The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-10 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5.

Petitions against the Catholic Vetrs Bill were presented from
the clergy of Hereford, and the freeholders and inhabitants of
P.ckhion.
Gen. GASGOINE, and other members from the Commons,
brought up s private bill, which was read the tirst time.
An account of the number of beasts and sheep sold in Smith-
fieid market since 11110. was presented according to an order of
the House.
Lord SUFFIELD presented petitions from Somersetshire,
Lewes, Gainsborough, Slicrborne. and other plates, praying for
revi►ion of the criminal code. The above were *eve any read,
and laid on the tab:e.
'I he SilerifTs Depute Bill was read the second time.
Lord SUFFIELD moved the second reading of the Vagrant
Bill, which was ttectudin;;ly read the second time and commuted
for ai-morrow.
lord DARNLEY pointed oat a part of the Bill which he con-
sidered onjationabie.
Lord MELVILLE said, the machinery of the Bill was wholly
to the nurthen parts of the kingdoon—Adjourned.
5551,115 DAY, JUSE
The Marquis CAMDEN presented two petitions against the
Catholic Peers Bill; one front Canterbury, and the other fruits
Tenterden.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented three petitions from
his Diocese, riming the inane object.
The Earl or SHAETESBUttV presented a petition from the
con:Jet:anon of the gospel church at Portsca, against the above
mentioned bill.
The petitions were severally read, and laid on the table.
Mr. Wallace, and several members from the Commons.
brought up three bills, via. the Navigation Laws Amendment
bill; the Ancient Commercial Statutes Repeal bill; and the
Colonial Trade bill, which were read the first time.
Oa the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the second
reading of the Navigation bill was fitted for Tuesday.
Lunt SUFFIELD put olltlie committee on toe Vagrant Laws
bill, which stood for this day, until to-morrow.
Tire house then adjourned.

FRIDAY, iceic7.
Lord EGMONT took the oatl.s and his seat.
Mr. Toollins presAited ar, account of the bullion issued by the
Bank to the Treasury, from MU to the present time.
Nfr. Irving, from the Ciatouis, presented an account of the
corn imported since the opening of the ports. ,
Lord CIA EDEN presented a petition from the spirit dealers
of litikenny.eumplaining of illicit distillation, and praying relief.
The petition was read and laid tai the table.
Vat:oral. Bit-L.—On the nation of Lord SUFFIELD, the
Muse went into a committee on the Vagrant Laws' Bill. The
The noble 1..0.ti, tu the committee 'imputed cveral verbal
amendments.
Lord MELVILLE opposed the bill, on the ground, that it
(lid not apply to Scotland. '1 he nub:e Viscount stated that he
Mould move to insert a clause Oh the third reading of the bill.
The. Bail of SHAFT ES B U it V tepurted the Bill to the liouse.
The Duke of NEWCANTLE presented a petition front the
town of Mansfield against the Catholic Peers' BilL The petition
was signed by 14SU persons. The noble Lord observed wit the
eyes of the country were upon on the subject of the bill before the
House. With respect to his own county, he could state that
lustily to die bill eicietiAl to u great degree, and was increasing;
they were well aware of the evil consequences of a bill which the
tnnionjustly considered taboos. He expressed a hope that it
would be rejected by a numerous majority. It would be
Bible fur him to attend the discussion; that circumstance gave
him great mortification, and he was induced oo that account to
express his °planation to the ball. The petition was read and
Lad on the table.
Lord HOLLAND did not object to the petition ; he was how-
ever, persuaded, that whether the noble Duke attended in Par-
liament upon the discussio❑ of the kill or not, the opinions of the
;able IJuke would be the tame. lie objected to a statement
made by the noble Duke, namely, that the bill was a violation
of the communion. It was to restore the ancient constitution of
the country. lt was ILI ICIII(AC a burthen placed an the Lords
433 years ago. W'llezi lie ho,.rd suds a description by a noble-
mat of rank and thflueoce, lie was obliged to say it was not a
true descrilawm
Petitions against the Catt.i.die Peers' Bill were also presented
trout Newaik, Nottingham, luwi.U, Sutton, Ashland, and
441101' places.
Tne MartriisofLANSDOWNE gave novice, that he should
mote the second reading of the Nluilsletighter Bill on Monday.
Tug Bailor or PETertutigut:uu.—Lord DACIIE pre-
oanteu a pedito.l from the Bee. r. Granshaw, rector of Burton
=DU, 'D toe court) of Nuainilmal, cuulp:azins DITICCOD/i4:

