assistance to the committee. The only question, however, as he conceived it, now was, if the report should be brought up; and then the question would arise, whether it would be prudent or proper, consistently with the privileges of the House, that the report should be adopted. He begged, also, to ask, was there any thing new in directing the attorney-general to prosecute in the case of a breach of privilege? If the breach of privilege was not meditated and committed by the crown, why not instruct the attorney-general? This was one main distinction. When the privilege was to be asserted against the crown, the attorney general was not to be employed; when against any other person, then the attorney general was to be employed. The court before whom the case was brought must know, from the plea, who the party was, namely, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and if the plea was to be denied, the allegation must be tried as any other allegation would be but when once tried, the decision must be, that, being a question in which the House of Commons was concerned, it could not be judged of in any other jurisdiction whatever. Mr. C. W. Wynn explained, that the attorney-general was directed to prose cute or defend, not as in a breach of privilege, but on occasion of a breach of the king's peace. Mr. Adam begged it to be understood, that after the learned and right hon. member for Tavistock had, on a former night, with such power delivered his opinion on the privileges of the House, he had endeavoured to instil into the House that they should come to some resolutions declaratory of the act of serving the notices being a breach of their privileges; and that they would accordingly call the attorney who had served the process, before them, and proceed according to their established usage in such case. If this had been done, the fact would have appeared on the journals of the House. If it had been done, it would have been an important point. As matters now, however, stood, it was admitted, as his hon. friend had said, that nothing appeared on the journals. At one step or other of the proceedings, however, this must not be the case. He did not say it could be done now, at bringing up the report; but, he did contend, that, at some farther stage of the business, such an entry must be made that the House might not fall into another and a more fatal error. But though it was his opinion that the matter should never have gone to a committee, he now thought that the report of that committee should be brought up, and that it should lie on the table, with the view to its accurate perusal. When it was on the table, it would become the business of the House to scan every syllable of it, and not to let a word pass which was not agreeable to the privileges of the House. It was the duty of the House to watch their privileges. These were peculiar times, in which it was necessary to guard them, and to let it be known that they were all marked. It was the duty of the House to see they did not receive a report which did not sufficiently recognize those privileges. Mr. Horner wished to yield to the arguments of his hon. and learned friend, on the propriety of receiving the report. He wished, however, to know, if the report were thus to be received, whether it must not, in the shape in which it now stood, appear on the Journals of the House? The Speaker finding that his opinion on this question was expected, agreed that this would surely be the effect of bringing up the report, and ordering it to lie on the table. The Report was then brought up. Mr. D. Giddy, as chairman of the committee, felt it necessary to say a few words, and he must confess, that he thought the House was placed in a very unfortunate situation; it had great privileges, but, owing to some defect in the constitution, it did not seem to possess the power of enforcing them; unfortunately, no clear recognition of such power had taken place. No particular proceeding was recommended to the House in the report of the Committee, because it appeared to them that the practical and proper mode had already been adopted. There was a further measure to be taken he allowed, but he doubted much the expediency of having recourse to it. He reprobated the opinions and purposes of the contemptible faction out of doors, but was fearful that if the House proceeded to commit one solicitor after another, it might at last force itself into a contention with the judges themselves; besides, it was considered the peculiar boast of this country, that every individual could be defended against any charge made against him. He was of opinion that the judgment, whatever it might be, would now go out with greater weight to the public, after the course that had been adopted. If the House waved the exercise of the privilege in the present instance, it could not be construed into a relinquishment of the privilege he contended for, but he denied the expediency of calling it into action upon the present occasion. In the same manner he felt that the House might have proceeded to commit or to expel sir F. Burdett, in the first instance, though he had voted against his commitment on the ground of expediency. He hoped that the deficiency of which he complained, in the constitution, would soon be corrected. There was a case, not provided against in the Roman law, because it was presumed that no one