Star.
London, England, 1805-04-02 00:00:00

that liberal praltice which had generally ditlingtahed
the proceedings of their Lordfhips.
After fume fat ther difctigion. Lord GRETiVILLE
agreed generally to move fir the Houk going into
a Committee, without any reference to the St4nding
Order.

The Houfe having accordingly gone into a Com-
mittee, Lord GRENVILLE, in a fpeech of great
ability, fupported the motion of I.ord Auckland for
referring the different p;,ints which he had formerly
fubmitted to the Houfe for the opinion of the twelve
Judges. His Lordfhip particularly alluded to the
precedents which he had pointed out on a former
night, and Rated that, in contiquence of the doubt
fuggelled by the Noble and Learned Lord (Ellepbo-
rough), he had caufed the records of one of thee
cafes, Bridgeman v. Holt, to be fearched for, and
it clearly made out his original ern tion, being a cafe
diredy in point ; thete, as in the prefent cafe, a peti-
tion had been prefented to the Honk again( three
of the Judges of the Common Pleas, which the Houfe
ordered them to anfwer. In the anfwcr lodged, thefe
Judges refuted to plead the merits of the cafe, unlefs
when called before a legal tribunal. They denied the
jorildidion of their Lord(bips. and maintained that
the calling them before that Houfe was contrary to
the ellablifhed law of the land. On confidering the
matter, after taking the opinion of the other Judges,
the Houle came to be of the fame mind, and the mat.
ter was difmiffed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR recapitulated the
argument which he had formerly adduced in fupport
of the contrary opinion, maintained that the prece-
dents referred to by the Noble Lord could not apply,
as they occurred previous to the palling of the Aet
of Settlement ; admitted it to be the eflablifhed law
of the land, that no judicial proceeding of a criminal
nature could originate in that Houle ; but contended
that the meafure now before the Houfe was not of a
judicial nature, inflituted .with the view of punifh-
merit. He could not, at the fame time, fee why the
Judge . fhould not he confidered as equally fate in the
hands of the two Honks of Parliament, as in thofe
of twelve ordinary men, whole verJit againa them
would, if the a►guments on :he other fide went to
any thing, be obligatory on their Lordthips,and would
be a fufficient call on them to addrefs his Majetly for
the difmilfal of any Judge again[ whom fuch a ver-
dia thould be found.
Lord GRENVILLE could not at all fee the mean
ing of the diaindion laid down by the Noble and
Learned Lord. He Dated, that this was not a judi-
cial matter, or one to infer punifhment. It undoubt.
edly, however, was meant to go the length of ground-
ing an addrefs to his Maieily for the dilmift4l of a
Judge, for improper c• ndua in his judicial capacity,
and filch he contended could not originate in that
Houfe. He would wifh the Noble and Learned Lord
to point out to thcm where the line was to be drawn,
and what, if any thing fhort of murder, felony, or
treafon, was to be etleemed without the original cog-
nizance of tl.at Houfe. As to the idea of the At of
Settlement fubjeding the Judges to a jurifdidion of
which they were formerly independent, he law ro.
thing in the Aa which fanaioned fuch an idea, but
the &red contrary.

Lord HAWKESBURY,in a long fpeech,oppofccl
the motions of Lord Auckland, and contended, that
the proceedings of the Houle had been completely
regular. In this opinion he was fecouded by Lord
Redefdale.

Lord AUCKLAND defended the poritions laid
down by Lord Grenville, by recapitulating the ar-
guments which he had formerly adduced in fupport
of his motions.

Earl CARYSFORT followed on the fame fide,
and deprecated in Itrong terms the idea cf lubjeet-
ing the Judges to a fpecies of controul from which
every other fubjea of this country was exempt—
thereby rendering them the tools of the Mindler of
the day.
The Earl of SUFFOLK maintained the neceffity
of reforting to the opinion of the Judge.; as to the le.
gality of their mode of proceeding.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH declared, that his
own opinion was decidedly in favour of the•proceed-
ing by &ire Facias, as the queflion would thereby
have a legal invetligation, and as the Learned Judge
would then be tried by his Peers. But, as the tale
now Rands, their Lordfhips have adopted another
mode of proceeding. The law clearly laid, that they
may in certain cafes proceed to addrel. his Majefty
for the removal of a Judge ; it was therefore evident
that they may make enquiry as to the falls upon
which that aodrels is to be founded. The words ap
peared to him to be fo unamLiguous,and the inference
that their Lordfhips had the legal power of proceed.
ing as they had done, was fo plain and natural, that
he had no hefitation in faying that there was no ne-
ceffity for afking any opinion of the Learned Lords
upon the cafe.
Earl DARNLEY fupported the motion, as the
only means of ridding their Lordfhips' minds of any
doubt upon the cafe.
The queftion was then put, and there were—
Contents B—Not Contents 3z.
Adjourned at half pall One.