The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-03 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, MAY 2.
Their Lordships, in a Committee of Privileges,
heard Counsel and evidence on the , claim of
Alexander Home, Esq., to the Earldom of.
Marchmont.

Several Local and Private Bills were brought
from the Commons, and read a first time. Among
them was the Dublin Foundling Hospital Bill,
brought up by Mr. W. atm.
The Duke of BEAUFORT presented a Petition
from the Churchwardens of a parish in Somerset-
shire,'against the Catholic Claims.
The Earl of TLIANET presented a Petition from
the Unitarian Dissenters of Kendal, against the
Marriage Act.

The Bank of Ireland Bill was read a third
time, and passed.—Adjourned.

HOUSE. OF COMMONS.

. -
Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from the inhabitants
of Sunderland, praying for the revision of the criminal laws.—
Ordered to be printed.
Mr.MARRYATT presented apetition from certain merchants
of the city of London, against the renewal of the West India
Dock Company's charter.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. T. WILSON presented a Petition from certain sugar
refiners of the city of London, stating that they viewed with
alarm the measures which had been introduced into the Ilous.l
for permitting a,free trade bebveen the West India Islands and
the United States of America.—Ordered to be referred to the
Committee on Foreign Trade.
Mr. 'BYNG presented a Petition from the inhabitants of
Uxbridge, praying for the repeal of the Leather Tax.—Ordered
to lie on the table.

TREMAYNE presented a Petition from the inhabitants
of King's Sand and Cawsand, complaining of the inundations
caused by the Plymouth Breakwater.
Sir G. COCKBURN observed,. that the inundations only
took place during the prevalence of a south-east wind, and he
understood they were not of a very extensive nature.
• The Petition was ordered to be laid on the table.
.
YORKSHIRE POLL BILL.
•

Mr. C. WYNN presented a Petition from, the inhabitants of
some part of Yorkshire in favour of the aboVe Bill.
Mr. RAMSDEN stated, that when, the Bill came to be dis-
cussed, it would receive his decided opposition. He was satisfied
that the sentiments of the majority of the inhabitants of York..
shire were inimical to the Bill. —•

AIL C. WYNN could not conceive how the Hon. Member
could have ascertained what were the sentiments of the majority
of the inhabitants of the county with respect to the Bill. He
(Mr. Wynn) knew that 'eight Petitions most rdspectably and
numerously signed, had been presented in its favour. He would'
take this opportunity of stating, 'that in consequence of the very
important business which' was nxed for to-morrow evening, he
did nbt think there would be an opportunity for discussing the
Bill ; he would ,therefore arrange with those Gentlemen who
were interested in the measure for the appointment of a fu-
ture day for bringing it forward.
The Petition was then laid on the table. _

Mr. LOCKHART presented a Petition from the owners
and occupiers of land in Suffolk, Gloucester, and Sussex, com-
plaining of agricultural distress. The Hon. Member proceeded
to deprecate the proposition contained in a resolution which
the Member for Portarling:ton.(Mr. Ricardo) had submitted to
the House'on a former night, for permitting the foreign corn
now in bond to be taken out for home consumption, whenever
the average price of wheat in this cotintry should exceed
sixty-five shillings. Such a proceeding, he had no hesitation
in saying, would be totally destructive of the agricultural
interest.

Mr. RICARDO said, he would not enter into any discussion
upon his Resolution, because a fitter opportunity for doing so
would present itself to-morrow evening.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE differed totally from the Hon.
Member for Portarlington as to the view which he took of the
subject before the House, and believed if the counsel 'of that
Hon. Member were followed, the country would fall into a si-
tuation which the House might have reason to regret. None
of the Resolutions which had been proposed, indeed,' met his
(Sir T. Lethbridge's) approbation ; and he should be compell-
ed, as a matter of duty, to submit some Resolutions of his own
to the House, calculated, as he hoped, to afford protection to
the country. No system yet brought forward did afford any
thing like an adequate protection. The House and the country
must determine to go the length of really adequate protection,
or nothing would be done. His (Sir T. Lethbridge's) Resolu-
tions would be opposed to all those yet presented to Parlia-
ment : he might be•told, perhaps, that they went too far ; but
in justice to the country he was bound to submit them to the
Hotise. , I

Mr. HUME requested, that before the House rose, the Ho-
nourable Baronet (Sir T. Lethbridge) would have the good-
ness to produce his Resolutions; they might then be -.printed
against the following morning, and Members could consider
them before they came on to be discussed. Looking at the
Honourable Baronet,as one of the landed interest in the House,
and supposing that his views would be those of that interest
generally, he was anxious to hear what it was that that interest
desired, and'what it was they asked in the way of relief.
Mr. BURRELL thought he might contribute to the Reso-
lutions of the Hon. Baronet if he stated a circumstance which
had recently come to his knowledge. The freight of corn at
present (from Hamburgh, the Hon. Gentleman was understood
to say), to this country, would not exceed Is. tid. a quarter on
wheat, Is. 3d. on barley, and 9d. on oats.
Mr. LOCKHART was adverse to the course proposed by the
Hon. Member for Portarlington.
The petition was then read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. COKE presented a petition from the county of Norfolk,
complaining of agricultural distress—Read, and ordered to be
printed.
STATE OF THE CURRENCY.

Mr. DENISON presented a petition from a Gentleman of
the name of Taylor, complaining of the distressed state of the
landed interest, and of the alteration which had taken place in
the value of the currency. The petitioner stated, that in the
year 1814, he had (at a loss of 50,0001 by selli ig out from the
funds) invested 150,0001. in the purchase of land. He had af-
terwards mortgaged the same land for 60,0001. ; the mortga-
gee had now foreclosed, and the property would not sell for
one half its original cost. Mr. Taylor farther declared, that he
had purchased the land, at the time when the guinea sold for
26 shillings, and the.bank-note for 14. In presenting the peti-
tion, Mr. Denison believed he was only stating the grievances
of a very large body of his Majesty's subjects. Mr. Taylor
prayed that a Commission might be instituted to examine into,
and regulate, all existing contracts between debtor and creditor,
and anticipated the most deplorable consequences from a refu-
sal of that measure. Under the operation of the existing sys-
tem, nothing but the extinction of the agricultural interest could
be expected; the tenant must sink to the condition of a serf,
and the landlord would become a mere trustee for pauperism
and taxation. . .

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOVV, in referring to the circumstances
under which the Petitioner had made his bargain, said that
contractors must be taken .to contemplate consequences ; the
currency, at the period alluded to, had certainly been in an
unnatural state. •

Mr. WESTERN begged to address a few words in answer
to the observations of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman.
In the very same year in which, according to that Hon. Gentle.
man, the currency had been in a most unnatural state—in that
same year the House of Commons had dared to declare that a
pound note and a shilling were equal to a guinea.—(Hear.).-.:.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman must necessarily remember
the fact, for he had himself given .a vote upon the question.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW thought the Hon. Gentleman must
be wrong, because he had not been in Parliament at that time.
Mr. WESTERN did say that the Petitioner, and many
others, were entitled to tell the House that an absolute fraud
had been committed upon them. Hundreds and thousands of
persons-were in the same situation with the Petitioner, having
been deceived by the monstrous and fraudulent resolution put
forth by the House of Commons.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW said, that the only vote he had
ever given on the subject of the currency was his vote for con-
tinuing the last Restriction Act.
Mr. BROUGHAM.—The same House of Commbns which,
on the 13th of May, 1811, resolved that, in point of fact, the