Commons Sitting of 30 May 1811

WOOTTON BASSETT ELECTION—PETITION OF MR. ATTERSOLL.
A Petition of John Attersoll, esq. was delivered in and read; setting forth, "That at the last election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of Wootton Bassett, in the county of Wilts, the petitioner and Robert Knight, esq. were candidates; and that at the said election, a majority of legal votes was offered for the petitioner; but that William Cripps, esq. the mayor of the said borough, who presided as the return-
338
ing officer at the said election, received the votes of many persons on the poll, in favour of the said Robert Knight, who had no right to vote at the said election, and rejected many legal votes which were tendered for the petitioner, by which means a colourable majority appeared upon the poll in favour of the said Robert Knight; and the said William Cripps bath unjustly returned the said Robert Knight as duly elected, whereas the petitioner had a majority of legal votes, and was duly elected, and ought to have been returned; and praying that the House will take the premises into their consideration, and grant him such relief therein as to them shall seem fit."

WOOTTON BASSETT ELECTION—PETITION OF ELECTORS.
A Petition of William Sadler, of the borough of Wootton Bassett, in the county of Wilts, slopseller, and Robert Wallis, of the same place, bricklayer, was also delivered in and read; setting forth, "That the right of election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Wootton Bassett, in the county of Wilts, is in the inhabitants thereof being householders with in the said borough legally settled, paying scot and lot, and not receiving alms; and that the petitioners had a right to vote at the last election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the said borough; and that, at the said election, Robert Knight, esq. and John Attersoll, esq. were candidates: and that William Cripps, esq. mayor of the said borough, presided as the returning officer thereat, and partially and unjustly received the votes of many persons on the poll in favour of the said Robert Knight, who had no right to vote at the said election, and rejected many legal votes which were tendered for the said John Attersoll, by which means, and by other undue, corrupt and illegal practices of the said Robert Knight, his friends and agents, a colourable majority was procured in favour of the said Robert Knight, who hath been returned by the said William Cripps instead of the said John Attersoll, who had the legal majority of votes at the said election, and was duly elected thereat, and ought to have been returned; and the petitioners further state, that the said William Cripps, and one Jasper Maskelyne, were two of the overseers of the poor for the parish of Wootton Bassett, within which the said borough is situate, for the year preceding

339
the said election, and, as such overseers, did wilfully, fraudulently, illegally, and for election purposes, to the prejudice of the real electors of the said borough, cause the names of divers persons to be inserted in the poor's rates of the said parish as being the occupiers of houses within the said borough, and liable to pay the poor's rates in respect thereof, who were not, at the time of making the said rates, occupiers of such houses, or who had merely a colourable and fraudulent occupation thereof, and who were not liable to the payment of such poor's rates; and did also wilfully, injuriously and fraudulently, and for the purposes aforesaid, omit to insert the names of several persons in the said rates, who were occupiers of houses within the said borough, liable to be rated in respect thereof, by means of which several premises, the rights of the real electors of the said borough have been greatly injured, and the petitioners aggrieved; and praying that the House will take the same into their consideration, and grant them such relief as to them shall seem proper."
Ordered, That the said Petitions be taken into consideration on the 18th of June.

PETITIONS OF THE MANUFACTURERS OF MANCHESTER AND BOLTON.
Mr. Blackburnepresented a Petition from the distressed manufacturers of Manchester. He stated that the petition was subscribed by more than forty thousand signatures, the majority of whom were reduced to a state of extreme distress. As he conceived this to be a subject of great public importance, he was willing to give the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House clue notice, to consider of the best and speediest mode of administering relief to so large and valuable a portion of the community. He should upon a future day call the attention of the House to this subject. He then moved that the Petition be brought up.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that particular circumstances had made him acquainted with the condition of those upon whose behalf the Petition was presented, and never, he believed, was there an instance in which the labourers of this country suffered such distress. He was far from attributing this serious evil to the conduct of his Majesty's ministers; it was owing, he apprehended, altogether to the successful efforts of our great enemy. He hoped,
340
that as Parliament had already come forward to support the inhabitants of Portugal, under the calamities brought upon them by the troops of Buonaparté, they would be no less anxious to protect their own manufacturers from the consequences of his policy. The body soliciting assistance was a most useful one, and had contributed as much as any other to promote the commerce and welfare of the country. It would, he was persuaded, go a great way to alleviate their distresses if the House of Commons were to shew a fellow-feeling upon the occasion, and, therefore, he hoped that government would deem it expedient to administer some relief.
Colonel Stanleysaid he had another Petition of a similar nature, signed by six or seven thousand of the weavers, spinners and labourers of cotton in the town and vicinity of Bolton, in Lancashire, which he should present when this was disposed of. The petitioners were a most industrious class of men, and the distresses to which they were exposed were great and serious.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not doubt that such Petitions would always be received by the House, and disposed of, according to its best judgment. In the present instance, he was anxious that the Petition and all its details should be fully before them, in order that they might come to the consideration of the question with all the information necessary. He thought the motion, of which the hon. gent. who presented the Petition had given notice, a proper one; it was right that he should hereafter fix a day for moving that it should be referred to a Committee, upon which occasion, the House would have to consider all the points embraced in such a motion; it would have to consider the evil, the prayer, and the remedy; it would have to consider whether it would be practicable to afford sufficient relief, and as a necessary branch of that consideration, whether, if sufficient relief could not be afforded, the attempt might not excite expectations which could not be fulfilled, and, by so doing, aggravate instead of alleviating the distresses. The present was not the time for discussing those topics; he should therefore satisfy himself with declaring upon his own part, and he believed he might upon the part of every member of that House, that it was his desire to afford every practical relief; but that he should feel it necessary to guard against encouraging any hope which was not likely to be realized.

