Sitting of 1 April 1805

MINUTES.
Bowyer's Lottery bill, was read a third time and passed.—Mr. Parnell from the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, presented an account of the funded and unfunded debt of Ireland, and of the charges outstanding upon the consolidated fund of Ireland on the 5th of January 1805.—Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.—A person from the Bank of England presented an account of all the dollars that had been issued by the Bank of England to the latest period that the same could be made out. Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.—The Neutral Ships bill, the American Goods Neutral Ships bill, and the Alien Privilege Prize Ships bill, were severally read a third time and passed.—The American Treaty bill was reported.—The Innkeepers Rates bill passed through a Committee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

LORD MELVILLE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwith a view to the discussion which stood for Thursday next, relative to the Tenth Report of the Commis-
166
sioners of Naval Enquiry, thought it desirable to have the house put in possession of every possible information that might enable it to come to a just decision on this important subject. It was material that the discussion should not be unnecessarily protracted, but it was also to be wished that every assistance should be afforded to the judgment of the house. With this view it was that he proposed to submit a motion to the house for the production of a letter written by lord viscount Melville to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry on Thursday the 28th of March, in elucidation of some points in his lordship's case, which it would be important to have before the house previous to its final decision on this question. He was not aware of any objection to his motion, but if any should exist, he should content himself in the present instance with a notice for to-morrow. As the printing of this letter would take up some time, and gentlemen would require also time to consider its contents, in order to come to the discussion fully prepared, he submitted whether it would not be desirable to have the notice for Thursday withdrawn, and some early day in the ensuing week fixed instead of it.
Mr. Foxasked across the table, whether any answer had been returned to this letter?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that any answer had been sent, but was desirous that all the papers relating to the subject should be laid before the house, and printed for the information of gentlemen.
Mr. Greyin the absence of his. hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), felt it impossible to say whether he would consent to put off his motion to next week. Of this, however, he was certain, that it was the wish of his hon. friend, that opportunities of information should be afforded to the house. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that the discussion of this important question should not be protracted. He thought that by deterring the motion till Friday, sufficient time would be afforded, and suggested the propriety of adding to the right hon. gent's motion, a Copy of any answer or proceeding thereon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that Monday would be the earliest day when the house could be prepared for the discussion, if the hon. member (Mr. Francis) who had a motion for that day, would

167
consent to defer it. If it should appear on the production of the letter, that any further proceedings had been taken upon it, they also would be necessary to be laid on the table, Which would require further time.
Mr. Francismade some objection to a further delay of his motion, which had already been put off to accommodate the other side of the house. But on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Francis's motion relative to the present state of India was fixed for Friday next, and Mr. Grey Consented to put off his notice on the part of his hon. friend to Monday, under an understanding however, on all sides, that no further delay should take place, unless something not then foreseen, should occur to render it necessary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen moved "that there be laid before the house a Copy of the Letter of lord viscount Melville, dated the 28th of March, to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; and also, a copy of any proceedings had thereon, or of any answer thereto by the Said Commissioners of Naval Enquiry."—Agreed to.

