The Sun. — London, England, 1828-04-29 00:00:00

the declaration " upon the faith of a Christian," .le4s might make their way into public offices, though it was confessedly not the intention of the supporters' of the mea sure that they. should. He' allowed that it was not the in tention of the laws that were repealed that Dissenters Should be admitted into public offices—that they lived for. years under a system of the suspension of these 'awl; and that it was notorious Dissenters were admitted into" Corporations. It appeared too from an Act of Parliament that the Legis lature were aware that Dissenters were in office, and even in goVerning offices, for it was decreed that Mayors or other Officers.of a similar rank should not take the insignia of their office, or the rep lia of the Corporation, into any other places of public worship excepting those of the church by law established. But this was never the case with respect to Jews, and there was not a single instance known in which Jews had been admitted into office. 'He should therefore, oppose the motion that the words " upon the faith of a Christian be expunged. It was quite a new principle that. Jews should be admitted into public offices ; if it was to be done, however, let the question respecting it be fairly bronlit before Parliament and delibetately dis cussed. He would now conclude by again endeavouring to impress upon their Lordships, that if they would confine themselves to the point in the debate it would be Much more satisfactory. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not consider the discussion quite so disorderly as the Noble Duke did. Their Lordships were in the habit of allowing a consider able latitude in their debates, and therefore it was compe tent to a Noble and Learned Lerd to declare again upon what grounds he had advocated an amendinent he before proposed, and it was also 'competent to a Right "Rev. Pre late to take that opportunity of re-stating the principles and reasons upon which the Right Rev. Bench had acted. For himself he had only risen to recall the motion of his Noble Friend, and the reasons which had influenced him in bringing that motion forward for the purPose of re cording his own opinions, and not to take the sense of the House. His Noble Friend entertained some donbts re speeting.the Jews and their claim on the Legislature ; but in the present instance his object had been. gained in the general admission that there was no intention of depriving the Jews of any advantages they might then possess. More than this, he felt assured his Noble Friend did not seek, and more than this he would not join him in asking for. He thought that they should not, by a side-wind, at tempt to do any thing in the wayof legislation, andthough he considered the Jews respectable as a people, all that he conceived them entitled to, as far as the Bill was concerned, was to be saved harmless. And as it was avowed on all hands that the Bill was intended to leave them as it found them, if hereafter it should be found that they had . suffered any thing in their privileges through it, their Lordship would, without doubt, feel themselves bound to set it right. He was glad of that opportunity of declaring that whatever might'be the opinions he entertained in favour of the claims of Jews, or Roman Catholics, or of any other class of his Majesty's subjects who might consider themselies aggrieved, he was decidedly hoetileto general legislation. ' He thought they should always legislate in detail--l-that each question should be tried upon its Own peculiar merits; and that as a principle of safety and institis, it should not be allowed that by a side wind, one measure should be made a consequence from another. Their Lordship* . mould recollect ) that by the words " upon the faith of a Christian," the Jetvs (who were not disposed to meet the Noble Earl (Winehilsea) . half way, and swear with as little hesitation upon the faith of a Christian as he would upon that of a Jew)' had been excluded for eighty years from the other House. Ent with .out allowing them that privilege, the question was, were they not entitled to other offices in the State, through the indulgence of the Legislature. He thought the most ad vantageous course fur their Lordships to pursue would be to consider each amendment as it arose. The Earl of GUILFORD differed - from a Noble Baron in the opinion he had given upon a former sight, as to what he considered to form tbe. Constitution. In his mind, it was not merely in King, Lords. and Commons, that the Constitution consisted, but in those fundamental laws, that ascribed to them their several functions; and also affixed to them certain limits for the general good, It was true, that: those laws might be changed ; but whenever they were changed, the Constitution was changed with them. Now the Corporation and Test Acts, as they affected the limits of one branch of the Constitution, were also funda mental laws. Whether good or bad it remained for their Lordships to decide. The Noble Lord (Holland) had been anxious to prove that because enacted against differ ent parties and at several periods they were not fundamen tal laws ; but he contended that the principle upon which they were framed had been engendered at the Reformation. The Noble Baron had .spoken of the period of the lawful prerogative of the Crown and he felt &skims to know 'What period that was. He fancied the Noble Lord would have to go back to the two first of the dynasty of the Stuarts, or per hut c .t:11 1.1 6 1. e.-, a. the Tudors. Due the Noble Baron had passed over the reign of Charles 11., with a sort of con tempt, although it could be proved upon the authority of history, that there were never better laws trained in England than during that period. There was a useful confidence of the abuses of prerogative with the wisdom of Statesmen, who had the abilities and the power to provide'reniedies against them for the future, and he perfectly agreed with Fox when he called it the tare of good laws.' The Noble Lord next passed to the Revolution, aril brought down William 111, to inform the House of the objects and aim of the Revolution, but he was convinced that their Lordships would rather take their opinion from the opponenti of William 111., than from William himself, wbo had been educated in foreign prejudices. He would not occupy their Lordships' time much longer; he saw - they were not inclined that he should. Ile would merely quote a pas sage from a writer as little likely to be suspected of high church principles as .ithe Noble Marquis to whom his work was dedicated. The sentitisenti - eipressed 'in this passage perfectly coincided with his own, and they were, " that if a man wanted any civil trust it was right to inquire into what his qualifications might be, but if he only desired to live under the Governinent, we had no right to scrutinise his religion." The more perfect was toleration, the more cautions should a State be in guarding against the licentiousness of fanaticism—and in averting the danger that might arise from those who would disturb the public peace and endanger the public interests of the country. The existence of a Test Act was as sure a ;woof of toleration in a country as the growth of - a certain plant is of the mildness of the climite. The Earl of ELDON then moved that the words, "lain a Protestant," be inserted in the declaration, and' was pro ceeding to speak, when Lord GODERICH remarked that the Noble Lord could not begin to argue on'the quesiion till it was formally put. The LORD