would be atrocious enough to perpetrate it; and, perhaps, the present deficiency was to be accounted for upon the same principle. This, however, he wished to qualify, not meaning to confound the degree of crime in both cases. He hoped the House would, in common courtesy, allow the report to be laid on the table, and printed; after which, it might dispose of it as it thought proper. Mr. Adam was of opinion that the debate should be adjourned to Monday next, in order that the House should have time to consider the report maturely. There was one principle however which he was desirous of entering his protest against he could not agree with his hon. friend that the House was not provided with the fullest power to enforce its privileges. The power of commitment was theirs, and was as ancient as their privileges; it was fully established and recognized, and should be exercised upon such occasions. He concluded with moving, that the debate be adjourned to Monday. Mr. C. W. Wynn apologized for his not attending the committee of privileges, as he objected to it entirely; and it was not the practice of members to attend committees, to the principle of which they objected. Mr. Hurst saw no sound obstacle to the reception of the report, which, granting it were laid on the table, would not preclude the House from further discussion if that should be necessary. Their committee had most ably discharged their duty, and their report was entitled to consideration. Legislative authority might, he was sure, settle all the matters in dispute; while, if the House possessed such omnipotent privileges as were contended for, it was highly proper that their privileges should now be ascertained and declared. Mr. H. Smith expressed his concern at hearing that any legislative measure was likely to pass on the subject. He contended strongly for the uncontroulable nature of their privileges: which such an act could only have the effect of weakening. He hoped that those gentlemen who had such a measure in contemplation, would consider all the consequences it was likely to produce, before they resolved upon its introduction. Mr. Secretary Ryder thought that both gentlemen had mistaken his hon. friend, whom he understood only to have stated that some declaratory measure would be adopted, not to create but to proclaim the powers and privileges now called in question. He did not approve of the adjournment; the report might lie on the table without any supposition of a pledge on their parts to support or approve of it. Mr. D. Giddy said, that all he intended to have stated, with respect to a legisla tive act, was, that some mode should be devised, in order to stop proceedings of the courts of law upon questions of privilege, in limine. Mr. Whitbread thought that such a measure would be very dangerous. The fact was, that the House formerly did possess the privilege of inhibition. They could and used frequently to stop a suit at law by a letter from the Speaker to the judges of the court in which the action was entered. This was, however, afterwards curtailed by positive statutes, made in the 12th and 13th of William 3, as also by some statutes in the reigns of queen Anne and George 1. Upon this question of privilege there seemed to be a great deal of intolerance on both sides. All those who were contending for high privileges, talked of nothing less than committing attornies, counsellors, and even going as far as was formerly done, of committing judges themselves for entertaining a suit in which the privileges of the House were concerned. On the other hand, those who were irritated by the late exercise of privilege, set down every one as a most tyrannical person who ventured to say a word in support of them. Now upon a question which was to be de termined on arguments drawn from so many precedents, it was not surprising that every man should not have his mind completely made up. For his part, he looked for information with equal pleasure to his learned friend (sir S. Romilly) as to his other learned friend (Mr. Adam). He had read the very clear and lucid Argument published by another bon. friend (Mr. Wynn), which, as he believed, contained all the learning of the case. In that Argument it was stated, that in the year 1660, a person of the name of Thompson had been ordered to attend the House, and positively refused to do it and shut his doors. The House consequently ordered that his doors should be broken down. It was a little unfortunate, however, for this precedent, that, like all the others of the same nature, we were left short, and were not told whether the doors were broken down. It appeared that in different instances of a similar nature, the House was prorogued or dissolved before the question was fairly brought to issue, and those prorogations seemed to have been contrived for the purpose of extricating the House from a difficulty. He thought the committee appeared to labour too much to answer the arguments of anonymous publications. The Attorney General thought the House had acted rightly in referring to the Committee the points they did, and that the Committee had very properly entered fully into the consideration of these points in the Report they had given, which he believed would be equally satisfactory to the House and the country at large. of the existence of the privilege to Mr. Wilberforce, after stating, that from his