Sitting of 19 June 1805

Minutes.
Sir J. B. Warren brought up the report of the committee, to whom the petition of the trustees of the Naval Asylum was referred. Ordered to lie on the table, to be printed, and to be taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house on Friday next.—On the motion of lord Glenbervie, it was ordered, that a message should be sent to the lords, acquainting their lordships, that the select committee on the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry having closed their examinations, the commons no longer. thought it necessary to desire the attendance of the lord president of the council, the earl St. Vincent, and the earl of Buckinghamshire.—The Bank Forgery bill was read a second time, ordered to be committed on Tuesday, and in the mean time to be printed.—The London Port Improvement bill was read a third time, and passed.—Serjeant Best moved the second reading of the Members of Parliament Bankrupt bill. Sir W. Lemon conceiving that the bill was of great importance, hoped the learned gentleman would not press it through the house the present session. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday.—The London Fish Bounty Amendment act was read a third time and passed.—Mr. Long brought up the report of the committee to whom the petition of the trustees of the British Museum was referred, stating, that in their opinion, the purchase of the late Mr. Townley's collection of antiques, was an object of great national importance, and that the sum required of 20,000l. was a moderate price for the same. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.—On the motion of Mr. Bankes, it was ordered that such part of the report of the

449
committee on the petition from the trustees of the British Museum, as related to the additions making to that building for the reception of antiques &c. be referred to a committee.—The house went into a committee on the Irish Compensation acts, in which Mr. Vansittart stated his intention to bring in a bill obliging the commissioners to advertise a certain day of limitation beyond which no claim should be attended. The House having resumed, the report was received, and Mr. Vansittart obtained leave to bring in a bill accordingly—Mr. Rose brought in a bill for repealing the duties on the woollen goods exported to the East Indies, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.—On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, accounts were ordered to be laid before the house, of the amount of Exchequer bills outstanding and unprovided for, on the two loans in 1804, one of eight millions, the other of one millions, the other of one million and a half.—Mr. Vansittart brought in the Irish Compensation Limitation bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.—Mr. H. Lascelles brought in Mr. Pitt's Indemnity bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.—Mr. Long presented an account of the further sums that would be necessary for the erection of a court-house, &c. in the city of Westminster.—The house went into a committee on the American Wool Trade bill; when it resumed, Mr. Rose obtained leave to bring in a bill permitting the exportation of wool from the British Plantations in America to the united kingdom.—Mr. Foster brought in a bill for regulating the duties on the imports and exports of Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed and to be read a second time on Monday.—The house went into a committee on the Goat Skin act, the report of which was ordered to be received to-morrow.—On the order of the day for the second reading of the Woollen Manufactures bill, Mr. Brooke intimated his disposition to abandon the bill at present, if he could be assured that a similar one should be brought forward early next session. It was a subject of much consequence, as it kept in suspense a body of above 200,000 men. The chancellor of the exchequer, though he could give no pledge that such a bill should be brought forward, yet assured the hon. gent. That the attention of parliament should certainly be drawn to the subject as early as possible in the next session. After a few
450
words from sir W. Young, the bill was given up.—Colonel Craufurd moved, that there be laid before the house an account of the number of men wanting to complete the regular forces in his majesty's service, cavalry and infantry, on the 1st of May, 1805, distinguishing British troops from foreign, and those enlisted for unlimited service from those enlisted for unlimited service; as also an abstract of the number of men raised under the additional defence act in Great Britain and Ireland, shewing the number raised on the 1st of Feb, 1805, and the from that period to the present time. After some doubt expressed by the chancellor of the exchequer whether or not some of these papers could be published, colonel Craufurd's motion was agreed to.—After a short conversation between the secretary at war, general Fitzpatrick, Mr. Fox, and the chancellor of the exchequer, the Militia Oficer's bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.—Ordered, that the house to-morrow, to consider the report of the committee on the Pilchard act.—The Barrack Master's bill was read a third time and passed.—The report of the committee on the Loyalty Loan Bill was received, the amendments were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—The University Advowsons bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.—Mr. Ward brought in a bill for amending the Act of George the First, relative to the situation of the poorer clergy, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

Committee of Supply.
— The order of the day for the house resolving itself into a committee of ways and means having been read, it was ordered, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the public estimates and accounts be referred to the said committee. On the motion for the speaker's leaving the chair,
Mr. Fox asked the right hon. gent. opposite, whether or not he was right in understanding that the sum of five millions to be appropriated to a particular purpose, had been already voted in the committee of supply?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that it was certainly inched in the general vote, but that there had been no specific votes had been kept back from the circumstances of the destination of that sum not having been ascertained. He hoped, however, either

