The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-03 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LuI?DS, JULF 2.

The Amendment Beer Bill was read a third time, and
bras>ed.

Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Bill for per-
mitting the distillation of spirits fr, m mangelwurzel ;
the Irish Union of Parishes Bill, and stone private Bills.
The Punishment of Death Bill, after an amend-
ment proposed by Lord NlTynford, which was agreed to,
was read a third time and passed.
Lord KENYON presented two petitions from an in-
dividual named Stockdale, one against the punishment of
death for forgery, and one against the atrocities committed
in madhouses.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition praying for the
abolition of slavery, and protesting against the proc-ed-
ings of the S'avery Committee now sitting, as calculated
to lead to no good effect. It was omitted to be stated
from whence the petition came. It was signed by 14,600
persons, and was 76 yards in length. Thus it appeared
that the whole of the signatures appended to tl.e anti-
slavery petitions which hid bean presented since the
Ist of May h..d been 163,815. The Noble Lord re•
gretted that I.y the rules of the House the proceedings
in the Committee were not allowed to be wade public
He had always been an advocate for publicity in a;1 public
affairs. Every thing of a public nature he was quite sure
was infinitely the better for being opened to searching public
investigations. If the proceedings of this Committee were
only made public, he was quite sure that they would prodto e
a very salutary effect. He regretted that he could not
continue to attend the proceedings of the Committee in
consequence of his Magisterial duties requiring him to be
elsewhere. He gave the petition his entire support.
Lord GODERICH begged to Oise! ve that the aid
which was now intended to be given to those who had
suffered from the late in-urrections in the I.lanil of
Jamaica was not to be considered as a gift, but only as a
loan, again to be repaid. Toe country was to be considered
as lending its credit to persons who were to repay. Govern-
ment thought that it was their bounden duty to come
forward in the way they had dune, to afford that aid to
those who had unhappily suffered so severely.
Lord SUFFIELD presented other petitions to the same
effect : one from Leicester, signed by 2,200 ; one from
B ith, signed by 450, one from Liverpool, signed by 3,335 ;
one from Hackney, another from Chelmsford, and others
from 'several other pltces.

The Earl of HADDINGTON gave notice that he should
present a petition to-morrow from the county with which
he was connected upon the subj.,ct of the supenorities,
and the manner in which they were affected by the Scotch
Reform 811.

The Marque of HEADFORT presented a petition
from Westmeath again,t tithes.

The Marquess of WESTNIEATII expressed his sur-
prise at such a petition coming from people who had taken
the law into their own hand 4.

Lord RADNOR presented a petition from Manchester,
in favour of the Factories Bill.

The Marquess of LANSDOWNE presented several pe-
titions, complaining of the provisions of the Boundaries
Bill, from Wolverhampton, \Valsall, and other places.
Eirl GREY pressnted several petitions in favour of
the new plan of education adopted in Ireland.
The Marquess of SLIGO presented petitions from se-
veral places in Tyron••. with a contrary prayer.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions against the Pariy
Processions (Ireland) B 11, and the Irish Reform Bill,
from the Cisnservative S iciety of Dublin.
Lord PLUNKETT objected to the petitions being re-
ceived, as the measure to which they referred was before
the H use.—Petitions withdrawn.

Toe LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition in
ravi•ur of the new plan of education in Ireland, from the
ministers and el& rm ot Dumterinline.

Lord PLUNKETI' presented similar petitions from
several Presbyteries in the North of Ireland. H.
)tad the satisfaction to state that there had been ,hove
400 applicatiotis made to the new Board for the est.,biish-
Ment i,f schools. AI my of these were by Protestant and
hol c clergy in conjunction; and the num,er of scholars
about to receive the benefit of the united plan of education
ryas 125,000 —(Cheers.) In that the opposition to the plan
I;dd compl tely filled. The number of applications wade
to the Board, and the number of scholars who were to be
benefited by its estaiilishar nt, bed t een greater during the
last six months thin had heeu made to the Kildere-street
Society during the first six years of its existence.
The Earl of WICKLOW was surprised the numl,sr

was not 6,000 instead of 600 He should not he surprised
if every prie.t, every schoolmaster
Tile Mat guess of LANSDOWNE rose to order. The
No le Leo d was out of order unless he was speaking to
the matter of the motiun. Was he doing so?
Lord KENYON—Yes.

The Marques CLANRICARDE said, that it was a
point of order of considerable importance, and ought to he
decided. During his short experience in Parliament, it
had been usual to read petitions in the first instar,c-, and
then the debate unon thorn followed as a matter of course.

The Earl of WICKLOW—Then let it be read.

