rose pursuant to notice, and observed, that he felt it impossible that justice could be done to the public, to the navy, or to captain Phillimore himself, if the Minutes of the Court of Enquiry recently held, respecting the conduct of that officer towards Mr. Hancock, were not laid before the House. He should be sorry if it were understood that he was willing to bring forward any proposition calculated in any degree to countenance insubordination, or to interfere with the discipline so essential to be maintained in any armed body, and particularly in the navy; but at the same time he thought it due to public justice, and to the interests of discipline itself, which could only be sustained upon the principles of justice, to bring before that House and the country any instance of cruelty and injustice which came to his knowledge. This duty he had endeavoured, and should continue to perform, certainly, from no other motive than a solicitude for justice. In the case under consideration he could, indeed, have been actuated by no personal motive, for he knew nothing of the parties at the time he had brought it forward; but since then he had learned (and the statement formed a peculiarly agreeable part of his duty) that from general enquiry, the result was most satisfactory to the general reputation of captain Phillimore, whose reputation, however, must still appear in a questioned shape, if the Minutes of the recent enquiry respecting him should not be laid before the House. From the general enquiry alluded to, he had collected that the character of captain Phillimore stood as high as an officer and a man, as any one belonging to his profession, while the enquiry was by no means favourable to the alleged sufferer. Except in this unexplained point of his severity to Hancock, which might however be justified by the papers he called for, there did not exist a man of higher reputation, It was not necessary for him to say any thing of the opposite result of his enquiries into the character of the com- plainant. But the present was not a question between the merits of two individuals, nor one in which the character of either, whether good or otherwise, should weigh with the House. It was a question merely upon a single fact, and with the decision upon that fact general character had nothing to do. It was the case of the whole navy, and it was obvious that after being brought into public notice, a necessity existed for its being thoroughly investigated. It was his duty to read to the House some of the honourable testimonies he had received to the character of captain Phillimore, not only for other qualifications, but for possessing the utmost humanity and kindness. —Here the hon. baronet referred to documents which he had received from persons entitled to particular attention, bearing testimony to the general humanity of captain Phillimore, and which documents he conceived it his duty to read to the House. These documents he read accordingly. They consisted of the declaration from the officers and crew of the Diadem, and the letter of the captain who succeeded captain Phillimore in the command of that vessel. These, the hon. baronet observed, were testimonials in favour of captain Phillimore, which were certainly creditable to both parties.—But they left the essential fact uncontradicted, and wholly unaffected, namely, that Hancock, a master's mate, of the age of twenty two, who had lost a leg at the battle of Trafalgar, had had a kind of punishment inflicted upon him, by captain Phillimore, which it appeared to his mind impossible to justify. If, however, any justification could be adduced, no one would be more happy to hear it than he himself. For he declared, that although he could not help condemning the extraordinary, and, in his opinion, the severe punishment which Hancock had suffered, yet it would be satisfactory to him to find, that some peculiar circumstances rendered such a punishment indispensibly necessary, and so to make the case correspond with the general character of captain Phillimore, which he was assured to be very meritorious, in the estimation of many persons whose opinion he respected, not only from a consideration of their professional skill, but from their personal knowledge and opportunities of observation with regard to the conduct of that officer. Nothing, therefore, could be more agreeable to his mind than the complete justification of such an officer. With respect then to the motion which he was about to submit to the House, it appeared essential to that justification that it should be acceded to, and he was at a loss to imagine upon what grounds it could be resisted. The naked fact was before the public, that captain Phillimore was accused of treating a master's male in a very cruel and disgraceful manner, and that a court of enquiry, consisting of three officers, had been held upon his conduct. It seemed to him then impossible to justify captain Phillimore, unless the Minutes of that court were laid before the House. For himself, he was free to declare, that he did not approve of the construction of this court, or of any tribunal of a similar nature. Such commissions of secret enquiry he should not indeed hesitate to pronounce wholly unconstitutional, and repugnant to the principles of justice, for while they could not wholly acquit or legally convict any individual, they might serve to cast a slur and calumny upon innocence, or to screen, guilt. No possible injury could result from granting his motion, on the contrary much good might ensue from looking into the proceedings of tribunals of this kind. The hon. baronet concluded with proposing his motion, "That the Minutes of the Court of Enquiry held upon captain Phillimore, in consequence of his conduct to Mr. Hancock, of the Diadem, be laid before the House."

