Star.
London, England, 1822-02-07 00:00:00

THE LOVEDAYS.

The French Papers contain a summary of the
speeches made in the House of Peers, on the subject
of Mr. LOTEDAY'S Petition. After the Reporter of the
Committee (the Duke de ST. MORAN) had moved in
their name the order of the day, not because they
did not conceive the matter of high importance. but
because the affair was fitter for the tribunals, several
Peers spoke.
The Marquis de TALLY-TOLLINDAL considered the
affair as one of the gravest importance. He had no
doubt that in a neighbouring country the business
would have a disastrous influence on the so often
adjourned emancipation of the Catholics. The ho-'
mur of the Chamber, the maintenance of public
order, appeared to him to require that nothing should
be omitted to discover the real cause of a scandalous
proceeding which afflicted all honest men. He thought
that the whole authority of the State should be em-
ployed in investigating such an offence, and with this
view, moved that the Petition should be referred to
the three Ili.-iisters—of Justice, of the Interior, and
of Foreign Affairs.
Count auto supported this proposition.
The Baron PASQUIER supported the Order of the
Day, observing, that the request of the petitione.
could not be received by the Chamber, except in a
case where he could not otherwise obtain the justice
which he sought; and that this affair in its very na-
ture belonged to the tribunals. He added, that
the reference just proposed would be at once useless
and dangerous—useless, because the facts were al-,
ready known to the Government—dangerous, because
the Chamber would appear to give a sort of sanction
to the complaints of the Petition, which, in fact, was
a pa, ty diatribe.
Count DA nu expressed his astonishment at the just
complaints of a father, wounded in his dearest affec-
tions, described as a party diatribe. lie maintained that
this was not the way to answer a -tranger and a father.
The Vi:coont DIGEON, while he supported the or-
der of the day, lamented that the paternal authority
was not better guaranteed by the laws of France.
Count LANJursars contended. that the law being
defective on this point, it was the duty of Govern-
ment to supply the defect. The insufficiency of the
law in what regarded the regulation of public wor-
ship left society without defence against the excesses
of religious zeal. Was these not, in such a state of
things, a sufficient motive for adopting the proposed
referents ?
The Marquis de Marmots entreated the Chamber
not to be precipitate in its deci,ion on one of the most
important questions that could be submitted to it.
The Baron de B.SRANTE recommended the refer-
ence of the Petition to the Minister.of the Interior.
The Count de SEGUR conceived that in an affair
so Intel esting to public order and the peace of public
worship, the Chamber should so act as not to deserve
the imputation either of partiality or indifference.
The Count de I'oNTECOULANT saw neither ad-
vantage nor inconvenience in the proposed reference ;
but he preferred the Order of the Day, founded on
an assigned reason, viz. that the Petitioner had the
means of laying his grievance before the tribunals.
The PRESIDENT observed, that the Chamber, when
it passed to the Order of the Day, was not accestomed
to assign a reason for it.
The Marquis de LALLY-TOLT.ENDAL insisted that
his proposition fur a triple reference was founded on
incontestible principles. lie proposed the reference
to the Minister of Justice, because it was a judicial
question ; to the Minister of the Interior, because it
was a question of public order; lastly,to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, because it was a political question.
The Duke de Bumate, on the contrary, maintained
that the Chamber could not of itself render the peti-
tioner the justice which he called for, nor could it in-
terfere in order to cause justice to be done. It could
absolutely do nothing with the petition, which was
therefore precisely a case to be met with the •Order
of the Day.
The Chamber ordered the printing of two speeches,
those of Count Darn and the Duke de Broglie. The
Order of the Day was then carried by 87 against 50.

We have received the following intelligence from
New York, dated the 9th instant:
By the arrival, last evening, of the brig Mattewan, Stators
Master, in sixteen days from Curacoa, we have received the
very imporant intelligence of the independence of Spanish St.
Domingo, being a confirmation of what we published a few
days ago. It appears that the whole of the Spanish part of
the Island of St. Domingo had declared its independence of
Spain on the Ist of December, by the unanimous voice of
the people, sot a drop of blood having been spilt, nor any
excess committed oa the occasion. An Act of Declaration, con-
sisting of 39 Articles, had been drawn up, expressive of the de-
termination that the Government should be declared Republican,
and that an alliance should be formed with the Republic of
Columbia.

- -
A letter from Palermo, dated the 27th December,
states :—" The Duke de Montemaggione, who, on
the 17th of July, headed a band of brigands to pil-
lage the Royal Castle cf Palermo, has been arresteti
at Malta by the English Authorities, and given up to
the Sicilian Government."

Newfoundland Gazettes of the 21st September state
that a French Government schooner arrived at St.
John's on the 10th, from Croque Harbour, charged
with a dispatch from the French Governor there, to
Sir CHARLES HAMILTON, complaining of the sonduct
of some British ashram.

LAW ll'ot'r

•
COURT OF CHANCERY, FRBRUART 6.
HOWARD AND Collllll' HANKRUPTCY.
The ATTORNRY•GaNIIRAL was heard, in part, in 1
the bankruptcy of Hairard and Gibbs. Thb question
fs, whether the bankrupt Howard had the right to
prove a debt, in the character of an executor, against
his own estate under thetomMission, and vote for
auignees.—The Loan CHANCELLOR rose at half-past
twelve o'clock.
COURT OF MG'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 6.
IMPARTS HUNT.
Immediately on the sitting of the Court, the LORD
CAM JUSTICE said, one of the Judges bad received
this morning a letter from a person in confinement,
upon which the Court had made an order. His Lord-
ship then handed the said order down to the Clerk of
the 'Papers, who asked if he was to read it ?
The LORD CHIEF Jusrics.—Certainly.
The order was made in consequence of letter
from Henry. Hunt, a prisoner in Ilchester jail, stating
that he had a complaint to exhibit to this Court, and
that be was desirous of stating facts. For the- pur-,
pose of making an affidavit, he sent for an attorney
of the town, and when the attorney attended, he was
denied all access to the complainant. The letter went
on to state, that Henry Hunt was afflicted withillness
in the stomach and heart, and that having determined
upon taking medical advice, he sent for a Medical
Gentleman of the town, who was also denied access.
Upon the above statement, the Court-oiqered that
any attorney, nominated by Mr. Hunt, should be ad-
mitted by the jailor. Their Lordships further ordered&
that any medical man the complainant, Mr. Hunt,
might desire to see, should be admitted to him.
•
THE KING V. ROGERS.
Mr. SCARLETT Skewed cause against a Rule ob-
tained by Mr. Jervis for a qua warrant°, calling on
the defendant to shew by what authority he holds the
office of Mayor of Chester.
The Rule was obtained upon a mass of affidavits,
detailing the proceedings at the election, in October
last, and upon the objection that Mr. Rogers had not
been elected by the citifrens and commonalty, accord-
ing to the rights an i privileges of that Corporation.
11r. ScatuArr now contended, that Mr. Rogers
had been regularly rut in nomination with Mr. Mas-
sey by the Recorder, and that there was no ground
to dispute the validity of his election.
Mr. Tauxros rose to address the Court on the
same side; but as the attendance of the Judges was
required in another place, the Loan Ciller domes
intimated that they would hear Mr. TAUNTON and
Mr. Jams perhaps to-morrow.
IMPROPER PRACTICE OF ATTORNIES.
Mr. PEARSON moved to strike an Attorney of the
Court off the Rolls, for permitting a person to prac-
tice in and use his name. It appeared, upon a state-
ment of facts, that the Attorney suffered a person,
who was a Sheriff's Officer, to sue out writs in his
name, he obtaining a compensation for the permission.
The 22d of George 11. renders every attorney thus
misconducting himself liable to be struck off the
Rolls; and the person who practices as an Attorney,
without qualification, liable to commitment.—The
COURT
_ranted a Rule to show cause.
Mr. BacamiraNi also moved for a Rule to slim
cause, why Thackery, an Attoi ney, should not be
struck off the Rolls, for allowing one Jacques to prac-
tice in his name, as an Attorney, contrary to law,
and why Jacques should not be committed for the
offence: Thackery, who is an Attorney at Bradford,
allowed Jacques to use his name for a compensation
in nioney.—The Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
CORR V. SVMONDS.
This wai an application to the Court, to ascertain
whether a smuggler was subject to the bankrupt
laws? It was an action of trover by the assignees of
a bankrupt, to recover from the defendant damages
for certain farming utensils which had been assigned
to him by the Sheriff. At the trial, a verdict was
taken f.,r the plaintiff.
A motion was now made to set asi 7e the verdict,
'upon the ground that the bankrupt being a farmer,
was not properly subject to the bankrupt laws.
The COURT, however, refused to disturb the ver-
dict on the authority of some cases, where it was
laid down, that without any reference to the legality
or illegality of the trading, if it was shewn that a
man got his living by dealing in smuggled goods, he
was amenable to the previsions of the bankrupt laws.
Rule discharged.
ARCHES COURT, FEBRUARY 5.
On the sitting of the Court this morning, Doctor
Clarke, Vicar of Great Waltham, said, he rose to
address the Court, by way of appeal from the sen-
tence of the Consistory Court. He entered into a
statement of facts relative to the matter in dispute
between himself and Archdeacon Wollaston, with re-
spect to his refusing to open the great Church door.
He alleged, that he bad been advised by the Learned
Gentlemen of this Court, against his own express
wish and desire, to plead an affirmative issue. They
having assured him it would be attended with an im-
moderate expense to make an obstinate defence, he
conceived he had now a right to appeal to this Court
against the sentence of the Consistory Judge, who,
without going into the merits of the case, bad fixed
him with the payment of costs.
Sir J. NICHOL observed, the Court had patiently
attended to what he (Dr. Clarke) had thought proper
to say ; but it became necessary for the Court to in-
form him, that it could only hear an appeal against
the sentence of the Consistory Court in the regular
manner. These forms of proceeding were regulated
' by the laws of the land, and therefore the Court could
not hear viva voce applications. Independent of this,
the very circumstances which he (Dr. Clarke) stated,
precluded him from making any appeal ; he having
admitted the offence with which he was charged, by
pleading the affirmative issue. It was, therefore, im-
possible the Court could entertain the present appeal;
and hoped he would rest satisfied with what the Court
below had done.
Dr. Clarke.—With the justice of this Court, Sir
John, I feel perfectly satisfied, but not so with the
sentence of the Consistory Court. I complain of
those who advised me to give in an affirmative issue
against myself.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR, FALSELY CALLED PETIT.
This was a suit of nullity of marriage; brought by
Nanny, otherwise Nancy Taylor, otherwise Petit)
iwisiast Thorns Petit, her pretended husband, onthe

rad ei mtnority on ler pelf and nondeonsent ef.
The trriosfihe Lady, on the 17th of Novembet
1795, was proved -by the entrance of baptism of the
Parish Church of Lambeth, and other competent
testimony of witnesses by way of exhibits. The death
of the Lady's father and mother prior to the marriage,
there being no guardian appointed by the will of her
father, or by the Court of Chancery, was, in like
manner, proved by exhibits ; by which it further ap-
peared, that at the time of the marriage, which was
by license, obtained on the oath of Thomas Petit, she
was only a feud weeks above the age of 19 years.
It appeared that there was no opposition to the
present suit.
Sir J. Nwttel. observed, there could be no doubt
of the minority of the woman at the time of her mar-
riage, the father being not only dead, but having
died a widower, prior to the marriage having taken
place ; and it appeared, by the will of her father,
which was exhibited, that no testamentary guardian
had been appointed. It likewise appeared, by a certi-
ficate of the Registrar of the Court of Chancery, that
the records had been searched, and it could not be
found that any guardian had been appointed by that
Court. In consequence of this, it was evident that
no lawful guardian could have given consent ; the
Court, therefore, under all the circumstances exhibited
in evidence, pronounced the matriage null and void.