The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-31 00:00:00

IRELAND.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that on Mon-
day, the 7th of June, he should propose to the House a Itesp-
lution on the subject of Ireland. He should therefore move
that their Lordships be summoned for that day.—Agreed to,
after a few words from the Earl of DARNI.tY.

Earl GROSVENOR presented a Petition from the rnhabi-
tants of Shaftesbury and its vicinity, praying for the Revision
of the Criminal 'Code ; and one from the Owners of Land in
the County of Somerset, for Agricultural Relief.;--Laid on
the" table. -

Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar 'Petition from thq
Hundred of ShiPton, in the County of Norfolk.—Laid on
the table.

CATHOLIC PEERS' BILL.

The Duke of PORTLAND, in consequence of a domestic
calamity which had befallen a Noble Earl who had 41,kays
taken a distinguished part in the debates on the Catholic ques-
tion, wished to postpone the second reading of the Catholic
Peers' Bill; of which he had c-iven notice for to-morrow. At
present, he could not exactly say on what day he should
bring the subject forward, as it was impossible to know
when the Noble Earl in question would be able to attend.-L
But he should take the earliest opportunity of mentioning a•
day to the House. The Noble Duke then-moved that his no-
tice be discharged.
Lord RoLiz hoped that as Early a day as possible should
be fixed, as-there weressev'erat Irish• Peers who-had'corne over

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1822.

on purpose to be present at this discussion. and who' were de-
sirous of promptly returning to- their coun'ry on account of its
.present state.
The Duke of ATHOL objected to the notice being with-
drawn.' All he had been able to collect of the ground's on'
which the Motion was Made' was, that some individual would
not be able:to-niorrow.to attend. the House ; but he would not
suffer courtesy to be balanced with the importance of with-
drawing a notice; when the question was one which affected
their Lordships', privileges in a way hitherto unprecedented ';
which broke one of the articles of the Lnion,, and removed
the corner stone'on-,Which that Union rested. When he saw
the petitions on their Lordships' table, he could 'not consent
.to keep the country in > a state of prolonged. anxiety on such
a case as this. There were means by winch Noble Peers
might give their votes without attending. in their places.—
Though he should not object to a short' postponement till
Monday or Tuesday next, yet, if it were demanded for a
longer time, he should take the sense of tie House upon the
subject.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that nothing was
more usual and constitutional than the course proposed by the
Noble Duke who wished to postpone his notice. He would
beg to observe to the Noble Duke on the cross seats (the Duke
of Athol), and to call' to his recollection:that if he were to
divide the House, and to prevent the notice from: being dis-
charged, lie could not force the ,Mottle Duke (the,Duke of Port-
land); to'tirove the Order of the Dayttl-morroV:' his triumph,
therefore, would be' nugatory.' There was no necessity for
hurrying a-question like that which- formed the :object of the
Bill, with so much rapidity. It was said to involve a breach
of the piivileges of their Lordships ; if 'so, why had not the
Noble Duke opposed' the first reading'of the Bill ?—(Here the
Duke of Athol was .understood to say, that he was not present
at the time.)--,--4f there had been any breach of the privileges of
the House; he did not believe that those privileges would have
wanted a defender., even though the Noble Duke was 'absent.
At the*.sarne time he must own that he should regret to see this
measure deferred. to a period when it could not be fully dis-
cussed, and he Would 'admit the strength of the argument
with respect to the' Wish of- several Irish Peers. to return` to
their.country, were there not measures depending and_ about
to be introduced, from the other Housebn the subject of Ire-
land, 'which ought 'to engage the 'attention," and to secure the
attendance oflrish Peers,. even to a later period of the
session than that. to which the Catholic Bill was likely to be
postponed.
LotiI.ROLLE' explained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not enter into the -
merits of the Bill at present, but knew that the public mind
was in' a state of great uneasiness upon the subject. He
therefore should entreat the Noble Duke to mention some
day,. let it be as distant as he pleased,- for which it would -be
known that the question was fixed. He. was so much con-
vinced of the importance of preventing hesitation and anxiety
on that subject, that if it .Were otherwise not brought -for-
Ward., lie himself shOuld take care that it should come on. ,
He dig not.mean to sak -that the 21st or the 30th of the next
Month• would be too long a poStponereent, but that a day must
be fixed.

• The Karl of LIVERPOOL knew that the unfortunate cir-
cumstance which had happened made it desirable, -not only as
a matter of courtesy, but as one of political utility, that the
second Teadlng of the Catholic Piers' Bill should be postponed
in order to secure `the benefit of the Noble Earl's (Grey) -at-
tendance. and abilities in the discussion of the measure. Bad
it been
_fore the' convenience of that Noble "Earl that the
measure should 11ave' been put off, even till September, he.
should haye had np objection. But it was not on that ground
that the postponement was proposed,_ neither was any specific
time mentioned for the , next stage of
.the measure. 'l4he se-
cond 'reading having. been 'liked. far to-Morrow; many private
and public arrangements had -been ,mado on -that account,
yet he should not• object to delay; proVided some day should
be fixed.
Lord ROLLE, in order to take the sense. of the,Hotise,
should move ttillt. Thursday-next.should be "the day. •
june.
The. Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested Friday, the 21st of

. .
After
.
some conversation ' between the Duke of .ATtior., the
Loi.D othiNclt.i.oll., and the Earl of LAUDERDALE, ..
The Duke of PORTLAND..Moved that. his notice be dis-
charged' and fixed for Friday the 21st of June: . _..
• The LORD CHANCELLOR, said,•that it must be under-
stood that the. Noble Duke 'would positively move the second
reading. of the Bill on the 21st of -June, otherwise he should.
himself take-care to bring the question under the consideration
of the House.--Tlfe.inotton• was ,then agreed to.
• INSURRECTION ACT.
_ .

The Marquis of.I4ANSDOWA wished to ask the Noble.
Earl Opi!Osite. at' what trine the, renewal of: the Act for
continuing': the suspension of the trial by Jury in Ireland
would., be proposed, as the discussion of Such measure should
take pa4.,_when' 'a fa attendance of Irish Peers would be
secured.. • . .

The Earl of LIVERPOOL ..repliesl, that it was the inten-
_don of the.imiiyidual who was to introduce _the measure' in the
other House, to do. it in a very short thne... As it.: was impos-
sible to know howleng its. discussiOn might last in that... House;
the Noble Marquis would see that he cold not say exactly when
it would come before their Lordships. -
.The Eattot SUAFTESI3CIRY. -.presented several Petitions
against the catholic Peers' Bilk tiorn the• Parish of St. james;
Glasgow, Paiiley, its neighbo.UrhoOd, the Parish,of
Westminster, and the Baptist Dissenters of Gower-sireit Cha-
pel.—Laii on the table.--r Adjourned.