in moving that it do lie on the table, hoped he might be permitted to address a few observations to the House, especially as he was officially connected with the petition. The corporation of London had not assembled to express their sentiments upon the great question of Catholic emancipation for a period exceeding twenty years. When they last addressed the House on the subject, they petitioned against any concessions, and he believed he was justified in stating, that they would have been content not to have expressed any opinion on the present occasion, if they had not felt that their silence at this particular period, might have been construed to be an indication of their objection to concessions. They had therefore met, and by a majority of two to one, voted the petition which had just been presented. For his own part, he felt sanguine that the measures introduced by government would have the desirable result which was anticipated from them. He was quite satisfied that the situation of Ireland required the attention of parliament. From observing the agitation which had so long prevailed in that country, and which had so greatly increased during the last year, he had formed the conclusion, that there were but two ways of tranquillizing the people of that country, either by depriving them altogether of the benefits of the constitution and proclaiming martial law, or by taking their grievances into consideration, with a view of remedying them. He was satisfied that the latter course was the proper one to be adopted. If the measures now proposed did not give universal satisfaction to the people of Ireland they would at least satisfy all the sober and thinking part of that people. It had been said, and it would be said again, that emancipation would not procure food, clothing, and education, for the people of Ireland. He knew it would not; but it would form the basis of sound legislation for the people of that country, by which they would be raised to their just level in society. At the same meeting at which the petition was voted, a resolution was also passed, thanking the duke of Wellington and the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, not only on account of the services which they were at present rendering the country, but also because the corporation observed a strong disposition, in certain quarters, to impugn the motives of the right hon. gentleman who had propounded the measures of government. The court of Common Council had almost unanimously voted the freedom of the city to the right hon. gentleman.

said, he was gratified in the extreme, to see the sheriffs of London approach the parliament with such a petition. Having supported Catholic emancipation throughout his life, he had no need to declare his sentiments at the present moment. The petition was a remarkable proof of the change of sentiments among the citizens of London on the subject. The corporation for many years, had supported liberal measures; but he doubted if this had been the case with their constituents. He did not anticipate the carrying the petition by so large a majority. A very small portion of the citizens of London had signed petitions of any sort upon this subject; but they began to see that Catholic emancipation was not so dangerous a bugbear as they had imagined. He trusted that those of his constituents who had objected to him on the ground of his supporting Catholic emancipation, would soon be convinced that their objections were not well founded, as the measure would be attended by none of the evils they had anticipated.

said, that the division of two to one took place upon the question of adjournment, and not on the merits of the petition. Had it been on the merits of the petition, the majority would have been much greater. He was an advocate for the right of petitioning; but the weight to be attached to petitions depended on many circumstances;—such as the manner in which they were got up, the number of persons who signed them, and the character of those persons. The great mass of the community were able to form correct opinions on the pressure of taxes, and on some questions which were considered matters of grievance; but he believed that a large number of the signatures to the petitions to that House, on the subject of emancipation, were those of persons who did not understand the subject proposed to them; and that many petitions which purported to come from extensive districts against that measure did not speak the sentiments of any thing like a majority of the inhabitants of those districts. In the parish in which he had resided for thirty years, a petition was got up, purporting to be that of the clergy, churchwardens, and inhabitants, but it was not got up at any public meeting. The requisition for a meeting was signed by the two curates, and the overseers of the poor, and was addressed to the clergyman and churchwardens. They met, not for the purpose of considering the propriety of petitioning, but to sign a petition; and, to show how far they spoke the sentiments of the inhabitants, the parish contained six thousand two hundred inhabitants, and only four hundred and fifty signed the petition, and of these many were females. The circumstances under which the petition then before the House was agreed to, after full discussion, entitled it to great weight, as speaking the sense of the corporation of London; and the petition itself would send down the name of that corporation with credit to posterity. With respect to the manly avowal of the change of his opinions on this subject, made by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, he would say, that whatever might be the opinion of his past conduct on this question, his conduct on the present occasion would send down his name to posterity, as one of the greatest statesmen which had ever adorned his country. He would say also of the duke of Wellington, that though the glory of his many victories were great, the glory of his conduct with respect to this question would be much greater.

said, he could not refrain from giving his opinion on this occasion; for this was not a moment for any man to withhold the public expression of what he felt, with respect to this great question. He was opposed to the measure of concession, though he gave credit to government for the best intentions, in the measure which they had brought forward; and he hoped that the effects of that measure would be such as they anticipated. The opinions of the body who had presented this petition were entitled to respect; but it should be recollected, that they formed a body consisting of only two hundred or three hundred persons, while the constituent body consisted of fifteen thousand persons. He would only add, that having given his opposition to the principle of the measure upon which the House had pronounced a favourable opinion, he should not offer any interruption to it in the detail.

said:—Seeing the hon. member who represents the county of Waterford in his place, I consider this a fit opportunity to ask him if he has redeemed his pledge of inspecting the signatures to a petition from the Protestants of that county, which I had the honour to present to this House on Thursday last; and, if he has done so, to require that he will either confirm the assertion he then made, that the petitioners were "hole-and-corner men," or will allow that his accusation was unfounded, and do them an act of justice they are entitled to, by acknowledging his error. Sir, if there are any "hole-and-corner men" in the county of Waterford, I will tell the hon. member that this appellation is more appropriate to his supporters, issuing from their priest ridden cabins, than to those whose respectable names are attached to this petition. I deprecate as much as any man, the waste of time occasioned to this hon. House by altercations of this nature upon the presentation of petitions; but, however I lament it, I feel I should be guilty of a dereliction of my duty towards those honourable persons who have confided their petition to me, if I submitted without remonstrance, and did not indignantly repel the calumnious accusation the hon. member has thought fit to prefer. It may be said, Sir, that it is futile to trouble the House with these observations; but I ant of a different opinion. As the accusation is made, I am entitled to have it substantiated or contradicted. Honourable persons have intrusted their petition to me, and I will see justice done to them. If the hon. member preserves silence, I shall consider it an admission that the charge is unfounded.

