The National Register. — London, England, 1822-06-10 00:00:00

7' 1,3, Inv t via 1 garitaintnt. DOUSE OF LORDS. MONDAY, JUNE 3. The Earl of DONO,;GHSIOIIE took the oaths and his scat as Vise not Hutchinson. Petit :011S against the Catholic Peers' BM were presented from Bath, Sat tan, Wilts, Leicesteranrc, and the Clergy or Petitions complaining or agricultural distress were presented from Noriolk. Suffolk, Cirencester, and lieut. Petitions. praying for a revision of the criminal code, were pcsemis! horn Wellington, Bathitiu, Maidstone, and Frotne, (Sumersetshire.) The above petitions were laid on the table. The Earl of LIMERICK mumd the re euasaleration of Doye's Dito:ce Alter some conversation upon the subj.tzt of securing 70001. stuck to lady Dave. which she received twat an aunt. The LORI) CHANCELLOR intimated that he should stems: the interest which that lady ought to have, when the bill ii read the third time. The report was then received. Mr. Joiner, from the commissioners for building new churches, presently! an account of their dinky trad cspences, incurred within given data.—Tne Hume then adjourned. ULSI)AIr. JUNE ♦. _ _ Sir James Graham, and tithe; members from the Commons, 'nought up the Greenwich Church Bill, the Islaryde-bone NVateli and Light Bill, and several others, which were read the first time. The Earl of HARE WOOD presented a petition from New castle, against the Roman Catholic Peer' Bill. l.o:d SlDMold'r II presenteit a similar petition. Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from the Hundred of Grecnhoe, in Norolk, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for parliamentary reform. Toe petition complained, ainung other strong expressions, the following :—•• A huge mili tary force is kept up, with no other object min to suppross the rights of the peo k ile, and destroy the constitution." Tile LORD CHANCELLOR coati lamed of the indecent manner in which the petition was worded, and observed, that toe only way to 'nuke a petition inefficacious, was to put in it ten disrespectful to the House. It was nut possible die Lords cu receive the petition just presented, and the nuble and I et: Lord moved that it be rejected. Lord SUFFtELD concurred in the observations made by the Lord Chancellor, so far as related to the respect which was due to the House ; but said, so long as lie had a seat in Parliament, he should present petitions which did nut appear to convey any intentional indecorum. Time petitioners had perhaps been led by their feelings to address improper language to the House, but it eid not striae pun that any disrespect was intended. The peti tion was rejected. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from two persons residing at Dorking, on the subject of a new raven• tom in tile tanning of hides. The petition was laid on the table. 'time House adjourned. .... WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5. Petitions against the Catholic Vetrs Bill were presented from the clergy of Hereford, and the freeholders and inhabitants of P.ckhion. Gen. GASGOINE, and other members from the Commons, brought up s private bill, which was read the tirst time. An account of the number of beasts and sheep sold in Smith fieid market since 11110. was presented according to an order of the House. Lord SUFFIELD presented petitions from Somersetshire, Lewes, Gainsborough, Slicrborne. and other plates, praying for revi►ion of the criminal code. The above were *eve any read, and laid on the tab:e. 'I he SilerifTs Depute Bill was read the second time. Lord SUFFIELD moved the second reading of the Vagrant Bill, which was ttectudin;;ly read the second time and commuted for ai-morrow. lord DARNLEY pointed oat a part of the Bill which he con sidered onjationabie. Lord MELVILLE said, the machinery of the Bill was wholly to the nurthen parts of the kingdoon—Adjourned. 5551 , 115 DAY, JUSE The Marquis CAMDEN presented two petitions against the Catholic Peers Bill; one front Canterbury, and the other fruits Tenterden. The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented three petitions from his Diocese, riming the inane object. The Earl or SHAETESBUttV presented a petition from the con:Jet:anon of the gospel church at Portsca, against the above mentioned bill. The petitions were severally read, and laid on the table. Mr. Wallace, and several members from the Commons. brought up three bills, via. the Navigation Laws Amendment bill; the Ancient Commercial Statutes Repeal bill; and the Colonial Trade bill, which were read the first time. Oa the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the second reading of the Navigation bill was fitted for Tuesday. Lunt SUFFIELD put olltlie committee on toe Vagrant Laws bill, which stood for this day, until to-morrow. Tire house then adjourned. FRIDAY, iceic7. Lord EGMONT took the oatl.s and his seat. Mr. Toollins presAited ar, account of the bullion issued by the Bank to the Treasury, from MU to the present time. Nfr. Irving, from the Ciatouis, presented an account of the corn imported since the opening of the ports. , Lord CIA EDEN presented a petition from the spirit dealers of litikenny.eumplaining of illicit distillation, and praying relief. The petition was read and laid tai the table. Vat:oral. Bit-L.