presented a petition against further Concessions to the Catholics, from Greenock, and said it was numerously and respectably signed.

said, that from his connexions with the town of Greenock, he trusted the House would not consider the petition now presented as representing any thing like the undivided opinion of the more respectable and intelligent part of that community. In proof of this, he should have the honour of presenting more than one petition from that town, praying for full concessions to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. He begged to express much respect for many of the individuals who had signed that petition, and he gave them full credit for the sincerity of their opinions, although he could not help expressing his regret and astonishment at some of the sentiments contained in that petition. He especially regretted the means that had been used to excite a strong religious feeling among the people of Greenock and throughout the west of Scotland, inducing them to sign that and other petitions—he alluded to the efforts that had been used by some members of the Church of Scotland to excite a prejudicial feeling throughout their congregations, by addressing them on this as a purely religious subject, both in and out of their pulpits. In proof of this, he held in his hand some letters from very respectable gentlemen, attesting the facts; but he would not occupy the time of the House by reading them, unless called upon to do so.

said, he rose to present two petitions in favour of further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The House could not be ignorant of the purpose for which he then rose, as he had unexpectedly been called upon to say more in respect of it than he had intended, on a former evening. He trusted, however, that he might be permitted to make one or two observations in introducing them more formally to the consideration of parliament; inasmuch as there were few petitions which, from the circumstances attending them, were entitled to greater attention. The two petitions which he had to present, came from the bar of Ireland: they first came from the Protestant practising barristers in Ireland, or at least from one hundred of them; the second came from sixty-seven Roman Catholic practising barristers in the same country. He had made a distinction as to practising and not practising barristers, in order to meet the observations which had been made by his hon. friend, the member for Dover, when he first alluded to these petitions. His hon. friend had resorted to a public register of the names of the barristers of Ireland, and had said, that he found them to amount to upwards of five hundred and twenty. His hon. friend was not perhaps aware, that the list to which he had referred gave an exaggerated statement of the number of barristers in Ireland, and especially of the practising barristers. These petitions came from practising barristers merely, and not from all the practising barristers; but only from the undersigned. The first petition did not arrogate to itself to express the sense of the bar of Ireland, or of the Protestant bar of Ireland, or of the majority of the Protestant bar of Ireland, though, if he might resort to the best mode of ascertaining the number of practising barristers, he might venture to suggest, that it did speak the sense of the Protestant practising bar of Ireland. He would beg leave to read to them part of the contents of a letter which he had received with this petition from Ireland. It was to this effect:—"If discussion shall arise as to the number of practising barristers, it may be useful to you to know, that two hundred and forty paid their subscriptions to the law-library last year, which will furnish a good criterion as to the number of barristers who practise." Out of this number of two hundred and forty, one hundred and sixty-seven had signed the two petitions which he had the honour of then presenting. He could say, from his own knowledge, that many gentlemen who were very favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics, had refrained from signing any petition upon this subject, and for this reason—that, holding offices connected with the administration of justice in Ireland, they thought it would be more prudent in them to abstain, lest their subscribing a petition should excite a suspicion that they were influenced by party feelings and by party prejudices. With reference to what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dover, he could assure him, that both a large proportion of the retired barristers, as well as of the practising ones, were now favourable to the concession.—So much as to the petition from the Protestant members of the Irish bar. The second petition was from the Roman Catholic barristers of that body. No one who knew this class of the profession, their knowledge, their diligence, their fair and just pretensions to the highest honours of the bar, but must feel most grateful for the removal of restrictions from them which were most unwise and impolitic. With respect to the Catholic members of the Irish bar, he had one important fact to state; namely, four or five of them had been lately appointed to high judicial offices, such as assistant barristers, in different parts of the country; and respecting their impartial and dignified conduct, he would appeal to hon. members who resided in the same parts of the country, whether those gentlemen did not command unqualified confidence and respect? It was, indeed, monstrous to suppose, that a coincidence in religious opinions was necessary for the due administration of justice. If it were so, what must not the Catholics have suffered at receiving law for so long a period exclusively from Protestant judges? It was time to abolish these unjust and invidious distinctions, and that in future the race between the members of the two religions should be one of rivalry in the promotion of kind and gracious opinions.

said, he did not wish to detract from the value of the petitions which his hon. and learned friend was about to present; but he would distinctly affirm, that the most distinguished members of the bar had not signed these petitions. Men of the highest learning, of the most profound constitutional knowledge, at the Irish bar, did not concur in these sentiments.

said, he knew that several of the old members of the bar did not participate in these opinions.

