The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-18 00:00:00

PA itL I AME NT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARcit 17.,
Bnoorn N, and several ',Members of the House of Com-
mons, brought up the Army Mutiny Bill, and the Marine Mu-
tiny. Bill, which were read a first time. Mr. JoßNsTox, from the Office of the Chief Secretary for
Ireland, presented Accounts of Grand Jury Presentments, and
other Papers.

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said, that notwith-
standing the_observetions that had been made in the House by
certain Noble Lords relative to the right of the. Clergy to peti-
tion, he felt it duty to present the petition he now held in
his hand. It was always his reeling and his practice, before
he presented any petitiOn to their Lordships, to ascertain, as far
as possible, that it was respectfully worded, and that it contain-
ed some important signatures. He could vouch that this peti-
tion was unexceptionAle in these respects. He thought their:
Lordships could never be satisfied to curtail the rights
_Of any
portion of the people of Ertglanti,;-.so far as to deny them the •
privilege Of petitioning. Irhe .);41...take.n an _erroneous view of
this subject, he was sure should be corrected by the Noble and
Learned' Lord on the Woolsack. He did not mean to deprecate:
making any observations against such petitions,. but he com-
plained of the course .pursued by those who would deny to the
Clergy the right: .-,:njoyed- by every other clads of the commu-;
nity. Lordship thep
.presented a petition. from the Arch--
deacon and Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Wells, in the diocese.
of Bath and Wells, praying that the House would not grant
any further concessions to the CathOlics.—ltead, and laid on
the table.

Lord KING said that he felt it necessary to reply to the ob-
servations of the Rev. and Learned Lord, and to state that no
one ever objected to receiving suchpetitions as the one now pre-
sented. The• proptiety of drawing up such petitions only.was
called in question. Certainly this petition was not more re-
markable for chaTity than those that had preceded it. The pe-
titioners complained that the .Roman Catholics were educating
their children.. What ! did they then wish that no education
should be given them ? wetad ask, would those Reverend
petitioners be satisfied to be only Deacons in par-abut, and not
receive any emoluments from the Church ? The two most in.
tolerant. petitions that had been presented to the House were
those from Bath and
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said, that he believed
he was correct when lie said that certain Noble Lords had ob.
jected to receive petitions from the Clergy.. - _
Lord HOLLAND begged to correct the statement of the
Rev. and Noble Lord. As far as his recollection served, no
objection had been made to receive any.petitions.
Earl of LIVERPOOL begged pardon of the Noble Lord, .
but perfectly recollected that a Noble Earl who was not now
in the House was anxious to have such petitions altogether
rejected.
_ _

SCOTCH JURIES BILL.
Laid 31F.LVILLE postponed the Committee on the Scoteh
Jurie3 Bill until this day week.

MUTINY BILL,

The Earl of LIVERPOOL gave notice that he should more
the second reaeling of the Mutiny Bill to-morrow.

SCOTCII JUDICATURE BILL.

On the Motion of Lord i%IEIIVILLE, the House went into
a Committee on the Scotch Judicature Bill; and the amend-
ments being agreed to, the. Report was ordered to be received
to-morrow.

SPRING.GLINS BILL.
Lord SUFFIELD moved that the Report on the Spring
Gans Bill be received.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it would be neces
sary to alter the preamble of the iiill, us it . said, " be it further
enacted and declared, that. the setting of Spring Guns in the
Xing's higifway be unlawful." Now the illegality of such a
proceeding was never doubted. •• • - _

Se,4tal other amendments were suggested, in consequence of
which the Bill was recommitted, and the Report ordered to be
received to-mgrrow.—Adjourued.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Lord STANLEY Presented a petition from the Company of
~-Pioprietors of the Itlersey and Irwell Canal Niivigation,
:against the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill. The pe-
titioners prayed to be heard by their Counsel, agents, and wit.
nesses, a:4ainst the preamble and clauses of the Bill.—Laid on
the table.

Sir R. FE-ROUSSON presented a petition from the Mer-
chants, Shipown,rs, and others •of the fl rough of Dysart,
against the Leith Dock Bill.

IIETROPOLITAN SEA TA TER BATHS.

Alt. S. WHITBREAD brought in a Bill for the establish.
ment of Water Baths in the Cities 'of. London. and West.
minstt2r.—Read a,first time.

