The Sun.
London, England, 1810-06-07 00:00:00

infringed. If the conduct of Members of Parlie;
went were sutfered to be discussed in every pet-
house and debating society, where would be the
bulwark of the Constitution?—Feeling this as ho
did, be had thought it his duty. to lend a hand to pre-
serve the corner-stone of the superstructure, and
save the foundation of the Constitution from being
destroyed.
Mr. JACKS wished to know if it could be wished
that those privileges contended for by the House of
Commons should be entrusted to the King or vested
in the House of Lords ? This they could pot wish,
as 'they might take them all to themselves.--
All
_privileges depended on precedents and long-.
established customs. The Law of Parliament, it
had been stated. by Coke, enabled them to decide
on questions which could not be decided by Com-
mon Law. . A similar opinion had been avowed
by Blackstone. If Coke and Blackstone were
worth attending to, the House of Commons, in
imprisoning Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Gale Jones,
had not aced in opposition to ." Magna Charta."
He then instanced the cases of Mr. Hall and Mr-.
Noble,•the last a member, and the case of another
individual, which he contended were parallel cases to
those of Sir Francis Btirdett and Mr. G. Jones. He
knew but little of the parties; fie knew Mr. Jones,
but from an account given of him by a " Mr. Por-
cupine," who had characterised debating societies as
sedulously disseminating the worst principles, and
spoken of Mr. Jones in the most contemptu-
ous manner, as being a mad-brained' fellow, then out
of prison on bail, brawling for toleration." After
some remarks on the'association of Sir F. Burdett
with the traitor Despard, and in. the opinion of
Lord Chatham on the subject of Parliamentary Re-
form, he observed that Sir F. Burdett had said a
great deal about going back to the good times of the
Constitution. In former times the City was much
inore oppressed than they were at present. In
France they had witnessed the effects of ;the doc-
trine 'Aid down on the. Rights of Man. If they
proceeded, as was proposed, the land-marks
of, the Constitution .would be annihilated, and
then, w.h6re the evils thence arising-might terminate
no one could say. He then spoke oft he evil effeas
likely, to -arise from the extension of the eledive
franchise, and asked if the present Membors of
Westtninster were not the representatives of St.
Giles's, Seven Dials, and other places where but lit-
tle property was to be represented. There never
was a period in the history of this country, be main-
tained, at which more civil and religious liberty was
enjoyed than at present. Could it then, at this pp-.
fiod, be wise
,to set son against father,-and father
against son in the 'cause of a speculative theory ?
'He was fiiendly to the shortening,- of the duration of
Parliament, provided the riot andt)con fusion now at-
tentliug elections could be prevented. Though be
was not averse to a moderate' Reform, be thought
this was not a moment at which it would, be pro-
per to convulse the public mind by agitating the
subject.
Mr. SLADE supported the motion.
A :Member, hose name we could' not learn, did
not approl.e of the motion, on account of the in-
: flAtutwstory langtiage made tio.: of. }lad it been
brought for .1 and in a more temperate way, he would
haws peen hippy to give it his support: •
• Mr. MAW MAN was perfectly satisfied that the late
conduct of the House of CorninenS was consistent
with the law of the land. in proof of this he cited
a passage from Coke, proving the House had a right
to commit for contempt. This being admitted, he
would ask any man, if 'Sir Francis Burdett, speaking
of the House of Commons as he did, ought not to
have been committed to the Tower? He thought
the public had a right to have a satisfactory explana-
Con from Sir Francis, as to the motives which in-
flueoced him in resisting the Order of the House;
through which so much evil had arisen. He cen-
sured the condoct of Sir Francis in endeavouring to
bring the House into contempt, and concluded ex-
pressing his disapprobation of the conduct of Mini--;
titers.

