The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-10 00:00:00

wild poultry. Tbrowingepso
allim dot via earatia. ffla
pat miss I lied ma of a aumber Of
Lass. thersiadl Imo ea balsas so
dim Solimarar
bad am die sawn Is w Weir
sere as a aulaihrom for h.
advocated dal me ma. wadi
..7aintrat cahasidace

, Imessmilled in a smutty when there
Ord be email hear witness that no
lapin it could be made.
=2.6.114 were salted to the then
-Ist whit of the Hebei of the country
het now, when the immetwe
class who could parelimme any
1 ; and be abonhi vete fee the

measure was not, as had been
clamour, for he begged leave to
other evening presented ri pe_
was signed by most of the proprietors
revision of these flame Laws might
cotaidered as a most fertile source
the country gentlemen to say, 1
this alteration of the Game
them to reside on their estates.
the higher duties they were
think that the passing of this
;ame ; but even if it did he could
consider woithy sacrifice to diminish the load of
crime which the present laws occasioned. It had been asserted
that deer were still stolen, but he was justified in asserting that they
were not stolen generally for sale, but when at all by very poor
persons, who were reduced to the most absolute state of want. He
should vote for the Bill.
- The Xarl of IMIINLEY explifir.ed.
The House then divided, when their appeared—
For the Amendment - . 38
Against it - 23
Majority . --18

The Bill was iiinsequently thrown ote.
The House adjourned at Nine o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1110etaar, Mass 1
IRISH FREEHOLDERS.
Mr. Johnson, from the Ofßee of the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
brought up an account of the number of forty shilling freeboldas
at present registered in Ireland.
LIVERPOOL DOCK BILL.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from certain Magistrates
of Lancashire, praying to be heard by themselves, counsel, or
agents, against some parts of the said Bill. The Noble Lord also
presented a similar petition from certain owners and occupiers of
I}r.d in the parish of Walton, near Liverpool.—Referred to the
Ckeemittee upon the Bill.
PORTABLE GAS.
On the motion of Alderman WOOD, the Portable Gas Bill
Was read a second time.
BRITISH GAS CO3IPANY.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from the Brighton Gas
Go:nosey, against the incorporation of the British Gas Company.
Laid on the table.
CANTERBURY RAILROAD.
The Whitstable and Canterbury Rail-road Bill was read a third
tifne and passed.
BIRMINGHAM GAS BILL.
The Birmingham Gas Bill was real a third time and passed.
BRISTOL TOWN DUES.
• Mr. 11. DAVIS presented a petition from 621 merchants, mann-
facturers, anti ship-owners of the City of Bristol, against the Bill
slow before Mr House, for regulating and modifying the Town
Dues of Bristol.—Referred to the Committee upon the Bill.
MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL RAIL-ROAD.
General GASt.'OYNE presented a petition from the manufac-
turers of Manchester, in favour of the Liverpool and Manchester
Hail-road Bill.—Laid on the table.
COMBINATION LAWS.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented 'petition from the seamen of the
Part of London, praying that certain persona of that body be exa-
mined before the Committee upon the Combination Lawc—Re-
terred to the Committ.e.
31r.HORHOUSE presented a similarpetition from the operative
starers of the City of Westminster.
Mr. T. WILSON presented a petition from the woolataplers of
London, praying that no alteration be wade in the Combination
Laws.—Laid on the table.
Alderman TfIOMPSON presented apetition from certain ship-
wrights and sawyers of the River Thames, complaining that they
were subjected to serious vexation and annoyance from their refusal
to join the Union of their respective trades.— Referred to the Com-
mittee.

ROBERT COUR LAY.
Sit R. FERGUSON presented a petition from some persons in
Fife. praying an vicinity into the case of Robert tiourlay.—Ordered
to be printed.
Sir J. ASTI,EIf, and Mr. J. BENE TT, presented similar pe-
titiaua parishes in Wiltshire.—Laid on the table.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

SIT. M. . RIDLLI presented a petition from the inhabitants
pt Newcastle-upon-'fyne, in favour of the Cruelty to Animals' Bill.
ihdsred to be minted.