CHANCELLOR then read the proposed amendment from the Woolsack. The Earl of HARROWBY was anxious that no advan tage should be taken towards the furtherance of an object Which he had much at heart, and he was extremely de sirous that the measure should not receive a con trary appearance, by their adopting any amend ment that might create suspicion. If the words, " I am a Protestant," had come up on the Bill from the other House, and a question for their rejection had been raised, he would have voted against it, and upon the same principle that he now voted against their insertion, and that was that in either case their conduct was liable to misinterpretation. He would ask their Lordships what was the state of the question? The Noble and Learned Lord near the table (Eldon) tells you that if you take away the sacramental test you will have nothing' left as a se curity but the oath of supremacy. Ihe Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack, on the contrary, tells you that you will have the oath of supremacy and the declara tion against transubstantiation. In either case this only applies to the higher offices, where the individual holding them it not a Justice of the Peace, because, if he be the latter, according to both the Noble and Learned Lords, he would be compelled to take the declaration against transubstantiation. The question, therefore, was narrow ed to this, that in some Corporations there was a middle class to which the Noble Earl thought Roman Ca tholics might be admitted, though, ex confesso, the oath of supremacy still remained. The danger was then re duces' to the circumstance of their being left to the secu rity of the oath of supremacy with one class, and he thought that the principle of expediency did not de mand upon this account they should introduce a clause only calculated to produce a jealousy upon the part of the Roman Catholic, though he did not conceive it likely to act to the prejudice of their question. The Noble Earl - then re probated the attacks made upon the Right Rev. Bench, and declared, that in his opinion they had done themselves the highest h ono ur in the cours e they had pursued. He was only sorry to perceive, from the speech of a Right Rev. Prelate, that the calumnies that had been uttered appeared to have produeed in him some distress of mind. He could as sure that Right Rev. Prelate, that persons as respectable as himself) and none could be more so had suffered from si milar attacks. When, in the reig '; of Queen Anne, the Bill of Occasional Conformities was under discussion, Bishop Burnet, and others of the Right Rev. Bench of that day, whose names do not shine less bright at present, had been assailed with the grossest calumnies even by m a ny of the clergy. He rejoiced, however, that the spirit which animated these inert was fast sinking into that state of obli vion from which he hoped it would never again rise. The Bishop of CHESTER had found it his duty on former occasions, to oppose the object the Roman Catholics had in view, and would continue to do so until they offered more substantial security than any yet proposed. When their Lordships had divided on a former night, he had ab stained from voting, for he was then in ,doubt as to the effect the Bill might have on the present situation of the Roman Catholics. He had been satisfied with the Bill as it came up ft:lu the other House, and he thought it would have been passed as it then was. Since the night he had abstained froth voting, he had endeaVoured to make himself master of the subject, and the conclusion he came to was, that the Noble Earl's amendment was not necessary for the protection of the Church. It appeared clearly that all officers down to Common Councilmen.were tcatitte the oath ofinPremacy. " He was aware that ithatl;teens ;said, on more than one occasion, that this oath was not sufficient, but he was of a contrary opinion, The Roman Catholics have always said ) they could hot take the oath utiless qualified by a - Legislative explanation. In the time of Charles IL, ail attempt had been Made to induce Roman Catholics to do so, but Without success, and one of the - moat:eminent 'Writers in their Conitnunion 'then declared,' that no member of the Church of - Rome could so take the oath of supremicy without com promising hi's religion, and - committing' a scandal be fore the whole Christian World. To hiln the circumstance of Roman Catholics being of that idea was sufficient, and he .vould not cling to any additional security. He would not he willing; therefore, that the declaration thould carry the appearance of being Anti-Catholic; When the time came, he would be found in 'hisplace, ready to do his duty against the CitholiC Question, .without fear or favour. lie was now opposed to the Amendment, because it was caleulated, as he thought, to produce mischief, withaut affording any , security to the Church. In assisting to make the declara tion anti-catholic, he should be doing more than the Church had a right to demand. He hoped he Would he excused for adding one word en the charges brought against the Rev. Bench, file sacrificing, the integrity'd the Church. He would refer to the opinion of a distingiiished individual long celebrated for the conscientious discharge of his duties. He alluded to the late Lord Kenyon, who; in a Communication to an illustrious personage, now also no more, stated that any law for the ease of the Dissenters would not militate against the Act of Union. He Would say One word more t the Noble Earl who had last spoken had stated that Bishop Burnet hadbeen made the mark of popular calumny for his conduct in reaped of the . Bill cif occasional conformities, and he would' yea(' the' venerable Prelate's own words upon the subject. The Rev. Prelate then con cluded by reading an extract, in which Bishop Burnet says that he and his Right Rev. Brethren had been slandered, because they would not run the course prescribed to them by ill-natured men, while they could appeal to the whole world, or, what was still more, to God himself,' that they had acted for the true interests of the Church, of good men, and With a good design: Lord KENYON rose .to rescue the character of his ve nerable father from misinterpretation. The Right Rev. Prelate had merely taken an isolated passage, and had UM' stated the circumstances under 'which the advice was given. His venerable'ancestor never had recommended a politichl sacrifice. To " pass the question before their . Lordships, he would say, that though the Right Rev. Pre lates might feel satisfied as to thesecurity of the Church, they ought to shew some•little regard for the civil part of the Constitution. He viewed the Established Church with great respect, as well for its sabred character as its political (influence; and he would always support the 'State in eon rectionwith the Church. But as for the Right Rev. Bench, he would say that they showed very little concern for either. He'would not tell the Right Rev. Bench that they placed a higher value upon temporalities than on their spiritual duties, for it would be in all probabilitY unjust, and certainly unparliamentary ; but he would merely ask them, if two eminent lawyers had . giVen such different opi nions upon a question concerning their temporal interests, would they have pursued the same course they had pursued? The Bishop of CHESTER 'had only quoted the words of another. Ile thought the 'ChurchsuffiCiently . protected in the act of uniformity, and a separate legislative establish ment. The Bishop of LLANDAFF considered the security