Star.
London, England, 1828-06-18 00:00:00

CERTIFICATES.

JOLT S.—Michael HOMO', Cuttingley, Yorkshire, fellows:ger.
George Stevens, Islington, victualler. Harry Swaine Mason,
High-street, Southwark. Surrey. stationer. John Taylor, Greave
in Netherthong, Aldmnnbury, Yorkshire, clothier. Robert Jones,
Ezekiel Jones, and George Hukm', Manchester, ironfounders.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. _ .

Samuel Tyssen Royes and William heed rfaiwards, London and
Westminster„coal and coke merchants. Benedict Palmer. Baker
Ind John Dennis', Upper Eaton-street, l'inilico, linendrapers.
Robert Smith, William Cleeve, and Jonathan Southam, Blenheim,
Oafordshire,farineis and graziers. Benjamin Sangar and James
B. Sangar, Bristol, cabinet makers. Joshua Perkin and Sarah
Brooke, Wakefield, York.hire, untie masons and builders. John
Foster and Edward Alleyn, Brampton, Kent, pawnbrokers. ltd.
Dalton, and George Dalton, Whitehaven. Cumberland, currier'.
Thomak Wroe, Richard Clegg, John Hadley, and James Clegg,
Wernoth, within, Oldham, and at Mancheater, coal merchants.
James Maryland and Michael Naylor, Manchester, cotton dealers.
Mich. Hughes, Joseph Churtqai, Richard Swift, Wiz. Percival,
Samuel Taylor, Edward Ortstnall,and Edwardlames Pemberton.
Bantle, Lancashire, glamlbottle-makers. Martha Horse and
W. U. Howse,. Blandford. Forum. Dorsetaltire, grocers.. Thomas,
Ayr* sod Thomas Harrison, Whickbun, Dilrhatn, iruafounders.

_

HOUSE, OF LORDS. Just 11.
Their Lordships were engaged durieg the Whole the mnrnirg
in hearing the Scotch Bible Society's appeal against Sir David
Hunter 111.tir and the Officers of State
Lord ti WYDBR presented a Petition from the Owners and
Occupiers of Land4u the vicinity of Cargill, against the proplasei
scale of Duty on the importation of Foreign Corn • and sever:A
other Petitions to the same effect from Parishes in the C,oun:y tf
Lincoln. • _ _ _ _ _

Earl GROSVENOR presented a Petition from the Silk Throw.
%ter. and others of Manchester, against any alteration of the Duties
upon tin importation of Foreign Silk.
DILIGISACiIt 115011 Via COXWMII. .
Sir Ataxatinga GRANT. and other Members, brought up the
Destruction to Property (Ireland) Bill. and the Aire and Carr
Navigation Bill; agreed to with its amendments.
Mr. MAIII4IIO, and other Members, brought up the London!
Dock Bill.
Mr. Moose, and other 'Members, brought up a Private Bill.
Karl OROSVHNOR had given notice of his intention to pro.
pose certain questions to a Noble Duke, on the subject of Slavery.
I k had understood that it would be more convenient to the Noble
Doke to postpitie his ititenthni until Monday nest.. tie should
therefore poigpone the qirestions until that day : but he Wished it
to be distinctly understood that he would bring them forward on
A d .. . ,
The Dukeof WELLINGTON said that Monday Would. it!!
saltily be a more convenient day to him. • ' •• • ' -
• Earl °ROSY ENUIL begged in offer one or two observatiots
to their Lordships on the 'object of a 13111 which had brew passe el
by them, and was now returned by•the Commons who agreed :o •
it without any amendments. It related to the office of ilegietrir
of the Prerogative Colleted Can erbury, and gave the Arrhbisholi
a power of appointing an additioual reversioner to that orice. lie
had always been opposed to the granting of offices in reversion, and
should have i e fisted this Bill if it bad not escaped his attrsitiub.—
He regretted that such.a Rill should have passed without having
engaged a greater share of their Lerdships notice ; but hr trusted
this Act would not be suffered to stand in the wiy of any refuta-
tion of the office which might hereafter be proposed.
• The Duke of WELLINGTON understood the Bill to be a
private Bid, granting to .certain - parties •the power, merely for
their,convenionce, of doing in a particular way that wt.kb, -with-
Out any Act of Parliament at all, they bad It right- to do in another.
The Earl of ELDON said, that the Bill was merely intended
to enable the present Archbishop of Cameo bury to do what all
former Archbishops of 'Canterbury had dune, nimiey, to appoint .
three persons to occupy the dfice in succession.
Earl GROSVENOR said, the office was a sinecure, gradually
Increasing in value, and it was one which had been pointed out fur
regulation or suppression. This being the ease kit thought the
Archbishop ought not to have bad any Parkansentaay aid to pro*
long its existence.
The conves Lidera then dropped.
The Bills upon the table were forivaided to their respective '
stages.
. The Earl of CARNARVON moved that the standing orders.
Nos. 126 and 1.51, 1w dilteriaeo with hi the ease of the Earl of
Shrewsbury's 1 4tJtC Lad. •
, The Earl ut gamut oppOsed, and the Rafl of Ilesstro supported
1 the motion. After whiala the House divided—
Contelit . . . . . 24
Non-Contents . . .
Majority against the motion
SCOTCH PEEltAtall.

0-

42?
• •

Lord BELHAVEN, in moving that this Bill be corn..'
Initted, releited to au argument of a N.ibleandLearned
Lord, which rent-s 1 upon the ground that coy ought •
not to pass a Bill of this nature without the cement of. .
every individual S-ft-h Peer, and said that be could
not 'tilde, stsit bstry a body represented in Parliament
should not be bound by all the cortsecilences of,repre•
notation. He tepid, however;say, that M bringing.
forward this measure, he had tto t spreu authority of
a great majority of ttr Scotcn Peerage. It appeared
to be desirable that the Scotch and I. ish Peers should
be placed upon the same footing, and this was what the
present Bill would effect. With respect to the eldest
sons of Peers, there was tin law in,S.collosid which dirt:-
qualified them tot seats in the flocs of CourmOns plea'
coos to t e Union.
The Earl of MANSFIELD considered it a. hirdshiP
upon the great body of the Scotch Peerage. that their.'
Kepres, ntatives should be chosen for life. Thissysitein
withs!rew, the Representative horn the con-traint of tail,
constituents, and in case of protracted ,e ideate abroad,-
or iucaparisy, left t•te constituent body s;vithout fee
dress. Some persons tb n;ht th t the qualific•itiiiss''
for a seat in the House ol Commons was a degindation.
to a Peer. Upon this he should put
the I:ish Peerage were found to suntnitio it. . lit wit'
not because he thought the present system the Most.
p ifect that. he Would resist the motion ; it, was siaiply.
because it was contrary to the Act of Union—tHeaf)..
It had been said that this Act was violated.in the fis'se.
twelve or fourteen months :Air its enactment.' But,
although he could not go so far ue to say the Act :of,
Union was unalterable, he must deem it to. beu Alum •
compact betwieo the two nations, which ought not to
be infringed upon light grounds, It was a tad prece-
dent, and mig!,t lead to. ii e overthrow of all the other
provisions of the Union—the provisions, for instance,
which preiented Papists from being Members of Ras.
liament, sad from voting at e•eztioh. The second Fast.
of the Bill related to the eldest sons of Peers, who yzere
now disqualified for the leptesentation of any Smith
county. This was only transferring to the United Par-
liament a pi inciple, which, at the period of the Unions
was held' to be a constitution..) principle in Siotlarid.
He had no particular objection to this part of the :ilea-
sure. As the Noble Lord did not intend to divide the
House, it would be useless for him to state mote at
large his grounds of opposition. If it could,be shown
that any part of the proposed measure was consistent
with the Act of Union, his objections would so far be
removed. The. Noble asrd moved that the Rill be cum-
naißed this day three months.
The Earl of ROSEBEItRY supported the Bill, which
he did not think subveseive of airy principle contained
irr the Act of Union. It' had theapprobat ion of a great
majority* the personsinterested. The principle upon
which they ought to *Aided, in respect to a solemn
compact of this nattireestia, not to depart from its let-
ter, unless in the case of eome great and paramount
national necessity, or in tim case of the parties to be
affected by the proposed alteration concurring generally
M it. But the mode of electing the Scotch Peers, the
law of heritable jurisdictions, and the law Of forfeiture,
had all been changed since thelaUnion by the authority
of the British Parliament, although is all those cases
the Act of Union provided foiclebe permanency of the
regulations which it established, or which existed pre-
viously. .The only reason which had induced him sit
an early period of life to refuse his concurrence to a
proposition likeahe present was, that it was thought a
degradation to the Scotch Peerage to be admit,ed to
the other House of Parliament. Now, in more mature
years the same feeling no longer prevailed in his mind.
He was no longer disposed to sacrifice for himself or
forahe order to which he belonged, substantial power
sod custsicteration to the vain notions of personal dignity.
The disqualification of the eldest sons of Peers seemed
lo him a iffy great mid peculiar grievance. the pro.
posed alteration would improve the constitution of their