Sitting of 30 March 1814

Preamble
The Clergy Penalty Suspension Bill was read a third time and passed, under the title of "An Act to continue, until the 20th day of May 1814, an Act passed in this session of parliament, intituled, 'An Act to stay, until the 20th day of April 1814, proceedings in actions under an Act passed in the 43d year of his present Majesty, to amend the laws to spiritual persons."

HACKNEY POOR BILL.
Mr. Mellish moved the second reading of the Hackney Poor Bill.
Mr. Wrottesleysaid, this Bill contained a clause, the principle of which had often before been reprobated. He certainly thought some reason ought to be given, why such a was necessary in the parish Hackney. He did not, however, mean at present to oppose the second reading.
Mr. Rosesupported the Bill.
Mr. Byngsaid, if the parish of Hackney did not make out a good a case as those parishes which had obtained similar Acts, he should certainly oppose it.
Sir Egerton Brydges, though desirous not to oppose a measure of this nature, could not approve of the clause in question.
Mr. Mellishwas ready to agree, that unless the House should be convinced of the necessity for the existence of the clause in question in the Bill, it ought not to be supported. But he could not see why the parish of Hackney, which was in a similar situation with the 16 or 17 adjoining parishes, all of which had obtained Acts containing clauses of the nature of that now objected to, should be put on a different footing from its neighbours.
Sir Samuel Romillywished the hon. member to inform the House, what there was peculiar in the parish of Hackney, that the inhabitants should not be subject to the same laws which prevailed throughout the other parishes of the kingdom. The hon. gentleman had said that similar enactments had been obtained in the 16 or 17 adjacent parishes. This might be the case, but how did it affect the parish of Hackney? He was not desirous of dividing the House; but he thought it was incumbent on those, who brought forward a Bill so injurious to the lower orders of people, to show what was peculiar in this
386
parish which required so particular a law. There were 10,000 parishes in this kingdom; and by introducing in this manner, one law for one parish, and another for a different parish, the greatest confusion and uncertainty would prevail throughout the country. These Poor Bills were in general passed in silence. The House would be astonished were they to know all the Bills which they had passed. They were not aware of the laws which they had made for particular parishes. It might be right to make the landlord pay the poor's rates, and to place him under the necessity of recovering again from his tenants; but if such a measure were necessary, why confine it to the parish of Hackney, and not extend it throughout the kingdom? There was not a parish throughout the country, which did not contain persons of the peculiar decription alluded to in this Bill; and there was no reason why the same law ought not to prevail in all those other parishes as in this. But the House would have an opportunity of considering this question more fully after the recess, and the general sense of the House might then be taken. He thought, therefore, the second reading of this Bill should be put off till the first Thursday after the recess.
Mr. Wrottesleyobserved, that when he spoke before, he did not know that a Bill had been framed according to a report before the House.
Mr. Mellishwished the learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) to give his attendance in the committee, when the clause objected to should be introduced. The delay required might be of great detriment to the parish of Hackney. In answer to what had been urged respecting the necessity for the clause, for the clause, he could say that 1,880 l. could only be collected from 4,760 houses. This Bill was brought in by petitioners who paid 26,000 l. of poor's rates; another Bill was to be brought in by a part of the parish that paid a much smaller proportion; and if the delay proposed should take place, the second Bill would have the precedence.
After a few words from Mr. Wetherall, sir S. Romilly, and Mr. Rose, the House divided.
For the second reading 37; Against it 36; Majority in favour of the second reading 1.

