The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-11 00:00:00

measure.

The Earl of ELDON said, that no observation, no
remark, no statement which any Noble Lord might make,
should induce him to depart from that rule of conduct
which he h hitherto constantly observed, in presenting
petitions. He would not, while presenting them,- ewer
into the question whether the measure proposed ley the
Noble Duke -would be salutary or not—he would not, on
such an eccasion,-enter on an inquiry of so extensiee a nature.
He entertained, on- this subject, the most sincere and de-
cided opinion. After anxious deliberation on it—after
having exercised the aemost attention with reference to
it,—he had come toatiris conclusion, that the measures
spoken of this night were utterly ieConsistent with the seen-
rity of the church of En:land.—(Hear.)The Noble Lord
might support thOse measures ; but be should, most sincerely
and btreminusly, but he hoped most fairly and openly,
oppose them to the very last moment that such measures
were discussed in their Lordships' ffouse.—(Hear.)—
While he said this, he could assure their Lordships that the
regard Whicir he feat for the Noble Duke, personally, • re--
Mained unshaken, although lie was the author of that, to
him, most detested measure.—(Hear.) .
The Duke of SUSSEX certainly had been requested
to make e'rentark or two on this petition, as to the men-
trzr in whictrit had been got tip. Theinformetion which
he had received he had communicated to his Noble Friend
on the right, who had presented; the counter-petition, and
_who told hiM that the-person by Whom he (the Duke of
Sussex) had been addressed xvits known his Noble Friend,
and was a perfectly respectable man. • That individual had
called his attention to -the manner in which the•petition
wail got np, and it was this :—,pifferent pieces of parch-
ment were placed- in butchers' Mlirs' and bakers' shops,
where.persons of all ages signed their names. • Boys" were
placed at the turnpike-gates with similar pieces of parch-
;merit, and lads as they came from school were called on
to sign their names.,-in some into-Imes contrary to the
wish and opinion of their parents ; and many of them
signed for the-gratification of having their names placed
on the tables of- the two Houses of Parliament. This
was the statement which he ha? been- told to Make. To
show how signatures were procured, be begged to. relate
to the House an anecdote which he had learned from a
Rev. Gentleman at Norwich. The Rev. Gentleman hay-
ing been informed that the boys at the National School
had been dismissed an hour before 'their time, to enable

them to sign the anti-Catholic petition, asked the master
why he had ti,•nc up those little boys to sign' the petition ?
Oh," answered be, " because it will snake a great, a last •
ins impression On their:minds." Ile would not prolong
the di bate on the petition, but he thought it tight to state
such facts as be was put in possession of.
The Earl of ELDON, from the information he bad re-;
eeived, had some reason to view the mattrr in a light en-
. . .

tirely different from the Royal Dtike. The Noble and
Learned Earl then presented petitions against granting any
fat ther co, cessions to the Roman Catholics, front the mi-
nistets, churchwardens, and inhabitants of Iladleigh, in
the county of Essex ; from the ministers, deacon*, and
congregation of Cumberland-street chapel, Shortditch ;
from the minister, churchwardens, and inhabitants of
3lontgomeryshire ; from the minister, church-
wardens, and inhabitants of Hadleigh, in the county of
Suffolk; from the inhabitants of the parish of Ravenscroft
front the minister, churchwardens, and inhabitanta of the
parish of Isell, in the county of Cumberland ; from the.
Protestant Dissenters of Stone, in the county of Stafford ;
front a body of Welch Calvinist Methodists; from the o-
tentant Dissenters, distinguished by the name of Seceders,
at New Mills, in the..county of Gloucester ; from the in-
habitants of the borough and sole of Doncaster, in the
county of York ; front the clergy, gentry, and Mita-
bitants of Bolton and Biseombe, in the county of Lan-
caster ; fromi the clergy of the chapelry of Bradfield,
in the county of York ; from the minister, church-
wardens, and ittbabitauts of Walton, in the county
York ; from the inhabitants of the town of Calne ;

from the inhabitants of Mexborough, in the county
Of York ; from the inhabitants of Southweek, in the
county of Southampton ; from the iuhabitants of the pa-
rish of Staines, in the county of Middlesex ; from the
minister, churchwardens, and priticipil inhabitants of Stir-
fery St. Peter, in the county of Suffolk; from the inha-
..

bitants of Beauchamp Porten, in the county of Essex ;
from the minister, churchwardens, an;l inhabitants of
Alveston, in the county of Derby ; from the inhabitants of
Whitchurch, in the county of Salop; front the inhabitants
of Lockliwltn, in the county of Dumfries—they prayed
that in); 'Lea-Alice which- might be intiodiiiied might net
interfere with that part of the articles of Union with Scot-
land, which say..,, that neither the electors our the elected,
in Siodand, shall be Roman Catholics ; from the inhabi

toms of Sheen, in the county of Surrey; from theinha-
hitant: of Patel:tureen], in the county of Fife ; and from
nine other places.

