The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-10 00:00:00

people."

After a few words from Mr. MARTIN, 11Ir. HOULDS-•
WORTH, and Lord CASTLE KEA Cu, the titles of Mr. Bankes's
petitions were then read.' They were from St. Nicholas
and other places in. Dorsetshire, praying that no further
concession might be made.ttithe Roman - Catholics.—They
were ordered to he printed. • •
Mr. POYNTZ presented a petition from Chichester in
favour of the Roman Catholics,- and complained of the
manner in which the country people were induced to sign
petitions against the Catholics. All sorts of absurdities
were told them, such as that if the CathOlies came into
power, there would be double taxes, a new Pope at Lam-
beth Palace, &c.
Lord G. LENNOX knew of no such measures being
adopted at Chichester : he had the honour of presenting
four petitions from that city—from the Dean and Chapter,
from the Dissenters, from the Clergy, and from the inha-
bitants ; and he did gat know that in any of those peti-
tions the same name had been snbscribed twice, though.he
would not undertake to say that such might not in one or
two instances have been the ease; but so far from pres-
sing for petitiOnS; he could assure the House that his
Noble Brother's advice bad been, when applied to respect-
ing petitions, to leave the affair entirely in the hands of
Parliament.—(flear.) •
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Roman
CathOlica of Manchester and Salford ; from Coekermouth,
in Cumberland ; and from six other places, in favour of
the Roman Catholics.—To be printed. •
Mr. CHAPLIN presented a-petition from the Nobility,
Gentry, Clergy, and Freeholders of the southern subdivi-
sion of Lindsay, in Lincolnshire, praying that no further
oneessions may be made to the Catholics. Tl:e same
lion. Member presented a similar petition from the Arch-
deaCon and Clergy of Lincoln, and from fourteen parishes
and yillages in Lincolnshire.

Mr. CHAPLIN also presented a petition from certain
persons, inhabitants of Lincolnshire, • praying- an Inquiry
into the conduct of the Collector 'of Assessed Taxes.
Mr. W. POWLETT presented a petition from the Ma-
gistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of Sunderland against the
Catholic Claims.' fhe Hun. Member observed, as we
understood, that he did nut agree with the petitioners on
this subjeCt, although it was his ditty to present their peti.
tion.

Mr. RICIIARD 11. PHILLIPS pr-sented a petition
from the inhabitants of Haverfordwest idfavour of the Ca..
tholia Claims. The same Hon. Member then presented
petitiOns froni
.the Clergy, Gentryo• and Inhabitants of Ha-
verfordwest, and from the': Congregations of two Chapels
in that town, r.gainst the Catholics.
ESTCOURT presented:. petitions from the Tian-
bitants of Tetbury, in Gloucestershire;
Mallet, and from several other places, against the Catholic.
Colonel PEEL. presented similar petitions from Stone, in
Staffordshire, front Spixworth, ❑Norfolk, and taro other
places in the sainecOnoty.,,. fiom Shepton
Mr. EGgRTON Presented a similar petition from Mid-
(flew ' •' •

Sir C. COLE presented a similar petition from the in-
habitants of Landaff.

Lord THOMAS CECIL presented a similar petition
from the Inhabitants of StaMford.:::,
Lord E. 'SOMERSET, in- prientinz a petition from
Mereton in *the Gloucestershire, against the
Catholic Claims, said, th:at'althougl. he had for a long time
taken the' same Aim, of thiS- rplustion as the petitioners,
yet, when he saw the condition to which It:eland eras now
reduced, and trlein he considered that there were Lo other
means left to allay the ferment in that country, or restore
tranquillity to its people, he could not any tensor refuse

Lis fitment to tl.. , recommendation contained in his Majesty's
Speech—a recommendation supported by the united voice
of the country. The Noble Lord then presented similar
petitions from the Deanery of Winchcombe, and from the
Rural Deanery of Hawkesvrell, in Gloucester.
Mr. G... HEATIICOTE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Boston, in favour of the Catholics; and
from the inhabitants of Muthil, in Perthshire, against
concession.

