The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat to-day at five minutes
before Five o'clock.

Six Private Bills were read a third, and one or two a
second time.

Lord STANLEY and others brought up a Road Bill.

Mr. LawLEy and others brought up another Road Bill.
Lord HARDWICKE presented a petition from the
Protestant Dissenters of Wisbeach, in favour of the Ca-
tholic claims. The Noble Lord entirely concurred in the
prayer. From six years residence in Ireland, he was
satisfied that the proposed measure was necessary, and was
sure that when it passed into a law no act wculd be
found more calculated for public economy.
Lord BOYLE presented a petition from the knnan
Catholics of Ilminster in favour of their claims.

The Marquis of ANGLESEA presented petitions from
several parishes in Ireland to the sane effect.

Lord WINCHILSEA presented petitions from East
Peckham, New Romney, St. Paul's, Deptford, Newbury,
Berks, and from numerous other places in England, Scot-
land, and Ireland, against further concessions to the Roman
Catholics.

Lord CAWDOR presented a petition from certain in-
dividuals in the county of Pembroke, in favour of the Ca-
tholics. In doing so, he begged to state, that at a county
meeting a Clergyman of the Established Church made a
most unwarrantable attempt to agitate the mind
of the people of that county. On the hustings he stated
that the present measure would be to admit Popery into the
Constitution, and the Protestan ts would be compelled against
their inclination to support Popery. The admission of
Popery would he nothing short of depriving the Protes-
tants of their religious liberty. He strongly recommended
the inhabitants to petition his Majesty to dissolve Parlia-
ment, as then he would see how ill he had been used by his
present hypocritical and ill-informed Ministers. The most
inflammatory and sediti,ms papers had been circulated in
that county, and the worst of them propagated by a society
for the circulation of Tracts. The Reverend Gentleman
enquired if the people were ready to give up their Bibles,
if they were then they might assent to this measure, if not
it was their duty to object to it. When the meeting
had heard this gentleman, and the one who seconded the
Resolution, it became so tumultuous, that the Sheriff was
obliged to dissolve it, and therefore no petition from
that meeting could be presented as the meeting of the
county. Windows bad been broken, and in one instance
fire thrown into the houses of those who were favourable
to the measure. The present petition was from a number
of gentlemen, who were present at the meeting, and who
objected to what took place there, and expressed their ap-
probation of the measure.
Lord ELDON observed that he had a petition from that
county, signed by a great number of ate most respectable
individuals, against the Catholic claims. He would in-
dulge the Noble Earl with an inspection of it before he
presented it.

- Lord FARNHAM presented 28 petitions from parishes
in Ireland against the Catholic claims.
The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition from
Bishop-Auckland, and two other parishes, in the county
of Durham, against concessions.

Lord LORTON presented three petitions from parishes
in the county of Down.
Lord KINNOUL presented petitions from about half
a dozen places in Scotland, to the same effect, among
which was one from the Minister and Elders of the Pres-
bytery of Perth.
Lord LORTON presented three petitions from parishes
in Ireland to the same effect.

The Duke of HAMILTON presented two petitions
from Greenock, in favour of emancipation, one was front
the Roman Catholics, and the other from Protestants.
The Noble Duke. nresented a third netition
_to the same
effect, and L, entrely agreed in the prayer. He was I:pon
this great question decidedly in favour of Emancipation.
Earl HAREWOOD presented a petition from near
Pontefract against concessions.
Lord HOLLAND presented several petitions in favour
of the Catholic claims.

Lord GROSVENOR presented a petition from the in.
habitants of Macclesfield, silk throwsters, praying for re-
lief. lie felt it necessary to observe, that the petitioners
had chosen an individual to present this petition who could
not agree in the prayer. The petitioners, in his opinion,
had taken a very erroneous view of the subject on which
they thought proper to petition.
Lord ELDON presented a great number of petitions
from the Protestants of different parts of England arid
Ireland against further concessions to the Roman Catholics.
Lord BEXLEY presented a similar petition from a
parish in Essex.
The Earl of CALEDON presented Kveral petitions,
praying for emancipation, from the Roman Catholics of
parishes in the counties of Tyrone, Monaghan, and Done-
gal ; and one from the county of Tyrone, signed by 5,000
persons. . . .

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition, nume-
rously and respectably signed, against further concession to
the Roman Catholics, from the borough of East Grimstead.
Earl GREY presented petitions in faVour of emancipa-
tion, from the Protestant Dissenters of Old Jewry Chapel,
Jewin- street ; and from the Roman Catholics of a parish
in Tipperary, and another in Monaghan. Also a petition
for the repeal of the Sub-letting, and one for the repeal of
the Vestry Act, from the Roman Catholics of the same
parish, Tipperary.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a similar petition from
the borough of Huntingdon.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in presenting a peti-
tion from Whiteparish, Wilts, to the same effect, would
take the opportunity of adverting to a conversation which
had taken place a few nights ago. He had complained on
that occasion of the non-residence of a Clergyman in the
diocese of a Right Rev. Prelate whom he then saw in his
place (the Bishop of Bristol). He had stated, or at least
he was reported to have done so, that the non-resi, enu
had continued for thirty years. On referring to his flfo:.-
mation he found he should only have stated it to have been
of twelve years' duration. In this respect, however, his
information was incorrect, for upon further inquiry he
found that the incumbent alluded to had ❑ot been absent
more than five years, and that he was now resident, and
intended to remain so. He believed the facts he had stated
with respect to conversions in this parish by Roman Ca,
tholics and Wesleyan Methodists were well founded ; hut h.e
thought it right to add, that there was no other imputa,
tion whatever on the Rev. individual.

The Bishop of BRISTOL bad made inquiries
in consequence of the former speech of the Noble
Marquis, with the result of which he had intended
to have troubled the House The individual in
question was the oldest incumbent in his diocese. He
had resided in the same parish c,r forty years, during
which he had never been absent beyond the Mime allowed
by the Legislature, without the leave of gie sishep, He
could not speak as to what oc,,curreci in the time of his
predecessor, but during I:3.is own time this Rev. Gentle-
man had been absent only once, and that not for a whole
year. He wrote to him upon the occasion, when he stated;
such reasons as precluded him from inflicting the penalty.
His principal cause of absence was the dangerous illness of
his wife. He must add that then a who a Curate constantly
resident, who had be4;l unchanged for twelve years,
and that only one convert had ever been made by the Ro-
man Catholics, wl;o, by the meritorious efforts of the
curat,?., was afterwards rechitned.

•
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that the non-
residence of the incumbent had been longer than it ought
to be, but be had no hesitation in leaving the aff4r ist the
hands of the Rev. Prelat.. He then presented ritifieZi+
tstzthcaAtrg tie 7a, ,w
from the Roman Catholics of St. Paul'a tht- of
Dublin, au,l of b. parishV in tio4 ocnuAty. of 1.
Lord RARNI3O,IIQ QU back a -petition to present
any 0.14,A. eC1Z,e4,33^,1i to the Roman Catholics,
L
against
uo :sean'ostodnd
ttake
departthis forpopmor opportunity
course
tcyo- sayuorf
be-
had alw4s pin sued upon this subjeot. He had al-
Ways opposed the grant of further 'political power to
the Roman Catholics, because he thought it most dan-
gerous to the Established Church. Therefore he should
oppose it new, and he did so with the utmost reluctance,
Out on account of the ineasaire, for in that his opinions
were decided, but because he felt pain in opposing his Ma-
jesty's Ministers, whose conduct in all other resp.xts had
his eotire approbation.—Hear, hear.)
• Lord PLUNKETT bad a petition to present M favour
of emancipation, signed by twenty-one out of thirty-five
resident Magistrates of the county of Waterford. The
otheis who had not signed this petition were fully disposed
to acquiesce iu the decision of the Legislature. The peti-