The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-15 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, Anti'. It

The Slpcsker took the Chair a fnr minutes before four o'clock,
eel the House proceededtpbusiness.

'MAME'', QUAY.

Air. Sergeant ONSLAW presenied a petition from the Vicar,
Churchwardens, and Parishioners, of the parish of St. Martin-in.
tno.Fields, against the Thames Quay Bill.—The petillon was or-
dared to lie on the table.
On the motion of General HART, the Lough Neagh Navigs.
tine Bill was read a second time.
• METROPOLITAN FISH COMPANY.
Mr. CALCRAFT presented a petition from persons connected
with the Herring Fishery at Greenock, against the Metropolitan
lisn Company Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table.
ST. KATHARINE'S DOCKS.

Mr. ORENFELL brought up the amended clauses in the St.
i:atharine's Docks Bill which were agreed to after a short discussion.
BiU was then ordered to be engrossed.
COLLIER DOCKS BILL.

111r..C. CALVERT presented a petition mom five hundred per-
sons. inhabitants of the parish of St. Paul's, Shadwell, against the
• vostrietive Clause in the-Collier Docks Bill. praying to be heard by
(ounsal. Also a similar petition from the Trustees and Vestry-
men of All Saints. Poplar ; also a similar petition from the Bishop
4 Landaff, the Dean of St. Paul's, and other persons, owners of
lltlaveturges.--Ordered to lie on the table.
3ir. Alderman BRIDGES presented a petition from the Corpo.
ration of London, as Governors of Bridcwell Hospital, against the
TA:mines (amp Bill.—Ordered to lie on the table-
.
IRISH 3IINING BILL.
On the motion of Mr. GOULBURN, the Irish Mining Bill was
read a saasod time.

IfT.l,66iiirotreeented a petition from Sit Robert Keith,
:gainer the Edinbur Railway.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Colonel BAGWLLL presented a petition from the Merchants
4f Clonntel, in the county of Tipperary, praying that nochenge
may be rade this year in the Act for Regulating the Butter Trade
is Irelerd—Laid on the tab'c• _ . _

'minions Were presented from the several Corporations of
.Batchers, Bakers, and Coopers, of Glasgow, against the Ciithq•
c Emancipation MlL—Ordered to lie on the table.
CORN LAWS.
Mi. CHRWEN presented a petition from Workington, praying
fve an alteration in the Gm' Laws.—Lr.id on the table.
fbe Hon. Member also prevented a petition from H. Wingrove,
of Bath, against any further grant to Mr. M'Adsm.—Ordered to
i.e on the table.
Mr, BLACKBCRNE prosnted a petition from Harlington,
airiest the Catholic Claims —Ordered to lie on tree table.
• CALL OF THE HOUSE.

('

Qn an application Car leave of absence bcirg made,
fikir JOHN NEWPORT sail, that he sl,ould resist any, appli.
ewtkii of this nature, unless a medical certificate of incapacity IV AS
ved..keil. The question for which the call of the House was
maite, was one of such national importance, that Le considered this
cr: 'de of proceeding necessary.
• Mr. D.IWSON prosented papers, stating the number of et.
s• imprisoned for offences under the Game Laws in (treat Bri-
. —rt d red to be laid on the table.,t c
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION BILL. . . .

TREMAYNE presented a petition from the parish of
Visltham Bishop. against the Catholic Claims.
Sit J. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from the Arcl
deaconry of Sarum, against any further concession to the Manion
Catholics.
:11r. Secretary PEEL presented a similar petition from the
C'lrgy.and Gentry of Halifax. wes signed by 9.400 persons.
Ins. Right Hon: Geetlemsn presented a similar petition from
tte Contnegstien front the Episcopal Chapel, Long-acre ; also
pet.tions front the Preshytery of tilargow, and from silt lnciatpo.
rsted Vides in Gliszow.—The petitions were severally ordered
to l.b or- the title.
FABRIG.ITION OF A PETITION.
17r. Se:Teary PEEL rose to toll tlw attention of the Bodge to
• ..bject thich in emteineastire involved the privileges of the
and the imoottint ri,zht of petitioning. en the 14th of
Februat.7 the lien. flamilet (Sr J. Newport) presented a petition,
rporttrog to c.....)tut from the Protestant parishioners of Ballinasle.
pet:ion WAS vi:!‘ fourteen name's. Thirteen of those
Pe"°'' wl"'" ""'="4 were p7of,‘sed to be signed row came before
tut Route, anti solemrly proteasted that the petition was a fah, ica.
03, a-A !Le —'greti a forgery. The Ott:Ler:nth of the

