, 18272001 114 the petitioners proceed against them under the Grenville act? What, however, was the real state of the case? The petitioners complained of the abuse of a legal power: and that could not be the subject ofca prosecution under the Grenville act. Here was alleged the positive abuse of a legal Peregrine Pinkle, nor Roderick Bandom. Such trifling might amuse, but it could not satisfy and he was surprised that the right hon. gentleman, for the sake of so poor a joke, could day aside the candour for which he had recently obtained credit. Avolume of Smollett's History was less cumbersome than a volume of the Jour-power; and if that abuse had taken place, nals; and Smolletto was an historian in some credit. Therefore, unless the right hon. gentleman could establish, that Smollett had misquoted the Journals, the attempt at ridicule, because the same indisidual had written certain novels, recoiled inpon itself. The right hon. gentleman might excite a laugh among his friends and adherents; but such a specimen of wit could only produce a smile rather of ipity than satisfaction among those who were not connected with him in office or expectancy. Both the hon. members for Leicester had boasted of the respectability of their constituents; but surely it was unnecessary that they should vouch the fact seeing that it would be taken for granted, that those who sent particular members to parliament would be declared by those members to be men of great judgment, and high virtue, both private and political. A right hon. gentleman had said, that the corporation of Leicester had dɗne no more than the electors of Westminster, in paying the legal expenses of the election; but the charge of the hon. moverli was, that the corporation had abused and misapplied the corporate funds, by employing them for the purposes of the election. If it had been merely stated, that individual gentlemen had subscribed their own money to forward a particular election, such a charge, so grossly absurd, could not be entertained for a moment. If this were decidedly stated, then there would be an end to the case. But he did Dof understand the fact to be so. And dren if it appeared, on the first view, that the subscriptions were of this nature, still, in his opinion, it ought to be clearly proved before they refused inquiry; because the business might be done in so covert a manhebe corruption having arrived at such a pitch in this country, especially in corporations, as to prevent discovery, unless it were narrowly investigated. The petitioners complained of the excessive number of voters that had been created. But, said the right hon. gentleman, fsthecorporation had a right to make themspand if they had not, why.did not he contended, that the House was imperiously called on to institute an investiga tion of all the circumstances connected with the offence. What did the hon. member for Hull demand? He asked for a committee, in whose power it should be to call for whatever evidence they might deem necessary. Could any thing be more fair-could any thing be more necessary-where such a statement was made as that contained in the petition ?ɔHe denied that this proceeding would cast any reflection on the sitting members.ourThe petition contained no allegation against them. They might be perfectly uncon scious of the practices complained of. The hon. baronet had said, that if any improper practices were going on, he must have heard of them. This, however, he must deny. On the contrary, the hon. baronet would be the last man in the world whom the parties complained oft would make acquainted with any practices of this de scription. The corporation were too much au fait at this business to let him know any thing about it. The right hon. gen tleman had spoken of the honorary sor temporary electors for Nottingham, who went in such a hurry from one place to the other to vote. But what answer was that to the statement of his hon. friend? He complained that the same kind of thing had been done at Leicester as appeared to have been done at Nottingham and he laid before the House a particular case, which had fallen into his hands, and which he wished to have investigated. It was no answer to say to him, that similar pro ceedings had occurred elsewhere,sq He, therefore, contended, that his hon. friend had a right to call on the House to interfere in a case, with respect to which re dress could not be obtained in a court of law. It was only in that House that the justice of the case could be satisfied; and, therefore, he called upon them not to dismiss it with that levity, which the right hon. gentleman appeared, by his manner, to sanction. If this motion was rejected, the public would consider it as the de claration of a denial of justice in every case of this kind that might be brought before parliament. It would show, that the House was destitute of that constitutional jealousy which it ought to feel for the purity of its members; and that instead of opening wide its doors to representations of the kind, it was anxious to throw every difficulty in the way of investigation. Mr. V. Fitzgerald contended, that his right hon. friend was justified in his allusion to Peregrine Pickle and Roderick Random, by the fact, that in that portion of Smollett's History which had been referred to upon this occasion, the author had shown more of the novel writer and the political pamphleteer, than of the liberal and impartial narrator of events. Lord Milton said, the question was, whether the act of the Corporation