presented a Petition from the freemen of Rochester, respecting the acceptance of the place of treasurer of Greenwich-hospital by one of their representatives, sir T. B. Thompson. They considered it as an office of profit under the Crown, which rendered their member's seat void; and they prayed for a new writ for that city.

contended, that after the decision of the House on this subject, the petition could not lie on the table.

observed, that the House had not come to a decision, as the previous question was adopted. That a decision might be obtained, he would make a motion on the subject.

insisted that the electors had the right to claim, that their member should be sent back to them. He hoped his hon. friend, when be brought forward his motion, would shape it so as to force the House to decide whether the appointment in question was or was not of a military or naval nature.

then gave notice, that on Wednesday he would move for a new writ for Rochester. The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

said he held in his hand a Petition from a person named Pierre Damasé Perrot, who was a landholder in the isle of France. He complained of having had his house surrounded by a body of armed men, who forced him on board a ship, and landed him in England, after a passage of 139 days, during which time he was treated like a prisoner, without any charge, as far as he knew, being laid against him. On arriving in England, and applying to government, he was told that there was no charge against him, and he might return. It was scarcely possible to suppose, that such a violent measure would have been adopted without some powerful reason, though no cause was assigned by the petitioner; but however this might be, the conduct of the government at home towards the individual seemed as extraordinary as that of the colonial government seemed unjust and outrageous. When he first heard of the circumstance, he asked the noble lord opposite for information upon it, but had received no answer. All that he could learn was, that this person had combined with others, in a remote part of the island, in a tumultuous measure to oppose the introduction of slaves from Madagascar, and out of this arose the persecution he had experienced.

The petition being read,

said it was unfortunate, that from the long period since the arrival of any dispatches from the isle of France, the particulars relating to the cause of this individual's deportation could not be fully communicated. The only information that had been received on the subject was contained in a dispatch from governor Farquhar, which disclosed enough perhaps to justify his interference. It appeared, that the British government at the Mauritius had last year established a registry of slaves. An insurrection had broken out on this subject at the isle of France, and it happened that at this moment a commissioner arrived, who had been sent out by Buonaparté after his return from Elba, who intended to avail himself of the tumult, to convert what was an opposition to the registry bill, into an opposition to the government. The insurrection at last got to such a head, that the troops were called upon to act. When it appeared that this M. Perrot had taken a distinguished part in the affair, the governor, by the advice of the council, had thought it right to rid himself of the leaders of the insurrection, by shipping them for England. Since the petitioner had stated his case, he had been ordered to return to his family, and was provided with the means of subsistence and shipping back. Every syllable of his complaint, respecting the severity of his treatment on board ship, had been contradicted.

did not think it had been shown, that the best line had been adopted which the case required. The best proof that there was no serious charge against the petitioner was, that he was ordered to be sent back. The liberties of the people of the new colonies we had acquired, were subject to the simple will of the respective governors, and therefore the question, as to what sort of government these colonies should be under, was worthy of the early attention of the House. He maintained that the governor of the isle of France had, by his conduct to the petitioner, exposed himself to an action for damages. Enormous exactions, he understood, had been practised upon the people and property of that island, by the mere fiat of the governor; a circumstance which deserved the decisive interposition of the House.

was of opinion, that the proceedings of the governor against the petitioner were most unjustifiable. Were there no laws in the island, that he was sent a prisoner to a country where he had no friends or connexions whatever? It was not made out that this person was acting in the insurrection, and therefore if a man was to be suffered to be thus injured with impunity, he would say, that the House was entirely insensible to the liberties of British subjects abroad. He thought the case in question was a very serious one indeed.

desired to know, if this person was actually engaged in the insurrection against the government, why proceedings were not instituted against him there? For what purpose should our government order him to go back to the island? Why was he not tried there, or sent here with such charges against him as might cause an investigation into his conduct?

thought, from what had transpired, that this case had assumed a more serious shape than it had at first ap- peared in. This person had suffered a severe punishment before any trial; and the only question was, whether the state of the island authorized such conduct as had been adopted towards him? Was it to be taken up as a principle that our governors of distant colonies were to send borne persons, at their mere will or pleasure; and that they were then to be simply ordered back again, without any charges appearing against them?

