The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-10 00:00:00

P;Plg4*

gain 1°
di
or givl"'

i-benchl
nolerosou
eebes
,e4l, we
Oman

be sap
)enightL
ours
riti9l) 03.0
•iptes.
Ifood, )01.11
9 of itreio-
y thing 0,,
IY
,e freq.-0
nd Klye ti
n
lb i 90,"
P•go "
ithe oro
use re° c
would 0°

),J

tient --If this were true there would be an end of the
<llaesl4on.;i+OP.,ar.)-*Snet: cnnieqUenteNit once sets aside
all questions of justice, all questiou of expediency, and
,t•enders it unfit almcAtto discuss even the grounds which
can be assigned for the measure. But I cannot bring my-
self so to view, this, question. I cannot bring myself to
think that it is a principle.of the Constitution to exclude
!=ny man from a fair participation in civil office, unless you
clearly establish the fact, that during the whole time
• for, which you dos° exclude him, you cannot/safely admit
'.hits, to office. But such a.systein of exclusion is so foreign
frOuithe genius of the Constitution,. that you ought care-
fully to look at the grounds. upon which, in particular
cites, such an exception from our general practice has
been established ; and unless you can -demonstrate that in
. the pat ticular,case it has been founded in justice or reason-
., able precautioo,
.it is impossible to maintain that it is a
ilefensibLeyrinciple, Now, my Lords, I would-be glad to
know upon what argument, it is to be contended that the
exclusion of the Catholic Peers from seats in this House
iS a principle of our Constitution, if it be necessary to
prove it a principle of our Constitution, that the ex-
clusion itself should be recognized as, just ? What led
to their exclusion, my Lords? Was it any crime they
had committed; was it the proof of any wrong thing
Which. they had done ; any thing which was .the result
of deliberation on their part, of some well concerted act?
(Hear, hear.) Why it was struck out at a heat, as it
were, and in consequence of one of the most infamous Acts
that ever disgraced the Legislature of the country.—(Hear
hear.) And what is it, my Lords, that you would do
now? You deprive of an undoubted right those Catholic
Peers, They had an hereditary right to seats in this
House, as strong and indefeasible as any of us who are
now here. On what principle do you justify their cond.
• nued exclusion from that right, unless you can assign some,
ground of adequate necessity for it ?—(Cheers.) If you
„.,!ay that their exclusion is justified by that course of illegal
„proceedings which was, .about a century and half ago,
wound up by the judicial murder of one of those unfortu-

