were highly blameable in not asking them | sessions, the inhabitants of which were before the end of the last session of the anxious to procure their independence; and last parliament. He did not wish, how-by acceding to whose wishes, our monarch ever, to condemn ministers without proofs, must have alienated a great part of his nor would he attach the foul blame to own sovereignty. He doubted much if a them until he was convinced they had king could make such an alienation of his deserved it. With regard to Russia, he territorial dominions, without the advice professed to know nothing. They might of his parliament. An alienation of terbe a barbarous, a semi-barbarous, or a ritory naturally and necessarily required civilized people, as they had been various- the advice of parliament, to give it valy represented; but of this he was sure, lidity; and he did not believe that any that they had evinced feelings of which minister would have ventured on such a every civilized nation ought to be proud; measure, without the advice and consent feelings which neither philosophy nor of parliament.-But he would detain the refinement could teach, an invincible at- House no further on this subject. As to tachment to their native country. He the other objects of the Amendment, to could not forbear, on that head, paying his obtain information on the different topics just tribute of applause to the Russians of in the Speech, he thought this might easily all classes; to the government, to the be obtained in a less objectionable way, army, and to the people; for all had and on the whole he should vote against vied with each other in sacrificing every the Amendment. All the objects referred thing for their country. How the contest to in the Speech, and in the proposed Admight terminate he could not foresee, and, dress of the noble lord, would require, and perhaps, he was not so sanguine as other would undoubtedly receive further dispeople in his hopes of a successful issue; cussion and enquiry; and he hoped to see but this he was ready to acknowledge, his hon. friend employ those great abilities that Russia had done more than was ex- he possessed, in the investigation of each pected from her. She had done enough individually. The state of our relations to disappoint sorely the invader, and to ex- with America, and the causes which had ceed all expectations which had been formed led to it, particularly; and also the Treaty from the bravery of her hardy sons.-On with Sweden, he hoped to see discussed in the question of peace, as proposed in the their proper place. This day, however, Amendment, he was sorry, as he was at he saw no reason why the Answer to the all times, to differ from his hon. friend. Speech from the throne should not be as He was as desirous for peace as any man usual; and, in so doing, he repeated it, he in England, could he see any way by thought we were more likely to attain which it could be attained; but the pro- peace, than by adopting the way pointed position of his hon. friend, if adopted, out by his hon. friend.-Adverting lastly would go to put that desired blessing still to the Roman Catholic question, he obfarther from our reach; it would naturally served, that certainly the executive goraise the demands of the enemy, especially vernment was neither bound nor pledged as the sufferings of the people formed the to introduce that subject in the Speech. principal reason his hon. friend adduced Considering, however, how connected that to support his proposition. France would question was with the vital interests of the then say, the English government does empire, it would have been wise in minisnot wish for peace, but the House of Com-ters to advise its being mentioned. Almons forces them to it, owing to the misery of the people-let us keep up our demands, and we must have them on our own terms. He believed there was scarcely an instance, except during the American war, where parliament interfered, and made a peremptory call on government, or on the ministers of the crown to offer terms of peace. But these things did not stand on the same footing then as they did in the present instance. The war was not then a war between two independant countries, but between this country and a distant part of her own pos though not mandatory upon them in consequence of what had passed in the last parliament, yet it would have been politic and prudent to bring the matter forward under the sanction of government. From their silence, however, he concluded that they were still hostile to it; and the omis sion of that subject in the Speech, afforded him a proof that they did not intend to bring the subject forward. In consequence of this, and as a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) who had last session made a motion in favour of the Roman Cathofics, had now deposited his trust in the hands of a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Grattan) so properly qualified, he would now in the name and at the express desire of that right hon. friend, give notice to the House, that shortly after the Christmas recess, he would submit a motion to the House, on the necessity of repealing the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics still laboured. Mr. Elliot followed, and took up nearly the same grounds. He was happy to understand, that it was not the intention of his hon. friend to push his Amendment to a division. Had he been forced, however, to give a vote upon the subject, it must have been against the Amendment; because he thought that an Address, founded on the distresses of the country, and recommending the adoption of measures for procuring peace, would have the effect of retarding, rather than of accelerating that object-if, by a peace were meant the advantages which ought necessarily to result from the accomplishment of such a measure. Mr. Vernon also expressed his satisfaction, that the Amendment was not to be pressed to a division, as he must have been under the necessity of voting against it. Before parliament addressed the crown on the subject of peace, he thought they ought to be satisfied of two things, first, that peace was attainable; and secondly, that the mode pursued was the most likely mode of attaining it. In the present in stance he was convinced of the reverse of both of these being the case; and besides such an Address at the present moment would be unwise, as tending to infuse a distrust of our sincerity into both the Spanish and Russian governments, peculiarly unwise at the present moment, when we had been obliged to allow the capital of Spain to fall again into the hands of the invaders, and when the emperor of Russia had evinced his sincerity in the contest, by sacrificing his own capital to his-political honour. The question being called for, the Amendment was put and negatived, and the Address carried without a division. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, December 1. PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.] The Duke of Gloucester presented a Petition from the University of Cambridge, against the Catholic Claims, and stated that he did so, having the ho nour to hold the office of Chancellor of that University, but that he was anxious to be understood as giving no opinion on one side or the other relative to the subject of the Petition. The Earl of Hardwicke observed, that due notice had not been given to the nonresident members of the University of the intention to set on foot such a Petition; to the consideration of which, he contended, the attention of the non-resident members ought to have been fairly called, it not being a question of religion, but of political expediency. To shew that the danger to be apprehended from the interference of the Pope was merely ideal, the noble earl observed, with reference to some late proceedings of the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, that the Pope was not to be found, nor could any communication be had with him. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. Lord Grenville said that he had a similar Petition to present from the University of Oxford. The mere act of presenting a Petition at variance with his own opinions, was a thing so common in parliamentary usage, that he should not have thought it necessary to notice the circumstance. But both the illustrious personage who had preceded him, and himself, stood in a peculiar situation with respect to these Petitions. They come, my lords, from corporate bodies at the head of which we have the honour to be placed; and they purport to be the Petitions of the chancellors as well as of the other members of our two Universities. The illustrious personage has, therefore, thought it necessary to disclaim all participation in the prayer of the Petition which his Royal Highness has presented, and to remind the House that he has always hitherto (and from motives which all who know them must applaud) abstained from giving any opinion on this great question. For myself, however, I must go much further. My opinions upon it have been long publicly avowed. So far from concurring in this Petition, I am convinced that no other expedient could now be devised so certain and so effectual for bringing upon this country the very evils of which the petitioners are apprehensive, as the adoption of that very policy which they so earnestly recommend. Thus much I stated to your lordships on a similar occasion last year, and my opinion remains unaltered. But I have now a still more painful duty to dis The Petition was ordered to lie on the BILL FOR THE APPOINTMENT of a ViceCHANCELLOR]. Lord Redesdale presented a Bill for the better administration of justice, which his lordship stated to be the same as that which was before the House last session, for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, and observed that it was quite impossible for any person, whatever might be his talents or his industry, to execute the multifarious duties which now de volved upon the Lord Chancellor, and that the consequence of his not having the requisite assistance, was a delay in the hearing of Appeals and Writs of Error in that House, which was most ruinous and oppressive to the parties concerned. The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be printed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, December 1. 1 charge. To the declaration of my unqua- I lified dissent from the prayer of this Peti-table. tion, I must add, that of my strong disapprobation of the terms in which it is expressed. It appears to me, by obvious and necessary construction, to convey a most injurious, unwarranted and groundless aspersion on the motives and principles of some of the best and wisest men both living and dead, who have ever adorned the councils or the senate of this country. It appears to me to extend this reflection even to the proceedings of the legislature itself. Such being, as I think, the import of the words according to their plain sense and meaning, it was matter of grave and serious deliberation in my mind whether I could be justified by any consideration in suffering my name to be affixed, even for form's sake, to such a paper. Nor am I yet sure that I have rightly decided. But if I have erred, it is on that side on which, if I err at all, I should wish my error to be found. I have erred from the desire of facilitating the exercise of the right of petitioningfrom the wish to promote free discussion on this momentous question, and to give full scope and due weight to whatever either of argument or of authority can be adduced against those opinions, the success of which has always been best proved by full and unreserved examination.-I was also greatly influenced by my firm persuasion that the words which convey to my mind this highly objectionable sense were nevertheless not so intended by the framers of this Petition. They are men, I am confident, of juster and better "Sir; On the 24th of August I had the regulated minds than to be capable of honour to receive your letter of last Jasuch a purpose. They know, I am cer- nuary, communicating the unanimous Vote tain, that nothing could be more unbe- of Thanks of the Commons of the United coming of their own peculiar stations- Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for. that nothing could less befit a grave, and my cordial co-operation with the army reverend, and religious body, than the at- acting under the command of lieutenanttempt to judge the consciences of others, general sir Samuel Auchmuty, in the late and to fix an injurious' calumny on the operations on the Island of Java. I beg motives of those from whose opinions they leave to express to you, Sir, the high value may chance to differ. They are also, II place upon this distinguished mark of must believe, men far too wise, and of judgments infinitely too enlightened, not to be sensible that if disgrace should attach any where, it must fall on the authors of the calumny, and not on those to whom it is applied. For them, therefore, as well as for myself, I publicly disavow any such interpretation of their Petition; and it is in this persuasion only that I could think myself authorised to present it to your lordships, and to move that it may lie on your table. (VOL. XXIV.) ANSWER OF ADMIRAL STOpford to VOTE OF THANKS.] The Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received from rearadmiral the hon. Robert Stopford the following Letter, in return to the Thanks of this House, signified to him by the Speaker, in obedience to their commands of the 10th of January last; Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope, 28th August, 1812. approbation of my conduct upon that oc- "Charles Abbot, esq. PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CA- Catholics of this United Kingdom to ob THOLICS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OX-tain the full enjoyment of political power, FORD THE CITY OF OXFORD AND SION and to remove all the restraints and incaCOLLEGE.] Sir William Scott presented pacities to which they are subject by the a Petition from the chancellor, masters, laws now in force against them; and and scholars, of the University of Oxford, praying, that the statutes constituting and setting forth, establishing those restraints and incapacities may still be preserved inviolate, in as much as those statutes appear to have been devised by the wisdom of our ancestors as the best and surest means of giving permanency and security to the Protestant government of this country in Church and State, and as, in the firm belief of the petitioners, the same, or equally as strong reasons, now exist for the continuance of those statutes as when they were enacted." "That the petitioners can never cease to be, in every just and proper sense of the expression, the firm advocates of religious toleration, but that they have always contemplated, and still continue to contemplate, with extreme anxiety, the efforts incessantly made to overturn the defences of our civil and religious establishments, by the admission of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, not only to offices of the highest trust and authority, but even to the power of framing laws for the government of this Protestant Church and State; and that the Petitioners do verily believe that the restrictions and disabilities to which the Roman Catholics in Ireland are subject, are still indispensably requisite for the maintenance and security of the Protestant government, and especially of the Protestant Church, as it is now by law established in that part of the United Kingdom; and that the petitioners see also much reason to apprehend that the removal of these restrictions and disabilities would lead, and they fear, by direct and necessary consequence, to a removal of all restrictions and disabilities whatever on account of religion, and to an entire abrogation of the oaths, declarations, and tests, by law required of every person admitted to sit or vote in either House of Parliament, or to fill of fices of trust and power, which the petitioners still humbly conceive to be essentially necessary to the safety both of our civil and religious establishments; and praying, that the House, in its wisdom, will be pleased to maintain those laws, and preserve inviolate tirose securities which long experience has proved to be most congenial with the character, and under Divine Providence, most conducive to the stability of our happy constitution in Church and State." Mr. Atkins Wright presented a Petition from the mayor bailiffs and commonalty of the city of Oxford, in common council assembled, setting forth, "That the petitioners are filled with the most serious apprehensions of danger from a renewal of the attempts which have already been so often made by the Roman Mr. Lockhart intimated that, when the Petition should come to be taken into consideration, he would support the prayer of the Petitioners. Sir William Curtis presented a Petition from the London clergy, incorporated by the title of "The president and fellows of Sion College within the city of London," setting forth, "That the petitioners, having witnessed the efforts repeatedly made of late years to procure further indulgences for persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, cannot but contemplate with great solicitude the probability of those efforts being speedily renewed; and that the petitioners, therefore, regard it as their bounden duty humbly to express their most serious apprehension of the dangers likely to arise from the removal of those restrictions and disabilities to which the Roman Catholics are now subject, and from enabling them to hold offices of the highest trust and authority, and even to sit in the imperial parliament, to legislate for a Protestant Church and State; and that the petitioners, while they are the firm advocates of religious toleration as recognized by the laws of this country, and desirous that its blessings may continue, cannot but feel alarmed at the evils to be apprehended from depriving the established Church of that mild ascendancy which it now enjoys, and they cannot but deprecate the adoption of measures which would, as they conceive, be a departure, in a leading and important instance, from the acknowledged principles of our constitution; and that the petitioners are humbly of opinion, that the restrictions and disabilities now subsisting with respect to the Roman Catholics, are not in themselves either oppressive or unjust; and that they continue to be no less indispensably requisite than heretofore, for the maintenance and security of the Church establishment, against those whose principles, when carried into effect, have ever been found incompatible with true Christian toleration, and subversive of civil and religious liberty; and that, in stating this their humble opinion, the petitioners cannot but recollect, that the safeguards of which they deprecate the removal have been proved by long experience to be necessary, that they were established by our ancestors at a period when our laws and liberties were fixed on a solid basis, and the crown of these dominions was limited, by the Act of Settlement, to the Protestant succession; and praying, that the House will, in its wisdom, continue to preserve those safeguards which, under Divine Providence, have been the firm support of our national constitution in Church and State, and of the title of our revered monarch, and his august family, to the throne of this United Kingdom." And the said Petitions were ordered to lie upon the table. RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE BILLS.] Lord Castlereagh moved, That the Standing Order of this House, of the 18th day of June 1811, "That all Petitions for Private Bills be presented within fourteen days after the first Friday in the next and every future session of parliament," might be read; and the same being read; Resolved-1. That this House will not receive any Petition for Private Bills after the 18th instant. 2. That no Private Bill be read the first time after the Sth of March. 3. That this House will not receive any Report of such Private Bill after the 10th of May. RESOLUTION RESPECTING CLASSING AND READING ELECTION PETITIONS.] A Petition, complaining of an undue election and return, being offered to be presented; Resolved, "That whenever several Petitions, complaining of undue elections or returns of members to serve in parliament, shall at the same time be offered to be presented, Mr. Speaker shall direct such Petitions to be all of them delivered at the table, where they shall be classed, and read in the following order, viz. Buch Petitions as complain that no return | has been made of a member or members to serve in parliament, in the first class. Such as complain of double returns, in the second. Such as complain of the election or return of members returned to serve for two or more places, in the third. Such as complain of returns only, in the fourth; and the residue of the said Petitions, in the fifth class. And the names of the places to which such Petitions (contained in the first class, if more than one) shall relate, shall, in the first place, be written on several pieces of paper of an equal size; and the same pieces of paper shall be then rolled up, and put by the clerk into a box or glass, and then publicly drawn by the clerk; and the said Petitions shall be read in the order in which the said names shall be drawn, and then the like method shall be observed with respect to the several Petitions contained in the second, third, fourth, and fifth classes, respectively." And it appearing, by the return book, that there were no cases falling within the first and second classes; Resolved, "That this House will not, before the adjournment of the House for the recess at Christmas, take into consideration any of the Petitions presented, complaining of undue elections or returns of members to serve in parliament." SHAFTESBURY ELECTION-PEtition of MR. WETHERELL, &c.] A Petition of Charles Wetherell, of Lincoln's Inn, esq. and Edward Kerrison, esq. and also of John Cooper, of the borough of Shaftesbury, ironmonger, and William Swyer, of the same place, banker, was delivered in, and read; setting forth, "That, at the last election of burgesses to serve for the said borough in parliament, held on the 7th of October last, the petitioners Charles Wetherell and Edward Kerrison, together with Richard Bateman Robson, esq. and Hudson Gurney, esq. were candidates to be elected; and the petitioners John Cooper and William Swyer had a right to vote at such election; and that the petitioners Charles Wetherell and Edward Kerrison had the majority of legal votes at such election, and ought to have been returned duly elected to serve in parliament for the said borough; and that many legal votes tendered for the said petitioners were rejected; and a great number of persons, not legally entitled to vote, were admitted to vote at the said election for the said R. B. Robson and H. Gurney; and sundry |