Mr. LUCAS was friendly to Constitutional Reform;
he would therefore move as an amendment, that all
the
„words of the original motion should be omitted
after the word " that," for the purpose of insert-
ing words to the following effect, " That this
Cow t, confident of the integrity of their Represen-
t tatives, are convinced that they will make every re-
' trenchtnent in the expences of the State, that can be
Made consistently with the safety of the country."
Mr. WAITLINIAN thought Reform was never so
• neceSsary.as at present, Air. Pitt and Mr. Fox had
been in favour of a Reform, as had been Mr. Tier-
ney, though now he was so much against it. Mr.
Tierney had drawn up an Addre!,s from, " the
Friends of the People," and he had moreover been
in favour of universal stiff age ; yet lately when the
subject' was brought forward, lie had sneered at their
wishes, saying, it you give them this, they will want
.something else, and so on without end; such was the
childish, ridictilous;.' and .wicked line of conduct by
him pursued. He (Mr. W.) then proceeded to
speak of the necessity of a reform, descanted at
length on the evils of the present.system, censured
Ministers in strong terms, and concluded supporting
the motion.

Mr. FAVELL was most heartily in favour of the.
motion.

,A Member objeaed to the amendment, but would
vote against that part of the addresss censuring Mi-
nisters of the Crown.

Mr. Quirt shortly replied, when the question was
put. A division took•place.
following Aldei men voted for the Petition, viz.

Mr. Alderman Comber Mr. Alderman Goodbchere.
Mr. Alderman J. I. Smith l‘lr: Ald. and ShelitlWood.

- Against the Petition :
Sir William Curtis' .Mr. Alderman Hunter
Sir John Earner , 11Ir. A !derma n' Christ. Smith
*ir James,Shaw Mr. Alderman and Sheriti.
Mr. Alderman Birch , Atkins'
Sir M. Bloxam Mr. Alderman' Jacob. -
.
, , ,
4 it RICIIIICII
For the Petition . . . S 1 Commoners
z Tellers.
87- •
9 A Idermen
Agai:nst the Petition . . 7o Commoners
2 Tellers. •
• ,`;1
Majority fur the Petition . 6

We are requested to contradi6t the statement,.
that a .Mr. Trotter; of Cambridgeshire, applied to
the Court of King's-Bench for au informatisu ugifiust
the Mig strates of that County.

.IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE' OF PEERS,

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6. ,
Mr. LUSRINGTON, Mr., KENR/CK, Sir .10FIX
GRAHAM, and others, brought up froM the Cotn
moos several Bills, among which were the Irish
Militia, the Adjutants' Militia, the Militia Pay, the,
Newfoundland Fishery, the Surveyor-General Re-
gulation, the Gas Lights Bill amended, and thit
Thames Navigation Bills.
THE CATHOLIC PETITIONS.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE rose, pursuant to,
- notice, to draw the attention of their Lordships to'
the prayer of the Irish Catholics'.Petitions, many of
which now lay on their Lordships' table. The sob..
je& which he had now to handle had already been
so frequently agitated,' that he Was sensible it must
have lost all the charm or novelty, and could not
expeB to be attended to but by those who would b 3
disposed seriously to consider it in the light of its
justice and 'policy. It had fallen to his lot, in
manner wholly unexpeCted.by him, to be the per-
son who should submit the prayer of these Petitions
to the consideration of their Lordships. He tho-
roughly felt how inadequate were his abilities to
perform the .ardunfis task ; but 'as be was called up-
on by so numerous and respeCtable. e class of his
fellow subjects to undertake.itia as a part of his peb-
lie duty, 'with that call he. deemed it,his duty to
comply. He bed heard much of the objections that
'would be urged against his Motion ; but he.was at a
loss to discover their force. In abe view which ha
had taken of the question; he could discover no -
Statute by which his Majesty's Catholic subjects
were excluded from the enjoyment of. their civil
rights. If he looked tq the 12th and lath of Wil-
harn, lehere it was supposed these disabilities were
iinpoied on the Catholics, he • saw no ground- upon--
-which they were. to be excluded from those rights.
.If he consulted the ACt of Settlement, or the Bill of
Rights, he found nothing to'authorise this exclusion. -
Ever since this- question came to be agitated in Par-
liament, from 1782 down to 1793, and from that
time up to the present period, the prejudices which
.preVailed against the Catholics were rapidly wearing
away, and a .Spirit of a more enlightened wisdom
and liberality began_ to be entertained in their favour.
This was but -just. observation and expee
rience had convinced him of the loyalty of his Ca-
aholie countrymen, and of their firm and -warm at-
tachment tohiS,Majesty's Government. He had to
laMent, indeed, that Since the question was last
under discussion; some fresh objeetions and obsta-
cles had arisen; which puzzled the minds of some
,men, and indisposed, perhaps, the minds of others;. -
but in' his• eyes, they had but litde weight ; acrd
they might, nb doubt, be easily retiaoved. On this
point, a letter had been written by..a Noble .Baron
(Lord Grenville) whose absence on the present oc-
casion, and particularly the cause of it, he sincere-
ly regretted. To the claims of the Catholics, that •
.distinguished Statesman had paid the most marked
attention, and no person can base taken a more
comprehensive and liberal view of the subje& than , •
that Noble Lord has clone. His letter had indeed
been misrepresented, oreanisitrterpreted by some,'
and by others, but only by those.of a violent dispo-
sition,- it has been treated with dithecorning and un-
deserved asperity. This was n6t the refer. widh
he was entitled to exec& for the Noble Baron still ,
retained the leading principles and sentiments which
have uniformly guided his conduel in this respeal.—
Among tire objections that are made to further con-
cession to the Catholics, the influence of the clergy
over the 'laity of their communion, and of tfe
hierarchy over the clerzy, have chiefly been insisted
upon. , He never bad ally opportunity of observing, .
that thiSinfluence, where it existed, was abused.--o,
Re should be guilty of the basest ingratitude, in-
deed, if he d;cl not acknowledge that he himself, in
the discharge of his public duty; had often felt. the
beneficial etfeas of that influence. He had always.
seen it exerted for the maintenance of the laws, and.
the preservation of tranquility, of good orders;
sometimes, indeed, he saw that it was exerted in
vain." For those who imagined that the Catholics of
Ireland now stood in such profound awe of their
clergy, were irlistakeo. He was sorry to say they
were; but it was now known and acknowledged.
that this influence- was greatly on the decline. It
should not therefore be held up as an objeetton of
such magnitude. The other objections did not
stand on a better ground. The Catholics had
wholly abjured all idea of temporal power in the •
Pope. They only considered. him as the spirimal
head of their church: which they were bound to do:
by the tenor of the Catholic faith. From that opi-
nion no inconvenience or danger could arise. We
Should therefore consider the Irish Catholics only in
the light of our le-flow-subjects; otaeying the same
Sovereign and the same laws; and as they were sub-
ject to the same restraints, candour and jostie°
ShoOld incline us to acknowledge chat they were ASO,
entitled to the same rights. Why then should the •
twb Houses of Parliament be, shut against them ?
Why should they be debarred from-aspiring to those
situations of honour and trust vrltich are the rewards _
of talents, industry, and integrity ? Instead of ,
curting any danger by granting what they now soli-
cit, in hii mind it would be 'the means of greater
security and strength. You would then have a
pledge of their loyalty,' uniolf, and of their cordial
co-operation in the common cause. On these grounds
it was that the question sltould be considered, and
on these grounds be should now beg leave to move,
that the general. Petition of thelrish Rotnan Catho;
lie Body, and the other Petition:l'i° the same
from separate classes of the same persuasion, be re•
(erred to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord CLANCARTY opposed the motion. Con-
cession had already gone a great way; nothing
scarcely had been omitted to conciliate the Catholics
of Ireland. He said, indeed his Majesty's reign has
been an uninterrupted course of concessions and
conciliatory means to that part of his subjects, but
conciliation supposed two 'dispositions—that on
those who are desirous to conciliate; and that of
those tO be conciliated—of his Majesty's disposition
to conciliate there could be no doubt after-such re-
heated proofs had been given of it. It now remain-
ed
to be seen whet- proofs of a reciprocal disposition
would be given by the Catholics. The No )le Eat-I
lies mentioned nothing on their readiness. O come
forward with these proofs.
L d ERSKINE, in an animated spe!ch, supports
,he motion. A paper was put in his.hand only