. .
THE NATIONAL REGISTER

pursued by the Bishop of Peterborough, in putting no less than
lel questions to candidates for holy orders. The petition stated.
that me right rev. Prelate required all curates to conform to his
questions, or be peremptorily rejected.—A second petition was
presented nom a curate named Thurtell, who had been rejected
complaining of the instinct in which candidates for holy orders
were examined, and praying with the first petitioner that the sub-
ject may be taken up by Parliament. The noble Lord contended
that the right rev. Prelate had gone beyond all the powers given
the church, and in sonic instances had rejected persons who had
conformed according to the statute of Elizabeth, and his 311jes-
ty's declaration. He trusted the House wound concur with him
in thinking there should be some remedy for this grievance. The
Crow u, by summoning a convocation to enquire into the subject,
might produce much good. It was thetelbre his intention, it the
petitions were laid on the table, to move an address to his Majesty,
praying that an enquiry might be instituted to ascertain whether
there was reason to suppose any innovations had occurred in the
precepts of the church. The noble Lotd concluded by moving
the petition be laid on the table.
The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH mid, the circumstances
which gave nse to this petition had been kept out of sight. He
had exercised no more than the right given by the church. The
aeth canon said, no curate should be admitted to the church until
atter his examination by the Bishop of the diocese. Every exa-
miner had a tight to examine in his own way. He had only
tried whether candidates piofessed that faith the church requires.
—No temporal authority had ever interfered with the right of
Bishops to exercise their own discretion with regard to the exa-
mination of candidates for holy orders. if their conduct in that
respect was subject to the interfelence of temporal authority,
every person rejected would consider himself entitled to fiend
titions of complaint. With respect to the petitioner 'ejected, he
had weighed him and found nothing but mistification in his
enswers. Ile had no object but to conceal his real opinion.—
The right rev. Prelate denied the truth of the allegations in the
petitions, and having answered the case at great lengh, expressed
a hope that the House would not receive them.
Lord HOLLAND began by stating, that he disapproved of
the langnage which the right rev. !'relate had employed in
speaking of the petitioner; such language was harsh in itself,
and not becoming the quarter whence it proceeded. With regard
to the defence of the right rev. prelate to the charge of the petition,
it was the most complete instance of kvisurantio dens/ii which he
had ever heard. The question to be uainnitely considered and
decided was this—whether the learned and rev. Prelate was jus-
tified in putting his questions. If he had that right, no man
could doubt that he had a right to choose his own mode of exa-
niinatMn ; but it was first necessary to determine whether the
matter, substance, object, and principle of the examination
were warranted by the law of the land, and by expediency. and
prudence ? lie (Lord Holland) would broadly assert, that it was
ambiguous and doubtful, whether by law he had a right to do so;
and whether lie did or did not possess it, it had always been
thought most imprudent and improper in the right rev. prelate
to assert it. It was not to be disputed that the petitioner had
subscribed the 39 articles, and that act hitherto had been con.
sidereal a sufficient test. Looking at the history of these thirty-
nine articles, he found duet they had been put into t. eir present
shape at the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, in the
year 15(et ; and with reference to their doctrines he must say,
that from the period of the reformation down to the time of that
good man Hooker, and even of that bad man Laud, the princi-
ples of Aminianism were unknown to the Church of England.—
Before he eat down, he would undertake to prove that one of the
greatest ornaments of the Bishops' Bench had said that those 39
articles contained opinions on which a clergyman of the Church
of England ought nut to be examined. Wu. the right rev. Pre-
late quite cure that such men as Parker and Sanderson could have
satistactorily answered his questions? Was he quite sure that
