Star.
London, England, 1824-05-14 00:00:00

PARLIAMENI,4IIY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 13.

Their Lordships met at ten o'clock, the LORD CHANZP.LLOR on
the Woolsack, when the House proceeded to a Committee of Pri-
vileges on the Roscommon Peetage.

At a quarter past ten Counsel were called in.
The ATTORNIY-GENEIIAL attended to watch the proceedings on
the part of the Crown.
111 r. LvaCif appeared for the claimant Michael Dillon; and Mr.
Girroan for the other claimant, Francis Stephen Dillon.
lastxcx proceeded with the case of his client ; but previously
to the examination of witnesses, Mr. GIFFORD applied to their
Lordships for permisdon to cross-examine them, which was granted.
Mr. I.vNeo then called a Gentleman, who verified a copy of the
trim:nu:lit of the patent of James the first Earl of Roscommon.
The Arroaassr-Gxst:RAL objected to this evidence. The ork;inal
patent he said ought to have been produced, or at least the origi-
nal enrolment.

Some discussion followed; in the course of which the L 0111)
CHANCELLOR observed that the copy delivered in had been
used lii re and frequently amended. It appeared to have been
three times certified as correct, and as often proved by subsequent
Amendments to have been, incorrect. The copy was, however, re-
ceived de bene

Several extracts were then read from the Irish Journals, to prove
the succession of the eight first kals of Roseuninton.
The Learned Counsel then proposed to make up of the evidence
given before the Irish Housr of Lords upon the investigation of the
unsuccessful claim of Mr. Robert Dillon in the year 1791.
The ATTORNEY-CZNIRAL objected to this evidence, as mishit
upon a case between other parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR here remarked, that the Crown
had been, of course, a party in the former claim; but that the
claimant, Michael Dillon. who now proposed to use th 4 evi-
dence, appeared to stand as the representative of the former
claimant, Robert. _ _ _

Mr. Girvoao then objected, on the part of the claimant Francis
Dillon. However, he •aid, the case might stand as betwc.m the
claimant Michael, and the Crown, it was clear that the investiga-
tion of 1791 was, as respected Francis Uillou, res inter alias oda.
He was no party to that investigation; he made no claim then, be-
cause he was well aware of the existence of a claim stronger than his
own or than Robert Dillon's--namely, the claim of l'atrick, the late
Earl. Were, he said, the evidence now offered to be received, his
client would be placed in the condition of having witnesses admit-
ted against his title, without any power of cross-examining them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted the weight of the ob-
jection; but did not see how the House could reject the testimony
of its own minutes. He thought the minutes cridenee : but by nu
means conclusive evidence.
Mr. LYNCH then read several extracts from the evidence deli-
vered upon Robert's unsuccessful claims in 1791 and 1792. They
went merely to the genealogy of the unsuccessful claimant Robert,
through whom Mr. Michael Dillon claims.
At twelve o'clock the house adjourned the further hearing of
this case till Monday.
'l•he appeal of " Short v. Foreman," from the Court of Chancery
in Ireland, was next proceeded with; when Mr. Sinvinenaar was
heard in conclusion fur the appellant ; and Mr. BROUGHAM in reply
for the respondent.—Judgment is expected on Monday next.
Lord EASTNORs Mr. CAMPULL, Mr. BVNG, and others, brought
up the Edinburgh (City and Suburbs) Lighting and Paving Bill,
tile Evesham and Hereford Gas Lighting Bills, and some Road
Bills, which were afterwards read a first time.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved, that the United General
Gas Light Company's Bill be now read a second time.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE had objections to the present
Bill, in common with others of their Lordship>, which, however, he
did not wish to offer now, provided the Bill were postponed to
Tuesday.—Petitiens were hereupon put in, whose prayer was to be
heard against the Bil; before the Committee by Counsel.—lt was
agreed at length, that the second reading of the above Bill should
stand over to Tuesday next.
The Brighton Church Bill was reported without any amend-
ments to the House.
Mr. OSBORN k, Croat the M :agate Pier and Harbour Company pre-
sented the Accounts of the Pier aud Harbour Cot the yrat
Upon the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL. tin Bid for re-
newing the act, for another two years, passed throlOt a
Committee of the whole House, and was ordered fur the third
reading on to-morrow.
The Transter of Dividends Bill, and the Glass Duties Bill,
passed through Committees, and were then reported witlicut any
4mendment to the House.
At Haif after Five o'Clock tl.: House adjourned till to-morrow
morning at ten.