COBBETT'S
Parliamentary Debates,
DURING THE
THIRD SESSION OF THE SECOND PARLIAMENT
OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT-BRITAIN AND IRELAND,
AND OF THE
KINGDOM OF GREAT-BRITAIN THE NINETEENTH,
Appointed to meet at Westminster, the Fourth Day of September, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Four; and from thence continued, by Prorogation, to the Fifteenth Day of January, in the Forty-Fifth Year of the Reign of King GEORGE the THIRD, Annoque Domini One Thousand Eight Hundred and Five.
VOL. IV.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE 13th OF MARCH AND THE 14th OF MAY 1805.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY J. BRETTELL, MARSHALL STREET, GOLDEN SQUARE;
AND COX, SON, AND BAYLIS, GREAT QUEEN STREET;
PUBLISHED BY R. BAGSHAW, BOW STREET, COVENT GARDEN; AND SOLD ALSO BY
J. BUDD, PALL MALL; R. FAULDER, NEW BOND STREET; H. D. SYMONDS,
PATERNOSTER ROW; BLACKS AND PARRY, LEADENHALL STREET;
AND J. ARCHER, DUBLIN.
1805.
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE present Volume comprises the period between the 13th of March and the 14th of May, 1805. Every Debate will be found given with great accuracy; but particularly those relating to Lord Melville, and to the Question respecting the Roman Catholics. The Appendix contains the Eleventh Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, making, together with the Appendix of the preceding Volume, the collection of those Reports complete, as far as they have hitherto been laid before the House of Commons. The Fifth Volume, which will close the Debates of the Session, will contain the Financial Accounts, and other Documents connected with the most important of the Proceedings in Parliament during the Session.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. IV.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
1805 March 14. Mutiny bill—The marquis of Buckingham, lord Walsingham, the earl of Camden, the duke of Clarence
17
State of the navy—Earl Darnley, lord Melville
18
1805 March 15. Conduct of judge Fox—Lord Auckland, lord Grenville, lord Auckland
25
Mutiny bill—The marquis of Buckingham, earl Camden, the duke of Cumberland, lord Hawkesbury, the duke of Clarence, lord Mulgrave
26
Roman catholics of Ireland—Lord Grenville
40
Conduct of judge Fox—Lord Auckland, the lord chancellor, lord Grenville, lord Hawkesbury, earl Spencer, lord Mulgrave, lord Carleton, lord Ellenborough, lord Auckland, the lord chancellor, lord Auckland
40
1805 March 25. Roman catholic petition—Lord Grenville, lord Auckland, lord Grenville, lord Hawesbury, lord Grenville, the duke of Norfolk, the lord chancellor
97
Conduct of judge Fox—Lord Auckland, the lord chancellor, lord Grenville, lord Hawkesbury, lord Ellenborough
105
1805 March 29. Universities' advowson bill—The duke of Norfolk, the bishop of Oxford, lord Sidmouth, the lord chancellor, lord Auckland, the bishop of Oxford, lord Sidmouth, the duke of Norfolk, lord Redesdale
142
State of the navy—Earl Darnley, lord Walsingham, earl Darnley, lord Melville, earl Darnley, lord Melville, the duke of Clarence, earl Darnley
145
1805 April 1. Roman catholic petition—The bishop of Durham, lord Grenville, the bishop of Durham
161
Conduct of judge Fox—Lord Auckland
161
Standing order—Lord Grenville, the lord chancellor, his royal highness the Prince of Wales, lord Grenville, the lord chancellor, lord Grenville, lord Hawkesbury, lord Auckland, lord Carysfort, the earl of Suffolk, lord Ellenborough, earl Darnley
161
1805 April 2. Standing order—Lord Mulgrave, earl Spencer, lord Mulgrave, the lord chancellor, earl Spencer, the lord chancellor, lord Mulgrave
178
1805 April 4. Universities' advowson bill—Lord Hawkesbury, the bishop of Oxford, lord Grenville, the earl of Suffolk, the duke of Norfolk, the bishop of Oxford
191
Militia enlisting bill—Lord Hawkesbury, the marquis of Buckingham, the earl of Derby, the earl of Buckinghamshire, lord Boringdon, lord Cawdor, the earl of Westmoreland, the earl of
Carnarvon, the duke of Montrose, the earl of Suffolk, earl Camden, the earl of Romney, the earl of Carlisle
192
1805 April 8. Militia enlisting bill—Earl Spencer, lord Hawkesbury, earl Spencer
254
1805 April 25. Price of bread—The earl of Suffolk, lord Walsingham, the lord chancellor
373
1805 April 26. West India accounts—The earl of Suffolk, lord Hawkesbury, the earl of Suffolk, lord Hawkesbury
428
1805 April 29. Universities' advowson bill—Lord Sidmouth, the bishop of Oxford, the archbishop of Canterbury, lord Auckland, the bishop of Oxford, lord Auckland, lord Grenville, lord Sidmouth, lord Auckland, the bishop of London, the bishop of St. Asaph, the lord chancellor, lord Ellenborough, the bishop of Oxford, the duke of Norfolk
449
1805 May 1. Universities' advowson bill—The duke of Norfolk, lord Grenville, the lord chancellor, the bishop of Oxford, the duke of Norfolk, lord Hawkesbury, the bishop of Oxford, lord Sidmouth, the lord chancellor, lord Hawkesbury, lord Grenville, lord Sidmouth
537
1805 May 3. Lord Melville—Lord Hawkesbury, earl Darnley, lord Hawkesbury, the duke of Norfolk, lord Hawkesbury, the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, earl Darnley, the duke of Montrose, earl Darnley, lord Hawkesbury
587
1805 May 7. Abrogation of a standing order—Lord Mulgrave, the earl of Carnarvon, the lord chancellor, lord Grenville, lord Harrowby, the earl of Radnor, lord Hawkesbury, earl Spencer, the lord chancellor
613
1805 May 8. Universities' advowson bill—The earl of Suffolk, the lord chancellor, lord Sidmouth, the bishop of Oxford, the lord chancellor
633
1805 May 10. Roman catholic petition—Lord Grenville, lord Hawkesbury, lord Grenville, lord Hawkesbury, the duke of Cumberland, earl Spencer, lord Sidmouth, lord Mulgrave, lord Holland, earl Camden, the bishop of Durham, lord Redesdale, the duke of Norfolk, lord Hawkesbury, the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Limerick, lord Carysfort, the marquis of Buckingham, lord Grenville, earl Darnley, lord Hawkesbury, the earl of Derby
651
1805 May 13. Roman catholic petition, (resumed debate)—The earl of Suffolk, the earl of Oxford, the earl of Buckinghamshire, lord Carleton, lord Hutchinson, lord Redesdale, the earl of Ormond, lord Boringdon, the archbishop of Canterbury, the earl of Albermarle, the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, lord Harrowby, the earl of Westmoreland, the bishop of St. Asaph, lord Ellenborough, the earl of Moira, earl Darnley, lord Auckland, lord King, lord Bolton, the earl of Longford, lord Grenville, lord Sidmouth
742
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1805 March 13. Middlesex election—Mr. H. Thornton
1
Irish budget—Mr. Foster, Mr. James Fitzgerald, Mr. Foster, sir J. Newport, Mr. Corry, Mr. Foster, Mr. Corry, Mr. Foster, lord A. Hamilton, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Foster, Mr. D. B. Daly
6
1805 March 14. Irish county elections—Col. Bagwell
24
Knaresborough election—Lord W. Russell, Mr. Rose, the master of the rolls
25
1805 March 15. War in India—Mr. Francis, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Francis, lord Castlereagh
29
Salt duty bill—Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer
30
Report of the Irish budget—Mr. J. Fitzgerald, Mr. Dawson, sir J. Newport, Mr. Hawthorne, Mr. Foster, Mr. May, Mr. J. Latouche, Mr. Kerr, sir C. Price, sir G. Hill, sir J. Newport, Mr. Fox, Mr. Foster, Mr. Corry, Mr. Hawthorne, Mr. Princip
31
Legacy duty bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer
37
1805 March 19. Irish excise duties' bill—Sir J. Newport, the speaker, the chancellor of the exchequer
47
Mr. Fordyce's debt—Mr. Creevey, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, the secretary at war, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Creevey
48
Irish revenue bills—Mr. Foster, sir J. Newport, lord De Blaquiere
60
1805 March 20. Prize agency bill—Sir W. Scott
61
1805 March 21. Irish lunatics' bill—Sir J. Newport, colonel Bagwell
66
Irish loan and exchange—Lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Foster, lord H. Petty, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Lee, Mr. Alexander, Mr. J. Latouche, Mr. Foster, Mr. Grey, sir W. Pulteney, Mr. H. Thornton
67
Militia enlisting bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, earl Temple, the chancellor of the exchequer, earl Temple, the chancellor of the exchequer, the speaker, earl Temple, lord Stanley, the marquis of Douglas, Mr. Calcraft, sir J. Putteney, Mr. Bastard, Mr. Fuller, the chancellor of the exchequer, earl Temple
72
1805 March 22. Supplementary budget—The chancellor of the exchequer
87
Legacy duty bill—Sir H. Mildmay, the speaker, lord G. Cavendish, Mr. Spencer Stanhope, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, Dr. Laurence, sir H. Mildmay
90
1805 March 25. Report of the supplementary budget—Lord H. Petty, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Bastard
109
Roman catholic petition—Mr. Fox, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Fox, Dr. Duigenan, Mr. Fox
109
1805 March 26. Militia enlisting bill—Mr. Hughes, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Bastard, earl Temple, the marquis of Douglas, lord Stanley, lord Euston, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Windham
112
1805 March 27. Irish small notes' bill—Mr. Foster, Mr. R. Martin, Mr. Foster, Mr. Magens, Mr. Foster
129
Irish post roads' bill—Mr. Foster, colonel Bagwell, Mr. Foster
130
1805 March 28. Bengal judicature bill—Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Francis,
132
Militia enlisting bill—General Fitzpatrick, Mr. Ellison, earl Temple, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Frankland, general Tarleton, sir W. Elford, Mr. Giles, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Yorke, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Yorke, the chancellor of the exchequer, general Fitzpatrick, Mr. Fox, general Fitzpatrick, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, general Fitzpatrick, earl Temple, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Ellison, the chancellor of the exchequer, sir W. W. Wynne, Mr. Bankes
134
1805 March 29. Irish militia enlisting bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, sir J. Newport, lord De Blaquiere, sir J. Newport, the speaker, lord De Blaquiere, general Tarleton, Mr. Bastard, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Calcraft, sir G. Hill
158
English militia enlisting bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr.
Bankes, sir R. Buxton, the chancellor of the exchequer
161
1805 April 1. Lord Melville—The chancellor of the exchequer—Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Francis, the chancellor of the exchequer
165
Cornelius Grogan's attainder—Mr. R. Martin, lord Castlereagh, Mr. R. Martin, Mr. Fox, lord Castlereagh, sir J. Newport, general Loftus, Mr. Francis, lord Castlereagh
167
Militia enlisting bill—The marquis of Douglas, sir W. Young, the chancellor of the exchequer, the marquis of Douglas, Mr. Sheridan, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the secretary at war, Mr. Fox, the secretary at war, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Windham, Mr. Canning, Mr. Giles, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Windham, the speaker, the chancellor of the exchequer, the speaker, the chancellor of the exchequer
171
1805 April 2. Irish militia enlisting bill—Sir J. Newport, the chancellor of the exchequer, sir J. Newport, colonel Bagwell
181
1805 April 3. Conduct of sir Home Popham—Mr. Dickenson, jun. Mr. Grey, Mr. Dickenson, jun.
188
Irish union commissioners—Sir J. Newport, Dr. Duigenan, sir J. Newport, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Kinnaird
184
Lord Melville's letter to the commissioners of naval enquiry—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Francis, the speaker, Mr. alderman Combe, the chancellor of the exchequer
186
1805 April 4. Irish lunatics' asylum bill—Sir J. Newport, Mr. May, lord Dunlo, colonel Bagwell, Mr. Alexander, sir J. Newport, sir G. Hill, Mr. Lee, Mr. Fitzgerald, sir J. Newport
206
1805 April 5. West Indies—Mr. Barham, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. St. John
222
Property duties' bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer
223
Smuggling prevention bill—The chancellor of the exchequer
224
State of affairs in India—Mr. Francis, lord Castlereagh, earl Temple, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Grant, Mr. Huddlestone, sir T. Metcalfe, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Princip, Mr. R. Thornton, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Francis
225
1805 April 8. Proceedings respecting lord Melville and Mr. Trotter—Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, lord H. Petty, the attorney-general, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Canning, Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. Canning, the master of the rolls, Mr. Fox, lord Castlereagh, lord Andover, Mr. Wilberforce, sir C. Price, Mr. Wallace, lord A. Hamilton, sir W. Pulteney, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Windham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Bastard, Mr. T. Grenville, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer
255
1805 April 10. Proceedings respecting lord Melville and Mr. Trotter—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Canning, Mr. Grey, Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. Canning, Mr. S. Thornton, Mr. Barham, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Windham, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Fuller, Mr. D. Scott, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. W. Dundas, Mr. Fox, Mr. kinnaird, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the Exchequer
327
1805 April 11. Paymaster of the forces' bill—Mr. Rose
372
1805 April 25. Middlesex election—Mr. Calcraft, the speaker, Mr. Calcraft, the secretary at War, sir J. Newport, Mr. Calcraft
379
Irish Small notes' regulation bill—Mr. Lee
380
Proceedings relating to the printer of the "Oracle" for a libel on the house—Mr. Grey, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, Mr. Fox, Mr. Canning, Mr. Fox, the attorney-general, Mr. Rose, Mr. Fox, sir C. Pole, Mr. Canning, Mr. Plumer, Mr. Canning, sir C. Pole, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Canning, the solicitor-general, Mr. Fox, the solicitor-general, sir C. Pole, Mr. Serjeant Best, Mr. R. Ward, Mr. Fox, Mr. R. Ward, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. P. Moore
381
Proceedings respecting the Select committee on the 10th naval report—Mr. Whitbread, the speaker, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Canning, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, the master of the rolls, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. G. Ponsonby, lord H. Petty, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, Mr. T. Grenville, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Windham, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Bankes, Mr. serjeant Best, sir J. C. Hippisley, Mr. Tierney, the attorney-general, Mr. Tierney, the attorney-general, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sheridan, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Fox, Mr. Canning, the solicitor-general, Mr. Fonblanque, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer
398
1805 April 26. Ballot for a select committee on the 10th naval report—Mr. S. Bourne, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, the speaker, Mr. Whitbread
430
Proceedings respecting the printer of the "Oracle" for a libel on the house—Mr. A. Wright, Mr. Grey, Mr. A. Wright, Mr. Windham, Mr. Sheridan, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Canning, the attorney-general, Mr. Fox, Mr. W. Smith, Dr. Laurence, the speaker, Mr. Grey, the attorney-general, Mr. Fox, Mr. A. Wright, Mr. Grey, the chancellor of the exchequer
430
Papers relating to the sale of corn and flour by Mr. Claude Scott—Mr. serjeant Best, Mr. C. Scott, Mr. Rose, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. serjeant Best, Mr. Rose
444
Irish loan—Mr. Foster, sir John Newport
446
1805 April 29. Papers relating to the 11th naval report—Sir A. Hamond, Mr. Grey, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Tierney, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Grey, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Grey, Mr. Tierney, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. W. Dickenson, jun. Mr. G. Ponsonby, the attorney-general, Mr. Grey, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Canning, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Grey, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Grey, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Grey, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Vansittart, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Grey, the chancellor of the exchequer, sir C. Pole, Mr. Hobhouse, admiral Markham, lord Dunlo, sir C. Pole, the attorney-general, Mr. R. Ward, general Gascoyne
457
Naval commissioners' renewal bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the attorney-general, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Rose, Mr. Bankes
484
Military commissioners' bill—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr.
Fox, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey
492
Proceedings respecting lord Melville and Mr. Trotter—Mr. S. Stanhope, sir R. Buxton, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Windham, the master of the rolls, Dr. Lawrence, sir J. Newport, Mr. Pytches, Mr. Fox, Mr. S. Stanhope, Mr. T. Grenville, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Wilberforce, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the attorney-general, Mr. Tierney, Mr. serjeant Best, Mr. Whitbread
497
1805 April 30. Middlesex election—Mr. H. Thornton, Mr. Creevey, Mr. H. Thornton, the speaker, Mr. Creevey, Mr. P. Moore, Mr. H. Thornton
508
Pancras poor bill—Sir T. Metcalfe, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. P. Moore
510
Stipendiary curates' bill—The attorney-general, sir J. Newport, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. P. Moore, Mr. Creevey, the attorney-general, Dr. Duigenan
510
Ballot for a select committee on the 10th naval report—Mr. Whitbread, the master of the rolls, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wortley Stuart, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. H. Lascelles, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. H. Lascelles, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Canning, Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Windham, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Grey, the attorney-general, Mr. Windham, Mr. R. Martin, the speaker, Mr. Windham
511
1805 May 2. Lord Melville's grant—Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Bond
541
Proceedings against the printer of "the Oracle," for a libel on the house—Sir H. Mildmay, Mr. Windham, sir H. Mildmay, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Windham, Mr. Grey, Mr. Canning, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Dent, Mr. Sheridan, the attorney-general, Mr. Whitbread, sir H. Mildmay, Mr. Ryder, sir J. Newport, Mr. Canning, lord De Blaquiere, lord Marsham, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wilberforce, the solicitor-general, sir H. Mildmay, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. A. Wright, Mr. S. Bourne, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. S. Bourne, sir R. Milbanke, the speaker, Mr. Whitbread
542
Vote of thanks to the commissioners of naval enquiry—Mr. Sheridan, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Rose, admiral Markham, Mr. Jeffery, Mr. Wilberforce, lord Henniker, the attorney-general, Mr. Fox, Mr. Langham, sir W. Elford, lord Henniker, Mr. Coke, Mr. Bond, sir J. Wrottesley, Mr. Gregor, Mr. Bastard, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Sheridan
562
1805 May 3. Roman catholic petition—Mr. Fox, Dr. Duigenan
595
Extraordinaries of the army—The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Johnstone, the chancellor of the exchequer
596
Irish silver tokens' bill—Mr. Magens, Mr. Princip, Mr. Rose, Mr. Magens, sir J. Newport, Mr. Lee, Mr. Foster, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Foster
597
1805 May 6. Dismissal of lord Melville—Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. W. Dundas, Mr. Fox, Mr Whitbread, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox
600
Stipendiary curates' bill—Mr. Western, Mr. Creevey, the attorney-general, sir W. Scott, sir J. Wrottesley, lord Porchester, Mr. Fellowes
611
1805 May 7. Irish election bill—Colonel Bagwell, Mr. Lee, Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. R. Martin, colonel Bagwell, sir J. Newport, earl Temple
618
Petition from the navy board, respecting Mr. Tucker's petition—
Sir A. Hamond, Mr. Kinnaird, sir A. Hamond, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Tierney, the chancellor of the .exchequer, Mr Tierney, Mr. Kinnaird
623
Naval administration of earl St. Vincent—Mr. Jeffery, the chancellor of the exchequer, admiral Markham, Mr. Grey, Mr. Jeffery
629
1805 May 8. Irish stamp duties—Mr. Foster, sir J. Newport, Mr. Foster
636
Conduct of sir Home Popham—Mr. Kinnaird, sir H. Popham, Mr. Kinnaird, sir H. Popham, colonel Hutchinson, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Fox, Mr. Jeffery, Mr. D. Scott, admiral Markham, sir H. Popham, Mr. W. Dickenson, jun. admiral Markham, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. W. Dickenson, jun. the speaker, the chancellor of the exchequer, earl Temple
637
1805 May 10. Naval administration of earl St. Vincent—Mr. Jeffery, the chancellor of the exchequer, sir J. Sinclair, Mr. Jeffery, Mr. Tierney, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Jeffery, Mr. Grey, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Pytches, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Bastard, Mr. R. Ward, admiral Markham, the chancellor of the exchequer, the speaker, admiral Markham, Mr. Jeffery, Mr. Dent, admiral Markham, Mr. Kinnaird
731
Corn regulation bill—Lord A. Hamilton, colonel Stanley, the secretary at war, Mr. Coke, Mr. Western, sir R. Peele, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Foster, Mr. Macdowall, Mr. Francis, Mr. H. Lascelles, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Barham, sir C. Price, sir J. Newport
739
1805 May 13. Roman catholic petition—Mr. Fox, Dr. Duigenan, Mr. Grattan, the attorney-general, Mr. Alexander, Mr. W. Smith, the chancellor of the exchequer
833
1805 May 14. Roman catholic petition (resumed debate)—Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Lee, sir W. Scott, Mr. Grattan, sir W. Scott, Mr. Grattan, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Foster, Mr. G. Ponsonby, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Windham, sir J. Newport, Mr. M. Fitzgerald, Mr. Archdall, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Shaw, Mr. H. Addington, Mr. J. Latouche, sir J. C. Hippisley, lord De Blaquiere, colonel Hutchinson, the attorney-general, Mr. Hawthorn, sir W. Dolben, sir G. Hill, Mr. Fox
951
Speech of lord Redesdale in the house of lords, May the 10th, on lord Grenville's motion for a committee on the Roman catholic petition; published by authority
1061
Speech of the earl of Suffolk in the house of lords, May the 13th, on lord Grenville's motion for a committee on the Roman catholic petition
1081
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS, REPORTS, PETITIONS, LISTS, &c.
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Copy of a letter from Lord Melville, to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, dated March 28, l805
186
Copy of the answer of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry to the above letter, dated April 2, 1805
189
Copy of a letter from sir A. S. Hamond, Comptroller of the Navy, to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, dated 22d April 1805, on the subject of the Evidence printed in the 11th Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, together with copies of sundry papers therein referred to
466
Declaration of sir Francis Burdett, not to defend his Election for Middlesex
211
Papers relative to the Debt due to the Crown, from John Fordyce, esq. App.
xxxv
Resolutions of Censure against lord Melville Moved by Mr. Whitbread, on the 8th of April
275
REPORTS.
ELEVENTH REPORT of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; ordered to be printed April 26, 1805.—Issue of Navy Bills for the purpose of Raising Money, App.
i
PETITIONS.
Petition of G. B. Mainwaring, esq. and certain electors Middlesex, against the return of sir Francis Burdett
1
Petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland
97
Petition of the Master Printers of London and Westminster
213
Petition from Loudon, respecting the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland
215
Petition from Oxfordshire, respecting the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland
217
Petition from Dublin, respecting the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland
218
Petition from the city of Oxford, respecting the petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland
833
Petition of John duke of Atholl
220
Petitions relative to the Tenth Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; from the electors of Southwark, 376; from London, 377; from Salisbury, 378; from Middlesex, 593; from Westminster, 594; from Bedford, 619; from Norfolk, 620; from Southampton, 622; from Northumberland, 622; from Berkshire, 650; from St. Albans, 729; from Cornwall, 845; from Coventry, 846; from Essex, 846
Petition from the Navy Board, respecting Mr. Tucker's petition
623
LISTS.
List of the majority in the commons, on Mr. Whitbread's motion of censure against lord Melville, April 8, 1805
322
List of the minority, on ditto
324
During the Third Session of the Second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Kingdom of Great Britain the Nineteenth, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Fourth Day of September, 1804, and from thence continued, by feveral Prorogations, to the Fifteenth Day of January, in the Forty-fifth Year of the Reign of King GEORGE the Third, Annoque Domini, 1805.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 13, 1805.
[MINUTES.]
—Counsel were heard in continuation, and at great length, relative to the Scots' Appeal, the earl of Kinnoul and others
v
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 13.
[MIDDLESEX ELECTION.]—Mr. H. Thornton
presented a petition from G. B. Mainwaring, esq. sir W. Gibbons, sir W. Curtis, H. Thornton, esq. W. Mellish, esq. and S. P. Cockerell, esq.; setting forth, "That the petitioners now are, and at the time of the last election of a member to serve in this present parliament for the county of Middlesex were, freeholders of the said county, and claim to have had a right to vote at the Said election; that at the said election sir F. Burdett and the petitioner G. B. Mainwaring; esq. were candidates to represent the said county, as a knight of the shire for the same, in this pre-
2
3
4
5
6
[IRISH BUDGET.]—Mr. Foster
moved the order of the day, for the house resolving itself into a committee of Ways and Means, He also moved, that several acts relating to the revenue in Ireland should be referred to the said committee; and that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider of the said acts. The house having resolved itself into the said committee, the right hon. gent. rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, having detained the committee last year at considerable length on the subject of the situation of Ireland, I shall not now have occasion to go so much into detail. I shall begin with a few observations as to the state of the trade of Ireland, and I am happy in saving, that although the trade has not so much advanced as I could have wished, yet it is in a far better situation than it was some time ago. A very short statement will elucidate this position. The imports were to the amount of 5,700,000l. last year. The imports for the 5 years preceding, were, on an average, 5,711,000l. so that in fact, the imports for the last year is rather less than the average of the former 5 years. The exports amounted to 4,980,0001. last year, which is much beyond what they have reached at any period during the last 10 years; therefore, the question stands thus: there has been no alarming decrease in the imports last year, and the exports exceed the amount of the preceding years. With regard to the exports, there is something extremely consolatory to be remarked. The linen trade has increased: during the three quarters of the last year ending in Oct. the exports were within 2 millions of yards of the exports of the whole of the preceding year; therefore we may conclude, that the exports of the whole of last year will have greatly exceeded the exports of former years. In the imports of last year, as compared with the preceding year, there is an excess of some
7
8
On 2½ millions, at 6l. 17s. 7d. per cent, the British Irish charge is
172,062
186,400
On 1,000,000l. suppose at same rate,
68,825
Making in the whole a charge, including the sinking fund, of
£255,255
9
10
11
12
Mr. James Fitzgerald
rose, and regretted that the public accounts for Ireland, which had been moved for, were not laid before the house on an earlier day than the 5th inst.; if they had, gentlemen would be much better able to go into the present most important, and at the same time intricate subject. Before he should call the attention of the house to the particulars of the statement made by his right hon. friend, he must protest against, and even censure the habit of anticipating the revenue in Ireland, long before it was received in the treasury. Much inconvenience arose from this practice, and he believed a great deal of injury likewise resulted from it to the country.—He could not refrain from lamenting that balances to an enormous amount should be constantly left in the hands of the collectors. It was in vain, therefore, that we looked for a productive revenue, whilst this anticipation and its consequent evils afflicted the country, and interfered with the application of the taxes in the most suitable ways. He did not think that it was necessary to raise any new taxes under the present circumstances of Ireland, or that any ground of necessity had been made out for them. From the review he had taken of the financial state of that country, however unfavourable it appeared, he thought he could satisfy the house that his proposition was well founded. His right hon. friend calculated the Revenue at 4,000,000l. the Loan at 3,500,000l. and gave credit for 800,354l. Now the whole of the sum to be raised amounting to no more than 8,464,983l. it struck him that any additional taxes were quite unnecessary; and he put it to the candour of the house whether they should be imposed. He said that the proposed taxes were unnecessary, because there remained due to the treasury of Ireland a great deal more than was sufficient for covering the
13
14
Mr. Foster
replied, that he had no objection to apply the balances in the collectors' hands to the purpose mentioned by his right hon. friend who had just sat down, but the difficulty was to get it paid. Situated as both countries were at this moment, would it be wise or politic to leave the supplies, or any part of them, dependent on mere contingencies? It was impossible to make up the accounts so precisely as not to leave some of the money in the commissioners' hands. It was the practice from time immemorial to do so; and he was convinced from his own experience, that the object of his hon. friend was unattainable, and this could not therefore be taken into serious consideration as a certain fund for the exigency of the moment. His hon. friend would also apply the surplus of the Consolidated Fund in the same manner; but did he not know that the whole of that surplus was to be appropriated by Parliament to the paying off certain arrears, for which it was intended? If it were taken away, there would be no fund then for this purpose. His hon. friend likewise took credit for 2 millions, as if the money had been in the treasury. This was certainly as great an anticipation of the revenue as any which his hon. friend had charged to the government of Ireland. He hoped he would excuse him for saying, that the Public Accounts of Ireland were laid this year before Parliament much earlier than they had been ever laid before the Parliament of Ireland, on which account he should return his thanks to the officers, for having made up their accounts with such accuracy and promptitude. He paid the greatest attention to the observations of the hon. gent. but he did not hear any ground advanced which could induce him to withdraw or alter
15
Sir John Newport
said he could not conceive why no account had been given of the 2 millions due from G. Britain to Ireland, ever since the passing of the Act of Union. Had that resource been stated, and resorted to previously to the budget, it must surely have superseded the necessity of resorting to new taxes, to the amount of 255,000l. It was surely full time that those accounts should be settled, as the committee formerly appointed had only met two or three times, and came to no determination. He expressed very strong objections to the proposed tax upon the importation of timber, as, whatever may be the case in the county of Louth, or those parts of Ireland with which the right hon. gent.(Mr. Foster) was best acquainted, it would operate very injuriously to the comforts of all the cottagers in those parts of Ireland with which he was particularly connected, where native timber was so scarce that they were obliged to have recourse entirely to such as was imported.— Notwithstanding this necessity, he was sorry to observe that the tax upon timber was regularly augmented every year since the Union.
Mr. Corry
said that he was happy to find, from what had fallen from the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster), that he had altered his opinion upon a point on which they had differed last year, viz. the amount of the balances in the hands of the collectors. The right hon. gent. had stated that the cash balances in the hands of the collectors was no less than 550,000l.; and to shew that he distinctly meant cash balances, he compared them with the amount of the balance in the hands of the collectors in England, which was oily 37,000l. Whereas, if he had. meant the balance in charge against the Irish collectors, he would have compared it with the arrears of duties in England, which amounts to between 5 and 6 millions. The right hon. gent. now admitted that the cash balance in the hands of the collectors, instead of 550,000l. was only 130,000l. With regard to the increase of the export of linen, it was circumstance that gave him great satisfaction; but he could not attribute that increase to the taking off the duty, because of 37 millions of yards exported from Ireland, 35 millions was imported into English which did not pay the duty; and the quantity of Irish linen exported to foreign countries from Gr. Britain was not above one-fourth of the quantity of British
16
Mr. Foster
observed, that as to any political differences that existed between him. and the right hon. gent. they had never weighed in his mind, and he hoped they did not in that of the right hon. gent. As to the linen, the papers when produced would speak for themselves. The balances, in fact, that remained due to the treasury was last year 500,000l. as he had stated it.
Mr. Corry
said, that the right hon. gent. had then stated that 550,000l. in cash remained in the hands of the collectors. He admitted that some such sum was due to the treasury; but asserted that it had not been collected, and the balance of cash was only 130,000l.
Mr. Foster
replied, that he had never meant to say that the cash actually in their' hands was 500,000l.
Lord A. Hamilton
contended, that in law, the debt of Ireland was now become an English debt; that the state of its exports and imports could give us no sanguine hopes of the increase of its resources, and that if taxes were thus multiplied, there could be no ground for entertaining any sanguine hopes that Ireland, even in time of peace, would be able to satisfy all the claims upon its regular revenue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
gave notice, that in order to satisfy the House and the public upon the subject, he should tomorrow move for a committee to inquire into the state of the accounts between G. Britain and Ireland.—The first resolution was then put and agreed to.
Mr. Foster
observing several members about to retire, said, he hoped the gentlemen interested in the Irish 6 per cent. duties upon the imports of the retail traders
17
Mr. D. B. Daly
said, he had that day received instructions from his constituents, to oppose the measure, but he should wait for the bringing in of the bill.—The several resolutions were then agreed to, and ordered to be reported to-morrow.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 14.
[MUTINIY BILL.]
Previous to the 2d reading of the Mutiny bill,
The Marquis of Buckingham
rose and begged leave to call the attention of the House to the innovations which had been made on that bill since it was last before their lordships, particularly in those clauses by which the presidents of the regimental courts martial are required to be on oath themselves, and to administer oaths to the other members of the court, and to the witness to examined. The noble marquis stated that it was not his intention, on these grounds, to oppose the 2d reading of the bill, but merely to call the attention of their lordships, and of the noble earl who forwarded the public business through this House, to the alteration which he had noticed. He had at the same to regret, in common with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, the disagreeable situation in which that House often felt itself placed, of either impeding the business of the nation, by interfering in bills to which, by the usage of parliament, any alteration made by them must prove fatal, or of passing bills which were grossly defective and objectionable.
Lord Walsingham
conceived that the observations of the noble marquis were irregular and premature. He knew it was in the contemplation of the noble earl (Camdem ) when he should come to move the 2d reading of the bill, to notice the alterations to which the noble marquis had alluded.
The Earl of Camden
having moved the 2d reading of the bill, recapitulated the different alterations which it had been deemed adviseable to make on it.
The Duke of Clarence
said, it could by no means be supposed that it was his wish, at such a period, to object to the present bill. It was his intention, however, when the bill should be proposed to be committed, to call the attention of the house to the alterations which had now for the first time been introduced. He should therefore move that the house be summoned for the day on which the bill was meant to be committed.
18
[STATE OF THE NAVY.]—Earl Darnley
rose for the purpose of submitting to their lordships, agreeably to the notice he had given, a number of motions for the production of papers, necessary for instituting a comparison between the late and present Boards of Admiralty. It was not his wish, in the present stage of the proceedings, to go into a wide field of discussion; sufficient opportunities would offer for that in a more advanced stage of them. He would, at present, confine himself to reading his motions, to the greater part of which he understood no objections would be made, and to make such comments on them as he thought necessary for explaining their tendency to their lordships. There were two great points to which he wished to direct the attention of the house, and upon which he was chiefly anxious to obtain information. The first respected the deficiency of Small craft; one, as their lordships might recollect, of the most serious accusations against the late naval administration; and the next applied to the practice of contracting for ships to be built in merchants yards. With respect to the first point, he was informed, that a number of ships had been bought up for the king's service, which, in the opinion of many persons professionally qualified to decide, and also of those who were appointed to command them, were totally unfit for the particular line of service to which they were destined. All of those had been purchased at a most extravagant rate, and before the public had derived any benefit from them, it was found necessary that they should undergo ample repairs, which were effected upon terms even more extravagant than the original purchase. His lordship said, he would read his motions, and comment upon them as they occurred; the first was for "an Account of all the ships which have been purchased for his maj.'s Navy, since 16th May, 1804, specifying from whom, their age and tonnage; the valuation put on them by the officers of the Dock-yards, the sums paid for them, the expence of fitting them as ships of war in the merchant and King's yards, and of any alterations made in them since they were first fitted." To this, he understood, no objection was likely to be offered, and therefore he would not trouble their lordships with any observations on it.—His next motion would be for "Copies of all letters and
19
l.
20
l.
21
Lord Melville
said, he had no objection to the motion made by the noble lord. it would not be necessary for him to trouble their lordships at much length upon the present occasion; whatever he had to say would come more regularly when the papers, which it was the object of the noble lord's motion to obtain, should be made the foundation of some specific resolutions. He would not shrink from the discussion. There was one point, however, upon which he would, even at the present stage of the proceedings, declare himself. If there were any blame applicable to the repairing of ships in the merchant's yards, that blame, he begged it to be understood, he would distinctly take upon himself. He would acknowledge, that he had advised and recommended that the king's ships should be repaired in the merchants' yards; and for this reason, because he thought in the state in which our navy was, it could not be kept up without having
22
23
24
HOUSE OF COMNONS.
Thursday, March 14.
[MINUTES.]
A message from the lords announced, that they had agreed to the Pleasure Horse duty, and some private bills, Mr. J. Fitzgerald moved, that there be laid before the house, an account of the charges outstanding on the surplus of the consolidated fund of Ireland, and of the sums paid thereon, up to the 5th Jan. 1805. He also moved for an account of the sums of money advanced by the commissioners of the navy in Ireland; the amount of the unfunded debt of the navy; a return of the balances of arrears, specifying the times of payment of the same; and a return of the payments stated to be due, but not payable, till after the 5th Jan. 1805; all of which were agreed to.
[IRISH COUNTY ELECTIONS.] Colonel Bagwell
called the attention of the house to the subject of which he had given notice. It was for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act of the 35th of his majesty for regulating the election of persons to serve in parliament, so far as relates to freeholds of 20l. a year in Ireland. He declined entering into the detail. The object Was to regulate the mode in which the freeholder was to ob-
25
[KNARESBOROUGH ELECTION.]—Lord W. Hussell
moved the order of the day, for taking into consideration the special report of the committee of the late election for the borough of Knaresborough, which being read, he moved, that the house do concur in the first resolution. He said there was no occasion for his making any comments upon facts, which were sufficiently proved in the evidence before the committee, and since submitted to the house. Upon mature consideration, it was his opinion, and that of the committee, that, as the delinquents had not been parties before them, and consequently had not been heard in their own defence, instead of bringing them to the bar of the house, and hearing the whole of the evidence
de novo
Mr. Rose
expressed his perfect satisfaction in this procedure, and the more so, as, if the allegations against one of the delinquents, J. M. Allen, an attorney, were true, the noble lord who presided in the court of king's bench had the power to strike him off the rolls; for though country attorneys had the means of rendering themselves useful and respectable, they were often the pests of the neighbourhood in which they lived.
The Master of the Rolls
said, that, though he was not forward in countenancing prosecutions on the part of the attorney:general by order of that house, yet he must approve of the present, as the tumult did not appear to be accidental, but of a premeditated and studied nature. He, however, should like to know whether any other prosecution had been commenced against these parties?—The several motions were then agreed to.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 15.
[CONDUCT OF JUDGE Fox.]—Lord Auckland
called the attention of their lordships to a topic which he conceived to be of very se-
26
Lord Grenville
expressed his opinion, that a question arising out of the intended motion first described by the noble lord, should be referred to the consideration of the twelve judges.
Lord Auckland
replied, that a question of the kind had been nearly decided in a case that occurred in the year 1663.—The question being put, the lords were ordered to be summoned for Tuesday next.
[MUTINY BILL.]
The order of the day being read, for the commitment of this the different clauses and provisions of the bill were agreed to by the committee, until that which contains the provisions for compelling the administration, of oaths to witnesses, on regimental courts martial, was arrived at; when
The Marquis of Buckingham
rose and expressed his disapprobation of that part of the clause, as well in point of policy, as in the view of military regulation. He thought the old and uniform practice, with respect to regimental courts martial, should be continued. In the course of his long experience, he had never heard a single complaint, made, or one objection urged against it. The soldiers very seldom appealed from the decision of the regimental to the general courts martial; and, in the few instances
27
Earl Camden
in general terms, defended the clause as it then stood in the bill. He conceived the provision by no means liable to the objections entertained by the noble marquis. He thought it would add a degree of solemnity to the proceedings at such courts martial, and obviously give a greater security for the correctness of the testimony given by witnesses.
The Duke of Cumberland
expressed his coincidence in the opinions of the noble marquis, on the present occasion; and, after what had fallen from him, a few words from himself would suffice. First, he should observe, that, in the course of his own experience, and as the result of his inquiries from able and intelligent officers, he never heard a single objection to the long-established mode observed in regimental courts martial; then why adopt a measure which must induce the belief, that the former practice was complained of? Secondly, he objected to the alteration, as more likely to tend to an increased severity, instead of a more lenient system; inasmuch as the discretionary power
28
Lord Hawkesbury
agreed with what was stated by the noble marquis and the royal duke, with respect to the general conduct of regimental courts martial. He had every reason to believe, that, as much of what was correct, humane, fair, and honourable, prevailed in these tribunals, as in any other whatever. He was free to admit, no absolute necessity existed for the alteration; Yet he felt it would involve such advantages, as should induce its adoption. He referred principally to the check and controul it would establish as to improper evidence on the part of persons not military; with many of whom, an unfounded degree of prejudice and clamour obtained, with respect to the character and profession of a soldier. It established some degree of security as to evidence of that kind, and would give an air of proper solemnity to the whole of the proceedings in regimental courts martial.
The Duke of Clarence
observed, he agreed with every thing that had fallen from a very near relation of his, as to the clause in question. He cordially agreed with the sentiments of the noble marquis, in the present instance, particularly in the propriety of appointing a superintending officer to attend at the regimental courts martial, for the purposes mentioned, and he seemed to think the paymaster would be a proper person for the purpose. Though he highly respected every thing that fell from the noble secretary of state, yet, in the case before them, he disagreed with him in every thing he observed, save one point, which was, that no necessity existed for the proposed alteration; and he appealed to the reverend bench, whether, as Christian prelates, they could approve a measure, tending to the multiplication of oaths?
Lord Mulgrace
defended the clause at some length, and with much ability. He differed from a royal duke, for whose character and opinions he had the most profound respect, in his idea, that the alteration would tend to a system of increased severity; on the contrary, he thought, by providing additional securities for the correctness of the proceedings, it must have an opposite effect. With regard to the appeal made by another illustrious personage, to the rev. bench, if it went for any thing, it
29
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 15.
[WAR IN INDIA.]—Mr. Francis.
Before I proceed to the notice which I propose to give this day, I beg leave to ask the noble lord on the other side a question for information, very fit to be given to the house, and materially connected with the subject which I mean to bring under their consideration. By the papers on table it appears that the war now or lately carried on in India against Holcar, was declared by lord Wellesly so long ago as the 16th of April, 1804, and I presume must have been in his contemplation some time before that date. This we know indirectly through the government of Bombay. My question is, whether at this day the Court of Directors or the Select Committee have received any direct communication have received any direct communication from lord Wellesley of the orgin and the motives of this war?
Lord Castleragh.
—My answer to the question put to me by the hon. gent. is that, at this day, no advices have been received directly from lord Wellesley, concerning the origin and the motives of the war with Holcar.
Mr. Francis
—The fact of itself deserves the attention of the house; since nothing can be more precise and peremptory than the injunction of the law, by which the Governor General and Council are ordered, in all cased where hostilities shall be commenced, to communicate the same to the Directors, by the most expeditious means they can devise, with a full state of the information and intelligence upon which they shall have commenced such hostilities, and their motives and reasons for the same at large. I now, sir, beg leave to give notice that it is my intention, with permission of the house, to bring under their consideration a general view of the state of the British dominion in India, and to make a motion
30
Lord Castlereagh.
—The notice given by the hon. gent. is so general and undefined, that I am at a loss to conjecture what the objects are which he has in his view, and to which I should of course wish to turn my own thoughts. I therefore hope and request that the hon. gent. will state more distinctly the points to which his intended motion is directed, or at least the particular subjects which he means to discuss.
Mr. Francis
made no reply.
[SALT DUTY BILL.]—Mr. Fox
wished to state to his majesty's ministers the substance of a communication which he received by a letter from Yorkshire. It observed, that by the last Salt Duty bill there was a severe penalty laid on all retail shopkeepers who should sell at any thing lower than the standard price, and the same penalty was exacted in that now in its progress. When the present bill was brought in, an officer was sent down to Rotherham, and the places adjoining, to announce the new duty, and take an account of the stock in hand. In consequence of this, the salt manufacturers ceased to sell; but the retail shopkeepers continued to sell; at four-pence halfpenny a quart, as before, for which informations were laid against them to recover the penalties. He wished to know whether there proceedings took place by the authority of government?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied that the sending down of the officer was certainly premature, and that it would be un-
31
[REPORT OF THE IRISH BUDGET.]—Mr. Foster
moved the order of the day for bringing up the report of the committee of ways and means of Ireland.
Mr. J. Fitzgerald
opposed the bringing up of the report. He contended, that the loan was made to a larger amount than was necessary, and that if it were even necessary, the interest of it might be defrayed without having recourse to any new taxes. The revenue of Ireland was only taken at 4 millions; though every body knew that it would be considerably more. In the last year, the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster) imposed additional taxes of 1,150,000l. by way of regulation, and 76,000l. to defray the expences of a direct loan; and he now stated, that there was out of last year's revenue a surplus of 843,000l. but that it must remain locked up in the Irish treasury until the proportion of Ireland to the joint expences of the empire should be paid. Upon this practice of retaining the surplus of the consolidated fund since the union, it would follow, that there must be now a total surplus of about 4 millions applicable to the expences of the year. This was a mode of proceeding very disadvantageous to Ireland. He sacrificed much by opposing the union; but now that it was effected, he considered the two countries as one, and thought they should be treated equally. The sums returned of duties due, but not immediately payable, were to the amount of 636,346l. which either were or ought to be now in the treasury of Ireland. This, as well as the balances in the hands of the collectors, ought to be a productive fund, and if it was not, he must call upon those who promised Ireland so much benefit from the union to put an end to this system of patronage and influence. It was allowed on all hands, to be a very great grievance to that country, and yet, notwithstanding so many complaints, the government had not removed any one of these collectors, though in a man's private concerns he would not allow an agent to pay himself, and also retain an eight part of his himself, and also retain an eighth part of his receipts, unless, on the assurance that the balance was quite safe.—He had a right, therefore, to take if for granted, that this was a solvent and sufficient answer, for which reason he should bring it into the amount of the year. He would even venture to ask the right hon. gent. whether he had reason to think that a remission was given of any of these balances
32
Mr. Dawson
said, the hon. gent. who spoke last had anticipated much of what he had intended to state. He confessed, that some of the taxes proposed appeared to him unexceptionable, though there were many of the articles upon which he wished all taxes to be abolished in that country. Though he had no objection whatever to the duty proposed on raisins, pepper, and coffee, yet he had every objection to an encreased duty on timber. Instead of being, as stated, a protection to the growing plantations in Ireland, it would encourage the cutting down of what little timber there was, and leave the cottages of the miserable peasantry perfectly unroofed. The present plantations being only in their infancy, Would not be available in less than half a century, and to depend upon them for immediate purposes, would be as absurd as that of a man who, being advised to drink cyder, should set about planting an orchard. He also reprobated the tax upon horses, and he could not well discriminate between horses for pleasure and horses for use, as they were both so generally united; but what he de-
33
Sir J. Newport
thought that the schedule, comprising such a multitude of merchandise, should have been submitted to the inspection of mercantile men, as it was impossible for any member of that house to be so good a judge of the local effect such taxes may have in different places, as the parties more immediately concerned. In referring to that schedule, he found the duties on spermaccti candles, copper, tar, &c. raised to seven times their former duties, while rattans, walking sticks, and other inferior articles, experienced a diminution. As to timber, he said the last duty had diminished the consumption so much, since the union, that the revenue on them was 11,000l. The present tax, he thought, would reduce the consumption so much, that the duty would not pay the expence of the collection, and would render the cottages uninhabitable. The want of domestic comforts at home frequently encouraged the inhabitants of the country to idleness and riotous conduct at home. In the south of Ireland, the want of timber was a most grievous hardship, as in the county of Tipperary there were farms to the extent of sometimes 2 miles, without a hedge or bush to be seen upon them. He complained greatly of the want of security to the mails in Ireland, which were sometimes robbed
34
Mr. Hawthorne
said, that the balances of the collectors, though stated at 1,200,000l. were actually no more than 1,30,000l. as the duties were not yet paid, which Were to produce the remainder. As to the general state of the country, he said, that so far from Ireland's being unfairly dealt with, the expences of the army, and works necessary for its defence, amounted to a much greater sum than the whole of its proportion to the joint expence of the empire; so that its taxes must have been much greater only for the union. To prove this, he referred to the accounts, which would shew, that the proportion of its debt accumulated more in the four years before the union, than in the four years since it had been carried into effect.
Mr. Foster
he deemed it unnecessary to go into a detail of all the branches of the taxes alluded to. The appropriation of the produce of the sinking fund in Ireland was to pay the expences of the loan, the ratio of its separate expences, and paying the usual sum towards the sinking fund. If then there were arrears of money, there were also arrears of charges, and it was necessary to leave balances in the hands of the collectors to prepare for any contingency, and not be unprepared for any thing that may happen in case of any attempt on the part of the enemy. In fact, if these funds were taken away, there would be a necessity for other supplies to defray the coming charges, and if any part remained undisposed of, it would come in aid of the sup-
35
mail
express.
Mr. May
rose, and said, he had presented a petition against these duties, from the inhabitants of Belfast, and he begged the patience of the house till he stated a few observations in support of the petition of his constituents. They had not, he said, desired him to present it, from any wish to exempt themselves from the payments of taxes in general, but from a wish to have taxes imposed in such a manner, as to bear equally on all descriptions of persons. This tax was not so constituted, but bore entirely,
36
Mr. J. Latouche
opposed the tax, as a tax upon the industry of retailers, who, if it was not for this duty, could, by united speculations, become themselves wealthy merchants in the course of time.
Mr. Ker
stated that the tax was not only unjust, but it was almost unproductive, and should on every account be abandoned.
Sir C. Price
considered this duty as a check to the progress of commerce, by discouraging the activity of men of small capitals, and particularly injurious to the commerce between this country and Ireland.
Sir G. Hill
contended that the tax would prove of singular detriment to Ireland. He felt the impolicy of a tax on the retail dealers, and believed that it would undermine the internal trade of the Irish.
Sir J. Newport
thought it only tended to produce and encourage manifold, manifest, and absolute frauds.
Mr. Fox
wished that, as the tax would bear particularly hard on the retail trader, it might be abandoned.
Mr. Foster
said that the tax had existed since the days of Cha. II. The operation of the tax was confined to tobacco, tea, and brandy. He was not for speculative opinions respecting taxes during a period of war. He would not think of giving up this tax, while he adhered to that on timber. He was grateful to the merchants of London for their advice to the merchants of Ireland; and hoped that the former would not decline taking that of the latter, on such questions as might tend to the general advantage of the two countries. The wholesale dealers had purchased the tax by sacrifices at the time it was first laid on; and the wholesale dealer had now a right to have his interests properly guarded.
Mr. Corry
was unfriendly to the tax. Three sessions ago, he had proposed the repeal of the tax. Yet, from good dispositions towards the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster), s he had discouraged his own constituents from sending to him petitions against it, because he did not wish to cast obstacles in the way of the right hon. gent. in devising the taxes. He was not for taxing the patient retail dealer, tugging at the oar of industry and catching every fleeting breeze to make his little bark gain in safety the haven
37
Mr. Hawthorne
could not assent to the motion. The tax was a bad one in every view of its operation and tendency.
Mr. Princep
entered his solemn protest against a tax notoriously bearing on the industry of the individual, so as to lead to his ruin.—The question being called for, the house divided: for the 6 per cent. impost duty 107, against it 44, majority 63.—The other resolutions were then read, and agreed to.
[LEGACY DUTY BILL.]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Legacy Duty bill. As he had learned since he came into the house, that some difference of opinion existed respecting this measure, he should only observe then, that there were other stages in which it might he discussed.
Mr. Fox
stated that there would be a considerable difference of opinion relative to that part of it which imposes a duty only on legacies to children. However, as there would be other stages for discussing it, he should forbear for the present from any opposition, reserving that for the report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not heard any thing to induce him to alter his opinion, or to give up what would be the most material part of the tax, amounting to 200,000l. He was ready to pay every attention to any observation on the subject.—The bill then passed through the committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Tuesday.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, March 16.
[MINUTES.]
—The Salt Duty bill, the Property Duty bill, and the Mutiny bill, were read a 3d time and passed, and a message sent to the commons to acquaint them there with—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Saturday, March 16.
[MINUTES.]—Mr. Alexander
brought up the report of the committee of supply respecting the sums voted in pursuance of addresses of the house, and sums issued by
38
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 18.
[MINUTES.]
—The Royal Assent was given by commission to the Pleasure Horse Duty bill, the Salt Duty bill, the Property Tax bill, the Mutiny bill, and 3 private bills.—Mr. Dickinson, jun. brought up the Royal Marine Mutiny bill, and two private bills, which were severally read a first time.—Lord Melville, pursuant to his intimation on a former evening, presented a great number of naval documents. These, after some conversation between lord Darnley and the noble viscount, were ordered to lie on the table.—The duke of Clarence intimated his intention to move for the production of further documents to-morrow, for which day it was understood their lordships were summoned.—Mr. Parnell, from the Irish treasury, presented an account of the sums remitted from England to Ireland, during the year ending the 1st of last month.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 18.
[MINUTES.]
—The Speaker informed the house that he had been in the house of peers, where the royal assent was given by Commission to the Pleasure Horse Duty bill, to the Salt Duty bill, and to the Property Tax Amendment bill.—On the motion of Mr. W. Dickinson, an amendment was inserted in the Marine Mutiny bill, empowering provisional courts martial to ad
39
40
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 19.
[ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]—Lord Grenville
acquainted their lordships, that he should have, on Monday next, to present a Petition to the house, on the part of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. He was aware that it was not usual to give notices relative to the presentation of petitions; but that mentioned by him was upon a subject of so grave, weighty, and important a nature, that he had taken the liberty previously to mention it. The proceeding was not, he thought, likely to induce any discussion, nor did he mean to say any thing then upon it; but, should any further motion or proposition be intended to be brought forward upon the subject, due notice would be given of such intention.
[CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.]—Lord Auckland
adverted to the motions which he intended to make, namely, for a committee to search for precedents of proceedings in that house against individuals, upon complaints made by peers upon their own statements, founded upon information derived from others, and to consider how far it was consonant with law for proceedings to be instituted in that house against individuals otherwise than upon petition or matter of record, in support of which motions, his lordship argued at considerable length. The mode of proceeding hitherto adopted was one which he highly disapproved in other points of view, beside those of its being productive to the parties of great expence, delay, and vexation. It would be necessary, in some degree, to tread back the steps they had taken; but did it appear to be consistent with the honour, the dignity, and, above all, the correctness of their lordships proceedings, he thought there could be no hesitation to do so. What he had to propose for the adoption of their lordships would be resolved into various propositions: the first was, for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents of cases of any charge brought forward of high crimes and misdemeanors against any individual by a peer of the realm, upon his own personal statement of facts, &c.; and how far it is consistent with any law or statute, or usage of parliament, that house can proceed upon matters so originated, unless upon matter of record, or by petition, or entertained as matter of privilege. Secondly, that such
41
quam diu se bene gesserint
The Lord Chancellor
replied to the argu-
42
scicri facias
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 parliament, every consideration, both of wisdom and justice, called upon the house to deliberate upon the question. His lordship in-
43
Lord Hawkesbury
observed, that the office 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
44
Earl Spencer
contended that a committee ought to be appointed, and that the constitutional mode of enquiring into the misconduct 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 grounds, indeed, for such a proceeding; for 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 competent to either house of parliament to originate the question; and that since the passing of the act of W. III. it was as constitu-
45
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 country, than he would he to have witnessed an attempt to enter upon any measures, which should seem like an innovation on the established laws and customs of the land. It had been said, their lordships could not be certain that the commons house of parliament would exercise their privilege of impeachment; and, therefore, that house ought to proceed by way of address. He could not, however, suffer himself to think, that any subject whatever of such importance as the present, could be agitated in that house, so as that it should be apparent it deserved impeachment, but that the commons would immediately take it up and prosecute it accordingly. It had been said, that proceeding by way of address was not a criminal charge; but he thought otherwise. Was not the removal of a man from so high and 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
46
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 dilemma of being obliged to retrace their steps.
The Lord Chancellor
in explanation stated, that he did not mean to insinuate that the object of this motion was to create delay, 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 Auckland
observed, that if the noble lord who had just sat down meant to say that, the object of his motion was merely to create delay, such language was not parliamentary, and if the noble lord did not mean to say so, his observation was altogether unnecessary. In vindication of his motives for the proposition he submitted to the house, he should only mention that he had no kind of acquaintance whatever with the learned person who was the object of this investigation, and that he was actuated solely by a sense of duty, and a desire to do justice.—The question being put, a division was called for, and the numbers were, contents 17, non contents 29; majority 12.—On the readmission of strangers, lord A. gave notice of a motion upon the same subject for Monday next, for which day the lords were ordered to be summoned.—Adjourned.
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
47
[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,
Sir John Newport
said, he hoped the right hon. gent. who had given notice of his intention to bring forward a plan for the reduction of the militia, would allow the Irish Tax bills to be postponed. It was of importance they should undergo some discussion; hitherto they had undergone none. They had been brought in on Saturday, not usually a day of business, and read a second time on Monday, on a national festival. However the national Saint might protect the country from venomous animals, it was plain he had no power of protecting against tax bills. Acts of parliament might as well be passed by acclamation, as with a degree of precipitation which precluded discussion. He had expressed his intention of opposing one or two of the tax bills, but had hitherto had no opportunity.
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
48
[MR. FORDYCE'S DEBT.]—Mr. Creevey
rose, and spoke as follows: Sir, in pursuance of the notice I gave some time since, I shall now submit a motion to this house respecting Mr. Fordyce; a gentleman who, by various documents of parliament, appears indebted to the public in a very large sum of money, and of a very long standing; and who likewise appears by a commission lately issued by the crown, and a copy of which now lies upon your table, to be one of five commissioners appointed for the purpose of carrying into execution most important reforms in the department of the navy, which have been suggested by the parliamentary commissioners appointed by this house to examine into those subjects. The first object 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 the kingdom, and for other salutary purposes of reform. In the first report of those commissioners, and which was likewise made in 1780, 1 perceive that Mr. Fordyce was found to be indebted to the public, at that time, in the sum of 64,000l. and upwards, as receiver general of the land-tax of Scotland. An examination of that gentleman upon oath, taken before the commissioners, as to the means of liquidating that debt, appears in the appendix to that report; and Mr. Fordyce there refers to the most positive and precise stipulations, as having been entered into by him with the lords of the treasury, for the accomplishing that object. He states, that he had agreed to pay off 30,000l. before the then next Lady-day; 10,000l. before the 10th of the next month after; and that as to the remaining 24,000l. 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
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
wished to call the attention of the house to the nature of this transaction. The hon. member had changed the object which he had first set out with, and he understood him to consider the situation of Mr. Fordyce as arising out of misfortune. But he could state that it had not been the opinion of the actual government that had removed him from office that he was unworthy to be trusted, though they had declined employing him in a situation connected with the revenue. He held no such situation at present. He had held a very laborious office in a commission to inquire concerning the lands of the crown, appointed at the instance of that house; his name had been subscribed to reports made to the house on that subject, and parliamentary measures had been grouned on such reports. He then held an executive office for carrying these measures into, effect, and had produced as great a practical
56
57
Mr. Fox
begged to have it understood, upon what ground he did not wish the gentleman who was the object of the motion of his hon. friend, to have been employed. It was not because he thought him unworthy to be trusted, but because he was in a situation of misfortune, and therefore
58
59
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
in explanation, stated that Mr. Fordyce, as a member of the last commission, did not act generally, but specifically, with the view of applying the best remedies to existing abuses in the naval department. This appointment he had received from the knowledge of the former beneficial exercise of his talents in the same branch of the public service.
The Secretary at War
thought himself called upon to state, that sir C. Middleton had refused to undertake the task entrusted to this commission, unless Mr. Fordyce were also appointed on it; and this from the opinion sir C. had formed of the talents and capacity of Mr. Fordyce, in a former service in which he had been associated with him. As a proof that Mr. F. had devoted all his emoluments to the discharge of his arrear, he instanced the case of a sum of 25 or 26,000l. accruing to him, which he refused to appropriate to a provision for his large family, notwithstanding the recommendation of some of his friends, preferring to transfer it immediately to the Exchequer, for the discharge of his debt.
Mr. Johnstone
said, that he should be no advocate for any harsh measures, unless the result of the enquiry should make it necessary; but he could not conceive how Mr. Fordyce could be justified by the failure of his agents, as there was nothing to prevent him from obtaining securities from them, previously to their appointment. In the case of an individual, the house would naturally be inclined to a liberality of conduct; but in matters of account, they could not do justice to the public, without, on their part, acting in the same manner which every man would do, in the management of his private affairs. Instead of 40,000l. had the treasury called on the securities, they would, by this time, have had the whole. The increase of the crown lands had been boasted
60
Mr. Creevey
however, on understanding that the chancellor of the exchequer would himself move for the information on the subject, consented in the mean time to withdraw his motion.
[IRISH REVENUE BILLS.]
—The Irish Excise Duty bill, the Irish Stamp Duty bill, the Irish Postage Duty bill, the Irish Malt and Spirit Duty bill, and the Irish Customs Duty bill, went through a committee.—In the committee on the last,
Mr. Foster
consented, from respect to the opinion of so many Irish members, to discontinue the 6 per cent. duty on Irish retail imports. He believed, however, and expected, that on a revision of the English duties, it would be found proper to impose something of this kind in Ireland. The other tax that was objected to, the tax on timber, he thought so unexceptionably fair, that he would persevere in it.
Sir J. Newport
repeated his former objection to this tax, which he thought was calculated to discourage the growth of timber in Ireland, and to defeat the produce of the tax itself, by diminishing the import. The produce on the tax on windows and auctions would so far exceed the estimate, that the tax on timber would not he wanted. He therefore moved "that this tax should be struck out."
Lord De Blaquiere
thought the duty just and well considered; its merits had been fully discussed, and the propriety of the tax established by a vote of the house the very night before, and he felt it rather hard that at that hour of the day ,he should have nothing offered him to eat but his own words, an aliment he certainly did not relish, and therefore, if it came to a discus-
61
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 20.
[MINUTES.]
—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages; among these, the Marine Mutiny bill went through a committee, and was afterwards reported; and lord Thynne's Indemnity bill was read a 2nd time.—The bishop of Oxford presented a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 9th Geo. 2d as restrained certain colleges in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge from purchasing the Advowson of Livings; which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 20.
[MINUTES.]
—A new writ was ordered for the election of a member for the borough of Wigtown, in the room of Mr. Macdowal, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.— A list of the Reversionary Grants of offices in Ireland was presented, and ordered to lie on the table.—The Hull Dock bill was read a 2nd time.—On the motion of Mr. Rose, the house went into a committee on the acts relating to Foreign Ships. A resolution that the ships and inhabitants surrendering to his majesty in the captured settlements of the enemy be allowed to trade as British, according to the regulations in last war, was agreed to, and leave given to bring in a bill accordingly. Leave was also given to bring in a bill to allow neutral ships to import certain articles, for a time to be limited.—The Exchequer Bills bill, and the Irish Spirit Warehouse bill, were read a 3rd time and passed.—Mr.Huskisson brought in a bill for permitting the negociation of small notes, which was read a first and second time, committed, and reported.—The Irish Revenue bills were reported.—Mr. Dawson moved, that there be laid before the house the number of licences for killing game issued in Ireland, since 1801, distinguishing the years, and specifying the names of the persons in each district, by whom they were taken out.—Ordered.
[PRIZE AGENCY BILL.]—Sir William Scott
rose to make his promised motion. He began by stating, that by the law and constitution of the country, all the rights of war
62
63
64
65
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 21.
[MINUTES.]
—The Duke of Athol spoke in support of the appellants, in the case, the Earl of Kinnoul and others
v
66
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 21.
[MINUTES.]
—Mr. Bully, from the Exchequer Office, presented an Account of the Produce of the Permanent Taxes, the progress made in the liquidation of the national debt, and the surplus amount of the Consolidated Fund; which were ordered to be printed.—A message from the lords stated their having agreed to Lord J. Thynne's Indemnity, the Marine Mutiny, and some Private bills.—The Irish Customs, Excise, Post Office, Stamps, and Malt Duty bills, were read a 3rd time and passed.
[IRISH LUNATICS BILL.]—Sir John Newport
rose to submit to the house the motion of which he had some time since given notice, for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the practice in Ireland with regard to the confinement of lunatics and idiots. By the 27th of his present majesty, the poor and the lunatics of Ireland were confined in the I same houses, a practice from which the most distressing inconveniencies had frequently resulted. He wished the appointment of distinct asylums for lunatics and idiots. The existing method of confinement Was only calculated for malefactors, but not for lunatics. Proper care cannot be taken of lunatics without separate institutions. He had therefore to propose a bill for establishing an asylum for each of the four provinces to contain 250 patients. These asylums to be in the central towns of the principal counties. The provinces to bear the expence, which is to be imposed by assessment; and a report to be made, from time to time, to the judges of assize, of the management, funds, and whole concerns and situation of the four asylums. He had bestowed much attention, for many years, on this subject, and was persuaded that the measure he was about to propose, was one which the situation of the public institutions in Ireland loudly demanded. Accordingly, he concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing Provincial Asylums for Lunatics and Idiots in Ireland.
Colonel Bagwell
in seconding the mo-
67
[IRISH LOAN AND EXCHANGE.]—Lord A. Hamilton
pursuant to notice, rose to submit his motion on this subject to the house. In bringing forward the resolution which he should have the honour to propose, he was not actuated by any sentiment of hostility to the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Foster.) When he had first called the attention of the house to this subject, he had stated, that the excessive issue of paper had arisen from the restriction of issues of specie from the Bank, and had produced the consequent depreciation. The object of his motion was, a disapprobation of the measures that had been taken by the commissioners of the treasury in order to remedy the high rate of exchange. Their measure were of a partial and temporary nature, answering no one purpose proposed, and leaving the exchange in precisely the same state. The noble lord here read from the papers on the table the different rates of exchange at which the Irish treasury had offered at different times their drafts upon this country, from 11½ per cent. to 8 1–3d at par; and contended, that by giving their drafts at par, whilst the actual exchange was 13 or at least 12 per cent. they negociated the transmission of the loan at the loss to the public of 40,000l. on every million, and he should ask whether this was fair, legal, and regular? An expectation was entertained in Dublin that the measures of the treasury would reduce the exchange to par; and, consequently, the whole of the sums advertised had not been purchased whilst the rate was above par; but, when the accommodation had been offered at par, though the sum wanted did not exceed 150,000l. the sum of 500,000l. was subscribed; and such was the eagerness and avidity to procure a share of it, that a kind of riot had taken place amongst the bidders at the castle, which required the military to suppress. The house, he trusted, would put an end to this practice in future, as it had
68
Mr. Foster
observed, that whatever complexion the noble lord might put on his resolutions, they amounted to a direct charge on the commissioners of the treasury in Ireland. He had confounded the question of exchange with the conduct of the treasury. The right hon. gent. begged to state the nature of the transaction. A large loan had been negociated in England for the service of Ireland, and he had applied in Nov. to the Directors of the Bank in Ireland, to bring over the money, which they had refused, lest it should injure their character for impartiality, as some of them were concerned in the business of exchange. The commissioners were obliged to order it over in Bank of England Post Bills, which they sold in Dublin. They first advertised a sum of 200,000l. at 11½ per cent. but only 170,000l. were subscribed. The next sum they advertised was of the same amount at 10 per cent. and only 170,000l. was obtained. They then found themselves under a necessity of disposing of the bill at par, which was 8 1–3d, in order to procure the sums required for the public service. But during the whole of this period, the actual state of exchage fluctuated between 8½ and
69
Lord Henry Petty
agreed in the whole doctrine laid down by the right hon. gent. as to the causes of the unfavourable state of the exchange for Ireland. He agreed also that the question was a direct charge upon the treasury of Ireland. But he disclaimed on his own part and that of his noble friend, any intention to make a charge upon the right hon. gent, whose conduct, if brought before the house, would intitle him to its gratitude. There had been considerable misconduct in the Irish treasury, in their management of the bringing over the loan. They had departed from the usual mode, and thereby occasioned considerable loss to the public. The right hon. gent. disclaimed any idea of lowering the exchange, though the expectation had prevailed to that effect, as appeared from the full sum required having been subscribed when the exchange was lowered to par. The noble lord here read an extract from the report of the committee on the Irish currency and exchange, to spew that it was improper in the lords of the treasury to interfere with the exchange, as it would encourage jobbing, which had literally taken place in this case, persons having bought
70
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
maintained that the conduct of the Irish treasury had been correct, as it was the duty of the commissioners to provide the money for the public occasions. It was a perversion of terms to infer that the depreciation of paper had any real effect on the exchange. He allowed that the excessive issue of paper produced a depreciation. The fact was, that in each country there was a different circulating medium, and the depreciation of either could have only a nominal effect on the course of exchange. The remittance of so large a sum as four millions and a half, would have had the effect of lowering the exchange, even if the operation of the Irish treasury had not taken place. The ground of the noble lord's charge of a loss to the public, appeared to rest on a supposition, that the rate of actual exchange would have continued the whole time at 13 per cent.; but was it to be supposed the Irish treasury could have procured purchasers at 13 per cent. when they had failed at 11½? for these reasons he thought that no ground had been laid for the noble lord's motion.
Mr. Fox
was glad to hear the right, hon. gent. allowing that an excessive issue caused a depreciation, and that the house was never again to hear the fantastical opinion that paper was not depreciated, but the value of gold raised, as well as that these evils proceeded exclusively from the restriction on the Bank, As long as the Bank paid in specie, there had been no excess, because in that case the issue carried its own remedy with it, being payable in specie. The question here was, that the new method had produced an effect which the the old method never had. 'Whether the loss to the public was to the extent of the difference between 11½ and 13 per cent. it was impossible to tell now, but he thought sufficient ground had been laid for the proposition of his noble friend.
Mr. Lee
said, that having been a member of the committee upon Irish affairs, and having attended carefully to the evidence they produced, he had some good reasons to suspect the committee to have been mistaken, in having ascribed the depreciation of Irish notes to the over issuing of paper by the Bank. The issues of the Bank of Ireland were ascertained and well known; but it was the less surprising, that the paper of that company should be depreciated at home
71
Mr. Alexander
also considered the depreciation to be owing to circumstances altogether unconnected with the Bank of Ireland; for the private Bankers, even about Dublin, actually circulated notes beyond the issue of the national Bank; which, being by one of its bye-laws obliged to discount mercantile bills at one per cent. below the legal interest, gave to other Banks a great advantage over it.
Mr. J. Latouche
expressed himself favourable to the motion, on the ground that the lords of the treasury in Ireland, by the mode they adopted in this instance, did not obtain terms for the public, which they might have done, even under the circumstance of the times. Much was certainly lost by the generally credited report, that the exchange of the two countries was to be reduced to par, and the report not having been contradicted by the Government, which was perfectly well acquainted with its existence, and its procedure deterred the merchants from coming forward on the occasion.
Mr. Foster
in explanation, observed, that the committee of last year, so frequently alluded to, had disapproved of the old mode of draining hills at par upon England. The method which they seemed to point out, of having recourse to the assistance of the Bank of Ireland, had been resorted to; but they having declined all interference, the lords of the treasure, unwilling to return to the mode condemned by the committee, found themselves, by necessity, compelled to recur to a new method of their own.
Mr. Grey
observed that, though the right hon. gent. said he had but one alternative left, either to return to the old mode condemned by the committee, or discover some new one himself, he would take the liberty of reminding him, that it was not drawing bills at par upon England which was condemned by the committee, but the attempts of the lords of the Irish treasury to lower the balance of exchange. Near 200,000l of the loan of last year was remitted in the ordinary way, and had no bad effect. By the measure the treasury took, it placed itself in the situation of
Sir W. Pulteney
remarked, that when large
72
Mr. H. Thornton
thought the noble lord had not sufficient grounds for his present motion; it was not the manner of passing, bills, but the quantity in the market, which, was the occasion of the increase or depreciation of the rate of exchange. He was afraid that the reduction of the issue of the paper of the Bank of Ireland could not be expected at present. He was surprised that they had not taken the hint given in the report of the committee.—After this, lord A. Hamilton said a few words in reply, and his motion was negatived without a division.
[MILITIA ENLISTMENT BILL.]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the object of the measure he intended to propose was, instead of the gradual reduction of the Militia to' the original establishment of 40,000 for England, and 8,000 for Scotland, to make the reduction directly, by allowing the supernumeraries now existing above that amount, to volunteer into the line. By the returns of the militia, as it now stood for England and Scotland, for he would propose nothing with respect to Ireland at present, the amount was 70,000 men. On reference to the Militia acts it appeared that the total number of 41,000 for England, and 8,000 for Scotland, were described as privates, in which description corporals were not included. It was necessary, therefore, to make allowance for corporals, who were included in the return of rank and file. The number of corporals in the force to be kept up was 2,300, making in the whole number for England and Scotland something above 1000. Consequently the difference between that and the existing force afforded something about 17,000 men to be applied to the augmentation of the disposable force. Notwithstanding the variety of opinions that existed with respect to all military measures, it was a thing agreed on all sides, that an addition of 17,000 men, to be made in a moderate time to our disposable force, would be a great and important accession of national strength in the point in which it was most desirable; he would say further, at a time when the existing circumstances of Europe rendered it likely that our dis-
73
74
75
76
Earl Temple
before he expressed his sentiments on the subject, wished to enquire of the right hon. gent. whether any order had as yet been given by government to facilitate the receiving men as volunteers from the Militia into the regular army.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
in reply, stated, that he had no reason to think that any such proceeding had taken place.— Orders might, indeed, have been sent to dispatch recruiting parties to receive such volunteers as presented themselves.
Earl Temple
resumed by arguing that this very proposition before the house was the best possible proof of the inefficiency of that Defence bill of the right hon. gent. the repeal of which he had so vehemently opposed, Formerly the militia were only to undergo a gradual reduction, and the right hon. gent. seemed to count days and months for the accomplishment of what his bill was to effect for the recruiting of the regular army. Now, however, these expectations were shown to be completely fallacious, and, therefore, to remedy this defect, the militia were not by slow gradations, but by one blow to be reduced to the number of 40,000. This, he maintained, was grossly unjust, and totally contrary to that principle of the abolition of the ballot which the right hon. gent. held out as the grand recommendation of his bill. Here, however, the militia being reduced to 40,000, to which number it was to be kept up, the ballot, as soon as ever any vacancies occurred, must come again into operation. Hardly 24 hours might elapse before the odious exploded system of ballot would be required to keep up the militia to its full complement. The right hon. gent. had
77
78
79
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke to order, and thought his lordship ought not to allude to any thing which he, in the way of private communication, and to facilitate the removal of doubts and difficulties, had mentioned. He would leave, he said, to the noble lord himself to determine as to the propriety of doing so, but he must appeal to the Speaker for the order of the thing.
