Commons Sitting of 11 July 1805

MINUTES.
A message from the lords informed the house that their lordships had agreed to the Smuggling Prevention bill, the Privilege bill, the Foreign Plate Glass Duty bill, the British Museum Grant bill, the Duke of Atholl's Compensation bill, and the Consolidated Fund without any amendments; also to the Maidstone Poor bill, the

827
Witnesses Idemnity bill, the Paddington Coal bill,and the Camberwell Water Works bill, with several amendments, in which they desired the concurrence of the house.—The amendment of the lords to the Maidstone Poor bill, to the Paddington Coal bill, and to the Camberwell Water works bill, were severally taken into consideration, on the motions of sir J. Frederick, Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Tierney, and appearing to be only in furtherance of the intentions of the house in passing the bills, were agreed to, and the same ordered to be signified to the lords.—A new writ was ordered on the motion of Mr. Struges Bourne, for the election of a Knight of the Shire for the County of Down in Ireland, in the room of the right hon. Viscount Castlereagh, who had accepted the place of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.—Mr. Long acquainted the house that his majesty had been waited upon with the several addresses voted, and would be graciously pleased to give directions accordingly.—Mr. Dent moved, that there be laid before the house an account of all the monies that had been paid to the Sierra Leone Company, pursuant to grants of Parliament, together with the dates of each payment; also an account of the Disbursement of all Sums granted by the Parliament to the Sierra Leone Company. Ordered.—Mr. Dent gave notice, that he should, on an early day next session, move for leave to bring in bill for putting a stop to the horrid practice of Bull-baiting.—Mr. Tyrrel, from the Office of the Chamberlain of the City of London, presented at the bar several accounts relative to the Port of London and the different Docks. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. C. Wynne moved, that there be laid before the house an Account of the number of Lunatics and Insane Persons confined in the different Jails, Houses of Correction, Poor Houses, and Houses of Industry in England. Ordered.—Mr. Kinnaird moved, "that there be laid before the house an account shewing the number of Shipwrights and Apprentices employed in his majesty's Dock Yards on the 17th of May, 1804," together with several other papers, with a view to the discussion on Mr. Jeffery's motion, which were severally ordered. A message from the lords informed the house that their lordship had agreed to the Indemnity bill, and the bill for continuing the proceeding on the impeachment of lord Melville, notwithstanding any prorogation on dissolution of parliament.

>KIRK OF SCOTLAND
.—Mr. Kinnaird, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, moved that there be laid before the house an account

828
of the Ministers' Stipend of the Kirk of Scotland, specifying the stipend of each Parish, with the augmentations lately made to them. and the state of the Tiends in each; also an account of the population of each Parish, arranged alphabetically, with other accounts of a similar nature.
The Secretary at War wished the hon. gent. had stated some ground for this motion, because, though if upon grounds he did not mean to oppose it, yet appeared to him to require very good grounds indeed to justify the expence and trouble that the production of such accounts must inevitably create. He did not think that, even on parliamentary grounds, a paper was to be given on the mere motion for it, without adducing any satisfactory reason. Such a proceeding besides, he was certain, would create a very extraordinary sensation in that part of the country.
Mr. Kinnaird stated, as the object if his motion, certain regulations respecting the Tiends and Stipends applicable to the support of the clergy of Scotland, which were at present on a confused system, and not in a fair state of proportion. Had he expected any opposition to the motion, he should not have brought it forward on so short a notice; but he did not at all see how the trouble or expence attending the making out of those accounts could be so great as the right hon. gent. wished to represent. That part of the motion that related to the population, it was true, might be attended with some difficulty, and therefore he had no great objections to withdraw that part of his motion. The accounts might be made out during the recess of parliament, and be ready to be presented to the house by the beginning of next session.
Mr. R. Dundas thought it would be impracticable for the clergymen to make such returns as those moved for, without a great deal of time and trouble. The discussion of such a subject would give rise to no small degree of alarm in that part of the country, and therefore the hon. gent. should be aware of the grounds of his motion before introducing so delicate a topic. He advised the hon. gent. to take the summer months to consider of it, and to converse on it with people who were well acquainted with the subject.—Mr. Kinnaird, after some observations, withdrew his motion.