—On the nation of Lord SUFFIELD, the Muse went into a committee on the Vagrant Laws' Bill. The The noble 1..0.ti, tu the committee 'imputed cveral verbal amendments. Lord MELVILLE opposed the bill, on the ground, that it (lid not apply to Scotland. '1 he nub:e Viscount stated that he Mould move to insert a clause Oh the third reading of the bill. The. Bail of SHAFT ES B U it V tepurted the Bill to the liouse. The Duke of NEWCANTLE presented a petition front the town of Mansfield against the Catholic Peers' BilL The petition was signed by 14SU persons. The noble Lord observed wit the eyes of the country were upon on the subject of the bill before the House. With respect to his own county, he could state that lustily to die bill eicietiAl to u great degree, and was increasing; they were well aware of the evil consequences of a bill which the tnnionjustly considered taboos. He expressed a hope that it would be rejected by a numerous majority. It would be Bible fur him to attend the discussion; that circumstance gave him great mortification, and he was induced oo that account to express his °planation to the ball. The petition was read and Lad on the table. Lord HOLLAND did not object to the petition ; he was how ever, persuaded, that whether the noble Duke attended in Par liament upon the discussio❑ of the kill or not, the opinions of the ;able IJuke would be the tame. lie objected to a statement made by the noble Duke, namely, that the bill was a violation of the communion. It was to restore the ancient constitution of the country. lt was ILI ICIII(AC a burthen placed an the Lords 433 years ago. W'llezi lie ho,.rd suds a description by a noble mat of rank and thflueoce, lie was obliged to say it was not a true descri l awm Petitions against the Catt.i.die Peers' Bill were also presented trout Newaik, Nottingham, luwi.U , Sutton, Ashland, and 441101' places. Tne MartriisofLANSDOWNE gave novice, that he should mote the second reading of the Nluilsletighter Bill on Monday. Tug Bailor or PETertutigut:uu.—Lord DACIIE pre oanteu a pedito.l from the Bee. r. Granshaw, rector of Burton =DU, 'D toe court) of Nuainilmal, cuulp:azins DITICCOD/i4: . . THE NATIONAL REGISTER pursued by the Bishop of Peterborough, in putting no less than lel questions to candidates for holy orders. The petition stated. that me right rev. Prelate required all curates to conform to his questions, or be peremptorily rejected.—A second petition was presented nom a curate named Thurtell, who had been rejected complaining of the instinct in which candidates for holy orders were examined, and praying with the first petitioner that the sub ject may be taken up by Parliament. The noble Lord contended that the right rev. Prelate had gone beyond all the powers given the church, and in sonic instances had rejected persons who had conformed according to the statute of Elizabeth, and his 311jes ty's declaration. He trusted the House wound concur with him in thinking there should be some remedy for this grievance. The Crow u, by summoning a convocation to enquire into the subject, might produce much good. It was thetelbre his intention, it the petitions were laid on the table, to move an address to his Majesty, praying that an enquiry might be instituted to ascertain whether there was reason to suppose any innovations had occurred in the precepts of the church. The noble Lotd concluded by moving the petition be laid on the table. The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH mid, the circumstances which gave nse to this petition had been kept out of sight. He had exercised no more than the right given by the church. The aeth canon said, no curate should be admitted to the church until atter his examination by the Bishop of the diocese. Every exa miner had a tight to examine in his own way. He had only tried whether candidates piofessed that faith the church requires. —No temporal authority had ever interfered with the right of Bishops to exercise their own discretion with regard to the exa mination of candidates for holy orders. if their conduct in that respect was subject to the interfelence of temporal authority, every person rejected would consider himself entitled to fiend titions of complaint. With respect to the petitioner 'ejected, he had weighed him and found nothing but mistification in his enswers. Ile had no object but to conceal his real opinion.— The right rev. Prelate denied the truth of the allegations in the petitions, and having answered the case at great lengh, expressed a hope that the House would not receive them. Lord HOLLAND began by stating, that he disapproved of the langnage which the right rev. !'relate had employed in speaking of the petitioner; such language was harsh in itself, and not becoming the quarter whence it proceeded. With regard to the defence of the right rev. prelate to the charge of the petition, it was the most complete instance of kvisurantio dens/ii which he had ever heard. The question to be uainnitely considered and decided was this—whether the learned and rev. Prelate was jus tified in putting his questions. If he had that right, no man could doubt that he had a right to choose his own mode of exa niinatMn ; but it was first necessary to determine whether the matter, substance, object, and principle of the examination were warranted by the law of the land, and by expediency . and prudence ? lie (Lord Holland) would broadly assert, that it was ambiguous and doubtful, whether by law he had a right to do so; and whether lie did or did not possess it, it had always been thought most imprudent and improper in the right rev. prelate to assert it. It was not to be disputed that the petitioner had subscribed the 39 articles, and that act hitherto had been con. sidereal a sufficient test. Looking at the history of these thirty nine articles, he found duet they had been put into t. eir present shape at the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, in the year 15(et ; and with reference to their doctrines he must say, that from the period of the reformation down to the time of that good man Hooker, and even of that bad man Laud, the princi ples of Aminianism were unknown to the Church of England.— Before he eat down, he would undertake to prove that one of the greatest ornaments of the Bishops' Bench had said that those 39 articles contained opinions on which a clergyman of the Church of England ought nut to be examined. Wu. the right rev. Pre- late quite cure that such men as Parker and Sanderson could have satistactorily answered his questions? Was he quite sure that not one of tile answers would be such as to have induced him, if any member of the bench of Bishops had been a candidate for 1104 orders in his diocese, to have rejected his claim ? It was not to be denied that the 39 articles were drawn up by persons whose opinions tended more to Calvinism than to Arininianism ;;but as 11:sliop Horsley had correctly said, they were intended to admit both within the pale of the church : they were articles of peace and union, and obscivcd a perfect and judicious neutrality.— Archbishop Wake could never have entitled himself to a curacy in the diocese of the right rev. Prelate. Ile, one of the loftiest and ablest dignitaries of the church, must be abandoned by those ! who thought with the present Bishop of Peterborough, as a re • publican—as one who would be willing to bring his sovereign to the block, and as meriting all the reproaches and epithets which the right rev. Prelate in his truly christian spirit had heaped : upon the petitioner. For the sake of the interests of religion, the I House was called upon to interfere and to take care that the basis of the church was as broad and solid as duty to God and the wel . fare of the state would allow. The right rev. Prelate had done w hat, till this time. had not been stumped since the reformation. He strove to straighten and natrow the basis of' die church. and the speech he had made showed that those who wished fur the peace aad security of the country ought either to put an end to the practice he had begun, or at least to institute an inquiry into its legality and policy. Lord CALTHORP contended that the mode of proceeding adopted by the right rev. Prelate closed all those openings in the &O articles purposely left fur the scruples of conscientious minds. The Earl of HA RROWBY said the allegations which die pe titions contained appeared to be of the gravest character; and looking to the high and important interests which might be in sort sheeted by them, he did think that some further enquiry ought to be instituted into the matter. He was satisfied, in regard to the church and its welfare, teat to narrow the base was not the best method of securing the supostruetion. The G&W gories (as we understood his lordship) of the right rev. prelate, he considered to be clearly most impolitic. Wnile he (Lord llarrowby was disposed to vote for the reading and laying on the table of the petition, he was far from pledging himself to support the proposed address. he 1.• /RD CHANCELLOR, in voting that the petition, should lie on the table, desired not to be understood as imputing any blame to the light rev. prelate. The petition was then reau, and ordered to lie on the table. Lord (ACRE then obseived, lie had intended cohere followed up the last motion, by moving an address to the Crown on that subject; but from what the noble and learned Lord on the wool. sack, and other learned Lords had said, it was clear that he (Lord Dacre) should find much difficulty and opposition if he perse vered in his intention. Ile was therefore inclined to substitute fur it a motion *. that this petition be referred to a committee to consider the matter thereof." The LORD CHANCELLOR having explained the terms on which he would consent that the petition be laid on the table, would only say that he could not consent to the motion. The question being put. Tue Earl of LAB NARVON could not repress his astonish ment on finding, that when so important a subject as this was leought before the House, the bench of right rev. Prelates had not declared in words —no, nor by a nod—nor even by a gesture, whether they meant to a man, to sanction or condemn the conduct of their right rev. brother. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)— On any great constitutional question, particularly a year or two ago, they formerly could not complain that either the noble and le..rned I.ord on the woolsack, or those right rev. Prelates, were slow to give the House the benefit of their wisdom and and expe rience. But here, on a question of church policy, both were Went. What would die public think, when it was informed, that of the very many Preietes who had come down to the House that night, nut one was to be found who had a single word to oder upon the subject before their Lordships ? Strangers were then excluded from below the bar. On our readmission we .ound the numbers to be (on the question fur reterring the petition to a continue: -)—ceintents, 19 39. The Marriage Act Amenclarent Bill was read $ amend dint, and urdeml to br cumulated on Wednesday aut.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. ►IONDAY, JUNI. S. Mr.H.SUMNER preaented a petition from market gardeners of Battersea Fields, complaining that the repeal of the a.ricul tural horse tax, instead of heiug beneficial to them, bad pro% td a heavy burtbeu to them, for they were now assessed as for horses used in trade, and paid one guinea, instead of 16s. sd. as haretoiore. Petition ordered to be printed. Petitions against the Licensing BM were presented from the brewers of Manchester, balford, Margate, the Not th of England, Liverpool, Brightuo, Hastings, and Southampton. Bete:red to the t toutuittee. The Mary le-bone Paving and Lidding Bill was read a thild time and passed. . . Mr. 131 NC brought in a Bill to amend the Middlesex county rate eels, as tar as the same regarded the treasurer, &c.— Head a first time. The Assessed Taxes Composition Bill was ordered to Le read a seeond time on Wednesday neat. Mr. C. IiLMSLT presented a petition from an individual, named Cranford, late a publican at Little Trencbard, coniplaininA of baring been arbitrari.y depth ed of his licettsc by the Magistrate. Petition read, and ordered to be referred ..to the committee on the Bill. Mr. BIRCH moved for returns of collectors of duty on salt, to whom retired pensions had been slluwed.—Ordered. Nenteuhte PETITION Suit Iterueta.-31r. COLE presented remonstrances and petitions, &c. from Greetthoe, &c. its Notolk, complaining of agricultural distress, of the army which was maintained to keep down the •' Constitutional spirit," and attic majmities of that llouse, which would support any adminie, tratiou, Lowe% er '• arbitrary or l rarmicsl;" and praying for rehire). 