- - ;
nate Peers,whotad been thus unjustly excluded, I reply that it
is no part of that Constitution, which I was about to call
"blessed," when I remember that act of iniquity, and their
: ,: exclusion, and which, on all other eccounte, I tvill still call
' • ~,tilessed... I contend that that, which as au original act was
i-,..nnjust and, oppressive, _has become ten times more so by
continuance. But, we were told, to-night, that the exclu-
.i
• . eliein s, in,effeet, no degradation to. those who suffer under
•'-r it- Ido not, know, that the mere fact of exclusion, is, in
' ' iteelf, a degradation; and a thousand reasons may be elle-
• gedto,prove•that a man may occasionally labour under a
Political disability without anything of a discreditable or
adishonourable nature having happened on his part. But
•• , What is the case here? You exclude persons because, as
YGLI admit, you cannot trust them, you have, in effect, de-.
. .: ,dared, that you cannot believe them ; for that they owe a
divided allegiance, as it is termed--a poiut to which I
shall come bye. and bye. I ant now speaking of the exclu-
. siou of Catholic Peers from this house. Now, to suppose
"that men, with the feelingS of gentlemen, can experience
i' any other than a sense of perpetual degradation and 'mai-
. fication, because we cannot trii,t them, but think that they
will conspire to effect the ruin of their country, really ap-
pears to me quite idle. Iris impossible there can be any-
thing more mortifying to men who can look back to a long
line of attesters, and to the glorious acts they have perfor-
naed, only to sigh over
,their own melancholy fate, that has
put them Out, of a condition to confer similar benefits upon a
' country, to whiCh, in spite ()fits injusticeto them, I believe
, •,, in my conscience thet,they still retain the most loyal and cone
stitutional itschment.—(Chfers,) If this.system, however
of perpetual exclusion from the Legislature and civil office,'
• be: an internal principle of the Constitution, we are at this
-, moment not living under that Constitution. In 1797, you
gave. to. the poor miserable peasantry of Ireland—the most
unfit depositories , you could have found ofran elective
' franchise—the power of-returning Members to Parliament;
' - and yet you will not give a simihr power to thole who are
capable.of discharging such duties, in a way not liable, to
the same objections. The same power you permit, in its.
0 full exercise, to 4t?. freeholders, to whom you extend the
'Privilege of returning almost all the representatives of Ire-
land, you will not concede to the Catholic Peers of the
United` Kingdona.:—(Hear, hear.)---could any thing be
`more inconsistent than such a mode of proceeding ? You
have taken another singular step,. my Lords, for by a very
recent Aet;_thOugh you will not hear of. Catholics coming
- auto civil-office, you give .them the. power of the second
Bill in the army and: navy ; and surely in-these servieessif
they wereedispoeed to prejudice or injure the State, ,they
might do so, at least, as effectually as in civil office. You
t , recently thought it advisable, my Lords, to alter the law .as
far as it relates to commissions in the army and navy, and
..' 4n-wet say, that though I think it a wiseouid just measure,
• hind one that reflects the highest credit and honour on the
parliament which -carried it into effect, yet that even that
leaves the Roniaiv Catholic in a state of greet humiliation.
For, my Lords,Aliougli he may'liaVe perrormed "the most
' brilliant services-;-although he may Lave earned the thanks
of his country and of this -Ifouse—although he may have
' *on the Afilitary Order of,the *Bath, yet, my Lords, he
~ cannot enter your order. There are many illustrious indi-
viduals whom I see around me, whose peerage is entirely
°wing to their military-achievements, and without pre-
tending to analyie their feelings, I cannot but say, that I
Should think it must be deeply painful to them to see those
• individuals, who had earned the same glory, and who had in-
curied.the game danger with themselves, yet unable, on ac-
',ount of their religion, to take their seat, as the cooetunnaa-
time of all their honours, or to transmit to their posterity some
glorious title as a token of the kindness anti. favour of their
41lowecountrymen, and of the reward that was consi-
dered due to their distinguished services. For myself,
I cannot consider the connection between the Roman Ca-
tholics of Ireland and the See of Rome to be such as it has
~ ' been represented. It has been argued by a Rt. Rev. -Prelate,
and by a Noble and Learned Lord,. that the allegiance dOe
from the Roman Catholics to the Pope rendered them unfit
to fill the higher offices of,the State ; and if I, dissent from
the opiniOn of those noble-persons I am sure, they will do
me the justice to believe that-I am not disposed to treat any
targement that could have Wien from them except with that.
respect which might be expected front our relative eitua••
' I lions. But I confess I never could understand that argue' ~ 'tient of a divided allegiance, which, in my mind, applies
, . eles nully to Roman Catholic as to Protestant. The Right
Rey. Prelate says truly, there is no question of a division
.'•' of allegiance in Catholic countries ; because, though the
•,,lisople acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope as far as
;Near& their spiritual concerns, the Sovereign owes him
:,,tbe same deference ;, and we know, my Lads, by history
~,the
experience, that however absolute may be the spiritual
!htillE'giance which the Roman Catholic subject owes to the
, 4-ope, it is but of -small regard to the temporal interests of
',.the State, or to the 'power of the Sovereign. It does not
f'4ilow that a Catholic Prince should acquiesce in the gene-
. till interrence 'of the Pope with his temporal concerns.
i '°n.the- contrary,. we have many instances in modern times
Of Catholic Princes struggling successfully agaiost the power
of the Catholic Church. In Germany, Joseph 11., who
, ‘vae in one sense a great reformer, took extremely violent
' Illeasures against the Catholic Church ; yet upon the Pope
4, irceelf he lavished all the civility and attention ihat could
• 4 conceived. He even had his Holiness at Vienna, and
titiled- hint his holy father. Still, my Lords, he persisted
doing, that which was extremely displeasing to his holy
lather; and yet in all this he was never influenced.or inter-
, telljatecf by any representatiou on the part of his eehjeets,
.14 the pope knew that thottglt he might . make addresses
',4ld give forth hiss neeudates, that it would not do—that
tlis Power was not what it had been. In former days, in-
,eeci, it was
_widely different ; but times have been 'melt
!tiered since Popish power could exercise an - uncontrolled
' `4lfluenve in any part of Europe. The Pope .is not now,
bik4 in days of yore, tleit awful divinity, posn6siog all the
14.°perties and attributes of the heathen J../Itit4l—'
I.,‘ee vitef, ir;tedia ni;nl.)K;ira in mete, corusca
Kilirniut inolitur deictia. QuO maxima mote.
, Terra treinit : Fugete fern'; et mortalia cords
, The Per. gentes hurMti;_stravit payer."
still .. .
tt e.,--he resides in
le Pope still sits upon the same
...awl
.':,e same Vatican -e-he is still surrounded by the same array
i," Vendinals and the sense Council de Propaganda Fide—
tot? he is no longer the same all individual. His;
Cy shows let that for tbe last 130 years his power hae
474 suffe.ring a gradual dieeadience. It would he idle for
.111; u enter into, details; 0,0 lilt pg. Wok tO oil the cases of
etl.',,,te that have occat•red in Europe, and we shall find
AC to , do with
tt:`._ recently religions dissensions had iambi
iee°4.; and, going a little ferther heck, that they had own_
4:-tat.wely little, Ile Pope, it is perfectly clear, has had
t,hing to do with the convulsions which lately agitated
d„:°Pe. In short, the Pope is not the Pope of former
tlIZ'• And why is he not? It is owing, I Will say,
wa4ll the phrase is prtescribed,, mad though it is al-
' .14"1 greeted tenth e sercasne and sneer, to the march
IVoulTerleet ; , iet the .march of intellect,—which it
sad be he ' teasy to by the force of
eeera pa as arrest
ti and sarcasm, as it would be to stop an inuuds-
ori, , .
th 4 44 the Nile with the palm of your hand—for it it
fejti'eth of knowledge, ei experience, end of truth, which
to e"-s natinns at well at individealsageinet all the dangers
•Zreaded from ignorance and superstition. , Having
telei,:ansendrauch, I will t trouble your Lo
I shall content
.Ysele •
the t, , with. an obset ration upon the objection raised by
N° precedent of the Council to the proposition of my
te„ Friend. The President of the Council objects to
w".ls,toPosition, that it is of too general a nature, and he
usnea that h • • •
lho ek it ed been more s,peerfic. Now,. it so happens,
' '''g4tOestion hate been.brought before.,your•Lordeliips

