Star.
London, England, 1820-02-24 00:00:00

/,__2J, /11/'
/fa/z44fl.

so, STRAND, London;
And told in every Town in the Kingdom, Liquid, in Ihotths,
at 6d. log.' 12d. and 1641.• cash. .1 ••

Also Putt /Matting, in Pots 6d. ltd. and tad. rub.
♦ Skillias Pet of Paste is equal to Foot Shilling Bottles of Appid
w:r Ask fot WARREN'. Viatkatg.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 25.
The Earls of Cnikativu.x.e, ROSELYN, and JERSEY, ERA the
oaths and their seats.
Sir HENRY PARNELL, from the House of Commons, brought
down the Irish Election Regulation Bill.
Mr. HUTCHINSON, from the Bank of England, appeared at
the Bar, with an Account of the Bank Advances up to the sth
of January, 1120.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. JOHNSON, front the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ire-
land, presented a Return of the Commitment of Prisoners in
that part of the United Kingdom. Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. JOHNSON presented an Account of the Receipts and Dis-
bursements of the East India Dock Company, from the 30th
November, 1818, to the 30th Novemb....r, 1319 ; and also a
Report rtjative to the progress of the works.—Ordered to lie
on the table.

Mr. Bitoonex, from the House of Commons, brought down
the Annual Indemnity Bill, which was read a first time.
General Gascovitz brought down a Bill relative to the build-
ing of a new Church at Liverpool.—Read a first time.
On the motion of the Earl of CAEN AjiVON, the Order of
the Day fur the second reading of the Borough Suspension
Writs' Bill, was postponed till Friday:
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a Petition from
the Ilectors of Barnstaple, praying to be heard by Counsel at
their Lordships' Bar, against the Borough Suspension Writs'
BilL—Ordered to lie on the table.
SUPPLY.
The .Earl of LAUDERDALE having read the
Rtsolutions of Supply passed by the House of Com-
mons, said, he intended to submit to their Lordships
to-morrow (this day) a specific proposition on the
subject. His reason for doing so, *as not from any
wish to embarrass the Government in any arrange-
ments which the public service might require, but
his obje:t a as,-to call forth some distinct explana-
tion of a course of proceeding, which he could not
help regarding as unconstitutional, insomuch as it
went to deprive their Lordships of their just con-
troul over the.public expenditure. It was not corn-
'petent to the other House to vote the public money
contrary to established precedent, which was by an
Appropriation Bill, and not by way of Resolution;
and therefore it was, that he intended to bring the
subject more formally under their Lordships' consi-
deration. It was manifeAly unconstitutional for the
other House to resort to such means, thereby main-
taining that those regulations with iegard to annui-
ties should continue, which ought to cease on the de-
mise of the Crown.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that the ar-
raigements which had been made, were in perfect
conformity with his Majesty's Message, and the an-
swer which had been returned to it. In this respect,
therefore, the present case stood upon the same foot-
ing as any other, before the Appropriation Act. A
temporary advance was required for a temporary
purpose, and he saw no just grounds for the propo-
sition contemplated by the Noble Earl.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWN contended, that the'
Noble Earl who had just sat down, offered no one
argument to prove, that it was not an unprecedented
course for the Crown, calling as it did upon Parlia-
ment, to accede to its own, dissolution, to require
their
.Lordships to concur in a vote Of the other
House, without any grounds whatever being ad-
vanced for such a demand. The distinction made
by the Noble Earl, had no weight with him, as it
did not tend to remove the Constitutional objection
which he'entertained too the Course pursued, in com.i
mon with his Noble Friend.