The Sun. — London, England, 1827-03-07 00:00:00

ri, ~~ z-. , tc G.. // 2 TO THE PROPRIETORS OF LAST INDIA STOCK. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FROM the very flattering encouragement you have been pleased to shew me since I first offered myself to your notice, in June last, I had formed the intention of proceed ing to the Ballot on the occurrence of any Vacancy in the Direc tion of your affairs; but I am recently advised, that my having acted gratuitously as a Magistrate, in Calcutta, will bring me technically within the operation of the Act of Parliament, which requires a residence of two years in this country after returning from India. Under these circumstances, I am precluded from requesting the honour of your suffrages until the first Vacancy that may occur after March, 1828 ; fig: which occasion I now beg leave most respectfully and earnestly to solicit your Votes and Interest in my favour. I take this opportunity to return my grateful acknowledge ments to those Friends who have already honoured me with their Aupport, and to renew to all the Proprietors the promise of my undivided attention being given to their concerns, and to the duties of the station, if they shall eventually confide to me so im portant a trust. I have the honour to be, Ladies and Gentleman, Your faithful and obedient humble servant, HENRY WILLIAM HOBHOUSE. 20 , Berkeley-square, March 1, 1827. FROM LAST NIGHT'S LONDON GAZETTE. BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. H. Cruso, Leek, Staffordshire, silk-manufacturer, from Feb. 27, to April 10, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. . BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. B. Woodi •Pitchcombe-Mill, Gloucestershire, clothier. • BANKRUPTS. W. Harrison and T. Lightoller, Chorley, Lancashire, cotton apinners, to surrender March 26, 2'7, and April 17, at ten, at the Blackfriars Inn, Manchester. Hurd and Johnson, Temple ; and Buckley, Manchester. A. Snowhall, Brook-street, Ratcliff, victualler, March 13, at ten, March 18, and April 17, at nine, at the Court of Commis sioners. Williams Copthall-court, Throgmorton-street. R. Giblett, Froma Selwood, Somersetshire, currier, March 9 , at the White Hart Inn, Bath, March 16, and April 17, at twelve, at the George Inn, Frome Selwood. Hartley, New B ridge -street, Blackfriars ; and Miller, Frome Selwood. W. Evans, King and Queen Dock, Rotherhithe, ship builder, Iklarch 13, at eleven, March 21, and April 17, at ten , at the Court of Commissioners. Birkett, Taylor, and Cox, Cloak-lane. C. Smith, Minories, grocer, March 16, 24, and April 17, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Vandercom and Comyn, Bush-lane, Cannon-street. H. Cope, Barnet, tailor, March 1, 20, and April 17, at eleven, at th, Court of Commissione B rs. Bousfield, Chatham- Place, Blackfriars. 11 . Williams, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, ironmonger, March at five, March 17, and April 17, at nine, at the King's Head Inn, Cirencester. Slade and Jones, John-street, Bedford-row ; and Mullings, Cirencester. W. Burchell, Ensham, Oxfordshire, ironmonger, March 15, 16, a nd April 17, at eleven, at the Staple Hall Inn, Witney. Westell, Witney ; and Helder, Clement's-inn. 1). Warren, Wellington, Somersetshire, money-scrivener, March 14, 15 , and April I'7, at eleven, at the White Hart Inn, Welling- Nortonr_ and Chaplin, Gray's-inn-square ; and Day, Milver wn, Somersetshire. Taylor, Thickhollina in Meltham, Almondbury, Yorkhire, woollencloth manufacturer, March 21, at six, 22, and April 17, at eleven at the George Inn, Huddersfield, Yorkshire. Jaques a nd Batty e , ' Coleman-street ; and Battye and Hesp, Huddersfield. T. Pattinson and Matthew Proctor, Leeds, Yorkshire, wine t a ,." spirit merchants, March 13, 14, and April 17 , 4t eleven, at '`` e G enrge Inn, Kingston-upon-Hull. Ellis, Sons, Walinsley, and Gorton, Chan -lane; and-Seholefield, Hull. Ally, Stockport, Chester, flat manufacturer, March 26, L and pil 17, at three, at the Red Lion Inn, Heaton Norris, an an d I: hire- Tyler, P um p- cour t, T emp l e; an d Li ngar d, V aug h an , ngard, H eaton Norris, near Stockport. s i horfield, Southowram, Halifax, Yorkshire, card-maker, 211 at h t 1 3, at twelve, at the Swan Inn, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, four, April 17, at ten, at the Offices of Messrs. Alex ander, a field L d ax ' Y°rks hire• Edmund Walker, Lincoln's Inn 8. °a °n ; and L. and E. N. Alexander, Halifax. Inn fie, Gerl, Hayles Owen, Shropshire, victualler, March 14, 15, and April 17, at twelve, Southampton-buil at the Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Bigg, Temple-street,zd'ngs, Chancery-lane, London; and Haywood, Inn nrham. Bepnet, Ke nn i ngton, S urrey , v i ctua ll er, March 13, 20, an _April 17, a t ten, at the Court of Commissioners. J. Wino., .. t insbury-place. T. Nash, St. Mary-Axe, London, tea-dealer, Ma rc h 13, at two, M arc h 20, at eleven, and April 17, at one, at the Court of Commissioners. Batho, America-square. G. Davall, Birmingham, gun barrel ru bb er, March 23, 24, and April 17, at eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Holme, Fr amp t on, and Loftus, Birmingham.