THE Speaker of the House of Commons had at the close of the last session of parliament addressed the Prince Regent in a very nervous and eloquent speech, in which the following passage applicable to the proceedings of the House of Commons upon the catholic question occurred. "Other momentous changes have been proposed. Adhering, however, to those laws which have made the throne, the parliament, and government of this country fundamentally protestant, we have not consented to allow that those who acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction should administer the powers and jurisdictions of this realm; willing, nevertheless, and willing as I trust we always shall be, to allow the largest scope to religious toleration."

Upon this passage Lord Morpeth moved, "that it is contrary to parliamentary usage, and to the spirit of parliamentary proceeding, for the Speaker, unless by special direction of the House, to inform his majesty, either at the bar of the House of Lords, or elsewhere, of any proposal made to the House by any of its mem

bers, either in the way of bill or motion, or to acquaint the throne with any proceedings relative to such proposal until they shall be consented to by the House." Such is the general proposition upon which Lord Morpeth and his friends founded their charge against the Speaker; but the specific motion made by them to the House was, "that a special entry be made in the journals, that it be not drawn into precedent for any Speaker, except by the special direction of the House, to inform his majesty, in the manner above-mentioned, of the propositions submitted to the Commons, until the same shall have been consented to by the House."

In support of the motion it was urged, that in considering this question we must have recourse to precedents; and the most authentic are necessarily those which are to be found in the journals of the House. The speeches of Sir Spencer Compton, Speaker Onslow, Sir John Cust, and Sir Fletcher Norton, have been preserved. The speech of Sir Spencer Compton in the year 1715, referring in terms of pointed at

tack and animadversion to the treaty of Utrecht, is strictly founded up on the proceedings and addresses of the House. The speech of Mr Ons. low in 1745, though taking an extensive range, and expressing strong opinions with regard to the situation of Europe, and the conduct of the war, arises out of measures that had met with the concurrence of the House. The speech of Sir John Cust is merely complimentary, and refers to the king's marriage. Sir Fletcher Norton's speech, although producing a considerable difference of opinion as to the true exposition of the sense of the House of Commons, applied solely and entirely to the bill that was then presented to the throne. In the journals of the House of Lords, more examples will be found in the speeches of Sir Edward Turner in the beginning of Charles the Second's reign. But in the mass, the variety, and luxuri. ancy of his oratory we cannot discover, although in times of considerable heat and contention, any reference to the conflicts and debates of that period.

If we apply to less authentic sources of information, we shall find a copious catalogue of the speeches of former Speakers. In the earlier periods of our parliamentary history we do not indeed discover many remains of the oratory of those days: We hear indeed that Sir John Tiptoft was in the habit of addressing Henry the 4th, and that, in the words of Mr Prynne, the young Speaker took much upon him; and though by this conduct he did not forfeit the good opinion of his sovereign, the licence was afterwards repressed. During the reigns of the princes of the house of Tudor the materials are more abundant, but upon that period on many accounts it is unnecessary to dwell: though it would be wrong to involve in a general censure the addresses of that time, for

in the list of the Speakers of that day is to be found the name of Sir Thomas More. But in the greater part whatever meanness could conceive, or flattery suggest, may be abundantly discovered. We find Henry the 8th compared in wisdom to Solomon, in beauty to Absalom, and in strength to Sampson, and then likened to that glorious luminary the sun. We find the same spirit exerted in complimenting Queen Elizabeth, though more excusable in that instance. "But amidst all the affectation, pedantry, and flattery that disgraced the compositions of that period, one principle," said Lord Morpeth, "remained inviolate, that of not communicating to the throne the debates of the House of Commons, a sanctuary which even their licentious feet did not venture to penetrate, a line of demarcation which these freebooters into the realms of science, of taste, and of wit, did not dare to transgress. There was however one Speaker in the reign of Queen Elizabeth who seems to have entertained no inaccurate idea of the language that the Speaker might employ. These are the words that Mr Onslow in the 9th of Queen Elizabeth is reported to have used: "Again, when I consider my office as Speaker, it is no great matter; being but a mouth to utter things appointed to me to speak unto you, and not otherwise, which consisteth only in speaking, and not in any other knowledge; whereby I gather how it is necessary I speak plainly and simply according to the truth reposed in me." And again, "Thus it is necessary they elect a plain speaker, fit for the plain matter, and, therefore, well provided to have such a one as should use plain words, and not either so fine that they cannot be understood, or else so elegant that they miss the cushion."-We find the same doctrine maintained by Mr Powel. "The Speaker is called the mouth

