Commons Sitting of 5 March 1807

MINUTES.
A considerable crowd assembled this evening, in the avenues leading to the gallery, in expectation of hearing the discussion and further examination of witnesses on the Westminster election petition; but owing to a ballot and a call of the house taking place, the doors Were not opened till half past six. On the admission of strangers into the gallery, we found the house engaged in a conversation relative to some irregularities that had been committed, or accident occasioned by persons forcibly entering through the body of the house, by which some members were likely to be injured. Mr. Yorke declared that in case of any repetition of suck a proceeding, he should think it his duty to enforce the standing order for the exclusion of strangers. Mr. Fellowes complained in strong terms of the crowd in the lobby, through which he had passed with much difficulty, and at the risk of having his arm broken. Mr. Barham observed, that he had seen a number of strangers force their way in spite of the resistance made by the officers of the house. The Speaker declared it to be the duty of the serjeant when he found that the avenues to the house were crowded with strangers, to provide proper persons to clear them, and to maintain order.—Mr. White appeared at the bar, with the reduced list of the committee, ballotted to take into consideration the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Guildford. The following are the names .of the said committee: sir J. Callander, H. Everett, esq., H. Brownlow, esq., R. Dawson, esq., H. Peirse esq.,
2
T. Thistlethwaite, esq., W. Mellish, esq., lord Lovaine, W. Loftus, esq., A. Henderson, esq., lord Paget, W. J. Denison, esq., C. Vereker, esq., Nominees, hon. A. Wellesley, H. C. Combe, esq.—On the motion of lord Howick, there were ordered to be laid before the house, accounts sheaving the time of service in his majesty's navy, of Thomas Weatherhead and William Drake; also, accounts shewing the pensions paid to W. Drake from the chest at Greenwich; the occasions on which the said pensions were granted, &.—On the motion of lord Howick, the house was ordered to be called over on Tuesday, when the noble lord declared, that unless a sufficient excuse should be made by the defaulters, he should move, that the course of proceeding adopted in 1793, of taking them into custody, should be enforced.

ROMAN CATHOLIC'S ARMY AND NAVY SERVICE BILL.
Lord Howick rosein pursuance of the notice he had given some time ago, but which had been suspended in consequence of an alteration which it had been deemed advisable to make in the arrangement of the measure, to move for leave to bring in a bill for securing to all his majesty's liege subjects the privilege of serving in the army or navy, upon their taking an oath prescribed by act of parliament; and for leaving to them, as far as convenience would admit, the free exercise of their respective religions. He should have hoped that such a proposition was not likely to meet with much opposition. He should have imagined that to state it to be a desirable object for all goverments to unite every description of persons living under them in their own defence, was to state .a position

3
which would admit of no dispute. If any additional weight could be given to the strength of this position, it would be given by considering it as applicable to the present time. Was it prudent; was it politic, when we were contending with such a powerful enemy, to prevent a large portion of the population of the country from contributing to the common defence? As, notwithstanding his hopes, the affirmative of this question seemed to be held by some hon. members, he would trouble the house with an explanation of the grounds, on which the bill which he had the honour to propose, was founded. In doing this he should avoid as much as possible entering into the question of the general expediency of such laws as those which his proposed measure went to annul. It was not to be disputed that every government had a right to impose those due restraints which were necessary for its security; but that necessity Must be strong and apparent. This was a principle true and incontrovertible. Against what had the exclusions, which it was the object of his bill to remove, been in general directed? Not against religious Opinions themselves, but against religious opinions as supposed to be connected with some political principles of attachment, which were inconsistent with the existing order of things. On this ground and onthis ground alone, had the principle of exclusion been supported latter times. On this sole ground had it been supported by a writer, whose name it was impossible to mention without paying him that tribute of applause which was his due, he meant the late Dr. Paley, a man not more estimable for the excellence of his life than for the simplicity and logical precision of his works. If it were now necessary to state that the connexion which formerly existed between the religion and the politics of the catholics of the United Empire had ceased, and that therefore those restrictions which were applicable only to their politics, and not to their religion, were rendered unnecessary, he should feel no difficulty in making that statement, and in maintaining it by unanswerable arguments. If this were allowed, the proposition necessarily followed, that at the present season of difficulty and danger, when it was desirable to unite every heart and hand in the cause of the country, it was most unwise to exclude from that union so large a portion of the people as the catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, amounting in number to nearly a fourth of the whole population of the kingdom, and to pre-
4
vent them from sharing in the danger and glory of their countrymen. The fact was, that at that very moment a great proportion of our soldiers and sailors (particularly of the latter) were catholics, and was it fitting that parliament should not allow that by right which was already allowed by connivance? By the law which passed in the parliament of Ireland in 1793, the catholics were allowed to hold commissions in the army, and to enjoy those privileges in Ireland, which it was the object of the bill that he meant to propose to communicate generally to the catholics of this country. The bill would go to admit persons of every religious persuasion, to serve in the army and navy without any condition, but that of taking an oath particularized in the bill. Of course, if this indulgence was granted to catholics, it was unnecessary to state that there could be no objection to grant it to any other set of dissenters from the established church, unless some danger could be shewn which, he did not at present see. The provisions of the bill would therefore extend to persons of all religions persuasions. What had particularly drawn the attention of his majesty's government to this subject was, the, strange anomaly which existed in consequence of the act passed in Ireland in 1793, by which the roman catholics in that country were enabled to hold commissions in the army, and to attain to any rank except that of commander in chief of the forces, master general of the ordnance, or general on the staff. They might rise to be generals, but they were not permitted to be generals on the staff. The effect of this permission so granted to the catholics in Ireland, was a most striking incongruity; for if a catholic, who was by law qualified to serve in the army of Ireland, should be brought to this country by any circumstances which demanded the presence in this country of the regiment in which he served, he would be disqualified by law from remaining in the service, and would have only this alternative, either to continue in the service contrary to the law, and thus subject himself to the penalties and forfeitures consequent thereon, or to relinquish a profession in which he had risen to the rank which he might hold, either by the sacrifice of his fortune, or more probably by a succession of meritorious services, such as proved him qualified to defend the prosperity and assert the honour of the country. So absurd an inconvenience must be remedied. It was felt to be an inconvenience

5
when Great Britain and Ireland were separate nations, and had separate parliaments; and when the act of 1793 was proposed in the Irish parliament, it was declared that similar proposition should be made in two months in the parliament of Great Britain This was distinctly promised; lord Clare in the house of peers, and lord Bucking hamshire in the house of commons, distinctly stated, that it was the intention of his majesty's government, with all convenient dispatch, to propose a similar bill in the British parliament. The measure which he was about to submit to the judgemnt of the house was calculated to remove the inconvenience, and to reconcile the incongruity complained of, and at the same time to maintain the faith of the British government, by redeeming the pledge to which he had alluded. The beneficial effects of the Irish act were immediately felt, and had since been still more apparent, while not the slightest inconvenience had resulted from it. The shores of Egypt and the plains of Calabria were decisive proofs of the advantages which we had derived from that act, as they were also decisive proofs of the valour and patriotism of those distinguished heroes, who, by their gallant exertions, had deserved and obtained the eternal gratitude of their country. After such a lapse of time since the passing of the Irish act (the causes of which delay he would not then stay to examine, as he feared they could not be satisfactorily explained,) it was his intention to propose to grant to the catholics, and other dissenters of Great Britain, those privileges which, while they were an indulgence to them, would be a source of benefit to the country. As far as it was possible to collect the opinions of the house or the general feelings of the public on this subject, there seemed to be no objection to the measure, as a necessary consequence of the act of 1793, and as a redemption of the pledge given at that period. The only objection started appeared to be by those who thought that the proposed measure, by going farther than the act of 1793, established a new principle of concession which ought not to be acceded to. It would now therefore be necessary for him to state in What the two measures differed. The first difrence was, that the proposed measure went to permit persons of every religion to serve in the navy as well as in the army. When the Irish act was passed, it was distinctly stated, that in the bill to be submitted to the British parliament leave to serve, in the navy would be included, and the only rea-
6
son why it was not included in the Irish act was, that Ireland had no navy. If it were right to allow catholics to Serve in the army, Here could be no possible objection to allow them to serve in the other branch of our varlike establishment, so immediately connected with the prosperity of the country. The difference in the extent of the privileges granted by the two measures was this: the Irish act, while it admitted catholics to hold commissions in the army, did so under certain restrictions, by which, as he had before-mentioned, they were prevented from becoming commanders in chief of the forces, masters general of the ordnance, or generals on the staff. No such restriction was intended to be proposed in the present instance, because it was not believed that such a restriction was founded on any good principles; for if any danger attended the admission of catholics into the army, it was the duty of the legislature not to restrain, but wholly to exclude them. The same principle which induced his majesty's ministers to propose the adoption of a similar law for the two countries induced them to propose the abolition of a similar law for the two countries, induced them to propose the abolition of restrictions —consistency; for there could be nothing more incongruous than the consequences of these restriction, which might be attended with considerable inconvenience to the service. A catholic might, by the Irish act, rise through the regular gradations, and become a field officer: he might become a major, a lieutenant-colonel, a colonel; in this last capacity, he might have the command of a corps equal in number to that frequently under the orders of officers of superior rank; he might shew himself eminently qualified for a situation of greater trust; he might distinguish himself to such a degree as to be called upon by the voice of the army and the people to fill that situation; but it would be impossible to create him a major-general! This was a great discouragement to the catholic officer; it was a greater disadvantage to the country, which, by such a restriction, had lost- the extended services of many a brave and skilful man. Nor did the restrictions form any security against danger, if danger could be supposed to exist. And after all, it must be considered, that the proposed measure only enabled his majesty to appoint such persons to situations of high importance. Their appointment must depend upon the executive government who of course would avoid any dangerous or im-

7
proper use of their authority. In addition to the advantage of enabling the country to avail itself of the whole extent of its population, without any of those restrictions which operated merely to keep up a spirit of discontent, and to damp that ardour which might otherwise be so successfully directed to the public service, the proposed Measure, in addition to these things, provided for all who should enter his majesty's service the free and unrestrained exercise of their religion, as far as it did not interfere with their military duties. Perhaps it would be said that this might be accomplished in another way, by giving directions to that effect; but he was apprehensive that this could only be partially done; besides, the insecurity and instability of such a mode of proceeding would deter catholics entering into the army, and would furnish to those who might be desirous of preventing them, sufficient means of persuasion. Let them have full security in the shape of a clause in an act of parliament: let them have the sanction of the legislature and all doubt would be removed. if there was any possible utility in this provision, when it was considered that it could be attended with no possible inconvenience or danger, he trusted that it would meet with no objection. He had thus stated briefly the objects of the proposed bill. Briefly, because he was not aware that in this stage the measure would occasion much debate. He could, indeed, hardly persuade himself that any serious objection to it could exist in the minds of the house or of the public; with regard to the latter part of it, the whole extent of the provision was, to prevent dissenters from being interrupted in the exercise of their own religion, and compelled to adopt a religion, irreconcilable to their faith. This was the whole extent; it held out no encouragement to them; it established no institution for their support or increase. The abolition of restrictions in point of rank would place before the sons of the gentry of Ireland, those fair objects of ambition, it would open to them that career of glory, the pursuit of which was synonimous with the advancement of the best interests of the empire. On the commonalty of Ireland the measure must have a powerful effect, by affording a salutary check to the increasing superabundant population of that country, as it would induce numbers to enter into the service of his majesty; even of those who by their own discontents, and by the artifices of others, had so lately been urged into
8
insurrection and rebellion.—The noble, lord concluded with moving, " That, leave be given to bring in a bill for enabling his, majesty to avail himself of the services of all his liege subjects in his naval and military forces, in the manner therein mentioned."
Mr. Percevalalthough he would not at present enter into any debate on the proposed bill, yet, as the principle of it was one which he felt it his bounden duty to oppose, he thought it right, even in the first instance, to apprise the noble lord of the nature of his objections, and to call the serious attention of the house, and of the public, to one of the most important and most dangerous measures that had ever been submitted to the judgment of the legislature. It was not so much to the individual measure which he objected, but to the system of which it formed a part, which was growing day after day, and threatening to expand into the most alarming magnitude. If it was desirable to preserve any thing of our ancient and venerable establishments it could only be effected by making a stand against every fresh attempt at innovation. To what did the proposed measure tend? With any degree of consistency its supporters could not stop short of abolishing all the tests which the wisdom of our ancestors had thought it necessary to interpose in defence of our religious establishment. The proposed measure was a partial repeal of the test act, founded on arguments which went to the repeal of that act. It was his firm conviction, that if the legislature wished to preserve Ireland to this country, if they wished to keep the two islands united, they would maintain the protestant interest in Ireland, under which toleration was permitted, and not run the risk of sacrificing that interest to another, which, when in power, had not permitted toleration, and which, if it regained power, might revert to its former practice, as it declared that its principles were Unchangeable. It was the more necessary to pause on this subject, as it had been thought wise and liberal to provide the means of support for a priesthood to instruct three millions of people in the catholic religion, and thus perpetually to combat the progress of protestantism. From the arguments that were advanced at the present day, a man might almost be led to suppose that one religion was considered as good as the other, and that the reformation was deemed only a convenient and political measure. He was far from ascribing indifference on this point to the noble lord, who, he was sure, gave the

