The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-02 00:00:00

110

9inperial Var!lament.

notw.E or Lorins.
URSVA Y. MAY 50.
Two Rills were brought up front the Conttrons, and read the
first lit a.
Petroons against the Ilotiotn Cafatilic Peers' Bill were presence,'
front several trades in Glasgow—the Protestiult Pointlatiou
tit
Indalin—Faversluitia, in Kurlt--Clergy of Cheam--St. James,
Cleikenwell—Clergy of Ely—Clergy of Nettlitamium—St. Ste-
phan, Exeter—three polishes in Lancaster—and the Dissenters
CI Gower.strect Chair:l.—the whole were mad oral Lod on the
sable.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from 76 persons who
had been summoned to discharge the duty ofJury Men at the Old
bailey, praying for revision of the Crinonal Laws. The petiti-
oners stated the :abhorrence they felt at the severity of the entail-
iial JAWS, anti of violence atm done their conscienee in casts of
hutglary.
After a w observatione from the Marquis of I.ANSDOWNE
in somata of the view taken by the petitioners, die petition was
re..if and laid on the table.
'1 be ulutquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that on Monday
at 'finiy.lit he should submit a resolution to the lion:coo the state
of Ireland.
Earl DARNLEY expressed his expectation that the Noble
Fall (Liverpool) would be able at that little to give the House
some further information respecting the stationery jou in Deland,
which he had mentioned on a former day.
Earl GIIOSV ENO 1i prewnted a petition from Shaftesbury,
complaining of excessive taxation.
Several petitions on the subject of Rmitultunal distress were
also preaenteu by different lairs, and laid on the table.
CATHOLIC PEERS' 811.1..
The Duke of PORTLAND rose to discharge the order for
reading the Catholic l'ters' Bill to morrow. His Grace was In-
duces( in do this in consequence of the inability of a noble Lord
(Earl Grey), who took part in the debate, to attend the !louse.—
The noble Lord to whom lie alluded was unable to attetal, in
consequence ui domestic calamity, and wishing to have the benefit i
of his mosistanee. he should pustpone the second reading of the
bill to another day.
Lon) ROLLE expressed a hope that that the noble Duke
would name a .lay 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 aa any man, and was obliged to
wry the discussion ought not to give way to couttesy. Tile bill
was really one which affected the privileges of that House. The
previsions would also bleak up the articles of union between
dos 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 fur the
The Marquis of LANSDOWNF: considered the nat.,' ion made
by the noble Duke consistent with the litmus of the Howe. If
the measure was considered by the ramble Duke a breach of the
privilege, of the House, the objection shoukl have been taken
on the !het reading of time bill.
The 1.01113 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 it to of anxiety in the country
to impious the Lords to come to a decision on the subject. Ile
entreated the noble Duke to mention some day when the people
might expect an end to the question. It was of great import.
once to some persons when this bill will conic on, and he should
eke care it came on early.
land LIVERPOOL expressed a desire to have a day named
for the discussion.
Lord 1101,1. E then moved that die Bill be read a second time
on Thorsday next.
The Duke of PORTLAND, in compliance with the wishes
of the noble Lords, fixed the second reading for the Slat June,
and Lord Rolle withdrew his mutton. Adjourned.
FRIDAY, JUNE 31.
Lord COLCHESTER took the oaths and his seat.
Mr. Chalmers presented the fifth report of the commissioners
for improving the communication between Edinburgh amid Fite.
Mr. Mason presenter] the annual account of receipts and ex •
eenditure of the East India Company.
Petitions against the Catholic Peers' Bill were presented from
Stockport—Carnaivon.—St. John the Baptist, Brom],
Load II Ali EWOOD presented a petirion from the shi(-owners
and merchtints of Halifax, preying tir a repeal of duties on
foreign timber.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition lions the
clergy. merchants, and gentry of Mancheater, praying that no
concessions be made to the Roman Catholics. The Right Rev.
Pis late stated, that the petition was signed by many iespectable
prawns
Lord SUFFIELD did not wish to oppose the petition, butt
was desirous of stating some circumstances connected with it,
which had been communicated. As far as lie could understand,
very few of the gentry anti leading persons in Manchester were
pm esent when the petition was drawn up, eleven or twelve of
the signatures were in the sante hand writing, load the names of
three lathes had originally been inserted. The names were
Mary Mills, Mary llo6lllbill, and Ann Johnson. 'lwo were
marl, and the petition than stood with the nanie of one lady
tardy. Tlwre was rea.ou to suppose it WPS got up in haste, and
the question was whether the 1100Sr:could receive it?
The Bishop of CHESTER said he had reicivod two or three
letters from Monacan r, stating drat the petition was signed by
respect.ble ;arsons, and he could say, hum personal knowledge
of the parties, that s' vela! were merchants. With respect to the
Indies who appeared in the list, lie kit them to the pleasure of
the Illouse.-1 A laugh.)
Load KING considered it the petition of the clergy.
The Bishop of EX WIER, alluding to the hot olsservation,
said it was signed by sonic of the clergy, but the number of si-
natures wits 1300, consequently the clergy (.I.llltl form but a small
puition.—The petition underwent the inspection of the Lord
Chancellor.
Lord ROLLE presenter] a petition iron the minister, churehs
wardens, and inhabitants of St. John, Exeter, against the rigli•
hon. George Canning 'a Bill, to admit Roman Catholic Pont
to ..tats in that House.
Lord HOLLAND wished for full discussion on this and every
subject, and to give the utmost facility to the pitaentation of
petition.; but he could not help observing that it was no rake.
twin on the House to receive the Bill 01 the right 1011. George
Carning, or any other member. It was therefore not the nom
docent mode of petitioning which introduced the mune of Mr
Canning the author 01 the Bill.
LindROLLE said. the petition had been put into his hand. ,
and he was no party to the irregulatity of expresaion, if there
was really any irregularity. lie met, ly discharged he, ditty by
Fes !wog it to the Houle. The petition was read and laid on
the table
The Irish Revenue Bill wa, read a third time and pissed.
The LORD CH ANCELL 4 adverting to the petition from
'Alanehesosr, presented by the Bishop of Chester, considered it
objersie nab!e. The Lords were to say whether the signature of
a smote, whop he understood to be an elderly lady, male
the petition inatlnitaablc hot inderendent of that, several of
the, mantles were in the snow hand-writing. which was certainly
triegulanty the Hoare had not bran act usuimul w overlook.
I he Bishop of CHE6TEH ums it there was any ittegulathy
petition, it wa.. unknewn to hrui, and irs slieuld beg Irate
withdraw it.