The Sun. — London, England, 1821-03-02 00:00:00

PEEL'S SPEECIL Mr. PEEL said, it was unnecessary for him to ' assure the Right Honourable -Gentleman (Mr.: Plunkett) that nothing but the direct, and rather unusual reference made to hims, could have induced him to incur the charge of presumption, by attempting to answer the Right Honourable Gentleman's argument - S.-a - - .. Linder any circumstances,. the Right lion. Gen-- , tan would have had an immense advantage over him, but the Right lion. Gentleman's speech being a reply to one delivered four years back, whichh he had then an opportunity of answering with the extraordinary faculty of reasoning the Right . Hon. Gentleman possessed, under what apprehension must he now rise to attempt an answer. Before proacediug, be would be leave trst to allude to the subject with which he pre :aced his speech, in tribute to the memory of a departed friend, under whose auspices this ques tion was so often brought forward. 1 o every wovd of the Right Hon. Gentleman's eulogium on Mr. Grattan he fhily and most cordially sub scribed. It might seem' arrogant on his part to . assume the right of praising that distinguished •iudividual, for he did not know him in early life. They were never embarked together in the same veli:icel pursuits ; there did not exist between -them that nece;:siludo - sort's, which was described; by a great orator as the strongest link that could 'hind men together. If he did subscribe to the : enlogiurn of the i Right Hon. Gentleman, it was *ith'this viessesethatit might convince those who bad not the same . opportunity as he (Mr. P.) had had of being acquainted with Mr. Grattan, and of witnessing his extraordinary powers, that the Right Honourable Gentleman had not been sedhced by his partiality for the cause advo- Cated by . Mr. Grattan, or by private friendship, to over-rate the merits of that Gentleman. There was not a man among the companions of that Centleman's public or private life, who admired OsOre than he (who 'had been, he was going to :say, the opponent, hut who had had the,misfor - One of differing with him upon this question) the unquestioned and unquestionable in tegrity ; .or, to quote his own words, the despe -rate fidelity with which he had adhered to this Gnestion ; and of all the characteristics of that entleman, none deserved more approbation than • that readiness to submit to temporary' obloquy, • nay,. that readiness to give up even this idol, when he (Mr. Grattan) had thought it interfered with . his public duty. At the same time that the cause had suffered a great loss by the death of Grattan, it had, in the Right Honourable Gentleman, a worthy and equally able advocate. Having stated so much, he should now .proceed to notice the arguments of .the Right Hon. Gent. and• if any person in that House supposed that try rose to state his unqualified satisfaction with the present state of the laws respecting Roman Catholics; and if any man supposed that he rose foie the purpose of taking any advantage by ap pealing to the prejudice which existed, and by that,means, and not by argument, to e' gain a single vote,. he begged distinctly to be understood as not expressing that unqualified satisfaction ; and that the Gentlemen (if any there were) who thought him actuated by the motives to which he had just alluded, he could assure . that Gentles man that he laboured under a mistake. He re -1 tained the,. opinions now which he had always held, and seeing that there was a choice of evils, though he was not satisfiedhvith the' alternative, he had proposed to 'the Honse • measure which had grown out of the anomalous state of society ; and finding this pre-existent state - of things, he had selected a measure.," which he could not ad-- snit to •be satisfactory. He had never thought this system of exclusion a good one, and he only thought it - defensible upon the ground that it was a refuge from a greater evil. This was not a new opinion ; • this was the opinion whiCh he had held upon the last occasion, and he wistild, in the'same spirit and grounded - upoil' the - same motives, state his reasons why he dissented with the present motion. When the Right Hon. Gen. tlerhan said that he (Mr. P.) was pleased with the arrangement of 1793, did the Right Hon.. Gentleman shppoSe him •(Mr. P.) so delighted with it as to giVe it his entire concurrence ? Did the Right Non. Gentleman think that he (Mr. P.) contemplated that arrangement with' unqualified satisfaction - ? Could newish yearly to _hear this question discussed ? Could he wislhto hear 'the hams whiCh the at, Hon, Gentleman had =rairged insupport of this cause ? lie would adinit that he could not, if he were-arguing .for the sake