Star. — London, England, 1801-03-11 00:00:00

Y i- .thofe faits might be accurately ancilairimrgttol ; b to &fouls the general queilion withdut firfl afeertaining the faas, would be in the Itigheft- de abfurd ; he was therefore decidedly in favour. calling • in Gentlemen who were attending Fe fir the purpofe of being examined. Mr. ERSKINE laid, he was extremely ready to' admit the fairnefs of the queftion brought before the Houce.• He thought, however, there were two different modes of difcutling that queftion—both, i t was true, leading to the fame cud ; but one much pn.Terahle to the other. He was decidedly it,sitile to the•calling of witneffes to the Bar of the Houfc at the prefent, moment. It did not follow, beeaufe the Houfe had one day ordered certain rilms to attend for any purpofe on another, that illerefore the Houfe was bound tt) call them to the liar for the purpofe of fulfilling the objet for which they were ordered to attend, when, upon due confideration, their examination might be ad kidgcd unucceffary or improper It would be re ettlleacd they were only ordered fimply to attend ; and lately the Houfe might adjudge, after again i onfidering the fubjea, that their further atten l ance was unnccelfary. A dicqualification to fit in that Hoare muft be laid to arife either out of th: Common Law or the Statute Law ; and he con fdcrcd the cullorns and ufages of Parliament to be a part of the Common Law of the Land. The Noble Lord had brought forward no Ratute to ptove Priefisdifqualifiedfrom fitting in that Houfe; he had not taken the opinion or the Houfe upon the fubjea, but had called upon them to examine evitneffes for the purpofe of ellablifhing certain fats ; but to what thofe fags were to apply, was not yet diftinaly known. This was one way of proceeding ; another, and which he conceived the molt proper method, would have been to appoint a Committee to examine precedents as to the gene ral queftion relative to Priells being difqualified from fitting in that Houfe, and upon their report that fuch a difilualification did aCtually exit', to have examined evidence as to the particular fad pow the lubjea of difpute. His Hon. and learned Friend had, he laid, alluded to a principle of Law; but was it the praßice of Courts of Law—was it ever heard of in a Court of Juftice, or as a prin ciple ofjurifprudence, that evidence ihould be pro. duccd againft any one without firti diftinaly fiat itirtr the offence with which he was charged, or elcahlithing that rule of law by which he was to e tried ? Was it not, on the contrary, the conßant pra.lice and regular cußom, II to prove diftina ly and clearly the principle bf law as applied to a particdlar s faa, and then call evidence as to that particular fad ? The Noble Lord fliould unquef tionably have (hewn the difqualificatien contended for to have arifen out of Tome rule of law, and then have called his evidence to eltablifh fans.— Ent after liftening to the Noble Lord with confi derable attention, he had heard nothing Rated re lative to the law and cutlass of Parliament, which in any way tended tb prove that Prieits were dif qualified from fitting in that Houfe. At thefsusle time he thought the Noble Lord had'aaed more fairly and honourably in not having affumed it, and in leaving it a qiießion completely open for difctilton. Still however, unlefs it was proved in the fira inflance.dillinaly and clearly, that Prieils were difqualified from fitting in that Honk, evi dence oci7ht not to be heard as to any .particular faa, untif that general principle was eitabliffied by inveftigatiun and difedßon. Would it be allowed in aCourt of Juftice, that an indidtment for trca fon (hould Rate fade, and that evidence fhould be heard to prove thefe fads, which were not known under any exißing law to amount to treafon ? or would they not rather firit ettabliffi a principle of .law and then prove lonic aa contrary to that prin ciple ? The Noble Lord faid he had made up his snind, but upon what data the Houfe were left to ' conjeaure : &rely then, they could not hefitate in inflituting a fcarch for precedent's, that they might decide, after due elimination, whether it was con- Silent with the law and cußom of Parliament for Friel!: to fit in that Houfe ? It mightbe faid, filch an enquiry would be a walk of time, and would end in fmoke, but forely the Houfe would enquire before they admitted a general principle, to fup port which no data were brought forward. He admitted that whichever of the two modes alluded to were adopted, they would lead to the fame point, but he objeCted to a principle being taken for grant ed which was not proved.