.—I will not imitate the bad taste of the hon. baronet, in casting reflections on my political opponents. I have examined the petition to which the hon. baronet alludes, and have seen the signatures which are attached to it. At the head of them is the name of my noble opponent at the last election, lord George Beresford, and of several other gentlemen with whom I live on terms of great friendship. I am happy to say that our difference of opinion on political subjects has never made any difference in our private friendship for each other; and yet I must say, that the petition, though it represents the sentiments of lord George Beresford and the Brunswick Club of the county of Waterford, does not represent the sentiments of the great bulk of the Protestants of that county.

said, he was about to present a number of petitions against further concessions to the Catholics, from various places in the neighbourhood of London. He asserted, confidently, that the great majority, not only in point of numbers but of intelligence amongst the people was against the measure [cries of."No!"]. He was sure that that was the case in the larger masses of the people. He did not speak of the majority of intelligence among a number of given individuals, for he did not mean to contend that the most splendid talent had not been exhibited in its favour; but he meant to say that a large proportion of the intelligence of the people of England was against the measure ["No, no!"]. When he was told, that this was disproved by the last appeal to the people, made in 1826, he denied it unequivocally; and he said that, in order to have obtained a fair test of the opinions of the people of England, his majesty ought to have recorded in his Speech, at the close of the last session, his intention of recommending a measure such as that which he had recommended in his Speech at the commencement of this session. He ought to have stated, that his ministers would propose, for the consideration of the next parliament, a measure of this kind, and then the people would have known that the representatives whom they elected to sit in the next parliament would be those to whom they must intrust the decision of this most important question. If such a course had been pursued, and the supporters of the measure had formed a majority, there would have been some reason to talk of the majority of the people being in its favour; but at persent he denied that to be the fact. A fairer mode could not now be adopted than that of appealing to the people; and if such an appeal were made, he had no doubt that there would be a large and overwhelming majority against the measure. He had no doubt that if ministers, instead of adopting the course they had pursued by keeping their intentions secret up to the last moment, had stated what they themselves thought, and appealed to the people upon it, they would have obtained such a majority as would have enabled them to have retained their ground, and to have rejected the measure. In justice to the House he should present all these petitions at once. The first was from St. Mary, Whitechapel, and to that one thousand four hundred and seventy-eight signatures were attached. It was the result of a meeting called in a regular manner; and at that meeting a motion having been made to pass a resolution favourable to the measure, it was rejected by one hundred and seventy to twenty-four. The petition was therefore fairly adopted after a discussion, and signatures to the amount of one thousand four hundred and seventy-eight had since been attached to it. The next petition was from the parish of All Saints, Poplar, with signatures to the amount of one thousand one hundred and eighty-one, all of which had been attached to it within four days, and no person under eighteen years of age had been permitted to sign. He called the attention of the hon. members for London to this petition, because one of them had, the other night, represented that these petitions were unfairly got up, and stigmatized those who had assisted in procuring them. The next petition was from St. Ann's, Black friars, signed by four hundred and fifty persons; another from Bridewell Chapel, with ninety-two signatures; another from the Synod of Seceders at Glasgow, signed by eight hundred and seventy persons, and three others signed by one thousand one hundred and thirty-six, by seven hundred and thirty-six, and by four hundred and fifty persons. He had good reason to believe that every one of these petitions had been signed since the Speech had been made from the Throne, stating the intentions of his majesty's ministers. He therefore thought that these Petitions deserved the greatest attention.

