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

Y

i-

.thofe faits might be accurately ancilairimrgttol ;
b to &fouls the general queilion withdut firfl
afeertaining the faas, would be in the Itigheft- de-
abfurd ; he was therefore decidedly in favour.
calling •
in Gentlemen who were attending
Fe
fir the purpofe of being examined.
Mr. ERSKINE laid, he was extremely ready to'
admit the fairnefs of the queftion brought before
the Houce.• He thought, however, there were two
different modes of difcutling that queftion—both,
it was true, leading to the fame cud ; but one
much pn.Terahle to the other. He was decidedly
it,sitile to the•calling of witneffes to the Bar of the
Houfc at the prefent, moment. It did not follow,
beeaufe the Houfe had one day ordered certain
rilms to attend for any purpofe on another, that
illerefore the Houfe was bound tt) call them to the
liar for the purpofe of fulfilling the objet for
which they were ordered to attend, when, upon
due confideration, their examination might be ad-
kidgcd unucceffary or improper It would be re-
ettlleacd they were only ordered fimply to attend ;
and lately the Houfe might adjudge, after again
ionfidering the fubjea, that their further atten l-
ance was unnccelfary. A dicqualification to fit in
that Hoare muft be laid to arife either out of th:
Common Law or the Statute Law ; and he con-
fdcrcd the cullorns and ufages of Parliament to be
a part of the Common Law of the Land. The
Noble Lord had brought forward no Ratute to
ptove Priefisdifqualifiedfrom fitting in that Houfe;
he had not taken the opinion or the Houfe upon
the fubjea, but had called upon them to examine
evitneffes for the purpofe of ellablifhing certain
fats ; but to what thofe fags were to apply, was
not yet diftinaly known. This was one way of
proceeding ; another, and which he conceived the
molt proper method, would have been to appoint
a Committee to examine precedents as to the gene-
ral queftion relative to Priells being difqualified
from fitting in that Houfe, and upon their report
that fuch a difilualification did aCtually exit', to
have examined evidence as to the particular fad
pow the lubjea of difpute. His Hon. and learned
Friend had, he laid, alluded to a principle of Law;
but was it the praßice of Courts of Law—was it
ever heard of in a Court of Juftice, or as a prin-
ciple ofjurifprudence, that evidence ihould be pro.
duccd againft any one without firti diftinaly fiat-
itirtr the offence with which he was charged, or
elcahlithing that rule of law by which he was to e
tried ? Was it not, on the contrary, the conßant
pra.lice and regular cußom, II to prove diftina-
ly and clearly the principle bf law as applied to a
particdlars faa, and then call evidence as to that
particular fad ? The Noble Lord fliould unquef-
tionably have (hewn the difqualificatien contended
for to have arifen out of Tome rule of law, and
then have called his evidence to eltablifh fans.—
Ent after liftening to the Noble Lord with confi-
derable attention, he had heard nothing Rated re-
lative to the law and cutlass of Parliament, which
in any way tended tb prove that Prieits were dif-
qualified from fitting in that Houfe. At thefsusle
time he thought the Noble Lord had'aaed more
fairly and honourably in not having affumed it,
and in leaving it a qiießion completely open for
difctilton. Still however, unlefs it was proved in
the fira inflance.dillinaly and clearly, that Prieils
were difqualified from fitting in that Honk, evi-
dence oci7ht not to be heard as to any .particular
faa, untif that general principle was eitabliffied by
inveftigatiun and difedßon. Would it be allowed
in aCourt of Juftice, that an indidtment for trca-
fon (hould Rate fade, and that evidence fhould be
heard to prove thefe fads, which were not known
under any exißing law to amount to treafon ? or
would they not rather firit ettabliffi a principle of
.law and then prove lonic aa contrary to that prin-
ciple ? The Noble Lord faid he had made up his
snind, but upon what data the Houfe were left to '
conjeaure : &rely then, they could not hefitate in
inflituting a fcarch for precedent's, that they might
decide, after due elimination, whether it was con-
Silent with the law and cußom of Parliament for
Friel!: to fit in that Houfe ? It mightbe faid, filch
an enquiry would be a walk of time, and would
end in fmoke, but forely the Houfe would enquire
before they admitted a general principle, to fup-
port which no data were brought forward. He
admitted that whichever of the two modes alluded
to were adopted, they would lead to the fame point,
but he objeCted to a principle being taken for grant-
ed which was not proved.* Had the Noble Lord
culled different entries in the Journals to be read,
containing precedents of the exclution of Prießs
from that Houle, and then taking the principle
thus eftablifhed, and the fan together, have called
evidence to prove the latser, no poffible objeßion
could have been made to fuch mode of proceeding.
The Hon. Gentleman who was the objeß of this
difenffion, had alked why his admigion of the fads
which the Noble Lord wanted to prove, might not
he taken as evidence? but certainly no Member
cotlef be ultimately excelled cn his own admiffion,
nor could the Hon. Gentleman compromife the
tights of his Cordtituents by any admiffion of his
ewn conceiviag—therefore, a ditlina principle of
law ought to he laid down to which certain fags
acre amenable, before any evidence of thofe fads
was produced, he thould oppofe any evidence being
called to the bsr. _

The S►FAKEa hid, a reference having, been
made to his opinion, relative to the admidion of
Lies by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tooke), he
%lilted so °Verve, that be gave no pofitive opinion
upon the fubjea, but merely dated the cafe of
Lord Elcho, in which that admitfion was not al-
lowed.