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.
Mr. Whitbread moved, that the lords amendments to the Indemnity bill be taken into consideration.
The Speaker acquainted the house, that numerous amendments had been made by the

829
lords to this bill, many of which amounted to direct alterations in a clause containing provisions relating to the applications of public money. These were amendments which the house never could agree to, and it would before the hon. member to dispose of the amendments by the course usually adopted on such occasions.—The amendments were then ordered, on the motion of Mr. Whitbread, to be taken into further consideration this day three months.
Mr. Whitbread then moved for, and obtained leave to bring in a bill which should include the lords amendments, saving thereby the privileges of the house.—The bill was brought in by Mr. Whitbread, and read a first and second time; it then passed through a committee, and it was ordered to be engrossed. On the motion that the bill be read a third time,
Sir William Elford declared himself to be still of his former opinion respecting the propriety of idemnifying the persons who might give evidence on the impeachment of lord Melville from civil suits. It was material to the ends of justice that their testimony should not be biassed by any apprehensions for the consequences that might result to themselves. It was also material to lord Melville, if he should be acquitted of the crimes imputed to him, that no impression should remain on the public mind, as if the witness might not have given full testimony from the influence of their personal apprehensions. He hoped and trusted the house would support its own intentions, and direct the Attorney General to stay proceeding in the civil suit against Mr. Trotter; taking it for granted that the house would adopt that course, he should not object to the third reading of the bill.—The bill was then read a third time and passed; and Mr. Whitbread was ordered to carry it to the lords.
Sir. W. Elford then moved, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, that the Attorney General be directed to stay all proceeding of civil suit against Mr. Trotter. This motion being seconded by Mr. R. Dundas,
Sir W. Elford moved that the order of the house of the 25 of April, directing the Attorney General to proceed against lord viscount Melville Mr. Trotter, &c. by a civil suit, be read; which being read accordingly, he farther moved that so much of the said order as relates to Mr. Trotter be discharged.
Mr. Whitbread was of opinion that the public were entitled to retribution, and as it was well known that Mr. Trotter had gained very considerable emoluments in the public service should it turn out that those
830
had been unduly obtained room should be left open for recovery. The committee appointed to draw up the Articles of Impeachment were originally of opinion that an exemption from criminal prosecution was all that was necessary to indemnify the witness on this question, and great law authorities had since given it as their opinion, that being exposed to a civil process could not justify a demurrer on the part of those witness. That point, however, had been referred in another place to the twelve judges, and it was therefore premature to take it up before a judgment of such weight as that must necessarily be, was given. He was not absolutely hostile to the motion, but thought it had better not be made in the present circumstances.
Mr. Kinnaird did not think it fair in the hon. bart. after what he must have heard had been done in another place, to come forward in this manner, and anticipate the decision of the judges, to whom that point had been referred. It had been determined in the other house, that nothing should be done to preclude proper restitution, should it afterwards appear necessary. He did not mean to say that this ought to influence the vote of the house, but certainly it should have great weight with them individually. In regard to the bias mentioned by the hon. bart. as likely to operate on the minds of the witness, in case of not receiving complete indemnity, were he to give his opinion freely, he would say that that complete indemnity would have the contrary effect to that suggested by the hon. bart.
The Attorney General was of opinion, that instead of adopting this motion, some intermediate measure might be resorted to, such as that of a suspension of all civil proceedings, at least till the next session of parliament. In regard to the high authorities alluded to, so far as he might be supposed to be alluded to, he could be no legal bar to the one proceeding could be no legal bar to the other, but at the same time he did not wish to give his opinion what the effect of a civil suit might ultimately be.
Mr. C. Wynne approved of the idea suggested by the learned gent. of suspending in question, and confessed, that it appeared to him in a different light than if forming a part of the bill to be sent up to the lords. As doubts, however, existed on the subject, he did not think the house could be warranted in rescinding their former vote in the present circumstance.
Lord Henry Petty thought the proposition

831
of the hon. bart. in the present circumstances, extremely objectionable. Should it be thought expedient afterwards to rescind that resolution, it would still remain open for the consideration of the house after the twelve judges had delivered their opinion.
Sir. W. Elford said, his object in wishing the evidence to be free from all bias, was not to favour lord Melville, but for the better obtaining of public justice. He agreed to withdraw his motion, and in the room of it moved, that the Attorney General be directed not to proceed in any civil suit against Mr. Trotter, till after the commencement of next session of parliament, which was ordered.

