House Of Lords, Monday, A...
The Times, 1824-04-06T00:00:00

PARLIAMINTARY INTELLIGEATCE. Earl FITZWILLIAIll presented two petitons, as we 1unnier- stood, from Guisborough, in Yorkshire, and Beccles, in S'Iffolk, in favour of the abolition of negro slavery. The LORD CEIANCELLOR presented a petition signed by the chureliwardens and 7,000 of the inhabitants of the parish of St. .Matthew, Bethnal-green ; and another from llile-end New-town, signed by 1.600 of the inhabitants, against any alteration of the law celative to the silk tradc. The Mlarquis of DOWNSEHIRnE presented a petition from Bel- fast against the repeal of the usury lrws. The noble marquis at the same time intimated that he did not concur in opinion with the pe- titioners. Lord CLIFDEN presented a petitinn against the Irish tithe com- mutation act. The petition, as we could collect, was from two parishes in the county of lKilkenny, named Anaghadoe and Frank- furt. The noble lord said they were united parishes; for in that part of his iMajesty's donuinions the peoDle had a great disposition to unite. He also made several observatfons on the operation of the late act, whicii he regarded as equally unjast to the dthe-receivers and the tithe-pavers. The Earl of DARNLEY rose to notice a mis-staternent relative to the proceedings of the house, which he had observed in the public papers. Re had been described as presenting a petition from the Isle of Thanet, whereas the petition was from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch. He should not have now ad. verted to this circumstance on its own account merely, but it became of much consequencewwhen helooked forward to the important subject to which lie intended to call their lordships' attention on Thursday next-namely, the state of Ireland. ic was his wish to abstarin as much as possible from any complaint of the present kind, for wihich he must in general acknowledge that there was but little occasion. Indeed, when lie considered the inconvenient manner in which the gentlemnen who reported the debates wrere situated, he could not but I be surprised at the great accuracy with which they were printed. If, however, it was not their iordships' intention to enforce their stand- ing orders, every facility and accommodation should be given, so I that those whose office it was to take down the debates might have I the opportunity of hearing distinctlvy l perhaps, did not pro. nounce so clearlv,or raise his voice to so higL a pitch,as some of their loidships h but the liability to be misrepresented must be considera- ble, when sounds so dissimilar as the Isle of Thanet and St. Leonard's could be mistaken for each otder. On the motion of the Earl of LivERPOOL, the silk duties bill was committed and Teported. The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the second reading of the Irish Catholics' burial bill. A conyersation arose in consequence of a wisih for delay express- ed by the Earl of DARNLEY, in which the Earl of CARNARVON took a part. The Earl of LiVERPOOL intimnated that as it was de- sirable that the bill should soon pass, he would move the rommittee to.morrovv. The Earl ef DA NLEY advised the postponeinent of the committee to Friday. The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed that anv amendment which noble lords wished to propese, mtg?it be ide on the third reading, as well as in tbhe committee. The bill was then read a secornd time.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORVSS MONDAY, APFJL S.