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

after a few preliminary observations, in the course of which he commented upon the report which a committee had drawn upon this subject, moved for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate, amend, and reduce into one, all the acts relative to the mode of raising money by grand jury presentments in Ireland. He stated it to be his intention not to press the bill during the present session. A long conversation ensued, in the course of which, sir J. Newport, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Abercrombie, and sir H. Parnell, urged the necessity of a bill, even in the present session, which should place the tax levied by these assessments under proper control. On these grounds sir H. Parnell moved, that the words "consolidating," and "reducing into one," be left out of the motion, for the purpose of leaving only the word "amending." Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald acknowledged the utility of some immediate measure, but was unwilling to take the subject out of the hands of Mr. Cooper. Mr. Peel proposed that two bills should be brought in, the one for consolidating, &c. and the other for amending, so as to give the power of immediate control. The latter bill might pass this session, and the former be postponed to the next. The Speaker submitted, that in point of form two bills could not concurrently pass through the House, both professing the same objects, though to a greater extent in the one than the other: besides, the consolidating act could not include the one that was contemporaneous with it. After some farther conversation, sir H. Parnell's amendment was carried, and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald consented to bring in a bill with the title thus altered.

rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to those petitions from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which he had presented. He said those petitions contained the prayer of nine-tenths of the Irish Roman Catholics, including all the Catholic clergy; that they were unlike the petitions usually presented to the House, because they belonged rather to a whole people, than to some particular class of persons seeking some advantage of a private or personal consideration. If it was true, that the population of Ireland exceeded six millions, the number of those who were immediately interested in these petitions, could not be less than between four and five millions. As their grievance was exclusion from the constitution and their prayer was to be admitted into the enjoyment of it, he could not conceive how a stronger claim could exist upon the consideration of the House, than this claim which was now made upon it by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The motion which had been submitted to the House by a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Grattan) rendered it unnecessary for him at this time to press the House to come to a further decision upon the general question of emancipation; this had been so recently discussed and decided upon, he felt it could answer no good purpose, but, on the contrary, he conceived it might injure the question very considerably again to take the sense of the House upon it. In respect, therefore, to the claims of the Catholics to seats in parliament, and to be eligible to fill those offices of the state, which were offices of great political influence, he should not now bring them under discussion. But, in order that these important objects should not be lost sight of, he wished to give the House to understand, that he should call upon it to take them into its consideration early in the next session. He would, for that purpose, be present at the opening of it, and on the first day he would give notice of a motion for the complete emancipation of the Catholics, and also for calling over the House on the day fixed for the debate. The interval could not be better occupied, than by diligently examining into all the details belonging to this most important question. The result of such an inquiry would be a conviction, that the disorders which prevail in Ireland cannot be remedied by any other measure than that of a complete repeal of the penal code. The system of military government which now existed there, could never conciliate the affections of the people to the state, though it might produce a temporary suspension of outrage and disturbance: nothing but a complete participation of the whole constitution can reform or tranquillize that country. He hoped ministers would at length make the Catholic question a cabinet question. He found, on looking into the correspondence which took place in 1812, between lord Liverpool and lord Wellesley on the subject of forming a new administration, after the death of Mr. Perceval, that lord Liverpool rested the opposition of himself and his colleagues, the very same who now form the cabinet, upon three grounds,—1st, The conduct and temper which the Roman Catholics have been induced to manifest. 2dly, The principle upon which the question has been brought forward. 3dly, The circumstances of Europe. In respect to the first objection, the conduct and temper of the Catholics, a great change had taken place since 1812. No speeches and no resolutions had appeared to draw down upon them any complaint. They had themselves proposed to meet the wishes of those who desire further ecclesiastical securities, to ask the pope to surrender all influence in the appointment of bishops, by rendering the nomination of each new bishop wholly domestic. But if the conduct and temper of the Catholics were not yet such as every one can approve of, ought that to be a reason for the cabinet refusing to listen to their claims? If it was right it should be so, the prospect of any settlement would be utterly hopeless. For how is it possible to expect an effectual change, while it is refused even to inquire into the nature of their grievances? In respect to the second objection, made by lord Liverpool, the principle on which the question had been brought forward, namely, the principle that the Catholics demanded concessions as a matter of right, this can no longer be urged, as such a principle is not set forth either by them, or those who in this House advocate their cause. As to the third objection, the circumstances of Europe, this has wholly disappeared. It follows, therefore, that according to lord Liverpool's own showing, there does not exist at this time any one of those objections which induced him and his colleagues, in 1812, to withhold their consent to the Catholic claims. This being the case, is not the conduct of mi- nisters deserving of censure, for suffering this session