said, he could not refrain from expressing the surprise which he felt at hearing the extraordinary assertion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that a great majority of the intelligence and good sense of the people of England was against this question. He should have expected that the hon. baronet, entertaining such sentiments, would have followed them up by proposing some motion of reform, or by making an attack on the manner in which that House was constituted. But no; the hon. baronet was one of those persons who stood up for the excellence of all our institutions, and declared that none of them required reform. Was it for the hon. baronet, then, in the teeth of that undeniable fact,—the late glorious division on this question,—to state that the feeling of the people of England was diametrically opposed to that of their representatives in the House of Commons, on this question of removing the Catholic disabilities. He did not intend to controvert the assertion, that there were a number of signatures attached to these petitions: he admitted that the hon. baronet had reason for saying, that the people of England, taken per capita, were at present averse to Catholic emancipation. But how had that feeling of aversion been excited? Was it a spontaneous feeling on their part, or did it arise from the ignorance and bigotry—he spoke not of gentlemen in that House, but—of persons out of doors, who were anxious to inflame religious animosity? What would the House think of a petition got up in a populous place in this manner? A placard was sent forth to the public, assigning the following reasons for signing a petition against Catholic emancipation:—"Since Catholic emancipation first began, not less than fifty millions of unoffending and innocent persons have become the victims of Papal vengeanc. All the tortures that the fiends of hell could invent have been practised—burning, broiling, thumb-screw, rack, pulley, &c: Infants quartered, and their limbs strewed in the highway, their brains dashed out; young girls impaled alive and naked; women and girls have had their breasts cut off, their bowels blown out with gunpowder; the arms, legs, noses, and ears of men have been cut off, and their heads cleft asunder; bodies have been fastened to trees, and their insides torn out; the skins of men stripped off while alive, and nailed to window-frames, &c. Will you, then, tamely yield to such a priesthood as this? If you have any bowels of compassion for your tender offspring, if you have one spark of veneration for your religion or country,—rouse from your slumbers, for the be is at hand! The man who votes for Catholic emancipation strengthens the strong holds of Popery, is an enemy to God and his country, and little better than a traitor to his King!" Such was the document circulated in the West of England, until it was stopped by the magistrates; and it purported to have been printed at Bath. Was he wrong, then, when he said that arts were resorted to, which hon. members who resisted the mea sure now pending would be the first to stigmatise and disavow? But this was not all: in a book lately published on the present state of Italy, and dedicated, by a singular coincidence, to the hon. baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, the author, some exclusive Protestant, had stated, that he found, in one of the towns through which he passed, the following inscription:—"In honorem beatæet deiparæ Virginis;" which he had thus translated, "In honour of the blessed Virgin coequal with God," terming it a shocking piece of blasphemy, and saying, that no Protestant could travel in that country without seeing religion constantly insulted by such disgusting inscriptions.

confessed that the hon. member had accurately described the paper which he had just read to the House; but he could not concur in his assumption, that it was placed upon the walls of Bath by those who wished to oppose these claims. He had certainly no knowledge by whom it was placarded; but if called upon to conjecture, he should say, it must have been exhibited by those who wished to injure the Protestant cause. One word as to the main question. Instead of endeavouring to crush the expression of public opinion, as was now done, why not give the people the opportunity of pronouncing upon this question? Hon. gentlemen had reason to triumph in what they called their "glorious" majority of Friday night; but they would not have such a triumph repeated, if they were sent back to receive the opinion of their constituents upon it. The general impression of the country was in direct contradiction to the voice of that House; and if at that moment, those who were returned as advocates of the Protestant establishment, had remained true to the cause, they would have had a decided majority for their principles.

said, that although this was not the fit opportunity for entering into the general merits of the question, he could not forbear making a few remarks. The hon. member for Oxford had alluded to the election of 1826, when, as he said, the people were deluded by many of their representatives. He could only say, that when he stood for Surrey in 1826, he had stated distinctly at the poll, that he should vote for the Catholic claims, and on that principle he had been returned by a large majority, The hon baronet had talked of an appeal to the intelligence of the country; now, on this point he begged to call the attention of the House to a singular document which he held in his hand. After the debate of Friday, he had had occasion to go into the country, and had found that Surrey, by a county meeting, was about to set an example to others, and thus to attempt to intimidate the duke of Wellington and the Home Secretary. In the neighbourhood of the town where the meeting was to be held a number of most inflammatory hand-bills were in the course of distribution. He did not object to the convening of such an assembly; for if the matter were stated fairly, he had no doubt of the result. But, what would the House think of the placard in his possession? Would they consider it an appeal to the good sense and justice of the people? It was entitled "Queen Mary's Days," and it was ornamented with nine prints, exhibiting the tortures and burnings in Smithfield and elsewhere in her reign. But the most important circumstance was, the source from whence it emanated. His friends round him, and the right hon. suporters of the measure opposite, could have no notion from whence it came: perhaps the enemies of concession and the hon. baronet, the member for Oxford, might have some faint idea upon the subject, but they would doubtless exclaim, "non tali auxilio." At the bottom of the placard were the following words:—"Price twopence. Printed for the Religious Tract Society, in Paternoster-row." So that this publication came from an Association whose motto ought to be, "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you." It must, indeed, be a bad cause, that required defenders, who appealed, not to the intelligence of the country, but to the worst passions of the multitude.

said, he would not have risen, but for the sort of personal appeal made to him. His hon colleague did him only justice when he acquitted him of any knowledge of such a publication. The hon. member had said that they were issued to influence a public meeting; but he thought the hon. gentleman would have done better to have waited until that meeting took place, and there to have offered such considerations as might have weight with the people. It was not to be denied that the people were excited. They were justly excited, because they saw what they considered a §tameful surrender of the constitution, aggravated and embittered, if it were possible to aggravate and embitter it, by what the right hon. secretary had gravely called securities.

said, that his hon friend, at the election in 1826, had openly and fairly stated to his constituents the vote he intended to give on the Catholic question. He wished to know whether the other hon. member for Surrey had pursued an equally straight forward and manly course?

said, that at the election in 1826 he had not made up his mind upon the subject, and he had therefore disdained to give a pledge, although if he had chosen to do so he might have obtained double the number of votes, If it were to be imputed as a disgrace to members, that they did not on all subjects engage with their constituents to vote a particular way, he begged to ask, whether the House of Commons was a deliberative Assembly?

