Star. — London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

. ~.._... bef7re 2=wwilla it adinirted him tizioirstes. Ind thrtt N ah religions were alike—if this was the thfy. chose Its adopt. no d - opbt they had n right\to adopt it ; hut he must say, thlst*doing so. they reversed the whole dextrine of the Revolution. The declaration in the present Bill he considered to he really good for nothing. A man. the most inimical to the Church, might say thist.bf e VOlst do nothing agahist the Church by the power of his office, because it would be alwaysln his power.to deceive both others and himself by the pretence that he had done nothing but what he- should have done if he had not been in office. He should now take the *ease of the House once more upon the *orris be proposed to insert itrthe declaratiOn, "lam a Protestant." The Monarch who sat upon the Throne sat there to support the Pro• testant religion; and it was for no other purpose his family was brought to this country. They had the other night a debate upon the effect of the Test Act, in which his opinion and that of the Noble and Learnet Lord upon the Woolsack were different. He heard they were different still. For his Noble and Learited Friend he had the highest respect, and he hoped he would long continue to preside over the deliberations of that House. and maintain his title to be considered as the highest legal authority in it; but he had the fullest con viction that his own opinion was correct, and ire could not relin uish it in deference to any man. The discus sion which had taken place had indeed confirmed his previous opinion upon that subject. If he was defeated upon the present. question, he should afterwards move, an amendment, in the form of a declaratory clause, to remove all doubt upon the subject, and to Ls and de termine the law to be what his Noble and Learned Friend thought it was, and which be thought at present it was nor. Nothing in the course of his long Parlia mentary life had ever given him greater pain than to be compelled to differ, as he had done on the present occa sion, from men for whom he entertained the highest pos. sibleresp , ct. But he thought it his duty to act as he had done, and he was at this moment convinced, that it they passed the Bill in its present shape. they would invade the constitution, which was essentially Protestant. On these grounds he would move his clause, after the amendment of the Noble Baron had been disposed of. Whatever Noble Lords might say, this Rill would affect the Catholic Question,• and must affect the Catholic Question. If the alterations , he now meant to propose were negatived. it would be visible to all the world, and to the Catholics themselves in particular, that they, had made a most important step towards the attain ment of their object. The Duke of WELLINGTON reminded their Lord ships that there ss as ne question before the House. Lord HOLLAND said that he had moved an amend ment, and proceeded to sive that the Noble and Learned Lord had misconceived him. He did not mean to re lieve the Quakers from any declaration they were now called upon to take. He could not allow the words "upon the faith of a Christian" to restrain in the decla tation, -without recording his disapprobation of them. The Earl of WINCHILSEA - opposed the motion for leasing out the words. He thought a Jew might take the D.claration. which did nut imply that th- per, son taking it was a Christian. any mote than his saying upon the faith of a Jew would imply that he was a; Jew. He had been disposed,upon a loge and liberal pin" citric to extend relief to the Dissenters, so far as should: be found consistent with the security of the religion and Constitution of the country ; but he must lament the baste and precipitation with which this measure had been pressed through both Houses of Parliament. The Bishop ot DURHAM expressed his approbation of the present Bill, although in the progress of the dis cussion he had been placed in the painful situation of differing from individual Members of their L ,, rdships' House. for whom he entertained sentiments of the highest esteem and respect. He differed, however, still more in opinion from many ot the supporters of the measure, as to the grounds on which it ought to be defended. He and his Right Reverend Bre thren were placed in a situation of peculiar difficulty. The number of Petitions on the table showed that public opinion was decidedly in favour of the measure, and they could nut, Aeay that ,the sacra mental test was the cause of profanation. If any other test but this had been in