The Sun. — London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

an unusual flow of cordiality on the part of the Prelates of the Established Church towards those who dissented from it, it was because they perceived in the latter symptoms of growing can dour, he would not say attachment, towards the Church. Hard must be his heart, and that of his Reverend Brethren, if, under those circumstances, they were not to relent, and to extend the right hand of fellowship to Dissenters. Lord CALTHoRPz having explained, the Petition was laid an the table. Similar Petitions were then presented : By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from the Parish of Holleburne, in the County of Hants ; and from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Diocese of Rochester. By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from the Rural Dean and Deanry of Cirencester. By Earl DARTMOUTH, from the towns of Darleston and West Bromwich, in the County of Stafford. By Viscount Di PLE r and WARD, from some place, the name of which could not be heard. By Lord COMBERMERE, from the Parish of Glenbury, in the.county of Chester. Earl DARNLEY had been reading the petition presented by a Right Reverend Prelate opposite, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Diocese of Rochester. He not only approved 'of the temperate language in which it was worded, but he fully agreed with the prayer of it, for it prayed that their Lordships would make-no other concessions to the Catholics than were necessary for the preservation of the public peace, and in no degree hazardous to the Civil and Religious Establishment of this Realm. That was all that he required, and all that was asked by the Catholics themselves. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS was glad that the Noble Eatl agreed with the prayer of that petition, and had no doubt that if other Noble Lords had read the petitions of the Clergy as attentively as that Noble Earl had done, they too would have agreed to their prayer. The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a Petition against the Catholic Claims from the Inhabitants of the town and vicinity of Nottingham, signed by upwards of 3,000 individuals. Lord KING read a placard which had been posted in the streets of Nottingham, in which the people were pressed on their duty to their King, their Country, and their God, to sign petitions against those Papists, who worshipped Gods and Goddesses, and now wished to deliver up the State into the hands of a foreign Head. It had brew said by a Right Rev. Prelate a few days since, that petitions had been got up with out any means being taken of exciting the people. Were pla cards like that which he'llad read no means of excitement? The Bishop of CHESTER had not said what the Noble Lord attributed to him. All he had said was, that no public meetings had been held on the subject, and that he had dis.. couraged them, as he did not conceive it proper that a question involving religious feeling should be discussed at a public meeting. Lerd HOLLAND said that the motives of the Right Rev. Prelate did him honour; but if it were improper to discuss a question involving religious feeling at a public meeting , it was also impossible to collect public opinion without p ublic meetings. The Petition was then laid on the table, together with a si milar one from the borough of Daventry, also presented by the Duke of NEWCASTLE. Earl FITZ WILLIA3I presented a Petition in favour of the Catholic Claims from the inhabitants of the city and borough of Peterborough. The Bishop of CHESTER asked by how many it was signed ? Earl FITZWILLIAM knew not exactly. He believed about 128, but they were most respectable individuals. Read and laid on the table. EQUITABLE LOAN. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from the Traders, Inhabitants, and Mechanics of London and Westmister, in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill, and wished to guard against being understood to express an opinion either way on the sub ject.—Laid on the table. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a similar petition, most respectably signed, from the Traders and inhabitants of New Sarum.—Laid on the table. FORFEITURES IN SCOTLAND. Lord HOLLAND wished to ask a Noble Viscount who had so successfully employed himself in improving the system of jurisprudence in Scotland, whether it was his intention in the course of the present Session to propose any measure to alter the law of forfeiture and corruption of blood as it now stood in that country. Viscount MELVILLE replied, that he did not intend to bring in any particular measure on the subject, because it was the policy of this country to assimilate the laws of England and Scotland, and a separate measure would only serve to create a fresh distinction. The whole should be treated as a general question. Lord HOLLAND then gave notice, that he should take an early opportunity (to.morrow, we understood) of introducing a to abolish the laws respecting Forfeiture and Corruption of Blood in Scotland. _ _ _ BILLS. The Police Magistrates Salaries Bill, the Innkeepers Al lowance Bill, and the Threatening Letters Amendment Bills, went respectively through Committees, and were reported.— Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Gallery was opened at half-put Twelve o'clock, when it was immediately filled by the throng who had already been in attendance for some time. The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four.— The House was then crowded with Members. A Person from the Treasury presented certain papers in compliance with the Order of the House relating to the Corn A vc..rages. WET DOCKS. Mr. MANSFIELD presented a petition from the Shipowners of North Shields, against the compulsory clause in the Collier's Dock Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. JONES presented a petition from Carmarthen in favour of the Bristol Canal Bill.