Earl Temple
said, the communication was not confidential, and he thought he might therefore mention it.
The Speaker
informed him, that in doing so he was debating a different question, and was, of course, out of order.
Earl Temple
resumed. He conceived the proposition of the right hon. gent. which he had alluded to, was made at the time of the expedition to Holland. But the proposition, as it was now put in practice by the right hon. gent. was not only to encourage volunteering from the Militia into the line, but to hire and suborn recruiting serjeants, first to promote debauchery and insubordination in the regiments, and then to crimp a certain number of men, as best suited their purpose, leaving the remainder to the care of their officers, who would have the satisfaction of seeing returned them, out of half the number of their regiment, 150 of the mere refuse! The noble lord concluded his speech by recapitulating his former arguments, and expressing his firm and decided opposition to the present measure.
Lord Stanley
expressed his disapprobation of the bill, on account of its injustice in so many different points; it was subversive of the constitution of the Militia regiments, and directly contradictory to the many pledges that had been given to the house, particularly by the right hon. gent. himself. He had given this pledge, as many would recollect, during a debate in 1799, and again more recently on the Defence act. From several important considerations, he must give his decided negative to the bill.
The Marquis of Douglas
expressed his disapprobation of the plan proposed, which he considered as tending materially to hurt the militia service, and likewise to retard the recruiting for the line. That an accession to our disposable force was extremely desirous, he thought no person would be found to deny, considering that question abstractedly. But the present proposition ought to be viewed under the particular circumstances that attended it. If the house called to mind the use made by ministers of
80
Colonel Calcraft
said he should reserve the fuller delivery of his sentiments till a future occasion presented itself. He wished, however, to know, whether the men were to be enlisted for life, and for unlimited service. He was likewise not perfectly clear in his understanding of what fell from the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the number of four-fifths of the recruits being made up from the Militia regiments.
Sir James Pulteney
thought it could hardly he necessary for any person to ask for any particular reasons being given for the proposed measure, which was merely a proposition, that, if carried into effect, went to make the men more useful to the country than their present mode of service could possibly render them. Under the various limitations and restrictions that were proposed, he could not perceive that any injury would be sustained by the militia service in general. On the contrary, he was led to think, that though the battalions were less in number, they would, from the provisions of this measure, be made more effectual in point of strength, and, consequently, more useful. A great part of the safety of the country, he considered to have been owing to the steps taken with respect to the militia, in the year 1799, during the last war. Upon the whole view of the subject, he was
81
Mr. Bastard
took notice of the three reasons alledged for the introduction of this extraordinary measure; namely, the want of men for the regular army; the scarcity of officers for the Militia, and the stated ardour of the men belonging to the Militia to volunteer for the regular army. Now, as to the 1st, he conceived it to proceed from the inefficiency of the measure adopted at the instance of the present ministers, for the augmentation of our regular army; the 2nd, he thought a very natural result of that system of tampering with the Militia, which had obtained of late years, particularly under ,the auspices of the right hon. mover of the proposition before the house. As to the 3d allegation, that many of the Militia were ready to volunteer into the line; the manner which seemed to have been taken to ascertain, or rather to excite that disposition, had been already stated, and animadverted upon with proper severity by a noble lord (Temple.) To what that noble lord had stated he should only say,. that it appeared to him. absolutely nothing less than an endeavour to excite a spirit of mutiny among the militia, to render them discontentd with the force in which they were engaged and to which they were sworn—
Flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo
82
Mr. Fuller
was surprised that any gentleman could attempt to thwart the wishes of those brave men belonging to the Militia, who manifested a disposition to serve their country more effectually, by volunteering for the regular army. To give full effect to Such a disposition was the object of this bill, and therefore 'he would support it. With respect to the Militia system itself, he thought it to have much degenerated from the principle of its original establishment, and he on that account approved of its reduction. He considered ridiculous the language used with regard to the dangers of our situation. With such a force as we had, he contended that we had nothing to fear. With 500,000 men in arms, and a high-spirited people, there Was only only one thing wanted, and that was, that the hon. gent. on the other side (Mr.Fox) should take his seat with the right hon. proposer of this motion, to enable us to hid defiance to, and to overwhelm all the dangers that menaced us. Those two great men united, we should soon extinguish the power that threatened to annoy us; we should soon destroy the vessels on the other side of the water; we should speedily clip the wings of the bantam Emperor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
rose reply, and spoke as follows. —I must beg leave, sir, to make a few Observations upon what has fallen from some of the hon. gent. opposite. And first,in answer to the question which has been put to me by an hon. colonel, I wish it to be understood, that I mean it should be left absolutely to the com-
83
84
85
Earl Temple
in reply, said, that recruiting, parties were sent expressly into the neighbourhood where militia regiments were quartered, for the express purpose of enticing the men to enlist, and did not take that course by chance. With regard to another point, he did not state merely that courts martial were suspended, but he complained also that the execution of sentences were countermanded in cases of trials already had.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 22.
[MINUTES.]
—Counsel were further heard at considerable length, relative, to the
86
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 22.
[MINUTES.]
—The house having attended the house of lords, pursuant to a summons by the Usher of the Black Rod, the Speaker, on their return, informed them that the Royal Assent had been given by Commission to the Marine Mutiny, and Lord J. Thynne's Indemnity Bills.—Mr. Johnson, from the Chief Secretary's Office in Ireland, presented an Account of the Irish 61. per Cent. Duties. Ordered to lie on the Table.—Mr. Irving, from the Customs in Scotland, presented an Account of the Exports and Imports to and from Scotland; and also of all Arrears and Balances in the hands of the Commissioners. Or-
87
[SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET.]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means the Secretary at War in the Chair, spoke as follows:—Sir, it is now my duty to sub-
88
89
90
[LEGACY DUTY BILL.]—Sir Henry Mildmay
said, the tax under this bill imposed upon legacies to children, could be considered in its operation only as a tax upon landed property. If a man had 4000l. annual rent from his land, with a numerous family to support, a very small part of it would be apportioned to the younger children in the will of the parent, and those who were protected during the life of the father, under the patrimonial mansion, when they were driven into poverty by the awful event to which he had adverted, were to be rendered subject to this new imposition. Estimating their fortune at 4000l. their income could not exceed 200l. and besides the income Tax to be deducted from this small pittance, they must make a further sacrifice the first year of 40l. Another objection to the tax was, that instead of tending to discourage celibacy, it imposed a tax upon population, and the more numerous the progeny, the weightier the burthen. The house had lately shewn the influence of its humanity towards mules and cart-horses, he hoped it would not be less indulgent towards the children of the state. The tax, in every point of view, was unjust and impolitic, and he should propose an amendment, in order that younger children might be relieved from the pressure of this imposition.
The Speaker
informed the hon. member that no amendment could be proposed till after the house had agreed to the third reading of the bill.
Lord George Cavendish
observed, that it would operate as a check on persons giving away property, and though there were none that reprobated more than he did the practice of giving away property to the prejudice of those to whom it properly belonged, yet there were instances when such legacies were highly proper and necessary to the discharge of the duties of humanity and gratitude. His lordship appealed to the experience of the mercantile part of the house. There were many foreigners in this country who had either made fortunes by their long industry, or inherited them from the industry of their fathers, and whose long industry here, and the habits they had acquired, had detached them from any relations on the continent. These would very naturally leave their property to the friends they had formed in this country; and it was hard, he
91
Mr. Spencer Stanhope
said, he had as large a family to maintain as almost any gentleman in that house, with the exception of the hon. baronet (sir Henry Mildmay,) yet he should oppose the tax, from pure and disinterested motives. On every principle of taxation, to which he had attended, he should object that the younger children should be taxed, and that the elder should on free, who were best able to answer the public demand. It was, however, some satisfaction to him to discover, that there were various ways of avoiding this imposition; and he could assure the hon. gent. that he should not pay one farthing to the tax, from the duty he felt to provide for his family. He would say nothing of the distress of the times, of the calamities during war, of the aggravated system of taxation; he did not wish to oppose the minister, but he flattered himself, in resisting this tax, he did him an essential service. He had formerly read a book, entitled, "Private Vices, Public Benefits," and the advantages of general intoxication were insisted on in that work as a great source of national revenue. The waste and profusion of a general election were likewise contended for as conducive to the public interests, by enlarging the income of the state. It was on some such principles that the present tax could be justified. The inequality of the tax was another objection. It was peculiarly directed against the ill-favoured, and against the ancient maiden, against the diseased, the lame, and the blind. These were more properly objects of pity, than of taxation. If the tax were to be imposed, the two first years of the income of it ought to he laid out in hospitals and nunneries, that the objects of it might be permitted to starve decently. He had said, the tax might be eluded. It does not extend to Irish property; and a father, by investing his money in the Irish funds, would avoid it. Again, fathers seeing the consequence, of this tax, would leave the fortunes of their younger children to the duty, fidelity, and honour of the eldest, who would provide for his brethren according to the wishes of his deceased parent. Further, the father might in his dying hour dispose of his property to his children by gift, and exclude them from his will. He hoped the
92
The chancellor of the Exchequer
adverted with great precision to different arguments that had been urged against the bill; but our limits will not allow us to follow him at great length. As the house had already decided on the general principle of the bill, he did not think it necessary to go into it at so much length as otherwise he should have felt it his duty.—The noble lord opposite, (lord G. Cavendish) had objected to the clause relating to such legacies as were left to absolute strangers; but surely no part of the bill could be considered less obnoxious than that. In this case the advantage was unexpected, and it was natural to suppose that persons under this impression would part, without much reluctance, with such a portion of it as the tax required, and at any rate their claims to it must be considered much less strong than in other cases it would be. The attack which had been made direct legacies, he conceived to have proceeded from misapprehension, or a very partial view of the subject. Much had been said of its falling heavy on the younger children of a family, but when gentlemen used this language they seemed to forget that the tax was very trifling in itself—not more than one for a hundred. Suppose a father should wish to leave to a younger child a legacy of 5000l. it would be easy for him to add 50l. to this sum for the payment of the tax, and so in proportion with any other sum, taking the addition from what would have otherwise belonged to the eldest, so that in this case the younger branches of the family are completely exempted, and the tax comes from a quarter that is best able to bear it. An hon. gentleman had supposed, that in order to evade the tax a father might be induced to leave the provision of the younger part of his family to the generosity of the oldest, but of the two alternatives he thought the one he had just mentioned the most likely to be adopted. It had been objected also to the measure, that it affected the provision made for a family at the death of the father, while any settlement made during his life was exempted. The object of the measure was certainly not to affect transactions, though the propriety of such a measure might open a wide field for discussion, but transactions were in many instances taxed
ad valorem
93
Mr. Grey
observed, that if he was disposed to enter at large into the bill before the house, the speech of the right honourable gentleman furnished him. argument enough to prove the injustice of the tax. The general heir of landed property was exempt from its operation, whilst personal property was subject to it. He did not disapprove of the exemption, but he must say, that a direct tax on capital (as this was) would necessarily discourage that enterprising spirit in commerce which was so essential to its extension. He considered the tax also objectionable in a mixed monarchy like ours, in which the Aristocracy constituted one of the branches; but this must be sustained by property, for without it there would be little importance attached to rank. But, said the right honourable gentleman, (Mr. Pitt) landed property is not chargeable 'with this ditty; he agreed that it was not chargeable in words; but was it not so in substance? The right honourable gentleman referred to the prudence and tenderness of fathers, and argued that they would leave the legacies to younger children free from this tax. If they did so, how was it to be done? By charging the amount of this tax on the legacies granted, to the estate of the eldest son. Thus it was evident from the words of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the operation of the tax would be eventually on landed property. He contended, therefore, that the house ought to pause and reflect seriously before it acceded to a measure, which, by indirect wording, would have the effect of a positive duty on the land throughout the kingdom. He begged to remind the right honourable gentleman, that taxes of this description had been always censured by those who had written and thought most upon subjects of this kind; it should not be forgotten that they ascribed the imposing of them to evident symptoms
94
95
Dr. Laurence
asked, whether those sums which were to be distributed among the next of kin, when there was a will, should not be liable to the tax, as well as legacies mentioned in the will?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that that would, be a subject for future consideration.
Sir H. Mildmay
then proposed an amendment, that all the clauses in the bill directly affecting legacies to younger children should be left out. On this a division took place; for the original motion 164—Against it 72—Majority for the bill 92.
[PANCRAS POOR BILL.]
—A petition of several of the directors of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, appointed in and by virtue of an act, made in the last session of parliament, was presented to the house, and read; taking notice of the bill for repealing the said act, and for making other provisions in lieu there of; and setting forth, that the petitioners conceive the said act, is, adequate to every purpose of parochial regulation and building a work-house, and the powers thereof sufficiently extensive; and that the present bill has originated with only a few of the directors, unknown to the major part of such directors and the parish at large; and the same contains powers and provisions which, if passed into a law, will in many respects be highly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by themselves or counsel, against the said bill passing into a law." Ordered to lie upon the table, until the said bill be read a second time; and that the petitioners be then heard, by themselves or counsel, against the said bill, upon their petition, if they think fit.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, March 23.
[MINUTES.]
—Counsel were farther heard relative to the Scots Appeal, Rocheid
v
96
97
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 25.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.] Lord Grenville
rose, and said, that agreeably to the notice he had given, he was about to offer to their Lordships a petition from certain of his Majesiy's subjects in Ireland, professing the Roman Catholic religion. He now held the Petition in his hand, and in the first place desired that it might be read. The Clerk then read the Petition, of which the following is an authentic copy.
98
99
100
101
102
103
Lord Grenville
again rose, and moved, that it do lie on the table. He said, it was not his intention to make any other motion at present, on a subject of so much importance; much deliberation was necessary previous to any notice being given of a motion for the consideration of the petition. When it should be thought fit to submit that proposition to the house, he assured their lordships that ample notice would be given.
Lord Auckland
felt himself bound to say a few words before the petition was laid on the table. He declared that the nature of the petition, until this moment, had been perfectly unknown to him. He had, however, listened attentively to it while reading, and, from what caught his ear, it appeared to him that the petitioners claimed a full participation of all the rights and privileges of the other subjects of his majesty. That was a claim which merited the most serious consideration. If it were to be conceded, the consequence would be that their lordships would see a protestant king, in this country, maintaining the protestant religion here, while it was losing its ascendency in Ireland. In Ireland, their lordships would see the protestant religion established by law, while the magistrates and legislators of the country would be Roman Catholics. He regretted that this subject had been brought forward, but since it had come under the notice of their lordships, he trusted that the question would be fully investigated. Their lordships could not now let the subject pass over, but must feel it to be their duty to discuss it minutely, calmly, and dispassionately. He would give no opinion at present; but he must confess that he saw nothing in the signs of the times that would induce him to break down the barriers,
104
Lord Grenville
would not use one word of argument in support of the petition. He should only observe, that so far as it was in his power to expedite the business, it would be forwarded, and he was anxious that no unnecessary delay should take place. He also assured their lordships, that when the subject was brought forward, it should, as far as depended on him, receive a deliberate, calm, and dispassionate discussion. With regard to the merits of the petition, he would say nothing now; that was what he wished to avoid at present, even if any thing could have induced him to offer any observations on a motion for laying this petition on the table.
Lord Hawkesbury
after what had passed, could not permit the petition to be laid on the table, without taking the opportunity of saving a few words upon the motion. The right of petitioning he held to be so sacred a privilege, that nothing could excuse their lordships from receiving petitions from any description of his majesty's subjects. To this general proposition he knew only two exceptions: 1st, when the grievance complained of was one over which their lordships had no jurisdiction, and which they therefore could not redress. 2d, when there was something disrespectful in the form or language of the petition. The present petition, however, came not within either of these exceptions, and he therefore should not object to its being laid on the table. He concurred with the noble baron who had introduced the petition, in deprecating all premature discussion; but, if it was that noble baron's intention to bring the subject again before the House, he thought it but justice now to declare, that if any motion should be made for carrying into effect the prayer of the petition, he should then, but not till then, state his reasons for opposing any such measure.
Lord Grenville
said, he only rose, that it might be distinctly understood, that it was his intention to bring forward the sub-
105
The Duke of Norfolk
rose, to move that the Petition should be printed. He was not aware whether such a motion was conformable to the custom and usage of the house; but when he considered the importance of the subject, and the variety of assertions made in the Petition, all of which it was indispensably necessary their lordships should thoroughly investigate, he wished, if there was no order against it, to press upon the attention of the House a motion for printing the petition. He at the same time regretted, that a noble lord, holding a high situation in his majesty's most intimate councils, should have prematurely expressed an opinion inimical to the prayer of the petition.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he believed it would be found, on the one hand, that there was no order against printing a petition, and that, on the other, there was no example of any petition having been printed. He thought that the importance of the petition demanded that it should remain on the table, for the examination of every one of their lordships, instead of being sent out of the House to be printed.—motion was negatived.
[CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.] Lord Auckland
agreeably to the notice he had given, brought forward some farther propositions in reference to the pending case of this magistrate. After some general observations, as to the peculiar importance of the case, the necessity which existed for their lordships deciding upon it with the utmost caution and deliberation, with a view equally to the correctness of their own proceedings, as well as to the importance of the case in the way of precedent, and, adverting to the circumstance of the proceedings in the committee being adjourned till the beginning of May, against which period their lordships might be furnished with the necessary information of advice upon the point, moved to the general effect, that "the case against Mr. Justice Fox, the charges alleged, and steps taken in consequence, be referred to the consideration of the judges for their opinion of the same; and whether the case, as it stood, could, consistently with the relevant acts and usage of parliament, be
106
The Lord Chancellor
did not then wish to offer any opinion as to the substance of his noble friend's motion, but he recommended that the consideration of such a proposition should be deferred for a few days. On the first view of it, they should hesitate ere they agreed to put such a proposition to the judges, as containing points upon which he, for one, perhaps, could have no doubt. He should, however, in the interval he meant to propose, pay a most sedulous attention to the precedents, and to the records on the journals. It certainly required some deliberation, as possibly, by taking such a step precipitately, they might advance further in error. After considering the proposition in a variety of legal points of view, in the course of which he deprecated the putting such questions to the learned judges without further inquiry and deliberation; he moved, that the further consideration of the motion be adjourned till this day se'nnight.
Lord Grenville
did not mean to oppose the amendment of the noble and learned lord, but agreed in favour of a great deal of what fell from the noble lord who opened the discussion. He contended, that sooner than persist in error, they should, if found necessary, tread back their steps; and he hoped, that no fear of imputed inconsistency would deter them from doing that which they should find to be right. He thought it would be proper to take the opinion of the judges on the occasion, who, it should be recollected, had, officially, seats in that house. No objection would be urged, he thought, to the noble and learned lord's amending the language of the proposition, as he should deem proper; and, after adverting to what he conceived a difference in the line of argument then adopted by the learned lord, and what he had urged on former occasions, observed, that he should not hesitate to follow that line of conduct adopted by lord chancellor Clarendon, on an occasion nearly similar, who resorted for information and advice to that quarter, which the usage of that house, and the constitution, equally pointed out as the most eligible in such cases.
Lord Hawkesbury
conceived, that the proceedings then before their lordships were not upon an address to his majesty, for the removal of a judge; but the question was, what proceedings should be had
107
Lord Ellenborough
conceived that the question before the house was, not whether their lordships were to address his majesty for the removal of one of the judges, but whether their lordships would take the opinion of the learned judges, as to the manner of their future proceedings? His lordship had no objection to his learned friend's wish to postpone the consideration of the question for some days, as in truth he thought it but right they should take time upon so important a proceeding; but the impression upon his mind was that, before any address should be presented to his majesty, the question should be tried by a court of law, and Mr. justice Fox should be either found guilty, or acquitted, of the charges laid against him, by the verdict of 12 honest, and upright men. The regular proceedings should be had upon that verdict, a writ of error should be brought, and the verdict either affirmed or reversed; if the former, then the matter would come properly before their lordships. His lordship then went into some observations of considerable length, upon proceedings by impeachment, which he considered would be the most preferable mode. He expressed a strong desire that the opinion of the learned judges should be taken upon the question. It was by no means beneath the dignity of that house, or at all derogatory to their lordships' privileges, to take such an opinion. It was for such purposes the learned judges sat in that house, and he trusted their lordships would resort to them, who
108
Lord Grenville
then read the case of Bridgman against lord Chief Justice Holt, for the satisfaction of lord Ellenborough, which case his lordship had chiefly relied upon. The cause originated in the refusal of the Chief Justice to receive a bill of exceptions which had been tendered to him.—The question for postponing the further consideration of the matter until this day se'nnight was then put, and carried.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 25,
[MINUTES.]
A message from the lords announced their lordships' assent to the Irish Customs bill, Excise bill, Stamp Duty bill, the Postage bill, the Malt and Spirits bill, the Sugar Drawback bill, the English Exchequer Bills bill, the English Sugar Drawback bill, the Promissory Notes bill, and the Expiring Laws bill, all without any amendment. Soon afterwards, the gentleman usher of the black rod appeared at the bar, and summoned the speaker and house to attend in the house of lords, to hear his majesty's assent given, by commission, to certain bills. The Speaker and members accordingly attended; and on his return he acquainted the house, that he had heard the royal assent given, by commission, to several public and private bills, among which were those above enumerated, as also the Irish Warehousing bills.—A person from the Stamp-office presented an account of stamp duties and balances in the hands of the collectors at this present period.—Mr. Bagwell, after obtaining leave to withdraw the Irish Election bill which he had lately brought in, moved for leave to present one more perfect. Agreed to.—Mr. Fitzgerald moved for leave to bring in a bill for regulating the Right of Common in Ireland, in the same manner as in England. Leave given—Mr. Fitzgerald, also moved, that there be laid before the house copies of the patents under which the commissioners of the treasury in Ireland held their offices, at the time of making their returns; and the warrant or warrants issued for paying their salaries, also a list of the several persons appointed commissioners of the treasury, and the funds out of which the several payments have been made. Ordered.
109
[REPORT OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET.] Mr. Alexander
brought up the report of the committee of ways and means. The several resolutions with respect to the new taxes were read, and when the clerk came to that relating to the proposed tax upon auctions.
Lord Henry Petty
rose, and after admitting that the other taxes proposed, were as unobjectionable as under the circumstances could be well expected, animadverted on the tax just referred to as likely to bear with peculiar hardship upon a very distressed part of the people, and therefore irreconcileable with the principle which the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had himself laid down on a former evening. The noble lord pressed upon the consideration of the house, that auctions were already subject to a tax of from 10 to 12 per cent. and that small traders, who generally disposed of their goods in that way, and distressed persons who were often obliged to have recourse to it, would be much affected by the proposed addition. He recommended an exemption in favour of such persons, on the same principle on which an exemption was granted under the property and other taxes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he should not at present enter into a discussion of the merits of this proposition. He should only observe, that, if the noble lord's argument were adopted, it would be impossible to bring forward a tax that should be received; for no tax, however generally good, could be free from some particular objections. The objections, however, stated by the noble lord were not applicable to the general principle of this tax.—Upon the resolution being read relating to the tax on cider And perry,
Mr. Bastard
stated, that, according to information which he had received this day, cider was, in consequence of an alteration made by the excise in the course of the last year, raised from the nominal duty of 20s, to 24s. per hogshead. With the proposed addition, therefore, it would be subject to 36s. per hogshead. He hoped, however, that the new duty would not attach to the stock on hand. If it should be so proposed, he declared his intention to oppose it.—The resolution was agreed to, as were the others, and bills ordered accordingly.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.] Mr. Fox
previous to bringing up this Petition, addressed the house, and said, that he
110
Mr. Cartwright
rose. He said it was not his intention on that occasion to enter into the merits of the question, but he could not help expressing his regret, that the subject of the petition was likely to be brought to a discussion under the present circumstances of the country. Much as he lamented what did pass upon the subject not long since, and much as he lamented the importance attached at that time to the immediate concession of the privileges withheld from the Catholics, he was in hopes no further steps would have been taken to accomplish that object, till at least there was some reason to suppose no insurmountable difficulties stood in the way of its attainment; and he could not help expressing his surprize, that the advocates for these concessions should be so anxious for a discussion, knowing as they do all the circumstances of the case, and the certainty of no success. He could not comprehend the policy or patriotism of creating a discussion, if not likely to go further, and of thus unseasonably agitating a subject of such general expectation and importance, on which the feelings of the inhabitants of Ireland were so unhappily alive, and which may lead to no small fermentation and disturbance in that country.
Mr. Fox
said, that the hon. member had alluded to an insurmountable obstacle; but what that obstacle was, the hon. gent.
111
Dr. Duigenan
urged the propriety of ascertaining with precision the day on which the motion of the hon. gent. would be brought forward, and hoped he would positively fix on the 9th of May for that purpose.
Mr. Fox
had no objection whatever to that day himself, but until he had consulted those who were more immediately interested, he did not feel entitled to say that that should certainly be the day on which he would make his motion.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 26.
[MINUTES.]
Their lordships proceeded further in the Appeal, Rocheid, esq. against Kinloch, bart. Mr. H. Erskine concluded his reply. After which the further consideration was postponed till Tuesday next.—Mr. Alexander brought up the Legacy Duty bill, and two private bills; which were severally read a first time.—Mr. Worsley, from the London Flour Company, presented the annual accounts of the Company; which were ordered to lie on the table.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 26.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Rose
brought up the American Neutral Trade bill, which was read a first time.—Mr. Rose brought up the bill granting to aliens abroad the same privileges in the disposal of prizes as were now possessed by the natives of the United Kingdom. Read a first time.—The Secretary at War obtained leave to bring in a bill similar to that of last year, for increas-
112
[MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.]
The order of the day being read for the 2d reading of the Militia Enlisting Bill,
Mr. Hughes
rose and delivered his maiden speech in parliament. He said he was not in the habit of offering himself to the attention of the house, but the strong call of duty constrained him to overcome his natural reluctance. He admitted the present bill was less objectionable than that which had been adopted in 1799, from the modifications it had received; but as he must resist the principle of it, those variations could not reconcile him to the measure. The bill was brought forward without any ground being laid for its introduction. When the former one was submitted to the attention of the house, a case of remarkable urgency was made out, although not such a case as, in his mind, vindicated the expedient. What was the situation at that time? In the year 1799, we had a prodigious defensive force: the Militia exceeded 100,000 men, and we had a numerous body of Fencibles. On the contrary, the regular army was wasted by a protracted war; and it was under these peculiar circumstances that it was permitted to recruit out of the Fencibles and out of the Militia, under the authority of parliament. In this instance the same scheme was recommended, when
113
Mr. Yorke
said, he was somewhat concerned that several militia officers, comrades of his, had expressed themselves in such strong terms against the bill. He however agreed with those gentlemen, that some of the details were objectionable, yet
114
115
116
117
Mr. Bastard
had always imagined that parents were ready to spring to the defence of their offspring, when attacked by any danger; but the present instance contradicted his experience on this subject, for although the augmented state of the militia was the child of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he seemed to stand up as its most determined enemy, and to be bent on its destruction. The effect of the bill would, he much feared, be to drive men of property and consequence out of the militia service. Should an invasion take place, he had not the slightest doubt that they would cordially unite to fight
pro aris et focis
Earl Temple
said, he did not know that he should have been induced to say any thing upon the bill in the present stage of it, had it not been for the speech of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke), who found so strange a method of reconciling duties so very contrary to each other, as those of a secretary at war, and of a militia colonel. The only argument for this bill, namely, that of getting a great accession to the regular army, was used by his right hon. relation (Mr. Pitt), in support of his ineffective Defence bill, which met with the decided opposition of the right hon. gent. When this measure was resorted to in 1799, there was a better ground for it than now, as a distinct object was then stated for its and a pledge given
118
The Marquis of Douglas
conceived the bill to be unjust in its principle, and injurious in its operation. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) had said it was not unconstitutional; he did not contend it was so, but as far as respected the constitution of the
119
The Marquis of Douglas
said, he bowed with great deference to the authority of the chair. He then proceeded to state that the militia officers did not so much object to this measure, from feeling, as upon the constitutional ground, that by proposing this measure to them, they would be defrauding them into an acceptance of what they had no reason to expect. He himself, though by no means divested of the feelings of a militia colonel, objected to it principally from its dying injustice to the proprietors and occupiers of the land, who would by this bill be obliged to pay a second bounty for substitutes. It was fallacious to say, that all persons paid equally, and in proportion, for the army and navy. The members of the universities, and many other descriptions, were exempted from the operation of the ballots. Part also of the pay of militia men was appropriated to the maintenance of their families; but when they should enlist into the regulars, the support of their wives and children would fall upon the parishes. As Scotchman, he said, he had no complain that the country was put to the expence of providing for 12,000 men; there were no more than 6,000 left for its defence; and none of the regulars stationed there, for their domestic protection. He heard a report, that the noble lord (Moira) who had the chief military command there had lately resigned it, finding that all those exertions of his Which had gained him the confidence, respect, and veneration of all parts and ranks in that country, were not Sufficient to supply the military deficiencies. He must also object to the measure upon the ground of policy, when the alarm of invasion had not yet subsided. What chance had we of co-operating in any continental war, when we were destitute of a single ally? In his majesty's speech from the throne, the word ally was not even mentioned, we only ventured to speak of "confidential negociations" with foreign courts, but effect was yet produced from it, nor did he hear of a single movement in our favour. He denied that it was
120
Lord Stanley
rose to make some remarks on what had fallen from a former secretary at war (Mr. Yorke), and on the inconsistency of his conduct, in the part he had taken in the present measure. He did not know how to reconcile the conduct of the right hon. gent. in approving of the present measure for the reduction of the militia, after having himself introduced a bill for augmenting that constitutional species of the national force. The noble lord defended himself, and those who opposed the present measure, from the, observations of the right hon. gent. that if what he called a broad-bottomed administration had been formed, those who voted against the present bill would have given their ready concurrence to the measure now proposed. He then entered at considerable length into a discussion of the consequences of this bill, which he characterized as unconstitutional and unjust. Be said, it was an attempt to increase the regular army, without ascertaining the expence. It seemed to be the object of the right. hon. gent. to create a large force, without being much concerned about the means he made use of to accomplish it.
Lord Euston
approved of the measure. The principle was that of the bill for the gradual reduction of the militia. He was one who thought that reduction necessary when proposed last session by his right hon. friend (M r. Pitt); for he felt then, and did still feel, that there were not sufficient officers for the militia, as it stood at the increased number of 68,000. He was a militia officer himself, and should do every thing in his power to forward the objects of the measure before the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed that he had been anxious to hear the sentiments of such gentlemen as chose to come forward on this occasion before he troubled the house with any remarks of his own. He was happy to have the concurrence of his noble friend who had just sat
121
122
123
Mr. Windham
said, it was not to be supposed he had any objection to the increase of the troops of the line. That was an ob-
124
125
126
127
128
For the second reading
148
Against it
59
Majority
89
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 27.
[MINUTES.]
Counsel were heard respecting the Scotch Appeal, Andrew Blane, writer to the signet, trustee for sir A. Cathcart, of Carleton, bart. v. Archibald. Earl of Cassilis, and others; viz. Mr. Romilly, as leading counsel for the appellant, at considerable length.—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages; among these, the Additional Legacy Duty bill was read a second time, and committed for to-morrow; and the Committee on the bill to authorise the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges to purchase Advowsons, was postponed till Friday.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 27.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Curwen
gave notice that he should more to-morrow that
129
[IRISH SMALL NOTES BILL.] Mr. Foster
conformably to the. notice which he gave on Monday last, moved for leave to bring in a bill to restrain the negotiation of promissory notes and Ireland Bills of Exchange under a limited sum in Ireland. The right hon. gent. observed, that he should have moved for this bill long since, but that he had waited for a silver currency, now coining, to supply the place of those small, or silver notes, as they were termed. Every person in the least acquainted with the state of Ireland must acknowledge and lament the ill effects produced by the issue of notes under 5l. in that country: the object of the bill, therefore, was to restrain the further issue of a paper medium, which has inundated Ireland, and injured it most materially in every respect.
Mr. R. Martin
said, he was inclined, at first, to oppose the intended restriction, but he had since changed his opinion, and now approved heartily of the measure. He could not but congratulate the country in in having a chancellor of the exchequer who
130
Mr. Foster
replied, that the policy of granting such a privilege to private banks, as that suggested by the hon. gent. required serious consideration; it would be competent, however, to the hon. gent. to bring forward the subject at some future period; he should not then trouble the house with any further observations, but confine himself to the object and substance of the bill for which he had the honour of moving.
Mr. Magens
said, that as the right hon. gent. had mentioned an intention of the bank of Ireland to issue silver tokens, to relieve the necessity of silver notes, he would be glad to know the nature of them.
Mr. Foster
answered, that, in addition to the Spanish dollars now in circulation Ireland to a considerable amount, bank tokens of 10d. and 5d. each, in order to answer Irish currency, would be issued.—The motion was then read from the chair, and leave given to bring in the bill.
[IRISH POST ROADS BILL.] Mr. Foster
also moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act, for the repair of post roads, passed in the parliament of Ireland, in the 32d of the king. The object of the amendment was, that postmasters may be enabled to send the mails by mail coaches, or otherwise, with greater safety and expedition than could be done at present, from the badness of many of the public roads, which, by the bill, should be repaired and altered, where the public convenience and advantage made it necessary.
Colonel Bagwell
observed, that if the bill were not speedily passed, it must lie over till next year, because the money for the proposed improvement was to be assessed by the grand juries at the assises.
Mr. Foster
said, he did not wish to precipitate public business; but, at all events, that delay was necessary for accomplishing the object of the present measure. In the first place. surveyors must be sent to exa
131
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 28.
[MINUTES.]
Counsel were farther heard on the Scotch Appeal, sir A. Cathcart, bart.
v.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 28.
[MINUTES.] Col. Stanley
presented a petition from the manufacturers, tradesmen, and the inhabitants of Manchester, praying for the repeal or amendment of the Corn bill, passed last Sessions. Ordered to lie on the table.—Sir John Newport brought up a bill for establishing a provisionary Asylum for Lunatics in Ireland; which was read a first time—Mr. Curwen moved, that there be laid before the house copies of the opinion delivered by the Attorney and Solicitor-General before the Privy-Council, upon the claims of
132
[BENGAL JUDICATURE BILL.] Lord Castlereagh
pursuant to notice, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 33d of the king, which prescribes the powers to be given to the India company in the appointment of a commander in chief of the forces in India, and regulates the duties of the governor general in council at Bengal. In making this motion,
133
Mr. Francis
then rose and said; sir, I am not aware of any objection to the provisions of this bill. The cases stated, though I hope not likely to happen, ought to be provided for. The supposition cannot be made without some painful reflec-
134
my
[MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.]
On the motion being put for the house resolving itself into a committee of the whole house, on the Militia Enlisting bill,
General Fitzpatrick
said, it was his intention to propose in the committee a clause for limiting the time of the enlistment of these volunteers. It was now 14 years since he first endeavoured to impress the propriety of enlisting for the army for a term of years. The enlistment for life, however, still continued, though he was convinced his proposition would be ultimately adopted, as the only certain mode of permanently recruiting the army. His plan was partially adopted in the volunteering from the militia in 1799, in which case the enlistment was for a definite term of 5 years, and during the war. There was no provision to that effect in the present bill, and that was his principal reason for voting against it on the second reading. He would propose in the committee
135
Mr. Ellison
said, the bill was neither unconstitutional nor unjust: and if it was the motto of the constitution neither to bend or bow, yet as the militia was but one branch of the great tree of the constitution, the militia might be constitutionally made both to bow and bend, to receive alterations, not only without violating the constitution, but so as at once to maintain it, to guard it from the incroachment of real violations, and by extending the sphere of its conservative power, to keep off the blights of time from the sacred body of the constitution. He would not admit that the bill would be a tax on the landed interest. The militia was originally, however, more a taxation on the landed interest than on any other. It was a wrong idea to suppose that the militia was raised for its own defence merely; for what would be our situation, if. on the call of danger, the York or Lincoln militia were to refuse to serve any where but in its own county? For these reasons, he thought the bill neither unconstitutional, unjust, nor oppressive. As to what was said of its being a breach of faith, it was not that, but a commutation. Still he admitted that nothing could justify the measure but the necessity of the case. With respect to men's feelings, he could only say, that he neither felt himself insulted or degraded by the bill, and should say to his men, at the head of his regiment, "Here, my lads, is a better way of serving your country, and I know you will choose the better way." He took notice of the remarks on the paper signed by the 32 militia officers, mentioned on a former night, and said, that although he was present at the meeting of these officers, he had never understood that any resolution was passed, and had never signed his name to any, although it did appear at the published resolutions of that meeting.
Earl Temple
said, that the hon. member was certainly present at the meeting, and expressed no sort of dissent from the resolutions.
Mr. Ellison
in explanation, did not deny having been present, but as to the resolutions, there were, in fact, none proposed while he was present, or none which, from the confusion and uproar, he could
136
Mr. Frankland
thought what might be the conduct of any gent. at a private meeting immaterial in the discussion of this bill. It was stated to be one of imperious necessity; but if so, that necessity should be proved, and then every objection, though even of a much stronger nature, would give way before it. He did not suppose that it would abate the ardour of the militia officers in the defence of their country, but some great necessity should be shewn for the adoption of a measure, by which, without that, their feelings must be wounded. Under the present circumstances he must oppose it, as impolitic and unjust, although, if otherwise, he should take pride in turning over to the regulars such men as appeared most likely to obtain most distinctions in the field of battle. He could not approve the policy of this change, which could not give us an offensive force, while the threatened danger of the country required that the men should be kept at home. He was indeed sure, that the whole force and talents of the country should be concentered for its protection, but that should always be done with a proper reference to our mild constitution. In the year 1799, there existed great political necessity, as we had then a gallant army, critically circumstanced in an enemy's country, and for the purpose of rescuing and preserving that brave army, he should not oppose any practicable method, if such could be found, of transporting not only the militia, but the whole population of the country, for its relief. This plan, therefore, did not bring an accession of 17,000 men to our offensive force, but transferred them from one branch of defensive force to another; and that in a manner calculated to produce dissatisfaction and disunion in the service. It should not be lost sight of, that in its present state, the militia was a great defensive force, created by the parliament, and so formed, as to be a check against any such improvident or ruinous enterprise, or expeditions of the ministers, if any such were meditated. To deprive the people of such a force, raised from themselves, and for their own defence, was as unjust as it was impolitic. Such varying systems, from day
137
General Tarleton
thought it was rather an inconsistency to call upon all the talents of the country to put the army on a proper footing, and at the same time to deny that there was any necessity for the present measure. In the third year of a war, like the present, of the most fromidable description ever known it was rather extraordinary to hear gentlemen speak as if it were a mere
guerre de pots de chambre,
Sir W. Elford
made a few observations, in answer to what fell from the hon. gent. who spoke last but one. When a measure of this sort was originally proposed in 1779, the army had not gone to Holland. A second application had been made to and parliament for relief to that army, and it had been granted. The hon. gent.'s argument then, so far as it depended upon the expedition to Holland, fell to the ground. The house then divided on the speaker's leaving the chair,
Ayes
113
Noes
49
Majority
64
138
Mr. Giles
was speaking on the necessity that there appeared to him to be of the bill expressing more clearly whether the Supplementary Militia bill was or was not repealed. The present measure was a partial repeal of the Additional Force act, which was itself a repeal of the act for calling out the Supplementary Militia.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the most regular way for the hon. gent. to have proceeded, would be either to introduce any additional clauses he might think necessary, or else to move an alteration in the preamble of the bill. He however, had no hesitation in admiting, that the act of the last sessi on had put an end to the Supplementary Militia, and that his majesty had not now the power of calling them out If the whole number that were now expected to volunteer should join the regulars, such an accession, together with the ordinary recruiting would make then unnecessary. On the reading of the first clause of the bill,
Mr. Yorke
felt it necessary to repeat the observations he had thrown out on a former evening. He wished that a proportion of those who should volunteer from the militia, might be added to the royal marines, and he did not wish that any of them should be allowed to volunteer for either the foot guards or the cavalry. The principle of the bill was to increase our disposable army, and he could not consider either the cavalry or the foot guards as equally disposable with the regiments of the line. He allowed that the guards were a very fine body of men, but it had not been the custom to employ them in colonial service, like the marching regiments; besides, their number was now nearly complete. He also thought that a proportion of them would be well employed in the royal artillery. He therefore moved as an amendment to the clause, that, instead of the words "his majesty's regular forces," should be inserted the following, "the regiments of the line, royal artillery, and marines."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not at all object to a proportion of the volunteers going into the royal marines, but he thought it would be better to leave a discretionary power in his majesty to settle what that proportion should be. He also agreed with the right hon. gent. respecting the cavalry, and admitted that the power of
139
Mr. Yorke
could not agree to this clause. He neither wished to make the militia inefficient by taking all their best men from them, nor did he think it right that only the worst should be sent to join the disposable force. What appeared to him a proper medium, would be to allow a certain proportion only, suppose a third or a fourth, of the flank companies and front rank men to enter into the regular service. Should more of them volunteer, he thought it would best be determined by ballot, who should be accepted; he thought it would be an extreme hardship to tell a brave soldier, who was desirous of honour, You must not volunteer or get the bounty, because you are a good soldier and a credit to the regiment, but such a man may volunteer, because he has been inattentive to his military duties, and is rather a disgrace to the regiment. For these reasons he could not agree to the clause as it stood.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said he had introduced this clause for tile purpose of meeting, as far as possible, the sentiments of the militia officers, and was convinced, that in whatever mode a considerable number of the militia could be brought to volunteer, they would still be a most valuable accession, to the regular army. He wished to give a discretionary power to the militia officers to make the selection as they thought proper, he did not wish them to part only with their worst men. He concluded by moving as an amendment, that after the word "chase," should be added thes words, "by ballot or other-
140
General Fitzpatrick
rose, and moved as an amendment, that the term should be for 5 years, or until 6 months after a definitive treaty of peace. He grounded his argument, not only on general reasons, but on the conduct of government to the militia in a similar case, in the year 1799.—This motion produced a very long and desultory conversation, in which lord Temple, Sir James Pulteney, general Norton, colonel Stanley, general Tarleton, and sir W. W. Wynne, took a share.
Mr. Fox
said that he was a friend to the clause that provided for the service being limited, instead of being for life, because it was founded on principles of justice, and agreeable to the spirit of the constitution of this country, and not repugnant to any military principle whatever; and when he should have an opportunity of giving a vote upon such a question, he should never give it for enlisting men for life; yet he wished his right hon. friend on this occasion not to take the sense of the house, because as this was a limited and partial question, many might be against this particular clause under all the circumstances of the case, who might approve of the principle, and adopt it on another, and what might appear to them a more fit occasion; and he did wish that the majority against such a principle should be greater in appearance than reality. He hoped his right hon. friend, than whom nobody was more capable, would take some opportunity of bringing this subject before parliament, and he hoped that as it was a point on which military opinions were divided, as he now
141
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed on the general question which had been just alluded to: and remarked that the opinions of military men were much divided on the subject of enlisting soldiers for a term of years, instead of for life. Many military characters of the first estimation thought it would be attended with consequences highly injurious to the service. They also thought it impracticable during war. He did not now argue the point, but merely mentioned it, as a matter of great and serious difficulty at any time, and so doubtful in policy, that he should feel himself under the necessity of opposing such a measure whenever brought forward. No analogy could be drawn from the practice of foreign countries; none of them were under circumstances similar to this.
Mr. Fox
said, that as to its being a measure which could not be adopted in time of war, nothing was more easy than to include in it a provision that none of the men should be discharged during war; and indeed this very thing was done in one of the bills brought in last war by the right hon. gent. himself; but that was of little importance, for the right hon. gent. had no respect for his own bills.
General Fitzpatrick
observed, that in the clause he had offered, he copied the very words to be found in one of the bills of the chancellor of the exchequer last war; but, however, he should follow the advice of his hon. friend, and withdraw the clause.
Earl Temple
proposed a clause, subjecting every person, who shall unfairly enlist any man out of the militia, to a penalty of 20
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed it on the ground that it might give birth to hardships upon serjeants, and other recruiting officers, for having offered money to a man in a public house, &c. which
142
Mr. Ellison
thought there ought to be some security against the recruiting serjeants tampering with men.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the best security against that was, that both the labour and the money would be lost, if any thing of that nature took place, because unless he was fairly enlisted, he could never be attested.
Sir. W. W. Wynne
said, that without such a clause as this in the act of parliament, there could be no security whatever against mal-practices in this respect. They could not depend on the orders of the executive government in such cases.—The militia ought to be protected against that most dangerous animal, a recruiting serjeant.
Mr. Bankes
expressed an intention to offer a material amendment in the bill in another, stage.—The committee went through the bill, and the house being resumed, the report was received immediately, and was ordered to be taken into further consideration to-morrow, and the bill with the amendments, was ordered to be printed.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 29.
[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.]
The order being read for their lordships going into a committee on the bill, to repeal so much of the act of the 9th of Geo. II. as went to restrain colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from purchasing the advowson of livings;
The Duke of Norfolk
rose to oppose the proceedings. He thought adequate reasons should be given to induce the legislature to depart from a regulation which the wisdom of their ancestors thought a salutary provision. Their lordships would recollect that the act which the present bill went to repeal, in one of its most important provisions, took place principally at the instance of that great and good magistrate and minister, lord Hardwicke. If the measure was a wise and salutary provision then, why, he would ask, was it now unwise and injurious?
The Bishop of Oxford
contended generally for the injurious tendency of the restraint, under the circumstances in which
143
Lord Sidmouth
was of opinion that some farther time should be allowed noble lords to inform themselves, and to make up their minds upon a measure of such peculiar importance. The restraint, undoubtedly, was, as the noble duke observed, sanctioned by that great authority, lord chancellor Hardwicke. What he heard from the rev. prelate did not make up his mind as to the necessity of a legislative provision, at least, to the full extent of the present bill. Admitting the succession to livings, under the restraint, may be too slow, they may also, on the other hand, be too quick; nor did he conceive, that the interests of learning would be materially benefited by the alteration; as, through it, members might be taken from the university at too early a period, and before their literary acquirements had attained the necessary degree of weight and solidity. Neither could he see how the discipline of the universities would be ameliorated by the present bill. With respect to the proportion of livings, on which much stress had been laid, an increase of that, suppose two thirds, of the number of persons, may be a proper subject for discussion. All he would propose at present was a little delay in the progress of the bill, in order to afford time for maturely considering the subject.
The Lord Chancellor
saw no objection to the postponement desired by his noble friend, but he considered the subject of the greatest importance, and worthy the most serious consideration. It embraced
144
Lord Auckland
confessed, that in his present view of the subject, he was, generally speaking, favourably disposed towards the bill, as he was to every thing that proceeded from the reverend prelate who introduced it: however, he thought some degree of information on the subject necessary, as at present they were totally in the dark as to the means which the universities now possessed of remunerating their members, as to the number and value of the livings in their disposal, or other resources for that purpose. He should, therefore, suggest the expediency of the information such as he alluded to.
The Bishop of Oxford
replied at some length, and enlarged upon and enforced the leading topics which he before urged in favour of the bill; which, however, he had not the smallest wish to hurry through the house. He would appeal to their lordships as to the great importance of education; to which the present bill went to afford a boon; one which the legislature of the country should not grant with a niggardly hand. He was impressed with the conviction that the bill would produce the most salutary and desirable effects; and, adverting to what had fallen from noble lords on the score of modification, he hoped that principle would not be too far acted upon.
Lord Sidmouth
in explanation, indicated his attachment to the genuine interests of learning; and observed, that his idea was, that were the limitation taken away, the succession to livings, in some instances, might be too rapid. He concluded by proposing, that the committee on the bill be deferred till Tuesday next.
The Duke of Norfolk
explained, that he was not against all alteration of the present system. He was too well aware of the importance of education; but he
145
Lord Redesdale
argued for the propriety of having information upon the subject, to enable the house to form a just decision upon the subject, and to pursue the right line of discrimination. He agreed with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack as to the different important questions which the subject involved. He was aware of the difficulties which, in some points of view, existed, as with respect to procuring satisfactory information; but what the house would have principally to consider was the general policy of the measure, and to what extent it might be expedient to authorise the conveyance of livings from private patronage to that of the universities, and the proper ratio, as far as such was practicable, to be established with respect to the successions.—After some farther explanatory conversation, the committee on the bill was adjourned till Thursday next, and the lords ordered to be summoned for that day.
[STATE OF THE NAVY.]
The order of the day having been read,
Earl Darnley
rose, and expressed his regret that the motions which he was about to submit to their lordships, had not been brought forward by an illustrious duke, who was so much better qualified to give effect to them. The task, however, having fallen upon him, he would endeavour to explain the reasons for which he was induced to move for a variety of papers necessary, in his opinion, to elucidate the important question, which would be shortly submitted to their lordships, and in doing which, he would occupy as little of their time as possible. He was anxious to have it understood, that in bringing forward the business, he was actuated by no motive of a personal nature towards the noble viscount on the head of the naval department. No, his motives were of a more honourable character. They sprung from his anxiety to promote and maintain that establishment, upon which the safety, the honour, and the very existence of the country depended. If the essential and
146
147
148
Lord Walsingham
rose to order, and suggested whether it would not be proper for the noble lord to have the sense of the house taken on his first proposition, before he should proceed to read and comment upon the long series of motions which he intended submitting to their lordships.
Earl Darnley
thought it would save their lordships much trouble, if he should proceed to read them, instead of having the question put upon every one of them, which he should find himself under the necessity of doing, if he were prevented from following that course which he had adopted, as likely to least delay their lordships.
Lord Melville
thought it would be best to let his lordship proceed, and explain at once the purport of all his motions, as he hoped to be able to satisfy the house, that there was no real necessity for acceding to any of them.
Earl Darnley
then moved for "A copy of that part of the report made by the commissioners of the navy who inspected Chatham dock-yard in 1785, which has reference to the supplies of timber sent into that yard, and into the yards of Deptford and Woolwich." In that report it would, he believed, appear, that the building of ships of war by contract, impeded considerably the service of the king's yards, as it prevented supplies of timber from being offered to them.—His next motion would be for "Copies of the reports made by the purveyors of Sherwood Forest, dated 18th Nov. 1797, and 4th Dec. 1802; also an account, shewing the number of trees which have been felled in that forest, for the use of the navy, since the period fast mentioned; specifying when the navy board made application to the treasury for the fall of the said trees." This would establish the fact, that the whole forest had been suffered to rot, notwithstanding the report of the purveyors, till the year 1803, when a fall of 8000 trees was made; and during that time the very ships building in the king's yards were rotting for want of timber to complete them.—He would next move for "A copy of the letter from the navy board to their purveyor of Sherwood Forest dated 20th Nov. 1797, declining the offer of timber made by Mr. Shaw, of Trowel." In this letter he understood they declared they would be in no want of timber for the following year.—His next motion was "For an account shewing the lowest
149
150
151
152
l.
l.
l.
153
154
Lord Melville
rose, and assured the noble lord, that nothing could be more adverse to his wishes, than to oppose the production of any papers, which could possibly tend to impede the discussion of the important subject, which it was the professed object of all his motions to bring before their lordships. If the noble lord could prove his proposition, it would afford him, and the whole kingdom, he was persuaded, greater satisfaction than any event which had ever occurred in the history of the naval administration of this country. If he could prove that the king's yards, in times of difficulty, were equal to the keeping in repair of the great naval establishment of this country, and to add ten sail of the line to it annually, he who made the discovery would deserve to be considered as the greatest benefactor to the country, that has ever existed. He would be among the foremost to express his gratitude to such a man. He thought it necessary to remind the house that the motion respecting the late and present naval administration, was not of his seeking. He acted upon the defensive, and the different papers which he had moved for, were intended to be employed rather in his own vindication, than for the purpose of criminating others. With regard to one of the principal charges against him, that of building in the merchant yards, he would assert, that, from the foundation of the navy, to the present time, no board of admiralty ever existed in this country, with the exception of the last, which in times of difficulty had not recourse to building in
155
156
The Duke of Clarence
would not long trespass on the house, but he thought it incumbent on him to say a few words in support of a motion of which he was proud to be the father. He was surprised that the secretary of the navy board should write the letter which the noble lord stated to have received, or that 3 months should be required for the production of papers, which were necessary for the discussion of one of the most important questions that was ever submitted to that house. He could not refrain, however, even in that stage of the business, from declaring, that if any deviation should take place from the system laid down by lord St. Vincent, it was both fallacious and erroneous. In the merchant yards, the practice had long prevailed ref shoaling the shipwrights, and it was the wish of that great character, that the practice, which had been found
157
Earl Darnley
congratulated their lordships and the country, that the system introduced by the late board of admiralty was under consideration, for its merits were such, that he entertained a confident hope that it would be adopted. He was happy to hear such a declaration fall from the noble lord at the head of the naval department, for it was generally understood that he, and those united with him in administration, came in with the determination to resist all the salutary regulations of the late board of Admiralty.—The first motion was then put and negatived. It was moved, that the rest of the series should be read short, which being done accordingly, they were all rejected.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 29.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Abercrombie
brought in a bill for enlarging the powers of the corporation of excise in Scotland, and a bill for raising a further sum of money for improving the harbour of Leith, which were read a first time.—The Edinburgh police bill was read a third time and passed.—Mr. Curwen moved, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would be graciously pleased to cause to be laid before the house a copy of the proceedings of the privy council in 1765, on the petition of the duke of Athol, for a further compensation for the sale of his feudal rights. Ordered.—Mr. Rose presented the report of the privy council, dated 21st July 1804, on the petition of the duke of Athol, which was ordered to be printed.—The American treaty bill, and the French and Spanish trade licence bill, went through committees, and the reports were received.—Mr. S. Bourne brought up the reports of the committees on the foreign prize ships bill, and the neutral ships bill, which were agreed to.—On the motion of Mr. Magens it was ordered, that there be laid before the house an account of all dollars issued by the bank of England to the latest period at which the same could be made out.—Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the Spanish wine duty, which was agreed to, and a bill ordered accordingly.—A message from the lords announced their lordships' assent to the additional legacy duty bill.—Mr. Cur-
158
[IRISH MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, in pursuance of the notice given by him yesterday, to move for leave to bring in a bill for reducing the militia of Ireland, and enabling them to enlist into the regiments of the line, artillery and royal marines. The general arguments in favour of this measure had been so fully discussed upon a similar question, with regard to the English and Scotch militia, that it was not necessary now to dwell upon them. The arguments, as far as they related to general policy, applied with greater force to the militia of Ireland. The militia of Ireland stood on a different ground from that of England. The plan for lowering it did, not bear a greater proportion than it ought; but it was also to be considered, that in Ireland there was a greater facility in gaining an acquisition to such a description of force as the militia, than there was in this country. His plan was not to take from the militia more than two-fifths. The zeal and ability of the commanders would, he was persuaded, soon place the militia regiments on the same footing they now stood. It was not necessary to trouble the house with any of the details at present. He concluded by moving "for leave to bring in a bill for allowing a certain proportion of the militia in Ireland voluntarily to enlist into his majesty's forces of the line, artillery, and marines."
Sir John Newport
was of opinion, that the militia system, however advantageous it might be to England, was injurious to Ireland, and he could therefore wish to see it abolished in that country
in toto.
159
Lord De Blaquiere
approved the bill. Many people thought, that the Irish militia would be better employed any where than in their own country. He did not like to hear the gentlemen of Ireland talked of as crimps, and recruiting serjeants.
Sir John Newport
rose to order. He had and never made use of the word crimp; what he said related to officers.
The Speaker
informed the hon. baronet, that what he was now stating was in explanation, and not on a point of order. He could not rise in explanation, until the noble lord concluded his speech.
Lord De Blaquiere
resuming, observed, that his hon. friend and himself would have many opportunities to talk over these things. The words of the hon. baronet, amounted, in their effect, to those he had used. He would be the last in the world to impute to any man sentiments that he did not entertain, or put in his mouth words that he had not uttered. He denied that the bill could have the effect to degrade the Irish gentlemen. He thought it a good, substantial measure.
General Tarleton
adverting to the opinion of the hon. baronet, that it would require two or three years to train the recruits who should fill up the chasm that this bill would produce in the militia of Ireland, took occasion to remark, that the result of his own experience, and that of many other officers with whom he was acquainted was, that an Irishman was much more easily disciplined than a native of any other part of the united kingdom, and therefore he was certain that a much less time would be found necessary to bring these recruits to the same state as that in which the old militia stood, than was supposed by the hon. baronet.
Mr. Bastard
was apprehensive that the marine service was considered preferable to that of the line, most of the men volunteering, would wish to enlist in the marines, an event which would defeat the grand purpose of the measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that this would not be at the option of the men. The act gave his majesty a discre-
160
Colonel Calcraft
thought this quite a distinct measure from that with respect to the English Militia; as, in point of fact, the Irish Militia had nothing but the name of militia belonging to them. They were not raised by ballot, but by bounty; and if the Irish gentlemen were willing to become recruiting officers for the army, he saw no reason why the motion of the right hon. gent. should be resisted by the house.
Sir George Hill
supported the motion, and panegyrised the character of the Irish Militia officers. Their conduct and that of the Irish gentlemen in general, who by their own subscriptions raised the militia and kept the country safe, without any contribution from those absentees whose lands they thus defended, was, in his judgment, entitled to peculiar praise. Considering the conduct of the Irish militia who, to a man, volunteered last year to serve in any part of the united kingdom, and the public-spirited feeling of their officers, he could not help saying that he, was much astonished at the selfishness exhibited last year, as well as in the whole course of the debates of the present week, with respect to the English militia.—After a few words from Lord Temple, Mr. Alexander, and. Mr. Calcraft, the motion was agreed to.—The bill was afterwards brought in, read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
[ENGLISH MILITIA ENLISTING BILL]
The house having, in pursuance of the order of the day, taken into consideration the Report of the English Militia Enlisting bill, several amendments were made in the Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed two new clauses, one for adjusting the mode of ballots, in those counties in which the greatest and least number of men should enlist; and another to prevent serjeants and corporals of the Militia from volunteering as serjeants and corporals of Artillery; both of which were agreed to.
Mr. Bankes
said, that though it was thought proper to put the ballot out of sight in the present bill, yet it was not the less in existence, and that for the sake of uniformity in the recruiting, both for the Regulars and the Militia, it was necessary, in his opinion, that a clause should be inserted, enacting that when vacancies occurred, instead of obliging a person to find
161
Sir Robert Buxton
seconded the motion. The parish, he said, was already obliged to pay half the bounty given by an individual for a substitute, and a small addition, he thought, might be sufficient to release the individual altogether.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed that he agreed with the hon. gent. as well as the hon. bart. as to the unavoidable necessity of recurring to the ballot, but, in doing so, he acted in strict conformity to the opinion of the house, which was, that When the militia should be reduced to its quota, the custom of balloting ought not to be given up. He could not accede, therefore, to the motion of the hon. gent.—After a few words between Mr. Wilberforce, in support of the clause, and Mr. Canning and sir James Pulteney against it, the question was put from the chair, that the clause be brought up, which was negatived without a division.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 1.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.]
The Bishop of
Durham
Lord Grenville
in reply, said that it was his intention, as far as he could now foresee, to bring forward his motion on that subject on the 10th of May next, Should it however be for the convenience of any noble lord to postpone the discussion for a few days be for one could have no objection.
The Bishop of Durham
only wished that no delay might take place after the day appointed by the noble baron.
[CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.]
The order of the day being read for resuming the debate on certain questions relative to the case of Judge Fox;
Lord Auckland
rose to offer an amendment to a string of motions which he had
162
[STANDING ORDER.] Lord Grenville
after shortly alluding to his having been interrupted on a former night on this subject, moved that the Standing Order, No. 30, purporting, that if any peer should require the house to go into a committee, for the purpose of delivering his opinion with greater freedom, by having liberty to, speak more than once, it ought not to be refused, be read. His reason, he stated, was to give a fair opportunity to noble lords to discuss this important point with freedom, by speaking as often as they were inclined.—A conversation of considerable length ensued on the interpretation of the standing order, the lord Chancellor, lords Hawkesbury, Redesdale, Morton, &c. contending that it was not imperative; and lords Grenville, Spencer, Ellenborough, &c. maintaining that so long as it stood on the books of the house as one of their orders, it was entitled to its full weight and effect.
The Lord Chancellor
having, in the course of the discussion, referred to some expressions of his R. H. the Duke of Clarence on a former night, charging him with having violated the orders of the house, in himself addressing their lordships more than once;
Prince of Wales
163
Lord Grenville
rose in support of the motion of lord Auckland for referring the different points which he had formerly submitted to the house, for the opinion of the twelve judges. His lordship particularly alluded to the precedents which he had pointed out on a former night, and state that, in consequence of the doubts suggested by a noble and learned lord (Ellenborough), he had caused the records of one of these cases, Bridgman v. Holt, to be searched for, and it clearly made out his original assertion, being a case directly in point; there, as in the present case, a petition had been presented to the house against three of the judges of the Common Pleas, which the house ordered them to answer. In the answer lodged, these judges refused to plead the merits of the case unless when called before a legal tribunal. They denied the jurisdiction of their lordships, and maintained that the calling them before the house was contrary to the established law of the land. On considering the matter, after taking the opinion of the other judges, the house came to be of the same mind, and the matter was dismissed.
The Lord Chancellor
recapitulated the arguments which he had formerly adduced in support of the centrary opinion; main-
164
Lord Grenville
could not at all see the meaning of the distinction laid down by the noble and learned lord. He stated that this was not a judicial matter, or one to infer punishment. It undoubtedly, however, was meant to go the length of grounding an address to his majesty for the dismissal of a judge for improper conduct in his judicial capacity, and such he contended could not originate in that house. He would wish the noble and learned lord to point out to them where the line was to be drawn, and what, if any thing short of murder, felony, or treason, was to be esteemed without the original cognizance of that house. As to the idea of the act of settlement subjecting the judges to a jurisdiction of which they were formerly independent, he saw nothing in the act which sanctioned such an idea, but the direct contrary.
Lord Hawkesbury
opposed the motion of lord Auckland, and contended that the proceedings of the house had been completely regular. In this opinion he was seconded by lord Redesdale.
Lord Auckland
defended the positions laid down by lord Grenville, by recapitulating the arguments which he had formerly adduced in support of his motions.
Earl Carisfort
followed on the same side, and deprecated, in strong terms, the idea of subjecting the judges to a species of control from which every other subject of this country was exempt—thereby rendering them the tools of the minister of the day.
The Earl of Suffolk
Maintained the necessity of resorting to the opinion of the
165
Lord Ellenborough
declared, that his own opinion was decidedly in favour of the proceeding by
scirc facias,
Earl Darnley
supported the motion as the only means of ridding their lordships' minds of any doubt upon the case.—The question was then put, and there appeared contents 18; not contents 32.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 1.
[MINUTES.]
Bowyer's Lottery bill, was read a third time and passed.—Mr. Parnell from the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, presented an account of the funded and unfunded debt of Ireland, and of the charges outstanding upon the consolidated fund of Ireland on the 5th of January 1805.—Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.—A person from the Bank of England presented an account of all the dollars that had been issued by the Bank of England to the latest period that the same could be made out. Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.—The Neutral Ships bill, the American Goods Neutral Ships bill, and the Alien Privilege Prize Ships bill, were severally read a third time and passed.—The American Treaty bill was reported.—The Innkeepers Rates bill passed through a Committee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
[LORD MELVILLE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
with a view to the discussion which stood for Thursday next, relative to the Tenth Report of the Commis-
166
Mr. Fox
asked across the table, whether any answer had been returned to this letter?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not aware that any answer had been sent, but was desirous that all the papers relating to the subject should be laid before the house, and printed for the information of gentlemen.
Mr. Grey
in the absence of his. hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), felt it impossible to say whether he would consent to put off his motion to next week. Of this, however, he was certain, that it was the wish of his hon. friend, that opportunities of information should be afforded to the house. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that the discussion of this important question should not be protracted. He thought that by deterring the motion till Friday, sufficient time would be afforded, and suggested the propriety of adding to the right hon. gent's motion, a Copy of any answer or proceeding thereon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that Monday would be the earliest day when the house could be prepared for the discussion, if the hon. member (Mr. Francis) who had a motion for that day, would
167
Mr. Francis
made some objection to a further delay of his motion, which had already been put off to accommodate the other side of the house. But on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Francis's motion relative to the present state of India was fixed for Friday next, and Mr. Grey Consented to put off his notice on the part of his hon. friend to Monday, under an understanding however, on all sides, that no further delay should take place, unless something not then foreseen, should occur to render it necessary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
then moved "that there be laid before the house a Copy of the Letter of lord viscount Melville, dated the 28th of March, to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; and also, a copy of any proceedings had thereon, or of any answer thereto by the Said Commissioners of Naval Enquiry."—Agreed to.
[CORNELIUS GROGAN'S ATTAINDER.] Mr. Martin
(of Galway), pursuant to notice, moved, "that there be laid before the house a copy of the evidence and proceedings before the committee of the parliament of Ireland, on passing the act of the 38th of his present majesty, attainting Cornelius Grogan, esq. of John's town in the county of Wexford, so far as the same regarded the said Cornelius Grogan." He said it was proper to apprize the house of his object in making this motion. It was, that the evidence taken before the committee of the parliament of Ireland might be re-examined, to see whether it laid a sufficient ground for the proceedings which were had in the case of the unfortunate gent. to whom he had alluded, and Whose life was taken away by the order of a military council; and by which evidence he maintained, it would appear, that nothing could be more flagrant than those proceedings were; that the life of Mr. Cornelius Grogan was taken away without the verdict of a jury, or trial by law that he Was tried by a military council, and that the members of the court Were not upon oath and that the necessary formalities were not observed, several omissions of which he enumerated, and
168
Lord Castlereagh
said, he should have wished that this motion had been made without some of the observations which had been made upon it; he should have no objection to the information seemed to be required, if it led to any practical proceeding of the house to be founded upon it; but the hon. gent. had mixed two things which are totally distinct in their nature: the proceedings of the court martial by which Mr. Grogan was tried and executed as a rebel, and afterwards the act of attainder, which was a proceeding in the parliament of Ireland, founded, not on the evidence of the court martial, but on evidence laid before the parliament itself, and such as had been held sufficient by that parliament to justify the act of attainder. He doubted whether there existed now any evidence, which the house could be satisfied with, to induce it to reverse that proceeding, and the hon. member had not stated what parliamentary use he intended to make of the information, such as it might be, after he should obtain it. For these reasons, and wishing not to deprive the hon. gent. of an opportunity to call for such information whenever he should make out a case to entitle him to its production, the noble lord moved, that the other order of the day be now read.
Mr. Martin
imputed this opposition to a wish in the noble lord to shelter the administration, of which he was a member. He considered Mr. Grogan as a person who was justified in what he did under the authority of lord Coke and lord Hale, who laid it down as the law of our land, that a man may join rebels to save his own life, and continue with them under the terror of its loss, until he shall have an opportunity to escape; this, he said, was the case of that unfortunate gent. He considered, therefore, that his execution was an act of murder, and that the attainder was an act of confiscation, founded on an act of murder. The noble lord's apprehension fell short of the fact, when he supposed there was not evidence sufficiently formal to be laid before the house. He knew there was correct evidence of the whole proceeding. He had seen it. The hon. member contended that there was no want of documents, and pledged himself, if necessary, to find the evidence which it was his wish to submit to the house, as correct notes had been taken of it at the time.
169
Mr. Fox
observed, that the ground of the noble lord's objection did not appear to him to be at all admissible. He had said there was no evidence to be produced. Whatever might have been the case in Ireland, such he was certain was not the case in this country, for if no evidence could be afterwards produced, attainders would be irreversible; but the noble lord was too well acquainted with the history of this country to be reminded that many instances had occurred of attainders being reversed. If what he had heard on this subject were true, there could be no doubt that that Act ought to be reversed; but that was not the question, till the evidence should be in due form before them. Severe in general were the times when acts of attainder were resorted to, but to render them irreversible by refusing a revisal, would be to aggravate that severity.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that nothing could be further from his wishes than to prevent parliament from receiving every
170
Sir John Newport
said, that the family of Mr. Grogan had been in very, extraordinary, and, indeed, most unfortunate circumstances. The very next brother to Mr. Grogan, and who would have been his immediate heir had he survived him, fell honourably, loyally, and gloriously, fighting the battles of his country. The other brother fought with the most determined bravery, till driven out of Wexford by the rebels, who were greatly superior in numbers, before the main body of the army arrived, and therefore, under all these circumstances, added to a doubt whether Mr. Grogan himself had not been forced to fight on the side of the rebels, he thought the justice of the house would incline them to agree to the motion.
General Loftus
said, he was in Wexford at the time of the court martial upon Mr. Grogan, and he begged leave to state, that the officers who formed the court were the principal men of rank and, character in the army, and every attention had been paid in the careful examination of the witnesses. After the sentence was passed, he was, told by many persons of the town, that Mr. Grogan was not so much to blame as he appeared to be; on which he applied to General Lake to suspend the execution of the sentence for some time, till he could make further inquiry; to which general Lake consented, and the execution was deferred till evening, when not being able to find any facts in his favour to counterpoise, or do away the evidence adduced against him, he went to inform General Lake of the circumstance, and the execution then took place.
Mr. Francis
rose merely to express his disapprobation of acts of attainder in general, as affecting the innocent and not the guilty.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he was anxious to do justice to the characters of Mr. Grogan's brothers and family, by allowing
171
[MILITIA ENLISTIG BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day for the third reading of the militia enlisting bill. The bill was then read a third time. The right hon. gent. brought up a clause relative to the wives and families of those militia men who should enlist.
The Marquis of Douglas
asked whether it was the intention of the clause to render these wives and families still dependent on the country for support after the husbands should have enlisted? If that was the case he would oppose the clause.
Sir William Young
expressed the same resolution, to object to it in case it was intended to occasion a permanent burden to the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that they had mistaken the clause, for its object was exactly the contrary of what they imagined, in as far as it went to take the burden of the families of Such militiamen as should enlist off the country after a time to be limited.—The clause was then agreed to; and, after a verbal amendment had been proposed and adopted, the question was put that the bill should pass.
The Marquis of Douglas
was sorry that he was again obliged to trespass on the indulgence of the house, but hoped that he would not be thought pertinacious in his opinions; when no argument had as yet been urged to justify this pernicious measure, at least nothing more than this, that the change of service would be advantageous to the country, He admitted that this was to a certain degree the case, but then the question must be considered with reference to other points, and in this view it would be found to be calculated to produce a great deal of mischief. The fact was, that the object of the bill was to supply the defects of the parish bill; that notable production, that wonderous conception which had been called a rural nymph, clad in russet gown. The gentlemen on the other side, would wish, no doubt to give her a more splendid name. They would call her Minerva, the goddess
172
Mr. Sheridan
rose for the purpose of entering his protest against the principle of this bill. He remained of the same opinion that he had formerly expressed. He agreed with the noble lord, that this bill would destroy the militia system, and in a manner the most unprincipled and insidious. It would lead to insubordination in the regiments, and was dangerous in a constitutional view, and unwise in a military one. One object he had in rising was, to take notice of the preamble. In that it was stated, "whereas it is important that his majesty's regular forces should be augmented." When, he asked, had this important discovery been made? Was it not known at the passing of the act of last session, when the right hon. gent. told us to count months and weeks and days and hours, till such an augmentation could be obtained? He contended, that the preamble of this bill ought to be, "Whereas an act was passed last session for augmenting his majesty's regular forces, which act had totally failed in its object, it is therefore necessary, that said act should be repealed." This he maintained was the language that ought to be employed, inasmuch as a bill that was to have produced 27,000 men had not produced a single
173
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed that there was a small objection to such a preamble, which was that it was contrary to the fact.
Mr. Fox
said, that if the right hon. gent. meant to say that the preamble proposed by his hon. friend, was contrary to the fact, because it mentioned that the bill had not procured one man, he was certainly in the right, because it had certainly produced more than one. But to say that this bill was any thing else than a repeal of the former to a certain extent, was most certainly erroneous, because if this was not the case, what was the meaning of the boasting promises which were heard when the former bill was proposed? Could the right hon. gent. not tell last year that such a bill as this would be necessary, notwithstanding his former measure? This was a curious circumstance; but the truth was, that it was then inconvenient to tell to any such thing. But he now found it out in the month of March. Was it because the recruiting of the army was at a stand? Why he had not proposed it earlier in the session, he could not tell, unless it were because he did not choose to be the first to confess that his bill had failed. The men now to be raised, could not be perfect regular soldiers for some time, after the changed their service. But the plain truth was, that the right hon. gent. had so abused the incapacity of the last ministers that he found himself absolutely obliged to propose something new; but his novelty had failed, and now came another of his temporary experiments; and however civility might prevent the expressions of triumph from being too galling, yet when the colleagues of the right hon. gent. recollected and compared the epithets with which he then honoured them, with the evidence his own measures have given in his favour, whether in convivial meeting or in political consultations, they must feel a considerable pleasure, and even a degree of exultation. His chief objection to the present bill was, that it was part of that patchwork, temporizing, and unsystematic mode which characterized all the military measures of the right hon. gent and from which experience taught us to expect nothing.
The Secretary at War
said, that the observations which were so confidently
174
Mr. Fox
rose to explain, that the bill could properly be denominated inefficient, because it was professedly to raise 27,000 men immediately, and it had wholly disappointed this design.
The Secretary at War
affirmed, in reply, that, from its effects hitherto, there was every reason to conclude that it was already producing at the rate of 10,000 men annually.
Mr. Fox
insisted, that it had, at least, totally failed of effecting what was promised from it.
Mr. Sheridan
begged to observe, in explanation, that he did not say that the act of last session had not produced a single man to our general force, but that it had not added a single man to the British infantry, which by the returns on the table was considerably less in number that in the last year.