341
The Petition from Manchester was then read, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners are reduced to the greatest distress, from the extensive depression of the various manufactures occasioning a deficiency of employment, and from the great reduction of wages, which circumstances, added to the high price of provisions, have subjected them to the most unexampled privations; and that the evils under which they so severely suffer are daily accumulating, and many of their employers, who flattered themselves with enjoying a competence, after many years of toil and industry, now find themselves reduced to complete poverty; and those who are not yet added to the enormous list of bankrupts find their property daily lessening, and cannot, by a continuance in business, in the present state of affairs, promise themselves a better fate; and that the Petitioners humbly submit, and earnestly hope, that some means will be speedily adopted in order to prevent the impending ruin that threatens the country, as great numbers of artists have been compelled, for want of employment, to quit their native land, and to emigrate to foreign countries, in hopes of ameliorating their condition, and to seek for that encouragement which unfortunately has failed them in this their once happy and prosperous country, by which emigrations the trade of the United Kingdom has been much injured and depressed, and must inevitably, in the course of futurity, end in consequences the most disastrous; and that the consequence of this situation of affairs is that the great bulk of the Petitioners are reduced to the most dreadful situation, beyond all former precedent and example, great numbers experiencing the total want of employ, and thousands daily suffering the absolute want of the necessaries of life, for themselves, their wives, and helpless offspring; and that the Petitioners most humbly entreat the House to take into their consideration the distress and situation of the different mechanical branches in general, who are, for want of employment, reduced to want and misery, as the scanty pittance of their earnings is wholly inadequate to procure them the common necessaries of life, the majority of them not being employed more than three days per week; and that a revocation of the Orders in Council would pave the way to a removal of the Non-intercourse and Non-importation Acts lately passed by the Congress and Senate of the United States of Ame-
342
rica, which have already added, and will no doubt still further tend to add, to the distresses of the Petitioners, and would, in the opinion of the Petitioners, by opening a more extended mart for commerce, in a partial degree be the means of restoring them to a more comfortable state; and if such measure could be followed up with a general and permanent peace, (to obtain which desirable end they hope and firmly trust the House will avail itself of every opportunity), the whole of the grievances under which the Petitioners, together with many thousand others of his Majesty's subjects, labour, would then cease, and the Petitioners would be enabled, by the return of trade and commerce, not only to support themselves and families with credit, but with utility to their king and country; and that, if the desirable objects above suggested cannot at present be attained, without sacrificing any of the interests, or compromising the honour and dignity of the country, the petitioners rely with the fullest confidence on the House adopting some such speedy mode as would operate in amelioration of the present distresses of the petitioners."
Colonel Stanleythen presented the Petition from several weavers and spinners of cotton handicrafts artists and labourers, resident in the town of Bolton, in the county of Lancaster, or its vicinity, setting forth,
"That the major part of the petitioners are engaged in or dependent on the cotton manufacture, and that such manufacture hath of late years been subject to great fluctuations, whereby the petitioners have been reduced to frequent necessity, and oft deprived of the necessaries of life; and that at all times the petitioners have borne those sufferings with becoming fortitude, but their present burthen impels them, at this very awful juncture, to lay their distress before the House, in the hope that some means will be devised to afford them relief: and that not more than two-thirds of the looms of the petitioners are employed, and a proportionate number of other industrious artists and handicrafts are also destitute of work: and that those of the petitioners who yet have employ are so much reduced in the price of their labour, that, on a fair average, they cannot earn more than 5s. per week, and that, from these causes the petitioners are absolutely involved in the deepest distress, not being able to procure a sufficiency of even the coarsest food for themselves and

343
families, nor to pay rent for their habitations; their trivial effects and implements of industry are either already or must speedily be sold at one fourth of their cost to satisfy their landlords, and the petitioners are thereby deprived of even a chance in better times; and that the severe privations endured by the industrious poor have introduced a most malignant lever, and want and penury have long since filled the workhouses, but the applicants for relief are too numerous to be supplied with even a scanty allowance; several subscriptions have been made by the friends of humanity, yet these are very inadequate, nor can effectual relief be given, as the distressed objects daily increase, unless the wisdom of the House devise some method to remove or alleviate the general calamity, which now threatens one common ruin to the greater part of the inhabitants of that once happy county; and praying the House to take into its most serious consideration the very alarming state of the cotton manufacture, which, until lately, afforded employ in the various branches connected therewith to not less than five hundred thousand persons, and that they will enact such salutary laws as will give employ and suitable wages to the industrious inhabitants of that exceedingly distressed part of the empire."
The said Petitions were ordered to lie apon the table.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIMS—THE PRINCE REGENT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, before he moved that the Address of that House to the Prince Regent, on the subject of Mr. Palmer's Claims, and his royal highness's Answer thereto, be read, he begged to wave the notice relative to a legislative provision for any future illness of his Majesty, which Stood for that evening, as the discussion on the question he wag then about to introduce to the House, would probably occupy a considerable time. Even however if that were not likely to be the case, he would have felt it his duty to postpone that notice, in consequence of certain circumstances, which had come to his knowledge, and to the knowledge of the public. On Friday se'nnight, however, he would submit to the House a proposition connected with that subject. He then moved: "That the entry in the Votes of jibe House of the 21st day of this instant May, of the Address of this House to his
344
royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly to beseech his royal highness to advance to John Palmer, esq. the sum of 54,702 l. 0s. 7d. being the balance due to him on the net Revenue of the Post Office, from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1808, and to assure his royal highness that this House will make good the same, might be read," and the same was read, accordingly.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, he thought he was justified, from the diligent search he had made, and from the information which, he had derived from various sources, in asserting, that Addresses similar to that which had just been read, and directed in the same manner to be presented to the throne, had, during a long series of years, been voted by that House; and he also conceived himself justified in saying, that no Answer, like unto that given to this Address, had ever before been delivered at the bar of that House. It was well understood as a point settled and confirmed, that the House of Commons not only claimed, but had the right to originate all grants of money to the crown; not only that, but they also had the right to appropriate and dispose of all grants so voted. Many salutary rules had been laid down, and a regular course of proceeding had been adopted with regard to the mode to be observed in granting the public money: the adherence to which was of great importance, as giving them a right to appropriate the sums voted by that House. Taking the subject up at the Revolution, and tracing it down to the present period, it would be found, that, in almost every year, addresses had been voted by the House of Commons, calling on the crown to advance sums of money for various purposes, and pledging the House to make good the same. In no one instance, where they had voted such an Address, or where the crown had, in consequence, advanced any sum of money, had the House ever failed to make good such advance. On various occasions the crown had applied to that House for assistance, relying on its powers and privileges as alone sufficient to grant the sums necessary for the support of the throne. The House, in answer to those Messages, had invariably taken on itself the right and the power of granting the object desired, or of relieving those necessities which were pointed out. It remained for the right hon. gent. and his colleagues, in this year, 1811, to de-

