rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more equal valuation of the revenue of the First Fruits in Ireland, and for the due collection thereof. In doing this, the right hon. gent. took occasion to state the grounds upon which he proceeded. By the Returns made by the Archbishop of Cashel, the whole annual amount of the First Fruits at present collected was merely 350l. per annum, a sum wholly inadequate to the object originally in the view of the legislature, which was the augmenting the benefices, and otherwise improving the livings of the poorer clergy. It was on that account that he wished to render more effectual what the bounty of the crown had destined for such a benevolent purpose. It would be sufficient to state to the house, that a large proportion of the parishes in Ireland were not at all valued, and therefore contributed nothing towards the ob- ject in view. He might reckon, that there were 1,500 parishes, whose First Fruits were valued, while there were about 900 remaining still unvalued. The valuations had taken place at so early a period as the reign of queen Anne, and therefore bore no proportion to what they now ought to be. It was his intention to propose that the payment of the First Fruits should not attach to any living that did not amount to 250l. per annum.—From every calculation he had been able to make, it appeared to him that the revenues of the First Fruits, when properly valued and collected throughout all the different parishes, after deducting all expences, would produce between 20,000l. and 30,000l. per annum. This sum would be the means of increasing the poorer benefices of Ireland; and he thought it would be more proper in the legislature to look to this mode of making that fund productive, than to pay out of the treasury a sum of money for that purpose, which would affect the body of the people, without any reason or ground being first laid down. It should not affect any of the present incumbents, so as to be a burden upon them. Upon the whole, he could not help thinking that the measures which he proposed would be attended with very salutary and most beneficial consequences. The right hon. baronet then concluded with moving for leave to bring in the said bill.

opposed the motion, He said he believed the valuation that now existed had taken place in the reign of Henry 8, and one great consideration now was, whether the clergy were not in general already sufficiently provided for? He thought, at least, that there were many already sufficiently provided for, while others were not so; but the measure now proposed would go to benefit them all equally. It was true that many of the clergy did not pay the First Fruits, but the inequality in that instance was so exceedingly small, that it was not worth while to alter the valuation; the more especially as there were other funds for enlarging glebe houses in Ireland; and the sum now proposed to be granted in addition for that purpose, not being very large, he believed the house would think with him, that there was no ground for agreeing to this bill.

said, he certainly thought the object of the proposed bill was of such a nature, that every one ought to agree to it. The right hon. general did not deny that the benefices in Ireland were exceedingly unequal; the superior clergy being well provided for, and the inferior not so. That appeared to him to be the chief, if not the sole ground for this bill. Its object was to obtain the First Fruits revenue in the manner originally intended, and to apply it for the advantage of the smaller description of the clergy. His right hon. friend had stated, that he meant to exclude those clergymen from payment of the first-fruits, whose benefices did not amount to 250l. a year. He was as much disposed as any man to resist an innovation upon church property, but this was a decided payment, which, from the earliest times, the church had been liable to; and all that was aimed at was, a new valuation, to which they were by law to be subjected. The crown had wisely and liberally granted this in the reign of queen Anne, for purposes the most useful and the most important, and parliament were now only called upon to give efficacy to former legislative measures, which had become as it were a dead letter, and an unavailing instance of generosity. It was a perpetual fund, which would increase from year to year. The chancellor of the exchequer had formerly said, that it was desirable that every resident clergyman in this country should not have less than 200l. a year. He thought this would also be extremely desirable in Ireland, and it would be the best mode of discouraging the Roman Catholic religion. This was exactly such a measure as would raise the respectability, of the Protestant Church.

said, that the proposed bill would go to tax the clergy between 20,000l. and 30,000l.; the First Fruits now only producing about 3000l. The taking of 30,000l. out of the pockets of the clergy was an object of such magnitude, and so injurious, that he could not agree to it.

said, he owned he felt much surprise at the opposition that had been made to this measure, the more especially when it was made upon a motion merely to bring in the bill. After the discussions that had already taken place in that house upon measures brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer to encourage the residence of the clergy in England, he could not help thinking it was equally desirable to encourage that residence in Ireland. Gentlemen appeared to oppose this bill upon wrong principles and misstatements, as the object of it was not, as they alleged, to impose a tax upon the clergy, but to effect an equalization of the smaller livings and to levy that, which the clergy were already bound by former acts to bestow in a more impartial manner. He denied the proposition that the former valuation was to be the standard of future proceedings. The trustees had the power of renewing that valuation whenever it became necessary. As he understood it, the English act of parliament of the 28th of Henry 8th, was extended to Ireland, and by it a valuation was to take place, from time to time, by the keeper of the great seal, the master of the rolls, and other officers therein named. So from this it appeared, that the statute law of the united kingdom empowered the crown to make this valuation. Such was the avowed object of the present bill, and it should have his hearty support, as it could never be supposed that the sum of 3000l. a-year was all that ever was in view to be raised by the bounty in question.