parliamentary experience, he was convinced that there was on both sides of the House a sincere disposition to promote the public good, argued against the motion of the last speaker on these grounds, that the references to which the hon. gent. had alMr. Lockhart said, that it was most evi-luded, were not stated as the foundation of dent there were cases when the House must resort to a court of law. For example, if one of their officers had been murdered when in the execution of his duty, it was most clear that they had no privileges by which the crime of murder could be adequately punished; and therefore, in that case they must appeal to a court of law. He did not conceive that it was derogatory to their dignity to plead to an action in a court of law, as it was only shewing to the court the authority under which the committal was made. Mr. Elliot thought that the House ought to have committed the persons concerned in the process; and that they might have an opportunity of considering the report maturely, supported the adjournment. The question for laying the report upon the table was then carried without a division. the privilege, but to shew the people of this country that the wisest and best authorities admitted that the House had the privilege which was questioned; that in this free constitution it was not alone sufficient to convince persons of great learning and deep research; but that it was important also to satisfy many respectable people who might be led to countenance, in effect, a most mischievous attack on the privileges of the House. The object of the Committee therefore, had been, to compile the report in plain and popular language, and to shew that the proceedings of the House was conformable to those in the common law courts, which constituted the glory of the country. He did not think this would have any tendency to bring the privilege into doubt. Mr. Brougham said, that though he carried his ideas of the necessity of the priMr. Horner then rose to move the re-vileges as far as his hon. friends, and committal of the report, with a view af- would always oppose any declaratory proterwards to move resolutions declaratory ceeding as tending not to remove, but to raise doubts, yet, he asked his hon. friends whether they did not believe that there were a great number of most repectable people, who at present doubted the existence of the necessity of the privilege; persons who were entitled to consideration, and whom it was the truest wisdom to conciliate: He thought that the House ought to go all reasonable lengths to satisfy the people, that they would never unneces sarily and wantonly exercise privileges that might be misconstrued. The House could never suffer in the estimation of the country, but through its own acts; and they could only bring themselves into contempt by waging a war, in which even success would be ruin; for what would their boasted privileges avail if they forfeited the confidence of the people. He earnestly intreated the House, therefore, to consider the duty which they owed to their constituents; the duty of moderation, and to make allowance for the ferment which existed in the public mind. Mr. C. W. Wynn said, that the amendment was not intended to reject the report, but that it should be recommitted, as the report was not correct. He thought it below them to enter into controversy with the speakers of the common council, or those of the Crown and Anchor. He would support the amendment. After some farther conversation the Report was ordered to be laid on the table, and to be printed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 24. [KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A VOTE OF CREDIT.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from his Majesty. "G. R. His Majesty, relying on the experienced zeal and affection of his faith. ful Commons, and considering that it may be of very great importance to provide for such emergencies as may arise, trusts that this House will enable him to take such measures as may be necessary to disappoint or defeat any enterprizes or designs of his enemies, and as the exigencies of affairs may require. G. R." The said Message was referred to the committee of supply. SIR GEORGE SHEE.] Sir John Newport, pursuant to his notice, brought forward his motion relative to the compensation given to sir George Shee, to whom the place of receiver-general of taxes in Ireland had been granted in reversion in the year 1802, sir Henry Cavendish being at that time in possession of the office. The right hon. baronet entered into a variety of details to shew the compensation was higher than necessary, and concluded by moving "That it was the opinion of that House, that the grant of compensation to the receiver-general in Ireland was in itself reprehensible, and a dereliction of duty in the Irish government." Mr. W. Pole spoke at length in justification of the Irish government, respecting the transaction alluded to, and contended that the compensation was not more than sir G. Shee was justly entitled to. He also vindicated the share his brother lord Wellington had in the transaction, from the charges made by the right hon. bart. Mr. Cavendish Bradshaw explained the manner in which the balances of sir Henry Cavendish had been discharged. Mr. W. Pole felt it due, in justice to sir Henry Cavendish, to state, that his balances had been paid off with the greatest punctuality. Mr. Foster and Mr. Croker bore equal testimony to the celerity with which the balances of sir Henry Cavendish had been paid in. Mr. W. Smith thought it a monstrous position to maintain, that any one had a legal right to use the public money for their private gain. Mr. Bankes quoted an observation of lord Kenyon to the same effect. He really thought that in that House there was generally too great a solicitude for the inte rest of individuals, and too great a disregard for the interest of the public. He thought that it was too much the custom of government on both sides of the water to consider offices more as things created for the benefit of the individual who held them, than for the good. of the public, He thought no man had a right to claim compensation merely for abstaining from abuses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the hon. gent. had spoken too harshly of persons who followed the custom of their predecessors in office. If any great severity or rigour was to be used with respect to receivers of public money, they should at least have fair notice of it, and their characters ought not to be branded for acting in a manner that they conceived legal, and according to the custom of their predecessors in office. He attacked with great warmth the opinion delivered by the hon. gent., that government considered offices more with respect to the individual who was to get them, than the inte rest of the country. He thought this the severest attack he had ever heard in that House against men in office, and it came with peculiar severity from an authority so respectable as the hon. gent. For his part, he disclaimed any such idea of offices, and would confess himself unworthy of continuing a moment in office, if he did entertain such an idea. Mr. Bankes, in explanation, said, that he spoke of government in general, and did not mean either to allude to the right hon. gent., nor to the chief governor of Ireland, the duke of Richmond, whom he most highly respected. Mr. H. Thornton thought, that by the strict law no compensation was due. laid on no new taxes, but because to avoid it he resorted to a new system-a system never heard of before without giving good and sufficient reasons for so doing. The project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that 980,000l. for the service of this year should be charged on the consolidated fund. The grounds on which he had defended this plan were, that having in 180S laid on taxes which produced upwards of 1,200,000l. instead of 106,0007. which they were expected to produce, he thought he had a right to apply the surplus to the service of this year. The right hon. gent., it was true, had called the attention of the House to the subject in a particular manner, and desired them to examine and criticise it as it might deserve. This was what he wished to do. Whatever trenched upon the consolidated fund was at war with the principle of raising as large a sum as possible within the present year. That principle had been approved of by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, and lord Henry Petty, and it remained for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to break in upon it. The consequences of such an innovation might be of a serious nature. So averse was Mr. Addington to impoverishing the consolidated fund, that in 1802, rather than do it he laid on new taxes; and the late administration, rather than trench on that fund, had incurred the unpopularity of raising the property tax from six and a fourth to A long conversation then took place, in ten per cent. The consolidated fund was which Mr. G. Johnstone, Mr. W. Fitz- established by Mr. Pitt in 1786, and it did gerald, the Solicitor-general, Mr. Marry-him great credit. In all his difficulties, att, Mr. Long, and Mr. Wilberforce, took a share. Mr. Foster said, that when he came into office, it was a few days before the death of sir H. Cavendish, and he found there was a balance of no less than 330,000l. in his hands. This balance he, of course, felt it his duty immediately to call for. Sir George Shee, who was afterwards appointed to the place, was no political friend of his, and he could have no reason to propose the compensation except a sense of duty. The fact was, that independent of the use of public money, there was, by old custom, a per centage given to the receiver-general for the sums he received from the collectors. It was for this per centage, that he advised the compensation, which was 1,300l. a year; whereas the per centage produced double. Sir John Newport, in his reply, utterly denied that there was any old custom even about the per centage. As the place had been abolished in 1792 by statute, on its revival it must be considered as a new office. The House then divided-For the motion 48; Against it 99; Majority 51. [STAMP DUTIES BILL.] On the order of the day for receiving the report of this Bill, Mr. Tierney rose to object to the motion. He knew he was taking an unpopular side of the question. It was said the opposition were disappointed at finding the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed laying on no new taxes, and were disposed to harrass ministers, on that account. For himself, he could say that he did not oppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he and they were very great, he never laid He |