Star.
London, England, 1821-04-07 00:00:00

•-•

%
" ... **

• sib qbz

• ‘II444I4IWITARY PROCEEpINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS. APRIL 6.
Their Lordships met early to bear Appeal Causes from
Scotland.
". Nasmyth w Hare." The Arromnir-Ontsam. was heard
for the respondent, and Mr. Serjeant 13ozinatiet for the Viol-
lant.—Judgment postponed.
1' Sir James Montgomery v. the Marquis of Qneettsberry."
Mr. CILAWSEOII was beard for the appellant—Further hearing
postponed till Monday.
The B..reak Assent was given by Commission to the Commer-
cial Intercourse Bill, the Husbandry Horses' Duty 11111; the
Irish Attornles' Fees Bills the Irish wfiSturaft ler!' 80, the
GraMpound Witneeseslndemnity 11111;alid several Private Bills.
The Gotandssioners were the Loma Csuaienzoa, the Earl of
Sicsesessosv, sod. Lord fifecnit.•
• Message was sent to the House of Commons, to request
that Sir M. Lopez might have leave to attend the House on the
Gmmpoupd Election Bill.
Mr. Wanes, from the Office of the Court of King's Bench,
presented the records of convictions for bribery at Elections in
Cornwall, pursuant to the order of the House.
The Innkeepers' Rates Bill was read a third time. and passed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS. "
toed SID MOUTH presented a Petition from the Dean and
'chapter of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster,
agkinst the Roman Catholic Claims.
The Bishop of LONDON presented similar Petitions from
the Clergy of Siun College • and from the Rector, Churchwar-
dens, and Inhabitants of the Parish of Christ Church, in Mid
-
dime, signed by 2,000 persons.
Lord SIDMOUTII also presented a Petition against the
Roman Catholic. Bill from the Royal Burgh of Stirling.
. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented three Petitions to
the same effect : one from the Parish of ilirchin, in the County
of Hens • another from Sutton Coalfield, in Warwickshire; and
Laird (rem the Royal Burgh of Dumfries.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORR said be held in his hand a
Petition from a very respectable body of Roman Catholic Cler-
gymen, who believed that some of the provisions in the Bill
then before their. Lordships' House, tended to impose unneces-
sary severities on the Roman Catholic Church, and who there-,
fore prayed that such parts of the 11111 might not pass into, a law.
The Petitioners were die Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy of
the Diocese of Limerick, than whom there could not be a more
respectable body of men ; nor were there any men in his Majes-
ty's dominions more distinguished for their exemplary and cor-
rect moral conduct. He should now content himself with
moving that the Petition be read.—The Petition was read ac-
cordingly ; it stated that several provisions in the BM would
subject them to a great deal of unnecessary vexation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt it his duty to in-
timate to their Lordships, the incorrect manner in which this
Petition was worded, and to express his doubts whether it could
be received in its present form. It was inconsistent with the
laws of this country for any persons to designate themselves as
Roman Catholic Bishops in any Petition presented to Parliament.
The Earl of DONOUGH MORE, in reply, said, that such a'
designation had already been recognized by the taws of Ireland.
One of the chief functions of the Roman Catholic Bishops in
that country was the power of ordination ; and that was recog-
nized by law. A Roman Catholic Priest in Ireland might con-
form to, and be received into the Protestant Church, without
any other ordination than that which be had received from a
Roman Catholic Bishop. Such was the case with the late Mr.
• Kirwan, a Gentleman of great taientsewho became a Minister
of, and was advanced to preferments in the Established Church;
and Mr. Kirwan never received any other than a Roman Ca.
tholic ordination. This, therefore was a proof that Roman
Catholic Bishops were acknowledged by the laws of Ireland.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR said the Noble Earl misun-
derstood him. He had no doubt but that Roman Catholic
Bishops might exercise their functions ; but the question was,
whether there could be a Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick,
or of any other Diocese over which Protestant Bishops presided ?
'Could there be two Bishops with the same designation ? Ile had
no doubt but that the person signing this Petition was a BishOp,
nor did he mean to oppose she receiving of the Petition; but he
should not have done his duty, if he did_ not candidly make the
observation which be now suggested.-a The Petition was, re-
ceived, and the House adjourned to Monday.
• HOUSE OF COMMONS.
As soon as the Seaaxe.p. took the Chair, the House was sum-
moned to the House of Lords, in the usual manner, to hearths'
Royal Assent given by Commission to several Bills.
Mr. MA BER LEY moved for an Account of all Clerks ap.
pointed in Civil Offices in England, Ireland, and Scotland, dia..
tinguishing each, since the Ist of January, 1816, with Abair
Names and amount of Salaries ; and also for a Return of the
Names of all Clerks and other Officers, whose services have
been discontinued during the same period.—Ordered.
Sir G. CLERK presented several Petitions from individuals
balding offices in the Irish Courts of Law, whose Incomes would
be affected by the Bill now pending in Parliament, praying to be
-allowe compensation.
The Irish (Wooers Bill was read a second time, and com-
mitted for Monday.
The Irish Trial for Treason Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
2118WIAGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL—CONDUCT OF
TIIE CONIbIITTEE.
Sir ROBERT WILSON rose, and said he wished
to call the attention of the House to a subject, in his
opinion, of deep importance. The House would re-
collect, that a question had been referred to a Select
Committee, whether or not the Standing Orders of
the House had been complied with In reference to
thi; Bill? They reported in the affirmative, and the
13111 was then referred back to the original Committee.
At the sitting of the Committee that day, a motion
was made that the Report of the Select Committee
be laid before them, which motion was negatived on
a.division. He felt it his duty to move in the Corn-
.
nituee that an adjournment do take place, in order
to ascertain the sense of the House upon the propriety
of the former proceeding. This motion was also ne-
gatived. Under these circumstances, he thought it
to be his duty to lay the matter before the House,
as it appeared to him to be the intention of those
• who constituted the majority to blind justice,
and prevent a full and impartial exposition of the
lobject before the whole of the Committee. He con-
cluded by 'moving-41 That the Report of the Select
Committee on the Standing Orders of the House, with
respect to the Newington Select Vestry Bill, be refer-
wed-to the Committee on the said Bill."
Mr. H. SU.MNER would not oppose tbis motion.
He felt the subject to be one of the deepest import-
ance in its consequences, as it was one the most ex-
traordinary in its nature. He felt it to be his duty,
as Chairman of that Committee, to bring the whole
• case before the House. As soon as the state of the
attendance of the House would justifyhim, he would
bring forward a statement certainly in the spirit of a
complaint, and at present should content himself. by
merely giving that notice.
Mr. lIUME thought that this,was the proper time
for the Honourable Member to bring forivard his
complaint. He was sure that some Hon. Member
ought to bring forward a complaint against 'the Hon.
Chairman himself, and in case no one offered himself
td perform that duty, he should feel himself called
-upon to uhdertake it.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, the only reason he had for
delaying his statement was, that the House was alt.
that 'moment very thin.
Mr. HUME thought that this was rather a strange
ground for postponing this trillitg. subject, 'seeing
that so many millions of the public money were
voted away by much thinner Houses. Perhaps the
&lon. yx -a meant that he would wait for his frsends.