of' victory and not of truth, and if a.base Sordid in terest, and not the honest hotivictionS - of his mind had influenced' his conduct. When he saw the Rt h lion. Gentleman and many other HOn.Mem bers of- that House, for whose opinions he had .a great respect, rising in that House, and adding to' their own sentiments the authority of great names,l he 'should aShame& to look the House in the! filer, If he could for a moment think himself, chargeable; wish interested views. —(Hear, hear !) —Pin't streat authorities which had been hiottsdile . n . qs•est upon the House the necessity of examiningaed re-examining the grounds oitheir opinion, .anihnf ascertaining to their satisfation that no danger could exist-in the admission to places of trust and profit so large nt - portion of • their fellow-citizisres. If, after that examination, •the House ~should feel convinced that ..danger writtld exist, he trusted to the liberality dithe itt. Hon. Gent. to declare, after-ssichan exercise of judgment and shell a conviction, - the House would be justified in.doubting the infallibility of these great authorities, and. dehlaring•that:thei saw no alternative but to persist ii. the pre4ent . system. of exclusion, or to entail upon the country a greater evil. The Right Huh. Gentleinan ha& said that he conceived every subject to have an un soillified right to office,and that it was inconsistent with the Constitution to exclude, and that they were bound to stew some pressing and paramount d finger to justify that exclusion. On that point he was at'isue with the Right Hon. Gentleman. He denied that position ; and when he did so, lie meant to state, that it was not the right of any stiliject to enjoy every office ; and In support of that assertion hi' hoped he should satisfy the House that he had appealed to authorities equal ly as high ausl.as, deserving of consideration as those quoted - by the Right Hon. Gentleman. If. he were wrong in his opinion upon this point, .be was wrong with men Whose judgment was worthy of serious consideration. When the pro position before the liouse was the removal eof the civil disabilities under which Roman Catholics laboured, he' thought the Right lion. Gentle Man would concede to him (Mr. P.) the right of considering to what extent the principle would pass : he thought the Right Hon. Gentle man would admit if it were right to admit Ro man Catholics to office, it was equally right to admit Protestants dissenting from the Establish ed Church. lie thought it impossible to main tain, Under any circumstances, if a permanent ca pacity to till places of trust were given to Roman 'Catholics,- that an equal boon could be refused to Dissenters. That being granted, •the repeal of.the _Test anti corporation Acts must follow. There must be a final and unequivocal repeal of these Acts. The authority of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Burke, and he belieVed Mr. Windham, would desert the ,13.igtft . Hon. Gent. upon that point. In the year 1791 . , when a proposition to repeal those Acts was made, Mr. Pitt called them the bulwarks of the Church of England.. Mr. Piet denied, in contradiction to the opinion of Mr. Fox, the per manent right of the subject to office. Mr. Burke also denied the principle, but not upon the Same .grounda. Mr. Burke said, that on two for mer occasions he had staid away from the discus sion, because he could not make up his mind upon the subject, but that under existing circumstances. he must vote decidedly against it. Mr. Burke . thought he saw something in the conduct of the Protestant Dissenters which disqualified them from a permanent right to office. Another autho rity had been to-night and on various other occa sions, to his astonishment, quoted in favour of motion the present ; he meant the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. The Noble Lord who.. .had quoted that authority for a complete admis sion of the Roman Catholics, and whO had called in law and religion to his aid, ought to have gone. further, and read the passage in which Mr. Jus tice Blackstone treated of these disabilities.—. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in that passage, said, " If the time ever should arrive when the Roman Catholics should disclaim certain tenets, then .it might be 'expedient and politic to remove the penal Statutes." In this passage, Ur. juStice Blackstone spoke of the penal Statutes as contra-' distinguished from exclusion, and in the next passage he said the Test and Corporation Acts were enacted for the security of the Church against the attempts of the Protestant Dissenters, and under one of those Acts. were Roman Catholics excluded: Ile well remembered the note of the Commentator upon that passage was that all these penal Acts were done away by the 31st Geo. I 11. He objected to use penalty instead of exclusion, and if- any deference-must be paid to the opinion of Mr. JUstice Black stone, it must be paid to an opinion, inculcating the maintenance of those laws. The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to, trace the history of these statutes, and-declared that it was alien to the British Constitution to exclude any subject from office. He confessed that the statutes be fore the reformation, when the Roman Catholic was the religion of the land, had not much weight with him. He now proceeded to consider the state of the law since the completion of the refor:.' !nation, and he must:say that statutes of exclusion had been coeval with the reformation. An Act passed in the lst.of Elizabeth merely every m subject to tak e an oath, n o t erely that no foreign State or Prince had any jurisdiction in this realm, but that Queen - Elizabeth had ju risdiction, dominion, and authority,. in all things spiritual, ecclesiastical, and temporal.— Every Knight, Citizen f and Burgess was required to take this oath. Would the Roman* Catholics 'of the present day take that oath ? • If they would not take that oath, why, he would ask, were they less objects of jealousy than the Ro man Catholic, of 'that day.? Did any one think', that the object of that Statute was not to exclude the persOns not taking that oath from power ? ' In the . course of the debates upon the repeal of the test against transubstantiation, it was argued that no Roman Catholic had sat in • Parliament from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to Charles I I. because the oath of supremacy was'efrectual. 'lf that were the reason of preventing any ; Roman Catholic from sitting 'in Parliament, it would be now rather too much to say thatthere was no intention to exclude. He wouldliitss -Over the reigns of Charles 11. and JameS 11. and• Come to the Revolution. On the doetrineS professed and acted upon at that period he 'Would rely, that no such unqualified• right of the subject to office as that contended for by the Right Hon. Gentle -Man had been recognised, Ile must beg pardon of the House for repeating arguments and making 'statements which had nothing new, and he felt that nothing could justify'him in repeating those arguments, except that this was the first time that this question had been brought under the consideration of the present Parliament. He relied upon the authority of the Revolution, that a clear distinction had been made between toler ation and power, 'between liberty of conscience and the imposition of penalties for any religious-1 belief, and that•the Parliament at that period did not,think (to use the words of the. Right Hon. Gentleman) that exclusion from office and Par liament branded a man with disgrace and infamy.; they never thought that such exclusion rend ere d a man unfit for civil society ; they never thought that a remarkable distinction did not 'exist be tween. toleration arid the right of a subject to admisSiOn to office and to Parliament ; they never thought that there was no alternative between t complete and unlimited 'admission to .office and the extermination of the Roman Ca tholic religion. He left it to the House to decide if he had not with success relied upon these authorities, in contradiction to' ,the 'po sition of the Right Honourable Gentleman. -r-He did not .now argue that the, principles sanctioned at the Revolution were irrevocable, which made it impossible to admit Catholics to office. He, conceived that the time which had elapsed should not be a bar to their claims. Even if the Bill' of Rights excluded Ttomati Catholics, he would not admit that the Legislature of this , a:ly, if they thought there was. at y injustice in sueh.an exclusion, had not 'a right to review and to repeal that Act ; but what he contended for was, that those Acts which were perfectly open to discussion, ought to be considered very calmly, and decided upon their. intrinsic me rits.; and that the Bill of Rights, nay, even the Act of succession should liot be considered an in superable bar. When he referred to the Bill of Rights he did so'for the purpose of spewing that it acted upon the principle of- exclusion, which was recognised at the Revolution. He had-heard in the last week from an Hon. Member op posite, a warm and just panegyric upon King kVilliam, whom that Hon. Gentleman (we believe Sir J. Mackintosh) had described as the Advo cate.of toleration and liberty. He had heard that Hon. Gentleman ridicule the charge of illi berality made against King William ; to the jus tice of that eulogium he would subscribe ; but he would beg