c HISTORY OF EUROPE.’ 
‘which had drawn down a load. of. 
such unfounded calumny on lord Sr. 
Vincent, were ably, and fulty ex- 
posed by his friends “* No one 
covld doubt,”? said Vir. Fox, ‘* that 
it was the merits of lord St Vincent, 
and his zeal and success in the de- 
tection of abuses, which was the 
real cause that had stirred up against 
him so many enemies. The present 
atiack never would have becn made 
but for the inquiries into abuses, in- 
Stituted by the noble earl. His me- 
nitorious exertions to put an end to 
the most scandalous jobs that ever 
disgraced a state, had provoked this 
hostility.” Such was the impression 
made onthe house by the arguments 
urged’ in defence of the neble lord 
by his, friends, that net a single 
member took part with Mr. Jetlery 
in his accusation. The question of 
referring the charges to a committee 
of the house was negatived. Mr. 
Fox then moved, ‘+ that it appears 
to this house, that the conduct of 
the carl of St. Vincent, in his late 
nayal administration, has added an 
additional lustre to his exalted cha. 
racter, and is entitled to the ajpro. 
bation of this house.*» Objections 
were made to this motion fur a vote 
of thanks, on the ground that due 
notice had pot been given of ihe in 
tention to move it. ‘The previous 
question was moved and negatived, 
after which the vole of thanks was 
cacried without a division. 
he cause of judge Fox, which 
had been protracted for more than 
two years before the house of lords, 
Was brought to an abrupt termina- 
tion towards the close of the present 
Session. ‘he proceedings in this 
case had originated in petitions from 
Ireland, complaining of the conduct 
of that judge at the assizes of Lif. 
ford, in 1803, After long debates, 
O89 
the house resolved to take the com. 
plaint into consideration, and to go 
infoa committee ol the whole house, 
in order to receive evideuce upon the 
subject. Witnesses had accordingly 
been examined during the last ses- 
sion, and they were in attendance 
during the greater part of the pre 
seut. ‘The business, however, was 
postponed from time to time, and 
at length (on the 19th of June) lord 
Grenville moved to adjourn it toa 
day, when the house, in all proba- 
bility, would not meet. ‘The de- 
clared object of this motion was, to 
put an end to the proceedings in 
their present form, leaving to those 
who were aggrieved, to seek redress 
in some more unexceptionable mode. 
The objection of the noble lord to 
the course already taken in this af 
fair, was founded on this undeniable 
principle of the law of parliament, 
that no criminal complain: can “be 
preferred and proceeded upon im 
the house of lords; the criminal ju- 
risdiction of that house, when not 
compelled to act for the maintenance 
of its own privileges and authority, 
being contined to cases of impeach= 
ment by the commons, and to ap- 
peals from the courts below. . This 
doctrine the noble lord confirmed 
by the case of judge Holt which he 
considered to be decisive of the ques. 
tion before the house ; and he illus- 
trated, at great length, the dan- 
gerous consequences to which a cons 
trary practice, such as that attempted 
in the present instance, might ilead, 
Lord Grenville’s motion was op- 
posed by lord Eldon, lord Hawkes- 
bury and the marquis of Abercorn, 
and supported by-thes lord chancel. 
lor and lord Auckland. Ona divi- 
sion the numbers were, conteuts 253 
nen-contents LG; majority for the 
motion 9, 
Aig Towards 