CORNELIUS GROGAN'S ATTAINDER.
Mr. Martin(of Galway), pursuant to notice, moved, "that there be laid before the house a copy of the evidence and proceedings before the committee of the parliament of Ireland, on passing the act of the 38th of his present majesty, attainting Cornelius Grogan, esq. of John's town in the county of Wexford, so far as the same regarded the said Cornelius Grogan." He said it was proper to apprize the house of his object in making this motion. It was, that the evidence taken before the committee of the parliament of Ireland might be re-examined, to see whether it laid a sufficient ground for the proceedings which were had in the case of the unfortunate gent. to whom he had alluded, and Whose life was taken away by the order of a military council; and by which evidence he maintained, it would appear, that nothing could be more flagrant than those proceedings were; that the life of Mr. Cornelius Grogan was taken away without the verdict of a jury, or trial by law that he Was tried by a military council, and that the members of the court Were not upon oath and that the necessary formalities were not observed, several omissions of which he enumerated, and
168
concluded with the motion as we have above stated.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he should have wished that this motion had been made without some of the observations which had been made upon it; he should have no objection to the information seemed to be required, if it led to any practical proceeding of the house to be founded upon it; but the hon. gent. had mixed two things which are totally distinct in their nature: the proceedings of the court martial by which Mr. Grogan was tried and executed as a rebel, and afterwards the act of attainder, which was a proceeding in the parliament of Ireland, founded, not on the evidence of the court martial, but on evidence laid before the parliament itself, and such as had been held sufficient by that parliament to justify the act of attainder. He doubted whether there existed now any evidence, which the house could be satisfied with, to induce it to reverse that proceeding, and the hon. member had not stated what parliamentary use he intended to make of the information, such as it might be, after he should obtain it. For these reasons, and wishing not to deprive the hon. gent. of an opportunity to call for such information whenever he should make out a case to entitle him to its production, the noble lord moved, that the other order of the day be now read.
Mr. Martinimputed this opposition to a wish in the noble lord to shelter the administration, of which he was a member. He considered Mr. Grogan as a person who was justified in what he did under the authority of lord Coke and lord Hale, who laid it down as the law of our land, that a man may join rebels to save his own life, and continue with them under the terror of its loss, until he shall have an opportunity to escape; this, he said, was the case of that unfortunate gent. He considered, therefore, that his execution was an act of murder, and that the attainder was an act of confiscation, founded on an act of murder. The noble lord's apprehension fell short of the fact, when he supposed there was not evidence sufficiently formal to be laid before the house. He knew there was correct evidence of the whole proceeding. He had seen it. The hon. member contended that there was no want of documents, and pledged himself, if necessary, to find the evidence which it was his wish to submit to the house, as correct notes had been taken of it at the time.

169
Reverting to the court martial, the hon. member insisted that all the necessary formalities had not been complied with. He Would ask his majesty's attorney general, if a person taken from the king's prison, and not taken in any act of rebellion, was a legal subject of a court martial? And yet this had been the case in respect to Mr. Grogan. He had not joined, but had been detained by the rebels. He would stake his credit, that the evidence he had moved for would bring to light such flagrant proceedings as had seldom, if ever, been heard of, and which he was not at all surprized the noble lord should be anxious to keep in the back ground. The country, he asserted, was in perfect peace at the time. The king's commission was, in the county of Wexford, to deliver the gaols. Was there any reason, then, for a military court martial to call them out? The hon. member then adverted, at some length, to the evidence given by general Craddock before the Irish commons, whose answers to questions that he himself had put to him, he begged leave to recall to the memory of the noble lord, and which clearly shewed the irregularity of the proceedings of the court martial. His object in obtruding this motion on the house was, he thought, a very laudable one. Should it appear that there was no evidence sufficient to warrant the proceedings that had been taken against Mr. Grogan, his relations at least ought to have redress.
Mr. Foxobserved, that the ground of the noble lord's objection did not appear to him to be at all admissible. He had said there was no evidence to be produced. Whatever might have been the case in Ireland, such he was certain was not the case in this country, for if no evidence could be afterwards produced, attainders would be irreversible; but the noble lord was too well acquainted with the history of this country to be reminded that many instances had occurred of attainders being reversed. If what he had heard on this subject were true, there could be no doubt that that Act ought to be reversed; but that was not the question, till the evidence should be in due form before them. Severe in general were the times when acts of attainder were resorted to, but to render them irreversible by refusing a revisal, would be to aggravate that severity.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that nothing could be further from his wishes than to prevent parliament from receiving every
170
possible information upon the subject; and the only reason that induced him to move the order of the day was, that the hon. gent. had not stated what his object was in calling for this evidence, or what parliamentary proceeding he meant to ground upon it. The hon. gent. had now stated his object to be that of reversing the bill of attainder against Mr. Grogan, which certainly was a fair parliamentary ground for calling for the document in question; and therefore he would, with the leave of the house, Withdraw his motion.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the family of Mr. Grogan had been in very, extraordinary, and, indeed, most unfortunate circumstances. The very next brother to Mr. Grogan, and who would have been his immediate heir had he survived him, fell honourably, loyally, and gloriously, fighting the battles of his country. The other brother fought with the most determined bravery, till driven out of Wexford by the rebels, who were greatly superior in numbers, before the main body of the army arrived, and therefore, under all these circumstances, added to a doubt whether Mr. Grogan himself had not been forced to fight on the side of the rebels, he thought the justice of the house would incline them to agree to the motion.
General Loftussaid, he was in Wexford at the time of the court martial upon Mr. Grogan, and he begged leave to state, that the officers who formed the court were the principal men of rank and, character in the army, and every attention had been paid in the careful examination of the witnesses. After the sentence was passed, he was, told by many persons of the town, that Mr. Grogan was not so much to blame as he appeared to be; on which he applied to General Lake to suspend the execution of the sentence for some time, till he could make further inquiry; to which general Lake consented, and the execution was deferred till evening, when not being able to find any facts in his favour to counterpoise, or do away the evidence adduced against him, he went to inform General Lake of the circumstance, and the execution then took place.
Mr. Francisrose merely to express his disapprobation of acts of attainder in general, as affecting the innocent and not the guilty.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he was anxious to do justice to the characters of Mr. Grogan's brothers and family, by allowing