leave to ask what were the opinions of that King in 1687, when he was consulted upon the Test and Corporation Acts. It was pro posed to him if he would consent to the repeal of those Acts that King James would do all in his power to secure to him the throne ; that his friends would be put into power, but what was the opinion of this person who was held out as the Advocate of toleration and liberality ? Did he admit the unqualified right of ,every subject to office ? Did he think it necessary to exterminate the Religion, or or that he fixed a badge of infamy upon Roman Catholics becanse he :did not admit them to power? Hear his own words, in the letter which King William had written in the year 1657, be fore he came to the Throne, and before he Was fettered by a party anxious for the exclusion of Roman Catholics. The letter said, " if his Ma jesty' thought fit further to desire their High ness's concurrence in the repeal of the Pe nal Laws they were ready to give it, pro vided always • that the laws which shut out Roman Catholics from Parliament, and all places should remain in full vigour, but their Highnesses could not agree to the repeal of the Test Laws which were enacted for the seen rity,of the Protestant Religion against the at tacks of the Roman Catholics ; and in this they did not think they could be said to carry any severity against Roman Catholics as the qualifica tion for aMember of Parliament was a declara tion, before God and man, that he was for the Protestant religion s " Could any distinction tween penalties for the profession of a religion and exclusion from Parliament be more clearly expressed ? lie hoped the House would not infer from this, that he subscribed to all the doctrine contained in that letter, as he only quoted it as an authority in contradiction of the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman. King William fur ther stated, " that he would be glad to see some good reason for repealing those laws, which were enacted for no other purpose than that of pre venting the .Iteman Catholics from overturning the State, as these laws inflitted neither fines or punishment, and only excluded from power those persons whom the experience of every day sheaved it Would be dangerous to trust, since all persons in public employments, more or less, favaiared the advancement of the religion which they proTessed." 'lie would ask nothing more than the authority of King William for the vote which he should give, provided he - saw there were rational grounds for that opinion.— , There were other opinions on which he would hilinitely -more rely, to shew that the principles o: the lit. lion. Gentleman had not been recog nised by the British-Constitution, and that it was riot admitted by those most competent to judge. The Rt. lion. Gentleman said," DO you find in the Bill of Rights any exclusion?" He would ask the alt: lion. Gentleman do you find in the Bill of Rights any. unqualified right to office ? Did not the Rt. Hon. Gentleman find that in the three first. articles of that Bill it was stated, that James had arrogated to himself a. dispensing power? He knew it '"WiS,,perfectly consistent with the principles Of flit3e men to call into question that dispensing power, even if it were ex ercised in dispensing withlied laws, and he did not therefore draw any aigurnent from it. He only wished to shew that in the recital of the Bill of Rights the dispensation of the laws which excluded Roman Catholics from power was noticed. lie should now, even of the risk Or wearying the House, call their attention to, the authority upon which he mainly relied. Soon after the accession 'of King William an Act was passed, tolerating the Protestant Dissenters, and this was sanc tioned by men whO entertained no extravagant opinion of Louis XIV. or the power of the Pope. An attempt had been then made, by introducing an Act of occasional Conformity, to exclude those Dissenters. The Test Act only required con formity at the time of entering into office, and it was only necessary once to take the Sacrament in order to comply with that Act, arid, after enter ing into office, the- petasen might go to a Meeting-1 house. This Act of occasional Conformity passed the House of Commons in 170'2, but it met with', great opposition in the House of Lords. A Con ference took -place, and Managers were appoint ed by the Lords and Commons to conduct that Conference, the Lords opposing, on the ground that it trenched upon Toleration. Ile would beg leave to mention the names of those appoint ed by the Lords, he thought their authority would have weight with that House .