- Birmi ng h am. New Inn, London ; and Mere dith,J. Drake' Southgate, Middlesex, vict ua ll er , March, 16, at one, Rlarch 23, at twelve, an d A pril 17, at one, at the Court of Cora tnissioners. Fitch, Union-street, Southwark. T. "t• Negus and J. Mayes, Angel-court, Throgmorton-street, eltfe,at ekbrokers, M arch 9, 16, and April 17, at eleven, at the Court ,41 m issioners. Rankin and Richards, Basinghall-street. A. M ai o, Dimo nd' ' Alfred-mews, T o tt en ham Court-road, wheelwright, c0mm....a., at el even , 20, and April 17, a t t en , a t the Court of T Bra, Rhodes and Burch, Chancery-lane. eleven, -.2ro7;nd Penzance, Cornwall, linen-draper, March 13, at April 17, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Jones, Sire-lane, London. - , R. Edwa r d s DIVIDENDS. Neath, Glamorganshire, shok Palatine-place, shopkeeper, :March 28, at one, at the Bush Tavern, Bristol—J.Sansbury, p Stoke Newington, builder, March 27, sh at eleven, at plumbt o he Court e o r, f Commissioner . Brown, New Crane, . . Alarell27, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners—R. Noble, CourtingCh On gar, Essex, builder, March 27, at eleven, at the of Co mmissioners—J. W. Braddock, Portsmouth, musical iliftrument-seller, March 27, at two, at the FoHurutiboufruCommis linen- t"ners--Ma r cider and J. Goodinge, Higo Commis drapers Nlach 27, at ten, at the Court of Commission ' ers—T. tarratt, Darenth Mills, Dartford, Kent,. ' paper-manufacturer,s--I. Hitchon, Marc h 2 7, at ten, at the Court of Co Kidde r In'n 7l nner h 28, at eleven, nzlinster, Worcestershire, woolstapler, at the Star and Garter, Worcester--J. Murray and S. Brisbane, Ch°llt " /4-‘°,v, Manchester, joiners, March 29, at ten, at White's Hotel, Manchester —D. and N. Lloyd, Uley, Gloucestershire, clothiers, larch 28 , at ten, at the Old Bell Ino, Gloucester—W. t B. 11"neY, nedford the Cou rt of Co mi r ss e r' i T. Dale, Holborn, coach-master, Afarch 27, at one, at n t n h e e Court of Commissioners—T. Parker, t Macclesfield, silk-manufacturer, March 27, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners --J. Pinden 'ma , Clipstone-street, St. Ma .y -le-bone, en lion ---rPenter, March 27,' jun., ten, at the Court of Com9cus- A aj f -- " -- 1 . P. Sledelon, P eston, Lancashire, machine -maker, „,--arcu 2 7, at twelve, at th r ffi f M srs Buck and Startifant x-reston-P. Lucas,'PresteonO, at eleven, at the office of Mr. Southward, ' Preston—A. Parkin- L ee an o cashi e :e innkeeper, March 28 , ., annonte' 11,1a11IcabneCtehesr'teera--lieT‘" inter, March 28, at nine, at the Royal -"- Printer, Walsall. Staffordshire, draper, March 20, at two, at the Pal Inn, Manchester—J. Stokes, Bath, poulterer, March 29, Palace eleven, at the Angel Inn, Bath —R. Hansford, CO 29' Down, Mo shire, victualler, March 28, at eleven a n t k tre A C n em ge b l e inn S , n B m a e t rge h— t- J. Wheadon, Bath, grocer, March 28, at twelve, at the Angel Inn, Bath. CERTIFICA TES MA RCH 27. - T. Hodgson, Pendleton, Lancashire, schoolmaster—J. F. Her ring, Doncaster, picture-dealer,l. Elsworth, Bowling, York shire, corn -dealer —S. and J. Mowbray, Leeds, linen-manufac turers. --J. Protheroe, Bristol, hatter W. Bridge, Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, cattle_ Bristol, Dunn, Bristol, victualler—J. Grin, Aston, 'Warwickshire, corn -dealer—J. M'Leod, Clement's lane, leather -seller —J. Barber, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, linen -drape ---J. Treble, Pembroke, wine-merchant--J. Pember, nattori-garden, tailor --0. Bridge, Marple, Cheshire, cotton-ma point, Westall, Rochdale, bookseller—C. Baynes, Weston Point, Cheshire innkeeper —W. Marsden, Sheffield, saw manu facturer._B. ".-.'wper Moorsid e , L ancas hi re , co tt on - sp i nner. E. B anks a PARinnsines DISSOLVED. - -J. Bnd M. Baldwin Bradley, Staffordshire, eng i neers tors lakesle Puy and W. Lister, ' Basinghall- s t ree t, Blackwell-hall lbrook boot and s h oe mak and J. Z. P ulbrook, Great Surrey-street, e rs _ 4. Fleming card-naak ers . and J. Armytage, Halifax, - - . / , No. 10,761. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. \- PRICE 7D WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1827. HOUSE OF LORDS.—Mancn 6. MISCELLANEOUS. Lords Suffield, Mansfield, and Willoughby de Broke, took the oaths and their seats. of Peterborough ; and from another place, by Mr. Cartwright; from Albrighton, in the county of Salop, by Mr. Riekford ; from the town of Wrexham, and from the borough of Holt, by Sir W. W. Wynn ; from Carmarthen and another place. by Lord W. Paget ; from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Diocese of Lon don, by Mr. Estcourt ; from throe parishes in the city of Exeter, by Mr. Keckwich ; from the city of Exeter, by Mr. Burt ; from the borough of Sudbury, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the 'city of Wells, and from two other places in the county of Somer set, by - Sir I'. Lethbridge. Petitions were presented in favour of Catholic Emancipation from the county of Monaghan, and several parishes in the same, by Mr. J. Grattan; from ten places in different parts of Ireland, by Mr. H. Grattan I from Sidmouth, by Lord Ebrington ; from a great number of distinguished Catholic and Protestant Peers and landed Proprietors, many of them being residents in Ireland, and possessing property in that country to the amount of above a mil lion per annum, by Mr. S. Rice. Mr. WODEHOUSE pre,atnte4 a petition from a Gentleman, being a Roman Catholic, complaining of having to pay a double lanitax. Mr. LITTLETON expressed his hope that some thing would be done during the present Session to remove this in justice from the Roman Catholic subjects of the realm. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would undertake to remedy this evil during the present Session. He was aware that there would be difficulties of detail, but where there was a will there was a way:—(Cheers.) After a few words from Lord MILTON, the ATTORNEY-GENE RAL, Mr. ABERCROMBY, Mr. N. CALVERT, and Mr. WoDE- 110 USE, the petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, supported by Mr. WARD, presented a petition from from Sion College, against any further concessions to the Catholics. Mr. A. DAWTSON presented three petitions from parishes in the County of Cork, in favor:: of Emancipation. Sir H. PARNELL presented a similar petition from a parish in the Queen's County. Lord HARVEY presented a petition in favour of Catholic Emancipation, from a place in the County of Carlow. Mr. BROUGHAM presented similar petitions from the province of Connaught, the County of Mayo, the County of Dublin, the County of Meath, and three other places. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented petitions against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics from the Clergy, Boroughreeve, and Inhabitants of Bolton ; from the Protestant Dissenters of Leicester ; from the Staffordshire Potteries ; from the Inhabitants of Blackley in Kent ; from naldon ; from the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Ferns ; from Clare ; and three from other places. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. --- Mr. SPRING RICE said, he had a number of petitions to present from various parts of Ireland; they had been signed by hundreds, he might say, by thousands, yet it was not his wish to call the attention of the House to them ; but he had a petition, which, from the importance of its character, was en titled to their attention. It was signed by the Duke of Norfolk, and by a number of English and Irish Roman Catholic Peers. A petition had been presented by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which had produced 'a considerable excitement in the House. It was stated to come from twenty-seven Irish re sident Peers, and it was brought forward as a proof of the increas ing disinclination of the Protestants of that country to allowing any further concessions to the Catholics. He (Mr. Rice) denied that any such feeling existed, and, in proof of this, adverted to the declaration of the sixty-nine Peers. The petitions alluded to by the Hon. Member were then laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Petitions were presented by Mr. A Dawson, Sir Henry Par nell, and Mr. Brougham, in favour of the Catholic Claims, from several parishes in Cork, from Maryborough, Carlow, the Catho lics of the province of Connaught, of Bristol and Clifton, the county of Mayo, and several parishei in Dublin. Petitions against the Catholic Claims were presented by Mr. Secretary Peel from the corporation of Bolton in- Lancashire, the Protestant Dissenters of Leicester, the Staffordshire Potteries, Brackleigh, Maldon, from the clergy of the dioceses of Leighlin and Ferns, Ossory and Dromore, and from the Presbyterians of Clare, county of Armagh, and by Alderman Thompson from Sion College. . . _ The petitions were all read, and ordered to be printed. The Hon. T. LIDDELL moved for an account of all sums of money paid out of the revenue to different corporations, under the head of Light-houses, Harbour dues, &c. After some observations from Mr. Broughain, the motion was withdrawn. CATHOLIC QUES TION. --ADJOURNED DEBATE. Sir J. NEWPORT moved the Order of the Day, for the resumption of the Debate on the Catholic Question. He made but a little effort, when he assured the House, that he still entertained the opinions which he had formerly endeavoured to impress upon them—ar k—ear.)—During a constant residence in Ireland, those opinions had daily strengthened ; and he had no hesitation in declaring his conviction to the House, that, in no other manner, and by no other means, could the peace of that country be secured, nor was there any o ther basis on which it could rest, but th a t o f Catholic Emancipation.—(Hear , hear.) Lord Elliott and M r . H . Davis then rose, and there were loud cries for both ; the former, how , s - er, gave way, and Mr. H. DAVIS said, that as he had addressed the House too often on the subject then under their deliberation, it would not be necessary to go into an extended argument, in stating his objections to the motion before the House. It was his settled opinion, that the Roman Catholics enjoyed as many privileges, and as great toleration, as was compatible with the secur ities of our civil and religiou s lib ert i es, under a Protestan t Government, and that any -further extension of political power to the Roman Catholics would be most injurious to the State. Fortunately for the Protestants, the Roman Catholics would never be satisfied with half concessions. They had stated this in their writings, and experience had ahewn that every new concession to them had only engendered a new cl a i m . H e su pp os ed, under any view of conciliation, that some poi n t s w o uld n ot be conceded. It would not be disputed that the King of this country must be a Protestant —the King's advisers must be Protestants—the Commander-iii- Chief must be a Protestant—and the Judges of the l and must be Protestants. The wildest advocate for concili a ti o n would hardly surrender these exclusions. Let not the House deceive itself— such was the temper of the Roman Catholics, that even these ex ceptions would render conciliation a mere nickname , made use of only to deceive. What do the Roman Catholics complain of? Not that they are unprotected in person or property. They can not complain that they do not enjoy toleration in its most liberal form; but they do complain that they are shut out of a few high offices, which the wisdom of our ancestors has settled shall only be held by persons who profess the religion of the state. If there he any hardehip in this exclusion, it arises, ex necessitate rei, for the security of a Protestant Government. The Hon. G entleman concluded by saying, that it gave him great pleasure t o assure the House, that his opinions, on the g reat question then under discus. ;ion, we re in strict accordance with the sentiments of the great majority of his numerous constituents. Lord ELLIOTT said, that when this question had last been under the consideration of the House, he had, from a conscienti ous conviction, that further concessions to the Catho lics would be dangerous to the existence of the Constitution, voted against the measure. Since that time, however, he had given it his fullest opinion d_elib ( e L r o a u ti d on ch ; e t e h r je resultand of that was, th a t h e h a d c h ange d his honourable to avow that change, than, by a pertinacious adherence to for.