Mr. Windham
commented upon the curious definition of success given by the Secretary at War. The success he, however, apprehended ought to have been in proportion to the promise. If 27,000 men were promised, and only 2 or 3,000 were produced, it could not be said that this wait any great success. If a man were to, promise to walk to York in four days, and had stopped the greater part of the time at Stamford, it might be said,to him "Why don't you get on? you will not be able to perform your promise," He might answer to this, "Pray have patience a little, I am tired, and must stop for some time, but never fear, I shall make out my journey in good time to save my credit." Now, this might be very well as a promise, although certainly it would not be A very promising undertaking.—We were first told, "give it a trial, and then it, will succeed."
175
ad Grœcas Calendas,
Mr. Canning
observed, that the right hon. gent. must forego the satisfaction which he seemed to derive from the idea of the bill being a repeal of the former. The operation of that bill was never intended to supply the vacancies that were to be filled up by the present measure. He must also forego the gratification of the confession that the former bill had failed. There was a difference between a total and partial failure. The whole failure that had taken place, and that was admitted, was, that the men had not been procured in so short a time as had been expected. The best proof that it had not failed was that it was producing at the rate. of 9000 men a year for the army. There was no inconsistency here. Because, the former measure was not calculated to produce an immediate disposable force. It was agreed on all hands that it
176
Mr. Giles
was astonished at the bold assertion, that the present bill was not a repeal of the additional force bill. The latter had three objects in view: 1st, to establish a permanent force; 2d, immediately to augment that force; 3d, gradually to reduce the militia: and this threefold design appeared in the preamble of the bill, The present bill, in the third, object, by transferring 17,000 men from the militia to the regular force, so far, at least, manifestly repeals the former. Another object was comprised in the former, which was to extinguish ballots. These must be revived by the present bill; and so far again, the anterior measure was repealed. He was not at all surprised, at the contradiction between these expedients, but at least they ought to be recognized, and understood. It ought to be known, that the minister himself acknowledged, that the objections he had made with so, much animation to preceding schemes of national defence were vain and futile, and that he himself was at last constrained to tread in the steps of his predecessor. The additional force bill, by a strange inconsistency, required the parish to supply the
177
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that gentlemen had inaccurately stated both the facts, and the conclusions from those facts; he would admit, for the sake of argument, that their facts were correct, but he could not grant the same indulgence to their deductions from them. For a moment, therefore, he would grant that the additional force bill had wholly failed: the natural deduction then was, that some other measure must be resorted to; but gentlemen used it as an argument, that to the present, and no other expedient, should the country have recourse to supply the deficiency resulting from that disappointment. Gentlemen had likewise contended—
Mr. Windham
here called the right hon. gent. to order, as going beyond the line of explanation; but declared, that he had no objection to hear the right hon. gent. out in defence of this measure, if by the rules of their proceedings, he could have an opportunity of replying to him.
The Speaker
said, he was aware that the right hon. gent. as far as he proceeded, did not keep within the limits of explanation, and that he only waited till that circumstance should be taken notice of by the house, or till by the tenor of his speech it could be seen whether what he already said would be brought to bear upon any point of explanation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should leave it to the judgment of the house, whether a short observation made by him before should, in the strictness of form, be considered as speaking to the question. What he said was certainly rather in explanation of what he said in a former stage, than in elucidation of the sentence which fell from him in this; but he should not proceed further if he found it to be against the pleasure of the house.
The Speaker
again observed, that all which was necessary for him to do, was to state his conception of the order of proceeding, and as to the rest, it was to be disposed of at the pleasure of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
then said, that he did not wish to persist in any thing which was contrary to the forms. He was satisfied to let the question rest upon the ground on which it already stood; and he
178
HOUSE OF LORDS
Tuesday, April 2.
[MINUTES.]
Counsel were farther heard relative to the Scotch appeal, Cathcart
v
[STANDING ORDER.] Lord Mulgrave
gave notice, that he Should, on Monday next, move to have the Order relative to the house resolving into a committee on the motion of any noble peer, taken into consideration. To this he was principally induced, by what took place last night; and, on account of the constructions which were put upon the order in question, in the course of the debate. Such an order was, he thought, inconsistent with the dignity of their lordships' proceedings, and might be productive of the highest inconvenience, admitting it to empower any lord at his pleasure, thereby to constitute himself a majority of the house; and, even when the most important public business might be regularly under Consideration, to oblige the house to go into a committee. An order construed so as to operate in that way, was so objectionable in every point of view, that it should not be suffered to remain a moment longer than was necessary. He concluded by moving that the lords be summoned for Monday next.
Earl Spencer
observed, that though the noble secretary had not stated the nature of his intended, motion, yet it might, in some degree, be conjectured. As to the degree of inconvenience which that or any other standing order might induce, he should not then offer an opinion. He, however, could not avoid remarking, that the noble lord's idea, that "under the operation, of the order alluded to, any peer might constitute himself, in effect, a majority of the house," would be an argu-
179
Lord Mulgrave
acknowledged, he had not been sufficiently explicit in terms, as to the nature of his intended motion; but, when he had expressed his disapprobation of the order, in so marked a manner, he thought no doubt could arise as to his intention. However, he should now give a specific notice, that it was his intention to move, on Monday next, that the order in question be expunged.
The Lord Chancellor
made some observations in support of what fell from his noble friend, relative to the effects and consequences of the order adverted to. He was adverse from its being considered as a standing order; its import and wording being different from all others of that description. In the way in which it was construed by some noble lords last night, it was the most inconsistent thing imaginable; for, in the event of the usual notice being given for its suspension, on any particular occasion, how could they know but any noble lord might, on the very day it was appointed to be considered, move the house to resolve into a committee? a proceeding which might be urged any moment while the order existed. An additional objection against the order was its general impracticability; because, were the order literally and fully enforced, their lordships, while in such committee, were required to sit, each in their proper places, according to their ranks and degrees; a proceeding which, in that new house, their lordships would find it rather difficult to carry into effect.
Earl Spencer
observed that, circumstanced as their lordships were at present, the proceeding adverted to would be totally impracticable. He recollected, that some time since, a commitee had been appointed to settle and arrange the proper seats for the respective orders of the peerage in that house; but no report had yet been made upon the subject; that committee should be referred to. In the house in which they formerly sat, the respective places were regularly arranged; every peer knew his proper place when it was necessary he should sit in it; but; in the present house, that being not yet settled, such a proceeding was impossible.
The Lord Chancellor
spoke in explanation, and slightly adverted to the inconveniencies which must sometimes arise from too literal an enforcement of the or-
180
Lord Mulgrave
perfectly concurred in What had been thrown out by his noble friend on the woolsack. With respect to their lordships' being required by the order to sit in their Proper places respectively; he conceived it to mean that the barons should sit together on certain benches, the earls on other distinct benches, the dukes on others, and so on. This consideration was with him an additionally strong and forcible objection to the order, which may render it necessary that their lordships should, as at the word of command, arrange themselves in a species of military array, or fall into their respective ranks, like soldiers on the parade: but setting any thing like a ludicrous consideration of such a proceeding aside, it militated as well as other serious and more important objections, against the order.—The question was put, and their lordships ordered to be summoned for Monday next.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 2.
[MINUTES.] Lord John Thynne
took the oaths and his seat on his re-election for Bath.—Mr. Creevey gave notice, that he would to-morrow move for some further documents relative to the balances in the hands of the late hon. Keith Stuart.—Lord Brome brought in a bill for improving the port of Ipswich in Suffolk, which was read a first time.—Dr. Duigenan gave, notice, that he would to-morrow move for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of Queen Anne's bounty act, in Ireland.—Mr. S. Bourne, pursuant to order, presented an account of the application of the surplus revenue of the Isle of Man.—Ordered to be printed.—The innkeepers bill went through a committee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.—The customs duty bill, the American treaty bill, and the Bengal council bill, were read a third time and passed.
[IRISH MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee on this bill.
181
Sir John Newport
said, that having already fully stated to the house his Opinion on this subject, and having found that the sense of the house was for passing this bill, he should not now take up their time with recapitulating the arguments he had before offered; he rose now merely for the purpose of suggesting to the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer a measure that thought would have the most important effect in increasing the disposable force of the empire from Ireland, or rather in encouraging those soldiers, who were not now disposable, to become so. The measure he now begged leave most earnestly to recommend, was to make such a provision for the wives and children of those who volunteered, as would at least remove the principal objection which now stands in the way of their volunteering. The wives of the soldiers in the Irish militia and army of reserve now receive an allowance of two shillings a week, and formerly received four; but, from the moment any of these soldiers volunteered for general service, this allowance ceased. If this great discouragement was removed, he was sure they would be much more ready to enter the regular army. At present, the misery that was entailed on Ireland, under the system which now prevails, was most dreadful. The face of the country was covered with the wives and children of soldiers begging their bread. There was hardly ever any considerable embarkation of troops from Portsmouth or Plymouth, that from 800 to 1,000 soldiers' wives were not turned loose to beg their way as well as they could to their own country. As most of them landed at the nearest Irish port of Cork and Waterford, he had often been an eye-witness of the extent of the evil which he now wished to be redressed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
allowed that the suggestion of the hon. bart. was of the utmost importance, and deserved the most serious consideration. He was not then prepared to give any opinion on the subject, but he perceived that many difficulties stood in the way of the adoption of this suggestion. He was aware of the distress which was often felt in Ireland on account of there being no established system of poor laws in that country as there is in this; but he did not know how parliament could grant a specific allowance to the families of Irish soldiers, winch was not granted to the families of the soldiers of the rest of the united Kingdom, He
182
Sir John Newport
said in explanation, that the allowance given to soldiers' wives on embarkation was a guinea and a half; this might be barely sufficient to carry them to the nearest Irish port, but they landed completely destitute, and were obliged immediately to have recourse to begging.
Colonel Bagwell
confirmed the statement of the hon. bart. as to the great degree of misery which the wives of not only the Irish soldiers in the regular army, but even in the militia and army of reserve experienced. During the last war, four shillings a week was allowed to the wives of the militia, which was sufficient to keep them from the necessity of begging; but since it was reduced to two, that allowance had been insufficient. He thought there could be no greater encouragement to volunteering from the militia, than granting some provision to the families of the volunteers. —The house then went into a committee on the bill, when some trifling alterations were agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 3.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Adam
was heard in continuation in the Scots appeal, Cathcart v. the earl of Cassilis, on the part of the respondent. The several bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. The innkeepers' rates bill, and several private bills, were brought up from the commons, and read a first time. A person from the post office presented an account of the net revenue of the post-office for 20 years, ending the 5th of Jan. 1805. Ordered to lie on the table.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 3.
[MINUTES.] Sir John Anderson
brought up the report of the committee on the bakers' bill; which was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be engrossed. Mr. Manning obtained leave to bring in a bill for
183
[CONDUCT OF SIR HOME POPHAM.] Mr. Dickenson
jun. moved, that there be laid before the house a copy of a letter from sir Home Popham to the secretary of the admiralty, dated 25th Feb. 1805, with its
184
Mr. Grey
said, he did not rise to object to the production of these or any other papers that might tend to elucidate the subject, but merely to remark, that several weeks had elapsed since a variety of papers moved for on both sides had been presented, since which no inquiry had taken place. By such motions as the present the discussion might be postponed to an indefinite period.
Mr. Dickenson
stated the grounds of his motion, which were, that sir H. Popham having discovered some imperfections in the original report of the navy board, had written to the admiralty on the subject, and that the amended report had not been received by the admiralty until yesterday, Some further conversation ensued between Mr. Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dickenson, and Mr. Kinnaird; in the course of which Mr. Kinnaird intimated his intention of bringing forward a motion relative to sir H. Popham, on Tuesday, the 7th of May next. Mr. Dickenson's motions were then agreed to.
[IRISH UNION COMMISSIONERS.] Sir John Newport
rose to make his promised motion for the production of a copy of the case laid before the attorney and solicitor general of England on the 16th of May, 1801, by direction of the commissioners for awarding compensation in Ireland in consequence of the union, relative to the claim for compensation from the attorney and solicitor general of Ireland; together with a copy of the opinion of the attorney and solicitor general of England upon this case. The reason which induced him to bring forward this motion, the hon. bart. stated to be this, that the house should be put in possession of the nature and conduct of this singular commission. It appeared, that notwithstanding their appeal to the judgment of the attorney and solicitor general of England, they had acted in direct contradiction to the opinion delivered by those learned gentlemen. But still more, and it was particularly necessary to call the attention of par-
185
Dr. Duigenan
said, that he was a member of the commission alluded to at the time stated in the motion, and that he did not recollect any such case as the hon. bart. alluded to. As three of the commissioners were lawyers he did not think they required any advice from the law officers mentioned in the motion, or from any other persons as to the mode of performing, this duty, The learned doctor added, that he had long since resigned his place in the commission:
Sir John Newport
said, that it had been already stated by the commissioners themselves, that such case had been laid before the attorney and solicitor general of England, and all he wished was, to see the opinion winch had been given upon the case so stated.
Mr. Sturges Bourne
was ready to pay attention to the opinions of eminent gentlemen at the bar, on cases fairly stated to them, and especially those who were so eminent in their profession as the gentlemen alluded to; but as this was a ques-
186
Mr. Kinnaird
thought the hon. gent. who spoke last had made an extraordinary proposition by desiring to have the opinion of the only two gentlemen in the kingdom, who, by the rules of law and common sense, were necessarily excluded from giving it, because it was a case upon their own claim.—The motion was then put and carried.
[LORD MELVILLE'S LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF NAVAL ENQUIRY.] Mr. Williams
secretary to the commissioners of naval enquiry, presented a Copy of a Letter from lord viscount Melville to the commissioners of naval enquiry, dated the 28th of March, 1805, and of the answer thereto by the commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved, "that these papers do lie upon the table to be perused by the members of the house;" and he said he should immediately afterwards move that they be printed.
Mr. Francis
wished to know whether a motion could not be made to print them immediately, so that there should be no delay in making them known to members.
The Speaker
observed that the motion, that these papers do lie upon the table to be perused by the members of the house, must be disposed of before any thing else could regularly be done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said they could be printed without difficulty by tomorrow.
Mr. Alderman Combe
by way of giving to the house the contents immediately, moved an amendment, instead of laying them on the table, "that these papers be now read."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no objection, and therefore consented to withdraw his motion for the present to make way for that of the worthy alderman. They were accordingly read by the clerk at the table, and are as follows:
Copy of a Letter from Lord Melville to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, dated the 28th of March 1805.
187
188
189
Answer of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry to the above Letter, dated Office of Naval Enquiry, Great George-street, April
190
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
then moved, that these papers do lie upon the table for the use of the members of this house, and also that they be printed. Ordered.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 4.
[MINUTES.]
Counsel were farther heard relative to the Scots Appeal, Cathcart, bart
v.
191
[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON-BILL.] Lord Hawkesbury
after adverting generally to the nature of this bill, which stood for commitment that evening, said it was a proceeding which, if entered upon according to the order, would materially interfere with the discussion of business of great national importance. The bill, he conceived to be of that nature as urgently to require a speedy discussion. He would therefore move, and to which he hoped no serious objection would be entertained, that the committee on the bill be deferred till Friday, the 26th of April.
The Bishop of Oxford
had no objection to enter upon the discussion of the princi-
192
Lord Grenville
expressed his opinion that the bill, to which he was favourably inclined, was one of considerable importance. He was aware of the beneficial tendency of a mixed patronage with respect to clerical preferments; at the same time, he saw no necessity for restraining the universities from their due share in that patronage; as no body or corporation whatever could, he conceived, exercise an extensive right of patronage more beneficially to the interests of religion, or of learning, and, with respect to the interest of the latter, he conceived that a quick succession to the livings would be advantageous.
The Earl of Suffolk
took occasion to advert to the bill which passed not long since, for ameliorating the condition of the poorer orders of the clergy. The leading provisions of that bill, he understood, were as yet nugatory; and it was his intention, on a future day, to bring the subject before their lordships. He had several letlers from curates upon the subject; some of which, without stating names, he intended to communicate to the house. He expected more letters on the subject; perhaps what he then said would operate in some degree as an advertisement to that body of men to send him more communications of a similar nature.
The Duke of Norfolk
expressed his understanding that some important modifications to the bill were intended.
The Bishop of Oxford
in explanation, observed, that he had consulted those the most competent to advise upon the subject; and had maturely considered it himself; and the result was, that the bill was produced in its present form. It may, however, admit of some modifications; but, in his mind, it needed none; and that the exigency of the case required such an act should be passed.—The question was put, and the committee on the bill deferred till the above-mentioned day.
[MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.]
The order of the day for the second reading of the Militia Enlisting Bill being read,
Lord Hawkesbury
rose, and stated, that
193
194
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, he could not give a silent vote upon the occasion. He denied that any similitude existed between the present bill and that alluded to, as enacted during the late war; there was then an imperious duty upon them so to enact, and the circumstances of the country were widely different as to its defensive situation and the naval power of the enemy; the present measure would, he contended, prove inefficacious, and it was odious and disgusting to the militia officers in general; and all the military measures of the present ministers were injurious to the militia system. In the former instance, the militia were in number too great and unwieldy to be conducted on true militia principles, and the preamble of the bill he alluded to, declared that a great defensive force was no longer necessary in the country. There existed at that time also a legal necessity for diminishing the militia. In all these particulars the country was at present in the reverse, or in a very different state, and ministers themselves must feel, that the defensive force of the country could not be safely diminished. The measure, taking it in every point of view, had his decided disapprobation.
The Earl of Derby
followed on the same side, and supported the arguments of the noble marquis. He censured the measure in question as unjust in its principle, and unlikely to produce the desired effect. It was a miserable expedient to think of robbing one branch of the military force to supply another. Some of the provisions of the bill would tend to defeat
195
The Earl of Buckinghamshire
said, the late administration had found it .expedient to increase the militia to the amount at which it now stood, and had not the act of last session, for gradually reducing the militia, been passed, he should not have consented to the present measure; that act, however, having passed the only early question was, whether the militia should be reduced; without the country having the benefit of 17,000 men being added to its disposable force or not. Under these circumstances, he did not hesitate to give his warmest and most cordial support to the present bill, With
196
Lord Borringdon
observed, that the vote of every noble lord ought to be directed by the answer which he could give to the three following questions. First, it might be asked, whether it was not extremely desirable, that a large body of well-trained soldiers should at this moment be added to our disposable force? If it were admitted that this was extremely desirable, then the next question came to be how this addition was to be obtained, and what mode could best answer the end in view? And in the third place, it was to be considered whether the inconveniencies attending the procuring of this disposable force were so great as to counterbalance all the advantages that could be derived from it? That it was necessary, at this moment, to have as large a disposable force as possible, few who were properly sensible of the condition of Europe could deny. It was the opinion of military men, that if one half of the force now expected to be raised had co-operated with the Austrian army at the battle of Marengo, the event of the day would have been extremely different from what it was. His lordship also adverted to the brave conduct of the militia in Egypt. The present was the best mode of procuring them that could be adopted, and the advantages, he was convinced, would far out-balance all the inconveniencies. He concluded, by expressing his hearty assent to the measure. but was afraid that it would not produce so great a number as was expected.
Lord Cawdor
thought that the right hon. gent. at the head of affairs little understood the matter, when he thought that he would be able to enlist a force, such as the present bill proposed, from the militia
197
The Earl of Westmoreland
said, that objections were made, both to the principle of the bill itself, and to the time when it was produced. The first objection was grounded on some supposition, that the measure was unconstitutional, It was true, that the term constitutional was applied with considerable latitude, according to the opinions noble lords entertained of public measures, By the statute 30 Geo II. the militia was to serve 3 years, and then was to be permitted to enter into the army, or to engage in any other occupation. What then could there be unconstitutional so directly opposed to the feelings of noble lords, as friends to the British monarchy, if, after a period of 2 years, they had the same privilege they would enjoy at the termination of 3 years? Much had been objected on the ground of parochial expence; but on a fair calculation, by this bill, little or no difference would be occasioned in that respect; what was thrown upon the parishes in the way of ballot, would be counterpoised by the relief given in respect to the families of 17,000 men who would no longer receive
198
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose and spoke as follows: If every day did not convince me that public faith and public honesty were of little importance in the eyes of many statesmen, I should be indeed surprised at the proposition now under discussion, when the ministerial breath is scarce cold which held out to the country, before a consenting parliament who adopted the pledge, that this system, degrading to the militia, and of the highest injustice to those on whom it was an Unequal burthen, should never be again recurred to. We are, indeed, told that necessity, in the management of public affairs, has neither faith, nor honesty, nor law; that the necessity of the existing moment will justify every deviation from the soundest principles of the past. We have been told that though it might be fit and proper, at one time, that the defensive force of the country, in time form of a militia, should be augmented at the expence of the land occupier, it was equally fit and proper, at another time, that the Militia should be reduced, and converted from an appropriated to a disposable force, All this, I am ready to admit, may be in possibility, and in the abstract true, and justifiable by an imperious necessity; but parliament no doubt, expect the clearest proof of the peculiar necessity which is at this moment paramount to all other considerations, Necessity has been, however, truly called the tyrant's plea; and if parliament is, as it ought to be, a jealous parliament, watching with patriotic care over the rights and interests of the people,. it will distinguish between a necessity simply asserted, and that which is distinctly proved. We are told that this measure is no novelty: unfortunately it is not; nor is it a novelty, in the long and changeful history of parliament, delivered down to us stained with
199
200
201
augmentation
202
permanent force
above
203
with a view its reduction.
The Duke of Montrose
stated, that he felt as a militia officer some regret at perceiving the necessity for reducing that force, but however partial he was to the militia force, he felt also that at the present time the country was more in want of regular disposable forces. He had heard various schemes suggested, but from the best attention he had been able to bestow on the subject, he was convinced that by no other means could a body of twenty or twenty-five thousand troops be added so rapidly, or with so little, inconvenience, to our disposable force. The measure would not diminish our defensive force, for ministers were bound, upon their responsibility always to keep in the country a sufficient number for its defence.
The Earl of Suffolk
both in the regulars, and in the militia, had frequently seen the serious mischief arising from irregularity and disorganization Those who had seen
204
Earl Camden
supported the bill, on the ground that an augmentation of the disposable force of the country was necessary, to which the present measure would essentially contribute. This was to be effected in a manner as satisfactory as possible to the feelings of the militia officers, who were a body whom he respected, and who were entitled to the approbation of the country for their zeal and great exertions.
The Earl of Romney
after hearing from all parts of the house the praises of the militia and their officers, was much astonished at the reward they were to receive; the men were to be sent out of their native country, and the officers, who were all men of property were to be stripped of the troops they had themselves trained for the purpose of defending that property and their country He was decidedly against the bill which went to the destruction of the most constitutional force in this country. The militia from the time of its introduction in 1756, had been gradually improving in discipline and utility. It had been officered by some of the most considerable individuals in the kingdom, and had far exceeded the expectations of those by whom the institution was originally, brought forward. He was a friend, as much as any noble lord could be, to the augmentation of our disposable force; but he could never consent to this as the mode in which that augmentation could be most
205
The Earl of Carlisle
considered the present as only another wretched expedient of the present wretched administration. If they, did not destroy the militia completely, it was only because they did not dare to venture on so unpopular a Measure. But though they did not actually destroy the militia, they did every thing which could disgust all Men of honourable feelings. They first employed some of the most respectable gentlemen in the kingdom to exert all their time and influence in preparing the militia for service, and then they withdrew the men from under their control. All the labour was undergone without any of the reward or the honour to which their exertions were entitled. On such grounds he opposed the bill, and declared his conviction that enlisting for a limited period. was, in the present circumstances of Europe, the only effectual mode of procuring that regular force, the necessity of which was on all hands admitted. His lordship illustrated these ideas at some length, and concluded with declaring his determination to oppose the present measure.— The lord chancellor having put the question, that the bill be read a second time, a division took place, when there appeared, contents 102, non-contents 54; Majority 48. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 4
[MINUTES.] Mr. N. Vansittart
took the oaths and his seat, for Old Sarum.— The London bread assize, and the Irish militia volunteer bills, were read a third time and passed.— Lord Stopford acquainted the house, that his majesty had been waited upon with the addresses of Friday last, and had been pleased to give orders accordingly.—"Sir W. Scott brought in a bill for the better encouragement of seamen, and the more effectually and speedily recruiting of his-majesty's navy, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday, in order that it may be printed in the interval. He stated that he should move for
206
[IRISH LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL] Sir John Newport
moved the order of the day, for the second reading of the bill for the protection of Irish lunatics. He said, that the act of 27 Geo. III c. 29, which impowered grand, juries to report upon the state of the charitable establishments, had not been carried into execution with any regularity. The principal object of this bill, was to remedy the inconvenience arising from the numerous establishments for beneficent purposes, yet very distinct in their nature, which were placed under the same general provisions. The act, sect.8,empowered the grand jury to :provide a ward for lunatics, and the sum expended was to be accounted for by the surgeons of the grand infirmary; and the consequence was, that 20 or 30 ,persons, in the unhappy state of mind. alluded to, required as much attendance; as would be necessary for 150 under the act now proposed. Another design of the bill was, that the accounts should be annually submitted to the inspection and control of parliament. He much lamented the neglect, in regard to the insane, in some of the districts of Ireland, but he was happy to make an honourable exception in favour of the neighbourhood of Waterford, where an in-
207
Mr. May
did not see the propriety of passing a new act, while another existed in the statute book, competent to the purpose now proposed. The design of the bill was to provide for a thousand mad Irish. At present these were under the protection of the grand juries of the county. The bill now under consideration, would take this important duty out of the hands of the respectable persons to whom the discharge of it was committed, and would place it with others who were less suited to the purpose. He added, that the only effect would be to impose a tax upon the counties, unnecessary and impolitic, and he concluded with moving the amendment, that, in the lieu of the word "now," the term, "six months," should he substituted.
Lord Dunlo
hoped the hon. bart. would not press the second reading of the bill on this day, but defer it till after the assizes in Ireland, in order to give the grand juries an opportunity of considering it. He expressed several objections to the provisions of the bill, as the distance of the asyla from each other would take the patients so far from their former residence, and sometimes 50 or 60 miles away from the visits or inspection of their friends; and, in that part of the country which he had the honour to represent, he saw no strong symptoms of extraordinary madness which could induce him. to vote against the amendment.
Colonel Bagwell
animadverted on the inconsistency of the noble lord, who began by expressing a wish, that the bill should be delayed till the assizes were over, and afterwards concurred in a motion for its total rejection. He highly approved of the object it proposed, as there was a vast number of those objects to be seen swarming in every part of Ireland.
Mr. Alexander
said, that though he approved of the outline of the measure, he must object to the mode in which the object was proposed to be accomplished. He thought the bill drawn up hastily and inaccurately, and could see no necessity for all this complicated machinery. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment, in hopes that another bill would be brought in, which would be better adapted to the purpose.
Sir J. Newport
replied, that all the ob-
208
Sir G. Hill
expressed himself against the bill, which he thought to be unnecessary, when sufficient powers were already given to the grand juries.
Mr. Lee
said he would oppose the present bill, but was ready to support any other, which would accomplish the same objects in a better manner.
Mr. Fitzgerald
thought the law at present competent to attain ail the objects of the bill.
Sir J. Newport
said, that finding the sense of the house to be against the bill, he should beg leave to withdraw it, but not with the intention of bringing in another.— The amendment was then agreed to, that the bill should be read a third time this day six months.—Adjourued.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 4.
[MINUTES.]
The royal assent by Commission was given to the Customs Duty, Excise Duty, Legacy Duty, and eleven private bills.— A Copy of the Letter from Viscount Melville to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, together with the answer of the Commissioners, were presented at the bar, and ordered to be printed. —Lord Hawkesbury moved the Order of the day, for the commitment of the English Militia Enlisting bill. The house having resolved itself into a committee, he moved, if noble lords had not objections
209
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 5.
[MINUTES.]
The Speaker, attended by the house, proceeded to the house of peers, and being returned, he reported that the house, at the desire of the lords, authorized by virtue of his majesty's commission, had been at the house of peers, Where a Commission, under the great seal was read, giving the royal assent to the following public and private bills, viz, An act for granting to his majesty additional duties, within G. Britain, on certain goods wares, and merchandize, imported into, or brought or carried coastwise; an act for granting to his majesty several additional duties of
210
211
[DECLARATION OF SIR FRANCIS BURDETT NOT TO DEFEND HIS ELECTION FOR
212
The Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received a declaration, in writing, subscribed by sir Francis Burdett, baronet, who is returned a knight of the Shire to serve in this present parliament for the county of Middlesex, that he, the said sir Francis Burdett, did not intend to defend his election for the said county. And the said declaration being delivered in at the table, was read; and is as followeth, viz. "Whereas, on Wednesday the 13th day of March last, a petition, subscribed with the names of George Boulton Mainwaring, esq. therein stated to have been, at the last election for the county of Middlesex, a candidate to represent the said county in this present parliament, sir William Gibbons, baronet, sir William Curtis, baronet, Henry Thornton, esq. William Mellish, esq. and Samuel Pepys Cockerell, esq. was presented to this house, complaining of my election and return to serve in this present parliament as a knight of the Shire for the county of Middlesex; which petition this house has ordered to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday the 7th day of May instant: "And whereas, on Wednesday the 10th day of April last, this house ordered that the said petitioners should upon the 20th day of April last, by themselves or their agents, deliver to me, or my agents, lists of the persons intended by the said petitioners to be objected to who voted for me, giving in the said lists the several heads of objection, and distinguishing the same against the names of the voters excepted, to, and that I should, by myself or my agents, at the same time deliver like lists on my part to the said petitioners or their agents:— "And whereas, it appears, upon the face of the sheriff's poll, taken at the said election that at the said election, 12833 persons voted for me, and 2832 for the said George Boulton Mainwaring, amounting in the whole to 5665 persons actually polled; and that 103 persons tendered their votes for me, and 99 for the said George Boulton Mainwaring, making 202 tendered votes; in the whole 5867 votes polled and tendered:— And whereas, between the said 13th day of March last, when the said petition was presented to this house, and the 20th day of April last, on which day this house ordered the said lists to be exchanged, there was not Sufficient time for me, by myself, or by my agents, to examine into the rights of 5867 voters, so as to enable me to make
213
[PRINTERS' PETITION.]
A petition of
214
215
[PETITION FROM LONDON RESPECTING PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
A petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and commons, of the city of London, in common council assembled, was presented at the bar by the sheriffs; setting forth, "that the petitioners have observed, with infinite concern and disquietude, a petition lately presented to the house by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, on behalf of themselves and of others, his majesty's subjects professing the Roman catholic religion," praying a repeal of the several statutes by which
216
217
[PETITION FROM OXFORDSHIRE RESPECTING THE PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
A petition of the, Freeholders of the county of Oxford, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners have seen, with the deepest concern, that a petition has been presented to the house by the Roman catholics of Ireland, praying that the laws by which they are at present excluded from being members of the parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and from filling the principal offices in the executive government and civil and military administration of Ireland, may be repealed; and the petitioners humbly trust, that they are not deficient in those feelings of moderation and tolerance by which an allowance is made for difference of opinion on religious subjects, and by which a protection is afforded to the exercise and practice of those different opinions; but they are at the same time persuaded, that, to grant power and authority to persons whose religious principles are hostile to the constitution of the Country, is neither required by liberality, nor consistent with the dictates of sound policy or self-preservation; and that the petitioners are convinced, by the experience of all ages, that the principles of the Roman catholic religion are incompatible with both civil and religious liberty; that they are particularly repugnant to the genius and spirit of the constitution of this united kingdom, so that it is impossible that Protestants and Roman catholics should ever agree in administering together the powers of government, and that such an attempt would be productive of the most mischievous distractions and weakness in the public councils of the kingdom; and that though the petitioning Roman catholics disclaim some of the mischievous doctrines of the church of Rome, yet they still admit that they acknowledge some of the most dangerous ones, amongst which must be reckoned the acknowledgement of the supremacy of a foreign power in matters of their religion, which must have a most important influence on their moral and political conduct; and that the petitioners cannot but remember, that the partiality of king James the Second for the Roman catholics, and the influence which he gave them in the public councils of the
218
[PETITION FROM DUBLIN RESPECTING THE PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
A petition of the lord mayor, sheriffs, commons, and citizens, of the city of Dublin, in common council assembled, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners have seen with the deepest regret a copy of a petition presented to the house by certain persons in, the name of the Roman catholics of Ireland, containing demands of political power, which, if yielded, would be ruinous to our happy constitution in Church and state; and that the good conduct of the Irish Roman catholics, as recognized by the Irish legislature in 1779, took place under the ope-
219
220
[PETITION OF THE DUKE OF ATHOL.]
A petition of John duke of Athol, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth "that the Isle of Man was granted in sovereignty by king Henry the Fourth to the petitioner's ancestors, and confirmed to, and made unalienable in, the petitioner's family by an act, passed in the 7th year of king James the First, and they continued proprietors thereof, with sovereign rights, until it was thought necessary by parliament, for purposes connected with the protection of the British and Irish revenues, to vest the same in his majesty, by an act passed in the 5th year of his reign; and that the petitioner is well satisfied that it was not intended in that transaction to deprive his family of the full benefit of the principle that has invariably governed the legislature in all cases in which the public safety has required that the rights and properties of individuals should be resigned or purchased for the protection of great national interests, namely, that of giving full compensation to those who are called upon to make such sacrifices; and that the compensation then given to the petitioner's family was estimated on an erroneous supposition, that the greater part of the revenue produced to him by the said island was derived from illegal sources, and from the introduction of articles which were afterwards smuggled into his majesty's dominions, to the great detriment of his majesty's revenues; and that, notwithstanding the lapse of time (a great part of which has been employed in investigating the nature of the interests of the petitioner's family in the said island, and in the improvement of the revenues derived by his Majesty from the same) the petitioner is able, by original documents and evidence, to prove that the revenue fairly arising to, his family from the fair duties at the rates payable in 1765, accruing on articles introduced into the island for the purposes of consumption only, independent of trade, would have produced an annual income, for which, together with the regalities that
221
222
[WEST INDIES.] Mr. Barham
adverted to the alarm that prevailed on the state of our affairs in the West Indies. The right hon. gent. opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew the dismay in which the city was on this subject. It was conceived that great mischief had been done, and that the occasion of that mischief had arisen from the neglect of government. Whether that was, the case or not, he would not say, but he wished to put some questions, with a view, to ascertain whether proper measures had been taken for the security of our possessions and property in that quarter, that if such measures had been taken the knowledge of the fact might do away the alarm. If such measures had not been taken, it would be proper to enquire why they had not? He should if it were necessary, move for such papers as would give information of all the measures taken since the commencement of the war, for, the security of our West India Colonies; but he would content himself in the present instance, with inquiring what information government had with respect to the sailing of the Rochfort squadron, its, force, its destination, and at, what time this information had been received? He should wish also for the instructions given to Admiral Cochrane, and the dispatches received from that Admiral from off Lisbon. He wished to know, whether that Admiral sailed for the West Indies, and at what time, and what force he had with him? If these questions were satisfactorily, answered, any motion on the subject would
223
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
felt himself under the necessity of objecting in the strongest manner, to the questions proposed by the hon. gent. The time was by no means passed, when the disclosure of the particulars required would be of importance to the enemy. On the contrary, it might be of the most material consequence to make these particulars known to them at present. He was certain, however, that when the proper time should come it would be evident that there was no neglect on the part of his majesty's government, and as he was sure the alarm that existed was beyond all proportion and almost altogether unfounded.
Mr. St John
said there were other papers to which his attention had been called, but if the disclosure of them was of any importance he would not press it. The papers he alluded to were, an account of our naval force in the West Indies in the last year; and a similar account for the ten years previous. The object was to shew, as he understood these accounts would, that the force in that quarter since the commencement of the war, was not greater than that which had been kept there during the peace. He gave notice, that he would move for these papers on the first open day.
[PROPERTY DUTIES BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
in pursuance of notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Property Act. One of his objects, he said, was, to give more effect to the regulations respecting the abatements; another was, to make some new provisions relative to leases for lives. It was also proposed to have a separate provision with respect to charitable corporations. There were also some minor regulations, unnecessary to be stated, as he meant, as soon as he had introduced the bill, to move for its being printed.
Mr. Fox
hoped that some means would be taken to render the abatements less inconvenient with regard to persons who had annuities. Those who paid such annuities, made it a general rule to deduct the 5 percent. without considering whether the annuitant was a person who was entitled to the benefit of the abatements. Probably the right hon. gent. had this in view; if not he wished to suggest it to him.— After a few words from Mr. Calvert,
224
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said it was his wish that the bill should be read a first and second time, and then printed, to be considered during the holidays. The new regulation would be incorporated with those of the former ones that were suffered to remain, so that there would be but one bill on the subject. The chairman reported, and the resolution was agreed to by the house.
[SMUGGLING PREVENTION BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved, that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the act of 24th of his present majesty, for the prevention, of smuggling. He stated, that the practice of smuggling had increased to an alarming extent, and he had thought it his duty to submit to the house a bill to remedy so dangerous an evil. The material object he had in view was, to make articles of high duty in packages of certain sizes liable to seizure, if found on board any ship in the narrow seas. The distance within which they should be prohibited should not be less than 100 leagues from the English coast. We had clearly a right to make any provisions we pleased with regard to the navigation of our own seas by our own subjects, whatever exceptions might be necessary as to neutrals. Another object of the bill referred to the hovering distance with respect to Guernsey and the other Islands in the Channel. It was notorious that smuggling from thence had been carried on to an enormous extent. The measure he meant to propose, in order to obviate it in future, Was to prohibit packages below a certain size from being on board ships hovering off those places. Another plan was, that where ships came in with smuggled articles, the persons on board should be liable to sonic penalty, unless they were transferred with their own consent to the navy. He also wished to have it made as penal to resist naval officers, as it at present was to resist excise officers. Another object of the bill was to prevent spirits being sold below proof at, the diffe-
225
[STATE OF AFFAIRS IN INDIA.] Mr. francis
rose, and in a masterly and luminous speech took an extensive view of our affairs in India. It would not, he set out by observing, be denied, that the state of our immense dominion in the East, was a subject of the highest importance that could be submitted to the consideration of parliament. In proportion, however, as this empire was extended, it seemed to excite less of the attention either of the house or the public. It seemed as if its very greatness bad rendered it superior to the capacity of the house fully to understand or beneficially to regulate. If this really was the case, it was only an additional proof of the impolicy of that all-grasping system which had too long guided our councils in India, only an additional confirmation that such a system must continue to produce consequences of the most disastrous nature. Abuses must, from the very nature of things, spring out of this excessive lost for power. Abuses must arise from the remoteness of our possessions, so little liable to investigation or punishment. But it was fit that the house should bear in mind. that evils which originated in India would not confine themselves to that country. Even at this moment, some of those evils were already felt, and many more would follow in their track. India, under its present government, afforded us no revenue. It was on the contrary there that our resources were consumed in ruinous conquests, that the flower of our troops were cut off, fighting unnecessary battles, India, under a wise system of policy, might be at once a source of revenue and a fund of the most beneficial commerce. Before these effects took place, however, the present system of apathy, with regard to our Indian affairs, must be abandoned for a system of jealousy, of justice, and of moderation. From the conduct of parliament now, with regard to India, it appeared as if her authority to legislate fro that part of
226
227
228
229
230
primus inter pares
231
in perpetuity
a concession
232
233
234
Lord Castlereagh
complimented the hon. gent. on the able speech which he had made, and observed, that there was no occasion for his making any apology for thus interfering with the affairs of India. The situation which he once held in the Indian govt. and the information on these points, which he must by these means have acquired, rendered him well qualified to discuss the affairs of India. But though the hon, gent. had certainly turned his attention a good deal to the finances of India, he had seldom or never called the attention of the house to the other points which he had now touched upon. The hon. gent. had made quotations from different parts of the papers, than which nothing could be more unfair, because they carried quite a different meaning when separated from the context. What might be the hon. gent.'s object he did not know. It was impossible for him to enter minutely into the particular cases, because the subject was so very general. He had formerly asked information from the hon. gent. respecting the chief point to which his attention was to be directed, and his view in bringing forward his motion, but was refused any information on that head. He was persuaded, however, that the hon. gent. did not mean to vilify the councils of his country, nor to impeach the character of any individual who was absent, and could not defend himself. Having said this much by way of preface, he would endeavour to follow the hon. gent. through the outlines of his speech. With respect
235
236
237
238
239
240
Earl Temple
admitted, that there had been a line of policy marked out for India by act of Parliament which ought to he adhered to. If it had not been adhered to, he would certainly ageee with the motion of his hon. friend. But in his opinion the principle had never been lost sight of. If his hon. friend had attacked the character of the governor-general, he would have strongly objected to that part of his motion particularly, but he had disclaimed any thing of that sort. His hon. friend had begun with our establishment in India, its origin, and had made use of a singular phrase which he had taken down. He said that our commerce produced factories, that factories produced armies, that armies had produced conquests, that conquests had produced extended dominion, and that this brought us to our present situation. His lordship observed, that it did not by any means follow, that all this originated in a thirst of power on our part.—There was another point in his hon friend's speech, which he must also notice, that was the idea of a knowledge of European tactics, being dangerous to the natives of India; he, on the contrary, was of opinion that a small number of Frenchmen scattered over different parts of the continent of India, would be more effectually serviceable to the natives by instructing them, and more dangerous to .us than a much. greater force
241
Dr. Laurence
thought the statements of his. hon. friend were worthy of the strictest attention, and most serious consideration that the house could possibly give it, being a question winch involved no less a number than thirty-two millions of persons: a number which was more than three times the amount of the population of England. It surprised him very much to hear the noble lord opposite him (Castlereagh) argue in the manner he had done; it surprised kiln much to hear him state that his hon. friend had no right to look bark to points which were more remote, and took place at a more distant period of time, merely because, as the noble lord stated, he had not come forward at every intermediate step, and moved for those papers, and that information, which might then have existed. He denied that this was any argument against his coming forward now, with this very necessary motion; but, even supposing it was, his hon. friend had complied with it in every respect, for, to his knowledge, no one instance had passed without his calling for papers, and doing every thing that could in any way be thought necessary. The hon. and learned gent. remarked, with some severity, on the term "connection," as it had been applied to the mode which we pursued towards the Mahrattas, a nation containing 30,000,000 of people. The question, at the best, was on a point of very dubious policy. He praised the conduct of marquis Cornwallis when in India before, and trusted his return there would be attended with similar advantages. The noble lord seemed to misunderstand every thing advanced by his hon. friend, from beginning to end. What harm could result from re-asserting those principles which were already to be found in the resolutions of the house, and in the statutes? He condemned the modes practised by the company for the acquirement of territory in India. It was once given as Mr Hastings's opinion, that the possession of the whole of Bengal alone might
242
243
Mr. Grant
observed, that the noble lord who moved the previous question,had stated that the Marquis Wellesley's conduct in India had been approved of by the government of this country, and by the directors of the East India company, as had been transmitted to him by a committee in the regular course of official communication, that was an incorrectness founded upon a misunderstanding of one fact, namely, that the directors had approved of the conduct of the noble Marquis; the fact was, that that question was never before the directors at all: this observation he thought was called from him after what the noble lord had said upon that subject to-night; that noble lord had bestowed great attention to the affairs, and displayed Much ability in the conduct of the business of India in this country; but notwithstanding what that noble lord had said, he owned he was unable to view what had of late years passed in India, in any other light than that of an infraction of the principle laid down at the time when the resolution was passed, by which we renounced conquest in India, for the purpose of an extension of territory. He was led to adopt this opinion from experience of the effect of the former Mahratta war, an event which had laid the foundation of all the debt we had incurred there. The diffusion of ourselves to so unlimited an extent, would be most injurious to us, for by it we should lose ourselves. With regard to the French power in India, his opinion had always been that it was much exaggerated by statements in this country, and that a few French officers there were not dangerous in the way they were supposed to influence the natives a thousand miles from the coast. He thought the principle laid, that we were not to pursue conquest for the sake of extension of territory, was the true policy of this country; and that so much had been done to render it doubtful whether we had not abandoned that principle, it became necessary now to give the world assurance, that Such is to be our guide, and this he wished to be distinctly avowed. He thought that we had now an extent of territory in India; that we should never be able to preserve it; for the governments of India were so loose, that almost any adventurer would find followers when he wished to kindle the flames of war, and therefore there was a necessity for recurring to the principle of our former resolution, since the expences of the war had been already
244
Mr. Huddlestone
said, he did not wish that this subject should be too much detailed in parliament, but as he had had long experience in India, he thought it his duty to put the house in possession of his sentiments upon this most important question. His hon. friend who had just spoken, had alluded to what past with reference to the court of directors, and the dispatch of the marquis of Wellesley of the 21st Dec. on the subject of the treaty of Bassein, by which it appeared that the noble marquis expressed himself as having received the approbation of his majesty's government and court of directors, but the truth of the matter was, that the terms of that treaty were never brought before the court of directors, neither was there among them any discussion concerning it, desired or admitted; and with regard to the idea of departing from a system of policy formerly laid down, or of their having expressed approbation of what was done in India, or that any question was discussed by them on the subject of war or peace in India, or of the extent of the territories of the British empire. The court of directors, although in the opinion of the public they were supposed to have a great deal of power, had in reality no More than any member of that house in these matters, and here he was sure that the candour of the house would permit him to state how the matter stood with regard to the directors. It had been said by those to Whose assertions, from their weight in the world, there was consequence, on the subject of the merit of the noble marquis respecting our successes, and were stated to have been great, and that the consequences of them would have been still greater if some obstacles had not been thrown in his way, and lest there might be any mistake upon that subject, to whom it was meant to apply that observation, it was said, it did not come from any of his majesty's ministers; it was therefore meant to apply to the directors, of whom it was said they were men of very good intentions, but not of such enlargement of mind as to be able to understand the plan of the marquis of Wellesley, or the great benefits they were calculated to produce. Now whatever consequence the directors might have, they had no share in the management of sending any thing to India on the subject of the political ,system there, and there-
245
246
Sir Theophilus Metcalfe
differed altogether from the two hon. gent. who had spoken last. The treaty of Bassein had been founded on consummate policy, and did great honour to the noble marquis, whose principal object was to prevent the Mahrattas from being united under one head. The hon. bart. proceeded to review the circumstances which led to that treaty. If Scindeah and Holkar had not been divided at Poonah, the consequence would have been the consolidation of their several great powers, and we should have had them both joined against us. The Mah-
247
Mr. Chapman
spoke in favour of the original motion. He said, that the moment they entered into a treaty with the Peishwah, they must expect a war with the Mahrattas. He had been resident in the country of the Rajah of Berar, and there the Peishwah was not allowed to be the supreme chief over the other feudatory chiefs. Scindeah and Holkar could never be expected to agree to the treaty, and he thought, therefore, it was very impolitic to enter upon it. The war was very expensive, and he was afraid would be productive of considerable mischief to the company's affairs.
Mr. Princep
thought the house indebted to the perseverance of the hon. member in calling their attention to so important a subject, and expressed his approbation of the magnanimous conduct of those official gentlemen, who, disregarding the restraint of office, so candidly and honourably avowed their sentiments. He trusted, as the attention of the house seemed now directed to the subject, they would not give it up till they had fully investigated the manner in which the affairs of our Indian dependencies had been administered. On the present occasion, however, when a noble marquis was on the eve of setting off for India, to take on him the supreme command and government of the country, he did not wish such a declaration as that moved for by the hon. gent. should be voted by the house, as he was afraid it would be the means of fettering and bind-
248
Mr. Robert Thornton
warmly approved of the original motion. He was of opinion, that the system now acted upon with regard to India ought to be changed, and that we should act on principles and indications of moderation and forbearance, and not in the spirit of conquest and aggrandizement. He trusted, that it was with that view, and with these intentions, that marquis Cornwallis would set out for that country. In sending out that noble marquis in lieu of lord Wellesley, we were substituting the olive branch for the sword, and this at a time that such a substitution was essentially necessary. Such a declaration as that now moved for would shew that parliament are determined on a dereliction of the late system; and it would show the marquis and the native powers in India, that you do not send him out merely as a common governor-general, but that the country might derive advantage from that conciliatory disposition which is so much wanted to heal the wounds which, he thought, had too rashly been inflicted there. If we were to hold India, and to keep the French out of it, we must not think of doing either by the sword, but by conciliating the minds of the native powers, and convincing them that justice and moderation should be the future rule of our conduct towards them. No one could deny that marquis Wellesley had acted with great energy and activity. In his opinion the noble marquis was too active, too energetic and too enterprising. The noble lord had pursued the warlike system too far, and had thus created a discontent and disposition to resistance among the native powers, of which the French, or any power hostile to us, could easily avail itself, if it could obtain any footing in India. The conciliatory system was therefore become indispensable for our honour and security. For he feared that for some years back we were become in India what the tyrant of France was in Europe.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted, that in one point of view the motion now before the house was such as nobody could object to in the abstract, because it was a principle expressed upon our statute-book, and founded upon natural justice, that we
249
250
Mr. Fox
vindicated the motion and the objects of the honourable mover. The right hon. gent. who had just sat down, was completely mistaken, in supposing that the meaning of his hon. friend, or of those by whom the motion of 1782 was drawn up, was, that parliament should make a declaration against unjustifiable wars, for that would be just such trash as the French assembly published at the commencement of the revolution; but upon which they did not afterwards act, "that they would not make war forsake of conquest." No, the meaning of the motion before the house, and of that of 1782, was this, that an extension of territory in India was not the policy of this country; that is, that whatever the grounds of war might be, a farther addition to our territory in that quarter would be a mischief. But the right hon. gent. on the other side, seemed to say, that our -situation was materially altered since 1782, with respect to India. Where, he would ask, was the material circumstance of change? We were at war with France
251
252
253
Mr. Francis
in reply, insisted on the same motives of conduct as were recommended by Mr. Fox; and contended, that they would be most congenial to the feelings, and most consonant to the policy upon which the noble marquis was likely to act, and for the enforcement of which it was likely that he was again induced to undertake the government of our India possesions.—The question being loudly called for, the house divided;
For Mr. Francis's motion
46
For the previous question
105
Majority against the motion
59
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 8.
[MINUTES.]
Counsel were further heard relative to the Scotch Appeal, Cathcart, bart.
v
254
pro tempore
[MILITIA ENLISTING BILL.]
The Militia Enlisting bill, was then read the third time; and on the question being put that the bill do pass;
Earl Spencer
rose, not oppose the passing of the bill, but merely to enquire of the noble secretary of state what arrangement was intended with respect to a matter which his lordship conceived to be highly important, but for which no provision was made in the present bill, that he could observe; namely, with regard to the officers now attached to the several regiments of militia, but who would be superfluous or supernumerary, when those regiments should come to be reduced to their intended limitation; his object was, to be informed whether they were to be continued on full, or reduced to half-pay.
Lord Hawkesbury
answered, that the bill was not intended to affect the pay of any officer now attached as such to any regiment of militia, in consequence of the reduction, so long as the militia continued embodied.
Earl Spencer
said, his only difficulty wag how such supernumerary officers couldlegally continue to receive full pay after the reduction of the militia to its original standard. Such a principle he was sure must be contrary to the spirit of the original Militia law; and without a special clause in the bill (which certainly might be amended any time in the course of present session) he did not see how that principle could be dispensed with.—The question being put, "that the bill do pass," the house divided;
Contents
55
Non-contents
40
—
Majority for the Bill
15
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 8.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Huskisson
brought up a bill for amending and rendering more effectual the Property bill, which was read a first time.—The house resolved itself into
255
Mr. Johnstone
begged leave to ask Mr. Sheridan, whether he had abandoned his motion relative to the affairs of the Carnatic? If he meant to do it, he would, inadequate as he confessed his abilities to be to a subject of such vast importance, bring it forward it forward.
Mr. Sheridan
said, though the matter had long lain dormant, he certainly did not mean to abandon it; especially as a noble lord opposite had seemed to hint, some short time back, that these affairs had been so happily settled, that all inquiry was unnecessary. He .meant, immediately after the holidays, to fix a precise day for bringing forward his motion on that subject.
[CENSURE OF LORD MELVILLE.] Mr. Whitbread
rose to make his promised motion, founded on the tenth report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, and spoke as follows:—When first, sir, I gave notice that, I should call the attention of the house to the subject on which I am now to address you, it was my intention to follow, the precedents by which the house have been generally guided, and to move that the tenth report of the commissioners of Naval Enquiry be taken into consideration in a committee. I have, however, since, on mature reflection, seen reason to alter this original resolution, and confining myself to the most important part of that report, to make that the foundation of certain propositions with which I shall have the honour to conclude. With due respect to all the commissioners which have ever sat under the authority and appointment of this house, I must be permitted to say, that none was ever more honourable in its origin, none had ever prosecuted its inquiries with more real advantage to the public interest. It is well known that this commission originated from the late Board of Admiralty, at the head of which presided that noble lord
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
ex parte
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
1. That it appears to this committee, that on the 18th of June, 1782, the House of Commons in a committee of the whole house, came, amongst others, to the following resolutions:—"That it is the opinion of this committee, that some regulations ought to be adopted, for the purpose of lessening and keeping down the balances of public money which appear to have usually been in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy, and it would be beneficial to the public if the first
276
2. That in furtherance of the intention of the House of Commons expressed in such Resolutions, his majesty, by his warrant, dated June 26, 1782, directed that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy should be increased to the sum of 4000l. per annum, in full satisfaction of all wages and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former Treasurers.
3. That it appears to this committee, that during the Treasurership of the right hon. Isaac Barré,the conditions of the aforesaid warrant were strictly complied with; that the whole of the money issued from the exchequer to Mr. Barré for naval services was lodged in the Bank; that it was never drawn from thence previously to its being advanced to the sub-accountants to be applied to the public service; that during the time Mr. Barré acted as treasurer and ex-treasurer he had not in his possession or custody any of the public money, and that neither he nor the paymaster of the navy did derive any profit or advantage from the use or employment thereof.
4. That the right hon. Henry Dundas, now lord viscount Melville, succeeded to the office of Treasurer of the Navy on the 19th of Aug. 1782, when a further addition was made to the salary of, the, said
277
5. That the said lord viscount Melville continued in the said office till the 10th of April, 1783: that being asked, whether he derived any advantage from the use of the public money during that period, he, in his examination before the commissioners of Naval Enquiry, declined answering any question on that head; but that he has, in a letter since written to the said commissioners, and dated the 28th of March last, declared, that, previous to 1786, "he did not derive any advantage from the use or employment of any monies issued for carrying on the service of the Navy." But Mr. Douglas, who was paymaster, being dead, and his lordship having refused to answer any question on this head as aforesaid, no evidence has been obtained as to the application of monies issued for the service of the Navy, or the mode of drawing the seine from the Bank during this period.
6. That the hon. C. Townshend, now lord Bayning, held the office of Treasurer of the Navy from the 11th April, 1783, to the 4th of Jan. 1784; and that from the examination of his lordship it appears, that, during his treasurership, no part of the money issued for the service of the navy, was applied to his private use or advantage; and that he does not believe that Mr. Douglas, who acted under him as paymaster, derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of the public money, except the money issued for the payment of Exchequer Fees.
7. That the right hon. Henry Dundas was re-appointed Treasurer of the Navy on the 5th of Jan. 1784, and continued in the said office until the 1st of June, 1800.
8. That in the year 1785, An Act of parliament was passed, (25 Geo. III. Cap. 31), intituled "An Act for better regulating the office of Treasurer of his majesty's Navy;" whereby it is directed that no money shall be issued from the treasury to the treasurers of the navy; but that all monies issued for naval services shall be paid to the Bank on account of naval services, and placed to the account
278
9. That the execution of the said act was postponed till the month of January 1786, and from that time till the month of June 1800, when lord Melville left the office of Treasurer, contrary to the practice established in the Treasurership of the right hon. Isaac Barré, contrary to the resolutions of the House of Commons, of 18th of June, 1782, and in defiance of the provisions of the above mentioned act of the 25th Geo. III. c. 31, large sums of money were, under pretence of naval services, and by a scandalous evasion of the act, at various times, drawn from the Bank, and invested in exchequer and navy bills, lent upon the security of stock, employed in discounting private bills in purchasing Bank and East India stock, and used in various ways for the purposes of private emolument.
10. That Alexander Trotter, esq. paymaster of the Navy, was the person by whom, or in whose name, the public money was thus employed; and that in so doing he acted with the knowledge and consent of lord viscount Melville, to whom he was at the same time private agent, and for whose use or benefit he occasionally laid out from 10 to 20,000l. without considering whether he was previously in advance to his lordship, and whether such advances were made from his public or private balances.
11. That the right hon. lord viscount Melville having been privy to and connived at the withdrawing from the Bank of England, for purposes of private interest or emolument, sums issued to him as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the Bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. III. c. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty.
12. It further appears, that subsequent to the appointment of lord Melville as treasurer of the navy, in 1784, and during the time he held that office, large sums of money, issued for the service of the navy, were applied to other services; and that the said lord Melville, in a letter
279
13. That lord Melville, in applying monies issued for the service of the navy to other services, stated to have been of so delicate and confidential a nature, that in his opinion, no account can or ought to be given of them, has acted in a manner inconsistent with his duty, and incompatible with those securities which the legislature has provided for the proper application of the public money.
After the hon. gent. had read these Resolutions, he added, that he. did not mean to press beyond 11th, leaving the circumstances as to the application of the money to other services, to some future investigation.
On the question being put, on the first resolution;
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose. He said, he could not but admit, that the hon. gent. had, during the former part of his speech, adhered strictly to the observance of that moderation and temper which he had promised at the outset. Towards the end, however, of his speech, he had departed altogether from the tone in which he had begun it; and in the address, with which he concluded, to the house, appeared to endeavour, by an appeal to the passions on topics not applicable to the subject in discussion, to excite an undue impression favourable to his proposition. The hon. gent. had adverted to the burthens which the exigencies of affairs had rendered necessary, and appeared to insinuate broadly, that the transaction, which was the object of his motion, had been the means not only of augmenting those burthens, but a considerable aggravation of them. It was important to have this matter investigated, as, if the fact were so, that the public burthens had been aggravated to any extent by the misconduct or malversation of any person or persons in office, there was no man in the
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
Mr. Fox
expressed a wish that the right hon. gent. had moved the previous question, rather than the amendment he now proposed. If this amendment were carried, the original motion would not appear on the Journals of the house, whereas if the previous question had been carried would stilt appear.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no wish to prevent the motion from appearing on the journals, and should therefore consent, instead of the amendment he had proposed, to move the previous question, it being it being however understood, that should that be carried, he should then move for the committee he had mentioned.—The speaker then proceeded to put the previous question. Upon which,
289
Lord Henry Petty
rose and said, that although he trusted that others, more able to follow the right hon. gent. than himself, would reply to the speech they had just now heard, he was desirous of taking this early opportunity of stating the reasons for which he should vote for the original motion, in preference to the mode recommended by the right hon. gent.; but he must, in the first place, observe, that if he objected to the proposition of the right hon. gent. for a select committee, it was not because he thought such an inquiry unnecessary, but because he thought it would be better timed after the resolutions of his hon. friend had been carried: after the opinion of the house was recorded on the matter that was clearly proved, then they might proceed to an investigation of that which still remained obscure. He had never heard the right hon. gent. with more surprise, than when he had accused his hon. friend of travelling out of the road of facts, to inflame the passions of the house, although the resolutions were composed entirely of facts, and the speech principally of deductions from facts. Another accusation against his hon. friend was one which might be thought not very consistent with inflaming passion, that he had loaded his speech with a complication of figures, But if his hon. friend had travelled out of the road of facts, had not the right hon. gent. in his view of the case, omitted facts, and those the most essential, on which the whole strength of the question rested? Had he not forgot that lord Melville had, by his own confession, proved that money had, with his knowledge, been drawn from the bank and placed at a private banker's? Had he not forgot, that lord Melville himself admitted, that he applied to other services, money issued for the service of the navy? Had he not forgot, that lord Melville had found himself unable to deny, that he had connived at his paymasters reaping private and illegal profit from the use of public funds? Was this complication of figures? Were they not, on the contrary, plain and important facts, which no subsequent inquiry could do away, no other evidence or examination of evidence could shake or invalidate; unless, indeed, that could be believed of lord Melville, which, even after all that had passed, would hardly be imputed to him, that he would wantonly forswear himself, and declare that to be false before one tribunal which he had declared to be true before another,—The right hon. gent. had endeavoured to extenuate the guilt of
290
291
292
293
The Attorney General
said, that nothing, had fallen from his right hon. friend to prevent the judgment of the house from being taken on the matter in question. The hon. mover had thought proper to call upon persons of different classes for their opinion and support that night. He had called on all those who were in office, and on those who aspired to it. The noble lord might be classed in the latter description, and he would appeal to him whether he did not feel that parliament ought not to judge upon the conduct of a public officer, without having the fullest information on the subject of the charge made against him? How would he feel should such ever be his own situation? It was called a plain violation of law, and a simple matter of fact: but was it not extremely material to ascertain the real circumstances attending that transaction in a committee of the house? Respecting the diversion of public money to other branches of the pubic service, it was material that it should not be considered in piece-meal, but taken on the whole, and if ever there was a case which demanded such investigation it was this, in which gentlemen took so much pains to heap together every possible accusa-
294
Mr. Tierney
complimented his noble friend. It was a matter of pride to any man to be allowed to call himself the friend of such rising talents and eloquence. He agreed with him that nothing was more fit than to appoint a committee after the first point should be agreed upon, a committee in which all that related to accounts and calculations might be sifted arid made clear. The transfer of money from one service to another was also matter for a committee, but what was to be done with the remainder of the tenth report? Did lord Melville ask for further delay, saying he had evidence sufficient for his acquittal? Did Mr. Trotter say any thing to that effect? But the people of England looked to this night for the opinion of their representatives on this important case. He would ask the right hon. gent. how long it was since the expedient of a reference to a committee occurred to him? The right hon. gent. was anxious for the production of lord Melville's letter, and still more, that the public mind should be set at rest on this point before the Easter recess. Why send to a committee that which no committee of that house could, throw any fresh light upon? Could any man in that house lay his hand to his heart, and say he could controvert those propositions? Would any evidence disprove that money had been drawn from the bank contrary to law? Would Mr. Sprott say now what he would not say before? Would he be open-mouthed when not on his oath, and close when sworn? No farther explanation could be given. He then reminded the house of the report of the committee on the late sheriffs of Middlesex, when the committee made their report, which was received as full evidence, and counsel were merely as a supplementary explanation. Would any man in being, he asked, say that lord Melville, Mr. Trotter, or Mr. Mark Sprott, by an after examination of the facts, could add any thing for the satisfaction of the house? His right hon. and learned friend had gone over the whole of the case, and pressed the necessity of a select committee; but the commissioners of naval inquiry had been occupied for 6 months in no other business than that of investigating the matters of the tenth report. What utility could it then be of, to go into a new com-
295
296
Mr. Canning
said, that on any other occasion he should undoubtedly have given way to his hon. and learned friend, but after the speech he had just heard from the high authority of the hon gent. Whom he had succeeded in the office he now held, and considering that the present question related peculiarly to that department of administration which he was most intimately connected with, he felt particularly anxious to deliver his sentiments on this occasion. He observed that the house, in its usual love of justice, would give an opportunity to
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
Mr. George Ponsonby
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I am satisfied that the right hon. gent. who spoke last, thinks, as he speaks, that there is matter in this business, highly deserving of the most serious consideration of this house. I am sure he thinks it a question highly deserving of a committee, for the purpose of proving the innocence and purity of Mr. Trotter; for, from all I have heard of his character, I am certain if he did not think Mr. Trotter pure and innocent, he would not continue him in office. I think it right, sir; to quote the right hon. gent.'s conduct, in proof of his sincerity; for, I am sure he would not vote for farther delay, if not from a consciousness that it was necessary to the exculpation of Mr. Trotter. He surely would not. continue him in office, or act in any way, merely for the purpose of screening an
304
ex parte
ex parte
305
ex parte
306
307
308
Mr. Canning
rose to explain the cause of Mr. Trotter's continuance in office. He said he had never seen him until he was appointed paymaster under him. He restored him because he was a useful man. And he had not renewed him from office, because he considered his case
adhuc sub judice
309
The Master of the Rolls
argued in favour of an inquiry, because, he said, it had ever been the principle and practice of our jurisprudence to have the whole of a case before any man was pronounced guilty. It was not sufficient to state that the law had been violated by lord Melville; but before the house could pronounce a judgment against him, it would be necessary to shew that he had violated the law from corrupt motives. The law might be broken, and the motives not corrupt. It had never been the object of the naval commissioners to try criminals, or to convict men on their own confession. Their object merely was to inquire into abuses, and it was for that purpose alone that they had put questions to those who came before them. The house then could not, on the report of men having such an object in view, convict a person without hearing evidence at its bar. Such was the proceeding in the case of sir Robert Walpole, the duke of Macclesfield, and various other persons. He would not now say one word concerning the merits of the case, but he contended that the whole of it ought to be heard before the house proceeded to come to a decision upon it. It would be impossible for any man to be as capable at this moment of determining upon the various shades of guilt belonging to the case as he would be after an inquiry was gone into. From the report now before the house, it was impossible for any man to say that lord Melville was personally guilty of corruption—that he was corrupt for the sake of private emolument. Nothing like personal corruption was proved against the noble viscount. How was he to judge of his own offence but by his own understanding? How did it appear to what degree he connived at the misconduct of his servant. These and many other points were wholly left in the dark by the commissioners, and could not be cleared up without farther inquiry.
Mr. Fox
then rose. He said he should be extremely unwilling to suffer this question to be put without expressing his sentiments upon it. For if, unhappily, the vote of the house should be opposite to that which he hoped and wished, he should feel very uneasy indeed that his name should partake of the universal odium that must attach to any decision tending to second such notorious delinquency as the report on the table declared. He could never reconcile it to his mind to be silent upon such an occasion, lest he should be suspected of declining to mark with the strongest reprobation, guilt
310
simpliciter;
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Lord Castlereagh
opposed the motion, and insisted that the very severe animadversions which had fallen from the hon. gent. were not fu1ly justified by the nature of the charges against lord Melville. His lordship exhorted the house not to forget what was due to an old and faithful servant of the public, whose honour was dearer to him than his life. He expressed his sincere wish that the affair might be thoroughly, sifted to the bottom by parliament; but he also wished, that the house would not be induced by party clamour and vociferation to forget individual justice. His lordship, therefore, deprecated entering fully into the business at present, unless it were intended to move further for the dismissal of lord Melville from his Majesty's service. He considered, he observed, Mr. Trotter in the light of a deputy of lord Melville's; and that, therefore, the manner in which the public money entrusted to his care had been employed, demanded the particular attention of parliament; but his lordship was against treating lord Melville with the severity intended; and deprecated their being hurried by their sensations of strict rectitude into a premature decision upon a subject which involved objects of magnitude. His lordship also stated, that a strict examination of the accounts was very necessary to know to what length the supposed abuse had been carried.
Lord Andover
supported the motion, and censured severely the conduct of lord Melville. He enlarged particularly upon the answer the noble lord had made when the plain questions whether he had connived at Mr. Trotter's practices, or received any emolument from them, were put to him by the commissioners. An answer, his lordship observed, very dissimilar to that of the Roman statesman, who, scorning any other justification, appealed boldly to the opinion his country at large entertained of his honour and integrity. Such was not lord Melville's character: his sensibility, his integrity, was not of that nature which "seeks the light, and courts the day."
Mr. Wilberforce
.—I do not rise, sir, at this late hour, to detain the house for any long time, but I cannot satisfy my mind without saying a few words in support of the original motion; for, notwithstanding I have listened with all the attention I am
318
319
320
Sir Charles Price
observed, that, as a magistrate and a man, he felt himself most fully justified in declaring that if lord Melville had been entirely free from any criminality, he would have answered more fully and unequivocally than he had done. He therefore supported the original motion.
Mr. Wallace
rose to express the conviction he felt of the lord Melville.
Lord Archibald Hamilton
rose, amidst loud cries for the question. He said he would not detain the house a moment. No member for Scotland had yet delivered their sentiments on the question, and he only meant to state that there was at least one representative of that country who would vote for the original motion.
For Mr. Whitbread's Motion
216
For the Previous Question
216
The numbers being thus equal the SPEAKER gave his casting vote in favour of Mr. Whitbread's Motion, thereby making a Majority of]
321
Sir William Pulteney
suggested, that the words, "as acknowledged by lord Melville," in addition to those proposed by Mr. Pitt, would meet the ideas of both sides of the house.
Mr. Whitbread
said, he had no particular objection to this amendment. The words in his motion had been left general, because it was confessed that the sums were drawn out for private interest and emolument, but not specified directly whether for lord Melville as well as Mr. Trotter. In this way the motion was read by the chair. It then stood thus: "That the right hon. lord viscount Melville having been privy to, and connived at, the withdrawing from the bank of England, for the purpose, as stated by lord Melville of private emolument to Mr. Trotter, sums issued to lord Melville as treasure of the navy, and placed to his account in the bank according to the provisions of the 25 Geo. III. c. 31. has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty."
Mr. Windham
contended that after the clear elucidation of the case that the treasurer of the navy could answer whether he had not derived advantage from the public money, the words in the resolution ought to be left ambiguous.
Mr. Fox
that the attempt to screen lord Melville from the result of the previous resolutions by so trifling an amendment, would do the noble lord no good, but would put that house in a very awkward point of view.
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that not to brand the transaction by the epithets of gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty, after the confession of lord Melville, would be ignominious to the house.
Mr. Sheridan
said, that the amendment made the motion almost nonsense. To say, in the first instance, that lord Melville con-
322
Mr. Bastara
said, it was impossible for any gentleman to support such an amendment.
Mr. T. Grenville
spoke to the same effect.
Mr. Pitt
persisting in his declaration that he would take the sense of the house, the gallery was cleared; but on the question being put on the motion as it originally stood, the speaker declared that the ayes had it, and Mr. Pitt did not push the house to a division. Before strangers were re-admitted, Mr. Whitbread had moved an address to his Majesty for removing lord Melville from his councils; and at the time the gallery was opened Mr. Pitt was proposing to postpone the consideration of this motion until Wednesday.
Mr. Fox
said, after the long debate which had already taken place, he should have no objection to the postponement of his hon. friend's motion provided it was understood that the house should not sit in the interval. He could not consent to a proposition which would leave to the house the chance of meeting again without having taken any step to remove a disgraced administration.
Mr. Pitt
.—Certainly, in every view of the case, it is better that the house should adjourn to Wednesday next.
List of the Majority
Abbot, Right Hon. C. (Speaker.)
Adair, R.
Bouverie, Hon. E.
Althorpe, Lord
Brogden, James
Adams, Charles
Brodke, Charles
Anderson, Sir J. W. Bart.
Browne, F. John
Andover, Viscount
Browne, Isac H.
Annesley, Francis
Buller, James
Anson, Thomas
Bonbury, Sir C.
Antonie, Wm Lee
Byng, George
Astley, Sir J. H. Bart.
Calciaft, J. (Teller)
Atkins, John
Calvert, Nicholson
Aubrey, Sir J. Bart.
Cavendish, Lord G.
Bradshaw, C.
Cavendish, W.
Babington, Thomas
Cavendish, W.
Bagenal, Walter
Chapman, Charles
Baker, John
Coke, Thomas
Baker, Wm.
Coke, Edward
Baker, Peter W.
Cooinbe, H. C.
Bamfylde, Sir C.
Coolte, Bryan
Bankes, Henry
Coote, Sir Eyre
Barclay, George
Cornewall, Sir G. A.
Barelay, George
Courtenay, John
Barelay, Sir Robert
Cowper, Hon. S.
Barham, Jos. Foster
Croevey, Thomas
Barlow, F. W.
Curtis, Sir William
Bastard, J. Pollexfen
Curwen, J. C.
Best, W. Draper
Cumming,—
Bligh, Hon. Thomas
Daley, D. Bowes
323
Dennison, John
Marsham, Lord
Duncannon, Lord
Martin, R.
Daniel, F.
Mathews, J
Dickins, F.
M'Mahon,.
Douglas, Marquis
Mellish, Wm.
Dugdale, S. D.
Metcalfe, Sir Theo.
Dundas, Hon. L.
Middleton, Sir W.
Dundas, Hon. C. L.
Milbanke, Sir. R.
Dundas, Hon. G. H. L.
Mills, C.
Durand, J. H.
Milner, Sir W. M.
Ebrington, Lord
Moore, G. P.
Elliot, William
Mordaunt, C.
Erskine, Hon. Thomas
Morpeth, Lord
Fellowes, Robert
Morris, Edward
Foley, Hon. Andrew
Mostyn, Sir T.
Foley, Thomas
Moore, P.
Foljambe, F. Ferrand
Newport, Sir John
Fitzgerald, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel, G. Noel
Fitzpatrick, Rt. Hon. R.
Neville,—
Folkes, Sir M. B.
North, Dudley
Folkestone, Viscount
Northey, Wm.,
Fonblanque, J.
O'Brien, Sir Edward
Fox, Hon. C. J.
Ord, William
Francis, Philip
Osborne, Lord F. G.
Frankland, William
Ossulston, Lord
Fuller, John
Palk, Sir Lawrence
Geary, Sir William
Palmer, John
Giles, Daniel
Paxton, Sir William
Godfrey, Thomas
Pedley, J.
Golding, Edward
Peel, Sir Robert
Gregor, Francis
Pierse, H.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Pelham, Hon. C. A.
Grenville, Rt. Hon. T.
Petty, Lord Henry
Grey, Hon. Charles
Pierpoint, Hon. C. H.
Grimston, Hon. J. W.
