And, on the motion of Mr. Whitbread, a new writ was ordered for the town of Stafford, in the room of the right honourable R. B. Sheridan, who since his election had accepted of the office of treasurer of the navy.

On the motion of Mr. W. Smith, the Dean of Raphoe was appointed to preach before the House on the 26th inst being the day fixed on for a public fast.

The report of the commissioners for paving, lighting, &c. the streets of Dublin, was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Vansittart brought in the annual indemnity qualification bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday rext.

Mr. Paull renewed his notice of a motion relative to bullion exported to the East-Indies, for Tuesday next.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next.

Mr. Spencer Stanhope said, that, without wishing to object to the proposed adjournment, he was anxious to be informed by the noble chancellor of the exchequer if there was any truth in a report which had gone abroad, that the lord chief justice of the King's Bench had also been admitted to a share in the executive Government, by being appointed what is termed a member of the Cabinet.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had no difficulty in informing the honourable member, that the noble lord alluded to, who was, by the office which he held, a member of the Privy Council, also held a scat in what was generally termed the Cabinet Council.

The motion was then agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the report of the amendments on Lord Collingwood's annuity bill was ordered to be received on Tuesday next.

The other orders of the day were then read, and the House adjourned till Monday next.

In the appeal, the Countess Dowager of Lincoln against the Duke of Newcastle, the Solicitor-General was heard in reply; after which judgment was deferred till the next day se'nnight.

Lord Hawke took the oaths and his scat, on succeeding to the title by the death of his father.

VOL. I. 1805-6.

THE EARL OF ST. VINCENT. .

Lord Grenville presented a message from his Majesty, purporting that by the act of Parliament for granting an annuity to the Earl of St. Vincent, that annuity was limited to the two next heirs male of his body, and desiring the House to take the further extension of the same into their consideration.

The message having been read

Lord Hawkesbury asked (across the table) if any motion was intended.

Lord Grenville answered in the affirmative, and observed, that in granting the annuity to Lord St. Vincent, it had been originally intended, as was usual in similar cases, to extend the grant to the two next successors to the title. It happened, however, that by the enacting words of the act, the annuity was limited to the two next heirs male of the body of Lord St. Vincent. The present message therefore, had not for its object to confer any additional mark of royal favour on Lord St. Vincent; but merely to carry into effect what was undoubtedly the original intent of the act to which he had alluded. A bill to this effect would, in due 'time, come before the House, when their lordships would have an opportunity of considering the subject. He concluded, by moving, in the usual form, an address to his Majesty in answer to his Majesty's most gracious message, which was agreed to.

JUDGE FOX.

Lord Eldon seeing a noble marquis (Abercorn) in his place, rose to ask whether it was the intention of that noble marquis to move for the attendance of witnesses at their lordships' bar, respecting the charges against Mr. Justice Fox, and at what period?

The Marquis of Abercorn observed, that he had expressed, on the first day of the Session, his readiness to go into the subject whenever it was convenient to their lordships. He understood that the lent assizes in Ireland commenced earlier this, than last year, and that therefore an earlier period might be fixed for the attendance of witnesses. He therefore moved, that a number of witnesses, a list of whom he held in his hand, should attend at the bar of the House on the 28th of April.

3 Lord Grenville suggested to the noble marquis, whether it might not be advisable to postpone this motion for the present, in order that noble lords might have an opportu

nity of turning the subject in their minds, and considering whether or not it might be expedient to continue the proceedings which had been instituted relative to Mr. Justice Fox.

The Marquis of Abercorn acquiesced in the pospone ment; and the motion was deferred to that day se'nnight.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

The Earl of Bristol rose to put a question to the noble lord opposite him (Lord Grenville). It was generally reported, and as generally believed, that a learned and noble ford, who stood at the head of the justice of the land, had lately been called to a high situation of trust, and that he had actually been appointed one of his Majesty's chief advisers, and that he had a seat in what is commonly called the cabinet. This appointment appeared to him to argue something very unprecedented and unconstitutional, and there were many more competent than he was to judge of such matters, who agreed with him respecting the impro priety of such an appoinment. It certainly was one that seemed liable to very strong objections, and as such he should feel it his duty to point the attention of their lordships to its nature and probable consequences.

Lord Grenville felt anxious to give as explicit and satis▸ factory an answer as was in his power, to the question of the noble carl. He was at a loss to see how the appointment alluded to by the noble earl, was unconstitutional, or unprecedented. He believed, that ever since the privy council existed, or even since there existed such a station as that of lord chief justice, the learned lord who filled that station at the time, was likewise invariably one of his Majesty's privy council. Indeed the lord chief justice of the King's Bench was frequently summoned to attend the council on matters of the highest moment: and he was not only responsible for the advice he actually gave, but was also liable for any omission in giving in his advice. His lordship must think it unnecessary to observe, that what was generally or usually called the cabinet, was, under that appellation and description, unknown to the constitution: indeed, it should be rather considered as a committee of the privy council that was more frequently called upon by his Majesty for advice. Even that committee the lord chief justice of the land had often been summoned to attend; and if at all times it appeared, that the lord chief justice was a member of his Majesty's privy council, and that he was often

called upon for advice by that committee of the privy council, commonly known by the name of the cabinet, he could not think that it trenched in the least upon the spirit or the letter of the constitution, that he who was always of the privy council, and who was frequently consulted by his Majesty's more immediate advisers, should be made an ha bitual or constant member of the committee of the privy council, which he had considered the cabinet to be more especially when the person who filled that exalted station, was, in the present case, a man from whose vigour of intellect, from whose extent of capacity, and from whose com prehension and depth of knowledge, the administration of his Majesty's government was sure to receive the uniform aştistance of such various lights. When he was honoured with his Majesty's orders to form an administration, he anxiously looked out for such distinguished characters, and if any exception was made to the advice he presumed to offer to his Majesty on that very important business, he held himself responsible for any error or mischief with which it might be deemed chargeable. With regard to the ap pointment being unconstitutional and unprecedented, he should now only observe, that he believed it had the sanc tion of Lord Hardwicke's opinion, and certain he was it had the sanction of the example of Lord Mansfield. The more such a question was discussed, the less he trusted it would be found liable to the objections insinuated by the noble earl.

The Earl of Bristol could not help thinking the appointment highly objectionable, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble lord. To him it appeared repugnant to the constitution, and incompatible with the due administration of justice; and on these grounds he should certainly submit it to the consideration of the House on Monday next, for which day it was ordered that their lordships be summoned to attend.

INDEMNITY BILL,

Lord Eldon, agreeably to a former notice, moved for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents of bills, such as that now before their lordships, to indemnity such persons as might be called upon to give evidence before that House in cases of impeachment, from criminal prosecutions and civil suits, in consequence of the evidence

they

they might give. The more he considered that bill, the more it appeared to him unconstitutional and unsafe; it went to give a degree of power to the other House of Parliament, that might prove dangerous to the liberties of the people, and repugnant to the ends of justice, in matters where their lordships were to sit as judges. It gave a power to prosecutors, which prosecutors should never possess: it resembled, in many points, a bill brought in in 1742, or at least it proceeded on nearly the same principle. Viewing it in that light, he thought it expedient that a committee be appointed to search into precedents of similar bills, in order that from their report some light might be derived to guide the conduct of the House on the present occasion. He should conclude with making a motion to that effect; and if it was agreed to, he should follow it up with another, to wit, That the committee do consist of all those noble lords who had appeared in their places this session, and that they do sit the next day at three o'clock. The learned lord concluded with a motion as above.

Lord Holland did not wish to oppose the motion of the noble and learned lord, but he was convinced that on the search being made which the noble and learned lord desired, it would be found that the present bill was not by any means, as the noble and learned lord would have it understood, a fac simile of that introduced in 1742; but, on the contrary, wholly dissimilar. He could not help, at the same time, thinking it unfair to argue the bill at the present moment, when it was not regularly before the House.

Lord Eldon, in explanation, contended that he had never said that the present bill was a fac simile of that of 1742; but that they must be both argued on the same principle.

The motion for a committee to search for precedents was agreed to. The committee to consist of all the lords who have been present this session, and to meet the next day at three o'clock.

Mr. Robinson, from the office of the secretary of state for Ireland, presented accounts from the paving board of Dublin and the commissioners of accounts, which were ordered to lie on the table,

Adjourned,

HOUSE