in creating such a number of additional voters, was or was not illegal. No one had said that, under ordinary circumstances, the Corporation of Leicester had not a right to make freemen. But the case became very different, when the proposition for creating additional voters was hawked all over the country. It appeared that 2,000 letters had been issued to various individuals, and that eight hundred persons were in consequence placed in the situation of electors. This being the case, the hon. member for Hull surely had a right to bring the business forward, for the purpose of investigation. But the right hon. gentleman had, with a great deal of solemnity, called on the House to make a stand, and to support the Corporation. He hoped that the House would do no such thing; especially as a complaint which had been recently made against another corporation, for improper practices in the course of an election, had not been thus dismissed, but had been referred to a committee for consideration. With the labours of that committee they had not yet been made acquainted; but he expected that they would be soon laid on their table. The present was, in his opinion, a gross abuse of legal rights, by the members of this Corporation. It was clear that vast numbers of persons having no connection with the town of Leicester had been created freemen; and it was the duty of that House to inquire, whether they were so created for the purpose of influencing the election in a particular way. He contended, that the House had a right to interfere, to prevent, in future, the recurrence of such a transaction. It was no answer to the petitioners to say, that a similar transaction had taken place at Nottingham. That, on the contrary, ought to operate as an additional reason for rooting out such a system altogether Mr. Legh-Keck said, he was himself a freeman of Leicester, and he could safely aver, that a more respectable body of elec tors could not be found in the kingdom, The funds of that Corporation were strictly applied to the purposes for which they were originally intended. There was not a corporate body in England, who watched over the charitable and other funds placed under their care, with more unremitting attention. As to the formation of addi tional freemen, it could not have been done for the purpose of influencing the election. That would have been a needless precaution; because the resident freemen would, over and over again, have secured the return of the favourite can didate, without any adventitious aid. Mr. Spring Rice supported the motion. Mr. Goulburn contended, that the pre sent case bore no analogy to that of Northampton, inasmuch as no misapplication of corporate funds was charged against the Corporation of Leicester. As to the remission of fees to the eight hundred freemen, it could not have been made with a view to influence the election, as the freedom was conferred on them in 1822, and the election took place four years after. The absence of any illegality in the mode of taking the poll was proved by the fact, that counsel, who had been consulted on the policy of petitioning against the return, under the Grenville act, declared that there were not sufficient grounds to support such a charge.her? Lord Rancliffe said, that as the cor poration of Nottingham had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, he was bound to admit that the practice com plained of had prevailed there to some extent. extent. He, however, disapproved of it, and would as willingly support a motion for inquiry into the conduct of that co poration, as into that of Leicester. Mr. Hudson Gurney supported the motion. He said, that the matter loudly called for the intervention of the House This infamous system of overpowering the bonâ fide voters, by creation of honom freemen, had been begun by the corpora tion of Nottingham; who, he was infor ed, had made twelve hundred utterly HOUSE OF LORDS. Sir F. Burdett was about to read a passage from the petition, in order to prove the incorrectness of the statement ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]The made on the other side of the House; Marquis of Londonderry rose to present namely, that the petition did not allege two petitions from the counties of Lon that the Corporation money had been misapplied, when The Speaker informed him, that it was not competent to him to do so, he having already addressed the House. motion. The House divided :-For the motion 68 Against it 92; Majority 24. bebaud List of the Minority. afford my Aidiorp, Iord Barifig, co han Kennedy, T. K. Lombe, E. Maberly, J. donderry and Monaghan, in favour of the Roman Catholic claims. He said, he should not detain their lordships at present, as he had before endeavoured humbly, but honestly, to state the conviction on Lord Howick, therefore, read the pas- his mind, that the great and important sage, which declared, that the Corporation question of the Roman Catholic claims had borrowed money to carry on the elec- was intimately connected with the haption, and the lenders were to be in-piness, welfare, and he might add, the demnified of the Corporation funds. social order of Ireland. He thought it Mr. C. N. Pallmer was of opinion that would be bad taste to press the question the freemen in question had been made forward, not only from what he had al in contemplation of the election, and that ready said upon the subject, but more their votes were improperly used in it. especially because an enlightened states On that ground he should support the man had thought it most wise to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice. He was not in his place when that incomparable speech was delivered; in every part of which he most cordially and sincerely concurred. He thought he had acted most wisely in not pressing forward a discussion, which could only excite irritation. The question would, of neces sity be resumed; and he must hope that the Roman Catholics would bear their present disappointment with patience and resignation; and if he could conceive that they would have recourse to force or rebellion in order to obtain from parliament their claims, and not to persuasion or ar gument, he hoped, as an honest Irish soldier, he should be in the van-guard of those who opposed such proceedings. He had hoped that those noble lords who did not join with him and his friends in their opinions upon the question, would come forward with some measure calcu lated to reconcile the country to the dis appointment, and to allay the feelings of irritation which now prevailed. That was his wish; and when he found that no measure was coming forward, he felt deeply grieved. Nevertheless, he would advise the Roman Catholics to hope that by patience and resignation they would arrive at the great object of their wishes and that the justice and magnanimity of a British king and a British sonate would di Brownlow, Coq ad Burdett, sir F. Buxton, T. F. Clive, E. B. Uampbell, W. F. Cradock, col. Colborne, R. Dundas, hon. T. Maberly, col. Heron, sir R. 10 Pendarvis, E. W. Wood, C ultimately accord to them what they had prayed for session after session. He The Earl of Winchilsea said, he had purposely refrained from making any observations on the sentiments contained in the numerous petitions which he had presented to their lordships against Roman Catholic emancipation; because he thought that a more desirable opportunity would be afforded him for such observations, when the noble marquis had redeemed the pledge he had given to the House, of bringing this great political question of the Catholic claims under the consideration of the House. Finding, however, that that intention had been abandoned, he could not, in justice to his own feelings, or to those persons who had signed the petitions which he had presented, allow the question to be withdrawn from the House, only to be brought forward on a more favourable opportunity, without stating his own views upon the subject. He must own, however, that he regretted that that motion had been abandoned; because he was convinced, that the oftener the subject was discussed, the more it would be found that it was impossible to open the constitution to individuals professing the tenets of the Catholic church, without endangering the principles upon which that constitution was founded. If, however, such discussion would have been attended with the same bitterness of feeling which had characterized the debate upon the subject in another place-if any noble lord had been prompted to follow that example, and forgetting what was due to his own private and public character, should deal in bitter invectives against those who were united with him in political power-he felt, if such should be the conduct that would be pursued, that it would leave, as it had done, in the breast of every friend of uncompromising principles, an impression which would never be effaced, and would tend, as it had tended, to unite that party more firmly than any thing that could be said. It was a matter of sincere regret to him, therefore, that the noble marquis had thought proper to withdraw his motion; and on that occasion he should freely have stated the grounds upon which he objected to granting the claims of the Catholics. He now begged leave, therefore, to state the grounds upon which he thought that it was impossible to admit the Catholics to legislate for a Protestant country, without endangering the Protestant principles of that country; and he did so in order that he might hear those arguments which might be brought forward to combat his opinion, and which he sincerely assured their lordships he should take home with him from that House and give them the attention they deserved. He wished most sincerely to come to a just conclusion upon this great question. In the first place he would draw their lordships' a tention to the grounds upon which the Papists, at the time of the Revolution, were, by the wisdom of our ancestors, effectually excluded from political power; and he should then endeavour to show that the same grounds existed at present for the continuation of that exclusion, as a security against the intolerant principles of popery. He did not wish to draw their lordships attention to any of those melan choly events which occurred before the period he alluded to. He would direct their lordships attention to the character of popery exemplified in the conduct of James 2nd and that of his advisers. He would draw their attention to the state of the continent at the same time; and they would see Louis 14th revoking the edit of Nantes, and banishing every Protestant from his dominions. Let noble lords look to the opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy of that period, as collected from authorized statements. He would read a passage written by the bishop of Meaux, indicating the spirit of persecution of the church of Rome against all those who were opposed to it. Let their lordships judge from his own words. He said, that "the church of Rome, is the most intolerant