said, that the hon. member appeared to have made an extraordinary discovery. He had at length found out, that it was unnecessary for him to open his mouth before his constituents, because he should afterwards have to speak in the House of Commons. And he seemed to think it proper to have disguised his genuine sentiments at the time of his election, lest any premature declaration of opinion should embarrass him at a future time, in his place in parliament. It was quite clear, at all events, that he had disguised his sentiments from the electors of Surrey, at the moment his hon. colleague was avowing them upon this important subject. And this, too, not on any new question, but upon one which had been for twenty years discussed by every body, in pamphlets and debates, so that little or no fresh light could be thrown upon it. It was on this question that he withheld his sentiments, while, on the East India question, he pledged himself to give his constituents all the benefit of his learning and talents. One word in answer to the hon. member for Oxford. He might, and no doubt would, make an admirable representative for the University; but he had assumed to himself an office for which he was not equally well qualified—that of a confidential adviser of the Crown: his advice was, that parliament should forthwith be dissolved, and that the Catholic question should be made a matter of discussion and contest at a general election. Did the hon. baronet recollect the year 1807, when the "No-Popery" cry was raised, and the most violent outrages committed? For himself, he should never forget what had then occurred, and with good reason; he was at that time candidate for Great Yarmouth, and he was seized by the anti-Catholic mob, which attempted to throw him into the river. Scenes like that should never occur again. For one he would say, that if ministers were guilty of the imprudence of taking the advice of the hon. baronet, they would deserve impeachment. He wished also, in answer to what had been stated about the intelligence of the country, to mention, as he was authorised to do by a most respectable and influential member of the Society of Friends, that the great majority of that body, formerly considered so hostile to the Catholic claims, were now decidedly favourable to concession.—The individual from whom he had obtained this intelligence was well known to the Secretary for the Home Department. He looked upon this fact as one of the most striking triumphs of knowledge and reason over strong feeling and prejudice.

wished to put only one question to the hon. and learned member. As he had strongly characterised those who did not give pledges at elections, he begged to know what terms the hon. and learned gentleman would employ to characterise those who having given pledges to their constituents, had violated them.

remarked, that after the recent conversions it was idle to talk of pledges. If pledges had been realised, the minority of Friday would have been a majority.

said, that his sole object was, to have the voice of the country fairly and properly collected, before parliament legislated upon this question. If this course were taken, he was quite satisfied the majority would be on the opposite side from that at which it was at present. In allusion to what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, he begged to say, that his reference was not to the year 1807, but to 1784, when, after a dissolution of parliament, the India bill which Mr. Fox was previously bent upon carrying, was thrown out by a large majority. As to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, respecting the book upon Italy, he thought it rather hard to be made responsible for the contents of a book which was merely dedicated to him. As the particular passage had, however, been mentioned, he thought it right to explain, that the moment he discovered the error, he had the sheet suppressed in which it appeared.

had to present a petition against concession, signed by upwards of five thousand freeholders and others of Wilts. He had ascertained, that no undue influence was used in obtaining signatures to it. The petitioners thought as he did, that the principles of the Catholic Church remained unchanged, and were at variance with those of the British constitution. He wished that these objectionable measures had not been brought forward. He imputed culpable negligence to ministers for having permitted the Catholic Association to prolong its system of agitation, until it set the country in a flame. If that body had been promptly put down, peace would have followed, and these inroads upon the constitution had become unnecessary. A different course had been pursued; and he was not so sanguine as the petitioners, in thinking that it was possible to prevent the execution of the intention of government. The alarming majority of the other night must be considered as decisive upon that point.

expressed his cordial approbation of the course taken by ministers, which was, he was convinced, the best calculated, not only to uphold the Protestant establishment, but to give peace and tranquillity to the kingdom. No praise could be too high for the duke of Wellington, and the right hon. gentleman who had had the firmness to persevere in the settlement of this question.

had fourteen petitions to present from different parishes of Dorset shire. Indeed, there were so many petitions, that it was hardly likely they could come to the business of the day, until the House was nearly exhausted. He wished therefore, on his own part, and on the part of those with whom he acted as to this measure, to state, that they had no intention of debating the bill, or dividing upon it that night; and he suggested, therefore, that more time might be allowed for presenting petitions. It was his intention, and that of his friends, to have a division on the second reading, and at every subsequent stage of the bill, The whole country was desirous to know what were its provisions, and the sooner it was printed the better, in order that the people might form their opinions upon it.

said, that although there existed throughout the country a most intense anxiety on the subject of the proposed concessions to the Catholics, he had no objection to assent to the present arrangement. But at the same time he begged, on his own part, to observe that, in doing so, he was not to be understood as foregoing any one of his rights to assert and maintain his already declared opinions; and further, to state his full conviction, that no opportunity should be lost of presenting to the measure of his majesty's government the most decided resistance. If any such opportunity were lost, the opinion might go forth that all hope was at an end, and that exertions on the part of the people were useless. To propagate that opinion, would be a most mischievous delusion, and it was to guard against its going forth that he then rose.

entirely acquiesced in the propriety of the arrangement proposed by the hon. gentleman, which he confessed he considered likely to be much more convenient to all parties than the adoption of an opposite course, and also likely to conduce to a proper understanding of the measure to which the House was called upon to consent. It was perfectly clear, that a waiver of discussion in the present stage of the bill, could not be taken as concluding the ultimate opinion of any person. It was a mere declaration, that there should be an opportunity without further division, of having the bill introduced and printed, with a view to its being better understood. They would thus admit the introduction of the measure, which was to be discussed on the second reading; that was all. For his part, he was disposed to give every latitude to the presentation of petitions. He was as little averse from discussion. On this occasion he had every confidence in the declaration of the hon. member for Dorset, and was ready to believe, that however late the period of the night, or however small the attendance of members in the House when he should bring the subject forward, no objection would be offered to his reporting the resolutions, bringing in the bill, and moving that it be read a first time and printed. He wished, however, that it should be distinctly understood that such was to be the case.

