§ Mr. Paullmoved that the first article of charge against marquis Wellesley be printed. The printing of this article had formerly been discharged, in consequence of the evidence not being before the house. It was now, in a great measure, produced, and he ap- 781 prehended the objection on this head could not be supposed longer to exist.
§ Sir A. Wellesleyopposed the motion, and observed, that it was pretty extraordinary the hon. gent. should now move for printing this charge, which 3 months ago the house had by its vote, ordered to be printed, and afterwards reseinded that vote. The printing at that time, when there was a prospect that the charge might have been. taken into consideration in the course of this session, would have been perfectly fair and reasonable, compared with such a measure at this late period of the session, when there was no probability this subject could be taken into consideration, and when the charge, if printed, would not be for the consideration of the members, but for the purpose of going forth to the whole country, as one of the most heavy and criminal charges against his noble relation that ever had been brought against any man in a public situation; when afterwards it would depend entirely upon the discretion of the hon. gent. whether he should move the house to take it into consideration next session or not. He objected to the motion also in point of order, as the hon. gent. had not given any previous notice of such a motion.
§ Mr. Paulldid not conceive himself under any necessity of giving such previous notice by the rules and orders of the house, and persisted in his motion. He disclaimed any such motive as that imputed to him by the hon. relative of the noble lord, and said, that he moved for the printing now, because it would be impossible to understand the subject with a view to its consideration, unless members were enabled to compare the evidence since laid on the table with the several particulars of the charge, in order to see how the charge was supported.
§ The Speakerstated that the practice of the house required a notice every case where opposition to the motion was likely to be made.
Lord Folkestonedid not look upon the practice of giving notices as an established practice. It certainly was not uniformly enforced. He wished the point to be settled.
§ The Speakersaid he had no difficulty in stating, that every annual and ordinary motion of course, also every new motion, where the person at the head of the department to which it applied was present, and did not object, might be made without no- 782 tice. In all others he conceived, though he was ready to be instructed otherwise by the house, notice of a motion was necessary.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that when this practice began first to prevail, he foresaw the difficulties that would result from it, According to the old rules of parliament, any member was competent to make what motion he pleased, and it could not be withdrawn, if seconded, without the leave of the house. Notices, therefore, were mere matter of agreement; but in this instance, as the motion was objected to, he hoped it would be withdrawn.
Mr.Rosesaid, though there was no standing order to the effect, he wished the practice to continue as laid down by the Speaker.
§ Mr. Windhamstated the ancient usage of parliament to be, that motions might be offered without any notice. This usage was even now often applied with advantage. The recent practice, founded upon general convenience, was, certainly, that notice should be given. He was unwilling that any general unqualified rule should be established; but that every case should be left to the sense of the house on its own individual merits.
Lord Folkestoneobserved, that the rule was far from being uniformly observed; for, in a late instance, the house allowed the foreign secretary of state (Mr. Fox) to pass, at the hour of 12 o'clock at night, so important a thing as a Vote of Approbation for the conduct of earl St. Vincent, while at the head of the board of admiralty, without any previous notice.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that the vote passed in favour of earl St. Vincent, at midnight, and without any previous notice, was a singular and Unprecedented proceeding; and was entering more at large into that subject, when he was interrupted by
§ The Speaker,who observed, that it was neither orderly nor convenient to take this opportunity a entering into the discussion of a former motion.
§ Mr. Paullsaid, that as there were many instances of motions without notice, he thought his would pass as a matter of course; but having been opposed, he would beg leave to withdraw it, and give notice that he should renew the motion on Tuesday next; which was agreed to.—He next observed, that one of time witnesses necessary to this impeachment (sir J. Craig) was ill, and unable to attend at the bar of the 783 house. He, therefore, conformably to precedents, moved that a committee be appointed to examine him, to draw up questions, and report his answers to the house, which was agreed to, and Mr. Paull, sir A. Wellesley, and Mr. Hobhouse were appointed to be the committee.