The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-24 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS•

committed, he hoped that the Howewrable Members who differed
from hint would in the Committee glee the detail' of the measure
their closest attention. When it had been publicly notified that to
Mr. O'Connell, the leading member of an Association which had
been recently suppressed by Act of Parliament, was confided the
preparation of the Bill, he saw no reason why they should permit
the Bill to go through a C..mtuittee without the most scrupulous
examination of its minutest details.
Mr. TIERNEY, as one of the Committee, appointed to bring
in the Bill, declared that he knew not of any person being con-
' earned in the preparation of it in the way of which had been
spoken of by the Right Ilonourable Gentleman opposite. lie
never had a single political conversation with the gentleman al-
luded to on this or any subject. Ile took the course which in this
matter seemed right to his own mind, without reference to what
might be the sentiments of the Roman Catholics. Mr. O'Con-
nell. he was sure, was perfectly incapable of any wilful misrepre-
sentation. There was, he could not doubt, some mistake in the
matter. Mr. O'Connell might, by some one, have been applied
to, put something on paper relating to the subject, and he might,
perhaps, have understoood this to signify an instruction to prepare
a rough draft of the Bill.
Mr. PEEL, in explanation, said that he had taken his informa-
tion from what he esteemed good authority, namely, from a letter
which appeared in the public papers, signed by Mr. O'Connell
himself, which stated that the Catholic,' of Ireland would hear
with satisfaction, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had been authorised to
prepare the Bill which was to be introduced into Parliament for
theirrelief.
A Member, whose name we could not learn, said, that he would
not support the Bill, unless that the two clauses, one respecting a
provision for the Clergy, and the other relative to the Elective
Franchise, were introduced.
Mr. TIERNEY defended the Committee from the charge of
having omitted these clauses, on the ground that they (the Com-
mitttee) were confined to the Resolutions adopted by the /louse on
the subject.
Tice Bill was then read a first time, and Sir F. BURDETT
intimated that he would move the second reading on the 14th of
April.
Mr. ESTCOURT, after a few other observations, said, that hos-
tile as he might be to the principle of the Bill, if it should go into
a Committee its details ought nevertheless to be strictly examined.
Ile could not help noticing the very extraordinary time which the
Hon. Bart. had thought proper to fix for the debate on this sub-
ject. There was but one week in the whole Session when many
Honourable Members were compelled by law to be absent from
that House ; lie alluded to the necessity which they were under of 1
being in the country to attend Quartet Sessions. It was very ex. '
traordinary indeed that the only objectionable week in the year was
the particular period fixed upon. A very short time would make
the greatest difference. Four days later would remove much of the
the objection. As to the call of the House, he thought that Hon.
Members entertained too high a sense of duty not to give their at-
tendance without cocipuleion. He concluded by urging the adop-
t tion of some more convenient day.
Mr. SYKES said, that if he merely consulted his own conve-
nitnee he would object to the day that was proposed, but certainly
his Honourable Friend (Sir Francis Burdett) had done all in his
power to consult the general convenience. He had collected the
opinions of as many Members as he possibly could, and from their
opinions he found that the day which had been fixed was the best
that under all the circumstances could have been adopted. As to
the Quarter Sessions, though they must commence on a certain
day, they might be adjourned.
Mr. C. WILSON thought that it would be wrong to exclude
from the discussion of the question Hon. Members whose presence
at the Sessions might likewise be important. lie suggested that
the 20th of A ptil would be a convenient day.
Illr. CALCRAFT was of opinion that the discussion should
not be brought on so immediately after the holidays. It would be
very unusual to have a call of the House fixed for the first day
after the Recess. He relied upon the liberality and good feeling
of his Honourable Friend to postpone the discussion even for four
or five days. Ile did not imagine it would be considered at all dis-
respectful to the Lords to send up a Bill to their House at such a
period of the Session as early in May. Under all the circumstances
he did hope that the 20th of next ruontb would be fixed for the
debate.
Mr. PEEL observed, that consenting to the delay suggested,
would not have the slightest effect in delaying the progress of the
Bill through such stages as it might be permitted to pass. If it
were read on a Wednesday, he saw no objection to its being com-
mitted in the same week, for a matter of such importance might
readily be permitted to take precedence of other business. It
must be repugnant to all the feelings which generally actuate the
Honourable Baronet Sir F. Burdett), thus to resist the appeal
which had been made. It could not be forgotten that many of the
Irish Members would necessarily be at that time attending Assizes,
and as the majority of the Irish Gentlemen night be expected to
vote against his views, he could not be accused of any undue motive
in thus seeking to insure their attendance. He repeated that he
would not oppose any thing short of indecent rapidity in passing
the Bill through such stages as the House night agree to.
Sir F. BURDETT trusted that the House would give him
credit for the motives which induced him to name the 14th of next
month for the second reading; but after what had come from so
many quarters, he could no longer resist the appeal made to him.
