The Sun. — London, England, 1821-04-17 00:00:00

mess concluded by expressing, his hope, that as a Peer of that Udine, and as a Prince of the Blood,, -warmly attached to the interests of his country, he should be excused for having trespassed so 'long 0,, their Lordships' - attention with reference I° a subject of vital impo r t an c e to the empire.— (iear,.hear !) The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM considered the gUestion to be l not whether the Catholi c nen , Poll Was right or wrong ; but whether that Re, ii g io n - being Such as it was , an y goo d reason cou ld b e sate -v u for excluding its Members from 1 legis lative power in common with their. fellow-sub jects. - lie *observed that th e o pp osers o f thi s I n le asure upon ev er y new occas i on changed their '. Found of o p pos i t i on , an d took refuge behind nee new hedge of intolerance.—(Hear, hear l) 7--It was not long since that a man was legally 'Punishable f or h ear i ng M ass. I t was net until 4 le year 1773 that the Irish Parliament found out that a great number of Catholic subjects were i rea dy to defend their country. A test was then' Proposed for their relief ; but that same Parlia t'leut did not think proper to complete what i Pu blic spirit had begun. They refused to pass a • the Catholic s. 111 11 enabling nit arty-nine lta years ; and in the next Parliament it ,ii.s.pfoend necessary to pass a Bill enabling Ca g9 Iles to hold leases for much longer terms than ~, Years. I n the year 1306, that legislative mea e Passed Ivhich enabled a Catholic to fight his i li ntrY's battles with a prospect of honourable ad .i...'neenent • and yet, althoueh he was allowed to ,B"ed.s blOod.he was denied a share in the legis ;lotion, he was 'allowed to labour in the field, but e Wag excluded from a participation in the hat-- St. St e p b y s t ep , however. had they allow e d 'e Catholics a portion of the privileges of the i• + ° ostitution'; and (lie question was, w h ere , s h ou ld i '* sB € privileges stop as regar d e d t h e C atholics ? c e Would say, th a t th ey s h ou ld stop at the limit o t 1 the Constitution ; a t th e limit. prescribed by 't ri be law ; an d on this head h e d en i e d th a t t h e C atholics were excluded merely on account of thEiz. religion. Referring to the language used upon the conference between both Houses of 1 arliainent, when they discussed the celebrated measure of Conformity, a .conference conducted toq by the ables - Cruel' of the day, he found th a t lio ne were legally_ excluded f rom office but those w hO . had b een gu il ty o f br i bery, extortion, or so t . • . ' do“e other crime k nown t o th e. l aw . S uc h being, a s he contended; ...the principl e o f th e Constitu he he might be asked, were all Catholics to line indis cr i m i nate l y a d mitted, because they had ,°t offend e d aga i nst the law ? Hw He answered cc No, n et 1 ii , they ought not to be 'excluded from any office _ i he fillin g of which by a Catholic would not be m, engerous to the State." He repeated that they vilad never been excluded as Catholics, but for' e.'; rl ain specific reasons said to endanger the ~. _. li ,`. 4 te• I t remained, therefore, for those who e 'shed the exclusion to be continued, to shew the i stence of the same danger upon which the [ th e had be e n or i g i na ll y founded-. From , e 4 efortnatien down Wards it would clearly ap peal. that he was correct in asserting that they It N, , for never excluded as Catholics. Who was it„ l (I - t tistance that Elizabeth, in a moment of great. , -,a,,, .' iNi a °,r) appointed her Lord Warden of the 11 . 4 ,,, tc ,Ne5?-----LoPd Clifford, a Catholic.--,(Hear, O ff i' •)---Who was it she appoint e d h er pr i nc i pa l d z o ce .r to resist the S2anish, the Catholic Arma (ii:"Lord }lnward, of Effingham, a Catholic. t o a .r,) hear!) Nay, who was it- she appointed 44 fi ' -. 1 • it • 110, • ."° ICe s o net], that is thought too ' ve f I ' • -• -i , r u : to entrust it to a subject, and which Ili' ° w in commission, the office of Lord (4'll Adenira.l? That same Lord Howard (il i ;11Ingliatti, L- (Cheers.) . — In the ti me o f frp t :les the Second the Catholics were excluded 1'4 4 ,, Power in . consNpence of the discovery of tkt„; l o ateS' s p l o t, t h oug h t hi s exclusion did not irN ti to Ireland ;- but it was argued th a t if th e „ . .4''t llieasu re s h ou ld p ass , th e C at h o li c would .Ik t into the Constitution and sap, its vitals. t he ''et. l in th . tirne of Charles the Second, when q . tiNi . g -was : - in his-heart. a Catholic, when,th e to ta i - ' 4 'as a Catholic, and when the Successor 11,4 e throne was avowedly a Catholic, they the 'c', l } {) t able toe-pa:event their exclusion. Was ze al c ) uttli of England .weaker now ? Was its 'Peak °°ler, or.wer.e the Powers of its. defenders t he (; l and e James . 