The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-04 00:00:00

AGRICULTURE,

The Earl of ALBEIILARLE presented a petition from the
Occupiers of 24,500 acres'of land in the Hundred of North
Greenlow, in the county of Norfolk,. complaining of Agricul-
tural distress.

Lord -SUFFIELD bore testimony to the reality and extent
'-of that distress.—The petition was read and laid on the table..
The Earl of ALBEMARLE then presented 'a similar peti-
tion from the Occupihs of 35,500 acres of land in the Hundred
of King Cross, tin the county of Norfolk.—Road and laid on
the table.

Lord SUFFIELD presented' a petition to the - same effect
from the Hundred of North Uppingham, in the county of
Norfolk. His Lordship stated, that the petition was signed by
all the land-owners of the Hundred, but that lie had known
nothing of the meeting, untn he hail been requested to preside,
and had had' no share in the propositions submitted for consi-
deration.

The Earl of DARNLEY made 'a feW observations in:sup-
port of the petition, and contended that as taxation was one of
the chief causes of distress, its reduction would be the most
effectual mode of relief.—The petition; was then read and laid
on the table. -

Lord CLIFTON, and others brought several private Bills from
the Commons which were read a first time.
• SCOTCII PEERS.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY rose, pursuant to his motion.
Their Lordships would recollect that, in the course of last
Session, he had introduced a Bill, the effect of which was to
regulate the right of voting at the election of the sixteen
Peers for Scotland. This Bill gone through two stages,
not only without being objected to, except by one Noble Peer,
but ,with the general-approbation of the House. Subsequent-
ly, however, several Noble Peers.. wished that the measure
should be suspended, in order that the sense of the Scottish
Nobility, upon its merits, should be more fully ascertained. • At
his own suggestion, a communication had been made to every
individual Peer, respecting his opinion on the subject., and-the
result had not only confirmed his conviction of the propriety
of the measure, but had determined him to bring it once more
before their Lordships. Only two Peers had dissented. The
one, because though he thought well of the measure he did
.not conceive that the Scottish Nobility were unanimous m want-
ing it ; and the other because he believed it would be better 'to
proceed by resolutions, -.than at once by a Bill. This was the.
course which he-now intended to adopt. _lie had already, on
introducing the original Bill, pointed out to their Lordships the
defects of the existing system of election. They were aware
that there was no provision to reject the .votes which were of-
fered, and, that many individuals who had no legal right were
thus enabled to vote. Now, this would be a hardship to any
body of men, hut more particularly so to the Peers of,Scot-
land„ who, having lost their seats in the Legislature, only re-
tained the right of voting for the election of Representatives,
and were not even allowed to sit in the House of Commons:—
He should think it unnecessary to occupy the time of the
House with any argument to justify some alteration in the
system-, if he did not expect that the length of time whith
it had existed would be urged in its support. -.He should
therefore produce one example in which the present mode of
election had been productive of great injustice. He alluded
to-the General Election of 1790. Owing to the admission of
indiscriminate votes, only thirteen Representative Peers for
„,Scotland.had for three whole years sate in the. British Parlia-
ment. The three others had been deprived of their seats all
that time, because six Peers had been elected by equal num-
bers, and an inquiry became necessary before it could be de-
cided who were the, three who had been duly returned. This
investigation took up three years, though he would admit that.
another question had been mixed up with it, whether Scottish
Peers sitting in Parliament under an English title retained the
right of voting at the election of Representative Peers. This
question, however, might have ,been decided, and was ulti-
mately settled by that House in the affirmative in the space of
one day. Yet owing to- the original vice in the system 'of
election, three Peers were deprived of their seats for three
years out of six which they were to have sat in Parliament.
After having _taken the subject into serious consideration, and
in deference to the opinion of others, he 'should submit two
Resolutions to their Lordships. The first. should declare. that
in case OfAhe decease of a Scottish Representative Peer, no
person, except the son, grand son, or the lineal descendant
or brother of a Peer, should vote for the election of a Re-
presentative until his. right of voting should have been ad-
mitted by the House of Lords. The second should merely pro-
vide that the first should not infringe the right of any person to
challenge that of others to.vote. He should now move that the
House resolve itself i9to a Committee of Privileges on these
Resolutions on Thursday next, with the view, should they meet
with the approbation of the Committee, to bring in a Bill to
give them the force of law. -
The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned till
M onday next.