—LordsPeterborough and Halifax, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Duke of 'Devonshire, and John Lord Somers - , were ap pointed by the Lords ; and he should now beg . the House to weigh well the arguments of these men. Did 'they think the Church in danger ? In the year 1705, he would quote the words of a Resolution agreed to by these men. He quoted it merely to shew that they had no apprehen , sions from the power of the Pope or of Louis the XI Vtli The Church of England, as by law established, which had been rescued by William the Third, of glorious memory, was then in a roost 'safe and flourishing state, and whoever in sinuated the contrary was declared an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom."—lle 'saw' no reason, why Dissenters should not be ad mitted if Roman Catholics were. Lord Somers thought that the power of imposing any qualifi cations for admission to glaces.of power and trot was lodged with the Legislature, and that they could impose those qualifications stating any reason, but 'that the imposition, of penalties and punishments was of another nature. This be ing the opinion of such a man as Lord Smilers; he thought any man who entertained a rational apprehension of danger from an 'indiscriminate admission of persons to office, would be just- tied in voting against the. motion. lie would ask, upon what ground could an oath be tendered to those who had a religious scruple about taking an oath, and whose 'affirmation was admitted as an equivalent in civil cases ? The class was'ex , chided as effectually , by proposing an oath at all; as Catholics were by the Test against transub stantiation. He did not now suppose a new case, for a Quaker had been actually elected a Mem ber of that House, and was ready to subscribe to the declaration, but the House could not ad mit him. There was just as great a stigmU cast upon that sect, for their conscientious adherence to a religious scruple. He would take this.op portunity of stating, that he had during his of• ficial life in Ireland an opportunity of being acquainted with many of that sect ; and to their devotion and attachment to the •Constis. tution, and their liberality •to contribute in money, time, and labour, to the promotion of every charitable institution, he must bear his most unqualified testimony. If the , House were once to admit the doctrine of the Right Ironourable Gentleman, they must be just as much against the administering of an oath to a Quaker as against the exclusion of Roman Catho lics. If the House agreed to this, a most im portant change would be made in the British Constitution; and this being the case, he thought it too much to charge those with bigotry and in tolerance, and acting under the influence of pre judice, who thought they ought to consider se riously, and be satisfied that no danger could arise, before they agreed to . this alteration. He was asked, what danger did he appre hend to-day ? He would say, he did not make a COnstitution for the present day. He did not think, whatever the danger 'might be, that a power for] reclaiming this Act would not be preserved. He thought this Act irrevocable, and' affecting" the Constitution ; and when it was done for posterity, he would beg to ask, was he not justified if he thought any of those dangers which those laws had warded off, and which he Would admit, it was unnecessary to guard against at the present day.—(Hear, hear!)—He would admit, for the sake oFargrunent, that dangers (lid ,not now exist which existed at, the enactment of these laws ; and he must uow take into his con sideration the past, without any wish to indulge in or to revive religious acerbity, or hostility, and see whether the same dangers which had• existed in the time of Elizabeth, might not hereafter exist. In the reign of Charles L C. there was a persOn of u different religion from the King, and next in suc cession, taking to his Councils the prOfessed friends lof Roman Catholics. In the reign of James 11., there was a King of a religion different from the established. - In the reign of William the First, there Was a danger of another species ; there was then no danger from the bigotry and intolerance of the Pope, for such was the libe rality of the Pope in thepart which he took in a dispute between the Jesuits and Jansenites; that the Jesuits put up prayers for his conversion; in fact, it.was supposed that the money given by the Pope under the pretence of carrying on war againSt the Turks, was applied to the deposition of James. When he saw, at different periods of the English history, different dangers which could not be now contemplated, he asked whether he could be justified if a possibility of danger were in the lapse of ages likely AO„oCcur, in not in- Attiring more minutely, and _considering with at tention, such