« PoprzedniaDalej »
rions, which went to throw a blame upon persons who had usly acted from motives of justice is 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 Parjous 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 ihould 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 nobie Lord on the same side of the House with himself had advanced with so much ability, were so completely unanswered, that he should not presume to do aivay the imprelsion 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 House rather to blink the question. What, when the House is told that there has been an illegal issue of the public money, Thould Parlian.ent be told, that instead of looking into the cate, they fhould not exercise that right which the people have committed to their charge, but rather be inclined to blink the question? An affertion had been made in the course of debate, that the Lords of the Treasury had a legal authority for the issuing of public money. No doubt they had. But could that be fuppofed 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 excrcile ot that authority, in the paying awav the money of the public in a manner for which they had no vote or authority from that Houfc. For that principal reason he most heartily supported the motion, and relifted the order of the day.
The Attorney General expressed his opinion, that if the Lith Treafury had adopted any other line of conduct than that which was now in question, it would have appeared moft extraordinary. The case was fimply this, that the Irish Treatury bad funds in England; they owed to a public officer who bad been ordered here on public business, 1001. Irith, being 921. B.itish: ought they then to pay the money here, or send it over to Ireland that it might be renitted back to the officer, who then instead of gl. would receive only 821.! This was literally the whole qucftion, and it was one upon which it appeared to him impoflible to entertain
Sir John Necuport did not mean to contend that those officers of the Irish Government, whole attendance bere he considered to be cflentially ncceflary, ought to experience any loss in the receipi 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 contiderable objections to the manner in which the money had been issued, nor was it fit to illuz public money without the purview of Parliament. If this was not the period, when was the proper time for discuiting the subject? Objecting, therefore, as he did, that no opportunity was afforded for discuthon, he would vote againit 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 itself 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 say 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 amount bere, as their Irish money 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 diftribution of the public money to pay it otherwise ; and it was unworthy the dignity of Parliainent to refuse entering into an inquiry. The question was then called for, and there appeared,
For ihe order of the day 82
Majority 38 The order of the day was then iead for the House receiving the report of the Irish militia offers bill, which
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 faid, that at that late hour he would not delav the House by making any observations on either of the bills, but 1hould reierve himself until the third reading. Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
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 Committee on the priests' and deacons' bill, Lord Wallingham took the chair.
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 oblerve, that the sacerdotal character in itself could not be done away by the secular power; the Sacerdotum Catholicum was that which no secular 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 should be put to the age at which persons should be admissible into the sacred orders of deacon and priest. In defcribing 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 fome time after, by a decree of the council of Trent, perfons of the age of 25 were admissible into priest's orders. After contending for the indelibility of the sacred chiaracter, the rev. Prelate observed, that in cafes where a radical or original defe&t in the ordination exifted, as in the case of marriages improperly soleinnized, &c. the Legislature may declare the nullity of such proceedings; and it was upon this principle chiefly, that he agreed to the relevant provision of the bill.
The Duke of Norfolk exprefled his concurrence in the principle laid down by the rev. Prelate, as to the indelibility of the facerdotal character. Respecting this, it was a máxim in the antient Catholic Church, Nec herefis, nec apoltalia delit; but with respea to the subject, there were one or two considerations which struck him as material. Aperfon 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 23 or 24 years of age, when in fact it might not be fo. There were cases alto in which the bilhop who ordained may not be wholly exempt from blame; and it may not be unworuhy of consideration, what degree of punishment should be incurred by a diocefan who should so infringe upon an act of Parliament.
The Bishop of St. Asaph 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, bifhops were, as the law now stood, liable to be called to account should they act in violation of an act of Parliament.
The leading provision of the bill, which enacts that no perion shall be admissible to the sacred orders of deacon and priest, unless he thall have completely attained the 23d or 24th year of his age respectively, &c. was then agreed to.
After fome further observations on the part of the rev. Prelate and noble Duke above-mentioned, the remaining provifions of the bill, with a few verbal amendinents, were agreed to.
On the motion of the Bishop of St. Afaph, a clause was inserted for the conservation of the rights, with refpe&t 10 this bill, of the Metropolitans of the respective parts of the united kingdom.
The Houfe then refumed, and ordered the bill to be reported on Monday.
The report of the volunteer bill was then received 910 forma.
Lord" Auckland observed, that in consequence of the unavoidable delay of printing the bill, l:e did not think the report could be confidered on fo early a day as was at fi:it proposet. - He seemed to think not before Tuesday.'
The bill was then, with the amendments, on the motion of Eord Walfingham, ordered to be printed.
Adjourned till Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, APRIL 13. Sir John Newport moved to discharge the order for taking into consideration the lichefter election petition, in order to fix ie 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 borough, which was ordered to be taken into confideration on the same day as the former petition.
Mr. Secretary Yorke, after referring to the order of the 29th of March, giving leave to bring in a bill to lulpend 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 read a first time, 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 last 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 appearing, 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 respecting the militia pay, cioathing, and allowances, and also the estimate of secret services ; which was ordered.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Vol. II. 1803-4,