The National Register.
London, England, 1821-04-08 00:00:00

r

•. •%Or ,

I Ofi

. •
. • • •

3Jutpertal Varitamtnt.

—assrae--
HOUSE OF LORDS,
310NDAY, APRIL 2.
Viscount HAMPDEN presented a petition from the owners
and occupiers of land, in the Eastern part of Sussex. complaining
of agricultural distress. The petition read and laid on the table.
Lord GRANVILLE presented a petition from the solicitors
and attorneys of Stafford against the County Courts Bill. Laid
on the table.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a variety of Peti-
tions from various parts in the West of England, in which the
manufacturers and others concerned in the woollen trade prayed
for repeal of the tax on imported wool. The noble marquis
observed, that as far as his knowledge upon this important sub-
ject went,. he knew the existing tax had proved injurious, instead
of at all being beneficial to the clothiers, therefore this petition
came before their Lordships with strong claims to their attention.
He was satisfied Government were disposed to act upon liberal
views„and that they might be induced to withdraw this tax,
which was generally considered injurious to the interests of the
woollen trade and the best policy of the country. The petition
was laid on the table.
The Bishop of CHESTER said, he had the honour to mesent
a petition, signed by the arcluleaconry and chapter of Chester.
against the Roman Catholic claims. The petition was read and
laid on the table. The house adjourned.
TUESDAY, APRIL 3.
Lord ERSKINE presented several petitions from owners and
occupiers of land in the county of Sussex, complaining of agri-
cultural distress.
The Irish Witchcraft Bill was read a third time and passed.
Petitions were presented from Sudbury, and the clergy and
archdeacon", of Hereford, against further concessions to the
Roman Catholics.
THE BILL OP CONCESSIONS, &c.--Sir JOHN NEW •
PORT and a numerous deputation of Irish members brought up
the bill to relieve Boman Catholics, which passed yesterday
morning in the Commons. It was received by the Lord Chan.
toiler, the title read. and laid on the table.
The Earl of DONOUGH MORE. some time after the bill was
brought up. moved it be read the first time. The bill was tic-
conlingly read the first time without any observation.
The Earl of DONOUGH MORE then said, it was impossible
be should not feel the deepest impression, as to the advocate of
the Roman Catholic claims. on the arrival of such a bill as that
which had just been brought from the other honse of parliament.
He could not avoid feeling the full weight of responsibility whith
which attached to him in his then situation. It would be a total
of duty on his part to decline becoming the advocate of the
neglect
he could not undertake to advocate it in the precise
form in which it had been received from the other house. From
some communication recently had with a number of the foremost
men among Inc Roman Catholics, he had the best grounds for
soppwing, that in the progress of the measure, such amendments
could be made as would do away every objection resting in the
mind of any reasonable man. Concessions might be made to the
Roman Catholics, withoutsurreudering one iota of the securities
whirls the professors of the Protestant faith had certainly a right
to receive. In consequence of the recent communication to which
he had alluded, he undertook to be the advocate of the bill, and
he expressed a hope it might be so modified as to do away every
objection on the part of Catholics and Protestants, by the former
giving full securities. In that view he moved the bill be read a
second time on Tuesday nett.
The Earl of LI VERPOOL—" My Lords. I certainly do not
rise for the purpose of making any objection to the motion of
the noble lord fur the second reading. I wish merely to observe,
that as this bill comes from the commons in a most important
shape, it will doubtless receive from your lordships the most
serious consideration, and whatever the decision of the house
may be, I trust the discussion will be temperate, and that it will
be conducted with that moderation which has characterized the
other house of parliament. It would be irregular to enter into
the matter of this bill on the present occasion!; a but having on
former day taken an extensive part in the discussion of the sub-
dict of this bill. I feel I should nut deal fairly with the house if I
d not say, that when the proposition is made for the second
reading of the bill, I shall feel it my duty to object to it.—(Hear.
hear.)—The bill contains two parts:—one is to remove disabili-
ties; the second part contains regulations respecting the ecclesi-
astical establishment of the Roman Catholics. My Lords. lam
sorry to say, that those parts forming enactments in this bill.
are so objectionable, that I shall feel it my duty to object to both.
I cannot agree to grant the privileges it is proposed to grant the
Roman Catholics. But even if my mind, and the mind of every
noble lord in the house, was made up to concede these privileges,
I should feel it my duty strongly to object to those claisses in the
bill which relate to the Roman Catholic clergy, because I think
if such a clause could stand, persons must make out there is not
that danger arising from it, which I think. with others, is to be
apprehended, 1 feel that many of the enactments are unjust,
and many extremely impolitic. They will never answer the
purpose, nor meet the end proposed. I thought it fair, after the
part 1 have taken on this subject, to speak as an individual, and
state the turn of my opinion. When the second reading is
moved, I will state my objections to both parts of this bill more
at large."
The Earl of DON'OUGH MORE felt as the noble earl did
upon particular enactments. The Catholics should feel that
they ought to make sacrifices to the apprehensions of Protestants,
whether those apprehensions and prejudices were right or wrong.
The LORD CHANCEI.i.OR expressed some diffidence,
rising to address their lordships at that moment, upon so inte-
resting a subject; but having observes! in the bill laid upon their
table, that it did nut interfere with the Lord Chancellor, whose
duty it might be to consider whether he ought to approve of the
proposed alteration in church and state of this country, he should
ray a few words. The house knew well the part he had passionaly
taken on this subject, and out of respect to the opiniods d per.
sons in that house, and in the other house, he had no difficulty
in saying, he would most willingly avoid a change of his own
opinion, if any. such change could by possibility occur; but upon
full consideration and conviction, he felt that the essential inte-
rest of this country, and it., state of civil liberty, would not
permit hint to change his opinion. It was impossible to consent
to this bill, under any alteration or inediticatioo. On the
contrary lie would prima,' the house to conduct himself with
care and caution, in order to guard against it. It was impossible
to reconcile this bill with the prinesples of the Censtitution. and
no modification could make it admiasible.
The order for the second reading of the bill was then fixed for
Tuesday, and die lords were ,tounanied ter that day.
wniisii.m.i.3„teicii. 4.
The D CI lANt E1.1.01t 'net this day at an early hour
to hear appeals.
After prayers, Lord COL VI LI. E presented a Petition from
Chipptiihtuu against the Italian Catholic Calms.
The Petition was read and laid on the table.
The Innkeeper's Subsistence Bill was read a second time.—
The House then adjourned.
IHURSDAY, APRIL 5.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
tion friou the clergy of Norstich it4/111161 the bill tor re.
moving restrictions upon the 1111 l au Catholics. ills Glace
observed, that it was proper to state boo the petition come
into his hands. His right reverend Itiend, the Bishop of
Norwich, had undertaken in prevent it, but heite4 unable to
du so, he requestid tott•Clit of
partii -, to plevesit it. 'foe petition tva• ~•01,11 by nteu
V, ;111 whom :.e lived livoll 'militate term', sod with
It had udiciated Hit Is great sot lit uuu to