The Sun. — London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

~: laid d th own apply to th e P ro t es t an t ? — (Ch eers. ) — W ere ese arguments, at the same time, not equally erroneous? According to the doctrine of the Hon. Gentleman, any man who lays down an obnoxious or incorrect doctrine on. t he Bench is, by so doing, not only disqualified himself for civil liberty, but his erroneous doctrine is to disqualify: all the persons who possess the same faith, through all ge tterations.—(Cheers.)-0a this principle, I ask, what * Yin become of the lawyers of 1829, if they are to be Judged by the doctrines of the last century ? What was (lone, Sir, on the question of ship money ?—(Hear.)— Were the Judges on that occasion Roman Catholics ? (Cheers.)—ls it possible to draw any argument against any opinion for the erroneous opinions of men during a bad time ? Is it possible to conceive for a moment that because Mr. Justice Allybone held an opinion in such times that was not the same as that held by his colleagues, that his opinion is for ever to exclude Catholics from the judgment seat?—(Cheers.)—Wh a t, however, did the Loa Chief Justice say on the same occasion ?—" Now, gentlemen, any thing that shall disturb the Government or make mischief and a stir among the people, is certainly within the case of Libellis Famosis, anti I must, in short, Rive you my opinion, Ido take it to be hbel." Other Judges, not Catholics, held the same opinion as Mr. Jus tice Allybone. Now the Hon. Gentleman quotes a Catholic Judge; but when the Hon. Gentleman wanted, the other evening, t o h ur l a sarcasm against my Noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, then he referred to Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury, and Lord Chancellor Jeffreys. When he is to oppose the Catholics, he refers to the errors of a Ca tholic ; when he attacks a Protestant, he finds arms amongst Protestants. But we disclaim the doctrines—we refuse to be bound by the acts of those Judges, and so may the Roman Catholics of this day disclaim the doctrines, and refuse to be bo un d b y the decisions of Mr. Justice Ally bone, as we disclaim the doctrines of Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury, And refuse to do homage to the cruelties of Chief Justice Jeffreys. The argument of the Hon. Gen tleman is worth nothing, or it tells against the Protest ants quite as much as against the Catholics. As I have disposed of this point, and as the Hon. Gentleman has al hided to me, I feel myself hound to advert to the points mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman. I must first say that no person could have been so much surprised, I may say astonished, as I was, at the speech the Hon. Gentle man made from this bench. I cannot express indeed, the surprise, the astonishment, that speech excited in me. Sir, up to that hour no person heard of the intent:on of the Ron. Gentleman to make a speech, and no person heard of the indignation by which the Hon. Gentleman says he was actuated, nor of the dangers from the political anti- Panty. of the Catholics to which he then alluded.—(Hear.) ''Sir, I will narrate facts. The Hon. Gentleman has blamed the House correctly that a communication was Inedeto him seven days before the meeting of Parliament, of the intentions of the Government as to this Bill. But why was the communication made ? The Hon. Gentle man was 'no confidential adviser of the Crown. We were not bound to ask his opinion as to the course of policy we meant to pursue.—(Hear, hear.)—We had merely to resort to his assistance, not for advice as to the course we meant to pursue, but for his legal assistance in framing the measures we intended to submit to Parliament.— The House would suppose, when this communication Was made to the Hon. Gentleman, that he had declared that he could not assist to draw the Bill, and that he could not support the principle of the measure; but the Hon. Gen tleman said nothing whatever by which it could be inferred that he did not acquiesce in the measure. [Sir Charles Wetherell here interrupted Mr. Peel, but what he said was not heard in the gallery.l—l am bound to add, Sir, that the Hon. Gentleman did assist in drawing the Bill for the S uppression of the Catholic Association. We thought it Was not fair to ask his assistance in drawing the Bill to Put down the Catholic Association, without communi cating to the Hon. Gentleman the whole intentions of the G overnment, as far as the principle of the measure was concerned. The Hon. Gentleman made no objections— he, assisted i n d raw i ng t h e B i ll to suppress the Catholic As sociation. He did more. He assisted us with his legal 1 4 : 1 th,v.in drawing up the present Bill, both as respects the Wof endowments and of ecclesiastical charities. It was th lt until the 23d of February that the Hon. Gentleman el Prested any opinion against the measure, or any determi nation not to draw the Bill. But Parliament met on the stlllif February. —( Hear, hear.)—The intentions of the Government were communicated to the Hon. Gentleman en days'before the meeting of Parliament; he assisted ,1 1 drawing the Bill for suppressing the C a th o li c Associa -4441; he assisted us with his advice, his endowments, and nt Perstitious uses in this Bill, and never during that time FZires si d any doubt of the general policy of the measure. ilen the time came that it w as necessary f or my Noble iend, who had given notice that the measure would be Snbraitted to Parliament on the sth March, that all the urtails of the measure should be prepared—for about the Principle we had previously agreed—when it became ne e", tory that my Noble Friend should, on February 22, ask t4 e Hon. Gentleman to prepare the Bill, is there any man who heard the speech of the Hon. Gentleman the other evening, who would not suppose that the Hon. Gentle- Man displayed ,his indignation, and answered, " I foresee danger to my country from the measure, and I have sworn an oath which will not allow the to assist you ?" Sir, the Hon. Gentleman did no such thing.—[Sir C. Wetherell was understood to say, that he did.]—The Honourable Gentleman has referred to the date of the communication Made to him, to prefer his charge against me—(Hear, hear)—and I must state facts in opposition to those ehatges. It was not until thi night when the Hon. Gentleman made his speech, that any Member of the Government knew or thought that it was repug nant to the oath the Honourable Gentleman had taken as Att orney -General, to draw the Bill. The Hon. Gentle man only told my Noble Friend that he could not give his individual support to Catholic Emancipation.—(Cheers.) "--That was the amount of the intimation he made.— (C heers.)—Here, however, as a servant of the Crown— ''.' King's Att orney- G eneral —he continued to hold office, 'or th e purpose of founding charges against the Bill. This t u,..rpea.d me in the Attorney- General.—(Cheers.)— ~'nese were the facts. The Hon. Gentleman, hemust say, its not warranted in any such conduct; he held the l 'olee o f Attorney-General; he had not s i gn ifi e d an y in 'lkon of resigning, and he was not, I must say, warranted 'a stating, a t th a t p er i o d, th e conf i dential communication Th i el ] , as one of the law ad v i sers of t h e Crown, ha d b een Cede to him, and on that he formed charges against the ,s lwer nment under which he h e ld o ffi ce . N ow , w i t h re -Peek, t to th e l aws themselves, though I confess lam con- Ltlth of the very great difficulties I labour under in dis y-';nga question of law again s t th e H on . G en tl eman ; t. if 'understand the Bill, nothing could recompense me f '"r the loss of the legal assistance of the Hou. Gen th-", than to find him stating such objections as he has night stated to that Bill.—(Hear, hear.)—l s h a ll fol li*7 41m r'step by step, through his legal argument, and as na,nts. h,tte-4efv4tions have made me r egar d th e B i ll as even 0 4 . 