The Sun. — London, England, 1822-05-01 00:00:00

V 7 z '. 7 X. 1,9,...:, q t , ..4.-- .. 7„-- ~ t 4. ',; 2 4 -- i''' ' ' ~e --ri,l4. • , Ogl-Trr-ezv7- \ \ %l 1 044 \ \ r." l ‘ -r o '.-'• - s' - '. - --, +. , fiz: -c.) _-- --- I,_ . ‘ ta , 4\ ,- ,i, 44). 47 , , , w0 0 OZli 11. - I ' v ' -- 1 x - -i N,,.V• - "t`• stet i -- 'O4-4 " ~.w. -4 , .' S . jk... ' --, rwi -cp :7l %21U NUMBER 9261.1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1822. PRICE SEVENPENCE. NOTICE. —(GOODS IN KING'S WAREHOLTSE.) Customhouse, London, 24th April, 1822. W HEREAS sundry Goods, subject to Duties tv , of Customs and Excise, have remained in his Majes s t 'l r, arelrouse, in the Customhouse, London, beyond the time allowed by Law, viz. Three Months,— Nol he Corlimi.3sioners of his •Majesty's Customs do hereby give fullrlCE- • nless the Duties due on the said Goods are I 0 ,, P4i4 aild9fre Goods taken away from the said 'Ware 4114`Z:on itt6f o re the 31st of May next, they wilt be irume ly disposed of according to Law: By Order of the Commissioners, (Signed) G. DELAVAUD, Sec. IREA.coN FIRE INSURANCE COM PANY No. 8 CHATHAM-PLACE, BLACK IATARs. 7' PRESIDENT. Tht Right Honourable the Earl of LONSDA LE. TRUSTEES. 4 'ke Rt. Hon. Ehrl of Egmont George Hammersley, Esq. Lord Churchill, Sir Henry Parnell, Bart.3l.P. Lord Robert Spencer, Robert Ward, Esq. M.P. DIRECTORS. . Robert Ward, Esq. M.P. Chairman.. John Wray, Esq. Deputy Chairman. ~enAmin Ansley, Esq. Law. B. Morris, Esq. ti el lrY Bouverie, Esq. Sir Henry Parnell, Bart. M.P. Ge enrY Halam, Esq. William Sotheby, Esq. Hammersley, Esq. G.h Te Hon. W. R. Spencer, David Laing, Esq. T. Spencer, Esq. John Clark, Esq. Managing Director. BANKERS. Messrs. Hammersleys, Greenwood, and Brooksbank. .viA'rhe ab ove C ompany h as b een f orme d f or th e p ur p ose o f pro uillg against every pecuniary loss which can result from the alainity of Fire. This has long been a desideratum ; for al ugh much has been done to proiide for the convenience as 01 as the interest of the Pubhc, with respect to Life-Insu ranee, Fire -I nsurance a d m itti ng almost of an equal variety of ,octis to embrace the various descriptions of insurable property, tas ea been left nearly in a state of infancy. By the plan of the a d v e ° 4 l every individual will be enabled, on terms the most antageous, effectually to guard, not only against permanent, t es ,s4mst temporary pecuniary difficulties arising from the .. t o •uctian of property by Fire. The Company undertaking PaY Five per Cent. on doe' amount of the loss within one v eek after the Fire. In addition to which the immediate ad -9.'-tritages derived by the insured from the liberal abatement of * Per Cent. on the rates of common Insurances will be found Considerably to outweigh any contemplated return of premium Qfrereelto the Public. Hitherto a larger premium than re rsite has been charged on common insurances, to make up loss sustained on those.that are doubly hazardous, which de tect is remedied by the plan of the Beacon. The above bene- Pare secured by a Capital of Two Hundred Thousand Hundred r a i se d by t h e sa l e o f T wo Th ousan d Sh ares , o f O ne , - "lltridred P oun d s eac h. Th e h o ld ers o f each will receive an 'tally 5 per Cent. on the deposit made, exclusive of such fur ther dividend arising from the profits of the concern as shall be declared at the end of each year. The plan of the Beacon is Particularly recommended to persons denying income from the /tit of buildings, and also to tradesmen, as the Company have raapted entire new regulations for their protection. Every in '°rtriation with prospectuses, may be hacl, by applying at the 08.... Le as above. ITALIAN CONFECTIONERY. May t,1322: pA. JARRIN (Author of the Italian Cou -. fectione.r, and late with Messrs. hunters, of Berkeley ti rare) has the honour to acq S uaint the Nobility and Gentry Nd s t be purposes OPENING a HOP, on , the Isth of May, at 5 123, N ew B on d- street , near G rosvenor -street, w h ere t. t l-. 1 ARTICLE of CONFECTIONERY may be obtained, of sa rne superior quality as distinguishes the Fabrique of the "ve estahlislurtent. G. A..larrin, during the last six years , he conducted the manufacturing department of Messrs. piV n e" having introduced many novel articles for the sup `thil decoration 'of the table, which have been highly ap thej`-ed by the fashionable world, most respectfully solicits Ilk i l l ' i a trowige of the Nobility and Gentry in his new under thaend promises the utmost exertion of his talents to ir support. AThis Day was published, in Firo. price 2s. sewed, N ESSAY on some GENERAL PRENCI -44 M _P_LES of POLITICAL ECONOMY on TAXES upon ODUCE, and on COMMUTATION of TITHES. Fellow of 1 G y on E r D li le VA ar i r Ck l i t i . u ° s GS College , Es tambridge. ton_ " Medio tutissimus ibis. " printed for Henry Butterworth, 7, Fleet-street. 111',. This Day was published, price Is. 6d., "E CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER f ir v . for NIAY, containing, among other Articles, a Sermon u, hi tsunday.—Oxter on the Heavenly Witnesses.--Nolan testae s atne.—Pastorini's Prophecy of the Destruction of Pro theltistu in 1825.—A Speech which ought to be Spoken on of e r st Reading of the Unitarian Marriage Bill.—Sketches iu R ele siastical - History.—Benson Hulsean Lectures.;--Burn pr," Hit Wo o. Wid o w s , &c. &c. 41)4 ted for F. C . . an d J. Ri v i ng t on , St. P au l' s Ch urc h- yar d, 0 tterloo-place. p ri : whom may be had, the three first Volunies'of this Work, in hoards 21. 17s. and any single numbers to complete • - - i n n This Day was published, .. r",, ne Volume, Bvo. with a Portrait of the Author, price 14s. u dedicated by permission, to her Royal Highness the ~.b .! ..incess Augusta 1 11 IE NARRATIVE of a JOURNEY un 4qt,, dertaken in the Years 1819, 1820, and.lB2l, through Gp"'", CE, I I'ALY, SAVOY, SWITZERLAND, parts, of. b]141,-IN'lr bordering on the Rhine, HOLLAND, and the the%PEBLANDS• comprising incidents that oceurred . to Of sru,thor, who has long - since suffered a Total Deprivation If '''"t • with various points of information collected on 4 our', rr e BY JAMES HOLMAN, R.N. and .ce K 6 .W. uid ~,.etts iter monstrare velit : tamen p i 9 i ,` -v.t n os va r. coodon . ., i l a rr i o j d l. c h u e r d esproprium fecisse, loquamur."