ther it would not be better that they should be certainly right, than for that legislative house of parliament to run the risk of being wrong upon a point of law, for the sake of a week's expedition in almost any measure of importance that could be brought before them? Seeing, as he did, in the strongest point of view, the propriety and the necessity of taking the opinion of the law lords on this question, he should move that the question be adjourned, in order that time be given for taking the opinion of the judges on it.

Lord Sidmouth rejoiced to find that his noble and learned friend had at length agreed to the proposition of referring the point in doubt to the opinion of the judges. He knew that he had the authority of that most excellent propounder of the laws, Lord Kenyon; he had also the opinion of a man, whose name, though he was not clothed with any judicial authority, or judicial honours, must give the greatest degree of weight and authority to any maxim that received its sanction, that it was possible for the name of any man in such a situation to add to an opinion. But, though he had such high and respectable authorities on his side, he thought that it would be most candid to have a reference to the judges, and he only lamented that such an idea had not entered the mind of any noble lord in an earlier stage of the business.

After some further discussion it was agreed that the bill should pass as far as its provisions extended to indemnity against criminal proceeding, with an understanding, however, that if the opinion of the judges should be favourable to the measure, it should be competent to any noble lord to bring in a short bill as soon as possible for the further extension of the indemnity. The necessary amendments were then made, and the bill thus amended received the sanction of the authority of this house.

Upon the question being put for the third reading of the Duke of Athol's bill,

The Marquis of Buckingham expressed his sentiments in the most decided terms against the bill. The noble lord referred to the writings of the most eminent civilians, Grotius, Puffendorff, and another work of acknowledged merit, Taylor's Elements of the Civil Law, in support of his assertion, that there was not any such thing as the sovereignty of the Isle of Man ever in existence; the last mentioned book in particular had defined most clearly what this was, and what it. was that was confounded with it; imperium was that species of authority, or command, which is vested in a king; domi

nium was that sort of lordship, or governorship, which rested with an individual of lower rank-a sort of sub-chief. There were several other topics connected with the subject upon which the noble marquis expatiated.

The Earl of Westmont id supported the bill on general grounds, and contended particularly that the original compensation was inadequate, and not of a nature to answer the claims of the persons entitled to remuneration.

The Lord Chancellor objected to the principle of the bill, and denied the pretension to sovereignty held forth in the preamble.

The Earl of Suffolk opposed the bill as opening a door to numerous claims of the same description.

The Earl of Carlisle supported the bill, and considered the clains of sovereignty as very immaterial, provided the rights referred to were admitted.

The Duke of Norfolk denied that the allegations in the preamble of the bill were made good, and therefore moved that the bill be recommitted.

On this question their lordships divided,

Several verbal amendments were then proposed by the Marquis of Buckingham, which were rejected.

Another division took place on a verbal amendment proposed by his royal highness the Duke of Clarence, which was lost by a majority of 25 to 5.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed, after a division of 24 against 5.

The Paddington canal coal bill was read the third time and passed.

The Lord Chancellor brought in a bill to indemnify witnesses in the impeachment of Lord Melville from civil suits, which was read the first time. His lordship then moved, that the bill be read the second time the next day, and that the judges be summoned. His object was, to move that this question be referred to the judges: Whether a witness is by law compelled to answer a question which, though the answer does not subject him to a criminal prosecution, may establish, or tend to establish, a civil suit against him? A responsibility on this point had been imposed upon him, which it was his object to remove by this proceeding.

After a few words from the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Radnor, the motion was agreed to.---Adjourned.

HOUSE

1

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, JULY IC.

A message from the lords stated their lordships' concurrence in the Irish fire hearth duty bill, the hops duty bill, the Irish paper duty bill, the Scotch assessors regulation bill, the Irish customs and excise regulation bill, the Irish military survey bill, the Irish distillery bill, the Irish property exemption bill, the southern whale fishery bill, the quarantine indemnity bill, the sugar drawback and linen drawback bills, the ballastage bill, the Ipswich port bill, and the Thames tunnel bill.

A clerk from the exchequer presented, pursuant to order, an account of the produce of the permanent and war taxes for the years ending 5th July 1804 and 1805. Also an account of the sums paid into and charged upon the consolidated fund. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

A clerk from the East India company presented two accounts; the one of the expence of building at Bombay the ship Cornwallis of 46 guns, and the other that of the Bombay frigate of 32 guns.-Ordered to lie on the table.

CAPTAIN WRIGHT,

Sir Sidney Smith expressed his regret that he was not present the preceding day, when a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Windham) took occasion, in a manner so highly honourable to his character, to call the attention of the house to the situation of an honourable friend of his, Captain Wright, who was now a prisoner in the Temple at Paris. The honourable officer added, that if the right hon. gentleman he had alluded to, should not bring forward a motion on the subject, he would the next day move, that there should be laid before the house copies of the correspondence which has taken place, through the Spanish government, between our ministers and the government of France, with respect to the arrest and detention of Captain Wright.

On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, the debate upon the financial propositions, which stood for this day, was postponed till the next day.

LORD MELVILLE.

Mr. Whitbread brought in a bill to prevent the proceedings in the impeachment against Lord Melville, from being affected by the prorogation or dissolution of parliament.

This bill was read a first and second time, committed, and

the

the report brought up. Upon the motion for agreeing to the

report,

The Attorney General rose, and after disclaiming awy wish to throw the least impediment in the way of the impeachment, submitted to the consideration of the house, whether, if the bill were passed in its present form, an inference would not arise, that an impeachment was abated by a prorogation or dissolution of parliament, and of course interfere with the privileges of that house? This was a question which he ap prehended was completely determined in the negative, in Mr. Hastings's case, and he was unwilling that this bill should proceed in such a shape, as to raise a doubt on the subject. Its present objectionable form, he observed, was founded upon a precedent that had taken place, previous to the determination he had alluded to. The right honourable gentleman concluded with expressing a wish, that the third reading of the bill should be postponed till the next day, in order that it should be so altered as to guard against any improper infer

ence.

Mr. Whitbread observed that this was a literal transcript of the bill introduced by Mr. Burke, in the case of Mr. Hastings's impeachment; and the author of that bill was certainly not liable to the suspicion of wishing to trench upon, or to excite a doubt as to the privileges of that house. The object of this bill the honourable member explained to be such, that unless it were adopted, the committee for managing the impeachment would not be enabled to report to the house on the first day of the next sessions, if they thought necessary, the result of the evidence they had already examined, but would, on the contrary, be obliged to go through the examination of the same evidence over again. It was with a view to provide against such a circumstance, that he proposed this bill, which he did not conceive calculated to cast any doubt upon the privileges of that house, or he should have been among the last to have brought it forward. From the advanced period of the session, and the consequent necessity of expedition, the hon. gentleman was desirous that the bill should not be delayed in its progress, but that it should be read a third time that day.

Mr. S. Bourne concurred in the observations of the attorney general.

The Speaker observed that the bill had two distinct cbjects; first, to provide that the proceedings depending in that house on the articles of impeachment against Lord Melville should

not

not be discontinued by any prorogation or dissolution of parliament; the second imported a different provision, that the said articles should be proceeded upon in the next session, as to the other house of parliament, in the event of a prorogation or dissolution, in the same manner as if no such prorogation or dissolution had taken place. Against the first part of the bill there did not appear to be any objection, but the second was conceived to cast some doubt upon the established privilege and jurisdiction of that house to continue an impeachment notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. The bill, however, the right hon. gentleman had no doubt, would be so modelled as to remove the objectionable part.

The bill, after being altered according to the speaker's suggestion, was engrossed, read a third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.

On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, a new writ was ordered for Stranraer and Wigtown, in the room of the hon. W. Steward, who has accepted the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds; also a new writ for Cockermouth, in the room of James Graham, Esq. who has accepted the office of steward of the hundreds of East Hendred.

Mr. Kinnaird gave notice of a motion for the next day, for the production of certain papers with respect to the kirk of Scotland.

Sir A. S. Hamond rose to give notice, that he should the next day move for leave to lay before the house a memo rial from the commissioners of the navy, in answer to the third report of the commissioners of naval inquiry. If, however, there should be no objection to this motion, he had the memorial in his pocket, and was ready then to lay it on the table.

Mr. Whitbread begged to call to the recollection of the house, how long the report alluded to by the hon. baronet had lain on the table, and that some previous notice should be given of an intention to canvas its merits.

Sir A. S. Hamond was proceeding to argue upon the subject, when he was called to order by

The Speaker, who stated that the hon. baronet's object was merely a notice, and did not admit of an argument,

On the motion of Mr. Long, an address was ordered to be presented to his majesty, praying that some ecclesiastical dignity might be conferred on the Rev. Samuel Smith, chaplain to the house.

Addresses were, on the motion of the same right hon. gen

tleman,