The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-03 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1829.

the extent of the population in that neighbourhood, since
his house was only about four miles from the town, The
town from which the petition came contained nbout 7,000
inhabitants, and the two adjoining parishes about '20,000
inhabitants, and yet the petition was signed by only 350
• individuals. Looking to the names affixed to that peti-
tion, which came from a town with which he was in the
habit of daily intercourse, he saw but six names of which
he knew any thing, and but the name of one person who
moved in the rank of a respectable tradesman. When it
was asserted by the Noble Earl that the clergy of Cornwall
were unanimous against concession, he begged leave to
deny the fact; and in support of a contrary proposition,
he would read an extract of a letter from a gentleman who
was the brother of an individual well known to a great
many of their Lordships, as he filled the situation of Pro-
fessor of Modern History at Cambridge; that individual
said, that " since the Duke's declaration on this subject,
we have begun to see the necessity of settling the Catholic
Question ; and I am conv;nced that every day more con-
verts will be made, and that the opponents of thesimea-
' sure will be greatly decreased.:' He had also received .a
letter from a clergyman, containing the same sentiments.
. The Earl of. FALMOUTH felt it necessary to offert‘ftifie
remarks on what had fallen from his Noble Friend, with
respect to this petition. Although it was not signed by any
very great number of the inhabitants of the town, 'still,
from every thing he had heard, he came to this conclusion,
—that the feeling of the people in that part of the country
was decidedly against the Roman Catholics ; and he was yet
to learn from his Noble Friend that any counter-petition—
any petition in favour of the Roman Catholics—had been
agreed to, or was in contemplation at this place. He had
never said that the Clergy of Cornwall were unanimous in
their opposition to the Catholics. His observation was, that
such was the feeling of a vast majority of that class, and he
believed that that observation wns perfectly correct. Nine-
tenths of the Clergy throughout the country, and be believed
even more, were, he was convinced, decidedly opposed to
concession. It his Noble Friend wished to have further
proof of the sentiments of the Clergy on this subject, let
him look to what had recently occurred at Oxford. All
the influence and power of a great and liberal aristocracy
were exerted in behalf of one of the candidates; and yet,
notwithstanding all that influence, notwithstanding all that
power, the poor Clergy came forward in support of-the
Protestant Constitution, and were the principal means of
obtaining a victory over a gentleman, who, but for the opi-
nion which lie had expressed on this question, was in every
respect, as a man of learning and ability, as woi thy of re-
presenting the university as any individual could possibly
be. It appeared that 9,000 respectable gentlemen and
other inhabitants of Cornwall had signed petitions against
the Catholic claims; while, on the other hand, no petitions,
except the few which his Noble Friend had presented,
were laid before their Lordships in favour of concession.
His Noble Friend had observed, that the petition which
(Lord Falmuth) was now about to present emanated from
a meeting where the majority was only five to four. There
were 1,300 names appended to that petition, and he had
every reason to believe that the majority at the meeting
was infinitely greater than his Noble Friend had stated,
and it was signed by almost the whole neighbourhood.
Ie presenting this petition, he could not avoid noting what
was said to have occurred in another plice with reference
to petitions which had been sent to Parliament from Corn-
wall. He understood it was said by an Hon. Gentleman,
that those petitions did not speak the sense of the county,
because they were signed by improper persons, and be-
cause improper means were resorted to for the purpose of
procuring signatures. A more unfortunate theme that
Hon. Gentleman could not have introduced into Parlia-
ment as the subject of his maiden display (for such he be-
lieved it was), than that which he had chosen. He was
informed, that that Hon. Gentleman had said, that one of
those petitions was signed by turnip-stealers. Now,' of
that sort of gentry he knew nothing, and he left it to
those who did to worm their secrets out of them. If such
persons had been induced to sign a petition, he was con-
vinced that it was at the instigation of some of the radical
party. Of these turnip-stealers, he repeated, ha knew
nothing, but of the magistrates he knew something; and
he could assert that, out of fifteen magistrates thirteen
had signed the petition alluded to. That was a fact.
He should say nothing with respect to the Hon. Gentle-
man who made these assertions, but he would apply
himself simply to the facts, and it appeared to
him that those assertions were as contrary to the truth
as they were contrary to those principles which
that Honourable -Gentleman and his friends were in the
habit of supporting—namely, those principles which
induced them to stand up for what they called the
rights and liberties of an oppressed and taxed population.
All those assertions could easily he contradicted. But
with respect to one of those petitions, he thought it due to
the credit of his neighbours, be thought it was nothing
more than justice to all those who resided around him, to
state that the petition was most respectably signed. He
caused an application to be made to the Mayor of Truro on
this subject ; and he did so the more particularly, because
it happened that the Mayor was not opposed to what was
called Catholic emancipation ; and as his Noble Friend
had read an extract from a letter, he should follow his
example, and read an t-xtract from the letter he had re-
ceived in answer to that application. The Mayor there
said, " I was in the hall during the period in which that
petition lay for signature, and although I saw a great
many persons affix their names to it, I cannot say that I
saw any improper persons. Neither can I say that any
schoolboys (such was the assertion made) attempted to
ohtrude themselves. They could hardly do so, when the
gentlemen of the town were present all the morning in-
specting the newspapers, and when there were four Town
Sergeants in attendance." So much for that assertion ;
and he believed a great many assertions of the same nature
and equally unfounded, were made ; but he would not take
up their Lordships' time by adverting further to them.
One letter, however, he had received, respecting the con-
duct of the Representative of the county of Cornwall, which
he would shortly notice. The letter came from one of the
most active agents at the last election of the Hon. Gentle-
man to whom he hail alluded. The writer said, " With
respect to the petition which was presented the o h r day,
signed by upwards of 1,000 inhabitants of the middle divi-
sion of East,—with respect to that petition, I have since
looked over the list of resident freeholders of the middle
division of the hundred of East, and 1 find that there are
not ten resident freeholders in the division who have not
signed the petition against granting any further conces-
sions to the Roman Catholics."

