Star.
London, England, 1823-05-10 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MAY 10. 1823.

a body of" proof, in yielding to which all the Judges of the.
Court of Session were unanimous at first, except onc ; and
on being brought before them a second time, that one declared
that his scruples were overpowered. In considering the nature
of proximate acts, it had been laid down by Lord Stowell, that in
cases of criminal intimacy between the sexes, those acts must be
understood according to their nature and tendency. It is possi-
ble that a man may be very familiar with a married woman,
without committing adultery ; and physically possible that he
may be in a state apartment with her, and break through no law;
but ordinary Courts of Justice must look at these things in ano-
ther point of view : they cannot be guided by the extravagant
notions of Platonism, nor admit seat principles as the basis of
their decisions].
Earl Frrzw ILL IA M presented a Petition from some part
d Yorkshire, praying for the more complete abolition of the
Slave Trade.

The Archiaishop of YORK presented a Petition from the In-
habitants of the City of York, who prayed for the entire aboli-
tion of Slavery in the British Colonies, and its gradual abolition
in every part of the world. He would not descant on the merits
of the Petition, in the prayer of which he hearily concurred,
and the object of which he would support by.every means.
Mr. BROGIIEN and others brought up the %Varehousiag Bill,
with the amendments agreed to; and a number of Local Bills
were afterwards brought up.
The Duke of BEAU FORT presented a Petition front the
Corporation of Bristol; was referred to the Committee on JAL.
The Bishop of SALISBURY presented a Petition from the
Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Berks, who prayed that no fur-
ther concessions might be granted to the Roman Catholics.
The Marquis of LA NSDOW N presented a Petition from the
Silk Manufacturers of the Cities of London and Westminster,
and the Liberty of the Tower, praying for the repeal of the Bills
calljd Sir Robert Peel's Acts, and particularly the Act of the
15th of George 111, which imposed such hard restrictions on
the Spitalfields weavers, who, owing to the regulation of the
wages of manufacturers by the Magistrates, were unable to avail
themselves of the uses of machinery, and driven from the exec.
cise of their trade amongst the most beneficial parts of this
fashionable and populous town. The Noble Marquis said, the
Petitioners were a numerous body of manufacturers, and the
manufactere in which they were engaged was one of great na-
tional importance, particularly since it had been ascertained that
a supply of raw silk could be procured front the East Indies.
The Petitioners stated, that the importation of raw silk had more
than doubled within the last twenty years, and now amounted
to '2,447,00(1 pounds; but during the period in which this great
increase in the l.nportation of the raw material was taking place,
the Petitioners' trade, far from increasing in an equal proportion,
had actually declined, which they attributed to dip operation of
the laws, the repeal of which they now prayed, the effect of
which had been to drive the trade from the Metropolis of the
country ; although the Metropolis being the great market for the
manufactured article, the manufacture could be most conve-
niently and advantageously carried on in its vicinity, if the laws
which at present laid it under injurious restrictions were repealed.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mill MILITIA REDUCTION BILL.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the third read-
ing of the ibis!) Militia Reduction Bill,
The Earl Of GOSFOR D said, he ma,t oppase the
Bill, as he considered it a breach of faith with the
Staff of the Militia. The Colonels of the Militia Re-
giments in Ireland having- received a letter from Sir
Edward Littlehales, dated the 17th of June, 4817, in
which he-stated that Government did not 144443
reduce the SCAB, the Colonels had, in consequence,
continued the Staff, on• the understanding that they
would not_be reduced.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL, in reply, said, Sir
Edward Litt,lehales'--letter stated, that Government
did not then think it necessary to reduce the Staff of
the Militia;'but clearly left the.matter open to future
ulation, and recommended that vacancies should
not be filled up. It was now thought proper by Go-
vernment to assimilate the Irish Staff to the Staff of the
English Militia, which was the only object of the Bill.
The Earl of CALEDON said, he could not agree
to the Bill, as the men that would be discharged from !
the Staff of the Militia in Ireland would be left wholly'
destitute, whereas in this country they had their pa-
rishes to go to for support.
The Earl of GOSFORD then rae,•and moved that
the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN suggested to the
Earl of Liverpool, that as there was a difference of
opinion on the Bill, which had not before received any
discussion in that House, it might be proper to post-
pone the third reading, and in the meantime to have
the Bill printed, to allow Noble Lords to consider it.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL expressed his perfect'
concurrence in the suggestion of the Noble Marquis.
The Earl of GOSFOItD then withdrew his Amend7i
ment, and the third reading of the Bill was post-
poned for a week.

Ireland ; and, particularly, whether it was intended
to make any addition to the military force in that
country? fhe last view of the measure in which he
could accede to the renewal of the Insurrection Act
would be, its being used as a substitute for military
force ; as he deemed it infinitely better that the laws
should be supported even by a military force, than
that the Constitution should be suspended. When
the consideration of the Insurrection Act should come
before the House, the first question for its considera-
tion would be, whether the state of Irelan.l was such
as called for any remedy ? That, he was afraid, was
a question which unhappily must at once be atis.....ered
in the affirmative. The second question would b?,
whether the Insurrection Act would be a proper re-
medy to apply ? And the third would be, whether
there could be a probability of the Insurrection Act
restoring tranquillity to Ireland, unaccompanied by
any other measures, after the experience already had
of its inefficiency?
The .Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that altliongli t!!e
proceedings in the other House of Parliament hid de-
layed the consideration of the Insurrection Act, yet it
was 'fixed for discussion there on Monday next ; and
he had no doubt it would shortly be brought un.i.,!r.
I the consideration of their Lordships' House. I inis.
ters were certainly receiving communications from
the Noble Marquis at the head of the Government in
Ireland to the pre,ent moment, and the information
they contained should be laid before the Ilon:e n
the Insurrection Act came under consideration. There
were also two other very important measures for the
benefit of Ireland, which would shortly come under
their Lordships consideration—the Bill for the Com-
mutation, of Tithes, and the ilia for the Regulation
of the Revenue—both of which had received very
great attention, and it was hoped would be found
extensively beneficial. Ile was not prepared to say
that any addition would be made to the military
force, as it must entirely depend on the character
and description of the disturbances that were taking
place, whether they would be most effectually sup-
pressed or prevented by legislation and the civil
power, or by an extension of the military force.
Lord KING asked the Earl of Liverpool whether,
on the whole case, he thought the connection of Ire-
land with this country were a benefit or a disadvantage?
The Earl of lAVERYOOL.—A benefit certainly.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
After which the House adjourned.