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. 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. Reeves 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 On the contrary, cure 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 be recorded. option, besides, in that case, was necessa-ing time been sufficient to assert and se rily 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 bring. ing 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 Arst 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 The Solicitor General 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. Earl Temple 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 promulga tion 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 Mr. H. Smith approved the sentiment, that a warfare ought to be made by that House against Westminster-hall whenever it was necessary. try, such as those now in power, men | the House to his Majesty's Message rewhose policy was indecision, and whose lative to the augmentation of the salary principle was vacillation, who acted just and appointment of the lord lieutenant of as a periodical fit of courage or cowardice Ireland. He had an apology to make for prompted them, he should not have been not having brought the subject forward surprized. But when it was sanctioned earlier in the session. But it was not till by those whose conduct he generally ap- an advanced period of it, that his attenproved, and whose deep researches on tion had been called to the question. The this subject had been indisputable, he fact was, however, that nearly double the could not remain silent. He had waited sum that was allowed by the public was for this opportunity of expressing his sen- expended by the individual at the head of timents on this important point, and he the Irish government. But as he had not was happy that it would serve to shew been able to obtain all the information nesucceeding times, that an attempt had been cessary in order to a final arrangement, made to vindicate their privileges, and he considered it better to defer bringing prove at least that there were some men the vote forward until the Committee of of this day who thought that they pos- Supply was closed; and then to propose to sessed them. 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." Mr. C. W. Wynn 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. The Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. List of the Minority. Adam, William 蟹味 Temple, Lord Tellers. [KING'S MESSAge respecting tHE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.]-The Chancellor of the Exchequer called the attention of Mr. Tighe 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 onehalf 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. Mr. W. Fitzgerald 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. Sir J. Newport 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." Mr. W. Pole 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 33,000l. per annum, in the requisite support of the dignity of their office. Mr. Martin, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. Bankes, opposed the motion. 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. Mr. Whitbread 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. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Saturday, June 9. [IRISH ARMS BILL.] The order of the day for the third reading of the Irish Arms bill being read, Mr. Peter Moore opposed the third reading of the bill; he had opposed it, he said,, on its original introduction two years ago, and was then in a small minority of ten, who were rather laughed at than otherwise, for their insignificancy; but, they felt it to be a bill of infinite importance to their fellow-subjects in Ireland, and had determined to mark their sense of it by a division. When the bill was originally introduced, there was no parliamentary ground laid for it either of necessity or expediency; and having watched its opera tion, he (Mr. Moore) said, he was happy to find that the bill had not been called for, and had been wholly nugatory, considering thereby, that there was no ground for it either then or now. He was certain, if such a bill were introduced into this country, it would vibrate alarm from one extremity of the empire to the other, and he considered as an intended insult; and he could not see, why bills of this description should be applied to Ireland any more than England. The present abbreviated bill, Mr. Moore said, he observed, was only a Mr. Tierney did not conceive it neces- vestige of the former bill, and he confidentsary, nor was it usual, that a person serv-ly felt and believed, that the repeal of the ing the public in a high ofice should be able to live entirely independent of his private fortune. If the duke of Richmond had spent 20,000l. per ann. 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 Mr. Grattan 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. VOL. XVII. other obnoxious clauses and provisions of that bill was a concession absolutely extorted by the loyalty and attachment of the people of Ireland, and he had no hesitation in saying, that it would infinitely more become the dignity of government to displace this bill altogether by an implicit 2 M confidence in the affections and true interests of the people of Ireland, to which experience had most amply testified they were entitled. Mr. Moore said the several members who had before opposed this bill, acting on the same principles, were of the same opinion with himself, and were resolved to persevere in throwing it out if possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed the third till Wednesday. dering it also a capital felony remained in [ROBBERIES PREVENTION BILL.] Sir S. Romilly, in rising to move that the third reading of the bill for the better preventing of robbery in navigable rivers, should stand for Wednesday, had no intention of pressing the third reading on that day, should there then be a great deal of other business before the House. He begged to avail himself of the present opportunity however, to say a few words on the nature of the present bill. It stood on totally different grounds from the other two bills which had been introduced by him, one of which had passed that House. The act which he now sought to have repealed, was an act of the other day. It had not antiquity to support it, but was passed at the end of the last reign, previous to which the offence was not esteemed as of a capital nature, and even since the passing of the statute in question, it had never been acted on so far as he (sir S. Romilly) had been able to discover. He could not forbear noticing what he understood had been stated in another place, on the subject of the bill which had passed that House for preventing privately stealing in shops. It had been urged as an argument against that bill, that the eflect of a similar bill, introduced by him two sessions ago, to prevent privately stealing from the person, had been to occasion an enormous increase of that offence. In this statement he could by no means agree. It would, indeed, be extraordinary, that so sudden an effect should be produced by the repeal of an act, which, for many years, might have been considered as almost a dead letter. But it had also been stated, from the same high authority, that privately stealing in the shop had also greatly increased of late. Might not the same cause then, have operated to occasion the increase in both? Or was it fair to attribute the increase in the offence of stealing from the person, to the repeal of the act punishing that crime capitally, while it was seen, that the of fence of stealing in the shop had increased in an equal proportion, while the act ren |