estistence,be for oneshouid not have been disposed to agree to its repeal. But as he could not consider the exclusion to be essential to the security of the Cho , * an 4 as it was not originally in tended to operate igaing Di,septers. and as besides it produced profanation, he felt birand to support its re- OIL th had not a very'cordSdentfrope that this Mea-, sure whisld produce perbiaremit satiefactitm—further claims would be adiancedebut if he h ad not confidence in this particular BM, he had confidence in the wisdom of Paililment, that any attempt inconsistent with the security of the Church would be effectually resisted;- , .. The Church of England was tinder peculiar obligations' to the N.,ble and Learned Earl, and it must give pain to any of its Prelates to differ from him with segard - to her interests; The Earl of ELDON expressed the consolation he' derived from the testimony of the Right Rev. Prelate, to which it was impossible to attach tuo high a value. He knew that there were objections to the Sacramental Test. and he did not oppose the present Bill because it was to get rid of that test, but because it omitted to provide any other to supply its place. The Declaration. its the gin was not,in his opinion, worth a single farthing. The Duke of WELLINGTON mist take the liberty of sayings few words, with reference to what had just fallen from the Right Reverend Prelate. If this were intended only as an incipient measure—if say one wished or intended to found other measures upon it— be could only say, that he was no party to any such intention. He supported the measure upon the same grounds as the Right Reverend Prelate. He Wks hilly aware that the system of law now established could not be peryetual, and that the present distiision most constantly bare recurred ; and he was, iherifete, de termined to laid his utmost support to the nitasoie, With a view to its being diSposed of during thWines sent Session of Piirliaiiient. fle now came to the amendment of the Rob% baron. lle adniittetl !bat it Was not the original intention of these Taws le ex elude Dissenters. We bad, besides , one on lei, eighty years annually snspedding.tbeita—illuilt thileff period many Dissenters bid. in lae:t, 'got bab tb Corporations of the kingdoth. It appitretibit thettitutt. Book, in laws passed for the regiletioi4 t l eitairatibni; that the Legislature had full ittiarlei4e if, add 'b4.' distinctly recognised the feet, *Chit niltileeters . trere ea - - mined into Corporations. But with 14'4414 . 64We ' leis,. tte ease was entirely different ; and this ittetfile ateitibs would oppose the *olds beiig,eifibted. Ba their: was another reason. 'The idtilision tit theliWs leis an entirely new principle, wllWh it filifitlmeisibils+ to adopt, or it might net..Bisezi!'iltglit;tro - • it"litight to be ititicidited net incidentellt, 'Mk 'IV dtstioct Bill. The - bliticitdr of LAtitOVVVI Kit* tin* *kb the !V&A( boW, recondition of theu 'Oder% end to Om lot , their prikeediegs r teitiCh 1 std bit% dtritallrftertts'bi • '• • 1 1 the Noble and Learned Eail, who had entered into arguments in favour eropmed, and the f udifethethre Ateenedd e a m e s t y : ha lic itat had en a d l e te d wi t y o -ble Friend to propose. It was n. thet theolste add any thing to p rivileges oi no b w is N ettjnymed by the such an object Jafers,aaaindpriafpietr were he h d e aa c a n a u a l t d I n t en tai p a port him, for it hehajdnotd suffered a übtthatif vt a s y ho sa ul b. d 4t h eaasftid,r arpear e But that the awc manna) injury by this Bill, that hireafter Parliament would set it right. The words, it upon the faith of a Christian," had, in fact, excluded the Jews from the H us, of Commons for the last eighty years. The Earl of GUILFORD considered the present Hulas affecting the fundamental Laws o• the State, and to be in the nature of a 'revolutionary m asute. The Nobie Baton had endeavoured to prove, when he intros •fuceJ this Bill, that the Test and Corporation Acts were not originally intended to exclude the Disseaters. He did not subscribe to this orinien. They were intended to exclude all who so fir differed from the Church as to be unwilling to take the Communion according to het form. When they %vete passed, it was the era of good laws. The Noble Baron had instructed them as to the principles of the Revolution; but he would rather tat the principles of the Revolution from those who ha,t beirne an active part in producing it ; and tl,ey had told us that the principles of the Revolution were Toleration -and the Test Act: These went together. Without one they could not have the