and tongue of the House which speaks the conception of the mind; not that he is to make those conceptions, but pronounce what he has in command from the House. Lenthall, the Speaker, told the king, that he had neither tongue, eyes, nor ears, but what the House gave him." Such was the language of Mr Powel in the debate upon the conduct of Sir Edward Seymour in 1677. He was not at that time in the chair, but was afterwards raised to the highest honour ever I believe conferred upon a commoner, that of being Speaker of the Convention Parliament in 1688; and the doctrines that he maintained as an individual member he did not probably belie in the exercise of his new authority.

"There are only two instances which appear to be any deviations from the general rule, but they are so slight as to be scarcely deserving of notice. Sir Harbottle Grimstone, soon after the Restoration, in an address to the throne, says, that the Commons agreed to a bill "after some debate," and that is the only instance in which the word de. bate is mentioned; and it is to be observed, that in the copy of his speech in the journals of the House of Lords that expression is not employed. The other case is that of Sir John Trevor in the 1st of James II., where he says that he brings no bill, but that the House relies upon the assurance of his majesty. The speeches of Mr Onslow in the course of the last century take an extensive view of the political situation of the country, but all his observations seem to arise out of acts done and determined by the House.-But precedents," continued Lord Morpeth, "no doubt may exist which have eluded my research; perhaps the ghost of some departed speech may be evoked from its charnel house of mouldering, dusty, and forgotten papers, to rear its ambiguous form within the walls of this house; but however awed by the

supernatural appearance, I shall appeal from the dead to the living, from those that have long slumbered in silence and obscurity, to those that have ventured to visit the face of day, and court the light of heaven, those that have not dreaded exposure, and shrunk from publication. It would, however, be very difficult to find a case precisely analogous to the present. The resolutions passed the House, the principle of the bill was established in the second reading, the application of the principle in an important point was negatived by a small majority in the committee: In this state of things, the bill still in existence at the very time that you, sir, addressed the throne, the principle carried, the application of it negatived, the throne is informed, by what purports to be the collective voice of the House of Commons, that changes of great importance have been proposed, that the House, however, has not consented to allow persons of a particular class to administer the powers and jurisdictions of this realm. But even if a precedent were found exactly in point, I should ask if this be a case upon which precedent alone must absolutely decide?-18 a privilege lost and forfeited by occasional infraction, especially in cases where the attention of the House has not been specifically directed to the object? In what a situation should we now stand, and what a miserable portion of our privileges would now remain, if such doctrines were valid and maintainable."

After making several objections to the terms employed by the Speaker, and pointing out the dangers which he thought might arise from such an abuse of privilege; by casting unmerited censure upon a disappointed body

by exciting popular clamour, or insinuating doctrines which might be agreeable to persons in power, Lord Morpeth continued: "It is therefore to

guard against dangers that menace ahke the freedom of debate, and the right of petitioning, that I should earnestly recommend an adherence to the principle of not communicating to the throne the debates of this House; a principle inherent in the very essence of a free constitution, of which we can trace the first rudiments in times of very remote antiquity, though nearly obliterated under the powerful rule of the princes of the Norman line, when military service and enterprize were the only titles to respect and consider ation. But when upon a disputed succession the Commons began to vindicate their share in the legislature of their country, we find that Henry the IVth thought it expedient to conciliate as well as govern his people. Of this a memorable instance is to be found in the rolls of parliament in the 2nd of that king, which is thus translated: "Because it might happen that some of the Commons, to please the king, or advance themselves, might relate some things before they were determined, discussed, or accorded to by the Commons, it might please the king to allow no such person to relate such matters, or give any credence to such a party." To which the king answers, "That the Commons should have deliberation to treat of all matters among themselves, in order to bring them to a good end and conclusion for the advantage and honour of his kingdom, and he would not hear such a person or give any credence to him, before such matters were communicated to the king by the advice and assent of all the Commons according to their petition." And in the 9th of the same king is the following entry in the rolls: "That in all future parliaments it should be lawful as well to the Lords by themselves, as to the Commons by themselves, to debate of all matters relating to the realm, and of the means to redress them, without disclosing the

same to the king before a determination made thereof, and that to be done only by the mouth of the Speaker." From these proceedings, and from the articles that were about the same time presented to the king by the Commons, we may infer that the free constitution of this country is not of the modern growth which some writers have supposed. We observe this principle suspended and almost lost during the stormy period of the wars of York and Lancaster, depressed and subdued under the arbitrary domination of the princes of the house of Tudor: Reviving, however, at the opening of the 17th century, opposing itself to the conceited pedantry and self-sufficient ideas of James the 1st, who seems to have mistaken the age in which he lived, and the people whom he supposed he was by some divine authority commissioned to govern. We see it enforced in that memorable protestation of the 19th of that king in language worthy of the patriots who presented it, and ennobled by the impotent resentment of the monarch who erased it with his own hand from the journals, but which survives, a monument of their glory, and of his shame. We see its generous influence pervading the earlier labours of the Long Parliament, till that unfortunate conflict arose which, though it humbled the pride of kings, disgra ced the cause of freedom, and closed the eventful scene in tyranny, in outrage, and in blood. We see it again in array against the corrupt, profligate, and mercenary administration of Charles the 2d, and we hail its final confirmation and establishment in the great work of the Revolution. But I may be told that the entries in the time of Henry the 4th, and the protestation in that of James I., refer only to communications made to the throne by individual members, and not by the Speaker. I would, however, beg leave to ask those who make that disting

tion, what would have been the opinion of the parliaments of that day if the communication had been made in their names but without their authority, without, as it is expressed in the answer of Henry the 4th, the advice and assent of all the Commons of England. It is therefore to preserve this principle, not merely valuable from its antiquity, but as infusing life, spirit, vigour, and animation into the whole system of parliamentary proceeding, that I now venture to call upon the House-it is not with the comparatively contracted view of making a personal attack upon an individual, however conspicuous may be his station; it has, I trust, a nobler aim, and is directed to greater objects. It is cal. culated, I hope, to preserve the source, whence the principles of a free constitution are derived, pure and untainted; to induce you to watch over (to use the words of Mr Burke) the sacred fire of an eternal constitutional jealousy, the guardian of law, of liberty, and justice."

The Speaker then addressed the House, and defended his conduct with his usual energy and talent. "After the motion of the noble lord, prefaced with whatever forms of personal civility, but implying, necessarily implying, a grave and serious charge of misconduct in the speech delivered by me at the bar of the House of Lords at the close of the last session, the House will naturally expect that I should be desirous of now offering myself to their

attention.

"I should be very sorry indeed to be thought insensible to the peculiar course of proceeding adopted by the noble lord, injurious, as I think, to the character and dignity of the House; but nevertheless I shall abstain from all further comment on that head. I shall abstain also from discussing, in any degree whatever, the merits of the great political question to which

the charges relate, a question which I am not this day called upon to argue.

"Denounced, however, long since to this House, as "the unauthorized and unauthentic expositor of its opinions," whose conduct was "objectionable on solid and constitutional grounds," and whose speech in the name of the House deserved" reprehension," I confess I did expect from the justice and plain-dealing of the noble lord, that he would this day have brought forward some charge in express and direct terms, and have demanded a distinct vote of censure. But although his motion seeks only to establish some prospective regulation, which in this place it is not for me to debate; and although it proceeds up→ on principles and facts, which (however they may appear to me to be quite irrelevant to the existing case) I am not at liberty to discuss; nevertheless, as it is founded wholly upon an assumption of misconduct on my part, which it desires may not be drawn into precedent hereafter, I presume the House will allow me to lay fully before them those considerations upon which I trust it will appear that such an accusation is entirely groundless.

"Upon this subject, I conceive that there are substantially two distinct questions to which I am called upon to answer in my own vindication; first, Whether, according to the usage of parliament, the proceedings in this House upon the Roman Catholic claims were fit matter to be mentioned or adverted to, in such a speech, at such a time? secondly, If fit to be mentioned at all, were they mentioned in a proper manner?

"Upon the first question, Whether the proceedings in this House upon the Roman Catholic claims were fit to be mentioned in such a speech, at such a time? I very humbly submit to the House, that according to the usage