JURINS' CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the ritiOn of Mr. DA %VSON, the further consideration of
the Jurles Bill was postponed till Friday neat.
BUTTER LAWS.
Sir A. CHICHESTER presented • petition from the Chamber
ol Commerce of Belfast, praying that no alteration may be made in '
present Butter Laws, Wilier than may be necessary to compel
u mare strict performance of the duty of an inspector —Laid on the
table.
ROMA N CATHOLICS.
M. D. S. IHYGDA IX presented a petition from the Vicar,
Ai:nester. and Churchwardens of the pariah of Aston, near Bir-
mingham, paying that no further concessions be made to the Ro-
man Catholics.
Mr. BERRIES presented a similar petition from the Inhabi-
tai:ts of Ilarwich.—Lsid on the table.
OPPRESSION IN TAKING TITHES.
Sic J. NEWPORT precentod a petition from certain persons of
Killmoon, in the county of Cork. complaining of the oppressive
torduct or a tithe proctor. The Right lion. Baronet stated several
instances of cruelty and extortion, which seemed to make an inv.
ptession upon the Douse, but from the noise both in and under the
Gallery we were unable to hear them correctly.
After a few words from Mr..l. Sot t Tit and Mr. J. BENITT,

Mr. A. BARING hoped the Right lion. Secretary for Irel;nd
4.Mr. Gou!burn) would examine into the truth of the allegations
contained in the petition, and suggest some remedy for what he
considered a very serious evil. Nothing, lie thought, could be more
dry than to introduce prone measure like that contained in the
County Courts Rill, which had been introduced by a Noble Lord
on his (Mr. Daring's) side of the House (Lord Althorp). At all
events, he was sure that the Right lion. Secretary's time could not
be better employed than in endeavouring to remedy the grievances
detailed by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that the present Orverr.ment of Ireland
wore exempt front any imputation of neglecting their ditty upon
she ftrbject connected with the pmitinn ; for the 'loose must re.
collect that a measure, avowedly introduced to do away with the
very evils complained of, had been introduced by that Ooverntnent.,
and although disapproved of at the time by a great many gentle.-
men interested in Irish affairs, lie (Mr. Goulburn) had the plea.
64.1te to say, that it was now in active nperetion, and likely to
remove all grounds of complaint upon the subject of collecting
tithes.
Dr. PII I,LIMORE, in answer to Mr. flaring'e observation on
the subject of the County Courts Bill, said there was now in Ire-
land a speedy method of recovering small debts under 101. very
much resembling that sought to he introduced by the Noble Lord
(teed Althorn) Into England.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a similar petition from certain
;tremens in the Queen. Count v.—Lead on the table.
COIIN LAWS.
Sir A. HOPE presented a petition from the Noblemen, Com-
mi,,ionera. and Landowners of Linlithgow, praying that there n:ay
be no alteration of the Corn Laws.—Ordered to be printed.
A similar petition was presented front BotifF.--Laid on the table.
.11r. G. LAMB presented a petition from the Inhabitants
of
3111 ton, in Derbyshire, aga,itst the present Corn Laws.—Laid on
the table.

ROBERT G.I.I.THOIIN BUTT.
Mr. .1011 N IV I LLIA presented a petition from R. O. Hutt.
compleic.ing of his lengthew.4l inirrieunniunt in the King's Bench,
and praying the House to take his case into consitteration.—Or-
skied to be printed. •
COI NTE COURTS BILL.
F. M. 01131 A NNUiI presented a petition from Andrew
Kdge. of Essex-street. praying compensation fur losses under the
operation of the Quiet), Courts Bill—Laid oo the table.
1f) lAN
SCARLETI' presented a petition from the Barristers. and
honor's connecipd , with the profession of die law in Newcastle-
ltinsti-Tytie. praying that Rottim Catholics be relittiTS from their
Mr. JOHN WH.1.1131S said the petitioners were ar respeci.
',Ws. and held as high a rank in society, as any mien who had ere,
!dried a petition before that House; and that they had been
L., known as men of distinguished attaininerds upon the Neuttimn
I.:treu,t. Ile pariitularly eulogised the character of the person
whose name appeared at the head of the sigoatures.
air 4CARLEI"f said, that ss Iris Learned Friend Lad not
'entic'ed the name of that ',crew,. he thought it his duty to say
that it was the Recorder of Newcastle.
'Lhe petition was thee Wel un the table, aud ordered to be
printed,
Sir N. COLTIIURhT presented a petition from Cork, com-
Plaitiing of the high and irregular rate of postage.
Mr. BERRIES said that the subject was under the Tntisidera.
Lion of a 4.:otninittee.
Mr. S. RICE complained that a similar answer had been given
last year. mot not the grievance was unabated. At prescat the
poorest part of this cour.iry was made subject to the highest rate.
Ordered to be printe,t.
pie T. I,KTII BRIDGE presented a petition from a parish
in Sornersetshire, egsin t at y futility concessions to the Roman
lintholica