9
preference where it was justly due; but the noble lord had said, that it approached to a spirit of persecution for parliament to hesitate in appropriating the funds of the country to the support of those who preached a doctrine subversive of the religion of the country. He might be wrong; it might be policy so to dispose of the national revenue: it might be called for by the true and enlightened spirit of Christian toleration. He certainly did not think it was. He had as great a regard for true toleration as any man. He would never restrain the free exercise of religious worship in any individual; for he could not conceive that one man could commit a greater crime against another than by such an interference. But however strongly he might feel this sentiment, the application of it to any particular measure was a very different consideration. The noble lord proposed to open the army and navy to persons of all religions, and he founded this proposition on the Irish act of 1793, and on the incongruity which this act produced. To this he could not bring himself to consent, without a much stronger case than that which was made out by the noble lord. If the grievances which had been stated by the noble lord ever existed in possibility, they had at least never been experienced in practice. There was not an instance of a single individual having been injured or prosecuted in consequence of them. Besides these grievances, if there were any, had existed not only since the union of Great Britain and Ireland, but since the union of England and Scotland; for there was no difference between the inconvenience sustained by the catholic of Ireland, on entering his majesty's service, and the inconvenience sustained by the presbyterian of Scotland or doing the same. The presbyterian of Scotland was sacrificed as much as the catholic of Ireland; but had there been any disposition evinced on the part of the presbyterian of Scotland to withhold his services? But setting this aside, he denied the proposition of the noble lord in point of law; he denied that a catholic, who obtained a commission in Ireland, was liable to any penalties, called over to exercise his military duties in Great Britain. If this was not so, we should have an act which compelled a man to perform a certain duty, and which yet did not protect him in the execution of that duty which it compelled him to perform; such an act was not to be found in the code of British and Irish jurisprudence. Did not the united parliament, which must be sup-
10
posed to be as well acquainted with the laws of Ireland as with the laws of Great Britain, pass every year a mutiny bill, which enabled the king to require the services of every man in his army in any part of his dominions to which he might think proper to summon him; and was it to be supposed that be was insecure in doing that, the refusal to do which would subject him to be shot? And after all, if any inconveniences actually did occur, the annual indemnity act would completely cover the case. This was, therefore, not a substantive grievance, and to ground the proposed measure on it was a mere pretence. There were ulterior causes for its being brought forward. What were they? It was proposed to do away the restrictions by which catholics were prevented from holding superior commissions in the army, and this on arguments which would affect equally every situation in the country, civil as well as military. It certainly was a great discouragement in any profession that the professors could not arrive at the highest distinctions. In his own profession it must be great discouragement to a catholic lawyer, to know that he could not be made a judge or a chancellor. (hear !) He saw that some of the gentlemen opposite were prepared to go the utmost extent, and to say, that in every profession and every employment there onght to be no distinction between the catholic and the protestant. Did those gentlemen perceive that their reasoning extended even to the succession to the crown? He had thrown out these observations to provoke this expression of sentiment from the gentlemen opposite, and to shew that they thought the road to the highest honours in the state should be opened to persons of every description, without any disqualification whatever. Taking it on this ground, the question would become narrowed; it would not be, whether you would allow catholic officers superior rank, but whether you would allow those arguments to be well founded by which that proposition was maintained, whether you would tranquillize Ireland by feeding its insatiable appetite with the hope of getting all that it demanded. If this were to be the policy of this country, there was but one line of wisdom to be pursued:—to do every thing; to transfer the church of Ireland to the catholics; for unless that were done, little progress would be made in tranquillizing Ireland. Partially to redress grievances, would only have the effect of making those that remained more severely felt, or

11
at least more loudly complained of. Why, then, the question was simply this, whether the legislature would give up the protestant ascendancy in, Ireland, or whether they would make a stand, and say, "We have already done every thing that toleration requires and that the catholics have a right to demand?" Undoubtedly, such a declaration would be the dictate of sound policy and discretion. In one of his. statements the noble lord had palpably contradicted himself; for, in the first place, he endeavoured to make the house believe, that the army and navy were crowded with catholics, and then he recommended that they should have a free admission. With respect to the proposition for the free exercise of religion, it was unnecessary; for if it were thought proper, his majesty might introduce such a regulation in the articles of war. But if it were to be made the subject of a legislative. provision, the utmost confusion must ensue. One soldier would go to a methodist's chapel, another to a presbyterian conventicle, a third to a roman catholic church; in short to every place of worship but a protestant one; for it was curious enough, that there was to be no legislative provision for the protestants to go to the church of England. But, if all this confusion would take place in the army, what must happen in the navy? The noble lord had declared that he apprehended no inconvenience from this unprecedented toleration in the navy. No inconvenience! Suppose the captain and crew of a man of war were roman catholics, they must have a roman catholic clergyman—(A cry of no! no!)—Why, as a captain of a man of war had a right to appoint his chaplain, if he were a roman catholic, he would scarcely appoint a protestant clergyman. Perhaps it was intended that this should be determined by the admiralty board. But it would be difficult for that board accurately to ascertain the proportion in a crew between the catholics and the protestants. This too he would maintain, that, in case of any invasion of Ireland by a French force, the commander of which should issue a proclamation in support of the roman catholic religion, that invasion would not be so vigourously repelled by a roman catholic captain and crew, as by a protestant captain and crew. These were considerations which ought to excite the jealousy and apprehension of the house and of the country; but he was not so anxious to call their attention to the particular measure now proposed as to the principle of innovation which was
12
gradually increasing; and was much more formidable, thus stealing on by degrees, than if it were, fairly exposed in all the magnitude to which it seemed intended that it should arrive. In that case, the notice of parliament would be strongly attracted to the subject; it Would take it up in an extensive point of view; it would determine upon it deliberately, and he trusted wisely. The consequences of a storm he should not be apprehensive about; but these gradual approaches were dangerous, because each by itself was not deemed worthy of notice. It should be considered, however, that even if they were little in themselves, their consequences were not so. For his own part, he. was satisfied that if parliament allowed their accumulation, it would ultimately have that extorted from its weakness, which its wisdom would be desirous to withhold.
Lord Templesaid, that he considered it a misfortune to have heard the speech that had been delivered by the hon. and learned gent. who had just sat down: he could not help saying, that it appeared to him to savour much of opinions long since obsolete, and to breathe a kind of spirit fitter for the darker ages, than for the liberal and enlightened times in which we at present lived. Was it necessary at this time of day to go into formal proof of the impolicy, the madness of intolerance? Was it necessary now to prove, that it ever defeated its own end, and contributed to establish what it had conspired to overthrow? He hoped that it was not, and yet the speech of the hon. and learned gent. Would lead the house to suppose, that that gentleman himself entertained doubts of a truth, he might say, universally assented to, and confirmed by the successive experience of ages. He would ask the hon. and learned gent. if it were wise, just or politic, to exclude the brave fellows who made up a considerable portion of our navy and army, from the advantages and the glory of the service, when they shared in all its dangers? It was not usual in so early a stage of a bill to go into all its merits, and he should not now do so; he could not however abstain from entering his solemn protest against the revival of all those intolerant bigotries, which had in all times been productive of the most mischievous effects. The hon. and learned gent. had insinuated gloomy predictions in case of the enemy affecting a landing in Ireland. Upon what were these .apprehensions founded, but the evils which the proposed bill purposed to

13
remove; by removing the evil, the discontent so much dreaded by the learned gent would no longer exist. It had been said too, that if so much was given to the catholics; they would requite all; they would not stop here, nor be satisfied till the establishes church of Ireland was a roman catholic one. But to this argument he considered it a sufficient answer to say, that all that was asked in the present instance was a boon of a limited extent; and that was only in case of more being asked, or being attempted to be granted, that the hon. and learned gent's, argument would have its effect. In short, the whole question reduced itself to this, whether the exact boon now asked, was such as, if granted, could render the catholics, either in this country or Ireland, the objects of jealousy or distrust? In vain would it be to expect allegiance from those, who were, at the same time, told, that they were unfit to enjoy the benefits of that allegiance; or to look for attachment from those, who were not to receive any support from the government of the country.
Mr Yorkeapproved of the principle of the bill proposed, as applied to the roman catholics of England; but it was a distinct question how far it should apply to Ireland. He did not think it fair that the roman catholics in Ireland should have any advantages over those in any other parts of the empire. His hon. and learned friend's speech did not appear to him to have deserved the severe animadversion to which it had been subjected by the noble lord who had spoken last. The noble lord had objected to that speech as more worthy of the darker ages. No one who knew the great talents and enlightened mind of ,his hon. and learned friend could suppose that any speech of his could deserve such a description. The sentiments his hon. and learned friend had uttered, were those of 1688, and he wished to know if the noble lord thought the times that placed the house of Hanover on the throne of these realms were the darker ages. He agreed entirely with his hon. and learned friend as to the necessity of putting at length some limits to those daily innovations on the church of England establishment. He did not wish to revive unpleasant remembrances, but, at the same time, as it was impossible to forget the spirit of insurrection which prevailed amongst the Irish catholics in the year 1798, so it must not be wondered at, if feelings of considerable jealousy were excited on the present occa-
14
sion. As to the roman catholic of this country, they had undergone the purgation of centuries, and must be considered as good am loyal subjects. He saw, no necessity for introducing the present bill, and particularly that clause which went to authorise to all persons in the army and navy, not of ail communion of the church of England, the free exercise of their religious worship; for he had never heard any practical difficulty stated, or any real ground of complaint respecting catholic officers and men being prohibited from attending divine worship in their own way; and he had personally known some catholic officers in the army, who had made no difficulty of going with their division to church. When the Reformation first took place the catholics made no objection to attend the worship, but only the sacraments of the church of England; for although the protestant church expunges and rejected what it considered as erroneous, still it retained a part of the formularies made use of in the church of Rome; he therefore saw no serious grievance existing which required to be remedied by an act of parliament; and he really thought it was much better policy not to attempt to remedy the grievance in this way, which ought not to be resorted to without a cause of strong necessity.
Mr. Montaguedeclared, that he considered whatever related to the protestant religion, as distinguished from the roman catholic, to be of serious importance to this country, and that the preservation of the protestant establishment was essentially requisite to maintain the peace both of this country and Ireland. Upon the subject of religion, the house had two Principles to look to; the first was that of toleration, without which nothing could go on well in a country; and next to this was the security of the establishment. He was afraid, from the arguments which had been adduced by the noble lord who had introduced this measure, that similar innovations would be pressed upon the house, and would at last proceed so far as to render it impossible for parliament, to maintain the tests which experience had proved to be so useful. The same sort of arguments would go to admit all dissenters into all offices and places of public appointment, even those which a large majority of that house, formerly, and which the nation at large had considered as dangerous to the religious establishment of the country. The constitution of this country and a church establishment were so interwoven with each

15
other, that the one. could not be affected without endangering the other. He, therefore, for one, would consent to toleration so far only as it did not tend to endanger the establishment, and he was entirely of opinion with his hon. and learned friend near him, that they had already gone far enough, and that any further innovation would be unnecessary; for what was the argument of the noble lord? It was an argument founded upon the anomaly between the two religions. This argument proved too much, for if this bill was proposed to remedy this anomaly, then would the innovation grow greater and greater every day, until the anomaly was destroyed by putting the two religions precisely on the same footing; by repealing the bill of rights, and the test act. As to the terms 'darker ages,' he, for his part, did not think that the persons who prefered the protestant religion had darker understandings than those who thought all religions equal. As to the operation of the bill proposed, his learned friend was about to put the case of a ship commanded by a roman catholic captain, but as he was diverted from it. he should beg leave to put it for him:—The captain is a catholic; his crew partly roman catholics. Well; the captain brings-a catholic priest on board, may, not one priest (for he is not to be limited), but a dozen of them, perhaps; and what is the consequence? The priests disseminate their popish doctrines through the ship: some are converted, some not; disunion is thus bred among the seamen; and, instead of preparing to beat the common enemy they turn against one another, and fall to controversial preaching—(loud laughter) It was not a thing to laugh at: he would assure the gentlemen that it required more serious consideration. He could not help alluding to the levity of certain gentlemen opposite. He was the more surprised to see his noble friend among them (lord Howick) but he was sure the noble lord would be far from intending him any personal incivility. But, as to the popularity of the measure itself, he could not help warning ministers of urging upon the people an innovation of such popular odium. He reminded ministers of the riots of 1780, and cautioned them to beware of similar consequence. The noble lord, little as he seemed to feel this warning, would not be quite so indifferent if his house were burned to the ground (a laugh). Why! was he to be told that it rage of controversy was to be confined to doctors of divinity (a laugh)? Were there
16
not to be found as furious polemics in the mob, as among these who had graduated? As to any obstruction given to the roman catholics in the exercise of their religion, he did not believe it. He asked of gentlemen on the other side, if they knew a single instance of such obstruction? [Here Sir John Newport distinctly answered in the affirmative]; It might be so; but he confessed he had his doubts. He must again advert to the attempts which he perceived were made-to put him down. But gentlemen little knew him if they expected to succeed in such attempts. He would raise his voice and speak the sentiments of an honest and independent member of parliament. He had now said what he had to say upon this question, and gentlemen had defeated their own purpose; for if they had not so interrupted him, he should have sat down much sooner.
Mr. Fremantledeclared, that in his view of the subject, the measure now proposed did not bear upon the constitution of the country. There was no clause in this bill that went to provide for the establishment of the catholic clergy, either in the army or navy. It did not militate either against the bill of rights or the act of settlement, and he should feel sorry if such an impression as this were made upon the public mind.
Mr.T. W. Plummersaid, this measure appeared to him to be one which called for the serious attention of the house. The country had been deprived for a long time of the services of a large body of people, and now that a fair opportunity offered for granting the present boon, he trusted the time was come, when no honest catholic would be deprived of the opportunity of serving his country.
Mr. Corrylamented, that upon the introduction of this measure, an alarm should have been raised, as if it would draw the protestant establishments of England and Ireland into danger. He hoped gentlemen would come to the consideration of this question without prejudice. It was a question of importance, and its tendency was to prevent the natives of Ireland from being banished from the ranks of military fame and glory at home, and being drawn into the service of foreign countries. This measure went to secure their services at home, and ought therefore to be examined upon its own merits. The principles of the revolution ought always to beheld in the greatest veneration; but when the house looked to the

