The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

On the motioa of Sir WILLIAM CONGREVE the Equi-
table Loan Company's Bill was read a second time, and order-
ed to be committed- . . _

_ ........
Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from the Pawn.
brokers of London, against the Equitable Loan Company's Bill.
—Ordered to be printed.
The Kensington Canal Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
Mr. MANNING moved the second reading of the West In-
dia Company's Bill.
Mr. lIUSKISSON suggested the propriety of postponing
this Bill until the question relative to the legality of the mea-
sure were ascertained.

The Bill was then postponed to Monday next.
PETITIONS.

Mr. DAVENPORT presented a petition from Northwieh,
Cheshire, against the Beer Duties Bill.
Mr. JAMES presented a petition from Charlton Row
against the grant of Public Money -for the Building of
Churches.

Sir ISAAC COFFIN said it was obvious the petitioners
were not. Church of England men.
Mr. JAMES maintained that they were all most respectable
men.—Ordered to be printed.
Lord BINNING presented a petition from Rochester and
the City of Edinburgh against the Beer Duties Bill.
Similar petitions were presented from Glasgow, Yeovill,
Loughborough, Stirling, Walsall, Lancaster, Stockport, Not-
tingham, and Salkeld.
Mr. MUNDY presented a petition from Derby and its vici.
nity, against the Window Tax.
Mr. LEICESTER presented a petition from Preston against
Negro Slavery.
Mr. HOPE presented a petition from Linlithgow, against
the Poor Laws of Scotland Bill.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND declared his determined hostility to
the tneasure in its present state. It was calculated to do great
mischief.

' Mr. KENNEDY defended the measure. It was not fair to
pronounce upon it until it had gone to a further stage, when it
would he in the hands of Members.

--------
Mr. W. DUNDAS strenuously opposed the measure.
Sir G. CLERK also spoke against it as one which gave gene-
ral dissatisfaction.

Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from Walsall, Staf-
fordshire, against the Hides and Skins Bill.
"Mr. LAM BTON presented a petition from South Shields,
in favour of the Hides and Skins Bill.—The Honourable
Member also presented a petition from the same place against
slavery.. .

Similar petitions to the last were presented from Salkeld and
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from Gosport against
the Salt Duty.
Mr. DENMAN presented a petition from the Boot and
Shoemakers of Nottingham against the Combination Laws.
The Committee' on the Pauper Lunatics Bill was postponed
to Friday next.
Lord ENNISMORE presented a petition from Chivering,
Ireland, against the removal of the Linen Bounties.
Mr. CALVERT presented a petition from certain Auc-
tioneers of Unredeemed Pledges, against the Equitable Loan
Bill.

Mr..GORDON presented a petition from Mr. Fuller, late
High Sheriff of the County of Wilts, praying for some Amend-
ment in the Law of_Agsaults.

Mr. LESLIE FOSTER presented a petition from Dun-
dalk, complaining of the Regulation relative to the Importa-
tion of Foreign Flour.
The LORD ADVOCATE presented petitions from KU-
neddin and Edinburgh against the Stamps on the Admission of
Attornies. _ _

Mr. T. WILSON presented a petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of the Metropolis against the Beer Duties' Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD supported the petition.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a petition from Inver.
ness in favour of the Scotch Jury Bill.
. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from a sect of
Protestant Christians in the City of Dublin, called Separatists,
praying to be relieved from the necessity of taking an oath.—
They prayed for the same privileges and exemption as the
Quakers enjoyed.
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE presented petitions from
Bath and two other places, against the Beer Duties' Bill.
Mr. F. BUXTON presented a petition from Newport, Isle
of Wight, against Negro Slavery.

Mr. LEICESTER presented a petition from an individual
of Chester, against the continuation of the Salt Tax.
Mr. J. BENNETT presented a petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of Richmond, against the Beer Duties' Bill.