1 ! than I before thought it, so I have no doubt that miservations w ill ena bl e me b etter to recommend the le . to the Huuse than ever at present. The Hon. Gen ,.Man states as his first objection to the Bill, that it opens iM allows an unrestr i cted intercourse with the See of s m unte. Th e Bill does no such thing . It does not repeal 1•v„,, •"gie Act which now restrains that intercourse. If we i t lialised that intercourse, by establishing a Commission to i t t spect and regulate it, we should by that have recognized But as the Bill stands, it does no such thing. Every •Which prohibits that intercourse remains untouched in Statute Book. The Bill admits the Roman Catholics 4 the exercise of equal civil rights with Protestants, and 11. not recognise the int ercourse w i t h t h e H o l y S ee. e 24 Ron. Gentleman, then, has confounded two things 4;rhtially different. The Hon. Gentleman accuses 14 ., - ef of , havin g a b an d one d t h e clauses which were found 4.14 Bill of 1825, for appointing a Commission of 7an Catholic Bishops, who should inquire into the oketer of candidates for ecclesiastical places, and report po the Crown. Sir, I did abandon those clauses tue I tiniugl4 !iem useless. The Commission of a ss ' 7, 11 1 , 1 was to report on the loyalty of any ecclesiastical s s ridates. Thi s was inv a lid a s a security. know not %" 4 0 tioyalty means, or !icily it is to be ascertained. Th ou v s . take th e oat h s preserthed, are to be considered as com a4ng with the obligations imposed by the Legislature, t 440 to be considered as loyal. I abandoned the clauses uu becaus e I thought them useless as a security ; and li ch t .h i e Crown appointed a Commission of Roman Catho tsss'nons to inquire into the character of candidtes, and s rt that to the Crown, it would have been on ' the part gi n Crown a recognition of the Roman Catholic reli thus' 11 i n, England, which it is better should not be recog- P,„," the' Government of this country.—(Cffeers. t4ese reasons I abandoned the provisions the Hon. LAbetltlenian reproaches me with having given up. The ita ss r easOns apply to the clauses for the inspection of the 'X course with Rome, to be found in former Acts. some ves provided that what was purely of a spiritual ali: b rw sbauld be excepted' limn the inspection , anti this Ins such large exceptions that I thoughit it 'was' of no 1 .With such exceptions, the clause would not have hagany real restrictions, while enacting it would to bi. better, the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed t o therefore, to, abandon the:clause, and not InsfVgnize that church. Now we do'not recognize it, etli w e de not pretend to possess a security that can never the s er ? the purpose expected from it. For these reasons, )3i4LI he relief the securities formerly demanded in ' v r the relief of the Catholics, It has been well said of them, that they serve-only as a blind to the Protestants,. without affordi ng th em any e ff ec t ua l secur i ty . Th e next objection of the Hen. Gent leman is as to the oaths. The Hon. Gentleman sass:, that d have not in.el terl in the oath prescribed to the Rouen Catholics a declaration that t;:ey are not excused from I oldiag faith with Pi otestants, and are not bound to kill then. But why should we retain offensive words that are better omitted ? We omitted them because it seemed wiser to do so ; and now we are charged with having abandoned all security for the Pro testant. Church, because we have not imposed a declaration on the Catholics that they are bound to keep faith with heretics, and are nut bound to kill Protestants. If the words are omitted, the Hon. Gentleman thinks that the Catholics will not incur the same penalties as under the Act of 1793. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that Lord Eldon took part in drawing up the Bill of 1791, but he was also Attorney-General in 1793. I must admit that those who were parties to the Act of 1793 are not called on to be parties to this measure, because this Act goes much beyond that in the privileges it grants; but the preambles of the Bill of 1793 says, that the Ro man Catholics shall not incur any penalties, forfeitures, or pains whatever, more than Protestants, on taking the oaths prescribed by that Act. The exceptions from office in the Bill of 1793 were more numerous than by the pre sent Bill. The lion. Gentleman says that the Roman Catholics' oath will not prevent Protestants front entering the House If this argument is well founded, hew does he reconcile it with the declaration to admit the Dissen ters, and with the oath of a Privy Councillor ? The de claration of a Dissenter when he entered Parliament is, that he shall not use any power or influence he may pos iess by virtue of any office he holds to weaken the Protes tant Church Establishment, or disturb the Bishops and Clergy in the exercise of their legal authority. The Bill admitted the Roman Catholics into the Privy Council, calling on them to take an oath that they will not use their privileges for the injury of the Established Church. We are not willing that the Catholics should be excluded, and we are willing to provide for the security of the Esta blished Church; and the reason for introducing the oath is, that similar oaths have been formerly introduced.— The next objection of the Hon. Gentleman is to the clause which gives the power to the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise the right of presentation to any ecclesiastical be nefice or preferment, in case the appointment to such a be nefice shall belong to the holder of an office who is a Ca tholic. We are willing to remedy any plausible objection to the Bill ; but if the Hon. Gentleman has so many ob jections to make to the measure, why did he not attend the Committee, and why did he reserve all his objections to this last stage of the measure ? An objection was made in the Committee, and it was suggested that the Arch bishop of Canterbury was the best person to hold in his hands any power to present to ecclesiastical preferment.— We were willing to listen to that suggestion ; but the Hon. Gent. reserves his objections to the third reading of the Bill, when, if they be correct, the evil cannot be re medied. The objection of the Hon. Gentleman, however, is not well founded, when he states that the Church preferment of Scotland was to be placed in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bill does no such thing; and either the Hon. Gent. has not read, or has not understood the Bill, if he supposes that it vests any power over the Church of Scotland in the bands of the Arch bishop of Canterbury. The Bill does not vest the Arch bishop with any patronage or preferment whatever. But as there is certain Church preferment in the hands of the Crown, which is disposed of under the advice of a re sponsible Minister, should the Minister for the Home De partment be a Roman Catholic, in that case he cannot ad vise the Crown in giving away this preferment, which must be done by a Protestant Minister. There are, how ever, some offices under the Crown, such as the Chan cellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which bestows on its holder, virtute nificii, a right to present to certain eccle siastical preferments : and the Bill provides, that if such offices are held by a Roman Catholic, the presentation to those preferments shall be exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbuty. Now it does so happen, that in Scotland there is not a single civil office which has annexed to it any Church patronage.—(Hear, hear.)—ln this case, then of such offices as he had alluded to being held by Catholics, ti.e patronage belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the presentations by the Crown must be made by the ad vice of a responsible Minister. The next objection made by the Learned Gentleman was to . the clause relating to the scholastic establishments. The Hon. Gentleman objects to the words " ecclesiastical schools ;" but, in fact, the Bill makes no alteration in the law is this respect, and Protestant foundations will, as heretofore, have only Pro testant masters. We have foreseen this objection, and we come prepared to leave out the words "schools of ecclesi astical foundation," so as to make the clause apply to schools generally. The Act will not then give any per sons any new powers in this respect, nor entitle them to any exception, they do not now possess. The Bill will then leave the Catholics their schools, and the Protestants theirs. The next objection of the Hon. Gentleman is, that all the penalties are pecuuiary, and that the offences are to be prosecuted at the di'cretion of the Attorney-General, who may be a Catholic, and appoint another Attorney- General.