repeated, that the influential portion of the Irish bar, who had expressed their opinions, were in favour of concession. He knew, indeed, that several had refrained from coming forward to petition, and in that which he had just presented, care was particularly taken that none but practising barristers should sign; he had, indeed, refused the signatures of four or five gentlemen in London, because they could not strictly be designated as active members of the profession. He should not undertake the invidious task of marking the members who had not come forward to petition. He knew that a number who formerly dissented from this measure were now, under the change of times and circumstances, prepared to take a new course, and to meet fresh exigences. Mr. Burke had well described, in one of his letters the influence of times and circumstances upon such a question as this, and how considerable a part of wisdom it was, to be guided by the course of events. If his hon. and learned friend thought that the other members of the bar were hostile to concession, why not have tried them with a counter-petition? There was zeal enough to induce such a step, if it were likely to be successful. His hon. and learned friend ought to recollect the maxim of law, "de non apparentibus, et non existentibus eadem est ratio." He had no petitions to support his view of the question, and the conclusion ought to be that there were none. He could assure the House, that the prospect of benefits to be derived from the consummation of this measure was already most cheering. He had no hesitation in predicting, that the proposed measure would pluck up the source of discontent; that the Protestants who had taken up arms to resist what they considered aggression would be the first to lay down those arms; and that the gentry and the educated classes amongst the Roman Catholics from foes would become allies. In his opinion, the measure was eminently calculated to benefit Ireland.

in presenting several petitions against further concessions, said, he regretted to perceive that his majesty's ministers were determined to persevere in the ungrateful measure. The learned solicitor-general for Ireland had spoken of the beneficial effects of this measure on Ireland. Now, he questioned whether the measure would be attended with any beneficial results to Ireland. He could assure the House that it excited considerable apprehension in Lincolnshire; where the humbler classes, instead of cultivating their grounds, had turned politicians. The petitions which he had now the honour to present, contained the signatures of four or five females; and he did not see why females should not sign petitions on this subject. In his opinion both men and women were bound to come forward on a subject so deeply interesting to the welfare of the community, and to express their sense of the detestable measure which it was attempted to force on the country.

in presenting a petition from Taunton against further concessions, observed, that the petition was signed by many of the most respectable of the gentry of that part of the kingdom; by many who were descended from those gallant spirits who had formerly shed their blood in support of the principles of civil and religious liberty. The petitioners were anxious that the glorious bulwarks of the constitution, which were reared by their ancestors, should be handed down to their children unimpaired; and in those sentiments he entirely concurred.

bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, but regretted that the petition was couched in such violent language. He also begged to state that three hundred and seventy-three signatures had been attached to a counter-petition got up in Taunton.

said, that many of the petitioners were his constituents as well as those of the hon. member who had just addressed the House. He denied that the petition contained any expressions which should be considered too strong, and declared that he had never seen a petition more respectably signed.

gave his unqualified dissent to the observation of his hon. colleague, that the petition contained violent expressions. When it was openly avowed that it was intended to break in upon the constitution as settled in 1688, it surely became the people to give expression to the feelings which animated them. For his own part, he should be ashamed to present a vapid, lake-warm petition on such a subject and at such a time. As hon. gentlemen had spoken of placards, he would read one which had been circulated in Taunton. It run thus:—"None are against Catholic emancipation but interested parsons and bigots; but they are for tithes, oppression, &c." This was the way he should use this miserable and contemptible placard [tearing it at the same time in pieces, and casting the fragments on the floor of the House amid laughter.]

in presenting a similar petition from Beverley said, it was signed by one thousand nine hundred most respectable individuals, all of whom were devotedly attached to the established church. A counter-petition, signed by three or four hundred persons, had been got up in Beverley; and, though he respected the motives of the parties whose names were affixed to it, he must express his decided conviction, that the predominant feeling of the inhabitants was against the measure now brought forward. In this feeling he entirely concurred, and would instantly resign his seat if his opinion differed from that of his constituents.

presented petitions from Protestant Dissenters of Cranbrook and Maidstone, in favour of the Catholic claims. With reference to the last petition, he felt justified in assuming, from the respectability of the signatures, that the great question of Catholic emancipation was advancing in Maidstone, and he entertained a confident hope, that the hostility recently manifested to the measure in that place, and the excitement produced by the agitation of the question, would be succeeded, at no very distant period, by an acquiescence in, and belief of, the expediency of the bill which ministers had introduced.

sdenied, that the petition represented the sense of the great majority of the freeholders and inhabitants of Maidstone. The question was one which involved the fate of the constitution and the country, and the population of Kent had given the best evidence of their disapprobation of any attempt to deal with it in the manner proposed by his majesty's ministers. The excitement produced in the county of Kent by the agitation of this question had not subsided. It was only on Saturday he visited his own place, and he found that, on the preceding Friday, the people had assembled to burn in effigy an advocate of the Roman Catholic claims. He was aware it was his duty, as far as in him lay, to suppress every manifestation of violence and improper excitement, and he only alluded to the circumstance as an evidence that the feelings of the people were not so quiescent upon the subject, as some hon. gentlemen would wish to represent. He thought it unbecoming in the learned solicitor-general for Ireland, to taunt the hon. member for Dublin, as he had done on a preceding evening, with his reiterated appeals and allusions to the principles of the Revolution of 1688. Too frequent mention could not be made of those principles and that event. For his own part, he should like to have a starling taught to repeat the words "constitution of 1688" for the edification of some gentlemen in that House, and it might be as well if the bird also repeated his lesson at Windsor Castle. He expressed his firm conviction, that it would be impossible to preserve the constitution, if Roman Catholics were admitted to the privilege of having seats in Parliament.

said, he thought they need not wonder at the excitement that had been produced in the minds of the people upon this subject, when they observed noble peers calling upon them to give "one cheer more for Protestant ascendancy,"—when they saw clergymen interposing in a manner not the most seemly, to inflame the populace—and when a magistrate and a member of parliament, at a period when no excitement existed, declared his readiness to "fight up to his knees in blood" [hear] in a cause to which it was unnecessary more particularly to allude. When such inflammatory language had been made use of, he did not wonder at the excitement of the people. Much might be said on behalf of the Roman Catholic agitators of Ireland. They had suffered long and severely. The cup of hope had been often dashed from their lips; and, under such circumstances, their intemperance was not to he wondered at; but the agitators of this country, who endeavoured to influence the feelings of the people by acts and language like those in question, had no excuse.

said, he felt that the hon. member had done him an honour in alluding to his name in connection with that of the noble lord who bad so much distinguished himself by his exertions in support of the constitution. With respect to the conduct of that noble lord, it would be impossible for him to do justice by words, to the feelings of admiration which the conduct of that noble lord had excited in his mind. Of him he would therefore say nothing. As to what had been said of himself, he regarded it with no other feeling than the utmost degree of contempt.

A cry of "Order."

—Mr. Wells!

said, if he had been guilty of any breach of order he felt sorry for having transgressed the rules of the House. The hon. member then vindicated the language which had been attributed to him, and contended, that in the sense, and under the circumstances in which he had used it, it was perfectly justifiable.

presented a petition, numerously signed by the inhabitants Of the city and county of Londonderry, against further concessions to the Catholics. He observed, that great changes had taken place in the opinions of many of the residents in that part of the country, as to the necessity of some measure for the settlement of this question. Still, however, great difference of opinion existed, and he was bound to say, that a decided majority of the county was hostile to the concession of political power. Having acted so long in congeniality of feeling and in cooperation with his constituents in hostility; to the Catholic claims, he might be allowed to say a few words in justification of his change of sentiments. The question had never before come forward, under the circumstances which now attended it. It had never before been brought forward by his majesty's ministers, with the concurrence of several of the royal dukes, and one of them the next heir to the throne, supported by three-fourths of the representatives of Ireland, and a large proportion of the landed interest in that country; and, all, strengthened by the actual certainty, that something must be done to alter the present condition of affairs in Ireland. These were the considerations which forced upon his mind the conviction of the necessity of a settlement of the question.

said, he was desired by the mayor of Coleraine, which borough he had the honour of representing, and which was one of the principal towns in the county of Londonderry, to support the petition just presented by the right hon. baronet. This he did with great satisfac tion, as his own opinions agreed with those of the petitioners, who constituted the majority of the wealth and respectability of the county. He agreed with them, that the proposed measures of ministers tended to separate man from man, and divide family from family, while they would be far from settling the state of Ireland. Neither would they be acceptable to the Catholics, who could not be grateful for a measure that went to deprive them of their elective franchise. It was a matter of great mortification to him, that he could not vote with the right hon. the home secretary on the bill then in progress through the House. He did not question the purity of that right hon. gentleman's motives, and hoped to see him retracing his steps and rejoining those friends who never would abandon him.

said, the petition just presented by his right hon. friend had been usually intrusted to his care. Its respectability he did not mean to deny; nor would he take up the time of the House instating the various artifices, with a view to obtaining numerous signatures, which letters that he had received from Londonderry informed him had been had recourse to. He was quite satisfied to allow that the petition was that of upwards of twenty thousand respectable Protestant inhabitants of the county, which he had the honour of representing, against the Catholic claims. It contained the signatures of magistrates and clergymen, of whose respectability he was a willing witness. But, while he admitted this respectability, he must distinctly deny that the petition expressed the unanimous sentiments of the county on the Catholic question. On the contrary, he must say, that the far larger portion of the respectability, intelligence, and wealth, of the county had not signed it. Nay more, that more than a moiety of the landed property of Londonderry had signed a petition in favour of concession to the Catholics. It was true, that that petition had but one hundred and seventy signatures; but those included the proprietors of more than half the landed property of the county; and if exertions had been made, he had no doubt that it would have been at least as numerously signed, as that just presented by his right hon. friend. He felt justified in stating, that the people of the north of Ireland were beginning to see the necessity of settling the Catholic question, and he was confident that, in a few months, they would be unanimous in favour of it. Was there not a proof of his statement before the House? For though his right hon. friend had changed his opinions on the Catholic question, he was intrusted with a petition by gentlemen, many of whom he was convinced would, in a short time, imitate his right hon. friend's conduct, and change their opinions. He dissented entirely from what had fallen from the hon. member for Coleraine, and would give his right hon. relative's measure his most cordial support; for he was convinced that that measure would contribute to the wellbeing of the empire, and would be hailed by the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland as the harbinger of the prosperity of his native country.

concurred with what had fallen from his right hon. colleague, and was sure that the petitioners would in a short time be friendly to the measure.

