The Sun.
London, England, 1804-05-24 00:00:00

VOLUNTEEROORP

The :Report of the tri whom.
the Atne'n(itnents of the Lords had been in the first
instance referred;. and also the Attieridnienti having

been read,

Lord CASTLEREAGII, previous to. his moving
that the Amendments be read a • second time,
thought it necessary to acquaint the. Houie, that the
greater part of the AmendmentS which had been
made.to the Bill by the Lords, were More in form
than in substance, and. with the: exception of two
or three ClaUses that were left out altogether; cal-
Ctilated to carry into effea the intention of the
House in passing the Bill. There were one or two
Amendments which appeared to.him to trench upon
the F'rivileges of the Hotise ; and when, in consi-
dering the Amendments, they should. come to them,
he should beg leave to call the attention of the House
to them.

On the Question that the Amendolenti be read a
second: tithe-,
itir FOX rose for the purpcise of opposing the
Question, not On the ground of ceriain,Anamdmerits
trenching on the forms of the 'House, but to get rid
of .the, Bill altogether. The Comniittee had taken
notice of sonic Xrnendments in Clauses of the na-
ture of Money ClaUsei, which, of course, interfer.
cd with the Privileges of. the House, but by some
accident they had omitted to take any notice of one
Amendment, which; was attended with so meremark,
able circumstances, and not to be remedied by any
means short °idle tej.ealon. of the whale sill. The
Amendment he alluded to was, where the Lords had
substituted the r,st of June for the'sth of May, as the
period, fot determining, exemptions: -I;.e consequence,
of this Amendment was..to extend the exemptions be..
yond theperiud,wVich..the House of Commons
.had
,assigned, anti it- of neceksity interfered.4ith the
of -the house. In-case the Lords should

m =ke an, Amendment to a Turnpike Bill, to lengthen,
to shorten,. cr to create exemptions from the Turn_.
p kr Doty, the Reuse would not entertain diem, and,
as the present Amendment would go directly to the
same effeci, the same course should be adopted. He
was sure the House would not receive any Ainend.
ment that would extend the exemptions a single day.
If the House conk' not agree to such an Amendment,
then the regular course was to rejtet. the Bill alto-
gether ; for if the Amendment were to be altered by
leaving out the rat of June, and restoring the ori-
ginal date of the sth of May, the Clause would be
impratticable, that day having elapsed ; and if
they were to rejea the Clause altogether, for the
purpose of substituting another to the same eft-ea, or
of extending the period of exesnptionS to a later
date, suppose the ist of July, that would be to
adopt the substance of the Lords' Amendment, and
not to adhere to the old usage of the House. He.
conceived that there could exist no doubt as to the
principle. There were innumerable precedents on.
the Journals, of Bills rejeCted on the same grounds.
If this Bill were to be rejeCted on this ground,
another might be brought in and carried through the
House with all possible speed. It was certain, that
there were many parts of the Eill which a consider-
able minorityoein that House bad objected to, when
in its progress through the House. What was the
opinion of that respeetable minority, might now be
the opinion of the majority, and undoubtedly, the
Bill, when introduced anew, might be again dis.
cussed. Though he was not very friendly to the
Bill, this was not his motive for recommending
this course, and he mentioned it only to obviate
the objection that he was actuated by hostility to
parts of the Bill. But so far from being a reason
against reconsidering the measure, the probability
that the majority would now coincide with the
sentiments of the minority on a former occasion,
appeared a stronger ground for reconsidering it.
There might be other modes of obviating the
difficulty suggested by Gentlemen who had turned
the subjeCt in their minds ; but if the House
should rejed the whole, the new Bill might be pass-
ed through the House, if possible, in a single day.
He had a strong notion that Gentlemen (in allusion
to Mr. PITT), had some time ago entertained senti-
ments not very favourable to this measure. At all
events, he trusted the House would maintain those
privileges inviolate, which, at all times, good or
bad, they had faithfully adhered to.
The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER
thought there could be but one sentiment in the
House with regard to an infraction of its Privileges
by Amendments made in the other House. But this
was not the stage in which to consider that topic.
The first question in this instance was, whether the
House, consistently with its privileges, could agree
to the Amendments of the Lords ? and the next,
what measure it would be expedient to adopt in
case it should not agree to them ? The Committee
in its Report, and his Noble Friend (Lord CASTLE-
REAGH), had pointed out what Amendments the
Hoto:e should agree to, and what it ought not. As
to that which had been adverted to by the Hon. Geri.
tleman (Mr. Fox), in his view of it, he could disco-
ver nothing in the Amendment, to which they could
not, consistently with the privileges of the House,
agree, and he desired to state the ground of that opi-
mon. In all questions relating to money matters, the
. House never objefted to any Amendments designed
to carry into effed the intention of the House.—
From the time the Bill took up before it reached the
last stage in the Lords, the original time for mak-
ing the first return had elapsed ; and as it would be
impraCticable to make the return at that date, the
Lords were under a necessity of substituting another
dare. He conceived it to be perfeCtly competent to
the House to agree to the Amendment, or to extend
the ttrm still further, to the Ist of July. But,
though that was his opinion, he disclaimed any idea
of rezommending to agree to the Amendment on the
grew dof convenience. If it should be thought to
trench upon the Privileges cf the House, and that it
Was converient to adopt it in substance, the Amend-
ment might be (*fled in this instance, and the
convenience provided for by a Supplemental Bill.—
his appeared to him a better mode than that of
rejseting the whole Bill, as had been recommended
the. Hon. Gentleman, because the new Bill might
lead to lengthened discussion ; and these were cu.-
tiin parts of this Bill which it was of importance
to have cm:a:A into a law without delay. This
was not the stage in which to debate the matter,
which more properly should be discussed in the
Committee. .4s the Hon. Gentleman had not ob.
irtted to the other Amendments, he looked upon it
that lie felt no objection then. He thought, there-
fore, that the best course would be to proceed to the
consideration of theAMendments one by one, and
as the Bill contained in it a Clause empowering the
house to alter or amend it during the present
Session, any Amendments to which the House
could' not agree in the present inatance, might be
provided for by a Supplemental Bill. The Right
Hon. Gentleman concluded, by recommending to the
House to consider, whether it would not be more
eligible to substitute the Ist of July for the Ist of
June.