CASE OF CAPTAIN WRIGHT.
Mr. Windham, in consequence of the notice that had been given by his hon. friend (sir Sidney Smith) yesterday, rose to move for copies of the correspondence of government relative to the case of captain Wright. When he fist took the liberty of mentioning the subject to the house, he doubted whether he should conclude by moving for the papers, or confine himself to a statement that might attract the attention of the house. His reason for having adopted the latter course was, because he thought the papers, when produced, would not shew the government and the country in any advantageous light. It was not creditable to seek redress by indirect means, through the intercession or mediation of other powers, when it ought to have been insisted upon as matter of direct right. But his hon. friend (sir Sidney Smith), the gallant officer on the bench behind him, was of opinion, that the production of these papers would be of service to capt. Wright, by publishing to the country and Europe, the circumstances of his case; and, with this view, he meant to conclude with a motion for the papers. The question to consider was, first, what was necessary for this county to do in order to maintain its dignity and independence; and secondly, what was necessary to be done with a view to the relief of capt. Wright. As to what was necessary to country, he should only say, that if we were once to confess we durst not retaliate, it would be an acknowledgement of inferiority, which must in the fatal.—As to the second object, if we were to do to the French as they did to us, it would have an effect on the feelings of the public in France, and on the military, and Bonaparte was not out of the reach of public opinion.—Besides, he might now be governed by more generous feelings than formerly: having attained the summit of his ambition, he was
832
alive to fame, and not insensible to reproach. He could not be insensible to the reproach of having been actuated by motives of personal resentment against a gallant officer whom he first knew at Acre, by the share he had in the ever glorious and memorable exploit in defence of that place. The French ruler might therefore, from the influence of more generous feelings, not less than from the dread of the odium that be would encounter in France if the officers who might fall into our hands should be treated with the same rigour as captain Wright, be induced to alter his conduct to that gallant officer. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this house, copies of such correspondence as may have taken place between his majesty's government and the government of France, or with that of any other country, relative to the treatment, or exchanged, of capt. Wright, late of his majesty's sloop Vincego, and now a prisoner of war in close confinement in France."
Sir Sidney Smith in seconding the motion of his right hon. friend, and a duty be owed to every officer in the navy. A natural question would arise in the minds of gentlemen who heard him, what useful purpose was proposed to be answered by the production of the papers. To this he should answer, that three beneficial purpose would be promoted by it. First, it would afford a consolation to captain Wright in his solitary confinement, to find that he was not disowned by his government or by his country, and that the assertions of France with respect to him were not credited. He could from his personal knowledge assert, that captain Wright had been regularly employed in the service of his country. He held in his hand a document, written by captain Wright himself, which with leave of the house he proposed to read. This was the letter to the Admiralty, in which captain Wright solicited to be actively employed in the service of his country, after the commencement of the war, This communication had been followed by an offer of the command of a sloop, which not being then equipped ready for service, his gallant friend, anxious to be actively employed, zealous for the service of his country, and perfectly fearless of danger, was appointed to the command of the Vincego.—There were some circumstance of that vessel, and the treatment

833
of captain Wright which might not be known to many gentlemen present, and which perhaps had never reach the present ruler of France. He should therefore, with the leave of the house, read a document on that subject. And here he should say, that the general, who first demanded captain Wright to the French government, might have had a wish to promote his views with his government, by a display of his zeal in its cause. The document he alluded to was a letter from an office of the Vicego, giving an account of her capture, and the subsequent treatment of the captain and crew. This letter had been written by an officer of the vessel, and unquestionably without any view to the use now made of it.—The gallant officer here read the letter, of which the following is a copy:—"We have at length arrived it our place of rest (Verdun) after a fatiguing match of near 800 miles. Captain Wright was separated from us at Vannes, and the men were afterwards taken from us at Verheuil: we were then conveyed to paris, and lodged in the Abaye; so soon, however, as it became dark, we were removed to the Temple, where we were confined seven weeks, thee of which we passed in solitary confinement.—As, perhaps, you have heard the particulars of our being taken, I will give you a short account. During our long cruize in Quiberon Bay, we were continually engaged with the numerous gun-boats that passed from one port to another with convoys; but having no pilot, and they keeping close in shore, we were unable to do any thing decisive; we, however, took two unarmed vessel, one a schooner, laden with flour, &c.; and the other, a national lugger, with 2000 oars for the gun-boats; this last, from our want of men, we were obliged to destroy; the other arrived safe in England. The day before we were taken, we drove a sloop and lugger ashore, near St. Gelda's. On the morning, at day-light, we discovered a number of vessels coming out of the Morbihan, and a corvette of 18 long 18-pounders lay at anchor close in shore. The Vincego was at this time becalmed in a strong tides way, which drifted us close on a rock, which was avoided by dropping our anchor; when the tide slacked, having taken a poor man from a fishing boat as pilot, we attempted to take the Tennis Passage, but from his fears or ignorance, he was of no use, and went down below. We were in narrow and intricate passage, without an air of wind; numerous gun-
834
boats coming rapidly up with us; our men, who had been up all night, and had laboured three hours at the oars in a sultry morning, where quite exhausted; and finding escape impossible, the captain ordered the ship's broadside to be swept to, and an engagement was kept up against such fearful odds, for more than two hours, when our firing almost wholly ceased, three of the guns being dismounted, and the rest incumbered, with lumber, from the falling of the booms, their supporter having been shot away. The men falling fast, the foremast nearly shot away, and the vessel nearly sinking, captain Wright was forced to hail that he had struck, just in time to save the lives of the few that could keep the deck, as the gun-boats were rowing up alongside, with numerous troops to board. He himself was wounded in the thigh early in the action by a grape shot, but never left the deck. We lament his separation from us, as we would the absence of our dearest friends. His manners are those of a perfect gentleman; his abilities of the first class; and his bravery only equalled by his generosity and humanity. In his deportment to his inferiors he appears in the most amiable point of view, it being that of kind and benevolent father. Indeed I have not words to express my admiration of his character."—Here the hon. and gallant officer was so overpowered by the weight of his feelings, that he was for some time deprived of articulation, and in the end obliged to break off abruptly.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had no sort of objection to the production of the papers moved for by the right hon. gent. As there was no objection to their production, it was not desirable to make any observation upon them in the present instance. When the papers should be on the table, the house would be able to judge of what had been done, as well as whether any further steps were necessary. But, as the motion then stood, it appeared to him that some additional papers were necessary in order to bring the matter fully before the house.—The motion was then agreed to, as also, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, "that there be laid before the house a copy of a letter from William Marsden, esq., to Edward Cooke, esq., under secretary of state, dated the 17th of July, 1804, with a copy of its inclosure, from Mr. Riviere, of the marine department at Paris. And also, a copy of a letter from Edward Cooke, esq., to William Marsden, esq., secretary to the

835
lords commissioners of the admiralty, in answer thereto, dated the 28th August, 1804."

THIRD NAVAL REPORT.
Sir A. Hamond, pursuant to notice moved that, there be laid before the house a,copy of the memorial of the commissioners of the navy, in answer to the third report of the commissioners of naval enquiry.
The Speaker observed, that it was usual to allow hon. members, when affected by any particular charge, to be heard in their justification, or to present a petition on the subject. It was also competent to the house to order any official document from any department of the executive government. But it would be for the house to consider how far the paper moved for by the hon. baronet, being a memorial from the commissioners of the navy, was or was not of either description.
Sir A. Hamond observed, by what had fallen from the chair, that his motion was irregular, and expressed his willingness either to move for the paper as a petition, or a letter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the regular mode would be to move for a copy of the letter of the admiralty, inclosing the memorial of the commissioners of the navy.
The Speaker agreed, that in that shape the paper would come under the description of an official document.
Mr. W. Dickenson stated the reason why the admiralty commissioners had not laid the memorial before the house to be, that it was a memorial from the commissioners of the navy to the house, transmitted to them for their inspection, and they had thought it would come more regularly before the house from the commissioners of the navy.
Mr. Kinnaird had heard with pleasure what had fallen from the chair. A memorial could not be presented as a petition, because no prayer was to be found in it. He thought it rather extraordinary that the third report of the naval enquiry should have been two years on the table, without any notice being taken of it; and that now, on the day preceding the expected separation of parliament, a motion should be made for the production of a memorial in answer to it. This motion ought to have been made earlier in the session, when the whole subject should have been taken into consideration. Were the commissioners of the navy preparing answers to all the reports? Did they mean to answer the sixth report,
836
which contained serious charges against them by memorial? The more manly and candid way would have been to have moved, that the report be taken into consideration.
Sir A. Hamond repeated the reasons assigned by him on a former occasion for not having brought the subject forward before. He had lost no time after the report had been laid before the house, in acquainting the first lord of the admiralty that the navy board wished to have the charges upon them fully investigated, but he could not obtain his consent to lay the memorial before the house.
Mr. Giles observed, that when the memorial had been laid before the first lord of the admiralty, in answer to the first report, it was considered by him so offensive, that he said if it were laid before the house, he should look upon it as a personal insult.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that if the first lord had said that he would have looked upon the production of the memorial in answer to the first report as a personal insult, that was a reason why the commissioners of the navy should not consult him on the subject of the memorial in answer to this report.
Sir C M. Pole thought it necessary to guard the house and the public against the effect of receiving a memorial which was but the assertion of persons against whom serious charges existed, for a neglect of their duty. He did not mean to object to the motion, but the papers moved for contained only the assertions of the commissioners of the navy, and not on oath. The commissioners of inquiry had discharged their duty with zeal and fidelity, in the arduous task that had been intrusted to them, and under peculiar difficulties. From the calumnies that were thrown out against them in the house, and perhaps out of it, he thought it was impossible for them to carry on the business for which they had been appointed. They had discharged their duty under the bill now within a few hours of expiring, and he took the opportunity of saying, that he really thought it would be impossible for them to go on any longer with benefit to the public. He hoped the house would find before next session of parliament persons more capable of doing the business; he was sure they could not find any that would do it with more zeal or fidelity.
The Secretary at War wished to know who ever doubted the zeal of the hon. gent.? The question now was, whether, when se-

837
rious charges were preferred against the commissioners of the navy, they should be allowed to give in their answer to such charges?
Mr. Kinnaird would not object to the Motion, provided the memorial was not to be considered as an answer to the report, being only assertions, without the sanction of an oath.
The Attorney General thought the memorial could not be considered in any other light, than as an answer to the report. The house could not know on what grounds the commissioners of naval enquiry could not, as stated by the hon. baronet, proceed with the business of their enquiry. It was competent to any hon. member to move, that any of the reports be taken into consideration.
Mr. Johnstone protested against the allowing the assertions of the party accused by the report to have equal weight with the report.
Mr. Canning protested also againt the doctrine of not hearing the accused party. It must be recollected, that in the eleventh report the commissioners of naval enquiry had thrown out charges against the navy board, which were afterwards examined by the committee of the house, and the navy board were found not to have been at all in fault. A similar thing might again occur. Even the tenth report was revised by a committee, and evidence heard before the bills were passed which were grounded on it. Such had been the constant practice of the house, as prescribed by the rules of justice.—The motion of sir A. Hamond was agreed to.

FINANCIAL PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. Johnstone moved the order of the day for resuming the debate on his financial propositions, see p. 754. The hon. gent. then moved one of his resolutions after a brief statement, that he had the satisfaction to find that the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer agreed in most of his resolutions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that he had no objection to agree to many of the hon. gent.'s resolutions in precisely the same words, and that others of them he proposed to alter the form of.—The resolutions were then severally put, and such of the original ones as were to be altered, were got rid of by the previous question, and those proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer agreed to in their stead. —Adjourned