Commons Sitting of 2 May 1805

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.

LORD MELVILLE'S GRANT.
—Lord H. Petty rose pursuant to his notice, to move for certain accounts of the public income in Scotland, and of certain grants out of that income. The reason of his making these motions was, that as there was an acknowledged necessity of inquiring as much as possible into every abuse in every department of the government, those papers seemed to him well worthy of the attention of the house, as connected with that object. He stated, that it had been the practice in Scotland, originating at the union, to draw money, by anticipation, out of the hands of the receiver-general of Scotland, by the authority of warrants from the barons of the exchequer in that country, signed by some of the lords of the treasury here. This mode of drawing the money, which had been originally designed as a security against abuse, seemed, however, to have bean lately made the means of it. From 1783 to 1790, on an average, 186,000l. a year had been drawn in this way; from 1790 to 1797, it had increased to 223,000l. according to the report of the committee of finance. That committee had suggested the propriety of limiting this issue, sis there was no certainty that the revenue from which it was taken could be counted upon for any certain product while it was liable to be so drawn upon without any regular account. The practice, however, had been suffered to continue, and the mischief of it may be conceived from one instance; the grant of 1500l. a year to lord Melville annexed to his office of lord privy seal for Scotland. This grant he considered a violation of the appropriation act, of the act respecting the revenue of Scotland also, and of Mr. Burke's act restricting the crown from granting pensions above 1200l. without the consent of parliament, for this grant was 1500l. If this grant had been directly made as an addition to the salary of the first lord of the admiralty it would not have been for life. If it was intended as a grant for life, the proper mode would have been, an application to parliament, stating lord Melville's merits as the grounds on which the claim was made. The noble lord concluded with moving, "that there be laid before the house an account of all monies paid under warrants of the barons of exchequer in Scotland, directed to the receivers of the customs and excise in that country, stating the persons to whom such grants were made, and the purposes for which, from 1797 down to the latest period they were made." This ac-
542
count was ordered, with some others of the same nature. The noble lord then moved for an account of another grant to lord Melville, of the arrears of the stewardship of Fife. This was necessary, as there was a report that the grant had been made in a surreptitious manner, and not on ground satisfactory to the lords of the treasury when it came afterwards to be considered.
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 Mildmaypresented 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
deliberate design of offending this honourable house. That your petitioner is emboldened to solicit your indulgence and forgiveness on his well founded assurance, that during the several years in which he has conducted a newspaper, it has uniformly been his principle and pride zealously to support the character and dignity of the house of commons; and that it has frequently fallen to his lot to have vindicated both from the charges of societies expressly instituted to bring them into public disrepute and contempt.—In any observations which your petitioner may have published on the conduct of lord Melville, he could not but bear in mind, that the views of those societies, abetting domestic treason, and assisted by the co-operation of the revolutionary power of France, would, he verily believes, have effected the destruction of the British constitution, had not the wise and efficient measures brought forward by that administration, in which lord Melville held so conspicuous a situation, been adopted; and this honourable house would not, in that case, perhaps, have been now in existence, either to censure lord Melville, or to pardon your petitioner.—That if any thing could increase your petitioner's regret, it would be its being supposed that the objectionable paragraph was directed also against the right hon. the speaker of the house of commons; that your petitioner has no hesitation to declare, that no idea was ever more remote from his mind; and that your petitioner would be the very last person to insinuate any thing disrespectful of a character whom he, in conjunction with the whole nation, highly esteems as a private gentleman, and most profoundly venerates as the head and public organ of this hon. house.—That your petitioner most humbly hopes this hon. house will consent to his release; and your petitioner will ever pray, &c. STUART."—The petition being read, the hon. baronet moved, that the said Peter Stuart be brought to the bar and discharged.
Mr. Windhamcalled 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
house, whether ever any thing in the form of apology came up to this, which not only justified what the house had thought reprehensible, but even made accusations upon the house. He also pointed out the extraordinary claim of merit in opposing certain societies out of doors, which, it was modestly said, would, if not opposed by this person, and those to whom he referred, have prevented the house from ever sitting. He left it to the house what opinion it should form of this extraordinary petition. He should not offer any new motion; but he put it to the hon. baronet whether the original one ought to be persevered in. The petition was, by general desire, read a second time.
Sir Henry Mildmaysaid, 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
been guilty of it has uniformly been a supporter of administration, and of all those majorities which could be supposed to be procured by the influence of the minister, and that he had before been in the habit of only libelling those minorities which opposed the wishes of ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould 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
that opinion should also dislike the statement of it in the petition. That opinion was, however, entirely agreeable to the opinion which had for many years been entertained by a great majority of that house, and of the other house of parliament, and although the petitioner might have thought his testimony of much more importance than it really was, both with respect to lord Melville and to the speaker of that house, yet he could not see any thing improper or insulting to the house in his introducing those topics in extenuation of his offence. It was in the recollection of the house, that on the day that this business was first brought forward, considerable stress had been laid on the majority having been formed by the decision of the speaker, and therefore the libelling the majority under such circumstances, was an aggravated offence, as conveying a personal libel on the character of the speaker, whose vote made the majority. When this had been relied upon at the time the libel was complained of, it was not extraordinary that the petitioner should positively disclaim every idea of reflecting upon the speaker, and take that opportunity of expressing his respect for his character. For his part, it appeared to him that the decision of the majority of the house of commons should at all times be treated with the greatest respect; but certainly it did not appear to him to be entitled to more respect for having been obtained by the casting vote of the speaker than those decisions which are agreed to, either unanimously, or by very large majorities of the house. The only topics then which were objected to in the petition, were those expressions with respect to the speaker which appeared very naturally to have been introduced in consequence of his having been supposed to have libelled the speaker, and his professions of respect for lord Meiville's services, which were urged in extenuation of the zeal with which he undertook to defend his character. All the rest of the petition was merely the expression of sorrow and contrition for having offended the house, and this part certainly could not be objected to.
Mr. Windhambegged 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
er. His objection was not to the observation itself, but the time and place in which it appeared. It was not the commentary and the criticism itself which he found fault with; they might be very good, but non erat hic locus. The petition of a person under punishment for libelling the house was not the place in which a commentary on the conduct of the speaker ought to be found. It was the complexion and character of the performance altogether, that made it impossible to agree to the motion, and he therefore intended to move an amendment.
Sir William Burroughsrose to order. He thought it irregular for a member to make a second speech with a view of moving an amendment.
The Speakergave his opinion, that by the rules of the house the right hon. gent. could not make a second speech to move an amendment.
Mr. Greyfelt 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
tions in aggravation, which he now conceived that he had a right to make. He should therefore now state, that gross and enormous as he conceived the libel to be which he had submitted to the consideration of the house, it was in his opinion highly aggravated by the style of defiance which appeared throughout this petition, and which was highly indecent and insulting to the house. He did not exactly know what amendment to move for, but he thought that the punishment ought now to be increased.
Mr. Canningthought 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
the petitioner complimenting the private character of the speaker, yet if that had been left out, and the compliment was only to his situation as presiding over this house, the omission might be complained of with more reason, and would appear to convey something of a reflection on his private character. He wished, however, now, that the editors of papers in general, not only those who conducted daily, but those who published weekly papers, should take notice, and receive warning that a great change had taken place in the system of forbearance that had hitherto been adhered to. Justice, impartial justice, must be done on both sides. A new æra had now begun, and if any general clamour should be raised with respect to the abridgment of the liberty of the press, it must be recollected by the house and the country, on which side of the house these prosecutions first commenced, and who it was who began them. As the petitioner had defended, with mistaken zeal, the man who had been the victim of the anger of that house, was it unfair for him, in extenuation, to shew the causes which had produced that zeal which drew upon him the displeasure of that house? It was certainly fair in him to point out the reason why he entertained so great a partiality for lord Melville; to state the services which that noble lord, and those with whom he acted, had rendered to the country; and it was not extraordinary, or unnatural, that any member of the community, who felt strongly that the salvation of the country, and the protection that he enjoyed in common with all his fellow subjects, was owing to the salutary laws which were then enacted to be strongly impressed with gratitude for those services, and to undertake zealously, although imprudently, and perhaps presumptuously, to defend a person whom the house had condemned. As to the merits of lord Melville in those times to which the petition alludes, no resolution of the house of commons could erase that page from the history of the country, or from the recollection of the supporters of the constitution. He again repeated, that a great change had now taken place, and that the house and the country must recollect on which side of the house it had begun.
Mr. Sheridansaid, 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
could not give a silent vote; nor was the to be deterred from giving his opinion by the indecent threat that had been thrown out by the hon. gent. who had spoken last. That gentleman had stated pretty strongly, that it was in the contemplation of his friends to curtail and abridge the liberty of the press, and wished to have it supposed that he and his friends were to be responsible for the determination on the other side of the house to abridge the real liberty of the press. He saw nothing inconsistent in the conduct of his hon. friend, (Mr. Grey) on a former night with his conduct to-night. He had on a former night given way to that disposition for lenity which he perceived to have been then the prevailing sentiment in the house; but when he now found this disposition towards lenity had been abused, and that the stile of the petition shewed strongly the spirit in which the libel had been written, there was no inconsistency in thinking that this lenity had been misplaced, and that some severer punishment should now take place. He confessed that he himself had used the words stated by the hon. gent. and although he gave his opinion that the paragraph alluded to was a very gross libel, yet he called it milk and water comparatively with others which had not yet been noticed. However, he must confess that some bounds ought to be set to the licentiousness of the press; yet when he considered in whose hands the pruning-knife was to be placed, to lop off its exuberances, he was much afraid they would destroy the pith and vital sap of the tree. On this ground he had hitherto opposed all those measures for restricting the freedom of the press; he had opposed all the increase of duties on those smaller publications which might at a cheap rate disseminate general and useful information; he had opposed the bill which required a printer's name to be inserted on every hand-bill; but above all, he had opposed that infamous act (if he might be allowed to call any thing infamous that was still in the statute book), which allowed magistrates and courts to transport persons to Botany Bay upon the second conviction for a libel. Upon the present occasion he had himself been applied to by some friends of the petitioner, and waited on him in consequence. Having read his petition, he entreated him to leave out those passages, and struck his pen across them. It appeared, however, that after he had seen him, the petitioner took the advice of some other persons, and re-inserted those passages. Af-

