presented two petitions, one from a number of proprietors of bleach-greens in the north of Ireland, praying relief, and stating that their property had been exposed to a variety of depredations, and that the severity of the law making all such depredations, in every instance, a capital offence, they were deprived of the means of effectually preventing them. The second, from certain master calico printers in this country, making similar representations, and advising a repeal of the laws, enacting, that such offences should be considered felonies. Sir S. Romilly observed, that the first petition was signed by above 150 persons, all of the highest respectability, and that it comprehended the wishes of the greater part of that description of proprietors in the north of Ireland. There were now before the House, in support and illustration of those arguments which he had on former occasions pressed on their attention, with the view of altering and ameliorating the harsher enactments of our criminal code, not opinions drawn from speculative and theoretical reasonings, but the explicit declarations of experienced men, pointing out the inefficacy of laws made expressly for their protection. His second petition was not signed by so large a number of persons, but he could state that the signatures attached to it were those of a great majority of that class by whom it purported to be made. Having thus the direct evidence of such important witnesses, whom it was impossible to believe had been deceived by loose and visionary purposes, he gave notice that on Monday next he would move for the repeal of an Act of the 18 Geo. II. and an Act of 3 Geo. III. rendering stealing on bleaching grounds to the value of five shillings in one country, and of ten shillings in the other, felony without benefit of clergy.—The petitions were ordered to the on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, to propose a Resolution that might have the effect of counteracting the inconvenience to which the House had been long subject, by the existing mode of arranging its business. As he did not wish that it should in any way affect the principle which had been considered by some gentlemen to be of great importance, namely, that of the privilege of every member to make a motion without any previous notice, if he should deem it incumbent on him to do so; his object would simply be to give precedence to the orders of the day on certain fixed days, leaving the others entirely open. As it was equally the desire of both sides of the House to find out some means of expediting the necessary business of the session, he should propose, "That in this present session of parliament all orders of the day set down in the order hook for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House will proceed upon any motions of which notices shall be entered in the order book."

thought the object of the House would be better accomplished by a general understanding among themselves. The existing rules of practice had been adopted after long experience; and they should not be hastily altered without full and urgent proof of the superiority of the plan proposed to be substituted. He was strongly of opinion, that the Resolution would have the effect of infringing one of those points of privilege, peculiarly important to the duties of every member, and to the interests of the country.

observed, that the ancient orders of the House were all intended for the furtherance of public business. He believed that on some former occasion the House had adopted a rule in which the principle of the Resolution was recognised, that of refusing to receive motions after a certain hour.

ascribed the inconvenience sustained to two causes: first, to the great accumulation of business; and, secondly, to the delay in bringing forward the ordinary official business till the session was far advanced.

conceived either of the modes proposed would attain the necessary object, but said, if a division was pressed, he would vote for the Resolution.

objected to the Resolution, and considered that the duration of the session had been of late years too much limited.

declared his dissent from both of the modes proposed. The portion of the week chimed by the minister was much too large, and curtailed greatly the space allotted for the discussion of all the multifarious relations of national policy. Neither could he approve of rashly breaking in upon the old established usages of parliament. Mr. Burke had said, that forms were the entrenchments of minorities, but if the Resolution were carried, the minister, indeed, would be fortified, but his adversaries completely disarmed. It went to deprive the House of its vitality, and to make four days in the week, days of registration, to the exclusion possibly of the most momentous questions. Supposing other times to exist, and a bad minister and a bad parliament to be co-operating, they might carry all before them through the medium of the forms of the House. He therefore moved that the debate be adjourned to Monday. After a short conversation, it was agreed to defer the consideration of the question till Tuesday next.