observed, that there could be no misunderstanding upon the point, and repeated, that in adopting the course now suggested, he and hon. members upon his side, did not waive their right to oppose the measure on future opportunities.

reposed entire confidence in the assurance of the hon. member, but he wished that there should he an understanding that it was the general opinion of the House.

rose only to state that he had abstained, in the discussions that had taken place, from adverting to some observations that had fallen from his right hon. friend. He was most unwilling to interrupt the discussion of this great question by any considerations of a personal nature: but he would take an early opportunity of delivering his sentiments upon the subject.

agreed to the proposal, but wished it to be understood, that in acceding to this arrangement, he acted not with a view of intentionally omitting every legitimate opportunity of opposing the measure, but was merely actuated by a desire to consult the convenience of the House. He must say that a week was not sufficient time to allow between the first and second reading of the bill. To night the bill was to be read a first time; it could not be printed before to-morrow: it would then have to be circulated through the country. Was it not fair that the feelings of persons residing in remote parts of the empire should be consulted, and that an opportunity should be afforded them to judge of the details of this measure, and express their opinions on the subject to parliament? Was it not desirable, he asked, to give the country the fullest time and opportunities to examine the bill?—The more desirable, as it was proposed that the measure should proceed through its various stages, exactly in that part of the year when many hon. gentlemen were scattered throughout the country? The present was the course the least calculated to collect the sense of the country at large upon the subject. He suggested the utility of fixing the second reading of the bill at such a time as would not arrive until after the circuits were over. The reason why he proposed to do so, was in order to enable the representatives of distant, but populous places, to consult the sentiments of their constituents on the subject of the bill, and the securities which it offered. The delay would prove particularly convenient to gentlemen of the legal profession.

said, he felt the utmost anxiety that free expression should be given to the popular voice upon this and all other subjects, but he must protest against the doctrine laid down by the learned member for Dublin—a doctrine which, if correct, reduced the House of Commons to the situation of a mere body of delegates, without any opinion of its own. If hon. members were content to give up their privilege of deciding upon matters of state policy, they were unworthy to be representatives of the people. Did the learned gentleman mean to say, that the proceedings of parliament were to be suspended, until the opinion of every populous place had been taken upon the subject? After the ample discussions that had taken place, and the allusions to the state of Ireland, in his majesty's Speech at the commencement of the session, it could not be pretended that insufficient time was allowed for the voice of the people to be heard. He was far from being opposed to an expression of the popular sentiment; but, after all, it was in parliament that the matter must be discussed and determined.

asked, what was the use of granting further time, except to give the opponents of the measure additional opportunities of inflaming the minds of the people. The learned member for Dublin ought to have known better than to have made such a proposition, after the large majority that decided against him. He protested he had witnessed a less share of talent and ingenuity displayed by the persons who constituted the minority of one hundred and sixty the other night, than he had ever before observed among an equal number of persons in that House. Not one of that minority had a single remedy to propose for the disease. The hon. member for Norwich did, indeed, recommend a dissolution of parliament; but the hon. member appeared to forget that from Ireland we should have ninety members out of the hundred, favourable to the measure in the event of a general election! What advantage could the hon. member derive from this?

demanded, on behalf of the country, that further time should be allowed before the next important step on which a division could be taken, was adopted. The right hon. Secretary, in his reply on Friday, had observed with reference to the subject of time, that the matter had already been known to the public for the period of a month; and he had therefore inferred, that a week, in addition to the time already elapsed, would be sufficient to collect the remainder of the sense of the country, of which we had had so strong an earnest. But, in fact, the period of a month, which had elapsed since The meeting of parliament, was lost to the public; for by the speeches of persons in the secret, and by the inferences drawn from those speeches, as to the nature of the intended measures, the country was kept in a state of delusion; and so far from obtaining correct information on the subject, it was deceived. It was impossible for any man not in the secret to be led to suppose, by the declarations of those in authority, that a bill such as this was to be introduced. A new light being now cast upon the subject, those persons, who had petitioned before would petition again; and in numbers, if he were not mistaken, very much increased. Under such circumstances, he did not think it too much to ask, that a longer period than one week should be allowed to intervene before they were again called upon for an expression of their sentiments on the subject.

asked the right hon. Secretary, whether it was his intention to move for a select committee to carry into effect the recommendation contained in his majesty's Speech, on the subject of an inquiry into the whole state of Ireland? That was the recommendation of his majesty; namely, that as soon as the Catholic Association should be put down, a deliberate inquiry should be instituted into the state of Irelan. It was perfectly true that until the royal assent was given to the bill for putting down the Association, it would have been premature to set that inquiry on foot. But as that had now been done, they ought, in his opinion, to appoint a committee to prosecute the inquiry in question; and what he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman was, whether he intended to propose a committee for that purpose?