17
objects of that revolution, there would be found to be two principal objects in view, namely, the religious and civil liberties Of the country. With respect to the latter, he trusted they would never be attended to by a British parliament, and that that house would look with incessant jealousy to any measure that tended to overthrow the liberties of the country; but, with respect to the other object, the protestant religion, it should be remembered, that the question was then, whether a popish house should sit upon the throne? But would any man pretend, that there was a similar danger now? or that the popish religion was ever likely to gain such an establishment in parliament, as to endanger the protestant religion? He was sure that such danger was remote indeed; and that in the present measure, no scintilla of danger of this sort was likely to arise; and he also trusted, that the house would not partake of that alarm, which the hon. and learned gent. had endeavoured to create.
Mr. I. H. Brownethought certainly that gentlemen should not be too hasty to take an alarm, till they saw the bill. But with regard to the catholic religion, he considered its spirit to be as hostile to the liberties of this country, as any arbitrary power could be. He trusted that there was no dread of any foreign conqueror; but should a succesful and formidable usurper, who has cemented tyranny wherever he has gone, penetrate to Ireland, and avail himself of the Pope's bull, for the re-establishment of the catholic religion in that country, he could not think, that additional indulgences would ensure the loyalty of that body. He was far from thinking that concession after concession would conciliate the affections, or ensure the obedience of the Irish catholics. He foresaw considerable danger from these concessions, as they tended to prepossess the minds of the catholics with expectations of still farther concessions. He was averse to innovations, unless an existing evil could be proved, which could not be remedied but by law; but in the present instance, he was not aware that any such practical inconvenience existed. Unless the house was prepared to go the length of saying, that every office in the united kingdom was to be open to persons of all religions, he could see no good argument for advancing catholics to the highest appointments in the army. He should, however, have no objection to put all the roman catholics in the united kingdom upon the same footing as the Irish
18
catholics now were. The Irish roman Catholics had at present every thing which they could reasonably wish for: their property was secure; provision was made for the education of their priests; the military and legal professions were opened to them; in short, they had every thing-they could wish for, excepting political power. Ought they; then, to be insensible of the blessings they enjoyed, or ungrateful for the benefits they possess under the best of sovereigns, merely because they did not possess political power? It had been the wisdom of our ancestors to restrain the executive power from conferring the highest offices upon roman catholics,.and we ought to revere their memories, and. also to do justice to posterity, by maintaining the fences which our anoestors had erected.
Lord Howickin reply, said, he had hoped that his motion for introducing the bill would have passed without any discussion. He wished this question to be treated on its own merits. He did not consider it as standing upon the ground, of toleration; but that it rested on the footing, that, in consequence of what had formerly passed in the Irish parliament, it was necessary ,to make the laws in the two countries consistent with themselves, and not to suffer the catholics to be in that anomalous situation in which no people were ever placed before. He saw no reason for that alarm which some hon. gentlemen had endeavoured to create; for, as to this measure, it could,be attended no danger to the religion or establishment of the country. He could not concur opinion with the hon. and learned gent, that if a person in the army was called out in obedience to the order of his superior, and at the, peril of his that therefore he could not incur any penalty under possible circumstances;. he could not subscribe to the hon. and learned gent's exposition of the law, particularly on the subject of compulsory service, and more especially when he recollected the opinion which that hon. and learned gent. had formerly given on the subject of the volunteers. The Irish act of Parliament could only regulate the army of Ireland; and if an Irish regiment removed to England, it was then upon the English establishment, to which the acts of the Irish parliament could not extend, and consequently its officers were subject to all the penalties which a British legislature had enacted. But, from the moment of the union taking place between the two countries, and when there was no longer an Irish army, but the army of the United Kingdom,

19
and to which the acts of the united parliament can alone extend, he doubted whether the Irish catholic could receive any commission in the army. He acknowledged, that, de fucto, the catholics did hold commissions, but it was contrary to existing laws; and although no advantage bad been taken of this breach of the law, he would ask, whether it was fair to place the catholics in such a situation, and to pass that over by connivance, which the law forbad, instead of giving it a legal sanction? The hon. and learned gent. had professed himself a friend to the principle of toleration; but toleration, to be complete, must be free from any exclusion whatever, and the only true principle of exclusion, on account of religious opinions, was, when these opinions were connected with political principles hostile to the state; but when this ceased to exist, he would contend that then all ,disqualifications ought to cease. The hon. gent. who spoke last had contended, that the catholics were only excluded from political power, but was not that an important object? For, how could civil rights be secured to any considerable degree? without the possession of political power? And must not such persons as were disqualified from the acquisition of political power, feel discontented? And ought-such exclusions to be considered as necessary, unless when danger would arise from conferring them? But in granting the present boon, no such danger would arise. The Irish parliament had already sanctioned the Measure, and formed the precedent. It was-true, that Irish catholics might at present enter as soldiers and sailors;but a clause in this bill was provided to grant them security for the free exercise of their religion, and it would afford the catholic officers a greater facility of recruiting for the army and navy. When his hon. friend (Mr. Mountague) had carried,his alarm so far as to doubt whether this bill would not change the navy into a religious disputing club, and that when all hands where piped, the ship would become a scene of religious controversy; he must say that he could not treat such an argument with his accustomed gravity; but it was reserved for this night's debate to assert that the way to excite religious debate was to soften down differences. His hon. friend had reminded the house of the year 1780, and the fires which were then lighted up. He well remembered that disgraceful scene: but what was the cause? Was it in consequence of the catholics having had new privileges granted them, that they
20
stirred up division? Was it not rather, on the contrary, that a certain person (some what in the spirit which had discovered itself that night) had made use of inflammatory language, which had produced the fatal effect? When his hon. friend spoke of the danger to which this house might be exposed, he had only to request of his hon. friend not to promote that danger, by unnecessary alarms: for himself he entertained no such apprehensions. After the extinction of the riots in 1780, when liberty was granted to the catholics, and when the question of similar concessions with the present was agitated in that house, no such consequences ensued; nor would they, at the present, unless the spirit of bigotry should again excite false alarms of dangers, without reality, so as to excite an attack upon men's lives and properties. He declared no man was a more sincere friend to the protestant church of England than himself; but he did not think that the best way of supporting it was by pains, penalties, and exclusions; but on the contrary, by moderation and candour. The present he considered to be a beneficial measure, and that not only to the catholics but to the country at large,.and on the principle of general advantage; nor did he consider that there was any thing diigraceful in making concessions, when occasion required. He only wished this measure might undergo a fair examination, being convinced that the result of free discussion always was, that the cause of truth would flourish and prevail.—The noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in the bill as stated in the motion; which was agreed to without a division. The bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a second time this day se'nnight.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY —PRUSSIAN SUBSIDY.
Mr. Hobhousebrought up the Report of the Committee of supply. On the resolution for granting 80,000l, to make good a like sum granted to the King of Prussia,
Mr. Bankesregarding this grant as the first instalment a subsidy to Prussia, and regarding subsidies, though they might be wise in some circumstances, as very generally unwise, felt, himself bound,to state his sentiment at some length. He would recal the attention of the house to the subsidies granted since the commencement of the late war, every one of which it was thought hard to refuse at the time, but everyone of which had altogether failed of

21
producing the benefits expected from it. He first instanced the subsidy to the King of Sardinia, agreed upon in 1793, the amount of which was to be 200,000l. a year during the war. But the King of Sardinia was obliged to make a separate peace in less than 3 years. In the same year a treaty of subsidy was entered into with Hesse Cassel, and that power was obliged to make a separate peace in 2 years. In 1796, another treaty was made with no better result. The electoral troops of Hanover, the mar-grave of Baden, and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt, subsidised at the same time, all made peace in the same year. In 1793, a subsidy was granted to Russia, guaranteed by the United States. The sum was 50,000l. a month during the war, and 300,000l. in advance, but Russia made a separate peace in 1795. A larger subsidy was granted to Austria in 1795. There was a loan to that power of 4,600,000l. in 1796, and a further loan of 1,603,000l. in 1797. But Austria also was compelled, by distress, to make a precipate peace shortly after. A new loan of 2,000,000l. was advanced in 1800, and, shortly after, the battle of Marengo extinguished all hopes of benefit from the co-operation of Austria. In 1798, a treaty of subsidy was concluded with Russia. The sum to be supplied monthly was 50,000l with an advance of 300,000l. But the policies of the court of Russia changed suddenly, and that power became our active enemy. In 1800, the electors, of Bavaria and Mentz, and other powers, were also subsidised with as little effect. Since the renewal of the war on the continent in 1805, another treaty had existed, and it was only last night that sums had been voted to pay some arrears accrued under that treaty. But that treaty had had no better effect than the former. The fatal battle of Austerlitz compelled that power to make what terms she could, and now we had to make good to Sweden and to Russia the arrears of tint unfortunate subsidiary alliance. The present grant seemed to be the commencement of a new system of subsidy. He should not be disposed to cavil at this sum, if it were not to lead to many larger grants. (lord Howick said across the table, no; there is no treaty of subsidy.) The hon. gent. in continuation, said, if there was no provision for subsidy in the treaty with Prussia, he had trespassed too long upon the house. He had addressed the house only on the idea that a larger subsidy was in contemplation.
Lord H.Pettysated, that this advance
22
was made by lord Hutchinson for the particular exigencies of the army and the fortresses in Silesia. He conceived the cause of the misunderstanding, that this advance was the commencement of a subsidy, arose from its having been mentioned in the message from his majesty communicating the intelligence of the treaty of peace with the king of Prussia. But there was nothing of subsidy in the treaty, the advance had been made in consequence of a discretionary power given to lord Hutchinson, whose discretion could not be doubted in case any particular emergency required such a grant or any particular services could be effected by it. This advance had had great effect in preventing the progress of the enemy in the quarter in which it had been applied. He agreed with the hon. gent. that in making future treaties of subsidy, we ought to be regulated by past experience, and that our advantages ought to be regulated by the benefits, which according to past experience, we might reasonably hope to receive.
Mr. Bankesunder the explanation that had been given, had no objection to make good the advance that had been made by lord Hutchinson. He was pleased with the assurance given by the noble lord, that in future treaties of subsidy past experience would be made the guide, and that vast sums would not be advanced without any certain benefit.
Lord Howicksaid, that lord Hutchinson had a discretionary power to make advances in case of any pressing emergency, and he was sure every person would agree that such a discretion could not be placed in better hands. There was no treaty of subsidy But he would not have the house go away with the idea that government was precluded from granting a subsidy, if circumstances should render it desirable. He agreed that many of the former subsidies were must unwise in principle, and most unproductive in even. But every case depended upon its own circumstances. A principle of caution ought always to be applied, to prevent the advances from being made unnecessarily, or incautiously, so as to hazard a risk, that no benefit would be derived. He dissapproved of all subsidies which would hold out English money to induce foreign powers to enter into war without any objects of their own. But when they were engaged, or ready to engage, for common interests, he thought it would be very wrong not to hold ourselves at liberty to second and support them. He allowed that past experience ought to be

23
made the rule of our conduct with regard to future treaties; but not so far as to prevent us from entering into such treaties.—The resolution was then agreed to.

MR. PAULL'S PETITION RESPECTING THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
. Lord Folkestonemoved the order of the day for taking into further consideration the Petition of James Paull, Esq., complaining of undue tampering with the witnesses summoned to give evidence before the committee, about to be appointed to try the merits of the late Election for Westminster. [See in vol. S, the proceedings of the 26th of February and the 2d of March.]
Mr. Sheridansaid, that by the forms of the house, a witness could not stay in the house during the examination of the witnesses. He had summoned Mr. Paull as a witness, but he begged to state that he had no objection to his remaining at the bar the whole time of the proccedings—The counsel for the petitioner were then called in, and
Mr. Plumeraddressed the house as follows:—"Mr. Speaker; I now proceed to discharge the duty which, under the indulgence of the house, I have been permitted to reserve for this day, in stating the petition of Mr. Paull and the evidence in support of it, and, sir, with every grateful acknowledgments to the house for the indulgence I have experienced, I must, at the same time, state to the house the inability I am under to profit entirely by it. The very voluminous body of evidence and the inability of access to it till a very late period, have prevented my adverting to many of the circumstances which have been stated. I shall, therefore, content myself with addressing only general observations, except on particular parts of the testimony which we are able to collect as most important on the subject: and, in discharging this duty, I shall, on every consideration, most rigidly abstain from every topic which does not directly belong to the duty imposed upon me. I shall endeavour to discharge that duty,as briefly as I am able, from every consideration of duty and of respect to the house, as well as other considerations with which it is, unnecessary for me to trouble you.—Sir, I shall in the first place, state what are the allegations contained in the petition, and then briefly remind you of the evidence you have heard in support of it; and, on this subject, I am persuaded, whatever judgment the house may finally think proper to pronounce with respect to this petition, I hope I am not too sanguine in expecting, that whatever difference of opinion
24
may prevail on other parts of the subject, yet on one there will be no difference of opinion; namely, the sincerity of the individual who has presented this petition to the house—the sincere and honest belief of the truth of its contents. I do not expect any credit to be given from any Personal consideration either to any thing I state, or any thing stated, by the individual for whom I have the honor to appear, but I am persuaded every gentleman will see, that a petition of this nature could not have been addressed to the house in common prudence, if there had not been a sincere and honest belief of the truth of its contents; because, it could not possibly answer any purpose of benefit to the individual who has exhibited it, prematurely to bring under the consideration of this house the merits of that case by which he will be able to support a petition hereafter, to disclose all that he had, or a part of what he had to bring forward upon another occasion, with the probability, .not of having it more advantageously discussed, but he must be fully aware that the wisdom and judgment of this house would infallibly discover it to be so, and that the consequences could. be only ruin and disgrace to him and to his cause; that the contest must be pursued here with every disadvantage to himself, where his opponent, being of necessity a member of the house, has every opportunity given him to discuss and to question throughout the whole of the proceedings, while he, the other litigant party, is not permitted to stand in the same situation; that every possible advantage, therefore, would be derived front these circumstances on the one side, and every disadvantage on the other, by prematurely bringing this under consideration was quite obvious. Why, then, was this done? For what purpose was the petition presented? For what purpose was this inquiry brought under the consideration of the house in this novel shape? Why was it done? Surely, no one will be at a loss to recollect why it was done, when they recollect what was the situation of the petitioner—under what circumstances he stood. This petition was presented after an application had been made with success, to postpone the hearing of the petition which he had previously presented, and for which, he was making preparation, by having served various witnesses with the highest authority to compel their attendance and to ensure their attendance. After he was thus engaged in preparations to bring forward his cause, expecting it to have been heard on the 24th of feb., he had

25
intelligence given him, upon which he thought he might securely rely, that practices had been made use of by various persons whose names I will presently state—that practices prevailed to a very considerable extent, which threatened the loss of several of his witnesses, and which were addressed, from day to day, with the hope of endeavouring to persuade others to deprive him of that testimony, at least of a part of it, which was afterwards to support his cause.—Now, sir, laying aside all personal considerations end considering this petitioner as merely in the character of a party having presented a petition to the house, which was in progress to being heard—which stood for hearing—which he had a right to prosecute, complaining of his having been deprived of the right to a seat in this house, on behalf of himself and a number of electors, who, to the number of 4 or 5000, had given him their votes upon the occasion, what was it his duty to himself, to them, and to the house to do, if he thought this charge was well founded; if he had reason to believe that these practices did actually prevail; what was the duty he owed to the house, to himself, to his constituents, I might even say to the individual who is accused, but to bring it forward where it was sure to be fairly, impartially and thoroughly discussed, in order that it might at least be seen, whether the suspicions that prevailed abroad upon this subject were well or ill founded?—What was it incumbent upon him to do more than, if he brought it forward, to bring it fairly forward, and, in the first place, for that purpose to put his cause into the hands of the most respectable solicitors there are in the profession, and I am persuaded that I shall be fortified by the knowledge of every member of this house who knows those gentlemen, that in all the profession there cannot be found gentlemen who stand higher, of purer honour, of greater respectability, and more unblemished character than Messrs. Williams and Brooks, and their clerk, Mr. Powell, who are engaged in the business. More honourable and more respectable persons do not exist in the profession. I hope the house will forgive me, if I presume thus to testify in their behalf; because, if, on a subject of this nature, from any accidental causes witnesses appear on any account to be less deserving of credit, a degree of blame and disgrace may appear to attach to those who are concerned. I do not know whether that May not comprehend all that are concerned on this side, and I
26
therefore have been particularly desirous to present myself upon the occasion and to bear my share of blame upon the subject, at any inconvenience to myself, rather, than shrink from the discharge of my professional duty on behalf of any person for whom I may be employed.—Sir, I take the liberty of saying it is of infinite importance, not only to the individual, but to the public, that the persons who deserve the character of honest men, should receive it; because it is of the highest importance, that causes and petitions should be in such hands, rather than that, by their falling into the hands of others, practices should take place which it is not easy to detect. This was the comfort of the person for whom I appear, and whatever representations there may be to the disadvantage of it; whatever judgment gentlemen may be disposed to pass on the evidence they have heard, there is not a single tittle of evidence, much as the witnesses have been pressed, and properly pressed, by questions addressed to them from every quarter; there is not one single tittle which shews that the conduct of the petitioner, from the first moment he was made acquainted with the suspicions respecting the subjects of this charge, was any otherwise than would have been observed by the most honorable man living; having first cautioned the witness who disclosed these facts to him; guarding him not to speak any thing but the truth, and by no means to overstate the truth; having on no occasion offered him any money, or any inducement whatever, not distinctly to disclose the fact, and every subject relating to it. I hope, therefore, I stand fair thus far with the house, that the conduct of the petitioner was from the peril either of losing his testimony or preferring his complaint to the only competent authority to receive it; for it would not have been respectful for the petitioner to have carried his complaint any where else. If there were just grounds to carry a complaint any where, it could be no where but to this house, and it could be conducted only in the way it has been, up to the point I am now stating—Sir, permit me to observe in the next place, what are the charges contained in this petition, and what is the evidence in support of it. The petitioner states, that he was a candidate at the last election for the city of Westminster; an unsuccessful candidate in consequence of which he had presented a petition to this house, complaining of an undue election, and praying that that subject might be taken into consideration; that that

27
stood for trial on the 24th of Feb; that that was afterwards postponed till a more distant date, and that intelligence was given to him that persons were actually at work to deprive him of his testimony, to induce persons to go out of the way, and particularly to dispossess him of important documents by which he hoped to support his cause. The petition has fairly and distinctly stated, not in general terms only, who were the persons that had been guilty of this practice; but the names of the witnesses that were sent, or attempted to be sent, out of the way, and the particular circumstances attendant upon the transaction.—Sir, it is particularly stated in the petition, that one William Drake was, and still is, a material witness summoned on behalf of your petitioner; that the said Drake having, on or about the 10th of this instant Feb., &c. ["Mr. Plumer here read an extract from the petition ending, "and added, that when they had succeeded in putting it off, such persons should have money to go out of the way to prevent their being summoned."]—Now, sir, these are the allegations contained in the petition, which I hope the house will excuse me for having thus specifically read, for the purpose of shewing how specific notice is given to these persons of the charges against them, and the nature of the evidence to be brought.—Sir, in support of this petition, you have heard 8 witnesses examined, the witnesses named in the petition, and if they are deserving of credit, upon which subject undoubtedly the house are to decide, but respecting whom it was quite impossible for those who produced them to know, otherwise than that their testimony on paper, or all the account which could be discovered of them was favorable to the testimony they were to give; and such, as induced all those who heard them, truly and honestly to believe the truth of their statement—if their account is deserving of credit, the charge is fully, distinctly, and pointedly proved. It is proved in terms, in the very terms of the petition; you have heard those 8 persons actually substantiate the charge against all the individuals who are the subjects of it; they have distinctly told you, that in the early part; of the month of Jan., and particularly in the beginning of Feb., after these witnesses and different persons had been served with a speaker's warrant to give their attendance on the 24th of Feb., Mr. Burgess, who was the solicitor of the sitting member, his agent and manager, proved to be such, and em-
28
ployed by him throughout the whole business—Mr. Burgess, who had actually employed a gentleman of the name of Wallis under him, and another person of the name of Gallant, three persons, one employed by the sitting member, and the two others employed by Mr. Burgess in the election business, and paid by him for what they did upon the subject of it, they are all three of them proved by these witnesses, six in number, to have been actually employed.—Mr. Burgess in his own person, and also Wallis and Gallant in aid of each other in applying to these witnesses, whom they knew to be at that time served with a speaker's warrant to attend upon the committee, they having express notice of that, and therefore being bound in all fairness, and according to all practice, to abstain from any personal conference or examination of any of them, have proceeded actually to take down their testimony, to get an account of the evidence they were hereafter to give, and knowing perfectly well the nature of that testimony, and how fatal it would be to the cause in which they were engaged, have addressed to these several witnesses topics of argument and propositions, for the purpose of inducing them to withhold that testimony, that they did distinctly inform them of the intention to postpone the hearing of the petition; that it was the intention to apply for that purpose, and that when that application should have been made with success, the consequence would be to leave no longer in force the several warrants with which they had been served—that one of them in particular, Mr. Wallis, possessed himself actually, of the speaker's warrant, got it into his own possession, and represented to several of the witnesses, how truly, how justly, and how properly those whom I have the honour to address, know, without my particularly dwelling on that part of the case, but represented to them, that they were no longer under obligation to attend the future trial of the petition, but might in future absent themselves and keep out of the way, offering money for that purpose, inducements to them severally to keep out of the way, to prevent their being forthcoming at the time of the trial of the petition.—Questions were put to the witnesses, "for what purpose were you to keep out of the way? Were you conscious of any crime you had committed; of any wrong you had done, that should induce you to absent yourself?" No! Was that the cause of their being desired to keep out of the way, to protect

29
themselves, or to guard against the detection of any crime committed by themselves?—Read the evidence:—the testimony they have given is, that their evidence has been taken down; that it was discovered that they could detect what had been done during the election; the fictitious votes which had been given; the bribery and corruption which had been committed; the instances in which persons had been induced to give repeated votes at the election. These persons being found capable of giving testimony upon such a subject as that, that was the motive, and not any crime committed individually by themselves; and, therefore, they might with perfect safety, and with perfect truth, answer the questions put, and yet that makes no difference as to the probability of the inducements which were addressed to them, not for their own security, but for the security of those who might be hurt by the testimony they were hereafter to give.—Upon this part of the case, as well as upon other parts, undoubtedly the cause which I have to support labours under considerable disadvantage; because I am under the necessity of considering it in this stage of the business, abridged as it must of necessity be, and excluding from the consideration much of the testimony which would be confirmatory of the account thus given; because, with great propriety, the house have confined the enquiry to the endeavouring to remove out of the way written or parole testimony, without entering into the merits of any thing Which passed in the election. You have, therefore, very properly stopped us from going into evidence of the actual practices and the transactions during the election, or of the knowledge of these persons of the contents of that important document on which I shall presently observe. You have necessarily excluded, therefore, all that collateral testimony and account which might be given on that part of the case, and which would confirm or refute all the account thus given of the attempts to keep these witnesses out of the way.—The materiality of their testimony; the importance of it; the nature of it; you are all unable Particularly and distinctly to, know; because, of necessity, the case must be deprived of any consideration of that part of the subject; and I forbear to state any part of that on which you cannot receive evidence. But, it is enough for me to state, if their testimony might be material; if their testimony was proper to be received, and the credit to be given to it fit to be considered
30
by a proper tribunal, it is nothing to say they are not witnesses who would be believed; the object of this petition is to prevent the deprivation of testimony. The opportunity of presenting to a proper tribunal that testimony, and surely, at the same moment you exclude the materiality of that testimony, and prevent its being properly examined, it will not be said it is very incredible, that such an attempt should be made, and much less that it is impossible, because the witnesses would not have been credited or cannot prove that which is material. We had a right to have their testimony heard; we had a right to have these witnesses forthcoming; we had a right to keep them untainted, and not visited by the opponent patty at the time they knew they were under orders-to attend on the future tribunal to hear the merits of the case. Therefore, undoubtedly, the conduct of these persons, the solicitor of the sitting member and of Mr. Wallis and Mr. Gallant all employed under him; beginning in the month of Feb. holding out the expectation of the postponement and laying hold of them—to address this, argument (whether well or ill founded) was undoubtedly, I should submit, a species of conduct which would receive no sanction or authority from this house.—Sir, in addition to that, you hear that in the early part of the month of Feb., namely, on the 10th of that month, soon after the solicitor and the persons employed under him had been thus work with the several witnesses—you find, what I am sorry to be under the painful necessity of stating and of bringing directly home to the principal gentleman who is the subject of the charge, by direct positive proof that on the 1Oth of Feb., 14 days only before the hearing of the cause, the witness was sent for by a message to attend at the house of Mr. Homan in Frith Street, soho whom does he meet there? Mr. Homan; Mr. Johnston, a person concerned with Drury Lane Theatre, and a Mr. Edwards, a former servant of the sitting member, and now a box-keeper at Drury Lane theatre. These 3 persons there assembled ply him with liquor, address conversations to him upon the subject, and then remove him upon the day in a hackney coach to the house of Mr.Edwards, and at Mr. Edward's house he there positively states that he met Mr. Sheridan himself; that he had a conference with Mr. Sheridan on the subject that he there distinctly disclosed to Mr. Sheridan that he had an order from the speaker to attend as a witness against him, and not-

31
withstanding, that at the house of Mr. Edwards, to which he was accompanied by Mr. Johnston, at that house he had a conference with Mr. Sheridan, who there entered into conversation with him upon the subject of his future testimony. That witness, who says that he had been in habits of friendship and near alliance with Mr. Sheridan before, and, that he had been acquainted with him to 5 years together, and had been honoured with the greatest marks of, his confidence that one gentleman could give to another—has told you, that he was held, in close conference for a considerable time at the house of Mr. Edwards.—Now, Sir, it is said this witness has by his demeanour created that general impression to his disadvantage, that no credit is due to what he states; that his appearance has betrayed him, and shewn the strongest marks of his resentment and vengeance and of indignant feelings towards the individual against whom he is giving testimony. Sir, I should only beg leave to observe that this gentleman is no friend of Mr. Panl—is no acquaintance of his—he is a perfect stranger to him, and if there be any thing exceptionable or improper in his conduct, all he knew of him was, that he was nearly allied to the sitting member; that he had long been honoured with his acquaintance; that he had been in the strictest intimacy with him and visiting in his house; that was all he knew of this gentleman, except that he appeared to be an officer, in a gallant profession, in which he had lost a limb—at least it was so represented to him, that he knew nothing of him, but what was apparently honourable and right, except that he came with strong feelings of resentments respecting which very resentment I shall be glad to ask, whence does it arise? Does it not of itself import prior intimacy, and that degree of injury that has stung the individual to manifest all that resentment? How can you account for it otherwise? What has actuated the individual to that resentment?, Let it operate as it ought to do to induce you to receive his evidence with considerable suspicion, with great jealousy, to watch the testimony he gives; but how can any body account for the indignation of this young man? For his feelings of warmth? If the individual was a perfect stranger to him? If he had never been in habits of intimacy with him, or conducted himself in a way to provoke that resentment? How are those feelings to be accounted for? To what cause are you to refer all that gentleman's other feeling, if it is not to be ascribed to the cause I
32
have stated?—He has positively stated the circumstance of his alliance to that individual and his acquaintance with him for 5 years together. He has stated his constant employment during the late election at Westminster, in which he is confirmed by the circumstance of the frequent letters that passed: nay, Sir, I think that receives confirmation even from the question put by that right hon. gent. himself; for I do remember the question being put, not indeed to him, but to the, second witness; Weatherhead, in these terms, "Were you not introduced to me by Mr. Drake as a clergyman?" The answer to that is immaterial on the present occasions He says he told him it was a mistake, and that it was his brother; but the use I make of it is this, and the house will then see, whether it is worthy of their grave and serious consideration. With all humility, it appears to me to contain pregnant proof of prior intimacy and acquaintance—how could Mr. Drake introduce any body to that right hon. gent. if he was a stranger him? How could he have access to him? How could he be accompanied to his house to introduce any body if he was not in habits of intimacy and acquaintance with him? This is a question put to him by the highest authority—and it carries the highest proof that some degree of intimacy at least subsisted between them.—A particular account is given by the witness on the subject of this meeting, and that I may not in the least misrepresent him, I will read it. You will find that he gives this account, that he had been long in habits of acquaintance and connection with him; that he had hopes and prospects held out to him of promotion and promises of money, in which he had been disappointed; that he had still been en active and zealous friend to the right hon. gent, during the late election, but that at, the close of the election he felt himself neglected—personally insulted by the domestics of the right hon. gent., and stung, undoubtedly, with resentment, and feeling a resentment to that right hon. gent. he was induced to do what I do not mean to state as a proof of the honour or propriety of this gentleman to betray his friend, and communicate intelligence to his opponent of the knowledge, that he had of what ,practices had been going on during the election.—Now, sir, I do not in the least mean to conceal that the testimony of a witness standing in that predicament, a person who betrays his former patron and friend, nearly allied to him, and who gives intelligence of practices in which he has been personally

33
concerned ought not, on that account, to be received with considerable suspicion—he is an accomplice, and his testimony ought to be received with suspicion, but I beg leave to state, that the testimony of accomplices under more unfavourable circumstances is continually received, and many have lost their lives upon testimony open to every possible observation that can be bestowed upon this; he states fairly the account of it upon his own testimony; he gives the narrative how he was originally connected with the right hon. gent. for 5 years together, and then he says "I supported Mr. Sheridan during the whole of the time of the election, and brought up many votes for Mr. Sheridan, and was in the habit of seeing him 4 or 5 times a day." He then relates the circumstance of his going to Homan's house, having wine there, and afterwards going to Edward's, &c.— He is then interrogated with respect to the letter he represents Mr. Sheridan as having been desirous of obtaining, and he gives a narrative, and the short account, respecting the letter is this: It is proved by this witness, and by the next who was examined, that prior to the election, a letter had been signed by Mr. Sheridan in favour of a person of the name of Emanuel Harris, recommending him to supply the fleet with different articles in which he dealt, upon the occasion of his obtaining votes and his voting himself during the election; that that first letter was in the hand-writing of the witness, Drake himself, was delivered by himself a few days prior to the election into the hands of Mr. Sheridan, that he did himself annex the letters, M. P., leaving a blank for the signature, and that upon his delivering it to Mr. Sheridan, he received it back from Mr. Sheridan with his own signature to it.—The evidence that was given by Mr. Drake respecting the two letters, one that preceded and the other that followed a few days the commencement of the election, will be found in different parts of the testimony of that witness: he was examined upon that subject in chief and afterwards pointedly by the house, and, particularly in a pointed and rapid manner by an hon. member of the house on the subject of these letters, and the prompt and immediate answers given, to thole questions pushed one after another rapidly on him on the subject of those letters had, I own, to my view, greatly an appearance, excluding all probability, of a manufactured or a made stoty; for that any person of any ability much less an individual
34
like him, unaccustomed to courts of justice and to being examined, should be able so rapidly to give distinct answers as to time, place, and person, and every circumstance connected with it, does appear to me to have a very great degree of probability connected with it.—I fear I shall not be able to extract from this volume I have in my hand every part of the testimony respecting the letter, but I hope the house will excuse me if I should not be able to do it immediately; they will excuse me if I should occupy any great portion of their time after what has passed in reading it. "When I went to Mr. Sheridan with this letter, I said here is a man, &c. which Mr. Sheridan who is "present cannot deny."—He then states applications by the other persons who are mentioned in the petition, Homan, Edwards, and Johnston; and then he goes on to say, "I then told Mr. Sheridan. I had "been summoned, &c."—He is then asked, by the house, "did Mr. Sheridan say anything? &c."—A question is put to him by the house respecting the letter; he is asked particularly, "are you sure that you "either, read the letter? &c"—He is then interrogated about his acquaintance with Mr. Harris, and he states how he became acquainted with him?—He is then asked, "who advised you to destroy the first? &c".—He is then asked whether he hart ever declared that he would have money from one side or the other, which he denies—he says, "I never did in my life."—There are other passages respecting the signature of this letter, but I hope I have shewn you that the account I originally,gave respecting this letter, having been thus delivered to Mr. Sheridan, add received back from him with what the witness took to be his signature was correct; and surely it will never be argued, that if a letter is delivered to Mr. Sheridan in blank, if the witness was not actually present to see him put his name to it, but if he received it back with a signature purporting to be Mr. Sheridan himself, that is not sufficient to fix the right hon. gent. with the act itself, more especially when it is also fixed by the witness, which it is in both instances, to be the signature of Mr. Sheridan himself—Mr. Weatherhead was interrogated about the letters; he saw, I believe, both the letters: he spoke of the signature of one having seen it wet, and he judged it to be the signature of Mr. Sheridan. He was particularly interrogated whether he had ever said any thing as to its

35
being a forgery; he said no: and that the reason that one was substituted for another was, that the first had received a blot from being folded, and that it had M. P.; the putting M. P. being improper when the parliament was not assembled, and that the man was desirous of having a letter with a fairer signature, and also having the words "Treasurer of the Navy," which were actually put to the second letter to give more authenticity to it.—This is the account of these two witnesses, on the subject of this letter; in addition to which, Mr. Weatherhead has proved, what it did seem to me if Mr. Weatherhead is entitled to credit.—I state this with all the humility which belongs to me; leaving it entirely to the judgment of the house to pronounce on the credit of the witnesses. I can only judge of the testimony before me, and it is my duty to state that testimony to the house. I say again, if Mr. Weatherhead is entitled to credit his testimony alone goes a considerable way towards substantiating the charge before you; for it is positively proved, that he actually saw on the 19th of Feb. at the house of Mr. Sheridan, Drake the witness, and Mr. Sheridan sitting close together, and as he describes it "elbowing each other close together in the act of private conversation in a low tone of voice not to be overheard by any body else." He says that that continued for some period of time in the room. Did that conversation pass, or did it not?—Weatherhead declares it did—if it did, how could that conversation be passing, circumstanced as Drake then was, when he had in the early part of the month, or even perhaps in the latter end of Jan., but certainly in the early part of Feb., not only been actually served with a speaker's warrant to attend as a witness, but on the 10th of that month of Feb., actually communicated to Mr. Sheridan himself, that he was under summons to attend at the hearing of the petition on the part of Mr. Paull, when Mr. Sheridan had said to him, "leave that to me." Nine days afterwards, within 5 days of the hearing of the petition, which was to be heard on the 24th, Mr. Sheridan is seen at his own house in close conversation with Mr. Drake, sitting close together, and in some conversation which was not to be heard by any body else. if that fact be true, does it not confirm the testimony of the other witness; and is it consistent with any possible account of the denial of all intimacy or acquaintance with that witness, circumstanced as that witness was, which
36
excluded, as it seemed to me, every possibility of conversation which could not be distinctly heard which had not reference to the subject?—But, sir, it does not rest there. This witness positively states the actually seeing the letters delivered into the hands of Mr. Sheridan—he saw them when they came back with the signature of Mr. Sheridan wet; he proves also, that Mr. Sheridan at this meeting on the 19th of Feb. addressed a conversation to him, personally, on the subject of these letter., and that at the close of that conversation he made to Mr. Weatherhead a request, which I own I feel an extreme difficulty in referring to, in any other way than as a direct confirmation of the whole account thus given on the subject.—That Mr. Sheridan said to him, do you and Mr. Drake come to me tomorrow at two o'clock.—This was after the private conversation with Mr. Drake; after interrogating him on the subject of the letters and enquiry of Mr. Weatherhead, another witness under summons to attend, he asks him, are you actually employed on the other side?—he says no then, says he, do you and Mr. Drake come to me tomorrow at two o'clock. For what purpose were they to come the next day to Mr. Sheridan?—Why were they to be invited to come? In what way can that possibly be explained consistent with the representation of no connection subsisting between these parties. —Sir, this, together with the other evidence I have stated of the other persons employed; the solicitor, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Wallis employed by the solicitor, Mr. Gallant, who was employed under them during the election, the proof of the conduct of Mr. Homan in Frith-street, the proof of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Johnston's applications on the subject of these letters and of the witnesses, constitutes the testimony lying before you in proof of this petition, in verbis, in terms, by the. 8 witnesses who have been examined at your bar.—I have now, sir, discharged my duty to the house by stating the petition and stating the import, I hope fairly stating, the nature of the testimony adduced in support of it. I have cautiously abstained from entering upon any one topic that is not directly connected with the subject before you. I will not detain the house one moment with any recapitulation or any observations on the subject. I leave it entirely with the house to pronounce their judgment upon it. I am persuaded that it will be a wise, a just, and a proper judgment, that they will attentively read the

37
evidence for themselves, with opportunities of seeing it and of examining it better than it has been in my power to obtain; they will weigh it, and finally give that judgment which is best calculated to vindicate their own honour and dignity, and which will be satisfactory to every person by whom that testimony shall be hereafter read. I beg pardon for detaining the house so long, and return my humble thanks to the house for their patience."
Mr. Sheridanprotested, that he was never more surprised at any thing than at the speech which he had just heard from the learned counsel. He had heard rumours that he intended to have thrown up his brief. But, if he was surprised, he was not alarmed. The learned counsel had said that he (Mr. S.) had an advantage over the petitioner. He denied this, as he had not availed himself of the assistance of counsel. If he had been capable of stating, as proved matter, that which had been only asserted, and that too by witnesses who had been nearly commited by the house for scandalous prevarication—if he had stated every thing in the evidence that made for him, and none that made against him, and had the stupidity to think that the house would believe him, then he might be said to have the advantage. He expressed his high respect for the profession, but thought there were limits within which counsel ought to confine themselves; and certainly it would have been much more proper if the counsel, instead of pressing the matter as he did, had stood at the bar in shame and confusion at his being engaged in such a cause. He perfectly admitted the great respectability of the solicitors; Messrs Williams and Brooks, and had heard that Mr. Williams had even thrown up the cause. He wished that Mr. Powell might stand as clear. He wished, that Mr. Paull and Mr. Powell might have been only dupes in the business. He should be glad if it should appear so. But when he examined his witnesses, there would appear, he believed, such a system of baseness, corruption, and subornation of perjury as had never before been heard of. He wished the counsel for the petitioner to hear the evidence. The learned counsel, though he remarked on the part the evidence where Drake had stated, that he had been employed by him (Mr. S ) to get the letter from Harris, had forgot to mention that the witness had afterwards stated, that he had offered £30 of his own money to get the letter-from Mr, Paull. His own money! He wished it
38
might not turn out to have been the money, of other people. He really pitied the poor wretches who had been called to to the bar, but wished that the charge might not be carried to a higher quarter. The counsel, too had observed upon the statements of the witness, that he saw him sign the letter, but had forgot to mention his having retracted that assertion. He had adverted to his having desired the attendance of Drake and Weatherhead the next day—he had done so certainly, with a view to carry them to Bow street. But finding, as Weatherhead had said, that they had got into suspicious company, when they saw a Bow-street officer they made off, and he had heard no more of them till they were observed on the 24th of Feb. in a hackney-coach with Mr. Paull. He was ashamed of his own credulity in having given any credit to what these persons said, but he had called at the Admiralty, and found that Weatherhead had been dismissed for scandalous conduct by captain Trollope, and that his name was marked R. M. having presented forged certificates for a lieutenancy. There was a gross false-hood in the petition, where it alledged that the consideration of the election petition stood for the 24th of Feb., whereas it had been originally appointed for the 13th of Jan.
Mr. Percevalobserved, that the right hon. gent. had certainly taken the advantage over the counsel when he had spoken, of him in the manner he had done. There might have been rumours of his intention to throw up his brief; but when so much was at stake with respect to the client who employed him, it was not for the counsel to prejudge the case, and if he had heard ,that he had thrown up his brief, he certainly would not have believed it. It was impossible to misunderstand the counsel when he said that these charges were proved, for he had distinctly qualified it by referring this to the credit due to the,witnesses. There,was, therefore, no more grounds for his imputations against the counsel, than for his assertion that there was a gross falsehood in the petition. It stated, that the consideration of the election petition glad been postponed from the 24th of Feb to the 14th of April. This was true, and no intention appeared of denying that it had been in the first instance fixed for the 13th of January.
Mr. Sheridansaid, that he had a great respect for the counsel; but still though that he ought to have been somewhat more liberal. If the allegation it was at least a

39
pitiful prevarication. He moved that Frerick Homan be called in.
A long conversation then took place with respect to the propriety of examining Mr. Homan, he being implicated by the allegations of the petition. However, on the motion of Mr. Perceval, it was carried, that the allegations against Mr. Homan were not well grounded; and he was, therefore, admitted as a comperent witness.
Mr. Frederick Homan examined by the House
"Were you present at a meeting between Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Drake, on the 9th or 10th of Feb.? The 19th I was present.—At a meeting at Somerset Place? Yes.—Did Mr. Drake come upon any request of Mr. S., or did Mr. Drake apply to you? Mr. Drake called upon me on the 19th Of Feb. in the evening. He told me, he had returned from the country that evening with Mr. Weatherhead; that he had been in a chaise to Hampshire; that he was going to set off at 4 the next morning, to take possession of a cottage be had purchased in Hampshire, and wished to see Mr. S. that night; I told him, I was to dine with Mr. S., and should engage he should see Mr. S. at 7 or 8 o'clock. I went to Mr. S's. to see him; after I had been there some time, he came in with Mr. Weatherhead, whom he introduced as a clergyman. Mr. Weatherhead and I, and Mr. Ward, sat in the parlour at Mr. S's. for some time ; we had general conversation; at length Mr.S. came in from, I believe, the house of commons, about 8 o'clock. When Mr S. came into the room to be saluted, Mr, Drake and. Mr. Weatherhead were sitting at some distance from him, and Mr. S. took a chair, and sat at a considerable distance from Mr. Drake; there was room for More than 2 or 3 chairs between the chair on which Mr. S. sat and Mr. Drake. There was a general conversation alter Mr. S. came in, on some motion he had Made in the house that night, or that he had given notice of a motion. Mr Drake told Mr. S., he had been in the country, in Hampshire, and had been hunting there with Mr. Cobbett. I staid there the whole time; there was no conversation could have taken place without my hearing it, and Mr. Ward, who was present, Some time after Mr. Drake came in or Mr. S. came in, he asked who that gentleman was in the corner; Mr. Drake said he was a particular friend of his, a shipmate of his, Mr. Weatherhead; I replied, he is a clergyman; Oh! said Mr. S., you served as chaplain, I
40
suppose, along with Mr. Drake; no, sir, says he, not as chaplain! Oh! Oh! says Drake, immediately correcting himself, it is his brother is a clergyman, this is not a clergyman. Mr. S. certainly made no offer; there could have been no offer made to Mr. Drake that evening, as stated in the petition. On the 19th of Feb., I remained in the room with Mr. S. till Mr. Drake and Mr. Weatherhead left the house. On going up stairs to Mr. S's dining-room, he said he believed that Drake was a very great liar; that he did not suppose that he had been hunting with Mr. Cobbett, for that he believed that Mr. Cobbett would not take notice of such a fellow, and that he would not be concerned in such a business with such a rascal; and, says he, that story is like the story of the Thisbe brig which he has got: he is a damned liar.—Had the conversation, as to Mr. Drake's having been with Mr. Cobbett in Hampshire, begun previous to Mr. S's. coming into the room and in what way did Mr. Drake state himself to have been in Mr. Cobbett's house? The conversation began with Mr Drake stating himself to have been hunting in Hampshire with Mr. Cobbett, before Mr. S. came into the room, but it continued after Mr S. came into the room: Mr. Drake said, that the only way to get to Mr. Cobbett's house was through his stables and a very dirty yard; that he lived in a mere pig-stye.—Did you ever hear Mr Drake say that he must leave town in order to take the command of the Thisbe sloop, or the Sisbe sloop, and that be was under orders from the Admiralty? On Tuesday the 10th of Feb., I remember being in company with Mr. Drake. Mr. Drake told me that he was appointed to the command of the Thisbe sloop; sometime afterwards he said that it was a brig; and that if Mr. S. would apply to the Admiralty, he had no doubt they would permit him to stay in town a few days, if it was to serve his cause.—When Mr. Drake said he must go out of town the next day; did Mr. S. tell Mr. Drake he must stay in town, and desire him to call at Somerset House the next; and did not Mr. S. state that that he, Mr. Drake, must on no account be absent when the speaker's warrant required his attendance? Mr. S. certainly did.—Did Mr. S. ever utter one word like holding out any reward or inducement to Mr. Drake, or Mr. Weatherhead, whatever? Never in my presence,—Were you present at the examination of Mr. Harris by Mr. Justice Grabam? I was present,—Was Mr. Weatherhead pre-

41
sent? No.—Did you know that when Mr. S. sent Harris to be examined by Mr. Graham, he sent a special message, by Mr. Johnston and yourself, that Mr. Graham should get possession of the letter pretended to be signed by Mr. S , have it sealed up and marked, and give notice to the speaker and Mr. Paull's solicitor that it should be forthcoming to the house.—What was the message Mr. S. sent by you and Mr. Johnson to Mr. Graham? Mr. S. desired Mr. Johnson to request Mr. Graham would keep the letter, seal it, and let Mr. Paull's solicitor know that the letter was in his possession, in Mr. Graham's possession; after his examinations had been taken, to keep the letter, and not to let it go into the jew's hands any more.—Did Mr. Harris shew any reluctance to accompany you and Mr. Johnson to be examined? No, Mr. Harris went with great seeming pleasure: he wished that his character should be cleared up; as some people said he had obtained the letter in an improper manner: he wished that every investigation should take place; and he gave his testimony very fairly and candidly as it appeared to me, without any reserve."
Cross-examined by Mr. Warren, on behalf of the Petitioner.
"What is your situation in life? I am of no profession at present.—Are you a gentle man, living on your means? I have been concerned in the flour business in Ireland, have property in Ireland; I do not say that I am concerned in the flour business at present, but that is the only occupation I have been concerned in.—How long have you left off that business? I left it off when I found it unprofitable, about 12 months ago. —Do you know Drake's father? I know, a person whom I believe to be Drake's father; I cannot say whether he is Drake's father or not, I have rho reason to doubt it.—Did you ever write to a person whom you suppose to be Drake's father? I did.—Did you believe him to be Drake's father when you wrote to him? I did.—Do you state now that you only suppose him to be Drake's father? As to supposition I do not know, I have no reason to doubt his being Drake's father.— Where do you live? At 29, Knightsbridge. Did you ever see live in Frith-street? I did.—Did you ever see Drake in Frith Street? Yes.—Did any conversation take place on the subject of a letter to Emanuel Harris? Yes.—State what that was. On the 10th of Feb. Shrove Tuesday, Drake came to my house. The day before that, the investigation had taken place before Mr. Graham,
42
the magistrate. That evening he called on me, I asked him if he had written a letter, and got it signed by Mr. S., as was stated by Harris in his examinations; he said that he had given Harris a letter, but that Harris was a very great rascal, and a fellow not to be depended on, and made use of some very improper language; at the same time he told me he had got the letter, and that Mr. S. gave it Harris: I told him that Harris had stated in his examinations, which were taken by Mr. Graham, that Drake obtained a sum of money for a letter for Harris, that Harris gave him a sum of money for the letter which he obtained for him, signed by Mr. S., and he said it is not material about Harris, he is a very great rascal, but he dare not appear, he is afraid of me; I have written two letters to him this week, desiring him to keep out of the way, and not to appear. I told him certainly, that in writing those two letters it appeared to me he had injured his character very much, in desiring a witness, who had been served with an order to attend this house, to keep out of the way; and as to the other letter, I said, I suppose it is of no consequence, but your letters will injure your own character. I told him that. He then said that he did not care, that he would get the letter; that Mr. S. had used him very ill; he had been dancing after him many years, and made him many promises; and that he was offered money by the other party, and that he was determined to give Mr. S. up.—Did you say to Drake, it would be a good thing if he could get that letter from Harris? No.—Did you say any thing about getting the letter from Harris? NO.—When did the acquaintance between you and Drake begin? That evening.—Was there any wine drank that evening? Yes—Much? No, not much. Mr. Drake told me that evening that he could drink 6 bottles of claret without affecting him; and I.told him, as an Irishman, I had no objection to take a bottle of wine with him. He told me he was an Irishman, but a few days afterwards his father told me he was not an Irishman.—At this first meeting between you and Drake, you sat down and took wine together? Yes.—Did any further conversation take place between you and-Drake?. Nothing material took place, that I recollect.—How came yon to write a letter to Drake's father? On going to to Mr. S. s. house another gentleman who was there, and I, advised Mr. S. to have Drackeand Weatherhead both brought before Mr. Graham, the magistrate; and to

43
try if we could not make out a conspiracy between the 3; and I wrote two notes to Mr. Drake's father, to induce him to come to that meeting, in which we intended to bring him to the magistrate.—Had you any communication with Mr. S. on the subject of those letters; did he know that they were written? No, Mr. S. never knew that I wrote to him,or any other person, I believe, except those concerned.—Did be know of it? I never mentioned it to him.—Did Mr. Graham know of it? No, he did not.—At the meeting at Somerset House on the 19th of Feb., who was present? Mr. Drake, Mr. Weatherhead, Mr. Ward, Mr. Sheridan, and your humble servant.—Do you mean to state that you heard no conversation upon the subject of money, between Mr. S. and Mr. Drake, at that meeting? Certainly not, and no such conversation could have taken
place.—Did not Mr. S. say, I believe Mr. Drake, you are poor, and I have it now in my power to place you in such a situation as will make you comfortable? No, nor nothing like it.—Were any other letters written to Drake's father besides that you have mentioned? Not by me.—Do you know of any other being written to Drake's father? No, I do not.—Did not you appoint a meeting between Mr. S. and Drake at his own house? I wrote to him for that purpose.—Whom did you write to? I wrote to Drake's father; I dare say you have the notes there.—I just asked whether you knew of any other letter besides the one you have mentioned? I wrote two notes.—Besides the letter? I wrote no letter to him.—I understood you to state, that you had written a letter to Drake's father? I wrote two notes to Drake's father.—Did not Drake go from your house to Edwards's, to meet Johnson? I do not know where he went to from my house; I did not accompany him.—Did not Drake go from your house with Johnson, in a hackney coach, to meet Mr. Sheridan? I do not know.—What was the date of the last note to Drake's father? I cannot say what the date was, but I know it was for the purpose of getting him to appoint a meeting, for the purpose of bringing them to Mr. Graham's; I believe there was nothing more than "Thursday" or "Monday."—Was it not written on Saturday, the 22d of Feb.? I do not know; it might be.—Was it to meet Mr. Sheridan on Sunday? I believe it was.—Where was it to meet Mr, S.? I really do not know whether it was at my house, or Mr. S.'s; but I advised Mr. S. not to bring them to his house, and I am not certain
44
whether it was not my house. Mr. Drake wished me to go to his house, but I did not choose to go there, and also to bring Mr. S. there, to his lodgings.—Do you know whether Mr. S. has a son of the name of Charles Sheridan? No.—A brother? No.—A nephew, or any other relation? There is a person of that name who lives with me; we live together; he is unwell, or he would have been here.—Did not Alex. Johnson and Drake go together from your house? A. Johnson, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Drake, and I believe 2 or 3 more went away together; I cannot say where they went to."
Examined by the House.
"From what part of Ireland do you come, and what are your family? My family are from the county of Westmeath, in Ireland.—Are you any relation to the bishop of Killala? I am a nephew to the bishop of Killala.—Were you present in the room at Somerset House during all the time, during which Mr. S. and Drake were there? I was.—Did you hear all that passed between Mr. S. and Drake? I did.—Were you so situate as to be able to hear every thing that passed between Mr. S. and Drake? was, I was nearer to Mr. S. than Drake was; there was no low tone of voice made use of by the company, and it was impossible for Mr. S to have made any offer to Mr. Drake or Mr. Weatherhead, that evening.—You are certain nothing then passed which you did not hear? Positively.—And you are certain nothing passed between them on the subject of money? Certainly not.—What were the circumstances that induced you to think it desirable that Mr. Drake should be carried before Mr. Graham? From the substance of the examinations that were taken before Mr. Graham.—How came you acquainted with those examinations? I was present when the examinations were taken before Mr. Graham.—What induced you to be present? Mr. S. requested that I would go down with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Harris, who was a Jew (we had a letter to Mr. Graham), and see that his examination was taken.—You not having been employed during the election, what led you particularly to be employed on this occasion? Nothing, but as a particular friend of Mr. S.—Did Mr. Harris produce the letter? I marked it.—What is become of that letter? It is in the possession of Harris, I believe.—Was not one of the objects of the examination, that the letter should be delivered to Mr. Graham, sealed up? Mr. Graham gave the letter back to the Jew; he said he had been