opposed the measure. He insisted that the bill went to raise a revenue out of the pockets of the clergy of Ireland, under the idea that it would promote their interest, by first taxing them in order to procure the fund. The churches of Ireland and of England were declared to be one and indivisible, and therefore why put the clergy of Ireland upon a different footing from those in England? If there were to be any new valuation, it ought to extend to England as well as to Ireland. A bill similar to this one had been proposed in the house of lords some years ago, by a great and eminent prelate, but it was soon quashed. It would reduce the clergy in Ireland, great and small of them, to the greatest distress, if such a bill as this passed the house. It would be a charge almost insupportable, as a poor man would be nearly 3 years before he could reap any benefit from the glebe house he might have erected. Although those who opposed this measure were alledged to be wrong in point of law, yet he could inform its supporters, that it was formerly complained of as a great grievance, when Henry 8 abolished the Pope's power in this country, a new valuation of the First Fruits was made for the king's benefit. Nevertheless this fund was not the property of the crown at all; so that neither the keeper of the great seal, nor the master of the rolls, could at all exercise any controul over it. It was a fund purely belonging to the poorer clergy. The bounty of the crown was only 5000l. a-year for this benevolent purpose. Upon the whole, although more was now thought necessary, yet this, of all others, would be the hardest mode of raising it; and he trusted such a tax upon the clergy would never be entertained by the house of commons.

said, that it was quite an erroneous statement to say that this measure was to raise a tax upon the clergy to the amount of 30,000l. a-year. It did not do so; but the effect of it would be merely to raise from the higher order of the clergy that which the legislature had wisely bestowed upon the poorer, without inflicting any additional taxation upon the people at large. The measure was purely prospective, calling on the great preferments in Ireland to contribute a certain proportion to support those of the clergy who have not wherewithal to live upon. His right hon. friend did not, in the bill for which he then asked leave, take upon himself to fix any estimate, or to apportion the amount this fund ought to pay for pious purposes. It solely proceeded upon this fair and equitable principle, that those of the ecclesiastical order, who received a great deal out of the church of Ireland, ought to be compelled to advance something towards the support of such of their own order, who scarce had what was necessary for the purposes of life. The objections of the learned doctor (Duigenan) were anticipated by the statement of his right hon. friend. The learned doctor had asserted that it would, in its operation, load the clergy of Ireland with an exorbitant amount of taxation. The answer was, that the amount was solely left to the discretion of the house; the bill did not take upon itself to fix even any scale of appropriation. But the principle was necessary, and when acknowleged, then it was for the house to settle the detail. That the principle was necessary, every man acquainted with the state of Ireland must admit. There were, to his own knowledge, two bishoprics, each producing an income of 20,000l. per annum, and neither of which paid a single farthing, to the fund of First Fruits. Would any man then say, that a new valuation was not necessary, and that such preferment ought not to contribute to the maintenance and augmented comforts of the poor of their own order? It was far from the fact to say, that the proposed bill was an innovation, or that it trenched upon the rights of the Irish clergy. It only followed up an old and sanctioned law of the country, and was calculated to advance the interests of the established religion in that country. There was no man in that house less inclined to trench upon the property of the church, because he felt it had as good a title to security as any other species of possession. This bill had no such object, it did not attempt to apply that species of property to any foreign purpose. It was not to serve the laity, but to provide a due provision for those of their own calling, to whom, both a sense of interest for religion, and a feeling of sound policy, ought to administer competency and comfort. The learned doctor had argued, that, because some years ago, a reverend prelate had been unsuccessful in a measure similar to the present, therefore the motion of his right hon. friend ought to be refused. Such an inference was totally inconclusive; as the usage of parliament never could warrant this doctrine, that it should, on all subsequent occasions, refuse the adoption of a measure, merely because previous parliaments did not feel the propriety of acceding to some of a similar nature. The provisions of the proposed bill would be fully within the controul of the house, although it should accede to the present motion. But if, on the contrary, the house should, in the present stage, determine on the impropriety of submitting it to parliamentary discussion, then it would have adopted this principle, that in the regulation of the church all interference was improper. What would the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer say to such doctrine? He who felt so warmly the necessity of some measure of church reform, and had actually before the house a measure of legislation, which went to take from the property of the rector of a living of 250l. a-year? He had descanted upon the justice and propriety of such a reform. He had allowed no fear of innovation nor apprehension of disturbing or burdening church property, to interfere, or to retard this his favourite scheme; and surely if there was any parity in reasoning, or any consistency to be pursued, he must feel the necessity and the justice of the bill which his right hon. friend had now asked leave to introduce.

observed, that he was by no means inclined to retract or to qualify any one opinion which he had advanced in the support of the measure (the Stipendiary Curates' bill) to which the last speaker adverted; still he considered the bill now proposed a most oppressive mode of regulation, burdening the clergy with a severe imposition of taxation. In this country it was felt, upon a person being preferred to a bishopric or great living, that at least the product of three or four years of his income was anticipated by the expenses which, on his induction, he had to defray.

