The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-01 00:00:00

PAM. AME NT.

HOUSE PF LORDS, FRIDAY, MAY 3

Lords LE DESPENCER and COLCHESTER took the Oaths
and their Seats.
The Earl of HAREWOOD presented a Petition from the
Merchants and Manufactureis of Halifax, in Yorkshire, pray.
ing for the repeal of the Duties on Foreign Wool.—Laid on the
table.
Mr. SCOURFIELD and others brought up from &Commons
the Pembroke Jail Bill.—Read a first time.
The Earl. of SHAFTESBURY Presented five Petitions
from various Incorporations of Trades at Glasgow against the
Catholic Peers' Bill —Laid on the table:
• • MANCHESTER PETITION.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a Petition from the
Gentry, Merchants, and Clergy of Manchester, against the
Catholic Peers Bill.
On the question that it be read being put,
Lord SUFFIELD stated, that he had received a direct con-
tradiction to the title which the Petition assumed. It was said
to be from tly Gentry. and Merchants, as well as from the
Clergy of aanches*; and be' a letter in his hand which
instructed him to say; that it came frdvt the Clergy alone, and'
that the: was not one of the leading Gentry or Merchants,
and only three Inhabitants, of the-frown of Manchester present
at the Meeting at which the Petition had been adopted. It
Was also .a remarkable fact, that many of the names were in the
same hand-writing. He knew not whether the fair sex were
allowed the right of petition ;.but it appeared that three Ladies'
names had been originally subscribed. Mary Mill, Margaret
Robinson, and-Ann Thompson, The female appellatives of
Mary, • Margaret, and Ann, had been afterwards crossed,' and
the males ones of William, Henry, and 'John, substituted in
their stead. It was clear, therefore, th it the petition had been
got up in an extraordinary manner, and was not that which it
was represented to be.
The Bishop of CHESTER said that he received several
letters, together with the Petition, which came from the most
respectable quarter, and which all concurred in giving to the
petition the character which it assumed.

After a conversation between Lord km& and the Bishop o.
CHESTER,

Lord SUFFIELD said that had it not ly...en for the shortneas
of the time before the s-cond reading of the Catholic Bill,
which then stood fixed for that very day, a Counter-petition
would have been set up.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then took the petition to ex-
amine ha signatures, and the House pr?eeeded with other
business.

Lord ROLLE presented a Patti°, from the Parish of St.
John's, Exeter, against the Catholic Peers' Sill.
Lord HOLLAND complained that the Petition described
the Bill as 111r.' Canning's Bill which might be considered a
breach of the privileges of the other House, as the measure was
not that of one individual alone, but of the whole of that
House. He did not wish, however, that •the Petition should
be rejected on that ground. He wished, on the contrary, to
throw open the doors of the -House to Petitions from all sides.
The Petition was then laid on the table. • •
The Irish Revenue Inquiry Bill was read a third time, and
passed.- -

- -
The Marquis of ANGLESEA presented a Petition from the
'Pcrrough of. Carnarvon, in North Wales, against. the Catholic
Bill..—Laid on the table.
• . The Duke of BEAUFORT presented Petitions to the same
effect, from the Parishes of St. John the Baptist, and St. Mary,
Redcliff, in the City of Bristol, and from the Archdeaconry of
GlouceSter.--Laid on the table.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a similar Petition
from the Dean, Archdeacon, and Clergy of Chichester, and
another from 945 inhabitants of Chichester and its vicinity.._
Laid on the table.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then stated that he had look-
ed at the Manchester Petition, and that it was perfectly true that
one lady, had signed it, and that besides three female signatures
had been crossed and turned into male ones. But what ap-
peared still more pressingly to demand inquiry %vas' the fact'
that many names were in tie sem- hand-writing. It was pro-
per that their Lordships should bd informA how that had come
to pass. •

The- Bisl'op of CHESTER said, that it' there was any
irregularity in the Petition, it had been entirzly unknown
to him.