not one of tile answers would be such as to have induced him, if
any member of the bench of Bishops had been a candidate for
1104 orders in his diocese, to have rejected his claim ? It was not
to be denied that the 39 articles were drawn up by persons whose
opinions tended more to Calvinism than to Arininianism ;;but as
11:sliop Horsley had correctly said, they were intended to admit
both within the pale of the church : they were articles of peace
and union, and obscivcd a perfect and judicious neutrality.—
Archbishop Wake could never have entitled himself to a curacy
in the diocese of the right rev. Prelate. Ile, one of the loftiest
and ablest dignitaries of the church, must be abandoned by those !
who thought with the present Bishop of Peterborough, as a re •
publican—as one who would be willing to bring his sovereign to
the block, and as meriting all the reproaches and epithets which
the right rev. Prelate in his truly christian spirit had heaped :
upon the petitioner. For the sake of the interests of religion, the I
House was called upon to interfere and to take care that the basis
of the church was as broad and solid as duty to God and the wel .
fare of the state would allow. The right rev. Prelate had done
w hat, till this time. had not been stumped since the reformation.
He strove to straighten and natrow the basis of' die church. and
the speech he had made showed that those who wished fur the
peace aad security of the country ought either to put an end to
the practice he had begun, or at least to institute an inquiry into
its legality and policy.
Lord CALTHORP contended that the mode of proceeding
adopted by the right rev. Prelate closed all those openings in the
&O articles purposely left fur the scruples of conscientious minds.
The Earl of HA RROWBY said the allegations which die pe-
titions contained appeared to be of the gravest character; and
looking to the high and important interests which might be in
sort sheeted by them, he did think that some further enquiry
ought to be instituted into the matter. He was satisfied, in
regard to the church and its welfare, teat to narrow the base was
not the best method of securing the supostruetion. The G&W-
gories (as we understood his lordship) of the right rev. prelate,
he considered to be clearly most impolitic. Wnile he (Lord
llarrowby was disposed to vote for the reading and laying on the
table of the petition, he was far from pledging himself to support
the proposed address.
he 1.• /RD CHANCELLOR, in voting that the petition,
should lie on the table, desired not to be understood as imputing
any blame to the light rev. prelate.
The petition was then reau, and ordered to lie on the table.
Lord (ACRE then obseived, lie had intended cohere followed
up the last motion, by moving an address to the Crown on that
subject; but from what the noble and learned Lord on the wool.
sack, and other learned Lords had said, it was clear that he (Lord
Dacre) should find much difficulty and opposition if he perse-
vered in his intention. Ile was therefore inclined to substitute
fur it a motion *. that this petition be referred to a committee to
consider the matter thereof."
The LORD CHANCELLOR having explained the terms
on which he would consent that the petition be laid on the table,
would only say that he could not consent to the motion. The
question being put.
Tue Earl of LAB NARVON could not repress his astonish-
ment on finding, that when so important a subject as this was
leought before the House, the bench of right rev. Prelates had
not declared in words—no, nor by a nod—nor even by a gesture,
whether they meant to a man, to sanction or condemn the
conduct of their right rev. brother. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)—
On any great constitutional question, particularly a year or two
ago, they formerly could not complain that either the noble and
le..rned I.ord on the woolsack, or those right rev. Prelates, were
slow to give the House the benefit of their wisdom and and expe-
rience. But here, on a question of church policy, both were
Went. What would die public think, when it was informed,
that of the very many Preietes who had come down to the House
that night, nut one was to be found who had a single word to
oder upon the subject before their Lordships ?
Strangers were then excluded from below the bar.
On our readmission we .ound the numbers to be (on the
question fur reterring the petition to a continue: -)—ceintents, 19
39.

