Commons Sitting of 26 April 1805

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 Rose, the Thames Lastage and Ballastage bill was read a second time.—Sir M. W. Ridley observed, that this bill repealed all the regulations of former acts, and substituted other very important ones which required a good deal of consideration; he therefore requested the right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
sundry papers therein referred to.—Mr. Creevey referred to some observations which had been made some time since on the subject of the revenue of the Isle of Man. It might be recollected that it was then stated that the surplus of the revenue of that island for six years had amounted to the sum of 20,000 l. Upon enquiry into its application, it was said that in the year 1802, the sum of 3,000 l. had been paid into the Exchequer, and passed over to the consolidated fund, notwithstanding there was a specific act of parliament against such application. Of course there was the sum of 17,000 l. remaining for the purposes of the island. The hon. member then gave notice, that he would on Friday next move for a committee to enquire into the application of the remainder of the surplus revenue of the Isle of Man.

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 Bournemoved, 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. Whitbreadrose, 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
bread, Master of the Rolls, Mr. W. Windham, sir W. Scott, Mr. T. Grenville, Mr. Ryder, lord George Cavendish, lord Dunlo, lord W. Russell, Mr. Leycester, Mr. St. John, Mr. Foster, Mr. H. Lascelles, sir H. Mildmay, Mr. S. Thornton, Mr. J. Fane, lord Boyle, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Hawkins Brown, Mr. Gunning.—If the list of the committee to be returned by the scrutineers should tally with the names he had read, the fact he had just stated would be too palpable to admit of the smallest doubt; and by that circumstance he should be guided in such steps as he should feel himself bound to adopt under such a circumstance. Many of the names in this list were undoubtedly of high respectability, and highly eligible; but every man must be sensible, that many others of them were men whose situations and known sentiments rendered them totally ineligible to any thing like fair and impartial enquiry upon the subject of the Tenth Report of the Naval Commissioners. If the names of those members should appear upon the list of the committee returned, he should move, however unprecedented such a motion might be deemed, to expunge their names from the committee, and to insert others, not so objectionable, and of course more compatible with the objects contemplated by the house.
Mr. Foxobserved, 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
were ordered forthwith to the speaker's chamber.
Mr. Sheridanagain 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 chosen by a ballot; or whether that ballot was to be rendered nugatory, and the committee to be really nominated by government, to the flagrant deception of the house, and the probable defeat of its object. An hon. member, last night, had proposed a mode of selecting the committee, which he was persuaded would have been much more likely to have obtained a fair and impartial selection, than that which was the pleasure of the house to adopt, namely, to propose the members one at a time from each side of the house, and then it would have been fairly seen how far his majesty's ministers were disposed to accede to that principle of impartial investigation, to which some of them had professed themselves so friendly. But he well knew from past experience, that the mode adopted was not the one likely to obtain an impartial selection. There was an important occasion, some years since, which occurred to his recollection. It was a ballot proposed for selecting a committee of East-India judicature; upon which occasion, as well as on many others well known, it was irrefragably and flagrantly obvious, that the ballot for a committee was but a mere mask for the nomination of the minister; and that in fact, the names of the persons to serve had been previously determined by ministers; that the lists of those names were made up at the treasury, and put by ministers into the hands of their friends. Now, if the fact was so in the present case, it was necessary the house should know it; and the comparison of the list, in the hand of his hon. friend, with the return of the scrutineers, would be a pretty strong criterion of the truth. Upon the former occasion, to which he had alluded, the business was done so openly, that one of the door-keepers of the house put the lists into the hands of members as they entered. He (Mr. S.) had charged the fact upon ministers, and pledged himself to prove it to the house, and he accordingly had moved to

433
have Joseph Pearson, the door-keeper, called to the bar and examined. He was however, resisted by the right hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Pitt), and the house divided against it, for the ayes were but 38, and the noes 108. In the present instance, he would recommend to his hon. friend to lay his list on the table, in some manner which would bring it fairly within the cognizance of the house.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, it was his intention to ground some proceeding upon the business, in case the list returned by the scrutineers should correspond with it.
The Speakersaid, that unless the hon. member meant to conclude by some motion, there was no question now before the house.
Whitbreadsaid 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 Wrightspoke 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
sent instance was, that the honour and dignity of parliament would be best maintained by passing over in silence such trifling indiscretions. The acting otherwise, would have no other effect than to countenance them. Parliament ought to entertain a firmer reliance on its own rectitude. Such were his sentiments on this occasion, and he hoped, that some other member, better acquainted with the customs of the house, would suggest some mode by which such a dignified and independent conduct might still be rigorously attended to, even in the present case.
Mr. Greysaid, 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 Wrightagain rose and con-

435
jured the house not to make this a matter of such consequence. He thought a bare reprimand would answer every fair purpose in view.
The Speakersuggested, that the original motion should first be disposed of, and then the house could more readily determine what course was to be followed.
Mr. Windhamsaid, 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
of all that licence that the house has ever allowed to discussions upon its proceedings out of doors: Sir, I have read this article, and I must certainly allow that it is a very severe libel. But when I say this, I must at the same time observe, that though in itself it is extremely improper, yet when compared with a vast variety of other articles that have appeared respecting the proceedings of the house, it is by no means so severe. Indeed, in this view, it may be said to be mere milk and water. But then, my hon. friend says, "if we are to allow things of this sort to go on, where are we to stop? Is the house of commons to sutler every sort of censure on its proceedings to pass Without any animadversion?" Why, sir, to this I reply, that if the house is about to adopt a new feeling, and to take notice of expressions of this sort, after they have so long slumbered, and allowed these things to pass unheeded, it ought to give warning that it has changed its sentiments, in order that people may be prepared, and that punishment may not fall on a particular individual, where so many are involved in the same sort of delinquency. I do not say that my hon. friend is not perfectly warranted in the mode of proceeding which he has adopted; but it is but fair at the same time to observe, that time house has been long in the habit of tolerating such paragraphs as that of which complaint is now made. We are accustomed to connive at these things. We connive at reporting our debates, and very properly, because I should consider it as a great, if not a mortal blow to the liberties of this country, that the public should be kept in ignorance of the proceedings in parliament. Now, it ought to be recollected, that we use a great deal more freedom with our own characters than we think it just that other men should do. But when people are obliged to report, if they do report well, the severe things which we say of one another in this house, is it not natural that they should fall into an imitation of our style, and speak of us, in some measure, as we do of ourselves? I do therefore think, that in these cases a great allowance ought to be made. I should be extremely sorry that any thing like a prosecution should take place in this instance. My first reason is, that I am a warm friend to the liberty of the press, and the second is, that I very well remember the usual result of such prosecutions.

437
I recollect, sir, that a certain libel was some time ago published on the house of commons, and I was one of a committee appointed to discover the author of that pamphlet. I certainly had no doubt that it was a libel; however, when it came into a court of law, an hon. friend of mine had the ingenuity to persuade the jury, that it was no reflection whatever on the house of commons. If, therefore, the author of this paragraph makes an ample apology, which I have no doubt he will be ready to do, I cannot think that the matter ought to be carried farther. It will be sufficient to have him reprimanded and discharged.
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. Sheridansaid, 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
his friend, and equally to the perfect purity of intention its the jury he addressed.
Mr. Canningsaid, the conclusion of his right hon. friend was perfectly consistent with premises.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, 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
ly unjustifiable, but I say, that if such an imputation as this had been thrown on any of the proceedings of the house of commons, when the majority was in favour of administration, it would not be tolerated. No one would dare to do such a thing. I certainly do think this, therefore, an extraordinary case; but at the same time, on the general principle, that the freedom of discussion, either in or out of doors, should not be discouraged, I am free to confess, that I am not of opinion that the punishment ought to be severe.
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
listened to the arguments on both sides? Certainly this cannot be said. This may be a reason for taking notice of the libel, but at the same time it must be confessed, it is an additional proof that it could be attended with no harm whatever.
Dr. Laurencediffered 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 question being loudly called for, and the house having determined "that the Printer be called in," Mr. Peter Stuart appeared at the bar.
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?
A. "Permit me, sir, to assure you, that I very much regret that any part of the contents of my paper of yesterday should have incurred the displeasure of this honourable house. If, sir, I have expressed
myself too warmly in favour of lord Melville—for whom I shall always entertain the highest respect and esteem—I beg that this honourable house will view it as the unguarded language of the heart, and not a wilful intention to provoke the censure of a power on which our dearest rights and liberties depend. I intreat you, sir, that some allowance may be made for that freedom of discussion of public affairs, winch for a long series of years has been sanctioned by common usage; and that the hasty composition
of a newspaper may not be considered

441
as a deliberate design to offend this honourable. house."—Mr. Peter Stuart having concluded, he was desired by the Speaker to withdraw.
Mr. Greythen 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
every thing that was just and proper that there was no use whatever in attending in it, and that it afforded no protection whatever to the people of this country; and I remember too, that the hon. gent. was absent from his duty in the house at the time. Yet, sir, I do not say that the hon. gent. absolutely held this language; but I do say, that the prints made him say so; and adopted that mode of conveying their sentiments with more weight. But after all this, sir, there was no interference on the part of the house. I only mention this, sir, to show, that those things which. make for us do not make altogether so strong an impression, as those things that make against us. With regard to the motion itself, I certainly lave no objection to it.
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, when such a libel as this is before the house, I certainly do think this a more serious libel than many others, and confess that it has made a stronger impression on me for exactly the reason that has been stated, of its not being in favour of my own side of the question; not however, because I am myself indivi-

443
dually concerned, but because I think that libels are much more serious when they are most agreeable to the executive power; for, in that case, there are strong suspicions that they may possibly come from those who receive the pay of the goverment.
Mr. Atkins Wrightdefended 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. Greyobserved, 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 Exchequerwas 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
taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms.

PAPERS RELATING TO THE SALE OF CORN AND FLOUR BY MR. CLAUDE SCOTT.
Mr. Serjeant Bestrose, 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 Scottstated, that the money was much more than 200,000 l. which was one proof that the hon. gent. was extremely misinformed on the subject. The produce of the sale had been paid by him, to. the bank, and remained therefore unemployed. He offered to give it to government, but was told by Mr. Rose, that it was not settled to what particular account it was to go, but that as soon as this was settled he would be informed of it. The money for some months lay in the bank, and them upon an order from the treasury, he paid it over to the treasurer of the navy, and this was the whole of the matter.
Mr. Rosesaid, 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
ever. He was glad the subject had been brought forward, because it would afford that hon. member an opportunity Of making the whole case clear and public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid 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. Foxthought 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 Exchequersaid, 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. Greymaintained, 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 ExchequerSaid, he had not seen the book, which appeared to contain sufficient notice.
Mr. Serjeant Bestjustified 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
made to him; which statement if correct demanded of him this conduct as a member of that house; if the statement was incorrect, he was imposed upon, and improperly made the instrument of bringing forward an unnecessary enquiry, in which event he should be among the foremost to bring his informant before the house, for the purpose of receiving its censure; for those who gave misinformation to members on such occasions, deserved censure. He understood the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose) to say, that the hon. member (Mr. Scott) had not employed the public money for one moment. He was glad to hear it, and if so, he must have been greatly misinformed.
Mr. Rosesaid, 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 Bestsaid, a month.
Mr. Rosesaid 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. Fostersaid, 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. would be proposed to be contracted for in Ireland for the service of that country; he had also stated, that there was a sum of 800,000 l.

447
due upon treasury bills, respecting which be expressed a wish to reserve all discussion till a future day. He had now to state to the committee, that he had proposed to raise a loan of 1,800,000 l. in Ireland. Offers had been made there, which were not accepted: offers were then made in this country for the loan, which he had felt it his duty to accept; and it was the contract so made, that he had now the honour to submit to the committee. The terms of the loan were,

100l. Long annuities

£5

0

0

24l. in the 5 per cents

1

4

0

making together 61. 4s. the annual charge for the loan; but in addition to this there was 4s. 10d. for the sinking fund on the 5 per cents. and 8s.4d. on the long annuities, making altogether a sum of 6l. 17s. 2d. per cent. He trusted the committee would not consider the terms' of the loan as disadvantageous to the public, when it was stated, that for the loan of two millions and a half, which was raised in the early part of the session for Ireland, the annual charge amounted to 6l, 17s. 7d. The latter loan was not only made upon terms more favourable to the public, but it had this further advantage, that a great part of it was in annuities, whereas the other created a permanent debt. He would now, with the permission of the committee, say a few words upon the reports which were circulated respecting the rejection of the offers made in Ireland for this loan. The offers made by the persons who wished to contract for the loan in Ireland were as follows:

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

He had already stated, that the annual charge on the present loan was 6l. 17s. 2d. so that there was an actual saving of 10s. 5d. per cent. The difference also on the capital of the debt created would be immense. If the offers made in Ireland had been accepted, the subscribers would have had a bonus of no less than 13 per cent. and therefore it was not surprising, that where the advantage to them was so great, they wished to have their offer considered as a contract. He would now explain to the house the whole of the transaction, as far as related to the offers made in Ireland. The first offer made there was for 49, 5 per cents.; this being represented as unreasonably high, it was reduced to
448
48½, and on further representation, to 4S. This offer had been received by the lords of the treasury in Ireland, subject to his approbation. He would shew by the letter of the bidders themselves, that they did not consider any engagement made with them. The letter stated, that they would abide by their offer, if they were indemnified for any depression that may take place in the stocks here before the return of the express with his answer. This offer was made in Dublin on Monday the 16th. The letter of Messrs. Bogle, French, Burrows, and Canning, was answered by him by an express, which arrived in Dublin on the Sunday following, stating, that their offer could not be accepted. There was not in their letter, nor in any one of the papers, one word that went to shew he was bound. The bidders merely said, they would abide by their offer if indemnified against possible depression. Now they complained, and said they had a right, merely because they were not allowed the 13 per cent. bonus they had carved out for themselves. He trusted this explanation would set his conduct in a fair light.
Sir J. Newportexpressed 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
sweets. Upon the whole, he thought the right hon. gent. had conducted the business in a manner highly creditable to himself, and very advantageously to the country, and it was with infinite satisfaction he gave his approbation to it. The resolutions were then read and agreed to; the house resumed, and the report ordered to be received on Monday.—Adjourned.