45
served with an order to produce it, and he would produce it.—Did Mr. S. make any promise to Drake, of giving him a place of profit, at that meeting at Somerset House? No.—Did you state to Mr. Graham, the magistrate, Mr. S.'s request, that the letter should be sealed up, and preserved? I am not certain whether I did or not; I think Mr. Johnson did; and Mr. Graham said, he did not think himself authorized to keep the letter, as there had been an order served on Harris to produce the letter.—Mr. S. has stated, that he gave express directions to you to convey it to the magistrate, that he might seal up the letter? He expressed the wish equally to Mr. Johnson and me.—Did you deliver that message to the magistrate? I am not certain that I did; Mr. Johnson was the principal person; he attended the next day, and I did not; I know Mr. S, requested it, but I will not say that I delivered it.—If you did not deliver the message yourself, did you hear it delivered to Mr. Graham in your presence? I do not remember that I did; but Mr. Graham kept the letter that day, and I understand it was returned the next day.—Do you recollect the day when Harris gave the letter to Mr. Graham? Yes; Monday, the 9th of Feb.—What was the evening on which Drake came to your house, and when there is said to have been the conversation about this letter? The next evening.—Did Harris make any difficulty in giving the letter into the hands of Mr. Graham? Harris parted with the letter rather reluctantly, until Mr. Graham assured him it should be safe, and it should be returned the next day; he said he only wished to :have the letter to bring before the house.—How happened it that Drake came to your house on the 10th? He was sent for, and brought to my house.—By whom was he sent for? By a person of the name of Edwards.—For what purpose? To investigate the business respecting the letter, and to learn what I have already stated to the house.—Why did you wish to examine him about this letter? I wished, and Mr. S. also, from the extraordinary statement which had been made, by Mr. Harris, of the business, wished to have it investigated fully; and there was no other way of investigating it than by getting this man to my house, and having witnesses present.—You desired Edwards to bring him to your house? Yes.—Did Mr. S. know of his being at your house?, Yes, Mr, S. wished he should be examined in respect to the letter, in what manner he got the letter."

Mr. Charles Wm. Ward examined by the House.
"Were you present at a conversation in Somerset Place with Mr. Weatherhead and Mr. Drake, when Mr. S. came in, about 7 o' clock? I was.—Where did Drake state himself to have been, and what did he state as to the necessity of his returning again to the country? 'That he had been in Hampshire, hunting in the company of Mr. Cobbett; that he had a cottage, which he had lately purchased, in Hampshire ; that he had just come to town.—Did Mr. S. ever whisper with Mr. Drake, or have any conversation in a way which could not be heard by any person in the room? It was impossible without my having heard it.—Did Mr. S. offer any money, or any thing whatever, to Mr. Drake? There was nothing offered in my presence.—When Mr. Drake stated that he was about to leave town the next morning, what did Mr. S. say? That he must not leave town, that he must be in the way.—In what character was Mr. Weatherhead introduced? In the character of a clergyman; and, on my observing that he must be chaplain of the ship, and Mr. Drake hesitating, Mr. S. asked what ship he was chaplain of; Mr. Drake said, it was his brother was a clergyman; that he was frequently making that mistake.—What did Mr. S. declare was his intention and motive for desiring them to call the next morning? I understood it was, that they should be in the way.—Did you ever hear Drake say, that he had received considerable sums of money by a legacy, or by prize-money? By a legacy.—Did you ever hear him state, that he had got the command of a brig, or sloop, and must go down to take the command? That he had got the command of the Thisbe brig; this was on the 10th; and that he must go on the following morning, which was the 11 th."

Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford, ore behalf of the Petitioner.
"How long have you been acquainted, with lieut. Drake? I saw him for the first time upon the 10th of Feb.—Where?. At Mr. Homan's in Frith street.—At what time of the day? About 8 or 9 in the evening.—Did you go away in company with him? I did.—Who else were of the party that went away in company with him? Mr. Johnston and Mr, Edwards.—Where did you go to? To Mr. Edwards's house in South-street.—Whom did you meet at Mr. Edwards's? I did not go into the house.—Where did you go, afterwards that evening? To the next door, Mr. Thomas Sheridan's.—Did you

47
Meet Mr. T. Sheridan there? Yes.—Had you previously gone to Mr. Homan's, by appointment of Mr. Sheridan, the father, or Mr. T. Sheridan? I was at Mr. T. Sheridan's at dinner, and Mr. S. desired me to go to Mr. Homan's to see this Drake.—Do you mean, that Mr. S. the father, or Mr. T S., desired you? Mr. S., the father.—What was the conversation that took place between you and Mr. S , as, to what had passed at Mr. Homan's, or in the coach? I started the intentions of Drake, and that he wanted very much to see him; that it was necessary for him to go out of town the next morning to his ship, and that he must go that evening to his agents for money,—What answer did he make? That he would see him.—Was he brought in, and did Mr. S. see him? No; Mr. S. went into the adjoining house.—How many persons were in the room where Mr. S. and Mr. T. S. were, when you went. in and stated this? Only Mr, T. S., who sent for Mr. S.—Did Mr. S., before you went from dinner to the house of Mr. Homan, tell you the reason he wished you to go there to see Mr. Drake? Yes.—What was the-reason? That he understood Drake, had something of importance to communicate to him, and that he wished me to go and ascertain what it was before he saw him, being reluctant to see him.—Did Mr. S. say any thing against the character of Mr. Drake? He stated generally, that he believed he was a bad character.—Did Mt. S. state. any reason for believing him to butt bad character, within his knowledge? That he had been living an idle life on the town, a dissolute life.—Do you mean to say, that my. S. stated, that leading an idle and dissolute life was proof of a bad character? I made that inference.—Did Mr. S., at the time he desired you to go to Mr. Homan's, say any thing to you as to any acquaintance with him during the Westminster election? No, he did not.—You have stated that Wetherhead was introduced at Mr. S.'s house by Drake as a clergyman? Yes.—How came you to be there; were you desired to meet Drake? I was invited to dine with Mr. S., and was waiting for his return from the house.—Did you, before you went, know that Drake was to be there? I did not.—Was any surprize expressed by Mr. S. at Drake introducing an acquaintance of this description? He was surprized at seeing two gentlemen; in the room.—when you say that he was surprized at seeing two gentlemen in the room,. do you mean that he expressed any surprize at seeing strangers, or that he acknowledged them as acquaintance? He acknowledged
48
Drake as an acquaintance undoubtedly, and Drake introduced Mr. Wetherhead as a perfect stranger.—What was the surprize Mr. S. expressed at Drake introducing a stranger? I do not know how to answer that question, I cannot distinguish the kind of surprize.—You have stated that you were nearer to Drake at this Meeting on the 19th of Feb., than Mr. S. was? No, I was not nearer to him, but I was standing before the fire.—You certainly stated that there was no whispering? Certainly I did.—And that nothing could have been stated, or said there, which you should not have heard? Certainly.—How came you to pay such particular attention to the conduct of Mr. S. that day? Because I suspected that there was some improper motive in bringing Mr. Wetherhead there.—Did yon know Mr. Wetherhead before? No, but I had heard Drake's character, and when he brought an acquaintance there, I thought they were similar.—Had you not heard Mr. Drake's character from Mr. S.? I had, on the 10th—Were you not desired to come there by Mr. S. on purpose to be a witness of what was going on? No, I was asked to dine there.—Did you ever hear Mr. S. say any thing about the bad-character of Drake, till a charge was made against Mr. S. himself? I heard it upon, the 10th of Feb.?—Did you ever hear any thing against the character of Drake from Mr. S. before the 10th of Feb? I never heard his name mentioned.—Did not Mr. S. on the 10th of Feb., when he mentioned the bad character of Drake, inform you that Drake was to be a witness against him? He did not."

Examined by the House.
"Did the gentlemen who were present at Mr. Homan's on the evening of the 10th, leave Mr. Homan's for South-street together? We did, in the same coach.—Did you go away together in consequence of any proposition or arrangement that took place on tho evening of the 10th? Mr. Drake expressed great anxiety to see Mr. S. that evening, the only evening he had; Mr. Edwards got a coach, and I of course went with that.—Do you know that Mr. S. was brought from sir Gilbert Heathcote's to South-street? I mentioned what I knew to Mr. T. S. and he wrote a note to his father Mr. S.—What conversation passed between Drake and Mr. S. when Mr. S. came to Somerset-place? It was entirely confined to Mr. Drake's new purchase, and his hunting with Mr. Cobbett.
Aaron Graham, Esq. examined by the House.
"Do you recollect receiving a letter from Mr. Sheridan, desiring you to do Mr. S. the

49
favour of coming to Somerset-place, to examine a person? It was the 9th of, Feb.—Have you the letter with you? I have. [Mr. Graham delivered it in, and it was read.]—What answer or communication did Mr. S. receive from you upon the subject? The person who brought me the letter was a Mr. Johnston, belonging to the theatre. I returned for answer, that I did not think it at all proper to go down to Somerset House to take the examination; that if the party had done any thing improper, which required an examination, if the party was sent to me, I would take the examination.—In consequence of that, did Mr. Harris, accompanied by Mr. Johnston and Mr. Homan, attend you? In about half an hour afterwards Mr. Johnston returned with a man by the name of Harris, and said he was the person whom Mr. S. wished to be examined.—Did Harris swear to the examination? I took his examination in writing, and he signed it, and swore to it.—Have you the examination with you? I have; it was taken in two days, because, before I had finished with him, I was obliged to leave for a business which required my attention, and I finished with him the next morning.—Had not you a communication from Mr. S., that it was his wish that you should keep the paper with a notice to the Speaker, or to Mr. Paull's solicitor, that it should be forthcoming? Such a request was made to me by Mr. Johnston. I did keep it one night, not on account of that, but because I had not finished the examination; when the examination was closed I should have thought it highly improper to keep a thing which was to be produced.—Did you mark the letter? I made him mark the letter, to see that it was the same letter that I returned again next day.—Was Mr. S. present at either of the examinations either day? Certainly not.—Did Mr. S. see you to converse with you respecting the examinations, or did he see the examination till last Sunday? The only communication which passed on the subject was, that I sent a message by Mr. Johnston. I think that I had gone through the examination, that I was perfectly satisfied in my own mind that Harris had got the letter from Drake, and that I wished he would send Drake to me, that I might learn whom he got from. Mr. Johnston afterwards called to tell me that he had seen. Drake, and endeavoured to prevail on him to come to me, but could not do it.—Did Mr. J. know the particulars of that examination? Mr. J. was present at the examination.

Emanuel Harris examined by the House.
How came you first to see Mr. Sheridan, or to go to Somerset-place? I was served with a Speaker's warrant from the house of commons by Mr. Boswell of Gosport; he applied to me several times for the letter I received from Mr. Drake.—Was any money or temptation held out to you by Mr. Boswell, or any other person, to give up that letter? When Mr. Boswell served me with the warrant, a day or two after he met me, and says, Mr. Harris, do you want any money? I said, no, Mr. Boswell. There was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Joseph, who keeps a shop at Gosport; he said, Harris, do you hear what Mr. Boswell said? I said, I do, sir; he then said, will you go up tonight with me in a post-chaise? I said, no, sir; I am going up, but I shall go up in the stage: I did not go up that night, but a night or two after. When I arrived in town on the 5th of Feb. I was not scarce half an hour in my house when Mr. Boswell and Mr. Jukes, the banker from Gosport, arrived at my house; they came and applied to me for the letter I had from Mr. Drake, signed R. B. Sheridan, Treasurer of the. Navy. I immediately went away; I told them to wait a little, I would let them know in a minute whether I would let them have it or not I made my way out of the house, and went over to Mr. Sheridan's house; I live in Holy well-street. When I went into Mr. Sheridan's, I saw Mr. Burgess, he was there, and I told him the case, that there were two gentlemen at my house; I have a letter so and so, which I have by me; there are two gentlemen want it: I do not know whether I do right to deliver that letter out of my hands, as I have a Speaker's warrant which I shall obey. I went away. Mr. Burgess told Mr. Jukes and Mr. Boswell that he would send them to Bow-street, if they came to inquire for the letter, Which they had no right to do; however they went away that day. At that time Mr. Burgess said, Mr. Harris, I shall come to you presently again; I said very well, sir. He came to me about an hour after; I said, how do you do, Mr. Burgess? he said, how, do you do Mr. Harris ? He said, I shall be very happy to see you this evening, about 5 o'clock; I said, I will attend you; I shall be at home. He came and asked, will you have the goodness to walk over to Mr. Sheridan's? I did, and took the letter with me, and showed it to Mr. Sheridan. After a few words I went home, and they applied for the letter again, and I told Mr. Burgess of it,

