Star.
London, England, 1820-05-13 00:00:00

TIIE ATIIAWASIAN CREED.

Lord lIOLLAND rose, pursuant to notice, to pre: I
sent.a Petition from a Clergyman of the Diocese of
Exeter. He found it necessary to commence, by say-
ing a few words as to the time at which the Petition
was presented, and as to tire mode of proceeding
which he intended to adopt—as to the former, the
fact was, that the Petitioner had, as early as the
moath of November, applied to a Nobleman on the
subject, whose Manly spirit and commanding elo-
quence would, if any could, afford protection to the
oppresscd—.he meant Lord Grey—but his Lordship
was then indisposed. An application was then made
ths,Noble Lord himself; but he was also so un-
well, is tot to be able to attend to his duties in the
House, and the subequent dissolution of Parliament,
occasioned the further delay which had occurred ;
but he boptd the time thus unavoidably elapsed,
would not have the effect of prejudicing the case,
As to the mode pursued, be wished to observe, that
he thoright it the most manly, just, and candid way
to have their Lordships summoned for the occasion,
that those high characters whose conduct was ani-
madverted upon in that Petition, might have the best
opportunity of giving the requisite explanation to the
House. The Noble Lord thee proceeded to state the
substance of the Petition; which was briefly as fol-
lows. The Petitioner, the Rev. Mr. Jones, was a
Cleigyinan of the Church of England, who held the
Curacy of the Parish of North Povy, in the diocese
of Exeter. A County Meeting was called sonic time
back, for the purpose of petitioning against any fur-
ther concession to the Roman Catholics : a number
of Freeholders and Clergymen attended, a great
number of whom were hostile to the Catholic claims.
The Petitioner also attended, and in the. course of
the discussion delivered a speech in answer to one
made by a Reverend Brother, who had spoken in fa-
vour of the object of the Meeting. He was afterwards
presented to two livings by a friend, one in the dio-
cese of Peterborough, the other in that of Lincoln.
It is necessary on those occasions to produce to the Bi-
shop of the diocese in which the living is situate, a tes-
timonial signed by three Clergymen of the diocese in
which the presented Cleik resides, and which testi.
monial ought to be countersigned by the Bishop of
the same diocese. In the case of the Petitioner, three
neighbouring Clergymen did sign his testimonial,
which ascribed to him art orderly, sober, and pious
lite, and vouched that he had never held or written
any doctrines contrary to those of the Church of
England. This document was submitted of course
to the Bishop of Exeter, the diocesan, but he refused
to countersign it. The Petitioner then wrote to the
other two Bishops, in order to ascertain whether
they, would refuse to institute him on account of the
want of his Diocesan's counter-signature. He received
letters from both in answer, which agreed as to the
determination not to institute on such testimonial.
The Petitioner then called upon his diocesan, and
requested to know the reason why he refused his sig-
nature? 'f he Learned and Reverend Prelate, although
he assumed the power of such refesal without as-
signing any reason, yet was manly and candid
enough to state what his reason was; and from what
the reason was, it might be seen what it was not.—
It *as not for want of. competency, nor was it
founded on any impeachment of moral character,
or anything that constituted a deficiency of icloneisas
persona for a clerical office; but it was in conse-
quence of the Petitioner having uttered certain words
in a speech at a Public Meeting. The Petitioner of-
fered proof that he had never spoken the words im-
puted to him, but it was of no avail. The persons
who bad informed the Bishop, as he was not present
himself, were honoured with more credit. They
were not however named, nor was Mr. Jones at any
time confronted with them ; nor did he get any op-
portunity of refuting their charge, or disproving
rlieir credibility. When he found it in vain to per-
..e‘ ere in 'coking for institution, he, although not
compelled by law, but feeling an obligation in
:ionour, surrendered the presentations, and thereby
lost a provision of 5001. per annum. This was a
destruction of property, and a loss of livelihood in-
flicted on a clergyman who had committed no ca-
nonical' (deuce, and had no opportunity of disproving