The Marriage Act Amenclarent Bill was read $ amend dint,
and urdeml to br cumulated on Wednesday aut.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
►IONDAY, JUNI. S.
Mr.H.SUMNER preaented a petition from market gardeners
of Battersea Fields, complaining that the repeal of the a.ricul-
tural horse tax, instead of heiug beneficial to them, bad pro% td
a heavy burtbeu to them, for they were now assessed as for
horses used in trade, and paid one guinea, instead of 16s. sd.
as haretoiore. Petition ordered to be printed.
Petitions against the Licensing BM were presented from the
brewers of Manchester, balford, Margate, the Not th of England,
Liverpool, Brightuo, Hastings, and Southampton. Bete:red to
the t toutuittee.

The Mary le-bone Paving and Lidding Bill was read a thild
time and passed.
. .

Mr. 131 NC brought in a Bill to amend the Middlesex county
rate eels, as tar as the same regarded the treasurer, &c.—
Head a first time.

The Assessed Taxes Composition Bill was ordered to Le read
a seeond time on Wednesday neat.
Mr. C. IiLMSLT presented a petition from an individual,
named Cranford, late a publican at Little Trencbard,
coniplaininA of baring been arbitrari.y depth ed of his licettsc
by the Magistrate.
Petition read, and ordered to be referred ..to the committee
on the Bill.

Mr. BIRCH moved for returns of collectors of duty on salt,
to whom retired pensions had been slluwed.—Ordered.
Nenteuhte PETITION Suit Iterueta.-31r. COLE presented
remonstrances and petitions, &c. from Greetthoe, &c. its Notolk,
complaining of agricultural distress, of the army which was
maintained to keep down the •' Constitutional spirit," and attic
majmities of that llouse, which would support any adminie,
tratiou, Lowe% er '• arbitrary or l rarmicsl;" and praying for
rehire). 'the hon. member said, be was ashamed of what i.e
had seen, for the majorities had caused the min they now
beheld ; and as to the reduction of taxes they Lao been forced
from] ministers. Had he been present he would out Lave
cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. FREE3IANTLE opposed the petition, and moved es au
amendment that it be rejected.
Mr. CLEW EN said the petition spoke the truth, and while
the petitioners were so disposeu, how could they speak other-
wise, as seats had been notoriously bought and sold.
Mr. JAMES observed, that the petitioners also spoke of the
taxes being required to support the influence of the Gown;
that was a species of treason; they were wasted to implicit the
interest and influence of the boroughniongering faction.
Lord LONDONDERRY said, if they had any regard for
their own character, they could not receive this petition. '1 he
petition did not come in the ordinary language; it appeared as
a decidedly worded remonstrance.
Mr. CALCLIAFT said that the petitioners avowed what nu
man could deny; nay, what the ministers themselves admitted,
that places and pensions were supported with the sole view of
supporting government. The army was tremendous, and it Lad
heen,iused to a way that was somewhat suspicious.
Sir R. WILSON observed, that the Secretary to the Trea-
sury could not deny that seats were bought and sold, and that
pensions and places were granted un the sole condition of sup-
portiug the ministers. But had sot petitioueis for reform a
right to ►tate theirressonsr
Mr. C. W YNN declared that this petition was a studied
insult. If, indeed, the army were maintained to keep down
the Constitutional spirit, and if the Muse were ready to sanctica
all sorts of grants, then was there made Cu. litithcitut ground
for rebellion. (Hear, hear.) Then could they receive such a pe-
tition ? Was it not an insult? If this petition and genital-
strance were received, where were they to stop? Ile thought
the House was called on to make a stand Places were sot
granted with the view of gaining corrupt support.
Sir J. N rola said, that the petition only stated what
lie had open asserted, what had frequently been declared in
that House; and after the changes that had taken place, they
ought not to cavil about particular expressions. 'they were
told that not one Willing of tax could lie reduced ; they bad
seen millions reduced ; they were told that certain places could
not be abolished—and shortly alter they were abolished : then
was it too much to allow the petitioners a latitude of expression?
Ile thought the House would not consult its dignity by reject-
Mg the petition.
Mr. PEEL said, the petitioners themselves bad called their
documents a " remonstrance," and that showed the animus with
which they approached that House. It was meant to insult.—
If it were true that the House was what was described in tile
petition, then ought they to abdicate their functions.
Mr. J. Ssll'lli denied that the object of the petiticrers,
from whom be differed io many points, was to insult the ileum-,
but be would have the House recollect that there were reery
persons who believed what was set forth in the petitim..—
(Hear bear.)—lt w uld he better, under all circumstances, to
receive the petition.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The ambers
were—Fur the rejection, Ml—Against it, 55—Majority for the
rejection, 34.