to pass over without any symptom of ever having bestowed a moment's consideration on this question, and that, too notwithstanding the very first subject that was brought before the House in this session, was the complete failure of all the efforts of the Irish government to check the progress of secret associations and open disturbance which prevailed in Ireland. It was much to be desired that some explanation should be given by the noble lord (Castlereagh) of what were the opinions of ministers under the present circumstances of the question. The agitation which prevailed in Ireland was greater than ever was before known. If ministers would give their support to a bill for granting the subordinate concessions, they would do a great deal towards appeasing this agitation. The noble lord has said, that the success of the Catholics was altogether in their own hands; but to make them feel this to be the case, something more was wanting than the assertion of the noble lord. The Catholics will judge from the votes of the House upon the probability of succeding in their object, and if they see refusal follow refusal to entertain their claims, they will become more and more discontented. It was principally for the purpose of counteracting the ill effects upon the feelings of the Catholics, of allowing the session to close without doing something for them, that he proposed a bill should pass, for giving them the subordinate concessions. Even these would be received with gratitude, and would be considered as a pledge of the favourable disposition of parliament to give them further relief. He felt himself in a situation to propose such a measure, with every expectation of the support of the House, in consequence of the admissions that those members who had been the most zealous opponents of the Catholics had made, of the expediency and safety of such a measure. He alluded to the opinions of sir William Scott, sir John Nichol, Mr. Yorke, and the Speaker; particularly of the latter, who had said, so long ago as the year 1813, that "what he contended for was, that we ought still to withhold from the Roman Catholics all capacity of political power and jurisdiction but at the same time widely and liberally to lay open before them the field of profitable and honourable reward for distinguished exertions and services; and in matters of religion to render their legal tolera- tion complete." With this authority in favour of the object he had in view, he should propose to the House certain resolutions, which, if agreed to, would form the subject-matter of a bill for granting those concessions, which the Speaker had said ought to be widely and liberally granted. The first resolution goes to declare the expediency of granting the offices of teller and cashier of the exchequer, or auditor-general, vice-treasurer, postmaster-general, Serjeant at law, attorney and solicitor general, king's counsel, master in chancery, master and lieutenant-general of the ordnance, generals on the staff, sheriff and sub-sheriff, and all offices of corporations. This resolution would open to the Irish Catholics several legal offices. It would open the army to every office but that of commander of the forces. It would open all the revenue offices and all corporation offices. It would not be difficult to produce cases to prove, that every existing restriction has been the source of great grievance to individuals; but to do so would be going too much at length into the question. One which had lately happened was sufficient to give the House some idea of the operation of these penal disqualifications. A Catholic in the sea service had been recommended for promotion for his gallant conduct, and he was nominated as master and commander. When he wished to take the benefit of his promotion, he was called upon to take the oaths of qualification, and not choosing to abandon his religion, he lost his rank. This gentleman had two brothers killed fighting in Spain.—The next resolution went to relieve Catholics from the necessity of taking the qualifying oaths of 1773 and 1793, as the condition of voting at elections for members of parliament, a Condition which operated as a great vexation to them, without conferring a single advantage to the state. The next resolution was, to relieve Catholics from taking these oaths as a qualification for purchasing or disposing of landed property. As the law now stands, no Catholic can acquire or dispose of any property in land, except at a rack-rent for a lease of 31 years, unless he takes these oaths. If he should make a purchase, or a will, and have omitted to take there either through ignorance, or from being incapable through illness of going into the public court, where they are required to be taken, or even if after having taken them, he should lose his certificate of haying done so, any member of his family who chooses to conform, may file a bill in chancery, and possess himself of the property. This actually happened in the case of a Mr. M'Evoy. The total absence of all necessity for continuing such a restriction on the right over property, must show the expediency of removing it.—The next resolution enables Catholics to make charitable donations for the maintenance of their chapels, priests, and schools. This they cannot now do, as all such donations are held to be for superstitious uses, and, as such, are seized upon by the commissioners of charitable bequests, and applied to other charitable purposes. The impolicy and injustice of such a prohibition is too palpable to require any comment. The two remaining resolutions go to give protection to Catholic priests and their congregations, from disturbance during divine service; and to protect Catholic soldiers from being compelled to attend Protestant places of worship—two objects particularly recommended by the authority of the Speaker. Should these resolutions receive the sanction of the House, a further resolution will be necessary to place the English Catholics in every respect on a footing with the Irish Catholics. If a bill should be allowed to pass this session founded on these resolutions, a great extent of practical relief will be conceded to the Catholics. They will feel grateful for the favour conferred on them; they will regard the government and parliament as their sincere friends; and instead of looking at the question of ecclesiastical arrangements with a suspicion and a prejudice which does not allow them even to bestow a thought upon the meaning and plan of these arrangements, they will calmly examine them, and ultimately accede to them, if these arrangements, shall be wholly free from a tendency to injure their civil liberty or their religion. Sir Henry then proposed his first resolution.