(Knight of Kerry) advised the chancellor of the exchequer to pause before he rejected a measure which, if refused, must lead to a full investigation of the state in which the Irish church was. placed. He proved, from an historical review, that the act of Queen Anne, by which the fund of first fruits were made available to the erection of glebe houses, and to the promotion of pious purposes, had been received by the clergy of that age as a great boon; so much so, that there existed a great competition with respect to the organ through which they should convey their thanks to the throne. There was no man who so well knew the necessity for the proposed measure as the learned doctor. He knew the deficiency of glebe houses in Ireland, and that such deficiency was, at all visitations, the pretext and excuse for the non-residence of the clergy. Was the house only to recognize this doctrine, that whilst the unhappy peasant of Ireland was oppressed with burdens and extreme taxation, the great, enormous, and lucrative incomes of the clergy, were not to pay any proportion, even to the support of the poor of their own order? The livings in Ireland had been united for political purposes; indeed, their object appeared to be rather to procure situations for political partisans, in place of provisions for religious pastors, and the diminutions of the Protestants in that country was principally to be attributed to that system of policy. He concluded by assuring the house, that the refusal of the present measure would provoke a discussion, which would perhaps be not the most serviceable to the interests of the Church establishment in Ireland.

replied to the objections of those who opposed his motion. He wished to know upon what grounds the house could refuse a measure, which only went to make a fund, fixed by parliamentary enactment, for the purpose of building glebe-houses in Ireland, avaliable to the import of the statute of queen Anne, and to the object of the parliament, by which that law was passed? The objections of that night were against the detail, and must have been created only for the purpose of making objections, as in his statement he had given no reason for such apprehensions. The learned doctor (Duigenan) had asserted that the present bill would severely affect small livings, although it had been previously stated, that it was not intended to include such benefices within its influence and operation. The same authority next proceeded to assert, that although the power of ordering the valuation of the Church property, and raising the fund of First Fruits, had been originally with the crown, yet it had been subsequently given up, and that no such valuation had taken place since the reign of Henry the 8th. But it was surprising to find that right hon. and learned doctor so grossly misinformed on a subject on which, at least, he ought to be accurate. If he would revert to the history of those times, he would find that a valuation took place in the reign of the first James; and that Montgomery, a patriotic and liberal divine, then bishop of Meath, had exerted himself to procure the proceeds of certain forfeited property in the province of Ulster, not for his own private emolument, but to augment the comforts, and to increase the happiness and respectability of the poorer clergy of his own see. If he extended his inquiries to more modern times, the learned doctor would find, that the 9th of Queen Anne was recognized and confirmed by a legislative provision in the reign of George I. The house, before it rejected the present motion, ought to reflect, that it went merely to compel the application of funds only to the purposes for which such funds were originally, intended. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer was much alarmed at calling upon the clergy, by a small appropriation of their immense revenues, to support the respectability of their own brethren, but he had no compunction for the sufferings of the burdened people of Ireland, when he called upon them to pay 50,000l. for that very purpose. This very session such a grant had been made, and such an impost levied on the people. Was it not naturally to be expected, that the people, already groaning under the immense weight of taxation, would reason thus: 'Before you, the house of commons, have a right to tax upon us an impost of 50,000l. for the purpose of erecting glebe houses, and of supporting the poorer clergy, does it not at least become your duty to inquire if any, and what funds exist by law, which without any addition to our enormous burdens, can be made available to that purpose? We know, that by the bounty of the crown such a fund does exist for that application, and surely there is neither justice, nor policy, nor reason, in calling upon us for further sacrifices, whilst, by the law of the land and the bounty of the crown, there exists at this moment a fixed and settled fund for that necessary and desirable purpose.' It had been asked, why confine this proposed bill to Ireland, and not extend it to this country? There were these two plain reasons for that limitation; first, that in this country there was no necessity for a new valuation of the livings, because the fund of First Fruits was competent to its object; and next, that there was no application upon the people of this country, as there was made upon the people of Ireland, to furnish such a sum as 50,000l. for that purpose.

rose to offer to the house the motion on the subject of the Log Book of the Royal George, while in the Dardanelles, which motion he had deferred from a former night. The house had already on its table the Instructions of the Admiralty to lord Collingwood; and also the Instructions of lord Collingwood to sir John Duckworth, directing that not more than half an hour should be consumed in negociating with the Porte. Sir John Duckworth, in his letter of the 6th March, alledged in excuse for his non-compliance with these orders, the contrary state of the winds, which would not permit him to come close to the city of Constantinople. It was essential to a just investigation of the causes of the failure of the Expedition, to have full and particular evidence on all the facts bearing upon it, and with this view he moved, That there be laid before the house, a copy of the journal or logbook of the Royal George, capt. Dunn (sir J. Duckworth's flag-ship), from the 19th Feb. the day she entered the Dardanelles, to the 22d Feb. both inclusive.

had communicated the substance of this motion to sir John Duckworth, who with the manliness that always distinguishes him, was only anxious that the fullest light should be thrown on his conduct in the case in question, as in every other instance. He thought it due, however, to so meritorious an officer, to state particularly the nature of any charges that it might be in the hon. mover's contemplation to bring forward against him, in order that his friends might be properly prepared to meet them.

At the time, sir, when I gave notice of my intention to move to be laid on the table of the house, an extract of the journal of one of his majesty's ships, whilst employed upon the Expedition against Constantinople, during the very short period of four days, it was impossible for me to foresee, that there could be, from any quarter, the smallest objection for the production of this paper, but more particularly from the quarter from whence the objection has since come. We were called upon to consider and to determine upon the failure of one of the most important Expeditions that ever sailed from England, and in comparison with the success of which, the loss of every ship of the squadron would have been a trifling and inconsiderable national calamity. Upon the success of this expedition hung suspended the fate of not only Russia, but of England, and of the whole civilized world. Immediately after the passing of the Dardanelles, had our fleet carried the intelligence of this exploit, as well as of the destruction of the Turkish fleet, to Constantinople, within 12 hours after it had happened, (which, from every information I have been able to obtain, I am of opinion, might easily have been done), the confusion and consternation would have been so great, that I am satisfied the English admiral might have prescribed any terms he pleased. The delivering up of Sebastiani, the occupation of the forts of the Dardanelles, and the renewal of the ancient alliance betwixt England and the Ottoman Porte, I am satisfied, would not only have been the immediate consequence, but the Russians and Turks would once more have been friends, and general Michelson, with 60,000 Russians, have been set at liberty, and have been enabled to have taken part in the battles of Friedland and Eylau, which decided the fate of Europe. This country, in place of being, as at present, shut out from every port of the Turkish empire, would have had the aid and intercourse of upwards of 30 millions of people, which would, in some measure, have com- pensated for other difficulties.—This is my view of the subject, and that it is totally impossible for the house to form any opinion, how far the failure of this great and most important expedition had been owing to the defect of the plan, to that of the instructions, to the inadequacy of the force, or to the unfortunate state of the winds and weather, unless the necessary documents are laid before us. We have seen the correspondence betwixt the English ambassador and secretary of state, explaining the complete ascendancy of the French at Constantinople, and suggesting by what means this unfortunate circumstance was to be surmounted. We have also seen the Instructions for the lords commissioners of the Admiralty to lord Collingwood; lord Collingwood's orders to sir J. Duckworth,—as also sir J. Duckworth's letter to lord Collingwood, after the total failure of the expedition, assigning as the cause—'the unfortunate state of the winds, and currents,' which from the day of his entrance into the Dardanelles, until that of his leaving it, he states to have been such, as to prevent his being able to obey lord Collingwood's orders. Under such circumstances, sir, I would ask the hon. admiral who has stated that sufficient grounds have not been laid for the production of the papers asked for, how the members of this house can possibly discharge their duty, without enquiring into the state of the winds and weather during the time that sir J. Duckworth was in the Dardanelles, or whether this can be seen in any manner more fair or more equitable than the captain's log of the admiral's own ship. I have not the smallest objection to our having copies of the other ship's logs, excepting a wish not to give any unnecessary trouble, and upon that account I have only asked for a copy of the captain's journal of the admiral's own ship, and only during four days, in place of the eleven days, during which time sir J. Duckworth was within the Dardanelles.—If the hon. admiral will have the goodness to suggest any more unexceptionable mode of ascertaining the state of the winds, and transactions on board of our fleet, I will gladly adopt it. I cannot avoid remarking upon the rather uncandid manner of proceeding on the part of the hon. admiral, to whom, previous to my moving for the production of the papers, I had not only shown a copy of the paper which I meant to ask to be laid upon the table of the house, but understood from him, that there could not be the smallest possible objection to its production. I likewise showed it to two other admirals, and they did not see the least objection to its being produced. After this, had any circumstances happened to induce the hon. member to alter his opinion, I think common candour ought, at least, to have induced the hon. member to have made some communication to me, and not to have left me to suppose no opposition was intended, when, on the contrary, the hon. admiral came down dressed to make a set speech upon the occasion, and to oppose the production of the paper, to which he had given me reason to suppose he felt no objection whatever.—I have already stated to the house, that having in my possession an accurate copy of captain Dunn's journal during the four days, which I now asked may be placed upon the table of the house, it is to myself very immaterial, in what manner the house may be pleased to dispose of the motion. Although I have no doubt but that the house will give me credit for what I assert, yet still for the regularity of our proceeding, it appears to me that it would be desirable to have the copy of the Journal upon your table. The notice of motion has now stood in your order book during several weeks, and therefore the hon. admiral with his friends, have had ample notice. I have further done much more than was either incumbent on me, or could have been expected.

in explanation, expressed the greatest readiness to give facility to the examination of the charge preferred, which was in substance, that he had not, under all the circumstances, made the sort of attack he ought to have made. He had no doubt that the gallant admiral would be found to have done his duty to the utmost, on that, as on every other occasion.

expressed great unwillingness to have these papers laid before the house. Though he did not doubt that those who proposed such investigations, were actuated always by patriotic motives, he did not think it right to institute inquiries into the conduct of naval and military commanders in that house in the first instance. If there was ground for a charge of neglect of duty in any case, the proper course was to represent the matter to the admiralty; and if the charge appeared founded, it would be brought to trial before the proper tribunal, a court martial. He expressed a high respect for sir John Duckworth's character, without having the honour to know him, and declared his intention to take the sense of the house on the motion, if it should be persisted in.—After some further conversation col. Wood agreed to withdraw the motion.

brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Claim of Mr. Palmer. It was read a first time. On the motion for the second reading,

rose. He said he should ill discharge his duty, as one of the guardians of the public purse, if he did not declare that, in his judgment, the present was one of the most extraordinary and unjust grants of the public money he had ever witnessed. He was convinced the house had been surprised into the vote they had given. There were many opportunities, however, still remaining for a reconsideration of the question, which he hoped would not be omitted. He thought the present occasion would convince his right hon. friend opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) of the impropriety, as his majesty's concurrence was required where grants of public money were applied for, of lending that concurrence in cases where he was convinced that no claim ought to be sustained. He was by no means convinced, that any bargain had ever been entered into; and on this head, he thought the house was equally bound to take the word of Mr. Pitt as of Mr. Palmer. But, supposing there had been such a bargain, and it was proved that Mr. Palmer had been guilty of the charges laid against him, and, on account of which, his situation had been forfeited, he asked, if it was possible to maintain that his misconduct had not divested him of the emolument as well as of the office? Though he did consider Mr. Palmer as having been a useful servant to the public, yet he was of opinion he was already sufficiently recompensed, and he should therefore resist the present unjustifiable and extravagant demand.

It seems desirable that previous to any remark on the subject before us, notice should be taken of an opinion which, however foreign from the merits of the question, may have considerable share in influencing the decision of it: namely, that this is a question on which those who vote on one side or the other may be considered as voting on principles of party. On what grounds this idea should be taken up, or how the ministers should be fond of countenancing it, I am at a loss to discover. In respect to the fact, and so far as regards myself, I declare I came into the house the other day not knowing that any question upon this subject was to be brought on, and equally ignorant of the part, which any of those with whom I usually act, were likely to take. This may, surely, be received as reasonable evidence, that the support given to Mr. Palmer by any gentlemen on this side of the house has not been the effect of concert, or of an opinion that they were required on this occasion to act in a body. For the views and motives of those who wish to convey this impression, though it is easy to understand, how the reduction of the question to a question of party may contribute to the decision, which they are desirous of producing, it is not equally easy to believe that they should be willing to purchase, this advantage at the price of representing a question on which the minister was beat, as one that had been decided on party principles. Had we attempted to set up such a conclusion, they would have ridiculed us, and justly, as laying claim to a triumph, to which we could have no pretence. I leave them to chuse between a confession of the weakness of their influence, and an admission that the merits of Mr. Palmer's case are so strong, that With all their influence, they are unable to resist them.—Another topic not less extraordinary, is that which has been broached by an hon. gent. (Mr. Banks) of the want of proper notice, and of the house having been taken by surprize. I know not what is to be deemed a notice, if an intention distinctly announced and formally entered, and resting in the Order Book during a period, I believe, of seven weeks, is not to be taken as such.—Both of these, it is plain, are points, which, though calculated to have an influence upon the decision, have nothing to do with the merits of the case. The last of them also, viz. that of the want of notice, is new: but, excepting that, nothing has been urged in the present debate, that was not fully under the consideration of the house at the time when the question was before discussed, and when the opinion of the house upon it was formally taken.—For the sake of such gentlemen as were not then present, it may be proper to observe, that the question was discussed upon two distinct grounds: first those of a bargain independent of its merits, and secondly, those of the merits independent of any bargain. It is to be remarked, that a decision in the affirmative on either of these grounds will carry the question in favour of Mr. Palmer; and that the union of the two, which is in fact the case, is by no means necessary to establish, his Claim, though it cannot fail to give to it redoubled force, and to leave the rejection of it, could such a decision be conceived to be adopted, more entirely without excuse. The existence of a bargain is not denied, and of a bargain so constructed, as to make it impossible that the public should suffer by it. It may be added, so constructed likewise, as to make it nearly impossible to conceive how it should be capable of being forfeited. A bargain by which a person is paid only in proportion to the service he does, though it may originally have been an improvident one, as giving him a larger proportion of the benefit to be received, than with proper precautions he might have been willing to accept, is a species of bargain by which, when once made, the public can never be a loser, and which one does not well understand how the individual contracting it can ever forfeit. It is not contended indeed directly, that the bargain in this part of it has been forfeited. But it is said, 'We cannot distinguish how much of what 'was to be given to Mr. Palmer was given 'on the footing of compensation and how 'much for future service. When he had 'forfeited, therefore, as it is agreed he did, 'what was intended as engagement for 'future service, we deem upon a rough 'calculation, that what remained to him, 'was worth no more than what we now 'offer' It might be sufficient to say, that the calculation here referred to, was a most unjust one; and that admitting the line of distinction, between what was given as a reward and what was intended as wages, to be ever so difficult to be traced, it could never be conceived, that what was left for reward after deducting all that could be construed as payable for future service, was no more than is now pretended. But this difficulty is a mere pretence. Nothing, one should think, could be more apparent to any one who did not chuse to be blind, than that the part assigned as reward and remuneration was the percentage, and the part intended as payment for future services, the salary. The only doubt could be, whether the principle of reward for the past did not extend even to the salary, just as it happens in a thousand instances, that an appointment to an office is the reward of services already per- formed: but it is a strange perversion indeed, to suppose, that when, in exchange for a plan communicated to the public by an individual, and brought forward by him in the first instance at his own risk and expence, an agreement is made granting him as a reward for, or as the price of, his invention, a proportionate part of the clear advantage, which it should produce to the public, the subsequent appointment to an office should change the nature of the bargain so made and completed, and silently superinduce a condition, by which his bargain should be forfeited in consequence of any misconduct which would have the effect of forfeiting the office. The very circumstance that part of the percentage was given up when this appointment took place, and given up in consequence of that appointment, is proof conclusive, even could any doubt be entertained, that what was not so given up, continued precisely on the footing on which it had previously stood.—What miserable quibbling, therefore, would that be; even if, after all, the inference could be made good; which by a strict construction of particular phrases, and by the aid of rules of interpretation not professing to give always the true sense of the instrument, though useful possibly to be observed upon the whole, would establish a conclusion, obviously repugnant to the intentions of the parties, and to the real and substantial equity of the case? Is it thus that the legislature of a great country would wish to deal with an individual, at the very moment when the country was enjoying to the full extent the benefit of his invention, and with no intention to give back any portion of it, though they were denying to him the proportionate advantage which they had before agreed to, and which they would be willing to repeat, were his invention still to be purchased and could be obtained upon no other terms?—I will not go again into the examination of the letters to Bonnor, which, one might be sure, would be again brought up; nor consider how far those letters, culpable and indefensible as they were, might admit of some excuse. It is sufficient to say, that they are nothing to the present purpose: that though they are sufficient, and more than sufficient, to set aside the appointment, to justify and to demand the revocation of the salary and of the office, they did not touch the allowance which had been given in the form of a percentage, and as the price of the Plan that had been commu- nicated. This price is what Mr. Palmer claims, and this is what he has still, as he had formerly, a full right to.—The censure passed by the hon. gent. near me (Mr. Bankes) on the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer, does not require to be adverted to as affecting the merits of the case, which it can in no degree vary: as a matter of general doctrine, I can by no means bring myself to assent to it, seeing that the direct effect must be to place in the arbitrium of the chancellor of the exchequer, what ought to be submitted to the judgment of the house. The cases in my opinion can be but very few, in which a chancellor of the exchequer ought to exert the delicate and dangerous privilege, even though he may be possessed of it, of withholding from the house the power of exercising its own judgment.—The plea of lapse of time, urged also by the hon. gent. near me, is of another sort. Though it does not, in one sense, affect the merits of the case, that is to say, the justice of the Claim, it makes part of the question which the house is called upon to consider. I shall only say, that however good the objection may be on the part of many individual members, of the hon. gent. for example or of myself, it cannot well be adopted by a house, which in the instance of the duke of Athol, to say nothing of the general merits of that case, did not scruple to revise a transaction which had passed 40 years before, and which had been sanctioned, not by an order of the lords of the treasury, but by a solemn act of the three branches of the legislature.

strongly supported the Resolution, and compared the conduct of Mr. Palmer's Deputy, who had revealed his confidential correspondence, to that of Judas Iscariot, who sold his master.

was of opinion, that this was the most exceptionable demand he ever knew. If the house agreed to the Report, they would reward a public officer for great and manifold misconduct. In the year 1799, the question had been decided against Mr. Palmer, by a majority of 112 to 28; but now, without any additional evidence on the subject, the house were called upon to do that, which would shake their honour and character more than any thing within his recollection.

said, that major Palmer's powers of persuasion had, on a former evening, made him a proselyte; but that, on a better understanding of the case, he now came prepared to make his retrac- tion. The situation which Mr. Palmer held was granted to him not only for services done, but to encourage him in future. If he was now entitled to the 2½ per cent. he was therefore entitled to the 1500l. a-year also, and to the place itself. Having accepted of that place, he could not have no other document of his agreement but it, and by it he must be bound. He therefore opposed the Resolution.

complained that very few questions had been put to him by the Committee, though it was in his power to throw considerable light upon the subject; and contended that the percentage on the Revenue of the Post Office was granted to Mr. Palmer only during his continuance in office.

—After the very ample investigation which this subject underwent upon a former evening, and the decided sentiment which the house by a very large majority then expressed upon its merits, I little expected to find the discussion revived upon the present occasion with an increase of acrimony, yet without any addition of argument.—I can assure the House that unlike the hon. member behind me (Mr. Stuart Wortley) I rise not to avow myself a proselyte to any argument I have heard either within or without doors, or to express my repentance for having given a vote on a preceding night, in favour of the just claims of a meritorious individual, which the house in its justice, and to its eternal honour, has recognized.—Sir, I was much surprised to hear the hon. gentleman state, that Mr. Palmer's powers of persuasion had made him a proselyte, but that on a better understanding of the case, he came prepared to make his retraction.—Sir, I shrewdly suspect that the authors of the hon. gent.'s proselytism are not far off, and that their arguments, too often irresistibly persuasive, have made him a proselyte from the truth and justice of the case; but I care little by what cause this effect has been produced, sure I am, it will not be general amongst those who come to discharge their duty without respect of persons, and of such I am satisfied the maj6rity on a former night were composed. Sir, I must confess I did not expect to hear myself, in common with two thirds of the house, stigmatized with gross ignorance and mistake in the discharge of my public duty, and formally put upon my defence, for a vote which I had given conscientiously and according to the best dictates of my judgment. The hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) who has chosen to make this unexpected and extraordinary attack upon either the understanding or the integrity of 137 members, not being able to satisfy the house by argument of the justice or opposing this Claim, turns round upon the members of the Committee who made the Report, and is determined to wreak his vengeance, and exhaust his ill temper, on them and their labours. Sir, I had the misfortune (in his opinion, but the honour, in my own) to be a member of that Committee, and I will venture to advance in extenuation of its alledged offences, that it was a committee unusually numerous and well attended; composed of gentlemen in all habits of life, and professing different political principles; that many among them, until this unlucky slur upon their discretion and probity, were not suspected to be deficient in common sense; and I may at least be allowed to say, without presumption, that they were punctual and indefatigable in their attendance; that they omitted no care or pains by which the truth could be ascertained; and that after every practicable devotion of their time, and sacrifice of their attention, they agreed upon a report perfectly satisfactory to their own consciences, and which they were really vain enough to hope would have proved equally satisfactory to the house, and even to the fastidiousness of the hon. gent. Sir, the members of that Committee would indeed have cause for regret, if the hon. gent., in the delivery of these very liberal sentiments, could be considered as the organ of the house; the vote of this night, like that of the last, will, I trust, prove that he is not so; that it is only his individual opinion, which, however respectable, he will excuse us if we deem not infallible. With respect to the form or diction of the Report, so severely commented on by the hon. member, I can only say it is unfortunate that we had not the aid of the judgment and literary talents of the hon. member in preparing it, as it might then have been more worthy the place for which it was destined. I can only hope, that when the long expected report shall at length arrive from that Committee over whose labours the hon. gentleman himself presides, we shall receive a luminous document worthy his superior genius and accuracy, which may serve as a beautiful and unerring model by which all future committees may be enabled to reform their inaccuracies, and accommodate their conduct to his code of propriety of language and siatement.—Sir, we are next told, with infinite gravity, that the vote of Thursday night ought to be rescinded because the house was taken by surprize upon that occasion!—In the name of common sense, what does the hon. gent. mean by surprise?—Was not the day appointed by the minister himself, and was there not a notice of full six weeks given of that day? I never recollect any measure urged upon the house with less appearance of precipitation, or upon which every member has been enabled to form a more cool and deliberate judgment.—Indeed, this is an objection so palpably ridiculous, that I can only suppose the hon. gent. meant by it to give us an agreeable proof of his fancy, by raising an argument where any other person would have despaired to find one.—Another hon. gent. (Mr. Long) has insinuated to the house, that the report of the Committee is indeed but little to be relied upon, because he could have supplied them with a vast deal of intelligence upon the subject of their enquiry, which they either disdained, or neglected to apply for, when he offered himself as an evidence before them. I fear it is the misfortune of this hon. gent. to possess a singularly treacherous memory. I wish before he had committed himself by such an assertion, he had looked at the printed report of the Committee, which is now in every member's hand; he would there have seen, that when his evidence was taken, it amounted merely to two or three loose remarks of no importance; and that when the Committee had put every question they conceived to be of consequence, the hon. gent. was expressly asked "whether there were any points "remaining upon which he could afford "information," that he as expressly answered "he had no further intelligence "to give." Assuredly here is convincing proof that the hon. gent.'s memory must either have failed him wonderfully at the time his evidence was taken, or that it must have played him a slippery trick upon the present occasion; the hon. gent. has no alternative but to sacrifice one of his contradictory assertions to the other, and in either case I consider his misfortune as very much to be deplored.—It has been suggested, that some portion of the Post Office Revenue has arisen, since 1793, from circumstances independent altogether of Mr. Palmer's Plan; and it seems in consequence apprehended, that a larger remuneration may be granted than Mr. P. is fairly entitled to.—In reply to this objection, I beg to inform the house that the Committee fully took into consideration the amount of encreased revenue which arose from other sources than those of Mr. P.'s creation, and that they made every allowance and deduction on that account before they presented their Report. As to the repeated argument in respect to the amount, if the Claim is established in point of justice, I must again insist that its magnitude ought to be no argument against its entire fulfilment; it is an argument which encreases our demerit, whilst it adds to the amount of Mr. Palmer's Claim.—Sir, I shall detain the house no longer; there is no argument to reply to, only mis-statements to correct; the claim of this gentleman is indisputable; you have already recognized it; the sense of the house has been taken on it; to-night I am well assured it will be again expressed with similar, or encreased effect.—I have never given a more conscientious vote than the one I gave on the same occasion. I shall repeat it to-night, confident that the independence of the house is with me, and the sense of the country no less so.

was surprised at the inconsistencies of the gentlemen on the opposite side; for instead of arguing on the bargain, which they all admitted, they flew to the misconduct of Mr. Palmer while in office. The impropriety of Mr. Palmer's conduct in office he was not a supporter of, but he would submit, that the conduct in office had nothing to do with the original bargain, and ought not to interfere with the present question. Why did they not meet it when it was before the house for the first time, and put a stamp on it? That would have shewn the public Mr. Palmer had no claim; but instead of doing so they gave it a half assent, a half dissent, and at last threw it by and got rid of it by moving the previous question. There had been a vast deal of obloquy thrown on the Report of the Committee; he saw no argument adduced to warrant it. He believed the Committee consisted of as honourable and as good men, without exception, as the house could produce. He could not pass over the subject without saying, that the Committee had been hardly used.

argued, that the opinion of the Committee was not entitled to much credit, because the evidence upon which that opinion was formed was not given; and that the question having been decided by a former house of commons, should be considered as having been set finally at rest.

—Sir, I have examined the merits of this case, and bestowed the greatest attention upon every argument brought forward, both for and against Mr. Palmer's Claims: and so far from their having shaken, they have confirmed the opinion that I before entertained, of the justness of Mr. Palmer's demands.—Sir, when I observe, upon the one hand, the greatness of the benefits, and remark upon, the other, the smallness of the craved reward, I really am astonished that ministers should hesitate for a single instant to comply with Claims founded on an undeniable contract, and supported by services, which have exceeded the most sanguine hopes.—But, sir, I must at the same time, congratulate his majesty's ministers on the acquisition of a virtue, of which I never before observed in them the least trait. And I shall be extremely happy if they remain under its influence on future occasions, instead of pensioning worthless objects, who have done their country far more harm than good. I scarcely know how to answer the arguments of the right hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, for they so perpetually shift their ground and change their position, that it is almost impossible to ascertain where they intend to make a stand. First, it is a bargain, then it is not a bargain; and after all they seem doubtful, whether this is a bargain, or a remuneration. Now, I think it immaterial which it is, for if it is a contract, beyond a doubt it should be performed; and if it is a remuneration, surely 50 shillings cannot be considered too much to give a man, who gives you 100 pounds. Here the public has, and is receiving profits to the amount of millions! For this stupendous engine is at this moment actually in motion, and will be so as long as the kingdom shall exist; and while it does, it's benefits must increase. For the numerous and incalculable advantages arising from this plan, I think the country can hardly ever make an adequate return to Mr. Palmer; for the fatigue, anxiety, disappointment, and loss of health he has suffered, they never can, I am certain.—Sir, I am not in general very ready to place implicit confidence in the Reports of Committees; but when I consider the impartial and able gentlemen that composed it, and that Mr. Palmer could have no influence over them, besides that which the injustice he has been treated with, must excite in every honest man, I think it is a Report which is entitled to every kind of confidence and respect; and my opinion of it's fairness has received additional strength at hearing from an hon. baronet (sir Thos. Turton,) that all fair deductions have been made on account of that proportion of the increase of the Post Office Revenue which might be attributed to causes not immediately belonging to Mr. Palmer's invention.—Sir, the hon. gentlemen have talked a great deal about the letters written by Mr. Palmer, but I cannot conceive that they have any reference to the question which now occupies the house; if there is any weight in them, it can only apply to the office and the salary; to the claim to centage they are quite foreign.—Sir, that hon. gent. said, that this question was decided in 1799; but I really believe he must mean that as a joke; for what decision could be expected by an unprotected individual opposed by a powerful minister, or what choice could Mr. Palmer make, when he was told, "you shall "either accept my terms or nothing."—And yet, this was the decision the hon. gent. alludes to. As I am sure there is no honest man in the country who would not willingly contribute towards the discharge of a debt like this, I shall vote for it whenever it shall be brought forward.

defended Mr. Pitt's bargain, and contended that if that great man had felt it to be improvident, he never would have shrunk from acknowledging it.

contended, that the agreement between Mr. Palmer and the public had been cancelled by the very improper conduct of Mr. Palmer in office. It was his opinion, that the Revenue having materially suffered by Mr. P.'s dismissal, was an argument against him, and that he ought to suffer by the loss.

dwelt upon the imperfect evidence of the report; and moved that the debate be adjourned till to morrow se'nnight, with a view to refer it back to the committee, with an instruction to the committee to take further evidence. The house divided: the numbers were,

For the Adjournment	87
Against it	137
Majority	—50

A long conversation then took place on the subject of the coarse which it would be most proper for the house to adopt after the determination of this night.

informed the house, that it appeared to him, that the regular mode of proceeding would be for the accounts of the Net Proceeds of the Post Office Revenue up to the present period to be laid before the house; the amount of money which was to be paid to Mr. Palmer, as a remuneration for the time past, could then be ascertained from those documents, and voted in a Committee of Supply. The consideration of the annual sum which the house might think fit to order to be paid in future, must also, he believed, originate in a Committee of Supply. When a Resolution was agreed to on that subject, a bill might afterwards be brought into the house pointing out the fund from which it was to be taken, and legalizing a particular course of distribution or appropriation as usual in similar cases.—The Accounts were then ordered to be laid before the house. After which the Report was agreed to, and Mr. Palmer proposed, that on Friday next the subject should be referred to a Committee of Supply.