Mr. FELLOWES presented petitions from Thiston and
Saxmitmlham, against the Catholic claims.
?Ir. LINDSAY presented a petition from the Corpo-
ration and Guild of Merchants in Dundee, in favour of the
Catholics.

Lord MANDEVILLE presented petitions from the Dis-
senters meeting at the Grove Chapel, Camberwell, and
from the Protestant inhabitants of St. Ices, Hunts, against
the Catholics.

Lord RANCLIFFE, in presenting a petition from Not-
tingham in favour of the Catholics, took occasion to express
his pleasure at the prospect of a final settlement of this
question, and observed, that although a petition had been
got up' in Nottingham against the claims of the Catholics,
he believed the opinions of the great majority of the inha-
bitants to be decidedly in their favour. The petition
against Emancipation had, in six weeks, received only
,000 signatures, while the petition in favour of the Ca-
tholics obtained 4,550 signatures in as many days.
Admiral SOTHERON contended that the petition
against the claims of the Catholics was signed by
.the most
respectable persons in the town of Nottingham, and ob-
served (as well as we caul" collect from the low voice in
which the Gallant Admiral spoke), that he had been in-
formed the petition in faVour of emancipation was signed
by children, and by persons who were confined in the
Lunatic Asylum. This information he had received from
a gentleman who is the medical attendant of that asylum.
Lord RANCLIFFE said, the Gallant Admiral had not,
in his opinion, made out a very good case, when the only
person he brought against the petition was the inmate of a
lunatic asylum.—(Laughter.)
Admiral SOTHERON said the gentleman to whom he
alluded was a highly respectable gentleman, and not the
inmate of the Asylum.

Lord RANCLIFFE observed that if that gentleman
was not the inmate of the Asylum, he for one wished most
heartily that he had been so, for that same gentleman and
a pot companion of his, got up the opposition against him
(Lord Rincliffe) at the last election.--(Laughter.)
Mr. LUMLEY presented a petition from the Protest..
ants of Worksop, in Nottinghamshire; in favour of the
Catholics.

Admiral SOTHERON presented a petition from several
parishes in Nottinghamshire against the Catholics.
Mr. LEGH KECK presented a petition from Leicester
against concession to the Catholics. .

Similar petitions were presented from Cambridge (nine
petitions) by Lord CHARLES MANNERS.
Mr. L. O'BRIEN presented a petition from several
parishes in the county of Clare in favour of concession.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE presented a similar peti-
tido from Southampton.

A similar petitioa was presented by Lord CLEMENTS,
from Leitrim.

General ARCHDALL presented several petitions from
the county of Fermanagh against concession to the Catho-
lics. It had been said (as we understood the Hon. Mem-
ber (by the Right Hon. Secretary on a former night, that
the inhabitants of the county of Fermanagh were favour-
able to concession, provided it were accompanied with se-
curities ; but he was instructed to say they were adverse to
concession tinder any circumstances.

Mr. Secretary PEEL had not misrepresented the peti-
tioners ; he had referred only to a petition which be had
now before him ; that petition prayed for three thingi-:--
the suppression of the Catholic Association ; the dieran-
chisement of the forty-shilling Freeholders ; and 'the- pro-
hibition of the Jesuits. Now what he had said; and what
he now repeated, was, that there was not, perhaps, any
one of these objects for which the petitioners prayed at-
tainable, without the consideration of the whole state of
lreland.--(Hear, hear.)—The petitioners, 'twas true, were
against cOneession—he had never said they were not—but
the question ' was, whether. they could not obtain their
other objects, and also succeed in their prayer of not grant-
ing concession ? He was of opinion they would not, and
this was the substance of his observations upon the petition
to which he bad adverted.

Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from Lanca-
shire, in favour of Emancipation.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from certain
manufacturers connected with the Silk Trade, praying
that the duty may be lowered upon thrown silk, and alio
the duty upon foreign manufactured silk. At that mo.-
ment, when the attention of the House was so much en-
grossed with another topic, he would not offer any obser-
vations upon the subject of the petition, but at a fitting
opportunity he would be prepared to show that many and
great advantages would follow from a compliance with the
prayer of the petitioners in preventing smuggling, and in
other respects ; and he hoped that Government would be
able to bring forward a measure in accordance' with their
reasonable request.