also agreed with the right hon. member for Londonderry that the intended measures of the government would be hailed with unqualified gratitude by the Catholics, and with satisfaction by the Protestants of Ireland. The hon. member read extracts from private letters from some of his constituents in Westmeath, in which the writers stated, that the bill for raising the elective franchise to 10l. would be hailed as a benefit by the freeholders themselves, while it would do away with the mischievous inducement to subdivide small farms.

presented a petition in favour of the Catholic claims from the town of Leeds. It had attached to it the signatures of sixteen thousand of the inhabitants of that wealthy, populous, and enterprising town, and those signatures were obtained in the short space of two days. In the course of last winter a public meeting was held in the town, at which from fifteen thousand to twenty thousand persons attended. The question of emancipation was warmly debated, and the meeting decided in favour of an address to his majesty, praying him to take into his consideration the Catholic claims. Since that meeting had taken place, it was not the intention of the inhabitants who were favourable to emancipation to agitate the question further; but the conduct of those who were adverse to the claims had left them no alternative, but to come forward and express their sentiments.

presented a petition from Brecon, against the Catholic claims. A meeting of the inhabitants of that county had been held, at which a petition against the measure now before parliament had been almost unanimously adopted. He was desirous to explain the position in which he was placed, in consequence of the adoption of that petition. The House was probably not aware that he had never before given a vote upon this question, and be wished to explain the reasons which had induced him to refrain from voting. He had had the happiness of being connected for many years with a deceased minister, whose political life was zealously devoted to the advocacy of the Catholic cause. At the same time, the great body of the constituents whom he represented were adverse to the Catholic claims. Under these circumstances he had held himself neutral on the question; on this express understanding, that whenever the county should, at a public meeting, declare its opinion, his vote should be regulated accordingly. A meeting of the county had been held within the last few days, and the great majority were in favour of the petition against the Catholic claims. Only ten or twelve hands were held up against it, he should therefore vote against the measure. Some hon. members might consider such a mode of proceeding unconstitutional, but he deemed it the only course which he could adopt in justice to his constituents.

said, he would take that opportunity of declaring his opinion—an opinion which he had maintained from his first entrance into public life—that the penal disqualifications affecting the Roman Catholics were unjust, impolitic, and degrading, and that their removal would be highly beneficial to the empire at large.