345
part from the invariable practice of their ancestors, and make the crown, under the administration of the government by the Prince Regent, return an answer, implying a doubt either of the power or the will of the House of Commons to make good its engagements.—It would scarcely, he thought, be necessary for him to guard himself against the misconception of censuring the Prince Regent personally. His acts, like those of the sovereign himself, were to be considered the acts of the minister. And, in observing upon them he should regard them in the same sense, and speak of them with the same freedom. He did not think there was any necessity for recurring to a more distant period than that of the Revolution. In the year 1688, when William and Mary filled the throne, an address was presented, praying that a donative might be granted to the foreign troops who had come over to England with William, and were then leaving the country. This was complied with, without the intervention of the House of Lords. In the case of the duke of Marlborough, the subject was confined to the House of Commons and queen Anne. When the same queen had directed the building of a number of new churches, a similar mode of proceeding was observed. This House had also provided for the wants of the civil list in that reign; it was a very important circumstance, and he was desirous of drawing the particular attention of the House to it. The queen, being distressed for money, made on the 25th of June 1713 a communication to the House of Commons only, calling on them to extricate her from those difficulties, which the state of the civil list had occasioned. This case was the more remarkable, as some notice was taken of it by the Lords, not indeed after the manner to which ministers had now resorted, but still in a manner which shewed, that there was a feeling upon the subject. The duke of Bolton had said in his place, that such a proceeding was calculated to take away the importance of the House of Lords, he had gone so far as to name a day for a motion respecting it, yet, from whatever cause it happened, the motion was never brought forward, and the deficiency was made up by the House of Commons, without any farther step.—In the reign of George 1st, it was also resorted to, and it was remarkable that in the reign of George 2nd, the House of Commons addressed the king for an issue of money to augment the salaries of
346
the Judges, which was done upon that bare Address, without any notice of the Lords, who did not even discuss the question as theoretically as they might have done. The sum was made good, as all sums had been by the House to the crown. Coming down to the reign of his present Majesty there were numerous cases upon record. Among those, all public monuments were erected by the vote of that House, even without its knowing the amount of the expence; so that the Commons took upon themselves to decide not only the grant, but the merit of the persons. In the cases of Mr. Mudge, Mr. Lownds, doctor Smith, and he was not sure whether doctor Jenner might not be added. The House of Commons had voted money without the concurrence of the Lords. There were two instances in the present reign, which were still more remarkable, which occurred at times when the Committee of Supply was open, to which no concurrence on the part of the other House was required, although opinions on the subject were so different, that on the Journals of the House of Lords a Protest was to be found, signed by the lord chancellor and archbishop of York of that day, and by several other peers, objecting to a part of one of those grants, which necessarily came before them. It was hardly necessary for him to say, that he alluded to the case of the great earl of Chatham, of whose merits and services no man could think more highly than he did. On the death of that nobleman a bill had been brought in, making a provision for two or three of the next successors to the title, and on the 2d of June 1778 a Protest was entered against the passing of this Bill, "because", in the words of the Protest; "We cannot agree to such an unwarrantable lavishing away of the public money, at a time when the nation groans under a heavy load of debts, and is engaged in a dangerous and expensive war. 2. Because we fear that this act may in after times be made use of as a precedent for factious purposes and to the enriching of private families at the public expence."
"This Protest was signed Bathurst, Chancellor, also by the archbishop of York, the duke of Chandos, and lord Paget. Besides this provision for the next successors of this great man, however, the House of Commons, without any communication with, or any consent on the part of the House of Lords, did immediately proceed to vote to the late earl a monument,

347
and to address his Majesty to advance 20,000 l. in discharge of his debts; with this very circumstance of the Protest alive in their mind; and of this additional grant voted by that House alone, no notice whatever was taken. In still later days a monument had been voted to the memory of Mr. Pitt, and a sum of 40,000 l. granted for the payment of his debts, after considerable discussion, both by addresses of that House without any concurrence on the part of the House of Lords; without even being brought under their notice; for, though these sums were comprehended in the Appropriation Act, they were not stated as being to pay the debts of Mr. Pitt, but made part of a larger sum under the head—"For sums issued pursuant to Addresses of this House."
He knew that for certain smaller sums the House of Lords had been in the use of addressing the crown, such as for the expence of printing their own journals, &c. and he knew that there were at present counsel employed in their House in defending claims connected with their privileges, which must be attended with expence which it was proper they should have the means of discharging. He did not know whence had arisen the right or privilege of originating money bills in that House and not in the House of Lords, except in usage. Nothing was less desirable than that any difference should subsist between the Lords and the Commons: he was happy to say that there was not at this moment the appearance even of a disputed point. Tins being so, all that he had to call the attention of the House to this night was to a dispute between the crown and the House of Commons. What was the amount of the Answer which the Prince Regent had been advised to make to the Address of that House? Why, that he would wait till the means of making good the sum were provided by parliament! By parliament—a word never before used by the crown to that House—a word never used by the Speaker when he went to tender in the other House the Money Bills for the service of the year—a word never before used by the King in his speeches to the two Houses, in which, when he acknowledged receiving the supplies, he specially thanks the Commons for the supplies, and not the parliament, or the Lords and Commons jointly. And ought the House to allow that novel and unusual proceeding? Should
348
they allow that expression to pass—'that he will wait till parliament make good the same.' In the case of relief to the Portuguese, had not the Commons always been applied to, to extend their benevolence; and if so, with what grace did the Prince Regent now come—with what grace was he placed before the House, telling them that he would wait till parliament enabled him to issue the money? When that House was called on to vote millions for the exigencies of the State—for the support of the royal family—and to alleviate the distresses of foreign nations, was it becoming thus to deal with them, when they addressed the crown to advance a sum which they esteemed a fair and just debt truly owing by the country to an individual? With what grace were they then told, "I doubt you will prove either false to your word, or that you will not have it in your power to redeem it; and therefore, I will wait till parliament enable me to make the advance?" He appealed to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, with how much perseverance and zeal, the hon. member who had supported Mr. Palmer's claims had acted, and at the same time with how much propriety he had uniformly conducted himself, while his exertions, though uniformly successful in that House, had been as uniformly defeated cut of it. The minister, though opposed to a private individual, had been beaten times out of number, yet still had contrived to render the victories of his opponent of no avail. Such had been the manæuvres resorted to by the right hon. gentleman, by bringing the matter to be considered at the end of a session, by a thin House, after it had already been carried when the attendance was great, as to occasion the late Mr. Windham to remark, that this was not an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, but one from Philip sober to Philip drunk.—Having stated the various shapes in which the claims of Mr. Palmer had been before the House, down to the Address to the Prince Regent, the hon. gentleman contended that no symptom of any misunderstanding with the Lords appeared; but if it should, the Commons were the judges of their own opinions, and if they chose to risk that rupture, it was not for the minister of the crown to interfere. The House was not to consent to be put under the tutelage of any minister, but was to be entitled to fight their own battles. The right hon. gentleman having

349
been defeated within doors, was resolved to be victorious out of the House. But it was for that House to tell that right hon. gentleman, that they would not consent to be thus let down, but would rather run the risk of a difference with the Lords. They were called on to Jet the right hon. gentleman know that they would not be put down by the crown: but would support these privileges, the greatest and best which they could possess.—The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That whoever advised his royal highness the Prince Regent to doubt the readiness and sufficiency of this House to make good any sum which, in compliance with its Address to that effect, his royal highness shall direct to be advanced, gave advice calculated to disturb that good understanding between the Crown and the Commons which it is of the highest importance to support and maintain."
Colonel Palmerthen rose, and and spoke under the influence of such natural feelings, as rendered him scarcely audible. He expressed a hope, that he had, throughout all the discussions upon this question, conducted himself with becoming temper; and he would confess, that the manner in which the debate had been managed on a late occasion, did put that temper to a severe trial. He should not then trespass on the House by replying to arguments which had been so often refuted; but as he found that forbearance served only to provoke still greater hostility, he should on that occasion submit to the House a plain statement of the case. He should have expected of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the great opposer of Mr. Palmer's claims, that having once made a promise upon the subject, he would have considered himself bound to perform it. That right hon. gentleman, and others, on a former night, had resorted to extracts from private letters on which to ground their accusations against Mr. Palmer. Now, he, too, could refer to a private letter from that right hon. gentleman, containing a promise, which he should leave the House to judge how he had performed. The letter had been written to an hon. friend of his, to whom he should ever feel indebted for the continued support which he had on all occasions given to Mr. Palmer's claims. That hon. friend had remonstrated with the right hon. gentleman, on the opposition which he persisted in giving to Mr. Palmer's claims; and in answer to such re-
350
monstrance the letter he alluded to had been written, stating, that if the Address should be agreed to on the Report, he would give the claim no farther opposition. Now, he should ask the right hon. gentleman how that promise had been fulfilled? He would ask him, too, how he could reconcile it to himself, or to the House, that he had sent the Bill in a former session up to the Lords, not only without but against his consent? This was an outrage upon him, as the originator of the proceeding in that House. In the next session he had been advised by his friends to bring forward the motion he had submitted this session; but he preferred going into a court of justice, especially as the right hon. gentleman had boasted, that if he did so, the claims of Mr. Palmer would be done away with, and himself indicted for a conspiracy. After such a statement, he considered himself bound to go into a court of law. He was aware that the objection on the trial had been first started by the judge, that unless it appeared that the money had been received to Mr. Palmer's use, the action could not be maintained. Mr. Serjeant Shepherd, who was leading counsel for Mr. Palmer, stated, that he had been aware of this objection, but added, that as the ground of going into court was to obtain a decision on the merits, that might be had if the counsel for the other side would admit that the money had been, so received. [Here the hon. gentleman's voice dropt, and he appeared to be greatly affected; having succeeded with some difficulty in uttering a few sentences, which we could not hear, he was at length overpowered by the violence of his feelings, and under the necessity of sitting down.]
Mr. Bankesagreed with the hon. mover in many parts of what had fallen from him, both with respect to the general practice of the House and its high authority. The limits of its powers were large and extensive, necessary for its own dignity and security, as well as for the benefit of the people. He might add, that their permanency depended on keeping within these bounds. He was also ready to admit, that there was no precedent for an answer like the present, but would the hon. gent. shew him any precedent for such an Address? When the opposition of the other House to this grant was known, and that House had an equal power with the Commons with respect to

351
the grant of money—(Hear, hear,)—he denied that this House, as asserted in the terms of the motion, were "sufficient" of themselves to make good a money grant. All the best writers down to Blackstone, surely not one of the least authorities, held this doctrine. The Commons, indeed, had the right to originate and appropriate. This no one denied, but it was equally undeniable, that their vote was not decisive or binding upon the public without the concurrence of the other House. Under all circumstances, it was the duty of the minister to advise the crown; and in what state would he have placed the revenue and the Civil List, had he advised any other than the qualified answer that had been returned? The House had often addressed the crown to advance money, and had added that they would make good the same; and in all such cases a speedy answer was advisable. If it was the usual answer, then, should it be bond fide observed or not? Certainly, whatever the throne said should immediately be fulfilled. Would it then have been consistent with their duties, had ministers, on this occasion, knowing that the other branch of the legislature was of another opinion, with the same documents before them, and without the possibility of any change having taken place since that opinion was declared three years ago; would it have been consistent with their duty to have advised the crown to advance the money for this, not a liberality or a donation, but a claim of right? If they had advanced this sum out of the Civil List, knowing that it was not likely to be repaid, it would have been a palpable instance of waste and negligence, and would have put parliament into a most disagreeable situation—that of a difference of opinion between the Houses, which, however lightly the hon. gent. might think of it, he must consider as an event most anxiously to be deprecated.—The hon. gent. had said, that the vote on this specific question had not come before the Lords, but they were possessed of all the documents on which it was founded in the Appropriation Act, which was refused solely on the ground of this claim. The hon. gent. had called that pertinacious in the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he (Mr. Bankes) called only doing his duty in the difficult task he had to perform in disposing of the public money. It was his imperative duty to take care that no waste in the public
352
money took place, and consequently to resist any claim which he considered to be ill-founded. The decision of the House, too, on this question had been compared, not to the reference of from Philip drunk, to Philip sober; but from Philip sober, to Philip drunk. The Journals, however, would bear him out in stating, that the latter decision relative to taking this claim out of the Appropriation Act, was come to in a House much more numerously attended than that in which the justice of the claim had been recognized. High as he rated the privileges of the House, and essential as he considered them to be for the public weal, he could never, by assenting to a motion like the present, attempt to carry them one step further. He wished there were more checks on the issues of public money, and therefore preferred every other mode to that of Address, which, by according with popular clamour or individual canvas, might extort the nation's money without those constitutional opportunities of discussing the merits of the grant afforded by other measures. Gentlemen talked of the power of ministers to bring down majorities to that House, but he affirmed that they often saw the public claims less potent than those of individuals canvassing for favour and support. The hon. mover had said, leave the two Houses to fight out their own battle. To him it appeared one of the greatest disasters that could happen, if ever it should come to an expression of hostile opinions between the Houses. To hold the inconvenience of this Answer to be as great as that misfortune, was in his idea to hold a very exaggerated opinion. The crown might and must know constitutionally what had passed in a former session of parliament; and at any rate it was the duty of ministers to be acquainted with, these proceedings, and be guided in the advice they gave accordingly. It was also their duty to guard against any possibility of a dissension between the two Houses; of which, if they fell short, they would be deserving of censure, instead of the commendation which, in his opinion, they merited for their conduct in this instance. The hon. gent. then alluded to his motions for Addresses on the subject of the grant of Places in Reversion, which he argued was not a case in any way parallel to the present, as the consent of the Crown would have rendered it complete without the Lords, and also as it was only a temporary measure. The present

