Star.
London, England, 1822-07-30 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 29.
Their Lordships met at twelve o'clock, to hear Appeals.
Mn.rea, Appellant ; hlixent, Respondent —This was an ap-
peal from the Court of Session, Scotland.—Referred back to the
Court below far further inquiry.
At a quarter to four o'clock, the Earl of Suarressear, the
Marquis of Wracarr.srca, and the LORD CHANCELLOR appeared
as his Majesty's Commissioners, and brought the Royal Assent
to the following Bills :
The Charge of Funded Debt Bill, the Receivers'-General
Bill, the Silk Bounties Bill, the Royal Scotch Burghs Regula-
tion Bill, the Annuities Memorials Bill, the Thames Lastage
and Ballastage Bill, and the Surrey-road Rill.
Mr. TIERNEY, from the Tax-office, presented papers con-
nected with the Redemption of the Laud Tax in 1521.—Laid
on the table.
The East India Company Loan Bill, the Countervailing Du-
ties Bill, the New South Wales Duties Bill, the late Queen's
Servanti' Bill, the Irish Salt Duty Reduction Bill, the Stage
Coach Duties Bill, and the Scotch National Monument Dill,
were read a third titre and passed.
The Earl of LI MI RICK presented a Petition from Robert
Barry, Esq. one of ihe Gamblers for the County of Tipperary,
against that clause in the Iris's Coroners' Regulation Bill, which
provides that in no case shall a proexes be awarded to Coroners,
except whey the Sheriff should he a party.—Read and laid on
the table.
Lord HOLLAND present?d a Petition from certain Uni-
tarian Dissenters, praying for some alteration in the Marriage
Ceremony.
The Court of King's Bench Business Bill went through a
Committee and was reported.
Dlr. IlloGnes and others brought up from the Commons the
Canada Trade Bill and the Superannuation Act Amendment
Bill, which were read a first time.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor
and Common Council ci the City of London, against the Or-
phans' Fund Bill.-psLald on the table.
OMIT COgSTABLIT.S.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL having moved the third
reading of the Itith Constables Bill,
Lord ITOLLAND admitted that the venom of the
measure had certainly been much mitigated, fecal
what it was when originally introduced into the other
House ; but it was still so anomalous, and contained
such cOntradictoki principles, that, at' this time of the
Session, he cbuldoeither explain it to the House nor
to himself.. Be had no hesitation in saying that the
Magistracy of Ireland tetpired mech. alteration.
Mantuntlttfetsons ad befit Made Magistralcs, ar.d
the. . agistlitcy of.the• cowry open to be c-

,r. -

rn _ on „e h of jolt', he had heard
ipaisfaction all sides of the House express the disgu
ticked by the continuance of a ceremony calculated
only to insult the feelings a whole people. Rut it
had been said. that the Lieutenant did not, pea-
sess rfse power of preventing it; now, as long as a
Noble relation of his (the Duke of Bedford) had been
at the head •of the Government of Ireland, be bad
feand.the means of preventing that ceremony (the
dressing of the Statue). He wished to ask whether.
the Noble Earl opposite would consent to lay before'
Parliament the grounds on which the CroWn Lawyers
had epme to the opinion that it was not in the power
4 the Lord Lieutenant to prevent Orange Proem.;
shins, and whether he would have any objection to
adopt some measure or resolution to provide that the
same should not happen on the 12th of July' next
yea? If such a poier did not really exist, let Par-
liament confer it on the Lord Lieutenapt. The mat-
ter might appear to some of little importance, but
there was no circumstance of real injury or oppres-
sion which had ever harassed the public mind in
Ireland so deeply, as this annual insult. When the
Noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) coin-
Minded the Allied Armies in France, he would have
had too much respect for the feelings of the people
to allow his soldiers to celebrate-publicly the battle
of Waterloo. The Irish felt precisely the same to-
wards the celebration of the battle of the Boyne, and
he hoped that that cause of disturbance-and of heart-
burnings would be effectually removed.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no difficulty in as-
suring the Noble Lord that, under all the circum-
stances in which Ireland was placed, no man could
I eprobate more than he did, the continuance of that
ceremony. The Noble Lord, however, had been
mistaken in thinking that it had been altogether pre-
vented by the Duke of Bedford, 'during his govern-
ment. The fact was, that before his time the proces-
sion was a state procession, attended by the Lord
Lieutenant, the Lord, Chancellor, and all the other
State Officers. What the Noble Duke had done was
to put it down as a state procession, but it was still
carried on by individuals -and societies, without any
participation on the part of the Government. This
example had been followed by the Duke of Rich-
mond, who had succeeded the Duke of Bedford, and
from that day to the present the procession had never
been a-State procession. He repeated that everything
had been done by the present Lord Lieutenant to per-
suade individuals not to have a procession, and that
he would have succeeded, had not some provocation
been given whidl had frustrated his intention. The
Noble Marquis had tried to ascertain how far he
could put down processions by law, and had found
that it would be attended with great difficulty. The
same would happen if they were to legislate upon
the subject, asahe prohibition could not be confined
to Orange processions alone, but must embrace other
cases. Communications, however, had passed be-
tween the English and Irish Governments, as to the
means of preventing that procession from taking
place in future, in consequence of which, he wished
that nothing 'should be undertaken by the House at
present, as, if the disposition to avoid mischief was
real amongst the parties concerned, he believed that
the object in view could be attained. As to the Bill,
it was true that it was very different from its original
state when proposed in the Commons, and he regret-
ted it, as he thought the original would have been
more effective, but even now it provided a material
improvement. Was it not founded on a right prin-
ciple, that the appointment of Constables, so impor-
tant to the peace of Ireland, had hitherto been made
in an abusive manner, and that a change in the system
was necessary ? He admitted that the mode ru=
tised in England would have been more constitu-
tional, but it would have been less applicable to the
circumstances of Ireland, where it was necessary to
bring in the influence of the Government. The be-
nefit of that mode had been proved by the example
of Scotland, which was in as great a state of disturb-
ance as Ireland, until the Heritable Jurisdiction had
been repealed, and the Magistracy had been carried
on by Sheriffs' Deputes, nominated by the Crown.
Since that time, there was no country in the world
where justice was more impartially administered to
the poor and the rich. The present Bill left the ap-
pointment of constables to Magistrates, but the Go-
vernment had the power of removing them, if they
were improper persons, and of appointing others in
their stead. He wished that power had gone farther,
but as far as it went it removed an abuse, and he
therefore thought the Bill entitled to their Lordships
earnest support.
Tile Earl of LIMERICK was willing to accept
this measure as a partial remedy, but could not con-
cur in the panegyric passed onlhe Bill, as introduced
in the Commons. He was convinced that if the men..
sure had been persevered in such as it was when pro-
poseJ, not a single respectable Magistrate would have
been found wiling to accept office in Ireland.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought that the reverie
would have happened. He should say non content to
this Bill, with the view of forcing Government. to'
bring in a better and more extensive tneastu e next Ses-
sion. Justice muse, be administered, and
.read pre-
served by Magistrates if possible, but at all events'
they must be administered and maintained. What
was wanted in. Ireland was one general apt= of Go-
vernment, and the present Bill, together with the'
Acts of 1808 and 1814, presented no uniformity at all.
The Earl of DARNLEY objected to thelrdiulner
in which business w,as hurried through Airtime:lit,
and especially through that House,• and wished for.
.fairer opportunities of discitsition% • HO ihowlilt tfie

i'•• •
•

1792? It was likely to be the means of preventing
this country from being embroiled in disputes with
foreign PoWert, but it was not on this account that
he asked for their Lordships' concurrence with the
Bill ; for he wished it to be considered solely on
English grounds. He would ask their Lordships to
consider the revolutions which had recently taken
place, and were now apparently in prospect on the
Continent. He did not mean to give an opinion on
the question who WAS right or who was wrong ; whe-
ther liberty had been indulged to excess, or whether
Monarchy had grown into despotism. In either case,
it was equally just that a power should be given to
the Executive of this country to prevent foreigners
from coming here, and plotting against the Goma.
ments of their own country, no matter whether those
Governments were free or arbitrary. He might here
remind their Lordships of what took place shortly
after the peace of An:lens.. The then Ruler of France
had made a demand of this country for the expulsion
of the French Princes. The Government of this coon-
try refused the demand, froiri a rep,ard to the princi-
ples of national hospitality ; but it, at the same time,
took means to prevent the individuals in question
from plotting against the existing Government of
France. He mentioned this, not only to illustrate
the principle upon which Government had acted
under the Bill, but to shew also the moderation in
which its powers had been exercised. In fot, thele
had never been any disposition to abuse those powers.
Since the peace, only fifteen individuals had been
affected by it; and of these, only four during ale last
two years. Oa the whole, he submitted-that the Bill
was a fair and constitutional measure, forming a part
of the security of the country. Ile was well aware,
that those who asked for discretionary power should
be vigilantly watched, and that the power itself
'ought not to be granted but for reasons die most
solid and well defined. In the belief, however, that
their Lordships would consider the piesent measure
able to bear this examination, he begged to move the
third reading of the Bill.
The Earl of DARNLEY said, that he should give
every possible opposition to the Bill. It would, he
said, disgrace the country in the eyes of foreign na-
tions ; and in entering his protest against it, he could
not but express his hope that this was the last time
he should have occasion to do so.
Lord HOLLAND said he hoped this odious mean
sure, this monster in legislation, would be allawed to
die a natural death. It had been called a Bill tend:
jog- to secure peace ; but since its first adoption, in
the year 1792, this country had been involved in war
II which was unparalleled in extent and duration. He
begged their Lordships' to recollect the conduct of
the States of Holland, when they were applied to by
King William to send the great Mr. Bayle out of
their country. They answered, that they disapproved
of his writings, and regretted the part he had taken
in politics, but they neither would nor could violate
hip /If

their national hospitality, by forcing him away. He
(Lord Holland) denied that there ihid been no abuse
of the power given by the present' law. The seizure
and treatment of M. Las Cases, at St. flelena,was as
instance of gross and shameful abuse. His papers
were.seited
ima manner which made the transactiob
a downright robbery. The papers, it was tine, were
afterwards returned, bus this.did not alter the nature
of the injury. The eaiAence of Napokon had, on a
7:4: J 2,12

.r
•

~~---,