451
to-day or to-morrow to lay before the house it message from his majesty on that subject. An accidental circumstance alone had prevented his not having done so already, but he trusted before the rising of the house he might yet be enabled to communicate it to them.
Mr. Grey observed, that when he gave the notice of his motion, which, stood for to-morrow, it was because no communication of the kind alluded to by the right hon. gent. had been made to the house; an occurrence which might alter his intention.—The house then went into a committee, in which it was resolved on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the sum of 4 millions out of the surplus of the consolidated fund, and the sum of £1,192,115 19 11½ out of the surplus of the grants of last year, be granted towards the supply. The house having resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

Duke of Atholl's Claim.
The order of the day having been read for the house resolving itself into a committee on the report of the committee to whom the petition of the duke of Atholl had been referred, colonel Stanley moved that the speaker do now leave the chair.
Mr. Frankland opposed the motion, and expressed his conviction, that a more important subject had never been brought before parliament; not certainly with regard to the magnitude of the immediate object of discussion, but with regard to the danger of the precedent. He was convinced that the friends of the noble duke would essentially serve him, were they to advise him to withdraw his petition, to begin the business de novo, and to give it quite a different direction. Much stress had been laid on the dissatisfaction that was manifested at the period when the royalties of the Isle of Man were sold to the crown of Great Britain by the ancestor of the noble duke; but this was the dissatisfaction that naturally arose in men of high minds at being deprived of peculiar privileges; it was unconnected with any pecuniary idea, and he was persuaded, that had 700,000l. been the purchase money instead of 70,000l. that dissatisfaction would still have been displayed. The noble duke himself, in his early applications to parliament on this subject, had not hinted at any inadequacy in the pecuniary compensation. He had merely asserted his right to various little vestiges of princely power, and having been defeated in his attempts to procure those in the courts of law, he had brought
452
forward his claims in parliament, but it was not until several applications had been successfully resisted that, in 1790, the idea of pleading inadequacy in point of pecuniary compensation first occurred to the noble duke, after an interval of 25 years from the conclusion of the original bargain. The hon. gent. entered into a history of the proceedings of the commissioners and of the privy council on the duke's claims, and contended that his grace's supplementary petition was meant to surprise those who were unacquainted with the merits of the case into an acquiescence with his wishes. Nothing could be more absurd than the arguments that had been urged by the friends of the noble duke, that the British parliament had no power to bind the Isle of Man. It was by an act of parliament alone that his grace had any right whatever in the island. Without that act he would have been excluded from it. The circumstances attending the negociation of the sale between the crown and the ancestor of the noble duke had been most open and honourable. With regard to the assertion, that the value of the revenues had increased, he was willing to admit it; but why had they increased? Because they had been in the hands of the British parliament; because wiser measures had been adopted with regard to them. Had, the new system failed, and had the revenues been diminished as much as they have been augmented, would it have been considered fair or honourable to deduct from the price paid for them? Why then should the seller be considered as entitled to a participation in advantages which never would have accrued had the island remained in the possession of him or his family? In his opinion the compensation already awarded was more than equivalent to the object gained. If more, however, must yet be granted, as British funds had benefited from the circumstance, from British funds the additional remumeration ought unquestionably to proceed.
Mr. Rose observed, that the duke of Atholl, confessedly deprived of rights for which no sum could be an adequate compensation, came to the house for the restoration of several rights, which, when granted, could be no loss to the public. He failed in this; but although no pecuniary compensation was at first thought of, yet, when it was found that the right was sold at a quarter of its value, it was perfectly open to the noble duke to bring forward the present claim. The bargain had been precipi-

