presented a Petition from the citizens and inhabitants of the ancient city of Rochester, legally assembled under the Guildhall of the said city, setting forth, "That the petitioners beg leave to state, that they deeply lament the agitation which prevails in the public mind in consequence of the late proceedings in parliament relative to Mr. John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, and that they do not presume to interfere with the exercise of the lawful privileges of the House, but at the same time cannot refrain from expressing their humble opinions, that in the imprisonment of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, those privileges have been considerably overstrained; and therefore request that the House will be pleased to revise their late proceedings, and restore those persons to their liberty; of which, in the opinions of the petitioners, they now are unconstitutionally deprived; and that the petitioners cannot but deplore the vote given by the House upon the late inquiry into the Walcheren Expedition, as contrary to the wishes, opinion, and expectation of the country, and as tending to induce a belief that the power of government has an excessive weight in the deliberations of the House; and that the petitioners see, with alarm, the enormous influence acquired by the number of sinecure and other places given to the disposal of the crown, whereby ministers, utterly unfit for their situations in the present critical posture of affairs, are supported, in opposition to the general wishes of the country, whose confidence they neither deserve nor possess; and humbly stating, that the defective and decayed state of the representation operate, in their opinions, to increase the grievances so generally complained of; and therefore praying, that the House will make such reform in the representation as may restore public confidence, and afford a reasonable hope of a due attention being given to the national complaint." Ordered to lie on the table.

prevented an Address and Declaration of the there-undersigned inhabitants of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, the county of the same town, and the parish of Sculcoates, in the county of York, adjacent thereto; setting forth, "That the undersigned, alarmed by the insidious and repeated attempts which have been lately made by an active and factious party, under the specious pretext of reform, to subvert (as they believe) the very basis of the constitution; and indignant at the unwarranted and shameless assumption of the description of "merchants, tradesmen, and principal inhabitants of this town and the neighbourhood," under which a Petition expressive of sentiments they abhor, has been, or will be presented to the House, feel that it has become a duty to themselves and their country, to unmask the imposture, and avow their own genuine and unbiassed opinion, not therefore concealing their names, or their numbers, under the dubious and deceptious signature of a chairman; they do solemnly and individually protest against the petition, which they suppose to be now upon the table of the House, as from the town of Kingston-upon Hull and its vicinity, as by no means containing the sentiments of either the most respectable or the most numerous part of their inhabitants; they cannot better describe the character of the meeting, at which the petition alluded to was voted, or rather acclaimed, than by stating that it was convened contrary to the sense, and in defiance of the refusal of their chief magistrate, and was not ashamed to tolerate expressions of insult towards the magistracy itself; thus misleading the minds of the lower classes, and exciting principles of insubordination and discontent. So impelled, permit them respectfully and most seriously to declare that upon the important question now at issue respecting the privileges of the House, and the more immediate exercise of those privileges in the case of sir F. Burdett (against which the efforts of faction are at present directed) they do entirely and sincerely approve of the resolutions and conduct which the House has adopted; and they trust that the House will continue firm and resolute in maintaining the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdiction of parliament, as not only the true and unalienable birthright and inheritance of the subjects of these kingdoms, but as the last and best, the strong and impregnable, barrier of their own rights, liberties and independence; and in so far as the House shall assert them, by legal and constitutional means, they pledge themselves in support of the House; May the wisdom of the Most High inspire their counsels, that, under the blessing of his providence, this happy country, which has so long flourished in wealth and freedom, may, in despite alike of the mischievous attempts of wicked or misguided men at home, or the restless ambition of enemies abroad, remain, as it now is, the glory and the pride of Britons, and the envy of the world!"—Ordered to lie upon the table.

presented a Petition from the there-undersigned Protestants, on behalf of themselves and others who agree with them in considering absolute Liberty of Conscience respecting religion to be the unalienable right of all men; setting forth, "That it is the duty of all men to examine, as diligently as may be in their power, the doctrines of religion, and, after such diligent examination, to adopt and to profess what may appear to them to be the truth; and that, in the performance of that duty, men ought not to be obstructed or discouraged, or otherwise tempted to act hypocritically, by any law tending to biass them in the course of such examination of the doctrines of religion, by subjecting them, in the case of their dissenting from the doctrines of any established church, to suffer death by burning or otherwise, or to suffer any corporal or pecuniary punishment, or to be injured in their reputation by any disability more or less disgraceful; and more particularly that they ought not to be injured, by exclusion from the service of their country, by bearing arms in its defence at a crisis of great national danger such as that which is now impending over the British empire; and that the petitioners acknowledge, with high satisfaction, that, in the present reign, considerable progress hath been made towards the full restoration of the rights of conscience, by the wisdom of parliament, and the benignity of the King, rescinding various laws, in whole or or in part, which were violations of those rights; yet, since other penal laws, not less injurious to those rights, remain unrepealed—since some of these laws subject to corporal punishments or pecuniary penalties—others, as in the case of the Test Laws, passed in the reign of Charles 2, subject to disgrace, disability, and privation of civil rights, persons whose only offence it is, that, in conformity with their duty, they have examined the doctrines of religion, and, by such examination, have been induced to embrace and to profess religious opinions different from the doctrines of the established church—the petitioners feel it to be their duty humbly but earnestly to remonstrate against the longer continuance of any of these intolerant laws; and they do, in conformity with the premises, expressly petition the House, that every such unjust law may be repealed, and the rights of conscience may thus be restored to all the subjects of the united kingdom; at the same time they declare to the House, that, if the legislature of their country should not feel themselves convinced, as the petitioners do, that every trace of intolerance ought to be immediately expunged from our statutes, yet, if the repeal or modification of any of our intolerant laws should now take place, particularly if the Test Laws, as they affect our military force by sea and land, should now be relaxed in this part of the United Kingdom in the same manner as they have been relaxed in Ireland; the petitioners would view, with heartfelt gratitude, any such measure as a still farther advance towards the complete restoration of the rights of conscience: and, at this crisis particularly, would consider that modification of the Test Laws which has been alluded to as having the most salutary tendency to unite with the Protestant part of the community a numerous and respectable body of our Catholic fellow subjects in a zealous defence of the empire against the meditated attack of our gigantic and all-grasping enemy."

also presented a petition from the there-undersigned Christians, on behalf of themselves and others who agree with them in considering absolute liberty of conscience respecting religion to be the unalienable right of all men; setting forth, "That it is the duty of all men to examine, as diligently as may be in their power, the doctrines of religion, and, after such diligent examination, to adopt and to profess what may appear to them to be the truth; and that, in the performance of that duty, men ought not to be obstructed or discouraged, or otherwise tempted to act hypocritically, by any law tending to bias them in the course of such examination of doctrines of religion, by subjecting them, in the case of their dissenting from the doctrines of any established church, to suffer death by burning or otherwise, or to suffer corporal or pecuniary punishment, or to be injured in their reputation by disability more or less dis- graceful; and that the petitioners acknowledge, with high satisfaction, that in the present reign, considerable progress hath been made towards the full restoration of the rights of conscience, by the wisdom of Parliament and the benignity of the King, rescinding various laws, in whole or in part, which were violations of those rights; yet, since other penal laws, not less injurious to those rights, remain unrepealed, since some of those laws subject to corporal punishments or pecuniary penalties; others, as in the case of the Test Laws, passed in the reign of Charles II. subject to disgrace, disability, and privation of civil rights, persons whose only offence it is, that, in conformity with their duty, they have examined the doctrines of religion, and, by such examination, have been induced to embrace and to profess religious opinions different from the doctrines of the established church; the petitioners feel it to be their duty humbly but earnestly to remonstrate against the longer continuance of any of these intolerant laws; and they do, in conformity with the premises, expressly petition the House, that every such unjust law may be repealed, and the rights of conscience may thus be restored to all the subjects of the united kingdom; at the same time they declare to the House, that, if the legislature of their country should not feel themselves convinced, as the petitioners do, that every trace of intolerance ought to be immediately expunged from our statutes, yet, if the repeal or modification of any of our intolerant laws should now take place, particularly if the Test Laws, as far as they affect our military force by sea and land, should now be relaxed, the petitioners would view, with sincere gratitude, any such measure as a still further advance towards the complete restoration of the rights of conscience; and, at this crisis, would consider it as having a salutary tendency to allay religious animosities, and to unite the great mass of the community in a zealous defence of the empire against the meditated attack of our gigantic and all-grasping enemy."

said, he entirely concurred with every sentence contained in the petitions. He felt proud that he had been selected to present these petitions, which were put into his hand by a venerable and worthy character, Mr. Wyvil, who enforced the purest doctrines, and acted up to them, and who had spent a laborious, useful, industrious, and inno- cent life in the most laudable pursuits, the remnant of which would be sweetened, if he was instrumental in having these restrictions removed.

agreed in opinion with his hon. friend, and concurred in the principles laid down in the petitions, which were just and well-founded. If the House shut their eyes against the prayers of the petitions, the Catholics could not expect to be emancipated.

The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

congratulated himself, that the first occasion he had to address the House in his official capacity, should be to call their attention to a measure, the object of which was to do justice to the merits and memory of that meritorious and elevated character, lord Collingwood, by voting him a monument, to commemorate the gratitude of the country for his many noble and splendid services. In doing this, it might not be amiss to mention some traits in the noble lord's character, which perhaps were not much known, but Which ought to be universally so. Lord Collingwood entered into the naval service, under the auspices and protection of admiral sir Hyde Parker, an officer of great merit and celebrity, and one to whom the country had been eminently indebted for many gallant actions. After passing through all the subordinate offices of the navy, he came to be post captain at the same time with lord Nelson, and there had ever subsisted the warmest friendship between these two heroes. The first occasion in which he had an opportunity of particularly signalizing himself, Was as captain to admiral sir G. Bowyer On the memorable first of June, in which he highly distinguished himself. He then served under lord St. Vincent, at the memorable battle of the cape of that name, and highly distinguished himself by covering lord Nelson in the Captain, and thereby enabling him to take two ships of far superior force to his own. As an instance of his laudable jealousy of fame, and his anxiety rather to deserve than to obtain it, he thought it right to mention the circumstance of his having been accidentally omitted in the number of those captains who obtained medals for their services in the action of the first of June. So deeply was this omission felt by lord Collingwood, that when his distinguished services in the battle of cape St. Vincent were thought worthy of this distinction, he declined the medal unless he received along with it an acknowledgment of his having deserved a medal in the action of the first of June. Lord Spencer, the then lord of the Admiralty, very properly acceded to the justice of this requisition, and lord Collingwood received the two rewards he had so well earned in the battles of the first of June and of Cape St. Vincent. He was afterwards detached as second in command to lord Nelson at Trafalgar, and had his share in the glory of that memorable battle. He was first engaged with the St. Anne, one of the largest ships of the Spanish navy, and afterwards with several others in the same fleet, which he either took or drove off. But the merit of lord Collingwood did not rest here, for after the loss of lord Nelson, he took on him the chief command of the fleet, and by his active valour and superior skill, saved four of the enemy's ships which otherwise would have got away, and concluded the engagement in a manner at once redounding highly to the bravery and intrepidity of the British navy, and to the superior skill and ability of its commanders. From that day he continued in the chief command of the fleet, and made such masterly dispositions, as secured and blocked up the Mediterranean; and at the time he was snatched from us, he was adored by the fleet, dreaded by the enemy, and admired by all who heard of his conduct. He believed no one would differ with him on this subject, and therefore moved: "That an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that a Monument be erected in the cathedral of St. Paul's, to the memory of vice admiral lord viscount Collingwood, and that an inscription should be made, setting forth his eminent services, and particularly his skill and courage displayed in the ever memorable battle of Trafalgar, on the 21st of October, 1805, and that this House would make good the expences of the same."

was so far from dissenting from the present proposition, that he thought if there was no precedent for it, if lords Rodney and Howe had not been voted Monuments though they had not died in action, still he thought the House were bound to make a precedent in the present case.

bore his testimony to the merits of lord Collingwood.—The motion was then agreed to nem. con.

, pursuant to notice, called the attention of the House to the situation in which its privileges were placed, by the actions lately commenced against their Speaker and Serjeant, by sir F. Burdett, and the proceedings which had taken place on that subject.

He had delayed, as long as possible, to bring this question forward, in the hope that it would have been taken up by some member of greater experience and ability; but as that had not been the case, the sense which he entertained of the absolute necessity of some step being taken, rendered it his imperious duty to submit to the House, his view of the true state of the question.

By the notice which had been delivered to the Speaker by Mr. Ellis, attorney to sir Francis Burdett, it was expressly declared, that this action was commenced against him for an act done by him as Speaker. This, in itself, constituted the highest breach of privilege, of which an individual could be guilty. Yet what had been the proceedings of the House upon it? They merely entered the Notice on the Journals, and then referred it to a Committee. That Committee reported,

"That the bringing these actions against the Speaker and Serjeant, for acts done in obedience to the orders of the House, is a breach of privilege.—That it appeared, that in several instances of actions commenced in breach of privilege, the House had proceeded by commitment, not only against the party, but against the solicitor, and other persons concerned; but that the commitment would not necessarily put a stop to the actions.—And that, though the House should think fit to commit the solicitor, or other persons concerned in commencing these actions, yet it would be expedient, that the House should give leave to the Speaker, or Serjeant, to appear to the said actions, and to plead to the same, for the purpose of bringing under the knowledge of the court, the authority under which they acted."

Here were, in effect, three distinct resolutions of the Committee, upon which the House was called to declare its opinion; yet, of these three, they had noticed only the last, leaving the other two without any comment whatever.

In every former instance, where a breach of privilege had been reported by a committee, the House had felt it necessary to pronounce its judgment upon that report, and for the benefit of posterity, to record on the journals, that the facts there stated did constitute an offence. Cases might, indeed, be found, where the House had, for different reasons, thought it inexpedient to inflict any punishment; but, even there, they usually stated by a resolution, their sense of the offence committed, and their reasons for inflicting no punishment upon it, in the particular matter before them. Such was the case of lord Castlereagh, in the very last session of parliament. Here the House had passed over the whole transaction, as if it was a legal, allowable, and laudable course which had been pursued.

The country was bound to presume, as things now stood, that the House of Commons did not consider the action which had been commenced as any infringement of its privileges. The silence of the House, in this instance, constituted an abandonment of all such privilege, and it would become difficult, perhaps impracticable, to resume it upon any similar occasion in future. Could the House, with any colour of justice, hereafter proceed against any solicitor, who should again serve such a Notice on the Speaker? What was to prevent Mr. Gale Jones, or any other person who had incurred the displeasure of the House, from adopting the same course? Or why should any attorney, to whom they might apply, hesitate to undertake their suit? Suppose him, having done so, called to the bar of the House: might he not, for his justification, refer to the journals, and state, that the parliament of 1810 had full cognizance of the whole progress of such an action, and that, though a Committee had reported it to be a breach of privilege, the House had studiously avoided agreeing to that report, or taking any step to interrupt the course of such an action, and had, on the contrary, recognised its legality and propriety by directing the Speaker to plead to it?

It had been urged, on the other side of the House, that this case was similar to those where a Habeas Corpus had been sued out, by persons committed by the House; and it had been asked, whether the Solicitor employed to obtain it had ever been punished? The cases were widely different. There the solicitor might not know under what authority the prisoner was committed, until a return had been made to the Habeas Corpus. The House had no knowledge that any solicitor was employed to sue out the Habeas Corpus. In fact, none need be employed; for, by law, the gaoler was bound to apply for it on the requisition of the prisoner. Here the knowledge, that the solicitor was fully aware of the nature of the action, was forced upon the House by the terms of the Notice. They could not shut their eyes to it. Many instances there undoubtedly were, where common prudence and good sense would induce the members of the House to pass over offences altogether. Of such a nature, perhaps, in the opinion of many, was the paper of Mr. Gale Jones, when it was originally complained of; but when it had been once regularly noticed, and by a formal complaint forced on the attention of the House, no member could doubt any longer as to the course to be pursued, or could hesitate to concur in the vote which the House finally passed upon that occasion, however he might have been disinclined to the original agitation of the question.

Two of his Majesty's ministers (Messrs. Yorke and Perceval) had declared, that the question was now before a tribunal, whose decision would set it at rest. Did they mean to contend then, that if the opinion of the King's judges should be adverse to the privileges of this House, such a decision could destroy them? Or did they intend, that, in such a case, the Commons should carry the question, by writ of error, before the other House of Parliament and that they should humbly sue for their privileges at the bar of the House of Lords?

No persons could be so short sighted, as not to perceive, that whatever might be the decision of the King's Bench, it could not be final. It could not set the question at rest. The question must again be brought before the Lords, either by the House of Commons, or by those who resist its privileges. Perhaps it might be said, as in a former instance, that the Lords would be as careful of the privilege of the Commons as their own. On the contrary, it appeared from history, that it Was from the other House of Parliament that the privileges of the Commons had experienced the most frequent and severe attacks; and if it should once become established, that the commitments of the House of Commons can, by appeal, be brought under the judicature of the Lords, the equality which has hitherto subsisted between these two branches of the legislature would be destroyed for ever, and the Commons would retain no privileges, but what the Lords should, by their judgments on different occasions, think proper to admit them to.

The only rule which could preserve the independence of each House of Parliament was that which the wisdom of our ancestors had established: "that each shall possess a separate, complete, and exclusive judicature, upon all matters affecting its own privileges."

This principle, which for ages had been the foundation and bulwark of privilege, the House was now advised to abandon. It was now invited to believe, that those privileges, without which it could not exist, might safely be allowed to rest altogether on the decision of the judges of the courts of law in Westminster-hall. From the respect which was due to the legal and constitutional knowledge of those high and distinguished magistrates, there could be little doubt, perhaps, that their opinions would be found favourable to the privileges of the House of Commons: yet could it be concealed, that men of great eminence in the profession of the law, persons who had already filled, and might again fill, the highest situations, had declared an adverse opinion? Suppose them upon the bench hereafter, and such a question brought before them, what must then be their judgment, and what would be the situation of the House under it. If the House allowed these actions to proceed, they must now determine, what step they would take, with respect to any judge who should deny their privilege of commitment. Would they impeach, and so submit the question, in another shape, to the judicature of the Lords; or would they be reduced to the necessity of committing the judge by their own authority? He had, himself, no doubt whatever, that if the House should be placed in such extreme difficulties, the latter would be the only course which it could be safe for them to pursue: and great as their reluctance must be to take such a step, it was fit that the House should be prepared to go this length, in order to meet those difficulties, which must unavoidably result from the course they were now pursuing.

Furthermore, he dreaded the precedent now sanctioned by the House, and its effect hereafter. The judges might affirm the present commitment by the House of Commons and yet might entertain a ques- tion and discussion of the grounds upon which such commitment had been made; and would they not thus establish a precedent for revising the decisions of the House, in questions of privilege, as effectually as if they should formally decide in favour of sir Francis Burdett? Should this once be established, the consequence was obvious; there would be a stop put to all the principal functions of the House. Its inquisitorial power would be set at defiance, when every witness who refused his attendance, or prevaricated in his evidence, might bring his action against the Speaker, and appeal to two other tribunals, either of whom might differ from the determination of the House, and thus annul its proceedings.

It had been triumphantly asked, whether the commitment of the Solicitor would be sufficient to stop the progress of the present actions? To this it was sufficient to answer, that the dread of such punishment had hitherto been found sufficient to prevent all persons from commencing, or being concerned in maintaining similar suits; and that it was somewhat early to say, that those measures which had always hitherto proved efficacious for the defence of our privileges, would, if now resorted to, be wholly insufficient.

He should, not, however, propose, that the House should now immediately proceed to commit the solicitor; for although he had already stated, that this would, in the first instance, have been the properest course, yet after passing over the original offence for so long a time, it might now appear harsh and severe to visit it with the most rigorous exercise of the power of the House. He should, therefore, move a resolution, similar to one which he found on the Journals of the 26th January 1703, declaring the commencement of any action, for acts done by the order of the House, to be a high breach of privilege; and afterwards another, stating sir Francis Burdett's actions against the Speaker and Serjeant to be of this description.

If, after the House had given this public notice, these actions should be further proceeded in, it would undoubtedly be necessary to commit every person concerned in carrying them on.