551
ter having done so, he had, however, the decency not to ask him to present his petition. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) had considered it as a fair set-off in the petitioner to state the former services of lord Melville; if that was any argument, why did not his lordship's defenders in the house make use of it? When the petitioner chose to state that they sat there as a parliament owing to the exertions of lord Melville and his friends, was that language which the house could endure? If it was owing to so lutary laws, surely it was to the legislature and not to one or two individuals, that those laws were owing. It was equally objectionable in a petition to speak of either the merits or demerits of any of the parties in parliament. If a person under punishment for a libel on the character of the house should have taken another ground, and in stead of attributing the safety of the state to lord Melville and his colleagues, had attributed it solety to the firm stand which the opposition in parliament had made to all the fabricated plots and conspiracies which had been invented on the part of government, for the purpose of preserving ministers it power and office, such a statement would have been equally objectionable. A petition ought not to be so framed as to revive those topics of discussion which were no relative to the matter before the house. He felt sorry that the petition had been so worded that he could not give it his support Upon the ground he had stated, he should find himself obliged to agree in the vote of his hon. friend.
Mr. Dentthought 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 Generalthought 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
most grave and serious libel. The great zeal that some gentlemen now shewed to punish a libel on the majority of the house, appeared difficult for him to account for in any other way than he had already done, by supposing they were attached to majorities, or minorities, exactly as they themselves happened to belong to the one description or the other. Having now found a libel on a majority to include themselves, they were ready to vote for increasing the punishment.
Mr. Whitbreadconsidered 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
he should be very glad that the hon. baronet would see this petition in the same light that it appeared to him in, and consent to withdraw it for the purpose of preparing another that would be more decent and seemly. The expressions in the first part of it would be sufficient to obtain the object, and the remainder had much better be omitted. He then appealed to the hon. baronet, whether it would not be better to withdraw his petition?
Sir H. Mildmayanswered, that he had heard nothing in the latter part of the discussion which altered in any manner the opinion he had before formed.
Mr. Ryderthought 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 JohnNewport 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. Canningdid 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 Blaquierethought 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
sition to it; he thought he should not be allowed to pass with impunity.
Lord Marshamthought 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. Whitbreadthen 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. Foxappeared to think the previous question would be the best way of disposing of it.
The Speakerthought that the previous question could not be put upon the motion in its present form.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, he should negative the question, intending, however, to vote for the receiving a petition that might be unobjectionable immediately after.
Mr. Wiberforcesaid 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
made matter of complaint; but being brought forward, the house must dispose of it in the best manner it could. And hen he, with all his partiality for the liberty o the press, could not help observing, that that stile and mode of the petition were such as he should not wish to hear at the bar of that house. He trusted he should not often see a person, whose general conduct he mirth approve, making the sort of apology non offered to the house; for although he admitted that an apology should not be too humble, yet, when it was made at all, it should have been made to the whole house of commons, for when any attack made upon it became subject to the censure of the house, the apology, whenever it was made, should be made not to one side of the house, but to the whole house, and if any person had incurred the displeasure of the house and made his apology, when he solicited its forgiveness, the apology should not be allotted to that party which usually constituted its majority, or with a view to procure to the petitioner the favour of those whom he might conceive constituted the majority of the house, for that was language totally improper for a supplicant. Now, if he recollected the words of the petition correctly, there was one among them of an ambiguous meaning; it was not the word sorrow, but regret; so that it reminded him of a story, wherein a person who had been guilty of a crime and apprehended for it, being called upon to make his apology, said he was sorry, not for the act, but for his being taken. But whatever course was taken, the house would take care of its character, and that if the present petition was withdrawn, the house did not enter into any compromise with the petitioner as to what sort of petition he was to be at liberty to present. He did not think that the dignity of the house should be engaged in discussing what petition would he right, but it was sufficient to say that the present was not so. Supposing the house to be of that opinion, he wished it to be understood, that if the present petition was not received, it was because it was not in that stile of expression which ought to be presented to the house of commons in behalf of a person who had offended its dignity. The present petition appeared to him to be deficient in the temper and view of it, for it was apparently preferring one part of its members to others. He would suppose that a person came to receive the sentence of a court of justice, and that he were to present a petition to the
556
judges, and suppose he were to endeavour to set one part of the bench against the other, and that, instead of intreating the lenity of the whole court, lie had endeavoured to foment a quarrel among the judges; such a person, he apprehended, would not be considered as having thereby done any thing tending to mitigation of punishment. On the whole of this matter, he did really think it such as he had already stated it to be. It was a case in which the petitioner ought to make an apology, but he confessed he was not for a very humble apology; merely a gentlemanly apology, but that such apology should be made to the whole house of commons, and not to one side of the house, which he could not help considering to be the case in the present instance.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, 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 exprest in the petition; there was only regret stated. Hearing that stated from that hon. member, who was usually accurate in his expressions, he was induced to look at the petition itself, and by it he found that the words were