453
tately concluded. If it had been deliberately made, as was usual in such cases, something might indeed be founded upon it, in opposition to any further compensation. But when the noble duke's ancestor was told by the first legal authority of that day (lord Mansfield), that if he did not accept what was offered he would have nothing at all, was that a way to conclude a bargain, or were the rights voluntarily yielded ? An hon. gent. had said, that parliament always had the right to legislate for the island. It certainly, however, had no such thing. The hon. gent. had quoted several acts in proof of his opinions. The fact was, that these acts only referred to the security of the country against any illegal and injurious proceedings that might be carried on in that island. He had quoted the act of the 7th of James I. to prove that the island was not independent of parliament. But, what said lord Coke? though it was not entirely a dictum of his, but the opinion of the other judges. They all said, that parliament had not a right to legislate for the island; but that some special provisions might extend to it. For instance, parliament had a right to take care that it should do nothing to injure this country. But then it was urged, that the act of parliament settled the succession to it. Undoubtedly it was so far dependent on the crown, and parliament also settled the succession to the crown of Scotland in the same way. Mr. Rose then adverted to the several acts relative to the island since the time of George I. One in particular had been mentioned by the attorney-general, in his opinion given on this subject, to prove that parliament had legislated for the Isle of Man. This was stated by him as an act to prevent the exportation of any goods from the island but its own produce. The truth was, however, that the object of the act was only to prevent the exportation of any goods to this country except its own produce. The hon. gent. had said that this was a title without emolument, and mentioned, that in 1700 it was only 100l. per annum, which had been gradually increasing till in 1793 the revenue was 1500l. per annum. What did this shew, but that the revenue was in a rapid state of improvement? It was surely proper that, in making a bargain on this subject, it should be considered not only what the revenue was at the time, but what it was likely to become. The right of the noble duke's ancestor to the royalty of the island was clear, and for all the rights which he possessed, he only received 70,000l.
454
without reference to any account. Mr. Grenville, urged by the revenue board, had taken 5000l. per annum, and that increasing too, from the individual, and only paid 70,000l. which was no adequate compensation even in a pecuniary view. Mr. Rose then defended the duke of Athol from the charge of delay and contrivance in this case. The hon. gent. had said that as parliament gave, it might take away. Suppose it had given away a freehold estate, could it take it again? Yet this was as complete a private right as any freehold estate. The way of dealing here had been very extraordinary, and different from what took place in other cases Some said, that no pecuniary compensation should he granted for rights of this sort. All he would say was, that parliament had in several instances decided otherwise. It was cruel to say, that after a bargain had been concluded, in a case of this sort, where there was a total misapprehension of the value of the article, and a great reluctance on one side, a door should not be left open for further consideration. They said, that parliament could take measures to cut down these rights. But it had no right to take such measures. There was a surplus revenue from the island, and from this the compensation was proposed to be paid. It was said that the noble duke was anxious to have the sovereignty restored. He had heard nothing of this, but he was anxious to have a fair compensation for his pecuniary loss, and to this he was entitled on every principle of justice and equity.
Sir William Young, having taken an active part in the discussion on a petition presented from the inhabitants of Man about twenty years ago to the house, thought he could furnish the house with some lights on the subject. That petition stated, that. one half of those who were formerly engaged in the contraband trade had emigrated to America, and the other half had resorted to the fishery for support. Of thirty-two thousand inhabitants which the island contained, there were three thousand employed on the seas, being a greater number of able-bodied men in proportion to the population of the island, than any other part of the united empire afforded for his majesty's navy: The ancestor of the duke of Atholl had firmed the revenue of the island to a merchant of Liverpool for one thousand pounds a year, and the duke had no right to claim additional compensation in consequence of the increase of that revenue under the fostering care of the British legislature,

455
and from the influence of the laws, the liberty, and the constitution of this country. The whole revenue of the island had been the year before last 11,683l.; the expenses of salaries, &c. was 4,942l. the amount of bounties on the exportation of herrings was 4001l. to which was to be added 2,000l. the amount of bounties with-held on red herrings exported to the Mediterranean, a considerable branch of the trade of the island; thus the expenditure would be 10,943l. out of a revenue of 11,683l. It was not right, therefore, to put the duke of Atholl in a situation that would make it his interest to subtract from the bounties for the encouragement of the fishery, in order to render the surplus of the revenue adequate to his compensation. If any compensation was to be given, which he had not argued, it ought to be given from the public purse.
Mr. D. Giddy followed on the same side, and argued, that the compensation, if any ought to be granted, (the contrary to which maintained,) should be granted from the public purse. If it was in consequence of the public advantages derived from the transaction, that the compensation was demanded, it was but just the public should pay. If a pension were to be given to any individual for public services, it would be unjust to make a particular parish supply the income.
Mr. Kinnaird supported the claim of the noble duke. He observed that the objections to that claim had been directed rather against the manner than the matter of it. Gentlemen treated this as a hardship on the inhabitants of the Isle of Man; that was no more matter of objection than the practice of granting to persons in this country pensions upon the Irish establishment; a practice which was common, and not objected to. He thought the former bargain between government and the duke of Atholl in 1765, when seventy thousand pounds were allowed, extremely hard upon the noble duke. In point of fact, the whole revenue of the island was his sole property, and he was the sole legislator also of the island, at least he possessed absolute power over the revenue, and he had a right to the enjoyment of the whole of its surplus, as much as our sovereign had to his civil list, all of which the duke gave up; nor had the present noble duke the means of resisting the hard bargain made in 1765, he had therefore a claim on the justice and liberality of the house. As to the opinion which the attorney-general had given on this subject adverse to the claim of the noble duke, it
456
was observable that learned gentleman did not attend to support that opinion, and it was therefore fair to infer he had changed it. With regard to the length of time which had elapsed since the agreement was made; to make use of that as an argument against altering it now, was really the most unjust and pernicious mode of reasoning that could be adopted in parliament; for it was making government say this—we will resist your claim for forty years, and at the end of it tell you that your claim is barred by length of time, and that too in a case in which we are both party and judge! For these and other reasons he supported the motion for entering into an investigation of the claim in a committee of the whole house.
Mr. Johnstone felt it extremely unpleasant to oppose the claims of an individual so distinguished as the noble duke, but he had a paramount duty to perform. He never voted away any of the money of the public, but under circumstances in which he would consent to give away his own. in this case, upon a full view of it, he did not think himself justified in assenting to, on the contrary, he thought himself called upon to oppose the claim of the noble duke.
Mr. Harrison was averse to the granting any thing further by way of compensation to the noble duke, on the ground that it had been settled forty years ago, and that the opinions of the law officers of the crown were decidedly against the claim of the noble duke. He thought the long lapse of time since the bargain an argument against the claim, otherwise no bargain made for the public was secure. The money paid for the island had been laid out in lands in Scotland, and the increase of emolument upon it must be much greater than the increase of the revenue of the island.
Lord Henniker thought the house had a right at all times to correct errors as they appeared, let them be of ever so long standing; and under all the circumstances, he did in his conscience think the duke of Atholl entitled to compensation; as to the amount, that was a matter to be settled by the committee.
Sir R Williams thought the compensation very ample at the time, and was decidedly against any further compensation whatever.
Mr. Windham wished to record his sentiments upon the subject. The burthen of proof was on those who supported this claim. He contended that there was no compulsion upon the duke of Atholl to assent to the terms he agreed to in the

457
year 1765. Not a word was heard against this bargain for twenty-five years together, therefore there was no presumption that it was improperly made. It was said, that if the duke of Atholl had not taken what was offered to him by government, he would have had nothing; true, but then he would have had his estate, for he was not bound to part from it, as the proprietors of estates, houses, &c. were obliged to do in the case of every road or canal bill, your wet docks and the like, where the commissioners said, we must have your property at all events, and you shall have for it only what we offer, or what a jury will give you, but the property you shall not keep. The noble duke might have kept his; there was therefore no compulsion. He did not say the sum given was equivalent for the regalities and honours which belonged to the duke of Atholl, but if he chose to barter them for money, he should not afterwards fix a higher pecuniary value on them. That money was the object was clear, for the noble duke did not say, give back my titles and my honours, but give more money, therefore he did not see that the house ought to feel any sympathy with the noble duke for the aristocracy of this case, for it was a mere question of pecuniary consideration: and as to the value of the revenues of the Isle of Man, the answer was, that the prosperity of the island was what parliament itself had created by its laws and regulations; and now it was asked of parliament to grant to the duke of Athol a sum of money on account of the prosperity which they had themselves procured to the country. He considered the opinion of the attorney-general, as given in the report of that learned gentleman, of great weight in this case, as hostile to the claim of the noble duke; it must be taken for granted that the learned gentleman retained that opinion, at least the house had some reason to lament he did not attend to support his former opinion, or to announce his conversion. He thought that if this claim was granted, there would be no end of applications to parliament on this subject, because the principle would be established, that the duke of Atholl's family had a right to compensation in proportion as the prosperity of the Isle of Man increased; so it would be for ever growing with our growth, strengthening with our strength. He related a story of a man and a cat tied at each end of a rope, and thrown into the water, and it was said that the aversion of the cat to that element was such, that her exertions being
458
proportionate to her aversion, she kept herself above it, and the man below it. In the present case, the aversion of one party to what was called a bad bargain would create extraordinary exertion, nor could there be wanting some assistants for that purpose, so that the stronger body of the two should be kept under and drawn through the water. He did not say, or mean to insinuate that this matter appeared to those who supported it as a job; if it did, they would not support it, he was assured; but it had that appearance to him.
Mr. Sheridan said he had listened with attention to his friends who had opposed the claim of the duke of Atholl, under some apprehension they might change his opinion upon that subject; but instead of doing so, they had each in his turn confirmed him in that opinion. He did not think his right hon. friend (Mr. Windham) had enriched his speech that night so much as he usually did by lively sallies of wit and sprightly eloquence. He did not think much of the story of the cat tied at one end of the rope, and the man at the other, unless for the mere pun on the Isle of Man; it reminded him, however, of the exertions of his hon. friends with regard to their pulling at the end of the rope against the claim of the noble duke, for it certainly was "a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together." He suspected, indeed, from the manner in which his hon. friends had opposed this claim, that they had not given themselves the trouble of reading it; which remined him of a learned friend of his, who was once attorney-general, although he usually voted on the opposition side of the house, who had spoken to him of the peace after the American war, and reprobated it in the most severe manner. "What do you think of the 7th article? Have you read that?" said I. "No." said he, "I do not think that any part of it is fit to be read." So here his hon. friends did not think the claim of the duke of Athol was fit to be read, otherwise it was to him manifest they would not oppose it as they did. He considered the letters of Mr. Hammersley and of the late duke of Atholl, as conclusive evidence that seventy thousand pounds was not then considered as a sufficient compensation. In his letter to lord Mansfield, requesting his lordship's advice, he sent a detailed estimate of the losses at six hundred and twenty thousand pounds. It could not be presumed that he would have sent such estimate, if it had been evidently and most ridiculously over the value. Neither

