The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-20 00:00:00

l questions 14u1.Leen put to the candidates on the subject. On the presept occasion the general inhabitant.; of . the town of N ewcastle had evinced no disposition to petition, but the C orgy thought fit to take a very active part. When the measures for the relief of the Catholics were announced in Parliament, the first step taken by the Vicar of New castle was to apple to the Mayor to call a meeting of the in-- habitants; for the purpose of petiti.ining against those measures. The application not being fortified by a requi sition, the Mayor refused to listen to it. Means were then taken to produce the petitiens which the Noble Lord had that night pieeented. The Noble Lord said that he hail been instructed to say, aed that he could bring very re -I"Peetahhi gentlemen to the liar to prove, that no improper means had been used in getting up these petitions. He (Earl Grey) did not mean to impute any very great abuse in that Point. It was true, that the petitions were carried about the town, ' , and that names were annexed to them ,whieli ought not to be found there but he wotald pass that e over. T rliereovere some °th e e eiteihneiances, how "ver, attending thete petillofie which w e r e we ll wor thy th e q t entinn ni LoilShne anti especially of the two Right e; , . • • Prelat; oalloSite. The petition from the parish of s ▪ t " . ‘ll j ahia2' AVM first produced by the Clergy, at the b that parish, to two or three persons who they w eredinetile to any concession to the Roman Catholics. Lie was sorry to sett', that inflammatory addresses were P u blished to the people of Newcastle, calling en them m snared against the renewal of all the horrors ox Popery, which the intended measures were, it was said, calculated t " shiest, net vvas not enough. Apprehensive that those tneans would not he enough to obtain sufficient support to their petitien, • they so ug ht f or a lli es i n a quarter w hi c h he thought she Right Rev. Prelates would not -approve, and they bad porch:teed the assistance of those allies at rn expens e which he thought the Right Rev. Prelates would r.,,,ensitler too great. The fact was this;--that when the petitio n from the parish of St. Nicholas was first drawn up by the Clergy, it contained not only a strong decla ration against the nOttlall Catholi c ., but also a warm expres s i on of .the ;attach ment of those s by whom the pe tition was subscribed to the Established Constitution end tit the Government in Church and State. Now, if th e &Oahe :and Learned. Lord would cast his eyes s ‘ l\lt. the petition in its present form, he would find that It contained no such words. lie would tell that Noble and Learned Lord how they came to be omitted. Ile had already said that the Clergy sought for allies in their tin- Lt.1,14.,1ftt.'-:-They had sought and found them in the Wes- C n Methodi s t s . • B u t w h en tth e p e titi on was presen t e d to '"e Wesleyan Methodists for the purpose of receiving their signatueeN they objected to the clause expressing attach meat to t° the Church and St a t e; an d u p on th e i r representa the Petition was withdrawn, and another substituted without the clause. This was a fact which seemed to him Z n b n e "ally of th e i r L or d s hip s ' attent i on. Il e did not v Whethe r he was authorised to infer that those who t - deee• !)f ' to the introduction of the clause expressive attachment to Church and State were necessarily hostile tole conne ct i on of Church and State ; but at least it rrini6lit be i n f erred that they were not very friendly to it. A While heave s on that topic, lie would suggest to the "'At Reverend Prelates, that while they were on their the against Popery, it would lie well for them to protect I pe against those whose designs and views might ejeasidered at least as dangerous to the Church of Eng lam In consequence of finding that this petition was in pof reparation, a' number of the most respectable inhabitants of N ewceetle--l awyers, medical men, merchants, agis- mas and oth ers— m thought it necessar y th a t a public eetin g (m i d Y discbe called, at which the question might be t o ' d i n"etls They accordingly presented a requisition f at effect . to the Mayor. He complied, and appointed capable purpoite the Guildhall of the town, which was t ` l a P a ule of containing about 3,000 persons. As soon as „. 1 7 W4 ii known, another requisition was got up, and how"imy no doubt, very respectable men ; among whom, namt,er, there was not one magistrate, not one eminent e not one eminent physician, and only one clergy fttle attorney , an d t wo merchants. This requisition °tasted that, the Guildhall was too small for the intended a p t ur P i ne, and called upon the Mayor to h o ld th e meet i ng sots Place capable of holding a larger assem bl age o f p er . poin ' t. In complia nce w ith t hi s requ i s i t i on the Mayor :m -enu ac well knowu to the Noble and Learned Lord, the pl Spit e al. A Nobl e an d Reverend Lord on o the tcareokaa m 1 bench hattcondemned what he considered unjust at fliend thla•Clerny. Ile (Earl Grey) was no greater mun i i euch att b acks than the Noble Lord. He was a eruf the Church of Eegland. He was sineere'y tackedat- D tO the truth of its doctrines. He wished to hold it up r "Peet, hut he did not think that the way to hold it n r espect was to abstain from noticing the errors of °fib; c Ministers. He was sorry t o sa y th a t th e con lee f the Clergy at N ewcast l e , on t h e occas i on to w hi c h th_wils eferrin g , did net appear to hi m calculated to benefit trr(-hutch to which they belonged, or to support their • ac ter. as Ministers of peace and charity. They re- I re ( ' to every kind of-inflammatory proceeding in fur in o nce of their object. They had sought -for aid, not inh abited.-principally but in all the neighbouring villages, by colliers; hoping by clamour to 'estr oy the effeets.44 reasoning and argument. As a spe t,ittien of the bill s c i rcu l ated by them, he would rea d to their l iarilehips.on e w hi c h h e had obtained. It was to the fol :,aing e ff ec t :—' The facti on l e d b y their apostate leathers it i a developed its accursed pl an . All offices are to b e op e ned the Papists, eacept those of Lord Chancellor and Lord e7ittenant of Ir e la n d. Wh en once the Papists take their • in Parli ament t h e British Constitution Will be at an gil l ,: for th ere w ill b e no security for the Protestant Hell ttThe apostate Mini s t ers o f th e C rown h ave d ec l are d arliainent that they will carry their proposed measures ,kPit e of the people. Do not neglect your duty.— , NT"' at the Meeting appointed to be held at the Spital. PN l ti l d diY thousands." Accordingly a large mob, coin ehieflY of the colliers in the neighbourhood of ,Iteslstle, att en d e d . One of the R i ght Rev. Prelates INN ire was well ac q ua i n t e d w ith th e Diocese in which t t l / 4 eae ir t . le was situated. He . well knew how the Church bilkh:n?lnent was there assailed. Perhaps . there was no t a K. i n England in which Methodism had made so grea feue' r e. He was far within limits when lie stated that g4 4it hs of the working colliers, who inhabited the vil -4:,n the neighbourhood of Newcastle, belonged to con al i te l°4l of Wesleyan Methodists. Supported by this i:rg re *thaznezrg_ and etnie °f Em overbore at the meet t. argut a n n en cip to a t tjon its friends. The motion eb o Petition in eta favour was negatived by a majority of at great to four. B u t th e i r L or d s hip s wou ld f a ll into a Pre te I ‘ror if th ey were to conc l u d e t h at that decision re it aer'" the re a l o pi n i on o f th e t own o f N ewcast l e . 