557
these—"Your petitioner humbly hopes, on this acknowledgment of his sincere sorrow, that this hon. house, in the plenitude of its condescension and liberality, will be pleased to pardon him." Now, he though this was a complete answer to that part of the observation of the hon. gent. behind him. He confessed he was very mud struck by what fell from an hon. gent. on this occasion who sat below him, that the offence in this petition was not matter of accident, but had been pointed out to the petitioner, and that he had refused to withdraw that which was offensive. If then was matter of offence in the petition, he should not have attempted to defend it, for he could not think of defending any thing was justly deemed offensive to the house, and that the more especially, if the offensive part had been pointed out to the petitioner; in such cases, he should agree with the noble lord, that the petitioner was not entitled to any favour; but there again he was induced to look at the premises before he arrived at the conclusion. He agreed it was not the business of a petitioner, when he came to ask for favour of the house, to endeavour to set one part of the house against the other; but he must look into the petition to see whether that was the fact, and he found nothing of that sort in it. It seas not unnatural for a man, accused of having attacked the proceedings of the house, that he should, in mitigation of its sentence, plead that on former occasions he had defended the house; vainly thinking, perhaps, that his labours were more important than in truth they were; but it was not an unnatural thing for an accused person to do so; it was on the contrary the uniform practice of men in every situation, when they were accused of misconduct, in any particular case, to refer to their former conduct, not as a justification of an improper act, but as an extenuation; but the house would not censure a person for making that reference, even if it should think that he had attached more value to his labours than they had. What Were the facts in this part of the case? They were no more than this: the petitioner stated, that formerly the conduct of the house of commons was attacked by certain societies then existing in this country, and that he, as far as his ability could go, defended the house against the evil designs of those societies:—that might be a vain declaration also; but surely it was no aggravation of his offence. He would not represent this part of the case in milder
558
terms than the petitioner himself had used; the words were these:—" That your petitioner is emboldened to solicit your indulgence and forgiveness on his well-founded assurance, that during the several years in which he has conducted a newspaper, it has uniformly been his principle and pride zealously to support the character and dignity of the house of commons, and that it has frequently fallen to his lot to have vindicated both, from the charges of societies expressly instituted to bring them into public disrepute and contempt."—There might be no merit in all this; there might be but little consequence in what he had done, but surely there was nothing culpable in the statement of it, and this was the whole extent of what the petitioner had said. But with respect to what he had said of the character of lord Melville, if he had attempted to vindicate lord Melville on the grounds which the house had disapproved, he should not have attempted to support this petition, but he had not done so; and rather than that he should be supposed to say more for the petitioner than he said for himself in this respect, he should quote his words, the substance of which was, that the petitioner thought the former conduct of my lord Melville was such as entitled him to the gratitude of his country, in which he had not gone further than he ought, perhaps, to have hone on the present occasion. The words of that part of the petition were these In any observations your petitioner may have published on the conduct of lord Melville, he could not but bear in mind, that the views of those societies, abetting domestic treason, and assisted by the co-operation of the revolutionary power of France, would, he verily believes, have effected the destruction of the British constitution, had not the wise and efficient measures brought forward by that administration in which lord Melville held so conspicuous a situation, been adopted, and this hon. house would not, in that case, perhaps, have been now in existence, either to cell-sure lord Melville or to pardon your petitioner." This was a mere statement of the object of certain societies to break in upon the functions of parliament, and of the part which lord Melville, as a conspicuous member of executive government, took in frustrating the designs of such societies, in which statement there appeared to him to be nothing indecorous. He could not find, in any part of this petition, any thing of that offensive matter which had been alluded to by

559
by several gentlemen who had spoken in this debate; and if there was any thing that might be considered as transgressing the bounds of the most perfect propriety in the petition, he was not asking too much, he thought, when he asked the house to make some allowances for the possible misconception of a man in the situation of this petitioner. If any of the expressions in the petition were, and he did not admit they were, but supposing them to be so, they could not aggravate his offence when they were dictated by a spirit which intended to lessen it. The petitioner at least thought he was not doing wrong, and therefore ought not to be held guilty of any intention to offend, and intention alone constituted true guilt in cases of this kind. He considered these societies to which he had alluded, to have had some mischievous designs. He considered that lord Melville had been instrumental in preventing what he apprehended to be great mischief; under these circumstances he could not think there was any thing in this petition which deserved the reprehension of the house. It was not for the purpose of reviving animosities in the house, that the petition had adverted to these topics, but merely to set forth what it was which had actuated his conduct, and what made him venerate, as he did, the character of lord Melville; for these reasons, the solicitor general declared, he found himself called upon to support the motion of the hon. baronet, to call the petitioner to the bar, in order to his being discharged.
Sir H. Mildmayexplained, 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. Sheridanexplained 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 Wrightobserved, 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
more time on this occasion, but to proceed to other important business which remained to be heard.
Mr. Sturges Bournesaid 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
be at liberty to present another petition. This, he confessed, appeared to him to spewing very indifferent attachment to one of the best principles of our constitution, perfect and tender regard to that sacred right of the subject on which the redress o the so materially depended, he mean the right of petitioning. He knew of no constitution principle by which that house should reject any petition which was not worded in an offensive manner, still less did understand the principle on which the house should dictate to any petitioner the form in which he should frame his petition. There could be but little freedom where the party petitioned should dictate the form in which the petition should he drawn. All petitions which were not disrespectful to the house were regular, and which the house, therefore, ought to receive. He believed that in this petition there was not single sentence, word, or syllable, which reflected on the house, or on any part of it. It alluded to certain societies which formerly existed in this country, and to the efforts which certain members of the house made to counteract the machinations of such societies. Why should that give any offence to any members of that house? Were there any gentlemen the house who wished to identify themselves with those societies? How they could feel themselves uneasy under this allusion was what he was at a loss to comprehend, and until now the house had not been called in this case to exercise either its vengeance its anger.
Mr. Sheridanexplained, 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 Bourneexplained, and observed, that he did not apply what he said to the motion of the hon. gent. who spoke
562
last on that occasion, but to the language he held forth in the debate, by which he called for heavy punishment of the house on a person who was ultimately acquitted by jury.
Sir Ralph Milbankthought 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.
The petitioner was then brought to the bar, where he received a reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees.—The reprimand was as followeth, viz.—Peter Stuart, you having confessed that you were the printer and publisher of a paper which has been complained of to the house as containing libellous reflections upon its character and conduct;— this house resolved that you were thereby guilty of a high breach of its privileges, and ordered you to be taken into custody. By your petition you have this day expressed your sorrow for your offence, and acknowledged the justice of your punishment; and thereupon this house, in its lenity, has ordered that you be now brought to the bar to be reprimanded and discharged. I have now, therefore, to reprimand and admonish you, as a warning to others, that this house doth and will resent it as a high offence in any man who shall presume to slander its character and conduct, and endeavour to degrade it in the public estimation. You being now reprimanded, it is my duty further to acquaint you, that you are discharged;—paying your fees."
Mr. Whitbreadmoved, "That what Mr. Speaker hath said in reprimanding Peter Stuart be entered on the Journals of this house."—Ordered nem. con.

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
of the house, and as he thought that the general feelings of the house, and of the country at large, were with him, it would, perhaps, be the best mode to submit his motion without other comment or preface than simple reference to the Reports on the table. But as the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had expressed his disapprobation of the conduct of the commissioners as in some instances unbecoming, it would be necessary for him to preface his motion with a few observations. But he should not dwell on the subject at any length, as he trusted that the right hon. gent. if he did not retract would at least not press his objections to the motion. Notice vets given of the right hon. gent.'s intention to renew the commission. Surely, if the commissioners were to be re-appointed, they ought to have distinctly pointed out to them what appeared erroneous or unbecoming in their proceedings, that such errors might, in future, be avoided. Knowing, then, that some objections did exist, it was necessary for him to request the attention of the house for a few moments previous to his submitting his motion. It was almost needless for him to state what were the circumstances under which the commissioners had been appointed. If they had done their duty well, they had done so under peculiar circumstances, and in opposition to formidable difficulties. They were not called on to investigate the small peccadillos of clerks and underlings in office; they were required to investigate the abuses of the heads of great departments, to look men in high situations in the face, and, acting with firmness and intrepidity, to expose abuses wherever they fell under the range of their inquiries. Very different indeed was the task of the commissioners who had been appointed under the auspices of the right hon. gent. to which, on a former day, he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the house. The right hon. gent. had recommended to him to read the terms of that commission, to be convinced of his erroneous view of its nature Nod extent. He had attended to that recommendation; he had fully considered the terms under which the commissioners were to act, and his opinion remained unchanged. A full power was indeed given to the commissioners to make the fullest investigation, and no fifth clause existed to shelter any one from answering whatever questions were put to him, even if the answers should have a tendency to criminate himself. There was, however, an
564
important distinction to be attended to, and that was, while the principals in the different offices were to remain unmolested, the whole weight of inquiry or censure was to fall on the subordinate officers. Indeed the right hon. gent.'s act was one of the most liberal, polite, and well bred acts of parliament that ever was framed. It took it for granted that it was impossible for a principal in an office to be-guilty even of the least irregularity; but he might be the willing and active auxiliary of the commissioners, by compelling all those under him to give them whatever information they required. Thus came the right hon. gent.'s commissioners to the execution of. the duties committed to their care, and he had surely no occasion to remind the house under what circumstances the commissioners of naval enquiry entered on their duties. When their appointment was first proposed, it was contended, even by some hon. gent. on his side of the house, that the appointment was unnecessary ; and it was artfully insinuated through the country, that it was not a board of commissioners, but a body of inquisitors, that was about to be established. It was well known, that lord St. Vincent was the person who proposed the establishment of the commission, and no sooner were they appointed than the character of his lordship was on all hands assailed; various motions were threatened, and one hon. baronet had brought forth a positive charge, though, unfortunately, not one member of the house could be found to second it. Such was the situation of the commissioners almost immediately posterior to their appointment. The house would also bear in mind that the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) brought forward a motion positively accusing lord St. Vincent of improper and negligent conduct in the administration of the affairs of the navy. And here it would be easily seen, that the commissioners were placed under very disadvantageous circumstances, considering that the character of him under whose auspices they were to act, was thus directly attacked, on the score of incapacity. To this attack a total change of administration succeeded; and here again the commissioners had to contend with new difficulties—they were to carry on their inquiries when all those on whose support and encouragement much reliance was to be placed, were removed from office. Indeed, from the language of the right. hon. gent. on his return to office they had little hope of encouragement. He