* Had the Noble Lord culled different entries in the Journals to be read, containing precedents of the exclution of Prießs from that Houle, and then taking the principle thus eftablifhed, and the fan together, have called evidence to prove the latser, no poffible objeßion could have been made to fuch mode of proceeding. The Hon. Gentleman who was the objeß of this difenffion, had alked why his admigion of the fads which the Noble Lord wanted to prove, might not he taken as evidence? but certainly no Member cotlef be ultimately excelled cn his own admiffion, nor could the Hon. Gentleman compromife the tights of his Cordtituents by any admiffion of his ewn conceiviag—therefore, a ditlina principle of law ought to he laid down to which certain fags acre amenable, before any evidence of thofe fads was produced, he thould oppofe any evidence being called to the bsr. _ The S►FAKEa hid, a reference having, been made to his opinion, relative to the admidion of Lies by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tooke), he %lilted so °Verve, that be gave no pofitive opinion upon the fubjea, but merely dated the cafe of Lord Elcho, in which that admitfion was not al lowed. TIIC SOLICITOR GRIIIIR•L expreffed himfelf ex trcmclo glad the Honfc bad been reminded from the Chair of the opinion espi eiTed on a former evenilig relative to the fubjea of adinitfions, as it was defirable that opinion thonld be correaly un derflood. His Hon. and Learned - Friend (Mr. Eriltine) thought a principle oflaw thould be laid down before any invefligation of funs was enter tained, alledging this as the uniform realm of Courts of Juilice. He was at all times veq little clifpofed to draw any argument in that Houfefrom the pnEtice of Courts of Ju flicp , conceiving that a Tel 7 fi nd! portion of li =ht could be thrown up `l% ?!..reg Nide bene fi t 'ved to any fubjetn na da wanes hrtLai hisiott. from the Fatties of • Cotto-T 3 of Junice. He could not coincide with what had he, n urged by that Hon. and Learned Gen:1,111"n, that the principle of law ought firft to be flared, and then the fad. Would it not be very abitird, in an indidment for high trealon, to nate that tic law was flo and- fo, and that there fore loch a particular ad was higle trealon ? Such a tioarine was fir incontinent with his Hon. and Learned Friend's prinePlcs, that he mutt believe he had mifundertlood what had been hated I , y that Hon. Gentleman, though if the meaning of his Hon. Friend was not what he had Rated, he was at a loft to know what it was. Ile did not know, till the Hun. Gentler:tan arofe, that there Wete two modes of proceeding in the prefent cafe, fir he had not yet heard a better mode fuggefled by any Gentleman than that adopted by the Noble Lord. It appeared to his mind, the Noble Lord was proceeding with the utmoft regularity to eflablifh the fad, and then he might proceed to prove the ineligibility. When the fad was proved of a Prieft fitting in that Houle, the difeuflion might then be proceeded in as to the point, whether he was eligible or not? The fad Ihould firli be ellablifhed, to Phew the neceflity of difcufting th 3 quellion of Law. Where would be the utility of dircuffing a queflion in the firft inflance, when perhaps, after all, no fad could he brought for ward that rendered fuch a difentlion neceifarv. If It was referred to a Committee, who thould decide Priefts to be difqualified, evidence mull Dill be ad duced to prove the fad of the ordination of the Gentleman who was the objed of difettflion. He thought it would be molt prepollerous if Houle went onto the queflion of law before the toccellity of any difctollion of fuch a que:lion was rendered apparent, by the proof of the fad which it was now wifhed to eftablitt. Mr. Lamas entered into a fhort explanation, difclaimed any allufion to the Scotch Bar in what he had formerly .advanced, and enforced what