Plumer, William
Hamilton, Lord A.
Ponsonby, Right Hon.W.B.
Harrison, John
Ponsonby, George
Holland, Henry
Portman, Ed. Berk.
Holland, Sir Nathan,
Poyntz, William S.
Howard Henry
Praed, William
Huddlestone, John
Price, Sir Charles
Hughes, Wm. Lewis
Prinsep, John
Hulkes, James
Pulteney, Sir W.
Hurst, Robert
Pytches, John
Hussey, William
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H.
Robarts, Abram
Jeffrey, John
Russel, Lord Win.
Jekyll, Joseph
St. John, Hon. St. A.
Jervoise, J. Clarke
Salisbury, Sir Robert
Johnstone, George
Scott, Joseph
Kensington, Lord
Scudamore, John
King, Sir J. Dashwood
Shaftoe, Robert E. D.
Kinnaird, Hon. C
Shakespeare, Arthur
Knight, R. Payne
Shelley, Timothy
Ladbroke, Robert
Shelley, John
Lambton, Ralph
Sheridan, R. B.
Langton, W. Gore
Simpson. Hon. John
Lascelles, Hon. Edward
Smith, Wm.
Lascelles, Hon. Henry
Smith, Charles
Latouche, John
Somerville, Sir M.
Latouche, Robert
Spencer, Lord R
Lawrence, French
Stanley, Lord
Lawley, Sir Robert
Stanley,, Thomas
Lemon, John
Stewart Hon. Mont.
Lemon, Sir W.
Stewart, James
Lefevre, Charles Shaw
Symonds, Thomas P.
Loveden, E. L.
Tarleton, Banastre
Lubbock, J.
Taylor, C. W.
Maddocks, W. A.
Thornton, Henry
Markham, J
Thornton, Robert
Manners, John
Thornton, Samuel
324
Tierney, Right Hon. G.
Whitbread, S (Tellery)
Townshend, Lord J.
Willoughby, Hon. H.
Tyrwhitt, Thomas
Wilberforce, Wm.
Vansittart, George
Williams, H.
Walpole, Hon. G.
Williams, Owen
Walpole, Hon. H.
Walsh, Sir B.
Ward, Hon. J. W.
Windham, Right Hon. W.
Watson, Hon. George
Wrottesley, Sir John
Western, C. Callis
Wynn, C. W. W.
Wharton, John
Young, Sir W.
Wright, JohnAtkins
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, Hon. G.
Dundas, Rt. Hon. W.
Adams, Wm.
Dunlo, Lord
Addington, Rt. Hon.
Dupre, James
Ainstic, R. S
Elford, Sir W.
Alexander, Boyd
Eliot, Hon. W.
Alexander, H.
Ellison, R.
Archdall, Richard
Erskine, Sir W.
Ashley, Hon. C
Estcourt, T.
Bagwell, William
Everett, T.
Bagwell, William
Euston, Earl
Baillie, Evan
Fane, Francis
Baldwyn, W.
Fane, Henry
Barne, Snowden
Fane, John
Bathurst, Rt. Hon. C.
Fane, Hon T.
Beaumont, T.R
Farquhar, James
Beresford, Lord G.T.
Fellowes, W. H.
Beresford, John
Ferguson, James
Binning, Lord
Finch, Hon. E.
Bloxham, Sir M.
Fitzgerald, Rt. Hon. M.
Bond, N.
Fitzharris, Lord
Brodie, James
Fitzhugh, W.
Brome, Lord
Foster, Rt. Hon. J.
Brooke, Lord
Frederick, Sir .J.
Bruce, Lord
Fydell, Thomas
Bruce, P.C
Garland, George
Buller, John
Gibbs, V.
Burrows, Sir W.
Giddy, Davies
Burton, N.C
Glenbervie, Lord
Calvert, J.
Graham, T
Campbell, J.A.
Grant, F. W.
Campbell, John
Grant, Sir W.
Campbell, Lord J.
Greene, W.
Canning, Rt. Hon. G.
Greville, Hon. R. F.
Cartwright, W.R.
Gunning, R.
Castlereagh, Visc.
Hamilton, Sir H.
Chuse, W.
Hamilton,—
Clephane, David
Hamilton, H.
Cline, W.
Hamilton, Sir C.
Clive. Hon. R.
Hamond, Sir A. S.
Cockerell, C.
Hardman, Edward
Colquhoun, James
Harvey, E.
Corry, Rt. Hon. I.
Hawkins, Sir C.
Cranley, Lord
Hawthorne, C. S.
Curzon, Hon. R.
Heathcote, Sir W.
Cust, Hon. J.
Henderson, A.
Dashwood, Sir H.
Hill, Sir George
Dent, John
Hilliard, E.
Devayiaes, W.
Hobhouse, B.
De Blacquire, Lord
Hobson, A
Dick, Quintin
Holford, G.P.
Dickenson, W. jun.
Hope, Hon. Alex.
Dickenson, W. sen.
Hope, Hon. C.
Dickson, W.
Horrocks, J.
Douglas, Sir Gee.
Hunting field, Lord
Duigenan, Patrick
Huskisson, W.
Dundas, Phillip
Ioglis, Sir H.
Dundas, Hon. R
Jeffray, J.
325
Jepson, Denham,
Scott, David
Joddrell, H.
Scott, Hon. J.
Jolliffe, H.
Scott, Sir W.
Jones, Walter
Scott, Claude
Keane, Sir J.
Scott, Samuel
King Hon. E.
Seymour, Lord R.
Kingston, J.
Sinclair, Sir John
Lee, E.
Sitwell, Francis
Leigh, R. H.
Sloane, Hans
Leland, John
Smith Sir W S.
Loftus, W.
Smith, J. A.
Long, Rt. Hon. C.
Smith, Spencer
Longfield, M.
Smyth, Rt. Hon. J.
M'Kenzie, F. A.
Sneyd, Nathaniel
Louvaine, Lord
Somerset, Lord C.
Macnaughton, E. A.
Somerset, Lord R. E.
M'Dowall, W.
Spencer, Lord F.
M'Kenzie, F. A.
St. John, Ambrose
Manners, R.
Stanhope, W S.
May, Edward
Staniforth, John
Mildmay, Sir H.
Steele, Rt. Hon T.
Mtford, W.
Steele, Robert
Montgomery, P.
Stephens Sir P.
Moore, C.
Stewart, Sir James
Morgan, C.
Steward, G T.
Morland, W.
Stopford, Lord
Nepean, Sir E.
Strachey, Sir H.
Neville, Richard
Strahan, A.
Nicholl, Sir J.
Strutt, J. H
Norton, J. C.
Stuarf Sir John
Odell, W.
Sturges, Bourne
Osborne, J.
Sudley, Lord
Ormsby, C. M.
Sullivan, Sir R.
Paget, Hon. C.
Spencer Smith
Paget, Hon. E.
Talbot, Sir G.
Patten, Peter
Thelluson, G.
Patterson, J.
Thelluson, P T.
Pereival, Hon. S.
Thynne, Lord G.
Phipps, Hon. E.
Thynne, Lord J.
Pitt, Right Hon. W.
Titchfield, Varquis
Pitt, W. M.
Townshend, Hon. W.
Popham, Sir H.
Trail, J.
Pole, Hon. W. W.
Turner, Edmund
Porcher, T. D.
Vanisittart, N.
Preston, Sir R.
Ward, Robert
Pulteney, Sir J.
Wallace, Rt. Hon. T.
Rochfort, Gustavus
Welby, Sir W. E.
Rose, Right Hon. G.
West, Hon. F.
Rose, George H.
White, M.
Russel, M.
Wigram, Robert
Rutherford, J.
Willet, T. W.
Salusbury, Sir R.
Wood, Mark
Sargent, J.
Wortley, J. S.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 9.
[MINUTES,]
The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages.—The order of the day being read, the house resolved into a committee on the Irish militia enlisting bill; and lord Walsingham having taken the chair, the various clauses and provisions of the bill were agreed to by their lordships, without observation or amendment.—The house having resumed, the report was received, and the bill ordered to be
326
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 10.
[MINUTES]
—The royal assent was given by commission to the Militia Reduction bill, the Spanish Trade bill, the American Treaty bill, the Foreign Prize Ships' bill, the Bengal Supreme Council, the Innkeepers' Rates bill, the Edinburgh Police bill, and six private bills.—The Irish Militia Reduction bill, the Irish Spirit Permit bill, Bowyer's Lottery bill the London Bread Assize bill, and some private bills, were read a third time, and passed.—Lord Hawkesbury laid on the table, by command of his majesty, copies of correspondence between the admiralty and navy board, and an account of the number of guns and carronades on board of certain ships, pursuant to address of that house.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 10.
[MINUTES.]
A message from the lords informed the house, that their lordships had
327
[PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE AND MR. TROTTER.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
as soon as he entered the house, rose and said, that he thought it his duty to-acquaint the house,that the noble lord who had been the subject of the discussion on a former night, had since made a tender of the resignation of the office of first lord of the admiralty to his majesty, which resignation his majesty had been most graciously pleased to accept.
328
Mr. Whitbread
then moved, that the resolutions of Monday should be read. The house ordered that the eleventh resolution only should be read, and it was read accordingly. "That the right hon. lord viscount Melville having been privy to, and connived at the withdrawing from the bank of England, for purposes of private interest or emolument, sums issued to him as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. III. c. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a highs breach of duty." Upon which,
Mr. Whitbread
rose, and expressed himself in these words: Sir, the notice which has been just given by the right hon. gent. over against me cannot have been unexpected by any one; but I confess that, by the notification now made, I am by no means satisfied; I think the public cannot be satisfied; I think, nay, I feel confident, this house will not be satisfied; I am sure the ends of public justice will not be satisfied, if some further resolutions are not adopted, in consequence of the proceedings on the report of the naval commissioners. If the issue of the debate of the night before last was a mere personal or party triumph; if it was only our own feelings which Were concerned, we might be satisfied, because the noble lord who was the object of the accusation which I had the honour to bring forward, has thought fit to retire from a situation of responsibility, dignity, and emolument, at least from the first situation in point of dignity he held: and as far as any triumph over an individual can be concerned, this has been most complete. But, sir, I was not actuated; and I am sure those Who voted with me on the occasion were not actuated by personal or party motives: I undertook a great cause, in which I had the satisfaction to succeed: I shall not abandon the cause I have undertaken; but I shall still urge the motion of which I gave notice on the former night. If I know any thing of my own heart; if I know any thing of the feelings which actuate me, there is nothing, I trust to God; of, a vindictive spirit within me and having accomplished the end of disclosing the conduct of the noble lord, and having the verdict of the house, I should not, for the mere sake of ulterior punishment, think it necessary to press the subject farther; I should here stop, and desist: but let us consider the situation in which we stand. The noble lord, stigmatized as he is by the vote and proceedings of this house,
329
"We read our history in a nation's eyes,"
330
yes
no
331
332
quietus
l
quietus
l
333
l
l
l
l
334
l
l
l
l
335
Mr.
Canning
rose, and spoke to the following purport. However strongly the hon. gent. who has just sat down has expressed his desire that the house should on this occasion attend merely to the call of impartial justice, and however desirous he may have been of disclaiming any other motives for the course he has pursued, than what proceeded from a wish to establish an example, such as may effectually prevent the recurrence of the like mischiefs and irregularities in future; I cannot help thinking, and I am pretty confident that many of those who have heard the hon. gentleman's speech are of the same opinion, that, notwithstanding his professions of moderation, he has introduced such topics and spoken in such a tone, as prove him to have been actuated by something more than the motives alleged, and indicate something much more bitter than appears to be warranted by the nature of the case under consideration Gracious God! what measure of justice would the hon. gentleman deal out in this case? What is his object? In the interval that has elapsed since the house last separated, lord Melville has, in deference to the decision of this house, thought proper to re-
336
337
338
339
340
341
Mr. Grey.
—I rise, sir, under no inconsiderable share of embarrassment. I was in some doubt, whether I should take notice of the observations of the right hon. gent. at all. It is indeed, unpleasant to me at all times to enter into any thing in this house where I am personally concerned. With regard to whatever I or my hon. relation have done, I do not feel that we have merited the reproof of the right hon. gent., since I do believe we neither of us have any obligation to confess to the zeal, impartiality, or ability of the noble lord. The right hon. gent. accuses me for the warmth I have displayed respecting this business, and in answer to this accusation it is only necessary to say, that I am quite unconscious of any such bitterness, and it would, I think, be rather difficult for the right hon. gent. to shew in what way it has been evinced. He chooses to congratulate me and my hon. friend near me (Mr. Whitbread) on our more than Spartan virtue in voting against the noble lord, who, as he alleges, was the champion of those who are dear to us by the ties of blood or the connexions of friendship. He tells us that the battle which the noble lord fought for these relations was disinterested, and he admires the return we have made for these magnanimous exertions. This, sir, is a strange kind of language; but it will be proper for me to call the attention of the house to the circumstances to which the right hon. gent. has alluded. It is sufficiently in the recollection of the house that these noble lords being in the service of government, received only bare justice from the ministers of the day. It will be recollected that among the few instances of military glory which distinguished the late war, the two noble lords, triumphing over difficulties of a very formidable nature, had eminently distinguished themselves. On their return to this country from the West Indies, some dissatisfaction arose, and an inquiry was proposed by some members of this house. What was the conduct of these noble persons on that occasion? Did they fly from justice? Did they wish to elude inquiry, or did they discover any anxiety to conceal their conduct behind any mean or dishonourable subterfuge? On the contrary, did they not court inquiry? Did
342
343
344
345
Mr. George Ponsonby
—Mr. Speaker; after being so pointedly and personally alluded to by the right hon. gent., I hope I shall be favoured with the attention of the house for a few a moments. Since first I had the honour of a seat in this house, I will not attempt to deny that it has ever been my ardent wish to stand high in the esteem of all the members of whom it is composed. After the vote of Monday, however, a vote so honourable to the character of this assembly, a vote which has exalted its character among all orders in the state who value independence and worth, I confess, that to stand well in your opinion has become a matter of the utmost anxiety. The right hon. gent. has chosen to say, that if I had been a British lawyer I never could possibly
346
347
348
349
Mr. Canning
explained, and stated that lord Melville was as effectually excluded from his majesty's councils, by what had already taken place, as he could be by any resolution of the house to that effect.
Mr. Samuel Thornton
rose, in consequence of the allusion made this night and on a preceding one, to the evidence of an experienced and meritorious officer of the bank before the commissioners of naval enquiry. That officer (Mr. Newland) had there intimated that the drafts passed by the treasurer had not always expressed the service on which they were drawn, conformably to the provisions of the act of parliament. If this were the case, the bank were certainly to blame, as he held in his hand a copy of the power under which the paymaster had passed his drafts from the year 1786 until the resignation of lord Melville; this power stated in express words, "that he should be particularly careful to specify in each and every draft the service for which the money was drawn." The fact was, that Mr. Newland, though at the head of the cashier's department of the bank, was not the officer under whose inspection the detail of this branch of business was carried on, and therefore had only delivered a matter of opinion. The officer who paid the drafts from the
350
Mr. Barham
was of opinion, that the allusion made by the right hon. gent (Mr. Canning) to the two honourable persons whose naval and military conduct had been the subject of inquiry in that house the beginning of last war, was very injudicious,
351
Mr. Bankes
disavowed any political connexions that could wrap his judgment on any great question of justice or policy. The vote he had given on Monday night had been purely disinterested, and had not arisen from the influence of any party. He disapproved of the abuses that had taken place, and had voted accordingly. He would take the liberty, however, though unconnected with any party, to recommend to the hon. gent. not to persist in his present motion. Was the hon. gent. certain that the circumstance of the case, taken in the whole, would warrant such a measure? At any rate, he thought it extremely ill-timed; and the same sense of duty that had prompted him to vote with the hon. gent. on Monday night would also induce him to resist the present motion. The design of the adjournment on the former night, was avowedly to decline any measure on the part of the house till they should see if his majesty would, from the suggestions of his own royal breast, take any step that might supersede the necessity of any further operations on the part of the house. The result had been favourable to the wishes of the house, and had rendered, in his opinion, this measure unnecessary. But why, he asked, such eagerness to follow up the blow that had been already give? for this, he understood, was but a part of the measures that were intended to be adopted, and that other en-
352
Mr. Windham,
though not generally in
353
354
355
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
—As the right hon. gent. has thus required some specific explanation, and it appears to be the wish of several other gentlemen that I should give some sort of pledge on the subject of the noble lord's return to power, I rise to say a very few words, solely for the purpose of explanation, and not with the view of at all arguing the question. What I now say, I take it for granted, then, will not preclude me from again addressing the house, if the debate should be Continued. It is my wish that the noble lord should be treated as far as possible with those feelings of liberality, and if such a pledge as that which the right hon. gent. who has just sat down had alluded to could prevent the necessity of persisting in the motion, I am sure that every legitimate object would be accomplished. I have no hesitation at all, accordingly, in saying, that all idea of noble lord's return to power is completely annihilated, and that no danger whatever need be apprehended from this quarter. When I make this frank declaration, I only wish it to be understood that this is not to understood as continuing in force in case the resolutions of Monday should, on future inquiries, be found to have been premature, and should accordingly be erased from the journals of the house . In any other case but this, I think it is absolutely impossible that any minister should ever think of recommending the noble lord to a share in his majesty's councils. After this declaration, I do think that the motion of the hon. gent. might be dispensed with, without at all losing sight of the object he profess to have in view. The house are now agreed as to the general principle, and they only differ as to the
356
Mr. Fox,
began by adverting to the manner in which the motion had been spoken of by the hon. gent (Mr. Banks) on the same bench. The hon. gent. allowed that the present motion was a corollary from the resolution of Monday, and declared that if it had been put from the chair immediately after the other resolutions were passed, he must in consistency have given it his support. He wished to know, why he might not equally vote for the motion now, since whatever argument existed for the motion at that time, remained now in full force? The only reason which induced a postponement of the motion then, was the lateness of the hour, and that was the only consideration which induced him to recommend to his hon. friend not to submit his motion till the next meeting of the house. He had frequently seen and complained of the inconveniencies of hurrying through important motions at a very late hour, and as some debate was naturally to be expected on so interesting a subject, he was anxious that every gentleman should have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments. He had said, that among other advantages which would attend the delay would be that of giving the ministry an opportunity of properly performing their duty; but he never even hinted that the identical motion which his hon. friend now submitted to the house would not be brought forward. If the support of the hon. gent. to the bill was, therefore, now lost, it was entirely lost, because his hon. friend and himself had proceeded on a pledge that the motion would be adapted as an obvious corollary from the Resolutions, and that, viewing it in this light, they had yielded to the argumentum ad vericundiam—After these introductory observations, Mr. Fox
proceeded in substance as follows:—The right hon.
gent. who spoke second in the debate, has delivered himself in a manner so extraordinary and injudious, that it is really hardly worth while to take notice of his observation. The resolutions of the house on Monday night, seem so completely
357
sub judice
sub judice
358
359
360
361
362
Mr. Wilberforce
said that perhaps there never was a time when parliament were called upon to interfere in a matter of such importance as on the present occasion, and more important resolutions than those which passed on a former night, were never agitated in that house. As guardians of the constitution, the house were met there to defend it from any inroads that might be made upon it, and he considered the resolutions which had been recently adopted as the most likely way to prevent danger to the constitution of the country, from the abuse of extraordinary power lodged in the hands of an individual. It behoved parliament to interfere whenever the public trust was abused or misapplied, and they should take every occasion to punish the offenders. This was the foremost of its duties. It was his opinion, and he mentioned it with deference, that it was the duty of parliament to inquire into all public abuses, and to follow up their resolutions by a minute investigation. He had declared his opinion on this matter on a former night, and he was perfectly satisfied with the sentiments he had delivered. When he voted the night before last, it was from strong sense of public duty, and his desire to maintain the character and reputation of that house. He came down to the house this night without any expectation of a measure similar to that proposed by the hon. gent.; being brought
363
Mr. Fuller
hoped the hon. gent. would sift the matter to the bottom, and not allow the depredators on the public to go undetected and unpunished. If there were a grain of ipecacuanha or of emetic tartar in the world, he trusted it would be administered to the delinquents, to oblige them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. The proceedings of Monday would be nugatory if
364
Mr. David Scott.
—Sir, I merely rise to express some reasons which I should hope would, in some degree, operate with the hon. mover to withdraw the present motion. I should previously apologize to the house for intruding, while under such severe indisposition, as I fear will scarce enable me to make myself heard. Sir, the hon. gent. who brought forward the resolutions on Monday, and other gentlemen on the same side of the question, used as their strongest argument, that the public looked to the virtue and dignity of the house for immediate justice, and for such severe resolutions as then were moved. The resolution being then carried respecting lord Melville, I mean to say no more upon it, except that God knows, the public must think it sufficiently severe. If the present one proposed was carried, what would the public say to it? They would, sir, instead of ascribing it to justice, to virtue, and a proper, dignified conduct in the house, ascribe it to what the hon. gent. below me (Mr. Fox), has so much dwelt upon, bitterness and rancour. They would say, this noble lord, after full forty years of most meritorious services to the state, and most of these in the highest situations, has had a very unmerited return, severe in the extreme, so much so, that all these measures taken by the house, must certainly have arisen, not from public virtue, but from a most persevering vindictive spirit. Sir, this conclusion is the more natural when we look to the character of that noble lord throughout the country. As to his being concerned in any sort of peculation, it is totally out of the question. No man whatever, I conceive, could believe a thing of the sort. There is no man that has the honour of his acquaintance, who does not know him to be incapable of benefiting by the public money, or by any other thing not perfectly honourable. Such suspicion could scarce arise in the mind of any person, as indeed being directly contrary to the habits of his life. No man has ever valued money less; indeed, from what we all know, if he had chosen to benefit by the public money, he might have had millions. On the contrary, those who have the pleasure of knowing
365
Mr. Kinnaird
said, that it was not his intention to have said any thing on the present question; had it not been in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last, founded on the observation of a right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Canning). That right hon. gent. had said, that no man could reproach lord Melville with being a bitter political adversary. There was a country which was probably known to the right hon. gent. only by the account given of it by Dr. Johnson. In that country (Scotland) lord Melville was known to be a bitter political adversary, and he was therefore the more surprised to hear the hon. member who spoke last, who was a native of Scotland, say, that lord Melville did not exert his influence in that country, in a particular instance, which had been alluded to by an hon. gent. near him. He would ask that hon. gent. or any other member of the house, to step forward and say that lord Melville had not exerted all his political influence, and in consequence had succeeded in turning off from a post of honour in the faculty of advocates, a gentleman who was an honour and an ornament to his profession. He trusted the time was
366
The Secretary of war
(Mr. William Dundas) said, that he did not expect that he should have felt himself called on to make any to make any observations in the course of agitating the present question. He was aware that it would shew very bad taste in him to interfere, and therefore it was not his intention to have done so. Here, however, he felt himself called on by the hon. gent. who had just sat down. How had the hon. gent. found out that lord Melville was a bitter political adversary? Was it by going to his country mansion, and dwelling with him for weeks or months at a time, by mixing in his convivial moments, that he had acquired that knowledge? Had the hon. gent. only gone to the noble lord in his moments of conviviality, now to rise up against him in the hour of his need, when the hon. gent. was not called on, when, in fact, it was in a manner understood that the motion was to be withdrawn, and that only for the sake of introducing extraneous observations and allegations against him? On such conduct he knew he needed to make no comment. He was conscious that the generous feelings in the breasts of Englishmen would speak more forcibly against such a practice than any thing he could say. With respect to the gentleman who had been deprived of the office of dean of the faculty of advocates, the case had been altogether misrepresented. What was the fact? That gentleman's attending a meeting of the friends of the people in Edinburgh, when democratic principles were attempted to be disseminated throughout the country; his conduct excited the indignation of the advocates, and animated by the
esprit du crops
Mr. Fox
begged leave to remark, that whatever had fallen from his hon. friend near him (Mr. Kinnaird), had been extorted by the remarks of the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning).
Mr. Kinnaird
thought that the right hon. gent. had effectually displayed his bad taste in attacking him in the manner he had done. Was he to be reproached with ingratitude or any improper feeling, because living in
367
Mr. Ellison
begged pardon of the house while he performed his duty in shortly stating his sentiments on this subject. He had come down the other night, as he had today, with every wish to check peculation, and with every intention to follow up the resolutions of the house, as far as justice might seem to warrant. Expecting that the whole crime would be made out before the house ought to be called on to pass sentence, he on the former night voted for the committee, thinking that any sentence before the gravamen was made out, was worse than any punishment which the house might afterwards feel itself called on to inflict. The house, however, having determined that there was no necessity for a committee in the first instance, he came down this night with a determination to lend every aid in his power to bring the guilty to punishment, to pledge himself to assist any class of men to whatever party they might belong, who who would institute an enquiry, and punish abuses in every department.
Mr. Whitbread
hoped it would not be necessary for him to make any apology for offering a few observations on what had been said. He had been arraigned by two right hon. gentlemen, both this night and on the former night, for the way in which he had opened the business. On the former night he had been accused of too much passion in his statement. As he was conscious of feeling nothing of the kind in his mind, he hoped the right hon. gent. would do him the justice to suppose that he had misconceived him in this respect. As to his statement of this night, he denied that he had blamed lord Melville for tendering in his resignation, He thought, on the contrary, that noble lord was right in retiring; but he must be of opinion that ministers were reprehensible in allowing him. There was this difference between him and Mr. Trotter; Mr. Trotter had been dismissed; he had re-
368
369
370
nem.con
Mr. Whitbread
again rose, and said, that he thought the most solemn mode of carrying such an important step into execution ought to be adopted on the present occasion; on that account he should propose, "that these resolutions be laid before his majesty by the whole house."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he understood the hon. gent. to have meant that the resolution should be laid before his majesty without any comment, and in the most simple form.
Mr. Whitbread
replied, that it was his intention they should be presented without comment, but not without form. He quoted several precedents to prove the propriety of the mode of proceeding which he proposed, and observed, that even had no precedent existed, that course ought to be pursued which gave most weight and dignity to the transactions.—The motion was then agreed to, and it was ordered that such of the members as were of his majesty's most hon. privy council should
371
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that hon. gent. had already given a general notice of some motions he intended to make after the recess: he should wish to be informed, if possible, on what day he intended to bring them forward.
Mr. Whitbread
said, that on the very first day after the conclusion of the holidays, he meant to move that instructions be given to the attorney-general to proceed legally against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter; and also, that an enquiry should be instituted for the investigation of those parts of the 10th report which had not been already considered by the house. There was one circumstance which he only wished to notice, though he did not mean to be deemed too severe in so doing. He merely meant to suggest to that hon. and learned gent. (the attorney-general) that it might be proper to introduce a restraining bill, to prevent the noble lord making away with his property. He did not mean, however, by stating this, to take the house surprise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
hinted, that it was not impossible his majesty might intimate his wish to receive the resolutions before the adjournment. The extent of the adjournment had usually been from Thursday to Monday se'nnight; but he should propose that, in this instance, it might be from Thursday to Thursday fortnight.
Mr. Serjeant
Best
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 11.
[MINUTES.]
The royal assent was given by commission to the Irish Militia Enlisting bill, the Irish Spirits Permit bill, the Bread Assize, and Boyer's Lottery bill. —The Lord Chancellor stated, that very shortly after the recess, he should move to appoint particular days for the delivery of judgment upon such causes as stood over for ultimate decision.—, The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. —Adjourned to Thursday the 25th inst.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 11.
[MINUTES.]
The Speaker came down to the house at three o'clock, and after at-
372
pro formâ,
[PAYMASTER OF THE FORCES REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Rose
prefaced his motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 23d of the king, as far as it relates to the regulation of the office of paymaster of his majesty's forces, by stating briefly the objects he had in view in bringing forward this measure. He had looked into the reports of the commissioners of accounts, and found that no accounts had been passed from the office of the paymaster previous to the passing of that bill; the provisions of that bill were sufficient to secure the passing of the accounts; but they gave to the public no means of compelling the production of vouchers, or of enforcing the payment of arrears that might accumulate in the hands of the paymasters; in consequence of which, considerable risk was incurred by the public, from the length of time that often elapsed before the accounts were audited. One of his objects, therefore, was, to enforce the production of vouchers to the pay-office, and to give process to the public for the recovery of any arrears that may remain in the hands of the paymasters. Another was, to separate the acting from the retired or removed paymasters. There were many provisions in the existing hill which were found inconvenient or unnecessary. Another object consequently was, by omitting these parts, to accommodate the provisions of the bill to the practice of the office, under improved regulations, adopted since the passing of the bill. The measure he proposed he had prepared
373
Lord H. Petty
observed, that more than a month ago he had moved for copies of several depositions relative to the gaol of Kilmainham, and they were not yet forthcoming. He was surprised to find so much difficulty in obtaining papers from Ireland. A similar circumstance had lately occurred, with respect to other papers on a different subject, in which seven weeks had elapsed, without any return being made. He should, therefore, move "that the return for the papers he had moved for should he made forthwith." Ordered.—The house then adjourned to this day fortnight, and the right hon. the speaker, followed by several members, immediately went up to St. James's with the resolutions of Monday last.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 25.
[MINUTES.]
Several private bills were brought up from the commons, and read a first time.—On the motion of the bishop of Oxford, the committee on the Universities Advowson bill was postponed till Monday, for which day the lords were ordered to be summoned.—Mr. Johnson, from the Irish secretary of state's office, presented an account of the State of the Gaols in Ireland, during the year 1804.
[PRICE OF BREAD.]
The Earl of Suffolk rose, and expressed his regret, that unavoidable business had obliged him to be absent during the progress of a late bill through the house (the Bread Assize
374
l.
l.
375
Lord Walsingham
assured the noble earl, that the bill should not have been carried through its stages so soon as it had, if he was not informed that the noble earl had no objection to its progress.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it must be a gratification to the noble earl to know that the bill to which he alluded had no connection with the subject which he brought before the house.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 25.
[MINUTES.]
The Speaker reported to the house, that the house attended His Majesty on the 11th instant, with the resolutions of the house of the 8th instant, relative to lord viscount Melville, whereupon His Majesty was pleased to give the following most gracious answer: "Gentlemen; I shall on all occasions receive with the greatest attention any representation of my commons; and I am fully sensible of the importance of the matter which is the subject of your resolutions."—On the motion of Mr. W. Smith, it was ordered that a new writ should be issued for the election of a representative for Hereford, in the room of J. Scudamore, esq. deceased.—Mr. Johnstone, from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland, presented at the bar the various statements relative to the prisoners in Kilmainmam gaol, which had been ordered upon a former day, on the motion of lord Henry Petty. Ordered to be laid on the table.—Sir Thomas Metcalfe moved, that the second reading of the Pancras Poor bill be fixed for Monday next, which, after a few observations from Mr. P. Moore, was agreed to and ordered the house.—Sir .J. W. Anderson obtained leave to bring in a bill for the formation of the Tunnel under
376
[PETITION OF THE ELECTORS OF SOUTHWARK AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.] Mr. Henry Thornton
presented the following petition agreed to by the electors of Southwark, in common hall assembled: "To the honourable the Commons of Gt. Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, electors of the borough of Southwark, in the county of Surry, beg leave to congratulate your honourable house, upon the result, so glorious to the character of parliament, of the discussions which have taken place in your honourable house on the 8th and 10th days of this inst. April, respecting the gross malversations in certain branches of the executive government, which have been disclosed in the Tenth Report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. We pray your honourable house to follow up that virtuous line of conduct, which, upon the two days before
377
[PETITION OF THE CITY OF LONDON AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.] Mr. Ald. Curtis
presented a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of the city of London in common hall assembled, setting forth, "That the petitioners have uniformly concurred in and supported such measures as have appeared conducive to the safety and welfare of his majesty's dominions, and have cheerfully submitted to the most unexampled burthens, under a confidence that the resources of the country were faithfully and honestly administered; and that they learn, with the utmost concern and astonishment, from the reports of the commissioners for naval enquiry, now before the house, that the right hon. Henry Dundas viscount Melville, late treasurer of his majesty's navy, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty, whereby immense sums of the public money have been perverted to private emolument; and that they conceive it to be a high aggravation of such offence, that these disgraceful transactions were carried on during a period of unprecedented difficulty, when the very existence of the country was said to be at stake; and that the person so abusing his trust, so violating the law, was in the enjoyment of several high and lucrative offices, and ever among the foremost in laying additional burthens upon the people, and calling upon them to submit to the most painful privations; and that they are duly impressed with a high sense of the virtue, integrity, and firmness of the house, and strongly participate in the sentiment which so generally pervades all ranks of
378
[PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALISBURY AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.] Lord Viscount Folkestone
presented a petition from the mayor and coproration of the city of Salisbury, setting forth, "That the petitioners have perused, with much concern and interest, the resolutions of the house of the 8th and 10th days of this instant April; with concern, that any charges of the nature therein implied should attach upon any individual in a high official situation, and with interest, that the representatives of the nation have, under the circumstance of such charges, marked such individual with their censure and reprobation; and that the petitioners beg leave to state, that, in common with the nation at large, they
379
[MIDDLESEX ELECTION.] Mr. Calcraft
said, he held in his hand a declaration, signed by sir Francis Burdett, which the house, he had no doubt, would receive, agreeably to the act of the 28th of the king, for the regulation of controverted elections. The act being read
pro formâ
The Speaker
called the attention of the house to the present proceeding. He observed, it was certainly competent for a member to withdraw himself by signing a written declaration, but he must relinquish prosecuting the business totally, but not partially. The question was, whether the declaration was so defined, that the hon. member withdrew himself out of one or several parts of the charges contained hi the petition.
Mr. Calcraft
was of opinion that the declaration Which he held in his hand
380
The Secretary at War
argued, on the contrary, that, unless the declaration was final, it could not be received.
Sir John Newport
was of opinion that the declaration came within the spirit and the letter of the act, as it was impossible for the hon. baronet to proceed further; and as the charge of perjury goes to civil penalties, the declaration, if not worded as it was at present, may be brought against him.
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that with the indulgence of the house, he would withdraw the declaration, for the purpose of amending it; and as the hon. baronet was indisposed in the country, he would present another, signed by him, to-morrow or next day.—After a few words from Mr. Rose and Mr. Grey, the declaration was accordingly withdrawn.
[IRISH SMALL NOTES REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Lee
adverted to the present rules prescribed by law, for the issue of small bank notes in Ireland, by which it was enjoined, that no private banks should be allowed to issue notes under three guineas value in that country. The effect of such a measure must obviously be highly detrimental to trade in general. The farmer could not, on account of the scarcity of specie, sell a small quantity of corn there, to the amount of 20s. or 30s. unless he could, which was very rarely the case, give change for a 3-guinea note, and the same difficulty was felt in every other branch of dealing. This was not felt in England, or Scotland, where the private bankers can get small notes from the Bank of England; but the national Bank of Ireland was restrained, so as not to extend its issues. He saw no reason for this distinction in the case of Irish private banks, as they must always have in their possession national notes, in proportion to their own issues, and were therefore perfectly secure. He would leave it to any gent., conversant with business, to reflect on the extreme inconveniencies that must ensue ever here, if, while the restriction on the bank continues, there
381
[PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PRINTER OF "THE ORACLE" FOR A LIBEL ON THE HOUSE.] Mr. Grey
rose, and, after stating his reluctance to take any step at all inconsistent with the most perfect liberty of the press, called the attention of the house to one of the most indecent libels on the procedings of that house, which it had ever been his province to notice. It was, indeed, a libel of so gross a nature, that the house, in consistency with its own dignity, could not suffer it to pass over, without at strong expression of indignation against such an attack on a solemn decision of the legislature. The hon. member then read the following paragraph from "the Oracle" of yesterday. The article is prefaced by a statement that sir Charles Middleton was appointed first lord of the admiralty While we announce this arrangement as the proper reward of public and private virtue, we cannot help sincerely regretting, that party rancour and popular clamour have at this time deprived our king and country of the great and powerful abilities of lord Melville. In no period of our political history can we find such an instance of the strong effects of prejudice. With all our profound respect for the motives which influenced the majority of the house of commons—with all our admiration of that spirit which arouses and animates the people in their expressions of indignation at the supposed malver-
382
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, and spoke as follows: I certainly do allow, sir, that the passage now read is libellous and indecent; but, if we are now to begin to turn our attention to every thing of a libellous and indecent tendency, which appears in the public newspapers, I hope at least we shall observe the strictest impartiality. It is not the first time that we have heard of libellous, licentious, and unwarrantable observations in newspapers, even on the proceedings of this house, and we have seen them altogether overlooked. If gentlemen have now, however, made up their minds that such licentiousness of the press is not to be tolerated; if they are resolved that malignant remarks, whenever they appear derogatory to the dignity of this house, shall meet with marks of our indignation, I am satisfied. All that I ask is, that we shall not select one instance for punishment, while we allow many others to pass with impunity. I certainly do not oppose the motion.
Mr. Grey.
—The right hon. gent. has allowed that the passage which I have thought it my duty to bring before the house, is both libellous and indecent, and he has no objection to the Motion which
383
Mr. Fox.
—I certainly do agree with the right hon. gent. opposite, that in a business of this nature, the strictest impartiality is our duty. I differ with him, however, as to the particular period when my hon. friend near me has brought forward his motion. When we talk of the propriety of such motions, I hope we shall not lose sight of the particular circumstances and the particular time under which they are produced. It is the duty of this house at all times to be jealous of its honour, but this is a period when this jealousy ought to be the most active. A late decision of this house has diffused universal gratitude throughout the country, and it is our duty to see that this decision shall not be wantonly attacked and insulted. It is the more necessary, sir, for us to see that our resolution is properly respected, when we find men in high official situations endeavouring to act as the protectors of those condemned of the grossest malversations. When we see evident signs of reluctance to
384
Mr. Canning.
—The allusions which the hon. gent. has made to my conduct, renders it necessary to say a few words in reply. The hon. gent., sir, has represented it to be an aggravation of this libel, that Mr. Wilson has been continued in my office after the opinion of this house had been formally declared. [A general cry of No, No, from the opposite side of the house.] With all due deference to the hon. gent.'s logic, I think it is, in this instance, altogether erroneous. It is, indeed, a most extraordinary position, that, because other persons had been guilty of improper acts, the author of the libel, who knows nothing of the matter, is to have a severer punishment. I wish, sir, the honourable gentleman had considered the matter a little better, and then, I am confident, he could not easily reconcile such ideas, either with logic or humanity. With regard to this Mr. Wilson, it is necessary for me to declare that I entertain for him no individual
385
386
Mr. Fox,
in explanation, maintained that the right hon. gent. had totally misrepresented his argument. He had not asserted that the conduct of the right hon. gent. as treasurer of the navy, was any
387
The Attorney General
rose, not, as he declared, to trouble the house with many observations. There were, however, a few remarks which he thought it his duty to throw out, in consequence of what had fallen from the gentlemen on the other side of the house. He confessed he was not surprised that the hon. mover thought this the most favourable moment for bringing forward the libel in question to the attention of the house. The opportunity was favourable, when the hon. gent. found himself in a majority on a great question, but he hoped, as his right hon. friend near him had said, that when such motions were brought forward they would be conducted with impartiality. Though he certainly did not mean directly to oppose the motion, he did not wish the house to be taken by surprise, and therefore he suggested to the hon. gent. that he should only in the mean time give it in the form of a notice, that thus all the members might have an opportunity of fully considering the nature of the passage in question. He thought it would be more consistent with the dignity of the proceedings of the horse to act with this degree of temper ward moderation. It was of importance to ascertain whether the libel was of that magnitude and importance as to
388
Mr. Rose,
without opposing the motion, rose principally with the view of vindicating the conduct of his right hon. friend the treasurer of the navy, from the aspersions which had been thrown out against him in the course of the evening. He thought his conduct respecting Wilson was, in the highest degree, commendable, and afforded a striking contrast to the conduct pursued by a
389
Mr. Fox,
in explanation, professed that he had not at that time a perfect recollection of the transaction to which time hon member alluded. If he recollected right, however, the two persons were, at the time the vote passed in the house, actually
sub judice
Sir Charles Pole.
—The right hon. gent. the present treasurer of the navy, thought proper to assert on a former occasion, that certain explanations were given by Wilson to the commissioners, which satisfied them of the manner in which he had conducted himself during the examination. Now, sir, it is proper for me to state, that no such explanations ever took place, and so much the reverse of being satisfied were the commissioners, that they almost take shame to themselves for not ordering him to prison for the manner in which he gave his evidence. I think it necessary for me to make this declaration, standing as I do
390
Mr. Canning.
—I feel myself, sir, so personally alluded to by the hon. baronet, that I trust I shall be excused in rising again. I never stated that the commissioners of naval enquiry were, by means of subsequent information, satisfied with respect to the conduct of Wilson; what I said was, that the explanation given to me upon the subject would, I was confident, have satisfied the commissioners with respect to the person alluded to. I wish, however, to know whether the commissioners have reported the whole of the statement given in evidence by Mr. Wilson, aye or no? (Sir Charles Pole answered yes.) Mr. Canning was proceeding, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Plumer,
who begged leave to remind the right hon. gent. that the regular way of conducting business, was to address the chair, instead of that sort of imperious catechising in which the right hon. gent. seemed so desirous to indulge.
Mr. Canning
again proceeded: I ask, sir, of the hon. baronet, whether the commissioners of naval enquiry have reported the whole of the correspondence which took place between them and the treasurer of the navy, aye or no? (Sir Charles Pole said, no.) I know, sir, they have not, and
391
Sir Charles Pole
The commissioners of naval enquiry reported, sir, all the answers made by Wilson. With respect to the correspondence with the treasurer of the navy there is no objection to produce it; the only reason why the commissioners did not state the whole of it was their desire not to overload the report.
Dr. Laurence defended Mr. Burke's
conduct, in re-instating Messrs. Bembridge and Powell. He complimented the speaker, whom he considered as the abstract essence of public virtue, on the truly patriotic and constitutional vote which he gave on a former evening. He could by no means approve of the mode proposed by the Attorney-General, to defer the motion until the house should have regained its proper tone of moderation; it was nothing more than a project of the first law officer of the crown, to get rid of the question entirely. He had serious objections to the conduct of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning,) who had taken the word of Mr. Wilson against the report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and who, instead of facilitating, as he should have done, the enquiry, had thrown obstacles, altogether unexpected, in the way of the commissioners.
Mr. Canning
maintained his right to put the question with respect to Mr. Wilson, by the information he had: he defended the questions he had put, with respect to himself, by what he knew of his own knowledge. He begged his hon. and learned friend to suspend his judgment till he should have seen the whole correspondence, which he would not have wished to bring forward, if he did not think it would clear his conduct.
The Solicitor-General
observed, that some topics, certainly not in an immediate manner connected with the question before the house, had been alluded to in the course of the debate. The learned doctor had reproached his right hon. friend near him, with catechising and putting questions to the hon. admiral who was at the head of the commission; but it could not be out of the recollection of the house, that his right hon. friend had been pretty smartly attacked, and was therefore in some measure called upon to make a reply. He had been severely attacked, or at least severe allusions had been made to the subject of his
392
393
Mr. Fox
here interrupted the hon. and learned gent. and said that he could not be explaining every moment; but that, in the present instance, he had not said that the right hon. gentleman had braved the house of commons. He had only said that he had braved the opinion of the house of commons, and he would now go farther, and say, that he had braved the legislature.
The Solicitor General
in continuation, expressed his surprize how that conduct could be called braving the legislature which had been expressly sanctioned by an act of the legislature. Who had braved the legislature? Not his right hon. friend, for he had only refused to remove from his office a person who had taken advantage of a clause in an act which the legislature had passed. Was it he who availed himself of the provision in the act that had braved the legislature? could understand any thing but that.
Sir Charles Pole
submitted it to the house whether the commission would not have attempted, in vain, to accomplish the ends for which they were instituted, while the person who was at the head of the office into the abuses of which they were enquiring, refused to them the means of information they called for. He denied that he had employed any unnecessary warmth. This was the first time that he had in the house given his opinion of the Tenth Report, and what he had said was from conviction, and not from any motives of personal hostility to the right hon. treasurer of the navy.
394
Mr. Serjeant
Best
395
Mr. Robert Ward
denied that the treasurer of the navy had been backward to furnish information. He had, on the contrary, given every possible facility to the enquiries of the commissioners. He went over the same grounds which had been traced by those who spoke on the same side of the question. He wished particularly to know whether the hon. admiral was serious in his assertion that the commissioners took shame to themselves for not putting Wilson in prison in consequence of his evidence? If they were serious in this assertion, they were fit only to be Inquisitors, and not legal temperate commissioners. [Here there were loud and violent marks of disapprobation.] Returning to the question before the House, he conjured gentlemen to look at the question with moderation and temper. With this view, he thought the delay of a day would be highly expedient, and in the mean time he was desirous that the whole paragraph should be read by the clerk at the table. This was the more necessary, as the paragraph as read by the hon. mover did not form a whole.—The whole was read accordingly, and the following makes up the whole paragraph complained of: Those who were so very impatient to de-
396
Mr. Fox
rose up, and emphatically asked,—is this any palliation?
Mr. Ward
replied, that though it was no palliation, it afforded a good and sufficient reason for having the whole enquiry prosecuted with temper, particularly by persons whose families might appear to have been defaulters to a considerable amount.
Mr. Sheridan
rose only to make a few observations. It was the less necessary for him to enlarge, as the house seemed agreed on the general question. He had no wish to discover any improper degree of heat on this or any other occasion, though certainly the honourable member who had so earnestly recommended moderation, had little of it indeed in his practice. He was not in the house when the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) gave notice of his intention to move on Monday for leave to bring in a bill to extend the powers of the commissioners of naval enquiry. He was happy to hear of this notice, and more so from the quarter whence it proceeded. If, however, the powers of the commissioners were to be renewed, it was necessary that their characters should stand high with the house and the public, and that such insinuations as those which the honourable member had thrown out should be loudly refuted. If they deserved the character that had been given of them by the
397
Mr. Peter
Moore contended that the commissioners had not reported of Mr. Wilson his having refused to answer any questions that might criminate himself, because it appeared by the report, that when asked whether he had derived any profit from the use of the public money, he had positively declared that he had not. The report of the commissioners only charged him with having declined answering questions which, in being answered, would expose the guilt of others. He should ask the learned gent. opposite, whether, if a witness were to decline answering questions of that description in a cause before the King's Bench, he would not be committed to prison? As to the conduct of the right hon. the treasurer of the navy, it appeared that the first application had been made to him on the 10th of July, a second on the 17th, and no answer having been returned, a third application had been made on the 2d of Oct., and it was not till the 3d of Oct. that an answer had been returned, after he had taken the opinion of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general, whether he was bound by the act to obey the precept of the commissioners. He put it therefore to the good sense of the house, whether the right hon. gent. had accurately acquitted himself of his duty? When the right hon. gent. had been asked, on a former occasion, whether he had dismissed Mr. Wilson? it was his opinion, that the question ought to have been carried further, whether he had dismissed himself. For when a public officer opposed himself to an enquiry relating to the public money, for the purpose of sheltering the delinquents, his guilt was nearly equal to that of the man who declined answering lest he should criminate them. He was happy that his hon. friend had given notice of a motion of thanks to the commissioners; for of no other member
398
[PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.] Mr. Whitbread
having enquired if the answer which his majesty had been pleased to return to the resolutions of the house which had been laid before him on Thursday the 11th instant, had been reported to the house;
The Speaker
said that he had thought it a proper mark of respect to his majesty and to the house, to make the communication of the answer of his majesty the first business of the day.—On the motion of Mr. Whitbread, his majesty's answer was again read.
Mr. Whitbread
then said, that he could not forbear expressing his astonishment that after such an interval, no step had been taken to evince his majesty's sense of the importance of the resolutions of that house. Several gazettes had appeared since the resolutions were carried up, and none of them had announced that the name of lord Melville had been expunged from the list of his majesty's privy council. Neither had the house been informed that night that his majesty had given orders for the books being laid before him that purpose. Unquestionably there had been proceedings for the few last days which might have contributed to occupy his majesty's attention from this subject. He was therefore anxious to know from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, before he gave notice of any motion on the subject, whether it was that right hon. gentleman's intention to recommend to his majesty to expunge the name of lord Meville from the list of the privy council?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he did not feel himself bound in consequence of any thing that had occurred in that house, on the day when the resolutions of parliament had been ordered to be laid before his majesty, to give any such advice to his majesty as that which the hon. gent. supposed. On the evening of Wednesday a motion to address his majesty on that subject had been made and had afterwards been withdrawn, as it did not seem to be the sense of a great many members who had supported the
399
Mr. Whitbread
thought that a sense of duty should have dictated to the right hon. gent. to have formed a different conclusion from that which he had now professed. Indeed it had seemed to him absolutely impossible, after the solemn manner in which it had been determined that the resolutions of that night should be laid before his majesty, that the right hon. gent. could have abstained from recommending to his majesty a measure which seemed so naturally to follow from the knowledge of those resolutions. He could not figure how it was possible in more pointed terms to have expressed the sentiments of the house. The step winch they had adopted was, to his conception, equally marked and pointed, as if the motion which he had that night submitted had been agreed to. If, however, the right hon. gent. thought that he had sufficiently satisfied his duty by allowing things to remain as they were, he (Mr. Whitbread) felt that he would not discharge his without giving notice of a motion, similar to the one which he had formerly withdrawn, for the first open day. He then fixed Tuesday next for that purpose.
Mr. Whitbread
then proceeded to call the attention of the house to the subject of the motions of which he had given notice previous to the recess, Hee could
400
401
402
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, not to oppose the appointment of a select committee, but from a wish to clear himself from the charge of having prematurely given notice of a motion on any particular subject, and thereby taken it out of the hands of another gentleman. He spoke now in the presence of the hon. gent. alluded to, and he appealed to him, if the notice which he gave was not expressly conditional, that if he (Mr. Pitt) did not, on an early day after the recess, bring forward such a motion, he (Mr. Giles) would. When, at an earlier period of the session, the hon. gent. (Mr. Giles) moved for leave to bring in a bill for continuing the powers of that board; what was his (Mr. Pitt's) ground of objection? Was it that the period should not be extended? Quite the contrary. He allowed that full time ought to be given them for finishing their investigations, and his only objection was, that it would be premature to enlarge the period of their continuing in office at so early as period of the session till once it was ascertained whether the present session might not afford them sufficient time to complete their enquiries. If they were not likely, at a more advanced period of the session, to be able to complete their business before the end of it, he pledged himself then to move for the enlargement of their powers. Now as only one additional report had since been made, while it was stated that other objects of enquiry still remained, he felt it both his duty and his inclination to move for extending the period of their continuance. And, however much he confessed himself to be one of those who did declare that there were parts of their conduct of which he could not approve, he still felt it his duty to say, that they ought to continue. In this situation, he submitted to the candour of the house that there was no ground whatever for charging him with having taken the business out of the hands of any other hon. gent. There was another part of the hon.
403
404
Mr. Fox
asked, if the house were to instruct the attorney general to commence a prosecution against lord Melville on any particular point, it would not be proper that that would also form a part of the enquiry of the committee? There was another point which he thought would not go with propriety to the committee; but would be better discussed in that house, and that was not a crimination, but an admonition to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) on his continuing Mr. Wilson in office. This naturally led him to remark, that it was not by the house going into an enquiry on the tenth report alone; on the abuses in the military department, or in all the departments, that they could perform their duty. They could do their duty only by going into those enquiries seriously, and with an intent to persevere. If they were to go into enquiries, let them shew their sincerity by the persons whom they chose of the committee. Persons like the commission-
405
406
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained. He said, that he wished to exclude no part of the enquiry, but that which might be made the subject of legal examination. If the order of the motions were inverted, and the second put first, it would answer all he wished.
Mr. Whitbread explained,
that he had no wish to do any thing inconsistent with justice. As, however, the principal object to the public in the appointing the committee, was the exposure of lord Melville's participation in the peculation, he would rather allow the other motion, for an instruction to the Attorney-General, to lay over, and confine himself to the first motion.
Mr. Sheridan
was of opinion that they could not with any propriety proceed at the time with a legal prosecution, and with farther enquiries, by a committee, and that, therefore, all legal proceedings ought to be delayed till the committee, now proposed to be appointed, should have made its report. He could certainly have no objection to the measure proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for continuing the commission of naval enquiry, and for appointing others to investigate the other departments of the public expenditure. But, however willing he was to see any measure of this kind promoted, he could not see, without alarm, any disposition on the part of that right hon. gent. to appoint such commissioners. He wished the motion to
407
Mr. Canning
reminded the hon gent. (Mr. Whitbread) of a former profession he had made, namely, that of being ready to co-operate with his right hon. friend in any measure that had a tendency to promote the object he had in view. His right hon. friend had no design of delaying the enquiry; he was only of opinion that, if it was the intention of the hon. gent. to move for a legal prosecution, it would be proper to give that motion precedence of the other. The propriety of this arrangement was obvious. For those persons who were to be subjected to legal enquiry, were not to be expected to give any answer before the committee, that might tend to criminate them before a court of justice. Such an arrangement, therefore, would defeat the very end of
408
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
claimed every idea of being implicated in any charges adduced by the tenth report, and challenged any gentleman to point out a single passage in the report that implicated him in any respect.
Mr. Fox
admitted that there was no passage, to be sure, that directly implicated right hon. gent.; but the article relative to the money for secret service, though it did not mention him by name, would certainly lead to a decision how far that right hon. gent. was involved.
Mr. Grey
was of opinion that it would be impossible to carry on the two enquiries together; and to give up the question entirely to the attorney-general, was giving up too much. There was presumptive evidence, he thought, for concluding that lord Melville had participated in the emoluments diverted from the public service, and had therefore been of opinion at one time that it would be better to refer this part of the business to the attorney-general, and to appoint a committee to go on with the other objects of enquiry. Should the house, however, be of opinion that the whole business should be referred to the committee previously to any legal enquiry, he would willingly accede to it.
The Master of the Rolls
declared it to be the practice of the house of commons, that Whenever any point was determined by them to be referred to a court of law, all further enquiry and investigation ceased
409
Mr. Fox
saw nothing improper in uniting the enquiry by a committee with the prosecution by law, and cited several precedents in support of his opinion.
The Master of the Rolls
observed, that in those precedents the matter investigated had always gone in the first instance before the committee, and had never been primarily discussed in the house.
Mr. Kinnaird
said, that the object of the present investigation was two-fold. In the first place, to ascertain from an examination of various parts of the report, the practicability of recovering the public money, and then to discover whether there were not grounds sufficiently strong to authorise an impeachment. If the house were under the necessity of relinquishing one of these points, he should certainly prefer abandoning the former. He entreated the house to consider whether the public would be satisfied with a civil suit if there were grounds sufficient for an impeachment. He saw no objection to appointing a committee with extensive powers, which powers might be diminished by the house, should they afterwards deem a prosecution necessary.
Mr. George Ponsonby
was against submitting the business to the attorney general, as he did not think that was the most likely way of obtaining the object which the house had in view. Suppose the house should order the attorney general to file an information against those persons for money which had come into their hands, they might again refuse to give any answer, on the ground that they might possibly criminate themselves, and expose themselves to pains and penalties. The attorney general, who had exprest his opinion to-night that it was legal to refuse answering those questions, might possibly think it his duty not to resist such a defence. Besides that, it was not so clear that the courts of law could give any remedy in some cases which might occur. Supposing, for example, lord Melville, who had appointed Mr. Trotter his private
410
Lord Henry Petty
could not allow the debate to proceed farther without expressing the strongest doubts of the sufficiency of proceeding at law, by leaving the whole business now with the attorney general. As the sense of the House had been strongly expressed on one point, he thought it the duty of the house to pursue that examination by which they had already ascertained a most important fact. From the tenth report of the commissioners, the house had already drawn a great and evident conclusion, "that lord Melville had been guilty of a violation of the law, and a high breach of duty." Did it follow, however, from that, that no other conclusions or determinations were to follow, but that they were immediately to divest themselves of all power of investigating further, and delegate all their powers to the attorney general? He thought the house ought not to delegate its power in that manner, but that it was their duty and a duty that the country expected from them, to pursue the examination, and sift those transactions to time bottom. When the house had discharged this duty, and done all that was in its power to do, then
411
Mr. Whitbread
said, he had listened to all the observations that had been made by the different gentlemen who had spoken on this subject, and had heard nothing that altered his opinion: he, therefore, must persevere in the resolution he originally moved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, in that case, he should persevere also in the amendment which he had moved; being firmly convinced that the mode he had suggested was the most likely to obtain the ends of justice.
Mr. Whitbread
observed, that the right hon. gent. had changed the grounds on which he rested his amendment. He had proposed it on the grounds of the unreasonableness of expecting witnesses to give evidence before the committee which might expose themselves to prosecution.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied that the change proceeded entirely from the hon. gent. himself. He had on a former night given notice that he should move to-night that the attorney general should be ordered to prosecute. Upon the supposition that he meant to make this motion, he had moved the amendment. It now appeared that the hon. gent. himself had discovered that the motion of which he had so given notice, was not sufficiently matured, and he wished another report of a committee to precede it. The change was, therefore, most evidently on the part of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Whitbread
said, that when he came down to the house it was his intention to postpone that notice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no objection to other gentlemen changing their opinions, if they thought proper; but he did not wish them to state that it was he who had changed his.
Mr. Grey
did not apprehend that there was any great probability of the second committee being able to extract much more than the commissioners of naval enquiry had done. If there was to be a committee appointed for the purpose of investigating this business farther, he should, however, prefer a committee with general powers to one whose powers would be limited.
Mr. Thomas Grenville
stated the ques-
412
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he had proposed the committee to be invested with specific and limited powers, under the idea of a legal prosecution, at the same time as originally proposed by the framer of the motion.
Mr. Windham
observed that his sentiments were so completely in unison with those of the learned gentleman on the second bench (Mr. Ponsonby), and with those of the noble lord who followed him. (H. Petty), that he should not feel it necessary to trouble the house at any great length on the subject. He certainly wished, that the committee should be vested with extensive authority. As to the amendment proposed by the right hon. gent even if it were necessary, it by no means included what it was intended to include. The true and accurate way of
413
Lord Castlereagh
said, there were two questions before the house, and they involved two modes of enquiry. The one was, whether the committee should be invested with extensive powers? the other, whether it would be eligible to limit those powers, and to assign a certain portion of the public duty to a court of law? The latter appeared, to his mind, by far the most eligible; for the natural answer of lord Melville and Mr. Trotter to the interrogatories of a committee, would be, that they could not reply, when their conduct was designed to undergo a future juridical examination. This evasion could not be resorted to in a court of law. His right hon. friend near him (Mr. Pitt), did not intend, by the amendment he proposed, that the investigation should be avoided; on the
414
Mr. Bankes
argued the expediency of appointing a committee of enquiry, and on their report instituting any legal proceedings. He had no doubt that he differed from all parties in the house, when he expressed his wish, that the matter should be referred back to the commissioners of naval enquiry, arming them with fresh powers, that they might be enabled to prosecute their researches to the desired point. The hon. gent, expressed great doubt, whether the individuals accused could be compelled to refund the public money, asserting that considerable difference of opinion existed on the subject among several sages of the law, and observed, that in 1782 and 1783, a similar circumstance had been debated in the house, the result of which was by no means favourable to the hopes of those who thought that such repayment could be compelled.
Mr. Serjeant
Best
415
Sir John Cox Hippisley
said, that although he had taken no part in the proceedings hitherto, (being withheld from considerations which were perfectly justifiable in his own mind,) he could not refrain from making a few observations on some parts of the evidence contained in the report of the commissioners, as it had given place to much misapprehension, It was a great misfortune in itself, for any individual to fall under the censure of that house, and it needed not to be aggravated by representations which, by implication, went even to a charge of constructive perjury against one of the persons who was an object of the resolutions. Mr. Trotter had stated before the commissioners, upon oath, that all the drafts made on the bank, were strictly conformable to the provisions of the act. The evidence of Mr. Abraham Newland, who must be considered as a host of credit and presumed accuracy, was directly opposed to that of Mr. Trotter, and it needed not to be insisted upon, on which side the public, and possibly the house, might lean in respect to these contrasted facts. It occurred however, that after the resolutions had been voted, an honourable member who was himself a bank director had expressly stated in his place, on the second night of the debate, that upon an accurate examination of the books of the Bank, it appeared that all the drafts of the treasurer and his deputy had been drawn in strict conformity to the act, and consequently that. Mr. Newland was mistaken in the evidence he gave before the commissioners. This important fact was adduced by the honourable member in justification of the bank, of which he was director; but it is fair also to refer to it in exculpation so far of Mr. Trotter, who otherwise must labour under a suspicion of having sworn what was untrue. It appeared that Mr. Newland was not charged with the department in which the drafts were presented. A right honourable friend below him had disclaimed all vindictive measures, and observed that the proposed proceedings in the exchequer might possibly go to the ruin the individual, in the present in-
416
417
Mr. Tierney
asserted, that the drafts on the bank might be drawn in the way prescribed by the act, and yet the law might be most grossly violated. The object of the statute was to keep the public money, under the orders of the treasurer of the navy, in the bank, and for this purpose it was enacted, that no draft should be issued but for some special navy service. It would probably be found, that a special service was stated when no such service existed. The act directed, that the property in the bank should vest in the sucessor to the office; but when the money was transferred to Messrs. Coutts and Co. this purpose of the legislature was disappointed. Supposing the event of the death of Mr. Trotter had taken place, and the million of money had been with Messrs. Coutts and Co. on the change in the treasurer of the navy: until administration was taken out, the property could not be removed, and who would have administered to the effects of Mr. Trotter? It was true that he (Mr. Tierney) had held some conversation with Mr. Trotter, and the latter gentleman communicated, as an important secret, that he had devised the means by which all hazard by the loss of drafts on the bank by messengers would be avoided, and that was, by what be called a
write off.
418
The Attorney General
would not enter into a comparison of the greater or less power which might be exerted by a committee of the house or a court of law. That of the committee might no doubt be the greater. But should it be the opinion of the house, that he, in his capacity of his majesty's attorney-general, should proceed against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter for the recovery of the profits they may have derived from the use of the public money, he was ready to confess, that however he might proceed, they would still have the power to demur. So far, then, as an ample source of information might be expected to be derived from such a prosecution, that expectation might be frustrated. As to his own particular opinion, he was ready to say, that the law officers of the crown could undertake for nothing respecting the result, whether a civil or a criminal proceeding was to be instituted. He at least should only say, that whatever he undertook, he should endeavour fairly and faithfully to discharge as his duty directed. Should the matter be brought before a committee, they might not hesitate to infer the guilt of the accused, should they take refuge under the protection of the law. In so doing, the committee would, no doubt, go farther than a legal proceeding could attempt to
419
Mr. Tierney
in explanation said, that he wished it to be distinctly stated whether, if Mr. Trotter should state what was the amount of the profit which had been gained by the use of the public money, it would be consistent with the forms of law in that case, to ask, whether lord Melville had participated to any, and to what amount, in such profits?
The Attorney General
stated that he believed, if it should be said that the public monies which had been so improperly applied had been fully restored to their use, it would not be in their power to press the question farther.
Mr. Alexander
observed, that he had always had the greatest deference for public opinion, but he hoped that the day mould never come when the house of commons would, contrary to their own good sense, be induced to adopt a particular
420
Mr. Sheridan
wished to make an observation or two upon what had fallen from the right hon. mover of the amendment. The amendment of the right hon. gent. seemed to assume that the house had already determined the matter should be sent before a court of equity. A motion to that effect might have been intended; but reasons had been adduced to caution the house to pause before it was adopted. Perhaps the right hon. gent. himself might make that motion, but he should not assume it to be already made and decided. He could not but commend the delicacy of the learned gentleman (the attorney general). The learned gentleman cautiously abstained from deciding whether a legal proceeding should be instituted or not. At least, he had given no reason to expect that any good could be expected to result from it; and all the other great law officers were equally silent upon that point. But what says the learned gentleman, "whatever may be the mode of proceeding may they not demur, and refuse to answer? and if they demur, where is the compulsion?' Before a committee, they could demur only under the protection of the fifth clause of the act. Still he would have lord Melville and Mr. Trotter brought before the committee. Who could pronounce what might be in the contemplation of the committee to adopt? and if no suggestion had been thrown out of a prosecution by the attorney general, why should it be supposed that the committee would be found to institute one? The learned gent. gives the preference to a court of justice; and for what reason? No doubt, only because it is proposed to limit and cripple the powers of the committee. There you might examine the books, the clerks of Messrs. Drummond, or Coutts: there you might take vivâ voce evidence. What was the language held upon a former night? Was not the house told—"do not be rash, do not come to a vote before a select committee furnish you with evidence?" Those therefore who then accused you of rashness, are now themselves ready to vote for a prose-
421
one?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in explanation, said, the hon. gent. had described the amendment proposed, as if he had not listened to its terms. His object was to give the committee full power to examine every matter, but that which was committed to the attorney general. The proposition which had been supposed to be designed to get rid of all enquiry, was acknowledged to coincide with the first intentions of the hon. mover of the question.
Mr. Fuller
reminded the house, that an hon. member under the gallery (sir J. C. Hippesley) had said, that he could prove that the most magnificent edifices, and the most superb palaces, had been raised out of twelve hundred pounds a year! In such a case he should be ashamed to belong to any party, but he thought it his duty to recommend further inquiry into the business. A great deal had been said about the propriety of persons answering to questions which might tend to criminate themselves. He knew, without possessing at the same time any knowledge of the regular forms of law, that it had been the uniform practice of every villain at the Old Bailey, for these hundred years past, to say, "O Lord, I must not answer that question, because it may lead to convict myself!" But in honourable society, what would be said of a gentleman who would answer in this manner? On the other hand, if a person in office did honestly confess that he had misapplied the public money, but would prove, that he had not done so
422
Mr. Fox
stated the grounds on which he should give his vote to-night, and with which he hoped the majority of the house would concur. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that a committee considering this subject, must be either limited by instructions of the house, or by their own discretion, to certain specific points. He never listened to a debate with more attention than he had done to the present, and never had he more complete conviction than from this. From every gentleman who spoke, but more particularly from an hon. and learned gentleman, who had most influence with him, on this occasion, the attorney general, who in a clear, able, and honourable speech, had told the house the result of a prosecution by a person in his official situation; by which it was manifest, that the prosecution would come to nothing; for whatever might be the law on the question, whether the party would be obliged to refund the money, which had been unfairly gained, if it was money belonging to the public, (and the learned gent. inclined to the affirmative of that proposition), yet as the prosecution by the attorney general calling on the party to refund, was in the nature of a civil action, it was clearly the opinion of the learned gent. that if the money so unfairly made use of for private emolument, should be held not to be in strictness the money of the public, but the money of the individuals who claimed, its restitution to the public could not be ordered by a court of justice, because the money was not deemed to be the money of the public. The prosecution therefore for restitution to the public, would in this event fail; and he could not help connecting this idea with what he heard on the 8th of this month in the house, from whom he could not recollect, although there was an impression on his mind that it came from the most respectable authority in the house, which was, that the money in question did not belong to the public, but must be considered as the property of individuals; and if so, the prosecution by the attorney general must fail, as far as regarded the recovery of the money. Besides, if the case were not so, and the prosecution was instituted, it would be so easy for Mr. Trotter to transfer to my Lord Melville, or my Lord Melville to transfer to Mr.
423
424
Mr. Canning
was surprised how any man could accuse his right hon. friend of any intention to cripple the enquiry; it was only limited to the essential points it should have in view. Besides, his right hon. friend left gentlemen on the other side the option of which mode they should pursue. He could not but advert to the topic, concerning which so much clamour had been raised out of doors. Nothing was so much insisted on as the loss which the public had sustained by these transactions. If there was a loss, let it be ascertained; if not, let the mistake be corrected; and how could that be better done, than by the mode recommended? How could the money be better secured than by a legal proceeding? It was rather wonderful that gentlemen, who in every other respect were so anxious to abide by what was prescribed by the commissioners, should in this instance refuse to adopt that authority. The commissioners pointed out the proceeding of a court of law, yet gentlemen now wished to shrink from that mode of proceeding. Indeed they seemed solicitous only to follow
425
The Solicitor General
supported the amendment, in a speech of considerable length, in which he maintained that all the evidence which could be examined before a committee of the house, could also be examined before a court of justice; with this advantage, that before the latter it would all be given with the solemnity of an oath, and before a select committee, it would be without that solemnity.
Mr. Fonblanque
stated the inconveniences which would arise in the discussion of this matter in a court of equity, as reasons why the house should consider a great deal before it gave up its own control over the case in order to send it before that tribunal.
Mr. Whitbread
replied to the different observations which had been made against his motion, but chiefly those which had been urged by Mr. Canning. He did not change his ground for the purpose of taking in any stray votes; he appealed to the good sense of the house as to his having changed his mode of proceeding since the debate commenced. He did not see any reproach attaching to that, for it was the result of the force of arguments from his friends, and he saw no disrespect to the house for a man to change his opinion in the course of a debate: He thought the use of a good argument was to convince those who heard it, and he hoped he should never be so arrogant, as to think that his mind was so perfect as to be incapable of receiving instructions from the minds of others. He had once thought of a prosecution against my lord Melville by the attorney general, but he was convinced, from what he had heard to-night, there was but little prospect of any restitution of property to the public by that mode of proceeding; he had therefore for the present abandoned it, and he adhered only to the motion for a committee. As his motion stated, the great object with him was not to pursue lord Melville as a public debtor, but to prosecute him as a public delinquent. Not that he gave any other proceeding up, for he held himself at liberty to take any of the modes proposed to be adopted on this occasion, but he abandoned them all for the present, except that of the committee proposed by his motion, and as he gave up the other measures, he
426
Mr. Whitbread
then said, that he held in his hand a list of members whom he meant to propose to the consideration of the house, as fit persons to compose a committee to whom the subject should be referred. It was of the utmost importance that this committee should consist of persons whose character for talents, independence and integrity, should give confidence to the country, and he was sure that no objection would be made to any one of the names that he held in his hand. They were selected, without consideration to party, from both sides of the house. He read over the names, as follows:—Mr. Baker, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. N. Calvert, Hon. Spencer Cowper, Mr. Creevey, Hon. Mr. Pierrepoint, Hon. John Fane, Sir John Newport, Lord Folkstone, F. Gregor, Esq. Lord Archibald Hamilton, Mr. Madocks, Lord Marsham, Hon H. Lascelles, Sir John Wrottesley, Sir Robert Peele, Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Robert Spencer, and concluded with moving the first name, William Baker, Esq. member for the county of Hertford.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
objected to this mode of naming the committee, and moved as an amendment, that the committee should be chosen by ballot.
Mr. Fox
expressed his astonishment, that on a subject of such moment the right hon. gent. should resort to this mode. Nothing but the most perfect publicity could satisfy the ends of justice, or convince the public that they were in earnest. He said, that it was perfectly understood that a select committee of 21, if chosen by ballot, was a committee of persons who, somehow or another, spoke the sentiments of the minister, and if this were chosen in that way, jealousy and distrust would be the consequence; that this was a committee to try the ministers themselves, and that it was a monstrous thing that it should be nominated in a way that would countenance the supposition of influence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
answered, that the mode of ballot was the ancient usage of parliament in such cases. To
427
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 26.
[MINUTES.]
The consideration of the appeal cause, Cathcart, Bart.
v.
428
[WEST INDIA ACCOUNTS.]
The Earl of
Suffolk,
Lord Hawkesbury
said, he did not rise to oppose the motion, the nature of which the noble earl had communicated to him a few minutes since; but, to express his opinion generally, that documents of the kind should not be produced, unless some adequate parliamentary or public grounds were laid for such production. Such motions should not be made, as he feared, was sometimes the case, idly, or upon light grounds. For, independent of other important considerations, it should be recollected, that such proceedings induce great inconvenience, at different public offices, and sometimes so as materially to interfere with the necessary dispatch of public business. To the present motion he had no objection; nor did he mean, in any thing said, the least to call in question the general right of parliament, on sufficient grounds, to call for official information; more especially in what (and winch was peculiarly and constitutionally is province) concerned the public expenditure.
429
The Earl of Suffolk
acquiesced in the observations of the noble secretary of state. There was one expression which, he said, he was sorry had fallen from him, namely, a motion idly made. This by no means could apply to that which he had just submitted to the house; for, if he were not greatly mistaken, or misinformed, he could ground, upon the documents moved for, a charge of delinquency on the part of the treasury.
Lord Hawkesbury
explained, that it was obvious, that what he stated generally could not be intended to apply to the motion of the noble earl, inasmuch as he expressly stated he did not mean to oppose it.—The question was then put, and the address ordered accordingly.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 26.
[MINUTES.]
A new writ was ordered for Bleachingley, in the room of James Mills, Esq. deceased.—Sir John Newport, after observing that the order of the house made on the 7th March last, for an account of the expences of state prosecutions in Ireland, had not been complied with, moved that it be forthwith complied with. Ordered.—On the motion of Sir John Newport, it was ordered that the several papers presented yesterday from the office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, be printed.—Sir John Anderson brought up a bill for making a Tunnel under the Thames, from the parish of Rotherhithe, in Surrey, to the parish of St. John Wapping, in Middlesex. Read a first, and ordered to be read a second time.—On the motion of Mr. Rose, the Thames Lastage and Ballastage bill was read a second time.—Sir M. W. Ridley observed, that this bill repealed all the regulations of former acts, and substituted other very important ones which required a good deal of consideration; he therefore requested the right hon. gent. would not push it immediately through a committee, but allow a few days for that purpose: to winch Mr. Rose acceding, the bill was ordered to be committed to a committee of the whole house on Monday fortnight.—On the motion of sir A. S. Hammond, it was ordered that there be laid before the house a copy of a letter from the Comptroller of the Navy to the Board of Admiralty, dated 22d April, 1805, on the subject of the evidence printed in the 11th Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; together with copies of
430
l.
l.
l.
[BALLOT FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.]
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the order of the day for balloting a Select Committee, was read. The serjeant at arms having, in pursuance of order, gone to the speaker's chambers, the court of requests, and places adjacent, to summon the members, the balloting proceeded. When all the names of the members had been read by the clerk, and when those who chose to vote had deposited their lists in the balloting, glass,
Mr. Sturges Bourne
moved, that a committee be appointed to examine the lists, and to report to the house the names of the twenty-one members who had the majority of votes.
Mr. Whitbread
rose, and said he had still stronger reasons now than he had yesterday, for his objection to the mode of proceeding by ballot. He was then apprehensive that such a mode would, in fact, subject the nomination of that committee to the influence and dictation of a minister. This day he found those apprehensions strengthened, by a very confident rumour circulated, upon he knew not what authority, that, notwithstanding all the apparent fairness and impartiality of a ballot, vet that the names to be returned upon the committee were pre-determined by the minister; by which the business of the ballot was converted into a solemn mockery, and rendered wholly nugatory as to the obvious intentions of the house. A list of those names had been this day put into his hand, which he would now read in his place—Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Whit-
431
Mr. Fox
observed, it was very possible that the names of some members might he returned upon the committee, who, however unobjectionable, could not, without most material injury to their own interests and avocations, devote their attentions to the business of an investigation, likely to be so arduous and of such long duration. He should hope, therefore, that as in the case of election committees, any gentleman so circumstanced, would, upon application to the house, be excused from attendance.
Mr. Sheridan;
hoped, that after the motion now before the house was disposed of, namely, the question upon the list of scrutineers moved by Mr. Sturges Bourne, his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) would, in some more explicit way, put the house in possession of the list of the names he had just read, in order to lay the foundation for such a measure as might appear necessary, in the result to which he had alluded.—The question on Mr. Bourne's motion was put, that certain members, whom he named, be appointed to select from the ballot; which was agreed to without opposition, and the members appointed
432
Mr. Sheridan
again rose, and observed, that his hon. friend had just read a list of members, which he (Mr. W.) had been given to understand the scrutineers would return, in consequence of the pre-concerted instructions received from ministers. Now it was extremely important for the house to ascertain whether the committee, for the appointment of which it had already decided, was to be fairly and
bonâ fide
433
Mr. Whitbread
said, it was his intention to ground some proceeding upon the business, in case the list returned by the scrutineers should correspond with it.
The Speaker
said, that unless the hon. member meant to conclude by some motion, there was no question now before the house.
Mr.
Whitbread
said he should then shape a motion, and accordingly moved the following resolution:—"That it is a high breach of the privileges of this house, to circulate lists nominating persons to be chosen on any committee by ballot." The question being then put, the house divided, when there appeared, for the motion, 45; against it, 124; majority, 79.
[PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING THE PRINTER OF THE ORACLE."]
On the motion of Mr. Grey the order of the day for the attendance of Peter Stuart, the printer of "the Oracle" was now read.
Mr. Atkins Wright
spoke against the adoption of any severe measure as to the editor of "the Oracle." Although he was perfectly convinced in his own mind, as to the propriety of supporting tine resolutions of the house, yet his peace of mind was not at all broke in upon because his conduct, along with that of other members, had been severely censured. It was well known with what rigour the house had enforced their determination not to restrain any animadversion by the public on the conduct of parliament. God forbid! said the hon. member, that the people of this country should have any impediments thrown in their way, in discussing the conduct of their representatives fairly and freely. Most certainly, such a liberty ought to be exercised in a becoming manner. It was well known, that the publishers of papers were too apt to indulge themselves in discussing what they called party questions. He professed to be of no party; but he felt as much as any man the necessity of maintaining, in all its purity, what was called the liberty of the press. His own opinion in the pre-
434
Mr. Grey
said, that if he had conceived this matter to be of light or trivial importance, he should never have made such a complaint. There was no member in the house more unwilling than he was to enter complaints against individuals, or to interfere with the free discussion of public affairs. Had the present paragraph been only a free comment on public matters, as the hon. gentleman who had just spoken seemed to imply, he should not have troubled the house on this occasion. It was not difficult, however, to judge of the true nature and bearing of this matter. He who runs might read in the present instance. It was only yesterday he had seen it, and he still retained the same opinion he then did, as to its mischievous tendency. It could not be viewed at all in the light of a fair discussion of a public question. If it did appear to the house in a contrary light, he was perfectly willing to forbear from all further proceedings. To him, however, it bore a very different aspect and character. It was no discussion, it was mere invective, absolute and unqualified abuse, tending to vilify the proceedings, degrade the character, and insult the authority of parliament. He lamented the necessity lie was under of performing such a duty, and he would willingly have overlooked it, had he not been convinced that it outstripped all bounds of moderation in the candid discussion of public affairs. If the hon. member who had endeavoured to justify such a manifest infringement of their privileges, should think proper to move that the order be discharged, he should not think it necessary to press his motion any further.—The question, which had originally been proposed by Mr. Grey, was then put from the chair "That the printer of 'the Oracle' be called to the bar of the house."
Mr. Atkins Wright
again rose and con-
435
The Speaker
suggested, that the original motion should first be disposed of, and then the house could more readily determine what course was to be followed.
Mr. Windham
said, he was not inclined to press the matter further, if the house really appeared to agree with the arguments and proposition of the hon. gent. who had just sat down. He should wish to know, whether that hon. gent. who had just. sat down was disposed to do that, in regard to his own person, which he seemed inclined to do towards the house of commons. Did he (Mr. Wright) mean to say, that he would despise every thing that could be said against him? Really, for his part, he could sec no reason why members ought to be more tender of their own characters, as individuals, than they should be of the character of the house of commons. The not being equally attentive the character of the house was saying to the public, "You may say what you please, we do not mind it." If such was the rule, why not proclaim it? Why not say to the writers of newspapers, you may write what you choose, there will be no injury done by your misrepresentations? Was it to be said, that, because the house had passed over a great many instances of a similar nature, we ought on that account to pass over every one? This would be false logic. The freedom of the press had been too long tolerated, not only to the injury of public, but private men—not only to the general degradation of the higher orders of society, but to the general corruption of the lower. The only question was, whether the instance now before the house was one which went to that excess as should lead them to interfere to maintain their own dignity. It was impossible, in his opinion, to conceive any thing more gross, injurious, calumnious, and licentious, and therefore he should be guilty of no great vindictive principle, if he should vote for punishing the offender in a certain degree, as a caution to others.
Mr. Sheridan.
—Although, sir, no person feels more highly than I do the respect that is due to this house, yet, on this occasion, I certainly do not think that we ought to be too eager in taking notice of this paragraph. My hon. friend has said, that this has overstepped the boundaries
436
437
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
—When this motion was first brought forward, I certainly wished that the hon. gent. should pause upon it. Now, however, it does stand in a very different situation from what it did before. However, therefore, I might be disposed to pass over the paragraph which is now the subject of animadversion, I cannot, in consistency with my duty, allow it to be passed slightly over, since it has been taken notice of. At the same time I agree very much in what has been said by an hon. gent. over against me (Mr. Sheridan), that these things should not rashly be taken up,— and yesterday I adverted to this circumstance. If this has been tolerated long, I am certainly opinion that it is not altogether can did that one individual should be selected for the purpose of punishment. I would only remark, however, that the hon. gent. in his zeal to defend the press, in the present instance, has so far forgot himself, a$ to undervalue the trial by jury; a thing no less sacred in this constitution than the house of commons. His argument went thus far, that it was needless to commit the matter to a jury, as they would not give a proper verdict in the case. With regard, however, to the question, whether this ought to be sent to a jury or not, the most proper time to consider that will be when the printer has been called in, and his apology heard. We shall hear in the first place what he has to say in his own defence, and then we may consider what will be the just and fair mode of proceeding.
Mr. Sheridan
said, he could not easily be caught addressing the house in disrespectful language of an English jury. The construction just given to his remark was not correct; in what he had said, he designed to do justice to the talents of
438
Mr. Canning
said, the conclusion of his right hon. friend was perfectly consistent with premises.
The Attorney-General
said, he supposed we might then, have acquitted libellers, though we were not allowed to talk of "acquitted felons."
Mr. Fox.
—Sir, it has never been my opinion, and I think my conduct has pretty well shewn it, that the liberty of the press should be rashly meddled with. But, however, when a gross breach of privilege is committed, it is not perhaps altogether proper that the offender should escape with impunity. Some allusion has been made to a prosecution by the attorney-general. It does not appear to use that this is the just mode of proceeding on a case of this nature. No court of justice ever, or at least very seldom, adopts the plan of a prosecution in the case of a contempt of court, but almost invariably proceeds by taking the punishment into its own hands. In a libel on the house of commons, therefore, the person who has written it ought more properly to be punished by this house, and it certainly is by no means advisable, that he should be sent to such a mode of trial as has beep alluded to, without strong grounds for so doing. But let me not, at the same time, be misunderstood. I am by no means disposed to favour the disposition to turn matters into contempt of court, which are in fact crimes of entirely a different nature. In this instance, however, it is clear that the offence resembles that of a contempt of court, and as such it ought to be punished by this house, and by no other. I have certainly not often thought it tit to prosecute individuals. But: at the same time I must say, that the gentlemen on the other side have not been remarkable for their forbearance in any case where government has been concerned. I do not, therefore, see why the house of commons should be the only part of the constitutional body that is to be libelled with impunity. I widely differ from my hon, friend, when he says that such a paragraph as this appears almost every day, Undoubtedly I am not in the habit of reading the newspapers so much as he does, but I certainly have scarcely ever seen any thing like this. I defy any gentleman to shew me any such paragraph, There are, indeed, often attacks on individuals, that, strictly speaking, are whol-
439
Mr. William Smith.
—Nothing, sir, in my opinion, can be more serious than a libel directed against an individual. It very often does him incalculable injury, because it goes into a thousand places where it is absolutely impossible for him to follow it. But, sir, I really think that a libel on the house of commons stands upon very different grounds; paragraphs of this sort, when they are not in unison with the public feeling, are of little importance. This libel, sir, is certainly out of all unison with the public feeling, and therefore, in my opinion, it is perfectly harmless. This is certainly not the case when a libel is published on the conduct of a member of the house, and this, therefore, ought to be a more serious consideration. We ought to be more careful of protecting individuals from such attacks, because when the house, in a collective sense, acts with the public, all libels on their conduct can be attended with no mischievous effects, even though they should be more gross, if any thing can be more gross, than the libel in question. I do not, therefore, think, that it was material to notice it; but whether any proceedings should be had upon it, after it has been noticed, is another question entirely. I am rather disposed to agree with the right hon. gent. on the other side, that something should certainly be done by way of marking the displeasure of the house. But I must advert to one thing. We are here accused of haste, intemperance, &c. Now, sir, how did we proceed? You gave the vote that decided the matter, and therefore this is more particularly a libel upon you—you whom we all respect, and whom certainly it becomes us all to protect from any improper imputations. This case, therefore, does undoubtedly differ from 'any other very materially. Can it be supposed, sir, that you were actuated by intemperance, or gave your vote in haste, after you had
440
Dr. Laurence
differed from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, on the nature and effects of a libel. The hon. gent. said, that when a libel was not in unison with the feelings of the public, it ought to be disregarded. By parity of reasoning, it followed, that when a libel was in unison with the public feeling, it ought to be taken notice of. There was something in this that distinguished from other libels. The house sat rather in a judicial capacity. This was no political question, and therefore the libel was the more intolerable. The house had on this occasion done every thing with coolness, and no passion or party feeling was concerned. He entered his protest against the distinction that had been made by the hon. gent. for if this was to be allowed, a door would be opened to the most scandalous attacks on the house of commons, when it was found that they might be circulated with impunity.
The Speaker.
—W. What is your name? A. Peter Stuart.—Q. Look at that paper: is it printed and published by you? A. It is.
The Speaker.
—That paper has been complained of to the house as containing libellous reflections on its conduct and character. What have you to say in answer to the charge?
441
Mr. Grey
then rose.—Sir, it is now my duty to submit a resolution to the house on this business. This I shall do without premising it with any observations. Of the sort of apology that has been made, if apology it can be called, I leave the house to judge, and I shall be perfectly satisfied with their decision, whatever it may be. I wish, however, to make one observation with regard to the charge that has been thrown out against me by a gentleman on the other side, of having been too hasty in bringing forward this business. Sir, I brought it forward as soon as the offence came before the public, and as soon as it was generally known, and this I thought to be the most proper period. Having said this, sir, I shall only move "That Peter Stuart, in publishing the said paper, has been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of this house."
The Attorney-General.
—I do not mean to object to the motion that has just been made. But with regard to the observation to which the hon. gent. alluded, as coining from a person on this side of the house, I rather think the hon. gent. spoke of something that fell from me on a former night. I believe the hon. gent. wishes now that he had attended to what I suggested on that occasion. I stated, that I had no doubt that this came under the description of a libel, and I think so still; but I also said, that it did not appear to me that the house ought to interfere in the business. This is still my opinion. Many things come before me which I cannot hesitate to pronounce libels; but from the circumstances that attend such cases, I should not advise that any notice should be taken of them. And I must say, that the eagerness with which the hon. gent. and his friends have taken up this paragraph savours much more of the irritability of soreness than of any soundness of character on their part. An hon. gent. over the way said, that he had great difficulty in finding any other libel similar to the present one. Sir, libels do not make such lasting or strong impressions in other cases as they do when they are directed against ourselves. This may have been the case at present. I recollect, sir, when public prints made that hon. gent. state, at clubs and meetings, that the house of commons was so lost to
442
Mr. Fox.
—The hon. and learned gent. has, I suppose, alluded to the in what he has just said. He has stated that a certain print published observations purporting to come from me. When he produces the paper to me, I may perhaps recollect what I said, so far as to give him information whether the observations came from me, and how far they were accurate. I am not ashamed of what I said, and, if the hon. gent. wishes for information on the subject, he has only to produce the paper containing the remarks to which he has adverted. That a man may say that it is of no use that he should attend the house, because he can do no service in it, without being guilty of a libel, I should think incontrovertible. I did say so, and that was my opinion most certainly. If he thought this a libel like the paper now before us, if he had shewn me the print in question at that time, I could have told him bow far it was accurate. It may not, perhaps, be such an easy matter now; but, however, even at this distance of time, I have no objection to give him every information in my power; and I believe. I can still, from recollection, satisfy him on this subject. But, sir, I must confess I do not see the justice or the candour of withholding all allusion to the affair at the time when it happened, and bringing it forward as an
argamentum ad hominem,
443
Mr. Atkins Wright
defended the sentiments which be had formerly expressed, but spoke so low, that we could not follow him in the particulars.—The motion was then put, and carried without a division. Mr. Atkins Wright then moved, "that Mr. P. Stuart be called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged."
Mr. Grey
observed, that if it was the general sense of the house that a libel of this nature should be passed over in this manner, he had no objection to the motion. He was of opinion, however, that when the house interfered, its sentence ought to be something heavy. The paragraph in question had been voted a high breach of privilege by the house, and the author ought therefore to meet with some marks of the displeasure of the house. However, he should be sorry to urge any greater severity than the house thought necessary; and he would therefore be perfectly satisfied with whatever the house judged proper. If, then, the house, after hearing the apology that had been made, if it was an apology, should think it proper to agree to the motion, he had no objection.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was sorry, that in this instance he should be compelled to propose a greater degree of severity than what had been mentioned; but he felt that he should not have done his duty to the house, if he allowed the matter to rest here. However much therefore he might be disposed to lenity, as far as the individual was concerned, yet he could not forget what was due to the dignity of the house. After having once resolved that a person had been guilty of a high breach of privilege, he could not, in consistency with the dignity of the house be instantly discharged. He thought therefore, that in the first instance, the author of the paragraph should be committed, and then, it he made a proper submission, as he had no doubt be would, he should consent to discharge him at the earliest possible period. He then moved, "that the said Peter Stuart be for his said of, fence taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms." The motion was agreed to, and Mr. P. Stuart was immediately
444
[PAPERS RELATING TO THE SALE OF CORN AND FLOUR BY MR. CLAUDE
SCOTT.] Mr. Serjeant Best
rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to a transaction, which, if the circumstances were as had been stated to him, deserved the serious attention of the house. In 1795, government had thought proper to give orders to seize neutral vessels going to France with provisions. These vessels and the cargoes had been consigned, after a part of the provisions had been taken for the use of government, with the remaining cargoes to Mr. Claude Scott, to be disposed of for the public account. He was informed that the produce of the sale, amounting to two hundred thousand pounds, had been suffered to remain in the hand's of Mr. Scott, down to the year 1800. During this period, Mr. Scott had frequently supplied government with corn to a large amount, which there was reason to suppose he had bought with the public money, and for which he was paid in treasury bills, bearing interest, so that he not only derived mercantile profit from the public money, but also interest from the mode of payment. If these things were true, they were highly culpable: the person who had given him the information pledged himself to make good the fact at the bar; yet he hoped sincerely the hon. gent. could do away the charge. He concluded with moving for a variety of accounts relating to the sale of the vessels and cargoes, the payments made to the lords of the treasury, and the several contracts between Mr. Scott and government for meal and flour, &c.
Mr. Claude Scott
stated, that the money was much more than 200,000
l
Mr. Rose
said, he did not believe that the hon. member, whose conduct was the object of the motion, had employed the public money for any length of time what-
445
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said he was desirous the papers moved for by the hon. and learned gent, should be laid before the house, but he could not help remarking the manner in which this motion was made. The hon. and learned gent. gave notice last night he should make this motion, by stating that it was applicable to the connection between government and Mr. Claude Scott, but he might have given an intimation of the ground of his motion, that those who wished to take a share in the discussion might be acquainted with the nature of the transaction, as it Was intended to be brought forward; but here was a matter of ten years standing brought forward without any such intimation, when gentlemen might not have the subject fresh in their memory. He was glad to observe, however, that what had been hinted at by the hon. mover, as to the cause of his motion, was likely to turn out to be totally unfounded.
Mr. Fox
thought the conduct of his hon. and learned friend in not giving a mere descriptive notice perfectly correct, and such as he would have observed himself in a similar situation, for had he made a speech on giving his notice of the, motion, it would have been irregular in any other member to answer that, speech, however desirable it might be by such member that the speech should be answered. This complaint, therefore, of a want of a further intimation of the hon. mover, was properly a complaint that he had not been irregular.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not wish that a speech might precede the notice, but the general grounds of it would have been so far from being irregular that it would have only been conformable to custom in cases of this nature.
Mr. Grey
maintained, that ample information of the nature of this motion had been detailed in the notice, as entered in the order book, which he read.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Said, he had not seen the book, which appeared to contain sufficient notice.
Mr. Serjeant Best
justified himself as to the distinctness with which he gave notice of this motion, as also for the motive with which he brought the subject forward; it was to lay the foundation of an Enquiry. He did this on a statement which was
446
Mr. Rose
said, he never was so absurd as to have said the hon. member never employed the public money in his hands for a moment, for it would have been a thing impossible for any man connected with government in a contract to have that said of him; all he said Was, that he had not kept the public money for any considerable time.
Mr. Serjeant Best
said, a month.
Mr. Rose
said he believed not a month, or any thing like a month; but he spoke only from the best recollection he had on a subject which was ten years old; the impression of that recollection was, that the conduct of the hon. member (Mr. Scott) was perfectly correct and honourable. He knew very little more of that hon. member, beyond that contract With government, than the hon. and learned gent. did.—The question was then put and carried, "that there be laid before the house an account of such sales, delivered by Claude Scott, esq. to government, and an account when the produce of such sales were paid to government; also, that there be laid before the house a copy of an account of corn and flour, sold by the said C. Scott, esq. to government, between the year 1795, and 1800, and all monies paid by him on account of such sales; which were all ordered."
[IRISH LOAN.]
The house having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means,
Mr. Foster
said, he should only intrude upon the attention of the committee for a few minutes. It would be recollected, that early in the present session he had stated, that a loan of 1,000,000
l
l
447
l
100l. Long annuities
£5
0
0
24l. in the 5 per cents
1
4
0
Annual charge to the nation.
100, 3½ per cent. stock
£3
10
0
48, 5 per cent. ditto
2
8
0
148, Sinking Fund, 1 per cent.
1
9
7
———
7
7
7
448
Sir J. Newport
expressed himself extremely happy to hear the right hon. gent. give so truly satisfactory an account of this transaction. He had heard of the rumours that had been alluded to, but could not believe them, and it gave him the greatest pleasure to hear them so completely done away. He highly approved the loan having been made in England in preference to Ireland, because it could not fail to be eventually truly advantageous to that part of the empire. In a poor country like Ireland the great object should always be to bring capital into it. Here would, therefore, be nearly 2 millions of capital sent thither, and that Irish capital, which, if taken as a loan, would be locked up for that purpose, might now be much more beneficially employed by being vested in trade, in the promoting and encouraging manufactures, in the improvement of agriculture, and in many other modes which that part of the kingdom is deficient in at present, and to render which most flourishing and prosperous, capital is only wanted. He allowed, there were some things attending this mode of raising money by loans, which he did not altogether approve, such as being connected with a sinking fund, and other inconveniences; but it was but fair and right to consider every matter of this kind in all its bearings, and to put up with the bitters, for the sake of enjoying the
449
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 29.
[MINUTES.]
The earl of Oxford was sworn and took his seat.—Counsel were further heard relative to the Scotch Appeal, Cathcart, bart.
v.
[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.]
The order of the day being read for their lordships going into a committee on this bill,
Lord Sidmouth
rose for the purpose of opposing the proceeding. It was with pain he differed, and on topics of such peculiar importance as those involved in the measure in question, from the reverend and learned prelate who brought forward the bill. It was said, it would be a boon to the universities. No person could possibly have a greater respect for these very useful, learned, and respectable bodies, than himself; yet he conceived that the bill before the house would operate rather as a boon to individuals belonging to those corporations, than to the institutions themselves. Great stress was laid upon the inconveniences produced by the restrictions which the bill was intended to remove, but he believed no proof whatever was brought forward of any practical inconvenience having taken place. The restriction had continued for more than half a century. It was enacted at the instance of that profound lawyer and venerable magistrate, lord Hardwicke, who, no doubt, had thoroughly considered the subject before he proposed the restraining clause. In the former debate on the subject, it was also said, the succession to the livings was at present too slow for the beneficial purposes of the institution; but of this no proof was brought forward, and, as the case stood, he was entitled to contend, were the restriction removed, the succession would be too rapid. He was perfectly aware of the importance of the subject to which these conderations referred, and no one could be more willing to promote the comforts and
450
451
The Archbishop of Canterbury
observed, that he conceived the principal objections of the noble viscount to the bill, to be, first, an apprehension, that, were the existing restraint removed, the succession to the university livings would be too rapid; and, secondly, that it would tend to deprive the laity of too great a degree of that portion of patronage, which he conceived to be at present so beneficially vested in them. With respect to the first objection, his grace observed, he conceived the state of the funds of the universities would operate as a sufficient check to any thing which might be feared, if too rapid. With respect to the present state of the patronage of ecclesiastical livings, he should be extremely sorry to see it taken away from numbers of those who at present enjoyed it, and who so beneficially dispensed it, particularly members of that noble house. But there was another description of patronage, which, they must all feel, had a very different tendency. He alluded to that, which was afloat in the market, and every day bought and sold under circumstances injurious to the establishment of the church, the interests of religion, and; he believed, against the laws of the realm; the patronage of such persons might easily be placed in better hands, and in none more advantageously than those of the universi-
452
Lord Auckland,
though he professed himself not unfriendly to the bill, yet was of opinion that their lordships had not sufficient information to go upon: a practical inconvenience was a matter capable of proof; let that be brought forward, and the amount and respective value of the livings in the hands of the different colleges should also be known. The funds of the universities may also be matter of proper consideration, for it was important to know how far they had the means of providing, which they themselves held forth as a remedy for the alleged grievance: there was no evidence whatever on these heads before the house.
The Bishop of Oxford
shortly observed, he was in possession of some detailed information on those heads, did noble lords deem it necessary.
Lord Auckland
resumed. He contended for the propriety of having an account of the number and value of livings in the gift of the different colleges, as some of those it might be desirable to augment. The state of their respective funds should also be known. One general rule could not properly be laid down for the whole. The means of some colleges for providing for its members may be more than sufficient; of others, they may be inadequate. It was a subject on which they should not proceed to legislate blindly. It may, however, be desirable to go into a committee on the bill, as that detailed mode of discussion may at least give them an idea of the precise nature of the necessary information.
Lord Grenville
in some degree agreed with the noble lord who spoke last, in deeming that the house was not possessed of sufficient information: he thought it, however, better to proceed with the bill and endeavour to get the necessary information, than to postpone the measure to an indefinite period, without the least certainty of procuring the necessary information. It would be preferable to go into the committee, to ascertain the precise nature of the information wanted, and adopt measures to obtain it. The measure before the house was, he contended, brought forward on adequate parliamentary grounds. The real merits of the bill, as it then stood,
453
Lord Sidmouth
explained, that what he had said was, that there was no proof brought forward of the succession being too slow.
Lord Auckland
contended that where a grievance was alleged, it should be established in proof; the case in the present instance was one of evidence and fact, an adequate proof ought to be given.
The Bishop of London
argued in favour of the measure, and urged the consideration of such a bill as the present in a committee, as particularly necessary. Adverting to the general state of parochial establishments; he lamented there were so few parish churches in the western parts of the metropolis. Most of the chapels of ease were private property, and afforded no accommodation for the lower orders of the
454
The Bishop of St. Asaph
contended, that every thing that was advanced, were reasons for going into a committee on the bill; they were in possession of adequate information, in order to proceed with the bill; and the legislature, when it originally laid on the restriction, was not informed, as his noble friend opposite contended the house should have been, or the proportion of the numbers allotted would be very different; he had no fears of too rapid a succession ever taking place; the colleges had not the means of affording an opportunity for that; but, he observed, that the patronage of the universities was always honourably and beneficially exercised.
The Lord Chancellor
agreed with a noble baron (Grenville), that the question before them was rather one of general reasoning, than proceeding upon particular information. The original restriction did not appear founded on the state of the respective colleges, or the proportion would be very different. In advancing this, he meant not the slightest reflection on the name of that great and venerable character who proposed it, whose name would be remembered as long as the law of England continued to be known. That his position was well founded, would clearly appear on comparing the allotted number of livings, viz. one half of that of the fellows of colleges in the universities, with the actual number of persons in each college capable of being so beneficed. Some of these (referring, for example, to that which he had the honour to belong) had the entire number of their fellows ecclesiastics, whereas others had not half their number clerical men. How, therefore, could the allotted proportion of one moiety apply equally or justly to both? He agreed with the observations of the rev. prelates, on the scandalous traffic for church preferments, the extent and tendency of which did not seem to have been fully perceived by the illustrious author of the restriction, and which the noble and learned lord strongly reprobated as of the most
455
Lord Ellenborough
observed, as the general sense of their lordships appeared to be for going into a committee, he should detain them very shortly. He was of opinion that it would be expedient to set some limitation to the acquisition of advowsons in such cases as the present. The house should consider that the corporations in question were as trustees who purchased for their own benefit; that they were not only donors but donees; there obviously therefore existed reasons for some restraint, which did not exist in other corporations. He must join with the noble lords and reverend prelates who reprobated that scandalous traffic in church preferments so forcibly alluded to. He was fully aware how greatly preferable it would be to see such patronage vested in the universities; but even with reference to purchases, even from these quarters, he conceived, considering the possibility of abuse, that some degree of restraint would even then be necessary. They should endeavour to find some certain ratio for apportioning the number of livings to that of the fellows of the respective colleges, or rather of those who are capable of being beneficed, and therefore some words should be introduced to express that provision in the bill, as "such persons as are elected, or are capable of being elected."
The Bishop of Oxford
in reply, observed, that no fears need be entertained of too great an accumulation of patronage on the part of the universities, even were that likely to take place, as parliament would always have it in their power to check the vicious excess; nay, to check the evil in the bud. He entered into some calculations as to the number of livings vested in different bodies. Of these, we understood the reverend prelate to say, that a less number than 700 were at the disposal of the universities, and many of these of small value, out of an aggregate of upwards of ten thousand livings.
The Duke of Norfolk
said, that if the bill were agreed to by the committee, without some limitation or degree of restraint introduced, he would certainly oppose it in some future stage. He conceived that the same reasons continued to operate which induced the legislature, in its wisdom, in the year 1736, to provide the re-
456
pro formâ
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 29.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Calcraft
presented a petition from upwards of 1000 inhabitants of the parish of St. Pancras against the bill for the erection of a workhouse, and some parochial regulations in that place. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Williams, from the commissioners of naval enquiry, presented at the bar the correspondence with the treasurer of the navy, which was ordered on a preceding day. The papers were ordered to be laid on the table, and on the motion of sir R. Buxton, it was ordered that they should be printed.—Mr. Johnstone, from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland, presented copies of the contracts which had been entered into for the purchase of houses or ground for the scite of the Roman catholic seminary. Ordered to be laid on the table.—Mr. Parnell presented statements of the public expenditure in the Irish chancellor of the exchequer's office, which were also ordered to be laid on the table.—Mr. H. Thornton gave notice that, in consequence of the resignation of sir Francis Burdett, he would, to-morrow, move that the petition against Mr. Mainwaring be discharged.—Mr. Creevy rose for the purpose of putting a question to his majesty's ministers. Three weeks shall have elapsed to-morrow since the resignation of lord Melville, and yet no successor had been appointed. He wished to know who was to succeed to that important office, as under all the circumstances of the country, and considering the forward state of the enemy's fleets, it was extremely desirable that a person should be appointed adequate to the urgency of the times, and arduous duties of that high office.—The chancellor of the exchequer had no difficulty in answering the hon. gentleman's question: the appointment had taken place, and would be men-
457
[PAPERS RELATING TO THE ELEVENTH NAVAL REPORT.] Sir A. S. Hamond
rose to give notice that he should move, to-morrow, for further papers respecting the eleventh Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry.
Mr. Grey
rose to take notice, that the hon. comptroller of the navy had, on a day last week, given notice of a motion connected with the Eleventh Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry. He wished to know what object the hon. baronet had in view, in requiring additional papers on the subject of that report. The hon. baronet had given a notice of a similar nature on a former night without stating his object, and on the next day he had come down to the house before the usual hour, and had moved for a letter from himself to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, together with certain inclosures. It was impossible to know what the hon. baronet proposed to himself by the production of such documents. What had the house to do with his letter to the commissioners? If he had any observations or comment to make upon it, as a member of parliament, it was open to him to avail himself of an opportunity of doing so. The proceeding was altogether so extraordinary and irregular, that he (Mr. Grey) was of opinion that the former notice and motion should be expunged, and that the hon. baronet should distinctly state what his object was.
Sir A. S. Hamond
said, that upon the occasion alluded to, he had taken no advantage of the house. It was near five o'clock when he made his motion, and he had given full notice of the purpose for which he made it. He had stated that the documents were respecting the evidence given on the eleventh report before the naval commissioners. The house was then as full as it was at present, and he was not aware of having been informal or out of order.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that on the day of the hon. baronet's motion, it was understood that a ballot for a select committee was to take place at four o'clock. He came down anxious to know the nature of the motion, as all he understood was, that
458
The Speaker
remarked, that there was no question before the house on which it could come to any ultimate decision.
Mr. Tierney
said, the hon. baronet ought to apprize the house of the object of the motion he intended to bring forward. He supposed the documents he meant to move for, were intended as the medium of attacking a noble lord. If so, it was necessary that every thing connected with the immediate object of the motion should be before the house.
Sir A. S. Hamond
appealed to the house, that in their recollection, an hon. member opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) had brought forward a similar motion, under similar circumstances. On that hon. member's motion, papers of a nature parallel to those he had moved for, were ordered, and not a single objection was started.
Mr. Grey
professed his ignorance of the circumstance to which the hon. baronet alluded. As far as his own recollection extended, the motion of his hon. friend was not brought forward without a specific notice. Every member, indeed, knew to what end it was directed. Here, on the contrary, it was perfectly understood that no business of a public nature was to be done till after the ballot was formed, the hon. baronet introduced his motion in the absence of all those who might be supposed most anxious to defend the character of the noble lord, against any attack which might be brought against his public conduct. He himself had remained to a late hour in expectation of the motion being brought forward, and he was at last astonished to find, that the hon. baronet had brought forward the motion at a time when not one of the noble lord's friends were at all apprized of his intentions. They knew nothing at all of the nature of the papers to be moved for. They were obliged to be satisfied with the simple explanation, that they were papers connected with the Eleventh Report of the Naval Commissioners. In fairness to the character of his noble friend, some opportunity should have been given to move for the production of other papers, by which these allegations might have been disproved. All the information, however, which it was
459
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was his earnest wish that the hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) would give effect to his threat, and move to expunge the notice, if he thought it was wrong; but surely he ought first to recollect what it was. It was for a copy of the evidence of the comptroller of the navy before the commissioners relative to the eleventh report. Now, when it was known that the eleventh report contained comments on the conduct of the person who had made the motion, was it
460
Mr. Grey
said, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt) had not advanced a word in vindication of the manner and time of the hon. baronet's bringing forward his motion, but simply that to deny it would be inconsistent with the justice due to an individual; and that, as the report reflected materially on the hon. baronet, he ought not to be precluded from moving for that which was necessary to his own defence. By no means. God forbid, that he should be denied any paper necessary to his justification. What he complained of was
461
Sir A. S. Hamond
maintained, that he had taken the most regular and orderly way in bringing forward his complaint. In the 11th report, the comptroller of the navy was particularly reflected upon. There was one part of the evidence which reflected on him in a way that no person of feeling could pass over. Either the noble lord or himself must stand in a situation in which no man of honour would wish to be placed. He had written a letter to the commissioners, to desire that he might be re-examined. After a lapse of seventeen days, he was told, that the report having been submitted to the three branches of the legislature, his request could not be complied with. He was at the head of an interior board, and it was material to him to prove that he was not the person alluded to in the eleventh report. He had written a letter to that effect to the commissioners of the admiralty, and had desired them to look over the documents, to convince themselves he had acted right. These were the papers he had moved for. The house was full at the time, and if he had done it five minutes too early, he had no intention to take the house by surprize.
Mr. W. Dickenson
presented at the bar "a copy of the letter of the comptroller of the navy to the commissioners of the admiralty, dated April 22, 1805, relative to the evidence contained in the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, together with its inclosures." On the motion that the papers do lie on the table, it appearing that the inclosures had no titles,
Mr. Grey
doubted whether this was such a proceeding as ought to satisfy the
462
Mr. Tierney
wished the papers to be laid on the table for two or three days before they were printed. If they were printed in their present state, they might create an impression which supplementary documents might not be able to remove. Both the hon. baronet and the noble lord were in a situation which no man of honour could submit to. The hon. baronet desired that he might not be condemned unheard. He (Mr. Tierney) was equally anxious that his noble friend should not be condemned unheard. He thought the better way would be to move for a committee to consider the eleventh report. All he was desirous of was, that a mutilated case should not be laid before the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said: there was an equal desire that justice should be done to both parties. The question was, whether the house would put the hon. baronet in a situation of having hostile evidence adduced against him, lest the documents in his vindication might possibly reflect on another person. No doubt, the comptroller of the navy ought to have the full benefit of these papers; they were calculated to elucidate points relative to the hon. baronet's justification. An hon. gent. had observed, that it was competent to move for a committee. Was it not also competent to any one to move for a vote of censure against the hon. baronet upon the report. It was not unusual in the course of debate for gentlemen to form different views of a subject, and even when notice had been given of a particular motion, it had been discovered in a few hours that the motion winch before was considered the best, would prove the worst that could be adopted. He concluded by moving that the papers should be read.
Mr. Fox
observed, that the case before the house was involved in intricacy. The whole seemed to have arisen from an irregularity the most strange and extraordinary that ever crept into the proceedings of that house of parliament. The hon. baronet thought, that his character being attacked by the eleventh report, it was his business to move for certain documents.
463
464
Mr. W. Dickenson,
jun. did not conceive there was any impropriety or irregularity in the proceeding. One of the papers was a letter from sir A. S. Hamond; the other, a letter from Mr. Tucker: they were both under similar circumstances.
Mr. George Ponsonby
was of opinion that the papers ought not to be read, as they could not be read in the ordinary way, having no titles. The hon. baronet had not specified what any one of the papers was, but had stated that they would show the house he was at issue with lord St. Vincent, and that one or the other must stand in a situation in which no man of honour would wish to stand. The letter, therefore, did not contain a defence of the hon. baronet, but a new and distinct crimination of lord St. Vincent. He was bound then to state the nature of the documents, that lord St. Vincent's friends might move for other papers, necessary.
The Attorney General
observed, that if any other person but lord St. Vincent were the object of the motion, no objection would be made to laying the documents on the table. But was there not a report on the table charging the hon. baronet with having omitted to have informed the first lord of the admiralty of certain important transactions? He had looked into the introductory letter since the commencement of the discussion, by which it appeared that the hon. baronet, when he found that his conduct had been reflected on by the 11th report, had tendered to be re-examined, which the commissioners had, no doubt on sufficient grounds, refused. The hon. bart. had then addressed himself to the admiralty, inclosing the documents. In consequence of which they were no longer in his possession, and that had been the cause of his moving for the letter and its inclosures. As to the observation of the learned gent. that this was a fresh and distinct charge against the noble lord, was not there already upon the table a charge against the hon. baronet? Was there no hardship in that?
465
Mr. Grey
felt it impossible to suffer the house to be led away by false impressions. He was sure the statement from the other side was not correct relative to the order of the motions (on Thursday). He had himself suggested to move for the committee first and for the prosecution after. But he observed a uniform endeavour to mislead the house, that they who supported him opposed the production of documents. God forbid! It was to the manner of moving for the documents they objected. He was happy to find that no gentleman attempted to justify the manner in which the hon. bart. had brought forward his motion. The report bad been printed on the 11th of March, and it was not till the 22d of April that the hon. bart. wrote the letter to the admiralty; on the 25th he gave his notice, and on the 26th he moved for its production. What was to be concluded, but that he had written the letter for the purpose of having it produced to parliament?
Sir A. S. Hamond
said, he had lost no time. It was extremely late in March when the report had been printed, and the next day he wrote to the commissioners of enquiry. As he held a high office, it was no slight matter that he should stand right with his superior board. He had written his letter on the 1st of April, and delivered it with his own hand to the commissioners. On the 17th he received the answer, and on the 22d he wrote to the admiralty. The documents were in the regular form of documents from one board to another, and numbered from 1 to 10, being letters from the secretary of state, and from the earl St. Vincent, and if the secretary of the admiralty did not produce them with the proper titles, it was not his fault. The reading the papers would not take up ten minutes, he should therefore vote for the motion.
Mr. Kinnaird
should not have risen, if it had not been for a personal allusion to himself. Previous to the motion which had teen observed upon, he had presented a petition from Mr, Tucker explaining the natured his grievance and the motion.
466
"Copy of a letter from the comptroller of the navy to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, dated the 22d of April 1805, on the subject of the evidence printed in the eleventh report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry:—together with copies of sundry papers therein referred to.
467
A. S. Hamond.
"Statement and Declaration.
468
l
469
l
A. S. Hamond
470
Hobart.
St. Vincent.
J. Sullivan.
471
J. Sullivan.
J. Sullivan.
J. Sullivan.
J. Sullivan.
472
A. S. Hamond.
Bucking hamshire.
473
most secret.
474
A. S. Hamond
Mr. Tierney
called the attention of the house to the papers. It was a direct and wilful perversion to call them papers that corrected the evidence of lord St. Vincent. That evidence stood unimpeached. The house had an interest in the character of lord St. Vincent, and his private friends had an interest. The charge here was no less than one of direct perjury. It was the general fate of all men in high situations to subject themselves to calumny, if they touched the work of corruption. He would aver, and that without fear of contradiction, that with regard to the secret expedition, lord St. Vincent never did give his sanction to it. Lord St. Vincent uniformly protested against the appropriation of naval money to any but naval services, or to other purposes than those for which it was voted by parliament. His lordship uniformly took care that not one farthing of the public money of his department should be misapplied. Lord St. Vincent never made any appointment of a single naval officer to the expedition, although he night have desired lord Keith to give it a convoy. The whole was left to the persons appointed by the treasury. The papers which were just read, had nothing to do with the charges against lord St. Vincent. By lord Hobart's letter, it appeared that the whole expense was to he defrayed by the treasury. Lord St. Vincent washed
475
Mr. Canning
observed, that the impression made upon his mind was, that the hon. baronet had moved for the production of these papers for the purpose of repelling a charge, the substance of which was to be decided by the answer to be given to a question, whether the comptroller of the navy had employed money entrusted to his charge in other services than those of the admiralty? That was the charge, and which charge it was not for him to say had been repelled; that was with the house. But how it might appear to be conformable to, or contrasted with, what might have been said or sworn elsewhere, he left to the consideration of the public.
Mr. Fox
observed, that what had just been said by the right hon. gent. was fair, if indeed it was not something more than fair. But he had a right to expect that the point should be put on the true ground, and perhaps it would have been fair if the rt. hon. gent. had put forward the charge against lord St. Vincent. The ground of bringing forward these documents was, that my lord St. Vincent's evidence, as delivered to the commissioners of enquiry, was incorrect, as was indeed stated in one of the documents themselves. Now, it was so far from being so, that there was no incorrectness whatever in that evidence; on the contrary, lord St. Vincent understood the matter at the time, as be and every body else understands it now, and he should be glad to have the incorrectness pointed out. It was another matter to say that the hon.
476
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that whatever might be doubtful, thus much indisputably appeared on the face of these papers; that the transaction which occasioned the expence, the expedition which had been so frequently repented, was a measure perfectly well known to lord St. Vincent; that to the expence being incurred, he had no objection; that he objected afterwards only to its being defrayed out of naval money—(a cry of hear! hear!)
Mr. Grey
said, that lord St. Vincent knew of the transaction of some secret service was a fact; but that lord St. Vincent disapproved of and protested against the application of naval money for that purpose, was equally indisputable; no naval money was, either directly or indirectly, issued for that purpose under the authority of that noble earl. His answer was given to the commissioners of naval enquiry with reference to his assent to the naval money being employed to the purpose of that Secret service, which assent he most indisputably never gave. Lord St. Vincent was, therefore, perfectly right in that sense, when he said he knew nothing of the transaction.
Mr. Wallace
said, that as far as his recollection went, it did appear to him that the noble earl was quite incorrect in the statement he made before the commissioners; for it appeared from the communications of sir A. S. Hamond, that the noble earl not only knew of and approved the secret service, but that he also assented to providing the funds for it. Most certainly the impression on his mind was directly the reverse of that felt by the hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) opposite to him.
Mr. Grey.
—I say the representation of the hon. gent. who has just spoken, is directly the contrary of the transaction to which he refers. If he means an epithet to apply to the evidence of the noble earl.
Sir A. S. Hamond
said it would appear, that his lordship directed that the comptroller of the navy should have funds for defraying the expenses of the expedition, and he would beg to know whether these funds. were to come from his own pocket,
477
Mr. Wallace.
—I beg to know whether I have stated the direct contrary of the true representation on these letters? I have not dune so, as far at least as my understanding goes. I say, it was stated originally in my lord Hobart's letter, that the funds were, in the first instance, to be supplied from the navy, but that they were ultimately to come from the treasury, and that my lord St. Vincent was aware of this. I should he glad to know what he has to say against that?
Mr. Grey.
—My lord St. Vincent states, that the whole expenditure is to be defrayed by the treasury. He protests against the application of any naval motley for that purpose. I have my lord St. Vincent's authority to state, that he would have quitted altogether; or to use
478
Mr. Wallace.
—I did not mean to say any thing in contradiction to what the noble earl has thought fit to communicate to the hon. member as to what he would have assented to: I am stating only what appears on the face of the papers.
Mr. Grey.
—I say the papers completely prove that which my lord St. Vincent said to me.
Mr. Sullivan
lamented that he had had the misfortune not to be in the house when this discussion had commenced, and that, therefore, he could but imperfectly reply to all that had been said. But he was clear that the expedition was perfectly known to lord St. Vincent, and he thought it but justice to all parties to say, that he was perfectly acquainted with the whole transaction. Lord St. Vincent resided at that time chiefly in the country, and, therefore, the communications with him were entirely by notes. His (Mr. Sullivan's) letter to sir Andrew Snape Hamond was dated 9th Feb. On the 10th, lord Hobart wrote to lord St. Vincent, that for security, and expedition sir A. Hamond was to take charge of the whole of the preparations, and to advance the funds which were to be afterwards replaced. Sir A. Hamond proposed to raise the money by an issue of navy bills, which were to be paid off when the money for the expedition was issued from the treasury. The funds thus created were paid into Messrs. Hammersley's bank. He did believe in the beginning, that lord St. Vincent was acquainted with the whole of this arrangement. But he acceded to the declaration of partial knowledge, because he was sure that the noble lord would not say that which was hot true. But till he knew that his lordship had declared himself so entirely ignorant of those particulars, he did believe that he was perfectly aware of them. He did believe the hon. gent. opposite, when he stated that lord St. Vincent declared he would have sooner put his hand in the fire than have countenanced this application of the navy money. But certainly lord St. Vincent did not shew any,such aversion to it at the time, he supposed from what had been said, because his lordship did not know it was to be done.
Mr. Vansittart
thought he could throw some light on this transaction, by statics
479
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
supposed the house must now be satisfied from the reading of the papers, that there was no intention to take the house by surprise, nor to advance any other unfair object, and that any surmise of that kind was absolutely unfounded. Whatever construction may now he put on the words of the evidence, the obvious impression they were calculated to make was, contrary to the intention of the noble lord, he did suppose, that sir A. Hamond had issued navy money for services, of which the first lord of the admiralty knew nothing. This was the impression they had made on his hon. and learned friend (the attorney-general), till the matter had been explained. He asked, under these circumstances, what would have been the counsequence if the enquiry had been stifled in the manner that had been proposed? What injury would not have been done to sir A. Hamond, if it had been only known that he had advanced the money to be replaced,but without the first lord of the admiralty having any acquaintance with the transaction for which it was advanced? Now it appeared that-it was advanced for a service known and approved of by the first lord of the admiralty; that there was an arrangement that it should be advanced by the comptroller of the navy, to be replaced by the treasury. It now appeared, and it was a point much relied on, that in
480
Mr. Fox
was astonished to hear from the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) that the natural construction was, that lord St. Vincent meant to say he knew nothing of the Stone expedition. Could any man suppose that was what his lordship designed to represent? Was not the most indolent observer in the kingdom informed of it? Then, as to the money, true it was there was no attack upon the integrity of the noble lord. Whether lord St. Vincent, in the high situation he held, did wright or wrong, in suffering the expedition to proceed, was a question on which at present he was called upon to give no opinion, but as a pecuniary transaction it was perfectly obvious he would not suffer the funds of the navy to be applied to it. The right hon. gent. said the design was to stifle the information contained in the papers. Did requiring them to he publicly read indicate any such indisposition? Then why talk of surmises, when those hon. members to whom the surmises were attributed, could not have the most remote idea of their contents. With regard to the innocence or culpability of sir A.Hamond, that was also a question foreign to the present enquiry, and would, no doubt, be a subject of future discussion. If there existed any feeling on the mind of a single individual in that house, which attached the smallest suspicion to the character of the noble earl who had been so often named in this debate, he hoped the matter would be investigated with the utmost industry, and he (Mr. Fox) was fully convinced the enquiry would terminate in a way most honourable to his lordship.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was surprised to hear hon. gentlemen disavow that there was a design to stifle information when a motion was proposed to expunge the order for the perusal of the paper. With regard to the assertion that what lord St. Vincent said implied he knew nothing of the transaction, in this he must persevere. He did not say what his lordship's intention was, but he (Mr. Pitt) would
481
A.
Mr. Grey
said, the right hon. gent. had been guilty of wilful misrepresentation —[a cry of order!]. The chancellor of the exchequer rose with much warmth. The speaker felt it his duty to inform the honourable gentleman, that the expression he had made use of was not justifiable. Mr. Grey said, he was sorry that any improper expression should have escaped him in the warmth of the moment. He contended that there was no evidence of any disposition to stifle enquiry; on the contrary, he had expressly declared his desire that every document that could aid the defence of the hon. baronet, or any attack to be made on lord St. Vincent, should be produced, only wishing to regulate the manner in which such documents' should be allowed to go forth. He contended, that the questions put to earl St. Vincent were only relative to the application of the money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that what he had said, was, that there had been an attempt to stifle these papers, and he said so still.
Sir Charles Pole
was now called upon from all sides. He stated, that the object of the questions put to earl St. Vincent related solely to the apparent irregularity in the application of the money. When his lordship answered that he knew nothing of it, his lordship was then asked whether it might not have been applied to the stone expedition? He answered, it could not, because there was no authority for such an application, the money for the stone expedition being to come from the treasury.
482
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought it extraordinary that this explanatory question and the answer to it were omitted in the report.
Sir Charles Pole
said, the question was asked for the purpose of assisting his lordship's memory. The same general negative being given, it was thought unnecessary to insert the question in the report.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the question had been for so long a time quite out of sight, that, without consulting his recollection, he should not have known what was the immediate object of discussion. He had witnessed a great deal of clamour and irritation, of crimination and recrimination, and of every thing, in short, but argument. The motion before the house was, whether the papers which had been presented by the worthy baronet (sir A. S. Hamond), and read at the table by the clerk, should be printed for the use of the members? Had any objection been offered to its adoption? What possible mischief could result from the publication of these papers? He had heard none assigned; he could conceive none; and therefore he should cordially assent to the motion. With respect to the testimony given by lord St. Vincent before the naval commissioners, and annexed to the eleventh report, his (Mr. Hobhouse's) impression upon reading it agreed with the statements of his right hon. friend below him (Mr. Vansittart), and of his right hon. friend near bun (Mr. Sullivan); both of whom, from the public situations they at that time filled, were well acquainted with the whole proceeding, and most capable of forming a correct judgment. The question put to his lordship was, "whether the comptroller of the navy was authorized by him to perform any secret service, for which a certain sum was advanced, and whether he had any knowledge of the transaction?" The answer was— "he (the comptroller of the navy) was not, nor had he (lord St. Vincent) any knowledge of the transaction." What other inference could be deduced from this reply, except that his lordship did not know the secret service alluded to, and had not authorized it? This from the letters which had now been read, was certainly not conformable to the fact. It appeared, however, from the same documents, that his lordship looked to the treasury for the payment of the. expence, and therefore he was not guilty Of warrant-
483
Admiral Markham.
—Lord St. Vincent certainly knew it; I knew it; sir Thomas Troubridge knew it. With regard to approving it, I never did. I can mention a circumstance which will skew lord St. Vincent's acquaintance with the affair. I remarked to his lordship at the time the business was carrying on, with so little secrecy it was conducted, that it was the common talk from one end of the river to the other, that the comptroller of the navy was fitting out these stone ships. Lord St. Vincent replied to me, "You and I have nothing at all to do with it, the treasury is to pay for it."
Lord Dunlo
thought it strange that the explanation given to lord St. Vincent's mind by a particular reference to the stone expedition, was not inserted in the report. If the question was put, why was it not in the minutes; if it was in the minutes, why was it not in the report?
Sir C. Pole
said, it was not put down, because it had been directed merely to assist lord St. Vincent's memory, and because it had not produced any knowledge of the matter in his lordship's evidence.
The Attorney-General
said, the misapprehension arose from the unhappy circumstance that the witness did not understand the question, which required sonic explanation for the direction of his mind. The question was put down without explanation, and the answer was recorded without qualification. Thus the misapprehension was in the report, without that which had some tendency to correct it.
Mr. Robert Ward
contended, from the time, that lord St. Vincent must have been perfectly aware that the expedition was going forward, and that the letters sheaved it. The noble lord must besides have
484
General Gascoyne,
from what had been stated by the hon. baronet, who was at the head of the commission, thought it clear that the commissioners conceived the noble lord's memory wanted assistance and direction. They knew his lordship well; and if they conceived his memory was deficient, he could not imagine they thought so without reason. He was the more ready to admit the propriety of this proceeding, as he himself had been a member of a court martial on a very meritorious general officer, before which the noble lord had been a witness, and the noble lord's memory failed him so much that he forgot precise orders given by himself. He could therefore conceive very easily, why persons so well acquainted with his lordship as the commissioners, should have thought it right to assist his memory on the occasion now alluded to.—The question was now put, and the papers were ordered to be printed.
[NAVAL COMMISSIONERS' RENEWAL BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the reading the act appointing the commissioners of naval enquiry, and the act being read accordingly, the right hon. gent. rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the further continuance of that act for a time to be limited. In a former part of the sessions, he observed, that it was his intention to bring forward this motion, if it should appear that the commission of naval enquiry should be unable in the course of the sessions to fully discharge the duty assigned to them on their original appointment. This inability was now apparent, as several objects still remained for investigation which would necessarily occupy much time. It therefore became proper to prolong their continuance. With respect to the conduct and character of this commission, he was as willing as any man to admit, that it had produced much useful and important information. At the same time, however, he would say, that there were several parts of the conduct of this commission of which he could not approve, but still their investigation had been productive of many results that would conduce to the public service, and on this ground he felt it his duty to submit this motion.—The motion being put,
Mr. Whitbread
thought it extraordi-
485
486
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed upon the allusions which the hon. gent. had made to what he thought proper to call a slur thrown out by him upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. Surely the hon. gent. could not suppose that because he felt it his duty to bring forward this motion, that he was therefore divested of the liberty of speech, or that he was to be held out to the odium of that house or the country, because he had thought proper to animadvert upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. He certainly did think that those commissioners had in certain instances executed their powers in a very unbecoming manner. But still he was ready to say that their services were productive of public utility, and in consequence of that opinion he brought forward the motion before the house. With regard to the new provisions recommended by the hon. gent., he did not conceive that
487
Mr. Fox
entirely concurred with his hon. friend in thinking the insinuation thrown out against the naval commissioners by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, a most extraordinary circumstance indeed, particularly when the time at which the right hon. gent. expressed his disapprobation was taken into view. If the ground of this disapprobation was of a serious and important nature, it was highly inconsistent in him to bring forward the motion before the house. For if the commissioners were deserving of such censure, how could the right hon. gent. reconcile it with a just sense of public duty, to propose the continuance of their power? But if, on the contrary, the grounds of the right hon. gent.'s disapprobation were of a trifling or comparatively unimportant nature, how strange was the opportunity chosen for declaring, it! There was something peculiarly remarkable in the conduct of the right hon. gent. respecting this commission. At such a time, what could he mean by alluding to trivial errors—
Just hint a fault and hesitate dislike, Anxious to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
488
489
The Attorney-General
opposed the amendment. If it were adopted, he would put it to the consideration of the house how the bill was to be framed agreeable to its title, unless there was a private communication between the hon. gent. and his right hon. friend before the bill should be drawn up, and that the objections existing in the mind of his sight hon. friend against those amendments should be removed. If the objections prevailing against those amendments, which objections he himself felt strongly, should not be done away by future discussion, the house, if the amendment now proposed were acceded to, might be placed in the dilemma of having prefixed a title to a bill, with which the bill itself may prove to be inconsistent. It was manifest to him that it would be much better to postpone the adoption of a title to the bill, which would imply an alteration of the existing act, until that change itself should be determined on.
Mr. Sheridan
supported the amendment, and observed, that although he agreed with the right hon. gent. that this was not the
490
491
Mr. Rose
perfectly coincided with the motives. of his right hon. friend, in opposing the amendment; though he had been a
492
Mr. Banker
supported the amendment, because it was obvious, from the complaints of the naval commissioners, that their powers were defective, and their enquiries, therefore, in many instances, inefficient; but this defect might not arise from any imperfection in the act itself, or in its construction by the commissioners, If, upon due investigation in the proper stage of discussing the bill, an amendment should appear necessary, he should support it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Sheridan, respecting his bill of 1785, said, if hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to the bill itself, they would find it contained no one of the obnoxious or unconstitutional principles which the hon. member had thought fit to impute to it. —The question was then put on Mr. Whitbread's amendment, and negatived without a division; and the original motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried.
[MILITARY COMMISSIONERS' BILL.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose for the purpose of moving, that leave be given to
493
Mr. J. Fitzgerald
enquired whether the operation of the bill was meant to extend to Ireland?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that would be a subject of future discussion.
Mr.Ellison
asked if the war-office was to be included?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
answered in the affirmative.
Sir John Newport
wished to know, whether or not the commissariat of Ireland was to be subject to investigation by this commission, as well as that of Great Britain?
494
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could give no positive answer. He was not sure whether the same commission would serve for both countries or not. Ireland might, perhaps, require a distinct commission.
Mr. J. Fitzgerald
desired to be informed, whether or not it was to be understood that a distinct commission was to superintend the military department of Ireland?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
entertained some doubts if the same committee could undertake the management of both Great Britain and Ireland; local knowledge might, perhaps, be necessary; but on this subject he had not made up his mind.
Sir John Newport
pressed for a more explicit answer to the question of his hon. friend.
Mr. Pitt
said, he had not yet made up his mind on that part of the subject.
Mr. Fox,
notwithstanding the plausible professions under which the right hon. gent. brought forward this bill, had no hesitation in declaring his decided opinion, that any bill of this sort brought into parliament, for the specious purpose of investigating abuses in the public expenditure, by persons who were themselves the friends and colleagues of delinquents, gave him no hopes whatever that such enquiries were serious. That such persons should be the institutors of enquiry, and the nominators of the committees by whom such enquiries were to be carried on, was a circumstance which the house must regard at least with considerable suspicion. With respect to the personal delicacy of any man, acting under such circumstances as those in which the right hon. gent. stood, that was certainly his own consideration; but if he (Mr. Fox) was the person closely connected with delinquents, he should feel himself bound, by considerations of personal delicacy, to take special care not to be the man to bring forward such an enquiry, and to name the committee, for carrying it on, conscious as he must be of the sentiments such a circumstance must produce in the opinions of all thinking men. The motion for the bill to institute the committee of naval enquiry, on a former occasion, was brought forward by an hon. admiral, who every man must perceive, from the course of that enquiry, and the results it had produced, was serious in his intentions for the detection of delinquents. But he begged to ask, if that bill had been introduced by lord Melville, did any man believe that the house would have had before it Reports, such as those already
495
Lord Castlereagh
rose, with much warmth, to vindicate the conduct of his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt), whose individual purity not only placed him far above the unwarrantable imputation of the hon. gent., but justly attached to him the esteem and confidence of the country. The personal purity of his right hon. friend rendered his character such as any country might be proud of, and the spotless integrity he had maintained during perhaps
496
Mr. Fox
explained, by saying, he had not imputed to the right hon. gent. any such direct influence as to say he could dictate the choice of a committee. He only meant that there was generally a sort of courtesy observable in the house, on most occasions, to indulge the inclinations of the right hon. gent.
Mr. Grey
admired the dignified zeal with which the noble lord asserted the
individual purity
individual purity
497
[PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE AND MR. TROTTER.] Mr. Spencer Stanhope
rose, and said that he felt it necessary to have the matter of charge contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry put in a course of investigation. The charges which it made were very serious, and should be proceeded on with decision and dispatch. Though he was convinced that lord Melville was not guilty of participating the gains of malversation of public money, yet he should not attempt to screen the noble lord, or throw dust in the eyes of the public on the present occasion, but he thought it improper to have condemned the noble lord before he was heard; in saying so, however, he did not mean to question the decision of parliament, which found the noble lord guilty of having violated the law; but he could not refrain from saying, that he abhorred the barbarous mode of first cutting off a man's head, and trying afterwards whether he was guilty. He was of opinion that the most eligible mode of proceeding would be, to have a civil process instituted against the noble lord and Mr. Trotter in the court of exchequer, in order to have restitution made to toe public. Should it turn out, in the course of the proceeding, that the noble viscount was in a corrupt league with Trotter, he trusted, then, that the house would proceed by impeachment; but he again repeated his conviction that this was not the case. He concluded with moving, "that the attorney general he directed to take such measures as may appear most effectual in ascertaining and securing, by a due course of law, such sums as may be due to the public by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, in respect to the profits araising from money applicable to the service of the navy, which
498
Sir Robert Buxton
seconded the motion, and said, that illness prevented him from being in the house on the first night of discussing the subject of the tenth report; had he been able to attend, he should certainly have voted in the majority, on the ground of the noble lord's having violated an act of parliament.
Mr. Bankes
regretted that the motion was brought forward this night, because he did not think that it would satisfy the public, or answer the ends of public justice. No man had a higher respect for the courts of law than he entertained, and he hoped that the matter might some time or other come before one of those ancient tribunals, where no prejudice existed, and from which, consequently, a fair and just decision should be anticipated; but lit wished the house to consider at present, before it parted with the business, or send it to the court of exchequer, what would be the result. This might be easily inferred, considering that the person or persons to be examined might demur, and thus defeat the end of substantial justice: besides, the intricacy and mixture of the different accounts, and the diffculty of distinguishing the items of each, threw difficulties almost insurmountable in the way of accomplishing the object to be attained. He was decidedly in favour of a committee with enlarged powers; but as this did not seem likely to be attained, he thought that the magnitude of the subject, and the satisfaction of the public, made it necessary to move generally, that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the noble lord and Mr. Trotter. He should therefore propose as an amendment, that all the words after "lord Melville and Mr. Trotter" be left out, and these. words be inserted, "and that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the said lord Melville and Mr. Trotter for the said offences."—On the question being put,
Mr. Windham
considered it perfectly clear, that the best way of proceeding would have been to have referred the whole matter to a select committee, who could have taken the opinion of the law officers in what manner the suit ought to be brought with the best chance of succeeding in its object. They would have been able to ascertain whether there existed evidence sufficient either to support a
499
The Master of the Rolls
observed, that every thing on which a civil suit could proceed had been already settled by the vote of the house. What were the reasons urged by gentlemen on the other side of the house for the adoption of the resolutions of the 8th instant, in opposition to the wish of his right hon. friend, that the whole business should be referred to a committee? Because they asserted nothing could be done in the committee. It was impossible to change their opinion of the transaction, as it was impossible to do away the effects of lord Melville's confession of an infringement of the law, and the proofs of Mr. Trotter's. speculating with the public money. If so, if this were true; how could a committee find out better grounds for Prosecution than what existed? If parts of the subject were referred to a court of law, it would be highly improper that the same topics at the same time should be under the consideration of a committee of the house. It would be better to postpone a reference to law without abandoning it altogether. An hon. gent. had proposed an amendment to the original motion for a civil suit, in which he had moved for a criminal prosecution! and that to ascertain whether or not lord Melville received any profits from the use of the public money. If he did, they ought to be the object of a civil suit. Besides there was no better chance of obtaining that information in a criminal court than in a civil one Evidence must he produced in both, and evidence would prove it in either. The resolutions of the house, contained a censure on lord Melville's conduct. His resignation which was in consequence of those resolutions, was in fact a substantial punishment inflicted by the house. After these grave resolutions, it would be hazardous to send the affair into a court of law. The conviction could not be answered for, nor the sentence on conviction. It would be impossible, he believed, to prove any actual participation in pecuniary advantages, and the legal punishment might not accord exactly with the idea the houses entertained of the heinousness of the offence.
Dr. Laurence
contended, that the resolutions of the house only went to one
500
Sir J. Newport
expressed his preference of a committee with extensive powers, to committee with limited powers, and contended that such a committee should make general enquiry and refer certain points for prosecution. As however this was not to be done, he certainly preferred a criminal prosecution to a civil one. In his estimation, the satisfaction of public justice was of infinitely more consequence than the regaining of a paltry sum of money.
Mr. Pytches
said he thought that if the shameful conduct of this great delinquent were screened, men would, soon become ashamed of speaking against corruption. He severely censured the conduct of then last administration of the right hon. gent. opposite, and spoke with much warmth in favour of a criminal proceeding.
Mr. Fox
said, he had but a word or two to offer on the present question. Gentlemen had alluded to several modes of proceeding, in order to meet the intentions of the house, and the expectations of the country. Some, it appeared, were fora civil, others, for a criminal prosecution: others again, would prefer the mode of impeachment. His object was, to see lord Melville prosecuted and punished one way or the other. As the case now stood, the noble lord was not punished in any degree at all. If the present question, or the amendment moved upon it, or an impeachment, went nearer the accomplishment of their object, he should vote for it. He had no other anxiety, than to see adopted the speediest mode of obtaining redress for his constituents.
Mr. S. Stanhope
in explanation, said, that lord Melville had already been sufficiently punished, unless he was convicted of wilful participation in the illicit profits.
Mr. T. Grenville
felt no very strong motives of preference for a criminal rather than a civil prosecution. Be feared that either would be found inadequate for the discovery of a corrupt participation on the part of lord Melville. But as he now had no other choice, he should vote for the amendment, as it seemed somewhat more closely to follow up the spirit and intention of the resolutions which the house had already adopted. This was more his object than a vain attempt to recover the money.
501
Mr. Sheridan
said, there were two modes proposed; one for a civil suit, and the other for a criminal process. The gent. who proposed the former said, he did not think lord Melville had participated in the slightest degree in the emoluments of Mr. Trotter. He would ask, why then did he move that a civil action should be instituted against him? Surely, every person must see that such a motion was absolutely useless, that it must be worse than useless in the opinion of the gentleman who made the motion; as, though he was convinced lord Melville did not participate in the profits of Mr. Trotter, he made this motion, it is to be supposed, to prevent those on the other side from instituting more effectual proceedings. The house was how driven to make a choice of the two measures, and, something like a grand jury who had not found a bill, they were about to proceed for the recovery of the money, assuming every thing which ought first to be precisely ascertained. The house were turning their backs upon that of which they had proof, namely, the violation of the law, and they were sending the participation, of which they had no proof, before a jury.
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that the hon. gent. who had made the present motion, did not seem to have attended to the circumstances of the case. For that hon. gent. he entertained the highest respect, but he could not think that his motion was calculated to produce any good effect. The subject of the motion was one, on which there was no proof, and in the success of which, their own professional men did not hold out to them any very flattering hopes. What man could seriously listen to the recommendation, who would not I most smile at the right hon. and learned
502
503
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
—I think I am warranted in saying that the mode proposed by the hon. gent. (Mr. S. Stanhope), is that which was approved by a great majority of the house. The question then is, whether we shall wave it, and substitute one which the gentlemen themselves, who have brought it forward, say is liable to some objection? The observation made respecting the powers of the committee does not appear to me to he founded in fact. The question of enlarging its powers did not affect the particular case of lord Melville. The doubt arising upon that subject was whether the powers of the committee were sufficiently wide, and embraced every other proper object of enquiry, exclusive of the particular case referred to a court of law? That, however, is not the question now. The question now is which of the two modes is preferable? and I contend that the civil bill is better calculated to obtain the object than the criminal process. After having inflicted so heavy a wound upon lord Melville, as that which his lordship had already suffered, he did not understand that the house wished to follow it up in a penal way, unless satisfied of his lordship's participation in the profits. With a consciousness to that effect, I thought the house would be content with au assurance that his lordship was not to return to his majesty's councils. I think, then, that
504
Mr. Whitbread.
—The right hon. gent., who has just sat down, argues as if the house had decided that they would proceed by civil suit. That, however, is not the case. He has indulged in much sarcasm against me on account of the course of my proceedings. Sir, I say, that in what I have done, I have proceeded with deliberation, and I am not sorry for any step I have taken. I wish to proceed in both ways. I mean after the house had declared itself upon that part of the charge which is indisputable, I wished for a committee to ascertain every thing else connected with the subject. The house has decided upon the violation of the law, but not upon the participation of viscount Melville in the profits. Now what says the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt)? He advises us to try a civil suit for the participation, while the law officers of the crown admitted it had little chance of success. I therefore wish for a mode by which effectual justice may be done, and that is a committee of the whole house. That a great wound has been inflicted upon my lord Melville by the discovery, I admit; but is that a punishment? When a grand jury finds a bill, is that a punishment for the offence charged, and is the case not to be sent for trial to a petty jury? I admit that the vote of the house compelled the resignation of lord Melville; but there is a great deal of difference between that resignation and his dismissal. The people should have seen and known that he was dismissed. The effect ought to have been plain and palpable to the understanding of every man. If a civil suit were to discover that the money was picked out of the pocket of the public, would that be punishment, unless followed by restitution? I admit I might have the-committee, and the right hon. gent. said he would not oppose it; but to obtain his concurrence, I must have abandoned the particular case in question, and acquiesced in an attempt to cloak and screen lord Melville, and that I did not choose to do. The criminal proceeding is, I am sure, the best calculated to obtain the ends of justice, and I shall accordingly vote for it.
The Attorney-General
wished to offer a word or two in explanation of the opinion
505
Mr. Tierney.
—I cannot agree in the scanty and restricted powers which some honourable and learned gentlemen will only allow to this house. I always thought, that by the spirit of the constitution it possessed stronger inquisitorial powers than any other tribunal in the country. .The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) would have it understood, that the house does not wish to proceed to any more punishment against lord Melville; but I contend, on the contrary, that the house has not shewn any disposition to stop here. We have voted that lord Melville has violated the law, for private emolument. What then is the next question? Why give us the money back again, and we have done with you? But how are we to get the money? The attorney-general gives very little hope of the mode proposed; and therefore I approve of a committee of the whole house as the best mode of getting at the crime, the punishment, and pecuniary redress. I feel it an unpleasant task to rise for the purpose of defending the dignity of the house. The house may not waste its time upon persons of inferior note; but I contend that there is no precedent of a minister, high in the king's councils for many years, breaking the and suspected of a corrupt motive in doing so, being handed over to the attorney-general. I am confident there is no case nor precedent of the kind. I disclaim a vindictive spirit towards viscount Melville, and assert, that my conduct yields to no influence, except a sincere regard for the honour of the house of commons. I think, therefore, that the house cannot stop here, but, that it must call for some
506
Mr. Serjeant Best
challenged any law officer of the crown to state, that any good was likely to result from the mode they supported. The books and papers of third parties could not be called for. All that was wanted could be got by criminal prosecution. If a man was not pronounced guilty who refused to answer a question, still no jury would be found to declare him innocent who was a self-convicted violator of the law. The wound inflicted was not much in point of fortune, considering the places the noble lord still retained. It must then be sought in his character. But if it was there, it was strange indeed that, with such a wounded character he should remain a private counsellor of his sovereign. The house then divided on the question, "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of this question," Ayes 223, Noes 128, majority 95. The amendment was of course rejected, and the original motion carried.
Mr. Fox
then moved, "that the house do now adjourn;" and on this question there was another Ayes 98, Noes 240, majority 142.—While strangers were excluded, the report of the committee appointed to examine the lists given in en the ballot for the select committee was brought up. On reading the report, it appeared that the names of the members chosen for the committee corresponded exactly with those in the list read on Friday by Mr. Whitbread.
Mr. Whitbread
then stated, that it was his intention to move that some of the names on this list should be expunged; but as that motion would probably occa-
507
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 30.
[MINUTES.]
Their lordships proceeded further in the Appeal, Blane, esq. Trustee for sir Andrew Cathcart, against the earl of Cassilis. Mr. H. Erskine was heard in continuation on the part of the respondent, after which the further consideration was postponed till Thursday.—Several private bills were brought from the commons, and read a first time.—Mr. Owen, from the East India house, presented certain accounts pursuant to act of parliament, which were ordered to lie on the table.— The order of the day being moved for the second reading of the bill for dissolving the marriage of John Moore, esq. and Barbara Brabazon, his late wife, and for enabling him to marry again. Mr. Adam was heard as counsel for the petitioner. It appeared that there was an inaccuracy in the recital of one of the clauses of the bill, and on that account the party obtained leave to withdraw it, for the purpose of introducing a new one. The hearing of counsel was then postponed to Thursday next.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 30.
[MINUTES.]
The Thames Tunnel bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed.—Mr. Lee obtained leave to bring in a bill to supply cities and market towns in Ireland with water.—The secretary at war presented an estimate of the expences of volunteer and yeomanry corps, which he gave notice, would be referred to the committee of Supply on Friday next; in which committee Mr. Pitt also gave notice, that he would move the army extraordinaries.—Mr. J .Fitzgerald called the attention of the house to an extraordinary construction (the arrest of judge Johnson) which had been put upon the act made for the purpose of arresting felons and traitors in any other part of the united Kingdom. He was proceeding to comment with severity on this construction,when the Speaker informed him it was not regular to enter fully into observations of this nature, but that he should simply give notice measure he intended to
508
[MIDDLESEX ELECTION.] Mr. Henry Thornton,
pursuant to his notice yesterday, rose to move for the discharge of the order for taking into consideration the petition complaining of the want of qualification of Mr. Mainwaring, on Thursday the 2d of May. There were two ways of getting rid of the petition, either by withdrawing it, or by discharging the order. As those who presented the petition had neglected to withdraw it, and as the time fixed for taking it into consideration was so near, he
509
Mr. Creevey
suggested, that it would be the more proper way to have the consideration of the petition adjourned.
Mr. Thornton
observed, that when the petition was presented, Mr. Mainwaring was a member of the house, and being so no longer, the house was of course capable of discharging an order which now was useless.
Mr. Creevey
considered the point in question to be a new one, and said he should take it as a favour if the hon. gent. would defer his-motion till to-marrow.
The Speaker
said the proceedings in the affair amounted to this: the petition was presented against a member on the ground of disqualification, That member had been dispossessed of his seat, in consequence of another petition, and therefore the petition did not apply. The only questions therefore was, whether the house had the power of disembarrassing itself from it?
Mr. Thornton
said the petition was perfectly useless, as the house could not proceed upon it.
Mr. P. Moore
said the petition looked to an eventual circumstance, and might therefore be applicable at another time, and he was commissioned by the parties who signed it to say, that deeming Mr. Mainwaring disqualified, they wished their petition to go collaterally with another, which was still depending.
Mr. Thornton
replied, that should that be the Case, sir Francis Burdett's friends would still have a right to be heard before a committee.—The order of the day was then discharged.
[PANCRAS POOR BILL.] Sir T. Met
moved the second reading of the Pancras Poor bill, which, he observed, was for the purpose of remedying the defects in the act passed last session. If any objections were made to any parts of the bill, these, he observed, could be rectified when it was referred to a committee. His object was to place the parish of St. Pancras on the same footing as the pariah of St.
510
Mr, Calcraft and P. Moore
pronounced the bill a mere job, which was abandoned by the members of the county, by whom it was brought in, as it was against the general wish of the parishioners. They also objected to the bill on the grounds that the directors appointed their successors, and even the auditors of their own accounts; and it was a mere job, that ought not to be countenanced by the house of commons. Very great malversation had occurred, which was to come the ensuing term before the King's. Bench;. and therefore the house, they had no doubt, would not entertain the present bill.—The house then divided for the second reading, Ayes 42—Noes 30. The bill was their read a second time, and was ordered to be committed.
[STIPENDIARY CURATES' BILL.] The Attorney-General,
pursuant to notice, rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill for encouraging the residence of Stipendiary Curates on their cures. The bill was the same as one which had already received the sanction of the house, though from its having had, when it passed before, a clause in it for making provisions for such curates as should be deprived of their curacies by the effect of the rectors' residence bill, it had been considered in the other house as a money bill, and on that ground rejected. His learned friend (sir William Scott) who had introduced that bill, had since brought forward another without the exceptionable clauses, but had been prevented, by, his professional duties, from attending to its progress. The same cause still prevented him from bringing forward the measure, and in consequence the duty had devolved on him. His object was not to alter the laws as they stand at present with respect to livings under 400l, per annum, the bishops having power to enforce a residence; but when the living exceeded that sum, he thought there could be no objection to a clause for obliging the rector to provide a resident clergyman, with a salary of 200l. a year. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill to encourage the residence of stipendiary curates on their cures.
Sir. John Newport
expressed his hopes that Ireland would not be excluded from the benefit of the act proposed, as there was no other part of the empire where the
511
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said he understood that provisions to the effect alluded to would be made in the bill proposed to be brought in by an hon. and learned gent. (Dr. Duigenan).
Mr. P. Moore
hoped it was meant to make the duty of residence mandatory on the clergy.
Mr. Creevey
apprehended that the intended provision to curates was rather too limited.
The Attorney-General
agreed with sir J. Newport, that if there was any soundness of principle in the bill, it applied with equal strength to Ireland as it did to England; but he possessed too little local information respecting that country, to undertake such a measure of himself; and he had heard it argued, on a former occasion, that it would be too hard to compel curates to reside in parishes where no residence was appropriated to them.
Dr. Duigenan
said, that the bill he had the honour to move for would embrace the objects alluded to by the hon. bart.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.
[BALLOT FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ELEVENTH NAVAL REPORT.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day for reading the report of the committee appointed to examine the lists of twenty-one persons given in for the purpose of constituting a select committee on the tenth naval report. The names were accordingly read, with the number of the votes for each.
Mr. Whitbread
then rose and said, that the reading of those names which the house had just now heard, completely justified him in the very serious motion which he should have the honour of submitting to them, according to the notice he had given the other day, provided that these names turned out the same as those he himself had formerly read to them. It did so happen that they identically corresponded with each other. This shewed that the reports which had gained ground without doors, as to a list of names having been industriously circulated, for the purpose of composing that important committee, were well founded. The house had already decided, that it was no breach of the orders or
512
quietus
513
514
515
516
517
The Master of the Rolls
said, if it were necessary that every member of a committee should constantly attend the duty, many of those now proposed ought to be excluded; but this was not considered expedient. He had never represented himself as so absorbed in business, that he had no moment and no day which he could devote to this branch of his parliamentary engagements. He had frequently acted in such situations: he was named for one on the civil list; for another of considerable consequence relating to barley grain in Scotland; and he had sufficient time to form his opinion, and to assist in the preparations of the report. He trusted then he was not to be considered as unqualified, and he hoped it was not thought on every frivolous pretence he was disposed to abandon any duty, which it was fit that a member of that house should perform. Certain he was, that he had never deserted any situation of this kind in which he was called upon to act, but on account of its interference with his indispensable engagements in some other place. He was on a secret committee in 1794, upon another in 1799, but if he were unfit for such a charge as that now proposed, he should with great pleasure submit to the direction of the house. Many years he had enjoyed the honour of being a member of that house, but he had never made extravagant professions; he was convinced his character must depend, not upon self-applause, but upon conduct. If he had never vaunted of high qualities to the disparagement of others, he had not wholly disclaimed party feelings and party principles, and he should rather think the worse of that man who was destitute of either. If, by the peculiar circumstances he was now called upon to vindicate his own honour, he would publicly proclaim, that he never in that house uttered a sentiment he did not conscientiously feel; when he expressed his opinion, that the Sheriffs of Middlesex should not be punished before they were heard by their counsel, whatever might be attributed to him, he was influenced by no party bias; he imputed to neither side improper motives; he had a more fit employment in regarding the purity of his own. He was discussing a most unpleasant topic, he was speaking of himself—a subject, he
518
Mr. Whitbread
lamented he had been so unsuccessful as not to make himself understood; he thought it was impossible for any man to apply a construction, on what was said, in the smallest degree disrespectful to the right hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. Wortley Stuart
observed, that whatever influence the treasury might have used in circulating lists, it certainly had not done more than the hon. gentleman had done by circulating the lists which he had brought down the other day. In his list, every man named had voted against lord Melville; and did this shew a greater degree of impartiality than that list which had been ascribed to the treasury?
Mr. Fox
was at all times happy to pay due deference to the usage of the house, when it was governed by the fit respect to the principles of the British constitution. The attempt of an individual to force a list for a committee upon the house, would be culpable; but it was in a much higher degree criminal for any such experiment to emanate from the treasury, accompanied with the influence that must be presumed from that quarter. If his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had brought down a list, he should have voted for it, provided he approved of it; but if his own conduct were the immediate object of investigation, he should have been utterly ashamed of himself, if he did not take all possible means of shewing to the public, he would have no share in recommending a single individual, for the purpose of such an enquiry. If his friend should produce to him a list, where he (Mr. Fox) was then personally concerned, he would say, "I will have nothing
519
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that on this subject the feelings of men seemed to lead them to extraordinary extremes. If he was to be sent on his trial where no charge had been exhibited—if he acceded to this, what they required was, that his jury should be entirely composed of men whom he could challenge for cause. This might be their notions of justice, but if he had any thing to apprehend from the effects of the spirit of party, the only way to determine the point properly was to take care that the majority should not be composed of those whom habit, if not conviction, might lead to find him guilty. He was not so chimerical in point of honour, so forgetful of the principles of reason, justice, and the law of England, as to put himself in the situation which they proposed, for the perilous chance of acquiring their approbation. Nor was the practice of parliament on this occasion so inconsistent, as had been represented, with the maxims of the British constitution, The committee had been appointed in the way most usual on such occasions. It was true that the mode had often been objected to, yet, upon argument, it had been approved. Committees so appointed had produced reports most satisfactory to the house and to the nation, and he was not, upon old exploded reasoning, disposed to renounce what had been so long established. Had not the house already decided the committee was to be chosen by ballot?
520
521
Mr. Sheridan
said, there was a warmth intruded into the discussion, which did not belong to it. The real question was, which side of the house most conduced to support the character of the house, and to fulfil the just expectations of the public? In some degree the right hon. gent. seemed to have a correct notion of the subject, but in order to justify himself, he presumed to call the opinion of the nation a party cry. Were the resolutions of the City of London a party cry? Were the meetings all over the kingdom a party cry? Was the vote of the house of commons, supported by the independent spirit of its speaker, a party cry? It ought to be known, that the time was at hand, when it was necessary to encourage the friends of the state, by the loud voice of the people. The gent. on his side of the house did not challenge the individuals proposed for the committee without cause. They distinctly said, no one holding a place under the crown, is a proper person to examine the conduct of the first lord of the treasury. They said, a person like the noble lord, who had since the union acted with the minister, went out with him, came again into office with him, and remained to open a back door for the right hon. gent.'s admission, is not a fit man to be employed on such an occasion. Perhaps, the
irœ amantium,
522
523
Mr. H. Lascelles
said, he wished to trouble the house with but a very few words indeed, to which he was induced by what had fallen from the hon. gent. opposite. He had said that he thought the committee was very objectionable from the mode in which it had been balloted for, and that all the members might be supposed to be partially inclined. He did not wish to go into a committee concerning which such impressions prevailed, and he thought it necessary to ask whether the hon. gent. had any objection to him?
Mr. Whitbread
assured the hon. gentle-
524
Mr. H. Lascelles
acknowledged the hon. gent. had done so, and he felt himself much obliged by the compliment; but he did not allude to him, but to what had been said by Mr. Sheridan.
Mr. Sheridan
disclaimed all idea of the smallest objection to the hon. gent. and said that his objection did not go to the committee, but to the mode in which it had been appointed by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Fuller
said, though he felt a great respect for the hon. members who composed the committee, he was afraid, from the way in which it had been appointed, the public would not think it so impartial as it ought to be. It was known, he said, as well as the sun at noon-day, that his side of the house wished the right hon. gent. out of office; and it was as well known that he would endeavour to keep in as long as he could. He was sorry to see him proceeding in such a way, to obtain an enquiry into his conduct. He thought the committee he had recommended the other night would have been a much fairer one, viz, the taking one alternately from each side of the house, and all those to whom he had since mentioned it were of the same opinion. Why were not the names of two hon. gentlemen below in this list; gentlemen of the most noble and independent principles, and who had for many years past supported the measures of the right hon. gentleman? He mentioned Mr. Bankes by name (and there was a cry of order! order!). The other gent. alluded to was Mr. Wilberforce. He was afraid, he said, their names were left out, because they had dared to vote against him on a late memorable question. He exhorted those gentlemen, however, to go on, and one day or other the country would most assuredly reward them. He said, if the hon. and learned gent. (the Master of the Rolls) was always quibbling in another place as he was here, he would not give a farthing for his arguments.
Mr. Canning
complained that his right hon. and learned friend (the Master of the
525
526
Mr. Jekyll
thought, that in the course of the proceedings, he and his friends with whom he acted, had reason to complain of want of candour from the right hon. gent. on the other side of the house. The only question now before the house was, whether the noble lord opposite was a fit person to be on that committee, situated and connected as he was with the right hon. gent. near him, on whose conduct, as first lord of the treasury, that committee was to sit in the nature of a jury. The right hon. gent. had not, it seemed, entirely forgotten the early habits of his life, and had therefore talked in the language of that profession, to which he was bred, "of a challenge for cause." He begged, however, as a professional man also, to remind the right hon. gent., that there were in our law two sorts of challenges, and that the other of them was "a challenge of the array," by which last the law provides that no public officer shall chose his own jury, and he was astonished the right hon. gent. should attempt to take advantage of being tried by a tribunal of his own nomination. One thing had also struck him most forcibly. His hon. friend who brought forward this motion had objected to the name of the noble lord, and in the whole course of the debate not one reason had been given against this objection. The simple question came therefore to this, would the public be satisfied with the nature of this proceeding? He did not think it would; and, as he wished the house to revise their decision in the appointment of this committee, he should vote for the motion, and hoped the noble lord's name would accordingly be expunged from the list.
Mr. Windham
said, that it was his intention to propose that his name should be struck off from this committee, upon nearly the same grounds on which he meant to contend that the noble lord (lord Castlereagh) who was the subject of the motion, was ineligible, namely, the friendly footing on which he had been with the noble lord (lord Melville), as well as with the right hon. gent., whose conduct was also to be investigated. The official con-
527
528
529
Lord Castlereagh
rose, expressing much reluctance in the necessity by which he was impelled to call the attention of the house, when he was personally the subject of debate. He then applied himself to the charges brought against him by the hon. gent. who moved to strike his name from the committee, and said, the hon. gent. in the allusions he had made to himself, and the several public topics with which he had been publicly and officially connected, only exercised a privilege to which, as a member of parliament, he was fairly entitled, and for which he felt not the slightest degree of animosity towards the hon. member. He totally denied the alledged analogy between his excusing himself upon oath from sitting on election committees, which were attended with circumstances specifically required by act of parliament, totally incompatible with the discharge of his official duties, and his competence to attend upon a committee of this kind, where a perpetual attendance upon the whole of its sittings was not required, but might be optional, and more suited to his opportunities. If the present committee had required an attendance equally close, he should have felt it his duty to state to the house, that his official avocations must render that attendance impracticable, and have claimed the indulgence of the house to be excused from serving on it. The house having done him the honour to name him as a member, it would ill become him to arraign its wisdom; and though he was ready to avow his strong personal attachment to his right hon. friend, and that it the committee were to exercise a judicial power, possibly his time of life, and his little experience in such investigation, might render him not so eligible to the duty as his right hon. and learned friend, the master of the rolls; yet, considering it was the duty of the committee merely to enquire into the truth of facts upon proof; that it was in the power of no member of that committee to conceal a single fact that should come out in the course of enquiry; that those facts must be detailed in their report to the house, who, and not the committee, were to exercise judicial decision; he felt nothing on the situation, or the nature of his connections with his right hon. friend, that could disqualify him from discharging the duties imposed upon him by the nomination. With respect to the allusion made by the hon. member, to his having retired from. power with his right hon. friend, on the circumstance of a great political measure, and re-
530
Mr. Grey
said, that he could not remain silent, when he heard the conclusion of the
531
532
prima facie
533
The Attorney General
observed, that the hon. gent. who had spoken last, had expressed himself with great warmth, in defence of his political friends. In his opinion that part of their political life in which they thought fit to abstain from attending their duty in the house of commons, was not very honourable or advantageous to their character. The right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Windham) had contended, that public opinion was not to be made a general rule of
534
Mr. Windham,
in explanation, stated, that he did not use the words alluded to by the right hon. gent. in the sense attributed to him. When he made use of the phrase, "accusing committee," he did not mean that it was to be so composed as the learned gent. imagined; it was not his wish to exclude impartiality from it, although he wished that the valuable qualities of research, intelligence, and investigation should be amply discovered in it.
535
Mr. Robert Thornton
stated, that he did not think the circulation of lists an offence of that grave character that some gentlemen seemed to conceive. He thought it perfectly justifiable, for if men, whose political inclinations generally coincided, did not Consult and concur with each other upon such occasions as the one which had just given rise to the discussion before the house, it would be in the power of any ten members to carry the appointment of the persons who should be nominated to try the most important question. He believed lists might have been circulated from the treasury; but to counterbalance this, had not opposition their lists also? If no lists should be sent out, government, or opposition, or any other lot of men, might decide upon any question where ballot should be employed; and the noble lord who was now objected to might have his ten friends, and be borne off by that number of persons politically attached to him, or ruined by his adversaries. He would acknowledge he had received one of those lists, from whom he knew not; and he exercised his discretion upon it to the same extent that he presumed every member who received one did; he made such alterations in it, and those with respect to more names than one, as he conceived indispensible towards obtaining an impartial, active, and enlightened committee. He could perceive that on the ballot but few of the opposition members put in their lists, and he thought he could perceive the motives which influenced them to decline the exercise of that privilege; and that was, because they had determined at the time to bring forward this motion. He was one of those who had voted with the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) in censuring lord Melville, and upon that occasion he had acted with a number of friends, among whom many shades and differences of opinion existed, respecting the degree of culpability imputable to that noble lord. Was the tenor of that vote to be arraigned, because they had met and consulted with each other? He did not suppose the hon. gent. would say yes. He felt it to be his duty to concur in the motion of that hon. gent. on the 8th; and although he had since differed with him on one or more occasions, he did not think it improbable, but that both he, and those who acted with him, might have opportunities of voting again in support of a motion brought forward by that hon. gent. The present motion, however, was one which neither he nor any of his friends could support.
536
Mr. Richard Martin
said, that if he could have brought himself to be on the same opinion with the hon. and learned gent. (the Attorney General) he would have put an end to the debate long ago. Would it not, he asked, he, more honourable for the noble viscount to be acquitted by his accusers than by his friends, as much as it would be more to the honour of an individual to be acquitted by a jury, the foreman of which was known to be his personal enemy? The time of the house, he thought, had been very unnecessarily taken up in discussing whether the name of the noble lord should be continued on the list, or no. He was not of the opinion of those who laid it down as a principle not to be deviated from, that a public functionary was by no means to be received into a committee appointed for such a purpose as that proposed. By no means. He would examine what the character of that functionary was. If he found such a person to have been uniformly venal out of office, and corrupt when in it, he could not consider such a man as a fit subject for a committee. He would say a few words in answer to one argument from that noble lord. He was one of those who had been accused of raising a cry against the Union; true, he had opposed it. Since that great legislative measure took place, and since he came into this country, he saw many reasons to approve of it. He would, with the indulgence of the house, explain ,what they were—
The Speaker
begged leave to remind the hon. member that the observations upon which he was about to enter could have no possible bearing upon the subject before the house for discussion.
Mr. Martin
gave way, and after a short conversation, during which strangers were excluded, the house proceeded to a division on Mr. Whitbread's motion for expunging the name of Lord Castlereagh, and inserting that of Mr. Baker in its place.—Ayes 86—Noes 219.—Majority against Mr. Whitbread's motion 133.
Mr. Windham,
having stated to the house, that he had been a member of the administration in which the abuses described in the Tenth Report are alledged to have taken place; and having submitted other considerations to the house, why his name should be struck out of the said list, concluded with a motion to that effect; upon which motion another division took place:—Ayes 80. Noes 207. Majority 127.—Adjourned.
537
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, May 1.
[MINUTES.]
ex- party
[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.]
The Duke of
Norfolk
Lord
Grenville
538
The
Lord Chancellor
The Bishop of
Oxford
The Duke of
Norfolk
Lord
Hawkesbury
The Bishop of
Oxford
539
Lord
Sidmouth
The
Lord Chancellor
Lord
Hawkesbury
Lord
Grenville
Lord
Sidmouth
540
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 1.
The speaker attended at half past three, and at four o'clock there being only 39 members present, including the speaker, the house of course adjourned to to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 2.
[MINUTES.]
—Counsel were further heard relative to the Scots' Appeal, Cathcart, bart.
v.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 2.
[MINUTES]
—Mr. Grattan was sworn and took his seat for the borough of Malton.—A new writ was ordered for the election of a member for the borough of Helstone, in the room of John Penn, esq. who had accepted the chiltern hundreds.—The Irish Mail Coach Road bill, the Irish Loan bill, and the Irish Dollar bill, were read a second time, and ordered to be committed.—Mr. Baker obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of 9 Geo. I. in regulating the duty of parish officers, so far as relates to contracts for lodging, maintaining, and employing the poor.—Mr. Leycester moved, that a message be sent to the house of lords, to request that lord Melville have leave to come and be examined before the committee to which had been referred the further examination of the matter contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. The Message was ordered, and Mr. Leycester to be the bearer of it.
541
[LORD MELVILLE'S GRANT.]
—Lord
H. Petty
542
Mr. Bond
—It is true my name appears upon the warrant; and I subscribed it without any hesitation, upon the authority of what appears at the beginning of that document, that the business was done with the concurrence of the barons of the exchequer in Scotland. I certainly take no blame to myself in the affair, since it was done with their acknowledged advice and approbation. But I think it due to this house, and to the public, on the present occasion, to advance one step farther. It was not known to me, nor, I believe, to any of my colleagues who signed the instrument, that it had reference to arrears to an amount of any consideration, Some small sum, we thought, might be comprised under that head, but that it should cover an item exceeding 3000l. I believe none of us entertained the most remote idea.—This account was also ordered.
[PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRINTER OF "THE ORACLE," FOR A LIBEL ON THE HOUSE.]—Sir Henry Mildmay
presented a petition from Peter Stuart, proprietor of the paper called The Oracle, then in custody of the serjeant at arms, by order of the house, for a breach of privilege in a paragraph in that paper, and moved, that the said petition be read. The petition was accordingly read by the clerk, and is as follows:—"To the honourable the house of commons in parliament assembled, the petition of Peter Stuart, printer and publisher of a morning newspaper intitled 'The Daily Advertiser, Oracle, and True Briton,' most humbly sheweth, that for the publication of that part of his paper of Thursday last, deemed highly offensive to this honourable house, he feels the deepest regret; and that although certain expressions in that paragraph be indiscreet and unguarded, and such as have incurred the displeasure of so important a branch of the British constitution, yet that your petitioner humbly hopes, on this acknowledgment of his sincere sorrow, that this honourable house, in the plenitude of its condescension and liberality, will be pleased to pardon him for a transgression solely attributable to the hasty composition of a newspaper, and not to any
543
Mr. Windham
called the attention of the house to the insolence of this petition, and asked whether any thing like it had ever been known? The condescension of the petitioner in bearing testimony to the private character of the speaker, and the office he held, was indeed extraordinary. However far the house could go in tolerating the insolence offered to it, and to every thing else sacred in the state, he was decidedly of opinion that the insolence of this petition was beyond all toleration. He left it to the
544
Sir Henry Mildmay
said, he really saw nothing improper in the petition, nor could he understand why the hon. gent. should cry out so much against it. If it was the allusion to lord Melville, and the credit given to him, and those who acted with him, for those measures which enabled the house to preserve its place, he had no hesitation for himself to avow the same sentiments, He could not help believing that the right hon. gent. misunderstood the language of the petition. He did not see the smallest impropriety in the petition, and he therefore continued his motion.
Mr. Fox,
although he professed himself to be no way averse to the object of the petition, thought that the petition itself was a very improper one to be presented to the house. It was unnecessary and improper to introduce in a petition of this nature, the opinions of the petitioner respecting the conduct of lord Melville in other times, and upon former occasions. He was at a loss to know for what other meaning this topic had been introduced, but for the object of attacking those who brought him before that house. The other topic which he had chosen for his defence, namely, the general principles on which he had long conducted a newspaper, appeared to him a most unseemly ground for the petitioner to rest his defence upon. In the first place, how was the house to know the fact? How was it to be expected that they should know what newspapers he conducted, or what was his manner of conducting them? He could not conceive that the house could admit of such a ground of defence, unless ministers wished now to inculcate the doctrine, that it will always be admitted as an excuse for those who may be brought before them for libelling that house, that the person who has,
545
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could not well understand the conclusion drawl by the hon. gent. from the topic he had last stated. If the petitioner had stated generally, that he had been in the habit of sup porting administration, or any set of ministers, that would certainly have been nothing to urge in vindication or extenuation of the offence which drew upon him the displeasure and punishment of the house; but when it was recollected, that it was for a libel on the house of commons that he had been ordered into custody, it was undoubtedly a topic of extenuation of the offence to alledge, that so far from being in the habit of libelling them, he had always before supported, as much as in him lay, the resolutions and decisions of the house of commons. He must allow, however, that the language and tone of the petition were not exactly what would have appeared to him the most proper. It was not, however, with this petitioner alone, but it appeared to him a common fault with almost all who were connected with the press, that they assumed a loftier stile, and gave themselves something more of importance, than appeared naturally to belong to them. As to the danger of the times, in which the petitioner alledges that he has supported the house of commons, in that he was fully borne out by the high authority of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) who had frequently and very forcibly described those dangers in that house; and who, as well as the petitioner, had often attributed to that administration of which lord Melville formed a part, the salvation of the country. This opinion was not singular: it had been for many years the prevailing opinion of both houses of parliament, and of a considerable portion of the people of this country. It in common with them the petitioner had felt the importance of the services that had been rendered to the public by lord Melville, and those with whom he acted, it was certainly competent to him to state this circumstance in his vindication. He had stated the ground of his partiality to lord Melville to proceed from his opinion of the great services he had performed; it was therefore not surprising that those who do not relish
546
Mr. Windham
begged the house would observe how small a part of this petition was taken up with expressions of sorrow and contrition in comparison to what had been allotted to the other topics. It certainly could not be supposed that he disagreed altogether from the opinions stated in those topics, and more particularly in that one which was complimentary to the speak-
547
non erat hic locus.
Sir William Burroughs
rose to order. He thought it irregular for a member to make a second speech with a view of moving an amendment.
The Speaker
gave his opinion, that by the rules of the house the right hon. gent. could not make a second speech to move an amendment.
Mr. Grey
felt extremely sorry to be obliged again to trouble the house on this business. He did not know what was the precise nature of the amendment intended to be moved by his rt. hon. friend (Mr. Windham) but he thought it was evident that the house was now placed in a situation that made it impossible to avoid passing some severer punishment than was at first thought of. If the nature of the composition which was presented as a petition was considered, it would appear to have been written altogether in a strain of defiance and accusation. This was the general tone of it, and nothing proved it more strongly than the defence of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). Could the house countenance the petition of a person who placed himself in the situation of accuser of one of the parties? Was it not evident that the general object of the petition was to attack those who brought this business before the consideration of the house? He must confess it gave him very uneasy sensations the other night, when he heard an hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan) give the term of "milk and water," to what he conceived the grossest libel against the character of the house that ever was submitted to their consideration. It was by no means to be considered as an animated discussion of public affairs, but a mere composition of unqualified abuse against the majority of the house. It was an attack upon their character as judges sitting in a court of justice; it called them intemperate, partial and presumptuous. He, on the former night, had left the libel to the consideration of the house, without making any observa-
548
Mr. Canning
thought the hon. member might have spared all those topics that related to the libel itself, and have confined himself to the petition which was before the house. If the hon. member who had himself brought forward this business, was content on the night he brought it forward with the small measure of punishment that was mentioned, or rather with the no punishment, it was not competent to him now to go back and argue that a severe punishment should be inflicted for that offence. The hon. gent. took great credit to himself for being so ready to comply with the suggestion of a light punishment; he should also have given equal credit to the conduct of his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) on that occasion. Whatever feelings he might have had in bringing the business forward, was best known to himself; but it was most clear that nothing but a sense of duty to the house could have governed the conduct of his hon. friend on that occasion. Whatever might be the motives of the apparent lenity of the very persons who complained of the libel, it was evident that the motive of his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) in suggesting a more serious punishment was, that he conceived it due to the character and dignity of the house, and that even when he was himself in a minority, he felt that the decisions of the majority ought to be treated with the highest respect. As to the part of the petition which contained complimentary expressions towards the speaker, although strictly speaking the petitioner was not to be supposed to know that it had been dwelt on as an aggravation of his offence that he had spoken so disrespectfully of a decision which was determined by the casting vote of the speaker, yet he did not suppose that any member could so adhere to strict formality, as to censure the petitioner for merely answering a charge that had been made against him. Although it might, at first sight, appear somewhat ludicrous to hear
549
Mr. Sheridan
said, that although it was peculiarly disagreeable to him to mix in any debate, when his partiality even to the excesss of liberty for the press would interfere with the opinion he would otherwise have formed, yet, on the present occasion, he
550
551
Mr. Dent
thought the petition contained no matter that could he adduced in aggravation of the original libel. It appeared to him a great inconsistency in the hon. member, (Mr. Sheridan) to give credit to the legislature for the salutary laws it had enacted, and yet give no credit to the administration who had brought them forward.
Mr. Sheridan,
in explanation, said the hon. gent. had completely misunderstood him. He neither meant to give credit to those laws as salutary, nor to the government that introduced those laws.
The Attorney General
thought it was a most extraordinary speech which the house had just now heard from the hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan). His expression on the other night was a remarkable one, and would not easily be forgotten. He had described the libel as a " mere milk and water" production, when compared with many others, and yet this night be found out that it was a
552
Mr. Whitbread
considered that his hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) had properly stated the grounds from which the disposition to lenity on a former night proceeded. There were two solutions of it. In the first place, his hon. friend (Mr. Grey) had complained of a libel; the house unanimously agreed that it was a gross libel; and, under these circumstances, it was not surprising that his hon. friend (Mr. Grey) should, as usual, feel a greater disposition to lenity than the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). If the fact, however, was, that it was one of the minority of the 8th of April, who both wrote that libel and drew up the petition, it was not extraordinary that that hon. member should warmly defend his own productions. The set-off in this case is curious. The editor, who is punished for libelling the majority of the house, tells you, in his vindication, that he has very frequently libelled the minority. Was it to be endured, that an editor of a newspaper should tell the house of commons that he had sat in judgment upon them and their proceedings, and pronounced his applause or his censure on the different parties in parliament as he thought fit? This set-off stated, that lord Melville had been an old and faithful servant of the crown. It had, however, been proved, that for more than 16 years of the time he was in office, he had been an unfaithful servant; and that the principal object of him and his colleagues was to cling to office as long as they could. As to the party heats which prevailed at those times, they were in a great measure gone and obliterated from the page of history, The right hon. gent. himself (Mr. Pitt) had, if there was any faith in man, proposed and recommended his hon. friend (Mr. Fox) as a fit person to hold a high office in the government of the country; and, therefore, he could not have supposed that he deserved those scandalous libels which had been thrown out against his character. Without wishing for any severity of punishment to be inflicted on the present occasion,
553
Sir H. Mildmay
answered, that he had heard nothing in the latter part of the discussion which altered in any manner the opinion he had before formed.
Mr. Ryder
thought that the topics objected to had been very fairly and naturally introduced into the petition, and if the house was to consent to have the petition withdrawn upon these grounds, he thought it would convey a severe reflection and libel on the conduct of that government to whom the country had been so much indebted. Although he by no means wished to revive party animosities, yet he considered that the petitioner had a right, when the question came in his way, to state, in extenuation, the reasons for which he felt so much zeal in the cause of lord Melville; and, for his part, although he was not at all personally acquainted with his lordship, he should not hesitate to say, that whatever offences he may have committed, he had rendered great and important services to his country.
Sir John
Newport wished to give an hon. member (Mr. Canning) an opportunity of explaining what he meant by saying lord Melville had fallen a victim to the anger of that House?
Mr. Canning
did not recollect having used the expression: he thought he had said the displeasure of the house, and that even that phrase he had given with a qualification.
Lord De Blaquiere
thought the origina llibel was much aggravated by the stile of the petition. He did not think that the house should take notice of every sentiment that was put in writing by a blockhead. He could not bring himself to think that a man was worth notice, who would not take advice even for his own relief. The hurry of the press was given in excuse for the original paragraph; but, it should be recollected that the circumstance upon which that writer had thought fit to comment, took place before the recess, and it was not right to admit any thing which was untrue as an extenuation. He had received good advice, and had not availed himself of it, but had acted in oppo-
554
Lord Marsham
thought equal credit was due to those who first brought this business forward, and those who, when it was brought forward, decided on it according to what was due to the character of the house. He did not think that every printer should be allowed to appoint himself a censor of the proceedings of that house. He, however, did not wish the punishment to proceed any farther, but should be glad that a more seemly and becoming petition was presented to the house, than that which had been read.
Mr. Whitbread
then said, he should move that the petition be negatived and returned to the petitioner, in order that another might be immediately presented which would be fitter for the house to receive. The first page of the petition would be fully sufficient.
Mr. Fox
appeared to think the previous question would be the best way of disposing of it.
The Speaker
thought that the previous question could not be put upon the motion in its present form.
Mr. Whitbread
then said, he should negative the question, intending, however, to vote for the receiving a petition that might be unobjectionable immediately after.
Mr. Wiberforce
said he was a friend to the liberty of the press, and particularly as it related to subjects of a political nature, which were more important to be discussed than any other, as far as the interest of the public was concerned; and for that reason he should be disposed to make greater allowance even for excess of liberty in those topics than in others, because they were more likely to lead men to a warmth of expression than any other, and because they ought to be discussed with greater boldness, and boldness of discussion naturally lead to excess, upon some occasions. He allowed also what had been hinted at already, that wherever any one was accused of misconduct, it was but fair that he should call his conduct, previous to that accusation, in aid of his case, as it might operate to soften the rigour of judgment against him; and therefore he should, in a case like the present, be among those who were disposed to be most liberal; for he wished to allow all possible latitude to political discussion. He therefore wished to see no attack made on the liberty of the press, for which reason he could have wished that this had not been
555
556
The Solicitor General
said, that with the opinions of the hon. gent. behind him (Mr. Wilberfore) he entirely concurred, and with those of the noble lord sitting below him likewise, for he concurred in the sentiment, that the apology ought to he offered, not to one side of the house, but to the whole house. He concurred in the observation, that whenever a libel was published on the house of commons, it was not one side of it only that ought to be offended, but the whole house ought to be so, and most undoubtedly was so. In such case the dignity of the whole house ought to be vindicated; and if any petitioner had endeavoured to make his escape from the indignation of the house by conciliating one part of it instead of the whole house—if he endeavoured to shelter himself by any such attempt, the judgment of the house would only be the more severe against him. But he had been accustomed, when he heard an argument on any document, to look at the document itself, instead of taking the contents of it from the description of another, before he drew any conclusion from it; in other words, he chose to examine the premises before he drew any conclusion because if the premises were not true, the conclusion was not likely to be correct.—Now his hon. friend behind him (if he was allowed to give him that name) had observed that the apology ought to have extended to the whole house in this case; and he had observed there was no
sorrow
regret
557
558
559
Sir H. Mildmay
explained, and observed, that although the petition had been shewn to the hon. gent. on the other side (Mr. Sheridan) it did not contain now any part of the paragraph to which that hon. gent. objected, except the two last lines.
Mr. Sheridan
explained also, observing, that he did not mean to say the whole of the paragraph to which he objected when he saw the petition was in it now; but part of that paragraph was retained, and to that part he objected.
Mr. Atkins Wright
observed, that when he first called the attention of the house to this matter, and submitted the propriety of passing it over rather than prosecute the author, he did not so much as know the name of that gentleman. He was still unacquainted with him. He gave his opinion freely, and he was upon reflection confirmed in the propriety of that opinion. He thought the house ought not to consume
560
Mr. Sturges Bourne
said he had no wish to procrastinate this debate, but he could not help taking notice of what had been said by some gentlemen to-night of the necessity of the house availing itself of the power of punishing its accuser, and insisting that the petition ought to be withdrawn, and that the petitioner should present another. He was astonished at a good deal of what he had heard on this occasion. He thought that this power of the house ought to be reserved till great occasions called for it, where the offence to the house was serious and deliberate, and not as in this case the effect of haste and mere inadvertence. He had observed some gentlemen very forward in calling themselves the advocates of the liberty of the press, but in their actions they had added to the restraint of it. He alluded to the case of Mr. Reeves, when a certain publication of his had been charged to be a libel upon the constitution of the country, and it was referred to the consideration of a committee of the house of commons; that committee examined a great deal of evidence on the subject, and admitted much under the head of evidence which a court of justice would not have received; and afterwards the hon. gent. made a motion for punishing the author by the authority of the house itself—thus blending two characters, which ought to be united as seldom as possible, that of accuser and judge. Not that he meant that such a thing should never take place, for there might be circumstances in which even that would be unavoidable, but he was sure it ought to be rarely done. This author, however, was sent with his book to a court of justice, where he was tried and acquitted by a jury of his country, and the hon. gent. opposite to him, who had so repeatedly boasted of his attachment to the trial by jury as well as the liberty of the press, had quoted this case on a former night, as a reason for not sending such cases to be tried by jury. With none of these principles did he agree. He was so far from thinking that the power the house possessed of being both accuser and judge was a reason why they should themselves punish any one who offended it, that he thought it a reason of itself why the house should be extremely tender of adopting that course. Gentlemen had opposed the bringing of this petitioner to the bar on this occasion, and had been pleased to say that he should
561
Mr. Sheridan
explained, and observed, that the hon. gent. had not accurately recollected the case to which he referred, and Which recollection he intreated him to improve, for he was wrong in every fact he had stated concerning it. He never moved in his life against the press. The motion alluded to was made by an hon. gent. then member for Bridport (Mr. Sturt) who was not now a member of the house. The house came to a determination of appointing a committee, which elected him chairman, by which committee the publication in question was deemed a gross and scandalous libel. A motion was afterwards made, that it should be burnt by the hands of the common hangman. The matter ended in directing the attorney general to prosecute the author. The case went before a jury, who acquitted the author, and that was the history of the whole case.
Mr. Sturges Bourne
explained, and observed, that he did not apply what he said to the motion of the hon. gent. who spoke
562
Sir Ralph Milbank
thought the words used by the petitioner were indecent, and such as the house could not, without a surrender of its dignity, pass over without some punishment to mark the sense it entertained of the misconduct.—The house then divided, for the motion 142—against it 121—majority 21.
Mr. Whitbread
moved, "That what Mr. Speaker hath said in reprimanding Peter Stuart be entered on the Journals of this house."—Ordered
nem.
[VOTE OF THANKS TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF NAVAL ENQUIRY.]—-Mr. Sheridan,
in rising pursuant to his notice, observed, that if there were any person in the house who were indisposed to concur in the motion which he should have the honour to submit to the house, who should come with reluctance to a vote of approbation respecting the conduct of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry he could not but consider the discussion unlucky that had rendered it necessary for him to rise at that late hour. He trusted, however, that it would not be necessary for him to occupy much of the time
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
The chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, not to object to the motion, but to offer few general observations on what had fallen from the hon. member in the course of his speech. If the sense of the house was, that
570
571
572
573
Mr. Fox
then rose. He animadverted on the several charges which had been advanced by the right hon. gent. who spoke last against the commissioners of naval enquiry. As to the first, which regarded what the right hon. gent. professed to consider the premature publication of any of the subjects referred to in the several reports from this commission—he could not deem it any fair ground of accusation against the commissioners; for it did not appear that they had designedly given publicity to the rumours referred to. Besides, indeed, whether such things were kept secret or not in the way desired by the right hon. gent. appeared to him to be a matter scarcely worth notice. As to the case of the comptroller of the navy hoard and his alledged misappropriation of the money entrusted to his care, the right hon. gent. seemed to think that if opportunity for explanation had been afforded that comptroller, as well as to lord St. Vincent, much confusion would have been avoided, as appeared in a part of the noble lord's evidence in the eleventh report. Now, for his part, he saw no such confusion. Even without the explanation recently offered to the house on this point, he really thought that nothing could be clearer from the context of the evidence, and from a fair consideration of Lord St. Vincent's answers to the two questions which were lately the subject of discussion, than that the noble lord was ignorant of the money matters which formed the
gravamen
574
575
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that the navy board had not tamely submitted to the imputations cast upon their characters by the first report, as the hon. gent. imagined. For, according to a memorial presented to the house on the 5th of April, on this subject, from the comptroller of the navy, it appeared, that immediately after the publication of the report alluded to, the hon. baronet intimated his wish to these commissioners, that he should be examined afresh, in order to do away, what he conceived, unfounded aspersions on his character, but this the commissioners declined. The hon. baronet then drew up a memorial to that house, which he meant to present; but, deeming it his duty, he waited on lord St. Vincent, to apprize him of his intention, and to know his lordship's pleasure. Lord St. Vincent disapproved of the intention, and stated, that he should consider any such proceeding as a personal affront to himself. The comptroller thought it his duty to conform to the noble lord's desire, and to that was attributable the kind of acquiescence the hon. gent. who had just sat down, alluded to.
Mr. Fox
observed that, even supposing all this statement to be correct, it did not account for the silence of the comptroller of the navy, since lord St. Vincent retired from office. Why not seek the removal of that obloquy, of which he complained, under the lord of the admiralty who succeeded lord St. Vincent? He could not, however, help saying, that this comptroller, in suffering from such a motive as the right hon. gent. had described, so deep a stigma so long to attach to his reputation, betrayed a very criminal complaisance to earl St. Vincent.
Sir Andrew Snape Hammond
confirmed the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, as to the early disposition and soli-
576
Mr. Rose
corroborated that part of the speech of the hon. baronet, who had just sat down, which referred to himself. With respect to the motion before the house, he
577
578
Admiral Markham
said, the hon. comptroller of the navy had said a great deal respecting the memorial of the Navy Board, and the justification they would have set up if riot counteracted by lord St. Vincent. He would ask the hon. baronet if he would now deny the substance of the report? The real facts, he would declare, were a thousand times worse than the statement; and he wished the gross negligence of the hon. baronet's colleagues had not been what it was. He must complain of the unfair proceeding of gentlemen in arguing upon the authority of papers scarcely laid before the house, and without notice. With respect to the lecture on blocks, delivered by a right hon. gent. opposite to him, he would say a word or two. When a contract is entered into, the party contracting to furnish an article is bound by the stipulated price, whether the article rises or not; and be .maintained, that air application to raise the price of blocks, which was the case, annulled the contract. That Taylor was thought to have a good bargain of his contract was plain, because Dunstanville at Plymouth gave him ten per cent. for permission to have the article at the price of his contract. The contracts for blocks still go on, to the great loss of the public money, although the machines at Portsmouth are sufficient to supply the demand of the whole nation. When the war broke out, contracts were made for a short time; but that was for want of lignum vitæ. And they were not then intended to be continued.
Mr. Rose
said, in explanation, that Dunstanville got 10 per cent. above the price given to Mr. Taylor
Sir A. Hammond
observed that, when the report came to fully considered, it would be fully answered. The machine made
579
Mr. Jeffery
(of Poole) contended, that whatever might be the portion of praise to which the Naval Commissioners might be supposed to be entitled, he was still hold enough to say, that the affairs of the navy were never worse conducted than during the administration of lord St. Vincent; not only the navy, but the whole of the commercial part of the community were loud in their complaints against it.
(A general cry of hear! hear!…chair! chair!)
Mr. Wilberforce
heartily joined in approving the conduct of the Commissioners of naval enquiry, and thought them fully entitled, upon their general conduct, to the thanks of the house, and of their country; but at the same time he must request, in mercy to those who had not fully informed themselves of the contents of all the reports, that the words "the whole" of the conduct of the commissioners, might be omitted in the motion. There were now eleven of the reports, many of them extending to considerable length, before the house, and scarcely any but the tenth had yet undergone a due investigation. Indeed the omission of these words would give more meaning to the vote of the house, and at the same time render it more worthy the acceptance of those whom it was intended to commend, than if it stood in the manner in which it was originally proposed. The Commissioners had undoubtedly detected very great abuses, and had thereby rendered very signal service to the country ; and on that ground he felt them entitled to the thanks of the house and the gratitude of the country. He hoped, however, that nothing he now offered to the consideration of the house would produce any division of opinion; for he threw out the consideration merely to guide the conduct of the house; not in the least to detract from the merits of the commissioners. Much of their proceedings yet remained to be examined and discussed; and it might, perhaps, hereafter occur, that something would be considered in a light that might induce the house to express an opinion contrary to what the present motion called upon them unreservedly to declare. This was the only motive that prompted him to suggest the omission of
580
Lord Henniker
said, although he approved of the conduct of the commissioners, it was too far to approve of it in all its detail, as if they acted by divine authority, and could not err.
Mr. Rose
thought the original motion would be rendered much less exceptionable by the proposed amendment, but said it would be still more eligible, if the words "so far as yet appears," were omitted; since the whole of their reports, save only the 10th, had not yet undergone any examination.
Mr. Wilberforce
thought the last proposed alteration wholly unnecessary.
The Attorney General
approved the amendment proposed by Mr. Wilberforce, but should think it still better, with the addition of that proposed by Mr. Rose. There were eleven reports before the house, and only one of them had as yet been examined. There were even several papers now before the house quite fresh from the press, which could not yet have been examined, but which, however, were represented as urgently calling for examination. The vote, therefore, in his mind, should not be general, as fresh materials might hereafter be produced in defence of those whose characters were affected by the reports of the commissioners. As the amendment seemed to him to improve the motion in the sense which he thought it should be received, it should have his concurrence.
Mr. Fox
said, certainly the original motion of his hon. friend near him (Mr. Sheridan) meant to approve the whole conduct of tile commissioners. He could not agree to the amendment, because, being entered on the journals, it would imply an opinion, that the whole of the commissioners' conduct was not entitled to thanks. He thought that any expression of general approbation of their conduct must mean the whole, and, therefore, he liked the motion neither the better nor the worse for the omission of that word. If the house did not mean to express full approbation of the conduct of the commissioners, or to say this was not the time, let
581
Mr. Langham
thought the motion of thanks altogether unnecessary, as well as untimely, inasmuch as the vote of a majority upon a former night, in approbation of the tenth report, was already 2 vote of approbation; and because a much better opportunity for expressing the sense of the house generally upon the conduct of the commissioners, would occur when they had concluded the labours entrusted to them, neither which, nor the period of their appointment, were yet terminated. Why had there been no motion of thanks proposed to them on the seventh or ninth report as well as now? He could not think the commissioners themselves really wished for any thanks for arty consequence resulting front their enquiries. Such a vote, he thought, would rather have the effect of biassing the commissioners, and involving them in those party differences which seemed to exist in that house. Besides, the commissioners, in any thing they had done, had only complied with duties to which they were bound by oath, and it would not be holding them very high to thank them fur doing a duty to which they were solemnly sworn.
Sir William Elford
agreed in the construction given by an hon. gent. (Mr. Fox), that a vote of general thanks to the conduct of the commissioners must mean the whole, and, therefore, not approving their whole conduct, though he highly commended many parts of it, and conceiving their re-
582
non coram judice
Lord Henniker
again rose, and said, though he approved the conduct of the commissioners, yet it had not yet been so scrutinized as to warrant a decisive vote upon it. Thinking, therefore, that both sides of the house should pause before they came to any decision, he concluded by moving the question of adjournment.
Mr. Coke
(of Norfolk) thought the original motion of his hon. friend deserved the fullest concurrence of the house. There seemed to prevail on the opposite side of the house a singular degree of eagerness to get rid of the original motions. One member moved one amendment; another suggested a second; and a third urged the question of adjournment. But to his mind, the commissioners had done their duty as honest men; by their vigilance and firmness a noble lord had been detected in peculation, malversation, and every species of misconduct that could degrade him. As a plain, honest man, he should give his cordial support to the original motion.
Mr. Bond
desired, most unequivocally, to declare his most cordial approbation of the conduct of the commissioners. He never would wish to screen delinquency wherever it was to he found; and if he were to vote otherwise than in the most hearty support or the original motion, he must vote in violation of his own feelings, and the principles which had uniformly guided his conduct to the best of his judgment: but though he fully agreed in general thanks and approbation of the conduct of the commissioners, yet he did not thereby mean implicitly to approve every thing they might have done. What they recommended, it would be for the judgment of the house to decide upon; but in declaring general approbation of what they had done, the house would not bind itself to agree to every thing they recommended. Some trivial charges had been alledged against them: but, had any thing been said by them that did not mark zeal and ability? For his own part, he was convinced that their conduct reflected the highest honour
583
Sir John Wrottesley
was glad to hear the sentiments expressed by the learned gent. who spoke last, and he most cordially concurred in them.
Mr. Gregor
was rather inclined to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Bastard
thought the commissioners did not only deserve the present thanks, but were also entitled to the best support of that house. It was well known that insinuations had been made, and reports industriously propagated, against them by persons in power, whose conduct, they had shewn, deserved dismissal from their offices. Reports had been laid upon the table of the house, clearly pointing out the contumacy and delinquency of many of those persons, and he should be glad to know what had been done towards bringing those persons to task. From those reports it also appeared that boards were still continued in authority, under whom the grossest peculations had been committed and connived at. If those boards were still continued, what security had the country that the same abuses would not be repeated? He had heard of some gentlemen called on by those commissioners for necessary information in the line of their official duty, and yet refusing to answer, and ,screening themselves under the pretended meaning or defects of the act: a conduct at which an honest man would shudder.
Mr. Fuller
said, that as a friend to his country, and an honest man, he would most cordially vote for the original motion, and he thought no man a friend to his country that did not earnestly wish that enquiry, in the present circumstances of the nation, should be carried to its utmost extent in every branch of the public expenditure. This was no party question, but one which equally concerned every side of the House, and every part of the empire. Those who knew any thing of Roman history, must recollect, that from the moment a profuse and corrupt expenditure of the public money began to be laughed at in the senate, as a matter of indifference, the ruin of that empire took its date. For his own part he cared not who was at the head of the government, whether a branch of one family Or of another; whether the representative of my lord
this
that
584
Mr. Sheridan
rose to reply. He trusted the house would give him credit for having acted fairly, in the manner in which he brought forward the motion. It was, he would confess, a subject of regret to him, that he had inserted the word "whole" in his motion; and particularly so, as it had met with objections from a quarter for which he entertained the highest respect. It was not without mature consideration that he worded his motion in that comprehensive way. His reason was, that difficulties of the most extraordinary nature were, at every instant, interposed between those gentlemen and the arduous duty in which they were employed, and he therefore thought no acknowledgment to them could be too strong. When they were encountered at every step by all the acts and subterfuges of that corruption which they were appointed to detect, it was the duty of the house, whose ministers they were, to mark their approbation of their conduct, and their determination to support them in the most comprehensive and emphatic manner. When an hon. gent. rises and declares in his place, that the person who was the heart and germ of that commission was unfit to be continued as a member of it, it was high time indeed for that house to step forward for his protection. It was upon that ground that he inserted the
whole
fortitude
585
586
whole
Mr. Wilberforce
acquiesced in the proposition of Mr. Sheridan, and declared his rea-
587
Mr. Sheridan
withdrew his original motion, and immediately proposed the following: resolved, "That it appears that the commissioners appointed by an act of the 43d year of his majesty's reign, to enquire and examine into any irregularities, frauds, or abuses, which are and have been practised by persons employed in the several naval departments therein mentioned, have, as far as appears from the reports which they have hitherto made, exerted themselves with great diligence, ability, and fortitude; and that their conduct in the execution of the arduous duties entrusted to them, entitles them to the warmest approbation and encouragement of this house. "He disclaimed, at the same time, any admission, upon his part, that any that had been proved against the conduct of thing commissioners, and declared, that reason why he assented to any modification in the form of his motion was, that gentlemen had not time to examine the reports.—The question was then put on the motion, as altered by Mr. Sheridan, when the speaker declared the ayes had it.—Mr. Sheridan next moved the following resolution:—resolved, "That this resolution be communicated by Mr. Speaker to the said commissioners."—Agreed to.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 3.
[LORD MELVILLE.]
—Mr. Leycester, attended by several members, brought up a message from the commons, in substance, desiring their lordships permission to a member of that house, lord viscount Melville, to attend a committee of the house of commons to whom was referred the consideration of so much of the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry as related to the application of monies imprest to the treasurer of the navy to purposes other than the service of his majesty's navy; and also what communications were made to the lords commissioners of the treasury, or chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the same, &c.—The messengers having withdrawn,
Lord Hawkesbury
moved "that their lordships do send an answer to the message just delivered from the commons by messengers of their own." Which being ordered accordingly, the messengers from the commons, were ordered to be called in, and the lord chancellor, with the usual forma-
588
Lord Hawkesbury
rose to call their lordship's particular attention to the proceeding which had just taken place. He would first move, that the standing order be read by the clerk, which was accordingly done. This order imported that no peer of the realm, a, member of that house, should attend the house of commons, or any committee thereof, to answer matters of charge or accusation against themselves, either in person or by their counsel, &c. on pain of being committed. to the custody of the black rod, or sent to the Tower during the pleasure of that house. His lordship then observed, that the case which was involved by the recent message from the commons, was one of very considerable and peculiar importance; though no consideration of the kind was expressly referred to in the message., yet, from the votes of the house of commons, which had come to his knowledge upon the subject, there was no doubt but matters of charge and accusation against lord viscount Melville were connected with the proceeding. He had therefore, with reference to what he had reason to think would take place, enquired respecting such precedents as existed of such cases; and though he met with several, yet he did not feel himself fully informed, or adequately prepared to recommend at present any distinct line, or course of proceeding. He then adverted to the circumstances which gave rise to the standing order which had been just read, and stated a few cases in the way of precedent, which, he conceived, bore a resemblance to the present. Among these, the case of the duke of Buckingham, who, in March 1626, was required to attend the, house of commons, on matters of charge and accusation against himself. Some farther proceedings took place on that case on the 14th of the following month; the result was, that their lordships resolved the duke should not attend the house of commons. A case nearly similar occurred in the year 1673, in that of the earl of Arlington, who was also required to attend the house of commons to answer on matters of accusation against him. In this case, their lordships, after duly considering the case, and though the earl of Arlington himself desired to be examined, refused their consent, and subsequently resolved upon the standing order now upon the book. In the present instance, he repeated, though the message did
589
prima facie,
Earl Darnley
thought the noble secretary of state should be sure of proceeding upon strong grounds before he did what might appear at least as throwing difficulties in the way of public justice; and it appeared to him rather extraordinary that a member of his majesty's government should be the first to come forward with such a proposition, in a case of such a delicate and peculiar nature as the present. At any rate, he hoped their lordships would avoid all unnecessary delay, and come, as soon as possible, to a resolution upon the point.
590
Lord Hawkesboury,
in explanation, begged leave to express his astonishment at what had fallen from the noble earl. He was at a loss to conceive how it could possibly be inferred from what he said, that he entertained the least idea of throwing any difficulties in the way of public justice.
The Duke of Norfolk
urged that several peers had at different times attended committees of the house of commons for the purpose of giving them information with respect to subjects under their consideration. He admitted, however, in answer to a question of lord Hawkesbury across the table, that there was no matter of accusation against any of the peers he had alluded to. He was perfectly aware that their lordships could not compel lord Melville to attend a committee of the house of commons; but he conceived there could be no difficulty, if that noble lord was willing to attend, in giving him permission to do so. He wished to know ii there was any precedent subsequent to 1673 applicable to this case?
Lord Hawkesbury
observed, that his motive in moving a reference to the committee was to search for precedents.
The Lord Chancellor
contended for the propriety, in every point of view, of upholding and maintaining the privileges of their lordship's house. It was the bounden duty of every member of that house to maintain them. What had been advanced by the noble duke was nothing at all to the present question. It signified nothing, with reference to the standing order, whether a peer be willing or not to attend. The order was peremptory and explicit, and prohibited such attendance, under severe penalties. He believed there was no instance of a peer's being permitted to attend, where matters of accusation against him were under consideration. The noble and learned lord referred to some precedents before the order was made, in illustration of what he had advanced. In a case? in the year 1628, a permission had been granted in respect to an act of parliament then recently passsed, and a correspondent entry was made upon the Journals. In one or two other instances, leave had been given; but, by the resolution solemnly taken in 1673, no member of that house was suffered to attend in such a case, even were he inclined, or even to appear by his counsel. These were prohibited under the penalties of the custody of the black rod, or commitment to the Tower. For his own part, in such a case, did every subject in his majesty's dominions think he
591
The Duke of Norfolk
explained, that, in his opinion, where the will of the peer required, and the permission of the house combined, the case was materially altered. In many cases it was highly desirable that every possible information should be afforded, with a view to the ends of public justice. He repeated his hope that no unnecessary delay would be suffered to take place.
Earl Darnley,
in further explanation, observed, that he did not object to the matters being referred to a committee of privileges. He had only expressed his doubts of the propriety of a member of his majesty's government coming forward, as the noble secretary of state did in the present instance.
The Duke of Montrose
contended, that in a case like the present, it was more peculiarly the duty of a member of his majesty's government to come forward, and endeavour to point out the most correct and unexceptionable line of proceeding; and he must say, that he thought an expression which had fallen from a noble earl, charging his noble friend with endeavouring to throw obstacles in the way of an investigation instituted in the house of commons, had been somewhat hastily used.
Earl Darnley,
in explanation, repeated his regret, that this motion had been brought forward by a member of his majesty's government, for the reason he had before stated; at the same time he should not object to referring the matter to the committee of privileges.
Lord Hawkesbury
felt himself called upon, in consequence of what had been said and repeated by the noble lord, to say a few words in vindication of his own conduct. It was very true that he was a member of his majesty's government; but he did not forget, at the same time, that he was also a member of their lordship's house, and as such he should have been wanting to his duty if he had not called their attention to their privileges and their standing orders. He was conscious of no wish or intention to
592
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 3.
[MINUTES.]
—The sheriffs of. London presented at the bar the petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council of the city of London, in council assembled, against the prayer of the Catholic petition, now on the table of the house.—Ordered to lie on the table till the day for taking said petition into consideration.—Mr. Leycester informed the house from the bar, that pursuant to their order he had waited on the lords with their request to their lordships, that they would permit lord viscount Melville to attend the committee appointed to consider further of the matter of the tenth report referred to them, in order to his being examined; and that their lordships had signified their intention to send their answer by a messenger of their own.—Mr. Jeffery gave notice, that he should on Monday make a motion relative to the number of vessels that had been fitted out and stored in his majesty's yards during the administration of lord St. Vincent.—Mr. Tierney submitted whether the hon. gent. ought not in candour to state the nature of the papers for which he intended to move; and whether, if he intended to make them the ground of charge upon the noble earl, it would not he more fair at once to move for an inquiry into his conduct, than to bring forward a charge upon an
ex parte
593
[PETITION FROM MIDDLESEX RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of the freeholders of Middlesex was. presented to the house by Mr. Byng, setting forth, "that the votes of your hon. house on the 8th and 10th days of April last, founded on the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, has interested the whole nation, and no part of the nation more deeply than your petitioners.—We humbly crave the liberty of stating, that no measures ever yet issued from the commons of England which had diffused more gladness or raised more expectations than the said votes of April the 8th and 10th, declaring lord viscount Melville to be 'guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty;' thereby supporting the upright and virtuous discharge of the salutary duties of the said commissioners, whose conduct has excited the gratitude and the confidence of the whole country.—That the renewal of the said commission is a subject of unfeigned joy to your petitioners; and that we entreat your hon. house to be careful to make the new law effectual, and adequate to its end. We pray your hon. house to attend particularly to those parts of the tenth report which have detailed the obstacles thrown by persons in office in the way of the investigation of the said commissioners, and to guard against their repetition.—We submit to your hon. house whether the subaltern agents of corruption will not be eager to shelter their contumacy under the example of their superiors, unless the explicitness and enlarged authority of the law defeat their artifices. Nothing, we are persuaded, could be more revolting to the public sentiment, or could more thoroughly disappoint the hopes of the country, than that, instead of inquiries real, honest, and efficient, a fallacious and illusory system should be allowed to be adopted, under which real guilt might elude detection, and the substance of earnest investigation be sacrificed to mere pretence and show.—Your petitioners humbly beg leave to state to your hon. house, that a civil action against viscount Melville and Mr. Trotter would not, of itself, be satisfactory to the public expectation. That a criminal prosecution against these delinquents is the real wish of the country; because the recovery of millions of money would not be of such real benefit to the people, as to see the justice of the law vindicated upon a great malefactor, with the
594
[PETITION FROM WESTMINSTER RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of the electors of the city and liberty of Westminster, convened by the high bailiff in Palace-yard, on Friday the 3d of May, was presented by Mr. Fox and read; setting forth, "That your petitioners share the national gratitude to your hon. house, for your memorable and virtuous votes of the 8th and 10th days of-April last, founded upon the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, declaring the lord viscount Melville to be guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of public duty.—Never were parliamentary measures received with more exultation by the country than the said votes; and nothing, your petitioners are persuaded, could cause more disappointment to the nation than your hon. house's stopping short of these great ends of justice, which the public interest demands, and the honour you have acquired by the said votes, exacts and enforces at your hands.—The pure, the moderate, the faithful, the independent and the dignified discharge of the functions with which the law has invested the said commissioners of naval enquiry has filled the country with the most unqualified admiration of their conduct. The renewal of their authority is a source of the most unfeigned pleasure to the people at large; and we do most earnestly supplicate your hon. house, that in the construction of the new statute, your attention will be fixed upon the contumacious obstruction to full enquiry, which is so clearly pointed out in the said tenth report; and that you will carefully guard
595
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.]—Mr. Fox
observed, that as the day which he had fixed for submitting a motion to the house an the subject of the petition of the Catholic body of Ireland was so near, he deemed it proper to take this opportunity of stating the reasons on which he proposed to defer that Motion from the 10th to Monday the 13th inst. One reason was, that many gentlemen interested in the discussion were now in Ireland, and could not attend on Friday. This was a sufficient reason, but it was not the principal one. Another was, the importance of the business which was to occupy the attention of the house next week. His hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had a mo-
596
Dr. Duigenan
declared himself hostile to the prayer of the petition, and should, therefore, oppose the motion of the hon. gent.
[COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
—The
Chancellor of the Exchequer
To make good the excess of the extraordinary services of the army over the estimates voted last year
£668,803
15
3
Extraordinary services of the army for the present year
3,000,000,
0
0
To complete the sum of five millions granted out of the monies that should arise from the consolidated fund of Great Britain for the year 1804
3,049,488
15
3
To defray the expences of the volunteers in Great Britain and Ireland
1,600,000
0
0
Mr. Johnstone
said, he did not rise to object to this resolution; but, as emigrants were included in this sum, he submitted it to the committee, whether it would not be better that the money voted for emigrants should be a distinct vote for that purpose, instead of being brought into the army extraordinaries? There was another circumstance which struck him, and that was, he, observed, an article of charge of somewhat about 500l. for the expences of creating sir Brooke Watson a baronet. He thought, if honours were heaped on a man in the situ-
597
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as the baronetage was given that gentleman for his services in the army, it was therefore brought into the army extraordinaries, it being always usual, when that honour was conferred for services to pay the expenses. As to the emigrants, this was a charge for such emigrants only as have served in our armies, and are paid abroad in order to save the expense of coming to this country. This was absolutely necessary, when foreigners, who had served us, had no other means of gaining a livelihood in this country, and the army extraordinaries were the most convenient head of service under which they could be classed.—The resolutions were then read, and severally agreed to.
[IRISH SILVER TOKENS BILL.]
—On the question for going into a committee on the Irish Silver Tokens bill;
Mr. Magens
requested the attention of the house while he made a few observations on this bill, which, he thought, would be as properly made in this as in any other stage of it. He observed, that in a conversation which passed in that house, some short time since, it appeared that the rate of exchange being so much against Ireland was in consequence of the very large quantity of paper that was in circulation in that part of the empire. These tokens, as they were called, were, in his opinion, very little, if at all, better than paper; and as they would be subject to great depreciation, he saw very little benefit to be derived from this measure. He thought the only way to serve Ireland effectually would be to restore a real silver coinage directly under the royal authority, and thereby to assimilate the coinages of the two countries as nearly as possible. For these reasons he could not approve the bill.
Mr. Princep
said, he thought some limitation should be put to these tokens, and hoped a standard coinage would soon take place.
Mr. Rose
said, the silver tokens were tokens above the value of the price of dollars, and therefore he thought there was no fear of the apprehensions entertained by the hon. gent. who spoke last but one. It had been for a long time in contemplation to .make a standard coinage, but there were certain obstacles to it which at present could not be removed.
Mr. Magens
said, if the old standard were
598
Sir J. Newport
said it was much to be wished that the old standard was restored, but that would require some considerable time; and, as a large quantity of paper had been lately taken out of circulation, it became absolutely necessary something of this kind should be adopted. With respect to the assimilation of the coinage of the two countries, it was a subject that required great consideration, and therefore necessary this bill should pass as speedily as possible.
Mr. Lee
said the hon. member who made the objection to this bill, most certainly was not acquainted with the situation of Ireland, or he would not argue as he had done. Silver notes, which were the only circulation for making payment of small sums, were now drawn out of circulation, and it was necessary something should be substituted in their stead, as there is now no circulating medium for small payments. He was, however, one of those who did not think the quantity of paper that had been in circulation was injurious to Ireland; the fact had never been proved, and till it was so, he should differ from those who held that opinion.
Mr. Foster
said very little remained for him to say on the subject. There was at present great distress in Ireland for want of small silver change, and as it is only to continue so long as the restriction of the bank from paying in specie continues, the hon. gent. who made this objection, need have no great apprehension. It will be extremely convenient to the people of Ireland, and he hoped therefore the bill would have the approbation of the house.
Mr. Johnstone
said he doubted whether these pieces of silver would continue long in circulation, as, at 5s. 5d. each, people would find an advantage of eight and a half per cent. and would send them to this country to make their payments, and thereby save so much in the rate of exchange.
Mr. Foster
said, these tokens are to issue at 5s. 5d. but will be ten per cent. under the value of Spanish dollars, and if you add eight and a quarter, the difference of exchange, it would be nearly 19 per cent. and when exchange is very high, it would be nearly 25 per cent. ; when to these are added the inconvenience of carriage, and the wearing of the silver by friction, there would be thought very little danger of their being sent to this country.
599
Mr. Vansittart
said a few words in favour of the bill, and the house went into the committee, in which the clauses were read and agreed to.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 6.
[MINUTES.]
—The bishop of Oxford presented a petition from the freeholders of Oxfordshire, praying that the restraints upon the catholics might not be repealed, which was ordered to lie on the table.—Lord Mulgrave reminded their lordships that they stood summoned for to-morrow upon a notice which he gave before the recess, relative to one of their standing orders, that which enabled any peer to move the house into a committee whenever he desired it. The more he had considered that order, the more he was convinced it ought not to remain upon the books of the house; and he should therefore, to-morrow, move to expunge it.—Lord Mulgrave said that a noble friend of his, who had undertaken to bring forward a clause to be added to the University Advowson bill, had not yet been able to complete it; and he, therefore, wished that the further consideration of the bill might be postponed till Wednesday. After a short conversation between the bishop of Oxford, the bishop of St. Asaph, the lord chancellor, and lord Mulgrave, the order for the Committee sitting this day was discharged, and fixed for Wednesday.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 6.
[MINUTES.]
—The Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received from the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this house of Thursday last.—"Office of Naval Enquiry, Great George Street, 4th May 1805.—Sir, We have had the honour to receive your letter of the 3d of this month, transmitting to us a copy of the resolution of the house of commons of the 2d instant.—It is most gratifying to us to learn, that our conduct as Commissioners of Naval Enquiry has been considered by the house as deserving a vote of their approbation; a testimony which is justly esteemed one of the highest honours that can be conferred on persons employed in the service of the public: we receive this mark of distinction with the greatest respect and thankfulness; and we request that you will have the goodness to communicate to the house these our sentiments.—We also beg leave
600
[DISMISSAL OF LORD MELVILLE.]
—Mr.
Whitbread
601
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
interrupted the hon. gent. for the purpose of speaking to order. He really had understood that the hon. gent. had given notice of his intention to move to take into consideration his majesty's answer, and he conceived that he would have begun his observations with reference to that object. He had a communication to make to the house, which he thought would anticipate what the hon. gent. had to say; he therefore wished to put it to his candour, whether he would afford him an opportunity.
Mr. Whitbread
said, he meant to have concluded by, moving, that his majesty's answer should be taken into consideration. Whatever communication the right hon. gent. had to make, he thought it would come with more propriety after the motion. He apprehended that if he had made a motion on the morning after the night the resolutions were proposed and acquiesced in, that lord Melville should have been dismissed from his offices and his majesty's councils and presence, that there would not have been one dissentient voice. He apprehended, that if lord Melville had not been a member of the house of peers, but merely of Me house of commons, and he had moved for the dismissal of him as a member of the house of commons, that there would not have been a dissentient voice. In the course of this business he had shaped his conduct so as to obtain the suffrages and support of every independent member of parliament; and, in so doing; he conceived he had strictly conformed to his duty, and promoted the welfare of the public. The second day after the resolutions passed, he had moved an address to his majesty, that lord Melville should be. removed from his councils and presence, and deprived of all offices held by him under the crown. It appeared on that occasion to have been the sense of the house, that it would be better the resolutions should he carried to the foot of the throne; but he was of opinion the consequence of that measure was not precisely what would have taken place if the house had gone up with the address. The consequences he had hoped for. had not taken place. He had resigned his office at the admiralty, but his name had not been struck out of the list of the privy council. The right hon. gent. who had just intimated that he had some
602
hœ flammœ hœ fnsce
603
habemus confitentem reum
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
—Before, sir, the motion is put from the chair, I think it necessary for me to make a very few observations, which appear to me of such a nature as will supersede the necessity of agitating the question at greater length, on the present occasion. When I interrupted the hon. gent. it was for the purpose of saying, that I had a communication to make to the house, which might probably render his motion unnecessary; that communication is, sir, that the object which the hon. gent. has in view, is already accomplished. I have felt it my duty to advise the erasure pt lord Melville's name from the list of his
604
605
Mr. Fox
—Since the right hon. gent. has told us that at last he has condescended to advise his majesty to remove lord Melville hem his privy council, I would wish to know whether that has been done in consequence of the resolutions of the house of commons? At all events, sir, we have reason to rejoice in the triumph which justice has experienced, when we consider that they were compelled at length to give this advice who were for protecting lord Melville, because he was "an old and faithful servant of the crown," and had only acted contrary to the intention of the act of parliament! Why was this advice not given immediately after the address of the 10th of April, for which the right hon. gent. expresses such profound veneration? He comments upon this address, and considers it merely as an
606
intention
607
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated that the resolution he had announced to the house had not the least connection with any transaction out of doors. This he most distinctly denied. As to the allusions of the hon. gent. who had just sat down, to what he called a canvas of the members, he saw nothing censurable in his availing himself of his extensive intercourse with members to ascertain their sentiments upon any public question. This was a right which belonged to any member of that house, and he believed it was the general practice with every Member who had any proposition to bring forward. When he found that any particular proceeding was wished for by a majority of the house, he thought it but right and respectful to take that proceeding at once, and thus prevent the necessity of debate. By this course the time of the house was saved, and its opinion treated with due deference. What he had done in such a way lie by no means thought inconsistent with his official duty, or the respect he owed to the constitution and privileges of that house.
Mr. Fox
disclaimed having said, that he believed the change in the right. hon. gent's. Conduct to proceed from the transaction referred to out of doors. Nor did he mean to impute blame to an endeavour to consult the opinion of members upon any public question. But he expressed his surprize that if this measure had been taken in compliance with the sense of the house, it had not been taken earlier—that it had not immediately followed those resolutions which passed the house so long since.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that there was not one word in the resolutions alluded to, recommending the removal
608
The Secretary at War (Mr. W. Dundas)
corroborated the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the resolutions referred to contained no expression of an opinion that the name of lord Melville should be erased from the list of his majesty's council. Nor did the hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Fox) express any wish to that effect. On the contrary, the hon. gent. was heard to glory in his own dismissal and that of another person, from the list of his majesty's council, and to state his hope that that would not by any part of the public be considered a disgrace. Was not this then pretty clearly to express an opinion, that it was not his desire to produce that effect which had been communicated to the house, with regard to lord Melville, whom it was so much the study of the hon. gent. to degrade? The house, however, witnessed the hon. gent.'s conduct, and it was for them to judge whether it sprung at, all from a love of public equity, or was influenced by any feeling of humanity. It had been stated that the noble lord was guilty of public plunder, and therefore incapable of those feelings which would entitle a man to compassion. But he most positively denied that any such guilt could be ascribed to him. That he had connived at the misconduct of Trotter, he was ready to admit, but that he had participated of any of the emoluments resulting from that misconduct he ever should contradict. Nothing had appeared before the house to justify the charge of lord Melville's having joined in public robbery, and if any gentleman should assert such a thing, he was prepared to meet him. With respect to the hon. gent.'s professed desire to punish and prevent peculation, and the improper use of the public money, the house and the country must recollect enough to he enabled to judge of the sincerity of his professions. For need it be told, that from the year 1765 to the year 1782, lord Holland derived, to his own private profit, an interest of 15,000l. per annum from the use of the public money, as paymaster of the army, and that not one farthing of this money had ever since been paid [
a loud cry of Order, Order! but still the right hon. gent. proceeded
609
Mr. Fox.
—As the right hon. gent. has thought proper to make such a pointed allusion to the conduct of my father, I hope for the indulgence of the house while I submit a few observations. For although a considerable time has elapsed since the death of the person to whom the right hon. gent. alludes, I cannot but feel a high interest in any thing that concerns his reputation. What the right hon. gent. could mean by calling him to my recollection in this instance, unless to create an uneasiness in my breast, I am at a loss to imagine. For how does the case of my father apply to that of lord Melville? The case of lord Holland is as clear as light. There was no law to forbid the paymaster of the army to apply the balances remaining in his hands to any purpose of private emolument, in the way described at the time lord Holland held that office. Taking the fact as it stands, if, as the right hon. gent. alleges, it was criminal in a public officer to make use of the public money for his own private profit, when there was no act of parliament against it,
à fortiori
610
611
Mr. Whitbread
said in explanation, he had never charged lord Melville with participating in the plunder of the public, be cause that had not appeared. If hereafter it should be made out, he would bring the charge. The inference had arisen from what he had said of lord Meiville's connivance at Mr. Trotter's misuse of the public money. He would not press his motion, though he thought the house of commons and the majesty of the crown would have been more satisfied if the erasure had taken place in consequence of the address of the house. One question only he wished to have answered before he withdrew the motion. Did lord Melville hold any office under the crown during pleasure?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he believed he did not.
Mr. Fox
said, there was a report abroad, that one of the offices held by the noble lord, was during pleasure. The motion relative to the grants in Scotland, of which notice had been given by a noble friend of his (lord H. Petty), now absent, from a circumstance (the death of the marquis of Lansdowne) which every one regretted, would shew how this was.—Mr. Whitbread then withdrew his motion.
[STIPENDIARY CURATES' BILL.]
