The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-03 00:00:00

r•'

110

4,

• 3litvertal 13arliattitnt.
HOUSE 011 LORDS.
THURSDAY. MAY 30.
Two Rills were brought up from the Commons. and read die
first time.
Petitions against the Heinen ('atho!ie Peer.' Bill were presented
from ...reveal trades in Glasgow--the Pmtestant Population of
Publin—Faversham, in Kent—Clergy of Chester—St—lames,
Clerkenwell—Clergy of Ely—Clergy of Northampton—St. Ste-
phew. Exeter—three parishes in Lancastee—aid the Dissenters'
of Gower-street Chapel.—the whole were read and laid on the
table.
lord SUFFIELD presented a redden from ';'6 persons who
had been summoned to discharge the duty of.lurymen at the Old
Bailey. peeving for reVitiaal of the Criminal Laws. The petiti-
oners stated the abhorrence th,y felt at the severity of the Crimi-
nal Laws, and of violence often done their conscience in cases of
burglary.
Alter a few observations from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
in support of the view taken by the petitioners, the petition was
read and laid on the table.
'I lie Marquis of I.A NSDOW NE gave notice that on Monday
se'nnight be should submit a resolution to the House on the state
of Ireland.
Earl DARNLEY expressed his expectation that the Noble
Fall (Liverpool) would be able at that time to give the House
souse further information respecting the stationery job in Ireland,
which he had mentioned on a limner day.
Earl Gnosv K NOR presented a petition from Shaftesbury,
complaining of excessive taxation.
Several petitions on the subject of agricultural distress were
also presented by different Lords. and laid on the table.
CATHOLIC PEEtts' BILL.
The Duke of PORTLAND rose to discharge the order for
sei.ding the Catholic Peers' Bill to morrow. Ili, Grace was in-
'dwell to do this in consequence of the inability of a noble Lord
(Earl Grey), who took part in the debate, to attend the House.—
The noble Lord to whom he alluded was unable to attend, in
consequence of domestic calamity, and wishing to have the benefit
of his assistance, he should postpone the second reading of the
bill to another day.
Lonl ROLLE expressed a hope that that the noble Duke
would name a day for the discussion. The subject was of great
importance, and several Irish Peers, who intended to vote against
the Bill, were unable to return to Ireland until the discussion
ensued.
The Duke of ATHOL was disposed to carry courtesy with
respect to absent Peers as far as any man, and was obliged to
say the diem:mien ought not to give way to couttesy. The bill
was really one which affected the privileges of that House. The
provisions would also break up the articles of union between
this Country and Scotland, and take away the corner stone on
which it now rests. The table was covered with petitions against
it; and keeping the public in suspense was, in the noble Duke's
opinion, highly indecorous. He was one who could not agree to
have the motion postponed without naming an early day for the
discussion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE considered the motion made
by the noble Duke consistent with the forms of the House. If
the measure was considered by the noble Duke a breach of the
privileges of the House, the objection should have been taken
on the first reading of the bill.
'f he LORD CHANCELLOR said it was not his intention to
enter into the merits of the question whether the bill ought to
pass, but he knew enough of the st •te of anxiety in the country
to Implore the Lords to come to a decision on the subject. He
entreated the noble Duke to mention some day when the people
might expect an end to the question. It was of great import.
mice to some persons when this bill will come on, and he should
Ake care it came on early.
Lord LIVERPOOL expressed a desire to have a day named
for the discussion.
Lord ROLLE then moved that the Bill be read a second time
on Thursday next.
The Duke of PORTLAND. in compliance with the wishes
of the noble Look, fixed the second reading for the 21st June,
and Lord Rolle withdrew his motion. Adjuureed.
11']E 31.
Lord COLCHESTER took the oaths and his scat.
Mr. Chalmers presented the fifth teport of the commissioners
for improving the comnimacation between Edinburgh and Fife.
Mr. Mason presented the annual account of receipts and ex•
penditun: of the Emt India Company.
Petitions against the Catholic Peers' Bill were presented from
Storkport—Carnarvon,—St. John the Baptist, Bristol, &c.
Lord 11A RE W 001) presented a yeti ion from the ship-owners
and merchants of Halifax, praying for a repeal of duties on
foreign timber.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition from the
clergy, merchants, and gentry of Manchester, fraying that no
concessions be made to the Roman Catholics. The Right Rev.
Prelate stated, that the petition was sighted by many respectable
pkteons:
Lord SUFFIELD did not wish to oppose the petition, but
was desirous of stating some circumstances connected with it,
which had been communicated. As far as he could understand,
very few of the gentry
.and leading rrsons in Manchester were
present when the petition was drawn up, eleven or twelve of
the signatures were in the same hand writing, and the names of
three ladies had originally been inserted. The names were
Mary Mills, Mary Robinson. and Ann Johnson. Two were
erased, and the petition then stood with the :sane of one lady
only. There was reason to sit ,pose it was got up in haste, and
the question was whether the House could receive it?
Tile Bishop of C H ESTER said he had received two or three
letters front Manclie.ter, stating that the petition was signed by
respectable persons, and he could say, from personal knowledge
of the reties, that several were merchants With respect os the
Ladies who appeared in the list, he left them to the pleasure of
the House.—(A laugh.)
Lord KING considered it the petition of the clergy.
'l'be Bishop of EXETER, alluding to the last observation,
said it was signed by some of the clergy, bitt the number of sig.
natures was t3lO. consequently the clergy could form but a small
portion.—The petition underwent the inspection of the Lord
Chancellor.
Lord ROLLE presented a petition from the minister, church)
wardens, and inhabitants of St. John, Exeter, against the rigb.
hon. George (7:inning's Bill, to admit Roman Catholic Peen
to seats in that House.
Lord HOLLA NI) wished for full discussion on this and every
eubject, and to give the utmost facility to the presentation of
petitions; but he could not help observing that it was no reflec-
tion on the House to receive the Bill of the right hon. George
Canning, or any other member. It was therefore not the most
decent mode of petitioning which introduced the name of alt.
Calming as th easeithor of the Bill.
Lied ROLLE said, the petition had been put into his hands,
and lie was no patty to the irregularity of expression, it' there
was really say irregularity. He nienly discharged his ditty by
parr:ming it to the House. The petition was read and laid on
the tabs
The Intik Revenue Bill was read a third time and passed.
LORD CHANCELLOR, adverting to the petitioti from
Manchester. presented by the Bishop oil:lit:sex. considered it
oceectienahle. The Lords were to say whether the signature of
a tamale, whom he understood to be an elderly lady, male
the pettuen inadmisaible ; but indeeetielem of that, several of
na names were in the same hand-writing. which was certainly
• • itteettlitt y the H,.use bait cwt bsen accuatotneel to overlook.
1 he Btfiop of CH Ezill'Elt ...lid. if their was any inegulatey
• the petition. at I/44 unknown to hint, and he should beg leave
ao withdraw It..