He therefore would agree to fixing the 19th of April for the debate
on this question. Which day was fixed accordingly, and the Bill
was ordered to be printed.
CALL OF THE HOLISM.
On the motion of Sir .1. NEWPORT, a call of the House was
fixed for the 18th Instant.
Grame't Divorce Bill went through • Committee. Mr Harri-
son was heard foe the husband, and Mr. Adam appeared for the
wife, but enteredeinto no defence. When the House resumed. the
• I
Bill was repnrted.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from certain shipowners at
Hull, praying the House to promote a vigorous prosecution of the
herring fishery.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. SYKLS then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the 7th and Bth of William 111. The object of his intended
measure was to facilitate the collection of small tithes and other ec-
clesiastical dues. Heretofore he said that the clergy had many dif.
fictilties to contend against; for the law as it stood required that, for
the recovery of these small tithes, they should go before the next
Magistrate, but if he were patron of the living, he was incompe-
tent to decide. Now it frequently happened that the nearest Ma-
gistrate was thus incapacitated. What lie proposed was, to permit
the clergyman to sue for the recovery of these dues before any
neighbouring Magistrate.
After a few words from Mr. DAVIES GILBERT, leave was
granted.
Sir J. YORKE rose to present a very extraordinary petition. It
was the seventeenth which had been addressed by the same indivi-
dual on the same subject. One of these seventeen had been pre-
sented by the celebrated Mr. Fox. The petitioner in this case was
Robert Eyre, only surviving brother of Samuel Eyre, formerly a
Lieutenant in the navy. It stated that at a place called Chinchilla,
about thirty miles from Calcutta, the brother of the petitioner,
with a few British seamen under his command, took a prize to the
amount of one million sterling in gold, but that the East India
Company sent a large party of Sepoys and retook Flom him his
large booty ; that shortly afterwards be died ; that the prevent peti-
tioner applied to that House in the years 17141, 1792, 1796, and
again lint:HO—all of which were ineffective. That he also appiied
by men orial to the Government with as little success. Ile now
prayed that the House would take his case into their serious con-
sideration.
Mr. HUME said it did not appear that any such sum was stand-
ing at the India House under the head of prize-money. It was a
matter, he thought, which could not be settled by that House.
Mr. BERRIES said, this was a very remarkable case. Seventeen
petitions had Ireen presented on the subject: it had been going on
for the space of thirty years without any thing conclusive having
been done with respect to it. Though all the circumstances had
occurred long before, he (Mr. 'ferries) came into office, yet he
doubted not it he had been apprised of the course the Honourable
Member intended to take he should have been prepared to give a
satisfactory answer to the allegations of the petition. Unprepared
as he was he did not think it necessary to enter into the subject
' more fully at present, but he could not avoid saying. that though
there might be some show of jurtice in the case, yet it did appear
to him not to have any very clear or strong foundation to rest on ;
otherwise he could not account for the want of success that had
attended the presentation of so many petitions upon the subject
for such a long series of time. Indeed he thought his Hon. and
Gallant Friend (Sir J. Yorke) had made out tut a lame case on
behalf of the petitioner. But however that might be there had
been no remissness on the part of the Treasury in this transaction.
The Treasury possessed no authority to compel the East India
Company to redress the grievance% complained of Supposing them
to be founded in fact, they could only force the Company to come
forward and comply with the wishes of the petitioner by means of
a suit at law. The warrant of the Lords of the Treasury did not
extend to the East India Company, and therefore the 'Treasury
was not to blame for no; exercising an authority which it did not
poises& It should also be remembered that in a complicate' case
such as the present delays were unavoidable.
Sly F. OM MANNEY made an observation, the purport of
which we could not collect.
Mr. HUME explained.
Mr. ROBERTSON said (as we understood), for his part he
wished Lord Amherst to be removed from the Government of
India. (A laugh.)
The petition was then laid on the table, and ordered to be
printed.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Mr. [FUME mooed for Returns of the Number of Licensed
31adhouses, and the Number of Lunatics confined therein during
the years 1822, 23, and 24, in London and 3liddlesex.—Ordered.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up, and
ordered to be taken into further consideration on Friday next.
The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means was brought
up, and deferred for further consideration till Friday.
IRISH COUNTY TREASURERS RILL. I
Mr. BROODEN brought up the Report on the Irish County
Treasurers Bill ; it was read a second time, and ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow. •
WINE DUTIES BILL.
Mr. BBOGDEN brought up the Report on the Wine Duties
Bill; it was read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed, and
read • third time to.morrow.
IRISH IMPOUNDING DISTRESSES BILL.
The Bill for Impounding Distresses in Ireland was read a third
time, and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report on the Consolidatci
Fund Bill. Read a secon_ d time.

QUARANTINE LAWS.
Mr. BERRIES brought is his BSI for the Repeal of the Qua