—On the second reading of the Stipendiary Curates' bill being put,
Mr. Western
rose, and said, that the subject was one of the greatest importance, and entitled to the fullest investigation. He conceived the object of the bill to be no less than a direct attack on the church establishment, and an invasion of ecclesiastical property. He could not assent to the power proposed to be vested in the bishops, which he considered sufficiently great already. He highly disapproved of any measure which subjected the clergy to the absolute dominion of those spiritual lords; and would not this be the case, if they had the power to grant the fifth of the incumbent's property
612
Mr. Creevey
seconded the motion. He said, that although this bill professed only to encourage the residence of curates, the effect of it would he to transfer to the curates. above one-fifth of the whole revenue of the rectories. He particularly objected to that clause which proposed to empower the bishops to let out the glebe to the curates, at any rent they pleased.
The Attorney. General
defended the principle of the bill. The principle was the same with that of several laws on the statute book. A similar bill had passed the house of commons twice lately; from which the present differed only in as far as it was framed to obviate the objections of the upper house of parliament. The grants to the curates were in consideration of residence; and both by the common law and canon law the incumbent was obliged to do the duty of the church, or forfeit by non-residence. There was nothing in the bill subversive of the principles of the constitution of the church of England, whose property and rights no man living would be more ready to uphold and assert than himself. None as there were several clauses in the bill unfilled up, if gentlemen would consent to its going into a committee, to fill up the clauses, he should propose that the report should be received on Wednesday se'nnight, a period of delay which he hoped gentlemen would allow to be quite sufficient.
Sir W. Scott
could not bring himself to think that there was any danger to be apprehended to our church establishment from the passing of this bill. When the duty was performed for the incumbents, they ought not surely to deal out with a niggard hand the stipend for that service.
Sir j. Wrottesley
did not object to the principle of the bill, but he wished the right hon. gent. (the Attorney General) to consider the propriety of giving glebes to the curates under the provisions of the bill as it now stood; if the glebe ground was in tillage, it might be ruined in a short time, or if in grass, it might be so much injured in a few years, that the loss to the incumbent would be irreparable, He had no objection
613
Lord Porchester
expressed himself against the bill, and observed, that although it was compulsory on the incumbent as to the payment of the fifth of his income if over 4.001. yet that the curate was not obliged by any clause of the bill to do the duty.
Mr. Fellowes
thought that the bill did not go far enough.—Mr. Western then withdrew his amendment; after which the bill was read a second time.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 7.
[MINUTES.]
—Lord Holland was sworn, and took his seat.—The consideration of the Appeal Cause, from the court of chancery in Ireland, Rowe
v
[ABROGATION OF A STANDING ORDER.]
—The order of the day for taking into consideration the Standing Order, No. 30, being read,
Lord Mulgrave,
pursuant to notice, brought forward his motion for erasing from the book which purported to contain the standing Orders of the house, the Order, No. 30, which empowered any individual peer to move the house to go into a committee when he wished to speak upon a question more than twice, or with a view to enlarge the freedom of debate. His lordship did not well know whether he should dwell upon the regulation as a standing order of the house, or merely as an admonition or remembrance, in which light it seemed to be considered by the noble lord on the woolsack. But in whatever point of view it might be regarded, he could not but look upon it as a standing order of the house, and as such he should touch upon the various reasons which should induce the house to discontinue it. He had therefore to represent the abuse of such an order as pregnant with the most pernicious consequences. It was not only incompatible with the dignity of the house, and the impartiality and solemnity of their proceedings, but it also went to infringe the privileges of the house, by rendering nugatory the interposition, in the case of such committees, of proxies or
614
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose, and contended the noble lord was totally mistaken, as to the effects of the order. It did not refer to the raising a committee for the purposes mentioned by the noble lord; but merely to afford a greater latitude to the freedom of debate. The objection, with respect to the proxies and protests, did not apply, as all questions were ultimately decided by a house, wherein these could freely be given. There was never an improper use made of the order; and it was incumbent on those who urged propositions, tending to cramp the freedom of debate, to prove that such an order had produced specific inconveniences: deeming of the order as he did, he should certainly vote for its continuance.
The Lord Chancellor
was of opinion, that, upon the whole, the order in question admitted of serious objections; and many of
615
Lord Grenville
was for retaining an order from which no practical inconvenience had resulted since its adoption in the year 1626. It appeared that it had only been enforced three times; 1st, when an attempt was made to deprive some members of that house of their seats by introducing a bill, requiring certain qualifications; 2dly, when it was thought fit to propose that certain words introduced into a protest should be expunged; and, lastly, when certain questions were moved to be submitted to the judges, in the case of Mr. Justice Fox. In all these cases the enforcement of the order appeared to his lordship highly proper.
Lord Harrowby
argued generally in favour of the leading observations of the noble secretary of state. He was answered by
The Earl of Radnor,
who maintained a contrary opinion.
Lord Hawkesbury
argued briefly against the continuance of the order. His grounds were the more prominent positions of his noble colleague.
Earl Spencer
who was not inclined to speak even once upon the present question, were it not for some points he heard advanced that evening, observed, that the order existed an interval, not greatly short of 200 years, and no inconvenience had been proved to result from it. With respect to the appellation of "remembrance," such was the general head given to all the orders in the book, and he denied that it clashed with the order No. 19, as peers were usually suffered to speak in explanation of any point they had before advanced, which could not be considered as speaking twice.
The Lord Chancellor
quitted the wool sack, and was apparently about to propose
616
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 7.
[MINUTES.]
— On the motion of Mr. Calcraft, a new writ was ordered to be issued for the election of a representative to serve in parliament for the city of Coventry, in the room of Francis William Barlow, esq. deceased.—Mr. Foster gave notice that tomorrow he would move for a committee to consider of the consumption of beer in Ireland, and of making an allowance to the retailers of spirits in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick, for the losses which they may incur in consequence of the new regulations. He should also move for a committee to inquire into the Stamp Duties Act for that part of the United Kingdom.—The Irish Post Road bill was committed, and ordered to be reported tomorrow. —The Irish Promissory Note bill, and the Irish Bank Tokens bill were reported, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—The Irish Loan bill was read a third time, and passed.—The Paymaster General's Office Regulation bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee on Monday next.—Mr. George Ponsonby rose to make the motion, of which he gave notice yesterday, relative to the Country Road act. He said, by the present law, the grand jury at the spring assizes were empowered to make improvements, and the money is to be raised at the summer assizes. But there was no power in any one to retain any sum for particular purposes, so that if a road was made of bad materials, and grew bad, there was no sum at disposal to make it better, but it must remain so till next year. One of the objects he had in view was, that the overseers or road makers should retain such a sum as might he deemed necessary to fill up such chasms as might be made in roads. Another, that in several parts the roads must be made with stones, and they who make the roads have not proper weapons to break them. The jury should, therefore, provide those. He hoped the gentlemen from Ireland would not think him an enemy to the present system; on the con-
617
618
l
s
d
[IRISH ELECTION BILL.]
—On the question that the Irish Election bill be read a second time.
Colonel Bagwell
said, he had no objection to the principles of the bill, and hoped, therefore, it would then be read a second time.
Mr. Lee
said, that although he should accede to the second reading, he did not mean to exclude himself from objecting to some particular parts of it.
Mr. George Ponsonby
said, that if the principle of the bill was to ascertain accurately those persons who had a right to vote at elections, and to make that right known to those who were candidates, he approved of the
619
Mr. Richard Martin
objected to the bill going into a committee. By one clause in it, any person has a right to enter a traverse against the title of every 40s. freeholder, and it would take fifteen years value of it to pay the expences of defending his right. Besides, the bill vilified the country; for it says that all vice was attributable to the poor and all virtue to the rich; he therefore objected to it, on the ground of unseemliness. He thought the election law of the two countries should be assimilated as nearly as possible, and this subject should not be taken up on such light and flippant grounds as it had been. He thought a committee should be appointed to take the matter into consideration.
Colonel Bagwell
said there was no duty on freeholders, except on leases, and that was necessary, in order to ascertain the right to the freehold.
Sir John Newport
thought he saw several objections as to the traverse and other points, but these might be modified, altered, or done away in the committee.
Earl Temple
said a few words in favour of the bill going to a committee. After which the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.
[PETITION FROM BEDFORD RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of several freeholders of the county of Bedford, was presented to the house and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners unite with their constituents at large in thanking the house for their resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April, founded on the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry: by the first of those resolutions the house vindicated the character of their country, by censuring a minister proved to have been guilty of a gross violation of law, and a flagrant breach of duty; by the second, the house laid before the sovereign the sense of his people, and enabled him, by a ready compliance with their wishes, to endear himself more than ever to their loyal and affectionate hearts; and the petitioners implore the house steadily to persevere in detecting all other abuses which are pointed at, as well in the tenth as in the eleventh report of the said commissioners, attentively to investigate all irregularities which may be brought to light by any of their succeeding reports, impartially, minutely, and resolutely to examine into the public expenditure in all the
620
[PETITION FROM NORFOLK RESPECT-
621
—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders of the county of Norfolk, convened by the high sheriff of the said county, at the castle of Norwich, in the shirehouse there, on Tuesday the 14th day of May 1805, was presented to the house and read, setting forth, "that the petitioners beg leave to express their gratitude to the house for the steps which they have already taken towards the detection and punishment of those servants of the crown who have defied the laws, broken their trust, and applied enormous sums of the public money to their own corrupt purposes of emolument and power; and that in the name of a loyal and suffering people, the petitioners implore the house not to relax in their exertions; they intreat them to consider how patiently the petitioners have seen millions added to millions of the national debt, the rapid advance in every article of consumption, their burthens increasing, and their means of bearing them diminishing, in the just hope that while engaged in extensive wars what they contributed with cheerfulness would be applied with fidelity, and as the law expressly directed; and that faithful to their first duties, the house have recorded, by the resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April, that the people of England have been grossly wronged by lord Melville; and the petitioners humbly represent to the house, the necessity of effectually protecting the nation against future depredations; and therefore praying the house, first, to investigate and sift to the bottom the remaining charges of abuse in the application of the public money, contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry: secondly, to examine minutely into the nature of those irregularities brought to light in the eleventh report of the said commissioners, and likewise whatever may appear culpable or suspicious in any of their future reports: thirdly, to institute immediate and rigorous enquiries into the expenditure of every other department of executive government; and that in performing these acts of necessary and expected justice, the petitioners are persuaded that the house will take no other guides than its own wisdom and resolution;. and that, warned by the example of detected guilt, and awake to the frauds which have been practised upon their own facility, as well as upon the public purse, the house will perceive the necessity of resorting to those principles which prevailed in the better days of our constitution, and of acting upon a sys-
622
[PETITION FROM SOUTHAMPTON RESPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of the inhabitants of the town and county of the town of Southampton was presented to the house and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners would feel themselves criminally indifferent were they not to express their gratitude for the votes of the house on the 8th and 10th days of April last, which declared lord viscount Melville guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty, votes which have diffused joy and confidence throughout every part of the united kingdom; and that, among the various irregularities and abuses which have been detected and exposed by the commissioners of naval enquiry, none has created more jealousy and alarm in the breasts of the petitioners than the application of monies, appropriated by the legislature for the uses of the navy, to other purposes, a practice replete with danger to the constitution and to the liberty of this country; and that the detection of such malversations in one department of the state induces apprehensions that others may not be more faithfully and honestly administered; and the petitioners therefore think it their duty to implore the national representatives that their intention, already manifested, of instituting enquiries into every branch of the public expenditure, may be speedily carried into effect, a measure calculated to compose the public mind, to confirm the confidence, and to secure the unanimity and energy of the people."—Ordered to lie upon the table.
[PETITION FROM NORTHUMBERLAND RESPECTING THE 10TH NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders of the county of Northumberland, held at Morpeth on the 24th of May 1805, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that tile petitioners beg leave to congratulate the house on the result of the discussions that have taken place in the house respecting the gross peculation and misapplication of the public money, in open defiance of the law, that have been detected by the commissioners of naval enquiry; and they pray the house to persevere in that virtuous line of conduct, which on that important occasion diffused such general satisfaction throughout the country; and they intreat the house not only to continue their enquiries into the
623
[PETITION FROM THE NAVY BOARD RESPECTING MR. TUCKER'S PETITION.] Sir A. S. Hamond
presented a petition from the commissioners of the navy; the object of which was, he said, to obtain from the house permission for the navy board to exculpate themselves from die charges made against them, in a letter of Mr. Tucker, formerly a commissioner, addressed to the board of admiralty, on the 24.th of April: a copy of which letter had been ordered to be laid before the house. The object of the commissioners in this petition was, to have laid before the house two letters, with their inclosures, addressed by them to the admiralty, on the 4th instant, which they deemed indispensable to the vindication of their own honour, from the charges made in the letter first mentioned, and in which they pledge themselves to refute the statement made by Mr. Tucker.—The petition was received, and is as follows: "A petition of the there undersigned principal officer's and commissioners of his majesty's navy was presented to the house, and,read; setting forth that the petitioners have learnt from the votes, that Benj. Tucker, esq. late a commissioner of his majesty's navy, did, on the 25th of April, present a petition to the house, praying that a copy of his letter to the secretary of the admiralty of the 24th of April might be called for, and which letter has been since laid before the house, and printed; and that the petitioners deeming Mr. Tucker's petition and letter of a most libellous and slanderous nature against them, they have felt themselves bound to
624
Sir A.S. Hamond
then moved, that copies of the letters from the commissioners of the navy to the board of admiralty, of the 4th instant, by laid on the table.
Mr. Kinnard
rose, not, he said, to oppose the motion, but to call the attention of the house to the time and manner in which it was brought forward by the hon. member. Six weeks had now elapsed since he (Mr. Kinnaird) had given notice of his intention to bring forward a motion of enquiry respecting the conduct of an hon. officer (sir Home Popham) on the ground of which motion he was certainly fortified, and very considerably, by the letter alluded to. During the whole of that time, the navy board, and without any previous notice had moved for the production of letters, written but three days since, which, before their house knew any thing of their contents, were professedly calculated to overturn all imputation upon the navy board, with respect to the hon. officer. How board, with respect to the hon. officer. How was it that the navy board, who seemed so much alive to injurious imputations, had not written those letters of vindication sooner, or why was the production of them deferred to so late a moment, as to render it almost impossible for them to be printed in time for the due consideration of members? He hoped the house would be gratified with some explanation on this ground from the hon. member. He (Mr. K.) had given notice to bring forward his question to-morrow, and by that notice it was his intention strictly the house, that this was the very first intimation received of any document intended to be brought forward in contradiction to those documents already before the house, and upon which solely members were left to form their opinions; he would there-
625
626
Sir A. S. Hamond
answered, that although the letters in question were certainly directed to the leading subject of the hon. gent.'s motion, yet surely there were other topics to which it was equally necessary to direct refutation. He could assure him, however, the letters were so short as to require no delay for consideration, and might, he hoped, be printed in time, or might lie on the table for the perusal of members; and as to the delay of the navy board in writing to the admiralty to refute the assertions of Mr. Tucker, no avoidable
627
Mr. Kinnaird
said he should persevere in bringing forward his motion; but he begged the hon. member to recollect, that the original report was made six weeks ago, and that no attempt had been made to correct its alleged inaccuracies until after the suggestions of the hon. officer (of whose vindication he should be as proud as any man) and on the very eve of bringing forward the question upon the original report.
Mr. Tierney
thought it would be right maturely to consider upon which of the two reports the house was to found its deliberations. He thought to-morrow too soon, however, to bring the question forward, as the documents now proposed to be brought forward might render it necessary to move for others. He could not see that the discussion, as it related to sir Home Popham, was likely to extend to any great length; for such was the nature of the several items for consideration, that it was impossible for any men but naval officers, professionally and technically acquainted with them, to be competent to the discussion. He hoped the hon. member would postpone his motion for a few days, more especially if the letters should turn out to be such as to require farther time for consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was inclined to think, the proper mode of proceeding in this case was not that which
628
sub silentio
Mr. Tierney
was as anxious as the right hon. gent to sift the subject to the very bottom; feeling, as he did, that the navy board stood in a situation of such high and important trust with the country, that it ought not to remain a single hour in a dubious light. He was therefore inclined to oppose any delay of the discussion not absolutely necessary; but as to the hon. officer, he could have no sort of objection to allow him every fair opportunity for his vindication.
Mr. Kinnaird
said, he was far from abandoning the charge he had made, founded as it was upon the reports of the navy board themselves; but it was impossible not to see that the navy board themselves were connected with the charge, for they assumed to themselves that which only was
629
[NAVAL ADMINISTRATION OF EARL ST. VINCENT.] Mr. Jeffery
(of Poole), agreeably to the notice of a former day, rose to bring forward his promised motion, for the production of several papers, relating to the naval department, during the administration of earl St. Vincent; and though, he said, they were certainly voluminous, there was not one amongst them, idle, frivolous, or unimportant; but such as would not fail to make a strong, impression upon the mind of the house, and fully to account for the depressed and degraded state to which the British navy was at this moment reduced; and which, had lord St. Vincent continued at the head of our naval affairs to this day, would have sunk to a state still lower, and less competent to meet the formidable enemy with whom we had to contend. He lamented that the task of bringing forward a motion of so much importance should have fallen to the lot of a person so humble and incompetent as himself; but seeing no other gentleman attempt to take it up, he felt it his duty to bring it forward. He was conscious there was no department in the country more important than that of the navy, or that more urgently demanded strict vigilance and minute investigation. He hoped his zeal upon this point had not carried him too far, or led him to endeavour to disclose too much, for secrets there certainly were, which ought not to be exposed to the possible knowledge of an enemy. Having, however, explained to the house the object of the motion he meant to submit, it would be for their wisdom to decide how far it was right to grant his request; but if the documents he should require should be allowed him, he would himself undertake to prove, to the conviction of every man who heard him, the position he had laid down. The hon. member then proceeded to detail to the house a series of eighteen motions for returns of the state of the navy, from the year 1793, to the present time, under the several heads of ships of the line and frigates, built in the king's yards, or those of the merchants, distinguishing the periods when contracted for, and when finished, or likely to be finished; the like of such vessels, broke up, or sold, or lost by capture or accident; the like of such
630
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as to the first motion of those proposed by the hon. member, he had no great objection; but he was by no means prepared to judge of the propriety of agreeing, at the moment, to so long a string of motions, involving such a variety of subjects, many of which, upon mature deliberation, it might be utterly improper to comply with. He therefore hoped the hon. member would not be inclined to press such a series of motions, without giving some farther time for the house to consider the propriety or impropriety of agreeing to them.
Admiral Markham
assured the house, that nothing could possibly give to the noble lord, whose conduct was the avowed object of the motions just proposed, higher pleasure than the production of every document, and the fullest investigation of every circumstance that in any degree concerned his character or conduct. That noble lord was conscious of nothing in his conduct that he could have the slightest wish to conceal; and, therefore, on behalf of the noble lord, and so far as he was personally concerned, he had not the slightest objection to the production of all the documents just specified, provided the friends of the noble lord were to be at liberty to move afterwards for the production of such other documents as they should think necessary on the other side of the question. But with respect to the motions, generally, he presumed the hon. gentleman was not aware of the extent and tendency they would go; not merely to the conduct of earl St. Vincent, but of the whole British navy, since 1793, to the present time. As to the distinction between ships built in the king's yards, or the merchants' yards, he had very strong objections, because it would disclose a history of the supplies of timber for our navy, and the sources whence furnished, foreign and domestic. And though time enquiry was certainly a must desirable one, there were very strong objections to a public disclosure of the result. The hon. admiral
631
Mr. Grey
agreed perfectly with the hon. admiral; and as the friend of the noble earl, and on his behalf, declared, that he courted enquiry. But he would put it to the discretion of the hon. member, whether the advanced period of the session, and the many important topics still pending discussion, were circumstances which rendered it advisable for him to introduce, or probable that the house could possibly entertain so voluminous a string of resolutions, the most numerous he believed ever proposed at any one time in that house by an individual member. The production of the papers required, might render it necessary to move for others quite as voluminous; both must be printed, and what time could then remain of the sessions to read, to consider, and to discuss them? Much better would it be for the hon. member, if he had any charge to make against earl St. Vincent, to bring it at once. Let it be referred, with all the documents, to a Committee, and let them report their decision; and if there appeared parliamentary ground for accusation against the noble earl, let it be followed up in a parliamentary way. The hon. member had talked of the disgraceful and degraded state of the British navy, during the administration of the noble earl. Upon what circumstance in the affairs of the navy, during that period, the hon. member had founded his assertion, he (Mr. Grey) was yet to learn; but he begged to ask the hon. member in what period of our naval history was the British flag more signally decorated with laurels in every quarter of the globe, then during the period of the noble earl's administration? If the hon. member had any charge to make against the noble earl, let him bring it forward. It was an enquiry desirable to the house, and to the country, and to none more so than to the noble lord. On behalf of the noble earl, therefore, he challenged the enquiry, and hoped it would not be relinquished.
Mr. Jeffery
replied by saying, he did not bring forward these motions lightly. It was no light charge for him to state that the degraded state of our navy was
632
Mr. Grey
replied, that the hon, member had made out no charge against his noble friend, save by his own assertions: such a charge must rest upon other proofs.
Mr. Jeffery
answered, the proofs must rise out of the papers.
Mr. Tierney
wished the hon. gentleman to fix what day he would bring forward his charge.
Mr. Jeffery
answered Thursday; and till then he had no objection to withdraw his motions.—Withdrawn with leave of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, as many of the motions contained papers, the revealing of which might be detrimental to the public service, he hoped the hon. gentleman would give him a copy of the whole,
633
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, May 8.
[MINUTES.]
The committee of privileges appointed to search for precedents relative to the message from the house of commons respecting lord Melville, sat from two o'clock till five, during which time no strangers were admitted.—Prayers were then read, after which the lord chancellor presented a petition frond the university of Oxford, praying that the restrictions on the Catholics might not be repealed, which was ordered to lie on the table.—The lord chancellor notified his intention of coming forward on an early day next week, with a motion for having some record or entry made on the journals, of the principle upon which the proceedings that hitherto obtained in the case of Mr. Justice Fox proceeded; or, at least, as far as such principles were understood by some of their lordships. He was apparently about to move for a summons in reference to his contingent intention for Monday, but was informed, that a summons already stood for that day.
[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.]
On the order being read for the re-commitment of this bill,
The Earl of Suffolk
rose, and made several observations expressive of his hostility to the bill; he particularly deprecated the discussion of a measure, which would so injuriously affect the lay patronage of the country, in so thin an attendance of lay peers. He thought, therefore, the consideration of the bill ought to be postponed, until a fuller attendance of the lay, peers should be obtained. There was another objection which struck him forcibly with respect to the bill, namely, its intrenching so materially, in his opinion, upon the statute of Mortmain. Though, he thought, in the present state of things and of religion in this country, great acquisitions to the church may not be expected from such a consideration; yet, from persons in a dying state, particularly women, something in that way may be required. Yet still, its operation with respect to that statute was, he thought, a material consideration. He again pressed the idea of its being improper to discuss such
634
The Lord Chancellor
observed, he should deem it incumbent on him to oppose such a motion: the noble earl should recollect, that the bill, both in principle and detail, had been again and again discussed; with respect to the objection of the thin attendance of lay peers, a great number were in attendance not ten minutes before, who, if they thought with the noble lord, with respect to the operation of the bill on the lay patronage, would most probably have remained to express such apprehensions.— Some few remarks, in the way of explanation, were afterwards interchanged between the earl of Suffolk and the noble and learned lord, in which the latter observed there might be some peers who preferred their dinner to their duty; and the former, seeming to think, as the proceeding then stood, it would be preferable not to trouble their lordships further at present, accordingly quitted the house.
Lord Sidmouth
expressed his thanks to their lordships for having so readily deferred the recommitment of the bill from Monday until that day, in consequence of his inability to attend; however, it was not his intention then to trouble the committee with the discussion of the clause he intended to propose, as he believed many of their lordships, who had so recently retired, withdrew upon an understanding that what he meant to bring forward would not be discussed that night. He therefore should not press it; not that he intended, after what passed, to interrupt the progress of the bill, but to take the opportunity of a future stage, to propose what he intended, possibly on the consideration of the report, the third reading, or, if such may be deemed more convenient, as to a certain extent, it would be more regular to discuss his intended propositions in a committee, and with that view to recommit the bill.
The Bishop of Oxford
was anxious to shew that he never opposed any procrastination of the bill, as far as such procrasti-
635
The Lord Chancellor
presented a bill, the principal effect of which was, to encourage the cultivation, planting, &c. of church, college, and hospital lands, and to provide regulations with respect to the growth, felling, &c. of timber on the same. All he should propose at present would be, the first reading, and printing of the bill; intending it should lie over for consideration; and, in the mean time, he should consult the opinions of the reverend personages opposite to him, and which he meant to take previous to his proposing any thing farther upon the bill. The bill was forth with read a first time, and ordered to be printed.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 8.
[MINUTES.]
An account was ordered of the number of bushels of malt made from barley in Scotland from the 5th of July, 1803, to the 5th of July, 1804, with the duty thereon; and from the 5th of July 1804, to the 5th of April, 1805. Also, of the number of bushels of malt made in Scotland from bere and bigg, with the duty thereon, within the same periods.—A person from the office of the chief secretary in Ireland presented at the bar an account of the expences incurred by state prosecutions in Ireland for the years 1801, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.—The Irish First Fruits bill passed through a committee.—Sir W. Dolben presented a petition from the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Oxford, against the prayer of the Catholic petition on the table of the house. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Lee brought up a bill for the more expeditious recovery of small debts in Ireland, which was read a first time.—Mr. F. Fane presented a petition from sir William Rawlins, knight, and Robert Albion Coxe, esq. late sheriffs of London and Middlesex, stating, "that, owing to unfortunate advice, they
636
[IRISH STAMP DUTIES.] Mr. Foster,
on moving the order of the day for going into a committee of ways and means, acquainted the house, that pursuant to his declaration, when he had the honour to submit to the house the statement of the Irish finances, he now proposed to bring forward his arrangement for an augmentation of the stamp duties. The various heads on which he proposed an increase were as follows:—A considerable addition on tHe stamps on admission of attornies
637
Sir John Newport
said, he did not mean to make any objection to the resolutions, in this early stage; but he apprehended, that the stamp duty upon the attorneys' clerks might operate against the freedom of election, as these persons, after serving their clerkships, were at present possessed of the right of voting for representatives in parliament, upon which it was by no means desirable that there should be any additional restraint. He hoped, therefore, that the duty would be so modified, as not to be productive of the injurious effects he apprehended from it.
Mr. Foster
replied, that he should be very ready to accede to any modifications the hon. bart. may think proper to propose for the purpose of obviating all his apprehension.—The resolutions were then agreed to, together with an additional one, that the foregoing duties be paid in English currency. He further moved, that an allowance of 7l. 10s. per cent. be made to all stationers in Ireland who sold stamps without any additional charge for the paper; which was agreed to.
[CONDUCT OF SIR HOME POPHAM.] Mr. Kinnaird,
pursuant to his notice, rose to make his motion on the subject of the papers before the house relative to the conduct of sir Home Popham. He had come down to the house prepared to make such a statement as he trusted would induce the house to agree to the motion which he should have the honour to propose, for the appointment of a committee to examine the very large body of papers that had been laid before the house on this subject. Since he had been in the house, however, he had learned that there was no intention
638
Sir Home Popham
rose, and declared that he would not make a single observation on the present motion if he did not apprehend that a silent acquiescence might be construed into a tacit acknowledgement that the motion rested on an actual charge existing against him. If the hon. member had made his motion on that ground, or with a view to such an object, he should have felt himself bound to give it every opposition, because there was nothing of the nature of a charge against him in the papers which he could not completely and satisfactorily refute. There were, he would not dispute, several matters contained in these papers, which it was desirable to have referred to a committee, and consequently he was not disposed to object to the motion, provided that in so doing, he should not be considered as giving any acknowledgement of any well founded charge against himself. Many gentlemen, no doubt, had read the whole of the papers, and from being acquainted with their contents were competent to decide whether such a step was not expedient. His object in rising had been to state a general outline of his conduct, by adverting, if he should be permitted, to what had passed on a former night. The hon. member (Mr. Kinnaird) had on that occasion stated, that he had been treated conformably to the usual practice of the navy; that he had been treated in the same manner as three gallant and hon. officers whom he had mentioned by name, sir Richard King, sir Richard Bickerton, and sir Andrew Mitchell. He had been extremely surprised to hear this assertion, and though he knew that each of these officers had attended the different boards, he had been so nervous that he could not bring himself to contradict an assertion so confidently made. But he had yesterday received a letter from sir R. King,
639
640
641
Mr. Kinnaird
here called the hon. member to order. He had a right, no doubt, to read the passage from the letter, but he did not conceive it orderly to put the meaning into another form of words; which appeared to him to be rather a comment than a quotation.
Sir Home Popham
appealed to any learned member in the house, whether he had put a construction on the words which any court of law would not allow. They called upon an inferior officer to rack his memory for any thing during the course of two years that could be brought against the conduct of his captain. He should not deny, and it was what might happen to any officer, that he might have committed some irregularities; but he was sure, he had not been guilty of any criminal irregularities, that could call for, or warrant the criminal industry that had been employed to decry his character. The whole transaction had been submitted to the commissioners of naval enquiry, whose conduct had been so ably argued, and so universally applauded in that house, that he should feel a pride in abiding by the issue of their examination of Mr. Lewis, and in their report thereon to the house. The hon. gent. in his opening speech on this subject, had stated, that he would feel as much pleasure as any hon. gent. if the investigation of the business should be favourable to the person who was the object of it. Nothing could so completely exculpate him from the calumnies that had been propagated against him, as a proof that there was no collusion between him and the naval officer alluded to. On this subject he had written a short and pithy letter to the naval commissioners, calling on them to state, whether, even from inference or misrepresentation, it appeared by the examination of Mr. Lewis, that any collusion existed between himself and that officer. They replied, that they had made their report to
642
643
Colonel Hutchinson
said, that as he had paid considerable attention to these papers, it became him to offer a few words. The impression which a careful perusal of these papers had made on his mind was, that the hon. officer had discharged his duty, not only with great fidelity, but with great ability. He lamented that he was not able to convey in words the strong opinion which he had of his merits. He thought that the charges against him were of a very serious nature, first, that he had defrauded the public, and then (he was almost ashamed to state it) made use of a false document to screen himself. This appeared to him certain, that a very partial investigation bad been made, and very arbitrary proceedings adopted against the hon. baronet, and then that he had been refused permission to attend, and denied the opportunity to prove his innocence. Whether this was the ordinary practice, he had yet to learn. But if it was not, the persons who had begun it deserved the severest censure. He would vote for this motion, not because he thought that there was a case made out against the hon. officer; on the contrary, he not only was of opinion that he was innocent, but that his conduct was meritorious, but because he thought that many other points in these papers required investigation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that as it was likely the house would come to an unanimous vote for the appointment of the committee, he should just remark, that he did so under the impression of similar sentiments with those so forcibly delivered by the hon. member who spoke last. There was nothing contained in those papers from which any imputation of guilt could be drawn against the gallant officer; but, on the contrary, there was much that tended
644
Mr. Fox
objected to the word unauthorised, and the chancellor of the exchequer agreed to the omission of it.
Mr. Jeffery
(of Poole) said, that the hon. officer, in what he had that night so clearly and eloquently stated, had convinced his mind that he had discharged the important and arduous duty entrusted to him, in such a manner as reflected the highest honour on his zeal, his talents, and his perseverance, and he was happy in the opportunity of paying this small tribute to his merits. He thought, from every thing that he had observed, that the hon. officer was a highly oppressed man. The charges against him were frivolous, vexatious, and litigious in the highest degree. The whole rested upon about 12l. worth of canvass and some oakum, while nothing was said of the great saving he
645
Mr. David Scott
meant at first to have objected to the committee, as no case had been made out; but on the grounds on which the motion now rested, he would vote for it. When he was chairman of the East India company, he had corresponded with sir Home Popham, whose conduct had made the most favourable impression on his mind; that impression had been increased by the perusal of the papers on the table. Serious observations had been made on the expenditure of oakum and other trifles, while the saving of 27,000l. per month in the reduction of tonnage was overlooked.
Admiral Markham
declared, that the pamphlet mentioned by the gallant baronet certainly did not proceed from what had been termed lord St. Vincent's board of admiralty. Whether his hon. friend wished to assert any share in the manufacture of it, he did not know, but for himself, he utterly disclaimed it: the first time he had ever heard of it was last November at Portsmouth. The scurrility of this pamphlet had been insisted on, but surely it was not more scurrilous than the pamphlet antecedently published by the hon. baronet himself, in which he had indulged in observations calculated to defame and disgrace one of the highest public boards in the country. The hon. admiral read several passages from the law opinion annexed to sir Home Popham's narrative of the proceedings between him and the navy and admiralty boards, in support of his statement, and contended, that if a pamphlet, accusing an individual of improper conduct, was unjustifiable, one of the same tendency, by an officer, against a public board, was still more so. The hon. admiral called on the right hon. gent. (the chancellor of the exchequer) to consider, whether or not, by the measures he was now pursuing, he might not destroy that service which it was his duty to uphold. The liberty of the subject, to which he had alluded was a very ticklish point, and he cautioned him how he allowed it to be agitated. He warned him, lest by persevering in the system which had been adopted, the whole navy should go to ruin. His noble friend had persevered against a host of enemies in endeavouring to improve the state of the navy. Whether they
646
Sir Home Popham
said, he should be very glad to leave the comparative scurrility of the two pamphlets to the determination of the committee.
Mr. W. Dickenson
jun. reprobated the keeping of the gallant officer in a state of suspence for such a length of time. Why was it that sir home Popham had not been tried by a court martial? Or why had not a civil or criminal prosecution been instituted against him?—Because, in that case, facts must have been distinctly proved; because a jury must have been convinced of his guilt before they returned a verdict against him. Instead of this, the conduct of the hon. baronet had been submitted to the consideration of the commissioners of naval enquiry, who very fairly declared that it was not a fit subject for their investigation, but for that of a court martial alone. But why had it been referred to the commissioners of naval enquiry? Because that was a court dilatory or summary, as they thought proper. Because that was a court in which a man, contrary to all the principles of British jurisprudence, was expected to criminate himself, and if he declined doing so, he was stigmatized with the name of the hero of the fifth clause!
Admiral Markham
said it was not a fit business to go to a court martial. There was such a complicature of charges, and such a mixture of different matters, that a court martial would not have been equal to its full and adequate investigation. This was at least his own opinion, and on that he had acted.
Mr. Sheridan
begged to trouble the house with a very few words. The hon. gent. who spoke last but one had said he would not say any thing against the naval commissioners, and had immediately afterwards styled them a court which might acquit or delay, according to their caprices, and that they might wish for persons to criminate themselves. This was a kind of language he could not bear, and thought no member ought to use, when the commission had been renewed, and the same powers invested in their hands by the house,
647
Mr. W. Dickenson
jun. said he did not mean to cast any reflections on the commissioners of naval enquiry; on the contrary, he had said, that they recommended the trial by court martial, of which he approved.
Mr. Kinnaird,
however induced he might be, would not give way to the temptation of making that statement on the subject which he certainly was completely prepared to make. In reply to the accusation of delay that had been brought forward against him, he said, that not being aware in the first instance of the extent of the papers that it would be necessary to call for, it was impossible for him to fix a time for referring them to a committee. He asked the hon. gent. in what part of the papers was to be found what he had in vain looked for, the wish expressed by the commissioners of naval enquiry, to decline the investigation of the gallant baronet's conduct, and to refer it to a court martial. The observations made by the right hon. gent. opposite, on the impressing of Mr. Bartholomew, were extremely unfair, as they implicated the conduct of a noble lord, which, he was convinced, when it came to be scrutinized, would be found to be in the highest degree praiseworthy and honourable.
Mr. W. Dickenson
jun. had not stated that the wish of the commissioners of naval enquiry to decline the investigation of sir H. Popham's conduct, and to refer it to a court martial, existed in the papers before the house. It had been mentioned by an hon. baronet at the head of that commission, and confirmed by a conversation he had with him on the subject that morning. The motion as amended by the chancellor of the exchequer was then put and carried.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
as he saw the hon. gent. was prepared with a list of names, took the opportunity of intimating, before he heard them read, that
648
Mr. Kinnaird
remonstrated against this proceeding. The right hon. gent. had himself named a committee in the early part of the evening respecting the India business.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it did not follow such was to be the invariable mode of appointment. There was a considerable difference between a committee, such as that the hon. gent. had alluded to, and one to which matter that went to criminate an individual was to be referred.
Mr. Kinnaird
declined dividing the house on the subject.
The Speaker
observed, that it would be necessary, for the sake of form, to propose the first name on Mr. Kinnaird's list, which happening to be that of Mr. Canning, produced a considerable deal of laughter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
remarked that he certainly could have no objection to his right hon. friend, although for the sake of the general principle, he should be obliged to negative his appointment.
Lord Temple
could see no other rule for the conduct of his right hon. relation opposite, except that when he himself chose to nominate, he thought it right; but if any person on the other side proposed it, he found a ballot the only mode.—The motion was negatived. And the chancellor of the exchequer moved, that the number of the committee be twenty-one, and that they be chosen by ballot; both which motions were agreed to.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 9.
The house sat in a committee of privileges from five o'clock till eight, relative to the message from the house of commons respecting lord viscount Melville, during which time no strangers were admitted.—Prayers were then read, and after forwarding a few private bills the house adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 9.
[MINUTES.]
On the motion of Mr. Leycester, it was ordered that a message be sent to the lords, requesting their lordships to permit lord Harrowby to attend and give evidence before the committee of naval enquiry.—The Irish land partition
649
650
[PETITION FROM BERKSHIRE RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.]
A petition of the gentry, clergy, and freeholders, of the county of Berks, assembled at a public meeting for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of adopting resolutions in consequence of the decision of the house on the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, was presented to the house, by Mr. Charles Dundas, and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners have read with indignation the intimation in the votes of the house, of the abuses discovered in the said report; and they share the national exultation at the resolutions of the house of the 8th and 10th of April last; and the petitioners observe with gratitude that the house intend to prosecute further enquiry to the detection of all abuses which may exist in any other department of the state, and that they have ordered bills to be prepared for that purpose; and the petitioners entertain a confident hope, that in framing, the above-named bills, the house will carefully provide that the power constituted will be equal to the professed object, both as to the authority to be conferred, and the integrity of those by whom it is to be executed; and that the house will attend particularly to obviate a repetition of the obstacles raised by persons in office to investigation; for the petitioners submit, that if any thing can be worse than a deep-rooted system of abuse and peculation in the management of the public money, it would be the institution of a system of revision, in its nature a burlesque upon investigation, and in its result a mockery of justice; and that the petitioners conceive, that the most effectual method to check abuses, will be to punish already detected delinquency; and they therefore hope the house will be deferred by no considerations from pursuing with effect what they have begun with so much honour; and that
651
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 10.
[MINUTES.] Mr. Leycester,
chairman of the select committee of the house of commons on the tenth naval report, attended by several members, presented at the bar a message from that house, requesting that lord Harrowby might be permitted to attend the said committee. The lord chancellor, having previously put the question, desired the messengers to be called in, and informed them, that their lordships would send an answer to the house of commons, by messengers of their own.—Mr. Alexander brought up from the commons the Irish Loan bill, the Irish Bank, and the Irish Post Roads bills, which were severally read a first time.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.] Lord Grenville
moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The petition was then read by the clerk, and will be found in p. 97 of the present volume. After the petition had been read,
Lord Grenville
rose, and addressed the house as follows:—My lords, I was anxious that your lordships should hear this petition read through previous to my offering any observations on the subject of it, both on account of the many weighty arguments which it contains in favour of that which the petitioners humbly pray your lordships for, as well as for the strain of loyalty which pervades it, and the respectful, moderate, and temperate language in which those arguments and that prayer are couched. When the petition was first presented, I expressed an earnest hope, and such seemed to be the wish of all your lordships, that whatever opinions individual peers may entertain upon the subject, that the matter of the petition should be temperately, dispassionately, and impartially discussed. I was then happy to perceive such a temper and such an understanding, prevail; and I now beg leave again to express my most anxious wish, that this night the important subject and
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
—I pede fausto
671
672
673
Lord Hawkesbury.
—My lords; after the determination expressed by the noble baron who has just spoken, to treat the subject with all the temper and moderation which properly belonged to it; I can only regret that he seemed, so early in his speech, to forget the recommendation with which he set out. The question, he said, would and must be carried, if not on this night, at least at no very distant period. This was holding out something like a menace to the house, calculated to defeat that temper and moderation, which the noble lord himself had begun by recommending.
Lord Grenville
spoke to order. He said it was impossible for him to remain silent, when he was so grossly misrepresented. He would appeal to every noble lord, to every honest man who heard him, whether he had uttered a sentiment or a word that could be considered as the language of menace; when he said it must ultimately succeed, he only meant that sooner or later truth and reason must triumph over the prejudice of any party.
Lord Hawkesbury
then proceeded: I certainly understood the noble lord to have used those terms in the sense which I have affixed to them: but if the noble baron only means that his cause must ultimately triumph by the force of reason and argument, I am equally ready to meet him upon that ground. In opening the business, the noble baron has not thought proper to explain to us distinctly the object of his motion for referring the petition to a committee. From the whole train of his reasoning, however, we cannot be at a loss to perceive that he does not propose to confine himself to the partial measure of remedying the complaints of the petitioners; but that his argument goes to the full extent of repealing and abrogating all the tests at present subsisting in every part of the empire. I trust your lordships are fully sensible of the magnitude and importance of such a proposition; I trust you will pause before you give any countenance to the first step of a proceeding which may lead to loch alarming consequences. whatever difference of opinion I may entertain as to the merits of this petition, I have deprecated its being brought forward at the present moment: and I have great satisfaction in feeling, that, differing as I do, on this part of the subject, from some persons, whose vote this will be dictated by the some general principles as my own, no efforts have been omitted by me to prevent this question from being
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
A
A
A
A
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
The Duke of Cumberland.
—My lords: after the very able manner in which my noble friend has explained to this house, the reasons which, I trust, will induce you to reject the proposal of the noble lord, it will not be necessary for me to enter diffusely into this question. But when I reflect on what were the circumstances which brought our family to the throne, and when I consider what is the object of the petition on your table, it is impossible for me to remain totally silent. With respect to the circumstances which brought our family to the British throne, your lordships well know that they originated in the revolution. The great object of that revolution was to secure the religion and liberties of these realms. These objects were confirmed by the act of settlement, by the declaration of rights, by the oath of supremacy and abjuration, and by the succession to the crown in the protestant line. To maintain and uphold all these, our family was called to the throne. And whatever can militate against these principles, in the remotest degree, it is my bounden duty, as a member of that family, and as a member of your lordships house, to resist. For this purpose, I must ask, what is the object of that petition? It is to enable the catholics to hold offices of trust and power in the state. Was it not to oppose such a system that the revolution originated? Was it not the very life and soul of that memorable transaction to secure the rights of church and state? Are We then, my lords, going to undo all that the revolution has done? Bear in Mind, my lords, the scenes that preceded the revolution; they are strong proofs that the participation of equal power by catholics and protestants, is a thing incompatible with the principles of both. Are you not already convinced, by facts and history, that it is impossible for protestants and catholics to agree in the administration of political power? What then will follow if the catholics be admitted to the great offices of trust? You will soon see what, thank God, till now we have only read: we shall experience the same con-
693
Earl Spencer
supported the motion of his noble friend, after whose most able and argumentative speech, his lordship did not feel it necessary to trouble the house at much length. If he thought for a moment that the motion of his noble friend was likely, in the remotest degree, to injure the church or state, he assured the house that there was not a man in the country who would not only more unwilling to support it, but more strenuously oppose it than himself. If he thought that it went to invalidate the principles on which the Brunswick family came to and now possessed the throne, the idea would be abhorrent to his
694
695
Lord Sidmouth
professed his inclination to follow the example of the noble baron, and to discuss the important question which was before their lordships, with that temper and moderation that was necessary in considering it. Whatever sentiments he entertained respecting it, he would avow them plainly and frankly, and he would begin by saying, that though he would go as far in whatever regarded toleration as any of their lordships, he was not prepared to go to the extreme extent proposed by the noble baron. He listened to what fell from the noble baron with all the attention and respect that was due to whatever came from him; he heard him with that pleasure that he always did, but it was a pleasure mingled with astonishment and surprise. When he recollected how greatly that noble lord distinguished himself in combating doctrines which led to all the calamities under which it great portion of the people was actually suffering, and he feared would long suffer, it was not without excessive astonishment that he heard him on this night maintain doctrines, the direct tendency of which was the introduction of all those innovating principles against which he had so manfully and successfully struggled. Before he entered upon the question, he would take the opportunity of declaring, that he entirely concurred with noble friend, the secretary of slate, in giving full credit to the catholics for their loyalty and attachment both to the constitution and the beneficent sovereign
696
697
698
699
Lord Mulgrave
said, he different from the noble viscount who had just sat down. With the best attention that he had been able to give the subject, he could not perceive the dangers asserted by his noble friends, nor could he discover what possible mischief would be likely to arise from admitting persons of property and education into a share in the legislation. Whenever restrictions were to be taken off, it was the duty of those who proposed their removal, to see that it was done with as little inconvenience as possible. As a friend to the principle of the petition, he lamented that the time for introducing it had not been more properly chosen. The introduction of it at present, he feared, would tend to excite religious distinctions, and ultimately to frustrate the great object of the petition. When those who brought it forward, did it without the least prospect of success, their conduct tended to throw it a greater distance than he, friend as he was to the measure, could wish. When he saw it brought forward improperly, and intemperately, he could not feel much inclination to give it that support that he would have done under a different situation of circumstances. Upon those principles
700
Lord Holland
said, that so much was he impressed with the importance of the subject now under discussion, that when he came into the house he felt anxious to state his speech of the noble baron who opened the debate, he conceived it would be unnecessary to trespass on the time of their lordships, as the noble baron seemed not only to have exhausted all the arguments in favour of his motion, but to have anticipated and refused all the objections that could be made. Nevertheless arguments had been used, from the other side of the house, so extraordinary, that it was impossible they could have been anticipated; he therefore felt himself called upon to make some farther remarks on the doctrines of his noble friend, the secretary of state, who spoke first. His noble friend, however, and he, had been so little in the habit of agreeing on political subjects, that he trusted that their difference on this occasion would not, more than former differences, disturb their private sentiments of friendship and esteem. Indeed, if the doctrines laid down by the noble secretary of state and another noble lord were to be sanctioned by the house, they would be pregnant with calamity to Ireland, as there would then be no prospect of the removal of those grievances under which they laboured. He hoped, however, that the purport of what he meant to state would not be so totally misapprehended by the noble lords opposite, as the object of the petition had been misunderstood. The question was not, in the first instance, whether every thing which the catholics, or any other class of men to whom be religious disqualifications applied, should be indulged with all they might claim, but whether the house would take the subject of the existing laws affecting the catholics, into consideration or not. The arguments of the noble
701
702
703
704
705
706
Earl Camden
had been extremely anxious to offer himself to the house, and had attempted it at an earlier part of the debate as he stood in a peculiar situation with respect to the question at present. under consideration, upon which, before he proceeded further, he said, he should vote against the house going into the committee moved by the noble lord (Grenville). When he received his majesty's commands to repair to Ireland in year 1795, and found the question of admitting catholics into the legislatures of Ireland, he had thought it his duty to that measure to the utmost of his power, and had great satisfaction in thinking that he resisted it with success, as
707
708
The Bishop of Durham.
—I have made more than one attempt to address myself to your lordships' notice at an earlier period of the debate. An advantage will result from my want of success, both to your lordships and myself; that I shall not, at this late hour, from the length of what I have to offer, either trespass too long on your lordships' patience, or exhaust my own strength. I shall avoid a repetition of those arguments which have already been urged with much ability by those lords who have delivered their opinions. If ever there was a subject, the consideration of which peculiarly and imperiously called for temperate discussion and dignified moderation, it is that of the petition, which has been presented to this house by certain noblemen and gentlemen of property in Ireland, on behalf of themselves and others professing the Roman catholic religion. After a period of religious difference and civil discord it is indeed of the utmost importance, that, in agitating a question like the present, we should be influenced by an increased anxiety to guard against every unfair or unfavourable impression from recent injuries, or internal discontents. It is essential that we should resolve to preserve inviolate and sacred the principles of the establishment, and to extend that toleration, forbearance, and Christian charity, which are its distinctive marks, to their utmost practicable limit.—Religious toleration, my lords, is the primary principle and peculiar characteristic of our established church. By the practice of it, we have been habituated to respect and revere even the errors of the conscientious Christian; and we have been enabled to preserve harmony and good will, not only between protestant sects, but between every denomination of Christians. Under these impressions, my lords, I have attentively perused this petition. I have endeavoured to discover what extension of personal toleration is asked, that can be consistent with our civil and religious establishment; I have not considered what they would have given to us, but what we could with safety give to them;—not what we might in justice have refused, but what we could in kindness have good will. How far it has been our disposition to shew, not merely toleration, but real and active beneficence to persons differing from us in articles of faith,
709
710
711
Lord Redesdale
observed that the motion before the house was, in point of form, that the house should resolve mover evidently, and the prayer of the petition expressly was, that the catholics should be admitted to an equal participation of constitutional rights and power on equal terms with the protestants. If this were to be complied with, the constitution of church and state could not, in his judgment, long survive. The catholics professed also their anxiety to be relieved from all tests. This was insinuated in the petition, and it was the language publicly held by the members of that body in Ireland. The house should, in considering this question, recollect, and deeply reflect upon the situation of Ireland. If the demands in the petition were acceded to, the
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
The Duke of Norfolk
rose to propose an adjournment.
Lord Hawkesbury
said, he had no objection, provided it was understood the house should meet again the next day time enough to dispose of this question in the course of the evening; but if the adjournment was not proposed on these terms, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
The Duke of Norfolk
again submitted to the house the propriety of adjourning, without coming to any terms of compromise as to the time the subject should take up in future discussion, or the time when that discussion should be renewed. (Here there was a great cry of go on! go on! go on!)
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if the adjournment was carried, their lordships would understand that they should meet at an hour
720
Lord Hawkesbury
declared, that unless the motion for adjournment specified the hour at which the debate was to be resumed, instead of leaving that point indefinite, he should be under the necessity of opposing the adjournment.
The Duke of Norfolk
thought that the regular way would be to put the question of adjournment generally in the first instance; if that was carried, it would be competent to any noble lord to move that it be resumed at any hour he might think fit.—(A great cry of go on! go on! go on!)—The question was put by the lord Chancellor for the adjournment, and from the voices, the non-contents were declared to have it, and the house was about to proceed to a division, but did not divide. The debate was then resumed, and
The Earl of Limerick
rose and spoke as follows:—My lords, exhausted by the excessive heat of the house, and by the very late hour to which the debate has been protracted, I own I regret that the proposed adjournment did not take place. Your lordships, however, will derive one advantage from my wearied state of mind and body, that I am totally unable to trespass for any length of time on your patience, I protest, with the utmost sincerity, that I was desirous to reconcile it to my feelings to give my vote on the present question, without addressing your lordships. The subject under consideration is one, to a person who thinks as I do, highly unpleasant to discuss, and to an Irishman, for many reasons not necessary to allude to now, it is one of peculiar awkwardness; I could not, however, satisfy myself to remain behind the shield of silence, lest my doing so should be construed into timidity or want of decision.—From much of what has fallen from several noble lords who have spoken in this debate, I am almost led to imagine that I have passed the greater part of my life in a dream; that Ireland, where I was born, and where I resided so many years, was not the kind of country I had considered it to be, and that all that had there passed before my eyes:was merely a vision. The noble baron who opened the debate was pleased, in the beginning of his speech, to state, that the petitioners had suffered from party violence and party prejudice. I own I am at a loss to understand what the noble lord means; does he mean
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
Lord Carysfort
considered the question of immense magnitude and importance. He had a great deal to submit to their lordships upon it, but thought the hour too late for that purpose, and therefore suggested the propriety of an adjournment.
The Marquis of Buckingham
was in the same predicament as the noble lord who had just spoken, having also much to say to
729
Lord Grenville
submitted to the house the propriety of not proceeding further the present evening.
Earl Darnley
wished to address the house also, but thought it too late. He appealed to noble lords opposite to him, whether there was not an understanding before the debate commenced that there was to be an adjournment?
Lord Hawkesbury
explained the terms on which he had been willing to adjourn the discussion, but the house would now judge for itself, for he would not urge any thing further on the subject, the hour being so late, and so many noble lords desirous of delivering their sentiments on this most important occasion.
The Earl of Derby
then moved, "that this house do now adjourn to Monday next;" which, after a few words in support of it, was agreed to.—Adjourned at four o'clock on Saturday morning.
HOUSE OF COMMNOS.
Friday, May 10.
[MINUTES.]
A petition of the mayor, aldermen, recorder, freemen, and inhabitants, of the borough of Saint Alban, in the county of Hertford, was presented to the house by Mr. Poyntz, and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners beg leave to congratulate the house, and express their heartfelt satisfaction, at the resolutions which passed on the 8th and 10th of April last, respecting the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and pray the house to pursue such measures as they may think just for effectually exposing, and bringing to punishment all public peculators and delinquents, and for securing in future the treasure of the nation from similar depredations: and although the petitioners most sincerely deplore the complicated difficulties of the present conjuncture, yet they confidently rely on the wisdom of parliament for relief."—Mr. F. Fane moved, that sir William Rawlins and Robert Albion Cox, Esq. should be brought to the bar for the purpose of being reprimanded and discharged. They Were accordingly put to the bar; whereupon Mr. Speaker addressed them as follows: "Sir William Rawlins and Robert Albion Cox; your conduct having undergone the severe but just animadversion of this house, followed by a sentence of ignominious imprisonment, it is fit to be understood by
730
731
[STATE OF THE NAVY.] Mr. Jeffery
said, he rose in pursuance of the notice had given, to have the honour of submitting to the house a motion for the production several accounts relating to the naval department of the country, during the administration of earl St. Vincent. Having read the motions on a former night to the house, and being of opinion that some time should be taken to deliberate on their contents, he now rose to submit his motions to the consideration of parliament. He was persuaded when the accounts were laid upon the table, and perused by the members, that he would be borne out in the view which he had taken of the subject, and the intention for which the accounts were brought forward. He would not trouble the house with any further observations until he heard whether his motions were opposed, or met with the approbation of the house. He therefore should move, "That there be laid before the house an account, shewing the number of line-of-battle ships and frigates built between the 1st January, 1783, and 31st December, 1792, distinguishing the number of ships launched from the merchants' yards, from those launched from the king's yards."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no objection to the motion now offered; but as those which were to follow were very voluminous, he wished to have it understood, that he must oppose the production of any papers tending to show the state and condition of the ships in 1804, as it might afford improper information to the enemy. He should also object to the production of any correspondence explaining the state of British and foreign timber, as it might disclose the foreign resources of the navy, and thereby perhaps enable the enemy to embarrass them.
Sir John Sinclair
entertained great doubts with respect to the propriety of bringing forward the long list of motions which the hon. gent. stated on a former night, as they embraced almost every branch of the naval service of the country. He submitted if at this late period of the session, it were adviseable; and he would be glad to know from any gentleman conversant with the official business of the board of admiralty, if these accounts could be prepared without distracting its attention from the other important concerns, in which, at this con-
732
Mr. Jeffery
considered the observations of the hon. baronet premature, as he could not know whether the accounts would lead to enquiry or not. He would not contend, if any thing criminal occurred in the administration of lord St. Vincent, it should be passed over, and that an enquiry into his conduct ought not to be instituted. He declared, on his honour, that he did not act through party motives, he was an unconnected individual, not belonging to any man or set of men; his conduct arose from his feelings for the situation of the country, and his knowledge where the faults were imputable, with respect to the administration of earl St. Vincent. The reduced state of the navy he attributed to the noble lord, and if enquiry was to be dispensed with the present session, he knew the difficulty of obtaining enquiry hereafter. He knew he had undertaken an herculean task in the first instance, but he had cogent, ample, and sufficient reasons for bringing the measure before the house. He trusted that no member would object to his motions, that parliament might decide whether enquiry was or was not necessary. He moreover trusted that no gentleman would be against the production of the papers, until they knew what they contained. They were neither as voluminous nor as intricate as some members might imagine; and he pledged himself that they could be produced in a week or ten days, without giving any extraordinary trouble to the lords of the admiralty in perusing their contents. He thought them absolutely necessary to be produced as he would take upon him to prove, that lord St. Vincent had disgraced the British navy, and was the greatest enemy to the country and the navy of Great-Britain that the country ever knew.
Mr. Tierney
said, he was far from opposing the motion now before the house, especially as the hon. gent. had put it out of his power
733
734
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not see why the right hon. gent. should rest his observations particularly on him, as he, no more than any other member, could judge whether the papers might endure an enquiry, until he could examine the nature of them all. When this motion was first noticed, it seemed to be the general wish, on all sides, that the papers should be granted, and he alone wished for a delay, which led him, as he stated before, to object to two of them, as inconsistent with the public safety; but, he could not foresee effect of the remainder. If the house exmined the speech of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney), they would observe it to consist of alternate sentences: the one tending to court, and the other to suppress enquiry. As to what had been alluded to of protection, he had only to say, that he should be always ready to protect earl St. Vincent, or any other man, against injustice. The remembrance he had of the great professional services of the noble earl would a sufficient restraint against any hostility on his part towards him; but, he had long since expressed his opinion of his conduct in the admiralty, and he had not yet seen any reason to retract it. The past professional merits of the noble earl, however great, were not sufficient grounds to defend the faults in his administration. For his own part, he declared that he had no wish for, nor did he intend to submit, any enquiry into the con-
735
Mr. Jeffery
declared that his conduct did not spring from any party connection, but, from the impulse of the moment. He had no communication on the subject of his motions with the minister, or any other person; and, when the right hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney) asked him this day in private whether they were to be carried, he candidly answered him that he did not know.
Mr. Grey
reprobated, in the most forcible language, the mode in which this subject was brought forward. An hon. member moved for the production of a number of papers, which he said possibly might not authorise enquiry, and yet in the introduction to his motion he made use of the strangest language which could be applied to any case, even after a charge of improper conduct was established upon proof before the house. All that he could understand by the expression of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), by the word "protection" was, that it meant to signify fairness, though in fact, he was sorry the word had been used at all. Thee fairness he claimed on the part of the earl St. Vincent was, that whatever objections there might be in point of convenience, all the papers should be produced which might be necessary for the enquiry. The hon. gent. (Mr. Jeffery) seemed surprised, that any gentleman should oppose the papers, without knowing what they were; but he forgot, that when the papers should be produced, it would be too late to oppose them. He acted, in this respect, like the judge, who was reported to have told a barrister from the bench—"I will not allow you to open your mouth, until you tell me what you have to say." As to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), he must do him the justice to say, that he acted consistently, and he had uniformly expressed himself hostile to the naval administration of the earl St. Vincent.
Mr. Tierney
explained. He said, what he meant by protection was, that ministers should not, at this late period of the session, suffer such motions to be brought forward, and had no reference in his observation to the particular friends of the noble earl.
Mr. Wilberforce
agreed with the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that the gratitude due to earl St. Vincent's professional character, should not be a bar to
736
Mr Pytches
here called the hon. gent to order: thinking such high panegyrics on the new first lord of the admiralty, were by no means relevant to the present motion.
Mr. Wilberforce
thought himself perfectly in order, when it was considered that lord Barham was comptroller of the navy under two of the administrations to which these motions referred.
Mr. Curwen
thought, that after earl St. Vincent had been acquitted charges in the last session, when the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) moved for papers to criminate him, it would, at least, have been decent to abstain from any harsh expression towards him, until the paper now moved for should be properly examined. The language used by the hon mover appeared to him much too strong to be lightly applied to so good and exalted a character; and he thought the
737
Mr. Bastard
was of opinion, that the enquiry, which ought rather now to extend itself to the dominion of the sea, ought not to be confined to limits of earl St. Vincent's administration. Instead of party motions of this kind, it would more become the house to enquire into the disorders in the West Indies, and the circumstance of the dominion of the sea being now in the hands of the French, who dared not shew their faces on the ocean during the administration of the gallant earl St. Vincent. During that vigourous and active administration, the French could presume to shew themselves only in be defeated, and how shameful was now the reverse, when the British squadrons were obliged to fly before them. The hon. gentleman concluded with observing that the great object of our enquiry should at present be, by what means we might be able again to put ourselves into the same situation in which earl St. Vincent had left us?
Mr. R. Ward
said, he must absolutely and distinctly deny that the enemy were now in possession of the dominion of the sea, or were able to cope with our fleets in any part of the world.
Admiral Markham
said, if the right. hon. gent, (Mr. Pitt) already objected to two of the motions while he was willing to grant the remainder, it must also follow, that he should have to object to many others which he should think it right to submit respecting the supply of foreign timber, which would be so necessary to the earl St. Vincent's justification, though he should be sorry, on any other account, to propose the disclosure of any thing might be supposed embarrasing to government. When the same right hon. gent. last year moved for an account of the foreign timber imported, he objected to it as a disclosure which he thought at that time improper, but being now out of office, he was not capable of judging whether a similar communication would not be equally injurious at the present time. All he should think of asking for would be such papers as were barely necessary for the vindication of the
738
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
here interrupted the hon. admiral, as being disorderly in anticipating what sort of committee the papers might be referred to, before they were produced.
The Speaker
said, that in fairness he must acquit the hon. admiral of being more out of order, in that instance, than others who preceded him; but, he must at the same time inform the hon. admiral, that it was highly disrespectful to speak of committees appointed by the house, as if they were the nomination of any individual.
Admiral Markham,
after apologising, went on to proceed in nearly the same way, when he was again called to order by Mr. Dent. The hon. admiral said, he did not conceive himself irregular in adverting to what he meant to be the objects of his own motions; when, the Speaker said, he must now imperatively interfere, and acquaint the hon. member, that he was not at liberty to pass by the subject of discussion, or refer to his own motions, till the present was disposed of. After some further conversation, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Jeffery
then moved a long string of motions, for "the number of line-of-battle ships and frigates in commission, in 1793, distinguishing their rates, &c. ditto, in 1794, and from thence to the 18th of February, 1801-2-3-4, and 5, distinguish their rates, and whether in the king's or merchants' docks; also the ships of the same
739
Mr. Dent
then, in pursuance of a former notice, in order to probe things to the bottom, and draw a comparison between the administration of earl Spencer and the earl St. Vincent, moved, "that there be laid before the house, a list of all persons raised to the rank of lieutenants in the navy, from lieutenants to captains and commanders, and from captains and, commanders to post captains, from the 1st of Jan. 1795, to the 1st of Jan. 1804." He said, that if the papers were agreed to, he should follow them up with a specific motion.
Admiral Markham
thought it invidious to draw this comparison, as he, together with all the friends of earl St. Vincent, had ever spoken and thought in the highest manner of the purity and zeal of earl Spencer's administration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed an amendment, for bringing the account to the latest period, which would include the administration of viscount Melville.
Sir J. Sinclair
renewed his former objection to the multiplication of enquiries at this late period of the session.
Mr. Kinnaird
said, that, to do away the invidious distinction between the administration of earls Spencer and St. Vincent, he should propose as an amendment to the motion, that it should begin at the year 1793, instead of 1795, which would include also the administration of the earl of Chatham.
Admiral Markham
said, that, as the object was to shew that earl St. Vincent employed a greater number of officers than any of his predecessors, it would be right to shew the reason of the promotions which were made at the end of the late war, for the reward of naval services, and to amend the motion, by going back to a comparative estimate with the promotions made under the administration of earl Sandwich, at the close of the American war. However, as he did not wish to crowd the table of the house with too many papers, he should not persist in the amendment.—The amended motion was then agreed to, commencing with the year 1793.
[CORN REGULATION BILL.] Lord A. Hamilton
called the attention of the house to the numerous petitions against the corn law of the last session. He argued that the
740
Colonel Stanley
represented the extent of the complaints against the bill, in the manufacturing parts of Lancashire.
The Secretary at War
observed, that the petitioners acted upon misapprehension or misrepresentation, as, in fact, the bill never came into operation. As to the injurious effect upon Scotland, it was to be ascribed to the alteration in the usual average, proposed by the noble lord himself, and to obviate which, he was now suing for redress.
Mr. Coke
(of Norfolk) was against the bill going into a committee, or any further discussion being had upon it. It had produced the most beneficial effects already, by encouraging the importation of wheat, which now throughout England kept down the price of the markets.
Mr. Western
was against all discussion of the subject, now when corn, was ever, where falling in price, on account of the great quantities imported, from the contemplation of what might have been the effects of the late act. Its provisions had not yet taken effect; and the ports had never been shut by it, as the prices were not low enough to produce that consequence. Even in Scotland, as well as Ireland, the surplus produce was, this year, so great, that large quantities of wheat were imported from these countries into England. Even in Lanarkshire, the petitions from which were so much rested upon, the average prices were lower than on the corn exchange in London; and, he believed, upon the whole, lower than the average prices of England. When the bill was passed the price of corn was 1Os. a quarter dearer than if was now throughout the country. It was a great object to throw off the dependance which Great Britain heretofore was under, for its supplies to foreign countries, which in the present state of Europe, might, without any strain of probability, be, in a short time, converted into enemies. The effect of the continuance of this act would be, that the man who employed his capital in agriculture might safely conclude in deriving adequate profit from it, and in this manner
741
Sir Robert Peele
argued, that the manufacturing interest should be supported against foreign competition, by supplying the necessities of workmen at a reasonable rate. A temporary depression of the farmer's profits ought not to be made the cause of a permanent burthen on the consumer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he approved of the general principle of the act of last year, and was convinced that it had no share in the high price of grain, which was solely to be attributed to the deficiency of the crops throughout the country. It did much good from the encouragement it gave to importation, and he contended it to be impossible, that the interest of the agriculturist and manufacturer should ever be at variance with each other. If the house was once to discourage the grower for the present interest of the consumer, it must follow that the latter must ever afterwards be a sufferer by it; and, at times, subjected to such aggravated prices as would be most severely and intolerably felt. He deprecated any farther discussion on the subject at present, but did not object to the committee, as he thought it the most effectual mode, in its report, of counteracting all erroneous opinions with regard to it.
Mr. Foster
stated, that he had supported this bill when brought forward last session, and saw no reason why it should now be altered or repealed. No corn had been exported from Great Britain in consequence of it, nor had it prevented any from being imported; it had done no harm; and he, therefore, did not wish any investigation to take place.
Mr. Macdowall
observed on the average prices, Which, he said, were against Scotland, and thought, if the committee, in this instance, was refused, a bill should be brought in specifically to regulate them.
Mr. Francis
maintained that when the bill passed, the price of bread was not more than eightpence or ninepence the quartern loaf, and, in about a mouth after, it rose to about sixteen or seventeen pence, for no other reason but because the bill was in force. He would, therefore, give his assent to the motion.
Mr. H. Lascelles
thought it better to go into the committee, and if it should be found that the bill had no effect, it might easily be altered.
Mr. W. Smith
did not think the bill was the cause, of the rise of bread, and was sure,
742
Mr. Barham
spoke in favour of the committee, and thought that, as the people had doubts, it was necessary that an investigation should take place.
Sir C. Price
thought the interference of parliament in these matters had a bad effect on the market.
Sir J. Newport
opposed the motion for a committee, as he thought, whenever this subject was discussed, speculations took place, which were injurious, and, no doubt, would be enlarged, if the present motion were carried. Sir W. Curtis and Alderman Coombe thought the average too high, and agreed that the Louse should go into a committee. Lord Archibald Hamilton concluded the debate with asserting his design to be not to alter the bill if it were advantageous, but only to permit the committee to enquire into its merits; so much he considered to be due to the petitioners and to the country. The house then divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 40. Majority for the committee 23.—Adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 13.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.]
The order of the day having been read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Roman Catholic Petition,
The Earl of Suffolk
rose.—The emancipation of the Irish; Roman catholics was a measure, his lordship was of opinion, which must sooner or later be adopted, and therefore he wished their lordships at once generously and nobly to grant the prayer of the petition. Objections had been made to this as a proper time for such a measure; but no time, his lordship contended, could be more proper than the present. It was indeed a critical time, a time when they knew not how soon the enemy might land on their shores; but it was only for that reason the more necessary that the whole strength and population of the empire should be united, and no means could be more effectual for this purpose, he thought, than to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland by a just, a wise, and moderate policy. The concessions that had already been made them, it had been argued, had only been productive of evil, and had led to the present high de-
743
744
The Earl of Oxford
supported the petition, and disclaimed all connection with a certain person who had been alluded to on the former night (Arthur O'Connor) since he had heard that he had joined the enemy.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire
perceiving a noble and learned friend near him. (lord Carleton) anxious to deliver his sentiments upon the important subject then under their lordships' consideration, was extremely unwilling to prevent the house from hearing the noble lord; but having resided for so many years in Ireland, having during a considerable portion of that time held a high official situation in that country, and having been the individual who introduced the bill of 1793, he was absolutely precluded from giving a silent vote. In offering his sentiments against the motion of the noble baron, however they might militate against the prayer of the petition, he was under no apprehension of being charged with prejudice or intolerance; to such an imputation he would answer by a reference to the bill of 1793, and it would be unnecessary for him to desire a more effectual justification than would be found in the provisions of that bill. It had given to the Roman Catholics of Ireland the full enjoyment of a perfect equality of civil rights with the rest of his majesty's subjects, with an exemption from certain political obligations which are with-held from all except the protestant dissenters of that country. Under the impression of every thing that had been already conceded, he was never more surprised, than that the noble baron, whilst deprecating inflammatory language in others, should himself resort to so extraordinary a position, as that the refusing to grant what the Roman catholics had sought for in their petition could be justified only upon the principle of their being deemed traitors, and unfit even to be permitted to take the oath of allegiance, and if that were the, case, severe and oppressive as the penal code had been, it ought to be re-enacted,—Such an argument from the lips of the noble baron could not fail to ex-
745
746
747
748
749
A.
A.
750
Lord Carleton
said, that the measure proposed would affect the whole empire, but more particularly Ireland; therefore, several of the observations which he meant to make would specially relate to the measure, as it might peculiarly affect that country. The main object of the petition is power. In his opinion the Roman catholics already have as much power as they ought to possess under a protestant government, and therefore he would oppose the petition.—The concessions in 1793, as to removing penalties, were wise, but, as to every thing beyond that, doubts might be entertained as to the wisdom of the measure. However,
751
eo nomine
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
Lord Hutchinson.
—My lords: in the course of this debate, the catholic hierarchy, the priests, the Catholic religion, have been treated with the most unqualified censure, and with an asperity which I little expected to find in this enlightened assembly. It is one of the misfortunes of the catholic cause, that, composing as they do the great mass of the indigent population of Ireland, they are liable to every misrepresentation; the crime of the individual becomes the offence of the sect; the highest man in the community is made answerable for the conduct of the lowest: the religion itself is censured for the commission of those very acts which it reprobates and condemns—Many allusions have been made to the late Whatever that rebellion might have been, it
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
Lord Redesdale
felt himself so peculiarly called upon, in consequence of some observations which had been made by the noble lord, that he trusted their lordships would indulge him with a hearing for a few moments. He was not induced by what had fallen from the noble lord to retract an assertion which he had made on the former evening of debate. He asserted, in confirmation of what he then stated, that, from the prejudices of the catholics in Ireland, it was extremely difficult to put protestant children out to service. (A cry of no! no!) He knew the fact, he said, from his official situation in Ireland, where being a trustee for several charitable institutions he knew that the greatest embarrassment arose from the extreme difficulty Which existed of putting out protestant children from those institutions to service. It was also equally true that the greatest prejudice existed in catholic families against protestant servants, and that every means were used to render their situation uncomfortable (A cry of no! no! from some noble lords, and of order! from others.) He was not, he said, to be driven from any
772
The Earl of Ormond
—My lords; I trust I shall not be contradicted by any man who really knows any thing of Ireland, when I say the noble and learned lord has stated that which is not a fact, at least in the opinion of any man but himself; and there fore I cannot sit silent and hear the country to which I have the honour to belong, so foully traduced, without rising in my place, to contradict such unfounded aspersions upon the national character of Ireland. The noble lord has asserted, that protestants dare not live in the same families with catholic servants; and that the catholic servants, from their hatred to those of the protestant religion, combine against them, My lords, I know not what may be the state of the noble lord's household, I never was in his house, I never wish it, and I never will be in it; but, my lords, I do know. that in my own house, in the houses of the protestant gentlemen around it, intermixed and surrounded by Catholics, and in one of the most catholic counties in Ireland (Kilkenny) catholic and protestant servants live together like brothers. The noble lord has, stated, that in Dublin-a protestant servant cannot get employment in a protestant family, on account of the combination formed against him by catholic servants. In all my intercourse in Dublin, during a very long residence there, much longer indeed than that of the noble lord, I never once Beard any such thing. The only complaint I ever recollect to have heard on this point was, that protestant servants enough could not be had to supply protestant families who had a predilection for such servants—that class of the people in Ireland being by much the greater part catholic. From the tenor of the speech spoken by that noble and learned lord on a former night, and the weight with which every statement respecting the country where he presides in a situation so eminent, must fall under the sanction of his grave authority,I own I did expect this motion would have met, this night, the most viru-
773
Lord Boringdon
said, he had no scruple in giving it as his opinion that the existence and full security of the established church was in no way involved in this measure, that whenever it was adopted there could be no possible ground for thinking of repealing any part of the act of settlement, or, as had been mentioned, the 5th article of the act of union; that he fully approved of the terms of the petition on the table; that he saw with satisfaction the reasonable and moderate principles entertained by those on whose part it had been presented; and that he had no doubt that in due time and at a fit opportunity their claims would have their proper weight with all who valued the principles the British constitution, and who in consequence wished that its blessings should be perpetuated and extended. He argued that though vulgar outcry and popular clamour should never influence the conduct of that house, yet it could not be maintained that their lordships, in their decisions, were to be deaf or insensible to what they be, lieved to be the general sentiment and opinion of the large body of the public. He believed that that sentiment was at present de-
774
775
The Archbishop of Canterbury
stated that before their that lordships consented to resolve themselves into a committee for the purpose of considering in what manner they could best carry into execution the prayer of the petition, entitled the petition of the Roman catholics whose names were subscribed, it would surely be matter of prudence to enquire, whether the principle upon which the petition rested, was such as their lordships could with safety admit. If, in
776
777
778
The Earl of Albemarle.
—My lords, it is not my purpose to go any great length into argument upon the question before you. I rise principally with a view to offer some observations in answer to a noble and learned lord who holds a high situation in Ireland, and whose speech in this debate, I own, creates in my mind no small share of astonishment. It has been well observed by other noble lords, that whatever comes from his elevated authority on a subject wherein it ought to be presumed, at least, he is well informed, must have much weight in this house. Looking to his grave character, and that liberality of sentiment which I expected would have raised his mind far above the vulgar prejudices and idle tales that have filled narrow minds upon this topic, I hoped from him, that whatever might be his sentiments upon the motion before you, they would at least have been delivered with that calmness, moderation, and sound argument, that one would expect to characterise the expanded mind, extensive knowledge, just discernment, and strict impartiality benefiting his high judicial situation, in a coun-
779
780
781
782
783
The Lord Chancellor
rose to discuss the subject with temperance and moderation. The noble lord who introduced the subject, had said it was one highly fit to be entertained. If it was so fit to be entertained upon constitutional principles, he sincerely prayed God that it might be entertained; but if its tendency, as had been ably argued, was to subvert those blessings under that constitution, which not only the protestants of this country, but every other class of his Majesty's subjects in the country enjoy, both civil and religious, he hoped it would not be entertained. To say the measure never shall pass, would be a language not fit for any man to use who was fit to have a seat in that house. But at present, and in his view of the subject, it was a question inconsistent with the principles of the constitution which had been introduced into this country upon protestant principles; and, therefore, feeling as he did, that it is a question opposed to what he conceived to be the true principles of that constitution, and the law as it stands, he should feel that he was not doing his duty of he did not oppose it; and in so doing, he conceived himself acting consistently with that zeal and sense of duty which he hoped would actuate the majority of their lordships, to transmit to out posterity that constitution in as much purity as we had received it from our ancestors. It had been said that the petition was couched in respectful language. He would admit it was. But the question was not, whether the language of the petition was respectful to the house? but, whether it was wise, just, or expedient to comply with the prayer of that petition?
784
785
The Duke of Norfolk.
786
787
Lord Harrowby
could not agree that it was a fir moment to agitate the question,l if their lordships were not prepared to think it a fit moment to concede what was asked.
The Earl of Westmorland.
—My lords, having been one of his majesty's servants at the time the union was framed, having been in some degree alluded to in the course of the debate, and the importance of the measure, will be my excuse, however ably the subject has been debated, for stating the grounds of the vote I shall give this night. Having, whilst I had the honour of serving his majesty in Ireland, twice given his majesty's sanction to important favours to the Roman catholics of that kingdom; having been twice thanked by that body, and assured that the period of my administration would ever be remembered width gratitude by the catholics of Ireland, I trust, in giving my decided negative to the motion of the noble lord for a committee, it is unnecessary for me to relieve myself of any suspicions of being actuated by superstition or bigotry, or a want of principles of liberality or toleration. To toleration in the exercise of his religion and enjoyment of property, every subject, except under imminent circumstances, has a right; beyond this the exercise of political power is a question not of right but of expediency; a right which every state has exercised, which every state will exercise, in defiance of all the new theories, in defiance of the doctrines of the rights of man, and the bleeding example of the French republic.—Before I enter into the discussion of this question, I will preface two observations: first, notwithstanding the new opinion, that in this country the ecclesiastical establishment is inseparably
788
789
Lethe lisque ambitus urbis Annua venali referens certainina campo.
790
791
792
793
794
The Bishop of St. Asaph.
—My lords, in delivering my sentiments upon this subject, I hope I shall be able to maintain that temper of cool discussion, which a question affecting so numerous and so respectable a de-
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
Lord Ellenborough
said, the anxiety and alarm which, during the long suspended agitation of this important question, had been excited in his mind as to its probable effect on the peace and tranquillity of the country, had from various indications of the public sentiment respecting it, in a great measure subsided, before the immediate discussion of the question in that house; and, from the circumstances immediately attending the discussion itself, which (except
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
Jam tenet Italiam, tamen ultra pergere tendit Actum inquit nihil est, nisi pœno milite portas Frangimus et media vexillum pone suburrâ.
816
The Earl of Moira
expressed a wish that the question should be relieved from a great deal of extraneous matter with which it had been encumbered, and that it should be brought to the test of that plain good sense on which he conceived it to rest. He thought the complexion of the present times demanded that every exertion should be made to procure an unanimity of heart and mind in the cause of the country. It was very true that to give the catholics the privilege of admission to the few offices from which they were excluded, would be giving them little; but the gift would shew a disposition to conciliate and to win their affection; which would be in that point of view important. He was surprised to have heard it said, that the petition tended to throw the torch of discord into the country; on the contrary, he was of opinion that the object of it, if properly attended to, would tend to establish that harmony which was most essential to the country at the present moment. At the same time that he made these observations, he wished to speak with the utmost respect of the established church; but which he did not think would be endangered of injured by granting the catholic claims. He wished, therefore, that the petition should be referred to a committee, for the purpose of considering whether any danger could really arise from conceding those claims; and if it should be deemed not prudent to grant the whole, whether any part to those claims might be safety admitted; as he wished it to be understood, that in the committee he should certainly be desirous of weighing well each object which the catholics had in view, and investigating in that manner it would operate with respect to the church establishment, before he gave his consent to the admission of the claim which it involved.
Earl Darnley.
—My lords; I am ready to confess my disposition to assent to the opinion of some noble lords on the other side of the house as to the time in which this question is agitated. Had I been consulted by the catholics of Ireland, I certainly should have recommended to them to abstain from press-
817
818
819
820
821
822
Lord Auckland.
—My lords; having expressed a decided opinion respecting the petition of the Irish Roman catholics on its first introduction into this house, I have purposely waited to this late period of the debate, that I might learn the sentiments of other noble lords. The discussion is now so exhausted, that I can compress what I have to submit to your lordships within narrower limits than I should have thought right if I had spoken earlier. My noble
823
824
825
826
827
"The cruel something unpossess'd, "Leavens and poisons all the rest."
828
829
Lord King
lamented that there should be any serious difference at this crisis between the English protestants and the Roman catholics in Ireland; he wished all differences to cease, and supported the motion as a measure of wisdom.
Lord Bolton
having formerly held an high official situation in Ireland (chief secretary to the lord lieutenant) felt it his duty to express the opinion on this subject which he had formed upon much reflexion. He conceived it extremely dangerous to grant to the catholics political power, except under a control, which was by no means proposed, and which it would be difficult to devise: and he thought such an experiment the more hazardous, as a language of constructive menace had been held by many noble lords of great weight, in course of this discussion, who had said that, what is asked must be granted, to preserve the country from imminent peril of fatal discord and disunion that must follow a refusal. This was a language of direct intimidation, which could not be listened to for many reasons; for nothing could tend more to remove all limits to future demand until the very superiority of power, might be claimed or assumed. The house too was exhorted and warned to concessions, not merely for the sake of interest, but of self-preservation. But on the contrary, he feared much more from the concession than the refusal. Some noble lords went so far as to insinuate pretty plainly that the house, was encouraged to venture on rejecting the petition, from a reliance on the loyalty and patience the depressed and ill-treated catholics. He would not hesitate to acknowledge his own reliance on the continued loyalty of these catholics who had hitherto maintained it; but that reliance would not be increased by increasing to the catholics political power. These oppressive restraints no longer exist; and he would so far accredit their good sense, as to think that, with all the drawbacks on their privileges so strongly enumerated, they would yet prefer the station they now hold in the empire to any risk under any change to which they might look from the interference of any foreign power. They could be no friends to the catholics who argued their cause inconsistently, as at one moment to menace the country with the privation of all aid from them without submission to their claims; and the
830
831
832
833
"Grant power, And then I grant we put a sting into them That at their will they may do danger with."
"Then last it may—prevent! And if the quarrel will bear no colour for the things they are, fashion it thus; that what they are, augmented, May run to these and these extremities, &c.&c."
834
835
836
837
The Earl of Longford
said a few words in favour of the motion; after which,
Lord Grenville
rose to reply, and spoke in substance as follows: My lords; nothing but the duty I owe to the question and to myself, would have induced me to trouble your lordships with any observations at this late hour, In the course of what has fallen from noble lords during this debate, it has been thrown out by way of reproach, that to this petition is affixed none of the names of the catholic clergy of Ireland, and this most unjust and most unwarrantable interference has been drawn, that because they have not put their names to the petition, therefore they are not willing to subscribe to the sentiments of loyalty and attachment expressed in the petition. Now, my lords, I assert it again, and again, and am willing to lose all consideration with your lordships if I do not prove, that the contrary is the fact; if I do not prove, that they have signed the declaration themselves, and as an hierarchy have,recommended it to others. I have the means of proving before a committee of lordships, if you will let me go into committee, that the catholic clergy of Ireland are not only willing, but anxious and desirous to take the oaths prescribed by law,and that they exert themselves to persuade others to take them. This I can prove by certificates from courts of justice
838
839
840
841
842
843
Lord Sidmouth
rose to say a few words by way of explanation. It was his idea, as well as his wish, that all remaining restrictions on the relgion of the catholics of Ireland, if any did remain, should be removed. He would also allow them a full community of civil rights with the rest of his-majesty's subjects; but never would he agree to put into their bands powers sufficient to subvert the constitution.
For the motion.
Contents
37
Proxies
12
49
Against the motion.
Contents
133
Proxies
45
178
Majority against the motion
129
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 13.
[MINUTES]
—A petition of several persons interested in British ships and vessels frequenting and trading to the port of London, was presented to the house, and read; taking notice of the bill to repeal two acts, passed in the 6th and 32d years of his late majesty, for the regulation of lastage and ballastage in the river Thames, and to make more effectual regulations relating thereto; and setting forth,that the same contains several clauses and provisions which, if passed into a law, would be very injurious to the petitioners; and therefore praying, that they may be heard, by counsel, against so much of the said bill as affects them, and that the same may not pass into a law as it now stands. Ordered, that the said petition be referred to the consideration of the committee to whom the said bill is committed; and
844
845
[PETITION FROM CORNWALL RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
—A petition of the gentlemen, clergy, freeholders, and inhabitants, of the county of Cornwall, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the abuses in the expenditure of the public money, which have been lately brought to light by the commissioners of naval enquiry, have filled the minds of the petitioners with alarm and indignation, and they call upon the house for the speedy remedy of such abuses, and for the exemplary punishment of the offenders; and that abuses in the expenditure of the public money (at all times matter of grievance) are peculiarly felt at this time, when so great a weight Of taxation fills upon all ranks of people; and; that a defence has been attempted of the guilt of the offenders, by the assertion that no actual mischief has been sustained by these gross breaches of trust and offences against law as if the direct violation of a statute were not a high crime and mis-demeanour without the aggravation, that the violation of which the petitioners complain was systematic, and committed by a confidential servant of the crown, himself the framer of the act which he has broken, and enjoying and increased salary under that very act, in full satisfaction of all wages and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former treasurers; and that such
846
[PETITION FROM COVENTRY RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.]
—A petition of the principal inhabitants of the city and county of the city of Coventry, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that it appears to the petitioners, from the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and by the votes of the house of the 8th and 10th days of April last, decisions which have excited the highest veneration and gratitude in their breasts, that there has been the most gross and scandalous misapplication of the public money in the office of lord viscount Melville, with his privity and connivance; and the petitioners deeming it highly essential to the detection of further mal-practices, that every department of government should undergo a strict and impartial scrutiny, and that every delinquent may be brought to exemplary punishment humbly intreat that the powers so wisely and judiciously by the house intrusted to the said commissioners, and by them so able, uprightly, and indefatigably employed, may be continued, or, if thought necessary, further extended." Ordered to lie upon the table.
[PETITION FROM ESSEX RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.]
— A petition of the noblemen, and the humble petition of the gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders, of the
847
[LORD MELVILLE.]
—a message was delivered from the lords stating, "that the lords do give leave to the lord Harrowby to come to the select committee of the house of commons, to whom the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry (respecting the office of the treasurer of his majesty's navy) is referred, to enquire into the application of any monies issued to the treasurer of the navy for naval services to purposes not naval, and whether any, and what representations were made to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasure, or the chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the withdrawing from the bank any sums of money so issued since the passing of the act of 25 Geo. III. c. 31; and also into the proceedings had for the recovery of the debt due to the crown by the late Adam Jellicoe; on order to be examined at that committee, of his do desire a present conference with this house, in the painted chamber, upon
848
833*
[PETITION FROM OXFORD RESPECTING THE PETITION OP THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
—A petition of the mayor, bailiff's, and commonalty, of the city of Oxford, in common council assembled, was presented to the house, and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners having seen, by the votes of the house, that a petition has been introduced there from certain Roman catholics of Ireland, on behalf of themselves and others, professing the Roman catholic religion, complaining of divers restraints and incapacities to which they are subject, by the statutes now in force against them, and praying to be relieved there from; the petitioners pray the house, that the several statutes constituting and establishing those restraints and incapacities, of which the said petition complains; may be preserved inviolate, inasmuch as those statutes appear to have been devised, by the wisdom of our ancestors, as the best and surest means of giving permanency and security to the protestant government of this country in church and state, and as, in the firm belief of the petitioners, the same or equally as strong, reasons now exist for the continuance of those statutes as when they were enacted."—Ordered, than the said petition do lie upon the table.
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.]
—The
834*
Mr. Fox
rose and spoke as follows: Sir, at the same time that I cannot help feeling a considerable degree of anxiety at being about to bring before the house a subject which, according to my conception of it, seems, in its probable consequences, some nearer and some more remote, to be of the very highest importance; yet I confess, I feel infinitely less agitated than upon many other subjects on which I have lately had occasion to address you. It is certainly a sort of recreation, if I may be allowed so to express myself, after having been obliged to perform the harassing duties of accusation; after having promoted enquiries into circumstances, certainly not more honourable to the country at large than to the individual concerned in them; after having had my mind so harassed and occupied, to feel that I am not now the mover of accusation, but that I am pleading the cause of my fellow subjects, and that I urn endeavouring to add to the strength of the country, without taking from the credit, power, or authority of any living man in the empire. I cannot help being sensible of the contrast between the duties lately imposed upon me, and that of attempting to draw the attention of the house to a subject, which, however embarrassing the discussions of it may be to some persons, has at least this advantage, that it rests entirely on principles of general affection and good will, connected With views which every man must approve, and no man can condemn. The question, sir, that I have the honour of bringing before you, and I do feel it a great honour to have been desired to bring it before you, is no less than a petition, signed not indeed by any very great number of persons, but embracing, and I take it at the lowest calculation, when I say, one-fifth of his majesty's subjects. Nay, further, I believe I shall not be incorrect, if I state them at one-fourth of the whole of his majesty's subjects in Europe. My duty, therefore, calls upon me to plead the cause of 3 or 4 millions of the people of Ireland, without reference to the proportion they bear to the population of that part of the empire, but which must be allowed to contain the greater proportion of the catholic subjects of his majesty—a proportion amounting to nearer a fourth than a fifth of the whole population of the empire. I feel particularly fortunate, that when I am
835*
836*
837*
838*
839*
840*
841*
842*
843*
844*
845*
846*
847*
848*
839
840
841
842
843
844
"Though poor the peasant's hut, his feasts though small,
"He sees his little lot the lot of all;
845
"Sees no contiguous palace rear its head,
"To shame the meanness of his humble shed"
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
865
Doctor Duigenan
then rose, and spoke as follows: Sir; I have read the petition now before the house, and list of names subscribed to it; they amount in the whole to ninety-one persons: of these, six are peers; three are baronets, the rest untitled commoners. Of the six peers, one is an English as well as an Irish peer, who has no property in Ireland, and is an Englishman both by birth and residence. The petition is thus entitled: "A petition of the Roman catholics of Ireland, whose names are thereunto subscribed, in behalf of themselves and of others his majesty's subjects professing the Roman catholic religion." With what propriety this English peer can be styled a Roman catholic of Ireland I shall not take upon me to determine. Of the remaining five peers three may be said to have been created during his present majesty's reign. Lord Kenmare claimed a peerage under a patent of King James II. dated after the abdication of that unfortunate prince, at a time when he was no longer a king, and could not create nobility: his present majesty has been pleased to create him a peer: the ancestors of two others, the Lords Fingall and Gormanstown, were attainted for high treason and outlawries; which attainders continued for four generations. His present majesty was graciously pleased to direct his attorney general in Ireland to confess error in these outlawries, on which confession the outlawries have been reversed, and these noblemen have been restored to the rank of their ancestors. Lord Southwell's ancestors were protestants; his father some time since went to France, and there became a Roman catholic, and educated his son in that profession. Thus it appears, that the whole Roman Catholic nobility of Ireland, a few years back, did not exceed one or two at the most. I speak not this out of any disrespect to the noble personages thus mentioned, but to shew what little cause of complaint there is for the alleged degradation of the Roman catholic nobility of Ireland. Of the three baronets subscribed to the petition two have been created by his present Majesty. Ireland is divided into thirty-two counties: out of nineteen of these counties there is not one subscriber, and out of four of the remaining thirteen counties there is but one each. There is not the name of one Romish ecclesiastic subscribed to this petition. How then does it appear that these petitioners are commissioned by the Roman catholics of Ireland, or those of England and Scotland, to petition on their
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
de jure,
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
semper e
914
915
916
917
Mr. Grattan
rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, in offering to the house my sentiments upon this most important subject, I shall endeavour to avoid the example set me by the learned member who has just sat down. I shall deprecate all animosity on the one side or on the other. As the causes have ceased, I think all animosity arising out of those causes should also cease; and instead, therefore, of calumniating either party, I rise to defend both. I do not wish to revive in detail the memory of those rebellions to which the learned member has alluded.—The past troubles of Ireland, the rebellion or 1641, and the wars which followed, (said the hon. gent.) I do not wholly forget; but I only remember them to deprecate the example, and renounce the animosity. The penal code which went before, and followed those times, I remember also, but only enough to know that the cause and reasons for that code have totally expired; and as on one side the protestant should relinquish his animosity on account of the rebellion, so the catholics should relinquish their animosity on account of the laws. The question is not stated by member: it is not whether you will keep in a state of disqualification a few Irish catholics, but whether you will keep in a state of langour and neutrality a fifth of your empire. Before you impose such a sentence on yourself, you will require better arguments than those which the member has advanced. He has substantially told you that the Irish catholic church, which is more independent than the catholic church here, is the worst in Europe; that the Irish catholics, our own kindred, conforming to our own terms, are the worst of papists; that the
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
The Attorney General.
—I am as anxious to concur in any measure, which has for its object the consolidation of the strength and interest of the empire, as either of the two hon. gentlemen who have supported this motion; but the proposition of the hon. Member who opened this debate does not appear to me in any way calculated to meet that end. The hon. gentleman has stated the abstract question of right, with his usual precision, but certainly not so strong as he might have done, nor can I agree with him in the inferences he has endeavoured to deduce from it. The hon. mover of the question has argued, that no danger is to be apprehended at present in admitting catholics to the representative privilege. Possibly not. Great numbers may not come in at first, but parliament is to look prospectively to the effect of the measure, and the probable line of conduct that would be pursued by the catholics when they shall obtain a share in the representation. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to recall and replace upon the throne a branch of a family which had been formally excluded. I do not suppose that they would endeavour to take away all the tithes from the protestant clergy for the purpose of giving them to their own; but if a proposition were made to take away part of the tithes from the protestant clergy, for the purpose of conferring them on the catholic clergy, I am not sure that many worthy men may not be found in this house to entertain it; and, in the event of a division, I am sure the catholic representation would be as a dead weight in the scale, I shall not take up the time of the house in considering all the objections to which, in that particular respect, the motion is liable. I will content myself with proving that it is repugnant to solemn stipulation between Ireland and Great Britain, and in doing that, I shall furnish, I trust, sufficient matter for rejecting it. The stipulation to which I allude is that contained in the fifth article of the act of union, which expressly mentions, that the protestant church is to be the established church of the state. It is said that the measure would put an end to all disaffection, and yet, in the very same breath, gentlemen assert that none exists. I would agree with them it, praises which they have bestowed upon the loyalty of the catholics, and admit that the rebellion in Ireland was not a rebellion of catholics; and that no greater number of that persuasion were to be found in it than might be expected in a country whose population was in so
942
943
944
Mr. Alexander.
—Sir, unwilling as I am at all times to obtrude myself upon the attention of the house, yet I feel too deeply interested upon the present occasion to be awed from expressing my sentiments. When the right hon. gent. who has just sat down feels so much embarrassed under the impression created by the very eloquent speeches of both the hon. members who have preceded him in support of the petition, I cannot deny that I too have my feelings under that impression; but I should ill perform the duty I owe to my conscience, to the crown and my country, if I gave way to them. I own my national pride is certainly gratified by the attention paid to the talents of the hon. gent. who spoke last but one; but I can never forget, that I have witnessed those talents employed successfully in beating down the laws and constitution of his country: (Loud cries. of no! no!) I do not accuse the hon. gent. of design; but he has amplified so much on the strength of the physical numbers of what he has called the Irish people, has asserted and painted their imaginary grievances in such high colouring, that there grew in the minds of an influenced and infatuated peasantry, a conviction that they had just motives for rebellion, and strength to accomplish their object. What admits of no doubt, and which I cannot forget, is, that the honourable member's conduct and sentiments prevented his taking any share in putting down that rebellion;prevented him from manifesting active loyalty, or exposing himself with other gentlemen to common exertions, common inconveniences, and common dangers. With such recollections I feel it a duty to withstand all impressions made upon my mind by the talents and reputation of the honourable member, and to recall the attention of the house to the arguments of the gentleman who has opened the debate. That hon. gent. has stated truly from archdeacon Paley, that tests were introduced when religions sentiments and religious interests were so universally connected and diffused through certain classes in the community, as to be a proof of a determined purpose of action, and that public necessity justified a general
945
946
947
948
949
950
Mr. William Smith
proposed that the debate be adjourned. He was perfectly prepared to deliver his sentiments at the moment, if the house were willing to hear him, and other gentlemen who might wish to speak on the important question before them. It would, however, be unbecoming the character of the house, and the importance of the subject, if they came: to any hasty decision.—The question of adjournment being loudly called for,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed a wish that the discussion could have been terminated at that sitting. As, however, it seemed to be the wish of other gentlemen to deliver their Sentiments, he thought it would be better to adjourn than to state them at a more advanced hour.—The debate was accordingly adjourned till the following day.—The other orders of the day were also postponed, and, at 3 o'clock on Tuesday morning, the house adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 14.
[MINUTES.]
—On the motion of Sir John Anderson the house went into a committee on the report of the vintners' petition. The report was ordered to be received to-
951
[ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION.]
—The order of the day being read for resuming the debate on the motion for referring the Irish Catholic Petition to the consideration of a committee of the whole house,
Mr. William Smith
rose and spoke as follows: Sir; as an opinion may prevail that we now resume this debate in circumstances less favourable to the question than those in which it stood last night, I beg shortly to clear myself from all imputation on that account, by declaring that, for every personal reason, it would have, been far more agreeable to me to have proceeded even at that late hour, except, indeed, from the consciousness of a greater disadvantage in proportion as the comparison was more near and immediate between myself and an hon. gent. (Mr. Grattan), whose eloquence
952
953
———"Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs from holy writ."——
954
"If this fail,
955
956
957
Mr. Lee.
—The question now under consideration appears, sir, to me, to be the gravest and most important that ever was debated within the walls of parliament. It naturally arises out of the act of union, and should have been maturely considered before that measure was adopted. I will not assert, that while that plan was in agitation, this concession to the catholics was expressly stipulated; but I never heard it denied, that there was at least an understanding on the subject. Not having the same opinion of the benefits of that project, as many others seemed to entertain. I had some hopes that it might have been averted, till I observed that these expectations were held out by the right hon. gent. who proposed this measure, in a speech so replete with reasoning and eloquence, as would have done honour to the brightest æreas of Greece or Rome. The right hon. gent. then said, that the disproportion Which before existed between the persons professing
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
Sir William Scott
after some prelimiminary observations, spoke in substance as follows:—The hon. mover of this question has affected to distinguish between the civil and religious institutions of the country, as if they were capable of complete separation: the practice, however, of all civilized states, has fully demonstrated that they are so intimately united, that to attempt to sever them would be in reality to destroy them. A luminous and eloquent political philosopher (Mr. Burke) entertained ideas directly opposed to such a doctrine. "This principle" (that of attachment in the people of England to their religious national establishment) "runs through the whole system of their polity. They do not consider their church establishment as convenient, but as essential to their state; not as a thing heterogeneous and separable; something added for accommodation; what they may either keep up or lay aside, according to their temporary ideas of convenience. They consider it as the foundation of their whole constitution, with which, and with every part of which, it holds an indissoluble union. Church and state are ideas inseparable in their minds, and scarcely is the one ever mentioned without the other." They are so far joined, that the idea of the one almost necessarily impresses upon us the recollection of the other; and church and state so imperceptibly flow into each other, that the connexion, even to the organ of speech, is perfectly familiar. This fraternal relation is not a novelty in our history, it grew up in the most early periods of it, and was firmly combined in those times when the liberties of this nation were effectually secured. After our sacred institution had endured many desperate assaults, it rose with renewed strength from the conflict, and we were destined to enjoy the blessings not only of a free but of a protestant constitution. In the same charter in which the sovereign appointment was given, in which the rights of the subject are declared, it was said, this kingdom shall be for ever protestant. And "esto perpetua" is the earnest prayer I shall offer
967
968
969
Mr. Grattan
explained that he had not intimated the probability of any separation of the two countries, if this motion were rejected.
Sir W Scott
said, he certainly so understood the hon. member.
Mr. Grattan.
—I said, if the parliament assented to the calumny propagated, that the catholics were traitors to their king and country, it would lay the foundation of such a separation. It was not the rejection of the petition, but the adoption of the calumny, to which I adverted.
Doctor Laurence.
—It is with regret, sir, that I differ on any subject from my right hon. and learned friend, who last addressed you. But whatever satisfaction I should feel in agreeing with him on other occasions, I should indeed be sorry if I did nut differ
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
they might after that have pretended to further degrees of confidence
978
979
980
981
"Sweet is the love that comes with willingness."
982
*
prudently judge
*
983
984
"To harrow up our souls; freeze our warm blood; Make our two eyes, like stars, stars, start from their spheres, Our knotty and combined locks to part, And each particular hair to stand on end Like quills upon the fretful porcupine;"
"And fright our isle from its propriety."
985
986
*
*
987
988
989
990
991
992
*
when he has done all that depended upon himself.
*
cum fecerit quod in ipso est
993
994
995
996
*
*
997
998
999
Mr. Foster
— I feel myself bound, sir, by the importance of the subject, as well as by the part I took in another place upon a formers occasion, for the few minutes during which I shall call upon their attention. From the manner in which the hon. member near me (Mr. Lee) has gone through the whole detail of the penal laws against papists in Ireland, I fear the house may be led to imagine, that they are still in force: the fact is otherwise, and I will tell gentlemen the real situation of the Roman catholics of Ireland at this day. They are as free as the protestant, in the acquisition, in the enjoyment, and in the disposal of property of every species; they can purchase land, settle their estates, and enjoy all the profits of commercial industry equally with him; they possess every benefit of civil liberty as fully as any other subjects. What, then, is the object, of their petition? Political power only:—this is all that remains for you to give, or for them to demand, and every gentleman who has supported the petition acknowledges it (a cry of hear! hear!) I am, glad to see the subject is now
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
Mr. George Ponsonb.
—Sir, having long been acquainted with the great abilities of
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose and spoke as follows:—Differing, sir, as I do, from the hon. gent. who proposed this motion, and differing also in, many respects from several of those who have opposed it, I feel it necessary to state shortly, but distinctly, the views, the motives, and the grounds upon which that difference of opinion is founded. But in doing this, sir, I cannot retrain from expressing, in the first instance, the very great satisfaction I feel at the temper and the moderation with which the motion was introduced, and with which, for so many reasons, particularly desirous that the discussion should he conducted. Happy, sir, am I also, that the manner in which subject has been introduced has relieved me from the necessity of entering at large into those general principles and
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
Mr. Windham
rose and spoken in substance as follows: Sir, I consider the question now before the house, as one naturally and immediately the consequence of the legislative union established between Great Britain and Ireland, and one to which the catholics of Ireland were certainly taught to look for-
1023
1024
1025
Sir John Newport.
—Sir, though I naturally feel solicitous (feeling and thinking as I now and always have done upon this subject) to assign my reasons for the vote I shall this night give on a question of such vital importance to the empire in general, and Ireland in particular; yet even under this impression, the lateness of the hour Will prevent me from trespassing more than a few short minutes on the attention of the house; nor should I now have risen but for the purpose of viewing this subject upon the untrodden ground of an example, so precisely opposite in all its circumstances, and bearing so directly on the temperate requests of the the petitioners as to call forcibly for your notice.—It is the result of an experiment fairly tried upon a great nation, possessing above seven millions of inhabitants, varying most widely in their religious tenets, convulsed by the difference of those tenets, and the restrictions founded upon them during many centuries; yet at length procuring internal peace and tranquillity, and external strength and respect, by the sacrifice of those restrictions. The nation, sir, was Hungary; of her seven millions of inhabitants one half were protestants, Cal-
1026
1027
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
(Knight of Kerry) protested that the conviction upon his mind upon the present question was, that if the decision was not certain,he would anticipate the most fatal and dangerous consequences arising from it. One point only he wished to direct the attention of the house to. He had uniformly supported this measure, while he had the honour to sit in the Irish house of commons, and gave his vote for the union of the two Countries, with the conviction on his mind, that the present measure would immediately follow. His only hope at present was, and he implored the house most earnestly, that if they should refuse to go into a committee upon the petition, the gentlemen Of this country particularly would obliterate from their minds the gross and scandalous calumnies which had been thrown out against the Catholics of Ireland, and which would only be Cast back with increased disgrace upon the fabricators He spoke as a man of candour, and he again hoped the gentlemen of England would not be led away by such foul calumny and Virulent abuse.
Mr. Archdall
said, as the subject was so much exhausted, he should not enter into the discussion at large, but rose only to justify if he could, the opinion on Which he should give his vote, and to advert to some Opinions which other gentlemen had given, and from which, very respectfully, and, Indeed, reluctantly, he confessed he must dissent In this he should avoid every thing which could irritate the catholics; it was sufficient for him if his conviction compelled him to oppose their petition. He never would affront their feelings, which he neither wished nor was
1028
1029
1030
The hon Henry Augustus Dillon
professed his determined support to the petition,
1031
Mr. Shaw
(member for Dublin) spoke as follows: Although, sir, I wish I had not to address you on the subject before the house, yet I cannot reconcile to my sense of public duty to give a silent vote upon the occasion; nor, though that duty be painful, will I shrink from its open and manly performance. Intimately connected as I am with the prosperity of my native land, it must be expected that upon any question connected therewith, I shall give a sincere vote. Those who know me will believe that I shall do so this night, in honest accordance with my conscience, my judgment, and what I conceive to. be the Sense of my constituents. In Common cases, profession of principles and independence would only appear superfluous; but, where prejudices are to be combated,and popularity is perhaps divided, I feel it not unnecessary to assert my complete independence, alike of ministerial influence and of popular clamour, should the one be supposed adverse,or the other favourable. to the prayer of the petition.— Having thus far trespassed on the house to disclaim, in my vote, all sinister influence, I now beg its indulgence to a few reasons,
1032
1033
1034
Mr. Hiley Addington
— I rise, sir, merely to give an explanation on one point, in which I am sure the liberality of the house will go with me; it is too on a point in which I think the hon. gent. who opened the debate will not be disinclined to be set right In the course of yesterday's debate one of his arguments was, the hope that was held out at the time of the union, that catholic emancipation was likely to follow that great measure, and he was pleased to quote a speech from a noble friend of mine(lord Sidmouth) in which he quoted part of a letter written from an hon. and learned gent. (Dr. Duigenan) to an hon. gent.(Mr.Grattan) now a member of this house. The hon. and learned gent. did explain that passage perfectly correct. Now, sir, I will only add one word more. If the hon. gent. had gone further he would have found that what my noble relation did say, was this "that if he was put to the necessity of chusing between the total emancipation of the catholics, or the re-enactment of the penal laws, in such an alternative he would prefer the latter as the lesser evil. He hoped, however, that the legislative union would remove the necessity of such an alternative." I trust I shall be pardoned for making this short explanation. I agree with all that has been said as to the loyalty of the catholics; but, believing that granting the prayer of the petition would occasion a revolution in the laws of the land, and lead to the repeal of some of the wisest of them, I shall certainly give my vote against it.
Mr. John Latouche
—Sir; it is with great regret that I differ on this question from a very respectable part of my constituents; men for whose sentiments I shall ever entertain the greatest respect. The corporation of the city of Dublin, who have petitioned against the claims of the catholics, have ever been loyal to their king and constitution; zealous supporters of the protes
1035
1036
1037
Sir John Coxe Hippesley
said, that though he had risen very early in the debate with much anxiety, to deliver his sentiments on this important question at some length; he had nevertheless given way, with great satisfaction, to the hon. member, (Mr.Grattan,) from the display of whose splendid talents so much expectation had been justly formed. As he now saw the house, at that late hour, little disposed to prolong the debate, he would trespass on their patience no further that to state two facts of considerable interest, and he would leave gentleman to draw their own conclusions from them. The first was the constitution of Corsica, as ratified by his majesty, and which stipulated that the Roman catholic religion, in all its evangelical purity (which were the words of the act), should be the only national religion of Corsica, and all others tolerated; and that the parliament should concert the discharge of the functions of the bishops with the see of Rome. The other fact was, that a Roman catholic priest, of the name of M'Donnel, had been commissioned by his majesty in the year 1794, as chaplain to a catholic fencible regiment raised in Great Britain. The hon. bart. said, he would leave those who rested so much on the presumed restrictions which appeared to them to grow out of the coronation oath, to form their own estimate how far these gracious acts were reconcilable to their interpretation of it, or whether his majesty was not at liberty thus to gratify the expectations of that description of his subjects, without trenching on the principles of the constitution. As the house was so impatient for the question, he would say no more.
Lord De Blaquiere
rose in the midst of much clamour for the question. He said he could not have believed that in a question, wherein the vital interests of Ireland, one in which even her existence might be at stake, that the gentlemen of this country would have shewn so much impatience. He hoped it would turn out to be true as gentlemen asserted, that this was no party question— that public good, and public good alone, was the motive. He could not forbear however to augur ill of the proceeding, when he recollected the manner in which
1038
1039
Colonel Hiley Hutchinson
said, that at that late hour, and after the display of talent on one side, he should have thought it presumption in him to have troubled the house; but a wish to refute the libels and scandal which had been thrown on the petitioners, induced him to offer a few words. It had been said that they were disaffected. It was for those who knew them not to use such language. A learned gent. (the attorney general) had said, that instead of granting indulgences to the Irish catholics, it might be deemed expedient to recur to the penal code! Such sentiments from such a quarter bore with them their own commentary. The hon. colonel here proceeded to read some extracts from the pamphlet of Mr. Scully(an Irish delegate) which were so ill received by the house, that we could not event collect their tenour. Notwithstanding which the hon. colonel proceeded. He said he would not be indecently prevented from delivering his sentiments as an independant member of parliament. If gentlemen were fatigued. let them move an adjournment. Did he not think that he should be disgraced if he were not to offer his sentiments, nothing should have induced him to offer himself to the house. He said the catholics were contending, not for equal power but equal privileges. The hon. colonel animadverted with much severity on the conduct of the noble lord(Castlereagh) who was instrumental in bringing about the measure of a legislative union. He called upon that noble lord to fulfil the pledge that was at that period held out to the catholics. He did hear him say, that a fair system of policy was to be adopted. He now called upon ministers to fulfil the pledge given to the people of Ireland, unless it was their intention
"To palter with them in a double sense,
"To Keep the word of promise to their ear,
"But break it to their hope."
The Attorney General
felt it necessary to explain. What he had said was, that if the house expected the catholics would be conciliated, by acceding to their petition, they would be mistaken, as he believed they would want something more. The other point was, that he had been represented to hold out the threat of reviving the penal code. This was a mistake; he thought it a bloody and cruel code. But he had said,
1040
Mr. Hawthorn
said, that at that late hour he would not intrude upon the exhausted patience of the house by entering at large into the argument; but that he was unwilling to give a silent vote upon so important a question. He freely admitted that it had been his wish that this measure should not have been brought forward, or discussed, unless under the reasonable prospect of success, which in his mind did not exist at present; but those who were so much and so peculiarly interested in the result having judged otherwise, and the discussion having taken place, he had no hesitation in declaring, that he considered the complying with the prayer of the petition to be essentially necessary to the peace and repose of Ireland, the stability of the union between the two countries, and the safety and security of the empire at large; and therefore gave his decided support to the motion.
Sir George Hill.
—Sir; I shall not now further trespass on the patience of the house, than to contradict some unfounded assertions made by the hon. mover and a distinguished supporter of this petition (Mr. Grattan); but first I must notice, from the-time and circumstances under which this measure has been brought forward, that I very much question the sincerity of the agitators of it, and for various considerations, do pronounce it a party trick. (A cry of order! order!)I feel, sir, My words are not strictly in order, and I shall change them. I pronounce then, sir, that this question has been brought forward at this time to obtain thereby the weight and support and support of the influence of the catholic body to serve party purposes; this, it is not disorderly for me as a member of this house to state, and it is the truth. The mover of this petition knew full well that obstacles insurmountable stood in the way of its success; that the minister, after consulting the highest authorities, and the judgments of the most experienced Men around him, deemed it expedient to decline bringing it forward himself, and advised that it should not be offered to parliament. The leading and best disposed catholics themselves are believed to have held the same sentiments as to the propriety of withholding their claims for the present; but I charge that opposition, aided by the democratic part of the Catholics,over-ruled this determination, and forced forward this discussion. The hon. mover of the petition
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
Sir William Dolben.
—I rise, sir, under great infirmity of body to give my negative to the present motion. I am willing to admit that the balance of talent and ingenuity is in favour of the petition. we have had fine speeches on one side, and sound argument and public principle on the other. As to the consequences that may attend the refusal of this committee, I do not deny that the petition is couched in decent, proper terms, but I hope parliament never will discuss any point under apprehension. Let us come to a decision upon the question. After the powerful arguments I have heard, I am firmly convinced, that agreeing to the prayer of the petition would have no good effect. It would occasion a demand for fresh concessions, and we do not know where it might end. In my mind the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer has given us very good arguments for not thinking it would succeed. If it should ever be brought on again, I hope it will be brought on for English as well as Irish catholics. Let us not shew a greater partiality for Irish catholics than for English catholics. I am firmly persuaded by the various arguments I have heard, that the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted, and shall therefore give my negative to the present motion.
Mr. Fox
rose to reply and spoke in substance as follows: Sir, before I enter into a general reply to the arguments , or rather the observations that have been made by those who have opposed the motion I had the honour to submit to the house, I feel myself necessarily obliged to submit a few words in answer to a right hon. gent. (Mr. H Addington) on the subject of the speech of a noble viscount, (Sidmouth) in the course of a former debate. If I have not been misrepresented, I believe it will be found, that what I strictly said, was not that the noble lord said that catholic emancipation would be the effect of the union, but that the union was a pledge of catholic emancipation. I stated, that the noble viscount, in his speech, said there were three things to be considered; one, with a view to the former laws against the catholics; another, with a view to catholic emancipation, of both which he disapproved; but would, of the two evils prefer the enactment of the penal laws; and the third, with reference to a legislative union, which he said, would not be productive of any of the disadvantages of either of the other measures. Having stated this as one of the things which did give hopes to the catholics. I thought the
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
"Toto certandum est corpore regni."
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
For Mr. Fox's motion
124
Against it
336
Majority against the motion
212
1061
Since our Report of the Speeches of Lord
and the Earl of
in the House of Lords on the 10th and
th of May, upon Lord Grenville's Motion for a Committee on the
(See pp. 711 and 742) was put to press we have been favoured with the following correct Copies of their Lordships Speeches
Lord Redesdale
observed that the motion before The house was in point of form, "that the house should resolve itself into a committee to consider of the petition on the table;" and the noble baron who had made the motion had intimated, that in the committee it would be open to any lord to suggest any partial measure: but it was evident that the noble lord himself conceived that nothing short of the entire object of the petition could be suggested; and the petitioners had themselves clearly stated that object to be. "an equal participation, upon equal terms with their fellow subjects, of the full benefits of the British laws and constitution. Of that constitution the maintenance of the protestant religion, as the established religion of the government, and the exclusion of the Roman catholic religion from the administration of that government, had become fundamental principles, long deemed essential to the preservation of the liberty, both religions and political, of the country: and by those laws, of the benefit of which the petitioners sought an equal participation, the strongest provisions were made for the support of the protestant religion, and the exclusion of the Roman catholic from important political power. When, therefore, the petitioners upon their lordships to give them an equal participation of the British laws and constitution, they either proposed to the house be guilty of a gross fallacy, or they called upon their lordships to alter those laws, and to change that. constitution; for, consistently with the existing laws and constitution, the equal participation sought by the petition could not be had. The equal participation claimed by the petition was clearly an equal participation in all powers, as welt as in all benefits: an equal participation in whatever might form the constitution of the country in church and state. That such was their object was manifest; not only from the language of the petition, but from the state in which the Roman catholic church was zealously maintained in Ireland, importantly different from the condition of the Roman catholic church in England, or in any other country in Europe, where the protestant was the established religion of the country. For when the legislature of Ire-
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
The Earl of Suffolk
rose and spoke as follows: I rise, my lords, to state the sentiments which occur to me, on the best consideration I have been able to give this important question; and in support of the vote Which I this night mean to give. My lords, if I rightly understand the petition on your table, it goes to the claim of measures which become necessary to the relief of a great body of his majesty's catholic subjects in Ireland, from certain restrictions and disabilities under which they still labour on account of their religion. And, thy lords, I consider that claim not as of a boon, but as of a right which every British, subject in this united kingdom should enjoy, as his birth, right, who is not dis-entitled thereto by any thing exceptionable in his principles, his character or his loyalty! If considered it as a boon I should still say to your lordships
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
I am not that abject slave you take me for; I'm man, obstinate man, and will not be controll'd.
i
APPENDIX
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
THE ELEVENTH REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF NAVAL ENQUIRY, APPOINTED BY ACT 43 GEO. III.—ORDERED TO BE PRINTED APRIL, 1805.
The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners appointed by his present Majesty, intituled, "An Act for appointing Commissioners to inquire and examine into any Irregularities, Frauds, or Abuses, which are or have been practised by persons employed in the several Naval Departments therein mentioned, and in the Business of Prize Agency, and to report such Observations as shall occur to them for preventing such Irregularities, Frauds, and Abuses, and for the better conducting and managing the Business of the said Departments, and of Prize Agency in future."
HAVING understood that, during the late war, bills to a very considerable amount had been issued by the navy board, for the purpose of raising money; and this transaction appearing to us irregular, we deemed it a fit object for our inquiry. We at the same time made an investigation, in some degree connected with the subject, into a practice which had prevailed with the navy and transport boards, of making the bills issued by them at ninety days date, payable on the 89th day from the date of the bills, although interest for 90 days was allowed to the parties.—In the course of our inquiries on these subjects, we discovered that sums had been advanced by navy board, by way of imprest, in pursuance of directions from the
ii
ISSUE OF NAVY BILLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING MONEY.
Previously to the adoption of this measure,(Appendix, No. 1.) the lords commissioners of the treasury directed the navy board to cause it to be notified to the persons having ninety-day navy bills then due, (App. No. 2.) "and wishing to have a renewal of the same, instead of receiving the amount in cash, that they might be accommodated with new bills bearing the same interest," which accommodation was directed to be continued till further notice; but this mode not fully answering the purpose intended, (App. No. 1.) the expedient of raising money by the issue of navy bills was resorted to.— This transaction appears to have arisen from a conversation between the comptroller of the navy and Mr. George Glenny, a merchant having large concerns with the victualling department, upon the difficulties which were occasionally experienced by delays in the issues of money from the exchequer for the service of the navy. In that conversation Mr. Glenny communicated the manner in which he had procured money on the victualling bills, made out to him in payment under his contracts, through the agency of Messrs. Goldsmids. This produced an interview the next day between the comptroller of the navy, Messrs. Goldsmids, and Mr. Glenny, and the plan of drawing navy bills for the purpose of raising money was thereupon concerted.—The first set of these bills for 100,000l. was drawn on the 23d of Oct. 1800, (App. No. 1.) payable to Mr. Cornwall Smalley; but he disapproving
iii
iv
v
LOSS ARISING FROM THE MODE OF PAYING THE INTEREST ON NAVY AND TRANSPORT BILLS.
By an act of the 34th of his present majesty, cap. 21, it is enacted, that after the 5th day of April, 1794, all navy and victualling bills shall be made payable on a certain day, not later than fifteen months from the date of each bill; and that the interest on such bills as shall carry interest, shall commence from the day on which the said bills shall be registered.—And by a subsequent act of the 37th year of his present majesty, cap. 26, it is directed, that all navy, victualling, and transport bills, shall be payable on a certain day, to be expressed in each bill, which day shall not be later than three calendar months from the day of the date thereof; and that every such bill shall carry an interest after the rate of 3½d. per cent. per diem, to commence from the day of the date of each bill.— Upon the passing of the last act, the commissioners of the victualling transmitted to the navy board an account of victualling bills payable in course, which had been registered in the month of Jan. 1797, noting them to become due in ninety days from the day of the date, which day was not included.—The navy board, on receipt of the account, stated their objections to this method of computation in a letter to the victualling board, (App. No. 12.) in which they observed, that all bills made out under the same act, should be uniform in all their terms; that on all occasions dependent on time, it was customary to include both the first and last day; that this mode of computing interest on the navy bills had prevailed during the late act, was followed in the transport office, and was in conformity with the present act.—The commissioners of the victualling, in reply, (App. No. 13.) forcibly controvert these positions. They state, that it had always been the custom of their office not to include the first and last days in the calculation of interest, until that rule had been departed from in reckoning the interest on the bills issued under the 34th of his present majesty, and which was done
vi
vii
viii
ix
Issued by the navy board (App. Nos. 19 & 20)
£19,747,835
11
11
Transport board
6,305,976
11
7
£26,058,812
3
6
Loss of one day's interest on the above sum
£3,799
10
3
Although the loss of between 7 and 800l. per annum adds little to the amount of the national expenditure, yet it is because the necessary expenditure is so great, that all possible care should be taken to avoid any improper increase of it, such as we think this to have been. To the public, one day's interest on ninety, operating on so many millions, was a consideration; to each individual it was not.—We think it right to observe, whenever a difference of opinion may arise between the naval boards on the construction of an act of parliament, or any other general regulation, that such diffe-
x
MONEY IMPRESTED BY THE NAVY BOARD, FOR SECRET NAVAL SERVICES.
On examining the book containing the registry of bills issued by the navy board, we discovered that considerable sums had been advanced, by way of imprest, during the late war, for the performance of secret naval services.—The imprest against one of these parties, amounting to 100,000l. having been taken off, and the account closed in the books of the navy office in a manner which appeared to us irregular, we inquired into the circumstances of the transaction. — From the examination of the comptroller of the navy, (App. No. 1.) we learned that this sum had been advanced by the navy board, in consequence of directions given by the lords commissioners of the treasury to the comptroller, which were marked "most secret;" that 5,000l, had been repaid into the hands of the treasurer of the navy, and that the remaining imprest of 95,000l. had been cleared, or taken off, by the direction of the lords commissioners of the treasury, signified by their secretary's letter to the navy board,(App. No. 21.) dated the 1st of May, 1804.—By his Majesty's order in council for regulating the navy office, dated the 8th of June, 1796, the comptroller of the navy is authorized to execute such secret naval services as may be directed by the first lord of the admiralty for the time being; and, after the services are performed, the comptroller is required to communicate his orders, and his proceedings thereon, to the navy board for their concurrence. In case a majority should disapprove of any part of his conduct, they are to submit the whole, with the reasons for such disapprobation, to the first lord of the admiralty, whose decision thereon is to be considered as final.—Upon this order in council, instructions were drawn up by the lords commissioners of the admiralty for the conduct of the navy board, and they were directed to conform thereto by their lordships' order of the 17th of Aug. 1796, in which there is an omission that we think it right to notice.—It is not stated in that order, under whose directions or authority the comptroller is to perform the secret
xi
xii
(Signed) CH. M. POLE.
(L. S.)
EWAN LAW.
(L. S.)
JOHN FORD.
(L. S.)
HENRY NICHOLLS.
(L. S.)
WM. MACKWORTH PRAED.
(L. s.)
Office of Naval Enquiry, No 24, Great George Street, 4th March, 1805.
xiii
APPENDIX.—NO. I.
The Examination of Sir A. S. Hamond, Bt. Comptroller of the Navy; taken upon Oath, the 6th of June,
A.
A.
A.
xiv
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
xv
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xvi
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
xvii
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xviii
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A
xix
The further Examination of Sir Andrew Snape Hamond, Bart.; taken upon Oath, this 8th Day of June,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
No. II.
Mr. Long to the Commissioners of the Navy, dated Treasury Chambers, 7th Sept.
No. III.
The Examination of George Glenny, Esq. taken upon Oath, the 22d June,
Q.
xx
A.
xxi
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
No. IV. Exhibits a detailed enumeration of these bills, specifying their amount, their dates, &c. &c.
No. V.
The Examination of William Foster, Esq. Chief Clerk in the Office for Bills and Accounts, in the Navy Office; taken upon Oath, the 31st May,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xxii
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
To Mr. George Glenny
1,100,000
To Messrs. Donaldson and Glenny
3,200,Q00
To —
100,000
£4,400,000
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
xxiii
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Alterations and Additions made to the foregoing Examination, by Desire of this Examinant, the, 1st June,
xxiv
Further Interrogatories put to William Foster, Esq. this 1st Day of June,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
The further Examination of William Foster, Esq.; taken upon Oath, the 19th of June,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
No. VI.
Mr. Long to the Commissioners of the Navy, dated Treasury Chambers, Ott. 22d,
xxv
No. VII.
Navy Office, 24th Oct.
No. VIII.
Navy Office, 24th Oct.
No. IX.
The Examination of Alexander Trotter, Esq. Paymaster of the Navy, taken upon Oath, the 15th June,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xxvi
The further Examination of Alexander Trotter, Esq.; taken upon Oath, the 11th December,
Q.
A.
No, X. Consists of Goldsmid's detailed account of the sales of the bills.
No. XI.
The Examination of Abraham Goldsmid, Esq.; taken upon Oath, the 25th June,
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
The further Examination of Abraham Goldsmid, Esq. taken upon Oath, the 9th July,
Q.
A.
xxvii
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
No. XII.
Navy Office, 7th Feb.
xxviii
No. XIII.
Victualling Office, 8th Feb.
xxix
No. XIV.
The Examination of Richard A. Nelson, Esq. Secretary to the Navy Board; taken upon Oath, the 8th Nov.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xxx
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
The further Examination of Richard Alexander Nelson, Esq. Secretary to the Navy Board; taken upon Oath, the 12th Jan.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
xxxi
No. XV.
Committee of Accounts, 12th Dec.
xxxii
No. XVI.
Navy Office, 22d August,
xxxiii
No. XVII.
Navy Office, 20th Nov.
No. XVIII.
Transport Office, 12th Oct.
xxxiv
No. XIX.
Navy Office, 10th Oct.
Commencing.
Ending.
Amount.
26
Dec.
31
Dec.
1796
90,534
14
11
1
Jan.
31
1797
3,537,291
8
8
1
31
1798
2,611,926
17
2
1
31
1799
3,019,555
2
7
1
31
1800
4,661,788
2
2
1
19
1801
5,826,739
6
5
Total
£19,747,835
11
11
No. XX.
Transport Office, 12th Oct.
1797
1,507,419
14
10
1798
1,087,571
14
10
1799
1,111,853
7
5
1800
1,347,754
16
11
1801
1,251,376
17
7
Total
£6,305,976
11
7
No. XXI.
Treasury Chambers, 1st May,
NO. XXII.
The Examination of the Rt. Hon. the Earl Spencer, K. G.; taken upon oath, the 6th Nov.
Q.
xxxv
A.
No. XXIII.
The Examination of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of St. Vincent, K. B.; taken upon oath, the 2d of Nov.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
PAPERS PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS RELATIVE TO THE DEBT DUE TO THE CROWN FROM JOHN FORDYCE, FSQ. LATE RECEIVER GENERAL OF THE LAND AND OTHER TAXES FOR SCOTLAND.—
Ordered to be printed 3d May,
Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated the 22d March last; for, an Account of all Sums which have been paid in Discharge of the Debt of 90,473l. 18s. 6d. stated, in the 8th Report of the Select Committee of Finance, to be due from John Fordyce, Esq. late Receiver General of the Land and other Taxes in Scotland.
xxxvi
Amount of debt
£90,473
18
6
PAYMENTS.
1797, 5th July
0
0
1800, 3d Feb.
8,250
0
0
1805, 1st Feb.
1,428
0
0
30th March
11000
0
0
21,278
0
0
£69,195
18
6
Return to an Order of the House of Commons, made on the 22d of March last;
Return to the above Order, so far as relates to the Securities therein mentioned
xxxvii
BY WHOM GRANTED.
DATE.
WHEN PAYABLE.
SUM.
Duncan Davidson, Esq.
14th July 1798
31st July 1805
4000
William Gemmell, Esq.
D°
31st July 1805
4000
D°
D°
D°
3000
Robert Bogle, Esq.
16th July 1798
D°
4000
William Blair, Esq.
20th D°
D°
3500
Philip Antrobus, Esq.
30th March 1799
25th.Dec. 1805
4000
George Moubray, Esq.
17th March 1798
25th March 1805
3,000 These sums have been paid into the Exchequer.
Oliver Colt, Esq.
D°
D°
2000
Alex. Brodie, Esq.
D°
D°
2000
Rich. Jos. Sullivan, Esq.
D°
D°
1500
John Sullivan, Esq.
D°
D°
1500
John Spalding, Esq.
D°
D°
1000
29500
Second, The Obligation of the executors or trustees of the estate of River Antoine, in Grenada, to pay not less than three-fourth parts of the value of the produce of that estate annually to the exchequer, until the remainder of Mr. Fordyce's debt, now reduced to 14,337l. 6s. (exclusive of the said sum of. 29,500l.) shall be fully paid; and after such payment, to remain as a collateral security for the payment of such part of the debt of 23,944l. 3s. 10d. due from the estate of Fergusson and Murdock, as may then be unsatisfied. The nature and effect of the latter instrument, and the proceedings subsequent to the proposals, we are not acquainted with farther than by the letters received from Messrs. Goodenough and White, trustees of the crown, and Mr. Fordyce, copies wherefore are annexed, No. 3 and 4. (Signed) W. Lowndes, B. Barne, E. Medows, H. Hayes, H Hodgson.—Office for taxes, 30th April, 1805.
No. I.
Copy of Letter to Charles Long, Esq. dated 10th June,
xxxviii
1799, from Mr. Fordyce, of which No. 2, hereunto annexed, is a copy. First, Bonds delivered by Mr. Fordyce to George Trechard Goodenough, and Joseph White, Esqrs. in security for the following sums of his debt to the public.
proposal was, that the effects of the two agents of my late office, which had been seized upon extents, for the security of the balances which I had remitted to them to be paid to the exchequer, and which they had retained contrary to my orders, should remain for liquidation in the hands of the trustees appointed by the treasury. That in order to ascertain, within a limited time, the gradual and full payment out of my own property of the remainder of the debt to the public, occasioned by the failure of my other agent for that office, in whose affairs a commission of bankruptcy had preceded and prevented the effect of the writ of extent which I had applied for, I should give the following securities, amounting in all to 52,087l. 6s.
1st. The sum due to me by government as one of the commissioners of the land revenue
£8,250
0
0
2d. The bonds of sundry gentlemen of undoubted fortune and responsibility, whose names were laid before the treasury, payable in 5, 6, and seven years, for
32,500
0
0
3d. The obligation of the executors of the estate of River Antoine, in the island of Grenada, to pay the three-fourth
xxxix
parts of the value of the produce of that estate annually to the exchequer, until the whole of my debt, and that of Messrs. Fergusson and Murdock, late agents of my office, shall be fully paid. This estate, before the late disturbances, yielded 5,000l. a year, and the works being now re-established, it is expected to yield 6,000l. a year. The value of the crops of the next and following years are to be applied to the discharge of the money borrowed for the expense of re-establishing the estate; and along with the obligations of the executors, I give my personal engagement, that the payment on my account out of this fund shall be thereafter not less than 3,000l. per annum. This I give as a security for the balance of the sum for which I proposed to give security.
11,337
6
0
£52,087
6
0
xl
No. II.
Copy of Letter to Charles Long, Esq. dated 31st March,
1st. The sum due to me as one of the commissioners of the land revenue, for salary, at the rate of 1,500l. a year, from Jan. 1788 to July 1793; being 5½ years
£8,250
0
0
2dly. The bonds of several gentlemen, of undoubted fortune and responsibility, deposited with Messrs. Goodenough and White for
29,500
0
0
The names of these gentlemen are given in the inclosed paper.
3dly. There has also been deposited with Messrs. Goodenough and White, the obligation of the executors or trustees of the estate of river Antoine in Grenada, to pay not less than three fourth parts of the value of the pro-
xli
duce of that estate annually to the exchequer, until the whole of my debt, and that of Messrs. Fergusson and Murdock, late agents of my office, shall be fully paid
14,337
6
0
£52,087
6
0
In a letter from those executors, a copy of which has been sent to Messrs. Goodenough and White, shey thus express themselves respecting the value of the last-mentioned security, and the loss occasioned by the late disturbances in Grenada:—"The returns from the estate of river Antoine for the years 1795, 6, and 7, which have been comaletely lost, would probably have been worth 20,000l. which, added to the loan you were endeavouring to obtoin, would have made a great impression on your debt to the public before this time." That estate, which was wasted during those disturbances, being now re-established, is expected from this time to be as productive as it formerly was; and if the present prices of sugar shall continue, all the debts upon it prior to mine will be discharged by the crop of next year. I am also still persisting in my endeavours to obtain a loan upon it, which the continuance of war renders difficult, but which will probably be easily got when peace is made. The returns therefore from the estate will be paid annually, and that loan, when it shall be obtained, to the exchequer, in discharge of the balance before-mentioned of 14,337l. 6s. in the first place; and after that is paid, to the gradual discharge of the bonds for 29,500l. and of the debt due, as is after-mentioned, by Messrs. Ferguson and Murdock, as agents for my late office, in just proportion to the amount of the sums due to them and me from that estate; so that though those bonds granted by my friends are not payable till 1805, I have reason to expect that a very considerable part of them will be discharged before that time; and that term of payment is only to be considered as the mode taken to fix the period beyond which no part of that debt due by me for the security of which those bonds are given, can remain unpaid. The second part of that debt to the public is for 13,415l. 17s. 9d. due by Messrs. Douglas and Cockburn, to whom the money of my office was remitted by my deputy, in obedience to the directions of the first lord of the treasury, at the time when I discovered that they had detained a
xlii
Note of Bonds, referred to in Mr. Fordyce's Letter to Mr. Long, 31st March,
No. III. —
Copy of a Letter from the Trustees of John Fordyce, Esq. to the Secretary to the Board of Taxes; dated 16th June
xliii
No. IV.—
Copy of Letter from John Fordyce, Esq. to the Secretary to the Board of Taxes; dated 15th June
xliv
JOHN FORDYCE.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Abrogation of a Standing Order, 613
Bread, Price of, 373
Catholic Petition, 40, 97, 161, 651, 742
Fox, Conduct of Judge, 25, 40, 105, 161
Melville, Lord, 587
Militia Enlisting Bill, 192, 254
Mutiny Bill, 17, 26
Navy, State of the, 18, 145
Order, Standing, 162, 178
Order, Abrogation of a Standing, 613
Petition, Roman Catholic, 40, 97, 161, 651, 742
Price of Bread, 373
Roman Catholic Petition, 40, 97, 161, 651, 742
Standing Order, 162, 178
Standing Order, Abrogation of a, 613
State of the Navy, 18, 145
Universities Advowson Bill, 142, 191, 449, 537, 633
West-India Accounts, 428
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Ballot for a Select Committee on the Tenth Naval Report, 511
Bengal Judicature Bill, 132
Budget, Supplementary, 87, 109
Budget, Irish, 6, 31
Catholic Affairs of the, 255
Catholic Petition, 97, 109, 595, 833*, 951
Corn Regulation Bill, 739
Extraordinaries of the Army, 596
Fordyce's Debt, 48. Paper, relative to, xxxv
Grogan's Attainder, 167
India, War in, 29
India, State of Affairs in, 225
Irish Budget, 6, 31
Irish Election Bill, 24, 618
Irish Excise Duties Bill, 47
Irish Revenue Bills, 60
Irish Lunatics Bill, 66, 206
Irish Loan and Exchange, 67
Irish Small Notes Bill, 129
Irish Post Roads Bill, 130
Irish Militia Enlisting Bill, 158, 180
Irish Union Commissioners, 184
Irish Loan, 446
Irish Silver Tokens' Bill, 597
Irish Stamp Duties, 637
Knaresborough Election, 25
Legacy Duty Bill, 37, 90
Melville, Lord, Proceeding relative to Mr. Trotter and, 165, 186, 255, 327, 398, 430, 497, 511, 541, 600, 847
Middlesex Election, 1, 729
Military Commissioners' Bill, 492
Militia Enlisting Bill, 72, 112, 134, 150, 171
Naval Commissioners Renewal Bill, 484
Naval Enquiry, Vote of Thanks to the Commissioners of, 562
Naval Enquiry, Eleventh Report of the Commissioners of, 457
Navy, State of the, 629, 731
Oracle, Proceedings against the Printer of the, for a Libel on the House, 381, 433, 542
Pancras Poor Bill, 95
Paymaster of the forces Regulation Bill, 372
Petition from the Navy Board respecting Mr. Tucker's Petition, 62
Popham, Conduct of Sir. Home, 183, 637
Prize Agency Bill, 61
Report, Eleventh, of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry; Sir A. Hamond's Motion for Papers relative to, 457
Roman Catholic Petition, 97, 109, 595, 833, 951
Salt Duty Bill, 30
Scott, Mr. Claude, Papers relative to the Sale of Corn and Flour by, 444
Stipendiary Curates' Bill, 611
Vincent, Earl St. Naval Administration of, 629, 731
Vote of Thanks to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, 562
West Indies, 222
INDEX OF NAMES — HOUSE OF LORDS.
Albemarle, Earl of, 778
Asaph, Bishop of St. 454, 794
Auckland, Lord, 25, 26, 46, 103, 105, 144, 161, 452, 453, 822
Bolton, Lord, 829
Boringdon, Lord, 196, 773
Buckingham, Marquis of, 17, 26, 194, 728
Buckinghamshire, Earl of, 195, 744
Camden, Earl, 17, 27, 204, 706
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 451, 775
Carisfort, Earl of, 164, 728
Carleton, Lord, 44, 750
Carlisle, Earl of, 105
Carnarvon, Earl of, 198, 614
Cawdor, Lord, 196
Clarence, Duke of, 17, 28, 156
Cumberland, Duke of, 27, 692
Darnley, Earl, 18, 145, 148, 157 165, 589, 591, 729, 816
Derby, Earl of, 194
Durham, Bishop of, 161, 708
Eldon, Lord,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 45, 107, 165, 455, 804
Grenville, Lord, 26, 40, 42, 97, 103, 104, 106, 108, 161, 162, 163, 164, 192, 452, 537, 539, 615, 651, 673, 729, 837
Harrowby, Lord, 615, 787
Hawkesbury, Lord, 28, 43, 144, 106, 164, 191, 192, 254, 428, 429, 538, 539, 587, 588, 590, 591, 615, 673, 719, 720, 729
Holland, Lord, 700
Hutchinson, Lord, 764
King, Lord, 829
Limerick, Earl of, 729
London, Bishop of. 453
Lord Chancellor, 42, 46, 105, 106, 143, 162, 163, 179, 375, 464, 538, 539, 590, 614, 615, 634, 635, 710, 783
Melville, Lord, 21, 148, 154
Moira, Earl, 816
Montrose, Duke of, 203, 591
Mulgrave, Lord, 28, 44, 178, 179, 180, 613, 699
Norfolk, Duke of, 105, 142, 144, 192, 455, 537, 538, 590, 591 719, 720, 785
Ormond, Earl of, 772
Oxford, Earl of, 744
Oxford, Bishop of, 142, 144, 191, 192, 451, 452, 455, 538, 634
Radnor, Earl of, 616
Redesdale, Lord, 141 711, 771, 1061
Romney, Earl of, 204
Sidmouth, Lord, 143, 144, 449, 453, 539, 634, 695, 843.
Spencer Earl, 44, 178, 179, 254, 615, 693
Suffolk, Earl of, 164, 192, 203, 373, 428, 429, 633, 742, 1082
Wales, H. R. H. the Prince of, 162
Walsingham, Lord, 17, 148, 375
Westmoreland, Earl of, 197, 787
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Abbot, Rt. Hon. C.
see
Addington, H. 1034
Alexander, H. 71, 207, 419, 944
Andover, Lord, 317
Archdall, R. 1027
Attorney General, (Hon. S. Percival) 293, 387, 418, 419, 438, 441, 464, 483, 489, 504, 510, 533, 551, 580, 612, 941, 1039
Bagwell, Col. 24, 66, 130, 182, 207, 618, 619
Bankes, W. 142, 160, 351, 414, 492, 498
Barham, J. 222, 350
Bastard, J. P. 81, 117, 159, 322, 583, 737
Best, W. D. 371, 394, 414, 443, 445, 446, 506
Blaquiere, L. de, 60, 159, 553, 1037
Bond, N. 542, 582
Bourne, S. 185, 430, 560
Burroughs, Sir W. 547
Buxton, Sir R. 161, 498
Calcraft, J. 80, 160, 379, 380, 510
Canning, G. 175, 295, 307, 335, 349, 384, 390, 391, 407, 424, 438, 475, 524, 548, 553
Cartwright, W. R. 110
Castlereagh, Lord, 29, 30, 132, 168, 169, 170, 234, 317, 413, 495, 529
Cavendish, Lord G. 90
Chancellor of the Exchequer, 16, 30, 37, 47, 55, 59, 70, 72, 76, 79, 82, 87, 92, 95, 109, 120, 138, 139, 141, 142, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 173 177, 181, 186, 190, 223, 224, 248, 279, 288, 322, 327, 355, 370, 371, 382, 398, 402, 406, 408, 411, 412, 421, 426, 437, 443, 445, 459, 462, 476, 479, 480, 482, 484, 486, 492, 493, 494, 603, 519, 541, 545, 569, 575, 596, 597, 601, 603, 607, 611, 627, 630, 632, 643, 647, 648, 731, 734, 738, 739, 741, 750, 1045
Chapman, C. 247
Coke, T. 582
Combe, H. C. 186
Corry, I. 15, 16, 36
Creevey, T. 48, 60, 509, 541, 612
Curwen, J. C. 736
Daly, B. D 17
Dawson, R. 32
Dent, J. 551, 739
Dickenson, W. jun. 184, 464, 646
Dillon, H. A. 1030
Dolben, Sir W. 1045
Douglas, Marquis of, 79, 118, 171
Duigenan, P. 111, 185, 541, 596, 865
Dunlo, Lord, 207, 483
Dundas, W.
see
Elford, Sir W. 137, 581
Ellison, R. 135, 141, 367
Euston, Lord, 120
Fellowes, R. 613
Fitzgerald, J. 12, 31, 208, 494
Fitzgerald, M. 1027
Fitzpatrick, R. 134, 140, 141
Fonblanque, J
Foster, J. 6, 14, 16 34, 36, 60, 68, 71, 129, 130, 446, 598, 636, 637, 741, 999
Fox, C. J 30, 36, 37, 57, 70, 109, 110, 140, 141, 166, 168, 173, 174, 223, 250, 288, 309, 321, 356, 366, 383, 386, 389, 393, 396, 404, 408, 409. 422, 426, 431, 438, 442, 445, 462, 475, 480, 487, 494, 496, 500, 518, 544, 573, 575, 580, 595, 605, 607, 609, 611, 833*
Francis, P. 29, 133, 167, 170, 186, 225, 253, 741
Frankland, W. 136
Fuller, J. 82, 363, 421, 524, 583
Gascoigne, 2, 48
Giles, D. 138, 176
Grant, Sir W.
see
Grant, C 243
Grattan, H. 917, 969
Gregor, F. 583
Grenville, T. 320, 411, 500
Grey, C. 71, 93, 166, 184, 341, 381, 382, 408, 411, 434, 441, 443, 445, 457, 458, 460, 461, 465, 476, 477, 478, 481, 496, 530, 547, 631, 632, 735
Hamilton, Lord A. 16, 67, 320, 739
Hamond, A. S. 457, 458, 461, 465, 470, 575, 578, 623, 626
Hawthorn, C. S. 34, 37, 1040
Henniker, Lord 580, 582
Hill, Sir G. 36, 160, 208, 1040
Hippesley, Sir J. C. 415, 1037
Hobhouse, B. 482
Hudlestone, J. 244
Hughes, W. L. 112
Hutchinson, J. C. H. J. 643, 1039
Jeffery, J. 579, 629, 631, 632, 644, 731, 732, 735, 738
Jekyll, J. 526
Johnstone, G. 59, 255, 596,598
Ker, R G. 36
Kinnaird, C. 186, 365, 366, 409, 465, 623, 627, 628, 637, 647
Langham, J. 581
Lascelles, H. 524, 525, 741
Latouche, J. 36, 71, 1034
Laurence, F. 95, 241, 391, 440, 499, 969
Lee, E. 70, 208, 380, 618, 957
Loftus, G 170
Magens, M. D. 130, 597
Markham, J. 483, 578, 630, 645, 646, 737, 739
Martin, R. 129, 167, 168, 536, 619
Master of the Rolls, 25, 309, 408, 409, 499, 517
May
Metcalfe, Sir T. 246, 509
Milbank, Sir R. 562
Mildmay, Sir H. 90, 95, 542, 544, 553, 559
Moore, P. 397, 509, 510, 541
Newport, Sir J. 15, 33, 36, 47, 60, 66, 158, 159, 170, 181, 182, 184, 185, 206, 207 208, 380, 448, 493, 500, 510, 553, 598, 619, 637, 1025
Peele, Sir P. R. 741
Percival, Hon. S.
see
Petty, Lord Henry, 69, 109, 289, 373, 410, 541
Plumer. W. 390
Pole, Sir C. 389, 391, 398, 481, 482, 483
Ponsonby, G. 303, 345, 409, 464, 618, 1006
Popham, Sir H. 638, 646
Porchester, Lord, 613
Price, Sir C. 36, 320
Princep, J. 37, 247, 597
Pulteney, S. W. 71, 321
Pulteney, Sir J. 80
Putches, J. 500
Rose, G. 25, 372, 388, 444, 446, 491, 576, 578, 580, 597
Russell, Lord W. 25
Ryder R. 553
St. John, Hon. A. 223
Scott, C. 444
Scott, Sir W. 61, 612, 966, 969
Scott, D. 364, 645
Secretary at War, 173, 174, 366, 380, 608
Shaw. G. 1031
Sheridan, R. B 172, 255, 321, 396, 406, 420, 431, 432, 435, 437, 489, 501, 521, 524, 549, 551, 559, 561, 562, 584, 587, 646
Smith, W. 439, 741, 950, 951
Sinclair, Sir J. 734, 739
Solicitor General (Sir V. Gibbs) 391, 393, 425, 556
Speaker, The (Right Hon. C. Abbot) 47, 79, 90, 159, 177, 186, 379, 433, 435, 440, 458, 509, 536, 547, 554, 662, 579, 648, 729, 738
Stanhope, S. 91, 497, 500
Stanley, Lord, 79, 120
Stuart, W. 518
Sullivan, J. 478
Tarleton, B. 137, 159
Temple, Earl, 76, 79, 85, 117, 135, 141, 240, 619, 648
Thornton, H. 1, 72, 508, 509
Thornton, R. 248, 535
Thornton. S. 349
Tierney, G. 294, 417, 419, 457, 458 462, 474, 505, 627, 628, 732, 735,
Vansittart, N. 478, 599
Wallace, T. 320, 476, 477, 478
Ward, R. 395, 396, 483, 737
Western, C. 611, 740
Whitbread, S. 255, 321, 328, 367, 370, 371, 398, 399, 406, 411, 425, 430, 433, 484, 504, 506, 541, 518, 523, 552, 554, 562, 600, 601, 611
Wilberforce, W. 317, 321, 362, 501, 554, 579, 580, 386, 736
Windham, 123, 174, 177, 321, 352, 412, 435, 498, 526, 534, 536, 543, 546
Wright A. 433, 434, 443, 559
Wrottesley, Sir J. 583, 612
Wynne, Sir W. W: 142
Yorke, C. 113, 138, 1
Young, Sir W. 171
END OF VOL. IV.