4n ri a o 4 e t , h , e °Pinion of a mob assembl e d by the assist- Wesleya n Methodists, to whom, indeed, was tile, attributed a large proportion of the petitions hos tnt,(l4o the' Cath o li cs w hi c h h a d b een presente d to t h e i r tvhi ah hi P T • Since that, the the . kin Corporation of Newcastle, is w" ° tie of th e mos t reepectable and opulent Prerteg a "ts met and unanimou s ly decided upon ilg_ l ting a Petition in favour of the; Catholic Claims, b e t, Petition, he believed, was in the hands of a Noble 4 f t , WllOl4 they h a d h onoure d th emse l ves b y ma ki ng "itieZ ul art. Those wh o h a d s i gne d th e or i g i na l Requi siieji to the Mayor also met, and prepared a petition of a 41. IlatUre, which w as now c i rcu l at i ng f or the recep ie , Tl rthe signatures; and he (Earl Grey) expected that ; At eg t o time it would cont a i n a great proport i on o f t h e lie h q influence and respectability resident in Newcastle. tefle: l . l ,atated these - facts, not with a view of throwing any open the Clergy ; but he perfectlyagreed with his t he i a ' r dentt near him, that the best means of preventing " 1 • 4,,Zeast of dissent of any kind from the Established ne l vt(a, for.the Ministers of the Church of England to t hep,,,A, e rit ih the discharge of their duties. By so doing, istitfr7ght perhaps'convert a number of the Chapels ex ino ' r ,tri the neighbourhood of Newcastle and elsewhere freal'anreltee. One great cause of the extensive dissent trop e te Church was, the accumulation of the Church "ad to an enormous extent. That and other causes butt. n eed the e ff ec t s which l i e had d escr ib e d. H e was "t ,: tl ,: v vishiiig t o ma k e an y a tt ac k o p en th e Ch urc h ; t hei a nait made the statement with which he had troubl e d ha d C • rdship s , in order to show them the means which ' 41 14.4" . n . resorted to to obtain many of the petitions pre all t t : them at this important crisis ; and more espe „"arl l k . ;w arn them against considering the petitions which ✓ Presented by the Noble and, Learned Lord, as ;A TI, h,the opinions of the inhabitants of Newcastle. rs ishnp BilisToL had some reason to look with av lnsion to the active measures of the Roman Gallo nl;set : b ar n it had pleased some of them to declare that . their n°tt.er• e of the '" t its ruin National Church ; and it was the e Y u nreasonable that the Clergy should feel a more 4, 144 r h d itiery int eres t i n t h e su bj ec t. H e h a d no so li c i tu d e tone r irnself forward on this occasion. He had come to 13altellibe perf o rmance of his duty ; and when the Noble w ere t rell hie views on this subject, which he confessed r flu ell `lllrdifferent from hie, he confessed that he felt n et , It , n l) rietl and disappointed. P i : lt4 ti eh EY disclaimed any intention of casting any int 'Jut V''neinst the Clergy of the Established Church. ,Clerty i!,ertainly was of opinion that the junction of the filtertatjith the Methodists was not likely to promote the PeO l t 8 t ;:; Church or to uphold its character. r".°P . -of BATH and WELLS contended that the ghat 11 0 ..'is Country had an undoubted right to petition Wh iti:' t illd - he could not help saying that the manner IPposit t Petition,' had been treated by the Noble Lords %use 01/ 41 _ 1 1Ct calculated to raise the character of the ih'the eyei of the people. Scarcely a pe titian had been presented from that (One Ministerial) side of the House, upon au grinituled or ground lees, had not been made. y had tetli in the habit saying a great deaf lot iLetiteil es, and , :-7 ,4( !01ve to say something, for the people England. (lot:It they, he would ask, do other than fad damply O. a question, which involved their interest and their religita: ? It was touch better that they should petition ; because otherwise the people of England might be roused to express their feelings in a manner which he should sot wish to witness. With respect to svb tt had been said about the conduct of clergymen in connecting themselves with petitions, he should merely observe, that he would censure any clergy man who got up a petition in a way not creditable to his character; but he thought that the clergy had a right to come forward in a proper manner. With respect to his own clergy, he felt no difficulty in defending them. He was proud to be the of such an etemplary body or thiiiy—'Clietti., hear.) The Earl of MOUNTCASIIEL said the Noble Earl had made a very unjust attack on the Wesleyan Metho dists, who were not Dissenters, but were, on the contrary, in communion with the Church of England. They agreed with the Church of England in all its doctrines; but they were generally considered to be it more religions body. Earl GREY said, if he had used the term "Dissentert," (hut he believed he had net) as applied h the Wesleyan Methodists, then he certainly Was in error. Ile knew that the Wesleyan Methodists professed to join in communion with this Church of England. The Earl of ELDON was very far from saying that there might not be petitions most iniproperly got up, as had been stated by the Noble Earl, but let neat the Noble Earl suppose that that er,thsatiOrl applied only to the pe titions on oae side. With respect to the Clergy of this place, as far as he knew any thing of them, he had every reason to believe that they were most respectable indi viduals ; and he would say that the Clergy would not have done their duty to that Church of which they were Ministers, if they did not assist in bringing these petitions before their Lordships. He had been now -near fifty years in Parliament, and he was sure be never recollected the country in so agitated a state as it was at present. He was perfectly convinced that a vast majority of the people were opposed to this measure. He had himself presented 600 petitions, every one of which (with the exception of one which a Noble Lord placed in his hands the other night) he had carefully examined, both with respect to the matter contained in them, anti the names affixed to them; and be would say, that names ap. ;reared to some of those petitions, that would do honour to those who sat in either House of Parliament. The Noble Earl complained, that a junction had taken place between the Protestant and the Wesleyan Methodists; but, when Protestants were called on to address their Lordships, in support of their religion, would any man tell him that the Wesleyan Methodists were not Protestants ? They hart as much right as any set of men whatever to petition. He was nearly overpowered by the number of provincial papers that were sent to him to read, in consequence of their con taining reports of the debates on this question which oc curred every day in all parts of the kingdom, arid he really was astonished at the ability and knowledge displayed at those meetings by members of the Wesleyan Methodist per suasion. Many of their addresses would do honour to the members of that House ; and, indeed, he believed very few Noble Lorels would be able to rival them. After a few words from the Earl of GUILFORD, the petitions were laid on the table. The Earl of ELDON said, he had fifty more petitions to present; but as he had too much respect for the petitions of the people, to present them in so thin a House, he should not bring them forward till to-morrow. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of the town of New castle, in support of the Roman Catholic claims.—Laid on the table. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented four peti tions against the Roman Catholic claims, from different places in Sotnersetshire. Lord CLIFDEN presented six petitions from different parts of Ireland, and one horn two parishes in Oxfordshire, in favour of the Roman Catholic claims. The Noble Lord also presented three petitions against the Sub-letting Act, and four petitions against the Vestry Act, from different places in Ireland. Lord BEXLEY presented petitions from Hillingdon, and another place, against Roman Catholic claims.—Ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.) Mr. Waller presented certain papers from the Commis sioners of Woods and Forests, relative to the Charing-cross I►nprovements. Mr. BANKES presented seven petitions from Merionetb, against concessions. _ _ . Admiral HARVEY presented five similar petitions from Essex. Mr. V. STUART presented petitions from Tipperary in favour of the Catholics, and also against the Disfran chisement Bill. Mr. TUITE presented several petitions from West rneatl► and King's comity, against the Vestry and Sub letting Act. Colonel BARNARD presented a petition from the corporals and drummers of the King's County and Lime rick Militias, praying that their situation alight be eon. Bidet ed. Lord LOWTHER presented six petitions from West moreland and Cumberland, against concessions. Earl of BECTIVE presented a petition from the cor porals of the Meath Militia. He observed, that some of the petitioners had served for 30 or 40 years, and it would be very hard if they were to be:thrown on the world without any provision. The Noble Member also presented four petitions from Ireland, praying for emancipation. Mr. MONCK presented a petition from a Mr. W. Haller, against the Catholics being emancipated without the secu rity of Parliamentary Reform, also from a pariah in Ireland. He hoped that some measure would be taken for the relief of the poor of Ireland. Admiral HARVEY presented a petition from Billericay against concession. Sir R. INGLIS presented similar petitions from the counties of Lanark and Ayr, and from two parishes of Glasgow. He stated that the people of Scotland were never more intelligently united than against concession. Sir M. S. STEWART, in reference to one of the pe titions, from Bothwell, read to the House a letter which he had received from a persOn residing in the parish. The writer stated that the clergyman had called on the parishioners from the pulpit, to come forward and sign the petition, unless they intended to have their throats cut by the " bloody Papists ;" that if the petition failed, it was their duty to fight knee-deep in blood for their religion, if they wished to avoid the fire and faggot proceedings which their forefathers had experienced. The Hon. MeMber con sidered it his duty to lay this knowledge before the House, in order to show what was the mode of getting up petitions on this subjett. He would not deny that ther e m i g ht b e a numerical majority against concession amongst the igno rant and illiterate part of the community, thus worked upon by the persons who had been appointed for their moral instruction, and had taken such an improper advantage of the authority which their sacred functions had endowed them. Another observation of the before mentioned Cler gyman was, that the Catholics were worse than the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that those persons who now refused to petition against them were worse than the Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)-- The Hon. Member accounted for the number of petitions signed by so many of the lower classes of Scotland, by stating that the Priests in their addresses to the petitioners, told them that if the Catholics were emancipated, their wage* would be still further reduced by the immense shoals of hungry Irishmen—(laughter)—that would rush over to share their work. General GASCOYNE rose to deprecate a custom by far too prevalent on that side of the House, he meant that of objecting to and cavilling at every petition presented, if it did not accord with their views. —(Cries of No.)—There were petitions from six to seven thousand respectable persons to declare their opinion on this subject, and how did the Hon. Member answer them ? 'Why by two letters from individuals whom he did not name. He would have those petitions rejected—(" No, no")—or at all events he would question the origivality of them, on the testimony of two persons who, however respectable they might be, were entitled to no such influence. lie had edrnitted that the great body of the people of Scotland were against con cession; and he (General Gascoyne) was convinced that if the measure was postponed for a short time that opinion would become clear to the world. He observed the soreness that was displayed whenever a counter-petition was presented, by the objections to the names of juniors or of old women.—(Laughter. ) But why object to the names of women? Did they forget bow many female addresses were presented during the Queen's business ?—(Hear, hear.)—He believed that if every thing which possessed an.mation could petition, it would cry out against Emancipation.—(Hear, hear.) Sir W. S. STEWART explained. Sir J. WROTTESLEY contended that every petition which had been presented had been treated with the re spect which the expressions of the &togs of the people deserved. Mr. TRA'NT said, that the exa►nple of the interference of the clergy having been set in Ireland, especially at the county of Clare election, the Protestant clergy were justi se(l in foPotving that example. tespeet to S eo t_ land, the clergy there had smite rt'lS.4l! to fetl alarm, as they had already stated front p , rgeettti,tl trIl• In the reign of Charles li. the pin.Aeentioti •ti , !nitsit toult place had its rise znpitg- , t the llontan Catitolle4, and Charles himself, althottli not a known and a . rowctl Itoman Catholic, was an in s, tret. . _ Lord ALTIIOI'.IT. admitted that the tirote,irarit clergy bad as good a right as ►he Roman Catholic c lergy to ns r their influence with the people, but he thought no sect of clergymen should make use of the place which was set apart for the wor,hip of God as a political arena from which to influence the Minds of the people. Mr. C. PELHAM made some observations which were inaudible. Sir R. INGLIS did not consierr linnstif responsible for the general noildliet of those Who opposed dr of those Who slipported the present measures. Fle conceived that they were injurious to the hest interests of the country, and he therefore opposed them. With respect to the interference of the clergy, they felt that the question was a religious one, and as such they were not only justified but bound to interfere as the natural guardians of their religion. Mr. BARING thought they were bound to inquire a little into the history of those petitions, for the purpose of aSeettalningtlf What matorial the wete cirripos',l.. He admitted that in point of numbers the people were opposed to concession ; but if the actual sense of the country was taken, the minds of the people would be found to be nine tenths in favour of it. Mr. TRANT explained. Mr. C. PALLMER Objected td the course pursued by an Relit - Arable Member (Mr. taiing) in Stigmat: ing a p. tition which had not yet been presented, and declaring that to be false which lie had not read. After some further observations the petition was ordered to be printed. Mr; DUNCOMBE had sixteen petitions to present from different parts of the 'county of York, prnying that Ito further concessions might be granted to the Roman Ca.. thulica. All these petitions were respectably, and many of them numerously, signed. Although he (Mr. Dun combe) had listened With tht utmost attentiun td every thing that had fallen from those who had introatickA tl present measures, he must say that he bad not heard one single argumeht to justiCy them in the Coinse, they had taken. He would not say whether their conduct deserved to be designated as political spostacy but he Was sure that by that conduct the confidence of the people in public men had received a very great shock. The Hon. Member concluded by presenting sixteen petitions from ditf.rent parishes in Yorkshire, which