other. This was the language held at the period of the Revolution. The question was then put, that the words " Upon the faith of a Christian," - stand part of the Bill; which was amid to without a division. The Earl of ELDON' then moved, that the words . " I am a Protestant," be included in the Declaration. The Earl of HARROWBY objected to•the insertion . of the words, on the ground that it' would prejudice the Catholic cause. It would be presumption in him to give an opinion upon a question of law, in which the t trio highest authorities in that House were disagreed. But whichever of them was right, this addition to the Decla ration would be unnecessaty. The 'Noble and Learned Lord admitted, that such Members of a Corporation as were Justices of the Peace, which included all those in the higher offices, the declatation against Transub stantiation applied. The Noble and Learned Lord on the Viollsack was of opinion that it applied to all the Members of a Corporation. • So that the difference be tween them was extremely narrow, and not likely to affect the success of the measure very materially. • The Noble Earl then reprobated the attacks that had been made upon the Right Reverend Bench, and declared, that in his opinion they had done themselves the highest honour in the course they had pursued. That Be:ich had, by its conduct with respect to this Bill, acquired a title to treat such calumnies with contempt. . The Bishop of CHESTER stated, that he was per. firmly setisfied with the Bill in the shape in Which it was brought by to them from another place. He ad-1 mined, however, that the ameedments already' intro, duced were improvements. But he wished, as a reset measure Of conciliation, that the Bill had patted with, little alteration or' discussion ; and this ihddied hint to vote against the present amendment, tibial he thought unnecessary for the protection of the Church. 'The Oath of Suptemacy. which Catholics could not. take, exeluded theo from all offices in Corporations,. even from that of a Common CoOnCilman, He Would . slot wish the House to insect in this Bill an Anti-CathJa lie declaration. When the great question of Catholic Claims was brought forward, he should be prepared to 'give it his best attention. He had Iseady opposed con- Cession. and he would again and again oppose it, unlesil accompanied by such securities as had not yet been offered. The 'Right Reverend Prelate Vindicated the bench on which he sat from the charge of neglecting or compromising the welfare of the Chinch. and ap pealed to the authority of that Learned Judge (the late Lord Kenyon), in support of the opinion, that granting 'ease to the Dissenters would not necessarily endanger, the Church or invade the Constitution. Lord =KENYON, in rising to rescue the charac ter of his venerable father from misinterpretation in reference to the quotation which had just been made, from an authority that he must hold in the highest respect, observed, that the opinion was:given in obedience to the commands of the Sovereign, ,l an 4 . , related to Catholic 'Emancipation and to 'the, Cinporation Oath. It did not relate to the present sub ject. Upon the general question before the House he would take this opportunity of saying s that the support of the.Chesch was their duty in that House...both in its Civil privileges and influence, and in its religious cha. Meter. He would appeal to the Right Rev. Bench, and ask them. what they would do if two eminent Lawyers' had given adverse opinions on a point of temporal inte rest, one opinion admitting a risk, and the other ad-1 witting none? Which opinion could they adopt as their guide? Let them do for the Church, then, what they I Amid in similar. circumstances do for themselves. After a feW wards from the Bishop of Cuanza and the Bishop of LLAIIDA rr, The Earl of ELDON declared his intention of taking the sense of the House upon his amendment. , The Duke of WELLINGTON begged, before the House divided, to say a few words, and they should be but a few. The Noble and Learned Earl had said that the oath Of supremacy was not held by Patliamtut to be snfficientfor the exclusion of Catholics. He did not know that there was any-thingin sny•Act of Parliament which intimatedthis opinion. The Act of King William, which was relied on, did not, as it seemed to him,adinit of this construction. The argument of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, which he addressed to that House in It speech of which every Noble Lord must re member the effect—in a speech which he would not attempt to characterise, and still less to repeat—this