rose, in pursuance of a notice, he had given upon a former day, relative to Mr. Hunt, a member of that House, and lately treasurer of the ordnance. But before he should proceed upon the subject of his notice, he felt it necessary to acquaint the House that he had received, within these few days, a letter, dated Lisbon, the 16th of April, subscribed with the signature of Mr. Hunt, purporting to come from him, and immediately relating to the subject of the motion he meant to bring forward. It was his wish to submit this letter to the House; but as he could not himself vouch for its authenticity, he wished to submit it first to the inspection of some gentleman who was acquainted with Mr. Hunt's hand-writing. Since he came into the House, he had shewn it to a member of the board of ordnance, who declared it to be Mr. Hunt's hand-writing.

suggested, that the more regular way of proceeding would be to move the reading of the order upon the journals for Mr. Hunt's attendance this day, and in case of his non-attendance then to lay the letter before the House, being first certified as the hand-writing of Mr. Hunt. This was accordingly done, Mr. Long having declared the hand-writing to be that of Mr. Hunt.

The letter was then delivered to, and read by the clerk as follows:

Lisbon, 6th May, 1810.

Sir; I have received at this place the Twelfth Report of the Commissioners of military enquiry, in which, equally to my concern as astonishment, from the imperfect materials before them, they have supposed a balance against me of 83,769l. 19s. 5d. a sum far beyond any amount in which I am indebted to the public, or, consistently with the course of Ordnance payments, could be indebted.—The commissioners feeling it expedient, as they express it, to make an immediate report were obliged to compile it in haste, and have, much to my prejudice, omitted many explanations I afforded them, which I conceived should have been noticed, although the allowance of them might have been subject of future consideration.—The Report, in many respects, is evidently inaccurate. The Commissioners have drawn many conclusions against me from imperfect information, and for want of time to investigate many parts of the account which they could not understand, themselves, and respecting which they required general and more correct testimony.—To shew you the character of Mr. Ruddick's Evidence, he says he gave security for 10,000l. for the faithful discharge of his services, but who never gave me any.—It is impossible for me to go into the whole report; but I have in a single moment upon the face of the account, discovered items amounting to not less than 20,000l. which I know to be erroneously charged against me; and it having been surmised by the commissioners that I might have received more on the voluntary account than I have brought forward to the public credit, which remark lays me open to the suspicion of being deficient to an undefined amount, I can, in answer to this remark, distinctly state, that not a shilling upon voluntary charge came into my hands which was not accounted for, in most instances immediately and not quarterly; and in fact, regulations which I found it highly necessary to adopt in respect to this account, made it impossible I should receive a shilling of it in an indirect or clandestine manner. I lament that I have not time to afford you some explanatory observations on some other parts of the Report; I am only enabled to state to you generally that I am not indebted to the public the amount imputed to me; and whatever may be ascribed to me in respect to the incorrect manner of transacting public business, yet it will appear by the present Report, page 55, that I did not act upon a deliberate attempt or design to defraud the public, as I left in the office the sum of 7,257l. 9s. 4d. of which I had the absolute disposal, and two days afterwards I paid 4,000l. into the Bank of England on account of my supposed balance.—It occasions me deep regret, that I should have imprudently withdrawn myself at all, from the investigation of my accounts, but which I inadvertently did from the prejudice excited against me, by the exaggerated reports circulated in respect to the amount of deficiency, from the publicity given to my examination before the commissioners of Military enquiry, on which though the investigation was only pending, a thousand erroneous statements were founded, so as materially to affect my feelings. Under the present circumstances of my situation, and the state of my health, I find myself incapable of attending the honourable House, and my anxious request is to have some indulgence in point of time. I flatter myself, that consistently with your regard for the interests and opinions of the country, you may feel at liberty to wave for a period your motion for my attendance in my place; I should hope, that neither the House or yourself would regret such an attention to me, as I am actuated by the most sincere desire of affording every satisfaction in my power to the public, but to effect which purpose it is necessary I should have a reasonable extension of time for my going through the accounts; in doing which, I am sure, I could satisfactorily remove some of the prejudices inferred against me in the report, while I should be able, certainly to establish articles of discharge in my favour, not included in the present state of the account.—There is another ground on which I trust the House would favourably receive my request; which is, that the Commissioners of military enquiry have expressed an intention of entering more fully into the consideration of what was the conduct of business in the office of Treasurer of the ordnance; and I intreat, therefore, that this further information may be waited for, and that a Resolution may not pass against me upon the imperfect report at present before the House.—I have only to return you my best acknowledgments for the great delicacy you have shewn towards me consistently with your public duty; in the manner in which you have introduced the subject of my conduct before the House, which if it shall be pleased to wave my attendance for a while, may rely that I will not abuse indulgence, or disappoint expectation.—I have the honour to be, &c.

JOSEPH HUNT."

"P. S. It is my intention to return to England as soon as possible. J. H."

John Calcraft, Esq. M. P.

London.

then moved, that the 12th report of military enquiry should be taken into consideration. (The report was entered as read.) He observed, that notwithstanding the statements in the letter, they did not rebut the violation of an act of parliament for the regulation of public offices. Six weeks had elapsed since he first called the attention of the House to this subject, in that time the intelligence would have reached Lisbon, and Mr. Hunt might have returned; it did not appear in fact that he was in a state of ill-health. During the Easter recess he had a conversation with a respectable relation of his, who applied for an extension of time; to this he replied he had no objection, provided the attendance of Mr. Hunt was insured before the session closed. It was of importance to the general welfare to make an example of defaulters. An act had been passed to restrict the Treasurer of the Ordnance to draw on the Bank unless for the public; that law had been carried into effect with the greatest propriety by Mr. Davison, the former Treasurer. A short time after Mr. Hunt came into office, he began to draw on the bank in the names of persons who were connected with the ordnance. In this irregular way he drew 100,000l. a great part of which he owes to the public. With respect to the manner in which he intended now acting, he had looked over the Journals and found that the only mode the House had of proceeding when members were guilty (not immediately of the present crime but of perjury and other flagrant misdemeanors) was by expulsion. Since Mr. Hunt had left the country, he should move for his expulsion; if he had remained, he should rather have proceeded by indictment, and then have acted accordingly. He did not believe there were two opinions on the subject. He was sorry to say, that many similar occurrences had not been taken notice of by the House. He should mention that of general de Lancey, who was indebted to the public 100,000l. and yet possessed the rank and pay of a general in the service. By such things the public feelings were insulted. It was rather remarkable, that acts were passed for the very prevention of such conduct immediately previous to its taking place. If they were not now enforced, the vigilance of public offices would be lulled asleep. In the Board of Ordnance, there must have been some supineness in not taking notice of what was going on in its neighbourhood. He concluded by moving the following resolution, "That Joseph Hunt, esq. late treasurer of the ordnance, had been guilty of a violation of the act of the 46th of his Majesty, for regulating the office of treasurer of the ordnance, and of embezzling or misapplying certain sums of public money whilst he held that office." Also, a Resolution, "That for the said offences Joseph Hunt, esq. be expelled this House."—Both which motions were agreed to, nem. con.; the word "embezzling" having been first left out of the former resolution at the suggestion of the chancellor of the exchequer.

having moved for leave to bring up this Report,

opposed it, stating it to be his wish to rescue the House out of hands to which it had most improperly and unadvisedly entrusted its privileges, hands in which he had thought them most unwisely and unhappily placed from the beginning to the end. The matter had originated in the committal of Mr. Gale Jones, and when the motion to mitigate the punishment against that individual came to be considered, he was punished for the fault of his advocate. He disapproved of the committal of the hon. bart., but after the determination of the House, he could entertain no doubt as to its power of carrying the sentence into effect. Hr defied any man to find an objection to this right of committal. The House had now, however, come, to the question as to the right of supporting it. What, he could wish to know, was the committee appointed for, but to report on the state of the proceedings? Instead, however, of shewing themselves equal to this purpose, the House had seen its privileges intrusted to a Junta more imbecile than the Junta of Spain. What should have been their conduct? They should have reported that it was proper to call before the House the solicitor who had issued the process. Did our ancestors feel any difficulty on this head? They never did. And as to the rights of the Serjeant, acting, as he must be supposed to do, under the authority of the House, he was equally protected by their privileges as even the Speaker could be supposed to be. Hon. gentlemen might ask, was not the House right in pleading? He would answer that he thought they were not justified in doing so. The lex parliaments was the prima lex, and yet the report recommended that it should be supported, first by analogies from the law, and then by the opinions of Judges. He entreated of the House not to admit any new edition of the law of parliament to go abroad, which should have the effect of degrading them, either in their own estimation or in that of the country. He was persuaded, they would accomplish this object far more effectually by dispensing with the labours of the present committee.

agreed with many of the observations of the hon. bart., and regretted that he had not opposed the proceedings earlier. He was particularly sorry, that the Attorney-General should have been instructed to support the privileges of the House. That gentleman must, at all times, be ready to be called to the House of Lords; and, if it were only for the sake of form, he regretted, that another person had not been appointed to support the privileges of the House.

said, the arguments now used, would have applied better, if used at the time the House was about to resolve on the appointment of the committee, and at that time when the learned argument of a right hon. gent. not now present (Mr. Ponsonby), went so forcibly to recommend the pleading to the action. He must also regret, that the hon. and learned gentlemen who now disapproved of the report, had not lent their assistance to the committee. The only question, however, as he conceived it, now was, if the report should be brought up; and then the question would arise, whether it would be prudent or proper, consistently with the privileges of the House, that the report should be adopted. He begged, also, to ask, was there any thing new in directing the attorney-general to prosecute in the case of a breach of privilege? If the breach of privilege was not meditated and committed by the crown, why not instruct the attorney-general? This was one main distinction. When the privilege was to be asserted against the crown, the attorney general was not to be employed; when against any other person, then the attorney general was to be employed. The court before whom the case was brought must know, from the plea, who the party was, namely, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and if the plea was to be denied, the allegation must be tried as any other allegation would be—but when once tried, the decision must be, that, being a question in which the House of Commons was concerned, it could not be judged of in any other jurisdiction whatever.

explained, that the attorney-general was directed to prosecute or defend, not as in a breach of privilege, but on occasion of a breach of the king's peace.

begged it to be understood, that after the learned and right hon. member for Tavistock had, on a former night, with such power delivered his opinion on the privileges of the House, he had endeavoured to instil into the House that they should come to some resolutions declaratory of the act of serving the notices being a breach of their privileges; and that they would accordingly call the attorney who had served the process, before them, and proceed according to their established usage in such case. If this had been done, the fact would have appeared on the journals of the House. If it had been done, it would have been an important point, As matters now, however, stood, it was admitted, as his hon. friend had said, that nothing appeared on the journals. At one step or other of the proceedings, however, this must not be the case. He did not say it could be done now, at bringing up the report; but, he did contend that, at some farther stage of the business, such an entry must be made that the House might not fall into another and a more fatal error. But though it was his opinion that the matter should never have gone to a committee, he now thought that the report of that committee should be brought up, and that it should lie on the table, with the view to its accurate perusal. When it was on the table, it would become the business of the House to scan every syllable of it, and not to let a word pass which was not agreeable to the privileges of the House. It was the duty of the House to watch their privileges. These were peculiar times, in which it was necessary to guard them, and to let it be known that they were all marked. It was the duty of the House to see they did not receive a report which did not sufficiently recognize those privileges.

wished to yield to the arguments of his hon. and learned friend, on the propriety of receiving the report. He wished, however, to know, if the report were thus to be received, whether it must not, in the shape in which it now stood, appear on the Journals of the House?

finding that his opinion on this question was expected, agreed that this would surely be the effect of bringing up the report, and ordering it to lie on the table.

The Report was then brought up.

, as chairman of the committee, felt it necessary to say a few words, and he must confess, that he thought the House was placed in a very unfortunate situation; it had great privileges, but, owing to some defect in the constitution, it did not seem to possess the power of enforcing them; unfortunately, no clear recognition of such power had taken place. No particular proceeding was recommended to the House in the report of the Committee, because it appeared to them that the practical and proper mode had already been adopted. There was a further measure to be taken he allowed, but he doubted much the expediency of having recourse to it. He reprobated the opinions and purposes of the contemptible faction out of doors, but was fearful that if the House proceeded to commit one solicitor after another, it might at last force itself into a contention with the judges themselves; besides, it was considered the peculiar boast of this country, that every individual could be defended against any charge made against him. He was of opinion that the judgment, whatever it might be, would now go out with greater weight to the public, after the course that had been adopted. If the House waved the exercise of the privilege in the present instance, it could not be construed into a relinquishment of the privilege he contended for, but he denied the expediency of calling it into action upon the present occasion. In the same manner he felt that the House might have proceeded to commit or to expel sir F. Burdett, in the first instance, though he had voted against his commitment on the ground of expediency. He hoped that the deficiency of which he complained, in the constitution, would soon be corrected. There was a case, not provided against in the Roman law, because it was presumed that no one would be atrocious enough to perpetrate it; and, perhaps, the present deficiency was to be accounted for upon the same principle. This, however, he wished to qualify, not meaning to confound the degree of crime in both cases. He hoped the House would, in common courtesy, allow the report to be laid on the table, and printed; after which, it might dispose of it as it thought proper.

was of opinion that the debate should be adjourned to Monday next, in order that the House should have time to consider the report maturely. There was one principle however which he was desirous of entering his protest against: he could not agree with his hon. friend that the House was not provided with the fullest power to enforce its privileges. The power of commitment was theirs, and was as ancient as their privileges; it was fully established and recognized, and should be exercised upon such occasions. He concluded with moving, that the debate be adjourned to Monday.

apologized for his not attending the committee of privileges, as he objected to it entirely; and it was not the practice of members to attend committees, to the principle of which they objected.

saw no sound obstacle to the reception of the report, which, granting it were laid on the table, would not preclude the House from further discussion if that should be necessary. Their committee had most ably discharged their duty, and their report was entitled to consideration. Legislative authority might, he was sure, settle all the matters in dispute; while, if the House possessed such omnipotent privileges as were contended for, it was highly proper that their privileges should now be ascertained and declared.

expressed his concern at hearing that any legislative measure was likely to pass on the subject. He contended strongly for the uncontroulable nature of their privileges: which such an act could only have the effect of weakening. He hoped that those gentlemen who had such a measure in contemplation, would consider all the consequences it was likely to produce, before they resolved upon its introduction.

thought that both gentlemen had mistaken his hon. friend, whom he understood only to have stated that some declaratory measure would be adopted, not to create but to proclaim the powers and privileges now called in question. He did not approve of the adjournment; the report might lie on the table without any supposition of a pledge on their parts to support or approve of it.

said, that all he intended to have stated, with respect to a legislative act, was, that some mode should be devised, in order to stop proceedings of the courts of law upon questions of privilege, in limine.

thought that such a measure would be very dangerous. The fact was, that the House formerly did possess the privilege of inhibition. They could and used frequently to stop a suit at law by a letter from the Speaker to the judges of the court in which the action was entered. This was, however, afterwards curtailed by positive statutes, made in the 12th and 13th of William 3, as also by some statutes in the reigns of queen Anne and George 1. Upon this question of privilege there seemed to be a great deal of intolerance on both sides. All those who were contending for high privileges, talked of nothing less than committing attornies, counsellors, and even going as far as was formerly done, of committing judges themselves for entertaining a suit in which the privileges of the House were concerned. On the other hand, these who were irritated by the late exercise of privilege, set down every one as a most tyrannical person who ventured to say a word in support of them. Now upon a question which was to be determined on arguments drawn from so many precedents, it was not surprising that every man should not hare his mind completely made up. For his part, he looked for information with equal pleasure to his learned friend (sir S. Romilly) as to his other learned friend (Mr. Adam). He had read the very clear and lucid Argument published by another hon. friend (Mr. Wynn), which, as he believed, contained all the learning of the case. In that Argument it was stated, that in the year 1660, a person of the name of Thompson had been ordered to attend the House, and positively refused to do it and shut his doors. The House consequently ordered that his doors should be broken down. It was a little unfortunate, however, for this precedent, that, like all the others of the same nature, we were left short, and were not told whether the doors were broken down. It appeared that in different instances of a similar nature, the House was prorogued or dissolved before the question was fairly brought to issue, and those prorogations seemed to have been contrived for the purpose of extricating the House from a difficulty. He thought the committee appeared to labour too much to answer the arguments of anonymous publications.