a possibility. - He ,had been asked what concern had the State with religion ? To that his answer would be, none, if religion had nothing to do with the State. Was he to be told that, from a perusal of the pages of English, Irish, and Scotch history, it could be gathered that among the mo tives which influenced a political man, the Religion he professed'must not be' included ? What made every Gentleman who rose in his place profess his attachment to the Church of England, and qualify his opinions upon this'question by a profesSion of attachment ? What but because he believed. it to he pure and ,holy, and established for the mainte nance of the Constitution ? Was he to be told that it was not desirable to have men profess ing that-Religion - in places of trust. The Right Honourable Gentleman had referred to his (Mr. Peel's) speech in 1817. He objected to the motion in 1813, because he thought that if the House had gone into a Committee, those re gulations which were said to provide for the con cord of the Irish people, would not be attended with such a result. If he were asked what pages of the Bill then introduced he would refer to, he an swered by an appeal to the Bill brought in by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunkett), for the improvement - of those Jaws by which Ca tholics were excluded from holding offices in the Army and Navy, three-fourths of which Bill was occupied in imposing restrictions and taking securities. He appealed to the Right Hon. Gen tleman, and asked him, if that Bill which gave power to the Roman Catholics, of which it was said no honest Protestant need be afraid, and no reasonable . Catholic could refuse—be appealed to the Right Hon. Gentleman if even that Bill, framed on 'the reasonable terms it was, could have been executed with satisfaction . in Ireland ? He asked, did this result from the conduct of inimical Protestants, or. of Catholics conscien tiously believing they could not accede to it ? The House was told that Bill could not be rea sonably objected to ; nay, they have been told to suspend its operation, if passed into a law, until-the Catholics agreed to it. That Bill, however, was reprobated by the Roman Catholicsi securities could not be acceded to by that Church ; there was a general feeling of disapprobation manifested owards it.by a great body of the laity, who de- , dared they would, prefer the continuance of their restrictions, to the- obtaining power under such circumstances. Even with the authority of the Pope, declaring they might safely accept such regulations, they still refused acceding to tlwn The Right. Hon. Gentleman had said that he ac cused the Roman Catholics of perjury and die loyalty; but he was sure he could only haNe tteant that the result of his arguments might lead td such a coptlosiOn.—(llear, bear !) no had cautiously avoided all reference to the intemperate , proceedings 'of some indivi;• duals of that body ; the , conduct of 'a few Should be no mokive with him for denouncing the many. He deelared to GOd he cherished 'no hostile feeling towards his Roman Catholic feh• low-countrymen. Although, when in' -office, he had opposed their Claims, he would not be guilty of stfch ingratitude as to say he believed they xvere either perjurers or disloyal ;' he pro fessed no such doctrines ; he maintained those principles and doctrines which' Were held by the great Lord .;joiners and those other authorities he had before referred to. He wished all those p?e• cautions to be taken that might tend to make the Members of the Legislature attached .to the Re formed religion, which was the religion of the' State. Ile did not now Charge,. foe newer did charge, the Roman Catholics with llelngless or less willing to discharge tire duties of good citizens, the obligations cf social than, their Protestant fellow-subjects ; but admitting thetil to be actuated by the same feelings as Protestants were likely to be, under similar circuMstances,.ke could not help thinkiug they would indulge the ambition of wishing to reinstate their own church again.—(llear, hear !)—He felt some apprehen sions at the adoption of the Right lion.. Gentl eman's principles ; but so little • was he satisfied with the present state of Ireland,. so. anxious was he to remedy the evils that oppressed her, that, without considering the present measure a parit cca, yet if he thought it would operate to, promote the concord and happiness of the Irish people, all his apprehensions would give way.-=-- (Hear, hear !)