Were ordered to be printed. REPRESENTATION OP CANTERMJnY. Lord CLIFTON had a petition to present from the free men of Canterbury, which was agreed to at a Common Hall convened by the Mayor. The pe!itienets complained that one of their Representatives had accepted the goverw ment of Madras, and had gone to reside in another quarter of the world. They considered it highly important to their interests that both their Representatives should be in their places, and they prayed the House to take some measure which would enable them to elect another Repre sentative. Mr. I3ARING had given notice last Session of his in tion to bring in a Bill, by which it should be enacted that any Member accepting an office under the East India Com pany would vacate his seat in that House in the same man ner as a seat was vacated by the acceptance of an office under the Crown. But for the Catholic question, which engrossed so much of the public time, he (Mr. Baring) would have introduced a Bill for this purpose, and have taken the sense of the House upon it ; and he now rose merely to state that he would bring the subject before the House as soon as the subject which occupied so much of the public attention was disposed of. Sir E. KNATCHBULL happened to know that Mr. Lusbington would have resigned his seat before he left England if the request to do so had not been conveyed i❑ an offensive manner. He begged to know whether the measure which the Hon. Member for Callington (Mr. Baring) intended to introduce was to ne prospective or in any degree ex post facto. .Mr. BARING replied that his measure would be pro spective, and would not effect the case now under conside ration, though it would meet siniihr cases in future. - After a short conversation, in which Mr. IloUHousE, Mr. W. WYNN ; and Mr. POULFTT THOMPSON took part, the petition was ordered to be printed. Lord CLIFTON presented petitions from Chatham and Folkestone m favour of concession to the Roman ('atholics. Similar petitions were presented by Colonel HUGHES from Wallingford, Berks; and Rattlesden, Suffolk.— Ordered to be printed. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER PETITION. Mr. C. PALLMER rose to present the petition of the Protestants of the metropolis against further concessions to the Roman Catholics, and spoke as follows:--I am called upon, Sir, to perform the duty of submitting to this House a petition from upwards of 1 13,000 householders of Lon don, Westminster, and the places adjacent, upon the subject of the Roman Catholic question. • I have the assurance of gentlemen whcse characters are above all suspicion, that the utmost caution has' been used to preserve it from the injuries of injudicious friends or the acts of insidious ene mies. I cannot possibly conceive a more faithful represen tation of noble feeling and opinion. Sir, though I refrain at the present moment entering into the general question, 1 hope the time will arrive when I may do this inwortant petition that act ofjustiee. In the mean time -I . may be permitted, I think, without departing from my rule, to assert that I cordially concur in the principles upon which this petition is founded; and that, in spite of the dogmas and the rhetoric of those who arrogantly call themselves the intellectual, I feel a conscientious conviction that the measure before the House is a question of the religion of the country, the pure reformed religion, and that this House of Commons has no more right against the will of the people to admit Papists into the Legislature than they have to re verse the princip!e and exclude from it the Protestants.— As a Member of Parliament I humbly but earnestly entreat his Majesty's Ministers, and this House, to listen to the prayers of the people, to beware how they overlook their legitimate power, how they miscalculate their moral force, and to guard against the infatuation of him, who, towering upon the gigantic elephant, mistakes ductility for fear, and whilst be avails himself of the useful energies of his strength, overlooks the tremendous power of his rage. In conclusion, Sir, I beg permission to add, that hoping and believing that, in my latest hour, I shall look back with indescribable happiness' to the humble but hearty part which I have taken in this sacred cause, 1 shall feel it an incalculable augmentation . of that enjoyment to reflect that it has entitled me, without any other pretension, to the dis tinguished honour of placing this respectable petition upon the table of the House of Commons. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN was a friend to petition ing, but he thought it his duty to offer some observations on the petition now presented. The Hon. Member had not stated how this petition was got up ; but the fact was, that a meeting was called at the Crown and Anchor Ta vern, and that an individual, well known (Mr. Hunt), made some proposition which threw the meeting into con fusion, in consequence of which the Chairman declared that the meeting was adjourned, upon which some per sons withdrew to another part of the hotel, and formed themselves into a committee, from whose exertions this petition had emanated. Some curious doctrines had been broached as to the right of petitioning. It bad been con tended that there was no reason why children and women should not sign petitions. Now he (Mr. Alderman Waithtnan) thought that women were very well in their place-:—(A laugh)—but if they came forward as petitioners it should be so declared, and the House would be aware that the practice was confined to females of a certain de scription.—(Laughter.)—The question now was, whether the House should be guided by its own deliberations, or by parchments signed by women and children ?—(Hear.)— The petitioners, he said, laid claim to exclusive loyalty, and if the House would take the troubl e to be informed how those petitions were got on, and how signatures were obtained to them, they would be better enabled to judge of the extent to which they were entitled to the ap pellation of loyal. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a number of hand-bills, addresses, and other docu ments, some of which imputed to his present Majesty that he was not a Protestant King.—((tries of " Oh oh," Order, order.")—ln support of his assertion he began to• read the well-known address prefixed to the report of the speech of a Ittyal Duke, " Listen to the warning voice of the worthy son of George AL"; and from that and other papers contended that undue ir.fitignce had been used in getting up the petitions. Ile would ask, why public meetings had tint Imen convened in every parish, and why had nut fair opportunity been given fur the expression of public opinion ? Ile had examined many of the names of those who had signed that petition, and he found that they by no means comprised any considerable portion of the wealth, intelligence, or even numerically considered, of the PoPulatioa of the metropolis. There were people from Hull who had signed that petition—boys had signed. Such a petition was an insult to the House. In his opinion the Corporation was the proper Organ of the opinion of the city of London, but the views of the Corporation by no means suited the views of those who so strenuously op posed themselves to the Roman Catholic claims. As another instance of the undue ilifluence exerted, he in stanced an address by a Rev. Gentleman, in which it was declared that concessions to the Roman Catholics " was legislative treason against the Majesty of Heaven." Good God, Sir (continued the Hon. Member), I don't know how you feel, butt cm horrift,e4.—(4 laugb, find er6; of " Hear, hear.") —The fact was, that those petitions were pzThto!ts it2ompetent to judge of questions of to mach ditnettity arid iii;:tilet.±!: It was signed by boys; it was signed lo; babes and sueklings.