rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the general Orders issued by general sir John Moore at Salamanca, &c. in Spain. His sole object in moving for these papers was, that the character of that gallant and highly lamented officer might appear in its true colours. He did not apprehend there could be any objection to this motion, and should therefore mention the papers, viz. Copies of the general Orders issued on the 25th of October, 11th of November, and 23d, 27th, and 30th of December, 1808.

said, he should be sorry to refuse any papers which might be thought necessary to vindicate the character of the gallant officer alluded to, but he must resist the motion; first, because the executive government could not comply with it. No such papers were in his office, nor did he know where they were, except they might be in possession of the adjutant-general in Spain. In the next place, he thought it a serious question of prudence whether such papers ought to be called for, as the orders of generals to the army under their command were conveyed in a tone which might be necessary to keep up discipline, and might not perhaps be quite consonant to the feelings of the house, and should not therefore be made public.

said, that if the noble lord would refer to the adjutant-general, he would easily find where the papers moved for were. As to the other objection to the tone of general orders, and their not according with the feelings of the house, he thought it very futile. They were always clear and concise, and so far not consonant with the long speeches in that house, but if those moved for were supposed necessary to clear up any doubts as to the conduct of the gallant and lamented officer alluded to, they ought certainly to be produced. He should therefore take the sense of the house on the question.

said, that as, contrary to his expectation, his motion was opposed, he would beg the attention of the house while he briefly stated his reasons for making it, and why he thought the objections of no weight against it. As to the first, it would be easy for the Order of that house to be directed to the adjutant-general, and if he had not the papers, then to the adjutant-general of the army in Spain. With respect to the second objection, of the tone of a commanding officer being different to what it would be if addressed to the house, it made, he thought, rather in favour of the motion; there could not, certainly, be any object which the house ought more to wish the knowledge of, than the state of the discipline of the army. As to the gallant officer who was the object of the motion, he was sure that brave general never wrote or expressed a sentiment relative to the army under his command, which he would not have published and wished to be known to the whole world. It was very well known, that a considerable alarm had gone abroad respecting the disorder and want of discipline in the army under the command of sir John Moore, which had shewn itself particularly in the retreat from Sahagun to Corunna, and that this want of discipline was not owing to general Moore. Now, if those Orders were made public, they would shew plainly and clearly that the fault was not with him. If the noble lord meant these orders should not be known to the public, and if it were true, as the noble lord had admitted, that every thing had been done by sir John Moore in the retreat from Sahagun to Cornnna, that could have been done by the ablest general in any service, then the argument amounted to this, viz. that you must not hurt the feelings of the army, but you may sacrifice the honour and character of the officer who commanded. If any thing had been done by the gallant officer alluded to, which was at all faulty, it was entirely owing to ministers; and as he had, unfortunately for the country, fallen a sacrifice to the situation in which he had been placed by them, or by their adherents, it was extremely hard to sacrifice his character, as well as his life, to screen themselves. The whole of these Orders had been published in the newspapers, and if refused, that house would be the only place in which they would not be known. He wished, however, to place the character of the gallant and lamented officer, in its proper colours on the records of that house; and the production of these orders was the only way of effectually clearing it from the doubts that would otherwise be spread over it.

thought, as the propriety of sir John Moore's conduct appeared such that the public were generally satisfied, the production of the papers moved for seemed unnecessary.

thought, that whatever obstacle from a feeling of delicacy might arise in some cases to the production of certain documents, none after what had already been produced could be supposed to exist in the present He thought they ought to be produced, to enlighten the public on a question so important.

briefly replied, and gave it as his opinion, that such an inquiry at the present moment would be invidious and unnecessary.