The Earl of CARNAIiVON rose to order. He con-
ceived it was irregular in the Noble Earl to allude to the
line of conduct pursued by a Member of the other House.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said, it had devolved upon
him to contradict certain assertions which had been made
elsewhere; and, in performing that duty, he must say,
that he had done no more than had been done in that
House for the last fortnight by other Noble Lords, one of
whom had referred to the popularity of the Hon. Member
fur Cornwall, and drew a certain inference from it.
The Earl of CAR-NAM-ON did not, and could not,
object to the Noble Lord's delivering his sentiments, and re-
marking on what might have occurred elsewhere; but he
objected to any attempt to impeach the conduct of a Mem-
ber of the other House, although he might discuss it.
The Earl of FALMOUTH would only further observe
that he would not let such assertions as he had adverted to
go abroad with correction. He now begged leave to pre-
sent the petition of the freeholders and inhabitants of Bud-
min and Lestwithicl, against granting any farther conces •
sions to the Roman Catholics.

Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE read an extract from a
letter, which was corroborative of the statement that two
turnip stealers had signed the petition to which allusion
had been made elsewhere. The Noble Ear] had alluded
to the great exertions made by the Aristocracy at the late
Oxford election; but did he mean to say, that very great
exertions had not been made for the other Candidate for
the University? Did he not know that poisons connected
with the Bar here, and with the Bar in Ireland, were sent
down to vote for the other Candidate ? Was he not
awate that individuals were sent for from Armagh, and
even Eons France, for that purpose? And did he think
that all this could be done without calling forth exertions
on the other side ? (Hear, bear.) With respect to that
election, he never interfered—he never spoke to a single
individual. A nephew of his did indeed go to oppose a
measure which was unquestionably carried by a very con-
siderable majority; but he did not say a word to his ne-
phew on the subject, neither did he know Lis sentiments
respecting it, until' after he had voted.
The petition was read, and laid on the table.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said, " I rise, my Lords,

to give notice, that it is my ibtension to move a call of
your Lordships' House wherever the day may be fixed for
1 Lringing into this House the Bill, which I shall designate
a Bill for oppressing and injuring the King, and for in-
troducing Popery and arbitrary power. I shall do this,
toy Lords, in order that every Peer may be a personal
witness of the degradation to which it is intended to expose
him: and that he may be enabled to judge, on his own
responsibility, whether it be wise and fitting that be should
tamely or blindly submit to lie led by the inconsiderate or
ambitious wiT of any Member of this House, who may
seek to trifle wiai our religion, to trample upon our liber-
ties, and to overthrow our Protestant Constitution."
The. Duke of SUSSEX felt himself called
.upon to give
the Noble Duke who had just spoken full credit for the
l sincerity of his mode of treating the question-:.-(Hear)
I lint lie thought that the Noble Duke, in throwing out in-
sinuations as to the principle or motive of any Noble Peer,
'acted in a way that was irregular and almost unconstitu-
tional, He had heard strong words used liy the Noble
[Duke in the House—he had been told of extraordinary
actions performed by the Noble Duke out of the Houseand
the had seen some extraordinary productions which the
No Duke had sent forth ; but be could not bring himself
to'Nieve that the House of Lords would sit calmly when
.they heard the degradation of his Majesty, and the subver-
sion of the Constitution, charged as the object which one
of its members had in view.—(Hear, hear.)—He was con-
vinced that the House would net allow the Noble Duke to
go on with such an accusation, but would call on the
Noble Duke to prove that any such motive existed. He
was sure that the Bishops, whatever their feelings might
he on this question, would not suffer his Majesty to be
thus alluded to: in the House of Lords.--(Hear.)--He should
now touch on a point which had been just' noticed—.
he meant the recent election for the University of Oxford.
—Of the manner in which it had been carried he knew
nothing; but this be did know, that when he saw 609
honest men coming forward, notwithstanding ail the
efforts which were made to put down free discussion, and
voting for the unsuccessful candidate,—when he saw this '
he could not avoid saying, that, in his opinion, they had
done themselves and the University honour in the eyes of
their country. With respect to the other University, of
which he had the honour to be a member, and on the
records of which his name was enrolled, its members had
the courage and the power to put down the petition
which had been attempted to be foisted on them. He un-
derstood that two gentlemen, church dignitaries, met at
the time the petition was in agitation. One said, he never
would support any measure of concession—.-the other, with-
equal decision, declared that he would.' Why, demanded
the opponent of the Catholic Question, did you never see
so mischievous a book as that written by a bloody Roman
Catholic entitled "pilling no Murder?"—a book which
almost every one knew, was the production of a strong
Calvinistic writer; yet this clergyman wanted, through
ignorance or misconception,' to refer it to the Roman Ca-
tholics. The ignorance of many individuals on this sub-
ject, andsthe malignity with which they sent forth their
opinions, were really eurpiising. They ought not to in-
dulge in suspicions of the Legislature, but tliey ought
to look to the calmness, to the honour, and to the
wisdom of this House, for the due support of the Constitu-
tion. It should be left to Parliament to examine and to
see what was best to be done ; but to attempt to cast cen-
sure on the Noble Duke—to impute mischievous motives
to him—was most irregular and most imprudent.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE would be sorry to say any
thing that could displease the Royal Duke ; but he must,
in that House, be allowed the freedom of fully declaring
his sentiments. He had never brought before the House
any thing that was disgraceful to himself, and -he never
would. He had but one word more to say, and it was
this—ever since he had heard this recommendation, he
had applied his mind seriously to the subject, but his
opinion remained unchanged. He would only farther say,
that no strong-words, intended to put him down, or to
prevent him from doing his duty, should ever succeed ; for
he would persevere for the salvation of the country, and
to prevent all inroads on the Constitution.