On the motion being put into the Speaker's hand he asked who seconded it; to which no answer being made he repeated the question; when,

rose and observed, that he felt no small difficulty how to act upon, this occasion, for if the motion were not seconded he should have no opportunity to state his sentiments upon the subject, which he was anxious to do, and therefore he was induced to second the motion. He was anxious to bear his personal testimony to the conduct and character of his gallant friend captain Phillimore, whom he had the honour of knowing, and that testimony he should have unreservedly offered had he been present when the hon. baronet first brought forward his vague accusations against that respectable officer. He was indeed most desirous of stating how entirely he disapproved of the general tendency and nature of the hon. baronet's proceedings in this affair. This he would not have missed the opportunity of doing, had he been in the House when the hon. baronet before threw out his vague and loose accusations. That the motion of the hon. baronet would be rejected by the House, he thought it no presumption to anticipate, and he should approve of that rejection. In so approving, however, he was not influenced by any apprehension for the character of captain Phillimore—nor should he, indeed, have felt any such apprehension for that character, were the former statements of the hon. baronet to go wholly uncontradicted, at least wherever captain Phillimore was known. Were that knowledge to accompany the assertions of an interested witness, and the animadversions of the hon. baronet, for whose veracity, however, he had the highest respect, although for his judgment in this case he had no respect at all, he could not apprehend that captain Phillimore's reputation would suffer any injury. But as that reputation had been brought into discussion, he (Mr. L.) felt it due to truth and justice to state, that having been about three years ago for some time on board that officer's ship, and having so had an opportunity of closely observing his conduct, he thought him remarkable for humanity, and that his disposition was peculiarly adverse to any degree of that corporal punishment which the hon. baronet was so forward to reprobate, that indeed, his endeavour was rather to correct by means of shame or ridicule than by the infliction of any punishment whatever. His general character was lenient in the extreme, and never was there an officer more justly beloved by those under his command. He (Mr. L.) had had opportunities of being in other king's ships, and from every observation be had made, the result of his conviction was that captain Phillimore was slow to inflict punishment of any kind, and decidedly the enemy to cruelty or severity. Having said so much as to this meritorious officer, he thought it proper as to the motion to observe, that if it were acceded to it was likely to establish a precedent for motions to produce the minutes of courts enquiry and courts martial, of which it would be difficult to see the end, but easy to see the consequences. He had himself no doubt felt it his duty to move in that House for the production of the minutes of a military court, but his motion was made after the most attentive and ample enquiry, and certainly not grounded upon the single assertion of an interested witness. With respect to such orations as the present, he thought it impossible that they could be acceded to unless some grounds were laid à priori, which had not been done by the hon. baronet, for doubting the propriety of the decision wished to be disturbed and brought under the consideration of parliament. He would therefore for general reasons refuse his vote to the proposition of the hon. baronet, whose motion though he seconded, he could by no means approve.

expressed his accordance with the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and bore testimony equally warm and honourable to the high character of captain Phillimore. He begged to recall the attention of the House to the whole circumstances of the case, and then to ask them if they could possibly agree to the motion of the hon. baronet, who seemed to have set his face against all discipline, and to think it necessary on the incompetent grounds he had laid before them in support of his allegations, to review the sentence pronounced by three officers of the most distinguished reputation and unimpeachable character. He highly disapproved of thus calling the name of any individuals into question upon grounds so loose and unsatisfactory.

spoke on the same side. The case of Hancock was this; after a long course of mutiny and misconduct, which would have incensed any officer to have punished him repeatedly, and with the utmost severity, he was, through the humanity of captain Phillimore, on one occasion of extreme offence flogged like a boy below, instead of being punished on the quarter deck, which would have been a stain upon him for life. This was done without reference to his actual age, and he had to observe that Hancock was a very young looking person, with more the appearance of a boy, than of the age of 22. There was then nothing in this case which called for the interference of parliament. But what was the nature of such motions as these, and what did they produce? He knew the answer given to captains in the navy, if they ordered punishment to be inflicted—they were told, "if you venture to punish me, I will apply to sir Francis Burdett" Let the House then reflect on what the condition of captains of the navy would be if they listened to such propositions—if they did not set their face decidedly against them. They were always told of cruelties and oppressions, but he would say to the hon. baronet, that they who in- flicted cruelties were those who upheld the lower orders against the higher, both in and out of that House—those who dinned it into the ear of the public, that we were a flogged nation. The hon. baronet himself, not in one of his oratorical flourishes, but in his deliberate democratical letter to the meeting at Westminster, where he told them that he had a pleasure in doing his duty there, but none in the House of Commons, shewed himself to be one of those persons guilty of cruelties. The annals of democracy furnished no greater adulation to the lowest passions than this conduct of the hon. baronet. The duke of Orleans, whose fortune might enable him to promote such feelings, even more than the ample fortune of the hon. baronet, could not have been guilty of a grosser instance than this. But the hon. baronet's tone was now somewhat different from what it had been when he first brought forward this business, avowedly as he said for the purpose of putting a bar to captain Phillimore's promotion upon loose, or as he himself chose to call it, casual information. It was exactly of a kind with the charge relative to Ilchester gaol, not a word of which was true. After his accusations on this point had been disseminated, he had applied to the hon. baronet to know when he would bring the charge to the test, but was put off like a dun from day to day with "call to-morrow," till at length to fix the hon. baronet to something explicit, he had been obliged to put questions to him upon the subject in the House. The hon. baronet assured him that all he bad alleged was true; he then asked him if the loaf was true? And was answered that the loaf was not true, when the story of the loaf was the whole jet of the case. After further reprobating the slight grounds on which the hon. baronet called the characters of men into question, he concluded by expressing his utmost dissent to the motion.

said the hon. baronet's assertions often surprised him, but he was never more astonished at the boldness of any than when the hon. baronet said he could not guess on what grounds his motion this night could be resisted. Why! the objections now were the same as those which had induced him on a former occasion to solicit the House to allow him to withdraw his motion. The only differences which had since arisen consisted in these two points, that the honourable baronet had become convinced of the admirable cha- racter of captain Phillimore, and of the opposite character of his accuser, of whom on a former night he had spoken as if the charge was to be a bar for ever to his professional progress, while he described Hancock as a gentleman, the companion of Nelson, and an honourable character. Now, indeed, the hon. baronet came down with a milk and water speech, seeming, as it were, for the purpose of conciliating captain Phillimore, whom he had before so loudly accused; and aware of these facts, it did require more firmness than he had supposed the hon. baronet master of, to say, that he could not guess the grounds on which his motion could be opposed. If he came down with his accusation before under an alarm lest captain Phillimore should, as he had heard, be appointed to a ship, why should he think that the same reasons for refusing him did not exist now? As for Hancock's case, he would not enter upon it. This "fine young man," as the hon. baronet described him, was the most incorrigible and disgraceful person ever suffered on board a ship; and all the captains averred, that they had only been prevented from severely punishing his gross misconduct from the consideration of his having lost his leg. He should not long remain a disgrace to his Majesty's service, as he was always mutinous and turbulent, and his mutiny and turbulence had increased since this business was stirred, because sir F. Burdett, he said, would carry on his cause. On a former night the hon. baronet had stated the alarm that he felt at hearing that captain Phillimore was likely to be promoted in his profession, and now he had discovered that no man was more worthy of promotion. The testimonials of every captain with whom Hancock had sailed, stated his conduct to be almost incorrigible, and highly disgraceful to the service, of which he would probably not long be a member. He had also the pleasure to inform the hon. baronet, that captain Phillimore had been yesterday appointed to one of the finest frigates in the navy; and such was the character of Hancock, that captain Phillimore would not take him, and no other captain would. He expressed his determination not to suffer the hon. bart. to withdraw his motion, as he had on a former occasion. He trusted the House would put its seal upon such motions, and if the forms of parliament admitted of a stronger mode of signifying their reprehension of them, he would propose it.

detailed to the House a number of instances of gross misbehaviour and misconduct on the part of Hancock, since this business was originated, and observed, that if such persons and such complaints were countenanced, so subversive must it be to all discipline, that no officers could submit to it, and the hon. baronet himself must in future have the naming of captains to the navy.