Lord HOLLAND did not object to the signature of an old
woman, although he should to the language of an old .woman
in any Petition presented to that House, and was disposed to
receive that submitted by the Rev. Prelate, notwithstanding all
its irregularities. - •
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that if their Lord-
ships' allowed doubted Petitions to be received without inquiry,
they might have some presented as from 70,000 persons, when
they were not those of twenty individuals. He did not make
the female signature a ground of ob:ection,but,he conceived it
necessary to ascertain Why so many names happened to be in
the same hand-writing.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE suggested the propriety of
deferring the' receiving the Petition, in order b communicate
with the persons by whom it had been sent.
After a few words from the I3ishop-.of CHESTER, the Peti-
tion was withdrawn.

SALT TAX. -
Lord. SUFFIELD wished to inquire of the Noble Earl op-
posite whether the abolition of 13s. out of the 15s. duty now
existing upon salt, would be attended with the abolition of the
right of search and of all othcr regulations which had proved so
inconvenient to the fiSheries, end had prevent:A their growth
and prosperity ?
The Earl of. LIVERPOOL replied, that the subject in
question was under the consideration of the other House, and
that it was not for him o pretend to say how far it might
modify its difFerent branches. It was obvious, however, that
as a considerable, drawback had been hitherto granted to the
fisheries, and as many of the regulation;; which had proved in-
convenient- to them were connected with that drawback, they
must betome no longer necessary when the abolition of the
general tax would occasion the drawback to cease. The
equalization of the small remaining duty would probably be
attended with the removal of all those regulations.
Lord SUFFIELD then presented a Petition from the Inha-
bitatits of the town and county of Nottingham, in favour of the
.Bill to prevent cruelty to animals, and another from the parish
of St. Matthew, Bristol, praying for the revision of the Cri-
minal Code.—Laid on the table.
Adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
, .Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented a Petition from the Over-
seers of the Poor of St. Martin-in-the-Fields against the Poor
Removal Bill. Mr. Lamm' ow presented a similar Petition from
the Clergy and Churchwardens of the parish of Gateshead, in
the county of Durham ; Sand also a Petition from another parish
in the same county in favour of the Bill.
Mr. BLACKBURNE presented six Petitions from the
Churchwardens and Inhabitants of different parishes in the
county of Lancaster, against the Poor Removal Bill. The
same Hon. Member presented a Petition from the silk-manu-
facturers of Manchester against the Navigation Bill.
Mr. R. SMITH presented a Petition from the Guardians and
Overseers of the Poor of the city of Lincoln against the Poor
Removal Bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS eipressed his regret that his Hon. and
Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett) was not present to hear the Pe-
titions which were daily pouring in from all parts of the country
against his Bill. It appeared to him that these Petitions were
peculiarly entitled to attention, inasmuch as they proceeded ge-
nerally from individuals Who; from the offices which they held,
were best able to form a correct.judgment with respect to the
measure which they opposed.—(Hear.)—Without intending to,
anticipate the discussion upon the subject, he must be allowed
to observe, that if his Honourable and Learned Friend were dot
suffocated by the mass of Petitions which bad been presented
against his Bill, he must have more life in him than any man
he ever knew.--(A laugh.)
Petitioni against the above Bill were then presented from the
Corporation of Leicester, by Mr. MANSFIELD; from IVlaccles-
field in the.county of Chester, by Mr. DAVENPORT ; from'
Wolverhampton, by Mr. LITTLETON; from the Corporation
of Liverpool, by General GascoYNE ; from the parishes of St.
Sepulchre and St. Peter, in the town of Northampton, by Capt.
MABEnLY ; from two other parishes in the same town, by
Sir G. RioniNsoN ; and front Manchester and Salford, by
Lord STANLEY.
Mr. DICKINSON presented apetition from certain silk-ma-
nufacturers in the west of England, against the Navigation Bill.
Admiral SOTHERON presented a petition from the