Star.
London, England, 1822-05-31 00:00:00

on the table.
The Bishop of LONDON also presented a Petition against
the Catholic Bill from the Minister and Parish of St. James,
Clerkenwell, signed by $OOO persons.—. Laid on the table.
Petitions to the same effect, from the Archdeacon and Clergy
of Hy, from the Clergy of Northampton, from the Archdeacon
and Clergy of Oxford, from several Parishes in Exeter, and se-
veral in the County of Lancaster, were presented by the Bishops
of Bur, 1.1.113112Att, and Exam, and by Lord Roux and Lord
iCrunrou.—They were read, and Wd on the table.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a Petition from seventy-six is.
dividuals, who bad served as Jurors in the last Old Bailey Ses-
sions, praying that the Criminal Code might be softened, in order
that Jurors might do their duty with more satisfaction to their`
own consciences than under the present system. His Lordship.
expatiated on the necessity of such a change. The puoishments
inflicted by the Criminal Code were so severe, that in many
eases Jurors preferred committing perjury to exposing indivi-
duals to their violence.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN requested their Lordships to
consider bow deeply the case demanded their serious attention,
When individuals, who had been exercising the Important func-
tion. of Jurors, came to that House with a solemn declaration
of the diSculties with which they could conscientiously dis-
charge their duties, and 'of their abhorrence of the laws as they
now stood. • This feeling was not confined to them alone. It
oneended through the community. In a short time their Lord-•
ships might be called upon by measures from the other House,
to consider the subject of Prison Discipline, and other brawitea,
which, he trusted, they would regard as but parts dans gasnal
system of alteration; If the Bill which had for som e-dust. en-
gaged the attention of Gosernment to regulate the discipline of
prisons, had the effect which was intended, that of deterring of-
fenders more effectually from the commission of guilt, it might
induce their Lordships to remit, in some instances, the apparent
severity of the Criminal Code, and to render it more congenial
to the feelings of the people.—The Petition was then laid on
the table.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH gave notiee,that on Friday week
he should-move the second reading of the Marriage Act Amend-
ment Bill.
Lord DAC RE hoped the Noble Lord would fix upon another
day, as he had informed a Reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Pe-
terborough), that he should present on that day a Petition from
an individual complaining of rejection on his part. and that
Rev. Prelate had promised to attend in his place. The subject
might occupy a considerable time, and the two notices would
thus interfere with each other.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL did not think that would be the
ease, as however he might disapprove of the Marriage, Act
Amendment Bill, it was not one to the committing of which he
should object. The notice was then entered for Friday se Haight.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN gave smite_ that on Man-1
day, the 7th of June, he should proposeto the House a Resolu-
tion on the subject of Ireland. He should therefore move that
their Lordships be summoned for that day.—Agreed to, after a
few words from the Earl of DASKLRY.
Earl GROSVENOR presented a Petition from the Inhabi-
tants of Shaftesbury and its vicinity, praying for the Revision of
the Criminal Code; and one from the Owners of Land in the
county of Somerset, for Agricultural Relief.—Laid on the table;
Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar Petition from the Hun-
dred of Shipton, in the county'of Norfolk.—Laid on the.table. •
CATHOLIC PEERS HILL.
The Duke of PORTLAND, in constquence of a
domestic calamity which had befallen a Noble Earl;
who had aiways.taken a distinguished part in the de-
bates on the Catholic question, wished to postpone
the second reading of the Catholic Peers Bin, of
which he had given notice for to-morrow. At pre-
sent he could not exactly say on what day he should
bring the subject forward, as it was impossible to.
know. when the Noble Earl in question would be able
to attend. But he should take the earliest opportu-
nity of mentioning a day to the House. The Noble
Duke then moved that his notice be discharged.
Lord ROLLE hoped that as early a day as possible
should be fixed, as there were several Irish Peers who
bad come over on purpose to be present at this dis-
cussion, and who were desirous of promptly returning
to their country on account of its present state.
The Duke of ATHOL objected to the notice being
withdrawn. All he bad been able to collect of the
grounds on which the motion was made was, that
some individual would not be able to-morrow to at-
tend the House; but he would not suffer courtesy to
be balanced with the importance of withdrawing- a.
notice, when the question was one which affected
their. Lordships privileges in a way hitherto unprece-
dented ; which broke. one of the articles of the Union,
and removed the corner-stone on which that Union
rested. When be saw the Petitioni on, their Lord-
ships' table, he could not consent to keep the comitty
in a state of prolonged anxiety on such At...a/4 as this.
'there were meant by which Noble Peers might give
their vuteswithotst atteeding-in their plate,. Thou‘h