rose, to present a petition in favour of the great principle of religious liberty and equal rights, from the town of Colchester. The petition, the hon. member stated, was signed by members of the established church, and by persons connected with various dissenting congregations. He was aware that, on a former evening, a petition numerously signed had been presented by his hon. colleague against the Catholic claims, and he had now to state, that these petitioners had no wish to detract from the respectability of that petition, or to impugn the motives of those who signed it. They felt that, in giving expression to their own feelings, they had no right to detract from the honest, conscientious feelings of those who differed from them in opinion. He could not, however, omit to mention a circumstance, as illustrative of the industry of those who had got up the petition presented by his hon. colleague; namely, that the signatures of one hundred and fifty children, who attended a school belonging to the established church in that neighbourhood, were affixed to it. The Dissenters who had signed the present petition had also a school there, containing full as many children, equally as competent to judge on such an abstract question, as the children in the school connected with the established church; but they very properly abstained from having their signatures affixed to a public document of this nature.—As he was on his legs, he would avail himself of that opportunity of saying a few words in reference to the language which had been employed, and the spirit which had been manifested, by the hon. member for Limerick, on a former evening, in consequence of some observations which he had made upon that occasion. On that occasion, he had ventured, for the first time, to express his sentiments to the House on the subject of the measure before them. He had said then, and he still thought, that such a measure either went too far, or did not go far enough: he had said then, and he would still maintain, that the measure which had been so ably introduced by the right hon. Secretary, founded upon the recommendation in his majesty's Speech, to take the whole state of Ireland into consideration, with a view to its pacification, was not calculated completely to attain that object; and he then declared, as he still felt, that they would never permanently pacify Ireland, unless some arrangement were made for a provision for the Catholic clergy. He suggested at the same time, and he still entertained the opinion, that an ample fund for that purpose should be appropriated out of the revenues of the established church in Ireland. As long as the Catholics of Ireland continued, like the Catholics in other countries, sincerely devoted to their religion, it was impossible that they could sincerely or tamely submit to a system, under which the immense majority of the people were deprived of the ecclesiastical revenues, while those revenues were enjoyed by a church to which but a small proportion of the inhabitants of the country belonged. He therefore declared, that the present measure would not accomplish any permanent result, in the way of pacifying the country, while such a grievance as that was left unredressed. For offering such a suggestion, he was attacked by the hon. member for Limerick, and his sentiments were animadverted upon in a dictatorial and an unprecedented tone by that hon. member. When upon a succeeding evening he had taxed that hon. member with supporting himself a motion which directly tended to diminish the revenues of the established church in Ireland, that hon. member had replied, that in the whole course of his life he had never supported a motion that had such a tendency. Now, the impression upon his mind was, that the hon. member had, upon some former occasion, supported a motion which had a direct tendency to interfere with the ecclesiastical revenues of the established church in Ireland. And what was the fact? He found that, in 1824, on the occasion of a motion brought forward by the hon. member for Montrose, which motion consisted of the following words, "That it is expedient to inquire, whether the present church establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed and the incomes they receive," the hon. member for Limerick was among the minority. In the spirit of that resolution, he perfectly concurred; and if he had then had a seat in that House, he would have been with the hon. member for Limerick in the minority. But, what were the terms in which that motion was characterized by a then eloquent member of that House, who had since been promoted to the House of Peers—he meant lord Plunkett. Mr. Plunkett said—"Really, when the hon. gentleman coupled the expression of his approbation of that priesthood, with the exposition of his plan for pulling down the revenue of the Protestant Church in that country—of transferring and delivering it into the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—for such was the scope of his proposition—the House would give him leave to say, that he deprecated the hon. gentleman's advocacy of their cause, more than he should lament his hostility to it." Such was the motion, so characterized by lord Plunkett, which had been supported by the hon. member for Limerick. Lord Plunkett on that occasion further said—"The hon. member for Aberdeen was for no church establishment." Such was the description given of the proposition, in favour of which the hon. member for Limerick voted. "Speaking of it," continued lord Plunkett on that occasion "in a political point of view, he had no hesitation to state, that the existence of the Protestant establishment was the great bond of union between the two countries; and if that unfortunate moment should arrive when they would rashly lay their hands on the property of the church, to rob it of its rights, that moment they would seal the doom, and terminate the connexion between the two countries." Such were the objects attributed to this motion, and the character given of it by lord Plunkett. He had referred to this subject in consequence of the uncalled-for and unjustifiable course which the hon. member for Limerick had adopted towards him, and he thought he had already adduced sufficient evidence to prove, that at least on one occasion that hon. member had voted for a motion which tended to diminish the revenues of the established church in Ireland, The hon. member for Louth, one of the miraculous converts of the present day, in speaking of this motion, introduced by the hon. member for Montrose, said, that "the question appeared to be, how much or how little of the property of the Church of Ireland was now to be confiscated?" Here was a motion supported by the hon. member for Limerick, and involving the question—"How much or how little of the Protestant Church in Ireland was to be confiscated;" and yet that hon. member now declared, that if he thought the present measure of Catholic emancipation would have the slightest tendency to injure the interests of the established church it should not have his support. He wished it to be understood, that he did not rise to attack any hon. member for the course which he might think fit to pursue in that House, but he would always rise when he conceived it necessary to defend himself; and he would endeavour, on all occasions, strenuously to defend himself, let the attack be directed from whatever quarter it might. He felt that this was a subject which ought to be seriously discussed in that House. It was not, however, his purpose to enter further on it at present; but he trusted that an opportunity would be afforded to him, in the course of the discussion on the bill, to show, that however the measure of the right hon. Secretary was calculated, pro tanto, to effect much good, it would not effect that which his majesty and his ministers desired; namely, the permanent pacification of Ireland. It could not do this, whilst it left so large a subject for future debate and division. They would have the Catholic Association in parliament, backed by the feelings of millions of discontented people in Ireland. He therefore contended, that though the bill might pacify the Catholic aristocracy, by placing a number of noble lords in the other House, and by introducing into the House of Commons several individuals distinguished by their genius and talents, yet it would leave the people entirely unbenefitted, and the clergy entirely unprotected; and they would thus, by this measure, continually aggravate them to new exertions, and at the same time disappoint their own sanguine expectations of tranquillizing Ireland.

