Star.
London, England, 1820-07-21 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINC;S.

lIDCSE OF LORDS, JULY 20.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved, " Thkt a•Committee be
appointed to search for precedents relating to the Royal Divorce
Bill, and to consider of the most effectual means of enforcing
the attendance of Membets of that House;" which was ordered
accordingly.
On the :notion of the Noble Minister, several Peers specially
named, were ordered to compose the said ComMittee. Among
whom were—
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Earl of Liverpool
The Earl of Shaftesbury Viscount Alelville
The Lord Chmcellor Lord Calthorpl
T.ord Redesdale Lord Holland.
Among the Bills upon the table which were severally-for-
warded, the Alien Bill, the Bank Notes Bill, the Irish Fisheries,,
the Turnpike Returns, and the Irish Lunatic Asylum Bills,
were read the third time and passed.
Mr. Joitesom, from the office of the Chief Secretary for Ire-
land, presented certain papers to the House.

IRISH COURT OF CHANCERY BILL•
The House having resolved itself into a Commit-
tee on this Bill, _

_ .
Lord ItEDESDALE proposed several Amend-
ments, one of which had for its object to correct a.
practice which had long prevailed in Ireland, and
which he had frequent opportunities of witnessing at
the tinge when he had the honour of presiding over
the Court of Chancery there. It was that of persons
issuing process, and not giving due notice to the par-
ties against whom it issued, until sequestiation took
place. The Noble Lord then came to that clause
which went to prohibit any Master in Chancery from
sitting as a Member in the Commons House of Par-
liament ; and after making some objections to the in-
justice of such a provision, particularly inasmuch
as it would affect an individual who was lately re•
turned for the City of Dublin, he moved as an amend-
ment, that the clause be omitted from the Bill. •
The Earl of LIMERICK maintained that the
clause was essential to the due administration of
justice in Ireland, as was evident from the declaration
of the very Gentleman for whose sake it was now
proposed to reject this clause. That Gentleman, a
Master in Chancery in Ireland, had stated before The.
Committee of Inquiry, that a great variety of busi-
ness was attached to his office ; that the duties pf
that office were of the most important nature With
regard to the administration of justice; that heiwas
often associated with Judges in the Court of Dele-
- gates in Ireland ; and that his duties were so heavy
-63 to occupy him ten months out of every twelve.—
• He wished to know then, what hardship could this
_Gentleman suffer by being excluded fiom Parlia-
anent, the duties of which he must be unable to pei-
-form, without neglecting those attached to his situ-.
ation in Ireland? If that Gentleman was ambitious
of having a seat in Parliament, he had nothing to
do but to abandon his laborious duties. He (Lord
Limerick) was decidedly an enemy to any man
uniting in himself the double character of a high
law officer and a legislator. The close attention re-
quired in the one situation was incompatible with
the ambition inseparable from the other. The judi-
cial and the political character should never be united
in the same person, One of the greatest evils for-
merly attending the administration of justice in Ire-
land was, that the Judges obtained their seats
,in
consequence of bein. Members of the House of
Commons, and of their subserviency to the Minis-
ters of the Government. But tlnit practice was now
happily done away, and none but lawyers were made
Judges. He was therefore an enemy to anything
like an union of judicial and political power. Some
persons might say, that it would be a great hard-
ship on the Gentleman lately returned for Dublin,
to be prevented from taking his seat : but it was of.
more importance that the interests of five millions
of people should not be sacrificed by a neglect of
those important legal duties in which they must be
all interested, than that a single individual should
hold a seat in Parliament. He therefore hoped the
House would not reject the clause.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN said, he differed al-
together from the sentiments of the Nbble Lord who
spoke last. The clause in the Bill went to exclude a
Gentleman from his seat in Parliament, and it would
be a most cruel thing to try him by an ex post facto
law. This Gentleman (Mr. Ellis) was returned by a
very great majority of the electors of Dublin, and
particularly by the loyal part of the electors; and it
would be great injustice to those electors, as well as •
to the object of their choice, to render that choice
null and void. The Noble Lord spoke of the great
interest which he felt in the welfare of the five millions
of people in Ireland, but he could assure the Noble
Lord, those people would think he was pouch more
friendly to them, and would be very happy, if he
would give them a little more of his company.
Lord HOLLAND seldom recollected a provision
in any Bill on the table of that House, for which so
many just reasons might be given as the present.—
Indeed, the provision did no more than enforce the
law of Parliament, which said, that Masters of the
Court of Chancery should not sit in Parliament. In
England they were the servants of that House, and
of course they could not sit in any House.—EHere
some Noble Lord exclaimed, a Some of them sit in
tie House of Commons.l—That, resumed Lord'
Holland, was done by connivance, in the same man-
4ter as the Attorney and Solicitor-General sat there;
although by law they should be excluded. There
was another circumstance which ought to induce
their Lordships to retain this clause ; that was, a de-
ference which was due to the opinion of the House
of Commons on a point immediately connected with
-the constitution of their awn body ; because this
enactment in the Bill was conceived by the Members
of that House ns necessary for the preservation of
their independence. It was asked, why should a
Member be &Frivol of his right to sit in the House