. .

n.

nut RWE was desirous of calling the attention of the How.
=Tlnd statement which he had made on a former night, re-
o certain notes which had been introduced into the edition of
die Holy Scriptures published in Dshlin, under the sanction of 1
Troy. The sanction of that Rev. Prelate had Wen ob-
incautiously ; but as soon as he discovered that the notes
which the lino. Baronet had quoted were contained in it he with-
,m7
drew his approbation, as did also the other Roman Catholic Pre-
lates of Ireland. He was anxious to make this statement, in o der
to prevent the statement of the Hon. Baronet from having that
prejudicial effect upon the question of emancipation, which, if un-
contradicted. It was calculated to have. (Hear, hear.)
Sir T. LefrfteßlDOE said that he had quoted the passages to
which the Hon. Member alluded, from a conviction that they were
authenticated by the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland. He
goosed them amongst a variety of other quotations, and he was
well posed to withdraw that portion of the passages he cited
Atm times notes, satisfied that they were condemned, according to
the statement of the lion. Member, by the Roman Catholic Pre.
Bites of Ireland. He was, however, of the same opinion arise had
elegy's been, that the tenets of the Roman Catholics were such now 1
lea they had ever been.
General GASCOVNE believed that the annotations had been
actually published in the Lousy Bible.
Mr. S. RICE said the facts connected with the publication of
these notes were these :—The notes were published in the foreign
edition of the Bible ; they had been transcribed into the edition
which obtained the sanction of Doctor Troy incautiously ; hut as
soon as they appeared they were disapproved of by the Roman
Catholic prelacy.
Mr. V. FITZGERA LD said that at the time of publication the
withdrawing of the approbation of Doctor Troy was more gener
rally and exteusively given than the incautious sanction in the first
instance.
Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the Unitarians of
Brighton. disclaiming any participation with any members of their
communion who presented petitions against concessions to the Ro-
lrafi Catholics.—Ordered to be printed.
The lion. Member presented a similar petition from a Unitatinw
congregation of South-place, Finsbury.
Mr. Ht! 11.1 presented a petition from Dumbarton, against any
alteration in the Combination Laws.
Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Unitarians of
Saffron Walden, in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. The
petitioners spoke the sentiments of the great body of the Protestant
Dissenters of England.
On the motion of Mr. HER RIES, the House resolved itself Into
a Committee on the Thrown Silk Act. The Report was ordered to
be received to-morrow.
On the wo it n if Mr. DAWSON, the Transports' Colony Bill
was read a second time.

CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved the further consideration of the Re-
port on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
Mr. H. MAXWELL complained of a misrepresentation in the
Newspapers, which was not distinctly audible in the Gallery.
Lord G. CAVENDISH, seeing an Hon. Baronet (Sir T. Leth-
bridge) in his place, was desirous of obtaining from him an expla-
nation of what had fallen from him on a former occasion, relative
to an expression which had been imputed to a Roman Catholic
Gentleman in the neighbourhood of Newbury, " that the ancient
Roman Catholic churches were profaned by the solemnization of
the Protestant mode of wor.hip."—(llear.)--He knew the two
principal Roman Catholics who resided in the neighbourhood of
that town, and he could ensure the House that neither of them had
lured such language as had been imputed by the Hon. Baronet.—
The assertion, he believed, was contained in a paragraph in a
country newspaper; and he regretted that any Member, on such a
statement, woold ground a charge in the House of Commons
against any persons who were not Members of it.
Sir 'l'. LETHBRIDGE complained that he was a second time
In the course of that evening called upon to give an explanation of
the line of argument he thought proper to adopt on a former °tea.
lion. He did not allude to any particular persons, neither had the
Noble Lord stated the names of any person who complained of an
allusion to him. Ile was informed that suet language had been
used, and he used it in argument; he would stand upon his
Parliamentary privilege of using whatever argument he thought
conducive to promote or defeat any mea.ure he either advocated et
opposed.
N. CALVERT said, that the Hon. Member might adopt
any line of argument he thought proper; but this was a question
of fact, and the House had a right to expect he would support the
accuracy of his statement.—( Hear.)
Mr. FORD complained of an inaccurate attributed to him re-
specting the second reading of the Bill. He voted for it—not on
the same grounds as his Hon. Friend, the Member for Atmagh.
It was not on the evidence of dlr. O'Connell. or Dr. Doyle, that
his vote was grounded ; he was induced to vote for the measure
because he thought it would serve to tranquillize the country, and
be productive of beneficial results, if accompanied by the two mea-
sures of a Provision for the Clergy, and the proposed Regulation of
the Elective Frariehlea. lie would therefore continue to vote for
the measure.

Lord 0. CAVENDISH complained of the withholding of the
name of :he person alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, and stated that
the persons on whose behalf he disclaimed the language imputed
by the Honourable Baronet, were Lord Stourton and the lion. Mr.
Pette.
Sir J. NEWPORT thought the Gentlemen mentioned by the
Noble Lord had quite exculpated themselves, but tint the lion.
Baronet had not so satisfactorily exculpated himself. (Hear, hear.)
Eery Member of that House was certainly entitled to use any ob-
servation consistent with decency of debate ; but no Member had
a right to make a statement, the truth of which he was not pre-
pared to substantiate. If the Honourable Baronet failed to sub-
stantiate bis statement, lie should be regarded as having abandoned
it from an inability to maintain it. (Hear, hear.)
The amendments to the Roman Catholic Bill then passed through
the Committee, and the third reading was ordered fur to-morrow
(Tuesday).
31r. BROUGHAM was desirous of informing the House that
the third reading would certainly take place to-marrow, and he
was desirous of knowing whether the Honourable Member for Code
Castle (Mr. Banks) intended to press for a division upon a clause
which he understood it was intended to propose—for the ex-
clusion of Roman Catholics from seats in that House—an import.
ant part of the Bill certainly—or whether he would confine himself
to s division on the general question on the third reading?
Mr. BANKES said that it was his intention to propose two
amendments in the Committee; the first was, for not admitting
Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament; and the second was, that
the appointment of Commissioners should be optional. Ile would
propose these amendments. lie would not however press a divi-
sion-, but would be satisfied with the sense of the Hone on the
general question on the third reading. (Hear. hear.)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE—IRELAND
. . .

