House Of Lords, Wednesday...
The Times, 1824-06-10T00:00:00

PARLIAMEl NTARY INTELLIGENACE. The LORD CHIA?CELLOR, the Earl of LIVERPOOL, and Lord M1ELVILLE sat as Commissioners, and nodfied the Royal assent to the Scots distillery bill, the hides and skins bill, the lea- ther duties' bill, the commissioners of public charities' bill, the Mar peerage indemnity biU and several private bills. The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from Salford and Manchcster, in favour of the joint stock company bill. M r. HuarE, and others from the Commons, brought up the com- bination la,s' repeal bill, thie masters and workmen's bill, the Irish distress bill; and returned the silk dtietics bill with the amendments of the Lords agreed to. The Earl of'LATDERDALE presented petitions against the equitable loan bill, from certain inhlabitants of the parish of St. 3iartin-in-the-fields, the city of London, and the borough of Southwark. Tne noble earl presented some other petitions against the same bill; and Lord HOLLAN D presented one, but the places from which thesepetitions came were not beard. The crowd below the bar was this day unusually great, and it was with difficulty any of the proccedings could be collec'ed with accuracy. Earl GREY presented a petition 2rom the detors confined in lWhitecross-street Prison in favour of the equitable loan bill. Earl GREY afterwards rose to present two petitions, one from the Roman Catholics of Cork, -and the other from the Ronman Ca- tholics of Galway. In consequence of the crowd and confusion to wrhich we have alluded, the noble Earl was not perfectly audible be. low the bar. IVe unclirstood him to say, that the petitioners thought j-t riglht, notwithstanding the disappointments they bad experienced, t .ontnue their ceforts, and to persevere with .Dirits unbroken, in re e ing the restoration of their dvil and religious rights. In this dS,ner.'ination they proceeded upon just grounds, for he con- eeived toar dile right of all his _Majesty's subjects to equal civil and rell2,;os i"berty was a perfect rlht of which none could be deprived without special reasons. His opinion, therefore, had always been, wtht nothing but the safety of society could excuse the enzactment of the disqualHicadtons of which the petitioners com- plained. It was, theTefore, for those who maintained the necessity of disqualifying statute, to show that the security of the community depended upon such law.s Accordinig to his view of the nubject thlis case certainly could not be 'nade out by the opponents of the Caiho- ]ic claiums, and he therefore tZlly concurred with the petitioners in the opinion that there never cou.'d be peace in Ireland, and that the British empire never could be in a~ state of security, until the laws imp. sing disqualifieations on the Rom an Catholics were repealed. One of tie petftions which he had to prese: , when transmitted to him, was accompanied with a letter, request.'ng that he would, if he thought it advisable, call their lordships' attentPon to tbe consideran tfon of ihe Catholic claims before the house adjourned For Ihis oWn part, he would have readily complied with tfbatrequest; but he was convinced, from every thing he saw and heard, that his origi- nating any motion during the present session would not tend to pro- mote the object of the petitioners. Ile was the more confirmed-in this opinion in consequence of knowing that it had been stated else- where, by a member of the AdniinisztaaionholAing a high o9ice in Ireland, that this question could not be discussed at present without the greatest possible danger to the interests of the Catholics. fie therefore should not now propose any otber motion than that the pe. tition do lie on the table; but it would be necessary for their lord ships to direct their serious attention to the subjectat an early period of the ensuing session; for if the present state of things were allow. ed to continue in Ireland, the discontents must end in some convul- sion whiclh would shake the empire to its centre. The Marquis of LANSDOWVN presented a pgtition, signed by a considerable number of the Catholics of Ireland at the time in Dab- Un. It prayed for the same object as those justpresented and after what had beenstated byhisnoblefriend,heneetonlysay, thatthesig- natures were those of persons ofgreatrespectability. It had been placed in his hands in consequence of a noble earl (Donougbmore, we be- lieve) who was to havc preseated it, not being able to attend in con- aequencc of ill health. T'he arquis of flONjCNSHIRE presented a petition to the same effect, frorn the Rom3noEaehohics of the county of DOWn. On the motioa of Lord COLIISREwEn the appellanlt jurisdiction bill wvas rcadl a second time. E;arl GRtOSVENOR rose to introduce a bill for amending the Vresenlt game laws. After expressing his rezret that the bill on this ,ubject lately introduced iato the [louse of Commons had not pass. ee, the noble earl stated that he thought it was the dutv of his jiaijesty's 31inistcrs to bring forward some measure calculated to s_.tio a que tion of so muchi importance to the good order and mo- rl-; of the country. Since, however, that had not been done, lie had resolved to propose to their lordships the adoption of a measure -which did not interfere witl the state of the game laws generally, and whict went no farther than to repeal a number of stawutes by whiCh the sale anId purchase of gamnr was prevented. Hle would mnove tIle second reading of the bill to-morrow. and on its passing t-lrnigth that stage, its committal on Friday. The Earl of LAUDERDALF did not object to the rneasure, but regretted that his noble friend had brought forward tlhe bill at so late , period of the session. I Lord SUFFIELD approved of the noble earl's bill as far as it -went.. His only objection was, that it did not go far enough. The noble lo.-d then specifed several objects which he wished the bill to embraCe, and intimated, that if nothing effectual was done this year, 3e should consider it his dntvtobring forwarda measure next session. The lEarl of LIMtIERICIt. as we understood, supported the bilL The E;arl of CARNARV0N 3lso supprted it, though from the state o the poputatlon ot- the dountry he dlia not eYpect that tbe measure weuld have all the effiect which somenoble lords expected from it. He approved of the repeal ot the statutesto whiclh bis no- ble friend had alluded for the laws against the sale and purchase of game did not preventthse oflence of naehing..-- ..,:. The Earl of LIVERPOOL regmrette with his noble friend (the Earl of Lauderdale) that the bill-hatdl-been broughti1nat.so Iatc-. period of the session, and thoughiIt,-wotlddMe better to pOst on t-li t niext year.-The bill Was then reaia firstst-ne ndi ordEred to be- xeada second timeto.rnorrow. . The 3arl ofLIVERPOOIimovedthe th'ird readiug of the exclse oaths bill. - - - - - . Lord CALTHIORPE, beforethe-bill passed. tbought It right to say that he considered the measure an act of 'njusdce?-towthe Catholics, since it only did that partially and covertly -which oitght to be done ftdly and openly. The -noble lordalsaodepredated4the superRuous swearing at present-required by lasw, widch.tended i diminish the respect which was due to the -solemnity--of talking an oath.. A memorial had last year been presented' -to Government from the merchants of Liverpeol on the subject of oaths;, and he was sorry that no measure-had been adopted n consequence. of that representaton. If no correction -of this evil should be proposed by bis Alajesty's inisters in .the course of next session, he should think it his. duty to call .their lorilsh7s' attention to the subject. The bill was read a third time, and passed.-Adjourned. HOmSpl OF LORDS. XV- .ThF 9.