'of Commons ? The answer was, *lute his sitting
there would be injurious to the infapendence of the
'House. Resides, his seat'in the House would intent
fere with the clikties of a very important office which
this- individual filled in Ireland. Here the Noble
Lord read over the statements made by the Geatie-
mauin questiim, relative to his numerous and useful'
duties. From these it appeared that he was a most
useful officer r hut it was impossible be could attend
to those duties if beanie to attend his Parliamentary
duties in London. He confessed he did not like to
see such a return _as this 'Made by a great City ; it
wasfar from being a good symptom of political feel-
ing in Ireland, whatever the Noble Lord might think
of the loyalty of those who made the return. With
regard to the objection, that this was an ex postfado
law, he would ask, whether there were not many
Statutes, which had exactly the same operation ?
Tbe Statute, for instance, which prevented Excise-
men from voting at Elections, was an exTost facto
law; and so was the law which excluded Roman
.Catholics. But the present was not so much an ex-
post facto laW as those to which he had just alluded;
for it declared, that after the first of August, no
Master of the Ii ash Court of Chancery should sit in
the House of Commons. By allowing such a person
to sit there, the purity and independence of Parlia-
ment were affected, as well as the administration of
justice. He concluded with giving his hearty sup-
port to the clause.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL would not now inquire
what was or what was not an ex postfacto law. With
that he had nothing to do, his business being to con-,
sider whether the measure at present before their
Lordships was just towards a particular individual or'
not. He believed it was not a just, bat, on the con-
trary, a most unjust measure. And was there, he
woulif•ask, any urgent necessity for such a proceed-
ing ? No, it could not be asserted that there was:
yet, without any motion of that nature to sanction
it, their Lordships were called upon to do an act of
direct and manifest injustice. But then it was said
by the Noble Lord who had spoken last, that it was
contrary to law that Masters in Chancery should
have seats in Parliament. If such was aknowledged
to be the fact, why had not the opponents of the
Gentleman in question petitioned against his return,
and urged that as an argumeril before the Flquse of
Commons ? The Parliament would: then have de-
cided upon .tl,a question at once. But though he
was not prepared to deny that the law was against
the practice, still he should contend that custom had
recognized it for the last two hundred years, and it
was not, therefore, worthy of the Noble Lord's usual
mode of reasoning, to swell out his arguments by
such feeble aids. He understood that a Noble Friend
of his (Lord Redesdale) approved of the principle of
the Bill. Possibly he saw just grounds for such ap-
probation, and he (Lord Liverpool) did not mean to
question its general expediency. But he would ask
,their Lordships if they did not think it extremely un-
just,- to apply a retrospective law to a measure that
had taken place, perhaps, before any law.on the sub-
ject was contemplated? If it could be justified by any
plea of State necessity, or that a_case could be made
out of so urgent a"nature as not to admit of delay,
he might indeed be disposed to acquiesce in it. But
here was no such plea; here was no such case; nO
argument was adduced to'shew that the proposition
could be supported upon its map merits. He insisted
that their Lordships ought not to legislate retroipec-
tively, unless from. considerations of peculiar ur-
gency. It was a well known fact, that Matters in
Chahcery, of different political sentiments, had served
in Parliament, with credit to themselves and advan-
tage to the Public..; When the Act of the first of his
late Majesti made :the Judges independent of the
Prince of Wales, certainly a most wise and salutary
measure, would the Judges who had been supported
before that Act
.passed, have been justified in be-
having in such a manner, as to excite the displea-
sure of the Prince of Wales, merely besause it had
passed ? Assuredly they would not, for that would
have been to presume upon the retrospective effectOf
the law. But it was to be observed, in the case now
before their Lordships, that the individual had law-
fully purchased the office, and it was very hard that
he should now, by an ex post fbcti law, be deprived
of a place for which he might fairly expect an ho-
nourable remuneration under any other circum-
stances. He said this, because since the time he had
purchased the office, a law had passed prohibiting
such purchases to be made in future, and conse-
quently he was not now at liberty to dispose of it.—
He considered this.to be not only an unjust but a
cruel measure. He was not influenced by any prin-
ciple of political hostility to the-memory of the fa-
ther of the Gentleman who stood opposed to this in-
dividual. On the contrary, though happening to
differ from the late Mr. Grattan upon political sub-
jects, he had invariably held his character in * the
highest respect, and he was glad to have this oppor-
tunity of stating, that from some private transactions
which had passed between him and that-Gentleman,
he was the better enabled to bear testimony, io his
worth. In fact, he had never known a more ho-
nourable man—(Cheers).—He knew nothing of the
person against whom this clause was to operate, for
he had never once seen.him, but he should neverthe-
less oppose any measure calculated to do a manifest
injustice, whoever might be the object of it.
The Earl of LIMERICK contended, that the ar-
guments of the Noble Earl could not justify the in-
dividual in acting in two characters that were incom-
pauble with each other. If that individual had pur-
chased ar office, he must have known that the duties
of it were to be performed.
The. Earl of ENNISKILLEN said, he had pur-
chased it under circumstances less favourable to his
interest than he could have reason to expect.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE maintained, that
even upon the statement of the individual in question,
his present duties were of such a nature, as to render
it impossible that he could be a useful Member of
Parliament. The case was quite otherwise with
English Masters in Chancery, who could perform
both duties at the same time.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he did not argue
as to the difference of facility with which English and
Irish Masters in Chancery could serve as Members
of Parliament. All that he intended by what he
had said respecting English Masters in Chancery,
was that their judicial integrity was not shaken by
their having seats in Parliament.
The LOlttl CIitANCELLOIR. said, that the de-
scend-Ants of persons who had filled high judicial si-

LONDON.

• 7

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1820:
THE FUNDS

PRIME OR STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONI O'CLOCK :
S per Cent. Reduced 691,4 Vs lh
3 per. Cent. Cons. 69 68% 69
3 per Cent. 77 7A. %
4 per Cent. 877/8 5/8
5 per Cent. 1039/8 Y 4 % 5,4
Long Annuities 18 1-16 1/8
India Stock 21714 %--Bonds 20s. 21s. pre.
Exchequer Bills, Es. 6s. prem.
Omnium sh prem.
Cons. for Acct. 691 A Vs-

*u fatal to devitism! So it hut:Oen-at Naples,
imposition- of the Fritiaria had caused great
discontent among the people: they had promise 4
themselves; like the people Of all the European States,
ly ameliorations on the overthrow of the French

illation; and it is true that some reforms had
been introduced: these came; -however, with the
snail-pace oflgnorance--not a ith the manly steps of
matured intellect and knowledge.
It is true that mankind seek with some anx;ety
'What may benefit their posterity ; but it is equally
true that they are so much more solicitous to obtain
enjoyments for themselves, that they never will take
a promissory note, payable fifty years after date,
excepting only when they know that circumstances
preclude them from being paid on demand. The
People, as we have said, were discontented, and the
discontent reached the Army : nor cuuld anything
else be wanted to decide the issue.