he had Rated, when comparing the proceedings in the indent cafe to thole in a court of julliee. Lord TxmPLE wifhed to have it perfeelly under flood, that he dtd affume Mr. Horne Tooke to be ineligible to a feat in Parliament, and that it was from a conviaion of this that he had brought for- ward the Motion. Mr. ERSISINE replied acrofs the table—" I know you do affume, but you have not proved." Mr. SHERIDAN thought that the feeble attempts of the Gentlemen on the oppofice tide to anfwer the objections which his Hon. Friend (Mr. Fos) had in the outlet of the difcuffion brought forward againft the Motion, inftead of weakening them, only tended to illuftrate them in a clearer light.— He contended, that the mode of proceeding which the Noble Lord had adopted, gave conliderable colour to the fuppofition that the Motion was not the eh& of his own brain, and Wit could not claim any of the legal Gentlemen as aft/4ff, at leaft it had found in them molt zealous defenders ! There was this difference indeed betwixt this Motion and the general carafe of legal proceedings, that in the one there was always prefented a cafe, whereas at prefent there was merelk a propofition, produced on general grounds, on public rumour, and cer tain undefined apprehenfions which exift in the minds of thofe Gentlemen who have thought it ne ceffary to fubmit the affair to the Houfe. lt had been alledged indeed that by adopting this meafure time would be Paved; but how did it appear, that even in this view the motion would be productive of advantage? Did it not, on the contrary, tend rather to embarrafs than to facilitate the difcuf lion, by obliging the Houfe, in the firft to profecute an enquiry, which, by the previ ous confederation of the general queftion, might be rendered unneceffary ? It was abfurd then to have two feparate fubjeas of inrefligation before the Houle, when one of them was perfectly ealcdlated to promote all the ends in yiew. The language of the motion was, in foe:, that it was of no con fequence to afcertain the exiftence of a Itatute on the fubjea, for.what meaning had it at all, if this was not its exalt import ? We know not whether any ftatute which excludes a perfon who Itas taken prieft's orders from a feat in the Houfe really does exia ; but let us firli afcertain whether the perfon who, according to our internal conviaion is ineligi ble, is a prieft, and thenwe will fearch for precedents In fupport of our inurna/conviaion. But hovi abfurd does this mode of proceeding appear when applied to othercafes? The Noble Lord perhaps has an internal conviaion that a perfon who has become a bank rupt after his eleaiou is incapable of fitting in the Hook, would he in that cafe brig witneffes to the Bar to prove the defea of his qualification ? If a perfon who is a Member of this Houk had reecived the appointment of an office abroad, would it be requifite then to fend perfons all over Europe to prove the fait of his appointment ? In a word, if any Member has an internal conviaion, that another Member is incompetent to have s Seat,' would it be requifite that the Honk &mild hear evidence of the ground of this internal conviaion ? Yet fach are the confequcnces refniting from the adoption of the motion in the firft inftance, without any previous determination. But probably it would be Paid, that the rumour in this cafe was much Monger, and that therefore the cafes are by no means parallel. But it might be afked. why was the internal conviaion wronger in the prefent initanee them in any of the others, fuppofing the conviaion ought to bear Tome proportion to the means of forming a, judgment I The Noble Lord had a Thong conviaion that the,Honourable Mem ber was difqualificd from fitting in the Houfe. But Might it not with more propriety be affumed,i that as no petition to the contrary had been laid on the table of tte Houk, that he had a right to fit, after being returned by a certain rnon of the People of England •—(A lord largh.)