A similar petition was presented from Bridport.
Sir IL PARNELL presented a petition from certain Mer-
chants of Dublin against the Duties on Thrown Silk.
Mr. JOHN SMITH presented a petition from certain Dis-
senters in the City of London.
These petitions were severally read and laid on the table. 1
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. ROBERTSON rose to complain of a breach of the pri-
vileges of the House. If speeches delivered in Parliament were
to be reported out of doors, nothing could be more important to
members than that they should be reported correctly; and if a
contrary practice existed, it could not too soon be put a stop to.
The House might perhaps remember, that on the preceding
evening he had called its attention to a subject no less weighty
than the religion of a whole nation. If he could be capable of
treating such a subject lightly, he should feel himself unworthy
to sit as a member of Parliament; and yet such was the impu-
tation to which he was likely urbe subjected by a paragraph in
a paper called the Globe and Traveller. He would state to the
House the words which were attributed to him, andof which he
complained. He was confident, personally, that he had used
no such words ; and his recollection was borne out by the re-
ports which had appeared in other papers. The Wok and
Traveller charged him with having said, speaking of the Ca-
tholic question as applied to Ireland, that " he conceived it a
measure most easilY accomplished, if Ministers would set about
it ;" now what he bad said was this—and the House probably
would recollect it —" that it appeared to him to be a question
of so much importance, that lie was afraid Ministers had not
courage to enter into it."
The SPEAKER begged to ask with what motion the Hon.
Member meant to conclude? If the Hon. Member meant to
complain of a breach of privilege, and to call the party who bad
committed it to the bar, the regular course would be, to put in
the newspaper complained of, and have the paragraph read.
Mr. ROBERTSON said it was of the utmost consequence
to him and to every Member, to stand in a proper light with
the House. For himself, he belonged to no party ; that fact
was pretty well known • and it was too often, he was sorry to
say, that he was grossly misrepresented in the newspapers.
The charge of having tritigdWith the religion of a country was
a charge of such a nature as he could not pass over in silence ;
but he trusted that, without carrying his complaint any further,
what had already been done would have the effect of rendering
parties more cautious.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from the Master'
Warden, and Assistants of the Company of Butchers, in favour
of the Hides and Skins Bill.—Ordered to be referred to the
Committee on the Bill.
CORN LAWS.

Mr. BROWNLOW presented a petition from the Land-
holders, Farmers, and others, in the County of Armagh, com-
plaining of the law which required 1961b5. of flour as the pro-
duce of every six bushels of foreign wheat ground for exporta-
tion in this country. The petitioners represented that five,
bushels were sufficient to produce that quantity of flour, and
thence inferred that under the present law one bushel out of
every six was likely to come into the market, for home con-
sumption. _ .

HUMS expressed himself gratified for the liberality dis-
played by these petitioners, which showed on what principles
the landed proprietors were disposed to act.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE thought the prayer of this petition
could not be too much attended to, but was surprised to hear
the Hon. Member for Aberdeen taunt the Corn Growers on
their 'liberality. He thought they had proved themselves as
liberal as any other body in the country. Ile was one of those
that objected to the present system of Corn Laws, and was con-
vinced that a time would come when it would be found neces-
sary to alter them.
Mr -1.1 twn --‘ '3' v"- -r--- once of guarding, as much
RB. possible, against great fluctuations in the prices of corn.
Ile admitted the Landlords of Ireland to have been benefitted
by the importation of Corn into this country from that, but the
peasant remained in that state in which Dw..e o'sytn,
him to exist a century ago. He approved of this Petition,
and hoped the example of the petitioners would be extensively
followed. • • _ _

—SI; J. NEWPORT warmly defended the measure which
had established a free intercourse in Corn - between Eng-
land and Ireland, and expressed a surprise at the remarks
which had been fallen from the Hon. Gentleman relative to
that measure.
Mr. MONCIC explained.
Lord MILTON was one of those persons who supported the
Corn Laws in WIS. The lion. Member behind him must know
very
in littlea n t
that
of the
state
to
of
havel
eland wben he represented the far-
mno interest in the price of Corn.
countryr
held his land by an under lease, who could not
have his rent raised upon, was peculiarly interested in the
price of grain. He was
surprised at the attack which he
made on the measure for Permitting a free intercourse in Corn
between the two countries, and believed the Hon. Gentleman
to be the first man who had
ever impugned it. With all the
latter part of the petition he concurred, being of opinion that
at warmth with which the
some alteration in the law *as necessary. He was surprised
Hon. Baronet (Sir T. Lethbridge)
had noticed what had fallen from the lion. Member for Aber-
deen respecting the Corn Growers.
Mr. BROWNLOW spoke in praise of the law which per-
mitted a free intercourse in
Corn between this country and.
Ireland. The manufactures of- England, even to the pins
which held the peasant's clothes on his back, went to Ireland,
and he knew not how these were to be paid for, if Corn were
not accepted in return.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from the Li-
, against the Beer Duties
coenrdseerddVtioctbuaellperrisnote(flC.hatham

IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. HUME gave notice, that on Wednesday next he would
move for returns of the Resident and Non-resident Clergy in
Ireland. He would also move for Accounts of the Amount of
the Church Revenues in that country, and of the appropriation
of the same.

.....
Mr. GOULBURN said the accounts to be called for by
the Honourable Gentleman had been ordered, were nearly com-
pleted, and he had no doubt would be laid on the table in a
few days.
A petition was presented from the Licensed Victuallers of
Brampton against the Beer Duties Bill.—Ordered to be printed.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
the repeal of the Beer Duties Bill was brought up, and ordered
to be taken into further consideration on Monday.