Mr. COKE in presenting another petition from Norfolk.
which W3* agreed to at the late !wivel county meeting, de-
dared that the last petition had DO intention to insult the Douse.
He rejoiced in the petitioneis ; they were men, and men worthy
of being represented; therefore he gloried in the petitioners.—
This petition was ' tar to the use that had Leen rejected.—
Ho had no hope of its being received—but the sentiments were
such as he should carry with him to the grave. He agreed with
them as to the corruptions of that Douse ; and the conduct of
ministers was calculated to increase the number of such peti-
tions, He hoped that the call for reform would be noir% trsal.
The petition was read, and ordered to be printed, amidst
the cheering of the oppo►ition.
Mr. MARRYAT presented a petition from wholesale and
retail grocers of the metropolis, against any renewal of the
Nk est India Dock Company's Charter. Refereed to the com-
mittee on foreign trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the
report on the naval and military pensions be reedit ed.
The order was then read, and, on the motion that it be
brought up,
Mr. CALCRAFT said, others had particularly complained of
the proposed mode of reducing the salt tax ; those commuted
in the fisheries said they could not bear the remaining tax—
that it would be ruinous to them to continue the 2s. tax.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that
present exemptions and protections would continue to January
next ; that it would cover the approaching season , so that it
redress were required, it would be time enough next session
to consider it.
After some further remarks, the report was brought up aid
read.
On the resolution, that a portion of the 5,000,0004 ►bould
come from the sinking fund,

Mr. HUM E proposed, u an amendment, that it should be
compulsory to go to the sinking fund for the whole amount.
After some discussion, in which Lord Londonderry, Mr.
Cale raft, &c. took part, the House divided. The numbers
were—For the amendment 54, Against it dl, Majority against
it 2T.

The report was, after some further debate, agreed to, and
the bill was ordered to be read a third time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought
forward his resolutions for the repeal of the salt duty, upon
which a long conversation followed, and an amendment was
proposed by Mr. Caloraft, that the whole of the duly should be
repealed, instead of the partial repeal proposed by the right
Lon. gentleman.
. _ _

The amendment was supported by Mr. Brougham and others,
on the ground that keeping up the partial duty would give
ministers as much influence and patrons g •, and cost the country
as much as the collection of the whole duty would do.
The amendment was opposed by Lord Londonderry and
others, and the llouse ultimately divided upon it. For the
amendment 62—Against it 111.—Majority against the amend-
ment 41.

On the order of the day for the House going into a commit-
tee on the Corn Importation Bill,
Mr. CANNING proposed (lint it should be en instruction to
the committee to prepare a clause to enable the holders of fo•
reign corn to grind it for exportation.
Lord LONDONDERRY had no objection to this instruction
viol; to the committee. As to the bill itself, lie did not con-
soler it as the hest corn bill which the ingenuity of parliament
might contrive, but he thought it would be useful to prevent
the conntry heing inundated by the influx of foreign corn.
liar. CURW EN opposed the bill, and said be wculd take the
sense of the house on going into committee.
Mr. T. LETHBRIDGE also opposed the bill.
Mr. 11. SUMNER stated that he should vote against the
Speaker leaving the chair ; but (be ground he took for doing so
did not reach the gallery.
A division then took place on the question that the Speaker
do leave the chair—Ayes, 149—Noes, 41—Majority, 10S.
On our re-admission, we found the house in a committee,
sod Mr. Droplet), who was in the chair, was going through the
various clauses. When be arrived at that which fixed the
price a► 795.,
31r. WHITMORE rose to move his amendment. Netwith-
at ending the lateness of the hour, lie felt it his duty to make a
few remarks upon one or two poiate, and especially upon the
attempt made in this bill to raise the price of corn in Great
R. itain higher than in other parts of the world. To this pur-
rise lie entertained the most decided objections, and was eon-
inced that if the system were pursued, the manufactures of
the country could not continue in prosperity. The hon. gent.
concluded with moving that the words 6 Is.be substituted for 70s.
Sir J. NEWPORT wss of opinion, that the arguments of the
hi n. mutate-1., however fit they might be with regard to this
country, were totally inapplicable to the state of Ireland. where
fe.w manufactures existed. He opposed the amendment.
Mr. WODEHOUSE, after adverting to an opinion given by
Lord Liverpool in 1819, that not less than Sits. would be a re-
touneratin4 price, moved as au amendieent, that the words 755.
be substituted for 70s.