--:-Gentle• • men might, from the particular cimumflances of the cafe, be difpokd to laugh, but -it was to be recolleded that the Members of that Houfc were the Guardians of the Rights of the PcilSle in ge neral. thofe inhabiting the molt infignifivant, as I well as the molt populous cities. The Noble Lord was therefore called on in the ara inflame to !tate that the Honourable Gentleman was excluded by fame exprefs broods, either of the common or !lamp law, send till this was done the prefump. tion was asonep igaini his internal cosviitios: It had been 6ticl, indeed, that no other mode had been fuggellcd amid all the various objtetions now offered to the prefent motion. The belt mode teemed to him to bc, the appointment of a Com mittee to fearch for precedents, on which the Houk might pronounce an opinion, and if it Should after wards be found need - Guy, they might proceed to an enquiry. . , Lord TEMPLV contended, that there was a precedent for his Motion, in the ca:. of Colonel Cawthornc, who had been a Member of that Houle and was convieted of impi op.r con , hlo by a Court Martial. On that (a:cation the Houle did no more than addrels his M. , jefly to lay before 1 the minutes of the Court Martial, and without any other evidence, proceeded to expel him. he conceived to be a eate fullicienth; in Mr. Fox fuggelted, that the better mod:. would be to read the precedent from the Journals. Mr. W. Det4DAS argued in fupport of calling in the evidence. The mode of proceeding, le obferved, .was tanelioned by the example of Mr. .Sheridan himfelf, who, in the year t 795, fecing a relation of his, whom he then called an " illei trious eharaaer," in his place, and apprehending that his feat was vacated by accepting the office of Secretary of State, moved that he be tequefied to withdrawiwhile another Motion was made for a new writ for the City of Edinburgh. He did not fee how the Houfe could go on without making out fome previous-ground. It may, pollibly, have to con fider, whether a black man, or a man of colour, had a fight to fit there t but it would be abfurd to go into that difcullion until it was afccrtained that fuch a perfon was amongft them. Mr. SHERIDAN—" As the Honourable Gentle man was a very young Member at the time he al. ludes to, I mull fuppofe he was a good deal flur ried at his firft introduaion, or he would have re colleEted that I did not put the cafe in fo iude tent a way as he reprefents it. I might poffibly have called the Right Honourable Gentleman alluded to an " illuftrious charaFter," but I did not propofe that he fhould withdraw, till I pro duced the Ftatute called Mr. Burke's Bill, which vacated his feat, in my opinion, however the Houfe thought proper to decide upon it." Mr. W. DIINDAS—" I clearly recollect that the Honourable Gentleman did ufe the words " il lultrious charaaer," or " illuflrions Secretary." and moved for his being requefted to withdraw, inflead of propofing, as at prefent, that the confi deration fhould be referred to a Ccmmittee." _ MT. ADDINGTON conceived, that if the Houfe began by proclaiming the law, it might fo happen that much time would Le 1011, and afterwards no thing turn out to which the fads could be applied Mr. Fox—" In order to entitle myfelf with the privilege of fpeaking, confidently with the orders of the Houfe, I mean to conclude what I have to offer with a Motion. I have Holed, during the courfe of the debate, to every thing that has been fail, with the utmolt attention, and every thing 1 have heard, fo far from (baking, has only tended to confirm my original opinion. Gentlemen, in the language of compliment, have thought propel to adiert to my Parliamentary espetience, and the weight which it may be fuppored to give to what might urge but nothing has furpi ;fed me more than that lo many perfons in the profeflion - of the law (hould hare confounded, inficad of making the proper dift:nrtion between parole and written evi dence. Nothing has been offered to us in the way of precedent. Papers are frequently called for, and laid before this Houfe, for general informa tioh, without any dcfign of grounding any fpecisc potion on them ; and in that Rate no technical in terpretation can hold them in the light of evidence. If the Houfe refolves to inflitute an inquiry, the papers are in that cafe referred to a Committee, which is to confider them as evidence; but that is not done until the Houfe has come to a previous refolution that it would go into the inquiry. I am much adonifhed that fo many Learned Gentlemen fbould have confounded thefe diltindiens." Mr. BAILEIL" Sir, I fpcak to order; the Houfe will temember, that the Hon. Gentleman has fpolzen to this queftion before, and, though he lays he will conclude with a Motion, it would Ix 'right to know what the nature of that Motion may be, whether an amendment, an adjourn ment, or moving the other orders of the day ; but I do not conceive that he is at liberty to argue oh it." _ _ Mr. S►EAKFs. — " When the Hon. Gentleman Gild that he would conclude with a Motion, I had every reafon to fuppofe that his own udoment and experience would lead him to makc fuck a Motion as would be contiltent with the rules and orders of the Houfc." Mr. Fox.—" When a Member is called to order, nothing follows more naturally than that he finds himfelf under the necellity of fpeaiting again,. 'either for thepurpofe of eiplanation, apology, or fubmiflion." Sir WILLIAM Younc then interrupted him.— I , I believe," Paid he, that when a Member has any Motion to prop ofe, it is a rule that he fhotdd make it at the clofe of his &ft fpeech ; but it is not underllood that be is entitled to rife again ; and reply to all that had been (aid in oppolition w him, under pretence of concluding with a Motion." Mr. SPlst‘llt.—" I apprehend that it is corn petens to any Gentleman to move the queflion of 1 adjournment at any time he pleafes, and that, I fuppofe, was what the Hon. Gentleman intended." Mr. For.—" My having fpokcn before is cer tainly no caufe why I Mould be precluded from moving the Houle to adjourn, or for Rating my reafons for fo doing." Mr. StrAlttll.--." It °nett, however, to be untlerilood, that ft , ch a motion does not authorife a Member to go into the merits of the queUion be fore under difcaion." The SOLICITOR GEttRAL.--se There can be no doubt but every Member has a right to move the queflion of adjournment; but this. I humbly con ceive, does not, continently with order, entitle him to return to the dirculLon." Mr. SHERwAx.--- 0 It Items to be admitted, on all hands, that any Reprefentative in this Houfe has a right to Move that it ibould adjourn; but that right would, in my apprebenfion, be very nu gatory, and ;mat to be caercifkl, if he was ;tot, at • the Came tame, at licriy to Gate his rearons far i,. Ia the envie of a cicharv, it frearizaily 111;a,-..! s, that a mover may er.r.::t ns, would induce film to pi:avac that the dee•iiol Ilinuld be adjourocd; ;t:.;I cou!d mane: than that he iiistitd h cliabi•:ct to eo wallow.: being allowed an. Comm-lit in tlateraent of his realms. I, move II:at the Houle now adjourn." Mr. For..— ,, If I have a right to nave the quer tian of Adjmarnment, which It was my intemitri to ::are don if I did not doubt whether thre might not hire been fome other order; which that M: - thai w.mld interfer: with, it follows as a confe- Tierce that 1 Ihould Rate 017 ralons for it. Theta r:a.or.,, as alreasly obkrved by my Hoa. Friend, In:quell:1y atife firm arguments on circumflan c.:s occittriug ire the course of the debate. They have done fo in this, and therefore I think myfelf a_ liberty to date th.;:n. It is fii,!, that the world is improving every day, and this Houle may ha foppored to go on in that pt ogreflion ; but to tell me that I have a ra, , lit to make a Motion, and no right to alllgn reafon tor it, betrays a fplrit of metaphyfical nicety, which I am too old, and nut very ambitious to learn." _ Mr. BR.:GGE.-•-•." I Am really pained to be on. der the nceflity of interrupting the Right Hon. Gentleman. It certainly is not confident with the rules of this Houfe, that a Gentleman should fay he rifes to order, as was done a few moments c .nce (by Mr. Sheridan), and afterwards conclude with a motion. It is no lefs chforderly, I prclume,to argue a queltion on the pretence of fuch a :notion." Mr. W. Dusgses delivered himfelf nearly to the fame died, and _ Mr. JoNzs was proceeding to fpeak, when the cry of Chair! Chair! was vociferated from rental parts of the Houfe. Mr. Fox.