Star.
London, England, 1820-07-01 00:00:00

4. •

. •
who was, at theliresent 4ime seeking for a seat in
that. House, was the very ktrii.vidual Who had thus es-
pre,se-, .himself before the Commission of In qti; r . !
Glair).. The. Hon. Barnuet
.concluded by moving,
That k be iri inAruction to the said Committee,
that a clatt,e be enacted to provide against any Master
in Chancery in Ireland being elected as a Membar of
Parhament whilst he held that office."

The question having been put, •
Lot d CASTLEREAGH wished to know if he had,
rightly understrod from the Hon. Baronet that he,
il:terhied tliis measure to operate prospectively? The
c•ratrary of that would be the only ground on which
he cold.; be induced to oppose it; otherwise he fully
concurred with the Hon. Gentleman. Such an event
as he seemed to have in view certainly must be an
infr iction on the duties of one situation or the other;
for it was quite irppossible, however different the case
might be in England, that an individual in the sima-
tion !e had described could be an effective Member
of thw Reuse, and an effective Officer of the Coup at
the same, line. Ile perfectly agreed in the principle
of the clause, but not in the case of its operating as
an cx post facto law. He trusted the clause would be
so worded as not to affect those who might already
have actet upon the existing state of things. ..
Sir J. NEWPORT could see no ground, for con- ,
finin.. this measure to a prospective operation. If
there sh..uld be any Member in that House whom it
would affect, he did not see how any one could feel
any re ret at it. How, indeed, could a Master in
Chancery, who had sworn to do his duty in. that sta-
tion, take upon himself a new situation which- might
occupy six months annually of his time, whilst the
duties of his first office required that he should de-
vote ten months to their due performance ? He must
either leave them o be done by others in his absence,
or neglect them altogether; and he did not think 1,
such a character deserved much consideration from
the House—(Hear). The object of his motion was,
tahave a person in the situation of holding these two
offices at the same time, to take his option of retain-
ing or giving up either of them.
Mr. SHAW was of opinion that this clause would,
if adopted, operate most injuriously towards Mr.
Ellis, the Master in Chancery, who, it was probable,
had by this tune been returned for Dublin. it would
sender his election void, and nothing could be more
unfair, even towards the citizens of Dublin, than to
subject them t.• another scene of irritation, after a
contest that had provoked more of party feeling than
had been known ►here for many years.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said; the question for the
House to decide upon was, whether they would
affor all the suitors in the Court of Chancery in
Ireland that chance of obtaining attention to their
suits, uhich no one bad ventured to deny they had
a right to ask. Mr. Ellis, one of the Candidates for
the City 01 Dublin at the present moment, had him-
self declared, that the •duties of his office required
that he should oevote to them ten months of each year.
How then could any one have the face to start up,
and ask. for any consideration for him? The Hon.
Gentleman said, that he asked it in behalf of the
Citizens df Dublin, but he (Mr. Abercromby) plead
ed in behalf of all the inhabitants of Ireland, who
were tb,he, deprived ..f their just rights, in Gruet to
indulgo,tbe personal ambition of an individual.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that Mr. Ellis might
have the option of continuing in office if he thought
proper, bX vacating his seat, and leaving it to Lhe
Citizens of Dublin to choose a Representative of the
same sentiments; or, should he prefer it, to give up
his office for his seat.

Mr. BUXTON K ished to know from the Noble
Lord, if, after having admitted that the duties of a
Master in Chancery and a Aleniber of Parliament'
were incompatible with each other, he would con-
sent to Mr. Ellis being dismissed from his office,'
should he be returned ?
Mr. CANNING said, his Noble Friend (Lord
Castlereagh, did not mean to object to the prnposi-
tion that a Master of the Irish Court of Chancery
should not sit in that House. He apprehended, that
all he meant by wishing the measure to act in a pro-
spective manner only, was, that in the event of a
ease arising in which an' individual, holding the'
situation of a Master in Chancery, should be elected
after the passing-of this Bill, he might be allowed to
have the choice, of giving up whichever he might
think fit. In the case of the Dublin Election, it
would be seen that by excluding all Masters of Chan-
cery from the capability of being elected, the effect
would be to render the Election null and void. But
Af the clause made it optional, the Election would
bold good the decision of the Member should be
given—Wear, hear).
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said„the object of the
clause be should propose in the Committee would be
to the effect—" That it be enacted that no person
appointed to the office of Master of Chancery in Ire-
laud, should be allowed to hold a seat, or give a votei
in that House, so long as he held that office."
111 r. CANNING—But the Election is to he good?
Sir J. NEWPORT Yes, the Election is to be good.
Sir GEORGE HILL said, it was the first time
:arch a thing had ever been proposed to that House,
as to pass a Resolution which should have the effect
of concluding an Election then pending, for this was
the light in which he viewed the Honourable Baro-,
nr,t's proposition, and he bad meant to ask him, whe-
ther he had not better extend his proposal to the
effect d:at Mr. Ellis should give up the contest for
the City of Dublin in favour of Mr. Grattan ?—(Crits•
of No. !)--With all his humble might and power
he protested against this Resolution, going, as u did,,
to disqualify a Gentleman from sitting in that House,
after he had gone so far
Pinto an animated and diffi-
cult contest. He maintained, that to pass such a Re-
solation ith this Election pending, would be an out-
rage upon the Constitution, and upon every principle
01 fairness and candour.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, he did not rise
to make many observations en this subject. lk
f!lould not inquire how it might be consistent with,
the cosfstiartion, with fairness and candour, or even
with common sense, that a man should occupy two
situations, which he himself declared to be incompa-
tible with each other—(Hear, hear).—The Honour-
able Baronet (Sir George 1611) complained that no
notice was given to hisl.tarned Friend that he would
not he allowed to hold these two situations. In ad-
mitting'the truth of this assertion, he must, however,
remind the Honourable Baronet, that that I.earned
Gentleman had not omitted to give them notice that

..:,