rose to call the attention of the house to a particular circumstance in the papers laid upon the table in consequence of a motion of a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Windham.) The numbers said to be recruited in a certain period were stated to he 503. But 396 boys were also mentioned. He wished to know, from the sec. at war, whether these 396 boys were an addition to the 503, or were included in them?

said they were included in the 503.

wished that the letter of service for the recruiting should be produced.

said, that the letter of service was very long. He held an abstract of it in his hand, which, though not come from the war office, and, therefore, not strictly official, he intended to lay before the 'house. But if the hon. gent. wished for the whole of the letter of service, he should endeavour to get it ready as soon as possible.

thought that the spirit of his hon. friend's inquiry rendered it proper that the official and regular letter should be produced.—Agreed to.

pursuant to his notice on a former day, rose, for the purpose of submitting to the house certain motions on the subject of the financial situation of Ireland. As he understood from a communication with the right hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Foster), that no objection would be made to the production of the papers for which he proposed to move, it would not be necessary for him to trespass long on the attention of the house. He should, therefore, barely state to the house the nature of the motions which it was his intention to propose; first, with respect to the amount of all sums that had been drawn from this country, by way of loans, for the service of Ireland; and next for an account of all orders from the lords of the treasury in Ireland on that subject. But, as in all probability, he should feel himself hereafter bound to call the attention of the house to that subject, he trusted he should meet with their indulgence in stating briefly his own view of it. The house would recollect, that, in consideration of the extraordinary state of the exchange with Ireland, a committee had been appointed during last session, to inquire into and report upon the causes that had produced it. The committee had occupied much time in the consideration of the subject, and the only result that had followed was the measure of drawing on England for the amount of the sums borrowed here at par. This he was so far from considering as a step towards the improvement of the state of exchange, or a removal of the grievance complained of, that be considered it only to operate as a bounty to the merchants in whose favour the bills were drawn. He should therefore feel it his duty on some future day, to call the attention of the house to the subject, at present confining himself to moving, 1st, "That there be laid before this house, an account of all sums borrowed in England for the service of Ireland, together with the interest thereon, and the charges of management, distinguishing the sums raised in each year; 2d, An account of the notes of the bank of Ireland in circulation in 1804, distinguishing those in each quarter, and the notes under the value of 5l.; 3d, An account how the loan raised in G. Brit, for Ireland has been transmitted since Aug. last, distinguishing the dates, the rates of exchange, &c. 4th, A statement of the prices, and fluctuation of the prices of stocks in Ireland, from the 1st of Jan. 1798, to the 1st of Jan. 1805, distinguishing also the dividends payable on the 1st of Jan. 1805." On the question being put on the first motion,

observed, that the noble lord had done him the honour to communicate to him the substance of the motions which he had just read to the house, to which he could not have any possible objection. But as the noble lord, from the observations he had made, seemed to suppose the lords of the treasury of Ireland to have been actuated by far different motives from those which they felt, he hoped for the permission of the house, to state the motives upon which they had acted. A sum of twelve hundred thousand pounds, or of one million and a half, had remained in England for the service of Ireland, which it was necessary to have transmitted to Ireland. The lords of the treasury applied in the first instance to the bank of Ireland, for this purpose, considering them, as the most proper body to bring the money over. The bank however, refused to interfere, from an apprehension, that as many of the directors were engaged in the business of exchange, any act which would have the effect of constituting them arbitrators of exchange, might draw down upon their court of directors, odium and reprobation. Under such circumstances, the lords of the treasury found themselves under a necessity of resorting to the means of drawing the money, and they adopted the expedient of bringing it over in bank of England notes, or bank post bills. They fixed the amount of the money to be drawn for, and gave ten days or a fortnight's no- tice of the time of drawing for it, in order that all the merchants who might have occasion for the accommodation, should have sufficient previous intimation of it. They fixed the rate of exchange also, in order that such as should be disposed to offer, might be made acquainted with the terms. The sum first required was 200,000l. and the exchange was 11½, the rate of the exchange at the moment; but only 170,000l. were bought. The lords of the treasury, therefore, concluded that they had fixed the exchange at too high a rate, and proposed the next sum, which was also 200,000l. at 10 per cent. exchange; but no more of this sum was taken than in the first instance, namely, 170,000l. They therefore, considered that to secure purchasers for the whole sums wanted, the exchange should be still further lowered, and in consequence they reduced it to par. Their motive in so doing, the house would observe, was not to give any bounty to any particular class of merchants, but to carry into effect the provisions of the legislature. Having said thus much in justification of the Irish treasury, he should add, that he had no sort of objection to any of the noble lord's motions.—The motions were then severally put and agreed to.

pursuant to his notice on a former day, rose to move for the production of certain papers, calculated to enable the house to judge of a charge made in a report of the navy board, on the subject of certain very large charges for the repairs of the ships Romney and La Sensible, while under the command of sir Home Popham, in the Red Sea. On a subject of such importance, he thought it incumbent on him, both consistently with his duty to the house, and in fairness to the hon. and gallant officer whose conduct was implicated, to state a few of the circumstances which induced him to institute an inquiry into the grounds of this charge. He hoped the house would do him the justice to believe that he had not taken up the subject on light grounds, or from hasty conclusions. It was not the rumours on this business, which had long met the public ear; it was not till he had, for several months, seen a publication containing the most serious charges against the hon. officer, and observed, that this publication remained unanswered, that he had felt himself called upon no longer to postpone the consideration of a subject, in which, not only the character of the Brit, navy, but the whole system of economy in the public expenditure, were intimately involved. Indeed, it was the less necessary for him to offer any apology on the present occasion, for while he was confident the house would never shew themselves deficient in a desire to uphold the honour of our brave defenders, they would evince a determination not less firm, that no officer, however high his character, or extensive his merits, should be suffered to waste the public money intrusted to his care, with unnecessary and ruinous prodigality. The house had shewn a disposition to act on such principles, in the appointment of the commission to inquire into naval abuses, and, he trusted, the same ideas would continue to regulate their deliberations. It would, surely, not be disputed that the whole duty of a British officer was not confined to his mere conduct in the hour of battle. He would never forget that he had other, and not less important offices to perform, in watching over the distribution of the national resources committed to his care, and that all accounts were to be passed from the validity of his assurances that no idle or unnecessary expenditure had occurred. Having made these general observations, the hon. gent. proceeded to the immediate subject on which he had risen to address the house. It would be recollected, that about the end of the year 1800, the Romney and La Sensible were fitted out for the purpose of co-operating in the expedition to Egypt, which took place in the spring of the subsequent year, and were then under the command of sir Home Popham. About May 1803, as nearly as he could recollect, these ships returned to this country. Previous to this period, bills from India had reached the admiralty, to the amount of no less than-80,000l. for the repair of these vessels. The admiralty board were naturally astonished at so enormous a charge, and they accordingly instructed the commissioners of the navy board to examine into all the stores and repairs which these vessels had received fom the time of their departure from England, and to call for the several journals in, which accounts of the expenditure had been preserved. On the tone and character of the report made by these commissioners, he had been principally inclined to rest his arguments to the house for the production of the papers, with motions for which he meant to conclude. At the time the Rom- ney sailed, she was stated to be completely provided with stores, of all sorts, for 12 months. Yet, as soon as she reached the Cape of Good Hope, which was before the expiration of 3 months, it was found that fresh supplies of stores were obtained; and, in the course of the months of Nov. and Dec. other supplies, to the amount of 4,000l. were charged to the public. This was, surely, a very extraordinary charge, but it was one contained in the report of the commissioners of the navy board, and, consequently, worthy of the utmost attention.—The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the house, was the comparative statement of the journal of the captain, and the several other journals, of the expenditure which had come under the inspection of the commissioners. On this part of the subject it was impossible for him to go into any technical details; but it would be sufficient to refer generally to the tone and temper of the report, the language of which clearly imported that the journals were both irregular and in many instances contradictory. In the report it was distinctly stated, that articles for the use of the Romney and La Sensible had been purchased at a most enormous rate, and that other articles, on the contrary, had not been accounted for in a satisfactory manner, or rather had been disposed of at less than the 20th part of their real value. Among the charges was one for a 50-hundred-weight anchor, purchased in the room of one which had been lost in the Indian seas. Here, however, a remarkable circumstance occurred, that when the inquiry was instituted at Sheerness as to the state of the Romney, it was stated that when she sailed from England she had the identical anchor which was found on board after her return. While this was mentioned, it did not at all appear that the other anchor, in room of which the 50-hundred-weight anchor was purchased, had ever been lost, or if it was lost, that it had ever been recovered. Even if all the extra expences were to be admitted, there would remain four or five thousand pounds, for which no sort of account is to be discovered in the journals of the boatswain, or elsewhere. It was asserted that the Romney, when she left England, was fully provided for 12 months with all requisite stores. But after the most minute enquiries, the commissioners had found, that in a very short time after her sailing-she had received repairs, and that nearly 9,000l. had been charged the these repairs; 7,800l. of which they considered as excess of charge, on an accurate examination. Surely in this there was very little of the appearance of economy, and k was fit, at such a period as he present, that the business should be fully investigated. The commissioners had stated the charges to be enormous, and it was proper that the grounds of their decision should be stated. With respect to the charges on the repairs of the Sensible, the same opinion as to extravagance was delivered, and the same necessity for full investigation existed. Whether the hon. officer at the time the supposed repairs were made, was under the orders of adm. Rainier, or whether, as he had heard it insinuated, he had an independent command, he confessed himself unable to decide. If he was under the orders of adm. Rainier, it certainly must be allowed to have been a most extraordinary circumstance, that the superior officer had not been consulted on a step which was surely one of very great consequence, and necessarily attended with vast expence. The step to which he alluded was the changing of the Sensible into a 32 gun frigate. The hon. officer might have had grounds for this alteration, but it could not be pretended that he had communicated his reasons to the adm. on the East India station. On the contrary it appeared, that a month previous to the arrival of the ship at Calcutta, the cordage, rigging, and other articles necessary to form the alteration, had been ordered and were in a state of preparation. Thus, it appeared that the hon. officer had taken the whole responsibility of the business on himself, and it was proper that the grounds on which he proceeded should be explained. It was stated that before the Sensible had been altered, her situation had been fully examined, but what he had just stated respecting the orders for stores, completely refuted this idea. There were other accounts of transactions in the Red Sea which were not a little curious. The hon. officer seemed to have found, contrary to general opinion, every thing quite as convenient for the repair of ships as if he had actually been in the heart of the river, and in the vicinity of our arsenals. It was proper that the public should understand the whole of these transactions, which were necessary to complete the view of the subject. Connected with this part of the question, he should also take the liberty of moving for certain letters from marquis Wellesley relative to the expenditure of the vessels under the command of the hon. officer while in the Indian seas. Before he sat down, he wished to say a few words as to the mode of investigation which he had thought it his duty to propose. It might be asked, whether this was the only possible mode of investigating the subject; whether there was not another tribunal, before which the merits of the question might not be more satisfactorily decided? It might be urged that this was a matter which the board of admiralty were much more competent to try, than an assembly composed as that which he had the honour to address. To this his answer was plain and satisfactory. He had heard, on authority which to him appeared highly respectable, that the late board of admiralty had designed to institute a criminal prosecution against the hon. officer. The change of administration, however, by which the late "weak and inefficient" board of admiralty was changed for a "capable and efficient" one, had prevented them from carrying their views into effect, and there was no prospect of the present board of admiralty following up the resolution of their predecessors. When he saw the hon. officer not only invested with an important command, but apparently high in the confidence of his maj,'s ministers, he thought it was not at all unnatural to suppose, that no sort of proceeding respecting the hon. officer's conduct was in contemplation. It might be said again, that this subject would, with much more propriety, have been submitted to the consideration of the commission appointed to inquire into naval abuses. For his part, he should have felt pride and satisfaction in having the merits of the question tried before that board. Never, he believed, did any men, invested with great powers, discharge their duly to the house and the public with more zeal, and more fidelity. But as it was understood that this board had it not in their power to take cognizance of the business, he had felt it his duty to submit it to the consideration of the highest tribunal in the country. He lamented deeply the painful nature of the duty he had this night attempted to perform. If the charges which appeared in the report of the late board against the hon. officer could not be supported, he should rejoice in having afforded him an opportunity of establish- ing his character, and refuting ill-founded charges, and public calumny. He should hope, likewise, that the house would do him justice, and give him credit for the integrity of his intention, in arraigning the conduct of the hon. officer, who, if guilty, should be made to feel, that he was employed not only to fight in the cause of his country, but also to be the steward, in his department, of the public purse. The hon. gent, concluded, with moving, "that there be laid before the house; 1, An account of the repairs of the Romney; 2, A copy of the report of the navy board, of the 20th Feb. 1804, respecting the repairs of the Romney and Sensible, and the expenditure and supplying of stores on board of those ships while under the command of sir Home Popham, together with its enclosures; 3, Copies of the letters of marquis Wellesley, respecting the above accounts, transmitted to the directors of the East India Company." As soon as the first motion was put from the chair,

rose, and assured the house, that no man in existence was more anxious than himself to have every pant of his conduct fully canvassed; no exertion had been omitted on his part to have a fair opportunity of vindicating himself from the charges which were so industriously circulated against him in an anonymous and scurrilous pamphlet, from which the hon. gent. who introduced the business, appeared to have drawn all his information. The hon. member had expressed his surprise, that no answer had been given to that pamphlet. He begged leave to assure the hon. gent. and the house, that this had arisen from no backwardness on his part, to meet the scandalous falsehoods which that pamphlet contained. The fact, however, was, that a certain degree of caution and alarm in the press had retarded the publication of his answer; which now, however, was before the public. From this answer, he begged leave to read a few extracts of letters which had passed between him and the board of admiralty, from which it would be clear beyond all possibility of doubt, that he had on every occasion evinced the most ardent desire, not only to throw no obstacles in the way of the investigation of the charges; but had, on the contrary, pressed upon the board of admiralty, every consideration which seemed to him in the least calculated to accelerate the discussion. In support of this observation, the hon. offi- cer proceeded to read an extract from a letter to Lord St. Vincent, as first lord of the admiralty, in June, 1803, in which he alludes to the gross and unfounded charges made against him, and solicits their lordships to lose no time in ordering a strict investigation of his conduct. To this letter he received an answer, that the business should be referred to the commissioners of the navy board, and as soon as they had prepared a report on the subject, a copy should be furnished him. The hon. officer, still anxious to accelerate the investigation, wrote, on the 5th July, another letter, representing the propriety of his being called before the navy board, to afford such explanations as would materially facilitate a final decision. The whole of his correspondence with the admiralty had, he maintained, this dispatch in the investigation as the object dearest to his heart. It could not be at all contended, therefore, that if the matter was not fully investigated, any blame was to be attached to him in the business. Indeed, from a review of the whole of his conduct, he had no reason to shrink from enquiry. He was confident, that on every occasion, and during the whole of the service on which the charge was founded, he had never looked to private interest, but to the interest and the glory of his country. He had ample testimonies of the discipline, the healthiness, and the sailor-like apperance of the crew of the Romney while under his command, and he consoled himself, amidst malignant and unfounded charges, by the reflection that he had been fortunate enough to receive the good opinion of the most respectable men in the honorable profession to which he belonged. He was never conscious of having given an order for a single article which did not seem to him necessary to the public service. On the 26th of July, he wrote to sir Evan Nepean, in consequence of the laying his papers before the commissioners, repeating his solicitations to give his personal attendance on the enquiries, as the most expeditious mode possible for the object in view, and the only way of accelerating a decision. To this he received no answer: and, oh the 3d of Aug. he wrote to the navy board on the same subject, and requesting to have the question put, which he had put at Chatham: "Whether, if the Romney had not received the repairs in question, considering the weather she experienced, she would not, in all probability, have gone to the bottom?"—The hon. officer then observed, that his ship was in such a state, that a few days after his pennant was down, it was commissioned—an unprecedented occurrence. The hon. bart then explained what had passed at Calcutta, in the repairs of the different vessels under his command, none of which had been adverted to by the hon. gent. except the Romney, nor by the anonymous publication from which he had taken all his information. Here he could not omit to notice, that the anonymous publication had made no slight impression on certain gallant officers in the navy. In proof of this, the hon. bart. read an affidavit that had been volutarily made by a gent. who had been out with him as 3d, then as 2d lieut. and had afterwards been made commander by Lord St. Vincent. The gent. he adverted to was Francis Mason, Esq. commander of his maj.'s ship Rattler; and as that gent. was indebted wholly for his promotion to Lord St. Vincent, his voluntary and unsolicited testimony would have some weight with the house. The affidavit had been made before the mayor of Portsmouth on the 5th of Jan. 1805, subsequent to the appearance of the pamphlet, but before the notice of the hon. gent.'s motion. The tenor of the affidavit was highly complimentary to the hon. bart. It stated "that he saw no undue waste of stores; that the conduct of sir Home Popham was that of a strict disciplinarian, and that he was incapable of doing any thing contrary to honour and integrity, and the good of the service; that his attention to the sick was exemplary; that they had in the Red Sea only one scorbutic, and one liver case; that the country boats were absolutely necessary, and that by them they saved the lives of 400 persons, soldiers and sailors, in the Red Sea; that a cable was cut in Balasore Road, at the recommendation of the pilot, in order to enter Diamond Harbour, with several other particulars, highly to the credit and honour of the character of sir Home Popham." Similar testimony in his favour the hon. officer read from the letter of a respectable gent. in India, in which he attributes the safety of the Calcutta transport in the Red Sea, to the exertions of sir Home Popham, his officers and crew.—He insisted on the circumstance of no attempt being made to bring him to punishment, as a strong proof of his innocence. If the board of admiralty thought they had a case made out against him, why did they not bring him to a court martial? That they were not unwilling to do so, can scarcely be denied; and their having taken no steps in the business, was a pretty good proof that they were convinced that any attempt to substantiate any charge against him would prove abortive. No less than IS months after his return elapsed before any report was formed, and now that the report was before the public nearly a year, no steps had been taken to follow up the charges. He was happy that the subject was now brought forward, and he trusted there would not be a dissenting voice in agreeing to the production of all the papers for which the hon. gent. had moved. He was anxious to have no information held back, and he was highly gratified to think that he should now have an opportunity of vindicating his conduct before so high a tribunal. Before he sat down, the hon. officer animadverted on the last sentence of the report of the commissioners of the navy board. It was there admitted by the commissioners that they had conducted the investigation in an unusual manner, that they had framed their report without hearing sir Home Popham as to any of the grounds of charge, but that in following this course they thought they acted in conformity to the wishes of the lords commissioners of the admiralty.

stated, that the board of admiralty had directed the navy board to furnish the hon. officer with a copy of their report, and that he believed it was furnished. It was natural to suppose that when such heavy accusations were brought forward against the hon. officer, he would have entered into some justification of his conduct. The hon. officer had hinted that he ought to have been called before the navy board for that purpose. Such was not the regular mode of procedure. The accounts of all naval officers are sent to the navy board, there examined, and, if found to be incorrect, the pay of such officers is stopped, but they are not themselves summoned to give an explanation of their conduct. The hon. officer had expressed his surprise, that after his return to England, and during the period in which the late admiralty board continued in office, this report had been suffered to lie dormant, and no proceedings whatever instituted upon it. He would inform the house of the reason. In the first instance, the admiralty conceived the idea of instituting a criminal prosecution; they then doubted their power to do this, and determined to refer it to the court of exchequer. That the affair might be fully investigated, various reports were waited for, which had not been received when the late admiralty went out of office. An hon. gent, whom he had in his eye, (Mr. Dickenson, jun.) could probably inform the house, whether these reports had yet arrived. If they had, he took it for granted that the proceedings would be continued. The hon. officer had spoken confidently of his ability to justify himself. He could only tell him, that he believed that the board of admiralty could have justified itself much more readily; yet he would say, that if the hon. officer should be able to justify himself to the satisfaction of the house, and of the country, it would afford him very great pleasure. As to what had been said of the "scurrility" of a certain pamphlet, it was most certain that he had read the pamphlet; but there did not appear to him all that scurrility which was imputed to it. Nay, what was called scurrilous, was, in point of fact, nothing but the report of the navy board. He had read that report; and, undoubtedly, it so reflected upon the hon. officer, that it was his duty to do away the effect of it if he could.

jun. said, he was not prepared to answer the last speaker's question, with regard to the receipt of any additional reports relative to the hon. officer's conduct. It appeared to him that the navy board had acted against all precedent and decorum in the case of sir Home Pop-ham. As far as he could call to his recoil lection the last passage of their report, its tendency was, that they had declined hearing sir Home Popham's defence, and had proceeded on ex parte evidence to please the then board of admiralty. He would not anticipate the hon. officer's defence, this was not the time to allege any circumstances in his justification. The present board of admiralty had not referred the affair to a court martial, because the time allowed by law on such occasions had expired; they had not brought it before any judicial court, because the evidence, on which alone their accusations could be founded, was only ex parte evidence. His feelings prompted him to say a great deal on this subject; he should, however, confine himself to a few words. The affair, in all its circumstances, had, for some, time, been under his most serious consideration; and he was happy to congratulate that gallant officer, and with him, the service, that house, and the whole country, on the assurance, that his defence would not rest merely on statements of general character, but that he would be enabled to confute his accusers by undeniable proofs of innocence, and by opposing fact to fact.

said, it was far from being his intention to enter much into this subject, and he had expected that the hon. gent. would have abstained from general observation, which tended only to aggravate, whilst the officer, the object of the discussion, had professed his extreme desire to enter into the investigation of his conduct; and for a full disclosure of facts, by the production of every information. He concurred with what an hon. friend of his, a member of the present admiralty board, had said, relating to the last sentence of the report of the navy board; and must think the case was decided by that board on ex parte evidence. But what he most of all wished at that moment was, that gent, would, in candour and fairness, forego the investigation of a subject, the necessary evidence on which they had not before them.

said, he did not mean to go into any discussion on the present occasion. He could not, however, admit that the light hon. gent. who had just sat down was entitled to blame the hon. gent. for the manner in which he had introduced the subject. The hon. member had introduced no observations but such as were strictly connected with the object he had in view. His object was to persuade the house of the propriety of having the papers produced; and was it not for that purpose necessary to employ some arguments? When papers were called for, was it not always previously required that a case should be made out to the house? But the right. hon. gent. had argued that there was no necessity for argument, because the hon. officer did not, oppose the production of the papers. He felt himself called upon to protest against such doccrine. It was not parliamentary, and he trusted it would never be admitted by the house. It was not fit that the house should hear of the production of papers merely because it happened to suit the inclination of the parties. He was not displeased that the hon. officer had shewn himself willing to go into the enquiry; yet, perhaps, if he had not talked so much of his own innocence, and of the guilt of the late board, it would not have been the worse for his cause. What most surprised him, however, was the observation of the right hon. gent.; for when himself, and other friends of his, have moved for papers for the defence of their very nearest relations, the right hon. gent. has told them, that they must first make out a case, and next he has got his own friends to move, the previous question; so debarring them of information. This subject was altogether very well worthy the attention of the bouse1 and the country.

allowed the truth of part of the hon. gent.'s observations, but added, that when it was understood, as it certainly had been, that no opposition to the motion was intended, it certainly became less necessary to enter into particulars, much less into an aggravated statement of them.

confirmed as he was in his own opinion by that of his hon. friend, did not deem it necessary to make any apology to the house for what he had said, He had merely stated what was contained in the report of the navy board; if it were proved false, no man would more willingly retract. With regard to the statement, that the navy board had adopted an unusual mode of proceeding in this affair, it was untrue. The same had taken place when that board had investigated the conduct of sir R. King, sir A. Mitchell, sir R. Bicker-ton, and capt. Cook, of the ship La Forte, It would afford him the sincerest satisfaction, could the hon. officer clear himself in the eyes of his country from the imputation which attached to him, and in that case he should be one of the first to avow his misapprehension.

was surprised, as the hon. gent, was not pushed for precedents, that he should allude to an officer who had lost his life in the service of his country.

was persuaded, that with the sentiments which he was sure the hon. gent, possessed, it must have been through inadvertence that he had selected, as one of his precedents, the officer alluded to. It was due to the memory of that officer to have spared the feelings of those who admired him, and of a country grateful for his valour and services. Had he lived, he would have proved an invaluable ornament to that profession in which, few has had been his days, he had shone.

said, that he would not be schooled by any man in that house into sentiments of delicacy. He had alluded. to the case of a gallant officer; but both without having aspersed, or meaning to asperse his memory.—The hon. gent's, motions were then put and agreed to.

then rose, and stated, that wishing nothing to he withheld, he felt it is duty to move to have laid before the house, all his correspondence with the board of admiralty and the navy board. He accordingly referred to the greater part of their letters, in all of which he expressed the strongest desire for the fullest investigation of his conduct. He complained severely of the reluctance of the navy board to give him up the papers necessary for completing his defence, even after he had received assurances from the secretary of the admiralty that orders for that purpose had been specially delivered. He had been informed in April that the papers were nearly ready for delivery. He had made repeated applications, till Aug. when he was given to understand that the papers were lost. Thus, after waiting 4 or 5 months, he had been scandalously tantalized and disappointed. He inveighed with great severity on such unfair and illiberal treatment of the report. As an instance of the jealousy, or worse, of the late admiralty, the hon. officer next stated to the house, that when at Sheerness, for the purpose of refitting, every delay had been interposed, and the most vexatious obstacles thrown in his way, until at length the object was in danger of never being accomplished, —There was another subject on which he felt peculiar pain. It was not enough to have traduced him in a pamphlet, in which hot one fact appeared that was not scandalously perverted, but that pamphlet must be circulated with an industry unparalleled, and even sent to the officers under his command: for when on a late service on the enemy's coast, he found that that pamphlet had been sent by post to the officers under his command. On a proceeding like this, which obviously tended to remove all confidence in a commander, he need make no observations. Was it patriotism? Was it public virtue? Ridicule, too, was at the same time attempted to be thrown upon him, because he had been, as his enemies had pleased to term it, a leader of catamarans, a mode of attack, which in common with other officers, he had suggested to the present naval administration. He begged leave to remark on the way in which the notice for the motion now before the house had been given. He was in command of a ship now at Gravesend; it was occasionally necessary for him to go down to that place; and a day on which he was absent was selected for the purpose of giving the notice. It would, perhaps, have been at least as civil had he been made previously acquainted with the intention of the hon. gent. The hon. officer concluded with moving, for the whole of the correspondence which passed between him and the two boards on the charges against him.

declared, that had it not been for what had fallen from the hon. officer, he should not have said a single word more upon the subject. That hon. officer had said that the board adopted a particular mode of proceeding, because they thought that it would be agreeable to the admiralty. On the 9th of April, he said, he had been promised to be furnished with the papers he required. That board was only three weeks longer in existence; it was therefore impossible that he could have been supplied by them with a copy of the papers in Aug. the time to which he had alluded. As to the idea of officers being ready to meet enquiry, or, in fact, being anxious for it, it had been seen, in that house, that when such persons, or the nearest relatives of them had supported, or voted for the inquiry, there were other persons, (members of his maj.'s govt.) who openly resisted the investigation, and the necessary papers were not produced. A right hon. gent. who professed himself at that time, to be as anxious as any other member of that house to promote the inquiry, had since come into office; and from the superiority of information which his situation afforded, he should have expected that the right hon. gent. would have brought the subject again. before parliament. He, however, had not thought fit so to do. It was therefore not to be wondered at that a new board of admiralty did not wish to follow up the measures of their predecessors in a similar instance.

observed, that he thought every hon. gent. would at once perceive that a person might very well disapprove of the conduct of a preceding administration, and yet not enter into a respect of the conduct of those who had composed it. He disapproved of the conduct of the late board of admiralty, yet did not think himself called upon to take a retrospect of the measures of the noble earl who presided, or those of the gent. who assisted a at that board. Though thinking on these subjects as he did, yet he entertained an unabated respect for the public services of the noble lord. However, he thought it a little too hard to hear it said, that he had changed his opinion, because he had not exhibited motions against the late naval administration of this country. As to his opinion of that administration, he begged that he might be distinctly understood. Every opinion he had entertained of it when out of office, had been confirmed by every thing he had seen, or read, or heard, since his being in office. Yet the. hon. gent. (Mr. Fox) betrayed his inconsistency a little, in accusing him of negligence of his duty, in regard to his forbearance towards the late admiralty; whereas the hon. gent., had his recollection not failed him, might have remembered a period when the doctrine of retrospect would not have proved very favourable to him.

I should have thought, sir, that the right hon. gent. would have displayed a greater accuracy than he has done. What happens in youth makes a permanent impression. At the period to which the right hon. gent. has alluded, he was very young. Young memories, however, are retentive of circumstances that eminently affect them. I am sure that the right hon. gent, himself must know, that there was nothing in the transaction to which he has transiently alluded, that could give me pain on a retrospect of my conduct: but I do apprehend that the case is somewhat otherwise as to the right hon. gent. Several members on both sides this house know that transaction, and will decide on the merits of that view of it which I have unfolded.

Let that be judged of by the world, which knows the transaction.

in reference to the papers spoken of early in the debate by sir Home Popham, said, that the papers containing the charges against sir Home were sent to the board of naval enquiry, where he believed they still were.

said, that the papers Were sent to the admiralty, and had never found their way back to the navy office.— The motions were agreed to.

rose to move the order of the day, for he ring at the bar the charge against R. A. Cox, esq and sir W. Rawlins, knt. the gent, who were, in 1802, the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. The noble lord said, he felt some slight embarrassment what course to take, having at one time understood that the parties had no wish to call evidence, and now understanding that their opinions were rather changed. Any accommodation he could give he wished to give; he was sure the house wished the same. He now moved the order of the day.

avowed his intention to oppose the hearing of evidence at the bar. He would either move, that the order be discharged, or oppose it, when moved, in due form.

said, there were two roads open in this matter to the house; either the motion for hearing counsel at the bar might be made, and an order voted, or having heard the motion made, the right hon. gent, could move, that the order be discharged.

observed, that the noble lord was undoubtedly in possession of the house, but that if such a motion were made, he should feel it necessary to negative it.

would have no objection to any mode which the house should think proper to adopt. There was, however, some delicacy in the case, since the parties wished to be heard at the bar.

now rose to move for the discharge of the order. There was nothing, he said, to induce trite house to wish to hear evidence at its bar. The question had already undergone the fullest discussion. The house had the judgment of a select committee, the attention and the powers of which were peculiarly directed to this subject. Such was the case previous to the act called the Grenville Act. How did it stand now? The house had the advantages of the resolutions resulting on the enquiries of those who were sworn to fulfil the solemn duty to which they were appointed. What was now to be required? The persons, to be examined were either to-repeat their former testimony, or they were not. If they correctly stated their evidence as before given, there would be no advantage derived from the re-examination proposed; if they varied in their depositions, was the, house to give the preference to their former declarations on oath, or to their subsequent affirmations? Certainly it must be admitted, that the testimony which had received the authority and sanction of an appeal of that nature, ought to be preferred. On these grounds he should move, that. The order be discharged.

said, he felt it impossible to concur in the. grounds stated for the proposition of the right hon. gent, and equally impossible to accede to the res integra of the proceedings he recommended. A great deal of additional difficulty appeared to him to be thrown in the way of such concurrence by this consideration, that the house had already made an order that the parties accused should be heard at the bar. This order had been announced to those parties, in consequence of which they were in attendance, and prepared, no doubt, to produce farther evidence, perhaps of some persons who were out of the way, or were not known when the case was under the investigation of the committee. By such farther examination of evidence, the parties might expect to be able to lay before the house a more favourable view of their cause. After such an order, and such probable preparation in consequence, it appeared to him that it would be highly unjust to make a new order at the present moment. It would be, in fact, to say to the parties, "although we have made an order that you should be heard at the bar to-day; although you may have taken great trouble to collect evidence to throw new light upon your case, and to repel the charges against, you, yet we have changed our mind, and you cannot be heard; we mean to re-consider the subject." Such would be the language of the house to the accused, should the proposition of the rt. hon. gent. be adopted. The practice referred to by the right hon. gent, which prevailed before the enactment of the Grenville bill, was not, he contended, analogous to the case under consideration, or to any case under that bill; for, in the former instance, it was to be recollected, that the committees upon election petitions were, though nominally select committees, accessible to all the members of the house; and therefore, every member might attend to examine and cross-examine the evidence. Of course, the report of such committees must be different, in the estimation of the house, from those of the committees under the Grenville act, which consisted but of a few members. In the one case, all the members of the house were competent to attend and investigate any part of the subject, while, in the other, only a few select persons were permitted to do so. This difference he the more dwelt on, in order to shew, that from the change which had taken place in the jurisdiction upon election cases, the course formerly pursued was not fairly applicable at present. The right hon. gent, had endeavoured to support his proposition by resorting to the popular argument, which, in his opinion, could make no impression upon any candid, rational man; namely, that because the witnesses would not be on Oath at the bar, although they were so before the committee, that therefore we should have no examination of evidence whatever before the house. The question for consideration, was not whether the committee was more competent to investigate a charge against individuals, and to ascertain their guilt or innocence. Perhaps the court of King's Bench was still more competent to such an investigation. But that was not the point before the house. The question was this, whether, when executing the office of a criminal judicature, the house would act according to its own constitution, or to the principles of equity, if it proceeded to pronounce judgment without any examination of evidence as to the nature of the case upon which it was called on to judge? In declaring a negative to this question, he had little doubt of being supported by a full consideration of the practice of the house, and by the opinion of dispassionate men. The Grenville act, whatever other persons might think of it, or however it might be considered in other respects, had created an anomaly in the constitution of that house. By the course followed antecedent to that act, the whole matter of the election, as well with respect to the seat as to the conduct of the returning officers, and all collateral points, were referred to the committee; and the ultimate decision upon all these points still remained with the house, the report of the committee serving to guide its judgment. But, under the new arrangement, did the house commit to the committee the whole matter of the case? No; that committee was the dernier resort as to the seat only. Upon that their decision was, according to a legislative act, final and conclusive. But the seat was the only thing upon which the report of such committee was unalterable. As to any special report which it was authorized to make relative to the conduct of the returning officers,' the house retained the full power which, according to precedent, was uniformly; exercised, to proceed upon such special report in the way which it was the object of the right hon. gent.'s motion to reverse. The Grenville act made as clear o distinction between the power vested in the committee, as to the decision of the seat, and that relative to a special report, as words could express. In the one case their power was absolute; in the other, it belonged to them only to report that there were other circumstances connected with the election, which required the interference of the house. Considering the report before the house in that view, he could not admit that it should have any other influence than that of calling attention to the proceedings of the accused, but by no means that of forming the ground for their conviction or punishment. All the precedents, since the Grenville act, upon similar cases, justified this opinion. But the right hon. gent, who proposed another course, thought proper entirely to overlook those precedents, and to look to the conduct formerly pursued under circumstances which he contended were not at all analogous. If the report of a committee under the new jurisdiction were to be binding on the house to adopt, in what a dilemma would the house be placed, suppose that an election committee on the Shoreham case, or that of Nottingham, had, in addition to the other particulars in their report, resolved that the right of election ought to be thrown open, that the electors should be increased. Would not the admission of such an authority, in the report of a committee, as he had alluded to, be, in effect, to delegate to such committee the legislative power of the house? Yet, such an inference would naturally follow from the arguments used by the right hon. gent. If, then, that argument, or the proposition that followed, could not be sustained by reason, the constitution of the house, or precedent, he thought that justice would urge the adoption of such line of proceeding as might be most favourable to the interest of the accused, and that, obviously, was to allow them to bring forward any farther evidence that it might be in their power to produce for their exculpation. Any different course would, he was quite persuaded, be felt as inconsistent with the ends of substantial justice, as it would be with the spirit of our law. That law uniformly said, that a man accused of any offence should be fully heard before sentence should be pro- nounced; and that law very properly allowed, that if any circumstances could be discovered, to alter the nature of the charge, and to establish the innocence of the accused up to the moment before the time fixed for the infliction of punishment, the sentence should be reversed. Here, however, it was proposed to deviate entirely from that laudable and salutary mode of proceeding. Since the investigation of this case before the committee, circumstances had occurred which, without meaning any reflection whatever on the judgment, principles, or character of the gent, who composed that commit: tee, would, he was persuaded, prevent them at the present day from pronouncing as a jury that verdict which appeared in the report on the table. Was it not, then, but fair to allow these circumstances to be laid before the house by evidence at the bar? It would be unjust towards the house, and it would be cruel towards the parties accused, to exclude such evidence. If a criminal were convicted of the most heinous offence, that power in whom the right of pardon is constitutionally vested, would not hesitate even the moment before the appointed execution of sentence, to remit that sentence, and pardon the accused, should any facts arise to prove his innocence. This example should be attended to in the case under consideration, and should urge the house to afford to the accused every opportunity of exculpation, before it attempted to pronounce judgment. This was not only the opinion which he entertained, but that which was sanctioned by all former proceedings in similar cases. In the Shoreham case, which the noble lord chose as the precedent to follow, with one exception only, in this instance, he recollected some debate, and a division also, the result of which was, a determination opposed only by a very small minority, that those accused should be heard fully by evidence, and by counsel at the bar. Such was the mode that justice, law, and precedent suggested to the house on the present occasion; and he felt the character of the house, and of public equity, to be so much concerned, that he could not help resisting the introduction of a different practice. The evidence which appeared in the report might have been taken in a loose way, or it might be imperfect, and a farther examination at the bar might elucidate many, important facts. This was not at all im- possible, notwithstanding the close scrutiny said to have, taken place before the committee, and the known accuracy of the council employed, whose ability no man mole highly respected than he did, and upon even the possibility of such elucidation, he would have the parties allowed a farther hearing. Those parties he bad heard it intimated, were willing to acquiesce in the refusal of any farther examination of evidence; of this he knew nothing positively, but even if it were so, it would effect no change in the opinion he entertained. However, if upon appearing at the bar they admitted the evidence as it stood in the, report, their admission must of course be received; but in no other way-could he notice, that admission, because it was not more his object to render perfect justice to the accused, in this instance, than to guard against the establishment of a precedent that was likely to lead to great injustice towards others.—The hon. member concluded, with observing, that under all the circumstances of the case, particularly after having appointed a hearing at the bar on this day, and ordered the attendance of the parties accordingly, it would be one of the harshest proceedings imaginable to reverse that order now, and strike into a new and opposite course.

said, he saw no force in the arguments used by the hon. gen. in opposition to the motion of his right hon. friend, and still less in the observation which the hon. gent, applied to the reversal of the order and course of proceeding at the present moment. It could not be complained that the parties were taken unaware, as when the business had been postponed on a former day, his right hon. friend distinctly stated, that the ground of that postponement was to afford gentlemen an opportunity of considering the' expediency of a deviation from the precedent of the Shoreham case, of the nature of that which was now proposed. That the course proposed by his right hon. friend was strictly according to the uniform practice which prevailed previous to the Grenville act, was not attempted to be denied; and the question for the house to consider in the present instance, and also for future cases, was this, whether it would be more agreeable to justice and expediency to follow the former course, or that which bad obtained since the enactment of the Grenville law? For the former he certainly was an advocate, and his surprize was, that any deviation from it had ever taken place; the more particularly as the Grenville bill prescribed nothing on the subject. As to the objection urged by his right hon. friend against the examination of evidence at the bar, who not being on oath might differ from the allegations made before the committee, the hon. gent, in order, no doubt, to depreciate that objection, had thought pro? per to style it "a popular argument," and certainly the maxim of uox populi,vox dei, was never more applicable than to an argument of such irresistible force. But although this argument was so forcible, he would not go so far as to say that the farther hearing of evidence at the bar, should, be resisted if such resistance should appear to be injurious to the cause of justice, or unfair towards the individuals concerned in the case before the house. There was no pretence, however, for saying that such could be the consequence; on the contrary, it was as fair to argue that the examination of evidence, not on oath at the bar, might be injurious to the accused as otherwise. Witnesses might go beyond their former statements, and might aggravate the case against the accused. Therefore, in any view, the further hearing demanded by the hon. gent. appeared to him quite inadmissible.—He observed, upon the hon. gent.'s allusion to analogy, and reasoning as hostile to the course proposed by his right hon. friend, but he had omitted to state any precedent to sustain his statement on the score of analogy. Those precedents indeed which he had it in his power to state, were very few compared to the practice that prevailed so long before the existence of the Grenville bill. The hon. gent. had argued that it would be iniquitous, and contrary to any. precedent of law, to pronounce sentence without hearing evidence upon the case to which such sentence applied: but the hon. gent, must forget that such was the frequent practice in the Court of King's Bench, where sentence was pronounced, upon cases, where1 not one of the four, judges had ever heard the evidence, nor had any other knowledge of it than that which they derived from the notes of the judge who presided at the trial; which, notes, by the way, were not so much, at least not more, intitled to confidence than the minutes of the evidence in the report before the house, which were taken by a sworn short-hand writer. It might be said that the judges pronouncing upon the verdict of a jury constituted a material difference, but it was to be observed, that a committee formed in cases of this sort, with relation to the house, a constitutional tribunal tantamount to a jury. On the ground of analogy stated by the hon. gent. he was satisfied from what he had mentioned, that it was unattainable, and his arguments as to precedent were not less. If a precedent were wrong the hon. gent, himself would, he apprehended, be one of the last to maintain that it ought to be followed. That the case of Shoreham was not felt to be unexceptionable, appeared in the debates and proceedings on the Cricklade case, and in the instance of Great Grimsby alone, had it been followed. Why, then, should such a practice, if contrary to the old course, which he reasserted was not at all changed by the Grenville act, and still more if contrary to the ends of justice, be suffered to go on? It was pretended, in the case before the house, that another hearing should be granted to the parties, because they might have new light to introduce on the subject. If such a suggestion were attended to, it would form an argument for new trials, ad infinitum. The accused bad already been afforded ample opportunities to bring forward any-evidence in exculpation they desired. They had the ablest counsel that could be obtained, to cross-examine the evidence against them and to conduct their defence, therefore he saw no ground whatever, to induce the house to enter into the case again. In the case of Great Grimsby, where the house ordered evidence to the bar, it appeared that the returning officer was not present before the committee who reported against him. Here then there was ground for the order, which constituted a material difference from the matter now before the house. He submitted that a more anomalous course was recommended to the house by the hon. gent, namely, that it should call evidence to its bar for an ex parte examination, for it could be nothing else, as the house must be unable to cross-examine the witnesses, having no particular knowledge of the transactions to which their evidence, was meant to apply, and not being furnished with those suggestions for cross-examination, which the counsel on both sides could have had before the committee. The learned gent, considering that the house had the same relation to the committees under the new jurisdiction that it had to the committees under the old, and that the course proposed by his right hon. friend, was preferable for many reasons, at the same time that it did not bind the house by any means servilely to adopt the resolutions of the committee, unless they were found to be fully justified by the evidence, stated that he should give his support to the motion before the house.

said, he would trespass on the house but for a few words, not that he thought it necessary to vindicate himself from such gross ignorance as he should be ashamed of. The learned gent. had charged him with saying, that it was contrary to all analogy to pronounce sentence without hearing evidence. He said no such thing. He said it was contrary to analogy to pronounce the guilt of a party without hearing evidence. He believed, the hon. gent, would allow there was a material difference in the expresssion, and he was certain the learned judges would perfectly agree with him in the distinction he had taken.

said, he agreed entirely with his hon. friend, whose arguments had been so strong that he did not think it at all necessary to reply to the observations that had been made by the learned gent, on the other side. There was a principle, however, laid down by the learned gent, that if the returning officer should not happen to be present at the committee who might report against his conduct, there would then be ground for hearing such evidence at the bar as such officer might feel it necessary to bring forward for his exculpation. If so, then the course proposed by the learned gent.'s right hon. friend was inadmissible. For it always would be necessary to establish a preliminary inquiry, according to the learned gent.'s principle, to ascertain whether the returning officer was present at the committee before the house proceeded to pronounce judgment upon him; and in point of strict justice, this inquiry should also go to this point, whether the returning officer was present throughout, or whether his defence was not perfected before the committee had made their report. In the case before the house, he could say that the defence of the accused was not perfected, because the counsel for the accused did not conceive it necessary to sum up, and remark upon the evidence. Such was that learned gent.'s reliance on the strength of his clients. To supply that omission was one reason why it' was the' wish of the accused to be heard at the bar, and he could state that those gentlemen would feel themselves hardly treated, if they were refused that hearing. It did appear that the case of the accused was but partially and collaterally taken up, and imperfectly heard before the committee, and they were therefore strongly entitled, from common equity, to be^ further heard before the house decided on their case. If the house proceeded to a discussion in the way proposed, it would be as well to pronounce judgment upon the accused, from the resolutions of the committee at once, without any review of the evidence, as such review would be superfluous.

observed, that the counsel for the accused not having summed up and remarked on the evidence before the committee, was no fault of the committee. The noble lord thought the parties ought to be allowed to supply that omission by hearing their counsel at the bar.—In some farther conversation between Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, and the Attorney General, it was understood to be the intention of Mr. Pitt to oppose the hearing of counsel upon the question as to the guilt or innocence of the accused; but that right hon. gent, observed, that upon the question as to the measure of punishment, it was competent to any member to propose the calling in of counsel.

supported the motion. In animadverting on what had fallen from an hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Sheridan) he said, that if the sheriffs had not been fully heard in the committee it was owing to their counsel, for he understood that it had been a matter agreed between the counsel of both sides, that if the one forbore to criminate the sheriffs, the other would be less urgent in their defence. To this cause he therefore attributed the counsels not summing up the evidence in favour of the sheriffs, which the hon. gent. had alluded to.

stated, that the parliament of Ireland had adopted also the Grenville act. But they had also gone farther and adopted it with an amendment. There, appeared here to be no particular law in regard to the returning officer, but the parliament of Ireland had provided by express act for cases of the kind now before the house* When the conduct of the returning officer was made the subject of investigation, pare was taken he should receive due notice of it, and be accordingly prepared for his defence. This notice the committee was bound to give him before they could institute any proceedings against him. But according to the Grenville act the committee were under no necessity of deciding on the conduct of the returning officer; this duty therefore became more particularly the province of the house. A good deal had been said of the analogy of the present case, with the proceedings usual in Courts of law. This analogy had been denied by a learned gent, opposite, who had referred them to the practice of the court of King's Bench. He had only to remind him, however, that it was very usual in such courts, after verdict had been given to receive affidavits from the parties. There was such a thing as moving for a new trial and an arrest of judgment in those courts, which might be considered as proceedings somewhat analagous to the present question. The hon. and learned gent, concluded with professing himself adverse to the motion.

begged leave to put the hon. gent, right in regard to the duty of the committee. The gentleman had said chat the committee was not bound to judge of the returning officer, that question not being before it in virtue of the Grenville act; but had the hon. gent. had recourse to the votes of the house, he would have found that the petition of Mr. Mainwaring complained of the conduct of the sheriffs expressly, and that this petition, with the complaint, was referred to the committee. The conduct of the sheriffs, therefore, became the direct subject of the committee's investigation.— The question being then called for, the gallery was cleared, no division, however, took place. Mr. Pitt's motion was acceded to, and the order discharged accordingly. The first resolution of the committee was then agreed to, and the debate postponed till this day vwek,—Adjourned.