HC Deb 27 April 1808 vol 11 cc84-6

In the committee of supply, Mr. Foster moved, that there be granted to his majesty a sum not exceeding 10,000l. Irish currency, to defray the ex-pence of publishing proclamations and advertisements in the Dublin Gazette, and other papers for the year 1808.

Mr. Parnell

rose for the purpose of moving, that the words 'and other papers,' be left out. He stated that these proclamations were extended by government to other papers merely for the purpose of undue influence. There was no necessity for this: it entailed an exorbitant expence on the country, which was increased as much as possible by the editors of newspapers, for their own emolument. He instanced three cases out of many in which old proclamations were actually inserted for no other purpose; one of them was of so old a date as 1805, warning all his majesty's good and loving subjects in 1808, of a fever which raged at Gibraltar at the first issuing of the proclamation. A second was also inserted in 1808, giving notice of a limitation to the exportation of goods from Ireland, which limitation expired in 1807. A third was lately inserted also, giving notice of a supply of seamen wanted in 1805. Such was the service for the support of which parliament was now solicited; if he did not miscall that a service which was in itself unnecessary, or made necessary only for the purposes of corruption.

Sir A. Wellesley

contended, that there was no additional expence incurred by the re-publication of those old proclamations which were alluded to, as the editors were generally paid by the year, and not for each particular publication. As to any attempt at influence, he disclaimed it as far as concerned himself altogether; nor did he think the publica- tion of these proclamations any proof of such an intention. It was notorious, that amid a variety of Irish papers there were many particularly adverse to the government of the day, which contained these proclamations.

Mr. Windham

considered the admission of the last speaker conclusive in support of the amendment moved by his hon. friend. If the editors of newspapers wished to promote the sale of their papers, they would, naturally, reprint all those proclamations which referred to important national objects, and where there were minor or subordinate documents, the parties interested in their operation would take care to inform themselves of their nature and tendency by means of the Dublin Gazette. The present mode was proved to be a job, and ought instantly to be abolished.

Sir A. Wellesley

said he could not see how the grant of that money was in any degree abused; it certainly was not his fault if the editors made a bad selection of proclamations.

Mr. Parnell

said, there appeared to him to be a regular traffic carried on between the press and the government in Ireland; it seemed as if the first step of each succeeding ministry was to see what each editor would sell for. There was a peculiar loss attending the insertion of these proclamations, inasmuch as they paid no stamp duty, and so prevented the insertion of advertisements that did. As to the arguments made use of to shew the disinterestedness of government by extending the proclamations to opposition papers, he thought they made against those who produced them, as they shewed not only an inclination to increase the expence to the country, but also to try to the utmost what temptation could do.

Mr. Croker

said, that being intimate with an editor of an Irish newspaper, he had remarked to him particularly the circumstances now alluded to, that of the reprinting old proclamations. The answer the editor gave was "Indeed, to tell you the truth, we often are so barren of news, and so pinched for want of paragraphs, that we consider ourselves very well off when we can make shift with a convenient proclamation; it, is not very interesting to be sure, but then it serves to fill up the paper."—He said inferior newspapers only republished them.

Mr. Parnell

said, he had not intended to state the names of the papers he al- luded to before, but now he would do so, for the purpose of shewing they were not inferior papers, as the hon. member seemed to insinuate; the papers were, the Evening Correspondent, and the Dublin Journal.—The amendment was then negatived without a division.