353
was a case in which it was for ministers to exercise their discretion, and they had well done so. The Answer was gracious in respect to the House, and only made use of a necessary and prudent reserve, which, as faithful stewards, they were bound to use. Considering also the assertion of the "sufficiency" of the House of Commons, in the motion, to be untrue and completely unfounded, he would give his decided vote against it.
Mr. Lambe,with all the desire which he sincerely had to concur in the motion of his hon. friend, still found himself unable to do so, because the conviction which established custom had fixed upon his mind, remained unshaken. When he differed from his hon. friend on this subject, he still was firm on the point of preserving their privileges in case they should be attacked. Those privileges were given them for the benefit of the people: they were the safe-guard of the country; and that House was bound to return them in safety to their representatives; they should preserve them unshaken by the crown, unimpaired by the House of Lords, unencroached on even by the blind fury of the people themselves. If his hon. friend thought that ministers were attempting to tamper with those privileges, he ought not to have allowed a single day to interfere between the breach and the accusation. As to the precedents which had been adduced, if they were allowed to have any weight, they would go to affirm that the House of Commons would have a right to vote money bills altogether, without the check or control of the House of Lords. Three precedents had been quoted, which were founded in the reign of queen Anne. It was true, indeed, that the sums therein alluded to had been voted by a communication between the queen and the House of Commons, but the reason of this was obvious; no application was necessary from the crown to the House of Lords for the grant of money, because the grant must constitutionally originate with the House of Commons.—Having delivered his opinion on the parliamentary law of the subject, he must also beg leave to give his judgment on the conduct of ministers. He could not help thinking that the right hon. gent. would have acted much more wisely, if he had lent a furthering hand to the decision of the House of Commons, when they had agreed that the money ought to be granted, instead of giving, as he had done, every possible opposition to
354
its effect. If such a principle was to be acted on, it must come to this: that the voles of the House would be considered omnipotent when they were given in support of the minister, and of no effect whatever when given against him.
Mr. C. W. Wynnfelt himself in a singular predicament; because having formerly voted against the grant to Mr. Palmer, he was now inclined to vote for the motion which went to support that grant. It did not signify, however, what might have been his individual opinion on a former occasion, that opinion the House had over-ruled, and he considered himself bound by the decision of the majority. In exactly the same situation as now did he stand the last session. He was determined to vote for the present motion. On the Address, the simple address of that House, the King had paid the debts of the earl of Chatham. It was a notorious fact that the address of the House of Commons, or their vote, was always considered decisive on money questions. Did the Exchequer ever wait for any thing else? Did they ever wait for an act of appropriation? Even in the loan, where all a man was worth in the world was concerned, they never scrupled to act on the mere Resolution of the House of Commons. As to what had been said with respect to the issue of small sums by the House of Lords, no doubt it was the case. But was it not also the fact, that the moment these sums were voted by the House of Lords, they were provided for by a vote of the Committee of Supply of the House of Commons, and to this vote the Exchequer paid respect? He must contend, after all that had been said upon the subject, that there was no parliamentary ground for supposing that any difference of opinion existed between the Houses of Lords and Commons. It was certainly true that the grant of this money had been formerly voted by the House of Commons, and rejected by the Lords. It ought to be remembered now, however, that it was three sessions since the Lords had rejected this grant, and the Commons had no right to suppose that they might not have changed their sentiments. It was an established and acknowledged principle, that the House of Commons was the guardian of the public purse—the sole dispenser of the public money. In his opinion, if they submitted to the answer of the right hon. gentleman (for he should not call it the Answer of the Prince Regent), they would

355
at once relinquish this constitutional privilege. There could not, in his mind, be a stronger case made out than the present. If they now conceded, it would be in short doing nothing less than inviting the House of Lords to dispute their privileges. When those privileges were disputed, then would be the time to defend them. At present, he should content himself by giving his assent to the motion.
Sir J. Anstrutherthought there was no question about the power possessed by that House, of originating grants, or the power of the Crown in relying upon that House for aid, or of the principle of any of the Addresses to the Crown. The question more immediately for the House to consider was, whether they having come to a Resolution to address the Crown, and the Address being carried up, it was not the duty of the minister to advise the answer; and whether, having so advised, there was any thing in that answer which could be construed into a breach of the constitution. What was desired by the hon. mover? Why that the House should pause. Was there any thing unconstitutional in that? The right hon. baronet then took a view of the rise and progress of Addresses, which, in some instances, he observed, had been carried a little further than strict principle could warrant. In many instances the crown had exercised its own discretion against the advice of the ministers. In those times, which by some would be considered not the worst, when a. Whig Administration governed the country, upon an Address of the House to queen Anne, recommending the fortifying Chatham and Portsmouth, the Queen returned for answer (which, according to the doctrine of the present day, was an answer tending to disturb the unanimity of both Houses), that she was happy the House had attended to the fortifying Chatham and Portsmouth; but that as the expence was to be defrayed out of the aids of the year, and the expence was indefinite, she would order the plans and estimates necessary for the works to be drawn out, and then call upon parliament for their aid and assistance to carry it into effect. That was a case in point. He did not know in what part of the constitution it could be found that one House issued money from the public purse without the consent of the other. Were ministers to be blamed for advising the Crown to recommend the House to pause, not for the purpose of rejecting Mr. Palmer's
356
claim, but to give an opportunity for both Houses to agree upon the mode of satisfying that claim if well founded? It was clear that one House thought a Bill was the proper mode of originating the claim. He therefore approved of Ministers in the advice they had given, which if they had not done, they would have been highly censurable. Even if he did not think so, he could not agree to the motion, as he saw nothing in the Answer that could be construed into an expression of doubt as to the readiness or sufficiency of the House of Commons.
Mr. Tierneysaid that be perceived the right hon. gentleman opposite did not mean to enter on his defence, but chose rather to trust to his numbers than to argument. This was, however, in his opinion a most important case; it contained the claims of a very meritorious individual, who had been of the greatest service to the public and to the revenue. It had undergone the ordeal of no less than six investigations, and, so many times had that House been determined in his favour. He would not then trouble the House by going into any lengthened detail of the whole of Mr. Palmer's treatment from his first connection with his Majesty's government. The petition of Mr. Palmer came recommended from the Crown; it was referred to a Committee, great numbers of whom were the friends of the right hon. gentleman; and that Committee had determined in favour of Mr. Palmer. The right hon. gentleman contrived to leave the vote out of the Appropriation Act, and the matter was made the subject of a separate Bill which was thrown out by the Lords. The right hon. gentleman, finding himself out-voted in the House of Commons, very cunningly said to himself, "Well, as that is the case, though I have many friends here, I have more in another place, and there I can defeat all that has been carried against me here." From this circumstance the right hon. gentleman inferred that the Lords' decision upon that Bill was a proof that they would be adverse to the vote of the House of Commons. This inference, however, Mr. Tierney denied; for the Lords had only said, that they thought the claim of Mr. Palmer to the per centage was too great. He was sure however, the Lords would have no objection to give Mr. Palmer 54000 l. as a remuneration, which came recommended by the Commons, not only to compensate

357
his public services, but which was to be in lieu of the per centage to which he had so strong a claim. He would be glad to know, where on the Journals of the House they could find a precedent of a man, whose services had been highly beneficial to the public and to the revenue, with six decisions of the House in his favour, obtaining a vote and nothing else? And all this (said Mr. T.) on the ground, that the Lords have an equal power with us in the granting and distributing the public money. If they have such a right, they must be the most ill-used men in the world: for how does this House use them? At the end of every session, the House of Commons, after voting the whole supplies for the year without ever consulting the Lords, send up an act containing all the sums voted, and all the taxes, in which there is a clause of appropriation; and it is therefore called the Appropriation Act. This Act the Lords are obliged to assent to, even to the amount sometimes of forty millions; and if their lordships were to make an alteration of even a penny in it, the Bill would be thrown out on its return to the Commons, and away at once go all the supplies for the year.—The Lords had never expressed any disapprobation of the salary of 3,000 l. which Mr. Pitt had granted to Mr. Palmer, nor had even the House of Commons been applied to. That was done by an Order of Council; and if Mr. Palmer had now a friendly administration to deal with, so might this have been settled. He could see no reason why the objection had been mentioned, unless the right hon. gentleman meant to invite the Lords to share with the House the power of originating money bills.—If you must, however, go to the Lords (said Mr. Tierney), how do you know the Lords, had they been consulted, would have agreed to the payment of Mr. Pitt's debts? That right hon. gentleman was undoubtedly very popular at one period, but never so much so as his father lord Chatham, was in his day; and yet the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of York, and two other noble peers, entered a protest against paying the debts of lord Chatham, though the House in general seem to have passed it over, as not wishing to interfere in a money concern.—If the House of Commons chose to content themselves with the Answer to this Address, then would the Journals of this year and the last contain the most melancholy proofs of the downfall of the House of Com-
358
mons. If they yielded to such reasons for not enforcing their Vote, they were going out of their way to bring on the interference of the Lords, and to invite them, as it were, to trample on the Commons. In short, the whole question was, whether the House, having voted what they had done, would sit down content with such an Answer. He was sure the Prince Regent had been entrapped into it. It was a melancholy thing, at the commencement of a reign, to see a line of proceeding pursued to bring on a difference between the Crown and the House of Commons; but such a matter, if effected, would be worthy the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas satisfied the House would do him the justice to recollect, that he was not disposed, as the right hon. gent. asserted, to shelter himself under numbers, for he had risen immediately before the hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes), who had, however, the good fortune to catch the Speaker's eye. The question was to be decided by argument, and not by numbers. He could not avoid adverting to the difference of tone entertained by gentlemen opposite on a former night; they then stated, that in giving to the Prince Regent the advice which had been followed, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had committed an act unconstitutional in it nature, and infringing on the privileges of the House. On that occasion he had challenged the hon. gent. to bring forward the charge, as indeed it was his duty to have done, immediately. It could not be forgotten that the hon. gent. was very anxious upon that subject. What was the nature of the charge, as now made? That the Address of this House was operative upon the Crown; and that it became, as it were, the moment it passed, a sort of imperative command which the Crown was bound to obey. Was it so? Did it follow that the Crown was bound to assent immediately to the terms of any Address? Would any man at all acquainted with the constitution of the country, affect to maintain such a position? Had not the Crown the full, legal, and constitutional authority to pause before it complied with that or any Address of a similar nature? That was all that had been done in this instance; and when gentlemen contended for a doctrine contrary to this, they were maintaining what, in his opinion, would tend to subvert that fabric they so much desired to retain—the ancient constitution of

359
the land. The questions, however, for the House to entertain, were these: was the Address to be considered in the nature and light of a command, and if not so to be considered, then was it unconstitutional in the minister to advise the Crown to give an answer such as had been given? In the next place, was the advice proper to be given r and was there any thing in the manner of giving it which could lay the advisers open to censure for the terms in which the answer was conveyed? As to the first proposition, there was no man, he was certain, would hesitate to admit that the minister was bound to give the Crown advice, and the Crown, as one of the branches of the legislature, had the undoubted right of exercising its assent or dissent to any measure. If a Bill were proposed and passed both. Houses, the Crown might assent to or dissent from that Bill, and refuse to sanction it. If then, it was in the power of the Crown to refuse its assent to any Bill which might pass both Houses, he should like to hear the dictum stated which should declare that the Crown was not equally competent to give an opinion as to any address of this or the other House. For to that extent the doctrine must be carried, if the motion of the hon. gent was acceded to. He did not mean to say the refusal of a part was any thing like the refusal of sanction to a measure passed by both Houses. It could not be contended that the refusal was a breach of the constitution: in this case, it was infinitely less strong than if it had been directed against a Bill passed by the two Houses. The power of refusal must then be admitted to exist in the Crown, and the right of advising the Crown to rest with the ministers. The absolute right of refusal, if necessary in any case, was not under consideration. It had not been done. What was the answer complained of? Why, the answer expressed the readiness of the Prince Regent to comply with the wishes of the House, but desired some little time for consideration. At the same time, however, he was ready to admit, that the answer must be taken as the answer of the ministers; but did it therefore imply any distrust of the power of the House, or any inclination to interfere with that power? It was only distinctly saying that the assent of the two branches would be more desirable. It was not constitutional to present the Address in the language of command. With respect to the precedents adduced;
360
why, the proposition that this claim was one of right and justice, and therefore demanded, was saying too much, when the other House had given a distinct and decided opinion on that demand, expressed, as it had been, when the Bill was brought in upon the subject. If gentlemen wished the House of Commons to quarrel with the other House for differing in opinion, was it not competent in the ministers of the Crown to advise the Crown against it? He did not know any right which the constitution gave to the one House more than the other, of enjoying the luxury of quarrelling. Ministers were bound to prevent it, but the right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney), wished the Crown to sit quiet, and see fairplay.—He seemed to prefer that to peace and tranquillity. He also considered the question as a mere matter of revenue, connected with the management and collection of it; but even on that point the other House had decided. Those who preferred the mode of Address to a Bill, might as well contend that taxes should be originated by address. The precedents alluded to, of grants to the duke of Marlborough, the earl of Chatham, and the grant of money for building churches, were ultimately provided for by act of Parliament. The object of the Address might be seen through; it was preferred, because it would thereby give the go-by to the House of Lords. With respect to the practice adopted concerning loans, the right hon. gent. was not correct. When made, the ministers certainly previously received the sanction of the House of Commons; the money was lodged in the Bank of England for security, but it was not touched by the government until an act of Parliament had passed for authorizing its being received into the Exchequer. It was not enough for one House to vote any specific sum; the Parliament collectively must vote it.—The right hon. gent. then alluded to the arguments adduced by gentlemen opposite on former occasions, particularly with respect to the Auditorship of the Exchequer; to shew that they had contended for the necessity of obtaining the consent of the other branch of the legislature to the regulation of that office.—He submitted that he had endeavoured to shew that there had not been any breach of the constitution, nor any disrespect to the Commons; that all which was desired was, that the grant should be completed by the sanction of Parliament.—Having made some further observations, he pro-