The Earl of MOUNTCUARLES presented several Mi..
tions from the counties of Donegal and Cavan; in favour of
concession to the Catholics. , •

- Mr. SAUNDERSON said that several of the petitions
were signed at the instigation of • the Catholic Association...
For his part, he would not have supported the measure of
concession in obedience to the call of the Association ;
neither would he do so if the measure were brought' for-
ward from the other side of the House; but as the measure
was brought forward by Government, and on the respon-
sibility of Ministers,' he would support it (hear, hear',);
and impressed with these sentiments, he bad voted in favour
of the Resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman on a for-
mer night.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN. said; that this was a measure of
justice, due by the Hon. Member to the Roman CatholiCS
who had voted for him at the last election. He rejoiced
at the accession of the Hon. Member to the cause of truth,
of liberality, and justice.—(Flea••.)
Mr. W. PEEL brought up a Report of the number of
persons confined in the Debtors' Prison ; and also the
number of discharged Insolvents, &e.

Mr.. CLIVE presented a petition from Ludlow, in Shrop-
shire, in favour of the Catholics.
Similar petitions were presented from parishes in Radnor,
by Mr. F. LEWIS.
Mr. GRAT CAN moved for a return of the number of
freeholders who voted at. the contested elections in Ireland
since 1805, with the names of the candidates, distinguish--
ing the elections in the counties from the towns, with a
view if showing that not one half of the votes were re-
gistered. The Hon. Member presented petitions from
parishes in the counties of Dublin and Tyrone, in favour
of concession.

-11 r. iIEATIICOTE presented a petition from the city
of Coventry in fiVour of the Catholic Claims. . •

Mr. FILER, adverting to the 'petitfon which he had.
presented from the.eity of Coventry against the Cath?lic
claims, observed, that that petition had been signed by
5,000 persons, while the counter-petition, which had just
been presented by his Hon. Colleague, was signed by only 900.
Mr. C. PELII AM presented a petition from a Chapelry
in Chester, and another from Whitchurch, in Salop, against
the Catholic claims. •

Mr. C.' PALLME.B presented five Petitions from the
county of Surrey, against theoCatholk claims. The lion.
Member took the opportunity' of strongly impressing the
necessity of giving the people time to consider a measure,
which the Minister of the Crown himself had allowed, was
a breaking in upon the Constitution. - -
Mr. BARING reprobated the constant repetition of the
same arguments on this subject; denied that there was any
ground for delaying a decision upun a question which had
been undergoing a discussion for so many years ; and inti-
mated that if the lion. Member had expressed, at the bet
election, sentiments similar to those which he had uttered
in that House, he would not have been returned for the
county of Surrey.
Mr. MABERLY observed that in no single instance
had those who condemned the measure introduced by his
Majesty's Government stated what other remedy they
would propose for the existing evil.
-Mr: Alderman 'WOOD said' that when the Honourable
Mesnber offered himself as a candidate for Surrey, his con-
stituents heard nothing of the illiberal principles which he
kid lately promulgated, or be (Alderman Woo I) was sure
the Hon. Member would not have had his cordial support.
Sir R. FERGUSSON warmly reprobated the hallam-
"matory placards, with prints, which . were exhibited for
the purpose of impeding the progress of. an'Aet calculated
to du more good to the country than any,legislative measure
for the last century. He ttuderstoOrd'that there was i'sub-
scription for the purpose of raising :a cry of " No Popery,"
the surplus of which was to he employed in bringing
Anti-Catholics into Parliament.' - •
The Earl of UXBRIDGE defended the conduct of the
Hon. Member for Surrey.. z ,

Mr. C. PALLMER appealed to his Colleague, whe-
ther 'at the election fn. the county of Surrey he (111 r.
Paihner) had not stated that his impression was decidedly
against the' Catho!ics.
Mr. DENISON, after having confirmed the Watement
of his Hon. olkague on this point,
asked whether he pre-
sented one of the petitions in his Land as the petition of
Guilford.
C

Mr. PALLMER replied in the affirmative.
Nr. DENISON denied that it was so. It I3ad been