TIIC SOLICITOR GRIIIIR•L expreffed himfelf ex-
trcmclo glad the Honfc bad been reminded from
the Chair of the opinion espi eiTed on a former
evenilig relative to the fubjea of adinitfions, as it
was defirable that opinion thonld be correaly un-
derflood. His Hon. and Learned-Friend (Mr.
Eriltine) thought a principle oflaw thould be laid
down before any invefligation of funs was enter-
tained, alledging this as the uniform realm of
Courts of Juilice. He was at all times veq little
clifpofed to draw any argument in that Houfefrom
the pnEtice of Courts of Juflicp, conceiving that
a Tel 7 find! portion of li=ht could be thrown up-
`l% ?!..reg Nide benefit 'ved to any fubjetn na-
da wanes hrtLai hisiott. from the Fatties of

•
Cotto-T3 of Junice. He could not coincide with
what had he, n urged by that Hon. and Learned
Gen:1,111"n, that the principle of law ought firft
to be flared, and then the fad. Would it not be
very abitird, in an indidment for high trealon, to
nate that tic law was flo and- fo, and that there-
fore loch a particular ad was higle trealon ? Such
a tioarine was fir incontinent with his Hon. and
Learned Friend's prinePlcs, that he mutt believe
he had mifundertlood what had been hated I,y
that Hon. Gentleman, though if the meaning of
his Hon. Friend was not what he had Rated, he
was at a loft to know what it was. Ile did not
know, till the Hun. Gentler:tan arofe, that there
Wete two modes of proceeding in the prefent cafe,
fir he had not yet heard a better mode fuggefled
by any Gentleman than that adopted by the Noble
Lord. It appeared to his mind, the Noble Lord
was proceeding with the utmoft regularity to
eflablifh the fad, and then he might proceed to
prove the ineligibility. When the fad was proved
of a Prieft fitting in that Houle, the difeuflion
might then be proceeded in as to the point, whether
he was eligible or not? The fad Ihould firli be
ellablifhed, to Phew the neceflity of difcufting th 3
quellion of Law. Where would be the utility of
dircuffing a queflion in the firft inflance, when
perhaps, after all, no fad could he brought for-
ward that rendered fuch a difentlion neceifarv. If
It was referred to a Committee, who thould decide
Priefts to be difqualified, evidence mull Dill be ad
duced to prove the fad of the ordination of the
Gentleman who was the objed of difettflion. He
thought it would be molt prepollerous if Houle
went onto the queflion of law before the toccellity
of any difctollion of fuch a que:lion was rendered
apparent, by the proof of the fad which it was
now wifhed to eftablitt.

Mr. Lamas entered into a fhort explanation,
difclaimed any allufion to the Scotch Bar in what
he had formerly
.advanced, and enforced what he
had Rated, when comparing the proceedings in
the indent cafe to thole in a court of julliee.
Lord TxmPLE wifhed to have it perfeelly under-
flood, that he dtd affume Mr. Horne Tooke to be
ineligible to a feat in Parliament, and that it was
from a conviaion of this that he had brought for-
ward the Motion.