thought the House had acted rightly in referring to the Committee the points they did, and that the Committee had very properly entered fully into the consideration of these points in the Report they had given, which he believed would be equally satisfactory to the House and the country at large.

said, that it was most evident there were cases when the House must resort to a court of law. For example, if one of their officers had been murdered when in the execution of his duty, it was most clear that they had no privileges by which the crime of murder could be adequately punished; and therefore, in that case they must appeal to a court of law. He did not conceive that it was derogatory to their dignity to plead to an action in a court of law, as it was only shewing to the court the authority under which the committal was made.

thought that the House ought to have committed the persons concerned in the process; and that they might have an opportunity of considering the report maturely, supported the adjournment.

The question for laying the report upon the table was then carried without a division.

then rose to move the recommittal of the report, with a view afterwards to move resolutions declaratory of the existence of the privilege to the utmost extent to which it had been claimed. The more he considered the objections which he had on a former occasion stated to the report, the stronger they appeared to his mind. He objected to the reference to the authority of courts of law, and to the admission of the existence of the privilege on the part of the House of Peers. He objected to the argument founded upon the analogous proceedings of courts of law. The authority of the common law courts to proceed by summary attachment, was founded on immemorial usage; that of parliament could not rest on any such foundation. He thought these matters extraneous, and calculated only to throw a doubt upon the existence of the privilege, which doubt might have the most pernicious effect at a future period, if the time should ever arrive when the crown might find it convenient to join a popular clamour against the House of Commons. All this irrelevant matter he thought ought to be struck out. He concluded by moving, That the report be recommitted.

, after stating, that from his parliamentary experience, he was convinced that there was on both sides of the House a sincere disposition to promote the public good, argued against the motion of the last speaker on these grounds, that the references to which the hon. gent. had alluded, were not stated as the foundation of the privilege, but to shew the people of this country that the wisest and best authorities admitted that the House had the privilege which was questioned; that in this free constitution it was not alone sufficient to convince persons of great learning and deep research; but that it was important also to satisfy many respectable people who might be led to countenance, in effect, a most mischievous attack on the privileges of the House. The object of the Committee therefore, had been, to compile the report in plain and popular language, and to shew that the proceedings of the House was conformable to those in the common law courts, which constituted the glory of the country. He did not think this would have any tendency to bring the privilege into doubt.

said, that though he carried his ideas of the necessity of the privileges as far as his hon. friends, and would always oppose any declaratory proceeding as tending not to remove, but to raise doubts, yet, he asked his hon. friends whether they did not believe that there were a great number of most repectable people, who at present doubted the existence of the necessity of the privilege; persons who were entitled to consideration, and whom it was the truest wisdom to conciliate. He thought that the House ought to go all reasonable lengths to satisfy the people, that they would never unnecessarily and wantonly exercise privileges that might be misconstrued. The House could never suffer in the estimation of the country, but through its own acts; and they could only bring themselves into contempt by waging a war, in which even success would be ruin; for what would their boasted privileges avail if they forfeited the confidence of the people. He earnestly intreated the House, therefore, to consider the duty which they owed to their constituents; the duty of moderation, and to make allowance for the ferment which existed in the public mind.

said, that the amendment was not intended to reject the report, but that it should be recommitted, as the report was not correct. He thought it below them to enter into controversy with the speakers of the common council, or those of the Crown and Anchor. He would support the amendment.

After some farther conversation the Report was ordered to be laid on the table, and to be printed.