names signed to the petition was that of a person who did not
reside at Ballinasloe. The petition presented by the Honourable
Baronet declared, that the petitioners were in favour of CathoNe
Emancipation, and prayed the House rxinst passing the Bill then
in progress for the suppression of Illegal Associations. The thir-
teen individuals whose names were forged to this document now
approached the House, and stated that their sentiments were averse
to those of the petition. Under these circumstances, he was sure
the House would agree with him, that it was expedient to institute
some inquiry. The fabrication of this petition was a gross viola-
tion
of the privileges of the House. It was unjust to the indi-
viduals whose rantes were fraudulently attached to it, and it was
unfair to Hon. Members, as it indicted on them the grievous bur_
then of inquiring into every petition which they should be called
upon to present. It was a gross violation of the privileges of the
House, and the sacred right of petitioning. It was an insult to
the one, and a detriment to the other. The petition which he had
now the honour of presenting to the House was accompanied by
an affidavit from the persons whose names were signed, swearing
that the former petition was a fabrication, and the signatures for-
geries. The number of individuals signed to this petition was cer-
tainly small, but he thought the House should institute an in.
gutty, if it was only for the purpose of cautioning persons agsinst
the repetition of such an offence. The Right Hon. Gentleman
then moved. That • Select Committee be appointed, to Inquire
into a petition presented by Sir J. Newport, and purporting to
come from the Protestant inhabitants of Ballinasloe.
Sir J. NEWPORT said that it was his intention to have called
the attention of the House to this subject that evening. He had
received • letter from Ireland, from the individuals signed to the
petition, statirg the fraud. The petition which he had presented
came into his possession in the sante way which nine tenths of the
petitions did, that he had the honour to present to the House. It
came by post, and appears to be a regular and formal declaration
of the sentiments of the individuals whose names were signed to it.
No doubt a fraud had been practised on the House, and on him in-
dividually as a Member of it. Every Member of the Mouse was
liable to such frauds (hese, hear), and he regretted that it was not
In his power, as the injured individuals required of him, to die.
cover the perpetrators of this disgraceful fraud. lie had never
been at Ballinasloe„ except once for about an hour, when he went
to see a show of cattle. He should find it difficult, therefore, to
discover the forgers of the petition ; but the individuals whose
names were forged resided on the spot,. and had themselves the
best opportunity of discovering the fabricators.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie nn the table, and on
the motion of Mr. Secretary PEEL, a Committee of Inquiry was
appointed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

A message was brought down from the Upper House. informing
the Home that their Lordships had agreed to several Private Bills.
(For which see Lords' Report.)
IRISH LINEN LAWS.

Sir H. PARNE1;11;;SIcl, he had given notice of a motion for
referring the Linen Bounty Laws, and all those regulations which
affected the linen trade in that country, to a Committee of the whole
House. 11!‘ notice stood for that day, and in rising to move in
pursuance of it, he could not forbear saying that he fully concurred
in the principles contained in a memorial from Cite linen factors of
Ireland upon the subject. He had seen the memorial to which he
adverted in the sister kingdom, and the objects of it were the
equalization of trade between Ireland and Scotland, and the repeal
of many of the existing laws relative to the linen trade. He felt
disposed to leave the general question in the hands of his Majes-
ty's Ministers, convinced as he was of the attention a measure so
important would receivelrom them, and also of the sound policy
which had lately distinguished them In dealing with questions of a
commercial nature. He should therefore conclude by merely mov.
ing the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the pre-
sent state of the Irish Linen Laws, more particularly as they re.
prded the importation of foreign yam and flax.
Sir G. HILL said, every one must be aware of the important
nature of laws framed for the purpose of regulating the linen trade
in Ireland. Thinking as he did that it was a subject of intense
interest, and that every practicable improvement should be made in
the existing laws, he would support the appointment of a Select
Committee for that purpose.
Mr. MABERLY wished the inquiry to be extended to England.
Sir G. HILL explained.
Mr. HCTME thought the object of the motion would go to the
removal of numerous and inconvenient restrictions on an important
branch of manufacture. On that ground he thought the motion
should be complied with.
Mr. ROBERTSON made an observation, which was inaudible
! in the gallery
Mr. V. FITZGERALD felt disposed to concur in the proposi.
tion of the Hon. Bart. opposite (Sir 11. Parnell), but was desirous
that the Committee, if appointed, should confine itself within the
limits of its proper object of inquiry. He did not throw out this
observation for the purpose of stifling inquiry, in the propriety
of which he fully concurred.
The question was then put from the Chair, and the Committee
appointed ucordingly.
EPISCOPAL UNIONS IN IRELAND.

Sir J. NF.%VPURT, in rising to make his promised motion on
the subject of Irish Church Preferments, said It was manifest that
the object of an Ecclesiastical Establishment in any country should
be, to extend to the body of the people religious Instruction at as
small an expense as was possible. What he should feel it hie duty
to submit to the House on the present subject should be derived not
from questionable documents, and therefore liable to be called an
ex-parte statement, but founded upon the evidence of the Arch.
bishops and Bishops of the Establishnient. The late Primate of,
Ireland had. in the year 1820, stated his objections to Ecclesdaoksl
Unions. He further considered those Unions as not only abjection.
able, but as too often made In defiance of every principle which
' should regulate the allocation of Preferments ho the Chinch Esta-
blishment. He (Sir John Newport) had taken some pains to in.
vestigate the nature of E • Unions in Ireland • and, strange
to say, be had bees unable to find any Act of Parliament to author-
ise their creation. How, under such circumstances, it grew into
use he knew not. In England no such power of creating Episcopal
Unions existed in the Bench of Bishops. The telly exeepuon oc-
curred in the See of Norwich. and that was under the operation of
a particular and special Act of Parliament. The late Archbishop
of Cashel considered the only grounds upon which those Unions
could be defended were as followed r—contiguity of the several pa-
rishes--smallness of extent, or deficiency of income. But so far
from those principles being kept in view in forming those Unions,
parishes extremely distant from each other, and, separately, of very
great extent, were united. He would state a case which occurred
in the year 1809 of the union of the pariah of Boyle, in the county
of Roscommon, to 10 other parishes in Sligo; the one already con-
tained 6,800 inhabitants, and the others 16,800. Yet with this
very case before his eyes, his Grace the Archbishop of Tuam gave
it as his opinion that there existed little or no danger of improper
unions taking place. It was somewhat singular that the comments
of Right Rev. Prelates should be so much at variance with their text.
In the dioceseof Tuam therces isted unions no lesa than %miles in ex- ,
tent, and there was an instance of a parish 8 miles in extent being
united to another, which lay at a distance of ten miles from it. This
parish had since been divided by Government into three distinct
parishes. In the diocese of Ardagh, the parish of (harmed had
been united to three °eons. Poverty and smallness of income
could not be the reasons for this union, for he could state to the
House that those parish= had been valued under the Tithe Corn.
position Act ; the first at 5701., the second at 2381., the third at
1711.. and the fourth at 7201.. making an aggregate of upwards of
1.7001. (Hear, hear.) Ile took this statement from the evidence
of the lion. Member for Louth (Mr. Foster), as it was given be-
fore the Committee above stairs. In the diocese of Kilmore there
was a parish containing more than 20,000 acres, with lOU acres of
glebe ; and the possessor of this living held another preferment by
faculty. Much to the credit of the present Primate of Ireland, he
had expressed his disapprobation of faculties, and refused his coun.
tenance and consent to the practice. But the disuse of such a per.
nicious practice should not rest on the accident of the character of
the individual who might at any time be Primate. The House
should adopt measures to prevent any clergymen from holding a
second living b.v faculty, where his first exceeded a certain amottnt,
suppose 3091. .11e himself would feel disposed to propose such a
measure, if allowed to bring in his intended Bill. He had already
spoken of the present Primate of Ireland with the respect he de.
served, and he wished to mention a second instance of his praise.
worthy conduct. That Most Rev. Prelate being aware of the in.
jury and loss in fees which would be occasioned to the Judge of
the Prerogative Court (Dr. Radcliffe). in consequence of his deter-
mination with respect to grentiug faculties in future, made an offer
to remunerate him out of the revenue of his Bishopric, to the
' amount of the loss that should be incurred. The amount of the loss
in feet was estimated at Mite a• fear, but tbeludge of the Prem.
getive Court refused the offer. While upon this subject he could
out avoid expressing his opinion of the propriety of remunehttlng
the Judge of the Pi.erugative Court be a salary, and not by means
of fees. 'That tunetionsry should be put on the same footing with
the other Jud7s of the land, and relieved from the necessity of
practising as a Barrister under which he at present laboured. To re-
cur to the subject of episcopal unions, he could not avoid saying
he thought it a system calculated to generate abuse, and deprive
the people of the due exercise of their religious duties. Various
unions were admitted by different prelates to be improper, but
under the °venation of the 21st Geo. 11. they did not possess the
power of disaolving them. lie could see no ground why the digni-
taries of the Church should enjoy a power in Ireland. which could
nut be exercised by the prelates of this country. The Prelates,
themselves, were by no menus adverse to an alteration of the state
of things complained of. The late Bishop of Meath, and the pre-
sent Bishop of Kildare, among others, concurred in the propriety
of revising the statute. He should only mention one tact more,
which he could nut help thinking a very curious one ; it was that
anomaly by which the Lord Lieutenant and Council were restrained
from creating episcopal unions, and exercising a power which the
Archbishops and Bishops were permitted to enjoy- The Right
lion. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
limit the power of holding a plurality of benefices. and to repeal
the statute granting to Archbishops and Bishops the power of
forming episcopal unions in Ireland.
Mr. GOIILI3URS-1 f Honourable Gentlemen had done himlihe
honour of attending to the sentiments he was in the habit of titter.
bug in his place, they would be compelled to admit that he hail at
no tints shown !dimwit* forward in the defence or maintenance of
abuses. Ile would always maintain the rights anti privileges of
the clergy; but if any abuse could be proved to exist, he would be
always ready to provide a remedy for the evil. Ile took no credit is
himself, for these opinions were the opinions of the great ma-
jority of the Church of Ireland. Holding such sentiments, he
should not oppose the Introduction of the Bill, but reserve to him.
self the privilege of examining into the details when brought before
the House. He was ready to admit that in former times abuses did
exist in the distribution of church preferments, but every exertion
had bean made by the present Primate to remove them. That
Most Item:lad Prelate had refused to grant a faculty where the in.