171
that they had always distinguished themselves by the most unshaken loyalty and attachment to their king and country, and government had shewn its sense of their conduct by conveying the confiscated estate to a near relation of the family. His lordship's motion was then, with the leave of the house, withdrawn, and the original motion was agreed to.

MILITIA ENLISTIG BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for the third reading of the militia enlisting bill. The bill was then read a third time. The right hon. gent. brought up a clause relative to the wives and families of those militia men who should enlist.
The Marquis of Douglasasked whether it was the intention of the clause to render these wives and families still dependent on the country for support after the husbands should have enlisted? If that was the case he would oppose the clause.
Sir William Youngexpressed the same resolution, to object to it in case it was intended to occasion a permanent burden to the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that they had mistaken the clause, for its object was exactly the contrary of what they imagined, in as far as it went to take the burden of the families of Such militiamen as should enlist off the country after a time to be limited.—The clause was then agreed to; and, after a verbal amendment had been proposed and adopted, the question was put that the bill should pass.
The Marquis of Douglaswas sorry that he was again obliged to trespass on the indulgence of the house, but hoped that he would not be thought pertinacious in his opinions; when no argument had as yet been urged to justify this pernicious measure, at least nothing more than this, that the change of service would be advantageous to the country, He admitted that this was to a certain degree the case, but then the question must be considered with reference to other points, and in this view it would be found to be calculated to produce a great deal of mischief. The fact was, that the object of the bill was to supply the defects of the parish bill; that notable production, that wonderous conception which had been called a rural nymph, clad in russet gown. The gentlemen on the other side, would wish, no doubt to give her a more splendid name. They would call her Minerva, the goddess
172
of wisdom, sprung in complete armour from the brain of this political Jupiter, the whole Congress, on mount Olympus being employed as the midwives. He rather thought, however, that she was in reality no more than a plain rustic nymph, not over remarkable for dress or attractions, for she had wandered over every parish in the kingdom, and had not been able to find a friend, or companion to accompany her. He observed, that the ballot was a very unequal tax on the people; but still the militia had long been established, and the principle could not be destroyed without the most flagrant injustice. The noble lord concluded with severely condemning the ever-changing system the right hon. gent. had adopted towards the militia for many years past, and contended that the bill would go to the ruin of that constitutional branch of our defensive force. It was calculated to ruin the militia by taking the gentlemen of landed property away from it, and destroying the confidence which the men now had in their officers; it was also unjust in its operation on the public, as it occasioned an inequality of taxation on different classes of the people.
Mr. Sheridanrose for the purpose of entering his protest against the principle of this bill. He remained of the same opinion that he had formerly expressed. He agreed with the noble lord, that this bill would destroy the militia system, and in a manner the most unprincipled and insidious. It would lead to insubordination in the regiments, and was dangerous in a constitutional view, and unwise in a military one. One object he had in rising was, to take notice of the preamble. In that it was stated, "whereas it is important that his majesty's regular forces should be augmented." When, he asked, had this important discovery been made? Was it not known at the passing of the act of last session, when the right hon. gent. told us to count months and weeks and days and hours, till such an augmentation could be obtained? He contended, that the preamble of this bill ought to be, "Whereas an act was passed last session for augmenting his majesty's regular forces, which act had totally failed in its object, it is therefore necessary, that said act should be repealed." This he maintained was the language that ought to be employed, inasmuch as a bill that was to have produced 27,000 men had not produced a single

173
man to our infantry. This would have been telling the truth, and truth was a very good thing in an act of parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that there was a small objection to such a preamble, which was that it was contrary to the fact.
Mr. Foxsaid, that if the right hon. gent. meant to say that the preamble proposed by his hon. friend, was contrary to the fact, because it mentioned that the bill had not procured one man, he was certainly in the right, because it had certainly produced more than one. But to say that this bill was any thing else than a repeal of the former to a certain extent, was most certainly erroneous, because if this was not the case, what was the meaning of the boasting promises which were heard when the former bill was proposed? Could the right hon. gent. not tell last year that such a bill as this would be necessary, notwithstanding his former measure? This was a curious circumstance; but the truth was, that it was then inconvenient to tell to any such thing. But he now found it out in the month of March. Was it because the recruiting of the army was at a stand? Why he had not proposed it earlier in the session, he could not tell, unless it were because he did not choose to be the first to confess that his bill had failed. The men now to be raised, could not be perfect regular soldiers for some time, after the changed their service. But the plain truth was, that the right hon. gent. had so abused the incapacity of the last ministers that he found himself absolutely obliged to propose something new; but his novelty had failed, and now came another of his temporary experiments; and however civility might prevent the expressions of triumph from being too galling, yet when the colleagues of the right hon. gent. recollected and compared the epithets with which he then honoured them, with the evidence his own measures have given in his favour, whether in convivial meeting or in political consultations, they must feel a considerable pleasure, and even a degree of exultation. His chief objection to the present bill was, that it was part of that patchwork, temporizing, and unsystematic mode which characterized all the military measures of the right hon. gent and from which experience taught us to expect nothing.
The Secretary at Warsaid, that the observations which were so confidently
174
made on the inefficacy of the additional Force bill, were wholly without foundation. The recruiting, under the sanction of that bill, Was proceeding with every prospect of advantage, and by these means, from 180 to 200 men per week were added to the service in G, Britain and Ireland. Was it to be said, that a measure productive, at the rate of 10,000 men per annum, was idle and nugatory? What was advanced with respect to the injustice of the bill now under consideration, was equally inapplicable; the intention was not to force the men from the militia regiments, but merely to receive those under a competent reward, who were anxious to join the regular establishment.
Mr. Foxrose to explain, that the bill could properly be denominated inefficient, because it was professedly to raise 27,000 men immediately, and it had wholly disappointed this design.
The Secretary at Waraffirmed, in reply, that, from its effects hitherto, there was every reason to conclude that it was already producing at the rate of 10,000 men annually.
Mr. Foxinsisted, that it had, at least, totally failed of effecting what was promised from it.
Mr. Sheridanbegged to observe, in explanation, that he did not say that the act of last session had not produced a single man to our general force, but that it had not added a single man to the British infantry, which by the returns on the table was considerably less in number that in the last year.
Mr. Windhamcommented upon the curious definition of success given by the Secretary at War. The success he, however, apprehended ought to have been in proportion to the promise. If 27,000 men were promised, and only 2 or 3,000 were produced, it could not be said that this wait any great success. If a man were to, promise to walk to York in four days, and had stopped the greater part of the time at Stamford, it might be said,to him "Why don't you get on? you will not be able to perform your promise," He might answer to this, "Pray have patience a little, I am tired, and must stop for some time, but never fear, I shall make out my journey in good time to save my credit." Now, this might be very well as a promise, although certainly it would not be A very promising undertaking.—We were first told, "give it a trial, and then it, will succeed."