-aer opinions and prejudices, persevere in a course that might contribute to national difficulty and disturbance. The MASTER of the ROLLS then rose, and spoke nearly to the following effect give the Noble Lord full credit for the candour, the manliness, and the generous feeling which prompted him to make the avowal which has just fallen from his lips. After mature deliberation and attention—whatever might have been his preconceived notions—however strong his early prejudices, and warm his attachment to principles previously imbibed, no course could have been more manly and honourable, than thus, in the face of the country, to make that avowal, the value of which could only be enhanced by the manner in which it came forward ; and that manner, he would take the liberty to ' 'say, did the Noble Lord quite as much credit as did the avowal itself. Having offered this tribute to the merit of the Noble Lord, I will now state one of my own claims to consideration ; repre senting, as I do, a moat distinguished body of constituents, Treat my claim to attention upon their respectability and eminence-- and, sent into this House by such constituents, I trust I may be permitted to state my opinion on this most important and vital question. It is a subject that has often been deeply and eloquently discussed, and I have not the slightest hope that any effort of mine will throw light upon its difficulties, or add much to the mass of information already extant ; but if I held back, and re mained silent at this crisis, I should, and, perhaps, with much shew of reason, be accused of shrinking from the great duty that my situation imposes, and of totally deserting my post. T. , accusations like this should I subject myself, if I shrunk from the present discussion—if I did not stand forward openly and fear lessly, to state the grounds of my opposition to the Hon. Baronet, by whom the resolution now under the consideration of the House has been moved. Previous to doing so, however, I will take leave to congratulate the House upon the tone of moderation which prevailed in this discussion, and that excellent tone I con-, ceive to he in a great measure referable to the admirable example which the Hon. Baronet, in his language and conduct, eet to all who had followed him in the debate. Nothing could have been more proper—nothing could have been more judicious—than the spirit and temper in which he brought his resolution forward. He showed, by the adoption and preservation of that spirit, how highly he valued the tranquillity of the State. So much, so pre eminently, do I estimate that tone and spirit, that, I trust, we shall come to every stage of this great question, with a strong desire to inculcate the necessity and advantage of preserving the same temper, if possible, through every vicissitude. Sir, we are, at this moment, standing in a great crisis. —(Loud cheering.)— The eyes of the whole country are most anxiously set upon our proceedings—the great mass of the Protestants are looking most anxiously to the result—the great mass of the Roman Catholics are looking with the same anxiety, nay, with much greater interest, with feelings more sensitive and excited. But, whatever he the result, whether it be for good or for evil, I sincerely hope that every feeling of asperity will be set aside, and that the dis.. cussion will be continued, as it has been commenced, in a spirit of calm, candid, deliberation ; and if it be but coolly and impar tially considered, I trust it will be felt that our decision, whenever it shall be come to, will be entitled to the acquiescence of the par- ties concerned, and that it will fully receive that acquiescence in every quarter. With respect to the shape in which the motion has been introduced, I think it unnecessary to trouble the House with any observations. From the whole course of the debate, it is quite obvious that the intention of the Hon. Baronet was, by his particular Resolution, to bring the whole subject under dis cussion. For more than twenty years the question of Catholic Emancipation has agitated the empire. Abundant information has been obtained on the subject. We now know the desires of the Roman Catholics, and we now know upon what conditions they are willing their claims should be entertained. They seek to be admitted to seats in the Legislature—they seek to be ad mitted to all the high offices of State. Upon that basis we are now to entertain the consideration of their claims. Upon that basis rests the propriety of the question, which we are now called upon to discuss. In one respect, we are placed in rather an ex traordinary position, and we have now one more evidence to what extent the influence of party may close the mind against evidence, and limit the extent of its vision. One fact is now be yond the possibility of question, that the Protestants now stand on their defence—they have been reluctantly placed in that situ ation—they are the parties accused—they are charged with every species of intolerance, bigotry, and oppression—the charge of these crimes is preferred against them by the Roman Catholics and their advocates ; and when Hon. Gentlemen stand up in this House, as their advocates, and tell us of their laws—the oppres sive, the intolerant, laws, that have been enacted against the Roman Catholic religion—it is well worthy of observation, that those advocates most carefully keep out of sight the occasions on which those laws were enacted. That course is, towards this House, highly mischievous—it is false and deceptions. Are the feelings of reverence, with which we regard the acts of those who have gone before us, to be outraged, by our being told, at this time of day, that our forefathers were oppressors, and had pro ceeded in those severe enactments without adequate cause? Are w e now, after twenty years discussion, to be told, that the most ardent friends and champions of constitutional liberty, were in tolerant and bigotted oppressors. Without uttering one word, calculated to excite bad feelings, • I will, with the permission of the House, review some o f th e circumstances, 'Under which some of those so much-complained-of enactments, became the law of the land. In the days of Elizabeth, does any man suppose that the laws against the Roman Catholic religion, which were then en acted, proceeded upon apprehensions merely speculative and con jectural ? Is it not, on the contrary, well known, that those laws were enacted for the express purpose of keeping the Roman Ca tholics i tholics of that day in subjection ; a body who, f they were not kept in subjection, and effectively controuled, would have over borne and oppressed the Protestants to an extent far beyond all that can now, with any show of truth, be imputed to the Pro testants of the present times. In the short period of Mary's reign, they had been actors and sufferers in the sanguinary scenes of the period ; and what they had suffered, and what they had seen, made it, in their apprehensions, a matter of paramount ne cessity to guard against the recurrence of similar evils. They lived in an age when bigotry and intolerance were triumphant ; they were spectators of the frightful scenes enacting in France ; the horrible atrocities perpetrated there, and also in the Nether lands, were before their eyes, or fresh in their remembrance. The power of the Roman Catholic religion at that period was seen in the full force of its arbitrary and tyrannical character. If any thing were required to be added to the grounds of alarm which France and the Netherlands supplied, the Government of Spain presented it in dangerous and fearful abundance. I will now, Sir, pass to the period of James. The laws of that period were not enacted for the purpose of wounding the feeling, or insulting the honour, of Rom an C at h o li cs , b u t i n c o n sequence of an attempt which I will not describe--an attempt of a character so atrocious as to be almost i ncre dibl e, were i t not f or th e c l ear ev id ence on which its truth was incontestibly established ; and yet, with ne cessities such as these, pressing upon the condition of our foie fathers, they are charged with intolerance and bigotry, when they merely proceeded on p r i nc ipl es o f se lf-d e f ence . F rom t hi s per i o d and this country, I would pass to an earlier day and another land ; I would refer you, Sir, to the scenes that passed in Ireland in the reign of Charles I. in the year 1641, when the whole population was, I may say, plunged in blood. It was not inconsistent with an attachment to law and liberty, that the legislators of that pe riod —men of the most upright and honourable minds—should have yielded to the calls of an urgent necessity, and agreed to enac ments that, in other circumstances, I will admit, might justly be designated as severe. I will now, Sir, with the permission of the House, revert to the period of the Revolution—a period when James the Second's recent introduction of the Roman Catholic religion Lad excited well-founded and extreme alarm in the mind of every Protestant; it was then that our ancestors made a noble stand for principles that we should never desert nor disown. God forbid, that I should ascribe to the Roman Catholics of the present day, sentiments such as those, which are known to have been professed and acted upon by the Roman Ca tholics of the seventeenth century.—(Loud cheering.)—lt i s most material, Sir, that we should distinguish between what we are called upon to do, and what we are not. We are no t ca ll e d upon to repeal laws which proscribe the . persons, confiscate the properties, or controul the consciences of our fellow subjects. We are called upon to confer political power on a class, whose principles experience has taught us, are adverse to liberty and Constitutional Government. The laws which, if existing in the present day, might justly be esteemed severe and oppressive,against persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, have every one of them long since been abrogated. We are not, therefore, as has been most incorrectly stated, called on to repeal penalties, and re '. move disabilities, but to consider a question, which I do confi ' dently maintain is a question of mere policy and expedience; the question is, shall we take that one further step which the Ho nourable Baronet advocate. ? Can we, in common prudence, ad mit into political power, persons professsing the Roman Catholic religion ? It is replied that they are already in possession of po• laical power, and that reply, I regret to say, is already too exten sively founded in truth. Then, the question is not whether we shall admit them into any degree of political power, but whether we ' shall elevate them into legislators, and into the high and respon sible offices of the State ? I repeat, Sir, that it is entirely a clues ! tion of p o li cy an d ex p e di ence I mu st freely and cordially ac , knowledge, that if Roman Catholics can be admitted into the Legislature, and into the - Cabinet, with safety to civil 1 liberty, and security to the Protestant religion and establish ment, they are indisputably entitled to such admission. I dis cute thir great question on no narrow grounds, no ind.. vidual would go greater lengths, to remove the exclusion of which they complain, than he who has now the honour of addressing you. We are told, with infinite plausliliey—end, indeed, I acknowledge, v. ith no small appearance of truth--that men of the most mighty intellect—that men pomessing the moat eminent and statesmanlike knowledge, have been advosatea and supporters of the Roman Catholic Claims. I confess, Sir, that, when I look at the history of the proceedings teelteetitif this question, it strikes my apprehension, that the great &lithos rities are every one ranged on my side. We are told that, in fae sisting concessions to the Roman Catholics, we are opposing our selves to the doctrines and example of Mr. Pitt. 1 remember reading a speech of that distinguished individual, in which one.. of the prominent topics was, that the great measure of emanet• pation could more easily be carried into effect as a step imtne-! diately consequent upon the Union with Ireland, than under any previous condition of the two countries ; and for this reason, that the proportion of Roman Catholics would be so much lees in the United Parliament, than it could have been in that of Ireland pre vious to the Union ; besides, Sir, I trust it never will be lost sight of, that the only terms upon whici Mr. Pitt ever agreed to support the views of the Roman Catholics, *as, on the eitpfeet understanding and condition, that such securities stetild be gited. by them as would place beyond risk the Protestant reigion and estal?lishment--that there should be security spinet titittiattid efforts directed to its subversion—security against any specie.' 