The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-28 00:00:00

University, by 21 bankers and officers of banking estab-
lishments by 50 clergymen, by a vast number of the mem-
bers of tile learned profession of the law, by writers to the
signet, by solicitors, by between 200 and 300 merchants
and traders, and the rest of the petitioners were made up
of small proprietors, burgesses, and householders Ile
therefore said, that no petition had ever been presented to
Parliament of which the great bulk and mass of the signers
wet e more competent to form a correct opinion on the
question, than the one which he now offered to their Lord-
ship,' notice. He had omitted to mention that the peti-
tion was also signed by 128 of the practising barristers,
forming a large majority of the whole Scottish bar. Thus
the bars of England, Ireland, and Scotland, ha 1 peti-
tioned their Lordships to remove the disabilities which
pressed upon their Roman Catholic countrymen, and
he must conf, ss it appeared to him very extraordi-
nary, that if, as some persons chose to represent,
the granting of the Catholic claims would endanger the
Constitution of 1688, this view of the questi in had not
suggested itself to the learned, studious, and sagacious
members of the bars of England, Ireland, and Scotland,
who had petitioned Parliament. The bars of the three
countries had concurred in petitioning the Legislature to
restore to their Catholic fellow-subjects those rights which
they enjoyed in the olden time, which were suspended
from necessity, but which ehould now be restored, because
that necessity no longer existed. The result of his ana-
lysis of the petition was, that it was signed by upwards of
7,600 persons. He understood that a petition of an op-
posite nature, signed by 18,000 persons, would shortly be
presented to the House from Edinburgh. Yesterday a pe-
tition had been presented to their Lordships, signed by
113,000 persons, and the Glasgow petition was signed by
36,000. He did not consider, however, that this was a
question to be decided by the number of signature`. He
said this with the most perfect respect for the right of pe-
titioning, and the mo,t perfect good will towards those
who differed from him in opinion. If the question were
to be decided by counting the number of names attached
to petitions, the cause of emancipation must he abandoned;
but he conceived that Parliament ought to look to the in-
terests of the country—it ought to look to the intelligence
of those who petitioned in favour of concession. It ap-
peared to him that the great bulk of those who had signed
petitions on the other side (though there were many men
of great intelligence among them) had signed without pos-
sessing an adequate knowledge of what they were sinn-
ing. To the petitions of those persons Parliament ought
not to pay so much repect as to those which emanated
from the better informed classes. How was it possible
that a hard-working industrious labourer or artisan should
be able to salve a difficult question of state policy ? It ap-
peared to him that he was casting no imputation on those
classes in expressing this opinion.—(Hear.)—It was quite
impossible that they should know anything about the mat-
ter. They had less time for consideration than the richer
classes, and consequently they were more easily deluded
by the representations of interested men. In all parts
of Great Britain, the clergy had treated the question only
as a religious one. If it were a question whether we
should have a Popish Parliament, a Popish Constitution,
and a Popish Church—if it were a question whether we
should be all Catholics instead of being all exclusively
Protestants, those who petitioned against emancipation
would be perfectly competent to decide upon it ; but it
was because the question was not what the petitioners
conceived it to be, that he did not regard their numbers,
and thought that the Legislature should pay more respect
to the expressed wishes of those who were intelligent,who
perfectly understood what were the advantages to be oh.
tained by repealing the exclusive laws, and what were the
dangers which would result from maintaining them.—
(Hear.)—The Noble Lord concluded with reading the pe-
tition, which was ordered to lie on the teble.

The Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY pre-
sented a petition from the clergy of the archdeaconry of
Derby and three others from places in Staffordshire, pray-
ing that no further concessions might granted to the
Catholics. The Rigist Rev. Prelate observed (as we un-
derstood) that he could not afford his full concurrence to
the prayer of the petitions. He would decline expressing
a decided opinion with respect to the measure proleised by
Government, until he saw the shape in which it would be
introduced to that House. He trusted that when the mea-
sure should come before their Lordships, it would be dis-
cussed without imputation on the one hand, or menace on
the other.—(Hear.)—A very serious responsibility rested
on those who had proposed a great alteration of what were
conceived to be the standard bulwarks of the British Con-
stitution ; but an equal responsibility rested on those who
rejected this opportunity of making a change (if it ought
to be made), and thereby consigned 7,00Q000 of their
fellow subjects to interminable feuds, and perhaps the hor-
rors of civil war.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WINCIIILSEA presented ten petitions
against concession from Dissenters in Kent. The Noble
Earl observed, that the vast majority of the people of this
country considered the question to be a religious as well as
civil one.

The Earl of LONGFORD presented a petition from
the county of Westmeath against concession.
Earl BROWNLOW presented a petition from the Clergy
of the Archdeaconry of Lincoln, and 15 other petitions
from places in Lincolnshire, all against concession.
Earl GROSVENOR presented petitions from Chester,
Stockport, and Congleton, in favour of concession. The
Noble Earl condemned the efforts which had been made to
persuade the people that the question was one of a religious
nature. I.le was convinced that the majority of the intel-
ligent part of the community was in favour of emancipa-
tion, and the question was making progress even amongst
the lower orders. An attempt to get up a county meet-
ing in Cheshire to petition against emancipation had failed.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition in favour
of Roman Catholic emancipation, from a parish in Ireland.
The Noble Earl also presented a petition to the same effect
(which had been put into his hands by a Noble Baron
who sat behind him, and who, among the 50 or 60 pe•
titions he had presented to-night, had omitted to lay the
present one on the table), from the undersigned persons of
the Unitarian persuasion meeting at South-place Chapel,
Finsbury, London.
The Earl of CLARE presented petitions in favour of
Roman Catholic emancipation, from two places in
Ireland.

Lord PLUNKETT presented a petition to the same
effect from a parish in Ireland.

On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, certain
Peers were added to the list of the Committee appointed
to inquire into the state of the coal-trade.

Adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

Petitions were presented against concession, by Colonel
Powell, from a parish in Ireland; Little Badham, caunty
of Essex, ,y Colonel Peel; from several parishes in Nor-
folk, by Mr. Downie ; from several parishes in the county
of Down, by Colonel Dalrymple; from the county of Ber-
wick, by Mr. Moore ; from Newry, county Armsgh, and
five parishes iu Dublin, by Sir J. Astley ; from the Chalk
Hundreds, county of Wilts, by Lord Nugent; from Sud-
bury, by Lord Hotham.
In favour of the measure, by Mr, Lawley, from Binning-
ham; Mr. B. Carter, from Portsmouth; by Lord
Nugent, from High Wycombe, Sudbury, and the borough
of Clitheroe, Lancashire; by Mr. Carew, from the city of
Waterford ; by Mr. Browniow, from four parishes in the
county of Westmeath, Tyrone, and Armagh ; Mr. IL
Grattan, from three parishes in Ireland, and one rir-,a,ikt
the Disfranchisement Bill; by Lord CasrlcTeag-ia, .from
two parishes in county Antrim, and c„unty Down.
f't the year
Mr. WODEHOUSE for a return of the piiceS
Woikhoo* of Sr. Ann's, Blaekfriars. The
of Foreign Coro tvom 'Ur? Consuls abroad,
MAYOR ptr.irritA tt
W'..,-IKilouses to
Sfl.l,B.he
ortp
petition flee from the
inmates esw :fs
petitioners st rtea that
,y had heard,. with horror, that
.s..ell.tiehelbirtcudsiees forfrpextririlitisrlit,n.g M
Tire asters ;,f
humbly prayed that such Bill might not rasa into a law.
Mr. W. WYNNE moved tlust t 4 petition complain ng
of an undue e'ertin for Dover,' shouiri be taken into tur-
ther consideration on Frid w, the bth of April.
yrii the ;notion of Mr WYNNE, the Dover Election Pe-
tition was or lcred to be taken i..to consideration on Tut s-
d ,y, the 2t3th April, at three o'clock.
A Message fvoin tire Lords announced, that their Lord-,
110 a.irecd to several Private Bills,
Lord BECTIVE presented a petition from a parish in
the county of Meath for a repeal of the Sub-letting Act.
Lord DUNCANNr)N presented a similar petition from
anotbvi• pariah in the same county.
Petitions were presented from tile following places, is j