argument upon the subject had not yet been answered. It bad been shown by his Noble and Learned :Friend that the oath of abjuration must be administered to all persons entering into Corporations, and his argument to this effect had never been refuted. But inde pendently of this, the oath of supremacy was shown to be -sufficient to exclude Catholics from office; • because in fact it did now exclude them from voting at elections foe Members of Parliament in Englan d It was said, however, Why not admit this addi lion to the declaration, since it could do no harm? His reason was this, that it was unnecessary. With respect lathe Catholic Question, no man could be more warm than ,move determined in his opposition to that question lban he was. The•result of 'rainy years of considers film, was produce in his mind an unalterable deter ineties so oppose any concession to the Catholics to lbe stomata( his power ; but he was equally determined' to oppose aer thing which could be supposed to affect thbos injortoeslya—tHear, heat.).—The House then di vided, when there appeared, ma me asneessean *MUM 12. i r r sul u e t . • . .42 Present . . sop . . Proiles • • . 54-154 *crafty against the Amendment . we. • 4)irereeleteerree the llfeastt. we hand the Sod of jiLDON• tre=ga es,arietiermaiese. fre_iPe 4 1 P (1 0 t i ircil 4 , 4 l_fr sk ep to se ty. official ad, until usey had made mbraliow After a few weeds, the smendmeist was put and carried without Thie Earl of ELDON proposed a clause relative m petions'holding the situation of Town ark itmeorPo fiate bodies, or h Iding commissions ill his Maj•sty's service, in order to remove all dosibts is regarded the eii,ting Act of Pcrlicment, in respect Ps such persons holding situations under Government, os to their belief iR traosubitantiation, and calling upon-thum.to ro•lte declaration th , it belief before one or more of his Majesty's Judges in the Critirts vt Westmjn.tPr. Afters fen observatiens. it was negatived without a divides. 1"41 BEXLEY' proposed the form of a Decla►ation to be made by all persons serving in his Majesty's ter vice, exonerating persons holding similar officrs to those exempt by the Indemnity Act from being compelled to take the prescribed oaths. The Earl Of CARINA %VON ohj•etid to this Amendment, as did also the Bart•of Wsnminnita and Lord Hoctram. The, Eail of CARNARVON opposed the clause making it compulsory to take the prescribed oaths at the Quarter Sessior s within 30 miles of the town or place where such individuals 'shall he resident. The Duke of WELLINGTON proposed a clause, allowing that all Military Officers on service abroad should be at liberty to take the prescribed oaths within six months from the time of their return home. The Esl4 of CARNA•RVO;N was not sore-that this amendment met the: whole of the case. It might so happen that an officer, who was resolved to qualify while in England, within the six months, might be ap pointed to some situation abroad. and be ' , Wised to leave this country without qualifying. He was of opi nion that the time•for qualifying in such cases should be enlarged. The clause was then put and carried.—On the clause being read, which went to except persons holding situations in the Revenue or Post Office from the necessity of subscribing the declaration, • The Bishop of LLANDAFF thought th s the pr-per rime for hint to move the amendment - to the d. cla - ration, of which he had given notice. The word declared, that the person taking office would not empl y h s influence against the interests of the Church of England. This was not, as it appeared to him, an adequate security, in exchange for the Test and Corpo ration Acts which they were about to abandon. It had been objected that this proposal tended to create an vrdions and obnoxious distinction; but he thought no honest man would wish to conceal his opinions. Anot er ; abjection was, that it would alter the c-haracter of the Measure. Now, if he under stood the char acter of the met. sure right, itasould not do so. It was not, as he thought, Ito relinquish security, but to ch . nge one security for ano ther better suited to the spirit of the age. The motive to suppress the measure had not been that which some -Noble Lords imputed to him and his Right Reverend Brothers, a deference to the spurious liberality of the age. It had been simply to comply with the desires of a large and respectable body of their fellow subjects, so far as they could do so without danger to the establish ment. His intention was to exempt members of the Church of England from taking the unmeaning decla ration