Star. — London, England, 1810-03-28 00:00:00

lb- -- - • PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS... HONSE OF LORDS, MARCH 27. The House, in a Committee of Privileges, beard Counsel in the Banbury Peerage Cause. ISISH DI-- --... The order of the day being read for resolving into a Committee on the Irish Distillery Bill, Lord DARNLEY rose and expressed his satisfac tion, that in the Bill which had already passed the House, for suspending still farther the Corn Distil. lery in England, a clause had passed for exempting Ireland ; but the present 'Bill, his Lordship observed, was not only a Bill to permit the Distillation of Corn in Ireland, but to give a bounty on the consumption of spirits, already so generally and mischievously pre ♦alent amongst the lower orders of the people in that country. This unfortunate propensity was carried to a length in Ireland, *which no man could conceive who had not lived for some time in that country ; and he verily believed it was the greatest of all obstacles to the advancement of civilization, and the promo. tion of industry amongst the lower orders of the Irish commutity. This fact he knew, not only from his Lordship's own experience and observation, but from I the assurances of many Noblemen and Gentlemen resident in Ireland, and from a Member of the pre sent Irish Administration. Nothing, he was con •inced, could ever remedy this evil, but some efficient measure of decided encouragement to the breweries over the distilleries, whereby the common people sight be enabled to substitute a wholesome and.nu tritious beverage in place of a liquid poison, equally ruinous to their morals, their health, and industry, and therefore he sincerely deprecated the encourage. ment given by the Government to the distillation of spirits, unaccompanied by some means and check upon the excessive consumption. Lord BATHURST rose to set the Noble Lord right with respect to the Bill now before the House. It was not a bill purely for' the encouragement of distilleries in Ireland, nor to promote among the com mon people the consumption of spirituous liquors ; but a bill to put down the clandestine distilleries, whereby not only bad and unwholesome spirits were distilled, but the consumption more than doubled amongst the people, by an evasion of the duty, and to protect the licenced distillers who manufactured a pure spirit, and paid the King's revenue thereon.— The Noble Lord, however, must see that if the pro pensity of the common people in Ireland was so im moderate as described, for the produce of their home distilleries, it was not practicable to meet the evil in any way, without abolishing the distilleries altogether; and then the consumption would be supplied by foreign spirits. The present bill, so far as it went, would operate to repress the present extraordinary consumption ; because, by abolishing the private stills, and protecting those that paid the duty, the price of the commodity would - be considerably raised, and the consumption, of course, greatly lessened amongst the lower orders, inasmuch as their means of purchasing would be less adequate. The bill was committed, and ordered to .be repor ted to-morrow. Lord HARDWICKE presented a petition from the town of Wisbech, praying the repeal of the Corn DistiUery Prohibition Act.—Ordered to lie on the table. The same Noble Lord moved for an account of the quantity of ems exported from the county of Ifforfoik for the last 30 years, distinguishing each year.—Ordered.-Adjourned. HOUSE OP COMMONS. The Order of the Day being read, for the second reading of the liotherhithe Dock Bill; after a few observations from Mr. S. THORNTON, some opposition from Sir T.TURTON, and a few words from Sir C. PRICE in support of it, the question for the second reading was carried without a division ; and the Bill was read the second time, and referred to a Committee. The Irish Merchandize Warehousing Bill was committed, and ordered to be reported to-morrow. The second reading of the Irish Malt Bill was postponed till to-morrow. Mr. WHARTON moved for a Return of all Monies issued by his Majesty on Address from the House of Commons, and not made good by the House. The House went into a Committee on the Irish Sugar Draw back Bill, the Warehousing, the Flax Seed, and the Militia Completion Bills. BREACH OF PgiVittnE. Mr. LETHBRIDGE rose pursuant to the notice which he had given when he last addressed the House. In rising to address them again on this sub ject, he felt great pain and reluctance, more than he had ever felt on any public occasion. He was now to prefer a complaint against a Member of the Com mons of the United Kingdom, for a violation, a gross and novel violation, of the privileges of that honour able House. He should not now go further, than by laying on the table the ground of the charge as admitted and authenticated by the author ; he had Marked certain parts of the document on which he founded the complaint which he had then the honour so prefer. The SPEAKER wished to know whether the no iOtirafile Member desired that the entire of the publi cation, or only the distinct parts, should be read ? Mr. LETHBRIDGE regretted the necessity of faking up the'dme of the House, when other business of more, or at least of equal importance, was before them; but the manner of reading was indifferent to Ilim ; be had marked the passages, but had no ob jection to the reading of the whole. Mr. H. SUMNE'R thought that the reading of the entire was unnecessary ; the convenience would naturally be best consulted by the paper being read [only as connected withe char the parts with which ge. It rested with the Honourable Mover t o select the House was concerned. Mr. SPEAKER.