—lf he could remove ,the. pOlitical an'moSities that now * distracted Ireland, if- he' could believe that their internal improvement would be the result of the measure new proposed . by the Right lion. Gentleman—he, for one,. would not oppose himself to the Motion. lie admitted, with the Right Ilon. Gentleman, that the state of Ireland was deeply to be lamented— he regretted the existence 'of her religious jealousies—he wished they were extinguiihed ;. and as to a Government ruling a people on the principle of dividing them, no man held such a doctrine in greater abberrence: It was - only be-. cause he doubted the efficacy of the propoied2 measure towards the securing theSe 'objects, that he resisted it 'on the present occasion. _lle could not loOk over the history of Irelandthe strug-. gles of partiesthe confiscations 'Made by one,, and: the losses endured '.by. the other—at the growing conflicts between Catholic- and, Pro— testant—without anxious fears as to their pro- clueing a continuance of religibus animosity. But still he hoped that the laPse . of time, -the pro gress of refinement, and improVed : civilization would introduce adegr*e greater of harmonv; than had hitherto prevailed in that country; It might be asked, however, as there were other causes existing there to'produce animosity, such El 4 monopolies and commercial regulations of one sort or other, why not agree to some measure which might lessen it, might soften down. political and religious . jealousy•? To this his an swer was, if he knew of any such measurq he would adopt it, and it was beCause he thought the mewoire now proposed inadequate to such tar 'end, that he felt ithis duty to: resist it. If, how ever, he felt it his duty to resist their claims, he would use no intemperate language in So doing. (Hear, hear !)—But after the House conferred the capacity for power, he was satisfied power could not be divided between Catholics and Pro- testants with the same hope for concord and ge-• neral good, as if it was divided between a peo ple who were all CatholicS or all' Protestants,- In the-election of Representatives to Parliament , he saw great danger of political and religious animosity, from rival candidates being committed' of different persuasions. Suppose - the duration of Parliaments shortened,' and, of course, elections becoMing more-frequent, the Protestant support ed by Protestants, and the Catholi: by Catholics,. he anticipated from such a competition the most dangerous consequences to the domestic pewee of the Country. He would not now' detain .the House* much longer---(Hear, hear!)—and . -in troth, he had so often offered his opinion; on this Subject, that in now assigning his reaslons for' opposing the Right Hon. Gentleman's •mo tiOn, he begged 'to assure him he had fully . and fairly stated what they were. On this occasion lie had no connexion witatseever with any in din he Lad consulted with no' oneida9ai i stoltiihs‘; o notie ; pitli s ons ; and he was governed in this, as in all other cases, by its int' insic me rits. lie cared not for the opinions eX•pressea out of doors ; the peuplo of ail England were roused aga!n3t claims itwould not weigh in the least d egr ie The de tive wisdom of Parliame n t was safe be trnsted this as on all -Other occasi.ms that a n y p ubliz clamour, how e v e r it m i g ht b e ha d the consolation 61 . retie cling, that his con& •itt vi opinions on this s u bj ec t h a d b en consistent. Al had had the me a ns o f us i ng i n fl uence on t h e question, and h e use d- it, to prevent petitions being brought f or w ar d against - their claims. Ile told those persons lie • set no value on what they said ; he knew th e h ouse s o f P ar li a M en t was the fittest place fo r th e i r di scuss i on . Il e hn plured the House .to consid er ma t ure ly the step they ,were now going to take. No .reSult of this question could give him unqualified satis faction. If his opinions prevailed, his satisfaction would be abated by the regret, that the claims of so many of. hi fellow 7 subjects were rejected• -(Hear,,hear !)-11 the Right lion. Gentlennzn's motion should succeed, no man would more fer vently pray that his fears might prove visionary, and that that concord and happiness which wern expected froni it might be fully realised, for the benefit of the Country.—(Loud cries of Hear from both sides of the House followed the con clusion of the Ri4.tht lion. Gentleman's speech.) It is a melanchu.y taat to, :not Lei of Ann Heytrey, Y l2 ° 173$ executed some months since,for the.murder of itrs. Dormer,. (;f dic4 last week of a broken heart. Her son is'now icy War Wick gaol, charged with the murrer of the law Mr. Hiron. LONDON : Printed by J. B. CARSTA IRS, of No-2/, Great: . Ormond-strzet, ',Queen-square ; and- published .by IV. A. ,ut No. 7, Moltun-street, at THE SU "C OFFICE, No. 112, Strand .1 . where Aly:E.Tist:miN'A's ,,, OW :FM; L,E'rzz`tr &c.