Star.
London, England, 1819-02-19 00:00:00

Mr. WYNNE said, that according to the general
rule laid down by the House, the prayer of this Pe-
tition could not be attended to. To-statethat the
Petitioner or the pasty eoaceened bad acted on a
misconeepdon of that rule was not a suffieient reason
to induce she House to depart from the rule. In the
present cese themisconception was most extraordi►
nary, and yet it was ene which seemed to have per-
vaded the whole of Irelind. The only ground on
which he could conceive it to have been founded
was, that the operation of the first clause of the Act
was expressly confined to England and Scotland.
But then the other parts of the Act most explicitly
comprehended Ireland. Yet throughout the latter
country the opinion prevailed that the operations of
the Act did not extend to it ; nor was this mistake
confined to a few persons, for even persons of a high
reputation in the Law had fallen into it. Amongst
the rest, Mr. Gabbett, a lawyer, whore character
stood deservedly very high, had made the very same
mistake. In so extraordinary a case he did think
that it might be allowable for Parliament to grant
the prayer of this Peti:ion. At the same time, he
could not but remark that it was not in the power of
the House to extend this indulgence generally. Per-
haps a remedy for this particular class of eases might
be provided by passing a short Act, which should
recite the prevalence of the mistake in Ireland, and
enact that therefore a further time should be allowed
for entering the recognizances on Petitions already
presented from that country.
Mr. BATHURST thought the question deserved
the serious consideration of the House. As to intro-
ducing any Bill to settle the question, it was to he
considered that its operation would be retrospective,
and as such he could not think it desirable.

Mr. BANKES thought it desirable for the House
to come to some decision on the general question.
Under the circumstances of the mistake having been
so general and extensive, he rather agreed with, the
view taken of the subject by his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Wynne). it would, therefore, be perhaps proper for
the House to resume the consideration of the subject
on some future day.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sit JOHN NEWPORT gave notice, that be would
to-morrow submit to the House a Motion upon the
subject of it.
The SPEAKER said, that after what had passed
on this subject, it would perhaps be proper for him
to apprise the House that two other applications had
already been made to them on the same subject, but
that no definitive order had been yet entered upon
the Journals respecting them, nor had the applica-
tions yet been absolutely discharged. The Order.
with respect to them stood on the Order Book. The
observations which might be offered to the House,
now or on a future occasion, Would therefore include
the case of the Drogheda and Galway Petitions, as
well as that just now laid' upon the table. '
Mr. WYNNE thought that, under the present cir-
cumstances, there were several considerations which
demanded the attention of the House. The words
of the Act expressly provided that.the time for enter-
ing the recognizances could only be enlarged once.
But, on looking into the precedents on this subject,
he found that on several occasions the 'House had
thought itself competent to revive as well as to en-
large the time. The Shaftesbury case he thought a
sufficient authority on this point.

The SPEAKI.fIt begged to remind the Ireue,
that in two out of the three cases in wllich the apnii-'
cation had now been made for enlarging Vie time,
that application had been refused 13.; the Nome ;
therefore, if on the Petition now presented an order
was made for enlarging the time, there would ap-
pear on the Journals contradictory orders on pre--
cisely the satne question. ,