—" The form of Parliamentary usage must be that which the Parliament shall adopt .that form is, in instances like the present, that the whole complaint be heard, and then the answers which the accused has ready for his exculpation. — The accused then withdraws, and the mover of the charge brings forward his proposition, founded onsthe matters which may have been submitted to the House, - The 46 Address and Argument of Sir Francis Bur dett on the power of Imprisonment in the House of Commons," published in Mr. Cobbett's Register of the 24th of March, was read by the Clert of the HoUse. After the reading Lord FOLKESTONE rose to order. The Honourable Mover (Mr. iLethbridge) on his calling the attention of the House to the paper which had been just read, had offered nothing of which they could fairly fake notice. That paper, after an hour and a half occupied in reading it, supplied no peculiar charge ; it must be for the Ilona Mover to - • 4--• y make out the charge, for nothing could be te._ formal or absurd than to call on his Hon. Friel.. (Sir F. Burdett) for an answer, till he had heard something more definite than the general contents of that voluminous publication. Mr. LETHBRIDGE, in reply to what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Folkestone), would only re- Mind the House that he had professed himself ready to point out the-passages on which the complaint was raised. He had stated that he marked those pas. sages, but he had not thought it proper to press his opinion on the House, lest it might be said, that his complaint was supported by garbled documents. He intended, from the beginning, to adopt any line which the House thought proper to choose for him, because he had brought forward the matter only its affecting the House ; he had no motive of personal hostility ; he stood forward there out ofrespect to the country, ind as the representative of as independent a body of men as any in Old England. He would now proceed to state those passages which he had marked. The first of these was one in the Preamble of the Address, containing the following extraordi nary language— " The House of Commons having passed a vote, which amounts to a declaration that an order of theirs is to 1:i:of more importance than Magna Charta andrtbe laws of the land,l think it my duty to lay my sentiments thereon before my consti tuents, whose character as freemen, and even whose personal safety, depend, in a great degree, upon the decision of this ques tion • a question of ne less importance than this; whether our liberhis be still to be secured by the laws of our forefathers, or be to lie at the absolute mercy of a pan of our fellow subjects, col lected together by means which it is not necessary for me to de scribe r' The next passage to which he would call their at tention was, that one in which the address talked of the place of imprisonment : " If they have the absolute power of Imprisoning and releas ing, why may they not send their prisoners to York jail, as well as to a jail in London ? Why not confine men in solitary cells, or load them with chains and bolts ? They have not gone those lengths yet ; but what is to restrain them, if they are to be the sole judges of the extent of their own powers, and if they are to exercise those powers without any controul, and without leaving the parties whom they choose to punish any mode of appeal, any means of redress ?" " That I deny," says Mr. LETHBRIDGE.— (A laugh.) The next was from the conclusion of the Address, which terminated in those words : " In doing this, I shall do all that now remains in my power towards the correction of this, as I deem it, most enormous abuse of power, and most dangerous of all encroachments upon the rights and liberties of Englishmen." The next passage was, from that part of the pub lication which was entitled the Argument. `• Had I not been prevented by indispcmden, from-being pre sent when the House of Commons passed by vote a sentence of imprisonment of Mr. Gale Jones, I should have endeavoured to shew, that tinder the false notion of privilege, they were exercis ing a power, and committing an act of oppression ill suited to the character of guardians of public liberty, and destructive of the first and mosrimportant object of the Constitution, viz. the per sonal security of the subject.' The next passage was that commencing in the fol lowing words : . " Founded on such a bash, fertiffed by such authorities as I shall have occasion to appeal to In the progress of this inquiry, I have little doubt of being able to convince every impartial mind, that the House of Cetrunoes, by proceeding to judgment—passing a sentence of imprisonment—issuing a warrant of anninitment— has gone beyond its prescribed limits, acted in a manner incon sistent with the ends of the institution, and violated the funda mental principles of the Law and Constitution of the bind." The next passage was— , " By proceeding thus, they have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them, a jurisdiction beyond the limits of King, Lords, 'and Commons, while Magna Charm remains unrepealed ; acrd re pealed it never can be till England shall have found her grave in the corruption of a House of Commons."—(Lsed trier of hear 1 from Me Opposition./ The next obnoxious passage was, that subsequent to the Speaker's warrant. " Let this instrument, this thing, fa ghterir, be contrasted with the description of the properties of a legal warrant. Does it not evidently appear, that this piece of unsealed paper, signed by the Speaker, by which an untried subject has been outlawed, bears no feature of legality ? and that, from the commencement of this proceeding, in its progress, and to its conclusion, there is not one step that has not been marked in a peculiar manner with disre spect for the laws ? a disrespect in which all the parts have been wonderfully consistent throughout, in constituting the most un • lawful act the mind of man can possibly conceive."--( Hear,hear, from the Treasury Bench.) Mr. LETHBRIDGE now called the attention of the House to a passage, which he thought would of itself substantiate all complaint ; it was this : " But no wonder when they have so entirely departed from the ends of their institution, as was offered to be proved by Mr. Maddocks, and acknowledged by themselves in the never to be forgotten morning of the 11th of May, 1809, when from being the lower or inferior (for it is the tame sense, one being an Eng lish, the other a Latin word) branch of the Legislature, they have become the proprietors by burgage tenure of the whole represen tation, and in that capacity, inflated with their high-flown fanci ful ideas of Majesty, and tricked out in the trappings of royalty, think privilege and protection beneath their dignity, assume the sword of prerogative, and lord it equally over the King and the people." These were the specific passages on which the com plaint was founded : on these he "stood calling upon that Honourable House to vindicate itself from a series of unjust and unjustifiable aspersions, and pu nish the violation of their privileges in what manner might, to their wisdom, appear most fitting. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, in an under tone of voice, said that the Hon. Member (Mr. Lethbridge) must point out the nature of the charge. There ,was to his (Sir Francis's) mind no charge in the extracts which had been read from his Address to his Consti tuents. That Address contained all of argument that he knew on the subject, and he could new add nothing to those arguments. The Address was his. _The arguments which it contained were his ; he was ready to see them subjected to the most rigorous inquiry; but till he should hear from the Honourable Mem ber something in refutation of the principles, he could not undertake their defence. Was it to be supposed that the simple act arguing on the powers of the Commons was a crime Would not the House en dure even an abstract doubt of their 'sowers ? This doubt was the entire of the charge hitherto adduced; if a stronger one lay behind, it must be brought for ward before he could be expected to meet it by an answer. He was willing to abide by the fact and ar gument of that paper ; he would stand to the issue, but if it were even the pleasure of the House that he should now withdraw, he was ready to withdraw. .—(Loud cries of No, No! from the House.) Mr. SPEAKER.—" This is the firm of proceed ing ' • an Honourable Member states his complaint to the House ; the Honourable Member who is the ob ject of the complaint, is then heard in reply ; he ad mits, or repels, or denies the statement, It is the custom that he should then withdraw, and it becomes the part of the Hon. Mover to subunit a motion foun ded on the subject of offence, to the House. It then becomes a matter of debate, as any other motion f tom, and may be tarried, 43t' Mime% at the- discretion of the House It ceases to be inter fered with by the Hon. Member whose conduct has furnished the complaint. This is the form of parlia mentary proceeding ; the old, unchinged, and, I hope, unchangeable form." Sir Francis Burdett then withdrew. The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Mover (Mr. Lethbridge) that the time was now come for him to prepare his motion, as the Hon: Baronet had-with drawn. Lord OSSULSTON spoke to order. He said ,that in his opinion the charges were not sufficiently .matured: The SPEAKE,R could not agree with the Noble Lord, that the proceeding was net sufficiently ma toted : the whole transaction, so far as it had gone, *as in perfect conformity to the ancient, established, unbroken, unabrogated rule of Parliament. (Crier if Chair ! ) Mr. LETHBRIDGE then rose to submit the Re solutions which he meant to found upon the docu ment which he had given in, and had been read at the table. In stating the grounds upon which he felt it his duty to bring this sti*ct under the considera tion of the House, it was his' intention not to trespass -at any length upon its attention. • Lord FOLKSTONE, on this, called the Hon. Gen tleman fo order. If the Hon. dember was to make a speech at all, he should have made it before his Hon. Friend (Sir Francis Burdett) had withdrawn. When the lion. Member had called the attention of the House to. certain passages in the publication before the House, which he charged as objectionable, he .should then have which how these passages were in breach of the Privileges of that House. It was such an explanation on the part of that Hon. Gentleman, which he had in a former instance called for, as it was his decided opinion, that any speech he had to make ought to have been spoken before the Honoura ble Baronet had withdrawn. Undoubtedly the Hon. Member was not called upon to bring forward his Resolutions in the same way. He was himself fully aware that the practice of that House required the Honourable Baronet to withdraw before any specific motion, founded on the grounds of charge, should be submitted to the House. He begged Gentlemen to consider the awkward and embarrassing situation in which his Hon. Friend was placed, by having withdrawn before he had an opportunity of hearing the statement of the Hon. Gentleman as the