temptation to France; had allowed the | right in France to make any Orders, which might affect Great Britain, provided she only repealed those Decrees which interfered with the convenience of America, while, at the same time, she demanded of us, that we should repeal the whole of our Orders in Council. It was never distinctly held out to us, that if we would repeal the Orders, she would act with hostility to France; but only, that the consequence of such a repeal would be the alteration of the conduct of France, or that it would lead to some change, which would be a return to the law of nations. That, if we would revoke so much of our Orders as affected their neutrality, that would have an effect upon the Embargo as to us, but no distinct proposition was made. Much had been said upon the commerce of the country being injured by the Orders, which led to a very important question. As far as concerned the colonies it was connected with the navigation laws; those laws which it had upon some occasions been the practice of late political economists to consider as of doubtful policy, but which had been the great support of the commerce of the country. He imputed in this respect, much impropriety to the conduct of the late government, and charged them with having by their procedures, with respect to the operation of those laws in the colonies, done great injury, even of having goue very far towards ruining the ship ping interest. He also noticed the Abolition of the Slave Trade, as greatly affecting the interest of the colonies, and making them less able to bear the inconvenience of the Embargo at the present time. In answer to the arguments drawn from the effect of the Orders in Council on the export trade, he contended, that our exports had risen, since those Orders, with respect to all nations, except America. The noble mover had stated the injury to commerce as a growing evil, which would be felt more now than at the first; but he considered, that the reverse of this was the truth, and that the inconvenience felt in the novelty of the measure would be lessened or removed in the colonies, by the means which they would resort to of obtaining supplies from other sources. confirmation of the flourishing state of commerce, as opposed to the noble lord's statement upon the exports, he stated, that the four quarters for the years 1807 and 1808, had produced to the Consolidated VOL. XII. In Fund 3,839,000l. which, as being derived from every species of revenue, proved the flourishing state of the resources of the country. He concluded by declaring, that the Orders in Council were founded in justice, approved by experience, and were the best means of retaliating upon the aggressor, the acts by which he had violated the laws of nations. Lord Grenville said, that at so late an hour of the night he should not think of troubling their lordships, but with a very few words indeed. He adverted with great feeling to the allusion that had been made by a noble earl (Bathurst) to Mr. Grenville, as having been the first cause of the separation of America from Great Britain. He corrected the noble earl's statement, and shewed from dates, that though Mr. George Grenville had more than 40 years ago proposed a small tax on the United States, yet the measure was in a few months repealed; and when afterwards taken up by another minister of the crown, it had met with his warm opposition, as a measure, which once conceded upon principle, ought never to have been resumed. The least calamity, that flowed from that inconsiderate measure, was the separation of the colonies; the real calamity was the loss of character which the parent state incurred. When the noble earl therefore recalled his view to the conduct of his ancestor, in regard to America, he recalled to him only what gave him pride and satisfaction. alluded to what had fallen from a noble viscount (Melville,) but as he had left the house, he should not combat the opinions he had held-one thing, however he deplored-that the noble viscount had left the house, and had not heard the language of his majesty's Secretary of State, who had spoken last-for the noble viscount had said, that, he would vote for the Address moved this night, if he saw any indisposition in the king's minister to negociate with America in the spirit of peace. Now, if he had heard the noble earl who had just sat down, he must have been convinced that there was no amicable disposition in his majesty's government towards America, and consequently he must have voted, on his own principles, for the Address. - The noble lord painted in strong colours the argument of the noble earl (Liverpool), in his attempt to raise a difference in the proposition that had been made by America to the two belligerents, though, by a comparison it would be 3 F He next A He found, that they were shortly and literally try. The Earl of Liverpool explained, and stated, that he only said, that if the same disposition to friendship prevailed in America now as when Washington and Adams were in office, the same difficulties would not be felt. The house then divided on the Question 31 Not Contents 64 70 51 - [EMBEZZLEMENT OF THE PUBLIC MoNEY.] Sir John Newport rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render the Embezzlement of Public Money, by any collector, agent, or other person entrusted to receive the same, felony without benefit of clergy. Not anticipating any objection to the Bill, he felt it unnecessary to trouble the house 115 at any length now. He found, so long since as the 29th of his late majesty, a Bill had passed, to render it felony without benefit of clergy, for any person employed in the collection of public monies in Ireland, to embezzle any sum above 50!. That Bill, however, had become obsolete, and was not sufficient to answer Hastings, (earl of the objects of this Biil, which was to carry the law further, and to reach the principal as well as the deputy officers entrusted with the receipt of the public money. He therefore moved for leave to bring in the Bill. List of the Minority. Present. Viscount Sidmouth, Lords St. John, Moira), King, Headfort. Earls Besborough), Cowper, Mountfort, of The Speaker suggested to the right hon. baronet, that the regular course of pro Sundridge (duke of ceeding in such cases, was to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better prevention of frauds and embezzlements in such cases, and leave it for the Committee on the Bill to insert the punishment to be inflicted on offenders. "hon. member's conduct in reference to "him from the commencement of this inquiry. He considered it unhandsome and ungentiemanly. Upon this, some "smart retorts passed between Mr. War"die and Mr. Beresford." Mr. Beresford thought it quite unnecessary for him to appeal to the recollection of the house whether he had ever addressed any such words to the hon. gent. In fact, none such were uttered by him and he should have felt it extremely unmanly not to take the first opportunity of making this ex Sir John Newport amended his motion. Mr. Foster wished to apprize the right hon. baronet that he had a Bill in contemplation, which he intended shortly to introduce, and which, besides embracing all the objects of the Bill now proposed, would extend much further. He therefore wished the right hon. baronet to postpone the introduction of his Bill until the other should come before the house: if, however, heplanation, in order to remove any impres wished to persevere, there would be no negative to his motion. Sir John Newport said, it would be time enough to withdraw his Bill, when he should find that his objects were answered by the Bill now announced. It had been already provided by a regulation, that no greater sum should remain in the hands of any collector than 300l., notwithstanding which, it was found that there had been left in the charge of one officer upwards of 30,000l.; and recently, the collector of Cork, Mr. O'Connor, had embezzled 23,000l. Sir Arthur Wellesley admited that the collector of Cork had embezzled this sum; but it was the collection of only one weck; and he eloped at the moment that a commissioner was sent down to enquire the reason of his delaying his payments.Leave was given to bring in the Bill. [MR. BERESFORD'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MORNING POST.] Mr. Beresford rose and said, that as he seldom troubled the house, he hoped for their indulgence while he stated a circumstance which regarded their Privileges. If he had asserted any thing in that house respecting any member which he knew to be founded, he should be one of the last to retract his words; and if, on the other hand, any words were imputed to him, which were hurtful to the feelings of any member, and which he had not employed, he should hold it extremely unmanly to omit the first opportunity of satisfying the feelings of such member by a candid explanation. In the Morning Post of this day there appeared a statement of the proceedings of the Committee last night, in which words were imputed to him, reflecting on the conduct of an hon. gent. which he certainly never uttered. The words were these:" Mr. "Beresford, addressing himself to Mr. Wardle, said, he could not refrain from animadverting on several parts of the sion which such a publication might inake on that hon. gent.'s feelings. it was a gross misrepresentation, and therefore he should move, "That the printer of the Paper in question should appear at the bar to-morrow in the custody of the scrjeant at arms." The Speaker said, that the course usual on such occasions was to give in the Paper containing the misrepresentation to be read by the clerk; and then to move that the printer do appear at the bar on a future day. Mr. Beresford accordingly gave in the Paper, when the passage was read by the clerk. Mr. B. then said it was not his wish, from any personal feeling, to proceed to extremities with the printer in this case: he had merely taken up the matter as a gross and mischievous breach of the privileges of the house. He would rather leave it to their discretion; but, if they encouraged him, he would repeat his motion. The Speaker said, if the hon. gent. did not wish to make any formal complaint, it would be best to hold the business over in suspense, in order to see whether the party persisted in statements of the same colour and tendency; and therefore he suggested that the subject should be further considered on Monday sennight. Mr. Beresford acquiesced. Lord Folkestone seconded this latter proposition, and rose to bear his testimony, in the absence of his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle,) that the words in question had not been used, and that the feelings of his hon. friend were in no respect aggrieved. The noble lord approved of the course proposed to be adopted, and acknowledged the handsome and honourable manner in which the hon. gent. had taken up the subject. Mr. N. Calvert did not object to the motion; but at the same time observed, troduced; but from what he understood, he agreed with the last hon. gent. in thinking that the printer ought to be brought to the bar to answer for his conduct. As to the liberty of the press, he himself had been bred up in principles which taught him to view it as the palladium of British liberty; but he thought that from a laxity of discipline in the exercise of that liberty, of late so much licentiousness had crept in, as to call for some effec that these things, in general, were too subject. He regretted that he was not slightly passed over, and particularly in the house when this business was inwith respect to the liberties taken with the speeches of members of that house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that if an hon. member had brought forward a complaint of this nature, and insisted upon punishment for a breach of privilege, he could not see how the house could refrain from entertaining the subject, and proceeding to punishment. But under all the circumstances it must be allowed, that it was scarcely possible but there must sometimes be mistakes. Atual check to its progress. He did not paper had been put into his hands this day, in which there was a most complete misrepresentation, with respect to a material part of the statement which he had made to the Committee, in the affair of the Note which purported to be that of the D. of Y. But, as he was aware that this misrepresentation was altogether unintentional, he had not felt sore on the subject. Mr. W. Smith agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. gent. except in so far as he seemed to consider the pressure upon any particular member as the measure of punishment. A member might feel himself severely aggrieved, and from a proper sense of his own dignity, propose a severe punishment, when the house might see reason to dispose of the matter in a very different way. The person who made the misrepresentation might be wholly unconscious that he did so, and might have no idea of the mischief that might result from it; but, at the same time, had it been thought fit to call the parties to the bar, and to give them such reprimand as the nature of the case might require, he did not see that the parties themselves would have had any right to complain. This, he believed, would not injure the liberty of the press, for which none could be a more strenuous advocate than he was. He, however, thought the course at present proposed perfectly proper, and fully agreed, that while the publication of the proceedings of the house were connived at, and he hoped it would always be connived at, unintentional mistakes ought to meet with indulgence, Mr. Yorke thought that the liberty of the press had of late been carried to such lengths, and the misrepresentations of the proceedings in that house, both collectively and individually, had for some time been co frequent, that it was time for the house to come to some understanding on the feel a wish to introduce any new law or statute on the subject, but merely a vigilant exercise of the laws already in existence. As to the encroachments which had been made upon the privileges of that house by the publication of its proceedings, he was not one of those who wished for any rigorous exertion of their powers in that respect; but he thought, at least, that those who took upon them to infringe those privileges, by publishing the proceedings of the house, should be responsible for their misrepresentations, whether intentional or otherwise. The rules of the house ought not to be violated: trivial mistakes might be passed over, because, otherwise, inquiries would be endless; but where such serious complaints as the present were made, he thought the printer should be called to the bar and punished. Mr. Whitbread rose, and said he could not agree with the principle laid down by the right hon. gent, who spoke last,of acting with rigour in the case of an unintentional misrepresentation of what had passed in that house. The mischief arising from such errors was nothing in comparison with the good which the country derived from the publication of the substance of what was spoken by members within those walls. This was not the first time of late that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) had expressed his disapprobation of the licentiousness of the press; but before the right hon. gent. complained of that licentiousaess, in respect to the publications to which he had before alluded, it should be proved that they were libels, and unfounded in truth. On the contrary, those publications complained of were productive of the happiest consequences to the country, in promoting inquiries which otherwise would never be instituted. The right hon. gent had said, that the privileges of the house were equal to their own protection; but he never knew from any in The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Whitbread, said, it would be an irregular proceeding to enter upon the Minutes of the Com which he had felt it necessary to introduce the complicated circumstances afterwards produced in evidence respecting col. Hamilton and capt. Sandon. Whatever facts were within his own knowledge, he was ready to state if examined, and his answers would be the most regular form in which the subject could appear in the Minutes. stance of the nature now under discussion, wherein those privileges were exerted, that the least good ensued. The right hon gent. complained of laxity in discipline towards the press of late: it did not ap-mittee, the whole of the Narrative, by pear, however, that the law officers of the crown had been remiss in their duty, if he looked to the numerous prosecutions for libels which were carrying on; nor was it at all evident, that the courts of law had been criminally lenient in awarding their punishments. Mr. Whitbread then expressed a wish, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to obviate a mistake which appeared in his Narrative last night, by the insertion of the word not, would insert the whole of that Narrative upon the Minutes, as he for one was happy to acknowledge that Narrative to be a complete and faithful picture of the proofs he afterwards adduced. Mr. Bathurst thought the insertion on the minutes of the Narrative alluded to would be an irregular proceeding; but with respect to what had been said of the Liberty of the Press, though he was one of those who wished to support it when genuine, he could not avoid observing the recent notoriety of its licentiousness; and if public bodies allowed their proceedings to be misrepresented, it was impossible to say where that licentiousness would stop. He deprecated the severity with which the hon. gent. who last spoke had adverted, though obliquely, to the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown, and Judges of the land, in prosecuting and punishing libellers. If men were guilty of criminal acts, there were public tribunals in the country to which recourse might be had for justice against them; but if persons were permitted to take vengeance into their own hands, by publishing their accusations in preference, it was impossible to say where the mischief would terminate. This had been the case in some recent libellous publications, the authors of which were the sources whence some gentlemen had derived the grounds of their Charges, and yet they could make nothing of the proofs those persons were able to furnish. On the question that the debate on this subject should be postponed to Monday se'nnight, The Attorney General rose. He said that an hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had been pleased to declare, that the present law officers of the crown had not been remiss in entering into prosecutions for Libels. That term, well worked up and sent abroad, might produce a very different sentiment in the public mind. Indeed, he himself could not avoid supposing it possible, that by "not remiss" the hon. gent. intended to imply that they had been more than properly diligent. Whether he meant so or not he did not know, but the words were capable of that construction, and would, he had no doubt, receive that construction from some of those, respecting whose conduct a complaint was then before the house. Certainly, what the honourable gentleman had said was not intended for commendation; but he would appeal to every honourable gentleman in the house who had heard of the publications against which prosecutions had been instituted, and who had read a tenth part of the publications against which prosecutions might have been instituted, whether the law officers of the crown could with justice be accused of a disposition to prosecute too frequently. With respect to the judgments of the courts of justice, the hon. gent. had insinuated, and that not darkly, that they were severe. He fully believed, that the learned and upright judges of our courts, who had pronounced their sentences with deliberation and impartiality, would not want able defenders in the house of commons, if their conduct was fairly, properly, and manfully brought forward; but he did not think justice was done them, when general reflections were thus thrown out to be re-published by persons, on the conduct of some of whom their judgment had been passed; and this under |