several times in the latter form, and always with the same
fate.- - Some Bills were 'certainly 'made to embrace the
whole question, hut others only, partially, artl there was
one which it COiti'd 'dot have been supposed that the
most 'timid *person' Would 'have received with the slight-
est hesitation. It was short, simple, and just, and
proposed merely to put the_ Roman Catholic:4 of Eng-
land upon the same. footing with, these of Ireland.-e..
No objection could be made to it, and I believe, in fact,
no objection was made to it, still.it was rejected upon the
plea that Might lead to farther measures. The next
Bill was 'confined to giving Catholic Peers the right to take
those seats in this House to which they are entitled by de-
scent.• But this too, was rejected, and upon the same ar-
gument—namely, that it would be unwise, to suffer it to
pass, lest it might ultimately lead to the general question.
Thus was the injustice perpetuated. The. general ,ques-
floc was at length brought befiire your Lordships
in two Bills,---ene in 1821 the other in 1825, neither of
which I believe ever got beyond a secondd, reading, so, that
your Lordships never had an opportunity of , arriving at a
knowledge of those securities which might have bees
offered upon the part of the Roman Catholics, and which
are so strongly insisted upon by certain Noble Members of
your Lordships' Mouse. Thus it is my'Lords, that year
after year Bills for the relief of the Catholics are thown
out for want of those securities which nobody seems. to
understand, and it Would almost seem, from .what has
passed, that no measure ever can be carried except such a
one as, in the first instance, shall succeed in pleasing and
satisfying all. But, MY Lords, I cannot avoid drawing
one favourable omen from the speech and arguments of the
President of the Council; it is, that, sooner or later, this
great question must make good its way.through your Lord-
ships' House. The evidence of every day's experience in
society shews us thatit is gaining ground : and I sincerely
hope and trust, that, if it be negatived upon the present oc-
casion, it will be its last defeat, as well for the advantage
and security of England, as for the sake of an unhappy, en-
lightened (and if this measure were once passed), invin-
cible, and, I might add, inestimable portion of his Ma-
jesty's dominions.
Earl St. VINCENT said he thought our military esta-
blishment-wall as much at .variance with the Constitution
of the country as what is called -Papal Supremacy. He
.concurred. heartily with the preposition of the Noble
Marquis. . -
The Duke of GLOUCESTER said—As I have never
before taken part in your Lordships' discussions upon this
subject, I rise for the purpose of saying a few words.--
There are so many of your Lordships who have already
spoken, and so many more that are no doubt anxious to
do so, that it_may appear-unnecessary for me to do more
than give a silent vote ; but after having bestowed the
most mature and attentive consideration' upon the question,
1 do not conceive I should do my duty were I not to ex-
press my most cordial concurrence in the proposition
of my Noble Friend. And, my Lords, if after mature
attention and anxious consideration, I could have brought
my mind to believe that either the Constitution or
the Church, :which my family brought over to this
country, was likely to be injured in the pursuance of
this course, nothing would for a moment induce me to sup-
port,it ; but as the result of my deliberate inquiry has been
to lead sue to a different conclusion, and as I can see no
danger to the rights and privileges of the Church, but, en
the contrary, the greatest danger to its security and prospe-
rity, in :.not granting to the Roman Catholics the boon
fur which they, pray, I cannot but give my cordial sup-
port to My Noble Friend's motion. I Must, however, ex-
press my hope, that whenever a Bill upon this subject
shall be entertained by your Lordships, that it will he con-
sidered whether some arrangement might not he made with
the See of Rome, by which his Majesty might enjoy the
same power over the Roman Catholic, Church in Ireland
that lie does over the Ronsish church in'llanover; arid that
-41 feet, all the Continental sovereigns enjoy over the Ito--
.Inish Church in their dominions. I trust, too, that some
provision will be made out of the public funds for the
Roman Catholic priests, which may have the effect of giv-
ing them.. an interest. in the welfare of the State---iwhich
may do,away with the. dissatisfaction now existing from
the payment of tithes—and conduce to the security and
prosperity of the country,
The Bishop of LINCOLN thought that whenever the
struggle for emancipation was at an end, the struggle for
the Chinch Establishment would begin. He judged from.
the authotitY of a Noble and Learned Lord who lately
held a high situation in Ireland, and from the opinions ex-
pressed by Dr. Doyle, and others of the Catholic hierarchy,
that the Protestguat Church Establishment would he endan-
gered -by emancipation. He agreed with Dr. Doyle in
thinking that this measure would not tranquillize the
country. Looking to the common temptations of our na-
ture—looking to the circumstances under which the Ro-
man Catholics. were. placed—looking to the characters of
those who appear to influence their movements—he could
not help thinking Abet the proposed measure would, if car-
ried, stimulate diem to substitute their own for the esta-
blished religion. The . Right Rev. Prelate here proceeded
to contend at considerable length, that the Catholic reli-
gion had undergone no change from its humiliation and
adversity ; that it was still as opposed as ever to all other
creeds ; and that the profeasors of it never could rest con-
tent while another religion was the established religion of
the State. He should be glad to say now, as on,the ques-
tion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, that
.no danger would attend concession; but every thing con-
vinced him that the cases were not only not similar, but
that in the latter there was no risk, while the farmer
would be attended with imminent danger to the Protestan
Church.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND rose to oppose the motion
before their Lordship from a conviction that concession
would probably produce evil and could effect no good.
Their Lordships had heard from Noble Lords that night
divers opinions' respecting the results that would follow the
repeal of the existing laws. Now if it were doubtful that
concession would tranquillise Ireland, he was quite certain
it would create disturbance in this country.—(Hear.)—
He had been accused: of being a bigot--but even though
the imputation should be perpetuated by his vote on that
occasion, he would- not shrink from heartily and conscien
tiously protesting -
against the Resolution before their Lord-
shiP%—(Cheers.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY condemned the in-
consistency of Noble Lords on that momentous subject.
The time we lived in was the age of change. We saw
Noble Lords come down to Parlitunent one year to recom-
mend and support measures, and the year following to op-
pos,. them. Re stood himself in that situation, for he was
not prepared to support the motion before their Lordships.
Relying as he did on the confidential servants of the Crown,
and in his allegiance to the Noble Duke at the head of the
Administration—(A laugh)—.he was convinced that the
earliest moment would be seized for setting the question at
rest. He was quite sure that the time would arrive when
the Legislature would be imperatively called upon either to
adopt the resolution before their Lordships, or •to enact
some other measure calculated to, tranquillize Ireland. The
Noble Marquis who had introduced the question had ex-
pressed his anxiety for its success--but the Noble Marquis
had not evinced similar anxiety when himself in office, or
he might have carried the measure. In all that the Noble
Lord had said, however, in recommendation of concession,
he fully concurred, and hoped, ere long, to see it carried ;
convinced that it would do more towards tranquillizing Ire-
land than any other that could be devised.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF opposed the resolution,
convinced that the admission of Roman Catholics to far-
ther power would be the signal for the overthrow of the
Protestant ChOrch of Ireland. If, therefore, he was not
prepared to adopt the sequel, be was not prepared to con-
cede the preliminary measure. Until the influence of the
Church of Reme upon its adherents could be securely pro-
vided against in a Protestant State, the danger from di.
vided allegiance was unquestionable; and until that could
be satisfactoiily obviated—until some measi re calculated to
satisfy all •parties, and give security to the Protestant Esta-
blishment, be found, he was of opinion that no further con-
cession should be made.
The Ear! of DARTMOUTH could have little hope that
this measure would produce those beneficial consequences
which its advocates anticipated. He considered the success
of that measure would be only a step,towards the establish-
ment of Catholic oupremacy in Ireland.
The cries of Question !, Question !" here became
lLoourdd,
Canhdanno
e;lNorobpluet
the
Lord rising to address the House, the
question—upon which
The Earl of CARNARVON rose to support the resolu-
tion, and to reply to the arguments of the Noble Marquis
opposite. The Noble Marquis had once, been the stomach
advocate of concessions to the Catholics, and he (Lord
C.) would ask, how it had happened, that if the Noble
Lord, who had been on a former occasion desirous that we
should quit the path of exclusion, and deviate into kind-
ness—if lie had once held out to the Catholics a hope, why
did it not occur to him to try the experiment?. -He had
commenced lay being their friend, and had concluded by
taking that step which, while he talked of conciliation,
closed the door against it. He (the Marquis of London-
derry) had accused a Noble Lord (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) of having omitted to propose a similar measure at
the time when he was himself in power ; but the circum-
stances of the two periods were different, At the time
when his Noble Friend was a member of his Majesty's Co-
virnment, the- House of Commons had just come to a re-
solution the direct opposite of that in -which originated the
motion now before their Lordships.—(llear, hear.)—Their
Lordships ought to consijer what hscl Orpdy bees! done ,

on the subject—the number • of measures of colaciliation*
that had passed even in their-own time-L.and then he
would ask was there any Noble Lord who would propose
the re-enactment- of any one of them ? (Hear.) Even
on a late occasion NobheLords declared, that in voting for
the measure then before the House (the repeal of the Test
Acts) their Lordshipi 'cyanid be under Mining tile Throne
and-overthrowing -the Church; but the Act had pissed ;
and he would ask: was the Throne less secure or the
Church lees firm ? (Hear, hear.) In the same way the of a former measure hid given rise to the cry
of " No.Popery!" and had ultimately caused the over.:
'.throw of a 3linistry; yet the same measure was in a few
years afterwards smuggled through that House. Noble
Lords Voted for a Bill which they Lad before thrown out.
'No evil consequenees to the Church had, however, resulted
from it. (Hear, hear.) Would, any Noble Lord move
the repeal of that Act. He-had just heard from an Illus-
trious Prince that those acts of conciliation hid produced
immense effect upon the public Mind.. He begged leave
to doubt the fact, for having been one of those who had
voted for them; and having been invited to a dinner to
celebrate the success of the most recent of them, he had
absolutely forgotten the circumstance, so little impression
had it left upon his mind. He hoped he should soon be
able to say that the Church of England would be delivered
from the trammels in which she was held by the fears or
the prejudices (real or affected) of a few country squires, a
few old lawyers, and a great many old women. (Laughter.)
We were now about to appeal from the 'wisdom of our
ancestors, as it was termed, to the wisdom of our contein-
poraries. Lie trusted that. the Noble Duke, who had never
marched but to glory, would himself now not follow, but
lead in the march of toleration. He was encouraged in that
hope when he recollected that the Noble Duke, who had at
first been opposed to a late successful Measure (the repeal
of the Test and Corporation Acts), finding that the House
of Commons had passed it, gave it his support.—(Hear.)
The Noble Duke was a man of sense—(a laugh)—and
seeing.that the House of Commons had equally passed the
measure embraced by the Resolution before their 'Lord-
ships, would, he trusted, in the Same manner concur in
it. The Noble Duke might not, perhaps, be able to
divest the, Catholics of their hopes of Purgatory—(a laugh)
—or induce them to abandon the. worship of images ; but
lie might be able to govern Ireland without a military
force.—(The Noble Earl then proceeded to enforce his argu-
ment by references to the dangers that might by possibility
ensue from a war while the Catholic Question remained
unsettled ; contending that the present was the best time
that could occur for enacting measures of conciliation.)—
Almost every great Minister who had been at the head of
affairs in this country had given the question his support:
His. (Lord Carnarven's) views perfectly coincided with
those of the Noble Marquis, and he would, therefore, most
cordially give his vote for the motion.

Lord REDESDALE rose amid loud cries of question.
Lord CLIFDEN said it was impossible to go on with
the debate to-night; he would therefore move the adjourn-
ment.—(Cries. of adjourn, question, go on.)
Lord HOLLAND said a motion of adjournment had
been made; that motion he begged to seceud.—(Cries of
adjoUrn, &c.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question on
the adjournment; but subsequent discussion arose (their
Lordships having all left their places) as to whether the
words "-adjourn to five o'clock to-morrow," or five
o'clock to-day," should form part of the motion—it being
then one o'clock.

The Duke of RICHMOND—That. the House adjourn
to five o'clock to-morrow.

Lord HOLLAND believed the customary way was to
consider the period during which a debate occupied the
House, as portion of that day on.which it began; and
moved that the House do adjourn till five o'clock this day.
Earl' GREY seconded the motion.

The tinestion was then put by the Lonn CUANCELLOR.
and the motion far, adjournment to this day (Tuesday)
agreed to.

At a quarter past One their Lordship adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 9.

The House proceeded to business this day at the usual
lour.

Sir 1. HILL presented a petition from Elsmere, is Sa-
lop, for the repeal of the Malt Act.
Mr. MUNDAY presented a petition from Kibbern,
county of Derby, against the Act for Bulking the circula-
tion of small.notes.
Mr. KENNEDY brought up the report on the Scotch
Entails Bill, which was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord RANCLIFFE presented a petition front Notting-
ham, for the abolition of Slavery.
Mr. HOBIIQUSE presented a petition from a person
named Purser, complaining that he had been dismissed
from his situation as a Coal-meter, by the two principal
Coal-meters, and not by the• Treasury, contrary to the
Act of Parliament.
•• Mr. PLANTA, an the part of the Treasury, said Le
Was not aware of. the circumstances of this case, but that
'!e would look into it, and give it his attention.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
SPECIAL VESTRIES.

Mr. HOBE-MUSE presented a petition from the parish
of St. James, Westminster, stating that there was a de-
ficiency of 15,1801. in the parish accounts, and praying
the House to appoint a Committee to investigate the
charges, and reform the system of Parish Vestries.
The Honourable Member gave notice that it' 'the
Government did not take up this subject, he should think
it his duty to bring forward a measure for the regula-
tion of all the Vestries within the Bills of Mortality,
early in the next Session of Parliament. The con-
duct of Select Vestries is London was a subject of
general complaint; but as it was considered invidious to
attack one parish, he proposed to bring in a Bill to re-
gulate them all.
Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. DENISON, and Mr. Alderman
WarrHmaN, supported the petition, which was then or-
dered to lie or: the table.

Mr. DAVENPORT presented a petition froi the Silk
.Throwsters of Cheshire, for. protection against the impor-
tation of Foreign Silk.

Lord W. PAULETT presented a petition from Suader.
land for the abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
Mr. MOORE presented a petition from Sir Harcourt
LeeS against the Roman Catholic Claims.
REPRESENTATION OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from 900 of the
merchants and principal inhabitants of Liverpool, praying
for an extension of the Elective Franchise. The petitionere
complained that there were 26,000 of the adult population
of Liverpool having no votes for the Representatives id
Parliament ; and that those to whom the Elective Fran-
chise is confined (those enjoying it by birth or servitude)
do not comprehend the most intelligent, wealthy, or influ-
ential class of the inhabitants. The petition was signed
by Mr. Roscoe and several other emimut merchants.
General GASCOYNE observed that he had never seen
a more remarkable specimen of reforming radicalism than
this petition. There was no town in England to Which
the charge of corruption at elections for Members to serve
in Parliament applied less than to Liverpool, where the
Members ware not allowed by the freemen, in their mag-
nanimity and independence, to pay even for the ordinary
expense of the hustings. The Lion. Member (Mr. Stanley)
wished, no doubt, to introduce into Liverpool the purity
and regularity which prevailed in the borough of Preston ;
but the Hon. Member was the best judge whether the
Members in that town were obliged to pay the expellees of
the hustings, and whether the total expence of 'au election
in that borough was not greater than the expellee of many
elections in Liverpool.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, that the principles of the
petition were directly opposed to those of radical reform..
The persons to whom the petition would give the right of
election were liable to serve on juries, and were not such
as those who voted in Preston ; -though even there, judging
of the tree by its fruits, he must say that the system was
not to be found fault with. The persons to whom the
present petition referred were a highly respectablo. and
wealthy class of the continuity.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that he could not see why
those who had regularly acquired the franchise by the ob-
servance of the Charter of Liverpool should have the fran-
chise transferred to other classes by this new principle
sought to be introduced by the petition before the House.
He was opposed, not in the case of Liverpool alone, but
generally, to any alteration of the Elective Franchise.

Mr. WOOS spoke in support of the petition, and said,
that the expences of the election for Liverpool during the
last 22 years was 95,000/., and at one time corruption was
So unblushing that gentlemen used to take three guineas,
avowing when they took it that it was their intention to
pay it over to the Dispensary. The petitioners asked for. the
privilege as • regarded the Corporation of Liverpool;
they only asked to have the power to vote for the elec-
tion. of Members of Parliament. The only reason why it
was opposed was, in his opinion, solely becauseit would have
the effect of lessening the marketable value of their votes.
After a few words from Mr. STANLEY and General
GASCOYNE, the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. 'P. MACQUEEN presented a report upon the law
of parochial settlement.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to
know if the. Hon. Member for Callington (Mr. M. A.
Taylor) would postpone his motion, which stood for the

'.. ~. ~~., ; S