He felt himself here compelled to admit, that he had himself, though with extreme reluctance, consented to the resolution, permitting the Speaker and Serjeant to appear in the present actions. The only ground upon which he so consented was, that which is stated in the report of the Committee, viz. that it was expedient to bring under the knowledge of the court of King's Bench, upon record, the fact, that these actions were instituted, for the purpose of questioning acts done officially, under the authority of the House of Commons, and not in any individual capacity.

In adopting this resolution, the House had, perhaps, gone too far, but certainly to the utmost limits of safe and reasonable concession. The Speaker had pleaded, and the court was fully informed of the nature of the action. This then is the latest moment for the assertion of our privileges. What, then, is now to be done?

Recur to that principle, which governed the practice of your ancestors, the principle, that the proceedings of the House of Commons, in matters of privilege, shall not be questioned by any other tribunal.

For the preservation of this vital principle, new measures must be taken, if new measures are necessary: and who, in such a case, would hesitate to make a precedent, if it were true that none could be found.

Here, however, your own Journals will point out to you a course which has been repeatedly pursued in former times, by which the House had cancelled proceedings derogatory to its dignity or privileges.

He referred to the cases of lord Newburgh, in 1669; the Middlesex justices, in 1716; the commitment of the messenger by the lord mayor, in 1771: in all of which the House had ordered the records of the inferior courts to be laid on the table, and had directed the obnoxious proceedings to be there taken off the file, and destroyed.

It was an additional recommendation of this mode of acting that it obviated all possibility of contest with the court of King's Bench; though even that certainty of such a contest would not be a consideration to deter him from any steps, which might be necessary or the preservation of privilege.

Many persons there were, however, who thought that these measures were indeed the proper course, but not the most prudent; that they were too strong for the present moment; and that we should now conciliate.

The opportunity, however, of giving weight to these considerations, seemed to have been suffered to go by. As soon as the original complaint made to the House had been adopted by it, the country could not be deceived by any pretences to conciliation; nor would they have attributed such a conduct to any other motive, but those of unworthy cowardice.

Was it likely, that those persons could be conciliated, who had directed their attacks against the House of Commons, simply because they thought that, at the present moment, this was more valuable than either of the other branches of the legislature? They would laugh to see the House affect moderation, by abandoning what for ages, had been its only guard and defence.

It was much the same sort of pledge of conciliation and peace, which a great country was formerly called upon to give to its enemies, by surrendering the whole of its fleet. The moment of conflict was not that for concession, even if concession were, on other grounds, advisable, instead of being ruinous and destructive. If the House wished to be respected by the reflecting part of the community, it must respect itself. The House of Lords and the court of King's Bench could not defend it, if it wanted courage to vindicate its own rights. These were times, when it was necessary to rise above the dread of temporary unpopularity. The House should recollect the great man, whose loss they all had so lately deplored, who pursued his course firm and undeviating, frequently in direct opposition to the prevailing clamour; who, when the spirit of the nation was sunk to the lowest ebb of degradation, when the populace had actually drawn in triumph a French general through the streets of London, had stood forward, almost alone, and raised their spirits by his own. To the stand then made by that illustrious person, and the small phalanx which rallied round him, it was to be attributed, that the ancient fortitude of the country was restored; that during seven years of war which had since occurred we had heard of no petitions for peace, no unmanly complaints of the heavy and unparalleled burthens which it had been necessary to impose.

Were his lamented friend now here, it would have been unnecessary for any other person to have brought forward this question. To imitate the strain of eloquence with which he would have enforced it, the felicity of illustration with which he would have adorned it, was impossible; but to emulate his determination and intrepidity was in the power of every one, and he trusted that his spirit would this night hover over them, and inspire their decisions.

For himself, whatever might be the determination of the House, he was desirous to be able to state to his constituents, that he had endeavoured to his utmost to preserve uninjured and unimpaired, those privileges, which they had entrusted to his hands, which he felt to be the privileges not of that House only, but those of all the Commons of England.—He concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—"1. That whoever shall presume to commence or prosecute any action, indictment, or prosecution, against any person for acts done in obedience to the orders of this House, such person and persons, and all attornies, solicitors, counsellors, and serjeants at law, soliciting, prosecuting, or pleading in any such case, are guilty of a high breach of the privilege of this House.

"2. That it appears to this House, that the actions commenced by sir Francis Burdett, baronet, against the right hon. Charles Abbot, Speaker of this House, and against Francis John Colman, esq., Serjeant at Arms attending this House, are for acts done in obedience to the orders of this House.

"3. That the proper officer of the court of King's Bench do to-morrow attend this House with all records and proceedings in the said actions."

rose to oppose it, he could not see the necessity of it, and contended that it would be a very inconsistent proceeding after the House had agreed to plead, to punish those persons concerned in prosecuting that action to which they had resolved to plead. With respect to what had fallen from his learned friend, as to the alleged embarrassment in which the House would be placed in the assertion of their privileges, if the judges decided against their privileges, he did not see why the learned gent. should go out of the way, and presume that the court of King's Bench would not do justice; it was a presumption on which they had no right to argue; in case, however, that justice should not be done, a presumption which he repeated it was by no means fair to make, still in that case he knew of no precedent where the House committed a chief judge for such a decision, he being at the time of committal a judge. If lord chief justice Ellenborough should decide contrary—

. He is a peer.

. A peer! exclaims the hon. gent. irregularly across the table; but, whether or no, if his lordship or other judges should decide contrary to the law of the land, he presumed, that the proper mode to remedy that violation of the duties of their station would be by impeachment. There was no instance of a chief justice being committed who was a lord of parliament, nor of a judge who was so at the time he was committed. He would infinitely prefer the impeachment of a judge for exceeding the line of his duty, to the measure of committing him, to the stoppage of all the law business of the court in which he presided. The hon. gent. would then say, but where was the impeachment to be tried? It must be tried before the House of Lords, and then they are to decide on the privileges of the House of Commons. The House ought not to make an assumption that the tribunals would act contrary to the law of the land. Having taken their course, and in part authorized the attorney general to plead, if the hon. gent. would wish to proceed in a contrary direction, he should go higher, and move to rescind the resolutions, for he was now endeavouring to overturn all that has been done. He hoped to have seen a right hon. gent. sitting near the hon. mover (Mr. Ponsonby) who on a former occasion entered most fully into this subject, and came to a decision, that the House ought to adopt no other course than what is now pursued. Had that right hon. gent. been present, he must, consistently with his former speech, have opposed the present motion. He conceived that the House should do no more than it had done, in the present session. As to any impression of fear or timidity, they must recollect that they had been before accused of rashness; he however apprehended that they had acted consistently throughout. The best way was for the House not to take the question in its own hands, but bring it under the consideration of another court.