Laid HOLLAND—According to the known and esta•
blished rules and (infers of this House, it was utterly in-
compet,nt to any Peer to object to the reading of a peti.
tion presented by another P..er; and if he bad no right
to Abject to the reading, he had no right to speak to that
paint. Every Peer had a right to have his petition read.
The Marquess of/LANSDOWNE—The entries on the
Journals on petitions ally sys were i i this fo,m On
reading the petition, it was morel," &c., implying that
there was no question as to the reading of Vie petition.
The E irl of ELDON had never, during the period
when he sat on the Woolsack, put qu-stion on reading
a petition. Bit, when the Noble and Learned Lord Chan-
cellor fur Ireland had, in presenting a petition, stated so
much extraneous matter about what happened here and
what took place there, he was as much out of order as the
Noble Earl (Wicklow) behind him.
Lord PLUNKETT h.d examined the petition, and
stated the nature of it, and then it was for him to have it
read, and then to move that it b. laid on the tall., and
on that question a discussion might and otten did take
place. _ _

The Earl of WICKLOW—If he was irregular in what
he had done, then the Noble and Learned Lord on the
Woolsaci had fallen into the same irregularity, for he had
put the questi-n on the reading of the petition.—( He ir.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It was so. He had
most assuredly put that question, and it was possile thit,
he !night have fallen into an irregularity, from having
been more conversant with the rules and orders of the
House of Commons than with those of their Lordships'
House. It uas true that he was Speaker of their Lord-
ships' House, but then he was in a very different situation in
that respect from the Speaker in the wher House, for
he had no more reason to know, nor power to enforce
order thin arty other Peer had. Certainly the orders
of the two Houses were very different. A Member of the
other House, before he brought in a Bill, must move for
and obtain leave to bring it in In this House, every
Noble Lord had a right to present a Bill with'ut leave
a.ked. In the other House the question was put that the
p,tition be read, and on that question debater often arose;
which was the analogy which had misled him, if be was
misled. But with all due deference to his No Friend
(Lord Lan downe) he did not think that tie en-tries on the
Journals were quite decisive, and it reallyhpeared highly
expedient that the House should have ifoine protection
against the reading of improper petitions beyond the dis-
cretion of an individual Peer, forit might happen • that a
petition might contain matter which ought nut to be.tead•
The Mai guess of WESTMEATH—It would 'be much
better to drop any further discussion on thesubject at present.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It was real y a point of
considerable importance, and one which ought to be settled
with due deliberation.

The Marquess of LANSDOWNE—It was a privilege
enjoyed by Noble Lords to hive their petitions read with-
out question, and was analogous to the privilege which
they had to bring in Bilk without leave.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—CertainIy there was a
wide difference between the Orders of the two Houses,
but he still thought that this House ought to have I.orri,
additional protection against the reading of improper
petitions.

Lord HOLLAND—In the year 1784, a Noble Peer, in
oi der to put to the test the right of any Noble Lord to
bring into the House any Bill that he pleased, brought in
a Bill containing a caricature print of Mr. Fox and Lord
North, and a question arose whether he had a right to in-
troduce and lay on the t,,ble a Bill of that kind, and it was
decided that he had. As to the first reading, he cer-
tainly thought that a question might be put on that, on
which a discussion might take place without any infringe-
ment of order. But any Noble Lotd hail a right to pre-
sent a Bill, but whether the presenting implied laying on
the table, or delivering it to the Clerk, he could not pre-
cisely say.
Toe petition was than read and laid on the table.

The Earl of RC/DEN had presented a petition from
cettain protestants ot Ballinrobe, in Ireland, against th,-
Ministetial plan of Irish education. To t' at petition,
the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor foi
Ireland) had adudefl. The Noble and Learned Lord ha,
ailud.d to the Clergyman who had refused to petition
against the system, and he was sorry to say that he had
refused. but then he stood alone. The curate (Mr. Sty
moor) however, had got a petition signed by Protestan
of that pl.ce dgainat the system, and that petition he had
presented. The Noble and Learned Lord had also alluded
to a Peer who had offered to pay certain expenses foi
some people, on condition that they would sign a petition
against the new sp3tein of education, but the Noble and
Le.:r ed Lord had refused to mention who that Noble Lord
was, and it appeired that he himself did no: believe the
statement to be tru .

Loud PLUNKETT did not believe that any Noh e
Peer in that House would make such a promise, but he
certainly did believe that such promises had been made.
The Archbishop of ARMAGU stated that the Protes-
tant C erey of the establishment were generally adverse
to the new system.
Lord PLUNKETT—There were several Protestant
Clergymen, and a very great. number of Protestant Laymen,
w,ll disposed towards the Alinirerial syst m of Irish edu-
cation, but many clergymen had refrained from pulineh
signifying their approoation of it, by charges from the Pie
lates agiiiist interfering. As to what had been said about
his not being here to see the great number of petition,
presented against the system, he was as likely to know
the state of public opinion in Ireland by residing in that
country, as by being in this House.
The B of KILMORE did not know why any
Prelate should charge his clergy against interfering, sine,
the system itself was such as to make such a charge un•
necessary.

Toe Marquess of LONDONDERRY—The Noble ano
Learned Lord appeared to hive but little confidence in the
correctness of his own opinion as to the appr bation
which his system of education was generally held, sine.-
he refused to state the name of the Noble Lord to whom
he alluded. But the Noble and Learned Lord had de-
rived his statements from the reports at Dublin Castle,
and that accounted for his error.