THE SPEECH OF MR. SPEAKER.
Mr. Cartwright, seeming a right hon. gentleman in his place, begged to be informed what

387
day had been fixed upon by the noble lord his friend (Morpeth) for the motion respecting the late Address of the Speaker at the bar of the House of Lords.
Mr. Ponsonbyreplied, that Friday the 22d of April had been chosen; as it was supposed that by that day the sitting of the various quarter sessions would be concluded.
Mr. Cartwrightwas of opinion, that many members could not be returned and in their places by that early day, He apprehended too, that any notice for a call of the House for the 22d of April would be shorter than custom required.
Mr. Ponsonbyreplied, that more than three weeks notice would be allowed; and he knew that from particular circumstances it would not be convenient to his noble friend to fix a later day for his motion. The Monday succeeding would be the furthest possible postponement.
Mr. Cartwrightremarked, that adjournments had recently been made for the convenience of the attendance of the Irish members; and he hoped that this slight accommodation to the general wish of country members would not be resisted.
Mr. Ponsonbydenied that adjournments had at any time been made solely for the convenience of the Irish members. He saw no adequate reason for postponing the subject beyond the 22d of April.
Mr. Cartwrightmoved that the House should be called over on the 22d of April.
Mr. Ponsonbybegged to be allowed to second the motion, since it met with his entire concurrence.
Mr. Bankesthought that the House ought not to be left in the dark as to the shape in which this important question would be brought before it; nor ought the distinguished individual who was the subject of it to be taken by surprise.
Mr. Ponsonby. I beg to take the liberty of saying, that not only is there no disposition to take the distinguished individual, whose speech is to be the subject of discussion, by surprise; but that no question can easily come before this House which would take the hon. member in question by surprise.
Mr. Bankesanswered, that no member of the House, in question of a personal nature like the present, ought to be taken by surprise. He also begged to take the liberty of saying, that the situation of things, in which the high individual in question was now placed, had never occurred, and would never have been per-
388
mitted to have occurred, with regard to any other person.
Mr. Tierneyfelt himself called upon to state, that he knew it to be the intention of his noble friend (lord Morpeth) to communicate to the Speaker, personally, the nature of the motion he intended to submit, a sufficient time before the 22d April, to enable him to meet it in any way that he might deem expedient. But was it ever heard until this night, that the House was previously to be put in possession of the terms of the motion? A notice had been given, that Mr. Speaker's speech, on a certain occasion, would be taken into consideration on a certain day, and the Speaker be informed in due time of the nature of the motion: this was all that in candour or courtesy could be required, and all that had ever been done.
Mr. Bathurstmaintained, that it was by no means unusual to state to the House the nature of a motion which was to be made on a day a fortnight or more subsequent. He begged to ask whether a single instance could be produced where a question of privilege had been hung up like the present? He required to be informed also, whether there ever was a case before, where, after a delay so long, the individual who was to introduce the subject had not made up his mind upon the precise nature of the motion he would submit to the House? It was not yet known what sort of complaint was to be made against the speech of the right hon. gentleman. The noble lord had not yet determined what his motion should be: was he not resolved upon the general bearing and effect of it? The House ought not to be satisfied with a guess at the terms of a motion on so important a subject.
Mr. C. Wynneobserved, that the whole of this dispute arose from the novel and unconstitutional doctrine which had of late years been introduced, that it was necessary to give a notice before a motion was made. There was no parliamentary rule for any such proceedings; it was an innovation destructive of the privileges of members, and ought to be abolished. The original reason for giving a notice was, to collect a sufficient attendance on the day the subject was to be discussed; but it was entirely at the option of the individual, whether he would not give it. If it was contended that the House had a right to expect it, he distinctly and

389
expressly denied it. He protested warmly against the system of catechising and requiring the exact words of a motion to be made on a subsequent day. If, when, the motion was introduced, time was wanted for considering it, if the member refused to postpone it, the House had then the power to adjourn the consideration of it to a future day; but it had no power to controul a member in making a motion at any time he thought it expedient, without previous communication.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House should recollect that the character of an individual occupying the most distinguished place in this House, is involved in the motion proposed to be made on a future day. No doubt, the noble lord and his friends have, before this time, made their determination upon the form of the motion they will adopt. This, I apprehend, is the first time that any member has been allowed to bring forward a personal charge. [The word 'allowed' was echoed from many parts of the House, and considerable confusion was created by the employment of it by Mr. Vansittart.]
Mr. C. Wynne. Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. Surely this House will not endure to be told, that a member is not to be 'allowed' to, make any motion at any time he thinks proper. (Hear, hear, hear!)—It is the right, the undoubted right of every member, and I call the right hon. gentleman to order.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it be the right of any member, the House will take care that no motion is brought forward and decided without due deliberation. It is true, that the House has the remedy in its own hands, by adjourning the subject; but it may not be prudent to compel the House to exert its right in this respect.
Mr. Whitbread. When the right hon. gentleman talks of 'allowing' members to bring forward motions, he seems to forget that it is the undisputed right of any member even to bring forward an impeachment, and to lay it upon the table, without notice, (Hear, hear!)—If any thing could deter my noble friend from doing that which courtesy only requires, it would be the unemployment of such a term as 'allowed'. Were I placed in the situation of the noble lord, it would operate strongly upon my mind not to do even the courtesy of communicating my motion, lest it should in future be constru-
390
ed into a duty (hear, hear!) Even with regard to the very individual now in the chair, it, is not unprecedented to make a motion without the notice of a moment, at the conclusion of a debate. It will be in the recollection of the House, that only a few sessions ago, when an imputation was supposed to have been cast upon the Speaker, an hon. gentleman, then secretary of state, without notice, on the very evening that the imputation was cast, submitted to the House a complimentary proposition upon the subject. It is true, that the motion of my noble friend will be rather of an opposite nature; but the same reasoning applies; and it might have been argued then, with as much reason as the contrary is contended now, that the House should be put in possession of the precise words in which the vote of commendation of the Chair was couched. I protest against any such practice; and were I the noble lord, I would not communicate my motion even to the Speaker, one day earlier, but perhaps some days later, in consequence of this attempt to draw out the very terms of the motion. When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cartwright) talked of previous adjournments, did he mean to say that they were made merely for the convenience of the Irish, members? It is impossible. A noble viscount (Castlereagh) now absent took part in the discussions on those occasions: his manner was not very similar to the tone employed by his representatives to-day; and I lament that they have not now the benefit of his assistance; if they had, they would never have been so unwise as to take the high ground they have assumed on this occasion; from which they have been tumbled, partly by their own weakness, and incapacity to maintain, themselves any where; and partly by the slippery and untenable nature, of the ground on which they ventured to tread.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Vansittart) did not mean to say, that a member should not be allowed to make a motion, but that the House would never permit such a subject to be discussed without due deliberation. It was not a question, whether member should be allowed to exert his privileges. He knew the noble lord (Morpeth) too well, to think he would do anything inconsistent with the most honourable conduct.
Mr. Ponsonbywithout deciding what the right hon. gentleman meant by the

391
employment of the offensive word 'allow,' expressed his conviction that his noble friend would do nothing that was inconsistent with due courtesy; but, even to the Speaker, he did not know that courtesy would require that the identical words of the intended motion should be communicated, until it was announced to the whole House. As to the general nature and import of it, he put it to any member, whether he could say upon his honour that he did not know generally what was the nature of the motion to be proposed on the 22nd of April. No man of common sense could be ignorant that it was rather disapproving than approving the address of the Speaker. If he had had it in his power then to read the motion, he would not, after what had been said, indulge the curiosity of the other side of the House.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that he, for one, was really very ignorant of the nature of the motion of the noble lord. It might be for a supposed breach of privilege, or misconduct in the exercise of a privilege; or one or both of them. It was of considerable importance, in his view, that the House should be informed more particularly upon the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I said has been so misrepresented, that it becomes necessary for me to give some explanation. I meant to take a distinction between a notice and a charge: notices are, I admit, undoubtedly in all cases mere matters of courtesy; but I apprehend that a personal charge was never discussed on the very day. I allow that any member has a right to lay an impeachment upon the table without any notice; but the House has never, I apprehend, proceeded to investigate the accusation immediately and without deliberation.
Sir John Newportcontended, that the whole object of the other side of the House had been answered by putting the members in possession of the speech from authority, by printing it. No further object could be attained by publishing the precise terms of the motion intended to be made.
The question was then put; and it was ordered that the House should be called over on Friday, 22d of April.