The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

Several Bills were read a second time, others a third
time, and passed.
Lord BEAUCH AMP presented a petition from theparish
of Wolverley, Worcester, against further concessions to the
Roman Catholics.

Lord ELDON -presented petitions from the inhabitants
of Middlesex and Surrey; Caxton, Cambridgeshire ; Wig-
town, Scotland ; Haverfordwest ; Kingston-on-Hull;
Kingston ; borough ofCambridge ; Great and LittleHawks-
!ey ; several parishes in Duinhies-sbire ; and several others,
a ;ainst concessions. Also a petition from the Paisley
silk weavers praying for relief. A petition from the
masters and throwstaTs of Macclearield, to the same effect;
and a petition from the inhabitants of Liverpool, very re-
spectably- and numerously signed, against any further
concessions to the Roman Catholics. The Noble Lord
believed there was another petition from some of the in-
habitants of that town of a contrary nature. What the
insti uctions of a Noble Lord, who had to present that
petition were, lie did not know, nor would he an-
ticipate what the Noble Lord had to say. He bad
certainly weapons of defence, but as he had read in the
Papers lately that persons fought occasionally with muffl al
hands, he should certainly not take off his gloves until
driven to it.—(Hear, bear, and laughter.)

Lord GODERICH said, that if his Noble and Learned
, Friend anticipated from him any observations which were at
all likely to lead to that unpleasant sort of controversy
which he anticipated, he would be agreeably disappointed.
He had received no instructions to make any observations
whatever on the petition the Noble Lord had presented—
all, therefore, he should now have to do, would be to
state what the petition was, and under what eircum-
stamsea he presented it to their Lordships. The petition,
though not so bulky as the Noble Lord's, was a petition
which would well deserve the attention of the House. It
was from cue of the most loyal and populous towns in his
Majesty's dominions, and when their Lordships recollected
that in this borough of Liverpool, where the right of
representation was very large, and the effect of popular
opinion was very powerful ; when their Lordships recol-
lected that this borough did, in 1812, elect as one of its
representatives art individual distinguished for his great
learning, zeal, and aetivity, as one of the fore-
most supporters of the great question now be-
fore the House ; when it was recollected Cott only
four months before that individual was elected to represent
Liverpool, he successively proposed this measure in the
other llouse, which was one of the first successful at-
tempts towards bringing forward this great question; when
all this was recollected, could there be any doubt of the real
sentiments of Liverpool? The same individual (he meant
Mr. Canning) not only propoaed that revolution a few
months before he was their representative, but proposed
measure limited in its circumstanecs which induced
the House to accede to it, and so ably did he carry his
proceedings forward, that when they were opposed no
one was able to stand before him on this ground. A
review of these circumstances would lead their Lot dehipe,
and intelligent meu, to suppose that Liverpool could not be
taken to be opposed to the measure. This petition which
he (Lord Goderich) had to present, was a complete confir-
mation of that. It was signed by upwards of 22,000 in-
dividuals, all belonging to that place. The reason why the
petitioners had not addressed the House before, was
not their want of zeal, but the most firm reliance on
the wisdom of Parliament, and they would willingly have
remained silent in the expectation that the opinion of Par-
liament would coincide with them, but finding there was
another petition, they thought it their duty to let the
Hnuee know that all Liverpool was not of one opinion.

