tions, which went to throw a blame upon persons who had vály acted from motives of justice in new situations, and under novel circumstances. He was quite ashamed for having taken up the time of the House, and thanked them for their indulgence.

Sir Laurence Parsons opposed the original motion: it appeared to him that the Lords of the Irish Treasury had acted consistently with justice and equity, and therefore he should vote for the order of the day.

Mr. T. Grenville referred to several observations, which had been made by different hon. Members on the other side of the House, and said, that the arguments which the noble Lord on the famie lide of the House with himself had advanced with so much ability, were so completely unan-. . swered, that he ihould not presume to do aivay the inprelsion they had made upon the House by any attempt on his part to repeat them. One hon. Gentleman indeed had appealed to the prudence and discretion of the House, and then asked if it was necessary for the House to enter into the merits of the case? He had concluded with inviting the Houle rather to blink the question. What, when the House is told that there has been an illegal issue of the public moncy, should Parlian.ent be told, that instead of looking into the cale, they should not exercise that right which the people have committed to their charge, but rather be inclined to blink the question? An assertion had been made in the course of debate, thai the Lords of the Treasury had a legal authority for the issuing of public money. No doubt they had. But could that be supposed to be any argument against the resolutions which had been submitted to the House? Neither his noble Friend, nor any other person who spoke in the course of the debate, had denied the existence of such an authority. They only objected to what appeared to them to be an illegal exercise of that authority, in the paying awav the money of the public in a manner for which they had no vote or authority from that Houtc. For that principal reason he most heartily supported the motion, and refifted the order of the day.

The attorney General expressed his opinion, that if the Liith Treasury had adopted any other line of conduct than that wrich was now in question, it would have appeared möft extraordinary. The case was simply this, that the Irish Treatury had fuods in England; they owed to a public officer who had been ordered here on public business, 1001. Irish, being 921. British: ought they then to pay the money


here, or send it over to Ireland that it might be reniitted back to the officer, who then instead of 9 1. would receive only 821.? This was literally the whole qucftion, and it was one upon which it appeared to him impollible to'entertain a doubt.

Sir John Newport did not mean to contend that those officers of the Irish Government, whose attendance here he considered to be cílentially neceffary, ought to experience any loss in the receipt of their emoluments. But admitting the principle, he complained that they were no! to be allowed to discuss whether the payments made had been regular and fair. He thought there were considerable objec. tions to the manner in which the money had been issued, rior was it fit to issue public money without the purview of Parliament. If this was not the periut, when was the proper time for discurling the subject? Objecting, therefore, as he did, that no opportunity was afforded for discussion, he thould vote against the previous question.

Lord A. Hamilton said, the expreilions of some hon. Members had been obiected to : but the House would recollect, that he had allerted that the act in jilelf was not legal; no person had controverted that. An observation had been made, that a fervant should be paid his travelling expences; but there was no argument in that, as no person gave in such an estimate as travelling expences to Parliament, and, if that was to be urged against inquiry, no one could lay but that travelling expences had been paid beside. As to the supposition of fending money to Ireland for the purpose of reducing the amount, there was a fallacy in it as an argument. It indeed would be a work of lupererogation to do fo ; but why not pay the officers of the public to the fame aniount bere, as their Irish muncy would come to if it was paid in Ireland where it was due ? As an hon. Baroner (Sirl. Newport) had observed, it was an unwarrantable distribution of the public money to pay it otherwise ; and it was unworthy the dignity of Parliament to refuse entering into an inquiry. The question was then called for, and there appeared,

For ihe order of the day 82
Against it - - - - - 4+

The order of the day was then iead for the House receiving the report of the Irish militia offers bill, which

[ocr errors]


was received, and the third reading was fixed for the next day.

The report of the Irish militia augmentation bill was also received, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day.

Mr. Calcraft said, that at that late hour he would not delav the House by making any observations on either of the · bills, but should rejerve himself until the third reading.



FRIDAY, APRIL. 13. Counsel were heard in continuation relative to the appeal, Abercromby v. Fleming. To proceed again on Monday.

The bills upon the table were forwarded in their several stages.

The order of the day being read for going into a Come mittee on the priests and deacons' bill, Lord Walsingham



Sacer.could not be atve, that the

The Bishop of St. Afaph, pursuant to his intimation on a former evening, made a variety of observations on the subject. After referring to the leading provision of the bill, he proceeded to observe, that the sacerdotal character in itself could not be done away by the secular power; the Sacerdotum Catholicum was that which no fecular power could either give or take away; it was derived from a higher source. He agreed that it was necessary and proper, that some exact and defined limits thould be put to the age at which persons inould be admiffible into the sacred orders of deacon and prieft. In describing to the Committee the history of the subject, the learned Prelate referred to various ecclesiastical authorities, whereby it appeared, that some variations had obtained with respect to the age at which persons were admissible into the orders in question. In the earlier ages of the church, deacons were required to be of the age of 25 years, and prieits of that of 30: this was about the fourth century. In some time after, by a decree of the council of Trent, persons of the age of 25 were admissible into priest's orders. After contending for the indelibility of the facred cliaracter, the rev. Prelate observed, that in cafes where a radical or original defeat in the ordi. nation exifted, as in the case of marriages improperly solemnnized, &c. the Legislature may declare the nullity of such proceedings; and it was upon this principle chiefly, that he agreed to the relevant provition of the bill.

The Duke of Norfolk exprefled his concurrence in the principle laid down by the rev. Prelate, as to the indelibi. lity of the facerdotal character. Reípecting this, it was a maxim in the antient Catholic Church, Nec fierelis, nec apola tafiz delit; but with relpeat to the subject, there were one or two confiderations which struck him as material. A perfon may innocently become subject to the enactment of the bill, as in the instance where he was, through misinformation, or other causes, led to suppose that he was either 93 or 24 years of age, when in fact it might not be fo. Iliere were cases alto in which the bishop who ordained may not be wholly exempt from blame ; and it may not be unwor. ily of confideration, what degree of punishment should be incurred by a diocesan who should fo infringe upon an act oi Parliament.

The Bishop of St. Afaph explained: The case adverted to by the noble Duke was one of thote, he conceived, within the contemplation of the bill. With respect to the latter consideration, bishops were, as the law now stood, liable to be called to account should they act in violation of an act of Parlianient.

The leading provision of the bill, which enaets that no perion shall be admislible to the sacred orders of deacon and priest, unless he thall have completely attained the 231 or 24th year of his age respectively, &c. was then agreed to.

itfter some further observations on the part of the rer. Prelate and noble Duke above-mentioned, the remaining provitions of the bill, with a few verbal amendınents, wire agreed to.

On the motion of the Bishop of St. Afaph, a clause w3s inserted for the coníervation of the rights, with relpeet to this bill, of the Metropolitans of the respective parts of the united kingdom.

The House then resumed, and ordered the bill to be re. ported on Monday.

The report of the volunteer bill was then received : forma.

Lird Auckland observed, that in consequence of the unavoidable delay of printing the bill, be did not think the report could be considered on lo early a day as was at fi:it propoleil. - He seemed to think not before Tuesday.

T!c. The bill was then, with the amendments, on the motion of Eord Walsingham, ordered to be printed.

Adjourned till Monday.


FRIDAY, APRIL 13. Sir John Newport moved to discharge the order for taking into consideration the lichefter ele&tion petition, in order to fix it for a future day; which motion, after some conversation between Mr. J. Graham, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Hiley Addington, was negatived.

Mr. J. Graham prelented a petition from certain voters of Chippenham, respecting the right of voting in that borouglı, which was ordered to be taken into consideration on the same day as the former petition.

Mr. Secretary Yorke, after referring to the order of the 24th of March, giving leave to bring in a bill to suspend the operation of the army of reserve act, observed, that it had been more convenient to bring in two bills, one for Great Britain, and one for Ireland. He therefore moved to discharge the former order, and for leave to bring in a bill or bills respecting the same subject. Leave given.

Mr, Secretary Yorke afterwards brought in the bill for suspending the army of reserve act in Great Britain, which was rcad a first tiine, and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday, and to be printed.

Mr. Secretary Yorke called the attention of the House to an act of laft session, for the more speedy and effectual completing the officers of the militia, which being limited in its Juration to the 25th of March in the present year, had, through inadvertency, been suffered to expire. It ape, pearing, however, absolutely necessary to revive and continue that act, he therefore inoved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose. Leave given. . . .

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES. . • The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day, for a Committee of Supply ; and to refer to the said Committee the estimates refpe&ing the militia pay, cioathing, and allowances, and also the estimate of secret services ; which was ordered.

The House having relolved itself into a Committee of Supply,

31. II. 1803-4. 3 P . . The

« ElőzőTovább »