In fact, Europe is not what it was in the dark
ages: -and what is more, it is morally impossible that
it should ever be brought again into that state. TLe
fact can hardly be doubted, that there is now mope
real information. to be found in the ranks of the
common soldiers in old Europe, than could formerly
have been found in a congregated assembly of No-
tables: the mechanical bands by which armies had
become mere machines, were broken by the great
events of the last quarter of a century ; and it would
be as hopeful an undertaking, when a worm-eaten
machine has fallen to pieces by want of cohesion, to
attempt to restore it by glue and putty, as to hope,
after knowledge has held up her torch to mankind,
to renovate energies which owed their whole efficiency
to ignorance.

Even in common times—curs are not yet so,
though they seem to be now acquiring a character
fatal to the hopes of the friends of despotism :—even
in common times, a change from a state of war to a
state of peace is always more or less critical, becati.e
things never do nor ever can return to the same state
precisely in which they were before the war: new
elements regarding social relations are developed
and put in action, • and all actions must yield teselts
more or less important. While on this topic we can-
not refrain from making an extract from a new work,
by M. DVPIN, which has just reached us, entitled
" Voyager dans la Grande-B►etagne," after which, we
shall lay before our Readers the accounts that have
been received from Naples :
" The passage from a state of war to a state of peace is Altars
a critical moment for the prosperity and liberty of natiors—
During war, a thousand plausible pretexts, suited to circuc•-
stances, are made use of, in order to suspend these civil laws
which are the safeguards of the rights of the people. Gover-
ment, with an affectation of regret, seizes on powers which it
declares to be only temporary, but which it secretly hopes -.6
preserve for ever. Prodigal in assurances respecting the future—
always presenting general happiness and freedom as things to be
attained ere long—it habituates the people to the present depri-
vation of all the advantages and sweets of liberty.
"At length, however, the decisive day of Peace arevrs. It
is then that the destiny-of nations either returns to prosperity
or continues in oppression and misery, according as the public
will is or is qot proclaimed by a legislative, an arbitrary, of a
national power. Experience has afforded a new demonstration of
these truths since the Peace of INS, disastrous for all Nations,
because it was an extortion by all from the misfortunes of one.
" When in 1813, when in 1815, the Allies entered upon our
territories, and declared that they came to make a grand and a
last effort, In the hope Of restorirg peace to the world, and •f
being able to disarm the greater pirt of their enormous forces,
most of the hostile governments prepared forthwith to chew us
the measure of their signal want of good faith ; since all of
them, except Sweden and England, have preserved, since peace,
the most formidable armaments.

. - .

“ Russia keeps on foot eight hundred thousand men; it is
going to encamp them on her western frontier; which may be-
come the nursery of future invasions. Since the mysterious
Treaty of the Holy Alliance, the conscription en masse has been
organized in the kingdom of Poland,by the creator of that sym-
bol of eternal peace. Prussia maintains 200,000 regular troops;
Austria still more; and the greater part of the small Potentates
of the Germanic Confederation, trembling at once before their
Holy Allies and before their subjects, think to consolidate their
Thrones by the ramparts of bayonets and by the Decrees of Tri-
bunals. Political persecution and religious inquisition an to be
ennobled by the majesty of military executions. Such are the
fruits of peace in countries desolated by the sceptre of despotism•'
The subjoined letters will put our Readers in pos-
session of all that is yet known respecting the Third
Revolution ix Modern Europe. More will follow--
must follow !—and happy will those nations be in
which the change shall be effected, as in Spain and
Naples, without bloodshed: