The Sun.
London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

DAILY

Extracts front the Murntag Papers, April 22,1825.
[BRITISH PRESS.]
The adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill was resumed last night, and continued
with great animation till three o'clock this morn.
ing, when the House became too impatient to
suffer the debate to be further prolonged, and the
division was called for. The numbers were-
-268 for the second reading of the Bill, and 241
against it. By a majority of 27, the principle of
this important measure has been sanctioned by
the Lower House of Parliament. It yet remains
to be seen whether the Upper House will concur
with this decision. The majority is certainly'
less than was expected ; sand as the success of
the Bill in the House of Lords was understood
to depend much on the numbers of the majority
by which it might be passed in the Commons, the
division of this morning leaves the question still
in considerable doubt. The debate last night
was opened by Mr. Goulburn in opposition to the
Bill. On the same side, Mr. Wallace spoke,
and Mr. Secretary Peel. The measure was sup-
ported by Lord Binning, Mr. Portman, Mr. Se-
cretary Canning, and Mr. Brougham. Mr. Little-
ton postponed till this evening his motion for
leave to bring in .a. 13111 for the disfranchisement
of the Irish Forty-shilling Freeholders.

[NEW TIMES.]
The Debate on -the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill was resumed last night in the House of Com-
mons. Mr. Goulburn continued his argument
against the Bill, and contended that the securi-
ties introduced were inadequate protection against
the danger, because the Catholics looked forward
to the period when the Crown would not be
worn by a Protestant, and the permanency and
inviolability of the Church Establishment in Ire-
land would be brought into .peril. The Right
Honourable Gentleman denied .that there had
been any improvement in the Roman Catholic
Religion, or any such approximation to the pure
doctrines of the Reformed Church, as had been
asserted ; and he concluded a long and able
speech, by declaring his decided opposition to
the measure. • Lord Binning took a different
view of the question, and spoke strongly
in favour of the Bill, maintaining that the
change in the doctrines of the Catholic Church
was proved by the testimony of 'the Ca-
tholic Prelates, and other witnesses. • The
Bill was opposed by Mr. Wallace, who spoke
at considerable length. He affirmed, that the
concession of the claims could not heal the evils
Ireland laboured under, and that the sacrifice of
a great constitutional principle, and conferring
political power on the Catholics, would pro-
ductive of infinite mischief. Several other Mem-
bers took a part in the Debate, and Mr. Canning
argued in favour of the measure in a most splen-
did and powerful speech, which rivetted the at-
tention, and commanded the admiration, of the
house. Mr. Peel delivered -a brilliant oration,
equally logical and profound against the measure;
when Mr. Brougham having spoken in it favour,
the House divided.

' [MORNING lIERALD.]
There were again last night many Petitions
presented to the Rouse of Commons on the sub-
ject of the Catholic Claims ; about four of them
beingin.favour of, and the- rest against further
concessions. The presentation of those Petitions,
and the conversations that arose on them, again
occupied several hours, -and the resumption of
the debate was thus prevented till a late hour.—
The Petition from some thousands of persons in
London and Westminster against the Bill, Alder-
man Wood took the opportunity of expressing
his conviction that a majority of the Metropolis
was decidedly favourable to the Catholic Claims;
and he added, that though he expected soon to
be sent to face his constituents, he would rather
forfeit his seat than vote against the just claims of
the Roman Catholics. Mr. Brougham immediately
and hastily rose, and expressed his high ad-
miration of the gallant declaration of his Ho-
nourable Friend the worthy Alderman. Such
language, he said, was the way to meet threats.
The eulogium pronounced by Mr. Brougham
excited " lively movements in the Cham-
ber ; " there was a considerable merriment
occasioned 'by it in every part of the House.—
Mr.-Calcraft followed with observing, that if the
country could have been relied upon for " No
Popery " Petitions, there would have been pub-
lic meetings enough all over the Kingdom.
Wherupon Sir E. Knachbull replied, that there
was really no satisfying some .Gentlemen, for had
it been attempted to promote ptiblic meetings on
the subject, instead of leaving the people to their
spontaneous feelings, to petition or not petition,
as they pleased, then it would have been pro-
claimed that the only object was to endeavour
again to raise the " No Popery" cry. Mr. Goal-
burn, at rather a late hour in the evening,
moved that the debate. on the Catholic Relief
Bill be resumed ; and he then addressed the
House at considerable length against the Bill.
lie was followed by several speakers, Lord
Valletort being one of them ; and he, like Mr.
Brownlow, said he had been made a convert
by the evidence to the opinion that the Bill was
just and politic. Mr. Canning then addressed
the House, stating that he feared at a later
period in the evening he might not be able to do
justice to his .sentiments. Mr. Canning com-
plained that the Petitions against the Bill were
characterised by a good deal- of " ignorance " of
the real question in issue, and that the Clergy

[TI E TI M ES.]
After a long debate, which did not terminate
till three this morning, the second reading of the
Catholic Relief Bill was carried, by a majority
of 27, in the fullest House which, we believe,
ever divided on this question, no less than 509
Members having been present. In 1813, Mr.
Grattan's Bill, which was afterwards lost in the
Committee, was read a second time by a majority
of 42, in a House consisting of 448 Members. In
1821, Mr. Plunkett's Bill passed the second
reading in consequence of a majority of 11, in a
House of 497 Members, and was read a third
time and passed, by a nrajenity of 19, in a House
of 413 Members. It was afterwards thrown
out in the Lords, by a majority of thirty-
nine out of 279 voters. We shall make no
other remark on the debate at present, than to
say that its character was more theological than
political, and that too much discussion was
wasted on what appears to us a very irrelevant
topic—the individual merits of Dr. Doyle and
his fellow-witnesses before the Parliamentary
Committee. The great question of Catholic
Emancipation must be decided by its compati-
bility with the safety of the Protestant Constitu-
tion, even allowing the possibility of the wish to
subvert it, and not by the sincerity or insincerity
of the professions of a few of its leaders, whether
ecclesiastical or civil. It is because we conscien-
tiously believe the British Constitution to have
strength to support itself against all possible de-
signs of its internal enemies, whether open or in-
sidious, that we wish the grand experiment of
emancipation, founded as it is on justice, and
resonunended by expediency, to be tried without
further delay. Let the Catholics feel themselves
to be free, and we shall have.no great apprehen-
sion that they will be at once so ungrateful and
so insensible to the value of the dignity of free-
dom and equal rights, as to exert themselves to
overthrow that Constitution which every enlight-
ened mind in the world, of whatever faith, looks
to with respect, and regards as the great example
for general imitation. But if they should be so
stupid and 50 base as to attempt its overthrow,
still less do we fear that they will be able to
prevail against the determined energy of British
Protestants, who feel an equal pride and affection
for their faith, as the offspring of manly inde-
pendence of thought, and the nurse and protec-
tress of civil liberty. This being our conviction,
we sincerely wish success ton measure reasonable
and just to those for whose benefit it is intended,
and of undoubted present expediency, without
probable future harm, to those by whom the be-
nefit is conferred.