Sitting of 24 March 1808

WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION.
The Speakerinformed the house, that the Petition, complaining of an undue election and return for the city and liberty of Westminster, having been appointed to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday last, at half an hour after three in the afternoon, the right hon. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the petitioner, did not appear before the house, by himself, his counsel, or agents, within one hour after the time so appointed; and that, in pursuance of an act, made in the 28th year of his present majesty, he had certified into the court of exchequer the Recognizance entered into in respect of the said petition, and had also certified the default which had been made in the performance of the condition of the said recognizance.

IRISH GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS.
Mr. Fitzgeraldrose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers relative to the mode of raising money by the Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. He wished to avoid any discussion on the subject till the papers were laid on the table; but he would state the course he meant to pursue, and the object he had in view, in order to prevent misconception. He moved for these papers on two grounds: first, with reference to the amount of the sums raised, and secondly, with respect to the mode of raising them. He did not mean to question the powers of the Grand Juries, or to transfer these powers to any other quarter. But he wished to have some more equal mode of collecting the tax, and a better mode of accounting for the money. He intended once to include all this in a bill relative to the Irish roads; but the subject was so extensive and important that it would be better to refer it to a committee of the house, by which means it might come more particularly under the review of such as were acquainted with the mode of raising, applying and accounting for county money in England. An account of the amount had been already laid on the table. What he wanted now was an account of the mode of application, of the way in which the money was accounted for, and of the time the grand juries had for the

1251
performance of this duty. He therefore moved first, for an account of the presentments for raising money during the spring and summer assizes in 1807, specifying the mode of application. 2d. For copies of the Quere Books in the hands of the Irish treasurer, as far as related to the above period, with a view to shew the method of accounting. And 3dly, For the number or informations and bills of indictment before the grand juries, during the same period, and the time the assizes continued.—After some observations from Mr. Foster and sir J. Newport, the motions were agreed to.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,after moving the order of the day for going into a committee on the Petitions against the Orders in Council, thought it right, before he should move that the Speaker do leave the chair, to state the course which he proposed to recommend to the house to adopt, on the subject of the examination of other witnesses, and which, upon inquiry, he found to be conformable to the precedents of the practice of the house on similar occasions. It was therefore not his intention to move this day for the production of other evidence, but according to the practice of the house to allow the present petitioners to close their case, and afterwards to hear the observations of their counsel, upon the evidence produced by them. It would then be competent to the house, if the evidence should not appear sufficient, to call upon the other petitioners, or upon other witnesses, and to examine them, touching the subject. But as it might not be fair, to call upon the learned counsel, suddenly, to submit his observations to the house, upon the evidence, he proposed, that, however short the time might be, which would be occupied this night in the examination of the remaining witnesses, the business should stand over till Tuesday, when the learned counsel should he heard upon the evidence.
Mr. Tierneythought, that even the course proposed on the preceding evening, by the right hon. gent. that of hearing the contrary evidence, and of being present by their counsel to cross-examine the witnesses that should be brought forward, before he was finally to sum up, would have been much more desirable for the petitioners than that now suggested. It would be peculiarly hard upon the petitioners, if evidences should be brought forward to disprove the allega-
1252
tions of their petition, and contravert the evidence they produced in support of them, that they should not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses by their counsel, or call other witnesses in support of their case. The house was placed in a novel situation by the course pursued by the right hon. gent. though all these difficulties might be avoided, if the proceeding had originated in a committee of trade.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerinsisted that the proceeding was perfectly regular, and adverted to the precedent of the course adopted upon a Petition against the Tobacco bill in the year 1790, as fully in point; on which occasion the petitioners evidence and counsel had been heard at the bar; and the house had afterwards thought fit to call for other witnesses, and to examine with respect to the matter of the petition and the evidence brought forward in support of it.
Mr. Tierneyacquiesced for the present, but reserved to himself the right to oppose the course proposed by the right hon. gent. if it should appear to him not to be regular.
The Speakerthen laid down the practice of the house in a clear and satisfactory manner. Whatever course it should ultimately please the house to adopt, the proceeding, he observed had been hitherto perfectly regular. In the opposition which had been given to the Boston port bill, and the bill to restrain the Trade of New England, petitioners had been heard by their counsel at the bar of this house, and evidence examined in support of their petitions, but that had not precluded the house from taking such other steps as were deemed expedient to investigate the allegations of the petitioners. There were many instances of the examination of witnesses upon petitions, at the bar of the house, but the later practice had been to examine witnesses at the bar in a committee of the whole house. As to the proceeding in a Committee of Trade, when petitioners presented themselves to that house, and prayed to be heard by their counsel, the practice was, if their petition was received, to accede to the prayer of it, and by the habit of the house, after hearing evidence, to permit the counsel to sum up the whole at the conclusion of the case. The house had then many courses, any one of which it might adopt, but it was quite impossible that a committee of the whole house should be tied up by the

1253
evidence produced in support of the allegations of the petitions, which might be erroneous partial, absurd, or even false, as might be proved by other evidence. There were also many cases wherein the house, without any claim made on the part of an adverse party to be heard, had thought fit for its own satisfaction to call for further evidence, after the Petitioners case had closed. The Tobacco case, which had been referred to by the rt. hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, was one of that description. For, after the petitioner and his counsel had closed the case and withdrawn, the house ordered other witnesses to attend, and the committee sat again to hear the evidence of these witnesses, and the house took other proceedings thereon. If any gentleman had any doubts on the subject, he would do well to consider that case. The case of the Shop Tax bill was similar. The proceedings, therefore, had been hitherto all regular, and the next step would be to hear out the case of the petitioners, and the observations of their counsel in summing, after which the house would decide whether it should order other witnesses to attend, or whether other evidence should be necessary.
The house then resolved itself into the committee, and proceeded with the examination of the remaining witnesses in support of the Petitions. Mr. Garland, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Rathbone were the witnesses examined. After the examination was closed it was agreed by the gentlemen who conducted it on both sides, that progress should be reported, and that the committee should sit again on Tuesday.

EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.
The Earl of Suffolkrose pursuant to notice, to move for the Correspondence which had passed between his majesty's ministers and Mr. Garlike, respecting the hostile designs of the court of Denmark against this country, which it had been asserted, were made evident by that correspondence. It was desirable indeed that satisfactory evidence should be laid before the house, in proof of the expediency or necessity which induced ministers to embark in such a violent and unwarrantable measure as the
1248
attack upon Copenhagen. He had as yet heard no argument or explanation to satisfy his mind on these points. He was therefore anxious, that some proof might be adduced that would demonstrate that necessity, and rescue the name and character of the country from the shame and degradation which that ill-starred expedition must otherwise fix upon them. It was, moreover, necessary to vindicate the individual character of Mr. Garlike, with whose dispatches ministers had taken a liberty unauthorized by any practice of parliament with which he was acquainted. The noble lord concluded with moving an Address to his majesty, praying that directions be given to lay before the house such Correspondence as had taken place between Mr. Garlike and the Secretary of State from Nov. 1806 to July 1807, respecting the designs which, in conjunction with Russia, Denmark was supposed to be entertaining against tins country.
Lord Hawkesbaryobserved, that if the noble earl had attended former debates, he must have known that the Papers he now moved for had already been refused, and that the motion, the object of which was to have them produced, had been negatived, after a mature and long discussion: such Papers having been produced in another place, was no reason why they should be laid before their lordships, the more so, as no special grounds had been stated for producing them, and as the subject to which they related had long since been thoroughly investigated and solemnly decided on. As no necessity whatever was shewn for the production of such papers at the present moment, he thought himself perfectly justified in opposing the motion which had been proposed by the noble earl.
Earl Greyargued in support of the motion. When these very documents were moved for in another place, they had been refused on the plea that the production of them might be detrimental to the public interests; yet, when the same papers were afterwards moved for in order to vindicate the character of an individual, all apprehensions of public danger vanished, and in order to clear the character of that individual, the correspondence was produced. The noble lord concluded with a warm panegyric on the conduct of Mr. Garlike, which in all the situations that gentleman had been placed in, was uniformly marked by ability, integrity, and zeal.
Lord Hawkesburymost cheerfully coin-

1249
cided in every praise that could be bestowed on Mr. Garlike, of whose merits he had long been so convinced, that he had omitted no opportunity of recommending him for promotion to his majesty. As to the Copenhagen Expedition, every thing that had since happened, only confirmed him in the opinion of the expediency, indeed the absolute necessity of that expedition.
Lord Grenvillesupported the motion, contending that the house were still very imperfectly informed upon this subject. He did not approve of making public a whole series of diplomatic correspondence, of that they had in one instance experienced the ill effects, but in this case he thought it important that the information asked for should be granted, in order that the house might be better enabled to discuss these points immediately connected with it.
Lord Mulgrave,conceiving that the noble lord had alluded to the correspondence laid before parliament when he (lord Mulgrave) quitted the foreign office, entered into a justification of his conduct upon that occasion, and said, that if there was any thing to blame in that transaction, noble lords ought to have made it the subject of inquiry. In the course of his speech he alluded to the appointment of Mr. Adair to Vienna, and to the rumours respecting the supposed secret mission of that gentleman upon a former occasion to St. Petersburgh, which probably a noble lord on the other side (the relation of the person who sent him) could explain.
Lord Hollandrose considerably agitated by the allusion reflecting on the conduct of Mr. Fox, in a transaction which happened nearly 20 years ago, and of which he was certainly too young at the time to know the circumstances. The insinuations upon it, however, had been so repeatedly proved to be absurd, that nothing but the perverse spirit which had been manifested that night, could have again brought it up. The noble lord had said, that if the conduct of the ministers who had made the coalition that ended so fatally for Austria was criminal, it ought to have been questioned. To this lord Holland replied, that probably his friends ought to have instituted an inquiry into it. Their motives of forbearance, he thought, would have been obvious to every noble lord, viz. that as the administration who bad made that coalition, had lost the person who was most distinguished for talents, they thought it illiberal to pursue the rest of the body.
Lord Mulgravedisclaimed the slightest intention of wounding the feelings of the noble lord.—The question was then put, and negatived.