The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-25 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, JUNE 24.
ENROLMENT OF ANNUITIES.
Mr. WAKEFIELD was heard at the Bar of the
House as Counsel for Sir THOMAS SWYMMER CHAMPHEYS,
'Bart. on a Petition presented by Lord RE.DESDALE, on be-.
half of that Gentleman, against a Bill now pending before
their Lordships, entitled a Bill to alter the Act of the:s3d
Geo. 111. relative to the„.genrolments of Annuities." After
the Learned Coimiel had rfrgued for a consiaerablc time in
clear and luminous language against the Bill, and pointed out
its mischievous tendency, if passed into a law, the LORD
CHANCELLOR rose and stated to the House, that the Bill was
of much too momentous a description to be considered hastily.
and therefore he should move that the further consideration of
it be postponed until Wednesday.
ROYAL ASSENT.
At a quarter to four o'clock , the Lord Chancellor, the Earl
of Shaftesbury, and Viscount Melville. appeared as his Ma-
jesty's Commissioners, and gave the Royal Assent to a num-
ber of Bills (for which see Parliamentary Proceedings.)
CORN LAWS.
Numerous Petitions were presented against the Corn Im-
portation Laws Amendment Bill, from owners and occupiers
of land in the Counties of Somerset, Stafford, Suffolk, North-
am.pton, Kent, Gloucester, Warwick, and York, by the Mar-
quis of Bath, the Earl of Stradbroke; the Earl of %Westmore-
land the Marquis of Camden, the Duke of Beaufort, and
the Earls of Caernarvon and Aberdeen.— Read and laid on
the table. , .
The Tonnage Duties Repeal Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

Hh L F-PA Y.
The Earl of DARNLEY presented a Petition from Henry
Dundas Parrott, stating that his commission and half-pay, as
Lieutenant in the Navy, had been taken away from him by
the Board of Admiralty, in consequence of a verdict returned
against him in a trial fora misdemeanour, which verdict he of-
fered to prove at their Lordships' bar, had been obtained by
perjury. He therefore prayed for the restoration of his com-
mission and half-pay.
Viscount MELVILLE had no objection to the Petition be-
ing received. The Board of Admiralty had taken away the
Petitioner's commission and half-pay, in cons:_quence of the
verdict returned against him in a Court of Justice. It was true
that he had since obtained a demurrer in the Court of King's
Bench, but not under circumstances which could induce the
Board to consider him entitled to the restoration of his rank.—
The petition was then read and laid on the table.
CASH PAYMENTS.
The Earl of CAERNARVON presented a Petition from
certain Farmers of. Rumford- in the County of Essex, against
the Cash Payments Bill. The Petitioners prayed their Lord-
ships to recall that perilous measure, which they conceived had
created all thepresent distress of the country. The Noble Earl
was of the same opinion. After twenty years of depreciation
it was impossible to return suddenly to a metallic currency
without much inconvenience, distress and danger. He had an-
nounced last year what the result of the measure would be, and
he would now add that if it were not repealed, there would not
be a single acre of land in a twelvemonth that would not be
subject to mortgage.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not object to receiving the
Petition. He only wished to enter his protest against the opin-
ion delivered by the Noble Earl, that the Cash Payment Bill
was the cause of the existing depreciation and distress. At the
time when that Bill had passed, the depreciation was not more
than five per cent. It was impossible that the measure should
have had the effect ascribed to it, as between 1815 and 1816,
when no such Bill was in existence, the change produced by na-
tural causes in the currency had beenmuch greater, and the de-
preciation had exceeded 20 per cent. But even supposing the
measure to have been originally wrong, he put it to their Lord-
ships" whether the consequence of its being reversed would not
be to multiply the present difficulties tenfold? The country had
nothing to do but to adhere to the measure, when once it had
been passed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE contended that he had al-
most daily announced the consequences of adopting such a
measure ever since 1813. But now that it had been adopted,
he agreed with the Noble Earl opposite, that the question stood
on widely different grounds. The Noble Earl then argued on
the price of gold, and the advantage of taking silver as a
standard. From all that had occurred, however, he believed
that the Act of Parliament was falsely accused of having had
any effect in depreciating the currency.
The Earl of CAERNARVON maintained, that if the ope-
ration of that Act were not stopped, it would produce a
greater change in the situation of landed property than it
would be possible for the most sanguinary revolution to do.
What had happened in France would be nothing to it. Unless
their LortlLhips looked at their real situation, and reconsidered
that measure before the next Session of Parliament, much of
the evil would be incurred.—The Petition was then read and
Laid on the table.

MARRIAGE ACT.
The Order of the Day having been read, Lord ELLEN-
BOROUGH moved that the Marriage Act Amendment Bill
be recommitted.—Agreed to.
The House then resolved into the Coinmittee.—On the clause
respecting Property being put,
The LORI) CHANCELLOR expressed his intention of
moving an amendment on the receiving of the Report, as he
conceived that the clause as it was worded might be productive
of much unintended mischief and injustice.
At the suggestion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the affidavit to
be made before banns were proclaimed was ordered to be made
before the Minister of the parish instead of a Justice of the
Peace ; and the names of all persons whose banns were pro-
claimed were directed to be stuck on the chuich doors.
Several verbal amendments having been made, the Preamble
was, agreed to, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered
to be received on Wednesday next.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know whether it was
the intention of the Noble and Learned Earl on the Woolsack
to take the sense of the House again on the Retrospective
clause, when the Report should be received ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR would oppose the clause in
question, but could not say whether he would take the sense
of the House upon it, as that might depend on the countenance
which his opposition might receive from the House.—Adjourned.