459
did lord Mansfield appear to consider it so. As to the value of the royalties, it should be recollected at what a very high rate the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland were purchased up. Near one hundred and fifty thousand pounds had been given to purchase that which in income did not exceed eight hundred pounds per annum, and at that time the duke of Argyle received twenty-one thousand pounds, for what did not really bring in money more than twenty-eight pounds per annum.. The duke had not let his claims sleep in silence, but had urged them to parliament in several bills that had been proposed since the revestment. Upon the whole, so far from considering it to be (as smile gentlemen termed it) an infamous and scandalous job, he considered it a claim that rested on strict justice, and was supported by the clearest evidence; he therefore felt it his duty, as a member of that house, to support it.
Mr. Wilberforce begged the house seriously to consider that the present demand was not so much upon the revenues of the Isle or Man, as upon the consolidated fund of Great-Britain and the money of their constituents. He ridiculed the estimate of 620,000l. sent in by the late duke) of Atholl, and said it would seem as if his grace had considered the sovereignty of the Isle of Man as something nearly equivalent in value to the crown of Poland, which was estimated at a million in the following lines,
"The crown of Poland, venal twice an age,
"To just a million stinted modest Gage."
He then read extracts of letters from both the duke and duchess of Atholl (the duchess being the heiress of the island) in which they both consider seventy thousand pounds as a full equivalent for what they were going to lose. He positively denied that any committee had as yet reported in favour of the duke's claim, and he thought if it was now granted, it would be a precedent to that family to come again at a future time, and demand still farther compensation.
Mr. Barham thought it extremely improper to give the name of an infamous job to a measure that any considerable number of members in that house might think it their duty to support. If even the charge was consistent with truth, it was language, not consistent with good manners He then entered into the consideration of the claim of his grace, which he stronlgy supported.
Mr. Curwen replied to the different argu-
460
ments that had been advanced in favour of the motion; after which the house being very loud for the question, a division took place: Ayes 95, Noes 38—Majority in favour of the claim, 57.

Message from the King.
— The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought down a message from his majesty, for which see the proceedings of the house of lords. As soon as the message was read from the chair, the right hon. gent. gave notice, that he should move on Friday next, that his majesty's most gracious message be referred to a committee of supply, not imagining that on that day it would provoke much debate, as the subject matter of the message was likely to occupy much of the next day's discussion.
Mr. Fox was ready to allow that much of what the message referred to might very likely come under discussion the next day, but not so entirely and distinctly as when the right hon. gent. intended more immediately to submit it to the consideration of the house. It was therefore his opinion, that the more proper moment for entering into a discussion of the message, would be on the motion that the speaker do leave the chair.—Adjourned.