tanate circumstance which had happened made it de-
sirable, not only as a matter of courtesy, but as one
of political utility, that the second reading of the
Catholic Peers Bill should be postponed in order to
secure the benefit of the Noble Earl's (Grey) attend-
ance and abilities in the discussion of the measure.
Had it been for the convenience of that Noble Earl
that the measure should have been put off, even till
September, he should have had no objection. But
it was not on that ground that the postponement was
pri)posed, neither was any specific time mentioned
for the next stage of the measure. The second read-
ing having been fixed for to morrow, many private
and public arrangements had been made on that ac-
count, yet he should not object to delay, provided
'some day should be fixed.
Lord ROLLE, in order to take the sense of the
House, should move that Thursday next sliutild
be the day.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested Friday', the
21st of June.
• After some conversation between the Duke •of
ATHOL, the LORD CHAVCELLOR, and the Earl of
LAUDERDALE,
The Duke of PORTLAND moved that his notice
be discharged and fixed for Friday the 21st of June.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it must
be understood that the Noble Duke would positively
move the second treading of the Bill on the 21srisf
June, otherwise he should himself take care to bring
the question nuder the consideration of the House.
The motion was then agreed to.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN wished to ask the Noble
Earl opposite, at what time the renewal of the Act for conti.
nuing the suspension of the Trial by Jury in Ireland would be
proposed, as the discussion of such a measure should take place
when a full attendance of Irish Peers would be secured?
The Earl of LIVERPOOL replied, that it was the inten-
tion of the individual who was to introduce the measure in 'the
other House, to do it in a very short time. As it was imixis.
Bible to know bow long its discussion might last in that House,
the Noble Marquis would see that he could not say exactly when
it would mine before their Lordships.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented several Petitions
against the Catholic Peers Bill, from the Parish of St. JOIN'S
Glasgow, Paisley,
.its neighbourhood, the Parish of St. Jolla s,
Westminster,,and the Resist Dissenters of Gower-street
peL—Laid coa the sable.--Adjourned.
•
HOUSE OF COMMONS. •

The Sea ass took the Chair a few minutes before four o'clock.
Sir GEORGE ROBINSON presented a Petition from the
.eather and Shoe Manufacturers of Southampton, praying fur
total repeal of the Leather Tax, which, they stated, would
done ensure the proposed benefit to the Public by the rentio.
;ten of 3 part of that Tax.--Ordered to be printed.
The Hon. Meniber presented a similar Petition fromCongleton.
Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from the Church-
wardens and Overseers of Preston, aga4nat the Poor Removal
BiU.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. B. COQ,PER presented a similar Petition from Glou-
cester.—Ordered -to be prinied.
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition from the
Tanners of the City of Cork, complaining of the oppressive ope-
ration of an Excise Tax upon foreign Bark of 7s. 6d. peecwt.
and praying for relief. The Honourable Gentleman suppetted
the prayer of the PetitMn, and assured the House that the Re.
venue suffered in etittiequence of this Tax.,
Sir N. COLT HORST seconded the prayer of the Petition.
Read and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BLACKBURN presenteda Petition from Rochdale and
other places against the Poor Removal Hill.—Laid on the table.
Mr. DAVENPORT presented a Petitioa from the Silk
Tluvoesten and Manufacturers at Silk 'of Macclesfield, against
Lim dausein the Navigation Bill fur the Importation of Thrown
lislu—.4.locTed t• be printed..
( *L k 60N presorted a similar Petition from the Silk
Thew/sten of Mosley, Worctstershirsu—Oniered to be Fainted.
Mr. NORRTON 'presented ,a Peridoe from the Mayor and
Corporation of Llingleaso, in Cheshire, against the May
OR 7 Terowe Ailk. _
• Sir
Ben!
the
bets
, I Stich

Pv;miltinii the Jurriotion nt Thrown *Ur.
ir THOMAS LE 11111:11JG It said, that dot 1411 its sues_ • 1:
had created i 'vein ornsaikan in the constr./ in tilialt of 1:: l
*NA Manufacturer* and Sigaiimik th, Ppliblent and Nein. i
1 et the CUlll‘llittiC ut Fureigti 'feeds; for recommending
1 4 lialiefilril. Tie LIMA rivedini of that Ihil WM COS*I4 thi -
• , • • .. .
. • '. • 1., .• .- i :'
1