The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-07 00:00:00

3mpertat 'Varttaintnt.

HOUSE. OF LORDS.
MONDAY, *NW. 1.
Lord JAR. MURRAY was introduced as Baron Glcnlion, and
took his seat. His Lordship was introduced by Lords Limerick
and Kinnoul.

Doyle's Divorce Bill was read the second time, and the Com-
mittee postponed till after the holidayi.
Earl DIG BY presented three petnions from Agriculturists in
the county of Dorset, complaining of distress, &c.—Laid on the
table.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the Secretary
to the Board of Excise be caned to the bar. That person ac •
cordingly appealed.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Do you remember on the
111th of last month receiving an order of this House, from the
111.sengcr of the Treasury
A. On the 12th of last month, in the morning, an order front
the !louse was received by me.
Q. What did you do with the order?—lt was not directed to
me. It was for the Board. They opened it.
The witness withdrew.

The Marquis of LA NSDOW NE then moved, that Lord
George Seymour, Chairman of the Board of Exe;se, be called
to the bar. The motion was agreed to, and the noble Lord
appeared.
Examined by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE.
Q. Does your Lordship remember to have received on the 12th
of la-it month, a communication from the Treasury, which was
laid before the board ?—A. I did, on the 12th.
Q. Did the Board, in consequence of that communication,
direct any steps to be taken ?—A. It was directed to be reported
to different persons whom it concerned—to different branches of
the excise, country correspondents' and the different offices.
Q. Did it appear to you, that there was any thing in the order
which required delay in making the return ?—A. It was necessary
to discover and point nut older; sent to different individuals.
Q. Will yam. Lordsl4 state why the delay too:: place ?—lt
arose from this: Oaers were given tinder spixial circumstances,
to various individuals, and we wished to get answers, which had
not been received, before we gave any general answer to this
!louse.
. . .

Q. This we are to consider the cause why the returns could
not be made without delay ? —A. I considered it n. eessary to
obtain answers to all die ca•cs under consideration betUre we
made our return. Every came stood on its own Lorton), and I did
not think a sweeping answer sufficient.
Q. MI your Lordship consider that any discretion was to be
exercised by the Board, in returieng an answer to the order of
the Hoare?—A. I certainly did understand it so—a sweeping
return would not have been sufficient.
Q. Dues your Lordship recollect to have received on the 24th
of List month front the 'I reasury the Order of the House, that a
return to the former order be made forthwith ?—1 do.
Q. State what steps were taken in consequence?—A. No steps
were taken to nui4thc return. A further report writ, ordered.
Q. Did your Lordship receive a letter from the officer of the
Treasury, accom:anying the last order, and requesting to be in-
formed of the nature of the delay 'r
—A. Yes.
Q. Did you answer it ?—A. No—l certainly take blame to
myself for not giving the answer.
Lord Seymour then withdrew.
The slarquis of LANSDOWNE. then moved that the noble
be rolled again to the bar, and informed that the House Himld
expect in future their orders to be punctually attended to. The
motion was agreed to, and Lord Seymour rest•ppeared al thi bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then said—•' Lord George
Seymour, I am commanded by this House to infoom you, that
the House expect in future their orders to be minuet:My obeyed,
and at present they dismiss you from any further attendance
here." Lord Se, 'oar then withdrew.
The Marquis of LA NSDOW NE then moved, that there be
laid before that House a copy of all convictions obtained under
prosecutions instituted by the Board of Excise, for selling roasted
corn and other substances sodded breakfast powder. Also the
opinions of the Crown Officers upon the powers given by the Act
of went to seize the same.
After a few remarks front Lord Liverpool, the motion was
agreed to.
Lord ERSK I E presented a petition from the occupiers of
land in the County of Suffolk, complaining of agricultural
dis-
tress.—Laid on die table.
laird Gil EY presented a petition against the Durham lighting
and paving bill.
The Irish Five per Cents. Bill was read a second time.
The Dublin Fever (hospital Bill was also read a second time.
The Receivers of Stolen Securities' Bill was read a second time.
—Adjourned.
TrESDAY, APRIL 2.
On the motion of the Bishop of EXETER, the report of the
committee upon the education of the poor was ordered to be
pi lilted.
The report of the commissioners appointed to regulate church
br'cfs was laid on the table by the Bisdop of Exeter.
The Irish Five per Cents. Bill was read the third time and
passed.
The Receivers of Stolen Securities' Bill, and the Dublin Fever
Ilospi:al Bill, went through committees. Adjourned.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3.

The focal itsvnt was given to the Irish five per cents. bill—
the Admiralty Quonitn bill—the Altilt Duties Repeal bill—and
the Attorneys and Solicitors' Regulation bill.
The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Melville,
and Lord Shaftesbury.
Mr. Drogden and other members from the Commons broti;,tht
up the Innkeepers' Rates bill, which was read the first time.
Lord RED ESDA I .F. presented a ,e-ition front the Chevalier
%ITU-it,. praying for amendment in the bankrupt laws. Tile
petitioner prayed especially that no Commission should issue
unless the debt of the petitioning creditor amounts to lOW.
The petition was read and laid on the tattle.
On the motion of the Earl of LAUDERDALE, a message
was suit to the Commons, requesting a copy of the report of the
Committee on Agriculture.

- -
Lord ERSKINE presented two petitions from owners and
occupiers of lard in the townie, of Kent and Gloucester, coin.
p!aining of agricultural distress. The noble Lord observed, that
it few clays ago, when lie prebemed a similar petition, it was said
no steps could be taken for the relief of the dists &zed agricul-
turists, until the result of the labours of the Agricultural Com-
hoittee was known. He had then the report of that Committee
in his poelitt, and could state to the House what the result was. '
They had a kr a lust time a statement of one of the causes of
agricultural distress. They were told it arose from an unlimited
importation of foreign corn, which had injured the domestic
grower, and whenever the price of corn was below the price
allowed by law, government were recommended to take corn in
pledge, advancing not more than two-think of the value. The
rtetaiiint nth:6on of the Committee. so far front being a remedy,
we., in the noble Lord's opinion, an aggravation of the evil.
The agriculturists called upon that [loose tut relief, and they
is do nothing for them, but the Lords certainly had the
power to reject any bill which did not propose a proper remedy.
't hey had heard a great deal about brin,;ing the country back to
its former state with respect to grain, but he for one should be
sorry to sec it brutz,4ltt buck again to the state which produced
the most btaetit to growers of corn. lle sincerely hoped that
house would Itject any bill which did Out provide a remedy fur
the evil.
The LORD dHA,NCEI.I.OR said a noble friend, not then in
the House, had moved to bring; the report of hit Committe of