rose to move for certain Papers relating to Mr. Frere's mission. After some preliminary observations, he stated, that Mr. Frere had written to sir J. Moore on the 23d of November, advising him to advance with his army. In answer to this letter of Mr. Frere's, sir J. Moore writes "I last night received a letter from the Supreme Junta. I have commanded sir David Baird to march back to Astorga, and have stopped the preparations for retreating." And this, it appeared, had been done at a period when there could, in fact, be no prospect of the British army being able to exert itself with effect. At this juncture, two persons (Thomas de Morla and the duke del Castell Franco) calling themselves the Supreme Junta, wrote a letter to sir J. Moore, dated the 1st of December, in which they stated, that they were much threatened by the enemy, that Castanos, with 25,000 men, and another army of 10,000 were falling back, and that they hoped he (sir John Moore) would fall back, and unite with their force. It had since appeared, that on the very day on which that letter was written, Morla had an interview with the French commanders; three days after from his conduct it should appear he considered all resistance as useless, and on the 5th (the day on which sir John Moore received the letter) the French were in quiet possession of Madrid. If it had been the wish of Morla to decoy the British army into the power of the French, he could not have wished for an instrument more likely to forward his wishes than the letter which had been written to sir John Moore by Mr. Frere. And the subsequent conduct of Morla was such as to justify a suspicion that that was the fact. The situation of sir John Moore at that period was truly distressing: he found himself at the head of a British army in a foreign country, placed in such circumstances (though no fault of his) that he could not be cheered with any reasonable prospect of success He knew the extravagant notions of Spanish enthusiasm that at that time so generally pervaded this country, and was aware of the censure he must, in all probability, incur if he consulted the safety of his army, by quitting the country without making any further effort in the cause. Yet happily superior to all these afflicting reflections, the gallant general determined to brave the transient obloquy that menaced him, by preserving his men. To this resolve we might attribute his avoiding the snare; but though the whole of his army were not decoyed into the power of the French, the disastrous battle of Corunna might be ascribed to the circumstances he had spoken of. The right hon. Secretary opposite certainly could not mean to say, at a time when Mr. Frere was so confident of the success of the Spanish cause, when he was so confident in the soundness of his own judgment, that, he in a manner superseded the commanding officer, in a case which involved the fate of the finest body of troops that had ever sailed from England, that he never wrote in explanation of his conduct; it could not be supposed that he had failed to communicate to government his reasons for acting as he did, and if such an explanation had been transmitted, it was highly proper that it should be produced. The hon. gent. concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house, a copy of the Letter from the Junta at Madrid, referred to by lieut.-gen sir John Moore in his letter to the right hon. John Hookham Frere, dated Salamanca, 6th December 1808, and any information of which his majesty's government may be in possession relative thereto, or relative to the two Letters of the right hon. John Hookham Frere to sir John Moore, dated Talavera de la Reyna, the 3d of December 1808, and to the message which is stated to have accompanied those Letters."

had already communicated to the hon. gent, that it was impossible to comply with his motion, because government had no such papers as he had moved for to produce. He left the house to judge of the candour of the hon. gent. under these circumstances, who seemed to have taken this occasion to throw out insinuations against Mr. Frere before the time for discussing the subject altogether had arrived. He had heard this with feelings which he would not trust himself to express. When the proper moment came he would endeavour to discharge his public duties and those of private friendship. He was surprised the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Tierney) had not called the hon. gent. to order when he was reading the extract from the letter of the Junta; he who had on a former occasion made so much noise about garbled extracts. That letter, however, was not in the possession of government; and as to the other part of the motion, all the communications of Mr. Frere on the subject were on the table.

observed, that the offence of his hon. friend had not deserved the wrath of the right honourable secretary. It was extremely proper to move for these papers, and to state the grounds of the motion, even though government had them not to produce; for it was very important to know that there were no such documents; and this fact did not operate much in favour of Mr. Frere. As to his calling his hon. friend to order, the right hon. gent. ought to be aware that there was a difference between reading an extract of a letter in moving for a paper, and the production of garbled extracts to form a foundation for a vote of the house. This was what they had complained of; for a Secretary of State might by this means give any complexion to the documents that would best suit his own purposes.

stated that Mr. Frere had accompanied the Junta when they left Madrid, and could have known nothing of Charmilly, or the letter of Morla, had it not been that the Junta stopped at Talavera de la Reyna, on their way to Seville. Here Charmilly found him, when on his way to sir John Moore, with a direct communication, never intended to be forwarded through Mr. Frere.

did not know whether the right hon. gent. had attended to the extent of his hon. friend's motion. He wished he would state whether there was any communication from Mr. Frere relative to the two letters which he had sent to sir John Moore, and which had been received by him when Charmilly arrived?

did not know of any.

said, there were no documents at his office on the subject, cither from Mr. Frere or sir John Moore. He wished to correct a mistake, which, he understood, to have prevailed. It had been said, that Charmilly went to Spain recommended by him. There was no foundation for the report. Charmilly had applied to him to be sent, but he had told him that he did not know of any service in which he would be wanted, and he really never knew that the gentleman was in Spain till the mention of this transaction.

would reserve what he had to say on the subject of Mr. Frere's conduct till the proper time, but he supposed the right hon. secretary could not expect that any one would be prevented from saying of Mr. Frere whatever he would have said if he had not had the protection of the right hon. gent.'s friendship. There were two important facts, however, ascertained by this discussion; first, that Charmilly was the messenger to sir John Moore; and next, that the noble lord (Castlereagh) was still in office, in the face of a minority of 167. Many greater men had been driven out by a less formidable minority. But while the sturdy oak was rooted up by the storm, the pliant bulrush bent its head and recovered the shock.

said, that he certainly was not disposed to retire on any suggestion of the hon. gent. As to Charmilly's being the messenger alluded to, he did not officially know any thing about the matter.

said, that the majority of the house had voted that there was no reason why his noble friend should retire, and that the judgment of the house was to be regulated by its majority, and not by the minority.

observed, that what had been applied to Buonaparté might, with the alteration of a word, be applied to the noble lord. Buonaparté had been called the child and champion of Jacobinism: The noble lord was the child and champion of office. In order to shew how utterly unworthy of any trust or credit Charmilly was, he stated that he had refused to pay to a Mr. Devereux some money which he had lost to him at play, upon the pretence that he was a ruined man; although as had been afterwards ascertained, he certainly had the means of paying.

called the hon. general to order, on the ground that this had nothing to do with the question.

said that it was difficult to know precisely, in some cases, the exact limits of order. The gallant general would use his own discretion.

proceeded. It appeared that this colonel Charmilly, had been the bearer of the dispatch to sir J. Moore; he therefore came before the house in that kind of military diplomatic character. Now when this colonel Charmilly was charged with his conduct to Mr. Devereux, what did he do? Why, simply denied ever having played with Mr. D. at all. The business was not proceeded in, owing to the interference of a very respectable man, the Compte de Vandreuil, who represented the total ruin in which it must involve colonel Charmilly. Such was the man whom Mr. Frere chose to authorise to interfere with sir John Moore! Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Canning mutually explained; after which the motion was put and negatived without a division.

stated, that according to an agreement entered into, in the year 1797, it was stipulated that the proprietors of Newspapers should be allowed 12 per cent duty on stamps, provided they were restricted in the sale of their papers to the price of six-pence. They were to be allowed this discount provided the price did not rise above sixpence; but if it did, the discount was discontinued. This agreement, at the time it was made, was just, for the expences attending the publication were commensurate to the restriction. Since that period, however, owing to the rise in paper, the additional expence of labour, and a variety of other circumstances, the present profits were not adequate to the expenditure. It surely, then, could not be just to continue an agreement which had been made under very different circumstances from those now existing. Two modes were proposed, in order to meet the present circumstances. The first was, to take off the discount altogether, and allow the proprietors of papers to sell at their own prices; the other was, to raise the limits of the discount: the latter method was in his opinion preferable, for though the consequence he had no doubt would be the raising the price of newspapers one half-penny each, still this would not place the proprietors in as prosperous a situation, owing to their additional expences, as they were in, in the year 1797, when the agreement was first made. In the year 1801, an additional duty had been laid on paper, and of course an additional discount was allowed; but the duty having been repealed, the additional discount was also taken off. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill in order to amend the 37th of George 3, relating to the restrictions on Newspapers."

was surprised at the motion which had been made. He had rather expected that the discount would be taken off entirely, and that the price should remain as it at present was. Various circumstances concurred to shew, that newspaper proprietors considered they had a good trade of it. For instance, a paper had been lately set up, which thought proper to extend itself from four (the usual number of columns,) to five columns. It was, in his opinion, impossible that the size of the articles should be increased, unless the value of it rose in proportion. He did not see, then, if this was the case, why this additional encouragement should be given.

said, that he for his part would be glad to take off the discount altogether, and leave the restriction in price to the fair efforts of competition. He was sure, however, that the immediate effect of that would be, the increase of the price to sevenpence. With respect to the objection of one paper having increased the number of its columns to five, the reason of that he supposed was, that its proprietors thought they should profit by the additional number of advertisements, in which the chief value of a newspaper consisted. This was the exact case, he believed, with this individual paper, which had been established by a body of auctioneers, who looked chiefly to advertisements. The great evidence of the burthen of the restriction was, that the aggregate number of daily papers was not increased since 1797. This was a fact which he had ascertained from the commissioners of stamps. It was very true, that a number of additional denominations of papers had been lately established, but still the risk attending such establishment was not less than that of a lottery, and had been often followed by ruin to the adventurers.

, said, it was very true that an additional number of papers were continually appearing; but these papers were not diurnal prints, which incurred necessarily a very heavy expense in their establishments, but weekly and two days a week papers, which could glean their intelligence from the daily papers, without having to pay the sources from whence it was derived; of course, the circumstance of their appearance ought not to militate against the daily paper, which gave to them much of its advantages, while it could not extend any of its expences. The paper which had extended its columns to five was a daily paper, it was true; but then, in order to support itself, it was compelled to publish at an early hour, which early publication necessarily prevented it from participation in the sources of information from which other papers derive much of their interest; for instance, it was not able fully to give intelligence of what was passing in that house. He supported the present measure from an absolute conviction of its justice and its policy; for, surely, it would not be equitable to keep newspaper proprietors to the strict limitation or letter of an agreement, when the foundation on which such agreement stood had sunk. Why should they be restricted in the price of their paper, when the expence attending it had been extended? Papers which had a variety of advertisements might profit by it, but that was the result of much labour and a long establishment, and was at all events no reason why those which had fewer should suffer. A multiplicity of papers were now printed in this town, but such speculations were extremely hazardous, and were often kept alive at absolute ruin from too long protracted hope and a natural disinclination to dissolve a regulated establishment.

moved the order of the day for the house resolving itself into a Committee on this bill. On the motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair,

expatiated on the impro- priety of allowing offices in the courts of law to become saleable. This practice had been justly reprobated by all judicial characters, from lord Kaimes, downwards. The Committee of Finance in 1797 had disapproved of the custom, and had recommended strongly its discontinuance to the house. He merely threw this out as his opinion, for he did not mean to make any specific motion on the subject.

agreed with the hon. and learned gent., that the subject to which he had alluded was deserving of consideration, and was of opinion that the house should come to some resolution upon the question in the present session. It would not be right to proceed further in the present instance without communication with the courts, with a view to guard, in any future measures, existing rights and vested property. In the last session, he had given notice of his intention in the present to bring forward a proposition for the increase of the salaries of the puisne judge, and he had to state, that that was still his intention. He thought it would also be right to increase the salaries of the Welsh judges, and of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and of the chief baron of the Exchequer. He had not brought forward this measure at an earlier period of the session, because from the feelings which the mention of it seemed to have excited, he did not apprehend any opposition to it when he should propose to carry it into effect. But he trusted that the house would not think it necessary to make any provision respecting the sale of judicial offices, before this regulation should be adopted, but content itself with a resolution declaratory of its intention to take up that subject next session. In the exceptions, therefore, in the present bill, he proposed that these offices should be included, and should not propose to delay one year the consideration of the expediency of making some regulation respecting them, if that delay could effect or interfere with the administration of justice. But the offices were purely ministerial; and there were other judges in the different courts, besides those, who had the disposal of these places, and who could decide whether the persons appointed were adequate and fit for the offices. It was matter of surprise, that such places should have been excepted in the act of Edward vi.; but, as they had been so long excepted from the operation of that act, and allowed to be sold, it would not be just to take away the right of disposing of them without due consideration, and an adequate equivalent.

observed, that in his idea the operation of the bill ought to be extended to sinecures in the courts, and offices sold by persons holding such sinecures. He did not know all the cases, or how many sinecures of that description existed, but he was confident that many offices were sold that did not belong to the courts of justice to dispose of. The Third Report of the Finance Committee contained a recommendation to abolish sinecures in the courts of law. The Committee of Finance in 1797, had also recommended the abolition of such places, the profits of which were then estimated at 26,000l. By the late Report, it appeared that the amount of these profits had since doubled. There might, perhaps, be room for further inquiry before any legislative measures should be enacted; but when it appeared that the profits of such places amounted to no less a sum than 52,000l. it was his opinion that this sum would afford a very ample fund to remunerate those whose property might be injured by taking away the right of selling judicial offices.

stated, that there were many inaccuracies in the estimates of the Committee, and instanced one office, which they had sat down as one having 2,500l. profits, when the actual profits did not exceed 500l.

admitted, that some inaccuracies might have existed in the Report, which the committee was at present engaged in examining with a view to their correction, but still declared, that the gross amount of the profits of such places was such as he had stated.

thought, that not only the interests of the judges should be protected, but also the interests of other persons who held offices for life, and now exercising the right of selling offices in their departments; which right, he was of opinion, ought not to be suffered to continue. Nothing would more effectually contribute to make the public submit cheerfully to the burthens that were necessary, than that they should see that every saving of the public expenditure that was possible was resorted to. The house then resolved itself into a Committee upon the bill, Mr. Wharton in the chair.—On the first clause for extending the operation of the Bill to all officers in England and Ireland, an amendment was proposed by lord Folkestone, to insert, the words "and in any part of his majesty's dominions or plantations." The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that the object of the noble lord was secured by words to the same effect in a subsequent part of the clause. Mr. Maxwell, in seconding lord Folkestone's amendment, proposed that the operation of the bill should extend to the sale of sheriff's clerkships, and offices under the keeper of the, signet in Scotland. To which the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, that the bill would extend, as worded, to all offices not legally sold in Scotland, and if the offices alluded to were of that description they would be included within the operation of the bill.—After a few words from Mr. Horner, stating that judicial offices were not enumerated in the bill, and a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they were enumerated in the act of Edward VI. which was to be affirmed by this bill, the clause was agreed to without the amendment; and on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the office of Treasurer of the Navy, which had been inadvertently omitted, inserted in the clause.—In the clause extending the operation of the bill to all offices, civil and military, the word "naval" was introduced on the motion of lord Folkestone.—A long discussion took place upon an amendment proposed by lord Folkestone to insert the words, "and all offices in the East Indies," which terminated in the adoption of the amendment, restricting it to offices in the appointment of the governor-general. Lord Folkestone proposed, for the purpose of obtaining evidence, to give a reward to the informer, and to indemnify him or her as to any penalty to which they might be subject under the act; the reward to be paid by the person transgressing, and not to be less than 200l.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the amendment, and pointed out many inconveniencies that would result from its adoption. Lord Folkestone acquiesced in the objection, and suggested that the chairman should report progress.—On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the clause relating to opening houses for the sale of places, and advertising and printing the same, was rejected; and two clauses introduced in place thereof.—The bill was ordered to be reported on Monday.