• ,
the facts alleged against b 1 n. lie had, mbieoier,
pti remedT in law. Although his moral charaCter
was blameless, and the diocesan bad offered to write
to the other Right Reverend Prelates, acknowledg-
ing that his count n was not withheld on account
pa*of any moral im on, yet he was treated in such a
way, as to bQcome a • marked and stigmatized man.
If he had done anything which constituted a suffi- 1
cien tfttuse for preventing his institution to a living,
it ought to have been as valid a ground for depriving
him of his Curacy. The Noble Lord then proceeded
to state several circumstances in proof of the good
character which Mr. Jones had supported in the
parish to which he belonged. He said that he had
been scarcely ever a week absent from his parish,
and that he had received a letter from the wife of
his Rector, who was then confined to his bed, ex-
pressing a high sense of the manner in which he had
discharged his parochial duties. On the death of
his Rector also, the parishioners had passed a reso-
lution, to the purport that he was deserving of being
appointed their new Rector; but other arrangements
interfered, and prevented it. The Noble Lord next
observed, that the case of refusing to countersign,
and that of refusing to institute, were very different
as regarded a remedy in l*w. ' :In the latter case the
Bishop might undoubtedly ;do*, in the first instance,
and assign no reason—but by process of law he was
compellable to assign a reason; and, if he did not,
the tribunal which issued the process, had also the
power to enforce it; but there was no legal remedy
against the Bishop for his refusal to countersign.—
ihis,
,he contended,• was an enormous and arbi-
trary power, and ought to be relieved in the same
way as the refusal to institute, as it might be
productive of thegrossest abuse, and might tend to
the -most serious injury of property ; far although
Mr. Jones had surrendered, the livings to which the
patron nominated hito, yet, he was not obliged by
law to do so, and had he refused, the right of pre-
sentation must have lapsed, and accrued to the ordi-
nary. The words stated to have been spoken by the
Pentioneas'at the County Meeting, and which were
mentioned by the Bishop as his ground for refusing
his request were—" That in subscribing to the eighth
of the thirty-nine Articles, which contained an ap-
probation of the Athanasian Creed and its damnable
clauses, nine-tenths of the Clergymen of the Church
England subscribed to what they did not believe ;"
other words were added, to the purport, that in the
whole code of the Church of Rome, there was no-
thing more uncharitable. These words, his Lord-
ship said, were incorrectly reported ; instead of the
word " damnable," he had used the epithet " dam-
, natory," which made a vast difference. Evidence
to shew that he had not Used the words imputed to
him, could be adduced from the report of his speech
in
the Newspapers, in which nothing of the son t ap-
peared, also from the letters of persons of credibility
present at the time, and from the whole tenour of his
argument : one of the persons who deposed in his
favour was a Gentleman who had sat next him, a
brother of Serjeant Pell—another was a relative of
Sir Vicary Gibbs. As to the tenour of the Petitioner's
argument, it was a material ground for ascertaining
the real character of his expressions. It was in reply
to the argument of a Reverend Gentleman who had
urged. against the Catholics, that they signed an in-
tolerant Creed, and that they ought to be judged of,
not by whaf they profesied or practised, but by the
principles to which they affixed their signatures. In
answer to this, Mr. Jones maintained, that it would
be as uncharitable to decide against the Catholics on
those grounds, as to charge the Clergy of the Church
of England with any intolerant principle, which
might be contained in the Thirty-nine Articles; for
instance, the eighth Article was signed by all the
Clergy of that Church ; and as it contained a Creed
which declared that every man not of the Church of
England must be lost and damned, it was impossible
that nine-tenths of these who subscribed it could be-
lieve in such a doctrine—(Hear, hear).—The Noble
Lord then proceeded to shew, that this opinion of
the Petitioner, relative to the Athanasian Creed, was
in unison with the opinions pronounced upon the
same subject by some of the brightest ornaments•of
the Church. Among others, he instanced Arch-
bishop Tillotson, who, in reference to that Creed, had
made use of the memorable words—" I wish we
Were well rid of it."—(Hear, hear).—He also in-
stanced Bishop Burnet, who said, that sixty out of
an hundred Clergymen signed the Articles without
readibg, others without understanding them, and
the remainder, because they must. He contended,
that it was no less preposterous to refuse to institute
Mr. Jones for the words which he had used, than it
would have been to refuse to consecrate those learned
and illustrious Prelates, if their words had, 'previously
to consecration, been urged against them. He also
referred to the opinion of Paley, upon the work of
the late Bishop of Carlisle, and likewise to the strong
language made use of by Bishop Horsley in the
House of Lords, who had, in his (Lord Holland's)
hearing, called the disputed speculative points of
consubstantiation and transubstentiation,conundrunts!
—(4l laugh).—His Lordship then argued on the
harshness of construction, which, without proper in-
quiry, had been put upon the words of the Peti-
tioner, and combated the possibility of any redress
for the loss of property, and the ruin and blasting of
character in this case, unless from the interposition
of their Lordships. As to the courts of law, it had
been said that the Petitioner, by proper application,
might have a quart impedit against the Bishops who
refused to institute, although he could have none
against the Bishop who refused to countersign. The
Bishops might answer the quart impedit by a special I
plea, to which the Petitioner could put in a demurrer,
which, if it set aside the plea, would entitle him to
a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench to com-
pel than to institute him. He then contended, that
such a mode of redress was, to a person who sub-
sisted on a Curacy of £3O per annum, in fact no re-
dress at all, as he never could sustain the expense of
such litigation. It would condemn him to perpetual
irrevocable poverty. This was a case of great im-
portance, both to Ecclesiastical property, and to the
state of the inferior order of Clergy—who, if redress
was not given in this case, must be reduced to a con-
dition of abject dependence. The Noble Lord con-
cluded, by stating, that after the Petition had been
read, he would move than it be referred to a Com-
mittee to inquire into the laws empowering the
Bishops to refuse their counter-signature, without
assigning a reason, and to report thereon; this he
said was tire more necessary, as by tkOIUC late laws

the bishops. tact 'obtained a great increase of authority
over the inferior ranks of Clergy..—The Petition was
then read, and the CoMmittee moved.
The Bishop of EXETER said, that he would not
follow the detail of the Noble Lord's speech, but
would content himself with refuting the allegations
contained in the Petition. The calling of the County
Meeting for the purpose mentioned in the Petition,
was correct ; and also that the Petitioner had made
a speech at that Meeting in faviiel of the Catholic
Claims; but the Learned Prelate disavowed his hav-
ing been actuated by any political feelings in refusing
his countersignature to the testimonial. He did
not either, as was alleged, omit to investigate the
matter: enquiries on the subject had occupied him
three weeks. He had received letters corroborative
of the accusation against the Petitioner.. He had
acted as he had done in the conscientious discharge
of his duty, by adhering to an invariable rule regard-
ing presentation. The three Clergymen who had
signed the Petitioner% testimonial, had done so with
a perfect ignorance of his conduct on the occasion
mentioned. But since they had heard even his own
account of the matter, they had withdrawn their
signatures. His Lordship concluded by stating, that
as to allowing the Petitioner to retain his Curacy, he
had done so merely from a charitable feeling.
Lord ERSKINE gave credit to the Right Reve-
rend Lord for the pinny of his intentions, though he
thought his conduct in the present instance was pro-
perly brought under the view of the House. The
manner in which those testimonials were conducted
was familiar to all. He believed no one would con-
tradict him, when he stated that they were of this
kind. They generally ran in the following words :
" We, the undersigned, do testify that we personally
know for the last three years, that we believe
him to be a person of moral conduct, and that he
does-not maintain any doctrines contrary to those of
the Church of England."—But it frequently happened
that a Clergyman was promoted, who did not know
three Clergymen in diocese. A son of his own
hadlieen in that situation; but the signature of one
'being 'procured, the Archbishop of Canterbury signi-
fied that he was worthy of credit ; the Bishop of Chi-
chester did the same,:though they knew nothing iaf
his son, and thus the difficulty was got over. He
would admit, that if a Right Reverend Prelate knew
anything, disadvantageous to the personal character
of the individual, be was not only justified in not
signing the testimonial, but bound not-to sign it.—
Every man had a right so to conduct himself in this
world, as to preserve his general character, and if he
lost it he must take the consequence. Such was the
rule of law. - If a person was examined as a witness,
and that another swore he did not believe his oath,
because he was a man of bad character, the Ccurt
could not go into the inquiry. But if, as in the pre-
sent case, an inquiry was set on foot, not as to the
general character, but a particular fact, su?h as the
one before them, and that on the ground of that fact
the Bishop should refuse to sign, he would take the
liberty to say, that such conduct must prove unsa-
tisfactory to the House. He would ask, why did not
the Reverend Prelate go into the Spiritual Court,
where the Petitioner would have had an opportunity
of defending himself?—(Hear, hear). Would the
Reverend Prelate undertake to say, that those from
whom he derived his information were present during
the whole of the speech, for nothing could be more
unfair than to judge from having heard a part only?
No man, he trusted, would suspect him of being an
enemy to Religion ; he had always venerated it from
his youth upwards, and he believed the Liturgy of I
the Church of England to be the best and purest in
the world. But was it advantageous to have it go
abroad that here in England, where every man had
a right to be tried by his Peers, the case of an indi-
vidual
should be prejudged?—(Hear, hear). The
Bishops of England had always acted in a manner
which reflected dignity on their characters, and no-
thing could be more painful to him than that it'
should go forth to the world that a Bishop had re-
fused to sign a testimonial, not on the ground of
general character, but on a recent fact which did not
implicate that character. It was contrary to the prin-
ciples of justice. Something, he thought, might be
done by their Lordships in this case; for he agreed
with his Noble Friend, that the idea of going to law
with the Bench of Bishops was not within the humble
means of a •Curate—(Hear, hear).
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if it was fit
that the House should for a moment entertain a mo-
tion, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry, whether
the Bishops of England should be compelled to de-
part from that line of discretion they had a right to
exercise with respect to the inferior Clergy ? The
Canon law laid down no rule upon the subject..—
Every Bishop had the power to countersign a Cler-
gyman's testimonial, but if they looked upon that
act as nothing more than a matter of course, they
failed in the performance of their duty. It was the
duty of the Bishop to examine whether the person
proposed for a living, was fit to have one in his dio-
cese. If in this instance the Bishop had exercised an
improper discretion, the complaining party had a
remedy in a Court of Law ; but it was not for Par-
liament to entertain any complaint of the kind, or to
adopt any proposition that bad for its object to alter
the law of the land. It was not an individual case
that should induce their Lordships to make so mate-
rial a departure from the usages of the country.
The Earl of CARNARVON observed, that the
Right Reverend Prelate had assigned no reason what-
ever for refusing to sign the Petitioner's testimonial ;
and consequently of consigning an nnfortnnate indi-
vidual to ruin. He acted upon the principle of the
Spanish Inquisition, by making secret inquiries, and
acting on the information be received without afford-
ing the accused an opportunity of defending himself.
The interests of all the Clergy and Patrons in the
kingdom required that the law should be clearly laid
down on this subject. As to the Athanasian Creed,
he would ask whether the Right Rev. Prelate him-
self believed or approved of its doctrines ? It was
well known that there were Bishops in this country
who did not believe that Creed.---(llere the Noble
Earl read an extract from a book published by a
Bishop of I,incoln, in which it was asserted, that the
Athanasian. Creed was composed 100 years after the
death of St. Athanasius, and in which the. Bishop de-
clared it to be an unfOrtunate thing, that su.:ll un-
qualified expressions as those contained in it should
be used). fhe unfortunate man, however, whose
Petition was now the subject of debate, had lost his
living, and had all hi; hopes destroyed, merely for

saying that nine-tenths of the Clergy held opi-
nions, which one of the bishops of the Established
Church did not think it inconsistent with his duty,
his religious tenets, pr his ecclesiastical character, to
entertain, and to publish to the world.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that in the
absence of all explanation on the part of the Right
Reverend Prelate, and in a state of doubt as to the
proceedings that should take Place in this transac-
tion, he should beg to call their Lordships' attention
to the-extraordinary situation, in which the Clergy;
belonging to the diocese of the Right Reverend Pie-
late were placed. It was material to consider what
!the grounds were upon which he had exercised hit
jurisdiction. The Right Reverend Prelate had said;
he thought himself justified in makinginquiry, at
distance from the complainant's parish, relative to
the expressions he might have uttered ; and then;
acting on that testimony, to inflict a punishMent or
him, and blast his character for ever. This unfelt.:
tuuate man, without having any allegation thrown'
out on his moral condi:et, and without the means of
justifying himself, was to be ruined in all his pros:-
pects through life, merely on account of the arbitrary
will of an individual. That individual gave their
Lordships to understand, that, in the goodness of his
heart, he had allowed the poor Clergyman to retain
his Curacy, while he considered him unfit to hold a
living ! l'es, in the goodness of his heart, he allowed
this man of dangerous doctrines to propagate the
same among thousands of people! Perhaps the
Right Reverend Prelate thought, that so long as he
continued a Curate, he could do no mischief, even
though he spoke against the thanasian Creed; but
it would be most dreadful to allow him to propagate
such a doctrine after he got a living ! Was not this
a subject which it was the duty of the House to take
notice of? Was it tit that such a power should be
exercised by any Bishop, or that such injustice should
be done to the Clergy and Patrons of livings? The
unfortunate Gentleman in question was either most
barbarously ill-used, or the did not duly ex-
ercise the trust reposed in him, by allowing an im-
proper and dangerous person to per form the clerical
duties. He was glad to hear it stated, that the
Clergyman had a legal ieniedy against the Bishop ;
but whether he had or not, it was the duty of that
House to pay some attention to the prayer of the
Petition, and to watch over the interests of the infe-
rior order of Clergy throughout the kingdom, as no
set of men were mote entitled to the protecti.ai of the
Legislature than they were. It was impossible for
any man to say that the Bishop had not deviated
from his duty, or misused hisludgment, when he re-
fused to sign the Petitioner's testinsonium, and at the
same time allow him to go on doing mischief, which
must be the case, if the Petitioner was such a man as
the Bishop described him tts be.
The Bishop of I. ANDAFF then addressed their
Lordships. From all he had heard, he did not think
![
that any act of misgovernment was made out against
the Right Reverend Prelate. What he had done ap-
peared to him to be only in the strict discharge of his
duty. With respect to the alleged opinions of the
Clergy on the subject alluded to, he had passed
through all ranks, and he looked upon tie statement
as a gross libel upon that highly reipectabie body—
" The Right Reverend Prelate might inadvertently, or
unwittingly. cogntersign testimonials ; but it, before
he had so done, any circumstances came to his know-
ledge respecting.the character or opinions ache indi-
vidual,.he was bound to• act upon them.
The Earl of C A RgA RVON, in explanation, stated,
that he had not charged the Right Reverend Prelate
with a disbelief of the damnatory articles of the Atha-
nasian Creed ; but the Right Reverend Prelate had
not himself -expressed any opinion on the subject.—
Another Right Reverend l'relate had, in his writings,
thrown more than a doubt upon the necessity of their
belief. Indeed he (Lord Carnal/on) had never heard
any Prelate say that he believed. them ; and all that
he should add was, that those who did believe (hem
could nee .be Christians !

The Bishop of EXETER was proceeding to com-
ment upon what had fallen from the Noble Earl, when
Lord HOLLAND rose to order. His Lordship ob-
served, thit according to the standing rules and con-
stant practice of their Lordships, if any Loble Lord,
in explanation, disavowed particular words, no Noble
Lord had a right afterwrds to impute those words
to him..—The question was then pti, and their cord-
ships divided, when their appeared--Contents 18—
Non-contents Ss—Majority 17.
Adjourned at Half-past Eight, till Monday.
lIOUS3 OF COMMONS.
Several Members took the oaths and their seats.

Lord MILTON laid upon the table a Petition from Vraie-
held, complaining of the Tat upon Wool.
Mr. LIWLETON gave notice, that he would, on Monday,
bring in a Bill respecting theWa,ses of Labourers in the Potteries.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved for a New Writ for the Borough
of Tavistock, in the room of • Fazakerly, Esq. who has ac-
cepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.
The LORD REGISTRAR of SCOTLAND presented
Petition from certain Freeholders of Dumbartonshire, for a re-
peal of the late Duty on I►lalt.—Laid on the table. •
AGRICULTURAL DISTRR3S.

Lord TEMPLE presented five Petitions from oc-
cupiers of land in various parts of Buckinghamshire,
complaining of agricultural distress, and praying
that their case !right be taken into consideration
with a view to their relief.

Mr. HUME could not avoid taking this opportu-
nity of remarking, that notwithstanCing the nume-
rous, petitions which had been presented from the
farmers of the country representing their distresses,
still the miseries of this class of people were not so
numerous or aggravated as thoseof the commercial
and manufacturing classes. He was of opinion that
the Corn Bill, and all other restrictions of the kind,
sho!lld be removed, in order to give a stimulus to
the industry of the country. The Corn Bill, instead
of serving the farmer, had, by its pressure on 17;4
commercial interests, added to the distress of the
agricultural classes.
Mr. CURAVEN said, if the Hon. Member had at-
tended to the terms of the different petitions on tl:e
table/ he would find that the prayer was not for any
immediate relief, but for inqui►y. If the Hon. Mem-
ber had been acquainted with the real state of thei
case, he would have seen that the agriculturists did
not demand an exclusive attention to their distre,s,
or that a remedy should be provided for their reUct
at the expense of any other interest in the State. lie
was sorry to witness the existence of a notion, in that
House, that the interests of the agriculturist and ihe-
inechanic were separated. He was of a contrary
opinion, and believed that each of these pertens

equally concerned in bringing about the inquiry
*hich the petitions of the one side demanded. He
leard, therefore, with great regret, an Hon. Mein-
kr sound the alarm to the country. He was satis-
fied that no increase of return for his produce could
benefit the farmer, without eventually bringing pro.
rertionate advantage to the mechanic. He agreed
in the opinion that the Corn Bill failed in its object;
:a; he was convinced of the necessity of keeping up
farmeri income. Upon the whole view of the
I;ibiect, he felt satisfied that nothing could remedy
:ie universal distress of the people except some mode
lightening the pressure of taxation, and reducing
:":e interest of the debt. He believed in his consci-
e:lce that nothing but remedies of. this nature could
..',leviate the just complaints of the people.
'General GASCOTNE did not rise for the purpose
~;f drawing on any premature discussion upon the
..üblect, but in order to correct the misconception
711 at he had sounded any alarm to the people, or that
had entertained the notion of a distinction of in-
t:rests bet%% een the met cantile and agricultural classes.
He deprecated the introduction of the subject at all,
it was calculated to promote the general inita-
fon of tl a public mind. The petitioners, it was
:aid, complained of the importation of foreign corn,
and wanted a Committee to inquire into their case.
Ue was ready to grant them an inquiry into their si-
tuation, but he was convinced that whatever might
he the prayer of the agriculturists, their real object
absolutely was, to raise the price of the produce of
their land. He was disinclined to animadvert upon
the motives of any set of men, but he bad a duty
:o discharge towards his constituents, who, to the
amount of 111,000, he felt satisfied, were ready to
declare against a Corn Bill. He would state to the
House that he had that morning received a letter
from a respectable manufacturer in the neighbour-
hood'of Manchester, asking his advice upon the pro-
riety of calling a Public Meeting with a view to
petition Parliament against the objects of the agri.
cultural petitions. In his answer to that Gentleman,
he recommended him to postpone any expression of
their opinions, until the objects of the agricultural
body were somewhat more defined. In the meantime
he thought that the number of petitions which were
presented, and were likely to be presented to the
House, excited a strong sensation in the public mind,
and he hoped that the propriety of abstaining from
the promotion of irritation and bad feeling, would
Le more extensively felt than it appeared to be.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT was not surprised that
there should be a difference of sentiment oa that oc-
casion between the Hon. Members for Carlisle and
Liverpool, and he thought that each had a right to
dicier from the other. The latter Hon. Member,
u:to had animadverted in such strong terms upon
t:te impropriety of any discussions upon the subject
b.::ore the House, had himself, more than any other
icniber, contributed to increase the public alarm.
1k was sorry to witness any attempt made to dis-
c. urage the exercise of petition by the public. If the
i.ll;tbitants of any part of the country felt aggrieved,
and imarned that they could be benefited by the in-
te:.positioa of Parliament, he would say, let them
petition, at their discretion, and in the language of
the late Speaker of that House, he would add, « Let
the doors of the House be thrown open to their corn.
plaints." The agriculturists complained of distress,
and asked inquiry with a view to their relief, Would,
or ought that House to refuse them inquiry ? When
a Petition was brought up from some cotton manu-
facturers, or some distressed village in the manufac-
turing districts, no objection was expressed against
f:e exercise of their right to petition—no atttempt
vas made to suppress their complaints. Every body
must be sensible that the interests of the mercantile
and agricultural bodies were the same. The manu-
facturers must be aware that a home market was su-
perior to a foreign one; and that if the farmer was
impoverished, they %vadat participate in the evils of
iris poverty. He trusted that Petitions, from what-
ever quarter they might come, would be received
and treated with candour and temper, and that on
r 3 occasion should an application to that House from
a suffering class of the people be discouraged.
Lord 1 F.MPL said, that the prayer of the Peti-
tion was roe inquiry, and not for any specific measure
of relief.

Mr. RICARDO did not doubt the representations
contained in the different Petitions of the digresses
of the Agricultural part of the community. If it
were proposed to relieve the distresses -of this class,
without any regard to the effects which the remedy
:tight produce upon other parts of the country, no-
t Lag was more easy than to find out means of re-
ezeis for that particular interest; but on this occa-
sion, unhappily, it was not one class alone for whose
grievances remedies were to be provided ; and if an
impartial attention to the distresses of both parties
required any sacrifice of particular interests, he
trusted that there was virtue enough in that House to
make the sacrifice. Ile assured the House, that he
felt this to be a most important subject. The grand
means of remedying the general distress was to be
looked for in supplying an opportunity to make la-
bour as productive as possible. He was unwilling to
dwell longer at present upon this delicate topic, and
would therefore content hinicelf with declaring his
decided hostility to the prayer of the Agricultural
Petitions.

Mr. CALCRAFT entirely approved of the Peti-
t:6ns on the table, and looked forward with pleasure
to the probability of an inquYty into the state of the
Agricultural distress. When the Corn Laws were
under the consideration of the House, he expressed
his disapprobation of the importation price which
these laws had settled. He thought it most unwise
co discountenance the complaints of the people. It
*as the duty of Parliament to do all in their power
0 furnish redress wherever it was called for; and
-low could they act up to the dictates of this duty,
• nless by giving an impartial ear to the representa-
ions of all parties? An investigation, upon the
:%-inciples of equal justice and equal indulgence,
old have the best effects, and might tend to chew
he farmer that lie could not consult his own inte-

!,,t better than by mending the situation of the ma-
•mi.icturer. his Honourable friend (Mr, !tie:info)
,:ho professed himself adverse to the prayer of the
•vtitioners, had on a former night *ateJ k to be
i:is ',pinion that the Agricultural pact of the country
be partially relieved from the burden of sup-
notti;:g the poor, which was now entirely thrown
pint them ; and the Honourable Member even ex-
rcbscd Lis rzadii.ess to concur iu some measure for

remunerating this body. W.is not then this admit-
ted grievance a fair ground for intiniry?--(Hear).—
The concession from hi; Honourable Friend was
very important, and he hoped it would be felt by
the House. No one who examined the matter, but
must acknowledge it to be an extraordinary griev-
ance, that the Whole support of the poor should be
thrown upon this particular class, and that too con-
trary to the just intentions of the various Acts by
which the burden was created.

Lord NL'GENT was-willing to grant the prayer
of the Petitioners for a Committee of Investigation,
while he dissented from their reasoning. He be-
lieved
that the Corn Laws failed in their object, be-
cause the only effect of them was to fix a inasimum,
instead of a minimum. lie disapproved of an im-
portation duty on Corn, as tending to add to the
pressure of the poor-rates—to increase prices, and
bring great distress on the country. But it was in
vain to expect a remedy for the public distress in an
importation duty, or in any other measure, as long
as the country was subjected to the evil operation of
a great debt, and a fictitious paper currency. The
diminution of the debt, and a return to a sound cur-
rency, he knew, were calculated to produce much
temporary distress, and he thought it would not be
unwise in Parliament to consider of some means of
temporary relief for this distress.
Mr. HUSKISSON rose for the sole purpose of
imploring the House to reflect upon the course it
was now pursuing—(Hear, hear). He deplored the
introduction of a discussion upon a topic to which
every man's mind wits turned with extreme concern,
until it was taken up with a view to have the whole
thoroughly considered. The House was aware that
a day had been fixed when an Honourable Friend of
his (the Member for Surrey) would bring forward a
motion upon the subject, and to that opportunity he
hoped every Honourable Member, who was anxious
to express his opinions, would reserve himself.
Mr. STUART IVORTLEY suggested the pro-
priety of allowing the private business to be pro-
ceeded with first.—The Petitions were then read,
and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. LYGON presented five Petitions from Land-owners in
different parts of Worcestershire, complaining of Agricultural
distress.—Laid on the table.

Mr. li] \G presented a similar Petition from certain Land.
owners in the County of Middlesex.-1,4d on the table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Sir M. W. MOLLY, in laying•on the table a Peti-
tion from the Merelnuits, Bankers, Inhabitants, pro-
prietors and occupiers of property in Newcastle-
upon:Tyne, iu favowr of Parliamentary Reform,
wished to be indulged with a few words upon the
subject. It was signed by 3,016 persons, to his per-
sonal knowledge of the greatest respectability, and
it was unanimously agreed to, at a Meeting very
numerously attended; it also deserved remark, as
being the first Meeting at which the restrictive powers
lately given to Magistrates had been carried into
effect. He did not mean now to enter into the pro-
priety of the opinions contained in the Petition; it
would be sufficient to say, that though many Gen-
tlemen might still think they went too far, they
prayed neither for Annual Parliaments nor Univer-
sal Suffrage. He moved, that the Petition do lie
upon the table.
Mr. LAMBTON also adverted to the respectabi-
lity of the individuals affixing their signatures: they
consisted of that class which hitherto had not taken
so deep an interest in political matters as could be
wished for the welfare of the country—he meant
shopkeepers and tradesmen, forming the middle rank
of society. The Petition originated in a Requisition
signed by fifty names ; but as the Mayor of New-
castle did not think fit to comply, the Meeting took
place without his sanction. He trusted that the ex-
ample here set would be followed throughout the.
kingdom, and that the middle class would shew that
in times like the present they felt a strung interest re-
garding a question involyipg their most valuable in-
terests. As he had a mots pend:ag on the subject,
he would not now say more than that, if the subject
were calmly and considerately entertained by the
House, the decision was, more than any other mea-
sure, calculated to calm the prevailing and increas-
ing discontents.—The Petition was laid on the table.