- 7 1loa. by F. C. and J. Rivington, Waterloo ' And st :2: Ls Church-yard. lb 0 SELECT Altr ICLES. '‘EPARED only by MESSRS. BUTLER, 2 20, ~ C hemists, No. 4, Cheapside, St. ?mil's, and ___ terio"6gent-street, near the Argyle Rooms, London ; Vl'a- FLut,3,l,.,ace_, Edinburgh ; and Sackville. street, Dublin. Cototo ''-' EXTRACT of SARSAPARILLA, (Simple and ~:1)°"nd), for making the Decoctions, and particularly igioenstived to the Faculty for its portable convenience and ,APEc t i t . „ , . ura o , ,:\ I SODAIC .POWDERS, forming an agreeahle t 14, g U t) alld At the same time acting as a mild and pleasant Acirve, relieving Heartburn, Bile, Indigestion, Nausea, 4(4Ty in the Stomach, &c. ItBONATED SODAIC, GINGER BEER, and li& B ete ADE POWDERS, for producing the much-esteemed cr r r ap of the same name. Hoerr ED KALI, for making Saline Draughts, recorp ; it, i ts ' 9Y the Profession for its convenience, as more certain c.,peration than those prepared with Lemon. warm and VI TINCTURE of TURKEY RHUBARB, a - EFFVant Laxative, adapted to Ginny Constitution% _ a , tour _ ...?ItESCENT EPSOM SALTS; the disagre . eah fi t - ohyiat7,l"Fh generally accompanies Epsom Salts, is greatly qiu mt ,! 9 .In this preparation, besides Which, only half the (..:0!y, is reqoired for th e dose. tir at :: 4 i 3 BE I E JUICE of LIME, for Punch, Lir - Imile, Saline of Lein4 'lces' Jellies, or any other purpose where the flavour CA j ? .. ri is required. • . qiibi,LPUT OPODF.LDOC, an excellent application for ‘,l,,essg'.us, (allaying the irritation), used also with much ~,,..__lii cases of Rheumatism, Sprains &c. p:iONIAHIC LIMIER T I NCTURF ' a very agreeable ° lc, re e ' ~ .• Itteh , 0 ouurrended in Indigestion, debility of the Sto , e:c. ...am p , , , ' Ait t i ' "IND TINCTURE of POMEGRANATE, as an i,,,.. hti,gaent much used in 4ffections of the Bowels, indicat. _ Pri.,il,—”tion, used &c. [• I'IN..,.;,tIr:ABLE OOTH' POWDER, and ASTRINGENT A s , "E, for the Teeth and Gums much approved. l e ,:_. rite tria,teeve,sPNrlniareaatirouilis,cw.rhen, Genuine, will have• "1 ' 13 LER Ald ess attached to hem. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, APRIL 30. The Duke of-Mowraosc presented a Petition from the Town Council of the Royal Burgh of, Stirling, against making fresh concessions to the Catholics.---Laid on the table. . Mr. HART DAVIS and others brought up the Bristol Harbour Bill from the Commons.—Read a first time.—The Flax and Cotton, and the Summary Proceedings Bills were read a third time and passed.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Gallery, in consequence of the extraor dinary interest excited by the• business - of this day, was opehed at twelve o'clock, and imme diately filled in every part. , - AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Sir E. KNATCHI3ULL presented a Petition from certain farmers in Kent, complaunng of Agricultural Distress.—Re - - ferred to the Committee. LEATHER. TAX, Mr. JONES presented two Petitions frOm Carmarthen,pray ing for relief from the Leather Tax. General. GASCOIGNE thought that the Salt Tax ought to have the precedence. Lord ALTHORP contended that no tax was so oppressive, compared to the 'duty which it yielded, as the tax on leather. Mr. H. DAVIS and Mr. BRIGHT each presented a similar 'Petition from Bristol. Mr. RAMSDEN presented a like Petition from Doncaster. Mr. ABERCROMBIE, from the Tanners of Edinburgh. Lord ALTHORP, from the Raw Hide Salesmen in Leaden hall-market. Lord STANLEY, from the Tanners of Preston. General GAScOIGNE, from the Tanners of Liverpool. All these Petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. _____ . _ _ CRIMINAL LAW. Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from Carlisle, and Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT, one from Hitchen, both praying for a revision of the Criminal Code.—Ordered to be printed. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Mr. DOWNIE presented a Petition from the Magistrates and Council of Stirling; Mr. HOME DRUMMOND one from the Synod of Perth and Stirling ; and another from the Parish of Denny all praying that ho privileges or indulgences might be granted to the Catholics.—Ordered to be printed. DEMISE OF THE CROWN. Sir R. HERON postponed till next Session his motion rela tive to the renewal of offices on the Demise of the Crown, Mr. SYKES stated, that in compliance with the wishes of Many Gentlemen, he rose' to postpone his motion respecting the duties on Tallow till a future day. As in the plan of the Noble Marquis it was intended to remit taxes to the amount of 1,800,0001. he thought it due, in deference to that Noble Lord, to wait until the Resolutions introduced by him were more fully discussed. He begged leave to postpone his motion to the 19th of May. POOR REMOVAL BILL. Mr. SCARLETT obL'tined leave to bring in a Bill to pre vent the removal of the poor, with an understanding that the discussion should take place in a future stage. BANK OF ENGLAND. 21r. GRENFELL seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, wished to put a question to him, with reference to the Bank Charter. He wished to know whether any arrangement was made, or sti pulation entered into, to continue the clause originally intro duced in the year 1890, by which it was enacted that the Bank should continue to enjoy all the allowances, emoluments, and benefits which they now possessed, by virtue and in behalf• of the public. There was also another question to which he wished an answer, namely, whether it was intended to allow 40001. per annum for Coals and house expenses ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he, was enabled to answer the Hon. Member directly in the nega tive. There was no clause of remuneration. Mr. GRENFELL then gave notice, that on Wednesday next he should take the sense of the House as to the propriety of extending the duration of the Charter of the Bank under any circumstances. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, there was no intention to bring forward that subject then. SOUTH AMERICA. Mr. 'ELLICE said, that seeing the Noble Marquis in his place, he 'wished to put a question to him on a subject on which the greatest anxiety prevailed in the public mind— he meant with respect to the relation in which that country stood with the independent Governments of South America. He had no wish to embarrass the Government; he felt that it was a question snore of time than of doubt. If the Noble Lord could give a satisfactory answer, he would impart a great grati fication to the public. He wished to know whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to follow the example of the United States of America, by recognising the independent Governments of the South American Continent ? The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said he knew that proceedings were pending in the United States, but with their precise character he was not acquainted. It was the intention of his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Robinson) in his Bill before the House, to introduce a provision calculated to do away any difficulties in the comthercial intercourse between this country and the different States of America. OXFORD UNIVERSITY. , Mr. PEEL presented a Petition from the University of Ox ford against the Catholic Question. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE took that opportunity of declaring his opinion, that if the motion that night about to be made by the Right Hon. Gentleman was carried, the whole object would have been accomplished. The reason why Petitions were not numerously laid on that table was, that the great body of the people were so absorbed in the consideration of their own distress, as to have produced a total indifference to all political subjects. He protested, however, against their silence being construed in favour of that motion. The people of this country still continued decidedly hostile to the question. He trembled, hoivever—(a laugh)--at the probable effect of die Right Hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Canning's) eloquence ; he trembled, because he himself had too lately been an instance of his captivation— Loud laughing.)—He repeated the fact. A few nights ago, lie (Sir T.) came down with the intention of voting with the Noble Lord (J. Russell), until he had heard the very eloquent speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had a right to argue that the same influence which that eloquence had over his mind, might on the present question be equally persuasive over the minds of others, and lead them from the true and strict path of their duty—(Loud laughing, and cries of hear !).—Being himself an instance, he thought it right that the Members of that House should be cautioned—(A laugh, and cries of hear !)--He did' believe that the great body of the people did require a more adequate state of the representation, and such a proposition he should support when brought forward l in a manner more recon cileable to his feelings. Mr. SCARLET' said, that probably if the Honourable Baronet postponed his determination until after the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he would be induced even on this night also to vote with that Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Canning)—(Hear, hear !). , The Petition was laid on the table. - Petitions were then presented from Paisley and Glasgow against the Catholic Claims. Mr. 'COKE presented Petitions from several Hundreds in the County of Norfolk, complaining of Agricultural Distress and overwhelming taxation. The Petitions were laid on the Table. •_ On the motion of Mr. Fl OBH OUSE, there was orderid- to be laid on the table a return of the Duties levied on Houses and Windows, distinguishing the one from the other, and the return of England: from Scotland and Ireland. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the return of News paper Stamps was ordered to be made forthwith. CATHOLIC PEERS. Mr. CANNING said, in rising to make that motion, of which he had given notice, could he hope to- convey to the minds of those who heard hiM but one-tenth part of the con viction produced on his own judgment of the justice and expe diency of that measure which he was about to recommend to the consideration of the, House, he should approach this discus sionivith feelings .of confidence, such as he had never known. before. If he now came to it with diffidence, with agitation and anxiety, it was because he was sure that if-his proposition should fail of meeting with the approbation of the House (which he hoped it would not), he could have np refuge in the weakness of the cause itself, or in tke paucity of the arguments to be used initaaupport, but it must be considered that the cause was lost soitly through lack of ability on the part of the Advocate.