Mr. RICARDO expressed his surprise at the amendment
proposed by the bun. member for Norfolk. Even the most
active of the agricultural interest in that house had declared,
that a price of 675. would afford Jo ufficient protection to the
farmer.

Tile Marquis of LONDONDERRY disapproved of the
amendment of the hon. member of Bridgenorth, as tending to
etteet too extiosive and rapid a chanze in the present system.
Aner s few words from Mr. N. Calvert, the gallery was
cleared, and the committee divided upon Mr. Whitmore's
a.n,ndment. For the amendment, 42—Against it, 87—Majo-
nty, li.

:dr. WODEHOUSE then withdrew his amendment, and the
original resolution was agreed to.
Mr. BANKES, after a few oliservations,ninved as an amend-
ment, that the words " the doty to be paid when admitted for
home consumption," should he left nut, for the purpose of in-
troducing the words, " the duty to be paid at the time of im-
portation."

Mr. F. ROBINSON saw no sufficient reason for adopting the
amendment. It would, in fact, if agreed to, have the effect of
prcv-mting the warehousing of cora in this country under any
circumstances.

Mr. M.tRRYAT also opposed the amendment, whirl) he
contended wu in opposition to the whole warehousing system
of this country. That system was introduced to male England
tba etap,riusit of Europe ; but if the princit•le of the amendment
were allowed, the object which those who introduced the ware-
housing sy slem bad in view most be defeated.

. .
Mr. J. ItENET contended that there was little or no analogy
between the warehousing of corn and other ariieles.
After a few words from Lord Crsnborne and the Marquis of
Londonderry, the house divided, when there appeared—For
the amendment, 33—Against it, 70-31ajorit • 37.
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
111 r. T. WI LNON on his legs, speaking ou the subject of the
admission of Canadian flour into this country, to which (as we
tiders!cod him) a preference ought to he given.
Mr. J. BENET had no of to givinr, to Canadian grain
a fair protection ; but he could not sacrifice the interest of the
British to that of the Canadian farmer.
Mr. MARRYATT was favourable to a due consideration of
"tZe colonial interest.

`N..r E. KNATCHRULL expressed himself hostile to the
srbolessill, as Dot calculated to all'ord the desired or expected
relief.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY supported the measure
as tine that would in the end be very beneficial.
Mr. CANNING proposed a t lamie relative to the grinding
anti making use of foreign corn, with a view to the prevention
of any frauds which might be committed by the Improper intro-
duction of foreign cora into Lorne consomption.
'lr. 11. WILBRAHAM said this amendment was founded
en n resolution which had before been oared to the House, and
withdrawn. It would he 'letter to make it a separate measure,
than la allow it to be incorporated with the bill.
.1 short conversation ensued hetoeen the Marquis of Lon-
donder.7, Mr. (tannin.., Mr. I). Gilbert, Mr, Ricardo, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Bennet, bard Cranhorne, and Sir E. Kt-Melt-
bull, which enr!.4l in the nmenildient being agreed to, with the
ondersinalinl that it should he debated iu another stage of the
bill. The House then re3umed.
The otheir orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned.