The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-24 00:00:00

that wise course by Which they had been hitherto distin-
guielod, they had recourse to that method of expressing
their opinions, which is now designated the petition of the
Graduates. If this were not the case, how came it that
the Duke of Cumberland, the Chancellor of the Uni-
versity, the Archbishop of Dublin, and the seven Prelates
of Ireland connected with the University, came before that
House a petitioners under the name of Graduates.—
( Hear, hear.)—He believed that very great efforts had
been made to prevail upon the University to petition
against the Catholics, and that to the failure of these at-
tempts might be traced the present petition. If, however,
thet petition hail to be signed on that evening, he believed,
from recent events, that a great number of the present
signatures would cot appear upon it.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Sir HENRY SMITH presented a petition from the pa-
rish of Beaumont and St. Beatres, in Essex," against con-
cession to the Catholics.
Mr. C ITRTEIS presented a petition from the Archdea-
coury sf Ewhurst, from Uckfield, and from the Dissenters
of Portsdown, against the Catholics.
Sir T. LETIIBRIDGE, in presenting a petition from
the town of Ilininster in favour of the Catholics, expressed
his determination to persevere in that course which he
conceived to be beneficial to the interests of the empire,
in spite of all the threats and denunciations with which
ho might be assailed. He had received threats from all
quarters upon the subject of the course he had taken ; but,
he repeated, he was determined to persevere in spite of
those, and in defiance, too, of the attacks of the malignant
portion of the press. He could not, indeed, avoid taking
the opportunity to state, that the privileges of the Mem-
bers of that House had been attacked by the venal press
in a manner which he thought inconsistent with the ho-
nour of that House or the dignity of its Members. He
had been maligned and traduced in consequence of his
opinions on this question, in a manner which would jus-
tify his moving for leave to summon the offenders to the
bar of that House; and he was confident, if he did bring
the offenders to the bar, that the House would visit them
with its displeasure, and with such a punishment as these
attacks upon its character and upon the character of its
31ember8 deserved.—(Hear, hear.)—He was sensible he
had another remedy for their attacks, as far as they re-
garded him. He could appeal to a jury of his country-
men, and lie had no doubt they would award him that sa-
tisfaction to which he was entitled for these malignant
spersions.—(Hear, hear.)—To neither of these tribunals
was it his intention to appeal ; but he could not avoid say-
ing that a power was exerted by this part of the press
over the freedom of debate in that Rouse, which was in-
consistent with the liberties of the country, and with the
privileges of the Members of a British Parliament—
( Hear, hear.)—An Hon. Member near him suggested that
the same power was arrogated by that vart of the press
which espoused the other side of the (motion ; but he be-
lieved it would be difficult to show any thing which could
prove they had followed the example of those whose con-
duct formed the subject of his observation!.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. GUEST presented a petition from the town of
Pembroke in favour of the Catholics.
Mr. THOMAS ESTCOURT presented a petition from
the Wesleyan Methodists of Marlborough, against concession.
The ilerquis of CHANDOS presented a similar peti-
tion from the Hundreds of Buckingham and Missenden,
and from parishoe in Down, Perth, Armagh, and Dumfries.
Lord ROBERT MANNERS presented a similar peti-
tion from Kettleby, in Leicestershire.
Mr. G. BANKES, in presenting a petition signed by
upwards of 600 of the Undergraluates and Bachelors of
Arts of the University of Cambridge, observed that he be-
lieved, and was informed, although he could not teke upon
himself to assert it, that those who signed the petition were
majority of the persons of that class belonging to the
University. The number, however, would have been
much larger hut for the opposition of the Heads of the
University, who had used every exertion to prevent the
'Members of the Colleges from signing the petition.
After a few words from Mr. BATLEY, Mr. MINYSON,
and %Ir. G. BA. NK vc, the petition was ordered to beprinted.
Mr. JAMES BROWNE presented six petitions from
different paces in the county of Mayo, in favour of the
Catholic Clainns.—To he printed.
CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. PEEL, the Order of the Day
for the House to go into Committee on the Catholic Re-
lief Bill was read.