— Befora,he proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought thellouse would do well to allow a Bill to be introduced to remove the disabilities which at present precluded Catholic Peers from sitting in Parliament, it might be advisable for him to notice some of the partial and preliminary objections which had been made elsewhere, to the form rather than to the substance of his motion. When he spokeof elsewhere herneant to allude to-the common current of conversation out of that House. In that House his motion had been treated by an Hon. Baronet, the Member for Somerset, as an insidious- at tempt to get the House to pronounce an unconscious decision on the whole question. Connected with this, but contrary to it, another objection had been raised, that to bring forward such a motion must prejudice the great question of Catholic eman cipation. He might hope that these oppaaite objections would counterbalance each other, If the snip now ;proposed to be taken advanced the Catholic cause gTnetaatly, it could not be prejudicial to-the great question. , If indeed it were prejudi cial to the main question, then it could not advance the cause, and the Hon. Baronet ouasha rather to hail his motion with satis faction than to view it with that apprehension which he hail confessed. ,He would however candidly say that, in his opinion, success in this motion would lead towards success with the larger question, inasmuch as when. part was gained of a whole, which consisted of a number of parts, such partial success detracted from the numerical difficulties that were to be conquered. But in another respect he regarded the present motion as that which would conduce to the final suc cess of the Catholic question, from the diAcussion which must take place. Discussion itself on a law which was really • un just, he regarded as a great advance towards remedying the evil. ,This was that which could not be put a stop to. Were the attempt made to put down discussion, it would be also ne cessary to arrest the course of thought and the flight of time, for till this was.done every hour that passed—every year that elapsed, must bring this , great question nearer to • a triumphant close. But every argument that went to make it appear that,' coming to a conclusion favdurable to this motion, a pa rallel conclusion must 'of necessity be come to on the greater question, he would utterly deny. He would deny that this question was the same as that, and one great advantage that he had on the present occasion was tins, that his motion was brought forward on more practical grounds, and on a narrower basis than the great queStion itself, which had in volved so many conflicting considerations. Hitherto it had been imputed to the advocates for Catholic emancipation that they did not confine themselves'to law and facts, but that wan dering from these they expatiated on generalities, soaring to the heights of abstract-principles, ranging round the whole circumference of analogy,- but sparingly on the laws of Eng land or the British Constitution. He should turn this argu ment to day from the supporters of his motion. Nothing that he should offer would justify them in entering into that general argument which had heretofore been connected with debates on the subject of Catholic Emancipation : and with all his re, verence for general principles he would call on those who' id him the honour to give him their assistance, to confine themselves to the precise question which he should bring before them, and to the precise Act of Parliament on which he founded his motion. He, however, was not one that was at All disposed -to throw aside that measure in which he had ever taken so lively an interest, that which should concede to the Catholics all that they had a right to expect. He would only say, that he would not have that in view on-this day, but he would strictly and honestly confine himself to the motion of which he had given notice, and looked for nothing beyond what must inevitably result from , carrying that, and from the progress of opinion. He hoped, then, he was in a condition to say that those who objected to his motion, that it. called for a decision on the whole subject, that their apprehension was not well-founded, and to those who considered it likely to prejudice the main question, that their alarm was equally groundless. But some were so high minded that they were indifferent about any progress being made in the question, unless the whole of the demands of the Catholics were satisfied. Some even thought that the loss of his motion was to be desired, not because the privileges it sought to obtain were valueless, but because these obtained would Strip the adv'ocates for the Catholics of some of those topics of declama tion which had hitherto been at _their command. Much as he wished for the general success of the Catholic Question, he did not think it would be wise to give up the opportunity of gaining partial advantages, in order to enrich future debates. If its this he were wrong, the Catholics themselves had hitherto much mistaken their own interest. Assuming this argument to be good, why did not their regrets travel back to the period when the penal code was in full operation, wheneven the mosticiune statement was eloquence itself from the strength of the facts with which it was connected. How much ought they to lament the concessions which had been made from time to time during the auspicious reign of the late Monarch, and which had taken from the Catholic so many causes of complaint that he had scarcely a specimen remaining of the chains with which he was charged, when George 111. ascended the Throne. He supposed they were to regret that the statute of 1778 had passed which gave Catholics the right of holding property. He supposed they were to lament the passing of the Act of 1791, which freed Catholics front so many vexatious disabilities ; and also that of 1793, which gave so much that comparatively they had but little to demand should be conceded. That the army and navy had been selectly thrown open to them three years ago would, perhaps, by those who took such a view of the subject; be regarded as a very unfortunate occurrence, for had these advantages been denied what would have been the come-, quence I' Why, they would have had a much fairer 'subject of debate when they ,had these grievances altogether. He did not think an objection to his motion, founded on such a view of the case, entitled to much attention, nor very wisely urg ed at this moment. Another objection had been urged to which he was disposed to pay greater respect. It had been stated to him that sonie of the Noble