« EelmineJätka »
cions, which went to throw a blame upon persons who had only 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 bad acted consistently with justice and equity, and therefore he 1hould vote for the order of the day.
Mr. T. Grenville referred to several observations, wbich had been made by different hon. Members on the other fide of the House, and said, that the arguments which the noble Lord on the same side of the House with himself had ad. vanced with so much ability, were so completely unanswered, that he should not presume to do away the impreffion 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 neceflary for the House to enter into the merits of the case! He had concluded with inviting the Houie rather to blink the question. What, when the Houle is told that there has been an illegal issue of the publie money, should Parliament be told, that instead of looking into the cale, they should not exercise that right which the peo. ple have committed to their charge, but rather be inclined to blink the question? An assertion 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 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 tlie debate, had denied the existence of such an authority. They only objected to what appeared to them to be an illegal exercile of that authority, in the paying away the money of the public in a manner for which they had no vote or authority from that foute. For that principal reason he most heartily supported the mo. tion, and refifted the order of the day. .
The strorney General expressed his opinion, that if the Frith 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 Treasury had funds 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 renitted back to the officer, who then instead of 921. would receive. only 821,? This was literally, the whole question, and it was one upon which it appeared to him impoffible to entertain a doubt.
Sir John Newport did not mean to contend that those officers of the Irich Government, whose attendance here he considered to be eilencially ncceffarv, ouglit to experience any loss in the receipt of their emoluments. But adinitting the principie, he complained that they were noi to be allowed to discuss whether the payments made had been regular and fair. He thought there were considerable objections to the manner in which the money had been issued, nor was it fit to jílue public money without the purvieiv of Parliament. If this was not the period, when was the proper time for discuiling 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 expreifions of some hon. Members had been obiected to : but the House would recollect, that he had asserted that the act in itself was not legal; no person had controverted that. An observation had been made, that a servant Thould be paid his travelling expences; but there was no argument in that, as no person gave in such an estimate as travelling expences to Parlianen', and, if that was to be urged against inquiry, no une could say but that travelling expences had been paid beside. As to the suppofition of fending money to Ireland for the purpose of reducing the ainount, there was a fallacy in it as an argument. Ii indeed would be a work of supererogation to do fo ; but why not pay the officers of the public to the same amount bere, as thcir lrith money would come to if it was paid in lieland where it was due ? As an hon. Baroner (Sirl. Newport) had observed, it was an unwarrantable distribution of the public money t'u pay it otherwile ; and it was unworthy the dignity of Parliament to refuse entering into an inquiry. The question was then called for, and there appeared,
Forbe order of the day 82
Miajority - 38 The order of the day was then read 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 Trish militia augmentation bill was also received, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day.
11:. Calcraft faid, that at that late hour he would not delav the House by making any observations on either of the bills, but Tould referie hitelf until the third reading. A journed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
FRIDAY, APRIL: 13. Counsel were heard in continuation relative to the uppea!, Abercromby v. Fleming. To proceed again on Monday.
The bills upon the table were forwarded in their several ftages.
The order of the day being read for going into a Coma mittee on the priests and deacons' bill, Lord Walfingham took the chair.
The Bishop of St. Afaph, pursuant to bis 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 lacerdotal character in itself could not be done away by the secular power; the Sacerdo:um 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 neccssary and proper, that some exact and defined limits Thould be put to the age at which persons should be admisible into the facred orders of deacon and priest. In describing to the Committee the history of the subject, the learned Prelate referred to various ecclefiaftical authorities, whereby it appeared, that some variations had obtained with respect to the age at which persons were admislible into the orders in queftion. 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, pertons of the age of 25 were admissible into priest's orders. After contending for the indelibility of the facred character, the rev. Prelate observed, that in cases where a radical or original defeat in the ordination existed, as in the case of marriages improperly solemnized, &c. the Legislature may declare the nullity of fuch proceedings; and it was upon this principle chiefly, that he agreed to ihe relevant provision of the bill.
The Duke of Norfolk expressed bis concurrence in die principle laid down by the rev. Prelaie, as to the indelibi. lity of the facerdotal character. Respecting this, it was a naxim in the antient Catholic Church, Nec herefis, nec apol. talia delit; but with respect to the subject, there were one or two considerations which struck him as material. A perfon may innocently become subject to the enactinent of the bill, as in the instance where he was, through misinformation, or other caules, led to suppose that he was either 23 or 21 years of age, when in fact it might not be fo. Theie were cases alto in which the bishop who ordained may not be wholly exempt from blame; and it may not be unwor. thy of confideration, what degree of punishment Thould be incurred by a diocefan who should to infringe upon an act of Parliament.
1 The Bishop of St. Afaph explained: The case adverted to by the noble Duke was one of those, he conceived, within the contemplation of the bill. With respect to the latter confideration, bishops were, as the law now stood, liable to be called to account should they act in violation of an act of Parliament..
The ieading provision of the bill, which enacts that no person shall be adınillible to the sacred orders of deacon and priest, unless he shall have completely attained the 33x1 or 24th year of his age respectively, &c. was then agreed to.
After some further observations on the part of the rev. Prelate and noble Duke above-mentioned, the remaining provifions of the bill, with a few verbal amendments, were agreed to.
On the motion of the Bishop of St. Asaph, a clause was inserted for the conservation of the rights, with respect 10, this bill, of the Metropolitans of the respective parts of the united kingdom.
The House then refumed, and ordered the bill to be reported on Monday:
The report of the volunteer bill was then received pre forina."
Lord Auckland observed, that in consequence of the una. voidable delay of printing the hill, le did not think the rePort could be eopsidered on so early a day as was at fint,propored!“He seemed to think not before Tuesday.
The bill was then, with the amendments, on the motion of Lord Walsingham, 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 lichester election 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 presented a petition from certain voters of Chippenham, respecting the right of voting in that borough, 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 28th of March, giving leave to bring in a bill to suspend the operatin 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 fufpending 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 duration 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 faid Committee the estimates respecting the militia pay, . cloathing, and allowances, and also the estimate of secret. services ; which was ordered.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, VOL. II. 1893-4.