as ample as before. The Earl' of 'ELDON said, it was very well 'for Noble Lords to say that the oath bf supremacy was a sufficient protection to the Established Church, but he would rather take the opinion of ParliaMent than'that of Noble Lords ; and Parliament had over and over again denied that the oath 'of' supremacy wag sufficient. If their Lordships were to look to the words of the Act of Parliament, they would find that these were the words of it—•! to keep inviolable the true Protestant Church' as by law establish ed"—and he would say that it was to support that Pro testant- Religion that he felt it necessary to support the amendment. • The Duke of WELLINGTON begged leave to trouble their tordshdps with one word, and only one woid. His Noble - and Learned Friend' had said that it had frequently been decided in Parliament that the oath of supremacy was not sufficient to keep the Catholics out of the Cor porations. The Noble and Learned Lord had''not said that the oath of supremacy had been altered. The oath of supremacy had been prescribed by Act of Parliatnent - ; and he (the Duke of Wellington) was not'aware that.sifice the - time of King William • Parliament had ever &Oared that the oath of supremacy was 'not sufficient to effect the ob jects for which it had *been - 'enacted. ' (Hear, hear.) — But that was not the only ground - on which he would test his argument: The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated it 'al' his opinion that the oath against transubstantiation ought to be taken - before persona should enter into , any Corporation, Ind he (the Duke of Welling ton) must say, that the Noble Lord opposite, 'and the Noble Lord near him, bad offered no argument in reply to that of the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack, found ed upon the provisions of the Test Act.' But another ar gument in reply to those adduced in support of the amend ment was, that the oath of supremacy does at present pre. vent Catholics from voting at elections. Now, he Would ask their Lordships, what was there to prevent Catholics from so voting, but that very oath ?—(Hear)-:--and if that oath was sufficient to prevent Catholics voting - at elections; he should , like to know, was it not sufficient, according to the argument of the Noble Lord, to keep them out of higher offices?—(Hear.)-11 it were sufficient—if the oath of .supremacy were sufficient to prevent Roman Ca tholics' from voting at elections, surely their Lord Ships would admit, that in a law brought in for another, and totally distinct purpose. it was neither necessary nor fair to introduce a clause against Roman Catholics.—(Hear. ) There was in that House no Noble Lord more 'decided— none more fixed—none more determined in his hostility to what"what was called the Catholic' Question, than lie him sellwas, and should continue to be, unless; indeed, some extraordinary change should have taken place in it.— (Hear.)—At the same time he felt bound to declare, that there Could be no Noble Lord more averse than he himself was to any new enactment against the Roman Catholics.— (Cheers.) _ _ - Their Lordships then divided, when there were—. For the amendment— Present 42 Proxies lO --52 Against it— Present Proxies • 100 ▪ 54 —154 Majority against it 102 . . ... The original clause was accordingly carried. The next clause was--.“ And beiienacted, that if any person plaied, elected, or chmen into any of the aforesaid offices or places, shall omit or neglect to make and subscribe the said declaration in manner abovementiOned,'suett'plac ing, election, or choice, shall he void." To which an amendment was moved, during our exclu sion from the House, (by the Earl of Eldon, as we under stood) to the effect, " That it shall not be lawful for per sons so elected, to do or perform any act in such office to which they may be elected until they shall have taken and subscriber} the said declaration." A desultory conversation ensued, in which the Duke of Wellington, Earls Eldon and Carnarvon, Marquis of Sa... lisbury, and Lord Ellenborough took part, which was in audible below the Bar. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that at present, ac cording to the provisions of the Act, the declaration must he made within one month of the entrance of a person upon office; and that if the party did not within that time take it the office becam e void. His Noble and Learned Friend proposed to do more —namely, to declare that the persons sa chosen or elected shall do no act arising 'l r Ac out of his election. The consequence of in of that violationwould w odf be,a tha t o that arPaarielntadi:ennet) wouldbYtilsubject epart b him to prosecution. He himself saw no reason fur the Objections that had been raised to the original clause. The question was then put, and the amendment was ne gatived without a division. The Earl of ELDON, with all possible respect for the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, felt it his duty to propose a clause, in order to put beyond all doubt his meaning and desire respecting the clause before their Lordships, and which was to the following effect :—" And whereuy doubts have been expressed whether persons chosen for q elected to the office of Mayor, Alderman, Recorder, Higl Bailiff, Town Clerk, or Member of Common Council, o to any office of Magistracy, or relating to the governmen of any city; borough, or corporation town, is bound to tak and subscribe to the oath against transubstantiation, pre scribed and contained in the Act of the 25th Charles (Here also the Declaration in the present Act was recited] - i ' be it tnacted, that all such persons shall, before, or within one calendar month of their being chosen or elected, make or take such declaration, in such like manner as persons appointed by his Majesty to places of power are - required to take and subscribe the above oath by the said Aet.." The question was then put upon this amendment, and negatived. The question on the original clause (which gave to the parties elected six months after their election in which to qualify) was then put. The Earl of ELDON declined offering further opposi tion to it, and the clause was agreed to. Lord BEXLEY would propose, tkat no person pro fessing the Jewish religion shotild he capable of holding any office to which he was ineligible under the Indemnity, Act. The Earl,of C.ARNARVON oppo?ccl the clause. The Egl of WINCHILSEA asked whether the situa tion of Lord Chancellor was to be thrown open to the Jews ?—(Hear.) Lord HOLLAND said, certainly not. According to the Constitution such an event was impossible; but the words which would go to protect (as the Noble Earl seemed to think) the Protestant religion and establishments of the country were already in the oath of abjuration, so -that the proposition of. the Noble Lord was unnecessary. One observation more. The amendment proposed by the Noble Baran did not go to give Jews any advantage which they did not at present enjoy ; it only went to present an additional bar to their enjoyment of them. • The Amendment was then put and negatived. The, next clause was, " And be it further enacted, that the aforesaid declara tion, if the person required to make and subscribe the same shall reside within the cities of London and Westminster, or within thirty miles thereof, shall bemade and subscribed in his. Majesty's High Com t of Chancery, or is the Court of King's Bench; and, if the person required to make and subscribe the same shall reside thirtpuiles or upwards from the said cities 'of, London and Westminster, the same shall be made and,• subscribed at the Quarter Sessions of the county or place where the person so required to make the same shall reside; and the Court in which such, declara tion shall be so made and subscribed, shall cause -the same to be preserved among the records of the said Court." The Earl' of CARNARVON objected to the clause, and moved an amendment to enable parties to qualify at the Quarter Sessions of their respective corporate towns. The LORD CHANCELLOR saw no abjection to the amendment proposed by the Noble Earl, which was ac cordingly agreed to. The Duke of WELLINGTON rose to move a clause to the effect that any naval or military officer, or other person, 'upon whom any place, commission, appointment,.or pro motion, should be 'conferred during his absence from this country,' should 'be at liberty to qualify'for holding the same by taking, within six months of his return to Great Britain thelleelaration required by the Act. After'a few words from the Earl of CARNARVON, the clause was agreed to. •. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question, " That this Bill be now read a third time." The Bishop of LLANDAFF said, their Lordship's would do him the justice to recollect that he had from the first expresded bia dissatisfaction at the contents of the declara tion, which he deemed insufficient for their object, While they unnecessarily multi?lied oaths. [His Lordship hare proceeded to contend, that the Dissenters being the objects of the Bill, 'the declaration (which was an oath to all in tents and purposes) could not as reapected them be objected to ; but that as the Ministers of the, Established Church were equally required to take it, and from' whom no such declaration being necessary, the declaration in that respect ' was objectionable, being' an unnecessary multiplication l of oaths.] He should . therefore prefer leaving the Bill appli cable in that respect to the Dissenters only. The objec tion to that propo s ition woe, 'however,that it would be in vidious, as it would point out who were and who were not Dissenters. He, 'however, saw nothing iri that ohje tion. No man ought to be ashamed of declaring publitily the religiouS opinions - which be privately professed. Thpy knew, to be sure,, that persons who openly held different doctrines On the subject of religion, frequently exhibited much displeasure at being rethinded of their free thirikik —an example of which class was found in the personlof Mr. Hunie (the historian),: . ash e alWays felt excee.dingly annoyed at" being' in private accosted as a Deist.' (The Right Reverend Prelate then proceeded to defend the Right Reverend Bench against the charges urged against them.) The Noble' and Learned Lord (the Earl of Eldon) had expressed his' belief that the Bishops could not have read the petitions piesented in aid of the Bill, or they Would "not have concurred . in it. Most ce tainly he, for one, had net read thoie petitions—he had'nft time for such study but neither the matter of the petit tions, nor the manner in which the Noble Earl stated they had been gotten up, would have produced the slightest al teration on his vote. Another Noble Earl (Roden) Iliad charged the Right Reverend Bench with looking more to temyoyalities than to the spiritual duties of their hi g h office." That was the language of persona who , called themselves High Churchmen. There were, however, two kinds of High Churchmen—he who looked Upon the Church as established by the Almighty, and whose sole care - Was to extend its blessings and its influence over the mindit of men. There was another High Churchman—ht who (as the Noble Lord had said) looked only on the tern- Poralities of the Church—or, as the poet had described For e'en in heaven his loOks and thoughts Were always &Williford bent, adniiiing more The riches of heavea's pavement—trodden . gold, Thanaught divine or holy e'er enjoyed _ In vision beatific. The Right Rev. Prelate hoped it was hardly necessary for him to state to which of these classes of high churchmen the Right Rev. Bench belonged, and concluded by moving that in the declaration, after tke words " I, A. B." should be inserted, "do declare that I am a member of the Pro testant Established Church." Lord HOLLAND resisted the clause, it being in direct opposition to the whole principle of the Bill. The Bill had a healing object—the amendment of the Right Rev. Pre late would go to rip up the divisions now partly closed. To adopt it would be like introducing into a marriage con tract a provision for separate maintenance. (A laugh.) He trusted their Lordships would reject a clause which went to take away all that was gracious in the Bill. The Earl of ELDON having, in a former stage of the Bill, proposed a:clause not unlike that before their Lord ships, he should support the amendment of the Right Rev. Prelate. _ The Bishop of BRISTOL, said a few wards that were inaudible below the bar. , The Duke of WELLINGTON said, it appeared to him that his Noble and Learned Friend had forgotten whit, had been said by the Right Rev. Prelates who supported the Bill, for his objections had been in direct opposition to theirs for supporting the measure. The amendment would require of parties to state they were members of the Church of gn g land. That would be going, too far, for he knew nothing to prevent the Roman Catholics at present to come forward and say they were members of the Church of Eng hear.)—Moreover, the sense of their Lord ships' House had already been taken upon the same point. —(Hear, hear.)—Under these circumstances he should oppose the clause. The Bishop of LLANDAFF and the Earl of ELDON contended that the two propositions were different. The amendment was then put and negatived. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS had voted for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, solely because he felt a religious conviction of the expediency of disconthru ing the profanation that arose out of the manner in which the Sacramental Test had bees in many instances taken. The Duke of CUMBERLAND was desirous of expres sing his sentiments on the subject of the Bill then under their Lordships' consideration, and trusted that the House would allow him the liberty of placing his opinion upon record, which he thought it the more incumbent upon him to do after his long absence from the country. In carrying his intention into effect he begged to say—and be trusted the Noble Duke (Wellington) near him, tvou'd give him full credit for the sincerity of the declaration — that it was with great and unfeigned reluctance he found himself compelled to dissent from that Noble Lord, in the view which he took of the measure then before the House. He repeated, he never felt more concerned at any circum stance than at that of being obliged to oppose a Bill which had the advantage of the Noble . Duke's support and appro bation. That concern was the greater, as there was no man professing a sincerer friendship, or who felt a higher regard for the Noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government, than the humble individual who had then the honour to address their Lordships. Nothing but a con scientious feeling of the rectitude of the course he was then taking could induce him to pursue it, opposed as it was to that adopted by the Noble Duke. But having new for one and thirty years followed one undeviating line o f con duct, it relation to the es'ablished Constitution and Church of the country, he found it impossible to depart from it and considering, as he did, the present measure favourable to neither, he must be permitted again to 'express his dis sent from it. He trusted the Noble Duke would give hint credit for the sincerity of Vvhat'he had then said, and 116 sincerely hoped and believed that 'that would 'be the only occasion on which it might he necessary for him fniliffer from an individual for whole charieter he entertained so sincere an admiration. His Royal Highness' Concluded by j expressing his determination to say " not content" to the present Bill. Earl DARNLEY would have been better satisfied if the Bill, as sent up from the Commons, had passed their Lordships' House without any amendments, He would have been still better pleased if the measure was confined to a simple repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, with out. the substitution of any declaration in the place of the Test so long and justly complained of. However, he was ready to take what he could get with satisfaction ; and in doing so expressed his gratitude for the sentiments that had fallen from their Lordships generally—from the occupants of the Rev. and Learned Bench:-.-and 'from the = Members of his Majesty's Government. They had frequently united in applauding the splendid triumphs of the Noble Duke tit the head of the present ; and he (Lord Darnley) was convinced that the moderation manifested by that distinguished individual on thk'present occasion would do him quite as much' ci•edit'as'r 'riicist brilliant achieve ments. Let the Ndfil l e Duke only continue to act in the conciliatory spirit that he had hitherto evinced, and he 'might expect 'support from the humble individual who had then the honour to - address their Lordships. Lord gop..AND—My Lords, it now becOniei my dutyto more' your Lerlishipti 'that this Bill' do'pass. In so doing I hardly knOw whether I should make use of the langule of congratulation or gratitude. Both,are equally becoming the present occasion and circumstances. I ex , tress my gratitude to your Lordships for the manner in 'which you haVeacted. COngratiilate the House and the . . country on the event of this xtight. The LORD ,CHANCEE,LOR—Is it your Lordships' pleasure thsit' thisi Bill do now:pass? Lord RELIESDALE expressed his opposition to the Bill, and observed thht the declaration substituted in lieu of the sacramental test, and which had beep put. forwaid as a protection for the established religion of the country; was utterly insufficient to effect that purpose.' ' 7 Lord MOUNTCASfIEL opposed the Bill, and consi dered it his dntrto protest against it on the ground that, it went to remove the sacramental test, one • of the greatest barriers of the Church and Constitution.as by law esta _blished.—(Loud cries of . 2‘ Question, question !") The- LORD CHANCELLOR—Is it your Lordships' Pleasure that this Bill do now pass? As many as are of that opinion will say:" Content"-4hose that are of a contrary opinion will say " Not Content." The " Contents" have it. - The Bill having been passed without a division, their Lordships adjourned at a quarter to eleven o'clock. ifoTYBE OF COMMONS, APRIL 28. Mr. Carlisle brOlight up the Report of - the Comniis sioners of Public Cliarities k ielative'to the expenses incurred liy them. - ' Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition against the East London . Mr. GRATTAN presented a petition from certain members of the Hibernian- Joint Stock Company, praying to be heard againit the Bill for dissolving the Company. LAMBETH-BRIDGE BILL: Sir JOSEPH YORKF. presented a petition igairist the Lambeth-Bridge Bill. He said that if thii Bill passed the House, the ArchbishoP of Lambeth would have no ease iu his garden, or in any room in his House.---(A labgho Mr. IJOBHOUSE said ,that perhaps the Hon. Baronet was not aware that two bridges were proposed to be built, one Of iron, ilia' other of stone. The bridge against Which the pe tition was presented is intended to be built 800 yards from Westminster-bridge and 900 yards from Vauxhall. Those ',prate* were generally founded in private ,and -fraudulent interest. He was hippy ;io'hear however that it' was not intended to -go on with . the Bill this present Session, and'- Hobhouse) hoped no !Bill would be again applied for, for a similar-purpose, until: Westminster Bridge or , Vauxhall Bridge had fallen. - . • Mr. , 'CURTEIS said that Blackfriars Bridge was in such a state as to endanger the lives- of his Majesty's subjects., After a few words from the SPEAKER on the point_ of order the . petition was laid on the table: Sir JAMES GRAHAM presentt.d.a 'petition from York, against the Aiie and Calder Navigation Company. FEES' ON TURNPIKE BILLS. Mr. LITTLETON. said - it had been agreed that the re solutions for the -abOlitiOris of the fees on the renewal of Turnpike iiilli-should'be referred to 'the House of Lords ; on• considetailoil; hOwever; he understood that their Lordships had'iuithitig to do with the Matter, which was a question solely referring to the privileges of this House. He therefore moved that the Order of the Day for • referring the Resolutions of the House of Lords should beditieliargelAgreed to. • L0N15014 DOCK COMPANY. Mr. Aldermiti ThoMPSON'presented 'a petition from 200 Merchants of the city of London, against the Clause in the Bill empowering, the Directors of the London Dock Company - to levy dues on goods delivered hi critt.— Ordered to-be printed. Sit G. ROBINS presented a petitiOn from Northamp ton, iii favour of general toleration, Lord FORBES - presented a petition from the Catholics of Tipperary in favour of Catholic Emancipation. Colonel 'WHITE Presented a similar petition from dif ferent parishes, in: the County 'of Dublin. ' ' . "FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. Sir E.' KNATCHBULL presented two petitions from Gravesend; - against 'the Friendly Societies Bill. Mr. BRIGHTIhOught it very desirable that the public alarm excited on this" subject should be allayed. had petitions to present; signed by 5,000 persons, on thesub ject. " ' • Mr. COURTENAY said the report on the Bill would be brought` up in the course of a week. The pre- Sent Bill would - be greatly modified, though lie (lid not know:Whether it Would. Meet With the wishes of all parties. Thringh he should feel it his duty to trouble the House with some observations when the Report was brought up, he might as well 'say at once thit it was - not' his intention to proceed further with the Bill this Session. Mr. HOBHOUSE was greatly pleased with the an nounevinent made by the Bon. MeMber, and had no ob jection that the Trill should lie on the table until neit ses sion.=-The petitions were'laid on the table.. Sir E. KNATCI'!BULL presented a petition from Hythe againit the Corn Laws.—Ordered to be Printed. Lord ALNWICK presented a petition from tin! Roman Catholic's of NorthaMpton for Emancipation. - '- Sir' F. KNATCHBULL' presented a petition from Hythe; in Kent, against the scale of duties for the regula tion Of Corn Laws. Lord ALT El ORppresented threepetitions from Friendly Soeieties'in'Northimpton, - against the Bill for the Regu lation of Friendly Societies. • . Colonel BAIWARD prgented a petition from the fte man 'Catholicinf Italiarn,' in favotii of the CithOlic Claiins. Mr. R. COLBURN fiii;iiitt up the report of the .; Com mittee on' the Westineath election, by which it 'appeared that the return of the' sitting -Mernb..er was good, and that the 'petition against' his return was not frivolous or vex atious. - MQORE presented several petitione from various CorPorations, and.alsO frOm some Dissenters in lieland, against any further concession to the Catholics. • Mr. - MOORE presented a petition from the attorneys practising in the Irish Cmirts, praying that the Crown SoliBtor Bill rnighfnot iiaSS'into a Colonel BERBSFORD presented a petition from the Protestant inhabitants orCorlf,' Preying ' that the House winOtaki / iiiitiCe of the 'proCeedings of the Catholic Assn adlilso' that no further eoheeesion enightbe grant. ed to the Catholics. • ' • 1. z-Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Catholic., okßarton-upon-Hmaiber, in:favour of the Catholic' Claims. .Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented, ,a . rtition 'from th e 'Archdeacon, of Northinipion - and 'the Clergy . of Peter_ borough, against any further concessions to the, Catholics. Mr. DIMCQMBE presented a petition front the' bitanis of Leeds l igainst any further concession' to the Ca tholics. ' Mr. MARSHALL said that this petition gave a very erroneous impression of the opinions entertained on the subject by the ,inhabitants of Leeds. After a few words from Mr. DUNCOMBE to the effect that the 'people of Leeds, lih•e'llie ,inhabitants of most other" large towns were opposed to th4ttinmi'cif the Catholies, Lord MILTON said, that This petition was signed by only about 4,9oo'peisons, whereas a former petition from the sane town was signed by upwards of 10,000 persons. This he took as a proof of the change which was rapidly taking place in public opinion upon the subject. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that the whole of the signa tures were procured in sit 'days. The petition was then ordered to he printed. Mr. DUNCOMBF. also presented several other similar petitions from•various places in the county of York. General KING presented several petitions from the Pro testant inhabitants of various places in the county of Sligo against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Captain MAITLAND presented a petition from the oc cupiersof land near Bury against the importation of fo reign wool. - Lord OXMAN / T . O*N presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of the King's County in favour of the Ronian Catholic Mr. CHAPLlN"preSented a petition from the land owners of Horne e; the iniportation of Foreign Wool. 0111; Mr. O'NtiL preeented a petition from the landed pro prietors of Antrim, against the Roman Catholic Claims; and also three similar petitions.from parishes in Antrim. Mr. MANCOCK presented a petition from the Pro testant inhabitants of Athlone against the Roman Catholic Claims. Colonel ROCHFORT presented a similar petition from the Protestants of Kildee, in the county of Westmeath. Sir J. COCHRANE presented a petition from the Ra man Catholics of Hereford, in favour of the Roman Ca tholic Claims. Mr. BERNAL presented a petition from the Royal York Friendly Society, Mount-street, Grosvenor -square, against the Friendly Societies Bill.' • Lord JOHN HAY presented a petition from the No blemen, Gentry, and Landownersof Hereford, against the proposed alteration of t 'Corn LaWi. Mr.`CXMPBELL presented two petitions from Glas gow, in faVour of the Scotch Settlement Bill. Mr. STANLEY presented two petitions from the Ca tholics of Lancaster and Gaistang, in favour of the Roman CatholiC Claims. Mr. Alderinan WOOD presented a petition from a Fish salesman named Davis, at Gloucester, against the Salmon Fisheriei Bill. Mr. SHIRLEY presented three petitions from the Protestant DisSentera of Monaghan, and one petition from the 'PiOtestanti and - Churchwardens 'of a parish in Monag han, against further'concessions to the Roman Catholies. Mr. Sheriff WvLnit appeared at the bar, and Present ed a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Com mon Councilmen of London, praying for a repeal of the Stamp Duties on Receipts for sums under 501. Mr. Alderman WOOD, in moving that the petition be read, said that persons engaged ' in trade experienced great inconvenience from ihe' /gawp receipt duty. Mr. Alderinin WAITHMAN supported the prayer Of the petition, and observed that the repeal'of this tax would not make any considerable diminution of the revenue, as it was well known that many persons who paid small accounts never required a stamp receipt. , Sir JOSEPH YORKE said he had no wish to stand be tween the peritionerslimd thii tax, but he' must beg:leave to say, is reply to an observation by the Hon. AlderTniin who bad just sat down, that he (Sir J. Y.) was one of those who was always anxious to get a stamp receipt when he paid money, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would net listen to idle clamours, and do away with a tax which recorded that people had paid those bills which might otherwise hereafter rise in judgment against them.—(A laugh.) The petition was read, and ordered to be printed. ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. The Marquis of CHANDOS said he understood it to be the intention of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster, to post Pone the Motion which stood for to-morrow, and ai it would be a great Convenience to many Hon: Members who took a part for and against the measure, to know when the diactission might be expected, it would be desirable that the Hoh. Baronet should state what he intended to do. Sir F. BURDETT said circumstances had induced him to pOitpone the discussion ) but he intended to bring for ward his motion on Thursday the Bth of May next. Mr. BROWNLOW . presented seven petitions from the ROMan 'Catholics of Fermanah, Tyrone, Monaghan, arid Castlecother; in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. Mr. WARD presented Li petition from-persons engaged in the WoOl Trade in the city of London, praying that no additional duty should be imposed upon Foreign WoOl. The for Mer duty upon Foreign Wool had done consider able injury to the English Woollen manufacturers, who were but just recovering' from the evil effects of the duty, and he (Mr. W.) was satisfied his Majesty's GO - vernment would not . try the imposition of any ' duty upon the raw material, to throw that body again idto distress. ' • Mr. MARSHALL sppported the prayer of the petitimi. Mr. Ald. 11.10MPSON said the imposition of a duty would destroy the competition which had already yom ineiaced between the English and Silesian woollen manii facturerb Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE thought such a duty ought to be imposed as would give to the. English wool grower a protection against the foreigner, 4dequate 'to that now given the English corn grower. Lord MILTON objected to the imposition of any duty upon wool, which could only have the effect •of retarding the improvement in Arts and Sciences, without giving'to the. English woolgrower any protection, to which he was fairly entitled. ', Sir M. W.. RIDLEY said that an Hon. Member bad stated, that if a further duty were to be imposed in this way upon manufacturers, we should go back to a state of barbarism, but he would contend that we would revert to a state of barbarism if no duty were imposed. It would tars no less than 7,000,000 of sheep to supply Cue quantity of wool imparted during the last year alone. Under these circumstances:le thotight the House would be induced to agree to ia committee. ,Mr. PHILLIPS slid, that the object of those who (con tended for protecting duties was, to sacrifice the whole body of the consumers, the people of England, to the" pro ducers."