said, that under any other circumstances he should apologize to the House for obtruding on its attention any remarks in defence of the conduct of an individual so humble as he was; but after the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Colchester, he hoped that gentlemen would do him the favour of affording their attention to the few observations which he felt it necessary to make. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that no other feeling but a sense of duty could have induced him, either on former occasions, or on the present, to bring himself in collision with the hon. member. He felt himself called on to repel and to expose, what he would take the liberty of designating—not insincerity, for he had no right to make so positive, a charge—but that which had the greatest appearance of insincerity, on the part of the hon. member. He would advert to the speech which the hon. member had just made, and he would ask, how he could possibly reconcile the two propositions which were embodied in it? The hon. gentleman declared, with apparent sincerity, his readiness to support the bill, and yet he took a course which no individual in that House or out of that House could doubt was, of all others, the most decidedly calculated to injure the cause which he declared he would espouse. He demanded, with what other object could the hon. gentleman have made those observations to which he alluded? Did not the hon. gentleman know, that such observations, evidently tended to endanger the success of the measure? He begged of the hon. gentleman to contradict him, if he could, when he averred, that every word which the hon. gentleman had uttered, was calculated to injure the Catholic cause. He would willingly join issue with the hon. gentleman on that point. If the hon. gentleman could not contradict him—and he was sure he could not—with what face could the hon. gentleman come into that House, and say, that he would support a measure which appeared beneficial to the public interest, and at the same time take a course that had an immediate tendency to defeat that very object? The hon. gentleman must have heard and marked to-night, as he must have heard and marked the other night, by whom his observations were cheered. When he said, that the hon. gentleman's remarks were calculated to injure the Catholic question, he did not speak lightly, or from any personal feeling. He had not forgotten the two gentlemen who followed the hon. member on a former night, nor the language which had been used by them. The gallant officer, the member for Norwich, exclaimed on that occasion, "I thank the hon. member for Colchester, for the frank, and honest, and manly declaration which he has made. He has stated fairly, that the effect of this measure will be to pull down the Protestant Church in Ireland;" a similar tribute was paid to the hon. gentleman by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and the sentiment was echoed in various publications which were under the control of those who are opposed to the Catholic question. What did the course adopted by the hon. gentleman amount to? Why, it might be described thus:—It was proclaimed, "Whereas, the gracious message of the King recommends this measure to your consideration; but it only recommends it, so far as it can be effected consistently with the safety and security of the Protestant Church: and whereas, a secretary of State, in the true spirit of sincerity, and with an anxious desire that the bill shall pass, has declared, 'I, a friend to the measure, wish it only to proceed, if it interfere not with the Church, and every man see that if it be not consistent with the interests of the Church, there is no chance that the measure will be carried.'" After this came the hon. gentleman—the supporter of the measure—the new convert—and he spoke of miraculous conversions; but such a conversion he had never seen before, and certainly never wished to see again—it looked so much like one of the stratagems of war, where an individual went over from one party to another, but instead of assisting, injured those by whom he was received. And what line did he pursue? Why, he said, "You must put no confidence in the declarations of Mr. Grattan, of Mr. Plunkett, of the right hon. member for the city of Waterford, or of any of those great men who have so ably and zealously supported the Catholic claims "you must disbelieve them, for the real effect of this measure will be, to overturn the established Church." This statement of the hon. member for Colchester was cheered by hon. members in that House, and it was also received with cheers out of doors. He gave those who cheered it joy of their newly-discovered authority. For his own part, he was perfectly satisfied with the authorities which he had on his side, and he left those gentlemen in full possession of theirs. If he thought the observations made by the hon. gentleman were lightly or inadvertently spoken, he would not have made a remark on the subject; but it was evident to him, that they were not lightly or inadvertently spoken. If the observation which he (Mr. Rice) made on a former occasion was so erroneous as the hon. member seemed to think it, a full opportunity was given to him for replying to it on the Friday night, when that observation was thrown out; but the hon. gentleman did not think proper to come forward till the Tuesday following. The hon. gentleman had stated, that it was owing to him (Mr. Rice), and for his convenience, that the postponement of the matter took place. Now, he wished the hon. member had favoured him with his remarks on the evening when the occurrence happened. He came down when the House again met, and staid till its rising, but the hon. member did not appear. He also came down on the day after, but, as he could not wait till a late period in the evening, he left a note for the hon. gentleman. Therefore, he conceived there was no fault on his part. With respect to the charge of inconsistency which the hon. gentleman had brought against him, he should be able to show to the House that he had been guilty of no inconsistency; and he stood on grounds which he should be able fully to vindicate, whenever a proper occasion arrived; but he would not vindicate his conduct now, except to expose the fallacy that lurked throughout the speech of the hon. gentleman. When he entered parliament there were two opinions on the subject of Church property. He stated this plainly, and he called on the hon. gentleman to contradict him, if he could. The first of those opinions was the opinion of that class of persons who maintained that the Church property was, in all respects, sacred, inviolable, and not to be touched by the nation. The second was the opinion maintained by an hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. The opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen was, that Church property was liable to be confiscated by the state, and to be applied to any other purpose, saving the existing rights of individuals. Now, from the first to the last, since he had been in parliament, he had differed from both those opinions. He thought that they were extremes, far removed from the truth. He considered the Church property of England and Ireland as created and protected by the law, like other property, but that it was not held absolutely, but on a certain condition. Therefore, while he denied the right assumed by one class to confiscate or appropriate the property of the Church, he equally denied the right of the other class to refuse inquiry into the way in which those public trusts were discharged, or in which the stipulated conditions were fulfilled. Acting upon this principle, whenever in parliament a proposition was made for laying hold of the rights of the Church, and for confiscating that property, to such a proposition he had always said "No." In no one instance had he supported such a proposition; and, leaving it to the hon. member for Colchester, whenever such a proposition was made, to give his assent to it, he certainly should take an opposite course. But, on the other hand, whenever a proposition was made for inquiry into the state of Irish church property, for the purpose of seeing that it was properly applied, he would give that motion his cordial assent. He had voted uniformly against confiscation; but he had as uniformly voted for inquiry. Thus stood the case between him and the hon. member. In 1822, when the hon. member for Montrose brought forward a motion relative to Irish church property, to that mo tion he could not give his assent, and he drew up an amendment himself, which his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, seconded. On that occasion, however, the House came to no resolution on the subject. In 1823, a more specific proposition was submitted to the House by the hon. member for Montrose. He moved, "that the property of the Church was public property," and he followed this up with several other propositions. He could not, however, give his assent to either of those propositions, and he was not present at their discussion. He now came to 1824. In that year, the hon. member for Montrose moved, not a proposition for the confiscation of Church property, as was asserted by the hon. gentleman, but a proposition for inquiry. His motion for confiscation having been negatived in 1823, he moved for inquiry in 1824. His motion embraced the question of plurality of livings-the question of the residence of the clergy-the question of tithes-and the question of first-fruits. Now, he (Mr. Rice) did, in the year 1824, think, that those matters should be fairly inquired into. Still, said the hon. member for Colchester, it was a measure of confiscation, and was so stated by Mr. Plunkett. He, however, would not take the explanation of his hon. friend as to the nature of the measure proposed by the hon. member for Montrose. But, if the opinion of Mr. Plunkett were good on this subject, with respect to the object of the motion of 1824, he conceived that the authority of the hon. member for Montrose was still better. And what did he say? He said, all he wanted was, an inquiry into the state of Church property in Ireland, and he was opposed to any idea of robbery or spoliation. Therefore, the statement and opinion of the hon. member for Montrose were with him, and against the hon. gentleman; and if any proposition were brought forward for the spoliation or robbery of Church property, unquestionably the hon. gentleman would not find it in this instance. He did not speak on that occasion; but, fortunately for him, he did speak on another occasion, in the course of that year, and he took at that time precisely the same distinction to which he now referred. He made use of these words, in the course of his observations on a proposition relative to the first-fruits—"He was as sincere a friend to the Church establishment of Ireland as the right hon. and learned gentleman (the attorney general, to whom he was then replying), and he thought he best proved his attachment to it, by advocating that species of reform which would extend the duties of the clergy. Much had been said on what was called the spoliation of the Church; but that offensive word could not be justly applied to the motion before the House. It was one thing for the Crown to seize the property of the Church, and apply it to the purposes of the state, and another to apply the funds of the Church to its maintenance, and to the advancement of religion and morality. The first might be termed spoliation; but the latter was rather to be looked upon as the preservation of the Church property. For them sake of the peace of Ireland, it was absolutely necessary that the whole of this important subject should be thoroughly investigated."—Now, he would leave it to the House, whether the hon. gentleman had dealt fairly with him. The hon. gentleman had gone through all his speeches, for the purpose of bringing a charge against him; yet he had neither the candour nor the fair. dealing to bring forward that passage which he had just read, and which gave a complete contradiction to every part of the hon. gentleman's charge. The hon. gentleman had gone over ten years of his public life, but he defied him to adduce a particle of evidence in support of his accusation. In like manner, in 1825, the hon. member for Montrose brought forward his final attack on the Church-an attack which called forth that magnificent speech of Mr. Canning in its defence. The motion on that occasion was, "that the property now in the possession of the established Church in Ireland is public property, under the control of the legislature, and applicable to such purposes as in its wisdom it may deem beneficial to the best interests of religion and of the community at large, due regard being had to the rights of every person in the actual enjoyment of any part of that property." Did he vote for that motion? Certainly not. If he had, on either of the two occasions to which he had alluded, voted for such a proposition, then the hon. gentleman might go on and charge him with inconsistency. He had gone over the ten years of his political life, and he had shown, that neither in 1823 or 1825 had he voted for the motions of the hon. member for Montrose. But that was not all. The fact was, that no one voted for them; for in both instances the propositions so brought forward were negatived without a division. He felt, he acknowledged, somewhat warmly on this subject; because he was ready to deal with an open enemy. An open, manly, and fair adversary challenged his respect; but when he found that a secret, indirect, and tortuous course was pursued, it moved his indignation. If a gentleman got up and frankly said—"I shall oppose this question, because it will overturn the constitution," he gave him credit for his candour: but he could not view with approbation the conduct of a man who would rise and state, "I wish this measure to succeed," and who would add, in a stage whisper, "I know it contains that which will cause it to fail, and which will create discontent and disaffection." The first deed he had to adduce in support of this bill was, that the measure was not calculated to injure the Protestant Church; and he would not allow that deed to be taken away from him and another substituted, on which he could not go before a jury with a chance of having a verdict in his favour. During a whole week the hon. gentleman had brought a charge of inconsistency against him. He had now stated the facts, and he would leave it to the House to decide between him and the hon. gentleman, and to say whether the hon. gentleman had, or had not, made out his case of inconsistency.

