Star.
London, England, 1813-02-27 00:00:00

Mr.
r.
proper t. .4epart trenrus...--
-ict of Parliament. .
Mr. LMEHART and Mr. N. CALVERT said a few
words concerning the propriety 'of lilting reasonable
notice to produce such lists. -
The SPEAKER. said, that he would endeavour
to -give The House what information he had, on a
subject so particular and important. In truth, a case
etactly simihr in its nature had occurred, in which
the House had taken upon themselves the privilege
of judging whether convenient notice had been given
to produce the lists, pursuant to the resolution of
Parliament. After the general election of 1807, a
motion WAS made, that orders should be given, that
the sitting Member for Sussex and the petitioner
should mutually. furnish each other with lists of the
voters which they objected to. The motion was re-
jected, on the grounds that reasonable allowance of
time had not been given, inasmuch as the motion
was made on the 16th of the month, • and the Com-
mittee had been appointed for the 22d. Such,
on a similar occasion, was the judgment of the

House.

Mr. WYNNE and Mr. BATHURST said a few words
on the propYiety of abiding by the strict regula-
tions of the House.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, the complainant
knowing the nature of the complaint which he pur-
posed to bring, had the advantage in the readiness
of making out his list over the person to whom he
was opposing himself; therefore, he conceived that
reasonable time should be ziven to make out the lists
of voters, especially those who lived so very remote
as Pembr,-keshire. Three days notice was a period
infinitely too short to proct.re the ned.'Lsai y infor-
mation, and the Motion was, therefore, improper.
Sir J. NEWPORT contended, that particular
forms and ceremonies ()Tight not to be permitted to
impede the natural course of justice.
Mr. LUSHINGTON spoke in opposition to the

Motion. •
Sir JOHN NEWPORT insisted that the Clerk
should read the Act relating to Irish Contested
Elections. •
Lord KENSINGTON was ently proceed.
ing to support the Motion) when re was informed by
the SPEAKEN) that any discussion upon a subject
which Gentlemen were to be appointed to examine,
would only tend to prevent their going into its con-
sideration with minds wholly unbiassed. It would,
therefore, he better to drop any farther discussion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a
division took place, in which, as we were informed,
on being re-admitted to the Gallery, the Motion was'
rejected.

WEYMOUTH ELECTION.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS brought up the Report
of the Committee appointed to examine the contest.
ed Election Petitions of Weymouth. The Committee
having seated one of the Members, proceeded to a
reconsideration of the evidence, and after having
maturely weighed the whole, they adopted a resolu-
tion, praying, that the issuing of a new writ' ior the
election of a Member might be stopped, ina.mucli
as they conceived that the mode of election required
Legislative interference. Pursuant to the desire of
the Committee, he begged leave to move, that such
parts of the evidence mentioned in the second resolu-
tion should be laid upon the Table of •the House
and printed.
Several Members having shewn a disposition to
rise on the subject,
Mr. PONSONBY proposed, that the discussion
of a question so important should be postponed to
Monday, for, doubtless, many persons of great in.
formation, who were absent, would be desirous of
being heard before any portion of the evidence
should be printed.
Mr. M. SUTTON said, it was but common fair;
ness to the Committee to give them credit ;—that
they moved only for such evidence as they conceived
to be necessary for Parliament to be informed about.
He saw no grounds for making any delay.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS said, the description of
votes which required Legislative interference, were
those chiming privilege Prom the one thousand four
hundred and ninetieth part of the sixty-eighth part
of the fifth of a half-crown rent.

Mr. W YNNE wasde,irous of delaying, the dis-
Cusion, because some deliberation was required on a
case to intricate. •

Sir JOHN NEWPORT was desirous that the
whole and complete evidence should be submitted to
the House.
Lord CASTLE,REAGH and Mr. ROSE con.
tended, that much delay would be occasioned by
laying the whole of the evidence on the Table of the
House.

--„--
Mr. 13. BATHURST said, that in a question
where general corruption %Vas alledged, it would be
necessai y to submit the whole evidence to the
House ; but no corruption was stated as apparent in.
the case, for the Committee. had seated one of the
Members.

After a short conversation between Mr. Broderick,
Mr. Baring, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Barham, the
amendment of Mr. Ponsonby was negatived without
a division, and the House resumed the discussion of
the original question.
Mr. BARING immediately rose and moved, that
the whole of the evidence should be submitted to
the House.

Mr. MACDONALD and Mr. M. SUTTON made a few
brief remarks on the subject.
• Mr. PONSON BY urged the necessity of having
the whole of the Minutei before the House, and con-
tended, that a partial production of them would be
-a bar to future proceedings.
Mr. H. SUMNER wished to propose another
amendment, for the appointment of a Committee to
inspect the Minutes of the Weymouth Committee,
and to report .such parts as might appear to them to
be necessary • but he afterwards withdrew it on the
',suggestion of Speaker.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS said, that the Minutes
were not garbled ; that they consisted of a large list
of names, and all that was necessary to be known.
The discussion was protracted for some time fur.
ther, and several arguments urged, on both sides, by
Lord CASII.EASAGHI Mr. COCIIRANE JqIINSTONE, Mr.

Mr. C. JOHNSTONE- said, that he rose for the
purpose of puiting oft' the Motion, of which he had
given notice for -M6nday next, until Thursday, as
he understood that Ministers had an engagement for
t : 4 ‘. •
that day. '• • •
• Lord CASTLEREAGH, in a very low tone,
made some observations on the postponement not
having arisen from any expressed wish on she part of
his Majesty's Ministers, Who were not diiposed to
suffer any engagement to interfere with t 4 perfor-
mance of their duty in that House.
Mr. C. JOHNSTONE said, that for himself, he
had no objection to bring foiviiird his Motion on the
day originally fixed, but he conceived its postpone-
ment would be a matter of accommodation for both
parties— (Hear, hear).
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL made some ob-
servations on the readiness of his Majesty's Mini-
sters, to meet any question brought forward in that
House.

Mr. WHITBREAD objected to the gravity with
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman treated the
subject.. It was well known that Ministers frequently
had engagements which made it inconvenient for
them to attend. There was no novelty in the cir-
cumstance. •
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was perfectly
aware that there was nothing novel in the circutn-
stance, but his observation was founded on the cir-
cumstance of its having gone forth to the Public, that
the Motion was filed for a particular day. He un-
derstood since, that Ministers had been invited to a
turtle feast..- (A laugh).
Mr. W H ITB READ observed, that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had made a magnificent trifle
of the business.

Mr. BATHURST said, that as far as he was
concerned, Ministers were not engaged on Monday.
laugh).—He had thought it his duty to de-
cline an invitation from the Russia Company for
that day. •
The Motion was then postponed to Thursday next.

by tile
:o an assertion made
it had been stated, that
ignatures to it had wit'
their Apost lit Vicar
:opy of a memorandum,
Iment in question havit
0 by the espostk,oe Vicars, had been e
in the British Museum, Dec. 50, 1791, by Mt
Secretary of the Committee, as a monumem
tical integrity. The protestations had been
sively circulated among the clergy, and indeed
the c.401,4i.: laity,. and not ni're than six
persons had refused to sign it. None of di
signed it withdrew their signatures from dte
of but very few, and those not through reluctance to
subscribe to the protestation,- but because the oath
which was coupled with it, and
.whicii hied not heai.
drawn up by Cathelics, \vas not worded in a sati:f.ie.
tory manner. :n us Meth the Vicars had recom-
mended to th 6 Catholics not to take, though it had
among its strppottets soiree the greatest lurr'rtariii
of the Church. -Here he qnoted several eminent men
in proof of what he had advanced. He inveighed
against the part-which the public press had taken in
-MIS controversy ; and asseited,- that si was the
Strong bias of some of the newspapers, t!iat they
would not even admit advertisements agaii.st the side
they espoused. He then gave some account of two
Letters addlessild to a Noble Earl, which he had
published. on the Catholic question.—He had viewed
this as a great question of civil policy, and, considering
the value and sets ces of tile Catholics, deemed dent
worthy of admission to a participation in the privi-
leges bestowed by 'the British Constitution, with pro-
per provisions and securities, whhla might be devised
by the Legislature, and would be accepted by the
Catholics. On the subject of the Veto he contended,
that the Catholics ought to yid:. that noint They
could not spew him a state in EllrOpt! in %Okla the
Sovereign had not a full and pertect nomination ;
and here, where only a negatiae was cl.anted, he
could see no good mason for its being refused. Un-
less this WAS done, there was great cause to fear dart-.
ger to our establishmems from foreign influence.
Without the right to inspect bulls, briefs, and re-
sctipts, he
.could not consent to give the ettltGlics
political power that might b. injurious to the state,
He did not mean that such documents shoshf he vim
to the Secretary of State's Oilier, but tome of their
own'ecclt.::.tstic.s, in 'whomth;:y and ere Government
had coafidence, miglit. he 'apPpiate.tl to per:orm this
ditty. Even our Cafite;lic ancestOrs were in the con-
stilt' practice of peoritltag-rrif4s and securities
agaiest the encteashnicnts of the Pope. ,Magna
Cho ta, the Statute of Pritiouire, and • wen! other
enactments, he instaneedat. proof of this fact. But
all these things a Committee could alone digest and
arrange. N't a Committee of the whole House, but
a Select Committee, which was best adapted to carry
the matter to a right conclusion—to discuss the ex-
tent of the privileges that might be ranted to the
Catholics, and the nature of the securittes and guards
against the influence, he would sly the growing in- •
fluence, of the Pope. In the, reason he save the ;no-
Lion his cordial support.
Mr. YORK E., in esphanation, stated, that he had
been misrepresented, of misunderstood, by the Hon.
Baronet. He had said only, that in con,equence of
the protestation, a difference took place between the
• Vicars Apostolic and the Committee, and that the
latter were obliged to submit. He had said also,
that three of the Vicars Apostolic had withdrawn
, their names from the protestation in consequence of
• the oath, the form of which had been introduced
•
. into it.

General MATHEW observed, that it appeared
to him, after the able, eloquent, argumentative, and
enlightened speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Plunkett) below him, last night, that little re-
mained for him, or for any other person, to say upon
the subject under the consideration of the House.—
That speech, in his opinion, surpassed any thing th.‘tt.
he had heard or read ; and presented to the House a
chain of undeniable facts, such as had never before
been known in this country. He did not believe that
any speech had ever been delivered in that House
which went so' satisfactorily to establish the clear,
unequivocal, and undoubted tight of the Catholics
to the grant of their claims. The sentiments express-
ed by his Right Hon. Fr•end on that occasion, and
on every other occasion that li^ had had the honour
of hearing him, w re such 'as reflected credit on his
understanding and his heart. He was sorry, how-
ever, that. as to one or ter, points stated in that ad-
mirable speech, he was obliged to differ from his
Right Hon. friend. The opinion of his Right Hon.
Friend was, that Catholic emancipation was only to
be granted upon the condition of full and ample se-
curities for the Church of England !rein, at Cue same
time provided. That was the view of his Right Hon.
Friend, and may, perhaps, be the opinion of other
Members of that House. But he would ask any
Gentleman who entertained this opinion, whether he
understood what was meant by these securities? He
should like to knnw in %that set pi.rese or form of
words this bond el security vies to be I.,rmed ; as-
also, if the obligation were not to be fulfilled, upon
whom the penalty of failure or v:olat'on was to fall?
What party is it that could say in such a CAW W no-
th.ff, 66 you have signed the bond, but tailed to per-
form its tonditions, and there fare must submit to all
the consequences of your breach of engagement ?•'
For his own part, he was persuaded that n i such se-
curities as were required wee nezessary. No honest
man could in his conscience ask if r any other sec tif ity-
than the Oath of Allegiance. He sh..uld not tiler.•
trespass upon the time of the Rinse by re ideng th.t
oath, which, however, he. should contend, alfraideefit
security enough. If the Catholics could /eerie, that:
oath, they would break all the securities whi,;ll the
House could possibly enact. Another vita upon .
which he differed from his Right Hon. Friend was
that which regarded a provision for the Catholic •
Clergy. His Right Hon. Friend had contended,
that if the claims of the Catholics were to be granted,
a provision should -also be made for the Catholic
Clergy. He was sorry .his Right Hon. Friend had
brought forward that topic ; because he was persua-
ded, from the long residence of his Right Hower,-
able Friend its the Irish capital, he must know that
the Catholic Clergy would never consent to any such
meastirekand that the Catholic Prelates in Sprod or
Senate had positively determined that the Catholic .
Clergy should under no circumstances receive a sin- •
gle shilling from the Public. This was the feeling

r
'msg. vein . ,:, ,iiitte, . it, ,y . ..,. t :
~. .., . °r. '' itirtiritisi: 11471Astvlori lin art'—WeiTrew liis teen ikiMed bi
Notice and Order-Book. I% eoncei . .r 4-4, 's • - • • ..re • Mr. Ross, Mr. Passivis; • afe Totili.NE*. Chronicle, in answer to an assertion i
,m741,01e allotrauce 4F time-had been gi /4, 7,1 e,), ~ , • . the Soctc4itni.Pspe.4l,l-the Gallertwai Harting Pea, in which it had been st.it
ProatictiOn of the lists *(7flcrpeaclted voters. ' ~... , J , and the Hosiettlivh4d I 'When, we under. who had given their signatures to it h
thai subiect he would bike the sense of the 4=ion - . :Amp,. t the propositiOti for producing the whole of. them at. tLe instance of their Apost 111
`• Mr. W. WYNNE dslared that it would be ' "Nbsi evidence was lost,' Elie nunibers beiug,6l to 1.12. refute this, he read a copy of a memor
4
i
.
improper to depait fr.4l:lie.resolution of, an exp • MOTION RELATIVE TO THE\PRINCESS'OF WALE'S. set Ithill, that tilt' document in questio
_•2l,_A_ - a c•• • . .

Morning
! by este
:hat those
ithdrdovn
WS. T 9
which
viog
derwitcd
r 1 Butler,
It of puli-
rtt
or seven
those who
I.le papez,