The Sun.
London, England, 1814-04-23 00:00:00

CALL. OF THE HOUSE.

Sir Join.; NEwPoar.rose,:and said, that be did
not know whether the [lon. Member, who gave
notice of his intention to enforce the Call, was or
was not present, but it was undoubtedly proper
that the House should be wade acquainted w►th
the course that was to be pursued, and not be kept
in a state of ignorance till the moment arrived
when the debate was about to connneuce.

No answer being returned, the Hon. Baronet
immediately :110% 1,11 " Tom the said Order. be dis-
charged," which <r<is carried iii the affirmative.
Mr.,,,CArtTwi“onr
.observed, in entering the
House, that e had hirrittelf intended to move the
discharge of the Order for a Call, his only object
having been to prociire a full attendance, which
object he was happy to see apcotnplished. He had
to apologise if had kept the House in tinneces.

nary suspense.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman ATKINS, the second read-
ing of the Baker's Bill was posyumed till Friday, the tith of
.atay.
on the motion of Mr. FITZGERALD, the }louse resolved it-
self into a Committee of Supply, and the Resolutions were
icAil 4,i fir3t tlmr .
. The Committee of Ways and Means was postponed till
Monday.
SPEECH, OF THE SPEAKER ON THE ROMAN CA-
THOLie BILL:
A few minutes before five o'clock the attention of the House
was attracted to the entrance of the Duchess of Oldenburgh,
attended by the Countess Lieeen and General Turner, whu
took their seats in the'Members' Gallery, on tim,right of the
Speaker.
Lord MORPETH rose, and desired that the Speech
addreSsed", by the Speaker to the Throne of the
Haase of Lords, on the day of the last proroga-
tion of Parliament, shoiild be read.
The Speech having been read, his Lordship
spoke to the following effect :
" In rising to submit to this House a proposi-
tion regarding the conduct of that Chair, the
House may be assured'that I am not insensible to
the imputations of presumption which may
be made against me, nor - blind to the va-
rious -diticulties which are to be encountered..
These difficulties are not lessened, when I consider.
that I am myself, in some respects,' an object of
accusation--that I have been charged with un-
necessary delay, and called upOn to state explicit-
ly, •before I was prepared to bring forward my
proposition, the precise terms and character which
it was to bear: 1 certainly have felt it to he my
duty to defer,the consideration of this subject till
tue party, had arrived, When a full anti adequate
attendance might he .expected, unwilling that a
question so, nearly affecting the privileges of till 3
House should be decided in a tbin assembly of its
Members. As to the latter obstacle, for such I
must call it, with which It was attempted to eu-
countecmy progress, I trust I value those privi-
leges too highly to admit the necessity of apply-
ing incliVilually for a permission to agitate this
or any other- , 'question, Which I may feel ' it
my duty to' submit to the attention of the
House. (Hear, hear, bear !).—There - are dif-
'ficulties, however, far more ' serious and for.
Midable than ' these—difficulties arising from
the respect due to that Chair—the respect due to
the ability, zeal, and assiduity with which its flat:z
ties have been so long, discharged—the respect
-due, Sir, to that University which has sent you
here, and even irom 'that College of which yott
are a distinguished ornament'. But the effect of
all these considerations is, however, only to give
additional eight and impOrtance to all that falls
fr(tiodni!;nl wouain your capacity as Speaker, and to Mt-
. pose the more rigorously OR those, who cannot
. accede to the justice BAid• propriety of your repre-
. sentations, tl,,a duty:if examining 'and-.controvert-
ing theto..."lhese are oe:reflections' which I must
beg the I-louse-to accept, as forming my apology
'or as constituting my defence. Great arid eleVattd
as the station of.a Speaker- Of ,this House indis-
' potably is, it will ,not, I apprehend, be denied that
,it is complete.y within ohr cognizance-1%111.011.k-
--diction. The ino,t. retearkahle cas(s in vt;hi-e:1 qte,
HouseThas exereiSait4- Undoubted right of ar-
raigning the conduct of its
_Speaker are - those of
. 1640..and1677. In the one-ease, that of Finch,
the question was terminated by a vote of -ci.ap-
it probation i.- in the other, that of Sir Edward Sey-,
rnour,„4
.U, vnte of adjournment. With many
parts of the'speetb made, at the close of the last

'Session of Parliament to the Throne, it is impos-
sible to.entertain a difference. _ The hopes therein
• expressed of a successful resistance to the inordi-'
• nate ambition and remorseless spirit,of conquest
- of the enemy, liave-heen since realized by a series
of stupendous events, and by a perseverance and
• moderation On the part of our Allies :hat have at
length stamped the indepeta of Europe, and,
I trust, insured tor a long period the tranquillity of
the civilized world. Most cordially too do '1 cont.
cur with the eloquent panegyric pronounced upon,
LoreWellingtonl whOse whole life appears to me
to .been otre continued round of arduous and,
heroic achievements.—(Hear, hear !).-The pas-
• . sage in the speech to which I wish particularly
to refer, is that containing an allusion to the re-
solutions of the House, on: which a Bill for the
relief of the -floniati Catholics was ordered to be
'brought in ; and I wish, in the first place, that
those resolutions, -together with the preamble of
the Bill, should now be read. •
The Clerk having read them, the Noble Lord
resumed—
The, passage in the speech referri'nk. to thii Bill
is as follows :—" Other momentous changes have
. been proposed to our consideration ; adhering,
however, to those laws by which the Crown, the
Parliament, and ,1)e Constitution are made funda-
mentally Protestant, we hdve not deemed it exile-
- theta that those wbo acknoWledge a foreign juris-
diction should be authorised to administer the
po,wers, and jurisdictions of this realm." Before
I proceed to Make any remarks on the sentiments
- here expressed, there is one general observation
Of paramount impoftance, which I' am desirous of
stating, as I shall afterwards submit it to the House,
embinred in the form of a resolution . It is this, that
it is inconsistent with theprivileges of this House,
and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution,
to, inforM the Crown of any proceeding in the
House relating to any measttre or proposal to which
Parliament has not consented.—(.Hear, hear!).—
. This is the main proposition which it is my inten-
• tioti to.. submit, and it must, in the first .place,
depend upon the precedents, recorded either in our
Journals or the Journals of the other House. Those
which appear •of most obvious application, be-
eaUse most numerous and detailed, are the speeches
.• delivered .on successive occasions, by Sir John"
Cost, Sir Spencer Compton; Mr. Onslow, and Sir
Fletcher Norton. The last-mentioned Speaker
had.sometimes taken a wide view of the political
relations, both foreign and domestic, in which the
Country stood, but still,the only question to which
his speeches have given rise, was whether his ex-
position of what had taken place was or was not
correct. He was content with informing the
-Throne of what had been done by. the House
or out of the House, without communicating
that whicf the House had refused to do.—