of all churches: it is our inflexibility which renders us unconciliating and odious.". In another passage he says, "that the exercise of the power of the sword was not to be called in question He should avoid entering into a detail of the melancholy events that happened before that period. Having endeavoured to show that the principles of popery were dangerous to a Protestant constitution at the time he had mentioned, he should now examine the declaration of those who stated, that the doctrines of popery no longer composed of those intolerant and obnoxious principles: that no sale of indulgences were allowed, or the doctrine of purgatory believed. He would refer to a bull of pope. Leo, as giving him a ground of coming to a more correct conclusion on were Protestant country? But it was now said, that the Roman Catholic gentry did not give their assent to the intolerant doctrines of the Romish church. When the Roman Catholics said so, they were deceived-deceived by the influence of those treacherous principles, which always had been, and still were, the characteristics of the Roman Catholic religion. If those principles were not opposed, no adequate security would be had against the vigorous and domineering spirit of popery. If these were not the principles which the Roman Catholics now entertain, let them, then, open their eyes to that religion; or let them state candidly that it is not the Throne, it is not the laws, it is not the parliament, but it is the church of Rome, which bars the entrance to the British parliament, It was said that Ireland could not remain as she was, and he assented to that observation. But it was also stated, that conceding the Catholic claims would make that country tranquil. He no more believed that conceding those claims would have that effect, than that the breath of man could calm the ocean. He had not abilities or talents sufficient to enable him to propose any measure for the improvement of Ireland; but there was a measure which would tend to render that country happy; namely, the effort now made to rescue the people from the degraded state of religion in which they stood, and an endeavour to unite them in bonds stronger than any other the bonds of religion, which would make Ireland both happy and tranquil. All that he wished was, that when this great question should be again brought forward, every endeavour would be made to transmit to posterity that constitution which had made this country the envy of surrounding nations, and not to fritter away the principles upon which that constitution was founded, or abandon that system of government which rendered us the most exalted upon earth. The noble lord then presented a petition from Northampton, against granting any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, and adverted to a petition from the same place, presented by earl Spencer, and stated that the one he now presented was very numerously signed. the subject. The bull in question, which was issued in 1825, and was published in all the newspapers, bore unqualified testimony to the statement, that the doctrines of popery had not changed in those two particulars. But perhaps some noble lords would maintain, that an essential alteration in the fundamental doctrines of popery had taken place. He begged leave to ask by what authority and at what period had such alteration been effected?-to what authority were those differences in the Catholic religion to be ascribed, and in what writings were they allowed? Their lordships were all aware, that the principles of the Catholic religion could not be altered without the concurrence of a general council, and they must know also that there had been no general council | held since that of Trent, in the sixteenth century. To that council their lordships must refer, if they wished to come to a just conclusion on the true and real doctrines of the popish church. Were their lordships, then, to be told by individuals who had interested motives-for he contended, that they had interested motives, to conceal the real character of that religion that in their opinion the Roman church no longer held doctrines so obhoxious and intolerant? How little such al statement was worth, would appear when put to the test of a writer of our own church, who wrote in answer to Dr. Doyle. He would now draw the attention of their lordships to the unconstitutional conduct of the Catholic priests in their interference at elections in Ireland. Availing themselves of the ignorance of the poor people, they did not exercise that sort of influence which was derived from wealth, as was done in this country; but availed themselves of a power purely spiritual to excite the minds of the superstitious people. Had not their lordships heard of their opposition to every measure proposed for the instruction of that country; for they well knew how short lived their power would be, if the people were left to their private judgment, and to the exercise of a better religion? He thought he needed not to add one word more as to the intolerance of the Roman Catholic religion. High minded and honourable men, he admitted, there were professing Earl Spencer did not rise to enter into that religion; but he would ask this sim- a discussion with the noble lord who had ple question-whether those individuals, just sat down, on all the various topics if such was their character, could be safe-upon which he had touched. The noble ly trusted with a power to legislate for a lord had finished his speech by presenting |