The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Sir E. WILMOT gave notice, that on the 20th February
he would move for leave to introduce a Bill for the Summary
Conviction of Juvenile Offenders.

Mr. FAZAKERLY brought up the Report of th© Poor-
law Committee.

EXCLUSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM
PARLIAMENT.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from certain Pro-
testants resident in London, agreed to at a late meeting at
Exeter Hail, in which the petitioners stated that they regarded
the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power as con-
trary to Christian duty and to the principles and character of
the -British Constitution.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) They
stated, that by the Act which was passed in 1829 for the ad-
mission of Roman Catholics into l'arliament, it was provided
that they should swear to defend the property of the country
as settled by law : and, moreover, to disavow, abjure, and so-
lemnly disclaim any interference with the Established Church.
The petitioners stated, that notwithstanding the security con-
veyed by this solemn oath, Roman Catholic Members had voted
for the appropriation of Church property in Irelaad, and the
subtraction of Church-rates in England. They had, moreover,
expressed their desire that all religious establishments he abo-
lished, and that religion be left for support to the voluntary prin-
ciple. The petitioners stated that as the security provided by
the Act of 1829 had been found to be inefficacious, they hoped
the House would provide some other safeguard for the Esta-
blished Church and the Constitution, and with this view that
they would exclude from Parliament persons of the Roman
Catholic persuasion, and take such other steps as to them
might appear necessary to effect this object. The Hon. Mem-
ber said, that he was free to confess, that with respect to the
prayer of this petition he had been always of one opinion, and
nothing that had since occurred either inside or outside that
[louse could induce him to alter it, namely, that it was highly
impolitic and inexpedient to admit Roman Catholics to Parlia-
ment , and he therefore concurred in the sentiment of the Petition.

Mr. W AKL E Y said that a short time ago, in consequence
of an intimation from the chair, and in consequence also of
understanding that it was the sense of the House, he with-
drew a [(niacin shich contained an expression deemed to be
offensive to the other House of Parliament. He considered
it his duty on that occasion to yield to the tense of the House.
He thought on all occasions it was most unfortunate when
petitions contained any expressions which might be deemed
derogatory to the honour of either House of Parliament ; but
in the case of tho petition presented by the Honourable
Member opposite, the petitioners as plainly as words could
express, imputed perjury to a large body of the Members
of this House.—( Hear, hear, licar.) He was sure the
Hon. Gentleman himself was too candid to deny that such
Imputation was cast upon a large body of Hon. Members ;
and the petition, moreover, prayed that between six and se-
ven millions of our fellow-subjects should be disfranchised. It
was impossible to olject to the reception of the petition on the
ground of its prayer ; but when petitioners stated that a body
of Gentlemen in this House—Members representing an im-
mense number of the British community—had been guilty in
the discharge of their duty of the heinous crime of perjury, it
behoved the character of the House, if it had any feeling for
the reputation or honour of the country, not to receive such a
petition.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PL UMPTRE could only say, in answer to what tine
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wakley) had stated, that the
petitioners considered that the security intended to be given
by the Act of 1329 had not been a sufficient security. He
thought they did not mean to reflect on the character of the
Members of this House—(Hear)—and conceived there Was
nothing in the language or prayer of the petition to exclude
it from being received by the House.
Mr. HO ItSM AN understood the petitioners to avow, that
the conduct of Hon. Members was not consistent with the
securities given. He might have misunderstood the Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plumptre), but he understood such
to be the averment of the petitioners, and that they distinctly
impugned the conduct of certain Members of this House. The
Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that it referred to the
general question, and not to the Members of the House. The
Hon. Member for Finsbury thought it did impugn the conduct
of Members. If that was the case, the objection taken was
in full force.

Mr. PLUMPTRE said the better way would be to read
the petition. There could be no objection to that.
The petitio❑ was then read at length by the Clerk to the
H.)use.

Mr. WA KL E Y observed that it was quite clear the lion.
Member for Kent had properly interpreted the sentiments of
the petition, A clearer imputation of perjury against any body
of men had never been made in that House, and he should
therefore move, as an amendment, that the petition be rejected.
Colonel P. BUTLER seconded the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS believed the present would be the first in-
stance of a petition, couched in the respectful language of that
now upon the table of the House, being rejected.—( Hear,
hear.) He felt satisfied that petitions of a similar import had
. been frequently presented to that House, and it was not by
the construction that any Hon. Member might put upon it
that the petition was to be judged. It was needless for him
to conceal the view which he (Sir R. Inglis) took upon the
subject, but he assured the House that he was not aware of
what the petition contained, or from whom it emanated,
until it had been read by the clerk at the table. He would
now contend that the petitioners were strictly in order.
They alleged certain facts, and left it to the House
to adopt its own conclusions. The petition stated that
in the year 1829, a certain measure passed that House, ac-
companied by certain securities, and it stated that these secu-
rities had proved utterly inefficacious for their purpose and
object. Did the Hon. Member for Finsbury deny that such
securities were given ?—or would he deny, in the second place,
that such securities had proved utterly inefficacious ? Had
they or bad they not done anything to alienate the property of
the Church? If he denied that, then he (Sir R. Inglis) could
undertand him. The allegation in the petition was that they
had been instrumental in alienating the Church pro-
perty, and the petitioners stated that so long as such con-
duct was adopted, the security which had been given
had proved inefficient, and they prayed that the House
would adopt some measure to render it effective.—( Hear.)
In his opinion nothing whatever was stated in the petition that
could justify the House in refusing to receive it.
Mr. WALLACE said, that it appeared to him that the
petition stated that as a fact which really was not so. Nobody
could doubt that the allegations in the petition went directly
to verify what had been stated by the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury. In his opinion, no language could be stronger to
convey the allegation of perjury against the Roman Catholic
Members than that which was used in the petition. The
class of Members to which the petition adverted,
instead of doing that which it was alleged, they
had done all that; they could do in assisting that side of the
House to improve the condition of the Church. He believed
that all the statements in the petition were utterly futile and
groundless. The Roman Catholic Members, together with
the other gentlemen on that side of the House, had done all in
their power to remove from the Church of England all the
abuses which existed in it. This being his opinion, he should
support the motion for the rejection of the petition.
Lord E BRINGTON agreed with his Hon. Friend who
had spoken last, that the allegations of the petition
were utterly false and groundless in all their charges, both as
applying to the Roman Catholics and the other Members on that
side of the House. At the same time, he was one who had al-
ways been an advocate for extending the greatest possible latitude
to the receipt of petitions, and nothing except a strong feeling
that the statements and charges in the petition were
so wholly groundless and so plain, as to leave no possible
doubt as to what their interpretation was, would induce him
to vote for the rejection of a petition. lie must, however,
confess, that the present petition appeared to him to
go nearer to charge the Catholic Members with
perjury than any he had ever yet. seen ; because it
stated in plain language that a certain body of the Mem-
bers of that House had taken an oath to preserve to the
utmost of their power the Church Establishment, and yet that
in defiance of that oath they had voted for measures which
had a direct tendency to cripple the Establishment. They
stated certain facts, and they. they put their own interpretation
upon them. lie felt great doubt whether it would be to the-
advantage of the House to set the precedent of rejecting a