The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

Hon. Member stated his cordial concurrence with the prayer
of the Petition.

Mr. WODEBOUSE baring bad to present a Petition of a
contrary nature fans' the some Diiierke, and signed by
Clergymen, begged to state, that he could not agree with Ilk
[lon. Colleague in the pre.erit one. He regret-
ted that the terra I.igut had been used 4y either party in the
recent discussion.
_

The,Petition was ordered to be printed.
Lord PALNlERSTON'presented a Petition from the Uni-
versity of Cambridge against the Catholics' 11 11. The Peti-
tioners viewed with the greatest apprehension the admission
of persons holding the Roman Catholic religion to
power. They considered that it would he striking at the su-
premacy of the King, and consequently at the most ancient
rights and prerogatives of the Crown. The Noble Lord stated
his regret at ditieling with the setts intents of his constituents;
but as he saw no danger in irlieving the disqualifications of
the Roman Catholics, it was his intention to support the Bill;
and if it passed, as he hoped it would, the day on which it
received the Koval Assent would he a most auspicious one for
the interests of the whole empire. It was fair to state that the
petition had not lietuitmanimously agreed to,but that although
it was opposed, it certainly expressed the opinions of the ma-
joi it y of the t !niverit V.
Mr. SMITI I corroLorated what had fallen from his Noble
Colleague relative to the division which existed in the Uni-
versity upon the merits of the present question. He trusted,
that throughout the discussion of the measure; the different
parties would act' Upon the principle of mutual forbearance;
and that whatever decision the House might eventnally arrive
at, it would be the result of calm deliberation.—The petition
was ordered to be printed.
Lord E. SOMERSET presented a Petition from the Clergy
-of Stow, in Gloucestershire, against the Bill for removing- Ca
tholic disabilities.—Ordered to be ',tinted..
Mr. C. GRANT Oesented a Petition from Roman Catholic
merchants in the town of Galway in favour of the Bill for
removing Roman Cat holic disabilities.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir E. KNAT(IIIIIILL presented a Petition against the
Bill from Tunbridge lVells.—Ordered to lie printed.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD presented a Petition in favour of
the Bill from the !lonian Catholics of Tratee.
ROMAN CATHOLICS' BILL.

Mx. PLUNKLTT intended to trespass upon the
time of the House, but a very short time indeed.
He had but too lately experienced a very ample
portion of the kindness of the House, to engage
much of its attention upon the present occasion.
His object was merely to put the House in pos-
session of the outline, and not the detail of the
Bill, which he had had the honour to introduce.
When he first took the liberty of declaring his
opinions to the House, he stated that he brought
forward the measure with one primary object,
that of doing a great public good. And although-
he then disavowed the influence of any motives
regarding the irritation which prevailed in the
country, yet he did express a hope, that if
the measure was a just one, as he believed it to,
be, that immediate satisfaction to the country
would be the effect produced. He had the
greatest pleasure in stating, that since the resolu-
tion which the House had come to on that occa-
sion, the' expectations in which he then ventured
to indulge, had beef► more than realized. The
effect of that resolution upon the country had far
exceeded his most sanguine hope. But those
would do him the greatest injustice• who thought
that he harboured the chimerical idea of giving
satisfaction to all parties. There were indeed
some persons with whom he would not attempt
such a thing, inasmuch as he knew that to be sa-
tisfied, was the greatest misery imaginable.—
(A laugh.)—To those he did not wish to address
himself, as he was aware that argument would
never convince them. And if the measure he
proposed were carried to-morrow, they would be
as well pleased as if it were rejected altogether.
—(A laugh.)—He deprecated what had been
said by an Hon. Member, taxing him with hav-
ing applied the charge of bigotry to those who
opposed the present measure., He never could
have used the epithet for, than such a line of
conduct or of argument, nothing was more fo-
reign 'from his heart. The party who opposed
him, he considered to have an undoubted right to
his utmost respect4and deference. The opinions
which he himself cherished must be his errors ;
and no man in the universe was more ready to
yield them, if he could be convinced of their
fallacy. For himself, and in behalf of his Friends,
it was , necessary to declare that they had pro-
ceeded in all transactions connected with the
measure, with the greatest deference to all Pro-
testant communications, giving free access to all
argument which might be offered on the subject.
They had recurred to the sufferings cif the Roman
Catholics—they had recusred to the feelings of
the Protestants; always keeping in mind that
nothing should be yielsled which would con-
tinue the one, and nothing asked that might be
inconsistent with the other. The state of the
public mind in Ireland upon the progress which
the measure had made was most gratifying.—
The public mind in England, according to the
Hon. Member for Somerset, was in a state of
apathy. But that which he so called apathy,
was what he (Mr. Plunkett) called a disposition
to leave the case in the hands of Parliament as
its most natural and its best judges, and not to
disturb its deliberations by unnecessary clamour.
He should now proceed to one of the exact pro-
visions of the Bill. Before doing so, however,
he wished to set himself right in the opinion of
the Douse upon what fell from him upon a pre-
vious occasion. He did assert that the franchises
and offices of the State were the free right of every
Roman Catholic liege subject of the realm. lie
did state that they could not be excluded from
those offices upon the just elements and principles
of the Constitution. He now re-asserted, that in
the same" sense as a Protestant claimed that eligi-
bility as a right, so also did the Roman Catholic
claim it. But he said nothing was so absurd as
that these rights were not liable to be restricted
or controlled if any expediency or necessity of
the State should call for it. If any just cause
could be shewn why they ought not to enjoy
those rights, then the Roman Catholic must yield.
But he did say, and he would repeat, that the
natural right existed as much in the one as in
the other. He begged to ask, where the Protes-
tant founded his claim to the right of voting for
a Member of Parliament, or of sitting in Parlia-
ment himself? Where was it written? He knew not
where he would find it, except in the same source
which also gave it to the Roman Catholic ; namely,
the essence, the elements, the stamina of the Con-
stitution. All the difference between the two
bodies was this :—the Roman Catholic, by the
Act of Chas. 11. had been excluded from the en-
joyment of those rights. Aud did he deny the
authority ? No ? he said that temporary circum-
stances of danger rendered it necessary. The
Monarch upon the Throne was suspected of Ca-
tholicism, and the acts were necessary as a de-
fence. But these (hangers were now passed away.
There was no snspectedMOnarch upon the Throne,