—Laid on the table. The Orders of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bris tol Canal Bill and the Third Reading of the St. Catherine's _Dock Bili were postponed till to-morrow, in order to avoid the inconvenience of discussing and dividing the House up oa those measures pending the great Question fixed for the evening. Mr. BOOTLE Wmultaitast presented a petition from the town of Dover against the Metropolitan Fish Com pany's Bill. Mr. HOBIIOU3E presented a petition numerously signed by' persons dwelling in the neighbourhood of Grose: nor-place against the Bill for the improvement of the Turnpike Road, Jeading from Hyde Park Corner, and particularly against the erection of a second toll bar. . Mr. BY NG said, that the second bar would only be one at the entrance of Grosvenor-place, which was at present sub ject to the payment a toll. Ordered to be referred to the Committee on the said Bill. Mr. CaLvEnT presented a petition from the parish of St. George's in the East, against the Collier's Dock Bill. Laid .on the table. Mr.. Alderman Woon presented a similar petition from se 'yowl hundred Manufacturers and Consumers of Coal in the Port of London. It eferred.to the Committee. . The Hon. MEMBER presented similar petitions from the Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames against the .Collier Dock, and Bermondsey Do& Bills.' He also presented a petition from the inhabitants of Fleet street, against the Thames Quay Bill. Mr. BYNG presented a petition from several Justices of the Peace of London and Middlesex, against the London and .Westminster Water Works Bill. Referred to the Committee on the said Bill. ,Lord HILL presented a petition from Newry in favour of the Bristol Canal bill. Laid on the table. . , Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Preston, praying fOr,a repeal of the Window-tax. Laid on the table. , The Noble Loan also.presented a petition from many of the Protestant Inhabitants of Rochdale, in favour .of the Catholic •Claims. THE FORGED PETITION. Sir JOHN NEWPORT took that opportunity of adverting to the Forged Petition, which he had been made the instru ment of presenting to the House not long since. He held in his hand it written declaration, sent to him from a p erson de - , Cie:ring that he was aware of the getting "up . of • the petition in ifuestiop, of the persons who were.concerned in it,• and of every step which had been taken with regard to it, and that he was 'ready to certify on oath, that no Roman Catholic was rin the l Most remote degree connected with the affair. He -thought himself called upon to state this, 'because mach stress I lid,leeen laid upon this petition; and it was therefore :most • material that the House should be early aware of the true state - .of the ease. Great pains had been taken to cast the odium of 'the forgery of the Catholics, and thereby prejudice their cause. It had been said with reference to the forged petition, that, ."that cause must be very foul indeed 'which stood in need .of orb- support." These words now applied to the other side of :che question, for foul indeed must be that cause which could, Sist fabricate an instrument of this kind, and then lay. the blame, of it on the adverse party. The whole business was now un der the-investigation of a Committee. .To that Committee he _, plfgulcl deliver.up this paper, and whomsover the parties might lign out to ,hh e,•e trusted t he.severe .displeasure of the House would ,be.visited upon ,them. . I%jr. Secretary PEEL said, that if the Hon. Baronet thought thot any ort4, imputed the fabricated Petition to the Catholics, he•concurred trult him in. the propriety of the mode he had •tskeu to remove the impression. If, however, he had no pounds for such an opinion, he should think. he had better have waited till the Committee had ended their Enquiry. For his own part, he begged distinctly to declare, that it had ne ver entered into his mind that the Catholics were concerned in the fabrication of the Petition. The course which the Hon. Baronet had taken, therefore,'was quite unnecessary as far as he (Mr. Secretary Peel) was concerned. But he entirely con curred with him in a desire to see the persons implicated, whe ther Protestant or Catholic, brought to their well merited punishment. Sir JOHN NEWPORT observed, that the imputation on the Catholics was contained in the petition disclaiming the forged petition. Mr. C. WILSON did not think there was any reason for char b cring this reprehensible act upon one side or the other of the Catholic Question. The petition was then read and ordered to lie on the table. BEER DUTIES. Mr. MABERLY postponed his motion for the Repeal of the Duties on Beer, which stood for this evening, to the sth of CATHOLIC CLAIMS. _ Mr. DAVESPORTTII;enreti; petition from Nantwich, pray ing eiat no further concessions may be made to the Catholics. —Laid on the table. Similar petitions were presented from Bristol, Worthing, the Parish of St. Swithin, and Donnagh in Monaghan.—ltead and ordered to lie on the table. Sir M. W. RIDLEY - presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of several places in the North of England, praying for Catholic Emancipation.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. J. P. GRANT postponed his Motion relative to the Law of Scotland to Thursday the sth of May. Colonel MUNDAY presented a petition from the County of Derby against any alteration in the Corn Laws. A similar petition was presented from Ashby-de-la-Zouch.--- Ordered to be printed. GLASGOW. Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a petition from the Mer chants, Bankers, and others of the City of Glasgow, in favour of the Catholic Claims. This petition was impartial and se lect, and had not been got up by forced means, in order to display numbers. He was aware that the respectable Cor poration of Hammermen, and also of Butchers, in Glasgow, had sent up to the House petitions of a different nature ; but he might, with no disparagement to those valuable and erudite bodies, put this petition, signed by a hundred of the most emi nent Merchants and Bankers of Glasgow, in the scale against them. He had the most respectable testimony, that of Mr. Finlay, well known to many gentlemen in that House, for say ing that this was the unsought, unbiassed expression of the sen timents of the petitioners. As such, he' thought it ought in fair ness to be taken as representing the real sentiments of the City of Glasgow, the third City in importance in Great Bri tain. He knew there still remained upon this subject in some parts of Scotland a remnant of that Puritanic spirit which had wrought its own ends in its day. But that day was gone by, anti all that he had to object to those parties in this particular, was an objection on the score of chronology.— He thought they were a hundred and fifty years too late in their sentiments—they were now quite out of date. \% ith respect to this Petition, he thought it not only should be taken as representing the sentiments of the people of Glasgow, but of the laity of Great Britain. If he required any further evi dence upon this point, he should adduce the Petition of the Bar upon this subject. He was, however, aware that against this respectable testimony they had to put that of the Hammer men and Butchers of Glasgow, in the same way as they had now to put the names of Sir Harcourt Lees and the Preben dary Dennis, against the names of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, who had both declared for the Catholic Claims. On the one side he saw all that enlightened intellect and station could pro duce; on the other he saw the workings of obscure incendiaries upon the minds of the ignorant. With respect to the Peti tions of the Clergy, he was convinced that not more than one. sixth of the English Clergy had petitioned upon this subject. And when he saw that the profession of favour to the Catho lics was a bar to promotion in the Church, lie could not consi der these Petitions as expressing the real sentiments of that respectable Body. Mr. DENNIS BROWN spoke in favour of the Petition. Mr. HUME said, that at the meetings from which petitions had flowed into that House from Glasgow, there were - but a handful of attendants ; and f rom a ll th a t h a d come to his know ledge, he was convinced that the present Petition was the only one which represented fairly the feelings of the inhabitants of that city. Mr. C. U. HUTCHINSON said, that he felt the greatest satisfaction on seeing such a Petition, expressing such senti ments, and being respectfully signed, presented from the city of Glasgow. He had recently read in the public prints an ac count of another meeting held at Glasgow, where sentiments the most unbecoming, he would say the most disgusting, had been delivered. It was a meeting of the Synod of Glasgow. At that meeting the character of Ireland and of the Irish Ca tholic Clergy were aspersed in a way which he should scarcely venture to characterize. He almost doubted whether the account published of it was true. However, the present Petition in a great measure destroyed the effect of the former meeting, and redeemed the character of the City. The Hon. Gentleman said that there never was a more appropriate Petition than the pre sent—nor one more respectably signed—nor committed into more proper hands for being presented to the House. Mr..l. MAXWELL bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners. He believed the Synod of Glasgow to be also very respectable, but said that the persecutions of the Synod had been from the Episcopal Church and not from the Roman Catholics. Mr. J. P. GRANT was convinced that the opinions ex pressed by the Synod of Glasgow were far from being common to the Members of the Presbyterian Church. He appealed to the Petition recently alluded to by the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) from the General Assembly of the Church of Scot land in 1811 The feeling of that Petition was strongly in Ta your of the Catholic Claims, but it left to the wisdom of the Legislature the devising of the mode in which Emancipation was to he effected, and by which the Protestant Establishment was to be secured. He believed that the general opinion of the Church of Scotland was favourable to Emancipation. Mr. C. WILSON did not mean to impeach the respectabi lity of the petition, but he would take the opportunity of claim ing for the Clergy of the Church of England the right and the competence to take their share in the great question which was now agitating the country. That Clergy were the successors of men who had made the greatest sacrifices to their religious creed, and they were ready now to hazard even life itself in de fence of their sincerity and their conscieuces. The petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the Church wardens and Inhabitants of Burlescombe, Devonshire ; and another from the Householdors of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields ; both against the Catholic Claims—Ordered to be printed. Mr. PRICE presented a - petition from the Inhabitants of Kingston, in favour of the Catholic Claims.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. Alderman Woon presented a petition from Thos. Ha milton, praying for some alteration in the Bankrupt Laws.—. Ordered to be printed. Mr. Ho ME presented a petition from certain Roman Ca tholics, resident at Blackburn, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, in favour of the Catholic Claims.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. Hu ME presented a petition from John Lawless, a Ro man Catholic resident at Belfast, against the Bill now be fore the House for Catholic Emancipation. The petition stat ed, that the Bill was encumbered by two conditions most de roeatory to- the interest and character of the Roman Catholics onreland. Those conditions were, the disfranchisement of half a million of Catholics, in order to assist the ends of a few persons, and the payment of the Catholic Clergy by a stipend from Government. The Hon. Member said, he could have wished the petition to have been divided into two parts, for at present the Bill was encumbered by no such conditions, when ever those secondary measures should come before the House, he should give them his most earnest opposition, but in the mean time he hoped that the great question of Emancipation might not be endangered by anticipating other and more ob jectionable points.—(Hear !)—Ordered to be printed,.. - • M HIiME presented a petition from the Seamen of Stock ton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, stating, that they tad heard with regret that certain charges had been made against them in that House unfavourable to their character, and praying to be heard by Counsel before the Select Com mittee appointed to inquire into the state of the Combination Laws. • The SPEAXER wished to know whether any allusion was Made in the body of the petition to what had passed in that House ? _ Mr. HUME replied in the affirmative, and read the pas sage. He said he was aware that such allusions were. per fectly incorrect, but as the House had long tolerated the publication of their proceedings to the would, it could not be .very neresiary to censure the petitioners ,for making the allusion. Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE considered it a dir ect breach of th e privileges of the House. • lie wished to hear the opinion of smile Member of gre ater weight and authority. Mr.. BARING made a single remark in a low. tone of voice. Mr. C. WYNN said, that it was incumbent on every Mem ber to read over all petitions put into their hands, and to state to the petitioners that objections would necessarily be made to any such • improperallusions. It would be adviseahle to withdraw the present , petition, in order that the error might be corrected. Mr.. H UME observed that it was not a petition of an ordi— nary kind, for it went to deny a charge which affected the cha racter of . a whole class of persons. 