committee should search for precedents of ments adduced by the noble lord, expressing any such charges being made against any his decided opinion, that, having gone so of his majesty's judges, previous to the far, it was a duty they owed to the public, Act of W. III. Also to enquire into pro- and to the learned judge against whom ceedings adopted on the ground of petitions, charges were made, to bring the investialledging charges of high crime and misde- gation to a conclusion with as little delay meanour; and also whether charges pre- as possible; he therefore upon this ground ferred against any person proceeding from objected to the noble lord's motives, as individual assertion, can be, under the oper- tending to create unnecessary delay. He ation of the statute of H. IV. regularly or could not see what possible benefit could legally entertained or acted upon in that arise from a search after precedents of prohouse? In considering the general subject, ceedings previous to the act of W. III. as their lordships would have to consider what they could not apply to the case which was change has really been made in the situa- under the consideration of the house. As tion of the judges, by the acts applying to any precedents since, there were none, to them; and, with respect to the particular for to the honour of the judges, not a case before them, whether, with reference single instance had occurred since the passto the acts he alluded to, such a charge ing of that act, where it was necessary to could, regularly and properly, be made in recur to an address of both houses of parthat house? In arguing against the correct-liament to remove a judge. He would ask ness and propriety of the proceedings which had hitherto taken place, his lordship made frequent references to the provisions of the Act of H. IV. and adverted to several cases which had obtained, of charges being made, and of the line of proceeding adopted upon them, which, he contended, bore him out in saying, that such proceedings could not, properly, originate in that house. Refer ring to the acts respecting the judges, he contended generally, that to act upon principles contrary to what he had laid down, would be to place the judges in a different situation from that of any of their fellow subjects; the benefit of a full and free administration of justice; benefits which the application of the provision quam diu se bene gesserint did not exclude them, His lordship argued with great ability against the propriety and correctness of the proceedings hitherto adopted, in the particular instance before them; and, that cases of the kind could not regularly originate in that house. He referred to some prominent considerations in the particular case, some of the charges being of a very weighty and serious nature, and which were made on information given by a third person. Besides the great considerations of public and private justice in the case before them, his object in coming forward was to afford the house a regular ground, and the necessary information, previous to their deciding upon a case, in every point of view, of such great importance. He concluded by moving his first proposition, viz. " for the appointment of a committee for the purposes above stated."

The Lord Chancellor replied to the argu

how they could have proceeded otherwise than they had in the case of the learned judge alluded to? It was his opinion, that supposing the charges to be true (with respect, however, to their truth or falsehood, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he gave no opinion whatever) a scieri facias would not have touched them, or affected the patent of the judge, as what he was charged with having done was not done in the execution of his office, as a judge of the court of Common Pleas, but on a special commission on the circuit. Suppose an impeachment had taken place, could the judgment have been, in case the charges had been proved, a judgment of removal from office? he doubted it, and if not, an address from that house, in conjunction with the house of commons, must have been resorted to, which must have been moved by some individual peer. Supposing an address of that nature to originate in the house of commons, still on its being brought to their lordship's bar, they would not take it as a proof, but would proceed upon the motion of some individual peer to investigate the subject themselves. Upon the whole, his lordship strongly objected to the motions, which he considered, as tending to create an unnecessary delay.

Lord Grenville could not bring his mind to concur with the noble and learned lord, that further investigation upon this subject was unnecessary. He had expressed his opinion at an early stage of the business, and, whatever might be the law of parlia ment, every consideration, both of wisdom and justice, called upon the house to deliberate upon the question. His lordship in

parliament claimed as their peculiar priv lege. In the course of that impeachmer which was still in their recollection, the in peachment of Mr. Hastings, it would be re collected, that many such difficulties di arise. He certainly felt that a measure such importance as addressing his majest to remove a judge, ought not to be adopte without grave and weighty reasons, but i their lordships should be convinced by co gent reasons that a judge was unfit to hol his office, he could see no reason why the houses of parliament should forbear from presenting those addresses for his remova which the act of settlement expressly stated as sufficient ground to remove a judge from his office.

sisted on the necessity of searching for precedents, and adverted to the case of the earl of Bristol, and several others, which he had looked into, and from which his lordship's min had, he said, derived great assistance. The course which the house was then pursuing, he considered a direct violation of the law, and of the fundamental principles of the constitution; the proceedings, so far as they had gone, were entered upon the journals of the house, and was it to be said that a veil was now to be drawn over those proceedings, and what had been entered upon record, Landed down as precedents to posterity, for their example? It was impossible therefore to put oir this question, without some farther investigation; there were ample precedents in the house to authorise it to go into such investigation, and the arguments used against it, by noble lords on the other side, were not founded either upon law, upon justice, or upon principle, but were merely a detail of minute distinctions wholly unworthy consideration; he, therefore, trusted their lordships would be allow-grounds, indeed, for such a proceeding; for ed to receive that assistance from precedents, and that a committee for that purpose might be appointed.

