addressed the House as follows:—" I have to acquaint the House, that this House has been in the House of Peers and heard the commission read by his majesty's commissioners, and that his Royal Highness, acting on behalf of his majesty, had been graciously pleased to signify, through those commissioners, that he approved of the person whom they had elected as their Speaker. I trust I may be permitted, on this occasion, to avail myself of the opportunity once more to assure the House how deeply sensible I am of the honour its members have bestowed on me, by electing me to a situation so highly honourable to him upon whom it may devolve. For the incalculable favour they have thus bestowed upon me, and the confidence with which they have honoured me, I feel those sentiments of gratitude which it is not in my power to express. I am conscious, but too conscious, I shall have often to appeal to their indulgence; and for that indulgence I am assured, that so long as I shall endeavour to the best of my abilities faithfully to discharge my duty, I shall never have to appeal in vain. It shall be my study and solicitous endeavour to support the regulations and orders of this House, and maintain those rights and privileges, which I consider no less necessary for the safety of the people than for the very existence and well-being of parliament. Perhaps I may be permitted, on this occasion, to suggest to the House, that most of the Orders have dropped, and it will be necessary to revive these dropped orders before the House proceeds to dispose of any fresh business."

rose to mention a circumstance which had occurred, of a Sunday paper having printed the whole of the report of a committee of that House, which had sat to inquire into the police of the metropolis. He did not mention it, with any desire to make a complaint against the editor of the paper in question, but merely to bring under the consideration of the House the negligence of those whose duty it was, to keep such documents from public circulation till regularly delivered to the members [Hear, hear!]. At the present moment, he believed, not one copy of that report had been issued for the use of the members. He knew that, for himself, he had only an imperfect one.

said, he rose to move for a paper, to the production of which he apprehended, there would be no objection. He had availed himself of the privilege which every member possessed of bringing forward a motion, without previous notice, because the importance of the subject was such, in his opinion, as justified that course. It related to what was of the most immediate interest to the people of England, being nothing less than the pure distribution of criminal justice. It was the duty of that House at all times to watch with jealousy the proceedings of the executive government, and particularly so at the present moment, when the constitution of the country was in abeyance, and the rights and liberties of every man in it at the disposal of ministers. By the law of treason, which had always been represented as one of great wisdom and justice, it was required that the lists of witnesses, who were to be summoned, should be delivered to the accused, ten days previously to their trial. But if it should appear, that not more than 41 witnesses were examined to find the bill against them, what would the House think, when lists of 240 witnesses were served upon the prisoners, as the number of those who were to be arrayed against them on their trial? Individuals who were indicted for high treason, had to contend not only against strong prejudices, but against the power of the Crown. That was enough to create jealousy in any mind, but still more so in his, who remembered the introduction of the traitorous correspondence bill in 1793, when it was proposed to substitute felony for treason. The question was then argued, and profoundly argued, by one of the greatest men that ever sat in that House, he meant the late Mr. Fox, who contended that the privilege of knowing the witnesses who were to be summoned, was of the utmost importance.

here rose to suggest to the hon. member, the expediency of abstaining from entering upon the discussion at that moment.

in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in

in continuation, said, he should undoubtedly be disposed to give way, if he did not feel it an imperative duty to bring the matter forward. On the occasion, to which he was alluding, he heard Mr. Pitt declare, that the privilege in question was, in fact, no privilege, because it might be abused. He (Mr. C.) had called the attention of the House to that declaration, and it received in consequence, the reprobation of the House. Was it, then, to be endured, that they should now act upon a principle, which was then condemned! There never was a time when that House was called upon to exercise a greater jealousy than at the present moment. With respect to treasonable practices, he had no doubt there might be some individuals who were culpable, but as to an organised conspiracy for overturning the constitution, he did not believe that any such existed. What must be the kind of treason, he would ask, that required 240 witnesses to establish it? The calling so many witnesses could be for no other purpose but to prevent the individuals from knowing precisely who were to be brought against them. If the thing had been done without the knowledge of the Crown, it was time a remedy should be applied, and the prisoners have the full benefit of knowing exactly all who were to be examined against them. He hoped no report would be made from the committee about to be appointed, till the individuals who were arraigned, were brought to trial, and their trial concluded. He then moved for "copies of the lists of witnesses served on the prisoners in the Tower, now under arraignment for High Treason."