Mr. mused that the Housel-e;cifireitself into a
Committee on the Elective Franchise (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. GRATTAN, before the House went into a Committee, was
desirous of expressing his opinion in support of the vote which he
gave on a former occasion against this measure. '1 h i evidence
before the Committee had been referred to in support vf it ; that
evidence did not by any means go to recommend the menstire.
There teas a great diversity of opinion amongst those best ac-
quainted with the state of Ireland on this subject, and if there was
a difference amongst pemorts of that country, how could English-
men be prepared to come to a satisfactory decision upon the
guts. ion If the people of Ireland were capable of misusing the t
elective franchise, in the way it was supposed. lie email rot eon- I
sent to emancipate the Irish. Emancipation was no boon if the
elective franchise was taken away. Ile would grant Emarcipation
and allow the Irish to retain the elective franchise too. He denied
that it was clearly made out that the subdivision of lands Rome
from the 41)a. freeholders. He maintained that there were not too
many freeholder in Ireland ; but when the Legislature destroyed
popular feeling it would destroy popular rights.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD supported the motion, in conformity
to the opinions he had formerly expressed. He denied that the
Bill before the House contemplated the destruction of any po-
pular rights; is only usurped the rigbts of the great body of the
people The Bill did not mtertere with existing rights ;it served
rather to confirm them. It could not be denied that great abuses
were practised in the use of the Elective Franchise in Ireland ;
but in his (Mr. Fitzgerald's) opinion, the Bill before the House I
was well calculated to correct those abuses. His approbation,
however, would be qualified, as he understood it was intended
to propose some very important amendments in the Committee,
which he cmtld not fully approve. lie would recommend his
lion. Friend not to make the change which was proposed, but to
leave the Bill as it was first introduced.
3lr. LITTLETON deprecated the premature discussion of
clauses which may or may not be proposed in the Committee.
He never would consent to extend the disqualification to its other
species of freeholders but those contemplated by the Bill, as
originally submitted to the House. The object of the Bill was to
disqualify fraudulent keeholdete, and prevent them front over-
powering bona fide freeholder.
31r. L. FosTER thought the Bill, as originally introduced,
would give rise to a new muss of perjury—it held out a new buses
to the fraudulent manufacturer of votes. Greater abuses will
take place than thine which are now practised. Instead of multi.
plyir.g freeholds, cottages would be given as gifts, sod the tenants
would stand as fee-sintule freeholders. lie would recommend
his lion. Friend (31r. 1..) to strike out the exception that limited
the disqualification to forty-shilling leasehold freeholders. The
niaqualitication, he thought, should extend to all forty-shilling
freeholders. This was the only effective method of deatroying
fraudulent and fictitious votes. It might be asked why he had not
stated all this before the Committee of the House of Lords, where
he had been examined. To that his reply was simple : lie had not
been given an opportunity of making any such statements. for no
questiuns calculated to draw then) forth had been pot to hint. if
they had be certainly would have made some suggestions on the
subject. The law, as it stood, required correction. and he should
regret to vote against the present measure it no other alternative
were left him. Ile gave full ercelit to the motives which had in-
fluenced the lionoutable Mover. but as he was not personally ac-
tin:dated with die country which the present Bill was intended
to :Nett, be perhaps did not are the measure in all its bearings.
Sir J. NEWPORT was against continuing the discussion any
longer. lecould lead to nothing but mis.statements. What had
fallen from both the Honourable 31entbers attic had then spoken
would have !ie.::: much better if addressed to the Committee. They
ought at once to go into Committee. and in discussing the separate
clauses, they night succeed in obmining such views of the subject
ea would enable them to frame an Act calculated to give general sa-
tinfaetion.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that although an many petitions
had, front time to time,been presented to that House„praying fur par-
filamentary reform, and although these petitions had beet el taregarded
and spurned, yet here they were willing to enact a lew widen would

~. .
•
, 0' .. ~
Jr
effeet of Makin` them
dealers i
*elide of game weeldha
notbars tb: 1
1
deer, whose sale was legal, were yet all
commitments under the Game look
bie knOldeng• in which engird( of 4
lig. He wee firmly of opiates-thee '
be. the present measure would not ter
The Earl of DARN. LEY 'dime
glee the proptletor tip seas Power <
till heretofore. It was a pei*et d
Acsnained so lewesereviewL Be
reeding.
,Lord CA LTHORPZ said Imeeesid
Iv was great abundant... of gersieveod be
l' exaggeration of the mime seaseque
When the Game Lava woe peewmi el
sour of society, when neetly tie wboi
was centered in landed pripriews : I
octant of our commerce had raised • c
thing but game, they were eidiculous
second reading of the present Bill.
. Lord SUFFIELD said that this m
••stated, brought tot ward by popular cl
retair.d the House of his baring the o
town from Norfolk, which was signet;
of the count] , praying that a revision
be made. The present laws he consui
of crime. He thought it an insult to i
at. had been said that evening, that i
Laws would be a discouragement tor t
ife thought they were influenced by t
there called to fulfil. He did not Chit
would diminish the quantity of game
not but consider it as a worthy Kuril

.