565
had then declared that, from all he had seen, and all he had heard, or known, every one his reasons for attacking the administration of the noble lord had. been confirmed, and the commissioners were to act under the impression that the conduct of the noble lord who had established them was peremptorily condemned. With all the difficulties, with all these undeniable disadvantages, they had, however, proceeded with intrepidity, and the public saw what was the result. The grand obstacle in a way of their inquiries was derived from a most extraordinary use to which the fifth clause of the bill under which they acted had been applied. It was quite clear that the commissioners never expected that this clause should be applied to the purposes which their own reports explained, or that even in the office of the treasurer of the navy, which was as it were the flag-ship t all the other offices, they should begin to experience the most serious difficulties in the execution of their duty. What then appeared on the face of their reports? On the 10th of July they send a precept to the treasurer of the navy (Mr. Canning), requiring the production of certain document essential to the proper prosecution of their inquiries, and receiving no answer, they repeat the precept on the 17th of the same month. The 2d of October arrives, and previous to that period his right hon. friend had given the commissioners no sort of in formation. Was it then to be endured commissioners acting under the authority o the three branches of the legislature should thus be trifled with? Was any gentleman, however high his influence or extensive his power, to set their authority on a subject of such vast importance at utter defiance? Yet all these difficulties had been overcome by the indefatigable zeal, diligence and fortitude of the commissioners. The house would keep in view that, with respect to the distribution of the public money, three great duties were to be performed. In the first instance, the house had to grant supplies adequate to the exigencies of the public services, founded on proper estimates laid regularly before them by the express command of his majesty. The ways and means to provide this supply were next to be considered; and it was the object of the house to lay the burthens on the people at large in a manner which would operate with as little severity as possible. The third duty of the house was one, however, still more important, and one without which the other two would be in a great measure nugatory
566
and inefficient, and this was the mode in which the votes of the house were to be applied. The two first of these duties could only be exercised by the house itself: but it was frequently the custom of the house to delegate the other to commissioners; and certainly if such commissioners were appointed, it became a matter of the highest interest to see that they were implicitly obeyed. If the, house delegated to certain individuals the most important of its powers, it was proper that these individuals should be sensible that they were to meet with ample encouragement and support. Without confidence, their labours for the discovery or the correction of abuses could never produce any satisfactory result. At this moment, there was a notice of the renewal of the commissioners of naval inquiry, and it was therefore proper that it should be fully understood in what light their conduct was regarded by those who had such means of giving their conduct and inquiries full efficiency. It was not sufficient to say that their conduct was, on the whole, worthy of approbation; or, that there was more to praise than to blame in their exertions for the discovery and correction of abuses. The commissioners were professedly selected out of the talents, the respectability, and the worth of the country, and it ought, therefore, to be fairly understood, whether their conduct was not admitted to be such as to entitle them to unequivocal approbation and confidence. If this was not allowed by those who were to bring forward the proposition for the renewal of the commission, then he himself must insist, that though the commission was renewed, other commissioners ought to be appointed. It was ridiculous to say, that if they were unfit, other gentlemen fully qualified for the task could not be procured. The right hon. gent. was bound to state his opinion fairly to the house, for he himself was resolved that the re-appointment of the commissioners should take place under no compromise.—Having said this, he wished briefly to direct the attention of the house to what the commissioners had done, to what remained for them to do, and then it would be seen whether they ought to be reappointed. The attention of the house had been so much attracted to the tenth report, that the other reports of the commissioners had been passed over with comparatively. small notice. In the other reports, it was true that nothing of so high game was disclosed, but many gross frauds had been brought to light, many important improve-

567
merits had been recommended. In all of them the ability, the diligence, the unconquerable fortitude of the commissioners had been, eminently conspicuous. It would not be necessary for him to go into any detail, but it was proper just to give a sketch of what each of the reports contained. In the first report it was ascertained that in the offices in Jamaica connected with the navy, the public, through the negligence and fraud of one of the officers, sustained a loss of about thirty-six thousand pounds in bills, and upwards of one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds from lavish waste, and other causes arising from the manner in which business was conducted. The second report referred to the mismanagement of the chest at Chatham, and displayed a scene of the most infamous peculation. The rewards allotted to our brave seamen for their meritorious exertions in defence of all that is dear to freemen, had been found to have been most shamefully misapplied. In many cases the harpies of agents had appropriated nearly thirty-four per cent. of what was intended to assuage, the sufferings of those who had bled in the cause of their, country. The necessity of entering an appearance once in three years, even from Ireland and the most distant parts of the island, only to ascertain whether veterans and invalids had grown younger, was properly exposed by the commissioners, and a suitable remedy had been provided. The third report was on the infamous overcharges in the crock yards. The house and the public would form a pretty good idea on the subject, when they were Oven to understand that, in one article, there was charge of one thousand and forty pounds, when before the commissioners it was found that thirty-four pounds was the fair price. These evils had been sifted to the bottom. and the gross frauds of those who were fat telling on the public would now happily be prevented. In the fifth report the evils o the sixpenny office, so essential to the proper provision made for invalids in the navy were fully exposed; and the sixth very clearly stewed that vast sums were charged for work done in the dock yards, not one third of which was ever performed. The commissioners stated a sum of nearly eight hundred thousand pounds, one third which could not be accounted for in a satisfactory manner. In the seventh report a case was stated of the repairs of the Amaranthe, in Woolwich dock-yard, where the expence had been carried as high as three
568
thousand eight hundred and fifty-three pounds, whereas on examination it appeared that somewhat more than five hundred pounds was the real amount. The ninth report related to the receipt of stores in Plymouth dock, and though the matter was not sufficiently clucidated, enough was stated to shew that gross frauds had existed. On the tenth it was needless for him to enlarge, as it had sufficiently attracted the attention of the house and the public. The eleventh report he should not now insert, as it was to be the subject of a specific motion by an hon. and learned friend of his on no very distant day. He begged leave, however, in the mean time, to call the attention of the house to this report, as one of very high importance, as one which disclosed transactions equally contrary to law and to fair constitutional principles, as were indeed calculated to give a vital stab to the credit and character Of the country.—Having thus gone through the different reports, all of which evinced the most commendable gence and zeal, the hon. gentleman next specified what vet remained for examination. There still remained the proceedings of the navy board, the victualling, the transport, and the sick and hurt boards. Of the necessity of investigating this last board, no doubt could exist, after what an hon. admiral(Markham) had said, that of all the boards hitherto unexplored, this was the most grossly corrupt. The dock-yards abroad, too, opened a wide field for inquiry; he believed, in many cases, it would be found that charges of nineteen shillings a ton were made, when four shillings and twopence covered the whole expence. The ordnance department, also, would come in for its share of investigation; in many cases gross frauds were committed, and there was one case Where fifty thousand stand of arms were purchased, after surveyors, properly appointed, had declared them unfit for service. They had also to enquire how far the officers in the treasury knew of, or had any feeling in this transaction; and,last of all, they had to enquire into the expenditure and abuses of the money which ought to be appropriated for the benefit off Greenwich hospital, that noble and beneficent asylum for our brave and gallant seamen, after they have lost their limbs, exhausted their constitutions, or worn out best part of their lives in the service of their king and country. If they have such material business still to perform, which cannot be done without a continuation of that zeal, firmness,

569
ability, and fortitude, which they have exerted on every former occasion; after the slurs and insinuations which have been thrown out against their conduct, it became peculiarly incumbent on the house to convince them on the present occasion that, in continuing them in the performance of those arduous duties they had yet to sustain, they might depend upon receiving every encouragement and support which the house could give them. Reform, he said, was a thing which, on all occasions, had been most odious; but at present there was such a host of contractors, jobbers, and other descriptions of persons, who were used to derive advantage from the improvident expenditure of the public money, that the outcry against the commissioners, and the resistance made to their efforts for the public service, were such as had never been experienced at any antecedent period. On these considerations, he thought, that if any material objection were brought by the right hon. gent. or others, against the vote of thanks he was about to move, the house ought not by any means to encourage the idea of their re-appointment to the same commission. But, if there were no such objections, it was the duty of the house to stand forward, and to say, with that commanding force which should be heard from one end of the kingdom to the other, that these commissioners have hitherto nobly and honourably executed the high and portant trust reposed in them by the house; and that in what they have hereafter to do, the house will cheerfully support them to the utmost extent of their power. He would not, therefore, detain the house any longer than to read his motion, which he did accordingly to the following purport:— "That it appears to this house, that the Commissioners appointed by an act of the 43d of the king, to enquire into the irregularities and abuses committed by persons employed in the several naval departments, have, as far as appears from their reports hitherto made, exerted themselves with great diligence, ability, and fortitude, and that the whole of their conduct, in the execution of the arduous duties intrusted to them, is intitled to the approbation and thanks of this house."—The motion being put from the Chair,
The chancellor of the Exchequerrose, 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
the commissioners should be thanked now for their past services, he should not oppose the proposition; but he could not help thinking that there existed no precedents for such a mode of proceeding. The precedent of the vote of thanks given to the commissioners of accounts did not apply, because these commissioners had not only given in a number of reports; but the reports had been fully canvassed by a committee of the house. That committee had reported on the statements which the reports contained, and it was on this that tho vote of thanks was grounded. In this case, however, only one report had been minutely considered, and therefore he put it to the house, whether the vote of thanks would not be much fuller and much more comprehensive, if it were given after the reports were fully considered and digested. This he put to the consideration of members, though, as he had already declared, he should not press for any division of the house on the subject. As to the call which the hon. member had made on him for a clear statement of his objections to certain parts of the conduct of the commissioners, he felt it necessary to make a few observations. He fully admitted, that commissioners appointed to examine into great public abuses, ought to exhibit a proper degree of firmness as well as zeal; but there was a mode of exhibiting that, which was at all times to be attended to. The truth was to be got at by all possible means, but the character of individuals should be as little as possible precluded from a fair opportunity of full discussion or subsequent vindication. In several cases a prejudice was created against individuals, before the report was fairly before the legislature, and therefore he thought, that any surmises to the prejudice of individuals which had transpired before the reports were completed, were not to be justified. He objected also, that the reports were drawn up and presented, without allowing individuals accused to justify their conduct, or indeed fully to, understand in what light the report would place their character. The commissioners had a right to use every means to come at the truth; but then it was surely not inconsistent with the most rigid inquiry to call on individuals to explain their own evidence. It appeared that those commissioners refused the opportunity of explanation to several persons Whose names were mentioned, whose characters were affected by their reports; and it was equally apparent, that had such op-

571
portunity been afforded, the characters of such men would not have suffered. This was particularly the case of the comptroller of the navy, who stood charged in one of the reports on the table, with having, contrary to his duty, applied money voted for the navy, to other services, without the knowledge of the first lord of the admiralty. Upon this head, it was, now obvious to every man, indeed a recent conversation in that house had made it so, that if the request of sir A. Hammond to the commissioners, to be allowed to explain, had been granted, the impression would have never gone abroad respecting that officer, which the premature report of the commissioners had created. It was not a little remarkable with reference to this point, that although lord St. Vincent was applied to by the commissioners for explanation respecting the Stone Expedition, which it was now quite clear was fully known to that noble lord, no opportunity of explanation would be granted to sir Andrew Hammond, notwithstanding his special request. There was another part of the conduct of those commissioners of rather doubtful propriety, if indeed it could be at all said to come within any notion of propriety. It was that which in the eighth report, alluded to the conduct of a grand jury. A person was charged with stealing casks at Plymouth, and a bill of indictment was preferred against him. This bill was thrown out by the grand jury, anti the solicitor who was employed to conduct the prosecution, wrote to the victualling office to say that the grand jury was tampered with. Upon the authority of this letter those commissioners thought proper to publish such a statement in the eighth report. Was it right to throw out such an insinuation as this to the public, and particularly upon such grounds? Was it discreet, was it fair, to charge a respectable body of men with perjury? for the charge amounted to nothing less. Those commissioners were also accused of having improperly alledged that the high price of stores which was complained of in the West Indies, was owing to the neglect of the navy board to send out stores for the service of our fleets in that quarter in due time, according to their duty. Now it appeared that the navy board had not omitted to attend to their duty in this case. For they had sent out two ships in proper time laden with stores, which ships were lost, and to that loss was attributable the high price of stores which was complained of. This fact was, he understood, communicated to the
572
commissioners, and if so it certainly ought to have been stated. If the fact were so, the house would judge whether any charge attached to the navy board, and whether the commissioners acted fairly in attempting to impute it. When they reported the fact respecting the price of stores in the West Indies, and undertook to ascribe that evil to the navy board, they ought certainly, in fairness, to have annexed to that report any communication they had received from that board in vindication of its conduct, particularly such a material communication as that he had alluded to. The commissioners might say that they had not received this communication at all. He could only state to the house what he had been informed. It had been also told to him that one of the commissioners of the navy, Mr. Gambier, was examined before the naval commissioners, and some of his answers were inaccurately taken down by those commissioners. These inaccuracies were printed anti corrected, and vet in the appendix to the report, the inaccuracies remain without the corrections. The same complaint was made with respect to the testimony of a principal clerk to the navy board. This clerk made a memorandum of all his answers—several of them were found to be incorrectly noted by those commissioners—such incorrectnesses, upon being pointed out by the clerk, were admitted and corrected. Still the omission appears in the appendix. Now those corrections which are omitted are all stated to be material to form a fair judgment of the conduct of the navy board, and, if so, their omission cannot induce a conclusion favourable to the character of the commissioners to whom the motion before the house referred. Indeed, if the facts were well founded, which he laid before the house precisely in the manner they were mentioned to him; if these commissioners suppressed any documents with which they were furnished, and which were at all necessary to enable parliament and the country to decide upon the characters of men. whom their reports affected, he would leave if to the house to judge of the propriety of adopting a vote of unqualified thanks toe such a commission. With such information before him, however, he hoped the house would feel satisfied that the exception he had thought it his duty to make to theses commissioners did not rest on light grounds; that there was nothing in it so warm, intemperate and unjust as some gentlemen seemed to imagine. At all events, it could

573
scarcely be denied, that previous to a vote Of indiscriminate approbation, each of the points he had stated should be distinctly and minutely inquired into, and each of the reports before the house fully examined. Still, notwithstanding this impression upon his mind, he would leave it to the feelings of the house to take whatever course it mint think proper, but he would not himself press any particular motion.
Mr. Foxthen 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 of the charge against the comptroller of the navy. But the right hon. gent. asked why was not this comptroller examined by the commissioners touching this charge, as well as the earl of St. Vincent? He would tell that right hon. gent. that the comptroller of the navy was examined, and that he defended himself from answering questions under the 5th clause. After having done so, then he would, put it to the right hon. gent. whether, if he himself were one those commissioners, he would propose to examine again him or any man who so acted? With respect to the statements of the right hon. gent. as to the
574
conduct of this commission in the first report, he must observe, that if those statements were well founded, the navy board seemed to have been very passive under the serious imputations cast upon them. They professed to feel themselves very unjustly accused. The report containing this accusation had lain on the table for nearly two years, since June 1803, and during that period the commissioners of the navy board acquiesced in suffering the impression against them to circulate. No jealousy as to their character was heard of until within these few days. No inquiry to vindicate their fame was proposed or hinted at. Surely they could have brought forward a motion had they felt so sorely as is now pretended. That there might be some parts of the conduct of those commissioners fairly to be found fault with was very possible. But yet, if they were culpable only in a small degree, that was no reason to be alledged against the motion. If, however, it appeared that they dealt unfairly by the characters of men, that was a serious charge; and although it might be proper to continue the commission, most certainly the names should be changed. For it doubtless would be absurd to continue those in power whose conduct had been heretofore exceptionable. The exceptions that were made to the commissioners furnished, if well founded, a reason for excluding them from office; and, if note they could not be urged against the motion before the house. But the right hon. gent. had confessed with perfect candour that he could not vouch for any of the statements that he had made to the house; and surely then he could not ask the house to rely on them as objections to the motion? That those commissioners were ready to go to trial against any or all of the charges that could be alledged against them he had not the least doubt. The charges, such as they were, that the right hon. gent. had stated, could not in any man's mind be deemed applicable in any shape against this motion, in opposition to which, indeed, nothing had been offered, The right hon. gent. had not said, nor could he, that this motion was unnecessary. It was necessary to satisfy the general opinion of the country. It was-called for by public policy. The merit of the men and the gratitude of the people demanded it. In considering the services of those commissioners, the state in which they and lord St. Vincent were placed, was to be taken into account. Much as that noble lord had deserved and obtained by the glo-

575
rious battles he had fought abroad, be had scarcely in any of them a more difficult task to perform, than in originating this commission, which had to maintain itself in almost every stage of its progress against the operation of power, influence, and authority. With a degree of fortitude and perseverance that would be at any time laudable, but which in their peculiar circumstance, was extraordinary, they pursued delinquency through all the obstructions of high office, and against all the frowns of power; and they succeeded in detecting acid exposing the criminality of one of the principal officers of the crown.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, 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. Foxobserved 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 Hammondconfirmed the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, as to the early disposition and soli-
576
citude he had shewn to vindicate his character from the imputations thrown upon it by the report alluded to. At the suggestion of a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Rose) he meant to have followed the precedent of the 10th of queen Anne, where an imputation of a similar nature was thrown upon a member of the victualling board, by the report of the committee of that house. It was his intention to move, that the report under consideration should be referred to a committee, and some proceeding taken respecting it, that should afford him an opportunity of vindicating his character. This course he was prevented from following by lord St. Vincent, who told him upon an interview, that it was for his lordship, and no other person to recommend, when the reports of the naval commission should be taken into the consideration of parliament, as that commission had been originally proposed by him. The hon. baronet remonstrated with his lordship on the obloquy to which his character must be subject in the interim, and appealed strongly to his sense of justice; but in vain, lord St. Vincent would not consent. His right hon. friend (Mr. Rose) also waited on his lordship, but was equally unsuccessful. Advised, however, by his right hon. friend and others; and considering his own situation in the navy, he declined entering into hostilities with the noble lord. He waited in confidence of a full acquittal of his reputation, whenever those reports should be brought before parliament. Since lord St. Vincent's retirement from the admiralty board, he was given to understand that it was intended to establish a commission of revision, and before that commission, he hoped to establish the injustice of the charges propagated against him. That there might be some irregularities under a department so wide and extensive, as that over which the navy board presided, he was prepared to admit; but he could assure the house, that there was nothing for which the members of that board were more anxious, than a full and fair examination of every part of their conduct, particularly that to which the report of the naval commissioners alluded; all he asked for that board was this, that until such full and fair examination should take place, the house and the country would suspend their judgment upon the charges against them.
Mr. Rosecorroborated 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
he pointed out some parts of the conduct of the Naval Commissioners, which did not in his opinion justify the unqualified panegyric which the hon. mover would have the house pronounce upon them. The conduct which he deemed particularly exceptionable was to be found in their third report. This report almost altogether, consisted of a censure upon a most respectable man, a Mr. Taylor, who was one of his constituents. It appeared that Mr. Taylor was an eminent block manufacturer. He had supplied the navy with blocks at Chatham and Portsmouth, since the year 1762. Those commissioners thought proper to pronounce his charges excessive. In consequence, a public advertisement was sent forth for contracts to supply those yards.—And, would the house believe it, that Mr. Taylor, under this advertisement, obtained the Chatham contract, at 10 per cent. more than his former charge of which the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry complained; and Mr. Dunstanville obtained the contract for Plymouth, at 5 per cent. above Mr. Taylor's price;—such then were the frauds detected, and the retrenchments produced by these commissioners. But what must still more surprise the House, those commissioners were aware of those facts before they made their report, for they took place two months before that report was laid on the table of that house. Yet no part of the censure of Mr. Taylor was abated.—Every part of this statement the right hon. gent. said he was ready to prove at the bar, if required. There was another circumstance with respect to this much abused man, which he begged to mention. His blocks were stated to be of an inferior quality. He had a rival, a Mr. Garnett. The blocks of both those rivals were compared by a special commission in 1791, and those of Taylor were declared to be decidedly superior Capt. Nicholl, who sailed in the Formidable, took Garnett's blocks on one side of his ship, and Taylor's on the other. But after he had returned, and was about to set out on another cruize, he gave orders to have his ship furnished with no other blocks than those of Taylor's.—As to the fraud respecting 13,000l. worth of wood, which the right hon. mover had alluded to, Taylor had nothing to do with it. Nor had those commissioners any merit in detecting it; for that merit belonged to the Navy Board, who had found out and were prosecuting this fraud before the naval commission existed. The right hon. gent. took
578
notice of the charge against his right hon. friend, respecting the patronage of contractors, and contended that it had been the peculiar object of his right hon. friend's administration, to prevent the system of contracts altogether, and to leave such things to the different boards, contrary to the system of his predecessors, who generally distributed contracts among members of parliament, or their relations. The right. hon. gent. concluded with stating, that although he felt his objections to some parts of the conduct of this commission to be well founded, still he would not oppose the motion, as the sense of the house seemed to be in its favour.
Admiral Markhamsaid, 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. Rosesaid, in explanation, that Dunstanville got 10 per cent. above the price given to Mr. Taylor
Sir A. Hammondobserved that, when the report came to fully considered, it would be fully answered. The machine made

579
blocks of an inferior size, of ten inches; but as to the making of large blocks, it had made no progress.
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!)
The Speaker observed, that the line of argument of the hon. gent. did not apply to the question now before the house.
Mr. Wilberforceheartily 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
the words. He was ready to repeat, that in his mind the motion so amended would have not only a more distinct meaning, but must prove more acceptable to the commissioners themselves. Under that impression he should now move that the words "the whole of" he struck out of the motion. The question so amended, being put from the chair,
Lord Hennikersaid, 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. Rosethought 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. Wilberforcethought the last proposed alteration wholly unnecessary.
The Attorney Generalapproved 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. Foxsaid, 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
them reject the motion altogether; but he could assent to no amendment that could be deemed an abatement to the object of the original motion. Many of the reports of the commissioners had been above a year before the house, and yet no fault was found with them by gentlemen on the other side, nor any proposal made for their investigation. Even the tenth report was not fully considered, but was referred for farther consideration to the select committee up stairs. It was well known that carpings, cavillings, and malicious insinuations had been directed against the conduct of those commissioners, by persons whom their vigilance had detected and exposed. The motions of his hon. friend was designed to refute those calumnies by a general declaration of thanks from the house. From what had fallen from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), early in the debate, he was taught to believe there was no very material objection to the motion. If the house, then, did thank them, let it be done liberally and generally, or not at all.
Mr. Langhamthought 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 Elfordagreed 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
ports in many instances as going to censure persons non coram judice, he could not vote for the original motion, or even for its amendment. He did expect some person would have moved the previous question, for which he should have voted, conceiving it better to retain the approbation or disapprobation of the house until a future occasion, when the merits or demerits of the commissioners' conduct would be fairly balanced.
Lord Hennikeragain 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. Bonddesired, 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
upon them, and had produced the greatest benefits to their country.
Sir John Wrottesleywas glad to hear the sentiments expressed by the learned gent. who spoke last, and he most cordially concurred in them.
Mr. Gregorwas rather inclined to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Bastardthought 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. Fullersaid, 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, or the relative of my lord that, so long as the affairs of the empire were wisely and honestly administered; but when the public money was in question, and he had some considerable stake in it,
584
and peculation was the order of the day, it was the duty of parliament to institute the strictest enquiry, and to protect, support, and encourage those to whom enquiry was deputed, and who acquitted their duty with the diligence, the impartiality, and the firmness of honest men.
Mr. Sheridanrose 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 whole in his motion; and that he proposed that the thanks of the house should be extended to the commissioners in as general a way as it could possibly be. He wished to tell them what he, and he was persuaded a great majority of the country, felt towards them for their unabated perseverance and industry. He endeavoured to mark, in as strong a manner as his powers, of expression could command, the obligations he owed them for their ability, diligence, and fortitude (that word he would not have spared) in pursuing the arduous and disgusting task which was imposed upon them. Their conduct in it was well entitled to the praise of fortitude, a virtue which admitted of being as fairly exercised in the pursuit and detection of abuses, as in those situations to which, in its ordinary acceptation, it was generally applied. He wished to convey to those gentlemen the thanks of

585
the house for their conduct in pursuing the enquiry, for the firmness they had manifested in prosecuting it against all the obstacles which guilt, and fraud, and avarice, had erected to obstruct them; there was no occasion to have read all the reports to estimate the merit in that part of their duty: it was sufficient to know that they met with opposition from every quarter; and that, notwithstanding, they persevered and succeeded, and that the result of their labours was before the house and the country, exciting the admiration and gratitude of both. He had also another motive for wording his Motion in the way he did. He wished to compel the right hon. gent. on the opposite bench, to state to the house precisely and positively why he objected to the conduct of the commissioners of naval enquiry? He had done so; he had stated them candidly and temperately, (he was happy to avail himself of the few opportunities the right hon. gent. afforded him of commending him); and after all what did they amount to? one of the most important was, that they charged a jury that it had been tampered with; that was no new charge. He recollected its having been brought forward by an hon. baronet (sir W. Elford) before, who threatened to make it the subject of a motion in that house, but who was finally obliged to give it up, because he could get no one to second his motion. Another hon. member (sir A. Hammond) had complained of reflections which had been thrown out in one of the reports, against that board of which he was the head. It was full twenty-two months since that report was made; and why, he would ask, did the hon. baronet acquiesce, during all that time under those imputations? Was it that he was deterred by the rebuke which he is said to have received from earl St. Vincent, or that he looked forward to another proceeding which was going on (he meant the commission for examining into the civil affairs of the naval department) for satisfaction and justification? He was much misinformed as to the nature of that new commission, if it was to act as a committee of revision, to controul and annul the decisions of a commission appointed by the joint authority of both houses of parliament, and accountable only to them. He could not conceive, that it could even have been intended to degrade a commission so constituted, by subjecting their labours to he criticised and reversed by a committee of placemen. Did the hon. member decline doing early justice to his
586
character, because he expected it from a committee who had no power to do it? Another rt. hon. member (Mr. Rose) had also brought forward his charge. Why did not the house hear of it before? Why were his feelings so long silent with respect to his constituent and friend Mr. Taylor, who, it seems, had fallen, by some means, under the censure of the commission? What prevented him from making it the subject of complaint before this night? nothing but his delicacy he supposed. It was really too much, when the noble lord who proposed that commission professed himself ready to meet every charge which could be made against him, that he, as well as the members of that commission, should be assailed from so many quarters. When a member has the indiscretion, to say no worse of it, to rise in his place, and unblushingly proclaim, that earl St. Vincent was the worst lord of the admiralty that had ever appeared at the head of the naval department the country, it was the duty of the house to mark their reprobation of the sentiment. Was it fitting, he would call upon the house to de dare, that the noble lord should be attacked in that vile way ? Was it just that his honour, he would say the honour of the country (for the honour of that noble lord was a part, and a prowl part, of the glory and the honour of the country) should be thus struck at and wounded in that base and inglorious manner? The blow, which was apparently directed against the commissioners of naval enquiry, was in truth, and in fact, levelled at that noble lord. The commissioners had a claim upon the gratitude and protection of the house. While they were hunting down corruption and peculation, and pursuing them through all their foul and secret retreats and lurking places, they were entitled to all the encouragement which the legislature could hold out to them. He should be sorry that the motion he proposed should occasion any diversity of opinion; he wished to meet the feelings of the house. He would he sorry that any division should arise on a motion, which he had hoped would have been almost unanimously acceded to, but he could not consent to abandon the word whole in the manner proposed. He would not be satisfied that the amendment should appear upon the Journals, although he was disposed to meet the ideas of the hon. gent. who proposed it, if he were allowed to amend the motion himself.
Mr. Wilberforceacquiesced in the proposition of Mr. Sheridan, and declared his rea-

587
diness, with the consent of the house, to withdraw his amendment.—The amendment being accordingly withdrawn,
Mr. Sheridanwithdrew 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.