spoke highly in praise of the humanity of captain Phillimore, whose ship afforded the only example he knew in the navy of discipline being preserved without having recourse to corporal punishment. He was against the motion, as it the documents were produced they would not furnish the House with information wanted, or lead to any judgment on the merits of the case. He condemned the institution of courts of enquiry, which were new to the navy, and which somewhat resembled the Inquisition. He did not think that minutes taken in such a manner, where the members of the court were not sworn, and where the answers were not upon oath, could enable that House to form any judgment of the case; but though he disapproved of these tribunals, it did not follow that he would attack the conduct of captain Phillimore, a most deserving, able, and amiable man, who had often supplied this very Hancock with money for his support, without the prospect of a return.

defended the mode of proceeding by courts of inquiry, which were common in the army and indispensable in the navy. They resembled grand juries, to inquire into facts, in order to ascertain if there were grounds for a court martial, and the noble lord must know well that the service would be impeded beyond measure, were such courts to be granted on every frivolous charge brought forward. He pointedly condemned the language of the noble lord in comparing the verdict of three honourable officers with the course of trial pursued by the Inquisition.

said, an inquiry of this sort, if acceded to, would affect the safety of the service generally, and render parliament odious. No one denied that parliament was supreme in all appeals where grievances were complained of; but what had been their security in this? That these appeals were not lightly made, but on the severest inquiry of their movers, and upon ascertaining that the parties had failed of obtaining redress from any other competent tribunal. Then, indeed, parliament was, as it ought to be, their last resort. But what was the case here? The noble lord and the hon. baronet condemned the mode of proceeding by courts of inquiry, although they must know that if courts martial were resorted to on every occasion, the utmost evil must result to the service. If such appeals were to be brought forward on loose and vague information, on the authority of the persons punished alone, or on similar grounds, parliament would be placed in a most unpleasant situation. If they refused to enter into the case, they were told of the necessity of fully clearing the whole matter which had been brought into public notice, but the person who so brought them ought to recollect, it was his own doing which created this necessity. He recommended to the hon. baronet, to make more enquiry into his facts hereafter, in any case he might think it right to move in parliament; and also to give notice of his intentions to the persons concerned, that they might in some way be prepared to meet the charge, and not be condemned to have an erroneous impression of their character sent forth for a week uncontradicted, before they had an opportunity of doing justice to themselves, or soothing their wounded feelings by publishing the truth.

in explanation, stated that the court of inquiry had been granted at the application of Hancock entirely at his own request, in order to ascertain if a court martial was necessary.

replied. He said, there seemed to be a general, he would not say a wilful, misconception of his motion; and he contradicted in the fullest terms, the account given of his former proceedings by the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty. He was unfairly and untruly represented as having assumed a different tone. That gentleman had chosen to throw out an unworthy insinuation, that it was merely because he had since beard of the bad character of Hancock, and the good character of captain Phillimore, that he had found it necessary to change his language. His charges had been called by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Lyttleton) vague charges. He denied that he had gone on loose and vague information. Whatever the nature of his change was, it was not vague, but specific. It was, that an officer of the navy was, proh pudor! flogged—his breeches pulled down—and flogged on the breech. The general merits of captain Phillimore, or the character of Mr. Hancock, had nothing to do in this case. In one part of his original statement he had been in error—he was wrong in stating (as he had been informed) that Mr. Hancock was a gentleman born. He was the son of humbler parents; he believed of a common sailor. But this proved that his former conduct must have been good, to raise him from this station to an officer's uniform. It was not, however, Mr. Hancock for whom he stood forward. He here vindicated the navy of England, and the naval uniform. Unusual punishments were always suspicious, and on the face of this case required investigation. The House granted power, and they ought to see that it was not abused. An hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had gravely advised him to, enquire into the facts before he brought individual cases for the consideration of that House. As for the facts, he had enquired into them, and found them substantially true. No one disputed them, and he re-asserted them. The only question was, whether or no they could be justified. Upon the whole, no good reason had been advanced for refusing to agree to his motion. One hon. member had objected to Mr. Hancock's declaration, that he would have justice done him by a member of parliament. For his own part he thought the sentiment contained in such an expression by no means unconstitutional; and setting aside the little childishness of his having mentioned his (sir F. B.'s) name, it met with his approbation, and at any rate could not be made an argument against the motion. Another gentleman had charged him with proceeding upon the evidence of Hancock, whom he called an interested witness; but was not every person who complained of robbery or any other injury, also an interested witness? Another hon. gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) could not really suppose that he had any object in stating a circumstance which was incorrect, about the gaol at Ilchester, and might easily conceive that at a time when there were petitions respecting different prisons, a mistake might have occurred in applying to one what had been stated of another.—The right hon. Secretary to the Admiralty had been pleased to misrepresent two of his expressions: the first was respecting the character of Mr. Hancock. The hon. gentleman had said, that he (sir F. Burdett) had stated that the character of Mr. Hancock was one of high honour; but he had never used such an expression, nor any other which could bear such construction. The other misrepresentation was, that the right hon. gentleman had said that he had called Mr. Hancock the companion of Nelson; whereas he had only said, that he was a gallant officer, not meaning to say that he was more the companion of lord Nelson than any other seaman in the fleet. The same right hon. gentleman seemed to taunt him for having withdrawn his motion on a former day.—He now wished to say, that his reason for doing so was, that on the day when he formerly intended to have made the motion, he found in the House only about half a dozen lords of the Treasury, and a few other members upon the ministerial benches; and with such an attendance he could scarcely entertain hopes of success, for he was desirous of bringing the motion forward before a full House. Those gentlemen who seemed to sympathise with captain Phillimore on that day, had not displayed any sympathy on a former occasion, when they kept that officer in hot water for two years, with a court martial hanging over his head, which, after all, did not take place, and who had superseded him in the command of his ship. If every thing was so very smooth as was represented, how did it happen that it was thought necessary to have any court of enquiry? How did it happen that it was found expedient to supersede captain Phillimore in his command, and to remove him to another ship?

begged leave to state explicitly, that captain Phillimore was taken out of a ship that was not very desirable, for the purpose of receiving another which was preferable.

was happy that it was so, and concluded by expressing a hope, that the House would accede to his motion.

explained. Adverting to the two facts which the hon. baronet complained were misrepresented, he said that the language which had been used by the hon. baronet certainly conveyed the meaning, that the character of Mr. Hancock was one of high honour, as bearing the style and character of a gantleman. As to the other expression of the hon. baronet (that Mr. Hancock was the companion of lord Nelson), he maintained that the language of the hon. baronet was precisely such as he had stated it to be; and so distinct was his recollection of it, that he could not pay so high a compliment to the hon. baronet, nor one so bad to himself, as to retract one word of what he had said.

said, that he had not stated that Mr. Hancock was the companion of lord Nelson, but that he was the companion of the victories of lord Nelson.

animadverted with much severity on the conduct of the hon. baronet, in complaining of having been misrepresented, when the case was so much the very reverse. All that he should say was, that the hon. baronet, in noticing his expressions, had done it in a way that was unparliamentary and inconsistent with the courtesy shewn by one gentleman to another, on the most common occasions.

The question was then put and negatived, with the single dissentient voice of the hon. mover.

rose in consequence of his notice to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the further relief of persons impugning the doctrine of the Trinity. He understood that there was not any intention to oppose the measure at that time, and he hoped that it would not be opposed in any future stage. The object of the Bill was not connected with any question of civil privileges, but was solely to remove certain penalties imposed upon persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and who were not included in the Act of king William, commonly called the Toleration Act. In the 19th year of the present reign, an Act had been passed for the relief of those persons, which exempted them from the necessity of subscribing the 39 Articles of the church of England, and substituted the subscription of a declaration of belief in the Holy Scriptures, &c. The Acts of the 9th and 10th of king William, however, had not been repealed. By these Acts, persons who in writing or conversation deny the existence of any of the persons of the Trinity, are disabled in law from holding any office, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, on conviction; and if a second time convicted, they are disabled to sue or prosecute in any action or information, or to be the guardian of any child, and liable to be imprisoned for three years. The only object of his Bill was to do away these penalties. He said the Act which was passed last year was highly creditable to the liberality of the ministers of this country, and the times in which we lived. The only question now for consideration was, whether those persons dissenting from the church of England, should be still liable to the penalties of the Acts of king William. He therefore moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant farther relief to persons differing in opinion from the church of England with respect to certain penalties imposed by law on those who impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity."

observed, that the regular course was to move first, that the motion should be submitted to a committee of the whole House; which was accordingly done.

said, he certainly did not see any reason to object to the principle of the Bill. When the Bill was before the House, he would then be enabled to see if there was any thing in the mode of granting the relief liable to objection.

The House went into a committee, when leave was moved for and obtained, to bring in the Bill in question.