—(Hear, hear.)—ln the first place, the House must suppose the Attorney-General unwilling to prosecute; but the Honourable Gentleman might have recollected, that some Attorney-Generale, at least, have some respect for the oath they take. In the next place, the penalties are not altogether pecuniary; if the Hon. Gentleman had read the whole clause, be would have found that the four last lines stated, the person should lose his office. The clause is this : " And be it enacted, that if any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, shall enter upon the exercise and enjoyment of any office or franchise, or of any office or place of trust or profit under his Majesty, not having, in manner, and at the time aforesaid, taken and subscribed the Oath hereinbefore appointed and set forth, then, and in every such case, such person shall forfeit to his Majesty the sum of two hundred pounds : and the appointment of such person to the office, franchise, or place, so by him held, shall thereupon become altogether void : and the of fice, franchise, or place, shall be deemed and taken to be vacant to all intents and purposes whatsoever." (When the Rt. Hon. Gent. had read the clause, his atten tion was called to the word " thereupon," by Sir C. We therell. )—I do not think the word thereupon applies to the fact of the conviction, but if it does in legal construction, had the Hon. Gentleman stated that objection in the Committee, the evil should have been remedied. If that word makes the forfeiture of office depend on the convic tion obtained by the Attorney-General, I have no objec tion to alter it.—(Hear, hear.)—(Re-commit the Bill, we believe from Sir R. Inglis.)—lt will not be necessary to re-commit the Bill ; that is, I apprehend, very unusual af ter it has been engrossed. The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman must suppose, because we are willing to listen to reasonable objections, that we shall delay the measure. The Hon. Gentleman seems also to think, that the penalty of two hundred pounds is not sufficient. But what suc cess, I would ask, attended the old penal laws, and are we to revert again to them ? A moderate penalty will be more likely to be exacted than a severe punishment inflict ed, and I believe the penalty will be more efficacious in preventing a violation of the law, than severe penal enact ment. I certainly did not expect, at this stage of the dis cussion, that I should have had to answer legal and tech nical objections. I expected that all the discussion this evening would have been on the principle of the Bill, and I did not expect that the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, which be was burning with impatience to deliver, was to have been a speech fit only for a Committee. He was not content with the opposition he might have given to the Bill, when in progress; he could not restrain his impetu ous enthusiasni, and be at peace till he had given vent to his speech. Though he was willing to exclude others from the House, he showed that he bore his own ex clusion with great impatience. The Hon. Gentleman had spoken of our Churches being consumed—first, the lighter ornaments were to be the prey of the flames, which were then to extend to the whole edifice, and consume them, as York Minster was consumed. We, however, will not be the incendiaries—we will not be like Martin, who applied the torch to the building, nor do any thing that can war rant the most distant interference that we have any of that maniac's lipstility. If the Hon's Gent's apprehensions should be realized—if between the contests of the Protest ants and Catholics the land should be enveloped in flames, I shall be disposed for once to give him the benefit of a si milar delusion to Martin's, as an excuse for his individual labours. I listened tio the speech of the Hon. Gentleman with great attention, and it seemed to me more like a hustings speech against the Solicitor-General than an ar gumentative speech, shoWing the dangers and impolicy of the measure.—(Hear.)—The late speeches of the Mem bers who opposed the measure, as well as the speech of the Hon. Gentleman which seemed to have been heard with great satisfaction, left the question where it was before.—(Hear, hear.)—Those speeches were full of per sonal invective unworthy of notice, and did not convince any person of the impropriety of the present measure, or suggest any other which 'ought to be adopted in the pres sing exigency of the state of Ireland. This important part of the subject remains as it was. I have, however, re ceived a letter this morning from the highest authority in Ireland; it is only a private letter, but I will just read one sentence to show that the measure has already had some good effect. The letter is dated March 27, and it states that the amelioration is visible in all parts of social life, and more particularly in the public peace of the country.—(Cheers.)—The Right Zion. Gentleman reed another short passage describing the people as every where burying their animositiel, and, where old feuds and quarrels existed, 'making them up and living peace. And the communication, he repeated, came from the highest authority in that country. Thi s information (he continued) is confirmed from all quar ters. All the violent parties in Ireland on both sides, seeing the parties io the Legislature lay aside their differ ences, had seconded its efforts in a manner that did-them the highest honour. This is before the Bill has passed, and already violent men of both sides recal their violent opinions, and long to bury the animosities that were last year excited. "If the parties in the Legislature," they say, " have laid aside the difference of opinion that have separated them for many years, let us profit by their wis dom, and anticipate by our conduct the effects of a mea. sure, which is to give peace and tranquillity to our coun try." But, should the Bill be rejected, it would not only destroy the temporary effect of conciliation, but also, by raising the disappointed expectations of the Roman Catho lics, and by elevating the lower classes in Ireland to the height of insult, tend to widen the breach already exist ing between the parties of that country. To that consi deration alone every man should give its due weight, what ever his opinions may be as to the abstract policy of this measure. Even if he thinks it decidedly wrong, it may, nevertheless, be perfectly consistent with that opinion, looking to the consequences that will ensue from failure, to argue that the measure, having been brought forward, and it being impossib:e ever again to replace matters i n th e i r original position, it would be better to pass the Bill than to risk the effects of its defeat. Ido not merely wish to seize the advantages the measure would give us; but, as we now stand, to avoid the perils its loss would entail upon us. On these grounds I earnestly entreat the House to pause before it contemplates the rejection of the measure. I am willing to submit to any consequences personal to myself. I will consent to be condemned for the precipita tion with which we have brought it forward. If, in deed, he (Sir C. Wetherell) thinks that the effects of its failure will only be the same as if it had never been pro posed, he may with perfect consistency oppose it, even if he had before given his support to the Bill. Ido trust that the time is fast approaching when we shall take leave of these discussions for ever.—(Cheers.)