Persons who would be affected by the present motion, if carried, entertained a certain disinclination to the partial discussion of the Catholic Question. But he should not have yielded to delicacy upon this point ; because, he must take the liberty to say, that even from those Noble Persons themselves he should never allow approba tion to influence his conduct. The House would recollect that lie had uniformly disclaimed appearing ahereias the common advocate of the claims of the Catholic body. In common par lance, indeed, he might have said that he was the advocate of .their cause ; but as to assuming the character of their common advocate, for the purpose of defending and pleading for them before the legislature of the nation, such had never been the part which he had acted. And, inasmuch as the praise or blame of the parties interested in the efforts he had thought it his duty to make had never entered into his motives, so was he exempt from any control, even if they should have considered that the present measure for effecting a part of their object would be detrimental to the obtainment of the whole. But he certainly felt much relieved in not hay , ing to dwel) upon this point, by the receipt of a letter which had'come to his hands that day, proving that no such objection as that to which he had alluded did actually exist. He could read the letter if necessary, and he should merely say that it came from a noble person of the very highest rank in the Catholic body. He would only detain the House by stating that con cluded in these words: " I assure you, upon my authority, that there is no foundation for that report." He was glad of such an opportunity to contradict, by such means, the ru mours Which had gone abroad, because he understood that they had made some impression. He had said in other places, and he would now repeat before a larger audience, that, as he would not have conceded his purpose to their feeling upon the question, so, upon his honour, he had received no excite ment to pursue it, either directly or indirectly, from the noble persons who were interested in its success. He made this call upon the House with as little instigation from any parties as if it embraced the condition. of the whole Catholic body.. In clearing away the obstacles which beset the mo tion, there was another that he was desirous to dispose of in the outset: He had heard something about as objection to originating, in the House of Commons, a measure which meant to effect the rights and privileges of the House of Lords.— Thia he took to be a question whikh could only be, argued upon precedent. And if they found that the very ,3ill which he now called upon them to repeal originated in the Commons— if that, originally, the Peers were not disqualfied from sit ting in their House ; and that the Conimons stated the mea sure which excluded the Peers, and increased ale disqualifica tions upon themselves, by legislatively excludhgCominoners, what, in the name of common sense, could be objected to the measure he should have the honour to prolose upon this ground ?—(Hear, hear, hear I)—Almost all tie Penal Acts against Catholic Peers had originated in the Canmons. The Act of the sth of Elizabeth, and the Acts whirl affected the Bishops, were all originated in the House of Commons.— I • How, then, was he to be told that it would he offensive to their Lordships for that House to entertain a measure, because it related to their privileges ? There was another objection to which he would address a few observations. It had been remarked by the Honourable Member opposite that it was very singular how 'he (Mr. Canning) could. oppose Reform in the House of Commons end suppert it in the House of ; Lords. Now as this was purely argamentunz ad honzincninlie should not have held it as deserving much attention from the 'House. But as the proposer of a measure like the present Aught not to stand with any slur of such a nature upon his principles, he hoped for pardon if lie went a little into this part of the question in order to remove what difficulties it might by possibility throw in his way. It often happened that the points upon which men piqued thernselves most were those which first exposed them to accusation. Now he did think he could make out sliest clearly, that instead of having committed any inconsistency in this .particUlar part of his conduct, it was one in which he had been perfectl? and strictly Consistent. He had always said that those who had called upon that House . fee *Referee, must tell. ¶bcther their object wag to' reconstruct any epart.of tine Cons'tination anew, or to recall it to any specific state in which it was at any former period. If they answered that they desired to re store it as it existed at a former period, he had a right to know what the nature of the reform was, as also the precise nature of the alterations contemplated, and as far as human foresight could calculate, what would be their eventual extent. Now these tests he of course meant to apply to plans of-Parlia mentary Reform in their abstract ; it - could not he expected that information would be given upon all their details. To all these he was ready to conform, and he would reply to them separately and unequivocally. In . the first place he should say, that he was not going to construct anew any 'addition to the House pf Peers, but to bring it back to a state in which it had existed at a former period. He should theli answer that the period to which lie would restore it terminated on the 30th No vember, 1678, being the day on which the Royal Assent was given to the Act which he now called upon them to repeal.