—There can he no doubt that if a Member sties filch a Motion as a p. etext fur argil. ing another topic, it would be a condut which the Houfe might very properly notice and reprehend; but what has already occurred molt thew the in fufficiency of the power cf the Houfe in this re. Ipea ; for if it be maintained that 1 am not to rea. fon on the grounds of fuck a Motion, brought for. ward by mvfelf, it will not be difputed that I have a right to do fo when the que;tion is propofed by another. I am awry to be fo troublefome, and the more fo, as it k a matter of indifference to me whether I be fuffercd to goon in the prefent stage of this proceeding, though, from the confidence which the Gentlemen on the other fide have teem ed to place in the arength of their legal arguments and authorities, one might have WI - peeled that they would not have been afraid of any anfwer. The length of time already confumed in this de bate, when coupled with all the circumaances at. tending it, might have been a fufficient rcafoa for adjourning ; and if I am fuffered to proceed, I fltall again remark on the Honourable Gentlemen fir attonifhingly overlooking the effential difference that nal. ever fubila between parole evidence and written documents. It fecms to me aftonithing that Prnfetlional Gentlemen fhould not have learn ed better, from their exrerience and praFtice in the Courts of Law. I pretend to no vet y intimate acquaintance with them, and yet I know that the praCtice of no Court will allow Witneffes to be ex amined until there be Come previous proceeding, by declaration in civil, and by indietment in all criminal cafes. Here, however, the analogy fails, and Gentlemen, without any precedent, propofe to examine Witnern is &rine. Mr. BAZEL.—I met again interrupt the Hon. Gentleman. It is certainly out of order, that he (hould take this opportunity of catering into the whole merits of the queftion. . . Mr. &LAIC already fuggefted, for the corfideration of the Houle, whether the Right Hon. Gentleman may not be at liberty to give his reafons for moving an adjournment? He muff however, be aware that it wouid be diforderly to ufe that as a pretence for reply to what other Mem. h:rs faick i before. hillh fox then rote, with confideraSte warmth—. " I feel, Sir, that I mule fubmit to this new order, there new regulations (a cryofH , ar ! Hear! Gbairl Ckair!) I again repeat, Sir, that if I malt fubmit to this new, and to me unheard-of order of the Houfe, I never will fubmit without entering my proteft againft it, that any man, whatever may be his fituation, in or out of this Houfe, fbould tell me that I availed mytelf of a pretence, at the time that I was giving a logical reafon for the Motion I was about to fubmit. I cannot, I will not fub. mit to come into this Houfe, and tamely actinides in a condat which can find no precedent in reafon and common fenfc. But, refrained as lamto 4 bare adveitance to dick obfervations, for I will not all them arguments, to which, it teems, I mull not reply, I (hall go on in thole (hackles, and venture to give my reafons for opooling this Witnci's be. ing called in. I maintain, that there is no prece• dent for it in the cuftoms or ufages of Parliament. Ivor any analogy for it in the proceedings of the Courts of Law. It is not, nor ever could be, the praftice of thcfe Courts to receive evidence in the firil inftance. To what purpofe would , t be, for example, to prove that a man went intact. James's ftreet and pin chafed a (word or pitiol, if it ihoalel not alto appear that fome evil refidted from it, or that he had fome mifchievous intent? The prin cipal rearm', however, for which I eppofe the cal ling in of Witnefres is, becaufc many better modes may be taken for coming to a decifion, which. whatever difpofition I may have to propose. I feel myfelf precluded from fuggelling, at leaft in the preterit debate. Gentlemen ap pear to be apprehenfr:e that the oppofition to this meafure is for the purport of inter noting a delay. I know not what advantage could be propofed by that ; but this I know, that Corn* difficulties wife which have not been obviated by any thing that has occurred in the preferst debate. Suppofing that we were to refer it to a Committee of precedents, the objets which the Houfe would in the Left tine have to confider is, the manner is which it (hould proceed againft one of its Mem. bens, when no petition was prefented againft hits by any of the gleelors. I ant indead aware. that there are tome plum from which it is impel(. /Mk to opt* plutons, wfacrs an Awl ding can II