manner in which - the passages specified were considered by the Hon. Member as violations of the Privileges of that House. The SPEAKER looked upon the course proposed by the Hen. Mover to be perfectly consistent with the uniform and established practice of that House. The Hon. Member was then speaking about the propo sition which he had felt it necessary to bring forward respecting the parts of the production which made the foundation of his complaint to the House. He ap prehended, therefore, that it was perfectly competent to that Hon. Member to proceed now to 'state the reasons upon which he grounded the motion he was about to submit, and which he conceived sufficient to justify him in bringing the complaint under the consideration of the House. Unless he had inad vertedly omitted some step in the progress of the pro ceeding, it was his opinion that the course proposed to be pursued was strictly in order. The CHANCELLOR of tke EXCHEQUER ;coincided in the doctrine so clearly laid down from the Chair. The individual who thinks it his duty to bring forward a charge, is bound to make a complaint in the first instance to the House, and then to lay the particular grounds of his charge upon the table, in a specific shape. In the case under consideration, the whole of the document upon which the charge was founded had been read by the Clerk at the table ; and the Hon. Member bringing forward the charge, had even pointed out, and read in his place, the particu-, lar passages which he conceived to amount to a viola tion of the privileges of that House. The Hon. Baro net had had an opportunity to prove, if he could, that the passages so specified did not violate the privileges of that House; he had the opportunity to strew how far they contained the sentiments of a person who enter tained a respect for the privileges of that House ; how far they were innocent in themselves, or justifia ble upon any grounds. The Hon. Gentleman, there fore, who brought forward this question, was very properly proceeding to state the grounds upon which he considered the passages he had pointed out, as vio lations of the privileges of that House. Upon the principal of reasoning adopted by the Noble Lord, the Hon. Baronet should not only hear the grounds upon which the Hon. Mover brought forward his Resolutions, but all the arguments which should be made use of in the whale course of the discussion. (No ! No!) Upon the reason of the thing, he would admit, that an individunl under an accusation ought to be allowed to hear all that might be urged in sup port of the charge against him. But upon very good and sufficient reasons, that House had thought pro per to adopt a different course in its proceedings, and to act uniformly upon the principle which dictated it. If the Hon. Baronet were therefore to be allowed to hear the speech of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Lethbridge), he would have an equal right to hear the whole discussion ; and as both were incon sistent with the uniform practice of that House, he was determined to support the course pointed out by the Chair. Lord FOLKSTONE offered himself unwillingly to the House, particularly as he differed from the opinion of the Chair as to the propriety of the course to be pursued. But whatever reluctance he might feel on the occasion, he was bound to state the im pressions which existed on his mind. There' were but one or two precedents that he could call to mind, as having occurred since he had the honour of a seat in that House, both of which were in strict confor mity with the course he pointed'out in the present instance. One of these precedents was the case of the Right Hon: Gentleman himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) last year. In that case an -Hon. Member (Mr. Maddocks) whom he was happy to see in his place, and who would correct him if he should make any mistake, had submitted a brief complaint to the House. Exception was taken to the proposi tion for proceeding with the charge at that time, and consequently some days delay took place, after which the Honourable Member brought forward his charge again, which he prefaced with an argument of con siderable length, sheaving the grounds upon which he founded his accusation. Tip Right Honourable • , . • . Gentleman was then heard at length in his clefencei as was also a Noble Lord (Castlereagh) who was im plicated with him in the transaction, which gave rise to the charge (respecting the seat of Mr. Dick, then recently vacated:) Both the Honourable Members had had the advantage of hearing the speech of his Hon. Friend, and after they had made their defence and; withdrawn, all that remained for his Hon. Friend to do was to submit his Motion to the House. The other precedent was, that of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, some years since, when an Hon. Friend of his (Mr. liXilitbread) explained the ground of his ac cusation in a long speech, reserving his motion only till that Noble Lord had made a long speech in his own justification, and withdrawn. The same course, according to all the information which he had been able to collect, ought to be pursued - in the present case; and it was upon the thorough conviction of the pro priety of that course, according to the reason of the thing, that he had ventured to suggest The Right. Hon. Gentleman seemed to have grefily misunder: stood the views he-had upon this question. An Hone Member had produced a pamphlet, the work of ann.; ther How. Member, and read some passages fromi that pamphlet, which he made the ground of a charge of breach of the privileges of that House against the author. How such passages were a violation of the privileges of that House had not been shewn ; and unless that could be shewn, and if the writer remained still of the same opinion as when he wrote the pam ishlet, he contended that his Hon. Friend could not know on what ground he was charged, or in what manner to defend himself, particularly as he had stated that, in writing it, he did not conceive that be was infringing any privilege of that House. If the- Hon. Baronet had changed his opinion, he might un doubtedly retract, or qualify, or even excuse his con duct; but without knowing in what way his sentiments, as expressed in his work, were considered a violation of the privileges of that House, it was actually impose sible for him to know what defence to make. He could not suppose it to be the object. of the Right Hon. Gentleman to entrap the Hon. Baronet into the embarrassment in which the proceeding proposed . must unquestionably involve him. It was a fallacious - argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman to say, thatir the Hon. Baronet was to hear the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, he would equally be entitled to hear the. whole discussion. When an Hon. Member called the ' attention of the House to a grave and serious matter of charge, it was but fair that the accused Member should. have an opportunity to hear the grounds upon which the-charge was brought forward ; and, after defend= - ing himself in his place, be required to withdraw, without hearing any part of the subsequent discus sion. The reason of the case, therefore, bore him. out in the course he recommended ; and he must con tend, that the Hon. Baronet was entitled to the fair advantage of heating the ground's upon which the Hon. Member had made the complaint and charge against him. The SPEAKER felt himself bound in duty to the House to bring to the recollection of Gentlemen, that in cases of complaints against Members, there were two sorts of proceedings resorted to by the House, which might account for the difference of opinion on this question. One of these proceedings was, when a complaint was founded upon a written paper, or other document. When that was the case, the paper on which the complaint was founded was given in at the table, after which the Member, the object of the charge, was heard in his defence froth his place, and then required to withdraw. . The House, upon that, proceeded to discuss the merits of the charge, and came to a final decision upon it. The other course was that which - was followed when a Member could have no notice .of the charge against him ; in which case the Member bringing for ward the charge was bound to clear the grounds of his Motion, and state the nature of the charge. —To this description of cases he conceived the case of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, already alluded to by the Noble Lord, to belong. —ln • that instance the charge was founded on a letter, which had been written by that Noble Lord, in his official character, to an individual in Scotland. The grounds of the charge were fully stated, and that Noble Lord was heard at length in his defence. The House would recollect the comments, which, after that Noble Lord had withdrawn, had been made on the species of defence to which he b.d resorted. The Noble Lord in that defence, which appeared to many • Honourable Members - full and satisfactory, had made some allusion to the peculiar laws and institutions of Scotland ; and it must be fresh in the recollection of several Gentlemen, how these allusions had been commented upon, and the comments made to bear upon the question under discussion. He touk it to be the right of a Member under accusation, to have due notice of the charge against him, but not of the argu ments in support of it. If an h o nourable Member was entitled to hear all the arguments in support of the charge before he should withdraw, then he should not withdraw till the House should have passed its vote upon the subject, a doctrine which could not for a moment be entertained. The course of proceedings laid down in the Text Books, directed that in case of a charge founded on a written document, that dote inent should be given in, and that the Member under accusation, after being heard in his defence, should then be required to withdraw. But in cases where the complaint should not be founded on any writteo document, the accused party had a r i g ht to heir the grounds of the charge stated before he should be put upon his defence previous to his withdrawing. He had felt it to be his duty to put the House in posses , 'sion of these circumstances, as to the uniform and established course of proceeding in all matters of con' plaints against individual Members. • Mr. LETHBRIDGE then rose testate the grounds of his charge, and declared that in doing _o, lie should be very short. Many reasons, he observed, induced him to be brief on this occasion. The principal one was, the little habit liewas in of addressing that House. The task he bad undertaken was painful and difficult, but, however painful or difficult it was, he felt him self called upon to bring forward the question. The letter of the document was, however, so clear, talereal question lay within such a sma ll co mp ass, that it would require •but little abilities to p ut it in a form for the decision of the House. Reall y , from what had fallen from the Noble Lordopposite, one w have supposed that he (Mr. Lethbridge) had written a long speech on the subject , th e co py of which I.tee had dropped from his pocket, and w as found by tt,.. Noble Lord, who thought to embar rass him by al