175
But now the matter was carried much farther, for we were told that it actually had succeeded. But it certainly could not be said with truth, with regard to the past time, and, fortunately for the right hon. gent. who made the assertion, there were no other documents for any other time. He said that 180 or 200 men were procured weekly. This might be the case at present, but a very different result might be given at the conclusion. A very small difference in the centre made a very wide one in the circumference. He denied that this was an increase to our force, and, dwelt upon the impolicy of making the militia officers discontented. He contended, that so far as the present measure would be successful, it was a repeal of the former. Why did not gentlemen call things by their proper names, and say that this was a bill for transforming militia-men into regular soldiers? Was their system so very changeable, that the recollection of their former measures passed away like visions; or did they think that they had Performed something like a military man™uvre, that they had marched away in silence without the beat of drum,and left only their tents standing, that we might not be aware that the main body had stolen away under cover of the night. They had said, however, that their former measure had not had a fair trial, and accordingly they had more time given for the accomplishing of their object. But now it seemed that it was put off ad Grœcas Calendas, in order to make, way for this new plan.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the right hon. gent. must forego the satisfaction which he seemed to derive from the idea of the bill being a repeal of the former. The operation of that bill was never intended to supply the vacancies that were to be filled up by the present measure. He must also forego the gratification of the confession that the former bill had failed. There was a difference between a total and partial failure. The whole failure that had taken place, and that was admitted, was, that the men had not been procured in so short a time as had been expected. The best proof that it had not failed was that it was producing at the rate. of 9000 men a year for the army. There was no inconsistency here. Because, the former measure was not calculated to produce an immediate disposable force. It was agreed on all hands that it
176
was proper to convert the indisposable into disposable force, as much as possible. He was surprised to hear the right hon. gent. say, that, to obtain the militia for the army, was not an increase of force, when he had been all along contending that the usefulness of troops did not depend on their numbers. Again, the charge of inconsistency lay with those who thought that an immediate reduction should take place, and yet opposed this measure. There might be differences as to the mode, but it was curious to hear those who wished for the reduction of the militia oppose all modes for that purpose. Some were for the gradual, and others for the immediate abolition of the slave trade; but it would be curious to hear one contend for the abolition, and yet refuse both of these methods. Considering all the objections, he was at a loss to guess to what they would come at last. They objected to different descriptions of force, and required that an exigency should be stated, and then attacked this measure as being a compromise. In a free country, every transaction of this nature necessarily partook of the form of a compromise; and upon the whole he thought that there was nothing solid in the objections to this measure.
Mr. Gileswas astonished at the bold assertion, that the present bill was not a repeal of the additional force bill. The latter had three objects in view: 1st, to establish a permanent force; 2d, immediately to augment that force; 3d, gradually to reduce the militia: and this threefold design appeared in the preamble of the bill, The present bill, in the third, object, by transferring 17,000 men from the militia to the regular force, so far, at least, manifestly repeals the former. Another object was comprised in the former, which was to extinguish ballots. These must be revived by the present bill; and so far again, the anterior measure was repealed. He was not at all surprised, at the contradiction between these expedients, but at least they ought to be recognized, and understood. It ought to be known, that the minister himself acknowledged, that the objections he had made with so, much animation to preceding schemes of national defence were vain and futile, and that he himself was at last constrained to tread in the steps of his predecessor. The additional force bill, by a strange inconsistency, required the parish to supply the

