The Sun.
London, England, 1825-04-29 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 28.
Mr. WODEITOUSE, Mr. AsimnsT, and other 'Members
frorn the House of Commons, brought up several private Bills

CATHOLIC CLA lII'S.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented a petition from
Tyrone, and another from several parishes in the county of
Fermanagh, against the claims of the Catholics.
The Bishop of EXETER preynted a petition from Calling-
ton, against the claims of the Catholics.
Lord KING said, he had a petition to present from certain
perions residing in the town of Sidnionth, in the county of
Pavon, in favour of Catholic Emancipation. A petition from
the same town was presented a few days since by a Noble Lord
(Lord Rolle) opposite, but that petition was against the claims
of the Catholics. His (Lord King's) petition was agreed to at
a public meeting; such.; however, was not the case with the
otber, which was sent round from house to house, and thus a
great number of signatures had been procured.
Lord- ROLLE obierved, that the petition presented by him
contained thenatnes of a great many persons, and was certainly
as respectably si,,,fied as the petition now presented by the Noble
Lord. He (Lord Rolle) had, howeVer; some objections to this
petition. The very first name contained in it was that of the
late Member for the county of Waterford, who fled from such
tragic scenes as had. been acted at Scullabogue and elsewhere,
and now resided' in this country. He had been most actively
engaged in getting up this petition. He (Lord Rolle) did not
think the gentleman to whom he alltided had made a fair re-
turn for the kindness with which, he had been treated by the
inhabitants of Sidmouth, in thus endeavouring to sow division
-and -dissension,' while others were endeavouring to preserve
peace. , •

The Earl of LIMERICK said, that he knew the gehtleman
to whom the Noble Lord referred, and knew that a more up-
right or more honourable man did not exist. Any one, to have
heard the Noble Lord, would have supposed that that gentle-
man had been some person who had fled from his country to
seek protection here : but he required no protection. He was
a man of spirit, of honour, and of integrity, whose character
stood high both in his own country and in this, and was re-
spected and beloved equally in Ireland and England. He had
sold his property in one land to reside in another; but he did
not deserve to be stigmatised as he had been. There might be
many higher names; but these was no name more honourable
than the name of that gentleman.

Lord ROLLE explained. He did not mean to say any thing
disrespectful of the gentleman, with whom he was living on
'terms of intimacy; but still he did not approve of his conduct
with respect to this petition.
The Earlof LIMERICK submitted to the House whether
the observations of the Noble Lord were not an attack on that
'Gentleman. He (Lord Limerick) was glad that he happened
to be in the House to do him justice.

Lord ROLLE again obser;redolzat he did not mean to hurt
the feelings of the Gentleman to whom he referred.
Earl DARNLEY said that in the name of the country to
which the Gentleman belonged, he must protest against the ar-
gument that he meant to' create division and dissension,, by en-
deavouring to induce the people to express their sentiments on
a most important subject. He did not deserve to be branded
for such an act, as he did not think he was endeavouring to sub-
vert the Constitution by so doing, and be certainly was not. In
his sentiments, he agreed with a great portion of the people of
England, with nine-tenths of the people of Ireland, with one
half of the Piotestants of 'that country, and with a majority of
the other House of Parliament.
The Bishop of EXETER said'that hebelieved, at all events,
the Noble Lord (Rolle) had said no more than had been fre-
quently said of the Clergy by the Noble Lords opposite.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said that the Noble Lords op-
posite might thank themselves iljetitions against the Catholics
covered the table of the House. _ _

Lord HOLLAND observed, that at all events, the feeling of
the people could not be a very strong one, if they waited to have
it forced froth them.

The petition was then laid upon the table.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a petition from the
Minister, Churchwardens, and the Inhabitants of Stoke, in the
county`of Warwick, against the Claims of the Catholics; and a
similar petition from the Trades' House of Glasgow.
The Bishop of LITCHFIELD and COVENTRY present-
ed a petition to the same effect, from the Archdeacon and Clergy
of the Archdeaconry of Salop. The Right Rev. Prelate ob-
served, that the petitioners prayed that no alteration might take
place in the laws against the Roman Catholics. The petitioners
added, that they hoped that whatever might take place with re-
spect to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they hoped that the
Roman Catholics of England might continue as they were.—
With the exception of this latter sentiment, he fully concurred
in the prayer of the petition.
The Duke of NLWCASTLE presented petitions against
the Roman Catholics, from Liffen, and another from Chip-
penham.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN presented a petition from the
Roman Catholics of the counties of Northumberland, Durham,
and Newcastle, in favour of Catholic Emancipation. The Noble
Marquis stated, that the petition was most numerously and re-
spectably signed. He felt it Scarcely necessary to observe, that
in the prayer of this petition he most cordially concurred. He
looked with very great anxiety to the determinatioh of Parlia-
ment on this very important subject, and on thoie other ques-
tions which were so immediately connected with it, and which
tended equally to secure the tranquillity of the empire. The
Noble Marquis then observed, that he had a petition to present
on the same subject and to the same effect from an individual
named Jordan, who had transmitted to him the petition from
Ireland. As it was of some length, and, if read, would occupy
half an hour of their Lordihips' time, he did not wish it to be
read, and would merely move that it be laid upon the table.
The petitions were severally laid upon the table.
CORN LAWS.
The-Earl of ESSEX presented a petition from Scarborough,
against any alteration In the Corn Laws.
The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from the tnanu-
facturers of Blackburn, and another from the inhabitants of
Preston, in favour of an alteration in the Corn Laws.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a petition to the same
effect from the inhabitants of Devonport.
Lord KING said that he had a petition to present to their
Lordships, which, as it also came from the county of Devon, it
was not impossible that the Noble Lord opposite (Lordßolle)
Would say emanated from persons who were disturbers of the
peace. The petition was from Cullumpton and contained the
signatures of
,800 persons. He (Lord King) hoped that the
Noble Lord (Liverpool) would not 'oblige the people to pal,
another year's unnecessary tax upon corn, for it was now ad-
mitted by all that the tax was unnecessary. If there must
an alteration, he could not see any reason why that alteration .
should pot be immediately made. It was confessed that next
year this alteration must take place, and he entreated the Noble
Lords not to make the people pay a tat- which, in their con-
sciences, they belieVed to be eicessive. If the tax were con-
tinued, as it now was, according to a moderate and fair calcu-
lation, every family would be obliged to pity 31. 15s. a year
more than they ought to pay. The Noble Lord then presented
a petition from Cullumpton in Devonahire, praying for an al-
teration in the Corn Laws. • • -
Lord ROLLE said that he thought the existing system of
the Corn Laws ought to be altered, but not at the present mo-
ment, nor until a full arid satisfactory inqUiry had been gone
into:
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said that he could not allow
the observations of the Noble LOrd (Kinj) to past without some
comment. lie thought those 'Observation infinitely more cal-
culated to disturb the peace of the country than any conduet
such as that alluded to by another Noble Lord (Rollo.' He
would ask the Noble Lord (King), if he had heard any com-
plaint of this excessive tax upon corn, of which he had spoken
SO much, or why he conceived there would be any reason for
such complaint ? We had heard in the Speech of lips Majesiy
from the Throne, that the agricultural interests of the country
'were in a state of increasing prosperity, yet at the' titne • that
such speech was delivered, the Noble 'Lord, who was present,
had made no allusion to any such complaints. If the Noble
le
making
aalYuall!tfCeti to observations
inflame tht lie
mindsi'had
.L'ord wished to canvass for petitions on this subject, he could
Earl had questioned
It it his duty to repro-
he iiad heard them f
justnot andloupite
lib better
oPrldawnhtilcha than
wt
Lauderdalebhast
of Complaints such as those he had
1 • t as the Noble t
him as to tow
of
fa soer
au people. c language,
al-
luded to, he would reply, from the
their Lordships' table; petitions that lay upon
of the City of 1 ,he had heard
am( from those
them from 5,000 petitioners
;IA d
and from many other places. rile noble Earl
Of LiverpoOl,
tad also aske not at the
d him why he did be • of
ginning the SO-