—(Lliifet Hi.JSKIS.;6I` , I &tight the discitssions w ' hich on Several occasions lately lid@ otenpled the attention of the House w.:s time not well spent. The uniritter in tel signature had been obtained to petitions it was scarcely digitilltid in that HOuse to occupy itself in discussing. After a few words fl - Lnrt Lord MANDEVILLE and expla nation from Alderman WAITIIMAN, General GASCOYINE knew nothing about the prc.Siit petition, or the circumstances under which signatures had been obtained to it. But, with respect to the objection that women of a certJn description had signed it, he had thily to sty, that When it was, as thin Hon. Gentleman had Saitt it etas, carried round to the bankefs, Merchants, ackbeiy bevrt. Witi!theview of procuring in such places the signatures of those women. He retnein hued well that, during the trial of the late iiueri, petitions were carried round to the alehouses anti gin-shops; and no one better understood these matters than did the worthy Alderman. ---f A laugh. ) Mr. TRANT supported the views of the petitioners. Mr. P. THOMPSON inferred that the inhabitants of the hieii•opbtis and of Brildl!3sez: were favourable to con cession from the flint that, out of ten Mem l SerS; Therell , as only one opposed to concession. The petition was lying for signatures, and a copy of the address was always given as a bribe for signing the petition. Mr. Alderman W'oon and Mr. W. SMITH also made a fr;! t,h;vrvationii oh the undue influence used in obtaining iiignattud, , Sir IL IL INGLIS had reason to believe that the greatest pains were taken to have the signatures unobjec tionable. Mr. A. BARING said that this petition was stated to be sigad by 113,03 whom. r.-are slid to reside in the suburban parishes, sad the remaining 109,000 in the city of London. Now, bow that could possibly be the fact he was at a loss to say, for, by the htit eensui Which had been published, it appeared that in the city of there oliSted rth more, than b 9,000 tiouseholders. When he firund that to he the nci tle er taihly felt much dispoSed to behaVe that some of these Un fair means had been resorted to, to which other Hon. Mem bers had alhided, and tine signatnreti of any persons, how cvtir ignorant they might be, pi'ovicltid they tiould write their n Imes, bad been sought for and obtained. Mr. HOBHOUSE entirely differed in opinion froth the .Huh: Member fed Liverpool; hintßitch wa=thembrlstrousgloss put upon the words of Members who happefied to object to any of the anti-Catholic petitions which were presented • to the House that he did not like. upon any insignificant • occasion to risk his . ;11aracier in the eYe's of his 'constitu ents by Opening his lips uptin the subject, lest doMe rieiein terpretation should be put upon what he said. Ile con tended, however, that this was net the petition of the in habitant householders of the cities of London and Wei:t minster. He (lid not Mean to say that the pbtitionrs were not respectable and conseiemions persons, hilt he did say that the petition could in no sense of the word be con sidered as the petition of the inhabitant householders of the cities of London and Westminst.r and the parts nt to them. When he heard the cumber of the peti tioners he felt much astonishment, and, entertaining an opini(th that so many householders (lid not really exist in the places from whence the petition was stated to come, he had gone into the library of the House in order to as certain whether what bad been stated could he correct, and on referring to the proper authority he found that there were not so many inhabitant householders by one half as were stated in the petition. He therefore did not hesitate to say that some unfair means must have been re• sorted to. He had no place to lose other than his seat in Parliament, and if his constituents differed from him io opinion upon this question they were at perfect lil:erty to do so, and could easily express that difference of opinion when he presented himself before them at the general elec tion. He felt convinced, however, that the electors of Westminster would not reject him upon that ground. The petition was then brought up. Mr. C. PALLMER said that when the petition was put into his hands he was informed that it was signed by none but persons of respectability, the greater number of whom had attached the names of their places of residence. With respect to the number of inhabitant freeholders in London and its vicinity, authorities appeared to differ very widely, for since the statement of the Hon. Member on the other side an Hon. Priemd of his had also consulted an authority in the library, from which it appeared that the number of householders amounted not to 58,000 only, but to 1:38,000. —(Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. HustussoN, Mr. Alder man WaititmAN, and Mr. SADLER, the petition was read, and ordered to be printed. FORTY SHILLING FREEHOLDERS. Mr. PEEL moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill relating to the qualification of the free holders of Ireland. Lord DIINCANNON was afraid that many of his friends would think his guilty of much inconsistency in opposing a Bill which in many respects was similar to one which he had supported in 1825. The posture of affairs in Ireland, however, was not widely different to what it was at that time, and it was upon that ground that he could not now give his unqualified consent. The measure of Catholic Emancipation, upon certain conditions to be observed by the Catholics, was now likely to pass, and with this, it was said, the Irish people ought to be con tented. One of the conditions, however, upon which it was to be granted would be the deprivation of one of their most cherished privileges—the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Much opposition, be thought, would be shown by the people to such a measure, and, for his own part, he did not see that it would have the effect of preventing the fraud complained of in the election of Irish Members. The Catholic clergy, who were now acquainted with what had taken place in that House, would endeavour to incite the people to resist the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders, and much confusion would most probably ensue. It appeared to be a general impression upon the mind of the House that the forty-shilling freeholders were all cor rupt voters. He begged to say that if they did entertain such an idea it was an exceedingly erroneous one. He felt convinced that those who were favourable to the disfran chisement did not in the slightest degree know what they were going to do. They believed that the forty-shilling freeholders were the mere slaves and vassals of the land holders. It was said by an Hon. Member who had lately visited Ireland, that upon examination he found that the forty-shilling freeholders were so extremely ignorant that nineteen out of twenty of tkem were unable to write . their , names. He admitted that that was the case in the moun tain districts, but in other parts of the country they were, comparatively speaking, well educated. It was net his in tention to divide the House upon this second reading of the Bill, but at the same time he was anxious that some measure should he taken to prevent the fraudulent registry of the forty-shilling freeholders, which he conceived to be the only real evil to be corrected. He should therefore move, in a future stage of the Bill, that it should be referred to a Com mittee to consider whether the Bill might not be so framed as to prevent a fraudulent and fictitious registry of electors. Mr. AGAR ELLIS expressed his entire concurrence in the proposed measure of disfranchisement. Mr. BROWNLOW should lend his hearty support to the second reading of this Bill. In doing so he begged