Lord ELDON supposed, that after he had pre-
sented nine
Ito
petitiwis, he had had the mis-
fortune not to present one from a person of common
sense. Ile thought Liverpool would have done itself great
injustice had it not elected a person of the talent of Mr.
Canning. What that Right lion. Cieutleman had done
respecting the Catholic Question he did not know, but be
knew this, that almost the last words of that Gent. with
respect to the Dissenters was, that he would oppose their
BilL--(llear, hear.) —With regard to the respectability
of the peasou signing his (Lord Eldon's) petition, the
Noble Lord had not O;;;,:, wotal to say. Comp firing the sine
of the Noble Lord's petition, which 1401 Q:.?,00f) signatures,
with the petition which he (Lord Eldon) had presented,
his petition might be, and was probably signed by a mil-
lion, but hari;ng once had a controversy in Parliament re-
specting the superiority an, respectability of some petitioners
he would adinit,if it pleased the Noble Lord, that his petition
had all the respectability and talent on this occasion, and he
would say ri4 more.--( Near- )
The Earl- of HADDINGTON observed, that
the • Noble and Learned Loid (Eldon) had many times
said that he should not introduce irreievaut matter
on presenting petitions ; yet, at the conclusion of the
disetiseien on this important subject, he had changed his
tactics. He magbt to have gone on with his observations
with respect to what Mr. Canging had said. It was well-
kn,iwn that he was always a !vocated the Catholic claims,
and when that Right Hon. Gentleman said he should
oppose the Test and Corporation Acts Repeal Bill, he said
he should do a:.; because he thought it would impede
Emancipation. Not ;hat !e undervalued the com-
plaints of the Dissenters, but iiecaase he considered
the complaints of the Catholics as a great and
peculiaz grievance. He (Lord Haddiugton) was sure the
Noble Lord wofil.l not have brought forward the name of
the Right ll6n. Gent,, whom it had pleased Providence
to take unto himself, in the manner in :yykich he had done,
without some urgent motive.
Lord ELDON begged the House to recollect, that
it was not but the Noble Lard who had spoken be-
fore (GoderiCli) who had brought forward the name of that
deceased gentleman. He begged !,0 know whether there
was any Noble Lord in that House whp had ever heard
him utter a syllable disrespectful to Mr. Canning. He
had never spoken a disrespectful word of him, nor ever
would of ids memory, though other Noble Lords had. If
the Noble Lord had introduced a discussion upon petitions
he was cot to be blamed for it, lr t the Noble Lord who.
had done it. _ . _

Lard GODERICII explained.
Mr. C. PALLME a and others brought up a private Bill.
Sir THostas Act ND and others brought up two others.
Sir Thakras FREMANTLE and others another.
Colonel Cup'. and others brought up another.

. .
)$i r. BYNG and others
.I,rpughi up two others.
Lord LORTON presented petitions from Chepstow,
Trowbridge, Bath, and numerous other places, against fur-
ther concessions. . .

The Earl of RODEN presented several petitions against
further concessions from various familial in Ireland.
Lord PLYMOUTH presented a petition from some
place, the name of which we could not hear.
Earl GREY presented a petition from a place in '
Cheshire, in favour of emancipation of the Catholics.
The petitioners concluded by earnestly hoping the House
would unanimously agree to granting the claims,
The Earl of FM1)11E-IAN presented a petition from the
Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees against the Catholic claims.—
(Laughter.)—The Noble Lord sail it waa his opinion the
petition was well worthy the consideration of the House.
the Lordship then presented several other petitions of a
similar nature from places in Ireland, and also one from
the Editcrs, Printers, Puhlisliers, anti Compositors of the
Monthly Magazine,
Lord KENYON presented a pptition from Winchester
against the Catholic claims.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from
three Roman Catholics of the greatest respectability in
favour of concession. The petitioners were large landed
proprietors in Scutland.
The LORD .CHANCELLOR presented a petition from
a Gentleman of the Bar, named Honor', against the
clauses in the Disfranchisement Bill, relating to the .Itssuits.
The Marquis of LANSDOVNE presented a petition
in favour of the Catholic claims, from a place in Wilt-
abire.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented several petitions
against the Catholic claims, amongst which was a second
petition from the Rev. Sir Ifpcoart. Lees, preying that
the House would not pass any 141.1 tbid tf.,(e;!d give the
Roman Catholics the ascendaniy.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, whateyer be might
thinti; of the question before the House, this petition could
not be receir-q; as there was no Bill giving ascendancy to the
Catholics.
Af...er a few observations from Lople GREY, KENYON,
Rot.tat, and ELLENBoaouon,the petition w e...withdrawn.
Lord FARNHAM presented a petition on the subject
the Disqualification Bill, preying that no elector, whether
Protestant or Catholic, he alluts,o to vote unless lie can
read and write.—(Laughter.)