— He should further say, that the Constitution of the House of Peers would then stand such as it had been for time immemo rial previous to the passing of that Acts This would be . the extent of his wild and visionary plan ; , thetet would go to the restoration, of the rights of sik Engliih Peers, and, by its future operation, it would have the same effect upon about as many Irish. He thought he had now shewn that he was ready to conform to the grounds upon which alOne he considered any reform warranted. He had hewn that the reform he proposed was safe and defined in its object; that it went to• bring back the Constitution to what it once was, and that it was limited in its operation. And he, epuld not help feeling that it would be attended with bsnefits equal to any that could result from many larger schemes of reform of which he had heard, and that too ' without incurrhig risk. He Should now go back to the periods at which the penal enactments against the Catholics were ob tained, in order to .shew that his object was not to make inno vation, but to renovate the Constitution. He would chew that they had been inflicted under the pretence of evils 'and dan gers which did not. exist, and with a degree of cruelty that was unparalleled in its operation upon the generations which .succeeded them. In order to come at a - definite and precise notion of the question as it stood, it would be expedient to take a short review of the Acts of the Legislature against the Catholics. Honourable Members need not be afraid that he was going to raise up discussion upon all the different' statutes ; his intention was merely tb classify them according to their bearings upon the question. One great object in doing this would be to disabuse those who, from a superfi cial examination of the historical facts connected with them, had misconceived the real meaning, and to disentangle some of the difficulties with which they were wound up. In exa mining the Legislative enactments against the Catholics, he should divide them under three periods. First, that from the Reformation, taking it at the time. of,Elizabeth, down to the Restoration. The second. would be limited to the'reign of Charles IL, and the third division would embrace the time from the Revolution downwards, to that period of his late Ma jesty's reign,when the relaxation of these penal laws first began. He would explain the reason 'of this unequal division with re gard to time. The severity of the penal laws which were passed between the Reformation and the Restoration, was ac counted for by the - difficulties With which Elizabeth had tq con tend:Jr the maintenance of hee Throne. They were in some 'degree warranted by the frequent recurrence of plots against her, by the instability of a religion scarcely established, and by the danger of foreign interference. All these things com bined, made the establishment of the throne and of religion almost the same thing. In taking the last period, from the Revolution downwards, they would not find exactly the same causes, but there were then an exiled family, divided parties,, and violent feuds ; and these political agitations naturally created divisions in the Church. When William came to the Crown, there was nef wonder that he did not remove the ilaqua-• lifications which the Act of Charles imposed, and which was only then ten years old.' His buainess was to keep down the attemnts of his }predecessor to' re-establish himself ; to make powerful and effective' efforts to render those" attempts Mope.' rative. In Ireland the consequences of these agitations were still worse than in England. - The undoubted object of the measures adopted towards that country was to grind the popu lation into the 'dust—to exterrtlinate their race—to loosen the ties of kinared=and to'make the bonds of _society untenable. And was this done in wantonness ? No ; but because the exis tence of the Crown was inseparable from the establishment and security of the Protestant Church. • Cutting off these • two pe riods, then, the reign of Charlie the Second would stand insu lated; and marked by characteristics peculiar to itself. •' The whole reign was one internal struggle, but unaccompanied-by exter nal. danger. The Church had its chief enemysnear the Throne; and the penal enactments which were then made against the Catholics did not descend from the Throne, but rose up from the Parliament. Still the House would be surprised to find that they had little to do in the way of removing difficulties, but what was shut up in this narrow channel of the reign of Charles the Second. The last relaxations which had' been granted in the penal enactments anterior to the Restoration.; had removed them all, except those inflicted by the nth of Elizabeth, the same which were confirmed by the 30th of Charles the Second. There was, indeed the 13th of Elizabeth also remain ing, which prohibited all intercourse with the See of Rome, but that had fallen, almost , into disuse. All the penal acts passed since the Revolution had been' repealed, excepting ,one . of the 13th of Anne, with regard to the advowson of livings, and another for administering certain oaths to civil and mi litary persons. The latter, indeed, he believed to be virtually removed by the Act of 1316. Almost every thing of moment which remained to be removed was confined to the one period of our history, namely the reign of Charles the Second. The discussion, therefore, would be confined to that period. They could- not be surprised at finding that under Charles and James (the latter a Popish Prince), the people should look with suspicion, if not at the subversion of the 'Protestant Church, at least at the destruction of its spirit and its practice. It would be seen by the history of those days, that the predotninant dread of the House of Commons was the passibility of a Popish succession to the Ceown. And when they took this as a clue, much would appear plain which was otherwise involved in doubt and confusion. To this object of debarring the Duke of York from coming to the Throne, must be referred the fre quent remonstrances of the Parliament to the King against the Papists and the Duke Of York, and the various other expres sions of ill will towards him. He did not at all state this as a matter of blame, or with the desire of casting any im hnitation upon the Parliament. No one could look at our istory without coining to the conclusion that the attempt at making Papists ineligible 'to sit 'in the House of' Lords was intentionally directed against the Duke of York, and that the Commons would have been perfectly satisfied if they could have effected his removal without inflicting the other , penaltied. When , the Act of 1678 was passed in the Lords and ,returned to the Commons, but with a clause in favour of the Duke Of York, then in despair they made direct applications to the King for his banishment, and re moval from the succession. 'That intelligent and impartial historian, Rapin, stated, that the Commons were governed all along by this chief object,- in the measures which they directed against the Papists. What was the inference that he meant to draw from all this ? That the Commeins were wrong? No such thing. His, inference was, that we having no cause of alarm, were not justified in continuing the penalties, which they imposed when alarm and danger were mostpressing. Had . we a popish succession' to make us tremble for our establish ment ? and if not, what was to justify our continuance in inea- Sures only intended to guard against the presence of 'such a danger? They often heard much of the wisdom of antiquity, and he should like to know whether the Act of 1678 received that degree of attention and consideration which the wisdom of the present day evould dictate.' The Parliament met on the. 26th of October, and the Popish Plot was slightly alluded to from the Throne. But this would not satisfy the Parliament : they immediately sent for the. witnesses who had been exa -mined, aniliesonti warrants for the apprehension of six Peers. After the, expiration of seven days, the Bill was pesee,d-and sent up to the Lords. Thus allowing one day for the Address, ~and the intervention of Sunday, five days only were bestowed upon the consideration of a measure which went to deprive some of the highest personages in the realm of their just rights, a period not greater than would be given in our time to the• pasting of a turnpike bill to Gut through a road that was neces sary to• he cleared at the shOrtest public notice. Immediately the Bill was sent up to the Loriha they got the Lord ChiefJus , - rice's warroat for the 'apprehension of six Peers out of the, eighteen who had seats in that liouee. What must have been the feeling with which the. House of Lords went to the coml.: 'aeration of the Bill unAersech circumstances ? They saw it came before them.at the moment that one third of the persons against whom it was directed were swept away to prison. They, however, would not be goaded into a similar line of con duct. The commons sent, day after day, to know the reason why the Bill was not passed, and when at last that Ctbjcct was accomplished, *a: clattee was added in favour of the Duke of York. edndlie interval,between• the year 2673, at :the 'passing, of the Test Act, and - the year 1678, when this Bill was adopt ed, a Bill was introduced into the H cuss of Lords,- to, atlinini-, ster certain oaths to Peers, under the forfeiture of .iiStitialitica tion. Upon this, not only the Catholic, but other temporal Peers, and that no small number either, joined in a protest, which set forth,: that the right of sitting in the House was so inherent and inseparable from theni, that nothing could take it away from them, and it was what the law must only take away with their lives. That protest was adopted unanimously, and not by a small House, there being 167 Members present.— It was-then made an Order of the Lords Spiritual and Tempo ral, that no oath could be proposed to th em , -the refusal of which incurred the penalty of losing their places in Parliam en t. Such_ an. order as this was passed only three years befbre the passing of the Bill in 1678, and became a standing - order of the House. He would endeavour to shew how those Acts could be reconciled to each other. He did not mean to Say that a standing order of the House of Lprds was impregnable to the law of the land. But it shewed, that while they were in pos session of their calm deliberate faculties, they would not give in to the menaces of the House of Commons, or the threats and tumults of the people out o f d oors . I t was iese things and the fear of the Popish, conspiracy, which at last induced them to surrender their calm judgment,, and to inflict the penalty upon the members of their own body. How were they to account for the order to which he had referred being allowed to remain ou their Lordships' Journals after the Bill wzs subsequently passed ? The only explanation was to be found in the infee rence, that as their alarm was temporary, so were the measures they adopted intended to be so. As in cases of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, the Act remained-untouched, so they meant that the rights of Catholic Peers should only be sus pended until the storms of the day had bloin over. Admit - that, and these Acts of the Legislature were intelligible ; ad mit it not, and it was impossible to unravel their meaning, or the intentions of the Legislators. This construction was greatly so strengthened by the Act itself. And he must say that tine Act was one 9f the most unhappy productions, whether they looked to the preamble or the enactments, that could even be found in these days, when the business of legislature had increased to such an extent.' The Right lion. Gentleman then read pas sages from the preamble of the Act, and commented on their incongruity. Catholics were therein denied access to the King. An Act was subsequently passed, which originated in the House of Commons, for admitting Catholic Peers only into the Royal presence. This shewed that there was a distinct privi kge which they possessed, and that they_ were the- inherent Counsellors of the Crown, and the removing it from them was an infringement upon their natural rights. :The . - Right HOn. Gent. then alluded to the difference of the oaths necessary to be taken by Peers admitted to the presence of the King after the passing of the Act in question, and those by which alone they-would be allowed to sit-in Parliament. Was there ever so strange an anomaly its this ? What ! was it to be said that a Peer in a temporal and civil capacity was a goOd coun cillor to the King, -but spiritually and ecclesiastically he was disqualified for a legislator ? Good GOD ! was there ever such nonsense heard of? A Peer might go to St. James's to pay his homage to hi s Sovereign, anal be there a good and loyal subject, but the moment he turned his horses' heads towards -the Houses of Parliament, it was ne cessary that he should -go before a Magistrate, and take the Oaths of Supremacy, before he could be considered other wise than a dangerous subject. Was it possible that our an cestors could have left such anomalies behind them - without the existence of some particular and urgent causes. These causes might be found in the fact, that the House of Lords passed the Act of 767th under duresse, and their intention to repeal it in better times. :But anomalies did not end here. In the auspicious reign of our present gracious Sovereign, anomalies were not wanting with regard to the situation- of Catholic subjects. For the first time these hundred years they had lately witnessed the ceremony of a Monarch's coro nation. It would be degrading that ceremony to the lowest pitch to consider it in the light of a mere pageant. It was the renewal of a solemn compact betwixt the King and his people, at which he received the homage of all classes of 'his subjects. This took place in the face of all Catholic and Protestant Europe, and it . was solemnized with that awful majesty which attended upon a compact of such a nature between a Sovereign and a free. people: In this ceremony, the t a - tholic was admitted 'to enjoy his rights and privileges. And amidst the proud train that graced the festival, who was it that overtopped the whole, and stood the first subject of the land ? The. Catholic Duke of Norfolk ! 'Who was it that held the highest office in the ceremonial next to the Royal Family ? The Catholic Duke of Norfolk ! Who was it that had the honour to drink publicly the health of the Monarch, and under circumstances which rendered its reception peculiarly gra cious ? Again, the Catholic Duke of Norfolk •! And whilst the different Courts of the world were present at this scene, by,their representatives, did it occur to the Catholic Austrian, or to the Catholic Frenchman that es soon as the ceremony was over the Catholic Peer was to strip off his robes, and bang them upon a peg until the occurrence of another coronation should call again for their use ? Did it occur to them that Lord Clifford had' been called theta amongst the paraphernalia of the pageant, like the was can dles and the lustres of the day, to be thrown-by when it ex pired 5 Was it to be iniag,ined 'that those upon whoM the choice anal faVolir of the Sovereign had fallen were held un worthy of a share in legislating to the country, which their very 'presence at such a ceremony was an acknowledgment that they had a right to ? These incongruities were not so light as Gentlemen might imagine. Be would say thatit wa.l better never to let them exercise their rights at all, unless all their disabilities. were removed. These were proud distinctions when enjoyed in common with the other rights to Which they were entitled by birth ; but while they were shut out 'from the Legislature, they were only so many painful remembrances of what they hadi lost. The Right Hon. Gentleman then alluded to the Royal visit to Ireland, and the King's gracious favor to Lord Fingal„ in investing-him with a blue ribleand. Ile read a por tion of the preamble of the Order of St. Patrick, wed remark ed upon what the feelings •of his Lordship must have been, after receiving the honour which his Sovereign had bestowed upon him. But wheh he returned to his home, what must'bc the first reflection that would embitter his sense of the Royal favour ? It would be that of recollecting, that the labourer upon his 'do mains possessed a privilege which was denied-to Mitt, namely, that of sending his representative to Parliament. He had as yet only considered the consequences of the Act' of 1.158, in their political character. But even' if its covered object of getting rid of the Duke of York was as just as het thought it was—if the existence 'of the Popish conspiracy had been as true as he believed it' was not—if the guilt of the five Catholic Peers had been as clear as the innocence of Lord Stratford Was\now universally allowed to be,—still he should not have said that there were just political grounds fur such a measure. But when all these were known not to be true, there were no atonements which they ought not to make to the living, for the shedding of innocent blood, and for the infliction of the highest penalties upon generations which had passed away. Only six or . seven yearn after Lerd Strafford was brought to the block, the witnesses, upon whose evidence he was executed, were convicted of perjury, and a Bill passed the Lords for removing the attainder. He quoted Home and Rapin, and argued at some length to shew that the reason why the Commons did not also pass the Bill was to be found in their unwillingness to grant such a triumph to the Catholics. He did not mean to ask'whether this was right or not; he would only ask whether we had any reason for refusing to • make reparation to the best extent of our power ? It happ=ened debate in the House of Peers upon the irnpeaahmeht of Me. Hastings, that a precedent was endeavoured to be drawn from that of Lord Strafford ; vtlien the continuance or discontinu— ance of the attainder was again discussed. Lord Thurlow, who