The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-27 00:00:00

of the resident freeholders of London, 'Westminster, or the
parts adjacent ?—( Hear, hear.)—That the sentiments con-
tained in that petition were those of the parties who signed
it, he did not doubt, nor did he mean in any degree to im-
pugn their respectability ; but he must contend, that it
could not be taken to represent the sense of the majority
of the resident inhabitants.

The Earl of ELDON then presented 31 petitions to the
same effect from places in the counties of Buckingham,
Stafford, Kent, Essex, York, Norfolk, Pembroke, and
Dumfries.

The Marquis of CAMDEN said a few words as to the
sense of the majority of the inhabitants of a place from
which one of the petitions came, being in favour of con •
cession, but we could not catch the name of the place to
which the Noble Lord referred.

The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition in
favour of emancipation.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented nine petitions
from the county of Armagh, one from a parish in the city
of Dublin, two from parishes in the county of Wicklow,
one from a parish in King's county, and two from other
places in Ireland ; all against concession.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the order
lately agreed to by their Lordships, relative to the presen-
tation of petitions, be read.
The order was then read. It declared that Peers who
had petitions to present should set down their names on a
paper on the table of the House, and present their peti-
tions as their names were called over in rotation by the
clerk.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had caused the order to
be read, because the Royal Duke, who had just presented
some petitions to the House, did not seem to he aware of
its existence, he having presented his petitions without
being called on by the clerk.
Lord ROLLE thought that no Peer should be allowed
to set down his name by proxy. The paper was some-
times filled before Noble Lords came down to the House.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND apologized for having in-
fringed the regulation, of the exiitenee of which he had
not been aware.

The Earl of HADDINGTON gave notice, that he
would to-morrow present a petition from Edinburgh, in
favour of Emancipation.

COAL TRADE.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved, " That a
Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration
the state of the Coal Trade, and the mode of collecting the
various duties on coals ; also the charges paid on the same
article in the port of London, and all other points connected
with this important article of consumption."
The Duke of WELLINGTON had no objection what-
ever to the motion ; on the contrary, from the information
he received from all parts of the country, he believed it
would, on inquiry, be found that much could be done to
render the article cheaper to the consumer without any di-
minution of the amount of duty received by Government
or the City.
Lord FARNHAM said, that no motion should be made
till after the petitions had been disposed of. If the present
motion was entertained, he should feel himself entitled to
ing forward the motion of which he had given notice
yesterday, immediately.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if there was any dif-
ference cf opinion on the subject, the motioa had better be
deferred.

The motion was accordingly postponed.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition
from a place in Ireland, in favour of emancipation.
Earl POWIS presented two petitions from places in
Shropshire, and three from places in 'Montgomeryshire,
against concession.
Earl BEAUCHAMP presented a petition from the vicar,
churchwardens, and other inhabitants of the parish of St.
John, near Worcester, praying that no further concessions
might he granted to the Catholics.
Lord LYTTLETON said (as we understood), that a
very improper hand-hill had been circulated in the parish,
under the authority of the vicar, from which the petition
proceeded. This hand-bill contained the following charit-
able and just expression—" The wolf should not be per-
mitted to intrude into the fold of the lamb, nor the heathen
(the Catholic) to sully the tabernacle of the faithful." The
hand-bill then proceeded to lecture on historical points.
" We know," it said, " from history, that the people of
Great Britain came forward with their ancestors, and said
they would not have the laws of England changed."—(A
laugh. )--He was inclined to suspect, from that sentence,
that the hand-bill must have been the production of au
Irishman. The document concluded with a sentiment,
that at all events had the merit of novelty : it expressed a
hope, that 2,000,000 of Irish Protestants would be rescued
from the relentless hands of the Catholics, who had for
years been occupied in the work of persecution. The do-
cument concluded by calling on the Legislature to " obey
the wishes, the commands of the people."
Earl BEAUCHAMP said, that since the Noble Lord
had said so much about a hand-bill, he might be allowed to
tell him that a document of that description had been cir-
culated in the neighbourhood of the Noble Lord's resi-
dence, which contained one of the most scandalous attacks
on the church ever made. He would not have mentioned
this circum..tance, had not the Noble Lord said so much
respecting the placard on the other side.
Lord LYTTLETON said, that if it should be made ma-
nifest that the hand-bill to which he had alluded had not
l'oen circulated by the authority of Dr. Forrester, or at
least with his full knowledge and consent, he pledged him-
self as a gentleman fully and openly to retract the charge
which he bad made, and to express his sorrow for having
brought it. He might mention, that the population of the
parish from which the petition proceeded was 2,000 per-
sons. He disapproved of the hand-bill which had been
circulated by the Popish priest ; but that individual had
been harshly treated, and, m a moment of irritation, had
forgotten himself.
Earl BEAUCPIAMP said, he thought the Rev. poll-
donee had been very ill used by the Noble Lord.
The Eiol of ELDON thought that before any Noble
Lord brought a charge against an individual, he was bound
to satisfy himself by personAl iinuiry of the truth of the
charge. —( Hear.)
Lord LYTTLETON said, he conceiyed himself justified
in making 4, charge on what he knew to be respectable au-
thority. If the Rev, gentleman did not circulate the hand-
bill, he had not repressed it, and that was tantamount to
circulating it.
The Earl of GUILFORD said, that when such charges
were brought against individuals in high situations, they
ought to be substantiated by proof at the bar, otherwise
Noble Lords r.oe.ld nut expect the House to give credit to
them.—The petition was then received.
Petitions against the Human catholic claims were pre-
sented by the Bishop of CutcrixaxEic, from two places in
the diocese of Chichester ;--by the Archbishop of Yott,
from the Archdeaconry and clergy of York ;—by the
Archbishop of ARMAGH, from the clergy of the (Hoene of
Clogher, aid from another place in Ireland ;—by Lord
ROLLE, from a place the name of which we did not hear ;
and by Lord REDESDALE, from two parishes.