6t foreign influence. This was the language held by Mr. Pitt, as A and it in print, and as I find it confirmed by the authority ditty Lord Grenville. That Noble Lord said, we must have security; end what was the first of the various securities proposed ? The Veto. Ido not say that was an insufficient security. Ido not pronounce an opinion on its adequacy, or inadequacy, in any form. lam now contending for a great principle, and 'me mention this fact incidentally, to ehew,that lord Geeweille Seek :111 stand upon the understood prineipkilitecurio • et4-Ittisttint !ass Parliament could be satisfied of the adequacy of thkt ses. eurity, the Noble Lord was prepared to resist concession in every form. There is another name that has been frequently alluded to, an individual of unimpeached political integrity.=-of great enthti. , siasin, and unbounded zeal ; I mean the late Mr. Grattan. Nows Sir, I refer with confidence to the opinion of Mr. Grattan ; for there exists not the shadow of a doubt, that, upon investigation,: he will be found to profess the same doctrines as Mr. Pitt anti Lord Grenville—namely, that adequate security was indispensable, and that foreign influence should he scrupulously guarded against. I have papers at hand, Sir, to which I will beg to refer, iit sup port of this statement. (The Right Hon. Gentleman them rt ferred to a report of one of Mr. Grattan's speeches, in which it is stated as his opinion, that when the Catholics asked for political power, the Protestants had a right to demand seen rity, and unless adequate security was given, the Roman Ca t polies could set up no just title to political immunities.) So much, Sir, for the opinions of Mr. Grattan. The authority of a Noble Lord, now no more—l mean the late Marquis of Lon donderry—has been frequently referred to, as hostile to the views of those, who have felt it their duty to make a stand against concession. The authority of that Noble Lord in this House—the influence which he enjoyed and exercised—the per sonal regard with which he universally inspired his colleagues and associates, will not readily be forgotten, still less is it likely to be forgotten, that there never was an individual mote hearty and zealous in support of Roman Catholic claims, than the late Lord Londonderry. But what, Sir, was the language which he uniformly held ? "We must have security, not the security of oaths alone—we must have real power, real substantial security, against foreign influence, and the peculiar tenets of the Roman Catholic faith." I have now done, Sir, with deceased authori ties. Of all the use which I could have desired to make of them, it has been fully in my power to avail myself. I now come to our own times, and to the individuals alive and amongst us, who have advocated Roman Catholic claims. I come to my Right Hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom I am now most happy to see again amongst us. That Right Hon. Gentleman has not once, but frequently, I may say over and over again, stated the same principles. I refer, with the fullest confidence, to the state ment of his opinions, secure that he will not contradict me. I have his direct admission that we cannot give political power to the Roman Catholics, unless the security against foreign influence be most ample and satisfactory. From this great authority, I pass to my Right Hon. Friend, who, on a recent occasion, so splendidly distinguished himself; I refer to the authority of one whose general talent, whose power of reasoning, whose energy, eloquence, and sarcasm, are perfectly unrivalled ; I mean the At torney-General for Ireland. At what period of his political fifes did be ever sanction concession to Catholics, -upon any other terms than those contended for by the other great names to which I have referred? Has he not uniformly called out for security? Hashe ever ceased to maintain that the Protestant religion and establishment should be protected ? Who, then, will question that these authorities are of the greatest weight, and that the individuals now existing, who have expressed the opinions that I have quoted, are for ever dis abled from dispensing with securities, without contradicting their pledges.—(Loud and continued cheering.)—They are unavoid ably bound, if they be consistent, to take the same view.of the subject that I have felt it my duty to present to the House, and to resist to the utmost every claim of the Catholics, except upon the principle of security. May I now be permitted to refer to the history of these securities, or rather to the vain and delusive offers of security with which the confidence of Catholic advocates has from time to time been abused; and let us see whether they are really sincere when they declare their readiness to give secu rity. Let us, from the year 1808, down to the present time, fairly, impartially, and candidly, consider the subject of securities ; and if we can lay our hands upon our hearts and say, that we truly believe them disposed to meet the Protestants and give that security, without which political power can never be safely con ferred on Roman Catholics. What are the facts ? In the year 1808, security was offered by the Roman Catholics. Mr. Grattan came down to this House, and stated, that in consequence of communications with the heads of their church, he was pre pared to offer, on their behalf, such securities as would take from the concession of their demands all the danger that the most timid could apprehend. A measure, founded on that principle of security, was introduced; but a very short time had elapsed before Mr. Grattan was compelled to state, in his place in Parliament, that the authority with which the Roman Catholic Prelates had invested him, to speak their sentiments on their behalf, had been withdrawn, and Mr. Grattan felt himself under the necessity of stating, that when he had last the honour of addressing that House on behalf of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he stated they were willing to concede the security of the veto; that communication he made in consequence of what had passed between him and the Roman Catholic Bishops, and he was then sorry to say, that, not withstanding the pledge he had received from them, be was then incapacitated from ratifying their undertaking. He declined to mention the name of any individual; he would never defend him self at the expellee of one who had reposed confidence in him.— Having detailed the particulars of their first retractation, I shall now bring under the consideration of the House the next instance in which the expectations of their frie nd ' were disappointed. In the year 1813, Mr. Grattan, in conjunction with a Right HR. Friend whom Inow see of security, his place, giving e in sa a m n e oth v e e r to, B t i h ll e , founded on the principle same c ontroul to the Crown and the Government. Aga i n were • I i the same pledges given by the Roman Catholic Prelates, and again did similar disappointments ensue. Mr. Grattan stated that the veto was the only security they had to offer. Mr. Grattan thnught that ample and sufficient. Through every stage of that Bill, did the Roman Catholic Bishops permit Mr. Grattan to speak in their name and in their behalf, and when the measure was on the point of completion, they retracted, alleging, that the veto would place them in a worse position than they were before. In conse quence of this second refusal the measure was lost in this House. Having stated so much of the history of securities, I will come from the year 1613 to 1825, and pass over the intermediate period, when I think it will be most evident that the Roman Catholics evinced a determination to give no security what ever.—(Much cheering.)—lt has been alleged that we are bi getted and intolerant, but I rebut the charge by the simple decla ration that the moment Roman Catholics can be admitted to poli tical power, without danger to the State, or detriment to the Constitution, I, for one, shall not be ashamed to concur with all the most illustrious men who have gone before me. But I will ask, are we not bound to act with caution, when we find them slipping out, one after another, from the pledges they bad given, in the expectation, probably, that when the Legislature, and the Government, were no longer able to resist them, all would be granted without qualification, and their claims acceded to, on their own terms. The discussion of 1825 must be fresh in the recollection of all who hear me. It is now known that the secu rities then talked of, were perfectly delusive. New securities were at different times, proposed, and alterations made in them, as must be known to every gentleman having any thing like a competent acquaintance with the subject. Why, Sir, without adverting further to the alterations and omissions made in these proposed securities, I will take the liberty to allude to one which never could have been the result of accident, or inadvertence.-- I mean that most remarkable difference which occurs in the word ing of the oath proposed in the Bill of 1825, to be in future ad ministered to Roman Catholics ; that most remarkable omission, as contrasted with the oath of 1793. In that oath, a clause occurs, which makes every Roman Catholic swear, on accepting place or office, that he will not do, or attempt to do, anything calculated to alter, or interfere with, the established and existing .. ~= _. ...e.- ii.s . • ti.:• , '' .7.. ' lg - 04 1 -.,, , 4 7, - ric ," , _../ Pu-- zi4, '. . • ' ~5. r ,, ,4i .<,,,,; ' . . 1 ; . 0 ,:k ,' 2... . - ''s ' .."-- -..5. -',.:.- t. i , 1 ,-- - - - -s , rl l o`,.\ \ , 7.,....,144 j ; 0. . : i. , • ~ o.' t,, , ~ .1-; 1• ' -.V.-*-- - "`,,,, .q',./07/ 1 5k,*; ,, ,i , ' , .... , A 4 ,i . • ' • liiq v. I ~ „ • ...,,, wmg , - ,,witwii i itilizi7 . 4 toil -40 , ' 4',',4- PETITIONS The LORD CHANCELLOR presented petitions from the Staffordshire Potteries and New Romney, against the Catholic Claims —Laid on the table. Viscount CLIFDEN presented petitions from the Protestants of the county of Kilkenny, including eight Peers, in favour of the Catholic Claims ; and from several Parishes in the Counties of Westmeath and Tipperary, to the same effect.—Laid on the table. The Earl of ORMOND presented petitions from various parishes in the county of Kilkenny, against the Catholic Claims.—Laid on the table. The Earl of MALMESBURY presented a-peti tion.from a htradred in the county of Bedford, against any altera tion in the Corn Laws.—Laid on the table. The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented twenty petitions from parishes in the county of Fermanagh, against the Catholic Claims ; and also from Drogheda, Clownes, and the Dean and Clergy of the Deanery of Kilmore.—Laid on the table. Lord ROLLE presented similar petitions from pa rishes in the county of Somerset.—Laid on the table. The Earl of MACCLESFIELD presented petitions to the same effect, from parishes in the County of Oxford.—Laid on the table. The Bishop of DURHAM presented petitions against the Catholic Claims, from Salisbury, Exmouth, and several places in the County of De'on.—Laid on the table. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented si milar petitions from various parishes in the County of Somerset. —Laid on the table. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a peti tion to the same effect, from the Clergy of the Forest Deanery, in the Diocese of Gloucester.—Laid on the table. The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from the Millers of Ireland against the admission of foreign corn.