presented an Address and Petition from the inhabitants, householders, and electors of the city of Coventry, at a meeting held at the county hall of the said city, the 5th day of June, 1810, pursuant to public notice, setting forth, "That the inhabitants, householders, and electors of the city of Coventry, beg leave to approach the House, as a necessary branch of that system themselves individually have solemnly engaged to preserve inviolate; the petitioners feel particularly called upon, at this awful conjuncture of affairs, when the very existence of our native land appears to be at stake, to represent, in the plain language of truth, their feelings and opinions on the origin of those evils that have reduced our once justly envied country to its present alarming state of difficulty and danger; and that to shut their eyes to the gathering clouds, to be aware that a mighty storm threatens their safety, and not to express their apprehension of the consequences, would be treason against their Sovereign, against the venerable nobility of the land, against the House, against themselves, against posterity; they therefore speak without dissimulation, and at once tell the House, that according to the honest judgment of the petitioners, corruption practised in the management of public affairs (which, if not countenanced by the House, has been suffered to prevail to an unexampled extent), is the grand source of all their evils; and they respectfully intreat the House to reflect on the state of Europe 20 years past, and compare it with its present state; they would beg the House to consider the lamentable change that has taken place in this kingdom within the same period; and then calmly appeal to their consciences, and enquire whether the measures pursued by the different administrations during this eventful time, have been marked either by a regard for the welfare of the human race, or the principles of sound policy: unfortunately for the petitioners, the result presents a distressing conclusion; by the measures that have been adopted, they find their country deprived of nearly every foreign alliance, and the arms of almost every foreign power turned against them; the national debt swelled to an enormous amount; the people groaning under an inquisitorial system of taxation, and, although in the midst of plenty, unable to obtain a due quantity of the common necessaries of life for the maintenance of their families, however incessant their labours; these are calamities which the petitioners feel it their imperious duty to represent to the House, from a conviction they endanger their safety as well as that of the petitioners; and that they cannot look back to the proceedings recently exercised by the House in seizing and imprisoning John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, under an undefined authority, without the deepest regret, assuring the House, that, divested of all prejudices, it is the firm belief of the petitioners the House have acted contrary to the fundamental principles of those laws they have sworn to defend; as Englishmen, the petitioners are willing to acknowledge, and ready to support with their lives, every privilege the House are justly entitled to; at the same time they declare, before God and their country, they had rather give up their existence than surrender to any power on earth those blessings and advantages which their forefathers purchased with their blood; in offering this Address and Petition, far be it from the petitioners to entertain the most distant wish to lessen the authority, the importance, or the character of the House; but they cannot view the enormous patronage of the crown, the immense increase of sinecure places and pensions, they cannot witness the erection of barracks in every part of the kingdom, the introduction of foreign troops, the best interests of the people neglected, the liberty of the subject restricted, good men persecuted, the just complaints of the people prevented from reaching the royal ear, convicted defaulters and delinquents suffered to remain at large, the public revenue and lives of their fellow countrymen sacrificed in disgraceful expeditions, a traffic of seats in the House admitted and defended, the national credit injured, and Britain, the once justly boasted envy of the world, exposed to the most imminent danger, without jealousy and alarm; under these impressions the petitioners pray the House to bring back Parliament to its original duration, to allow a more full and free suffrage of the people, to apply those remedies in redress of the numerous grievances they have stated, which our excellent constitution furnishes, and to cultivate peace as the means of obtaining the divine blessing and protection; and that the House may attend to the warning voice ere it be too late, is the earnest supplication and prayer of the petitioners."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

then moved that it do lie on the table.

rose to oppose the motion. He felt it unnecessary to enter into any detail on the various topics of the petition just read, or to repeat any of the arguments opposed to the reception of a former petition substantially the same. He felt it only necessary to call the attention of the House to one prayer of the petition, which desired that the House would receive their former petition, which had been rejected for certain expressions of censure upon the conduct of that House, and being couched in language so offensive and insulting, that the House was bound not to receive it. The present petition included the substance of the former one, and was in the same language.

rose, and assured the right hon. secretary, that the language was not the same, and that the petition differed in many instances.

maintained, that if the words were not precisely the same, the petition contained the same censure upon the conduct of the House, and was expressed in language equally objectionable: the former petition was debated in the House on two days, and rejected by a considerable majority. There was another passage in the petition now offered which had caught his ear. It was that which told the House that the ancestors of the petitioners had claimed, and insisted upon, the right of petitioning, and that a rejection of their petition was a violation of that right; and that if the seven bishops who in the detested reign of James 2 had told the king that he acted contrary to the law, and in subversion of the rights of the people, surely they had a right to hold the like language to those whom they considered to be their representatives, if they held the like opinion of their conduct. He should vote against the reception of the petition.