The Duke of SUSSEX said, the Noble Duke had mis-
taken him, and he wished to set him right. He did not
mean to interfere with the Noble Duke's privilege to speak
his sentiments. All he said was, that it was not accord-
ing to the order of that House for any one Noble Lord to
attribute to a Member or any number of Members of the
House, any sinister motive whatever. He repeated, he
did not question the right of every Noble Lord to take
the widest latitude of debate in the expression of his opi-
nions; all he objected to was, the imputing of sinister mo-
tives to those who advocated different views of the same
subject. •He might have expressed himself strongly in his
dissent from the Noble Duke; if he had,—and he feared
he had,—he begged leave to assure the Noble Duke, that
it was far from his intention to trench upon the limits laid
down by courtesy and the usage of that House to the fres
dom of debate. Whatever course the Noble Duke meant
to pursue in future, in relation to the great question shortly
to be before their Lordships,—which course was, of course
a matter of personal taste,—he (the Duke of Sussex)
would not contest his opinions but on constitutional
grounds alone,—free from all party biasses or personal
feelings, save an anxious desire to promote the tranquillity
and welfare of the Empire at large. If the Noble Duke
conceived that he (the Duke of Sussex) had used a dicta-
torial manner in suggesting the propriety of moderation
and calmness when discussing the intended measures in
favour of the Catholics, he begged the Noble Duke to be
assured that nothing could be farther.from his intention.
All he wished was, to prevent the public mind from being
misled by statements made by the Noble Duke and• Other
Members of that House, that the intended measures would
be a wrestling of the laws, and a sacrifice of the Constitu-
tion. He wished by constitutional means to allay the pre-
judice which such statements were calculated to excite
and make inveterate, by endeavouring, as far as he could,
to induce the calmness of temper fitting to the ,deliberation
of a most important question. To this purpose lie felt it
to be his duty- to state and prove the manner in which pe-
titions were got up against the Catholics; but he trusted
with all the courtesy due to the Members of that House.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS, on presenting a
petition from Glastonbury, against any further concession
to the Roman Catholics, wished to state the feelings of the
people of England, at least of the large majority, towards
Catholic emancipation. The grounds of those feelings
were few and obvious. In the first place, the people of
this country were strongly attached to the great Protestant
principles of civil and religious liberty, and looked back
with intense solicitude and veneration to the Reformation,
in which retrospect they could not help contrasting and
comparing the reigns of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth
and the Catholic Queen Mary. This comparison com-
pelled them to regard the former reign with gratitude and
admiration, the latter with alarm and abhorrence. The
people of England also looked back with veneration and
gratitude to the glorious Revolution of 1688, and there-
fore were not desirous to give such additional power to the
Catholics as might endanger the permanence of the princi-
ples of that revolution, and thereby the existence of the
Protestant institutions of the country in Church and
State. In the next place, the people of England were a
loyal people, and as such, naturally held the memory of
the late illustrious and truly Protestant Monarch of these
realms in the most grateful recollection. They justly felt
that it any event more than another in George the Third's
long reign—one of the longest in our annals—en-
deared that monarch to his English subjects, it was
his devoted attachment to the Protestant interests of
the country. They also, for the same reasons, re-
vered the memory of his Royal Highness the late
Duke of York, the inflexible opponent to the' ad-
mission of the Roman Catholics to full power in the
State. The people of England could not consent to the
admission of the Catholita; to a political equality with the
Protestants, because they would not consent to the exist-
ence of an imperium in imperio, and did not wish to sanc-
tion the authority of a foreign potentate in these realms.
In the next place the people of England were a religious
people, and as such strongly attached to the pure form of
Christianity established in this country, to which they
looked for the means of moral and religious instruction
here, and through that for the reward of good conduct
hereafter. These were the opinions, he maintained, of a
large majority of the people of England, with which, he
begged leave to add, his own entirely concurred. No man
more than he did commiserated the unhappy condition of
the people of Ireland,—no man more deeply lamented the
evils of that ill-fated country. But he contended that
that condition would not be bettered, nor those evils re-
moved, by granting emancipation. He did not mean to
say that.circumstances might not occur in the condition of
Ireland, which might induce him to acquiesce in that

PRICE 7D.

measure; but he denied that those circumstances were
I then existing, or were likely to be created by the intended
coneession.of the Caeholie Claims. Before that concession
should be granted, other means should be devised to im-
prove the state of that country; the minds of the inhabi-
tants must be more cultivated, their morals iMproved,
their habits altered. When these desirable results had
been attained, emancipation might peshaps be granted, but
not till then. Til! then the admission of the Catholics to
the entire political benefits of the Constitetion would be,
in his mind, putting a weapon into their hand Which they
would turn against the Protestants. Their Lordships had
heard much of the dangerous power and influence of the ,
Catholic Association,—the evils and mischief of that body
bad been freely admitted on all bands. Indeed, he had
heard admissions of that body having had an in terrorem
influence from quarters .whence he least expected seoh.
The Noble Duke at the bead of the Government, for
example, stated to their Lordships that he had
been long aware of the evil tendency, of that Association ;
and yet, strangely, had not attempted to pat an end to it,
-e-though it was evident, if it were necessary to pat doutn
the Association as an evil in itself, the sooner it was'ilone
the better. .eime--t44lteilf, (the Bishop of Bath amid
Wells), if so humble au individual might he -permitted to
obtrude his personal feelings upon their Lordships' notie.a.'e
he would only say, that he would approach the discussion
of the intended measure free from all prejudice and party
him He solemnly declared, that sooner than consent to
a measure which he thought would tene! to subvert the
Protestant establishments of the country, and fostet the
growth of Popery, he would imitate the conduct of a
great predecessor of his its the days of Papal persecution,
and be committed to the Tower, there to undergo any
punishment. As a Peer of that House, he had taken an
'oath, with which the granting of the Catholic claims tip-
poured to'him to be incompatible. " That oath," said the
Right Rev. Prelate, in conclusion, " I will keep, come
what may, so help me God !"
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt it his duty not to
let the last observation of the Welt Rev. Prelate pass un-
noticed. The Right Rev. Prelate stetted that he had taken
an oath with which concession to the Catholics appeared to
him to come in collision. He begged leave to assure the
Right Rev. Prelate that the Bill to be hereafter introduced
into the other House of Parliament, and subsequently to
come under the discussion of their Lordahips, would be
perfectly free from the least encroachment on existing instie
tutions, and would not at all interfere with the oaths taken
IT the Right Rev. Prelate and other members of that
House. It was not necessary for him to state then the pre
cise scope and nature of -that Bill, nor to say more than
assure the Right Rev. Prelate and their Lordships, that
it would not touch upon the integrity of the Protes-
tant establishments of the country, nor upon the exist-
ing securities for that integrity in any way 'whatsoever._
Trme Right Rev. Prelate objected to what was called Ca-
tholic Emancipation, because ire seemed to consider that
measure to be synonymous with the establishment of Po-
pery in this country. And yet the Right Rev. Prelate ad-
mitted that circumstances might occur in the condition of
Ireland which would induce him to acquiesce in concession.
Now he begged leave to ask the Right Rev. Prelate, if he
considered that Catholic Emancipation was in other words
the establishment of Popery, how he could agree to it
under any circumstances?—(Hear.)—lf, he repeated, Ca-
tholic Emancipation were, under all circumstances, as the
Right Rev. Prelate had alleged, synonymous with the esta-
blishment of Popery, how could he consistently say that
circumstances might occur which would induce bins to ac-
cede to it ?--:(llear.)—Whet were the circumstances in
which the Right Rev. Prelate was willing to consent to
what he said was the establishment of Popery in this coun-
try ?--(Hear.)—The Right Rev. Prelate imitated tbe
tone assumed by a Noble Duke in talking of the intended
measures, as if they were of a nature which every sensible
man knew neither he (the Duke of Wellington) nor
any man in that House would sanction or consent toe—
(Hear.)—He (the Duke of Wellington) contended that
when those measures, which would shortly be submitted to
the other, and subsequently to that House of Parliament,
were before their. .Lordships—nay, he engaged to prove—
that so far from tending to establish Popery, they would
prevent the growth of Popery, and promote the extension
of the Protestant religion.—(Hear, hear.)—He engaged
to prove, he would repeat, that those measures would
check the increase of the Catholics, while they would tend
to add to- the numbers of the Protestants. He engaged,
to prove this, if not to the satisfaction of the Right
Rev. Prelate to that of their Lordships. He entirely agreed
with the sentiments expressed by,, the Right Rev. Prelate
concerning the loyal and religious feelings of the people of
England. As an expression of those feelings, he rejoiced
in the number of petitions that had been presented to their
Lordships, from, he Was sorry to say, very-mistaken views
of the intended measures of Ministers. Time people were
insidiously led to believe that those measures were for the
establishment of Popery and the destruction of the Pro-
testant establishment of the country; and, acting very
properly on this most unfounded delusion, petitioned
against them. But while he admired and rejoiced in the
excellent motives which induced the people of this country,
in many places, to protest against the intended measures
of the Government, he h'oped that when they saw that
those measures were not of the dangerous nature ascribed
to them, and that they tended, so far from establishing
Popery to check and prevent its growth, and to promote
the influence of the Protestant religion in Ireland,—he
hoped, he said, the people of England would, in their con-
duct, evince that loyalty to the Crown whence the recom-
mendation of the measure emanated, and that confidence
in the wisdom of Parliament, which had ever honourably
distinguished them.—(Cheers.)—lndeed, he was convinced
that when the people of England saw there was no fear of
the extension of Popery from the measures which Ministers
felt it to be their duty to recommend to time sanction of
their Sovereign, but that, on the contrary, they would lead
to strengthen time Protestant interests of the State, they
would hail those measures as beneficial to all classes.

The Bishop of BATII and WELLS, in explanation,
begged leave to disclaim having, imputed so absurd a design
to the originators of the intended measures as that of wish-
ing to establish Popery in the country. Nothing could be
further from his mind,—in fact, nothing could be more ab-
surd than stub an imputation. lie was glad to hear from
the Noble Duke that these measures would be perfectly
consistent with the taking of the oath to which he bad
Outlet!. Indeed, if they were of the nature described by
the Noble Duke, they would be hailed by him (tlse Bishop
of Bath and Wells), and he was sure by the country at
large, as a happy omen for the Protestant establishment in
Church and State. The Right Rev. Prelate presented six
petitions from parishes in Somersetshire, against any fur-
ther concessions to the Roman Catholics.

Lord KING sail the Right Rev. Prelate had earl, pro-
phesied that he would have to present a petition against the
Catholics from every parish in Somersetshire. He cer-
tainly had verified his prophesy ; but in his denunciation
of Popery and the Jesuits, he 'witted to mention the
worse than Jesuit arts by which he was enabled to prove
himself a true prophet. The Right Rev. Prelate had for-
gotten to mention the enticing arts practised to obtain anti-
Catholic signatures. De had not spoken of the alluring
sign of murder by which the no-Popery zeal of his peti-
tioners was roused and attracted.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—
" 'Murder" in letters so large that not only those who ran
might read, but those who could not read, might learn to
spell by, was the usual sign for the no-Popery petitions.
And what murder ? Why the names and numbers of
those convicted and executed in 1684 by Judge Jefferies in
his celebrated western campaign. Those " murders" of
1684 were quoted as arguments against the intended
measures of the Government in 1829. There was
something of historical ingenuity in the getting up
those " murder" arguments. In Frome, for example,
Jeffries had sentenced twelve persons to he executed
for aiding in the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion. The
names of those convicted were accordingly placarded
as the victims of the Protestant religion to the tyranny of
the church of Rome; and the yeomanry were asked would
they like to undergo similar punishment—if not, to sign
the no-Popery petitions.—(Hear, hear.)—ln like manner
the same worse than Jesuit arts were had recourse to in
Taunton, where six persons had been also in 1684 exe-
cuted ; in Chippenham where 13 ; *aricLin Yeovil, where
six persons had been executed.—(llear, bear.)—He read
also in some of the papers other appeals that:had been made
with the same view. For instance, the petitioners were
told, if Catholic Emancipatien were granted, that they
might sing farewell to their Bibles, to their hymn-hooks,
and to their books of Common Prayer—(Hear, And
laughter)—and prepare for the abominations of the mass,
and the Pope, and what not.—(Hear, hear.)—Eve❑ that
was not enough, for placards were hawked about with the '

irreakible appeal to the Protestant seal of the men of
3innersetshire—" No-Popery. Englishmen, remember
the religion of the Edinburgh murderer." Thus. the
atrocities of Burke' were made auxiliaries to obtaining
Anti-Catholic petitions —(Hear, hear.)—Now, he asked
their Lord hips, whether the Jesuits ever practised mot e
disgraceful arts to'attain their ends, than those which he
NEwasthat
the R h t
lad just pointed out as having been successfully used iiit
there could
Viscount 1
S•imersetshire ?—(llcar, hear.)—Surely, with such-arts
I%'elEnoLßlaOckUoßf petitions
on
surprisedany'subject.
Rev. Prelate could have ventured to say that the Catholics
invariably employed every civil power intrusted to them to
the subversion of the Protestant institutions of the country.
Did the Catholics of Irelan.l use the power granted them
in 1793 to any other than constitutional uses ? Did they
attempt to ovrrturn the Established Church ? When the
Bight Rev. Prelate spoke of the feelings with which the
people of England regarded the reign of Elizabeth, did he
forget that in that reign Catholics sat in Parliament, to
which they were not rendered ineligible till the 30th of
Charles 11. ? There was no donbt, also, that the Revo •
ludon of 1688 was justly dear to Englishmen; but ther e
was as little doubt that the intended measures of Minister a
were but the completion of that glorious measure.
The Marquis of ANGLESEA would take advantage o f
that opportunity to repeat, that when he held the Govern-
inant of Ireland he did not want any additional legal aid
to suppt ors the Catholic Association. He felt that if it
had been pointed out to him by the Government here that
the proceedings of that body were illegal, and that it t*' as
ncees.ary to put an end to them, he possessed, sufficient
/iterer in the existing law to put it down.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Brighton, signed by 3,755 respectable inhabitants, against
any further concessions to the Roman Catholics.
The Duke of SUSSEX bad a counter-petition to pre-
sent from the same place. It was not so numerously sign-
ed, but it Wan got up in a less objectionable manner. He
had been informed, that the majority of the signatures to
the petition just presented by the Noble Duke were con.
attpeirit on a no-Popery cry that had„- been successfully
raised by stone interested zealots. He was also- informed
that many of the petitioners could not write, and were ob-
liged to annex their cross. Whole schools had signed the
petition, and many of the signatures were by the same
-hand under different names. He was not one to object to
the right of petitioning; but lie must object to receiving
such petitions as expreasive of the sentiments of the people
of this country.
The Duke of RICHMOND stated, in reply, that the
Wition was put into his hands by the high constable, and
had ainOtig its signatures the name of the Vicar of the
place, well knoWn to the Noble Duke at the head of the
Government. He also wan enabled to state, that there
was not a single cross in the whole list of signatures.
Therefore the Royal Duke must have been misinformed on
that point. He hoped Noble Lords would see, from the
number of petitions presented against the Catholics, th'at
the feelings of the people of England were hostile to the
intended measures of Minister&

The Duke of SUSSEX replied, that he had received
.re
letter, stating the number and place of the cross signatures
alluded to, but which, on examination, were not to be
found in the petition. lie could only explain this circum-
stance by the supposition that those crosses were erased,
and written signatures introduced in their stead, wLeo is
was known that be was acquainted with the fact. tic
would decline the challenge of the Noble Duke respecting
the feelings of the people of this country on the Catholic
question, and with respect to the merits of the question it-
s-lf ; and for this reason—be had much more experience in
that House than the Noble Duke. He had, for 25 years,
patiently examined and read the arguments on both sides.
The conclusion which be came to, after a sincere and long-
continued examination, and that, too, on the bed of sick-
ness, when he expected to be released by the hand of death
from a world of woe and misery, that concession to the
Catholics was essential to the welfare of the Protestant
establishments themselves, and to the tranquillity and
prosperity of the empire at large. This, the conscientious
result of mature consideration, was not a momentary im-
pulse with a view to wianing popularity. Indeed, he was
growing too old for such a course of proceeding, and had
only to repeat that he would give his cordial support to
measures which he was convinced would strengthen the
Protestant,Church, which, he would add, would be en-
dangered if the penal laws against which those measures
were intended were continued in force.

The Royal Duke then presented a petition flow the
Protestant Dissenters'of Brikbton iii favour of the Catholic
claims.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions from
places in Sussex, against further concessions to the Roman
Catholics.

Lord PLUNKETT presented Svc petitions front places
in the Queen's County, also a petition from the parish of
St. James, Dublin, in favour of the Catholic Claims, and
for a repeal of the Sub-letting and Vestry Acts.
Similar petitions were presented by the Marquis of
ANGLEsEs from Mohill, Carrickmaeross, and 17 other
places in Ireland.
Adjourned at Eight o'clock.