Lord Hawkesbury observed, that the of fice of a judge had been by the Act of W. III. rendered as freehold, with a condition annexed to it, namely, that the judge should be removable upon the address of both houses of parliament. He considered the mode of proceeding adopted with respect to the learned judge alluded to, to have been perfectly regular, except in the instance of laying the articles of complaint upon the table. He admitted that no judicial proceedings could originate in that house upon the complaint of a peer against any individual, except upon matters of privilege; but he contended, that the case of the learned judge was totally distinct, and did not come within the meaning of such judicial proceedings. He thought a search for precedents, as moved by the noble lord would be wholly unnecessary, and could lead to no useful purpose; it was well known that no precedent existed since the passing the act of settlement, which bore upon the present question. Neither could he by any means agree that the remedy by impeachment was so simple and free from difficulties and obstacles as the noble lord had represented. Whoever would take the pains of studying the history of impeachments in this country, would see that a great many difficulties did always arise respecting what each house of

Earl Spencer contended that a committed ought to be appointed, and that the consti tutional mode of enquiring into the miscon duct of a judge was by impeaching him. If the accusations brought against the learned judge, who was now the defendant, could be substantiated, there were very strong

that learned judge had been charged with no less a crime than having used seditious language from the bench. This was certainly a charge of sufficient importance to ground an impeachment on, if it could be proved. He wished the house, in the present case, to conform itself to its established usages and precedents.

Lord Mulgrave could not see that there could be any necessity for appointing a committee to consult precedents, when it was well known that no precedent which could be found would come near the present case. When the judges were made independent of the crown, it was clearly stated, that they were only removable by address from both houses of parliament, or by impeachment. The precedents therefore of cases which happened before the passing this law, could have no application to the present case, and he could not conceive any other ground that could be required for those addresses, except the clear conviction of both houses of parliament on due and weighty consideration, that it was proper to present those addresses. If the house should, therefore, now think it impossible for them to proceed without finding out precedents, the same reason would always apply against addressing for the removal of any judge.

Lord Carleton allowed that it was compe tent to either house of parliament to originate the question; and that since the pass. ing of the act of W. III. it was as constitu

tional for parliament fo proceed by the way of address as by that of impeachment, which, of course, could not originate in that house, but must come from the commons..

from their offices, and rendered incapable of ever more voting in parliament. His lordship thought, therefore, that the house should consult all such precedents. as could give the least insight into the case, and as such, would vote for the motion.

Lord Auckland rose to reply. The noble lord observed in forcible terms, on the cruelty of bringing the learned judge, whose case was under consideration, with his witnesses, from above 400 miles distance, to answer such serious charges as were alledged against him, before the house had fully deliberated and decided upon the proper mode of proceeding to investigate those charges. That mode was not, he maintained, as yet discovered; and he very much apprehended that should the house proceed farther in the course recommended by the opponents of his motion, their lordships would find themselves in the aukward and degrading dilem ma of being obliged to retrace their steps.

The Lord Chancellor in explanation statted, that he did not mean to insinuate that the object of this motion was to create de lay, or to impede the progress of the investigation to which it referred; but he would beg noble lords to be assured, that whatever impediments might be thrown in the way, this business should not end until complete justice was done between the country and the individual concerned.

Lord Ellenborough said, that highly as he respected the opinion of his noble and learned friend, he could not help differing from him on the present question. He thought that in an entire new case, as this confessedly was, and when the house was called on to decide on an act of parliament that had never yet been acted upon or brought into consideration-an act of parliament of such immense importance to every subject of the empire, because it went to no less a point than the removal of the judges from their places, he thought it was necessary their lordships should have the advantage of the opinion of the 12 judges. He thought also, that, in a case like this, their lordships could not proceed with too much caution; and, therefore, that they ought to have the advantage of all the precedents which our ancestors had made the rule and guide of their conduct, antecedent to the time of the act of settlement. He well remembered the time when he was obliged in duty, in the line of his profession, to object to the proceedings of that house, when they went from thence to the place below, day by day, for 7 long years; yet he was more pleased to see even such a proceeding, according to the established rules and customs of the coun- Lord Auckland observed, that if the noble try, than he would be to have witnessed an lord who had just sat down meant to say that attempt to enter upon any measures, which the object of his motion was merely to creshould seem like an innovation on the esta-ate delay, such language was not parliamen blished laws and customs of the land. It tary, and if the noble lord did not mean to had been said, their lordships could not be say so, his observation was altogether unnecertain that the commons house of parlia-cessary. In vindication of his motives for ment would exercise their privilege of im- the proposition he submitted to the house, peachment; and, therefore, that house ought he should only mention that he had no kind to proceed by way of address. He could of acquaintance whatever with the learned not, however, suffer himself to think, that person who was the object of this investigaany subject whatever of such importance as tion, and that he was actuated solely by a the present, could be agitated in that house, sense of duty, and a desire to do justice.so as that it should be apparent it deserved The question being put, a division was called impeachment, but that the commons would for, and the numbers were, contents 17, immediately take it up and prosecute it ac- non contents 29; majority 12.-On the recordingly. It had been said, that proceed-admission of strangers, lord A. gave notice ing by way of address was not a criminal of a motion upon the same subject for Moncharge; but he thought otherwise. Was day next, for which day the lords were or◄ not the removal of a man from so high and dered to be summoned.-Adjourned. distinguished an office as that of judge, a criminal charge? Was not divesting him of honour, rank, and high official station, the strongest mark of a criminal charge? In proof of this, his lordship referred to the cases of Lionel, earl of Middlesex, and lord Bacon, who were, on addresses, removed

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, March 19. [MINUTES.]-On the motion of sir W. Young, the account presented to the house of ships and their tonnage, cleared out from Ireland to the West Indies, was ordered to

his intention of deferring his motion respecting the reduction of the militia till Thursday next.

be printed.-Sir J. Anderson presented a petition from several printers in the metropolis, stating, that the journeymen had refused to work without an increase of wages; [MR. FORDYCE'S DEBT.]-Mr. Creevey that their demands were exorbitant, and a rose, and spoke as follows: Sir, in pursucompliance with them would be destructive ance of the notice I gave some time since, I of the trade; and therefore praying, as the shall now submit a motion to this house reonly means of counteracting the evil, that specting Mr. Fordyce; a gentleman who, by they might be allowed to take a greater various documents of parliament, appears number of apprentices, and for shorter pe- indebted to the public in a very large sum riods, than they were at present allowed by of money, and of a very long standing; and law. Ordered to lie on the table.-The who likewise appears by a commission lateSugar Drawbacks bill was read a 3d time.-ly issued by the crown, and a copy of which The report of the Exchequer Bills bill was now lies upon your table, to be one of five agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a commissioners appointed for the purpose of 3d time. The report of the Irish Spirits carrying into execution most important reWarehousing bill was agreed to.-A copy forms in the department of the navy, which of the commission, appointing John duke of have been suggested by the parliamentary Athol governor of the Isle of Man, was pre-commissioners appointed by this house to sented. Lord J. Thynne's Indemnity bill examine into those subjects. The first obwas read a second time, committed, and ordered to be engrossed.-The Irish Sugar Drawbacks bill went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. Mr. Fox stated, that he should, on Monday next, present a petition to the house from the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It was not, he said, necessary for him to give this notice, but he thought it respectful to the house to suggest his intention.

[IRISH EXCISE DUTIES BILL.-Upon the order of the day being moved for the

house to resolve itself into a committee on the Irish Excise Duties bill,

ject I have in view is an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Fordyce's debt; into the engagement he has entered into for the discharge of it; into the security the public have for its final payment; and into the causes that have hitherto delayed its liquidation; and, with reference to these points, I will shortly state to the house the history of Mr. Fordyce's debt to the public, as I collect it from the different documents of parliament. The house knows, that by an act of parliament passed in the year 1780, certain commissioners were appointed for the purpose of examining the public accounts of Sir John Newport said, he hoped the right poses of reform. In the first report of those the kingdom, and for other salutary purhon. gent. who had given notice of his in- commissioners, and which was likewise made tention to bring forward a plan for the re-in 1780, I perceive that Mr. Fordyce was duction of the militia, would allow the Irish found to be indebted to the public, at that Tax bills to be postponed. It was of im-time, in the sum of 64,000l. and upwards, portance they should undergo some discus- as receiver general of the land-tax of Scotsion; hitherto they had undergone none. land. An examination of that gentleman They had been brought in on Saturday, not upon oath, taken before the commissioners, usually a day of business, and read a second as to the means of liquidating that debt, aptime on Monday, on a national festival. However the national Saint might protect Mr. Fordyce there refers to the most posipears in the appendix to that report; and the country from venomous animals, it was tive and precise stipulations, as having been plain he had no power of protecting against entered into by him with the lords of the tax bills. Acts of parliament might as well treasury, for the accomplishing that object. be passed by acclamation, as with a degree of He states, that he had agreed to pay off precipitation which precluded discussion. 30,000l. before the then next Lady-day; He had expressed his intention of opposing 10,000l. before the 10th of the next month one or two of the tax bills, but had hitherto after; and that as to the remaining 24,000l. had no opportunity. owing to particular circumstances, Mr. Fordyce states, he had obtained the indulgence from the lords of the treasury to pay that sum by instalments of 5000l. per annum. This, sir, was in the year 1780. The next mention I find of Mr. Fordyce is in the 8th

The Speaker observed, that on a day for which any hon. member had given notice of a motion, it was usual to waive the other orders.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed