuity would meet with the support of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and be introduced into the Bill. Mr. HUME said, he was one of those who in the first instance had objected to this measure, in company with the Non. Baronet (Sir N. Parnell). That Hon. Baronet said, that he had opposed this measure not as a Parlia mentary reformer. Indeed, he (Mr. Hume) had been surprsed at the complexion of the minority in which he found himself in this measure. He certainly never was, and he had been in a great many minorities—(a laugh)— in a minority so strangely composed.—(Much laughter.) —On going home to his house, he endeavoured to analyse, it, and he must say that he could not reconcile the mo tives and views of the different individuals of whom that minority was composed.—( Great laughter.)—He had op posed this measure because he considered it an infraction of popular rights; he entertained the same opinion of it still, but he should do nothing further in the way of oppo sition, lest he might thwart the great measure of emanci pation. By the way, he would direct the attention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the miserable state of the elec tive franchise in Scotland. An individual there, who possessed not a farthing's worth, not an acre of land, but who held land as a tenant at a nominal rent, had voted, while the substantial freeholders were excluded from the franchise. Lord SANDON voted for this measure, not as a re former, but because be was willing, when a practical grievance or abuse was pointed out to him, to apply to it a practical remedy. Mr. JAMES GRATTAN contended that the forty shilling freeholders bad in the majority of instances exer cised their fr4uchise honestly, and he should certainly op pose this Bill if he conceived that his opposition to it would have any effect. Mr. BANKES Wished to know whether any distinction existed between the Protestant and Catholic forty-shilling freeholders at present? Mr. PEEL—No distinction whatever. The House then went into a Committee on the Bill ; Sir A. GRANT in the Chair. The two first clauses were then put and agreed to. On the clause, raising the qualification from 40e. to 10/. being read by the Chairman, Mr. MOORE rose to propose, as an amendment, that the words " twenty pounds" be inserted instead of " ten pounds." All the communications which he had received from Ireland concurred in stating, that the Bill would not accomplish the purposes for which it was intended, unless the qualification were raised to twenty pounds. As far as his (Mr. Moore's) observation and experience went, be concurred in that opinion, and he therefore begged leave to move an amendment to that effect. Mr. PEEL should give his most decided opposition to such an amendment..—(Loud cries of " Hear.")—lf his lion. Friend would but look to the clauses which regu- • lated and determined the 10/. franchise under this Bill, be would see ;hat the present qualification afforded the most ample security under such restrictions for its beneScial ex ercise, and a far better security than the raising of it to 20/., under the existing system, would supply. He ob jected to this amendment also, because it would go to take the elective franchise from the counties, and to throw into the great towns —to deprive the landed proprietors in the counties of that influence, and to throw it into the bands of the respectable shopkeepers in the great towns. Mr. MOORE argued, that it appeared from the eYi dence given by Mr. O'Connell iu 1825, that the rtal,sliaw of the franchise to 10/ would increase the Cot4e&ic ; anti diminish the Protestant influence in Ireland., Mr. PEEL remarked, that that evidenec :0.044 raising of the qualification to 41. a* contemplated by the Bill of 1825, from which pkll the present differed not only as to the atmearit of the qualification, but as to the, regulatiorra ender which the franchise must be regiatered, Colonel TRENCH conceived .that the pleing of the,. franchise to 201. would be more likely to establish a race of independent yeomanry and freeholders in Ireland. Admiral . EVANS maintai ne d, t h at i n his opening speed on this sub ject, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr, peel), had laid meat stress upon the evidence of Mr. White, 7+,4, gave his opini on t h at i t would be better to re* the q.ualie fication to 20/. The Right Hon. OentlnineA would of course rely more upon that authority than the authority of Mr. O'Connell, as the respectability of the parties would bear no competition. He (Ad,rial,eal Evans) Would take it middle course, and he weed(' propose that the qualities, Iron should be raised to 151.-0 4010 Mr. V. FITZGERAU) contended, from his know ledge and experience of Ireland, fleet the raising of the qualification with the regulations and under the reatiictin e of,' this Bill, would fully accomplish the objecte wares the House had in view. Mr. M. FITZGERALD argued against the pkope.atiou of the Hon. Member for Dublin. Mr. THANT remarked, that the Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Peel) had said, that the evidence of Mr. O'Connell referred to the raising of the qualification to 51. Ile would only refer the Right lion. Gentleman to that evidence to convince him of his voietake.—(Cries of " Read, read.")-lle held it in his hands.—(Repeated cries of "Read , ") ,~ N e should read it to the House. The extract which he proposed to read to the House was from a speech made by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) en this subject in 1825.—(A laugh..)—The words of the Right Hon. gentleman at that period were the follow jog :—" Ile would now exatnine how far the measure would affect the Protestant interest in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell bad stated in his evidence that this Bill would have the effect of leisettieg the power of the aristocraeye and of increasing tlie influence of the Roman Catholics.' What were Ole effects which the Right Hon. Gentleman tbeira attributed to the Bill, which was then before Parlio tuentt and which lie himself contended at the time west