The Earl of CA RLI ALE pr. se .ted a petition in favour
of the Catholic Claims, flout a place in Y rkshire.
The Marquis of ORMONDE presented a petition from
the Itomau .Catholic inhabitants of a parish in the county
.6f..Kilkenny, in favour of the. Catholic claims.
The Duke of RICHMOND was -anxious to take this
opportunity to say a few words with reference to what had I
fallen from a Noble Earl ON inehilrea) in the eirly part
of the evening. Ile did not agree in all that had been said
by that Noble Earl.„. lie agreed with him on one point,—
namely, that great dangei was apprehended from Catholic -
emancipation ; but he wished not tribe understood as agree-
ing with the Noble Earl in his-opinion on the subject of
reform. He should feel it 'to be his-duty, as a Peer of
that Houk., to give every possible opposition to the mess
sures noW in progress, which, iii - his opinion, were de-
cidedly hostile t 9 the best interests of the country—(hear,
hear )—rand ;le trusted that his opposition would be found
manly, fair, and open. (Hear, hear.) He would not call
to his aid, in opposing the Roman Catholic claims, any
other weap,n hut regular Parliamentary praetice—(hear,
hear).—and he could assure the House that he wiAked it.
moat particularly to be understood, that if these measures,
unfortunately in hisripillion, should be carried in the Hou-e
of Lords, no man would be more anxious than himself to
see them produce a good effect; and no man would feel
greater gratification than he should do, if lie found they
answered the expectations which has been formed as to
their effic.tcy. 13ut he felt conrineed, that if, unhappily,
the Noble Duke should gain the victory on this occaiiori,
he would, for the fitst time in his life, be compelled to de-
plore the PUMAS:
The Earl of FALMOUTH considered the measure pro-
' posed by the Noble Duke as pregnant with great evil to
the country. If he could for one moment think otherwise,
he would not oppose the measure ; for he had ' no party
feelings to indulge—he had no cause-to incite 'him to re- ,
venge- If, therefore, he thou4ht that those measures,
would operate in the henrficial manner in which the N,,ble
Duke supposed. ha should not Persist in his opposition. ,

But he did persist, and he would to the last persist, be-
cause be believed that the measure would, sooner or later,
occrsion the ruin of this country.
Tire Earl of ELDON observed, that in 1815 many do-
cuments Were laid before their Lordships relative to those
Roman Catholics who had taken the benefit of the Acts of
1791 and 1793. Now he should like to sec similar ac-
counts at the present time. If they had the necessary ma-
terials, they could see how far the Roman Catholics had
taken the benefit of the Acts of 1791'and 1793, and how
far they had complied with the conditions on which those
benefits were conceded. Ile wished likewise to point the
attention of the House to the distinction between the oath
in the Art of 1791 and the oath in the Act of 1793, for
the purpose of ascertaining whether tl►e Roman Catholic
under the one Act bound himself to the same allegiance as
he did under the other. The English Act of -1791 called
on the Renrin Catholic to swear allegiance to the succes-
sion to the throne under the Act of Settlement—that suc—
cession being. limited to the Princess Sophia of.
and the hens of her hotly "being Protestants." The
other Act—the Irish Act of 1793—unless his memory de-
ceived him, called on the Roman Catholics to swear alle-
giance to the succession in his' Majesty's fam,ly, omitting
the words " being Protes.ants." On this subject he
should m ike a motion on Friday, for which day lie moved
that the. Lords should e summoned.

" Lord CALIIIORPE presented a petition fro►n Bir-
mingham for the removal of the disabilities which affect
the Roman Catholics.

The lilatignis of ()MONDE presented petitions in fa-
vour of the Catholic Claims from Castle Comer ; and also
from several parishes in the county of Kilkenny.
Adjourned at a Quarter after Seven.