'the hon. member said, be was ashamed of what i.e had seen, for the majorities had caused the min they now beheld ; and as to the reduction of taxes they Lao been forced from] ministers. Had he been present he would out Lave cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. FREE3IANTLE opposed the petition, and moved es au amendment that it be rejected. Mr. CLEW EN said the petition spoke the truth, and while the petitioners were so disposeu, how could they speak other wise, as seats had been notoriously bought and sold. Mr. JAMES observed, that the petitioners also spoke of the taxes being required to support the influence of the Gown ; that was a species of treason; they were wasted to implicit the interest and influence of the boroughniongering faction. Lord LONDONDERRY said, if they had any regard for their own character, they could not receive this petition. '1 he petition did not come in the ordinary language; it appeared as a decidedly worded remonstrance. Mr. CALCLIAFT said that the petitioners avowed what nu man could deny; nay, what the ministers themselves admitted, that places and pensions were supported with the sole view of supporting government. The army was tremendous, and it Lad heen,iused to a way that was somewhat suspicious. Sir R. WILSON observed, that the Secretary to the Trea sury could not deny that seats were bought and sold, and that pensions and places were granted un the sole condition of sup portiug the ministers. But had sot petitioueis for reform a right to ►tate theirressonsr Mr. C. W YNN declared that this petition was a studied insult. If, indeed, the army were maintained to keep down the Constitutional spirit, and if the Muse were ready to sanctica all sorts of grants, then was there made Cu. litithcitut ground for rebellion. (Hear, hear.) Then could they receive such a pe tition ? Was it not an insult? If this petition and genital strance were received, where were they to stop? Ile thought the House was called on to make a stand Places were sot granted with the view of gaining corrupt support. Sir J. N rola said, that the petition only stated what lie had open asserted, what had frequently been declared in that House; and after the changes that had taken place, they ought not to cavil about particular expressions. 'they were told that not one Willing of tax could lie reduced ; they bad seen millions reduced ; they were told that certain places could not be abolished—and shortly alter they were abolished : then was it too much to allow the petitioners a latitude of expression? Ile thought the House would not consult its dignity by reject- Mg the petition. Mr. PEEL said, the petitioners themselves bad called their documents a " remonstrance," and that showed the animus with which they approached that House. It was meant to insult.— If it were true that the House was what was described in tile petition, then ought they to abdicate their functions. Mr. J. Ssll'lli denied that the object of the petiticrers, from whom be differed io many points, was to insult the ileum-, but be would have the House recollect that there were reery persons who believed what was set forth in the petitim..— (Hear bear.)—lt w uld he better, under all circumstances, to receive the petition. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The ambers were—Fur the rejection, Ml—Against it, 55—Majority for the rejection, 34. Mr. COKE in presenting another petition from Norfolk. which W3* agreed to at the late !wivel county meeting, de dared that the last petition had DO intention to insult the Douse. He rejoiced in the petitioneis ; they were men, and men worthy of being represented; therefore he gloried in the petitioners. — This petition was ' tar to the use that had Leen rejected.— Ho had no hope of its being received—but the sentiments were such as he should carry with him to the grave. He agreed with them as to the corruptions of that Douse ; and the conduct of ministers was calculated to increase the number of such peti tions, He hoped that the call for reform would be noir% trsal. The petition was read, and ordered to be printed, amidst the cheering of the oppo►ition. Mr. MARRYAT presented a petition from wholesale and retail grocers of the metropolis, against any renewal of the Nk est India Dock Company's Charter. Refereed to the com mittee on foreign trade. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the report on the naval and military pensions be reedit ed. The order was then read, and, on the motion that it be brought up, Mr. CALCRAFT said, others had particularly complained of the proposed mode of reducing the salt tax ; those commuted in the fisheries said they could not bear the remaining tax — that it would be ruinous to them to continue the 2s. tax. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that present exemptions and protections would continue to January next ; that it would cover the approaching season , so that it redress were required, it would be time enough next session to consider it. After some further remarks, the report was brought up aid read. On the resolution, that a portion of the 5,000,0004 ►bould come from the sinking fund, OW