Star.
London, England, 1814-04-23 00:00:00

4IME.

;tisk s *RA by the more tlikkena
jwallts glory
of
ni°(l°•
tatioe--(Hear, bean) • Here he a
willing to give
retry praise, that nervous elosaence, employed on
t itielittt Mote fateful tti Ail their hearts,. so *ell fle-
'—i.be t even overlook the Observations 'on
ON new • financial arrangefuents, which, • the Right
IBA* Githdtmats seemed to think, would produce
effects even beyond the comprehension of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, or cf any other of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers-;--(e laugh.) But, when he considered
that pail of the speech, which had occasioned the pre-
sent discussion, he found what he never could con-
ceive to be any thing but a direct violation of duty,
and which, therefore, deserved the severest censure.
As the Right Hon. Gentleman had expressed, some
'dissatillaction, because' a direct resolution was not
'noted on the present. occasion, he (Mr. Whitbread)
'would now submit one, as an amendment, which, 1w
helievedi was couched in terms sufficiently direct.—
lie then moved, ,L • -
" That oll.the woidap,aftec the word That; be omitted, for
tic purpose of introducting-Lit appears to this House, that Ms.
Speaker did, at the cloth of the last Session, at the Bar of this
?louse of Lords, communicate to his oyal Highness the Pripet:
Regent,' cer4sltt proceedings of this R
House, had in a Committer
Of eke whole Howe, relative to his Majesty's Roman Catho*lc
&Objects, which Aittiot terminate in any act done by. the Hotisef
arti-did inform Ms Rhyil j-lightiess of the motives and reaseuts
*White presuined Whisked the Members in the.proesedtga
they took ; wherebT he ststiguilty of a violation of the trustio-
posed in bim; and* tirisai of the rrivileges of this Htluse, Itt
which be is the ehowri guardian and protector."
This Air:rend:tient was seconded by Mr. CaaavEv
Mr. BANKES. was ready to combat both the Re,
solutions which ,had been proposed, by valid argil-
aunts ; but he should first say a few words respect-
ing the last of them, becaufe it was the more specific
and substattial'of the two. In it the Speaker was
charged 'With a gatiss violation of 'his duty
,by he
speech Which he delivered at the Bar 'Of the -other
House at the end of the last Session. In his concep-
tion, it was prisPer that-the stieech delivered nn such
on.oecasion should be an exposition of . the different
matters which have engaged the attention of the
House during its sitting.. Ow this point he concei.
wed the authority of MlVltlatiell 'too be the best.—
Being• desirous to knowierhether Mr. Hatsell was
tairue out by the doeutuidts•ro which he'referred, for
is opinion, he had eonstilted the documenti them-
- salvesi anti sound that they. did completely confirm
his opinion. ttfatters evehlor the future considera-
tion of tl-e House had, he found, I been embraced in

. .
speeches made on such: occasions by different Spea-
lkeW Ting that this was the case, could ii be
mid that the case under consideration was one to be

takfu mit of the general latitude admitted in *uch
merely on account of the proceedings oni the

