Star.
London, England, 1822-07-18 00:00:00

sent Session.
Mr. BROUGHAM—" They need not be alarmed."—(L

Mr. MONCK presented Petitions from several bodies of
Journeymen Mechanics to the same effect.
Upon the reading of the Petitions, the Oerk read as follows:
This is a Petition from the Journeymen Shoemakers, from
the Journeymen Bricklayers, from the Weavers, from the Jour-.
neymen Tailors, and from a Hugh Parsons."
tion of the Petitioner was generally understood in the
The
leetHdarise P-to
be, " and from a few Parsons i" The mistake occasioned loud
'shouts of laughter.
Mr. SC Alt LETT presented a Petition from the Publicans and
Licensed Victuallers of Peterborough against the Beer Bill.
The Pedtion, with all the foregoing ones upon this subject,
was ordered to be printed.
DRANO! PROCESSIONS.
• Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from John
I.awless, Proprietor and Editor of a Newspaper called
the Irishman published at Belfast, complaining of
the Orange Processions, and of the Executive Go-
vernment not having taken means to prevent them.
Mr. S. RICE could not help expressing his regret
that, notwithstanding the letter of has Majesty,. and the
happy results which were anticipated from at, these
public outrages should have been permitted.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH thought it disgrace-
ful that these scenes should have been renewed in
Dublin, and was surprised that the means bad not
been resorted to for their prevention, which, under
the Lord Lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, had
been found efficient to prevent them. These occur-
rences were an annual insult to the people of Ireland,
and an annual libel upon the memory of King Wil-
liam. This was the only instance in the history of
nations where a minority of conquerors continued to
insult the people of a country through a series of
ages down to the present period. To make the statue
of King William their exultation, was the greatest
insult to his fame; for he was one of the first cham-
pions of toleration and liberty in religion. Accidental
circumstances alone prevented his acting in that
character in Ireland ; but they disgraced the name ef
Orange who assumed it for such purpoies as thou
complained of by the petitioner.
Mr. GOULBURN said he lamented exceedingly
that any excesses of the nature complained of should
be committed, and more particularly frorn the feel-
ings he held upon the question with which they were
connected. He had reason to believe that the ac-
counts which brought the information relative to
these circumstances were greatly exaggerated.
Sir GEORGE HILL said that no one could de-
precate more than he did the transactions which were
represented to have taken place in Dublin. Without
wishing to provoke discussion, he must, however,
state, that the provocation in these disturbances came
largely from the other party. He was certain, that
ia most cases the interference of the Gentry in the
neighbourhood of the spot, would prevent the recur-
rence of such scenes.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON expressed his wish that
the Attorney-General for Ireland had been present,
in order that he might have asked him officially
whether the law, as it at present stood, was not
strong enough to prevent these disgraceful outrages.
If not, they ought to give the Lord Lieutenant such
power as would enable him to prevent them, before
the House separated. He must deprecate the con-
duct of the Government in not interfering upon the
late occasion. He understood that the police were
actively engaged in the rioting, and taking part
against the insulted party. If it should appear that
a Police Magistrate had been engaged in the-riot, he
trusted that the Lord Lieutenant would visit such
conduct in the manner it deserved.
Mr. S. RICE hoped that as both sides of the House
bad concurred in reprobating these outrages, he
trusted that the public knowledge of that fact would
hnve such a moral influence upon the minds of the'
country, as would prevent their being repeated on
future occasions.
Mr. BROUGHAM agreed that such an expression
of opinion from. all sides of the House, and from all
shades of party upon that great question which so
much divided men's minds, must have the effect of
discountenancing these outrages. ' He wished to ask
a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite re-
lative to the letter to which he had called the atten-
tion of the House epon a former occasion, purport-
ing to be written by Mr. Saurin. He had since heard'
that the date of the writing of the letter was six years
back; or, according to other accounts, that it was
written as long ago as the year 1843. As this was
a very important consideration, be wished to ask the
Right Hon. Gentlemin whether he had any know.•
ledge of the period at which the letter was written ?
If it bore so remote a date, that would be a sufficient•
. reason for the House passing it over without notice.