No Speaker had left behind
.him more remains
or more specimens of singular oratory than
• Sir Edward Turner, yet amidst all the rich variety
which they present, I can find, no' reference to any
subject which had been agitated in this House
without ending in the adoption at some substan-
tive measure. The speecheS made during the
reigns of William -and Anne, down to 1742, all
participate in the same character. If we apply
to other sources more ample but of less nnques •
tionable anthenticity, we shall find, that the evi-
dence theyfurnish all illustrates the same principle,
and tends to establiSh the same proposition. Recur-
ring, however, for the present, to a more remote
era. I mean the reign of Henry VIJI. we select a
peiiod fertile in the exhibition of Spetikers' speeches
addressed to the Throne, but barren, with one il-
lustriouS exception, that of Sir Thomas More, in
: develoinment of independent character and firm
'integrityon the.part of those who have left behind
them these memorials. Indeed it is melancholy.
to observe, that Whatever meanness could conceal,
or flattery suggest, is to be found in these pro-
ductions, in one of which his Majesty is compared
.to Solomon in wisdom, in beauty to Absalom, in
strength to Sampson, and, finally, to that glorious
Juminary, the sun-0 laugh). Through all this
absurdity, pedantry. and degradation, however,
there still appears to be one sanctuary that re-
.mained inviolate, one clear. line of demarcation
that was never overlooked amidst
.all the folly and
prostitution of the day—that sanctuary was this
House—this demarcation .was between what was
said and What was done by it--7-(Hear, hear).
In the reign of Elizabeth, there was a Speaker,
howeirer, (I
,mean Speaker Onslow), who in-
formed her Majesty that he. , was only the
mouth of the House of Commons, and could
only utter as they directed7-that it was his
duty to speak plainly aniLsimply,,
,and to tell
only the truth of what was done therein.—
In 1677, the then Speaker (Fowler), who
afterwards received the highest mark of con-
fidence that could perhaps be shewn.to an indi-
vidual, iii being elected Speaker to the Convention
in 1788,- explicitly declared, that ;he could com-
municate to the Throne only 'that which he was
commanded. In the first year of James 1. it was
stated, by the Speaker, that no Bill had been pass,.
ed by the Commons, because the King's word, was
relied on. The institoce of Sir, Harbottle Grim-
stone was of a similar nature, Neither in these
comparatively obscure cases, nor in those which
are open to the fullest-investigation, can:be
`covered, it is true, any instance precisely anal°.
trOo to the present. The facts that distinguish the
present instance, are, that former resolutions have
heeii voted, that a Bill conforniable to themhas been
introduced; read a second time, and the principle of
it thus established. Undoubtedly in a most material
point the application of it was_ altered in the
Committee, but the Bill itself was never rejected,
and 1 belieVe was in existence when the speech in
.piestion was delivered. It was . under these cir-
C-unistances, that that communication was made
the
'I. hrone, and made by what purported to
be the organ- or the collective Representative Body.
--(Hear, hear, hear h).---Rut if the ex?-iple and
authority of precedent be insufficient, la me ask,
are we bound to decide by precedent alone are
tve to aha tido!'m our own discretion, and voluntarily
commit our prtviteges to doiibt, and accident, and
mischance ? 11.io not wish to mix with this the
discussion of. that :great question to which the
words of the passage refer ; I wish to confine my-
self to the danger of the precedent they have esta-
blished, I wish to ask whether the original Mover
of that question (the final success of which is to
oe, I trust,' the cuusgaunatiou of his fame, the a

pnre reward of. hiS virtues and his talents), anti-
cipated in the event of failure, that his failure
must be mentioned to the Throne by a self-con-
stituted authority ?—(llear, hear !) wish to
ask whether the numerous body of petitioners
at whose instanee be had brought for ward that
discussion, expected that if they failed, their faihire
must be recorded in the same manner, accom-
panied by the gratuitous comments of an unau-
thorised notification., 1 must repel the accusa-
tion conveyed in.the phrase "Fundamental Laws,"
against the supporters of that question, that they
had any design of altering theth,
_anal. think the
Catholics hare some right to complain, that hay-
ing been long described as Papists and Roman-
ists, they are here designated as acknowledging a
foreign jurisdiction. Are the limits and the na-
ture of that jurisdiction stated % No ! and I can-
not help thinking, that, in. times like the present,
it would have been more wise *to have abstained
from any topics of useless -irritation, to have re-
membered the language of Paley., to •havencted in
the genuine spirit of toleration; rather than to
haVe boasted how much had been done for it.—
How did we know that some future Speaker, avail-
ing himself of this example, may not conceive
himself at liberty to make a rejected -measure the
vehicle of sarcastic observation, and, by affixing a
new denomination, to exercise new modes of'hos-
tility ! May he not select some opportunity where
petitions have, after enduring a long and tedious
suspense, begun .to derive consolation front the
dawn of a brighter day, to add mortification to
disappointment, and aim a fatal blowltt a mea-
sure t.do difficult 'to be carried, even with all the
weight of Ministerial authority : -It is against the
danger that I to guard—a danger threatening
alike the right of petitioning and the freedbm of
debate. It is to preserve these rights, in which
the freedom. -of_ the -Constitution depends, that
lam anxious. Obliterated as that freedom was
during the rule of the Norman line, it has never
failed' to re-appear during the intervals and re-
laxation of tyranny.. In the reign of Henry IV.
during the contests on a 7dispitted- succession, in
answer to an address from the Speaker, that his.
Majesty could not listen to any private informa-
tion of what passed among his faithful Commons,
but could judge them only by their deeds, that
King-replied, that he could not give credence to
such informers, because the proceedings of that_
House were known by, acts of its collective body'.
(Hear, hear !).—This freedom, which ssas after-
wards confirmed by the 9th of that. Monarch,
proves, that it was not of such 'modern date as
some persons may suspect ; and that, although it
may often have been suspended, it has never
become extinct. It is asserted in that noble pro-•
testation addressed to James 1. a Prince who
seems to have been as ignorant- of -the age in
which he lived as of the people' he bad come to
govern, and who is said to have expunged it
with- his own hand from our Journals. The
same principle was maintained by the Long
Parliament ; a -Parliament which, though it
humbled the pride of Kings, undoubtedly dis-
graced. the cause of freedom, by cloSing, its
exertions in outrage and blood. The Revo-
lution came subsequently, • to • give to it kits
final confirmation, and established it, tc:editTase
vigour and animation through all our futnre deli-
berations. Iris not for the purpose of • attacking
an individual that thio cocstlon is., now bought
forward—it is from an, earliest desire to watch,
over the sacred. flame of constitutional jealousy, as
it Was termed by Mr. Burke, a: jealousy of that
Constitution with which we have long been bless-
ed, and which is now copied as a model for the
infant liberties olother nations. It is to raise and
maintain the spirit of Parliament, and to . defend
thole privileges, without,which all other principles
must be endangered, that I move this-Resolutioo :
" That a special entry be made on the Journals to the fol-
lowing effect:—
" That it be not drawn into-precedent to inform his Majesty'
at the Bar of the House of Lords, or elsewbere,of any Bill or
Motion, orproceeding relative thereto; nless the same should
he consented to by the House."

The SPEAKER having read the resolution of, the
Noble Lord, addressed the House in a most dig-
nified and impressive Speech, of which the follow-
ing is but a feeble outline
_ . _

7` After the motion which has been made by
the Noble Lord, implying, necessarily implying,
a grave and serious charge of misconduct, in the
,Speecirmade by me at the Barof the House of
Lords at the end of, the , last Session, the House
-will not be surprised that I should be desirbus of
offering myself to its attention. I should be sorry
to be insensible to the course of proceeding
which has- been adopted, so injurious to the
character of the House j. but 1 shall abstain.
from all comment on this, and also on the
great political question which was touched up-
on in my speech, but which we 'are not now
called upon to discuss. Denounced as I have been
in this HouSe, as the authentic expositor of its
sentiments—as one whose conduct was objected
to -on solid and constitutional grounds,--4 must
Confess that I did expect, from the justice and
plain feeling of the Noble Lord, that he would
have brought forward a distinct charge against
me for misconduct. But as the motion' of the
Noble Lord is merely a prospective regulation,
and, as I think, quite irrelevant to the case,
nevertheless, as the resolution seems to be found-
' ed on. the presumption of misconduct on my
part, I hope I may . he allowed, with the
leave of the House, to state why such an
accusation is wholly groundless.
,For this pur-
pose there are two distinct, questions which I feel
myself called upon to consider.'.. First, whether
the proceedings of the House with, respect to the
Roman Catholic Claims ought to have, been ad-
verted to in the Speech which I took occasion to
deliver at the Bar of the House of Lords, Se-
cOndly, if these proceedings ought to have been
noticed, .whether they were noticed in a pro-
per manner. As to the first of these ques-
tions, 1 humbly submit to the House, that act.
cording to the practice of Parliament; all or
any of the matters that have occupied the
attention of the House during its Session,
may' be noticed in , the Speaker's Speed*
the occasion. At least it is so laid down in the
work 'which we are accustomed to consider our
Text Book in these matters. In the Journals of
the House of Lords such speeches are uniformly
entered. I . Hatsell's Precedents, to which re-
ference is usually made, we find it thuslaid down : ,

" It has not been unusual when the King is prclen!-
en the Throne—indeed it has been custoinaiy -wi
' the Speaker presenting the Bills of Supply On last
day 'of Session, for the Speaker to make a i,peeeh a,t,
the Ear of the House of Lords, either imipediatff.x.
arising out of the subject matter of the Bill it;eYft;:or, ~
when at the close of the. Session, recapitulating
the principal objects which have employed the
attention of the:Commons during their sitting."
It is to the entries on the Journals of the Lords
that we must refer for the substance of speeches•
made on such occasions. The first instance of
a speech of this kind upon record, is that, Of
one in 1509, in the reign of Henry VIII. The
next is that of . Mr. Speaker Lenthall, in
1641. There were many during the reign. of
Charles 11. In 1689 there were but two ; 'but
none• others during the reign of King William.
From 1721 till the present time; there is no-pro
1
rogation speech .by any Speaker entered at' Telt
length on the Journals of either House. ' In
1741 Mr. Speaker Onslow made several speeehes.
at the Bar of the other House, on preseirting Bills
of Supply ; and there were not less than fourteen
speeches on such occasions by this Speaker,
which embrace different topics that had engaged
the attention of the Commons. Among the in-
stances which I have mentioned, in the entries
of the Hotie of Lords, there are abundant proofs
of the extension of .the usage at all times. Some
of the earliest instances contain reference to the
proceedings .of the House of Commons, not only
relating , to Money Bills, but to various other
measures. In the reign of Charles I. Mr. Speaker
Leuthall's speech includes many topics besides
' the Money Bills which were presented at
,the
time that it, was spoken. . Mr. Compton's speech
in 1715 touched upon various subjects.
And in 1741, Mr. Speaker On-slow, in his speech,
takes notice of affairs that bad happened even out
of the kingdom. Mr. Speaker Compton's speech
contains observations ou the treaty of Utrecht ;
and Mr. OnsloW touches on the conduct•of 'some
naval officers in the Mediterranean. On a:par-
ticular examination of the speeches made. on such:
occasions during the last century, it willbe Annul
' that they relate.not onlyto Money Bills, but touch
on various public occurrences, both at home and
abroad, even altho' these matters arc not brought
to the consideration . of the Crown by Bills or
otherwise. In 1746, the speech of the 'Speaker at
the-Bar of the House of Lords aVindes to the TO
luntary subscription . set. on foot by the people
during the time- of rebellion';. and again entered
$
into.the mischief to be apprehended -from further
alliances. - Further, it was usual in:such speeches
to` touch' upon questions agitated within the %valls
-of this House, and concerning its privilegel. ,Vf;:-
ter the Rebellion in 1745, the .Speaker-, in hiS
speech, notices a Bill. which had beenisenS'sed in
this House, relating to the internal regulation of
the Highlands of Scotland, and not only mentions
the proceedings concerning that Bill, but enters
into a detail of the different opinions held upon
.the subject, and this without fear of reprehen-
sion.-If, as•the Noble Lord asks, it be necessary
- to bring a precedent nfany thing being said on such
occasions as to. Bills Which had not been passed by
the Muse, I would observe that there are only 11
of the speeches made on such occasions, that are
preserved at length ; but that there are precedents
for such a praotioe,, and them can be no.doobt an.
the subject.. Such a doubt is without any just
ground for its existence. Front the authority of
'Mr. Speaker OnsloW, it appears that on such oc-
casions it was perfectly allowable to extend to the
notice not only of such. Bills as.hail been passed
by the House, but to such as, although not pass-
ed, had engaged the attention -of the House. In
1758 a 4.11, relating to the Habeas Corpus
ACt, was passed by the House of Commons,
'but was rejected by the • House of Lords. ! On
this subject the Speaker Onslow touched, in
a speech. which he had prepared 'to nuke =at
the Bar of the House of Lords., but which he
did not deliver on account of the Absence of the'
King. -This 1 adduce as the authority of Mr:
Speaker Onslow,-(Hear,,bear ! from the Oppo—
sition Bench).---1 hope I may. be allowed to refer
to a Speech on the records of the Parliament of
Ireland, which hears upon this point. In 1792,
in the Parliament of
,Ireland,a. Bill was brougbt-
in for the further relief of, the Roman Catholics;
permitting them to occupy certain situations in
the law, and allowing them to intermarry with
Protestants. After the first and second reading of
this Bill, and while It was in aCommitte, a Peti-
tion,was presented, in consequence of which The
Bill was rejected. At the close of the Session Mr.
'Speaker Foster (whom although now present, I
'hope I may he permitted to name historically),
thought it his duty to advert, ,in his speech,
to a matter which he conceived to be of such im-
portance, and to state what he conceived to have
been the motives by which the House had-been
influenced in its proceedings respecting that Bill ;
and for that very speech he received the thanks of
the Irish House of CoMmons. on the Same day.---,
On reviewing the whole question, I conceive that
in such cases the Speaker is allowed- to refer to
measures which have been discussed, Unlimited by
' any consideration As' to-their progress or failure.
All are agreed as to the importance of the matter i
on which I touched': I would uot, on such an oc- i
' easion, have passed it unnoticed, even if there had !
-not been any other Bill for the relief °tithe Roman
Catholics before the House during that Session; but
in the same Session a Bill had been passed for the re-
Het' of the Catholics, which had originated it') the
HoUse of Lords. The notice of this Bill, which H
I' conceived' to be my duty, necessarily brought: the
%%thole question under consideration, anti involved I
the proceedings of the Legislature upon it. As to
the second question, whether, admitting that the
proceedings of the House on the' Object of
the claims of the
.Roman Catholics ought to
have been noticed by me, they weremoticed in .a 1
proper manner, I would submit to the Hodse
that its proceedings were stated with truth and
correctness. The question having been before the
House, the large Bill not having
,been passed by
it, but the one which had been introduced into the
other House by the Duke of Norfolk having been
passed; the words in which I stated the proceed-- I
ings of this House were these :—" These are l
not the only objects to which our attention has I
been called ; • other momentous changes have '
been proposed for our considi_.:-azion. Adber--
lug, however, to those laws by w:ii,:li the Throne,' 1

