The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COAIAIONS.

Mr. -P.. GILBERT h ought in a Bill to I.'o-vide for the Iti-
crease of the Annual Income •of the Loudon Institution:—
Read a first time.
Mr. D. GILBERT obtained leave, to bring in a IHill to re-
.move doubts as to the Powers of the Cominissioners of the
Exchequer to advance Money by Exelmiter Rills to flee Re-
gent's Canal Cutnpiroy.
A Person fion: Chelsea Hospital presented Accounts o!
the Disbursements of Chelsea Ilospital.—Orderedr to lie on
the (-aisle.
Mr. BAnttow, from the Office of Escheats, presented Ac-
counts—Ordered to be printed.
Lord W. BENTINCK presented a Petition from Notting-
ham, complaining of Agricultural Distress.—Ordered to lie
on the table,
presented fo, Petitions from the County'
of Gloucester, lil'itVaCeti:SE ir
ri,contplaining-of Agricultural Distress.—Or-
dered to he printed.
A similar Petition was presented from Ills whorough, in the
County of Berks.---Ordered to lie an the table.
Lord TEMPLE presented the, e Petitions on.the same soh-
jt ct from different districts of the County of Ruckittehanv.—
On presenting the first, he made a forcible appeal to the
House in favour of the petitioners, strongly recommendi,g
their case to consideration.—The Petitions were ordered to
lie on the table.
Admiral HARVEY presented three Petitions from Don-
MOW, and two onie,• townsitt the County of Essex, e•lling
the attention of the House to :the existiog Agricultural Dis-
tress.—Ordered to lie on the table.
A similar Petition was presented from Northampton.—Or-
tiered to lie on the tattle.
CATHOLIC ENIANCIPATION,
Mr. E. WODEHOLISE presented a Petition. front the
of
Norwich against the Catholic.Claints.—Ordered to
lie on the table.
.A slmilar Petition was presented from the Arelideacolsry
am I ci,r,v of COI,I AV all.—Ordered to lie on the table.
• Mr. FI7PZGIBBON presented a Petition from the Roman
Catholics of Lintel-jet:, praying to be.admitted to the full en-
joyment of the privileges f the British Constitution. 'Pie
Honourable Gentleman begged to otter his- testimony to the
loyalty and respectability of the Petitioners, and expressed
an earnest hope that the result of that nigllt's debate would
determine that a large portion of the people of Ireland
should no limiter be excluded from participating lit the
bles-
sings of the Constitution.
Mr. S. RICE supported the 'prayer of the Petition, con-
'ceiving it to be founded on %justice. No paltry wiestion of
•expediency, if expediency could ever be separated from jiis-
'ice, ought to induce'them now to exclude front the full en-
jt ohyetiirt eitt t
ence, under eilt,venrael privations eann a
t:mer
epdroi:: ei
sttlobry
tunes, how well they deserved them. He hoped the Honse
would consent to go into a Committee. -mo the Catholic
Claims, but supporting this Petition lie Was desirous of doing
every thing that could he necessary to support the Protestant
Establishment. If securities were wanted to guard the Pro-
testant Church from danger, on the proof being ven that
these Were necessary, he should vote for them. Bit he was
satisfied that the hest security the Church of England could
receive, wcmid be afforded by r,n act of conciliation and gene-
rosity towards the Roman Cathulics.—The Petition was or-
dered to be primed,

Mr. WILDMAN presented a Petition against the Roman
Catholic Claims from the Borough of Colchester.—Ordered
to be printed.
Lord R. MANNERS presented a similar Petition from cer-
tain freeholders of the County of Leicester.
Mr. CALCRAFT asked if this Petition was agreed to at a
County Meeting ?
Lord It. MANNERS said he did ❑ot know ;. it was delivered
to him last year.—(Hear, heat• !)
Mr. CALCRAFT repeated this expla-nation, which he
considered an extraordinat y one.-Laid on the Table.
Mr. NOLAN presented a similar Petition frost. Nottingham.
The Hon. and Learned Member stated that he did lint concur
in t he sentiments of these Petitioners.— Laid on the Table.

.Sir E. HARVEY presented a Petition -from the •Archdea-
coury, Clergy, and Laity of Colchrster..praying that the Pro-
fessors of the Roman Catholic Religion ma% he admitted to
no greater Constitutional Privileges than those secured to
them by the Act of Settlement.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, those friendly- to Catholic
Emancipation did not wish to do away with any of the secu-
rities obtained for the Constitution at the period of the glo-
rious Revolution. He was persuaded that his Houiturahle
and Learned Friend who hrtarght the *subject forward would
be the last man toldo any tiring against the spirit of the Re-
volution of 1688. They must, however, not confound
the 'Revolution with all that was done at the time
of the Revolution, and least of all with what was II 911 e
in. Ireland at that period.. It Was persevered in, tr.iug
their growing intelligence to bring this subject before
Parliament, and he hoped their efforts would not be relaxed'
till their success was complete. The result of that dot's de-
bate would, he hoped, relieve them, and render all further
petitioning on•that subject unnecessary. lf, unfortunately,
they failed on this occasion, he hoped their just and manly
appeals to Parliament, in delem e •of their rights, would be
contiouted.—Petition was ordered to lie nit the table.
Sir THOMAS 13. LETHBRIDGE presented a Petition front
the town of Bruton, in Somerstishire, against any further
concessio►► to the Catholkes. They relied on the w7sdom of
Parliament not to :;rant any furtht r concession, without some
effectual security for the Protestant Establishment ; brit they
doubted the possibility of devising ast measure which should
affiod satisfactory telief to the Catholic, ,m 1 at the saline time
provide for• the sucuroy of the Established 14eligion. He
most cordially concurrent in the stotirneotsof the Petitioners
and if it were the intention of the Right Hon. Nlentber for the
University of Dubhu to move for a Committee, with a view
to the proposal of any secoi ities, he could not but think it a
mere delusion, for he knew tort how airy measure that would
satisfy a rigid Catholic, coold be.eittisistent unit the security
of the Established Church. These were the reasons which
had inclined him for so many years as he had been in Parlia-
ment, constantly to 'oppose the claims of his Catholic fellow-
subject-5.
Mr: GRENFELL said, as be- had I reit nearly twenty years
a Member of that House, and had invariably supported by
his vote the applications of the Cat hol cs forjostice, but had •
not had an opportunity of ileliverit, his sentiments Burin'
the discussions which 'bad taken ;lace my the subject, he
wished on this occasion publicly to declare his opinion; and
so-far from ondermioing the Constitution, he was confident,
front the most-attentive examitoition of lb:. subject. that a
compliance with the ptaycts of the
.Catholics would prove the