The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-11 00:00:00

-emu step would be to give.the Catholic Bishops the same pri-
vile which it was now proposed to bestow upon the Peers.
r. BROUGHAM would only trespass for one moment
upon the House, but be was anxious to administer some small
relief to the Hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) and the persons
whom he represented.--(Laughter.)--The minds of those per-
sons appeared to be struck with alarm. If Catholic Peers were
admitted to the House of Lords, then Catholic Commoners
-would get into the House of Commons then the whole of the
Lower House would soon be composed of Catholic Commoners,
apd Catholic Bishops would be mixing with our own Right
Reverend Fathers in the Upper!—(Hear !)—While these ter-
iified Petitioners were brooding over toe dangers of Ca-
thine admission to Parliament, it might afford some com-
fort, as diversion to their fears, to know how slight a phrase
it was, not which prevented Roman Catholic Bishops from
sitting in the Upper House, but which precluded. Jewish
Rabois, or even the great Mufti himself, from coming into
tkaalament, either by creation from the Crown, or election
by tile people.—(Hear, and laughter.)—lt was barely the acci-
dental insertion of the word " Christian" in one of the tests,
which prevented that consummation, dreadful as it would be to
the good men of Kent. Neither the Mahometan nor the Rabbi i
had any objection to the oaths ; they could digest the supre-
macy, the allegiance, and the abjuration of Catholic doctrine t.
nothing kept-them out but the fortunate insertion of " all this
I promise upon the faith of a Christian." The Hon. Gentle-
man concluded his observations upon the apprehensions of the
Petitioners from Catholic Emancipation, by:repeating his
pietar,e cf the other perils in which they stood. The lucky word
which saved them from Jews and Mahometans would .not pro-
tect them against the Members of the Greek Church. Disci-
ples of that church would not refuse the promise of Christianity;
t.nd they Were in a situation to abjure the doctrines of the
of Rome, as heartily as the best Protestant within the
Archdeacon of Canterbury's jurisdiction.
Sir E. KN2ITCH BULL said a few words io reply to Mr.
Bzoitghtim, the import of which did not reach the.gallery.
Mr. BROUGHAM declared, that if he had tne honour to
be Patriarch of Constantinople, he knew of nalaw which could
-abtit the doors' of ?ornament against
• ,Mr.i..'LUS"fIINGTON concurred in the sentiments of the
PetltfOners,''atitl *mild prefer voting for the whole measure of
Eltiatibipti.4.;Onio giving the poliion now demanded of it. '
• Tilo'fylition *as then read, and ordered to be printed.
:iIec?EEL presented a Petition against Mr. Canning's meaf
?..tire•froin the Dean and Prebendaries of the Cathedral-Church
4;5 Canterbury a like Petition from the Episcopal Church of
Long-acre ;=a like 'Petition from the Magistrates of Kilmar-
neek'...+—Read, and Ordered to be printed.
Lord*HOTlllllpresented a Petition to. the same effect from
:Beverly, ,in Yorkshire. •

MALT DUTIES' (IRELAND) REPEAL.
The thira -reading of this Bill vvas postponed to Monday

prcsented a.Petition from certain Dia
tillers df ireland, relative to the duties' on Malt.

.14ICENSING SYSTEM.
:,Ir. H. G. BENNET postponed his motion upon this sub-
.';ect until Monday.
161 R. 'WILBERFORCE AND MR. WYNN.
Alr:, WILBERFORCE desired to explain an observation
which bad fallen from him in the course of the debate upon the
sobject.of the Postmasters-General, and the meaning of whiCh
had been much misrepresented. He had intended to say gene-
rally, that it was worthy the Attention of the House to consider
whether Honourable- Gentlemen, in joining Administration,
joined Ministers because they thought them worthy of confi-
dence, or thought them worthy of confidence because they had
joined them. In making that observation, he declared before
tacir, and his CountiT, that he had no intention of applying it
o Ntr.Wynn. ilberforce spoke in so very low a tone, that
IC was very difficult to collect what he said. The abpve how.
trzr, we believe, was the substance of his explanation.
31r. WYNN, as far as he himself was concerned, had never
misconceived the Honourable Gentleman's meaning. He felt
happy, however, that the misconception had taken place, since
it had led to such 'an explanation.