--(Hear.) This was the view of the .landed terest, as they were pleased to call themselves. They took the most vulgar view of , these questions it was possible 'to conceive. lie' hoped that' no Conimittee' would be ap pointed. _ Mr.: HEATHCOTE hoped all landed Gentlemen in that House would act upon their own judgments, and their own knowledge of their own concerns, without being swayed by Gentlemen on the other side of the question. Mr. PAULET THOMPSON hoped his Majesty's Go vernteent would not accede to the proposal for the ap pointment of a Committee. Sir CHARLES BURRELL spoke against the petition. Mr. C. GRANT said, that as appeals had been made to the GovernMent as to the course they intended to pur sue, be would only say, and not from,any disretipect twee —Hon.,Gentleman who had ,made them, nor from any 4- 'difference to` the snbject, nor any misconception of its great importance, that he should abstain from entering do the great` topics connected with it at present. There was at present a notice for Monday, on the general subject tif wool,' upon which, from what had incidentally fallen frotn Hon. Members, hopes were entertained that a Committee I would be appointed. He, therefore, thought it would 'e his duty to abstain froin iivitig iny Opinion until the wh e question . was before the House, when he would be prepare , and indeed he was , then prepared, if it were advisabl , to vindicate the Governthent from the reflections that 19d been made. 'For the present, however, he would say no more",: reserving to himself his . full right to express his . . opinion upon the whole subject. Upon the question that the petition be read, Mr. WARD said that as the Hon. Baronet (Sir Lethbridge) had expressed a wish for a Committee, he (Mi. Ward) was instructed to say that the petitioners oli jeCted to such a course, Sir T. LETHBRIDGE did not see how the petitioners could contend against inquiry. Whit he contended him self was, that wool ought to have a protection as well as corn. He remembered that When—(Cries of Question).4- he would not detain the - House further than to say, that he had , no wish loreittlusion, *but he did wish that tlie hoine should stand upon an equal footing with the foreigh groWer. Lord MILTON-said, that if Government would accede to the wishes expressed by some 'Hon. Gentlemen, th would commit an infraction of a solemn bargain enter I into between the two *ties. • The petition was then read ; it came from merchanis and i lither dealers in wool in London, and prayed that thole 'Alight he no Committee laPpointed, and that there should not be any increase of duty on the - importation of wool. IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN FLOUR. Mr. WELLS presented iispetition from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the vicinity of Dartford, in Kent, vetting g j t A o a JAMES any alteration in the C o rn Laws. On the bringing up of the petition, l‘E su S bje G et to which RAIIAAI t° he ok wi s t that opportunity o t p o po d r ra tu w nit t y he t a d tte a n d : lion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Grant) ; he meant the fact that the foreign corn warehoused at Liverpool was constantly sent off to the northern ports of the Isle of Mau. It was well known that the corn speculators of Liverpool now exported all the corn that came to that port to the Isle of Man ; that they were alsii renters of the mills there; and even ground the corn iri steam boats moored off the island; and that their design was, while the provisions of the present Bill were in force', during the progress of that now before the House, to have as much as they possibly could from the continent, which they would send to the Isle of Man, have ground there, and afterwards import here duty free. He asked, therefore, whether the Government intended to apply any remedy. Mr. C. GRANT said that the subject had occupied his attention since it had been mentioned on a former occasiom It was undoubtedly true that a considerable intercourse did prevail at present between Liverpool, and some ports in the north of Europe, and it *as ' . also true that in the pre.: sent state of the law there was no remedy for the mistake; which was purely accidental. He thought it sufficient to say that it was his intention that night to give notice of a motion for leave to introdUce a Bill to-morrow (this day); to prevent the continuance of what was complained againsL Mr. CURTEIS said, that the night Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had on a former occasion mentioned that the, quantities exported from Liverpool in this Waji, were very trifling. The contrary was, however, the fact; for there were now 20,000 touters exported, and such was the idea of the illegality of the trade enteirtainea ,tha . that an officer seisedsl7,3fll, sacks of the flour loorw" o, ts There were a thousamlocßutrtPcs also sent t f rom ' Be , ' the Isle of:Man, and such was the eagerness sliv? l ,., ° ' Liverpool on the subject, that ,a correspondent of 41; 4 ; for hint that morning that a ship:had, arris,ed ./ 1 ' corn from Rostock, which was inainediately . ptiro ~, 0 1 • firut..sent off without being landed,to the;lse ElO , , 0 Such was the consequence, that the holders ) K,honie e ° could not sell now but at a loss of Ss. per quarter.-- 'petition was then read and laid upon the table. [ CURRENCY. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that it was extremely D eeil sary to ascertain what.was the fixed determination of ' li Government upon some points connected with the eto rency which were of extreme importance. He sv°' therefore, beg to propose to the Right Hon. Gentle° opposite some questions, the answers to which would, hoped, set the country at rest. His first question, at; fore, would be—was it the fixed determination 'of his 1 , jesty's Government, on the sth April, whei s i,tite Act,o l) : prohibited, not only the issuing and rp-lieuing, Ll,O r negociation of Conntry Bmk.Notes for less tban 5/; t I O, i severe in the provision of that Act? Hie ,second . q„ was; whether the circulation of Scotland and Ireland 0 1 be allowed to, continue on their preient .footing. It .., these questions were answered in the affitrnative t. httll then ask, whether any steps were to be taken , to prti`'. ‘ { Scotch notes for less than Si. from circititifig at this ' l ss of the Border. The nett question he had to propose _ 4 ° whether it was the intention, pf- Government to prn any alteration of that clause in the Bankers' Act, irb l o prohibited Joint Stock 13ankiegCompanies ; sa yin g mo re tb li six partners, not more than sixty-five miles from Lol,, from issuing bills payable In London, for any sum less I;( 50/. That was a regulation which pressed very bra y . tJ upon the Joint .Stock Banks. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ,1 / °° ;),, i l say, in answer, that the Government saw no reason t° t part from the principles adopted by them in 1826, °i v( the one pound note circulation; and as it was their d e A , urination to adhere to the law as then settled, they ha" i i intention of doing any 'thing which could, prolong the c i ; culation of 11. notes in England, beyond the period' fixed for it. As to Scotland and Ireland, they were; prepared to adopt aimilar restrictions, with respect to! t i e very limited circulation 'at present, but it wan' l hinintO ', at an 'early 'period to; introduce a measure for the p,sr!,; tion of the circulation , of. Scotch notes within the WO, the United KingdorM Ae to, the question respectiog: lr alteration in the laws of Joint Stock Companies, o ll i, prevented them froni issuing bills payable in Loudes t , less than 56/., that the Hon. Baronet must be aware il not a matter in the power of Government;. it•was 36 ' : jeCt of negnciation with the Bank of England, and e°' not he .dpne without their permission. AO Si 0% 1 W. RIDLEY observed that the Right t Gentleman had 'said that Scotch notes were soon n' t circulate within the United Kingdom." The CHANCELLOR of the EKCHEQVER tlo' i ' d the Hon. ,Baronet for observing that, as what he WO, f , to have said was:, that a measure would ho introduc e ' prevent Scotch notes from circulating in England. subject Mr. CURTEIS said that when this had l before Considered, allusion had been made to an i n t e ntio ll d establishing a joint standard of gold and silver ; that 0 :„{, be, if done, a considerable. improvement. As to Scot ' it appeared to be impossible to prevent onepound,notO circulating there ;indeed the Scotch seemed to have o f 1p upon the subject ; such as England and Ireland, oecsaill mad enough upOnOthei points, never were visited ti 4 e;p , Mr. F. WILSON presented'petitions against ftirthee, cessions to the Catholics from the Clergy of the Desil e " Pomfret; and from Bramwell; near Leeds. , , Mr. T. DUNDAS presented petitions for Emancip atee , from the Rorrian'Catholies of Thirsk and Searhoroury Lord G. RtNTINCK presented a petition front ' fo ol individuals, against the importation of foreign Flour , , the Isle of Man. - Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from the o° 4 and Occupiers of 'Land, in . the vicinity Of 'Chel ~,,, 0 1 against any . alterations in the c Anw - --n, La: - - -- . i Mr. WESTERN 'Presented a similar petition fro2 l o , occupiers 0(40,000 idea in the neighbourhoOd of 4+" 1 Walden. : ' : ' d i l Mr. MARSHALL prescoted petitions from Frie o c Societies in Leeds and Whitkirk; against 'the Bill h i a. m the House ; and fro the Roman Catholics of Working' for emancipation. t 4 J' Lord MILTON presented petition's from Friend!)' il l; cieties in She ffi eld against the Friendly Societies ij, from the Physicians and-Stirgeani of - Leeds and wa te froe for the better procuring of subjects . for dissection ; . ogo , York, Stamford,"ami.Oundl Npr e, for 'Catholic eroancipati o r g. Lard SANDOeaentaid a petition from t he _el and Corporation of Tiverton iiatnat'ibe Concurrent •fr . • diction Bill. oc l Mr. CURTEIS . presented a petition from Brie against the Friendly Societies' Bill. Mr. BUCK presented a petition from the Cdtpnr aor of Bideford against the Catholic Claims. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented 'several petitions fr ° the'Roman Catholics of Kilkenny and Other places iri ,i land, and from Steephill, in - Gloucestershire, for eor potion, Colonel WOOD presented futir pefitions from Cal" 1 Methodists in Brecon against the Catholic Clainii. ' „i Mr. 11. DUNDAS presented a petition from the l‘i!je and Corporation of Rochester against the Concurten 8 risdiction Bill. . , 4,1 4 terl'''' After a few words from Mr. Dundas and Mr. - o f , and an explanation from Mr. Afoneli;the petition' will dered to be printed. ' Ale' Mr. DICKENSON presented a petition fromill 0 4 house keepers of Yeovil, praying that means be '14 1 1 ), to diminish the number of places at which ader iliter".." - Ordered to lie ou the table. ' l' _ ca w OUthe motion of Mr. P. MACQUEEN, the fi e meat Hiring Bill was read a second time. . , ..• i . • CORN LAWS. • 0 Mr. CHARLES GRANT moved the Order ' Ol OO 4 Day for the further consideration of the . Report inithl' Laws - Amendment Bill: • tlO / The Resolution 'first put. to the Committee was, 0 when the . price of - barley exceeded' 88e.; and Weir ; .. , l ! ll 345., the duty should be 12s. '4d. tr Mr. WODEHOUE observed, that the. - qees4prta, garded wheat had been well and `he hoped. finally OT but he wished' that returns respecting barley shonlC l o4, from the more important Scotch and Irish ports ~...,..1 . -fa therefore;` expressed his int en ti o n o f propoSing ens.ll in fbe Bill for the purpose' f accomplishing l Mr. CHARLES GRANT doubted whether iva . . the H oo' mission as th a t to which the observations, of - - if , Member tend e d,' cou ld a t th a t ti me b e 'regularly ep t h t table& If he understood the Hon. Member rightik,,, proposed reserving to himself to . inove at a .future ,twi, that certain towns in Ireland and Scotland be added. to number of those ,supplying materials for the , averif: o Now, whatever disposition he !night have to enter* 0 views of the Hon. Gentleman, when the subject ,64 01/ 0 come regularly before the House, yet he thought it . 111 44 be the most convenient mode to waive the discussion the present. ' , CoIonerSIBTIIORPE thought sufficient protection a , 'o not afforded to barley, and would therefore . move s , 64i amendment, that when 'the price exceeded 335.; and under 34 . 5., the duty should be 15a. instead of 12s. 4 d' w Mr. FERGUSSON supported the amendment, for likewise was of opinion that the se -ale, as respectedbfri`;' . . . , • _. , ~• ~. • was too low. Mr. FRANKLAND L E WIS PTr4se4:upon • .4';' the Excile'in a . great degree depende f l, ___„, o ol t t o i(m di o m f i t n h is e h li ti c :e it4 sutpic n'es'! Of, b i l e r l le; f ,Tor ing ti n pO thillt n thet l3l ) .1 0 After a few furthefbiniervatiOne from Mr. FetArr , ,_ 0 Mr. ROBINSON hoped no change would be ma de 0 the measure, as'iarOPoeed.by Governme4t,;fqr he th°4;, it wiacaleulatad t,43 promote th e ' rea l 'int eres t s o f ihe r " t o h f lg ra h i t n ni th i a g t . . t h a i s iti;f . v o e a r ts u iv . - r e ll re prot ectel t Ctlitr ir. des C c ißii P rtiP : E s s cul co tur i a o ' n . a ei nd s I m o ' a T O geH n tn ' a f to a in c tß t h u ri ' o r .yE t t ' L o go g hteuii e p l h as; : :: dto . t)l,..eioise. _ chargeds. liel., li:_jidthuotooi; GRANT th ought "t hat each sePa" t` Option of grain-each case. 8120 00r1,0 htest reference to what ought to be .tti - ,i w a d u 4 : ipi that ' yo t i %° h n i , ! O er o ' F i t i n. tt : t c : C , i :t or n'. In l l : v e Ai n : s c ß l f : n s i et ; parate merits ; but were it sotlltrft 'should conceive that, a v ery proper r e l a ti on h a d been` blished ' between 'Wheat, and wheat amid hailey,.:4ege,'il one was fixed at a duty of 125.; with a price of 82s. i,,,,,,,..'n the other,at a price of 625., and a duty of 24... Sd 7 . K ... .. lie certainly thought better than a duty of 20e.. and ,ttFr i of 60s . It was quite erroneous to suppose that a . 41 ~li .; on barley would be the means . of keeping up the Or, from the year 1800 to the year 1816, the ,pricestOt•- 0 0 ceedingly high; though, during a part -. of I tl3,it.tx, duty at all was imposed. The prices then wrAeO tt ,Mo 425., 455., and , even ,as high as 645, ';!thf I.tetag yD, 41s. 10d., and the 'quantity imittwas ?4‘s, ol : miia l r e In 1817, ISIS, and 180,Ali t i t ,tpia71 Wititroducedle in the'firet 133,000, in tlie . "trec r -ond:B9k6ot), and) • , third 372,000. ' ' ',hi ' piicei t 41 . 'e then , 4,7 k • o f k 526'. 3d., 4fial4,..:Ad. He thou t, frona44 e of the markets ititth.years to whim . belied '''all 1 . 14;.. ~,it was ufteiViingessible that any hiiiiiiii ` tei rCrtityl,s7; - tii'the'agi-ICiiitural interest,. 'P nini " ''' • ''''Mr . : E. ItrOVEHOVSt hid riaaiiii, hifO l ig he believed to be correct of the quantity of barley IN into thii plac es o 74 '4 P.O E -- out 1/ " 81 the ' o lo(eti of t h e. , (Rear ' " . a.noeof Would a, had all u , he could mower i With all Goirerni by p aper should b of the 13 eiderabl) bfr. arquiese, Utriats n Mr. rati o es barley, Rutter fri ] old scale don e in roneous The 4 Mr. had bee the circ ferent g Posed, i wheat r Year not The Peart;d—