government: and, as a member of that government, he would say, that if the hon. member entertained suspicions of another kind, he could assure him, that the production of the despatches for which he had called would utterly falsify his conclusions. Under these circumstances, he trusted the hon. gentleman would not press his motion to a division [hear, hear!].

which the hon. and learned member had qualified with no very courteous terms, but to which he (Mr. Canning) would not even allude. His noble friend he would tell the hon. and learned member and the House was incapable of the conduct that had been thus imputed to him. If there lived a man in England who disdained to shape his opinion to the smile or the frown of any human creature, that man was his noble friend. Whatever his noble friend had spoken was, let the House be assured, his noble friend's sincere opinion-an opinion from which he (Mr. Canning) differed, but to the sincerity and disinterestedness of which he paid the most implicit homage. Indeed, if the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea had only looked to the whole context of his noble friend's speech, he would have seen the most marked, the most glaring, discrepancy between it and the other speech to which he had endeavoured to assimilate it. Who, among all the persons who had spoken on the subject-who had disposed so summarily, so conclusively, so satisfactorily, of the idle objection, that the Coronation Oath was an impediment to the removal of civil disabilities, as the very person whom the hon. and learned gentleman had represented as having framed his speech wholly in conformity to that doctrine? When the hon. and learned gentleman considered, with how much more weight his noble friend's denial of this doctrine of the coronation oath came from his noble friend, than it could possibly have come from any individual entertaining a favourable view of the Catholic question, surely he ought not to have condemned so unequivocally a speech, which, in this respect at least, had done a signal service.

He would not trespass further on the patience of the House. He had risen with no purpose of arguing over again the general question. He would add no more, except his earnest recommendation to the hon. member for Limerick, not to press his motion to a division. The relative numbers on such a division would but tend to give the Catholics of Ireland a fallacious impression of the opinion of the House. It could not be supposed that, either personally or officially, he (Mr. Canning) undervalued the opinions of lord Wellesley. As the personal friend of lord Wellesley, he was perfectly satisfied that his opinions had been fairly and duly considered by the

Sir F. Burdett said, he must confess, that the speech of the noble lord, which had been so often alluded to in the course of that night's debate, had struck him as a most extraordinary effusion. He be lieved that a speech had never yet been made by any public man which produced an effect on the country more unexpected, and more painful to those who supported the great question of Catholic emancipa tion. They had been encouraged to hope that there was at least some mitigation of the hostility with which that noble lord had hitherto met the Catholic claims; and, at the very moment when the country expected, if not his support of the question, at least a very mitigated opposition, he had adopted, for the first time, a tone of uncompromising violence, to which he had never, upon any previous occasion, resorted. He (sir F. B.) however, agreed with the right hon. and learned gentle man opposite, the Attorney-general for Ireland, in the view which he took as to the ultimate success of the question, while he felt great satisfaction in the belief that it had been more advanced by the discussion during the present session than at any former period. He could not agree with the right hon. Secretary, that there was any thing like a strong feeling against the Catholic claims, in any class of the community. He knew not whether it arose from a more sanguine temperament, or from his anxiety for the advancement of the cause; but he certainly did think that he perceived a very different feeling with regard to this question among the public at large; not only among the enlightened, liberal, and informed classes, but even among that uninformed portion of the public, in which an indolent and bigoted prejudice prevailed for a long period in this country. The strongest proof of this was, that whenever the question had been brought before large bodies of the public, they had uniformly supported religious freedom, and opposed that bigoted and intolerant spirit which resisted the admission of the Catholics to a participation in

the benefits of the constitution. As a specimen of the feeling which prevailed, he would not say among the uninformed, but among the working classes of the community, he begged to refer the right hon. gentleman opposite to a meeting which had taken place at Manchester, and to remind him of an excellent speech made on this subject by a common working man-a speech full of wisdom, sound sense, and good feeling, and in which the sentiments uttered by the speaker would have become a man in any rank or station. To him it was a subject of great pride, that such a specimen of the common working people of England could be exhibited to the world. These, and similar considerations, afforded to his mind a strong conviction that ere long the question must be carried. The right hon. Secretary had, in his opinion, given much more credit than it deserved to his noble friend's concession with regard to the coronation oath. It was no very violent proof of the noble lord's independence of spirit to express a difference of opinion as to the single point of the coronation oath, when the main purport of his speech was in such perfect conformity with the model from which the right hon. Secretary now at tempted to persuade the House that he had, in that instance, magnanimously swerved. He (sir F.) took it, that the illustrious person who had been alluded to—or rather who must not be alluded to however scrupulous he might be about the coronation oath, was not very scrupulous about the reasons of those who were willing to come to the main point of supporting that side of the question, which he seemed to have taken so much to heart, and with respect to which, he had, in so extraordinary a manner, pledged himself to all eternity that he would never have any difference of opinion. He must confess, that the solitary instance of candid concession in the the noble earl's speech, on which the right hon. Secretary had been induced to place such reliance, was not a sufficient answer to those who imputed to the noble earl an undue compromise of opinion. There was another part of the noble earl's conduct to which he thought the public had a right to complain. Why, he would ask, on a question of such vital importance, had that noble person kept his feelings and opinions in a state of such mystery? Or why, rather, had he held out hopes to persons most likely to be informed, with which hopes they had inspired

the country; thus raising expectations which were not only not to be realized, but for which it afterwards appeared, from the noble lord's violent and unstatesmanlike speech, there was less foundation than ever? He did think it a little hard upon these persons who had stood forward in support of the Catholic claims, that they should have been allowed to remain in that state of misapprehension and delusion, which led them to excite hopes, the disappointment of which might expose them to serious inconveniences, while the prime minister of the country kept aloof in that equivocal state, in which he appeared at one moment to encourage expectation, which he had determined not to realise. This was unjust to the Catholic deputies; it was unjust towards Catholic bishops and clergy; it was hard, for instance, upon a man like Dr. Doyle, who had been induced, by the ambiguous conduct of the prime minister, to express his concurrence in measures to which, but for the prospect held out, he might not have given his assent. Was this conduct on the part of the noble lord generous? Was it even just? In his opinion, it was ungenerous, unwise, unstatesmanlike, and that the public had a fair right to arraign it. The conduct of the noble lord was the more to be regretted, when it was considered that this question, at all times one of great importance, had become, since a recent declaration, still more important, and more pressing than at any former period. No one could tell what might be the consequences of delay. He should be sorry to hint at what might, by possibility, be the consequences, and he was willing to indulge a hope, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would continue the same system of prudence and forbearance which they had hitherto found so advantageous to their cause. At the same time, it was impossible not to feel some apprehensions as to the consequences which might result among a people of such quick sensibility as the Irish, from hopes so strongly excited, and now so bitterly disappointed. That they would be able to stifle their feelings altogether, was more than any one had a right to expect from nature. The people of Ireland could not but feel acutely the injuries which had been so long continued, and which the prime minister of the country had declared that he would never redress. He trusted they would look forward, as he did, to the enlightened liberality of

long formed, and that after mature deliberation, he had no wish to hear counsel; but, as his individual opinion happened to differ from those entertained by other noble lords, he was rather desirous that counsel should be heard. It was true, that the decisions of some of the courts had been against the legality of this company; and this formed an additional reason why counsel should be heard. It was said, that in November, 1824, a deed had been entered into by this company, in which they disclaimed acting as a corporate body; but, he could not see how, by any such contrivance as this, that which was illegal before, could afterwards become legal. Whatever was done by the House, ought not to be adopted until after serious consideration. It was their lordships' duty to guard against the mischiefs which were likely to ensue from the conduct of these companies. During the last two or three years those mischiefs had been suffered to spread to a most dangerous extent. It was true that many persons were connected with them, who were entitled to the greatest respect; but when it was stated that out of 40,000 shares of which this company consisted, all had been sold at a premium excepting 6,000, the public required some other security than the respectability, however great it might be, of certain individuals. What was to be done in the country if such practices were to be continued? It was not enough for the company in question to say that they were not now acting as a corporation. And here he must say, he should have been very glad if the lower courts had defined exactly what was acting as a corporation; because, if, when acting under a deed, the parties concerned did the same things as they could do under a charter with the great seal annexed, he did not know what that assertion meant. For the satisfaction of their lordships, then, he wished that counsel should be called in, not for his own; for if they had nothing to allege beyond the deed, he should feel it to be his bounden duty to oppose the bill. If they had any thing beyond that to urge, and could satisfy him that the company would not do any corporate acts, then the bill should have his consent to pass. He was no foe to joint-stock companies if they were for proper purposes, and under due provisions. There were many great national objects which could be accomplished

by no other means, and which were fairly entitled to the privileges of a charter, or of an act of parliament. But, without such protection, nothing could be more foolish than to suppose that bills could be passed, only because they contained the clause, that the companies to which they related, might sue and be sued. Any lawyer would satisfy their lordships in ten minutes, that a more inefficacious and futile clause could not be inserted in a bill, and that nothing could be less of a security to the public. There was another circumstance which weighed with him considerably. It was this that as the law was not now strong enough to compel the parties engaged in such undertakings to do justice among themselves, it was impossible that it could do justice between them and the public. The transactions of the Scotch commercial banks were all of this nature; and no man who thought of the inconveniences which might result from it would deny, that the law in this respect ought to be altered. While there was no dispute, the inconveniences could not arise; but when appeals should come from the courts of session, it would be found that all which had been done in the courts below must go for nothing. A more important case than this, whether it regarded the particular company now under discussion, or the general interests of the public, had not been before the House for many years. For this reason, he thought their lordships ought to hear counsel.

Their lordships then divided: For hearing Counsel 30; Against it 20. Counsel were then called in. Mr. Fonblanque addressed their lordships, against the bill; the Recorder of London followed, on the same side. After which the further discussion was postponed to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, May 27.

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Littleton moved, that the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on this bill be discharged. The rejection of the Catholic Relief bill, in the other House, rendered such a step, on his part, necessary. Were the Elective Franchise bill to pass without the other, it would produce great dissatisfaction.

Colonel Davies expressed a hope, that