11. attempted to establish l irNolic religion without the sanction of Par- Oi ost rl , tl. and with, respect to the.-penal laws, the 1 4 ' , sev ere of them' were not passed until after Ily irce of Ityswic. By the Treaty of Kilken -4gi4llwas declared that no oath but the oath of al -111(tv „ g ,e should be tendered to Irishmen, and that '.4l.iic'.r.iutild have-a free -Parliament, composed of lt, k 'lles as well as Protestants. He considered t:ath o ' l l;) that d own to the Revolution at least, the Ipsi t , ei ' e s were n o t. exc l u d e d upon constitutional tt 'ry o res . . Having looked at the constitutional his -14/4 theexcludinglaws, be came tothe Oath of t l4 k eill aCY ; and he: begged to ask how. was it werill_bY, ourselv.es? Originally in Scotland, twig sills and-others refused to take it with- In4lt'' explanation of its terms. The Govern or _ sa id---" W e will give you no explanation ; 111,11nanst take the oath, but you may make any 4ceo`r...:t. reservation you please." The oath was N o g i .'ngly taken . ; and at the present day a cer- N tt rrln was observed upon dissolving the trlitt -Assembly so that it should not be ati lt b e d that the Ki . 0. was head of the Church.-- Il e tll,7l!,,been arg9ed, however, by the opposers of bp ii, that a Ca th olic .was not to be believed oo 1..,, Th nib . oath at all -14 4 , e tilshop of LONOON begged to explain. 14 () b" a , (l . never asserted that a Catholic was not to Ndeelif!yed upon_ his oath. Ile had only Con tli ,o tbat when a Catholic took such an oath as t4ik).,:tlt of Sepremacy, he necessarily- retained Ile ti ,` , ~ that nothin g itr that oath should conflict the V o l A i l is duty to his own. church. the44everaeir: of BUCKINGHAM resumed..—He thanked' Illi 'bY th e R prelate. for Ins explanation. It was contended ~_ p d a ➢ ~1,.. everted Prelate, that the oath - necessarily im: 14ee:til. the °v b But st.irely'the Reverend Prelate could not have I,tp.x2a_tlut•e'-e,pwonhit(ltthe e i n zi t th ife o ir t ea o r fi l7.93 had been imposed kt, the thrttiz t.;) his exereki, h Ireland, to be taken, drpcpured, t, e elective franchise. It was an oath roe-Uf;'-' ' NI b V . Par i li a., mild if Parliament did not believe th ka,Q-.0e.14 b,, i t , 4,1 e Alto. ' neueved, the... dinctin, , t • e ei , 4 . 1 , t _ I loess read tare o a ti • - ' , 1 w” a mockery. Tact ) ' l ' 0 1 " ''''-' declares a ' 1 in-iposed by toe'A e.t . a l ;;;43,wineh cail t ,,, .4t me re fi r , . :at the pers9n. taking it : abjured the rin 12 - - I ".#l6, i 'fr rnige t be cO MMitted •up , 6 , -.,••• no f one "zqt ' the -- , , th n t no.a t , i n i r i • • ' ":1 -i-T-0...- --. ,i i _gro und of 0 ,.. „. „ .. r 1 vncked coul be 'Justlfittl 'Ye th e p o ,, e ;_ ; ' - "": . --c to any Church ; that he eil t 01 be mfallible; that he believed no sin could be committed at the mere will of any rum ; afuLthati forgiveness could not b 3 Obtained Nit by repentance and atone ment ; that he would to his utmost defend the lawful posses_ Sion of property within the kingdom ; and that he disclaimed any intention or desire to subvert the present Dtablishment. The Legislature had denied, and the Priests had allowed the Catholics to take this oat:: ; and the Parliament could not pcs sibly say the Catholic was not to be believed after having pre pared an oath as a test of his credit. Having said thus much tmon the principle of the Bill, which he trusted would be adopted by thei: Lordships, he should say but little as to the securities. If their Lordships thought those securities insufficient, they might add others; but, fbr his own part, 'he thought none at all were necessary. He appealed to their Lordships' justice, to their feelings; lie would ask, was there any one of them who could lay his hand upon his heart and say he believed this measure would not ultimately pass ? It - came recounend&lby'one'of the branches of the .Legislature ; and if it must pass, sooner or later, where was the utility of putting it off? Were we in such a state of perfect tranquillity as to afford the loss of the present opportunity to conciliate He thought the justice and the policy of the measure so clear, that he should not trouble their Lordships any further, except to express his hearty con currence in the present Bill. The Bishop of CIIESTE:i said that he had long and anxiously considered this subject, and that as a Protestant and as a• Bishop he felt himself bound to oppose the second reading of this bill, and any measure that should give further eman cipation to the Roman Catholic subjects of this realm. But it was not the result of his consider ations, but the reasons that their Lordships were to regard, and his reasons he would therefore state. In the first place the Roman Catholics were already in possession of c om pl e t e re li g i ous toleration. Religion was a matter between God and a man's own conscience. 'But if any par ticular religiotis establishment set forth 'claims which, enctiCathed on the rights and liberties of other professors of the same religion; that was a good reason why they should be re strained ftom enforcing such aggressive He did not object to the principles or conduct of any individual Roman Catholic, but be objected to the religion itself: he objected not to the but to the power of the Roman Catholics 'to meet Protestants on equal terms of charity. It was a doctrine of the Church of Rome that there was no salvation beyond the pale of that church. If the :members- of the church did not believe this, what was the meaning of holding such a doctrine as a brutent fulmen In• the next place, the Roman Catholics considered the, Pope as the Head of • their Church ; but we Protestants, cif the Church of England, regarded the King a s the Head of our Church. According to the laws established.at the glorious Revolution, the King, every Peer on taking his seat, and every Member of Parliament was required • to take an oath to support the Church and State. The present Bill was irreconcileable with the ConstitutiOit and with the oath which Members - of Parliament took. The Protestant. swore that the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction within this realm ; the - Roman Catholic swore that he had. 'This was . .. an anomaly which. he could not agree to. Every oath and subscription would be altered by the present Bill. The Pro testant Religion was the foundation of the British Constitution. But if the Bill should be passed, they had no reason to believe that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would be satisfied with it. In the reign of the late reveled Mo narch, in the year 1793, concessions to the great est extent had been made ; but the demand had grown with that which it fed 'upon. He felt it a duty to himself and to their Lordships to state that he .had. understood that Jesuits had come from Liege to Stonyhurst. If this Bill should pass, what would prevent a of Jesuits from being established in this town ? Exiles from every quarter would finda home on the British shores ! But what weighed with ,him more than any other consideration was, that Roman Catholicism had al ways been the parent and nurse of arbitrary power, while Protestantism had always been the parent of liberty. In France,Spain,Portugal, and other conn tries wheretheßomanCatholic religion had prevail= ed,despotism had been maintained:ln Switzerland, Holland, and other Protestant countries, liberty and Protestantism had gone hand in hand.- The love .of liberty, civil and. religious, had been tlfe first sentiment which he had imbibed, and it would be the . last which he would abandon. They owed it to the, memory of the great men who had gone before them for the last 200. years, to resist this innovation. His wish and prayer was, that the vote of their Lordships would pre ' vent the return of the agitation of this.question ; he anxiously hoped that - their Lordships would not sanction any thing that could by possibility endanger by- its consequence - the Protestant reli gion as established in this country.—(Hear !) • The Bishop of NORIViCIi 'said; that he -had never acted in that' House as a party man. He conceived that a Bishop ought not to act in that House but where religious matters were involved. He had' frequently before advocated the.ques tion-then-under discussion, and humanly speak ing, that would be the last time that he should ever have an opportunity of addressing their Lordships upon it.—(Hear, hear !) - -He would then ask, what was the Chutch which it was proposed to secure by these securities ? Would any Noble, Lord, or Right Reverend Prelate venture to say, that it was that Church of which he was the legislator and head, who had de clared that his kingdom was not' of this world. (Hear, hear !)—That was' not a kingdom -- which admitted of any harsh, severe, or 'uncharitable opinions upon others. If there were no other pas sage in the Bible te shew this,that•passage was suf ficient where Jesus reprimanded hiS . disciples, who had falsely imagined that their religion was to be promoted - by art immediate judgment frOM heaven—by telling theM that they knew' -not what manner of religion they. were 'of.—(Hear, hear !)—:lf the Church could not be maintained without imposing restraints, and disabilities on milliOn-s of our fellOw`subjects, 'it was a. 'c!rcum•- stance which might Well alfOrdgtound of Suspi cion- as to the soundoess of the establiShMent.— He for one did not, believe that the Established Church required such assistance. - None could be more anxious to support the Establishment than himself; but the most Christian means of sup porting it were not by maintaining harSh and in tolerant legislative enactments, but by exercising that- Christiani kindness, and eandout; and for.. bearani.se, which were best calculated to render. its doctrineseffictuar.' .• Lord REDESD A Lt , Lo r d HAtta - os' rt vvonci three Bishops, rose at the same moment, but the LORD CHANctta.ort 'declared that he had hid terd REDESDALE in his eye four hours ago. Lord REDEspAce professed great - respect for the body of Catholic peers ; but a3r it had been repeatedly shown that in cases like the present the tail governed the head, it was not at all cer tain that those - peerS ,spoke or . could control the I sentiments of the . lower' and More mitnerons order of the Roman Catholics. He. maintained that ' there was no satisfactory security for the esta blished Church but the exclusion of the Ca. - tho-- lics, and argued that this was an attempt by a sidewirid to get rid of laws, the _repeal of which they dared not to .propose. Such were the Ist and 2d of Elizabeth, directly in opposition to this measure, which actually :gave a jurisdiction to the Pope. A royal family had been excluded because it professed the Catholic reli g ion ; and why .were otheurprofessors of th a t faith . to be treated with greater favour ? In 1793 the right of voting was 'conceded ; but if that suffrage had never been granted, the present Bill would never have foundits way into this House : few used the lan-. guage of emancipation but those members that were returned . by Catholics. His Lordship further in- . sisted that the present measure would increase irritation; that if passed it would only lead to further demands and further encroachments ; that the laity had a strong interest to attack the emo luments of the establishment Co free themselves from the payment of fees to their priests; and that, as it would dissolve the alliance between Church and State, religion would be.destroyed, and the .national'morals undermined. r He con cluded by warning the House not to pass a Bill that soon would make Catholicism the established faith of Ireland, where already' a hierarchy ex isted anxious to seize upon the Archbishoprics, the Bishoprics, Deaneries, and other Protestant ecclesiastical preferments. - Earl HArtitowny- felt more surprised by' the tone of many of the Noble Lords who had preced ed him than by their arguinents .; in the Whole course of which they contended that the Esta blished Church of this country was to be brought into danger by the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics. Not yielding even to any of the Noble and Reverend Bench in attachment to the Established Church, or zeal for its preserva tion, yet _he • could see no danger that could possibly arise from the . Bill then before the House. Could he be persuaded that any risqtie might be incurred—that the security of the State could be compromiSed ;—could it be made evi dent that any of those consequences so ap prehended must arise froth the passing of the Bill into a law, so far from supporting it, he would not only vote with th e N o bl e an d Learn ed L or d for postponing it six months, but for its utter and irrevocable rejection. But, instead of danger, he contended safety to Church and State would grow out of the measure. Amongst the Many objects sure to 'be attained by the Bill, it was not an unimportant one that all bad feelings would be thereby terminated and removed. The principle of the Bill he apprehended to be,. to grant . to the Roman Catholics every thing that could .be granted consistent with the security .of the Church and State, and he Would maintain, that not one of their Lordships should vote agahist the 13111, 'who not prepared to_prove that nothing ought to be conceded by establishing the existence of danger from concession. Much had been said of the intolerant tenets of the. Roman Catholic Church and Prelates; and the - doct r i ne o f exclusive salvation. Were they Roman Catholics only who maintain ed that doctrine ?- 7 --(Hear, heat, hear !) Could the . Protestant--the PresbyterianChnith deny having- pr o f esse d s imil ar doctrines ? tests had been entered into by the latter against what they called damnable doctrines—and these were the'tenets of , Presbyterianism. Up-to the period-of the Union'of Scotland to England they remained unchanged. During the -discussion of the Union a solemn representation was made. by the Church of Scotland against that article which provided 'for the security of the Church of Eng land on account of the guilt that would . thence be incurred. There were'then in - Parliament 16 Peers and'4sTomfnoners Pr,esbyterians, an d' an English Eccl es i ast i ca l Peer declared that were he to live to see that Union carried, he should have outlived all the laws, and - nearly the- Constitution of the country.. The Act .. .of Union did' p ass i n t o a law . . Both Houses of Parliament-every place in: England were thrown open to the Presbyterians, and more was done, subsequently, . for promoting the interests of the Established: Church than had been done before.--(Hear !)—Were the Bill now before the House to pass, not more than six or. seven Roman Catholics would be eligible to seats in that House ; and having thought it: his dafy to inquire, he had-ascertained from . the beat autho rity that there did not exist the lutist remote pro bability.of more than .14 or 15 Members of Roman Catholic Religion being . returned'to the HOuSe of Con - Ifni:ins—land what dariker Was to be . apprehended from that trifling nuinhe - r 16 that containing, as it 'did, six' hundred and fifty-eight Members? Besides,, the Protestant Members would be alwaYs . mtich more under the controul of their:constituents than the . Roman'Ca. thanes. He knew that . the COnstitutiOn would remain exeltisiVely Protestant, and that it could not be - affected by anyineasuie of this kind. This mea sure came' before them recommended by the other House of Parliarrient, arid therefore was entitled to all their attention. There could 'be no objec tionin point of time.- In addition to the subject of granting privileges to the 'Roman Catholics, waS,connected anothesubject, the Bill for abo lishing-theStatuteS againSt Witchcraft in Ireland, which formerly_ was considered as a great crime. Parliament ,then had done one.thing; :.t had re pealed all the puniShments for imaginary. crimes, but it had not yet repealed the puniShments -for the imaginary crime of Popery:: It was not now a .question, whether a large bodsy of our . • 'fellow . subjects- could b e p u t down ; but whether any danger was likely to arise . from' the passing of this Bill ,•'- was convinced- that it . was in consistettt with ,every principle . of state •-policy and necessity. As to thesothee house of Paylia 7 ineilt, it - had, after a long fliscussion, sent . np this. Bill ; and was it At' that heir LordihiPs should have this measure brought before there year. • after year ? 'therefore they should contider... A liether. it would not be _proper to give it the fullest dis cussion at this -moment/. He .hoped That they would not letermine-on giving a.haSty .tote against • 'this treasure ; and that • they would allow it to, have the fullest possible consideration. • Several Peers arose at the same =3l - neat to speak, but - • • • The Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested the pro priety of acting so as to afford every individual in the House an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on this important subject. Whatever might be their opinion; it liras particularly desira ble that the subject should go before the public, having had the fullest discussion ; he should therefore move—" That the House do then Ad journ."—The' House accordingly adjourned at ONr O'CLOCK. . . . • . _ • . Of the Audit Office, and whethc any appointm:nt t ins i 1261 had been made, or was in contertplation•P •• " .'• - • The ()fIANCELLOR of the I.;XCHEOTIIiR the Gentleman allutled to. by the lion. Member h a d rezigo,od his situation. Fi e was not alVaze or any app ointment havini: 'een made,. • • • • ' FOREIGN TIMBER DUTIES' Mr. WALLACE Moved. the, Order of the Day foi- the COMmitment of the Foreign - Titnber . Du ties' Bill. . • . Mr.'cr. P. Crt:is.s l ,7t said, that it was 'inten , tion to move as an Amendment that-the 4tiostisact should again be :referred' to a Coannittee. Ths, Hon. Member - proceeded to argue that the duties conterriplated by the Bill 'went to impose' a tax . of 600,000/. - upon the cOtintry._ He contended that the priticiple Of free trade ought to be acted. upon in this trade. Independent of the .protec-, tion given to Canad a ,• th e p r esent B i ll rend e red tis tribtitary to Thassias for 160,600/. a year, for no other reason than because we would not have the deals of Norway. He would .ask the Jtight Hon. Gentleman (the Charicellor of the . Excher quer) if he refused to give up a tax like the Malt Tax, pres Sing .with the greatest severity upon the country, because the revenue must be kept up, how i he could feel _himself in a condition tOalloyr a drawback to Russia of one hundred andsixtr thousand pounds, and to the Colonies . of 450,000/. a year? The 1-i l o,n_ Member es:pressed his surprise at the RepOrt- - .which the Coni r mittee had made. He thought their detertnina,s , tion must have been made under - the exi.stanco of some - miraculous mistake ; for they bestowefi industry enough in examining the question, and the principles_-upon .Whicli they ought to hest acted .were perfectly clear a n d intelligible. ,Aak.l that was said in vindication of the principles l of the Bill with. respect to Canada was, that if ; this protecting citifies were no( afforded, machinery . . .to the value of 150,0001. would be destroyed.o.'...tf any losses of this kind would ensue, in, Goal's name grant•compensation. The loss of one (patr ter under the proposed duties would cover suck compensation, an d th a t objection would be goA rid of.' His object was to.. refer the sublet . again to the Committee, and the rate of duties.and the plan he should then recommend was.thio3 lie should propose that 21. 15s. should be duty upon Baltic Timber. All deals, accoriiing to their cubical contents; should be subject to the_ charge of V. 15s. Upon American timber he should propose ,15s. for the first year,. and 5..5, more for the second, and ten for the third year.; which would be equal to the difference in freight. The Hon. Member conclUded by moving, as .an amendment, " That this House do resolve itself into a Co mm itt ee o f t h e whole House,to consider further of the duties upon Foreign Tirnber.”r- Mr. WALLACE could not agree to the *Hon, Member's prOposition ; but he- was not sorry ,that it had been made, because it would give hitikau opportunity of entering into the general prinCiPlel upon which he had acted. When he had. brought the measure before the House, he expected oppp : ., sition from some merchants who were interested' in the.question which it embraced; but„he, did not expect that opposition which had come , from another quarter, which told him .that fOr-, got that he was legislating forEngland,' He was Or, prised to have heard also, that the House had only to look to the interests of the consumer. He Hail,' whether right or wrong, all along felt that they were bound to think of. the 'More .ektended con-, nexions and, relations of.tlie trade. He odn - liti s eit that the principle. of free trade, reconimended the report, was correct in the abstract as appliCahle to the regulation of this trade ; : but he did net ; • consider that it ought to be acted. On to.its full extent uncle' existing circumstances. 110 - (leniel; that the loss to this country would .amaant4o 450,0001. The Honourable. Gentleman. opposite. had appeared to ftirget the . advantage'nrislN from comp e titi on . If thi s w e re pro p erly taken into consideration', it would be found that•in stead.of losing 450,0001., this country wourcl a .,b4 the gainer by the present measure.. The Right Honourable Member then made a comparative - statement of the duties and prices. ,of and of 1820; thereby showing that the, en couragement of competition had brought increase of 500,0001. to the,.revenue,.. aod:,,to the pockets 'of the consumer.. ,The. effect 'of .. giving. protection to the Colonies was to, create competition, and, to . create. conipetitioa. was to bring. the . article at the. lowest rate-..cif • charge to the consumer. lie disapproved, of -pro, tections generally, but this was a case. i in which they •were bound' to. grant them, both With gard to the intereatsof, the grower and l the,-sell,er,_. as well as the consumer. Ills objection to taking. the duties upon. the cubical contents Was, that it would go . to the complete, exClusion. of c e country from all paiticipatiOn in .the..deal trade • while it gave to the other its entire motin poly. By "a c c e din g ' . to the plan . now pro posed .by the Honourable Gentleman, they:should be giving that monopoly to 'Norway, The, Hon Gentlemen lookedlo the- immediate eap.e.nce at which the article would be a purchased by the oat,: sumer ; while he (Mr. W.)looked at the effei-4 to be produced u p on our general cOnimercia,l . lotions with the countries:which. Produced According to . the lion. Gentleman's . propositiou_ . With respect to A mer i c a n timber, he . only a. 11 4 . 4 10: thirty shillings in its favo.ar ; • but if .ho woul4. look to the evid en c e o f the Committee, tie woul d' find that almost a ll w h o we're examined before-it, stated, that that Sum was.toodittle Ito afirml.pro a tection. Under all the circumstances of the case s he . was sure the House .w.9144 : ,n0t agree to tard the, progress of ,the measure .it.had so _f ats adopted, by accedin g to the, propesitiotafor , ing the sqbject. back for the reconsideration of the Committee. : . . Mr..W. SMITH thought . that the details of subject should be settled in a Committee, up,- stairs, before it.. was brought; forward in ,that_ lionse for discussion. He. Nv.i t slied,, however, : to make a few observations -upog thogeneral . prn.:. • Holes involved in the 'consideration of this caae:,, 'Tae ;Hon. Member; then ,proce e d e d, t o .discuss; • some general points connected avith.the-subjea . and concluded by giving his support to the mo.c tion of his Hon: Friend (IVir r qrant).. ...- Mr. MARRYATT said-, that there,appeare.d . ,to . be:" a misunderstanding with some Hon, Gcntli.men,,l7 the who did not app ear t o k now differenae be tween Duties and Drawba c k s; th e f ormer was 4 paid to the Revenue, and the latter was allowed HOUSE OF COMMONS. - - - - - - A new Writ was ordered to be issued for the Election of a Burg:ss to serve in-Parliament for the Borough of Orford, in the room of J. Douglas, Esq. who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. - Mr. SMYTH brought .up the Report of the Callington Election Committ ee , c o n fi rming the decision of a former Com.: mitte, which stated that the right of election was vested in the borougb.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. W. DUNDAS presented Petitions from certain Mer chants of Edinburgh, and .the Chamber of Commerce of that town,. complaining of an Act of. last Seision regulating the • commercial intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland, as affecting their interests, and praying for the revision of some clauses in the said Act.—Ordered to lie on the table. • I Mr. D. GILBERT brought up the Report of the London Institution Bill, and the several amendments were then agreed to. Mr..S. C. WHITBREAD _presented a Petition from, the Freeholders of Middlesex, praying for Parliamentary Reform. on the table. . . " USURY LAWS. • Mr. Scrjeant ONSLOW brought in his Bill for repealing the Usury Laws. Mr. DAVENPORT expressed his intention of opposing the Bill. After a few words from Sir R. HERON, Mr. Serjeant ON ' SLOW, and Mr. BARING, the Bill was read a first time, 'and ordered for a second reading on the 14th of May. General HART. presented a petition from certain inhabi tants of the county of Donegal, praying for the licensing of small stills, as being the only means of providing a market for their corn, and relieving the distress under which they labour ed.—The petition was ordered to be printed.. • Mr. M. A. TAYLOR gave notice of a motion for Wednes day, the 30th of May, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Laws in the High Court of Chance!) , in Eng land, and also the regulations of the .proceedings in cases of Appeal. Mr. T. WILSON moved for a return of all Importations of Hides and other Piodike from Russia within the last year.— Ordered. Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from the Merchants and others of the town of Hull, praying for a repeal of the Wool Tax. He would not go into the question at present, as the ap proaching , motion of a Noble Friend of his for repealing the Tax would give him a more fit opportunity for doing so. He considered the Tax to be injurious to all parties. REFORM. Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Belfast, praying for reform in general of the House of Com mons. The Noble Lord who represented that borough, hav ing been returned by the Corporation consisting of twelve per sons, could not be expected to support the petition of the 40,000 inhabitants of that town. He agreed with the petition ers that a reforM was necessary for the preservation of the King dom and Constitution. Ireland in particular had suffered much. He, as well as many Englishmen, felt for her suffer ings. Ireland had long been misruled, but—(Some confusion in the House)—he augured but little from the Motion which he. had to bring forward to-morrow, when he saw that the petitions of the people received but little attention from the House. He thought that the Speaker ought tp declare to the House the im propriety of paying but little respect to the petitions. That pe tition was signed by many respectable individuals, and merited particular attention. . Mr. CHICHESTER had not heard of the 'petition until do days ago. He understood that the petition had been agreed to in a Methodist Chapel inn the suburbs of that town, at a time when there had been a Meeting assembled to present an a ddress to - the (Peen.' therefore thought that the respectable part of. the community at Belfast bad not signed it. One of them had on that morning 'told him that the respectable part of the town had not been present at the meeting. Mr..LAMBTOS denied that the petition was therefore un worthy.of attention, and he referred to a Belfast news_pdper for a statement of the proceedings. It had been convened by a re quisition;- signed by 100 merchants and inhabitants of that town, as respectable perhaps as the friends of the Hon. Member„ the Corporation, who returned the Member without - consulting the wishes of any other persons. • Mr. CHICHESTER eltplaitied. The great indiViduals or leading characters of the town had not been present. He dis claimed- having cast any imputation on the petitioners. The petition was then read and ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed: . •• • Mr. CALCRAFT in the absence' Of his lion. Friend Sir .1. NeWport,. - postponed the motion relative to the proceedings of the Cnmnritsionars. i m uiry into the English Courts o f J us tice, from to-morrow t o tie 9th of May. . CANADA TRADE. Mr. - ELLICE .presented a Petition from the merchants of London trading. toCariada, complaining of the duties about to be aicl - ail the, timber 'imported into this country. .1f sanctioned by the House those.therchabts would 'not be able to receive any return from that country, as the ti m b er an d corn o f C ana d a. Could not then be itopOrted .into England. The corn of that country, which was allowed by the regulations of 1815 to be imported at 67 shillings, was, thro' the lowness of that article, ritnv rotting in, the:Warehouses of thiS country. They therefore wished to have that corn ,imported without restriction. The ex lorta - of 'Great Rritain to, Canada h a d amounte d l ast year to 800;000f.e'hut,if those dutiet were imposed, the imports of deals and timber which hacllast year been to the amount of 400 ; 0001. would not be one half as much next year. The corn of Canada could not be imported without 30s. addition. on the growing , price ; the petitioners thereforeprayed that the corn snould be imported without restrictions. He therefore moved that the, petition shOuld be referral to the Committee on the Agriculture of thiS country. • . . . Sir I. COFFIN said that Canada cost this country. annually the sum of .E 500,000. It was better. sunk to the bottom of the sea, than that England shmild - have the, trouble of paying .42500,000 for the preservation, of a colony which brought no pro fit to the kingdom.. Lord MILTON expressed his'dissatiSfaction at the absencea 'of Ministers from the Ileum at 'Six. o'clock. He wished to know when the agrieultinistS of the conntry could expect a Report from the .Committee sitting up . stairs. ,He understood: that the ,Conunittee sus investhWinif various matters ; he there fore thought that 'a separate Report ,on each of those subjects would be useful. The country ought tobe informed the real .diffieulties, although no remedy could be proposed. He was of opinion that a most anorhalOus proceeding had been adopted, in refe.rring the agricultural petition from Scotland to a separate Committee; but it. was -perhaps done to • induce the Scotch Members Members to Vote f or Ministers. • Mr. GOOCH said, that as Chairman of the Agricultural Cortimittee,.he could not at present say, as the Committee had come to no decision, at what time.their report-could be matle•- It was his belief, however, that it might be soon after the Easter Holidays. ' • Airr. MARRYATT.hoped the prayer of the petitioners would be attended to. • It was a fact that corn the produce of.canada had been totally excluded from every GOVernMent Contract.— At a time when every one was calling aloud for a free trade,. surely seine protectioti otighi to be afforded to ihe petitimers. Mr. G. BENNErr spoke against the prayer of the Petition. He called upon country Gel:Amen not to be so besotted•and stupid as to be led by the nose by *a set of merchants Who came down to that House with. these PetitiOns, and endeavoured to persuade it toinapose a tax m 447400,000 Upon the country.' • MARRY.ATT disclaimed having ,any interest in the timber trade of Canada.. , • Mr. ELLICE, after the Petition - was read, meived- that-it be referred to the Agricultural Corrinalttee. . . Sir' E. I(NATCHllumAt,,gi;eked that the . Petition might delay the Committee to the great inconvenience of the parties, whose interests were under its consideration. After a few wordg. r. froM,M E./lee, the Petiticrn woes referred to the Committee. • . . Mr, • Serjeant 0 - I‘7sloW moved the second reading of. tie At6rney and BOlitittirs' admntsiort Bill.. The Bill was read : a second: time, and ordertd.to b.. cotr.mitted on the 4th of. Nay.. • .The RegnlationS Acceptarges •of Bxc4quer Bill was read a, s'econd. time, 'ard ordered to be committed on the 4th of May. . . . • • •- •-• 'AUDIT twrict. • . Sir THOMAS BARING Wished to issk theilight,Hon.' Gentleman (the Chancellor of the. .Exchequer), whether Mr. S%.rjeant Pratd was about to retire from .:as situation as head