---We shall then be enabled, as it was lately remarked by an Hon. Member, instead of having our time occupied by petitions for and against this question, and by the debates growing out of it, to apply the whole of our attention to the permanent interests of the country. If we were able to disencumber ourselves of the Roman Catholic Question, and devote thirty or forty days in each Session, which are now claimed for its exclusive consideration, even in this respect, a great benefit will be conferred on the whole kingdom. I re joice, therefore, that these discussions are about to leave us for ever. Rut in saying so I must claim for myself, notwithstanding all the imputations that have been east upon me—l will not only claim the privilege, but assert it as the bounden duty of a man who contracts that obligation which binds the responsible servant of the King, that he shall give his advice regarding public affairs without reference to any speeches he may have delivered in this House or elsewhere; and however dreadful it is to be apparently insensible to the calls of gratitude, however painful it may be even to dissolve those party connections which have so long subsisted, and which we are threatened with, as one consequence of bringing forward this mea sure, still I do say that those are not considerations which should weigh against the responsibility incurred by hold ing the office of adviser to the Crown.—(Cheers.)—If we are compelled to follow a certain course of action, and if a man differs entirely from other individuals with whom lie is co-operating, and also from his own party, yet he is bound to advise and act for the best, according to the exi gency of the times. My Hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool, has told !me that I shall find for the future the lukewarm friendship of a great proportion of those whose good opinions I have hitherto had the happiness to enjoy. I know my Hon. Friend too well to believe that he is in fluenced by any private or personal considerations; and I am perfectly satisfied that he and they who take a similar course 410 se, not for the purpose of pleasing anybody, but with reference to the public welfare. But I cannot pur chase his support or good-will for myself by any promise that I will, at all times, and under all circumstances, in my public situation as a Minister of the Crown, bind myself to act for ever upon any opinions I may form; or that I will not reserve to myself the right to act as in the exigencies of the moment I may be called upon to (Loud cheers.)—The Hon. Member for Dover tells me that lie has pinned me to one thing, and screwed me to another, and that under no circumstances will he allow me to escape from them. But I tell my lion. Friend, iu reply, borrowing the metaphor of the Gallant Admiral who now occupies his place in the House, that I shall fidlow the example of the pilot who does not always steer the same course to guard the ship from danger, but a dif ferent course, under different circumstances, as they arise, in order to save the ship from the very dangers which the captain and crew have most to dread. This has been the opinion at all times of the men who have been called to the practical administration of public affairs. My diffi culties are the same as those of other men under other circumstances. I may express them much more elo quently than 'in any language I can utter in the words of an eminent orator of antiquity : " Ham didici, hate vidi, htec scripta legi, non semper easdem sententias ab iisdem ternporibus exigi, sed quoscum que reipubliew status, inclinatio temporum, ratio concor dice postularent dici debere." on these subjects, I will not occupy the time of the House .by umaecess,rily dwelling at length on them.—(" Ques tion.")—But I must say that I doubt whether any man strongly attached to the cause of Protestant Ascendancy, can point out any more unfortunate way in which, if his oath, as a Privy Councillor, had compelled him to advise the King that the evils of a divided Cabinet called for this remedy, he could have done so, than when it led him to fix on the project of a united Cabinet in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, on that memorable day when a certain correspondence appeared, which said " there is no mistake ; there can be no mistake; there shall be no mistake." If he felt that the union of the Cabinet, on this question, was so vital in its nature that its omission would justify the total abandonment of the Protestant Ascendancy, had he not then an opportunity of giving effect to his opinions, by declaring that he would leave the management of public places to those who were of opinion that the Government should be conducted on the principle of division? The next ques tion is, whether, if the evils of danger are so great, ought it not to have been within the calculation of the framers of the present measure that there may come times in the future, which, instead of such persons as my Right Hon. and Gallant Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, there may be such Ministers as Lord Treasurer Clifford and Lord Chancellor Ashley?. Under the pres?t Bill, may not the evils of a Cabinet so composed be greater than the evils of division among men hound together by common interests anal by common oaths? The next point is the evil that arose from the difference between the two Houses of Parliament. In the first place, I must say, it was known for many years that there was a strong opinion on this subject entertained by one branch of the Legislature; and, I believe, if it were allowable to refer to the opinion of another branch, I might say, that it was not less de cisive. In fact, the opinion of the one branch was marked by voting against the Roman Catholic Question for sixteen years uniformly, and with large majorities ; and the opi nion of the other branch was known by other means, to which I need not more particularly refer. Why, then, I ask, should the opinion of both these branches yield to the third ; that of the two hereditary branches giving way to the opinion of the representatives of the people ? The next point is one relative to the evils that have resulted from the rejection of certain measures by the House of Commons, which have now been brought fin ward again under under such authoritative circumstances as render it probable they may be carried, though I do not abandon the hope that they will be rejected. Is not this a con verting of the House of Lords into a • mere chamber for registering the decrees of this House ? Suppose that some Bill should pass this House for the alteration of the Tithe system, and that this Bill should have the weight of Government to support it, is it any thing to be wondered at, if it should be forced through Parliament, however in consistent with the Protestant interest ? The third point of the Right Hon. Gentleman's defence rests on the fact, that he was hirstself left in a minority on the Catholic question. I admit that he was so left, but I beg leave to state, that the evil was far less than that which he adopted as a remedy four years afterwards. The Right Hon. - Gentleman was then supported by Mr. Canning and Lord Plunkett; Lord Goderich also sat with him, and the Hon. Members for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) and Merioneth shire (Mr. Wm Wynn.) This circumstance makes the case very different, so far as he is concerned. But he says he was not properly supported. He had at that time the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some of his other colleagues. He asks the Hon. Member for Kent, why he did not speak against the Roman Ca tholic Claims in this House instead of going to Penentleh Heath ? I hope I may be allowed to say, with my Hon. Friend, and with the same tone and temper, that he did his duty according to his conscientious view of it. The Honourable Baronet then went on to ask 'what his Majesty's• . GOvernment had done to encourage young men to oppose this question ? Mr. Pitt had saved himself by that means, and he might point out in the House several distinguished Members who had been so raised to eminence —he would mention the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Charles Grant), the Member for Inverness; the Hon. and Learned Gent, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, and the Hon. and Learned Gent. (Mr. North) the Member for Milborne Port. Why did not the Right Hon. Gent. in like manner gather round hitn those who were the depositories of Mr. Pitt's principles? When a Minister complained of not being supported, he (Sir R. Inglis) was entitled to ask whom he had invited to support him, and by whom lie had surrounded himself? Lastly, he came to the state of Ire land, as a justification for the course followed by his Ma jesty's Ministers. But he maintained that the state of that country, bad as it had been, and as it was, was not worse than it had been, not only within our own memory, but in the records of history.. -(Cries of Order and Question. )--He referred to two authorities on this subject, to which he was sure the House would bow —one was the author quoted by his Hon. and Learned Friend—Sir . John Davis, and the other was Spencer. The latter stated that "most of the freeholders there who were Irishmen, made no scruple of passing -as Jurors against the Queen, though for that purpose they were obliged to restrain their oaths, so that it amounted to nothing what the verdict might be." Spencer's work was one of undoubted autho rity, and it was confirmed by that of Sir John (" Question.")—He denied, therefore, that the removal of the grievances arising from the disabilities of the Roman Catholics, could have any tendency to promote the tran quillity of Ireland, whose evils were co-existent with all we knew of that country.—(Cries of question !)—lf, indeed, these concessions had been made in the time of Mr. Canning, benefit might have resulted from them ; for that Right Hon. Gent. would have given them open hearted and open handed. They would, in that case, have been attended with advantageous results; because Mr. Canning would have given them as a measure of justice, but now the Roman Catholic claims were conceded on the principle on which a purse wasgiven to a footpad. The Right Hon. Gent. had pretty plainly intimated that he would give nothing, but that he was afraid of being knocked down, if he kept it back any longer. He gave his purse to keep his watch. Now be (Sir Robert Inglis) contended, that this surrender to the Roman Catholics was a direct premium to intimidation and agitation. It was clear that the Roman Catholics could never have brought their question to its present state of prosperity but by agitation. Had they not publicly announced, that by agitation they had succeeded in carrying the question ? They would never be satin fied— The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst very low and general cheering; which continued for some time. Sir R. INGLIS rose to move. an Adjournment of the Debate ; but was met with cries of" Go on," and " Ques tion," which were vehemently reiterated until he pro ceeded with his speech. The Right Hon Gent. had given the House a gratuitous explanation of a purely per sonal nature ; but though he was willing to give every degree of credit to it as an argumentum ad hominem, yet, however it might effect the public' character of the indi vidual, it did not alter the quality of the measure itself in the slightest degree. The greater part of the Right Hon. Gent's. Speech only went to prove that the measure ought to have been brought forward before. His objection went far deeper, and was more general. He could not have agreed to this Bilt, at whatever time and under whatever circumstances it had been brought forward ; and whether by the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster, or by the Right Hon. Gent, the Secretary of State, by Whig, "On Moscow's towers till Gothic standards Ay, Radical, or Tory ; whether in 1825, in 1827, or in 1829, And all be theirs beneath the Polar sky." he would have been equally opposed to it. His objection The Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that there wow was, that the character of the church of Rome, was un- be a Roman Catholic question still behind ; but that was changed and unchangeable. If he was told, as he had not all ; for there would be a Protestant question also. been that evening by an Hon. Gent., that the ch a ra c t er . o f Did the House suppose that the immense majority of the the Church of Rome, and of the Pope, and the Papal people of England would remain content next Session ? power itself were mere nonentities, and that the dread of The Right Hon. Gentleman would find them again at the them was an alarm suitably only to other times, he would re- bar with their petitions. With respect to the Protestant m'nd them of what had taken place when the Pope was in the population of the kingdom, he had no hesitation in saying hands of Bonaparte, and was his prisoner in his own car- that nine-tenths of it were against this Bill—(cries of riage. Perhaps he should be asked for proofs of the pre- " No, no," and " Question")—and for himself, he must sent character of the church of Rome, and he would at say, that he had detected errors sufficiently dangerous in once refer to Louth, or Monaghan, or Clare. If asked the Church of. Rome to justify him as a Member of Par where he would seek for the proofs of Roman Catholic !Lament in refusing the admission of Catholics into office. disaffection, he would say be found it in the organization —(" Question, question.") that existed throughout the whole Catholic population of The wish of the majority of the House appeared to be Ireland, by which they were subjected to orders to march in favour of an immediate division, but there was a cry here and there, and to a rigorous discipline, under which also for Mr. Sadler. they abstained even from drinking spirituous liquors. He Mr. SADLER presented himself to the House, and found it in the fact that th e leader of this organization, en suggested the propriety of an adjournment.—(Vehement the very day of his triumph, had knelt down in the streets cries of " No, no," "do on, go on.")—He was sure that before a Roman Catholic Bishop and worshipped him.— if he went on he should run the risk of fatiguing many When he looked at the present stage of the Bill, he could Hon. Gentlemen.—(Cries of " No, no," " Hear, hear." not help asking himself, who, 29 years . ago, would have —The Right Hon. Secretary 'of State had observed, tha, thought to see a Right Hon. Friend of his become one of it would be better, considering the present stage of the those who required this measure as a panacea for the evils Bill, to .rest the debate on the principle of the measure : of the State? There were others who did not look so f a r, he (Mr. Sadler) wished so too, and was therefore sorry and who held the distinction that the measure was not So that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not observed his own much a remedy for the present evils of Ireland, as a pr e - rule.—(A laugh.)--He was still disposed to stand on the partitive for remedies that were hereafter to be applied.— ground which he had taken the last time that lie had ad- His Hon. Friend, the Member for Armagh, was one of dressed the House. It still appeared to him that the pas those, of whom he was entitled to say, that he had gal- sing of this Bill must necessarily touch . on the title of the tautly, four years ago, under similar circumstances, House of Brunswick to the throne of these realms--(hear, changed not only his conduct in regard to this question, hear, and a laugh)—he still thought that it would bring but his opinions also. He had said, in effect, " I have about a most fearful inroad .into the most sacred institu been deceived in the character of the Church of Rome, tions of the country, and the ultimate suppression of the for what I thought dangerous I find is now innoxiou s ._ whole of them—(hear, hear)L--be . still thought that the Let us, therefore, give the Roman Catholic wh a t h e asks." measure would lead to the ultimate destruction o,f Chris- But he, continued the Honourabl e Baronet, is not the tianity itself—( hear, and signs of discontent) . -Lhe still be person who gains the triumph, but he who tells us th a t lieVed that instead of settiiog the question, as it was vainly he holds his opinions, and changes his coat only; he urged would he the case, it would unsettle every thing that who is consistent in nothing bet his changes, a n d w h o had been so long and so happily established : the quarrel, fr a tells tis that as lie was al ways o f op i nion that the instead of being appeased, had but just commenced, arid the eti Roman Catholic Church was hostile to Protestantism way in which they had COMM( need it, was by giving greater every where, in Ireland and Engl an d, . an d throughout power than ev er t o t h e i r opponents. He hap no wi sh' to Europe, so he now considers it his duty to regard Popery press himself unnecessarily on she time . of the House; but ae hostile to every principle of the Constitution, a n d yet he owed it te himself to say,' that he had not uttered the ad - vises us to tha n wh t ev le ery thing t o th e R oman Catholics words which had be en i mpute d to hi m, nor had he by im now, becauseotreep of the Treasury, with the pliCation made such a recommendation as had been ascribed Right Hon. Gentleman at their head, assurci us th a t the to him. What he had said WilS, that it appeared to him! evils. of Ireland are so great, that the • danger is l es s in that the disturbance s in Irelarutwere of a similar, character granting than in resisting concessions. This is the state to those which had agitated the manufacturing distTieta of of things from whihaah c founded the Bill is to reli eve us . Th e Ri g h t t hi s country, a l though, in the one instance, the outcry had Hon. Gentleman the defence of his M a j es ty' s b een for Parliamentary Reform, while in the other, the pre- Governme nt firstly, on the divid e d slimed panacea was Cath o li c E manc i pat i on . B ut bow dif the diff erences b etween f erent l y h a d these cases been treated. In one instance they a egrounds ; o n the two infoouses of Parliament ; thirdly, on his being left had spurned the comp l a i nants, and even spilt .their blood in ste of the Cabinet n severalet ; secondly, himself minority ; but, above all, on the state of Ire- the act of dispersing them, while they met the other ease land. _(c e i„ o f Question.")—ln entering on the first by sun endering:all that was asked.—(Hear.)—But though of these grounds, as I have on former occasions touched he had stated thus much, he had not expressed any opi. nion respecting the policy of the question in either ease: i power and force of popular opinion, and how effectual it least of all had he uttered any thing capabl e of being I was in resisting the measures then in contemplation; and interpreted into _a recommendation of c ivil war. Wh a t ' from that example they might now learn not rashly to op he had recommended was that Government should a c t pose the voice of the people. He had now done—his op as a sort of hostage for the indust r y o f I re l an d—th a t i t position mi g ht b e o f no avail—entreaties and prayers, he should su pp or t, by every mean s i n it s p ower , th e nee feared, could not now stop the accomplishment of this ttiral advantag e s of that country—that it should shew measure; but he felt that he had done his duty, and if itself to be the :iota' al protector of es people. These any humble effort or sacrifice of his could prevent its con were the means and th e conduct that would dignify any summation, he was ready to make that sacrifice, even Minister that would undertake to carry them into effect.— though it were of his life itself.—( Loud cries of hear. ) (Hear, hear. )—This was the only civil war that he had Mr. V. FITZGERALD rose amidst loud cries of recommended ; but he had not recommended any w ar . Question from on e p ar t o f t h e House, re-echoed by lond against Protestant A scen d ancy —h e h a d not recommended ;cheers from th e oth er; h e commenced by assuring the any war against the redundancy of population in a country House that at that advanced bout. (half-past two) he would pre-eminently fertile its e lf, an d w i t h proper management nut trespass long upon their attention, but there were one capable of supporting th a t population. What he had or two remarks in the spe ec h o f t h e H on. Member to which urged was a war against opp ress i on an d cruelty.—( Hear, he nets anxious to call the notice of th e H ouse. In truth, hear.)—H e h a d con t en d e d b e f ore, and he would again there was not much of argument in th e speec h of the Hon. contend, that a modified system of poor laws w ou ld d e - Member—(hear, hear)—and in no part of it did th e H on , scend like an angel of mercy on Ireland.—(Hear, bear, Member discuss the principle and the details of the present and a laugh.)—The emancipation that he sought f o r was Bill.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member had, fora secon d not a sentimental emancipation —an emancipatio n f or th e time, entertained the House with his lucubrati ons on the saloon and the drawing-room—(Hear, hear)--by which state of Ireland, and with the repetition of th e specifics the few who ranked high were to gain their object at the which he would recommend for healing the wounds of expence of the pOor.—(Hear, hear.)—Again, it had been that country. The Hon. Member, not content with re said that he had spoken inaccurately of the Constitution ; peating himself, had repeated also h passage from the speech but it appeared to him that those who had accus e d hi m o f of the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Moore); and al that, had mistaken the Constitution of which he had been though he promised to be very succinct, yet he had read speaking : the Constitution to which he had alluded w as at equal length, the quotation from Lord Chatham, which not that which had begun in 1828, and which appeared that Hon. Member had read with not less effect in an now, in 1829, to be approaching to its final consumma- earlier part of the discussion of the evening. —(Laughter, tion. No ! he had allud e d t o th e Constitution which had and cries of hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member, in con been formed in the first of King William the Third o f sistency with his promise of succinctness, might have spared glorious memory—(A loud laugh)—And which had a t the passage from Lord Chatham's speeches. In the speech least continued down to the reign of King George the of the Ron. Member there were some mis-statements of Third, also of glorious memory.—(A suppressed laugh.) history, and some misrepresentations of history, which it It had been contended by the supporters of 'the present was important to correct; the Hon. Member had even measures, that one of their principal reasons for giving gone so far as to attribute all the crimes in the history of that support arose from the state of Ireland, and from this country, as well as of other countries, to the Catholic. their belief that this measure was the proper means for it s religion, and he had cited the period of the great rebellion palliation. But if the evening had not been so tar ad- in this country that terminated in the Revolution, and the vanced, he would have proved—for he pledged himself Revolution in France, as illustrations in support of his po that he was able to prove that those circumstances of dis- sition ; but be could safely assure the Hon. Member, that turbance had existed since the Revolution, and even before these illustrations, and his mode of applying them, were the Revolution.—(hear, hear)—besides which, he believed neither applicable to the House nor to the Bill now und er that all this alarm had arisen front the statements contained its discussion. He would maintain, in oppositio n to th e in accounts for the mist part anonymous and little worthy Hon. Member, that the principle of the Constituti on w as of credit. He could, however, tell the House that if the not a principle of exclusion ; and, notwithstanding the Bill passed into a law, there were thousands and tens of aversion he manifested to expediency, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) thousands of respectable individuals in Ireland who would would assert that expediency, connected and consistent not longer be able to gather their crops, or even to breathe with morals, was a sound principle of legislation. Expe the air of their country with safety.—(Hear, bear.)-4le diency disconnected from morals was a criminal ground to had a document in his hand which was too long to read, act upon; but when supported and sanctioned, as it was but he, however, might state its substance, verified as it in this instance, by morals, it was the wise course, as well was by a number of respectable signatures which were at- as the bounden duty of Government and of Parliament to tached to it: in that document these individuals stated adopt it. And when the Hon. Member referred to hi s _ that their fears and apprehensions were such that they tory, and deprecated expediency, he would ask hint if his. were preparing to quit the homes of their fathers, for tory did not inform him that expediency was the ground they found that it was impossible far them to remain any upon which Catholics were excluded.—(Cheers?)—lt. was longer there. He would not fatigue the House by read- upon expediency, and expediency alone, that the Romer, ing the document t o them—(hear) ;—but he begged par. Catholics were excluded ; and expediency now, under ticularly to impress the contents of it on them. And, different and altered circumstances, calls for their after all, what was the apology made for the intro- admission to anise ,civil franchises, from which, in duction of this measure? Why it was one that vi• former times, and nnder far different eircumstane e s, tiated it altogether.—(Hear, hear. )__The apology w a s they had been shut out. —(Cheers.)—He denied th a t it neither more nor less than what appeared to be the con- was any essential part of the Constitution of this country stant alpha and omega of the mod e r n school—(a laugh)— that all who lived in the enjoyment of its advantages the policy of exp e diency.—(H ear , h ear .) B ut such ex- should be members of th e same commun i on. And when pediency as this he scorned, a n d he had hoped ne ver t o h ave the Hon. Gentleman i nvo k e d th e H ouse i n t h e name tie heard it urged in quarters in which it now was unfor- their fathers, who had died for the cause of their religion tunately too prevalent. It was an expediency that yin- and their God, he must protest against the arrogant a s_ fated the science of morals, and destroyed the dearest prin- sumption by which some Hon. Gentlemen appeared to ciples of their life. -It was an expediency that distorted take to themselves an exclusive merit for being the supe everything from its fair an d just proportions; and with porters of the Church an d th e f r i en d s o f religion. He the permission of the House he would endeavour to place would tell those Hon. Gentlemen, that he and those who this doctrine on the solid basis of demonstration._(Year, set beside him were as zealously, as deeply, as fervently, and question.) What was, for instance, th e fat e of L ou i s and as honestly, attached to the Protestant Chu r ch, as XVI., when that benevolent Monarch found himself sur- the Hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler); and he rounded by a knot of expediency-mongers,—(a laugh)-- would further protest before God, that one of the chief and was counselled to yield his privileges, one after ano- reasons which induced him to support this measure, was ther, till there were none left, and even the light of Chris- that he believed there would be greater danger to the Esta tianity was for a time extinguished ? The last victim o n blished Church in the present state of the Catholic Quesiou in Ireland, than th e re wou ld b e a f ter the proposed mea sure of concession had b een a d opte d. I t was because he nareb himself. But perhaps it wou ld b e sa id b y t h ose the altar of expediency in this c ase w as th e lif e o f t h e Mo t who admir e d the rev o luti o n th a t h a d t a k en p l ace i n t h at thought that it would con t r ib ute to t h e preservation of country, that this case was not i n p o i n t : h e nee d not those sacred institution s th a t h e supported the present insist upon it, for he would refer them still mo re st rong ly t o Bill, because h e h o p e d an d truste d it would serve the page of history in our own country. He need not say to unite both Catholics and Protestants, and espe that he referred to that period of our hi s to r y w h en every - cially the Protest an t s among t h emselves in support of the real int eres t s o f th e Ch urc h . The tolerant spirit thing was in danger, and when the Chu rc h a n d Constitu of the Prote s t an t re li g i on was i ncons i stent with ex veryelusion ; and of hi m w h o wou ld exclude another tion t H he o m u s s e e ls h - e a s d u m . er a e rk at ed st o ak u e t . a lt n w ob as le at v t ic h t a i t na pe fo ri r od a t ie ha p t o t i h ic a y t of expediency—a victim who was, perhaps, not free from from. the Constitution because lid was not a member of his faults, but who was as l o y a l t o hi s Ki ng an d to h i s the same communion w ith hi mse lf , at a time when his country as any patriot that ever breathed. He need hardly admission into it . was free from danger, he would say, as hi, say that he referred to the gr ea t E ar l o f S tra ff or d . —(A has been said in a p u bli c assem bl y, upon this question, laugh and hear. )—Exp e di enc y h a d o p erate d i n t h at House Ireland,: "His r e li g i on i s no t my religion, and his God i s to send that ill-fated nobleman to his trial; expediency not my God." The Hon. Member also doubted the power of had operated in the House that tried him to find him this House to pass the measure. • Did the Hon. Member guilty; and expediency h a d p ersua d e d t h e M onarc h that know that this House had pa sse d th e S eptennial Act ; and loved him to sign his death w arran t, un d er t h e f a l se l ure that the Union of Scotland a n d o f I re l and, by virtue of that that alone was wanting to res t ore a ll th e former tran- which Union the Hon. M e mb er was a l one capacitated to quillity of the kingdom, and th a t hi s b e i ng cons i gne d to be a legislator for the people of I re l an d ; a ll t h ese Acts had the grave would be the mea ns o f es t a bli s hi ng a h appy an d pulped without such an appeal t o the people t a ki ng p l ace lasting peace. But what really was the result of this as the Hon. Gent. recommended by the dissolution of Pap event? The Right lime Gent, pr ocee d e d to re f er to the event? What were the coui s eq uenecs th a t f o ll owe d a ll this good advice? That very expediency, which had mar- reign of William the Third, the tolerant spirit of whose shelled Strafford to the scaffold, murdered the King within mind and chanactee b e eu l og i ze d , and contended that toler ation was the charact er i s ti c o f t h at great man ; after which he e a a n lle lE d n t g b l e isi a l t p te a n r t l i i o a n me o l f x :h e Honourable Membet r Newark, who placed sure reliance on and dththaet et•ohiecevooifeethoef p eo pl e to the fact, th a t th e laws against C a th o li cs were in reference to exp e diency, b u t it was - one o f r i g h t, an a very short time aft e rw ar d s , an d, i ns t ea d o f t h e peace that was so vainly promised, th e wh o l e emp i re was a scene of anarchy and confu s ion. —(H ear , h ear . ) H e wou ld con- for that this was a question th a t ong ht no t to b e cons id ered d he Passed by would maintain that the P ar li amen t o f E ng l an d h a d no those who were to suffer from th em h a d not been consulted. right to rob the pe o pl e o f E ng l an d o f t h e i r P rotestant As to the various meas ures o f i mprovement recommended Constitution. After animadverting upon the laxity with by the Hooourable Member, lie believed that none of which Hon. Members were disposed to treat the oaths which them could he accomplished until ;his Catholic Que s : they had taken at that table on their entrance into Parlia- Con was adjusted. In considering the services and ment, the Hon. Memb e r p rocee d e d t o quote an aut h or i ty th e mer it s o f th ose b y whom the great question not only equal to, but abo ve th a t o f any aut h or i ty on the has been supported, and w h ose names would be re other side—namely, that of Locke—who laid it down membered as efteo as these discussions were thought of, that the Legislature had no power to pass a measure of the the super-eminent services of his Right Honourable Friend, character and importance of the Bill now before the and of the Noble Duke at the head of the Administration, House, without a dissol u ti on o f P ar li ament, an d w i thout would he cherished with th e d eepest gratitude. They had the Representatives of th e P eo pl e b e i ng sent b ac k to the braved every thing to accompli s h t hi s measure, and every body of the peopl e , t o a ff or d th em an opportun i ty of pro_ thing that could b e i n fli cte d wag i nflicted, to dissuade or flouncing their judgment upon the pending question, by defeat them in its consummation ; but the joy and thank the choice which, on such occasion, they would make. fulness of the millions whom this measure would mak e He would refer to another high authority—that of Lord happy, would, he trusted, he a consolation to them under Chatham—upon a change about to be introduced in the the difficulties which they had to encounter. (Loud cries oath of certain officers in a single colony, where the ma, of hear, hear !) The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by jority of the people were Catholics. That great mon said, eloquently enforcing how fatal it would lie to the hopes and is That to repeal the Act of Elizabeth, i m p os i ng the oat h happine s s of the people of Ireland if this measure were rinT of supremacy, and the substitution for it of an oath of al- rejected, but he hoped he might now combine the consider it as toafrr.ietl. ' legiance, would b e t o d o th a t w hi c h P ar li ament had no ( Cheers. ) They were nave about t o take j_e more right to do than they had t o repeal the Great Char- that House, and he parted with it its the Confid a e v n e t ant t ic l i 4 ter, or the Bill of Rights."--(Hear, hear.)—He invoked pation that it w ou l i d, peopl e of Ireland i n social - countries. (Cheer s th e name o f t h e great Ch at h am f rom the slumbers of his affection ;MPOgst themselves, ~,a strengthen, w i t h a per immortality; and h e h o p e d th e sp i r i t w hi c h once swayed menent security, the union o f the two his mind might now p res id e over t h e counc il s of the na- Mr. TRANT slxtte amidst l ou d cr i es o f " Question* ) • tion.—(Cries of " question, question,")—p-erhaps le e question !" l' •.e Hon. Gentleman denied that this as thr e w more of his heart than of his understanding into the not a rellgious question, It was a perpetual Popish pl o t, question ; but he felt warmly upon it, and he hepeti, that - Mr. MORRISON said a few words, but incessant as he had manifestly curtailed his argument, the House shouts of " Withdraw !" rendered him entire 4. inaudible. would hear with him whilst he advanced one argument Sir J. YORKE rose, and obtained a momentary si a Parliamentary Fo r the A mt o e a n s d t — in : tt. May ... . the ..... Sister ..... .... Kingdoms .l42 more.—( Hear, and cries of question. )._The argument fence, on which the Hon. Baronet spoke to the following which he wished to urge was the united for ce o f expo .. effect :—Sir, at the close of this discussion, I wish to give diency and right, and one which formerly in this country was reckoned to be irresistibl e , and which, if. resisted, united, and for ever after live together like two brother s ' i,' l might he fatal in its consequences,—(Hear, hear.)—That (Roars of laughter,) t argument was the voice of the people of England, and The gallery having been cleared, the House divided--- r that voice had been clearly and strongly expressed in op.. of rider, the natttre 1 position to the present measure. It was the opinion of Mr. Against it ••• • ........ ......... 320 t Canning, the great advocate of this measure, that it should Majority.. .......... - into the i gallery, we_ found n n. - a l , 78 Ho never be attempted in opposition to the voice aide people; The Bill was then raeacdlaau.,:nirdiytiwmaey and he said, "The time was net very long ago that there On our re-admissie ns , was a decided opposition to this measure In the minds of Gentleman pro .tre tgre un g able to e' i t i l; people that thereo f E England." wail la e o o f p A le lr i . ne C r a t n i n ip in on g t o i f v ; ei v . h l it v :h ithout a division. collect, but which was nega this question. But the people were no longerlinert nen --- n a d. g li reat il m 9 a mass expressionot•th ep Colonel SIBTHORPE moved another clause, respect (Hear, hear.)—Their voice had been isioe s ngtiiiist the ing the admission of Roman Catholics into bodies corporate. proposed change. The butte with which tht Ineaeure was Mr. PEEL opposed the clause,. hurried through parliament served greatly to aggravate the . Th House ' d• • The again netted, discontent it created. Oil ne. former occasion was so rno- Foe the Clause mentous a measur e h urr i e d th roug h w i th such precipitancy. Against it n I 7 I 4 had 0 233 . complain also o f th e manner i n which the peti- . Majority - .- - ... -- tines of th e . p eop l e were treated. The motive s a n d S e v era l verbal Ame d ... 216 ments were pr o p ose d b y M r. n feelings o f thos e .who wer e a d verse to concessioo were PEEL, and agrea to rebuked and represented as the sentiments of bigotry and The SPEAKER-,-That this Bill do ass , as no* re intolerance, whilst an exclusive claim to intelligence was are of that opinion say • es— The i ber S ' • - nu; nel-nehemetee: asserted by those who favoured " the measure.—(Hear, of the " ayes' absolute y dY l shook th ' hear.) , --The sentiments of the Clergy, he regretted, in, -An many as are of the s contrary 'e ''ils:ufi'lle ti'l 2„,.{ )-"* stead of neing received with respect, had been treated with comparatively faint sounds of tlie::Pr'.nole°s''k' say n'Q,l The stetted morn reproof. The people wanted no incentives from the laughter.)—Th e ayes have it. Clergy, but were ready to express then• own determination The Question on the Title of the Rill •t 4 " A Bill for to rally in support of the religion of their forefathers, and , the Relief of his Ma jest , 's Ro ° ' viz. in defence ef its,Thpetitions oflagreed in Ina Catholic Subjects," 'was . altars. .e stew treated slightingly by those whojpaiel great' respect! The SPEAKER.__ hat Mr Secretary Peel do carry and attention to them wheat Acly came ft:nm a smaller 'tl ' to the H . * pot- i this Bill :ewe of Lords, and desire their Lordships' - tion of the ••' • P%-..a t - and on a less important necrsion. It , concurrence, tvg , s to tlie recollection of the House, that when the Mo- i It is impossible to convey b) 1 , auguage an adequate . idea nareli of this country was suffering under a distress of !ti the scone which in •d• rely e e followed this proposition. mind from treatment which no private gentlentlin would i All the friends of therm m e asureimultaneously rose; cheering, endure, the petitions of a handfull of people, es 'and waving • ! , compared with rc ne s in tie i - nost those that were now presented, were treated with ' animated and enthit • • ' elastic manuer and a great number the greatest respect, and it was then intimated that the ' con y rded around Mr. Peel ands ook the Holt jrepresented the sentiments and the intellig e nce of the ma- Gentleman heartily 1 y the l ' i 1. ority of the people of England. The sneers and rebukes ! The Qualificatio by Freeholders :' (Ireland) Bill was also at present proceeded front those who formerly eulogized • - I third time and Feat a the petitiouers. At that period they had a proof of the I Adjourned at a Quarter before Four o'clock thismorning. s_ I Y