'flee error was one very likely ,to happen,.as it did no: appear to him to be of any great:i importance, he had not withheld the petition on account of it.' Still, as he was unwilling to sanction any irregularity, he was ready to withdraw the petition, particularly as he had another of the same sort to present from the Seamen of Sunderland, and both might be amended and presented on a future day.—The petition was then withdrawn. Sir J. lITROTTESLEY presented a petition from four hun dred and eighty-three Roman Catholics residing in the Mid land Counties of England, in favour of the Bill for ernacipat ing the Roman Catholics.—Ordered to be printed. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from Chard, in the county of Somerset, against the _Catholic Claims ; and another from NVeliington, in the same county, for the re peal of the House and Window Tax.—Both ordered to be printed. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from 3,000 in habitants of the Cities of London and Westminster and the Bo rough of Southwark against the Catholic Claims. This was not the petition of any public nieeting, but had been got up by 30 or 40 very respectable Gentlemen, who having met together, drew up the petition, and left it for signature at the London Tavern. The Worthy Alderman stated generally the sub stance of the petition, and expressed his entire concurrence in its sentiments. _ _ Mr. J. MARTIN said, that he felt it his duty to state to the House some facts relative to this petition. On Saturday morning last a friend of his informed him, that as he was pass ing the ,London Tavern, a boy dressed in the garb of a charity school came up to him and said, " Please to walk in and sign the Petition. —What petition ?" " The Petition against the Roman Catholics." His friend accordingly stepped in, not with the intention of signing the petition, but of reading it. Hs found four or five large sheets of parchment lying on the table, with several names subscribed, but no petition. " Cannot I see the petition itself ?" he asked. "Oh no, the petition is not hear," was the answer.—(Hear, he ar !)._ He then asked the waiter if there had been any public meeting oa the subject, and was told that about fifty Gentlemen had met, and arranged the business. The waiter then asked him to subscribe five or ten shillings to defray the expences.— (Hear, hear 1)—On hearing this statement, he (Mr. Martin) and another Gentleman went to the London Tavern, where they were saluted by the charity boy, saw the sheets of parch. ment, and the waiter, but no petition.—( Hear !)—He would leave the House to judge how fay this could be the petition of the Cities of London and Westminster. He would not sit down without expressing his strong conviction, that the greater part of the petitions against the Catholic Claims were got up in the same way. It was a strong fact, that few or no public meet ings had been held, as on f ormer occas i ons , w h en a great many such meetings were called forth against Emancipation. At present there were none, which proved that the prej u di ces on the subject were f as t fading away. Mr. J. SMITH rose to confirm the statement of his Hon. Friend. It was perfectly true that no petition, or copy of a petition, was to be found at the London Tavern. Ile him self had put the question more than once, and was told there was none. His hrm conviction was that nearly all the signa tures had been obtained by canvassing and personal solici. tation. The feeling of the Cities of London and 'Westmin ster was as liberal as that of any part of the Empire. If not so, there would have been a great many public meet ings. But as there was no hope of exciting a clamour against the Catholics, no attempt of the kind had been made. —He believed that the most unworthy means had been re sorted to, to stir up a cry against the Catholics. Persons had gone into obscure parts of the country, and attempted to work upon the prejudices of labourers who worked for their daily bread, by exciting an alarm that the fires of Smith field were again to be renewed. Such representations must be the result of the most shameful ignorance, or of some worse motive. He believed, and he was sorry for it, that the greater part of the Clergy of the Church of England was unfavourable to the Catholic Claims, but the arguments used by sonic of that Clergy were singularly unfair. They had argued the question as one purely . religious, and had left the political part of it entirely out of view. Knowing as they did that it was a great State question, deeply connected with the welfare of Ireland, it was impossible to pass over without censure the unfairness of debating it as a question of Theolo gy.—(Hear !)—Such conduct must excite the indignation of every honest politician. Petitions got up by such means should be rejected by the House. In making these remarks he wished not to be considered as throwing any general impu. tation upon the Clergy, because he believed that as a body they were becoming more liberal every day. To return to the subject before the House, he did not believe that any public meeting could have been got up in London against the Catho lic Claims. Mr. Alderman WOOD reprobated the mode resorted to in getting up the Petition as most disgraceful. Every possible step had been tried to gather together a public meeting in Lon. don, but without success, as the Citizens were too enlightened to be scared by stories about tires in Smithfield. The general sentiment of the city was in favour of the Catholics, but even if it were not, he would s o o n er f or f e i t hi s c h ance of a re-elec tion, than suffer such a Petition as this to be presented without expressing his disapprobation of it. Mr. BROUGIIA3I said, that as a friend of civil and reli gious toleration, he rose io return his thanks to the worthy Al derman for the manly and honest expression of his sentiments, and he wished that every Member who had been threatened with the less of his election would follow the example. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said, that the petition did not affect to represent the feelings of London and Westminster, but only of a certain number of persons who were inhabitants of those cities. With regard to the facts stated by the Hon. Members (Mr. Smith and Mr. Martin) he had made inquiry, and found that from some unexpected circumstances the per son to whose care the petition was entrusted, had taken it home with him.—(Dear! and a laugh.)