grounds of the charge were fully stated, and that noble lord was heard at length in his defence. The House would recollect the comments, which, after that noble lord had withdrawn, had been made on the species of defence to which he had resorted. The noble lord, in that defence, which appered to many hon. members full and satisfactory, had made some allusions to the peculiar laws and institutions of Scotland; and it must be fresh in the recollection of several gentlemen, how these allusions, had been commented upon, and the comments made to bear upon the question under discussion. He took it to be the right of a member under accusation, to have due notice of the charge against him, but not of the arguments in support of it. If an hon. member was entitled to hear all the arguments in support of the charge before he should withdraw, then he should not withdraw till the House should have passed its vote upon the subject, a doctrine which could not for a noment be entertained. The course of proceedings laid down in the Text Books, directed that in case or a charge founded on a written, document, that document should be given in, and that the member under accusation, after being heard in his defence, should then be required to withdraw. But in cases where the complaint should not be founded on any written document, the accused party had a right to hear the grounds of the charge stated be fore he should be put upon his defence previous to his withdrawing. He had felt it to be his duty to put the House in possession of these circumstances, as to the uniform and established course of proceeding in all matters of complaints against individual members.

ten a long speech on the subject, the copy of which he had dropped from his pocket, and was found by the noble lord, who thought to embarrass hint by calling for a speech no longer in his power to make. He had, however, no object but to state briefly the two resolutions which he meant to propose. These, he trusted, would be adopted by the House. They must, if that House wished to save its own character, and that of old England. He spoke from the bottom of his heart. He wished the hon. baronet to hear him (a laugh, and hear! hear!). He should repeat his wish that the hon. baronet had not been precluded by the forms of the House from hearing what he had to say. He felt no hostility to that hon. baronet; he had much higher motives for his conduct on this occasion. He was convinced that if the House had any regard for its character, it would put a stop to such pro ceedings as they had witnessed of late. He had heard things stated in that House, which had made the hair on his head stand on end. (a laugh.) He could assure the House that the feelings of horror with which he heard it stated, that, "in the opinion of the public the reputation of that House had not a leg to stand upon," had produced that effect upon him. He trusted that such proceedings would be effectually put a stop to, and with that view he should propose the following resolutions for the adoption of the House. 1st. "Resolved that "the Letter signed Francis Burdett, and the "further Argument, which was published "in the paper called Cobbett's Weekly Re"gister, on the 24th of this instant, is a li"bellous and scandalous paper, reflecting

66

upon the just rights and privileges of this "House.-2d. Resolved, That sir Francis "Burdett, who suffered the above articles "to be printed with his name, and by his "authority, has been guilty of a violation of the privileges of this House."

He

Mr. Blachford, in rising to second the motion, said that it would not be necessary for him to use many words. begged to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Hall, in the year 1558, In that case, the House had voted a publication to which its attention had been called not only slanderous to the charac ter, but derogatory from the dignity and honour of that House. Mr. Hall was afterwards, on being found to have been the author of the paper, appointed a day to be heard in his defence in the Committee of Privileges, after which he was se

questered, and the House proceeded to a discussion as to his punishment, which was voted unanimously. He was satisfied that there were many other precedents which could be produced, but he had referred to the earliest he could find, to shew that the House had been at all times justly and greatly jealous of such violations of its privileges; and he trusted that it would not be less so in the year 1810 than it had been in the year 1558. If the House should not vote this production a slanderous and libellous paper, derogatory from the character and honour of the House, it would not shew a proper regard to its own dignity. He should have thought that no doubt could exist that the motion of his hon. friend would have been agreed to, if it had not been for the significant cheers from the gentlemen opposite. Before, however, they should come to a decision on this question, they were bound to consider well the nature of the paper under consideration, the subject to which it referred, and the circumstances under which it had been produced. They were bound to weigh well the consequences of not adopting the motion of his hon. friend. How could they hesitate, when they recollected the spirit and the advocates of jacobinism which existed in the country; whose numbers, whether in leaders or disciples, were but few, but whose object it was to dispute and bring into discredit the authority of that House? If this spirit should not be checked in time, it would not only take away the dignity, the character, and the authority of that House, but destroy the very existence of it as a branch of the legislature.

Mr. Ponsonby observed, that neither the hon. mover, nor the seconder of the resolutions, had a deeper respect, or a warmer attachment to the privileges of the House of Commons than he, humble as he was, entertained. All his conduct, since he had been a member of that House, had shewn, that he had never offered the slightest disrespect to the character, nor in the smallest degree interfered with the privileges of that House. But the motion before the House appeared to be one which required the gravest deliberation, in order that they should come to a solemn, just, and useful decision. The paper read by the clerk was a long one, and though the hon. gent. had pointed out some particular passages as the grounds of his complaint, still it would be difficult, in case of so long a paper, to decide whether the

particular passages would support the charge, without the opportunity of considering all the parts of it. How much more difficult then would it be in case of a paper, professing to be a legal argument, founded on the known laws of the land! He trusted that he should not be thought indifferent to the privileges of that House, if he moved an adjournment of the discussion upon this motion. All the members of that House had devoted their minds to the consideration of the question respecting the Expedition to Walcheren, the discussion of which was still pending. hon. gent. with the exception perhaps of the hon. mover and seconder, had given such attention to the question immediately before the House, as to be able to lay his hand upon his heart, and say that he was prepared to give a fair and dispassionate vote upon it. Whatever might be the ultimate decision of the House, it would have more weight with the public and be entitled to greater respect from every quarter, the more consideration should be given to the question. Upon these grounds he should move, That the discussion be adjourned to this day se'nnight.

No

He

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to oppose the adjournment of the question, but expressed a wish that the right hon. gent. should not persist in moving for so long an adjournment. should think that the House would proIceed with the discussion on the earliest day, that it could be able to become acquainted with the nature of the charges sufficiently to come to a just decision. This was due as well to the intrinsic importance of the question itself as to the feelings of the individual concerned. The House would recollect, that the hon. baronet had been ordered to withdraw, and for himself he did not know what effect, that might have with respect to the propriety of the hon. baronet's being present at the discussion of questions which might intervene, before the decision on the present question. He was not aware of the practice of the House on such occasions, and threw the observation out with a view to getting information. If the individual could return to his place during the adjournment of this discussion, it might be a question, whether it would be right that a person under a charge for a breach of the privileges of that House should continue to enjoy these privileges, and exercise the rights belonging to its members. that point he should be glad to receive in

Upon

formation. But, at all events, he should think it would be desirable not to adjourn the discussion over to-morrow or Thurs. day at farthest. The House must be aware that this was a question respecting its own privileges, and that such questions always took precedence of any other subject. He suggested, therefore, to the right hon. gent. the propriety of limiting his motion for the adjournment to to-morrow, in order that whatever might be the decision of the House, it should be come to as soon as possible. If the right hon. gent. should not amend his motion, as he suggested, by substituting to morrow for this day se'nnight, he should move an amendment to that effect. Some delay he thought necessary because of the length of the paper; but every hon. gent. must know, that they could have sufficient opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the contents of the paper, so as to be prepared for the discussion before they should meet to morrow. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving as an amendment, That the debate be adjourned to to

morrow.

Mr. Whitbread contended that his right hon friend, in moving the question of adjournment, had no object in view but to enable the House to come to a fair and just decision, when they should be in full possession of the whole contents of the paper. Considering the length of the paper that had been read, and the importance which might attach to the comparison of the different passages, in order to judge fairly of the whole, he thought a longer adjournment than that proposed by the last speaker absolutely necessary. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that there was at this moment a most important discussion pending, on a subject relating personally to himself, but highly interesting to the public. It was not his intention to impute to the right hon. gent. any design to bring in any other question to interfere with the progress of that in which he was so deeply concerned. He could not suppose it was that right hon. gentleman's wish to give precedence to another question with any view to distract the attention of that House, and the feelings of the public from a subject which had occupied so much of both. Many hon. members were anxious to deliver their sentiments on that subject; and his right hon. friend was even in possession of the House for the purpose of

stating his opinion upon it. When they considered that the present debate, produced no doubt by accident alone, had been protracted to so late an hour, as well as the short period that must naturally intervene between the termination of the debate of this night, and the time of their meeting to-morrow, gentlemen would be convinced of the impossibility that members could come down to-morrow properly prepared for the discussion of this question; so important not alone to the hon. baronet, but to the interests of the House. For himself, he could say, that he was not prepared at present to go into that discussion, neither could he be prepared by to-morrow. All that was asked for was, that they might go into the discussion on the earliest day after they should be prepared to resume it with effect. That could not be the case tomorrow. The debate on the Expedition could not be expected to terminate that night; or, if it should, would conclude at so late an hour as to render it impossible for gentlemen to make themselves sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case then under consideration. He should, therefore, as the debate on the Expedition could not possibly terminate before Thursday morning, propose to his right hon. friend to take Friday instead of this day se'nnight, as the day to which the debate should be adjourned. The hon. member concluded by moving an amendment to that effect.

Lord Folkestone considered the question so important to the House and the hon. baronet, that, though he should not himself have moved the adjournment of the discussion, he yet was glad that it had been moved in order that he and other hon. members might be enabled to come down better prepared for the discussion. From the attention he had paid to the subject, more perhaps than other members, he was convinced that when gentlemen considered it maturely, they would not regret that the more distant day had been preferred for the adjournment. The question respecting the privileges of that House, had been discussed by more and higher authorities than any other, perhaps, that could be made the subject of investigation. The more, therefore, that gentlemen consulted these authorities, the greater necessity they would feel for attentive and deliberate consideration. On that ground he trusted that the House would agree to the more distant day.

He begged gentlemen would not take up the question as lightly as had been done by some of the members who had already spoken; and trusted that it would be regarded with much more serious consideration than appeared to have been bestowed upon it by the hon. mover and seconder of the Resolutions. It would be necessary for gentlemen to consider drily what were the privileges of that House, without referring to any expressions, which might have been used in a former debate, or resorting to the stale and exploded and senseless topic of the existence of a jacobin spirit in this country. The manner in which the question had been treated by the hon. mover and seconder, made him apprehensive that they had taken up the subject very lightly indeed. Far different, he trusted, would be the degree of consideration bestowed upon it by the House, not alone because it was of near and anxious interest to the hon. baronet, but because it was of the last importance to the best and most vital interests of that House. He thought it his duty to say thus much in consequence of the sentiments, which had been thrown out in the short speeches of the two hon. gentlemen opposite, and was determined to vote for the adjournment to the more distant day.

Mr. Stephen declared that the speech of the noble lord had furnished him with an unanswerable argument against the adjournment to the more distant day, if even he had been previously disposed to vote for it. It had been said by the noble lord that this was a question of much difficulty, but for his part he could not see in what the difficulty of the case consisted. If any legal doubt existed as to the constitutional exercise of the privilege of that House, involved in the present proceeding, that was a reason why no time should be lost in getting rid of that doubt. It was to be recollected that an individual was at present in custody in consequence of the exercise of that privilege; and if it could be possible that the confinement was contrary to law, no time should be lost in settling a point which would release a fellow subject from an unconstitutional restraint. He felt a strong wish that his right hon. friend might have an opportunity of having the earliest decision upon a question interesting to his feelings and character; but he was not therefore to be insensible to the situation of another individual of his fellow-subjects now in confinement, whose

release might depend upon the decision of the debate proposed to be adjourned. Had it not been stated in the paper of the hon. baronet, that the warrant of the Speaker for committing the individual to whom he alluded was illegal? If any doubt existed as to its legality, the question ought to be set at rest as early as possible.-If the warrant should prove to be illegal, then the person in custody must necessarily be released; whereas on the contrary, if it should be established to be legal, in that case there could be no doubt that the statement of the hon. baronet was a breach of the privileges of that House; but in either case, it was desirable to come to a speedy decision, and therefore he should vote for the more moderate adjournment. It had often been imputed to his right hon. friend, that he preferred proceeding upon questions, relating to the dignities of that House, than upon questions personally interesting to him self; for the present case he could not see what was to be gained or lost by a delay of a few hours, and therefore should vote for the adjournment to to-morrow.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say but a few words, though the new question would authorise him to speak again. When the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had broadly imputed to him a motive in wishing for a delay of 24 hours in the previously pending discussion, he could not sit silent under the imputation. If he had wished for delay, he might have applied for it at the commencement of the discussion, on the ground that some of the papers necessary to form a judgment upon the case had not been delivered to members, and others were not yet on their table. An application for further delay, founded upon such a statement, no hon. member could, he was persuaded, resist. He had no such wish, but was as desirous as any hon. member that the discussion should proceed; and, if it was to be interrupted by the discussion of the question then under consideration, was that interruption to be imputed to him? Had he advised the hon. baronet to publish that statement which was the foundation of the charge against him? Had he recommended to that hon. bart. to publish that statement on Saturday lást, so as to give rise at this particular time to the complaint that occasioned this delay? Had he any concern in the mode in which the question had been brought under the consideration of the House? All

that the noble lord had said on the principle of the law of the case, had, as had been ably stated by his hon. friend, made against his own argument, and was a sufficient ground for avoiding all unnecessary delay. The question was one of the most grave nature, and of the last importance to the character, the dignity, the honour, and the independence of that House. The longer they suffered the decision upon it to be delayed, the longer they would submit to be trampled upon; and the more they would betray their own dignity, feelings, and independence. The law of the case had been discussed and decided upon in a full House lately almost unanimously. He said, almost unanimously, because though the House was full, only fourteen voted with the hon. baronet, and many of them had voted on the ground that the previous confinement of the individual was a sufficient punishment for his offence. The consideration, however, that one individual was in custody, and another under accusation, was a reason for restricting the adjournment to the shortest possible period.

Mr. Buthurst felt that every member must regret that this question had been forced upon the consideration of the House. He thought that whatever opinion might be entertained as to the character of the publication in question, the difference of one or two days could not be of much consequence. He thought the adjournment should extend to the more distant day-first, because many might perhaps think upon a careful examination of the context of this long paper, that it might suggest matter of extenuation, if not of justification-and, secondly, because it was of importance that the question already pending should be previously disposed of. He had read the publication, and thought that in very plain language, it impeached the legality of the exercise of a privilege which was strictly conformable to the practice of that House. For his own part, he thought the privileges of that House as much a part of the law of the land as that unwritten common law which was universally recognized in our courts of law; but on the grounds he had before stated, he should vote for the adjournment to Friday.

Mr. C. W. Wynn expressed his surprise that the right hon. gent. opposite, who had been so long an active member of the House, should have felt any difficulty in deciding whether the hon. baronet could

VOL. XVI.

take a share in the other proceedings of the House. He conceived that the point was settled that members in his situation were only excluded on the particular question. He then referred to the cases of Mr. Steele, Mr. Esdale, and Major Scott, to shew that adjournments for several days had frequently taken place on questions similar to the present. He must contend that it was actually impossible for gentlemen to be prepared for the discussion to-morrow. He was one of those who had voted on the former question, and might, perhaps, be better prepared for this discussion than others. But when he considered that only 160 members had been present at that discussion, and looked round him now, and perceived that nearly 400 were present, he could not conceive how those who had heard no part of the former discussion could be prepared so early to enter into this. In his opinion, therefore, he thought that, if they consulted the dignity of the House, they should consent to the adjournment to Friday.

Mr. Madocks observed, that an interval of five days had taken place in the cases of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State.

The House then divided on the question, whether the adjournment should be till Friday or till to-morrow :

For the discussion to-morrow - - 196.
For the adjournment till Friday - 146
Majority

-50

[EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.] Mr. Ponsonby moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the policy and conduct of the Expedition to the Scheldt. On the order of the day being read, the right hon. gent. resumed his argument (in reply to lord Castlereagh,) and began by expressing his surprise that the noble lord had stated the great object of the Expedition to be the creating a diversion in favour of Austria, and that the destruction of the arsenal at Antwerp was only a secondary object. He had been the more surprized to hear this, when he recollected the instructions to lord Chatham, which stated in effect that the particular object of the Expedition was the destruction of the arsenal at Antwerp. His lordship could hardly now, therefore, be permitted to say that this was an object secondary to the chief one, of giving assistance to Austria. The noble lord had said that he had called for the military opinions not to determine as to the expediency or inex