On the question, that the Speaker should leave the chair,
General GASCOYNE said, that he did not rise for the
purpose of opposing the Speaker's leaving the Chair ; but
be had to propose a motion by way of instruction to the
Committee, and which he bed only deferred, because on
no previous day could he have brought the motion for-
ward. The preamble stated, that " Whereas by various
Acts of Parliament ;" but what those Acts were did not
appear there, it was clear that many Acts now e-4ating
meat be repealed, and he wanted to know what those
Ails were. One thing to him was quite clear, that the
object of this Act was to evade the Act of Union with
Scotland. He should not press the emotion that he was
about to make to a divieion—(hear, hear),.--bait he would
venture to say, that if his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel)
would consider the substance of this motion, he would have
no objection to adopt it. lie should, therefore, only state
what his motion was, and theeeby give 'his Right Hon.
Friend an opportunity of either refusing- pr accepting it.
His motion was, " That it be an instruction to the Corn-
mine to inquire into, and distinctly specify what exiretitig
Acts are, or will lie repealed, altered, or infringed upon,
by the propose! alteration and declaration in the preamble
of the Bill."
Mr. PEEL thought his Hon. Friend must see that there
was considerable objection to his motion, in the present
rage of the Bill. His Hon. Friend, therefore, would
jet-hates allow the House to negative his motion without a
tivision, or consent to its being withdrawn.
Geueral GASCOYNE in eoresequence of what had
fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, would not then
press his motion, but would take an opportunity of saying
something further on the subject in the Committee.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn ; and the Homee
went into Committee, Mr. ERANKLAND LEWIS in
the Chair.
Mr. BANKES rose for the purpose of proposing as an
Amendment to the preamble, that after the word " sub-
scribed" the words ..c as qualification for sitting and opt-
ing in Parliament, and for the enjoyment of offices, fran-
chisee, and civil rights" should be lett out. His main ob-
ject had always been to prevent the Admission of the Ca-
tholic-8 into the two Houses of Parliament. What he
wished was, that the Bill should specifically state such
offices as the Roman Catholics should have power of
holding.
Mr. G. MOORE said, it was not his intention to talc*
the question up upon what might be called antiquated
notions by the other side of the House, but he would meet
the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) on his own ground.
The first point for consideration was, what was the cause
rat the desire Catholics had to get into Parliament? The
next, how, far, after obtaining that boon, they would be
deeirous of altering the Constitution ? And, thirdly, what
power they would possess to carry that desire into effect ?
it could not be .denied that the Roman Cotholic
Church of Ireland had in this measure an ulterior oh-
j, et; that that object was to elevate itself, and to
degrade the Protestant Church, This was what they
learned on all occasions, through the mouths, not only
of the Catholic Clergy, but of the Cathegio Laity. In
short, it was quite clear, that they looked upon Catholic
Emancipation as a step---and as a very remote step-eeof
-what it was their object tonetain. He besought the House
!o consider how a small party in that House might inter-
fere with the proceedings of Parliantent. By acting in a
email, compact, and united petty, they might materially
thwart said annoy Government. He would tefeee to the
effect of the conduct .f Mr. Wilberforce, and those solo)
Acted with hint in 17934 oesed he need not enumerate other
instances in which important weeosures had been accom-
plished by parties acting in concert alai with perseverance.
He did not expect to see a Roman Ceti:Miss party, should
Roman Catlsolies be admitted into that Houseeceeesperating
with the party he supporting the Protestant Cor.etitacon
in that House. He %would only refer to the power of a
Member moving an adjooroment, to chew that though a
great number of Roman Catholics might not obtain seats,
yet that even a few acting in en uses;ol body might effect
eouch. if the cry of " hear, hear," was meant to convey
that a motion for adjournment had been eorted to by
those who oppoeeel his Majesty's Government on this gots,
Sion, he would say that such a mode had not bean reeOrted
to. There was nothing of ieetious opposition in the te alet-
once thet they offered to this meeepre. He only adduced
the argumeut to prove that the power of moving an ad-
journment continually sometimes had tire etfect (as it hid
last Session respecting a measure of the ChanCeleleseoef the
Exchequer's for building Churches) of defeating a releases:se
altogether. Fur these reasons he would support the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bankea.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL commenced by expressing his
sahniration of the good temper and moderation with which
the two Hon. Gent. who spoke last hail advanced the argu-
ments adduced in support of the course which they recom-
mended for the adoption of the [louse. The force cf those
arguments would lose none of their power from the mode-
ration with which they were urged, The main point
'vorriended for in the speeches of both speakers was, that
some danger 'aria to be apprehended from the admission of
Roman Catholics to seats in that House. He (Mr. Peel)