opeeches, , . .
14 having been dropped ? He -was not surprised
that the Right Hone Gentleman had dismissed that
part of the subject very lightly' which referred to the
abjection of his not being supposed to kpow any
thing of the proceedings of the House in a Commit,
ice. Nothing could be more absurd than to. suppose
that the Speaker, on taking the Chair, was to he-
seam at once ignorant of what he had been witness
.e! affr had participated in doing in a Committee ; be-
s, the proceedings of the Committee wete recor.
• via to these recleds the Speaker had access.—.
The Right Hon. Gentleman was fiilly jtuaified in
appealing to the precedents of Mr. Foster and Mr.
Oaslow.• As to the :speech iptebiled to have been
!pokey by the lat Ors; be„supposed that those who.
seethed to ridicule any reference to it, must know,
that .such a speech could not have been made before
Compissiobers in the absence of the Sovereign. Sup-
pe:wing the proceedings pf the House on the India
All had sot been finished, would it be said that the
Speaker was not authorized to take any notice of
that subject in his speech ? He thought th.it prece-
dents not only justified the speech in questieu, hut
would sanction even greater latitude. .Atter, the
House nezatived both Resolutions, hehoped it would
come to some affirmative decision on the subject.
Mr. WILLIAMS WYNNE wished to know how
die Speaker had any knowledge that.the-session was
closed when he mane his speech at the bar .of the
Weber ttonie ? From t.e earliest periods it had bees
the practice for the Speaker to take occasion to say
Stove words on the subject of the Bills which he pre.
...s wed for the Royal Assent ; and thence. had crept,
is what he conceived to be the unnecessary practice
of recapitulating the motives by which he conceived
the HOuse to have been actuated in passing them.
Sot in no instance was there a single case in which
be Speaker on such an occasion mentioned any pro-
posal_by a single Member of the House, either de.
faded* pending. He should think that any one
rWent a greater length in such cases than was
aitv 4
fully by precedent, acted unwisely. No
Inebitach of the Legislature could take any cogni.
Space of a proceeding pendiag in either House.—
' lele laund ,it laid down in the year 1740, as an
dent, undoubted order, thoit vihile any measure
was under discussion,. and undecided .in Pasha-
twat, the Crown should he made- acquainted with
Ilt. In 1753, a Member of the Hottse having
elated his wish to he released from the rule, for
the purpose. of mentioning some ciretnristancer.relat..
fiag to a Courothartial, a message was brought down
to the Hours on the subject, on which the Speaker at
once took the alarm, and it was noticed on the jour-
0 pals that it should not be drawn into a precedent. In
the speech of Mr. Foster, which had beets referred to,
pot one word was said by which it could be wider-
atood that any bill on the subject alluded to had been
before the House. lie telt great respect for the au-
thority of Mr. Hatsell, but in the present instance he
would swish to have his authority rejected. There
were instances in which he had emitted precedents,
such as in that of a question of privilege, which had
been before the House about four years. ego. There
were also some instances in which his opinions had
been proved to be erroneous I such as in what he said
with aspect to the right of calling for a division. The
Speaker had no right to know any thing that passed
in a Committee, except as a private Member ; and he
bad not any power to state in his speech to the Throne
what the House had not done. The course of the
Crown was sufficiently understood. As the King was
not, as King, to take notice of any thing ece
except in a
legal or parliamentary way, so no person is at liberty
to communicate to the King any thing irregular. 'The
Motion of the Noble Mover, it must he admitted, con.
veys a censure, but in the mildest possible way ; be.
same it must have seemed. to the Noble Lordt that
,i,
- the error which had been committed proceeded only
froma inigpnception ot duty.
brou Itt
dawn the was the same with
1491'd Chatham,, rhea he O

• t

a
of 17:57, the Itodse tilt-night pitnief to ekprets it 4 ate-
pleasure at the time. It was mtheeessary for hirh to
detain the House any longer ibut on tha grounds he
had stated, he felt boiand tli frWlitgainst
went.. .•.;
. ,
Mr. ROSE could hot bit think the subj ell- di 'con-
siderable ittiportancei ntse could he refrain, nin. with-
standing *hat had fallen from so many able etoti-acl
ters, frcm offering his hterible,opinion upon it. That
the Noble Mover bid also thought the topic to be one
'of great roagaitude, seas evident from the early period
of the Session at which he had given notice of his mo-
Oen. It was, indeeds rather unfortunate that the dis-
cussion had nottome on at an -earlier p-riod ; but the
:House had been so unuidally thin ever since the-no.
tice had been given, that justice could only be doe
to the topic...by the call which had now t iken place.
For himself be had no hesitation in declaring, that
what the Speaker had said, appeared strictly confor-
`mable to the usages and customs of that • House in all
periods. If Mr. Hatsel's entries and statements can
be supposed to be precedents, as they caenot be de-
nied to be, the House may safely rely on thew. The
Learned Speaker had alluded to measures which had
been defended in that House he would not under-
-take to saythai he had spoken on measures which had
been decided on, nem would he enter on a diseussioi,
whether it would not have been more safe to allude to
the latter than to the former. Butwould any body say
that it is not notorious and certain, that when the Speak.
-er goevup to the HouseofLords the Session is at anend?
The Right lion. Gentleman then referred to the oc-
currences of 1761 and 1762, when the Speaker spoke
on the subject of the 'claims,of the NonsCnnlormists,
to shew, that bills which could not be got through in
the• session, were spoken of to the throne, although,
suffered to rest till the next session ; and he would
wish to ask whether more danger was not tote op;
prehended to the Crown, from telling of bills of that
sort which were depending, than of those which had
gone by ? If he were to state to the House the num-
bers of speeches made by different speakers at the
times in question, he should tire their patience but he
knew of fifteen or twenty whereon the Speaker could
have had no possible authority for speaking. Gentle-
men might argue, that the Speaker had no right to
deliver his sentiments on such occasions ; but if the
House were to come to a resolution of that sort, his
ditty would be narrowed beyond any principle of
iright or justice.. Armongst the precedents to which
he had allirde.d, were those of 1720 and 1721. when
'the House was occupied with the South Sea scheme.
When, the Parliament met in 1721, the Speaker
'made a variety of observatiotis at the bar of the Upper
House, on a subject which occupied every mind ;
he had no authority for what he said, and it turned out
that he was e4tremely wrong in his Surmises ; but his
conduct was mat called in question. Would any. Ge-
ntleman say, tha: it is imprudent in a Speaker to in-
form himself of wfAt is going on in the House ? Is
not the minute book in, his possession for this very
purpoie ? sCertaialy ti's is the use he might be ex•
patted to make of it.. IN (Mr. Rose) could see no
analogy whatever between IVIr. Pitt, in 1757, taking
notice of what was passing At the. very time he spoke,
and the present Speaker inEvely adverting toswjtat
bad gene by. On the whole it ape:eared to him that
in what had been -done by the Hight Hon. Gentle-
man in the Chair was implied no defi,-.iency of defer-
ence to the House, nor was it otherwiae than strictly
conformable to his duties in Parliament. He trusted
that had been made clearly to appear, that the
usage was established, and if-- so, nothing could be
more unnecessary than a vote of censure.
The Hon. FRELERIC DOUGLAS wan fully
aware of the. important nature of the subject,. and
was disposed to pay all due regard to the authority
of the precedents that had been mentioned. Lot it
seemed to him that these, or rather the inference' de.
*clucible from them, were divisible into two cheeti—
first, that the Speaker had no right to descant before
the Throne upon what had passed in that House ;
and-secondly, that although he might allude to, the
occurrences which had taken place, he had no right
to introduce eny comment 'or general opinion of kris
own. The speech of Mr. Ohslow was of this List
description, as it was founded on the length and ns-
tore of the war ; and if there were any case in-whie•Ji
the Speaker could have known the sentiments of the
House, this might be supposed mit. With regard :to
the Act which had been the subject of his Noble
Friend's motion, however impolitic, it was known to
the Speaker that a majority of that House hakrefos-
ed to grant the relaxation of the Catholic Laws ; but
It did not appear that the sentiments so delivered
were the sentiments of the said majority. The Hon.
Gentleman then, by way of contrast. alluded to the,
conduct of a corrupt Speaker (Sir Robert Walpole),
and observed that the House ought to be very anxi-
ous respecting its own dignity and the character of
its Speaker. It ought to be tenacious in its votes on
ebis occasion, lest, in the lapse of tithe, supposing.a
vote of censure should be passed, the world might
'indiscriminately confound two persons whose charar,
ters were diametrically opposite ; the °sic notorious
for the most consummate profligacy and want. of
principle ; the other a Gentleman distinguished by
every noble and manly quality, and combining, in
two important stations, the most striking ability with
the highest possible integrity.
Mr. W. WYNNE and Mr. ROSE severally ex-
plained.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought the subject
should be viewed iu a serious light, as a matter
which, in the future deliberations of that House,
might lead to serious inroads in its customs. It
seemed to be admitted on all hands, that any prece-
dent applicable to the case is not to be found. Re.
fetence had been made to the speech of the Speaker
in the Irish Parliament, but that case did not at all
bear out the analogy.. If Speaker Foster conceived
himself warranted in what he said."the House did nut
go along with him ; for in the same Session a Bill,
against the principle of which he spoke, was brought
in, to give the elective franchise to the Catholic body.
Foster had the best possible Opportunity of delivering
his sentiments, by stating what bad actually passed
in the House, not what had passed in a Committee.
In -short, the precedents of the Irish Parliament went
in direct contradiction of what had been brought for-
kftard in favour of the conduct el the Right Hon.
iGrentletnan in the Chair. If this aorta conduct were
to be sanctioned, there would be but one step more to
strike at she independence of Pedianseust even the
grounds of and- motives tot the opinions given in that
dative* and individuals marked outior die displepr,

in 1
the

aistrim, aoli ail for debar
Mr. sr. P. GRANT 'said, he should g. ive his vote
in favour of the resolution proposed by the Noble
Lard (Morpeth) conceiving that that introduced by
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) went further than
the occasion called for. He was satisfied, that the
Right Hon. Gentleman -in the Chair had not, in the
conduct which he had pursued, been actuated by any
improper motive, but had been betrayed by his zeal,
beyond what his duty to the House and the. Country
Warranted ; and therefore it was, that he (Mr. Grant)
was desirous of coming to some vote which would
prevent that ednduct from being drawn into a prece-
eent in future. The Catholic Question had not, on
this occasion, been t .ached upon ; in fact, it had
Er thing to do with tiv subject under discussion. But
he .solemnly declared; however attached he might be
to that great and important topic, that if the commu-
nicatimii to the Throne had been directly the reverse
bl,.ehat it was, he should have come to the same vote,
from a conviction, that unless the Constitutional pri.
vileges of the House were preserved,. the freedom of
discussion, to which they had hitherto attached so
much importance, Would be completely sacrificed.....
(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCILLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, no man was more jealcius of the interference of
I.the Crown with the privileges of Parliament than he
was ; but notwithstanding all that had been said, he
.was disposed to think, upon the authority of the long
course of precedents which had been cited, that the
proceeding at the Bar of the House of Lords, at the
conclusion of the kit Session, if fairly considered,
was fully justified, and he felt little doubt that the
majority of the Houie would coincidein that opinion.
Mr. PLUNKETT observed, that at whatever
length he might have originally intended to address
the House, upon this important subject, so matt had
been said, and so ably said, by Gentlemen who had
preceded him, that little remained for him to add.
He could not, however, reconcile himself to give a
silent vote. The speech which had been alluded to,
u delivered by the Hon. Gentleman in the Chair, he
considered as most objectionable, and as containing
one of the most fundamental attacks which had been
*made on the privileges of Parliament since the Re-
volution ; and it became the more reprehensible, on
account of its- having proceeded 'from one' who
WAS the natural guardian of those privileges. Ile
believed there was no question on which to anxious
ealousy bad been felt, as the preservation of. the
louse frpm all controul. It was not necessary to
quote precedents to establish that fact; these had been
already too amply considered, and were too generally
• linown, to render any further observation necessary.
—The communications froni the Throne to Parlia-
ment must take place according to the mode which
hind hitherto been defined and accepted—namely, by
a speech or message. This had always been done,
'and hence all interference with the deliberations of
the House had been avoided. If comnrmications
were to be made from Parliament to the Throne; it
was always done by Address or Resolution. Such
had been thF 'invariable practice, and beyond these
limits the House never went, save in ,presenting
hill for assent or dissent. The Speaker had no right
to address the Throne Unless with some bilt—and
upon the late occasion, when he addressed the
Throne on the Vote of Credit Bill, unless such Bill
had passed, his speech would not have been warrant-
ed, even by the colour of Parliamentary usage. Ile
did not mean to say, in presenting a Bill, the
Speaker was strictly confined to the matter of that
13111, as he might, for the sake of ornament or pub.
'tic effect, go a little out of his way, and might
introduce other matter, and advert to general milks,
or to general policy. This he would do, at his own
risk, but he had no right trOntrochice an/ stibject
connected with Parliamentary proceeding which had
not received the sanction of the Hmise.--..(lisar, hear)
That any argumeiirs could be derived in favour of
the Right Hon. Gentleman in the Chair, from the
conduct pursued lajf the Speaker of the Irish House
f Parliament, 'IL denied, as was sufficiently evident
from an examination of the speech of the latter Right
Hon. Gentleman, in which, certainly, a very strong
'opinion was given as to the expediency of preserving
the Protestant ascendancy ; but upon this opinion he
had-no reason to congratulate himself; because the
House acted in complete opp isition to it in the-en-
,suing Session. It was Important to observe too, that
on the occasion of that speech, there had ben no pro-
ceeding before Parliament respecting the subject to
which reference was made • and hence it.was evident
that the Right Hon. Gentleman was making a gene-
ral nbiervaildn of hii own, without any allusion to the
sentiments of the House.—( Hear.) From this, cer-
' taiihytif *vat lacer, that the Speaker was at Übe, trto
introduCe stick geirt7.4l remarks on indifferent sn4-
jeets, as he might think proper ; but it would be dif.
fieult to find •a precedent whereby he would be an-,
thorised to offer comments upon a measure which had
been introduced into the House, and had not been
passed but *rejetted. If a measure had 'pass?d, it
spoke its own value,-and no person was answerable
for that which appeared to be the act of the House;
but if it was not passed, some censure would be im-
plied against those by whom it kad been proposed.
It never appeared upiaa the face of a bill, whether it
had passed unanimously or not. The number of the
divisions were never stated; and for the plain reason,
that the House would not suffer its proceedings to be
subject to controul of any description. To accom-
pany a statute with areference to the arguments which
had taken place previous to its enactment, would lead
to censure in someway, and would go beyond all pi i-
vilege and usage of Parliament.-(Hear.) With
reference to the authority of. Mr. Hatsetk., which had
been so much relied upon, he did not Nl* that the
opinion of a clerk of that House was necessary to
enable its Members to form a judgment of what the
Constitntion a the British Pashatoent was. But e Pen
his authority did not go die )ength of establishing
'the fact, that the Speaker had a right to address the
Throne on a rejected measure ;. nor as he had stated
before, was, there any precedent which could sanction
such a right. At to the opinion delivered by the
Hfteaket, uPott the Cathplk Claims, at the Bar of the
all `• at lottds. ICtt, folk toto) was by no means dis-

.

POstedidinissetibe to ittiostice. (Hear) He did not,
itcfaccfelniirirrNTimtFiiiii*y.iireet freif- octetdl
see. sake: the libel t y of shortly re.
F 4 .410t4
e~C
'vela fitid been dace on this m .st mortienteue
11%PH6iaie bait come to a resolution to op; .
•:•It'eSlninitreis to-take into etniiderati on the law, .
•--fcting. the C.atholics, With a view 6) au
.nicable ad:isitant; 0-This Committee met, ivid_
frame tam Reniltitions„ approving of the fiiimfs:
aeon of the lf;nman C:ttholicr toPal
hrtiaern isrcitent, rune
secureserum conditions, tending to tng
aserndarcy and succession to the' Throne. Three' ,
Were adopted, and the next stage io which cti.cussiove
took place Was on- the se and reading of the BilV
thrmigh which it. passed. AU thole proceedingv the'
SpeakelftothlTY foilot -to state ; and, as it liostiie
to the measure, he • only adverted to that stage, of
the =prikeisfingse which seemed conformable with his
own opinions. Under then eircetslitaticet, h*eawci
not help 'saying,- that thelipenher hid misrepresented •
;what did pass. It would' be, recollected, thief Ali'
spieStion- was only set rte'strep by a mlnrity afar;
end that 217 Membembail declared. that the 11.tim.in
Catholics were admissible to .Pat lea m Tiles* tarts
the. Speaker had to/ally-omitted to nice had,in
fact, substituted his own opinion for ilia: ot the •
House at large, in doing which lie seemed eota'.4 io -
have forgotten that this vital question would *gain
come hack to Parliament, and, if unfinished, he (Mr.
',Plunkett) would ask, alter the communication which
bad been made, how could Parliament perform its
Constitutional doles when the. artillery of Royal in-
fluence were isiougliz. twbear against it ?—( Hear. )
&appose, oat the other hand, the Speaker bad regretted
that the labours of the 247 Members, who bad sap-
ported- the C...holic: Claims. had been disappointed,
[old expressed a hope that their future exertions would
be attended with• better success, would not the Gen.;
*Semen who were the opponents of the measure sayit
!that they. had been unfairly dealt with ?—(Hi—
The Right Hon. Gentleman had talked of the glo..
rious achievements witich had been performed by that
great man, to whom Ireland had given birth.; made
there was not a 'heart which did not echo back his
sentiments ; 'outhe seemed totally to have forgotten
that the Irish Catholics, against whom he bid in.
ieighed, had opened the sluices of their heart's biooil ,
in obtaining every one of those victories. This con-
duct reminded him of a practice among the Romast
who always included a slave in their celebration of,
their triumphs, not so much for the sake of mocking
their victim, as to remind the conqueror of the Mina',
bility of human nature. So with the unfortunate CiQ
tholkcs ; while the laurel was twined mend the brows,
ot their.gallant Commander, they were allowed to,
:share.ht the glory,•but they were not suffered to phare,
is the fruits ot their conquests—•( Near, hear.)
IIANKES explained.
Mr. CANNING could not agree to either 'of the
-Motions. The question he considered to be, whether
the Speaker bad abused the trust reposed in him
not ? The tees discretion implies that it may.
be abused. He recapitulated Ali the arguments that
had been used, smai touched upon the pledge the
House had given to take the subject into considera-
tion. Various motives inffuenced different individuals;
won the occasion, and !le considered the melsure Int
suspended. He considered the arguments that bait
been produced against the use of this discretien u
tending rather to establish it ;—and that it.woull
he a much fairer way of dealing to abolish the privi.
lege altogether,. than to fetter it in the way-at d
be,lleither of the Motions were adopted. He
considered the dangers` anticipated by the motion AS
visionary ; and, if the privilege be liable to abuse, it
were better to rstrict it, and then a double measure
must always take place, as a diseussion must- occur
to define in what way, andto what extent, the Speaker
in.ty have liberty to mention it at the close of the Ses-
sion; and that must be decided by a majority Such a course he highly ridiculed. The N able Lord
would leave the Speaker with many unclipped privi-
leges, and no 'guide in others but his motes. Bet-
ter go the full length, and say that he shall speak
to the Crown out nt the Hon,f as he would to the
Crown in the Rouse, as a servant of t e H ,use, with-
out eyes, ears, or tongue, for any other purpose.- Mr.
Canning used a variety of illustrations to sitew ti
hardship and impropriety of censuring t ie Speaker.—
From the majority on that important coestioss be dif-
fered as widely as possible, and he conicided: in o[ i.;
pion witlehis Right 'Hon. and Learned Friend, Who
looked forward to the acconiplipithsent of that-great
Measure at no 'very distant 'perisd, wish pride and
confidence. He allowed that the state of the countp;
[ last Sesiion, was such as might have been the means
of defeating that measure; but events recently passed
;had so changed the circumstances which then existed,.
that, when the Bill was next brought torwArd,he had
Ino doubt of itt meeting with complete success. 'He,
therefore, could net join in any motion which was td
[ call the Speaker to account for the ex, rcise of a diu
cretion actually vested in him by the forms and usage
'of the House.
Mr. TIERNEY would riot takeup the time of the
House; but could not give a silent vote alter the er-
traordin.ary
.speech that bad been delis-, red by -the
!ion. Menthe who had just sat down. He was sur-
prised to hear the opinion that be had delivered, pare
ocularly when be considered how very forward, upoll
that celebrated measure, lie had been ; and, indeed,
'from a fair interpretation of his speech, was likely
again to be. he could not, therefore, attribute) h s
vindication of the representation made bylhefipeaker
to any other motive than that of a liking of power;
his participation of which did not appear to be very
problematical. The Right Hon. Gentleman cannot
rite the difference between a question that has, and
one that has not been adopted. This bethought
most extraordinary, and the Right Hun. Gentleman
[lays clown the law arbitrarily that, because other
/*eaters have used a great latitude of discretion, that
therefore the Speaker of the present day has the right.
He prstessed that he had no objection to his being
an Orator; •but he had to his being an Histore.rf ;
and his complaint was not, that he had letercis43l his
discretion imps operly, bet that he had nepremoted
what need took plisse. -For his own part, be bad no
objection to make tbe alterati•or in the virtues, in
order to obtain the Right Hon. Gentleasau's VOW.
htroctiutigt:
cis
He considered, if this discretion were allowed to the
a speech made .by him in that sharaster. Ail •
WOO;
spi:zyke...r,
nth; aatndinhettrroxiiatcewdilla chioriclowert
to the Bill which was rejeessdo and which was.ll,,c
measure alluded to by the Speaker, be Sank
. . •.

.!--

. .
Of 414 Otown. it would be ie enty to intro- POsed't
:e the a; yeterinilatrie to. iWicw.e7 itFfitt
laces (Loud itiet Odes; orde..),-.-Gtntlemen tike%; hi cry stistibr-Ciftlir2S- rtitstqf at it
his opinion; It *dad he risoremrderly to preserve topic.
rules and privileges .01- that House, and prevent 00412
innovatioosb whiclr,if once suffered to grow into a rescact
arm,_viould ;pan atiotish all -freedom for debate. atlocat
____—• _ .. • _