361
ceded to notice the remarks which had fallen from the hon. colonel (Mr. Palmer), lamenting that it should have fallen to his lot, as a part of his duty, to read any thing which might have hurt the hon. gentleman's feelings, or revived the recollection of conduct which might lay the claimant open to censure. He defended the conduct pursued by himself, in recommending the inquiry into those claims, which he had done from a motive of not wishing to appear as acting harshly. He concluded with expressing his opinion, that, under all the circumstances, the House would concur in thinking that the advice given was most proper; and therefore he should object to the motion of the hon. gent.
Mr. Ponsonbymaintained that it had been the right of the House of Commons to issue any sums of money ever since the Revolution. He did not mean to argue the present question as a breach of privilege, but he confessed he felt some surprise to hear the gentlemen on the opposite side cheering the expression of sentiments, which tended to lower the dignity of the House. He must consider the Answer sent to the Address of the House as derogatory to its honour; and never, he hoped, would that House suffer itself to be dictated to what extent it should raise any sums of money. The right hon. gent. had said, that he was not to be blamed, but he maintained that he was, for he took the part of the other House against the House of Commons. He would ask, whether there were no instances where the House of Lords disagreed with the vote of the House of Commons; and yet that the House of Commons had persevered and finally prevailed? The right hon. gent. said, that the House of Lords had a legislative voice, and he agreed that they had, when the matter came before them in a legislative shape, but in no other. What were the words of the answer? "When the House has made legislative provision for the same;" that was, when the House had consulted the House of Lords. The House of Lords had but a simple affirmative or negative in such matters, and it was absurd to argue for their possessing a coequal power in matters of money. He should be as sorry as any man to see any dissension between the Crown and the Commons; but there was nothing more calculated to create it than such an answer as had been sent to the Address! and he would assert, that if the House of Commons possessed less power than was now
362
constitutionally vested in it, public liberty would not be long preserved. The right hon. gent. had said, that he wished to avoid any quarrel between the two Houses; but he presumed the possibility of such a quarrel, and then attempted to justify himself on this assumption. If the House of Lords had thought their rights invaded, they were then sitting to vindicate them; but the right hon. gent. stepped in to their assistance, and anticipated the necessity of his interference. It was evident, however, why he pursued this line of conduct, because it pleased himself, and therefore he declared himself the unsolicited, unsoughtfor, advocate and ally of the House of Lords, and that merely because he thought them adverse to the claims of Mr. Palmer. The short question was this: the right hon. gent. admitted the power of the House, but denied that they had discreetly exercised it on this occasion. The House of Lords had once differed on this question, and they might differ again, and therefore he advised the House to bring in an act of parliament to sanction their vote. He believed there was no instance to be found where the Crown had refused its assent in such a case as this when there was no objection to the grant, neither in point of time, nor in any thing else; but the right hon. gent. assumed to himself the interference of another branch, and assigned that as a reason why the crown should refuse its assent to the Address of the House of Commons.—He contended then that the answer was offensive to the House, and ought to be resented. The right hon. gent. might be applauded for condemning the use of the power of the House, but he would contend that it was highly useful and necessary, for he was not so much in love either with the power of the Crown or the House of Lords, as to prefer it to that of the House of Commons, and he confessed that he never expected in that House to have heard the minister applauded for giving a decided preference to any other part of the legislature.
Mr. Whitbreadwas a good deal surprised at the manner in which the question had been discussed. It was not a question of party. He saw, however, that he was likely to vote in a small minority; but however great the majority against him might be, it was still a majority against the House of Commons. He had been accused of inconsistency. He had never used the word privilege. He had been cautious of that. He had seen too much

363
of the effects of the high privilegians; he had seen the odium into which they had brought the very term; he had seen a motion put into the mouth of the Speaker, which had brought these privileges to be canvassed before a court of justice, He had been accused of inattention. The "lay on which he intimated his motion, was a day on which no business was ever discussed in the House; and on Monday, the second day, it was necessary for him to be absent on public business. He called upon the Speaker to bear witness, if he was not a vigilant member of the House; and he thought it rather hard, that while he had been sometimes charged with a troublesome sort of activity, he should now be charged with negligence. He would have brought the motion forward on Monday, but he was called away on public duty. He had travelled many miles to bring forward this unsuccessful motion.—He then proceeded to consider what had been said by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the refusal of the Auditor of the Exchequer to issue sums upon the responsibility of the minister. Was this case at all in point? The right hon. gent. was then keeping the throne unnecessarily vacant, and was usurping the power which could only belong to the Crown. He said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been beaten again and again on Mr. Palmer's claims; but he had shewn he could stoop to conquer; and that which he could not do in one House, he would attempt to do by another. With respect to the case which had been quoted in queen Anne's time: did the House of Commons say they would make good the sum? By no means. And the answer was most proper; that an estimate would be laid before them. Had the minister in reading the Address to the Prince Regent, thought fit to stop at the words make good, would he not have deluded the Prince? The answer returned was extremely ungracious: it was as much as saying, "You fools, you do not know what you are about—you are mere babies—you are going to get into a quarrel with bigger boys than yourselves, who will lick you." With respect to what had been said about the power of the Crown to refuse assent to Bills, he would ask, if the Bill for Catholic Emancipation should pass both Houses, whether any minister of the Crown would dare advise the Crown to interpose a veto? He asked, with what consistency an hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) could
364
oppose this question, who himself on the failure of the Reversions Bill in the House of Lords, proposed to set aside the Lords by an Address to the Crown. He should have liked to have heard what he would have said if any minister of the Crown had advised the granting any Reversion after such an Address! He asked if it became the right hon. gent. to say to those who furnished the Crown with the sinews of war, that they were not sufficient? Their practical power after this was gone. Who would dare to propose a vote by Address hereafter, if that vote was not agreeable to the minister of the day? He had done his duty in bringing forward the present motion, and whether he should be joined with a small or large minority, or even if he should be alone, he should still feel himself called upon to divide the House.
Mr. Palmersaid, that he would willingly leave the whole matter to the decision of a court of law, provided the case should not be allowed to be injured by the recent death of a most material witness, whose former examination might, however, be received as evidence. He mentioned an offer of compromise which had been made to him last session, by a person who stated that he was authorised to do so. At that time he declined it; but after the session, being ordered on foreign service, and contemplating the probability that he might not return, he wrote to the right hon. gent. opposite on the subject, who disavowed any knowledge of the offer which had before been made to him. He apologised to his friends for the trouble which he had given them. Many of them had advised him not to press his father's claims at present, but to wait for a more favourable opportunity. He had been induced to reject that advice from a consideration of the weak and infirm state of the individual in whom he was so nearly interested, and who, if he did not speedily enjoy the benefit of a determination in his favour, would in all probability never enjoy it at all.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould be very happy if the affair could be decided in a court of justice, but expressed his conviction that it could not be so modelled as to be brought fairly to issue. With respect to the offer which the hon. gent. said had been made to him, he declared himself wholly ignorant of any authority having been given to any one of the subject.
The House then divided,

