The Sun.
London, England, 1802-04-28 00:00:00

LATE ADMINISTRATION.

Mr., NrcHoLLs gave notice, that he should on
Friday se'nnight move an Address of Thanks to
His Majesty-, for having removed the Right Hon.
William Pitt from his Councils-

The London Port Improvement Bill was read a
third time and, passed.

IRISH COURTS OF LAW.

Mr. LEE rose, pursuant to his notice, to submit
to the House a Motion respelling the. Irish Courts
of Judicature.—The first objea of his Bill was to
alter the mode by which Defendants were compelled
to appear in Court, and to make the proceedings in
the Courts in Ireland upon this subject, the same as
they were' in England.—The Pradite in the Eng-
lish Courts was formerly nearly the same as
'now in Ireland; but it had been found so in-
convenient that it was altered in the reign of
George I. He could see no reason why the advan-
tages thus enjoyed in England, should not be ex-
tended to Ireland. The` Laws of the two Countries
were the same ; same Courts of Jus-
tice, and therefore, initialcinion, ought 'to have
the same forins-.=The.seconttAcbjed of his Bill was,
to put.all the Courts of IreMd upon the same foot-
ing.—The difference of ptoceedings in the Courts
of Ireland was such, that almost all the business was
carried into the Court of Exchequer, which was
produdive, of much inconvenience ;—to that, in
point of .fag, a "Plaintiff in England had his,choice
of three Courts in which he might bridg his Action ;
but in .Ireland the suitor, though he had nominally
three Courts, yet in reality he had but 'one.—Thc
third object of the Bill was, to take away arrests
in Cases under Jol. In England a man could not
be arrested upon mesne process. under tol. and.he
saw no reason why a contrary pradice should pre-
vail -in Ireland. If this had been a new plan, it
would have been necessary for him to have gone
more at large into the subject, but he merely wished
to extend to Ireland these advantages, which had
been -sia long experienced in England. He was
rate that this plan would be attended with some
expence—the officers of the Court of Exchequer
would 'be entitld 'to some compensation, but he
propo'sed to divide .theni into two classes ; those
who'held patent places for life he shoUkd propose to
indemnify to the full extent Of their offices ; those
who held places during pleasure, he should tint in.
del-tinily in the same manner, because if their profits
were abridged, their labour would be decreased in
the same proportion. He concluded with moving
for leave to bring in a Bill for these purposes. '
The SPEAKER said, .that with regard to the
part of the Bill for granting Compensation, it ought
previously to have been agreed .to in
,a committee
of the whole House ; therefore, at present, that
part of the title of the Bill must be omitted.
Mr. .E E then altered his' Motion accordingly.'
Mr. O'HARA then seconded the original Motion,
and on the Question being put)

SERIEANT MOORE observed, that be-
fore the principle of Assimilation between the two
Countries should be at-led upon, to the extent pro.
posed in the Bill, the consequences of such a mea-
sure should be duly weighed, and the opinions of
the best.informed people taken on the subject he

[PRICE SIXPENCE.

'Stated that the opinion of the late Lord Chancellor.
.of Ireland was against the expediency of the pro...

posed measure—and though the opinion of the pre
Se'rit Chancellor might be in its favour, yet it must
be "cOnsitiered that he was not as yet so experienced
as to he aisle to decide on Irish affairs. The pro
vision against Arrests for Deby under ten pounds}'
he thought quite Unnecessary, as in Ireland the.
practice of the Courts had supplied the place of adual
Statutes, and no Such Arrests had. taken place there,
since the Ad against them passed in England. With
regard to the compensations intended, lie said that
such a measure could not `cost Government less

than 22 or 23,0001, a-year—and he thought such
A superfluous' expence should not he incurred till
at least some documents or tomplaints were brought
before the HoUse.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, and
Mr. O'HARA was ordered to prepare and bring in
the same,

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

A Message from the KING was. brought
The Message was nearly as follows I

66 G. R.
MA)EsTY anxiors to make a suitable provision for:
Their _Ro) al kliglinesses the Dukes of SussEjr. and CAM.,
BRIDGE, and rindmg,the Civil List unequal to bear the addi-
tional burden of such a provision; requires the assistance of.
his taitlitul Commons, and trusts that on this occaSion, as on
all former ones, they will strew their attachment to his
Family."

......
Mr. BaAGG E brought up the Report of the Com.
mittee to prevent the interference of the Peers of
Parliament, in the Ele6tion of Members for the
House 'of Commons.

On the Resolution of the Committee being read,
to exempt Irish Peers sitting in the House et Corn.
Mons, from the Provisions of the Bil!,

Mr. BANKES said, that he could nbt Mee OW'
propriety of allowing the Irish Peers to, intfmi4eite
in Irish Eleetions, It was introducing an anomaly::
into the Laws of the Country.

Mr. BRAOGE, in reply, stated, that only
such Peers were all Owed to interfere with Eleetions,
as had been elected to sit in the House ofeorriinons,
and were consequently entitled to vote and interfere
with EleCtions. Those whO were not eleCted to sit
in the House of Commons were still prohibited by
the A6t. from any interference.

Mr.' IIANKES did nor consider this as a proper
reason that Irish Peers should be allowed to inter-
fere in Irish Eledions, because they were Aflembers
of the House of Corrimons in England. He thought - •
the general freedom of Elettiims was endangered
by such a, permission. With regard to England, it
was not necessary to draw the line so stridlV, as
Irish Peers had no morciinfluence here than our
Commoners.• But the case was different with regard
to Ireland. In, that country their influence, their
rank and prTmerty, rendered their interiereiro
tremely dangerous. In the Scotch Union no such
provision was made for the benefit of the Peers.
Those who were Peers, remained so to all intents
and purposes : and till he heard more reasons ad-
vanced, he should think it wrong to depart from
the analogy.

Sir Ir.ELFORD. observed, that it was impos.
sible, without the *sent Resolution, for Irish
Peers to avail themselves of the article of the Union,
which allowed them to stand' CandidateS for Seats
in the House. of Commons.
Mr. BRAGGE said, he apprehended the- Hone
Gentleman had misunderstood the original ground
of the Bill itself.- The jealousy on which it was
founded did not attach to the influence of Peers from
their fortune's, but simply to their interferencei-as
they, were Lords of Parliament, (the express words
of the Bill) as appeared by the interference of Minor
Lords not being forbidden, though they might be
supposed to p.rssess every degree of influence that
could be derived from fortune. 'the analogy to
Scots Peers could not have any weight, as the prO:.
visions of the two Aas of Union were entirely dif.
.ferent. With regard to the Irish Peers, this Reso-
lution left it optional with them, either to accept
their Eleaion, to serve 'in the House of COmmons
or not ; if they did accept, the)', .by so doing
forfeited their rights, as Peers,' for a time,
and became, to all intents and purposes, Corn.
moners. They could not -be chosen to' sit in
the House of Peers—they could not .be tried -by
their Peers,
.they could be called to sit on
Grand Juries. If therefore, they became Corn..
moners in every other respet, it was just that they
should also possdss the privileges of Commoners.
If they could not vote as Peers, they ought surely
to be allowed to vote as Commonets. Whether
the present regulation was an anomale or not, it
certainly arose out of the At of Union. It would
be strange to allow the Peers- to be chosen Members
of the House of Commons, ,yet not allow 'them to
vote in the election of Members.
The Resolution was then agreed to.'
The House went into a Committee on them Irish
Restriftion Bill, and the -Report was ordered to
be received .o..morrow.
Mr. Coital y, in consequence of the absence of
his Right „HO!". Friend (Lord CASTL REAG H)
moved that the Order of the Day for the second
reading of the Bill for regulating Contested, Elec-
tions in Inland, he discharged, and put off till this
this day se'nnight.—Ordered.
The Order of the Day for the Irish Navigation
Bill was also, on the Motion of Mr.'CoaßY, put
off to Thursday.
The Report of the committee on the Issue
Exchequer .Bills was brought up. The Bill was-
ordered to be read a third time, and engrossed to.
morrow.

The•CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having
Moved the Order of the Day for the House to go
into a Committee of the ivhole House on the Duty
Bill on Exports and Imports,
General GiLYCOYNE rose to oppoe the measures