The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-17 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 16.

Alderman WOOD and others, from the Commons,
brought up several private Bills, which were read a fug
time, on the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY.
Lord CLONC[JRRY presented a petition from the
Lord Mayor and Corporation of the city of London, in
favour of the new system of education in Ireland. He
considered this a most important petition, because if any
portion of the people were aware what system of edu-
cation was the b. st, it was certainly the chief citizens of
the capital ; also a petition from the same parties, praying
for the abolition of oathe,
Petitions against the new system of education were
presented by the Duke of Gordon, the Bishop of Lincoln,
and the Earl of Westmoreland ; and against tithes by Earls
Fingal and Radn.>r, and Viscount Clifton and Lord Clon-
curry.
Viscount STRANGFORD presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Graveseud and Milton against the Gravesend
Pier BM.

The Earl of DARNLEY presented several petitions in
fas Qv the Bill.
The Alarquir. of SALISBURY presented a petition from
the inhabitants, boatmen, and. barge-owners of Greenwich
and Black wall against th WI.
conversation across the table here ensued between
Lords Dar;ley„ Salisbury, Winchilsea, and Stiangford,
but which, from the noise in the llouse, was nut ht'ard.
4.l:er which
The !Marquess of SALISBURY moved that the Graves-
end Pier Bill be read a second time this day ;;ix months,
which was negativ:a! without a division, and the Bill was
re;td a second time.

The Niriuess of CLANII,IC4RPE cnmplained that a
petition had I,;eta presented by a Noble Earl (Mansfield)
as against the new system of education in Ireland. There
haying been some hesitation in the reading of the title of
the petition, he had been induced to look it over, and he
found that no mention wae wade in it of the Pew system of

clueation The petitioners only prayed that no plan of
education might receive the sanction of that House which
would peal up from thirsty souls the fountain of living waters
and the word of life (thereby meaning the Bible). The
new plan did not seal up that hook, otherwise it never
would have been defended by him.
After a few words from Lords KENYON and AfAxs-
FIELD, the petition was again read by the Clerk, and or-
dered to lie on the table.

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
county of Devon, signed by between 8000 and 9000
persons, against the new system of education in Ireland.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition
to the same effect from Taunton.

The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented a petition to the
same effect from the presbytery of Lochmaben, in the county
of Dumfries.

Lord KENYON presented a petition to the same effect
from the B)roughreeve, and about 200 of the most re•
spectable people in Manchester, agreed to at a meeting held
for the purpose of petitioning on the subject.
Lord SUFFIELD had no objection to the receiving of
the petition, but thought himself called upon to state what
was the description of the meeting at which the petition
was agreed tn. It was a packed private meeting, to which
only those concurring in the object were admitted ; and
there was nu aslinission but by tickets. A very respectable
individual procured a ticket and attended, and rose to move
an adjournment of the meeting. He was asked by the
Chairman whether he concurred in the petition ; and was
informed that, if he did not, he could not be heard. He
(Lord Suffield) had no objection to such meetings, either
public or private ; but the present meeting had no right to
advertise themselves as they had done, as a meeting of the
Gentry, Clergy, Magistrates, and other inhabitants of Man-
chester. He never saw a more impudent attetr.pt at delusion.
Lord KENYON stated, that it was signed by all the
clergy of Manchester except three, and the petitioners had
found it expedient to meet in such a way, as to prevent
disturbance from Roman Catholics and others.

The petitions were laid on the table.
Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition from the Lord
Mayor and Common Council of London, against official
oaths, as the very common practice of taking oaths, on
the entering on office, dimini-hed the reverence and so-
lemnity with which the taking of oathsought to be regarded.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from
Protestants of Galway, against the Indemnity Bill.
Lord CLIFDEN presented a petition from a place in
the county of Carlow, praying for an alteration in the
tithe system.
Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition to the same
effect from a place in the county of Kildare.
Earl DARNLEY presented a petition from Rochester,
against the overworking children in the manufactories.