it to be understood that he did not mean to pledge himself as being of opinion that a ten-pound freehold was the best qualification of the elective franchise of Ireland, but be cause he considered that a very great alteration might be made in the laws respecting that country. lie was con vinced that the forty-shilling franchise gave rise to every species of fraud, while the unfortunate freeholders them selves were compelled to perjure themselves to oblige their landlords. It had been said that emancipation would be dearly purchased if the forty-shilling franchise were aho fished, and that it would be better to wait for .1 year or two , when it tens supposed that emancipation must be granted without any provision whatever. For his own part he :Mr. Brownlow) would net wait one year, be cause, by so waiting, England and Ireland might be rent in twain. He must differ from the Hon. Member who al)- prov ed of the measure, because it took the votes out of the hands and influence of the Catholic priesthood. Now, I.e must declare, as au Irishman, and as an observer of the scenes that had lately token place in Ireland, that the minds of those Members of the I louse were much abused who thought that the freeholders of Ireland were led by their priesthood.—(llear, bear.)—He denied the fact alto .gether. Historians who in future times should write down the events which bad led to the glorious accomplishment of this great measure, anti who should say that it was in fluenced by the priesthood, would prUve themselves very short sighted. The freeholders had acted as citizens, wrought up to enthusiasm by grievance and a sense of in jury. They were unnatural exertions, and as soon as the cause was taken away the voters would return, under the influence of their landlords, as they were between 1793 and 1825, when they were driven into the county town and put into the pound, till their landlord called upon them to do their duty. For these reasons it was that he should vote for the second reading of the Bill before them. Lord BECTIVE could conscientiously vote for the pre sent Bill. Mr. LITTLETON considered this Bill calculated to afford the Protestants a substantial security ; whilst it could not be objected to by the Catholics, as it applied a'(1 1 -tailY I Ed Proteetante and Catholics.. Ali thinking men nia"ot rejoice In the: ttipeal of the Act of 1793, which had ope rated to the ruin of osene laarted erne ict9rm of Leland and the degradation of diet country. '.ll:e ?anted proprietors Trete rateeseleee so coneeioue of the evils of tiro plaint t o al :onion it, and only wanted t a l t e te!ti.itat law hi coru,e? # t efi' r n. e e Y n I lf e l r el e 7r d ieth ai Ci e 7tle p i e r ic e nt s t e tf-o t die feren meas tes'ant interests in Ireland. effect u:lesa:(ll without) fcntrlr l ins it -l e edition he ofcarried P co ' into M. /P.LiEns STUART should concur in flits mea sure although he FO'falft thereby sacrifice whatever popula rity he might have with his araittitnents. He could not, however, forget that he was returned ley the re:teat mass of his constituents at Waterford to fight the battle of fetaaious libeaty ; and lie should consider himself little less than a traitor to his trtiete-a--(hear)--if he did not-do all that he thought Would aid to the great fight. But let him not Fie tholight to site/mit thie thee:ante otherwise than as an aceeesdey to . Ens'arachaathin. He could trot ecrneeal from the House his regret at its. having been thought neeassaty to have the present measure as an aetigmisaniment to the other, for, if men ever vindicated their fitnea:f t 6 vote at election., it was the firty.shilling freeholders at the late election for Clare,—(llear.)—They had been told that they'&ideas to theft iandlorde ; they had been taunted with their sOiase:ana:'Vay they had been reviled for their helotism ; but how, on the first of , 'poittitaitaa Oaten them, had they answered these charges? Threats could nett ewe / promiecs could not sway, them to prostitute their suffragte in enpport of principles which they knew to be inierical to tfie4• end, itibeeteive of their liberties.—(Hear.)— They had aced !ri taiaa h ,eofrineicaion with their priests, and not in subservience to tluerO. !heft; ttetald he be otherwise than reluctant to punish as a crMie pia&lice which lie had been taught to look upon as a virtue in theca Y. !.'ac eatatitiered the fear vain, that if this measure were not passed, the l'retiOle!ete raerld continue to vote with their priests. There would be no differel'.'ae between the landlord and tenant when there ceased to be a distinction between Catholic and Protestant.—(Hear, hear, hear.) — If the me:Laura', of Einancieation had passed he would not contielj.i taa thiel3lll ; brat as one cools! not pass without the other, he asked hilailf 4hetha'r Ii Conetiments would not be more benefitted by the discontiiWianfe of the disubili ties under which they at present laboured withoiltiaaiting the ferinehtert than they would be by a continuance of both. Mr; IltSKlSSrell felt as strongly as any Hon. Mem ber the incalculable impertairde tit Me measure which had b4ei aarried at thaec o'elirek this morning by a decisive majority of teat iteltee, It he'd been stated to the I-loose Mat manner which could not d oe Ittiaainderstaod, that that measure was indissolubly bound up with the Vreseitit,-- that the fate of the One would decide the fate of the othet: This it was wliiah inekeased the embarrassment under which he laboured in his sentiments, which arose from his disapprobation of the prineThaa of the Hilt which disposed of an elective franchise. Ile at the Kittle - time prci'eael againet the doctrine,—and it was an unpar liamentery *ay of discressing any measure,—that this House was not at liberty to make art alteention in the elec tive franchise.—(Hear.)—=He could riot diseussethe trieesere with reference to the present etete of property in Ireland, as he was not acquainted tidth ehould diectree it on the principle of right It Ireland was a neW if she h id never enjoyed this right at all, and the question here related to the establishment of the elective franchise there, then he should not object to the limitation proposed to be introduced ; 101. would be a very good limitation if the Helve was legialatitig fot a hette tountry. But it was said you must look at the state of Ireland as connected with this proposition. They were nbt at liberty to look at the question in that point Of view. It must be well known to every Member in that House, that it was a point of the case that the elective franchise of counties in Ireland were the same as those in England; that whereas forty shilling freeholders in England had obtained the privileges ahotit four hundred years ago, they had been extended to Ireland a century later, about three hundred years since. When be said this, he meant to say, that a fran chise so annexed and united, for a period of 300 years, to a freehold, was; a right and property vested in the free holder, to take away which was only one degree less a violation of tight than taking the property itself.—(llear.) —Why did be state this ? Was there any ground o f l aw for this theory ? Yes, a high authority a deciehin of a court of law. Lord Chief Justice Holt, in speaking of Vie freehold rights of the people of England—of the forty shilling freeholders—said, " A freehold right is one which, if ally person is in the slightest degree molested in the exercise thereof, he may defend by action ;" and further, " a freehold right is a most transcendent thing ; it is vested in and inseparable from the freehold a if it be sepa rated, then the freehold is taken away." Then Magna Charta itself contained a provision, that "no fteettian shall be disseized of his freehold, of the liberties thereof, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."