planation.
GAME LAWS.
Mr. 31.-A. TAYLOR, on the part of some Hon. Member
whose name was not mentioned, put off a motion on this sub-
ject, which stood for the 23d inst., to next Session.
ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. CANNING, the Order of the Day
was read for the second reading of' the Catholic Peers Bill.
Mr. SMYTH rose and said, he felt it his duty to address a
few observations to the House on this particular measure, but
on the general question he would not say one word. With all
the respect which he had for the wonderful talents and splendid
e_eloquence- of the Right Hon. Member who had introduced the
Bill, yet he' could not help looking on this measure as a most
sextracrdinary One. It was isolated and partial. It was also
unjust towards the great body of the Roman Catholics, and its
pranciple was exclusively aristocratical ; for it went to grant a
boon to Peers, while it left the people where they
hear.)—He had paid sedulous attention to the speech of the
Right Hon. Mover, and he had sat with considerable impa-
tience,- and: perhaps alarm, like the Hon. Member for So-
z.ersetShire—(A laugh)---Aest he should be captivated by the
voice of the Syren. But if any thing were wanting to the Inca-
mire of his conviction, it was filled up—if any doubt remained,
it was effaced hy the speech of the Right Hon. Secretary for the
Home Department (Mr.•Peel.)7-So closely had he argued that
question, so historicellY had he illustrated it, and so clearly
expounded all its merits, that there was nothing to be added
to me full and complete conviction with which his mind
was impressed. He must confess- that the vote of the House
had not a little surprised hirit;' more especially as he had heaid
Amours that the Bill was not .sanctioeed by the conscientious
feelings of those very persons for whose special benefit
it was, intended: But the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr.
Plunkett), thinking that he could not dissuade the Right on.
t.eatlemau from bringing on this question, had thought it
izesre prudent and advisable to express his approbation of it
tisan -to move the previous question,_ as had been expected by
many.--(Hear ! and a laugh.) If that Right Hon. Gentleman
fMr. Plunkett) had thought it right to bring this measure be-
ere the House, why did he not submit the general question at
once to the Houser and it would have been better as coming
isith the recommendation of having passed the House last Sell-
salts, than this one which had no such recommendation. Ile
(Mr. S.) could not but look upon this Bill as a forestalment of
'general measure; and it was strange that the Right Hon.,
over could not wait six little months to take the sense of the
Licuse on the general question.—He was sorry to trespass on
the general question, but before he sat down, he must express
has hope that many Hon. Members who had supported this
measure at first, would, upon consideration, agree in the pro-
xiety of its postponement, until they came to a vote On the
,general question. The -iuestion, as it now stoodovas not whe-
•tiser Titus Oates was false or not, whether Charles the Second
was a Catholic, or whether the Catholics were unjustly de-
of their privileges or not, but it was, whether, because
they were Lords, they ought to be restored to their privileges.
instanter'? But if ever a time should. arise when such securi-
ties were offered as would be deemed sufficient in the opinion
vf his Right
,lion. Friend (Mr. Peel), and would induce him
to relax his opposition, then, and 'not, till then, would lie ac-
code to the concession.

. •
XL WETHERELL, after some preliminary observations,
aaid he would state the grounds on,which he_opposed the Bill,
acd he hoped the House would deeM then' such as fell Sped&
rally :within the limits of thepresent question. : It was a princi-
pal ground of objection with him that the N.ight Hon. Mover
had thought fit to insulate the particular branch of society, to
which the present Bill applied; froth the -aggregate of the Ca.
- community.--(Hcar 9,—He thought it :a bad principle
aLicli detached a part in this manner from the whole ; and, in
a case of general disability; gave' but a partial relief. He would
state his. reasons for oposing partial, isolated, and unjust
measure, The Right llon.Mover had stated as the foundation of
:-:is argument in support of the Bill, that the Act of Charles the
:`,4,arind, which excluded Catholic Peers from the House of
_Lords, originated in what he (Mr. W.) believed to be a fiction—
what he would call the huge lie of Titus Oates, and it was also
argued that, supposing the original cause was true, it had
ceased to exist. Another argument was, that the exclusion of
tua. Catholic Peers. from Parliament was not one of the funda-
eatal principles of the Revolution. He (Mr. W.) was ready
to admit that the Impelling cause of the enactment of the 30
Car_, 2, was the popular delirium, the magnus furor of the nation
at the time of the Popish plot;. yet, although the depositions of
Oates were false, yet that there was then an intention to re-esta-
bliah Popery on the part of the CoUrt, there was no doubt; for no
-sooner was the breath out of the body of Charles, who dared not
hitriself avow such tutention,-thana niessage came from the Court
of FrAZICe to know what was the force and thought of the Ca-
taelie party. It was therefore no reason that, because the mov.
• ir.:g cause ceased, the law should be discontinued, because there
might be other causes which required , the contiTluance of the
law, and with which it ought to be commensurate. As to the
a...xument, that the exclusion of the Catholic Peers was not one
oc the fundamental principles of the Revolution—if that could
be demonstrated, one of the chief grounds of his, opposi-
t*:an would be removed, wad the man who proved it would
have a chance of his humble vote. But he believed it was one
th.e revolutionary principles, and he alluded, in support of
that opinion, to a letter written in the reign of James the Second,
when that Monarch made an attempt to conciliate the Prince
and Princess of Orange,—(Hear, hear l)—with a view to stib-
vart the liberties of the country. The letter was written by
pensionary Fogel, who managed the correspondence on the part
o; their Highnesses, and was in answer to one of Mr. Stewart's,
•*rho acted for the King. The Hon. Member then proceeded
ta.read an extract from the letter, which stated that their High.
naases were ready to give their concurrence to the repeal of the
ems' LaWs against the Catholics, provided that thoSe laws
yer+e to remain la full force whereby Catholics were excluded