[Sir Samuel Shepherd] began by distinctly disavowing any intention on the part of those concerned in the prosecution, to embarrass the prisoners by an unnecessary increase of the witnesses to be called. It was true there were a great number, and the number was great because the law had made it imperative to state the name and de- scription of every witness whom, in the course of the trial, it might by possibility be found expedient to call. The necessity for including in the list all persons who were likely to be examined, was obvious. It sometimes happened in the progress of a cause, that particular circumstances came out which it was necessary to confirm by positive evidence, but which, at the commencement, it never occurred to those concerned in it, it would be requisite to bring forward. When, therefore, the law-said that a list of every witness intended to be called should be furnished to the prisoners, the law also said (or at least that inference was fairly deducible), that no witness should be called whose name could not be found in the said list. Surety, therefore, if due credit were given for integrity of intention to those who had the conducting of the present prosecutions, it would be presumed that they put into the list of witnesses, not only those names which they supposed they would have to call, but those, likewise, which they considered there was the slightest possibility of being obliged to call. The parties concerned in the prosecution would disdain to augment unnecessarily the number of witnesses, for the purpose of perplexing the prisoners. It would be an unpardonable negligence not to provide themselves with a host of witnesses, if he might so call it, provided they previously acquainted those against whom that host was arrayed. He firmly believed there was not one witness in the list, to whom some knowledge of some fact was not ascribed, and which it might not be proper to elicit [Hear, hear!]. He Should therefore venture to oppose the motion of the hon. member, because at this time the agitation of such a question could not tend to the furtherance of justice; but, on the contrary, was calculated to prejudice its unbiassed administration.

said, that after what he had heard, he did not wish to press the matter.

expressed his astonishment at the mode of proceeding adopted by the advisers of the Crown on this occasion. No body would concur more willingly in a vote of thanks to lord Colchester than himself, because it appeared to him to be a just and necessary proceeding: but why did the Crown interfere to prevent the House from going farther, and from originating any other reward which was due to his acknowledged merits? His services had been performed in that House, and from that House, therefore, ought their recompense to proceed. The only similar case was that of Mr. Speaker Onslow, and in that case the proceeding was initiated by an address from the House to the throne. This was not a mere question upon a point of form; it was not a matter of indifference that persons sitting in that chair should be accustomed to look to the Crown for the reward of their exertions in it. Strictly speaking, the Crown could know nothing of what passed in that House, nor be able to appreciate the merits of the Speaker in the discharge of the duties of the chair. Had the message been preceded by an address, every objection would have been precluded; but the services in question were of that nature which, for peculiar reasons, ought, in the first instance, to be fully recognized and appreciated by the House [Hear, hear!].

hoped the House would do ministers the justice to believe that it never could be their wish or intention to stand between the liberality of the House and the individual in question; but that right hon. person having been raised to the dignity of the peerage, the purport of the message ought to be understood as inviting the House to make a provision in consideration of the title, and not of his services as Speaker. [Cries of No no!].

professed himself quite astonished at the explanation offered by the noble lord. How he could say on his legs in that House, that the proposed reward was not in consequence of the late Speaker's services, or how, being in what was vulgarly called a scrape, he could endeavour so to get out of it, was to him a most surprising incident. The very words of the message itself declared that it was founded upon those services. The Crown had not, in fact, any constitutional right to take notice of their Speaker's services, and it was a flagrant violation of their first privileges in ministers to have thus advised it. He knew not what course it might be now most expedient to pursue, but he hoped the House would not cease to maintain its constitutional and established rights. [Hear hear!].