Minutes
Lord Glenbervie, accompanied by several members, delivered a message from the commons, purporting, that the committee of that house, on which the permission of their lordships for the attendance of the viscount Sidmouth, and the earl of Buckinghamshire, had been requested, having closed the hearing of evidence, and made their report, the necessity for such attendance, on the part of those noble lords, no longer existed.—Mr. Alexander presented the Seamen's Encouragement bill, and the London Port Improvement bill, which, with several private bills, recently brought up, were severally read a first time.—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. Among these the Irish Paper Duty bill, the English and Irish Militia Pay bills, and the Militia Adjutants' bills severally went through committees of the whole house, and the reports were received.—In the committee on the General Turnpike Road bill. The duke of Norfolk objected to one of its leading provisions. By the former act, a moiety of certain monies, levied for offences under the act, was granted to the informer. In the present bill, the whole money was appropriated to the repair of the roads, which would deprive the informer of his principal
446
motive for acting. He, therefore, proposed an amendment, tending to restore the provision of the former act, in that respect, sense of the committee, was, on the question being put, negatived without a division. The report of the bill was ordered to be received to-morrow.—A petition from sir John Johnstone, bart. claiming the title of marquis of Annandale, &c. was presented, and referred, by their lordships, to the consideration of the committee of privileges.—The house resolved into a committee on Morris' divorce bill, when several amendments were made by the omission of certain clauses.—The stipendiary curates bill went through a committee of the whole house, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
[Conduct Of Judge Fox.—Lord Grenville seeing a noble secretary of state in his place observed, that he rose in consequence of his understanding the noble lord had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill to continue the proceedings in the case of Mr. Justice Fox, until the next session of parliament. He rose to trouble their lordships with a very few observations upon the subject. He was aware he was not perfectly in order, but his sense of the intended proceeding was so strong, that he seized the first opportunity he had of saying a few words upon it. The proposed measure, in his opinion, would tend to a material alteration of the whole frame and constitution of the parliament of this country. He hoped full time would be allowed for the consideration of a question of such great importance; a question of no less moment than whether they should now, for the first time since parliament existed, enact by a law, that the king should not have the power by his prerogative of putting an end to motions, discussions, and bills, which might be pending in both houses of parliament. As far as he had been able to inform himself upon the subject, there was no instance upon record of continuing from session to session, bills, or the deliberative proceedings of the legislature. His lordship adverted to a solemn decision, which had been given with respect to the point by both houses, on a particular occasion. With respect to election committees, where the proceedings were continued, the case was quite different, as such made a separate tribunal, the proceedings of which were within itself, and were so constituted by a special law, and for a particular purpose. He concluded by

447
again expressing his hope, that full notice would be given of the intended discussion of a measure of such great and peculiar importance.
Lord Hawkesbury observed, that no proceeding should obtain with respect to the subject adverted to by the noble baron, which would indicate any intention on his part of taking the house by surprise. He was, however, rather obliged to the noble lord for giving his general opinion at so early a period upon the point, though it was done in a way, perhaps, contrary to the forms of that house. Of the intended discussion, the noble baron might be assured, ample notice should be given. He could not say that he coincided with the opinion thrown out. He saw the point in a different light. It should be recollected, that a great difference existed between a legislative and a judicial proceeding of that house; and he conceived in that view of the subject what he proposed could very properly be done. Added to this, the case was perfectly a novel one, and the house would rather have to form a precedent. With respect to the other house of parliament, a case occurred which, he seemed to think, bore a similitude to what he had suggested: he meant the case of sir Thomas Rumbold, wherein, with reference to a bill of pains and penalties, it was proposed to continue the proceedings. With respect to his intended bill, he should propose shortly to bring it in, have it printed for the perusal and consideration of their lordships, and, with respect to the discussion which might take place on the question for the second reading, the noble lord might depend upon it, that ample notice should be given.

Message From The King.
Lord Hawkesbury delivered the following message from his majesty:
"George R.—His majesty thinks proper to acquaint the house of lords, that the communications which have taken place, and are still depending, between his majesty and some of the powers on the continent, have not yet been brought to such a point as to enable his majesty to lay the result of them before the house, or to enter into any further explanation with the French government, consistently with the sentiments expressed by his majesty at the opening of the present session. But his majesty conceives that it may be of essential importance that he should have it in his power to avail himself of any favourable conjuncture for giving effect to such a concert with other powers, as may afford the best means of resisting the inor-
448
dinate ambition of France or may be most likely to lead to a termination of the present contest, on grounds consistent with the permanent safety and interests of his Majesty's dominions, and the security and independence of Europe. His majesty therefore recommends it to the house of lord to consider of making provision for enabling his majesty to take such measures and enter into such engagements as the exigencies of affairs may require. G. R."
Lord Hawkesbury then moved, that his majesty's message be taken into consideration to-morrow. Agreed to.—Adjourned.