177
man, or pay the penalty of 201. within the period of forty-four days, when the appointment of the men so to be raised was not to be assigned until three weeks posterior.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that gentlemen had inaccurately stated both the facts, and the conclusions from those facts; he would admit, for the sake of argument, that their facts were correct, but he could not grant the same indulgence to their deductions from them. For a moment, therefore, he would grant that the additional force bill had wholly failed: the natural deduction then was, that some other measure must be resorted to; but gentlemen used it as an argument, that to the present, and no other expedient, should the country have recourse to supply the deficiency resulting from that disappointment. Gentlemen had likewise contended—
Mr. Windhamhere called the right hon. gent. to order, as going beyond the line of explanation; but declared, that he had no objection to hear the right hon. gent. out in defence of this measure, if by the rules of their proceedings, he could have an opportunity of replying to him.
The Speakersaid, he was aware that the right hon. gent. as far as he proceeded, did not keep within the limits of explanation, and that he only waited till that circumstance should be taken notice of by the house, or till by the tenor of his speech it could be seen whether what he already said would be brought to bear upon any point of explanation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should leave it to the judgment of the house, whether a short observation made by him before should, in the strictness of form, be considered as speaking to the question. What he said was certainly rather in explanation of what he said in a former stage, than in elucidation of the sentence which fell from him in this; but he should not proceed further if he found it to be against the pleasure of the house.
The Speakeragain observed, that all which was necessary for him to do, was to state his conception of the order of proceeding, and as to the rest, it was to be disposed of at the pleasure of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen said, that he did not wish to persist in any thing which was contrary to the forms. He was satisfied to let the question rest upon the ground on which it already stood; and he
178
was the less inclined to urge the observations he had to offer, at the present moment, as he made no doubt but the gent. opposite to him would afford him opportunities enough of doing so.—The bill was then passed without a division.—Adjourned.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.
The Bishop of Durham rose to express a wish that the noble baron who had presented the Petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, would have the goodness to name the day on which it was his intention to bring the object of that Petition under the consideration of the house. The subject it involved was one of such importance, that he felt it his duty to be prepared for the discussion of it, whenever the noble baron should think fit to bring it forward.
Lord Grenvillein reply, said that it was his intention, as far as he could now foresee, to bring forward his motion on that subject on the 10th of May next, Should it however be for the convenience of any noble lord to postpone the discussion for a few days be for one could have no objection.
The Bishop of Durhamonly wished that no delay might take place after the day appointed by the noble baron.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
The order of the day being read for resuming the debate on certain questions relative to the case of Judge Fox;
Lord Aucklandrose to offer an amendment to a string of motions which he had
162
submitted to their lordships this day sen-night, the substance of which was, to add to some of them, the words "punishable by the ordinary course of law." Here a very long conversion ensued on a point of order; whether the motions should be put collectively or separately, in which conversation the following noble lords took a part. For discussing them collectively, were lords Grenville, Spencer, Carlisle, Darnley, Auckland, &c.; for a separate discussion, were the Lord Chancellor, lords Ellenborough, Hawkesbury, sidmouth, Mulgrave, Buckinghamshire, and Redesdale. The conversation, which lasted a considerable time, at length ended in lord Auckland withdrawing his motion.

STANDING ORDER.
Lord Grenvilleafter shortly alluding to his having been interrupted on a former night on this subject, moved that the Standing Order, No. 30, purporting, that if any peer should require the house to go into a committee, for the purpose of delivering his opinion with greater freedom, by having liberty to, speak more than once, it ought not to be refused, be read. His reason, he stated, was to give a fair opportunity to noble lords to discuss this important point with freedom, by speaking as often as they were inclined.—A conversation of considerable length ensued on the interpretation of the standing order, the lord Chancellor, lords Hawkesbury, Redesdale, Morton, &c. contending that it was not imperative; and lords Grenville, Spencer, Ellenborough, &c. maintaining that so long as it stood on the books of the house as one of their orders, it was entitled to its full weight and effect.
The Lord Chancellorhaving, in the course of the discussion, referred to some expressions of his R. H. the Duke of Clarence on a former night, charging him with having violated the orders of the house, in himself addressing their lordships more than once;
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales rose to express what had occurred to him as being the meaning and import of the observation alluded to, which had fallen from his noble relation. His noble relation as his Royal Highness understood him, wished to establish how essential it was that a liberal interpretation of the orders of their lordships on the usage of debate should take place. A Noble Friend of his (lord Grenville) had been called to order that evening by a noble earl oppo-

