Star.
London, England, 1824-05-07 00:00:00

ROYAL IRISH MINE COMPANY.

Sr' JOHN NEWPORT moved the Order of the Day
for the second reading of the Royal hish Mine Com-
pany's Bill.
Mr. HCSKISSON thought some of the provisions of
this Bill were of a most extraordinary nature; he was
unwilling to oppose private Bills, but on looking at the
present Bill, he found it was calculated to make a great
alteration in the law, and required the vigilant atten-
tion of the House. There seemed to be in them a de-

parture from the rules observed by our ancestors. They
claimed the privilege of a charter, but the power
of gtanting a chxrter was only in the Crown ; and the
parties who were anxious to have one must apply to the
Crown. There were several Companies forming--a

Mine Company, an Annuity Company, and an
hqui-
table Loan Society. The. true way to deal with them
was, that they should place themselves uron the same
looting as any other individuals formed into companies
• for the purpose of trade. As to the other Bills before
the House to which he had alluded, if they contained
any clauses of corporation he should object to them.
Sir J, NEWPORT begged to instance the existence
of Canal and Gas Companies as analogous to the one
which was under discussion. He had no interest what-
ever in the Bill. He was anxious only to protect it, and
he hoped that-it might pass the second reading ; if any
objections were to be made be hoped they would be
urged in their proper place.
r.ELLIS was of opinion that if the House went on
incorporating Companies, they would have by and bye
little else to do in Parliameut. Some of the Companies

•
whose Petitions had been presented, would not proceed,
if, perhaps, the Right Hon. Gentleman Mr. Huskisson)
would inform them distinctly which he did not intend
to sanction. But if their Bills were read a second time,
,and then they did not succeed in their plans, considera-
ble additional expense would be incurred, which the
parties would have to pay. He, therefare, would re-
commend his Right Hon. Friend near him (Sir J. New-
port) not to press the second reading of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. llAwsoN, the suggestion
of Mr. ELLis was acceded to.

THE SEPARATISTS.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a Petition from a
sect of Christian people in Ireland, calling themselves
Separatists, to be exempted from taking oaths.
Mr. HUME thought the subject • of the Petition was
one of the greatest importance. In the course of a cen-
tpry, one Quaker only had been prosecuted for perjury,.
and surely they were a: liable to commit that crime as
tlie respectable sect of the Separatists, who did not ex.
teed 400 in number-350 of whom were in Ireland,
and 50 in England. He contended that they ought not
to be called upon to violate their conscientious scruples.
The consequences of enforcing the existing law against
them were seen in the conduct of some half-pay officers
belonging to the sect, who, not able to overcome their
religious scruples, had been deprived of it.
Mr. Seer etary CANNING would not now enter upon
the merits of the question. With every respect he might
have for the individuals who comiosed the sect, he did
not think that their claims could be admitted ‘s ithout
giving rise to distinctions which might create difficulties.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished the principle of the
measure to be reco,,nized. He thought that a person
who came forward with a religions objection to take all
oath could be as much bound as one who took it.
Mr. S. RICE understood that there was a sect of
Christians in the province of Ulster, whose religious
scruples on the subject of the oath had been attended to.
The point in dispute was not so important for ;he Foi,le
themselves as for third parties: they could not adtni-
niAer to wills, or be called as witnesses in a Court of
Justice; ani therefore the intere,ts of the community,
which Here so seriously involved, should not he left out
of the question. If the Jew and Nlahometan had his
prejudices regarded, „by should those of a part of our
Christian brethren be overlooked ?

Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought that there was a great
defect in thz law regarding affirmation, as no affirma-
tion could be received in a Criminal Court. He had
called the attention of the House to this subject
Session, and he intended to bring forward a Bill in
order to render the affirmation of Quakers admissible
on criminal trials.--Petitien ordered to be printed.