• f ilis
the Parliament, and tire Government P 0
coat-iffy are, made ftmdamentally ProteStaot't a
have not consented to 'allow, that th?settifY
',acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction 01°111 ; dir
aathorised to Jtdiffinister the powers and jorirsar
flops of this realm ; willing as. we are, tole, !(
lesS, and willing. as I trust we. ever shail 10,1
allow the largest scope to religious toleratiT (iii,
In the (stated division of this paragraph, i,t 1,1500'
tinctly , that the House did not tln°7t', 0
participai i ? 1.,
per to admit Roman Catholics to
the Legislature.
,Could . less have been s'tP,i•-
conceive it to be a true narrative of the f3ct'ill t'i
'House went into the Commit-ice on the 11 ce
consider the claims not to grant. '.l. he Bil oil'
tained a clause for granting tit the Cath°llesP
tical,power, and this was
,negatived in thei itis I
mittee. ' In- the paragraph w 1
which I have era I
not said that. the Bill. It-»s , rejected; It 11,011.
states what the House did, awl what iit "rli°
not do. It says. nothing respecting' vc;lB,. tier
House- at some future time, and ttoe'a '',
eferent circumstances; might think 100;5,111
do. So tar as it goes, _it states the rea°,,i'raa
mentioning, that. the laws, require the .•• re
the Legislature, and the Government, to be
testant ; and that the Catholics admita (lift
Jurisdiction. I conceive it to be the slutYlfi%. is' A.
Speaker to state, as- nearly as he can possiu AS
certain, the motives.. by which the Heui,,ses i'
actuated in such a case. The question t"ciocil
'whether I have stated the motives of the 11114.„'aie
of the House truly. This was the task "'ld
had to • execute, and .by the execution of :1„ 0
lam to be tried. There is one point svbic,tlii
it has been adverted to, I-think it necess3rlfl4
I should now say a few' words, though 9tll-.,, ti''
I should certainly have deemed it quite Or ti'
ous—l mean .the assertion that the SPegkesf IJ
have no knowledge Of what has been don-' "didr
Honse, when .it is in a Committee. It is 'll! pc'
. . to be present, and to take cognizance of -"-; ')
ceedings of the Route while in a CoMmittect:',o
though indeed by the indulgence of the Wl': it' ,
absence of the Speaker is permitted. 13''t b'
the more necessary that he should be prese';ll(
cause when he takes the Chair, he may bciarl'
upon to decide on sonic matter ; or he 1'",,,11.
called to the Chair, as' once happened to. "ii'l'a,'
and called Upon on hiS responsibilityao st_ltrierl- "'',
'opiniori on aqtrestion Of order;
lot what patsed. But even when a liiit 110'4
comes- out of a Cormnittee, the proceidio9
recorded on the Conunitte.e.Books, and t°
teen
the Speaker must have access. On such %0"
nical objection, I shOuld have thopght th",attr'
-one in the least versed in. Parliamentary il'toc/
would have attempted to found the l'',',o'
' 'of' 06 atgnment. As to what I said on 1;,.1- r 0"
tension of toleration,' the. subject betlit'elr
• cessarily brought before the Sovereign by t'Ve
ture of the proceedings, it was proper to st%io''
opinion of theLegisi,atnre on the subject, tV coo'
so as the prerogativeof flit:Croy:an is much et'a.,/1 tii',, j
ed in whatever relates to the jurisdiction `-'0 0" t
matter.. On the whole, I would observe ttli 0'
Speaker is entitled to address the 50ve1134,,;'
tiny matters • that have been- discussed '''
House during its Session, with Out any relgtiot,'
the length of time they m
`2- may have ocCupiedile. dc; '
tention of. the House; and that. where ii j,
• notide ihe proceedings of the House, 11
e°6o4
state the motives by which the majority 5-Or'
have been actuated in deciding the question' hall
ant horities have made the path of my duty pli,ll;4o'
I hope that on their authority I have est4v,•fl br
i
I my vindication. As to the question !?-itsre'
1 fore you, it is not
,for me to sway your „,*1;
ment upon it. The freedom of alehlit;eoo.
not be shackled by any historical st°14011:1
' of the proceedings of the House. If thek,f t'e, '
' will take on itself to prescribe new rules ',"„e l''
conduCt of its Speaker, and to circumseo'c V
4lutits within narrower limits than:they haveil '3
V
thertoheen confined, 'it will be- for yore'le' se't,', I
bi weigh the nature and consequences of t.,,,l'es;oe 0
i• regulations. lf it should. please the tie, „*f °lt
enact them, it will then only temaio ;-, -
1 Speaker td conform to ahem with exact°l7;i°';
. .
1 must chneltule with my thanks for the arf-t'e p 0„
•i 'With. which 1 haVe been heard. I salt' °o at'',
e,eeding of the Houie in the matter of the .„-arel'
, Catholic Claims forms. one of the most pr'ai ;1500;
1 features in the transactions of the last '-'"1 09
1 and I thought' it my duty to notice 41.!'''' 1101'
speech. If, by my conduct in this iastinee, f IV
have incurred carat the indirect e.risltre ~,,i° mtr;
House, I s)iall lament it as a indirect
bravY ''.:ll'",
tune.. But. 4 must say; that to my own cons.AL;iit"
I siitdl stand for ever acquitled in what ' b"t
1 done, not only as the. Servant of this tlO 05; ti'l
from having. fulfilled my duty as a Rearese9,44,
of the People:"—(Loud and confirmed elte-i;rl/
'Mr. WHITEHEAD ' craving been sa Pa''tifit,/
, alluded to, found himself called uon to `l' {l4/
.141,
i In ti...! early part of the Session lie had t''' At(er
, ki ri e• - -,
i casinu to say that lie conceived that the ' ' etrO
. had been an unauthentic expositor of the Se he
mentsaaf the House. As he had tail hefc'r i'ef,'•
would now.say it again --that Might }F}u"s•bi'')
•
Isonage had no authority to take- the libertyt sot tlitE
lie had taken when he delivered the sPeeclihe 1"5-
„zilar of the House of Lords at the end of t-ir roc '
Session, being, as. he had described higise:3), be
Servant of the Honse of Commons. Ass--acs"l
had transgrssed his duty. After tile 111:'•91, 'an''
Clint lie (Mr. Whitbread) ~ had wituesse“' con'
tvitnessed with unvaried, ti probation, I'l3 art'
(tact in the Chair, he, conceived that thie.ivear'
, lent was not a time to • pay him coolri,' anti'
which might be deserved, ' In arraigning +'l 000-
duct,. lie wished it had been the. conduct °f w'irge
titer. Ile bad 'complained that no direct e., I t`'
had been made against him ; but it occarftejas
;tint (Mr. W.) that he would not disel'lll's 110-,
duty as a Member of the Hoose of Cortnn°'lo; ban
less he arraigned him for his conduct. Ti'llyi 04
been referred'b!,:' him, as was anticipated The
Noble 3.lloier, to some straaae _PreePtiel'Es,d been
treasures of Mr..o,naloW and Mr. Hatsell h', oast'
broagla before them, though he con'idercurtiabt'
authorities as of consequence 0133 the/;at'"
lii,r.i.:SGpeean seemed 1
at)(,), .thinkon:;
tttwitillaittel
c::1
ep,
:arr.:cite:l:l:i!
itilezabnadseseonmi
opinion. f,t• Mr. Oaslour. Ile ~,la like to ',clod,
speech which bad been.prepared by
hat which had never seen the light, and w,,..,,11-ce `4"
pens 'not to have been applicable to t;",teca- ty the
ra;stake telisiterl tat' have been, cogaw--

Itight lion. Cent. in citing Mr. Onslow'sspeecb•
it was known that Mr. Onslow had inteoded to. tnake
a certain speech, Which, however, be did not
blake . although I prepared it. . Now., al-
, he had
_. ,
.. .
..
tha.. e
-ecru this speeCh was, cited as a constitutional
t,
authority, it was not unlikely that Mr. Onslots
%tight have been prevented from-delivering it, be-
cuse ehe, on anature . crnistrieration,.might 'have
!timeght it not quite rcoustitutional. He might
lave. thought, that to deliver-it—might have been
- Iheousistent with his duty,
seemed to .-
This precedent then,
on WhiCh the Right• Hon. Gentleman.
'ave laid so much stress, he should dismiss as ie-
. telcvant. As to the other precedent from the other
''ale of the water, he should offer a few observe.-
thtiohs• With all due deference, he did not find
at the speech of M. Foster was at all similar
to thit spoketi ' by the Right Hon. Gentlemao at tthe end ol the last Session. The Right Hon. Gen-
,l"'"" aPpearing as the representative, and sup-
Fig the diguity -of the third estate, stated
w.
the
the House had not done, and ,assigned
thle reasons why it- had not • agreed to certain
• i,laeraisures• He would maintain, that the Speaker
If 'l° tight to report the proceedings of the
use ill a Committee ; and . the proceedings
the
thats Particular'Continittee had been such, that
trt,iteir, had net infdrmation of diem. The clause.
• 1 :„1 "ill which the Right 11(inourable Gentle-
stated.l:ll I,!'ul to contain concessions incompatt-
e ePth the maintainanee of the Protestant as-
ite•Ru4ucY, waslost by a majority of %lit nn. (-2 _.four, and the
Geis had been instrumental in
ixts logs and when he took the Chair, no report
ittaS. Made to him from that Committee. 1
, Right
Henn to
Gentleman had referred them to the
ne
:Preeeh of the Speaker Lenthall, during the mho
Al' Charles I. He would particularly refer t
‘ lie sPecch of the Speaker of the same
:1" be came into the House
.toMonarch,the
demand
la
IL
there of five of its Members. Mr. Leut ars
foehl' Baid, that he had neither eyes to see,
a 4 eari but as the House should direct. Hielowroetaild
c
,e...itltat the Right Hon. Gentleman had eves to
. ears to hear, as a Mem er of the House,
I nand
that his tongue had given utterance to seati-
airjs which were not those of the House. . 0011
1,, ue great events which had been descanted .
14 ,toline ,fight Hon. Gentleman, he had nothing
*lie —Paill, and could only praise the eloquence
e
cow, Ixinich they were treated, and also th
In" ing deSeription which had been given of so,ne
to
-11-4.sUres, which was infinitely !uPeaur eventh .
1,,' in which they had been characterized by c
:poser of them. As the Right Hon. Gentleman
pre-
terniPaned of not having had a direct chari,
utir.`4! against 'him, he had embodied. a charge
tld
nowic'entiY set iota in a liesoluticiu which-lie
,o,dillcive as an amendment to that of the
aNws-ooeibile.
lows ..--''rhe Resolution was in substance f
1" That a
the
lote o, „L aPpears to the House that :‘lr. Speaker, .
tr,lTtliese_.n,Xetoliirsdts,Sessionspof
ePhortoliatmii:ut, at the Bar ofat the
Royal Highness the
:n, 4. c.:Z„g,'nt rateid cepa rt.:certain -proceedings of the 147tstele'
-.::,,4443 4--;Zof the
° in
whole House, on a subje4
i 1.?. .4" dol,-"tebitc'rttan Catholics, ,which did not terminate
tl,:iiiile's 0 f t.
_l/. this H.vesOUsC Royal;ol,ndbettpiarteshuemeindftoormhaevdelanestuaed
4 4"atifitY°f Zna'ti'oirli
l'e.
*-4:' '''
C"'"ar"ti • wb
that Committee ; that by su doing
tof the trust reposed in biro, and
eonf
Giihr,jiiiii° the privileges of the House, of which he is c os
NrEy
Thj3
Aillendinent was seconded by Mr. Cana-
1, kr n
4,lem A tcxEs was ready to combat both the
grunt utitms, which had been proposed by valid ar-
aPect'lt,s ',Lb" he should first say a few words re-
asppeeeici,,
a,tuttel last of them, because it was the more
substantial of-She two. In it the
City he'. was charged with a gross violation of his
qti,-"Y ,the speech which he delivered of the Bar
Ie I,l' other House at the end of the last Session..
*lelivis, eunception, it was proper that the speech.. '
tieol'rett on such an occasion should be an expo':
th, , 1 of the different matters which have engaged
thisatteution of the House during its sitting. Ott
aell rint he conceived the authority of Mr. Hat-
atito ° be roe best. Nothing could be more ab
tie ,(.,,than suppose that the Speaker, on taking
‘vh,, h, air, was to become at once ignorant oft
iii 41. he had been witness of, or had participate(
ie,,uing in a Committee. Besides, the proceed,
th;„:3f the Committee were recorded, and
rpt tha'tc records the Speaker had access. He thotiOn
I„estPrCeedents not only justified
.the speech
ati..
te(t i
1 10u but would sanction even greater 1 i
tiDo lAfter the House negatived both Resolu-
tivesielloped it would come to some affirma-
,...! _isioe on the subject.
otr. m,r
' le fay W. WYNNE spoke at considerable length
whi ,uur of the motion of the Noble Lord—
be feill''i observed, fully'vitidicated the privileges
the,„ the
Attire ; but, at the same , time, vindicated
a ),.,
.4_ the mildest manner possible. -
con .i• 11" E could not but think the subject of
tos".lerable importance ; nor could he refrain,
alZeuil:stauding what - had fallen from so many
ii,,, u a'acters, from offering his humble opt-
' th.oagliPtott'i it. That the Noble Mover had also
(
Was evict 'e topic to be,one of great magnitude,
tit wl:icheillt frOni the early period of the. Session
himself. lisle had given notice of his motion. For
what thaehad hp hesitation in declaring, that
forrnabis- Speaker had Said appeared strictly eon-
in all e tO the usages and customs of that House
'thene,Peritul3. If Mr. Hateell's entries and state-
tß"--.Cati be supposed to bepreeedents, as they
rely °` be denied to be, the Houk may safely
elli; i °II them. The Learned Speaker bad
in ',NI to measures which had been defended
that the House ; he would not undertake to say
flee ,he bad spoken on measures which had been
~,,ii on, nor would be enter on a discussion
ivether it would not have been more safe to.al-
tt;'e to the latter than to the former. But would
thatY body say that it is not notorious and certain,
When the Speaker. goes up to the House of
"rtis, the Session is at an end ? Among the
ereced
rest
ents to which he had alluded, we those
ufH
1720 and 1721, when the ouse . occupied
With the South Sea Scheme.
Whenwas the Parlia-
• inert met in • 1721, the Speaker mad varety
Zt observations at the Bar of tile Upper House,,
on
Subject which occupied every mind ; he had no
autleorit.. for .
y what he said, and it turned out that be
Was eatrentely wrong in his surmises ; but his con-
ct'lLlct was not called in question. Would any Gen-
, email saY, that it is imprudent in a Speakee
:s° inform' hinaself of, what is going on in. the,
oose ? Is not the minute-hook in his poseesSioe
9r this very purpose ? Certainly this is the Use he

might be. expected to make of it. He (Mr. n.) -erratid
see no analogy whatever between Mr. Pitt; ita 1 737;
taking notice, of what was passing at the, very time
he spoke, and the present - Speaker weedy adve.rt-
ing to what had gone by. On the whole, it ap-
peared to him, that in what had been done by the
Right Hon. Gentleman in the Chair *la implied
no deficiency of deference to the House, nor was
it otherwise than strictly conformable to his du-
ties in Parlament. He trusted that it had been
made clearly to appear, that -the usage was esta-
blished, and if so, nothing could be more uttne.
cessary than a votes of censure.
Mr. F.- DOUGLAS argued against the original
proposition as well as the amendment, and quoted
Mr. Speaker Onslow, to shew thatllle Speaker
had not exceeded the line of his duty. He Con-
tended for the ttuth and propriety of the para-
graph alluded to, and pronounced an- eulogy on
the conduct of the Speaker. • The question, before
the House was one in whiCh its dignity was con-
cerned ; but the doubt was with -him, 'whether
they should so well consult their dignity by ad-
hering to forms and precedents, and thereby risk
the loss of one whose character had given weight
to the decrees of the Legislature.--(Hear, hear V.
After some oth;r well-turned compliments to the
Speaker and the 'House, the Hon. Member con-
cluded by declaring he would vote against thewo-
tion and amendment.

Mr. W. WYNNE ,and -Mr. Rosa severally ex-.
plained. •
Sir JOHN 'NEWPORT- thought the subject should
be viewed in a serious light, us a Waiter which, in.
the fuo.re deliberations of that House, might lead
to serious inroads in its customs. If this sort of
conduct were to be sanctioned, there would be
but one step more to strike at the independence of
Parliament : even the grounds of and motives for
the opinions give❑ in that House, and individuals
marked out for the displeasure of the Crown. .It
would be very easy to introduce the SoVereign into
-that House to overawe the debates !—(Loud
cries of Order ! order !).—Gentlemen might cry
out• for order as much as they pleased, but in his
opini9n it would be more orderly to preserve the
rules and privileges of that House, and prevent
all innovations, which, if once suffered to grow
into custom, would soon abolish all freedom of
debate.

Mr. J. P. GRANT said, he should give his vote
in favour of the Resolution proposed by the
Noble Lord (Morpeth), conceiving that that in-
troduced by his Hon, Friend (Mi.. Whitbread)
went furtherahan the occasion called for. He
was sitt4fied,
.that the Right Hon. Gentleman in

the Chair bad not, in the conduct which he had
pursued, been actuated by any improper mo-
tive, but had been betrayed by his zeal beyond
what his duty to the House and the Country war-
„ranted ; and therefore it was, that he (Mr.-
Grant) was desirous of coming -to some vote
which would prevent that conduCt from being
drawn into 'a precedent in future. . The Catholic
Question- had not, on this occasion, been touched
upon ; in fact, it had nothing to do with the sub-
ject under dismission. Juthe solemnly declared,
however 'attached he might be to that great and
important
.topic, that if the communication to the
Throne had been- 'directly the reverse of what it
was, he should have-come to the same vote, from
a conviction, that, unless the constitutional privi-
leges of the House were preserved, the freedom of
discussion, to which 'they had hitherto attached
so much importance, would be completely saeri-•
ficed.--(Hear !) __ _ _

" The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
should have no hesitation in giving his negative
to the-motion of the Noble Lord, because he con-
ceived it was one which Was by no means called
for through what had taken place. The Right
Hon. Gentleman then took a brief view of what
bid been said by the Noble Mover, and observed,
that no man was more disposed to enforce-the
privileges of Parliament than himself. But he
saw no breach of privilege committed in the sub-

ject now brought before the House ; and as
the precedents which had been quoted, they ap-
peared to go far in justification, particularly
that of Speaker Onslow, which went into long
dissertations upon alliances and subsidies, and'
these. sheaved to what a length of discussion that
Gentleman thought himself entitled to go. Yet
was Speaker Onslow
.censured ? Never. The
:light Hon. dentleman thought the speech of the
Speaker in Ireland, in 1792, a very .fair precedent,
and observed, that he had received the .thanks of
the House for it. As to. Mr. Hatsers book;
which had been treated lightly, he was disposed.
to pay
.very great deference to it. It was almost
needless to say, 'that he thought it his.duty to vote
against the motion and the amenduient.
• Mr. Rut taK Err said, that if the House bad come
to any resolution on the Catholic Question, even
though that resolution might have been favour-
able to the Catholics, yet he should have Highly
disapproved of the unconstitutional manner in
which he (the Speaker) bad conveyed it to the

.
Throne. if he had. done an .act which might
have tended to destroy parliamentary freedom ;
and if any man in that House, through delicacy,
esteem, friendship, or any other cause, held back
from giving his vote against bu n, he (Captain
Plunkett) would say,,that no word was- too strong„
no stigma too great, to' reprehend his pusillani-
mity. For his own part, he considered the speech
in question to be one of the most unconstitutional
attacks ever made on :that House.
.All proceed-
ings in that House shonld have full freedom and
latitude. There .is no question about which .so
anxious a feeling prevails, as in'the guarding the
preceedings of that House against all interference
on the part of the Crown. Some communicatinu
between .Parliament and the ,Crown was neces,_
sary, but the 'manner in which it ought to
be made was so clearly defined and ascertain-
ed, that no doubt could possibly exist about it.—
The ways were either by a speech from the
Throne, or .by an address or resolutions from
that House, and.these were always for purposes
equally well•understood. • They were not for the
purpose of asking advice of the Crown, because
we ar4 the advisers of the Throne..• Beyond this
there was no constitutional channel of communi-
cation between the Parliament and the Sovereign,
save, however, the presentation of Bills which
had passed that House, and were taken to the
'Throne for .its dissent or approbation. Except
on this occasion, the Speaker had no right to

Make any speech to the Thrtme ; and if no such
Bill had passed, hii speech would ha•ie been a
perfect intrusion. He was willing ttr do, theßight
Hon. .t.;eutleman• all possible justice, on the
ground of ills universally admitted talents and tin.
questioned ;
stioned -virtues but to say that he had a right
to justify the conduct now-complained of; was
what he would not cease to contest, if a mea-
sure had passed in Parliament, that, measure
speaks its own language, and the House is an-
swerable for the fact ; but to comment upon what
has not passed, and thus to throw some indirect
censure upon those who have brought forward the
measure that has tailed, is what, this House Will
not submit to. As to precedents, the thing was
totally unprecedented. Hatsel's book was, no
dOubt, a very respectable work of explana-
tions ; but Gentlemen were to be told that
they were to take their knowledge of the Consti-
tution-from this outline of the customs of Parlia-
ment. But even in this, there is nothing appli-
cable to the case in question. This Was' stranger
than if it related to a rejected measure, because it
had not' been rejected, hut was perfect, unfinish-'
ed, and intended to he receiyed. The CoMmittee
had agreed that it would he Advisable to adulit the
Catholics to the enjoyment of certain advantages.
Why, every thing of which the speakercould take
-cognizance was done; No he thinks to pass over
that which lie has a right to know, and only to
touali upon what was against the Catholigs; so
that what the Right Honourable Gentleman had
chosen to report to the ITouSe, was absolute-
ly a misrepresentation of what had passed in
the Committee. Other parts were never pro-
posed ; and they only afforded him a surmise
of what might be passe'd. In the Commit-
tee, the qiiestion eras opposed on various grounds.
Some opposed it because 'they thought it would
be better to wait till peace ; others, because the
Pope was in jeopardy, and the Catholic Church,
had- no ostensible bead : ho.v, then, could the
-Right Hon. Gentleman assign his own reasons as
the reason; of the Cominittee As `Well might he,
as the Member for Oxford, complain of himself,
as the Speaker, for misrepresenting his own opi-
nion ; for in ,the Committee the Right Hondur-
able Gentleman had said, that any Catholic Offi-
cer in the army might be safely trusted : and not
only had the Right Honourable Gentlemen mis-
represented his own opinions, but also those of
the majority, of whom it was evident that not
any ten coincided. On the whole, it appeared to
him, that this part of the speech was totally un-
called for, -as nothing had happeded which re-
quired any allusion of the kind,: 'Tin Honour-
able Gentleman concluded with an eulogy on Lord
Wellington and the Irish soldiery, in
,illustrfltion
of* the latter having deserved the fullest extent of
civil liberty.
Mr. CANNING said, that, as one of the Members
who had takin a conspicuous part in the discus-
sion of the Catholic Question, be felt a peculiar
interest in what had come this night under dis-
cussion. He could not but admit that be had a
friendship growing out of thae question, which
some dine or other, he trusted, would meet with
success. .He, therefore, felt himself called upon
to assign his reasons why he differed from the ma-
jority of those wbo bad spoken this night. • lie
shouht not join wtth any of those who had pro-
posed motions implying censure, because he did
not think the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentle-
than deserving of being brought before any sort
of tribunal. It had been said that his conduct
was an act which originated from his sense of
discretion ; ,and this very term implied an
acquittal front all reprehension. If the motion
were intended to supply a preventative, it fell far
short of effecting that which was its object.—
Ought they, if the discretion vested in the Speaker
were objected to,, merely to prohibit from
ebnunenting on what was not carried through the
House,- and leave to him the right of animadvert-
ing upon, and of construing that which was enact-
ed ? 'The existence of the power to comment on
and to construe the enactments of that House were
not' denied ; when this was admitted :without
meaning to defend such, power being. given to ,the
S&aker,he.co4lit not see any good likely to re-
sult from curtailing it in one instance, and not
the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman then took
an. enlarged view of the course pursued respecting
the measure which had been brought forward
for the relief
,of the Catholics. A Resolution in
the Session before last had been come to by the
House, iii. which they pledged thethselves early
in the.next ensuing Session,. to take into -con-
, sideration the • Catholic , Claims, with a view
to relieving them from the disabilities 'of which
they .Complained. This resolution was carried by
the Commons to the foot of the Throne. The
supposition that had been urged against the
Speaker, that by communicating to the - Crown
that Which was in the contemplation of the House,.
the Sovereign might be enabled to interfere so as
to prevent the accomplishment of their wishes,
was done. away by this resolution. It could . not
beinentioned that the Speaker had. been the first
periion to inform the Crown of the intentions of
Parliament. The. Speaker had certainly given a
colour to their proceedings differing widely from
that which he (Mr. Canning) would have given' 5
but should he for this object :to his giving, the
view which•he took olit ?
.He might think lie saw
an error of judgment—he might consider it
an unfortunate exercise of the discretion vested
in him, but he could see nothing to condemn
as an abuse of the advantage he enjoyed—(Hear,
!).---,lt-had been said.the Speaker, as Speaker,
could know nothing of
.what passed in that House,
when no enactment was made. If so, what was
the situation in which they might have been
placed ? At the end of one Session they bad coin.-
municated to the CroWn an intention of taking
into consideration 'a measure of great national
importance in the ensuing Session,' and at the end
of the next Session nothing Would have been said
about it. Some Gentlemen. had made the Crown
Oise of their drantOtis persona, and represented it
as asking questions, and offering remarks. Sup-
posing, oa such an occasion as that of which
be spoke, the Crown had inquired after the
measure which had been announced. The
Speaker was to know nothing about it. Be-
cause absent from the Chair, he was to be
supposed absent from the Committee; and thus
it. would appear to the Crown, that the great
weasur.e which they intended .to take into their

consideration hart been whollylmt sig it cf, 'rile
every man who read a Newspaper knew great
ardent disCussions had taken place oil the subj
'The true gnestiOn for the Muse to. consider %vat./
not Nvb was the extent of- the discretion vests!-(
in the Speaker, but what eras the-merit of •th.!:
personal act of the Speaker in the exercise Of his'
discretion. if this were 'adthitted to be the quea-
tion before them, the greater portion of the ar-
gmpents used in this
,debate was. at once cast
asiefe.He would not say; if the abstract eitrestiou
*ere what ought to •be the extent of. the Speak- '
cr's discretion, that he would vote for'giving it all
that' latitude which it at present had ; but ha
thought the Speaker hardly treated; when they
visited on him, not only his actual extension of-
that discretion, but also the will of the original
ii.stitition;—(Hear, bear, hear !).---The nautiil
and pt per course would be, if the practice were
found inconvenient, to enact, thdt in futtire no
Speaker Arnold deliver a speech .in the name of
that HouSe, which bad not first received its sanc-
tion. He did not tnean to say this ought to be
done, but this, he contended, would be a fairer
course of proceeding than that which it had been
proposed to take.on this occasion, which went to
leaVe the Speaker, in the exercisie of his discre-
tion, subject to annual reprehension, like that to
which be had_ been exposed this nigliL (Hears
hear !).—lf it was thought inconvenient for due
individual to endeavour to• collect their motives
avid feelings, it would become them to, compel the
Speaker to abandon this privilege, and to Make it
incumbent on him to Nldress the Crown out of the
House, aF.liewould address it within those walls,
declaring, " that he had neither eyes to see, cars to
hear, nor tongue to utter anything which was not
commanded by them." It the argtnnent of the
Hon. Gentleman who had cited these words was
good for any thing, it went against the practice
of the Speaker's addressing the Crown in any way
but in,. obedience to the commands of the House.
Thistle was not at present prohibited from.doing
and though he (Mr. Canning) could have wished'
the Speakees,speech at the close of the last Ses-
sion to be of •a very different nature, he would
not, while he claimed a right to act upon his own
judgment, blame the Right Honourable Gentle- •
ratan for the comcieutious exercise of his. (llear,
hear!).—He differed from the Speaker in the view
which he took of_theCrtthetic Question; as much'
as human opinion could differ from human Opi-,
Dion. He fondly lOoked forward to the defeat o
that speech—'to thethne
„when no S:)eaker should
be able to make such a one. The period, he '
hoped, Was nearly • arrived, accelerated in its
course by events unlocked for, and, he
_might
add, Anwislted for, as they so greatly exceeded
our mOst, sanguine hopes. He trusted the day •
was not fai' (114:111L when:this question would-no
longer afford a refuge for discord, driven from all
the rest Of 'the world. (Hear, hear !).—He hoped
this would not much, longer remain an excep;
Lion to the general harmony of manbind. B
with thesefeelingi, he could not consent to viit
the Speaker for that which he had conscientiously
done, though he thought the Right lion. Gentle-
man had formed an erroneous estimate of their
proceedingson the subject of the Cltholic Claims
in the last.,Sessiou _of Parliament. He was sure
the Noble Lord bad been actuated by no per-
sonal feeling in bringing this Motion forward,
yet there was one part of it more severe than
any thing contained hi the amendment of the
Hon.-Gentleman. -He alluded to the words. pro-
the Speaker frcrii addressing any thing
to the Sovereign at the Bar of the House at
Lords, or " elsewhere," which he was not ii.-
structed to say by the House. Froin
ill a distant age, it might be sopposed, that tlr
present Speaker had 'been a sycophant or cour-
tier, Who,:nottontent with the access be bad to
the Crown, in a regular way, gought. other'
opportunities for poisoning his Sovereign's ear.--
lf this were meant to be insinuated, it ought
to be fairly and openly stated: If it were not
intended, then the motion contained a surplus-
age of words, pregnant with mischief. These
taken away, would still leave a censure on the
Speaker's conduct, to which:lie would prefer that
contained in the amendment, which distinctly' set
forth the amount of his offence. He, however, eon- •
sideringthedangcrs apprehended by sotne*Gentle-
men -from the precedent to be visionary, and.con-
sidering the inimense latitude taken by' some
of his predecessors when addressing the Crown, -
could vote for neither. If, the, discretion of the
Speaker sere restricted to enactments, some new
mode would be devised for representing failures
to ;the 'SiiVereign. This would probably •be 'an
Address fram the majority of the. House ; -and
could 'any one think, 1 that toad this course been
adopted last year; after the fatal failure of the
Bill; that a statement, very different from that
offered by the Speaker, would have been tirade
Having; briefly reeapitulated his
.priticird
mcnts, he ioiicluded hv' declaring it to be hi,; (Ty:-
11;017, lintr-liCreare-haritreen -made out to' emit for
the special interference cif the House.
General IVEA.Tnew snppotted the Amendment.
Mr.' BATAURST asserted the privil,-ge of the
Speaket, and the example of former SpeakerS 2'o
thotised all he had said. The Right Bon.-Gent e-
man.had said lie was willing to have lit'apeak • ;ln
Om'ator,but he Objected to his being inutlistOri.,ln.
'The latter-character, rather than theformer, he
proved to. be that which, in the diseliarge of
tidy, he was obliged to sustain. He eon:hated
with much ability the statements Made with r,,spect
to the.inconvenieuccs and, dangers anticipates! by
30meGeotlemen as the Jesuit of the line of conduit
pursued .by the Speaker. Adverting to the ,contiact
of the Spealwr. of -the Irish House of „Commons,
which had '.been refer;el to, he argued- from the
proceedings whichfoil.owed in the hist] Parliament,.
that the Address of the Speaker to the Crown bad
not that-importance which, on the present occa-
sion, it had been attempted to shew, attached to
it. It rested entirely with the Houre, When the
subject came before them again, to curry the
measure recommended or not, as therthisw:ht
proper. What the Speaker bad said, could
not at all interfere. with their deliberatons.
Where no intentional offence was imputed,
the mildest construction ought to be put on the
words used. The Speaker bad only stated mVhat
had been the conduct of the majority of the
House, taking the majority, as of course he must,
as the whole body of the House, it was sad,