stated his objections to the present form of proceeding but saw no way of getting out of the difficulty into which ministers had led them. He entertained even a farther objection: whatever had been the intention of the noble lord, the fact was, that the message did stand between their late Speaker and the liberality of the House. It was true that a blank was left with regard to the sum, but the term of the grant, namely, for two lives, was distinctly recommended.

thought it could not be supposed that any disrespect to the House was intended by taking the earliest opportunity of proposing an adequate reward of the services which the House had received from the noble lord in his late office of Speaker of that House. He could not conceive that the prerogative of the Crown had been improperly exercised in carrying such a purpose into effect. Whenever the rank of the peerage had been conferred in recompense of distinguished merit, the Crown had been in the custom of sending similar messages. It was done in the case of the duke of Wellington, and had always been understood to be the settled and necessary form of enabling that House to carry into effect the wishes of the Crown.

declared, that under the circumstances of the case he felt it his duty to oppose the present motion. Trusting that the House would proceed to accomplish the same purpose by an address in the first instance, should the present motion be negatived or withdrawn, he thought such a course would be infinitely more honourable to the noble lord whose merits were the ground of such a proceeding. He could see no analogy between this case and that of naval or military services. Of these last the Crown was the natural and proper judge, but could not be of services rendered in that House. The Crown had already the power of granting a pension for life; and had this power been exercised on this occasion, he knew no legal objection that could have been urged against it: but all would admit that it must have been a very ill-advised proceeding. Such a mark of favour would have been a very inadequate compliment for the occasion. The House was the theatre of the services performed, and ought not to seem as if it wanted to be put in mind of the obligations it was under. Neither ought it to be held out to future Speakers that they were to look elsewhere for their reward. He had so decided an objection to the course proposed by ministers, that if the motion were pressed, he would meet it either by a direct negative, or by moving the previous question. He entreated, however, in honour and justice to the late Speaker, that the House would not be pressed to such an alternative, that the ministers would see the necessity of withdrawing the present motion, and substituting in its place an address similar to the one adopted in Speaker Onslow's case.

contended, that no want of respect to lord Colchester could be argued from the present proceedings. Without presuming to give an opinion on the precedents, he must say, that it was at all events a struggle between the Crown and the House, which should best appreciate the acknowledged services of that distinguished character. It was impossible to infer that the Crown had not the means of being informed of those services, when it was well ascertained that on the many occasions of re-election, when the late Speaker was presented for the approbation of the Crown, an explicit declara- tion was made of the high sense of his services.

agreed in all that had fallen from his hon. friends in reprobation of this novel and unconstitutional procedure. He contended, that the remuneration so justly due to the late Speaker would be more honourably conferred by the unanimous address of that House, than by the suggestion of any minister.

considered, that the precedent of lord Onslow's case stood upon different circumstances. At present the Crown had no funds at its disposal beyond a pension for life of 1,200l. If, therefore, an address was presented, this was all that could be done, and the Crown must again refer the matter to the House. In the former case, the Crown had the power of granting a pension of 3,000l. a year for life; and was thus very differently situated.

said, he had never imagined that the Crown could proceed in this case without the authority of the House; but if an address were presented, praying that a suitable reward should be conferred, a message might then be brought down stating the existing limitations on the power of granting pensions, and the House would, then have it in its power to supply the deficiency. But these were mere technical points; the main objection was, that the first knowledge they received of a remuneration to be given for services performed in the chair of that House, should have come from the Crown. He would repeat his anxious wish that the motion should be withdrawn, and another substituted, that would meet the wishes of every member in that House.

admitted the candour of the hon. gentleman's intimation. The great object on all sides, he apprehended, must be, to do that which would be most gratifying to the feelings of the distinguished person immediately interested. If it was the pleasure of the House to adjourn the consideration for the present [Cries of No, no!], he apprehended then that it might be the most satisfactory course to withdraw the motion he had already made, and give notice of his intention to move an address to the Crown on this subject on Thursday next.