—The petition had been advertised in the public papers, an d it was scarce ly pro bable that any person would sign it without having previously read it. Besides, it had been printed on the , Saturday, and a copy was given to every one who asked for it. With regard to any attempts to call a public meeting against the Catholic Claims, he had not heard of them,. though he firmly believed that the feeling of the City of London was against the Claims. Mr. C. WILSON said, that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed to be the friends of toleration, but he protested against its being supposed that the toleration was all on one side.— ( Hear, hear !) Mr. CALURAFT joined in disapproving the manner of pre. paring the petition. Had the parties who got it up been sure of the general feeling, they would have called a public meeting.— In 1313, meetings were called throughout the country, but now he could not hear of a single one. The petitioners talked of re presenting the Cities of London and Westminster and the Bo rough of Southwark. It was quite ludicrous and nonsensical for 3000 persons to put in such a claim. The facts were most disgraceful, and proved that th e pre j u di ces w hi c h f ormer l y ex isted were fast declining, and would in a short time cease to exist. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON and Mr. J. MARTIN mutually explained. Sir E. KNATCHBULL protested against the manner in which some Hon. Members attempted to throw ridicule on every honest and fair expression of public sentiment.—( Hear. hear . If those wh o o pp ose d t h e C atholic Claims proceeded quietly in , getting up their petitions, they were called " hole and corner men," and if they called public meetings, they were accused of exciting " No Popery."—(Hear !)—He and many of his friends had certainly used all proper exertions in getting up petitions against the Bill now in progress,but they had resorted to no un worthy means. If the consequences of the " No Popery" cry were at all injurio us , they ought t o f a ll on th e he a ds of tho se who were the original causes of it.---(llear !) Mr. BARING said that he had not witnessed any of those attempts at ridicule which the Hon. Baronet ascribed to that side of the House. They had certainly disapproved of the un. creditable way in which the present petition was prepared. The petitioners had no doubt the right to be heard in thatllouse, but they had no right to pass themselves off as the representa tives of London, Westminster, and Southwark. Mr. It. MARTIN was a great friend to public opinion, and as a friend to the Catholic Claims, he advised the Hon. Baro net (Sir E. linatchbull) to call a Public Meeting on the sub ject. The present was a favourable opportunity when there was a larger number of Irish Catholics able to tell their story— (Heart and a laugh )—who might soon be qualified to take - a part in any • Public Meeting by, being made freeholders.(A laugh !)—lle wished the question to be fairly and publicly dis cussed. Mr. ABERCROM BY said that the " No Popery" cry, and " an Appeal to the People," wore very different things. Ile never compl a i ne d o f any fair appeal to the people, because he could rely on their good sense ; but he did complain of all dis honest efforts to rouse their passions and warp t h e ir prejudices. He had rea d very lately of a Reverend Clergyman, who at was what he understood by the a public meeting asked his hearers " are you prepared to see the Protestants burnt by the Catholics ?—(Hear, hear !)—This com plained of such language from the Clergy and the persons high in authority. against t i t ) l a t The petition was then ordered to be printed. " No Popery !!' cry. He Mr. Mouirox PITT presented a petition from *albrook, e ilEornTannEcvaotinloplircesceniatietmls!zoetirtdioenre(firotombeLlaningteet(lid.yr in Dorsetshire l • against the Catholic Cla ims. had giv en t h eir assents to ce rtain Bills ; and requesting A MessagelEBwasS'it-eGceEiNeld'ilf°rortl'ileiLl.oirdjOsitsptaSting that they leave for the • Right lion. Dennis Browne to attend to the Committe e i r ry f tl Lords into o th thee claims Stat e itns of of n the Earl of R d s also co Committe e a n, • mon to vot e at t h e e l ec ti o n of Peers for Ireland, which leave was ;,riven. Sir E, ENATCUBVLL presented a petition from Margate against the Roman Catholic Claims. He hoped that the Hon. Member for Wareham would feel satisfaction in hearing that this petition emanated from a public meeting, legally convened in the Town Hall. On the petition being brought up, Mr. CALCRAFT said, that he had Qnly one observation to make. Here was a petition from a public meeting properly called, and no one made any remarks upon it. It was only against the petition from London that any objection was taken. He would put it to the Hon. Baronet whether that petition did not fairly deserve such objectioiii4 No one on his side of the House had said any thing against Pair petitions, and they never would. Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, which were inaudible in the gallery. Sir L. KNATCHBULL said that he had not spoken with reference to any particular case, but had merely expressed a general feeling, which the conduct of Hon. Gentlemen opposite had excited. He thought that every petition which was offered in a respectful manner ought to be treated with respect. — (Hear !)—Ordered to be printed. Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the Master Upholsterers and Cabinet-makers of the City of Dublin, pray ing for an inquiry into the state of the Combination Laws. Mr. HUME begged leave to correct a mis-statement which the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) had fallen into on this subject. He had said, that twenty lives were lost in consequence of combinations amongst workmen since the repeal of the Com. bination Laws. Now, by a reference to the evidence received before the Committee, it appeared that only two persons had been killed. He knew that the situation of masters was dif ferent in Ireland and England, and he admitted that something should be done to put them on a footing, or at least to ame liorate their condition in Ireland. Mr. PEEL said that he had never said that twenty lives had been lost. He had merely read an extract from the evidence given before the Committee, which evidence stated that ten lives (half the number mentioned by the Hon. Member) had been lost. Of his own knowledge he said nothing. Another error the Hon. Member had fallen into, in supposing that even these ten murders took place in consequence of the repeal of the Combination Laws last Session. They had happened during the last seven years, and arose out of various circum stances connected with those laws, and not because of their repeal. Mr. HUME and Mr. PEEL mutually explained. The Petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. DAVENPORT presented a Petition from the Church wardens and inhabitants of Wensbury against the Catholic Claiins.—Ordered to be printed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a similar Peti tion from Ippleby, in Devonshire.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. C. WYNN brought up several Treaties with the Na tive Powers in the East Indies, which had been ordered. Mr. WALLACE gave notice of a motion for Thursday, the import of which we could not collect. Mr. LITTLETON said that he should bring forward his motion respecting the Elective Franchise in Ireland to-morrow (this day), provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Hon. Member for Aberdeen would postpone their motions which stood for that day. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that lie wished to move certain resolutions in Committee, respecting the Distillery Laws, preparatory to a Bill It would take but very little time. He was willing, however, if necessary, to postpone them. Mr. HUME expressed his willingness to postpone his mo tion regarding Sierra Leone till Wednesday. Mr. WILMOT HORTON said it would be better to fix on some other day, as the question was likely to occupy consi derable time.—Thursday was then agreed to. ADJOURNED DEBATE—CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Sir F. BURDETT moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Catholic Relief Bill. On the question being put from the Chair, Mr. GOULBURN began by observing, that he had on the last discussion arrived at that part of his argument which established that from the very terms of the Bill before the House, the passing of that Bill would be a measure full of danger. He could not comprehend the necessity of introducing securities into the Bill unless there was some danger which called for such securities. He now proposed to examine the nature of those securities, and how far they were applicable to the danger against which it was necessary to guard. The securities in the bill were of three descriptions. The first was the declaration in the preamble; the second was the oath required to be taken ; the last and greatest, was the commis sion to assure the Crown of the loyalty of the higher offi cers of the Catholic Church, and to controul them in their correspondence with Foreign Powers. The first point, as to the recital of the preamble, touched the Protestantism of the Crown ; and upon all hands it was admitted and de clared that the Protestant succession to the throne should be established permanently and inviolably. It was of peculiar importance to mark the manner in which this was provid ed for in the present Bill, because the Protestantism of the Crown was the c.ly safety left, after they should cease to have a Protestant Parliament, and Catholics should be admit ted to the High Offices of the State. This was the security which his Hon. Friends around him who contended for mea sures similar to the present always put forward in front of their battle. It was highly important, therefore, that the House should examine and understand the manner in which this point had been treated by the framers of the • Bill, and what were the opinions of those to whom the Bill protested to extend re lief, as to the permanency and inviolability of the Protestant Succession to the Throne. From all that he could gather of their feelings and intentions, he thought he saw much to doubt, and that so far from. considering the Protestantism of the Crown. as permanently and inviolably fixed, they carried forward their eyes to a period when the Crown should no longer be worn by a Protestant Monarch. In the speech, or letter of Mr.- O'Connell, informing the Catholics of the nature of the Bill, lie had taken care on this point to guard himself most sedulously. He told them th a t th e Catholic and Protestant would have an equality of civil rights, excepting in the succession to the Crown, as limited to the reigning family, in which they (the Catholics) cordially concurred._ (Hear, hear ! from the Oppo sition Benches.)—lt appeased, therefore, that they did enter. tain ultimate expectations and intentions of a different na ture; and although he hoped the period was tar distant when the present illustrious family upon the throne should be vsof ex tinct,ooket a e thatthe time period when mightt hthen al arrive, so th e and Constitution the country might be changed, and a Catholic Monarch suc ceed to the Crown. The next point in the declaration of the a e n dL Catholicsa preamble, to which he desired to call the attention of the House, was one which lie considered strongly calculated to affect the establishment of the united Episcopal Churches of England and Ireland. As he understood the Act of Union, and from all that lie could learn of those who had given it the gravest con: sideration, it was intended to settle the permanent establish ment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland, and it never entered the minds of-the Legislators who framed that Act, to acknowledge any ether Church as belonging to the country. But in the Bill now before them, the Roman Catholic Church was designated as the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland ; . not merely as being in Ireland, but as belonging to it. And this, let him observe, was no, immaterial dist*. tion. He remembered hearing the Right Hon. Attorney-Gene rid upon the presentation of a petition, declare its importance, and state, that as long as the Bishops called themselves the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, they preserved their true legal description,, but that they could not assume to be Bishops of the Church of Ireland. Here, however, this distinction was broken clown, and-the Roman Catholic Church Was to be recognised by legislative enactment as the Church of Ireland. Nay, if they Might argue upon rumour, (and it was the peculiar character of this measure, that one. half of it, or , certain other ,measures upon ,which ,it . depended, could only be treated as matters of rumour) it was also pro posed to provide for thiliChurch by - paying for its Clergy from the public funds of the country. He came next to the security which was provided by the, oath required by the Bill. To re peat what had been said by his Right Honourable Friend, the Member for Corfe Castle, this oath only required a denial of the. temporal authority .of the Pope, and thereby , amounted to an acknowledgment of his ,opirital and ecclesiastical ,power. conceive If this were the case, what would be the situatio n o f t h ose w h o well had taken the oath of SUpremacy, wh ere i n t h ey not only said many. with a lartn, motives and which as giving would u nold that such power and authority did. not, b ut ought not to exist. H h C e u e r o d u i l . d not tie but couldr e this oath adequate security againit event ua l d a nge r to the Established influence the Roman Catholic to -desire the .subversion of the Protestant Establishment independer. of the wish to- place his own Church in its' lace. Ile could conceive that a conscien tious-Roman Catholic, without any. wish to commit violence, might believe, that he was getting rid of,a great- heresy in so do ing. Let them look at the words of those who had, the greatest influence with the Roman Catholic body, and see whether they would not afford ground sufficient -to warrant that conscien tious,belief in a goo d Catholic. The Right Hon. Gentleman then situtited the writino of Dr. Doyle; whiCh that Prelate states' that the Church of Ireland was such as ought not to be suffered to exist in any civilized .country, and -speaks of the Reformer s an d early Pastors of the Protestant church, as being a reproach to all with whom they were connected. He called upon the House to look at the writings . of Dr. Doyle, whom he .believed to be a conscientious man in-the discharge of what he believed to be his religious duty , ,,and there they might see that any Roman tatholie could consistently en. tertain the intention to Overthrow the existing establishment, without that of xaising his own upon its rnins. In a former Bill which was frir. - ted by his Right Hon: Friend, the oath required wits it very different One from thi,t contained in' the present. Not only was tliitt oath to.be iulthinisterethto all.persons ; talting office, and to Ilishops and Deans as .99w proposed, s hut ,it wits ~,~.-- required of all the subordinate classes of the Clergy. Now they had a Bill framed to suit Catholic prejudice, rather than to satisfy Protestant feeling; and an oath less strict, was not to be so generally administered. He now came to the third secu ty upon which they were called upon to rely. A Commis sion was to be created for the purpose of ascertaining the loyalty of those appointed to high offices in the Roman Catholic Church, and of controulling the correspondence of that Church with the Papal See. How was this Commission to be formed, and what was this security to be ? The Commission was to consist of four Roman Catholic Bishops, who were to have the power of advising his Majesty upon certain points, with out the intervention of any responsible Minister, and with. out any individual in the country being able to know what the 0 loyalty or intentions of that body may be. The security to be provided through their means as to the members of their church was limited to the declaration of their belief as to the loyalty of any individual appointed by their own ecclesiastical body. No inquiry or examination was required of them, but they were merely to state their belief upon the single point of loy alty. The individual so appointed might be the most furious bigot that ever flourished in the annals of Catholicism ; he might have every other disqualification that could unfit him to exercise the influence of so important an office ; yet they were to be answerable for nothing but their belief in his loyalty._ He could see no greater cause for satisfaction in the arrange ments for controulling the correspondence with foreign powers. It was provided that when any communication from a foreign power was made, and its ch a ract e r was i nnocen t an d inoffensive, that it should be immediately submitted to the Lord Lieute nant. But if propositions were received which in their nature were dangerous to the state or hostile to its interests, what did the House suppose was then to be done ? The Commission of Roman Catholic Bishops were to return it without their in dorsement! Now if any set of men desired to possess themselves of an engine for carrying on treasonable practices in time of war, or dangerous communication in time of peace, he could not possibly conceive one more fit for their purpose than such a commission as this. And what was the provision of the Bill for the case of concealment if it should arise ? Why, that if trans actions the most momentous as a ffectin g th e safety of the -coun try should be concealed by them, they were punishable as for misdeameanor. Thus the same conduct which would render a Protestant liable to be tried for high treason, was in a Roman Catholic to be treated as a simple misdeameanor. He mentioned this, not to create the supposition that there were any bad in tentions of this nature, but to shew the House what confidence• ought to be reposed in the framers of a Bill who pretended to give them such security as this, when they proposed to make so important an alteration in the laws of the country—four Catholic Bishops sitting in Dublin or in London, to controul the power of the Pope, to regulate the correspondence, and to check the intrigues of the Papal See of Rome, and to be for sooth the guardian of the Protestant religion.—(Cheers.)-1n the Bill of his Right Hon. Friend, a Commission was provid ed for of a very different nature. He added Roman Catholic Laymen to the Roman Catholic Clergy, anti Protestant Privy Counsellors had access to their transactions. In addition to this, they were to advise the Crown through the first Minister for the Home Department, or the Chief Secretary of Ireland ; so that there was a security against the secret machinations of the Pope or his emissaries. Let him further call the attention of the House to another most important omission which the Hon. Baronet and his advisers had made in the present Bill.— He looked through it in vain for any- controul over the commu nications between the Vicar Apostolic and the Pope ;---a secu rity which he considered as even more necessary than in the case of the Roman Catholic Bishops. The latter when once appointed, could not be removed; but the Vicar Apostolic might offend the Pope to-day, and be removed to-morrow.-- He might be told, perhaps, that they were not to look for se rities in this, but in the other measures which were to be ap pended to it. Now it had been the particular art and manage ment of the authors of those other measures not to enable the House to know their exact nature; so that nobody could say whether they were to be measures of security, or merely mea sures of regulation. Did his Hon. Friend (Mr. Littleton) mean at once to disfranchise every holder of a forty-shilling freehold in Ireland—however it- might have been acquired, however used, and with whatever intentions held ? Did he mean at once, by the dicta of his enactment to sweep off all this class from the Electors of Ireland ? If not, what security then was the measure to afford, and where would be the safety upon which his lion. Friends the' Members for Armagh and. Downe rested ? If they- were to' wait until the holders of the present leases became naturally extinct, they might indeed en joy the prospect of security when it would have become useless, but the measure could afford none for the present. When the Irish Church should be subverted, and the Church of L eg land shaken, and when there should be nothing left to defend, then a future generation would have the satisfaction of seeing this security begin to act. But then they had another security in the proposition for paying the Roman Catholic Church. But if an annual sum was to be paid to the Roman Catholic Clergy without the controul of Parliament, and to be applied to any purposes of their own, it should meet his decided objection- The effect of it would be to increase the religious animosities which already existed, and to have two Bishops in every Dio cese, contending for one flock. He did not think such a mea sure calculated to encourage the Established Religion, and he, for one, would not-be a party to it. He thought himself bounu, as a legislator, and a s th e h o ld er o f that office which he had the honour to fill, to take care that the religion of the people was kept pure. lie would not, therefore, consent to place 11 fund in the hands of the Catholic Hierarchy, which must give them a power hostile to the interests of the Protestant Religion. Had they who intended to support this measure asked theniselses the question—how far it would spec s the sanction of the people. What would be the feeling of the Presbyterians of Scotland - , who differed as widely as they of the Established Church, from the doctrines of Popery ? What would the people of this country say, when in addition to their tithes they were called upon to pay taxes for the support Of the Catholic Church ? But if this would be a harilithip upon Episcopalians, what would it be to that numerous class the Protestant Dissenters? He saw no security in this -measure which would induce him to make the sacrifice required, and he was sure the people of either country would be opposed to iter . , Upon the subj ec t of' the power of the Pop e , th e y were t 01" that the Scriptures were superior to his order, and that there fore nothing immoral could be insisted upon. But had thet forgotten that the Itomish Church disallows the exercise of in; dividual judgment upon the meaning of the Scriptures, and contended that the Pope's exposition of them was infallible ?--; The Right Hon. Gentleman then argued that the admission 0 1 Roman Catholics to Parliament, and to the high 'offices of th e State, - must of necessity be dangerous to the permanent as, cendancy of th e P rotestant Ch urc h . Th e natural position of tne Church of Ir e l an d i n re l at i on to t h e great majority of' the peopl e of that country, rendered what Dr Doyle said of' it perfectly true, viz, that it -was only supported by the law, and thos i e who wi s h e d to protect i t must preserve the law uncliange' The House could not forget the resolutions of the Hon. Mew' bet for Montrose. They knew, too, that he was not in th e habit of a b an d on i ng any id ea which strayed across his mind' for want o f perseverance. What was to assure him) , then, tilt the same pr o p os i t i ons f or d espo ili ng the Irish• Church; WO not he.revived when b ac k e d by the support of a Catholic r 4 _, ~- Hamm and all the incre ase d po wer whi c h th e C a th o lic Church must acquire from these measures ? If, ineleed, he could. see in the Bill th e l east ' prospect o f i ts h ea li ng t h e wounds -21,1).!.. patting an e nd t o t h e di ssens i ons o f I re l an d , he m i ght be he &aced to incur this risk, great and serious as it was. But 1 ' could not induge that hope. He could n o t fo rge t th a t in t its celebrated Address of that body which the House had recen t n its been called- upon to suppress--the topics of tytlies, the topic 9 reform, the topics of Grand Jury cases, and others too nun' t ,,,, rous to detain the Hou s e by mention i ng , were a ll m i xe d 11P :t, gether. ,How s then, cou ld h e avo id see i ng t h at a ll t h es e' ol ;,, ters would be seized by th e p o p u l ar orators w h o n w i s h e d teek e u r„, alive the irritation and distracted feelings of'the country ? '1 ,1) °, 41 , ing at the Bill as bein g d ang erous to the Protestant Chill :b i e anti through the Church t o th e irotestant Constitution 0 1 , t o country—and locking at th e p reten d e d securities held-out , v bs . which, in point of fact,. were aggravations of the daligerilose should give it every opposition in his power. He trusted t toc who thought -with him,- that it. was the duty of -the Legi 3 le t n ise to guard the fences and outworks of their religion; would ' l ose in rejecting this measure; thereby proving to the cchintrY.,_ 0 entrustedthey l l Air. e ju r en oN o unmindful t t ßheiyr,3claArX itmd guardianscshi) cheering.) its ei f nvg e r)y laws briefly, and. and li h R Aa a tirely inaudible in the ga ll ery . Th e H on. 'O ent leinun'ii n g understood to support th e measure f or the lint time, ta formerly resisted others of a similar nature. ..,„ e to Lord BINNING sa id, t h at i t was - pecu li ar l y gratil7"'l witness the increasing effect of conviction upon this most inZ a ble ant subject—(..su ear !)—lt was most honourable to hiu . ,fnielt Friend to com e f orwar d an d renounce the p r ejudice s with ; e ye education and early habits had imbibed his mind. He e, listened.with greater admiration to any, speeth'in that,'isoo-• then to the one by which this debate was opened froWi s h_r o siol; Friend the Member for Armagh.—(Hear !)_His 111 9140 0 was not so much excited by the talents which his Hon!„ je li always displayed, as by the courage and candour with V51 1 . 0. )--• acknowledged the errors of his former opinions(Ch e bffctg He entertained the , same feelings towards: the GallAnt (rft olte whose conduct had been marked by similar honesty 4 11 ,._,„1)iii ness. With regard to - the speech they had jtist heard .stale Right Hon. Frtend, he agreed with hint entirely in,',h2' a grekl‘ meat of the situation of the Church of Ireland.' ll' i t , aro fr with that the mass of the population were hostile t 0 .ato tei that, principally, • because' they were an irritated and people. But what teats his Right Hon. Friend'a e 0 1 1 .c1 s 000:S That he wo u ld - leave things just where they:were. its hear A.,t6e;, hear !)—Hp (Lord Binning) would take a very diffeteht:filsoet.. He wished tp support 'the - Church by' the.law, but _l7O. further . en stipprt Ihe Church by giving her tlie chains' r.,..