said, he must, in the first instance, express his surprise that his hon. friend should require more details concerning a question which had been so fully considered. He had rather understood his hon. friend to say the other evening, that the facts he (Mr. Peel) had stated, were so perfectly notorious, that it was unnecessary to confirm them by any official account. Surely his hon. friend could never have expected that his majesty's ministers should propose this question to a Select Committee, of all others. Besides, in 1825, the House of Commons had appointed a Committee for the purpose of considering every question relating to the state of Ireland, with the view to settle the Catholic question; but it was expressly excluded from the consideration of a Select Committee, because it was felt, that the investigation of a question like that of extreme constitutional importance, could only be safely done by the whole House. On three preceding occasions, the House had passed bills to effect the object which this bill was intended to accomplish; but it had never yet been proposed to suspend the proceedings, in order to refer the question to a Select Committee. The House had never thought of transferring a matter of such immense moment to a Select Committee. If the word "consideration" was used, it meant, that the consideration should be by the whole House; and he had fulfilled the intentions of his majesty in bringing forward the bill for giving effect to the royal recommendation.

thought, that no good case had been made out for any delay in the progress of the measure. He begged to recal to the memory of the gallant general that the first measure of the present session was to pass a bill to put down the Catholic Association, and very many members, of whom he was one thought it an act of great severity against that Association. For his own part, and for a great number of other members, he could say, that they would never have acquiesced, in a passive manner, in that measure, if they had not understood that, on the earliest opportunity, the House would go into the consideration of the laws imposing Civil Disabilities on the Roman Catholics, with the view of repealing them.

said, that on the 3rd of March he understood the Catholic Association had re-assembled, and that the Catholic rent was regularly collected as usual.

said, it was proposed to make a considerable addition to the time that should elapse between the introduction of the bill and the second reading, in order to enable parties who had already petitioned the House on the subject to re-present their petitions. Now, he believed if further time were allowed, that not only would it be impossible to procure any considerable accession to the number of petitions already presented, but that it would be impossible to add to the violence already exhibited by the opponents of the measure. Indeed, a revulsion might take place, and so far from people being disposed to exert themselves more warmly against the bill, the learned member for Dublin might find them daily less and less disposed to concur with him. The gallant general also proposed, that further time should be given, and suggested the propriety of appointing a select committee to take the subject into consideration. Now, of all the questions requiring time for consideration, it was most extraordinary if this should be one: for the universal complaint was, that no subject but this one had so entirely occupied the time of parliament. They had been considering it for the last thirty years; and if the gallant general required further time, it must be in order to enable, not the public, but himself, to consider and understand the question. Yet he fully believed that it was the firm determination of the gallant general never to consider the subject at all, and that he was no more serious in this than some other hon. members had been in requiring the parliament to be dissolved. As to a dissolution of parliament, that might not affect the gallant general in the same manner as it would other hon. members. The gallant general was, perhaps, almost the only member whom, under similar circumstances, his constituents returned free of expense. It was therefore very considerate, of the gallant general to send other members, not so much favoured by their constituents to a general election. The noble lord who spoke last talked of the re-assembling of the Catholic Association. If so, it was no longer a subject of debate—an act of parliament had been passed on the subject: the House was relieved from all further responsibility. If there really were any remaining irritation in Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the House, after passing an act of a highly penal nature, to delay the progress of a measure which was to run pari passu with that. Was this the way to alleviate discontent? If he thought that any time that could be granted would enable the gallant general to consider the question with calmness and temper, he might admit that as an argument for delay, which certainly was a great desideratum. What was the temper and spirit in which the question had been dealt with? Had it been taken up with calmness and temperance, as his majesty entreated that it might be? On the contrary, had it not been treated with a degree of fury and faction unexampled in the history of the country, calculated—he might say intended—to excite men to a height of popular violence, such as had never before been excited upon any subject, by the efforts of any party in the country? Thus had the opponents of concession acted. Not so its advocates: not so his majesty's ministers. He believed their purpose was, that the deliberate sense of parliament should be taken upon this great question; and if that deliberate sense were taken, he did not fear the issue.

observed, that the proposal made by the learned member for delay, was objected to, as if a similar postponement had never before taken place. Now, the House would recollect, that last year the hon. member for Preston had actually compelled the chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone his bill relative to the building of churches, on the ground that sufficient time had not been allowed for the full consideration of the measure by the country. The member for Preston then said, that if the right hon. gentleman persisted in appealing to the ultima ratio—a majority of the House—in support of the bill, he would move repeated adjournments, and frustrate the right hon. gentleman's intention. He hoped that hon. members, if the right hon. Secretary did not assent to the postponement, would act with equal determination upon the present occasion, not for factious, but in order to effect constitutional purposes. For himself he could only say, that he would, whenever an opportunity occurred, rise in his place, and assert that members were not sent there merely to register the decrees of his grace the duke of Wellington, but to exercise a free and unbiassed judgment upon matters of state concernment. He felt it to be his duty to demand that the people of this country should have time allowed them to express their sentiments, and present petitions to parliament upon any question; much more upon a measure of such overwhelming importance as this. Had the time and opportunity for doing this been allowed, in the present instance? No such thing. What was the argument urged by ministers to the opponents of this measure, when they first raised their voices against it? "You are a foolish opposition, you know not what you oppose." What was the reply to the people of England when they petitioned? "You are foolish people, and don't know what the measure is." A measure of so much importance was not to be rammed down their throats without their being permitted to have an opportunity of eliciting the real sense of the country through the medium of petitions from all parts.

thought, that the request which had been made to the government was not by any means unreasonable. When the hon baronet, the member for Westminster brought forward his measure in favour of the Catholics, in 1825, the interval that was granted was from a day in March to the 19th of April; and surely when the measure was to be brought forward with all the influence that government, could give it, and, above all, when there was so strong a feeling of confidence in the triumphant majority with which the bill was to be carried, it was surely not too much to ask, that there should be some small delay granted. He was quite sure that it would not be thought necessary to hurry the present bill more rapidly through the House, than those of a similar nature brought forward in the years 1813 and 1825, and in both of which a longer period had been allowed. He begged leave, therefore, to press upon the right hon. Secretary, and upon the House, the propriety and necessity of giving a greater space of time for the discussion of such a question. If they were only to be allowed the time that was already fixed by the right hon. gentleman, it would scarcely be sufficient to allow of the printing and circulating of the bill—much less of its reaching Ireland, where it was looked for with so much anxiety. He therefore, contended that both the House and the country had a right to require more time.

said, that if the proposed delay were for the general convenience of the House, he should have no objection to alter his arrangement [Cries of "no, no!" mixed with "hear, hear!"]. At all events, ho was quite ready to answer the appeal that had been made to him. He had always, from the very commencement of the measure, proposed to leave one week between the introduction of the bill and its second reading; and he thought that this was a very ample allowance of time, after the preparation which his majesty's Speech must have given the country on the subject; for it was impossible that, after that period, the country could have remained ignorant of the main features of the measure. It had been stated in the course of the evening, that they ought to wait until the law against the Association had been carried into execution; but if they were to do so, he would take leave to say, that they would not be in consonance with the Speech from the Throne. The Speech merely recommended that power should be given to his majesty, to maintain his just authority: that power had been given by the act which had just passed, and therefore, in perfect conformity with the Speech, they were at liberty to take the measure into consideration immediately. The only question that he could see, was the grand question that arose on the principle of the bill. He had already declared fully and openly, that that principle was expressly to give relief to the Catholics. Of that declaration, the House would have been in possession for more than a week before the second reading would come on; and they would, therefore, be fully able to form their judgment upon it, and on the general purport of the bill. If there were any suggestions to be made, the best time for making them would be in the committee; and whether it was for the purpose of proposing new exceptions, or fresh securities, there would he adequate time afforded at that period. On whatever day he brought forward the measure—whether on that evening or the following—he should think it right to give an interval of an entire week; but further time than that, he thought, there could be no necessity for: It was possible that he might not be able to bring the bill forward that evening; in which case he should do it on the following.

said, he did not know exactly in what spirit hon. gentlemen were seeking for this delay; but he was quite sure it must be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. member for Dorset shire, on the first night of the session, had observed that the word. "consideration" clearly meant concession. That was also, he believed, the general understanding of the country, as soon as the king's Speech was made known; and surely one month was quite sufficient to collect the sense of the country. Did hon. members mean to contend that they were to consult every parish, district, hundred, and county in the country, upon all the different details of the bill? Was that House a deliberative assembly, or was it not? If it was, surely the examination of the details of the measure was their department, and it would be useless to take the sense of the country on that head. He was not one of those who objected to petitions—far from it; but he thought that the hon. gentlemen who were opposed to the measure might have allowed the business to have come on in its proper course that night, and have taken another opportunity of presenting their petitions.

thought, that hon. gentlemen, in asking for delay, were performing their duty towards the country, as much as the noble lord who had just sat down. For his own part, be went along with the learned member for Dublin in wishing for a pause; though he could assure the House that he did not propose it with any factious object.

observed that, after what had appeared in our streets and highways, as well as in that House, it was obvious that the only wish for delay was in order to raise the country. As an Irishman, he humbly begged the right hon. gentleman to proceed. This was not a bill for the building of churches: it was a bill for the pacification of Ireland; and he therefore hoped that the government would remain firm.

thought, that the point of delay was urged the more strongly, because it made a specious argument to address to the people. But how could it be pretended that the House was taken by surprise on the subject, when the hon. member for Dover had himself stated, that the question had been under discussion for the last thirty years? If the desire to take the sense of the country had come from gentlemen who had always advocated universal suffrage, or any thing like it, he would at least have given them credit for sincerity, and thought their remonstrances free from the suspicion and distrust with which he now received them; or if the question had been of any novelty, he would have admitted that there was some shew of reason in the request of delay. But this was not the case. Honourable gentlemen said, "We have listened for thirty years to arguments that we are unable to answer; that office we have left to one or two advocates; and now we are deprived of them, we want time to think about what we shall do." Or, in other words, they said, "Up to this time we have been inside passengers, with our night-caps drawn over our eyes; and now that those who are conducting the State Carriage have found out the danger, we are willing to be let out, in order that we may disturb the people." It was only once that he had heard any thing like a proposal made by those who were opposed to the Catholics to meet the difficulty, and that was, to appeal to the people and to dissolve the parliament; which, he contended, would afford no remedy for the disease. It, however, came with consistency from those who were unable to meet the arguments that were used, or the history that was cited, and made up the deficiency by appealing to the passions of the people; to whom the merits of the question might as well be addressed, as the most operose and abstract theory in mathematics.

presented petitions against concession from the deanery of Stonehouse, from Winchcomb and several other places. He had hitherto voted against any further concessions to the Catholics; but when he considered the state of Ireland, he could not withhold his assent from the proposition of his right hon. friend, in whom, and in the noble duke at the head of the government, he reposed the firmest confidence. He thought that concession should be no longer refused, demanded as it was by the united voice of the country; though he was fully aware that the question was one of necessity, or rather of a choice between evils. He considered concession to be, under the present circumstances, an evil less than persisting in exclusion, accompanied as it was, by the suppression of the Catholic Association, and the abolition of the forty-shilling franchise.