For the motion

68

Against it

161

Majority

—93

BRITISH AND IRISH MILITIAS INTERCHANGE BILL.
The report of this Bill having been brought up,
Mr. Parnellrose to move a clause to give to the Catholic Militiaman legal security for the exercise of his religion in this country. He was ready to allow that the amendments which had been made to the Bill in the Committee had removed some of the objections which he originally entertained. By them the Catholic Militia officer would be protected against the penalties and disabilities of the Test Act, and the Acts of George 3. Still, however, the Bill was not what it ought to be, so far as the Catholic private soldier was concerned. Though the right hon. gent. said he was willing to put him in this country on the same footing in respect to the exercise of his religion, as he was now in Ireland, and that a general order would be issued immediately by the commander in chief for that purpose, he (Mr. Parnell) would maintain that such a security was not a sufficient one—because even in Ireland the Catholic soldier did not stand in the condition in which he ought to be in this respect; for though the Irish Act of 1793 enabled the Catholic to serve in the army, the constructive privilege conferred by that act as to religious worship, was taken away by the mutiny act. By this Act, which is annually passed by parliament, every commanding officer in Ireland is enabled to order the Catholic soldier to attend the Protestant service, and in case of disobedience of his orders, he is enabled to inflict the punishment of fining and imprisoning, in a summary way; or to bring the soldier who disobeys him before a court martial for the general crime of disobedience of orders. This was a power which does at this moment exist in Ireland. To give, therefore, to the Catholic Militia-man, when in this country, only the same privileges as he possesses in Ireland, was to leave him subject to a punishment by law for refusing to attend the service of the established church. He endeavoured to remove this great injustice by the amendment which he proposed to the Mutiny Bill, when last before this House; the reasons for adopting a clause such as he now proposed, were still stronger than any which
366
be could urge in favour of that amendment. By this Bill Catholics are compelled by the ballot to serve in the Irish Militia, and those who may be hereafter admitted into the militia are compelled to serve in England. All persons entering into the army by enlistment did so with their eyes open, and knowing the restraints to which they would be subject.—But this Bill was one which compelled the service of the Irish Catholics in England. Was it not then but just to make provision in such a Bill that he should at least enjoy, in reward for his service, the unquestionable right of exercising his religion according to the ceremonies of his own church.—But the House should observe, that the Catholic soldier would not enjoy the same protection under a general order of the commander in chief in this country as he does in Ireland. Ireland being a Catholic country, he had there every facility of attending the places of Catholic worship. He was also sure of protection and redress in case the orders of the commander in chief were isolated. Here, on the contrary, places of Catholic worship were but few, and if a commanding officer thought proper to disregard the general order, there would be no chance of his injuries being known or redressed. Besides, proceeding by a general order was very objectionable, as it was an Act dispensing with the law of the land. The Mutiny Act makes it legal to punish the soldier for refusing to attend the Protestant church service. The general order says, that pars of the law shall not be enforced. What was this but to dispense with an act of parliament and to violate the Bill of Rights? It was also to be objected to this way of proceeding, that there was no probability that it would afford the Catholic a permanent and effectual security. The repetition of these orders proved their failure to do that which they were designed to do. In Ireland there had been four general orders of commanders of the forces since 1S07. Each successive order referred to the violation of the preceding one, and thus proved their inefficacy. An hon. bart. (sir J. C. Hippesley) who was absent through indisposition, had authorised him to say, that in the western district of this kingdom, four successive orders had been issued at his instance, and each of them had failed to give the Catholic protection.—Under all these circumstances, therefore, he should submit the following clause to the House, as the only way by which

367
complete security could be given to the Catholic for the full and free exercise of his religion.
"And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, serving as commissioned and non-commissioned officers, drummers and private men, in any regiment, battalion or corps of Irish Militia, which shall be called upon to serve in Great Britain, to attend the celebration of divine service, according to the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church, in as foil and free a manner as Protestants (being officers or soldiers) are now permitted to attend the celebration of divine service according to the rites of the Church of England.—And that no such commissioned, or non-commissioned officer, or private man in any regiment, battalion or corps of Irish Militia, which shall be called upon to serve in Great Britain, shall be liable, under any provision of the Mutiny Act, to any punishment whatsoever for refusing to attend divine service or sermon, according to the rites of the Church of England."
Mr. Secretary Ryderhad stated it to be his intention to place the Catholic soldier on the same fooling here as in Ireland; and on such a footing, he contended, he was placed by the Bill as it at present stood. Immediately after the passing of the Bill it was intended that an order should be issued from the office of the commander in chief, allowing each individual to attend that place of worship which he might select. The Irish Catholic had no greater security in Ireland for the enjoyment of his religion, and therefore the proposed clause was unnecessary. For that reason, and for that alone, he should oppose its being introduced.
The clause was supported by sir John Newport, Colonel Bagwell, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Babington, and Mr. Elliot; and opposed by Mr. Goulburne, Dr. Duigenan, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; after which it was negatived without a division. The report was then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday.