The Sun. — London, England, 1820-07-15 00:00:00

5~ e prO' iili OS' sisters they N.fikkeus e 4 The e con- It had irn• asthae nvass• dships e of .the the in: woala hen to w hile st ndsli 13e‘ Le en& to deal ive hil earned: ques4' beell lan 0 11 is owil u►:der esitate :Strioti* LOra 7 e With ! s tlrla :Ni. ar ►a agoe 111 - 1 t Ens $ to which Noble Lord , .side had 's - 'n . n . the opposite . , ginvteothis, icias wrong, for unleSs ir frill` Mt was Idded,.°rthi witnesses Were • afterWards e e a t Ti fe Y cl n o e f the list, .ald he to deceive the' Acctiset..— •instead of assisting', 1 (Hear.)— •" ° ble Lords had also characterized the course adopted • the present instance as unmerciful, and con tendedthat - it would haVe. been less.o .e b- . 3eCtio na b le had the matter originated with the Commons, by'But he way of impeachment. of w _ t„.. *Ould ask. whether in that case a list noti ; "esses could have been granted ? It could case, fo snot only could the Commons in that brouffht new witnesses', but ni. ... w charges , also ' this was the course against her Majesty—and contendedopposed for by Noble Lords wio th e He1e1),..--in every present proceeding. - ---( et accede. to. , t P 3 int of view it would he wrong to of li_dis motion, as it would tend to para:lyse some possessed 1 'ePecilliar fin - talons which that House .0 over . . -very other tribune . 1 `They "Avould give p th at _ .beyond what oth •matters, Fewer of probing into singular ad` er tribunals possessed , , which was of l antage.. Even were they' td" wive tie list' of veil le ; one there; 1. --esses, though it.weni. a -coinplete 5 . , ,;(141(1 Stilt arise circumstances for . delay, fheY what- . °old therefore get rid of no inconvenience . _ . ", neither ever, and he ho pe d , he ivad'stew.i. that. . Pre tied upon t h e cedent nor the ends . of justice Ca.e t il l. to acced e to this motion. The question ., ti."Qte was, as. it would oliviatena inconve advantaffe li 'ence to themielves, and confer no contrary, bP"-the accused ; who would/ ° 3 Y a n loa erf . -t l' - 't b in. - ,riven,subjected to be h e en P g ' e ' m t a ed_woulu they ~,,._ .4nared,deceived, and he r Y... affecting the give la t o a proposition, which, by would be :Itnesses in the way he had described, i. Lordships ;11tiaCt Of il r linStie ? lie pat it tellyien. .to be ex ether the,elforts of the Crown I " ere d Piroased to th e advantage popular aamour, where no a t y con ttall t° , b e gained by . it---(llear 1 — ~ Y 5 let it -.le acc•usation .? fo i rth ; and be fairly set sifted "leo lot tli e c i„ of th e witAesoe§ be to the aractee . Lord bottom .--- (Cheers.) Lord n oL that the noble r . LAN° began - by observing , k n admitted that ti ler ` 4 ° l -d who had just spo -e , which the e " 8 no Precedent nor pres et rule by i Igor."-` case could be Noble guided. The . d into an am ),,, ,5 at th e same time, I,7.anc'he of the If,tla4ted et on the administration otime a t t ice of the country. But at the . sam to _ 1. .... tish he was pa - tug. his tribute of praise deviationlei' I great trst j.tutire, he was proposing a nattering. 4., 11 , 1 t let not Noble Lords,' lay the - t British ins ction - t . ''- h' was AO li te. . 0 their sonls—t is Pool) said llow was, it the No--! hi lord Liver (,Lord. • to a person who was Law 41 04 situ- Court so extraordinarY that the common the ordinary tour s c ould ilet. reach: her, nor that 44 we krt'e,c'f Parlia,mentArY. proceedings, deviate from all tt i , k)(!liged in this case to Prznci justice, asknown in. civilized eo ailt yles of in rie s : e. Re might hold this relax a little iii l ' i r tl Yl he was met by a request to . says, C, it is rSICOII.rSe,Ive then turns. round .41:td • •....•.- h u t w ' e are d I Y a (treat hardship upon yOl l 5 ,-. • ~ btilin- h do otherwise, Y V r ecedent---we cairn°, tad th e , rNoble Lord, at thQe. were th e ieords o - the .a''lle tier 'elliat.he was declaring that the cape hula admit of nceprecedent•not at Were they ailed same ti 110 inquest, Party; judge, jury, grand 0, bei e ' e t'Y' thin,' a HOW then could they talk I fig b411(1 b . ?ik - ' situated would say, tic wh . Y rule - —.person so ._ ~ Il e t h 3 , what is the meaning' of these rules i ikrtd °tight it was said somewhere, the forms that c.„ kf rules of Law were like the rind and bark e l .. ree...whichalthouah not part o f the sulaSt)rcit; 4_0.01'. contributing to its 'aliMent, was useful hen Thitecting it from the inclemency of the wea iVith k s s "'se stood upon it s own necessity. r of a listPect to the A -I-Ct providing for the delivery be °l' Witnesses. to the accused, it would4froin to se ! v etl, it excepted Parliament itself respect.--- Italnig within its provisions in this r e s Pl tiv was au indulgen'ee which was always Other .I,al_ll not only in Se,otland, bat in man other did bo r , s of Europe.; an d. the request for it the i\l t th erefor e at,iiiir quite §6 preposterous tts . e. tilble 'Lord , upposite would . have theni believe. th e "acting this indulgence, it was done _ h un to stracrsuPposition that the person accused nd ,er ; iim' t g„ s l e 'lll4 contend. with the arm of Po Britain tlir, w 7Fet . ore the Legislature of Great shield. The reason D arn ° vr it this teiitold • of ai ne ch mpea ra, nt w et being ekoepted,*as, that I po w : were sulipoSed to be 4onerally against ag that only -r ; The Noble Lord (Liverpool) said,were o il y tit ' c ases of treason the prosecutors It law 11 'Clgive list of witnesses. c'w ' 41Pe e to a o , was it, however., by practice ? 0 .. it -4 .'e tOrd h - tin • cash out of aNI . rtd-..._ _ fiay,, t a one of -tea thoo,it7,nt of a thOusalid, or even out PersOLl,'',--='it ever happened that any accused neeesva.- lid it to defend themselves with so little .t hern'a-r!,,k, nowledffe of the witnesses agas the -a-l'uls Illustrious Lady ? In practice then d t tar tie-ri°-IgY view' in favour of his Noble and ef ere l ;, - - -eriend. .In point of policy,with even .d. _ .. th„,. 'ce to the popular clamour, he tho.aeht Ilekiaeaßlit to grant the last, sq long as it did not 1 4 ~ t the purposes of justice. The procee I itself •,.., it w a s 4' neC sNii i nhered from all ordinary forms, 1 - gott e a te rei, and could not be made .a.oa o 4 4 to 1.1 any other. When the Bill went from Ivoua ° .,use down to the Commons, , the accused or al , - have the advantage of knowing; the names fll b e , , a ll the witnesseS, and could then take the u c oa e i nt of cros s - examination. The House the 4e co Pfic lls Was, no doubt, more favourable f" tli ct ,, se ,u' than that House. Ilut then he entreated .. Lo r d' L'°rdshiPs, for the sake of the 11 "se of p ost s) for their own sakes, for the opitiion? n ot e i r itY s let it not he 'said that the accused slid oth er 'aye as good a case at their Bar as in any g ra t , Place. This . Could . not be done without . 14 nee, a ~ w„4'' list of witnesses. In conclusion, lie led their, of to consider well the the'sP lolportance whilll attached to the exer .s._ tr aora , their discretion in.this anomalous and C. y 'lrtary case. A., 0 , ‘ u ttllt ELLI:NBOROUGII said, he rose with difil '4i,tY,o4 the present question. The present was 4i i , a°l , l Y a 11.9.velprogeediwg,,hnt he did not coo tkti.e_ it one on which,thev Ought to deviate' from r.establishied. rules, of proceeding lie was i ' iv Min- , to grant to. her Majesty every facility ;ranted to any individual similarly placed since the Revolution. But the Queen asked more; and More he would not grant; because it Would be a detiiation, not only from the established rules. of Parliament, but; from the established Jules of law; except in cases of high treason. Was there any thing in her Majesty's case different front those other Bills of Pains and Penalties, which could in= duce them to depart from their usual course ? He thought not. No course more. favourable - to her Ma jesty could have been adopted consistently with the principles of the Constitution. They were not to look to what was favourable to her Majesty so much as to what was most likely to lead them to the straight forward road to justice. It was because he entertained this feeling - that he would give his hive to the. motion.- Let their Lordships consider the nature of the motion. Let them also consider what the last, request of her Majesty was. Supposing that the present motion were carried, of what use Would a list of witnesses be Ito the Queen, if .the inquiry,- was to be proceeded in within, twenty-four hours ? How was her Ma jesty to make herself acquainted with the habits or characters of those who were to give evidence against her ? The presence of the judges being necessary, the inquiry was postponed to the 17th of Auffust; but even so, how, by any diligence on the part of her Majesty or her advisers, ,could any efficient inquiry be matte respecting khose witnesses before that period ? In fact, ;kis demand: was made more for popular ef- feet, than with any view of benefiting by it. But, supposing that the list of witnesses was granted, how was it possible to make out the list of names so as to avoid a misnomer; and that would be' made use of as a ground of4still further delay. He thought it would be impossible so to describe the witnesses as to enable one-half of them to be called. They ought not to be misled by public reeling, nor ought-they to mislead that feeling. This was, of all cases, one in which the witnesses ought to be brought forward un awed and unbiassed. -Let her Majesty - have a fair, opportunity of disproving the charges against her, but first let them have the evidence upon record, let them know the nature.of the accusa tion, and- then let her . Majesty. have a full and ample opportunity of rebutting it. Upon these grounds he opposed the •motion. • Lord HOLLAND did not know whether the Noble -13aron (Ellenborough) alluded to him, or to his Noble Friend (Erskine) in his observation, that this question was started with a view to po pular feeling. If he did allude to either, he floitld-tell the Noble Baron .he was much mis taken. But if he alluded not to them, but to the Illustrious Personage more immediately concern ed, he (Lord Holland) did not envy those feel in4s which could impute motives of which there was no proof, and which were not warranted by any part of that Royal Personage's conduct, (Hear, hear I) Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in explanation, dis claimed any imputation either on the Noble Lords or • her Majesty, in-what had fallen from 41m. _ _ • Lord HOLLAND expressed himself satisfied with the Noble Lord's explanation. Lord BUTE thought this particular case could n.ot be legislated, upon any preceding case what ever. tie did not see how this Bill, although called a Bill of Pains and Penalk;es, differed froth a common Bill of Divorce. He did not ad mit the remark Of 010 Nobit Lord who 'spoke last,. on the inconsistency of her Majesty's de manding- a list of witnesses, and at the same-time • calling tipon them to proceed in twenty-four hours ; for it was clear in his opinion, that if these svitiv, , sses were able to prove any thing at all, her. Majesty must of neicessitylnow • some thing of them. Although their Lordships might be legislating consistently with the law of Eng-, land, in refusing the list of witnesses, they ought to bear in mind that they s 4 ere doing an injtistice . by the law Of 'Scotland, The' Noble Lord con cluded by declaring his intention to vote in fa,vour of the motion before the House. Lord BEidIAVEN said, he could' not give his vote on this occasion without making a few ob 'servations. They were about to pass a law which would deprive her Majesty of rights which 'she would otherwise .possess. In such a case it was their. Lordship's - duty to afford her every oppor tunity of conducting her defence. Her Majesty, asked no-more than that which, according to the laws of one part of the British dominions, was allowed to every subjec4 and to which she was entitled. Ile could not help expressing. his sur prise, at hearing certain Noble Lords opposite, and who owed so much to the people, raise their voices against what they called " popular cla , mour ;" to hear them exclaim, the people mean to trample on us, to direct us, and so on. He remembered the. time, to use the words of the Poet,--- When Europe bowed beneath the Yoke, And Austria bent and Prusiia brOke, And the firm liusiiian't purpose brave, s" • Was bartered by a,ttmorf.us share." At such a period as' this, the .Noble Lords who now decried popularleeling, called far and found their best resource in the people. .The Noble Lord ,concluded by gating, that he was determin-: ed to support the motion. Lord ELL ENBOI t OUGH explained. The Earl of CARNARVON objected at consi derable length to the measure against her Majesty generally. The .very preamble of the MI, he contended, contained a bundle of nonsense, which had nothing to do with the main ground of charge, which was that of an adulterous connexion. Did they really mean to found On the evidence about to be produced a substantive charge of adultery ? The-charge was mixed up, as if for the sake of ag gravation, in the. Bill of Pains and Penalties, with circumstances not connected with the charge, such. as her Majesty- taking the relations of the accomplice of her crimes into her service as menial and confidential - servants—her disgraceful familiarity. with these parties. Was- this a crime.? Lastly, it was alledged an adulterous intercourse existed - between him and her Majesty. Now what was intended by these words ?. Was it that adultery had been committed ? If not, it was. a delusion practised on the public,* and it would be as absurd to proceed against tier in this way to punish her, aS to hatig, a Man for treason, who had been convicted of trea.Sofiable practices not this a mode of involv ing the question in intricacy: and difficulty ? The House should reqUire something more definite, be fore their Lordships would go• into the charge. The public he well knew would require• some thing more specific in the nature of the charge, and if there were no other ground of objection urget against the mode in which their Lordships were now proceeding he should think this alone sufficient to determine his vote in favour of the motion of his Noble Friend. Lord L %.CTDERDALE said, that, after one of the ablest speeches ever heard in that place from the Noble Lord on the cross-bench (EllenborGag ' lt) , it would be a proof of bad taste in him to go at any length into the discussion. His vote should be given. on the ground of substantial justice ;. and he should consider not the extraneous argu ments that had been urged, but whether, by.fur nishing the list-moved for, their. Lordships would not be defeating the ends of justice.---(Hear !) 'Whether they looked to the accuser or the ac. cased,, no sound reason could be advanced insup port of the motion. It could be of no advantage to either party, nor to the public interest. Even suppose a list were ordered, the prosecutors (if inclined to evade it) could not be bound to name all their witnesses, and thus the Defendant might he misled to meet a weak charge, while the prin cipal accusations were otherwise and better sup ported. On the other hand, such a list would furnish the accused with opportunity for tamper ing with the witnesses-, against which their Lord ships ought especially to guard, after what they had. witnessed in this respect. To what had happened he would not more pointedly refer, but he must say, that the national character had been disgraced by it; and that, to prevent the possibility of a still greater forfeiture of honour, they were bound to resist this application. , . Lord EasKrNi shortly replied. His Lordship insisted on the excellency of the Act of 'William, and on the conclusiveness of the reasoning he had founded upon it 7 which, he contended, had not been answered in one point. His Lordship then referred to the practice on the law of treason, in which he had had so much experience, affirming that it never had yielded to clamour but had admirably protected the liberties of the subject. Clamour now, as then, had nothing to do with the matter; it was not popular clamour, but popular feeling, and the only way to put it down was to act justly. He quoted the cases of Lord G. Gordon and of Hatfield to shew the superiority of the law in question, and observed, that the latter had been translated into every European language, and been noticed in all with the highest encomiums on British jurisprudence, Madame de Stael had embodied this praise in the happiest language.--- But the Noble Earl (Liverpool) had said this was a Tory Act. It was So, and it was one among numerous other instances that God had made no animal so worthless that it did not do some good.----(A laugh.)----Their Lordships might, if- they pleased, refuse this list because they were supreme, but he trusted they would grant it because they were just Contents • Not Contents Majority ntr,ainst the Motion After which the House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. YPE. CLAIMS. 411 Mr. IRVING presented the Report of the Corn mittee on the Guadaloupe Claims.---Ordered to be printed. DAUGHTER OF THE LATE PUKE OF CUMBERLAND. Mr: MOOll presented a Petition from Olivia Serres. The Petitioner stated herself to be the - legitimate daughte'r of the late Duke of Cumberland; she asserted that she possessed a document to prove the solemnization of a mar riage between her mother (who was Julia Wil mot, the daughter of the late Dr. Wilmot) and the late Duke of Cumberland, the brother of his late Majesty, in the year 1767. The Duke of Cumberland had subsequently married another Lady, on account of which his marriage with the Petitioner's mother was concealed. From this cause the Petitioner, who was born in 1772, had been deprived of property which should have descended to her. She stated that she, possessed a document with the sign manual of his late Ma jesty, acknowledging 'the validity of .the mart riage of her mother.---The Petition was laid on the Table. . NIISTI EPRECENTATION. Lord A. HAMILTON took occasion to say, that what he had said,last night respecting Sir P. .Nlurray, was mis".tated in Tke Morning Chronicle. He now repeated, that he hail nevever accused Sir P. Murray of giving up a claim to the re presentation of Perthshire, in order to get office, and, in fact, that he had not made such an assertio►► respecting any candi date on any occation whatever. The Donaghadee Harbour Bill was read a third time and passed. THE JEWS. Mr. IMBHOTISE said he should, in the next Session, bring before the ;Mention of the House, the situation of a clatts of , . . . his Majesty's servants, which might and ought to be an►elin rated. They had beard last night mention made by Honour able Gentlemen of the situation of the Catholics and Dissen• tors ; he (Mr. Hoblionie) should shortly ca►l their attention to the situation , o f the Jews, who now laboured ❑nder dis abilities which would he hardly believed to exist in such an' age as this, and especially in London, and other cities of the Empire. The Appropriation Bill was read a third time and passed ; also the Sea Offences Bill. Education Endowments Bill went through a Commit tee.—Report on Monday. NEW BARRACKS. The House having resolved - itself into a rotamittee on the Barrack Agreement Bill, Mr. CALCRAET said, that lie undcrktoo'd a great portion of the heaty expence to he incurred for the new Barrack, would be occasioned by the erection of a wall to inclose it.— He Wished t hes-clove to be informed what Would lie the nom bee of acres inclosed, and the expence of erecting the wall. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that he did not exactly recollect the number of acres, but believed it was about eight. Mr. cALCRAFT called upon th e H ot t se t o save 'f rom 90 to 30,00 01, I f they did not do it, the fault Would he theirs,not his; for , if he should divide alone , he wAS dettamlned to o ppose the pre sent extravagant expenditure. The CULANCELLOR o f the EXCHEQUER said, that the ne w Barrack would c05t .55 , 0 001., so that, ot,the utmost, the e xpence - for erecting the wall could uot.ekceed 15,0001• It w , s absolutely necessary that Barracks should be enclosed, an d up incIOUTCS of a sufficient size were in. existence. All points considered,,the present proposed Barnette woo!.1 i ncyortionahly as cilia' , t- that ervettql in ityde P.irk, al- , h,•ugli it. had L,CII bacli as 179:). (f..CAL,VERT cowo., led, hat t byte sere sereral enclosures contiguoas t , , the Ottlititainiit: 14,sintaL nogbt be ap,.ropr,a:ed to the :Lew Darnel:s-- wr hoot ineal r ing su enortnotti an expellee for tlic,ert.L,!i.4l of a wall. Mr. J. WILSON regretted that t;p: !tight H in. Gentleman had not given a satisfactory ex .lanation on the subject. He jiff. red fro m the Hon. Member opposite with respect to the expediency of erecting barracks, fur he considered them to he necessary, hut he thought that in building them, the strictest econoiny should be consulted, and the Right tientlernan had not satisfied the House that any thing had Leen done to excite competition. He should therefore op. pose this measure. He regretted that it had taken place. as be must consider- it as .a mismanagement of the public oney. Atter a few words from Sir H. PARNELL, the Cumulates divided-- For the Measure Against it Majority —l.7 The Report was then ordered to be received to-morrow. The Sale of Spirits - Bill,was read a third time and,pasied. IRISH DISTILLERY ACTS. ,The House went into a Committee on the Irish niAillery - Acts. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he should propose three distinct Resolutions, upon which he should bring in sepatate Bills-relative to Distilleries in Ireland. The first was to reeulatethe large distilleries; the-second to Lego ;ate small distilleries; and the third was for the suppression f illicit distillation. The latter Resolution es,ppoweted per :so ss to seize private stills, and- enabied the grand Jury. at . ';e Quarter Sessions, to grant them such rewards as they mi :10 be considered entitled to. The Right" Honourable Cientleman then proposed his first Resolution relative to the regolatnui of large atill.t of more than Itt gallons. Sir JOHN .NEWPORT spoke in favour of the extension of small licensed stills. He "was decidedly opposed to distillers having warehouses of their own i'lheretught. to be Guiern went wareho sses. Mr. CHICHESTER said a few .words, in the course of wh,,h he noticed a distdery engine of an ingenious descrip-. tioo, invented by Mr. Cuppenger. For his own part, he hoped :hat the Right Hot. Geuttentatt would be able to devise some measure which would he-fur the benefit of the Revenue, and equally deserving the approbation of the distillers in Ireland, and the distillers of Great Britain. 'lVith regard to the small. dills, he did not think that they would be productive to the. Revenue, for the duties they might pay, would scarcely cover 4 the expenses which the Revenue establishment would require in order to watch those small General HART said this Bill hail a teadruey to increase the evils of the Excise system in Ireland, which were already.. so great as impesiously to ileniand mitigation. Mr. C. GRANT was ready to go into an inquiry as to the, evils complained of; at present be had nu reason to believe they were to the extent stated. General HART explained, and alluded to the case of an. Excise Odicernamed Middleton, who was tried and condemn ed for wounding some persons in Ireland, but was afterwards pardoned by the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. C. GRANT said, that that pardon had been granted neon the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the Atterney-General in Ireland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. thought it ra titer strange that the encouragement. given to_ small stills now should be complained of, whereas it.was formerly held up as a rueasore de serving ,y,s eat praise. Mr. LocKHART Wished to know on what grounds it was recommended to the Lord Lieutenant to pardon Middleton. Mr C. GRANT could not state the precise grounds; but he recoliectea they were sufficient. The Resolutions were read and agreed to; and the Chair man was instructed to move fur three Bills; the first was for better securing the duties collected from s.mall stills of a ca pacity exceeding too gallons ; the sccond was for permitting stills in Ireland of too gallons; amid the third wns for re warding persons concerned in the seizure of private stills. Time House resumed, and leave was given to bring in the Bills. THE QUEEN. Sir J. NEWPORT expressed a wish to know whether, if he Bill at prespnt pending in the other House with respect :u her Majesty, were brought down to that House, it was the intention of Ministers to propose the same course of pro. ceeding that had been followed by the Lords, and whether it ums intended to move a Cali of the House. It was desir able to inform the .House upon thiStObjeFt, io order to guard against any surprise in the event of the Bill being suddenly brought down from the Lords; and also in order that those Gentlemen who had any business to transact at distant parts of the United Kingdom might taket-lueans to have that busi ness done in due time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he was sure that every individual whO had the honour to be a Nletn bee of that House, would feel it his duty to attend upon such a solemn occasion. Sin .1. NEWPORT declared that be did not put the clues- tion which he had repeated from any solicitude for his own case, but for the satisfaction of others who, instead of being left to conjecture and surmise, wished to haoe something certainty upon this subject. M'CLEOD AND BRUCE. Mr. J. P. GRANT requested to know whether in the ease of Nl‘Cleod, who had been sentenced in Scotland to transpor tation for a seditious offence, it was the intention of his Mit• jesty's Ministers to recommend him to mercy ? He put this. question because, from all the circumstances of the case, such sentence ought to be mitigated. His Noble Friend near him had, it was hitown, given notice of a, motion to abolish he power of transportation for sedition in Scotland, and it was also known that many high authorities in Scotland tertained serious doubts as to the legality of such a power. These doubts were indeed expressed in a late case by one of the Judges of the Court of Session, and under such circum stances he submitted that the sentence against iSPCleod should not be carried into execution. The Hon. CLIVE said, that neither the, Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, nor the proper Officer in this country, saw any reason to recommesid M'Leod to mercy. Lord J. RUSSELL .eked upon, what ground it was deter mint d to transport Bruce, who was convicted at the last As- Aces of Chester. This certainly was a case of very peculiar character; for if Bruce were guilty, the punishment was too 'little, anti if he were innocent, that ponishmea, was too much—or rather, if he were innocent, why should he be pu nished at all ? The Hon. Mr. CLIVE said, that his Maje?ty's Ministers saw no reason to recommend any alteration , to the present sentence upon the person alluded to. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A Message front the Lords stated their 'Lordships' assent to' the Ireland ,Harboor Big, the Paper Duty Bill, and the Union Duty Bill; also that their Lordships had passed a Bill for the• divorce of the Hononrabie Mr. Pellew, to which they required the consent of that House: BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL. The Report of the Bankruptcy Court Bill was brought op, and ordered to lie taken into further consideration on that day fortnight, and llte Bill to be printed. PENRYN. Sir C. BURRELL' staled it to lie his intention not to pro-' ceed with his Bill respecting the BoroSifr,h of Penryo, till the Bill brought in by a Noble Lord for disfranchising another place should be disposed of. SCOTCH VOTERS. Lord A. HAMILTON moved, that certain Papers which he had called for on a former 4/ casion should he printed. His, object was to establish, first , the pauc it y of p erson; entitled to. vote in some parts of Scoland ; secondly, - to show that the same names were repeated in various counties of Scotland: and thirdly, lie wished to show, what he admitted would not be seen prima facie front these,papers, that of those who had a right tnvote, none were possesSed of any landed property. It being suggested that the papers , could not be printed int 1 heir' present form without coosiderable espence, the Noble Lord declined pressing his motion, and said, he could take till to-'morrow to consider if a selectiiin could be wade for hira to answer his purpose. RIOTS IN is . l6. Mr. P. MOORE postponed his motion on the case of Mr. Beckwith, and other gunsmiths, who suffered in their pro perly by the Itiots I if, 1816. Mr. CALVERT moved that certain returns from the Soli citor's Department in th e rwtorns, which h e had moved t.,r w hich had, not yet been sortie time since , ba t I,._ordered. presented• to the House, should be trade forth* t DIVORCE BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a Petition frOm Edward Brims, the agent to Captain Polltw, the prayer of which was, that