in presenting a petition from Nottingham in favour of concession, expressed 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 inhabitants to be decidedly in their favour. The petition against emancipation had, in six weeks, received only two thousand signatures; while the petition in favour of the Catholics had obtained four thousand five hundred and fifty signatures in as many days.

said, he had been informed, that 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 was the medical attendant of that Asylum.

said, the gallant admiral had not made out a very good case, seeing that the only person he brought against the petition was the inmate of a Lunatic Asylum.

said, the individual to whom he alluded was a highly respectable gentleman, and not an inmate of the Asylum.

observed, that if that gentleman was not the inmate of the asylum, he wished most heartily that he had been so; for that same gentleman, and a pot companion of his, had got up the opposition to his return at the last election.

presented petitions in favour of emancipation, from the Catholics of the county Donegal, and Cavan.

said, that these petitions had been sent about the county by the Catholic Association, and had been signed by the people at the command of their priests, and in perfect ignorance of their objects. He had hitherto opposed emancipation, and he would explain the reasons that had now induced him to abandon that opposition. If the Catholic Association had petitioned for it, he would have opposed it; or if the measure had been brought forward by the gentlemen opposite, he would have voted against it; but as it had been now recommended by the government, he would support it. He had voted in its favour on Friday, and he would continue his support of the measure during its future stages, upon the condition, that the forty-shilling freeholders would be disfranchised.

presented petitions from Guilford and four other places in Surrey against further concessions to the Catholics. He expressed his full concur rence in the petitioners' prayer; and he did so because he believed the bill would prove destructive to the constitution. He contended that the people had not been afforded an opportunity of declaring their sentiments upon the measure. Not one week would have elapsed between the declaration of the nature of that measure and the introduction of the bill by which it was intended to carry it into effect.

deprecated the system which had of late been pursued, of introducing a debate upon every petition, and of repeating, over and over again, not arguments connected with the question, but a series of unsupported assertions. They were told that the policy now adopted by ministers would have the effect of breaking down the constitution, and that those who favoured that policy were assisting in producing that effect. Now, that certainly was not the fair and candid mode of treating the question; and he thought the hon. member who made the assertion ought to adduce his proofs. The hon. member who spoke last represented a county, containing a great number of independent and liberal-minded men, whose opinions were opposed to the hon. member on this question, and he begged leave to tell the hon. member, that he never would have represented that county, if he had not been assisted by those very persons whom he now traduced, as wishing to break down the constitution. He denied that the people had only been allowed a week to consider the subject. The Speech from the throne, on the first day of the session, put them in possession of the intention of ministers; and there would still be considerable time afforded them for expressing their sentiments, while the bill went through its different stages.

said, that as the hon. member for Surrey had stated that the measure would break down the constitution, he ought to assign his reasons for coming to such a conclusion. He did not know how the hon. member could conceal this fact from himself—that government could not put down the Catholic Association without granting concession. It was very singular that the hon. member did not attempt to point out any other remedy for those evils which that measure was intended to cure. As a lover of the constitution, he called on the hon. member for a remedy more secure, and more free from objection, than the one proposed.

said, that if the hon. member had at the time of his election, avowed the illiberal principles which he now professed, he would not have met with that successful reception throughout the county, which had seated him in that House.

observed, that the inflammatory speech of the hon. member went hand in hand with certain inflammatory placards, which were circulated throughout Surrey. Some of them were ornamented with cuts, and described what were denominated nine of the acts of bloody Mary. The writer declared, that such scenes would be again enacted, if the measure of concession—a measure that, in his opinion, would do more good than any measure which had been entertained this century—were carried. He would ask, whether the hon. member, or any other hon. gentleman, had subscribed to defray the expense of these placards?

in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Abingdon, as to whether the Catholic Association could be put down without concession, said he had no hesitation in declaring his conviction, that the Lord-lieutenant could have put that Association down in four and twenty hours, if directed to do so. He did not conceive that the speech of the hon. member for Surrey was inflammatory.

observed, in answer to an observation of the hon. alderman, that it was in the recollection of his hon. colleague, that, after having refused to give any pledge, he ultimately; on being asked at his election, what his impression was upon this subject, replied, "My impressions are, that if this question is brought forward, I shall vote decidedly against it." In answer to the question put to him by the hon. member for Abingdon, he would merely observe, that he had not said that this measure would break down the constitution, but that time should be given to consider a proposition which the minister of the Crown, who introduced it, admitted to be a breaking, in upon the constitution.

said, he perfectly well recollected that, on the last day of the election, before the pole closed, his hon. colleague being pressed as to the vote he would give on this point, declared that he would vote against it. With respect to the petition from Guildford, it did not speak the sense of the inhabitants of that town. The Town-hall was refused to the gentlemen who got up the petition, and the parties assembled at the Methodist chapel.

said, he could state, in addition to what had been said by the hon. member, that the petition had been signed by only two hundred persons, one hundred of whom were Dissenters; whereas the population of Guildford amounted to three thousand.

said, that not having had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments respecting the proposed measures, he begged leave to express his conviction, that no other course could be now pursued. He had, however, observed that certain persons out of doors, who had been active agitators among the Catholics, had expressed their determination to accept of nothing short of unconditional emancipation. He begged, therefore, to be understood as not pledging himself to support the bills.

The report was agreed to, and Mr. Secretary Peel obtained leave to bring in a bill in conformity therewith; and also a bill for the Regulation of the Elective Franchise in Ireland.