observed, that though his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) now absent, from sickness in his family, had said that the Speaker ought to be permitted to plead, he had, at the same time, maintained that something ought to be entered on the records of the House to maintain its privileges. Mr. Adam added, that Mr. Perceval had on a former occa- sion (viz. when the Second Report of the Committee was brought up) insisted that Mr. Ponsonby had pledged himself, in his speech, to support the propriety of the course taken: to this, Mr. Adam had replied, that Mr. Ponsonby was likewise on that occasion absent; that Mr. Adam had afterwards thought it proper to state to Mr. Ponsonby privately, the allegation of Mr. Perceval, when Mr. Ponsonby, in consequence of that statement, told him (Mr. Adam), that on the occasion referred to, he (Mr. Ponsonby) had expressed (as he entertained) a clear decided opinion, that an assertion of the privilege should be made in the first instance, though it might become necessary to authorize the Speaker to appear and plead.—Mr. Adam contended, that as the Journals now stood, the privileges of the House appeared to be abandoned. An action brought had been ordered to be defended; this, standing by itself, would justify the presumption that an action would lie, and the privileges of the House would be rooted up. The ordinary business of the House could hardly proceed if the Speaker were thus to be liable to perpetual processes.—Consider, Sir, (he said), that there is not a day passes, in which, according to this admission as it appears upon the Journals, and by the course which has been taken, in which you are not liable to actions for the warrants issued by the order of the House.—Mr. Adam then adverted to the alleged analogy of the proceeding by writ of Habeas Corpus. He said it was an ex-parte proceeding—a writ of right (in this case not under the statute, but at common law) of which the House could have no notice till the judge had remanded the prisoner in consequence of his commitment by the Commons. Was this to be compared with an action against the Speaker, with a formal notice served on the Speaker, which had been entered on the Journals—the first time that such a thing had ever happened? After admitting that the courts below might incidentally decide on the privileges of the House, as in case of murder ensuing, or other injury, he said that the whole matter amounted to this: a notice of an action against the Speaker had been delivered to the Speaker; no entry had been made on the Journals that this was a breach of privilege; but the first and only step had been to declare, that, as an action had been brought, it must be defended. Could any interpreta- tion be put upon that transaction, when unaccompanied with any proceeding to ascertain or enforce the privileges of the House, especially in after-ages, but that which he had put upon it?—It was to avoid this conclusion, that he had uniformly and invariably pressed, that the ancient course should be followed, when privilege had been violated before the statute called lord Onslow's act, by actions brought against members, viz. that the person serving the writ should be brought to the bar, that the measure taken should be an assertion of their privilege, and that resolutions in support of their privilege should be entered in the votes. If this was usual and necessary in ordinary cases, how much more so was it, that some proceeding should be taken for making it known to all the world, that they had asserted that this unprecedented case of action against the Speaker and the Serjeant for executing the orders of the House were breaches of privilege? Could this be allowed to stand on the speeches of members?—Was it enough that the speech of his right hon. friend now absent (Mr. Ponsonby), eloquent and conclusive as his speech was—that the speech of his learned friend near him (sir A. Pigott), containing the most powerful, sound, and manly doctrine, could be reckoned upon as recording the privilege, and as an antidote to the order to appear and plead? These were the opinions of able, authoritative, and respectable members. But the other was the act of the House. The last remained of record, the former died away and were forgotten.—Mr. Adam said, he had very often, perhaps too often, troubled the House on this subject. It was not his inclination to have done so. It was cast upon him. Had this case of privilege not occurred, he said, his voice would have been rarely heard in the course of the session: but having formed an opinion, he felt himself bound to state it originally; and having stated it, it was a duty which he owed both to himself and the House, to maintain his consistency and the correctness of his original opinion. He had not been a party to the original cause of the question; for he had not been present on any one occasion respecting the commitment of Mr. Gale Jones, nor till notice was given by Mr. Lethbridge of the motion which that gentleman made: that he had then joined in it from duty, not from any satisfaction it could afford him. It could be no satisfaction to him (he said), to ex- press difference of opinion with a learned friend of his (sir S. Romilly), whose talents and learning he respected, and whose friendship he had the happiness to enjoy. It could be no pleasure to him to debate with his hon. friend near him (Mr. Whitbread), whose friendship he enjoyed, and whose talents and integrity he so highly esteemed. It could be no motive with him to support a doctrine which aided, or might be thought to aid, an administration, whose existence he thought incompatible with the safety of the country. What then could excite him to the line he had taken, but an imperative sense of duty, in support of an ancient, a necessary, and most important constitutional power; which had never for centuries been violated as it has now; and certainly never abandoned, as it has now been abandoned? If on the day on which it was moved to commit Mr. Gale Jones; if on the day on which Mr. Brand moved an adjournment for a week, and the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval), first violently opposed it, and afterwards tamely acquiesced in it; if on the day on which he (Mr. Adam) moved to supersede the commitment of sir F. Burdett by a reprimand; if on any of these occasions any person had ventured to suggest that the Speaker would have been directed to appear and plead to an action, did any one doubt that such a person would have been considered as vilifying the House, and would have been cried down as an enemy to its privileges? And yet in less than two months the House had done so, and had not suggested one word, or done one act, or recorded one sentence, to counteract the effect of this measure. On the contrary, the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval), argued strenuously, that the House should not do any such act now; and had resisted all entreaties from him (Mr. Adam), formerly to that effect.—The same right hon. gent. besides referring to the proceedings on writs of Habeas Corpus, had forced the case of Mr. Beeves into the question as a case in favour of his argument.—Mr. Adam said, the case of Reeves was quite different from the present.—His offence was both a breach of privilege and a misdemeanor, and the House thought it right to order him to be prosecuted for the latter. But the present breach of privilege had no such double character. It was a single act, constituting a breach of privilege, but not a misdemeanor, or capable of being prosecuted as such. The option, besides, in that case, was necessarily in favour of the prosecution, for Mr. Reeves was not identified by the proof to be the author; and in a case where a man of education had defamed the constitution by stating the power and privileges of this House to be the mere result of the permission of the crown, it would have been both inadequate and disgraceful to have prosecuted the publisher or printer.—Mr. Adam said, he was aware that the first resolution (and he confined himself to the first, as the only question then before the House, and the only one he approved), would have come with much more propriety before than after the order to plead. But he was clear that it was fit that some resolution should be come to, in order to cure the present deplorable state of the transaction; that such a proceeding was not, according to his notion, inconsistent with the resolution to appear and plead; and would not, if well understood, be termed an interruption to the course of justice: that he viewed this proceeding to appear and plead, as a mode of giving notice to the court and to all mankind; that the House had given such notice in different ways; that they gave notice by their votes, which was, in law, a notice to all the world; that they had, on some occasions, given notice by special publication separate from the votes: that they had (as in the case of Ashby v. White, in 1704) affixed their resolution on the gate of Westminster hall: that on the present occasion, they had not done any of these things; but had ordered the Speaker to appear and plead. That the order to appear must be understood to be to enable the Speaker to plead, as he could not plead without appearing, and the order to plead must be considered as the means of putting the privilege on record, and so giving notice to the court, that the bringing the action was a breach of privilege. But the defect of the course adopted, according to his view of it, was, that it did not, and could not, appear on the Journals; but, on the contrary, what appeared on the Journals, was destructive of the privilege;—while, on the other hand, the first resolution, which was entirely prospective, was not inconsistent with what appeared on their Journals; and that they would thus save their privileges by reference.—Mr. Adam, in addition to what he had said on other occasions, repeated, that the exertion of the power of the House to support their privileges, had in all preced- ing time been sufficient to assert and secure them, much short of interference with the judges; that, however, he could not help remarking, that the suggestion of Mr. Perceval, that, (if any proceeding was taken as to the judges) it was better to impeach than commit, held out an alternative equally objectionable, as it submitted the privileges of the House of Commons to the judgment of the House of Lords. He said, the whole matter, and all that had been done from the rejection of his proposal to reprimand, had given him great pain; as it operated a complete change in the constitution; which till now was clearly understood to be, that the proceedings of this House could be questioned no where out of this House: that in the zeal and ardour which he felt to support this doctrine, he had exerted himself on the great question;—that it was bad taste to quote one's self, but he could not help recollecting that his earnestness on that occasion to support the privileges of the House of Commons, had made him conclude, in the emphatic language of father Paul, esto perpetua! and now, in two little months from that period, he had the mortification to find, that they were, according to the proceedings as they appeared on the Journals, already at an end. To save this, he earnestly entreated that Mr. Wynn's first Resolution might he recorded.

supported the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contended, that it was discretionary with the House, whether to exercise its authority or not, and that the analogy of the Habeas Corpus writ was strictly in point. As to the alleged difference of notice, it was a mere trifling evasion, as all the country knew of these things. Before this resolution was offered, the hon. gent. ought to have proposed to expunge all the former proceedings of the House on this subject.