begged that the standing order might be read, by which it was declared, that no bill which went to make an alteration in the religion of the country, should be discussed in that House until the proposition had been first considered by a committee, or agreed to by the House.—This being done,

said, that in matters of this nature it was the practice to begin with a committee of the whole House; at the same time he did not know that any hon. member was precluded from moving ab- stract resolutions: but certainly no bill could be introduced without the sanction of a committee.

was perfectly aware that if it had been a general measure for Catholic emancipation, it ought to be referred to a committee of the whole House; but by submitting only these concessions, he considered himself justified in making the motion.

was decidedly of opinion that the resolution came within the spirit of the standing order. The hon. baronet seemed to think that he could carry his resolutions by piece-meal, but it was impossible to put such a construction on the order of the House.

apprehended that he was not so much mistaken in point of form as seemed to be imagined. Several acts had been passed in the Irish House of Commons, which was governed by the same rules as the English and that House had always allowed bills of this nature to be brought in without previous inquiry by a committee.

said, it was impossible not to feel, that in thus bringing the question forward the hon. baronet could do it no good. If under such auspices he could reconcile it to his own feelings to proceed, such a course would be abhorrent to the feelings of those who usually acted with him, and to others who felt as anxious on this question as the hon. baronet himself could do. He trusted he would feel that to persevere would be to sacrifice the real interests of the question to what he might regard as his own consistency, though surely that could not really be consistency which at all made against those of whom he had so long been the advocate. He would put it to the hon. baronet, if many of the friends to this question had not withdrawn themselves on account of the course which he had thought it his duty to take? and he would ask if it was dealing candidly by the House thus to bring this great question into discussion piece-meal? He was not prepared to oppose those concessions which had been called for, but at the same time he could not suffer himself to be dragged in to support every indiscreet, motion which might be brought forward connected with it. The imprudent motion of the hon. baronet he thought likely to do great injury to the cause, and therefore he could not give it his support. He put it to the hon. baronet, if by persevering in his motion he could hope to serve the Catholics when it was seen that his own political friends were absent to avoid being placed in that dilemma which would leave them no choice but to vote against his motion, or to do that which would not serve the Catholics. He hoped the hon. baronet would not persevere in his present motion, as it was obviously the interest of the quesion that he should abandon it.

said, that the opinion o the noble lord placed this question entirely on a different footing. The noble lord had stated that he could not support the motion, which deprived him of the hopes of success. He was placed in a situation to which every person who felt anxious to discharge his public duty was always liable. The petition which he had presented could not be considered in any other light than as the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland: and he had felt it his duty to attend to the sentiments and feelings which they had expressed. He was persuaded that there was no other way of succeeding in this great question, than by bringing it repeatedly before parliament. With respect to the temper of the Roman Catholics, it could hardly be expected that the irritation would subside, when nothing occurred but refusal after refusal, to take their claims into consideration. He had been anxious at all times to support their interests to the best of his power; but, after the opinions which the noble lord had expressed, he thought it his duty to withdraw his resolutions.

said, that illicit distillation had, of late years been carried on to a most mischievous extent, and that this was very much to be attributed to the bad quality of the spirit produced from the regular distilleries. The plan which he intended to submit to the committee consisted of regulation and reduction of duty. For this purpose he intended to encourage the use of small stills of 40 gallons. By this means, especially in the Highlands, where illicit distillation chiefly prevailed, a palatable spirit might be produced in the legal way, and illicit distillation effectually prevented. A boundary had been established for the Highlands, within which the distillery duty was lower; but with this regulation, that none of the spirit distilled within the highland boundary should be transported to the Lowlands. But he now intended to abolish this line entirely, and to reduce the duty from 30 to 25 per cent. The duty on spirits was at present 8s. 4d. per gallon, and this he should propose to reduce to 6s. 4d. per gallon, namely, 8d. per gallon on the wash, and 9d. on the spirit.—He then moved—"That the present duties on spirits distilled in Scotland, do cease and determine."

said, that as much difficulty would exist in collecting a duty of 6s. 4d. as a duty of 9s. It was almost incredible the extent to which illicit distillation in Scotland had gone. He had spoken with a gentleman who was owner of an island to the north of the Head of Kintyre. That island he had disposed of, and the reason he assigned for doing so was, because it was filled with the nests of illicit distillers, who destroyed his young plantations, and whom he found it impossible to dislodge. Those persons would not be willing to pay 6s. 4d. per gallon for spirits, on which they at present paid no duty. This being the case, he thought the plan of the right hon. gentleman would tend to disarrange the distillery regulations throughout the country, without at all benefitting the revenue.

approved of the proposition of doing away the line between the Highlands and Lowlands. The proposed regulations would have the effect of preventing the consumer from dealing with the illicit distiller. He conceived, however, that the duty of 6s. 4d. was too great. In time such a duty might be collected; but at present he thought it would be impossible. It was futile to think that illicit distillation could be put down at once in Scotland.

sen. stated the universal prevalence of illicit distillation, and its lamentable effects on the morals of the people, who, by living in opposition to law, learned to despise it. The legal distiller ought to be encouraged in order to check this evil, and that could only be done by lowering the duty. The gentlemen of Scotland wished to put down this system, but were persuaded that the only means was to lower the duty.

argued in favour of a reduction of the duty to 5s. per gallon. He drew a lamentable picture of the deteriorated state of morals in the highlands, arising from the use of ardent spirits, and contrasted it with the morality and good order which, prior to the introduction of illicit distillation, had prevailed there.

spoke in favour of the duty proposed.

contended, that the proposed reduction of duty would be sufficient. It would be in fact a reduction to 5s. 9d. He should on his part propose to take off from the Irish duty 6d. per gallon, because the Irish duty could not, under the articles of the union, be higher than the Scotch. He was aware that the difference of strength was considerable, and that made the duty, as calculated by his right hon. friend, the same as the duty in Ireland: still it was a matter of calculation, and he would not have, even in semblance, a higher rate in Ireland than existed in any part of Great Britain. He considered that provision of the treaty of union as its most vital enactment. With regard to Scotland it could not be said that the proposition was not a very favourable one. Let it not be too sanguinely expected, however, that low duties alone would be sufficient. He was not paradoxical enough to assert that they would increase the evil; but this he recollected, that in Ireland they had been tried, and had not diminished it. A right hon. friend of his (Mr. Foster) had been persuaded to consent to a similar measure in Ireland. The duty was reduced to 2s. 6d. a gallon for the purpose of suppressing the illicit distillation; yet it was proved that the practice never prevailed so extensively as at the very time that the duty was so lowered.

said, that spirits were selling for 6s. per gallon in Scotland, being somewhat less than the duty proposed to be levied. How then was it possible to decrease the consumption of illicit spirits, when it was now sold at a price less than the duty which the right hon. gentleman proposed? The morals of the people of Scotland were ruined by the intemperate use of spirits. At one meeting of magistrates, no less than 1,300 persons were brought up to be fined for carrying on illicit distillation.

The Resolution was then agreed to.

then proposed his second Resolution, viz. "That a duty of eightpence be charged on every gallon of wash, made from malt, &c. for the manufacture of spirits in Scotland;" which was agreed to. He next proposed—"That a duty of 9d. be charged on every gallon of spirits, l-10th above hydrometer proof, manufactured for consumption in Scotland," which was also agreed to.