Mr. CREEVEV presented a petition from certain Land-
holders and Landed Proprietors holding estates in the pro.
jected.line of the'Liverpool and Manchester Railway, against
that measure, which the Honourable Gentleman termed " an
infernal machine," not, in point of .fact, projected for the
purpose of accofurnoclating the towns of Liverpool and Man-
chester, but foisted on the public by a set of mercenary ape-
culatars for their own private ends. He hoped to see a death-
bloW given to this measure.—Laid on the Table. •
PASCO. PERUVIAN MINE COMPANY.
Mr. T. F. BUXTON rose for the purpose of explaining to
the House, that the observations which he made last night, in
the,discussion which _took place on this question, were not ap-
plicable to Mr. William Dubois, who was a most respectable
Gentleman is the City, but exclusively applied to Mr. James
Dubois, with respect to whom, he did not retract a single syl,
lable of what he had said.
Mr. FREEM A.NTLE presented a petition from the Chelsea
Water Work Company, against the Metropolitan Water Work
Cotnpany•Bill.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from cer-
tain inhabitants of_the parish of Bethnal Green, in favour of
the Equitable Loan Company.—Laid on the table.
- • • • • CORN RETURNS.
Mr. CA LCRA FT rose to correct a flagrant misrepresentation
in the return of -certain defaulters with respect to purche.ses of
coin, now on the table of the House. In that return, it had
been falsely stated, that five thousand quarters of oats had been
purchased by Sir Claude Scott and Co. of Ipsviich, whereas the
Hon. Member knew of his Din knowledge that Sir C. Scott
had retired from business upwards of twenty-five years, and his
name had never been made use of in the firm of Soon-and CO.
at Ipswich. The only firm of that name now carrying on
busirims in tharline was that of Samuel-Scott and Company,
with whom Sir C. Scott had no sort of connection. He knew
Sir C. Scott to be a man incapable of the act imputed to him by
this return ' • for he was a gentleman who posseSsed not only a
benevolent anti.cliaritable t.eart, but an irreproachable charac-
ter for honour and integrity. He (the lion. Member) felt it
necessary to call At attention of the House to this subject with-
out delay, and he should, on a future occasion, move the House
to adopt some proceedinF.calculated to protect, not only Sir C.
Scott, but the community in general from misrepresentations
of this kind.

Mr. SCOTT, after complimenting the Hon. mehther (54i..
Calcrrift) on the haniisome manner in which he had spoken of
Sir Claude Scott. anddeclaring that his (Mr. S.'s) hoinie had
never had any corn transactions whatever, but such as were fair
kra fide ttansactions, said that there never had been anion in.
famous imposition practised upon the public officers, than that
that the inspector of the corn returns at Ipw.
practised on them on the present oceasion at Ipswich'. He
therefore rooted, ,
with ire, called upon to.state, whether there are, or ever were,
sucil pemna as Claude Scott and Co. at Ipswich; and if not;
his statement now before the
upon what authority he had stated that such persons had piir-
chased 8,000 .quarters of. oats, in his quarterly return-to she Re-
lit by
yot subsequently.
ceiver.Gener,il in London, for the quarter ending- the 31st of
recommend the
Mr. CALVERT added his testimony to the respectability Of
the House of Scott and Co. -fie. Would sugge,t, however to the
IHlue°e4ufueitey%teral-na2Ged4"n,l'ew-arial.ll;:orppir'efteeject the same
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Scott), that instead of his present
mutioni,the better course .would.be, to bring to the. 'bar of the
ofret4pectuble
wiy sure Iris /lon. Friend (Mt% S.)
theiraevrsirigon wdrhaowlniatdhseoHnolins.us_evitletatl;nrsanaltetse-ntion;
to
midi
he should su rt . ~
, ,- a 11101.1011 to that
effeCt; if it were made. . .
aPHec°;:utostrne.s3i, hebegged to saY,
.
wouldir sele', thla7.thliSs.lp'rNes:Cent motion A:as one wiii,ll,lt was impfp.
sitale for the House tr, adopt. Tfie. r!etter course would be, tor
give notice aft motion on the' tT,l•.;ectz!o be..,mtd,. 0.,
~,n,_
futare day ; and, in ticeinterim, he could, corr.i.,lo:,:whit uL'uil

be the hest means of bringing the matter before the House bra
satisfactory manner.
Mr. CURTEIS observed, that great frauds existed in state-
ments with respect to the averages of corn purchased ; and the
public officers were frequently imposed upon by false informa-
tion; he therefore expressed his wish that this matter should be
followed up. .
_ Mr. CA WRAP"' recommended his Honourable Friend op-
posite (Mr. Scott) to withdraw his motion for.the present.
Motion withdrawn.
THE THAMES QUAY.
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from certain inhabit-
ants of the City of 'Westminster, against • the Bill for the pro-,
posed Quay on the Northern Bank of the River Thames. • One
of the individuals named in the Petition stated, that by the
projected erection his premises, consisting of warehouses and
other buildings, which had cost him upwards of 6,090/. in build-
ing' would be removed, to the great and serious detriment of
his business. Another complained that his premises, valued at
10,0001., an income of 000/, a-year, would also be removed, to
the great disparagement of his interests. 'Me petitioners ge-
nerally also complained that the plan of the intended project
was incorrect, for it represented the existing houses as fifteen
feet higher than they really were; whereas, by the building of
this quay, they would be considerably deprived of both light
and air.—Laid on the table.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Sir R. WIL'sON presented a Petition from the inhabitants of
Bermondsey, in favour of the Equitable LOan Bill.— Ordered
to lie bn the table.