Star.
London, England, 1812-05-23 00:00:00

n ir'"7~

P.eIRLI4M4A7'.eIRr PROCEEDINGS.
_

SOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 29.
•
The Irish Prelates' Coadjutors Bill passed through a Cern=lt*
tee, with some Amendments moved by the Archbishop Of Cashel.
Report on MOnday. .
The itsgeat'a k.anel Bill, sad some other Bilk, were brought
tip frumabe Commons by Mr. MANNINO Mr. LOSIIINGTOI4,
Mr. P. MOORS, sod other Members, and read a first time.
Mr. Hits, from the Treasury, presented an Account of the
Amount of the Property 'fax, fur the years ending the sth Ja-
nuary 18101811% and 181.0. Ordered to lie on the ;fable.
• A bog' discussion took place upon the Report of a Welch In.
• *Sure Bill, to which Earlikrannors made several objections.
Nis Lordship's amendments were negatived on three divisions,
Mad the Report was agreed to.
L • TIANANTRY AND PEASANTRY OP MELAND.
• Earl STANHOPE (the House not sluing text Friday) pro-
posed to postpone the commitment of his Bill ',relative to the To-
" • - Bantry and Peasantry of Ireland till Monday sennlght, but on
the suggestioo ut the Duke of. Norfolk, that there was a grand
ceremony to take piece on that day (the Installation of the Knights
of the Bath) his`l .ordship proposed Wednesday se'nnight ; and
i• the Order foi summoning the Lords for Friday neat was di's-
• charged,- and renewed for Wednesday sennight.
• Adjourned till Monday.

a

HOUSE Of COMMONS.
On the motion for the third reading of the Cambridge and
Bishop Stortiord Canal Hilt,
Mr. C. ADAMS moved, that it be read a third time this day
• elx amnia. . , •
. Qii.dsls tsuessinn, alter some conversaiion, the House divided.
-Tei tikes l'extPoilement 98—Against it 93—Mejotity in favour of
- the vain Si.—The Bill was then read a third time mid passed.
NlF.N'HitlilthAD selsfutd to know whether it was the fixed
•• ilertrmiciation of lie Not.le Lord opposite (Castlereagh) to resist
tle tnoticus of which he had givgn notice, for the production of
iheCtierteponttence between ltit J. Craigand Henry, or not?
,•••aeoitl CAslLh.ltfiMiliti said, it surely would be his wish to
POP OR Igllclum *on. '
Attottrts TO•THE PRJNCE REGENT.
'Mt. STUAIVf WORTLEY appeared at the Bar,
and stated, ;that. in pursuatice of the Order of the
aelease, .he and Lord Milton? the seconder of the
/4.otitel, had WAltil on the. Prince Regent this day,
• and. had,ciunnornieated to him the Address of the
• 14046 e Of Test rday,, towinch hie Royal-Highness had
beenpleeeed to return this most gracious answer :
' - **.Gssercalessi-1 shall take into my most serious and Wasp-
, diets coLliderStioni the Address which has just been presented to
save frglit the tieine.et Gammons."
AGRDEKS IN COUNCIL 4 AND BERLIN AND MILAN DECRE.ES.
..; -Mr: BROUGHAM said, perceiving a Right Ho.
.nottratit Gendeman, the President of the board oe
:I.l'redei it' Ves place, he rose to make a minion which
shiseansuased wculd not be opposed. He begged leave
at the same time to put a question to a Noble Lord
•Apposite, on a point which he conceived to be of pri-
mary necessity, and to which he presumed the Noble
..Lord would not refuse an•answer, for the satisfaction
Of that House and of the country. A circumstance
had lately tranapirtel, affecting in a material degree,
in the apireheinion of many, the Declaration pub-
lished about six or eight weeks Noe *by thiss'Governe
• snent, .in which it is stated that the Orders in Cous-1
cil 'shall be understood to be ipso facto annulled, ash
soon as an official communication shall have oeen
received of the unqualified and unconditional repeal
:ceche Berlin and /Allan Decrees. ' Attar some weeks
had elapsed, in a manner, he ebnfesitd, unintelligi-
ble to him who was unacqtraintedivitlethe diplomacy
'of the French Court, a Decree had made its appear
sauce, of a pretty old date, which, indeed, but to its
date, might seem to be an answer to that very De.
‘l.lration of this Government. It must seem, indeed,
surprising how completely they had anticipated the
teirtit Of that-Declaration. . This Decree, however,
. ifated In April,lalt, did contain a revocation of the'
15cillit andigilati Decrees ; and our Declaration did
also bear, That our Orders in Council were to be dis-1
-Continued from the period or the Repeal of the Ber:d
tin and Milan Decrees. The latter did, no doubt,
1
. tentemplate A subsequent repeal ; but still this was
-clearly within the sPitit. theugh not within the words
44 she Declaration, and it Would only require a Ga-
. ti Pi Oclamation; to set things to rights. It was
S c 4rly not an objeteni consideration, when the Bet.-
I
Aild Milan poues were revoked, but only that
an official, unqualified, and unconditional revocation .
of diem should take place. Then the next question
was, whether the Decree, which was stated to have
been lately. communicated-to this Government, was
Iffrißati unqualified and unconditional repeal of the'
eeteinf'S decrees,' as Made our Declaration attach to
• ihealict:of'repealing our Orderi in Council ?—(lfear,
Aear,from the Ministerial tide.) Waste to understand,
then, that it' did not so attach ? The Repeal of the
Trench Detrees, it appealed, was confined to Ame-
rica; was this, .boWever, to be held as sufficient to
prevent our Declaration from taking effect? This
was whet he'whihed to know from the Noble Lord :
he heartily wished the. Noble Lord's answer might be
Alai as the steiseand the country wished—that was,
that it,nliglit import compliance with the expectation
'now expressed by him ; but, if this should not fortu-
nately be the case, still there was a necessity for some
further step being taken.oh‘Che pert of the Govern-,
tient of this Country. Hs meantkhat a publication
of the annulment of those Orderein Council Would be-
tiome necessary. If .this was 'not • done, then must
a,very individual case come intei. a Prizi Court, or'
unto a Court of Law, and the- parties be exposed to 1
a harassing and expensive litigation. It was with '
the view of entreating to-take this intoconsideration, 1
and to rectify the Declaration, that he now .brought
'the subject under consideration. With this. view he
now begged to ask of the Noble Lord, Tirst, If to
his conception of the Frenth Decree, the date was of
consequence ? 2dly, If he agreed that this act of the
French Government was esteemed enough, so as to
operate as a repeal of our Orders in Council t Sdly,
1* both of these points were at an end, then he begged
to suggest that it should not be left to Spectilation.
bhat the nature of the Declaration was meant to be ?
ut that an explanation should be published on that
subject. Mr. Brougham concluded by moving for
an ictouni of the expence of Clbalhing for the Army;
sand Matines fur the ten ye irs ending .51.11 January.
1812, di.nitenisling each year.
..hlte 11.0 SE had nu objection to the motion.
r-ICferid: CASTLEREAGH complained, that the
}Hirable and Learned Gentlenvin had brought
ibeilialethiseeuestions rather in an argumentative son,
eikehioe., He hid no difficulty, howtvee, in stating,
*be ***hie opinion as to each. It was no doubt
Ott,ithat - there had been cornmeseicated to the Go-.
. initsieent of this eciuntty, withal 'these two days, I
--.'of the French Governmr, to the