Mr. ERSISINE replied acrofs the table—" I know
you do affume, but you have not proved."
Mr. SHERIDAN thought that the feeble attempts
of the Gentlemen on the oppofice tide to anfwer
the objections which his Hon. Friend (Mr. Fos)
had in the outlet of the difcuffion brought forward
againft the Motion, inftead of weakening them,
only tended to illuftrate them in a clearer light.—
He contended, that the mode of proceeding which
the Noble Lord had adopted, gave conliderable
colour to the fuppofition that the Motion was not
the eh& of his own brain, and Wit could not claim
any of the legal Gentlemen as aft/4ff, at leaft it
had found in them molt zealous defenders ! There
was this difference indeed betwixt this Motion and
the general carafe of legal proceedings, that in the
one there was always prefented a cafe, whereas at
prefent there was merelk a propofition, produced
on general grounds, on public rumour, and cer-
tain undefined apprehenfions which exift in the
minds of thofe Gentlemen who have thought it ne-
ceffary to fubmit the affair to the Houfe. lt had
been alledged indeed that by adopting this meafure
time would be Paved; but how did it appear, that
even in this view the motion would be productive
of advantage? Did it not, on the contrary, tend
rather to embarrafs than to facilitate the difcuf-
lion, by obliging the Houfe, in the firft
to profecute an enquiry, which, by the previ-
ous confederation of the general queftion, might be
rendered unneceffary ? It was abfurd then to have
two feparate fubjeas of inrefligation before the
Houle, when one of them was perfectly ealcdlated
to promote all the ends in yiew. The language
of the motion was, in foe:, that it was of no con-
fequence to afcertain the exiftence of a Itatute on
the fubjea, for.what meaning had it at all, if this
was not its exalt import ? We know not whether
any ftatute which excludes a perfon who Itas taken
prieft's orders from a feat in the Houfe really does
exia ; but let us firli afcertain whether the perfon
who, according to our internal conviaion is ineligi-
ble, is a prieft, and thenwe will fearch for precedents
In fupport of our inurna/conviaion. But hovi abfurd
does this mode of proceeding appear when applied to
othercafes? The Noble Lord perhaps has an internal
conviaion that a perfon who has become a bank-
rupt after his eleaiou is incapable of fitting in the
Hook, would he in that cafe brig witneffes to
the Bar to prove the defea of his qualification ?
If a perfon who is a Member of this Houk had
reecived the appointment of an office abroad, would
it be requifite then to fend perfons all over Europe
to prove the fait of his appointment ? In a word,
if any Member has an internal conviaion, that
another Member is incompetent to have s Seat,'
would it be requifite that the Honk &mild hear
evidence of the ground of this internal conviaion ?
Yet fach are the confequcnces refniting from the
adoption of the motion in the firft inftance, without
any previous determination. But probably it
would be Paid, that the rumour in this cafe was
much Monger, and that therefore the cafes are
by no means parallel. But it might be afked. why
was the internal conviaion wronger in the prefent
initanee them in any of the others, fuppofing the
conviaion ought to bear Tome proportion to the
means of forming a, judgment I The Noble Lord
had a Thong conviaion that the,Honourable Mem-
ber was difqualificd from fitting in the Houfe.
But Might it not with more propriety be affumed,i
that as no petition to the contrary had been laid
on the table of tte Houk, that he had a right to
fit, after being returned by a certain rnon of
the People of England •—(A lord largh.)--:-Gentle• •
men might, from the particular cimumflances of
the cafe, be difpokd to laugh, but -it was to be
recolleded that the Members of that Houfc were
the Guardians of the Rights of the PcilSle in ge-
neral. thofe inhabiting the molt infignifivant, as I
well as the molt populous cities. The Noble Lord
was therefore called on in the ara inflame to !tate
that the Honourable Gentleman was excluded by
fame exprefs broods, either of the common or
!lamp law, send till this was done the prefump.
tion was asonep igaini his internal cosviitios:

It had been 6ticl, indeed, that no other mode had
been fuggellcd amid all the various objtetions now
offered to the prefent motion. The belt mode
teemed to him to bc, the appointment of a Com-
mittee to fearch for precedents, on which the Houk
might pronounce an opinion, and if it Should after-
wards be found need-Guy, they might proceed to
an enquiry.

. ,
Lord TEMPLV contended, that there was a
precedent for his Motion, in the ca:. of Colonel
Cawthornc, who had been a Member of that Houle
and was convieted of impi op.r con,hlo by a
Court Martial. On that (a:cation the Houle did
no more than addrels his M.,jefly to lay before 1
the minutes of the Court Martial, and without
any other evidence, proceeded to expel him.
he conceived to be a eate fullicienth; in
Mr. Fox fuggelted, that the better mod:. would
be to read the precedent from the Journals.
Mr. W. Det4DAS argued in fupport of calling
in the evidence. The mode of proceeding, le
obferved, .was tanelioned by the example of Mr.
.Sheridan himfelf, who, in the year t 795, fecing
a relation of his, whom he then called an "
illei-
trious eharaaer," in his place, and apprehending
that his feat was vacated by accepting the office
of Secretary of State, moved that he be tequefied
to withdrawiwhile another Motion was made for a
new writ for the City of Edinburgh. He did not fee
how the Houfe could go on without making out fome
previous-ground. It may, pollibly, have to con-
fider, whether a black man, or a man of colour,
had a fight to fit there t but it would be abfurd to
go into that difcullion until it was afccrtained that
fuch a perfon was amongft them.
Mr. SHERIDAN—" As the Honourable Gentle-
man was a very young Member at the time he al.
ludes to, I mull fuppofe he was a good deal flur-
ried at his firft introduaion, or he would have re-
colleEted that I did not put the cafe in fo
iude-
tent a way as he reprefents it. I might poffibly
have called the Right Honourable Gentleman
alluded to an " illuftrious charaFter," but I did
not propofe that he fhould withdraw, till I pro-
duced the Ftatute called Mr. Burke's Bill, which
vacated his feat, in my opinion, however the Houfe
thought proper to decide upon it."
Mr. W. DIINDAS—" I clearly recollect that the
Honourable Gentleman did ufe the words "
il-
lultrious charaaer," or " illuflrions Secretary."
and moved for his being requefted to withdraw,
inflead of propofing, as at prefent, that the confi-
deration fhould be referred to a Ccmmittee." _

MT. ADDINGTON conceived, that if the Houfe
began by proclaiming the law, it might fo happen
that much time would Le 1011, and afterwards no-
thing turn out to which the fads could be applied
Mr. Fox—" In order to entitle myfelf with the
privilege of fpeaking, confidently with the orders
of the Houfe, I mean to conclude what I have to
offer with a Motion. I have Holed, during the
courfe of the debate, to every thing that has been
fail, with the utmolt attention, and every thing 1
have heard, fo far from (baking, has only tended
to confirm my original opinion. Gentlemen, in
the language of compliment, have thought propel
to adiert to my Parliamentary espetience, and the
weight which it may be fuppored to give to what
might urge but nothing has furpi ;fed me more
than that lo many perfons in the profeflion-of the
law (hould hare confounded, inficad of making the
proper dift:nrtion between parole and written evi-
dence. Nothing has been offered to us in the way
of precedent. Papers are frequently called for,
and laid before this Houfe, for general informa-
tioh, without any dcfign of grounding any fpecisc
potion on them ; and in that Rate no technical in-
terpretation can hold them in the light of evidence.
If the Houfe refolves to inflitute an inquiry, the
papers are in that cafe referred to a Committee,
which is to confider them as evidence; but that is
not done until the Houfe has come to a previous
refolution that it would go into the inquiry. I am
much adonifhed that fo many Learned Gentlemen
fbould have confounded thefe diltindiens."

Mr. BAILEIL" Sir, I fpcak to order; the
Houfe will temember, that the Hon. Gentleman
has fpolzen to this queftion before, and, though
he lays he will conclude with a Motion, it would
Ix 'right to know what the nature of that Motion
may be, whether an amendment, an adjourn-
ment, or moving the other orders of the day ; but
I do not conceive that he is at liberty to argue oh
it." _ _

Mr. S►EAKFs.—" When the Hon. Gentleman
Gild that he would conclude with a Motion, I had
every reafon to fuppofe that his own udoment and
experience would lead him to makc fuck a Motion
as would be contiltent with the rules and orders of
the Houfc."

Mr. Fox.—" When a Member is called to order,
nothing follows more naturally than that he finds
himfelf under the necellity of fpeaiting again,.
'either for thepurpofe of eiplanation, apology, or
fubmiflion."

Sir WILLIAM Younc then interrupted him.—
I, I believe," Paid he, that when a Member has
any Motion to propofe, it is a rule that he fhotdd
make it at the clofe of his &ft fpeech ; but it is not
underllood that be is entitled to rife again ; and
reply to all that had been (aid in oppolition w him,
under pretence of concluding with a Motion."
Mr. SPlst‘llt.—" I apprehend that it is corn-
petens to any Gentleman to move the queflion of 1
adjournment at any time he pleafes, and that, I
fuppofe, was what the Hon. Gentleman intended."
Mr. For.—" My having fpokcn before is cer-
tainly no caufe why I Mould be precluded from
moving the Houle to adjourn, or for Rating my
reafons for fo doing."
Mr. StrAlttll.--." It °nett, however, to be
untlerilood, that ft,ch a motion does not authorife
a Member to go into the merits of the queUion be-
fore under difcaion."

The SOLICITOR GEttRAL.--se There can be no
doubt but every Member has a right to move the
queflion of adjournment; but this. I humbly con-
ceive, does not, continently with order, entitle
him to return to the dirculLon."
Mr. SHERwAx.---0 It Items to be admitted, on
all hands, that any Reprefentative in this Houfe
has a right to Move that it ibould adjourn; but
that right would, in my apprebenfion, be very nu-
gatory, and ;mat to be caercifkl, if he was ;tot, at

•

the Came tame, at licriy to Gate his rearons far i,.
Ia the envie of a cicharv, it frearizaily 111;a,-..! s,
that a mover may er.r.::t ns,
would induce film to pi:avac that the dee•iiol
Ilinuld be adjourocd; ;t:.;I cou!d mane:
than that he iiistitd h cliabi•:ct to eo
wallow.: being allowed an. Comm-lit in tlateraent
of his realms. I, move II:at the Houle
now adjourn."
Mr. For..—,, If I have a right to nave the quer-
tian of Adjmarnment, which It was my intemitri to
::are don if I did not doubt whether thre might
not hire been fome other order; which that M: -
thai w.mld interfer: with, it follows as a confe-
Tierce that 1 Ihould Rate 017 ralons for it. Theta
r:a.or.,, as alreasly obkrved by my Hoa. Friend,
In:quell:1y atife firm arguments on circumflan-
c.:s occittriug ire the course of the debate. They
have done fo in this, and therefore I think myfelf
a_ liberty to date th.;:n. It is fii,!, that the world
is improving every day, and this Houle may ha
foppored to go on in that pt ogreflion ; but to tell
me that I have a ra,,lit to make a Motion, and no
right to alllgn reafon tor it, betrays a fplrit of
metaphyfical nicety, which I am too old, and nut
very ambitious to learn." _

Mr. BR.:GGE.-•-•." I Am really pained to be on.
der the nceflity of interrupting the Right Hon.
Gentleman. It certainly is not confident with the
rules of this Houfe, that a Gentleman should fay
he rifes to order, as was done a few moments c.nce
(by Mr. Sheridan), and afterwards conclude with
a motion. It is no lefs chforderly, I prclume,to
argue a queltion on the pretence of fuch a :notion."
Mr. W. Dusgses delivered himfelf nearly to the
fame died, and _

Mr. JoNzs was proceeding to fpeak, when the
cry of Chair! Chair! was vociferated from rental
parts of the Houfe.
Mr. Fox.—There can he no doubt that if a
Member sties filch a Motion as a p. etext fur argil.
ing another topic, it would be a condut which the
Houfe might very properly notice and reprehend;
but what has already occurred molt thew the in-
fufficiency of the power cf the Houfe in this re.
Ipea ; for if it be maintained that 1 am not to rea.
fon on the grounds of fuck a Motion, brought for.
ward by mvfelf, it will not be difputed that I have
a right to do fo when the que;tion is propofed by
another. I am awry to be fo troublefome, and
the more fo, as it k a matter of indifference to me
whether I be fuffercd to goon in the prefent stage
of this proceeding, though, from the confidence
which the Gentlemen on the other fide have teem-
ed to place in the arength of their legal arguments
and authorities, one might have WI-peeled that
they would not have been afraid of any anfwer.
The length of time already confumed in this de-
bate, when coupled with all the circumaances at.
tending it, might have been a fufficient rcafoa for
adjourning ; and if I am fuffered to proceed, I fltall
again remark on the Honourable Gentlemen fir
attonifhingly overlooking the effential difference
that nal. ever fubila between parole evidence and
written documents. It fecms to me aftonithing
that Prnfetlional Gentlemen fhould not have learn-
ed better, from their exrerience and praFtice in
the Courts of Law. I pretend to no vet y intimate
acquaintance with them, and yet I know that the
praCtice of no Court will allow Witneffes to be ex-
amined until there be Come previous proceeding,
by declaration in civil, and by indietment in all
criminal cafes. Here, however, the analogy fails,
and Gentlemen, without any precedent, propofe
to examine Witnern is &rine.

Mr. BAZEL.—I met again interrupt the Hon.
Gentleman. It is certainly out of order, that he
(hould take this opportunity of catering into the
whole merits of the queftion. . .

Mr. &LAIC already fuggefted, for the
corfideration of the Houle, whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman may not be at liberty to give his
reafons for moving an adjournment? He muff
however, be aware that it wouid be diforderly to
ufe that as a pretence for reply to what other Mem.
h:rs faickibefore.
hillh fox then rote, with confideraSte warmth—.
" I feel, Sir, that I mule fubmit to this new order,
there new regulations (a cryofH,ar ! Hear! Gbairl
Ckair!) I again repeat, Sir, that if I malt fubmit
to this new, and to me unheard-of order of the
Houfe, I never will fubmit without entering my
proteft againft it, that any man, whatever may be
his fituation, in or out of this Houfe, fbould tell
me that I availed mytelf of a pretence, at the time
that I was giving a logical reafon for the Motion
I was about to fubmit. I cannot, I will not fub.
mit to come into this Houfe, and tamely actinides
in a condat which can find no precedent in reafon
and common fenfc. But, refrained as lamto 4
bare adveitance to dick obfervations, for I will not
all them arguments, to which, it teems, I mull not
reply, I (hall go on in thole (hackles, and venture
to give my reafons for opooling this Witnci's be.
ing called in. I maintain, that there is no prece•
dent for it in the cuftoms or ufages of Parliament.
Ivor any analogy for it in the proceedings of the
Courts of Law. It is not, nor ever could be, the
praftice of thcfe Courts to receive evidence in the
firil inftance. To what purpofe would ,t be, for
example, to prove that a man went intact. James's-
ftreet and pin chafed a (word or pitiol, if it ihoalel
not alto appear that fome evil refidted from it, or
that he had fome mifchievous intent? The prin-
cipal rearm', however, for which I eppofe the cal-
ling in of Witnefres is, becaufc many better modes
may be taken for coming to a decifion, which.
whatever difpofition I may have to propose.
I feel myfelf precluded from fuggelling, at
leaft in the preterit debate. Gentlemen ap-
pear to be apprehenfr:e that the oppofition
to this meafure is for the purport of inter-
noting a delay. I know not what advantage could
be propofed by that ; but this I know, that Corn*
difficulties wife which have not been obviated by
any thing that has occurred in the preferst debate.
Suppofing that we were to refer it to a Committee
of precedents, the objets which the Houfe would
in the Left tine have to confider is, the manner is
which it (hould proceed againft one of its Mem.
bens, when no petition was prefented againft hits
by any of the gleelors. I ant indead aware. that
there are tome plum from which it is impel(.
/Mk to opt* plutons, wfacrs an Awl ding can

II

exift, and where h may, therefore, be neeefrarr
for the Houle to interfere. On this occafion it
may not be improper for me to obferve, ;hat
there are forme rzrfons at prefent in the Houle
old enough to 1, member. that I was an Oppo-
fer of that Lill ,of Mr. Grenville, which Gen-
tlemen, this tilc,ht, are very properly fo unani-
mous in extolling. lam not now, I have not
long Imre, and never (hall be afliamed to own,
that my better judgment does not approve that
cppotition, and that I em as thoroughly convin.
ced as say man of the wifdom and good effgls of
that law. We now find a fituatton occur for
which Mr. Grenville's Bill has not provided ; hut
in taking it into consideration, we ought to place
ourfelvcs as neatly as potlible in the fame fitua-
tion as that Bill wculd put us into, and not recur
to thole old and pernicious modes of proceeding
which it was meant to guard againft. It may very
fairly be luppofed, Sir, that I have a perfonal feel-
ing on this fubjee. In the year 1784, my return
for the City of Weftminfter was illegally delayed.
I fay illegally, for it was fo proved by the deci-
fions of Courts of law, which no man in this Houfe
has ever had the boldnefs to impugn. Inflead of
referring the merits of the quellion to a Commit-
tee, tinder Mr. Grenville's Bill, this Houfe voted

for the continuance of the fcrutiny, until convinced
by the judice of the cafe, awed by public opinion,
or afitamed of its ow•n decifions, even thole who at
firft formed the majority, availed thentfelves of
forne contrivance to get out of the fcrape, and
ordered a return to lit made. From that inftance,

I am led to confider this Houfe as a very partial
Tribunal in cafes of this kind, and it cOnfelfed
felf to be fo, when it palled the Bill of Mr. Gren-
ville, for transferring to Committees the power
which was before exerciled by the Houfe in a body.
We fhould, therefore, be careful to tondo& our
proceedings in the moil regular manner podible,
and ftudioutly keep clear of invading the province
entrufted to Committees. What I Should propofe
for the adoption of the Houfe would be, to ap-
point a Committee of Precedents, whether a Select
Committee or not, to be fo conftitnted as not to be
liable to any fufpiclon of partiality. It has been
Paid—bat I beg pardon, I mull make no allufion
which would be conftriteA into a reply ;—it may,
however be laid, that, by proceeding in this way,
we Should be looking for a decifton upon an ab-
Ilea& quettion. But would not the fame abfirad
queftion arife if we began by inveftigating the faft?
My propofition would be, to refer both the law
and the faa to an impartial Committee. I mean
not at prefeot to give any opinion on any thing
that could lead to an opinion as to the merits of
this cafe, or the difqualification of a perfon in
Prieß's Orders from fitting in this Houfe ; but I
inn* deprecate the calling in of witneffes be-
fore the Houfe, which Mr. Grenville's Bill has
pronounced not to he fit judges. We thould
firft determine whether we are to proceed ?
I know that whichever mode is taken will make no
difference in refpeet to expedition or th- final de-
cifion ; but I objett to our betraying any degree of
haße, or any unufnal feeling. When my Hon.
Friend (Mr. Sheridan) moved a new writ to re-
place a Gentleman who had accepted the office of
Secretary of State, he had the Ad of Parliament
in his hand which authorifed him to do fo. Here,
In the prefent cafe, we are called upon to aft
merely from affumption and belief. If the Houfe
Should agree to recewe parole evidence at' the bar,
that evidence cannot afterwards be referred to a
Committee unlefi by inftruitions that the wit-
neffes thodd he re-examined. I feel the deep
importance of this quctlion, and that is one
Heat reafon why I with the decition of the
oule fhould be deferred until we have more
time to confider of it. Whatever we may or may
not think due to the Eleaors of Old Sarum, I am
glad to ohferve the weight given to the obferva-
tion, that Mr. Tooke has been elated by a portion
of the people of Great Britain, and reprefents them
all. This may eventually lead to an inquiry into
the r.ature of Inch boroughs, the Reprofentatives
of which, when once they take their feats in this

Houfe, are entitled to the fame confttleratirm as

Members for the county of York, or for any other
county. Without dwelling more upon the fubjee,
I cannot but erprefs the hopesl entertain, that cir-
cumffances fa enormous may lead the Houle at
length ferioufly to confider of the Rate of the Re-
prefentation. I (hall give my vote for the ad-
journment, for the purpofe of putting a queftion
of Inch magnitude in a better train for decilion
than that in which it would be placed by the Mo-
tion of the Noble Lord; but by no means pro-
nouncing any final opinion or the fubjett." •
The SPIARER.-.--" The Right Hon. Gentleman
has taken offence at an expreflion of mine, which
appeared to impute to him the •defire of ufing a
pretence; and I allure him, that the word was
not ufed with any fuch intention, but taken up as
it had been delivered bvain niter Hon. Gentleman."
Mr. Fox.—" I am perfealy fatisfied with the
explanation, and am exceedingly thankful to the
Right Hon. Gentleman for the attention he has
been pleated to (hew me in this inßance." •
Mr. MARTIN (Member for Galway) contended
that the moil rational mode of proceeding would
be to receive parole tellimony in the firll inflame,
us was anal in the Court of Chancery. Great
pnifchief might refult if siva vest evidence was re-
jefted in the mender which fame Hon. Gentlemen
propolsd. Suppcfc," laid he, " for inflame, that
this was the IA day of the Seflion, andthat the per-
km now prepaid to be called wt was the laR furvi.
wing witnefs, furely the Hcitfe would not °Ned
to receiving his evidence., left, at the commence-
ment of the nett &Gni, this only wittie; may
be dead. Such contingencies arc always liable
to happen to parole evidence ; . whereas written
decuments are attainable at any time.—Are Hon,
Gentleman 'has thought proper to allude to the
epteflion of the eligibility of Mars men, or MIS
,f Arnni Rnc ; and I can allure the Home,
that °hie& of the Noble Lord's Maxim
be att. 114: tip/Winn of Mr. Tooke, that
et.nfiekr:o ion is iii.cly to come forward in the re-
turn•of arother M.:viler for the borough of Old
;iarom. I have been very. credibly ireliamed—"
There w,t r. a ken :ra. zry Order/ order! and the
Sy•aker reminded the tlon. Gentleman that he was
t.l,:it j:'mttr iv.

Lord TEMPLE again infliled that his Motionivas
jullified by the predecent of the Houfe having ex-
pclled Colonel Cawthorne on the evidence afforded
by tht Minutcs of the Court-martial. After which
the Houfe divided on the queflion of adjournment,
Avts 76—Noes 150-7-Majority 74.—The ori-
ginai Motion was cl courfe put and carried.

THE FOLLOWING LVIDENCF WAS THEN PRODUCED

AT 1 lIE DAR.
Mi. W1L1.14,1 BOVCIIL It (worn.

Examitic.l by Lord Tr ?an-F.—Said he was Notary Public
and D-puty Rcgifiar c.f the dincefe of Old Sarum ; he produced
the regifter-book of orders edelimted by the Right Reverend
Fattier in Gob Thomas I .grd Infhop of SalitinFy. There was
an entry purporting that John Horne, B. A of St. John's College
,
Cambridge, war ordained prir It nil the a3tl a November, 160,
at the parifh church of St. ,Airoc'i.
Mr. Su [RID A N —Did the withers mate that entry hbpfelf
—A. I did not.

Doea he know who did ?—.A. I believe I do, from the
hand-writing. - •,. •
Q.,. Dom the wands know the perfon to wltOm that entry
miatc, I do not.
ATTORNIY GENERALDoeI that book contain the lt.
chievea or authentic records and ordinances tif the See of
S.rum during the time to which it relqes Oats.

Q. WZ4 not the hand-writing thit tome : farmer Oi cer of
the Tee in whole euftody the books were, and who icu =taw-
rifed to make fuck sntries ?--A. It was, 1 believe.

Mr. Giezr —ls this :he original bookkept•bi the Regilter
It is, Sir.. •

Q. Are the names appearing to be fubfcribed to the entries
hi this book of the hands writing of thefeireralperfons purliort-
log to have figned them?—A. I mutt refer to the book. -
Qi_ Are the minis 3, for inflame, of the entry (lased i3d April,
177 , the hands wring of the kerfous appearing to have ho-
ed it !—A. I believe not.

Q I would a& the witners, whether that part is not a copy,
and not an original entry ?—A. It is a copy, and it pruports to
be fa.

Does he know where the original is ?—A. I do not know,
but believe it was returned to the petfon who brought it to he
entered.

Q.. Can be give any proof, that the perfon ordained in a 760,
under the name of John Home, it the fame perfon who WM
lately returned for Old Sarum, under the name of John kinetic
Toukc ?--A. I cannot.

Nlr.Lew—h 6ot this the book ufually reared to In older
to prove ordinations in that diocefe, in the period to whilds It
relatcs N—A. it is the only one.

Mr. THOMAS WILSON (worn.

I.ord TEMPL e.—What fituetien doe' the wig hold in the
Chapetri, of.liew Branford I—A. Cheri to the Chapelry ottiew
Brentforti. • •

Q, How ions has be officiated Forty.fwer years and
upwards.
11„._ Did you ever fee the Rev. John Horne ailleiße der* dem
period in the Chapetry of New Brentfoedl,A. YoR
(How *any years does he rememberbis ollielathig N.A. I
am not poirtive, but about tire= or twelve years.
SQL Did he regularly oadate as Prieft duripg that plod 1—
A. Yes.
Did be ever Elie him adminliter the Comment as Prieß ?
A. Yrs.

(I Is the Rev. John Home the fame perfon be has tines
known by the name of John Horne Tooke?—A. I don't know
him now, I cannot Ice. I have never fan him iiilCC his name.
was Tooke.

A Mt mac mo►e that John Horne Tooke do now Rand
up that the witnefs may fee him (o gmeral largio.)
MI. 8111111 DA so—Where was John Horne ordained 3—A. I
do not know.

Q. Does he know whether he was ever ordained at on, or
not I do not.

Mr. Cu [worn.
Lord Tx ta rIA —Q.:. ja the vritnefs a reifies* at New BMA.
ford ?—A. Yes.

Q. How long has he redded there!—A. I was bons in the
bottle In which I now live about 70 years ago.
Q, Has he ever feen Mr. John Horne ofklate as PrklL in
the Chapel of New Brentford t—A. I apprehend be officiated
as Print ; I have fees bias adatiniftar the Sacrament of the
Lord's Sapper.
Q. Has he ever paid the Rev.ohn Home any emidiaßleal
dues as hfinifter ?—,A. Yes; f end to fettle with Met for fmall
tythes, Rafter offerings, and other things, by moralities.
Q; Is thoeerfon be knew as the Rev. John Home, the fame
who is now John Horne Tooke I apprehend fo • I under.
Rood be t the name of Tooke by the King's licence; !have
been revere] times in his company Snce.
Mr. SIIKRIDANDOts he know who ordained hien, or that
he ever was ordained ?—A. Of that I am totally Ignorant.
Mr. Pc es vat.—How long Ago Is it Roe he &ft olkkted t
—A. He was pretested in the year 1760, I think, or the be-
ginning of the year 1761, and entered on hisliving immadiately.
This was all the evidence.

Lord TEMPLE then moved—" That a &lea
Committee be appointed to examine the journals
of that Hassle for precedents, refpeCting the eligi-'
bility of perfons in Holy Orders to fit as Members
of that Houfe, and that the Committee do report
their opinion to the Houle."
Mr. Homo TOOK E (aid, he did not rife to op.
pofe the motion, but he svifhed to take that oppor-
tunity of appealing to the candour of this Noble
Lord, and afking him, whether it was not an un-
fair mode of proceeding, to read over a firing. of
refolutions, one after another, vvithont informAg
the Houfe, with what motion he intehded'to
low them up? He would now makia pert-oust/tall
on the Noble Lord, and alk with what motion be
meant to follow up his refolutions ?
Lord Tau PLE (aid, that whatever explanation
he fhould now give, he wifhcd it to be underQood
that he did not do fo from any idea that be emirs.
dered hinsfelf bound to manr the perfonal call
that had been made upon him ; but, for the &cif-
fa/Non of the Houfe, he would limply hate, that;
he did not mean to follow up his motion. by any
refolutioa whatever.

Mr. HORNE Tookc replied. that he a right
to make a perfonal call upon the Npble . the
whole of whole proceeding was againft
himfelf.

On the motion of Sir Wm. Yotrso, the words
" and Records of Parliament,"were added to Lard
Temple's motion, after the words " journals ofl
this Houk."
The Motion was then agreed to, and the fol-
lowing were appointed as Members of
mittce :--

Rifle Hee. Wm. rat, Francis INi-him, 114,
The Attorney-General. Chariot Deane.
The Solichor-Geteral. --- Starttn, E. (Of Gahm)
Sir Wm. Scott, thaw Lefqvre, Ffq.• . ,
The. Matter of the Rolls. Th.mas dreseille. FAL.
Quirks Abbots. Hi. Smear Bernard, F.ll.
John MiNIMIC, I..fq. M. A. Taylor Flq.
Sir Wm. Toting. Rowland llunlon, RTI.
Cherie. Grey, E.g. Hoe. T. &Nee,
John BlorAholei 1.4 e--- Bereiford. Efq.
WA. M. Pitt, Efq. I,V. Wrote, £ll. •
R. B. Sheridan. Ffq. F.art rework,
Wm. Dieltinfoo, F.fq. Sir F. Durdat pea.
1

Eftintatt.s of all the E rr I.CCS incurred in the va-
ruoui depot tmeut, of tl.e Government Of Ireland
for the laft year were ortier,d to he laid before the
Hour, ; and they were afterwards prefented at the
tuff by a perfon from Ireland.
The Orders of the day were all poi/ported till
to-morrow ; and xt elc..-en o'clock the Haug ad-
!tantactl•

•1•-