in the Bill, and to substitute for it a declaration of their b ing members of the Church. Lord HOLLAND opposed the amenchisent, which, as It seemed to him, took away all the grace of the mea sure. The B• 11 was a measure of union, the clause was a Elaine of division. It was like making a provision for separation in the atticles of marriage. Atter a few words from the Bawl of &Don and the Bishop of Toe Pa* bf WELLINGTON thought the reason ing and the Amendment of the Right Rev. Prelate were at . variance-; dor , was the Declaration he proposed likely to effectuate its purpose:sq . /toy man might call himself a Member of . the Church Of- England. The Bishop of BATH 'lnd WELLS said, that he supported the repeal from a conviction of its expediency, and expressed his regret in doing so, thathe was obliged 'to dissent conscientiously from the Noble Earl (Eldon) 'to whom the country and the Church of England owed so deep a debt of gratitude for his maay and impottant services. The Duke of CUMBERLAND then rose and spoke to the following effect : " On my return to this country, after a considerable absence from it, I deem it my duty to declare my conscientious opinion upon the measure now before your Lordships, which is in op position to it. It gives ore great concern, that the 'first vote which I give on in/ return to England, should be opposed to a measure approved of by my Noble Friend at the • heed of the Gotrernment.— No person can feel a more sincere regard or a higher esteem for my Noble Friend than I do—but having pur sued one course of conduct, on this measure, for thirty. one years, I cannot now consent to follow a different one. As this is the first, so I hope it may be the only occasion, on which I shall feel it my duty to be opposed to my Noble Friend. I have only to add, that I shall vote in opposition to the present measure." The Earl of DARNLEY opposed the clause of the Right Reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff) He would have been much more gratified if the Bill had passed in the shape in which it came up from the House of Commons. He would have been glad to see -a simple repeal of the Acts, the continuance of which he had regarded as a gross profanation of a religious rite. He was boUnd to express his admiration of the candour and moderation of the Noble Duke at the head of the Government throughout this discussion, and tie ariti cipated that the success of the Bill would. redound as touch to the credit-of the Noble Duke, and confer as extensive benefit on his country, as one of the brilliant victories which he had achieved in the feld. The clause proposed by the Bishop of Llandaff was negatived without 'a division. . • . Lord HOLLAND.—The period has. now arrived' when it becomes my pleasing duty to Move that " the Bill do now pass ;" and in doing so, I cannot forbear from congratulating the House and the country at the great and glorious triumph in favour of religious free dom that has been achieved. Lord REDESDALE took this opportunity of pro testing against the Bill. It removed one of the strongest barriers and best securities of the Protestant Church, instead of which an utterly inefficient security was substituted. 'The Earl of MOUNT CASHEL also protested against the Bill. It proposed to extend political rights to Unitarians, Socinians, and other various denomina tions; after which this country could no longer expect to enjoy that pre-eminent happiness and diitinetion among the nations of the world, which it had hitherto possessed. The Bill was then pawed; after which the House adjourned at a WARW. TO ELIMOI &Cortex. HOUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Gamey, front the Commissioners of the Charities, pre. Muted a Return of the total Expenses incurred 'by the Commis sioners —Ordered to be printed. Mr. Coates, front the Treasury, presented certain Papers.— Ordered to be printed. Sir E. HARVEY presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of St. Dunstan, Stepney, against the East London 'Railway Bill. Sir J. . lIORILE • presented a Petition from* certain Watermen .Itittite Lambeth Bridge &U. He supported the prayer of. the • Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that if the Honourable and Gallant Admiral was opposed to one bridge. what • , would be say when he learned that a second ;..rt T h ad sprung op and proposed s-cond bridge? 01. e p arty advocated a stone bridye—ihe .‘ her 4n it..n ..ridge; but he hoped that neither would be succ-sslul. Th ere were Alrea.ly bridges enough. The art o • hich was proposed, Lambeth Bridoe, was only 800 yard, 'from Wesr seiustus-11440,apd 900 . 4.4.4*:" hall bridge, and he trti leTtrilfirri be erected till at !test one or the otlier4 thoe don, enl o f a T 2 their n' bordpn! impo4 mantifs MITT 0? Tilt EIBSATt. km bad Hies. demo'. 'toots . wpvld •draPrrrime....--_____ they entered into, such speculations ' The cost : rt. yy x ., • tenon Biidfie was estimated at 4400 004. and it cost 1.200 oqol. The cost .•t South' it k ii/i gc Win esti. mated at 360 0001. 4ini' it vitt Ice 0004. After a few words from Mr C. N. Paitmaints• viiiich weiseliese ' were to the effect that the Siff was not ha be. lickseveved hiotia• .. Petition ww ordered to he on the table. ' • On the motion of Mr. Livvi.rnoa. the Order of Friday last, ,H - si a Conference with the illon.e of Lords, was ditehatgid. • ' Mr. Ald omen T 110 M I'SON pre.en:ed a , Petit fun' from cestakr• Merchants 4n.! Traders of the City of London, agaimq a ch uieja. l 'the London Docks Acts Consolid ition Bilk The olataw complained al of gave a new power of monopoly to the i ondon 'Dock Company and would compel Merchants and Trader. to pay a sum of a without receiving any consideration. The London Dock Comp had undoubtedly done much good, but the power now sought (W M, was granted to no other similar Company.—lle Petition wastr,et 1: dered to be printed. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAW% The. following Petition* reapecttng the Roman Catholic Mimi' were presented; Against the Claims—By Colonel Cost, front the Protestant habitants of two places in the Coanty of Mayo; by Mr. Monas,... from the Corporation of Barbers and Surgeons, Dublin ; one plate in Queen's County; and foot places in the County of Down ; by Colonel Omissive's, from certain iohabitants of Cork, praying a' for the suppression of the Catholic Association; by Mr. Cain. mutiny, from the Archdeacon of Notthatiwton, and the Clergy of the Diocese of Peterborough ; by Mr. Din:coma. from Leeds, front the Clergy of York, and from Wetherby ; by ‘tr. H. Mai. • arat.L, &Mt' Lurgan, and five other places in the County of Cab* by General Kim, from seven places in the County ••1 Sligo; by • Slr.•Haricoex, from the Proteseant Inhabitants of - Athlone; by Colonel Itocnrosto, from the Protestant Inhabitants ol Kintree,le the County of Westmeath; by General O'bian., from the County of Antrim, Port Malone, and the Perish of Antrim; by Sir ). Cornett., from the Clergy of the Diocese of Hereford; by Mr. &natty, front the Protestant Div-enters of Monaghan, and•tero other places in the County of Monaghan. In favour of the Claims—By :In G. Rosttnow, from Inhabitants of Northampton and its vicinity. The Petitionti • also in favour of entire relitiolis liberty ; by Lord Foam, f the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of twelve places in the County f • Tipperary ; by t . olonel Warr; from the Roman Catholic Inhatts tants of St. Mary's, Dublin, and tour other i•arishes in the Coil* of Dublin ; by Lord Utmost, trim the Roman Catholic Itt6alti. rants of Northampton; by Colonel HANSARD, front the liontat Catholic Inhabitants of Mayhem. in th • King's County ; by LO IS *Aimee from the Roman Catholic Inhabit:dos of a place in Lan cashire; by Mr. Easatort, front the Roman Catholic Inhabitanti of Stockport; by Lord Oxmarettwo, front the Roman Catholic Inhabitants Of Clare, and two other places in the King's• County ; by Mr. STANLIT, from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Lin caster, and a place near it ; and by N! r. linowra.ow, from the Ibb man *Catholic Inhabitants of two Parishes in the County of Per. managh, and of Ste Parishes in the County of Tyrone. The Petitions were.severally ordered to be printed. Mr. DUNCOMBE (Yorkshire), on resenting the Petitioot from Leeds, remarked that it was tuned by between 3,000. and 4,000 persons. Mr. MARSHALL denied that this Petition expressed the nyl. niona of the people of Leeds, and read a letter, in which it was asserted that the Petition was gut up at a close Meeting, without the participation of the inhabitants. Mr. DUNCOMBE said be had received a letter from the Chairman of the Meeting, at which the Petition was agreed to. and that letter confidently informed him, that the signatures were ntl legally obtained, and were entirely unobjectionable. Lord M I LTON said that his Hon. Colleague appeared to by stress upon the number of signatures affixed to the Petition. Neer some years ago a similar Petition from Leeds was signed by HMOS p persons, and therefore he thought it was clear that the feeling of the inhabkants of Leeds had undergone a material change in ft. your of the concessions