said, he was not in the House when the petition was read; but if it was couched in the same language as the one already rejected, he certainly should not be for receiving it. From the speech of the right hon. gent. however, he could understand his principal objection to be, that the petition complained that the House of Commons had subverted the rights of the people, and that such language was not proper for the petitioners to offer, or the House to bear. But, was there any thing new in this assertion? Was it not notorious that the House of Commons had, at different times, subverted the rights of the people? Had it not happened over and over again? He would contend for and maintain the right of the people to express to the House their opinions, whenever they conceived it violated their rights. If the people petitioned to repeal an act which they conceived and stated to be a violation of their rights, what would that be but a censure on the decision of the House of Commons? and he would maintain, that an expression of mere censure upon the decision of the House, was no ground for rejecting a petition. Suppose, as in the year 1759, a complaint was made to the House by a member, that his fishery had been violated by a person who had no authority to meddle with it, and that such a person should be committed for the invasion of the rights of property, would any man say that such a commitment was not a violation of the rights and liberties of the subject? Certainly not; it would be impossible to say that it was not a violation of the liberties of the people, and should a Petition be rejected by the House of Commons, because it stated such an act to be a violation of the liberties of the people? No, it should not. He saw no right that the House of Commons possessed to refuse receiving such a petition as this, merely because it stated that they had violated the rights and liberties of the people. Whether the petitioners were right or wrong in their opinion as to the House having violated, or not having violated, the rights and liberties of the people, was immaterial; it was enough that they thought so; for, if they thought so, they had a right to say so to the House of Commons. If an act of Parliament were passed to enact injustice, the people had a right to petition for its repeal, and that on the ground of its injustice, and so to state it; and, therefore, if they had a right so to state upon an act of Parliament, how much more had they the right to petition against the deed of only one branch of the legislature. The people had a right to petition the King, to petition the House of Lords, and to petition the House of Commons, separately and distinctly, and to state that any act was a violation of justice, if they felt it to be such. This petition said that the House of Commons had violated the rights and liberties of the people. Had not the House of Commons so done in many instances? and had it not recently done so; upon its power to do so it was not his business to discuss this day; but he had maintained, that the people had a right to say, if they felt that the House of Commons had violated the rights and liberties of the people, nor was it necessary they should ask leave of the right hon. gent, to do so: but this right of petitioning would be annihilated, if this petition was rejected on the ground stated by the right hon. gent. Now the ground of the present petition, as far as it related to the case of sir F. Burdett, was extremely clear, and the conduct of the House had been full of caprice, in the manner it had received and rejected petitions upon that subject, for it had received some petitions the language of which was stronger than the language of others which it had rejected: no fixed rule had been adopted, and while there was this caprice about the receiving pf petitions, the people would not know what language they should adopt in framing their petitions.

contended that the hon. gent. who had just preceded him in this debate, had no right to say, that the House of Commons had been too critical as to the words of any petition before it was received; on the contrary, the House had been ready to disclaim, as he did now, ail idea of being critical as to the language of a petition; but the House had formed its judgment on petitions on a general view of them, and had drawn their conclusions as well as they were able. But when matters were clear, and when petitions were evidently framed with a view of really insulting the House, they had rejected such petitions. Such, he contended, to be the case with respect to the petition now before the House, and, therefore, he thought the House ought to reject it. It might be perfectly true that the House, in its desire to facilitate the reception of petitions, might have been frequently induced to overlook expressions, which, had they been carefully attended to and scrutinized, would have caused the rejection of such petitions; but the general inclination of the House had been, not to be too nice in finding fault with the manner of wording petitions—in other words, the House had almost gone to sleep, as it were, upon their own dignity in the refusal to receive petitions, and the House had frequently (received such petitions as might with pro- priety have been rejected. That, however, was no reason at all why a petition, improperly worded, should not be rejected, and this should always be the case when it was manifestly the intention of the party framing the petition, to insult the House. The parties in such a case could never, with propriety, be said to be disappointed. Now, as to the tenour of the present petition, it was in that language which the House had already determined not to receive—with this notice, that the House would not receive this language, since it had refused to do so already, the petitioners persisted in using it. In some recent cases, petitioners had mollified their language, and their petitions had been received in the second instance, although refused in the first: but this petition was so far otherwise, that whatever there was of difference between this and the last petition, this was made more objectionable; and indeed, the very request that the House should receive that which the House had rejected, was, of itself, an extremely unreasonable request; and, therefore, he had no hesitation in saying, that, in his view of this matter, the present petition ought to be rejected.

The question that the petition do lie on the table, was then negatived without a division.

was clearly of opi- nion, that the moment the House took the trouble of examining, with attention, the language and the sentiments of this petition, they would see the impossibility of receiving it consistently with any of the rules by which the House had been guided in the reception of petitions; for the petition stated, expressly, that in the exercise of privilege by the House, in the case of the imprisonment of sir F. Burdett, the House had acted in a manner that was not agreeable to the law of the land. He thought that no set of persons, under colour of a petition, ought to be allowed to approach the House of Commons and thus attack its privileges. The case to which the petition referred, was one decided by a large majority. It was incompatible with the existence of the privilege of the House, that persons should be thus allowed to approach it, and state to the House that they ought not to acknowledge its privilege. This he considered in the light of a declaration of resistance to the law of the land, which the House of Commons should not suffer. In another part of this petition the House of Commons was considered as only nominally the representation of the people. The House must decide for itself, whether it would allow any description of men thus to insult it; for his part, he thought it a duty, which the House owed to itself, to tell such persons as these petitioners, that the House would not endure such language as that which was contained in this petition.

said, that although his own sentiments were known to differ from those of this petition, and though the expressions in it were not so guarded as they ought to be, yet he knew it came from a class of persons who would not be disposed to offer any thing offensive or disrespectful to the House. All classes of petitioners must not be supposed competent judges of the precise language which the House would deem sufficiently decorous; and when men complained of what they conceived to be grievances, some latitude of expression must be allowed them; otherwise he did not know what was likely to become of the right of petitioning.

spoke against receiving the petition, on the ground of due regard to the dignity of that House.

hoped the House did not mean to pursue this indignant course of rejecting the petitions of the people. Five or six weeks ago, when the first of the petitions on these subjects was offered to the House, those who opposed it seemed to feel it was but decorous at least calmly to examine and discuss its contents, before they proceeded to rejection, and therefore agreed to adjourn the debate upon it to another day, that the House might have an opportunity of due deliberation. But of late they proceeded to reject almost instanter. He thought it would be only consistent with the respect the House owed to the people who approached that House, with their petitions, to adjourn this discussion till to-morrow, and he moved accordingly that the debate be adjourned.

felt alarmed at the expressions of the right hon. secretary upon the subject now before the House, for if petitions were to be rejected for the reasons he assigned, the right of petitioning would be lost for ever. The right hon. gent. had been judge-advocate of the army, and as such of course attached to military discipline, and brought with him that discipline into the House, and dictated to the House of Commons what petitions it ought to receive, what petitions it ought to reject, and what language the people of England were to hold in their petitions, all upon pure military principles of command, and expectation of obedience. He had better, while about it, give out a model or copy of the form and language of the petitions which he would be pleased in future to receive; the truth was, he believed that such petitions as were intended for the King, went into the office of the right hon. gent. if palatable to him, they were presented to his Majesty, if not, they remained upon his shelf like waste paper—many petitions had been received by the secretary of state and treated in this way. When the people of England conceived they had the heaviest grievances to complain of, then was the right of petition abridged by the right hon. gent. Of all the doctrine he had ever heard on the subject of the right to petition, that contained in the speech of the secretary of state to night was the most alarming if it was adopted; the right of petition in this country would be no more than that which was allowed in the most despotic government. If these military notions were to govern the right of petition, the constitution of England was, indeed, in great danger.

, was glad the hon. officer who had just spoken was so cordial in his desire to keep military dis- cipline out of view in the consideration of the civil rights of the subject; he could not help congratulating the House upon such a display of zeal for civil instead of military efforts for the preservation of the constitution, which he was glad to see so conspicuously in the disposition of the gallant officer, notwithstanding his military education. He had, however, contented himself with that display of zeal for the civil rights of the subjects, for he had not argued one point of it. With respect to the petition itself, the three first paragraphs of it were such, that the House could not receive it, for it was intirely deficient in that respect with which the House ought to be approached. Here he read the paragraphs in the petition, which related to sir F. Burdett and John Gale Jones: and then maintained, that the saying the House of Commons was only nominally the representation of the people was insufferable, and that a petition containing such sentiments, and expressed in such language, ought not to be received.

was of opinion that there was not in the general tenor of the petition any intention to insult the House. He therefore hoped, that it would be received. By doing so, they would give an assurance to the country that they were not inclined to look nicely to the terms in which complaints were brought before them, but that they were ready to listen to every petition which was not clearly objectionable. He asked, were not the decisions of the House as to Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, as open to discussion by the public as any other measure which might come before the House?

referred to that part of the petition where allusion was made to certain speeches said to have been made in that House for the intimidation of the judges, which the petitioners stated had filled them with indignation, and which they hoped the judges would treat with contempt. The House refused the right of alluding to former debates to their own members, and were they to suffer it to be exercised by these petitioners. This petition did, indeed, go further than some others in allowing, that the members of that House were not jostled or hustled in the lobby, or when coming to attend their business in parliament. This, probably, was one of the reasons which induced the petitioners to select the hon. gent. opposite to present the petition, they having been pleased to allow him a liberty which his friends at a late meeting in the city did not seem willing to concede to him.

was satisfied that the hon. and learned gent. was not present at the meeting to which he referred. He could not, therefore, suppose that he was the person who had given to the ministerial papers a false report of the proceedings of that meeting, where he assured the hon. and learned gent. he had been treated with great civility. The testimony of the noble lord (Milton) he thought sufficient to satisfy the House that the petitioners could have no intention to offer them an insult. Such a declaration from the noble lord in the present instance was truly magnanimous. The petition went to approve of the argument of sir F. Burdett, but not of every expression in that argument; therefore, that could not be to insult the House. The petitioners stated that they did not acknowledge the privileges of the House. Neither had sir F. Burdett acknowledged it, and it had now gone, high as it was lately represented to stand, to be tried before a court of law, which a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) had confessed was the proper tribunal. The conduct of the House in the rejection of the petitions on this subject, he contended had been capricious in the extreme.

said, it was sufficient to look to the language of the petition to decide that it ought to be rejected.

contended, that as the petition only approved of the argument, and not of the expressions used by the hon. bart. and as it was admitted on all hands that the hon. bart. had a right to argue the question of privilege, therefore there could be nothing derogatory to the dignity of the House in the petitioners approving of the argument.

was for rejecting the petition, conceiving it to be part of the system now on foot for bringing down that House, and against which so long as he held a seat in it, he was resolved to set his face. He had been accused of saying, that the court of King's Bench was the proper tribunal to try these proceedings. He had not said so in unqualified terms. He had not said that it was the only proper tribunal. He was convinced that the House was the proper judge of its own privileges; but, considering the delusion under which; part of the public laboured, he thought it a fortunate circumstance that the proceedings had gone to a tribunal where the pri- vileges of the House would be confirmed; as the court of King's Bench would only have to say if it was or was not a privilege of parliament; and if it was, then they must naturally add—"it is too high for us to meddle with."

observed, that he differed from the right hon gent. entirely as to his notion of the manner in which the privileges of the House ought to be defended; neither the King's Bench nor the House of Lords ought to take cognizance of them at all. He had no objection to the postponement, but he had no doubt that the petition ought to be rejected.

The House then divided.—For the postponement 14—Against it 61—Majority 47. The Petition was then rejected.

rose and spoke as follows: Sir; Did the cause, which I have undertaken, rest on proof less clear than the evidence of facts, that, lie on the table of this House, I should despair of success: as well from a knowledge of myself, as from the zeal of learned gentlemen, whose habits, and, in justice, whose ability, could make

The cobwebs on a dungeon wall,

Seem tap'stry in a lordly hall:

A nut-shell seem a gilded barge;

A cottage seem a palace large;

And youth seem age—and age seem youth.

Perhaps the learned gentleman opposite, can aid my remembrance of the last line. [Mr. Stephen, who on a former night made use of the same quotation.] However that may be, it is in the recollection of the House, that on a former evening, I stated the extent to which the commerce of the enemy is freely carried on: from Italy by Leghorn, Genoa, Toulon and Marseilles; through Cette and Bone to Bourdeaux; thence down the Garonne, by Rochfort, Brest, and the Seine, to Holland and the northern extremity of Europe. I mentioned, that the cultivators of the vine thus receive articles of primary necessity: corn, flour, butter, cheese, and salt provisions; and return their dried fruits, wine, oil, brandy, wax, cotton, silk, and the various productions of the south: at once affording materials to their manufacturers: gain to their merchants: occupation to thousands in the shipments: a revenue to the state, and employment to their mariners. Thus administering to the wants and luxuries of all the inhabitants, of the various climates of that Vast empire.—It is not so much by his own strength, that Napoleon has acquired his present greatness, as by our supineness and want of energy. The governments which he has crushed, have fallen rather under the weight of their own corruption, unremedied and unredressed, than by any effort of his.—Possessed of power, as we are, greater than the united navies of the world, should the commerce of the enemy be allowed to flourish, to an extent, incredible as it may appear, greater ill number of vessels, and in number of men, than when ancient France had colonies and fleets to defend it. If this is denied, send a deputation and I will prove the fact.—Turn towards the Thames, and you will perceive it covered with foreign ships! Look at the estimate of our trade to Europe, on the table of this House, and you will perceive, that the number of British sailors, employed in it, is 16,000! while the foreign seamen, trading to our ports, amount to 29,000: and, of the sixteen thousand nominally ours, let it be remembered, that one-third are foreigners; making the ratio against England, and in favour of the continent, as a nursery for seamen, in the proportion of 35 to 10.—In the three last years, the British seamen, in this trade, notwithstanding the intercourse with Spain has been opened, have decreased more than one twentieth annually, or as 21 to 17: while the mariners of the continent, trading to England, have augmented from 23,000 to 29,000! Our tonnage has fallen as is 37 to 25, or nearly one-third; while the carrying trade to our ports and rivers has risen from 417,000 to 560,000 tons! Our tonnage, imports and exports added together, does only equal the inward foreign tonnage alone. I speak from a document on the table of this House.

Thus do we supply the sinews of war, to the ruler of continental Europe; an enemy who, however powerful, however rancorous his hate, is less to be dreaded, than the effects of our own narrow views and contemptible counsels. Well may the French government say, that "the English ministry, through the, fogs of London, see nothing;" "and that the statesmen of England, carry not their political views beyond those of a city counting-house:" a just remark, that brings to my remembrance a Spanish proverb, which I have often heard the people apply, when speaking of our measures: "Quando los ciegos, conducen ciegos, ambos coren peligro de caer en el hoyo."—Had we fallen into this state, in spite of every vigorous effort, then, would there be no hope or remedy. This, Sir, is not the fact. Were the conduct of the war entrusted to men capable of directing the force of this kingdom,—aye, half the force of this kingdom,—in twelve months there would be an end to hostilities.—Would the enemy, with our naval superiority, and an inferior army, pitch that army in the interior of a country, to crawl along thirty inches at a step, and that too, in a direction which the enemy must always know as well as ourselves—and which it is impossible to conceal; when, for such time as might suit our purposes, we could, by desultory movements, command, with a small military force, every part of the coast of France, or any other under the dominion of France, from the Tiber to the Elbe, and occupy on the defensive, two hundred thousand of the enemy, who must be maintained at the expence of the treasury of France; and not as now is the case, at the cost of those whom we call our allies?—Tacitus,, that penetrating historian, who dived into the hidden motives of men, of those, who under the mask of patriotism, and under the cloak of zeal, for the public welfare, brought ruin on the Roman state, has left a lesson, by which mankind might be instructed. A wise government should guard against evils, which may spring from the weakness of our nature; it is not sufficient to correct evils, when their consequences are felt.—Far be it from me to impute to sinister motives, or ascribe to personal views, the prolongation of the miseries of our country. It is not enough, however, to be guiltless; public men ought to be not only pure, but unsuspected. I am, therefore, averse to a revenue, arising from war, even to the crown itself, the fountain of justice and of honour; still more so to the principles of the bill, now before the House, to secure, during the joint lives of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his brother, an immense war emolument, [33,000l. a year, as registrar of the admiralty court,] to be derived from the navy, or from any other source.

Is it sufficient that we possess a thousand ships floating unresisted on the ocean, or that the admiralty have a map of their situations, which the enemy know as well as themselves? To call forth the powers of the navy, if a stimulus is unnecessary, and if patriotism suffice, as one officer has told us, open the field to patriotic exer- tion, and apply the proceeds of captures, to the legitimate purposes of the state. Let not the navy have the mortifying discouragement, to see the fruit of their labour wrested from them, to pamper those who bear no part in the toil, necessary to effect captures, made on the shores of the enemy.

Without entering into the question, whether the desire of gain, in open war, is a principle justifiable or not—such appropriation must, and will act, in direct opposition to the interests of our country. Napoleon, whose comprehensive mind embraces the workings of the human heart, converts even the vices of mankind, to the use of the state; while our ministers seem, merely to consult the gratification of their own. Does patriotism stimulate those generals, who are about to trample in the dust, the last remains of liberty, if liberty it can be called, in continental Europe? Here we have a different enemy to contend with, and I would ask, if there ever existed, in the hands of the Prince of the Peace, means of corruption more powerful, or more ready to reconcile persons to his evil administration, and to convey his pernicious counsel to the royal ear, than the uncontrouled appropriation of the droits of the admiralty and droits of the crown? I will undertake, Sir, to prove, that the papers on your table, relative to these droits, are false; and that grants have been made, which are not there inserted. Look, too, at the distribution of those that appear, and consider the effect which they are capable of producing. How happens it, that the gift of a whole ship and cargo, to William Moir, is not inserted, and the account, at the same time, be exactly balanced? It will be found, Sir, when investigated, that whole ships have disappeared in this way, without being noticed at all. I will undertake to shew, that the droits have amounted to nearer eleven, than seven millions, the sum which appears in this account; for besides those that have vanished, many ships, against whose names trifling sums appear, have been compromised: some for a 30th part of their real value, and "no man knows, or can know in the present state of things," to what purposes those sums have been applied.

Now, Sir, to enter upon one part of the subject, to which it is more immediately my object to call the attention of the House; and I shall be as brief as possible.—It is the duty of every officer and seaman in his Majesty's service, immediately on the orders for reprisals being issued, "to seize the vessels, goods, wares, and merchandize, belonging to the enemy?" this will be readily found by reference to the instructions, issued on the 17th of May, 1803; and that neglecting to do so, is punishable by the articles of war.—I believe I may without fear of contradiction, assert, that it is the intention of his Majesty and the legislature, as evinced in the acts that have passed, and the proclamations, that have issued, to stimulate to exertion in the service of the country, by the prospect of reward, to arise from a diligent and faithful performance of duty. Since the reign of queen Anne, the crown has uniformly declared, that the net proceeds of captures shall be for the entire benefit and encouragement of the officers, seamen, &c.

Although it may be tedious, yet I trust, Sir, in the indulgence of the House, whilst I read extracts from the different documents, to which I shall have occasion to refer; for I am anxious, that every part of my statement shall not only be correct, but be proved, also, as I proceed.—In the 33 Geo. 3, c. 66, entitled an act "for the encouragement of seamen, and for the better manning of his Majesty's navy," it is enacted, "that the flag officers, commanders and other officers, seamen, marines, and soldiers, on board every ship and vessel of war, in his Majesty's pay, shall have the sole interest and property of, and in, all and every ship, vessel, goods, and merchandizes, after the same shall have been adjudged lawful prize to his Majesty." So various are the regulations that have been made, and inducements held forth, evidently tending, and openly avowed to act on the desires of mankind, that it would indeed, be wasting the time of this House, to adduce all the proofs, which I have brought here; I shall, therefore, only notice a few of them.—In the 23rd sect. of the act, just noticed, we have regulations, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings in the court of admiralty, for the express purpose of lessening the expences to the captors,—In the 27th sect. the exact sum to be paid, for adjudging and condemning prizes abroad, is limited to 10l. under 100 tons, and 15l. above that burthen. I do not know, why the word 'abroad' should have been inserted; perhaps the learned gentlemen of the admiralty court, at home, can inform us—those who, when such matters were before agitated in this House, and when it became necessary to do something in appearance at least, to lessen the scandalous expences attendant on the condemnation of small privateers, introduced the following enactment, (s. 11), "that for the encouragement of the capture of small armed ships, belonging to the enemy, it shall and may be lawful, to and for the captors, to include, in one adjudication, any number, not exceeding six, of such small armed ships." I beg the attention of the House to the restrictions that follow, "(having a commission of letter of mart,) from the enemy, not exceeding fifty tons, and which shall have been taken within the space of three months, preceding the application to the court of admiralty, for such adjudication." A case which never did, nor, probably, ever will occur. The learned gentlemen, when, thus providing "for the encouragement of the navy," should, at the same time, have added another clause, "that such privateers should assemble, for the purpose of being taken." Were I to express my feelings, I should say, the clause was an insult and a mockery to this House, and to the navy. I ask the learned judge, if he ever decided on such a case? Six privateers, under fifty tons, taken within three months, by the same ship!!—In the 59th sect. to prevent frauds on captors, an account of sales is to be exhibited; and there is a penalty for neglect. I shall concisely mention two instances more, wherein the intention is, if possible, more marked, and the principle for which I contend, still more clearly admitted, namely, that those feelings actuate, which, probably, ought not to sway mankind—the love of gain—or, perhaps more correctly speaking, the desire of obtaining the reward, due to laborious and anxious exertion. Head-money is to be paid, even out of the purses of our countrymen, expressly "as a farther reward and encouragement, to attack and destroy the enemy."—(Sect. 40.) An eighth part even of British property, recaptured, is allowed to king's ships, and a sixth to privateers; a just distinction, founded on principles, which I need not explain, in corroboration of the truth of the facts which I am maintaining.—In the 41st of his present Majesty, the fees of the judges of the court of admiralty were regulated; (sect. 1, 3, and 4.) but the king's proctor's revenue is without limitation, except that which he himself gives to it, by the disgust occasioned to the navy, who, under the circumstances which I shall shortly shew, are without exception, compelled to employ him alone: and thus to place, not only their fortunes, but their personal liberty in the hands of a man, who, let his ability and integrity be what they may, cannot, in the nature of things, do justice to their concerns.

The learned judge, of the court of admiralty holds, and if he does not he will contradict me, that the navy of England have no right, in cases of prizes, cognizable by that court, until after condemnation; and that the officers and crews, have no right to stand before the court, to assert their claims: or the captain to avert his heavy responsibility; although the commanders, and crews of the pettiest privateers, have that privilege.

The great law officers of the crown, in the reign of queen Anne, differed in opinion from the learned judge. Her Majesty consulted those luminaries on the important point, and, on the 1st April 1708, they determined, "that the proceedings in the court of admiralty, against prizes, should be in her Majesty's name, as formerly; but the captors to have liberty, to come into the cause, for their interest, and the same being adjudged as lawful prizes to be delivered to the captors, according to act of parliament, they paying the just and necessary expences." This solemn opinion was signed, Charles Hedges, Powys, Montague, Loyd, Cook, and Conyers.

These able men decided, that the navy "should have liberty to come into the cause for their interest;" and ought this salutary regulation, founded on the opinion of the first lawyers of the times: founded on the immutable principles of justice, and on the constitution of our country, to be done away, without consulting any high legal authority whatever? By an order issued in 1779, Crespeignie, esq. a member of this House, and procurator to the King, was constituted, sole procurator for the navy also; and thus were the navy compelled to commit their multifarious interests to the hands of one single individual. Interests I call them, in defiance of the assertions of gentlemen of Doctors' Commons; and I will prove them so, to the satisfaction of every unbiassed man in this House, and in the country.

The courts of common law admit claims, and support an insurable interest, in matters of prize, which have been contested and recovered by captors, though the policy of insurance was entered into, prior to condemnation. In the admiralty court itself, if a captor is to be examined, prior to condemnation, he must release his interest in the capture, for which he receives an equivalent: this has happened to me. The remedy of a neutral, is against the commanding officer of the ship, that detained him, not against the crown. If the commanding officer, who detains a vessel, cannot shew sufficient cause for the detention, which depends on the King's proctor, he will be compelled to pay the costs, damage, and demurrage, arising from the capture. Ought he not, then, to be allowed the right, a right secured to all other his Majesty's subjects, to choose his own counsel? In fact, Sir, there is no reason, no motive for the regulation, which gives such extraordinary powers to the King's proctor, but to secure a monopoly, and with it, an immense revenue to the law officers of the crown, who have hitherto possessed influence, sufficient to continue, in defiance of justice, that which Crespeignie, the member of parliament, obtained by his interest.

Improper as the appointment and limitation was, at that period, it has become Still more improper of late years: partly on account of the new system, of sweeping the seas, on behalf of the crown, prior to hostilities, whereby his Majesty's procurator general is often compelled to act in a double capacity, as he is at other times, and, in his single person, to assert the interests of the crown against the captors, whose interest he is also bound to defend. A monstrous abuse, that violates every principle of justice and the law.

His Majesty's procurator general has often been known, even during the hearing of a cause in court, and while asserting the captor's claims, to desert at once, the interests of the navy, and support those of the crown. It may be urged, that, in such cases, the procurator appoints some one to act for him, on behalf of the navy; which only shews, that the captors should possess the exercise of a right, which the King's proctor usurps. The learned gentlemen seem to dissent from the statements I have made, that the proctor gives a preference to the interests of the crown.—If it is not so, let the learned gentleman shew, that he has pursued an opposite line of conduct, and neglected his duty to the crown, to promote that of the captors.

What man, Sir, in his senses, would commit the litigation of neutrals, in which so much attention is necessary, to detect the perjury and fraud, with which these cases frequently abound, to the procurator general, who has often the conduct of nearly 2,000 causes at once? On the 3d of June 1806, he libelled 16 vessels; on the 4th 10; 5th 16; 6th 20; 7th 28; and on the 9th 36; which would require him, not only to read, but, if he did his duty, to understand perfectly, every shade of distinction, and every circumstance, relative to these cases, occupying, at least, nine times as much as these four, [the four cases, then before the House,] or about 1,100 sides of paper. On the 10th he had 9 vessels, 11th 17; 12th 18; 13th 13; and on the 30th 23. November 1807, 18th 16; 19th 59; 20th 44; 21st 31; 23rd 23; and on the 24th 31 vessels.

Is it possible, Sir, that any human being can, let his ability be what it may, perform such a task? With such terrifying contemplations ever in my mind, I am neither ashamed nor afraid to avow, that I never brought a neutral before a court of admiralty, even under the late prize distribution; because I did not choose to risk my property, and place my personal liberty in the hands of an advocate, forced upon me, in whom I could not place the least confidence, who in the nature of things, cannot attend to my affairs; and against whom I have no remedy, no redress, even if he misconducts himself! I The commanding officer alone, is responsible for the expences and damages, arising from the seizures he makes; and the late regulation, which cuts off one-third of his share, is not likely to encourage him. The council may decree, and the admiralty may order; but the will of action rests with the commanding officer.

Sir, it will appear in the case of the Two Sisters, and Experiment, that the 555l. paid to the king's proctor, includes a new kind of charge: "For arranging and preparing evidence!" The admiralty proctor is paid 73l—for what, I know not: the captors are likewise saddled with the expences of the claimants, who litigated the capture against them, viz. "Mr. Toller proctor's bill, for the claimant, 319l. 16s. 10d.!" and the registrar, who kept the money during the time of litigation, was paid the sum of 91l. 10s. 6d. for the trouble of receiving it, and, probably, putting it to interest, for his own benefit, which he might do, if he thought proper, and I conclude he did not neglect it.

The agent charged 5l. per cent. on the gross value of the vessels, and agency too, for the money which he put, into his own pocket! I have but one observation farther to make on this bill, which I consider fraudulent; it was exhibited by the king's proctor himself! which appears by an endorsement, and for which this House had to call a second time, as it was withheld, when the papers were first delivered into, and printed for the use of this House. The endorsement runs thus: "Exhibited by K P.;" though there is no minute of court, returned to this House, of his having done so!

What check have the navy against such conduct, such neglect? If they have cause of complaint, through him they must complain! No other person can assert a right, or protest against a grievance, in the court of admiralty, on behalf of the navy of England! Some gentlemen contend, that we have a check against improper charges, and say, you may lay your accounts before the registrar, who will tax them. Yes, Sir, he will lax them, as he did the bill relative to the Danish vessels, at Yarmouth, the amount of which was 1,309l. 7s. I 1d. from which he deducted 63l.; and for the trouble it give him, put it in his own pocket, though the whole might have been examined in ten minutes!!^*

0ne would have thought, Sir, that the procurator general, possessing a revenue, of at least 40,000l. a year from the navy, for the discharge of a duty, the tenth part of which he cannot himself perform, would have rested satisfied, without endeavouring, by an alteration in the address of his Majesty's warrant, to secure more business, and an additional fee, under the pretext of guarding the interests of the crown, against those of individuals: a pretext which I shall prove to be totally unfounded, in every respect.

The proper time, Sir, "to take care, that all expences, incurred on behalf of the crown, should be first deducted out of the proceeds, and to ascertain, whether any part of the property had been claimed, for which a memorial had been given by the captors," is that time, when his Majesty's procurator general has, ex officio, the memorial of the captors laid before him, by command of the lords commissioners of the treasury, "For his consideration and report theron:" although, when thus executing his duty solely as an officer of the crown, and guarding its interests, was he not paid by the captors also, whose claims he must of necessity have opposed?

^* The following is an illustration of the fact. "Received, 10th June 1806, of John Crockett, esq. marshal of the admiralty, 63l. being the sum allotted to the registrar and merchants, for looking over, perusing, and settling the accounts of H. Howard, esq. pursuant to the king's warrant, dated the 15th May 1806. (Signed)

£.63 J. R. WHEELER."

That the interests of the crown are thus guarded, I will prove by the proctor's own report to the lords of the treasury, previous to the warrant being made out: thus, "Your lordships being pleased to refer the said memorial to me, for my consideration and report thereupon, I have inspected the proceedings had, in the high court of admiralty, in respect to the said ship and cargo, and found, that claims were given for various parts of the cargo, which have been decreed to be restored, and also for the ship, which, together with the unclaimed parts of the cargo, (save sundry goods, which were ordered to be restored, by his Majesty in council) were condemned to his Majesty, taken by his Majesty's ship Acasta," "prior to the declaration of hostilities against the Batavian republic; and that the sum of 12,153l. 16s 8d. is now remaining in the registry, as the net proceeds thereof, subject to the expence of proceedings; and having laid the said memorial, and statement of the said proceedings, before his Majesty's advocate general, and consulted him thereon, I do under his advice, farther most humbly report to your lordships that a grant of two thirds of the net proceeds, after payment of expences, will be a fit remuneration to the captors." Now, Sir, is it possible to conceive a more ample opportunity, than is thus afforded to his Majesty's procurator, to guard the interests of the crown, or any other, that might, connect with the memorial? yet, we find him sending back the warrant which, by his own report, granted "the fit remuneration to the captors," a remuneration founded, not only in his own opinion, but that of "his Majesty's advocate general." Here are his own words, when he sent that warrant back to the lords of the treasury, on the 26th January 1805: "the difficulty, in this case, appears to have arisen from the warrant not having been addressed, in the usual way, to be exhibited by the king's proctor, nor having been directed to him, jointly with the registrar, as sub- mitted to their lordships, in the case of Yonge Jean en Pieter, "and it is humbly recommended, to their lordships to amend the warrant, by inserting the name of the king's proctor, in the address." To amend the warrant by inserting the name of the king's proctor in the address!! "who will then take care to ascertain, whether any part of the property has been claimed, or applied for by memorial," "and will also take care, that all expences incurred on behalf of the crown, shall be first deducted out of the proceeds." A very different reason indeed, from that which, almost immediately before, he assigns, namely, "that the registrar of the court of admiralty, had refused to comply with the grant until their lordships had certified, that no claim or memorial, of the nature alluded to, had been presented:" And mark, Sir, that this address, which the king's proctor, on the 26th day of January 1805, is pleased to call the usual way," was never so considered to be, by the lords of the treasury, until five days afterward: namely, on the 1st of February 1805, when, in consequence of the return of the warrant, by the king's proctor, their lordships say, "let the warrant be amended accordingly; and let care be taken to insert these words, 'in all future warrants, granting the proceeds of prizes, to captors,' "our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby direct and authorize you, our procurator general, to exhibit this our warrant: and you the registrar of our high court of admiralty, on the same beng exhibited, by our said procurator general, to pay, &c.'"

Sir, I must crave your indulgence while making so dry a statement? but I consider the country to be deeply interested in it, inasmuch, as owing to the abuses which exist, that duty, which is necessary to its prosperity, is left unperformed. I wish, Sir, that all these considerations:—I wish that the agreement between the King's advocate and King's proctor's clerk, with William Moir, "a British subject, and a naturalized Dane and Prussian," thanked by the French commissary of marine, "for services rendered last war," were in abler hands, in the hands of members of this House, who could do justice to the subject. By this unwarrantable transaction with Moir, 30 per cent., out of the proceeds of the timber cargoes, was paid, nominally, for proofs to condemn; proofs, which never were produced; which the advocate and proctor did not dare to pro- duce to the court of admiralty; proofs which the learned judge never saw, and on which, of consequence, he did not pronounce judgment; if he did, let him avow the fact, and then I should ask, how came the Tweeling Regit to be restored to Moir, on the 28th of July 1804, twenty-three days after these nominal proofs to condemn, had been delivered, and after they had been sworn to, before the surrogate of the admiralty? How came the various causes to be litigated, for a long period, in the court of admiralty, and the Tweeling Regit to have been contested, from the 20th Sept. 1803 until the 16th April 1807, or nearly four years, during almost the whole of which time, it is worthy of remark, the money remained in the registrar's hands? Will the learned judge of the Admiralty avow that he, the judge of the Admiralty of England! carried on mock prosecutions; and that, in possession of facts to condemn he suffered proof after proof to be exhibited: and Mr. Staniforth, a member of this House, to make affidavits, which he, the judge, knew to be unfounded?—No, Sir, I am confident that the learned judge did not; and that he was ignorant of the documents, for which the shelves of the proctor's office have been ransacked, by the learned gentlemen opposite.

Then, Sir, if such was the true state of things, Moir was not entitled to the 30 per cent., given by the king's advocate, and proctor's clerk, for his proofs, some of which, if I am correct, were not even translated, from the French and German, until required, for the use of this House.

There are letters here, to shew, as it is stated, that the agents agreed to this transaction; but I must contend, that, that is no proof of its rectitude, even if those agents had a right to do so. But, Sir, Mr. Cook, agent in the case of the Tutela, was compelled, by the influence and authority of the king's proctor, to conform to the transaction, and pay the sum of 900l. before he could leave his office, under the threat of the reversal of the sentence that had been pronounced, a threat which must have had a powerful effect on his mind, as it is evident, by the proofs before the court, that the condemnation should have passed in favour of the crown. The agents had no right to enter into any such agreement—no, even although the transaction had been sanctioned by all the admirals, and captains of the capturing ships, because they cannot compromise the rights of those, who serve under their command, without consulting them, and without their expressed consent. It is idle to argue upon this: even if the letters of approbation from the agents had been obtained, before the agreement was finally made, by the learned advocate, and the proctor's clerk; or, as that learned gentleman says, by the proctor's clerk alone; who, however, does not admit the fact, in his report of the proceedings had, in that case, if we may judge by the following passage;—"5th July 1804, Memorandum;—attended at the King's advocate's, and there met Mr. Moir, who said, that he should consider himself entitled to a moiety of the proceeds. The King's advocate thereupon stated, that he knew of no instance, in which an individual was rewarded with more than one third, and alluded to the case of governor Browne and Mr. Daniel, where seizures and condemnation had taken place, through their means."

I beg, Sir, you will remark, that Mr. Browne and Mr. Daniel were paid out of the droits, and I submit, so Moir should have been; and I defy the learned gentleman to shew one instance, wherein the captor's interests have been compromised, in a manner similar to the case in discussion. The proctor's clerk in his statement adds, "no other interview ever took place with the king's advocate, Mr. Moir and myself at all, relating to the remuneration before agreed to; it being considered as perfectly arranged and settled, at the time, and in the manner before mentioned," that is, on the 5th of July 1804, twenty one days before they had obtained the sanction of the agents, as appears by their letters on the table!

I trust, Sir, that I have made it appear sufficiently clear, that the cargoes of naval stores were not condemned, in consequence of any information given by Moir, or of documents procured from him. I shall now shew, by the evidence of dates, and indisputable facts upon record, that Moir's information, as it is called, did not even tend to the capture of the vessels and cargoes condemned; and that the Tweeling Regit, and Handriek and Jan, were taken before it is pretended, that his first information was given. The Tweeling Regit was actually libelled, in the Admiralty court, on the 20th of September 1803. Moir's first letter to lord Keith, is dated the 30th of that month, but was not received by his lordship, until the 16th of October; when his lordship wrote to the Admiralty on the subject, and on the 18th of October, received the secretary's acknowledgment, and his information to Mr. Nicholas was given about the same time, as that to lord Keith.

In short, Sir, Moir, finding his vessels, laden with naval stores, had been seized by the British cruizers, and that the property, for the cloaking and neutralizing of which he was to have received two and a half per cent. from the French commissary of marine, actually libelled, in the Admiralty court of England, where he dared not appear, as is tolerably evident from the following passage in a letter from Mr. Mitchell, the British consul at Hamburgh, to Mr. Arbuthnot: "Mr. Moir's apprehensions arise from this circumstance of his house, at Memel, having undertaken to neutralize twenty-eight or thirty of the cargoes of masts, enemy's property." He is rather at a loss how to act, especially being a subject of the King;" and being thus aware of his danger, and despairing of the recovery of his cargoes, from a knowledge of the wickedness of his acts, which he concluded would be discovered, and which was actually the case, as the judge did not condemn on his information, he resolved to make the best of his situation, and try if any thing could be obtained, from the British government, for information, relative to the cargoes, which their cruizers had seized.

He succeeded, and was informed by lord Hawkesbury that "his Majesty's government would behave towards him with the most perfect liberality;" and that "the conduct of his government would be such, as should appear to him perfectly satisfactory." This must have been very gratifying to him, as he immediately came over to England: appeared in the court of admiralty and claimed four of the vessels, as his own, which he had previously informed against, as enemy's property! He exhibited proof to obtain their liberation, then farther proof; and, being still unsuccessful, "protested of a grievance, and of appealing."

Protected by the assurances of his Majesty's government, Moir appeared before the court as a claimant; and yet, Sir, upon all the vessels, those taken before he informed or pretended to have informed, those condemned without his assistance, and those condemned in spite of his claims, he received, by the advice of his Majesty's advocate general, by agreement with the clerk of the King's proctor, enforced by the proctor himself, 30 per cent., or upwards of 25,000l. sterling; and in addition to this, a thing scarce to be credited, the grant of a whole ship, (the Flora), hull and cargo, upon a memorial to the lords of the treasury, evidently drawn up in the office of the King's proctor, to whom afterwards it was referred, in his capacity of defender of the interests of the crown! And the King's proctor in his report, actually assigns, as an additional title to the thing claimed, a reason, which is not to be found in the memorial itself!!

I trust, Sir, that those matters, to which I have imperfectly called your attention, will be taken into the serious consideration of this House. They do not originate with me—they have been long felt by the navy, although not so injurious to it, as to the interests of the country. The noble lord concluded with moving: "1. That the officers and seamen of his Majesty's navy are entitled to the highest consideration and support from this House; and that every inducement should be employed, to call forth their energies and animate their exertions. 2. That it appears to this House, that by an order in council, of queen Anne, 1st April 1708, founded upon the opinion of the then law officers of the crown, the proceedings in the court of admiralty against prizes, taken by ships of war, were directed to be in her Majesty's name, as formerly, but the captors to have leave to come into the cause, for their interests. 3. That this order has been virtually suspended, and the wisdom and policy thereof defeated, by an order in council dated 29th March 1779, under which the King's procurator general, in the court of admiralty, was appointed sole procurator for the navy, and thereby entrusted, in the same cause, with the defence of the rights of the crown, and of the claims of the captors; interests frequently distinct, and often directly opposed to each other. And, 4. That it is essentially requisite, in order to give full effect to the beneficial intentions towards the navy, so frequently evinced by his Majesty and the legislature, that in all prize causes, the captors be allowed to come into the cause as formerly, and to employ such advocates, counsel, and proctors, as they may think proper to prosecute their claims or defend their interests."

(the King's Advocate) after apologizing to the House for produc- ing these papers, a circumstance which had a tendency to be injurious to the public service, entered into a detail of the circumstances of the case of Moir, from which it appeared that Moir had, at the breaking out of the war, given information of a purchase made by the French government of naval stores, at Riga, the property to be neutralized at Embden—in consequence of which the ships had been captured and put into a course of condemnation. For this 30 per cent. had been allowed to Moir, which was not more than the usual remuneration. This business could not have been effected unless it had been transacted by the legal officers of the crown. The captors had been perfectly satisfied with this arrangement, to which their agents had assented. They made the captures by the direction of the admiralty, and without the information given by Moir, they could never have been made at all. The captors, therefore, had been saved from all responsibility in the first place; and as the ships of which Moir had given information, could never have been taken except through his means, the whole sum received by the captors from these ships they owed to Moir. Upon the breaking out of the war with Prussia, the vessels had been condemned on other grounds; but had it not been for Moir, they would never have been seized.

condemned, in the most vehement manner, the introduction of the question under the consideration of the House, and observed, that the noble lord had made a pledge which he was wholly unable to redeem. He trusted therefore the noble lord's good sense would induce him candidly to confess his error, and retract the charges he had so incorrectly made. The hon. and learned gent. after a warm panegyric on the conduct of his hon. friend (sir John Nicholl), declared his intention of moving the previous question upon the first Resolution: of meeting the intermediate ones with a direct negative; and substituting for the last, a Resolution, approving of the law officers of the crown

replied at considerable length.

bore testimony to the honourable conduct of the King's advocate on all occasions

said a few words in support of the Resolutions.

said, there never was a more unfounded charge than that submitted to the House by the noble lord.

The House then divided on the first Resolution. For the Resolution, 6; Against it, 76; Majority 70. The other Resolutions were negatived, after which

moved: "That it is the opinion of this House that the proceedings in the high court of admiralty, stated or referred to in the several papers laid before this House in the course of the present session, were conducted by his Majesty's law officers, with perfect integrity and propriety; and that the result has been highly advantageous to the captors, and beneficial to the public service," which was agreed to.