The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-27 00:00:00

petition from an individual (whose name was not
heard below the Bar) who had been educated a
Roman Catholic priest, and had now become a
Protestant, praying their Lordships to grant him a
stipend, similar to what had been granted to parties
situated in a similar manner. The Noble Earl spoke
at some length, but wes very indistinctly heard
below the Bar. He was understood to say, that
by the law of the land the petitioner, who had been
a Roman Catholic priest, and had now become a
believer in the Protestant religion, was, ipso facto,
a clergyman of. the Church of EnglaNd.
The Earl of LIMERICK did not rise to oppose
the presentation of the petition, but to deprecate
the system of bribing parties to change their re-
ligion. He knew in several cases which had come
under his own experience, and it was not very
limited, that the parties who had abandoned the
tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and em-
braced those of the Protestant Church, were poi-
sons of bad character.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, from his own
knowledge, could state that the Catholic Priests of
many paiishus in Ireland received 2001. or 3001. a
year : that they had a larger income than the Pro-
testent Clergymen ; it was not, therefore, very
likely that the Priests would abandon that sum for
the sake of 401. a year, which the Act of Anne pre-
vided, unless from conscientious motives. For his
own part he disclaimed any intention or desire of
bribing them to change their religion.
• Lord HOLLAND considered the petition quite
irregular; the prayer was to ask the House to vote
a sum of money. If the Noble Lord, or other
Noble Lords, wished to patronise this meritorious
class of persons, they had it in their power to do so,
by bestowing upon them the advowsons which
they had in their gift.--(A laugh.)—At the
suggestion of Lord Holland the petition was read
at length
After a few observations from the Earl of Ross-
LYN, who spoke against its admission on account
of its irregularity,
The Earl of MOCNTCASHEL withdrew it.
CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL gave notice that
on Tuesday (this day week) he should present a pe-
tition from Cork, in favour of Church reform ; and
on the same evening he should submit a motion to
their Lordships to request his Majesty to appoint a
Commission to inquire into the Church discipline.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to
know whether the motion was intended to include
the English Church, or only the Irish Church Esta-
blishment.
The Earl of MOUNTCA SHEL was understood
to say the motion would embrace both.
EAST RDTFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Mar quis of SALISBURY moved the Order
of the Day for calling in Counsel on the East Ret-
ford Disfranchisement Bill.
After a few words from Lord DURHAM, the Mar-
quis of SALISBURY, and the Earl of ROSSLYN, Coun-
sel were called in. In support of the Bill the Hon.
Mr. Law and Mr. Price appeared at the bar ; and
for the petitioners against the Bill Mr. Adam, Mr.
Alderson, and Mr. Stephenson.
i•lr. Richard Hannam was then called in. After
a few questions had been put to this witness relative
to the practice adopted at East Ret ford at elections
within his recollection, he was ordered to retire.
Lord DURHAM having risen to propose that
Counsel should be lost' ucted to proceed with the
exarainatiou of witnesses in the first instance to
acts of bribery at the last election at East Retford,
The Marquis of SALISBURY, the Earl of MALMES-
BURY, and Lord HOLLAND opposed the motion, con-
ceiving that those who conducted the case had a
r'ght to procsA to tile proof of bribery and corrup-
tion, either of a recent or more advanced period.
The House then divided, when there appeared for

the motion,
Contents l2
Non-contents
Majority —4l
Their Lordships, at a Quarter to Seven, then adjourned.