Mr. T. ORENVILLE admitted, that it would
be certainly competent to the House to agree to the
Amendment, but thought there could be no doubt
that they could not agree to it, without materially
and essentially affeCting their Priviieges. If it were
merely a question of convenience, he agreed that a
Supplemental Bill would be sufficient. But it was
not a question of convenience, but whether the
Amendment infringed the P:ivileges of the House,
30 as to eall iron it' an assertion and vindication ()fits
Privileges. The usual and ordinary course was, to
defer the consideration of Amendments that trenched
upon the rights of the House, not because this was
the must convenient and praCticable course for the
dispatch of Puhlic business, but because the House
looked nut to Convenience but to the preservation
of its privileges, of which it was always justly
jealous. The alteration of the date from- the sth
of IYlay to the Isc of June, was a direa and unequi-
cal .vioLti n of 114; dearest and most valuable
Priv ilvge' of the ' The Supplemental Bill
ixisv.ter the purpOse of convenience, but Irvoulcl
not cure the wound 'to the Privileges of the. House
If :he'Stippietneptal Poll for :ourreaing the Amend.
inenti made bvj the LOttls in this, were to be, as it
ihLui4) C.0),i65'; -.)14i1f:u4:au,14 Oleg Liightc.
, 4 I

be a question, whether it would be likely to pass
the other House of Parliament ? He thought the
House should not only dissent from this Atnendtnent
in a Clause of the nature of a Money Clause, but
mark their dissent by the manner in Which they
should get rid of it. He trusted his judgment on
this occasion was not warped by his Opinion of the
value of the Bill, though if the measure should be
lost for the Session, he should not consider it any
calamity. He was long of opinion, that the attempt
to establish the Volunteers on the same system as
Regulars, could never succeed, and would tend to
overthrow the Volunteers altogether.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
nied, that he had argued the question nn the ground
of convenience, as his Right Hon. Friend seemed,
much to his surprize, to have misunderstood him.
Mr. BATHURST (lace BRAGGE) having had the
honour to lay the Report on the Table, requested the
House would indulge him in saying a few words on
the subject. The Committee had not passed over the
Amendment under consideration,fur it was not with..
out considerable discussion that it had come to a re-
solution to recommend to the House to agree to it.
The question had not been accurately stated, either
by the Hon. Gentleman who had opened the Debate,
or the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. The
Amendment went, not to alter the exemptions, but
the date for making the return. In the second
Clause of the Bill, all former Ads on the subjea
were repealed ; but the exemptions under them were
secured till the day of the first return under this
Bill. If the sth of May had been suffered to re-
main in the Bill, as the period had elapsed, the Ist
of August would be the first return day after the
passing of the Bill, to which the exemptions should
necessarily he extended. The Amendment of the
Lords, therefore, was designed merely to meet the
intentions of the House.
Mr. FRANCIS had but one observation to make.

The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. PITT) had laid it
down as a principle, that any Amendments ought to
be agreed to which were in furtherance of the in-
tention of the House, and that the Privileges of the
House would be safe. Thts principle might as well
be applied to the augmentation of Taxes, which
would be in furtherance of the intention of the
House, but he trusted they would be very tender
of admitting such an interference with their dearest
Privilege.
The SPEAKER conceived it his duty, in a Debate
on the Privileges of the House, as also that he
might be expected on such an occasion, to state such
information as he had been able to coiled on the
subject. He took it to be the undoubted practice
of the House, not to allow any Amendment to be
made in a Bill respeCting the Supplies. In measures
containing numerous regulations, the praCtice was
different. In some instances the Bill was rejected
in consequence of an Amendment. The most nu.
merous class of cases, however, was on the side
of rejecting the Amendment, and passing the Bill
without. With respeft to the Amendments in the
Bill before the House, a similar question had arisen
in the case of the great Militia Bill, in 1757. The
Lords had left out all the Clauses for raising a Re-
giment in the Tower Division, as well as the
Clauses for making a provision for it. The House
rejected this Amendment, and sent the Bill back to
the Lords, with their reasons assigned for the re-
jeetion, on the ground of Privilege, whereas the
Lords did not insist on their Amendment. A similar
case occurred on the Militia Bill, in 1802, and was
disposed of in the same manner. The SPEAKER then
cited a number of other cases from the Journals, to
shew the praCtice of the House to be to reject
Amendments of such a description, without getting
rid of the Bill.
Mr. lIENDERSON,briefIy adverted to another
instance of the same description, in the case of the
Bristol Port Bill.

Mr. WINDHAM. was of opinion, that the
principle on which it was proposed to agree in this
Amendment, did not apply stridly, neither was it
conformable to the general pradice of the House ;
for though some instances were adduced in support
of it, instances on the other side were much more
numerous. He wished the House to consider, that
when the constitutional principle as to breaches of
Privilege was departed front, and deviations were
tolerated because they were in furtherance of the
intentions of the House, a wide door would be
Open to inroads on the custody of the Public Purse,
which the House was called upon to defend with
jealousy as its own peculiar domain. The very
word of the intention of the House was of wide
meaning, and admitted great latitude of construe.
tion. For example, in the present instance, when
the thing which was to be enacted could not take
place on the sth of May, the Lords took upon them
to fix it on the gth of June, and this was called
furthering the intention of the House, which he
thought would have been better consulted if the
former day were left our, and the House left at
liberty to -substitute such other day as it might
think convenient, for the House may have reason to
adopt a very different provision. The proper mode
would, in his Opinion, have been, that the Lords
should name no day, but have required that a new
Bill be brought in, the day named in the first having
elapsed. On the ground that was now advanced in
favour of this Amendment, a latitude was given for
invasion of the PrivilegesOf the House, which might
become licentious ; for having once countenanced
such a pradice, the House might creep on from re-
laxation
to relaxation, till the Privilege of which
it was once so justly tenacious, was entirely lost.—
If convenience was not to be urged against princi-
ple, he hoped substance would not be urged in op.
position to form. He hoped it would not be argued
that there was little difference, whether one day was
adopted or the other. But if this sort of argument
was once countenanced, the general intention would
be always pleaded for the abandonment of the stria
principle. The safest practice was a strid obser-
vance of the principle, the preservation of which
was, a more important consideration than either the
convenience of passing the present Bill, or the duty
of passing a new one.
Mr. SHERIDAN would not have risen, except
for .something that had fallen from the Right Fin.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. BATHURST), which was
not consistent with his usual accuracy. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had said, he could adduce cases in
which' 2.a:es had been_ altefed in the commence.

ment of Tax Bills, while it had been stated, no
doubt, more accurately from the Chair, that in
direa Tax Bills, the House considered any Anr4end.
ment made by the Lords as fatal, and that the
House would be wanting to itself if it did not.—
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said, that the
Committee had adverted to this Amendment, but
that it was not thought right to notice it as a breach
of Privilege, as it was in furtherance of the inten-
tion of the House. He did not like this argument.
Could the House of Lords, or even the Committee,
be sure that the intention of the House was such ?
Then the Right Hon. Gentleman contended, that if
the Lords had not made this Amendment, the day of
the first return having elapsed, no return could be
made till the day fixed for the second return in
August. The fart was, that there was no mention
of such a second return in the Bill. No man was
to be entitled to the exemptions in virtue of the
former AEls, further than the day of the first return,
which was, as the Bill had passed the Commons, the
sth of May, as it was amended by the Lords Ist
June, and which was proposed to be amended by
the Right Hon'. Gentleman (the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER), to Ist July. No further claim
could be made till the second return should be made
on the sth May, June, or July following, as it should
be finally fixed in the Bill. He proposed, by way
of compensation, that the word fifth' should be al.
lowed to stand, and that the rest of this Amend.
ment be omitted ; and then that a Supplementary
Bill should be brought in to fill up the deficiency.
By this would be shewn what the Bill would state
on the face of it, that the cause of this proceeding
was a just attention to the Privileges of the House.
Mr. BATHURST explained.

Lord CASTLEREAGH saw no cause whatever
for rejeaing the Clause or the Amendment made in
it by the Lords, as, in his judgment, the Amendment
did in no degree whatever trench on the Privileges
of that House, but was obviously adopted by the
Lords in furtherance of that which was the un-
doubted intention of the House of Commons,
namely, to prevent any fraudulent exemptions
from being pleaded under the Volunteer Bill, to
which, without this Amendment, a wide door would
have been left open until the Ist of August next.
The House would at all times have the right and
The opportunity of vindicating and asserting its
Privileges, without unnecessarily at this moment
seizing the opportunity of a weak and trivial ques-
tion, and thereby materially to embarrass the Pub-
lic Service.

Mr. GREY differed with the Noble Lord's opi.
nion, that the House of Commons would at all times
have the power of asserting and vindicating its own
Privileges. In order that it might best maintain
them, it would not be right to establish a precedent
against those Privileges, by giving way, even in the
most trivial instance, to any authority, however
lightly assumed by another House of Parliament, to
interfere with that which this House had ever con-
sidered and maintained to be its sole and exclusive
right. The Noble Lord had endeavoured in this
case to defend the Amendment, by stating,• it was
made by the Lords in furtherance to the inten-
tions of this House. Such language and such an
argument he held to be most dangerous and decep_
tious ; for, if once such a pretence was admitted,
he should be glad to know in what Bill it was, that
the Lords might not plead a similar Privilege, to
overturn every right of that House, under the
assumed pretence of furthering its intentions.—
They might thus amend every Money Bill sent up
by this House, and overturn every Privilege of the
purse, which this House had hitherto maintained
with the most scrupulous jealousy. He could see
no inconvenience whatever likely to arise from the
rejeetion of the Amendment, and letting the Clause
stand as it originally did, the sth of May; more
especially, as the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. PITT)
had proposed to introduce speedily a short Supple-
mentary Ad, in which this, amongst other defeds
of the Bill, might be remedied; and as such a re-
medy was so near, he saw no reason why it should
not be adopted. _ _ _

Sir HENRY MILDM AY allowed the Amend-
ment may be in furtherance of the intention of
the House, but he considered it as of dangerous
tendency. The preservation of the Privileges of
the House was of the utmost importance to the
Public, as well as to Parliament, and such a prece.
dent was of dangerous tendency.
The question being put, that the Amendments be
read a second time, was agreed to.
When the Clerk came to read the Clause just now
debated,

Mr. FOX expressed his hope, that from what
had passed, the House would feel the necessity of
rejecting the Amendment he had mentioned. The
whole of the cases, so ably stated from the Chair,
were, in his mind, decidedly in favour of the rejec-
tion ; and more especially, the case of the Militia
Bill, in the year 1757, when the House of Lords
thought proper to diminish, by Amendment, the
number of the Militia voted by the Commons, and
also the trim of money voted as the supply for the
original number. The House of Commons, in that
case, did not aCt merely by rejeEting the Amendment
made by the Lords, but they maintained their own
dignity, and vindicated their Privileges with be.
coming spirit, by rejeding the Bill altogether, and
then introducing a new Bill. But, as had been fair.
ly and ably argued by his Hon. Friend near him (Mr.
GREY), the most dangerous of all arguments upon
which a justification could he attempted for such
an Amendment, on the part of the Lords, was
that urged by the Noble Lord (CAcTLERFAcH),
that it was done in furtherance of the intention of
this House. For once only admit that, and the
business of exclusive controul on the public purse
would be at an end, and the privilege of taxation Com-
pletely transposed to the House of Lords, who
would then be perfealy at liberty to make what
alterations they pleased in the date of commencing,
or the period or terminating a Tax. Gentlemen
had quoted precedents, to strew that similar things
had been done ; but those precedents were of
very modern date, all within the last nine or ten
years. But why not aet by ancient precedents, in
these times when the House had shewn a most
scrupulous and dignified jealousy and vigilance to-
wards its Privileges In the course of this debate,
3 Right Honourable Gentleman, an experienced
Member of Parliament, and one who had himself fir

C
a considera'nle time presided in th,!Cair as-
mittees of Ways and Means in that H u-6 ‘l,l;', 19,1
serted, as a precedent, that the Lords -,61, lb, 'I,
altered the date of commencement in ;t
and that the Amendment had been adopte'''.4.!l
House, without any objedion. If there was
precedent that could by possibility hive e'w
tU
the vigilance of this House, he wislled it
be read, as the House could not be taught to re.
fled too strongly upon a circumstance so trf,Yl,icil
proachful, to a negligence, an inadvertencyYlf Ssch
it ought to be so much ashamed. But Ala,
precedents were once admitted to have any a-iness
hu
city, this House. might as well give up.the sriri•
of taxation at once, and abandon its claims of 'ed!
lege as idle matter of form, and take its rel3—ills,
in a mere rejeCtion of Amendments in Money the
as well as in all possible cases in which it haseno
same power of disagreement from the Alpena°
of the Lords. „Is
The CHANCELLOR cf the EXC 115'‘140d
felt it unnecessary again to go over the rdely
he had already argued. Ile must be wl„,c3
misunderstood by any Gentleman who sof?"it
him to argue generally that a view of g1,i11,1311
furtherance to the wishes of that House wall°, 'cher
cases, justify the alterations made by rilejoso
Douse of Parliament in Bills sent up by this 11°0'
Money Bills as well as others. He used the argil
ment specially, and in relation only to tillairilat
cise case before the House, and cases of a sijillsl
kind, and by no means in relation to Milney. coo,
or any other wherein an Amendment could rde of
for a moment supposed to compromise a
the Privileges of this House. But the, alter'ple did' not hold fastidiously to every possible,
ation that might be made even in a Ninae,Yrc th;
but applied'only to such cases as those 0; Sete
obvious intentions of the House of Coniaten:Daent
contravened. But conceiving the ATeerowilc,isiil
in the present case to have been made pu
leges,and not
heoffe
lc no
o
the intention of furthering the objeds of this nrivi#
sth
Amendment, so far as leaving out the "ra be date
contravening
a ny
whatevero f its
°obi er
es
cia7 the
of May," with a view, however, to amen
adopted by the Lords, to the ist of -11'
moved, and which was agreed to,
Or the Question being put and agreea je
Mr.in Fox wished that a special entry be PTlouse
the Journals of the House, of the reasons of the for,
agreeing to this Amendment, that it might nal a
wards be considered as a precedent. teat
The SPEAKER assured the Hon. Gentlerl'a' cat;
after having put the Question, he would take
that a special entry should be made accordinglYi.,,
Mr. PITT then moved that the ist of it'vro
substituted in place of the ist of June, Whir"
agreed to. ea'
Mr. WHITBREAD rose, and in allusion t° ser,
tain clauses in the Bild respeCting Masters 01344,
vants, inserted originally at his instance, but °ee(
ted by the Lords, expressed a wish that they trl,nosi
had been introduced. He wished, however, tc";- to
if it was the intention of His Majesty's Mi"ist,e,:riatt
revive any clause upon this subjed, because,
he.should feel it his duty to make a specific M,°tol-01
for inquiry in that House, respecting the conna,cre
the Lord Advocate of Scotland, which, if Le Ivo
correaly informed, had been extremely oppre99l
unjust, and illegal. Oat%
Mr. PITT requested the Hon. Member to
the circumstance to which he alluded. r
Mr. WHITBREAD said, that he had a Letteocir
his pocket from the Shire of Banff, in Sella'
stating, that a respedable man there, named
rison, -had a servant, who, without his perli*urr
or at all consulting him, had entered into 3 fieflC
of Volunteers. Mr. Morrison had in covqroa
discharged the man from his service. 1.'11,14al
applied to the Lord Advocate to know wha.h'llle
redress he had against' his master ; and thong oaf
X‘ord Advocate gave it as his answer that III': Pe"
vent had no legal redress, he tO
yet WtOte
.R frool'A
puty Sheriff of Banff, stating, that Mr. I'A° ; fret ties
conduit proceeded from disloyal and
principles ; enjoined him, as far as "cal:
power, to prevent the people of Pio°. fri9°l
holding any intercourse w•tlllnr-
instrutting him, that if an I Einem Mr.
s'',o)3l‘ r"°;-,;
in that part of the Country, to mY4lce rtf.if,a;
rison a close prisoner ; and adding, t'l- l'1,;;
the event of an Enemy landing, any part °
orrison's property should be destroY" it oe•
by the Enemy or the King's Troops to icite4eii
of the Enemy's hand, he would take care
rison should have no compensation. ve"A' 03
The remaining amendments were recei VO5 7,
3/
some rejeEled ; after which a Comm"
'TAO"
pointed to explain to a Committee of te„
the reasons for rejeaing certain Arneodn'en—,:,, bet',
Mr.WILBERFoace brought in a Bill for the bet''
ter preservation of the health and morals A ,nl.7°
Apprentices.—Read a first time, and ere
read a second time to-morrow,
The Orders fur going P
Duty, and, the
Petitions relating to the Irish Linen
MAI E,STY'S Message relative to a provision foo'ffrill
late Lord Ki LW ARDEN'S Family, were rut
into a Committee on 4:

Wednesday.—Adjourned.
..,--'.---

MAILS.
nut.
ilamburgh 4I .

W: 59.

PRICE OF STOCKS,
THIS DAY AT TWELVE O'CLOCK• 4
Red, Ann. - sit I Omniurn -

THE SUET•

SOL/M QUIS DICSRE FALSUM AUDEA.T

LONDON, MAY 24., 180.4.

eo the
SEVERAL of our Cruizers that stood over
Coast of France, in consequence of die firing W
4"i(-.11
was heard on Monday, have returned to the
1-)""4
an}'
There was nor, as it was imagined,
ment between our Cruizers and the Enemy'
II
iroo
tilla, but the French were firing salutes
their Batteries along the Coast,probahlY nn t

I