163
site; and the remark of his noble relative then was, that the same liberty (that of speaking more than once) had been assumed by the noble lord on the woolsack, and that he thought it but proper that a similar indulgence should be extended to his noble friend, and other lords on that side of the house on which he commonly sat. In making this observation, His Royal Highness was conscious that nothing was more distant from the mind of his noble relation than to throw out any improper reflection against any noble lord whatever, particularly against any person who had the honor of filling the seat of Speaker of that house; and he submitted it to the candour of the noble and learned lord himself, if the observation of his noble relation was not strictly consistent with that liberal practice which had generally distinguished the proceedings of their lord ships.
After some further discussion, lord, Grenville agreed generally to move for the house going into a committee, without any reference to the standing order. The house having accordingly gone into a committee,
Lord Grenvillerose in support of the motion of lord Auckland for referring the different points which he had formerly submitted to the house, for the opinion of the twelve judges. His lordship particularly alluded to the precedents which he had pointed out on a former night, and state that, in consequence of the doubts suggested by a noble and learned lord (Ellenborough), he had caused the records of one of these cases, Bridgman v. Holt, to be searched for, and it clearly made out his original assertion, being a case directly in point; there, as in the present case, a petition had been presented to the house against three of the judges of the Common Pleas, which the house ordered them to answer. In the answer lodged, these judges refused to plead the merits of the case unless when called before a legal tribunal. They denied the jurisdiction of their lordships, and maintained that the calling them before the house was contrary to the established law of the land. On considering the matter, after taking the opinion of the other judges, the house came to be of the same mind, and the matter was dismissed.
The Lord Chancellorrecapitulated the arguments which he had formerly adduced in support of the centrary opinion; main-
164
tained that the precedents referred to by the noble lord could not apply, as they occurred previous to the passing of the act of settlement; admitted it to be the established law of the land that no judicial proceeding of a criminal nature could originate in that house; but contended that the measure now before the house was not of a judicial nature, instituted with the view of punishment. He could not, at the same time, see why the judges should not be considered as equally safe in the hands of the two houses of parliament as in those of twelve ordinary men, whose verdict against them would, if the arguments on the other side went to any thing, be obligatory on their lordships, and would be a sufficient call on them to address his majesty for the dismissal of any judge against whom such a verdict should be found.
Lord Grenvillecould not at all see the meaning of the distinction laid down by the noble and learned lord. He stated that this was not a judicial matter, or one to infer punishment. It undoubtedly, however, was meant to go the length of grounding an address to his majesty for the dismissal of a judge for improper conduct in his judicial capacity, and such he contended could not originate in that house. He would wish the noble and learned lord to point out to them where the line was to be drawn, and what, if any thing short of murder, felony, or treason, was to be esteemed without the original cognizance of that house. As to the idea of the act of settlement subjecting the judges to a jurisdiction of which they were formerly independent, he saw nothing in the act which sanctioned such an idea, but the direct contrary.
Lord Hawkesburyopposed the motion of lord Auckland, and contended that the proceedings of the house had been completely regular. In this opinion he was seconded by lord Redesdale.
Lord Aucklanddefended the positions laid down by lord Grenville, by recapitulating the arguments which he had formerly adduced in support of his motions.
Earl Carisfortfollowed on the same side, and deprecated, in strong terms, the idea of subjecting the judges to a species of control from which every other subject of this country was exempt—thereby rendering them the tools of the minister of the day.
The Earl of SuffolkMaintained the necessity of resorting to the opinion of the

165
judges as to the legality of their mode of proceeding.
Lord Ellenboroughdeclared, that his own opinion was decidedly in favour of the proceeding by scirc facias, as the question would thereby have a legal investigation, and as the learned judge would then be tried by his peers. But, as the case now stands, their lordships had adopted another mode of proceeding. The law clearly said, that they may in certain cases proceed to address his majesty for the removal of a judge; it was therefore evident, that they may make inquiry as to the facts upon which that address was to be founded. The words appeared to him to be so unambiguous, and the inference that their lordships had the legal power of proceeding as they had done was so plain and natural, that he had no hesitation in saying that there was no necessity for asking any opinion of the learned lords upon the case.
Earl Darnleysupported the motion as the only means of ridding their lordships' minds of any doubt upon the case.—The question was then put, and there appeared contents 18; not contents 32.—Adjourned.