which he brought several arguments against the justice and utility of the punishment, and quoted the opinion of Blackstone against it; and some observations on each side by other members; a division took place, in which the amendment was carried by 47 against 32. Mr. Yorke then proposed two successive amendments, that the provisions of the bill should not extend to high treason ;" and "that petty treason should also be exempted from its provisions;" both which were carried. The bill thus amended afterwards passed into a law. The House having on the same day resolved itself into a committee on the bill to alter the punishment of high treason, Mr. Yorke moved, that after the words "and there hanged," there be added," and then be beheaded;" arguing that if the form of punishment were altered, it would be less severe than it ought to be, and its effect weaker in the prevention of crime. A conversation ensued, in which several members joined; but no attempt was made to divide the committee on the proposed addition, which therefore passed by way of amendment. This bill likewise, after some corrections in the House of Lords, passed into a law. Among the State Papers of the last year, will be found the Address of the Speaker of the House of Commons to the Prince Regent on July 22d, the last day of that session of pa:liament. Together with other topics, the Speaker had touched upon the rejection, by the Commons, of the bill for the further relief of the Roman Catholics, and assigned the reasons for it ac cording to his own views of the subject. This was felt by some of the friends of the bill as conveying a reflexion upon those who had supported it, as well as pronouncing a definitive judgment on the case which did not belong to the Speaker's office; and Lord Morpeth, at the beginning of the autumn session, had given notice of a motion on the subject, which he intended to bring on after the recess of parliament. This notice had occasioned a motion from Mr. Sumner, that the Speaker should be desired to print his speech, which was carried. Mr. Cart On March 30th. wright desired to be informed by a friend of the noble lord, Mr. Ponsonby, what was the day fixed upon for bringing on the motion; and the answer being, the 22d of April, Mr. C. moved that the House should be called over on that day. A conversation followed, in which several members gave their opinion, that the nature of the motion ought to be stated previously, in order to give time for the person who was its object, to meet it, and the House to form an idea of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went so far as to say, that he apprehended this was the first time, that a member had been allowed to bring forward a personal charge without such notice." The word allowed was taken up with great warmth by some of the opposition members; and Mr. Whitbread said, that the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget, that it was the indisputed right of any member even to bring forward an impeachment, and lay it upon the table, without notice. An expla nation was then given of the offen sive word, and in conclusion, the motion for calling the house was carried. It is to be observed, that Mr. Tierney affirmed, that he knew it to be the noble lord's intention to communicate personally to the Speaker, the nature of his motion in time to enable him to prepare for it. On April 22d, Lord Morpeth rose and began his speech with an apology for his having undertaken the task he was about to perform, and a compliment to the Speaker on the high reputation he had merited in the general discharge of bis important office. Then having caused the speech in question to be read, he repeated that part of it relative to the Catholic bill, which was the object of his censure, and said that he should submit the following proposition to the House: "That it is contrary to parliamentary usage, and to the spirit of parliamentary proceeding, for the Speaker, unless by special direction of the House, to inform his Majesty, either at the bar of the House of Lords, or elsewhere, of any proposal made to the House by any of its members, either in the way of bill or motion, or to acquaint the throne with any proceedings relative to such proposal, until they shall be consented to by the House." In proof of the point respecting parliamentary usage, the noble lord referred to such speeches of Speakers as had been preserved, in which he could find no reference to measures which had not met with the concurrence of the House; none, at least, analogous to the case in question, in which the principle of the bill had been established in the second reading, the VOL. LVI, application of the principle in an important point was negatived by a small majority in the committee, and the bill was still in existence when the Speaker alluded to it in his address to the throne. He then made some remarks on the particular expressions of the Speaker in the passage complained of; but, said he, it is not to the mere wording that I would call the attention of the House; it is to the danger of the precedent, the apprehension I entertain that if this course of proceeding be established as a precedent, a future Speaker may think himself justified in taking the occasion of a rejected measure to render it the vehicle of censorious remark, or party purposes. After some observations on the importance of guarding against evils of this kind, by strictly adhering to the principle of not communicating to the throne the debates of the House, he concluded with moving a special entry in the Journal to the effect of the proposition which he had announced as the foundation of his speech. The Speaker then rose, and after making some remarks on the situation in which he had been placed by the mode of proceeding adopted by the noble lord, he said that there appeared two distinct questions upon which he was called upon to vindicate himself; 1. whether, according to the usage of parliament, the proceedings of the House upon the Roman Catholic claims were fit matter to be adverted to in such a speech: 2. if they were, whether they had been mentioned in a proper man : which had been made, That the Speaker can know nothing of what passes in a committee; and he concluded with thanking the House for their indulgent hearing, and asserting the purity of his intention to execute what he regarded as his duty, with firmness and fidelity. Mr. Whitbread declared, that after the right hon. gentleman's speech he had the same opinion of the subject as before, and still thought that he had no authority indirectly from precedent, or directly from the House, whose servant he had confessed himself to be, to make the communication to the throne, which he had done. He adverted to the cases adduced of Speakers Onslow and Foster; and having caused the speech of the latter to be read, he shewed that it did not in any manner justify the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, He remarked upon what had been said of the situation of the Speaker in a committee of the House, and contended that in this case, when he had resumed the chair, no report having been made to him from the committee, there was no proceeding before him on which he had a right to act, when he de the usage of parliament, all or any of the principal objects which have employed the attention of the Commons during the session, may be fit matters to be mentioned in such a speech. This opinion he supported first by the rule laid down in Mr. Hatsell's book almost in the above words; and then, by reference to a number of recorded instances of speeches made by different Speakers. Of these there were two which came to the precise point of adverting to a bill which had been negatived one was a speech of Speaker Onslow's, not delivered, indeed, on account of a sudden indisposition of the king which prevented him from coming in person to prorogue the parliament, but left among his papers endorsed in his own hand, as intended to be spoken, in which he animadverted upon the rejec tion by the Lords of some bills, which after long debates had passed the Commons. The other was that of Mr. Foster, late Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, who, on presenting the money bills, although no bill respecting the Catholics was on that day presented, had alluded to the rejection of a petition from the Catholic committee praying the elective franchise, and had so emphati-clared that the bill was defeated ; cally stated the sentiments of the House, on the necessity of a Protestant parliament and ascendency, as to receive its thanks. With respect to the manner in which he had mentioned the subject, he submitted to the House, that he had stated their proceedings with fairness and correctness, in proof of which he gave a kind of com mentary on the passage. He then replied to the technical objection and that the bill, at the time when he made the statement, was existing and alive. He had no right whatever to make the exposition he had done, which Mr. W. considered as a violation of duty from beginning to end. As the right hon. gentleman had expressed some dissatisfaction, because a direct resolution was not moved upon him, he would now submit one by way of amend ment. ment. Mr. W. then moved, that all the words after the word that be omitted, for the purpose of introducing, it appears to this House, that Mr. Speaker did, at the close of the last session of parliament, at the bar of the House of Lords, communicate to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, certain proceedings of this House, had in a committee of the whole House, relative to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, which did not terminate in any act done by this House; and did at the same time inform his Royal Highness of the motives and reasons which he, Mr. Speaker, assumed to have influenced the members of the House voting in committee, in their determination thereupon; and that Mr. Speaker, in his speech so addressed to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, at the bar of the House of Lords, was guilty of a violation of the trust reposed in him, and a breach of the privileges of this House, of which he is chosen guardian and protector." Mr. Bankes lamented that so weighty a charge should be brought against the Speaker, whose conduct, as he conceived, had been perfectly consistent with the established usages of parliament. After several observations in his vindication, he said that when both the motion and the amendment were disposed of, he thought, the House should come to some specific statement on the subject; and he read the following resolution to that purpose: "That it has been customary for the Speaker of this House, on presenting the bills of supply at the close of a session (the King being present on the throne) to make a speech at the bar of the House of Lords, recapitulating the principal objects which have employed the attention of the Commons during their sitting, without receiving any instructions from the House as to the particular topics, or in what manner he should express himself; and that nothing has occurred which calls for any interference on the part of this House for the regulation of the conduct of the Speaker, either at the bar of the House of of Lords, or elsewhere." After some other members had spoken on each side, with little variation from the preceding arguments, Mr. J. P. Grant rose, and expressing his surprize at the manner in which the Speaker and those who espoused his cause had attempted to vindicate his conduct, observed that the question in itself was perfectly simple. There were two privileges of that House which he held to be of paramount importance to its vital interests: one, that the crown should not interfere, directly or irdirectly, with any measures that were in progress through it; the other, that it should express no censure or disapprobation of such measures as had been concluded. The latter he thought the more valuable privilege of the two, because the crown, by animadverting upon what any member or number of members had said, might intimidate others from performing their duty. This in fact had been done by some of our monarchs, and especially was the constant practice of queen Elizabeth. Supposing therefore the Prince Regent had answered the [12] Speaker Speaker by expressing his displea sure at the momentous changes proposed for our constitution," it would have been a high breach of their privileges; and he held it incontrovertible, that what it was not lawful for the King to notice, it was not lawful for the Speaker to express. The Hon. Member then adverted to precedents, and asked, had a single instance of a Speaker been adduced, so incautious, so subservient to the crown, or so regardless of the privileges of parliament, as to communicate to the throne that a dangerous proposition had been made in that House, but which had not been assented to. He concluded with saying, that not wishing to pass a vote of censure, but desiring that some motion should pass which should express disapprobation unmingled with severity, he would vote for the motion. Mr. Plunkett highly complimented Mr. Grant for his eloquent and excellent speech, and employed the same strain of argument with great force and copiousness. Among otherstrong censures of the Speaker, he said, "Sir, in taking the liberty to report the opinions of that Committee, did you truly report them? On the contrary, you totally misrepresented them. The opposition to the proposition rejected was grounded on a variety of reasons. Some opposed it in consequence of the intemperate conduct of certain public bodies in Ireland; others, because of the writings which had been diffused in that country; some wished the change to be deferred until a time of peace; others were desirous that the see of Rome should be first consulted. With all this variety of sentiment, how, Sir, were you competent to say what was the opinion by which a ma. jority of this House on that occasion was swayed?" "Will any man (said the hon. member) declare upon his honour that he thinks you were authorised, on a decision by a majority of four, to represent to the crown that the question was put finally at rest? Was it not evident that the subject must return to be considered by parliament; and if so brought back, with what impartiality could parliament proceed upon it, if by any indirect means the artillery of royal influence was brought to bear on its march!" He further dwelt upon the injustice done to the members who supported the bills, by the implication, in the Speaker's speech, of an intention in some persons to introduce changes destructive" of the laws by which the throne, the parliament, and the government of this country are made fundamentally Protestant;" an intention which, for himself, he loudly disclaimed. He concluded with observing, that the speech complained of was wholly uncalled for, and that there was nothing in the bill which he presented, or in any other bills which had passed in the session, to give occasion to it. Mr. Canning, though one of the minority who had been friendly to the Catholic claims, and hoping again to join in promoting their cause, could not concur in either the direct or implied censure of the speech, as he conceived that the Speaker was only exercising a discretion vested in him. He pursued this idea at some length; and though he wished the speech delivered had not been such as it was, he argued that the Speaker ought not to be called to account for practising what was authorised by the |