to the Catholics—(Hear, hear). Mr."DUNCOM BE (of Yorkshire) said that the signatures tO the Petition, nearly 4,000 in number. had been o b ta i ne d i n t h e course of six days—(Hear):—Artil his Noble Colleague was wrong in supposing, from difference in the numbtr of the signatures af fixed to the two Penning, that the public opinion of Leeds had become at all more favourable to the Catholic cidirot then it ma, The Petition had been • forwarded to London with a view litin being presented before the discussion came on, and bad there more time, the signatures Would have been far More numerous dos they were—(Hear, bear). The Marquis of CH AN DOS Wished to learn from the Holman. able Baronet opposite (Sir Francis Burden) whether It was his intention to postpone Wining forward the motion respecting the Roman Catholic Claims, of which he had given notice, and if it was, the Honourable Baronet's reasons for the postponement? The delay of the discussion would be extremely inconvenient to many Honourable Members. . Sir F. BUItDETT said, that it was not from the want of a feeling of courtesy that he could not answer fully the question of the Noble Lord. Among , a multitude of reasons why he shoal! defer bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice on the day then fixed, was diet alluded to by the Noble Lord. lie begged to state, that he should positively bring forward the motion on the eth of May. • Mummy swum& SILL • Mr. WIGPRAHA M presented a Petition front Stdekbridri against the Friendly Societies Referred to the Conunittes :on the Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a Petition froin the Friendly Society held at the Victory, Gravesend, Against the Friendly So. ' cieties' Bill. 11fr: BRIGHT was sorry that so strong a feeling Antal ban ' been excited against the measure. He was strongly of opinion that the Bill, as revised and amended by the Committee, would he, if not entirely free from objection, still of a very beneficial nature. Air. COURTENAY said be hoped to be able to present the Report of the Committee in about a week, when he believed Oa' such alterations would be found to have been made as would move most of the objections. In consequence, however, of o alarm which existed, it-was not his intention to press the measure this Seso.lon. Mr. IROBHOUSE was happy to bear that declaration from the Hon. Member, and he was sure it would be hailed with satisfaction by every Friendly Society in the country. Lord A LTHOR P presented similar Petitions front the Soy?. reign, and United Brothers, Friendly Societies, in the county Northampton. Sir It. W I LSON presented a similar Petition from the Friendly, Society held at the Sword and Buckler, Bermondsey. Mr. BERNA L presented a similar Petition front a Friendly Society, held at the Bticklayers' Arms, Duke -street, Grosvenor square. The Petitions were severally referred to the Committee on tbe Bill. Mr. R. COLBORNE brought op the Report of theComniiitte appointed to try the merits of the Election for the County of Wen. meath. Ale Committee teported that Hugh Morgan was dell elected, and that the Petitions from the other parties were not fri volous or vexatious. Mr. AIOOKE presented a Petition from certain Attomils ?DJ Solicitors of publin against the Crown Solicitors Bill. Captain MAITLAN U presented a Petition frcm Lamming& against the Importation of Foreign Grain. Mr. CHAPLIN presented similar Petitions front !brawn and anotWer place in Linchltishire. Lord JOHN HAY presented a Petition from Paddington, against any alteration in the. Corn Lavrs,—Ordered to be printed. Sir ED WARD.KN ATpUBI.ILL presented a Petition front Hytbe, in the county of Kent, against the proposed Resolutions ' specting the Corn Laws.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented Petitions from the Lord Pro' you and Magistrates of Cilavgasea, andmfrom Paisley, in favour of the Scotch Marriage Settlement 13 4 1 1 ” ' • On the motion of the Hoa. Mamas% 5l Hors was added' the Committee on the Bill. ' A Message from the Lords requested the attendance of the Clerk of the Penryn Election Conuiduzein 11127, with the Poll-book.' Ordered. The Sheriff of Aliddleses aed Lundell appeared at. the Bar at House of Commons, and preseqte4 a Petition front the Corpora tion of the City of London, praying, for a partial Repeal ol.She Stanip Duty Act. Mr. Aldetman WOOD and Mr.:` Aldersufaii• WAMINNW supported the prayer of • tie 'Peritioea • • w..s s ot -• TAIONIrt/KSICht Oof. _ . MAIM presented a Pelitiutt from A liarnitons find respectable body inkiirebistitstif the City OfT9e 00 ft *ad .! tb! 110 Sirs PiS a lAA al 'kin of toulif tbey Tool antr Let /by p trim th :orn Her t lodu seep. le las Mr. Sir the 1~~ beli !ir. IC MI nj estv Ireigr Mr. )uld 'w ti 'alit mce ked Mr. urge r ie agri fool in f the )e ma WIJUAY a:• , ••• a ..cle 1114 , •••••"." gh. The spt.t o • hich it manalfs Bridoe. was only 800 yard, :Tbeti. apd .900,Psfiets::filj veco olo F MT& ti g.- - • isOr r -r f ai lesy .; or the other 4 - these r thrj c ol l ations The Cost lit. -Wx. • , *COI e d at esooooof. and it con ond alt South , ilk F3ti tit, win esti. s that . cis , 7000004.. , Bich C. N . p A imota s • *filch We believe Was not le be. Vekeescred in,'`the • lnure 'he table. • Si non. the Order of Fridley last, rs . • Lords. was ditchatgid. • • As a n N pre.ented a• Per it ion' from eertaite . es i, Ai City of London, again.t a Clause i n ' ow, ant' itjosi Bilk The elatase complained 'coition sly to the I ondon Dock Comp a n y ut Trader. to pay a sum of mobei Lord o Mon. Tbe London Dock Compaq ' irfn of veld, but the power now sought tee .. o uld tr Company.—The Petitleaufaktif.",: ; cent& .• . room ITZKIMI. • 4 hey me peettog the Roman Catholic ci aN ;i , • 00l WC 4 t4 gantry onel Cost, from the Protestant lea. Lath' County of Mayo; by Mr. :loons,. by pie ra and Surgeons, Dublin ; one plate • '- places in the County of Down; by tul l. aia inhabitants of Cork, praying a' 061 1 4 • atholic Association; by Mr. Caiir. oilf via ; of ti Nor si th r a . ril i tt , o w n en , m a n n e. d t t h retn e Cle utt rgy of yet iple e; from Wetherby ; by sir. H. %Isl. • ;thee place. in the County of eatiii; • • reduce I places in the County -1 Sligo; by rotecte regent Inhabitants of - Athlone; by eep. Protestant I nhabitants ot Kilitree, in . 011111 e y General O'Neet., from the County t t h h : e Parivah Diocese of A H n e t r r f o o t r a d b ; y b ;Si r sf 3 r. J. • ned la s t 4 a t Dissenters of :Monaghan, and.tetto .• Mr. F Monaghan. Sir Al .By Nl' G. ROZINSON, from certain and its vicinity. The Petition w tc Pei libetty ;by Lord Fonan, trod . ItUri,6l us of twelve places in the County of Ituritt a, from the Roman Catholic Inhahl. the c lid tour other l•arished in the County reibei r, from the Human Catholic Ithattl. olorael liannann, front the itothan , MI, in fh • King's County ; by Gird e cant itholic Inhabit:tilts of a place in Lan. sm th.• Roman Catholic Inhabitants „' „ a n, tansewe, from the Roman Catholic other places in the King's• County; ' t lyV r tomatt Catholic Inhabitants of L. t' ad by !t r. linowra.ow, from the Its. .-• Ir. I two Parishes in the County of Fir. MMil in the County of Tyrone. ly ordered to be printed. Sir G kshire), on presenting the Petitioe' . fall t wts stifled by between 3,000. and •s at in I that this Petition expressed die opi. emsel s, and read a letter, in which it was e t ': 3 t s got up at a close Meeting, without irnts.• ts, be had received a letter from the aced i it which the Petition was agreed to, otectii formed him, that the signatures were • entirely unobjectionable. y not his Hon. Colleague appeared to by ere nil ;natures affixed to the Petition. Noir lest. aeon from Leeds was signed by 10,e00 reign t ought it was clear that the feeling of t itl undergone a material change in fa. Mr. I : Catholics—(Hear, hear). • d the Vorksbire) said that the signatures b 3 t at the 1 number. had been obtained in the ;mite -And his Noble Colleague was wrong n hel in the number of the signatures af. hat the public opinion of Leeds had at Ho e to the Catholic Clditns than it was uld at warded to London with a slew tO U 11340111 came on. and bad there bees .4-t__• ‘.‘scs. luld have been far more intmerous thus. • d calif me OF TUB EIBSATt. talit y OS Wished to learn from the Honour. d long Francis Burdett) whether It was his nce to ng forward the motion respecting the to man which he had given notice, and if it ut then t's reasons for the postponement? The I be extremely inconvenient to many 6 of eked fo that it was not from the want of a Mr. eould not answer fully the question of C omo t multitude of reasons why he shoal lotion of which he had given notice on elation t alluded to by the Noble Lord. lie uch h. IA So . . oubtec e ezpi eased, lioo witi Poi tilt utd n ees Sir rhu lo- fists i ' tfTbhe e fe he all of lute tired f heR t 1 tun Lion tie rl , n . e ea aj r ti ainst ant, lor• h . wo Mr. the e doi tut fishes - hAt cl j ectr.h . frr- ' o l 9111 ;Di . $4;% is tiOC • 101 tie; aT nij tier t 91T, tie g i ol 4. von try re- ' CO ni 'rc" ) 41 ; . the • to Kehir fie lerk rieel &pi ore• Pilec ,3 1 . 0 tktr , tits' atm, nri, ono fo Pun I