51
and Mr. Burgess and Mr. Sheridan advised me to let them have the letter, which I told them I could not by any means; as I had a warrant from the house of commons to produce it, I should certainly obey it. They said, they thought it could not be any harm for me to give it up; I said, I could not do any thing of the kind.—Did not Mr. Burgess advise you to deliver the letter to a messenger of this house? I do say so.—Had not you another letter, some considerable time before yon had this letter, purporting to be signed by Mr. Sheridan?. Yes, pretty near a month I dare say; being blotted, I showed it to my friends, and asked them what they thought of the letter? they said, if you can get one with the signature of it more plain, it will be better. I went back to Mr. Drake and said, I should thank you, Mr. Drake, if you could get a letter signed more plain by Mr. Sheridan, the Treasurer of the Navy; but that letter had M. P. to it, which I thought not proper, as there was no parliament.—What was the distance of time between your receiving the first and the second letter? About 3 months, when Mr. Drake was so long about giving me the other letter. I will tell you the particulars: I paid him for the letter, I gave him money for his trouble. I says, Mr. Drake, if you will get me a letter which will be of great service to me in my business, you shall not do it for nothing: he said, well, Harris, what will you give me? I said, will a 10l. note satisfy you? he said, yes, as you are a neighbour, I do not wish so much as that; I will be satisfied with 5; however, Mr. Drake has had to the amount of 51. 8s. of me for the letter.—When Mr. S. expressed his surprise at your believing it possible for him to have signed that letter, did you not state that admiral Colpoys and admiral Parker, and others had signed such letters? Yes, and I can name the parties; it is an usual thing for gentlemen to give such letters. There is the duke of Clarence; Mr. Zachariah has one.—Did you not go of yourself, voluntarily, and give your evidence to Mr. Graham? I certainly did. When I applied to Mr. S. I said I would advertise Mr. Drake, when I heard the letter was a forgery. Mr. S. said "it is a pity to do that; he will "receive his punishment." I wished several times to advertise him, because I could not find him.—Was any means taken by Mr. Drake to offer you money, or reward, to get that letter out of your possession? There is a gentleman of the name of Mr.
52
Dawes, who can prove that he offered me money; and he said he would take me to a place, and I should not come to any harm. He offered me 30 or 40; and I said, I would not for any sum give the letter out of my hands to any person.—To whom is the letter addressed? I have the letter; it is to captains and commanders of his majesty's ships of war. I have the letter here. He stated that the signature only was Mr. S's. writing.—[The letter was read, and is as follows:] " London, . Nov. 3, 1806.—Sir, The bearer is a respectable tradesman; and if you will permit him to serve the ship under your command, I am certain justice will be done to every man on board that employs him to fit him out with clothes, &c.; and in so doing you will greatly oblige your obedient, &c. R. B. Sheridan. Somerset Place, Treasurer of the Navy. To Captains and Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War."—Had you yourself ever any personal knowledge of Mr. S's. hand-writing? No.—Had you ever the slightest intercourse with Mr. S. before this time? Never before the 5th of Feb. last.—Was the first or the second letter connected with any condition, that you should procure for Mr. S. any number of votes for the Westminster election? NO, not one; I am sorry to say that I did not get one vote.—To the best of your knowledge, what became of the first letter? I asked Mr. Drake what became of the first letter; and he said he destroyed it, because he did not think two should be in circulation.—You gave it back to Mr. Drake? Yes; I asked him how it became so blotted, and he said Mr. S. dried it with the cuff of his coat.—That was 3 or 4 months before the second letter was obtained? About a month, or 5 weeks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Petitioner.
Look at that signature (R. B. Sheridan); it appeals to be blotted, does, not it? Yes.—Were you present when that blotting took place? I do not know.—When first that letter was delivered to you, was there any blotting on the name of R. B. Sheridan? I cannot say whether there was or not.—Was there any blotting upon the name there, after you came to town? That I cannot answer. When I was served with a warrant I took and locked it in a trunk of mine in the same piece of paper it is in now, and I took it and kept it at home, and never had it out of doors since.—Do you mean to say you cannot tell whether that blot on the name of R. B. Sheridan took place before or after you

53
came to town? I do mean to say so, do not know.—Do you mean to say that blot did not arise from ink thrown upon it by Mr. S. in your presence? I cannot say that, because I know nothing at all about it.—Did not you deliver that letter after you came to town into the hands of Mr. S.? Not our of my sight.—Did you deliver it into his hands? I let him have it into his hand, and take out a copy of it.—Was there an ink-stand near, when he had it? It was in my sight, and if any person had touched it I should have seen it; I saw no person touch it.—Will you venture to swear, that at the time you delivered it to Mr. S. the blot was on his name? I cannot say any thing about that, for I took no notice of it.—Had not you been in the habit of using that letter day by day at Portsmouth, for above 2 ,months before you came to town? No.—Where were you when you Were served with the Speaker's summons to attend before the committee? In Mr. Boswell's house at Gosport.—You have stated that Mr. Boswell asked you if you wanted money? Yes.—What did he ask you if you wanted money for? I do not know; he asked me if I would let him have the letter for 24 hours, that he would give me bank-security if I would, 10 or 20l. That I can bring proof of by respectable persons, Mr. Joseph of Gosport.—Was the bank-security for the return of the letter, or for his not keeping it beyond the 24 hours? I would not let him have it on any conditions.—What did he offer you bank-security for? For returning the letter.—You have stated the names of different persons whose letters you have seen used? I have not seen them; I have heard of their being used.—You have stated that you went to the magistrate voluntarily to give your evidence; at whose desire did you go? My own, because I wanted to have it advertised in the paper; I was not satisfied with having a forgery in my possession.—When was that? I have marked the date upon the letter, it is the 9th of Feb.—The letter, I think, you stated to be dated the 3d of Nov.? Yes.—When did you first discover it was a forgery, and think it necessary to go and make your complaint to the magistrate? When I was told of it.—When was that? When I applied to Mr. S.—When did you first apply to Mr. S.? When I first came to town, the 5th Feb. that night.—Had you not been using that letter for the purpose of selling your slops, till you saw Mr. S. on the 5th Feb. at night? I had not, because I locked it up, and would
54
not make any use of it, after I was served with the Speaker's, warrant. I had been in the habit of delivering letters into men of war, where they have taken them, and torn them, and thrown them overboard, and I was afraid of their serving this letter the same.—When were you served with the Speaker's warrant? The 12th Jan. is the date here; I cannot exactly state whether that was the day.—I believe it was the 20th? It might be.—Did you ever suggest to Mr. S. any doubt of the signature till you had been served with the Speaker's warrant? I never applied to Mr. S. till the 5th of Feb. and then he told me so; and I said it was better to advertise Mr. Drake if I could not find him.—How came you not to apply to Mr. S. if you thought this a forgery, till you were served with the Speaker's warrant? I did not think it was a forgery till the 5th of Feb.—Who told you so then? Mr. S.—How came you to go to Mr. S. to ask him about it? Because I was served with the Speaker's warrant; and these people applying to me for the letter, I went and asked him whether I might give it up or not.—When Mr. Boswell served you with the Speaker's ,warrant, did he not tell you that you were to be called to support the petition of Mr. Paull? He told me I was to apply to the house of commons on the 24th of Feb.; and he asked me if I had not a letter in my possession, signed by R. B. Sheridan, Treasurer of the Navy, I said, yes; and he said, would I let him look at it? I Said, I had no objection. He asked whether I would let him take a copy, and I did.—Did not you know, from Mr. Boswell, that it was on the behalf of Mr. Paull that you were summoned? Yes.—How came you to go to Mr. S.? Because, several times they applied to me for the letter, and that was the only reason I went to Mr. S. I live at Portsea, and Mr. Boswell at Gosport; and every now and then they sent over to me, and asked me for the letter. I did not think it proper to give it them; I told them I should go up to town, and have advice upon it: I would not act upon my own opinion.—When were those applications first made to you by those persons? Several times after I was served with the precept.

Examined by the House.
Did you vote at the election for Westminster? Yes.—For whom? For Mr. S.—Did you vote before you received that letter? believe it was 9 or 10 days afterwards.—Did you apply to Drake in the first instance to

55
get the first letter? I asked him for it at a place where I was. I took him with me to a meeting one night.—You stated that you knew several persons in your trade who have letters of that description: did you apply to him for a letter from Mr. S. ? I said, if he could get me a letter from an admiral; I did not know any thing of Mr. S.—You have stated that you were present when Mr. S. took a copy of this letter; who was present besides you? Mr. Johnston was in the room.—Did you not think the name of the person who fills the office of treasurer of the navy, would have a better effect signed to his letter, than even the name of an admiral? I do not know.—What use did you intend to make of that letter? For an introduction.—How was the introduction to be procured?. When I have got a letter of this sort in my possession, and I go alongside a ship, I hand it up the side, saying, I have a letter for the commanding officer and they look at it if they please to take it into the ship; then if they please or not to admit the person who has the letter.—Would you not prefer a letter from sir Isaac Coffin, to a letter from the treasurer of the navy? Yes.

Mrs. Butler examined by the House.
Have you sufficient means of knowing the character of Mr. Weatherhead? Yes, I have. His brother, whenever he came to town, logged at my house; and whenever he came he asked for his brother, and he has often sent for him; he is a poor unfortunate person; he was born in the year 1760; here is his age.—What is your opinion of Mr. Weatherhead, and would you believe his testimony on oath? I could not believe his .testimony at all; he is a man of very bad character; he used to go out and be torn all to pieces, and his brother was quite ashamed of him.—Is he of that reputation you would not believe him upon his oath? I would not believe him for a farthing, upon his oath.—With what company has he associated? The last time he was in my house, he was in company with Robertson, who was hung lately; that was a few clays before Robertson was taken up; I never saw him till this evening and then he went away the moment he saw me.—Was he acquainted with a person of the name of Bazeley? Yes, he lived with the same woman; Bazeley lived with a girl of the name of Lucy Wallis.—Robertson was hung? Yes, and Bazeley too.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warren on behalf the Petitioner.
What is this house of your's? My house is the Queen's Head.—What do you deal
56
in? Spirits, and porter, and wines, and all sorts of liquor.—Is it a house open in the night-time? It is open for the market in the morning.—Is it open all night? No, it is. not.—The greatest part of the night? From between 3 and 4 in the morning; I open it then.—Did you know Robertson yourself? Yes I did.—And Bazeley too? Yes.—Ans Lucy Wallis? Yes.—Were they all your acquaintance? They were none of my acquaintance but curiosity led me to know them.
Mr. Paullwas examined respecting some letters said to have passed between him and B. Hart. He acknowledged the hand-writing, and was proceeding to offer some observations upon the question to the house, when he was reminded by the Speaker of the capacity in which he then stood at the bar of the house.
Mr. B Hartwas next examined. He had been employed by Mr. Paull during the election; he did not, however, consider himself as Mr. Paull's agent. Mr. Paull called at his house and left his card: he called a second time, and requested him to come to his house, Charles-street, St. James's-square, which he did, when Mr. Paull entreated him to exert his influence to procure him votes. About a week after the election he had some conversation with Mr. Paull and Mr. Powell respecting some suspicions that had gone abroad about bad votes said to have been given to Mr. Sheridan, and they recommended to him to endeavour to procure information respecting that matter; he however soon after fell ill, in which state he continued some weeks, and had not seen Mr. Paull since.
Mr. Sheridanwas proceeding to ask the witness several more questions respecting his employment during the election, whether he did accompany Mr. Paull in his carriage to and from the hustings, &c. &c., when
Lord Howickobserved, that his hon. friend, according to his own principle laid down on a former occasion, thought it best not to touch upon the general conduct of the election, but merely upon the allegations contained in the petition.
Mr. Sheridansaid, that such was the object he had in view; but he thought it necessary, at the same time, to ascertain the characters of the persons who were made the instruments to attempt to prove these allegations, and carry on one of the foulest conspiracies that the malignity of man had ever conceived.—The examination and testimony of the last witness was then ordered to be expunged from the minutes taken at he bar, on the ground that it entered too

57
much into the merits of the petition to be entertained by the house.
Mr. Sheridanobserved, that, if the house should deem it necessary to adapt any further proceedings relative to what was disclosed at their bar, there were several other witnesses in readiness, whom, perhaps, it might be thought necessary to call in, as they might possibly corroborate many of the particulars which had fallen from the other witnesses, or fill up some trifling chasms in the evidence; for his own part, however, he did not mean to trouble the house with any farther evidence, but was perfectly satisfied to let his case rest where it was. The papers which had been moved for that night, by a noble lord (Howick), world be sufficient to shew that there was not a word of truth in what had been said by Drake and another, who was thought to be a principal witness on the part of the petitioner.
Lord Howickdeclared his firm conviction, that a foul and scandalous conspiracy had been entered into against the sitting member; and in order that the house might have an opportunity of judging more precisely as to the quality of the .evidence which had been adduced at their bar, he moved that the evidence be printed, which was ordered accordingly.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that it might be neceesary to take some measure to secure the future attendance of the witnesses at the bar, in case the house should think fit to take any further steps relative to the nature of the evidence which they had heard,—The house then ordered, that the further proceeding on the Westminster petition and evidence should be resumed on Friday the 15th instant, and that the witnesses should attend on that day.
Mr. Sheridanthought it but justice to Mr. Cobbett to state, before the rising of the house, that notwithstanding What Drake had asserted, he was fully satisfied that he was entirely unconnected with the scandalous proceedings which had been taken against him.