The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

The SPEAKER. took the Chair precisely at Four o'clock,
at which time there were a great number of Members pre-
sent, and every seat unoccupied had a ticket on the back.
The galley was much crowded.
Sir RANGLIS presented a petition from Edinburgh
against the Catholic claims. The Hon. Baronet said it
was signed by 13,000 of the inhabitants, who expressed
the greatest alarm at the Bill introduced by the Right
Honourable Secretary cf State, for the purpose of ad-
mitting the Roman Catholics into high offices of State.
The Hon. Member then presented petitions from Black-
burn and several other places, of a similar nature.
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented a petition from
the town of Buckingham, against further concessions.—
The Noble Marquis said, a Right Hon. Gentleman had
stated last night that the House could appoint an
hour after which no Member had a- right to present
'any petition, but the Right Hon. Gentleman should
also recollect that every Member had a right to move, as
claim is he pleased, an adjournment.—(Hear.)--He did
not mean to say that such was the intention,—(Hear,),.--
but he would here give notice that when the Bill wad, in:
Corninittee he should propose a clause to exclude Roman
Xfitholifs-frout the offices of Prime Minister and Privy
Councillor.-o(Hear, 'hear.) ,
Mr. WYNN could not duty the right of Members mov-
ing an adjournment, but the-House would not suffer public
business to be neglected by such manoeuvres.—(Hear.)—
If the privilege of petitioning was abused the House had
also the power to correct it.

The Noble Marquis then presented twelve other petitions
of a similar nature from places ha the county of Buckingham.
Colonel PEEL presented a petition from Swalhngton
and several other places in the county of Norfolk against
the Catholic claim.

Mr. LAMBERT presented petitions in favour of Ca-
tholic emancipation, from several places in Ireland.
Colonel SIBTHORPE presented a petition frem Tam-
worth and several other places against further concessions.
Colonel SIBTHORPE presented a petition from a pa-
rish of Lincoln, against concession.
Mr. DICK presented similar petitions from Mulls-
worth and other places in Suffolk.
Mr. WARD expressed his intention to vote against con-
cession, as he always had done.
Alderman WOOD presented a petition from the Uni-
tarian Chapel, Canterbury, in favour of the Catholics.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented several petitions from
places in Kent, against concession ; also from Dundee,
the Kirk Session of Dundee, and the town of Ramsgate, in
favour of the claims.

Mr. B. COOPER presented a petition from Rod-
borough, against the Catholics.
Mr. O'HARA presented petitions from Galway and
another place, in favour of the Catholics. .
Mr. W. DUNDAS presented a petition from the com-
pany of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh in favour of, and from
the Company of Tailors against, concession.
Lord DUNCANNON presented a petition from several
Catkolic gentlemen against the Disfranchisement Bill, which
he considered was both unjust and uncalled for by the pre-
sent state of Ireland. He could not conceive why the
franchise should be taken from the Catholics and left to
he Protestants.

Lord ALTHORPE agreed with his Noble Friend in dis-
liking and objecting to the Bill in question. He had
voted for the measure to that effect in 1825, but he had
only waited till the election of 1826, to be fully convinced
of his mistake. Linked as it was with the measure for
Catholic relief, he could not take upon himself any
share of the responsibility of rejecting it ; taking the
whole measure together he considered it would be of great
benefit to' Ireland, as the Relief Bill would do them
snore service than theloss of their franchise would injure
them. He should have had greater satisfaction, however,
in voting for the measure for relief, if it could have been
passed without. _ _

Colonel DAVIES remarked, that even if the Disfran-
chisement Bill had been Lrought in by itself, he should
have considered it his duty to have voted for it, as a benefit
to Ireland.

Sir C. BURRELL presented a petitioa from Hurst
against concession.

Mr. P. MACQUEEN presented a similar petition from
Dunstable.

Mr. HURST presented a petition from Horsham, in
favour of concession.

Mr. STANLEY presented a similar petition from
Blackburn, Garstang, Ormskirk, and other placed in
Lancashire.

Mr. LOTT presented similar petitions from places in
Tyrone.

Mr. WELLS presented a petition against concessions
from the Protestant Dissenters of Alaidstone;—also si-
milar petitions from two parishes in the county of Nor-
folk.

Mr. DICKINSON presented petitions from places in
Somersetahire, against concessions.
Lord TULLAMORE presented a petition from a pa-
rish in the county of Waterford, in favour of the Catholic
claims.

Mr. CHAPLIN presented petitions from two parishes
in Lincolnshire, against further concessions.
Lord UXBRIDGE presented a petition from Dullen, in
Caithness, against further concessions ; and another• to
the same effect from the Protestant Dissenters of Holyhead.
Lord JOEIN RUSSELL presented a petition from
Bethel-green, Kent, in favour of the Catholic claims, and
another to the same effect from the Protestant Dissenters of
Olney.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Mr. PEEL (at Six o'clock) moved the Order of the
Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill.—The Order of the Day having been
read,

Mr. BANKES said, he had so often troubled Houses
of Commons during the last twenty-five years on this sub-
ject, that he should not have now risen, but for the par-
ticular circumstances under which it was this year brought
forward. The novelty of the question at this moment was
the position in which he, and. many of those who still
continued to think and act with him on this subject,
were placed with reference to his Majesty's Government.
To that point lie should chiefly direct the few observa-
tions lie intended to make, although not in the hope of
adding any thing new. In the first place he would say,
that be was not one of those against whom any reasonable
complaint could be made that he had deserted Ministers on
previous occasions when this question was decided ; but
he might fairly accuse them of having deserted him upon
this occasion.—(Hear, hear.)—They had endeavoured to
press upon the opponents of concession an alternative,
and it had been so strongly urged, and so frequently re-
peated, that he would advert to it in the commencement.
The alternative was this—" If you do not concur with
us in these measures, what do you advise ?" This dilem-
ma was stated not merely by the Right Hon. Mover, but
it had been employed in almost every debate, but especi-
ally by Mr. Canning and Lord Plunkett, who always en-
deavoured to put their antagonists in the predicament, by
asserting, " You cannot remain as you are, and if you do
not accept our remedy, what do you recommend in its
stead ?" One of the Colleagues of the Right Hon. gen-
tleman, who had now risen to one of the highest offices
of the State, exactly two years ago, when speaking in op-
position to the Roman Catholic claims, adverted to this
alternative. He believed that many were now present
who -would recollect that in March, 1827, the present
Lord Chancellor was in collision with his Right Honour-
able Friend, now no more, on this question, and in answer
to the proposed dilemma spoke as follows :—" I am asked,
if I object to the measures now proposed, what I would
substitute for them ? Ido not know that I ought to be
required to answer such a question ; but my reply is, that
I am not a Member of the King's Government—that I am
not one of the Ministers of the Crown, and it might be
not only idle and vain, but mischievous for me to say
what is my opinion as to the measures that ought to be
adopted." This certainly was very high authority, and
he (Mr. Bankes) also thought it very good cause ; for of
what use would it he for him, or others, to trouble the
House with projects, and hypotheses, which, of course,
would never be carried into execution ? A trial of any
one of them could not be made; and were he to hazard
them they would only divert the House from the real point
in issue, to which he wished to fix the attention of Hon.
Members. Referring again to the speech of the then
Master of the Rolls and the present Lord Chancellor,