The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-27 00:00:00

PAitLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, MAY 26.

The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions fi.om Bolton-le-
Moors, one from the journeymen cotton-spinners, praying for
a limitation of working hours; the other from the inhabitants
of the place, in favour of an alteration in the Corn Laws.—Laid
on the table.

BONDED CORN.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from the
land-owners of Hadlcigh, in the County; f Suffblk, against the
Bill for allowing the introduction and sale of Bonded Corp.
The Earl of ..11ALMESBURY was understood to suggest
the propriety, of delaying the Committee on that Bill, on ac-
count of the absence of certain Returns, which were not yet be-
-fore the House.
After some conversation, the Earl of LIVERPOOL • con-
sented ta put off the Committee till next-Tuesday, on condition
twat there. would be no objection to the Bill being read a third
time on the following day. - •
The petition. was then laid on the table, with two others to
the, same effect. from hundreds in the same county.
Petitions in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill were presented
by the Duke of Rictimo).rn and Earl of TatikEttviLLE, from
Birmingham. and Whitby.—Laid-on the table.

- ROYAL MESSAGE.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL brought down a Royal Message
from the. Crown, in whiCh 'his Majesty expressed his desire
to grant an annuity toiler Royal Highness the Prince Alex-
andrina Vittoria of Kent, and his Royal Highness Prince
George Frederick Alexander Ernest' Augustus, the son of
the Duke 'of Cumberland, and recommended to -their Lord-
ships to concur in making a provision for the families of
their, Royal llignesses the Duchess of Kent and the Duke of
Cumberland. •
- The Message was then read from the Woolsack, and
On the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, it was ordered
to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

BILLS.
Mr. Bu.oanEN and others from the Commons brought-up
the Exchequer Bills for Public Works in Ireland Bill, the Ca-
nada Incorporated Company's Bill, and a great many other
Bills, which were read a first time.
Mr. RUUD presented Returns from the Equitable Loan
Company, pursuant to the orders of the House.--Laid on the
table.

QUARANTINE LAWS. •
Earl DARNLEY complained, that the returns which had
been laid on the table and printed, on the subject of the Qua-
rantine Laws, were not perfect, and expressed his intention to-
morrow or Monday next, to move for copies or extracts of any
communications which might have been received by his Ma-
jesty's Government on this subject, from the British Consuls in
the .Mediterranean. He also wished to know whether it was
true, that foreign Powers had already laid restrictions on the
entrance of British vessels into their ports, in consequence of
the expected removal of our Quarantine Laws. If this were
the case, it would become a consideration whether our trade
would not suffer more than it. would gain by the measure.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL recommended to the Noble
Earl to suspend his obsetvations till the Bill should be he-
fore the House, that he might exactly know what were its
provisions ; for a wrong idea prevailed that It was intended
to alter our Quarantine Laws and to set the whole system
loose. There was no intentionwhatever to abolish the cus-
tomary airing of vessels and objects coming from the Levant.
It was only proposed to do, away some very inconvenient re-
gulations which were totally unnecessary. If the Noble Earl
would postpone his motion- till Tuesday next, it would pro-
bably be then in his power (the Earl of Liverpool's) to move
the Order of the Day for the first or second reading of the
Bill.
Earl DARNLEY hoped that the Noble Earl would be able
to state to-morrow, or at the latest on Tuesday next, whether
British vessels had experienced any difficulty in entering fo-
reign porls in consequence of the measure now in progress.
CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

The Marquis of -LANSDOWN presented a Petition from
the town of Beaminster, in the county of Dorset, in favour of
the Catholic Claims. The Noble Marquis stated that he pre-
sented it althouo the Catholic Bill had been rejected, because
he did not consider the question as finally disposed of. It was
one, on the contrary, which must continue to come yearly be-
fore the House, till justice should be done to one third of the
population of the empire.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say, that
he should not oppose thepetition, but that he had received seve-
ral petitions himself of a different nature since the rejection of
the Catholic Bill, which he had not presented on account of the
decision which the House then taken.—The petition was then
laid on the table.