said, the speech of the hon. gentleman was not a reply to the observations which he had made that night, or at a former period. He denied that he had put the hon. gentleman on his defence; but he undoubtedly felt it necessary to defend himself. The hon. gentleman said that he had ransacked his political life, and had examined all his speeches, for the purpose of bringing a charge against him. Now it would, he thought, be a very severe task—and, he would say, no slight punishment—to go through the hon. gentleman's speeches for the last ten years. The hon. gentleman had found him guilty; but he trusted that he would not be allowed to award the punishment. If he were, doubtless he should be compelled to go through the Parliamentary Debates—to read the long speeches of the hon. gentleman—and, what would be still more difficult, to reconcile one with the other. The hon. gentleman had imputed to him that which was groundless, but which was perfectly applicable to himself, if he looked through a few years. The hon. gentleman said, that, if an individual supported a measure, he ought to do so wholly and entirely. He was, it appeared, to look upon it as not capable of improvement or alteration. Now, he must disclaim such a doctrine. He might be favourable to this measure, and yet see plainly that it would not effect the object which was intended. That was the opinion he before expressed, and he thought so still; because, by this measure, they left the people separated from their priests, without any benefit being conferred. He had never before voted for the question, because until it was brought forward by the Crown, it appeared to him a mere party, he would add, a factious, measure; and he believed, if the hon. gentleman and his party had come into power, they would not have proposed so perfect a measure as the present. He could not forget the time when that party went over in a stream to Mr. Canning to oppose the noble duke now at the head of the government, and the right hon. Secretary opposite, upon whom they were now exhausting every term of fulsome panegyric. He believed, in his conscience, that before many months the noble duke and the right hon. gentleman would find in the hon. member for Limerick and his friends their most formidable competitors for place [hear]. These might not be very palatable sentiments to honourable gentlemen, but he did not fear their censure, and he was not anxious to court their applause. When the measure came regularly before the House, he hoped to be able to show that it was possible to be in favour of the bill, and yet not think it all that might be desirable.

deprecated personal discussions of this nature; but, in the present case, it was impossible to avoid taking that course, in consequence of the accusation which the hon. member for Colchester had brought against his hon. friend, the member for Limerick. The hon. member for Colchester had charged his hon. friend with speaking in a dictatorial manner. But, was such the conduct of his hon. friend?—Assuredly it was not. If ever his hon. friend spoke in a dictatorial tone, it was on that one occasion—when he exposed the doctrine laid down by the hon. gentleman, relative to this bill, and well might he do so; for he spoke, not only his own sentiments, but the sen timents of all the friends of the measure.

denied, that the opposition had been influenced by personal motives in joining the administration of Mr. Canning. They had opposed the noble duke now at the head of the government, and the right hon. Secretary, because they were opposed to the question of emancipation.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to suspend the making of Lists and ballotting for the Militia of the united kingdom; and to reduce the permanent staff." The right hon. gentleman referred to the Speech of his majesty at the close of the last session, which promised an inquiry into the public establishments, with a view to such practicable reductions as were compatible with the security of the public service. Owing to this recommendation, the militia had been a subject of consideration by his majesty's government, and it did appear to them, that some reduction of that force was practicable, without injury to the country, and with a very considerable saving. The object of the bill he now proposed to bring in was two-fold; first, to enable the Crown to suspend for a limited period the preparation of lists and ballotting for the militia; and, secondly, to authorize a certain reduction of the staff of that force. He proposed a suspension of the ballot, with a view to avoid an unnecessary, and, at the same time, an expensive process, and of giving time to his majesty's government to consider by what mode that constitutional force could, in future, be adequately supplied. At present, no one could look to the system of ballotting and not perceive that the country was subjected to an expense, for an object not available for any useful purpose. He would take, as an example, one single county. In the county of Stafford, the establishment of the militia force was one thousand one hundred and thirty men. The law required, that all vacancies occurring in each year should be filled up by a ballot; and every parish in the county was consequently called upon to make out lists, and pass through the form of a ballot, in order to supply the annual vacancies. During the last year, the number of vacancies in the Staffordshire militia, was twenty-one; and to supply these vacancies, the form of a ballot was absolutely necessary. The expense attending the ballot for these twenty-one men amounted to 500l., of which 300l. was the share of the public, and 200l. fell upon the county. Besides this, it was necessary for parties who claimed an exemption to appear personally and appeal. The number of appellants last year was from three hundred to five hundred: and this to supply a vacancy of twenty-one men! Taking the average number of persons annually required to urge their claims to exemption, the grievance must be severe. Most of them were probably labourers in agriculture: there was then their loss of time; and, if sickness was the ground of exemption, a medical certificate was necessary. Thus there was an expense of 25l. per man incurred, although no active service was required of them; at the same time that we were raising able men for the regiments of the line, at the rate of three guineas per man. Without entering further into details, he trusted he had stated enough to satisfy the House of the expediency of suspending the ballot, with a view of ascertaining what measures could be taken to give efficiency to this force at less expense. He proposed merely to suspend the ballot till next sessions; and, if circumstances required it, to give power to the Crown to direct, by order in council, the making out lists in order to meet any emergency which might occur. This alteration would effect a saving of 24,000l.—The other object of the bill was to effect a saving in the staff, by a reduction of certain officers, which would restore the militia to its original constitution. The paymaster was an addition to the original constitution of the militia; and he saw no reason why, in time of peace, the adjutant could not perform that duty, with the aid of a pay-clerk. The total permanent saving, by this reduction of the staff, would be full 65,000l. a year. In the present year, as the salaries would be paid up to June, the saving on the militia staff would be 40,000l. only; but then there would be 24,000l. saved by suspending the ballot, which would make the saving this year 64,000l.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.