—(Hear.)- a -Therefore these freehold rights and im munities were most sacred, protected by the law of the country, and by the sanctity of 300 years. lie was told, and this was the only difference which had been set up be tween the two eases, that this privilege had been mere abused in Ireland than in ibis country. Was there no in stance of such abuses in England? Hon. Members might recollect the election in Middlesex some twenty years ago, and the scenes which had then taken place, when a mill at Brentford had been split into a hundred votes.—(Hear.) Who bad ever thought at that time of meddling with the elective franchise of the people of England ? Let gentle men call to mind the elections of Westminster 40 or 50 years ago ; and the perjuries, and corruptions, and bri bery, and breaches of the peace; yet who thought of in terfering with the franchise of the people of England? It had been objected that the votes in Ireland were not derived from property in fee; and how many members were there in that House whose property was not in fee ? In the place which he haul the honour to represent, many of the electors held only a life-interest in their property; and in many places—Sussex, for example, votes were created by the purchase of 40s. worth of land-tax, which was not purchased for the profitable employment of capi tal, but solely with a view of obtaining the elective franchise. He could not make up his mind to disposses persons of their property, especially when the abuse— which was to be considered the ground of the measure— existed elsewhere. By the present Bill, which was not prospective merely, all the proprietors of freeholds be tween 40s. and 101., who bad hitherto exercised the right of voting, were iasfranchised, and thereby sustained an , injustice only a degree short of the loss of their free hold. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to a custom, about this period of the year, of taking the skin from a dead lamb and placing it upon a live one; and he observed that the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have committed the mistake of putting the skin of a lamb, not upon a sheep, but upon a wolf. Another argument in favour of the Bill was, of all other arguments, the least to be commended. It was said that the people of Ireland were indifferent about this right,—that the measure was not unpopular in that country. But was it becom ing in any Government to take advantage of a season of en- I thusiasm, of an ebullition of gratitude, and to accept the surrender of an institution connected with popular rights ? Such an argument was open to great objection ; for if this House might deal in that manner with the rights of elec tors, there was no knowing where it would end. Ile (Mr. Huskisson) was an enemy to Parliamentary Reform, an object which, since the intr.( duetion of this measure, had become more than ever a topic of conversation. He had heard it asserted, that this Bill was a measure of Parlia mentary Reform, but that it began at the wrong end. He was hostile to all such reform, let the suggestion come from what quarter it might—whether it referred to Eng land, Ireland, or Scotland. He should give such a project his decided opposition; and admitting as he did, from a sincere conviction, that the Catholic Bill would strengthen the Protestant interests, he was of opinion, on the other hand, that Parliamentary Reform would not rattly destroy the Protestant Church, but every other esta blishment. But he could not compromise the rights of the people, and consent to a violation of property. If he ,had happened to be a Member of his Majesty's j Government, J of the ngement. i this,—he l on those tisfying him .v,ll,e l isii : e,iliaa e liretbesinol;l i i,eli, n itnevi‘iin i ylco g lseetil l i(: i n.tntoe t twiolst,stisitil l ohti:( l !itan a ermy : osi t ,:u c e(l,lav)avaufvs,s s ereesu e citeiritocici n eaofisf:(triu) r haits.i e i,iennal7 : een(ri s ,aiesit o rrlitc,, n ritedesoateali whoie; satisfied course which he thought he should then have adopted was were anxious for the measure to make it prospective; it would h.tve the absolute necessity of this measure, to secure the success of the other, sent state. He should not have yielded till the inseparable demonstratedconnexion n to it in tHaving, p rcomplicatede ' to him. He had lived too long in public, and mixed too much in its sic ld. state of things, theca may have existed some overruling necessity, to therefore, no means of knowing whether this recessity ex isted, great on ( t i ffi e othercuy, hand, being moat anxious to do hie nothing w hi c h might, by possibility, seem to evince a desire to delay or i mpe d e the other great measure, be felt it proper, to abstain from vot tl i pi n ,ioc g rhy a h t aa a sd l t h oastthoe, memory o f j o pi r eise ; i t i :x i.i traordinary speech which had fall e n from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Husl isson.) He lied never . discussions which took place in Dth t : h ht a e t rUt il 'u o ss) t e tse wee not always on tlrl3 I.iblenleciEartfleb.TintY should not have addressed the House accurate; and during at least three-quarters of that speech, ,7,l, thought ise ni e that nt f1t81,2:52t, forty-shillingi e• o l Gentleman mo thoughthl I.e had thought he laboured under a great misappreheue ber n. f or I : . ,:ford (Mr. Littleton) brought thrivard the question d H is e fi. of the that ti question had received the support of his Right Him. Friend. But h e . bad been relieved from all doubt upon the subject, when the it prudent to anticipate the objeCtiotms d o mi n c l h might- be t of his le ad ot : p i : t ac : e f t om l t m e y b ' d s io t n a n t itllll9,ge2, sfii r n siti ,latter p i a h r which Etas a I if in Boo,—(Hear.) —For his own part, he gave his five sanction to the measure. He had not intended to enter into the question to-night—other Members, better ac quainted than he was with the subject, were present. He had listened with admiration to the speech of the Horn Member for Waterford (Mr. V. Stuart), which detnauded Iris unqualified approbation, for ho knew the sacrifice lie was making; he knew that it was by the forty-shillioe; freeholders he had been supported. The Hon. Me; her had, therefore, risked a great sacrifice for this great measure. But the justification of that lion. Member would he finind in the approbation of the Catholics them selves, who would by this sacrifice purchase a much more valuable boon. But his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Hoskin-. son) stood on different ground. He knew nothing o f I re . iatgi he *aid, or of the forty. shilling freeholder; but hav ing v o ted err favour of this measure in 1825, why, he would ask, did he support it then, if he believed that it was an act of gross' Injustice? If there was a violation et just principles Duht) l l i r e en w t , h m e i n d . co ß ill u i t n h c : him Thal he need not repent his Jarring voted as he did ; ) that no natural et legal right was violated, and that his ' ul t d i'6!. re c lie.7 t hi l m ),a t v ; e Right Hon. Friend might afire his vote esow, if squeamish.. ness and no other ground withheld him. The lion, and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to show that from the time of Mtig Henry VI. down to the late reign, Parlia ment had on vaelons occasions proceeded to legislate on t 1 elective franchise, extetolirg it at some periods, end limit ing it in others; but in all piertrels dealing with it mot mss a vested right which was not to tee *interfered with, but is one which might be regulated according to circunmstmetei. After adverting to the advantages which ivould be derived from the other DiN,----the great and important measure with which this was accompanied, and which, without this, they could not hope to carry,—he hoped that as his Right Hon, Friend, time Member for Liverpool, was anxious for the rifeness of the one, he would not allow his example, which Wotild, no doubt, have great weight, to militate against that tucceee tiy his opposition to the other. Mr. HUSKISSON den/e4 that he opposed this Dili from any principle of an equality of elective rights. Sir T. GOOCII said, that as he did not approve of the first measure, he would, if this were pressed to a division , / vote with the Noble Lord (lluncannon) against this Bill. Mr, S, WORTLEY had brought himself to the deter , initiation 6f voting for the Bill, thong], ,not without struggle. Lord L. nowErt could state front time informat;ent which lit: had received, that it wes fayonrebiy receiver; its the county of Weeford, the focus of Catholic insurrection, and in 'Waterford, crtath was the focus of it species of in surrection—or, be would rather say, insubordination of tenant to landlord, which resulted, and be said it not in vidiously, In the return of the Hon. Member opposite (Mt. V. Stuart) fur that county. Mr. C. ()RANT regretted much being obliged to differ f ro m hi? tight Hon. Friend, but still more should he re , gret that anj i m p,tlltitent should be thi own in the way of the mighty measure with Which tire present was accom. , pried. He would not then enter into the principle of this Bill. He wished sincerely that it had never been in troduced ; but as a Member of Padliunent , losking to time mimes of a gteat and important measure fin' which had, long sighed, he would pass over the demerits e..r this, look only to the so:tees of the abet. He knew that,. culties were placed in the way of Minis:ere, with respect to the important measure for remoeing Catholic disabili ties. Seine of those difficulties might be nen by any per son who looked at what was passing; but there were othet difficulties which could nut he seen by many. To aros' arty additional difficulty in their way by appositions to this Bill, whatever might be his opinion of it in the abstract, was what he could not confetriplate. He therefore was content with it. It might be said that this would tee establishing a bad precedent for future tittiee......bat brrfeo him with such another measure, so pregnant wA benefit to the country; and he would most readily pay the cadre price and make a simitat sacrifice. On these grounds bet would give his cordial assent to the motion.—(Hear.) Mr. W. O'BRIEN would stipport the Bill. Mr. ABERCROMBY said he altet Wee some broad ground, and the best that appeared to hito was to give his vote for the Bill, which, by.itself, lie coA not ap prove, for the sake of that before which all mine, cotter derations give way. BANKES.... - " There is, sir, a religious society-a. (Loud and continued laughter,)-eeNee, Sir, there is a re ligious society spreading and &tending itself, though sub= silting contrary to law, both in this country anti in Ire land, with whom it is a tenet, if they are not most cruelly maligned and belied, that the end in all canes justifies the means, and that it is lawful if the end *hall be sick as they are desirous to compass, not to be set upulotte ss ter the means which they employ to effect it." The Hon; Member proceeded to say. Brit whether that feeling was justly ascribed to them or not, he did not know ; but his conduct in public life had always been, and he trusted al ways would be, founded upon other principles. The Hon. Member then proceeded to state his objections against the hilt, but amidst a confusion and uproar in the Howse which prevented us frem making out even the eniestance of his remarks. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN said, that a greater eft er injustice could not be perpetrated than that which tho House was now going to perpetrate under the false name of civil and religious liberty. This Bill was not the barter or price for any other Bill ; it ought to be called a Bill of pe-alties. Mr. C. WYNN said, that from the evidence which had been given before one of the Committees two years agog he had been convinced that there was a great evil which peratively called fur remedy in the condition of the forty. , shilling freeholders of Ireland. Ile had no hesitation in declaring, that if the Catholic Relief Bill had been carried, and this Bill had been proposed to them by itself, and on is own merit;, he should have given it his best support,—... He then proceeded to say, that there were many parte of this Bill, en which he entertained some doubts, and that there were others which he thought deserving of further consideration before they were adopted; but taking it as a whole, he had no hesitation in declaring that he would give his consent to the measure, if it were necessary, even in its Ir.:sent shape. Lord PALMERSTON was induced by insurmountable feelings of dislike to this Bill to meet it with his opposition. The House had been told that the Bill for granting Ca tholic Emancipation and the present measure were in separably connected, so that one could not pass without the other, and if one was ►ost, the other must be lost likewise. He denied that Parliament had made any such bargain with the Government. In the Speech from the Throne Parliament was told that the price required for Catholic Emancipation was the immediate and summary suppress sion of the Catholic Association. That was the chly bargain which Parliament made with Government, and the price demanded having been paid, it was impossible, in the event of the Bill before the House being defeated, for Go vernment to February.neeessit: IT,ll:oeanartteNo time dohebec vernment to turn round and refuse to fulfil its part of the bargain. It was absurd to suppose that Government could withhold emancipation. Neither this Government nor any that might succeed it, could do so. What had in duced the present Government to advocate emancipation ? e t e iil s li s ar i ti t t y Lord h a ti then not contendedber a those who had voted for the measure of 1825 were not thereby pledged to support the present Bill, because the operationfi niT ) h r e r en n te were measure rue,oelf, rittoahpdaots ‘ b i eb - ed a ee s nfiHouset prospective ohfe wpoau n cales a t t ; t r i te r ims, e n , ot ifmmediate. ienarl t t l ne i i the appeared that the present Bill was conceived in something. like the spirit of punishment and vengeance. Another argument in support of the Bill was, that the forty-shilling freeholders were influenced by the Priests, and that it WWI dangerous to leave them in possession of the power they now held. If the Bill were passed on that ground, how could it be said that Catholics were admitted to an equality of political privileges? The one measure propo,wil by Go vernment would defeat the other, and a Catholic ques tion would still remain to be discussed. Mr. PEEL could not sufficiently express his admiration of the lion. Member for Wtterford, who had expres‘cd lib determination, perhaps at the cost of some personal sacri fice, to bestow on his constitunts a permanent benefit. Th e Right lion. Gentleman then proceeded to argue that the great difficulties which bad hitherto opposed the settlement of the Catholic Question, rendered it incumbent on thos , who were favourable to that object, to compromise, in order to effect their object. The Noble Lord who spoke last said, that the Session conmenced with a compromisr, which was, that the Catholic Association should he sup pressed, in order to arrive nt Catholic Eatancipation. Noble Lord admitted that he was a party to, that consptenis.:. and they to there Wil3 an end of the argture•nt a 4 -ai . r) , !t the principle of compromise. The Noble Lord said, t hat thep r of the at_tbcompromisegowalaysptroombLeuLleid unqualified w d e : t r il l's: Sion. denied th