—Laid on the table, after a few words in support of its prayer by the Noble Earl and the Ea , -1 of Mountcashel. OXFORD UNIVERSITY. Earl BATHURST, at the desire of his Noble Friend, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, presented the petition of the Masters and Scholars of that University against the Catholic Claims. Their Lordships were aware that the Noble Chaneelk: of the University did not concur with the Petitioners in the opinion which they expressed, but yet he trusted that their Lordships would be prepared to pay all due attention to the prayer of so respectable a body. The petition having been read, the Earl of LAU DERDALE contended that it could not be received, as it only contained opinions, and no prayer. Earl STANHOPE maintained that the word im plore in the petition was fully equivalent to prayer. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that implor ing was earnestly praying. Lord HOLLAND did not object to the petition being received, as he wished as few obstacles as possible to be thrown in the approach of the subject to the Throne. He only wished to remind their Lordships that he had supported the re ception of petitions worded in the same manner as the present in former times, and that they had been rejected on the very grounds which he was now mentioning. The petition was then laid on the table. FOREIGN GRAIN. The Earl of LAUDERDALE gave notice, that on Thursday next he should make a motion to inquire into the price at which foreign Wheat might be introduced into this coun try. On the motion of the Noble Earl, their Lordships were also ordered to be summoned on that day. The Earl of ROSEBERRY moved for Accounts of the quantity of Flour imported from Ireland into this country, from the sth of January, 1826, to the sth of February, 1827. Ordered. The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented petitions in favour of the Catholics, from Dungarvon, Lismore, Tulieagh, Ardmore, and several other Parishes in the Counties of Water ford and Wicklow.—Laid on the table. GAME LAWS. Lord WHARNCLIFFE postponed the second reading of his Bill for the amendment of the Game Laws, till to morrow se'nnight. Lord GEORGE LENNOX, Mr. BLACKBURNE, and others brought up several private Bills from the Commons, which were read a first time.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 6. There being two Ballots this day, the House did not open until past five o'clock. The accommodations which have been usually provided for the Reporters were upon this occasion strictly en forced, and they had the precedence of strangers in entering the Gallery. The crowd was very great, and the confusion prevented the business of the House from being heard. The reduced list of the Ballot for the Committee on the Read ing Election Petition, the following were the names : Hon. Mr. Dundas, Mr. Gye, Mr. F. Baring, Lord Morpeth, Mr. G. R- Robinson, Lord J. G. Lennox, Sir W. W. Wynn, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Sutton King, Mr. Marshall, Mr. B. L. Leicee. ter, Mr. Labouchere, Hon. G. Proby, Lord Norinanby, and Mr. R. Grant. Mr. HUME gave notice, that on the 27th of this month he should move for certain documents relative to the Treaties and Correspondence between this Country and Portugal. Mr. LIDDELL moved that there be laid before the House an account respecting Monies paid to Corporations in England. —Ordered. CORN LAWS. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Old ham, praying for a free trade in Corn.—Ordered to be printed. THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. A petition against any further concessions to the Catholics was presented from the town of Belfast. Lord BELF AST said, after the observations that fell from my Hon. Friend the Member for Armagh, yesterday, i n presenting a petition from the town of Belfast, I think I should he neglecting the duty I owe to the place I have the honour to represent, to this House, and to myself, were I to allow those statements to pass unanswered. My Honourable Friend, in pre senting the petition, I understand, wished the House to consider it as indicative of the feelings of the town of Belfast on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. Knowing, however, the feelings of that town, in all probability, better than my Ho.. nourable Friend, I should think myself neglectful of their welfare, did I not assure the House that the feelings of the majority of that town are wholly at variance with the prayer of the petition. I have looked over the Petition, and find the names thereunto affix ed are most respectable, .yet I can safely avow, there are six times as many respectable inhabitants, who command six times as much capital as the amount stated by my Hon. Friend, who are completely adverse to any further concessions to the Catholic Claims ; and I think I cannot advance a stronger proof of the statement I am now making being correct; than by saying that the petition presented by my Hon. Friend was signed by 202 indi viduals, out of a town containing nearly 50,000 inhabitants. I do not think Catholic Emancipation would in any degree restore tranquillity in Ireland. Ido not believe one-fifth of the popula tion know or care what the word means—and I am certain that had it not been for the interference of those persons who by setting themselves forward as the champions of Ireland, and the inflam matory feeling created by their interference, this subject would long since have sunk into oblivion, and spared us the many angry and protracted debates that have taken place in this House on the subject. Similar petitions against the Catholic Claims were also pre sented from two Archdeaconries in the county of Suffolk, by Sir Thomas Gooch ; from the parish of St. Mary's, Leicester, by Sir C. Hastings ; from Ware, by Sir J. Sebright ; from Esher, in Surrey; from Honiton, by Mr. Dunlop; from the town of Northampton ; from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the diocese TORRENS ON THE CORN TRADE.—NEW EDITION. This day was publiihed, in one voL Bvo. }nice 14s. 4th edition, N ESSAY on the EXTERNAL CORN TRADE.—By R. TORRENS, Esq. F.R.S. This Edition contains a New Section, showing the effect which ° Pening the Po r ts to Foreign Grain will have upon the VALUE of MONE Y. Printed for Longman, Rees, Oran?, Brown, and Green, London, Of whom tray be had, by the same Author, An ESSAY on the PRODUCTION of NATIONAL WEALTH.