rose for the purpose of entering his solemn protest against the extraordinary doctrine which admitted in that House the jurisdiction of inferior courts. It was an act of suicide, a sort of digging of their own graves, a promulgation of laws, by which in the end their own privileges were to be oppressed and overpowered! It was the more necessary for him to enter this protest, when he considered that the doctrine had the sanction of those men with whom he generally acted. If it had emanated from a minis- try, such as those now in power, men whose policy was indecision, and whose principle was vacillation, who acted just as a periodical fit of courage or cowardice prompted them, he should not have been surprized. But when it was sanctioned by those whose conduct he generally approved, and whose deep researches on this subject had been indisputable, he could not remain silent. He had waited for this opportunity of expressing his sentiments on this important point, and he was happy that it would serve to shew succeeding times, that an attempt had been made to vindicate their privileges, and prove at least that there were some men of this day who thought that they possessed them.

approved the sentiment, that a warfare ought to be made by that House against Westminster-hall whenever it was necessary.

shortly replied to the objections that had been urged against his Resolutions. The gentlemen opposite had, he said, studiously avoided the question which he had strongly put to them, whether they were eventually prepared to carry the contest to the Upper House? The probability was, at any rate, that his submitted Resolutions would tend to stop the course of the action pending against the House. This was not all he felt. Contemplating, as he did, the aspect of affairs, he was most anxious to deliver up to his constituents, those great privileges with which they had constitutionally entrusted him; to deliver them, as he received them, unaltered, unabrogated, and unimpaired.

then moved the previous question upon the first Resolution. Upon which the House divided. For the question 14; Against it 74.

The previous question was then moved on the second Resolution, and the third was negatived.

called the attention of the House to his Majesty's Message relative to the augmentation of the salary and appointment of the lord lieutenant of Ireland. He had an apology to make for not having brought the subject forward earlier in the session. But it was not till an advanced period of it, that his attention had been called to the question. The fact was, however, that nearly double the sum that was allowed by the public was expended by the individual at the head of the Irish government. But as he had not been able to obtain all the information necessary in order to a final arrangement, he considered it better to defer bringing the vote forward until the Committee of Supply was closed; and then to propose to vote the augmentation for the present year, with a view to a final arrangement in the next session of parliament; He should therefore move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty to acquaint his Majesty, That this House has taken into its consideration his Majesty's most gracious Message respecting the insufficiency of the salary and appointments of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: That this House is sensible that the salary which was settled so long ago as the year 1783, upon the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is inadequate to the maintenance and support of the dignity of that high and important station, and humbly to request his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to direct such increase to be made to the salary of that office, not exceeding 10,000l. per annum, as to his Majesty may seem necessary, assuring his Majesty, that this House will make such addition to his Majesty's civil list of Ireland as may enable his Majesty to defray the charge of such increase; if upon a review of the state of that civil list it shall appear that any additions shall be necessary to enable it to meet such additional charge."

expressed surprise that after the resolutions of the House for the abolition of sinecure offices, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the first opportunity of proposing an addition of one-half to the salary of the lord lieutenant of Ireland. He saw no reason why the civil government of Ireland should cost ten times more than that of Scotland; nor why the farce of a vice regal court should be kept up in Dublin. He should vote against the motion, because he thought this a most insidious mode of entrapping the House into a grant of public money.

contended that, if the office of lord lieutenant was to be continued, it ought to be maintained with dignity, or, in a more modified expression, with respectability.

observed that no one argument he had heard appeared sufficient to justify the proposition. The motion he contended ought to have been brought forward before the committee of supply had closed. As the right hon. gent. had waited so long, he might wait till he could make out grounds for the vote. He should, therefore, move an amendment, leaving out all of the motion, after the words insufficiency of salary, and substitute "and humbly present to his Majesty our sincere concern and regret, that in a time of unexampled difficulty from the pressure of public burthens arising out of the war, his Majesty should have been advised to recommend any increase to the appointments of the lord lieutenant, and at a period of the session, when it was impossible to give the question that due and fit examination and deliberation which it merited."

contended for an increase of the income of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and observed, that the duke of Richmond had not the slightest knowledge of the present demand. He had himself been induced to suggest the necessity of it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from positive information he had received from the comptroller of the household, that the duke of Bedford and the duke of Richmond had each of them expended upwards of 38,000l. per annum, in the requisite support of the dignity of their office.

Mr. Martin, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. Bankes, opposed the motion.

did not mean to say, that 20,000l. was sufficient, or that the increase proposed was too much. He thought, however, that the bare assertion of the minister ought not to induce parliament to burden Ireland with an additional charge of 10,000l.

did not conceive it necessary, nor was it usual, that a person serving the public in a high office should be able to live entirely independent of his private fortune. If the duke of Richmond had spent 20,000l. per aim. in Ireland, of his own fortune, he could afford that expence. His firm belief was that this increase was by no means intended for the duke of Richmond, but that his liberality and private virtues were mentioned merely to induce the House to vote an increased income, to tempt some other lord with whom ministers were bargaining to go over to Ireland as his successor.

thought the House of Commons could not come to such a vote on the ipse dixit of the minister. Suppose that his friend the duke of Bedford, had told him that 20,000l. was not sufficient to support the station, surely that would not be sufficient ground to induce him to move for an increased allowance to his successor.

The House then divided on the amendment. Ayes 51. Noes 95.

The original motion was then carried.